Getting to ride in Metrolink's new bike cars was a surprise bonus for the Box's weekend adventures on the rails. Photo: Stephen M. Box

(This is the first in a three-part series from Stephen Box.  In the coming weeks he’ll be discussing the bike (and passenger) friendliness of Metro Rail and Amtrak. – DN)

When I embark on a #BikeTrain adventure, I typically put my train-boarding theory to work by heading for the front car. I believe that this car is underutilized by train passengers, most of whom gather in the middle of the platform resulting in the middle cars filling first. I pick the front car over the back car because it’s easier to anticipate the position of the front of the train while the variable length makes the rear car an unpredictable target.

This past weekend, Enci and I took our bikes to LA’s Union Station to ride the Metrolink, not so much because of the new Bike Cars, but because of the $10 Weekend Passes. These passes allow passengers to ride from Friday evening to Sunday evening, anywhere on the system, for $10.

We rolled through the station, an experience that is always a bit awe-inspiring, and headed to the platform to wait for our train. We took position on the platform so that we were lined up to board the first car but somehow we seemed to attract a herd of passengers with all sorts of luggage and prams.  It was such a crowd that we knew boarding would be a nightmare and finding space for our bikes would be a competition.

We gave up our usual spot and headed to the other end of the platform and took up position at the end of the empty and locked Metrolink Train when we realized that we were standing outside one of Metrolink’s Bike Cars.

In the course of the weekend, we rode the Metrolink all three days, on the old cars that have room for two bikes per car, on the new cars that have room for three bikes per car, and on the Bike Car which has room for 18 bikes.

The Bike Car is a retrofitted “old car” that consists of stripping the car of all seats (save the jump seats and the rear three) and finstalling two portable frames that create three spaces on each side allowing bikes to lean parallel to the wall. There are three bungies (short, medium, and long) for attaching the bike’s top tube to the rail along the wall. The emergency escape area (~4’x 3’) is roped off and once the bikes are secured, there is seating for about 8-10 people.

When we first realized that we were standing outside one of the new Bike Cars, I used my iPhone to take some pictures but the light was bad so I used another camera with a flash. There is a sign on the side of the Bike Car, about 7’ off the ground, but it has little impact because of its location. We only noticed the Bike Car because we were standing next to it and looking in the window. From farther down the platform, there is little hope of noticing the sign and passengers standing on the platform awaiting an arriving train have little hope of jockeying to chase the Bike Car based on recognizing the sign as it goes by.

As for the photographs, I was snapping away at the Bike Car, the sign, the interior through the windows, etc. when I realized there were two LA Sheriffs coming from the utility end of the platform, the off-limits area. I braced myself and, sure enough, they approached me.

“Here, let me open the Bike Car for you!” one of them said. I was so stoked as they opened one of the two doors for me that I didn’t complain when I had to squeeze through the single side with a loaded bike. I wanted to ask them to open both doors so we could board easily but I was still stunned by their hospitality, especially because I had been prepared for a challenge of my late night photography in a train station.

As it turns out, opening both doors wouldn’t haven’t made the boarding any easier.  The open doorway has a pole in the middle, from top to bottom, and loaded bikes have to be “fed” through the opening, making it impossible to simply lift it up and climb the steps onto the train. The Sheriffs were kind enough to assist me and they “fed” our loaded bikes to me as I stood on the Bike Car.

Overall, the Metrolink’s Bike Car is a great ride, the only downside being the pole in the doorway, an obstacle now just as it was an obstacle on the old cars.

There are ramps that can be used to facilitate faster loading and unloading but with only one conductor per train, the demands on his/her time may not allow for the use of the portable ramps that fold in half lengthway and are stored against the inside wall by the doorway.

Overall, the Bike Car is great, not just for its practical application, but for the loud message it sends, “Cyclists are valued guests on the Metrolink!” My only suggestion: get rid of the doorway pole.
The Bike Car rates #1 in bike accommodations, ties for #3 in doorway access, and #3 in seating. Since the rating is weighted, the Metrolink’s Bike Car wins for this cyclist!

The older Metrolink cars have plenty of leg space, but the lack of bike space and luggage racks create competition for space. Photo: Stephen Box

The old Metrolink Cars have room for two bikes per car, just inside the doorway (with the pole) and against the side wall. The space is also set up with a jumpseat and the competition for the space can get tough. As the bikes lean against the wall, the front wheels are strapped against the forward facing divider.

I like the seating configuration on the old cars, there are areas set up with seating for four with seats facing each other, there are areas with booth seating and tables, and the traditional forward facing rows of seating have plenty of legroom.

The only challenge with the old cars for cyclists is having to run from car to car while on the platform, looking for unoccupied bike space.

