Photos: GlobalPhotos.org
One of the urban myths that we live under in Los Angeles is that we are too addicted to our cars to ever become a city of mass transit.
I hear it all the time: Angelenos love their cars. They can’t get out of their cars. This is the city that invented the drive-in movie theater, restaurant, church, etc.
If we are so in love with cars in Los Angeles, and by extension America, why are we also the country that produces such abominable cars such as the Dodge, Chrysler, Chevy and Saturn?
Germany is the land of the BMW, Mercedes and Audi. Engineering is taken very seriously and the products that are produced in Deutschland have the respect of the entire world.
That nation also has a very fine public transport system. They love their cars—but they also love their trains, their streetcars, their light rail and their coffee makers. Just because they have fine trains, doesn’t mean they don’t have fine cars.
When I think of American products, I’m frequently embarrassed. There is the Black and Decker coffee maker I bought with the automatic timer that loses its time every night and needs to be reset. Why didn’t I buy a Braun or Krups?
German quality (and Swiss and Japanese) is an eternal given, while American quality, when it appears, is temporal and faddish. Maybe that’s why we have little faith in our powers of transforming our cities and our way of life to something more civilized.
The real hurdle for Los Angeles is to re-imagine itself as a city of the world, one that is the equal of Berlin, London, Paris, Stockholm and New York. As long as it believes in the false dichotomy of “I love my car/so I can’t take a train” it will be doomed to a second class status.
Here in Van Nuys 
And when people are stuck in auto traffic, they generally come from every race, creed and religion on Earth.
LikeLike
The decline of public transit and the rise of the popularity of the automobile in Los Angeles (if not elsewhere) date back to a time when the city was predominantly white.
And now that most of the city has no “predominant” group, public transit is coming back. So: horray for integration.
LikeLike
The problem is that the riders are poor and dark-skinned.
The decline of public transit and the rise of the popularity of the automobile in Los Angeles (if not elsewhere) date back to a time when the city was predominantly white.
And the problem with the Gold Line is that, in order to appease people living next to or near the tracks who’ve been complaining about too much noise, the trains have to run very slowly.
The Blue Line has overhead power lines that run throughout areas like downtown Long Beach, but because they’re held up by specially designed steel poles instead of gritty-looking wood ones, they don’t look so bad.
LikeLike
ETBs with overhead wires allow for the bus to use two lanes with the pole on a turning base.
If there were to be underground wires instead of overhead, could buses still use the next lane? Would the pole still work if it had an elbow (from bus motor to bend and bend to underground contact)?
LikeLike
Perhaps if we could get ETBs that used conduitized power supplies, we could have the best of all worlds: no rails, no overhead wires, permanent routing, and no emissions. Only one very thin conduit for power going down the the street measuring several inches deep and two or three inches across.
LikeLike
Pete wrote:
Both street rail and ETBs require overhead wires for power. Bordeaux’s streetcar system uses a nifty system that delivers DC voltage through two rails (no third rail necessary) with the power supply only switched into the circuit if a sensor detects a streetcar overhead; I’m not sure if that would pass liability muster in the United States.
Actually, a different system than that did. It used a third rail, but this was located in a semi-sealed conduit below street level. A long thin pole reached beneath the streetcar, through a narrow channel, and into the conduit, where electric power could be accessed. Similar to cable cars, but instead of grabbing a cable, you’re trolling for electric power.
This system was used in a very extensive streetcar system in Washington D.C. for 50 years. Historically proven.
My point is that overhead wires are not required.
LikeLike
“Visual pollution is a wash. Both street rail and ETBs require overhead wires for power. Bordeaux’s streetcar system uses a nifty system that delivers DC voltage through two rails (no third rail necessary) with the power supply only switched into the circuit if a sensor detects a streetcar overhead; I’m not sure if that would pass liability muster in the United States.”
Pete, this statement is mostly incorrect. The Bordeaux’s trams are a hybrid that operates on both centenary and modified third rail that is powered only when the tram is over the section. It is not powered like your two rail HO train set, but more like your old “O” gage train three track train set. See Bordeaux tram photos at http://tinyurl.com/7qoss.
