Metrolink to L.A.: All Aboard, Please

Southern California’s Metrolink trains debuted with plenty of balloons and pretty talk. Boosters of the billion-dollar choo-choo spoke glowingly of a new era dawning, of the demise of smog and the single-occupant vehicle. “A good day for commuters in Los Angeles,” rhapsodized the politicians. “A good day for people who breathe the air.”

Well, two weeks have passed since that first good day, and it now appears that the Metrolink promoters should have ratcheted down the rhetoric a bit. Ridership tumbled alarmingly after a free introductory period ended. There have been complaints about prices and schedules. Voters shot down a state proposition to pump more money into rail. Already, some of the more skeptical urban planning experts have begun to suggest privately that Metrolink is in deep trouble, a periwinkle-and-white elephant on wheels.

Is this any way to begin an era?

*

Some early bugs should be simple enough to fix. At present, Metrolink charges CEO rates but expects riders to keep secretarial hours. A round-trip ticket from Pomona costs $10, and downtown workers must leave before 6 p.m. to catch the last train out. System officials have pledged to evaluate prices and schedules as they go, and they ought to keep that promise sooner rather than later.

Other problems are more vexing. For one thing, since the demise long ago of L.A.’s once proud rail system, the city and its suburbs have been tailored to the automobile. Potential Metrolink riders will have to be convinced there’s enough bus and taxi service at either end of their commute to make it work. At $170 a month, Metrolink simply won’t pencil out for commuters who must also own, maintain and insure a car for travel to and from the stations.

Whether it pencils out for the city as a whole is a tougher question still. Subsidized train systems aren’t cheap. Urban planners estimate that, for each auto the new mass transit systems remove from L.A. freeways, it could wind up costing, on average, anywhere from $20,000 to $60,000. At those prices, they should forget trains and zip us to work by helicopter.

Despite the hot wind of Opening Day, most people involved in solving Southern California’s transportation riddles don’t anticipate Metrolink or its sister rail and subway systems to make a huge dent on freeway congestion. They would be content to maintain current traffic levels as the population expands. Ironically, the case can be made that success against congestion would be the worst thing to happen to Metrolink: Free up the freeways, and you remove the strongest incentive for riding the trains in the first place.

And what about smog? Only the most optimistic mass-transit advocates consider rail a big step toward cleaner air. Most environmentalists believe the skies will clear only when commuters are driven in hordes from cars--especially the vintage Detroit sleds that produce most of the gunk. And that will take, not trains, but pain--stiff gas taxes and Manhattan-style parking fees, and similarly aggressive programs for discouraging the dread Single Occupancy Vehicle commuters who pack the freeways each day.

Which takes us to the toughest challenge yet awaiting the train people: The car people.

*

We love our cars, even as they kill us. We might cry about smog and congestion and freeway chaos. We might embrace, in the abstract, the notion of mass transit, even pass bonds and taxes to pay for it. Yes, trains and buses are just the ticket--for our neighbors. As for ourselves, we’d rather drive to work, alone.

Part of this attitude is a product of brainwashing. We’ve been sold on the notion that what we drive says something about ourselves. We also are hooked on the freedom of solo car travel, and its affordability. Compared to many cities, driving in Los Angeles costs next to nothing. They don’t call them freeways for nothing. As one economist put it:

“The principal reason we have our severe dependence on the single occupancy vehicle is that we have subsidized the automobile to the point where any rational person is going to drive a car. This has created smog and congestion, and now we think that the solution to these problems is to subsidize another form of transportation.”

Which, of course, doesn’t make much sense, but no matter. Metrolink will be given time to prove itself. Rail systems might have failed miserably in many cities, but they remain a political sacred cow--they just seem like such a good thing to do, and are a lot easier to promote than a gas tax or any other meaningful attack on smog or congestion. While they can expect a long honeymoon, I would offer the Metrolinksters this parting advice: Lower fares, and also expectations, and then settle back for a long uphill climb.