The Way I See It - Los Angeles Resurrected

Permalink +

Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 7:00 am  //  Ham Hayes

Click on image for larger view.
Source: Arturo Ramos, Wikipedia, "Transportation of Los Angeles". See link below article.
I’ve been to Los Angeles many times. I even remember the Red and Yellow electric street cars that served the city from after World War II until their demise in 1961. You could buy a can of fresh Northern California air to send to your relatives in the City of Angels if you wanted to twist their knickers about the smog even then. My more recent experiences with LA were in the 1980s. Then I had an east coast bias toward LA. It was a city out of control, gaudy, sprawled, congested and smog ridden. My frequent flights to LA would seem to bounce off the top of the smog layer as we flew over the San Bernadino Mountains into the LA basin. LA culture was as loose and sprawling as its runaway development. My thoughts rambled from, “What a way to spoil a good climate,” to, “I’m glad I grew up in San Francisco,” to, “We’ve done a better job in Boston.” Not too arrogant, mind you, just a little pat on the back for having so-called “good judgment."

As then, so now, I associate LA with cars, freeways and air pollution. Ironically, I traveled to LA last week to consult with the LA Metropolitan Transportation Authority, aka Metro. This was my first trip to Southern California since 1989 and I was not looking forward to the struggle of car rentals, freeway traffic, expensive parking and enduring the American equivalent of "Survivor." My hosts suggested I entertain using public transportation. They assured me my images of ancient, smelly and unreliable buses were a thing of the past. This is the new LA, try it.

My first challenge was getting from the airport, LAX, to downtown LA. Although the rail portion of Metro has 73 miles of track, at this point LAX is not one of the stations. I personally attribute that to a strong taxi and limo lobby. That is also the likely reason there is virtually no information at LAX about connections to Metro. If it weren’t for some pre-trip Googling of the Metro web site, I would not have known about the excellent express bus from LAX to Union Station downtown. For a $7 fare, the 13 mile trip was clearly the least expensive solution when compared to car, taxi, or private shuttle. Another bias of mine began to come apart on this trip as well. The drivers actually smiled and were courteous! I had learned my mass transit basics at the hands of another major city’s mass transit system. Snow White’s Grumpy is Prince Charming compared to many of the drivers from that system. The helpfulness of Metro personnel was a continuing and pleasant surprise throughout my visit.

LA Metro’s annual revenue is $3.8 billion. Slightly less than 10% of that comes from fareboxes and advertising. The rest comes from federal, state and local subsidies. Metro has about 1.5 million total boardings daily on rail and bus lines over an area of 4,000 square miles with a population of 9.7 million. The base fare is $1.25 per boarding. The working (commuting) population of Los Angeles County, the region served by Metro, is about 4.4 million. For three days I joined those folks. My personal journey was on Metro’s Gold Line. The Gold Line has only been operating for a few days and is the latest extension of Metro’s light rail system. It is clean, fast and frequent, and it was full during the three days I rode it. It is clearly something for the LA community to be proud of. The major expansion and improvements of the LA County mass transit system really gained momentum in the early 1990s. From post WWII until then, freeways ruled. Is the Metro system successful? To a large degree it is. It has a large ridership, even though the percentage of single passenger automobile commuters is still around 70% for LA County overall. The cost is high. If Metro were funded entirely by fares, riders would be paying over $10 a boarding. The good news is that many Angelinos who can’t afford private transportation can still get to work . And California taxpayers have supported the expansion and operations of Metro, at least up to this point. On the downside, because of California’s financial crisis, cuts in Metro budgets and service are now likely. In short, kudos to California taxpayers and government officials for making substantial headway in mass transit over the last two decades.

The scale of LA’s Metro might not provide many transferable lessons for our local mass transit system, but one lesson is worthy of our consideration. In Metro’s expansion, it appears to have fallen short in providing multiple hubs, especially to a number of transportation, commercial, business and industrial centers. The pre-condition of LA’s sprawl didn’t help, of course, but hubs are a great way to concentrate urban activities and provide home-to-work access. A specific case in LA is the lack of rail connection to LAX, forcing the use of surface streets and freeways and the associated fossil fuel burners. Union Station is another example. It is the only major hub for the various rail modes, so cross radial rail commuting is more difficult.

Bellingham and Whatcom County have to deal with waterfront redevelopment, sprawl prevention and a growing population. Our transit system expansion needs to consider hubs and high speed links as well. Our transportation centers, Bellingham Airport, the Fairhaven train and bus terminals, and smaller town centers need to be viewed as part of an interlinked system that needs to have high speed access between centers and ultimately between living space and workspace. This “spine” should be addressed prior to the expanded industrial, commercial and residential development which is sure to come. As LA has found, it is a much longer and more difficult journey to retrofit mass transit into a system built around cars and highways than it is to plan ahead.

Related Links:

-> Wikipedia, "Transportation of Los Angeles"