German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseMetro Expo Line Fights a Land War in Asia
(Expo Stations: Courtesy Build Expo)
With all apologies to General Douglas MacArthur.
[Note: This post in no way reflects the opinion of Fred of MetroRiderLA, of Metro, of Build Expo, of the Expo Construction Authority, or of my parents' dog.]
The LA Times’s Bottleneck Blog reports today that the Build Expo people (Metro Expo Line Construction Authority) have been forced to hire Dakota Communications, who is apparently a long-time player in Los Angeles politics.
Translation: An over-inflated “community activist” in the proud line of people like the BRU’s Eric Mann (need I even start?) has forced the Expo Line to waste money debating a point that in any other city would not be debating post-EIR and scoping.
The arguments have been rehashed endlessly. I think the majority of readers on this site understand why the Expo Line isn’t a danger, why it isn’t going to be a lean, mean killing machine, and why every other city with LRT is happy to have LRT running through populated areas. So I’m not going to flog that poor, dead horse.
To quote the illustrious Damien Goodmon:
“The Expo Authority will say anything they can to get the crossing built at street level,” Goodmon added. “Sheriff’s deputies were posted on the Blue Line and then taken off. They reduced speeds on the Gold Line and then brought them back up. The only permanent guarantee for students’ safety is a grade separation.”
That paragraph struggles to be comprehensible.
“Sheriff’s deputies were posted on the Blue Line and then taken off.”
Huh? Do you mean because of “crime?” Well, that’s what you do - you rotate law enforcement officers where they are needed. I think everyone who rides the Blue Line realizes that it’s safe.
“They reduced speeds on the Gold Line and then brought them back up.”
Huh? Do you mean the Marmion Way stretch? I’m working from the fact that Goodmon’s sentence was incomprehensible, so you’ll excuse my confusion, but from what I can understand, that’s because they identified a way to get some improved speeds there without causing problems. That’s a bad thing… why? Metro takes a problem, identifies it, throws resources at it, and then solves it? Am I to understand that Damien Goodmon opposes the concept of a government agency actually being effective?
Er, I owe sincere apologies to that dead horse I just whipped.
Having said that, in the political environment in which we sit, where Gov’nah Ahnold has promised to veto all bills until a budget is passed, it’s past time to stop fighting about this. The future of transit in Los Angeles is at stake. Goodmon has already muscled the County into giving more process than is required, and this is going to the PUC next week. Let the PUC hear this case and move on. Los Angeles needs to focus its advocacy on getting Measure R to the County ballot and developing transit plans for the 21st century, plans that should have been drafted 50 years ago, but are at least better late than never.
Mediation is generally a private matter, but I think it’s telling that apparently the Federal Court mediation has failed - Damien Goodmon isn’t trying to protect the “children” at Dorsey and Foshay; Damien Goodmon is trying to kill this project.
Who needs the BRU, when we have someone willing to act as a voluntary spokesman for Cheviot Hills NIMBYs?
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
“This post in no way reflects the opinion of Fred of MetroRiderLA, of Metro, of Build Expo, of the Expo Construction Authority, or of my parents’ dog.”
You forgot the LA Times in there.
Well, lately the LA Times seems to be written and published by my parents’ dog, so we’ll consider those one and the same.
The Expo Line was an above-ground at-grade rail line back in the day and it will be revived as one. There’s no problem here.
That most of the Metro Rail projects are light rail seems to stem from the fact that they were using existing right of way to cut costs, which is a smart move considering how anti-rail this region was.
However, I hope that future projects are grade-separated subway either above ground or below. I hope that in the future more money will be available for these projects so that grade-separation isn’t a fantasy, but a reality.
I fear that these light rail lines may buckle under future ridership, you know, when people in LA really start to embrace their rail system, when people in LA can actually use it!
Spokker: In my mind, the only one at risk for that is the Blue Line, and I have the feeling that someday way in the future there’s going to be a second South LA rail line to complement it. The Expo Line is going to be astonishingly successful once it opens to SM, but hopefully the Purple Line follows it to carry some of that ridership. The Green Line and Gold Line both have the ability to increase frequency.
Why is it a problem for the people of South LA to have an opinion that is listened to for a project being built in their neighborhood. The gold line at grade has killed pepple. The orange line the way it’s built has killed people.
The orange line had 33 wrecks before it’s first year of existence. Maybe people in the valley should have been more proactive about how the orange line was built.
No one is trying to kill anything. The only thing Goodmon is doing is making the construction of the Expo Line fair. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Seeing what at grade does who with common sense wouldn’t question the safety of it.
Why is that bad? All of the other communites get a voice in what get’s built in their neighborhood why is it annoying when South LA asks for the same thing.
Browne: Are you trying to argue that they didn’t hold community meetings? Are you trying to argue that the Cheviot Hills NIMBYs are just trying to look out for the people they hate so much? Because those two things are so facetious as to make me laugh.
“Seeing what at grade does?” Ever left LA before? “At grade” works at every major city in the US outside of NYC. This is an argument that has been hashed out here endlessly.
If only Metro and the Expo Authority had a chance of collecting court costs from Goodmon for this frivolous lawsuit. Talk about wasted money.
You know Aaron you can talk to people in a way that doesn’t encourage flaming. I’m not viewing the at the grade debate the way you view it. I am not debating your opinion. I get your opinion. I don’t agree with your opinion.
I am debating what I think about the facts that have been presented.
I’ve been out of LA and I understand that other places are NOT LA. Do you get that. When you have been to other places do you get that you are not in LA and do you get why other places aren’t LA.
I’m using the at grade facts of LA, not of somewhere else. Now if we can put all of the things in places that make at grade work in other places than ok, but we’re not debating that.
You can’t just look at what works in other places and apply it to another place without looking at the why, that will not work.
Alright, Browne.
What makes LA different in terms of a rail right of way? Serious question.
What makes LA different? I’ll give you one possible answer - the trains are a bit longer than the streetcars that Boston/Philly/SF run (though they’re similar to the more modern systems of Denver and Houston). Having said that, that doesn’t matter too much, because Mr. Pedestrian is just as dead if Mr. Pedestrian gets hit by a 2 car train than a 3 car train.
So what makes LA different? Because from where I sit, it sounds like the only viable argument is “people here are dumber,” and I refuse to accept that argument.
“What makes LA different in terms of a rail right of way? Serious question?” Aaron
How about you answer why LA is the same as other places that have at-grade?
LOL.
You asked for a serious discussion, I asked you a serious question, and you responded with “I know you are, but what am I?”
You can keep replying to this post if you’d like, but I’m done responding to you.
Hey Aaron, Why so hot and bothered? The issue of environmental racism is not “settled”. Environmental racism/justice is not explicit ‘racism’, it is when certain communities systematically receive less benefits or incur more costs than other communities. Damien has plenty of material on his website as to the effectiveness of previous outreach meetings. And as you probably know there is extensive literature regarding public outreach disparities across different communities.
Regarding light rail in other places v. LA, some of the examples you mention are of streetcars not light rail. As I’m learning these are actually two different technologies.
I’m not taking a position here, because i am very torn between political expediency and avoiding environmental injustice, but seriously the Damien bashing that I see out there is starting to get annoying. I’m just as anxious to see a full LA system as everyone else, but a community has a right to raise its voice without being accused of being obstructionist or NIMBYs.
BTW have you seen the Expo Line Construction Authority(not to be confused with Metro) in action? From what I’ve seen they are no saints. They’re community outreach meeting to discuss the grade crossing alternatives was one of the worst example of condescension I’ve ever seen. They talked down to the community, they were dismissive, and they enflamed tensions when they should have been easing them. I know I was at one of them, and I cam prepared to take their side!
Marcotico:
The problem that I see is that there isn’t notable opposition to Expo in South LA. There’s extreme opposition to Expo along the Cheviot right-of-way. There are people who are concerned about safety past the schools, but from a more logical viewpoint, those issues are being addressed, including adding officers there, looking into opening a pedestrian tunnel at Harvard, etc. As a municipal politics geek, this doesn’t look like South LA voicing opposition - it looks like South LA being shouted down by Cheviot Hills - and that right there is the racism.
I don’t disagree that environmental racism exists as a concept, and the halting efforts to address it created the Green Line. But I don’t have any dispassionate data that indicates that a vast swath of the Phase I Expo corridor east of Washington/National opposes the project. USC is opposed on libertarian grounds, but that’s a separate issue. So I do disagree that “environmental racism” is driving the at-grade crossing.
And by the way, the “streetcar” v. “LRT” distinction was the one I made about Boston/Philly/SF v. Denver, Portland, etc. The better comparison here is indeed to Denver, Houston, Phoenix’s new line (not running yet, so no useful data), and less so to SF’s T-Third, which is meant to run like a fusion of LRT and streetcar service.
You hit the nail on the head though - South LA and the Harbor area have consistently received less services, less transit, less City and especially County support, and the Expo Line is a step that is being taken to address it - which Cheviot Hills is opposing through their puppet Damien Goodmon.
Are they really two different technologies or two different applications of the same concept? In Boston, those Streetcars are coupled into two car LRV’s in their corridors at grade or on private Right of Ways. In San Francisco the same thing is possible (even up to 3 car on some routes) limited by the street blocks. Of course those are older systems that were the evolutionary precursor to the term modern term Light Rail. There are the streetcar systems with stop every block and Interurban systems (which is what LA is building and one of the 4 Boston Green Lines) that travel between CBD to outer areas a short 10 to 20 mile distance away.
That is the trickiest part of trying to define Light Rail based on operating characteristics because it’s so flexible it can become a streetcar/street tram mode in the outer terminals or in an active pedestrian setting in the middle and run like a high speed line on long open railroad stretches or with multiple lines running together run in a subway tunnel or elevated structure. The German LRT systems are what should be the basis of our understanding of Light Rail. Because they encounter the same pieces of flexibility and variance in how it operates.
I’d go for “2 applications of the same technology.” Boston’s D line and SF’s T-Third really exemplify this - the D-line is almost a commuter train, given its speed and infrequent stops. But it still runs using LRT equipment and usually in 2-car pairings, and runs in the Boylston/Tremont tunnel on the same track as the E-line (which is almost certainly a streetcar as it now runs almost exclusively 1-car trains outside of rush hour ever since it stopped running to Arborway, Way Back When).
Having said that, when people think “streetcar” they think the F-Market, and there’s a huge difference between F-Market and T-Third.
I don’t personally believe that the legal standard changes based on what you call it in this case. Anyways, we all know that the issue in question is 2-car Siemens vehicles like they run on the Green and Gold Lines, which don’t differ meaningfully from the Kinki-Sharyo vehicles on the Blue Line, and I’m presuming all sides have presented data tailored to that particular rolling mode.
So if people making this argument wanted to solely compare to cities like Denver, Houston, Sacramento, etc., I wouldn’t disagree.
Jerard, You’re right the distinction is tricky, but they are different, not just in the length of the cars but the width as well (LRT has 2 seats on each side, while modern streetcars often have 1 on one side and 2 on the other). Some of the people involved in the Portland system were telling me that the way to think of it is the streetcar can ride on light rail lines, but not vice-versa.
Aaron, Good points, all well taken. Except the last line is still out of order. I really don’t mean to lecture, I’ve read Damien’s writings, and I really don’t think he is a Cheviot Hills puppet. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. Agree to disagree, and fight it out in the process, but it is beneath everyone involved to keep engaging in the name calling. I also don’t buy that he’s after an office, or in it for the power, that’s just silly. There are easier ways to get those things. He’s a volunteer working hard for something that he truly believes in, just like you may be, and many others.
Understand what’s happening here.
Fix Expo has cited data, stats, presented studies, and based on our understanding of this information, thoroughly explained why accidents happen at a higher rate here and will happen on the Expo Line. We’ve even pointed to public documents, specific to this corridor where various agencies predict accidents on the line.
aaron has rebutted it with “It works everywhere outside LA,” an argument with a lot of holes.
“It works over there so why would it be a problem here” is one of the arguments that has been allowed to survive out of, no offense intended, a lack of information, primarily, the lack of data (train volume, accident frequency, etc.) and a lack of understanding of the conditions under which the crossing operates.
For example, people say at-grade rail works fine in San Francisco, but the data suggest otherwise. San Francisco’s Muni Train is the only system in the state that competes with the Blue Line on the number of reported accidents per year. There’s a lot of reasons for that, among them a majority of Muni runs in mixed-flow among other differences and it covers far more track miles than the Blue Line. But to get to that second stage of analysis (from observation to investigation) you have to INVESTIGATE. Investigate the system, look at the data and studies, etc.
Only then can you understand things that intuitively seem contradictory. For example: why are systems that are much older than the Blue Line and have fewer safety mitigation measures involved in fewer accidents. And why has the Pasadena Gold Line been in fewer accidents.
But this whole argument that it “works other places,” and at times providing pictures and videos with no context as proof that it “works other places” is fundamentally and scientifically completely unsubstantiated.
