Bus Vs. Rail

[Jason Saunders]

LA. Times came out with this article this evening:

www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mta24may24,0,1266925.story?coll=la-home-center

The article is very biased and reads like the authors consulted primariy with the BRU in writing this article. States incorrectly that bus fares will be increased and not rail (caption under photo). It also quotes misleading figures about operating cost of rail vs bus implying rail is more expensive to operate. Lastly, it refers to rail as being built on the backs of the poor and blames rail for MTA's current debt load. I hope that some of you will consider writing letters. I'm all for healthy debate but this article is misleading and biased.

[joequality]

wow that reads almost like an op-ed piece.

Yeah rail is cheaper to operate... anyone have the specs?

[streetmedic]

Just saw a report on KCAL news where the mayor has proposed slashing rail funding in order to stave off the bus fare increase. The piece was accompanied by several comments by representatives of the "Bus Riders Union" who slammed rail development as "transit racism." So frustrating that people JUST DON'T GET IT!

[Elson]

streetmedic said:

Just saw a report on KCAL news where the mayor has proposed slashing rail funding in order to stave off the bus fare increase. The piece was accompanied by several comments by representatives of the "Bus Riders Union" who slammed rail development as "transit racism." So frustrating that people JUST DON'T GET IT!

...Yet the Bus Riders Union IS RACIST!

It is run by a racist white man (Eric Mann) who makes at least $100,000 a year running the BRU while his minority slaves work as volunteers. He force-feeds them his views and disguises it as "empowerment" when really they have no say and are denied their First Amendement right to criticize or question the BRU by any means. THE BUS RIDERS UNION EXPLOITS MINORITIES!

[erict]

The mayor has betrayed Mass Transit and bowed down to the BRU. I hope that the MTA does not follow his lead.

[whitmanlam]

For those who weren't at the meeting today. The BRU basically filled the building with screaming hooligans, and kids from high school, who apparently skipped school to scream with the crowd.

There were so many people coming into the building they had to seal it off and tell the crowd outside to disperse.

Apparently, the people are that stupid, and penny pinching, they take the bus for granted everyday, by tagging and littering the stations. That's how much they appreciate Metro transit.

[joequality]

so what was the decision the board reached?

[streetmedic]

Unfortunately the press won't represent the BRU for what it is. These days questioning anything done in the name of the poor gets you instantly labeled as a racist and villified. No one can stand up to an organization that on the face claims to have the best interest of the poor and minorities at heart.

This mayor came into power making bold promises and now has pushed his own (racist?) agenda in so many other areas, not just transit. Will this city ever be allowed to grow up?

[kenalpern]

I must admit that the Mayor didn't choose the right course, and I am more than a wee bit surprised that he chose the course that he took (he's usually a whole lot smarter than that!).

Anyhow, the Board voted for a higher fare increase (Bart and Jerard and Damien and others from TTC who were there have the numbers) than the Mayor's plan, so there will be no ridiculous borrowing and we will soon have Expo and Eastside LRT service.

[whitmanlam]

Raising the fare from 1.25 to 1.50 will barely but a dent in the structural deficit. I hope the Mayor realizes he's damaged our transit for many years to come.

Hopefully other cities will far surpass us in transit usage, so we can see the folly of our ways.
No wait.... they already have surpassed us.

[hank]

www.mta.net/news_info/press/metro_092.htm is the official press release.

As someone who was there at the hearing, the Molina proposal was known by many of us at 9 AM when they started. Basically, they accepted the Metro staff proposal of increasing the day pass to $5 and keeping the base fare at $1.25, and increased the weekly and monthly pass categories by 20% (give or take). They only approved up to 2009, though, since after that, they may want to go to distance based fares with the TAP card, which should finish rollout by then.

[wad]

The Bus Riders Union discredited itself a long time ago. The organization is a mile wide and an inch deep. The organization now has to resort to paying people to show up to these meetings, and very few are actual bus riders. Mann has focused organizing with Fellow Travelers, who'll support him out of obligation.

[streetmedic]

Here's a video of NBC's report on yesterday's meeting, clearly showing the throngs brought in by the BRU in the name of the underprivileged, neglected, poor. Ugh, makes me angry:

video.knbc.com/player/?id=111601

Sadly, the general public's only exposure to the BRU is through reports like this showing angry, sympathetic speakers spouting claims of racism. The media cannot report the true goings on because any attempt to would simply be classified as racist.

Resorting to calling someone a racist is now the equivilant of children threatening to call CPS on their parents when they try to disicpline them. Racist is such a horrible thing to be called that it's turned into censorshiip by those who use it as a weapon.

