Ridership growth on the 24-miles long Blue-Line, the Red Line subway, and the most recently established east-west Green Line demonstrate that evolution. Patronage on commuter rail lines is also increasing. The Blue Line began service in July, 1990 with average weekday ridership of 30,000 during a two-month demonstration period and nearly 18,000 passengers per day in September 1990. That number had increased to 48,900 per day, and 1,347,00 per month by July 1996.
Service on the 8-miles Red Line began February 1993 with 16,350 daily passengers; average weekday ridership increased to 36,500 (884,00 per month) by September 1996. The 20-miles Green Line's ridership has grown an initial 15,800 weekday average in August 1995 to 18,250 in October 1996.
The response to the implemented services and proposed extensions has been no less enthusiastic in traditionally minority neighborhoods. This does not mean that there has been an absence of opposition to routes, equipment, or development of rail corridors.
Recommendations for priorities or candidate projects for early development followed the successful election. The nominations of projects were done in accordance with federal and state guidelines. Among the early recommendations were the then designated Wilshire Rail (subway) corridor and the Los Angeles to Long Beach light rail line. The present-day metro green-line was included in plans for the route 105 freeway across southern Los Angeles County.
Approximately 19 miles of the route overlies the former Pacific Electric Railway (1905 - 1961) and shares right-of-way with a Southern Pacific Railway freight line. This minimized the potential displacement of residents or businesses required to implement the rail bed. Most of the remaining mileage at both the Los Angeles and Long Beach ends of the route are along arterial streets with the exception of the northernmost 1.4 miles. The .6 of a mile extending from the Seventh and Flower station to Twelfth Street is in a subway alignment. The remaining .8 of a mile required some access acquisitions along Flower Street.
The planning process for this route included all of the normally required community input and interaction opportunities, including workshops. To some extent there are enhanced opportunities for community and public involvement. During these sessions specifications, aesthetic concerns, other environmental impacts and the basic need for the project as well as station locations were discussed.
The hearing and workshop processes also provided opportunities for residents and other members of the public to air and discuss issues that were peripheral to the proposed project, but germane to concerns about secondary, broad scale impacts. Some of these issues included questions about the rearrangement or continuation of the pre-existing, parallel freight rail lines. As is common to public involvement processes, discussions also embraced displacement or co-mingling of issues. For example, some participants in these forums suggested total grade separation of the light rail route to address their concerns about the long existent disruption of cross traffic caused by several lengthy freight trains each day. These spokespersons usually did not suggest grade separation or other mitigation of these freight lines.
Also quite common in citizen involvement in planning processes is the fact that, especially at the project stages, opponents tend to be more actively involved and more vocal than those members of the public who are generally satisfied with the project as proposed and presented. Overall the public involvement process appeared to work well.
Some of the non-agenda issues are difficult to ascertain well enough in advance of implementation. Future fare structures are a primary example of this problem. There are, however, post-implementation fallouts which are predictable, and thus should be at least identified as possible aftereffects. The implementation of rail service is often followed by adjustments or deletions of bus service on parallel or crossing routes. These changes may affect adversely the mobility of residents who because of their required travel patterns may not benefit from the introduction of rail services. A secondary, but important, result of an accumulation of such negative impacts is that it generates a strong bus versus rail debate in communities which potentially benefit from both.