Alas, friends, the time has come to bow our heads and pay silent tribute to the Dodger Trolley.
Yes, the half-baked solution to traffic in and out of Dodger Stadium has gone the way of the Dodo, but I can't find a single news story announcing it. There are plenty of articles from January with headlines like "Dodger Trolley on the ropes", or "Dodger Trolley drops into money pit". (I've linked one such article, which includes a PDF copy of a letter from LADOT to the LA city counsel summarizing the problem with funding the service for an entire year.) But the only way I've been able to confirm its demise is from the Dodgers' own web site. And even there, the Trolley is conspicuous by its absence. The Dodgers webmaster has quietly removed all references to the Trolley from the site.
Apparently, the city of Los Angeles doesn't want to continue paying for the service, and the Dodgers don't want to start. From my point of view, it seems cheap on the both their parts. After all, it's not even three miles from Union Station to the ball park. And in the larger picture, $600,000 doesn't seem like a large hit on the city's budget. Hell, if money was such a big problem, they could have considered charging for it. I would have considered paying $1.25 one way, even without the drivers honoring a Metro day pass.
On the other hand, the Trolley had one fatal flaw. It had to go into the parking lot of Dodger Stadium, using the same lanes as the cars. Even though I never took the opportunity to use the service, I've read at least one blog entry that said that having to wait in all that traffic wasn't worth it. And on that point, I'm forced to agree. The whole point of public transit is to provide an viable alternative to driving. But unless there was a dedicated, bus-only lane so that the Trolley to skirt around automobile traffic entering and exiting the park, it would indeed not seem worth the effort.
The Dodger Trolley was a novel idea, and I wanted to be more enthusiastic about it. But I think it could have been executed better so I'm not surprised it failed. LA's transit services aren't as broad as they should be, and the history of Metro's Orange Line (see my earlier blogs) has shown that political support for transit in this city is spotty. Ultimately, it was a band-aid on a much larger problem, and underscores the need for a more permanent (meaning rail-based) transport system in and out of Dodger Stadium. And since the Dodgers organization has made it quite clear that the resposibility for that transport system lies at the feet of the city, Dodger fans will have to petition City Hall or the county for a commitment to make it happen.
And since I spend so much time blogging about it, maybe it's about time I got off my butt and started making some phone calls ;)
03 April, 2009
19 February, 2009
The Other Side Of The BRT Coin
Ok, out of fairness to the pro-BRT contingent out there, I thought I'd give equal time to the other side of the debate. Click here to read a report on the advantages of BRT.
Specifically, it covers the performance of Metro's Orange Line between November 2005 and January 2007. It points out that weekday boardings are indeed comparable to, if not higher than, the Gold Line for much of that time. It goes on to talk about attracting many new riders to the Metro system, and how little it cost to get up and running, compared with other lines. But ridership comparisons are not really valid because there's no rail service at all along the route that the Orange Line travels. There's no real way to know if more or fewer people would ride a light rail system in that area. The Orange Line is the only option for passengers, apart from traditional buses. And it seems reasonable that many people fed up with driving will ride whatever system is available, which might explain the high ridership numbers.
It also seems rather obvious that BRT betters light rail in up-front expense, so the table on capital costs is mostly irrelevant. Buses, even bendy ones, cost less to buy, and the roadbeds that they ride on are cheaper to lay and maintain. Fair enough. But the table on comparing operating efficiencies is rather suspicious. There's no telling what figures are included or excluded in those totals. And with fuel costs so wildly variable lately, I'm sure today the figures are much closer between the Orange and Gold lines. (If I can dig up some hard numbers to demonstrate that statement, I will post them in a future blog.)
The report even compares travel time on the Orange Line with the travel time on the Ventura Blvd Metro Rapid Line, where the average speed at various times of the day ranges between 16 and 22 MPH for both. Pretty slick, comparing a bus with a bus. But if you're going to compare BRT with light rail in cost, you might as well extend the comparison to travel speeds. But the report simply leaves that data out. And the difference, according Metro's own timetables, is significant. Both the Orange Line and the Gold Line cover roughly the same distance, about 14 miles. The Gold Line travels that distance 30 minutes; the Orange Line in 43. That makes light rail, at least in the context of this comparison, 50% faster than BRT. Pretty staggering, I say. LA's only subway, the Red Line, gets around even quicker than the Gold Line, traveling about 17 miles in 29 minutes .
