3 Day Transit Only Trip to Los Angeles

A job interview in Los Angeles on December 20th meant I had to travel down there and get around the city. My choice was to use transit and avoid the use of a car for the entire trip. I could have taken Amtrak from Portland and it would have been about $50 cheaper than flying if I had to pay but I cashed in my frequent flyer miles and got a free round trip ticket to Los Angeles which included a free upgrade to first class on the trip back – bonus! My first preference would have been to fly into Burbank which is more convenient and has better transit access but it would have been 15,000 more miles for the ticket which is beyond what I had or wanted to spend so LAX would be the spot I flew into.

Red Line Train Arriving At Pioneer Courthouse Square with Siemens S70 cars

The 176 is saved but...

Image via Wikipedia
I few weeks ago I went over some of the trials and tribulations of  the Los Angeles Metro Route 176 that travels from Highland Park to El Monte. For now the 176 has been saved from extinction, but will the changes going to help the 176 survive in the long run?

Originally Metro planned to replace the eastern portion of route 176 from the area of the San Gabriel Mission to El Monte with an extension of route 287 that currently travels from the Montebello Mall to El Monte creating a "U" shaped route.

Instead Metro will interline the 176 and 287 so when a 287 bus arrives at El Monte station it will change its headsign to 176 and visa versa.Service on the 287 will be reduced from every 30 minutes to every 45 minutes but the frequency of the 176 will go from a horrible every 70 minutes to a more reasonable every 45 minutes.

The question is, will this do anything to help the 176 or are we putting lipstick on a pig?

1. Will the Frequency Increase help the 176?

It might help slightly but it still is not a memory friendly timetable and in the Metro report there is not a mention of what will happen to rush hour frequency on the eastern portion of the line that is already every 35-minutes.

2. Does this address any of the destination issues with the 176?

No, there is no change in the actual route although there will now be a one seat ride for riders on the 176 to the Montebello Mall although Metro may not even put this in the timetables and for 95% of the riders of the 176 going to Montebello Mall via El Monte is substantially out of the way.

In addition this does nothing to address the issues that exist on the western portion of the route. Mainly that it serves no destinations that riders along the route want to travel to except with multiple transfers.

In other words, the changes to the 176 do not address the fundamental problems with the route. In an ideal world it would be wonderful if all the points that needed to be served by a bus (or for that matter rail) route but we do not live in an idea world. We have to look at service beyond straight corridors and look at getting bus service to the most rider generators and reworking weak lines to hit more of those generators.

Related articles

• A Look at Los Angeles Metro's 176 (transitinutah.blogspot.com)
• A Trip on Route 176 (transitinutah.blogspot.com)
• What to do with Route 176 (transitinutah.blogspot.com)

What to do with Route 176

Image via Wikipedia
In previous entries I did a short history of LA Metro's route 176 and a brief description of route. As promised today I am going to look at the 176 from a marketing prespective, look at some alternatives to make the line more successful and finally look at some alternatives for the western end of the line to keep some bus service in the section of route that has no announced replacements.

First of all, there is two things that is currently hurting route 176.

The first is the current schedule of the 176. Right now the buses run every 70 minutes.You could basically call this a bean counter schedule. The present route requires a 55-minute running time so with layovers you can run the service with only two buses. While a bean counter may like being able to run the route with only two buses, it will not attract any choice riders because of the lack of frequency.

While a 60-minute frequency still would not be enough to attract a large number of choice riders, at least the buses would be running at a schedule to remember. Having the ability to know that a bus should always come at six after the hour makes riding the bus simple compared to the bus comes at different times at every hour of the day.

Another item that hurts the 176 from a marketing perspective is the lack of major destinations along the route. As I mentioned in the route description the route does service a major industrial park but they have their own built in limitations. The bus also serves a major tourist destination in the San Gabriel Mission but very few tourist will venture onto Metro buses, especially in the suburban areas that bus service is extremely sparse.

The route does not service any major shopping centers either. Alhambra has a small 20 year old minor mall, but it has no regional draw. Except for the downtown South Pasadena area, most of the retail along the route is aging grocery store centers and strip malls which are not conducive to riding the bus.

One of the problems faced by many Metro routes is the long held philosophy of Metro's predecessor RTD and Metro itself. Their concept was to run a bus as far as it could in the same corridor creating extremely straight but long routes. The problem with the 176 is that there is not a lot of through streets in the area that do not go into NIMBY land, so the route was always one of compromise.

What the 176 is a community feeder line that the RTD turned into an extremely long route that did not work. Sadly, RTD's successor has also done a poor job of designing routes that are not major corridor routes or designing any routes at all. There has been few changes to the bus routes outside the ones that were forced on Metro by the Bus Riders Union Consent Degree.

What can be done to change the route?

While none of these proposals would be acted on, here are some ideas to create a more successful route 176.

Idea one would actually restore a portion of the route to Glassell Park but avoid the section of Division Street which caused all the NIMBY issues due to worn out 70+ year old concrete with its sub base worn down by erosion.


View Larger Map

Not only would restore service on a portion of Avenue 50 and El Paso that loss service a couple of years ago, but it would also add service along a portion of York Blvd that has never had bus service and add service to the biggest regional mall in the area.

However, the potential customers who would travel to the mall would be residents of South Pasadena who would most likely not be willing to ride a bus through Highland Park. The route would also duplicate part of one of the Glendale Beeline routes and MTA Route 183 which could be seen as a negative.

Idea two is a variation of Idea One.


View Larger Map

Back in the 1980 period, RTD proposed major changes to transit service in order to change routes so that they did not look anything like the streetcar routes that once existed. In the vain attempt to eliminate anything that resembled old streetcar routes, RTD proposed to replace service on then route 6 (now 83) on York Blvd with a reroute of Route 430 (176) along York.

The downside of this is that the frequency of the 83 along York is every 25 minutes so the present frequency of the 176 would not satisfy riders along that portion of York Blvd. However, it would also have the benefit of creating new service on the section of York Blvd north of Eagle Rock Blvd that has never had bus service before.

Here is a third idea that adds service not only to the Glendale Galleria area but also serves the Glendale Metrolink station and provide connections to Bee Line.


View Larger Map

The benefits that all these proposals have in common is to increase the number of major destinations served by the route (although they would still be on the extreme end of the line), add service to areas that do not presently have any, and provide new connection opportunities that do not presently exist with the 176.

The question is would the increased ridership justify the increased cost? The present scheduling of the route would nulify any improvements to the destinations served due to the lack of service frequency.

Since Metro is planning to save the eastern portion of the route, here is an idea to save service on the western portion of the route. Now this would have been easier if Metro still operated route 262, however that route is now Montebello Bus Lines Route 30. The route could be extended from its present terminus at Garfield/Atlantic/Huntington Drive triangle to replace the portion of Route 176 to Highland Park. This would eliminate that evil duplication that occurs in Alhambra and save service through South Pasadena to Highland Park.

The ultimate issue with the route is something that cannot be resolved and that is the economic and social divide that separates South Pasadena from the other communities the 176 travel through. The best solution which is Metro has no concept in operating, will be to work with the city of South Pasadena and set up a Call N ' Ride operation for the city providing every half hour connecting service to the Gold Line. This would provide service to those that need it in the area plus provide convenient connections to other services.

