Buses, trains and the transit-oriented lifestyle

The following essay is a guest post by FredCamino, a regular Metro rider and founder of MetroRiderLA, a Los Angeles transit lifestyle blog.

This past Sunday, the L.A. Times featured an op-ed titled "The MTA's Train Wreck" by James Moore and Tom Rubin, which made the claim that Metro has made a major mistake by investing in rail instead of buses.  Both Mr. Moore and Mr. Rubin are well-known transit experts and longtime rail critics.  I'm a lowly blogger.  So why is it that I disagree with their assertion that Metro is making a mistake by investing in rail transit?

The gist of the opinion piece is that transit ridership has fallen even though Metro has invested over $11 billion on rail in the last 20 years.  The authors imply that if expensive rail projects were scrapped and the savings were applied to add more bus service and lower the fares, transit ridership would increase.  To be honest, I don't disagree with this conclusion.  However, I also don't think it would solve any of the transportation problems our region faces.

I think rail, more than anything else, has the potential to reorient the city and solve its most notorious problems, most of which stem from what many would consider its No. 1 problem, traffic.

There's no doubt Los Angeles is known worldwide for its traffic.  It's likely the first thing that comes to mind when someone is asked to think about Los Angeles.  Surely it's what most tourists who visit return home with tales of.  And for those of us who live here, it is inseparable from our very existence. It's a lifestyle.  Traffic is life in Los Angeles, and traffic is hell, which is why even in a place where it's 70 degrees and sunny every day of year, people can't wait to get away. 

Traffic doesn't just bring aggravation, boredom and hatred to Los Angeles, it brings a whole host of other problems.  L.A.'s notorious pollution is no happy coincidence; it's directly related to the sheer number of vehicles idling away day and night.  Los Angeles is also known for racial segregation and for having a distinct divide between the very rich and the very poor.  Now, I'm not saying that the car culture is the root of these evils, but it certainly has played its part.  In a place so vastly spread out due to the existence of massive grade-separated roadways that require a heavy usage cost (car ownership) it becomes a little too easy for the haves to be oblivious to the plight of the have-nots while speeding along in their bunkers of steel and glass.  Of course, now the playing field is starting to even out quite naturally as idling along a freeway isn't exactly "speeding" and a two-hour commute isn't exactly "easy."

Herein lies my problem with the article by Mr. Moore and Mr. Rubin: They still see transit as little more than a welfare program for those who can't afford cars (a.k.a., "the poor").  I see transit as the solution to The Traffic Problem.  Transit ridership increases or decreases don't matter in regards to The Traffic Problem if the only riders are those who can't afford cars in the first place.  And in Los Angeles, because of The Traffic Problem, transit can no longer be seen as a welfare program.  In other cities, perhaps, but in Los Angeles traffic is The Problem, and if The Problem isn't solved, it's likely we'll all end up needing some sort of welfare. 

But this is the beauty of public transit: It doesn't discriminate.  I can't just go pick up some food stamps, but I'm free to hop on any bus or train.  So transit has the potential to be both a way to help give mobility to those who can't afford a car AND solve The Traffic Problem by getting those who can afford cars out of them.  The big issue, of course, is how to get those people out of their cars.

I can tell you right now: Buses ain't gonna cut it.

Because while public transit isn't discriminatory, discretionary riders most certainly are.  Let's face it, for the middle-class or rich, bus fares aren't that expensive.  You can get an EZ Transit pass that gives you unlimited access to almost every bus and rail line in Los Angeles County for $70 a month.  Most people pay more than that for their wireless service.  Or, say, to fill up their car's tank. 

Money isn't the real issue with discretionary riders.  While Rubin and Moore are right that reducing fares would result in increased ridership, I doubt it would get many people out of their cars.  I don't think it's the $1.25 fare that is stopping the guy who makes $100k a year from hopping on a  Metro Rapid 720 to go from his home in Santa Monica to his job downtown.  You could make buses completely free and it's likely most people with a choice still wouldn't ride them.

This isn't just rich people being snobbish jerks, either.  Anyone who has ridden on both a bus and a train knows which is the better ride.  Those who imply (like the Bus Riders Union) that poor people prefer buses to trains are guilty of a sort of "poverty pimping," because in my experience, all humans, rich or poor, prefer comfort over discomfort.  This is not to say that all buses are the hell-on-wheels that many non-riders imagine them to be, but that a train is and always will be a more comfortable ride than even the most well-built bus. Discretionary riders know this, and thus they are unlikely to give up one discomfort (sitting in traffic in their cars) for more discomfort (standing on a crowded, bumpy bus in traffic).

Rail is the only mode that has the potential to get these discretionary riders to make the voluntary choice to leave their cars, because it offers advantages over both cars and buses.  The advantages are simple and logical.  The first, which I spoke of above, is the simple fact that compared to a bus, a train offers comfort.  Perhaps not the comforts of a car, but it's a step in the right direction. 

However, comfort alone isn't enough to get people out of their cars; there needs to be more.  Rail, unlike buses and cars, runs on its own fixed guideway, meaning that for the most part it does not have to deal with traffic.  This is a big step in the right direction.  By avoiding traffic and being comfortable, rail presents an attractive alternative to a car for the discretionary rider.  Instead of sitting behind the wheel of a car idling on the freeway and worrying about the actions of other drivers, a discretionary rider can sit back, read the morning paper and relax as professional drives him/her to work.  That sounds like a viable alternative. 

