National study has found that light rail doesn’t increase local crime.
CITYWIDE Lauded as a cost-effective solution for commuters in light of rising gas prices, and seen as the savior from the nightmare that is LA traffic, the highly anticipated Exposition Light Rail project is often envisioned as a cure-all for everything wrong with the metropolitan area.
But is it? Scheduled for completion in 2010, the Exposition Light Rail project [Expo] will provide 87.6 miles of transit service from Downtown Los Angeles to Culver City. The projected completion date for Phase 2 — the possible expansion of Expo into Downtown Santa Monica from Culver City — is less certain, but many predict it will become a reality the following decade.
While the majority of residents in Santa Monica, with support from advocacy groups like the Friends 4 Expo Transit, have embraced the idea of bringing in railway transportation to a city that is clogged with thousands of cars each day, there might well be a host of negatives that come along with the rail cars, such as expense, additional crime and more development.
The biggest drawback of light rail — different from heavy rail in that it usually consists of two to three train cars — is that it consumes a significant portion of the total transportation funding for the county, money that could be used more effectively in the expansion of the Metro Rapid bus service, according to Robert Poole, director of Transportation Studies at the Reason Foundation, a West LA-based public policy think tank that promotes Libertarian ideals.
“All the proposed light rail projects have shown that they are a poor deal for the taxpayers in terms of how much transit service you get for a very large expenditure,” Poole said on Tuesday.
As of April 2006, approximately $315 million had been secured in state funding for the first phase of Expo.
One of the main reasons why a light rail project is so expensive is the construction of the tracks to keep the train running on the right of way, according to Poole.
“The rights of way are very costly in a place like Los Angeles,” Poole said.
When the light rail does run on the street and does not have an exclusive right of way, it interferes with vehicular traffic, he added.
There is not a city in the country where public transit fares cover its own operating cost, said Darrell Clarke, a member of the Friends 4 Expo Transit. But he argues that light rails are much more efficient than buses.
A three-car light rail train could carry as many riders as six regular buses. That’s six bus drivers — six different salaries and health insurance costs — versus a single train conductor.
“It’s faster, more comfortable and more attractive to get people out of cars,” Clarke said on Tuesday. “So it’s subsidized. Our roads are subsidized and we’re not going to build more freeways.”
A March 2005 study by the Reason Foundation found that the average subsidy for each new bus passenger in Los Angeles was about $1, while the average subsidy for a new rail passenger stood at $19.
Meanwhile, transit ridership hasn’t increased much since the mid-1980s, according to Ted Balaker, a policy analyst for the Reason Foundation and author of “The Road more Traveled.”
“We’ve built a bunch of rail, and even with all that funding going into rail and even with the tremendous population growth, it’s still basically where we were 20 years ago,” Balaker said on Tuesday.
A 2000 U.S. Census found that approximately 87 percent of LA residents commute to work with an automobile, 4.3 percent ride the bus and just 0.3 percent make use of railway transportation for employment purposes.
Part of the reason behind the low rider-ship is the convenience factor with automobiles.
“Traffic would have to slow to 16 miles per hour before operating at the speed of the light rail,” Balaker said.
Sixteen miles per hour is not completely inconceivable in Los Angeles, especially on the 10 and 405 freeways during rush-hour traffic.
Add in transfer time and factor in the limited destinations with railway stations, a car does appear to be more convenient than traveling by train, Balaker said.
THE EFFECTS COULD BE CRIMINAL There is also the often heard argument that light rail will bring more crime into the Westside.
In terms of a commuter rail, the “fear of crime is often overblown,” said Balaker. But for light rail, such fears might not be unfounded.
Light rail in Los Angeles operates on an honor system, in which there are no turnstiles and customers are trusted to pay for their fares.
“The honest people among us will buy a ticket and board the light rail,” Balaker said. “But there is no one to really enforce that for the most part.
“The freeloaders on the light rail are more inclined to engage in crime.”
In 2004, the National Transit Database [NTD], part of the Federal Transit Administration, found that crime is low among most of the nation’s transit systems.
About nine billion trips were provided nationwide in 2003 in the major transit modes, including bus, subway, commuter rail and light rail. There were only 5,290 crimes recorded among those major modes in the country.
In terms of passenger miles, the NTD study found that light rail had the most incidents of crime.
“However, since all modes have less than two incidents per million passenger trips, traveling on any mode is considered very safe,” the study states.
City Councilwoman Pam O’Connor, who was recently re-elected to serve on the MTA Board of Directors, recently scoffed at the notion that the Expo line might bring an additional criminal element into Santa Monica. O’Connor is one of the most recognizable proponents of bringing the Exposition Light Rail expansion into Santa Monica.
“I think those are bogus arguments,” O’Connor said. “Some criminals are stupid, but not all criminals are stupid.
“They aren’t going to suddenly [come into Santa Monica] because of light rail,” she added.
SOMETHING TO BUILD ON The Blue Line light rail connecting Downtown Los Angeles with Downtown Long Beach has spawned considerable residential and commercial development in the latter city for the past 17 years since its opening.
“Typically, light rail brings in more transit-oriented development,” said Sumi Gant of the city of Long Beach’s Transportation Department. “It could be attributed to light rail or Long Beach being a great city.”
In Long Beach, Gant sees more development as a benefit of light rail. In Santa Monica, where locals have complained of increased density from large scale mixed-use projects, more development from the light rail could spell trouble.
But much of the development in the past 20 years in Santa Monica was a result of anticipation of the light rail, contends Clarke, who is also a member of Santa Monica’s Planning Commission. Santa Monica is already very intensely developed, so there shouldn’t be a fear of more development, he said.
The Water Garden in the eastern part of the city is one example.
“They [Water Garden] got the development first,” Clarke said. “Traffic has gotten worse because they didn’t have the light rail line.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 7, 2007. Read the original PDF.