It won't make any difference if there is a company in charge of parking.

Dodgers may open fifth gate to ease traffic flow
The team plans to use the Scott Avenue exit, closed years ago after neighbors complained.
By Bill Shaikin, Times Staff Writer
April 18, 2007

The Los Angeles Dodgers plan to reopen a fifth gate to Dodger Stadium this weekend, hoping to alleviate parking lot congestion without alienating the neighborhood groups that successfully lobbied for that gate to be closed 11 years ago.

The team intends to use the Scott Avenue gate as an exit route after every game and an entrance route before games with particularly large crowds, Dodgers spokeswoman Camille Johnston said Tuesday.

In 1996, then-owner Peter O'Malley agreed to close the Scott gate after neighbors argued that stadium traffic overwhelmed the surrounding residential area. That year, the Dodgers drew 3.2 million fans. The team sold 3.8 million tickets last season.

"We need to open the gate to alleviate the stress on the other four arteries," Johnston said.

City Councilman Eric Garcetti, whose district includes the neighborhood, said the Dodgers contacted him about reopening the gate after the severe parking problems of opening day, when thousands of fans were stuck for more than an hour getting into and out of the stadium.

Garcetti and Councilman Ed Reyes, whose district includes other areas around Dodger Stadium, said the team has agreed to pay for traffic officers to prevent departing fans from using side streets on their way to freeways. Johnston said the team is paying for traffic officers outside other gates as well, starting this season.

Reyes said he would prefer that the Dodgers kept the gate closed but would consider supporting the reopening if residents' concerns could be mitigated. Garcetti said he would take no position until he heard from area residents.

"I love the Dodgers. I hope we can get a lot of people moving into and out of the community, but we've got to do it in a way that protects our neighbors," he said. "The community deserves to be heard. If it can't work for them, it will be tough to work for the Dodgers."

Team officials met with one neighborhood group Tuesday and are scheduled to meet with another tonight. Johnston said the Dodgers want to keep neighbors informed but plan to open the gate Friday.

In his meetings with the Dodgers, Garcetti said, team officials said they had the unilateral right to open the gate. If the city does not approve, Garcetti said, it could respond by blocking traffic on Scott Avenue, but he said he was optimistic that the Dodgers could work with residents to resolve traffic issues.

"We don't want a return to the '80s, when people couldn't get out of their homes," Garcetti said.

Dodger Stadium opened in 1962, and Johnston said the parking lot was designed for traffic to flow through five gates.

Still, Garcetti said, the Dodgers cannot fix their parking problems just by opening another gate or adding spaces to their lot. He wants to work on providing mass transit options to Dodger Stadium, he said, and the team is receptive.

"You can't solve this just by figuring out how to accommodate cars," Garcetti said.

Tonight's meeting, with the Greater Echo Park Elysian Neighborhood Council, starts at 7 at Barlow Hospital, 2000 Stadium Way.

Caltrans Reaches Record $10 Billion Level of Transportation Projects :banana:

SACRAMENTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--At a speech tomorrow to the Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, Caltrans Director Will Kempton will announce that – for the first time ever – Caltrans has broken the $10 billion threshold for projects under construction. The previous record level of construction was $8.8 billion in fiscal year 2001-02, adjusted to present value.

"This is truly unprecedented,” says Kempton.

California’s transportation revitalization began when Governor Schwarzenegger reinstated $2.7 billion in Proposition 42 (devoting state sales tax on gasoline) funds. Last year, thanks to the governor and the legislature’s bipartisan leadership, voters approved two historic transportation measures: Proposition 1B, a $19.9 billion bond aimed at reducing traffic congestion, improving goods movement, and creating jobs; Proposition 1A permanently protects Prop. 42 funding, ensuring billions of additional dollars will be available for transportation.

At the end of the last fiscal year, Caltrans came within a whisker of delivering its overall goal of 174 projects. Caltrans moved 173 projects to the ready to list stage, the point at which they are advertised to attract bids from contractors. This fiscal year, Caltrans intends to move 286 projects to the ready to list stage and is aiming for 100 percent project delivery.

The $10 billion in transportation improvements now under construction include:

Los Angeles - U.S. 101/Interstate 405 - This is one of the nation’s busiest interchanges. A $46 million project will ease traffic backups and eliminate the need for I-405 motorists to cross several lanes to access the U.S. 101 connector.

Bay Area – Third Street Light Rail – Caltrans is providing $64 million in funding to extend a San Francisco Municipal Railway line more than five miles to the San Mateo County line. This vital public transit project, which includes 19 new rail stations, will provide service for the first time to the eastern section of San Francisco.

San Diego – Interstate 15 Managed Lanes – This project is expanding I-15 with four new lanes in the median between State Route 163 in San Diego and State Route 78 in Escondido. A movable barrier will enable traffic to be “managed,” meaning lane configurations can be changed to improve the traffic flow for morning and evening commutes, special events, etc. A Bus Rapid Transit System also will be added, providing motorists a transportation alternative.

Fresno - Highway 99 Widening - A $62 million project is converting Highway 99 from four-lanes to six-lanes between Kingsburg and Selma in southern Fresno County. This project will enhance goods movement and ease traffic congestion for commuters in Fresno, Kings and Tulare counties.

Bay Area – San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge – With $4.5 billion in construction currently underway, Caltrans continues making good progress on this landmark project. The west span is finished, and the east span’s Skyway portion is 93% complete. Work begins this summer on the $227 million Oakland Touchdown Project, which will connect the bridge’s Skyway section to the Oakland Toll Plaza.

Riverside - 60/91/215 Interchange Project - This project will unclog traffic bottlenecks for motorists and truckers traveling on three vital Inland Empire highways. Four miles of new HOV lanes are being added, all three highways will be widened, and a new truck bypass lane will be constructed.

Los Angeles – Eastside Light Rail Extension – The Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Gold Line is being extended six miles from Union Station in downtown Los Angeles to East Los Angeles. Eight new stations are being constructed. Caltrans is providing $240 million in state funding.

Orange County – Interstate 5 Gateway Project. This $206 million project is adding HOV, mixed-flow, and auxiliary lanes from State Route 91 to the Los Angeles County line. This will complete construction of an HOV network in Orange County and relieve traffic congestion for more than 172,000 vehicles that travel this area daily.

Note to editors: A complete list of Caltrans administered construction projects can be found by clicking on the “Restoring the Golden State” image on the Caltrans web site: http://www.dot.ca.gov

Caltrans is doing a lot of work for these roads, but giving a very small portion of their funding to mass transit. Acc. to this article, $306 million total out of $10 billion.

So that's what, 3/10 of a percent?

^^ wow...that's it? Hopefully the next 200 projects will conatin more mass public transit.

I found this other article pretty interesting as well:

Donald Shoup Super Fan No. 1
By Richard Chang

Tags: Donald Shoup, parking, urban planning

Who is Donald Shoup?
He’s a professor of urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles. I don’t usually get geeked out over urban planning, but when I read his op-ed column on the relationship between traffic and parking, it blew me away. I’ve been completely fascinated by his work ever since. I can’t get enough.
Professor Shoup argues that a huge chunk of traffic in city centers is created by drivers looking for parking. He cites a recent survey of drivers stopped at traffic lights in SoHo in which 28 percent of them were looking for parking. Another survey in Park Slope had higher results — 45 percent. No, that’s not so surprising. When I lived on the Upper West Side, I used to anticipate 20 minutes of cruising (around a radius of five blocks) for an open space.

A Hummer parked on top of another car to draw attention to the lack of parking space in central St. Petersburg, Russia, in March. (Alexander Demianchuk/Reuters)The deeper issue, according to Professor Shoup, is the cost of curb parking in most cities. It’s too cheap. Even though availability is slim, it’s still a much more attractive option than garage parking — essentially encouraging drivers to cruise endlessly in search of curb parking.
“And,” Professor Shoup wrote, “like rent-controlled apartments, underpriced curb spaces go to the lucky more often than they do to the deserving.”
His solution is to raise the price for curb parking. All of a sudden, the garage is looking more attractive. And then there is more curb parking. He explains that it’s possible to create a cost structure (one that fluctuates with the time of day) that ensures an 85 percent occupancy rate in curb parking, an optimum level to reduce cruising.
In “People, Parking, and Cities,” (pdf) Michael Manville and Professor Shoup explain how the Disney Concert Hall, which has been universally hailed as a cornerstone of the revitalization of downtown Los Angeles, is actually failing its purpose by providing too much cheap parking ($8/event). The concert hall has six levels of parking directly below the hall, a garage that was built at a cost of $110 million, which brings up an interesting tangent:
For a number reasons, the Disney Hall wasn’t finished until seven years after the garage was completed. Until then, the city actually had to subsidize the garage’s debt. Even now, in order to pay the debt service on the garage, the Los Angeles Philharmonic needs to put on at least 128 concerts each winter season. :O
“The parking garage,” Mr. Manville and Professor Shoup explain, “ostensibly designed to serve the Philharmonic, now has the Philharmonic serving it; the minimum parking requirements have led to a minimum concert requirement.”
(Great stuff, right?)
Anyway, when you think of active city centers, you think of Manhattan and San Francisco, where garage parking is either expensive or limited. This encourages alternatives to driving. As a result, there are more pedestrians on city streets and more shops and restaurants that cater to those pedestrians -– traditional signifiers of a vibrant city center.
But patrons who go see and hear the Los Angeles Philharmonic are able to drive into the subterranean parking garage, ride an escalator up into the Disney Hall and leave the same way, without ever stepping outdoors. And Los Angeles’s dream of pedestrians spilling out from a concert to restaurants, bars and shops are no closer to fruition.Mr. Manville and Professor Shoup add, “The full experience of an iconic Los Angeles building” — designed by Frank Gehry – “begins and ends in its parking garage, not in the city itself.”
In March, Professor Shoup was in New York City to meet with city agencies and some nonprofit advocacy groups. StreetFilms posted a great interview, in which he says that by providing a 15 percent vacancy (and 85 percent occupancy) rate, traffic in Manhattan would be reduced by 29 percent.
Of course, I’m just giving you a crude summary of his studies and statistics, and far from doing his work justice. For a list of Professor Shoup’s work, go here.
Then let me know if you want to join the fan club.


this really makes sense

so wait. im a bit confused about the 405,101 connector. how are they going to solve the people crossing lanes to get to the exit? make a number one lane exit?

anyone know of any maps of this whole thing? seems like there is not really alot being done. shit is too expensive!

It's getting to be the sunset on trying to solve these unsolvable traffic problems. Once you put in one carpool lane someone else whines about it being too hard to let's say cross a lane. It comes a time when you've got to realize that the freeway system in LA as it stands is a fucking work of art.......Tell me the 110 to the 105 interchange monster won't be housed in a museum somewhere in the 22nd century. Their has been enough enough enough designing and redesigning of our roads.......it's time for another solution.

... Hooray for CARPOOLS!!!! :carrot:

i stumbled across this when looking for any community groups that actually want the 710 extension...

Residents within the cities of South Pasadena, Pasadena, Alhambra, and El Sereno in Los Angeles claim the Multi-Mode Low Build Alternative will work better for much less money than the proposed 710 freeway extension in moving people and goods between Interstate 10 and 210.

What is the Multi-Mode Low Build Alternative?

It is a system of transportation improvements that upgrades city surface streets, enhances existing freeways, and encourages coordinated linkage between different travel modes: automobiles, light railway, buses, shuttles, and bicycles. It is designed to improve mobility within South Pasadena, Pasadena, Alhambra and El Sereno.

What would the Multi-Mode Low Build system do?

· Extend the 710 freeway terminus to Mission Road for diffusion, reducing east-west traffic on Valley Boulevard and congestion on Fremont Avenue.

· Add a 710 off-ramp at Cal State L.A.; add on and off-ramps to the 134 freeway at Pasadena and St. John's Avenues in Pasadena; add an on-ramp to the 110 freeway in South Pasadena at Fair Oaks Avenue and State Street.

· Build bridges over the depressed railroad tracks in Alhambra, reconnecting north-south streets to relieve traffic congestion on Fremont Avenue.

· Upgrade Figueroa Street to create a parallel corridor to the 110 between downtown L.A. and Pasadena.

· Redirect traffic on Del Mar Avenue in Pasadena to Raymond Avenue and to Arroyo Parkway.

· Reconfigure the Fremont Avenue-Huntington Drive-Fair Oaks Avenue connection in South Pasadena.

· Synchronize traffic signals on Fair Oaks and Fremont Avenues for smoother moving traffic flow.

· Improve intersections by providing more left-hand turn lanes and medians.

· Implement traffic "calming" techniques to protect residential neighborhoods from traffic intrusion.

· Complete the Blue Line light railway from downtown L.A. to Pasadena.

· Coordinate light railway, bus and shuttle schedules. Why is the Multi-Mode Low Build Alternative a better choice?

· It will save more than 1,000 homes (El Sereno, 564; South Pasadena, 315; Pasadena, 143; and Alhambra, 25) and permit more than 4,000 residents to continue living in them.

· It will save over 7,000 trees, 70 historic properties and six historic districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

· It will save taxpayers an enormous amount of money, costing an estimated $135 million, about 10% of what the freeway expansion would cost.

· It will prevent increases in air and noise pollution.

· It can be accomplished now; create jobs now.

· It can solve the region's transportation problems now - not 20 years from now.
http://www.ci.south-pasadena.ca.us/about/low-build.html

and a different take...
MULTI-MODE, LOW BUILD ALTERNATIVE IS BASED UPON A SET OF FAULTY PREMISES

The fundamental premise of the Multi-Mode Low Build (MMLB) Plan was set forth in the Summary of the report:

"Termed ‘The Multi-Mode Alternative,’ the Low-Build Approach is keyed on using a wealth of transportation resources to meet the needs of travel in the corridor. Chief among our resources is the Pasadena Blue Line which mirrors the legendary Red Car routes and gives us hope that we are returning to a "healthy" form of urban transportation. Other resources include a vast array of existing arterial streets and additional transit tools."

Without citing a single study or statistic to support it, the MMLB Report makes the following dubious claim about Southern California residents:

"Planners and engineers alike are noting a societal shift away from expansive suburbs many miles away from the workplace. Indeed, there seems to be a more sensible and efficient trend towards smaller, self-contained communities which allow people to live and work in the same area. As for traffic, people are becoming more willing to share rides, take a train, use alternate modes of travel or locate closer to work to secure a better sense of community and improved quality of life."

The concept articulated in the MMLB Report is generally known as the "Livable Communities" idea. The Livable Communities approach may be a desirable one and in some small ways the region is moving in the direction of encouraging greater density in housing along rail and bus transit corridors. For instance, the development of pedestrian-oriented mixed-use districts around rail transit stations has been a goal of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for decades.

However, the suggestion that the nation or even Southern California is experiencing a "societal shift away from expansive suburbs many miles away from the workplace" is not borne out by any examination of the population, housing, and employment data in the region. The latest planning data available is that used by both SCAG and MTA in preparing their long range transportation plans.

Is the suggestion that we are moving away from expansive suburbs supported by the latest housing and employment forecasts in the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan? Absolutely not. The projected increases in Persons per Square Mile between 1997 and 2025 are greatest in Lancaster/Palmdale, the San Fernando Valley near the I-405, western Pasadena, South Central Los Angeles, central Orange County, Ontario, San Bernardino, Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Victorville. (Exhibit 4.3 of SCAG 2001 RTP) Furthermore, the most intense growth in employment between 1997 and 2025 will be in Burbank, Glendale, Commerce, Irvine, Newport Beach, Ontario, Diamond Bar and along the corridor of S.R. 60 in Riverside County. (Exhibit 4.6 of SCAG 2001 RTP) The balance in the location of population and jobs is not projected to get any better even though there are some isolated efforts to create pedestrian oriented districts like Old Pasadena, downtown Glendale, Burbank Media Center, Santa Monica Third Street and Long Beach Pine Avenue.

The MTA Long Range Plan paints a similar picture. The MTA observes: "The problem of meeting future increases in travel demand is compounded by population and employment patterns. Countywide growth and increased sprawl will contribute to complex travel patterns where traffic is multi-directional, going from everywhere to everywhere, rather than from suburb to city." (p. 1-5) MTA acknowledges that in 1998, the worst freeway congestion in the county occurred in three places: central Los Angeles, the West Side, and the San Gabriel Valley. With population and employment generating 30% MORE trips, MTA expects average speeds to drop to less than 20 miles per hour in these areas without additional transportation improvements. (p. 1-7).

The MMLB also makes the claim that rail and bus transit and carpooling is an increasing trend representing a greater willingness of people to rideshare. This claim is simply not true. In the SCAG 2001 RTP, Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show the percentage of persons who rideshare and who ride transit to work. Figure 5.1 shows that from 1976 to 2000, ridesharing dropped from 19% of total trips to work to 13%. The chart projects a virtually flat line for ridesharing at 13% during the next 25 years. (p.42) Figure 5.2 shows that from 1976 to 2000, transit ridership fell from 6.25% of all trips to work to just 4.25%. The chart shows SCAG expects transit ridership to drop even further to 3.8% where it will remain flat for the next 25 years. (p. 43)

Opponents of the 710 Freeway completion suggest that South Pasadena's MMLB could "achieve 90% of the benefit for 10% of the cost" of completing the 710 Freeway. The Caltrans' evaluation of the MMLB Report concludes that there would be negative benefit for 49.6% of the cost. In other words, instead of 90% of the benefit, the MMLB alternative would actually make congestion and pollution worse...for 50% of the cost of finishing the freeway!

In sum, the entire premise of the MMLB that large-scale livable communities are a viable land use pattern within the next 25 years or that there is some kind of societal shift in the use of ridesharing and transit is a utopian fantasy not supported by any of the most current planning data available. Furthermore, the planning data available at the time the MMLB was proposed showed the same reality. Thus, the MMLB Report promotes a transportation planning concept that has never been shown to work in region with the physical and geographic characteristics of Southern California.
http://www.710gap.com/opposition/801-1.htm

Metro Schedules May 24 Public Hearing to Consider Fare Changes

* First major fare restructuring since 1995

A public hearing on the first major restructuring of Metro fares in 12 years will be held on Thursday, May 24, at 9 a.m. at Metro headquarters, Cesar Chavez and Vignes, in downtown Los Angeles.

The Metro Board of Directors will hear public testimony at the hearing and will consider adopting new changes in Metro fares. If adopted, the new fares will be phased in July 1, 2007 with a possible second adjustment on January 1, 2009.

Interested members of the public may comment in person at the public hearing, or in writing at any time prior to the end of meeting. Correspondence may be mailed to: Board Secretary, Attention: Fare Adjustments, One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles CA 90012-2952, or sent via email to fares@metro.net or faxed to (213) 922-4594.

Metro CEO Roger Snoble is proposing to keep the Metro regular cash fare at $1.25 until 2009. That’s the lowest of any major metropolitan area in the nation. New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Diego and other cities currently charge $2 or more. However, Metro staff is proposing to change the regular base fare to $2 in January 2009 and substantial changes are proposed this summer and in 2009 for Metro passes, tokens and discount fares.

(See chart below)

Discount fares for seniors, students and the disabled have not been changed since 1995. In 2004, Metro cut the regular cash fare a dime to $1.25, eliminated transfers, instituted the popular day pass and changed the monthly pass by $10 to $52, among other adjustments.

Over the past decade, under the federal Consent Decree, Metro purchased more than 2,000 new buses and, under court order, greatly expanded bus service it couldn’t afford to operate.

“Metro is struggling to overcome an operating deficit projected at $1.8 billion over 10 years,” explained CEO Snoble. “Our costs for new buses, fuel, labor and other expenses have gone up exponentially over the years while fees to our customers have not changed.”

Snoble noted that in 1988 fares covered 44 percent of the cost of operating buses in Los Angeles. Today, the farebox recovery ratio is just under 25 percent and the national average for large transit properties is 38 percent.

The average Metro rider is only paying 58 cents a boarding due to deep discounts to seniors/disabled, students and pass users. Although the changes appear large in percentage terms, they represent pennies in terms of daily use. If the changes are approved, the average rider fare will change from 58 cents to 86 cents per ride.

“We can’t sustain these massive subsidies,” Snoble said. “Either we raise fares or cut service. We simply can not operate the existing service let alone offer the public new transit improvements.”

“It is indeed unfortunate that at a time of such high transit demand due to continued population and job growth and the rising cost of all modes of transportation that Metro will not be in a position to serve the demand without additional revenue,” said Snoble.

Snoble noted that Metro continues cutting overhead. More than 500 administrative and management positions have been eliminated in the past five years and Metro continues to look for other areas of additional revenue, such as increasing advertising opportunities on the Metro system.

After hearing public comment on the proposed fare modifications, the Board may consider, and at its discretion adopt various fare modifications. The Board is not bound by or limited to the specific proposals or amounts described in this notice. Attached are the proposed fare modifications to be considered in the upcoming public hearing.

These new fees aren't well thought out. The Metro to Muni pass is gonna be $1 in in '09. What the hell? Why buy that when you can just pay regular fare on your next bus? Practically every municipal transit system, at least in my area, is less than that, the most expensive I know of being Long Beach Transit, but even that's only 90 cents. Most are merely 50 cents. Keep the metro to muni at that.

damn... ive been out paged.

I guess this is the kind of shit that happens when you don't raise fares for over 10 years, the fares must be raised. It's clear that the BRU one goal is to bankrupt the MTA.

6fLW3OiH8OQ
eek! given drivers around here i think this could be a regular site

6fLW3OiH8OQ
eek! given drivers around here i think this could be a regular site

Every three minutes that could happen around here.

See! Now we really have to band together to kill this idea!

ha, thank the ruskies

See! Now we really have to band together to kill this idea!


^^ Gimme a break Dude........ I know your not serious!!!! :ohno:

Peak-hour bus lanes on Wilshire urged
A City Council panel hopes the proposal can ease the traffic crunch on Wilshire.
By Jean Guccione, Times Staff Writer
April 26, 2007

In the endless search for ways to ease traffic congestion, Los Angeles city officials Wednesday took steps toward speeding up rush-hour commutes between downtown and the Westside.

The City Council's Transportation Committee urged the creation of peak-hour bus lanes along Wilshire Boulevard. The panel also backed a more comprehensive study of a proposal to convert Olympic and Pico boulevards into one-way streets.

"We have a traffic crisis here in Los Angeles," said Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, who heads the panel. "We need to investigate whether these ideas could be solutions to the congestion that is choking our city."

Both proposals would offer quick and relatively inexpensive fixes to east-west traffic congestion while county transit officials explore more permanent solutions, such as the so-called subway to the sea.

One potential stumbling block: Both ventures would cut through Beverly Hills, which would have to agree to change its own street designs.

Another hurdle: community opposition. On Wednesday, about 40 business owners and residents of Koreatown urged council members to reject Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky's one-way street proposal.

"People are afraid and concerned about quality of life," said Grace Yoo, executive director of the Korean American Coalition. She predicted that motorists would speed through the corridor, endangering children and elderly pedestrians.

"It has never worked," said resident Julia Son, referring to previous attempts to change the direction of major thoroughfares in the city. She demanded that officials try other measures for reducing traffic congestion.

A preliminary study found the street conversions could increase capacity on Olympic and Pico by up to 20%. The study did not address travel time.

City Councilman Jack Weiss, who represents the Westside, called the report a "good-faith conversation starter."

But Councilman Herb Wesson and others demanded that their districts not be singled out for such an experiment. They want one-way streets and bus-only lanes studied for the San Fernando Valley and other areas of the city as well.

"We have a responsibility to the residential integrity of the people that we represent," said Wesson, who lives between Pico and Olympic and fears increased cut-through traffic.

"I want to do what I can to help make traffic flow throughout this city," he said, then pointed out that the emphasis of this project seemed to be Westside-to-downtown commuters, with little regard for the residents in between.

"I want to study it, but I can't support it," Councilman Tom LaBonge said. "Keep the 100-meter dash in the Olympic Games, not on Olympic Boulevard."

Meanwhile, city officials also signed onto a plan to close the Wilshire Boulevard curb lanes to most rush-hour traffic so buses can speed through. The full City Council will consider the proposal next week. Transit officials hope the lanes will shave an average of 12 minutes from a bus ride along Wilshire, which they believe will in turn encourage more commuters to use public transit.

Lanes would be restricted to buses and vehicles turning right on weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. and from 4 to 7 p.m.

Converting the existing lanes to bus lanes within the city of Los Angeles would cost as much as $14 million and take 18 months to complete, according to the city report. Widening Wilshire to add an eastbound bus lane between Federal and Barrington avenues would cost an additional $2 million and take three to five years to complete.

City officials expect to get most of the money from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates the buses. As part of the deal, Los Angeles officials agreed to temporarily close the one-mile stretch of bus lanes on Wilshire between Barrington and Centinela avenues in West Los Angeles. Merchants have complained the lanes eliminate street parking and increase traffic delays.

Councilman Bill Rosendahl had asked the council to shut down the existing bus lanes in his Westside district until they were extended into other council districts.

"The day will come when there will be a bus lane on Wilshire throughout the whole city, including my district, and we look forward to the day," he said.

^^How about no, this obviously won't work.

^^ Negative MR #1 SF Giants fan....

I've never seen so many cars ticketed and towed in one day.... Way To go Tony!!!!! Keeping traffic Moving......

That is not a solution. It is a bandaid. It isn't providing alternatives for people who dont want to drive.

The only thing we need on Wilshire is the subway, which is why I'm against these bus lanes.

The only thing we need on Wilshire is the subway, which is why I'm against these bus lanes.

Why not both?

probably cuz bus lanes and nearby one way streets are attempts at diverting attention from the need for a subway. It delays the inevitable.

