Will Safety Concerns Delay the Completion of the Expo Line in Los Angeles?
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles 
on 11.28.08
Every time I feel as though L.A. is finally on the cusp on improving its (woefully) underfunded public transit system, something comes along to scuttle my excitement. The latest controversy surrounds the Expo Line, an $862 million light rail project that will connect downtown Los Angeles to Culver City and which is slated for completion in mid-2010. (That will be the first phase; the second phase will eventually extend the line from Culver City to Santa Monica -- see the "subway to the sea.") The plan could be delayed, however, if safety concerns win the day next week, the LAT's Steve Hymon reports.
Next Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is set to weigh in on a debate that has pitted MTA officials against community activists and Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) officials who are worried about the line's safety features. The latter contend that the completion of the Expo Line should be delayed to allow for the construction of new bridges or tunnels to separate the tracks from streets -- and school crossings.
MTA officials counter that the street-level crossings they wish to build are perfectly safe, and that they have already invested in numerous features to ensure that students from two South L.A. schools -- Dorsey High School and Foshay Learning Center -- are protected. An alternative proposed last month by a CPUC judge, which would've required pedestrian bridges to be built over the tracks, was nixed by both parties due to space concerns.
Now I admit to some bias in the matter -- the Expo Line, once completed, would run a few minutes away from my office on the USC campus -- but I do think the activists' fears are overblown. I'm all for ensuring that all proper safety measures be taken, but, given L.A.'s (and other cities') track record with light rail, it seems highly unlikely that many children's lives will be put at risk by a street-level crossing.
Yes, children perceive risks differently and, yes, crowded conditions often make for pushing, shoving and other rowdy behavior, as the activists and school officials note, but those concerns shouldn't be enough to push back such a project. Light rail lines have been successful in Portland, San Francisco and other cities, and most accidents have been caused by individuals committing suicide.
The activists have a point when they say that the safety measures they are demanding are being built in a few other areas along the route. Yet, considering the slew of other measures MTA officials plan on deploying near the crossings, they are exaggerating the risks:
Expo Line officials say they will take pains to make the train safe. Construction authority chief Rick Thorpe said the agency would slow trains from 55 mph to 10 mph outside Dorsey immediately before and after school hours and also post security guards on both sides of the crossing gates to keep students from ducking under and dashing across the tracks before trains pass.
And, just to give you a notion of L.A.'s recent track record with light rail lines:
The Blue Line has killed 26 people in vehicles and 65 pedestrians since opening in 1990, and there have been more pedestrian deaths in the last five years than in the Blue Line's first five years. Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials say that 20 of the pedestrian deaths were suicides.MTA officials say that safety features have been added over the years, and they're working to install more equipment to keep people off the tracks. They also say that only one pedestrian death has occurred on the Gold Line, which was built to higher safety standards than the Blue Line, since its 2003 debut. They say that death was a suicide.
No transportation solution is ever perfect. This case is one of those in which I believe that the benefits of public transit -- reducing traffic congestion, giving more individuals access to cheap, fast transportation -- far outweighs its perceived risks. Call me impatient, but I'm not sure that those extra features are worth the millions more that they will pad onto the existing costs.
More about L.A. public transit
Los Angeles County Public Transit Could Face Blowback from Credit Crisis
Public Transit Looking More Attractive in the Face of Record Gas Prices
Pining for a Subway to the Sea (and other Public Transit Projects)
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
These kinds of objections about safety always make me wonder about the safety record from surrounding automobile traffic... Despite the statistics that overwhelmingly show that automobiles are the most dangerous form of transportation, people seem to settle into a set of beliefs that sees anything else as more dangerous...
Safety is one reason I prefer monorail rather than light rail. Monorail lines have been operating for decades in Japan and the Disney resorts. Malasia has had a line for some time now as well. A new line has also been built in Las Vegas and there are other projects in various stages of completion.
The total number of casualties for straddle type monorail in all the world's routes is zero.
If anybody finds this interesting, go and visit the Monorail Society web site for more information. It's not only safe, it's the only mass-transit system you can run right through a park with minimum disturbance.
The number of deaths sounds horrible, but if the people who rode this drove instead, the number of deaths would have been much higher. The sooner this is finished, the sooner we start saving lives by displacing driving.
Who is this talking about monorail, a transit system thoroughly disproven as economically justifiable.
In all countries except the US, citizens and visitors both know how to react in the presence of rail transit. Why should we expect any less of US citizens and visitors?
The constant whining for"safety" is a foil by which US citizens may expect to be relieved of their responsibility for their own conduct relative to the urban alternatives offered.
Perhaps it is time for US citizens to grow up and accept some responsibility for their own actions.
What percentage of the people killed were "racing the train"?
How many of the pedestrians were walking along the tracks?
If you get hit by an object that can't deviate from it's course, and has flashing red lights and gates to warn you, it's most likely you're fault and not the train unless there is mechanical or electrical failure.
Sucks to be a passenger or kid in one of those cars, but trains are rarely at fault in these type of accidents.
Thoroughly disproven by who? On what grounds? Which particular technology (there are several)? Does Japan know nothing about mass transit? Why do they have several lines?
Ah, the further pandering to and the enabling of the people who are sufficiently stupid to faIl to realize that in a car versus rail vehicle situation or a pedestrian versus rail vehicle, the aforementioned car or pedestrial will lose. The further dumbing down of the already dumb. Perhaps the whacking of a few dozen of said dummies might raise the level of the sadly shallow gene pool. There is grease on the rungs of the evolutionary ladder. Our parents and grandparents lived very well and very long with the many thousands of at-grade streetcar and railroad crossings.
