Have a transportation-related article you think should be included in headlines? Drop me an email! And don’t forget, Metro is on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
How did that song go? It’s like [a] train on your wedding day? It’s a free ride when you already paid? Something like that, maybe.
https://twitter.com/reider_andrea/status/636984764809916416
Love those poppy orange beauties. Glad you like them too. On that note…
The making of the L.A. Metro “M” (CityLab)
CityLab’s Eric Jaffe talked to Metro’s creative director Michael Lejeune about the history behind the Metro “M” logo. Prior to the creation of the present-day logo, Metro’s logo was a little too similar to Washington D.C.’s WMATA. It was also difficult to read and used without consistency in a variety of colors and formats.
WMATA Logo
Metro’s former logo.
Lejeune and a newly formed in-house creative team went to work on making the Metro brand stand out. The first move was to add a splash of color to the Metro bus fleet and then the team looked to create a new, standardized logo.
It’s true that most “M” logos are associated with public transit across the world, but there are a few subtle features of Metro’s “M” that make it unique, like the notch in the middle of the letter. Excerpt:
The notch does separate L.A.’s “M” from other designs, but Lejeune says it isn’t just for show. Rather, the idea was that splitting the letter reflected the agency’s dual mission: on one hand Metro is a transportation provider, and on the other side it’s a planner and visionary for L.A. mobility. “The thought with that ‘M’ was it’s two sides of the house, and they come together, and it’s a holistic circle,” he says.
Metro’s current logo.
For anyone interested in hearing more about what went behind Metro’s redesign, Lejeune spoke about it during a talk at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis in 2012. You can view the talk below (grab some popcorn though, the video is more than an hour).
If you want better public transit, you probably shouldn’t user Uber (Gizmodo)
Over at Gizmodo, Alissa Walker has a great post exploring what might become of public transit as Uber and Lyft experiment with services that look identical to what public transit offers. We mentioned one of those, Uber’s Smart Routes, on Tuesday.
Alissa is sticking to public transit because to her it represents a world full of transit options, including high-speed trains, smart buses, biking, walking, kayaks and “hover-boardy things.” It’s a world that allows an individual to consider factors like convenience, cost and time when deciding the best transit option. But as rideshare companies fill in the gaps for public transit — for example, by partnering with transit agencies to solve the first mile last mile problem – she wonders what’s to stop riders from using the service for the entire trip when cost is low enough it’s no longer a factor.
That could be disastrous for public transportation — especially for those who rely solely on it — and disastrous for a person’s ability to choose their method of transit. Referencing a piece by Matt Buchanon at The Awl that delved into the topic first, Walker says:
…Uber’s success will lead to what’s essentially privatized mass transit. That’s not really a concern in a place like New York City where ridership is very healthy and the subways are the best way to get to many places. But when you look at any smaller American city that’s trying its darnedest to get a new transit system off the ground, ridership numbers make a difference. Building new infrastructure requires the numbers to back it. If elective riders—the people who have a choice—aren’t boarding, that transit system is going to fail.
You can bet that discussions about whether rideshare companies should be treated as partners or competition are taking place at many public transit agencies across the country. It appears thus far it’s the former.
By the way, we also posted a story yesterday about how carpooling might make a comeback with the help of technology. Put that in the context of this story, and it actually sounds like carpooling may soon rule the transit world.
This city has the absolute worst traffic (Fortune)
The Texas A&M Transportation Institute released its annual Urban Mobility Scorecard report on the most congested cities in the United States. Topping their list this year is Washington D.C., where commuters lose about 82 hours of delay every year.
Must be tough to live in D.C., eh? Well, Los Angeles drivers don’t fare much better losing 80 hours stuck in traffic every year, putting L.A. in second place on the institute’s list. San Francisco, New York and San Jose rounded out the top five.The report also found that traffic levels are back to pre-recession levels largely thanks to the rebounding job marketing putting more people on the road.
Now is the time I tell you that Metro riders don’t have to worry any of this and can use their commute time for better things like reading or napping, but you already knew that right?
Another tall tale from the Texas Transportation Institute (City Observatory)
And here’s an article that looks to debunk the report above. It’s sort of their thing. You be the judge.
Phoenix votes pass Prop 104 transit tax (The Arizona Republic)
Phoenix voters yesterday passed a .3 cent sales tax to help fund the city’s $31.5 billion transportation plan. The proposition passed with 55 percent of the vote with about 35,000 votes left to be counted.
