I've come to the conclusion that ubrayj02 is of the "all my friends agree with me so we have a consensus" approach to things, and seems horrified that someone might actually have a contrary opinion. Great for filling blogs but very ineffective at any real advocacy. As for Mr. Goodmon, next week will tell the tale when he and his allies get their chance to make their case before the PUC.

The petty politics of shock jocks are no match for bread and butter local business and quality of life improvements.

It takes very small amounts of money to re-stripe a road in a commercial business district (after holding numerous community meetings, and hiring a consultant to plan the roadway changes, etc.) or to calm traffic in a residential neighborhood.

The benefits of these types of changes can be felt immediately after a project is completed. In fact, the benefits can be reliably measured.

All it takes is a competent politician to connect the dots. Unfortunately, there is a tradition of car-only thinking in America that all but ensures that real solutions to many of the problems plaguing L.A. never make it to the decision makers.

If the MTA set aside $200 million for bike and pedestrian projects over the next 40 years we can build a fossil-fuel independent transportation network for millions of residents in L.A. County. That is real, and that is cheap! One grade separation can cost upwards of $100 million - and that typically depresses land values, retail sales tax income, and quality of life around that improvement.

It is bread and butter local politics that needs to happen, and the future for politicians who think this way is only going to look brighter and brighter.

Except the BRU has never serious agitated for bus lanes until recently, and only as a reaction to the subway to the sea. I spoke to a former Reason Foundation contributor and frequently quoted transportation expert a long time ago, and the Reason Foundation had drawn up a system to build the BRU's busway proposal. The BRU would support HOT lanes, which would run the BRU's vaunted freeway buses. Of course, the private sector would build these lanes and charge congestion-varying tolls on them, which would fund the freeway bus network. Needless to say, despite working directly with high level BRU officials over a period of many months, Eric Mann put a halt to it by saying he wouldn't negotiate with capitalists.

A lot of it has to do with the difference between their organizing models. The Bus Riders Union, as demarcated by its name, uses the traditional union model, which is strongly hierarchical and uses paid organizers to distill information into simplified morsels for its membership. SO.CA.TA has used the consensus model, which leads to three hour meetings on the minutia of service changes and fare increases, but ultimately empowers more people that can sit through those meetings. The Transit Coalition basically uses Bart Reed as the benevolent leader, since it's his full time job. The BRU was successful at stopping the original MTA fare hike, and, with the help of the NAACP, implementing the Consent Decree. But notice how their early partners have completely fallen back now, disassociating themselves with the BRU.

There is a bizarre disconnect between politicians and their own, rational, self interests. I don't know what prevents the MTA board members from seeing the economic utility of an improved bus system (which gives buses priority over cars), bicycle projects, and is willing to deal with fired up communities.

They end up dragging their agencies into bizarre court room struggles, and in the end we all get shitty projects. I think there was a point when L.A. residents were able to put an end to local leaders being able to achieve crappy goals that hurt everyone's interests - trash incinerators in South L.A., a prison in Boyle Heights, a freeway where Glendale Blvd. is, the 710 freeway expansion, etc.

There is something that needs to happen politically that will re-orient our local politicians regional decisions. This "We hate the BRU" stuff is really really boring and counterproductive.

The truth is, they have a better ground game than any of the other advocacy groups working in transit I am familiar with. That is an asset, despite their leader being a commun-ard, and their group's insane principles.

In the BRU's defense - the bus system can be "first class". One simple change I would make to MTA policy to enable that would be to allow a bus to be weighted much heavier than the movement of single passenger cars when funding transportation projects. Right now, a fully loaded bus is considered the equal of a single occupant car when the MTA determines which projects to fund. Buses, right now, are considered to be causes of congestion, and are described technically as degrading the performance of the roadway! In fact, it is the over-abundance of private vehicles which degrades the roadway - and altering some guidelines would give the bus system access to billions it is excluded from because of the way buses are viewed by the MTA's Planning department.

Most don't consider "the good" a) giving fuel to an opposition movement when the political mountain to climb is already so steep; and b) jeopardizing billions for expansion by creating a measure so litigiously vulnerable.

Lots of problems can't be avoided, but Malcolm names several that could have been completely avoided rather easily. Why not explain to him why the things he itemized were so impossible to include in this measure?

Just a tip, if you guys ever expect to be anything other than p.r. tools for Metro at worst, or bloggers who get the special Metro press releases a day before everyone else at best, you need to start pointing your guns in the right direction.

I seriously doubt the BRU has ever referenced SOCATA, Transit Coalition or any other organization in their meetings. They're always targeting the decision-makers, because on their best day it is a struggle for them to be heard by a couple, let alone a majority, of the board members.

