Rail wins over buses?

Is the MTA putting rail service ahead of bus service? That's an argument made by  Eric Mann and Manuel Criollo, who are against the MTA's proposed fare hikes. In The Times, they say bus riders are being short changed.

The MTA, claiming a $100-million operating deficit, wants us to believe that punishing its riders is its only choice. But it continues to subsidize rail projects at absurd levels. About $57 million is spent on operations for Metrolink — a subsidy of about $5 a rider — which serves the whitest, most affluent suburban transit users. For the Gold Line, weekday ridership is 19,000 at an operating subsidy for each passenger of almost $7. The three Wilshire/Whittier bus lines, the most heavily utilized and effective in the nation, carry 90,000 daily passengers at a subsidy of 79 cents each.

What do you think? Hit COMMENT and speak out!

Comments

[Dan W.]

Carl's post is full ofl meaningless BRU talking points and has no basis in reality.

London is a vast sprawl like Los Angeles and has a comprehensive commuter/heavy/light rail network with a heavy comprehensive bus system. Bus service by itself will never keep Los Angeles economically and environmentally sustainable. It doesn't carry enough people and doesn't carry them enough efficiently.

It's not just the cost of building rail or adding buses. While rail is expensive to build, the operating costs are so much more cheaper per person than the labor-intensive operating costs of buses. Furthermore, there is lost cost of economic productivity from being caught in the ever-worsening congestion that all these extra buses will simply add to. This doesn't even mention the environmental costs and quality of life costs of not providing true mass transit.

And this whole ridiculous argument about "the next hot neighborhood in 30 years" is another canard. If there is a neighborhood that is inaccessible by rail and in 30 years becomes demand worthy of it, then extend the rail system. That new hot neighborhoods arise is not an argument not to build the system in the first place. Certain places will be hot PERIOD. Wilshire Blvd. was worthy of subway 30 years ago and it will be worthy of subway 30 years from now, maybe 30 decades from now. Hollywood was worthy of rail in the 1950's and will be worthy of rail in 2050. Downtown will always be worthy of rail. London has had its rail system a hundred years and when a new hot neighborhood rises, they add to their existing system. They don't "move" the rail lines.

While commuters do go in directions go all over town, as in London, that sprawl is already changing. NBC/Universal is moving TO the Red Line from its automobile reliant headquarters in Burbank. Non-altruistic businesses see the future of Los Angeles and it isn't centered around the belief that EVERYONE will use an automobile. With 3 million more people coming to Los Angeles, densification is already happening, justifying far more rail.

And bus-only lanes, while necessary, are not a substitute for rail. Express and Rapid buses will still weave in and out of bus lanes as they pass local buses. And, bus-only lanes lasted on Wilshire Blvd. about 30 seconds before single-occupancy motorists and small businesses had them removed. The rail system the BRU and other bus-only extremists want to sabotage will only have to be built anyway in the future after bus-only lanes are proven inadequate or even repealed and it will only be more expensive to build then.

While Carl is no doubt well-intended, he is nevertheless seriously misinformed.

Fortunately, in no small part to their phony calls of "transit racism" and anti-rail tirades, the BRU has no power, influence or credibility left, nor does it deserve any.

Fortunately, there are other transit advocacy organizations like the Transit Coalition and Southern California Advocates that recognize we need BOTH a strong rail and bus system, not a bus-only system that will fail to meet or present and future transportation needs.

Don't be fooled by the BRU's nonsense. Go to the Transit Coalition's website and read "BRU Truth" and you'll see for yourself how they distort the facts for their ridiculous bus-only proposals.

[Carl]

Many of those posting support for rail vs. buses have not taken the following into account:

1. Rail costs an enormous amount to build, while buses run on existing streets and cost a tiny fraction of what rail does.

The Red Line cost 300 million dollars per *mile* to build. Do you have any idea how many buses can be purchased and operated for that amount of money? And that is just for one *mile*.

2. Commuting patterns in the spread out city of Los Angeles are constantly shifting. Bus lines can be easily added or removed to match these shifting needs. Good luck doing that with a train line.

3. The MTA has eliminated bus lines that run parallel to the present train system, forcing people onto trains, which is the only reason that there are as many rides per day as there are.

This is an inefficient process for bus riders, who end up having to change from buses to trains and back again just to satisfy the MTA's need to prove that its rail systems are worth their enormous cost.

4. Figures showing commuters per "route mile" have been used in a completely misleading manner. The bus system is a spiderweb that provides coverage to all of the nooks and crannies of the city, while the train system is intended to hit the main corridors. Plus, per number 3 above, MTA is forcing people onto the trains by eliminating parallel bus lines along those heavy corridors. And finally, most importantly, there is a *huge* and largely *fixed* cost per mile to build and operate the train system, whereas for buses you can have just as many buses as are needed to handle demand.

In other words, this is like comparing the amount of blood flowing through capillaries to that which flows through major veins, and concluding that we should eliminate the capillary system because it carries less blood "per route mile." Well, there are a lot *more* capillaries than there are veins, and the patient will not survive without those capillaries. I mean, let's have only freeways and no secondary roads, right? Same logic. Freeways carry more commuters per passenger mile, but they cost a lot more to build, and good luck getting to where you need to go on freeways alone.

Think about the money per passenger ride and you'll come up with a quite different conclusion. Think about coverage and you'll realize that trains just can't cut it in L.A. Sure, if we had a lot of money we could build a train system *and* a good bus system, but MTA doesn't have that money and has chosen to cannibalize buses to pay for rail. The price increases on buses are not mainly to raise revenue, but to discourage ridership so that more buses can be shut down and more money can be diverted to capital projects with huge cost overruns (trains). You should see the number of "suits" from these construction firms that attend every MTA meeting. That's our tax money they're sniffing out. The scruffy folks in the yellow shirts get my vote - they're protecting mass transit from these lobbying hordes.

[Scott Mercer]

Eric Mann and Manuel Criollo have worthless opinions. Why should lower-income Angelenos have to "get by" with buses? Why can't they have the best transit options? Why is their time worthless? Why should they have limited mobility and be unable to easily travel out of neighborhoods where they have limited economic opportunities? I'm sick of the racist pandering by the BRU.

They show their ignorance by throwing Metrolink into the discussion, which is not funded by the MTA. It is operated by the SCRRA. But since it has a similar name to Metrorail, they assume that most of the people who align with them will be too stupid to notice the difference there. Their condescencion is stomach turning.

Richard H: The Green Line "goes nowhere"? I'd like you to tell that to the 35,000 people that ride it every weekday. That ridership number, BTW, is much higher than any of the light rail lines in Dallas, where light rail has been considered a great success.

"Should Metrorail take priority over the bus system? Gut the bus system to keep that crown jewel of Los Angeles, Metrorail expanding and operating?" - Richard H.

Answer: Yes, and yes. If Metrorail is expanded enough, we don't need buses other than as neighborhood circulators like DASH. You know, we used to have a rail system here of over 1,000 miles of track. I'd be happy if we built 200 (right now there's 73, there will be 92 miles by 2010.) But I'll take what I can get.

"Too bad the trains can't be replaced by CNG buses" - RIchard H.

Thank God they can't. And won't.

A bus is a bus is a bus. It can break down, and then it's the world largest paperweight. But a train system is a civic amenity, a permanent installation like a museum, or a sports stadium, or an opera house, or a public library. (Trains don't break down nearly as often as buses, but if they do, they don't morph into useless hunks of metal. The tunnels are still there. )

It's a fact, like it or not: world class cities have world class subways. If L.A. purports to be a world class, cutting edge, ecnomically vital city, we need a decent rail system, be it light rail or subway system.

[Dan Wentzel]

Richard H. states:
"Am I the only one on this board willing to criticize and question the MTA's policies and priorities and direction?"

Not at all. We just don't agree with YOUR priorities.

Personally, I think finishing the Purple Line, connecting LAX and the Orange Line over the Sepulveda pass and connecting the Orange/Red lines to the Burbank Airport as well as a connecting line between Hollywood and Century City on Santa Monica Blvd. are all much higher priorities than finishing the Gold Line extension under development and the proposed extension by Rep. David Dreir on the norther half to Upland.

This is not 1996 anymore. We need rail and we need it decades ago. Rail built this city and the dismantling of the Red Car system is one of the greatest tragedies in Southern California's history..

