THOMAS A. RUBIN, CPA, CMA, CMC, CIA, CGFM, CFM a presentation to - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

THOMAS A. RUBIN, CPA, CMA, CMC, CIA, CGFM, CFM

a presentation to

THE TRANSIT COALITION

re the

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and TRANSIT IN LOS ANGELES November 27, 2007

OVERVIEW

• Understanding Surface Transportation in

Greater Los Angeles

• The Failure of the MTA Grand Strategy
• Bus vs. Rail, Costs, Value, and Budget
• Conclusion: Bus Works in Los Angeles,

Guideway Transit Doesn’t, so Strengthen What Works and Abandon What Doesn’t (Data is primarily through MTA FY07, as the MTA FY08 Adopted Budget is junk.)

Understanding Surface Transportation in Greater Los Angeles

Greater Los Angeles Transportation Reality Check: “Southern California, the land of low-density, single-family detached homes on large lots connected by endless freeways, where driving is king.”

not

SoCal TRANSPORTATION REALITY I

• Of the 69 U.S. Urbanized Areas with

Populations of 500,000 or More, Greater Los Angles:

– Has by far the highest population per square mile, over 50% more than Greater NYC – Is second to last in both freeway centerline miles and and total roadway miles per capita – Is 45th in daily vehicle miles traveled/capita and peak hour trip length

SoCal TRANSPORTATION REALITY II

– SoCal has third best “homes-jobs” balance – Average vehicle miles per freeway lane mile is by far the highest in the nation – LA has the “widest” freeways in the U.S. – MTA buses and trains are among the most crowded in the U.S.

Why do we have congestion? Too many people, not enough road capacity – and transit is not a congestion relief tool.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY POPULATION BY ETHNICITY 1970-2040 (State of California/Department of Finance/Demographic Research Unit)

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

(M illio n s )

Hispanic Black Asian/Pacific Islander White Native American

U.S. URBANIZED AREAS POPULATION >1,000,000 1980 Population vs. Central Business District Commercial Square Feet

NYC LA CHI PHIL DET SF DC DAL ATL 100 200 300 400 500 600 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Urbanized Area Population (Millions)

C e n tr a l B u s in e s s D i s tr i c t S q u a r e F e e t (T h o u s a n d s ) Least Squares Line r-squared = .97 (w/o Los Angeles) Los Angeles "actual" was only 23% of prediction.

LOS ANGELES DOESN’T HAVE A DOWNTOWN – AND THAT’S A GOOD THING

• Halting the Freeway System implementation

mid-way approximately 1970 left us very short of both road coverage and capacity.

• Development of multiple regional centers and

fine grid system of arterials and proven far superior for surface transportation

• Of the >two dozen super-megatropolis’ of the

world, LA has the least rail transit – and the best surface transportation system.

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE 69 LARGEST URBANIZED AREAS VMT/Freeway Lane vs. TTI

LA NYC CHI DC SFO ATL RSB OMA TUL ROC SPI

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000

VMT/Freeway Lane Travel Time Index r-squared = .76 (VMT/Freeway Lane Independent)

PROBLEM STATEMENT

You are the new CEO for a transit agency. On your first day, your staff presents you with two projects for your busiest line: One will double the speed on the fastest mile from 30 mph to 60 mph. The other will add one mph on the slowest mile, from 5 mph to 6 mph. You can only do one – which one?

ANSWER

Time to travel a mile @ 30 mph? 2 Minutes Time to travel a mile @ 60 mph? 1 Minute Time Saved: 1 Minute Time to travel a mile @ 5 mph: 12 Minutes Time to travel a mile @ 6 mph: 10 Minutes Time Saved: 2 Minutes Winner: Speed up 1 mph on the slowest mile.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

In transportation, there are many cases where greatly speeding up travel on the fastest portion of the trip is far less productive than a minor speed up of travel

• n the slowest portion of the trip – and

take a guess at the relative costs. … and what is the slowest portion of a transit trip in Los Angeles?

ANSWER

Standing at a bus stop or train station waiting for the bus or train to arrive. Second slowest is walking to and from the bus stop or train station. In transportation modeling, a very common “constant” for this is 250% - perceived wait time is 250% of clock time – IF YOU ARE WAITING TEN MINUTES FOR A BUS, IT SEEMS LIKE 25 MINUTES.