When push comes to shove, there is few people who will probably notice when the 176 disappears from the landscape. After 35 years of being ignored except to cut service to the bones, there is few riders left to really care what happens to the western portion of the route.

A Trip on Route 176

Image by Metro Transportation Library and Archive via Flickr
Last time I gave a brief history of LA Metro's Route 176. Today I will describe the route and some of the social-economic situations that exist along the line.

Map and schedule of the 176.

As I mentioned yesterday, the 176 currently starts its run near the corner of Figueroa and York in Highland Park. The actual end of the line is behind a aging 70's shopping center. At the corner of the shopping center is a fast food restaurant that used to be very good although I have not been there in several years.

Highland Park used to be a streetcar suburb but these days is sadly better know for the large amount of gang violence that takes place in the area. It is not an area you would want to be walking around after the sun goes down and sometimes even when it is up.

After leaving its layover zone the 176 turns on Avenue 64 before turning left onto York Blvd and crosses the elegant York Avenue Bridge. To the west you can see the very tall former Santa Fe bridge that the Gold Line now travels across. If the payment has worn down enough on the York bridge you can see railroad tracks in embedded in the street (unless they have been removed in the last few years). These are not former Pacific Electric tracks but are the only remains of a profitable former Union Pacific branch line that used to run all the way to Pasadena. However, when Interstate 210 was put in the tracks were forced out.

After you cross the bridge over the Arroyo Seco you have not only gone over a divide in the land, but you have also crossed a major economic divide. You have now entered the city of South Pasadena who has infamously been fighting the construction of a freeway segment for many years. Don't get the idea that there is a up-swelling of anti-car attitude in the city, they want the freeway they just in somewhere else (read between the lines: over toward the Los Angeles border in the less affluent part of town).

The first stop in the city used to generate some peak loads as there was a clothing manufacturer located here but it has been gone for many years and the riders with it. The line then makes brushes the Gold Line before heading north on Pasadena which turns into Mission Street. At the corner of Mission and Meridian is the Gold Line's stop in South Pasadena with the 176 being the only full time bus service the station sees.

The route then travels through the small South Pasadena business district which does not look all that different from the scenes shot here for the 1980's Michael J. Fox film "Teen Wolf". At the corner of Fair Oaks and Mission you have a connection with Metro Route 260 and there is also the Fair Oaks Pharmacy which features a classic soda fountain counter.

Once pass Fair Oaks the route travels through a residential area before turning onto Garfield and traveling along the San Marino/South Pasadena border. The route then crosses Huntington Drive and once again moves out into the city of Alhambra. Until the route turns onto Main Street, the 176 shares the route with Montebello Municipal Bus Route M30. Once the route turns onto Main Street it travels through the heart of the Alhambra Business District. Along Main Street the 176 shares the street with the 79 which means that along two of its primary corridors it shares the streets with other routes and we know how some transit circles see any duplication of service as something to be avoided.

Just after Main Street turns into Las Tunas the 176 turns onto Mission and passes the San Gabriel Mission. Metro plans to continue serving the rest of the 176 route by extending another route to run from El Monte to this intersection since it is the busier section of the line.The route along Mission is mostly residential with some small businesses located along the way. Most of the neighborhoods would rate as lower middle class.

The route continues down Mission, turns onto Rosemead Blvd sharing the street with the 266, then travels through the Telstar Industrial Park before making its way to the El Monte Bus Station. The Industrial Park is another generator of business but like most industrial parks generates those riders at only shift change times.

That gives you a very basic concept of the route. Next time I plan to look at the route from a marketing prospective to see what is the major failings of the route and what can be done to make the route more viable. I will also look at some alternatives to keep service along most of the route.

A Look at Los Angeles Metro's 176

Image via Wikipedia
Like most transit systems across the country, Metro in Los Angeles has been facing tough economic times. However, like the rest of its brethren in California, they have also been facing a double whammy of recession and money being taken out of transportation to shore up its crumbling general fund by the former governor. Now Metro is proposing to cut even more service in June including route 176 which travels from Highland Park to the El Monte Station at the eastern end of the El Monte Busway.

The 176 is near and dear to my heart because I spent many years living along the route and riding it. Here is the map and schedule of the current 176.

The route first started as a Pacific Electric bus traveling from Mission and Fair Oaks in South Pasadena to Alhambra connecting several of the PE's major rail lines. The bus line was later extended to replace rail service and for many years was route 79 traveling from Main and Garfield in Alhambra through South Pasadena and Highland Park and ended up at Huntington Drive and Monterey Road.

In April, 1976 the RTD, Metro's predecessor, revamped routes in the San Gabriel valley and surrounding areas, and the little 79 was split up into two other lines. The first line, the 143, took the park of the 79 from Highland Park to Huntington and Monterey Rd. and continued all the way to East LA. The 143 was latter merged with route 425 and later renumbered 256 which continues today although it has also faced being axed at one time or another over the last few years.

The 430 took over the other part of the 79 from Highland Park to Alhambra plus portions of other routes to create the present 176. In early 1977, the route was extended from Highland Park to Glassell Park via Ave 50 replacing a short shuttle route. For 30+ years the 430/176 traveled back and forth between Glassell Park and El Monte with little notice until the portion between York and Figueroa in Highland Park to Glassell Park was cut in order to allow Metro to retire its remaining and aged 35 foot RTS buses.

That brings up to the present time and the very real possibility that this route will probably meet its demise in a few months. I am going to use this route as a case study on what can be done to route that has largely been ignored for 30 years to improve its performance, the socially-economic conditions that apply to the line, and some alternatives to the Metro proposal.

In the next entry I will describe the current route and some of the different neighborhoods the bus travels through and other interesting facts about the route.

High Speed Rail

Image via Wikipedia
Over the last two years since the election of President Obama, the big rage has been high speed rail. The administration has been very supportive of rail and has been pushing special funding for projects including ones in Florida and California. Even Utah Transit Authority joined a coalition that supports high speed rail in several western states.

However, after the recent elections several states that were on the fast track for rail improvements now have governors that are putting the breaks on those systems including Wisconsin and Ohio. In addition the ARC tunnel from New Jersey into Manhattan has been canceled by the new governor of New Jersey.

The question we have to ask is if these high speed rail projects are the best way to spend our money.

I am going to say that some of these projects just do not make that much sense. A perfect example is the project between Tampa and Orlando. As was mentioned in a previous issue of This Week In Amtrak, this route is only 81 miles. While the current Amtrak service is not that fast, you also have to take into consideration that the some of the current Amtrak route has severe speed restrictions.

It would cost substantially less to upgrade the existing rail line and provide additional trains in the market. Not only would the construction cost be substantially less but the cost to operate the system would be substantially less.

What many people do not take into consideration is the cost of maintaining the high speed network. While cost increases the higher the speed, the cost goes up exponentially once you reach the 110mph mark.

Wisconsin is another example of spending money for the sake of so called high speed rail. The proposal was to spend $800 millions dollars to build a line that would run at a maximum speed of 110mph. While some upgrade of tracks are needed especially near Madison where most of the tracks are relatively slow speed freight racks.