The costs to implement light rail is obviously higher than for BRT. Cheaper to operate? Questionable, especially in 2009 dollars. But the snail's pace of the Orange Line compared with the Gold Line is hard to ignore. You can really feel the difference, and I find the Orange Line frustratingly slow. It seems as with most things in life, you get what you pay for. So even though that pro-BRT report shows some impressive data, the comparison runs off the rails (yeah, pun intended) by switching tracks (yup, that one, too), and ignores a significant difference in travel time. I find it hard to believe that
The costs to implement light rail is obviously higher than for BRT. Cheaper to operate? Questionable, especially in 2009 dollars. But the snail's pace of the Orange Line compared with the Gold Line is hard to ignore. You can really feel the difference, and I find the Orange Line frustratingly slow. It seems as with most things in life, you get what you pay for. So even though that pro-BRT report shows some impressive data, the comparison runs off the rails (yeah, pun intended) by switching tracks (yup, that one, too), and ignores a significant difference in travel time. I find it hard to believe that anyone who commutes daily on public transit would approve of expanding BRT in favor of light rail. We should have spent our money wisely the first time. Instead, we kinda blew it.
Specifically, it covers the performance of Metro's Orange Line between November 2005 and January 2007. It points out that weekday boardings are indeed comparable to, if not higher than, the Gold Line for much of that time. It goes on to talk about attracting many new riders to the Metro system, and how little it cost to get up and running, compared with other lines. But ridership comparisons are not really valid because there's no rail service at all along the route that the Orange Line travels. There's no real way to know if more or fewer people would ride a light rail system in that area. The Orange Line is the only option for passengers, apart from traditional buses. And it seems reasonable that many people fed up with driving will ride whatever system is available, which might explain the high ridership numbers.
It also seems rather obvious that BRT betters light rail in up-front expense, so the table on capital costs is mostly irrelevant. Buses, even bendy ones, cost less to buy, and the roadbeds that they ride on are cheaper to lay and maintain. Fair enough. But the table on comparing operating efficiencies is rather suspicious. There's no telling what figures are included or excluded in those totals. And with fuel costs so wildly variable lately, I'm sure today the figures are much closer between the Orange and Gold lines. (If I can dig up some hard numbers to demonstrate that statement, I will post them in a future blog.)
The report even compares travel time on the Orange Line with the travel time on the Ventura Blvd Metro Rapid Line, where the average speed at various times of the day ranges between 16 and 22 MPH for both. Pretty slick, comparing a bus with a bus. But if you're going to compare BRT with light rail in cost, you might as well extend the comparison to travel speeds. But the report simply leaves that data out. And the difference, according Metro's own timetables, is significant. Both the Orange Line and the Gold Line cover roughly the same distance, about 14 miles. The Gold Line travels that distance 30 minutes; the Orange Line in 43. That makes light rail, at least in the context of this comparison, 50% faster than BRT. Pretty staggering, I say. LA's only subway, the Red Line, gets around even quicker than the Gold Line, traveling about 17 miles in 29 minutes .
The costs to implement light rail is obviously higher than for BRT. Cheaper to operate? Questionable, especially in 2009 dollars. But the snail's pace of the Orange Line compared with the Gold Line is hard to ignore. You can really feel the difference, and I find the Orange Line frustratingly slow. It seems as with most things in life, you get what you pay for. So even though that pro-BRT report shows some impressive data, the comparison runs off the rails (yeah, pun intended) by switching tracks (yup, that one, too), and ignores a significant difference in travel time. I find it hard to believe that
The costs to implement light rail is obviously higher than for BRT. Cheaper to operate? Questionable, especially in 2009 dollars. But the snail's pace of the Orange Line compared with the Gold Line is hard to ignore. You can really feel the difference, and I find the Orange Line frustratingly slow. It seems as with most things in life, you get what you pay for. So even though that pro-BRT report shows some impressive data, the comparison runs off the rails (yeah, pun intended) by switching tracks (yup, that one, too), and ignores a significant difference in travel time. I find it hard to believe that anyone who commutes daily on public transit would approve of expanding BRT in favor of light rail. We should have spent our money wisely the first time. Instead, we kinda blew it.
12 February, 2009
The Orange Lie
I don't make a secret of my dislike for Metro's Orange Line. I've ridden it, and believe me...it's no walk in the park. Come to think of it, a walk in the park would be more pleasant. The Orange Line is slow, it's late or otherwise off schedule, and it's way over-crowded. (I can handle crowds -- I live in LA -- but over-crowding is no fun.) So let's take a brief look at this cheapskate's alternative light rail.
