http://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/the-la-beat/10440-enough-hand-wringing-and-kneejerk-blowback-let-s-rethink-metro-s-ridership-slump-new-tax
By John Mirisch, February 4, 2016
MUSING WITH MIRISCH--The recent
LA Times article which
highlighted a ridership slump at Metro has occasioned much
hand-wringing, kneejerk blowback and rationalization among self-styled
transit hipsters. The article points out how, despite ongoing
expenditures of billions of dollars, Metro continues to struggle to get
people to use public transportation. While it’s fairly easy to
understand where the hand-wringing is coming from, if anything, the
article indicates that we in LA County should collectively be cautious
before approving another “transit tax” – something that is being
proposed by Metro for this November’s ballot.
For Metro and the transit advocates, many of whom themselves nosh on
the taxpayer bounty provided by Measure R (with more noshing to come
with the potential successor this November,) it’s all about the money.
Focus groups, lobbyists, political advisors are all aimed at answering
the question: How can we get the voters of LA County to approve a new
tax? “Promise bones” are being thrown in all directions of the county to
try to secure endorsements of local politicians in an effort to make
sure the future tax measure doesn’t suffer the fate of Measure J, which
failed to pass despite massive Transit Establishment support and
virtually no funded opposition.
It’s the wrong question for Metro to be asking.
The critical question is not how we can get a new tax passed. The
question is: How can we best improve mass transit within the County? And
if we are going to pass another tax, how can we get the best value for
our taxpayer dollars? And are we currently getting the best value for
the billions Metro spends each year? And shouldn’t we ensure we are
getting the best value-for-money before committing more funding to
Metro? Finally, shouldn’t we ensure that the Metro Board proportionally
and equitably represents all the residents of the County before the
taxpayers of the entire County commit more money to the agency? (In a
blatant rejection of the principle “one person, one vote,” the 6 million
non-LA residents of the County are currently underrepresented by some
60% on the Metro Board).
Much of the blowback to the
Times article has been from
anti-car activist types and their suggestions to increase Metro
ridership have, not surprisingly, been punitive actions towards
motorists: increase the cost of gas, increase the cost of parking, make
parking more difficult by reducing building code parking requirements,
end investment in road infrastructure, etc. In a headline in Metro’s
“The Source,” Metro’s in-house publicist Steve Hymon questions a
contention made in the
LA Times article: “Is it really the dream of every bus rider to have a car?”
Indeed, the question is somewhat ironic in view of Metro’s own at
times almost monomaniacal focus on building rail lines at the expense of
bus service. As the
Times article points out: “Although buses
account for about 75% of Metro's ridership, rail operations and
construction receive more money than buses do from Measure R, the
county's most recent half-cent sales tax to fund transportation
projects.”
A number of transit hipsters have tried to discredit the
Times
article by pointing out that some of Metro’s expenditures haven’t borne
fruit because construction is currently in progress and new lines
haven’t opened yet; they have tried to relativize the situation by
comparing ridership declines with even steeper dips in other
jurisdictions. (However, none of them points out that the County’s
population has increased by some 2 million from the height of ridership
in 1985.) But no matter how you play with the figures, it’s hard to
gainsay what I consider to be the crux of the
Times article:
"There's been lots of focus by transit agencies on shiny new things,
sometimes at the expense of bus routes which serve the primary
constituencies of transit agencies: low-wage workers," said Brian
Taylor, the director of UCLA's Institute of Transportation Studies.
"Lots of resources are being put into a few high-profile lines that
often carry a smaller number of riders compared to bus routes."
In light of this, it’s difficult to reasonably support a new tax (or a
tax extension) without some major rethinking, reframing and a healthy
dose of common sense, despite the sexiness of “shiny new things.”
Metro’s new CEO, Phil Washington, has said of Metro’s construction
efforts: “We’re not building for today. We’re building for 100 years
down the road.”
Washington’s long-term thinking is to be applauded, especially when
the other Washington – and all other levels of government below it down
to the local – generally think in vistas which don’t go beyond the next
election cycle. But there is also clearly a challenge with spending
billions of dollars now for “100 years down the road.” It means we need
to make sure that any infrastructure we are building now will not be
obsolete; it means we need to build with technological and demographic
adaptability in mind.
