Rail Versus Buses

* Re “Full Disclosure Now Before Busway Is Built,” Valley Perspective, Aug. 27.

Ever since the voters approved funding for a rail system, the pro-oil lobby has fought to fracture, delay and sabotage our progress in alternative mobility.

The auto industry favors buses simply because this makes public transit less appealing than the private auto. Rail systems, however, offer an alternative that terrifies the oil companies: competition.

Readers are advised to research the original conspiracy case against the auto lobby to understand how the Metropolitan Transportation Authority makes so many serious mistakes in planning and judgment.

Some members of the MTA board serve only to prevent progress in rail service. The board vote for separate design systems on each of the lines shows that there were some managers interested in spending the cash quickly, foolishly, in violation of the public trust.

So here’s our final error. Instead of having the 65 mph Red Line continue west, we ask the passenger to exit the train, walk to a bus and finish their journey later, at an average speed of 21 mph.

There’s progress even our mayor could love.

JON HARTMANN

Los Angeles

*

I live three houses from the San Fernando Valley east-west transit corridor. I have always been in favor of a rail line on this route. I like the nonpolluting electric rail line.

I am totally opposed to the busway. The buses would create all the pollution of a fossil fuel system. Their rubber tires would give off particles from their wear on the pavement. The buses would run more often than the trains because each bus could not carry as many passengers as a train. I have read that rail transportation requires less energy per passenger mile than transportation on rubber tires. More buses would mean that the expense of more drivers would make the buses more expensive to operate.

WILLIS E. SIMMS

Woodland Hills