https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Djmyung 2026-05-02T00:19:57Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.1 https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1790 2014-05-05T22:05:49Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> Complete Streets are policies and physical environments that promote different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users &lt;ref name=&quot;Manual&quot;&gt;Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.&lt;/ref&gt;. First, Complete Street policies help urban and rural policy makers to make a commitment to Complete Streets &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot;&gt;Smith, Robin, Sharlene Reed, and Shana Baker. &quot;Street Design: Part Complete Streets.&quot; Public Roads 74.1 (2010) &lt;/ref&gt;. Then, the design principles are formed and implemented according to the needs of the particular geographic area. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities &lt;ref&gt;Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. &quot;America needs complete streets.&quot; ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Design Manual ====<br /> <br /> Typical Design Elements &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot; /&gt;<br /> * Wide sidewalks, safe crossings, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals<br /> * Curb extensions<br /> * Bicycle Lanes<br /> * Designated Bus Lanes<br /> * Shared use paths<br /> * Safe and Accessible transit stops<br /> * Bulleted list item<br /> <br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> Livable Streets are policies similar to Complete Streets in that they promote roads for different types of travel &lt;ref name=<br /> &quot;livingstreets&quot;&gt;http://www.livingstreetsla.org/about-lsla/&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;Bogert, Suzanne. &quot;Living Streets Design Manual.&quot; Model Design Manual for Living Streets. LA County Department of Public Health, 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.&lt;/ref&gt;. Livable Streets has additional aims including:<br /> <br /> * Promote economic growth &quot;without inviting gentrification of long time residents and businessess&quot;<br /> * Transforming important streets into public spaces for walking, biking, and interaction.<br /> * Inviting people to interact with street furniture, public art, architecture and landscaping to promote the community's brand.<br /> * Sustaining and restoring environments by introducing infrastructure that catches rainwater and cleans runoff.<br /> * Encourage healthy and active transportation such as walking and biking and healthy lifestyles<br /> * Introduce traffic calming measures appropriate to the environment (e.g. in residential areas).<br /> <br /> Shared Streets are street layouts in which pedestrian and automobile traffic in integrated. It is a street model that is systemetized and in use in Euruope, Israel, Japan, and Australia &lt;ref&gt; Ben-Joseph, Eran. &quot;Changing the residential street scene: Adapting the shared street (woonerf) concept to the suburban environment.&quot; Journal of the American Planning Association 61.4 (1995): 504-515 &lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> Los Angeles Complete Streets Manual &lt;ref name=&quot;Manual&quot; /&gt;<br /> ===== Bus Lane Construction =====<br /> Bus stops with high a frequency of stops and turns are reinforced with concrete pads.<br /> ===== Shared Bus-Bicycle Lane =====<br /> California cyclist are required by law to ride as close to the right side as possible, so when there is not enough width for seperate bus and bicycle lanes, cyclists can use the bus lane. As buses approach as cyclist, the driver can maneuver around the cyclist to pass. Although cyclists can avoid regular vehicular traffic by sharing this type of lane, the cyclists and buses may ultimately have to continuously merge into adjacent lanes to pass (by leap frogging).<br /> ===== Dedicated Bicycle Lane and Bus lane =====<br /> This street design separates the road into three types of lanes from left to right: regular lane, bicycle lane, and bus lane.<br /> ===== Transit Stops ===== <br /> Transit stops should comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and be pedestrian friendly and by providing adequate walkways and furnished with shelter, bench, and trash receptacles, trees, and lighting as needed. Appropriate signage can include real time information and maps of routes. Transit stops can also be adorned with public art and interactive lighting, and play elements to improve user experience.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1789 2014-05-05T20:12:37Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> Complete Streets are policies and physical environments that promote different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users &lt;ref name=&quot;Manual&quot;&gt;Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.&lt;/ref&gt;. First, Complete Street policies help urban and rural policy makers to make a commitment to Complete Streets &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot;&gt;Smith, Robin, Sharlene Reed, and Shana Baker. &quot;Street Design: Part Complete Streets.&quot; Public Roads 74.1 (2010) &lt;/ref&gt;. Then, the design principles are formed and implemented according to the needs of the particular geographic area. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities &lt;ref&gt;Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. &quot;America needs complete streets.&quot; ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Design Manual ====<br /> <br /> Typical Design Elements &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot; /&gt;<br /> * Wide sidewalks, safe crossings, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals<br /> * Curb extensions<br /> * Bicycle Lanes<br /> * Designated Bus Lanes<br /> * Shared use paths<br /> * Safe and Accessible transit stops<br /> * Bulleted list item<br /> <br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> Livable Streets are policies similar to Complete Streets in that they promote roads for different types of travel &lt;ref name=<br /> &quot;livingstreets&quot;&gt;http://www.livingstreetsla.org/about-lsla/&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;Bogert, Suzanne. &quot;Living Streets Design Manual.&quot; Model Design Manual for Living Streets. LA County Department of Public Health, 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.&lt;/ref&gt;. Livable Streets has additional aims including:<br /> <br /> * Promote economic growth &quot;without inviting gentrification of long time residents and businessess&quot;<br /> * Transforming important streets into public spaces for walking, biking, and interaction.<br /> * Inviting people to interact with street furniture, public art, architecture and landscaping to promote the community's brand.<br /> * Sustaining and restoring environments by introducing infrastructure that catches rainwater and cleans runoff.<br /> * Encourage healthy and active transportation such as walking and biking and healthy lifestyles<br /> * Introduce traffic calming measures appropriate to the environment (e.g. in residential areas).<br /> <br /> Shared Streets are street layouts in which pedestrian and automobile traffic in integrated. It is a street model that is systemetized and in use in Euruope, Israel, Japan, and Australia &lt;ref&gt; Ben-Joseph, Eran. &quot;Changing the residential street scene: Adapting the shared street (woonerf) concept to the suburban environment.&quot; Journal of the American Planning Association 61.4 (1995): 504-515 &lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> Los Angeles Complete Streets Manual &lt;ref name=&quot;Manual&quot; /&gt;<br /> ===== Bus Lane Construction =====<br /> Bus stops with high a frequency of stops and turns are reinforced with concrete pads.<br /> ===== Shared Bus-Bicycle Lane =====<br /> California cyclist are required by law to ride as close to the right side as possible, so when there is not enough width for seperate bus and bicycle lanes, cyclists can use the bus lane. As buses approach as cyclist, the driver can maneuver around the cyclist to pass. Although cyclists can avoid regular vehicular traffic by sharing this type of lane, the cyclists and buses may ultimately have to continuously merge into adjacent lanes to pass (by leap frogging).<br /> ===== Dedicated Bicycle Lane and Bus lane =====<br /> This street design separates the road into three types of lanes from left to right: regular lane, bicycle lane, and bus lane.<br /> ===== Transit Stops ===== <br /> Transit stops should be pedestrian friendly and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by providing adequate walkways and furnished with shelter, bench, and trash receptacles, trees, and lighting as needed. Appropriate signage can include real time information and maps of routes. Transit stops can also be adorned with public art and interactive lighting, and play elements to improve user experience.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1788 2014-05-05T20:12:10Z

<p>Djmyung: /* Transit's role in complete streets */</p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> Complete Streets are policies and physical environments that promote different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users &lt;ref name=&quot;Manual&quot;&gt;Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.&lt;/ref&gt;. First, Complete Street policies help urban and rural policy makers to make a commitment to Complete Streets &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot;&gt;Smith, Robin, Sharlene Reed, and Shana Baker. &quot;Street Design: Part Complete Streets.&quot; Public Roads 74.1 (2010) &lt;/ref&gt;. Then, the design principles are formed and implemented according to the needs of the particular geographic area. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities &lt;ref&gt;Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. &quot;America needs complete streets.&quot; ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Design Manual ====<br /> <br /> Typical Design Elements &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot; /&gt;<br /> * Wide sidewalks, safe crossings, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals<br /> * Curb extensions<br /> * Bicycle Lanes<br /> * Designated Bus Lanes<br /> * Shared use paths<br /> * Safe and Accessible transit stops<br /> * Bulleted list item<br /> <br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> Livable Streets are policies similar to Complete Streets in that they promote roads for different types of travel &lt;ref name=<br /> &quot;livingstreets&quot;&gt;http://www.livingstreetsla.org/about-lsla/&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;Bogert, Suzanne. &quot;Living Streets Design Manual.&quot; Model Design Manual for Living Streets. LA County Department of Public Health, 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.&lt;/ref&gt;. Livable Streets has additional aims including:<br /> <br /> * Promote economic growth &quot;without inviting gentrification of long time residents and businessess&quot;<br /> * Transforming important streets into public spaces for walking, biking, and interaction.<br /> * Inviting people to interact with street furniture, public art, architecture and landscaping to promote the community's brand.<br /> * Sustaining and restoring environments by introducing infrastructure that catches rainwater and cleans runoff.<br /> * Encourage healthy and active transportation such as walking and biking and healthy lifestyles<br /> * Introduce traffic calming measures appropriate to the environment (e.g. in residential areas).<br /> <br /> Shared Streets are street layouts in which pedestrian and automobile traffic in integrated. It is a street model that is systemetized and in use in Euruope, Israel, Japan, and Australia &lt;ref&gt; Ben-Joseph, Eran. &quot;Changing the residential street scene: Adapting the shared street (woonerf) concept to the suburban environment.&quot; Journal of the American Planning Association 61.4 (1995): 504-515 &lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> Los Angeles Complete Streets Manual &lt;ref name=&quot;Manual&quot; /&gt;<br /> ===== Bus Lane Construction =====<br /> Bus stops with high a frequency of stops and turns are reinforced with concrete pads.<br /> ===== Shared Bus-Bicycle Lane =====<br /> California cyclist are required by law to ride as close to the right side as possible, so when there is not enough width for seperate bus and bicycle lanes, cyclists can use the bus lane. As buses approach as cyclist, the driver can maneuver around the cyclist to pass. Although cyclists can avoid regular vehicular traffic by sharing this type of lane, the cyclists and buses may ultimately have to continuously merge into adjacent lanes to pass (by leap frogging).<br /> ===== Dedicated Bicycle Lane and Bus lane. =====<br /> This street design separates the road into three types of lanes from left to right: regular lane, bicycle lane, and bus lane.<br /> ===== Transit Stops ===== <br /> Transit stops should be pedestrian friendly and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by providing adequate walkways and furnished with shelter, bench, and trash receptacles, trees, and lighting as needed. Appropriate signage can include real time information and maps of routes. Transit stops can also be adorned with public art and interactive lighting, and play elements to improve user experience.