Dana Gabbard does not like the 902 service. Photo:MetroRider 14/Flickr

June 26 Metro will be implementing what are in some cases rather substantial service changes.

The Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon panel and remarks made late last year by Metro’s Deputy Executive Officer for Service Planning and Scheduling Conan Cheung signaled substantial trims in revenue service hours were in the offing. Also an evaluation of Metro Rapid service prepared last year outlined criteria for the “adjustments” of the Rapids network subsequentky undertaken last Dec. and this month.

In the face of public consternation Metro management have mostly defended the need to reduce service, with CEO Art Leahy issuing A message to our customers and taxpayers and authoring an op-ed in the Daily News, both of them justifying these actions.

The best extended critique deconstructing and deflating Metro’s assertions has been put forward by Thomas Rubin, Controller-Treasurer of the Southern California Rapid Transit District from 1989 until 1993 with an extensive background as a consultant on transportation finance to the public and private sectors and author of numerous papers on transportation issues. In a piece titled Los Angeles: the MTA’s Bus Stop Strategy Rubin provides a history lesson and some analysis. This includes thoroughly debunking Metro management’s claim that their buses operating at an average of 42% capacity means something is wrong:

The 42% figure is evidently derived by dividing Metro’s FY09 bus average passenger load – passengers-miles/vehicle revenue miles – by the average number of seats on Metro buses. The figure looks low, doesn’t it? Think about all those empty seats.

However, unlike an airline flight from LAX to JFK, Metro buses make many stops along their routes to pick up and drop off passengers. Bus scheduling is developed around the maximum carrying capacity of a bus at the peak load point of the route during the peak ridership period. This means that, for much of the day, and for most of even the busiest bus trips, there are a lot of empty seats. That’s the nature of the transit business.

While some of the worst ideas initially proposed (like having line 460 no longer serve downtown Los Angeles) were discarded or massaged to be less draconian there are still aspects of the changes that leave me shaking my head. For instance line 26 (Virgil) should have been retained a least during peak hours; now instead riders will face cramming onto the already overloaded parallel lines that serve Vermont. Or how about the 450X that in peak will now include selected trips that run from downtown Los Angeles to San Pedro while in mid-day and weekends it will simply run between San Pedro and the Artesia Transit Center as a connector for the Silver Line? Talk about a recipe for customer confusion!

Well, at least they are cancelling the idiotic line 902. The less said about that wrong headed demonstration line, the better.

And this isn’t the end of the service trimming as Metro plans additional cuts in December. A presentation Metro Budget Director Frank Shapiro made at the May 25th meeting of the Metro Citizens’ Advisory Council included among its assumptions the elimination of 61,000 revenue service hours during the Dec. shakeup. Public hearings for comments on the initial staff proposals to carry out the further cuts will be held in August, so mentally prepare yourself for a junior version of what we just went through.

Can someone let me know if the goatee is back? - DN Photo: City Hall Insider

Originally Stephen Villavaso of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition was scheduled to be the guest speaker at the Southern California Transit Advocates May 14th meeting, only to have a conflict force him to request to be rescheduled to our June meeting. As I scrambled to seek a replacement Nick Matonak who handles the Facebook page for SO.CA.TA suggested we have Stephen Box as a speaker. And upon being contacted Box with great enthusiasm said yes.

Given the tight timing Box has carte blanche to talk on whatever topic he wants. And of course afterward we’ll have a period for q&a with the audience.

The meeting is held at Angelus Plaza in downtown Los Angeles, 255 S. Hill Street, on the fourth floor. The location is served by numerous transit lines including the Pershing Square Red/Purple Line station. Box’s presentation begins at 2:15 p.m. The business portion of the meeting starts at 1 p.m., with a break from 2 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. The meeting is free and open to the public. I’m looking forward to it.

Proposition 22 is the latest salvo in an ongoing war between key stakeholders who have a stake (and straw) in the state’s budget over who gets how much of it locked up for them. Its purpose is to declare an end to the funding raids the legislature and Governor have engaged in repeatedly during this decade to balance the budget at the expense of transit.

Some find the aspect of 22 that benefits redevelopment agencies as a reason to recoil. This was a realpolitik decision the folks working to get 22 on the ballot made as the transit industry needed at least one other major stakeholder supporting the measure to be sure it would have the necessary financial clout behind it to get on the ballot and provide at least a modest campaign on its behalf.

Regardless of the smell factor and any worries about 22 being yet another budget by ballot measure “locking in” funding that help foster a dysfunctional fiscal structure for the state, if you support transit you should vote for 22 for one salient reason: to end transit’s image among insiders and elected officials as being a weakling and therefore able to be robbed with impunity.

It sounds akin to a street fight, with transit as the little guy who finds it necessary to bloody the nose of a bully before gaining a measure of respect and some peace. Frankly the real world of politics often calls for blunt assertive action to stop being pushed around. Also by saying “hands off!” we take one more bit of fiscal hocus pocus out of the mix of flim flam that has allowed the legislature and Governor to evade dealing with the fiscal realties of the state’s situation. Real budget reform would be a happy long-term consequence of the passage of Proposition 22. For all these reasons I urge a yes vote.

