A-Infos (en) Re: Fwd: Busrider's Union Needs to Get Its Facts Straight

[Dan <dipasquo@ISI.EDU>]

 ________________________________________________
      A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
            http://www.ainfos.ca/
 ________________________________________________

A-infos people,
	One of your articles was recently forwarded to me from a friend that I
wanted to respond to.  I feel it would also be appropriate if this were
posted not only to the discussion list, but also to the list that the
original article was posted.  This is obviously up to you, and i respect
your final decision on the matter.  Also, i didn't have much time in my
schedule to write this, and rather providing half-asses statistics that I
wasn't sure of I chose to leave out some proof for some of my statements,
so if you have any editorial-type comments, just let me know. You provide a
great news source for the anarchist community, keep up the good work.

-dan

At 03:58 AM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>You've seen this?
>Matt
>== == == == == == == == ==

I just wanted to respond to some of the points raised in this email.  I am
a member of the Bus Rider's Union (Syndicato De Pasajeros), and a member of
the Action Committee which coordinated our recent fair strike.  Also, my
roommate is an elected representative on the BRU/SDP planning committee.
I'm not sure what the author of this article was trying to accomplish, or
where he was getting his information concerning the BRU/SDP, but he does
not have the entire story of what the BRU has been fighting for.  To state
that the BRU is not concerned with over crowding, which bus's the MTA is
buying, spending policies that favor the rich rather the working class, and
the price of fares shows that the author has not researched the BRU before
writing this essay.  Also, the BRU spends a lot if its time attacking the
government institution that causes these problems.  We also talk about why
similar problems will exist with all governmental institutions that are
formed under capitalism, and we are not afraid to express this when
organizing on the buses and making decisions in our meetings.  I feel we
take a deeper look at the underlying issues than most radical organizations
in this city.

In 1996 the BRU took the MTA to court under the same Federal Civil Rights
laws that forced school desegragation in the 1960's.  The MTA settled out
of court and signed a Civil Rights concent decree with the BRU.  In the
concent decree several issues were covered, but they included overcrowding,
a new service plan to better service the working class communities in LA,
restrictions on fare increases, and some other issues i can't remember off
the top of my head.  Each of these had concrete things the MTA must do, for
instance in the issue of overcrowding, the MTA has dates by which the must
reduse load factor on the buses by (interestingly enough, the MTA is in
non-compliance with these and have been ordered by the court to buy 481 new
buses to get into compliance.  the MTA appealed and they are in court
today)  The BRU also agitated for the first fare reduction in the history
of LA public transit, saved the monthly pass and had its price reduced
(although one of our current demads is a 50 cent fare and $20 monthly
pass), and pushed to get the weekly pass created.

The BRU was created by and uses the resources of the Labor Community
Strategy center, but it is a democratic institution (not as democratic as
it could be in my opinion, but i'm one of 2 anarchist organizers involved.
a sincere effort is made for democracy, however).  The planning committee
is elected in the BRU general meetings, and a majority of the committee
members must be union members who are not paid by the LCSC.  This committee
makes many of the strategic decisions for the union.  The action committee,
which is much larger, consists of active members in the union, and we plan
out actions and campaigns.  Propaganda is made by both paid members and
volunteers to reflect the points that these committees recomend.

I'd now like to respond to the other points made here:


>Busriders need an organization which will fight for them AND give them
>the facts.  As a busrider for many years I know how the system sucks.
>Drivers pass you by because they are too lazy to stop or run on time.
>The fares are too high.  Buses take too long to load because their design
>hasn't been improved since they were invented 100 years ago.  Buses are
>overcrowded and they are ALWAYS LATE AND SLOW!  These should be the
>issues of the Busriders Union, but the Labor Community Strategy Center
>appears to have an alternate Agenda or conflict of interest which they
>are pushing on the Busriders Union (one of their Union bosses IS a
>Communist after all).  To do this they continue to produce propaganda
>with misinformation rather than attacking the true failures of the
>government institution responsible for the problem:



These first two items are issues of mismanagement rather than that of some
much deeper rooted problem with the MTA board and the Los Angeles city
council in general.  If these were the main reasons behind the problems
with the MTA public transit system, then it would still be possible that
the politicians and appointees on the MTA board could actually have the
best interests of the poor at heart, but unfortunately they just messed up.
 This is clearly not the case; although these factors have made some
difference in the deterioration of the bus system, the most signifigant
causes are the board's corporate agenda.  Attacking just mistakes the board
makes (while it may get other similar, more effiecient politicians
elected), ultimately does not change anything.  That said, the BRU has done
research about which type of buses are the best bet to buy (both
mantainance wise and for the environment) and we insist the MTA buys a
specific model of clean air natural gas buses (not menthanol powered) that
work very well.  The BRU is supported by several local environmentalist groups.

>
>1.The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) bought Methanol (Grain
>Alcohol) powered buses which ran on fuel which ate their engines.  All
>this money went down the toilet.  The fuel is made by Agribusiness like
>Archer-Daniels-Midland who hard-sold it as an "alternative fuel."
>
>2.MTA bought articulated buses (two buses connected by a hinged section
>which turns) made in Germany whose air-cooled engines broke down every
>time it got hot outside.  Not a smart move for Southern California
>weather.  They used to run on some of the longest lines like the #2 and
>#3 along Sunset Blvd. between Downtown and the Pacific Ocean.  They
>also
>bought double-decker buses which are no longer in service. All this money
>also went down the toilet.
>

This point is exactly the sort of thing the BRU has been fighting, but we
are a bit constrained.  We talk about the percentage of bus eligable money
that is spent for other projects.  The claim in the 1996 law suit was that
the MTA was building a sperate and unequal transportation system for the
working class communities of color and the other communities in LA.  This
was an example of systematic racism and illegal under Federal Law.  But
look a little deeper than this and you can find much bigger examples of
this.  Consider the Alameda corridor, a rail project which is taking a
whole shit load of bus eligable money (a lot more than sound walls).  The
purpose of this project is to connect the ports in long beach and LA with
the big corporations that need stuff for manufacturing.  Also, look at the
fact that millionaire contractors are the biggest campaign contributers to
the LA city council.  These are the people pushing for rail in a city in
which rail doesn't make much sense.  Consider most cities with a good
subway system: there are residential areas, and a few business areas, and
the rail goes between them and is very efficient (also, in most of these
the rail goes out to the suburbs).  In LA the top 3 business areas have
less than 15% of all the business in LA.  People live everywhere and need
to go everywhere, now where are you going to put the subway.  We would need
a grid under the entire county.  The reason the BRU opposes new rail
projects is 2 fold.  First, the bus system has been allowed to deteriorate
to take money to build this, and the bus riders have been screwed over (the
first big organizing drive for the BRU started when the MTA tried to
eliminate the monthly pass and raise fares to raise enough money to build
the pasadena blue line), and secondly, it is just not an efficient way to
spend the money in LA.  Our point is that it is racist, not just because a
lower percentage of minority riders will use the new rail lines (although
that is true), but because they are taking money that should be spent to
give the working class communittees a world class public transit system,
and spending it on rail, only to benefit the rich rail contractors.

>3.MTA is building Sound Walls along the freeways in rich suburban
>neighborhoods that, by law, don't qualify for state sound wall funding.
>Only communities which existed before a freeway was built qualify and not
>suburban sprawl which follows freeway construction.
>
>4.MTA is funding further suburban sprawl for the rich by paying for
>carpool lanes all over Southern California that few people use.
>

Again, much of this money is probably not bus eligeble, or we would be
opposing it.

>5.MTA is going to be paying the cost of the astronomically expensive
>interchange between the Ventura and San Diego Freeways.  There has
>been
>massive congestion at the interchange because of runaway suburban
>sprawl
>along the Ventura Freeway west of Los Angeles.  Once again, MTA is
>subsidizing suburbanization for the rich!
>

Right, but the BRU is not against Metolink.  The Metro Rail, however (the
Blue Line, the Red Line, and the Green Line) were constructed with bus
money and are operated with bus money.