However, the question needs to be asked, would you see that much more ridership with the train operating at 79mph than you will at 110mph? For the relatively short distance of the route would the increase speed have enough increase in ridership to justify the increased cost of the speed increase?

Let me make it clear, I believe that rail service is and will be successful. California and Washington are two examples showing that rail passenger service can be a success. What I question is spending huge sums of money in areas that probably do not call for that kind of investment.

Look at the investment that California is looking to make in high speed rail. Could the money be more effectively used by upgrading the existing rail networks, getting rid of slow spots, fixing bottlenecks, removing dangerous grade crossings than investing in all new infrastructure?

However, I do see one spot where investment is needed in a new rail line and that is between the Los Angeles area and Bakersfield. Currently there is no viable rail route between the two cities. A new route would could not only benefit rail passenger service but could also benefit Union Pacific and BNSF by giving them an alternative to the only rail route south of Bakersfield through the Tehachapi area

I support an effective rail passenger system in the United States which we do not have right now. However, we need to walk before we can run and when it comes to rail passenger service we are not even crawling in the United States yet.

Los Angeles to cut Metro Rapid Lines

Image via Wikipedia
When you talk about BRT in the United States, Los Angeles and their Metro Rapid program is often brought up as a success story for the operation of BRT. This despite the fact that it is not true BRT and Los Angeles already had examples of BRT: The El Monte Busway, the poor performing Harbor Freeway Transitway, and now the Orange Line.

Metro Rapid started with two lines in June of 2000, the 720 and the 750 that traveled along two of LA's busy corridors Wilshire Blvd and Ventura Blvd. Since then 26 other Rapid lines have been implemented that covers most of Metro's operating area. In addition, Santa Monica Municipal bus lines has its own Rapid Line that runs from Santa Monica to the LAX bus station. Just a couple of months ago Metro introduced its most recent rapid line the 733 between Los Angeles and Santa Monica via Venice Blvd and the Venice area.

When Metro Rapid started there was promises of special bus stops including next bus indicators but only the first two stops received these special bus stops. In addition Metro only had an agreement with the city of Los Angeles for signal priority, so other routes were still stopped by traffic lights although Metro was working on agreements with other cities.

One thing that Metro in Los Angeles did get right is branding. They created a separate brand that differentiated Rapid from other bus routes in the area. In fact Metro created several different brands that each featured its own colors: Orange for every day local routes, Red for Metro Rapid, Blue for express routes (only a couple of these are left), and Silver for Rail services, the Orange Line busway and the new Silver Line connecting the Harbor Freeway and El Monte transitways.

Like every other transit system across the nation that depends on sales tax revenue, Los Angeles is facing making cuts to bus service because of declining sales tax revenue. In addition, Los Angeles is also facing cuts from the state as the Govenator continues to raid transit funds to put into his own pet projects and to shore up California's horrible fiscal situation. Therefore Metro is being forced to cut 4% of its bus service. What is interesting is that several Rapid Lines will be among the casualties.

Even one of the original Rapid lines the 750 will loose weekend service with the cuts. In addition the areas south of downtown Los Angeles will loose several of their Rapid routes outright.

So why, if Metro Rapid is so successful would several routes be on the chopping block?

First of all if you look at the Metro Rapid maps you will notice that except for a couple of exceptions, all Metro Rapid routes follow the same route as the local routes. So in other words the Rapid lines did not create any new markets for bus service. Instead of taking a blank slate and saying where would be the most effective markets to create new markets, they either replaced already existing limited stop service or routed the rapid lines down the same streets as the local lines.

The one route that truly created new markets plus serving existing markets is the 720. This route overlapped two bus corridors creating new opportunities for riders for a through ride.

The other problem with following existing bus service when creating these Metro Rapid routes is that local bus service was cut to provide the Rapid service. This assumes that a majority of the market is looking for the faster ride and the bus stops in between are of no importance. The problem with using is philosophy is not understanding your market. How many of your customers need the local service as opposed to the new Rapid line.

The Utah Transit Authority found this out when they implemented their MAX service. UTA severally cut route 35 that parallels the new MAX route down to hourly service during the day. However, after only a short time UTA increased service to every 30-minutes due to demand for the existing 35.

In fact Metro in Los Angeles is planning to beef up local service when the rapids are cut.

While the Rapid service made since with the length of many Metro routes travel, it is important to determine the market the line is going to go after and not just follow your existing bus routes. When you create a new service clean the slate and look for new markets.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Metro Debuts New Rapid Service between Downtown and Santa Monica (laist.com)
• Los Angeles County bus service cuts planned (sfgate.com)
• MTA drops or reduces 18 bus lines to save about $30 million a year [Updated] (latimesblogs.latimes.com)

Transit station for downtown?

Image via Wikipedia
I have seen comments in the past that we need a bus station in downtown Salt Lake City. We already have Central Station but is located on the far west side of downtown and for people transferring between routes is out of the way.

In addition the station is not truly a central station but nothing more than a glorified TRAX/Front Runner station with a Greyhound component. Hopefully the station will become a true central station over time but we shall see.

While at first thought a bus station in the downtown area would seem like a good idea considering the number of bus routes in the downtown area, the success of such bus stations in other cities have been mixed at best.

For many years the RTD (now MTA) in Los Angeles maintained a large bus station in downtown Los Angeles that was shared with Greyhound. The station was built on what was the approach tracks for the Pacific Electric and their grand Main Street Station. By the 1980's because of cost and the general decline of the neighborhood RTD stopped using the station and it was eventually abandoned by Greyhound.

Spokane, Washington is probably a good example of trying to build something in order to solve a problem that only created more problems. Until their new bus station was built all the bus routes in the downtown area would converge at the intersection of Riverside and Howard. Area businesses complained about the "wall of buses" that would block their streets and bring too many undesirables to the area so it was decided to replace the wall with a bus station (a historic irony is that most of the businesses that complained so much went out of business within a few years after the buses moved a block away to the new transit station).

The bus station was originally designed to be the lobby of a high rise that was to be built above the station however the high rise project was stopped by Spokane's decades long lack of an economy and by CAVE people who didn't like the idea of public-private partnerships (the Spokane area has a big block of CAVE people - Citizens Against Virtually Everything-or in Spokane's case are against everything).

In addition instead of having the bus station become part of the street life in the area, it was instead design to flow people into the skywalk system. However, by the time the transit station was completed the skywalk system was on life support and there was attempts to bring life by to the sidewalks in the area. While there is still some retail and some fast food restaurants to access across the street via the skywalk, the lack of good pedestrian flow to the street side has been a major issue for the bus station. In addition the bus station is often criticized for having too many young people around and scaring off the normals.

Compare that to Denver who has not one but two bus stations located in the downtown core. The difference in Denver is that local bus routes still serve the surface streets with express and regional service routed through the bus stations. Denver's stations are also located underground and where more successful with selling the air rights above the stations. Both stations are connected by Denver's free 16th Street Mall shuttle buses that make frequent trips between the two stations.

Denver is now in the process of replacing the smaller of the two stations with a new larger bus station as part of their Union Station redevelopment project. The bus station will still be underground but will also be a connection from the new light rail station to Union Station which will not only be serving Amtrak but also Denver's new commuter trains that will be running in the next few years.