It implies, quite literally, that a crossing or system qualifies as “not working” when there’s an accident every day (among the 200 or so trains per day) at every crossing. It’s as though there’s this expectation that accidents are supposed to occur when they’re at the crossing or when they are reading that section of the paper.
Just because the accident wasn’t reported, or wasn’t shown on the T.V. station one watches doesn’t mean “it works.”
Cars don’t have to pass crash tests, be equipped with seat belts, airbags and roll-over protection for those 0.1% times that it IS in an accident not the 99.9% of the time that it’s not.
And the accident and fatality frequency with this particular vehicle (at-grade light rail) is much higher than anything else on the road, in particular in areas with no crossing gates. And that’s understandable. It’s a 225-ton train operating up to 35 and 55 mph inches from motor vehicles and tons of pedestrians.
But in essence isn’t the real gulf - isn’t the real debate and difference of opinion, revolve around what people believe the definition of “work” is.
One side thinks because you put up the signs/gates that the government’s job is done and accidents are not the result of the crossing not working, but people failure. All blame to the user, none to the system/crossing builder.
The other side believes that a system “working” is proving that it can conform to the conditions under which it’s placed (as opposed to the other way around) and not kill people or pose a danger.
Every private company in this world has to conform to the behavioral characteristics of it’s users, or they get sued big time, why should the government be any different?
It’s just a philosophical question, but its one that needs to be asked: if a private company proposed to build system that has fatality rates hundreds of times more frequent than all other modes of inner-city transportation, and a vehicle that poses a much greater risk of severe injury, would we allow a private company to build it?
500 people showed up at Dorsey, 300 at Foshay. 3 of our community organizing meetings had over 100 people show up. Maybe you don’t know South LA, but those are incredible numbers. And 18 South LA community organizations, with the support of 3 neighborhood councils?
From the planning stage in the 90s, every residential community down the line was complaining about it: South LA, Culver City, Cheviot Hills and West LA.
As I’ve said to others, it’s insulting to suggest that both a person of my transit knowledge, and a South LA community informed about the true system impacts, would not be concerned and support an alternative. As Betty Pleasant said in her column - of course we support the Expo Line in concept. It’s the details that make all the difference. And it doesn’t taste right in people’s mouths the fact that some communities are bowed to and others are not, and that it’s only being built this way to save capital dollars, while in the process losing so many operational dollars, among other adverse economic impacts (increased vehicular and transit travel times, worsened air quality, limited development potential, etc.)
But really, what community welcomes with open arms: 225-ton train coming 240 times a day all hours of the day and night, bisecting a residential community, operating at 35 mph without crossing gates and 55 mph where there are crossing gates, cutting off park access, blowing train horns and ringing crossing gate bells, all for the next 100 years.
There’s more support for grade separated rail than there will ever be for at-grade rail. The only way at-grade rail survives in this region is with arguments like “it works in other areas,” “no other community has a problem,” and the biggest lie “it will relieve traffic,” which all the data/reports suggest otherwise.
Sorry for the break from the innuendo, rumor-milling, name-calling and demonizing. You may now return…
Damien: Since you seem to have a ton of numbers, here’s a question I’ve always found difficult to answer.
Busier streets have more accidents. You’re a hell of a lot more likely to get hit by a car on Wilshire than on, say, 4th Street.
Exposition is not a major street currently, not compared to thoroughfares like Wilshire, Santa Monica, San Vicente, etc. Significant for the regions that it passes through, but not a primary east-west commuter route. Adding LRT will probably have the effect of turning it into a major street in terms of capacity, much the same as Judah or Taraval in SF wouldn’t be major streets but for their Muni lines.
Does LRT have significantly more accidents than a comparable major thoroughfare? Are there numbers that show this, and if there are, how were they arrived at?
You said “It implies, quite literally, that a crossing or system qualifies as “not working” when there’s an accident every day (among the 200 or so trains per day) at every crossing.” Do you have any data that there’s “an accident every day at every crossing?”
Let’s be clear here - I don’t think anyone thinks LRT is accident free - even if we eliminated vehicles from the planet and everyone just walked everywhere, eventually someone’s going to fall down a flight of stairs, break their neck, and die.
The question is not whether or not there will be accidents - there will be, just as the BRU’s 1,000 new busses would create 1,000 more opportunities for vehicular collisions. The question is whether or not the accidents will be so frequent and unpreventable as to justify a massive outlay of funding that will probably permanently kill Phase II.
