If, like me, you eagerly await the day when the Expo light rail’ll open in Santa Monica, you’ll be glad to know that the City of Santa Monica’s put together an Exposition Light Rail project webpage to help you keep track of the process.
The Milestones and Required Action page provides a quick overview of the project. You can even sign up to get an email whenever the page gets updated.
The Expo line’s groundbreaking happened last September, but bringing the line all the way to Santa Monica’s still not a done deal, as various transit projects vie for limited funding. If you’re interested in getting more involved, check out the Friends 4 Expo group, which has been hard at work for like a decade to make this light rail a reality.
Siel,
MTA’s decision to pursue rail projects like the Expo Line is having a devastating effect on transit ridership in Los Angeles. If we really care about reducing greenhouse gas emissions by getting people out of their cars, I think we need to focus on other approaches.
Here’s some background: Fares were reduced to $0.50 for three years beginning in 1982 with proceeds from the Proposition A 1/2-cent sales tax before that money was put toward construction of the Blue Line. Ridership peaked at 497m annual boardings in 1985. Fares then returned to the prior value of $0.85, and ridership dropped by 86 million. More than 20 years later, ridership still hasn’t surpassed the level it reached in 1985, even though we’ve spent $7 billion on rail lines that are supposedly very good at attracting people from cars. Yet MTA continues to build rail and is about to raise fares to help pay off the deficit that these expensive projects helped create. The rail lines in L.A. have much higher operating subsidies than comparable bus lines, so the more rail we build, the larger the deficit will become.
Trains are sleek and comfortable, but in Los Angeles they haven’t resulted in environmental benefits commensurate with their exorbitant cost.
By the way, in the case of Expo, the service improvement will be marginal at best. The Final Environmental Impact Report says that the trains will take 31 minutes to travel from downtown L.A. to Culver City, a distance of about 8.5 miles. That means an average speed of only 16.5 mph–no faster than many Rapid buses, and surely slower than driving. Is this worth $640 million? We could paint a lot of bus-only lanes for that price.
chris
Comment by chris — April 12, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
In contrast to the other Chris, it is quite clear that rail projects are having a great impact on transit ridership in L.A. Currently L.A. has the 6th biggest rail ridership in the country, although it has only operated rail ilnes since the early 1990′s. The Gold Line, frequently derided as a failure, carries 18,000 more riders a day than the bus service it replaced did – and this does not even count the additional riders it has spawned on lines that connect to it. The Orange Bus line wouldn’t be the success it is today without the Red Line – 85% of the Orange Line riders either begin or end their trip at the subway. The Red Line is responsible for the increase in ridership on Line 152, Roscoe Blvd. In
1988, before the Red Line arrived in Hollywood,
Line 152 operated every 12-20 minutes in rush hours, 30 minutes mid-day M-F and Sat, and 40 minutes on Sunday. Today, Line 152 runs every 5-10 minutes in rush hours, every 25 minutes mid-day M-F and Sat, and every 30 minutes on Sunday. This is a significant increase in service.
I doubt that the Final Environmental Impact Report will be accurate. Comparable light rail lines in L.A. operate at an average speed of about 20 mph. Even at 16.5 mph, the line will be significantly faster than nearby bus lines:
(All speeds listed are peak hour speeds):
30 – 10 mph
33 – 11 mph
704 (new Santa Monica Blvd RAPID) – 11 mph
720 – 13 mph
920 – 14 mph
328 (Olympic Limited) – 14 mph
Plus the rail line won’t be subject to traffic delays caused by gridlock.
While the other Chris wants to put more buses on the gridlocked streets, it is clear that only by building exclusive right of ways can we provide an alternative. Many low income riders save a lot of time off of their commute by riding rail lines (that predominantly serve low income communities) – rail lines that their “allies”, the Bus Riders Union, didn’t want to be built. While the BRU would prefer them to commute 3 hours by bus, Metro wants them to get home earlier and spend more time with their families.
