California Transportation Commission
Day 15 - Thursday, July 15, 1999
Well I'm back in Southern California from my trip to Sacramento. If you haven't been to Sacramento in a while, not too much has changed. They still have a very efficient bus operation as well as a light rail system with plans to extend the rail lines further East. Both light rail lines generally run parallel to existing freeways, thus offering the commuter a viable alternative to driving an automobile. The only major complaint I have is that neither line serves the local Amtrak Station.
Sacramento is, and always has been, a big railroad town. According to Warren Webber at Caltrans, the Sacramento Amtrak Station generated over 270,000 inter-city passenger trips during Amtrak's fiscal year ending last September. I'm sure the number of passengers will increase during this fiscal year. By way of comparison, throughout the state, only San Diego, Los Angeles and Bakersfield had more passengers. Bakersfield is a big trip generator because it is the terminus of the San Joaquin line and people heading to and from Southern California transfer to or from a bus at that location.
As I have written before, Caltrans spends over $60 million per year subsidizing the operation of inter-city Amtrak trains. In addition, they have spent, or are spending, hundreds of millions of dollars on signal and track improvements. A substantial portion of those signal and track improvements are on the Capitol or San Joaquin Corridors, both of which serve Sacramento.
It is really important that transit operators adequately service their local Amtrak Station. We taxpayers will get a lot bigger bang for our buck if people have a way to get to and from the train station. The cities of Los Angeles and San Diego certainly understood that concept as their public transportation hubs are located right at the train stations. Unfortunately, Sacramento is a little behind the curve.
At the bottom of my journal is a suggestion to e-mail me if you have any questions or comments. So far, I have received about 20 e-mails. Most are from California, although one came from as far as Denmark.
One particularly interesting e-mail came arrived from Bill McCullough, a transportation professional from San Francisco. He has been using public transportation for years and says that he has experienced many of the same frustrations that I have encountered.
His conclusion was that "...transit provides a base level of service for those who cannot drive and along extremely dense corridors. (However), as a means to get around for 95% of the population, it is not at all feasible." Mr. McCullough states that rather than transit, it is "preferable" to provide the poor with the opportunity to purchase a car through transportation vouchers or some other means. He further suggests driver's education classes for the poor as well as teaching them about automobile insurance and the costs associated with owing a car.
As you might surmise, I do not agree with Mr. McCullogh's conclusions, however, I am sure they are widely held. I guess that's the $64,000 question. Should public transit be simply a "social welfare" program to provide a basic level of mobility to the poor, or should public transportation, like public education, be designed to serve everyone?
More tomorrow...
Day 16 - Friday, July 16, 1999
I'm finally getting the hang of Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Commissions' (MTA's) two Red Lines. As you will remember, one-half of MTA's Red Line trains go out Wilshire Boulevard to Western Avenue and the other half goes to Hollywood. I originally thought one needed a Ph.D. in Transportation Management to figure out which was which but I was wrong. You don't need a university degree, all you need is a little trial and error.
Earlier this month I went to Hollywood to see the movie Tarzan, and the accompanying stage show, at Disney's El Capitan Theater with my granddaughter from Bakersfield. Today I retraced my steps with my grandson from Montague, California. For those of you who are geographically challenged, Montague is in Siskiyou County, North of Weed and Mt. Shasta. To put it in perspective, Montague is about the same distance from the Oregon border as Holtville is from the Mexican border.
Anyway, this morning we took the Hollywood Red Line to Hollywood and the free Dash bus from the MetroRail Station to the theater. What a thrill for my grandson and his mother (my daughter Kelly). As you might guess, there are no subways in Siskiyou County. There are no Disney stage shows there, either.
You will be pleased to know that I have finally figured out which Red line goes to which station. It took me a while but I am ready to accept the gold star from the teachers at the MTA.
Speaking of gold stars what a shock that nobody came forward to answer the $64,000 question from yesterday's journal. Maybe nobody's reading, but I don't think that's the problem. My belief is nobody really knows the answer.
The question, of course, was about the role of public transit. Should public transit be simply a "social welfare" program designed to give a minimum degree of mobility to the very, very poor? Or should it be like public education, offering service to all who walk through the (bus or train's) door?
Yesterday's provocative quote was from Bill McCullough, a transportation professional from San Francisco who wrote "...transit provides a base level of service for those who cannot drive and along extremely dense corridors. (However), as a means to get around for 95% of the population, it is not at all feasible."
I am absolutely certain that a substantial number of Californians agree with Mr. McCullough's statement, although I don't happen to be one of them. Those who drive a single occupant vehicle day in and day out, as a general rule, think of public transit as something for "the other guy." The irony is that while everyone pays for public transit, many people wouldn't even think of using it.
If public transit is not designed to be an alternative to the private automobile for average people like you and me, then why are federal, state and local governments spending a bloody fortune of your money trying to make it fast, safe, reliable and attractive? Are we really spending all that money for just 5% of the population? I hope not.
More tomorrow...
Day 17 - Saturday, July 17, 1999
I have been dreading today for a long time. I had promised my wife that I would meet her at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) this afternoon at 2:00 and I assumed it would take me forever to get there.
