Santa Monica critical to Expo Line success

How crucial is the second leg of the Expo Line to Santa Monica? Even Expo Line backers say the downtown-to-Culver City Phase 1 has limited appeal and that ridership would jump considerably if the line was extended to downtwon Santa Monica. The Times' Rong-Gong Lin II reports that Phase 2 remains a challenge financially:

Officials expect the Expo Line to Culver City to see 43,000 passenger boardings every weekday by 2025. (A boarding is a one-way trip.) Officials point out that ridership estimates would jump -- perhaps to 72,000 weekday boardings -- if the Expo Line was extended about seven miles west to Santa Monica, which would make it the second-most heavily traveled light-rail line in the county after the Blue Line. But transit officials expressed concerns about whether more than $800 million could be found to fund the last leg, particularly at a time when the state has proposed major cuts in transportation funding. "In order for this to be a total success, it has to get to Santa Monica," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky.

Comments

[M.]

Followup - I meant to add that the Purple Line should be built down Santa Monica west of B.H. I agree, a Wilshire alignment makes no sense there.
Isn't it wonderful how the old P.E. got so much right?

[Jennifer Reyes]

Most of the traffic from Wilshire is coming from Westwood, all that is needed is take that old Sepulveda Right of way that is right by my house hook it up to the Expo railroad from there to UCLA and walla, we'd have a cost effective and very usable rail line that would get 100,000 riders tying regionally Santa Monica, Westwood, Mid City, Downtown without having to wait forever and a day to build one gold plated subway.

One gold plated subway that doesn't make any regional connections only to serve empty and boring 9 to 5 office towers and snobby single family homes a short distance away. Santa Monica Boulevard makes a better candidate corridor for a Subway than Wilshire because it's denser and can serve more destinations along the way then Wilshire: Westwood, Century City, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Hollywood, Silver Lake, Echo Park, Dodger Stadium, Chinatown, Downtown all along one straight corridor.

[M.]

Brigham Yen is right, the Wilshire subway should be extended all the way to Santa Monica. Park the tunnel boring machine under Lincoln Blvd. pointed south and await funding to continue to LAX.
OTOH the Expo Line supporters are missing the most cost effective alignment. The line should abandon the existing ROW at Venice Blvd. and reclaim the wide Venice median all the way to the ocean (as in Pacific Electric days).
Both lines will benefit from being located in high density corridors rather than the backyards of upscale residential neighborhoods.
Rail transit is a worthwhile but very long term investment - just do it!
Reduce the pollution and crowding further by attacking the biggest root cause - excessive population grow in a world of limited resources. US steady state growth rate is ~1.2 children. Stop at two NOW!

[M.]

Brigham Yen is right, the Wilshire subway must be extended to Santa Monica. Curve it south and park the tunnel boring machine under Lincoln Blvd. until funding can extend the line to LAX.
OTOH the Expo Line supporters aren't supporting the best alignment. The line should abandon the ROW at Venice Blvd. and reuse the Venice median all the way to the ocean (as in Pacific Electric days).
Both lines will benefit from traveling through existing high density corridors rather than the backyards of upscale residential neighborhoods.
Rail transport is an efficient and very long term investment - just do it!
Ease the crowding and pollution problems further by fixing the root cause - excessive population growth in a world of limited resources. US steady state growth rate is ~1.2 children - stop at two!

[Dan W]

""NY - Highly compact city
LA - sprawled out"
- snotmonkeybawls

I like living in LA and want the close proximity of an urban setting. (I live Downtown.) Should I be forced to move to New York get it? I won't do it at your command. Besides, I hate snow."

--------------------------

Comparing Los Angeles to NYC as a reason not have transit has always been bogus. The NYC Metropolitan area is more of an example, and I like your analogies to places in LA Metro to NYC Metro.

I think the more relevant comparison for Los Angeles is London. London as 12 subway lines, an incredible extensive network of commuter trains similar to metrolink, tram lines, ferries, etc., and an incredibly extensive network of buses that has improved dramatically over the last decade. They also have a large amount of car users. But the system works.

London is also a sprawl. Mass transit working in a sprawl to the benefit of everyone.

Los Angeles needs more heavy rail, light rail, rapid bus, local bus, bike paths, pedestrian improvements, everything but more single-occupancy vehicles.

[Scott Mercer]

"NY - Highly compact city
LA - sprawled out"
- snotmonkeybawls

I like living in LA and want the close proximity of an urban setting. (I live Downtown.) Should I be forced to move to New York get it? I won't do it at your command. Besides, I hate snow.

And your statement is hogwash representing faulty, stereotyped thinking. Take a look at any map of New York City. It's so big that it used to be two cities! (New York and Brooklyn). Okay, you say, but Manhattan, yes, Manhattan! That's where the density is.

Yes, the same density we have in Los Angeles in downtown, Hollywood, and along Wilshire Blvd. The same density that requires the Subway to Sea be built.