The Bus Riders Union will have its monthly meeting at Immanuel Presbyterian Church (on Wilshire two blocks west of Vermont) with a light breakfast served at 9:30 a.m. followed by the meeting at 10 a.m. The agenda to no surprise indicates the main topic will be their campaign against Metro's impending fare increase: "what we need to do is have a deeper strategy conversation about what we are willing to do from here on out".

If you attend as a newbie you'll initially participate in an separate new member orientation session in which BRU organizers provide the basics of their positions and ways of doing business. My understanding from friends who have attended BRU meetings is after the orientation session is finished the new members join the main meeting in progress, which usually draws about 90 to 100 people.

The other transit activism activity on Saturday is Southern California Transit Advocates' first study tour of the year, exploring Torrance Transit.

As the SO.CA.TA website notes these study tours aren't just recreational. They also help us familiarize ourselves with transit service (frequency, hours of service, connections, etc.) locally and in adjacent areas. And our members who don't use transit daily get a dose of "seat of the pants" knowledge about transit issues.

The rendezvous point is Alameda Street south of César E. Chávez Avenue across from Union Station. At 9:30 a.m. we'll catch Torrance's route two as it travels south through downtown Los Angeles then proceeds to Torrance via the Harbor Freeway.

Regular fare for Torrance is $1 with a $1 surcharge for the buses that serve downtown L.A. Transfers are forty cents. And of course they do accept the EZ Pass. Otherwise having some dollar bills and change to pay fares seems advisable. Also bring some cash to buy lunch at the Del Amo Mall food court.

Here is the itinerary, prepared by SO.CA.TA member Paul Castillo:

take route two from Union Station at 9:30 a.m.
arrive at Del Amo Mall (Carson/Madrona) at 10:40 a.m.

walk to Line 3 stop on Carson St.

take route 3 departing at 10:55 a.m
arrive Redondo Beach Pier a 11:15 a.m.

take route 3 from Pier at 11:35 a.m.
arrive at Del Amo Mall at 11:50 a.m.

LUNCH BREAK

take route 9 from Del Amo Mall at 1 p.m.
take to end of route (Vermont/Lomita) arriving at 1:25 p.m.
take return trip arriving at Del Amo Mall at 1:50 p.m.

take route 3 from Del Amo Mall at 1:50 p.m.
go to end of route at Long Beach Transit Mall, arriving at 2:45 p.m.
take return trip departing 2:55 p.m. arriving a Del Amo Mall at 3:55 p.m.

take route 2 at Del Amo Mall at 4 p.m.
arrive at Union Station at 5:23 p.m.

All in all a busy day for transit activism, whichever activity you choose.

While the BRU has their meeting on the 3rd Saturday of the month, Southern California Transit Advocates normally holds its meeting on the 2nd Saturday. But to accommodate our participation in National Train Day we moved the meeting for this month only to the 3rd Saturday.

This means those so inclined can spend the morning attending the meeting of the Bus Riders Union, then once it breaks up walk over to the Wilshire/Vermont Red & Purple Line station and ride the subway to Pershing Square station -- the SO.CA.TA meeting is in Angelus Plaza, one block north of the station's 4th Street exit (255 S. Hill St., Room 422). There may even be enough time between meetings to duck into Grand Central Market (catty-corner from Angelus Plaza) and grab a quick lunch. The guest speaker this month is Shiraz Tangri of Los Angeles Streetcar at 1 p.m.. The regular business meeting will start circa 2:15 p.m.

So if you don't mind doing some schlepping and investing a few hours, Saturday offers a rare chance in a single day to see up close the differing dynamics and viewpoints of two of the leading transit advocacy groups in our region. Think of it as a intellectual smorgasbord for transit activists--if you have the stamina!

(Everyone knows that Dana is one of the Board members for the Southern California Transit Advocates, right?  Good. - DN)

May 24, 2007 the Metro Board held a public hearing to consider what the agency termed euphemistically "fare restructuring". Tumultuous is word that best captures what the six hours of public hearing held in the Metro Board room that day were like. At the end I was exhausted and gladly took up a friend's offer that we decompress by having dinner together (at the then still open Old Spaghetti Factory outlet in Hollywood ).

The best overview of the lead up to the hearing and its outcome is Hank Fung's article "MTA Fares Increase" from the June 2007 issue of The Transit Advocate.

In the same issue you can read in my monthly Public and Legislative Affairs column the germ of the beginnings of a thought process that has shaped Southern California Transit Advocate's approach to the Metro Special Board Meeting being held this Saturday whose ostensible purpose is "to receive public comments and for MTA to update the public on the implementation of the scheduled July 1, 2010 fare increase." This impending fare increase was actually part of the deal the Board approved back in 2007, albeit originally to be implemented in 2009 then delayed a year when Measure R was passed in the interim (R's provisions included a one year fare freeze).