What's more, rail transit is often like a "gateway drug" -- people who start out riding the train will sooner or later find themselves on a bus. Because of this, rail has the capability to create a new lifestyle -- I call it the transit-oriented lifestyle -- that stands in stark contrast to the automobile-centered lifestyle. 

Of course, a common complaint, and a big roadblock in creating a city where people view transit as a lifestyle, is that the Los Angeles rail system "doesn't go where I need to go."  This is why Metro needs to continue investing in rail infrastructure.  An expansive system is THE missing element when it comes to attracting discretionary riders to public transit and getting cars off the road.  Investment needs to be made to expand the rail system, expand the hours and increase the service frequency.  Only then will we have a chance of solving The Traffic Problem. 

This is also where I take issue with Metro and its rail expenditures.  Like Mr. Moore and Mr. Rubin, I feel Metro has wasted money on rail.  A line like the Green Line, which many consider a rail line from  nowhere to nowhere, is a perfect example.  Even a line like the Gold Line to Pasadena, no matter how nice, seems like it was wrongly prioritized.  Don't even get me started on the serious proposals now to extend the Gold Line another 30 miles through the Inland Empire to Ontario.  Rail infrastructure needs to be built where density and service demand it, and nowhere else.  A priority list based on these factors must be made and adhered to.  The cost is simply too high to waste money on lines without built-in demand.  A rail line down Wilshire to Santa Monica should be priority numero uno. 

In fact, Wilshire provides the perfect example of where Mr. Moore and Mr. Rubin's arguments fail.  Wilshire Boulevard has tons of bus service, with articulated Rapid 720s and Super Rapid 920s barreling down the boulevard every four minutes during the day.  Anyone who's ever been passed by three packed-to-the-brim 720s in a row while waiting for a 720 knows exactly how more buses and lower fares are not going to solve anything, even if transit was just a welfare program.

When we look at transit not as welfare but as an infrastructure necessity,  we realize that in a city as big and densely populated (with people AND cars) as Los Angeles, rail should be the primary mode.  With an extensive system, rail has the potential to move people to and from their daily activities in a much more efficient, economical and comfortable way than any other mode.  It is the most sustainable mode as well. Urban rail transit in New York City has offered effective mobility to the citizens of that region for well over a century and weathered the unfathomable population growth that has occurred during that time. (NYC went from 942,292 people in 1870 to 8,008,288 in 2000.)  The subways are undoubtedly more crowded these days, but they move as fast as ever and still live up to their promise of  getting people where they need to go.  Our freeways, on the other hand, have been around for only 68 years, yet long ago failed to live up to their promise of offering a speed and efficiency advantage over surface streets. 

It's time we realized what all other great metropolises in the world know: An extensive rail system is essential for the mobility of its people.

FredCamino is a regular Metro rider and founder of MetroRiderLA, a Los Angeles transit lifestyle blog.

Photo by FredCamino

Comments

[m]

Good points and as a regular train rider I do enjoy riding them much more than the buses and I generally feel they are a bit more reliable than the buses. However, there are some major reasons that people don't ride public transportation that are missed in here, one of them being that it can be very slow and time consuming. Because it takes so much time (a transfer can easily add on another 10-20 minutes each time you have to change buses/trains), people don't ride the train. Nearly every single person (mostly middle class) I know that could use the trains or buses, but doesn't is for this reason. Many people still live on the "time is money" concept or have a family they already have limited time to spend with after their job. Even at $5 for a daily pass, which may be the same amount someone spends in gas to and from work each day, the train or buses are not worth it. Some people still retain their cars for various reasons such as they need it to get to a train station, so the cost of the car is there whether or not they use the train.

When the Gold line was running with the "express service", in some instances it was faster to take the train to a stop that was not your final destination and then walk to the final destination rather than wait for the next train. The trains that run above ground still must deal with traffic (the Gold line had major issues last year with accidents around Highland Park and the Orange line had many accidents shortly after opening.) One can spend as much time walking to and from train stations and waiting for trains at transfer points as it would take to drive to work. At that point all time spent on trains is just on top of the normal time it takes for a commute. When my friend's car was in for repairs I convinced her to take public transportation instead of renting a car. One day it ended up taking her over 3 hours to get home because the express bus she was waiting for simply blew past the bus stop. After she waited around to see if another bus would show up, she ended up going home on the train (~1 hr 45 min). The same car drive takes about 30-45 minutes. To say the least, the experience didn't encourage her to use public transportation in the future.

While I think more people can see value in using trains for weekend destinations with no parking issues/costs (Hollywood, Long Beach, shopping trips, Downtown museums and events, Universal Studios), the trains still aren't very popular for regular, weekday-work usages when people have a choice, which is where I think Metro need to be more focused. I recall reading something about the Blue Line essentially already being "at capacity". Due to the design of the train stations, they can't add additional cars to the trains and they can't run them any more frequently. That's not particularly encouraging as I think more frequent trains would help solve some of the problems people have with riding the trains. Some of the "rush hour" services seem to end particularly early in both the morning and evenings, which also is a bit frustrating, especially when you are on one of the jammed packed trains at 7pm.