Because anyone not in the trenches so to speak, or anyone that can pull back for a second sees that Metro could have taken care of the SGV demands, the Fix Expo demands, Expo Phase 2 community demands, the bikers demands and added some bus lane projects all for total less than $2 billion in this $40 billion dollar measure: less than 5%.

Instead they have chosen to roll the dice, which tells you two things:

1) They really are politically-tone deaf, and they need to get their money back from whatever high-priced political consultants is charging them $20K a month.

2) They have far more power than any of you can imagine given that they're acting with such hubris.

If the measure goes down, MTA only has themselves to blame.

The same goes with respect to funding for bikes and pedestrians. Contrary to popular belief, everyone walks in LA at some point in the day, and many people bike and far more would if they thought that their chances of living through it were much better than 50/50. Also, bicycle and pedestrian improvements are the keys to transforming our streets from mere traffic conduits into places where people actually want to be. Yet, Metro is proposing a sales tax with 0% set aside for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. We're left to fight it out, city by city, in the Local Return program, as if people never bicycle or walk across city lines.

Out of that $40 billion, it might have been nice to see a few pennies set aside for grade separations on the light rail projects, particular in South LA, not only to improve safety and congestion, but to speed up those rail lines that are already being built. All of these measures, bus, bicycle, rail safety, and pedestrian improvements, can be put into place relatively quickly and with budgets that measure in the millions, not billions, and yet can deliver concrete improvements to our quality of life across the region. Instead, Metro makes firm commitments to dozens of billion dollar rail and highway mega-projects that cater to the goods movement industry and real estate development interests.

I really want to support this tax, because few things are more critical than addressing our transportation crisis in this County. But Metro's hasn't made it very easy.

Also, although the article was restored not long after Dana said it had disappeared, no comments after 10:00am on the 31st have been approved for display by the Times' editorial staff. Curious.

Buses get STUCK in Traffic!

Bus Rapid Transit has some pretty good examples (I've heard) in other countries that concede the right of way to bus-only lanes - and treat the buses more like rail cars.

BRT (can) have a lower price than rail, and can move a lot of people per dollar spent.

I don't like the Bus Rider's Union - but the bus is a viable means of moving human beings. London's famous underground (and Paris' Metro) are both dependent on bus service to enable transit throughout the city. It is foolish to assume that buses cannot move people, regardless of how insane and ridiculous the BRU is.

I have to disagree with Damien's comment "...the organized opposition of such a large and influential group (who has an impressive track record of success) is an important story". While perhaps the BRU's track record of getting publicity translates in some way to being influential, I have to question whether their days of hogging the spotlight on bus issues are numbered. It would have been news if they offered something positive or new; this collection of the usual old arguments is hardly newsworthy. Expected, yes--but rather dusty.

BTW, the comprehensive transit plan they are touting is the highway centered bus plan they offered under the new service provision of the consent decree.
It is so ludicrously impractical (and would saddle Metro with BILLIONS in operating expense--plus where would you park all these buses? and how do you seize highway lanes to be bus-only?) even Judge Hatter rejected it and finally instead adopted Metro's proposal that implementation of the Rapids network would fulfill that provision. In fact Hatter in his final order ending the decree expressed doubts about the decree and its underlying philosophy; these cracks in the facade of the track record of "success" Damien mentions is of course never acknowledged by the BRU.

I'll just note the article is riddled with the usual mis-statements, which by now Mann has to know are long outdated soundbites. Transportation is no longer a lonely backwater, and Mann can't dominate the discussion of the issue the way he did a decade ago. Also the solidarity of the left is crumbling, as the Labor Federation prominently is gung ho for the sales tax.

The BRU could participate in the debate on these issues; instead it continues to carve out a niche of publicity seeking, stereotyping, promoting outdated soundbite arguments, etc. Not a surprise, but a shame. And all these years of the BRU members/true believers continuing to let themselves be led by the nose and have their thinking done for them by Comrade Mann has destroyed the sympathy I once held for them; at some point it is your own fault when you continue letting yourself be exploited.

I appreciate your comments. As we move towards the November 4th election there will be lots of stories about the sales tax, and plenty of opportunities for people to weigh in. Personally, I don't agree with many of the ideas that are in this editorial, but to the organized opposition of such a large and influential group (who has an impressive track record of success) is an important story, and the publication of an op/ed on the Times' website is certainly a story worth covering.

And while Streetsblog hasn't done a lot of stories on the RRU, we have done plenty of stories on the Transit Coalition and Southern California Transit Advocates. RRU stories will come in time as well.