And the response of this public agency is not to respond to the community’s concerns but to manufacture community opposition to the community’s requested alterations. I don’t care how you slice it - that’s dirty.
A public agency paying people by the signature to collect petitions, in support of a public project is just dirty. Paying people to be props at press conference is dirty.
It’s an abuse of taxpayer funds and likely illegal.
It’s bad enough when a private company does it on the corporate dime, but when a public agency does it with public dollars to get support for a public project it becomes that more egregious.
To be frank, I don’t understand how any person that believes in our basic concept of democracy could condones such activities.
Browne, browne: The Gold line nor the Orange line kill people. It is the stupid people that get in the way that kill them selves.
Are you?
“More likely” is a reference to frequency, is it not?
How many cars travel on Wilshire vs. 4th St and how many pedestrians cross Wilshire or 4th Street every day?
There are just 200-300 Blue Line trains a day. That’s the equivalent, in car volume, of what 10 minutes of rush hour at the intersection of Wilshire/Westwood???
If my memory serves me correctly, Wilshire Blvd itself serves something like 60,000 cars a day - and that’s not including the cars that travel across it via the cross streets. That’s 200 times the volume in frequency of a train.
You see you’re giving me anecdotal data, show us the stat - the data that shows a pedestrian-car accidents occur at greater frequency at 4th than on Wilshire, or that pedestrian-car accidents occur at greater frequency than train-pedestrian and train-car accidents.
And contrary to understanding, by coupling the already narrow roadway/sidewalk geometries with the closure of streets that will funnel more people and cars to fewer crossings, and the implementation of additional bus stops and train stations, the pedestrian and vehicular traffic will drastically increase - as will driver confusion, and (due to the increase in traffic) driver frustration and risk-taking behavior.
I didn’t say that did I?
Yes. Accidents/deaths per vehicle mile traveled compared to accidents/deaths per revenue track mile. CalTrans, LADOT and MTA supply all of these statistics…although MTA really does not like to give it out. Even the RAND Corporation can easily break it down literally by section of freeway road.
Ahhh now the transition to the funding. First, I assume you’re referencing Phase 1 and not Phase 2. Second, tell me why will it kill it? Why would any possible change even something as minimal as one, two, three or four grade separation would kill the line?
And what is “it” which will kill it? Is it the Fix Expo request that would kill the line or is it that ANY CHANGE would kill it? If the answer is the former, and not the latter, then what is the magic number (additional dollars or grade separations) that would kill the line?
And if the answer is the former, and not the latter, why not individually or collectively advocate for that which can be reasonably done to accommodate community concerns, and not “kill the line?” Why not begin to work to that end to get MTA to implement THAT, instead of spending your time and wasting your breadth fighting a community that really is not accountable to you and ultimately is not the decision-makers in all of this?
You mention the BRU, but tell me, when have you ever seen the BRU mention or attack Green LA, Move LA, Transit Coalition, SO.CA.TA or Friends 4 Expo? They’re philosophically opposed are they not? Ever wonder why? Is it possibly because they realize the ultimate decision makers in all of this is the MTA?
I’m going to let you guys chew on that one a bit.
Damien, you said:
Unless you were speaking poorly, you said exactly what I asked.
You’re the one trying to convince me - I ask again, where’s the data as to that? You’re throwing out meaningless numbers that don’t inter-relate.
At this stage, any notable change would kill the line.
Damien,
“Why not begin to craft and work to that end to get MTA to implement THAT”
Of course the MTA may have the final say, but the way Joint Powers Authorities (JPA) are set up they can kind of keep their hands clean of this one. You probably know more about this than I do, but from what I’ve seen the Expo Line Authority is the one making all these contentious decisions, while MTA kind of sits on the side lines and shakes their head (in disbelief or denial?)
I approve my tax dollars being used to hire a PR firm to defend a future rail line from unfounded criticism. It’s a necessary evil unfortunately.
If there’s any reason Expo should be grade-separated it’s to protect the train and it’s occupants, not the morons that run into it.
They could design the Expo Line trains with grills that look like gritted teeth with signs that said, “DEATH TO ALL SCHOOLCHILDREN” and I would still support its construction. It’s on a rail, dummy. Stay off the rail except at designated crossings when it is safe to pass, and you stay alive. It’s really as simple as that.
