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

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