Metrolink cuts up to 60% of service on some OC train lines; is OCTA to blame?

I think that it is about time that the process of eliminating the OCTA should be started.

One organization for road repairs and maintenance.

One organization to handle public transit.

No politicians allowed.

Ban on all new road and highway construction after completion of present projects. This includes studies and planning for such.

You're welcome!

If you think you're being pulled in different directions, consider that I'm pretty much the transit activist in Riverside. The budget hammer is falling upon all of us in a very, very bad way.

Keep up the good fight.

Also, if you're at all interested in the politics of the Metrolink board, take a look at http://ridinginriverside.blogspot.com/2010/01/metrolink-board-of-directors.html. Of the OCTA and RCTC delegations, none of them represent anywhere that actually rides the train.

It is especially apparent that the OCTA threw away its Metrolink service, considering another passage from the same LA Times story:

"Potential weekday cuts on the Ventura County line and other branches of the service were averted when Los Angeles County officials agreed to at least temporarily increase subsidies for those trains, which heavily serve stations and employers within the county limits."

Good form, Metro! Boooo, OCTA!

OCTA is throwing away all transit, pretty much.

I applaud both Steven and Justin for fighting the good fight for sustainable transportation options in the IE and OC. Fortunately, I work in Downtown and chose to live in Downtown as well. Downtown LA is one of the few spots in Southern California where you can truly live car free. I wanted to live car-free in OC, but couldn't do it. The problem in OC, as Steven pointed out, is too much funding for roads and highways, and just a small fraction for transit. It's easy to lose riders and much harder to bring them back. Even though OCTA operates remarkably on time and is very clean, the frequency is so poor in many areas that it leaves little leeway to plan the day.

First off, if one were to travel from San Bernardino to Oceanside via train, they could continue to do so by traveling through Union Station. For example, leaving San Bernardino at 11:05 and arriving at Union Station at 12:35 on Saturday, then departing on the OC train at 12:45 and arriving at Oceanside at 2:43. A little over 3.5 hours. Much longer than the direct route, but still doable. Or take a westbound San Bernardino train to connect to Amtrak Pacific Surfliner for more options. In addition, there are two Greyhound roundtrips between Riverside, Santa Ana, and Anaheim (along the Las Vegas-Los Angeles route). Now no one likes riding the Dog, but it is out there, and there are a lot bigger gaps - think Riverside to Palm Springs, San Bernardino to Victorville, or Temecula to Escondido - that are not served by any public transit at all on the weekends. Riverside to El Monte is a viable option on the Dog, with multiple trips - El Monte Station is served by the MTA Silver Line and is a much more pleasant place than the hole that is the LA Greyhound station. From El Monte, take the bus west to Union Station, or the MTA 270 south to the Norwalk Metrolink station or Norwalk Green Line to catch the MTA 460 to Disneyland. All jerry-rigged options, but a far cry from implying that Riverside residents are shut out of the world.

The plain fact is that on the IEOC beach train, there isn't enough ridership in the winter. Winter weekend service on the IEOC line averages less than 100 riders per trip. The cost of running a Metrolink train is roughly $500 an hour. With a Metrolink train taking 2.5 hours on the IEOC line, that's $1250 - a cost per ride of $12.50. When you remember that some of the 100 riders were on the Orange-Oceanside segment and thus have additional options of Amtrak Pacific Surfliner, it makes a lot of sense to curtail the service during the winter. (During the summer, ridership does jump, and at least two trains in each direction should be offered - similar to the Beach Train 10 years ago.)

And Art Brown is correct - OCTA bus service has been slashed by almost 25% from its zenith three years ago. Similarly, in the past five years, the OCTA cash bus fare has gone up 50% and day pass 60%. Yet not a single Metrolink train has been cut, and fare increases, although painful, have been regular at roughly 4-5% a year (cumulative increase over the past five years of roughly 25%). Everyone can agree that there needs to be more funding, preferably from the state not stealing transit funds and/or an increase in the gas tax. But, in the interim, it's time for Metrolink riders to feel the pain too.

