Black Flag 217 index
Get on the Bus!
The story of LA's Bus Riders Union
When you mention Los Angeles, its not usually its public transport whichcomes to mind. Yet there has been a grassroots campaign ongoing there forseveral years around this theme. The experience of the Bus Riders Union(BRU) in fighting for a better deal for passengers in Americaıs mostcar-dependent city tells us a lot about the differences between organisinghere and there.
It might seem surprising to someone used to our congested roads andunreliable, privatised trains to find that the BRU is fighting AGAINST aproposed rail scheme, the Pasadena Blue Line, and for expanded bus services.This might seem crazy from an ecological point of view, but makes sense onceyou look at the geography of Los Angeles. Unlike most English cities, LA hasno centre as such. There is a Downtown, which is full of office blocks andcould be compared to the City of London as a financial and commercialdistrict. However, patterns of daily travel - to work or college - do notfollow any particular pattern. Someone might work in Hollywood, live inInglewood and do a course in Long Beach - all miles from each other and verydifficult to connect by public transport. A rail scheme would make sense ifeither the infrastructure was already there, in the form of old abandonedlines which could be rebuilt or re-routed, or if the pattern of movement wasfrom several points to one central district.
The reason any of this is an issue is because for the last 15 years or so,the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) has been planning and building lightrail systems, of which there are currently 3 in LA. They were very expensiveto build and various construction companies made a lot of money out of them.At the same time, the MTA built itself plush new headquarters Downtown. Allof this is funded by a proportion of Californiaıs state sales tax. At thesame time, the bus fleet has been run down and fares were proposed to go upin 1994. Which is where the Bus Riders Union comes in.
It doesnıt take a genius to realise that in a city like LA, a car becomesmuch more of a necessity than in most other places. So, what of those peoplewho either canıt afford one, or canıt drive? Well, they have to get on thebus. Angelenos are served by a surprisingly extensive network of bus routeswhich criss-cross the cityıs grid. The trouble is, there arenıt enough ofthem, theyıre not integrated, they break down a lot and are overcrowded.
The BRU was organised after the intervention of the Labor/Community StrategyCentre, which was itself formed out of the Coalition to Keep GM Van Nuys Open(a General Motors plant in north LA), and is a coalition of working classcommunity activists struggling for "regional planning from below". It hasbeen involved in the emergent movement for environmental justice and againstenvironmental racism.
Since 1993, the BRU has been fighting against the MTA. Its members are drawnfrom multiracial working class communities throughout LA. In 1994, the MTAwanted to eliminate the monthly bus pass. The BRU took a civil rights lawsuitagainst the MTA, arguing that the Red Line and Pasadena Blue Line light railsystems were eating up the dollars allocated to MTA.
In most cities in the world, buses are the transport of the poor, and theirstatus reflects that. Bus passengers are overwhelmingly poor blacks orLatinos. A much higher proportion of the light rail passengers are white. Andbecause this is America, where discrimination on grounds of class is legal,but not on grounds of race, this fact became one of the key areas the BRUorganised around. The BRU fought this campaign (and subsequent ones) againstwhat it termed "transit racism". The overwhelmingly white users of the LightRail lines are subsidised much more than the overwhelmingly black and Latinobus users. This is patently unfair and amounts to racism. The suit in 1994won, and stopped the MTA eliminating the monthly bus pass. Further strugglesand legal battles in 1996 got the price of the monthly pass reduced to $42, anew $21 two week and $11 weekly pass introduced (particularly useful forthose too poor to buy a monthly), and a new 75 cent off peak fare. The BRUthen was recognised in negotiations with the MTA, and in 1997 stopped cuts tolate night services.
The struggle over what was to get the tax dollars was eventually dealt withby the legal system, and a consent agreement was signed between the BRU andthe MTA. In it, the MTA agreed to four conditions; to reduce fares, set up ajoint committee, dramatically reduce overcrowding and expand the bus service.The former have been addressed, but the latter two havenıt. The BRU hasbrought proposals to deal with these, which total $2 billion. The cost ofconstructing the Pasadena Blue Line alone totals $1 billion - before anyrolling stock or equipment is bought.
In October 1998 the MTA voted to buy 2095 new buses, the first 1200 of whichwill run on natural gas (LA does have a slight pollution problem, afterall!). These buses will be low floored, with ramps for wheelchair users.
The BRU researched the overcrowding, or load factor, and identified two mainproblems - the age of the buses and the fact that there werenıt enough ofthem. Based on a model of the dispersed development of LA, the BRU alsobrought forward four proposals to expand the service. These are to have afreeway network of buses, thereby using the quickest and most direct route;to set up a rapid bus network; to have "stations" to change from longdistance to local bus services; and to establish community circulators -shuttle buses that go around certain communities linking them with other busroutes.
Both these plans now sit before the court, as the MTA flagrantly ignores theagreement it signed. This is one of the things that is most striking aboutthe BRU - it is similar to a union - it organises collectively, tries toenter into agreements with the other side, but is not at all surprised whenthe bosses (in this case MTA) try to ignore the agreement.
The BRU has responded by escalating, and is now running a "No Seat No Fare"campaign against overcrowding.
The first observation that needs to be made from here about the BRU is thatthe US system is very different, not least because, unlike the failingprivatised British public transport system, the Americans recognise the needfor subsidies - their argument is about how those subsidies are spent. The"End Transit Racism" slogan only really has meaning in an American context -if there was such a thing as class discrimination in the US legal system itwould be called what it really is. Buses are undervalued everywhere becausethey are used by poor people first and foremost. The fact that the MTA hasentered into agreements with the BRU and is now breaking them means that thecourts can be used. It is unlikely that anything similar would happen here.
But if we look at where money is spent on public transport in Britain, it canbe seen to follow the same pattern of investing in high profile capitalprojects like the Jubilee Line extension, where the same money could havebeen used to create a bus priority system for all of London.
So, can we learn from the BRU and apply its lessons here? My answer would beyes. For a start, all the official passenger liaison committees have provedto be toothless in the face of bus and rail privatisation and the destructionof many services. This is hardly surprising - they are based on a fewpassengers "representing" their fellows in meetings with the transportauthorities. Instead, a passengers union could involve all in fighting forbetter services. It would also be a very useful organising tool for Reclaimthe Streets to look at - many people use cars because of how bad publictransport is. RTS have already recognised that in their support actions forstriking tube workers - perhaps the next step is to organise passengersunions. There are so many simple demands that would create a resonance withthose of us who have to use the trains/buses/tube every day. The BRU won adecrease in fares - every year fares here go up more than inflation, and thewhole fare system is a maze of complexity designed to protect the likes ofVirgin and Stagecoachıs profits. Fare cuts are a first step - the aim shouldbe the abolition of fares and the redeployment of ticket collectors to guardsand station attendants to make stations and trains safer. Buses should getpriority at traffic lights and in busy streets and there should be more ofthem - more routes and more buses.