German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseB.R.U on the T.R.A.I.N Caption Contest
Contributed by Fred Camino on August 7th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Well over a year ago we featured the now infamous picture of a group of anti-rail B.R.U. members posing and smiling in a Red Line Station. Today, courtesy of a MetroRider with a quick wit and a quicker shutter, we present to you a new picture of B.R.U. members riding that which they hate the most. This time it looks like work instead of fun if the clipboards are any indication, but what could the yellow shirts be telling all these affluent white people on this Red Line train? Best caption wins mad propz from your peers. Let ‘em rip.
Discussion
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
I would have taken the bus, but it takes too long.
I got your caption right here: BRU activists riding MetroRail to MTA headquarters to protest funding for rail projects.
“If you can beat ‘em, annoy ‘em!”
“HEY! Get to the back of the bus, honky!”
It is rather ironic, but MTA did some really wonderful things for BRU.
First, the Wilshire Blvd. construction of the Red Line — including what we now know as the Purple Line — did terrible damage to the economics of the area. Many of the property owners were hurting very much, no one was interested in their spaces because you couldn’t drive there, you couldn’t park there, and you couldn’t even walk there (yes, this is over the top, but, if you were looking for a place to rent, why would you even consider a place with such headaches?).
So, as a result of this major MTA-caused local economic downturn, the Labor/Community Strategy Center-BRU got a really great deal on a long-term lease on a property very well suited to its needs in the Wiltern Building at Wilshire and Western. Among other things, it is one of THE easiest places to access by transit, outside of the central business district, in the entire County, with the subway AND two major bus lines — which are now also Metro Rapid lines.
The other wonderful thing that MTA did for BRU was that it provided a direct, no transfer connection from its office to the MTA headquarters building. The Red/Purple/whatever-MTA-is-calling-it today line is perfect for taking a very large group of people from one place to another in one group, all at the same time. Boy, when you are organizing a demonstration, this is GREAT!
The final bonus is that just about everyone in the BRU has a transit pass, so there is no additional cost to them for taking the train.
Yep, MTA did a wonderful thing for BRU in building the subway where it did — and how it did it.
Tom Rubin
“If this subway is so racist, where’s the ‘whites only’ car?”
“I thought there was going to be complimentary champagne. Damn!”
“I sure wish I was riding the 720 right now!”
Tired of standing? Ride the bus!
Someone should take the pic to the next MTA Board meeting and pass it out.
“Even the BRU really wants rail!”
“Honey, don’t worry about it, I’m a strict vegan but you know I can’t turn down a juicy steak!”
I love how that pic busts the BRU on every level.
1) They’re riding the train.
2) The train isn’t exactly filled with rich, caucasians.
This, once again, proves
how laughable (and wrongful!) BRU’s politics are…
BRU should be sued for their fraudulent agenda and for their lies.
Hypocrisy of BRU has no boundaries…
Has anybody forwarded this picture to MTA?
If not, I’m definitely going to,
along with an explanation what kind of crap BRU is full of…
I guess the 720 was stuck in traffic?
“Eric Mann will meet us there. He went earlier in his BMW, but he’s stuck in traffic and will then have to circle around to find a cheap place to park.”
The Sheriff’s poster in the background sums it up:
“We’re watching, are you?”
“Better dead than Red” ?
Hot commie chicks ride train - make transit junky angry!
Hmm, guess I missed the hot chicks. Are they hiding behind those BRU members?
Seriously, however, there appears to be a pattern emerging. Last Thursday round 2:30, at Pershing Square, I saw two BRU-shirted young adults (or teens).
Race card?? Nah! We’re only dealing with White privilege right here!!! The Blue Line was made for White people, dammit!!!
“We’re sisters…We’re happy, riding rail, and we’re colored! Give me a HARD FART!”
Whatever. Just because you don’t think that Metro should starve the bus system in order to pay for rail expansion doesn’t mean that you’re supposed to boycott the rail that’s already there. I personally oppose any funds for freeway construction — does that mean that I can’t use them either?