In the
“Is it really the dream of every bus rider to have a car?”
article, Steve Hymon writes: “I like my car (which I often park at a
Gold Line Station).” The implication is that a mix of transit options
which includes cars can best serve the County’s residents. Hymon drives
his car to the Gold Line, then takes public transit. However, this mix
would be made more difficult by the anti-car hipsters who want to use
punitive measures to force people to use public transit. Neither does
Metro itself actually encourage or enable this mix on a consistent
basis. The much touted Purple Line, for example, will offer no
park-and-ride options, boxing out potential riders like Steve Hymon who
would like to leave their cars at transit stations.
As I wrote last April in
The Los Angeles Business Journal,
in which I proposed a municipal automated shuttle system for Beverly
Hills, driverless vehicle technology offers an exciting solution to
first/last mile challenges; getting to and from transit stations (“the
first/last mile”) can be a substantial obstacle to potential commuters’
use of public transportation. In addition to hyperlocal transit
applications, driverless vehicle technology can be a substantial part of
the overall public transit equation, much bigger, in fact, than Metro
is currently acknowledging.
And that, quite frankly, seems to be a major part of the problem with
Metro’s tax-and-spend strategy. It’s difficult to be forward-thinking
with such an embrace of yesterday’s technology. Because as it currently
stands, the next Measure R largely focuses on and plans to spend
billions and billions on traditional rail lines and other “shiny new
things.”
Not every bus rider may dream of having a car, but it’s pretty safe
to say that almost every transit rider wants to get from Point A to
Point B in as efficient and time-saving manner as possible. D’uh. On
demand point-to-point public transportation should be any transit
agency’s ultimate goal, and while this will likely involve a cocktail of
transportation forms, driverless mass transportation can and should
play a major role in achieving solutions.
Driverless vehicle technology, both within the private and public
transportation sector has the potential to take significant numbers of
vehicles off the streets, as well as to use the streets more
efficiently. The irony of the potential of driverless vehicle technology
within the public transportation sector should not be lost upon transit
advocates who are more concerned with getting people from Point A to
Point B than shiny new things and an anti-car bias: the road
infrastructure we have developed in LA, much to the dismay of the
anti-car crowd, could very well unwittingly prove to be the best “Point A
to Point B” infrastructure investment we ever have made with the advent
of automated vehicles and automated public transportation.
A significant investment in driverless vehicle technology, along with
an eye towards other kinds of developing technological solutions,
perhaps including advanced models of Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) should
be a major focus of any future tax measure or additional transportation
expenditures.
What is being proposed now is mainly just a form of “same old, same
old,” some of which indeed may be necessary, but certainly not to the
exclusion of new, developing and future technologies with a 100 year
forward-looking vista in mind. In other words, Metro is looking more to
cobble together political support to get a new tax passed, rather than
providing a forward-thinking vision to solve the actual transportation
problems we face in LA County every day. Right now it seems like a case
of matter over mind and money over vision, and that’s something we can
and must change.
When the Purple Line was approved, the notion of a municipal
automated shuttle system would pretty much have been in the realm of
“Beam me up, Scotty.” Now, the technology will be ready for prime-time
before the LaCienega/Wilshire station opens.
In short, a revolutionary end to Metro’s ridership slump is within
our grasp, but Metro will have to change its current endgame. Metro
should be less concerned with answering the question, “How can we get
voters to approve a new tax?” and more concerned with answering the
question: “How can we get people from point A to point B in as
efficient, cost-effective and convenient a way as possible?”
If Metro
can use technology to figure out good answers to this question,
ridership will naturally and organically increase and traffic will
decrease. Rather than simply looking backwards to transportation models
of the past hundred years, practical and political solutions should
follow a well thought out, forward-looking vision which looks to fully
integrate new and developing technologies. This is the clear and logical
answer to Metro’s ridership slump.
The Metro Board now has a historic opportunity to fix Metro’s
ridership slump by providing real leadership for the benefit of all the
residents in LA County; not surprisingly, it involves more – much more –
than simply trying to get us all to pass another transportation tax.
(John Mirisch is the Vice Mayor of Beverly Hills; as Mayor, he
created the Sunshine Task Force to increase transparency, ethics and
public participation in local government.) Prepped for CityWatch
by Linda Abrams.