While I noted in 2007 the BRU exhibited "organizing prowess" in drawing a huge turnout of supporters, I also felt that this was squandered by their taking a no fare increase stance which was great to generate applause and publicity but essentially DOA as to the politics of the situation.

Interestingly Steve Hymon at Metro's blog The Source has a similar reaction to the BRU's repeat of its 2007 tactic of taking strident umbrage at an upcoming fare increase. He muses on whether advocating for something similar to a two hour ticket of the sort TriMet of Portland offers would be more productive. "Rather than the same old discussion that Metro fares must always remain the same, that to me seems a more reasonable course so that service is preserved and value is added." The idea does seem to have merit, although likely couldn't be done until the problems of TAP are resolved (if that ever happens).

Comments I posted on this blog some months ago captures my thought process in approaching the upcoming meeting: that activists "not get caught up again in the fare proposal mania some of us advocates chased [in 2007]. Cutting fares etc. is not in the cards so how about putting together a list of key bullet point strategies that need leadership from the Board? The point is to have have better service as an outcome so this process isn't just about revenues, etc."

At my suggestion Southern California Transit Advocates is following this strategy. Our members provided input for what ended up being six bullet points that we will present at the meeting. Here is a preview: 

Statement to May 8, 2010 Special Metro Board meeting

At the Feb. 26, 2010 quarterly Meet & Confer we presented to the Governance Councils a list of operational issues that we believe deserves their attention. In a similar fashion we are requesting that the Metro Board show leadership on some key larger concerns (structural and policy) that in our view are being unfairly neglected. Our goal is not necessarily the budgetary concerns that are the main purpose motivating this meeting but useful improvements that would improve service quality or begin reform of the policy responsibilities this Board often does not pay sufficient attention to versus a persistant habit of micro-management. By bringing these to the fore at this time we allow Metro to shape its ongoing contract negotiations to seek Union concurrence with these items, especially as it pertains to the final bullet point on contracted service overhauling.

http://socata.net/metrosectors0210.html

*It is time for the Supervisors to use their clout to aid the city of L.A. to find a solution to its disagreement with the County Office of the Assessor regarding the possessory use tax and bus shelters (per the August 16, 2006 presentation to the Metro San Fernando Valley Service Governance Council).

http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2006/08_August/20060816OtherSectorSFV_Item8.pdf

*We hope L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa will monitor the progress of the implementation of the Wilshire bus lanes to ensure it is done expeditious and does not get bogged down in LADOT’s lamentable foot dragging that had un-necessarily delayed this project for nearly half a decade.

*The MTA Board under the authority granted it by Public Utility Code section 130051.9(d) should evaluate the potential advantages of procuring legal services by a competitive process versus the current contracting with L.A. County Counsel.

In perhaps the strongest sign yet of just how politically potent the statewide high speed rail project has become, a bid by a Republican Assemblywoman to squelch the project has fallen flat (Assembly Bill 2121) and as a face-saving move the bill has been amended to merely mandate the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) submit funding reports as it goes forward with the project.

As I noted in a prior commentary, the buzz this project now generates floors me. For the longest time it received scant attention or respect.

Now if anything is it suffering from "too many cooks" as jurisdictions and interest groups clamor to offer their two cents. The most prominent example of this is the recent request of local transportation agency heads Art Leahy (of Metro) and Will Kempton (of OCTA) for CHSRA to reconsider shared use options for the Los Angeles to Anaheim segment of the project.

Leslie Pollock at the recent American Planning Association conference outlined why many high speed rail supporters look askance at share use being compatible with true high speed service.

But this may be a case where the locals have a good point. In discussing this situation with local advocate Jerard Wright, he pointed out to me this is a key corridor worthy of upgrades whether it is served by full out high speed service and supplemental services or perhaps a half hourly bullet train from Anaheim that services Los Angeles and continues on the the Bay Area (and vice versa) along with a more blended mix of upgraded existing Metrolink and Amtrak services. I would imagine Leahy and Kempton would agree that is about the level of service the coastal stub (the high speed line in Orange County will only go as far south as Irvine) will require for the foreseeable future. That factor would allow a less impactful plan for the corridor of the sort local officials have put forward of late.

The good thing is all the stakeholders are now at the table and talking. Not so long ago that wasn't really happening. I keep noting this is a huge project, on a scale comparable to the construction of the state aqueduct. Our California civic culture is grappling with how to deal this new and unfamiliar kind of challenge, which admittedly at times results in zigs and bumps as the project goes forward. That is the price you pay for being a pioneer.

Saturday the architect of Measure R and the mind behind "30 in 10", Move LA  Executive Director Denny Zane, will be the featured speaker at the monthly meeting of Southern California Transit Advocates. This is a chance to hear Zane speak and after his presentation offer any questions you have. The event is free and open to the public.