The tax will be added to existing .4 cent transportation sales tax, making Phoenix’s total sales tax 8.6 percent starting next year. The tax will last 35 years and will be a funding source for new light rail projects and expanded bus service. More than half of the tax will also go to improving the city’s existing bus service and a little less than one-third for maintaining and expanding its nascent light rail system.
TRANSIT-GEEK MOMENT OF ZEN:
Drone footage over the public preview of the Tilikum Crossing transit bridge in Portland, Oregon a few weeks ago. A celebration took place over the weekend in anticipation of the bridge and the TriMet Orange Line opening in September. The bridge will carry the new light rail line, as well as buses, streetcars, bicyclists and pedestrians over the Willamette River.
Joe is on Twitter @joseph_lem.
Categories: Transportation Headlines
“You can bet that discussions about whether rideshare companies should be treated as partners or competition are taking place at many public transit agencies across the country. It appears thus far it’s the former.”
You can start by making Uber and Lyft rides being payable with TAP cards. In other countries, transit cards have the ability to pay for cab rides and so much more, not just public transit.
RE: Uber is out to destroy public transit!!!!
Much of these can be easily debunked as shoddy journalism by the sheer fact that Japan exists.
“Alissa is sticking to public transit because to her it represents a world full of transit options, including high-speed trains, smart buses, biking, walking, kayaks and “hover-boardy things.”
Biking, walking, kayaks and “hover-boardy things” can still be done regardless of whether public transit exists or not. We’ve have been walking ever since we weren’t even homo sapiens, we were bicycling since it was invented in the early 19th century well before the concept of “public transit” even existed. Kayaking and “hover-boardy things” are self-explanatory. I can still choose to walk, bicycle and kayak regardless whether public transit exists or not. And just because Uber comes along, doesn’t mean those options will go away either. I still will be able to bicycle, walk, and kayak if and when Uber decides to “take over the world.”
High speed rail systems are actually quite privatized in many places around the world, i.e. the Shinkansen bullet train operated by the JR East Company (stock ticker 9020 on the Tokyo Stock Exchange).
http://i.imgur.com/nt7IoGF.jpg
Many Japanese rail systems were built and operated under private enterprise since the 19th century (i.e. Odakyu Railway), many of their buses systems also (i.e. Nishitetsu bus).
http://i.imgur.com/uXGmhlW.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/V2BVARW.jpg
Taxi cabs exists in Japan, as does Uber (https://www.uber.com/cities/tokyo) as well as a local competitor called LINE TAXI (http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/8/7513161/line-taxi-launches-in-japan-to-battle-Uber).
http://i.imgur.com/1KsWZdY.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Rw0R910.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/EcMbxhl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/n6B0HrY.jpg
Japan still makes Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas, Mazdas, Mitsubishis and Kawasakis, Suzukis, and Yamahas.
http://i.imgur.com/1RgeQpp.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ZF5bO4d.jpg
Many people still use bicycles to get around in Japan.
http://i.imgur.com/gZrk1BR.jpg
Much of our rails we use today here in the US are actually built by Japanese corporations such as Nippon Sharyo, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and Kawasaki Heavy Rail.
http://i.imgur.com/VIq3ig1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XOpCh3u.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/wtg194C.jpg
Tokyo’s Haneda Airport is the 4th busiest airport in the world
http://i.imgur.com/RB6b7JX.jpg
Japan has river boats and water taxis
http://i.imgur.com/bRP292v.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/d4j1iDm.jpg
And Japan has maglevs
https://youtu.be/IPduAYKk_6I
All of them, are run by PRIVATE corporations, not government funded, not under public sector control.
That being said, I don’t see choices being limited in Japan just because there’s not “public” transit.
While railroads in Japan were private in the 19th century, and are private now, they were wholly government-owned between the end of World War II and and 1980s, and prior to that time the government had been a key player in railroad development since the 1870s, through the JGR and the Industry Ministry. At exactly the time California was ripping out rights-of-way and allowing its private commuter rail networks to die, the Japanese government was heavily subsidizing it’s rail networks and protecting it from competition and funding significant innovations. It’s not clear that if JR were private through the middle of the 20th century, they would have stayed in business, let alone developed HRT. In the US we heavily subsidized air and auto travel after World War II; while contrarily we made private railways in the US completely fund their own infrastructure and maintenance and pay exorbitant property taxes — there were counties in places like Kansas and New Mexico that funded their entire public school programs and police departments through railroad property taxes.
It’s difficult to make a perfect comparison to a market like, say, California. Even though JR is a private company it holds a virtual monopoly over all rail transport in Japan — commuter, subways, interurban and freight. This allows significant cross-subsidy, and in the US we generally don’t allow that level of horizontal and vertical integration, and when we do the people who run the operation always abuse it.