MUSING WITH MIRISCH--The recent
LA Times article which
highlighted a ridership slump at Metro has occasioned much
hand-wringing, kneejerk blowback and rationalization among self-styled
transit hipsters. The article points out how, despite ongoing
expenditures of billions of dollars, Metro continues to struggle to get
people to use public transportation. While it’s fairly easy to
understand where the hand-wringing is coming from, if anything, the
article indicates that we in LA County should collectively be cautious
before approving another “transit tax” – something that is being
proposed by Metro for this November’s ballot.
For Metro and the transit advocates, many of whom themselves nosh on
the taxpayer bounty provided by Measure R (with more noshing to come
with the potential successor this November,) it’s all about the money.
Focus groups, lobbyists, political advisors are all aimed at answering
the question: How can we get the voters of LA County to approve a new
tax? “Promise bones” are being thrown in all directions of the county to
try to secure endorsements of local politicians in an effort to make
sure the future tax measure doesn’t suffer the fate of Measure J, which
failed to pass despite massive Transit Establishment support and
virtually no funded opposition.
It’s the wrong question for Metro to be asking.
The critical question is not how we can get a new tax passed. The
question is: How can we best improve mass transit within the County? And
if we are going to pass another tax, how can we get the best value for
our taxpayer dollars? And are we currently getting the best value for
the billions Metro spends each year? And shouldn’t we ensure we are
getting the best value-for-money before committing more funding to
Metro? Finally, shouldn’t we ensure that the Metro Board proportionally
and equitably represents all the residents of the County before the
taxpayers of the entire County commit more money to the agency? (In a
blatant rejection of the principle “one person, one vote,” the 6 million
non-LA residents of the County are currently underrepresented by some
60% on the Metro Board).
Much of the blowback to the
Times article has been from
anti-car activist types and their suggestions to increase Metro
ridership have, not surprisingly, been punitive actions towards
motorists: increase the cost of gas, increase the cost of parking, make
parking more difficult by reducing building code parking requirements,
end investment in road infrastructure, etc. In a headline in Metro’s
“The Source,” Metro’s in-house publicist Steve Hymon questions a
contention made in the
LA Times article: “Is it really the dream of every bus rider to have a car?”
Indeed, the question is somewhat ironic in view of Metro’s own at
times almost monomaniacal focus on building rail lines at the expense of
bus service. As the
Times article points out: “Although buses
account for about 75% of Metro's ridership, rail operations and
construction receive more money than buses do from Measure R, the
county's most recent half-cent sales tax to fund transportation
projects.”
A number of transit hipsters have tried to discredit the
Times
article by pointing out that some of Metro’s expenditures haven’t borne
fruit because construction is currently in progress and new lines
haven’t opened yet; they have tried to relativize the situation by
comparing ridership declines with even steeper dips in other
jurisdictions. (However, none of them points out that the County’s
population has increased by some 2 million from the height of ridership
in 1985.) But no matter how you play with the figures, it’s hard to
gainsay what I consider to be the crux of the
Times article:
"There's been lots of focus by transit agencies on shiny new things,
sometimes at the expense of bus routes which serve the primary
constituencies of transit agencies: low-wage workers," said Brian
Taylor, the director of UCLA's Institute of Transportation Studies.
"Lots of resources are being put into a few high-profile lines that
often carry a smaller number of riders compared to bus routes."
In light of this, it’s difficult to reasonably support a new tax (or a
tax extension) without some major rethinking, reframing and a healthy
dose of common sense, despite the sexiness of “shiny new things.”
Metro’s new CEO, Phil Washington, has said of Metro’s construction
efforts: “We’re not building for today. We’re building for 100 years
down the road.”
Washington’s long-term thinking is to be applauded, especially when
the other Washington – and all other levels of government below it down
to the local – generally think in vistas which don’t go beyond the next
election cycle. But there is also clearly a challenge with spending
billions of dollars now for “100 years down the road.” It means we need
to make sure that any infrastructure we are building now will not be
obsolete; it means we need to build with technological and demographic
adaptability in mind.