When the average three car train seats 450, you are talking about less than a quarter of the train ever having a seat occupied at any time. OCTA is in much dire financial straits than MTA, which has Measure R funds that can backfill the loss. Art Brown did the right thing to share the pain.

"But, in the interim, it's time for Metrolink riders to feel the pain too."

When do drivers feel the fucking pain?

I hope gas prices hit $6 a gallon this Summer and this whole piece of shit region grinds to a goddamn halt. Fuck California and fuck Southern California.

Calwatch-
First off, if you were at the meeting you'd know that one of the strategies I suggested to the Board was to extend the SB Line down to Riverside for each train on the weekends. (It's currently done for two trains per day.) San Bernardino and Riverside are connected by public transit, but not well. The Omnitrans 215 used to link the train stations, but no longer, so travelling from the Riverside Metrolink station to the San Bernardino Metrolink station means a ~6-8 block walk on both ends. It also takes nearly an hour, a journey the train makes in 20-30 minutes. Is the SB Line an option for Riversiders? Sort of, but not a very good one. And for Corona? Add on a two-hour local bus ride to Riverside.

Next, let's flip this around a bit.

"First off, if one were to travel from San Bernardino to Oceanside by freeway, they could continue doing so by travelling through downtown Los Angeles. Leaving San Bernardino, taking the I-10 to downtown LA, then change to the I-5 south to Oceanside. A trip time between 2:20 and 4:20, depending on traffic. Much longer than the direct route, but still doable. In addition, there's a tiny mountain road above the Santa Ana River canyon in Yorba Linda. Now, nobody likes driving it, but it is out there. All of these are jerry-rigged options, but a far cry from implying that Riverside drivers are cut off from the world.

The plain fact is that on the CA-91, there isn't enough traffic in the winter. Winter weekend traffic on the highway averages 500 people per lane per hour. Compare this to the usual 1,500-2,100 per lane per hour that it sees during weekday rush hour, and remember that many of these drivers were on the Orange-Oceanside segment and thus have additional options of surface streets, it makes a lot of sense to close the freeway on the weekends.

And Art Brown is correct. OCTA bus service has been slashed by almost 25% from its zenith three years ago. Similarly, in the past five years, the OCTA cash bus fare has gone up 50% and day pass 60%. Yet not a single freeway lane has been closed, and widening projects have been regular at roughly 4-5 a year. Everyone can agree that there needs to be more funding, preferably from an increase in the gas tax. But, in the interim, it's time for freeway drivers to feel the pain too.

When the average lane moves 2,100, you are talking about less than a quarter of the freeway ever having a car on it at any time. OCTA is in much more dire financial straits than MTA, which has Measure R funds that can backfill the loss. Art Brown did the right thing to close the CA-91."

Cue rioting in 3... 2... 1...

(Sorry... I was going to let it go, but I have to. Come on to my blog and tell me that Riversiders have plenty of weekend transit, and you're going to get skewered.)

Riverside-Palm Springs, San Bernardino-Victorville, and Temecula-Escondido are all served by the 'Hound, and you've already said that that's acceptable transit. I'd love to see more service on those corridors, but I doubt that they have nearly the kind of travel over them that the IE-OC line does (with the possible exception of Temecula-Escondido). That said, Greyhound is not a local transit service. You can't buy a monthly pass for Greyhound. You can't rely on Greyhound to get to work every day. Hell, Greyhound doesn't even have reserved seating, and passengers have often been bumped (myself included). This would be disastrous on any trip where you actually cared about showing up on time.