Also, just by the by, it’s unclear exactly how profitable passenger rail operations are in Japan; only JR East is consistently profitable and it’s well-known that they actually make the lion’s share of their revenue from land operations, from rent on space in their stations, airspace over their underground ROWs and stations, and the large marginal land appendant to the ROWs, which were, just as in the US, mostly established by the government in the 19th century.
“they were wholly government-owned between the end of World War II and and 1980s…”
Very incorrect.
The assumption you are making is solely on JR, which was a nationalized railway system called JNR that later privatized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_National_Railways
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Japan_Railway_Company#History
However, JR isn’t the only railway operator in Japan and there are many private railway operators since the 19th century, was never bought out by government like the US, and still continues to exist today as private corporations. And such arguments that it isn’t so will be debunked in less than five seconds of Google and Wikipedia searches:
Private Japanese railway companies history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odakyu_Electric_Railway#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keio_Corporation#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seibu_Railway#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keisei_Electric_Railway#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hankyu#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobu_Railway#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyu_Corporation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meitetsu#History
Please do your research first before making assumptions.
I’m hesitant to accept anything in Wikipedia, I’m sure it’s accurate I just don’t have to background to put all the information in a proper context. I’ll stipulate that private railroads exist without making any claims as to their share of the market or their level of regulatory support (which I would guess is pretty high, comparable to airlines in the U.S.)
That said, I’m not sure this really helps the case that Uber doesn’t compete with municipal transit systems. We can’t really make comparisons with Japan because Japan’s regulatory environment, natural resources (read: lack of oil), rail infrastructure capitalization and ownership patterns are completely different.
By iPhone/Par iPhone >
“That said, I’m not sure this really helps the case that Uber doesn’t compete with municipal transit systems. We can’t really make comparisons with Japan because Japan’s regulatory environment, natural resources (read: lack of oil), rail infrastructure capitalization and ownership patterns are completely different.”
Of course, one can just as easily say the same thing that LA is totally different from Dallas, Denver, San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boston, Paris, London, Berlin, Oslo, etc. etc. as well.
We really can’t make comparisons with California because our state regulatory environment would be different from State of NY or the country of the UK. We can’t make comparisons with California with our own regulations regarding natural resources which requires special blends and higher cost of gasoline from say, Texas or Colorado. We can’t really compare rail infrastructure capitalization and ownership patterns as well between say the United States and Taiwan.
But what you can’t do is also pick and choose what you like (i.e. how transit is run in US and Europe) and dislike (i.e. how transit is run in Asia) and try to make an argument solely looking at the places that you like, while disregarding everything can be said that it’s totally different from one city to another city.
“Uber’s success will lead to what’s essentially privatized mass transit. That’s not really a concern in a place like New York City where ridership is very healthy and the subways are the best way to get to many places. But when you look at any smaller American city that’s trying its darnedest to get a new transit system off the ground, ridership numbers make a difference. ”
I think this article writer is beating the drums too harshly.
1. There’s nothing wrong with privatization so long as competition exists. Competition is good, monopoly is bad. Competition gives consumers lower prices and better services. There is competition in the rideshare sector: Uber vs. Lyft vs. sidecar vs. taxi cabs. There is monopoly in the mass transit sector: municipally run government transit agencies. If by chance Uber, etc. starts running bus-like fixed routes on bigger vehicles like shuttle vans and buses, then it destroys the public transit monopoly and leads to competition. All the better for consumers overall as it will lead to lower prices and better services.
2. In the event that Uber or other rideshare services lead to places like NYC, Boston and San Francisco somehow “magically” privatizing their mass transit systems, then what that means less federal grants go to them and more pieces of the federal grant pie are available to be spread out to other cities that have struggling public transit services. Just because NYC privatizes mass transit doesn’t mean LA will follow suit either. Instead, one could see that as a big plus for LA as now, they won’t be competing for federal grants against NYC, Boston or San Francisco. LA will be able to get a bigger piece of the pie that once used to go toward NYC, Boston, and San Francisco. Of course, the catch is that perhaps LA might also one day be one of the transit agencies that goes full privatization and gets no more federal grants, but that doesn’t necessarily mean public transit services in places like Fargo, ND or Juneau, AK will either.
And now we wait for the socialists and the workers of the world unite folks (ironically, very likely to be Apple and Android product owners and Uber and Lyft users themselves) come marching in waving their red flags for their Bolshevik Revolution in three, two, one….