New York and Los Angeles are highly comparable:
Downtown Manhattan: Downtown L.A.
Midtown Manhattan: Mid-Wilshire
Upper East Side: Beverly Hills
Queens: San Fernando Valley:
Brooklyn: Long Beach
Harlem: South L.A.
Orange County: New Jersey
Palos Verdes: Westchester County

There are almost no train systems that are owned by private companies or make a profit. So, should things that only make a profit be allowed to exist? No. An effective mass transit system is a public amenity like a museum, a concert hall, or, yes, a freeway. Should Los Angeles be the only city of its size in the world without one? Build the lines, build them all, and TAX TAX TAX the homeowners for it! There, I said it!

[Jeremy R]

Angelenos will never get it.

Every metropolitan in the world with over 10 million people will have traffic. there is no way around it and everyone knows it. The difference is that LA is the only such metropolitan in existence that does not have an ALTERNATIVE to the gridlock. Subways dont alleviate congestion, they merely give people options to avoid it.

Downtown, Hollywood, Mid-city, century city, beverly hills, west hollywood, culver city, UCLA, USC, and santa monica have tons of jobs and culture. The subway to the sea, the expo line, and a few creative innovations would serve some 1 million jobs, and more worth while shopping, dining, and culture than the rest of the 1500 sq miles of LA county combined. It makes sense to me. LA is spread out, but these 100 square miles pack the biggest punch.

[Peter Jensen]

What happens when Los Angeles freeways reach the "tipping point" and the commute times are so long that it's no longer worth going to work?

[Joseph C]

If the cost of rail construction is a concern, I would rather that they build BRT dedicated bus lines on the right of way, similar to the orange line. The key to having mass transit work is to keep the "train" moving even during the rush hour periods (which is the biggest problem with the Rapid lines -- they get stuck with the cars on Wilshire at peak times).

[Steve]

Get real, west LA will have the worse congestion in the nation 24/7 and thiis will never change. They have spent billions the last 40 years and will spend billions more the next 40 years with no impact on traffic. Do what I did, just move. It is the only solution if you are fed up.

[Maralago]

First, on the amount of transportation bond money - it was 20 billion, not 30 billion. Second, out of all those billions only a couple hundred million were earmarked for PUBLIC transportation. That was all that could be gotten as the Republians wanted ZERO mass transit dollars. In the Governor's own original infrastructure bond package there was ZERO allotted for public transportation.

Moving on to the person who said "Let Santa Monica pay for it", and he/she backs this moronic statement with the logic that they've allowed unbridled development for years....The reason so much traffic is going in and out of Santa Monica is the same reason so much goes in and out of Century City and Beverly Hills - they've got businesses that have created high paying jobs, but they don't pay enough for a million dollar home which is all that's available on the westside. Far from BLAMING Sta Monica - or any other city - place blame where it belongs: on the vocal anti-transit activists and strident Libertarians who don't want the public to get anything that is government-subsidized, even if it curbs congestion and air pollution. And blame the greedy corporate slugs who pay 1% of the population enough that they can own 3 and 4 homes, driving up home prices in SoCal, while driving huge SUVs that clog the roads. Then blame the Republicans....you get the picture? It ain't the fault of a city smart enough to grow some good paying jobs!!

[snotmonkeybawls]

I have read the comments posted above, and I see no one talking about the costs of public transportation and infrastructure. Public transportation and infrastructure is EXTREMELY expensive and is HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED FOR A REASON. It requires an enormous investment especially in a city like Los Angeles. A Metro bus costs approximately $300,000 each. Rail lines particularly heavy rail (ie. the subway) are extraordinarily high. It costs nearly $300 million per mile of subway line. Needless to say, trying to establish an "efficient" rail system in LA will require GOBS of money.

Then there comes the the costs required for upkeep. All roads and public transit require repair and maintenance. So everyone has to be realistic about public transit especially those from the east coast. To compare NY, DC, and Boston to LA is like comparing apples to oranges.

NY - Highly compact city
LA - sprawled out

There is a reason that NY can efficiently utilize rail lines, and it is because of the density of the city. LA is known for sprawl and more importantly space. You really don't rub elbows in LA. If you like being in a sardine can like NY, then go to the east coast. For those that appreciate space, then you stay on the west.

And for those offering an "EASY" explanation to solve transportation and traffic woes (ie more bike lanes,faster bus systems, etc.), then you must rethink your solution. If the answer is so easy, I'm pretty sure it would have been done, and we wouldn't be here talking about this either.

Furthermore, those saying we need a rail line going to the west to help relieve traffic, you have to be realistic as well. Adding a new lane on the freeway or adding a rail line will not relieve traffic for long. As you may already know, the population growth in Los Angeles is estimated to be equal to the population in Chicago. So add Chicago plus LA and you get ----- HELL! No matter how much you whine and moan, traffic will never be relieved in Los Angeles. So, get used to it or move out.

[wcs]

I'm confused. Why should light rail in Santa Monica be a top transportation priority in the country? Why should anyone care outside of the population it would service. Pay for it yourself.