[sheila]

although i have never ridden a train in LA, i have lived in and extensively visited numerous european cities where trains and subways are the norm, and i agree with most of this post AND with m's comments.

it is RIDICULOUS to have trains that have to cross traffic, stop at traffic lights, and which take up driving lanes (Houston designed their system this way, too). what is wrong with america that, in our ignorance and arrogance, we cannot model our system on those which work BEAUTIFULLY overseas?

i would ride the subway and train all the time if it came to santa monica and went to hollywood, west hollywood, bev hills, museums, restaurants, galleries, etc. if nothing else, it would be great to be able to go to bars, toss back 2-3 drinks, and hop on a safe, fast, reliable train to get home without risking a DUI!!

i feel like MTA is sabotaging the rail system by its stubborn insistence on either buses which take forever and sit in traffic or cause enormous traffic problems by stopping in lanes, driving erratically and/or requiring their own lanes. rail, either above or below ground is an EXCELLENT answer for all classes of people.

[Derek Powell]

Well said. Our rail system will continue to be a "nowhere to nowhere" route until we invest heavily in a true infrastructure.

[Kate]

The real answer is both buses and trains, for this reason: trains are better at covering long distances, and buses are better for local connections. There needs to be an actual network of public transit, and we really don't have that right now. The Westside is becoming more congested, not less, and the transit system should be an attractive alternative to car travel.

On Friday my husband and I went from our apartment on the Westside to the Pantages. There's a Red Line stop directly across from the theater, but no way for us to get to the Red Line. If there were rail in West L.A., we'd have taken that in a second rather than deal with driving and parking through some of L.A.'s most congested neighborhoods. But right now we don't have that option.

[Fred Camino]

Kate said:

"On Friday my husband and I went from our apartment on the Westside to the Pantages. There's a Red Line stop directly across from the theater, but no way for us to get to the Red Line. If there were rail in West L.A., we'd have taken that in a second rather than deal with driving and parking through some of L.A.'s most congested neighborhoods. But right now we don't have that option."

That's exactly my point. Did you know there is bus service in West L.A. that no doubt will lead you to the Red Line, or Pantages itself? Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't matter, it would never be a consideration because most people are never going to consider taking the damn bus to go to Pantages! And for good reason too. Now obviously rail cant go everywhere, which is why you make a good point about bus service, but in an ideal network buses would act as the feeders to rail, not a replacement to rail.

[Fred Camino]

M said:

"When my friend's car was in for repairs I convinced her to take public transportation instead of renting a car. One day it ended up taking her over 3 hours to get home because the express bus she was waiting for simply blew past the bus stop. After she waited around to see if another bus would show up, she ended up going home on the train (~1 hr 45 min). The same car drive takes about 30-45 minutes. To say the least, the experience didn't encourage her to use public transportation in the future."

Of course it didn't encourage her! Buses cannot handle the demand in this city, and even if they could, as has been mentioned before, not only must the sit in traffic with all the other vehicles, they also must makes stops and don't deliver you directly to your house like a car does. Now obviously rail makes stops, and can't deliver you directly to your doorstep, but as I noted in my article, when done right it offers advantages over cars that has the potential to make it very enticing, because many people are sick of sitting in traffic... and it's not just about commute time... there's something psychologically damning about idling in traffic for hours... many would prefer a train ride of the same (or even slightly longer length) because they could indulge their minds in other activities (reading, work, sodoku) during their commute instead of having to be focused soley on the long line of cars ahead of them.

[Dan W.]

This was very well written.

I hope the author submits to the Los Angeles Times to run as a counter piece to the insipid and patronizing commentary by Moore and Rubin. Moore and Rubin never address the declining quality of the car culture, and the need to keep Southern California economically and environmentally sustainable as the limits of congestion and sprawl are reached.

I know this is hard for many single-occupancy motorists with a sense of entitlement to grasp, but not everyone is desiring to own a car, or participate in the car culture. Public transit is for everyone, not just the poor. In every major metropolitan city, people of all classes ride the rails and buses. And we need a strong rail and a strong bus system. And, even if public transit were only for the poor, it is very patronizing and arrogant to condemn them to a second class bus-only transit system, assuming they could have and would want to have a car if they could only afford one.

Southern California's future depends on a dramatic increase and buildup of our public transit infrastructure. The limits of sprawl and congestion have been reached, and millions more are expected to arrive over the next few decades.. In order to keep Southern California economically and environmentally sustainable we will have to invest as heavily in our public transit rail infrastructure over the next five decades as we invested in freeways over the past five. We also need to continually invest in our bus system, but contrary to what the bus-only extremists at the BRU think, buses alone will not cut it.

The solo-motoring lifestyle was grand but its best days are behind us. Even though some people will still choose that lifestyle despite its declining quality, it can no longer be sustained. The car culture lore of Los Angeles that people have come to know and expect and in some cases feel entitled to, wherever everyone could drive and park, cheaply and swiftly and conveniently, in all parts of the city and region, is now and will continue to decline. Just like every other major metropolis on the planet, there will be neighborhoods like downtown, Century City, Hollywood, possibly even North Hollywood, where it will no longer be practical or affordable in time and money to drive and park a single-occupancy vehicle.

