If you truely care about globl warming, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and greenhouse gas emissions, it is time for all the so called environmental groups to stand up say the emporior has no clothes, because this Governor cares only about headlines not good policy.

As far as AC Transit Rapid Bus 1R (International Rapid) - BART and AC Transit provide two completely different services that complement rather than duplicate each other. BART makes six stops between Oakland City Center and Bayfair, while the Rapid Bus makes 23. BART charges a fare more commensurate with commuter rail, and has no monthly pass. AC Transit charges a local bus fare and has monthly passes. Totally different services.

There has to be a serious lack of planning, because to me that is just blatant government waste.

Now as for the recent budget talks to cut out transit, I believe this would be quite a shame. I would much prefer to see a reduction in landscaping services along streets, or to not allow government employees to take home their city vehicles than to increase the cost of public transportation that many rely on. It's a shame. Diane Feinstein will be hearing from me.

With respect to transportation, I think it is sad that automobile entitlements are still considered the equal of other transportation projects. We're so tied to auto-based consumption that our politicians are terrified of ending that economic system.

If we let our roads go to crap, and instead funded more energy efficient modes of travel, our economy would be less energy- and capital-intensive. We'd lower the amount of money we need to spend to move labor and goods, and we'd be more resilient in the long run to energy price shocks.

It would suck in the short term (but hey, so does what we have now!), but I think that focusing on this level of analysis and forming a strategy around it would ultimately prove successful for transit and other statewide reforms.

I also think term limits at the state level need to go, or be lengthened. Nobody in Sacramento can build a meaningful legacy of work, because they're gone after a few sessions in the legislature. It is hard to fight a long term battle without a long-term legislative leadership.

Under Arnold, it has gotten much worse, and he never once offered any real solutions. In reality, he has consistently mugged in front of the foreign press as the "green" governor while at the same time cutting every real environmental program in the state, and supporting "fake" green initiatives like the "hydrogen Highway."

I am no expert on this stuff, but I think it would take nothing less than a new State Constitution to fix this mess.

Whether we're talking about transit advocates, highway infrastructure advocates, health care advocates, water advocates, prison advocates, school advocates, or (you name your type of California advocate), everyone is crying wolf about what Arnie and the legislature is doing to their pet causes. Instead of whining, maybe these groups (Cal Transit Association included) could explore some alternative solutions that better reflect the realities of our times.

Um, "transit advocates", do think that a better political strategy is in order?

http://www.thebusbench.com/2008/12/measure-r-replaces-newly-raped-transit-funds.html

I knew this was going to happen. This is the exact same thing that happened with the lottery dollars for the schools.

I'm still glad I voted for Measure R. I think the many new people in LA should see exactly how this place has run and don't let them fool you with well we're in La Crisis so blah, blah, blah...this would have happened anyway.

Browne

My point was that people shouldn't look at the Governor's support for HSR as indicative as transit friendliness, not to imply that there's anything wrong with HSR.

That man has never supported transit or rail investment of any kind. He's been using the operating budgets of local transit agencies as piggy banks for years.

Blackest hat indeed! Under Schwarzenegger's misrule, those of us who rely on transit have suffered a great deal.