For the benefit of those readers living outside Los Angeles, the Orange Line is a Bus Rapid Transit (or BRT) line that runs east-to-west along a former Southern Pacific rail right-of-way, between North Hollywood and Woodland Hills. The land was acquired by the LACMTA (a.k.a. Metro) in March of 1991. That same year, a state senator named Alan Robbins introduced SB211, which placed certain restrictions on the right-of-way. Specifically, section 130265 of the California Public Utilities Code states that "in the area between the western curb of Hazeltine Avenue and a line parallel to and 50 feet west of the western edge of the Hollywood freeway, there may not be constructed any exclusive public mass transit rail guideway, rail rapid transit or light rail system, or other track, other than as a subway system that is covered and below grade." Complicating matters further is a newer law by current LA County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky called The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Reform And Accountability Act Of 1998, which is designed "to prohibit the use of transportation sales tax revenues for future subway construction."
These two laws would seem to be at crossed purposes. Yaroslavsky's law in particular also contradicts the recently passed Measure R, which raises the state sales tax 0.5% for the expressed purpose of improving mass transit in Los Angeles County, including building the so-called "Subway To The Sea". But neither explains why a light rail line was prohibited in the corridor, when it was already graded for rail use at the time. Pretty nonsensical, really. Never the less, the busway was built, and we seem to be stuck with it. But it's hardly better than driving, and it's not even in the same league as light rail. Buses accelerate more slowly, brake more poorly, have lower average speeds, lower per-vehicle capacity, a poor public image, and greater levels of noise and air pollution than light rail (some of these points are covered here).
It seems clear, therefore, that politics won out over logic in renovating (er, removing) that rail line. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that current law prohibits light rail construction anywhere along the Burbank-Chandler line. But the money's already been spent, so it would take a hell of an argument to convince the county supervisors that they've made a big mistake. The Orange Line is a bad idea. It's not exactly a failure, but in my opinion it's close. I don't know what it's going to take to change things to allow the it to be converted into a proper light rail system, but I, for one, would love to get involved.
For the benefit of those readers living outside Los Angeles, the Orange Line is a Bus Rapid Transit (or BRT) line that runs east-to-west along a former Southern Pacific rail right-of-way, between North Hollywood and Woodland Hills. The land was acquired by the LACMTA (a.k.a. Metro) in March of 1991. That same year, a state senator named Alan Robbins introduced SB211, which placed certain restrictions on the right-of-way. Specifically, section 130265 of the California Public Utilities Code states that "in the area between the western curb of Hazeltine Avenue and a line parallel to and 50 feet west of the western edge of the Hollywood freeway, there may not be constructed any exclusive public mass transit rail guideway, rail rapid transit or light rail system, or other track, other than as a subway system that is covered and below grade." Complicating matters further is a newer law by current LA County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky called The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Reform And Accountability Act Of 1998, which is designed "to prohibit the use of transportation sales tax revenues for future subway construction."
These two laws would seem to be at crossed purposes. Yaroslavsky's law in particular also contradicts the recently passed Measure R, which raises the state sales tax 0.5% for the expressed purpose of improving mass transit in Los Angeles County, including building the so-called "Subway To The Sea". But neither explains why a light rail line was prohibited in the corridor, when it was already graded for rail use at the time. Pretty nonsensical, really. Never the less, the busway was built, and we seem to be stuck with it. But it's hardly better than driving, and it's not even in the same league as light rail. Buses accelerate more slowly, brake more poorly, have lower average speeds, lower per-vehicle capacity, a poor public image, and greater levels of noise and air pollution than light rail (some of these points are covered here).
It seems clear, therefore, that politics won out over logic in renovating (er, removing) that rail line. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that current law prohibits light rail construction anywhere along the Burbank-Chandler line. But the money's already been spent, so it would take a hell of an argument to convince the county supervisors that they've made a big mistake. The Orange Line is a bad idea. It's not exactly a failure, but in my opinion it's close. I don't know what it's going to take to change things to allow the it to be converted into a proper light rail system, but I, for one, would love to get involved.
23 January, 2009
Baseball and the subway
For reasons I can't begin to comprehend, the baseball fan in me suddenly awoke from hibernation this winter, just in time for the debut of MLB TV. I swear, between that and Fox Soccer Channel, I've hardly been watching anything else.
So what's baseball got to do with trains? As you'll see, plenty.
For starters, living in Los Angeles, my favorite baseball team is the Dodgers. And watching all that programming on the MLB channel, I've learned a whole lot in a short period of time. One of the more pertinent factoids I've picked up is the origin of the name "Dodgers". Seems that about 100 years ago when the Dodgers were still located in Brooklyn, they had a few names before the Dodgers: the Bridegrooms and the Superbas among them. But their old neighborhood of Brooklyn was known for having lots of trolley lines crisscrossing the borough, and Brooklyn baseball fans would have to cross at least one trolley track on foot to get to Ebbets Field to watch the team play ball. Since the team's fans had to "dodge" all those trolleys to get to and from the park, they earned the nickname "trolley dodgers". Soon enough, the name was applied to the team, and it stuck.
