BLOWBACK

L.A. deserves rail

Why not give commuters the pleasure of an easier trip?
By Matthew Hetz
January 22, 2008
» Discuss Article    (12 Comments)

For the past 15 years I have been a transit rider, and I always take note of articles by James Moore of USC, particularly his opposition against expanding rail systems in Southern California. Moore, with Tom Rubin, is again striking out against rail, mostly over costs.

Yes, rail-line transit systems cost more than buses, but Moore and Rubin don't mention revenue. Income from fares is as much a part of the equation, and this neglect misses how much more cost effective rails and subways are in fare collection. Buses collect around 10% to 20% of operating revenues through fares, whereas rail collects a far greater portion, sometimes more than 40%.

And yes, part of the operating costs for rail includes maintenance and repair. However, bus companies do not have to pay for road maintenance. If the cost of road construction, maintenance and repair was the responsibility of bus companies, their operating costs would skyrocket, possibly exceeding the costs of maintenance of the rail lines.

Although rail and subways cars do cost more than a bus to purchase, their longer life of service pays off. Rail cars can easily last twice as long as buses. The San Francisco cable cars, in existence more than 100 years, are still in service with a few rebuildings. Some old New Orleans streetcars are back in service as proof of the resilience of that city and rail cars.

And there are benefits to the transit rider from subways and rails which are never raised by Moore and Rubin. The greatest benefit is the gift of time. Buses share the roads with other vehicles, and are increasingly stuck in traffic. A ride on the Rapid Wilshire bus during commuter hours will quickly demonstrate how slowly a bus can run. And it remains to be seen if bus-only lanes will ever become a reality on Los Angeles-area streets when vehicle drivers must give up lanes and businesses complain about the loss of street side parking.

Riding buses and rails is essential hands-on experience, which is necessary to make complete comparisons and arguments. Moore, the USC transportation engineering program director, could take trips from USC to Mann's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. He could walk to Vermont Avenue and take a Rapid bus up to Hollywood Boulevard, and then transfer to a bus that would take him to the theater. He would note the problems of boarding the bus and paying fares one at a time, the difficulty of finding a seat, the discomfort of ride and the lengthy travel time. For comparison, he could also take a DASH bus, and (in a few years) the Expo Line from USC to downtown, and then take the subway to the Hollywood-Highland station.

He would see some critical differences. Bus rides are like being in a blender on the chop cycle. On the subway, the ride is smooth, even at high speeds. It's easier to board light rail as well — there's no time wasted on taking individual fares. The entry to a light-rail car is level and wide. Boarding and exiting a bus can be very difficult. There can be a puddle of water to negotiate or even a small creek during a downpour. It can require stepping onto the street or leaping from bus to curb. There may be obstacles on sidewalks which can block back exiting doors, leaving the rider to squirm around a trash can or newspaper rack or tree or light post; or charge to the front door through boarding passengers. Buses present constant obstacles for the rider. Part of the costs of rails and subways are the stations, but they offer a more humane method of transit, and save time. The quality of the ride is never mentioned in Moore and Rubin's argument against rail.

The consent decree against Metro, as cited by Moore and Rubin, did indeed put more buses on the streets, and could be considered a form of discrimination in its own right because it favored the lower quality and slower rides of buses compared to rail and subway. When the Blue Line serves the underserved people of South Los Angeles, and the Gold Line gives a superior mass transit experience to the underserved of East Los Angeles, or when any transit rider on the threshold of poverty or below gets to ride the subway or rail, they are experiencing a better ride. Why deny them a better transit experience?

With traffic only worsening, gas prices rising, and global temperatures rising, mass transit offers an answer. And because subways and rail can carry more people more energy efficiently per vehicle than bus, and offer a better quality of ride for all, they are the best transit modes to try to tackle these problems. They are needed to accommodate the growth of Southern California and offer the best in mass transit to all people of the region.

Matthew Hetz is a native to Los Angeles, a composer, the President of the Culver City Symphony Orchestra; and serves on the Los Angeles Council District 11 Transportation Committee.




Post Comment

Name
Enter your comments and post to forum
By participating you agree to our Terms of Service and represent that you are not under the age of 13.
 
Discussion


Light rail, buses or both for L.A.? Discuss today's Blowback.

Comments will close after two weeks.
 
1. I thank Mr. Hetz 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. I refer interested readers to: http://thetransitcoalition.us/LargePDFfiles/TAR-02-2008-01-22MathewHetzResponse.pdf Readers may also be interested in: http://thetransitcoalition.us/LargePDFfiles/TAR-01-2008-01-17FredCaminoResponse.pdf I also provide: http://thetransitcoalition.us/LargePDFfiles/TAR-03-2007-11-27-LACMTA-TransitInLA-Presentation.pdf
Submitted by: Tom Rubin
6:45 AM PST, Jan 24, 2008
 
2. one simple example of even the regulators knowledge of the better ride of rail vs bus on a bus a passenger using a wheelchair is required by law to have the wheelchair secured so that it won't roll around even with the brakes on. on a rail vehicle no such requirement exists, most rail cars either light or heavy rail have no such securments. even the government acknowledges that the ride is smoother on rail.
Submitted by: Bob
6:11 AM PST, Jan 23, 2008
 
3. Agree with all of Hetz's comments. In fact, on a per mile ridership basis, LA existing rail, fragmentary as it is, compares favorably with virtually all other systems except NY. For example, the Red Line carries about 4200 people per mile (based on APTA statistics) per day, while the Washington Metro is at about 4800. The LA light rail ridership is second only to Boston's, which has been around for over 100 years. The 4 rail lines combined carry about 260,000 people per weekday; over 200 bus lines are needed to carry about 1 million fares per day. Obviously, rail is working, and working better than bus.
Submitted by: norman lane
4:03 PM PST, Jan 22, 2008
 




Demolishing iconic buildings not only destroys history, it wastes resources.


   
The best in Southern California opinion journalism
Proposition 8 and Santa Claus in the schools
Credit the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign for its clever ability to poke people...
more
The business and culture of our digital lives, from the L.A. Times
Time Warner Cable shows customers how to get TV for free
Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt has been an outspoken critic of the networks'...
more
 

ADVERTISEMENT



Dave, "SNL," Jay, Colbert, Conan and more summarize current events.