Scott, thank you. You say “CAB has a better alternative and has presented it to SBCAG. Ignored and faced with growing costs and little ridership, isn't it time to implement CAB's plan?” - that's great! But reading this column, I didn't learn what that plan is. And most people who might be on your side don't want to have to search it out. Attention spans, mine foremost among them, are short. There's too much that is a money drain with no benefit to us taxpayers. I think - and please correct me if I'm wrong - this column should have included your plan rather than just what's wrong with MTD.
Conservatives and Republicans must choose their mountains on which to die on. MTD and public transportation is not one of them. It's just a fact of life. A "20/80" public non-profit income/subsidy model is common across the board. All in all, MTD provides good, reliable, affordable service to the South Coast. I ride MTD regularly. I have few complaints.
I'm confident "Conservative and Republicans" are capable of multi-tasking and able to concurrently climb a number of mountains. As one of the few users of public transportation I appreciate your ride is subsidized to the tune of 80%...I understand and respect your advocacy. No doubt I would also. Regardless, it needs fixing.
Another perspective is needed regarding public transportation instead of running these massive frequently empty behemoths on the streets. Incorporating a private sector (competitive) approach...UBER, Amazon, UPS, FEDEX are examples of efficient delivery systems that were inspired in large part by the failure of the government run US Postal System. (Marborg...are you listening?)
On the flip side however, I have no doubt the significant real estate currently used by MTD would be quickly converted to super high density "affordable" and subsidized housing. Upon further consideration...let's just opt for empty buses and large swaths of unoccupied real estate and count our blessings. "Nevermind" (re: Gilda Radner, circa 1970's). Whew!
Be my guest knocking yourself out on alternatives to public transportation. Even if there were a half-dozen "mountains" we could judiciously juggle at once, finding "solutions" to replace public bus systems across the Fruited Plain would not be in my Top 25. Some things are just a waste of time and resources. It's in the same ballpark as libertarians arguing against public parks.
Difficult to walk through a closed door. Sounds like you're suggesting improving and/or refining public transportation shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. Different strokes... different folks.
Go ahead and address any issue you wish. Woe be it to me to censor anybody. Not my style. If you wish to expend energy discussing issues on the margins of relevancy, do so.
Very eye opening article Scott. It would seem “Public Transportation” is less about providing a cost effective alternative to driving and more about providing Unions with a never ending revenue stream. In the ideal world, I would like to think public transportation provides a valuable resource, reducing the number of cars on our freeways and allowing people to commute to work, while living in less expensive suburbs. Ideally, we could have a rail service such as Metrolink from Oxnard to SB and Santa Maria to SB and In doing so take unrealistic state housing mandates off the table from SB planning.
The reality seems to be fraud and corruption, as we now see with “the train to nowhere” and it’s massive cost overruns, all without any tracks being laid. How is it Newsom’s high speed rail project is not being investigated for criminal prosecution?
A number of years ago our MTD unions went out on a sympathy strike for several weeks here, to show their support for unions up in the SF Bay Area over an issue they did not even have here locally. The local MTD union chose to kick local public transit supporters in the teeth. I stopped being a cheerleader for them from that point on.
MTD obsessed with being a poster child for "green schemes" instead of actually providing easily accessible public transportation got it all wrong from the very beginning.
When I saw comprehensive "smart" bus stop technology in Naples, Italy decades ago is when I saw how arrogant and inaccessible MTD had become - the most obscure and impenetrable public transit system I have ever encountered.
But hey, its sole goal was to have bragging rights for an all-electric fleet, not a sustainable and growing passenger base. Too much ideological top-down management, too little meeting and exploring actual customer needs. The Santa Barbara story.
A friend of mine who regularly commutes from Goleta to Santa Barbara for work tells me that in the morning his regularly scheduled busses often pass him by because they are filled completely with foreign EF English School students who live in Isla Vista. When I see busses at other times of day they look mostly empty to me. I'd say the schedules are poorly managed.
If you want to see a complete FIASCO....check out Honolulu's fail that is rail. Never voted in, pushed into existence by Mufi, est at start of $3B...last I knew it was at $13B and not 1/2 done. As typical in Hawaii, the good ol boy scratch my back system is alive and very profitable for those playing the game.