Honestly, I don't see how Los Angeles is going to survive as a city if it can't move beyond this and start making some real progress. It's marred in bickering and corruption with no end in sight. The optimism I had back when this mayor took office has been completely obliterated.

Lastly, I"m sick and tired of the BRU insinuating that only white people drive cars and that they can afford unlimited transit costs. That somehow the color of your skin makes you inherently rich. It's okay to threaten a virtual riot if bus fares go up, ignoring the fact that the same gas prices that affect 'white' drivers also affect bus service. One of the speakers at the MTA meeting yesterday (I wish I could find a clip of his comments) actually stood up in front of the board and claimed that rail development is "racist against brown people." Last I checked, however, nearly all of MTA's rail lines run through the south and eas sides, not Beverly Hills and Pacific Palisades.

Sorry, I think I'm rambling now....it's just getting me so frustrated. I feel so powerless and the outlook seems so bleak. Please correct me if I'm way off base here.

[masonite]

I guess the real question now is whether the fare increase will be enough to avoid hurting the rail program (which I suppose depends on whether the spillover funds can be reinstated). I saw that Roger Snoble said that is possible that there would be delays in future rail line work, which is troubling.

I must say that I am very disappointed in the Mayor in that he would play politics and risk destroying future rail building by placing the MTA in debt by not addressing the structural debt. No one wants increased fares, but his lack of leadership on this combined with a willingness to sacrifice rail by reducing service and placing future projects on hold by going into debt was extremely troubling to someone like me who voted for him partly because of his vision for a Subway to the Sea and additional rail.

With the long range plan due out soon and major investment rail studies to be completed soon, it is important we get the next generation of rail under way. How this plays out with AV will be interesting. I hope I am not disappointed again.

P.S. The BRU people were talking about a lawsuit again. This can't be possible can it? Even with the increases the MTA is still below fares in most cities. A court wouldn't possibly buy into something like another Consent Decree b/c of that would it? At some point the numbers have to add up no matter how many charges of racism and so forth get bandied about right? Or do I not understand how things work in this country anymore?

[whitmanlam]

The BRU was never a legitimate political activist group. The Consent Decree was the worst thing that ever happened to this city since the Northridge Earthquake, because not only did it sink us into debt, but also gave the BRU credibility.

They are a group of hate mongers who seek to divide this city based on race and class. That mass transit should not cost a penny to run. That billions of dollars are being stored in a secret vault under Metro headquarters, guarded by robot chimpanzees.

Please don't tell me the mayor has bought into Racist conspiracy theories, borrow now/ pay later financing, or that these BRU idiots represent every one in Los Angeles. Because they truly don't deserve any airtime at all.

[kenalpern]

I really can't figure out or speak for the Mayor, because he usually has the courage and vision to do the right thing, but his actions weren't and aren't congruent with his goal of expanding mass transit in L.A. County. But hey, we all make mistakes and the Board overruled him.

Furthermore, the Board could have (and should have) raised fares a bit higher in anticipation of expanded Expo, Gold and Purple Line service--as well as the several Metro Rapid lines commencing with each new year.

So the entire Board's to blame...but I'll give Gloria Molina all the credit she deserves for pushing fare increases...and she's hardly one who neglects minorities and the poor!

[streetmedic]

I know this isn't the forum for it, but I personally feel that the mayor has abandoned his duty as a representative for ALL Los Angeles residents. He has chosen sides and seems to have decided that aligning with 'his people' is more important than making the tough decisions that will benefit the entire populace. The fact that he marches against his own police force, when the reason why people march against the police is to be heard by the mayor. The mayor marching in a police protest makes about as much sense as if President Bush suddenly started joining anti war protests.

Again, I knwo this is not the right place for complaining about the mayor, but it just seems that he's so worried about maintaining his diefied status among Hispanic voters that he'll do so at any cost (including pandering to the BRU in order to maintain the appearance of being a friend of the poor and immigrant communities). I guess he needs to do this though to get reelected since he's alientated so many other populations within the city.

[whitmanlam]

He's a politician. He follows the polls and the numbers of marchers in the streets. His school reforms failed and his efforts to combat gang violence have led to an explosion of gang violence.

He's only doing what is best for his career, like any politician would.

[kenalpern]

Yes, the Mayor is a politician, and he might be leaning to the left while fiscally leaning to the right. I disagree, however, about his school reforms failing, since his legal challenges were going nowhere but he did kickstart the obnoxious LAUSD school board into hiring a superintendant who is really serious about raising the bar, and he had a wonderful reshuffling of the board itself.

