'Train wreck'

James Moore and Tom Rubin from USC have some potential alarming news about research they say shows the MTA is serving fewer riders than we might have thought:

Paradoxically, the MTA's rail projects, which required fare increases and reduced bus services, have cost the transit system riders. Using MTA data, our analysis indicates that they produced a drop in train and bus ridership of more than 3 billion boardings from 1986 to 2007. Although we've now gotten back to 1985 levels in terms of public-transit use, the county population has grown by more than 2 million since then. That means, on a trip-per-capita basis, the transit system is still not performing -- by 20% -- as well as it did 22 years ago.

Full LAT Op/Ed

Photo: LAT

Comments

[Harold L. Katz]

01/13/08

Re: Train Wreck by James Moore and Tom Rubin

First, rapid transit systems such as Subways, light rail and the Gold Line Bus way in the valley are not made for the populations of today, they are made for the population of 50 years from now. Second, the largest projected population growth in Los Angeles City will be on the Eastside. History shows us that the largest job growth will be on the Westside. Thirdly, adding thousands of busses to our streets will increase, not decrease gridlock, and moving people out of busses on to trains is good not bad.

Fourthly, I own an employment agency and we are finding an increasing number of candidates for jobs who have relocated their housing near rail lines and tell us they will only accept positions with companies located near rail lines. These candidates, in fact most people will not ride the busses, they are too slow.

Finally, when oil was $10 a barrel, if you suggested it would soon be $100 a barrel they would have locked you up. Who is to say we are not looking at a doubling in the cost of oil, especially as our dollar becomes worth less and less.

In conclusion, Messer’s Moore and Rubin have miss read the future, the answer is not more busses.

[John T.]

I completely agree with all of the other writers - Mr. Moore is using flawed data in pushing for bus transit over train lines. Building train lines as fast as we can and directing new development to areas served by those lines is the only way this region can handle the growth that is going to happen like it or not. Even if the train lines are not used to the max. at the start, they will be able to handle the growth much better than adding more and larger buses.

[Siel]

FredCamino of MetroRiderLA's written a rebuttal to this opinion piece --
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/emeraldcity/2008/01/buses-trains-an.html

[Anthony Fernandez]

Talk about skewed statistics. Most of this ridership has gone to interagencies (SaMo Big Blue Bus, Foothill Transit, OCTA, etc.). This is what caused the drop in ridership, don't believe these obviously biased writers.

Bus=bumpier and slower ride, lower capacity, and longer wait times (not to mention the addition to traffic).

[lbiker]

While I don't doubt the accuracy of Moore and Rubin's research, the truth is in LA most rail transit doesn't go where most people want or need to go. Building rail lines is not flawed, it's the lines' locations. If we accept that mass transit should reduce long commutes, then it should parallel heavily used commuting routes. For example, imagine if there were a rail line from the valley to the westside and points south following the Sepulveda corridor. Yee-ha! I'd be on that in a flash! Buses are not a good long-term solution as they cannot reduce time in traffic like a properly designed rail line can. Spending on rail lines is not dscriminatory. Perhaps what is discriminatory is how the locations for rail lines are chosen. The location determines the users, and thus, the sensitivity to fares.

[Sheryl]

Rail has NOTHING to do with Metro's lack of passengers.

The problem is Metro's insane insistence on CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION and it's current ideological fixation on those unreasonably expensive 2 for 1 Less Than Rapid Buses.

Back in the day, Metro serviced NEIGHBORHOODS and SHOPPING CENTERS. They focused on getting people from where they were to places they wanted to go and back again.

Of course, they did that to some extent at the expense of corridor service--SOME people DID need to get across the county, after all.

BUT NOW: if you don't want to go to downtown LA or halfway to hell and gone directly along a major corridor, you're rectally screwed. THE PENDULUM HAS GONE TOO FAR. It's time to swing back and find a way to service neighborhoods with smaller shuttle bus sized service to FEED those corridors and the rail lines Metro is so unhealthily obsessed with.

Look closely at the service cuts Metro is planning for June 2008 --http://www.metro.net/images/2008_02_publichearingnotice.pdf --and look back at their service cuts over the last 5 years; NOTICE how most of the service in question is for neighborhood services!!

Metro consistently claims "low ridership"; when in fact the problem isn't that the ridership isn't there, it's the size of the bus providing the service. All the lines in question have very consistent, constant ridership of several hundred riders per day. It's just that it's neighborhood ridership--very often seniors and non-drivers--rather than CORRIDOR ridership. Neighborhood service needs 15-20 person shuttles, rather than 50 person behemoths.

The problem is that by cancelling neighborhood lines, Metro is cutting off its nose to spite its face. They claim to be pursuing "Discretionary ridership" but then they deliberately cut lines where people choose to drive sometimes and take the bus sometimes, claming "low ridership." By cutting neighborhood lines that feed the rail and corridor system buses, Metro puts people BACK IN THEIR CARS, particularly teens and lower income workers. For example, nobody going to drive 12 or 14 blocks to Crenshaw or Hawthone Station to park a car and then catch the 210 or the 40 to a job at the Walmart in Baldwin Hills. They'll just DRIVE to Baldwin Hills. On the other hand, those people WILL walk 3 blocks and catch the 215 or the 126 or the 124 and TRANSFER to the 210 or the 40 rather than drive at ALL.

