De-car-ing week: bus love

This week's eco-topic: De-car-ing.

My friends fall into two basic camps: The super-fit, adventurous kind who don't think twice about hopping on a bike to get from Santa Monica to downtown L.A. for a Farmlab event, and the kind who think twice, lock up their bikes, and look to carpool. 

Actually, I have a third kind who big up green travel but pretty much just drive everywhere. Hi Hannah!

But I digress, because really, I'm talking about me :P This series is about how I de-car, after all. To get downtown, I take the No. 10 Big Blue Bus, which picks me up a couple of blocks from my place in Santa Monica, shoots me down the 10 Freeway, and drops me off in downtown L.A. half an hour later.

Why more Santa Monicans don't take this option is beyond me (though really, the line is quite popular), because as everyone knows, traffic is a nightmare in downtown L.A. Sure, the bus has to deal with a lot of this traffic too -- but it doesn't have to deal with parking, which also sucks and is expensive to boot. Factor in the "looking for parking then walking from parking lot to destination" time, and the bus versus car travel time is about equal.

These days I go downtown only once in a while -- usually to switch to the Dash F to get to USC. But I lived in Miracle Mile and worked in the Bunker Hill area back in the day, and I took the Metro 720 rapid down Wilshire. I liked my road-rage-free commute then too.

Any of you live in Miracle Mile? What really killed me about living there: The parking sucked! Yes, I had permit parking, but it still sucked. Some nights, I'd seriously consider not going out because I didn't want to lose my parking spot. Other nights, I'd have to park six blocks away at 2:30 a.m.

When we think of cars, we often think of freedom to go where we want, when we want. Certainly that's how cars are marketed to us. But in many ways, I found my car restricted my freedoms. The car kept me from spending a good chunk of my money on other stuff, from sleeping in late on street-cleaning day, and even from a stress-free evening out without worrying about finding parking and a designated driver.

Enter the bus. I use the Metro and the Big Blue Bus system about equally, with the help of Metro tokens and the Little Blue Card, respectively. Luckily, I live right between two Metro rapid lines -- the 720 and the 704, which runs down Santa Monica Boulevard.

A bus novice? Just get to know one good line around you. The 720 alone takes me everywhere from the L.A. County Museum of Art to BCD Tofu House for yummy Korean food to Niketown for tennis shoe recycling. A day pass ($5 for Metro, $3 for Big Blue Bus) can cover all your errand-running needs! You can get Metro Trip Planner right on your cellphone too.

And yes, the bus fuels my social life. Last Friday, I took the Big Blue Bus 2 to meet a couple of friends at Hal's Bar and Grill in Venice (photo left; I'm not actually twice as big as my friends in real life). Convenient, easy, cheap -- and I could drink as much as I wanted.

Of course, getting back home via bus is trickier; if you're out until the bars close, bus service is sparse or nonexistent. If I know I'm staying out past 11 p.m., I don't count on the bus. Usually, I carpool with someone going my way, but with all the money I save by not owning a car, I always have cab money. Next post: greening your cab ride.

Top photo courtesy of MetroRiderLA; other photos by Siel

Comments

[Ralph Cramden]

I have had no meaningful success with riding the Big Blue Bus when I am trying to get from Point A to Point B; the Big Blue Bus doesn't know there is a Point B. The Big Blue Bus meanders through westside neighborhoods as
a lab rat does in a maze.
Here's an exercise for you: try to get from LAX Terminal 4 to Venice Blvd.
at Main/Bagley. Be sure you have taken your lunch (and dinner) with you,
a change of clothing and your sleeping bag.

[manuel]

Like you said, get to know your bus lines. If you do take the time to study the bus lines you will do alright without a car. I first started taking the bus as a necessity, now that I have gotten used to it and take it to save money (avg. 400.00 - 500.00 per month). the more you become acquainted with taking the bus the better and faster you will get to your destination.

