What's wrong with L.A. Public Transportation?

Hello, anybody. I'm sorry about having left 'whoever' in the dark. It's been a time of assessment and, re-assessment. After having spent close to 1 year on rants and otherwise regarding MTA, and since there's a finite thing to complain about, and when you complain about one thing, you begin to see other 'bigger' things to complain about etc. Hence, it came to a bit of a dead end regarding public transportation rants. But heck, after some reading, and reassessments, some exiting things seem to be going on in LA as far as public transportation is concerned. There seems to be a challenge in convincing skeptics. That will, or might (:) become the new focus of this blog. Just exactly when, isn't sure yet, but the blog will be back to 'complete the circle', so to speak. Not sure what approach to take yet, but we'll see. It's likely to be more from outside in rather than inside out. Exciting things seem to be going on in LA, and I'd want to be part of the change. Enjoy the bus and the train in the meantime (if possible).

So after the public hearing on May 24, the MTA received mostly protests, expectedly, from transit riders. It seems the fight isn't over. The Bus Rider's Union keeps it up, albeit whether their charges are fair or not could be discussed, but at least someone is standing up for those riders. They claim the MTA is racist. Well, are they really? Perhaps "elitist" would be a better word for it. After all the fare hike would adversely affect the poor regardless of race. They may be a bit crazy, but at least they're fighting hard, and actually bringing real results to riders. The fight against MTA's proposed brutal fare hike seems to have succeeded in placing a limit on the hike and making it less drastic.

MTA's Latest Fare Hike:

MTA Fares
	Cash	Daily Pass	Weekly Pass	Monthly Pass	Monthly Senior Pass
Current	$1.25	$3.00	$14.00	$52.00	$12.00
As of July 1	$1.25	$5.00	$17.00	$62.00	$14.00
January 2009	$1.50	$6.00	$20.00	$75.00	$17.00

Remarkably the cash fare will stay the same until 2009, and the monthly senior will rise by only $5 until 2009. Clearly this is much more reasonable than the previous proposal. Still, the day pass will go up to $8 by that year. That's amazingly expensive if you're going through just say 2-3 transfers, and perhaps even short rides in a day. If you're traveling just a few times per week, and a weekly pass isn't feasible, then it may cost $24 plus for only a few simple routes per week. But at least it's not as expensive as the previous proposal would've been, and there's more to come in terms of a possible reversal or further changes (apparently law suits among other things), so even with this change, there may be more hope. Sure, it can't be easy for the MTA, but there's got to be better ways to close their budget gap than to place the burden on the riders, almost exclusively.

Labels: latest fare hike, los angeles mta, metro

To be fair, a few areas have improved lately with respect to public transportation in Los Angeles. On MTA's side of it.

It appears that subway connections have been symmetrized between the Purple Line and the Red Line at Wilshire/Vermont, at least since a while back, according to one fellow who confirmed that the Metro Red Line train now defers departure until transferees from the Purple Line from the upper level (or, was it lower?) have had time to board that train. That was also the case when I last tried it. Finally some common sense is seen in such basic area.
(edited on 5/24) Not. Those must have been exceptions. Too bad. Sometimes dreaming is necessary though. The second train still arrogantly departs right in front of your face as you descend down the escalator from the upper level. In other words, no, the connections don't appear to be synchronized. Oh well. It must be that they sometimes, depending on, uh, the second train waits for transferring passengers before taking off, depending on... who's operating the train frankly. However, to expect the practice to be a new policy would be foolish. This is MTA after all. The worst of them all among major cities. It's the bloody worst. (end edit)

Moreover, Metro Rapid buses appear to run on more and more major arteries, and not only Wilshire blvd anymore. They now run on many main routes, and at the same time hold about twice as many passengers as before. It clearly shows that action has been taken and at least partly replaced the blatant neglect of the past.

Another major confusion that lasted for years was that of the Metro Red Line and Purple Lines on which passengers frequently got confused as to whether the train was the North Hollywood train or not. The train operators now seem to alert passengers upon boarding them which train they're on. That's also a very basic area, as riders frequently boarded the wrong train and had to go back to catch the right one, which never was really obvious.

Well, those are a few improvements, and there are probably others. Whether they're sufficient or warrant a tripling in fare hike is another question though. Is MTA's budget gap's partial, and presumed remedy, let alone not guaranteed, worth hundreds, if not thousands, of riders not being able to afford it at all? Aren't there better ways to fix it. A partial hike would be very understandable, but not this brutal doubling; tripling in a short period of time, and as if the services were that good.

It struck me recently that with all the current issues around transportation and traffic, it's going to take decades before the LA transit system is complete or sufficient. The politics, the budget issues, the lack of funding, the wrong trends, etc; there may not be a complete subway system around in LA before I'm 90 or gone.
Should one simply accept it, and move on? It's never going to be like NYC or S.F here in our life-time, so really, why whine about it? It's a mammoth that's going to take its course regardless of how important is is, or how urgently it is needed anyway.