Another problem that can crop up with downtown bus stations is the value of the property they sit on. In one smaller east coast city, property values and development started hopping in the downtown area so city officials wanted rid of the transit center so the property could be developed into more "useful" purposes. The bus station was not seen as an asset, or part of the downtown area, it was seen as a nuisance taking up valuable land resources.

Looking at the Salt Lake situation, the question is, where would you put the station in order for it to be convenient to a majority of the downtown users, convenient for all the bus lines to get to, and would have enough area for operations?

An ideal situation would have been to integrate it into the design of City Creek Center, although the developers of that project may have seen bus riders as undesirable in their new complex. Most of the other areas would be on the west side of downtown which would place it too close to the already existing Central Station.

The best current solution for Salt Lake City would be to put in dedicated bus lanes to improve bus flow and make bus waiting areas as welcoming as possible. This will do more for transit ridership and the riders than building a duplicate transit center.

Any city or transit system should learn the following lessons if deciding to build a transit center:

-What will be the long term cost of operations and can the transit system afford it on the long term?

-Will the station be designed to flow into the surrounding area or be cut off from the street?

-How will you deal with the perception that too many of a certain type of people hang out at the transit station (whether it be homeless, teenagers, or some other group that others consider undesirable).

-Will air rights above the station be sold and if there is a desire for that will public opinion and the area's economics allow it?

-If real estate starts to boom, will your property be protected from having a hostile city council from keeping the transit center off the land to sell it to a developer?

The number one reason to build a transit center/bus station in a downtown area should be to provide the best possible service to customers, not as a redevelopment solution or a way to move buses somewhere else. Build a transit center for the wrong reasons is only asking from it to fail in the long run.

A look at the Gold Line in Los Angeles

Image via Wikipedia
The Gold Line in Los Angeles has been beat up since its opening in 2003. Ridership has been disappointing and everyone is quick to point fingers including blaming light rail despite the extreme success of the other light rail lines in Los Angeles.

In a way, the Gold Line is near and dear to my heart. The line operates along the former right of way of the Santa Fe Railroad that was home to the Santa Fe's most famous passenger trains the Super Chief and El Capitan. For the first 19 years of my life, I lived most of them within a few blocks of this line and during high school the railroad went behind the home that my parents owned.

The best way to learn how to make a system successful is to look at what is done right and what is done wrong within a transit system.

First of all, the gold line travels from Union Station in Los Angeles to Sierra Madre Villa in Pasadena (I am only going over the original line, not the recently opened East Los Angeles extension). As mention the route travels along the former right of way of the Santa Fe railroad which was abandoned in 1994 for construction of the Gold Line.

The line starts at Los Angeles Union Station. While Union Station is an architectural marvel, it sits outside the main downtown area and requires a transfer to reach anyplace in the downtown area. Once of the big downfalls of the Gold Line presently is that there is no connection between itself and the Blue Line between downtown and Long Beach. While the Red Line does provide connecting service anyone wanting to travel from the Blue Line to the Gold Line must make two transfers to make the connection.

The Regional Connector project that will link up the Gold Line with the Blue Line and the under construction Expo Line will be a boon for the Gold Line allowing single ride and single transfer connections between the different light rail lines.

In addition even transferring at Union Station takes effort. Because the Red Line subway was designed before plans were made for the Gold Line, making connections between the two requires several trips down an escalator, a walk down a tunnel under the Amtrak and Metrolink station tracks, then up a ramp to the gold line station.

The next stop on the route is the Chinatown Stop. This stop is located in the more industrial part of the Chinatown area and is a couple of block walk to the main action in Chinatown. In addition the area looks run down and does not give the average person confidence if walking after dark. Metro also lists several buses that connect at this station but several of them are located a few blocks away.

Lincoln and Cypress is another stop that shows multiple bus routes serving them but most of the bus routes run on Figueroa which is a pedestrian unfriendly walk from the Gold Line Station. The best option would be to have routes 90, 91, 94, and 794 feed directly into the gold line once the regional connector is finished. To accomplish this the presently small parking lot will need to be replaced by a parking garage with a bus turnaround located at ground level.

Next up is the Heritage Square station. This route does have parking and is served by route 83. However METRO lists the station as being served by Route 81 but it is several blocks away. After the Heritage Square station comes the Southwest Museum stop. Yes, the stop serves the Southwest Museum plus the surrounding community but has no parking.

Highland Park is another station that shows being served by multiple routes but truly only has one route directly serving the station. The station also has parking available however the neighborhood is heavly gang infested so walking to the other buses or leaving a car in the parking lot would not be the best idea.

If you ride the line after the Highland Park Station you cross the Arroyo Seco on a spectacular bridge. Below you will see the Pasadena Freeway, one of the first freeways in the nation and one of the most hair raising experiences for a driver. It is not too bad when you get on where the freeway starts on the north or from the south but if you get on at most any other on ramps you are in for an experience. First you have to come to full and complete stop then accelerate into the freeway lane. There is no acceleration lanes, when you move from your stop you are in a main traffic lane with people coming at you at high speed.

The next stop is the single stop in South Pasadena. South Pasadena is best known for fighting the extension of the Long Beach freeway (I-710) through town. However, don't think that these people are some big transit supporters looking to stop a freeway, they are the ultimate NIMBY's. They just want the freeway moved to the lower income part of town (lower income by South Pasadena's standards, not the average person).

Metro shows there is parking available at the station but it is extremely limited. There is a neighborhood shuttle to the station during peak hours plus Metro line 176. The problem is that most residents of the city would have to access the station via car due to the lack of available transit service so it limits the number of potential riders at the stop.

All the remaining stations are in the Pasadena area. First up is Fillmore which for years has mainly been an industrial area. The street immediately to the east of the Fillmore and Del Mar station is Arroyo Parkway which becomes the Pasadena Freeway. The area around the station seems to be transforming since the coming of the Gold Line but still has a ways to go.

I talked about the Del Mar station when discussing TOD and TAD a few months back. Both the Del Mar and Fillmore Station do have service from ARTS and one Metro bus route with most of the other Metro lines located at least a block or more away. The next station at Memorial Park actually had an apartment complex built on top of the station back when it was still a mainline railroad but once again would probably be classified as Transit Adjacent Development not Transit Oriented Development.

The next two stations are both located in the center of the Interstate 215. The lake street station has seen some development nearby but both it and the Allen Station suffer from the problems of being in the middle of a freeway: hard to access, limited redevelopment possibilities and large amounts of noise for waiting customers.

The current end of the line is at Sierra Madre Villa. The station has a multi level parking garage and some recent development around it. However, once again the station is hard to access because of being in the middle of the freeway.

So what is keeping the Gold Line from reaching its full potential:

First of all, the lack of the regional connector from Union Station to the Blue line at the Flower/7th has been a major factor in the Gold Line not being the success it should be (although ridership is still adequate, just not what it should be). Once the regional connector is finished, it will be a major boon to the line.

Second factor hampering the Gold Line is Metro which has done a poor job of integrating bus service with the Gold Line. Transfers from bus to light rail should be seamless and easy for the customers. Metro has altered several bus lines to serve the Sierra Madre Villa station, however that is at the east end of the system and is of little help for people traveling to the main shopping and employment areas of Pasadena unless they want to back track. The number of buses serving the station will be very helpful once the line is extended to Azusa and beyond.

