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

[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.