LikeLike
Visual pollution is a wash. Both street rail and ETBs require overhead wires for power. Bordeaux’s streetcar system uses a nifty system that delivers DC voltage through two rails (no third rail necessary) with the power supply only switched into the circuit if a sensor detects a streetcar overhead; I’m not sure if that would pass liability muster in the United States.
The chief advantage of ETBs over streetcars is that ETBs don’t require the street to be torn up to install rails. That’s pretty huge.
I remember riding the Fulton Street ETB in San Francisco from Ocean Beach to Ashbury the first time I ever visited SF. I thought it was, well, hella cool–except for the fact that I could hear people breathing when the bus was stopped. That creeped me out a bit.
LikeLike
Pete wrote:
As for small streetcars, you could get the same effect with “trackless trolleys” like those used in San Francisco.
“Trackless trolley” is one of those ornery Philadelphia appelations. They’re called electric trolleybuses, or ETBs, everywhere else.
L.A. did have a plan in the early 1990s for a few ETBs, mainly on then-RTD routes operating within the city of Los Angeles. DWP would have supplied the power. Long Beach was also trying the same tack in the mid-to-late ’90s, but it was contingent on the city socializing its electricity from Edison. Both plans failed. The RTD plan had many snags, and the Edison buyout in Long Beach was aborted.
The cities with ETBs are San Francisco, Seattle, Vancouver, Dayton, Boston and Philadelphia. For the first three cities, ETBs are a necessity because of the hilly terrain and an abundance of cheap hydroelectric power. Dayton’s ETB network is an anachronism, and only remains because of widespread community support. I don’t know what’s the story on Boston’s or Philadelphia’s ETB lines.
The advantages of ETBs are no noise, no exahust and long-lasting buses (an ETB can last 30-50 years). The disadvantages are visual pollution (ugly overhead wires), higher costs (the wire maintenance is added to bus operating costs) and unpopularity with drivers (they hate getting out and putting the bus back on the wire when the poles fall).
LikeLike
I know the Green Line is light rail running on catenary instead of third-rail power, but given its right-of-way it might as well be heavy rail; it’s very much akin to the O’Hare Blue Line or the Dan Ryan portion of the Red Line in Chicago, running in a freeway median.
As for small streetcars, you could get the same effect with “trackless trolleys” like those used in San Francisco.
LikeLike
Scott Mercer wrote:
The distinction between light rail and heavy rail has to do with the size of the cars, and whether the power comes from a third rail or overhead catenary wires.
The distinction between light and heavy rail is about capacity, not weight. Light and heavy mean loads, not car weight.
There’s not a great deal of difference in weight between a light rail vehicle and a subway car.
Light rail is typically designed for systems to carry about 50,000 riders a day max. Heavy rail is for at least 50,000, but planned to carry 6-figure loads during the day.
LikeLike
Pete:
The Green Line is light rail, not heavy rail.
The distinction between light rail and heavy rail has to do with the size of the cars, and whether the power comes from a third rail or overhead catenary wires. I believe the track gauges are the same but I could be wrong about that.
The distinction between light rail and heavy rail really has nothing to do with grade separation. Though I do agree with you that grade separation is of the utmost importance in designing a transit line.
That said, there also is a place for streetcars running in mixed traffic. It’s just not appropriate for an interurban system like the Gold Line (interubran= connecting two or more cities, which the Gold Line does: Los Angeles and Pasadena, which, last time I checked, were both large cities)
But take something like the DASH bus system downtown. Replacing that with small streetcars running in mixed traffic would be quite appropriate. It’s just a local circulator system running in a compact area. Why replace the buses at all? Because: 1) streetcars are 100% electric, reducing emissions by about 90%, and 2) streetcars last at least twice as long as buses, 3) having established routes that “can’t be rerouted” is not a disadvantage, but an advantage which allows us to mold development patterns.