One idea would be to take Pasadena ARTS transit route 10 and modify it so that it would service the Del Mar light rail station and service the major retail and employements centers in the city. The route already does a good job of this but needs to be integrated with the light rail line to make it more effective.

Another long term problem facing the Gold Line is the lack of expansion capacity. Several stations were designed for only two cars trains and how many trains can be at the station at one time. The South Pasadena and Highland Park stations would be difficult to expand due to nearby streets but could be done. While capacity may not be an issue at the present time, looking long term capacity issues will need to be dealt with.

The final problem facing the Gold Line is the lack of parking. While the stations close to downtown do not need parking, the farther out you get from the center of the town, the larger need there is for parking. Yes, in a perfect world we would love to see the line be able to do without parking, but until we start seeing a fundamental change in development patterns, parking is going to be needed.

While the Gold Line does have issues, the line has the potential to become a super star. It is up to Metro and the cities involved to make it happen.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Good and Bad Density, TOD's and TAD's (transitinutah.blogspot.com)
• Metro Gold Line extension breaks ground (abclocal.go.com)
• Gold Line Train to Montclair Gets some Funding (laist.com)
• L.A. light rail takes a big step into the San Gabriel Valley (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
• Gold Line Foothill Extension to Break Ground Saturday (laist.com)

UTA testing CNG Buses

Image by Anthony Ramos via Flickr
For the next two weeks UTA will be testing two CNG buses, one from Metro in Los Angeles and the other from the Phoenix area. The Salt Lake Tribune has a suprisingly well done article about the test (and just to note, I am not putting down the writers at the Trib, but the fact that the newspaper industry has cut to the bone in its attempt to survive so they know longer have people dedicated to subject and thus well informed about what everything they write about):

UTA tests natural gas buses

As the article pointed out UTA had 5 CNG Orion V buses purchased in 1992 and retired a couple of years ago. Also pointed out in the article is the buses were essentially failures in our market but those were early generation CNG buses and a lot has a changed in the last 18 years so it will be interesting how today's CNG buses will perform.

UTA also should be congratulated in looking at alternatives for the current fleet of diesel buses considering the continued high cost of diesel (of course that situation could reverse and has in the past).

The question is will the cost be examined. They do mention that the price of a CNG bus is more than a diesel bus but could be made up over the length of ownership (approximately 12 years). However, not just UTA but we as Americans are horrible at looking at the actual cost of a product.

Now if you asked the average person on the street what the difference between the price of a product and the cost of the product they would think there is no difference and maybe that is why we are so willing to buy so much cheaply made crap at stores like Wal-Mart.

However, the when we discuss cost we are talking about how much it will cost for the lifetime of the product. I having studied it recently but a few years ago the cost to maintain CNG buses was higher than the cost of diesel buses. However, as CNG buses have become more common the cost difference may be getting closer together.

Also for anyone who complains about the seats in UTA buses (I know there has to be some out there), I hope they get to ride the lovely anti-vandal seats in the LA Metro bus (its been several years since I been to Phoenix so I am not sure about the seats in those buses). I think the seats in the ex-San Jose UTDC cars are better than the ones Metro orders. I found them to be the most uncomfortable transit seat I have ever rode on and considering how many different transit systems and buses I have rode on over the years that is saying something.

Another annoying thing about LA Metro buses that will hopefully be deativated when the bus is here is the television monitors in the bus. Several of the buses I rode on in Los Angeles most recently had monitors that would broadcast commercials and general information about the transit system. Sorry, when I get on a transit bus or train I do not want to look at a stupid television monitor. Albertson's (the original Albertson's company) installed a ton of lcd's throughout their 5600 South and 900 East store at the checkouts and in the produce department. My response was to stop shopping at the location except in extreme emergencies.

Heck, I don't even watch the television at home for the most part. I have not had cable in 6 years (so long comcrap) and its been at least two months or more since I even bothered to sit down and watch something on television. I guess if your addicted to have the stupid television on then having the monitors on the buses are no big deal but to me I rather have peace on my transit ride.

The buses will only be here for two weeks and in service only one week so get a ride on them while you have the chance.

Branding

Image via Wikipedia

While I don't always agree with Jarrett over at the Human Transit Blog one of the things he will often bring up that I 100% agree with is the importance of branding. It seems that many transit systems especially here in the United States does a poor job of branding its transit service. Here in Utah, UTA does have TRAX and MAX but overall has not done a good job of branding its service.

Even UTA's much talked about BRT project is not branded very well. Sure it has special bus stop shelters and buses but there is little to set it apart from regular bus service. Even the controversial Van Hool buses have the basic paint scheme with just some wrapping added to make it stand out. Not only do the buses not stand out but UTA is not keeping them to the MAX line exclusively. One of the ten Van Hools has been assigned to the 220 on a regular basis.

Now if it was a break down replacement I could somewhat see (but then again how many other non-Van Hool buses UTA has?) but this bus has been assigned for some time. I have seen it on the route for more than 3 weeks so clearly they are not keeping them exclusively to the MAX line.

For most transit agencies you cannot tell one bus route from another beyond the route number. After Metro in Los Angeles started up Metro Rapid they started painting Rapid buses in Red, Local buses in Orange and the few express routes they have left in Blue. This allows the Rapid buses to have their own identity and clearly set them apart from every other bus in the system. Metro does seem to do a pretty good job of keeping the buses to where they belong but when shortages do occur you may see a Rapid bus on a local line and local bus on Rapid.

So how could UTA do a better job of branding its service?

Since the investment has been made in BRT, the buses assigned to those routes need to have their own identity. The buses should have their own paint scheme and except in emergencies stay on their own route.

UTA also has a large number of MCI commuter cruisers now in the fleet. While Front Runner will reduce the need for these buses in some places, there is also opportunities to expand these service to new areas (such as the Park City proposal). Once again the commuter cruisers could be painted in its own scheme and create its own brand such as "Regional Connector" or something like that.

While UTA has done a somewhat adequate job when it comes to its 15-minute service with its system maps and bus stop signs, more can be done. To make those routes stand out even more from a marketing perspective you have a special paint scheme and special bus stop signs.

There is many opportunities for transit services across the country to better brand themselves and create brands within their identity.

Split Up UTA?

Image by Atomic Taco via Flickr

In my recent comments on contracting out, someone made a comment that the UTA should be split up into different agencies covering the different counties. While I have shown how that could be done in the past, we also must look at the good and the unintended consequences of this type of action.

First of all lets take a look at the good points.

By splitting up the system, the new agencies would be able to respond more quickly to changes in riding habits in their service area.

In addition, you would know that sales tax dollars generated in those counties are being used for those counties.

On the other hand there is the unintended consequences.

First of all how would the system be administered? Would UTA continue to control the money and then distribute it to the individual agencies? If UTA continues to run inter-county services and rail services how would you distribute the funds between the agencies? Will the state legislature and their self interest control the purse strings and send money to their own pet projects?