Bus vs. Rail, Costs, Value, and Budget

• Productivity, Cost-Efficiency, and Cost-

Effectiveness of MTA Bus and Rail Transit

– Peer Analysis – MTA Internal Comparisons

• MTA Bus and Rail Subsidies
• Allocations of MTA Budget to Bus and Rail

Peer Analysis I

• Source: National Transit Database,

Federal Transit Administration, Report year 2005 Transit Profiles, Top 50 Reporting Agencies

• All 12 Heavy Rail Systems (MTA Red

Line)

• All 19 Light Rail Systems (MTA Blue,

Gold, and Green Lines)

• 20 Largest Bus Systems (out of 44)

Peer Analysis II

• Metrics (Not Considering Capital Costs):

–MTA-Preferred Metric: Farebox Recovery Ratio –Productivity (consumption per unit of service): Average Passenger Load –Cost-Efficiency (cost per unit of service): Cost and Subsidy/ Vehicle Revenue Hour –Cost-Effectiveness (taxpayer cost per service consumed: Subsidy/Passenger and Subsidy/Passenger-Mile

Heavy Rail Farebox Recovery Ratio

FTA "TOP 50" HEAVY RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (12) Farebox Recover Ratio

68.3% 65.2% 59.2% 56.6% 52.2% 46.5% 45.0% 41.0% 38.6% 32.1% 30.9% 21.3% 18.9% 15.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% N Y C T W M A T A W e i g h t e d A v e B A R T S E P T A M B T A P A T H S i m p l e A v e . C T A M A R T A M

• M

T A L A

• M

T A G C R T A M D T

Agency

LA-MTA is third lowest of the dozen.

Heavy Rail Productivity

FTA "TOP 50" HEAVY RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (12) Average Passenger Load

29.6 25.0 24.5 24.2 23.7 23.5 23.0 22.5 21.0 20.9 20.9 16.5 15.6 14.4 5 10 15 20 25 30 L A

• M

T A N Y C T S E P T A M B T A P A T H S i m p l e A v e . W e i g h t e d A v e W M A T A G C R T A M A R T A B A R T C T A M

• M

T A M D T

Agency

LA-MTA has the highest Average Passenger Load of the twelve.

Heavy Rail Cost-Efficiency

FTA "TOP 50" HEAVY RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (12) Cost, Revenue, and Subsidy per Revenue Vehicle Hour

$295 $276 $233 $232 $217 $214 $213 $182 $170 $162 $161 $152 $148 $118 $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 L A

• M

T A P A T H W M A T A B A R T S i m p l e A v e . G C R T A M

• M

T A M D T S E P T A W e i g h t e d A v e M B T A M A R T A N Y C T C T A

Agency

Subsidy/Revenue Vehicle Hour Fare Revenue/Revenue Vehicle Hour" Cost/Vehicle Revenue Hour MTA has the highest cost per hour and the highest subsidy per hour of the twelve operators.

Heavy Rail Cost-Effectiveness

FTA "TOP 50" HEAVY RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (12) Subsidy/Passenger & Subsidy/Passenger Mile

NYCT WMATA CTA MBTA BART SEPTA MARTA PATH LA-MTA MDT M-MTA GCRTA Weighted Ave. Simple Ave. $0.05 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30 $0.35 $0.40 $0.45 $0.50 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00

Subsidy/Passenger S u b s id y /P a s s e n g e r M ile

LA-MTA performs very poorly, beating only three heavy rail systems widely acknowledged as failures.

Heavy Rail – Conclusion

• The Red Line is very productive – due, in

part, to the discontinuance of some Bus lines and shifts of others to feed it.

• Cost-efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and

farebox recovery ratio are all well below peer norms.

• While average passenger load is high, the

Red Line has yet to achieve half of the 298,000 daily riders projected for 2000.

Light Rail Farebox Recovery Ratio

FTA "TOP 50" LIGHT RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (19) Farebox Recovery Ratio

53.9% 47.2% 42.4% 34.4% 32.2% 31.3% 30.5% 26.0% 25.7% 24.5% 21.4% 21.2% 17.5% 15.8% 15.5% 14.4% 13.9% 13.1% 12.2% 12.2% 10.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% S D T I M B T A M T T r i

• M

e t U T A S E P T A R T D B i

• S

t W e i g h t e d A v e S i m p l e A v e . M U N I S a c R T N J T C L A

• M

T A P A T G C R T A M T A

• H

C M

• M

T A S C V T A D A R T K C

• D

O T

Agency

LA-MTA is eighth lowest of the nineteen.

Light Rail Productivity

FTA "TOP 50" LIGHT RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (19) Average Passenger Load

39.7 34.7 33.1 31.7 27.9 26.8 26.6 26.5 25.3 24.8 23.6 23.3 21.9 19.2 19.2 18.2 17.7 15.9 13.1 12.7 9.8

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 M B T A M T L A

• M

T A M T A

• H

C U T A T r i

• M

e t S D T I B i

• S

t W e i g h t e d A v e D A R T N J T C S i m p l e A v e . M U N I M

• M

T A S E P T A G C R T A S a c R T P A T S C V T A R T D K C

• D

O T

Agency

LA-MTA has the third-highest Average Passenger Load of the nineteen.

Light Rail Cost-Efficiency

FTA "TOP 50" LIGHT RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (19) Cost, Revenue, and Subsidy per Revenue Vehicle Hour

$404 $360 $350 $324 $287 $286 $245 $243 $241 $229 $216 $207 $206 $198 $188 $165 $163 $136 $130 $125 $89

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 M

• M

T A L A

• M

T A N J T C S C V T A D A R T P A T M T A

• H

C K C

• D

O T B i

• S

t S i m p l e A v e . G C R T A S a c R T W e i g h t e d A v e M U N I M B T A T r i

• M

e t M T S E P T A R T D U T A S D T I Agency Subsidy/Revenue Vehicle Hour Farebox Revenue/Revenue Vehicle Hour Cost/Revenue Vehicle Hour MTA has the second-highest cost per hour and the second-highest subsidy per hour of the nineteen.

Light Rail Cost-Effectiveness

FTA "TOP 50" LIGHT RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (19) Subsidy/Passenger & Subsidy/Passenger Mile

MBTA MUNI LA-MTA Tri-Met SDTI SEPTA DART Bi-St UTA NJTC SacRT RTD MTA-HC MT PAT SCVTA M-MTA GCRTA Weighted Ave. Simple Ave. KC-DOT (Subsidy/Passenger Mile = $4.89) $0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 $1.40 $1.60 $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00

Subsidy/Passenger S u b s id y /P a s s e n g e r M ile

La-MTA's performance is well below average.

Light Rail Conclusions

• Farebox recovery ratio is low
• Productivity is high
• Cost-efficiency is very low
• Cost-effectiveness is below major peers
• This is an expensive way to move people

in Los Angeles

Bus Farebox Recovery Ratio

FTA "TOP 20" BUS OPERATORS 2005 Farebox Recovery Ratio

42.4% 39.9% 34.2% 34.1% 32.8% 31.2% 30.6% 30.0% 29.8% 28.5% 28.1% 26.7% 24.2% 23.8% 23.5% 22.0% 20.5% 20.5% 18.9% 18.7% 17.9% 12.7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% NYCT NJTC CTA SEPTA NYCDOT Weighted Ave MARTA LA-MTA M-MTA MT MDT Simple Ave. WMATA OCTA PAT MBTA KC-DO T RTD AC Tri-Met MTA-HC DART

Agency

LA-MTA is seventh highest of the twenty.

Bus Productivity

FTA "TOP 20" MOTOR BUS OPERATORS 2005 Average Passenger Load

19.3 15.3 14.3 13.9 13.6 13.0 12.6 12.0 11.8 11.7 11.4 11.3 10.6 10.5 10.2 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.0 8.4 2.4

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 N Y C T L A

• M

T A M

• M

T A S E P T A K C

• D

O T N J T C W e i g h t e d A v e O C T A W M A T A C T A M T A

• H

C S i m p l e A v e . M A R T A M T T r i

• M

e t A C M D T R T D P A T M B T A D A R T N Y C D O T

Agency

LA-MTA is second highest of the twenty. (NYC DOT Passenger Mile data appears to be very incorrect.)

Bus Cost-Efficiency

FTA "TOP 20" MOTOR BUS OPERATORS 2005 Cost, Revenue, and Subsidy per Revenue Vehicle Hour

$201 $140 $132 $128 $123 $121 $119 $116 $113 $113 $110 $107 $107 $104 $100 $98 $98 $95 $95 $92 $92 $91

$0 $25 $50 $75 $100 $125 $150 $175 $200 $225 N Y C D O T N Y C T K C

• D

O T A C W M A T A N J T C M

• M

T A W e i g h t e d A v e S i m p l e A v e . S E P T A P A T C T A T r i

• M

e t L A

• M

T A M T O C T A M B T A M D T D A R T M T A

• H

C M A R T A R T D

Agency

Subsidy/Revenue Vehicle Hour Fare Revenue/Revenue Vehicle Hour Cost/Revenue Vehicle Hour MTA has the ninth-lowest cost per hour and the sixth lowest subsidy per hour of the twenty.

Bus Cost-Effectiveness

FTA "TOP 20" BUS OPERATORS 2005 Subsidy/Passenger & Subsidy/Passenger Mile

NYCT LA-MTA CTA SEPTA WMATA MTA-HC KC-DOT MBTA MDT RTD M-MTA PAT MT NYCDOT (Invalid Passenger Mile data) DART Tri-Met MARTA AC NJTC Weighted Ave. Simple Ave. OCTA $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.60 $0.70 $0.80 $0.90 $1.00 $1.00 $1.25 $1.50 $1.75 $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $3.00 $3.25 $3.50 $3.75 $4.00

Subsidy/Passenger S u b s id y /P a s s e n g e r M ile

LA-MTA is second on Subsidy/Passenger to NYCT, $1.44 to $1.09, but NYCT is ninth on Subsidy/Passenger-Mile. NJTC edged out LA- MTA on Subsidy/Passenger-Mile, $.381 to $.386, but NJTC was twelfth-lowest on Subsidy/Passenger. Overall, LA-MTA has the lowest subsidies of the "Top 20."

Bus Conclusions

• Productivity is very high – second highest
• f the 20 in the peer group.
• Cost-Efficiency and Farebox Recovery

Ratio are above average.

• MTA Bus is number one in the peer group
• n Cost-Effectiveness

FTA "TOP 50" HEAVY RAIL, LIGHT RAIL, & MOTOR BUS OPERATORS 2005 Comparative Farebox Recovery Ratio's

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% S E P T A M B T A M

• M

T A L A

• M

T A G C R T A N Y C T W M A T A C T A M A R T A M D T M T T r i

• M

e t U T A R T D B i

• S

t M U N I S a c R T N J T C P A T M T A

• H

C S C V T A D A R T K C

• D

O T

Agency

Heavy Rail Light Rail Motor Bus

In most multi-modal agencies, the rail modes have farebox recovery ratios that are higher than those of bus. This is particularly true in those places where transit is most highly utilized, including New York (NYCT), Chicago (CTA), Boston (MBTA), and Philadephia (SEPTA). Many of the exceptions have only very minor rail

• r it the rail system has significant issues, such as Seattle (KD-DOT), Houston (MTA-HC), and San Jose (SCVTA).

In Los Angeles, however, the reason why the MTA rail farebox recovery ratios are lower than that of bus is that rail is extremely expensive to operate, while bus is not.

Overall Peer Comparison Conclusions

• All MTA modes are very productive.
• MTA Bus is above average in cost-efficiency;

MTA Rail is near or at the bottom.

• MTA Bus is above average in farebox recovery;

MTA Rail does very poorly.

• MTA Bus is the most cost-effective of the

nation’s larger bus operators, MTA Rail fares not very well.

• Farebox recovery ratio is not a very good metric

for these purposes.

Understanding the History of MTA Ridership is the Key to Transit Decisions

• The following graphs show the ridership of

MTA and its predecessor, SCRTD, back to

• 1980. (Strike years ridership are adjusted.)
• The first graph shows the annual ridership

by mode; the second shows the trend lines for the four key periods that followed major transit decisions regarding fare levels and the degree of priority given to rail.

• The facts behind each period are then

presented.

SCRTD/L.A. Co. MTA Unlinked Passenger Trips by Mode FY80-FY07

397 389 354 416 466 497 450 437 425 412 401 413 414 390 397 371 364 386 404 399 417 437 445 430 435 452 479 496

300 340 380 420 460 500 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Fiscal Year U n lin k e d P a s s e n g e r T rip s ( m illio n s )

Motor Bus Light Rail Heavy Rail Total

L.A. County MTA Annual Ridership by Period and Trend Lines

397 389 354 416 466 497 450 437 425 412 401 413 414 390 397 371 364 386 404 399 417 437 445 430 435 452 479 496 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Fiscal Year U n li n k e d P a s s e n g e r T rip s ( m i ll io n s )

Unlinked Passenger Trips Pre-Fifty Cent Fare Fifty Cent Fare Rail Priority Consent Decree

L.A. Co. MTA Annual Change in Ridership by Mode by Period

(21.3) 47.7 (14.6) 6.8 1.7 2.1 0.7 3.2 (21.3) 47.7 (12.1) 12.1 (30) (20) (10) 10 20 30 40 50 60 Pre-Fifty Cent Fare Fifty Cent Fare Rail Priority Consent Decree

Period

A v e r a g e A n n u a l C h a n g e I n R i d e r s h i p (m i l l i o n s )

Bus Light Rail Heavy Rail Total

Understanding MTA Ridership History I

• Pre-Fifty Cent Fare: From FY80 to FY82,

fares increased from $.55 to $.65 to $.85, and ridership fell 11%.

• Fifty Cent Fare: When the fare was

reduced to $.50 for FY83-FY85, ridership increased over 40%, with virtually no increase in transit service provided.

Understanding MTA Ridership History II

• Rail Priority: From FY85 to FY96, the

monies that funded the Fifty Cent Fare – slightly under 20% of the Proposition A sales tax collections – shifted to rail. The Blue and Green Lines and the first two Red Line segments started service. Fares went to $.85, then $1.10, and finally to $1.35, as the level of bus service provided was reduced. Ridership dropped 27%.

Understanding MTA Ridership History III

• Consent Decree: The Consent Decree

that settled Labor/Community Strategy Center v MTA went into effect in mid-

• FY97. MTA completed the last two legs of

the Red Line, the Gold and Orange Lines and started construction on the Gold Line Eastside and Expo. Ridership is projected to increase 37% through the end of FY07. However, MTA states that it cannot continue to fund both current transit

• perations and rail expansion.

Consent Decree Ridership Change

• During the Consent Decree period (FY96-

FY07), note that over half of the total increase has been Bus increase. Considering that, most likely, over half of the Rail riders are former Bus riders, this makes the Bus increase more significant.

• Also, much of the Rail increase was due to

the CD’s reduced fares and expansion of Bus service, which allowed Rail riders to access the Rail stations.

Debunking a Misimpression I

• Rail proponents have often claimed that the high

capacity of Rail allows rail operating costs per passenger and passenger-mile to be less than that of Bus; while there are cases where this can be correct, such as the NYC subway, the key is to do this test is performing the proper comparison.

• For example, on page IV-2 of the MTA Adopted

Budget FY2007, we see the following: Bus Rail Cost per Unlinked Trip $2.29 $2.84 Cost per Passenger-Mile $ .61 $ .48

Debunking a Misimpression II

• These statistics makes it appear that Rail can be

competitive with Bus in certain transit operating situations in Los Angeles; however, the problem is that these are system-wide average Bus numbers.

• Because of the high initial capital cost for new

Rail lines, it is contra-indicated to build Rail in any alignment where there would not be high ridership; however, Bus’ capital costs are so low it can be, and is, effectively used in far more situations, as the following graph illustrates.

Debunking a Misimpression III

• The graph on the following page is from

data from Subsidy/Passenger by Bus Line Family, MTA Quarterly Line Performance Trends Report, 12/31/97, showing the cumulative percentages.

• For example, 40% of the MTA Bus Lines

at that time had subsidies/passenger of $.91 or less, 80% had subsidies/ passenger of $1.21 or less.

L.A. Co. Metro Transporation Authority Subsidy/Passenger By Line Family

$0.43 $0.52 $0.59 $0.71 $0.91 $0.96 $0.99 $1.04 $1.21 $1.66 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentile

Mean: $1.07 - 71st Percentile $16.36 Median

Debunking a Misimpression IV

• When system-wide Bus averages are used to

compare to Rail lines, then the mean value ($1.07 on this graph) is what is used.

• However, half of the Bus riders had subsidies/

passenger of $.96 or less – and 30% had subsidies of $.71 or less, and 10% had subsidies

• f $.52 or less, under half of the mean value.
• Rail line costs should be compared to the values

at the lower end of the curve, for the most utilized Bus lines, not the mean.

• The best Bus-vs.-Rail comparison is comparable

service in the same or comparable corridors.

Impacts of Capital Costs I

• In the preceding, we have shown that MTA

Heavy and Light Rail compare poorly to MTA Bus in operating costs and subsidies.

• The next step is to add capital costs,

which will resolve the issue of the utility of Rail in Los Angeles beyond any doubt.

• All data following is expressed in constant

MTA FY2007 dollars, using data from the MTA FY2007 Budget and other MTA sources.

Impacts of Capital Costs II While it is, at best, extremely questionable if Urban Rail has any operating cost/subsidy advantage over Bus in Los Angeles, there is absolutely no doubt about capital subsidies – the capital subsidy per “Guideway Transit” passenger (Light and Heavy Rail plus Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit) in Los Angeles is dozens of times that for Bus passengers.

MTA FY2007 CAPITAL SUBSIDY, OPERATING SUBSIDY, AND OPERATING REVENUE PER PASSENGER

$6.98 $23.50 $12.16 $15.67 $12.90 $13.11 $12.91 $1.93 $1.34 $1.13 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25

Blue Gold Green Red Rail Ave. Orange Guideway Ave. Bus Wilshire Pre-Rapid Wilshire Rapid Mode/Line Capital Subsidy Operating Subsidy Operating Revenue Subsidy/Passenger

MTA FY2007 OPERATING RATIO (INCLUDING CAPITAL COSTS)

7.8% 2.5% 4.6% 3.9% 4.5% 4.4% 4.5% 24.8% 29.1% 34.1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Blue Gold Green Red Rail Ave. Orange Guideway Ave. Bus Wilshire Pre-Rapid Wilshire Rapid

Mode/Line

Comparisons of Total Costs/Subsidies I

• In the preceding graphs, I have added markers

for the Wilshire/Whittier family of bus lines, currently the highest ridership family of bus lines in the nation.

• “Pre-Rapid” refers to Lines 18 and 20, and their

limited stop variations, before Rapid Bus (Line 720) was introduced

• “Wilshire Rapid” is Line 18, 20, and the

remaining limited stop lines, and Line 720, after Rapid Bus service began.

Comparisons of Total Costs/Subsidies II

• While cost and subsidy/passenger is

important, cost and subsidy per new passenger is even more important for many key Los Angeles transit decisions.

• This metric was originally developed by

the Federal government in response to research showing that many, often two- thirds or more, of passengers on new Rail lines were former Bus passengers.

MTA FY2007 CAPITAL SUBSIDY, OPERATING SUBSIDY, AND OPERATING REVENUE PER NEW PASSENGER TRIP

$13.96 $47.00 $24.31 $31.35 $25.79 $26.21 $25.82 $1.40 $0.95 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50

Blue Gold Green Red Rail Ave. Orange Guideway Ave. CD Bus Wilshire Rapid

Mode/Line

Capital Subsidy Operating Subsidy Operating Revenue Subsidy/New Passenger

MTA FY2007 NEW PASSENGER OPERATING RECOVERY RATIO (INCLUDING CAPITAL COSTS)

4.1% 1.2% 2.4% 1.9% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 27.5% 51.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Blue Gold Green Red Rail Ave. Orange Guideway Ave. CD Bus Wilshire Rapid

Mode/Line

Comparisons of Total Costs/Subsidies III

• The comparison of Guideway Transit to

Bus in Los Angeles could not be clearer:

– The taxpayer subsidy per passenger added by the Consent Decree was 5.4% of that for Guideway Transit; for Wilshire Rapid Bus service, 3.7% – New Guideway Transit passengers pay 2.2%

• f the costs of their rides; CD Bus new

passengers, 27.5%, Wilshire Rapid new Bus passengers, 51.3%

Why The Orange Line Was A Mistake I

• The justification for the Orange Line was time

savings – originally, in the DEIS/DEIR, 28.8 minutes between North Hollywood and Warner Center for BRT on the Orange Line vs. 50 minutes for Rapid Bus.

• It has now been extensive documented, and

MTA has admitted, that both times were wildly inaccurate, even fraudulent, in favor of the Orange Line.