It is held at Angelus Plaza, 255 S. Hill St., in downtown Los Angeles (room 422) starting at  1:00 p.m. There are numerous transit options to the meeting site. I'm certainly curious to hear what Zane has to say, especially with federal reauthorization seemingly in limbo.

Photo:Tingwananpar/Flickr

Each of the three major groups in Los Angeles, Southern California Transit Advocates, the Transit Coalition and the Bus Rider's Union each take a different approach.

Kymberleigh Richards' statement on behalf of the Southern California Transit Advocates crystallizes the difference in how advocates view the LADOT's bus service as compared to Metro.  Remember that two years ago, Richards was one of the leaders opposing Metro's proposed cuts, even threatening the Metro Board with retaliation if they went through with their plans:

So.CA.TA is okay with a lot of this.  The three Commuter Express lines proposed for cancellation have very low ridership and displaced passengers still have options.  On the lines proposed for modifications, we believe 422 and 423 should continue to Thousand Oaks Transit Center (a hub location) and that late night service on 142 should continue at less frequency...

...We're also okay with the proposed fare increases. although we think DASH fares should go directly to 50 cents (no interim step) as it has been unrealistically low as a quarter for far too long.  We do think the interagency transfer (IAT) should be part of DASH's fare structure, though, especially to facilitate transferring to Metro where a DASH line has been canceled or realigned to avoid route duplication.  It may well be that adding the IAT will be a condition of LADOT becoming an "eligible operator" for county sales tax subsidies anyway, so we think they should just go ahead and do it.

Fellow So.CA.TA. executive Dana Gabbard also pointed to the need to cut waste in the DASH system.

Overall my impression is DASH is using the budget crisis as leverage to address some long overdue issues regarding glaringly poorly performing services that politics made it impossible to touch heretofore. Can you think of any other transit service where the timetables list the names of the Mayor AND every council members whose district the route goes through? Plus every council member seems to have a pet new route that they constantly call for implementation even though LADOT has been tapped out of funding to do additional service for some years now, and has warned before of impending deficits and a need to trim what it already runs.

Speaking for the Transit Coalition, executive director Bart Reed takes the middle ground between support and opposition and offers a third way.  While not rejecting the idea that DASH needs some major changes to its operating structure, Reed offers the media-friendly line that the answer "is not the slash DASH!."  He also pointed to the excellent series of articles on restructuring at Metro Rider written by our friend Wad, aka LA Wad, aka HercWad.  Using Open Source data, Wad constructs his own, improved, DASH Service for Central L.A., the San Fernando Valley, and the East and Northeast.

While they haven't responded to my email requests for comment, staff for the Bus Rider's Union has made clear in previous conversations the disdain they hold for cutting bus service while expanding other city services such as the LAPD.  Organizers have vowed to educate their members about the cuts and I expect a more public showing from them in the leadup to the hearings.

Sick of transit funding being stolen by the state and want to do something about it? You can help gather signatures for placing on the November ballot the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Act. A packet of petitions can be requested via this online form. They will come in the snail mail with detailed instructions. The deadline to get petitions in for validation is mid-April. I have some and will in the coming weeks be gathering signatures on buses, trains and at transit nodes like Union Station.

MeanerMina in a previous post issued a call to arms for advocates:

This ballot initiative Dana describes above is a great step! I'm all for it! Look for me at your local market talking to voters! Better yet, dear readers, come join me educating voters all over LA!

For more on the Governor's plan to rob transit to fill the funding void in the state budget, check out these two articles from last week:

• Schwarzenegger's Folly: Rumored Budget Would Slash Transit Funds and Gas Tax
• Statewide/Local Advocates Slam Schwarzenegger's Rumored End-Around Cut on Transit Funding

Local transit advocates are reacting with fury to the Governor’s rumored plan to skirt a court ruling requiring that the state stop robbing transit funds dedicated in the gas tax by completely revoking the tax and reinstating it as an excise tax.

As reported recently in the LA Times, and briefly discussed here on Monday, to close a looming $20.7 billion budget deficit,
Schwarzenegger is expected to release a plan this Friday to eliminate
the state’s gas tax, which has specific mandates to provide funding for
transit, and replace it with an excise tax that would not have transit
funding requirements. The net effect would be 5 cents less per gallon
at the pump and continued decimation of state funding for transit
operators.

Erin Steva, the transportation advocate for CALPIRG, makes the case that the Governor’s end run on state law is not just bad policy, but politically tone deaf, "  Raiding public transportation funding is the wrong move. We need more
transit, not less to keep our cities moving and our economy strong.
Cutting public transit funding goes against California’s commitment to
fight global warming pollution and clearly violates the voter’s will to
expand, not contract, transit."

"It’s what we feared," said California Transit Association (CTA)
spokesperson Jeff Wagner told SF Streetsblog earlier this week. "This proposal circumvents both the law and
the will of the voters. The court ruled they had to stop doing it, so
what do they do? They change the laws that were in place. Time and
again, transit has been the piggy bank they’ve gone to to fill
in the gaps in the other stuff. It’s shortsighted and it’s in blatant
contravention of the voters’ will."

