Santa Monica peeps like me pretty much never get to ride the subway — cuz we don’t have a line anywhere near us. Which is why I have such high hopes for the Expo line, which, if all goes well, will stretch all the way over to our city –
If you wanna find out how that light rail project’s moving along, drop in to hear the update on the Expo light rail (PDF) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007, from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the Culver City Senior Center, 4095 Overland Ave., Culver City.
The Expo line broke ground last September for phase 1 of the project, which builds out the downtown-to-Culver City portion of the line. Phase 2, which would bring the line to Santa Monica, appears to still be in the “scoping” process, according to the Santa Monica’s Exposition Light Rail project webpage.
The July 17 meeting’ll include an overview of the Phase 1 Project and updates on construction status and urban design. If you’re interested in getting more involved, check out the Friends 4 Expo group.
I have mixed feelings about this and I hope you post the bus riders union’s perspective about this Expensive project. It sucks that LA bungled the redline/subway project & spent 5 Billion dollars on that puny project. But light rail isn’t a realistic answer either. Look how expensive the metrolink is today! Who can afford that? Buses are the way to go, and buses w/ dedicated lanes (even replacing old tracks like the Orange line in the valley)is the better way to go. This rail project could be just another bloated budget project that gonna be too expensive for all the average joes, students, and elderly that already ride the bus. There’s been some good commentary on this on KPFK. I’m certainly not against public transportation, but I prefer better buses over this bloated, expensive rail project.
Comment by Sydney B — July 10, 2007 @ 9:23 am
Ah, so one of the bus-only people predictably brings up the old, repetitive, “pro-rail is anti-bus” argument again. Let me refer you to my post here, which perhaps I should put at the bottom of each post that mentions rail:
“Whenever I post anything about rail, the comment stream tends to devolve into a “rail sucks bus is better” “no rail!” “no bus!” sort of thing. I’m of the opinion that both are necessary, and that the two are complimentary parts of an integrated public transport system.”
and encourage you to read the comments on it. Feel free also to check out the other posts about rail on this site, and you’ll see your own “No rail! Yes bus!” comment posted like a repeated mantra over and over again from the same few people.
Rail supporters generally tend to be strong bus supporters too. We need to work together and fight against the real enemies, not fellow transit advocates.
Comment by Siel — July 10, 2007 @ 9:34 am
I’d like to get all the BRU people together with the Cheviot Hills Homeowners and lock them in a room.
I used to say it was so the BRU people could persuade the CHHOA that rich people ride the train and CHHOA could convince the BRU of the opposite, but increasingly I’m thinking that locking them in a room is a pretty good endpoint in and of itself.
As for the Orange Line, higher capacity in that space would have been possible if they’d made it a rail line and there are many people who regret that choice (in fact, there is some talk of at some point in the utopian future of doing just that).
Comment by Don Hosek — July 10, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
Sydney B, please educate yourself before you go spewing the BRU’s highly flawed dogma. First off Metrolink and the Expo Line are completely different animals. Metrolink is a commuter line and is heavy rail (as in a full size gas powered locomotive, like an Amtrak Train). It has a fairly limited schedule and it is meant for moving commuters from the suburbs to Downtown Los Angeles. The Expo Line is electrically powered light rail (like the Blue or Gold Line) and is meant for intercity travel (like the other light rail lines and the subway). The prices for the Expo Line will be the same price as all other Metro service (it cost no more the ride the Red Line than to ride a local bus).
The advantages of rail over bus/busways have been discussed at large elsewhere, but before you even begin to get involved in those discussions please get the basics right or you and your commentary will be immediately written off.
Comment by Fred Camino (MetroRiderLA) — July 10, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
The only reason Sydney is pro bus is because she most likely works for the oil and gas industry, the same people that crippled the red car system. What other reason could there be for such a short sighted fake pro-poor position? The BRU is probably funded by some Texas-based oil trust. The rail is being built (on the former Red car line ironically) and money has been allocated for it and hopefully for the future Wilshire subway. IMHO Los Angeles should not stop there – the city should consider a Vermont subway next.