[Kate]

Ralph Cramden: Keep in mind that the Westside is also covered by Metro bus lines and Culver City bus lines. An interagency transfer might be necessary, but that's it. (In fact, according to the Metro.net site, the entire trip you're describing can be made on Culver City buses--don't know about time frame, though.)

[Neekolaaz]

The big blue bus is a godsend. I commute to UCLA from the beach and save maybe $4,000 a year (including the expensive UCLA parking pass). Yeah, it's sometimes a hassle to wait for the bus or creep down Wilshire while the bus stops every 2 blocks, but saving money and avoiding the stress of driving / parking is much better than the alternative...

[Sheryl]

Here's hoping all of you "greenies" have been participating in the "Westside Extension Transit Corridor Study" meetings--better known as the Wilshire/Subway to the Sea. I'll avoid Santa Monica until I can take a train there, thanks.

And why aren't you lobbying for a "PCH Transit Corridor? You'll never get from Santa Monica to LAX via light rail if someone there doesn't get serious about identifying a corridor for Metro to spend half a billion dollars studying!

[Kathryn]

I want to ditch my car, but the nighttime bus sparseness is a problem for me. I often have to work until 10pm at night in Culver City, when all the bus lines to and from my neighborhood have stopped running. Every once in a while, cab fare isn't so bad, but twice a week gets to be pretty expensive. I'd love ideas, if anyone has them?

[Dantzer]

Forget the 'Sinkhole to the Sea' and the $10 billion+ in reality dollars (a very conservative estimate) it will cost. That money can buy a whole lotta clean-burning buses w/ drivers and lanes, which is the only way this town can ever adequately utilize mass transit.
Anything a train can do a bus can do better, cheaper, and more frequently.

If the Beverly Hillites and WeHoes don't like parking in the middle of their boulevards they can plant their bony tuchasses on the Double Dutch, because it's the only logical system and it can go into effect immediately (not in 15 years like your precious choo-choos).

Tripling the amount of busses on the grid is the only way to actually get the masses out of their cars because it's the only way to get people to their desired location in a timely fashion. This ain't New York people.
The Expo line is one thing because it already is bought and built. But for everything else Get on the Dang Bus!

[Siel]

Ralph -- Sounds like you had one bad experience when you were unprepared, then wrote off the bus. A little bit of pre-planning'll get you around -- and once you've figured out a route, it's super easy.

Kathryn -- Where are you trying to get home to from Culver City? Lemme know and I'll try to think of some options.

Dantzer -- I disagree with all the generalized, baseless statements made about rail. For one thing, buses are in the same traffic everyone else is, so just as the traffic prevents everyone in cars from getting places on time most of the time, the bus often runs similarly late during rush hours. Still, I agree people should get on the bus. If you're gonna be stuck in traffic, may's well read or enjoy music instead of fighting it behind the wheel.

[Rob]

I live in Sherman Oaks and commute to work in Brentwood on the bus about 3 out of 5 days per week. As long as I have a seat when the 761 whizzes down Sepulveda Blvd into the Valley, I love the bus. (If I don't have a seat, I get to test both my ability to balance myself and the strength of my grip. One day a bike flew off the front of the bus when it hit a bump. The driver stopped the bus and both he and the owner of the bike got off. The owner of the bike got back on a minute later with what was left of the bike: the handlebars.)

Dedicated bus lanes or roads (like the Orange line in the Valley) seem a great way to go for increased public transit in LA. Infrastructure costs are minimal, they can be up and running more quickly than trains, and they aren't as affected by traffic as buses on city streets.

[Kathryn]

Thanks for your response, Siel! I'm coming from Culver City and going back to Mar Vista. Basically, I'm on the southwestern end of Culver City just north of Marina del Rey, where Culver City buses don't run so much -- and where the Metro lines don't quite pick up the slack.