That being said, the old cars rate #3 in bike accommodations, tie for #3 in doorway access, and are #1 in seating. Given my choice, I will sit in the old cars but lock the bikes in the Bike Car.

Metrolink's new cars have spaces for three bikes per car, but have run into other criticisms from regular riders. Photo: Stephen Box

The new Metrolink Cars have room for three bikes per car, just inside the doorway (without a pole!) and against the back of the car. They also have straps to attach the wheels to the wall and, in addition, have a ratcheting seat belt that can be used to secure the bike frames to the wall. Both the old and new cars have small 6” square blue signs along the doors to indicate which end of the car has the bike space and it’s fairly easy to spot them as the train pulls into the station. This isn’t as important at Union Station where the train is waiting on the passengers but when the passengers are waiting on an arriving train, there’s pressure to find the empty car and then to board quickly.

The new cars (Guardian Fleet) are visually distinctive from the old cars, stunning from a distance with the new branded color scheme and up close because of their rivet-free surface. As for the insides, the new cars are getting panned because of the seating arrangement. A guest wrote Metrolink to say:

“The new cars have less leg room and narrower seats as well as less room to put rolling briefcases and backpacks…Overall, new cars are “unfriendly” and claustrophobic.”

Metrolink responded to this criticism by explaining that the Guardian Fleet cars have a seating configuration that enhances the collision energy management (CEM) technology that the manufacturer, Hyandai Rotem, incorporated into the car structure.

Overall, the new Metrolink passenger cars rate #2 in bike accommodations, they’re #1 in doorway access, and #2 in seating. Given my choice, I’ll always take the Bike Car but if it’s between the old and new passenger cars, I’ll park the bikes in the new car and sit in the old car.

Over the last several #BikeTrain adventures, the Metrolink’s service has been consistently positive and the conductors have been very professional with only one exception. On one of the Union Station boardings, we arrived close to departure only to find that there were two bikes in each car, making it tough for the two of us and our loaded bikes. We continued down the train and at the end, found an empty Guardian Fleet car. We tried to board but the doors were closed and the conductor directed us to the front of the train. I explained that the cars all had bikes and that we didn’t fit. With great reluctance on his part and a bit of an insist on my part, he allowed us to board the empty car, one where he had already set up his camp.

Other than that, the Conductors have always been efficient, professional, and courteous. They are easily identifiable in their uniforms and they communicate clearly and on their own initiative, a rare sign of customer service commitment.

If I were to make a recommendation, it would be to also put the Train Engineers in uniform, raising them to the same level of professionalism that we expect from the other Metrolink employees. At the end of our most recent #BikeTrain adventure, we were among the last to disembark and as we stood on the platform, we saw a guy dressed in very casual street clothes exit the engine and walk through the empty train, apparently the Metrolink Engineer. I wonder if such a casually attired person would be able to communicate authority in an emergency. A minor point but worthy of note.

The Metrolink’s new CEO, John E. Fenton, is not really new any more but he is certainly following through on his commitment to serve as a change agent focused on enhancing the Metrolink’s guest experience. This has resulted in the Metrolink positioning itself as more than a simple commuter train, branding itself as a great adventure for cyclists, racetrack fans, urban explorers, and people who love to travel in hassle-free comfort.

The Metrolink’s $10 Weekend Pass has prompted us to take lots of weekend #BikeTrain adventures that start at Union Station. For so long LA’s Union Station was a monument to contrasts, on the one hand an architectural legacy loaded with history, on the other hand a sad shadow of its former self, most notable for the stench of urine that wafted from the restrooms.

I’m pleased to report that under the Metro’s leadership, Union Station has been now been revitalized. Arriving guests are still greeted by a strong aroma, but now it’s the smell of baking bread!

The Metro deserves credit for the work it is doing inside Union Station. One can only hope that some of the Metrolink’s “Bike Love” will rub off and Metro will tackle the abysmal bike parking at Union Station, including the toaster rack out front and the “Marquis de Sade” racks in the courtyard.

After all, the difference between “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” is that little “Extra!”

Photo via: The Source

Earlier this week, The Source announced that it is adding a pair of bike cars to the Antelope Valley Inland Empire Line.  While this is generally considered good news, even though some Source readers have some pretty valid concerns, I hate The Source’s picture.  One bike, one lonely and clearly posed bike, alone on a giant car.  To be fair to the Source, it’s not their picture.

I know Streetsblog readers can do better, assuming we have any that ride the Antelope Valley Inland Empire Line, which is why we’re offering a free L.A. Streetsblog T-Shirt to the first reader to either get us a picture of many bikes using the cars or a picture of your bike using the car.

Just send your pictures to damien at streetsblog dot org.  We’ll announce the winner, and show off their picture, as soon as we get a winner.

