Saturday two transit events will be occurring that may be of interest, and by coincidence both commence at 9:30 a.m.

The Bus Riders Union will have its monthly meeting at Immanuel Presbyterian Church (on Wilshire two blocks west of Vermont) with a light breakfast served at 9:30 a.m. followed by the meeting at 10 a.m. The agenda to no surprise indicates the main topic will be their campaign against Metro's impending fare increase: "what we need to do is have a deeper strategy conversation about what we are willing to do from here on out".

If you attend as a newbie you'll initially participate in an separate new member orientation session in which BRU organizers provide the basics of their positions and ways of doing business. My understanding from friends who have attended BRU meetings is after the orientation session is finished the new members join the main meeting in progress, which usually draws about 90 to 100 people.

The other transit activism activity on Saturday is Southern California Transit Advocates' first study tour of the year, exploring Torrance Transit.

Read more...

This Saturday, May 15th, the Bus Riders Union will hold its monthly meeting at Immanuel Presbyterian Church (3300 Wilshire Blvd. #1200 -- two blocks west of Vermont) starting at 10 A.M.

While the BRU has their meeting on the 3rd Saturday of the month, Southern California Transit Advocates normally holds its meeting on the 2nd Saturday. But to accommodate our participation in National Train Day we moved the meeting for this month only to the 3rd Saturday.

This means those so inclined can spend the morning attending the meeting of the Bus Riders Union, then once it breaks up walk over to the Wilshire/Vermont Red & Purple Line station and ride the subway to Pershing Square station -- the SO.CA.TA meeting is in Angelus Plaza, one block north of the station's 4th Street exit (255 S. Hill St., Room 422). There may even be enough time between meetings to duck into Grand Central Market (catty-corner from Angelus Plaza) and grab a quick lunch. The guest speaker this month is Shiraz Tangri of Los Angeles Streetcar at 1 p.m.. The regular business meeting will start circa 2:15 p.m.

So if you don't mind doing some schlepping and investing a few hours, Saturday offers a rare chance in a single day to see up close the differing dynamics and viewpoints of two of the leading transit advocacy groups in our region. Think of it as a intellectual smorgasbord for transit activists--if you have the stamina!

Yesterday, the Bus Riders Union rallied in front of City Hall with representatives from CalPIRG, the Los Angeles County Bike Coalition, the National Resources Defense Council, the Clean Air Coalition and Transportation for America Campaign as part of a day of activism against fare increases and service cuts for transit agencies around the country.  Their event was mirrored in ten other cities around the country as activists nationwide spurred their legislators to provide relief to the nation's struggling transit agencies.  As you would expect, the BRU and their allies focused their fire at Metro's planned fare increases that are on deck for July and repeated their demand that the agency hold a new hearing on the hikes and the nearly 400,000 hours of service cuts.  Hearings on the changes were held years ago as part of a "fare restructuring" proposal that was supposed to raise the fares last year.  Those increases were delayed with the passage of Measure R.

The Times was at the rally:

"The monthly pass is going up by $13. That's a meal on the table. The typical transit rider only makes about $12,000 to $17,000 a year," said Barbara Lott-Holland of Los Angeles, a member of the Bus Riders Union who relies on the county transit system.

A few weeks ago, the BRU's plan to cajole Metro to hold a new hearing, and use that event as a rallying point to hold off the hikes and cuts seemed a long shot.  However, with Mayor Villaraigosa and his bloc of votes backing a resolution calling for a special hearing in May or June for the cuts and hikes, there's a good chance that at tomorrow's Metro Board Meeting the Board is going to vote to give the BRU that hearing.  Whether it's possible to excerpt enough pressure for Metro to change its planned hikes and cuts is another matter altogether.

As bad as things look for bus riders in Los Angeles, the view is even more bleak in some other areas of the country.  Metro is increasing some fares by 20% but straphangers in New Jersey could see increases as high as 64%.  Metro is planning to cut 388,000 hours of bus service, but Atlanta is planning to eliminate half of its bus lines and cut 25%-30% of the hours from the remaining fleet.

When the BRU makes its case for better bus funding, it paints Metro as an agency flush with capital cash because of Measure R.  However, there are restrictions placed on how Measure R and other transit-funding tax monies are spent, and the agency can't shift money for The Subway to the Sea or I-710 Tunnel project to bus operations.  Changing those restrictions is one of the things the BRU pushed for at yesterday's rally at Metro Headquarters, which was repeated throughout the country was all to push Congress to change the law so that agencies have the freedom to move some of those capital construction dollars around.