LikeLike
A lot of very well-made points. I’d like to add that one of the primary things missing from L.A.’s transit policy is city planning that works in synch with established transit lines. Portland, Oregon, for instance, does an excellent job of creating pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods along its light rail lines. In contrast, L.A. still seems largely to indulge in 1950’s-era auto-centric planning, even at the sites of major transit hubs. One brief example–at the Hollywood-Western Red Line stop, seemingly a place one would want to encourage pedestrians, the streets have been been widened to several lanes in each direction. This increases traffic flow and discourages pedestrian use–contrast this again to downtown Portland, where streets of only one or two lanes for cars and with correspondingly wider sidewalks for pedestrians create a much more pleasant and livable environment. Maybe this will change with the new mayor and planning chief…we can only hope.
LikeLike
THank you for the comments Fred. I will make a link to your blog from here.
LikeLike
I don’t know if it’s an “urban myth” that Angelenos love their cars, because i think most do, but i think that’s because the idea of a “car culture” has been ingrained into the public consciousness. “You need a car in LA” is taken to be a fact. A large number of residents and the majority of outsiders aren’t even aware of LA’s rail system, eg. “LA has a subway!”. Most of our neighborhoods are easily walkable (to the grocery store, nearby theaters, gym, nightlife, etc.) but most people would rather drive, even if it’s only a block or two because… that’s what you do in LA. This perception needs to change. Obviously a mass improvement in the Public Transist System is neccessary, which will take money, planning, and hard work. But in my opinion the greater challenge is changing the idea that a car is neccessary to function in Los Angeles. Personally, if I had to drive in Los Angeles, I would hate it and be compelled to look for any opportunity for escape. To me the car is not a neccessity, but a burden, and I think that’s the new “myth” we have to create. And it’s a “myth” that is closer to the truth than the current one.
LikeLike
I’m familiar with the idiocy that is the BRU, don’t worry. I’ve always said that if the BRU really cared about the overall well-being of the impoverished Latinos for whom it claims to advocate, it would argue for less bus service, since obesity is such a horrendous problem for Los Angeles’ Latino population. Less sitting, more walking!
I am also well aware of the MTA’s bus-clumping problem. During the few months that I rode the Vermont Avenue Rapid every day, clumping was the bane of my existence. Part of the clumping problem is poor bus identification and control systems, which have only recently begun to be implemented. I don’t think MTA even had a GPS and a transponder on every bus until 2003 or 2004! There still aren’t notification systems at bus stops (which aren’t any more sophisticated than the current generation of parking meters) to alert people waiting to when the next bus is coming. Also, except for that little stretch of Wilshire in West Los Angeles and a few streets downtown, Los Angeles is completely devoid of peak-hour bus-only lanes, which tends to make bus service both slower and less predictable. In general, bus service in Los Angeles is way, way behind anything you’d see in Europe–and if the American Public Transportation Association award that MTA just won is anything by which to go, Los Angeles has some of the best bus service in the United States!
I concede your point about the legitimacy of the Blue Line’s ridership growth; you’ve obviously done your homework here. I will say, though, that the massive growth in partially or wholly transit-dependent population on its route has to be a major factor. There are 100,000+ people in Compton because houses that used to be home to 4 middle-class blacks now shelter 10 impoverished Latinos.
LikeLike
Pete wrote:
BTW, the ridership increases on the Blue Line stem heavily from MTA’s reduction of bus service along parallel corridors, which is one of the reasons for the BRU lawsuit.
OK, to go from 20,000 to 80,000, some really busy bus lines would have to be completely canceled.
Buses on Avalon Boulevard, Central Avenue, Compton Avenue and Pacific Avenue and Long Beach Boulevard would have to be eliminated, and that still would not produce the current figures.
The services that were eliminated were an express bus from downtown to Long Beach that carried 3,000 riders, and a couple of limited-stop lines that were initially converted into local services and returned to limited-stop service a few years ago.
As for the Bus Riders Union, it is led by a Stalinist labor veteran who used a consent decree to create more transit agency jobs than he lost while working at the Van Nuys General Motors plant.
MTA entered into a consent decree because it would not have won if it had went to trial. The public image was so low that it could not have won in court, no matter the merits of the case. Worse, it would have set a legal precedent that the anti-rail clique of Wendell Cox, Randal O’Toole and others could have used to halt rail projects around the country.
