Streetsblog Los Angeles

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. Read more…

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)

Photo: The 818 Now

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.)

The Transit Coalition has big plans for Metrolink. For larger versions of the current Metrolink Map and a map with the proposed changes for the regional rail system, click the embedded links in the text above.

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.

Read more...

This was one of four cars on an Orange County Line run leaving Los Angeles Union Station to Orange County and Oceanside. It gets busier in Orange County.  Photo and description: LA Wad/Flickr

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:

Read more...

Photo: Szoksnapshots/Flickr

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.

Photos: Los Angeles Times

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.

The transportation spending bill passed by the Senate this week includes $50 million in rail safety grants sought in June
by environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) — but the
bill may not become law for months, and today Boxer told California’s
Metrolink commuter rail that interim safety protections would have to
stay in place.

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.

Read more…

Photo:SP8254/Flickr

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