(P.S. – Elson Trinidad edges Ted Rogers in last week’s t-shirt contest.  Elson, email me your address and shirt and we’ll get the shirt in the mail. – DN)

The Southern California Transit Advocate's Ken Ruben reports from today's Metrolink Board meeting that the agency is moving forward with some of the proposed service cuts that the agency first proposed in the fall of 2009.  As you may remember, debate raged and eventually the Board asked staff to look at other options, which of course included a rate hike.  The Metrolink Board voted for these cuts instead of a fare hike.

Via Dana Gabbard:

Ken Ruben attended the Metrolink Board meeting today and informs me the weekend reductions to the Orange County and IEOC services plus eliminating mid-day IEOC weekday service (items 3A and 3B) was approved along with an accounting move regarding employees (item 5). The changes will take place in early Feb., date not specified.

http://metrolinktrains.com/documents/Board_Agenda/010810_Board_Agenda_rev2.pdf (see p.25, the 34th page of the packet)

(An earlier version of this post implied that fare increases were still on the way.  Ruben reports below that there will be no fare hikes in the current fiscal year.)

Last week, the Metrolink Board of Directors punted on the decision on how to balance their budget through either fare hikes, service cuts, or a mix of both until sometime in 2010.  While some riders breathed a sigh of relief that Metrolink didn't fill their Holiday Stockings with some regressive transportation policy; it seems inevitable that the Board is only delaying what will ultimately be an unpopular and difficult decision.

However, there is a third way.  Yesterday, I had a lengthy phone conversation with The Transit Coalition's executive director, Bart Reed, about his group's plan to save Metrolink.  The plan is simple, Metrolink can increase revenue by changing from a "segment" system to a "corridor" system.  Instead of having all routes begin and end in Union Station the segments are combined to create larger corridors.  The segments that currently end in Oceanside and Montalvo would be combined as would the current red, green and blue segments.   Basically, the trains run through Union Station after a stop instead of just stopping there. 

But can that really increase the number of passengers to such a level to avoid hikes and/or cuts that could cripple the agency for years?  The Transit Coalition thinks it can:

"When riders know they can get from one place to another without the uncertainty of having to transfer, ridership goes up twenty-five percent," promises Reed, "In the northeast corridor it used to be that you couldn't get from Boston to Washington without a transfer and a delay.  When they connected the Washington to New York and New York to Boston segments into the Northeast Corridor, ridership shot up."

Under the Coalition's plan, the system would become more efficient not just because it would open up the system more, but also because it would save the agency millions of dollars in efficiencies.  The cost of labor would go down as would, because of reduced idling time in Union Station, the cost of maintaining and running the trains.  Meanwhile, the "corridor" service could also compete with freeways in a way the current segmented system cannot.  Reed jokingly asked how many people would drive on freeways if they had to pull over for twenty minutes between interchanges as some Metrolink passengers have to wait to transfer trains.

The Transit Coalition's plan could have a remarkable impact on the system as it allows for the "opening" of the lines in such a way that a student in Sylmar wouldn't have to fret a connection to go to class at Cal State.  Also, a corridor system allows the agency to re-brand itself to businesses and individuals that haven't taken advantage of the system in the past.  A cash-out parking plan may become more viable for some large employers that haven't taken advantage of the transit system to move their employees.  While "Go Metro" advertisements are ubiquitous around the county, some employers, such as the Warner Brothers Studios in Burbank that could be served by Metrolink, aren't targeted with nearly the same energy by Metrolink.  Reed pointed out that there are hospitals, industrial centers, and other major employers up and down all the lines that could and should be targets of marketing campaigns.

"Everyone talks about Metrolink ridership being in crisis, but the agency only lost seven thousand riders between September 2008 and September 2009," Reed continued, "If Metrolink could sell five hundred more tickets in each segment just to major employers that would make a huge difference."

In a lot of ways, the Transit Coalition's proposals would allow the agency to take the next step to becoming a real regional agency and could change their financial bottom line in such a way that the doomsday cuts and hikes that have been proposed aren't "necessary."  It remains to be seen whether the Metrolink Board, or their new CEO, have the vision and leadership to embrace it.

Two weeks ago, I celebrated that the Metrolink Board agreed to "look into other options" rather than raise fares by 6%.

Maybe I was premature.

Earlier this week, Metrolink announced a series of proposed service cuts that would eliminate service on some weekend lines and curtail service on lines across the board.  The cuts would replace the fare hike, but for many activists the cuts go way too far.  You can read Metrolink's official announcement of the proposed cuts here.  The Metrolink Board will vote on their budget, including either fare hikes, or service cuts, or both, on December 11.  If you're interested in this story, be sure to read on until the end as some of the information provided by Transit Coalition volunteers is must-read material.

Bart Reed, executive director of the Transit Coalition, complains that while the lines that are on the chopping block may be some of the least used lines, they provide start or end of trip connections.  In other words, eliminating or reducing these services will reduce ridership across the service.