Public transportation ought to be a public priority. It would ease traffic, improve air quality, improve commerce, apart from providing the only means of transportation for thousands of residents.
Yet, there's this eternal quibble and NIMBYism surrounding it.

With MTA's recently proposed fare hikes, they'll place a huge burden on low-income riders where even a $1 difference will have a significant impact. Instead of convincing voters to vote for public transportation bills, invite advertisers on Metro stations, lobby for more funding, improve services that don't require a big budget in order to draw new riders, etc, they go for the mainly working class that make up the bulk of their ridership. That's the coward way.
The problem of transit in LA relates to the car and freeway mentality. It's Not that riders pay too low fares. A few cents increase, Ok, but several bucks in a matter of a couple years, it's unreasonable. It's not riders fault that MTA has a budget gap. It's partly their own fault. They didn't want to fix the nitty gritty details that would've enhanced the transit system. It took them until recently to provide long needed improvements. It took decades. Now riders are going to pay for it? It was those riders that long wished for basic improvements, all the while the MTA didn't care.
They ought to be lobbying for better funding, or help switch voters thinking to be in more support of public transportation fundings. There's something seriously wrong with the picture that one of the worst public transportation system among major cities also suffers a great budget deficit. It would be another thing if the system was already great, but it's either bad, or sucked overwhelmingly until just recently, with few exceptions. Riders were already the most affected by that which sucked. With a major fare hike, they will now effectively have to pay for having endured it.

MTA's Proposed New Fare Hikes:

MTA Fares
	Cash	Daily Pass	Weekly Pass	Montly Pass	Monthly Senior Pass
Current	$1.25	$3.00	$14.00	$52.00	$12.00
As of July 1	$1.25	$5.00	$20.00	$75.00	$37.50
January 2009	$2.00	$8.00	$32.00	$120.00	$60.00

Labels: los angeles, metro fare hike, mta fare hike, new mta fares

Does the MTA not realize that it can be a real hassle for people to try to break bills in advance each time prior to riding a bus? Do they not know that there are no coin machines except inside laundromats and that they require you to be a customer before using them? Don't they already know that most businesses are not fond of breaking peoples dollar bills unless they purchase something, and that bus riders are not fond of purchasing something every time they need change for the bus?
Just wondering why this insistence on placing such a burden on riders. There are many bus systems in the world that carry change on the buses. Perhaps it's an issue of safety for the MTA. Ok, but there's got to be some alternative to the current mess. The current mess is completely unreliable, in that unless you manage to find change you may not be able to ride the bus. You can ask the driver for mercy, but if they're sour or cranky types, or simply in a bad mood, they might refuse to let you on on anything less than full fare, which means you'll have to wait for the next bus, which can wreak havoc in a person's schedule.
Wouldn't it be a good time to implement some newer system--perhaps electronic bus cards-- on the newer buses, like on the new Metro Rapid ones? Or, likely the MTA doesn't consider the current mess to be a big deal. Typically, only their customers do. If it was a good idea, it'd probably have happened already.
But the moral is that you're forced to beg for change everytime you need ride the bus, and don't find a daypass or busspass feasible. And in cases where you can't obtain coins without making a purchase, you're forced to spend more money as well. Add to that that the cheapest items cost typically at least 50 cents. That ends up as paying the fare plus 50 cents plus the extra effort.
The alternative is to keep a jar of quarters at home and keep it sufficiently loaded at all times. In a way, this is laughable, but it's the reality.

Labels: bus, los angeles, mta, public transportation

With new developments taking place everywhere from Downtown LA to the Westside & beyond, it's now coming into light how naive voters are when complaining about the prospect of increased traffic. Like someone has said on here before, voters are a big part of the reason for the inadequate PT system of LA. It's quite ironic that presumably the 'same' voters who opposed an earlier subway expansion to the Westside, and who do not want to see an increase in bus services in their areas, are now complaining about traffic when inevitable city growth takes place. What do they expect, that development should simply stop, or that LA should be managed like a small city with only minor developments being allowed? Why do people oppose public transportation, AND traffic, AND building development, combined? Perhaps it should be noted that Los Angeles is America's second largest city. It's not a 'burb' or some quiet Midwest town. It's a major city after all. In a county of about 10 million inhabitants, perhaps it's reasonable to expect that some major developments will take place every once in a while. And that the only viable solution to traffic problems is to drop the NIMBY mindset when it comes to public transportation. It's funny, how that in most other major cities, public transportation is a given element of their infrastructures. Many LA residents seem to believe that LA isn't a major city.

Frankly, the same can be said about other areas. When it comes to the gang problem, which virtually no-one goes untouched by, everyone wants to see a solution, but when it finally comes to increasing the amount of police officers, people don't want to contribute. The same thing with the homeless problem. People don't want homeless services in their own neighbourhoods, yet say they want to solve homelessness in the city. Then, perhaps we deserve all the problems that we have, after all, including the traffic.