I still think a Monorail down Wilshire is more doable. More cost effective, quieter and modern looking.

and be completely incompatible with the rest of the system

^^ :blah: :blah: :blah: so what's new..... A Monorail or a hopeful Subway to the beach, pick one?

subway

^ Loser.

^^A monorail, IMO, would make Wilshire look ugly, and I don't think that Beverly Hills would support it. A subway works great and there's no opposition from that city, so why not pick that over monorail?

Not to mention the Monorail doesnt have nearly enough capacity.

MTA fare hike may not be the ticket
Experts warn an increase could hurt ridership and low-income riders.
By Rong-Gong Lin II and Francisco Vara-Orta, Times Staff Writers
8:46 PM PDT, April 27, 2007

After a decade of being largely restricted from raising bus fares by a federal judge, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is proposing a sweeping series of fare hikes that some experts worry will discourage commuters from using mass transit.

The hikes would establish some of the highest bus fares in the country. The basic fare would rise to $2 from $1.25. About 87% of all MTA passengers use some form of bus or rail pass, which would see larger price increases of up to 400% over the next 20 months.

MTA officials say that the hike is needed to help cover rising operating costs and that they have already cut 500 jobs. Without the higher fares, they say the agency would have to slash service.

But there are growing questions among transportation experts about whether steep fare increases make sense at a time when L.A.'s roads are more clogged than ever.

"The dream of every bus rider is to have a car," said James E. Moore, director of USC's transportation engineering program, who expressed concern that big fare hikes might push more people into buying cheap cars.

Moore said several economic studies of transit fare hikes have shown that for every 10% increase in a fare, ridership drops 3%. The MTA wants to raise the cost of a monthly transit pass to $75 from $52 by July, and to $120 by 2009 — increases that Moore said he believes will prompt some riders to abandon the bus and rail.

The proposed MTA fare hike comes as San Francisco examines a radical reduction in fares to encourage more use of mass transit.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom last month ordered a study of eliminating bus and streetcar fares to determine whether free fares would get more commuters out of their cars.

Some urban planners as well as the L.A. Bus Riders Union have proposed that the MTA sharply reduce fares — to 50 cents or even free. They argue that lower fares would encourage more people to use mass transit, reducing traffic and pollution.

There is evidence that reduced fares draw more riders. In early 1980s, county voters approved a transit sales tax measure that reduced bus fares to 50 cents. The discount drew so many new passengers to L.A. buses that ridership surpassed Chicago's. There were complaints about overcrowded buses and increased pickpocketing.

Transit officials raised fares in 1985 — and ridership dropped. Several other fare hikes since then were followed by declines in ridership while a reduction in some fares brought increases in ridership, according to MTA data.

The MTA records about 1.6 million bus and rail boardings each weekday — many of them low-income riders who do not own cars. According to an MTA survey in 2001, the average family income of a bus rider was $12,000, and $22,000 for rail users.

"It really puts all the burden on the poorest, who are really relying on the bus," Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, chairwoman of the UCLA Department of Urban Planning, said of the fare hike.

But others worry the higher fares are most likely to drive away more affluent riders who take the Gold Line, Orange Line and Red Line into downtown from the suburbs.

A rider who has a car may react to a fare hike by saying, "Oh, forget it. I got the car. I've paid the insurance," said Brian Taylor, director of UCLA's Institute of Transportation Studies.

MTA officials acknowledge they expect ridership to fall initially. Still, they said the agency needs to close an operating deficit brought about largely by the $1.3 billion spent in the past decade on buying buses and adding service while keeping fares low to comply with a federal consent decree. Transit officials agreed to the decree in 1996 to settle a civil rights lawsuit with bus riders. A federal judge permitted the decree to expire last year, ruling that "quality of life has improved for Los Angeles' public transit dependent poor population."

The only fare increase the judge allowed during the decade-long decree was a modest increase in weekly, monthly and semi-monthly passes. Ridership dropped significantly, from 430 million riders in 2003 to 394 million in 2004. By contrast, a small reduction in fares ordered by the judge in 1996 appears to have boosted ridership by about 16 million the next year.

The MTA has also tried other ways to balance its budgets, officials said. More than 500 administrative jobs were eliminated in the last five years, and the agency has begun blanketing Metro stations with product advertisements and selling commercial time on buses equipped with TV monitors.

But without a fare increase, bus service would need to be cut by one-third, said Marc Littman, an MTA spokesman.

"It's simple economics. We have to ask our customers to pay a little bit more of what it costs to run the service," Littman said. "The alternative is to cut service, and no one wants to retrench."

The MTA — whose board could vote on the hike as early as May 24 — also rejects the argument that reducing fares would help. They say extra riders would only further drain resources and not significantly increase revenues.

The prospect of increased fares are leaving some bus riders steaming.

"It seems like the hikes are hurting the most vulnerable," said Rosa Calles, a 62-year-old part-time housekeeper who commutes by bus from Highland Park to West Los Angeles. Her annual household income is $16,000, and she could see her $12 monthly senior pass rise to $37.50 by July and $60 by 2009.

Melissa Zacharias, a biology student at Santa Monica College, worried about how she would manage the 25-mile commute from her home in South Gate. Her family has no car, and would see her $30 college monthly pass rise to $52.50 by July and $84 in 2009.

"I mean, I barely have enough money now to pay for the bus," said Zacharias, waiting for a Red Line train at Union Station on a recent afternoon. "I think I would have to carpool with more people. It's tough trying to pay for college alone."

But John King, who uses bus and rail to commute from Hollywood to his sales job in North Hollywood, said he is willing to pay more if the MTA can improve service. "It's going to have to get better if they are raising fares," said King, 43.

Other bus and rail systems in California have raised fares in recent years, but in at least three counties, the hikes have been less dramatic.

In San Bernardino County, Omnitrans bus fares are scheduled to rise in July — but by a significantly smaller percentage than what the MTA is proposing. In 2005, Riverside Transit Agency approved a modest increase in fares. Ridership declined by 11% after the fare hike, but recovered after about a year. In Orange County, officials raised bus fares in 2005 — the first hike in 14 years — but still less than what the MTA is proposing.

The fare hike proposal caused some transit experts to question the wisdom of the MTA's huge investment in rail. The agency is building two rail projects — the Expo Line to Culver City and the Gold Line extension to East L.A. at a total cost of about $1.5 billion.

"You see how crowded the buses are, and yet ... the Gold Line at 4 in the afternoon is practically empty," said Joel Kotkin, a Los Angeles resident and author of "The City: A Global History."

"Obviously the buses are in demand much more than the more expensive stuff, so why aren't we putting more money into the buses?" Kotkin said. "It seems to be unconscionable we could be raising fares so a few yuppies from Santa Monica can go downtown on the subway."

MTA officials respond that while rail accounts for about 17% of total ridership, it is growing and is a key to moving people in the future as the rail network expands.

Taylor, of the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, said the MTA could charge long-distance riders more and short-distance passengers less if customers used pre-paid "smart cards," embedded with computer chips, to deduct fares.

Long-distance riders tend to be wealthier and tend to ride during rush hour, Taylor said, while short-distance riders are more likely to be lower income and tend to ride during off-peak times.

Not to mention the Monorail doesnt have nearly enough capacity.

Well that depends on how many attachments it will have. It would make Wilshire look like LA from the 22nd Century.... Woohoo!

Fuck this shit!!! I would hate to see L.A. becoming anymore of a "bus lane" and "one-way street" city than it has already become...It's bad enough we have all these one-way streets that are not exactly the most pedestrian friendly and tends to encourage speeding. All these talks are temporary solutions that will not solve our city's gridlock problems in the long run. Instead of circumventing the problem with temporary solutions, we should be focused on the real solution--subways and LRTs.

You know the MTA is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

1)Use advertising for revenue but not Mc Donalds??
2)What LA needs is more busses since most people ride the busses.
3)Busses clog our streets what LA needs is more world class rail service.
4)More world class rail service costs alot so we need to raise fares and initiate an increase in the gas tax.
5)Why should I be taxed for something that I never will take besides it only hurts the poor in the end.
6) LA has the lowest fares of any top tier world class city in the country.
7)Fares can't continue being that low if the system is to expand.
8)We want to attract "choice riders" so raising the fares won't effect the customers that we really want.
9)I'm poor and I won't be able to afford the bus.
10)What do you think poor people all over the country do in places like NYC where the fare is much much higher?

I am so sick of this bullshit rhetoric! The fares have to rise if we want to continue building our system, perhaps not as significantly as what has been proposed but some. Advertising should be splattered on every train and bus be it for Mc Donalds or Walmart. I remember getting on trains in NYC and the entire car from top to bottom is clothed in Budweiser ads! Annoying? Yes! And this is in a city where a day pass is $7!
Everyone wants a world class system but no one wants to pay for it.
We may see an actual drop in ridership initially but as the rail lines begin to open up at the end of the decade I believe the ridership will be recovered.

Car-Free and Still Loving It
Giving Up the Jeep Earns a Warm Welcome From Downtown's Life-Without-Wheels Club

by Kathryn Maese

Who knew I would become part of a global car-free movement when I gave up my Jeep a few weeks ago?



It was a bit of a surprise when kudos came literally from across the globe. Downtowners weighed in, but so did a reader from Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

"I was pleased to read that more Angelenos are getting out of their cars and onto their feet/the bus," emailed Jennifer Ashley. "Though I moved to China in late 2004, I was born and raised in Los Angeles and became an avid shunner of cars early in my university years. I know it's not easy... but I salute you! I wish more people in the world, and the States and Los Angeles in particular, would 'see the light' that cars are not the solution."

Ashley even forwarded a few helpful links where I could locate routes, receive support from fellow bus riders, read up on trends and get maps of every line imaginable.

The car-free community is a tight-knit, welcoming bunch. Since writing about going car-less, I've received countless emails and suggestions from people who have rid themselves of their vehicles and chosen to walk or take public transportation.

One fellow initiate even shared how he'd managed to make a staggering eight trips around the world - partly based on his savings - after giving up his car 40 years ago. He says it was the second best thing he ever did in life, after marrying his wife, of course.


"The financial stuff you covered is obvious," wrote Kay Arthur Martin, the globetrotter. "In addition you open up a much wider world. You become footloose and fancy free. Relaxation sets in. There is more time to read, think, plan, interface, and smell the roses. We have lived, worked and traveled in 80 countries. Currently thinking of Jamaica because we have never been there. In about seven months it will be Budapest, Warsaw, and then a boat back from Southampton to New York."

Merle Green told a similar story. He gave up his car quite by accident and hasn't looked back.

"Two years ago I had what was not a major health problem but it was suggested that I not drive while I adjusted to a new medication," Merle said. "Never tell two college kids in another state that a doctor told you not to drive. Within a week they were here confiscating my car.

"Well, this June it will be two years. I was fine and could drive within a few weeks, but I had started to find my way around using public transit and it was much easier than I thought. I actually thought it was a challenge. I live in Koreatown and work for the city Downtown, so taking the Metro to and from work was easy. In fact I was mad at myself for not doing that sooner."




Green, and others, also offered grocery tips. It was something I was concerned about, since I shop frequently and love to cook. Ralphs won't open until this summer, so how would I lug all those groceries home?

Turns out you can order online fairly easily and Albertson's, Vons and a few others will deliver just about anything to your front door. A co-worker also recommended I try a service called the Farmers Cart, which will bring a fresh box of organic produce for about $40.

Though Promenade Towers resident André Darmanin lamented: "I too can't wait for the Ralphs to open. It will save me the $9.95 delivery charge from ordering online or gas money used from renting a car or having my girlfriend drive."

The Toronto native, who is a transportation planner, said that while the cost of living in Downtown Los Angeles may be higher than in the suburbs, it pays off in the long run.

"I have tried to influence some of my friends and co-workers [about] the benefits of living Downtown, with the expenses upfront with the price of housing as opposed to stretching it out over time with the cost of commuting, gas and inflation factoring in," Darmanin noted. "As I say, it's like an investment - pay now, reap the rewards later because there will be more money to spend on other things."

After about two weeks of living car-free I signed up for Flexcar - though I've yet to use it. Historic Core resident Roger Gendron, who went sans wheels a few months ago, said he uses the hourly rental car program to fill in the gaps in public transportation.

Still, the initial decision to give up the keys was a hard one.

"It's the first time I have been without a car since I was 17," Gendron said. "I am now 43! Using public transportation has not only been easy, once you figure it out and establish a routine, but also a fun way to both explore the city and mingle with other residents.... Welcome to the elite 11.3%!"

Elite indeed (according to a new study, only 11.3% of Downtown residents use public transportation). I secretly love getting pats on the back from neighbors and fellow Downtowners who long ago made the choice to go car-free. Even better, I've come to enjoy and even look forward to my new routine: These days I wake up earlier, turn on my iPod and head over to the corner cafe for a latte. I make my way through Biddy Mason Park and past a cheerful water sculpture I never noticed. Then it's on to Broadway where I see merchants rolling up their metal grates for business, pass the commuters waiting for their buses, and give directions to a few lost jurors.

I hop on the DASH A to City West, flying up First Street to Hope. Then it's down the hill and past the construction site of the new Vista Hermosa.

At work, I smile as everyone circles the block a few times to find parking.

Resident Advisor appears every two weeks. Contact Kathryn Maese at kathryn@downtownnews.com.

Companies give incentives to those who buy hybrids and so does the government. Why can't the same be done to those who use public transportation? If that was the case, fare hikes wouldn't be so detrimental to ridership.

The MTA has a program that works w/ businesses. Also if you go to any of the LACC schools a metro pass is $30 that lasts for 4 months. This is bullshit.

The MTA has a program that works w/ businesses. Also if you go to any of the LACC schools a metro pass is $30 that lasts for 4 months. This is bullshit.

What about it is bullshit?

^ The $30 dollar rate of course. That's a full tank of gas....

Metro’s Proposed Fare Increase RevealsDeep Flaws in Transportation Funding

Key to making Los Angles more livable in terms of air quality and traffic congestion is an efficient public transit system. In Los Angeles County most people drive and elected officials spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to fix traffic and clean up the air. Fewer car trips means less pollution and less traffic, so getting people on public transit is an important part of the solution. And, despite our long love affair with the automobile, a lot of people in Los Angeles are taking public transit. In fact on the average weekday, people get on a bus or train over 1.3 million times each day. Assuming each transit user boards twice for each trip, that’s a reduction of 660,000 trips made by car, daily.

Last November, California voters passed a $19 billion transportation bond measure, but only $4 billion was for building better public transit and none was for operation costs for bus and rail. So it should come as no surprise that less than six months after voters approved billions to improve transportation and reduce congestion, Metro is struggling to balance their budget. A substantial fare will be levied on the people who are doing the most to tackle traffic and air quality problems – transit users.

Metro is caught in the squeeze of rising costs for new buses, fuel, labor and other expenses that have gone up over the years while neither fares nor the incomes of most bus and rail riders have gone up at all. Recently released from the consent decree with the Bus Riders’ Union, Metro is now proposing to more than double fares by 2009, with the first increase slated for July 2007. Some of the fare increases are listed in the table below. For a detailed list visit Metro’s website.



Payment Type
Current Fare
Proposed 7/1/07
Proposed 1/1/09

Cash
$1.25
$1.25
$2.00

Token
$1.10
$1.25
$2.00

Day Pass
$3
$5
$8

Monthly
$52
$75
$125

Senior Monthly
$12
$37.50
$60




So what does this sort of fare increase mean for Angelenos that use public transportation? If you’re paying cash the fare increase won’t affect you that much because it will remain $1.25 per trip until 2009 when it increases by 75 cents. But if you rely on public transit because you’re trying to reduce your carbon foot-print, you’re disabled, or you don’t own a car, you probably have a weekly or monthly pass.

For example, if you are a senior or disabled person who receives SSI ($812 per month) you barely have enough money for rent, let alone food and other necessities. The current cost of a monthly pass would require you to spend about 2% of your income on a monthly pass, but in July you would be spending about 3% and in 2009 you would be spending 7% of your income.

Suppose you are a single mom with two kids trying to hold it together with a $732/month CalWORKs check. Again, this is hardly enough money for rent and definitely not enough to have a car. Right now a pass at $52/month swallows about 7% of your scant monthly income. By 2009, it will cost $125 – a whopping 17% of your total monthly income. We just hope your landlord takes note and lowers your rent.

What if you work full time as a security guard making $10/hour? Now you set aside about 3% of your income to buy a $52 monthly pass. By 2009 the $125 monthly pass will consume over 7% of your paycheck. Security guards are going to need a substantial raise over the next two years to maintain their standard of living in the face of such a large fare increase.

We understand that Metro has to make hard choices to balance their budget, but we can’t help but believe that there is a better way than making our seniors shut-ins, leaving our welfare moms stranded with no way to get to work, or squeezing the lowest wage workers until they say “uncle.” It’s hard not to think that if more of that $19 billion or the billions of other state and federal highway subsidies went towards public transportation, perhaps we wouldn’t be facing a fare increase today.

Let your voice be heard at the public hearing on May 24. Click here to find out more information.

MTA SUCKS!!!!!

Keep fare low and people would ride it!!!!!!

But it is also about gaining a profit in order to expand the system. The people just have to deal. They can have:
-Same bus and rail system, no expansion, streets getting more traffic, more pollution
-Raise fare, deal with it for a bit, bus and rail gets expansion, more people ride, not as much pollution

MTA SUCKS!!!!!

Keep fare low and people would ride it!!!!!!

"Ferney" excuse me but people do ride metro. LA has the third highest rail ridership #'s in the country and if we throw in the interagencies it more or less ties with Chicago. Yet Chicago has a day pass that is $6 and ours is $3! SF day pass is a whopping $11 and NYC is $7. MTA has not raised fares in 10 years, it's time for a modest increase.
IF their exists another way the MTA can dig themselves out of this mess(short of reducing Snoble's salary to $40,000 a year) please let's discuss this.
But you and I both know that even if the bus were free, you and all the people that drive beside you to and from work would not take it.

^ (K) you don't understand how sick and tired I am of traffic. I had to quit my good paying job because of the commute and dealing with traffic on a daily basis. If MTA had a line that went from the LAX area to the Valley, I've would of still been working....

Seriously why is MTA jacking up the price to $2 a ride, that's insane. I would understand 10 or 20 cents but almost an entire dollar. Plus transfer if you want catch a secondary bus, Double Wow what a turn off.. :ohno:

^^ :blah: :blah: :blah: so what's new..... A Monorail or a hopeful Subway to the beach, pick one?

Um, a subway to the beach can use the same cars and infrastructure as the existing subway. A monorail could actually cost more since more money has to be invested in buying new, untested vehicles (all new vehicles for a totally separate rail line can cost more, since there is no comparative cost precedent from older cars), plus another yard/maintenance facility which needs to be built in order to store and service them.

The subway to the sea is in effect a Purple Line extension which is effect part of our heavy rail infrastructure. All cars would be stored and serviced at the EXISTING Metro Rail yard on Santa Fe Avenue in Downtown.

But it is also about gaining a profit in order to expand the system. The people just have to deal. They can have:
-Same bus and rail system, no expansion, streets getting more traffic, more pollution
-Raise fare, deal with it for a bit, bus and rail gets expansion, more people ride, not as much pollution

Sorry to inform you but the capital/construction budget of the MTA is totally separate from the operating budget of the MTA. Money allocated to construction of new rail lines/projects cannot be used to operate existing buses or trains. This is where the Bus Riders Union is fundamentally and totally incorrect in its reasoning.

Seriously why is MTA jacking up the price to $2 a ride, that's insane. I would understand 10 or 20 cents but almost an entire dollar. Plus transfer if you want catch a secondary bus, Double Wow what a turn off.. :ohno:

The reason is because of that fuckin stupid Bus Riders Union Consent Decree. They forced the MTA to not raise fares, which sounds good on paper, and spectacular to all the minorities the BRU loves to exploit, but during the span of the Consent Decree, operating expenses have increased and now that the Decree has expired, the MTA, in order to recoup costs must inflate the price of its fares steeply.

Had the Consent Decree not existed, the MTA would have instated a much more gradual fare increase.

The Bus Riders Union is damaging to Los Angeles area transit!!!! That is the absolute truth!

No don't be sorry, I didn't know that. Now I do.

But yeah, I meant it in general. I didn't say anything about money from new rail lines be used for existing buses/trains. I'm just guessing that if MTA gets more money[profit] from raising fares, doesn't that mean they can add to what they have already. I'm getting confused.

The reason is because of that fuckin stupid Bus Riders Union Consent Decree. They forced the MTA to not raise fares, which sounds good on paper, and spectacular to all the minorities the BRU loves to exploit, but during the span of the Consent Decree, operating expenses have increased and now that the Decree has expired, the MTA, in order to recoup costs must inflate the price of its fares steeply.

Had the Consent Decree not existed, the MTA would have instated a much more gradual fare increase.

The Bus Riders Union is damaging to Los Angeles area transit!!!! That is the absolute truth!

So glad to see you back "El" I knew that you would shed some light on this most controversial subject.
Now even my boyfriend is siding w/ the 'don't raise fares' crowd after reading that stupid article where Kotkin is talking about only 4 people riding the Gold Line during rush hour. Funny how Kotkin didn't cite the Red or Blue Lines packed to the gills during rush or even the Green. I went on a tirade when he mentioned this article!

I was glad to hear about the construction budget being separate from the operating budget. What a great idea for our budding system.

What is left on the construction budget and what can be done with it. Also, when we finish our system (who knows when that will be), will the money be available to the operating budget?

Relief on the road
Construction begins on 60 Freeway HOV lanes
By Fred Ortega Staff Writer

INDUSTRY - Local officials broke ground Wednesday on a $125 million car-pool project on the Pomona (60) Freeway, part of a broader effort to relieve congestion on the San Gabriel Valley's major east-west arteries.

The project, which will add a car-pool lane in each direction of the 60 between the San Gabriel River (605) and Orange (57) freeways, is expected to be completed by 2010 and will save car-poolers time on their commutes, said Caltrans District 7 Director Doug Failing.

"This is one of many \ lane projects Caltrans is working on," said Failing, standing in the parking lot of the Puente Hills Mall as truck traffic buzzed behind him on the 60. "But few routes are as important to goods movement as the 60 Freeway."

Failing said the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is contributing the bulk of the project's costs - about $76 million. The federal government is pitching in another $19 million, while the L.A. County Sanitation Districts is contributing about $250,000 for landscaping improvements.

Sound walls will also be constructed along major portions of the project's 11.5 mile length.

The 60 car-pool lane is a vital component of plans meant to reduce congestion throughout the San Gabriel Valley, said Duarte City Councilman John Fasana, a member of the MTA board of directors.

"We are moving forward with plans for \ car-pool lanes on the 10 Freeway," said Fasana, referring to the MTA board's March decision to authorize

$356.5 million to extend HOV lanes on the 10 from the 605 to the 57 freeways. "These are vital links from Los Angeles to points east and west."

About 211,000 commuters use the stretch of the 60 between the 605 and 57 every day, according to Caltrans estimates.

The Foothill (210) Freeway already has car-pool lanes along its length, said Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich.

"With this project and as we move ahead on the 10 car-pool extension, we will be able to close the car-pool gap in the Valley," Antonovich said.

He added that new car-pool lanes, in conjunction with freight rail projects like the Alameda Corridor, are part of a forward-looking vision to handle the increased cargo coming into the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Antonovich said those two ports are expected to handle 70 percent to 80percent of all goods coming to the United States within the next 20 years.

The first phase of the project is expected to begin May 21, as workers lay concrete barriers along the outside shoulder of the freeway on the first phase between Azusa Avenue and Crossroads Parkway, said Tim Wilson, project executive for Skanska, Caltrans' contractor on the project.

"Traffic won't get affected; they won't even lose a lane," said Wilson, adding that the first phase will last about a year while the roadway is widened and sound walls and landscaping is constructed.

The adding of the new car-pool lane and reconstruction of the median is not expected to take place until 2009, Wilson said.

City to create peak-time bus lane on Wilshire
From Times Staff and Wire Reports
May 3, 2007

The City Council voted Wednesday to create a peak period bus lane on Wilshire Boulevard between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica.

The $14-million project, which includes major street repairs, is not funded. Nor was a time frame set for implementing the plan.

City officials hope to reduce gridlock in the heavily traveled corridor by making bus ridership more appealing to solo drivers.

As part of the deal, the City Council will temporarily close the one-mile stretch of existing bus lanes between Barrington and Centinela avenues.

^ Don't they understand that plan is going to make the traffic on Wilshire even worst...:ohno:

GOOD!!

^OK... So traffic can get worst and still no Subway??? That's an excellent plan!!!!

Hopefully members of the City Council get stuck in traffic along Wilshire to see the stupidity they've created...:ohno:

that's awesome...I hope everyone gets tired enough of traffic to take the freakin' BUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

^^ In L.A..... C' mon Now!

that's awesome...I hope everyone gets tired enough of traffic to take the freakin' BUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
better be sure to look out for the lead foots and people that dont watch were the hell they are going. or you'll end up like newport beach lady...

¿¿¿WHAT???...............

read the news ferny...

No time to read extremely busy guy... Also we've discussed "ferny" not so long ago!

dated... but still significant
April 30, 2007
Metro Board of Directors Approves Purchase of up to 100 More New 60-Foot High-Capacity Buses

The Board of Directors of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) today approved purchasing up to 100 new 60-foot high capacity, compressed natural gas (CNG) buses from North American Bus Industries. The total procurement is $86,428,426, which includes fareboxes, radios and spare parts.

Delivery of these new articulated buses will be completed by Spring 2008. The new buses can seat almost 50 percent more passengers (57 seats) than a standard 40-foot bus and will be used to improve service on the most popular Metro bus lines.