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1787 2014-05-05T20:10:25Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> Complete Streets are policies and physical environments that promote different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users &lt;ref name=&quot;Manual&quot;&gt;Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.&lt;/ref&gt;. First, Complete Street policies help urban and rural policy makers to make a commitment to Complete Streets &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot;&gt;Smith, Robin, Sharlene Reed, and Shana Baker. &quot;Street Design: Part Complete Streets.&quot; Public Roads 74.1 (2010) &lt;/ref&gt;. Then, the design principles are formed and implemented according to the needs of the particular geographic area. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities &lt;ref&gt;Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. &quot;America needs complete streets.&quot; ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Design Manual ====<br /> <br /> Typical Design Elements &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot; /&gt;<br /> * Wide sidewalks, safe crossings, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals<br /> * Curb extensions<br /> * Bicycle Lanes<br /> * Designated Bus Lanes<br /> * Shared use paths<br /> * Safe and Accessible transit stops<br /> * Bulleted list item<br /> <br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> Livable Streets are policies similar to Complete Streets in that they promote roads for different types of travel &lt;ref name=<br /> &quot;livingstreets&quot;&gt;http://www.livingstreetsla.org/about-lsla/&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;Bogert, Suzanne. &quot;Living Streets Design Manual.&quot; Model Design Manual for Living Streets. LA County Department of Public Health, 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.&lt;/ref&gt;. Livable Streets has additional aims including:<br /> <br /> * Promote economic growth &quot;without inviting gentrification of long time residents and businessess&quot;<br /> * Transforming important streets into public spaces for walking, biking, and interaction.<br /> * Inviting people to interact with street furniture, public art, architecture and landscaping to promote the community's brand.<br /> * Sustaining and restoring environments by introducing infrastructure that catches rainwater and cleans runoff.<br /> * Encourage healthy and active transportation such as walking and biking and healthy lifestyles<br /> * Introduce traffic calming measures appropriate to the environment (e.g. in residential areas).<br /> <br /> Shared Streets are street layouts in which pedestrian and automobile traffic in integrated. It is a street model that is systemetized and in use in Euruope, Israel, Japan, and Australia &lt;ref&gt; Ben-Joseph, Eran. &quot;Changing the residential street scene: Adapting the shared street (woonerf) concept to the suburban environment.&quot; Journal of the American Planning Association 61.4 (1995): 504-515 &lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> Los Angeles Complete Streets Manual &lt;ref name=&quot;Manual&quot; /&gt;<br /> 1. Bus Lane Construction<br /> Bus stops with high a frequency of stops and turns are reinforced with concrete pads.<br /> 2. Shared Bus-Bicycle Lane<br /> California cyclist are required by law to ride as close to the right side as possible, so when there is not enough width for seperate bus and bicycle lanes, cyclists can use the bus lane. As buses approach as cyclist, the driver can maneuver around the cyclist to pass. Although cyclists can avoid regular vehicular traffic by sharing this type of lane, the cyclists and buses may ultimately have to continuously merge into adjacent lanes to pass (by leap frogging).<br /> 3. Dedicated Bicycle Lane and Bus lane.<br /> This street design separates the road into three types of lanes from left to right: regular lane, bicycle lane, and bus lane.<br /> 4. Transit Stops should be pedestrian friendly and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by providing adequate walkways and furnished with shelter, bench, and trash receptacles, trees, and lighting as needed. Appropriate signage can include real time information and maps of routes. Transit stops can also be adorned with public art and interactive lighting, and play elements to improve user experience.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1786 2014-05-05T20:09:46Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> Complete Streets are policies and physical environments that promote different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users &lt;ref name=&quot;Manual&quot;&gt;Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.&lt;/ref&gt;. First, Complete Street policies help urban and rural policy makers to make a commitment to Complete Streets &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot;&gt;Smith, Robin, Sharlene Reed, and Shana Baker. &quot;Street Design: Part Complete Streets.&quot; Public Roads 74.1 (2010) &lt;/ref&gt;. Then, the design principles are formed and implemented according to the needs of the particular geographic area. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities &lt;ref&gt;Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. &quot;America needs complete streets.&quot; ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Design Manual ====<br /> <br /> Typical Design Elements &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot; /&gt;<br /> * Wide sidewalks, safe crossings, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals<br /> * Curb extensions<br /> * Bicycle Lanes<br /> * Designated Bus Lanes<br /> * Shared use paths<br /> * Safe and Accessible transit stops<br /> * Bulleted list item<br /> <br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> Livable Streets are policies similar to Complete Streets in that they promote roads for different types of travel &lt;ref name=<br /> &quot;livingstreets&quot;&gt;http://www.livingstreetsla.org/about-lsla/&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;Bogert, Suzanne. &quot;Living Streets Design Manual.&quot; Model Design Manual for Living Streets. LA County Department of Public Health, 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.&lt;/ref&gt;. Livable Streets has additional aims including:<br /> <br /> * Promote economic growth &quot;without inviting gentrification of long time residents and businessess&quot;<br /> * Transforming important streets into public spaces for walking, biking, and interaction.<br /> * Inviting people to interact with street furniture, public art, architecture and landscaping to promote the community's brand.<br /> * Sustaining and restoring environments by introducing infrastructure that catches rainwater and cleans runoff.<br /> * Encourage healthy and active transportation such as walking and biking and healthy lifestyles<br /> * Introduce traffic calming measures appropriate to the environment (e.g. in residential areas).<br /> <br /> Shared Streets are street layouts in which pedestrian and automobile traffic in integrated. It is a street model that is systemetized and in use in Euruope, Israel, Japan, and Australia &lt;ref&gt; Ben-Joseph, Eran. &quot;Changing the residential street scene: Adapting the shared street (woonerf) concept to the suburban environment.&quot; Journal of the American Planning Association 61.4 (1995): 504-515 &lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> Los Angeles Complete Streets Manual &lt;ref name=&quot;Manual&quot; /&gt;<br /> # Bus Lane Construction<br /> Bus stops with high a frequency of stops and turns are reinforced with concrete pads.<br /> # Shared Bus-Bicycle Lane<br /> California cyclist are required by law to ride as close to the right side as possible, so when there is not enough width for seperate bus and bicycle lanes, cyclists can use the bus lane. As buses approach as cyclist, the driver can maneuver around the cyclist to pass. Although cyclists can avoid regular vehicular traffic by sharing this type of lane, the cyclists and buses may ultimately have to continuously merge into adjacent lanes to pass (by leap frogging).<br /> # Dedicated Bicycle Lane and Bus lane.<br /> This street design separates the road into three types of lanes from left to right: regular lane, bicycle lane, and bus lane.<br /> # Transit Stops should be pedestrian friendly and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by providing adequate walkways and furnished with shelter, bench, and trash receptacles, trees, and lighting as needed. Appropriate signage can include real time information and maps of routes. Transit stops can also be adorned with public art and interactive lighting, and play elements to improve user experience.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1785 2014-05-05T20:09:33Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> Complete Streets are policies and physical environments that promote different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users &lt;ref name=&quot;Manual&quot;&gt;Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.&lt;/ref&gt;. First, Complete Street policies help urban and rural policy makers to make a commitment to Complete Streets &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot;&gt;Smith, Robin, Sharlene Reed, and Shana Baker. &quot;Street Design: Part Complete Streets.&quot; Public Roads 74.1 (2010) &lt;/ref&gt;. Then, the design principles are formed and implemented according to the needs of the particular geographic area. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities &lt;ref&gt;Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. &quot;America needs complete streets.&quot; ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Design Manual ====<br /> <br /> Typical Design Elements &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot; /&gt;<br /> * Wide sidewalks, safe crossings, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals<br /> * Curb extensions<br /> * Bicycle Lanes<br /> * Designated Bus Lanes<br /> * Shared use paths<br /> * Safe and Accessible transit stops<br /> * Bulleted list item<br /> <br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> Livable Streets are policies similar to Complete Streets in that they promote roads for different types of travel &lt;ref name=<br /> &quot;livingstreets&quot;&gt;http://www.livingstreetsla.org/about-lsla/&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;Bogert, Suzanne. &quot;Living Streets Design Manual.&quot; Model Design Manual for Living Streets. LA County Department of Public Health, 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.&lt;/ref&gt;. Livable Streets has additional aims including:<br /> <br /> * Promote economic growth &quot;without inviting gentrification of long time residents and businessess&quot;<br /> * Transforming important streets into public spaces for walking, biking, and interaction.<br /> * Inviting people to interact with street furniture, public art, architecture and landscaping to promote the community's brand.<br /> * Sustaining and restoring environments by introducing infrastructure that catches rainwater and cleans runoff.<br /> * Encourage healthy and active transportation such as walking and biking and healthy lifestyles<br /> * Introduce traffic calming measures appropriate to the environment (e.g. in residential areas).<br /> <br /> Shared Streets are street layouts in which pedestrian and automobile traffic in integrated. It is a street model that is systemetized and in use in Euruope, Israel, Japan, and Australia &lt;ref&gt; Ben-Joseph, Eran. &quot;Changing the residential street scene: Adapting the shared street (woonerf) concept to the suburban environment.&quot; Journal of the American Planning Association 61.4 (1995): 504-515 &lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> Los Angeles Complete Streets Manual &lt;ref name=&quot;Man ual&quot; /&gt;<br /> # Bus Lane Construction<br /> Bus stops with high a frequency of stops and turns are reinforced with concrete pads.<br /> # Shared Bus-Bicycle Lane<br /> California cyclist are required by law to ride as close to the right side as possible, so when there is not enough width for seperate bus and bicycle lanes, cyclists can use the bus lane. As buses approach as cyclist, the driver can maneuver around the cyclist to pass. Although cyclists can avoid regular vehicular traffic by sharing this type of lane, the cyclists and buses may ultimately have to continuously merge into adjacent lanes to pass (by leap frogging).<br /> # Dedicated Bicycle Lane and Bus lane.<br /> This street design separates the road into three types of lanes from left to right: regular lane, bicycle lane, and bus lane.<br /> # Transit Stops should be pedestrian friendly and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by providing adequate walkways and furnished with shelter, bench, and trash receptacles, trees, and lighting as needed. Appropriate signage can include real time information and maps of routes. Transit stops can also be adorned with public art and interactive lighting, and play elements to improve user experience.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1778 2014-04-28T17:38:08Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> Complete Streets are policies and physical environments that promote different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users &lt;ref&gt;Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.