Additional buses won't relieve congestion, save the future economy from gridlock, or reduce polution, or encourage and enable people to get out of their cars.

While we do need a strong bus system and the fare increases may be too high, if the so-called Bus Riders Union is going to fight building rail, then I hopeand expect that this time they will lose. They should stick to the fare increase battle. This time there are bus riders willing to stand up to their anti-rail diatribes.

[russell]

Rail built this city. The notion that this city is different because it is road-based and thus amenable to busses has been thouroughly debunked. Busses cannot hold thousands like a train can hold. The only way to get even close to the price/performance of a train is to close off the streets. The whole system needs to include both, and we are at saturation levels as far as throwing more busses at the problem. It is a more effective use of funds to spend on a rail system.

[Richard H]

Am I the only one on this board willing to criticize and question the MTA's policies and priorities and direction?

Really, the MTA is too easy a target. All anybody has to do is take a look inside the half billion dollar MTA headquarters building on Cesar Chavez Ave. Looks more like some Las Vegas casino than a building for a public agency with any accountable to the public. Enough Las Vegas type gambling goes on in that place.

What did they say? All roads lead to Rome. All Metrorail lines go to MTA headquarters. The only one that doesn't goes nowhere.

What are Metrorail and Metrolink for? How about being just another expensive attempt by the politicians and grand urban designers of the City of Los Angeles trying to recreate a centralized city centered around the Civic Center and a new Downtown built on Bunker Hill and Figueroa Street. This time using expensive and overpriced raillines carrying the multitudes of government employees and office workers that were going be working in this new Downtown. Big success story here right?

Is Los Angeles and the Southern California region really centered around Downtown Los Angeles? The way Metrorail and Metrolink were laid out, one would believe that were the case. It may have been true at one time, since Metrorail and Metrolink were built mostly on preexisting railroad rights of way. Not any more.

Should Metrorail take priority over the bus system? Gut the bus system to keep that crown jewel of Los Angeles, Metrorail expanding and operating?

Sounds like thats what some people on this board would favor. Because that's what they are going to have to do if they want the Expo line and the expanded Gold line running in addition to all the other Metrorail lines. MTA has no other sources of revenue. The Sales tax has already been leveraged to the hilt for the next hundred years or so. Boost fares and cut buses. That's what they'll have to do if they want to keep Metrorail and Metrolink operating.

According to the MTA website, there are some 18,500 Metrobus stops. There are currently only 62 Metrorail stations, by my count of stations on the Metrorail map. Those metrobus users are supposed to walk or hitchhike or take a taxi to one of these Metrorail stations so that they can use one of the "efficient" trains if their busline gets cut and they can no longer catch a bus at a convenient nearby location?

Does Metrorail really help ease traffic congestion in L.A.? Well, I guess we find out the next time there's a big transit strike. I don't recall any transit strike in the past causing traffic to get much worst. But we will see.

They just can't keep building and operating rail lines massively subsidized by taxpayers. The money will run out, count on it.

I think the best thing to do is to wait until the MTA has a financial meltdown, then just pick the pieces up and put something else together.

What is an "Authority" anyway?

[Dan Wentzel]

I am a bus rider who depends on transit and a very strong supporter of unions. However, the "Bus Riders Union" does not speak for me, let alone all transit riders. I strongly disagree with their hostility towards building rail transit.

In particular, I disagree with the statement, "Buses are the only viable alternative to cars for a county of 10 million people spread over 4,000 square miles." This just isn't true. A city doesn't need to be compact to have rail transit work. London is one of the world's great cities and it sprawls like Los Angeles. Dozens and dozens of above ground and below ground trains carry millions of passengers each day who can connect to a comprehensive network of buses, trams and ferries. From my experience living there, I carry in my heart a vision of Los Angeles that has a transit network as equally comprehensive.

We need more money for both bus and rail and we need those rail lines expedited, for the sake of our future economy, not to mention pollution and climate change.

We have to build for the future today. Bus service alone won't cut it. For those transit riders who do not share the Bus Riders Union's limited transit
vision, may I recommend checking out other organizations such as Southern California Transit Advocates and The Transit Coalition.

[Alek F.]

One more thing:
I just read a comment by "MovieLocke" (sorry... I didn't get your name),
and - you said it VERY WELL.
I fully agree with you.

