"The Future of L.A. Transit Just Might Be Via the Bus"
By James E. Moore II and Robert W. Poole

Recent news accounts concerning the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's debt have focused on how the shortfall will affect the agency's future. Whether or not its San Fernando Valley operations are spun off to a separate or quasi-separate agency, the MTA will face an enormous debt burden for decades. The debt can probably be managed, but only if major changes are made in the MTA's objectives and operations.

The single most important decision is to make permanent the MTA board's current moratorium on adding rail lines. It is rail that has created the mountain of debt. Rail is far too costly for the limited number of riders it can handle. The same public subsidy that supports 100 bus trips will support only 40 heavy-rail trips, 10 light-rail trips, or six commuter-rail trips, according to the MTA's own figures. This is not a good deal for L.A.'s transit-dependent or its taxpayers.

Ending all rail projects once the subway to North Hollywood is done means no subway extensions to the Eastside or Westside and no Blue Line to Pasadena. The latter project, championed in a new bill by state Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), would shift the project to a new Pasadena rail authority. But changing agencies will do nothing to trim the project's cost -- which is at least $700 million more than has already been spent. There is no way the modest ridership justifies that kind of money.

If rail lines are not cost-effective, what alternative do we have to give transit users fast, reliable transportation? Research suggests that busways can deliver far more service for dollars spent. For example, a simple count of the buses using the El Monte Busway on the San Bernadino Freeway reveals that this guideway provides more than three times the passenger miles per hour as the Long Beach-Los Angeles Blue Line at more than twice the Blue Line's average speed (52 mph versus 21 mph). Adding the carpools using the busway brings the total carrying capacity to the equivalent of 5.7 freeway lanes, compared with 0.6 lane-equivalents for the Blue Line. The El Monte Busway costs less than one-tenth as much as the Blue Line.

Where should such busways be added? The MTA and the California Department of Transportation are already adding them in the form of carpool lanes. But the MTA is not using, or planning to use, them exclusively for the kind of express-bus service provided by Foothill Transit on the El Monte. Yet there's far more potential for such service, linked with improved local bus service, if only the MTA would back off rail.

Rail rights of way provide another possible setting for busways. The MTA has bought up several such corridors (including Burbank-Chandler in the Valley). Though they are intended for rail, they should be examined for use as busways. Even existing rail corridors should be studied for possible conversion to busways. This includes the Green Line on the Century Freeway, originally designed as a busway, and possibly the MetroLink corridors.

Cost-effectiveness and the federal consent decree obligating the MTA to relieve overcrowding are two compelling reasons to expand bus service in Los Angeles. One way to make bus-transit dollars go farther is to buy bus service competitively. In the San Gabriel Valley, the all-contract service of Foothill Transit has led to more bus service at lower fares. Similar success stories can be found in Denver, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, San Diego, and other cities. Proposals for a valley transit zone, able to provide more transit for fewer dollars, are predicated on the use of competitive contracting to reduce costs.

To be sure, there are potential obstacles. All the cities using contract service have had to cope with federal labor-protection provisions that accompany federal transit aid. The provisions require up to six years of severance pay for any transit employee laid off as a result of contracting. While this provision can reduce the rate of change and the amount of early savings, it has not proved to be a fatal obstacle. Potentially more serious are the MTA's contracts with its unions, which provide that any entity taking over service from the agency assume all existing MTA labor contracts, with no loss of worker rights or benefits. Foothill got around this by a fluke, which is unlikely to happen again. It will require great legal skill to come up with a way of providing new bus-service arrangements not encumbered by such provisions.

The federal consent decree may work in favor of such arrangements. If bus advocates can rethink their traditional solidarity with the transit unions, they will learn that the same number of transit dollars can increase bus service by 20% to 50% under competitive contracting. In the Foothill zone, savings have been great enough to allow fares lower than those charged by the MTA. The power of these numbers may prove more persuasive to bus-rider advocates than calls to class interests -- especially if the transit unions can be persuaded to support reasonable compromises that will give them an admittedly smaller piece, but of an expanding pie.

Another way to provide more usable transit is to legalize and encourage small-scale transportation, which can be more economical and user-friendly than large buses where ridership is low. The MTA is experimenting with shuttle-van services that it can contract from private-sector operators. There may also be a market for door-to-door shuttles (like airport shuttles) to ferry commuters to such large employment centers as Warner Center or Century City. If employers in these locations offered monthly commuting allowances instead of providing free parking, commuters might use the money either for parking or for shuttle (or other transit) service. Many commuters who will not ride buses might find door-to-door shuttles more attractive.

Finally, the MTA could relieve some of its overcrowded buses by encouraging private entrepreneurs to operate jitneys along such routes. Hundreds of such vans in Miami, and thousands in Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens, offer transportation as good as, or better than, city buses -- at the same fare. But these jitneys are entirely self-supported by the passengers. The only modest government expenditure is the cost of a licensing program.

There is no shortage of good ideas for providing more and better transit with less money. The only question is whether the MTA board will have the courage to implement such measures.


The preceeding was printed in the LA Times. Here's what I wrote in response, which I am mailing to the LA Times for them to print (maybe).