You see, in Los Angeles, there is this widely held belief that you can't use public transportation to get to LAX from downtown LA without a nightmarish, ridiculous transfer after transfer after transfer experience. I can't tell you how many people have told me that to get to LAX you have to take the Red line (either one of them) to the Blue Line, then the Blue Line to the Green Line and then the Green Line to a bus and then the bus to a shuttle which will eventually get you to LAX many hours later.
Horror stories such as the one above have been used against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority(MTA) as examples of their ineptness for years and years.
I truly believed these horror stories (sorry MTA!) so I was amazed, this morning, when I logged on to TranStar at http://www.scag.ca.gov/transit/ and found that I could arrive at a bus terminal near LAX at 1:49 this afternoon by walking exactly 1/2 block from my apartment and getting on MTA's # 439 bus at 12:58 P.M.
TranStar, you will remember, is an elaborate computer program maintained by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) which tells you the fastest way to get from Point A to Point B using public transportation in the SCAG region. I received an e-mail last week from SCAG's Web Site Coordinator, Elyse Kusunoki, who stated that they are in the process of linking their site with San Diego (which is not in the SCAG region) and are building a system for the San Francisco Bay Area. They are also presently in discussions with Sacramento Transit.
Anyway, I left my apartment at exactly 12:50 P.M. and walked one half block to the bus stop. After about a five minute wait, the MTA # 439 arrived. I showed the driver my monthly pass and paid the 50 cent surcharge applicable to busses which use the freeway. 45 minutes later, we turned the corner and stopped at the LAX Transit Center, conveniently located contiguous to the airport's long term parking lot's shuttle stop. Off the bus and on to the regular LAX parking shuttle for the three minute trip to the airport. According to MTA's timetables, they run 25 roundtrips each weekday between LA and LAX. I can't imagine anything more convenient. One problem, however is that other than those who use the service to get to work each day, I wonder how many people know about it?
More tomorrow...
Day 18 - Sunday, July 18, 1999
I took a Caltrans subsidized Amtrak inter-city train tonight from Santa Ana to Los Angeles. The train was packed. As a taxpayer, I'm sure you will be pleased to know that the fare-box return on tonight's train should be fairly high. It was about 15 minutes late getting into Union Station, probably because of the large number of people getting on and off during the whole trip.
I took MTA Route # 60 from Union Station to my apartment on Bunker Hill. Last week, you might recall, I threw a bouquet to bus drivers everywhere. I said that they have a tough, demanding job and are generally under-appreciated. I still believe that but tonight's bus driver was appallingly unprofessional.
First, when I got on the bus at Union Station, she had a personal radio on and she kept it on throughout the entire trip. If I had my radio on, it would have subjected me to a $250 fine. But she didn't care.
Secondly, in the approximately 1 and 1/2 miles between Union Station and my apartment, she ran three red lights. I am not kidding and I'm not exaggerating. She ran three different red lights!
Now, I must admit that it was 9:00 on a Sunday night and there was little or no traffic. I don't want to give the impression that those of us on the bus were in any imminent danger, but, nevertheless, she did run through three red lights.
Thirdly, she passed up a woman standing at a clearly marked bus stop trying to waive her down. I was going to yell at her but chickened out and decided to take notes instead so I could write about it in my journal.
Fourthly, she chastised an elderly male rider (with a monthly pass) who got on at one stop and off at the very next stop. "Why didn't you walk?" she demanded.
Finally, at the corner of Sunset and Figueroa, after stopping to drop off a passenger, she pulled away from the curb at the exact nanosecond that he departed the bus. She didn't even have time to close the door before she was off. The man was not hurt but it's only because he and the driver were both extremely lucky.
I seriously considered staying on the bus all the way to Long Beach just to more fully document how unprofessional this person was. Sanity prevailed, however, and I got off as quickly as I could.
The bus driver was wearing an MTA shirt with a number 25842 on her shoulder. If you ever get on an MTA bus with a driver wearing shirt number 25842, I suggest that you make other arrangements.
More tomorrow...
Day 19 - Monday, July 19, 1999
There was a remarkable statistic printed in this morning's Los Angeles Times. In a story about the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Times Staff Writer Jeffrey L. Rabin wrote that a survey of MTA customers "...found that 69% of the bus riders surveyed had a household income of less than $15,000 a year in 1995."
If in fact seven out of every ten MTA bus riders have HOUSEHOLD (not per capita) incomes of less than $15,000, that tells me two things:
First, in 1995 anyway, MTA busses must have been so inherently bad, riders permanently fled the system the moment they made enough money to buy a car (apparently that threshold is $15,000 per year).
Secondly, if this appalling statistic is not reversed, we will all drown in congestion and pollution.
It doesn't seem possible that seven out of ten bus riders in San Francisco have household incomes of less than $15,000. And, having just returned from our state's capitol city, I am absolutely certain that seven out of ten bus riders in Sacramento don't have household incomes of less than $15,000. Why Los Angeles?
If Los Angeles residents continue to abandon the bus as soon as they generate a household income over $15,000 per year, the bus system is doomed to failure. Compare this situation to public education. Can you imagine how bad our public schools would be if parents pulled their children out the moment their cumulative paychecks totaled $15,000 per year?