Comment by erict — July 11, 2007 @ 8:35 am
Yes i agree, lets not fight against each other.
I’m not anti-rail or subway, i’m just bringing up the issue of how much it costs vs how much buses cost. Do you realize how expensive the metrolink is? I can’t afford to ride that. How can youth/students/pple who can’t afford to have a car afford rail?
I have a veggie oil bus by the way so the stereotypes are silly and counter productive. What’s the need for attacking anyhow, why not just have dialogue about the issues? Yes i would love for the red line to come back but the fact is that the cost of riding the rail EXCLUDES many many people who truly need to ride it.
Comment by Sydney B — July 11, 2007 @ 9:17 am
OK, Sydney is being deliberately obtuse here. Why keep bringing up Metrolink in the context of the expo line unless your intent is to obscure the truth. The MTA rail lines all cost EXACTLY THE SAME as the bus. What’s more, Metrolink covers huge amounts of distance. I used to take Metrolink from Claremont to downtown. That fare is currently $7.50 one way on-peak.
I did it by bus once. I don’t know what it is now, but ten years ago, I remember the bus fare coming to about $3-5 and taking a lot longer.
What’s more the fare I quoted is the full adult fare. It’s half-price for students and seniors and $5 on weekends.
Sydney, if you’re really not being a mindless anti-rail shill, I suggest you learn a little bit about what you’re talking about.
Comment by Don Hosek — July 11, 2007 @ 10:15 am
We already have “good” bus service on Washington Blvd, Venice Blvd, Pico Blvd, Olympic Blvd, Wilshire Blvd, Santa Monica Blvd and the Santa Monica 10 freeway from Los Angeles to the ocean and Santa Monica and they are NOT doing the job. Traffic is intolerable now and how will it be in just 5 years let alone 20 years with out at least 1 rail line to the ocean? All of the bus lines together between Los Angeles and Long Beach carried fewer than 1,500 daily riders and the Metro Blue Line is now caring close to 80,000 daily riders. Where would those riders be if the Blue Line was still a bus line? There is a similar need for a line between LA and Santa Monica.
Let’s get this line built now and built right.
As for a BRT or fancy bus line like the Orange Line in the valley or other BRT lines; just ride the Blue, Gold or Red Line then ride the Orange bus Line and see just how poor the experience is compared to a LRT line. The ride is bumpy, slow, very uncomfortable, small and very claustrophobic inside with very difficult wheel chare conditions. The line is already at saturation in spite of the above conditions and additional busses can not be added do to crossing problems. If this was built as a LRT Line as it should have been there would be much higher ridership with less problems with cross traffic with a faster and much more comfortable ride.
How could one in any kind of good faith ask for a bus line instead of this LRT line on an existing Rail Road right of way?
Alan Fishel
Long Beach
Comment by Alan Fishel — July 11, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Some people just don’t understand basic economics. The advantage of light rail trains is that multiple vehicles can be operated with the same crew size as one. Operator’s wages and benefits are a major part of transit operating expense. Operations costs come 100 percent out of your pocket as fares and local taxes. Construction costs are 50 percent federal dollars, and if not spent in LA will be spent elsewhere. Over the long haul light rail costs will not be as much greater than is perceived by just looking at initial construction costs, and during that period the public will have a much higher quality of transport. Buses have their place, but the world over it is rail transit that is the backbone, and there is no good reason to say that LA is any different.
Comment by Russ Jackson — July 11, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
So once again we have one BRU person making the rest of the transit takers painstakingly outline all the basic reasons why the no-rail argument’s misguided. I’m glad people chimed in and are in general knowledgeable and concerned about LA transit, yet part of me wishes there wasn’t a need to continuously rehash these arguments from scratch for every errant person that regurgitates the BRU mantra…. Must we go through this on every post that happens to mention rail?