&lt;/ref&gt;. First, Complete Street policies help urban and rural policy makers to make a commitment to Complete Streets &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot;&gt;Smith, Robin, Sharlene Reed, and Shana Baker. &quot;Street Design: Part Complete Streets.&quot; Public Roads 74.1 (2010) &lt;/ref&gt;. Then, the design principles are formed and implemented according to the needs of the particular geographic area. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities &lt;ref&gt;Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. &quot;America needs complete streets.&quot; ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Design Manual ====<br /> <br /> Typical Design Elements &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot; /&gt;<br /> * Wide sidewalks, safe crossings, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals<br /> * Curb extensions<br /> * Bicycle Lanes<br /> * Designated Bus Lanes<br /> * Shared use paths<br /> * Safe and Accessible transit stops<br /> * Bulleted list item<br /> <br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> Livable Streets are policies similar to Complete Streets in that they promote roads for different types of travel &lt;ref name=<br /> &quot;livingstreets&quot;&gt;http://www.livingstreetsla.org/about-lsla/&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;Bogert, Suzanne. &quot;Living Streets Design Manual.&quot; Model Design Manual for Living Streets. LA County Department of Public Health, 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.&lt;/ref&gt;. Livable Streets has additional aims including:<br /> <br /> * Promote economic growth &quot;without inviting gentrification of long time residents and businessess&quot;<br /> * Transforming important streets into public spaces for walking, biking, and interaction.<br /> * Inviting people to interact with street furniture, public art, architecture and landscaping to promote the community's brand.<br /> * Sustaining and restoring environments by introducing infrastructure that catches rainwater and cleans runoff.<br /> * Encourage healthy and active transportation such as walking and biking and healthy lifestyles<br /> * Introduce traffic calming measures appropriate to the environment (e.g. in residential areas).<br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1777 2014-04-27T19:36:38Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> Complete Streets are policies and physical environments that promote different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users &lt;ref&gt;Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.&lt;/ref&gt;. First, Complete Street policies help urban and rural policy makers to make a commitment to Complete Streets &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot;&gt;Smith, Robin, Sharlene Reed, and Shana Baker. &quot;Street Design: Part Complete Streets.&quot; Public Roads 74.1 (2010) &lt;/ref&gt;. Then, the design principles are formed and implemented according to the needs of the particular geographic area. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities &lt;ref&gt;Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. &quot;America needs complete streets.&quot; ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Design Manuals ====<br /> <br /> Typical Design Elements &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot; /&gt;<br /> * Wide sidewalks, safe crossings, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals<br /> * Curb extensions<br /> * Bicycle Lanes<br /> * Designated Bus Lanes<br /> * Shared use paths<br /> * Safe and Accessible transit stops<br /> * Bulleted list item<br /> <br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1776 2014-04-27T19:35:54Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> Complete Streets are policies and physical environments that promote different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users &lt;ref&gt;Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.&lt;/ref&gt;. First, Complete Street policies help urban and rural policy makers to make a commitment to Complete Streets &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Desing&quot;&gt;Smith, Robin, Sharlene Reed, and Shana Baker. &quot;Street Design: Part Complete Streets.&quot; Public Roads 74.1 (2010) &lt;/ref&gt;. Then, the design principles are formed and implemented according to the needs of the particular geographic area. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities &lt;ref&gt;Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. &quot;America needs complete streets.&quot; ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Design Manuals ====<br /> <br /> Typical Design Elements &lt;ref name=&quot;Street Design&quot; /&gt;<br /> * Wide sidewalks, safe crossings, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals<br /> * Curb extensions<br /> * Bicycle Lanes<br /> * Designated Bus Lanes<br /> * Shared use paths<br /> * Safe and Accessible transit stops<br /> * Bulleted list item<br /> <br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1775 2014-04-27T19:32:31Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> Complete Streets are policies and physical environments that promote different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users &lt;ref&gt;Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.&lt;/ref&gt;. First, Complete Street policies help urban and rural policy makers to make a commitment to Complete Streets &lt;ref&gt;Smith, Robin, Sharlene Reed, and Shana Baker. &quot;Street Design: Part Complete Streets.&quot; Public Roads 74.1 (2010) &lt;/ref&gt;. Then, the design principles are formed and implemented according to the needs of the particular geographic area. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities &lt;ref&gt;Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. &quot;America needs complete streets.&quot; ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Design Manuals ====<br /> <br /> Typical Design Elements &lt;ref&gt;Smith, Robin, Sharlene Reed, and Shana Baker. &quot;Street Design: Part Complete Streets.&quot; Public Roads 74.1 (2010) &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Wide sidewalks, safe crossings, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals<br /> * Curb extensions<br /> * Bicycle Lanes<br /> * Designated Bus Lanes<br /> * Shared use paths<br /> * Safe and Accessible transit stops<br /> * Bulleted list item<br /> <br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1774 2014-04-25T01:12:19Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> Complete Streets are policies and physical environments that promote different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users &lt;ref&gt;Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.&lt;/ref&gt;. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities &lt;ref&gt;Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. &quot;America needs complete streets.&quot; ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43&lt;/ref&gt;. Complete Streets, therefore, aims to balance land use, infrastructure, and transportation all while keeping the individual's needs in mind.<br /> <br /> ==== Design Manuals ====<br /> The Los Angeles Department of City Planning's Complete Streets Manual has 15 sections for designing Complete Streets:<br /> * Street Identification<br /> This includes all types of vehicle-oriented roads and other forms including: shared streets, pedestrian walkways, stormwater greenway, alleys, public stairways. <br /> <br /> <br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1773 2014-04-25T01:11:04Z

<p>Djmyung: /* Complete Streets */</p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> Complete Streets are policies and physical environments that promote different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users &lt;ref&gt;Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.&lt;/ref&gt;. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities &lt;ref&gt;Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. &quot;America needs complete streets.&quot; ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43&lt;/ref&gt;. Complete Streets, therefore, aims to balance land use, infrastructure, and transportation all while keeping the individual's needs in mind.<br /> <br /> ==== Design Manuals ====<br /> The Los Angeles Department of City Planning's Complete Streets Manual has 15 sections for designing Complete Streets:<br /> 1<br /> Street Identification<br /> This includes all types of vehicle-oriented roads and other forms including: shared streets, pedestrian walkways, stormwater greenway, alleys, public stairways. <br /> 2<br /> Sample Cross Sections<br /> <br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1772 2014-04-25T01:10:34Z

<p>Djmyung: /* Design Manuals */</p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> Complete Streets are policies and physical environments that promote different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users &lt;ref&gt;Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.&lt;/ref&gt;. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities &lt;ref&gt;Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. &quot;America needs complete streets.&quot; ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43&lt;/ref&gt;. Complete Streets, therefore, aims to balance land use, infrastructure, and transportation all while keeping the individual's needs in mind.<br /> <br /> ==== Design Manuals ====<br /> The Los Angeles Department of City Planning's Complete Streets Manual has 15 sections for designing Complete Streets:<br /> # 1<br /> Street Identification<br /> This includes all types of vehicle-oriented roads and other forms including: shared streets, pedestrian walkways, stormwater greenway, alleys, public stairways. <br /> # 2<br /> Sample Cross Sections<br /> <br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1771 2014-04-25T01:09:50Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> Complete Streets are policies and physical environments that promote different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users &lt;ref&gt;Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.&lt;/ref&gt;. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities &lt;ref&gt;Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. &quot;America needs complete streets.&quot; ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43&lt;/ref&gt;. Complete Streets, therefore, aims to balance land use, infrastructure, and transportation all while keeping the individual's needs in mind.<br /> <br /> ==== Design Manuals ====<br /> The Los Angeles Department of City Planning's Complete Streets Manual has 15 sections for designing Complete Streets:<br /> 1. Street Identification<br /> This includes all types of vehicle-oriented roads and other forms including: shared streets, pedestrian walkways, stormwater greenway, alleys, public stairways. <br /> 2. Sample Cross Sections<br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1770 2014-04-25T00:45:46Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Complete Streets movement rose from the need for different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individual's life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> The Complete Streets concept values the importance of designing and operating streets in order to provide safe and convenient access for all users &lt;ref&gt;Complete Streets Manual. Publication no. CPC-2013.910.GPA.SP.CA.MSC. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning, 2014. Print.&lt;/ref&gt;. According to Burden and Littman, this shifts the priority from transportation mobility to accessibility to desired good, services, and activities &lt;ref&gt;Burden, Dan, and Todd Litman. &quot;America needs complete streets.&quot; ITE Journal 81.4 (2011): 36-43&lt;/ref&gt;. Complete Streets, therefore, aims to balance land use, infrastructure, and transportation all while keeping the individual's needs in mind.<br /> <br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1769 2014-04-23T07:34:39Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Complete Streets movement rose from the need for different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. Complete Streets also refers to the goal of having infrastructure changes in city planning, design funding, and maintenance of streets. Complete streets can be realized though policy changes rising from input at all levels including but not limited to: individuals, community stakeholders, transportation agencies, and elected officials &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; Livable Streets and Shared Streets are similar to Complete Streets, but prioritize the individuals life and sharing roads, respectively.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Complete Streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Livable streets and Shared Streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Transit's role in complete streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1768 2014-04-23T03:56:03Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Complete Streets movement rose from the need for different modes of transportation to travel by foot, bicycle, transit, wheelchairs, and automobiles. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs-local-policy-workbook.