Wagner said the CTA was tempered in its reaction to its victory in
court last year, saying they assumed the governor could come up with a
scheme to continue taking money from transit to plug the general fund
hole. "We knew that our lawsuit victory would provide us with some
reprieve, but we were cautious. We knew that it wasn’t beneath this
administration."

Locally, transit advocates were just as outraged.

Transit Coalition executive director Bart Reed tells LA Streetsblog, "We’re basing these comments on rumors, but unfortunately with this Governor rumors often turn out to get worse as they get closer to policy.  The Governor is disingenuos when he claims to be green on transportation.  The only time he’s green is when a special interest lobbies to turn a brown project green or when it comes to promoting cars that are slightly more clean than others.  The stats are there showing that transit is greener, more efficient and more cost efficient than even the cleanest cars, yet he proposes another slap in the face to transit riders.  Hopefully this proposal never makes it to the legislature, but even if it does let’s hope the Senate and Assembly reject it before a court has to slap the Governor in the face again."

Southern California Transit Advocates Dana Gabbard was just as critical, but also offered some hope for the future, "I think this will just add momentum to the efforts of the transit
industry to have a initiative on the ballot later this year that
creates a firewall to protect transit funding from further raids. I
know SO.CA.TA at its meeting Saturday will discuss our plans to help
gather signatures!

And I think my previous comments pretty well says it all.

All of this is regrettable and certainly in the long run the
shortchanging of transit is shortsighted. We should be preparing for
the future but many officials persist in praising transit while robbing
it of the means of being able to handle a surge of demand when gas
prices spike again. So frustrating! "

However, Damien Goodmon suggests a practical lobbying solution for transit boosters, "Perhaps the Governator needs to be reminded that in a few months now
he’ll no longer have his police escort.  More transit cuts mean more
hoopdies on the road and more traffic backups from broken down cars.  We must appeal to his personal selfishness."

As this plan continues to move forward, check back here for more details, reaction and analysis.

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.

The day after Thanksgiving is a unique day. It is not a holiday
but many people get it off. Yet regular weekday transit service
generally operates. It presents a rare chance to explore transit in far
flung areas and ride services that only operate Monday to Friday
without having to take a day off from work.

It was in 1995 that Charles Hobbs, a long time member of Southern
California Transit Advocates, noted the foregoing in suggesting the
group undertake a Day After Thanksgiving study tour. Thus started what
has become an annual tradition. Generally in October interested members
caucus and vote on where to go on the Day After Thanksgiving. Usually
3-5 proposals prepared by members vie to be the choice that year.Over the years the destinations have included:

1995 – Ventura County
1996 – Banning (Riverside County)
1997 – San Diego
1998 – Santa Barbara
1999 – Bakersfield
2000 – Ventura County II (this one was mostly SCAT, while the 1995 trip was mostly VISTA)
2001 – Lancaster and Kern County (Kern Regional)
2002 – Palm Springs (SunLINK)
2003 – Riverside and San Diego Counties (using RTA #202)
2004 – San Diego II (more suburban than the trip in 1997)
2005 – Eastern Ventura County (Thousand Oaks Transit/Simi Valley Transit)
2006 – San Diego III (Rural routes)
2007 – Bakersfield II
2008 – Ventura/Santa Barbara (Coastal Express)

This year it was Charles Hobbs who prepared the winning idea,
an all-Metrolink exploration riding most of the system in a single day. It has even been written up in the latest issue of Metrolink
Matters, probably more exposure (and in an official organ, to boot!)
than any SO.CA.TA activity has ever received.

The tour will travel through most of the areas in which Metrolink
provides service — from Orange to San Bernardino to Moorpark to
Lancaster — and will take advantage of Metrolink’s discounted weekend
"Friends and Family 4-Pack" ticket offer, which lowers the cost of
participation to $7.25 per person for the entire day and is
specifically available on "Thanksgiving Friday" as Metrolink dubs the
day after Thanksgiving.

Streetsblog
readers are welcome to join in the fun. We’ll meet up Friday November
27 at the Metrolink ticket vending machine at the east portal of Union
Station (the side closest to the Metro headquarters building, near the
giant aquarium) by 7:30 a.m. From there we’ll make our way to the
platform to catch our first train, departing at 8 a.m. We’ll have a 40
minute lunch break at Union Station in the early afternoon. And
bathrooms needs are no problem since Metrolink train cars have
facilities onboard. You can even bring a snack or beverage and partake
while watching the passing scenery.

Member Nick Matonak will be posting updates on the day of the event via his twitter page.If you plan to join us mid-trip you might want to check the
Metrolink twitter page to verify whether it shows any delays that may
have impeded our progress.

As our website notes, these trips aren’t just recreational. They
also help familiarize those on the trip with transit service
(frequency, hours of service, connections, etc.) in other areas. And
our participants who don’t use transit daily get a dose of "seat of the
pants" knowledge about transit issues.

I’ll acknowledge that the day after Thanksgiving isn’t
representative as to ridership patterns. Many folks who have the day
off stay home or are shopping. Colleges and schools don’t have classes,
which is especially apparent when you take a bus that serves a
University and find it mostly empty when assuredly during a regular
weekday it likely has ample patronage. Although this effect generally
eases and ridership visibly increases by mid-afternoon.

I have the unique honor of being the only person who has
participated in all 14 trips, and I will be joining in to
experience the adventure this year once again. It should be an
interesting day.

So.CA.TA in Fullerton in 2005 Photo: Trainweb.com

In my experience the most productive events to do outreach about transit are transportation related ones versus community street fairs, environmental expos, etc. Openings of new Metrolink stations and Metro fixed guideway projects, such as the Green Line, Red Line, and Orange Line, have always been excellent in that regard, along with the occasional transit fairs held at community centers and the like. The annual Alternative Energy and Transportation Expo in Santa Monica and Fullerton Railroad Days, which is currently in limbo due to local politics, have been very well attended events that I very much enjoy participating in.

As the Eastside Gold Line extension opening approaches, quite likely on Nov. 14th per a Metro staff report first noticed and posted by commentor LAofAnaheim on the Streetsblog Eastside opening thread, I have been looking back at what I have learned and experienced during my years staffing a booth on behalf of the Southern California Transit Advocates.

You get a wide variety of questions. Some are quite practical, like how do I get to LAX from downtown or the San Fernando Valley on a bus. Or a question about the status of a particular proposal -- at the recent alt car expo a gentleman asked about having direct rail service linking Los Angeles and San Francisco. I was able to share with him the progress the Coast Rail Coordinating Council, whose agendas I receive, has had in that regard and the obstacles it faces, especially of funding and cooperation (or lack thereof) of the host freight railroad (U.P.).

The questions you get asked often depended on the location. At Fullerton people asked about the Metrolink half hour service in Orange County that OCTA plans to start next year. In Santa Monica you would be asked about the progress of the Exposition light rail project and westward extension of the Purple Line in the Wilshire corridor. And for some reason wherever you are folks are always asking about the progress of having high speed service to Vegas (aka maglev to Anaheim).

For over a decade I have had outreach materials from the California High Speed Rail Authority at our booths and have sought input from attendees about the proposed statewide bullet train network. With few exceptions the public would embrace it even as officials and bureaucrats fixated on cost, routing etc. This gave me a notion passage of the long-delayed bonds wasn't a pipedream -- sometimes ordinary people are way ahead of the experts and so called leaders.

Then you get the occasional perverse individual, someone who plants themselves in front of your display space and declares that public transportation is a waste of money and that no one rides rail. I usually let these types spout off because it is obvious their minds are set and any attempt at dialogue would serve no purpose. It is better to let them deliver their philippic and afterward thank them for sharing their point of view. They usually stroll away with a self satisfied thin smile as they seek out the next exhibitor to denounce. I do wonder why anyone would make the effort to go to an event whose purpose is anathema to them. Don't they have something more enjoyable to do on a Saturday morning? Or maybe it gives them some sort of perverse pleasure engaging in smug vilifying.

This year at the alt car expo I encountered a variation on this with a gentleman whose comments lead up to the fact that public transit is subsidized and is not a profit making activity. He held up his hand as if that fact negated the need for any further discussion and strode away. There are people who think capitalism is the be all and end all and have no conception than anything other than profit can be the purpose of an activity.

Then we have the exotic technology true believers--folks touting a variety of solutions like monorail or maglev or personal rapid transit or (fill in the blank). I even met at the 2006 Alt-car Expo Brian C. Brooks, who the past few years has gotten some attention for his proposal of criss-crossing Los Angeles county with monorails built along flood control channels. The essential problem with these folks was summed up by David Brewster, publisher of a Seattle-based daily online newspaper called Crosscut. As quoted in the Nov. 5, 2007 Christian Science Monitor article "Mass transit plan makes waves in Seattle Ecotopia" regarding policy discussions being dominated by that those that are "... cantankerous, contentious, and think they can design a better transportation system because they did it last night in their garage."

One would think it is self-obvious billions are not spent based on scrawls made on the back of an envelope, but for a true believer once one has what they know is the answer all that is left is to work backward to prove it is what needs to be done (ignoring and or minimizing the downside, contrary data, political obstacles, etc.). I had one guy one Saturday morning at the alt cat expo who shoved into my hand a sheet he had prepared on Personal Rapid Transit. Once I started to point out the attributes that limit its application to being a circulator/collector at airports and the like and that it isn't well suited for being a mass transit solution he snatched the sheet away and stalked off, angry at my temerity of not being an instant convert to his cause.

I do a lot of describing realpolitik as to funding and planning. A woman who lived in Orange County at one of the Fullerton shows told me a particular street she lived on needed bus service. This was solely based on anecdotal perceptions--she had no supporting facts as to commercial or industrial destinations it would serve that could at least provide some sense of whether such service would be productive. When I asked how well she knew the local political scene and what points of influence she could use to reach a member of the OCTA Board she confessed she didn't even know which County Supervisor's district she resided in. She had only a vague impression to justify what she wanted and no means of effectively advocating for the proposal. I tried to offer some fundamental first steps she could take but must admit I had qualms that someone who to that point had been so disengaged from the political process was unlikely to be successful as an advocate. But for what it was worth, I tried to share with her my knowledge of how one goes about advocating for a new bus line.

And then once in a while you'll have an attendee spontaneously express heartfelt thanks. It is a small thing but it is nice to know a few folks grasp the value of what we do. It isn't why do what we do, but we appreciate the kind thoughts when they do come our way. It helps you slog through the mounds of stupidity than you usually encounter as an advocate.

Photo: LA Wad/Flickr

I'd like to begin by stating I have nothing but admiration for activist Harold Katz's nearly 40 years of involvement with traffic and transportation issues in Los Angeles. But respectfully I think he is wrong headed in his recent commentary for CityWatch titled "Bus-Only Lane will Turn Wilshire into Traffic Mess."

I am not going to engage in a battle of statistics--my focus is on the larger picture.  I would have to believe to some extent the concerns raised about auto accidents being caused by the bus lane can be addressed by their design and associated mitigation measures. I don't see a fatal flaw in the basic concept of the lanes. And I don't know why there is a concern the project will result in a unending stream of LAPD motorcycle traffic officers giving out traffic tickets to poor innocent auto drivers victimized by the big bad bus lanes.  

The unstated premise is that facilitating automobiles is the ultimate goal of improving mobility. When Harold decries that in his view a "bus rider will save 5 minutes and the thousands of auto drivers will lose 26 minutes" he avoids the question how many bus riders will benefit and whether the improvement for bus users exceeds the cost to auto drivers.

The El Monte busway proves a single lane used by high capacity vehicles can carry as many people as 4-5 lanes of mixed flow traffic; Wilshire has the potential to have similar results. The lanes also have incredible symbolic value --  instead of the lipservice long paid to the goal of our region being committed to having mass transit NOT automobiles as its priority it will be expressed as a tangible part of the landscape in the form of these lanes. And if Wilshire is a success it will be a model for other bus lanes. The 1995 Metro Long Range Transportation Plan included what was supposed to be 101 miles of bus lanes along major arterials. After all these years isn't it time to implement that long deferred part of our new vision of our future transportation network?

By the way, along most of Wilshire the curb lanes are only available for parking during non-peak hours. The bus lanes only reallocates them for buses in the peak hours, so "the parking question" Harold hints at I think is moot.

Dana Gabbard has written several stories for Streetsblog over theyears helping to advance issues such as the passage of Measure R and the advancement of many of the transit expansion projects being proposed.  Gabbard has been a member of the Southern California Transit Advocates for fifteen years, and has helpfully written a piece about his roots in advocacy.

Here’s a quick personal anecdote about Dana.  When I first started writing Street Heat almost two years ago I ran into Dana two times in the first week: first at the 2007 Alt Car Expo and later that week at a So.CA.TA.  meeting on the Subway to the Sea.  Since then?  Our paths haven’t crossed once.

Zane at the Time to Move L.A. Conference

So.CA.TA. is billing Zane's appearance as a chance to talk with a transit insider about the future of Metro and the growth of transit in Los Angeles.  In addition to his work on Measure R, Zane is also the former executive director for the Coalition for Clean Air and led the campaign that led to the purchase of the Right of Way for the Expo Line.

Zane's presentation will begin at 1:00pm this Saturday, with the So.CA.TA business meeting to follow at 2:15pm. The event is free and open to the public and will be held on the 4th floor of Angelus Plaza, 255 S. Hill St in downtown Los Angeles.

I never imagined it would take this long to pass the plan.

You may remember that Metro delayed a vote on the 2008 LRTP until this year so that it could take into account whether or not Measure R had passed when creating its project timeline.  Over eight months after the transit tax's passage, the Board is finally ready to vote on the LRTP.

Or are they?  At a "workshop" on the LRTP last month, then Board Chair Antonio Villaraigosa moved to hold off passing the 2009 LRTP until July so that Metro could do more outreach.  Tt had been eighteen months since Imagine campaign had kicked off and the Mayor claimed he wanted to make Metro's vision clear to county residents before its passage.  If there's been any new outreach in the last six weeks, I'm not aware of it. Based on email conversations; neither is the Bus Rider's Union or the Southern California Transit Advocates.  So.CA.TA's  Dana Gabbard took a humorous look at the lack of any new outreach efforts on behalf of the LRTP.

...previous Plan preparation included convening stakeholder groups to provide input while the draft plan was being formulated and a round of public meetings in the region (held in the evenings) on the draft plan were conducted seeking input.

This current plan has had minimal to no substantive means by which to comment. A poorly publicized hearing held during a weekday in downtown L.A. falls far short of what used to be common practice.

That said, I should note the old way of doing things still mostly resulted in what you would expect they planned to do anyway, so I am not claiming it was paradise or some such. But at least the niceties were observed.

As best I can tell, with the exception of the addition of some clarifying language on bicycle and pedestrian funding; the current draft plan is no different than what was presented at last month's workshop.  So if they weren't going to change anything, or do more outreach, than what was the point of the delay?  I'm pretty sure they didn't just hold-up the process so that they could release the new bicycle and pedestrian funding numbers.

Image: AnsaldoBreda

For the fifth meeting in a row, the fate of Contract No. P2550, the one granting an exclusive right to manufacture light rail cars to the Italian company AnsaldoBreda, will certainly bring fireworks to the meeting.  Because Breda is years behind schedule on its current contract and the cars are too heavy for the tracks, most rail advocates want the contract for new cars to go out to bid.  However, AnsaldoBreda counters that it's Metro's fault the cars aren't built to their specifications and has amassed an army of union workers to press their case.  You see, AnsaldoBreda is promising to build a new rail car factory in L.A. County.  Even though the Board of Directors can't legally take that into account when awarding a contract, the presence of scores of union workers demanding that the Board "vote for jobs" is too big for any politician to feasibly ignore.

However, hope that the Board might cancel the exclusive arrangement and put future cars construction out to bid received new hope.  An article in today's Times reports that, Metro CEO Art Leahy sent a letter to the Metro Board asking them to not re-new the contract with AnsaldoBreda.  The LA County Federation of Labor sent a memorandum countering Leahy's, but it again stresses jobs creation, something that the Metro Board is not legally allowed to consider.

Other items of note include a discussion of whether or not Metro should support efforts to allow more hybrids and other "clean" vehicles to use HOV and HOT Lanes throughout California and whether or not to extend the January 2011 sunset for the hybrid access law.  There is now precedent for allowing "hybrid benefit" laws such as these to retire, as the City of Los Angeles voted last year to end its "free parking for hybrids" program.  You would think with the state's ongoing fiscal crisis that legislators would be looking for ways to raise money, not ways to hand out more discounts.

Speaking of HOT Lanes, there is also an agenda item on the consent calendar to set the "toll costs" for single passenger vehicles to access the coming "Express Lanes" on the I-10 and I-110.  The fees would be set at a minimum of twenty-five cents a mile and a maximum of $1.40.  Streetsblog will follow-up on this story a little later this week or sometime next week.

And speaking of user fees, the Board will also approve a hearing plan needed to set the fares for the Silver Line Bus Service during the September 24 Board of Directors meeting.  Does anyone want to bet on whether the hearing is held before or after a debate on AnsaldoBreda?

(Editor's Note: This is the first in what will hopefully be a series of residents defending their community as the best for car-free living in Los Angeles.  Make your submissions to damien@streetsblog.org.  For more information on the series, visit yesterday's story.)

I am a resident of the Wilshire corridor (especially the stretch from Alvarado to Fairfax). I live, work and do most of my living along that famous boulevard. And do so easily sans car. Wilshire is lined with places to eat, nightspots, markets, medical offices, famous museums, etc. Apartment complexes cluster in the Miracle Mile, Wilshire Center, Westlake, etc.

Daytime you have frequent local public transit service from Metro (Line 20--downtown L.A. to Westwood Bl.) and Big Blue Bus (Line 2--Westwood Blvd. to downtown Santa Monica). Overnight line 20 serves the entire street (16 miles!) with owl service that operates on a 30 minute headway! Plus you have the Rapid 720 and during weekday peak the Super Express 920 for key linkages and long-distance travel. Western Ave. to downtown L.A. is also served by the Metro subway. Several neighborhoods (Koreatown, Miracle Mile, Pico/Union) have DASH community circulators. And via various connections you have access to the web of Rapid, busway and Metro Rail services that criss-cross the County plus Metrolink and Amtrak for regional access and beyond. It can be mindboggling when you understand how transit access along Wilshire works and how to make use of it.

Last Friday I received a forwarded email from Dana Gabbard of So.CA.TA. fame from someone looking to move to Los Angeles.  This future resident wanted to know what the best neighborhood for transit riders was in L.A.  While Gabbard can certainly offer a take on pretty much any community in Los Angeles, we thought it would be better to let residents speak on behalf of their own communities.

So how do you feel about your community?  Do you think it's the best one in Los Angeles for living a car-free lifestyle?  If so, feel free to submit a short essay to me, via email with your thoughts and we'll publish it here on Streetsblog.  As essays come in we'll send them to our future resident and in the end we'll find out who wins when we find out where he moved to.

Tomorrow we'll feature Gabbard's post on his community and later in the week I'll write a post on Fairfax.  We look forward to hearing from everyone else out there...