Even without dipping in to capital dollars, Metro's operations will receive a near $100 million boost later this year from the state from the diesel tax.  Metro doesn't yet have a plan for those monies or how it will effect the hike.  For the record, Metro has a $204 million operating deficit for the 2011 fiscal year, which begins July 1.  The hike will take away $24 million of it.  In short, the $100 million of state dollars is both a lot more than what it will raise with the increase and a lot less than what is needed to close the gap completely.

Whether its a good idea to dip into capital dollars to fund operations is a question for another day (or the comments section, whatever you want), and I have to admit I have trouble picturing the Board cutting one of the projects for which they fought so hard to keep the buses running at their current cost to customers.  But in the meantime, the BRU and their allies in the environmental movement are focused on rolling back this year's fare increases.  The first stop on that route is at the Metro Board this Thursday.

(editor's note: Everyone knows that a guest editorial, such as this one, does not represent an Official View of any particular group, right?  Good. - DN)

As outlined in a Streetsblog post last month ("BRU: No Fare Hikes Without Public Process"), the Bus Riders Union has taken a vocal stance against Metro implementing a previously approved fare increase without a new public hearing first being held.

Act II of this drama was played out last Wednesday (March 17th). The Daily News choose to treat a BRU protest against fare hikes held that day in front of the Metro headquarters building as just one of several protests occurring simultaneously in the region, with its coverage mostly focused on protests as a symptom of the modern political culture.

The article contained no hint that the BRU protest in fact had a specific motivation. It was in reaction to a Metro staff report on the status of implementing the aforementioned scheduled fare increase on July 1, 2010 presented that day at the Metro Board Finance and Budget Committee (agenda item #19) 

In two pages this receive and file report outlined the staff's stance: "Consistent with federal requirements, both the public hearing held and the Title VI analysis in May 2007 that showed no findings of discrimination covered this proposed increase. Therefore, no further public hearing or Title VI analysis is required to implement this previously approved fare increase."

Read more...

Earlier this morning, the Bus Rider's Union rallied at the Wilshire/Western Transit Station to urge the Metro Board to not go forward with planned fare hikes for Metro bus and rail services until a full public hearing schedule is announced and executed. In May of 2007, the Metro Board adopted a motion to increase fares on July 1 of that year and again on July 1, 2009. As part of Measure R, the 2009 fare increase was postponed until this year. As a result, the BRU is pushing for an open hearing process, because by the day of the new fares, it will have been over three years since the last hearing on the hikes. From their press release:

Three years ago, in a heated and contested fare increase public hearing, an MTA board majority voted for a fare increase proposal in an attempt to pass a two-phased fare hike plan, all the while over 1,500 bus riders and supporters and a strong MTA minority Board bloc led by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa expressed their opposition and were one vote shy of defeating the fare increase proposal. But the last two years have created different financial realities for many on the streets and the MTA has been no exception, but in contrast to struggling working class families impacted by government service cuts, layoffs, and foreclosures; since 2007 MTA has secured a third transit sales tax and federal stimulus funding and while impacted by state transportation cuts, their budget has grown substantially.

To give you an anecdotal idea of how long ago May of 2007 is; at that time I was still sitting at a desk in New York City wondering how Hillary Clinton was going to beat Rudy Giuliani to become President. Streetsblog Los Angeles was still ten months from being launched.

So what does the BRU want? Basically, they want a chance to make their case against a fare hike through the public process, believing they can either get some more funds from Measure R for transit operations or at least put more political heat on those backing the hikes. Just like any other hearing process, they want sixty days notice of a public hearing to be held in a room larger than the Metro Board room. In 2007, so many people showed up to protest the increases at Metro HQ, that many were left without an ability to provide comment.

Which is not to say that the concept of increasing fares does not have supporters. Recently, the Times editorialized in favor of fare increases for Metro to help stabilize the "fare box recovery ratio," or in plain English to have riders support a higher percentage of the agencies operating costs. The recovery ratio for Metro is less than thirty percent, which doesn't compare favorably to agencies for other major cities. For example, BART up in the Bay Area has a recovery ratio of over fifty percent. While most speakers spoke against hikes at the May 2007 hearing, there were notable exceptions including the Transit Coalition's Bart Reed, members of So.CA.TA., and even Damien Goodmon.