Second, the major advantage we have with having UTA is that we don't have a bunch of little agencies that protect their own turf and do a poor job and coordinating service with other agencies. The Cap'n Transit blog talked about the lack of coordination in the New York area and we could face the same problems here:

The Black Hole of Transit Coordination

While the problems here in Utah would in now way shape or form be the same as dealing with the super agencies in the New York City region, we would still face the same problems of agencies not coordinating service for what is best for the riders and not themselves.

Los Angeles is a perfect example of the problems of having too many agencies. Almost every city in the county has a transit service of its own, few will actually coordinate service, fares, or transfers with neighboring areas.

While having some community service is fine (such as what I talked about with Salt Lake working on its own in city service), in Los Angeles the service is extremely balkanized between regional carriers making trips across the region more difficult. For example you have light and heavy rail services operated by Metro, commuter rail service operated by Metrolink, if you are traveling to the San Gabriel valley you have service operated by both Metro and Foothill, etc.

All this creates a system that is confusing for riders unfamiliar with the system and lowers the chances that choice riders will ride the system.

Another problem would be facing is bureaucracy. Not only does bureaucracy lead to the turf wars mentioned above but you also may end up having more of it than before. How much staff would each agency have and would you be duplicating functions in the different agencies causing more money to go to overhead than before.

Seattle is another example of this situation. They have the regional agency Sound Transit that runs service in the Puget Sound region. However, each county also has its own bus service who also have their own planning agencies and do their own thing.

While splitting up the UTA may be a solution to some problems with the agency, would it end up opening a can of worms that could make service worse across the region?

Contract Out Services?

Rep John Dougall out of Highland has called for UTA to look into contracting out services in order to save money. I am not sure what Dougall's motives are, as I am cynical about most politicians and their true motives, but lets take a look at the pros and cons of contracting out services.

First of all, cost usually go down when you contract out services. Most contract operations do not use union labor (I will do my union rant some other time), so they pay less than union wages. In addition the operations usually cut down on overhead over the bureaucratic transit agency.

However, the cons currently out weigh the positives.

First of all, while I believe in private enterprise and especially small business, there is little change a small operator the Resorts (owner of Lewis Brothers) or a company like LeBus would end up operating the service.

Instead one of the "big" operators such as Stagecoach that are not only non local companies, but are not even US based. There for the profits and the benefits of the outsourcing not only leave the immediate area, they do even benefit our country. Since employement will stay the same but wages go down there is no benefit to the community.

In addition the quality of service can be questionable at best. Because these operators do not truly care about the local community they do not care about the quality of service provided to the customer. While some union drivers don't care about the quality of service they provide because they know it is so hard to fire them, the outsourced drivers have very few oportunities for advancement and there is little oversight, often the drivers can have questionable attitudes.

A few years ago I was in Denver for a meeting. At the time Denver's bus service was outsourced to three different providers. I actually had a wonderful experience with a bus driver so I decided to let RTD in Denver know. Usually companies only hear negative so I go out of way to let them know when I have good service. I called RTD and the operator was in shock they were getting a compliment.

He said it was the first time he had ever gotten a postive comment about a contratracted service. Whether that is a sign that people don't have the class to compliment the drivers when they do right or the drivers are that bad in general, you will have to decide for yourself.

Other downside of contracting out service is maintence. Often the companies will scimp on taking care of things to make more money. Once again because the companies are not local they do not have any reason to ensure that the equimpment is properly maintianed to help the community.

In Los Angeles and other cities that have contracted out service there has been bad experiences with air conditioners, wheelchair lifts, and other equipment malfunctions. In addition there has been multiple horror stories about last runs of the day missing due to malfunction equipment so thus people being stranded. In addition I have seen photos of buses being held together with duct tape in order to keep major items such as the A/C cover from falling off.

The only solution is to have oversight and conditions in the contract if they things happen or maintence is not up to standards, the contracter can be fined.

Am I saying that all contractors are bad? Of course not, like anything there is good and bad. However, anytime you contract to a company that has no financial interest in the local community, you send the money out of town with no benefits to the community.

While I have no idea what Dougall's true motives are, you need to look at the unitended consequences of any action taken and make sure that the local community benefits from the decisions made.

Observations from Paris from Jarret at Human Transit

Image by thorinside via Flickr

Jarrett from the Human Transit Blog has an interesting post about the city of Paris.

paris: the street is ours!

Jarrett points out many streets in Paris not only have dedicated bus lanes that can be used by bicycles but also have dedicated bike lanes.

However, while the lanes would be great would they last here in the United States in our auto dominated society? Chances all the answer is no.

Jarrett points out that many times the lane appears empty despite it carrying more people than the general purpose lane. However, auto drivers will see a lane that is not congested like their lane so their sense of entitlement will click in and say they should be entitled to use that lane because it is not being used enough.

We have see this here in Utah with the HOV lanes. Many drivers say they are entitled to use the HOV lanes and make every excuse in the book why they should. Eventually the lanes will be opened to other traffic during off peak before gradually being degraded during rush hour.

This is one of the fears with dedicated bus lanes for BRT such as those on 3500 South and what is planned in Orem/Provo. In Los Angeles the El Monte busway opened as a dedicated busway but now is open to car pools and is just as congested and sometimes more congested than the regular lanes. Because of the mistaken belief that the lanes were not carrying enough traffic now the lanes are actually carrying less because they are congested.

It would be wonderful to see this design on streets such as State and 200 South that would allow faster movement of buses and safer movement of bicycles. Yet, it will take a major change of attitude before it becomes workable here in the United States.

This Week in Amtrak

Image via Wikipedia

This Week at Amtrak; April 27, 2010



A weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from



United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

America’s foremost passenger rail policy institute



1526 University Boulevard, West, PMB 203 • Jacksonville, Florida 32217-2006 USA

Telephone 904-636-7739, Electronic Mail info@unitedrail.org • http://www.unitedrail.org





Volume 7, Number 13



Founded over three decades ago in 1976, URPA is a nationally known policy institute which focuses on solutions and plans for passenger rail systems in North America. Headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, URPA has professional associates in Minnesota, California, Arizona, New Mexico, the District of Columbia, Texas, New York, and other cities. For more detailed information, along with a variety of position papers and other documents, visit the URPA web site at http://www.unitedrail.org.



URPA is not a membership organization, and does not accept funding from any outside sources.



1) Thank you, Bill Lindley for allowing me to “borrow” This Week at Amtrak for this special edition. This is Bruce Richardson, and I have a special announcement to make.



2) I’ve been waiting for over a year to write this column, and I’m immensely excited about what I have to tell you. Today, April 27, 2010, a new, privately funded and privately operated intercity passenger train is being announced, slated to begin operations during the Christmas season of 2011.



The name of the train is “Z-Train,” and it will operate six days a week on a regular schedule between Los Angeles Union Station and Las Vegas, Nevada, with an intermediate stop in Ontario, California.



Initially, the train will be 14 cars long, made up of a combination of bi-levels and dome cars.



3) Some of you reading this may think this is old news; that you heard about the Las Vegas train 10 days ago.



That was the X Train of Las Vegas Railway Express; this is the Z-Train.



It’s a bit of a sordid story about how two trains came about.



