LAist: A Call to End Metrolink Service

blujay

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:39:36 -0800

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

jrb

Sat, 11 Oct 2008 10:59:39 -0800

"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!

Kymberleigh

Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:21:14 -0800

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.

lahipster

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:48:20 -0800

ames E. Moore II, chairman of USC's department of industrial and systems engineering must be getting money from toll road companies

hulahoney83

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:00:27 -0800

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.

fredcamino

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:37:36 -0800

"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.

Militant Angeleno

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:36:49 -0800

Fucking libertarians. They will always be a fringe party, because they can never get laid.

DaynaDrew

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:36:40 -0800

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.

chris76

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:36:05 -0800

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.

DaynaDrew

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:35:15 -0800

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.

Hindinwood

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:18:24 -0800

Ummm...this guy sucks. Where has he been for the last 8 years? Oil war anyone?? Global warming?? What an asshole.

GarySe7en

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:44:58 -0800

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.

phdiaz

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:39:10 -0800

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).

Linkracer

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:37:26 -0800

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.

rachel80

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:20:17 -0800

I hope it stays too. This article is interesting, but I can't even think about taking the bus to the IE. No way. :(