“This purchase reaffirms Metro’s commitment to provide the best service for the bus riders of the Los Angeles region,” said Metro Chair Board and Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina.

Metro now has a fleet of 2,500 buses and 90 percent of them are fueled by natural gas. Today Metro operates 275 articulated buses and plans to have another 20 in service by this summer.

^ old news...

9 days is not that old. its not like 9 months ago

They need those on Venice blvd. Why isn't there a Rapid there?!

I think a Venice Rapid route may be up in the next round of Rapid Lines this June. I know Santa Monica Blvd will be getting a rapid route this summer and I think Olympic and Pico might get one as well.

^ Oh yeah the MTA buses on Pico are like sardines thru out the day. Which I'm assuming they run like every 5 minutes. There's one on every corner the majority of time.

Santa Monica Blvd Rapid Route = :rock:

That sucker is going to get a lot of use! I will be definately be one of the riders.

[QUOTE=LAsam;13100291]Santa Monica Blvd Rapid Route = :rock:


^ I've seen those on Lincoln approaching LAX and not too many riders. The Culver City Buses have more ridership during rush hour. I guess the new color scheme it received it's hard to tell it's a Rapid. Too dark and not very inviting I must say, like the regular Big Blue. Which looks like there's a party and it's fun to ride for some reason...

[QUOTE=LAsam;13100291]Santa Monica Blvd Rapid Route = :rock:


^ I've seen those on Lincoln approaching LAX and not too many riders. The Culver City Buses have more ridership during rush hour. I guess the new color scheme it received it's hard to tell it's a Rapid. Too dark and not very inviting I must say, like the regular Big Blue. Which looks like there's a party and it's fun to ride for some reason...

I'm not sure what youre talking about, because the rapid blue in santa monica and venice is always packed. the riders must get off before they get to the airport.

^ I'm referring to the Lincoln Line (LAX) route!..... So how many Rapid lines does the Big Blue have anyways?
Oh did I mentioned that I dislike the dark livery on it....

Theres only one Rapid Blue line. Its the #3 line that runs from the 3rd st promenade area to the aviation green line station mostly along lincoln. i used to live pretty close to you ferney, i never saw many bus riders in playa or westchester either, but there are lots of bus riders in venice and santa monica.

Seriously they only have one Rapid, I could of swore there was a couple lines out there. Double Damn so line 3 is the only one....
As far as ridership in my hood, you bet there's a good handfull. Especially for the CC bus and the MTA bus # forty something I believe it is, I'll need to check tonight when I go to Ralph's.

I think Santa Monica has a rapid 3 and a rapid 12... I was referring to a Metro Rapid Bus Line. I like me a good bendy bus!

I think Santa Monica has a rapid 3 and a rapid 12... I was referring to a Metro Rapid Bus Line. I like me a good bendy bus!

I'm pretty excited about this new route too. I live in Santa Monica and work in Century City, so hopefully this new line will be quicker than the 304. I'm willing to give up driving to workif the commute by bus can be cut down a decent amount. Currently, a trip by bus takes over 45 minutes or more each way. I'm hoping the new 704 will make the trip closer to 30 minutes

Anyone have information on the routes in 2008? Perferably, the Torrance Transit #3 Rapid? I can't wait til they start this. The thing I can't stand about the #3 is that regardless of the times, they only come like every 20 minutes, and when they do, they're always being tailed by another bus thats hardly full, but the first bus always stops, and that one is PACKED! It doesn't make sense at all. And they always do this. It sucks.

The thing I can't stand about the #3 is that regardless of the times, they only come like every 20 minutes, and when they do, they're always being tailed by another bus thats hardly full, but the first bus always stops, and that one is PACKED! It doesn't make sense at all. And they always do this. It sucks.

^ A perfect example why some avoid public transit and prefer to drive. Work school are stressful enough and dealing with this mess too. No Thank You!!!!

^ A perfect example why some avoid public transit and prefer to drive. Work school are stressful enough and dealing with this mess too. No Thank You!!!!

Actually, the solution is simply to spread the buses out so they come every ten minutes and they're not as full. Besides, its pretty fun taking the 3 to the mall. My English teacher actually took us on a field trip there on it. It was awesome, especially our whole class running for it, thinking we'll miss it. :lol:

Also, anyone seen the new Metro commercials? I actually like them. And recorded them on the Tivo :lol:

Also, anyone seen the new Metro commercials? I actually like them. And recorded them on the Tivo :lol:


^ No, but can you share...

Basically a safety video, saying don't run for trains and such. They also had this catchy little rap to go along with it. There was another one about not graffiting which was also awesome.

Hi,

I would like to know the commute time end-to-end on Red/Purple, Blue, Green and Orange lines.

Since the new signal modifications it takes Gold 29 minutes between Union and SMV (24 on express trains) from what I've read, I'm just curious about the others.

Thanks.

put it on youtube... i tried to do a search for it but found a hole lot of nothing

Hi,

I would like to know the commute time end-to-end on Red/Purple, Blue, Green and Orange lines.

Since the new signal modifications it takes Gold 29 minutes between Union and SMV (24 on express trains) from what I've read, I'm just curious about the others.

Thanks.
I'm not sure where you would find this information, try here:
http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=ExpoLine

Gold Line extension riders predicted
Pasadena-Azusa future light-rail use calculated
By Alison Hewitt, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 05/20/2007 01:08:43 AM PDT


The Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority has predicted that people will get on the Pasadena-to-Azusa Gold Line extension 9,500 times a day - in the year 2030.
Ridership figures required by the Federal Transit Administration - the gatekeepers for federal funding - are pegged to far-off dates, not to opening day in 2012, Gold Line Extension officials said.

Gold Line supporters hope to extend the light-rail line 24 miles, from east Pasadena to Montclair and, eventually, L.A./Ontario International Airport.

Setting 2030 as the ridership year allows the FTA to consider how many people a transit project is likely to serve after becoming established, and to compare diverse projects on an even footing, an FTA spokesman said.

The Gold Line extension authority is still calculating how many riders to expect in 2012. How the extension authority came up with the 9,500 figure is complicated, project manager Mike Cannell said.

"That ridership number is a combination of assumptions and variables that are very, very confusing, based upon human factors such as age, income, how people look at the price of gasoline," Cannell said.

The model does not break down the incomes of riders,


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannell said, but does use residency figures from a forecast by the Southern California Association of Governments.
In 2030, residents near the Gold Line extension would be 39percent low income, 44percent medium income, and 17percent high income, according to SCAG.

A survey released in November touted the Gold Line's ability to attract higher-income riders compared to other light-rail lines in the county. The survey was designed to get the FTA to allow the Gold Line to count those people in the ridership model.

The ridership model predicting 9,500 boardings - about 4,750 riders - also predicts that the 12-mile extension will save riders 7,300 traveling hours per weekday. It will also get 5,100 cars off the road each commuting day, according to figures pulled from the model by Cannell.

The model also estimates that 51percent of Gold Line extension trips would be for work; 25percent would be for errands and shopping; and 15percent would be for school.

The FTA is still analyzing how the Pasadena-to-Azusa extension compares, on a cost-per-ride basis, to other projects vying for federal dollars. The overall cost is estimated at $400million, but still needs to be approved by the FTA.

The other Gold Line extension - from downtown Los Angeles to East Los Angeles - has received funding approval, Metropolitan Transportation Authority spokesman Rick Jager said. The cost of the 6-mile line, expected to open in 2009, is estimated at $898million, with 17,000 daily boardings in 2020.

The existing Gold Line, a $750million project from downtown Los Angeles to Pasadena, runs 13.7 miles and had 18,516 daily boardings in April, Jager said.

Light Rail from Downtown LA to Ontario Airport is just retarded! This extension further east on the northern end is such a waste of money. If anything it should be going in the opposite direction west to hook up w/ the Red Line terminus and Orange Line.

oops

Light Rail from Downtown LA to Ontario Airport is just retarded! This extension further east on the northern end is such a waste of money. If anything it should be going in the opposite direction west to hook up w/ the Red Line terminus and Orange Line.

So right about that! However, at this point they can extend this into the forest as long as they just build it, baby!!!!:banana: :banana: :banana:

Light Rail from Downtown LA to Ontario Airport is just retarded! This extension further east on the northern end is such a waste of money. If anything it should be going in the opposite direction west to hook up w/ the Red Line terminus and Orange Line.

First of all, the Foothill extension is cheap and it would gain a lot of people who commute from those communities along the path. Now I agree that it shouldn't be built all the way to Ontario; it should only go to Azusa since that is where the traffic starts and ends on the 210.

However, we do need a Metrolink stop for Ontario Airport. I think that's it would be on the Riverside Line, but I'm not too sure.

Now the westward extension to North Hollywood would be very expensive, but it would serve some major destinations, such as the Glendale Galleria/Downtown Glendale and Burbank.

So, which do you think would most likely get the funding first?

Bur-Pas-Glen are all looking to come up with a mass transit mode that would fit their area be it light rail or BRT. It would be a shame for the heavily populated and trip generator heavy tri-cities to come up w/ BRT while the sparse Foothill extension area gets a light rail, but that's what it looks like for now.

First of all, the Foothill extension is cheap and it would gain a lot of people who commute from those communities along the path.

First of all, $400 million is not cheap! Secondly, is it worth that much money to attract 9,500 riders a day in the year 2030. If that money were instead allocated to the red line, using the cost predictions of $300 million per mile, it would take you to about Rossmore. I'm guessing extending the red line 1.5 miles to Rossmore would attract 9,500 additional riders the day that it opened.

Probably so. Hey does anyone want to go to the MTA fare hike meeting on Thursday the 24th at 9am??

400 million is cheap for the length of the extension. A westside extension of the Gold Line would be much more expensive.

Mayor seeks to ease MTA hikes
Villaraigosa proposes smaller increases to help low-income bus riders and suggests ways the agency can free up cash to cover expected deficit.
By Duke Helfand and Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writers
May 22, 2007

Assailing sweeping bus fare hikes proposed by the MTA as "extreme," Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Monday called for more modest increases that would ease the financial crunch on low-income riders.

Villaraigosa offered his plan as part of a larger strategy to address the agency's estimated $104-million deficit for the coming fiscal year, a figure that Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials fear could balloon without new revenue. The MTA provides mass transit across Los Angeles County.

To make up for the more modest increases, the mayor suggested that the transit agency free up cash by borrowing money to finance the purchase of buses and rail cars over the coming years, slightly reduce the frequency of rail service and aggressively pursue state gas tax money.

Villaraigosa, who sits on the 13-member MTA board along with three of his appointees, laid out his scenario in a letter to fellow board members. The board is scheduled to vote on the fare hikes Thursday.

Under the mayor's plan, cash fares would remain untouched at $1.25. Other prices would rise about 5% annually to keep up with labor and fuel expenses.

As a result, the mayor proposed that the cost of a day pass would rise from its current level of $3 to $3.31 in 2009 — compared with MTA's proposal of a hike to $8 in that span.

Also under Villaraigosa's plan, monthly passes would increase from $52 to $57.33 in 2009, far less than the MTA proposal of reaching $120 by that year.

In his letter to the board, the mayor said the "proposed increases are extreme and would have a fundamentally negative impact on ridership and our most vulnerable customers, many of whom are low income and transit dependent."

MTA chief Roger Snoble declined to comment on the mayor's proposal, saying through a spokesman that he wanted to review it further. But in a Times opinion piece last month, Snoble argued that the MTA's operating deficit is siphoning money that could be used to help build transit and highway projects.

Agency spokesman Marc Littman said the MTA recovers 24% of its operating costs from fares — below the 38% recovered by most large transit agencies. And fares have been largely stagnant for the last decade, even as the MTA has purchased 2,100 buses, he said.

The MTA faces difficult choices as it struggles to balance its books, Littman said.

"If you don't do it with fares, then you have to do it some other way, and the other way is to cut service, and we don't want to do that," he said.

The L.A. Bus Riders Union rejected Villaraigosa's overture, saying any fare increase would reduce ridership, increase pollution and ultimately hurt the city's poorest residents.

Statistics provided by the mayor's office showed that 81% of MTA bus passengers earn $15,000 to $24,999 a year.

"Our position is no fare increase at all — not one cent," said Damon Azali, a senior organizer for the Bus Riders Union. "Once they win the right to a fare increase, they will keep pushing it."

Azali and other critics of the proposed hikes have accused the MTA of spending too much on a rail system that serves a small portion of Los Angeles County at the expense of badly needed bus service on some of the region's most crowded routes.

Villaraigosa acknowledged that his proposed increase in debt financing could ultimately slow the MTA's ability to build transit projects. But the mayor reiterated his call for a greater expansion of mass transit in the city and region.

"While we have a duty to ensure that our bus system is robust, the MTA also has obligations to invest in our rail system and our highways," he wrote. "I truly believe that the MTA must develop a multi-modal system, one that has a first-class bus system, a first-class rail system and a first-class highway system."

:banana:

I hate the BRU.

I think $3.31 is unreasonable in 2009. I'm willing to shell out $5 for a day pass besides it's still cheap compared to other major US cities.

I would not mind the San Gabriel Valley getting a Light Rail Extension, heck I dont mind if it Reaches L.A.O., but not before the Purple line, the downtown connector or the L.A.X. green light extension.....
it just sounds ludacris to even Imagine azusa with light rail before Fairfax!!!
FUND THE PURPLE LINE!!!!!!!!!

You are correct. You win at life.

So whatever happened to the LAUS Run-Through Tracks? I had seen a report on it from a while back, but I haven't heard anything for months.

for the gold line?

those are basically done on the caltrans end.

I think he means for the Red line?? Anyway, I won't be able to attend the "Fare Hike" battle tomorrow, I've been called in for jury duty believe it or not. On the day that I really would have liked to have gone to this historic meeting. Oh well, anyone going? Tomorrow at 9am at the MTA "Taj Mahal" building at Union Station. Did anyone attend the Transit Coalition meeting last night? The guy from the Expo Line was there to discuss..?

just tell them you took a logic class and they'll give you the boot

... or your on multiple prescription drugs and can't function properly.

So whatever happened to the LAUS Run-Through Tracks? I had seen a report on it from a while back, but I haven't heard anything for months.

I'm talking about the other tracks, the ones for Metrolink and Amtrak.

the EIS was done, I believe theyre just waiting for funding.

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_5972389

Half-speed ahead for bullet train
L.A., Bay Area on route, but San Diego, others dropped
BY HARRISON SHEPPARD, Sacramento Bureau
Article Last Updated: 05/23/2007 10:17:29 PM PDT



SACRAMENTO - Travelers in Anaheim, Los Angeles and the Bay Area will be first to ride the state's multibillion-dollar bullet train - if it ever gets built - the rail agency decided Wednesday.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority board, which is pursuing the project in several segments, decided to build first in areas that are expected to have the highest ridership and generate the most revenue.

That means that while the first segment could open by 2017, stops in San Diego, Irvine, the Inland Empire and Sacramento - which have been on earlier plans - will be postponed for years after that date.

"If we wish to do something, we need to figure out how to start moving forward in bite-sized pieces - pieces that have true ends," said board member Curt Pringle, the mayor of Anaheim. "I think this is an appropriate way to focus and move forward."

Under the plan approved Wednesday, the first segment would start in Anaheim, then stop in downtown Los Angeles, Burbank, Sylmar and Palmdale before heading up through the Central Valley to the San Francisco Bay Area.

With bullet trains operating at speeds up to 220 mph, the express travel time between Los Angeles and San Francisco is roughly 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hours, according to the authority.
The authority board has yet to chose between two potential routes through Northern California or name specific stops in the Bay Area.

Decades struggle

High-speed rail in California - now estimated to cost $40 billion - has struggled for decades to gain public support and funding, and once again is facing the threat of a setback.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is trying to slash the authority's operating budget and postpone a $10 billion bond measure that is tentatively slated for 2008. The bond measure had originally been scheduled for a vote in 2004, but the Legislature has already postponed it twice.

Schwarzenegger has said he supports the concept of high-speed rail, but thinks the authority has to do more planning before it can receive major funding.

In fact, authority members Wednesday discussed a financing plan that they acknowledged was very general and lacked commitments from the private sector or the federal government.

"The authority needs to come up with a strong financing plan on where that additional revenue is going to come from, before we move forward with the bond," said Adam Mendelsohn, spokesman for the governor.

"He's absolutely committed to high-speed rail, believes it's critical for California's infrastructure growth, but also believes it's in the best interest of taxpayers that there be a strong financing plan developed before the additional revenue is put forward."

The Legislature is holding hearings to consider restoring at least some of the authority's operating funding for next year.

The authority was divided 5-2 in its decision Wednesday to pick an initial segment.

San Diego left out

Board member Lynn Schenk, a former congresswoman from San Diego, objected to her city being left off the initial route. Member Jeff Crane, an adviser to the governor, opposed the plan because he felt the project should have a more specific financing plan first.

Schenk, who has been involved in high-speed rail since the 1970s, said the San Diego-to-Los Angeles segment would be heavily traveled and should be part of the first stage.

"I believe by adopting the entire corridor as the first phase, we can get there much more quickly," Schenk said. "I can't vote for any plan approval that will leave San Diego in the high-speed rail dustbin of history."

But the board's executive director, Mehdi Moshed, said several areas along the Southern California route are difficult to plan right now.

Regional governmental groups in San Diego and Los Angeles are studying privately funded proposals to build high-speed rail systems using magnetic levitation technology, which would be incompatible with the steel-wheel technique included in the authority's plan.

He also said that heavy development in those areas makes it more difficult to choose a route for the line. He argued that those questions should be resolved before moving forward with planning a segment in that region.

harrison.sheppard

@dailynews.com

(916) 446-6723

:dance:

[QUOTE=Buildingfrenzy;13348106]http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_5972389

SACRAMENTO - Travelers in Anaheim, Los Angeles and the Bay Area will be first to ride the state's multibillion-dollar bullet train - if it ever gets built - the rail agency decided Wednesday.



^^ I've read enough...

[QUOTE=Buildingfrenzy;13348106]http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_5972389

SACRAMENTO - Travelers in Anaheim, Los Angeles and the Bay Area will be first to ride the state's multibillion-dollar bullet train - if it ever gets built - the rail agency decided Wednesday.



^^ I've read enough...

Fern, whacha mean?

Well let's see, if there's no money for a Subway to the ocean for a county. What makes you think there's money for a high speed train for the state. If that was the case don't you think Amtrak (Pacific Surfliner) would of been upgraded a long time ago. Until I see the crew building it, I won't hold my breath for it.

MTA approves a smaller fare hike
By Rong-Gong Lin II and Jeffrey L. Rabin, Times Staff Writers
4:55 PM PDT, May 24, 2007

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board of directors today voted to hike fares today, but by a smaller amount than the agency had originally sought.

The compromise, written by county Supervisors Gloria Molina and Zev Yaroslavsky, calls for fare increases that are larger than proposed in the plan put forward by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The mayor's plan was rejected by the board earlier today, handing him a significant political defeat. Other than his three appointees, Villaraigosa received only one other vote of support.

The action came after a daylong hearing that drew 1,500 observers to MTA headquarters near Union Station, some who spoke about the fare hikes and more who protested outside the meeting. The fare-hike proposal pitted rail riders against those who use a bus in a mass-transit system that serves a region plagued by clogged highways and roads.

Most of the demonstrators opposed the original increase, which would have raised the cash fare for both rail and bus to $2 per ride from $1.25. The monthly pass would have increased to $120 from $52 over the next 19 months.

Instead, under the compromise plan that was approved, fares will increase to $1.50 by July 1, 2010, then $1.80 by 2012. The $3 daily pass will jump to $5 by 2008, $6 in 2010 and $7.25 two years later. The $52 monthly pass will go up to $62 in 2008, $75 in 2010 and $90 in 2012.

A special 25-cent fare will be established for the disabled and seniors 65 and older. The fare would be in effect 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. and after 7 p.m. on weekdays, and all day Saturday, Sunday and federal holidays. It will increase to 30 cents in 2010 and 35 cents in 2012.

Earlier in the day, MTA chief executive Roger Snoble defended the proposed larger increase, saying: "We are at a crossroads."

"We have a great system," he said. "We just can't pay for it."

"In the final analysis, the choice comes to raising fares or decreasing service," he said.

The morning began with more than 200 chanting protesters crowded into the marble lobby of the MTA building, two floors below the board room, where the 13 directors listened to speakers condemn the increase. The protesters' chants, in English and Spanish, could be heard upstairs.

The number of demonstrators steadily grew throughout the day to more than 1,500, police said. The MTA boardroom can hold about 300, so officials were forced to open four overflow rooms, including the cafeteria, to accommodate the crowd. Security was tight.

By midday, only about a third of the 300 people registered to speak had testified. Most were low-income bus riders, union organizers, students, seniors and disabled people, opposing any increase.

Lucy Duran, 62, of Mount Washington, told the panel that her family "can't even get a gallon of milk on our table," much less afford to pay more to ride the bus.

"The fare increase means less food for us, even fewer tortillas on the table," she said.

Roger Christensen, chairman of the MTA's Citizen Advisory Council and an appointee of MTA board member Richard Katz, spoke in favor of the proposed larger fare increases and agreed that they should be spread out over several years.

"We do feel this is necessary and very long overdue," he said. "We have to face the structural deficit."

Officials say the increases are needed to close a projected deficit created, in part, by the court-ordered expansion of bus service, as well as by the expansion of the rail network.

Rising fuel prices and employee benefits have also hit the agency hard, officials complain.

The MTA is struggling with $4.7 billion in debt accrued over the years to build rail lines and other capital projects, including its $300-million, 26-story downtown headquarters.

The fare increases particularly irritate bus riders at a time when officials are spending $1.5 billion for a network of new rail lines.

Although 82% of all MTA boardings are on buses, the agency is increasingly bullish on rail projects, which officials see as a long-term solution for moving large numbers of people across the region as street congestion increases. At 73 total miles of rail, the MTA's system is still much smaller than those of other major cities and leaves many parts of the county without service.

The MTA is pushing for the higher fares as officials construct new rail projects to East Los Angeles and Culver City. It is also planning new routes from Pasadena to Azusa and from Culver City to Santa Monica.

Some critics charge that the fare hike essentially funds rail improvements at the expense of bus riders, who tend to be significantly less affluent than rail riders, according to MTA statistics. The median household income of a bus rider is $12,000, according to the MTA, compared with $22,000 for a rail rider.

At an earlier news conference in a bus yard a block away from MTA headquarters, pushed for his proposal, which seeks a smaller fare increase. The mayor, who sits on the board, called for a 5% fare increase during each of the next five years.

Villaraigosa was flanked by representatives from the Los Angeles Federation of Labor, AARP, the Coalition for Clean Air and other groups.

"Rome wasn't built in a day, and this deficit wasn't created overnight," the mayor said. "It's wrong to balance the MTA budget on the backs of seniors, the disabled, students and low-income families."

The mayor suggested that the MTA reduce the frequency of rail service and borrow to buy new buses rather than pay for them immediately.

He acknowledged that the county transportation agency may have to slow down construction of new light rail lines as part of his proposal, including phase two of the Expo and Gold lines.

Times staff writer Michael Muskal contributed to this report.

(Saiholmes)
Instead, under the compromise plan that was approved, fares will increase to $1.50 by July 1, 2010, then $1.80 by 2012. The $3 daily pass will jump to $5 by 2008, $6 in 2010 and $7.25 two years later. The $52 monthly pass will go up to $62 in 2008, $75 in 2010 and $90 in 2012.


^^ So that's not so bad, so why is everyone bickering about?

Decent compromise. I hope we are still able to continue building rail and adding more busses at the same speed and momentum. Damien was quoted as one of the speakers at the meeting on Friday! Damien if you are out there, could you please brief those of us who did not have a chance to attend about how you thought it all went, the BRU, the continued expansion of Metro Rail and bus service.

Here's what I'm confused about. Everyone was saying how the fare increase would go to pay for rail projects. But isn't that budget completely seperate? Isn't all that rail requires from this budget the operating cost? I don't understand the argument. Maybe if Metro wasn't required to buy all those buses by the BRU, we wouldn't have such a problem.

What cost Metro more, the buses that the BRU required them to buy, or the rail system?

Trying to do both. The system is actually a decent system and even a decent system is expensive to maintain. Also busses carry less people than trains and need more drivers to operate therefore being more expensive to operate a bus dominat system that is so large while trying to build a rail system w/o any bond measures, no new taxes etc. etc. The Car/Oil/Bus Drivers Lobby never want to see LA w/ an expansive rail system and neither does the BRU. Why else would the BRU support a transit strike that hurt the very people they say they are fighting for????

there is no difference between The Car/Oil/Bus Drivers Lobby and the BRU. thats on of the main problems with those fuckers. i wonder how many BRU members got to the meeting on Rail.

Port complex aspires to be bustling, clean
Expansion is aimed at reinforcing Pacific Rim dominance, but the neighbors are more interested in cutting air pollution and blight.
By Louis Sahagun, Times Staff Writer
May 28, 2007

As officials work on the details of a much-heralded plan to combat pollution at the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex, the two ports are gearing up to fortify their dominance of the nation's Pacific Rim trade with long-delayed expansion projects.

The projects call for enlarging terminals and rail yards, building a marine terminal for crude oil and widening roads. An aging Long Beach bridge would be replaced — at the cost of $864 million — to allow larger container ships to visit what is already the nation's busiest port complex.

If all goes according to plan, the ports hope to begin work on at least four of a dozen high-priority expansion projects by this time next year. Setting all this activity in motion was approval last fall by commissioners at both ports of their $2-billion Clean Air Action Plan, which aims to reduce harbor emissions by 50% over five years.

"This is the biggest piece of work this city has undertaken in some time," said Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners President David Freeman. "We're going to grow and we're going to clean up this place or my head will be served up on a silver platter in Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office."