All of the options you mentioned are fine, but just because a connection exists doesn't mean it's in any way viable. I once took a trip with my wife to Huntington Beach on RTA and OCTA. It took us four hours to get there, and we spent four hours at the beach before we had to return. It worked out fine for us, but if you need to be in Huntington Beach for more than four hours, you're spending the night. If you look at the RTA system map, you'll see that, on a weekday, you can ride the bus from Riverside to Escondido. You can get as far as Temecula's Promenade mall during the morning rush, spend a few hours at the mall waiting, and get to Escondido during the evening rush. You can't turn around and come back. I wonder how many of the connections you mentioned actually have a same-day return trip, and how much time you could spend at your destination before having to leave.

You missed my entire point on Art Brown and fairness. A Metrolink cut does not only impact the imaginary category of "Metrolink riders", while bus cuts impact "bus riders." They are the same riders, especially on the weekend trains (per Metrolink's own data.) A cut to transit service, regardless of mode, is a cut felt by all transit riders. It reduces the value of the transit network. Art Brown is laughable when talking about fairness in transportation funding, and then cutting the crap out of transit service while freeway and road projects continue unabated. If you want people to feel the pain, how about the drivers and their ridiculously expensive infrastructure?

The way I understand it, OCTA is in the financial position it is because of road projects. They have money that could be used to fill their transit accounts, but are spending it on the Bristol Ave. widening project and railroad grade crossing improvements. (RCTC often pulls the same dodge- they use transit funding for grade crossing improvements or grade separation projects, which they say "improves transit safety" but really only benefits drivers, especially those dumb enough to drive around crossing gates.)

Now, tell me again how Mr. Brown is doing the "fair" and "right" thing?

"it makes a lot of sense to close the freeway on the weekends."

It's an expensive proposition to put up k-rails and take them down again each weekend. That's why I propose bollards at all freeway entrances. The bollards would not only make it possible to shut the freeway down at the flip of a switch during off-peak hours (why should only a few cars and trucks be allowed to tear up the highway when it's not even at capacity?), but other technology could be installed to make sure drivers have their license, insurance and registration on them.

All the driver has to do is "tap" their card verifying their information. At the same time, drug and bomb sniffing dogs could sniff around the car and see if there's anything sketchy about it. At random intervals, trunks could be checked to make sure no weapons or drugs are being transported in the vehicles.

We've implemented or are implementing these safety features on our transit systems, so I expect only the best for our freeways.

First off, virtually every OCTA bus route has seen service cuts since 2008. Whether it is reduction in evening and weekend frequency, reduction in peak hour frequency, or shortening of service span, almost every route, except for Stationlink and the routes that were peak hour only to begin with, have seen service cuts. Metrolink in the OC hasn't.

With the IE-OC service, one train remains in each direction, which combined with the 149 and Greyhound provide seven trips on weekends for those without a car - down from nine on Saturdays and eight on Sundays. The other six trips are not as convenient but they exist. A 22% cut in service is dramatic but on par with what bus riders faced, and on weekdays, only one IE-OC trip is being eliminated, with persons who need to make that trip having to shift their trip time by a few hours since the 149 only runs peak hour service. The Metrolink staff report indicated that most weekend riders are riding for recreational or personal reasons. A minority are riding to get to work. While it shouldn't matter what a trip is for, decision makers place a higher priority on work related trips because of their domino effects on the economy. Recreational trips are less significant.

The primary cost of transit is operations, and the largest part of that is labor. The cost for freeways is maintenance, and once that freeway is built, the cost of every vehicle that gets on is negligible (in terms of wear on the freeway, Highway Patrol, and lighting). Closing down the freeway in the overnight hours, when there is no construction to be done, would save almost nothing. When there is construction, closing down the freeway overnight usually makes sense to have the construction done faster. Metrolink's operation costs have shot through the roof because of bad decisions made by one formerly-suicidal convicted murderer and one dead engineer trying to impress young boys. Still, that die has been cast, and they have to deal with their increasing costs. Similarly, the voters of Orange County have spoken and have directed Measure M funding go for freeways and Metrolink to Midnight, rather than intercounty connections or bus service. If OCTA were to shift funds, they would risk a lawsuit by AAA or Drivers for Highway Safety, and they would be taken to the cleaners since the allocation was in black and white. In addition, there are federal and state rules about mixing operations and capital funding. Freeways and rial expansion are capital projects, while paving streets and running trains are generally considered operations and maintenance. If OCTA or RTA were to be audited, they could lose millions of dollars if it came down wrong.