[Alek F.]

I'm really curious in what state of mind would a sane person think that buses are more efficient than rail?! :)
I think it's pure common sense that a subway (or light rail) is much-much faster, more convenient, more plesant and overall - much more efficient than a bus. Unfortunately, those so-called "Rapid" buses travel during rush-hour at a very "rapid" speed of 5 mph!
Definitely, Rail projects should be set as a priority in Los Angeles, since our roads are gridlocked and fillled to capacity with polluting cars and buses.
It's time to start building a normal Rail network, so Los Angeles could start catching up to the rest of the country (and the world).

[Patrick McKinnion]

So let me get this straight. The people who wrote this beleive that rail systens are "racist" and only serve "white, affluent" riders??

Wow. They have obviously never taken the same lines I have. Half the week I commute from Monrovia to Marina Del Rey on the trains and buses, and it's NOT unusual for me to be the only white male on the entire train. Especially with the Blue and Green lines, but not uncommon on the Gold line as well.

The streets of LA just can't HANDLE any more buses, that's a simple fact. One needs only to look at the so-called "Orange line" to see how fast buses can reach finite capability and street density. One can add more trains to a trainset to carry more people, one can't add more segments to a bus. We need to expand the rail systems, not throw more busses into LA gridlock.

[Amir K]

To Richard,

Sure, we can mothball the rail lines. Then what? I dare you to take the Metro Rapid 720 or Metro 20 down Wilshire around 5pm during the week. We can triple the number of buses available but the problem would still be unbelievable traffic, not to mention the irony of the gamble of increasing bus numbers in order to maybe cut down individuals in cars.

Also, we need to consider the rail system's biggest potential upside, which is that the millllllions of tourists that visit L.A. every year can easily get around to all the fun stuff without driving or taking the tourist unfriendly buses.

Now, to be realistic, building subways and light rail is very expensive in relation to buying buses. Keep in mind that part of the reason is that there is very little competition in contract bidding, and there is very little input taken from cities that have far more extensive subway systems. I'm sure the city of Tokyo or London would be more than willing to offer advice and help out with this undertaking.

Finally, on a more political note, I'd like to offer the position that Los Angeles is this country's most important city for the future. We're centrally located in the world trading routes, everyone wants to visit/live here, and there's lots of potential. Traffic can truly be considered the city's biggest disaster. Just imagine if two whole weeks of money spent in Iraq was allocated to fortify the biggest city on the West Coast. The "Subway to the Sea" would have been done so quickly that we wouldn't know what to do with those crappy buses on Wilshire.

But, these are just my thoughts.

[Darrell Clarke]

You appear to have selected the best-case bus and worst-case light rail line for your comparison. From Metro's FY 2007 Adopted Budget, Appendix 15, light rail has a lower Subsidy Per Passenger Mile than Buses (not to mention a lot faster speed for riders!):

Bus excluding Orange Line - Subsidy Per Boarding is $1.63 and Subsidy Per Passenger Mile is $0.44.

Orange Line - Subsidy Per Boarding is $3.30 and Subsidy Per Passenger Mile is $0.47.

Light Rail - Subsidy Per Boarding is $2.84 and Subsidy Per Passenger Mile is $0.41. The average light rail trip is longer than by bus, and subsidy per passenger mile lower.

Heavy Rail - Subsidy Per Boarding is $1.56 and Subsidy Per Passenger Mile is $0.33.

[Shaun]

This opinion piece talks about all the rail subsidies but does it mention WHO SUBSIDIZES transit the most? First lets not forget that this is an OPINION piece written by one person who works for the BUS RIDERS UNION and another one that works for a LABOR/Community Group so of course its going to be biased towards bus drivers and buses in general. Metrolink may have the "whitest, most affluent suburban transit riders", but those white, affluent, suburban transit riders subsidize the system more so than poor people. They make the most money, pay the most taxes, and contribute the most to the economy. Someone who makes $50k a year does a lot more for our tax base and economic strength than someone who makes $15k a year. Of course no one wants to take the side of the white, affluent and suburban b/c they are the "white devil" apparently. I just quickly want to point out that I am Mexican/Filipino and make less than $45K a year, so I’m not white nor affluent in case anyone thought I was some rich white guy defending their own. It’s always easy and politically correct to take the side of and advocate for the poor. I’m not saying that they don’t deserve a good transit system either or anything like that, but that doesn’t mean that wealthier people should be short changed and not given a good, fast transit system in favor of the poor. These wealthier suburban commuters do a hell of a lot more in terms of subsidizing the system b/c they pay more in taxes and contribute more to our economy, so why is this group always being vilified by the bus drivers union.