On "The Future of L.A. Transit...," written by James E. Moore II and Robert W. Poole
by Jacob Lister

In the Article "The Future of L.A. Transit," written by James E. Moore II and Robert W. Poole and printed in the August 30 Opinion Section of the L.A. Times, the authors take a stand against all rail transportation, in favor of increasing bus ridership. Abandoning rail transit would be a great mistake for the Los Angeles area, an incredibly diverse area that is best serviced by a variety of methods including buses, light- and commuter- rail.

The transportation plan taken by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority should provide support for light- and commuter- rails in addition to buses. Buses should be used for short distances and feeders, bringing people from nearby residences to rail stations. Carpool lanes should be designated on existing freeways to help relieve congestion and reduce pollution. Companies can provide funds for employees to encourage use of public transit and ridesharing programs. Traffic in downtown has already benefitted from such programs.

The Blue Line has been a great success, already achieving ridership greater than expected. It is efficient, carrying over 50,000 riders daily along its route. It travels at a greater speed than any bus with a comparable route, and is faster into downtown than private automobiles driven on the 710 and 5 freeways. MTA bus line 260 along Atlantic from North Long Beach to Monterrey Park, a similar route, takes approximately twice as much time along its route.

Buses using the El Monte Busway stop about every 10 miles, compared with a stop every two miles on the Blue Line. The San Bernadino MetroLink, operating along the same route as the El Monte Busway, runs considerably faster than the buses.

When traveling into transportation centers, such as downtown L.A., rail systems have the capacity to carry far more people than buses. One bus can carry around 60 people, whereas one Blue Line train can easily carry 300 people. Combined with quicker boarding time and the near-exclusive right-of-way that controlled traffic signals give, light-rails can handle more people faster than buses.

Buses have always been slower than rail transit for long-distance travel. When bus lines replaced the old Pacific Electric Lines, their speed, or lack thereof, was frequently noted. For a variety of interests, each involving more money than the next, those trains were shut down and replaced. Many other American rail systems suffered a similar fate. Recently, however, rails have come back as an integral transportation method in large cities. San Diego built its rail system at a very reasonable cost, and it recovers nearly all of its operating cost through the fare-box.

Admittedly, construction of the Red Line is very expensive. It is comparable in cost to building a freeway, but without the same space requirements. Consider how much land has to be bought to build a freeway, how many people must be moved, and the amount of noise and pollution that the freeway creates. Certainly the Red Line has had its share of problems, but it will prove to be more efficient than any sort of freeway or carpool-busway.

Providing transportation in L.A. presents a large number of problems. First and foremost is its incredible size. The MTA has to deal with one of the largest metropolitan areas of any city in the world, at around 4,000 square miles, and there are around 80 cities and municipalities, all with their own bureaucracies. South Pasadena has been able to halt the completion of the 710 freeway for 40 years, but a light rail line is more agreeable there. The 105 freeway was only recently completed, and that only with many compromises, one of which provided for the Green Line and the carpool lanes on that freeway.

Riding the rails is much preferable to a bus. The Blue Line passes through some of the most crime-infested areas of Los Angeles, yet crime on the train itself is extremely low. Yet even buses carrying mostly commuters along the El Monte busway are covered with graffiti, marked on the seats or scratched into the windows. In addition, traveling across town is much faster in a train. To ride a bus, one would have to transfer at lease once, if not several times. But a single train can cover that distance quite reasonably. It is not possible to comfortably get from one end of this metropolis to another on a bus.

To suggest that jitneys and door-to-door shuttles could handle a sizable portion of traffic in Los Angeles is pure folly. Although they may be a viable transportation method in New York or Miami, they would generally be impractical here, as people need to travel 20 miles or more instead of two as in New York. The airport shuttles only work because people are willing to pay twenty dollars to avoid driving to and parking at the airport. Whenever I have had need to go to the airport, I have taken the Blue and Green Lines. For $1.60, I could get from downtown L.A. to the airport. Although this is a little slower, it costs less than one tenth of shuttle fare.

The source of MTA's financial woes does not come from its light rails, but from its unreliable support. Funds come from Federal, State, and Local sources, yet there is always an impending bill, threatening to cut subsidies for some reason. The funding for mass transit is always under scrutiny from the ever-changing political whims of the various branches of government from whence money comes.

The idea of public transportation is not to make money, but to provide a reasonable alternative to private automobiles. This is not only as an alternate to commuting, to relieve congestion and reduce pollution, but also to provide for those who cannot afford an automobile. No public transportation agency should be expected to earn a profit year after year. If they were, presumably they would reduce their fares, passing savings along to consumers.

Transportation in the Greater Los Angeles area should consist of a combination of both rail and bus routes. Light- and commuter- rails are better for long distances into transportation hubs, such as downtown, and buses are better used for shorter distances and as feeders, to bring passengers to and from the rail stations. There is no shortage of ideas for providing more transit to Los Angeles, but the only thing questionable is the quality of those ideas.


What is my point? Well, my point is that I can be just as long winded as anybody else, but I don't get paid as much.


Crystal Ball Back to the main page.