If you drill down into the numbers, you will find that the weak trips that are on the chopping block still carry between 80 to 125 riders. Many of those riders are completing a final leg of their trips. While at Union Station today, I actually saw a number of riders get off the Orange County and San Bernardino trains and transfer to the Moorpark bound Metrolink. Many got off in either Burbank or Glendale. If the trip segments are cut, Metrolink becomes worthless for many more riders, as their trip corridor can only be completed by auto.

Ryan Stern, a volunteer board member for the National Association of Rail Passengers, notes that many of the large trip generators served by Metrolink would see a sharp decline in service, to the point of neutering the service at certain times:

If all the cuts go through as proposed, Northridge Station (which services Cal-State University Northridge as well as the large Northridge Medical Center) would see a total of TWO morning trains from Los Angeles (one of which would be the dual-personality Amtrak #799) and only ONE inbound afternoon/evening train.

Burbank Airport would see its service cut almost in HALF.  Downtown Burbank (which is utilized by employees at Disney, Warner Brothers, and NBC Studios, among others) would see a reduction of 10 trains-- mostly morning trains originating in Los Angeles and afternoon/evening trains heading "inbound" toward Union Station.

It has been my observation that many passengers who ride "outbound" in the morning actually begin their trips heading "inbound" from points on other lines.  I often wonder if Metrolink fully comprehends how Union Station has become a way-point for a substantial number of their passengers.  Even though it may be preferable to dismiss the morning outbound frequencies as "re-positioning" moves, these short "reverse trips" are vital to those who connect at Union, enabling these passengers connect to "long" trips elsewhere in the system.

While the Southern California Transit Advocates are still working on a formal position, it's a bit of a tight deadline to have cuts announced one week and a vote occurring the next,  but they seem to be leaning towards a position supporting a mix of the cuts and hikes to balance the budget.  They note that a 6% across the board increase would effect all riders, while targeted cuts would effect a much smaller minority.  While there are some cuts that are more troubling than others, the SoCATA Board Members I spoke with are concerned on the impact that a second fare hike in the last year would have on riders while noting that ridership has dropped by nearly 20% on some of the routes expecting cuts.  Dana Gabbard writes:

I guess in this circumstance I would think some service cuts (maybe not all they outline here) are called for. Some of these runs are running nearly empty, from what I hear. Well intentioned as it is to provide reverse commute service, etc., in an era of limited resources I think priority has to be serving established demand.

Furthering the argument that just increasing the fares is the way to go is work done by economist Zach Gutierrez.  Gutierrez does the bulk of the writing for the Transit Coalition's weekly newsletter, for which I also write:

As of 2005 the median household income of a Metrolink rider was $72,232. 84.5% own a car. The majority of riders are not transit dependent and can probably afford to pay a little more, especially when you consider that even in the middle of winter gas prices continue to hover just below $3 per gallon, still 75 cents higher than a year prior. Who knows what will happen to gas prices next summer? Should a recovering economy or instability in the Middle East cause gas prices to hit $4 or $5 per gallon, Southern California commuters will be glad no service cuts were made. It is in the public's interest to retain service for this very probable scenario.

Economic recovery is slowly but surely happening. The DOW hit a 14-month high on Tuesday, December 1st. The unemployment rate, which is currently ravaging Metrolink's ridership counts, lags behind recovery according to most economists. Rehiring by recovering companies cannot be far away, which means a future increase in riders taking Metrolink, providing the service is still there.

While the debate will probably end up being between a fare hike and the service cuts, Transit Coalition member Nicholas Ventrone has a other ways for Metrolink to save some money.

One idea is changing the weekend train departure times without shortening the service span. Since weekend traffic on this freeway is very heavy in both directions on weekends, SCRRA should conduct a demand analysis study of the line for weekend and holiday travel between LA/Orange Counties and the Inland Empire followed by the service modifcation (using the current resources in addition to possible public/private partnership funding). This would stimulate ridership and better farebox recovery revenue without having to resort to cuts or fare hikes. SCRRA should also explore the feasibility of other weekend fare products such as single and family weekend passes lasting from Friday afternoon through Sunday and other family fare products to stimulate ridership and make rail travel more competitive. SCRRA should also consider adding a "transfer to transit" fare option for the existing Friends & Family 4-Pack, allowing families to transfer to Metro Rail, the SPRINTER, and other connecting transit. This should also further stimulate ridership.

As I mentioned above, the Metrolink Board will vote on how they're going to balance their budget at next week's Board Meeting.  Streetsblog will let you know the outcome as the news breaks.