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> == What are &quot;complete streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Livable streets ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Explore transit role in complete streets ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Complete_streets&diff=1767 2014-04-23T03:49:31Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>'''This is an article in progress'''<br /> <br /> &quot;What are &quot;complete streets&quot;&quot;<br /> &quot;Livable streets&quot;<br /> &quot;Explore transit role in complete streets&quot;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Ridesharing&diff=1720 2014-03-07T01:19:43Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> Ridesharing or carpooling, decreases the number of vehicles on roadways when individuals share a vehicle with one or more individuals on a commute. While the U.S. Department of Transportation promotes ride sharing, private companies or individuals usually take on the responsibility of implementing and managing programs&lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot;&gt;Hwang, Keith; &amp; Giuliano, Genevieve. (1990). The Determinants of Ridesharing: Literature Review. UC Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Factors influence Ride sharing ==<br /> Individuals choose to participate in ridesharing based on time, distance, convenience, household characteristics, and the availability of the automobile&lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> '''Company/Workplace characteristics'''<br /> <br /> Levels of ridership increase more when parking subsidies are decreased rather than when ridership is promoted through subsidies.<br /> <br /> '''Income and Auto ownership'''<br /> <br /> Individuals households that have less than 1 automobile per person are more likely to rideshare. <br /> Ridership decreases with gains in personal income and auto ownership. Ridesharing trips take more time than single use trip, and time is a finite resource, so those that have a vehicle and put a premium on saved time from single occupancy are more likely to drive alone. <br /> <br /> '''Distance'''<br /> <br /> Ridesharing increases as communiting distance increases. According to National Personal Transportation Survey data, 14.2% of commuters carpool during the trip shorter than 5 miles but 34.4% carpool at distances over 25 miles.<br /> <br /> '''Location'''<br /> <br /> Ridesharing and public transit use increases near Central Business Districts (CBD) due to several reasons: 1. commutes are long and traffic is generally heavy to CBD. 2. Individuals are more likely to face parking fees in CBD 3. Public transit is more convenient and available in CBD.<br /> <br /> == Examples of Ridesharing Programs ==<br /> <br /> ==== Zimride ====<br /> Zimride is a online peer-to-peer ridesharing service for universities and corporations to connect people and facilitate ridesharing &lt;ref&gt;http://www.zimride.com/howitworks/&lt;/ref&gt;. UCLA affilated students and employees can sign up for the service online by using their school email address, search for their starting point and destination, create a profile, request a ride, then pay on a per use basis. Alternately, drivers can create a profile, input a routine driving route, select their passengers, offer the ride, then receive money for their service. To incentivize ridesharing, UCLA offers discounts parking passes for 2 and 3 passenger carpools.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> Tsao, H-S. Jacob, and Da-Jie Lin. &quot;Spatial and temporal factors in estimating the potential of ride-sharing for demand reduction.&quot; (1999).<br /> APA</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Ridesharing&diff=1719 2014-03-07T01:18:16Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> Ridesharing or carpooling, decreases the number of vehicles on roadways when individuals share a vehicle with one or more individuals on a commute. While the U.S. Department of Transportation promotes ride sharing, private companies or individuals usually take on the responsibility of implementing and managing programs&lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot;&gt;Hwang, Keith; &amp; Giuliano, Genevieve. (1990). The Determinants of Ridesharing: Literature Review. UC Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Factors influence Ride sharing ==<br /> Individuals choose to participate in ridesharing based on time, distance, convenience, household characteristics, and the availability of the automobile&lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Company/Workplace characteristics ====<br /> Levels of ridership increase more when parking subsidies are decreased rather than when ridership is promoted through subsidies.<br /> '''Income and Auto ownership'''<br /> Individuals households that have less than 1 automobile per person are more likely to rideshare. <br /> Ridership decreases with gains in personal income and auto ownership. Ridesharing trips take more time than single use trip, and time is a finite resource, so those that have a vehicle and put a premium on saved time from single occupancy are more likely to drive alone. <br /> <br /> '''Distance'''<br /> Ridesharing increases as communiting distance increases. According to National Personal Transportation Survey data, 14.2% of commuters carpool during the trip shorter than 5 miles but 34.4% carpool at distances over 25 miles.<br /> <br /> '''Location'''<br /> Ridesharing and public transit use increases near Central Business Districts (CBD) due to several reasons: 1. commutes are long and traffic is generally heavy to CBD. 2. Individuals are more likely to face parking fees in CBD 3. Public transit is more convenient and available in CBD.<br /> <br /> == Examples of Ridesharing Programs ==<br /> <br /> ==== Zimride ====<br /> Zimride is a online peer-to-peer ridesharing service for universities and corporations to connect people and facilitate ridesharing &lt;ref&gt;http://www.zimride.com/howitworks/&lt;/ref&gt;. UCLA affilated students and employees can sign up for the service online by using their school email address, search for their starting point and destination, create a profile, request a ride, then pay on a per use basis. Alternately, drivers can create a profile, input a routine driving route, select their passengers, offer the ride, then receive money for their service. To incentivize ridesharing, UCLA offers discounts parking passes for 2 and 3 passenger carpools.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> Tsao, H-S. Jacob, and Da-Jie Lin. &quot;Spatial and temporal factors in estimating the potential of ride-sharing for demand reduction.&quot; (1999).<br /> APA</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Ridesharing&diff=1718 2014-03-07T01:16:58Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> Ridesharing or carpooling, decreases the number of vehicles on roadways when individuals share a vehicle with one or more individuals on a commute. While the U.S. Department of Transportation promotes ride sharing, private companies or individuals usually take on the responsibility of implementing and managing programs&lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot;&gt;Hwang, Keith; &amp; Giuliano, Genevieve. (1990). The Determinants of Ridesharing: Literature Review. UC Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Factors influence Ride sharing ==<br /> Individuals choose to participate in ridesharing based on time, distance, convenience, household characteristics, and the availability of the automobile&lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Company/Workplace characteristics ====<br /> Levels of ridership increase more when parking subsidies are decreased rather than when ridership is promoted through subsidies.<br /> ==== Income and Auto ownership ====<br /> Individuals households that have less than 1 automobile per person are more likely to rideshare. <br /> Ridership decreases with gains in personal income and auto ownership. Ridesharing trips take more time than single use trip, and time is a finite resource, so those that have a vehicle and put a premium on saved time from single occupancy are more likely to drive alone. <br /> <br /> ==== Distance ====<br /> Ridesharing increases as communiting distance increases. According to National Personal Transportation Survey data, 14.2% of commuters carpool during the trip shorter than 5 miles but 34.4% carpool at distances over 25 miles.<br /> <br /> ==== Location ====<br /> Ridesharing and public transit use increases near Central Business Districts (CBD) due to several reasons: 1. commutes are long and traffic is generally heavy to CBD. 2. Individuals are more likely to face parking fees in CBD 3. Public transit is more convenient and available in CBD.<br /> <br /> == Examples of Ridesharing Programs ==<br /> <br /> ==== Zimride ====<br /> Zimride is a online peer-to-peer ridesharing service for universities and corporations to connect people and facilitate ridesharing &lt;ref&gt;http://www.zimride.com/howitworks/&lt;/ref&gt;. UCLA affilated students and employees can sign up for the service online by using their school email address, search for their starting point and destination, create a profile, request a ride, then pay on a per use basis. Alternately, drivers can create a profile, input a routine driving route, select their passengers, offer the ride, then receive money for their service. To incentivize ridesharing, UCLA offers discounts parking passes for 2 and 3 passenger carpools.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> Tsao, H-S. Jacob, and Da-Jie Lin. &quot;Spatial and temporal factors in estimating the potential of ride-sharing for demand reduction.&quot; (1999).<br /> APA</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Ridesharing&diff=1717 2014-03-07T00:52:33Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> Ridesharing or carpooling, decreases the number of vehicles on roadways when individuals share a vehicle with one or more individuals on a commute. While the U.S. Department of Transportation promotes ridesharing, private companies or individuals usually take on the responsibility of implementing and managing programs&lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot;&gt;Hwang, Keith; &amp; Giuliano, Genevieve. (1990). The Determinants of Ridesharing: Literature Review. UC Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Factors influence Ridesharing ==<br /> Individuals choose to participate in ridesharing based on time, distance, convenience, household characteristics, and the availability of the automobile&lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Company/Workplace characteristics ====<br /> Levels of ridership increase more when parking subsidies are decreased rather than when ridership is promoted through subsidies.<br /> ==== Income and Auto ownership ====<br /> Individuals households that have less than 1 automobile per person are more likely to rideshare. <br /> Ridership decreases with gains in personal income and auto ownership. Ridesharing trips take more time than single use trip, and time is a finite resource, so those that have a vehicle and put a premium on saved time from single occupancy are more likely to drive alone. <br /> <br /> ==== Distance ====<br /> Ridesharing increases as communiting distance increases. According to National Personal Transportation Survey data, 14.2% of commuters carpool during the trip shorter than 5 miles but 34.4% carpool at distances over 25 miles.<br /> <br /> ==== Location ====<br /> Ridesharing and public transit use increases near Central Business Districts (CBD) due to several reasons: 1. commutes are long and traffic is generally heavy to CBD. 2. Individuals are more likely to face parking fees in CBD 3. Public transit is more convenient and available in CBD.<br /> <br /> == Examples of Ridesharing Programs ==<br /> <br /> ==== Zimride ====<br /> Zimride is a online peer-to-peer service for universities and corporations to connect people and facilitate ridesharing &lt;ref&gt;http://www.zimride.com/howitworks/&lt;/ref&gt;. UCLA affilated students and employees can sign up for the service<br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> Tsao, H-S. Jacob, and Da-Jie Lin. &quot;Spatial and temporal factors in estimating the potential of ride-sharing for demand reduction.&quot; (1999).<br /> APA</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Ridesharing&diff=1716 2014-03-07T00:42:13Z