Still, it won't be easy convincing port communities that large-scale industrial growth and a healthy environment aren't mutually exclusive goals.

There remain ongoing tensions between the fast-growing ports and neighborhoods enduring their side effects: air pollution, industrial blight, heavy truck traffic, excessive noise and light, container terminal projects that consume homes and businesses and higher rates of asthma and cancer.

State air quality and health experts have linked 2,400 premature deaths a year to noxious emissions produced by the ports, which reported an average 10% increase in trade in 2006. A state study released last week showed that residents who live near rail yards face higher cancer risks from soot.

Now the big question being asked harbor-wide, from the working-class neighborhoods of Wilmington and west Long Beach to the Dalmatian-American Club of San Pedro, is this: Will port growth outpace the mitigation efforts?

Tom Politeo, a spokesman for the Sierra Club's Angeles Chapter, worries that some expansion projects could be up and running before the ports' clean air plan is fully implemented.

"The level of technology being described is not up to the task when you have an industry growing at a rate of 11% per year," Politeo said. "Even if everything in the ports is 90% cleaner, you'll eventually lose ground on the basis of current growth rates."

Robert Kanter, director of planning and environmental affairs for the Port of Long Beach, disagreed.

"Unless we can clean the air, we're not going to move forward with any of these projects. The community won't allow it," he said. "In fact, I expect that every one of the environmental impact documents for these projects will be challenged and end up in court."

A court challenge has delayed some of the projects for about six years. The Los Angeles City Council approved plans in 2001 for a 174-acre terminal for China Shipping Container Lines Co., prompting lawsuits by environmental groups that wanted assurances that environmental reviews would be properly completed.

That suit ended in 2003 with the port and city of Los Angeles announcing an unusual $60-million settlement with the environmental groups. Most of the money will go to a wide array of projects to reduce air pollution.

Although the suit did not directly affect other expansion projects, it had a chilling effect on plans for other efforts. It also helped prompt the drafting of the Clean Air Action Plan.

Officials continue to refine the plan, and last month approved, as part of it, what was billed as an unprecedented overhaul of dockside trucking to reduce diesel pollution from trucks by 80% in five years.

Calls to reduce pollution are driven in part by the increase in trade at the port complex over the last decade or so.

The value of containerized trade — led by imported furniture; clothing and shoes; computers and office machines; autos, trucks and motorcycles; and toys — soared from $74 billion in 1994 to $305 billion in 2006. That's an increase of 312%.

Port trade, which helps support an estimated 3.3 million jobs from California to New York, is expected to double by 2020, port officials said.

The projects range from a $90-million container terminal expansion plan to the replacement for the Gerald Desmond Bridge, believed to be the only significant bridge in the nation wearing "diapers," large wire nets that prevent chunks of exfoliating concrete from falling into the water and streets below.

On the north shore of the bridge, port officials want to build a showcase of green shipping technology on the last parcel of undeveloped land on Terminal Island. The 160-acre Pier S terminal would include shoreline electric power for freighters, low-emission locomotives and equipment and trucks designed to operate on alternative fuels.

But the ports' vision is an unnerving one to Elina Green, project manager of the Long Beach Alliance for Children With Asthma.

"What happens if these projects are built and the ports fail to achieve the levels of emissions reductions they're promising?" Green asked. "Already, we have higher rates of asthma in Long Beach than in Los Angeles County [as a whole] or even statewide.

"There's so much fog and murkiness around their rosy predictions," she added. "They say growing green means expanding terminals and putting more trucks on the road. What's cleaner about that? It's not logical."

As part of an effort to deal with such questions, port authorities are developing public relations campaigns aimed at helping people to, as one port spokesman put it, "connect the dots in terms of how products get from overseas to the shelves of a local store."

To make the ports hip, they are also creating a traveling educational exhibit — expected to cost up to $1 million — that will visit local schools to dazzle students with port facts.

For example, the ports handle more than 40% of the nation's containerized cargo imports. They generate 259,000 full- and part-time jobs in Southern California and $6.7 billion a year in state and local tax revenues.

The exhibit will also tout the landmark Clean Air Action Plan, which calls for scrapping the oldest of the roughly 16,000 trucks working at the port and retrofitting others with the assistance of a port-sponsored grant subsidy.

The expansion effort will need all the fanfare it can muster, said Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, a lifelong San Pedro resident whose district includes the Port of Los Angeles.

"We won't feel comfortable until we reduce the number of premature deaths connected to cargo-related pollution," she said. "I agree that the technology exists to have both clean air and economic development. But I also believe we're going to have to apply very strong pressure on the ports to make that a reality."

(INFOBOX BELOW)

Supersizing the ports

With its containerized trade expected to double by 2020, the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex has plans to build a dozen expansion projects ranging in cost from $90 million to $864 million. The projects include:

Los Angeles Harbor

(1) A new wharf and rail yard for the TraPac Container Terminal
(2) Replacement wharves at the Yang Ming Container Terminal
(3) A new 10-year lease for UltraMar
(4) A new container terminal for China Shipping Container Lines Co.
(5) Additional container storage and wharf work at the YTI Container Terminal
(6) Additional container storage at the Evergreen Container Terminal
(7) Walkways and infrastructure improvements at the San Pedro waterfront
(8) Additional container storage at the APL Container Terminal
(9) Crude oil marine terminal, tank farm facilities and a new terminal at Pacific Energy

---

Long Beach Harbor

(10) Pier S, an environmentally friendly 160-acre terminal
(11) A higher, stronger suspension bridge to replace the aging Gerald Desmond Bridge
(12) Terminal expansions and other improvements in the Middle Harbor

Sources: ESRI, ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Times reporting. Graphics reporting by Louis Sahagun

Update on the Foothill Extension. The organization supporting it sent me an email today.

Dear Project Friends:
I wanted to alert you to an upcoming San Gabriel Valley Legislative Caucus Transportation Funding Summit that will no doubt have significant impact and influence for the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension project as well as other transportation priorities within the San Gabriel Valley.

Please mark your calendars for Saturday, June 2, 2007, from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm. The location of the meeting is the City of West Covina Council Chambers, 1444 West Garvey Avenue, West Covina.

The focus of the summit will be on San Gabriel Valley funding strategies and efforts to receive its “fair share” of the regional Proposition 1B allocation. Habib Balian, our chief executive officer, will be among the presenters at the meeting, showcasing the readiness and other factors that position our project’s consideration and priority. As a point of reference, the Authority's board of directors certified the project’s FEIR for Segment 2(A) at their February meeting in support of this opportunity.

State Assemblymember Ed Hernandez, who chairs the Caucus, will lead the meeting. Leadership from throughout the San Gabriel Valley, as well as the public, are invited to attend and share their comments. San Gabriel Valley Congressional and State representatives, as well as Los Angeles County Supervisors, are scheduled to attend. An initial agenda is attached for your review.

I hope you will have time to join us this Saturday and lend your voice and support for the project. Please take a moment to introduce yourself to me at the meeting so that I may thank you in person for your participation.

With Best Regards,
Susan Hodor
Public Affairs Director
Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority

P.S. For those unable to attend, we will post our presentation on the project website, www.foothillextension.org early next week. Also next week, please take a moment to look at our new City Related Transit Development section to see what cities along the corridor are doing in anticipation of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension.

I don't know what to say about this.....Of course all of us want a more extensive rail network but this just seems like it should be #44 on the list. Besides a commuter mode would be better, don't you think?

A Denser L.A.
Understanding the map

By David Zahniser
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 3:00 pm

http://www.laweekly.com/images/stories/07/28/28map.jpg


Click the image to download a full pdf of the map (http://www.laweekly.com/images/stories/07/28/smartgrowthmap.pdf)

The Los Angeles City Council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa have embraced the concept of “smart growth,” a plan to concentrate multistory, “mixed use” housing — stores and restaurants on the ground, apartments or condos above — on or near transit corridors. To carry out City Hall’s vision of a much denser city, the Planning Department developed this map showing every place in L.A. that lies within 1,500 feet of a busy transit stop — places where buses and trains stop every 15 minutes or less during afternoon rush hour.

Originally, this map was used by city officials to identify places they believed made sense for constructing affordable housing. But now the map serves as an informal guide for city officials who are deciding where they believe multistory, mixed-use housing should go. Because bus lines crisscross much of Los Angeles, nearly every neighborhood north of the 10 Freeway and south of the Santa Monica Mountains and Hollywood Hills, as well as three big swaths of the Valley, are included in their determinations.

City planners say that existing single-family neighborhoods with highly restrictive R-1 zoning — in places such as Eagle Rock, Hancock Park, Cheviot Hills and the Encino hills — won’t be forced to absorb these multistory projects, but all other areas are in play.

Even as an informal guide, this transit map shows just how extensive the transformation to multistory housing might be under the new smart-growth planning mantra. Even if only a fraction of the development occurs, that sweeping change will affect all of Los Angeles.

Too many people already.....

I don't know what to say about this.....Of course all of us want a more extensive rail network but this just seems like it should be #44 on the list. Besides a commuter mode would be better, don't you think?

A commuter mode would work fine. There aren't really any other destinations along the way, so if this was made into another Metrolink Line I would be fine with it. But I don't care how it gets out here, as long as it gets out here. We need something to bypass the 210 and fast.

After reading the latest LA Weekly article I am even more convinced that any future light or heavy rail line would need to be only in the densest parts of the county. The article seems to deride density while indirectly establishing that it is our only hope. The writer talks about slow busses but never really pushes for a functioning rail transit network, interesting. http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/a-denser-la/16510/

Seems to be the situation all over this great country of ours, transit is suffering! Even in one of the most lauded transit systems in the country.

Daley: CTA doomsday cuts, hikes not just a threat

May 31, 2007
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
The CTA may sound to riders like the boy who cried wolf with its annual doomsday warnings of fare hikes and service cuts, but this time they’re not bluffing, Mayor Daley warned Thursday.

It’s almost Cinderella time in Springfield and Daley faces the possibility that lawmakers will either go into overtime with Republicans holding a trump card or adjourn after doing virtually nothing for the CTA.

Riders board a CTA Purple Line train last Thursday.
(Brian Kersey/Sun-Times)

RELATED STORIES
• Blog: The Ride
• $7 a ride for rush-hour commuters?
• Give fare warning
• Editorial: Legislature must do its part
• Feature: The Ride
If that happens, doomsday will be here, the mayor warned.

“No one’s threatening anyone. They’re just giving the facts of life….Money has not dropped from the sky. You can go to all the churches you want. You can’t get money. You can pray in your temple, your mosques, your synagogues and your churches. But you’re not going to get any money. So where is it going to come from?" Daley said.


Asked specifically about the threat of fare hikes and service cuts, the mayor said, “It’s real. Definitely. Because they have to do something. They have union negotiations. People want more money. They have to give them more money. Where do you get it from?”

Most CTA riders don’t believe the threats. They’ve heard the CTA say, “The sky is falling,” every year, only to have the financially strapped mass transit agency limp along and maintain the status quo.


“Well, it’s been falling. It’s fallen. Ask everybody. The CTA is getting slower and slower and [travel times are getting] longer and longer. You wrote articles about it…You need funding for the CTA. It’s simple as that, unfortunately,” the mayor said.


“These are not warnings or threats. [CTA President Ron Huberman] has to, under the law, respond to the RTA in regards to their budget. Simple as that. These are not threats. These are not warnings.”


Last week, the CTA unveiled the latest in a long line of doomsday plans in an attempt to prod the General Assembly into action.


The Yellow Line and Purple Line Express routes would shut down by mid-September, along with 63 bus routes. Rush-hour fares would rise to $2.75 for bus riders and $3.25 on the L. Off-peak fares would increase to $2.25 for bus and $2.50 for rail. An estimated 840 CTA jobs would be cut.

Is this transit racism?

A few hours later, the RTA unveiled its plan to raise $452 million a year in operating funds for the CTA, Metra and Pace. It called for a quarter-percent sales tax hike for Cook and the collar counties — plus an additional one-quarter of 1 percent exclusively in the five collar counties — and a Chicago-only .3 percent increase in the real estate transfer tax.

Could this be the answer to LA Metro woes?

Earlier this week, Daley called the RTA sales tax proposal the only game in town. Never mind that Gov. Blagojevich campaigned on a promise to hold the line on sales and incomes taxes and has threatened to veto an increase in either one.

The BRU would be burned alive in this city!

After reading the latest LA Weekly article I am even more convinced that any future light or heavy rail line would need to be only in the densest parts of the county. The article seems to deride density while indirectly establishing that it is our only hope. The writer talks about slow busses but never really pushes for a functioning rail transit network, interesting. http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/a-denser-la/16510/

I read that article too and I didn't like the tone of the article. Not only was it very negative throughout, it gave no potential solutions and pointed a lot of fingers. I understand the logic of many of the politicos that they had quotes from, you know, the whole thing about how it has to get worse before it gets better. But besides that, the article really accomplished nothing. Even the guy that was interviewed who wanted to move to one of the new transit villages near the gold line rather than palmdale, was completely irrelevant because he wouldnt ever be using the train anyways since he worked in Torrance. Usually the Weekly has intelligent articles, but this one was a waste of time.

I disagree that the Weekly usually has intelligent articles, they always seem to be written by out of touch suburban transplants or urban dwellers who are oblivious as to how a functioning city works. Anyway, I'm all for people living the way they want so long the greater good of the city is acknowledged. Therefore I didn't understand the writer's attempt at deriding some public officials for living in single family homes. In his subcontext he was assuming that the single family home was the ideal for all who get to certain economic level in life.......see, most likely written by an oblivious suburban transplant whose entire outlook on life is the paradigm where the single family home is on top and apartments are only for the poor or those who will eventually transition themselves into a sfh.

Someone show this to Metro now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHkbDSjB8JQ

ha, yah thats a nifty little idea. i remember in hong kong they had full size ads directly across from the platforms were you wait for the train.

but then again they also have a super sweet glass door system to separate the tracks from the platform:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/52/112746982_e5460468b9_b.jpg
From Flickr, by wcoastpark

and these...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/23/25615650_bc0368bc45_o.jpg
From Flickr, by ]L

and im sure these would help the constant fair evaders more then the once a week crackdown cops
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/70/221668407_b1b79340fd.jpg
From Flickr, by kevincrumbs

Getting nowhere fast on new mass transit projects
By Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writer
June 4, 2007


Been stuck in traffic lately? Hoping for a way out? Want more mass transit?

In case you missed the news, the board of the Metropolitan Transit Authority recently raised its fares to help balance its books. A day later, MTA chief Roger Snoble told The Times the agency hopes to have enough money to finish two light rail lines under construction and avoid service cutbacks.

As for future mass transit projects, Snoble said, those may have to wait until the MTA can find the money.

Sigh.



What do the years 1968, 1974 and 1976 have in common?

They were years that mass transit projects and accompanying tax increases got voted down in Los Angeles County.

It wasn't until 1980 and 1990 that county voters approved sales tax increases of a half-cent apiece to fund transportation improvements.

Those included starting a rail system from scratch, with the last of the streetcars having shut down in 1963.

The most remarkable thing about it is that as residents and newspapers griped about traffic, various transit systems — including subways and monorails — had been proposed in traffic-choked Los Angeles going back to the 1920s.

Until recently, each went nowhere.



And how does that compare to San Francisco?

Voters in San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties in 1962 approved a $792-million bond issue to start building the BART rail system to connect San Francisco to the East Bay.

There were the inevitable setbacks and funding shortages, but the system opened in 1972 and by 1977 had carried 100 million passengers.



Isn't traffic still hideous in the Bay Area?

Yes, but at least there are alternatives to sitting in it.

The city of San Francisco also has light rail, buses and streetcars, and there is commuter rail in the S.F.-San Jose corridor.



So what's next in Southern California?

MTA spokesman Marc Littman said the agency looks to have about $6 billion to spend on transportation projects from now until 2030.

That doesn't appear to be enough to pay for all of the transit and road projects people are pushing, including the subway to the sea, a new busway for Canoga Avenue in the San Fernando Valley, an extension of the Alameda Corridor from the port and several key freeway projects.

One big moment will come this summer when the MTA board is scheduled to adopt a long-range plan that prioritizes projects. That should be a food fight of the highest order.

The fact that quietly has emerged is that funding for transit is drying up[b]. The feds, for example, will typically pay only for half of some rail projects, and the $19.9-billion transportation bond passed by California voters in November probably will be spent throughout the state.

In other words, if the public wants a big mass transit system, the public is going to have to pay more for it.

"Public transportation is local transportation, and the quality of it is decided by the people who live there," said Virginia Miller, spokeswoman for the American Public Transportation Assn. "If you want a good system in your community, you and others need to make the decision to invest in it."

[b]The office of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has conducted polls to test voter sentiment about a possible ballot measure to fundmore mass transit. But he hasn't proposed anything.

That should tell you what the polls show. Most tax increases need two-thirds approval from voters, a threshold difficult to reach and the reason mass transit in Los Angeles still is a losing proposition.



The historical footnote?

Only 61.2% of voters approved the original bond for BART. But that was after the state Legislature in 1957 lowered the approval threshold from two-thirds to 60%.



Will Los Angeles be getting some new parking meters soon?

Yes.

The City Council on Wednesday gave the nod to the city's transit agency to begin purchasing a few thousand meters.

(I cut off the rest because it was irrelevant, IMO)

ah curbed la... what would this forum be without you

Getting nowhere fast on new mass transit projects
By Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writer
June 4, 2007



Only 61.2% of voters approved the original bond for BART. But that was after the state Legislature in 1957 lowered the approval threshold from two-thirds to 60%.





I thought this was very significant. SF acts as if transit is naturally in their blood....Really interesting that BART only passed with 1.2% of the vote and that's only after the legislature dropped the 2/3 benchmark down to 60% voters approval. Does anyone have any info on why the benchmark is set at 2/3 anyway? Affordable Housing measure could have passed last year but missed by just a few percentiles.

Someone show this to Metro now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHkbDSjB8JQ

Actually they had something like that a year or two ago in the tunnel between Pershing Square and 7/MC. I never saw it though.

We might complain about our bus system, but to Metro's credit, I've never seen any bus driver do this!

WKr94bH7qtA

And this happened in Vancouver, Canada!

^ Those Candians are just so full of rage.

We might complain about our bus system, but to Metro's credit, I've never seen any bus driver do this!

WKr94bH7qtA

And this happened in Vancouver, Canada!


Yikes that's insane.... Well the other fucker got what he deserve!!!!!

Los Angeles' FlyAway bus service adds Westside stop
By Jane Engle, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 01, 2007

The LAX FlyAway bus, which shuttled more than 1 million fliers to and from Los Angeles International Airport in the last year, will soon add its first stop on the city's Westside.

The bad news: Adult fares, now $3 each way, will increase to $4 on July 1. But they still will be cheaper than fares for cabs or door-to-door shuttles, airport officials say.

On June 14, the FlyAway will start running every 30 minutes between LAX terminals and the UCLA campus in Westwood.

As with the current FlyAway routes, from downtown's Union Station and the Van Nuys Airport in the San Fernando Valley, customers headed for the airport will be able to get boarding passes and check up to two bags at the station. That optional service costs $5 extra per person.

Unlike the two other routes, which operate around the clock, the Westwood route will operate from 5 a.m. to 1 a.m. daily.

To introduce the new route, LAX will waive fares to and from Westwood from June 14 to 30. Although FlyAway adult fares will increase system-wide on July 1, fares for children ages 2 to 12 will remain the same, $2 each way. Children under age 2 ride free.

One disadvantage of the Westwood site is that parking is limited. On weekdays, no overnight parking will be available. Instead, UCLA Parking Structure 32 on Kinross Avenue, two blocks west of Westwood Boulevard, will serve only as a pickup and drop-off point, said LAX spokeswoman Nancy Castles.

On weekends, overnight parking will be available from 3 p.m. Friday until 7 a.m. Monday in Parking Structure 32 and Parking Lot 36 across the street. The cost is $6 per day.

The Westwood route is a yearlong pilot program that could be extended if there are enough customers, Castles said.

So far, business has exceeded projections for the Union Station route, which carried more than 253,000 riders between March 2006, when it began operating, and March this year, Castles said. The Van Nuys route carried more than 800,000 passengers in 2006.

For details on the LAX Flyaway, visit the airport's website, www.lawa.org/lax/welcomeLAX.cfm, and click on "ground transportation," then choose "FlyAway" from the drop-down menu. As of today, the website didn't offer information on the new Westwood route, but airport officials were planning to post it next week, Castles said.

Santa Monica could easily pull something like this off by blocking of the top 2 or 3 levels of one of its parking structures just off 3rd st.

They FlyAway service is brilliant. I use it every time I fly, from Union Station.

They FlyAway service is brilliant. I use it every time I fly, from Union Station.


Do people actually use this service at all. Every time I run into one of these blue color (eye soar) buses I see like 2 or 3 passengers. Never really seen it full to capacity like the Van Nuys line, where standing room is very common. So I would of thought that someone would have pull the plug on this disaster by now.

Do people actually use this service at all. Every time I run into one of these blue color (eye soar) buses I see like 2 or 3 passengers. Never really seen it full to capacity like the Van Nuys line, where standing room is very common. So I would of thought that someone would have pull the plug on this disaster by now.

Uh, it just started like a year ago...the Van Nuys has been around for decades.
The Blue Line used to carry 16,000 people per day...when it first opened.

I could imagine Ferney's backyard as having a bunch of dead babies lying in pools of bathwater.

Do people actually use this service at all. Every time I run into one of these blue color (eye soar) buses I see like 2 or 3 passengers. Never really seen it full to capacity like the Van Nuys line, where standing room is very common. So I would of thought that someone would have pull the plug on this disaster by now.

Yes, people use it. I'm not saying the buses are always packed, but I would not consider it a disaster. I've ridden it probably 8 - 10 times over the last yr and there's usually 10 - 20 every time. Now remember those buses run every 30 mins all day. I would say that's not bad for a new service.

Villaraigosa is really starting to either "lose it" or just plain "fuck up". Congestion pricing, toll lanes, gas tax all need to be considered when funding transit.

L.A. misses out on federal transit funds
MTA submits a proposal to study rather than implement tolls on freeways, as required by U.S. agency.
By Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writer
June 8, 2007


Despite being known as one of the nation's worst repositories for transportation gridlock, the Los Angeles area managed Thursday to miss out on qualifying for hundreds of millions of federal dollars for traffic-busting programs.

Although no official would say so on the record, several suggested privately that Southern California transit agencies and the elected officials who oversee them lost out because the grant required communities to offer some type of "congestion pricing": tolls that politicians know voters hate.

Instead, the application submitted by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority on behalf of local agencies requested money only to help pay for a study of congestion pricing.

The MTA is headed by county Supervisor Gloria Molina.

But one critic of the application shortfall expressed his disappointment with a co-chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has repeatedly vowed to lobby the state and Washington for more money to fight gridlock and expand mass transit.

"The mayor really missed the boat," said Bob Poole, director of transportation studies for the Reason Foundation, a Los Angeles-based libertarian think tank.

"They submitted something that didn't respond to the criteria" that the Department of Transportation "clearly set out, and it's really a shame, because I can't imagine how Los Angeles wouldn't have been a finalist with a credible application," Poole said.

Los Angeles County could have proposed using the grant for a pilot program or, on a larger scale, to convert its estimated 468 miles of carpool lanes to congestion pricing lanes — and use the revenue raised by the tolls to build carpool lanes throughout the county, he said. In particular, he mentioned the often clogged Santa Monica Freeway.

"You could have a network of these lanes all over Los Angeles County, run express buses on them and give public transit a big competitive advantage compared to people sitting in traffic," Poole said.

Molina could not be reached for comment.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, an MTA board member who has also been outspoken on transportation, declined to comment through a spokesman.

News that Los Angeles had lost out in the federal competition came early in the day when U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters announced that nine other large metropolitan areas — including New York, San Diego, San Francisco and Denver — were semifinalists in a competition for $1.1 billion in federal assistance. The money will be divided among up to five winners to be announced in August.

Villaraigosa's press office did not even know about the announcement until officials there were told by a Times reporter. In his nearly two years in office, the mayor has not taken a firm stance on congestion pricing, although he has lobbied hard for other transportation funds.

The mayor's office released a statement saying that Villaraigosa has already secured billions of dollars for the county and "will remain relentless" in pursuit of transportation funding.

Although tolls have long been part of the landscape in regions such as Orange County, the Bay Area, Chicago and New York, they are an idea that has rarely been seriously broached in Los Angeles County. The reason, some officials say, is that area politicians — often with an eye on higher office or simply preserving their jobs — know that the idea of suddenly charging to travel roads that for decades have been known as "freeways" consistently polls badly with voters.

The concept of congestion pricing, however, has not been a roadblock in heavily Republican and tax-averse San Diego County, where officials propose using the federal grant money to expand an existing toll system on Interstate 15.

Under their proposal, 24 miles of Interstate 15 between downtown San Diego and Escondido would have up to four reversible lanes that would be open to carpools, vanpools and buses. People who drive alone would pay to use those lanes.

New York City became a semifinalist based on Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal for a congestion pricing program to discourage cars from entering Lower Manhattan on weekdays. In Denver — another semifinalist — the proposal calls for using congestion pricing on new high-occupancy lanes on U.S. 36 between the city and suburban Boulder.

The nine cities "selected as semifinalists by the secretary showed the best mix of having an innovative approach and the ability to have an impact on traffic in the shortest time frame," said Brian Turmail, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation.

Turmail said that 16 of the 27 proposals received by the agency followed the grant's requirement to include some form of congestion pricing. The semifinalists were among the 16.

Carol Inge, chief of planning for the MTA, said the proposal from the Los Angeles area was soft on the concept of tolls, but strong in other areas.