Z-Train has been in continuous, active development since 2007. When I was first contacted about Z-Train in March 2009, before I could have more than a cursory telephone conversation with Romm Doulton, the Las Vegas entrepreneur of D2 Holdings who created Z-Train, I had to sign a lengthy and complicated non-compete, non-disclosure legal document. Everyone even marginally involved with the project has signed the identical document for the protection of the project.



Earlier, in 2008, before I became involved with the project, a local gentleman in Las Vegas was briefly part of the development team. He invited a second gentleman to learn about the development group; both of these people signed the same non-compete, non-disclosure document. Neither gentleman was related to the project very long; in fact, the second gentleman only had a cursory involvement as part of Z-Train’s development team.



So, they went away.



But, it appears they took with them all of the team’s proprietary plans and documents which had been created up to that point in 2008.



Since then, plans for Z-Train have matured and changed dramatically, as is often in the case of projects like this, as new people with new or better ideas join development teams.



In July 2009, in my United Rail Passenger Alliance e-mail box, I received an invitation from the X Train people to review their project and give them any advice I may want to offer.



I immediately contacted Z-Train, since by then I had developed a full relationship with them, and alerted the development team about a rival project.



Instantly, the Z-Train team knew what was going on; it seemed their own, privately held materials were being used by someone else and represented as their own property, instead of the sole property of the Z-Train developers.



A cease and desist demand was made by Z-Train to X Train.



Nothing happened, and in the past 30 days various press releases have been popping up about X Train, all amazingly similar to Z-Train ideas, plans, and materials from 2008. Well, with two big exceptions. The Z-Train developers know it is impossible to have onboard, legal gambling, yet X Train says it will have gaming onboard. And, X Train says it will offer a $99 roundtrip fare, which is pretty close to impossible to do if you’re going to be financially viable.



4) There had been no plans to fully announce Z-Train until every detail was fully developed and every business relationship established.



But, then came X Train; a decision had to be made to protect the interests of Z-Train, so a public announcement – even though a bit early probably by about a month – would be made.



That’s what we’re doing today; Z-Train is seeing the first light of day in TWA.



All that out of the way; you would probably like some details about Z-Train. Here is some information for you from the Z-Train fact sheet which is part of the detail being sent to the news media today.



Train Operations

• Z-Train is expected to begin operations for the Christmas season in 2011.

• Plans are for the train to be pulled by Amtrak locomotives, and Amtrak will also provide train and engine crews, as well as all equipment maintenance at its Los Angeles maintenance base.

• Onboard services crews will be direct Z-Train employees.

• The route encompasses trackage rights to be provided by Metrolink in Southern California, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, and primarily Union Pacific Railroad.

• Los Angeles Union Station, owned by Catellus Development Corporation will be the Southern California terminal, and a new Z-Train station will be built in Las Vegas adjacent to the famous Las Vegas Strip, the heart of the hotels, resorts, and casinos in Las Vegas.

• Trip time is planned for five hours in each direction, with a single intermediate station stop in Ontario, California. The train will be turned and cleaned in Las Vegas for a same-day return to Los Angeles, where maintenance will be performed overnight.

• Z-Train will be America’s only regularly scheduled, non-government subsidized intercity passenger service between two major metropolitan areas, where anyone can purchase a ticket for transportation; operating full roundtrips six days a week.

• The train will operate Wednesdays through Mondays, with Tuesdays planned as a full maintenance day.

• Z-Train has been developed to meet the rigid requirements of host railroads and federal transportation statutes, including any necessary construction of additional railroad passing sidings or other necessary upgrades to host passenger trains. Every facet of Z-Train has been created to work in harmony with pending agreements with host railroads and operating crew and motive power providers.

Equipment and Onboard Experience

• Z-Train is beyond just traveling from one city to another; it’s a transportation, dining, pampering and entertainment experience designed to rekindle the great American slogan, “getting there is half the fun!”.

• Z-Train is the only passenger rail project which will run directly from downtown Los Angeles/Los Angeles Union Station to the heart of the Las Vegas Strip and Z-Train’s proposed, newly-built passenger train station, and is the only passenger rail project which will directly connect to all other passenger rail routes in Southern California.

• All Z-Train passenger railcars will be rebuilt and redesigned equipment from America’s most prominent passenger railcar builders, designed originally for some of America’s most luxurious passenger trains. The upgrades and modifications made by Z-Train will meet every need and desire of modern travelers from new technologies to comfortable, plush seating.

• Z-Train offers four levels of accommodations and services, all aimed at up-market travelers, especially international travelers from the lucrative Asian market.

• Food and beverage and onboard pampering and entertainment will be areas of major emphasis, with dining and lounge cars to meet every expectation and requirement for all age groups.

• Almost half of the passenger space is devoted to coach passengers, although coach passengers will have amenities and services available to them not normally found elsewhere.

• Additional classes of service are club, business, and first class premium cars, all of which have their own discrete, expanded levels of service.

• The most distinctive level of service will occur in private dome cars, each not holding more than 25 passengers per car. This unparalleled level of luxury will rival any private jet experience, appealing to the most discriminating passengers.

• Four separate dining cars run the choices from high end gourmet to an all-organic, healthy living dining car choice to a dedicated sports car, complete with micro brewery and comfort food buffet.

• Onboard services are unique, with a company of repertory players providing live entertainment, a murder on a train mystery, fortune tellers, fashions shows provided by one of the most distinctive fashion retailers, art gallery offerings, spa services, and book signings by best selling authors.

Development Team

• Created by professional railroaders in the best traditions of the passenger railroad industry, combining successful historical values with today’s passenger and operating environment.

• Z-Train has been developed by a professional team working since 2007 to provide an exciting passenger rail experience between Los Angeles/Southern California and Las Vegas. Weeks, months, and years have been spent in deep research of every aspect of the market, jobs growth, and economic development for Z-Train to be an economic engine for tourism and in support of Las Vegas. Government officials on every level have been consulted, in addition to professional railroaders, hospitality and gaming industry luminaries, and marketing experts. Every facet of Z-Train has been developed with one overall goal in mind: to provide America’s unrivaled premier intercity passenger train experience.

Z-Train Limited, LLC and D2 Holdings

• D2 Holdings is headquartered in Henderson, Nevada and controlled by Romm and Elaine Doulton and James K. Clark. D2 is a well-established company with a wide variety of interests. For further information, consult www.d2holdings.net. D2 provided the company umbrella for the Z-Train development team to come together and create the project before it was formally incorporated.

• Z-Train Limited, LLC is a Nevada corporation, headquartered in Henderson, Nevada (A Las Vegas suburb).

• Romm Doulton, creator of Z-Train, currently serves as the company’s Chairman, President, and CEO while a search process is being completed to find other individuals to hold those offices. Mr. Doulton will continue to serve as a Chief Executive Officer of the company, but the other positions will be filled by individuals with a strong financial and railroad industry background.

• Z-Train has been developed using sound, conservative financial principles.

• Over $500,000 worth of time, materials, and funds spent have been put into the creation and development of Z-Train.

• Everyone associated with the development of Z-Train has been a senior executive in their respective fields.

• Z-Train as a company has been designed as an organization which will have a number of strategic alliances with corporate partners for cross marketing and branding purposes.