Comment by Chris — April 13, 2007 @ 11:30 am
Looking at the Environmental Impact Report, it seems the 31 minutes travel time was for the Hill St option, which was abandoned in favor the Flower St route due to the additional travel time required. The Flower St route only takes 27 minutes between Culver City and 7th/Flower, for an average speed of about 20 mph as I thought would be the case.
Comment by Chris — April 13, 2007 @ 11:48 am
In fact, the only Rapid route that runs at an average speed of 15 mph or greater in the afternoon rush hour is 750 Ventura Blvd – which has an average speed of about 16 mph. So, in fact, 16.5 mph is faster than any rapid bus, in direct contradiction to chris’s assertion, and the Expo Line will average 20. It’s interesting how many anti-rail activists do not investigate whether what they are saying is actually true or not.
Comment by Chris — April 13, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Sorry to keep on this, but in 2006 total bus
and rail ridership was about 469 million. This is less than the 497 million in 1985, but the 497 million in 1985 includes 14 routes now run by Foothill Transit, and other routes now run by DASH, Commuter Express, Montebello Bus Lines, Norwalk Transit, OCTA, and other systems. In other words, the figures cannot be simply compared.
Comment by Chris — April 13, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Chris, thanks for you responses.
We may have one of the larger rail systems in the country, but the total number of fixed guideway boardings in FY 2006 was 86 million, the same as the number of bus boardings we lost due to the fare increases in the 1980s, according to RTD. (See Transport of Delight by Jonathan Richmond.)
As for speeds … you’re right, during the peak the Rapids are slower, but based on Metro’s trip planner (is that what you were using?), some of the off-peak Rapid speeds are comparable to the 27 minute Expo trip. I see that the Expo Construction Authority’s FAQ says 30 minutes, but the main page says “under 30 minutes.”
But my main point is that the speed improvement that you get with rail comes at a significant cost. Our city isn’t dense enough to bring the operating cost of rail below that of buses. I think we can get more out of our transit dollars if we build bus-only lanes, which would improve speed, reliability, and frequency even if we maintained the current number of service hours. The incremental speed improvements would be smaller, but we would reduce wait and travel times for a much larger fraction of transit users in L.A., and we could avoid some of these damaging fare increases.
Comment by (first) chris — April 14, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
First Chris wrote:
We may have one of the larger rail systems in the country, but the total number of fixed guideway boardings in FY 2006 was 86 million, the same as the number of bus boardings we lost due to the fare increases in the 1980s, according to RTD. (See Transport of Delight by Jonathan Richmond.)
Chris, that figure is irrelevant. For one thing, the 50 cent fare was a “teaser” fare with a set time limit. It was never meant to be a permanent fare. Second, if you were to regress the ridership data, the lower fares resulted in the same passengers making more trips, specifically short ones that they used to walk. Otherwise, the boardings would have had a positive effect on low frequency lines, but those lines continued to be poor performers. The lines that gained already had high ridership even before the fare decrease.
And now, a 50 cent fare is impossible to maintain. You operate under the assumption that we’d have a great system if only we got rid of the trains. Even if the system was bus only, the slow trips, and rising fuel and labor costs would have still made fare increases necessary.
Santa Monica operates no rail service, yet it too has an operating deficit and has burned through its reserve. It recently approved fare increases as well. What’s happening in L.A. is affecting systems big and small throughout the country.
As for speeds … you’re right, during the peak the Rapids are slower, but based on Metro’s trip planner (is that what you were using?), some of the off-peak Rapid speeds are comparable to the 27 minute Expo trip. I see that the Expo Construction Authority’s FAQ says 30 minutes, but the main page says “under 30 minutes.â€
We will know for sure when actual train testing begins. Schedulers must be on the vehicle in a simulated operation. Right now, obviously, this cannot be done.
But my main point is that the speed improvement that you get with rail comes at a significant cost. Our city isn’t dense enough to bring the operating cost of rail below that of buses.
Incorrect. It’s not land density, but passenger volumes, that dictate operating costs. And Los Angeles, both city and suburbs, is among the densest (land use-wise) in the city.