And that got me wondering how many modern ball parks have rail access? It turns out, all but one in California.
One of the more recent examples is AT&T Park in San Francisco, home of the Giants. The park was opened in 2000 as a replacement for the rightly maligned Candlestick Park, and from the beginning was designed with easy access in mind. It's located in the Embarcadero, at the edge of downtown, and has a MUNI rail line passing right in front of it. (The park also features a bicycle garage, the first of its kind, but I digress.)
Another baseball park that has terrific rail access is Angles Stadium in Anaheim. You can get there via Amtrak or Metrolink (both lines share the same tracks), and it's a short walk across the parking lot to the stadium. Also, the Oakland Coliseum has long had easy rail access via BART's East Bay line. I used to take BART occassionally to see the A's play when I was a boy, and it was fun to be able to hop on the train, exit at the Coliseum station, and walk across the elevated walkway straight to the stadium entrance. The Athletics web site promotes public transport access to their park; the Angels site doesn't.
It's a quick and dirty solution, but I have to say it's pretty clever: the City of Los Angeles has found yet another way to re-purpose some older buses, and the Dodgers have found a way to capitalize on Dodger history. And it's something I'm looking forward to trying out this baseball season.
But there needs to be a more permanent alternative to driving to see the Dodgers play. (Here are a couple of nuttier ideas.) I sincerely hope that with Frank McCourt's ambitious renovation plan of Dodger Stadium, he manages to convince the City of Los Angeles to provide that permanent solution: a spur rail line from Union Station. Now that Measure R has been passed into law, maybe it's more likely than ever. Maybe I'll try asking Mr. McCourt myself.
So what's baseball got to do with trains? As you'll see, plenty.
For starters, living in Los Angeles, my favorite baseball team is the Dodgers. And watching all that programming on the MLB channel, I've learned a whole lot in a short period of time. One of the more pertinent factoids I've picked up is the origin of the name "Dodgers". Seems that about 100 years ago when the Dodgers were still located in Brooklyn, they had a few names before the Dodgers: the Bridegrooms and the Superbas among them. But their old neighborhood of Brooklyn was known for having lots of trolley lines crisscrossing the borough, and Brooklyn baseball fans would have to cross at least one trolley track on foot to get to Ebbets Field to watch the team play ball. Since the team's fans had to "dodge" all those trolleys to get to and from the park, they earned the nickname "trolley dodgers". Soon enough, the name was applied to the team, and it stuck.
And that got me wondering how many modern ball parks have rail access? It turns out, all but one in California.
One of the more recent examples is AT&T Park in San Francisco, home of the Giants. The park was opened in 2000 as a replacement for the rightly maligned Candlestick Park, and from the beginning was designed with easy access in mind. It's located in the Embarcadero, at the edge of downtown, and has a MUNI rail line passing right in front of it. (The park also features a bicycle garage, the first of its kind, but I digress.)
Another baseball park that has terrific rail access is Angles Stadium in Anaheim. You can get there via Amtrak or Metrolink (both lines share the same tracks), and it's a short walk across the parking lot to the stadium. Also, the Oakland Coliseum has long had easy rail access via BART's East Bay line. I used to take BART occassionally to see the A's play when I was a boy, and it was fun to be able to hop on the train, exit at the Coliseum station, and walk across the elevated walkway straight to the stadium entrance. The Athletics web site promotes public transport access to their park; the Angels site doesn't.
So Dodger Stadium is the only Major League park in California with no direct rail access. To address this shortcoming, the Dodgers organization partnered with the City of Los Angeles in 2008 and created the Dodger Trolley: one of Metro's older GMC coaches with an old-fashioned, cartooney trolley decal on the side. These buses have traditionally been put to a variety of uses in LA, shuttling people to places like the Hollywood Bowl and Griffith Observatory. The Dodger Trolley leaves Union Station every ten minutes starting 90 minutes before games, and runs for up to an hour after games to take riders back to Union Station.
It's a quick and dirty solution, but I have to say it's pretty clever: the City of Los Angeles has found yet another way to re-purpose some older buses, and the Dodgers have found a way to capitalize on Dodger history. And it's something I'm looking forward to trying out this baseball season.
But there needs to be a more permanent alternative to driving to see the Dodgers play. (Here are a couple of nuttier ideas.) I sincerely hope that with Frank McCourt's ambitious renovation plan of Dodger Stadium, he manages to convince the City of Los Angeles to provide that permanent solution: a spur rail line from Union Station. Now that Measure R has been passed into law, maybe it's more likely than ever. Maybe I'll try asking Mr. McCourt myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)