Latest Metro Expo Line A Sluggish Disappointment For L.A. Commuters
Comments (19)
An Expo light-rail train stops and waits as cars turn left. (Rosa Trieu)
“I wish it were faster,” said Kyle Scanlan, a UCLA doctoral student studying mechanical engineering. “If it was below or above grade, you know, not at street level where there are certain intersections where you have to wait for cars, it would be a lot faster.”
But even street-level trains aren’t supposed to be stopped at traffic lights as if they were buses on rails. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s office acknowledged the problem and issued a statement saying it’s working with the state Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Transit Authority to keep the lights green for both the Expo Line and the Gold Line Eastside extension, which opened on Nov. 15, 2009 but continues to be dogged by signal issues.
“Upon hearing complaints after the Expo Line opened, the Mayor’s Office, Metro and DOT began working on a path forward to better signal timing,” the statement said. “The agencies are piloting new signal phasing on the Expo Line and the Gold Line Eastside to develop a fully implementable plan that will provide faster and more reliable train service. This testing is happening outside of regular service hours so as to not inconvenience riders.”
It’s unclear how long it will take for the signals to be fully synchronized and allow the trains to reach full speed on its journey. The Expo Line is scheduled to go between Los Angeles to Culver City in 29 minutes, but arrives at stations a few minutes earlier or later because of the several stops that occur in between. Train operators also slow down at their own discretion at certain intersections and sections of the rail. Meanwhile, riders like Scanlan know the train can go a lot faster.
“It’s possible for [the trains] to never have to stop, unless there’s someone on the tracks that shouldn’t be, if they make it a priority,” said Scanlan, who called himself a technophile.
According to a LADOT engineer who worked on the signal timing for the Expo Light Rail, the train uses both signal priority and signal preemption. Signal priority is a type of operation that attempts to hold a green light longer or give a green early, but is limited to field conditions at that time and is not guaranteed. Signal preemption guarantees the train will not have to stop but it is limited to intersections with crossing gates.
Roberto Orozco takes the Expo Line regularly to work and said the only things remotely consistent about the train are the slowdowns for traffic lights.
“Sometimes the train stops or slows down from USC to downtown. Like right now, it’s like a cruise,” Orozco said. “From Vermont to Culver City, it’s very fast. But from Pico to Jefferson it’s slow.”
Metro spokesman Marc Littman said it could be months before the ride becomes as fast as possible.
“We don’t control traffic lights. Safety’s first,” Littman said. “We are working on giving trains a little more priority but don’t want to create a situation where cars are backing up at intersections.”
Similar delays caused by traffic signals kept the Gold Line from reaching its top speeds when the L.A.-Pasadena line opened in 2003.
“For the Gold Line, we eventually shaved six to seven minutes off but it didn’t happen overnight,” said Littman, who could not give an estimate for when the issue with the traffic lights and Expo operation would be better synchronized. “It’s complicated. We’re working with LADOT so our trains aren’t stopped at so many lights but, at the same time, we must make sure we don’t delay cross traffic at the intersections.”
Dan Rosenfeld, senior deputy to L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, said of the Expo Line's issues, "The supervisor believes the community outreach process within the [MTA] was not as thorough and inclusive as it should've been. Greater public participation might have prevented some of the controversies that later ensued."
Although the changes have yet to be seen, riders with more open-ended schedules like Bryant Garth, a law professor at Southwestern Law School, said the inconsistent timing isn’t an issue.
“One of the reasons why I moved to Culver City was because I knew this line was coming, and it’s worked out fine. I have a flexible schedule so I don’t have to look at the timetable,” Garth said.
“My experience has been positive,” James Conroy said. “Generally around the freeway corridor, the trains don’t have the right of way there. I’m fine with that for now. I just have to time myself accordingly.”
The opening of the Expo Line added 10 stations to L.A.’s existing 70-station Metro Rail system and over 87 miles of rail destinations across the county. According to the latest American Public Transportation Association report from the fourth quarter of 2011, L.A. ranked as the third busiest rapid transit system in the U.S.