• The graph following shows the history of travel

time projects to actual reality.

L.A. County MTA - San Fernando Valley Orange Line BRT vs. Rapid Bus Peak Hour Run Times North Hollywood - Warner Center

28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 42 44 28.8 40 40 40 40 45 50 50 50 41.7 41.7 34.4 50 50 45.6 45.6 38.7

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 DEIS/EIR FEIR DSEIR FSEIR Errata Original Schedule Latest Schedule

MTA Document Minutes

BRT Low BRT High Rapid Bus Low Rapid Bus High

Why The Orange Line Was A Mistake II

• Instead of a 42% travel time advantage
• ver Rapid Bus, by MTA’s own figures, the

Orange Line is actually ~26% slower than Rapid Bus on Victory/Lankershim.

• MTA was repeatedly warned that
• perating BRT through at-grade

intersections at 45 mph without LRT-style barriers was extremely unsafe, but refused to consider changes until it had no choice.

Why The Orange Line Was A Mistake III

• It is difficult to tell which MTA action to

defend the “safety” of the Orange Line was more egregious:

– Citing the Miami-South Busway as “proof” of the safety of the Orange Line design, after all MSB buses were required to stop at all intersections, even when they had the green, due to its terrible safety record. – Actually claiming before the Judge hearing the EIR challenge that traffic safety was not a proper subject for an environmental challenge.

Why The Orange Line Was A Mistake IV

• When MTA was required to compare the

Orange Line to Rapid Bus line networks, even the very poor MTA Rapid Bus alternatives (one with six E-W Rapid Bus lines within 3.0 miles – four within 1.25 miles – and no N-S and none for the rest

• f the Valley) showed Rapid Bus

producing more ridership in the Valley (despite MTA’s claims to the contrary).

Why The Orange Line Was A Mistake V

• The ~$350 million spent on Orange Line

capital (not counting $159 million for the right-of-way it was built on, previously purchased for a subway never to be built), and its extremely high operating costs could have been much more productively spent on a true network – a rational one –

• f Rapid Bus lines in the Valley and other

Bus improvements.

Lessons from the Orange Line Debacle

• Many types of Bus Rapid Transit can be of great

use in many situations in LA, including:

– Rapid Bus (when configured for ridership increase, not cost reduction) – Express Bus on freeway, particularly when combined with High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and High Occupancy-Toll (HOV) lanes

• Orange-style BRT should only be considered

with proper consideration of grade crossing safety, and only then when there is a meaningful advantage over Rapid Bus, which can generally provide 80% or more of the speed advantage of this type of BRT at 2% of the guideway capital cost.

MTA FY07 Budget - Bus/Guideway Split I

• Looking at FY07 budget allocations for

MTA operated and contracted transit service only – backing out Municipal Bus service subsidies, Metrolink subsidies, local return funds, highway expenditures, etc., the following graph shows the allocation of money to Bus and Guideway Transit and the transit service utilized for each.

L.A. MTA - Percentages of Subsidies, Unlinked Passenger Trips, and Passenger-Miles by Mode - FY07 Budget

48.0% 52.0% 81.3% 18.7% 73.5% 26.5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Non-Guideway Bus Guideway

Mode

Taxpayer Subsidies Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger-Miles

L.A. MTA - Taxpayer Subsidy per Passenger and per Passenger-Mile by Mode - FY07 Budget

$5.79 $2.21 $10.37 $1.41 $0.60 $1.79 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 Total Non-Guideway Bus Guideway Mode Subsidy per Unlinked Passenger Trip Subsidy per Passenger-Mile

Overall Conclusions I

• Guideway transit – Heavy Rail, Light Rail,

and Orange Line-style Bus Rapid Transit – simply does not work very well in Los Angeles.

• Bus, including Rapid Bus where properly

implemented (for ridership expansion, not cost reduction) works superbly.

• There is not sufficient funding to operate

bus services as it is now while pursing rapid guideway transit expansion.

Overall Conclusions II

• Stop doing what isn’t working – expansion
• f Guideway Transit; it costs too much and

does too little.

• Continue what is working very well – Bus

transit.

• Lobby to change Federal and State

funding sources for Bus use.

• Don’t raise fares, reduce them
• Expand and improve bus service,

including certain types of Bus Rapid Transit.