The county's application, for example, called for increasing freeway ramp metering and expanding use of the Alameda rail corridor to move cargo from the ports.

Inge also said that congestion pricing is a complex issue in Los Angeles County. Among the problems, she said, is that taxpayers have already footed the bill, in part, for carpool lanes and there is little space to widen freeways to construct toll roads.

Los Angeles City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, who heads the council's Transportation Committee, was among those pushing for the region to apply for the federal money. On Thursday, Greuel said she was disappointed because she believed the MTA's proposal had novel components.

But Greuel, who is running for city controller in 2009, would not go so far as to say she supports congestion pricing in Los Angeles — and that it might be unfair in a region where mass transit is not a viable option for all motorists.

Instead, Greuel said that traffic has gotten so bad in the region that "everything has to be on the table."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
steve.hymon@latimes.com

so pissed.

Panel OKs $6million for 118 Freeway project
The transportation panel agrees to provide $6.28million for an offramp and onramp at Rocky Peak Road.
By Gregory W. Griggs, Times Staff Writer
June 8, 2007

Responding to an eleventh-hour appeal from Ventura County officials, the California Transportation Commission on Thursday agreed to allocate an additional $6 million to improve the 118 Freeway in eastern Simi Valley and pledged tens of millions more next year.

The state initially earmarked $50 million to widen the freeway by one lane in each direction between Tapo Canyon Road and the Los Angeles County line.

But because the project was delayed three years, the costs have increased significantly.

As a result, county officials said there was only enough money to widen the eastbound lanes.

Officials recently solicited the help of local legislators to try to persuade the state commission to earmark $32.7 million more to complete the project.

In a compromise deal finalized Thursday, the state commission agreed to set aside $6.28 million to add an offramp and onramp on the 118 at Rocky Peak Road from a fund created last November when California voters approved Proposition 1B — a $19.9-billion statewide bond measure for infrastructure improvements.

The panel promised to give the widening project priority consideration during next year's regular funding cycle.

"In the best of all worlds, the $32 million would be here today, but it will not hamper us to have the money" confirmed next spring, said Ginger Gherardi, executive director of the Ventura County Transportation Commission.

Gherardi, who was at a rail conference in Toronto, flew to Sacramento to attend the first day of the state commission's two-day hearing, which ended Thursday, to thank the panel for its consideration.

"They've committed to work with us so the project is delivered on time and we can realize the cost saving," she said.

Local officials argued that it didn't make sense to halt work on the first phase of the widening project and that millions of dollars could be saved by approving more funding for the new westbound lane while the contractor was still on site.

Several legislators wrote letters to the Transportation Commission urging additional funding for the project, including state Sens. Sheila Kuehl, (D-Santa Monica) and Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks); Assemblymen Cameron Smyth (R-Santa Clarita); and Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara), chairman of the Assembly Transportation Committee.

"I'm very pleased for the commuters in Ventura County, they need this kind of relief," Nava said Thursday.

"The idea that we're putting some bond money and other resources to work to relieve the bottleneck is a step in the right direction."

Traffic on the stretch of the freeway has increased from 110,000 vehicles daily in 1998 to 117,000 today, causing morning and evening delays of up to four hours daily.

Simi Valley Mayor Paul Miller welcomed the additional funds to ensure a smoother commute through his city. "The longer we wait, obviously the more it's going to cost," Miller said.

"We appreciate the fact that they recognize the need to go forward with this. We'll keep our fingers crossed" that needed transportation dollars still will be available next spring, when the state commission authorizes its next two-year project funding list.

^^ :pepper:Excellent news Saiholmes......:applause:

:dance: :dance:

Saiholmes, can I copy and paste it to the car & fwy thread... Woohoo!

holy hell... 6.28 mill for one exit/entrance?

Gross

Hey guys it's necessary to keep traffic moving...:righton:

I've only been in that area like twice, this entire decade.

Metro to Recover Nearly $40 Million From DWP in Overcharges for Utility Services

Metro along with several other governmental agencies has won a joint lawsuit against the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) charging the DWP with over billing the agency for utility services over an eight year period.

The tentative ruling, handed down by San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge John P. Wade, calls for the DWP to reimburse Metro $39,404,362 in utility costs that the court found was overcharged to Metro.

“We have a fiduciary obligation to protect taxpayer dollars that we administer and this judgment solidifies our commitment in making sure we are not overcharged,” said Metro CEO Roger Snoble. “This ruling is great news for our customers in a time when funding to provide essential services to the public is in short supply.”

Metro’s judgment of nearly $40 million is out of a total tentative ruling that calls for the DWP to pay back approximately $225 million in overcharges to several government agencies that included the Los Angeles Unified School District, the University of California at Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Community College District, the County of Los Angeles and California State Agencies.

California Law (Government Code Sec. 54999) established limits on the rates that municipal utilities can charge school districts, community colleges and other public agencies. Specifically, it requires that municipal utilities charge school districts and other public agency customers “nondiscriminatory” capital charges on facilities that “actually serve” the customer. The judge ruled that DWP charged rates in excess of those allowed by the statute.

http://www.metro.net/news_info/press/metro_105.htm


So, what will Metro do with this extra money?

cool, so they dont have to worry about there deficiency anymore

cool, so they dont have to worry about there deficiency anymore

Now DWP will have one, and raise their rates to recover! :lol:

^^Higher electricity bills for all!

Now DWP will have one, and raise their rates to recover! :lol:

The DWP is racist. Don't they know how many poor people use their services?:fart:

DWP, the new BRU...

Los Angeles - a subway runs through it (seriously)
By HOWARD SHAPIRO - The Philadelphia Inquirer

LOS ANGELES --I have been doing something both subterranean and subversive. I've been riding the Los Angeles subway.

I felt like a renegade, riding the subway in L.A. Zipping through the depths of the city is not for L.A.; that's for Chicago or the other coast - back east, as they say in California. Where is your car? Where is your sense? Car sense, that's the Los Angeles culture.

At one freeway interchange alone - the world's busiest, where The 101 meets The 405 - 566,000 vehicles pass through each weekday. The undisputed spine of the region is its 915-mile freeway and highway system, built for a culture on four wheels.

Not for a subway.

If you do not live on the West Coast - and maybe even if you do - I know what many of you are saying: "A subway in Los Angeles? He's making that up." Even the folks at the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority (Angelenos just say "the Metro") believe that when I tell most Philadelphians I've been riding the L.A. subway, they'll think I'm kidding or delusional. I just hung up with one of them, who was giving me some ridership figures, and that's what she ventured. "People back East just don't know about it," she said.

Well, I barely believed it myself, so I decided to spend much of a day, and part of a night, on the Los Angeles rails. The city's relatively recent high-speed rail system, still under expansion, covers 59 miles, piddling by comparison to pre-World War II Los Angeles, when much-lower-speed trolleys ruled the streets or at least shared them with cars.
L.A.'s high-speed transit is - are you sitting down, preferably on a subway bench? - based on the honor system. You can't crawl under the turnstiles to con Metro; there are none. No one collects a ticket. (The same is true of a few other systems around the world, notably the mostly new subway in Athens, Greece.)

You purchase your tickets from a machine at a base fare of $1.25, which covers most rides, and you walk onto the concourse gate-free. Los Angeles Sheriff's Department fare inspectors are supposedly on board or at stations for random checks, and they can issue on-the-spot fines to cheaters. In my day of L.A. high-speeding, I never saw anyone identifiable as a sheriff, ticket monitor or troll questioning a single rider.

The high-speed rail carries about 270,000 riders every weekday; compare that with Metro's extensive bus routes, which shepherd five times that many people - on dedicated freeway lanes that may actually flow during rush hours.
Those great old-time streetcar scenes in the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" are not just Hollywood's imagination; in the `40s, Los Angeles had the world's largest trolley system. The Pacific Electric Railway (called the "red cars") crisscrossed Southern California on 1,100 miles of track, and the Los Angeles Railway ("yellow cars") lined the city's streets, with 600 miles of track.

Those of us who feel the joy of travel is incomplete without experiencing the world's great urban transit systems can only wish for a tiny taste of those days. Many Angelenos don't know that the city had a subway, of sorts, for 30 years, until 1955 - a mile-long tunnel for streetcars to bypass crowded downtown roads and get close to Hollywood, though not to its center. It wasn't what any of us who ride subways would call a proper subway, but it was a high-speed underground rail.

That route - from the city's gradually revitalizing downtown to Hollywood - is a major part of the rail system today, with well-placed stops. It's also a part of the Red Line, the one true subway route in town, about 17 ½ miles of track. The other three rail lines may run through tunnels for a part of their journeys, but they're essentially new trolleys that dash through town. In L.A., they mostly run in their own corridors above ground or under it, sometimes as fast as subway trains, free from all the city's automobile traffic.

The latest addition, the Orange Line, is not really a high-speed rail. It's a transitway built expressly - I use that word in its full meaning - for ultra-sleek buses, open less than two years. It cost $330 million to build - meal money compared to the Red Line subway that began with a few stations in 1993 and has priced out at $4.5 billion. Metro considers the 14-mile Orange Line bus transitway, which picks up where the Red Line subway ends in North Hollywood, to be part of its high-speed service. Coming from a subway culture back east, I don't, so I've excised it from the high-speed rail figures in this piece.
You can't just ride city rails all day without stopping to take several looks beyond the tracks, or you'd be the Boston T's fabled man who never returned. (I aimed decisively to return.)

I started off on a Friday morning downtown, where I was staying, on the Red Line subway, which I caught at Pershing Square - hands-down the ugliest city square I've seen. But it has great subway entrances, airy and bright with good signage and easy-to-spot ticket machines.

I decided to go toward places where visitors like to go - after all, I was one. First stop was Pasadena, for strolling and lunch. I switched off the Red Line at its eastern terminus, the beautiful Union Station, which opened 68 years ago.

Before switching to the Gold Line for Pasadena, I went up the stairs to see the station - beautiful, with its tile and marble interior and large but not overwhelming waiting room. It's home to Metro trains, commuter trains, Amtrak and buses, including the popular bus that runs to the airport and back. The station, nearly moribund before the transit system brought business again, is in its renaissance, but it doesn't have a critical mass of places to browse and eat. I suspect that will come.

The Gold Line, now being extended, sports beauties: bright light-rail cars with hugely oversized windows. It runs through Chinatown (I wanted to get off but didn't decide in time, so forget it, Jake) and into Heritage Square and Highland Park - lovely little aboveground stations with blooming flowers along some of the concourses.

I alighted at Memorial Park, a two-block walk from Old Pasadena, where Colorado Boulevard - only 15 years ago a haven for pawnshops, porn and other signs of decline - was bustling with lunchtime shoppers. The street and its side streets are L.A. oddities in that they're made for pedestrian browsing, with attractive one-of-a-kinders among the national stores. (Santa Monica's Third Street Promenade is the same, but the high-speed rail doesn't quite go there.)

I stayed a while, taking in the sunshine and happy to be walking in Los Angeles, and away from freeways. Colorado Boulevard is wide - the Rose Bowl parade traverses it - and when you walk along it, you get the feeling that something big is happening, even when it's not. The crowds were out, the lunch spots were hopping - it was a happy place.

After my ride back into town, about a half-hour, I took the Blue Line, an on-street line that heads to Long Beach. But it was clouding up, so after about another half-hour, I hopped out and went back downtown.

All over the country, trolleys took a beating after World War II, as people acquired cars and left mass transit systems to those who either didn't care to take cars through town or couldn't.

The role that bus makers played in the dismantling of the nation's electric streetcar systems has been documented, but the public also acquiesced - indeed, Angelenos put up little or no fuss about becoming trackless. Cars offered personal freedom over such a sprawling metropolis, along an interstate system - toll-free, no less - that was covering the area in lustrous concrete ribbons.

The last trolley ran in 1961. Even the six-decade-old Angel's Flight - the little cable railway up and down a steep downtown hill, and an L.A. landmark - was stilled. It took about 35 years for Angel's Flight to reopen.

For a time, city planners dreamed of a monorail. What they eventually developed was the system I was riding. The jewel in it, to me, is the Red Line, which has helped lift Hollywood Boulevard out of the category of Neglected American Icon.

I rode the line several times that day, from downtown to Universal City, through its circular tubes, on its bright, cream-colored cars with pleasant blue or bright-red seats. It made it seem like my first encounter with L.A., even though I've been there lots. Like most people, I have both a freeway view and viewpoint of the city. In L.A., the subway grounds me, makes me feel at home.

That night, a Friday, I saw what happens when a neighborhood transforms: A constant array of passengers - many of them young and carefully styled and apparently heading in from all over the Metro system - gave the Red Line a dinnertime rush hour. (The line closes too early, around midnight, for wee-hours Hollywood partying.)

"You'll emerge at the epicenter of Hip," boasted a Metro poster on my evening rail car, declaring the new status of a Hollywood Boulevard ripe with new club/restaurants, resplendent and rehabbed theaters - and still a visible chunk of T-shirt and tattoo merchants. (Looking for the perfect boa? Frederick's has moved from the old store, but it's still on Hollywood Boulevard.)

You can get off at the fine-tiled Hollywood and Vine station - check out the movie projectors from the 1920s as you come up the stairs. But the main stop in Tinseltown has become Hollywood and Highland, with its vaulted and brightly lit ceilings over the concourses. It lets out onto a modern entertainment complex crowned by Oscar night's Kodak Theatre and dotted with restaurants, shops, walls that name all the best-picture winners, and a buzz that is unmistakably real.
That buzz, it appears, does not begin on the street, where parking is tough and traffic can be slow. It begins with the people who ascend the bank of escalators, walk under a sweeping canopy and pour onto the sidewalk from the station. The subway station. In L.A.:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

---

For more information about the Los Angeles transit system, visit www.mta.net.

---

Howard Shapiro: hshapiro@phillynews.com

© 2007, The Philadelphia Inquirer

I like the article somewhat but how could he compare the Phili system to ours? Just seems a little bit unfair, at best. Philly opened its system starting in 1907 and haven't built an extension or new line for 40 years other than commuter. It's ridership is good for the area but so is ours comparitevly a less than 20year old built piece-meal system. And error correction, I believe the system (ours) is 73 miles long not 59. In fact, excluding commuter our rail system by 2010 will have more track mileage than Philly and I believe SF.

This site compares subway/rail systems on the same scale. Check out LA's!! Then check out the enormous Bart system........that's why the commuter rail sucks there, Bart does all of the work. Look how tiny Paris' system but so compact and probably a station on every corner.
http://www.fakeisthenewreal.org/subway/

nice... i did not know tokyo's system was so compact aswell... i thought that city sprawled out as much as us.

also are those scales 100% accurate?

nice... i did not know tokyo's system was so compact aswell... i thought that city sprawled out as much as us.

also are those scales 100% accurate?

From my experience, Tokyo's "subway" comparison to LA's seems about right. There are countless regional rail lines (above ground) servicing outer areas of Tokyo that aren't shown on that map.

Metro Bus Service Enhancements to go into Effect Sunday, June 24 that Include Two New Metro Rapid Lines; New Metro Rapid Express Lines Debut Monday, June 25

Metro will implement a host of bus service enhancements beginning Sunday, June 24 and Monday, June 25 that will include the creation of two Metro Rapid Lines, two new Metro Rapid Express bus lines, two new lines in the San Fernando Valley and a new line between California State University, Los Angeles and Olympic and Indiana in East Los Angeles.

The two new Metro Rapid Lines include Line 704 (Santa Monica Blvd. Rapid) and line 760 (Downtown Los Angeles-Long Beach Blvd. Rapid) bringing the total to 18 rapid lines operating throughout LA County. Metro is expected to implement a total of 28 Metro Rapid Bus lines by mid-2008. The two new Metro Rapid Lines begin operations on Sunday, June 24.

“New Metro Rapid Line 760 will go a long way in reducing travel times between the Metro Blue Line Artesia Station and downtown Los Angeles,” said Long Beach City Council Vice Mayor and Metro Board Member Bonnie Lowenthal. “The frequency of service on this line, operating seven days a week, provides a real alternative for our customers and provides new opportunities for those not currently using public transit to try this new service with ample parking available at the Blue Line Artesia Station.”

New to Metro’s service area will be the implementation of two Metro Rapid Express Lines 920 (Wlishire Blvd. Rapid Express) and 940 (Hawthorne Rapid Express) that will have fewer stops than traditional Metro Rapid lines providing even faster service in the morning and afternoon peaks periods only. The new Metro Rapid Express lines debut Monday, June 25.

The new Metro Rapid Express Service along Wilshire Boulevard will begin at Wilshire/Vermont with stops at Western, Fairfax, Beverly, Westwood and Fourth Street in Santa Monica. The new Hawthorne Metro Rapid Express service will have stops at the South Bay Galleria Transit Center, Metro Green Line Hawthorne Station, La Brea & Manchester Ave., King & Crenshaw, King & Vermont, Broadway & Sixth and Union Station/Patsaouras Plaza. This line will operate during peak hours and in peak hour direction only, operating northbound in the morning peak and southbound in the afternoon peak period.

The two new Metro Rapid Express lines are part of existing Metro Rapid Lines and are a demonstration project to see if further reducing the number of stops can greatly reduce travel times along these two busy transit corridors. Travel times are expected to be reduced by up to 15 percent one-way over traditional Metro Rapid service. If successful, Metro plans to introduce additional Metro Rapid Express Lines later this year as part of its overall Metro Rapid program.

In the San Fernando Valley, Metro will introduce new lines 290 ((Sylmar-Sunland via Foothill Blvd) traveling between Foothill and Mt. Gleason and Olive View medical Center and line 292 (Sylmar-Burbank via Glenoaks Blvd.) operating between the Burbank Metrolink Station and the Sylmar Metrolink Station.

In addition, line 665 (CSULA-Olympic/Indiana) will be operated between Cal State Los Angeles and Olympic and Indiana, seven days a week. Service on this line will operate to Olympic and Soto Street during the weekday peak periods only.

Metro also plans to add a number of high capacity 60-foot buses during the day on a portion of Metro Line 4 (Santa Monica Blvd.) from downtown Los Angeles to Sepulveda Blvd. as well as alter some service, cancel some unproductive lines during the week and on Saturday and Sundays as well as shorten some selected bus lines to improve efficiency.

How a bid for U.S. transit cash bounced from fast lane
A proposal by the city of Los Angeles and the MTA to curb freeway congestion was rejected because planners failed to do their homework.
By Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writer
June 25, 2007

In May 2006, the federal government published a call to arms for traffic-ridden cities across the country.

The feds — their big wallet loosened to the tune of $1.2 billion — asked cities to propose novel ways to ease congestion. One of the key requirements for being considered for funds was that cites include a proposal for "tolling," or "congestion pricing."

Congestion pricing has become an in-vogue term in transportation circles and is already in use on the 91 Express Lanes in Orange County. It's the practice of charging a toll, but with a twist: The price changes as traffic increases.

As the price goes up, the theory holds, fewer motorists will use the road.

Several government entities in Los Angeles County — including the city of Los Angeles and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority — submitted a joint application. Nationwide, nine of the 27 cities that applied were named semifinalists earlier this month, but the local effort was bounced from the competition.

Why?

Having reviewed the 30-page application, we offer this easy two-step guide to blowing a chance at millions of dollars in federal funding:

1) Don't follow instructions. Whereas other cities actually proposed tolling and congestion-pricing programs, the local application stated only that it would study the concept.

2) Use suspect spelling. The sixth sentence on the application's cover sheet read: "For this effort, Los Angeles County partners will bee seeking [the Department of Transportation's] technical support on advice."

Isn't it annoying when the spell-check can't tell the difference between a verb and a yellow-and-black thingy with wings?

Yes.

Were there any interesting ideas in the local application?

Yes, something called "system-wide adaptive ramp metering," or SWARM.

Here's how it works: Freeway onramps would be expanded or bypasses built so carpoolers and buses could easily enter the freeway. Meanwhile, onramp meters would allow fewer single-occupant vehicles to get on the freeway, with the goal being to keep freeway speeds at 50 mph at all times.

The application explains: "Drivers will 'pay' by waiting and thus be encouraged to use freeway transit, carpools, travel along parallel arterial streets, use new Bus Rapid Transit services on city streets or use existing or new light rail system (such as the Exposition Light Rail) in the same corridor."

This is bold. It may be genius. It may even work, although the law of unintended consequences says traffic could be moved from freeways to arterials, trapping everything in its path.

The folks at the MTA say that won't happen because part of SWARM involves better synchronizing the ramp meters with traffic lights. The same folks also believe they can still get the feds to provide money for this.

There is the little problem that the pilot project for SWARM is intended for the Santa Monica Freeway and hasn't received much public vetting on the Westside, where traffic is the big issue.

The SWARM idea aside, the funny thing about all this is that there is one extremely obvious place in Los Angeles where tolling or congestion pricing would be easy to implement and would work. It could even raise money for other transit projects.

Put on your thinking caps and try to guess where that place is. We'll get back to it next week.

Why did Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who last year made a big deal out of proposing a moratorium on condo conversions in his Westside district, support a condo conversion in his Westside district last week?

It's a long story, but a telling one.

The background: In 1981, the council adopted a law that identified several circumstances under which the city could reject a conversion.

The law has not been used for the last 25 years. But in February, the West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission used it to reject the proposed conversion of a 14-unit apartment building in Brentwood to an 11-unit condo.

Why? They determined it would significantly reduce the number of rental units in the community and the relocation assistance offered by the developer was deemed inadequate for the neighborhood — both circumstances that the law holds as grounds for rejection. Then a funny thing happened. Rosendahl decided to support the project, on the condition that the handful of tenants still opposing the conversion were given certain special protections, such as being allowed to stay in their rental units for years to come.

On Tuesday, in a back room literally behind council chambers, Rosendahl mediated the final deal between the residents and the developer, Xenon, represented by big-time land-use attorney Ben Reznik. The council approved it.

Residents aren't talking about the settlement because it's confidential. It appears that Rosendahl got the tenants a reprieve from eviction rarely given other tenants across town. But confidentiality means the other residents of the building — or you or I or anyone else getting booted from their apartment in the city — can't find out what they got.

So what does Rosendahl have to say about it?

He supported the developer's appeal because the developer had fixed the problems identified by the area planning commission.

"We had done our homework, and when I was with their attorney, I found him extremely open and wanting to work deals that would satisfy the tenants," Rosendahl said. "So we went tenant by tenant by tenant" and made deals.

There are a couple of interesting things here. The first is that the city of Los Angeles still can't manage to find an orderly way to manage condo conversions. The council did recently increase the relocation fees that apartment dwellers receive, but the city's 1981 law means pretty much zilch, and everything is done on a case-by-case basis.

The other interesting item here involves Rosendahl. He's up for reelection in 2009, and last week's events suggest he may be trying to make nice with a development community that is leery of him and didn't support him when he first ran, in 2005.

Rosendahl says he isn't worried about developers running someone against him. "I don't live in fear," he said.

How's that 'Rocky Delgadillo for D.A.' campaign shaping up?

Not well, unless you believe that allowing your wife to drive and wreck your city car while her license is suspended or having staff members do personal errands or your wife not filing business taxes makes for a compelling platform.

Term limits will force Delgadillo from office in 2009, and he has been shopping for a new job. Before the recent headlines, at least, many observers expected him to announce soon that he would challenge Cooley next year. He is attracted to that race in part because Democratic turnout is expected to be heavy next year and Cooley is a Republican. And private polls reportedly show Delgadillo has high name recognition.

Of course, that happens when you share a name with a movie and its five sequels. At his big news conference last week to discuss his wife's driving troubles in a city-owned car, Delgadillo was asked if he was running. He responded that he's just trying to do well in his current gig. When a reporter said, "I'll take that for a yes," Delgadillo chuckled.

Who knows what he might do. Delgadillo has also explored running for city controller. Maybe it doesn't matter. Every potential opponent has a campaign consultant, and that consultant can't wait to see how many of the recent stories about Delgadillo can fit on a campaign mailer.

They really need to get rid of the honor system...To many bums are riding all the day for free and making a mess of the subways..Put some turnstyles please...

Coalition sues in bid to block MTA fare hikes
Plaintiffs say higher fees could push more transit users into cars, adding to pollution. They want the agency to produce an environmental report.
By Tiffany Hsu, Times Staff Writer
June 27, 2007

Three groups representing local public transit riders and conservation interests united Tuesday in an effort to require the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to hold off on fare increases until their environmental effects can be measured.

A coalition of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Bus Riders Union and the Labor/Community Strategy Center, a think tank, filed suit seeking to require the MTA to produce an environmental impact report and filed a separate injunction request to block fare increases until the suit is resolved.

The coalition said the MTA's increased prices would force more public transit passengers — mostly the working poor — into cars, causing pollution levels to surge.

In anticipation of a $1.8-billion deficit over the next decade, MTA directors authorized the fare hike May 24. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had sought a smaller increase.

Effective Sunday, the monthly pass for buses and trains is to increase from $52 to $62, the day pass from $3 to $5 and the monthly pass for seniors from $12 to $14. Over the next two years, the single-ride fare is to climb from $1.25 to $1.50.

Before the May board meeting, the coalition sent a comment letter warning the MTA of the possibility of a lawsuit opposing fare hikes, said Francisca Porchas, a Bus Riders Union organizer.

A judge is expected to rule on the injunction today.

In a similar situation in 1994, the MTA was sued by the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People and the Bus Riders Union over proposed fare hikes and the elimination of the monthly bus pass.

The agency ultimately signed a consent decree agreeing not to raise fares for several years.

This time, the coalition alleges that the MTA is violating the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, which requires local government agencies to measure environmental effects before proceeding with development plans. The law allows agencies to restructure fares without such a report to meet operating costs.

Porchas believes the MTA plans to use the funds for construction of rail projects.