As for the police, I am a big fan of the police but they really did blow it to the point where it appeared that even Mr. Bratton needs to shake things up (both he and Mr. Villaraigosa had thought that the MacArthur park was something that couldn't happen after all the previous reforms instituted)...again. The police can blame themselves.

That said, bold leadership is needed and we need to feed the radical left their pound of political meat while striving for an effective transportation, education and anti-crime policy for the City and County of Los Angeles. This round of fare hikes gets the most immediate needs addressed without more debt, and while it doesn't fix the devastating impact of the Consent Decree it doesn't create a fertile ground for a new Consent Decree, either.

Five years from now, we'll have to deal with this problem again but at least we'll be able to have an Expo and Eastside Rail Line go into service while continuing the creation of Metro Rapids throughout the County...and by that time it's hoped that a more invested County can encourage fare hikes that are in line with the rest of the country.

[Transit Coalition]

GOLD LINE: Passengers wait for the Metro Rail train at the Memorial Park
Station in Pasadena. San Gabriel Valley officials to the east want the line
extended through their cities to Montclair.
(Robert Lachman / LAT) October 24, 2005



Los Angeles Times: Saturday, May 26, 2007

MTA fee hikes still leave rail plans unsure: Even after winning the biggest fare increase in more than a decade, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority still finds itself in a cash crunch that keeps several projects in limbo.

By Jeffrey L. Rabin and Rong-Gong Lin II
Times Staff Writers

Even after winning the biggest fare increase in more than a decade, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority still finds itself in a cash crunch that leaves several rail projects in limbo.

If it survives an expected legal challenge, the boost in fares will help stabilize the transit agency's deficit-ridden finances. But the increase is significantly less than what MTA staffers originally sought to close a projected $1.8-billion deficit over the next decade.

That leaves the MTA with a fundamental challenge that has faced the agency since its birth 14 years ago: how to operate a vast bus system while simultaneously building or expanding light-rail and subway lines.

The MTA has dramatically increased its mass-transit network this decade, finishing the Red Line subway to North Hollywood and opening the Gold Line from downtown L.A. to Pasadena and the Orange Line, a busway across the San Fernando Valley. The agency is in the midst of building two more rail lines at a combined cost of $1.5 billion: a downtown-to-Culver City route known as the Expo Line and an extension of the Gold Line from downtown to East L.A.

MTA Chief Executive Officer Roger Snoble offered a sober assessment Friday of what comes next.

Although he believes the agency can afford to complete and operate the Culver City and East L.A. lines, he said other transit projects now being considered, including one busway extension, could face significant delays.

"There has been a big expectation that we will get it done sooner than is financially possible," Snoble said. "This whole experience shows we need to be realistic about our expectations…. It may delay some projects."

Among them:

• The Expo Line extension from Culver City to Santa Monica, where officials have already purchased property around the Sears department store near City Hall and plan to convert the store's auto center building into a transit center.

• The Gold Line extension that would run from Pasadena to Montclair, in San Bernardino County, with a possible link ending at LA/Ontario International Airport. The line has been pushed aggressively by officials in the San Gabriel Valley, who have long complained that their region has no light rail service.

• The Green Line extension from its Aviation station near El Segundo to Los Angeles International Airport.

• The Orange Line extension from Woodland Hills to Chatsworth.

• The much-discussed $4.8-billion "Subway to the Sea" under Wilshire Boulevard that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa made a top priority when elected.

Only a dream?

Without a massive infusion of state and federal funds, officials said, the Wilshire subway remains only a dream. "That's got a long way to go," Snoble said.

The stakes are high, because there is general agreement that the MTA's current 73-mile rail network simply doesn't go enough places to lure motorists out of their cars. The agency's planners hope that pushing rail and busways farther into the Westside, San Gabriel Valley, South Bay and San Fernando Valley will create a system in which more people can get to their destinations. With L.A.'s population rising, officials worry that congestion on major boulevards and freeways will worsen, slowing bus service further.

The first set of fare hikes, which will hit bus and rail riders July 1, will generate at least $30 million in new revenue the first year, about 11% more than current levels, Snoble said. But it's less than the MTA chief had wanted.

A second wave of increases will be implemented in July 2009, possibly followed by another hike in 2011. That should provide the agency with enough revenue to operate the East L.A. and Culver City lines now under construction, as well as the other bus and rail services.

Already, an intense behind-the-scenes fight is underway between politicians from the Westside and the San Gabriel Valley over what rail project should follow the two now being built.

Westside forces are pushing for the $800-million Expo Line extension, saying traffic in their region is worse and that building a rail link to the ocean would be a huge relief valve. San Gabriel Valley forces say their area is underserved by rail and are pushing for a $1.4-billion route that would end in the fast-growing suburbs of San Bernardino County. (Both projects are at least six to seven years from completion.)

