Light Rail in Los Angeles is a joke. I took a whole Saturday a few months ago to ride the length and breadth of our rail system, so I can speak from experience.
First, the train doesn't go where anyone wants to go. I can take it to Downtown LA, but if you're familiar with LA you'll know that there's no reason to go there. Where people want to go is West LA, the Valley, the South Bay, and to the various hellish (but affordable!) eastern suburbs.
Somehow, I live within four block of a train station. I thought it would be fun to ride around and see the city, so I bought a ticket, waited 30 minutes for a train to arrive, and was on my way. Oh, what fun.
If you're not familiar with Los Angeles traffic patterns, let me tell you that Saturday is not a light traffic day; there are no such things. Saturday merely redistributes the traffic to different hours. Late morning and early afternoon on Saturday are the pits, so I was hopeful that by riding the train I could get around more quickly than I could in my car. Not so. Even if you discount the 20 minute walk to the station and the 30 minute wait for the train, it took me more time to get to the Valley (via downtown) than it would have taken to drive. The trains are slow, and infrequent.
So did I save money? Not likely. Even discounting the fact that my taxes subsidize the ticket prices, it would have been cheaper to drive. Plus, the system works on an "honor policy"; there are ticket machines that spit out tickets in exchange for money, but there aren't any gates or guards that actually check tickets. I rode the train for some five hours without seeing anyone other than myself actually purchase a ticket. I think it's strange that many riders could apparently afford gold chains and expensive electronics, but not a few bucks for a train ticket.
Not only does the train go nowhere useful -- slowly and expensively -- but the ride was thoroughly unpleasant. My fellow travelers were loud and obnoxious; the train was loud and vibrated a lot; the windows didn't open and there was no air-conditioning; &c.
Altogether, our light rail system is a horrendous waste of money. Here's an article from 1996 that briefly discusses the corruption and ineptitude involved in its construction.
Even better, here's an op-ed by Wendell Cox, who was a member of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission in 1980 and who authored Proposition A, which funded LA's light rail projects.
My belief in the value of rail was strengthened by Commission staff and consultants who generally suggested that a rail system was the antidote to traffic congestion and air pollution in the Los Angeles area. Since that time I have migrated to the opposite view, based upon the now considerable experience with new urban rail systems in the United States.Just go read the whole thing, before I quote it all.Don Pickrell's seminal US Department of Transportation study in 1989 was the first to systematically evaluate urban rail relative to its objectives and showed generally that ridership fell far short of expectations and that costs were routinely much higher than planned. Since that time, transit agencies have become much better at projecting ridership, largely by producing much more modest predictions --- evidence that expectations can be achieved if only you aim low enough.
The problem of cost escalation, however, remains as intractable. Rising costs made it impossible to deliver the rail routes promised by Proposition A, so in 1990 the voters approved Proposition C to finish the job. During the period, the cost of the Los Angeles to Long Beach light rail line ("Blue Line") escalated from $140 million to nearly $900 --- admittedly part of the increased costs were attributable to system enhancements. But it is unlikely that the Commission would have approved building the Blue Line if it had known the eventual cost. Now, with rail system costs far higher than expected, there is simply no money left to complete most of the promised system, as the Commission's successor, the MTA, has placed a moratorium on further rail construction. The bottom line is that after spending more than $5 billion building rail in Los Angeles, things are worse than before construction started --- MTA bus and rail ridership is 25 percent below the patronage recorded on the bus only system in 1985. The rail system, which carries barely 15 percent of MTA riders is rising toward $400 million annually and will be equal to one-half the annual operating cost of the entire bus system. It is no wonder that the Bus Riders Union has sought legal recourse to limit this distortion.
But the failure of new urban rail in the United States has far more fundamental roots. Despite tax referendum claims that rail can carry the same number of people as up to 12 freeway lanes, no new urban rail system in the US has materially impacted traffic congestion. Indeed, traffic congestion is increasing faster in the rail cities than in the non-rail cities. New light rail lines carry, on average, only 20 percent the passenger volume of a single freeway lane, and subway systems (like the Red Line) average only 40 percent. Even so, less than one-half of rail riders are attracted from cars, with most riders having been forced to transfer from bus routes that previously provided more direct trips.