Of course, Scott must know that the Interstate and U.S. highway systems, as well as the California State Highway system, are "Publicly Subsidized Transportation." Does he also consider them to be "a failure"? I lived in Europe for almost 10 years and depended on "publicly subsidized transportation" for most of my commuting to work and vacation travel. It seems only the United States struggles to provide its people with universal health care and reliable, dependable, and convenient public transportation, despite that fact that the American people are paying much more for it. This is not a Dem or Rep issue, rather it is a systemic failure and a reflection of our special interest PAC controlled government.
Having lived and travelled to various locales around the world, I always love exploring their public transpiration systems. How easy are they to access, how well do they work, how appealing are they for regular use and needs. There is a global common denominator today for most fixed rail public transit systems, so once you learn one system it applies pretty much across the board.
My favorite model is Switzerland which is superb, drilled down to its fixed rail urban transit networks. But this system also includes a country wide bus system and long distance trains. And ready online access to solve any complicated travel planning within the country that you can throw at it. Schools children did not need a separate school bus system since they too were connected even from remote areas by the in-depth Swiss "postal ' bus system. How heavily was this system subsidized, I don't know. But that too is part of the public transit picture.
Keeping in mind Switzerland is a very small country to cover in depth with transit, though it does contain some formidable mountains to work around. Probably not much bigger than the wider LA Metro area. Lot easier to connect everyone within this enclosed space, but large enough of a passenger base to make it work with relative ease and reliability.
Fixed rail in the urban centers from my experience in Switzerland was 100% reliable to the point you did not need to track down obscure schedules, since another tram would come along in 10-15 minutes and you knew before you got on where it would be going and where to make any connections to reach points across the entire network. It was a given you would walk typically only 4 blocks, in any weather, to reach your closest stop.
That said, these fixed rail systems worked within a much denser cluster of concentrated users with many surrounding high rise dwelling units that typically offered only very small living units. One must take the whole package when one wants to duplicate any other country's public transportation successes. Including the self-policing mentality that Switzerland also exercises, that kept these public transit systems clean, safe and inviting.
I've spent some time in Melbourne visiting my husband's family and I really appreciate their public transit system. I don't know how it compares to that of Switzerland, but no dense cluster of small housing units was necessary to make it work. We could hop on a speedy train a couple blocks from their family home in the suburbs and arrive in the city center fairly quickly.
These connections have been there almost as long as the suburbs have - the plan was in place before the houses were built. Advanced planning for this kind of infrastructure exemplifies a different mindset.
It would be interesting to see the ratio of inner city passenger volume support for these hybrid systems (urban + extra urban), that might be carrying the financial burden for the less population dense outer suburbs. Might take both to make such systems viable for everyone.
I doubt that those involved in infrastructure planning view it this way. Ideally, the transportation network (public transit, roads, etc) is laid out (planned) before breaking ground. Public funds (taxes) pay for infrastructure and the plan's goal is a well-functioning municipality. The end result is that the public as a whole is served.
However, it is typical in the US for public transit to be added as an afterthought, with no organized network. In Los Angeles, this occurred due to the influence of the budding auto industry about 100 years ago (I learned this in history class several decades ago). Freeways were favored over plans for public transit, which were diminished or wiped out.
Where rail is added (as an afterthought), forced sales of existing homes occur. The process can destroy a neighborhood or community.
Back to your point regarding "inner city passenger volume support for these hybrid systems (urban + extra urban), that might be carrying the financial burden for the less population dense outer suburbs," I don't know where you're going with this. I do know that people from both sides of the tracks appreciate a well-organized transportation network.
Why did you turn this into a "rich/poor discussion, Victoria? Where are you going with that? Agree, all walks of life appreciate a well-organized transportation network which is about as generic of a planning statement I have ever heard .
But these public systems must make economic sense too. That was the issue when inner city transit systems that work on high volume participation, start reaching out into the lower volume suburbs. The history of SF area BART is one fraught with fiscal peril and now downright extortion. Not a successful model.
Yes, the older street car system in both LA and SF were replaced quite consciously in favor of the post-WWII explosion of cars and outer suburb housing developments, until this west coast car-centric culture has become a signature for the entire state. Good or bad decision doesn't matter at this point - no do-overs.
I am not up on BART. My niece used it to get to work (from a suburb) when it was feasible.
