# Metrolink Cuts 10 Trains



## WhoozOn1st (Jan 9, 2010)

Metrolink fares stay put, but 10 trains cut

"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."

"...more service cuts and fare increases may have to be considered in the next several months."


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 9, 2010)

WhoozOn1st said:


> Metrolink fares stay put, but 10 trains cut
> "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."
> 
> "...more service cuts and fare increases may have to be considered in the next several months."


Patrick: Noticed one of the suits made a comment about "it's not fair to reduce busses to keep people on the trains.." Thought both were public transportation and with the terrible traffic in SoCAl doesnt it make sense to run more TRAINS, not busses? Opps, it's politicians running a transportation system, never mind!


----------



## GG-1 (Jan 9, 2010)

jimhudson said:


> it's politicians running a transportation system,


Jim There is a problem with this statement. Can Politicians Do anything? Except Through OPM (Other Peoples Money) Away

Aloha


----------



## Ispolkom (Jan 11, 2010)

jimhudson said:


> Patrick: Noticed one of the suits made a comment about "it's not fair to reduce busses to keep people on the trains.." Thought both were public transportation and with the terrible traffic in SoCAl doesnt it make sense to run more TRAINS, not busses? Opps, it's politicians running a transportation system, never mind!


It's class politics, isn't it? I know that there is a long-running argument in southern California that rail projects are paid for at the expense of the buses that the vast majority of riders actually use, and that this argument has gotten traction in court. I don't know if that's true in LA's case, but it does seem plausible. I well remember how shamefully the Washington DC transit authority neglected its bus system in favor of Metro in the 1990s. Mind you, I benefited, since I took Metro every day and rarely stepped in a bus. I've heard the same argument here in the Twin Cities, but the painfully slow process of building any sort of rail here makes the point moot.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 11, 2010)

Ispolkom said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick: Noticed one of the suits made a comment about "it's not fair to reduce busses to keep people on the trains.." Thought both were public transportation and with the terrible traffic in SoCAl doesnt it make sense to run more TRAINS, not busses? Opps, it's politicians running a transportation system, never mind!
> ...


When rail is so much cheaper to operate, agencies strapped for cash cut the bigger expense, buses. Or at least they cut the buses harder, even if they take a few whacks at rail.

In DC it costs them $1.17 in operating costs to move one passenger one mile, doing the same on rail costs 44 cents.

In LA it costs 58 cents on a bus, 50 cents on light rail, and 45 cents on heavy rail.

In MSP it's 72 cents on a bus, 42 on light rail. Commuter's to new to know yet.

On average in the US for all agencies, it's 80 cents on a bus, 60 on LRT, 40 on heavy rail and commuter rail.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jan 12, 2010)

AlanB said:


> When rail is so much cheaper to operate, agencies strapped for cash cut the bigger expense, buses. Or at least they cut the buses harder, even if they take a few whacks at rail.
> In DC it costs them $1.17 in operating costs to move one passenger one mile, doing the same on rail costs 44 cents.
> 
> In LA it costs 58 cents on a bus, 50 cents on light rail, and 45 cents on heavy rail.
> ...


This kind of makes my point, I think. If buses get cut in preference to rail, since they cost more and there are usually a lot more of them, it looks like the rail riders are given preference. If capital investment goes to rail projects rather than bus lines (since the bus lines already exist and the rail doesn't), it looks like the rail riders are again given preference. Given the common perception that rail serves middle-class commuters, while poorer customers are on the bus, it isn't hard to categorize these sort of policies as class-based (or ethnically based) discrimination, even if the policies have economic rationality.

I note that the Los Angeles transit authority seems to have lost a law suit on exactly this point in 1996.

This doesn't mean that Los Angeles investments in rail transit are wrong or racist, but once again where you stand on an issue like this might have a lot to do with where you sit on your way to work.


----------