The Los Angeles light rail system is costing taxpayers around $500 million annually by now (that was written in 1999); for the price of light rail for one year we could add new lanes to freeways that people actually use. I know, it's a revolutionary thought.
As I see it, there are two factors that make for an effective mass transit system, be it bus, light rail or anything else. It has to go places people actually want to go and it has to go there frequently. It sounds like the light rail system in LA does neither.
Unfortunately, this isn't exactly uncommon. There are really only a few rail transit systems that have gotten it right: the NY subway and the London Underground are two that come to mind immediately. But neither was cheap to build either in terms of money spent or disruptions to the community during the building process.
It's too bad that the light rail crowd has managed to waste such a wonderful opporunity in So. Cal. Had the system been built right (and had they been honest about the fiscal needs up front) then perhaps they could have been able to point at LA as a success story.
I don't think so, LA is too sprawling. Only 3% of the population works in downtown, for example. There aren't any concentrated living or working areas.
Washington DC's metro system was nice when I was visting there, and I'm sure that the subways work well in NY because everthing is so concentrated.
Wendell has some more great stuff at Public Purpose, his consultancy web site. I really like the graphs for the marginal costs of adding new riders. For the St. Louis cross-county extension, currently under construction for a projected cost of $500M, the cost of adding each new rider is projected at about $9/rider/trip or about $4500/rider/year for regulars. He suggests that perhaps the metro authorities might consider just leasing cars for all those potential riders as it would be cheaper!
St. Louis is somewhere in the middle as far as cost/benefit goes.
It's really staggering when you consider the costs, isn't it?
Goes to show that politicians are often merely pandering for votes, rather than trying to lead us to the best solution.
yeah, scrap the light rail. scrap the buses too. let's everyone drive a car. the freeways are big enough. gridlock is fun. we need more cars that require more gas. we need more wars to steal more oil/gas from more countries to fuel more and more and more and more and more cars. cars at 1 PM. 1 AM. 3 AM. gridlock around the clock. late coming to work. get home at 12:30 in the morning. i love it.
lets do exxon and GM a favor and stick with cars. we owe them our time and our money because they say we do and i am a loyal Republicant and i have no mind of my own. i have no mind.
That's the spirit, George!
Really though, buses are working quite well. It's the rail lines that are miserable failures, here in Los Angeles. I understand they work great in New York, and I have no problem with that.
Michael,
You provide a very good argument against MTA's Light rail/heavy rail program.
However, one thing that must be understood is that rail success requires pockets of population density for it to work. Traditionally the Los Angeles region and density have not got hand in hand. However, that is changing as the region is running out of developable space. If you look at a majority of the new developments being pursured, a higher percentage have embraced the higher density trend.
Secondly, if you look at global cities where mass transit is successful, it is successful because several different forms of transportation (bus, heavy rail/light rail, private automobile) are used to form a collaborative system. Therefore, we must put equal energy into each transportation medium if we are going to create a successful transportation plan.
The third point is that a rail system is much more effective when it is large and branches out to significant portions of the city. It takes a long time and a lot of money to build this system, just as it has cost a lot of money and time to build our existing freeway. As with the freeway system, rail has started out with main arteries and then will expand by providing lines that will eventually link every section of the city.
Finally, my point through all this is that we must think beyond the present and plan for the future. It has been estimated that the Los Angeles region will grow by several million people over the next ten years and I think everybody will agree that traffic is alreay worse than it has ever been.
I think it is time we stopped our continuing love affair with the automobile and found a new solution which will help us move throughout our daily lives in a much more effective fashion and in my opinion this new solution will rely heavily on an expanded light/heavy rail system.
Graham Gannon
Michael,
You provide a very good argument against MTA's Light rail/heavy rail program.
However, one thing that must be understood is that rail success requires pockets of population density for it to work. Traditionally the Los Angeles region and density have not got hand in hand. However, that is changing as the region is running out of developable space. If you look at a majority of the new developments being pursured, a higher percentage have embraced the higher density trend.
Secondly, if you look at global cities where mass transit is successful, it is successful because several different forms of transportation (bus, heavy rail/light rail, private automobile) are used to form a collaborative system. Therefore, we must put equal energy into each transportation medium if we are going to create a successful transportation plan.