What the consent decree does not recognize is that overcrowding is a capacity issue, and that MTA and predecessor agencies were carrying out projects that were duly approved by all voters. All MTA is allowed to do is run more buses, which does little to nothing to reduce overcrowding. The more frequent the service, the more unreliable it becomes. When you see buses that operate at 2-3 minutes during rush hours, MTA only ensures that there are enough buses to run a service that theoretically balances out at that frequency. In reality, you could wait for 15 minutes or more and have 6 or 7 buses show up at the same time. Less than half are full, the rest run empty. There are myriad reasons why 6 of those 7 buses are horribly off schedule.
The best argument for rail lines in L.A. is that we already have the proven ridership (the buses) and all of our rail lines have demonstrated their ability to attract discretionary riders.
LikeLike
Per the research of Gen Giuliano and Chris Redfearn at USC, there are three corridors in Los Angeles where employment and residence patterns make rail transit (light or heavy, as opposed to commuter) unambiguously viable:
1. between Downtown and Santa Monica along the Wilshire corridor;
2. between Downtown and Sherman Oaks/Van Nuys via Hollywood;
3. between Sherman Oaks/Van Nuys and LAX via Westwood (the Sepulveda corridor).
#1 is partially extant in the form of the Wilshire leg of the Red Line, and maybe in 15-20 years it will be complete. #2 is also partially extant, in the form of the Red Line’s North Hollywood leg. I have heard very little talk about a rail line along #3, though, despite the extreme prevalence of commuting along that corridor.
Thanks to the local politics of transit finance, though, we don’t have any of these to their full extent. But hey–wee’ve got a marginally necessary but heavily-ridden Blue Line, dubious Gold and Orange lines, and a worthless Gold Line. Woo-hoo!
LikeLike
Well, from here in Sherman Oaks, I and many friends have ridden the rapid busses to the red line to go to events downtown LA, and really enjoy that experience. Surely beats anything called the Hollywood Fwy, nearly any time of day. Get a pass for $3($1.50 for seniors), and you are on your way.
I have come home from Disney Hall or the Ahmanson at 11p.m. and never felt threatened whatsoever, in spite of being attired very differently from most of the passengers seated around me.
And the red line is VERY successful, and I just hope that one day they will realize that to make the Orange busway line even more successful that they will put the red line underground in that same right of way and provide only limited stops and deliver a ride all the way to its terminus at Warner Center.
LikeLike
The Gold Line is slower than shit in a Winnepeg sewer pipe in January, so if it’s getting discretionary riders now, that’s pretty impressive. That said, I remain convinced that light rail is, generally, a delusion fostered by excessive Europhilia (which is also wrongheaded, given that the vast majority of transit trips in the EU are on buses in mixed traffic, just like in the United States) and rose-tinted streetcar nostalgia. As a mode, it is dangerously accident-prone (e.g., the Blue Line) unless completely grade-separated–at which point you might as well be building heavy rail (e.g., the Green Line)–or so slow as to be largely uncompetitive with driving (e.g., the Gold Line). Consequently, most American light rail systems have ridership as low as the Dallas system Scott mentioned. However, since the bulk of transit funding now comes locally instead of from the federal government, dubious fixed-guideway projects like the Gold and Orange Lines will continue to be built in order to placate suburban taxpayers and the egos of the Zev Yaroslavskys and Rick Coles of the world. Unfortunately, this will be at the expense of better bus service and the occasional worthwhile heavy rail project, like the Wilshire Boulevard subway or the “Downtown Connector” for the Blue and Expo Lines.
I’m not about to declare MTA’s fixed-guideway transit network a complete success, but at least the Blue and Red Lines seem to be working out pretty well. The Expo Line, if it ever makes it to Santa Monica, will also be successful because it will have a major activity center on each end and a densely populated corridor between.
LikeLike
In order to get discretionary riders, you have to have the trains go where discretionary riders actually live.