"It was a lot of what [MTA Chief Executive] Roger Snoble stated during the actual fare increase process, a lot of, 'Oh, some rail projects are going to have to wait if we don't get the money,' " Porchas said.

"To us, it looks like they're going to free up money to build capital projects," she said.

But MTA spokesman Marc Littman said none of the money from the fare increase was headed to construction plans.

With rider fees covering 24% of the bus and rail systems' operations costs, and subsidies filling the rest, even revenue from the price boost would not be enough to balance the MTA's budget, Littman said.

"To make this argument that we're going to have more money than we need is not true," Littman said. "The point is, every penny of the fare increase is going into operations, just to maintain the current system."

But if the fares are increased, coalition representatives said, nearly 100,000 bus riders — with an annual median income of $12,000 — could be priced out of public transportation; 2,800 of those, they said, would use cars.

For each 10% increase in fares, public transportation ridership drops 3% to 4%, Porchas said, citing a statistic that Littman said was outdated.

"These people are still going to need to get to school, work, church, etc.," said David Pettit, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Southern California Air Program. "And in some cases it might be financially worth it to go buy some piece of junk car. And they're going to tend to be older and more polluting cars."

The influx of drivers would further choke Southern California streets, plaintiffs said, and intensify respiratory disease, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and other environmental and health woes.

"It's something the MTA, in our view, ought to study," Pettit said. "They can study it and say it's trivial, but they wouldn't know that unless they look at it."

The MTA has refused to conduct an environmental impact report because, Littman said, state law exempts it from the resource-intensive process.

"These reports take a lot of time. They can go on for years, they're very expensive and, since we couldn't even sustain a growing operating deficit, it's untenable," Littman said. "We've never had to do that in the past. And in the meantime, we had a crisis."

The MTA takes in less than $3 million a year from fares, said Littman, who argued that the agency's rates are reasonable considering its recent expansions in service.

And although the MTA expects to lose riders from the price hikes, it expects to win them back through increased service, Littman said, pointing to the costs of driving.

"Even with the fare increase, the average boarding is only 66 cents," Littman said. "But if you factor in the costs of a car — the cost of a gallon of gas alone, depreciation, parking, maintenance — there's no comparison, Metro's still a bargain."

http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2007-06/30791596.gif

Judge won't stop MTA bus and rail fare hikes
By Rong-Gong Lin II and Tiffany Hsu, Times Staff Writers
3:31 PM PDT, June 27, 2007

A Los Angeles judge today refused to grant an injunction preventing the MTA from imposing hefty fare hikes for bus and rail service, making it likely that the new prices will go into effect as scheduled this weekend.

Three groups representing local public transit riders and conservation interests filed suit Tuesday in an effort to require the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to hold off on fare increases until the environmental effects could be measured.

A coalition of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Bus Riders Union and the Labor/Community Strategy Center, a think tank, filed suit seeking to require the MTA to produce an environmental impact report. It also filed an injunction request to block fare increases until the suit was resolved.

The coalition said the MTA's increased prices would force more public transit passengers -- mostly the working poor -- into cars, causing pollution levels to soar.

In anticipation of a $1.8-billion deficit over the next decade, MTA directors authorized the fare hike May 24. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had sought a smaller increase.

Effective Sunday, the price for a monthly pass for buses and trains is to increase from $52 to $62, the day pass from $3 to $5 and the monthly pass for seniors from $12 to $14. Over the next two years, the single-ride fare is to climb from $1.25 to $1.50.

Before the May board meeting, the coalition sent a comment letter warning the MTA of the possibility of a lawsuit opposing fare hikes, said Francisca Porchas, a Bus Riders Union organizer.

In a similar situation in 1994, the MTA was sued by the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People and the Bus Riders Union over proposed fare hikes and the elimination of the monthly bus pass.

The agency ultimately signed a consent decree agreeing not to raise fares for several years.

This time, the coalition alleged the MTA was violating the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, which requires local government agencies to measure environmental effects before proceeding with development plans. The law allows agencies to restructure fares without such a report to meet operating costs.

Porchas believes the MTA plans to use the funds for construction of rail projects.

"It was a lot of what [MTA Chief Executive] Roger Snoble stated during the actual fare increase process, a lot of, 'Oh, some rail projects are going to have to wait if we don't get the money,' " Porchas said.

"To us, it looks like they're going to free up money to build capital projects," she said.

But MTA spokesman Marc Littman said none of the money from the fare increase was headed to construction.

With rider fees covering 24% of the bus and rail systems' operations costs, and subsidies filling the rest, even revenue from the price boost will not be enough to balance the MTA's budget, Littman said.

"To make this argument that we're going to have more money than we need is not true," Littman said. "The point is, every penny of the fare increase is going into operations, just to maintain the current system."

If the fares go up, coalition representatives said, nearly 100,000 bus riders -- with a median annual income of $12,000 -- could be priced out of public transportation; 2,800 of those, they said, would use cars.

For each 10% increase in fares, public transportation ridership drops 3% to 4%, Porchas said, citing a statistic Littman said was outdated.

"These people are still going to need to get to school, work, church, etc.," said David Pettit, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Southern California Air Program. "And in some cases it might be financially worth it to go buy some piece of junk car. And they're going to tend to be older and more polluting cars."

The influx of drivers would further choke Southern California streets, plaintiffs said, and intensify respiratory disease, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and other environmental and health woes.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

They really need to get rid of the honor system...To many bums are riding all the day for free and making a mess of the subways..Put some turnstyles please...

You mean you don't like going to UCLA and when you go on the subway some bad smelling bum is sleeping there and you're glad when you get on the bus because at least that smelled better?

I've been on Metrolink about 3 times, and on Metrorail who knows how many times, and I have only been checked for tickets once on each. If Metro will not enforce it, then put turnstiles.

Porchas believes the MTA plans to use the funds for construction of rail projects.

"It was a lot of what [MTA Chief Executive] Roger Snoble stated during the actual fare increase process, a lot of, 'Oh, some rail projects are going to have to wait if we don't get the money,' " Porchas said.

"To us, it looks like they're going to free up money to build capital projects," she said.



Why are these people sooo paranoid about rail? Basically if you stop and think about it they are basically saying, 'we don't want the MTA to build subways'. Why? Wouldn't this only add to a greater transit system? Why was the BRU even against the Orange bus line being built? Why are they against any advancement in public transportation in LA? Get it through your heads people, the BRU is part of the car and oil industries that never want to see real public transportation here in LA........:ohno: :ohno: :ohno:

Btw, I like the honor system!

^^I would be fine with the honor system as long as people were checked for tickets.

The BRU only defends the bus riders. They want bus ridership to go down so that the most poor will have a comfortable ride on it. They want the MTA to focus only on buses because if rail ridership grows, then so will bus ridership. They have nothing to do with transit, they want Blacks and Latinos to be stuck on buses.

^The metrorail (subway) is my main mode of transportation around the city. Last year, I would have agreed that Fare Inspectors are very rare, but I see them frequently now, at least several times a week. 7th/Metro, Hlywd/Highland & Wilshire/Vermont are swarming with them during peak times.

But the problem is that the Fare Inspectors don't look closely at tickets! I'll never forget one morning I was on my way to work and the inspectors came aboard and announced everyone to pull out their tickets. There was this old filthy bag lady, barely conscious sitting across from me. When the inspector asked for her ticket, she started to slowly dig around in her pocket, and after a 1 - 2 minutes, she pulled out old papers, empty lipstick tubes and other trash. I thought "oh yeah, she's about to get booted". Then at the last second she yanked out what looked to be some old crinkled metro ticket. The thing was obviously older than me. The inspector was like "ok, thank you". I'm just sitting there like :shocked: Inspectors need to inspect!!!!

^^ I would have felt cheated if I was on the train that day. Although the fare is only $?.?? and some stinky old bag lady gets away with a free trip. MTA should have a complaint # where you could have reported this incident so drastic measures can be done. If not these "fare Inspectors" are not doing their job correctly and MTA should be aware of slackers that they hire. Especially now that MTA is trying to add fares to cover some looses....

i take the goldline and redline everyday. from sierra madre to union station to universal... and i never see ticket checkers. sometimes there are la county deputies. but there just sitting around. not once in the last two weeks have i been stopped to see if i have a ticket

When I commuted downtown from the south bay, i'd almost always see fare inspectors at Imperial/Wilmington station. Sometimes on other blue line stations like 103rd St and Florence.

i think they live there. the 2 times i went to the green line there were people at that station both coming and going

Here's a question I have, are people supposed to sleep on the train? I got on one day at Union Station and there were people who stayed on the train and were sleeping. There were some officers who came in, but they didn't check tickets and they didn't say anything about the people who were sleeping. So they can sleep there if they have a day pass, or do officers just decide to do nothing about it?

they kick them off if the train is going out of service. otherwise as long as they pay what can yo do?

MTA board is now open to toll roads
The transit agency agrees to develop plans for high-occupancy toll lanes -- which it has traditionally resisted doing -- within three years.
By Rong-Gong Lin II, Times Staff Writer
3:04 PM PDT, June 28, 2007

In a major shift in philosophy, Los Angeles County transit leaders agreed today to develop plans for toll roads in the county within three years.

The decision by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board of Directors comes amid criticism that Los Angeles remains one of the few metropolitan areas in the country not to experiment with so-called congestion pricing, in which motorists are charged to use certain roads based on the amount of traffic.

Last month, the county lost out on a major federal grant because it did not have any congestion pricing programs in the works.

London and New York have garnered headlines for efforts to charge motorists who drive into those cities during rush hour. Closer to home, Orange and San Diego counties have toll roads and high occupancy toll lanes, in which motorists pay based on the level of congestion.

Traditionally, L.A. officials have been cool to congestion pricing, with critics calling them "Lexus Lanes" for the rich that take money away from rail and bus services. But the county's worsening traffic — and the need for more revenue for transit projects — has changed some minds.

"At some point, we have to reduce the number of single-passenger automobiles if we want to reduce gridlock in L.A. County," Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said.

No specific projects have been identified.

One idea is to allow solo motorists who pay a toll to use freeway carpool lanes, something already done on the 91 Freeway in Orange County.

even better than that:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2007/06/subway-inches-f.html#comments

From the LA Times Bottleneck Blog

Subway inches forward
The Subway to the Sea took a very small step forward today with money for a study. But some members of the MTA want to be clear the action doesn't meet they support the $4 billion+ Wilshire Boulevard project:

The MTA board agreed today to spend $3.6 million to study the feasibility of extending the Purple Line to Santa Monica. A federal ban, in place since 1985, prevents the Metro Purple Line from extending west on Wilshire Boulevard past Western Avenue, but the transit agency is moving forward with plans to study alternate routes and preliminary engineering and environmental issues. Board members said commissioning the study, which should take 12 to 18 months to complete, does not mean the Metropolitan Transportation Authority endorsing the project or will necessarily move forward with plans to extend the Purple Line, which was previously called the Red Line between Union Station and Wilshire/Western. "When we speak in terms of competing for federal funds, there’s also other projects we’re looking at for federal funds, as well. I want to be clear that this action, although a first step, is not in any way, shape or form approving a `subway to the sea’," said Supervisor Don Knabe. (CNS)

:) ^Awesome news regarding the toll lanes in LA County! Discourage driving and generate revenue for new rail/bus lines all in one fell swoop. Let's get this show on the road!

Also very clever for the MTA to begin studying(yet once again)the subway to the sea while distancing themselves politically from it. You wouldn't want the BRU or neighborhood organizations to derail the project prematurely.

Will gridlocked L.A. heed this toll call?
While Orange County officials have built a network of toll roads to address growing traffic, L.A. officials have invested much more heavily in rail and bus service.
By Rong-Gong Lin II and Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writers
June 29, 2007

The land of the freeway is poised to become a little less free.

Los Angeles County transit leaders on Thursday agreed to develop plans for toll roads within the next three years, after decades of opposition to the concept of motorists paying tolls to use the roads.

The decision by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board comes amid criticism that Los Angeles has not joined other metropolitan areas around the nation in experimenting with "congestion pricing," in which motorists pay to use less crowded lanes.

Last month, L.A. County lost out on a major federal grant because it did not have any congestion pricing in the works.

London charges tolls to motorists who drive into the central city during rush hour, a practice New York City is now considering. Closer to home, Orange and San Diego counties have toll roads in which motorists pay for access to less-congested lanes. The toll fee rises based on the amount of traffic, allowing the toll lanes to keep flowing.

And this isn't pocket change: The toll on the 91 Express Lanes between Orange County and Riverside County approaches $10 eastbound during evening rush hour.

Traditionally, L.A. officials have been cool to congestion pricing, with critics calling it "Lexus Lanes" for the rich.

While Orange County officials have built a network of toll roads to address growing traffic, L.A. officials have invested much more heavily in rail and bus service.

But the county's worsening traffic — and the need for more revenue for transit projects — has changed some minds.

"At some point, we have to reduce the number of single-passenger automobiles if we want to reduce gridlock in L.A. County," Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Thursday.

Still, the idea of allowing solo motorists who pay a toll to use carpool lanes is already generating strong opposition from some commuters as well as auto advocacy groups.

"We feel it will be a form of double taxation to charge people for the roads they have already paid for by gas taxes," said Hamid Bahadori, principal transportation engineer for the Automobile Club of Southern California. "Rather than trying to restrict access, they had better start delivering on the projects."

Transportation experts said they were surprised that L.A.'s resistance to considering the concept dropped so quickly. They believe it probably was tied to recent revelations that federal officials passed over L.A. for transportation grants because the county's grant proposal had no congestion pricing component.

"I'll be darned," said Genevieve Giuliano, director of the National Center for Metropolitan Transportation Research at USC. "It's so difficult to get consensus … to do anything different in Los Angeles."

Experts said the idea of adding toll lanes to freeways and roads still faces many obstacles. The MTA could face opposition from motorists if it attempts to allow toll riders on existing, already-congested carpool lanes. L.A. has far less vacant land for new roads compared to Orange County and San Diego.

But congestion pricing does offer one highly advantageous element: Transportation agencies can borrow against future toll revenues to finance construction of new roads or lanes.

Additionally, the concept has fans on both the right and the left. Some conservatives like the free-market concept, while some environmentalists believe tolls could prompt more people to take mass transit or carpool.

In ordering transportation officials to draft plans for congestion pricing, the MTA board did not say where such projects would go. But over the last few years, several have been studied or discussed:

‧ Building truck-only toll lanes along an 18-mile stretch of the 710 Freeway, providing a route for commerce from the port into central Los Angeles.

‧ Adding toll lanes to a section of the 10 Freeway east of Los Angeles that parallels the El Monte Busway.

‧ Adding toll lanes to the 110 Freeway south of downtown Los Angeles, which already has a carpool and bus lane down the middle.

‧ Adding toll lanes along the 105 Freeway, which already has both a carpool lane and the Metro Green Line train going down the middle of it.

Congestion pricing has become increasingly popular with transportation experts across the country in recent years, largely because many believe it's one way to change behavior — people driving alone — and that it's a market-based approach to keeping traffic moving.

The Bush administration has made congestion pricing a priority of its transportation policy, this year earmarking $130 million in grants to agencies working on toll road-type projects.

Electronic tolls may be one of the few ways to add road capacity in Southern California, where the number of freeway lanes is expected to grow by only 2% by 2035 while the amount of vehicle miles driven is estimated to increase by 36%, according to the MTA.

The problem in L.A. County is space and politics. Widening many of the freeways to accommodate more toll lanes is difficult because of land acquisition issues. And, politically, no one is sure if it's a good idea to begin charging for carpool lanes that are currently free to those who use them.

Cynthia Storms, 45, of El Segundo said she definitely would pay to use a carpool lane as a solo driver for the price of lighter traffic.

"It's worth it to have a working road," said Storms, who owns a small business in El Segundo. "Whenever I get on the 405, no matter what time of day, it's bad."

But Edgar Nunez, a West L.A. real estate auditor, is dubious.

"I think there's a lot of traffic in the carpool lanes already," he said. "It's already crowded."

--

(INFOBOX BELOW)

Q&A

Charging a toll for those special lanes

What is congestion pricing?

The concept involves charging motorists a toll for using special roads or lanes, often during rush hour when traffic is most congested.

What are the different types of congestion programs?

Many congestion pricing projects involve charging motorists to drive on certain roads or lanes, with the toll varying depending on the level of traffic. London employs a "cordon charge," in which motorists pay a toll for entering a congested district (the toll is 10 pounds, or about $20). "Areawide charges" involve charging motorists for using all roads in a certain area.

Where is congestion pricing already being used?

In San Diego, there are express lanes on the 15 Freeway, where motorists pay anywhere from $1.50 during off-peak hours to $4 during rush hour. Orange County has the 91 Express Lanes, a 10-mile stretch where tolls range from $1.15 to $9.50, depending on the hour.

Near the rails but still on the road
Research casts doubt on the region's strategy of pushing transit-oriented residential projects to get people out of cars.
By Sharon Bernstein and Francisco Vara-Orta, Times Staff Writers
June 30, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2007-06/30871173.gif

TV cameras in tow and champagne at the ready, a dozen of the county's most powerful civic leaders — including the mayor of Los Angeles, L.A. City Council members and county supervisors — touted the latest and glitziest new development in Hollywood: the planned W Hotel and apartments at the storied corner of Hollywood and Vine.

This project, they pledged at the groundbreaking earlier this year, would restore a sagging neighborhood while also minimizing traffic — an important promise in increasingly gridlocked Hollywood.

"People could live here and never use their cars," declared MTA Chief Executive Roger Snoble at the February event.

It's a vision expressed frequently by local government officials, who see building large mixed-use developments next to mass transit lines as a key solution for not just the region's traffic congestion but also its spread-out geography and reputation for being unfriendly to pedestrians.

In Los Angeles alone, billions of public and private dollars have been lavished on transit-oriented projects such as Hollywood & Vine, with more than 20,000 residential units approved within a quarter mile of transit stations between 2001 and 2005.

But there is little research to back up the rosy predictions. Among the few academic studies of the subject, one that looked at buildings in the Los Angeles area showed that transit-based development successfully weaned relatively few residents from their cars. It also found that, over time, no more people in the buildings studied were taking transit 10 years after a project opened than when it was first built.

Los Angeles, with its huge geographic footprint and its limited public transportation system, can't offer residents of these developments the kinds of sophisticated transit networks available in cities like Washington, D.C. — or even smaller ones like Portland — where transit-oriented projects are believed by many to be working.

The Times decided to examine driving habits at four apartment and condominium complexes that have already been built at or near transit stations in South Pasadena, North Hollywood, Pasadena and Hollywood.

Reporters spent two months interviewing residents, counting cars going out of and into the buildings and counting pedestrians walking from the projects to the nearby train stations.

The reporting showed that only a small fraction of residents shunned their cars during morning rush hour. Most people said that even though they lived close to transit stations, the trains weren't convenient enough, taking too long to arrive at destinations and lacking stops near their workplaces. Many complained that they didn't feel comfortable riding the MTA's crowded, often slow-moving buses from transit terminals to their jobs.

Moreover, the attraction of shops and cafes that are often built into developments at transit stations can actually draw more cars to neighborhoods, putting an additional traffic burden on areas that had been promised relief.

Harry Cosmatos, a Kaiser Permanente radiation oncologist, is exactly the type of educated, upscale commuter that planners and transportation experts want to draw via transit-oriented developments.

In 2005, he purchased a townhouse in a project built partly atop the Mission Meridian Gold Line station in South Pasadena.

He works at Kaiser Sunset, which is at a Red Line stop in Hollywood.

He loves his new home, with its craftsman touches and picturesque South Pasadena setting, in arguably the best-designed transit-oriented development in the region.

Cosmatos also likes the Gold Line — it reminds him of the village train near where he went to medical school on Long Island.

But the 36-year-old physician nevertheless drives to work.

The train?

"It's not for me," he said. "Maybe for other people, but not for me."

It takes two trains and at least 45 minutes to get to work on the Gold and Red lines, Cosmatos said.

Driving is 15 minutes faster, he said, and more convenient.

The problem — reluctantly recognized by some of transit-based development's most influential boosters — is that public transportation in Southern California is simply not convenient enough: Either it takes too long to get places or, more important, doesn't take people where they want to go.

The region's transit system is limited, experts say, because it was built on two assumptions that have since proved untrue: that most traffic was generated by commuting trips and that most people worked downtown.

Nowadays, people nationwide are driving so much to take their children to school, run errands and engage in other activities that these trips far outstrip commuting, according to federal transportation statistics.

To make matters worse, almost all of the transit-oriented construction that has so far been approved in the L.A. area is for housing rather than job centers or the village-style shopping areas that planners had originally envisioned.

Barring significant changes, this could mean that tens of thousands of residents will be clustered near train stations they only occasionally use. For most shopping, schools and jobs, they'll still get in their cars.

Film student Isaiah Eller is a good example of the quandary.

The 21-year-old left two cars behind in Michigan, figuring he wouldn't need them when he moved to the Mark apartment building in Hollywood last year.

Just two blocks away from the Hollywood and Vine Red Line station in a neighborhood with plenty of restaurants and shops, Eller considered the vintage building of 101 units a perfect place to live without a car.

But after just a few months, he says he's so frustrated trying to get around Los Angeles on public transportation that he's thinking of bringing both vehicles out from the Midwest.

Using the system here took too long, didn't go where he needed and was unpleasant, he said.

"I've only ridden the bus three times, and that was enough," Eller said.

He's not alone. Although several residents of his building said they had given up their cars, about 30 of the 54 cars in the garage pulled out during morning rush hour.

But such realities haven't stopped or even slowed the wave of projects planned or under construction.

Huge developments in the pipeline include the L.A. Live and Grand Avenue projects downtown and hundreds of units around Metro stations in Hollywood, North Hollywood and the Mid-Wilshire areas.

Countywide, massive apartment and condominium complexes have been developed in Pasadena, South Pasadena, Long Beach and elsewhere.

Backers — who include planners, elected officials and builders — say such development is the best way to avoid a traffic meltdown as 6.3 million anticipated new residents crowd Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties over the next 30 years.

Moreover, the developments are appealing to young people and empty nesters because they have a neighborhood feel that traditional sprawling subdivisions often lack, said Gail Goldberg, planning director for the city of Los Angeles.

"You're seeing in California a whole trend toward moving into more urban settings," she said. "People like to walk around and go to a coffee shop, go to the movies. That is a very desirable way to live."

But does that mean people will stop using their cars?

Two related studies, both conducted by UC Berkeley and Cal Poly Pomona, show that people who live near transit tend to use it more than people who don't. But the number is still minuscule compared with the number who drive.

Residents were more likely to use transit only if it took less time than driving, if they could walk to their destinations from the transit stop when they arrived, if they had flexible work hours and if they had limited access to a car.

Otherwise, researchers said, most people tend to drive — particularly if they get free parking at their workplaces.

At the Pacific Court and Bellamar apartments in Long Beach, researchers found, just 6.3% of residents said they used the Metro Blue Line to go to work in 2003. More than 78% of the residents of the transit-based projects said they never used the line.

"The dilemma we have is the destinations," said Robert Cervero, a UC Berkeley urban planning professor who is coauthor of the two studies of transit-oriented developments.

Even though more people are living near transit stations, he said, in Southern California work and school sites are not necessarily near train and bus stops.

That's different from the older East Coast cities, where the urban grid is closely connected to the local transit system.

"That to me is the big difference as to why transit-oriented housing works a lot better in other parts of the world," Cervero said.

In other words, he and others said, in Southern California, the new, denser transit-based housing projects could actually lead to more congestion rather than less.

Take the development where Cosmatos, the cancer doctor, lives.

Before the 67-unit project was built, the land on which it stands held two bungalows, according to South Pasadena officials. If each household had two cars, that would mean a maximum of four cars going in and out each day.

But on the four days The Times counted cars entering and leaving the complex, the picture was quite different. From 6 to 9 a.m. on four weekdays earlier this year, 50 to 60 cars left the residents' parking lot. An additional 75 pulled into the streets around the development on each of the mornings so their drivers could patronize the coffee shop that is built into the project. Still more vehicles — about 50 by 9 a.m. — pulled into a parking lot at the development for people who drive there to use the nearby Gold Line station.

There is another issue facing transit-oriented development: Regional statistics gathered by the Southern California Assn. of Governments show that job centers are moving away from transit lines rather than toward them.

That's exactly what happened for construction industry worker Eric Johnson, who moved to South Pasadena's Mission Meridian project with the intention of taking the Gold Line to his job downtown.

But a few months ago, his company moved to Sun Valley — far from a transit line. So now Johnson drives.

The Times found similar results at the other locations surveyed.

At Academy Village in North Hollywood, which sits about a third of a mile from the North Hollywood transit station, about 120 cars left the building each morning, while fewer than half a dozen residents set off on foot.

In Pasadena, a 350-unit building sits directly over the Del Mar Gold Line station; it was two-thirds leased when The Times did its survey. Of 225 people who got off the train on a recent evening, just one, Cheanell Henderson, headed toward the apartment complex.

She loves the convenience of taking the Gold Line. But she's not so sure about her fellow tenants. "I save a lot of money on car expenses," Henderson said. "But I haven't met any neighbors on the train yet."

Also very clever for the MTA to begin studying(yet once again)the subway to the sea while distancing themselves politically from it. You wouldn't want the BRU or neighborhood organizations to derail the project prematurely.

I was trying to figure out why they were very cautious about the study. That makes so much sense now.

Solution: This 'it's easier in other parts of the world' bullshit is just that, bullshit. You know why it's easier? Because the car is not a convenience. Sorry but you have to take away free parking, put in toll roads and some congestion pricing to beat back this trend of NO EXCUSE but I still drive.
And my god is he driving a plane? 15 minutes from Pasaden to Hollywood through rush hour traffic??