The third point is that a rail system is much more effective when it is large and branches out to significant portions of the city. It takes a long time and a lot of money to build this system, just as it has cost a lot of money and time to build our existing freeway. As with the freeway system, rail has started out with main arteries and then will expand by providing lines that will eventually link every section of the city.
Finally, my point through all this is that we must think beyond the present and plan for the future. It has been estimated that the Los Angeles region will grow by several million people over the next ten years and I think everybody will agree that traffic is alreay worse than it has ever been.
I think it is time we stopped our continuing love affair with the automobile and found a new solution which will help us move throughout our daily lives in a much more effective fashion and in my opinion this new solution will rely heavily on an expanded light/heavy rail system.
Graham Gannon
P.S. You have been critical of the existing system , but have offered no solutions. What would you suggest to solve our transportation problems?
Yes, light rail requires high population densities, which I don't think will ever be achieved in Los Angeles for many reasons.
My alternative? Widen the freeways. It's cheaper, even if it does ruffle the feathers of a lot of old people.
I came across this site a little by accident tonight, but I wanted to share a couple of things.
I can honestly say from personal experience that the old, cliche arguments against passenger rail systems in California...."no one uses it, it's too slow, only those with low income will use it..." blah blah - are simply not true.
I just took a trip on the Metrolink from San Bernardino to Los Angeles with a friend YESTERDAY. Now, anyone who says that people will not use it has obviously NOT been to a rail station recently. The parking lot at the San Bernardino Metrolink/Amtrak station was completely full...to the point that we had to park on the street, and many people had even parked illegally along islands. And these were not "low income" members that most people mistakenly assume are the only ones who will ever use public transportation. I can tell you I saw many SUVs in that parking lot. There are plans to build a parking structure. The ride on the Metrolink is very smooth and the trains run at 79 mph (only because they are limited to that speed by federal regulations). At one point, the line runs in the middle of Interstate 10, and as usual, traffic on the highway was stuck bumper-to-bumper while our train flew by. For miles. Ask those people stuck on the highway where they would rather be at that moment?
We also rode the new Gold Line from LA Union Station to Pasadena. And yes, there were quite a few people riding that as well. I've never been on a light rail line (well, not counting the el trains in Chicago, but that's not really considered "light rail"). The ride was nice, not as smooth as the Metrolink, and there were a few small rough spots at switches near the end of the line in Pasadena, but overall I was impressed.
On the return trip to San Bernardino, the Metrolink was FULL, despite being coupled in a 6-car train. The other passengers said it was always full, especially at that time on the San Bernardino line. Apparently, the line to Chatsworth is heavily used as well. In fact, a couple of passengers said that there were times earlier when there were NOT enough cars to meet the demand and lines that were running 3-car trains had to be doubled.
* Trains too slow?? I'd say 79 mph is a decent speed. Other lines run faster. I don't know what the usual running speed on the Gold Line is, but it seemed we were moving at a pretty good clip, except through the most dense residental areas.
* No one will use passenger rail?? hmm...well, the 6-car train was FULL. And from what I've been told by both passengers and conductors, this is the norm.
So, obviously, people ARE using passenger rail in California. The old, bogus arguments that no one will use passenger trains are based on a "false dillema." We have to remember that there used to be a great deal of passenger train use in California, and it was removed. (i.e. Pacific Electric Railway for those versed in southern California history) For a long time now, it just wasn't an option. You either had busses or crowded freeways, period. And both are very slow. No one used passenger trains, because for a long time it just wasn't available. So, you can't point to something that doesn't exist and say "see, people won't use it." Now that people have a little more wisdom and it does finally exist again, we can point to full trains and say that when people finally have a better option, they'll use it.
Chris T.
Chris: Thanks for taking the time to leave some comments.
My main beef against passenger trains is that they don't pay for themselves -- they require huge government subsidies. Obviously, so do freeways (unless/until we have the technology to make them all pay-as-you-go, which would be fine with me).
So the question then is: which is a more efficient use of public resources? Trains or freeways? Every single piece of research shows that in Los Angeles, largely because of the low average density and distributed industry, trains are not economical. They're too expensive to operate, and they won't scale to meet the needs of the "average" commuter.
The people riding trains in Los Angeles now are statistical outliers. The median Los Angelean never rides the train, has no desire to do so, and would not benefit from it. There are certain obvious exceptions -- such as the Metrolink from LA to SD, and the hypothetical train from LA to Las Vegas -- but light rail within the city is waste of money and resources.
