What’s Missing in the ‘Rail vs. Bus’ Debate

There are two enormously frustrating things about the debate over transportation investments in Los Angeles. One is that it’s portrayed as a bus versus rail debate rather than a debate about providing a range of safer, more convenient alternatives to driving on congested highways in a degraded and polluted environment.

The second is that there is no discussion whatsoever about the land use and economic development implications of each investment. Rail and highways are permanent infrastructure developments that cannot be unfunded once they are built. Bus service is not permanent and can be cut at any time. That’s why both rail and highways can serve to stimulate and anchor economic development in communities and why simply increasing bus service cannot leverage these same economic benefits.

Public transit can build value into our older communities, whereas highways channel investment and jobs and the middle class out of urban core communities and into new suburban communities. Rail can build permanent value, and rail stations can serve as a real focus for economic development and revitalization efforts.

We’ve got to factor those considerations into our discussion, because highways are encouraging sprawling land use patterns that are sucking public and private investment out of our urban core communities. Over the past 10 years, for example, the MTA has chosen to spend two-thirds of its “flexible” funding--more than $1.5 billion--on improving the highway system through such projects as high-occupancy lanes, which do not benefit the urban core.

That said, we must seek to build a comprehensive transportation system that recognizes the role of each mode--bus, light rail, commuter rail, highways, van pools, smart shuttles--and that is focused on creating walkable, bikeable, economically vibrant communities where people don’t need to drive everywhere. Transit investments should not be awarded like political plums but should be focused in transit-dependent communities. Well-traveled bus lines should be given dedicated bus lanes and priority signalization. Where transit corridors are densely populated and buses get stuck in traffic, there should be busways or trolleys or light rail, which can be routed below street level or underground.

Contrast this with the way we have been making investments. When early analyses indicated that the Exposition Boulevard light rail line was the best one to build, what happened? We instead built the Blue Line to Long Beach, through industrial neighborhoods far from where people live and work and shop. Why? Largely because the line ran through the district of two powerful politicians--the late L.A. County Supervisor Kenneth Hahn and the late Rep. Glenn M. Anderson (D-Long Beach), who chaired the House Transportation Subcommittee. So of course the Blue Line has not revitalized communities; there are no neighborhoods along the line to develop except at the line’s terminus in Long Beach, where it has anchored highly successful revitalization efforts. Neither are there any neighborhoods to develop along the Green Line, which goes from Norwalk to El Segundo.

Did it make sense to tunnel under the mountains to build a subway into the Valley? There are densely populated transit-dependent communities along the Red Line into Hollywood--as there are in East Los Angeles, where a Red Line extension had been planned. But tunneling under the mountains and into North Hollywood was an unnecessary expense.

The MTA must encourage transit-oriented development along the Red Line and along the Blue Line to Pasadena, if it is completed. Major investments should be awarded to those communities that agree to do the right kind of planning and to make the land use, zoning and density changes that will provide a good return on these major public infrastructure investments. Long Beach has done that, as has Pasadena.

We need dedicated rights of way for public transit, because as long as buses have to weave in and out of traffic, extending travel times, public transit will remain inferior to the automobile, and transit users will be at a disadvantage. And as long as we rely on buses, transit-dependent communities will be at the mercy of those who can increase fares and cut back service--which is what transit agencies across the country are doing. Oakland is eliminating night service. Montgomery, Ala., has eliminated public transit service altogether. Transit-dependent communities deserve better treatment.

Los Angeles, more than any other city, needs a well-constructed set of alternatives to the automobile, ranging from shuttle service and van pools through bus and express bus service with dedicated lanes and traffic signals that give them priority, plus trolley service and light rail. Transit investments should be accompanied by investments to improve walkability and to encourage transit-based housing and transit-serving retail, including markets and restaurants, banks, dry cleaners and other neighborhood services. Transit centers should serve as employment centers as well.

That is how we can and must use our transit investment to increase the quality of life for everyone.