Being in Tokyo makes me even more jealous of how Los Angeles could be way more exciting if it had like 40% of what Tokyo's Metro is like. EVERYONE rides the metro here.

We really need to educate people about public transit options and it's benefits. if we don't do anything within the next 30 years we are going to choke. We don't have the infrastructure to sustain an additional 6.3 million people.

Complaints, resignation greet MTA fare increases
By Tiffany Hsu, Times Staff Writer
July 1, 2007

Today will probably be a gloomy Sunday for patrons of public transit, as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's fare hikes take effect.

Ever since the increases were approved by the Los Angeles County agency in May, many bus and rail riders have dreaded the hikes, which they consider too steep but inevitable. A judge rejected a request for a restraining order Thursday.

"The hikes aren't too popular — people on the train are all talking about it," said Highland Park resident Susan Rivera, a regular on the Gold Line. "People are most concerned about their own pocketbooks. There's not much sympathy the other way around, not too much argument about how much trouble the MTA's budget is in."

The last time the agency raised its fares was 10 years ago. Prices are scheduled to rise again in two years, at which time the cost of the popular day pass will have doubled.

In the current round of increases, the day pass has gone from $3 to $5, the weekly pass from $14 to $17 and the monthly pass from $52 to $62. The monthly pass will rise to $75 in two years. A single-trip ticket will remain at $1.25 but increase to $1.50 in 2009.

"It's not a good idea," said Carmen Corera, 52, as she waited with her day pass for a bus near Sunset Boulevard and Vermont Avenue in Hollywood last week. "It's too much money. Three dollars is already expensive; $5 is just too much."

MTA officials said revenue from the fare increases would go toward plugging a $1.8-billion deficit anticipated over the next decade. The funds will also be used for operational costs, officials said.

In a suit filed last week against the MTA, several groups including the Bus Riders Union claimed that the agency intended to use some of the proceeds from the hikes for capital projects, including construction of more rail lines.

For that reason, the groups say, the MTA should be required to conduct an environmental impact report, and until it is completed, the fare hikes should be put on hold.

Although Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant has not yet ruled on that point, he did reject the groups' request that the agency not be allowed to implement the increases until their suit is settled.

Meanwhile, many riders have resigned themselves to dealing with the hikes, with some even commiserating with the MTA.

"I don't really blame them, because gas prices are going up, so of course they have to exert themselves," said John Kong, 17, as he got off a bus in Monterey Park. "But change adds up — it'll eventually catch up to a lot of people."

Kong said he was not overly concerned about how the fare increases would affect him. He has a job at a sandwich shop, so he can still afford the fares, he said.

At Union Station downtown, Rivera said she felt fortunate that her employer, the Los Angeles Universal Preschool, reimbursed her nearly $60 a month for her monthly pass.

"But it seems like the pass has been $52 for only a short period of time. Ten dollars is a significant difference," she said. "But it's still better than driving — the Gold Line is near home, and I work near Union Station."

Although the fare increases will affect low-income riders most, many said Metro would remain their transit choice. It is often their only choice.

The hikes came at an especially inopportune time for daily bus rider Sandra Martinez, 36. While waiting at Sunset and Vermont for a bus to downtown L.A., she bemoaned what she said was a lack of explanation about the raises.

"The bus is now too expensive for me, especially since I'm looking for a job right now," said Martinez, who currently uses a weekly pass. "I knew it was coming, but I don't understand why they did it."

To offset the extra costs, Martinez said, she might occasionally walk instead of taking the bus. For the majority of her trips, however, she said her only option is the bus.

The same holds true for Brian Conrad, 43, who has to take two buses every day to and from his FedEx job near LAX. Although he is flirting with the idea of buying a cheap car, Conrad said he probably would just switch from his current weekly pass to a monthly one, which would save him about $6 a month.

"I feel, not exactly helpless, but definitely frustrated, because the bus is my only form of transportation," Conrad said while killing time on the platform of the Blue Line's Compton Station. "But I have no choice. Bus fare is like rent — I've got to pay it."

Other riders said they will grumble less if the MTA uses money from the fare hikes to improve its service.

"The rates are crazy, and they don't make any sense. I've heard that people are going to write angry letters to MTA," Conrad said. "But other people are saying that with the increase, we might get better services, and more buses might actually be on time."

Complaints, resignation greet MTA fare increases
By Tiffany Hsu, Times Staff Writer
July 1, 2007



The hikes came at an especially inopportune time for daily bus rider Sandra Martinez, 36. While waiting at Sunset and Vermont for a bus to downtown L.A., she bemoaned what she said was a lack of explanation about the raises.

"The bus is now too expensive for me, especially since I'm looking for a job right now," said Martinez, who currently uses a weekly pass. "I knew it was coming, but I don't understand why they did it."


The same holds true for Brian Conrad, 43, who has to take two buses every day to and from his FedEx job near LAX. "I feel, not exactly helpless, but definitely frustrated, because the bus is my only form of transportation," Conrad said while killing time on the platform of the Blue Line's Compton Station. "But I have no choice. Bus fare is like rent — I've got to pay it."

"

Martinez is living in la la land.......They did it because no organization the size of LA's MTA can supress fares for 10 years w/o getting into some kind of trouble and w/o coming up w/ any new taxation methods.

The Times usual practice is to lie anytime transit is an issue......So Brian Conrad it says has to take 2 busses to his job near LAX, so why is Conrad later on a Blue Line platform??? They are so incredibly stupid at that paper.......Conrad takes 2 trains idiots....the blue line from Compton and the Green Line to LAX.

Im sorry but these people complaining in the articles are lame. When I use a daypass, I sometimes use 3 buses and try to throw in using MetrolRail. This is a steal.

Consider LAX as takeoff point for congestion pricing
By Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writer
July 2, 2007

Attentive readers may have noticed an interesting story in the news last week: The board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority now wants to develop plans for toll roads in Los Angeles County over the next three years.

The timing was curious. Earlier in June, an application from the MTA and other transit agencies in the county had honked out in the first round of a competition for hundreds of millions of federal dollars for toll roads.

The reason: the local proposal sought only to study toll roads, not actually implement them. But the failure in the competition earned the local transit lads some bad press, which may explain last week's sudden turnaround.

Of course, it's hard to blame the transit agencies, which answer to local pols, none of whom seemingly want to pull the trigger on a program that would take money from voters' pockets for using roads that have been free.

As Shakespeare once wrote, "crouch down in fear, and yield."

Things may be changing. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa voiced support last week for the toll plans. His peers in other cities have pushed tolls and congestion pricing — under which tolls adjust upward at busy times to discourage traffic — in recent years and the mayor doesn't like to be upstaged.

Is there any place in Los Angeles County where congestion pricing would be easy to implement?

What about Los Angeles International Airport?

We promised in this space last week to propose one place where a toll or congestion pricing might work. We're not saying we're right, but this is an idea that has been thrown around privately by politicians.

The idea is this: Because there is only one way in and out of the central terminal area at LAX, it would be possible to construct toll booths to charge private vehicles entering the main airport route that leads to the terminals.

Theoretically, the toll to enter the airport would be higher during LAX's busiest periods. If it worked, the toll might accomplish two goals: discourage people from driving to the airport and raise money for other airport transportation projects.

And it seemingly would be easier to build toll booths than to construct new lanes on freeways.

More than 25.6 million vehicles entered the central terminal area last year, according to LAX officials, although the data don't show how many of those were private passenger vehicles as opposed to buses, cabs, etc. If a toll were a minimum of $5, and 8 million of those cars were private — a conservative estimate — tolling theoretically could raise at least $40 million a year.

It may not even be a tough sell politically. LAX is owned and operated by the city of Los Angeles, but many of its passengers live elsewhere in the region.

But don't people drive to the airport because there are few alternatives to getting there?

Yes.

At this time, there is no rail service that is practical, even though the Green Line stops a mile from the airport terminals. The FlyAway bus service is popular but brings passengers from only three areas — Van Nuys, Union Station and Westwood.

The city wants to add nine more FlyAway bus routes by 2015 because the existing routes have been successful. There also are taxis and a variety of airport shuttles. It doesn't take a genius to imagine a proposal for the federal funds that would have introduced some type of congestion pricing for the airport and used tolls collected to expand the FlyAway buses throughout the region.

The down side?

Traffic could back up on Century Boulevard behind the toll booths. And it may do nothing to reduce traffic, with people simply accepting the new fee and still driving to LAX in large numbers.

"It's definitely worth exploring," said Councilman Bill Rosendahl, whose Westside district includes LAX.

Rosendahl then launched into a soliloquy over how the region really needs to spend $100 billion to build a comprehensive mass transit system. He's right, and then he dropped this nugget: Maybe LAX should charge passengers from Orange County a surcharge because they decided not to build an airport at the former El Toro Marine base.

What do you think? Is it wise planning? Or further proof that a certain reporter has a pair of Pop-Tarts where his brain should be?

Pencils up. It's quiz time. Which of the following has been named after Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis P. Zine?

A) The annual Dennis P. Zine Fourth of July Fireworks Extravaganza.

B) The future Dennis P. Zine Community Center in Canoga Park.

C) The "Prime Time Zine" television show on the city's cable channel.

D) The annual Z Awards.

E) The Dennis P. Zine Scholarship Awards.

F) The Dennis P. Zine Headless Mannequin Sculpture Garden.

Answer is below.

During the City Council's gay pride presentation on Friday, what did Mayor Villaraigosa say about a photo of Councilmen Eric Garcetti and a fully-leathered Zine on a motorcycle at the recent gay pride parade?

A) "This is the kind of nonpartisanship we need to see more often."

B) "It's about time they found one another."

C) "What a beautiful pair they make. What happened to me? A threesome?" Answer also below.

What will happen to Elephant Hill in northeast Los Angeles?

Its fate remains uncertain.

The issue: In the early 1990s, a developer proposed a subdivision for the hills above El Sereno. Although the development was approved, it never got built, and the property traded hands.

Enter Councilman Jose Huizar, who has been under pressure from residents to save the open space remaining in the northeast hills. But the only way for Huizar to slow the project was to require the developer to do a supplemental environmental impact report. (The last one was now over a decade old.)

Huizar — wisely consulting his political playbook — was able to delay a decision until after he won reelection in March. The matter came to a vote last month, when the council, by an 8-2 vote, agreed with Huizar that a supplemental report should be done, despite advice from the office of City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo that the first EIR was all that was needed.

Ben Reznik, the developer's attorney and a Huizar campaign donor, wasn't happy. He has said the developer may sue and could seek damages that would cost the city a whole lot of money.

What's the endgame?

That's the weird part. Huizar got the delay he wanted, but it seems unlikely at this stage to stop the project. "It's not that the project won't be done if an impact is found," Huizar said. The councilman said that, although he supports preserving Elephant Hill as open space with trails, he hasn't taken any steps to find a buyer for the land that would be interested in not developing it. "I would hope that some interested party would look and possibly acquire this site," Huizar said.

In the meantime, this column spent some time driving around Elephant Hill and couldn't find the pachyderm resemblance. But the approximately 15 acres sure are pretty. If you've got many millions of bucks sitting around, your time is now.

Answers to above questions: On the first question, the answer is A through E. On the second question, the answer is C.

Oh not this toll road crap again, put a sock in it!

STFU, nobody asked you!!!! :-P

Hey, is Ferney's not using it, then less traffic for us.

STFU, nobody asked you!!!! :-P


^ :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: So rude!

Zev Yaroslavsky is interviewed talks about Orange Line, Crenshaw Line, One way Pico/Olympic and the infamous Subway to the sea........What's your opinion of this controversial figure after reading this article?

http://www.thetransitcoalition.us/newspdf/mir20070600a.pdf

^^Flip-flopper.

Oscar Geraldo seems like the kind of guy who the MTA would love to have take mass transit. But in response to The Times' piece last week on the weaknesses of Transit-Oriented Development, he offered his own experiences on the MTA to The Times' Sharon Bernstein.

Seven years ago I moved to downtown LA, in a stroke of luck, the Red Line to North Hollywood just opened up and I was working at Universal City at the time. In those 7 years I've seen the same problems over and over.

Check out his Top Six problems with mass transit in L.A. below.

> The fundamental logic flaw that the MTA has is that the LA transit

> system is I modern efficient. That concept is as laughable as when the

> MTA pointed to New York's transit fares to justify the draconian fare

> increases they wanted. If those fares would have happened, I probably

> would have stopped taking the Red line

>

> 7 years ago I moved to downtown LA, in a stroke of luck, the Red Line

> to North Hollywood just opened up and I was working at Universal City

> at the time. In those 7 years I've seen the same problems over and

> over.

>

> 1. The trains/buses are never on time. So why would I take public

> transportation if I have an appointment at a specific time and I could

> not rely on the punctuality of the metro system?

>

> 2, At least once a month there is an incident that prevents the

> RedLine from reaching it's destination. The frustrating part about

> that is the lack of communication. I've waited at the Pershing Square

> station for forty minutes before I was told anything, and sometimes

> when I'd ask, I'd get responses as though I was asking a silly

> question. Many Times I've resorted to taking taxis since their

> alternate is ludicrious, they expect you to take a bus to your

> destination which is less frequent and holds less people. How can you

> expect a bus that comes once an hour to accomodate a train load of

> people?

>

> 3. Escalators and Elevators broken and regular intervals. The elevator

> issue is really absurd because they're solution is, if you need to use

> the elevator, get off at the previous or next stop and take a bus to

> your destination. ( Which will essentially cost you more money if you

> pay for a one way ticket since transfers don't exist anymore and each

> line is a separate fare )

>

> 4. I rarely take the blue line because it takes one hour to get to

> Long Beach. Why would I do that when I can get there in half the time

> in a car.

>

> 5, I will never take a local bus, only rail and Rapid buses.

>

> 6. During non rush hour the interval between trains is too long. Just

> last Wednesday I was waiting for half an hour at the Universal station

> for the next train. And it's always pleasant when I am waiting to head

> back to downtown and 2 trains pass heading toward North Hollywood and

> none to downtown.

>

> Of course some of these issues are out of the MTA's control. I really

> don't care for the NYMBIANs that attempt to derail the building of any

> new line for 'safety' reasons. IMO, if you get hit by a bus or rail

> line, you should automatically be at fault pay a big fine and be

> charged with a misdemeanor. An efficient public transportation system

> is essential for any major metropolitan.

>

> -Oscar

I can understand why he does not want to take local buses and his problem with getting to Long Beach, but how can he have problems with the subway? It does not take half an hour to wait for a train, there must have been another problem.

What do you think of his points?

> The fundamental logic flaw that the MTA has is that the LA transit
> system is I modern efficient. That concept is as laughable as when the
> MTA pointed to New York's transit fares to justify the draconian fare
> increases they wanted. If those fares would have happened, I probably
> would have stopped taking the Red line

what?



> 7 years ago I moved to downtown LA, in a stroke of luck, the Red Line
> to North Hollywood just opened up and I was working at Universal City
> at the time. In those 7 years I've seen the same problems over and
> over.



> 1. The trains/buses are never on time. So why would I take public
> transportation if I have an appointment at a specific time and I could
> not rely on the punctuality of the metro system?

leave early?


> 2, At least once a month there is an incident that prevents the
> RedLine from reaching it's destination. The frustrating part about
> that is the lack of communication. I've waited at the Pershing Square
> station for forty minutes before I was told anything, and sometimes
> when I'd ask, I'd get responses as though I was asking a silly
> question. Many Times I've resorted to taking taxis since their
> alternate is ludicrious, they expect you to take a bus to your
> destination which is less frequent and holds less people. How can you
> expect a bus that comes once an hour to accomodate a train load of
> people?

since when do you have to wait 40 min for a subway?


> 3. Escalators and Elevators broken and regular intervals. The elevator
> issue is really absurd because they're solution is, if you need to use
> the elevator, get off at the previous or next stop and take a bus to
> your destination. ( Which will essentially cost you more money if you
> pay for a one way ticket since transfers don't exist anymore and each
> line is a separate fare )

i have never seen the elevator, escalator and staircase all broken at the same time


> 4. I rarely take the blue line because it takes one hour to get to
> Long Beach. Why would I do that when I can get there in half the time
> in a car.

take your car. ill have room to put my feet up. seriously, la is fucking huge. what do you expect? also. isnt there any kind of express train from downtown to LB? i know there is one for the gold line


> 5, I will never take a local bus, only rail and Rapid buses.
ok, well they both are about the same speed



> 6. During non rush hour the interval between trains is too long. Just
> last Wednesday I was waiting for half an hour at the Universal station
> for the next train. And it's always pleasant when I am waiting to head
> back to downtown and 2 trains pass heading toward North Hollywood and
> none to downtown.

he must be falling alseep


> Of course some of these issues are out of the MTA's control. I really
> don't care for the NYMBIANs that attempt to derail the building of any
> new line for 'safety' reasons. IMO, if you get hit by a bus or rail
> line, you should automatically be at fault pay a big fine and be
> charged with a misdemeanor. An efficient public transportation system
> is essential for any major metropolitan.

alright... im make sure not to vote for him

He's on drugs. Of course it takes an hour to get to Long Beach it's 22 miles away. Does he know how long it takes to get from Harlem in NYC to JFK by A train??? 1 1/2 hours and it's closer. He's been warped by car usage and he's lying. During rush on the 710 I've heard of accidents holding up traffic for hours......does that mean that he now will sell his car?

From the newest article on HOT lanes.

"It's sort of like flying first-class on airlines — it costs more money, but those who can afford it, let them pay," he said. "That means by letting people ride first-class, the people riding economy pay a lot less" for future freeway widening projects.

Fleming, who is also board chairman of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, added that toll revenue could be used to expand freeways.

So we're adding toll lanes to expand freeways? If so, then I'm with Ferney on this issue.

Let him say what he wants......really I think the MTA is using all of this to mascarade their true ambition of pushing rail projects. But what would happen if the MTA came out foursquare saying that they are adding tolls to build subways? NIMBY's, BRU's and all of the naysayers will be out in the streets complaining that the MTA is building boondoggles that no one will ride anyway on their backs. If you look at the Long Range Plan that the MTA puts out the only freeway expansions are for carpool lanes, which I'm in favor of! Believe me(and I know it's hard to believe) but the MTA planners have their sights on building rail on the sly. Just read the LRTP again........the big projects are the 710 tunnel, carpool lanes for freeways and the rest is rail, rail, rail! This is what they really need the money for from tolls to be able put simplistically to match federal funds that are needed for multi-billion dollar projects like the 'subway to the sea' ........but why incur opposition now(or lawsuits for Chrissake!) when you can just remain silent and quietly continue to build(Expo, Eastside Gold) and study (Purple Line to the ocean study starts soon). Oh well that could be all just wishful thinking but I think Snoble has his sights on leaving a legacy........http://www.mta.net/board/Items/2006/05_May/20060503RBMItem45handout.pdf
Additional:
http://riptrack.blogspot.com/2005/05/great-point-made-by-lamtas-roger.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-snoble27apr27,0,3555427.story?coll=la-home-commentary

klamedia is right! we have more ground to cover than other cities. Our city is huge. For example, you can take the metro from the valley to long beach...it takes a long time but think about how much land you are covering. It takes an hour to drive there let alone metro. But at least you save $ in gas.

Toll plan might leave many in jam
Adding paying drivers to carpool lanes would worsen traffic unless minimum occupancy was raised to three per vehicle, experts say.
By Rong-Gong Lin II, Times Staff Writer
July 7, 2007

If L.A. moves forward with plans to allow toll-paying drivers into carpool lanes, the biggest loser may be the vast majority of drivers who don't — or cannot afford to — use them.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is drawing up plans that, by 2010, would implement "congestion pricing" in Los Angeles County — allowing, for example, solo motorists to pay to use less-congested lanes.

But transit experts generally agree that adding toll drivers to carpool lanes would leave them in gridlock unless officials allowed only vehicles with three or more occupants to use the lanes free during peak hours (two occupants is the current standard for the vast majority of carpool lanes).

A study by the Southern California Assn. of Governments found that toughening the carpool requirement to three per car during rush hour would clear up the lanes but further jam the rest of the freeway.

That would mean that drivers who pay a toll or meet the three-plus requirement would roll through clearer traffic. But motorists in the other lanes — including those no longer eligible for the carpool lanes — could face even longer delays, said Hasan Ikhrata, SCAG's director of planning and policy.

The 2004 study found that converting a two-plus carpool lane into a three-plus lane would add 1.7 million commute hours a day for Southern California drivers because of increased congestion in the regular freeway lanes.

The MTA's effort to develop congestion pricing has won praise from some who see it as a novel way to improve traffic flow as well as criticism from those who consider it "Lexus Lanes" for the rich.

But MTA board member David Fleming said the SCAG study did not consider the impact of allowing toll-paying drivers in the lanes.

If the general freeway lanes become more congested because carpool requirements are toughened, Fleming said, commuters can always opt to pay a toll to access the faster lanes. That, he said, could free up regular traffic lanes.

"It's sort of like flying first-class on airlines — it costs more money, but those who can afford it, let them pay," he said. "That means by letting people ride first-class, the people riding economy pay a lot less" for future freeway widening projects.

Fleming, who is also chairman of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce board, added that toll revenue could be used to expand freeways.

The MTA is just beginning to study the possibility of congestion pricing, in which motorists pay a toll to drive on less-congested roads.

The move comes after the agency was criticized for not having a congestion pricing program in the works and failing to receive grants from a federal program designed to boost such projects.

No specific routes have been named. But in the past, officials have talked about adding congestion-priced toll lanes along the 10 Freeway east of downtown Los Angeles and, to the south, the 110 and 105 freeways.

Converting carpool lanes into so-called high-occupancy toll lanes would have to win approval from the Federal Highway Administration.

In 2005, Congress passed legislation that made it easier for transportation officials to seek such conversions, said Nancy Singer, a spokeswoman for the highway agency.

There are high-occupancy toll lanes on freeways in San Diego, Minneapolis, Denver, Salt Lake City and Houston, as well as an express toll lane on the 91 Freeway in Orange County, according to the agency.

Federal officials have made "HOT lanes" a priority, saying they want to give motorists more options to avoid congestion.

"Essentially, what you're doing is you're using excess capacity that's not being used and allowing more options for motorists to use those lanes as a solo driver if they choose to pay," Singer said. "It gives them an option to get where they want to get sooner. And at the same time, it takes those vehicles off the regular lanes. So everyone benefits."

But Southern California is significantly different from other parts of the county, because the region's carpool lanes are already crowded. In fact, the highway agency recently declared that many California carpool lanes are so congested they fail to meet federal standards.

That's why, congestion pricing advocates say, it's only a matter of time before carpool lane requirements need to be toughened from two-plus to three-plus during rush hour. That will then free up enough space to sell to solo motorists, they say.

"If the carpool lanes are going the same speed as regular lanes, there is no incentive to get into a bus," said Michael Cano, transportation deputy to MTA board member and L.A. County Supervisor Mike Antonovich.

Cano pointed to slow speeds on the El Monte Busway on the 10. Bus officials have urged officials to increase the minimum-occupancy requirement, which is three-plus during peak hours and two-plus the rest of the time.

Cano acknowledged that increasing the minimum-occupancy requirement could push out some two-person carpools.

"True, it may temporarily push more traffic into the rest of the lanes until people start figuring it out," he said. But "perhaps that means more people taking Foothill Transit from the eastern San Gabriel Valley down to downtown."

Alternatively, commuters might opt to pay the toll in return for a faster commute, providing revenue for future freeway and transit projects, said MTA board member John Fasana, a Duarte city councilman. Or they could increase their carpools to three people.

Other toll-based or congestion pricing ideas should also be considered, Ikhrata said, such as building truck-only toll lanes on the 710 Freeway from the ports to the 60 Freeway to the Inland Empire and the 15 Freeway to Barstow.

Though trucks make up only 5% to 10% of traffic, because of their large size they take up 30% to 40% of the capacity on freeways, Ikhrata said.

Already, congestion pricing is attracting some believers. Rusel Rilloraza, a 47-year-old jewelry store worker in downtown L.A.'s jewelry district, said she'd pay extra for faster lanes and thinks her friends would too.

"Sometimes no one is using those [carpool] lanes and [regular] traffic is backed up, so it couldn't hurt if people want to pay the money to get around faster," Rilloraza said.

But Marc Speth, a 27-year-old sales attendant at the Flair Collection boutique in downtown's fashion district, said he probably wouldn't benefit from congestion pricing.

"The traffic is horrible in my commute, and the freeways I use don't have carpool lanes," said Speth, who drives to work from the Westside.

And Sandra Davis, 30, who works nearby at another boutique, feared that shoppers would become averse to freeway travel if they faced a choice between bad traffic and a faster toll lane.

"People already don't like paying for parking here and might not want to come if they have to pay for toll roads," she said.

Too bad! Tolls should be implemented at LAX. For example, I take the Flyaway bus into the airport and regularly we are held up by stupid motorists who are freely unloading 1 person and not knowing what the hell they are doing......why should 2 people hold up 60 people that are traveling much more efficiently, something is really wrong w/ that picture. Another example would be at work the employees get their parking subsidized by recieving "free parking passes" yet I don't recieve a "free transit pass".....I am not polluting the air(at least to the extent of combined single drivers), I am not clogging the freeways and when I'm riding the Red Line I'm using electricity collectively w/ 300 other people instead of burning fuel for the thousands of single drivers that drive to LAX. Why are they being PAID to pollute the air and congest the roadways while I have to pay to choose to travel more efficiently and healthier? Bring on the toll roads, congestion pricing and the riddance of free parking!! Couldn't come soon enough. And if you can't afford the freeways, stay on the streets.

