Please give us an up-to-date report on how well and timely the Gold Line extension, the fare gates and the state of Measure R is doing despite my "only real argument" being how the "MTA has mis-managed public transit funding in the past, and so they should not be trusted in the future."

I thought Mr. Fung did a good job of realistically and soberly discussing the benefits and problems with public transit planning and funding.

The only real argument I heard from the BusTard during the entire debate was that the MTA has mis-managed public transit funding in the past, and so they should not be trusted in the future. To me, this seems very counterproductive. How can you claim to be a transit advocate when your only argument is that the MTA is corrupt, so don't allow them to do anything? He didn't seem to mention an alternative that would result in a better public transit system in L.A., he simply said we shouldn't try to get a better one because the MTA will screw it up. How does this advocate transit, when all he's doing is suggesting that people not provide funding for it? It really irks me how people who claim to support a better public transit system for this city are telling other people to take an action (by voting no) that will inhibit progress toward that better system. And if you believe that the MTA is simply incapable of doing what they say they will do, then how does he expect to ever get a better transit system anyway?

I do recall he mentioned he'd like the bus and rail fares to go up, thinking that then the bus riders would have more leverage and could strike or boycott in order to reduce revenue for the city and "demand" an improved system. But I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Fung: slightly increased fares are not going to magically give the riders political clout. The only way I could see that working would be if the fares were increased so much that they actually covered the full cost of the ride. . . but that would mean tripling the fares or more, and I think it would just lead to fewer people being able to afford to take public transit, as the cost per mile per person would be less competitive against driving one's car. Hence you'd have a drop in ridership (at least in the short term), and raising the fares would actually decrease the revenue going to MTA.

BusTard also downplayed the successful projects that stemmed from the previous sales tax increases. Measure A did provide funding for the blue line, as he mentioned (before implying that the blue line is unsafe and useless), but Measures A and C together have also provided funding for the the red line, the green line, the gold line, the rapid bus system, the gold line extension, and the expo line. How can he say that MTA has never done anything right, when in the past 20 years they have given us 4 major metro rail lines (with the expo representing a 5th in just a year or two), and the rapid system?

BusTard said about the Rapid buses: "they go just as slow as the local buses because they sit in the same traffic". But the whole point of the rapids is that they don't stop as often as the locals. They are more of an express service. So, while they do travel at the same speed in traffic as the locals, they make fewer stops, and so can provide shorter door-to-door commute times.

I hope you'll have a chance to stop by the debate!

I'm off to finish preparing the shop for tonight and buy some wine and snacks for everyone.