In addition to the hikes, the Bus Riders are also worried about planned cuts to bus service that will be coming later this year.

MTA's staff is also pushing for additional draconian measures by advocating for the MTA board to cut 145,000 of bus services for next years budget. If these cuts are implemented MTA would have cut close to 500,000 hours of bus service expansion won under the civil rights Consent Decree (representing over half of the court order remedies won under the decree).

The BRU's full press release, which includes a chart showing what fares will be raised and by how much without action, can be found after the jump.

Bus Riders Union Urges MTA Board To Open

A Public Hearing Process for Looming 2010 Proposed Fare Increase

Fare Hike Proposal Violates the Civil, Economic, and Environmental Rights of Bus Riders

Los Angeles, February 24, 2009 - The Bus Riders Union will hold a press conference urging MTA Chair Ara Najarian, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, LADOT General Manager Rita Robinson and LA City Councilmember Jose Huizar to reject any proposal to close MTA's self-imposed "operations deficit" by imposing fare increases or bus service cuts and to create a public hearing process. In the last two years, people have lost their jobs, homes, access to countless social services and the city of Los Angeles city has the highest unemployment rate in decades with no concrete economic recovery or stimulus in sight. The Bus Riders Union believes any proposal to cut service and raise fares on low-income working class riders of color during these tough economic times is an affront and a violation of civil and human rights of half a million Latino, Black and Asian bus riders, who make over 90% of MTA bus ridership.

MTA's 2010 Fare Increase Proposal

Current 7/1/10

Cash	$1.25	$1.50	20% increase
Token	$1.25	$1.50	20% increase
Owl service	$1.25	$1.50	20% increase
Day pass	$5.00	$6.00	20% increase
Weekly	$17.00	$20.00	18% increase
Monthly	$62.00	$75.00	21% increase
EZ Pass	$70.00	$84.00	20% increase

Fare Increase and Bus Service Cuts: Double trouble for civil rights and mobility - MTA officials themselves have acknowledged that fare increases reduce ridership. In 2004, ridership decreased by 5% within a year and riderhsip has decreased 8% in the last year. MTA's staff is also pushing for additional draconian measures by advocating for the MTA board to cut 145,000 of bus services for next years budget. If these cuts are implemented MTA would have cut close to 500,000 hours of bus service expansion won under the civil rights Consent Decree (representing over half of the court order remedies won under the decree).

MTA staff is attempting to circumvent the publics right to a fare increase hearing

MTA staff is raising the specter of fare increase and service cuts for July 2010. MTA staff has been operating under the assumption that fare increases are a given and are moving to implement the second phase of the fare increase motion adopted in May, 2007 and will circumvent the right of the public to shape, debate and hopefully defeat a fare increase proposal. We urge the MTA Board of Directors to protect the rights of bus riders and the public to have a pubic hearing on any proposed fare hikes and service cuts. We ask for the following: a.) MTA should at minimum give a 60-day notice of a proposed fare increase vote, b.) Hold a public hearing on a weekend to allow full public participation, c.) Hold the public hearing in a larger space like the LA County Board of Supervisors boardroom d.) Hold a public hearing that requires the attendance of the full MTA Board and a formal vote.

MTA's deficit is a construction deficit, not a bus operation deficit…Transit Racism Wants to Roll Over Civil Rights

The MTA's annual budget has grown about $1 billion since the fare increases were approved in 2007. MTA's "deficit" is a self-imposed one; MTA's aggressive plans to expand rail projects come with large construction price tags and virtually no operation funding to run these projects. MTA's upcoming budget has the new burden to operate the Eastside Gold Line and impending operation of the Expo I Light Rail. The real solution to the "deficit" crisis will require the MTA to slow down and evaluate its aggressive and unsustainable rail and highway spending outlined in Measure R and the 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan and instead aggressively lobby the State and Congress to get more operations funds. Raising fares and cutting service is not the solution to LA's "deficit" it will only exacerbate the situation and "drive" people off mass transit.

Three years ago, in a heated and contested fare increase public hearing, an MTA board majority voted for a fare increase proposal in an attempt to pass a two-phased fare hike plan, all the while over 1,500 bus riders and supporters and a strong MTA minority Board bloc led by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa expressed their opposition and were one vote shy of defeating the fare increase proposal. But the last two years have created different financial realities for many on the streets and the MTA has been no exception, but in contrast to struggling working class families impacted by government service cuts, layoffs, and foreclosures; since 2007 MTA has secured a third transit sales tax and federal stimulus funding and while impacted by state transportation cuts, their budget has grown substantially.

