L.A. needs transit options

Re “Train wreck,” Opinion, Jan. 13

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is pursuing exactly the path it should be pursuing -- that of a balanced transportation network in Los Angeles.

Rail always has been more expensive than buses, but rail can move significantly more passengers at much higher speeds. Buses run on the same gridlocked roads as private cars. Neither I nor anyone I work with is going to forsake a private auto for a commute that takes longer than driving oneself to work.

James Moore and Tom Rubin portray the transit system as being a service to the poor. Although this is one aspect of what the MTA should accomplish, it is by no means its sole mission. I don’t mean to be politically incorrect, but I pay taxes too, and I want relief from gridlock with a balanced, multi-modal transit network.

Roger White

Santa Monica

--

Fare increases alone cannot be blamed for the drop in transit ridership since 1986, as Moore and Rubin suggest. Changing demographics, increased car ownership and the relative health of the economy are important factors too. In fact, many economists would argue that mass-transit ridership is an inelastic service, meaning it isn’t as subject to price fluctuations. If ridership dropped because of fare increases, what did these commuters do instead? Purchase cars, and then spring for insurance, gas and car maintenance? That is by far the more expensive option.

In truth, Los Angeles has only one hope to promote transit use among all income groups: increasing options with buses and trains. We need a grid where a day pass gets you off a train to a bus, or vice versa, as in London.

Until that day, from Hollywood, a 20-minute train ride downtown sure beats a never-ending rush-hour bus ride. Join me sometime if you disagree.

Nihar Patel

Hollywood

--

Moore has been taking periodic potshots at the MTA and rail while holding no more compelling vision for transit in Los Angeles than fleets of buses on our congested streets. However, the issue of how to best use scarce transit funds is especially important in our stressed fiscal environment.

If we wish to improve our mobility options, perhaps we can identify ways in which Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s proposed subway to the sea can be constructed for less than the estimated $6.5 billion. A few years ago, Madrid completed in three years its Metrosur, a much longer, 25-mile subway line, for only $2.3 billion -- nearly two-thirds less.

Andrew Shaddock

Manhattan Beach

--

Moore argues against all types of rail transportation in L.A. The Red Line subway, light-rail lines and even the MetroLink commuter rail have all been subject to his scathing attacks. I won’t bother refuting his arguments, as he has obviously ignored the progress made with the initial deployments of the three types of rail in Los Angeles. But I do question The Times’ purpose in providing him a regular forum to restate his tired contentions. Until he offers an explanation of how adding buses to already overcrowded streets and highways will significantly improve traffic flow, please spare us from any more of his rants.

Steve Pogact

Los Angeles