Nobody ever seems to want to address the essential point being made by the BRU: the money being proposed for rail could be more effectively spent on better bus service, effectiveness being measured by increased ridership and mobility. Yes, I know that “the bus sucks”, it’s slow, uncomfortable, etc., but the fact remains that it gets people where they need to go, and thus, a lot of people ride it. Far more than ride the trains.
Yes, in a perfect world (and we may be much closer to that if Obama gets elected), we’d both fully fund a true “first-class” bus system, and an expansion of the rail network into every corridor where it can be remotely justified. But given limited resources, I have not seen any numbers to support the idea that rail is the better investment.
Malcolm, it may be that too few people have advocated for buses over rail, but there are those other than the BRU who do so. We here at The Bus Bench are one of those small enclaves who strongly push for buses over rails. We would love that the rail system be built up, but not at the cost of attenuating the bus lines–as Metro is presently doing. And I maintain my position that the expediency of buses and the ever-in-flux aspect of Los Angeles (i.e., what was a well-populated nabe last year may well be a ghost town next year) points to buses being far less expensive as well as easier to shift to accommodate shifts in population volume. If only they decently maintained and not so often smelling or urine and other such expungements, more folk outside the working class might be prompted to ride them in Los Angeles.
Nevertheless, at least one of us atThe Bus Bench–namely, me–have for nearly two decades found fault with the way the BRU works.
Malcolm:
Maybe if they didn’t cloud their “essential point” with absurd race-baiting rhetoric and unrelated marxist goals, “whatever” would be a valid comment. But that’s not the BRU most of us know and despise.
Discussions on expenditures on bus vs. rail is a valid argument. I tend to side towards spending on rail because it raises transit above simple welfare mobility and creates a true transportation alternative for the masses and its permanence helps shape cities around transit, something buses simply don’t do. The fact is, if this city is every going to make itself more friendly and livable to all people (not just white people, not just poor people, but EVERYBODY), it needs to elevate its transit system from plodding impermanent buses.
Fred - that is an awful long caption. What sort of font were you planning on using anyway?
I support the BRU, but only because they consistently delude the young and nubile into political action.
Here is my second choice caption:
BRU activists confirm that, indeed, rail in L.A. is only for privledged suburbanites who think they know what is best for “the masses”.
The BRU is backed by the Bus Drivers Union and the Bus Mechanics as well as the NIMBY’s of Hancock Park and Cheviot Hills. Please! This group is a farce! With their leader Eric Mann recieving $200,000 a year according to public records.
Let’s see……1,000 more busses means 1,000 more drivers to drive those busses and lots and lots of work for the mechanics. Also it ideologically satisfies the racists/classists/NIMBY’s and libertarians that covertly fund the group who think of Public Transit as nothing more than welfare anyway. It’s no coincidence that Hancock Park openly opposed a subway through there hood in the 50’s and 60’s because of “those other people” who might come through and steal their TV sets out of their windows and rape their daughters. The disgusting side of this NIMBY backed group is that they have successfully turned a civil rights issue which is transit into a paper or plastic debate. Sad sad sad indeed. Why would anyone in the world have a mode fetish anyway? They all work together. Subways+bus+trams+ferries+trolleys+richshaws=GO for chrissake!! They all work together! This is nothing more than the anti-development and anti-density people pimping the poor.
1,000 more busses=1,000 more drivers in a vehicle that can only transport up to 75 people.
1,000 more HRT rail cars @ 6 cars per train=166 drivers.
How are busses more economical again? And we’re not even including fuel and road repair????????? But it sure does fortify the Bus Driver’s Union and the Bus Mechanics now doesn’t it? How could this city and its poor be so gullible to allow this organiaztion that believes that the poor don’t deserve a higher capacity and more comfortable mode of transit gain any ground? LA truly has its head up its ass on this one!
Also the proof in the pudding that the BRU is nothing but a scam organization, a front is that it supported the 2003 bus mechanics strike. Bus mechanics make on average 3 times the income along with benefits of the average bus rider. They even negotiated for back pay that accumulated during their strike. So does Maria who relies on busses from Huntington Park to Santa Monica to clean houses recieve back pay from the BRU who calls itself a “union” and who supported the strike because of her missed work?? Probably not. But they will throw a lavish party every year funded on the backs of their “union members” and if it’s not funded by them then who is it funded by? So much for looking out for the proletariat.