I owe an apology to any Streetsblog readers that ride Metrolink.  While I was obsessing about bicycle and pedestrian access to the Gold Line, the Metrolink Board of Directors voted to delay a decision on a 6% fare hike.  After receiving thousands of complaints on the proposed hike, which would have been the agency's second in six months, to try and figure out how to make the cuts needed to maintain the current fare structure.  Congratulations, Metrolink riders.  You spoke out and the agency heard you.

Metrolink, which is the most expensive transit ride in the county, has bucked the trend of growing ridership in large part due to its high fares.  In its article about the Board's decision, the Times notes:

Ridership and ticket revenue on the five-county rail system have tumbled about 15% from last year because of job losses across the region and lower gas prices that enticed commuters back into their cars. Ridership is now below levels of four years ago, officials said. Ticket revenue is forecast to be $7.7 million below what had been expected in the current year's budget.

The agency also has increased expenses for safety improvements after last year's head-on wreck between Metrolink and Union Pacific trains that killed 25 and injured dozens more in Chatsworth.

Some early ideas that were floated at the meeting were renegotiating deals with contractors and trimming parts of the agency's budget.  The Daily News, showing its supply side, argued that the agency should consider cutting fares and it would increase revenues by bringing back former riders priced out of the service.

Streetsblog may be a couple of days late to the story, but that doesn't mean we can't help.  Leave your suggestions for the Metrolink Board to hold off a fare hike, and I'll make sure they get in the right hands.

Last week, the Times took a close look at the Metrolink rail system to zero in on how the embattled agency is doing when it comes to improving safety for passengers and the drivers and pedestrians that cross the tracks.  Their results?  Over a year after a crash that killed 25 people when a freight train and a Metrolink train collided head-on, the agency still isn't making the grade.

However, the Times' article, entitled Death on the Rails in L.A., focuses more on the deadly state of Metrolink's rail crossings, noting:

Over the 15 years leading up to the deadly crash in Chatsworth, accidents involving trains running on Metrolink's system killed 218 other people, according to a detailed examination of accident records by The Times. Through September 2008, the number killed on the Metrolink commuter rail system was 244. Hundreds more people sustained nonfatal injuries.

While I've been as hard on L.A.'s paper of record as the next person, this time the Times is doing a great job bringing the story of dangerous crossings home to anyone that lives near Metrolink tracks.  In addition to the feature story, they've opened an interactive website all about Metrolink and safety that features videos, an interactive map showing the dangerous record of each crossing and animations showing how some of these crashes are occurring.

If I had to pick a nit with any part of the Times' coverage, it would have to be with the narrative in the main article that can be summarized as "Metrolink bad, Metro good."  Metro's record on safe rail crossings, while not as bad as Metrolink's, is hardly stellar.  Here's to hoping that this approach isn't a one time issue and we can see more of this style of reporting on not just rail safety, but on dangerous street intersections throughout L.A. County.

Flickr photo: ProKelly

This week marks the one-year anniversary of the Metrolink crash that
left 25 people dead and prompted a federal mandate to install the
safety monitoring system known as "positive train control" on all
commuter rail systems. The accident also helped advance the push for a
national ban on on texting while driving, the activity that was found
to contribute to the accident. 

A recent report
in the Los Angeles Times found that while Metrolink was making progress
on some of the changes its officials vowed to make in the wake of the
crash, other promises remained unfulfilled. In a letter sent today to
Metrolink chairman Keith Millhouse, Boxer said she "was pleased" when
the rail network started adding a second crew member to train operating
teams, adding: "As we work together to ensure that positive train
control is implemented as quickly as possible, safety must not be
compromised in the interim."

This week’s transportation spending bill also includes $500,000
Boxer set aside for Metrolink to help pay for installation of "positive
train control," a computer-based system that helps prevent crashes by
automatically detecting when two trains travel too close to one
another.

The senator’s full letter to Millhouse follows after the jump.

September 18, 2009

Keith Millhouse

Chairman

Metrolink

Dear Chairman Millhouse:

I
am deeply concerned that on average, 87 percent of Metrolink trains
operate without a second crew member in the train cab.  While I
recognize that Metrolink is moving forward with the installation of
cameras in its train cabs, I continue to believe that a second crew
member in the cab is an essential interim safety measure that must be
employed.  One year after the tragic Chatsworth crash that killed 25
people and injured 135 more, we cannot afford to undermine steps we
have taken to improve the safety of commuter rail.

Last September, I chaired a briefing for Senators
on the cause of the Metrolink tragedy.  I requested that interim safety
measures be immediately implemented in the absence of the installation
of positive train control. Former Metrolink Chairman Ron Roberts
pledged at that briefing to add an extra crew member in the train cabs
to act as an “extra set of eyes” to prevent another tragedy. I was
pleased when Metrolink began to follow through on that pledge.