Marketing and Development

• Z-Train will be marketed on three levels: regional, national, and international.

• Regional marketing will reach Southern California, providing a travel choice beyond private automobiles, busses, and air travel to bring new visitors to Las Vegas.

• National marketing will promote both Z-Train and partner casinos and resorts and the city of Las Vegas.

• International marketing, aimed heavily at the lucrative Asian market, will provide a familiar travel choice to the 4.4 million Asian visitors who arrive in Los Angeles, of which 32% currently travel onward to Las Vegas via bus and airplane. Asians are currently the single most profitable demographic for visitors to Las Vegas, followed by Southern Californians.

5) That’s pretty much everything in a summary; if you want more information, you can visit Z-Train’s web site as it is being developed at www.z-trainltd.com or to find out more about the creators of Z-Train, visit www.d2holdings.net for a fascinating background on Romm and Elaine Doulton, Z-Train’s parents.

6) And, yes, this native of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and 42 year resident of Florida, who has never lived more than 100 miles (and, currently less than 20 miles) from the Atlantic Ocean is about to relocate to Las Vegas and Southern California to be a part of Z-Train as the Chief Special Projects Officer, where dreaming of the future is encouraged, and all sorts of interesting projects about present and future passenger trains await. A permanent move west will not be happening for a while, but there will be lots of airplane time between Jacksonville, Florida and Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

There will be some wonderful people from Amtrak and elsewhere working and helping create Z-Train, and it’s exciting to be a part of the re-invention of the modern intercity passenger train.

7) Make you plans now to ride Z-Train in 2012; you will be glad you did.



If you are reading someone else’s copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can receive your own free copy each edition by sending your e-mail address to



freetwa@unitedrail.org



You MUST include your name, preferred e-mail address, and city and state where you live. If you have filters or firewalls placed on your Internet connection, set your e-mail to receive incoming mail from twa@unitedrail.org; we are unable to go through any approvals processes for individuals. This mailing list is kept strictly confidential and is not shared or used for any purposes other than distribution of This Week at Amtrak or related URPA materials.



All other correspondence, including requests to unsubscribe should be addressed to



brucerichardson@unitedrail.org



Copies of This Week at Amtrak are archived on URPA’s web site, www.unitedrail.org and also on www.todaywithjb.blogspot.com where other rail-related writings of Bruce Richardson may also be found.



URPA leadership members are available for speaking engagements.



J. Bruce Richardson

President

United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc.

1526 University Boulevard, West, PMB 203

Jacksonville, Florida 32217-2006 USA

Telephone 904-636-7739

brucerichardson@unitedrail.org

http://www.unitedrail.org

Los Angeles puts lipstick on a pig.

Image by Metro - Los Angeles via Flickr

With great fanfare, Los Angeles Metro will be introduced its new Silver Line service on Sunday. So is the newest light rail line to open in Los Angeles or part of the subway to the sea? No, actually it is combining service on two of the LA basin’s two busways into a single service and increasing the number of transfers.

The first busway was opened 35 years ago extending from just east of downtown Los Angeles to the city of El Monte and traveled along the Interstate 10 freeway. There is a rail line between the busway that once carried the interurbans of the legendary Pacific Electric and is now home to the Metrolink Commuter Rail service to San Bernardino. The busway was later extended a mile to Union Station in the late 1980’s.

When the busway first started a large number of buses would travel the busway to El Monte then fan out throughout the San Gabriel valley. After many cuts to bus service most of the San Gabriel valley routes were taken over by Foothill Transit in the late 1980’s leaving RTD with only a few routes on the busway.

The second busway is the infamous Harbor Freeway Transit way that extends from Artesia to a few miles south of downtown and parallels the Long Beach light rail line that sits a few miles to the east. While the Blue line carries upwards of 78000 passengers per day the Harbor Freeway Transitway pulls in roughly 5000 per day.

Now Metro will run a direct line from the Artesia station through downtown Los Angeles out to the El Monte station calling it the Silver line. This will give the first direct service between the two lines but will also mean that people traveling from the routes that currently use the busway will have to transfer to the new service as those routes will be truncated at El Monte and Artesia respectively.

In addition the new Silver line will compete with Foothill Transit’s Silver Streak service that started a couple of years ago and operates from Pomona to downtown Los Angeles via the El Monte busway. Like Metro is doing with its lines, Foothill Transit also truncated most of its bus routes at El Monte when Silver Streak service was started.

Isn’t it interesting that when most road warriors say that buses should be used instead of rail, they say that buses are more flexible and thus better than the rail option? Of course we all know the tired BS about BRT (Badly Repackaged Transit) being just like light rail but on rubber tires. In this case they are operating a bus route like a rail line but cutting the so called flexibility of the bus.

What is interesting is that Metro’s predecessor the RTD tried to run truncate routes in El Monte and run a separate El Monte to downtown LA route back in the late 70’s. Route 495 provided frequent service from El Monte to downtown but was killed only a few months later.

But let’s also look deeper into the two busways themselves.

As stated before the El Monte bus way is celebrated its 35th year in 2009. While it is hard to quantify any development results being the fact that there is only three stations on the line with the two mid line stations being a University and a hospital, the end of the line station has seen no development in the area since its opening. In other words the place looks the same as it did in 1974 although plans are finally progressing to turn the station into a transit oriented development.

Compare that to TRAX where development is starting to take place in several areas along the line. While progress has been slowed by the credit crunch, new homes have been built near several stations and when things heat back up in the real estate market you will several more projects come on line.

The Harbor Freeway Transit way points to not only that busways are not an alternative to light rail but also the failure of Freeway Transit in general.

While it is hard to judge the Harbor Transitway head to head against the Blue line despite their close proximity to each other, it is clear that the Transitway does not attract riders like the Blue Line.

Meanwhile the Harbor Transitway also shows that Freeway transit is not an attractive option for riders. Whether it is a light rail station or busway station, freeway stops are noisy and inconvenient for riders. For those that have tried to access a station that sits in or along a highway know that they can be impossible to access due to the freeway and then noise levels are extremely high.

Instead of spending $500 million on the transitway that carries few passengers, the agencies that built it would have been much farther ahead by pumping money into the overburdened Blue Line. Money could have been used to grade separate the line and then build a branch down to San Pedro (which would restore another ex-Pacific Electric line) build a branch to Torrance or southeast toward Orange County. Either of these options would have garnered more ridership that the pathetic transitway.

The two busways also show the true reason why road warriors support busways over rail lines. When the El Monte busway first opened it was used exclusively for buses but then it seemed like good highway lanes for the taking so car pools were eventually allowed to use the busway. Every time I have gone down the busway in the last few years it has been more crowded that the main lanes on the freeway.

Now Metro is planning to turn the busways into HOT lanes just line the car pool lanes here in Utah and reason behind the creation of the Silver Line. One has to wonder how long it will take before our state legislature passes laws stating that the BRT lanes along 3500 South and subsequent ones have to be open to automobile traffic of some form.

The Silver line is doing nothing but putting lipstick on a pig. While it will make it easier to travel through downtown Los Angeles from the Harbor Transitway to the El Monte Busway, overall it does little to increase the travel opportunities in the region. It will be interesting to see what happens over the year or so.