Public transit system must be more than just a social welfare program designed to give minimum mobility to the very, very poor. At least in the state's urban counties, public transit is vitally needed to fuel California's economic engine upon which we all depend. Again, in urban areas, public transit should be the vehicle of choice for the majority of employees to get to work in the morning and home at night. Otherwise our economic prosperity could stall, crash and burn.
There is a saying in Washington, D.C. that war is too important to be left to the generals. I am beginning to think that transit is too important to be left to bureaucrats. Business leaders and elected officials who care about the future of California's economy had better start lending a hand, and quickly!
There are really only two things business men and women and public officials need to do to improve public transit in their area.
First, they, and their key employees, need to use what we have. Use it themselves, at least once a week to get to and from work. Hey, what's the big deal, you're not so important you can't get on a bus one day a week! There is an extra benefit from this. If everyone left their car home just one day a week, congestion and pollution caused by commuters would be reduced by 20%.
Secondly, they need to complain. Complain loud, complain clearly, complain often. And complain right to the top. When something goes wrong, and it will, don't get mad at the bus driver or even the general manager. Call, write and buttonhole the members of the Board of Directors. In most instances they are elected officials and it's their job to be complained at. It's also their job to respond to your complaints.
If you care one whit about the future of California's economy, I have a single question for you. When was the last time you were on a bus and what are you going to do about it?
More tomorrow...
Day 20 - Tuesday, July 20, 1999
According to the 11 o'clock news, Chief United States District Judge Terry Hatter today equated the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) with "former segregationists" because they continue to fight with the Federal Courts over how many busses should be bought.
To comply with an agreed upon "consent decree," the MTA has ordered about 2100 new busses. Earlier this year, a Federal Court Master interpreted the decree and told the MTA that they need to purchase an additional 481 busses. The MTA Board of Directors (with only Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky dissenting) decided to appeal the Master's ruling to Judge Hatter who, after a total of six hours of testimony and argument indicated that he will soon tell the MTA to "buy the extra busses."
Attorneys for the MTA are quoted as saying that they might appeal Judge Hatter's ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
Now I don't have any idea how many busses the consent decree requires. I can only assume that there is some ambiguity or a near unanimous MTA Board would not be instructing its attorneys to continue arguing.
But if the Senior Judge for the Central District of California equated me with "former segregationists" for continuing to espouse my position, I think I would reassess whether it's worth fighting over. After all, ten years from now, I would probably be glad to have the extra busses in my fleet.
To me, the biggest issue facing the MTA is not how many busses to buy, but how to keep people using those busses to get to and from work once they are able to purchase an automobile.
As you may recall, yesterday's Los Angeles Times quoted a survey of MTA customers as finding "...that 69% of the bus riders surveyed had a household income of less than $15,000 a year in 1995." The obvious conclusion to such a statistic is that, in Los Angeles at least, once people make enough money to buy an automobile, they stop using the bus.
If middle and upper income Angelinos refuse to use public transit to get to work in the morning and home at night, we will all drown in a sea of congestion and pollution.
In my opinion, rather than continuing to fight with the Federal Courts, the MTA needs to shift its emphasis to do everything it can to get commuters on the bus!
More tomorrow...
Day 21 - Wednesday, July 21, 1999
Wow, I've found a nifty new way to get to UCLA for my class on Monday and Wednesday nights. Earlier I explained that I can take the Metro Red Line to Wilshire and Western Avenues, and then up the escalator to the MTA # 21 bus from Wilshire & Western to UCLA.
Now, after spending some time with TranStar at http://www.scag.ca.gov/transit/ I learned to take the other Metro Red Line to Hollywood & Vine and get on the MTA # 429. It goes right to Westwood and drops me off at the same place, at approximately the same time, but after a much more relaxing ride. Thank goodness for TranStar! Without it, nobody would ever be able to figure out their options.
I found this new route just in time. All next week, Messrs. Sampras, Agassi, Rios, Henman and about two dozen other professionals will by plying their trade at UCLA for the Mercedes Benz Cup. I have tickets to all the events so I'll be traveling to UCLA most nights next week. By the way, if the names Sampras, Agassi, Rios and Henman mean nothing to you, you're obviously not a tennis fan.
I've noticed something interesting as I take the Metro Red Line to Hollywood. Once you get to Wilshire & Vermont (where the two lines split) it's a lot more crowded than the Red Line to Wilshire & Western. As you may remember, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has two red lines. Half the trains go one place, the other half go to the other place.
Which begs the question. If in fact there are a lot more people going to Hollywood than Wilshire & Western, why are the trains split 50%-50%? I understand the equitable concept of 50-50 but if equity is based on usage (instead of geography) Yvonne Burke and her colleagues on the MTA Board of Directors might want to reconsider.
I've been invited to go to Long Beach so I'll be riding MTA's Blue Line for the first time this month. Maybe tomorrow, maybe Friday. I'm not sure yet.
More tomorrow...
Email your comments and questions to: danareed@politicallaw.com
Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4
CTC Home Page | California Home Page
| Caltrans Home Page