USA: +1 415 256 4347 
Sign in
Question
Mainly in this paper we are supposed to talk about:
How this project was funded
What are the financial and economic pros and cons of this project
Was this project cost effective?
Note: We avoid AI-generated writing at all cost.
Answer
Public Transportation in Los Angeles: The Expo line
The Expo Line is named after the Exposition Boulevard which runs next to it. It covers the area between Santa Monica and Downtown Los Angeles and is operated by the Los Angeles, County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. This analysis will focus on how the project was funded, the financial or economic pros and cons. A general evaluation of its cost-effectiveness will also be undertaken. The project was a success, and the reality of its cost-effectiveness was reflected through improved interconnectivity and diversity of transportation networks that offer connectivity, affordability, and sustainability all in one package
The line was famously built in two phases, the first of which was 8.6 miles running between Downtown Los Angeles and Culver City in 2006 and officially opened to the public in 20 June, 2012. The next section which runs between Culver City and Santa Monica started in 2011 and was opened to the public on 20 May, 2016. Phase 1 was a $932 million project that has twelve stations, two of which are shared with the Metro Blue Line (Loving 2006, 87).[1] Phase 2 which extends for 6.6 miles was funded under the Measure R half-cent sales tax initiative.
Measure R was a ballot initiative during the 2008 November elections that proposed and affected a half-cent sales taxes increase on every dollar of taxable sales for thirty years that would then fund transportation projects in California. The project was packaged as a conservatory and environmental strategy that would reduce the number of cars on the road and prompt people to use subways, light rail and buses instead. In addition, the project would then lead to the expansion of the entire rail line in the county and the country in extension.
Interestingly, as the Expo lines stands today, there is a struggle that has spanned for over twenty years. It all began around 1989 when the Sothern Pacific Railroad’s made an offer to sell rail right-of-way to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC). This provided the power and ability to obtain public ownership for any future transit plan in the county. Even this requires a previous understanding of the Expo before 1989.
In 1875, a steam railroad was laid down running from Downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica. Overtime, the line then referred to as the Airline was electrified and used as a passenger and freight line. Passenger operations ran until 1953 while freight operations continued until the 1980s. At around the same time, San Diego opened the country’s first light rail; the LACTC began to investigate the possibility of a light rail in LA. By 1989, the possibility of a light rail had become very real and with this, many groups emerged arguing for and against the project (Loving, 2006, 135).[2] At this point, the LACTC made the finalizing steps in purchasing the right-of –way from the Southern Pacific. Immediately, the group began making environmental plan of the project alongside others such as the Orange Line busy way and the Green Line. With the draft for the first phase complete under the newly merged Metropolitan Transport Authority, it was suspended until 1998 for financial reasons (Bianculli 2001, 47).[3] Funding was directed to other projects such as the Red Line subway. At this point, the bus way was posing financial difficulties and was beginning to record itself as not being cost effective. It was a choice between the bus way and light rail. There were backing groups rallying behind each project, both measuring the financial gains and effectiveness o their project. The Expo Line was backed by tremendous grass root level support which led to the majority backing by the MTA board. This was followed by political support from the mayor and other legislators who joined in the already operations pro movement. Eventually, the First and second phases were approved.
This project reveals the nature of the grassroots and national politics of the country. The Expo Line obtained most of its support from the Friends4Expo Transit, a non-profit and volunteer organization founded and run by Darrel Clarke. This organization was established at a time when grass root politics and the internet were at their formative stages. The goal was to establish Los Angeles County as an economic and urban center through a versatile transportation network. In its organization, the program established itself as far-reaching. Its hierarchy was composed of men, women, black people or other white ethnic groups, as well as residents of the Westside and Mid-City regions. In this way, reaching different groups was quite easy and often accomplished at minimal costs. It was a unique and transformational group that invested members’ individual money and years to surpassing the political and financial constraints that had restricted this cause for decades.
Until today, the issue between the Expo project and the Bikeway project is a point of ongoing conflict. This continues amidst debates over LA’s tendencies to over plan or over develops projects without careful consideration of the long term financial and environmental implications. This has been demonstrated in instances where the project is compromised due to other tied projects that come with funding benefits.
The biggest question is whether the Expo line served its initial purpose and if the long battle was indeed worth the effort. Before the opening, data is collected on the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) train transit trips, bike trips, walking trips and car driver trips (Nice 1998, 157).[4] These characteristics showed similar patterns in the experimental and control figures. After opening, data collected revealed that the experimental households had reduced their daily VMT when measured against the control population. In general, it is evident that the Expo Line increased rail ridership but not as much as had been depicted by the experimental groups. This further suggested that the households had been misreporting the actual figures. Notably, after opening there was an approximated 30% reduction in CO2 emissions by the experimental group against the control group. In addition, the Expo Line recorded more activity where the stations were closer to bus lines. This meant that bus transit increased the ridership of the light rail by increasing connectivity.
Even so, there is still reasonable debate on whether the Expo line actually reduced the use of vehicles and cars. It is unclear on whether the new transportation networks will have significant changes on transportation modes in the region as expected. An obvious point of observation is that this line has only had significant impact on the immediate regions neighboring the line with extremely low consequences on the greater Los Angeles region. In addition to this, the county did not conduct an integrated benefit-cost assessment and solely relied on the expected travel behavior changes that would arise. There are projected price adjustments over land near the line in future years.
Despite the economic and functional implications associated with the project, it was a reinforcement of the changing dynamics of the political environment in the country (Loving 2006, 234).[5] It has gone to show that commitment and social initiatives can go a long way in bringing political change. Confidently, this project’s success lies mostly on the volunteer and grass root efforts made by the Friends4Expo movement. It has given strength to the public at a point when the general opinion by the population is that they are not given a role or a voice in public administration. At the same time, the political difficulties that opposed the project have gone to show the limitations of democracy even in a country that boasts of democratic leadership and governance. Other discrepancies such as corruption and poor implementation by local government were realized during this period.
The effect that this rail project has had on travel, behavior even though only to the neighboring areas presents an obvious need by people for diverse transportation networks that offer connectivity, affordability and sustainability in one package. For public and government funding for such projects to continue, transportation networks and organizations have to promote research and effective planning prior to the project. This must then be followed by close monitoring of the ongoing project while implementing effective adjustment strategies. Finally, is the observation of completed projects to evaluate their effectiveness and future application in other projects. The financial implications of such projects must be analyzed in a proportion that equals the potential benefits and loses of the entire project.
Bibliography
Bianculli, Anthony.Trains and Technology: American Railroad in the Nineteenth Century-Vol.1. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2001.
Loving, Rush. The Men Who Loved Trains: The Story of Men Who Battled Greed to Save an Ailing Industry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006.
Nice, David. Amtrak: The Hoistory and Politics of a National Railroad. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1998.
[1] Loving, Rush. The Men Who Loved Trains: The Story of Men Who Battled Greed to Save an Ailing Industry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006.
[2] Loving, Rush, 2006.
[3] Bianculli, Anthony.Trains and Technology: American Railroad in the Nineteenth Century-Vol.1. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2001.
[4] Nice, David. Amtrak: The Hoistory and Politics of a National Railroad. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1998.
[5] Loving, Rush, 2006.