Michael,
With all due respect, you have completely missed the point about rail. Rail has to be understood in the overall context of urban planning. Sprawl in Los Angeles was a direct consequence of destroying the 1100 of miles of urban trains that existed in L.A. and thrived from the 20's to 40's in favor of direct subsidies for the automoblie manufacturers, oil companies, freeway construction interests, and suburban housing tract developers. The freeway is, has, and always has been a boondoggle for special interests which the American people, particularly in Los Angeles have confused with a Constitutional right. Let's be clear: we have fouled the air, destroyed natural habitat, separated ourselves from our neigbors, gobbled up increasing amounts of open space, not merely for new housing and new roads (I could probably even live with that) but with space dedicated to parking our cars. I can't think of anything more wasteful in the world than parking lots and garages, can you?
All of this, by the way, is driven by fear and mistrust of our neighbors and of our city. Your quote about downtown L.A. being a place where no one wants to go amply illustrates the degree of ignorance you have about your own city and its history. Sorry. Downtown L.A. is where the city of angels was born and still lives, even though it has been left for dead by a civilization with the wealth, power, and myopic ability to permit itself to run away from its fundamental social problems into some fantasyland where the actual costs of driving a Hummer and living in a gated community or on a practically fenced-in cul de sac is never born by the individual consumer instead of rolling up its sleeves and fighting to live in a better community.
The point, Michael, is that rail and other mass transits will force future citizens of Los Angeles to live together, work together, and understand each other in a way that they did not from 1950-2000. And make no mistake about it, they won't do it because they want to, just like you and many others have no desire to board the red line for Hollywood or the Valley. They will do it because they have to, because by definition, this way of life is not economically and ecologically sustainable. Indeed, I can imagine a day when the debate is over which freeway is torn down to make way for new housing because land will become too precious a commodity to be used for transportation or as a parking lot.
But not in our lifetime.
James: Our disagreement is very fundamental. I like sprawl, I like cars, I don't trust my neighbors, I don't care about maintaining a "natural habitat" in the city, &c.
I don't want to live in New-York-style high-rises. I don't want to pack into a train to ride to work surrounded by hundreds of strangers. I want to cruise to work in my air conditioned car, listening ot music, and then after work drive wherever I want to go. I don't think using land for parking cars is a waste, I think it's great.
I don't want to "live together, work together, and understand each other" any differently than we do now. I think the internet more than anything else will change how people commute to work (by reducing the number of jobs that require it).
Downtown LA is dead. No one goes there because its 15 miles from the beach and the airport -- the two main features of the city. The people who built downtown where they did were idiots, and no amount of light rail is going to change that. People come to California for the beaches and the weather, so it shouldn't be any surprise that people hate downtown.
You should get off your social engineering high-horse and just deal with the fact that most people don't want to live like you do. People should be free to live however they want, and if people want to drive cars then the government should respond by building more freeways, not by trying to force them to ride trains.
I ran into your right-wing, libertarian, Wendel Cox parroting (a hired gun of the right wing anti-transit lobby), know-nothing tirade against Metro Rail a few months ago. I recall that it really made me angry. I told myself that responding to narrow-minded right-wingers living in some sort of mid-20th century sprawl fantasy would be a waste of my time.
I'm glad to see that James Nicholas and Chris Tobar gave pretty good arguments against your position so I won't bother to repeat them here.
Your responses in your last post are flabergasting:
"I don't trust my neighbors, I don't care about maintaining a "natural habitat" in the city, &c."
"I don't want to "live together, work together, and understand each other" any differently than we do now."
Wow. You claim to be a Christian. I find that very curious, as my Christian faith tells me very different things about relating to humanity than the hate above does. Hate like that isn’t Christian or religious at all, it’s Satanic.
"The people who built downtown where they did were idiots, and no amount of light rail is going to change that."