Re use of the rail system in the Melbourne suburbs, those trains are crowded in the city and also the suburbs - an indicator of good planning is my guess.
The part about the economic feasibility of offering lines that reach certain locations (or relying on government funds to keep it all afloat) is outside my scope.
The new work from home phenomenon has also turned many previously well planned transit systems upside down. While their budgets increase every year- personnel, maintenance, new equipment at a time when ridership went down. And those who had been dependent upon it were getting extorted with threats of strikes and slow downs. Ouch. But to not use public transit in the larger metropolitan areas is torture too.
Good people are thinking long range about all of this. Having been a commuter in Wash DC decades ago before their underground metro system, one gave up four hours of their life commenting on public transit above ground even if one lived in the District of Columbia itself. That is no way to live either. There is a brave new world out there for younger people to inherit. Have at it.
Keep in mind that 80% of California HWY and Road Repairs are funded by taxes. That is a huge subsidy to automobile owners, and automobile manufacturers. Not to mention the environmental damage. There are State fees, weight fees for trucks, a fee for zero emission vehicles. Taxpayers are saddled with massive gasoline taxes to pay for this widespread, and elaborate web of roadways. Serious alternate transportation doesn’t exist. The traffic problems never seem to get fixed. We just keep building roads. I too drive a car. Thank you for my subsidy, I think.
I don’t know if anyone here is taking the public bus very often, I’ve taken it a lot. What’s needed are weather shelters over every bus stop because the sun is so blazingly hot and it rains sometimes. For people who are making like $18 an hour paying five dollars to get to the work and back come in addition to the extraordinarily high rental rates here means that they are doomed to a life of poverty. I agree that the electric vehicles are just a huge waste, every MD bus driver does a job that is so incredibly important and it’s very hard. You really need a lot of skills to do that job. So I think that they should be well compensated. In reality given our economic situation One dollar a ride is really appropriate.
Like others, I'd love to see the Wenz Plan. Anecdotally, I am house and dog sitting for friends on the West side. Last night I took a walk that is much longer than my usual strolls. I found myself near the MTD station downtown and noticed a bus that looked to be headed for the West Side. I hopped on, paid the small fee, and crossed my fingers. The bus was nearly full and it took me right to where I needed to go. Now that I am retired, I have been using MTD for all sorts of adventures. I am sure it can be improved. A good bus service is essential and if you think you can make it better, bring on your plan, Mr. Wenz!
It's interesting to read different perspectives. Here is another that promotes cars as the future of transportation and diminishing mass transit. I ran up against this when I was involved in discussions about Phoenix's light rail system. That was 25 years ago, and naysayers were using the same outdated arguments back then,
For decades, transportation planners have known that moving people takes a multi-prong approach. Mass transit is an important part of the solution, and it takes taxpayer funds to create and operate. Even in Europe, where there is a great reliance on buses and trains, taxpayer funds are used to subsidize.
Mass transit serves a variety of people, many in the lower economic strata and more recently... Gen X,Y, Z, and Alpha. Many in this population do not own cars, are in one-car families, or prefer mass transit, bikes, or ride sharing.
Perhaps the author thinks a system that serves 17,000 DAILY, 19% of the city's population, is worthless. To the people who rely on it to get to work. school and shopping, mass transit is essential and valued.
In a cooperative society, we share and utilize funding to benefit a variety of citizens. For me, this isn't a bad thing; it's what makes a city vital, and if some of my taxes don't go to serve me directly, I'm okay with that. It's not always about the money; it's about helping make a city vital and vibrant for all the people who call Santa Barbara home.
Scott, thank you. You say “CAB has a better alternative and has presented it to SBCAG. Ignored and faced with growing costs and little ridership, isn't it time to implement CAB's plan?” - that's great! But reading this column, I didn't learn what that plan is. And most people who might be on your side don't want to have to search it out. Attention spans, mine foremost among them, are short. There's too much that is a money drain with no benefit to us taxpayers. I think - and please correct me if I'm wrong - this column should have included your plan rather than just what's wrong with MTD.
Conservatives and Republicans must choose their mountains on which to die on. MTD and public transportation is not one of them. It's just a fact of life. A "20/80" public non-profit income/subsidy model is common across the board. All in all, MTD provides good, reliable, affordable service to the South Coast. I ride MTD regularly. I have few complaints.