The Gold Line is the best chance for that with the system that we currently have. I will admit that the Gold Line is not as well-used as the Blue Line. But that’s a false comparison. The Blue Line has the second highest ridership among light rail lines in the entire USA. It would be very hard (and welcome) for the Gold Line to get to that level of ridership.
The Gold Line currently gets about 17,000 to 19,000 boardings per day. I just read an article about the light rail system in Dallas. They get 3,000 to 6,000 boardings per day (depending on the line) and they are thrilled about it! They are planning to build more light rail lines because what they have is “so successful.”
Go to the parking garage at the end of the Gold Line at Sierra Madre Villa during the day. You’ll see hundreds of cars parked there. Thousands of people are using the Gold Line.
I’m declaring it: our rail system is succesful. Even the Gold Line, which has the lowest ridership of all the lines. And the more we build, the more successful it will be.
LikeLike
BTW, the ridership increases on the Blue Line stem heavily from MTA’s reduction of bus service along parallel corridors, which is one of the reasons for the BRU lawsuit. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, though: from an operating costs perspective, MTA is much better off having people on light rail cars than on buses, steel on steel always being cheaper to maintain than rubber on asphalt. The BRU wanted to foster the image of Metro Rail being mostly discretionary (read: white, middle-class) riders, but because the North Hollywood extension of the Red Line didn’t open until 2000 and the Green Line didn’t begin service until after the big aerospace industry shakeout of the early ’90s, there weren’t very few nondiscretionary riders on Metro Rail until the past five years.
LikeLike
wad, your argument about the police on the trains is absurd. If the cops on the Blue Line were there to make discretionary riders feel comfortable, they would have gotten rid of the stolen cell phone hawkers and the bums who piss themselves. You don’t even see those in the New York subways. (Maybe the hawkers, but at least they’re entertaining.)
It’s a moot point, anyway. There are relatively few discretionary riders on Metro Rail that aren’t being fed into it by Metrolink trains. (I don’t count people who can’t afford to drive anymore, but still own cars, as discretionary riders. Most transportation scholars don’t, either.) For all the talk about the Blue Line being key to the gentrification of downtown Long Beach, I would bet you that very few commuters to downtown Los Angeles ride the whole 55+ minutes from the Long Beach Loop to Metro Center. It’s actually faster to take a surface street west and then drive north on the 110, as I concluded when I looked fairly seriously at moving to downtown LB (which is still relatively cheap) and commuting on the Blue Line to USC. Most of the riders on the Blue Line come from the gritty-at-best, transit-dependent neighborhoods surrounding every single one of its stations except the last two or three on each end.
LikeLike
I’ve stressed, pondered and planned over this question for many years.
We have the money and the talent to build a transit system the caliber of Europe, if not better.
The problem is the people who ride it. It’s not that they are the problem, it’s that the people with the money and voting power believe the current users of the system do not deserve anything better.
The problem is that the riders are poor and dark-skinned. The people who need to get behind building such a project are light-skinned, rich, and fear and/or loathe the presence of the underclass.
Is transit flexible for the needs of L.A. Well, considering people’s lives are scheduled around major life events(work, school, medical appointments), and that many, if not most cars, are used for discretionary trips, expanding the system to be heavily frequent and incurring losses for empty rides makes sense because of the inherent efficiency of moving more people in a single vehicle.
America has designed a society that will pay upwards of $5 for a gallon of a liquid they can get for free. We’ve also convinced people to overpay for cars that drivers will never use for their intended purpose (SUVs that see terrain no more rugged than a speed bump in a Starbucks parking lot and sports cars that spend most of their running life idling in congested traffic).
But, people can and do ride transit in L.A. How did the Blue Line go from less than 20,000 riders in 1990 to over 80,000 today? Has poverty quadrupled or do people want to take the trains?
But there’s a flipside to that success. If you ever ridden the trains, you know that they are heavily policed. A police officer is too expensive merely to perform fare checks; their presence is to allow safe passage for the discretionary rider by keeping the colored folks in line. The police presence is heaviest during the first week of the month, when welfare checks are mailed.
Maybe what discretionary riders really want is to ride a transit system where the only person of color they see is the one behind the wheel.
LikeLike