I can ride the Metro 108 to work, but it stops running around 9pm. Since originally posting my comment, I found that I can grab the very last Culver City #3 bus at 10:18pm (if I'm really fast getting off work, I can make this), and transfer to the Culver City #1 line for a roundabout ride back home down Washington Blvd., arriving at around 11:15-ish. Still, that's quite a ride, for a trip that, when taken by more direct routes, is about 2 miles away from my house.

Maybe a nighttime bike ride would be better (certainly faster), even if it's not quite as safe?

[cindylu]

For the first time in years, I don't have a parking permit for UCLA, so I've relied on the bus when I'm on campus 3 or 4 days a week. The cost is subsidized for UCLA students from revenue (I think) from parking permit holders. Rather than pay 75 cents per ride, we swipe our ID and pay a quarter. My only gripe is that the 12 line does meander, unless I take th Super 12 commuter bus to UCLA. Also, getting out of Westwood on the bus takes too long, that it's quicker to walk.

I've taken the Culver City line to LAX from UCLA (this was before the FlyAway bus came to Westwood). It took us more than an hour (maybe about 1.5?), but we gave ourselves plenty of time. UCLA is still a few miles northwest of Venice & Bagley, so I have no clue what happened to Ralph Cramden.

[Ned Raggett]

I can't echo Siel's last comment enough. I'm down in OC and use the OCTA bus system to get around, having happily de-carred all my life, and even at times when you're stuck in traffic, just bring a book (as I always do wherever I go anyway) and take your mind off of things. Far more relaxing.

[Dantzer]

Siel, I agree that buses are often late, which is why more people don't take them.
If we took the billions and billions of dollars that already has been or will be spent on rail and put it into tripling or quadrupling our bus fleets/lines/lanes, busriders wouldn't have time to read because they'd get to their destinations so fast.
Subways work great in other cities but they're too impractical/expensive here and they'll still be making a ton of stops (see Expo line).
No I'm not a homeowner near the Expo line. I live near LAX and the Wilshire corridor has nothing to do with me. That money, however, could serve a lot more people than just those who travel down Wilshire.
I know they don't have the urban romance aspect of trains, but buses can alleviate traffic right now (not in 15-20 years), and they are a much more efficient transport model for all of L.A.

[Siel]

Dan -- It sounds like your well-meaning argument's coming straight from the BRU. The anti-rail stance is flawed for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that -- despite a bus every 3-5 mins on heavily trafficked roads like Wilshire -- we still have v. crowded buses.

The many flaws with BRUs argumenthave been well rebutted by many transit advocates. Some of the work the BRU does is great, but I'm v. critical of the way the BRU likes to make the argument a bus vs. rail one, as opposed to a pro-transit one. People in support of the subway want robust bus systems too; it's simply v. clear that we can't rely on buses alone.

I'm v. much looking forward to the Expo line, and I'm not at all concerned about the # of stops. That rail line will get me from Santa Monica to USC faster than any bus can right now.

[Dan W.]

Dantzer's arguments are BRU-ish caca.

Bus riders wouldn't get to their destinations any faster if we quadrupled the fleet, because that would just add to the number of vehicles on the road. Buses dont' alleviate traffic, they add to it. And, they are not more efficient because they don't carry as many people or as fast as rail.

Furthermore, subways, in fact all kinds of rail, are absolutely practical in Los Angeles. London has proven that a sprawled city works well with commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, above ground, ground level, below ground rail covering large distances..

Both San Francisco and Tokyo have shown that subways can be built safely in so-called "earthquake" country.

This argument that if we only spent more on our bus system only that we'd have great transit is pure delusion. Fortunately, most reasonable understand that if we dismantled our existing rail and didn't build any more rail and relied on a bus-only transit system, we wouldn't have a transit utopia. In fact, Los Angeles' economic and environmental problems would get worse and worse.

We do need to have a strong bus system and the MTA needs to continue to improve it. But not by sacrificing our needed rail public transit improvements. We need both. We need more of rail and bus.

Fortunately, the BRU is losing is power and influence, because there is a critical mass of bus riders like myself who will not longer allow the anti-rail zealots of the BRU speak for us.