<p>Djmyung: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> Ridesharing or carpooling, decreases the number of vehicles on roadways when individuals share a vehicle with one or more individuals on a commute. While the U.S. Department of Transportation promotes ridesharing, private companies or individuals usually take on the responsibility of implementing and managing programs&lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot;&gt;Hwang, Keith; &amp; Giuliano, Genevieve. (1990). The Determinants of Ridesharing: Literature Review. UC Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Factors influence Ridesharing ==<br /> Individuals choose to participate in ridesharing based on time, distance, convenience, household characteristics, and the availability of the automobile&lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Company/Workplace characteristics ====<br /> Levels of ridership increase more when parking subsidies are decreased rather than when ridership is promoted through subsidies.<br /> ==== Income and Auto ownership ====<br /> Individuals households that have less than 1 automobile per person are more likely to rideshare. <br /> Ridership decreases with gains in personal income and auto ownership. Ridesharing trips take more time than single use trip, and time is a finite resource, so those that have a vehicle and put a premium on saved time from single occupancy are more likely to drive alone. <br /> <br /> ==== Distance ====<br /> Ridesharing increases as communiting distance increases. According to National Personal Transportation Survey data, 14.2% of commuters carpool during the trip shorter than 5 miles but 34.4% carpool at distances over 25 miles.<br /> <br /> ==== Location ====<br /> Ridesharing and public transit use increases near Central Business Districts (CBD) due to several reasons: 1. commutes are long and traffic is generally heavy to CBD. 2. Individuals are more likely to face parking fees in CBD 3. Public transit is more convenient and available in CBD.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> Tsao, H-S. Jacob, and Da-Jie Lin. &quot;Spatial and temporal factors in estimating the potential of ride-sharing for demand reduction.&quot; (1999).<br /> APA</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Ridesharing&diff=1712 2014-02-28T01:23:21Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> Ridesharing or carpooling, decreases the number of vehicles on roadways when individuals share a vehicle with one or more individuals on a commute. While the U.S. Department of Transportation promotes ridesharing, private companies are usually responsible for implementing and managing programs&lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot;&gt;Hwang, Keith; &amp; Giuliano, Genevieve. (1990). The Determinants of Ridesharing: Literature Review. UC Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Factors influence Ridesharing ==<br /> Individuals choose to participate in ridesharing based on time, distance, convenience, household characteristics, and the availability of the automobile&lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Company/Workplace characteristics ====<br /> Levels of ridership increase more when parking subsidies are decreased rather than when ridership is promoted through subsidies.<br /> ==== Income and Auto ownership ====<br /> Individuals households that have less than 1 automobile per person are more likely to rideshare. <br /> Ridership decreases with gains in personal income and auto ownership. Ridesharing trips take more time than single use trip, and time is a finite resource, so those that have a vehicle and put a premium on saved time from single occupancy are more likely to drive alone. <br /> <br /> ==== Distance ====<br /> Ridesharing increases as communiting distance increases. According to National Personal Transportation Survey data, 14.2% of commuters carpool during the trip shorter than 5 miles but 34.4% carpool at distances over 25 miles.<br /> <br /> ==== Location ====<br /> Ridesharing and public transit use increases near Central Business Districts (CBD) due to several reasons: 1. commutes are long and traffic is generally heavy to CBD. 2. Individuals are more likely to face parking fees in CBD 3. Public transit is more convenient and available in CBD.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> Tsao, H-S. Jacob, and Da-Jie Lin. &quot;Spatial and temporal factors in estimating the potential of ride-sharing for demand reduction.&quot; (1999).<br /> APA</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Ridesharing&diff=1711 2014-02-28T01:20:52Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> Ridesharing or carpooling, decreases the number of vehicles on roadways when individuals share a vehicle with one or more individuals on a commute. While the U.S. Department of Transportation promotes ridesharing, private companies are usually responsible for implementing and managing programs&lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot;&gt;Hwang, Keith; &amp; Giuliano, Genevieve. (1990). The Determinants of Ridesharing: Literature Review. UC Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Factors influence Ridesharing ==<br /> Individuals choose to participate in ridesharing based on time, distance, convenience, household characteristics, and the availability of the automobile&lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== Company/Workplace characteristics ====<br /> Levels of ridership increase more when parking subsidies are decreased rather than when ridership is promoted through subsidies.<br /> ==== Income and Auto ownership ====<br /> Individuals households that have less than 1 automobile per person are more likely to rideshare. <br /> Ridership decreases with gains in personal income and auto ownership. Ridesharing trips take more time than single use trip, and time is a finite resource, so those that have a vehicle and put a premium on saved time from single occupancy are more likely to drive alone. <br /> <br /> ==== Distance ====<br /> Ridesharing increases as communiting distance increases. According to National Personal Transportation Survey data, 14.2% of commuters carpool during the trip shorter than 5 miles but 34.4% carpool at distances over 25 miles.<br /> <br /> ==== Location ====<br /> Ridesharing and public transit use increases near Central Business Districts (CBD) due to several reasons: 1. commutes are long and traffic is generally heavy to CBD. 2. Individuals are more likely to face parking fees in CBD 3. Public transit is more convenient and available in CBD.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Ridesharing&diff=1710 2014-02-28T00:57:00Z

<p>Djmyung: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> Ridesharing or carpooling, decreases the number of vehicles on roadways when individuals share a vehicle with one or more individuals on a commute. While the U.S. Department of Transportation promotes ridesharing, private companies are usually responsible for implementing and managing programs&lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot;&gt;Hwang, Keith; &amp; Giuliano, Genevieve. (1990). The Determinants of Ridesharing: Literature Review. UC Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Factors that influence Ridesharing ==<br /> Individuals choose to participate in ridesharing based on time, distance, convinience, household characteristics, and the availability of the automobile. Based on this, individuals &lt;ref name=&quot;Determinants&quot; /&gt;<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Ridesharing&diff=1709 2014-02-28T00:51:28Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> Ridesharing or carpooling, is useful to decreasing the number of vehicles on roadways. While the U.S. Department of Transportation promotes ridesharing, private companies are usually responsible for implementing and managing programs&lt;ref&gt;Hwang, Keith; &amp; Giuliano, Genevieve. (1990). The Determinants of Ridesharing: Literature Review. UC Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Ridesharing&diff=1708 2014-02-28T00:49:55Z

<p>Djmyung: Created page with &quot;== Introduction == Ridesharing or carpooling, is useful to decreasing the number of vehicles on roadways. While the U.S. Department of Transportation promotes ridesharing, pri...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> Ridesharing or carpooling, is useful to decreasing the number of vehicles on roadways. While the U.S. Department of Transportation promotes ridesharing, private companies are usually responsible for implementing and managing programs/ref/Hwang, Keith; &amp; Giuliano, Genevieve. (1990). The Determinants of Ridesharing: Literature Review. UC Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center..</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1700 2014-02-12T00:28:56Z

<p>Djmyung: Blanked the page</p> <hr /> <div></div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_Riders_Union&diff=1699 2014-02-12T00:28:36Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:BRU.png|thumbnail|right|The BRU organizes demonstrations wearing yellow shirts.]]<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights activism group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC). The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority based on allegedly racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, by devoting a disproportionate amount of funding to subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the trial and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. <br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br /> The 10 year decree mandated several changes&lt;ref&gt;Burgos, R., &amp; Pulido, L. (1998). The politics of gender in the Los Angeles bus riders' union/Sindicato de Pasajeros. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 9(3), 75-82.&lt;/ref&gt;:<br /> * Reinstating a monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Prioritize buses and rides for the transit-dependent<br /> <br /> === Activism ===<br /> ==== Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== No Fare Hike Campaign ====<br /> The bus fare on MTA buses were stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users and carbon emissions. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ==== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign ====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R and not redirect funds to highway and rail.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Future Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_Riders_Union&diff=1698 2014-02-12T00:28:17Z

<p>Djmyung: Created page with &quot;The BRU organizes demonstrations wearing yellow shirts. == &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; == == Introduction == The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>[[File:BRU.png|thumbnail|right|The BRU organizes demonstrations wearing yellow shirts.]]<br /> == &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights activism group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC). The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority based on allegedly racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, by devoting a disproportionate amount of funding to subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the trial and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. <br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br /> The 10 year decree mandated several changes&lt;ref&gt;Burgos, R., &amp; Pulido, L. (1998). The politics of gender in the Los Angeles bus riders' union/Sindicato de Pasajeros. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 9(3), 75-82.&lt;/ref&gt;:<br /> * Reinstating a monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Prioritize buses and rides for the transit-dependent<br /> <br /> === Activism ===<br /> ==== Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== No Fare Hike Campaign ====<br /> The bus fare on MTA buses were stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users and carbon emissions. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ==== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign ====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R and not redirect funds to highway and rail.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Future Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1697 2014-02-12T00:27:25Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:BRU.png|thumbnail|right|The BRU organizes demonstrations wearing yellow shirts.]]<br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights activism group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC). The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority based on allegedly racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, by devoting a disproportionate amount of funding to subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the trial and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. <br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br /> The 10 year decree mandated several changes&lt;ref&gt;Burgos, R., &amp; Pulido, L. (1998). The politics of gender in the Los Angeles bus riders' union/Sindicato de Pasajeros. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 9(3), 75-82.&lt;/ref&gt;:<br /> * Reinstating a monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Prioritize buses and rides for the transit-dependent<br /> <br /> === Activism ===<br /> ==== Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== No Fare Hike Campaign ====<br /> The bus fare on MTA buses were stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users and carbon emissions. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ==== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign ====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R and not redirect funds to highway and rail.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Future Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1696 2014-02-07T01:40:26Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:BRU.png|thumbnail|right|The BRU organizes demonstrations wearing yellow shirts.]]<br /> == &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights activism group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC). The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority based on allegedly racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, by devoting a disproportionate amount of funding to subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the trial and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. <br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br /> The 10 year decree mandated several changes&lt;ref&gt;Burgos, R., &amp; Pulido, L. (1998). The politics of gender in the Los Angeles bus riders' union/Sindicato de Pasajeros. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 9(3), 75-82.&lt;/ref&gt;:<br /> * Reinstating a monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Prioritize buses and rides for the transit-dependent<br /> <br /> === Activism ===<br /> ==== Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== No Fare Hike Campaign ====<br /> The bus fare on MTA buses were stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users and carbon emissions. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ==== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign ====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R and not redirect funds to highway and rail.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Future Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1695 2014-02-07T01:39:08Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:BRU.png|thumbnail|right|The BRU organizes demonstrations wearing yellow shirts.]]<br /> == &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights activism group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC). The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority based on allegedly racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, by devoting a disproportionate amount of funding to subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the trial and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. <br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br /> The 10 year decree mandated several changes&lt;ref&gt;Burgos, R., &amp; Pulido, L. (1998). The politics of gender in the Los Angeles bus riders' union/Sindicato de Pasajeros. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 9(3), 75-82.&lt;/ref&gt;:<br /> * Reinstating a monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Prioritize buses and rides for the transit-dependent<br /> <br /> === Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ===<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> === No Fare Hike Campaign ===<br /> The bus fare on MTA buses were stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users and carbon emissions. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign ===<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R and not redirect funds to highway and rail.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Future Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1694 2014-02-07T01:37:58Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:BRU.png|thumbnail|right|The BRU organizes demonstrations wearing yellow shirts.]]<br /> == &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights activism group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC). The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority based on allegedly racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, by devoting a disproportionate amount of funding to subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the trial and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. <br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br /> The 10 year decree mandated several changes&lt;ref&gt;Burgos, R., &amp; Pulido, L. (1998). The politics of gender in the Los Angeles bus riders' union/Sindicato de Pasajeros. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 9(3), 75-82.&lt;/ref&gt;:<br /> * Reinstating a monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Prioritize buses and rides for the transit-dependent<br /> <br /> ==== Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== No Fare Hike Campaign ====<br /> The bus fare on MTA buses were stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users and carbon emissions. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ===== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign =====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R and not redirect funds to highway and rail.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Future Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1693 2014-02-07T01:30:37Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:BRU.png|thumbnail|right|The BRU organizes demonstrations wearing yellow shirts.]]<br /> == &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights advocate group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC), a think tank and advocacy group. The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to bring subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immmigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. <br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br /> The 10 year decree mandated several changes&lt;ref&gt;Burgos, R., &amp; Pulido, L. (1998). The politics of gender in the Los Angeles bus riders' union/Sindicato de Pasajeros. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 9(3), 75-82.&lt;/ref&gt;:<br /> * Reinstating a monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New Service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Prioritize funding for buses and rides for the transit-dependent<br /> <br /> ==== Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== No Fare Hike Campaign ====<br /> The bus fare on MTA buses were stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users, carbon emissions from the automobile usage and ulitmately climate change and lung disease. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ===== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign =====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has effectively brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R as planned and not redirect funds to highway and rail. The BRU has help rallies with community members speaking about their experiences of transit.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Future Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1692 2014-02-07T01:29:42Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:BRU.png|thumbnail|right|The BRU organizes demonstrations wearing yellow shirts.]]<br /> == &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights advocate group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC), a think tank and advocacy group. The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to bring subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immmigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. This 10-year agreement obligated the LACMTA to make the bus system and the transit a funding priority.<br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br /> The decree mandated several changes&lt;ref&gt;Burgos, R., &amp; Pulido, L. (1998). The politics of gender in the Los Angeles bus riders' union/Sindicato de Pasajeros. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 9(3), 75-82.&lt;/ref&gt;:<br /> * Reinstating a monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New Service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> <br /> ==== Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== No Fare Hike Campaign ====<br /> The bus fare on MTA buses were stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users, carbon emissions from the automobile usage and ulitmately climate change and lung disease. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ===== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign =====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has effectively brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R as planned and not redirect funds to highway and rail. The BRU has help rallies with community members speaking about their experiences of transit.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Future Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1691 2014-02-07T01:09:43Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:BRU.png|thumbnail|right|The BRU organizes demonstrations wearing yellow shirts.]]<br /> == &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights advocate group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC), a think tank and advocacy group. The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to bring subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immmigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. This 10-year agreement obligated the LACMTA to make the bus system and the transit-dependent a funding priority.<br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br /> The decree mandated several changes&lt;ref&gt;Burgos, R., &amp; Pulido, L. (1998). The politics of gender in the Los Angeles bus riders' union/Sindicato de Pasajeros. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 9(3), 75-82.&lt;/ref&gt;:<br /> * Reinstating a monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New Service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> <br /> ==== Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== No Fare Hike Campaign ====<br /> The bus fare on MTA buses were stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users, carbon emissions from the automobile usage and ulitmately climate change and lung disease. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ===== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign =====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has effectively brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R as planned and not redirect funds to highway and rail. The BRU has help rallies with community members speaking about their experiences of transit.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Future Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1690 2014-02-07T01:07:37Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:BRU.png|thumbnail|right|The BRU organizes demonstrations wearing yellow shirts.]]<br /> == &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights advocate group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC), a think tank and advocacy group. The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to bring subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immmigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. This 10-year agreement obligated the LACMTA to make the bus system and the transit-dependent a funding priority.<br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br /> The decree mandated several changes:<br /> * Reinstating the discontinued monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group, consisting of members of the LACMTA and BRU, to implement the decree<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New Service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Establishment of a Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==== Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== No Fare Hike Campaign ====<br /> The bus fare on MTA buses were stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users, carbon emissions from the automobile usage and ulitmately climate change and lung disease. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ===== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign =====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has effectively brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R as planned and not redirect funds to highway and rail. The BRU has help rallies with community members speaking about their experiences of transit.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Future Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=File:BRU.png&diff=1689 2014-02-07T01:06:32Z

