What we as a region have not yet done is have the sort of political fights that really make a transit system effective which are not fights over money, they're fights over space, right? Is the vehicle going to get priority over traffic? Are we going to continue to insist that everything that gets bill comes with multiple parking spaces? Are we going to continue to automatically widen freeways as a traffic mitigation measure? Because Los Angeles is going to get to a point where it doesn't just say, oh, we want to build transit, it's actually that we want to confront the challenges posed to us by the private automobile. I suppose it helps to be able to say, well, hey, expose booming, but substantively, no, it's not a good sign. Most of expose riders are not new riders. It's important to point out that LA Metro's internal studies and surveys suggest that a lot of that ridership is not new ridership. That expo probably pulled a lot of people off of metro buses, it pulled a lot of people off Santa Monica's buses, it pulled a lot of people off Culver City's buses. The goals that the rail system was supposed to have that it's going to reduce congestion on the roads nearby, like that's not happening. I think that it would be unwise to look at expo and think that things are going in the right direction for our transit system and that we don't have to worry. We have to worry. What's a little tricky is we just passed like a 40 year expenditure plans, but there's some somewhat low ridership lines in that expenditure plan that were needed to get votes to spread the poor. To spread the benefits around a different parts of the county. We're expanding the gold line, the light rail system, many dozens of miles east instead of focusing on where there's much more heavy ridership in the core of the city. The regional connectors are rail line, it's been in the works for a long time, we just got the funding for it in the past decade. And it's only three new stops, but all of the rail lines, if you ever look at a Los Angeles rail map, there's like this weird spaghetti bowl in downtown Los Angeles where the urban core is, where a lot of them don't connect to each other. And the regional connector is just building the rail line that actually connects them all. The line I'm excited about is going to be the west side extension of the purple line. So LA is building a subway underneath Wilshire Boulevard, which is the busiest bus line in the United States. And UCLA serves job centers on the west side and the center of Los Angeles is very close to a lot of population. I expect that's going to be even higher ridership in the next level. There's a very slow journey from the USC area to downtown Los Angeles where the line crosses a number of intersections at grade, crosses a few freeway on ramps, and has a junction which was designed for the volume of rail vehicle traffic that it has now. You get into that area and suddenly there was a dispute over, well, who's going to have priority? And I think in a real way, the transit line in that fight lost. Metro also has some challenges with the placement of some of its stations and access to those stations. So, for example, the green line intersects the silver line bus rapid transit in the middle of where the 105 meets the 110. Through some of the loudest environment you could imagine. Many places in LA are very difficult to actually quite frankly dangerous to navigate through. The infrastructure isn't there. Instead of people walking sometimes half a mile to the safest crossing where there's a crosswalk, they'll end up cutting across and putting their own bodies and lives at risk. You'll also have places where the infrastructure for people getting around by bike is not there to protect them. I would look at a lot of high ridership bus quarters and do 24-7 bus only lanes and make that bus service much more reliable and in the short run, I would enforce those bus only lanes. Drivers are driving in them and not getting tickets and not getting stopped. I think making the bus system more effective will dovetail with the rail system and prioritize modes that carry a lot of people. LA really hit it out of the park with the orange line bus rapid transit project. Los Angeles can think about speeding up the workhorse of our transportation system, which is the bus to speed transit vehicles relative to cars. Right here where we are on the Vermont bus corridor, we need to treat this like rail, make it like the orange line in the valley, give it that prioritization, give it a dedicated lane and make the street a better street so people will also want to walk and bike. Vermont, like this dedicated exemplar for how the city can use buses in a much smarter way. The problem with mass transit in Los Angeles is cars, it continues to be cars. I think the biggest problem with how measure and misposition is that no one has come straight out and said we need to reduce the number of cars on our streets, we need to get more people physically out of their vehicles. That needs to be a stated goal. The optimist in me says that now we have the money and maybe the politics shrinks a little bit and is replaced by a new conversation about how do we actually make the most of this, are we serious about creating a city where it's easier to get around in a lot of different waves, not just driving. But we still have a lot of difficulty giving transit vehicles priority, we still have a lot of difficulty building housing so that we have dense corridors, we still have a lot of difficulty talking about parking reform. Nothing's been won and nothing's been assured, there's a lot of work that's left to be done and we're serious about making Los Angeles into a different kind of place where people have an ability to move around in a lot of different ways.