[Brigham Yen]

The Expo Line should not ever be considered an adequate replacement for the extension of the Purple Line down Wilshire Blvd. Does Manhattan have one line serving an island 2 miles wide? Obviously the answer is no. And it's no mystery why Manhattan is filled with pedestrians on every corner (perhaps you could also access the subway on almost every corner in Manhattan).

Wilshire Blvd. is the "linear downtown" of LA County. It has some of the quinessential areas that define a lot of "LA." (Tourist dollars anyone?) I'm sure people here have heard of Rodeo Drive, Westwood/UCLA, LACMA, The Grove, etc. All of that would be accessible to millions of people since the Purple Line would be connected to the regional rail network via Union Station (with Metrolink/Amtrak, Flyaway, etc.). In essence, anyone who has access to Metrolink, etc. could be connected to the Westside/Wilshire Blvd. and all that it has to offer.

The Expo Line is important, yes. But in no way does it traverse through an area of more regional importance than Wilshire Blvd. The Expo Line should be built all the way to Santa Monica without a doubt. But it is NO SUBSTITUTE for extending the Purple Line. It is only icing on the cake.

[Andrew Shaddock]

$800 million sounds like a lot ... but getting the rail network to the coast is fundamental to the credibility of the whole network, and the concept of those who choose to being able to live without a car.

Meanwhile, there are about six million cars registered in LA County and AAA will have us believe that we spend about $8,000 per year on each car. If that is accurate, then LA County residents will pay $480 billion over the next ten years on their personal vehicles, and will be complaining loudly during and at the end of that period about (a) traffic, (b) gas prices, and (c) the lack of a more comprehensive rail network.

So, the Expo Line is looking for a tiny proportion of our transportation dollars, please. Surely someone can market and sell that concept.

[Sheryl]

GIVE ME A DAMN BREAK. State funding is never going to get ANY of this built.

It's time for the County and Metro to get off their fat a**es and start BONDING for rail lines.

The fact of the matter is that LA County is NEVER going to get as much infrasture back from state bonds as LA County taxpayers are going to pay for, and we can't expect them to. The state is dealing with STATEWIDE issues, not just LA Country or even Southern California issues.

WE HAVE TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THIS. If we want a comprehensive rail system, then LA, Orange, Riverside, San Berdo, Kern and Ventura counties are going to have to FUND IT, and BUILD IT independently of any kind of state dollars. If we get a few state dollars, then hot diggity dog, we can pay for some overtime to build a little faster. But we have GOT to figure this on our OWN.

It's just stupid to wait for the state to fund this--all that will happen is 75% of the money will get eaten up in state administration costs! At least if we bond it locally, we'll only lose half to administrative boondoggling.

[Expo-sir]

Make Santa Monica pay for this. For decades they have allowed unbridled commercial growth and did nothing to mitigate the concomitant traffic increases. Remember when there was no traffic on the 10 West during the morning? I do. Now SM acts like a victim! Hate to be cynical, but this is another Gold Line failure in the making.

[movielocke]

Didn't I just vote for 30 billion transportation bill last fall, and wasn't a big chunk of that supposed to be for public transportation? What do you mean they're cutting funding for transit just after they got 30 billion voted in last fall. So frustrating.

The expo line is essential to get to Santa Monica, it's staggering that Phase II might not be complete, it shoudl be one of the top transit priorities in the country and the top transit pirority in the state.

[mike d.]

i think it's super critical. to only do phase one makes about as much sense as having the purple line terminus at western/wilshire. and since both lines basically parallel the 10 freeway to santa monica the completion of the expo line to santa monica would make the purple line extension to the sea not as urgent. i mean, they would basically start at opposite ends of the 3rd street promenade and meet at 7th st/metro center, so people that would like to use the purple line could feasibly use the expo line until the purple line is finally (if ever) completed.

overall the wilshire line would be a better route (nearer to major work centers and being underground quite a bit faster), but the expo line would be cheaper and be up and running much faster, which we really need.

[Ken Alpern]

The Expo Line will invariably have more ridership if it fulfills its promise to reach Santa Monica, and all lines will have more ridership if the Downtown Light Rail Connector and Crenshaw Lines are built as well.

It's called a network, and that means it's got to reach all areas and provide more convenient options for people to use it.

[m]

Why on earth is the state proposing to cut money for public transportation again? If there was an explanation, I think I missed it. I don't even want to think about how much money I pay in taxes/fees in various forms to the state and it goes to innefficient projects like widening individual highways or roads when expanding public transportation and adding bike lanes/racks/public bikes would reduce the need to widen roads and reduce health care costs. Just a thought. How many bikes can you fit on one freeway? How many cars can you fit? How many people can you fit into one train? How many people in cars can you fit in an equivalent area? I'd rather have space for homes and breathing room than space for cars.

I live in the valley and I never go to Santa Monica voluntarily. I would if there was a train going there. I know my boyfriend would use the train opposed to the bus route that no matter what, takes 4 times as long to get to Santa Monica as driving in the traffic-packed 405.