While I understand the challenges facing commuter
rail in this difficult economy, safety must continue to be the top
priority. As we work together to ensure that positive train control is
implemented as quickly as possible, safety must not be compromised in
the interim.

Thank you for your attention to this critical
matter and I look forward to your
response.                                                                                                

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer

United States Senator

Trying to follow the lead given last year when Mayor Villaraigosa devised a way to hold off proposed and "needed" service cuts at Metro, the Metrolink Board of Directors voted last week to hold off on increasing fares for at least a month while it looks for other options.

The Board was widely expected to increase fares from between 3.5% and 5.5% depending on the origin and destination of the trip.  Metrolink riders have been seeing higher and higher fares over recent years.  The Metrolink Board actually passsed a fare increase on top of a fare increase for July of 2008.

The San Gabriel Valley Tribune interviews a Metrolink Rider who breaks it down.

Riding the Metrolink since 2004, Highland
resident Raul Barrientos said he has seen his fare increase about $50
since 2005. Barrientos now pays $250 a month to ride from Baldwin Park
to San Bernardino.

What’s worse, Barrientos said, is that parking fees at the Baldwin Park station Friday from $30 a month $60 a month."The parking increases on top of the fare increases are an extra added weight," he said.

The Metrolink Board says they’re going to spend the next month combing the budget to try and find ways to hold off the fare increase.  If you got any ideas, leave them in the comments section and we’ll pass them along.

As the debate over how Measure R funds will be spent continues to be a hot topic amongst transit advocates, we continue to get specifics on  how funds will be doled out piecemeal.  First we heard that the state transit crisis would endanger the promised bus expansion and now we’re hearing that a small portion of the rail funds, about 3% of the $1.2 billion set aside for "commuter rail" will be spent on making Metrolink trains more safe by installing the Positive Train Control (PTC) system.  Many rail safety experts believe that a PTC system would have prevented the horrific Metrolink crash from last September.

Metro’s share of the Metrolink funding pie is about 50% and because the total cost of the PTC system is estimated at $210 million; Metro is on the hook for just over $100 million if Metrolink is unable to secure federal funds.  In its report to the Metro Board, staff estimates that Metrolink could receive up to $135 million in federal funds.

Metro, and especially Board Chair Villaraigosa, are eager to get funds for PTC allocated as soon as possible and is willing to loan the rest of the funds to Metrolink so that the new safety measures can be put in place as quickly as possible.  While the federal government is now requiring all rail lines to have PTC by 2015, that time table was a little to slow for Metrolink which as an agency has received a lot of heat since the crash last fall.

For those of you who don’t follow train safety news, a good description of what a PTC is can be found here.

Photo: The Metro Library/Flickr

The NTSB "Recreates" the September 12 Crash in Chatsworth

Last week, Damien Goodmon penned a piece in CityWatch arguing that the focus on the actions of the conductor in the September 12 Chatsworth train crash is distracting the public from the larger issue of rail safety in the greater Los Angeles area.  Goodmon sites statistics showing that Metrolink trains are three times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than the busiest commuter railroad in the country, the Long Island Railroad.  He goes on to argue:

Dismissing the Chatsworth event as a “freak accident” distracts from the hundreds of others that have occurred on our region’s tracks and allows our elected leaders to continue, without appropriate criticism, to translate our region’s desires for solutions to our traffic crisis into policies of building rail quickly, cheaply and unsafely.  With policies and decisions to operate commuter trains on single-track segments with freight rail, and 225-ton light rail trains at street level across major intersections right next to large urban schools and churches there is plenty to criticize.

The catastrophic Metrolink accident should be a wake up call to our region.  It should result in an independent top-to-bottom no-holds-barred evaluation of the rail safety policies made by the politicians who lead our transportation agencies.  The evaluation should result in short-term (1-2 years) and long-term (20-30 year) recommendations … mandates … to implement safety mitigation measures on our rail lines, which must be prioritized among our transportation agencies.

In the Times this weekend, Steve Hymon delves in to how Metrolink functions as an agency.  The article is a pretty chilling read.  The underfunded agency is run by small-town political leaders who don't have an expertise in rail or rail safety.  Despite their being no history of attacks on U.S. transit systems, Metrolink has focused on keeping their riders safe from terrorists instead of other safety concerns.

The underfunded agency receives almost half of its funding from transit fares, which is well above the national average and nearly twice the recovery ratio for Metro.  While there has been some discussion in other outlets that Metrolink has opposed federal regulations requiring the types of warning signals that might have prevented the crash, but perhaps that opposition has stemmed more from their inability to afford such systems than anything else?  After all, the state government took another billion from transit agencies to balance the state budget just last week.