Generating stronger interest in public transportation could give voters more incentives to push for the necessary funding to complete other projects.
Editor's note: The original version of this article stated L.A. had the ninth busiest transit system in the U.S. In fact, it is the third busiest when public transit buses are included.
Comments
1) 2-3 minutes is 10% of a full journey. That's incredibly significant.
2) As I read the article, the point being made is the journey could be faster...the technology and opportunity are there, but that it wasn't put in place from the beginning. There's no indictment of public transit versus cars.
You can come up with a theoretical percentage but 2 - 3 minutes is very insignificant from a practical point of view, as the main contribution to the trip time is not how long it takes the train to travel but how much you spend walking to and from the stations and how much you wait for the train. From Culver City to USC, it takes only 15 minutes on the train but the actual time will be much longer because you need to get to and from the train (it varies according to the source and destination) and wait for the train (about 6 minutes on the average unless you time your departure to the timetable). Sure, they should speed up the line a little with more signal priority and preexemption, but even the current condition of the line is not a deal breaker at all.
Regarding the argument that more people will ride the train if it were a little faster, it's somewhat true but it still wouldn't make a big difference. Even if they could beam people from USC to Culver City, many would still prefer their cars simply because they are addicted to them and are afraid of trying public transit. The line will see more riders in the futures, as we receive more and more new students who are not already addicted to their cars.
Your article is criticising that the Expo Line is plus or minus a couple of minutes off the timetable and you're saying that it cannot compete with driving as a result. On the contrary, this is entirely false because you're ignoring the fact that Expo Line is usually far more reliable than driving, which can have serious delays (up to half hour or more) due to varying traffic conditions.
The point of my story is that riders anticipated the Expo Line to be an alternative to driving-not necessarily a faster one (but who wouldn't want it to be faster, if possible?)-but the light rail being built at street level actually causes it to face the same delays cars do by those varying traffic conditions you mentioned, when a few tweaks with the signal priority, signal preemption and safety measures would make the Expo Line a more viable alternative to driving, which could potentially reduce auto traffic.
Few would expect a reduction in traffic to be induced by a rail system - though many of the propagandists made such claims when trolling for funds and political support.
But should we tolerate trains that increase traffic congestion, just because a small minority of self-appointed keepers of the environment have decreed themselves morally superior to the rest of us who, through no fault of our own, have to go places that your mass transit system ignores?
So, if it doesn't reduce traffic, are you saying that those tens of thousands who ride the train each month would just stay home otherwise?
This idea that it doesn't reduce traffic makes no sense at all. Of *course* it reduces traffic; my car doesn't hit the road at all now that Expo gets me downtown. On rare days when it rains, it hits the road for the first mile, to park, on uncongested streets, and still never hits the downtown commuteways. This clearly multiplies across all the riders.
What kind of automobile propaganda is it that "mass transit doesn't reduce traffic"? That's its *only purpose*.
There is never a reduction of auto traffic when expanding public transit, it just provides an alternative means of travel. If there is little to none auto traffic, more peopr would drive because a straight shot in your car is always faster than public transit with station stops. Traffic engineers never say "reduction in traffic", politicians do as a selling point. Isn't there still traffic in London, Tokyo, Paris, New York, etc...? You probably don't realize that because they have a large efficient mass transit system. Traffic won't go away (unless gas prices skyrocket), but more alternatives to getting around our great city of Los Angeles would help! Go Metro!
It is not an alternative if you still can't get to destination from rail stations.
How do you get to stations from any parts of Culver City
That is the reason there are big parking lots at stations.
I was at La Cinega stations. Like I expect, not many people were waiting for buses.
There are only 3 bus connection in the middle of dense area.
If people have to drive to a train station at a dense area, it is waste.
I remember your famous saying, what can't people live nearby
Check New York, Tokyo, etc
People in New York hate to drive, and they have alternative not to drive to train stations
It's true that traffic will always be there. But it would be helpful if Metro could change our perception of public transit in LA by working on improvements as soon as it becomes aware of the issues.