Debating rail in L.A.

The Times has an interesting debate going over the future of transportation in L.A., pitting a leader of the Transit Coalition with someone from the Reason Foundation. On Monday, they fought over whether more light rail around Southern California would help our traffic nightmare (coming up: subways). Reason's Ted Balaker warns about making too much out of rail expansion:

There will always be plenty of car-vs.-transit squawking. But since bus trips account for about 85 percent of transit ridership, we should remember that transit users and motorists share a common enemy in traffic congestion.

What do you think? More rail the answer? More roads? More telecommuting? Hit the COMMENT button and become a part of the important debate.

Comments

[Scott Mercer]

More rail is the answer. More telecommuting is the answer. More roads are not. But these things will not change overnight.

The easiest cheapest, quickest solution for increasing freeway capacity is right before us: all freeways in Los Angeles county are CARPOOL ONLY freeways during rush hours, except for commercial traffic and buses. Cars would need to have THREE or more people in them to use any freeway 6am-9am and 3-7pm. Monday through Friday.

This would only cost a few million bucks for some signs. No construction, no new lanes, no new trains, no new nothing. Lots of money coming in from traffic tickets for people who violate this law.

But this will never happen. Maybe I should start telling more people about this idea though. You never know...

[David]

As it is now, there are simply TOO MANY CARS here in LA. If you take a look at all the figures for the expected growth this city is to see in the next 20 years, how can it get any easier. More cars, more people, less room. Bulid a subway already! I want to see one running down Santa Monica Blvd, down to the beach, with a transit hub located at Wilshire & Santa Monica, right on top of that pretensious Beverly Hills Fountain.

With a subway comes sacrifice, and as it is now, I'd rather put up with a delay on the subway than a delay sitting in traffic. We fellow Los Angeleno's have had it too easy being able to hop in our cars at a moment's notice. If you live in NYC, you know how long it takes to get from Point A to Point B using their subways, its about time we started doing the same. It'll be good for the environment, our health, and our sanity!

:) xoxoo

[Cesar G]

Cars + Wider lanes = more cars in those lanes and the same problem we have now (a traffic nightmare)

Rail + people + having those stations walking distance from home = Happy, healthy (because now we walk rather than stay in our cars), efficient, cheap (in price for the people who take it) and world class.

One thing I dont get is why have we built the goldline and green line along the freeway (google map it)? I dont want to drive to the station to get to work. I want to WALK to the station and go to work. You are defeating the purpose if i have to DRIVE to the station. Why can Europe and Japan do it and yet we cant?

[Matthew]

Wow,

So many closed-minded people posting on this board…

Look, the arguments against rail are valid, given our feeble system in comparison to those of other major cities like Berlin, Shanghai, Paris or London. Moreover, the construction of mass transit systems in American cities has slowed significantly over the past 60 years; New York is not an ideal system, though the best that our country has. This has to do with the way our government functions.

Curious why the Green Line doesn’t run to the airport? Thank the taxi and automobile lobbyists. If the government couldn’t afford it, then why could they afford to keep building all the way to Redondo Beach in the opposite direction? Why do very few cities in the United States actually connect rail to their airports?

The rise of the automobile was due to immediate affordability. Oil subsidies and tax cuts made it affordable, though the United States is changing quickly. Our cities are increasing in density, real estate values and gas prices are rising; we cannot afford to keep all of our roads in good condition given the large amount we spend on them. This is not going to work in the long-term.

As a mass-transit user and car owner, I understand people’s opposition to our current bus and rail system. We do not invest enough money to provide Angelenos with a comprehensive rail network, nor with enough buses, nor with enough frequency or late hours. I do not, however, think that the answer is to strip away what we already have. We have to press on! With the increased number of lines and the increased area of mobility and speed, more users WILL come. Were we not spending all of our money on the Pentagon and on new highways, perhaps we would be able to spend the same proportion on mass transit as other countries do for systems that do what they’re meant to do. Light-rail appeases in the short-term, much like new carpool lanes and freeways do; neither are sufficient for future demands, though. Light-rail will only eventually be built as heavy-rail on a separate grade; bus-transit expressways will only eventually be re-built into rail. And current heavy-rail? Well, in cities like New York, London, Paris and Berlin, it’s still around over 100 years later. Every other city without over-hyped real estate values and a socially-minded government seems to get this. Communities like Cheviot Hills can only stand in our way for so long until the entire city chokes.