As for passenger volumes, rail is not only appropriate, but necessary, in Los Angeles. We have the second highest bus usage in the country. New York has four times our bus usage, but less than double our bus fleet. L.A. has the ridership on three dozen bus lines to warrant conversion to rail. The only trouble is that many of these lines are close together, and building these lines would be expensive.
Also, Metro Rail has succeeded because it was closely tied to heavy ridership bus lines. The Blue Line did not get to 80,000 boardings because it correspondingly eliminated 80,000 bus boardings. The parallel bus lines are still intact and still have heavy ridership.
I think we can get more out of our transit dollars if we build bus-only lanes, which would improve speed, reliability, and frequency even if we maintained the current number of service hours.
I’m calling your bluff.
What you really desire is to eliminate rail. This is a form of bait-and-switch: equivocating support for the same aims but really supporting it because the bus lane idea cannot be fulfilled.
Metro cannot seize road lanes from cities for its own use. It would need a change of law, one that it surely would not get because of the backlash from motorists. At best, it would have to negotiate with the cities to allow a lane to be taken away, and rent might have to be paid for that privilege. It would also have to be coordinated with the cities’ traffic engineers to ensure the smooth flow of buses, motor vehicles and pedestrians. Not only that, but every layer of bureaucracy involved must be on the same page at all times to ensure the whole system works as intended. Considering turf wars and years of mistrust between Los Angeles and surrounding municipalities, a bus-only lane scheme would melt down fast.
Oh, and Metro suddenly cannot figure out how to run high-ridership buses, if you are to believe the stories in the Daily News. Never mind there are about 20 local bus lines with higher ridership, thereby more problematic. But when the Orange Line, at heavy frequencies and bus only lanes, has already outgrown itself, maybe its time to acknowledge it’s a capacity issue.
Comment by Wad — April 14, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
I work for Metro, so the speeds are from the actual running time used in Metro scheduling software.
I don’t argue against bus lanes…they’re quite useful, although impossible to get and, if they’re in the curb lane, vulnerable to people turning right. Some areas of the city – the Westside – absolutely need segregated guideway if they are to escape gridlock. A bus only lane on Wilshire isn’t going to suddenly get the bus to average 25 mph, the average speed that the subway will get.
Rail has gotten a bad rap in L.A. because some of the lines are poorly planned. The Red and Blue Lines are successful, serving heavily patronized travel corridors will good bus connections.
The Green Line, which was built because of the
105 freeway, has a surprising amount of passengers given that it currently serves no independent trip generators. It kind of operates as a crosstown express line.
The Gold Line can be considered a failure, although it was not built as originally planned from 7th/Metro Center. Ending at 7th/Metro Center is projected to double the ridership to about 40,000 day – if it ever happens. The other problem with the Gold Line is the lack of good bus connections at many stations. In addition, since it only runs every 15 minutes during the base its speed advantage over the parallel bus is negated by the time spent waiting for the train.
There are over 200,000 daily riders on east-west
bus lines that will parallel and be near the Wilshire subway extension westward, and these riders still ride despite the constant gridlock they find themselves in . Given the bus riders and the number of frustrated auto commuters in the area, would it be a stretch to imagine 400,000
people riding a “subway to the sea”? The demand for this subway could overloard the capacity, as due to the tracks east of Vermont being shared with the North Hollywood subway neither train could operate more than every five minutes even with significantly upgraded signalling.
In contrast, I don’t see a bus only lane attracting many new riders, although the existing riders will benefit certainly and the reduction in running time will save Metro a bit.
Comment by Chris — April 17, 2007 @ 10:05 am
Just wanted to point out that the speed dimension of the bus vs. rail discussion has come up in the LA Times:
Comment by (first) chris — August 13, 2007 @ 11:44 am
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-kotkin12aug12,0,6283475.story?coll=la-opinion-center
Comment by (first) chris — August 13, 2007 @ 11:48 am
I apologize–I copied the wrong link.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-expoline11aug11,1,4854,full.story?coll=la-headlines-california
Comment by (first) chris — August 13, 2007 @ 11:49 am