'It is sobering'

Transit advocates Friday said they are worried that the MTA's financial problems could cause delays on their projects.

"It is sobering," said Darrell Clarke, a Santa Monica planning commissioner and co-chairman of Friends 4 Expo Transit. "We need a network of new rail lines, not just a couple of little new ones."

LaVerne Mayor Jon Blickenstaff said the MTA's problems probably mean that the competition for funding will heat up.

"There's a critical need for a better transit system, [but] it's all very expensive to build and operate, and the subsidies are not nearly adequate," he said.

Members of Congress from L.A. County and transit lobbyists in Washington are trying to win approval of special provisions that would allow the local money being spent on the Culver City and East L.A. lines to be used to draw federal dollars for the extensions.

If successful, this effort would give the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Valley lines an extra source of funds. But even Snoble is skeptical. "It's really a hard sell," he said.

The fare increases approved by the MTA board Thursday will significantly increase what riders pay.

The cost of the monthly pass will gradually rise from $52 to $75 by July 1, 2009. The day pass — the most popular pass — will rise from $3 to $6 over the same period. The single-ride cash fare will rise the least, from $1.25 to $1.50 over the next two years.

Critics of the increase have already threatened to sue the MTA in federal court, arguing that the agency is ignoring the needs of working-class bus riders to build a grand rail system. Bus riders and civil rights groups sued the MTA on similar grounds in 1994, resulting in the agency's signing off on a consent decree that kept fares stable and resulted in improved bus service.

Connie Rice, a civil rights attorney who fought the MTA often over the last decade, said Friday that the increased fares will again hit the poor hard.

"They are going to make poor people's lives even more miserable," she said. "It looks like they are back to business as usual."

MTA officials have warned that without the fare increases approved Thursday, they might not be able to operate the Culver City and East L.A. rail lines after they are built.

Such restrictions would also be bad news for some projects in their early planning stages. L.A. officials are pushing for a light rail line along Crenshaw Boulevard and Florence Avenue from the Expo Line to LAX. There are also studies of a downtown route that would connect the Blue Line and Gold Line.

MTA board member Pam O'Connor, a Santa Monica councilwoman, said boosting fares was a difficult decision — but a needed one for the future of mass transit in L.A.

"You have to have a solid foundation," she said. "And, frankly, we were on shaky ground."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] * [e-mail]
*
Projects At risk:
Expo Line extension
Where: From Culver City to Santa Monica
Est. Cost: $800 million or more
Purpose: Would bring rail to the beach and traffic-clogged Westside.
--
Gold Line extension
Where: From Pasadena to Montclair
Est. Cost: $1.4 billion
Purpose: Would connect L.A. rail system to the fast-growing Inland Empire.
--
Green Line extension
Where: From near El Segundo to LAX
Est. Cost: $150 million or more
Purpose: The two-mile route would fill infamous "missing link," connecting rail line to LAX parking lot.
--
Orange Line extension
Where: From Woodland Hills to Chatsworth
Est. Cost: $135 million or more
Purpose: Successful busway would cross the full Valley. Costs less than rail.
--
Purple Line extension (Wilshire subway)
Where: From Mid-Wilshire to Santa Monica
Est. Cost: $4.8 billion
Purpose: Would run through heart of city. Expensive but potentially popular.

Source: Times reports

[streetmedic]

Conveniently, all the planned expansions and proposed maps always leave the west side completely empty. Still nothing for West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, West Los Angeles, the Wilshire Corridor, and the Sepulveda Pass. The expo line is still too far south, leaving a large number of ridership unrepresented and forced to drive either to stations, in traffic, to non-existent park and ride lots or to their destinations, foregoing rail altogether.

[erict]

Well the westside and the valley were the areas most opposed to the subway 10 years ago when it was being built. Now the westside tune has changed. Who is to blame for this attitude? Not us eastsiders.

[kenalpern]

Huh? Between the proposed Expo, Purple and Green Line extensions, vs. the soon-to-be-built Eastside Gold Line, I'd say the Eastside gets the short end of the stick and the Westside will enjoy multiple lines in the decades to come.

I'd say this article does a good job of promoting Metro's aggressive efforts to bring more quality rail/busway lines to the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys, to the Westside, and to the Eastside. It also shows how damaging the failure of the Metro Board to fund its operations is if we are serious about creating a truly regional and effective rapid transit network.

I'd say the only good thing this Board decision does is to have the lowest emergency increase in fares possible to last the next five years without going heavily into debt...especially after the Consent Decree just ended. Five years from now, I hope that whoever is on the Metro Board at that time will at least raise its fares to levels comparable to other major cities in the U.S. and North America.