In any case, sorry for ranting. For all of the power we’ve already given up to the federal government, you’d think that we’d at least get a more comprehensive rail network out of it like the Chinese (Shanghai had 12 subway lines under construction simultaneously just five years ago).

[manuel]

Maybe the MTA should hire the people that built the tunels under the Mexican border to build our tunnels for our subways. It may be a lot cheaper and faster. They seem to do a great job.

[manuel]

Today there is going to be a community meeting at the Westwood park rec center to discuss how to widen the 405 through the Sepulveda pass. Another example of a waste of 70 million dollars. Instead of implementing these funds for rail through the Sepulveda pass.

Go protest.

[Richard]

Shaun wrote:

“LA needs to just suck it up and build a $10 billion heavy rail system.”

and

“LA can spend $14 billion to build a world class subway system”

Got some bad news.

$10 billion or $14 billion isn’t going to build much heavy rail.

Exhibit A: The LACMTA Red Line. 17 miles, 16 stations. $4.6 billion.
That’s $270 million a mile in 1990’s dollars. Something like that that would probably cost twice as much in the coming years. The Red Line took some 15 years to build.

Some comparisons:

The New York Subway system has more than 10 times as much route as the Red Line and has over 400 stations as opposed to 16 for the Red Line.

Building something like the NYC subway system today or in the coming years will probably cost something like $100 billion.

I don't think its something very affordable. Even for L.A.

[TrafficBulldog.org]

Ah, it seems some of us are stuck in the government mindset of what carpooling is.

We need to clear our mind of government based carpool….

Imagine getting a ride on demand.

Not being stuck to someone else’s schedule.

Soon, drivers will all be able to get reimbursed for the use of the empty seats.

That will be the future, because free markets always win out.

Incidentally, you are always stuck with bus or rail schedule. So I am sorry, I really missed the point of preferring the schedule of rail versus the schedule of a person you agreed to carpool with.

Oh and there is that seemingly insignificant price tag of rail in the Multi - Billions of dollars here. Boston’s fiasco should not be motivation for Angelenos.

Thank heavens it is ILLEGAL for the MTA to use SALES TAXES for SUBWAYS (except to maintain Red line). There is a reason for that. Cost overruns. At least that law slows down the creation of new taxes.

Oh yes, if only we all drove the same way at the same time. Like in the 50s when we would all leave work at the same time.

I don't know about you, but there sure seems to be a lot of people leaving work at the same time on the 405 and heading south.

Pretty much pick any freeway. There are going to be a great deal of people going the same way at almost any time of every day.

http://trafficbulldog.org is a commuter advocacy group committed to getting our freeways moving again.

Please join the conversation

[Michael]

I really feel Shaun's pain. It is so dissapointing to live in a city you love that can't look further than a couple of years. We need heavy rail but we can't do these lines one at a time. To prevent people from complaining we need to build it all at once and as quickly as possible. We won't get everyone off the roads with rail but we can probably get a lot of people off. There really aren't any viable options for getting around this city. We must have diversity in the way we move people and things around. We have already built a million roads, now we need to build a million miles of track. PLEASE give me an alternative to sitting in traffic that is more appealing. If we can make people's commute quicker with trains people will leave their cars behind in droves.

We need more infill development and we should also really be offering people tax breaks for living close to their work. We need to start acting like a world class city.

Also, Trafficbulldog....please stop posting about carpools. The world world is changing and by signing up for carpools you are giving up what people in LA won't give up: Personal Freedom!! I would rather take a train home any day than have to leave at a certain time because my carpool is leaving. The modern work day will not accomodate this. Maybe in the 50's when everyone worked 9-5 but seriously, such a bad idea. Carpools are sooo short sighted.

All the money they are spending on ONE lane on the 405 should really be going towards a sepulveda subway! Imagine actually taking the subway to the airport instead of sitting on the 405!!!! Stop wasting money! Tax me more, I don't care just build it now! If people don't want trains in their backyard than go under their communities and don't give them a stop. Take the trains to the rest of LA that really really wants it.

[Shaun]

Los Angeles needs more rail and it needs heavy rail more than anything. LA is suppose to be a world class city along with places like London, Paris, New York, ect.. but it doesn't even have a third world subway system. Light rail is good but it's a half-a*s approach to rail transit. It's the cheapest rail you can build. And commuter rail is slow as hell b/c they are basically regular locomotive trains that take too long to stop and too long to get up to speed. Light rail is slow especially when it shares the right of way with a street and has at grade crossings.

