Orange line was a missed opportunity for light rail

Orange line was a missed opportunity for light rail - LA Daily News

Orange line was a missed opportunity for light rail
By John Reynolds John Reynolds is a Canoga Park resident who studied urban and regional planning at University of California, Davis.
Updated: 05/26/2009 06:32:09 PM PDT

The Orange Line busway has been a success and there are many good reasons to expand the service. Unfortunately, the Orange Line is also a story of opportunities lost, and the planned expansion of the line north to Chatsworth illustrates both the success of the line and its challenges.

One concern about the northward expansion of the Orange Line deals with the businesses that will be forced to relocate from along the old Southern Pacific right-of-way. Many of these businesses leased their land from the Southern Pacific and coexisted with the railroad literally in their backyard. It is unfortunate that the busway requires much more land than the railroad did. This is just one of the many impacts that has resulted from the decision to build the Orange Line as a busway instead of a light-rail system.

In 1989 I began studying transportation issues as related to urban planning. For one of my classes I researched and presented a report comparing traditional bus systems and light-rail systems that included a cost-benefit comparison.

It is true that light-rail does have a comparatively high initial cost compared with traditional buses. But that truth has many qualifiers. Putting buses on a specially built, private right-of-way changes the equation significantly. Beyond the roadway there are vehicle maintenance and replacement costs. A more difficult computation concerns the cost of the commute time for the distance traveled.

The cost to install pavement is considerable and almost equal to the cost for rail, not including overhead power. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has already had to repave portions of the Orange Line, suggesting any cost savings have been decreased.

Buses have very significant maintenance costs and a remarkably short operating life. Most buses last only 10 to 12 years. This should be compared with rail vehicles that have an operating history of 50 years or more - just look at the New Orleans trolleys, for example.

One of the modern concerns has been carbon dioxide and its contribution to global warming. Most buses burn fossil fuels, creating a significant number of pollutants, of which carbon dioxide is just one. Most light-rail vehicles use electric power, in which it is easier to control the environmental impact.

Noise is another environmental pollutant of concern. The Orange Line has required the construction of sound walls to control the noise from the tires and the engines. The electric propulsion of light-rail equipment is almost silent, as is the rail and wheel contact.

The Orange Line busway has had many problems with accidents between buses and automobiles. Part of the problem concerns a confusing set of signals at many intersections and impatient drivers running the red signals. The MTA has tried to reduce this by slowing the buses down or having them stop at some intersections, which has significantly increased the travel time on the line.

If the line had been built as light-rail, those intersections would have been protected with signals and crossing gates. At certain intersections it would have been reasonable to build bridges so that the automobile traffic would not have been inconvenienced at all by the transit vehicles. Complete grade separation would allow the light-rail vehicles to travel faster and significantly reduce the time needed to get from Woodland Hills to North Hollywood.