Yes. The recently opened Disney Hall (built almost exclusively with private money). The billions in the pipeline for new transit oriented, mixed-use devlopments around Metro Rail stations from Pasadena to Long Beach are being funded by builders and investors who are being dupped into spending their money. AEG's plans for a massive multi-billion dollar "L.A. Live" development around Staples Center, with thousands of for-sale and rental housing units along with shopping that will be larger in scale than Old Town Pas and 3rd St. Santa Monica is just a joke. Billionaire Richard Alshultz got that way by wasting his money no doubt. CIM group’s South Village project with its just opened Gas Co. Lofts that will bring nearly a thousand housing units online in the next year, with retail anchored by a Manolo Blanic (sp?) shoe store and a Ralphs supermarket. Gosh, what’s Ralphs thinking, nobody lives downtown?!? The heated competition among developers to get the contract for the Grand Avenue Project around the Disney Hall, including billionaire Donald Trump, which would bring another anchor of shops and housing to Downtown, they’ve been duped into wasting even more money. It’s a big left-wing conspiracy to get billionaires to make bad investments, the only explanation.
But the biggest duping of all are folks being taken in by the housing revolution Downtown. All those people moving to loft conversion, new buildings, and for-sale housing are being taken in by left wing wakos. Don’t they know that bringing real pedestrian life to downtown, patronizing trailblazing eateries like Pete’s Café and Bar at 4th and Main and creating real community in contrast to the banalness and atomization of the Westside is against all the wonderfulness of the sprawl world we’ve created over the past half-century. Don’t they know that sprawl is the end of history, that it’s Panglos’ “Best of all possible worlds.” (Voltaire’s Candide, read it).
You see, I am a believer in the free market, just as you claim to be. And I am confident that I am right about being anti-sprawl and smart growth because the march of investor dollars are advancing on densification and urban infill. Sprawl projects in the remaining outlining areas like Ahmanson Ranch west of the Valley, Newhall Ranch above Santa Clarita, and the plenty of open space in the Inland Empire and the Antelope Valley remain stalled and undeveloped despite souring housing prices. And they will remain so because the sprawl lifestyle is unsustainable. Translation: we can’t afford to pay for your sprawl anymore. Look at the gas prices in the last month. Do you really believe that your kids will ever see $1.50 a gallon gas? We’re using it up. Once it’s combusted, it’s never coming back.
And forget hydrogen. Unlike petroleum, hydrogen doesn’t really occur naturally on Earth. It has to be made, either from water or extracted from petroleum. The process of getting it uses more energy than you could ever hope to get back out of it. It is a battery, not a fuel. Unfortunately, it is the best substitute for automobile gasoline. In a time span shorter than when Milli Vanili (sp?) were lip-sinc-ing at their concerts, the age of the cheap private automobile will be gone forever. And doubtless blockheads like you and Wendal Cox’s will be pining for the good old days and urging an invasion of every petroleum exporting country in the world so we can steal away what’s left for ourselves.
‘Nuff said.
Dennis Lytton
6550 Yucca St. #404
Hollywood, California 90028
DL: Oh goodness, don't patronize me by trying to claim one urban planning scheme is more Christian than another. That's absurd.
As for the rest, the key to all that is your admission that parts of downtown are being "revitalized" "almost exclusively with private money". Right. Just like Staples Center itself. All that development is happening because of government subsidies, supported by people like you who want to coerce the rest of us into your high-density dream.
Anyway, if people do want to live in downtown LA, great! I've got no problem with that. If the city wants to build light rail that pays for itself and people use it, fantastic! I've got no beef with trains, the problem I have is that the "elite" in government have imposed expensive and underutilized "mass" transit on us rather than spending our tax money on the freeways the vast majority of us depend on.
The life-center of Los Angeles is in the west, and yet you seem to attach some mystical relevance to a particular geographic area just because it's called "downtown".
The reason the suburbs aren't prospering recently is because many of the wealthy Californians are leaving and being replaced by illegal immigrants. Couple that with horrendous zoning restrictions and regulations that burden commercial and industrial development and hinder job growth and it shouldn't be a surprise that the suburbs are struggling. Not only that, but the residents are taxed and then their money isn't spent on freeways to help them get to work, but on nonsensical garbage like "revitalizing downtown" that no one cares about.
It is unfortunate that your unable to view things in a long term perspective. It is also unfortunate that you do not read. If you did you would know that Downtown LA has 1. the MOCA , 2. The TEMPORARY Contempoary ART MUSEUM. 3. The children's Museum. 4. LA City Main Library. 5. The Disney Center which is part of the Music Center. 6. China Town. 7. Olvera St. 8. Little Tokyo.9Grand Centeral Market.10. The Diamond District. and a lot more.