In the
“Is it really the dream of every bus rider to have a car?”
article, Steve Hymon writes: “I like my car (which I often park at a
Gold Line Station).” The implication is that a mix of transit options
which includes cars can best serve the County’s residents. Hymon drives
his car to the Gold Line, then takes public transit. However, this mix
would be made more difficult by the anti-car hipsters who want to use
punitive measures to force people to use public transit. Neither does
Metro itself actually encourage or enable this mix on a consistent
basis. The much touted Purple Line, for example, will offer no
park-and-ride options, boxing out potential riders like Steve Hymon who
would like to leave their cars at transit stations.
As I wrote last April in
The Los Angeles Business Journal,
in which I proposed a municipal automated shuttle system for Beverly
Hills, driverless vehicle technology offers an exciting solution to
first/last mile challenges; getting to and from transit stations (“the
first/last mile”) can be a substantial obstacle to potential commuters’
use of public transportation. In addition to hyperlocal transit
applications, driverless vehicle technology can be a substantial part of
the overall public transit equation, much bigger, in fact, than Metro
is currently acknowledging.
And that, quite frankly, seems to be a major part of the problem with
Metro’s tax-and-spend strategy. It’s difficult to be forward-thinking
with such an embrace of yesterday’s technology. Because as it currently
stands, the next Measure R largely focuses on and plans to spend
billions and billions on traditional rail lines and other “shiny new
things.”
Not every bus rider may dream of having a car, but it’s pretty safe
to say that almost every transit rider wants to get from Point A to
Point B in as efficient and time-saving manner as possible. D’uh. On
demand point-to-point public transportation should be any transit
agency’s ultimate goal, and while this will likely involve a cocktail of
transportation forms, driverless mass transportation can and should
play a major role in achieving solutions.
Driverless vehicle technology, both within the private and public
transportation sector has the potential to take significant numbers of
vehicles off the streets, as well as to use the streets more
efficiently. The irony of the potential of driverless vehicle technology
within the public transportation sector should not be lost upon transit
advocates who are more concerned with getting people from Point A to
Point B than shiny new things and an anti-car bias: the road
infrastructure we have developed in LA, much to the dismay of the
anti-car crowd, could very well unwittingly prove to be the best “Point A
to Point B” infrastructure investment we ever have made with the advent
of automated vehicles and automated public transportation.
A significant investment in driverless vehicle technology, along with
an eye towards other kinds of developing technological solutions,
perhaps including advanced models of Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) should
be a major focus of any future tax measure or additional transportation
expenditures.
What is being proposed now is mainly just a form of “same old, same
old,” some of which indeed may be necessary, but certainly not to the
exclusion of new, developing and future technologies with a 100 year
forward-looking vista in mind. In other words, Metro is looking more to
cobble together political support to get a new tax passed, rather than
providing a forward-thinking vision to solve the actual transportation
problems we face in LA County every day. Right now it seems like a case
of matter over mind and money over vision, and that’s something we can
and must change.
When the Purple Line was approved, the notion of a municipal
automated shuttle system would pretty much have been in the realm of
“Beam me up, Scotty.” Now, the technology will be ready for prime-time
before the LaCienega/Wilshire station opens.
In short, a revolutionary end to Metro’s ridership slump is within
our grasp, but Metro will have to change its current endgame. Metro
should be less concerned with answering the question, “How can we get
voters to approve a new tax?” and more concerned with answering the
question: “How can we get people from point A to point B in as
efficient, cost-effective and convenient a way as possible?” If Metro
can use technology to figure out good answers to this question,
ridership will naturally and organically increase and traffic will
decrease. Rather than simply looking backwards to transportation models
of the past hundred years, practical and political solutions should
follow a well thought out, forward-looking vision which looks to fully
integrate new and developing technologies. This is the clear and logical
answer to Metro’s ridership slump.
The Metro Board now has a historic opportunity to fix Metro’s
ridership slump by providing real leadership for the benefit of all the
residents in LA County; not surprisingly, it involves more – much more –
than simply trying to get us all to pass another transportation tax.
- See more at:
http://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/the-la-beat/10440-enough-hand-wringing-and-kneejerk-blowback-let-s-rethink-metro-s-ridership-slump-new-tax#sthash.pGYxcX0p.dpuf