Eye Nosh: Is This the Best Pastrami in America?
The Creepy, Yet Beautiful Street Art of Dan Witz Now in L.A.
Does Traffic Get Worse After the End of Daylight Saving Time?
Zenyatta Makes "Her"Story
TV Junkie: Interview with Kristin Bauer aka Pam from 'True Blood'
James E. Moore II, chairman of USC's department of industrial and systems engineering and director of the transportation engineering program, writes in an LA Times op-ed piece that "if Metrolink service were discontinued tomorrow and all those passengers got back in their cars, there would be no perceptible change in freeway congestion or travel times." He goes on to say that "Metrolink actually makes traffic conditions worse because it consumes resources that SCRRA's member agencies could dedicate to effective congestion relief measures, such as the creation of priced freeway lanes that can also operate as busways." His piece, which gives a nice quick history of the service, makes some interesting points. But the reality is, Metrolink is most likely here to stay.
A Call to End Metrolink Service
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (15) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Any ideas why the 110 off/on ramps will be shut down for 1 year starting tomorrow from the hours of
[more]
I hope it stays too. This article is interesting, but I can't even think about taking the bus to the IE. No way. :(
Not too sure of the logic. He makes the statement that Metrolink is underfunded to the point where they don't pay for top of the line control technology to prevent crashes. And then jumps to saying that, instead, take the money that is spent there at MetroLink and put it toward traffic congestion.
Of course, in any situation, any of the two underfunded programs (MetroLink and Traffic Congestion) would work better if all of the money from one was given to the other. But I could equally write an article saying how all the money that we spend on widening highways and traffic congestion could be doubly spent on MetroLink, instead of what James writed which is the opposite. My article would say that with that money, you could: increase trains, coordinate service, extend rails to larger areas of the county. Make the people who drive on congested roadways envious of the people riding on clean quick trains.
The logic works both ways. Let's get serious, neither cars nor trains are going anywhere any time soon. But lets not kid ourselves into thinking less trains and more cars is the direction we want to go.
I for one do not care to drive from Pasadena all the way to Angel's stadium for games...when they start up again next year.
I like being able to go early, walk across the street, have a few beers and depending on the game, either ride back early or late.
Also, this is the only way my friend from Lake Los Angeles comes to see me - no one wants to drive that for (Lancaster station).
Um not all passengers who use Metrolink necessarily have cars to jump back into or the money to fill the tank for their daily commute if they do. We need better safety measures and if money can be afforded more separated grade crossings, but scrapping the service I think would be a terrible idea.
Ummm...this guy sucks. Where has he been for the last 8 years? Oil war anyone?? Global warming??
What an asshole.
Subsidization is a poor point in this argument. There are a lot of things that are valuable and necessary in this world that aren't independantly financially viable.
I commute by Metrolink, and have for the past 3 years. Ridership is booming, and the amount of cyclist/train commuters is getting crazy. The more the merrier, and honestly once you are adjusted to traveling by the train's schedule, commuting can actually be fun and productive. My one grievance is that Metrolink has some old diesel trains. They are trying to purchase newer, clean diesel trains, but that will take a while. Still I see the neo-lib logic in Moore's article, but it makes no sense. We should be investing more in solutions like public trains.
This guy uses subsidization as a point AGAINST metrolink. This is not valid, however, when you consier that there are a lot of thngs in this world that are necessary and valuable yet are not financially sustainable on their own... what a chump.
Fucking libertarians. They will always be a fringe party, because they can never get laid.
"This guy uses subsidization as a point AGAINST metrolink. This is not valid, however, when you consier that there are a lot of thngs in this world that are necessary and valuable yet are not financially sustainable on their own... what a chump."
Uhh... like our autoroad system? I fucking hate hate hate hate hate fake libertarians. The fact is we used to have the largest (1000+ miles) non-subsidized transit system in the world until the subsidized car culture came about and, duh, rendered it uncompetitive. How any libertarian can balance their free-market views while supporting the American nationalized car culture is beyond me.
It's not even about saving cars from the road. Our family had to buy an extra car for my dad to be able to ride the Metrolink. He has one parked in LA @ Union station to drive 10 min to Vernon (it'd take 40min+ on a bus) and one here in Riverside to get to the station & around town.
The ability to sleep at 4am when he commutes to work in the morning and relax or work on his commute home at 6pm is worth every penny. The freeways are much safer (preventing him falling asleep behind the wheel!) and his stress level stays minute.
ames E. Moore II, chairman of USC's department of industrial and systems engineering must be getting money from toll road companies
This is, unfortunately, classic James Moore. He has been writing the same opinions, rephrased to fit the moment, for more than a decade.
Thankfully, his opinions never get any traction with decision-makers, because he has alienated every politician in the region at one time or another by opposing their pet projects. However, the fact that the Times' editorial board seems to be in love with the man allows him to continue using their pages as his own personal soapbox, and mislead the public in the process.
I'd love to see someone start a campaign to convince the Times that Moore's 15 minutes of fame has long ago expired, and get them to stop publishing his drivel.
"This is, unfortunately, classic James Moore.
Thankfully, his opinions never get any traction with decision-makers..."
Glad to hear that.
Metrolink took a big enough PR hit from the recent accident. James Moore is just using it as an opportunity to play pile on.
Way to go Mr. Moore!
This guy, it seems, has a vested interest in pushing for corporate/private owned public transit:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-mta17apr17,0,699363.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions