L.A. deserves rail

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.