One scene during the recent protests in Downtown Los Angeles against ICE raids was the torching of Waymo cars. This isn’t the first instance; in February last year, a Waymo car was torched in San Francisco’s Chinatown.
Setting vehicles on fire during chaotic situations is nothing new. Buses have been torched or vandalized after the city’s sports team won championships. While celebrating a victory is fine, destroying property doesn’t garner much public support.
In the current protests, torching Waymo cars may be a crime of opportunity: the vehicles are available, and protesters are angry. There may be other reasons why Waymo cars appeared to be targeted.
While ICE is the main target of the protests, many protesters also oppose the Felon’s return to power and the hard rightward shift towards supporting oligarchs and opposing inclusivity and science, even compared to his first term. For them, targeting Waymo represents more than mere vandalism; it’s an expression of anger against a system perceived as favoring corporate interests at the expense of human livelihoods.
Waymo cars are corporate-owned assets, unlike cars belonging to individual users. Being self-driven, Waymo cars take away business and jobs, whether it’s Uber and Lyft gig work or union jobs at transit agencies.
Waymo cars aren’t smart enough to avoid difficult situations or interact with others like humans, which help make them easy targets. Destroying property carries a much lighter criminal penalty than injuring or killing someone. With a regular private car, the risk of injuring someone is high because the driver would likely react physically to protect their own property. That situation doesn’t exist with autonomous cars that aren’t carrying passengers. While some may want to see protesters punished at the same level, no lawmaker or judge is likely to support that.
Waymo could be seen as a symbol of Silicon Valley’s toxic culture, focusing on increasing the wealth of the oligarchs while neglecting the poor. The Felon was backed by some Silicon Valley corporate leaders, like Elon Musk, among others promoting crypto and AI, trying to win support from the Felon for looser regulations. Autonomous vehicles, and earlier ride-hail services like Uber and Lyft, are also products of Silicon Valley, all seeking looser regulations to compete with established taxi cabs and public transit.
Autonomous vehicles and AI are attempting to gain a foothold in today’s marketplace, much like social media and ride-hailing services did a decade ago. These earlier products succeeded by initially offering superior, underpriced services, but eventually, they degraded the service and increased prices to boost profits. This process is known as “enshittification.” Given the history of enshittification at the expense of established industries and their workers, who cannot compete with venture capitalists, we should not be surprised by the pushback. Since robots will never be humans in a criminal justice sense, perhaps Silicon Valley should value human capital with the products they’re creating to address concerns about jobs and opportunities.
Since this Wiki’s inception, some transit corridors have shifted from bus to rail with the introduction of rail services. For example, the Link Line 1 service expanded from Downtown Seattle to the University of Washington in 2016, then to Northgate in 2021, and most recently to Lynnwood last year. Sound Transit Express bus 512, the primary route connecting Everett and Downtown Seattle, adjusted its route to connect with the Link once it expanded to Northgate. The route was further shortened with the Link’s extension to Lynnwood. Community Transit previously offered extensive commuter bus services to both Downtown Seattle and the University of Washington before 2021. However, the UW commuter service was mostly shortened when the Link reached Northgate. When the Link extended to Lynnwood, commuter buses to Northgate and most buses to Downtown Seattle were eliminated in favor of more local services connecting with Link stations in Snohomish County.
The Link has been a significant investment. The 1 Line north of Downtown Seattle is entirely grade-separated and operates frequent service throughout the day, offering traffic-free access to key commuter destinations previously served by peak-hour buses. Despite the current capacity constraints on the Link, service frequency should improve when the 2 Line extends to Lynnwood upon the completion of the East Link project across Lake Washington.
While Seattle exemplifies integrated planning and coordination among transit agencies, the Bay Area still lags behind. Despite the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit beginning service in 2017 in the North Bay, there hasn’t been a plan to evaluate regional services on the Highway 101 corridor in Sonoma and Marin counties. The same corridor served by SMART also has a daily regional bus service on the adjacent freeway. The transit agencies in the North Bay began a study on regional transit coordination last year (Marin-Sonoma Coordinated Transit Service Plan – MASCOTS), with recommendations expected sometime this year.
2/3 of all trips to SF from North Bay begin from San Rafael and points south.
SMART carries more riders (3600) than Golden Gate Transit Route 101 (680).