So what’s next the Pedestrian Union? I can see it now they oppose elevators and escalators because steps cost less.
Oppose the racist/classist/libertarian/NIMBY backed BRU NOW!!
I’ll address it. It’s caca.
The more efficient travel times and redevelopment around rail creates tremendous economic opportunity for transit riders. The operating costs per person on rail are far cheaper than the labor intensive costs of 1,000 more buses that need to be fueled, parked and sit in ever worsening congestion.
Good points.
Also caca is this idea that that buses are better because “you can’t move the rail every 30 years.” There’s not a single rail line in London, New York, Paris, or San Francisco that was around 30 years ago that still doesn’t need to be there or isn’t still valuable to the network. Wilshire Blvd. could have supported rail 30 years ago, today, 30 years from now, or even 100 years from now. That new neighborhoods rise is an argument to expand the system, not move it.
I do believe in a strong bus system and improved one. The BRU sets up a straw dog of improved rail automatically bringing reduced bus service. There is no hard evidence that this has to be case. If anything, rail riders bring the demand for higher quality bus service for the “first mile” and “last mile” between stations and destinations.
Fortunately, there are organizations like Southern California Transit Advocates and The Transit Coalition where people can go who want a stronger bus AND rail system. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to waste one’s valueable time and hard-earned money on the BRU.
These people who wear yellow shirts that say “billions for buses” decide to oppose a sales tax measure that contains billions for buses and is the only way they are going to get billions for buses. They aren’t interested in improved mobility at all.
WOMAN ON THE LEFT: “Hey, I just noticed that the subway isn’t as nearly as racist as I thought it was…”
WOMAN ON 3RD TO THE RIGHT: “SHHHH! STOP THINKING! IT’S NOT GOOD FOR YOU!”
Remember, everyone: THE BUS RIDERS UNION EXPLOITS MINORITIES. FORCE-FEEDING IS *NOT* EMPOWERMENT!
Dan makes some good points. However, three of the four cities mentioned tend to be restricted by water and are not free to expand the same fashion that Los Angeles has; the fourth, Paris, is well established in a way unlike Los Angeles. (London is rather established too.) Witness Hollywood and downtown and the manner in which both have ebbed and flowed in population ever since Hollywood was born. I feel that while rail is required, it should not be at the behest of buses. Were rail and buses to be established as well as what they should be in the second-largest “city” in the U.S., that would be wonderful. I have relied on public transit for two decades. But knowing the deliberate mismanagement of money that is Metro policy, I have no confidence in the rails being built as planned, especially when the economy is worse than what the U.S. media divulges.
That stated, I have no confidence in the BRU owing to the way it is set up and continues to operate. And after having witnessed the way the head people at Southern California Transit Advocates and The Transit Coalition behave, I have little confidence in much coming from those organisations as well.
I am sure that it may be pointed out that we at The Bus Bench behave no better, but our desire is passive transit advocation by pointing out that which is otherwise ignored. Such a position is pushed primarily by myself, who has a fair amount of experience in government, military and police work here and abroad, and the refusal to play the game by which most everyone except those in government tend to almost always lose owing to the way the cards are dealt.
The Bus Riders Union’s problem is not that they are advocates for buses, they are advocates for the wrong kind of bus service. Lots of express bus routes used to run all over Los Angeles; almost all of them were canceled - why? Low ridership. They’re going to be stuck on the same jammed freeways as cars, and cost a lot more to operate per hour than light rail due to low passenger turnover. We’re not going to get existing lanes turned into carpool lanes, and the BRU is not going to allow the charging of higher express bus fares to pay for the increased express bus cost.
Rail and bus need to coexist. We need to invest in much better bus service that feeds rail lines; some stations on the Green and Gold lines have non-existent local bus service. Better bus service will lead to higher rail ridership. Few people realize that when the Exposition Line opens the combined rail ridership in LA will about equal that of the much more extensive BART system in the bay area. At that point rail will equal about 25% of the total bus ridership with far less than 10% of the total bus route miles. Clearly LA has no more room to sprawl; like Paris, New York, London, and other cities that major centers in LA will remain for years to come - downtown, Hollywood, Century City, Westwood, and the Airport.