Also under fire is Metrolink's leadership.  The Metrolink Board has been vocally unhappy with the actions of the staff which has led to the agency's spokesperson resigning and the CEO coming under fire for a general lack of leadership in the wake of the crash.  As Board Member Mike Antonovich, who also sits on the Metro Board and the County Board of Supervisors, told the Times:

"You can't be AWOL in these situations," Antonovich said. "This was not a tremor. It was an earthquake. They must be trained and able to respond. Everyone needs to be on the same page."

As we learn more about Metrolink's leadership and budget, it's becoming clear that regardless of the actions of the engineer and his texting habits, there need to be other changes at Metrolink.  Some new blood and a dedicated funding pool, so that the agency has a steady flow of income besides farebox revenue, would be a good start.

Photo: Al Seib/Times

That resistance has spurred Senator Diane Weinstein to introduce legislation that would require the installation of what she terms life saving signals by 2014.  Feinstein's bill, co-sponsored by Barbara Boxer, combines the language of two similar pieces of legislation passed in the House of Representatives and Senate respectively, that have yet to be combined into a single piece of legislation by a conference committee.

In a statement to the press, Feinstein calls the lack of what she calls a "positive train control system" a sign of negligence and the major reason for the crash.

“The fact is, this collision could have been avoided had there been a positive train control system in place. In my view, that’s sheer negligence.

“And it should be totally unacceptable to the American people that we have rail systems in which two trains going in opposite directions share a single track – with only a signal light to stop a collision – when technology exists to prevent a crash. This legislation will fix this. Nowhere is this needed more than in Southern California, where the majority of Metrolink’s 388 miles of track are shared with freight trains. We must install positive train control as quickly as possible. There is no excuse for inaction.”

One question that isn't answered in either the bill or the press statement: if these signals could save so many lives, why isn't the federal government offering some financial assistance to get them put in place quicker than six years from now?

Photo: Times

(Editor’s Note: After combing through literally hundreds of articles, I decided to post the links from LAist and the Bottleneck Blog.  Their combined stories cover the news from the crash completely.  The stories run chronologically with the earlier stories posted first.  Excellent work Steve, Zach, and the rest of the staff at LAist.)

Bottleneck Blog:

Announcing the Crash

Metrolink: A system forged from freight lines Metrolink service update (Saturday)

Metrolink crash: How trains navigate the tracks

Blood Drive Continues

Sunday morning updateMetrolink’s fatalities high compared to other commuter railroads

Metrolink board: blaming engineer was premature

Metrolink service update

LAist:

4 Dead in Metrolink Train Derailment

Rescue Operations Continue

What We Know About Today’s Derailment

Photos from Train Crash

Chatsworth Train Was Close to Tunnel

Death Toll at 18, Expected to Rise

City Flags Lowered to Half Mast

More Photos from Crash

Metrolink Blames Engineer

Search for Victims/Survivors Ends.  Death Toll at 25

Was Engineer Driving While Texting?

Partial List of Crash Victims Released

Board of Directors Holds Special Meeting

Metrolink Spokeswoman Who Blamed Engineer Quits

Photo: Zach Behrens/LAist

This week, Metrolink will begin random searches of riders to help make trains more secure for riders.  LA County Sheriffs will be conducting the searches which Metrolink claims are not in response to a specific threat.

A flyer to passengers left on Metrolink trains explains the procedure:

Prior to initiation of a screening event, signs will be posted at all entrances to the station parking lots and platforms to notify passengers that the deputies are present and the random security screening will be conducted. Access to the station platform will be restricted; passengers must pass through the checkpoint to gain access to the station platform.

The new random searches have already come under praise and criticism from Metrolink passengers.

Robert Akrow, the owner of the website metrolinkrider.com, went so far as to claim that the program is an example of why Metrolink is in need of an independent inspector general.

So lets assume that a terrorist has a bomb and is planning to put it on a Metrolink train.   Upon entering the station parking lot, he would see the sign and then realize that he could not do his intended deed.  It would be a simple process for the terrorist to go to the next station or wait until tomorrow and try again.

The stupidity of this program shows just how backward Metrolink's thinking is.  Do they really think the terrorists are that dumb?

This demonstrates why Metrolink needs an Inspector General, to ferret out fraud, waste, abuse, and stupidity.  A Metrolink Riders Union is another good idea.

Meanwhile, Brian Buss, the founder of LAPassenger.com, sees value in the current system and would like to see more security on trains.

I'm with California voters who passed 1B in supporting security improvements to our growing rail transit system, as long as searches are conducted with little impact to train and passenger schedules.  LAPassenger's mission is to send train delay alerts to passengers' cell phones, so we like the current system which includes random K-9 searches does not interfere with passengers getting on the train.  It delays the train only for about a minute....

...If the intent is to truly randomize the searches, there should be a variety of random time and place searches; K-9 station boarding, platform passenger checkpoints, on-board passenger audits, and the continued visible presence of law enforcement officers on the trains, both uniformed and plain clothes officers.