A significant portion of ridership on some Golden Gate Transit routes are within a single county, despite the primary objective for inter-county travel. For example, 55% of riders in Golden Gate Transit route 114 are within San Francisco. (Golden Gate Transit buses started to carry intra-SF riders during the pandemic when Muni cut most of commuter service and excess capacity was available on Golden Gate Transit. Routes like 114 stop in the Marina and serve the Financial District.)
More commuters take the ferry (3690) than buses across the Golden Gate Bridge (2300), despite higher fares on the ferry.
The study consultant believes there are too many bus routes (Golden Gate Transit and Marin Transit) serving Highway 101 in Marin County.
On the question of which role bus or rail should have in the future for regional transit, we should take a look in the past:
Steam trains began serving Sausalito with a ferry connection to San Francisco in 1874, with commuter service extending to San Rafael. The railroad company also operated the ferry line.
In 1903, commuter interurban service (eventually became part of Northwestern Pacific Railroad) was electrified with a third rail, which was quite advanced for the time. San Francisco mainly had cable cars then, as electric streetcars were disfavored due to overhead wires, a policy that changed after the 1906 earthquake.
Rail held a monopoly in southern Marin until a competing company introduced an automobile ferry at Sausalito in 1922.
The Golden Gate Bridge was completed in 1937.
In November 1939, Marin County voters rejected a proposal to make the NWP interurban system publicly owned, as a sharp ridership decline threatened the privately run service.
Rail and ferry services at Sausalito were discontinued in February 1941, and Greyhound buses became the only commuter transit option into San Francisco, covering the same cities served by NWP interurbans.
The Golden Gate Bridge District reintroduced ferry service to Sausalito in 1970 and took over the unprofitable Greyhound bus service in 1972, with bridge tolls subsidizing transit operations.
Before SMART opened in 2017, transit within Marin was mostly highway-based following the discontinuation of NWP. While reorienting transit around rail, as in Seattle, and reviving the glory days of NWP is desirable, many barriers exist in the North Bay. A multi-modal solution appears to be more suitable.
Although SMART uses the former NWP right of way, which went as far north as Eureka, the southernmost SMART stop is Larkspur, covering only a small section of the previous interurban system, which extended only as far north as San Rafael. Buses continue to serve other communities once served by NWP, and more people in those areas commute to SF than those living near SMART. Infrastructure issues hinder co-locating bus hubs at rail stations. Currently, there are two locations where bus transit center are co-located with SMART stations: San Rafael and Petaluma. In Santa Rosa, the distance between the SMART stop and the downtown bus hub is a 10-minute walk, making daily use impractical, especially those with mobility difficulties. The same issue exists in Larkspur between the rail station and the ferry terminal. The old NWP rail-ferry hub at Sausalito allowed for much tighter connections without long walks. Other transit systems, like BART, feature full off street transit centers at many stations. Co-locating bus hubs at SMART stations is challenging due to limited right of way and surrounding land use.
Numerous single-track sections on the SMART system limit the improvement in frequencies. The current schedule shows the closest headway is 32 minutes. A desirable transit feature, short of very frequent service every 15 minutes or less, is a clockface schedule. Buses could operate on such a schedule, but currently, SMART cannot. SMART and Ferry service remain high-cost compared to buses and cannot cost-effectively provide service during periods of low demand. Currently, the last northbound SMART train leaves Larkspur at 8:50 p.m. on weekdays and 7:45 p.m. on weekends. The last Route 101 trip departs San Francisco around 11:30 p.m. to Santa Rosa.
Some riders depend on transit but are wary of transfers, especially those with disabilities. Without fixed-route bus service on the corridor directly to San Francisco, more may opt for paratransit, which is much more costly per trip to taxpayers.
Because of these issues, I believe the corridor should maintain basic mainline bus service like the current Route 101 from Sonoma County. However, the route could be modified to coordinate with SMART by scheduling bus trips between train trips to improve overall service level on the corridor, harmonizing fares between agencies, and possibly shifting location of bus stops. Keeping a direct bus to San Francisco would benefit travelers from areas north of Sonoma County. Greyhound has already abandoned intercity bus service from San Francisco to Arcata, and its substitute, the Amtrak Thruway, only connects with trains at Martinez, with no service into San Francisco. Without a bus like Route 101, accessing San Francisco from the North Coast would require at least one additional transfer. Additionally, HOV lanes are being added to the Marin-Sonoma Narrows and should be completed this summer. These lanes should improve the reliability of bus service. In the long run, SMART should upgrade its infrastructure to allow better bus transfers and implement clockface schedules. Improving train and ferry transfers at Larkspur should also be discussed, even though such solutions could be cost-prohibitive.