London, a sprawl of a city and region, has a vast rail and bus network, and is the model we should be looking at and proves that rail is appropriate for a sprawling city.

Build the commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail and rapid/local bus system we need. The more rail that is built, the more its popularity increases exponentially, because the transfer possibilities make it more desirable.

Good post, Fred.

People who've grown entitled to believe they could have a suburban lifestyle in every neighborhood in our urban environment may not like the future. They may want a time machine to go back to the glory days of the L.A. car culture they know from the media and popular lore, but the future will come whether they want it or not.

[dgabbard]

Thank you, Fred, for some intelligent comments on a almost by-the-number anti-rail rant. Moore & Rubin for over a decade have beaten this drumbeat and made no progress in building any real support for their position. Why the Times continues to publish op-eds promoting DOA opinions is beyond me. Hopefully a real discussion of the future with vision and realism can over time take root. We cannot stand the status quo of the debate being shaped by myopic experts (e.g. Joel Kotkin) and phony alleged community leaders (e.g. Eric Mann).

[jeremy]

the real reason that all of these lines mentioned run on the street is the underling cost.

it is far cheaper to build a line eating up a few roadway lanes then it is to tunnel underground or have an overhead system.

which is exactly why we need the HOT lanes and sales taxes. metro will continue to make new lines. that will happen no mater if the two new ideas fail. so rather then half-assing a system that ends up with at-grade intersections or station platforms being to small. we need to provide a stable and reliable revenue stream going into metros coffers so that we can see the beautiful systems overseas right here in our backyards

[James]

I agree that rail is the way to go. While they were digging the Redline, I thought it was the biggest brain fart that MTA had ever come up with. Now that it's done and running, I think it's great. Though I feel that the next rail project they dig, they need to plan better, have more oversight, and make sure that the construction is less intrusive than The Redline was. I bet they paid out as much money in lawsuits as they did on the construction.

That said, I think that using the Wilshire corridor would be asking for the same type of trouble as they had digging up Hollywood. So many big money businesses are located on Wilshire, that I think the lawsuits for disruption of business would be huge. I think they should plan the subway a couple blocks to the north or south, and avoid disrupting Wilshire.

[alex]

Great Blog I always have a good time reading it. It’d be great if someone knew about this site www.earthlab.com ? I have used their carbon calculator and it seems pretty legit? Has anyone else used it? They are partners with live earth and Al Gore so it must be pretty credible? If anyone else has done digging on this let me know. Oh and I got a score of 289 on their test…lower than the average in my state! Whoop whoop!

[Sheryl]

What nobody in this whole argument seems to understand is that NEITHER METRO OR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GIVE A DAMN ABOUT LOS ANGELES COUNTY. It's that simple.

All Metro cares about is cash and Downtown LA.

The only reason Metro has what they're calling the "Westside Extension Transit Corridor" on their radar is that it would connect to their holy DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT; and they figure that if they build some sort of rail toward Century City-Santa Monica-UCLA, they can squeeze a whole lot of money out of a whole lot of developers that want to develop Metro owned properties near the ROW, e.g., the new "joint venture" at Wilshire/Vermont. It's becoming very clear that Metro is more interested in being a landlord than in being a transportation agency.

But ULTIMATELY, Metro managment is NOT the problem. Metro management is SUBJECT TO THE LA COUNTY COMMISSION.

If the LA County Commissioners were worth the powder and lead to blow them straight to hell, THE COMMISION WOULD HAVE DEMANDED RAIL A LONG TIME AGO.

Metro is NOT the problem. The problem is that people keep voting for the same lazy, entitled, useless lumps of gangrenous maggot bait election after election!!!!!!!!

Is the county hospital system a disaster? Why yes, it is.

Are the county's roads/freeways iin total disarray? Why yes, they are.

Are the county's parks and recreational facilities substandard and unsafe? Gang infested? Why yes, they are.

Is the County Sheriff's Department overburdened, underpaid, it's jails overcrowded and understaffed? Why yes, they are.

Are endangered children in greater danger in foster care than they were at home? Why yes, they are.

METRO IS JUST ANOTHER SYMPTOM. The problem is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the county commissioners--all of whom are on the Metro Board--is more interested in empire building and keeping their cushy elected job cushion under their ass than they are in doing any real work.

The first thing that has to happen is that ALL OF THEM HAVE TO BE DEFEATED AT THE BALLOT BOX.

If a whole new county commission were in place, a commission committed to actually making LA County government agencies and services WORK, then there might be an outside chance that a new Metro management would see that they're supposed to be servicing the WHOLE DAMN COUNTY, and not just downtown LA.

Not a big chance, mind you. But a chance.