Jeremy:
Several questions, but they all just simply ask, what is your basis for the following statements:
"I'm all for ensuring that all proper safety measures be taken, but, given L.A.'s (and other cities') track record with light rail, it seems highly unlikely that many children's lives will be put at risk by a street-level crossing."
a) Do you know MTA's track record in accidents with children?
b) Do know you know other city's track records with accidents with children?
c) Do you agree that crossing environments vary from intersection to intersection, and definitely vary from city to city?
The international and national rail/car safety experts who have opined on the line near these schools have evaluated them and MTA's process of determining the design features of the crossing. And the judge isn't just a judge, he's formerly ran the rail safety engineering section with oversight for all railroads in the state. They all disagree with MTA.
"Light rail lines have been successful in Portland, San Francisco and other cities, and most accidents have been caused by individuals committing suicide."
a) How fast are those trains going in San Francisco?
b) How long are those train lines in San Francisco?
c) How long do the trains in San Francisco take to commute similar distances as proposed on Expo?
d) How do you define "success," and even if we agree with your definition, can we also agree that what leads to success in a city with the population of Long Beach (Portland) with rail lines half as long as just Expo (San Francisco) might be different than what requires success in Los Angeles?
e) What is your basis for statement that most accidents have been caused by individuals committing suicide?
Incidentally, several rail safety experts are highly critical of MTA's classifications of suicides. Simply, MTA has classified more Blue Line deaths suicides in it's 18 years of operation (20) than most other regions had non-suicide deaths along their entire system. Blue line is by far the deadliest light rail in the country (#2 has killed about 1/3rd as many people) for a lot of reasons.
"No transportation solution is ever perfect. This case is one of those in which I believe that the benefits of public transit -- reducing traffic congestion, giving more individuals access to cheap, fast transportation -- far outweighs its perceived risks."
What is your basis for your suggestion that the Expo Line, with it's at-grade crossings will reduce traffic congestion?
"but I'm not sure that those extra features are worth the millions more that they will pad onto the existing costs."
Ever heard of the Ford Pinto? Any cost-benefit evaluation puts at-grade crossings at these intersections and most others on the Expo Line Phase 1 at a significant disadvantage. It begins by recognizing that safety is but one benefit of grade separation.
You see the real stat with the Blue Line is the over 830 accidents? And it's accident rate is hundreds of times greater than cars.
I think if you look a lot closer you'll see that many of our assumptions about the Expo Line (which I at one time held), and light rail in Los Angeles are the product not of data (in many respects MTA's own documents refute Expo's statements), but public relations and an overall lack of exposure to light rail in Los Angeles.
Simply, anyone who has ever lived around a train with 24-30 at-grade crossings during peak hour would never suggest a line would reduce traffic.
"Call me impatient,"
It's understandable to be impatient. We're all stuck in traffic. But the reality is how we build this today is going to impact our region for the next 100 years.
Lots more on www.FixExpo.org
Damien:
You raise many legitimate questions, and I fully acknowledge that you know much more about these specific issues than I do (or could ever hope to).
Most of the numbers I've mentioned in the piece come from newspaper articles I've read -- in the Times and others -- and from public transit websites (LA, SF, etc). To address one of your central questions: yes, I realize that L.A. is its own city so comparing its experience with light rail to those of SF and Portland isn't wholly appropriate.
I believe the Expo Line will help reduce congestion simply by removing drivers from the roads. I guess the problem with my interpretation of the problem, as opposed to yours, is that I'm just not convinced that the extra safety precautions you are asking for warrant the delays and additional costs (especially given the current economic climate).
I'm sure having those features in place would improve safety and, if the MTA can find those funds quickly and put them in place in a timely fashion, then I'm all for it. I've tried to entertain both points of view -- and find much to agree with both -- and have to say that I just find myself being more swayed by the Transportation Authority's arguments.
Much the same arguments were made with the conversion of the Camden-Trenton freight line back to passenger service as diesel light rail with a 15 minute service interval for several hours during peak periods. And as expected, they were bogus, even though the line operates at one point through the heart of 3 contiguous communities at 40 mph on what a mounts to a central reservation with roads on both sides and crossings every few blocks and at another community right through its center on a center reservation at 30 mph.
River Line, as it is now known, has had in its 4 years of operation almost no accidents with either motor vehicles or pedestrians.
What needs to be understood is that light rail cars have stopping capabilities closer to those of a bus than to the traditional railroad train if properly designed. At 40 mph they can come to a stop within the sight distance of any obstruction, even at night.
None of which explains the situation on the Blue Line, of course.
The questions to be considered are:
Are the cars used on the Blue Lline really designed for minimum stopping distances?
And if not, will those planned to be used on the Expo Line be better?
Instead of bulk numbers, it is more informative to learn how the accident rate on the Blue Line has fared over the years. If it has not declined then the MTA is not doing its job.
How does the culture of the area traversed impact the accident rate? Are the school areas traversed the equivalent of the areas along the Blue Line?
Are students really no smarter than sheep, running blindly onto transit tracks? What research supports such a position?
Crossings can be made pretty nearly foolproof at a cost well below level crossing elimination. Impatience can be managed.
People have been wandering onto railroad tracks and getting killed for generations. Ditto for roadways. It is not possible to protect all the terminally foolish people on the planet from themselves and make any progress as a civilization.