Returning to the Seattle example, while Link expansions have led to bus route shortening and cancellations, the corridors north to Everett and south to Tacoma both have Sounder commuter rail service. Since these lines operate with diesel locomotives on tracks owned by freight railroads, Sounder trains are limited to peak-hour, peak-direction service only. Therefore, express buses are essential because they provide off-peak and reverse commute options, even though express buses and Sounder operate on separate corridors and share stops only at the endpoints in Everett and Tacoma. The long-term goal is to replace the express buses with Link, which can offer a much higher level of service. Although SMART operates more services than Sounder, it’s still not as frequent as Caltrain, let alone systems like Link or BART.
Ever since the Felon’s inauguration and the start of DOGE’s dismantling of the government, consumers have been rejecting the Tesla brand. Car sales have dropped sharply, as have the prices of used Tesla cars. Stock prices have also fallen, and many believe there is further room for decline, considering Tesla overvalued. Protests are taking place at Tesla showrooms everywhere. The situation became so dire that even the White House lawn was used as a Tesla showroom.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that there’s consumer rejection. Tesla’s primary customer base consists of middle to upper-class individuals who are environmentally conscious and willing to take the risk of buying and owning an electric car. Elon Musk essentially alienated them by pursuing radical right-wing, white supremacist causes, which are contrary to Tesla’s well-educated customer base.
At no point in U.S. history has someone unelected and unconfirmed held so much influence at the highest level of government. Rulers in other authoritarian regimes, such as Russia and China, typically keep power exclusively to themselves, requiring the rest of the oligarchs to submit to their rules. It requires narcissism from the Felon to grant such power and from Musk to assert himself in exchange for his monetary donations. This is coupled with the Felon’s disinterest in actual governance and distrust of experienced individuals, even within the Republican Party.
There has been a call from Tesla shareholders for Elon Musk to step down due to an obvious conflict of interest, but this is unlikely due to his narcissism. Musk believes he’s smarter than anyone and wants to bring Silicon Valley’s startup culture to government. Those mass firings at federal agencies were no different from what he did after buying Twitter. However, these mass firings have made him unpopular. Losing a job can be life-altering, as many people live paycheck to paycheck to cover food and housing costs. Job loss often leads to anxiety and uncertainty, with overwhelming pressure to find new work. He doesn’t seem to understand this; he believed he was doing good by trying to reduce the federal budget to prevent an imaginary bankruptcy of the federal government. Of course, there’s the Nazi salute and his peculiar ideas about race, reproduction, and going to Mars.
For those who desire EVs, there are now more choices from different manufacturers, offering ranges and amenities competitive with Tesla. Even with a change in CEOs, I doubt the old customer base will return. Musk remains a significant shareholder, and more value in Tesla means more wealth for him and his ability to cause damage.
Despite the current issues with Elon Musk, we should acknowledge that Tesla has made a positive contribution by developing EVs that function like ICE cars. The brand strongly identifies with zero-emission, fully electric vehicles, similar to how people associate the Toyota Prius with hybrid vehicles. About 20 years ago, when vehicle battery technology was insufficient for a usable range, the Prius was seen as a superior environmental alternative.
The best case for the company and the environment is for MAGAs to embrace Tesla cars. For a long time, due to ideological and practical reasons, the right wing has had no interest in EVs. Musk is better positioned to market EVs to them than anyone else. If the right-wing population embraces Tesla cars, it could boost the expansion of charging infrastructure and reduce dependence on fossil fuels, proving that anti-EV talk is merely rhetoric and part of a culture war. If Tesla fails because the right wing doesn’t embrace his EVs, so be it.
The Felon and his fossil fuel allies may want the ICE culture to continue indefinitely, but the reality is that investment and development are shifting towards EVs. For quite sometime, China has been investing in EVs, PEVs (e-scooters, e-bikes, electric unicycles), and electric transit vehicles, knowing it can’t catch up with Japan, the US, and Europe on ICE automobiles. Also, other countries still aim for all cars to be zero-emission in the future. Even if the Felon decides to issue executive orders to promote ICE cars today, attempting to turn back the clocks, a post-Felon administration may adopt the goal of zero emissions a few years later. Because auto manufacturers have longer product development timelines than his political career, they can’t afford to play games with a dying ICE technology.