Having Grown up and raised in LA and fed up with the traffic the thought that any system is in place is a god send. Now as far as how extensive the system is. It may not be every place, but because it is new and the fact there are numerous rail right aways it has the potential to grow and help but never allievate the traffic snarl of LA. And that alone should stop the doubters.
AES: It's unfortunate that you think "long term perspective" means that I have to agree with you.
I'm well aware of what's downtown, and like the vast majority of other Los Angeleans I do my absolute best to avoid downtown.
Traffic wouldn't be such a problem if we'd eliminate the useless carpool lanes and widen freeways.
Michael,
After viewing your forum and responses, I have figured out that you are actually a very sly and intelligent rail and urban life proponent. It has finally dawned on me that your original posting and subsequent responses are really a call to arms for the educated people of the city to promote mass transit and smart growth ideas in the region. I want to thank you for providing the opportunity for residents to market a more progressive and enlightened Los Angeles region at your expense. I think you have proved your point that Los Angeles needs to change its mindframe when it comes to Transportation and Land-use planning by assuming the attitude and responses of the backward Los Angeles resident who is still stuck in the "more freeways line of thinking." Your experiment in public response has obviously been a success. Congratulations and keep up the good work.
Sprawl is a phenomenon initially started roughly post WWII when black GI's came back having fought for the country wanting decent housing in decent neighborhoods i.e. outside of the ghetto. When the Smiths realized that their next door neighbors bouncing out of the U-haul were of a darker hue the "For Sale" sign immediately went up outside of their cherished domain. This is a scene not just portrayed by Rockwell but was for a good 30 years the norm in American society, "white flight" it being commonly nicknamed. What a mess racism, xenephobia or just plain willful ignorance has delivered us. The "westside" as it is commonly called has absolutely NO personality and is in my opinion the last bastion of an urban "white flight", the ocean stops anymore progression. Hence the fear for a viable mass transit system that yes, will take decades to complete and billions of dollars but will be well worth it, will finally make Los Angeles into the city it should have been(not quite New York but not this mess of elevated concrete either) and what most don't realize was truly going to be before the automobile corps got their grand ideas and somewhere after the persistent problem of finding enough water could be solved. The running is over! Mass transit is coming whether you like it or not, their are NO other alternatives. Right down the center of Wilshire Blvd, straight through Beverly Hills(if the county can find a backbone)at the gasps of all of the seperationists, racists and classists. The running is over! And if you still need more space away from the people with gold chains, well move to Bakersfield or maybe down to Orange County, perhaps comfortably near the John Wayne Airport???
It always surprises me when someone claims that LA rail goes "nowhere" that "anyone" wants to go.
So Hollywood and Downtown LA are considered "nowhere"? Really? I think that statement is a bit of narcissistic inflation.
To rephrase it to reality, it goes "nowhere" that Mr. Williams wants to go. A typical logical fallacy that is based on confusing common assumptions, personal preferences and emotions with objective reality. Clearly Mr. Williams - by his own assumption - hates trains and rubbing elbows with the great unwashed who use them. He was predisposed to a bad experience.
Personally, I live and work in Downtown LA. Despite Mr. Williams laughable claims that everyone "hates" Downtown LA, it is full of architectual gems and has an active Latino shopping district, Art culture, and many popular entertainment venues and restaurants. It is currently booming with residential and commercial development. Part of the reason for the boom is the public investment in rail services that all run Downtown.
I take the train to several places - including Hollywood and Long Beach - on a regular basis. Of course, to Mr. Williams, these places would be considered "nowhere". These trains are regularly packed like sardines. Are these people, myself included, not cosidered to be "anyone"?
LA has sprawled as far as it can go. Investment in rail and bus systems in the LA urban area is the only way to encourage more dense development and less traffic.
And there will always be a far-flung suburb for you to lock yourself away from humanity.
Don't worry.
TG: Well yes, the light rail system obviously goes somewhere, seeing as how it's more than zero length. Perhaps when some light rail line, anywhere, pays for itself through fares rather than subsidies this conversation will be worth having. As it is, despite the trains being "packed like sardines" according to you, the riders aren't willing to pay enough for the service to make it profitable. Compare that to toll highways, which generally turn quick profits.