<p>Djmyung: The Bus Riders Union organizes demonstrations like wearing yellow shirts</p> <hr /> <div>The Bus Riders Union organizes demonstrations like wearing yellow shirts</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1688 2014-02-07T01:03:25Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Bru.png|thumbnail|right|Bus Riders Union Copyright The Labor/Community Strategy Center.]]<br /> == &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights advocate group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC), a think tank and advocacy group. The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to bring subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immmigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. This 10-year agreement obligated the LACMTA to make the bus system and the transit-dependent a funding priority.<br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br /> The decree mandated several changes:<br /> * Reinstating the discontinued monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group, consisting of members of the LACMTA and BRU, to implement the decree<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New Service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Establishment of a Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==== Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== No Fare Hike Campaign ====<br /> The bus fare on MTA buses were stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users, carbon emissions from the automobile usage and ulitmately climate change and lung disease. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ===== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign =====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has effectively brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R as planned and not redirect funds to highway and rail. The BRU has help rallies with community members speaking about their experiences of transit.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Future Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1687 2014-02-07T00:59:08Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;gallery&gt;<br /> File:Bru.png|thumbnail|right<br /> <br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> == &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights advocate group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC), a think tank and advocacy group. The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to bring subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immmigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. This 10-year agreement obligated the LACMTA to make the bus system and the transit-dependent a funding priority.<br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br /> The decree mandated several changes:<br /> * Reinstating the discontinued monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group, consisting of members of the LACMTA and BRU, to implement the decree<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New Service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Establishment of a Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==== Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== No Fare Hike Campaign ====<br /> The bus fare on MTA buses were stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users, carbon emissions from the automobile usage and ulitmately climate change and lung disease. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ===== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign =====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has effectively brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R as planned and not redirect funds to highway and rail. The BRU has help rallies with community members speaking about their experiences of transit.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Future Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1686 2014-02-07T00:57:16Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;gallery&gt;<br /> File:Bru.png<br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> == &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights advocate group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC), a think tank and advocacy group. The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to bring subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immmigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. This 10-year agreement obligated the LACMTA to make the bus system and the transit-dependent a funding priority.<br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br /> The decree mandated several changes:<br /> * Reinstating the discontinued monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group, consisting of members of the LACMTA and BRU, to implement the decree<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New Service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Establishment of a Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==== Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== No Fare Hike Campaign ====<br /> The bus fare on MTA buses were stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users, carbon emissions from the automobile usage and ulitmately climate change and lung disease. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ===== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign =====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has effectively brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R as planned and not redirect funds to highway and rail. The BRU has help rallies with community members speaking about their experiences of transit.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Future Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1685 2014-02-07T00:55:07Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>== &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights advocate group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC), a think tank and advocacy group. The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to bring subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immmigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. This 10-year agreement obligated the LACMTA to make the bus system and the transit-dependent a funding priority.<br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br /> The decree mandated several changes:<br /> * Reinstating the discontinued monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group, consisting of members of the LACMTA and BRU, to implement the decree<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New Service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Establishment of a Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==== Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== No Fare Hike Campaign ====<br /> The bus fare on MTA buses were stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users, carbon emissions from the automobile usage and ulitmately climate change and lung disease. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ===== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign =====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has effectively brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R as planned and not redirect funds to highway and rail. The BRU has help rallies with community members speaking about their experiences of transit.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Future Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1684 2014-02-07T00:54:30Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>== &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights advocate group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC), a think tank and advocacy group. The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to bring subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immmigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. This 10-year agreement obligated the LACMTA to make the bus system and the transit-dependent a funding priority.<br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br /> The decree mandated several changes:<br /> * Reinstating the discontinued monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group, consisting of members of the LACMTA and BRU, to implement the decree<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New Service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Establishment of a Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==== Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ==== No Fare Hike Campaign ====<br /> The bus fare on MTA buses were stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users, carbon emissions from the automobile usage and ulitmately climate change and lung disease. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ===== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign =====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has effectively brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R as planned and not redirect funds to highway and rail. The BRU has help rallies with community members speaking about their experiences of transit.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Future Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either us<br /> <br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> ed by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1679 2014-02-07T00:42:38Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>== &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights advocate group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC), a think tank and advocacy group. The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to bring subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immmigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. This 10-year agreement obligated the LACMTA to make the bus system and the transit-dependent a funding priority.<br /> <br /> <br /> == History and Future Goals ==<br /> <br /> === 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance ===<br /> The decree mandated several changes:<br /> * Reinstating the discontinued monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br /> * Bus fare reduction<br /> * Established the Joint Working Group, consisting of members of the LACMTA and BRU, to implement the decree<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New Service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Establishment of a Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> <br /> Past Campaigns<br /> The BRU claims to represent over 400,000 bus riders in Los Angeles County, the bus drivers, and the transit dependent including minorities, immigrants, students and low income workers. The BRU often cooperates with related civil rights groups to spread awareness, raise funds and bring class action lawsuits such as in the 1994 case against LACMTA. <br /> Finally, the BRU organizes public speaking events and attends rallies, marches,and protests through the Drum and Chant Corps &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/node/5678 &quot;Campaigns&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> Stop the Transit Cuts<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> No Fare Hike<br /> In response to public pressure and the 1996 Consent Degree, the LACMTA bus fare was stable for 10 years. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5. The BRU claims the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users, carbon emissions from the automobile usage and ulitmately climate change and lung disease. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> ===== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R =====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has effectively brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R as planned and not redirect funds to highway and rail. The BRU has help rallies with community members speaking about their experiences of transit. Speakers describe the current state of overcrowded and often late work they miss from highly congested areas and the need for LACMTA to provide for minorities and low income workers who have hours outside the parameters of a traditional 9am-5pm job&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1670 2014-02-06T19:28:11Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>== &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights advocate group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC), a think tank and advocacy group. The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to bring subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immmigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. This 10-year agreement obligated the LACMTA to make the bus system and the transit-dependent a funding priority by several means: &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/consent-decree-compliance &quot;Consent Decree Compliance&quot; &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Fare Reduction<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New Service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Establishement of a Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> <br /> == Accomplishments, Strategies and Goals ==<br /> <br /> === Accomplishments ===<br /> The BRU claims several results of their campaigns&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * Blocked the elimination of the monthly bus pass and reduced its fares from $49 to $42.<br /> * Establishment of the first $11 weekly bus pass which resulted in millions of dollar saved for transit users and increased ridership.<br /> * 2,000 new CNG-powered buses, replacing aging deisel-powered buses. Addition of 300 more buses.<br /> * Establishment of Bus Rapid Transit lines on major surface streets. Bus Only Lane on the 20-mile Wilshire Blvd. from downtown to the ocean.<br /> * Over $2.5 Billion of funds redirected to bus systems .<br /> * 1 Million+ Annual Bus Service Hours Added and 12% Increase in Bus Ridership.<br /> * Created 800+ New Public Sector, Green, Union Jobs.<br /> * Eliminated the Student Pass Application Process (increasing its use by 64%).<br /> <br /> === Campaigns ===<br /> The BRU claims to represent over 400,000 bus riders in Los Angeles County, the bus drivers, and the transit dependent including minorities, immigrants, students and low income workers. The BRU often cooperates with related civil rights groups to spread awareness, raise funds and bring class action lawsuits such as in the 1994 case against LACMTA. <br /> Finally, the BRU organizes public speaking events and attends rallies, marches,and protests through the Drum and Chant Corps &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/node/5678 &quot;Campaigns&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> ===== Stop the Transit Cuts =====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ===== No Fare Hike =====<br /> In response to public pressure and the 1996 Consent Degree, the LACMTA bus fare was stable for 10 years. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5. The BRU claims the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users, carbon emissions from the automobile usage and ulitmately climate change and lung disease. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> ===== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R =====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has effectively brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R as planned and not redirect funds to highway and rail. The BRU has help rallies with community members speaking about their experiences of transit. Speakers describe the current state of overcrowded and often late work they miss from highly congested areas and the need for LACMTA to provide for minorities and low income workers who have hours outside the parameters of a traditional 9am-5pm job&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1669 2014-02-06T19:26:52Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>== &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights advocate group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC), a think tank and advocacy group. The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to bring subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immmigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. This 10-year agreement obligated the LACMTA to make the bus system and the transit-dependent a funding priority by several means: &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/consent-decree-compliance &quot;Consent Decree Compliance&quot; &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Fare Reduction<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New Service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Establishement of a Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> <br /> == Accomplishments, Strategies and Goals ==<br /> <br /> === Accomplishments ===<br /> The BRU claims several results of their campaigns&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * Blocked the elimination of the monthly bus pass and reduced its fares from $49 to $42.<br /> * Establishment of the first $11 weekly bus pass which resulted in millions of dollar saved for transit users and increased ridership.<br /> * 2,000 new CNG-powered buses, replacing aging deisel-powered buses. Addition of 300 more buses.<br /> * Establishment of Bus Rapid Transit lines on major surface streets. Bus Only Lane on the 20-mile Wilshire Blvd. from downtown to the ocean.<br /> * Over $2.5 Billion of funds redirected to bus systems .<br /> * 1 Million+ Annual Bus Service Hours Added and 12% Increase in Bus Ridership.<br /> * Created 800+ New Public Sector, Green, Union Jobs.<br /> * Eliminated the Student Pass Application Process (increasing its use by 64%).<br /> <br /> === Campaigns ===<br /> The BRU claims to represent over 400,000 bus riders in Los Angeles County, the bus drivers, and the transit dependent including minorities, immigrants, students and low income workers. The BRU often cooperates with related civil rights groups to spread awareness, raise funds and bring class action lawsuits such as in the 1994 case against LACMTA. <br /> Finally, the BRU organizes public speaking events and attends rallies, marches,and protests through the Drum and Chant Corps &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/node/5678 &quot;Campaigns&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> ===== Stop the Transit Cuts =====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ===== No Fare Hike =====<br /> In response to public pressure and the 1996 Consent Degree, the LACMTA bus fare was stable for 10 years. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5. The BRU claims the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users, carbon emissions from the automobile usage and ulitmately climate change and lung disease. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> ===== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R =====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has effectively brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R as planned and not redirect funds to highway and rail. The BRU has help rallies with community members speaking about their experiences of transit. Speakers describe the current state of overcrowded and often late work they miss from highly congested areas and the need for LACMTA to provide for minorities and low income workers who have hours outside the parameters of a traditional 9am-5pm job&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;Grengs&quot; /&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1668 2014-02-06T19:25:30Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>== &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights advocate group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC), a think tank and advocacy group. The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to bring subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immmigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. This 10-year agreement obligated the LACMTA to make the bus system and the transit-dependent a funding priority by several means: &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/consent-decree-compliance &quot;Consent Decree Compliance&quot; &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Fare Reduction<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New Service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Establishement of a Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> <br /> == Accomplishments, Strategies and Goals ==<br /> <br /> === Accomplishments ===<br /> The BRU claims several results of their campaigns&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * Blocked the elimination of the monthly bus pass and reduced its fares from $49 to $42.<br /> * Establishment of the first $11 weekly bus pass which resulted in millions of dollar saved for transit users and increased ridership.<br /> * 2,000 new CNG-powered buses, replacing aging deisel-powered buses. Addition of 300 more buses.<br /> * Establishment of Bus Rapid Transit lines on major surface streets. Bus Only Lane on the 20-mile Wilshire Blvd. from downtown to the ocean.<br /> * Over $2.5 Billion of funds redirected to bus systems .<br /> * 1 Million+ Annual Bus Service Hours Added and 12% Increase in Bus Ridership.<br /> * Created 800+ New Public Sector, Green, Union Jobs.<br /> * Eliminated the Student Pass Application Process (increasing its use by 64%).<br /> <br /> === Campaigns ===<br /> The BRU claims to represent over 400,000 bus riders in Los Angeles County, the bus drivers, and the transit dependent including minorities, immigrants, students and low income workers. The BRU often cooperates with related civil rights groups to spread awareness, raise funds and bring class action lawsuits such as in the 1994 case against LACMTA. <br /> Finally, the BRU organizes public speaking events and attends rallies, marches,and protests through the Drum and Chant Corps &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/node/5678 &quot;Campaigns&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> ===== Stop the Transit Cuts =====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ===== No Fare Hike =====<br /> In response to public pressure and the 1996 Consent Degree, the LACMTA bus fare was stable for 10 years. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5. The BRU claims the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users, carbon emissions from the automobile usage and ulitmately climate change and lung disease. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> ===== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R =====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has effectively brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R as planned and not redirect funds to highway and rail. The BRU has help rallies with community members speaking about their experiences of transit. Speakers describe the current state of overcrowded and often late work they miss from highly congested areas and the need for LACMTA to provide for minorities and low income workers who have hours outside the parameters of a traditional 9am-5pm job&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;Grengs&quot;&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref name=&quot;Grengs&quot; /ref&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=User:Djmyung&diff=1667 2014-02-06T19:23:37Z

<p>Djmyung: </p> <hr /> <div>== &lt;big&gt;Bus Riders Union&lt;/big&gt; ==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Introduction ==<br /> The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a civil rights advocate group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC), a think tank and advocacy group. The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot;&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to bring subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immmigrant and minority urban areas&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;. <br /> <br /> The matter was settled before the and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. This 10-year agreement obligated the LACMTA to make the bus system and the transit-dependent a funding priority by several means: &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/consent-decree-compliance &quot;Consent Decree Compliance&quot; &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Fare Reduction<br /> * Reduction of bus overcrowding<br /> * New Service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br /> * Establishement of a Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br /> <br /> == Accomplishments, Strategies and Goals ==<br /> <br /> === Accomplishments ===<br /> The BRU claims several results of their campaigns&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * Blocked the elimination of the monthly bus pass and reduced its fares from $49 to $42.<br /> * Establishment of the first $11 weekly bus pass which resulted in millions of dollar saved for transit users and increased ridership.<br /> * 2,000 new CNG-powered buses, replacing aging deisel-powered buses. Addition of 300 more buses.<br /> * Establishment of Bus Rapid Transit lines on major surface streets. Bus Only Lane on the 20-mile Wilshire Blvd. from downtown to the ocean.<br /> * Over $2.5 Billion of funds redirected to bus systems .<br /> * 1 Million+ Annual Bus Service Hours Added and 12% Increase in Bus Ridership.<br /> * Created 800+ New Public Sector, Green, Union Jobs.<br /> * Eliminated the Student Pass Application Process (increasing its use by 64%).<br /> <br /> === Campaigns ===<br /> The BRU claims to represent over 400,000 bus riders in Los Angeles County, the bus drivers, and the transit dependent including minorities, immigrants, students and low income workers. The BRU often cooperates with related civil rights groups to spread awareness, raise funds and bring class action lawsuits such as in the 1994 case against LACMTA. <br /> Finally, the BRU organizes public speaking events and attends rallies, marches,and protests through the Drum and Chant Corps &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/node/5678 &quot;Campaigns&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> ===== Stop the Transit Cuts =====<br /> The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others &lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders &quot;MTA slashing bus service&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> ===== No Fare Hike =====<br /> In response to public pressure and the 1996 Consent Degree, the LACMTA bus fare was stable for 10 years. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5. The BRU claims the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users, carbon emissions from the automobile usage and ulitmately climate change and lung disease. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 19882-1985 when fares were reduced&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> ===== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R =====<br /> The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has effectively brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R as planned and not redirect funds to highway and rail. The BRU has help rallies with community members speaking about their experiences of transit. Speakers describe the current state of overcrowded and often late work they miss from highly congested areas and the need for LACMTA to provide for minorities and low income workers who have hours outside the parameters of a traditional 9am-5pm job&lt;ref&gt;http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> === Goals ===<br /> The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include&lt;ref name=&quot;Bus Riders Union&quot; /&gt;:<br /> <br /> * $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br /> * 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br /> * Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br /> * Freeze Rail Spending<br /> * Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br /> * $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br /> <br /> == Opposing Views ==<br /> Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br /> <br /> Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, &quot;use it or lose it.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.&lt;ref&gt;Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-based planning as a source of political change: The transit equity movement of Los Angeles' Bus Riders Union. &quot;Journal of the American Planning Association&quot;, 68(2) 165-175.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;</div>

Djmyung