The issue is not bus vs. rail, it’s
1. How to get enough money for transit. Many transit agencies are having to cut service now despite increasing ridership, which is horrible.
2. Where do bus and rail work. Rail works beautifully for bringing large numbers of people into small areas–e.g. Downtown Los Angeles. The Red Line is a great achievement that should be extended.
But in many of LA’s employment centers there simply isn’t the mass to have rail lines converging from all directions. If we’re very smart and lucky, there will be one subway line serving Century City, but there will not be rail lines from the Valley, from South LA, from East LA, etc. Los Angeles’ development form has been characterized as “dense sprawl,” and buses are the natural vehicles for serving much of the dense sprawl. The Rapid bus network responds to this very well–it would respond even better with dedicated bus lanes on the most congested corridors. LA is a “many to many” commuting city and that demands buses.
wanderer:
Don’t mean to burst your bubble, but there are already from rail lines from the Valley, South LA, and Hollywood. Also Pasadena, and soon to be East LA and Culver City.
Every large city demands buses, but not at the expense of rail. LA has a MASSIVE bus system. 191 total bus routes, 2,000 peak hour buses on any given day, 25 rapid bus routes, 15 express routes. Give me a break! Even with all this, no one would claim that LA’s transit system is truly effective for a city of it’s size and population? Do you really think adding 1,000 more buses will change this? No.
The “dense sprawl” argument is bunk. The example has been used many times before, but it needs to be brought up again: London. It’s a huge (larger than Los Angeles) sprawling densely packed metropolis bounded together by one of the greatest urban rail systems in the world. You think London would be better off without the Tube and with extra buses in its place? No way.
Great points, Fred.
I always point to London as an example when a nimby or the BRU says, “This isn’t New York” or “L.A. is too big for rail”.
London, like Los Angeles, is a huge sprawl, but has a dozen underground lines, numerous (and growing) overground lines and dozens of commuter rail lines and several “Union Stations”, not to forget a dynamic bus system which has significantly improved, with congestion charging and bus only lanes, and even ferries on the Thames. Bus AND rail working together.
(I do agree it’s not bus vs. rail, for no one is advocating a rail only system with no bus service. It’s really bus & rail versus those who want bus-only system)
The fact that someone from the BRU bothered to come over and feign a “whatever” tells me this pic makes them nervous and actually hits the nail on the head. Everyone on the MTA and the L.A. Times should get a copy.
You can add Tokyo to the list of city with huge sprawl and highly functional subway system supported by extensive commuter rail service. And like London and Los Angeles, Toyko does not have a single “central” node. It’s about as poly-centered as big city can get.
Sometime I wonder if BRU supporters have ever visited a city with a good transit system.
Fred, I’m aware of the existing rail lines. They don’t and won’t go to the farther reaches of the Westside–except possibly the purple line extended. It is not rational to travel from Van Nuys to Century City via Downtown Los Angeles. For the foreseeable future, that transit trip and many others will require a bus. For many trips, the choice isn’t bus vs. rail, but vs. driving.
I’ve been to London. London “sprawl” is not like LA sprawl. London sprawls out from a large central district that contains most of the region’s major retailing, governmental offices, private offices etc. People are traveling into and around that central district. It would be as if LA had one giant downtown stretching from,say, Vermont Ave. to the river and few significant employment areas outside that. London has also significantly invested in and improved its bus service, even in a city with such an extensive rail system.
Unlike London, Tokyo’s densities are immensely higher than Los Angeles’–many times as great, generating enormous ridership (not to mention the cost of gas, the availability of parking etc.) Tokyo is not really comparable.
The problem isn’t that metro LA covers a big area–metro New York covers a bigger area. But a huge percentage of New York’s working population is trying to reach one relatively small area in Manhattan. The problem in Southern California is that significant numbers of people are trying to reach places like Costa Mesa as well as Downtown LA.
