Who Watched Roger Rabbit?The Los Angeles Metro and the Bus Riders UnionJason BorahGreg GauerJoseph MessierCE 5212 / PA 5232September 24, 2008Overview•List of Actors•Timeline of Events•Policy Issues•Discussion QuestionsActorsHistoricalPacific Electric Rail (PE)Southern Pacific Rail (SP)California Railroad Commission (CRC)Los Angeles County Board of SupervisorsPro-BusBus Riders Union (BRU)Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC)Eric MannNAACP Legal Defense FundPro-RailLos Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC)Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA)Southern California Regional Rail AuthorityTimeline1901 – 1930s1940s – early 1960s1960s – 1970s1980s - Presenthttp://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/la/historic/redcars/Early 20th Century Rail1900 -30s: Dawn of the Automobile•Individual automobile ownership began•Existing road networks could not support the increase in demand•Public & City Council supported growth of roads through proposal & approval of the Major Street and Highway Plan (1924)•Public did not support PE expansion initiativesTimeline1901 – 1930s1940s – early 1960s1960s – 1970s1980s - Present1940s -70s: Increased Demand for Highways•Individual automobile ownership continues to increase•Existing road networks could not support the increase in demand•Suburban Residential Developers and Downtown businesses support the growth of Rail to connect with the central city•Suburban businesses support highway expansion to connect to emerging1940s -70s: Increased Demand for Highways•PE ridership declines before and after WWII (except for war time bump)•PE wants to cut service, raise fares, and switch some lines to buses but must get approval from California Railroad Commission (CRC)•PE hires consultant engineer Arthur Jenkins in 1939 and Arthur Ager in 1947 to prepare two separatean analysis of the PE opperations, services, and facilitiesA. Jenkins’ Analysis (1939)Fundamental Belief: "that the era of rail transit, indeed, of transit generally, was drawing to a close and that PE ought to grow old as gracefully as possible while it bowed to the realities of technological progress represented by the automobile." (Adler p.63)Recommended:•Cutting labor costs by substituting one person operated rail cars for the existing two person operated ones currently in service, •Large scale conversions of rail lines to bus serviceA. Ager’s Analysis (1947)Fundamental Belief: "thought that transit, especially rail rapid transit, still had a great deal to offer in dealing with metropolitan area traffic congestion problems and that it was PE's responsibility to play a leadership role in securing for the region the benefits that rapid transit had to offer” # (Adler p.63)Recommended:•PE should switch from 2 person operated cars to 1 person operated cars•PE should use profits gained in freight operations to reinvest in the passenger operations -for upgrades and repairs to the service•The managing relationship of SP was preventing PE from being able to invest in system improvementsDiscussion QuestionsBreak into two groups (Jenkins and Ager) and discuss :•What principles from lecture are evident in your engineer’s argument and recommendations (system maturity, cash cows, etc.)?Timeline1901 – 1930s1940s – early 1960s1960s – 1970s1980s - Present1980s - Present•1980 - Proposition A approved for 0.5% sales tax for subway and rail construction•1988 to1992 - MTA cutback bus service via vehicle-revenue miles by 8 %•1990 - 0.5 percent sales tax increase•1990 – Blue Line opens from CBD to Long Beach•1992 - MTA created by merger•1993 – Red Line opens (heavy rail)•1994 - MTA proposes bus fare increase from $1.10 to $1.35•Board approved in June; voted to spend $123 million on next phase of rail seven days later•Bus Riders Union (BRU) formed out of the Labor/Community Strategy Center1980s – Present (cont.)•1995 - Green Line opens•1996 - Consent Decree signed between MTA and Bus Riders Union•Fare reduction through monthly passes, but MTA receives regular fare increase to $1.35.•Reduction of bus overcrowding through more buses, more lines, more frequently served. •New bus service to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county.•Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree). •2006 – Decree ends, and MTA raises faresCurrent LA County MTA Rail http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/rail_map.pdfPolicy Issues•Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) disproportionately funds rail over other modes of public transit•MTA, from an economic standpoint, does not need to put money into better bus service•MTA supports the use of bus fare increases to fund rail initiatives•MTA encourages rail ridership by keeping fares artificially low, while allowing bus faresPolicy Issues•Los Angeles favored low density development, leading to scattered populations and employers•Los Angeles, in response to state and federal clean air and congestion mandates, now emphasizes rail transit and HOV lanes, and to a lesser extent, traditional bus service•Los Angeles supports environmentally sound transit. Rail is deemed better than bus•MTA supports transit as a tool primarilyDiscussion Questions•Is transit’s purpose to serve those without cars, or is it to get people with cars to stop driving?•What obligation do transit authorities have to the people who have no option but transit?•What obligation do transit authorities have to the people with alternative transportation modes?•Is the Bus Riders Union racism claimDiscussion Questions•Do people who pay more taxes have a right to more expensive rail transit?•Is the cost of a transit option the only factor of importance when deciding which to incorporate? What benefits of rail validate its continuing use?•Given the argument that funding transit by increasing sales tax disproportionately burdens the poor, what other taxing options would be more
View Full Document
Unlocking...