[johnny]

Here is a repost of something a comment i made in MetroRider LA:

"Well done Fred. However, the problem with framing a rail system as simply a means of getting people out of their cars opens it up to criticism from... number crunchers if it isn’t an instant success. The truth is that even if there were a comprehensive rail system today, plenty of people would still drive to work. But that doesn’t mean that a rail system shouldn’t be built. I think of a city’s transportation capacity as being like a paper towel, where transit alternatives ( rail, buses, easier bike access) greatly increase the amount of water the towel can soak up. Transit friendly cities like Chicago, New York, etc. would be like Brawny in this analogy, while we would be more like Costco discount single-ply. There’s a reason that New York comes in #4 for congestion while Los Angeles at half the size comes in #1. This is not to say that driving is evil, in fact for trips made off peak hours or away from densely populated centers I don’t think it should be particularly discouraged. But as Fred has said before, there is a dearth of transit options in LA, and as the city and region continue to densify (we are already the most densely populated urban area in the country) transit needs to become a viable alternative for commuting. The only way to do that is by building a rail network. Buses can only do so much, in fact LA has done a pretty good job of stretching its buses to accomidate as much as possible, as Fred points out in his post. Don’t expect roads and freeways to get too much better if a rail network is built, but expect them to get much worse if we stop building rail. And hey, maybe commuting by rail - or even bus - might not be as bad as you think.

On a somewhat related note, I think that the general public (not just MRLA junkies like myself) does want to see a train network in LA. The question is no longer 'if?' but 'how?' and more importantly 'when?', which I find encouraging."

[m]

Fred, I am not sure that a filled commuter express bus was part of the problem for my friend in this instance -- she was coming out of Pasadena and going to Van Nuys, not the downtown, Westside or Wilshire area. I think the issue was more of one where the bus simply did not stop (I've known other ppl that complained of the same thing except for when they were ON the bus and pulled the cord indicating they wanted to get off), but I suppose we will never know for this instance.

I would also have to argue there is also something psychologically (and socially) damning about knowing every single day, no matter what, your commute on the train will take at minimum, an hour longer each way by public transportation than by car. I know for everyone it isn't an hour, but it can be a considerable increase, especially when you add in transfers. This is at least partially due to how the whole system is set up and where the city priorities are. If you are in a car and run into occasional traffic that extends your commute time it's not a guarantee like riding public transportation is. Since I made to switch to public transportation I spend about 2 more hours moving between work and home than I did when I drove (~1 hour total a day on a bad day). The commuter express bus would get me home faster and on a more direct route, however it stops running so early that I can't even consider it most days. It's also frustrating to know that by getting stuck trying to cross a street or walk around construction, you miss the train by 10 seconds and now you will stand around and wait for at least 10 minutes for the next train. I have planned and figured out how to optimize my trips and get as quickly as possible to the next destination, and it still doesn't help much in the end when the train schedules are such that you constantly reach your transfer site seconds after the train you wanted to get on shuts the doors and pulls away (this has happened 4 times this week already). And I love walking, I love staring out of windows, I love being outside, I've lost weight riding the train, I've met people riding the train, I try to live a "green" lifestyle, I make regular visits to the library, I had stomach issues due to stress from driving (mostly due to inconsiderate drivers, which I don't think I've ever met an equivalent for on the train besides the people that sit on the Red Line staircases and expect you to magically transport yourself over their heads), but man, if there aren't some days that I wish my work day + commute didn't last 12 hours when I know it could be 10 simply by using a car. Instead of being stressed I'm just exhausted. I'm not sure which is worse for me, but I do know things won't get better if people don't at least use what is in place and help get other people interested.

[Siel]

Wow -- I think this post wins out for inciting the longest comment responses ever. Great to see people really thinking about these issues and getting concerned. And I'd just like to remind everyone that the next Metro meetings re: the Subway to the Sea are coming up. See you there?

[Fred Camino]

Well M, you bring up another issue with the transit lifestyle in Los Angeles. Due to the decentralized nature of Los Angeles, an efficient transit system that serves the needs of everyone is nearly impossible. I mean a Pasadena to Van Nuys commute is likely not going to get a direct rail route anytime soon. This is why we need transit oriented mixed-use development, where residential, commercial, and retail establishments are built around rail transit stops. Now obviously this is a long-term issue, but it is necessary to make transit in a such as spread out as ours viable. If jobs and homes are located along transit, it's much more likely that someone will be able to make a direct commute on the system without multiple transfers, lengthy waits, long walks, etc.

I give you props for committing yourself to the transit lifestyle, as it stands right now, it's strictly an alternative lifestyle for those with the gumption to be willing to deal with the challengers our limited and somewhat ill-designed system presents.

[Kymberleigh Richards]

Sorry, Cheryl, but that rant of yours was based upon an erroneous presumption.

Metro is NOT "subject to the L.A. County Commission" (whatever THAT is).

It isn't even subject to the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (if that's what you meant), although all five of them by law sit on the Metro Board of Directors.

Metro -- more accurately, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority -- was created by the STATE OF CALIFORNIA as a special district agency. It is subject to the jurisdiction of the California Legislature, and is governed by the state Public Utilities Code. (If you don't believe me, go look up Assembly Bill 152 from the 1991-92 legislative session.)

The whole rest of your rant is pretty much discarded since it is based on a lack of knowledge of what the facts are. Especially since your main "fact" seems to be that Metro is a County agency. Which it is not.

And if you for one minute think you are ever going to wholesale replace the Board of Supervisors, think again. The last time an incumbent supervisor was defeated at the polls was well over 25 years ago.