In tech culture, even brands that were once pioneers and commanded a large market share can easily diminish. Remember Netscape, MySpace, and AOL? These companies were once household names, dominating discussions about the internet and social media. Yet, as quickly as they rose to prominence, they faded into obscurity. Tesla faces the same risk when new competitors emerge, whether from new dedicated electric car brands or existing automakers. Musk’s actions to destroy the US government only push his customer base toward other brands.
With the administration led by the Felon, there are mass layoffs across the federal government, unconstitutional executive orders, and threats to funding for seemingly secured infrastructure projects. The Secretary of Transportation recently ordered a review of the California High Speed Rail project, hopefully to find some “waste and fraud”, with the possibility of cutting off funding previously granted by past administrations.
The California High Speed Rail project is in a difficult spot. The cost to complete the full project from Los Angeles to San Francisco far exceeds the original estimate from 20 years ago. Since voters approved Proposition 1A in 2008, progress has been far too slow. Although the project recently completed all environmental documents for the entire corridor, there is no funding available to finish it. The project is opposed by the state’s Republican Party, who see this as an opportunity to end it, similar to how the Felon and Elon Musk ended USAID. Could it happen that way? Should it happen that way? I am not so sure, even though I have many doubts about the direction the California HSR is going, especially compared to the Brightline West project connecting Las Vegas and Rancho Cucamonga.
The current alignment requires costly rail overcrossings in several places, such as in Wasco. HSR is to run alongside with existing freight rail lines. Source: California High Speed Rail AuthorityBrand new rail right of way with a large curve radius cuts through farms in Madera. Also built is a vehicular overcrossing. Source: California High Speed Rail Authority
The slow progress of CAHSR was set in motion 20 years ago. The state aimed for a single high-speed rail backbone, connecting downtown to downtown, serving the Silicon Valley, Central Valley cities, and the High Desert, with trains faster than typical high-speed trains in Europe, as set by the 2 hour and 40 minute requirement under Proposition 1A. These political requirements and lofty goals explain the alignment on the east side of Central Valley, near State Route 99. Although Union Pacific and BNSF freight railroads serve this corridor (with Amtrak San Joaquins trains running on the latter), these railroads, for operational and business reasons, could not and did not want to share tracks or right of way with the HSR. Additionally, due to the high speeds, very large curve radii are required, far exceeding those of current railroads. Consequently, HSR needed a new right of way, even if adjacent to existing freight rail or freeways, necessitating the purchase of land from farmers and homeowners. The process of acquiring land had been slow and costly.
On the other hand, Brightline West will be built on the freeway median of Interstate 15, primarily using a single track with passing tracks at various points. Choosing the freeway alignment resolved most right-of-way issues, as it is already publicly owned. This alignment also addresses street crossings, as streets are grade-separated from the freeway. Additionally, the project will not have to deal with freight railroads or interfere with their operations.
If CAHSR had followed the path taken by Brightline West, the rail line would have used the Interstate 5 alignment, crossing over the Grapevine and Altamont Pass. The final stop might not have been in Downtown San Francisco or Downtown Los Angeles, but it would be close enough to the region—far better than Bakersfield and Merced, the endpoints of the current phase of the project. It might have been led and partially funded by private investors, similar to Brightline West. Originally, the CAHSR Authority anticipated private investments as part of the funding plan under Proposition 1A, but this never came to fruition.
The Obama administration approved the strategy of building the Central Valley first to showcase true high-speed rail (surpassing the Northeast Corridor) in the United States. However, I believe they made cost and construction progress projections during an economic downturn when construction companies and unions, eager for work, underbid for such projects. Since then, the economy has recovered, and unemployment has hit a record low. Inflation is now a major concern, and with high inflation, interest rates are also high. Even without waste and fraud, the current economic conditions work against CAHSR and other agencies pursuing major infrastructure projects.
Some critics of the CAHSRA may still support HSR but want a complete reset. However, I don’t see any benefit in killing the project now. Despite challenges, the agency has largely secured the right of way, and many bridges and structures have been built. A sudden course change, like shifting alignment to I-5, won’t save money now. Even pausing the project, assuming funding resumes after the current administration, won’t save money due to inflation. At best, the agency could save by deferring certain elements like electrification. I believe the best course is to complete the initial segment to the point where trains can operate, and then determine the next step forward, free of political constraints from past decisions by CAHSRA and Prop 1A.