The next battle will be to ensure that Sacramento and Washington start funding and subsidizing rail projects at the same level they fund and subsidize freeway and road projects.

[bluelineshawn]

Five years from now, I hope that whoever is on the Metro Board at that time will at least raise its fares to levels comparable to other major cities in the U.S. and North America.

But our rail system is not comparable to other major cities, even though our bus system is actually pretty decent. Also our fare increase effective July 2009 will make our prices comparable to other major cities. A quick comparison with NYC using their prices as they are now and our 2009 prices:

Single trip: $1.50 (LA), $2.00 (NY) but keep in mind that we don't have free transfers between rail lines so each transfer is a new fare! They also get discounts when they buy more than 10 single rides.

Day Pass: $6.00 (LA), $7.00 (NY) but they have other cost savers like a $24.00 7-day pass. 7 day passes will cost us $42.00.

Monthly pass: $75.00 (LA), $76.00 (NY) not a big difference.

[bluelineshawn]

Oops! Actually our weekly passes will be $20 not $42, but you get the idea.

[whitmanlam]

The problem is that the fare increases only pay for the current level of service we got. Which is quite poor. It doesn't pay for more rail construction.

If only we can pass a Sales tax or bond measure for these. We could have everything built in a decade.

[Elson]

whitmanlam said:

The problem is that the fare increases only pay for the current level of service we got. Which is quite poor. It doesn't pay for more rail construction.

If only we can pass a Sales tax or bond measure for these. We could have everything built in a decade.

Um, all of the capital expenses of our rail projects are pretty much funded by bond measures, sales tax revenue and state & federal transportation funds.

[Jason Saunders]

Both the Bus Riders Union and the Transit Coalition share the same goal of improving transit in Los Angeles. Instead of fighting over how the crumbs should be spent, the BRU should join forces with TC and lobby the State and Federal governments for a full meal. The current strategy of dividing by race is dishonest and only serves to alienate them as being good intentioned but misinformed.

The truth is Angelenos deserve a better bus system but they also deserve a better rail system. The two technologies compliment each other as buses go places rail does not and feeds into a rail system that goes faster, more comfortably and independent of automobile traffic.

The Bus Riders Union, SoCaTA, Transit Coalition and Friends 4 Expo should have a meeting and seek to inform each other. I am sure each group can inform as well as be informed.

[whitmanlam]

L.A. has had a long history of Race-Based politics. Ever since freeway construction started in the late 1940's.
The city has been divided on all issues: police, hospitals, parks, schools, housing...etc.

Politicians seem to thrive on the fact that a racial issue will rally much more support than issues that affect everyone in general. This is wrong. We are dividing this city into segregated classes. Turning Bus advocates against rail riders.
Wealthy vs. poor. Westside vs. East Side. Immigrant vs. Citizen.
This squabbling is holding back all modes of transportation. It is buying the politicians time to sit on their hands, until their office term is over, and then the next polician will step in and start another Race debate.

We are not currently acting as one, to move this city forward. We don't have enough numbers in either Bus or Rail factions to do anything about the problems that persist.

We must understand, We breath the same polluted air, We get stuck in the same traffic jams,
Nobody has the power to just fly over all the cars. We are trapped in this hole together, and we must work together to dig ourselves out.

[kenalpern]

Unfortunately, there's quite a bit of discussion amongst the transit groups and politicians, but those that wish to pursue the racial agenda have made an active and ongoing decision to continue doing it.

For example, the great and wonderful (and late) Juanita Millender-MacDonald fought vigorously for transportation projects to benefit the region, but the squabble over what color her successor should be has been a dominant focus over what issues her successor should fight for. Hence my personal support for Jenny Oropeza, who is pursuing the betterment of transportation and economic environment of the region; two other contenders are arguing which of them better represent the replacement of the House seat with another person who happens to be black...and I've not heard much of anything else from them other than their qualifications to be the next black House member. As I see it, the only color of interest in that region should be green...the color of money to enhance local development.

Friends4Expo and The Transit Coalition have a great deal of crossover of individual members, with the former pursuing a focal emphasis on the Expo Line while the latter has a more global focus to pursue:
--the extensions of the Green and Purple and Gold Lines,
--the planning of Crenshaw, Harbor Subdivision and Downtown Light Rail Connector Lines,
--also focusing on bus, road and freight operations.

I've no doubt that when the Expo Line reaches the beach (and it will, my friends), we'll see many of the same individuals from Friends4Expo--either on their own or with TTC--involved with branching Expo down Crenshaw Blvd to LAX (the next big Metro project).