One of these days I’ll write a post that basically outlines all the reasons why the no-rail argument’s ridic, then just link to it at the bottom of every post that mentions rail. I’m not sure if that’ll end this continuous no-rail harangue altogether, but at least it’ll save the rest of us a little time.
Comment by Siel — July 11, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
What I really love is that Sydney apparently drives her “veggie oil bus” and doesn’t take the MTA. Toots, I ride the bus every day. I want the damn train.
Comment by Don Hosek — July 11, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Well, what the BRU may have been successful in doing is to get Metro to construct rail lines on the cheap. At grade running along Flower St will be very time consuming due to the number of driveways south of Washington. In addition, there is likely going to be serious congestion at the 7th/Flower station due to 2 heavily used rail lines using only 2 platforms. This will persist until the downtown connector is built, connecting 7th/Flower to the Gold Line somewhere along Alameda. Right now the Blue Line is close to de facto capacity during rush hour; future service increases will definitely be limited due to the Expo Line. BRU people often point to the failure of the Gold Line as to a reason why rail is bad; however, it was likely due at least in a small way to pressure from them that the Gold Line ended at Union Station and was not an extension of the Blue Line as originally planned. Predictions are that Gold Line ridership would double if it was directly connected to 7th/Metro.
Comment by Chris — July 11, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Ever heard the expression “you get what you pay for”? Ever heard the old joke, why are divorces so expensive? Because they’re worth it.
Rail is very expensive, but it’s worth it. And in the long run, rail is CHEAPER, based on the number of passengers carried, per mile. Rail cars last 40-50 years. Buses last 15-20 years.
And believe me, buses are never going to go away. Rail is never going to replace buses 100%. Even when we had 1500 miles of streetcar routes in this city, there were still bus routes going other places.
But there are some place where buses JUST CAN’T HANDLE THE CAPACITY along the route. Wilshire Blvd. is one of those places. We’re running Rapid Buses that carry 250 people every two minutes during Rush Hour, and they’re all packed. We could only run more buses if Wilshire was closed off to automobile traffic. A full six car subway train can carry over 1000 people at a time.
The Exposition Blvd. light rail route is nearly as dense as Wilshire, and the Expo line when completed to Santa Monica will likely carry almost as many people as the Blue Line, the second most heavily ridden light rail line in the entire USA.
With trains us taxpayers also save on personnel: one train vs. six buses means only one train operator vs. eight bus operators.
Trains will never be available everywhere in L.A., but we do need more. Right now there’s 73 miles of light rail and subway, and we’ll have over 100 miles by 2015, 120 miles if we built the Purple Line. Not quite enough, but a decent sized system. I’d be happy with 250 miles, which is half the size of the New York City subway system.
Comment by Scott Mercer — July 12, 2007 @ 1:27 am
Sydney wrote:
Yes i would love for the red line to come back but the fact is that the cost of riding the rail EXCLUDES many many people who truly need to ride it.
Metro Rail, that is, services operated by Metro, have the same fares as local buses.
Metrolink is a different agency, one encompassing all neighboring counties. It is not operated by Metro, and the funds Metro gives to Metrolink cannot be used for purposes other than defined.* It charges fares based on distance, and it’s comparable to the costs of driving or taking Greyhound for the same distance. It was intended as commuter rail only, however, peak hour growth has been slowing and may finally plateau. Off-peak ridership, with fewer trains, has been growing fast.
*-This is a point that was lost during the fare increase hearings in May. People think Metro has a single bank account where all revenues and grants go to, and the Board metes out the money accordingly. Nope. Metro is merely a distribution agency. It has so many duties that it takes in money for transit operations as well as rail and road construction. The money has to be used for the purpose it was given, and Metro cannot take funds away to fund a shortfall in another department. The fare hikes are not because Metro wants to build more rail lines. They were because Metro ran a deficit for service it has already operated. So keep in mind that Metro cannot decide how to spend money it receives.
Comment by Wad — July 12, 2007 @ 5:22 pm