For a long time, I have been wary of large capital projects. I prefer a series of smaller projects that can be completed faster with less funding. These smaller projects bring benefits sooner, and successful completions help build momentum for further improvements. Caltrain is a good example. It launched the “Baby Bullet” project after then-state senator Jackie Speier successfully secured funding from the state surplus in 2000. The agency started construction in 2002 and completed it in 2004. The new express trains reduced travel time to less than an hour, and ridership increased every year until 2020 when COVID hit and stay-at-home orders were issued. Caltrain’s success with the Baby Bullet helped build support for electrification, as it would be the next step to increase corridor capacity.
When the decision was made to build the Central Valley segment first, there were concerns that urbanized regions in the Bay Area and Los Angeles wouldn’t see any benefits for many years. Consequently, decisions were made to fund projects like Caltrain electrification, which could be built sooner, improve regional transit in the meantime, and eventually become part of HSR. It’s important to note that because most of the HSR funding is spent in the Central Valley, the project remains largely unseen by those in the Bay Area and Los Angeles unless they visit one of the Central Valley cities. It is also invisible to I-5 travelers, the primary driving route between the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
This regime likes to create chaos everywhere, and it will likely do the same for HSR and other transit projects in California. Since so much has already been built, it would be unfortunate for the state to abandon high-speed rail. Changing course now would only make the program more expensive and take longer to complete. Hard decisions may need to be made on how to keep the project going while federal funding is withheld. We can’t afford to leave those structures unfinished and unused, allowing them to become symbols of government ineffectiveness.
On the night of January 29, 2025, a military helicopter collided with a small passenger airliner in Washington D.C., just as the airliner was about to land at Reagan National Airport. The next morning, while first responders worked to recover the scene and families of the passengers tried to heal from the tragedy, the nation’s first Felon in Chief quickly blamed diversity initiatives and the previous administration for the crash, despite having no evidence.
During the presidential campaign, the Felon consistently attacked diversity initiatives, using “DEI” as a euphemism for derogatory terms: “so and so (of woman or a minority race) is a DEI hire…” implying incompetence based on race or gender. Since his inauguration, he has signed several executive orders to end DEI programs in federal agencies and encouraged federal employees to report colleagues working on those initiatives.
Aside from his well-documented history of racism, his current actions may stem from a personal vendetta against the Black Lives Matter movement during the 2020 presidential campaign he lost. Alternatively, dementia may have affected him to the point where his extremist handlers manipulate him to achieve their personal goals.
I see diversity initiatives as direct actions to undo racism and other types of discrimination. While direct discrimination has long been outlawed and disavowed, prejudices and stereotypes still persist. Diversity initiatives help us to recognize our own biases and look beyond stereotypes. It helps to reduce tension in workplaces and communities.
I have always supported diversity initiatives because I believe they are necessary to prevent painful consequences. During high school, I witnessed the Rodney King saga on TV: police brutality caught on camera, a court trial outcome many thought was unjust, and a riot in Los Angeles fueled by pent-up anger over racial discrimination, which pitted ethnic communities against each other. I’ve also witnessed the ugly campaign waged by then-Governor of California Pete Wilson against undocumented residents with Proposition 187, which stirred up fears in immigrant communities. While that proposition passed (and the court struck down many of the elements) and he served two terms, his actions inadvertently turned the Republican Party in California—home to two modern GOP presidents, Nixon and Reagan—into a permanent minority party, largely unable to win statewide seats.
For many years, community activists have urged transit agencies throughout the United States to pursue social equity, as these agencies determine the level of service and infrastructure investments in various areas. During the 1950s and 1960s, with federal funding, new freeways were built to support emerging white communities, dividing and bulldozing communities of color across the US. Later, in the 1990s, transit agencies pursued suburban rail expansions with federal funds but faced pushback from transit activists. These activists wanted investments redirected to bus services in the inner core, which had a higher minority population. This effort was successful in Los Angeles and Metro Rapid service was introduced in response. To be responsive to community demands and better serve their constituents as both service providers and employers, many agencies are interested in diversity initiatives, especially following the Black Lives Matter movement.
The murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and the Black Lives Matter movement sparked a national conversation about race in 2020. Those events led to significant growth in leadership roles focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), forced transit agencies to reconsider their approach to policing on their systems, and required agencies to revisit their relationships with riders of color.
-The Transit Equity Report by American Public Transportation Association, September 2024.
In the transit industry, although racial diversity exists at the lower levels of the workforce, the industry is largely male-dominated. The executive level remains predominantly white. Without efforts to improve diversity in recruitment, advancement, and awareness, this divide, with its inherent racial and gender biases, may foster a sense of distrust and injustice in a transit agency, affecting both employees internally and riders and the community externally.
Recognizing and appreciating diversity also improves employee morale, enhances decision-making, and decreases worker turnover. This is essential since many agencies have faced operator shortages in recent years, hampering service and ridership recovery after the COVID pandemic. As an example, Santa Clara VTA is partnering with a local ATU to empower women frontline transit workers and address unique needs, such as safety issues and restroom access.
Safety is paramount in the transportation business, whether it’s aviation, railroad, or transit. The safety culture that many companies and agencies strive for requires strict adherence to standards and procedures, and demands a sense of truthfulness and fairness from all transportation workers, whether at the executive level or in customer-facing roles. Diversity initiatives can enhance safety culture by fostering a collaborative atmosphere rather than relying solely on a top-down command hierarchy. This approach focuses on finding solutions and avoiding unsafe situations instead of letting accidents happen and assigning blame.
The notion that someone who has benefited from DEI policies is incompetent or wouldn’t be qualified without lowered standards is not what DEI policies intend to convey. One of the reasons for greater racial diversity at lower levels of transit employment, such as transit operators, is the paid training offered by transit agencies. Candidates for these jobs don’t face the training barrier present in other fields where applicants must pay for their own education. It is well-known that there is systemic bias against minorities in accessing quality education, with cost being a factor. Since the trainees will work for the agencies after training, lowering standards that compromise safety would be counterproductive and costly to the agencies.
Those who advocate against DEI say they’re for meritocracy, but I think what they really meant is toxic “bro” culture. This notion of meritocracy often gets twisted to justify exclusionary practices that favor a certain group over others, under the guise of performance. It’s as if they equate being part of the “in crowd” with actual capability.
A prime example of an employer promoting a toxic “bro” culture is Abercrombie & Fitch under the leadership of then CEO Mike Jeffries from the ’90s to 2014. The company marketed its brand as being for “the attractive, all-American kids.” While the brand’s “white hot” image was very profitable during that era, it also discriminated against racial minority employees for not fitting the white, preppy look and attracted numerous discrimination lawsuits. Even though a fashion company is very different from a transit agency, a toxic culture is equally harmful in both.
Someone appointed to the role not based on merit but rather a toxic “bro” culture issues a tweet falsely claiming that celebrating diversity compromises safety. Making workers feel valued and respected is never a distraction.
The idea that DEI prevents employers from hiring the “best and brightest” is also far from the truth. Most jobs, especially in transportation, don’t require artisanal or creative skills; only competency is necessary to perform them safely. It’s unrealistic to view every job as a sports championship, where candidates must fight hard against each other for the spot and the person hired is considered the best. A decade ago, when public transit jobs were preferred and had more applicants than positions, transit agencies were more selective, making positions harder to qualify for. However, as baby boomers retire, and companies like Uber and Lyft offer more flexible driving gigs, along with more work-from-home jobs available elsewhere, fewer people are applying for transit jobs. Diversity initiatives, especially those targeting women, can help attract more qualified candidates to this traditionally male-dominated field. Even in artisanal and creative positions, people from diverse backgrounds bring new perspectives and can break through the groupthink common in “bro” culture.
Transit agencies understand how to honor diversity while promoting safety. Only those with ulterior motives claim otherwise. Source: SamTrans
A petty and ill-conceived ban on diversity initiatives at the federal level will harm workers and negatively affect everyday Americans who interact with federal agencies. For those who are pushing to ban them, part of the plan is to cause pain. Unfortunately, some large employers, influenced by the false notion of DEI and meritocracy, chose to end their diversity programs as well. Transit agencies, governed at the local level, should know better and firmly reject calls to end these initiatives. They should also resist attempts by the federal government to impose its will through executive actions without Congress’s approval. Embracing diversity improves safety, enhances relations with transit riders and community members, and boosts employee satisfaction.