I'm confident "Conservative and Republicans" are capable of multi-tasking and able to concurrently climb a number of mountains. As one of the few users of public transportation I appreciate your ride is subsidized to the tune of 80%...I understand and respect your advocacy. No doubt I would also. Regardless, it needs fixing.
Another perspective is needed regarding public transportation instead of running these massive frequently empty behemoths on the streets. Incorporating a private sector (competitive) approach...UBER, Amazon, UPS, FEDEX are examples of efficient delivery systems that were inspired in large part by the failure of the government run US Postal System. (Marborg...are you listening?)
On the flip side however, I have no doubt the significant real estate currently used by MTD would be quickly converted to super high density "affordable" and subsidized housing. Upon further consideration...let's just opt for empty buses and large swaths of unoccupied real estate and count our blessings. "Nevermind" (re: Gilda Radner, circa 1970's). Whew!
Be my guest knocking yourself out on alternatives to public transportation. Even if there were a half-dozen "mountains" we could judiciously juggle at once, finding "solutions" to replace public bus systems across the Fruited Plain would not be in my Top 25. Some things are just a waste of time and resources. It's in the same ballpark as libertarians arguing against public parks.
Difficult to walk through a closed door. Sounds like you're suggesting improving and/or refining public transportation shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. Different strokes... different folks.
Go ahead and address any issue you wish. Woe be it to me to censor anybody. Not my style. If you wish to expend energy discussing issues on the margins of relevancy, do so.
Very generous...thank you.
Ok liberal
Very eye opening article Scott. It would seem “Public Transportation” is less about providing a cost effective alternative to driving and more about providing Unions with a never ending revenue stream. In the ideal world, I would like to think public transportation provides a valuable resource, reducing the number of cars on our freeways and allowing people to commute to work, while living in less expensive suburbs. Ideally, we could have a rail service such as Metrolink from Oxnard to SB and Santa Maria to SB and In doing so take unrealistic state housing mandates off the table from SB planning.
The reality seems to be fraud and corruption, as we now see with “the train to nowhere” and it’s massive cost overruns, all without any tracks being laid. How is it Newsom’s high speed rail project is not being investigated for criminal prosecution?
A number of years ago our MTD unions went out on a sympathy strike for several weeks here, to show their support for unions up in the SF Bay Area over an issue they did not even have here locally. The local MTD union chose to kick local public transit supporters in the teeth. I stopped being a cheerleader for them from that point on.
MTD obsessed with being a poster child for "green schemes" instead of actually providing easily accessible public transportation got it all wrong from the very beginning.
When I saw comprehensive "smart" bus stop technology in Naples, Italy decades ago is when I saw how arrogant and inaccessible MTD had become - the most obscure and impenetrable public transit system I have ever encountered.
But hey, its sole goal was to have bragging rights for an all-electric fleet, not a sustainable and growing passenger base. Too much ideological top-down management, too little meeting and exploring actual customer needs. The Santa Barbara story.
A friend of mine who regularly commutes from Goleta to Santa Barbara for work tells me that in the morning his regularly scheduled busses often pass him by because they are filled completely with foreign EF English School students who live in Isla Vista. When I see busses at other times of day they look mostly empty to me. I'd say the schedules are poorly managed.
If you want to see a complete FIASCO....check out Honolulu's fail that is rail. Never voted in, pushed into existence by Mufi, est at start of $3B...last I knew it was at $13B and not 1/2 done. As typical in Hawaii, the good ol boy scratch my back system is alive and very profitable for those playing the game.
Wow, eye popping numbers and insight—especially in the face of a looming bus driver strike. Thank you.
Of course, Scott must know that the Interstate and U.S. highway systems, as well as the California State Highway system, are "Publicly Subsidized Transportation." Does he also consider them to be "a failure"? I lived in Europe for almost 10 years and depended on "publicly subsidized transportation" for most of my commuting to work and vacation travel. It seems only the United States struggles to provide its people with universal health care and reliable, dependable, and convenient public transportation, despite that fact that the American people are paying much more for it. This is not a Dem or Rep issue, rather it is a systemic failure and a reflection of our special interest PAC controlled government.
Having lived and travelled to various locales around the world, I always love exploring their public transpiration systems. How easy are they to access, how well do they work, how appealing are they for regular use and needs. There is a global common denominator today for most fixed rail public transit systems, so once you learn one system it applies pretty much across the board.