Damien,
Would you back off if there is no money to pay for grade separation? You keep saying you are not interested in killing Expo so why don’t you tell us your bottom line? Part of being a community activist is to recognize what is best deal you can get for your community. If the best case scenario is a pedestrian bridge with track fencing, would that be enough for you? Because from where I sit, it doesn’t look like you are trying to find a reasonable solution. Your various postings here and in other transportation forums always strike me as that you have a fixed position and would rather not have Expo if you can’t get your way. Reasonable compromise is something we should all consider.
bzcat,
You speak as though any option other than the at-grade alignment has been proposed and is on the table.
You speak as though money for grade separations is not available.
You say you read my posts and writtings yet you don’t know about the minimum operable segment construction option in the EIR, that allows Expo to use its existing budget to build to a temporary termini?
You say you read my posts yet you don’t know about the various revenue sources we’ve highlighted, among them Prop 1B, which was tapped to add the Washington/National grade separation to Phase 1, and which we have pledged our support to go after on behalf of additional grade separations?
You say you read my writings, yet you didn’t see our op-ed in the Business Journals saying we’d support the mayors sales tax increase if he offered us additional grade separation?
We’ve bent over backward and gone well beyond the call of duty attempting to find better solutions.
You see your premise is unsubstantiated and thus your conclusion is flawed.
It’s easy to understand why those who believe these things (other options are available, and/or money is not available) come to the conclusion they do. Just as it’s easy to understand why someone who believes like aaron, “any notable change would kill the line” come to the conclusion they do. I understand. But both of your assumptions are flat-out 100% wrong.
Regarding the second part of your post, why are you pressuring the community to “compromise,” instead of pressuring the MTA/Expo Authority to do the same?
Have you written your letter to the MTA/Expo Authority board encouraging them to, if no where else, at Farmdale, take the at-grade application off the table and implement one of the three grade separated options?
It’s their project, built with your tax dollars, overseen publicly elected officials that are accountable to you. Why are focusing on Fix Expo instead of the people whose salary you pay?
This whole logic, to be blunt, is ridiculous. It’s like pressuring a small 3rd world country to negotiate a truce, that an approaching colonial power has no interest in.
I’m trying to figure out what world people live in to believe such things.
Marcotico,
4 of the 7 members of the Expo Authority are on MTA Board (Zev, Burke, Parks and O’Connor). In fact the meeting when they rejected taking the at-grade application off the table Zev who emphasized it was MTA’s decision. It’s MTA’s EIR and MTA’s money, with a lot of MTA staff (Rick Thorpe, the Expo CEO is an executive at MTA).
aaron,
I stated that is the opposing opinion and implication given your arguments of something being “unsafe.”
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-campanis5-2008aug05,0,1872859.story
Damien, why are you doing this, really?
[...] is a big deal depends on what side of the Expo Line debate you find yourself. Over at MetroRider, "Aaron" responds to Goodmon’s response by brushing off the news of Expo’s newest ally [...]
LOL, the Militant first thought the MacArthur reference had to do with the fact that you’ve returned
This was such a funny and cool posting. Thanks very much for posting it.
I now ride the blue line everyday to get back and fourth to medical appointments from Long Beach to the Norris Cancer Center at USC. I think Metro could improve safety of on the trains and do a far better job taking care of the trains in general. For example. Two weeks ago when I got on the train at the Long Beach Transit mall, the second car was extremely hot and smelled like something was burning. The conductor was told this by me and 6 other people. We were told to sit in the lead and last car.
When the train arrived at PCH we were told the train was going out of service at Wardlow Station. Once we arrive, we were told the train would remain in service and we would board a new train at Willow. This went on all the way to Vernon station.
By the time we reached Vernon station the second car was smoking. Not safe for anyone, on or off the train. Also, there are fights and all else on the Blue line everyday. The Blue line isn’t what I would call safe. BUT, the officers on the trains arent there to make it safe, they are there to write tickets and this is according to the 17 different officers I have spoken with.
Metro is what it is, but I would not call if safe by any means.
“Metro is what it is, but I would not call if safe by any means.”
Yeah, those trains are death traps.
I’ve ridden the Blue line (as well as the Red and Green line) at all times, and for someone who isn’t confrontational and keeps to themselves, I wouldn’t call it unsafe. I’ve never had and never seen any significant issues on the lines, and while it can happen, I don’t believe it is any worse than any other situation (and I hear of mechanical problems on buses much more often than the rail lines).