If by chance the BRU did succeed in sabotaging our vitally needed rail projects, let's not kid ourselves that this money wouldn't go into buses. It would just be redirected back into road building in a futile attempt to preserve L.A. declining single-occupancy motoring lifestyle.

A great way to build long-term support for improved bus service is to get more people onto rail who will then support more money for the buses that take them to/from their rail stops.

[Michael]

I think part of the equation is the sheer number of people who have to get somewhere (work) by a certain time (8 or 9 AM) and if it could be possible to create incentives for for businesses to offer flexible hours, so that employees can come to work later/earlier to minimize the impact during peak traffic periods?

[GoPurpleLine!]

I'm waiting for Dantzer to realize how weak his argument is and start calling rail supporters racist.

[Tim]

I'm going to echo much of what has been said already but I'll try to be brief and to the point:

1. The bus system in LA is very extensive, comprehensive and ranks highly among other cities nationwide: just take a look at the systemwide map at metro.net. However, performance relative to timeliness, mechanical reliability and functionality based on the age of the fleet can all be improved. The lateness and bus-bunching trends can be attributed to minor disruptions such as accidents, road work, etc and just overall traffic congestion. Unfortunately, only so much can be done to prevent this with the system in its current state. There is a certain risk and minor inconvenience inherent with riding the bus. In most cases and for most people, the advantages of riding the bus (cost, stress-reduction, environmental benefit etc.) outweigh these detractors.

2. LRT's/BRT's/Subways are all uniquely advantageous because they use dedicated right-of-way. With that dedicated right-of-way comes drastic improvements to performance and convenience. Particularly with rail, capacity and comfort increase and the perception of rail as a more highly evolved method of transport can increase ridership, especially by non-transit-dependent folks.

3. Our transportation system as a whole needs a strong investment on all levels to remain functional and to ultimately improve. The road network is limited but it should be optimized to function best in its current configuration. The bus system should be optimized for greatest level of service and the rail network should be built-out as extensively as possible. All of these things are happening, but they are at the mercy of transportation dollars. And remember, certain transportation dollars are programmed for specific uses. Altering the way we spend these dollars would have to start at the highest level, namely the federal and state levels.

The fact is that transit won't serve everyone's needs (ie. people who live in the hills, away from the network) yet it can serve many more than those who currently use it. Kathryn: I would recomend for your short trip that you consider walking or biking. If neither of these feels safe enough for you, then you're not a bad candidate for driving; it just seems that using two buses to go two miles late at night is extremely inefficient. What I'm hopeful for is that everyone in LA will stop to examine their current transportation needs and consider alternate modes whenever possible. The benefits can be tremendous while the disadvantages can be minor.

[Dan W.]

"I'm waiting for Dantzer to realize how weak his argument is and start calling rail supporters racist."

---------------

The BRU's cries of "transit racism" are really from the bottom of the deck. Their anti-rail ideology doesn't stand up to the slightest logical analysis or rational scrutiny, so they need to resort to emotional, irrational shouting to intimidate others.

There is a need for more and improved bus service. The great rail cities of the world, from New York to London to Paris to Berlin to Tokyo to Moscow etc. all have extensive and comprehensive bus systems. The reason why congestion charging works in London because there is a strong rail and bus system and when I lived in London I took and relied on both.

If the Bus Riders "Union" would stick to lobbying for more and improved bus service, and a pro-transit stance, they would have more support and still be relevant to today's transit conversation. But they don't. They use anti-rail diatribes and cries of "transit racism" to get their point across.

(The truth is that the majority of people riding the rails we do have are currently people of color and people of all races and ethnicities and ages will benefit from an expanded rail system.)

For people who want to join an organization that favors BOTH improved rail and bus public transit, may I recommend leaving the BRU in the dustbin of history where it belongs and check out constructive organizations like Southern California Transit Advocates and The Transit Coalition.