Rail is a good solution–for some transit problems, like the highly dense corridor of Wilshire Boulevard. For other problems, it’s not. Is that such a terrible thought?
wanderer:
As has been said before, rail is not and should not be the only tool used, but to continue to apply buses as the only solution to LA’s problems because LA is currently not as dense as London or Tokyo is something I just cant agree with. LA gets denser every day, the population grows every day. Either we deal with the growing population and density that comes with it intelligently with the future in mind, or we continue to apply band-aids without taking into account the future. Rail has a permanence that bus routes do not. Rail has the capability to CREATE dense corridors. Just because right now people are communiting from the San Fernando Valley to Costa Mesa and from the Inland Empire to Santa Monica does not mean this is how it always has to be. I highly recommend reading John von Kerczek’s blog, Ditch the Car Take the Metro, if you don’t already. He truly understands this issues and realizes that the solution for LA is not a bandaid of bus and far-flung suburban rail lines, but a system of urban rail in order to re-orient the city and it’s travel patterns, not the other way around.
A few months ago I saw Jeff Kentworthy, author of Sustainability and Cities, talk about these very issues, you can read about it here. His main thesis was rail has the ability to “focus” a city more than any other mode.
Fred, we’re getting closer together here. LA is certainly getting denser and that’s a very good thing. Transit-oriented development (TOD) is certainly a good thing and a lot of it is happening in LA, and there needs to be much more. I’d argue that TOD can be and is based on rail, bus, and first and foremost walking–like the development downtown. That’s how people like to travel–walking (”walking is sexy”, a Santa Monica developer once told me).
The conventional wisdom is that TOD can’t be based on bus, but I disagree. I saw, for example, a lot of TOD in Seattle that is based on bus lines. Yes, Seattle is building (a little bit of) rail, but the system will remain heavily based on buses, even in urban neighborhoods. The TOD all around San Francisco that makes people say that “San Francisco is one giant TOD” is largely bus based.
You’re now making a land use planning argument more than a transportation argument. You’re arguing that the strategic priority is developing “urban rail” (heavy rail? light rail? whatever) as a tool to reshape and reconcentrate the city.
I certainly agree with the goal–I don’t know if it’s achievable in a reasonable time frame. Money to build lots of rail lines is one huge problem. This is also where you run into the problem of the millions of people who live outside the urban core, even broadly defined. There’s a lot of land use to change (or abandon?!)–literally hundreds of square miles of sprawl. A winning transit strategy also has to–at least in the short-medium term (which could be a number of decades) provide for the transit needs (buses) of people that rail won’t serve.
In Fred’s superb essay about his transportation vision for the future, he had a heirarchy for transportation planning:
1) pedestrians
2) bicycles
3) public transit (rail/bus)
4) shared private autos
5) single-occupancy cars.
Unfortunately, we’ve been doing the reverse for the last 60 years.
Heavy rail will be very limited, unfortunately, do to costs. Light rail will be more common. (Note, this is not the same as underground and overground. Subways can be heavy or light rail as in SF.) Between buses and light rail comes the streetcar.
There is a great article in the New York Times today about the increasing use of streetcars in American urban centers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/us/14streetcar.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
I hope to see the purple line extended to Santa Monica via century city and the Pink Line via Santa Monica & La Cienega Blvds.
However, the possibilities for streetcars are enormous. Broadway has been mentioned downtown. Then there is Ventura Blvd., Van Nuys Blvd., How about Sunset Blvd. streetcar from Downtown to the Strip? Long Beach has considered an east/west streetcar hooking into the Blue Line. Lincoln Blvd. streetcar from LAX to Santa Monica? So much possibility.
This definitely gave me a WTF? moment when I saw them on the train a couple of weeks ago. Here’s my photo. (Coincidently taken at around the same time, from the other end of the train!!)
hahaa. I don’t support further public funds to the Interstate System and I don’t use it. Wouldn’t be caught on the thing. Even most of the transit in Portland doesn’t use it. So I can support my cause and not be hypocritical. Poor LA…
I gotta visit sometime and see if I can truly get around everywhere I need to without touching an Interstate!