If riders find Metrolink’s efforts at security irksome enough to do something about it, there isn’t much recourse.  Previous efforts to use the courts to fight similar search plans have come up empty.

All this extra security, and to think Metrolink already has a gating system to keep their riders safe from terrorists!  If any readers witness or get searched and want to write about it, send your story to damien@streetsblog.org.

Photo: Borderhacker/Flickr

This week's LA Weekly has a fascinating expose on Metrolink's ham-handed attempt to silence bloggers by dragging them in front of international courts.  I wish this were an April Fool's story, but it isn't.  The story's author, Max Taves, abandons any pretense of objectivity slamming Metrolink as a "Paranoid Transit Agency" before we even get to the text of the piece.   After reading the story, I can't say I blame him.

 And the story is basically this.  Desperate to shut down a website that is critical of its policies, Metrolink filed suit against Bob Arkow because his website was a violation of international copyright laws.  You see, the website's name is MetrolinkRider.com and Metrolink claimed that people might think the site was an official Metro message board.  Metrolink also sued for the domain metrolinksucks.com which doesn't have a website attached to it yet, but is also owned by Arkow.  Metrolink must have a pretty low opinion of its riders...that or members of its board and staff are going to be shocked to hear that Kobe Bryant doesn't spend his off days updating the links at this website.  Don't panic Camino, Metrolink lost its case in front of the United Nations' World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) court earlier this month.

Despite this setback, Metrolink is sticking to their guns and refusing to apologize for what is clearly a gross violation of Arkow's right to free speech.  According to LA Weekly:

Yet Metrolink’s Francisco Oaxaca doesn’t regret spending public money and L.A. County lawyers’ time trying to shut down Arkow’s small sites. He sees it as merely a trial run in silencing other bloggers and Web sites.

“I don’t think it was a mistake,” Oaxaca says. “If we do this again, we’ll have more information than if we hadn’t tried it, to see what is the most effective way to protect our trademark.” He promises that Metrolink is “considering actions against other domain-name holders.”

It must be reassuring for Metrolink passengers to hear that agency that just raised fares for the second time this year isn't wasting money on frivolous expenses. 

Say what you want about Metro, but I could never see them tilting at windmills like this.  As a matter of fact, their press department always returns my calls and even does outreach when there's an event they wish to promote.  I don't think anyone that reads Streetsblog thinks I go easy on Metro as a result, but by treating each other as professionals, blogger journalists and public agencies can develop a mutually beneficial relationship.

Or you agencies and bloggers can go to war with each other and the world will be full of websites named (nameofyouragency)sucks.com.

Image: Atwater Village Newbie/Flickr 

Last Friday, Metrolink announced plans to raise fares and cut service effective on July 1. Wait a second, you might be thinking, Metrolink announced these hikes over a year ago. True, but these fare hikes are in addition to the ones passed in 2007. From Metrolink's press release:

Because of the escalating cost of diesel fuel, scheduled increases in costs for operating services contracts and new start-up costs related to the arrival of additional passenger cars in 2009, the Board is considering a fare increase of up to 7.5%, instead of the previously approved 3.5% and potential reductions in service to take effect on July 1, 2008.

The Metrolink Board is also considering changes to the Group Travel Program. The proposed changes to the program are as follows:

Increase the discounted Group Travel fare for a round trip ticket from $7.00 to $10.00 beginning July 1, 2008

Increase the minimum number in a group to qualify for the discounted fare from 10 to 15 beginning July 1, 2008

Index future increases in the Group Travel fare to system-wide fare change proposals but only increase the fare when the cumulative total of increases is equal to or greater than $1.00.

Much like Foothill Transit during its recent fare increases and Metro during its public process for service cuts; Metrolink is avoiding laying blame at the feet of the governor and other elected leaders in Sacramento who consistently under fund transit operations and sometimes rob dedicated transportation funding to balance the general fund.

Unfortunately, our local media is doing nothing to help pick up the slack. Metrolink used the oldest media suppression trick in the book, releasing major news on Friday afternoon, and so far it's paid off. No stories on the fare increase appeared in the Daily News, LA Times, or Orange County Register. The only story I found was a reprint of the press release in California Newswire.

You can comment about these proposals in several ways:

Attend the public hearing

E-mail : MetrolinkFares@scrra.net

Fax: (213) 452-0421

Mail :Metrolink Fares, 700 S. Flower Street, 26th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017

The Metrolink Board of Directors will receive a compilation of all comments received and a public hearing will be held by the Board at its meeting on Friday, April 25, 2008 at 10:00 A.M. to be held at the Southern California Associated Governments (SCAG) San Bernardino Conference Room located at 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, California.

Comments can also be submitted by using our online comment form by clicking HERE.

Photo: Casualclicks/Flickr