My favorite model is Switzerland which is superb, drilled down to its fixed rail urban transit networks. But this system also includes a country wide bus system and long distance trains. And ready online access to solve any complicated travel planning within the country that you can throw at it. Schools children did not need a separate school bus system since they too were connected even from remote areas by the in-depth Swiss "postal ' bus system. How heavily was this system subsidized, I don't know. But that too is part of the public transit picture.
Keeping in mind Switzerland is a very small country to cover in depth with transit, though it does contain some formidable mountains to work around. Probably not much bigger than the wider LA Metro area. Lot easier to connect everyone within this enclosed space, but large enough of a passenger base to make it work with relative ease and reliability.
Fixed rail in the urban centers from my experience in Switzerland was 100% reliable to the point you did not need to track down obscure schedules, since another tram would come along in 10-15 minutes and you knew before you got on where it would be going and where to make any connections to reach points across the entire network. It was a given you would walk typically only 4 blocks, in any weather, to reach your closest stop.
That said, these fixed rail systems worked within a much denser cluster of concentrated users with many surrounding high rise dwelling units that typically offered only very small living units. One must take the whole package when one wants to duplicate any other country's public transportation successes. Including the self-policing mentality that Switzerland also exercises, that kept these public transit systems clean, safe and inviting.
Two points:
I've spent some time in Melbourne visiting my husband's family and I really appreciate their public transit system. I don't know how it compares to that of Switzerland, but no dense cluster of small housing units was necessary to make it work. We could hop on a speedy train a couple blocks from their family home in the suburbs and arrive in the city center fairly quickly.
These connections have been there almost as long as the suburbs have - the plan was in place before the houses were built. Advanced planning for this kind of infrastructure exemplifies a different mindset.
It would be interesting to see the ratio of inner city passenger volume support for these hybrid systems (urban + extra urban), that might be carrying the financial burden for the less population dense outer suburbs. Might take both to make such systems viable for everyone.
I doubt that those involved in infrastructure planning view it this way. Ideally, the transportation network (public transit, roads, etc) is laid out (planned) before breaking ground. Public funds (taxes) pay for infrastructure and the plan's goal is a well-functioning municipality. The end result is that the public as a whole is served.
However, it is typical in the US for public transit to be added as an afterthought, with no organized network. In Los Angeles, this occurred due to the influence of the budding auto industry about 100 years ago (I learned this in history class several decades ago). Freeways were favored over plans for public transit, which were diminished or wiped out.
Where rail is added (as an afterthought), forced sales of existing homes occur. The process can destroy a neighborhood or community.
Back to your point regarding "inner city passenger volume support for these hybrid systems (urban + extra urban), that might be carrying the financial burden for the less population dense outer suburbs," I don't know where you're going with this. I do know that people from both sides of the tracks appreciate a well-organized transportation network.
Why did you turn this into a "rich/poor discussion, Victoria? Where are you going with that? Agree, all walks of life appreciate a well-organized transportation network which is about as generic of a planning statement I have ever heard .
But these public systems must make economic sense too. That was the issue when inner city transit systems that work on high volume participation, start reaching out into the lower volume suburbs. The history of SF area BART is one fraught with fiscal peril and now downright extortion. Not a successful model.
Yes, the older street car system in both LA and SF were replaced quite consciously in favor of the post-WWII explosion of cars and outer suburb housing developments, until this west coast car-centric culture has become a signature for the entire state. Good or bad decision doesn't matter at this point - no do-overs.
RE rich/poor, ok, I agree with your point.
I am not up on BART. My niece used it to get to work (from a suburb) when it was feasible.
Re use of the rail system in the Melbourne suburbs, those trains are crowded in the city and also the suburbs - an indicator of good planning is my guess.
The part about the economic feasibility of offering lines that reach certain locations (or relying on government funds to keep it all afloat) is outside my scope.
The new work from home phenomenon has also turned many previously well planned transit systems upside down. While their budgets increase every year- personnel, maintenance, new equipment at a time when ridership went down. And those who had been dependent upon it were getting extorted with threats of strikes and slow downs. Ouch. But to not use public transit in the larger metropolitan areas is torture too.
