Council backs MTA Expo alternatives, asks for stronger outreach and mitigation for nearby communities

The Los Angeles City Council voted June 20 to support the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA) draft identification of alternatives for the Exposition Corridor project, including a light-rail option, while asking the authority to strengthen mitigation and outreach to affected communities.

Supporters said the alignment would connect major job centers, institutions and communities from downtown toward the Westside and provide a higher-capacity alternative to congested surface streets. Opponents said parts of the preliminary plan lacked adequate early outreach and raised civil-rights and environmental concerns for neighborhoods east of Main Street.

Why it matters: The Exposition Corridor connects dense employment centers on the Westside and downtown and will shape commuting and development patterns. The council's vote signals local support for pursuing the MTA's alternatives analysis, subject to added requirements on community engagement and mitigation for residents along the right-of-way.

Support and opposition at the hearing

Darryl Clark, co-chair of Friends for Expo Transit, told the council the group had become a large volunteer transit advocacy organization supporting the line and stressed projected ridership: “Ridership, 51,400. We need the capacity of light rail in this core corridor, an alternative to traffic, world record traffic for drivers, a better faster ride for bus riders.”

Joyce Perkins, chair of the Eighth District Economic Development Council, summarized a community meeting that reported broad local support by attendees for light rail over a busway and urged council backing for the MTA alternatives.

Opponents urged more outreach and raised civil-rights concerns. Manuel Clioo, an organizer with the Labor/Community Strategy Center and the Bus Riders Union, argued the MTA should prioritize transit-dependent riders and enforcement of an existing consent decree: “We are here today to urge you to oppose and reject the support for the exposition light rail on the basis of supporting the the enforcement of civil rights.” Cecilia Nunez of Neighbors for an Improved Community said the planning process had not provided early, meaningful participation for residents east of Main Street and questioned the adequacy of noise and vibration studies for the area near a local school.

Council response and conditions

Several council members said they supported the MTA's process but wanted assurances that the MTA would address mitigation (noise, vibration and right-of-way impacts), early and meaningful outreach to low-income and minority communities, and comparable mitigation for sections of the route in different neighborhoods. Councilman Holden said he supported the project in principle but wanted “assurance that once you go before MTA ... you're saying, yes. We support this position right away with certain conditions. How would you plan to mitigate the noise, vibration, etc.?” Councilman Ridley-Thomas and others said the motion included language asking the MTA for those outreach and mitigation commitments.

Vote and next steps

After debate the council voted to approve the staff-recommended resolution supporting the MTA alternatives analysis, with instructions for additional community mitigation and outreach; roll call was recorded as 10 ayes. The council emphasized the need to coordinate mitigation and community engagement prior to any federal funding commitments.