One alternative to Metrolink train service might be additional charter bus service to supplement the trains. This is done in Toronto, Seattle, and many other places, and would cost no more than a fifth of the cost to operate a train that distance. But you continue to advocate for a train that carries less than 100 passengers, and that actually may spew more pollution than the cars that it replaces (since the break even point for trains in terms of fuel efficiency and pollution is higher than 100 passengers). While LA County can afford to do that, since they have more dedicated commuter rail funding, Orange County can't, and to recommend that they do so when workers can't get home from their restaurant jobs is unsupportable.

I understand that the costs behind freeways are primarily construction-related, and I would never seriously propose that we close a freeway as a cost-saving measure. We'd probably spend more on closing it than we'd ever come close to recouping in maintenance costs. My point was simply that, if you tried to treat our road system like our politicians treat our transit system, there would be riots in the streets. OCTA cut Metrolink service because they won't face any political repercussions from doing so. If they were to divert funds from road projects in order to keep the trains running, they might be looking at unemployment next term. (Lawsuits and archaic regulations notwithstanding.)

Calculating the environmental benefits of a single trip is misleading. Cato Institute recently released a report that called public bus systems an environmental negative, because they often ran nearly empty in the middle of the day and at night. Their conclusion was that, when compared to a modern automobile, these buses were actually performing worse per-passenger-mile on air pollution measures. However, the existence of the bus system provides mobility choices. If that system enables people to live car-free, or with one less car, it may provide significant environmental benefits that are not directly related to that particular bus or train trip. Metrolink's analysis showed that weekend riders are more likely to be transit-dependent. It's entirely possible that, now that there are no transportation alternatives, some of those riders will scrimp, save, and purchase an inexpensive automobile to make that trip. This would be an unquestionable environmental detriment, regardless of the individual train's environmental performance. Not to mention that many of these analyses are compared to a _full_ automobile- most automobiles aren't driven full, and at least a plurality are single-occupant. Cars, of course, also have a myriad number of environmental problems that aren't emissions-related. See http://ridinginriverside.blogspot.com/2010/01/you-cannot-have-your-car-and-your.html

I am completely, enthusiastically in support of Metrolink using buses for off-peak service. As you mentioned, Sound Transit (Seattle) and GO Transit (Toronto) both do this. So does Translink in Vancouver, supplementing their WestCoast Express commuter rail line. Some folks are mode-snobs, and I believe this especially applies to Metrolink passengers (I was advising a friend commuting to Costa Mesa- there's a perfectly good and comfortable single-seat ride on an express bus, but he chose to Metrolink to Santa Ana and catch a bus there, even though the fare was twice the price), but I'm certainly not one of them. I think using buses would provide Metrolink with a level of operational and budgetary flexibility that they currently lack, and it would allow them to keep service operating for marginal trips. (See http://ridinginriverside.blogspot.com/2009/06/late-night-metrolink.html). I'm actually currently looking to see if there's anything in SCRRA's by-laws that prevents them from running scheduled bus service- they are the Socal Regional *Rail* Authority after all.

If OCTA can't divert the money, fair enough. (RCTC could have afforded it, per Metrolink's figures presented at the Board meeting.) However, the speed with which they made this decision, and the complete lack of effort in finding any additional subsidy, was stunning. LA's delegation was in a giving mood that Friday morning, and I bet OCTA could have gotten a chunk of their surplus money to help save at least the OC Line service, and maybe the IE-OC as well (IE-OC passengers are often travelling to Los Angeles via Orange). It wasn't only their decision, but the callous disregard with which they made it, that I wrote to criticize.