This is where Metro is completely failing as a SYSTEMICALLY. Angelenos are NOT going to walk half a mile or more to a bus stop if they have a car; and they're not going to drive 2 miles to a park and ride, then get on a bus or train. Ninety five percent of the time, once a person is IN THE CAR, they're not getting out. METRO HAS TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR CARS, and the only way to do that is to provide more, better, more frequent NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE. They can buy a dozen of the neighborhood shuttle size buses like the 608 for what it costs for just ONE of those stupid red 2 for 1's. They should be spending just as much on shuttle size buses and adding routes for them to SUPPORT the rail and corridor system as they are on the stupid 2 for 1's for the Not So Rapid buses.

Incidentally, you do all realize that those stupid 2 for 1's wear out about 4 times faster than normal 'single' car buses, right? That the billion plus dollars Metro has spent on them in the last 3-4 years is going to have to be spent REPEATEDLY to replace them, and at exponentially higher dollars?

[Alek F]

I've met Tom Rubin personally, and have listened to his "alarming news", which are filled "with truth and nothing but the truth".
Well, away from sarcasm - Mr. Rubin's opinion is very biased and untrue. He claims that ONLY buses is the best solution for LA. This is laughable, to say the least. The explanation is simple: what have we achieved with buses? Practically nothing. Except even more traffic, plenty of wasted time, and degraded social lives. And still - buses provided NO real mass transit alternatives. Neither have buses gotten people out of their cars. Yes, buses will always remain unattractive to riders, and will never create an image of a "reliable transit network".
Mr. James Moore (in his previous article) claimed that - despite 4 rail lines that were built, most transit users still use buses. Well, duh! - this is because the city mostly carries buses, not metro-rail! Isn't that obvious, Mr. Moore?! The 4 Rail lines unfortunately don't go where most people go (nevertheless they are still highly popular!). Currently, as we all know, only Buses are available in the most popular transit areas, that's why most people have no other option but to use buses. However, if we built subway lines where people really need them - this will most certainly demonstrate some of the highest ridership Rail-lines in the country.
The only part where I agree with Tom Rubin - is that buses indeed is the cheapest solution. But folks - we get what we pay for! It's much more worthwhile investing into a great & reliable (although expensive) Subway system, and finally get a decent mass transit system. Traveling by buses is a major waste of time; for instance, one would have to spend about 2 hours (!) or more - if you travel by bus from Santa Monica to Downtown LA. Driving your beloved auto can take anywhere from 35 minutes to well over an hour (depending on the traffic situation). However, by Subway it would only take 30 minutes at most!! I hope Mr. Tom Rubin, as well as James Moore, will realize that their vision of Buses being the best solution is completely wrong and ungrounded. And that Subway for a big metropolitan area (such as Los Angeles) is the best solution!
Alek

[Chris]

It's unfair to mention the county population as a whole, because Metro does not serve all of the county (including places like the Antelope Valley, which has seen the biggest increase in population). Metro also has given a lot of bus service to other agencies in the past twenty years, especially Foothill Transit (all of Foothill Transit's ridership should be added to Metro's total for 2007 to compare with 1985) but also Commuter Express, DASH, Metrolink, and other agencies.

I don't think anyone can seriously argue that, for example, the San Fernando Valley had better bus service in 1985 than in 2007. And this isn't even counting the Orange Line. Get out the schedules and compare.

[Donald Stanwood]

Listening to the likes of James Moore and Tom Rubin on the subject of balanced rail/bus bus transit systems is like soliticiting the National Cattle Ranchers Association for their opinion about bovine rights. Rubber tires good! Steel wheels bad! Just follow the dogma of the Bus Riders' Union--subsidize low fares, throw more and more buses onto the streets--and we will wind up living in the best of all possible worlds.

[Dan W.]

This is an argument for keeping fares low, not for not building rail.

The issue at hand is more than what happened over the last 20 years, it is what will happen over the next 20 to 50.

We have reached the limits of road building and sprawl. Even if it is expensive, we need to build rail lines with the same fervor over the next five decades that freeways were built over the last five, and roads the five before that.

The question before us is keeping Los Angeles economic and environmentally sustainable.

We do need to have a comprehensive bus system like any other world class city.

The answer is to aggressively build rail AND improve our bus service.

The answer is not to build more roads in a futile attempt to preserve a declining quality of the "car culture". The best days of single-occupancy motoring are long behind us, and we can no longer afford social engineering in favor of the car culture anymore.

Instead of building roads for people who selfishly feel entitled to drive and park their car anytime, anyplace, anywhere, cheaply and swiftly in every neighborhood in Los Angeles, despite the economic and environmental costs of congestion, we must focus our government resources on Los Angeles' long-term sustainability, as millions more come to Southern California over the next few decades and Los Angeles becomes even more vertical and dense.

The hardest part of building a rail network is the beginning. As more lines are built, the number of people who benefit rises exponentially, not laterally, as more connections and transfers become possible.

The past in this case does not predict or limit the future.

The variables that allowed people to drive (i.e. cheap gas, fewer people) no longer exist and we must plan for a very different Los Angeles than we have known through the media and popular lore or have become entitled to. While Los Angeles will probably never be a car-free city, it will never again be able to afford to be a car-only city.

[Scott Mercer]

Their methodologies are completely flawed.

They will be proven quite wrong.