Also of course the BUS DRIVERS UNION is going to advocate for more buses and less rail. A train with one train operator can carry up to 1,000 people. A bus with one driver can carry up to 65 people. So can anyone guess why the BUS DRIVERS UNION opposes rail all the time and wants more bus service? SELF INTEREST! That’s the reason. Of course they want more buses b/c they want to expand their union! I’m not against unions except with they start to become corrupt or/and demand too much and only care what’s best for their union rather than the people they are suppose to serve, transit riders. The bus drivers union is ruining public transit in LA b/c they could care less about improving mobility in this city. They are just looking out for themselves and want to expand their power by adding more bus drivers. I hope the people of LA are smart enough to realize this fact; that the bus union is trying to stop rail projects for their own selfish reasons and they need to be stopped.

LA needs rail and alternatives to gridlock, buses are not the answer no matter what type of poor people spin the UNIONS try to put on it.

[Chris]

People who advocate for rail lines to be mothballed demonstrate how little
transit knowledge they actually have. The 73 miles of rail lines attract
270,000 passengers a day, for 3700 daily passengees per route mile. In
contrast, buses carry 1.35 million people a day on 3000 miles of bus routes,
for an average of 450 passengers per route mile. That makes rail eight
times more efficient than bus.

Eliminating rail is a surefire way to encase Los Angeles in permanent gridlock, and I hope that Richard H will enjoy his time in it.

[Bob Zwolinski]

Come on folks… The MTA can’t possibly exist on fares set back in 1990. Fuel now costs 4 times as much as it did back then! Municipal and state governments can only contribute so much. Lets all grow up with the times as all other municipalities across the U.S. have and get the fares at 2007 levels so we don’t have to suffer service cutbacks.

As for MTA putting rail ahead of busses, give me a break. We’re finally building a few measly light rail lines that we needed a generation ago!!! And for all of you “racist”-types, complaining that the current MTA rail projects only serve the white constituency, the two light rail lines currently under construction are not going through lily-white neighborhoods. They are being built where the transit-dependent riders live!

Can’t we all just get along? We have to start building rail lines somewhere…

The MTA is NOT “subsidizing rail projects at absurd levels”. The MTA has to follow their BUDGET for operations, payroll, projects, etc. They’re not robbing from Paul to pay Peter. They can’t! The MTA relies on local, state and federal funding to build rail lines.

I don’t understand LA’s love of crawling bus transit. Yes, it’s cheap. But it can’t handle the capacity that a rail line can. Why can’t Los Angeles have a comprehensive urban rail transit system like any other world-class city?

I hate it when I take the “purple line” from downtown to Wilshire/Western where a 6-car train-full of people has to exit to transfer to a crowded, stinking, crawling bus to complete the ride west. I feel like I’m in some under-developed 3rd-world country!

I’ll keep driving until LA has an alternative to my car other than freeway fliers parked in freeway gridlock or locals crawling under 10 mph on surface streets.

[Darrell Clarke]

A few important facts:

* Rail capital funding comes from different sources than transit operations.

* The 1980 Prop. A and 1990 Prop. C sales taxes that funded the local share of our rail projects were passed by, and for the benefit of, all the voters in Los Angeles County. Would this money even be available without the promise of the speed, comfort, and capacity of a rail system, for current drivers as well as bus riders?

* Rail operating costs per passenger mile are less than bus operating costs. Which is obvious when you think that the largest operating cost is the vehicle operator, and one three-car Blue Line train carries more passengers than six regular buses, or four articulated buses.

* Electric transit is our best option to reduce global warming emissions and deal with future declining fossil fuel supplies. A return to electric trolley buses on heavily-traveled boulevards could be a good step, in addition to expanding the rail network.

