BACK TO THE BUS : LIGHT RAIL IS THE WRONG CHOICE TO MEET LOS ANGELES' TRANSIT NEEDS. AND THE ARGUMENTS FOR WHY WE CAN'T THROW ON THE BRAKES ARE JUST AS FAULTY.

Byline: Robert W. Poole, Jr.

UNDER pressure from members of Congress representing East Los Angeles, the MTA board last week voted to seek $44 million in additional federal funds to extend the Red Line subway further into East L.A. - possibly jeopardizing federal funds for a Valley rail line. Valley representatives cried foul, lamenting in member Mel Wilson's words that we Valley residents will ``never live to see a Valley line in our lifetime.''

Rather than lamenting, we should be rejoicing. For building a rail line across the Valley - just like extending the Red Line to the East and West sides - will only serve to bankrupt the MTA and drain further funds from an already depleted bus system. Rail is simply the wrong kind of transit for Los Angeles. And the sooner we stop it, the better our future transit system will be.

Let's begin with the cost. The Federal Transit Administration has set forth criteria, which new rail systems seeking federal funds are supposed to meet, so as to prevent the waste of scarce taxpayer monies on systems which cost far more than they're worth. To even be eligible for detailed study, the projected cost per new rail trip should not exceed $10. To get beyond that to preliminary engineering, the cost per new trip should be less than $6.

How do the proposed new rail lines measure up to that standard?

According to the MTA's own figures, obtained by the Reason Foundation, the Red Line West will have a cost per new trip of $28.36. And the highly touted Red Line East (which the board just voted to extend), comes in at an astounding $60.83. That's over $60 of taxpayer's money for each and every transit trip generated by this rail line. (No official figure has been calculated, yet, for a Valley rail line, but it would likely be in the same ballpark as these numbers.)

Nationwide, the average total cost per one-way passenger trip for the new light-rail systems built over the past 20 years is $9.44; for heavy-rail (subway-type) systems it's $9.84 per trip. The Los Angeles Blue Line cost $11.90 per one-way trip in 1993, while the initial Red Line segment costs a whopping $28.83 per trip (and Metrolink $46.09 per trip). By contrast, the total cost per trip on the MTA's bus system is $1.79.

To appreciate what a difference this makes, consider the $128 million in annual taxpayer subsidy now being spent on the Blue Line. That subsidy pays for 11.3 million annual passenger trips on the Blue Line. But what else could we do with that same $128 million? Since bus trips cost so much less to subsidize, the same $128 million could provide bus trips for 184 million passengers - 16 times as many. Since transit dollars will always be limited, does it really make sense to put billions of them into rail?

We're told that a rail system will permit faster trips from the Valley to downtown because rail moves at higher speeds and bypasses congestion. This is highly misleading.

First, because there would be new rail stations, very few rail stations, very few people will live within walking distance of one - which means extra time getting some kind of a ride to the station.

Second, if the station is below ground or elevated, one must take a minute or two for the stairs or escalator. Third is the wait on the platform. Fourth, the line does not follow the shortest straight-line distance. Fifth, it will make a number of station stops along the way - unlike an express bus on the freeway.

Sixth, it may or may not stop within walking distance of your downtown destination.

Our researchers have calculated that a Red Line trip from the bus stop closest to Universal City to the Hall of Administration downtown will take 39 minutes, door-to-door. Someone using the current express bus line on the Hollywood Freeway can make the same trip door-to-door in 19 minutes off-peak and 26-27 minutes during rush hour.

We're also told that we don't really have a choice about building rail, because the ballot measures providing the bulk of transit sales tax money require those funds to be used for rail. In fact, only 35 percent of Prop. A funds and 10 percent of Prop. C funds must be used for rail (and we already have enough rail projects to soak up those amounts).

Nor are federal funds restricted to rail. Capital grants are readily available for both busway infrastructure and new bus purchases - and they require a far smaller percentage of local match than rail funds.

But what about freeway gridlock? Wouldn't new buses simply be stuck in freeway traffic or congested surface streets? That might be so if we did nothing to speed bus travel, but we can choose to build busways instead of rail lines. The El Monte Busway, limited to buses and car pools, carries as many people each day as 5.7 freeway lanes. Possible Valley busway routes include the 101 freeway and the Burbank-Chandler right of way. A major advantage of busways is that they are far more flexible than rail lines. Any kind of high-occupancy vehicle - a local bus, a luxury bus, an airport shuttle, a commuter van, a taxicab - can pick up people at their door or on their neighborhood street corner, drive to the busway and proceed swiftly to their ultimate destination.

So Valley residents shouldn't worry that the MTA board has ``jeopardized'' funding prospects for a Valley rail line. We couldn't afford it anyway, and it wouldn't do the job. We need to research and support cost-effective transit that actually would do the job.

CAPTION(S):

PHOTO Next stop, bankruptcy: Valley residents should rejoice, rather than lament, the slow progress of a Valley rail line. Its tracks lead only to financial ruin.