Hard Times Require Real Leadership: We urge MTA Board of Directors to Reject MTA Staff's Circumvention of a Public Process and Support the Civil Rights and Environmental Rights of Bus Riders of Color by Rejecting Any Fare Increase and Service Cuts Proposal.

In May 2007, after an aggressive political campaign by the BRU to pressure Mayor Villaraigosa, he took a stand against a draconian set of fare increases. This year, we call on Mayor Villaraigosa and the newest members of the Board Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, General Manager Rita Robinson and Councilmember Jose Huizar reject any proposal to close the deficit that includes fare increases and service cuts and to protect the civil, economic and environmental rights of ½ million Black, Latino, Asian and white working class bus riders, who cannot afford to pay a penny more.

As the Los Angeles Department of Transportation prepares for five public hearings next month and in early March, activists are responding to their proposed series of cuts and fare hikes that will close the city's budget hole...at least when it comes to it's transit services.  Unlike the reaction we saw two years ago when Metro outlined a series of major cuts to its bus service, transit advocacy groups are not nearly as unified in opposing these cuts as they were two years ago.  For more information on LADOT's public outreach and other options to submit testimony, read the LADOT press release, available on Streetsblog here.

Each of the three major groups in Los Angeles, Southern California Transit Advocates, the Transit Coalition and the Bus Rider's Union each take a different approach.

Kymberleigh Richards' statement on behalf of the Southern California Transit Advocates crystallizes the difference in how advocates view the LADOT's bus service as compared to Metro.  Remember that two years ago, Richards was one of the leaders opposing Metro's proposed cuts, even threatening the Metro Board with retaliation if they went through with their plans:

So.CA.TA is okay with a lot of this.  The three Commuter Express lines proposed for cancellation have very low ridership and displaced passengers still have options.  On the lines proposed for modifications, we believe 422 and 423 should continue to Thousand Oaks Transit Center (a hub location) and that late night service on 142 should continue at less frequency...

...We're also okay with the proposed fare increases. although we think DASH fares should go directly to 50 cents (no interim step) as it has been unrealistically low as a quarter for far too long.  We do think the interagency transfer (IAT) should be part of DASH's fare structure, though, especially to facilitate transferring to Metro where a DASH line has been canceled or realigned to avoid route duplication.  It may well be that adding the IAT will be a condition of LADOT becoming an "eligible operator" for county sales tax subsidies anyway, so we think they should just go ahead and do it.

Fellow So.CA.TA. executive Dana Gabbard also pointed to the need to cut waste in the DASH system.

Read more...

Tomorrow the Metro Board will meet and is widely expected to finally pass the Long Range Transportation Plan, which just like the city’s Draft Bike Plan, was the subject of public hearings in the early winter of 2008 and hasn’t been subject to much public scrutiny since.  Many Board Members are already offering amendments to the plan to protect and advance their preferred local projects.  The goal of moving projects in the plan is to better position them to receive federal funds to hopefully get them off the design table and on the ground, or under the ground, as quickly as possible.

And, we have a chance to say goodbye to AnsaldoBreda’s monthly appearance on the Board Schedule.  Last month the Board approved an extension to the exclusive contract for building rail cars to the Italian company, so they’ll never truly be gone; but an update on the contract is on the agenda providing gadflys and opponents one more chance to blast Board and AnsaldoBreda, for now.  To read the full Board Agenda, click here.

But the big ticket item will be the Long Range Transportation Plan and the battle to advance local projects.  At The Source, Steve Hymon has a handy F.A.Q. that answers some of the basic questions but only covers the politics in general terms.  For a breakdown on some of the issues the Board will discuss tomorrow, read on after the jump.  To just dive in to the 54 page Draft Long Range Plan, click here.

Read more…

<editor's note: Metro provided a response to the BRU Survey which can be found just before the jump. Also, since we already have a thread where people make their feelings clear on the BRU, can we try and keep the comments focused on this survey and related issues?)

As promised, the Bus Rider's Union rallied at a press friendly-event earlier today and released the results of the "rider's report card," a survey of over 3,000 bus riders on lines throughout the city. The results were not great for the MTA. The survey shows that if Metro was being graded by its bus riders, it would be in danger of being held back.

Breaking down the results further, those surveyed gave Metro a "D" on "On Schedule," "Overcrowding," "Fares," "Frequency of Service," "Weekend of Service," and "Accessibility." Metro received an "F" for its "Night Service."

One way to look at survey results is to compare the positive responses, the "A" and "B" grades against the "D" and "F" results. In every case, the results were overwhelmingly negative. On schedule had a 24.8% positive response to 44.2% negative. Overcrowding was 23.9% positive compared to 45.8% negative. Affordability, 14.4% to 66.8% negative. Frequency of service is 14.5% positive to 66.2% negative. Weekend services was 12.7% positive to 67.8% negative. Night services were 11.4% positive to 69% negative. Last, accessibility was 18.6% positive to 57.5% negative.

Ouch.

What is the BRU's prescription for this performance? Why it's the Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan, which demands that the MTA roll back fare increases, spend more money on increasing bus service instead of highways and train service, and an end to service cuts. The Plan provides an alternate plan for Measure R funds than the one passed by the voters that would divert many of the highway, heavy rail, and light rail project funds to bus expansion and fare stabilization.

Meanwhile Metro has responded that they are comfortable with how their passengers feel about bus performance even while emphasizing Metro CEO Art Leahy's commitment to improving bus service.

... improving on-time bus performance is one of Art Leahy's priorities at Metro. The agency is making steady progress improving on-time performance. Over the last year, for example, on-time performance increased by 10 percent (65 percent in July 2008 to 72 percent in July 2009). While that is an improvement, more efforts to improve bus performance and service reliability will be made.

However, a June 2009 Metro survey of 15,800 systemwide riders conducted by L.A.-based Applied Management and Planning Group found that 80.6 percent of respondents were satisfied with Metro Bus service. The survey also found that 73 percent of respondents agreed that buses generally run on time (within five minutes), and 73.3 percent reported that Metro Bus service is better now than last year.

Read more...

Last month, the Bus Riders Union quietly opened its own blog to further push its advocacy efforts online.  While there’s nothing that is technilogically amazing about the blog, if anyone remembers what the BRU’s website looked like two years ago when I first arrived or last year during the "No on the Six" campaign, it’s nice to see a more professional looking website with regular updates.

As you would expect, the BRU Blog focuses on their advocacy efforts by covering their events and posting videos from testimony at Metro Board meetings.  What drew my attention to the blog today was a post from the Metro Library linking to a post by Esperanza Martinez that was a "Streetsblog Style" post looking at how the media is beginning to cover transit differently than in year’s past.

As our fight for our
Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan continues, we are also building our
understanding of what other cities and agencies are doing to push the
bounds of what we think is possible in the realm of public
transportation. Critical factors that shape the BRU’s programmatic
demands – auto restriction, bus-centered system with bus only lanes and fare reductions as a means to free fares

Whether you’re a BRU supporter, hater or just casual observer; you can now easily follow the BRU’s efforts and messaging online.

The Bus Rider's Union gathered signatures outside of the Wilshire-Western Subway stop this morning, joining advocates around the country in building support for Federal Legislation H.R. 2746, which would allow transit agencies to spend more of their federal funds on day-to-day operations. Nationally, efforts were organized by Transit Riders for Public Transportation (TRPT) a national coalition focused on bringing "environmental justice and civil rights priorities to the upcoming federal surface transportation act."

Transit agencies are still reeling from declining tax revenues brought on by the recession, with fare hikes and service cuts on tap in dozens of cities. The stimulus bill has provided little help. An amendment to fund transit operations was shot down back in January.

In the Bay Area, advocates staged a mock funeral for bus service because there is a 15-30% service cut proposal being discussed by local bus carriers. In Chicago advocates held a rally and press conference in front of a local Congressional leader's office while West Harlem Environmental Action in New York sponsored a call drive to Congressmen throughout the Big Apple.

While the BRU and other groups are rallying in support of H.R. 2746, there's little chance the legislation will become law on its own. Instead, the bill is a "marker" that could eventually be incorporated into the House transportation bill currently being pushed by a bi-partisan coalition in the House Transportation Committee.

For more coverage of today's efforts across the country, check out this post by NYC Streetsblogs' Ben Fried. For more on the BRU's efforts, their press release is available after the jump.

Read more...