Yes you can look at the data and spin it how you want. Very few people use transit to get to work and you can make the same arguments for more roads. But that never solved congestion in the past so why would it now? I am so sick of hearing these idiots clamoring for more roads b/c they somehow think it will solve congestion. YOU CANT SOLVE CONGESTION! find me one city in the world the size of LA that has managed to solve congestion. So you need to give people ALTERNATIVES to congestion and fast ones. Heavy rail transit is the fastest and most efficient way to move people around. You will attract a lot more people out of cars with more rail lines like the Red/Purple Line subway b/c it's fast and convenient. All you have to do is look at BART in the Bay Area. I grew up in Walnut Creek about 25-30 miles east of SF. The BART ride to SF takes 35 minutes and driving takes longer during rush hour. Even during non peak times taking BART is still comparable to driving. How long do you think it takes to drive the 20 miles from Downtown LA to Santa Monica during rush hour? Definately not less than 35 minutes. If you can get transit within 15 minutes of how long it takes to drive to a location plenty of people would leave their cars behind. Many people want to save gas, just don't like driving, and would rather sit and read on their way to a destination. When BART when on strike years ago the Bay Area's freeways turned into parking lots and the parking lots couldn't handle all the cars. So the Bay Area has managed to get commuters out of their cars in large numbers and I don't see why LA can't do the same; it;'s not that different up there. LA is the densest metropolitan area in the United States; not the city but the metropolitan area. Congestion has reached a point in the region where rail transit can be faster than driving IF it's done right.

Every major city in the world has a huge heavy rail system; London, Paris, NYC, Rome, Chicago, Washington DC, ect... You would think LA would be in the same category as those cities, but it's transportation options are extremely limited compared to those cities. Third World Countries have better rail systems than we do; Mexico City, Sao Paulo, ect.. have more heavy rail than LA does!!

We need to stop thinking that light rail, metrolink, and rapid buses are going to get commuter out of their cars. Neither one of those modes even compares to driving times and will never get commuters out of cars in large numbers. Heavy Rail is the only form of rapid transit that can compete with the automobile. LA needs to just suck it up and build a $10 billion heavy rail system. It would be well worth it 30 years down the road from now. Because 30 years down the road after we spend billions widening freeways, congestion will be just as bad as it is today and most likely it will be worse. These idiots that think more roads are the solution are extremely short sighted. It didn't work in the past and it won't work in the future. More roads never reduces congestion in the long run in a city like LA.

We've already built freeways as wide as they can be and now you want to double deck a freeway that is already over 12 lanes wide (the 91)!! And for anyone saying that wider freeways and double decker freeways are the solution, can you please go live next to a freeway. The pollution within the first few hundred feet of a freeway is so bad and causes health problems for those people. STOP BUILDING MORE FREEWAYS! It doesn't work and it never will. It has not worked in the past; but maybe if we go just a little bit wider it will, huh? Building more and wider roads in the past gave us our present situation, so can someone please explain to me how building wider and more roads will give us a different result in the future somehow?

Light rail and commuter rail is fine for places like San Diego, Phoenix, and Denver. But come on people, this is LOS ANGELES, CA and you are giving it the same treatment as Dallas or Denver!! Heavy Rail is the only viable alternative to driving in a city of this size and this density. Heavy Rail is the only mode that will move people across such a large city in the same amount of time or faster than it takes to drive. We need to wake up and bite the bullet. If Boston can spend $14 billion to replace 2 miles of some stupid freeway surely LA can spend $14 billion to build a world class subway system that would forever change our lives and improve the quality of life here and put us on par with cities it should be up there with like London and Paris.

BUILD HEAVY RAIL!!

[TrafficBulldog.org]

Is it not OK to ask "What about more carpool funding?" Not for the HOV lanes, for the actual pairing of drivers and passengers.

Rails are not the answer, the rail is a problem with its fixed path. The extremely successfull Orange Line (buses) was built on an old rail right of way.

Telecommuting is such a silly issue for the government to be pushing. As a business owner, I often have to keep an eye on employees. I don't see how telecommuting is going to help me keep my employees on track. That is as realistic as trying to tell people where to live.

Buses are better but are still limited in the path that they take.

Where is the conversation regarding rideshare and carpooling?
Only with rideshare can you get a "door to door" mass transit solution.