[movielocke]

It's immensely ironic and frustrating that 'antiracists' make the racist claim that browns and blacks or (more broadly) the generic poor only need buses--they don't deserve rail or cars, and that buses are perfectly good enough for second class citizens.

Have these people ever ridden a bus? I seriously doubt they have, outside of 'slumming' it once or twice a year to ride the DASH from downtown for sushi in little tokyo.

If Eric Mann or Michael Criollo have EVER ridden any of the Wilshire buslines I would be immensely surprised--it would be a shock as great as being hit by lightning if they ride them every day.

Let these two benighted fools make a bus only commute down wilshire EVERY DAY and then let them tell us that the solution is more buses or more bus lanes. It wouldn't take a complete week for them to be clamoring at top volume about the need to extend the red line.

Riding buses in LA is one of the most miserable and demeaning transportation experiences a person can have, and riding a Wilshire, Vermont or 3rd St bus is an order or two worse experience than riding a normal heavily ridden line. On the other hand, riding the Gold line or Red line are some of the most pleasurable transportation experiences available in LA.

Anyone who says that the solution is more buses because that's GOOD ENOUGH for the poor or the blacks and browns is the worst sort of classist or racist. This sort of vile person is someone who is content to keep those beneath them in their place. Someone who is pleased to throw those 'hideous' plebians scraps and offal rather than feeding them a decent (not extravagent, just decent) meal.

There's a reason people with cars never take bus based public transit, and wouldn't take it if gas were 5, 6 or 7 dollars a gallon. The wretchedness of the experience and the unbelievably frustrating wastage of time will keep people in their cars until something reliable and alternative to surface bus based traffic presents itself. Right now that solution is rail based.

Gas could be 10$ a gallon and I would stay in my car for my commute from Culver City to Sherman Oaks, if there were a rail line north and south on the westside , I'd take it in a heartbeat, even if gas were $1 a gallon. But the foolish notion that buses are good enough never fails to infuriate me. That's 4-6 hours of commuting every day by bus, a commute that is between 45 and 90 minutes in a car. But apparently blacks and browns or the generic poor don't need those 4-6 hours with their friends or family (or at another job). Because "buses are good enough, and rail is a waste".

Rail isn't racist, even if it travels through more affluent neighborhoods (rail inherently has more appeal than busbased transit to more affluent neighborhoods so it logically should good there as well as dense urban and residential corridors), insisting on confining all of los angeles to buses is the real racism at play in this situation.

[jerry applegate]

It is really hard to believe that in this day and age, no train service is available between the Bay Area and Southern California! And no, buses don't cut it… Come on Arnie, get with the present at least.

[Richard H]

If the BRU would lay off the 1960's era "Racist! Racist! Racist!" bullhorn politics, they could present a far stronger and more compelling argument for a bus based rapid transit system in L.A. and against the misguided adventure in urban rail construction and subsidization that MTA has been engaged in for the last few decades.

For one thing, I stongly suspect the overwelming majority of Metrorail passengers are black and brown and not white, using the BRU KKK-style color-coded system of categorizing people.

Getting the diesel buses off the streets and replacing them with CNG buses is the major achievement of the last ten years for MTA, no matter who takes credit.

If there had been CNG buses running in L.A. back in the 1960's and 1970's instead of the good old diesel RTD Buses, it would have been less likely this expensive and ill advised experiment in light and heavy rail for L.A. would ever have been embarked upon. Air pollution was probably the most compelling reason for urban rail in L.A., not traffic congestion. The options at the time were polluting buses versus nonpolluting rail transit. Little consideration was given to the possiblity of a vastly better engineered and nonpolluting public bus being the basis of a new rapid transit system in Los Angeles.

I don't think it was nostalgia for the failed P.E. or LARY that got the sales tax initiatives passed in 1980 and 1990.

A lot of busways like the Orange Line could have been built with the money that got sunk, literally, into the Redline that would have provided cheap rapid transit transportation to a lot more people in a lot more areas.

Maybe, instead of cutting back on buses, certain Metrorail lines should be mothballed. Like the Green and Gold lines. Even the Redline. How about the Metrolink subsidy? Get rid of the operating subsidies to Metrorail and Metrolink and the projected operating deficit for the MTA will vanish like magic!

Too bad the trains can't be replaced with CNG buses.

All options should be on the table. No?