The Expo Line: What the Hell?
by David Deutsch
Building a mass transit system is tough. Building one in one of the most spread-out cities in the nation, that just so happens to be an earthquake zone, is just a bit tougher. Doing so in a cost-effective way that actually solves traffic problems seems nearly impossible.
While I think the Expo Line is a much-needed addition to our city's transportation infrastructure, it initially did not seem to be placed in an ideal location. As Fourstory writer Tony Chavira and I recently discovered, the line goes through some unusual parts of town with little significant commercial or residential development. This left us wondering: why on Earth did they choose to put it through these areas?
There is a reason, and I begin to explain why below. Please note that this is not a comprehensive analysis of the Expo Line, nor is it a complete look at transportation policy. It is just a quick overview of some issues that can arise when building any transportation project, and may help explain why they chose to build the line from USC to Santa Monica through Culver City.
So, why did they lay out the lines where they did? The reason is simple: because the Expo Line is being built on the old Pacific Electric right-of-way. They are using the old railroad tracks to build the new light rail system.
(Metro Line in aqua)
Why don't they just build new tracks instead? Here's a little experiment for you: Take out a map of Los Angeles and draw your ideal mass transit line across the city. Ignore costs for a moment, and just draw to your heart's content, adding in station stops and so forth. Once you are done, imagine convincing the people whose houses and businesses you plan on going through that they will have to move, and that their streets will have to be shut down for two years while they breathe in dust and dirt that flies into the air. Then, imagine going in front of the Los Angeles zoning board and convincing them to change their zoning laws to conform to your vision of L.A.'s mass transit future. After that, imagine chatting with the Caltech geologists about the perils of running your wonderful new transit project through, or over, a fault line. Once you've done all that, imagine yourself going to Costco and buying umpteen cases of Maalox and Alka-Seltzer as you fight the abovementioned stakeholders, politicians, community groups, concerned citizens, and everyone else who thinks you are crazy. Finally, imagine arming yourself to the teeth to fight off the hordes of people looking for your head as a whole new set of problems arises from the construction process.
Pacific Electric Red Car
Using right-of-ways makes sense on several levels. It is relatively easy to build on (or improve upon) tracks that already exist and have the appropriate zoning classifications. Also, because there is very little risk that something else has since been built on top of the tracks (although there may be exceptions, which I discuss a little later), building the railroad over the old tracks makes the project relatively cost-effective and politically sound. And, as described above, doing otherwise can create a real nightmare for everyone involved.
But there are significant problems using these old train lines. The major downside to this approach is the same for every transportation planner, whether they use right-of-ways or not: things change. The original Expo Line tracks were laid down in 1875, and the city has changed ever-so-slightly in the past 130 years. For instance, one of the biggest north-south streets in Los Angeles, was just a dirt road surrounded by desert at the turn of the century. Fifty years ago, my Koreatown neighborhood was the Jewish section of town. Needless to say, in ten to twenty-five years L.A. will certainly go through some dramatic changes.
So how do planners develop mass transit systems in an ever-changing demographic landscape? One way is to create broad-ranged plans around the transit system to ensure that the local citizens benefit from its construction. For instance, Expo Line planners will develop pedestrian and bike paths along with the train system, thus taking one more step toward making L.A. a less car-dependent city. Also, most transportation projects have plans to create living and work spaces surrounding the station stops—take a look at the massive construction site by the Wilshire and Western Metro stop. One other problem with using old right-of-ways is that historical monuments may have been built at some point around or near the old train lines. This can create major head- and stomach-aches for policymakers, as they find a way to build the new train system over, around, under—but not through—said historical monuments.
Regardless of where the lines are built, L.A. faces a rare and daunting challenge, one that few other urban areas face: earthquakes. Building an earthquake-resistant transit line requires a dramatic increase in cost; excessive caution must be taken to ensure that plans can (a) effectively withstand a large earthquake, (b) ensure that there are safety and evacuation guidelines clearly published for all transit riders (something I have not seen in currently-running transit lines), and (c) educate the surrounding communities about the impact an earthquake will have on their buildings and how exactly transportation will play a role in that arena.
It would be naive to think that building a new transportation system is easy. Nobody is ever completely satisfied when the projects and plans finally come to fruition. No matter where the tracks are set, turning L.A. from a car-and-traffic culture to a bus-and-rail culture will be a painful process for all of us. But sacrifices for the greater good (Measure R, for example) will, I hope, make Los Angeles a less smoggy, more mass transit-type town.
Comments
No comments.