[Fred Camino]

Siel said:

"Wow -- I think this post wins out for inciting the longest comment responses ever. Great to see people really thinking about these issues and getting concerned."

This is what gives me hope Siel. I think in the past issues like this were marginalized to a somewhat kooky minority, but this stuff is becoming mainstream and the people are really interested in the possibilities. This is what will bring about change, the demands of the people. I encourage everyone to consider the implications of adopting a transit oriented lifestyle, today and in the hypothetical future. And then spread the word.

[m]

Sorry Fred, I didn't really make it clear, but all of the people I've talk about do live and work fairly close to lines (.5 miles or less), which is partially what makes it more frustrating. My friend lives right next to an orange line stop. I don't know if I could live much closer to the Universal City Red line stop and both my friend and I work about an 8 minute walk from the closest Gold Line station. I think the main issue in our situation is that the most direct route from where we live to where we work is the 134/101 and the trains all "detour" through downtown. Then there is the commuter express, which uses the 134, but stops running too early to be useful.

Something I've heard people discuss is having trains run more parallel to or even through the freeways (esp in regards to the 405). In some ways it does make sense -- things obviously have been built around the freeways to some degree since they are how people move around in cars. But getting off a train in the middle of a freeway is noisy, probably isn't where your final destination is, causes you to have to deal with walking on foot near many cars and drivers that may be ramped up/spaced out after sitting in traffic and exposes you to more pollutants. Just because that is how things WERE designed, doesn't mean they have to remain that way.

[Kate]

"Did you know there is bus service in West L.A. that no doubt will lead you to the Red Line, or Pantages itself? Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't matter, it would never be a consideration because most people are never going to consider taking the damn bus to go to Pantages! And for good reason too. Now obviously rail cant go everywhere, which is why you make a good point about bus service, but in an ideal network buses would act as the feeders to rail, not a replacement to rail."

Actually, Fred, I do know that. I take the bus to work every day. That's how I also know that from where I live, I would have to take at least two different buses, with an inter-agency transfer, just to get to the train. One of those buses would be down Wilshire during rush hour, and on the return trip the bus that would take me from Wilshire to my home would have stopped running before I could reach it. So yes, there's bus service on the Westside, and much of it is quite useful, but not under all circumstances.

And using buses as a feeder to rail, rather than a replacement, was exactly what I was suggesting. Maybe it wasn't explicit, but I don't think it was that hard to infer from my post.

[Fred Camino]

Kate, I didn't mean for my response to come off as demeaning, I was actually agreeing with you and saying that even though there is bus service, but rail is more appealing.

[Kate]

No problem, Fred. I'm perfectly happy with the bus for the short commute I have right now, but I would definitely prefer rail for longer trips.

[Nancy]

I currently live in Sherman Oaks at the 405/101 and work off the 134. Before that I lived in Palms near the 405/10 and worked in Santa Monica at Cloverfield (right next to the 10). It seems that a majority of LA commuters live and work near major freeways.

Why is it that LA County and the state can spend money to expand lanes and create ones for carpooling on these freeways, but they can't just rip out the center and do what is done on the 105?

An what is all this talk about the "Subway to the Sea" anyway? Are the folks in the Valley (where Disney, Universal and Warner Brothers are located, and ALL near freeways I might add) chopped liver?

[Fred Camino]

There's a number of problems with rail in the middle of the freeways Nancy. While it sounds like a great idea on paper, it doesn't really work in reality. First off, rail only really works when it has stops at destinations that are friendly to the pedestrian, because everyone has to walk a little bit from the station to their final destination. The center of freeways are the antithesis of pedestrian friendly. Not only are they unbearably loud and filled with noxious fumes, due to the nature of freeways, they are typically not immediately adjacent to any really usable destinations. So basically you are dropped off in the middle of nowhere that is loud and unattractive and forced to hike or transfer to bus service for a significant distance to get to your destination. That's not exactly going to get people jumping out of their cars and onto trains. Remember, distances that seem like nothing in a car can be quite a hike for someone on foot, especially of the environment is not built for the pedestrian (think about the difference of walking the same distance along a barren highway or a busy urban Boulevard in New York City). A good example is to compare the Memorial Park Station on the Gold Line (which is in the heart of Old Town, with countless things to walk to and do within a 10 minute walk) versus the next station, Lake, which is located in the center of the 210 Freeway. Also, by having stations in the middle of freeways it limits the potential for transit oriented development around the stations.

I just recommend getting on any of the trains that run through the center of the freeway and ask yourself if you would want to wait for a train the middle of a freeway everyday.

[Kate]

I think there's a reason why finding a way for trains to parallel the 405 makes sense, beyond existing traffic patterns. It's the same reason that the 405 is where it is between the 101 and the 10--Sepulveda Pass. It makes more sense to build any form of transit where geography makes it easier.

As for the need to connect, many people would be walking a few blocks from the 405 to their jobs or homes. Others would be using the buses that already travel along major streets that go under or over the 405.

I don't think that a train along the 405 is feasible at this point, but it's not actually all that bad in theory. Fred, I hear what you're saying about pollutants, but considering how bad the air quality is inside cars, I'm not sure the difference is necessarily as great as it seems.

