Re “Are You Listening, City Hall?” and “Another View of Expo’s Poor Planning Process’”
[Editor’s Note: Opening Day for the Expo light rail is 48 hours away. At 9 a.m., Wednesday, Expo will semi-officially open when a train bearing Los Angeles dignitaries is scheduled to arrive in Culver City. Ceremonies will follow. The formal opening, when non-dignitaries may climb aboard and travel the route to downtown Los Angeles, is scheduled for 12 noon.]
I can understand frustration on the part of recent letter-writers Messrs. Paul Ehrlich and Steve Rose about the (let us be generous) low-key opening of the Culver City Exposition Line Rail Line station. On Wednesday morning, little pomp will mark the opening. Seemingly it was important to coordinate the monthly Third Wednesday promotions by Downtown businesses with the light rail opening.
Some of this is due to the breathless pace at which the Expo openings are occurring after being publicly announced. I worked a booth in downtown L.A. for the opening of Phase I to La Cienega on April 28. The process was way more chaotic than it had been in the past. Metro staff labored to get the events organized with only a few weeks advance notice of when the opening would happen.
Mr. Ehrlich is incorrect to claim “the opening date of the Expo light rail to Washington and National has been known for a long time.” While it was common knowledge the opening was likely to occur sometime this summer, the exact date wasn't known until literally two weeks ago. It is hard to plan an event when faced with uncertainty regarding on what date it will occur.
There is also the multiple agency factor as one entity (the Expo Authority) is constructing the line while another (Metro) will operate it.
Who is in charge of what can be confusing.
When the legislation to create the Authority was working is way through the legislature a small delegation from Southern California Transit Advocates sat down with the transportation consultant to the bill's author (Sheila Kuehl) to express our concerns. Irritated at our presumption to voice such unimportant trivialities, we were informed with seeming finality “we have the votes,” as if that in itself were reason to adopt it. I think subsequent events proved our concerns had at least some merit. Hopefully Phase II will unfold with less drama.
Besides, maybe a lack of hoopla is disappointing. But trust me, folks throughout the region are well aware of this new addition to our regional mass transportation network. And that is what this process is all about – facilitating mobility via options other than the automobile.
All opinions expressed solely my own.
Dana Gabbard, Executive Secretary, Southern California Transit Advocates, may be contacted via http://socata.net or http://la.streetsblog.org/author/dana-gabbard/