Why aren't we working hard to improve rideshare participation? Ridesharing has fallen 50% under the care of the MTA. Roger Snoble knows that at 1.3 riders per car there would be no traffic. So why has he allowed the carpool participation to drop from 1.20 people per car to 1.09 people per car?

By the time any more rail is built, there will be many more cars to erase any of the gains that the rail may have made.

The MTA has been at this for over 20 years and traffic still gets worse. The best thing that the MTA has done is to operate a great bus services that is used by apparently 85% of the mass transit riders. And they had to be sued to get that to happen.

Why is it we continue to fall for the trap where they tell us "it will be different this time".

http://trafficbulldog.org is a commuter advocacy group committed to curing our traffic congestion

Please join the conversation.

[movielocke]

Balaker said:
"That doesn't mean slathering the Southland with pavement. It means adding capacity strategically, creatively (with tunnels, roads need not hog surrounding land), and with the help of toll-revenue financing. Let's squeeze as much performance out of our transportation network as possible (clear accidents faster, embrace road pricing, etc.)"

Embracing road pricing is a political nightmare but, if actually implemented will drive so many people to attempt to use transit that the capacity will be swiftly overrun. Then because the transit system is not competent enough to handle high volumes, people will return to their cars and congestion will stay terrible. It only takes one time of being refused entrance to a once an hour or once a 90 minute 400 commuter bus on the MTA because 60 people boarded at once for someone to swear off transit forever.

The bus system is terrible, unreliable and you have to wait long periods for any bus (even rapids) unless you're on Wilshire, since there is such a pathetic amount of rail there is no reliable way to depend on transit.

quadrupling the volume of buses on routes would help make it more reliable (and might alleviate the immense annoyance of riding transit) but what really needs to occur is to finish the rail skeleton of los angeles and then fill it in with more connecting rail.

Until then, it's impossible for people to move effectively around los angeles at will using transit. I live in Culver, near the 405, I work in Sherman Oaks, MTA's suggestion for a commute is to ride a bus to downtown, and then ride a bus to Sherman Oaks. Right, I'm really going to do that. a 40 minute drive (in only the most heavy traffic)versus a 2-3 hour bus ride one (plus waiting time and walking time to the bus stops). Even creating my own more direct bus route to work requires two transfers (minimum 15-30 minute wait time), as well as moving at surface traffic speed for the entire route, so at best it saves 30 minutes from MTA's ridiculous downtown diversion.

Rail is reliable, high volume, not dependent on surface or freeway traffic flow, which is why a network of rail (but not buses) is capable of changing commuting and congestion patterns. The problem is that it takes insane lengths of time to put it a piddling amount of rail. environmental studies, psychotic nimbys in community review are not really all that bad compared to the glacial construction pace of only one a section at a time. As the expo line is being built. The rail right of way is there, that's like having a skyscraper already built, just needing renovations in some areas yet taking four years before anyone is allowed to move in because they decided to work on one suite at a time rather than the entire building. (and then the finished suites aren't opened until every suite is finished). A competent private business could probably finish the expo line in 12-18 months, but no one has ever accused the MTA (or any government related construction) of being competent.

[manuel]

I believe that rail is a great thing for Los Angeles. However, there is going to be a lot of opposition for many senseless reasons. The people apposing will be the ones complaining about traffic while on the freeway by them selves.
I understand that public transportation is not for every one. But it can help a lot of commuters every day. If half of the 9-5rs ride a train, it will be a great win for every one. Plus, with modern technology that we have now it can be a pleasure to ride the transit. For example, the Foothill transit has their new Silver Streak line that has wireless Internet on board. Plus, almost all MTA buses have a TV. Now if we just got them to put it on an entertaining channel, hey I’m there (Sports Center for me).
More people would like to take a form of public transportation but there is none that make it attractive to make the change. Rail is faster avoids traffic so it will become attractive for those that are looking for an alternative.
Lets just dream of one possible rail line. What if there was a line that ran parallel to the 405? Lets think small; let’s say it just ran from the Orange Line at Sepulveda to Santa Monica Blvd and it took fifteen minutes one way with a stop at Ventura Blvd. Would you take it?
When considering the option of rail for Los Angeles, think of the positives and not the negatives. And if all you can think of are objections, then think some more of how to solve those objections that you keep thinking of.

[Johan]

We just have way too many people. I remember LA before immigration exploded.