We're probably moving to the Valley, and we're looking at places that give us good access to the Orange Line to connect to the regular Metro mus going over Sepulveda Pass (our jobs aren't moving). Again, I'd rather take a train for that trip along Sepulveda. I don't see the difference between transferring from one type of bus to another and transfering from a train to a bus. I do know that I'd prefer public transportation for that commute to sitting in traffic behind the wheel. At least on the bus there's a chance I can read.

[Nancy]

Fred,

"Not only are they unbearably loud and filled with noxious fumes, due to the nature of freeways, they are typically not immediately adjacent to any really usable destinations."

Wow. What part of my saying I live/work right next to freeway did you not understand? in regards to the fumes and noise, I'm enjoying that right now actually - while driving on the 101 every day. Whoopee!

And as far as pedestrian access is concerned, you've hardly explained why the 105 is so pedestrian UNfriendly. If you are going to tell me something is impossible, at least back your reasoning up with some FACTS. Thank you.

[Fred Camino]

Nancy,

I don't understand your aggression, I certainly wasn't attacking you. I said "immediately accessible", so unless you live/work in the middle of a freeway it's unlikely there's going to be housing, retail, commercial immediately adjacent a station in the middle of a freeway. Something like Wilshire/Vermont or Del Mar in Pasadena is impossible with freeway stations.

Furthermore, I didn't say freeway stations were "impossible", obviously they are very possible since both the Green Line and Gold Line have stations in the middle of freeways.

Why is the 105 pedestrian unfriendly? Let me ask you this, are there any sidewalks on the 105? Are pedestrians even allowed on the 105? Even if they were, would you be comfortable walking down the middle of the 105? If the parking lot for your work was in the middle of the freeway would you be fine with walking to work from there? If you think that freeways and freeway on-ramps are pedestrian friendly I can't argue with your opinion, but I disagree and would imagine that many other pedestrians would as well.

"...at least back your reasoning up with some FACTS. "

Well I'm giving you my opinion, not facts, so you'll have to take that for what it's worth. I'm of the opinion that stations in the middle of freeways are a mistake. I base this off my experience with stations in the middle of freeways and the other thing I listed in my previous posts.

I urge you again to wait for a Green Line train in the middle of the 105. See if the noise and fumes is the same thing you experience in your car. I've done this and don't like it. If you've already done it and enjoy it, that probably explains our difference in opinion on this issue.

For my final point, I will let images do the talking,

Metro Gold Line, Memorial Park Station (and immediate surroundings):

http://www.transit-rider.com/viewer.cfm?FrameID=2653

Metro Gold Line, Lake Station (next station after Memorial Park, freeway station, and immediate surroundings):

http://www.transit-rider.com/viewer.cfm?FrameID=2640

[Shogun]

I definitely agree that rail is the way to go in bringing in more riders and ultimately reducing traffic. I am one of those 100K/year westsiders who don't have a car and prefer the transit-oriented lifestyle despite having to commute to downtown daily for work. I have been riding the Metro Rapid 720 for four years, and I find the bus to be inefficient at times. Though by no fault of its own, I along with many others would save considered wait time if a form of public transit was on schedule and no stuck in traffic. As we all know, unimpeded modes of transportation such as a subway would be perfect.

[Siel]

Hey Nancy -- I don't really understand your aggression either. You originally asked "what is all this talk about the "Subway to the Sea" anyway? Are the folks in the Valley (where Disney, Universal and Warner Brothers are located, and ALL near freeways I might add) chopped liver?" I find that statement bizarre, simply it's just a blanket attack that could be used to oppose any transit project (For ex, if a rail were planned for the valley, anyone who didn't live there could say "Are the folks in [insert anywhere but the valley] chopped liver?" If Nebraska got federal funding for some transit project, you might write "Are the folks in California chopped liver?" and so on) Your statement is not exactly a smart critique of a specific project based on its merits.

The fact that one rail line won't single handedly solve everyone's transit problems doesn't mean that everyone whose needs aren't met by that one line are being treated like chopped liver. Anyway, I think it was kind of FredCamino to at least attempt to answer your questions seriously.

Shogun -- I too am a frequent 720 taker! I have to say this has to be one of the best bus lines, but the roads being clogged as they are (and the buses not having special lanes), problems still abound. Still, most of the time I feel frustrated, I feel that everyone in cars around the bus must be frustrated too, which helps, oddly --

[Kymberleigh Richards]

Let me jump in and add a fact for Nancy to consider.

The Green Line, which Nancy sees as an example of how rail should be built, has about half the ridership of the Blue Line and about a third of the ridership of the Red/Purple Line. (These are from Metro's ridership statistics, which are updated monthly on the website.)

The reason? Precisely what Fred pointed out. A rail line in the middle of the freeway has stations which require transfers to bus at both ends. The Green Line doesn't have stations near actual destinations; the Blue and Red/Purple Lines do.

[Chris]

It sounds like at least some of the problems with rail are that the lines don't run often enough. If rail lines ran at least every 6 minutes the whole day - like in Toronto - those transfer times, at least on the bus to rail end, would be eliminated.

I'd like to see more discussion of Rubin's piece. Obviously any person with any kind of background in research would immediately see the fallacy of his conclusion, but it's conclusion is even worse than you might think.