>6.Metrolink is not funded by the MTA.  It is a regional commuter rail
>system run by a separate government agency called the Southern
>California
>Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA).  It is funded by taxes which, by law,
>can only be spent on Metrolink.  They cannot be spent on buses.
>

and we have pointed many of these issues out:

>7.MTA is guilty of massive corruption, cost overruns (to contractors
>whose owners play golf with MTA Management), inferior construction,
>unsafe working conditions (needless injuries and deaths), ignoring the
>fact that they were digging a subway through liquefaction areas (sandy
>soil which turns to quicksand when saturated with water-it did this when
>tunneling ruptured rusty water pipes under Hollywood Blvd. which were
>laid in 1911!), and a host of other avoidable engineering errors on the
>subway construction.
>


>8.When the MTA was formed, it combined the massively corrupt Regional
>Transit District with the more benign Los Angeles County Transit
>Commission to form a bloated top-heavy bureaucracy which preserved the
>worst aspects of the original agencies and attacked its workers as is
>evidenced by the recent strike by MTA maintenance workers and others.  It
>continues to sacrifice its workers and riders to preserve the good life
>for its overpaid bosses.

The BRU has worked hard to form alliances with many of the unions in the
MTA.  We walked the picket lines with the Bus Drivers in 1994 (and no we
get no funding from them, it has been suggested that we were formed by
them).  Unfortunatly, many of these are hard core business unions whose
leaders also play golf with the MTA board members and the rail contractors.

>
>9.The subway serves the densest populated area of Los Angeles which
>has
>the highest proportion of transit-dependent Working Class residents
>because it is the only area of the City where rent is affordable to
>people earning the minimum wage.
>

Actually, this isn't true.  Look at where the lines run, and just ride it
once in a while.  You'll see a lot more suits on the Red Line than on any
bus.  The working class communities are still served predominately by
buses.  Here are actual statistics from a survey done in 1995:  On the Bus
System 69% of riders had an average household income of under $15,000 and
only 4% were over $50,000.  On the rail lines 43% were under $15,000 and
26% were over $50,000.  On buses 80% of the riders don't have a car
available to them, while on the rail 51% don't.  So we are not saying that
some poor people don't benefit from these rail projects, but they are not
why they are being built.


>10.The areas along the subway routes are predominantly Latino with a
>large Asian population as well.  The light rail routes are predominantly
>Latino communities with some African American residents in areas like
>Compton, Long Beach and Altadena/North Pasadena.  The real racism is
>from
>rich westside politicians who don't want ANY transit for Working Class
>people.  The most vocal critics of transit in Los Angeles have been
>Neo-Liberal intellectuals from places like the ultraconservative
>University of Southern California (USC) who advocate privatizing public
>transportation.  Pilot "smart shuttle" programs which they advocated have
>had just a 4% ridership in trial runs!

Much of this is true, but there are a higher percentage of white riders on
the rails than on the buses.

>
>Part of the problem with the Bus system is that drivers are overworked
>with split shifts, few breaks and timetables which are next to impossible
>to keep in rush hour traffic. This is because MTA Management is
>compensating for their lush pay and benefits, by work speedups as well as
>reducing the number of buses. During the Spanish Civil War the workers in
>the Anarchist CNT (National Workers Confederation)  trade Union ran the
>street car system In Barcelona more efficiently and at a lower cost than
>before the 1936 revolution when it had been run by bureaucrats.  This
>suggests that not only is bad Management to blame for MTAs troubles, but
>any Management would be bad Management.  In Spain it was the workers
>AND the transit riders who knew best how to create good transit service.
>



			********
		The A-Infos News Service
			********
		COMMANDS: majordomo@tao.ca
		REPLIES: a-infos-d@tao.ca
		HELP: a-infos-org@tao.ca
		WWW: http://www.ainfos.ca/
		INFO: http://www.ainfos.ca/org