Good people are thinking long range about all of this. Having been a commuter in Wash DC decades ago before their underground metro system, one gave up four hours of their life commenting on public transit above ground even if one lived in the District of Columbia itself. That is no way to live either. There is a brave new world out there for younger people to inherit. Have at it.
Keep in mind that 80% of California HWY and Road Repairs are funded by taxes. That is a huge subsidy to automobile owners, and automobile manufacturers. Not to mention the environmental damage. There are State fees, weight fees for trucks, a fee for zero emission vehicles. Taxpayers are saddled with massive gasoline taxes to pay for this widespread, and elaborate web of roadways. Serious alternate transportation doesn’t exist. The traffic problems never seem to get fixed. We just keep building roads. I too drive a car. Thank you for my subsidy, I think.
Cal Matters tries to answer the simple question: where do California **gas taxes** (at the pump) get spent?
https://calmatters.org/economy/2018/08/how-california-really-spends-gas-tax-dollars-dataviz/
I don’t know if anyone here is taking the public bus very often, I’ve taken it a lot. What’s needed are weather shelters over every bus stop because the sun is so blazingly hot and it rains sometimes. For people who are making like $18 an hour paying five dollars to get to the work and back come in addition to the extraordinarily high rental rates here means that they are doomed to a life of poverty. I agree that the electric vehicles are just a huge waste, every MD bus driver does a job that is so incredibly important and it’s very hard. You really need a lot of skills to do that job. So I think that they should be well compensated. In reality given our economic situation One dollar a ride is really appropriate.
I read this article titled "The Failure of Publicly Subsidized Transportation"
by Scott Wenz and here-we-go I have a supporting title >
"SB MTD Boondoggle - There are No Riders In the MTD Buses!"
Every time I use to drive in this Town, a real problem in itself, we would pass
an MTD Bus and my better half would say ......... HEY. NO RIDERS IN THERE??!!
So why are we paying for a service no one uses?
We could ask the Bell of Justice to do another FIOA OR CRC but then
again the So-Called-Leaders will provide NOTHING because they
Know Nothing and they See Nothing and they Hear Nothing>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh7Q&ab_channel=Dutchnoble
The City of Sargent Schultz (S.S. Town) - NOTHING HERE TO SEE!!!
Howard Walther, Member of a Military Family
PS1 - Follow the MTD Money Trail Like LA Fire Aide Money Trial!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLSNHpnHeqc&ab_channel=FoxNewsClips
"This is not Fire Aid this is Fire Fraud ............ sound familiar? Think the S.S. Town
I was hoping this was a place for thinking people.
Like others, I'd love to see the Wenz Plan. Anecdotally, I am house and dog sitting for friends on the West side. Last night I took a walk that is much longer than my usual strolls. I found myself near the MTD station downtown and noticed a bus that looked to be headed for the West Side. I hopped on, paid the small fee, and crossed my fingers. The bus was nearly full and it took me right to where I needed to go. Now that I am retired, I have been using MTD for all sorts of adventures. I am sure it can be improved. A good bus service is essential and if you think you can make it better, bring on your plan, Mr. Wenz!
It's interesting to read different perspectives. Here is another that promotes cars as the future of transportation and diminishing mass transit. I ran up against this when I was involved in discussions about Phoenix's light rail system. That was 25 years ago, and naysayers were using the same outdated arguments back then,
For decades, transportation planners have known that moving people takes a multi-prong approach. Mass transit is an important part of the solution, and it takes taxpayer funds to create and operate. Even in Europe, where there is a great reliance on buses and trains, taxpayer funds are used to subsidize.
Mass transit serves a variety of people, many in the lower economic strata and more recently... Gen X,Y, Z, and Alpha. Many in this population do not own cars, are in one-car families, or prefer mass transit, bikes, or ride sharing.
Perhaps the author thinks a system that serves 17,000 DAILY, 19% of the city's population, is worthless. To the people who rely on it to get to work. school and shopping, mass transit is essential and valued.
In a cooperative society, we share and utilize funding to benefit a variety of citizens. For me, this isn't a bad thing; it's what makes a city vital, and if some of my taxes don't go to serve me directly, I'm okay with that. It's not always about the money; it's about helping make a city vital and vibrant for all the people who call Santa Barbara home.
They should stop being selfish and buy a car
Yes what is the Plan?