Compare the ridership of the Red, Green, Blue, Gold, and Orange Lines with the bus lines that preceeded them.

Example:
Gold Line - About 20,000
Bus #401 - About 8,000

Green Line - About 38,000
Bus #117 - About 11,000

Blue Line - About 77,000
Bus #450 (?) - ? Probably less than 20,000

Red Line - About 130,000
Hollywood Fwy express service (i.e. #426) - About 25,000 (Maybe Kimberleigh can help with these numbers)

In every case, the rail line carries far more passengers than its bus line predecessor.

In addition, Rubin conveniently ignores the fact that a significant amount of service Metro ran in 1985 is now run by other agencies. Example: Foothill Transit, all lines of which used to be Metro lines; Commuter Express, ditto (I think); several DASH lines, and random lines given to Norwalk Transit, Montebello Bus Lines, and others.

Finally, although LA County has added 2 million people since 1985 much of this growth has come beyond the Metro service area in places like Palmdale, Santa Clarita, and Montclair.

[Siel]

V. interesting stats, Chris! I especially like the point you bring in about the ways both Metro and LA County have changed in terms of size and scope. Those details def. need to be factored into any discussion of rail's effectiveness in LA.

[Alek F]

Fred, VERY well said!
Good job.
I agree with practically all your points.
The only thing I slightly disagree with - is that money "has been wasted" on rail projects. Whereas I agree that some lines (e.g. Green line which doesn't go directly to LAX) were indeed not that critical, other lines (e.g. Red Line from Downtown LA to North Hollywood) I think are not a waste at all! ;-)
In fact, this Red line serves as a vital link between Hollywood / N. Hollywood and Downtown LA, which is a superb alternative to the congested 101 Fwy.
But otherwise - yes, I entirely agree with every single point that you mention. Los Angeles needs to build a Rail Transit network where THE PUBLIC NEEDS! - not where it's cheaper for MTA to build. And Rail is what will help solving our traffic crisis, not buses!
Once again, great job, Fred!
Alek

[Tom Rubin]

I thank Mr. Camino for his interest, but I fail to note any response to the basic point of our Op-Ed – that when MTA invests heavily in rail, transit usage falls significantly, but when it makes a minor increase in bus funding, there are major ridership increases.

For a comprehensive response, I refer interested readers to:

http://thetransitcoalition.us/LargePDFfiles/TAR-01-2008-01-17FredCaminoResponse.pdf

Also of interest:

http://thetransitcoalition.us/LargePDFfiles/TAR-02-2008-01-22MathewHetzResponse.pdf

This is a recent presentation regarding MTA with a large selection of detailed data and analysis:

http://thetransitcoalition.us/LargePDFfiles/TAR-03-2007-11-27-LACMTA-TransitInLA-Presentation.pdf

Tom Rubin

[Jlo]

Mr. Tom Rubin, yes I did read your rebuttal, and yes it was quite eloquent but the length of your reply may be the reason that this forum is short on replies to your post rather than the "convincing argument" you attempt to make.

I am therefore going to keep it short and encourage further discussion without getting everyone lost in a bunch of numbers tossed around for no apparent reason but simply to make it sound like you know what you are talking about. I concede; your credentials, the heavy dose of writing, and the statistics do make it sound like you know your stuff, but I think the trick maybe interpreting some of that data.

Your primary basis is the fact that a little increase in bus service spending leads to increased ridership.
Lets analyse this a little more. Your low income earners apparently tend to use this service slightly more. What were they using prior to this? Were they walking/cycling which you have encouraged to take the bus. Is this getting rid of the traffic situation on the freeways. Is a subsidized system therefore directly impacting traffic congestion. I doubt it.

Your second part of that argument, increased spending on rail leads to lower ridership. I am truly not convinced but heres my point. Someone of your high caliber is aware of the 'network effects'. By definition, this means that there has to be heavy capital spending initially so as to build a sound network before their is an exponential increase in usage. For reference, you might look at the telecom industry. The first group of people with phones could not attract enough users because they had no one to call, but once momentum started building, it became the very thing that got people to use phones. Similarly, it is not possible to setup a single line, calculate how much you make on it, then build another line, then calculate etc and then base your calculations on this. The total economic value addition once a sound system is in place would be many times of what your numbers show.

Additionally, the patchwork of buses you propose is cheaper to implement and the positive effects are visible now but that is not reason enough to forego rail which although expensive would offer real benefits in the long run. By this I mean, eventually with a sound system in place, and increased ridership over time, we might be able to subsidize rail travel for the 'working poor' as mentioned earlier.

[Nancy]

Wow. I guess my ears were burning. First off, I gotta apologize for appearing so "aggressive." That certainly was not my intent. And as far as the "chopped liver" argument, if the Valley is last with the rail - I'm not counting the so-called "Orange Line" here - then so be it. We will also be the last ones to de-car.

I think my concern with all the "can't put it there, can't put it here" arguments is that with all the NIMBYism going on is this city, I think complaints about noise, smog and pedestrian inconvience are...well...just gonna add to the mountain of rants that just keep putting off our mass transit a little bit longer.

I for one, would like to see this before I have grandchildren.