Up to 48 Percent of Travelers Will Use Public Transit When Visiting Top Cities for Summer and July Fourth Events
News Release
June 29, 2007

Contact: Mantill Williams (202) 496-4869
Virginia Miller (202) 496-4816


(Download In Adobe PDF format)

WASHINGTON, DC – While most think of the local public transportation system as a way to get back and forth to work, many savvy travelers are using it as an environmentally-friendly and costeffective way to tour some of the hot destinations and summer events a city has to offer. In its Green Travel Forecast, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) estimates that 90 million American adults will travel to large American cities this summer.

On average, one out of three people surveyed said they will tour green by using public transportation (34 percent). Travelers‟ use of public transportation will reach as high as 48 percent in New York City, the nation‟s top destination for transit use for visitors. A ranking of the top ten city destinations and their transit use among visitors follows:

New York City (48%)
Washington, DC (46%)
Boston, MA (43%)
San Francisco (40%)
Philadelphia (34%)
Chicago (31%)
Seattle (30%)
Las Vegas (26%)
Los Angeles (26%)
Atlanta (22%)
Cities are one of the top destinations for the Fourth of July holiday and during the summer months. This survey of 33,000 adults shows for the first time how travelers will get around once they arrive at their city destination. Synovate, a leading market research firm, conducted the survey for APTA. The survey also showed that travelers‟ use of public transportation will increase this summer. Twenty-eight percent of those who will use public transit while visiting a city said that they are more likely to use it this summer as opposed to last year.

While high gas prices are a factor for daily commuters, it did not rank as the top concern when travelers listed the most important reasons they would use public transportation during their trip to a city this summer. Sixty-two percent said it would be less expensive than taxicabs or rental cars, followed closely by 61 percent who say they won‟t have to worry about finding a parking space for their vehicle.

Another 48 percent say they will use public transportation when traveling because it is easier to use, while 42 percent like not having to drive around an unfamiliar city. Thirty-nine percent say public transportation is better for the environment and 38 percent said it will be less expensive than buying gas to drive their personal vehicle.

“This summer, many city tourists will be saying „no cab fare, no rental car, no problem!‟” said William W. Millar, president of APTA. “With almost 40 percent of travelers surveyed saying they will use transit this summer because of environmental concerns, tourists are discovering that getting around a city by public transportation can provide for a greener environment and can help them keep more green in their wallet.”

The environmental benefits of transit are many. Public transportation produces 95 percent less carbon monoxide (CO) and 90 percent less in volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nearly 50 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx), per passenger mile than private vehicles, according to APTA.

The cost savings for travelers using public transportation are high. A traveler can purchase a visitors pass for a local public transportation system and ride all day for as little as three to ten dollars. That is a fraction of what it would cost to rent a car and park it, or take numerous cab rides around the city, or buy gas and park a vehicle.

The most popular activity for those using public transportation while visiting a city is sightseeing (61 percent), followed by: restaurant dining and nightlife (46 percent), shopping (44 percent), travel to and from their place of lodging (41 percent), visiting a historical site (37 percent) and travel to and from the airport (37 percent).

Travelers who originate from large metropolitan areas are more likely to take advantage of a city‟s local public transportation system. Slightly over half (53 percent) of those traveling to a city and use transit on their trip are from large urban areas, while 23 percent are from medium-sized metro areas and 24 percent are from smaller cities and towns.

To assist travelers, APTA is providing its free “Green Travel Forecast, a Consumer’s Guide to Touring American Cities in a More Environmentally Friendly Way.” The guide includes specific information on day and visitor passes, trip planners, transit maps and directions. For the top 10 destinations with established transit systems it includes examples of upcoming city events accessible

***

APTA is a nonprofit international association of 1,600 member organizations including public transportation systems; planning, design, construction and finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions; and state associations and departments of transportation. APTA members serve the public interest by providing safe, efficient and economical public transportation services and products. APTA members serve more than 90 percent of persons using public transportation in the United States and Canada.

Cleaner locomotive starts its port duty
The engines burn 30% less fuel than the old ones and will cut smog-forming nitrous oxides by about 46% -- or about 163 tons -- each year.
By Louis Sahagun, Times Staff Writer
July 10, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-07/31084266.jpg

Jeff Robinson settled into the driver's seat of his new, low-emission locomotive Monday, released the air brakes and moved a throttle lever, making the engine roar and his train rumble forward with 9,000 tons of imported goods in tow.

The locomotive could easily have been mistaken for a 1950s model, given its vintage shiny black-and-silver zebra-stripe paint job. But under the hood, according to its owners and air-quality officials, was an example of cutting-edge diesel-electric technology: a V-12, 2,000-horsepower machine that dramatically cuts unhealthful emissions.

Moving about 10 mph while occasionally slowing down for track switches and light signals, Robinson maneuvered the train through the seaport complex.

It took Robinson only a few minutes to haul his load from one terminal to another less than a mile away.

That's the task of a short-line railroad like his Pacific Harbor Line at the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex.

Its mission is to switch carloads of imported goods onto tracks for Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and Union Pacific, which then transport the goods throughout the U.S.

Pacific Harbor aims to replace its entire fleet of grimy 50-year-old locomotives with 16 custom-built, low-emission machines, which operate on ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel and exceed the Environmental Protection Agency's standards for air pollutantreduction.

Each new locomotive costs about $1.3 million.

The locomotives burn 30% less fuel than the old ones and will cut smog-forming nitrous oxides by about 46% — or about 163 tons — each year, officials said. They will also reduce harmful diesel particulates by about 70% — or about three tons — each year.

"Even the old locomotives at their worst are better than the alternative, trucks, at their best," said Andrew Fox, president of Pacific Harbor Line.

By January, Pacific Harbor will have one of the lowest average emissions profiles of any railroad in the United States, according to port authorities, who lauded the move as an important step under their 2006 Clean Air Action Plan to reduce harmful harbor air pollutants by 50% within five years.

Pacific Harbor currently has four of the locomotives in service on its 60 miles of busy tracks that crisscross the 7,500-acre port complex.

The rest will be phased in at a rate of two per month.

The company also has ordered three locomotives of an even newer, cleaner design.

Under terms of an industry-ports partnership, the roughly $23-million cost of the fleet is being shared by Pacific Harbor, which has spent $10 million on the project, and the ports, which have provided $5 million each. Additional funds are coming from the California Air Resources Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

"This is a big deal for the ports," said Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles.

"It sets the bar for what we expect in terms of dock usage and rail activity, and is just one more piece of evidence of how we are putting our money where our mouth is in terms of greening port operations."

Unlike so-called road locomotives, which traverse the nation's railways at speeds of up to 70 mph, Pacific Harbor's trains rarely exceed 25 mph. However, Pacific Harbor's specialty — railroad switching within the port complex — involves substantial work for crews because of all the starting and stopping, and the resulting idling is a significant source of emissions.

The new locomotives automatically shut down if they are stopped for more than about 15 minutes, and are three times more powerful than the first diesel-electric switch engines introduced in the 1930s, according to Fox, a lifelong train enthusiast.

Paul Withers, publisher of Diesel Era magazine, said Pacific Harbor's decision to renovate its fleet was not surprising.

"In a place like Southern California, where air pollution is such a big deal, the handwriting was on the wall," Withers said. "They'd have to do it eventually. That they took the initiative to do it now is a good example for the industry."

In the meantime, Pacific Harbor's train operators have been breaking in the locomotives that, one conductor said, "take some getting used to."

"They run all right, although they take a little longer to power up than the old diesels," said conductor Jason Bengel.

"On the other hand, I don't see as much smoke coming out of the engines as I used to."

Meeting set on 710 Freeway extension
South Pasadena officials will discuss a plan to tunnel under the city to complete the 'missing link' between the 10 and 210 freeways.
By Ari B. Bloomekatz, Times Staff Writer
July 10, 2007

South Pasadena today will hold a special public meeting to discuss a proposal to complete the 710 Freeway by tunneling under the city.

The meeting comes as nearby cities such as Alhambra and Monterey Park have expressed support for the plan, which would complete the freeway's "missing link" between the 10 and 210 freeways.

South Pasadena has for decades opposed building the freeway, which would threaten historic homes and neighborhoods. As a result, the 710 dead-ends at Valley Boulevard and the Los Angeles-Alhambra border, causing traffic backups in the area.

The meeting, which will begin at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council chambers, will include a comprehensive review and status update on the proposed freeway extension, which includes a 4 1/2 -mile tunnel that would move the end of the 710 Freeway from Valley Boulevard in Los Angeles to the 210 Freeway in Pasadena.

City Clerk Sally Kilby said the meeting will be beneficial not only for the public but also for newly elected Councilmen Mike Ten and David Sifuentes, who have not yet met some of the power players in the freeway extension saga.

"Periodically, the City Council gets together and goes over the current status of the 710, and this is an opportunity to do that again with the new council," said Tony Catenacci, South Pasadena's interim transportation manager. "It's an opportunity to provide some good background."

The council will spend a significant portion of its meeting discussing a feasibility study on the tunnel extension conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority as well as the city of Los Angeles' current position on the proposal.

The MTA study concluded that the project was feasible and that construction costs could range from $2.3 billion to $3.6 billion. The project could take up to 11 years to complete, the study said.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Transportation planners look to widen 57 freeway
OCTA seeks bids for designs to add a northbound lane to relieve congestion.
By ERIC CARPENTER
The Orange County Register

ORANGE – A $120-million project that could relieve congestion along the 57 freeway took an important step forward Monday.

The Orange County Transportation Authority board of directors voted to seek design consultants to develop plans for widening the northbound 57, between Orangethorpe Avenue and Lambert Road.

The project would include one additional lane and widen the four existing lanes along the four-mile stretch, which has been identified by the county and state as a "critical chokepoint" in the flow of north Orange County traffic.

Board members divided the widening project into two, $60-million segments to encourage more competitive bids.

Environmental review of the project is expected to finish in December. Funding is not expected to be a problem.

The OCTA had studied adding a lane in each direction along the entire freeway within Orange County, but determined right-of-way issues would prohibit that.

Meeting set on 710 Freeway extension
South Pasadena officials will discuss a plan to tunnel under the city to complete the 'missing link' between the 10 and 210 freeways.
By Ari B. Bloomekatz, Times Staff Writer
July 10, 2007

South Pasadena today will hold a special public meeting to discuss a proposal to complete the 710 Freeway by tunneling under the city.

The meeting comes as nearby cities such as Alhambra and Monterey Park have expressed support for the plan, which would complete the freeway's "missing link" between the 10 and 210 freeways.

South Pasadena has for decades opposed building the freeway, which would threaten historic homes and neighborhoods. As a result, the 710 dead-ends at Valley Boulevard and the Los Angeles-Alhambra border, causing traffic backups in the area.

The meeting, which will begin at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council chambers, will include a comprehensive review and status update on the proposed freeway extension, which includes a 4 1/2 -mile tunnel that would move the end of the 710 Freeway from Valley Boulevard in Los Angeles to the 210 Freeway in Pasadena.

City Clerk Sally Kilby said the meeting will be beneficial not only for the public but also for newly elected Councilmen Mike Ten and David Sifuentes, who have not yet met some of the power players in the freeway extension saga.

"Periodically, the City Council gets together and goes over the current status of the 710, and this is an opportunity to do that again with the new council," said Tony Catenacci, South Pasadena's interim transportation manager. "It's an opportunity to provide some good background."

The council will spend a significant portion of its meeting discussing a feasibility study on the tunnel extension conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority as well as the city of Los Angeles' current position on the proposal.

The MTA study concluded that the project was feasible and that construction costs could range from $2.3 billion to $3.6 billion. The project could take up to 11 years to complete, the study said.

fuck... was that 6.3o today!!! fucking deadlines

^^ fuck,fuck,fuck,fuck,fuck....Jesus!

Do we really need to use profanity on this board. Some of us don't like to use that language as casual as others...:ohno:

^^ fuck,fuck,fuck,fuck,fuck....Jesus!

Do we really need to use profanity on this board. Some of us don't like to use that language as casual as others...:ohno:


Hey, I like profanity!! It's better when you can express yourself in different ways. I especially like the word "cocksucker" ! But to stay on topic- WHAT HAPPENED TO eminent DOMAIN AGAIN? IF THEY WERE POOR THERE WOULD BE NO TUNNEL! Just a bunch of bulldozers.That's just bullshit! Why waste 3 billion dollars to please more rich people. I would rather spend 10 billion to make them miserable in court-"stupid rich cocksuckers"! Pardon my French.:nocrook:

Exactly!

so then you guys went to the meeting then...?

^ Yeah it was great!

Needed by 2050: decked freeways, tunnels, tolls, trains
By Rong-Gong Lin II and Jeffrey L. Rabin, Times Staff Writers
July 11, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2007-02/28168203.gif

Building the roads and transportation infrastructure needed to accommodate Southern California's surging population could cost more than $100 billion, according to planners, leaving the region's taxpayers with a tough choice ahead.

Local transportation agencies said the Southland's freeways and mass transit need drastic changes to accommodate what state officials project as a 60% increase in the region's population by 2050.

That would probably include adding upper decks to some Los Angeles County freeways, new rail lines and building freeways or toll roads in places like the Antelope Valley, Orange County and Riverside County.

"We are thinking here of a big system, equivalent to the interstate system," said Hasan Ikhrata, director of planning and policy for the Southern California Assn. of Governments, referring to the freeway building boom of the 1950s and 1960s that revolutionized American auto traffic.

The population forecast, released Monday by the state Department of Finance, predicted that California's population would swell to nearly 60 million by midcentury. Southern California's population would reach 31.6 million by 2050, up from 19.5 million in 2000.

Some demographers believe that the state will only reach those numbers if it provides adequate public infrastructure. Others worry that the growth will come even without more roads, making congestion worse.

"The Westsiders won't cross the 405. The west San Gabriel Valley people will stay in their little pocket," said Dowell Myers, USC professor of urban planning and demography. "We're going to live and work more in villages."

Politicians and transportation planners have been grappling for decades with how to make road improvements keep up with the rising population — and many admit that they have largely failed. The percentage of highways in the state deemed congested rose from 32% to 43% from 1992 to 2002, according to a California Department of Transportation study, which defines congestion as rush-hour traffic that moves at 35 mph or less.

In November, California voters approved a $19.9-billion transportation bond measure, hailed as a major milestone.

But the planning studies put the bill for keeping congestion in check at $140 billion in the next 30 years for six Southern California counties.

Paying for the improvements will be difficult. Many counties — including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside — already have a sales tax for transportation projects.

Many say boosting the gas tax would be the most logical way to collect more revenue. But it is politically unpopular with prices at the pump so high. California and the federal government each impose a gasoline tax of 18 cents a gallon, a rate that has not changed since the early 1990s despite a sharp rise in gas prices. Because the tax has not been adjusted for inflation, California has struggled merely to maintain its existing roads.

And without more roads, "we will be in a serious congestion crisis from the Oregon border to Mexico," said Eric Haley, executive director of the Riverside County Transportation Commission.

One reason the potential fixes cost so much is that there is so much less raw land than there was in the 1950s. As a result, officials must go to great lengths to engineer new roadways:

‧ Several of the routes considered most crucial by traffic planners require tunneling under neighborhoods or mountains. These include extending the 710 Freeway through South Pasadena, creating a link under the Santa Ana Mountains from Riverside to Orange counties and boring a tunnel from the Los Angeles Basin through the San Gabriel Mountains into the Antelope Valley.

‧ Los Angeles County has the most severe land crunch, so officials say the only way to significantly improve capacity is to double-deck freeways. A portion of the 110 Freeway in South L.A. is a model, allowing carpools and buses in special elevated lanes.

‧ Toll roads are gaining new attention because officials could use future revenues to borrow money to build the highways. Officials have talked about an expressway connecting the fast-growing high desert regions of Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, and construction is almost completed on a 10-mile toll road east of San Diego.

‧ The surge in Riverside County's population — expected to leapfrog Orange and San Diego counties and become the No. 2 county in the state — also means the many assumptions about transportation need to be revised. Ikhrata said north-south roads that connect far-flung suburbs in the Inland Empire are needed, rather than the traditional east-west roads that connect those suburbs to Los Angeles.

Besides moving the growing number of commuters to work, government planners predict a 400% increase in cargo movement over the next 30 years, further taxing the freeway system and probably requiring truck-only toll lanes on heavily traveled routes such as the 710, 60, 5, 10 and 15 freeways.

Planning is just beginning for a toll road system for trucks that would cover the heavily traveled route from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the warehouses and logistics facilities of the Inland Empire, from which cargo is distributed across the United States.

"Do we have the political willingness to come out and say this is needed for the state? That, unfortunately, we are going to charge some people for it but it has to be done?" Ikhrata said. "Look, if we're really going to have 60 million people in California, you need these lanes and you need more. You need to accommodate growth, period, unless you're OK driving 5 mph."

Yet, major freeway expansion will be difficult. Any effort to greatly expand the capacity of urban freeways in Los Angeles is likely to run into a buzz saw of opposition from environmentalists and homeowners who don't want more auto traffic and exhaust in their backyards.

In Orange County, plans to build a 16-mile toll road through San Onofre State Beach has sparked opposition from environmentalists and surfers.

And decades of opposition from South Pasadena has stalled Caltrans from completing the missing link of the 710 Freeway, which would offer trucks on the Long Beach Freeway an alternate route to the Central Valley or the Inland Empire.

Now, Caltrans and the MTA are studying a multibillion-dollar tunnel, an idea that continues to run into opposition from some South Pasadenans.

The 710 Freeway fight underscores the debate across the region about how transportation agencies use the money they have.

In Los Angeles County, for example, a 1 cent per $1 sales tax goes mostly to pay for mass transit, operating buses and rail lines. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is building two lines, one to Culver City and the other to East L.A. And Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is pushing for a $5-billion subway along Wilshire Boulevard.

Other counties have focused more resources from their sales taxes on road expansion. But officials are quick to point out that those revenues only go so far.

"We already are struggling to meet the demand of the current population, and so adding to that is definitely going to be a big hurdle," said Cheryl Donahue, spokeswoman for San Bernardino Associated Governments.

.... upper decks on some L.A. freeways?

I've tried finding projects on the 210 on the Caltrans website, but it is impossible. They are doing work, but I can't find any info on it.

To get a glimpse as to what the MTA wants in the future(it's obvious that the Times is being supported by the libertarians and the car and oil people) go to:
http://www.mta.net/board/Items/2006/05_May/20060503RBMItem45handout.pdf

So the Silver Line and Yellow Line are still being considered?

Page 36, 37, & 39 seem the most important to me. From that you can tell the order that we need to build these lines. I just wish that they would stop trying for BRT.

I think the Valley will defitnetly be getting more BRT lines since nowthey have a very successful one. They did it to themselves, sorry. But Jan Perry will be have to be dead in her grave if you think she is going to settle for a bus going down Crenshaw. Her black constituents wants everything that Pasadena has got and will quickly call 'foul' and 'racism' if they don't. I'm pretty sure that the Crenshaw Line will be LRT w/ all the bells and whistles.

We have to put preasure on the politicions to keep there promises for light rail or Subways!! its the only way we will survive and grow!!!!!
but if we want it, we'll have to pony up!!!!

We should have a percentage based gas tax. It hasn't gone up for years, and we really need it to compete with Europe.

Double post.

I'm really surprised no one posted this:

Statement from Metro Board Chair Pam O’Connor Re: Repeal of Congressional Provision Prohibiting the Use of Federal Funds for Tunneling Along the Wilshire Corridor

Metro is pleased that both the House and Senate Transportation Appropriations bills drawn up this week have included language repealing a 22 year prohibition on the use of federal funds for subway construction along the busy Wilshire corridor.

Repeal of this language represents a huge step for transit service in Los Angeles County as we begin planning for the future to improve the mobility of the region.

We are appreciative of Congressman Henry Waxman’s efforts in this regarding the House version of the bill and equally appreciative of both Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator Barbara Boxer for their efforts to include it in the Senate’s version of the bill.

Metro-127

its on mta.net. Great news :)

"Drawn up" does not equal "passed." Year after year it gets stalled in the Senate.

So the Silver Line and Yellow Line are still being considered?

Page 36, 37, & 39 seem the most important to me. From that you can tell the order that we need to build these lines. I just wish that they would stop trying for BRT.


Yellow Line should be consider before the Silver.

You know, I've heard conflicting reports. The Bottleneck Blog says that the bill was passed to allow tunneling, and then you say that a bill has been written to allow funding for tunneling under Wilshire. The Transit Coalition said that the bill was written up to allow tunneling under Wilshire. I wish Elson was here to set us all straight.

Yellow Line should be consider before the Silver.

So says you. :lol: I really don't know which is better, but I would like the Silver Line connection to Dodger Stadium.

I guess now that all this is happening, we don't even need to consider bus only lanes on Wilshire, at least I would hope so.

I really would like a subway under Crenshaw instead of LRT like they are planning under Vermont.

Has anyone seen all of the LRTP? I can't believe that so much is from funding is done locally and so little is done by the state and even less by the federal government. Thanks Schwarzenegger.

I think they could do with half the vermont underground and the 2nd half in the median of the street. There's a large portion of S. Vermont that has a huge median.

I think they could do with half the vermont underground and the 2nd half in the median of the street. There's a large portion of S. Vermont that has a huge median.

Wouldn't it still need to be completely grade separated because of the frequency of trains on that line? I guess at least that part could be done cut and cover though.

The bill was written originally to stop tunneling by cutting off the supply of money, no municipality can afford to build a 16 mile subway on its own, they need federal support. Once this bill gets through Congress, the MTA can apply for federal funds to finally finish the subway.

^^So forget the bus only lanes, they should only focus on this.

L.A. County offers 'inland port' plan
A hub in the Antelope Valley that would use rail lines could relieve freeway congestion as the ports continue to handle more cargo.
By Rong-Gong Lin II, Times Staff Writer
July 12, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/media/thumbnails/graphic/2007-07/31118229.gif

L.A. County officials on Wednesday unveiled plans for an "inland port" in the Antelope Valley — a would-be hub more than 70 miles north of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that is aimed at reducing heavy truck congestion throughout the region's freeways.

The proposal comes as officials project a 400% increase in goods movement through the ports over the next 30 years, with transportation experts predicting that all those extra big rigs would further clog freeways.

Much of the cargo now is shipped by trucks on Southland freeways to warehouses and distribution facilities in the Inland Empire before it is distributed across the nation.

But L.A. County officials want a piece of that action and see the Antelope Valley, with large amounts of vacant land and potential rail access, as an ideal site.

The idea would be to transport cargo from the ports to Palmdale and Lancaster by rail, reducing reliance on big rigs.

"The inland port is a necessity if we're not going to choke in congestion in the Los Angeles Basin," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who convened Wednesday's meeting in downtown L.A. with officials representing transit agencies, the ports, railroads and businesses. "The congestion is here and it's only going to get worse. We need to act now to resolve the problem."

But many challenges face planners.

The fast-growing Antelope Valley suffers from what officials agree is a lack of transportation infrastructure. The existing rail lines are already near capacity, meaning new lines would have to be built to serve the inland port. Moreover, only one freeway — the clogged 14 Freeway — connects the valley to the L.A. Basin.

The inland port idea gained attention in recent months after voters in 2006 passed a $19.9-billion statewide transportation bond measure, $3.2 billion of which was allocated for projects to improve the movement of goods through ports and on highways and rail. L.A. County officials are angling for a cut of the money.

The interest also comes as officials have been promoting the development of Palmdale Regional Airport, which could serve as a facility to ship air freight, and as officials have been studying construction of a new freeway or toll road that would connect Lancaster and Palmdale west to the 5 Freeway and east to the 15 Freeway in San Bernardino County.

Inland ports are not a new concept. With land near seaports costly and scarce, other ports around the country have looked inland to develop space for warehouse and distribution facilities and a hub to transport goods by truck, rail car or airplane.

Hasan Ikhrata, director of planning and policy for the Southern California Assn. of Governments, said that developing an inland port would be critical to the region's future.

"There is no land to expand the port facilities," Ikhrata said. "You need at least 500 acres for a decent inland port facility, and that kind of land is not available in the urban core."

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach handle one-third of all waterborne freight-container traffic in the U.S., and 50% to 70% of that cargo is headed for delivery outside of Southern California, according to the Southern California Assn. of Governments.

How the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach deal with the projected rise in commerce traffic will play a key role in how Southern California deals with increased freeway congestion. Trucks now use 30% to 40% of freeway capacity.

The region's major freeways, such as the 5,10, 60 and 710, are often congested with trucks, creating a hazard for motorists.

"Goods movement is really a challenge to us, both because of the congestion it causes, and then the health issues: We have the worst air quality in the country," said Roger Snoble, chief executive of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Planning for the inland port concept is still in early stages; officials haven't projected how much it would cost or who would pay to build it.

One idea involves a public-private partnership similar to the authority that built the 20-mile Alameda Corridor, a $2.5-billion below-ground express rail line opened in 2002 that runs mostly in a trench from the ports to downtown L.A.

Such a partnership could, for example, have railroad companies invest in upgrading or building new lines, and shipping companies building warehouses in the inland port.

But it's clear that the inland port would require significant changes:

‧ Roads. Local officials say they desperately need more funds to upgrade their roads, and have discussed ideas such as drilling a tunnel through the San Gabriel Mountains to build a second route. "What we need out of Los Angeles is support — financial support," said Palmdale Mayor James C. Ledford Jr. "If you expect the high desert to accept the growth, you've got to give us more tools to accommodate the growth."

‧ Rail lines: Railroad companies have struggled to compete with truckers for short-haul routes. Trains have the additional costs of loading and unloading cars, as well as paying a truck to haul cargo from the train depot to a final warehouse destination.

‧ Logistics: Officials would need a plan to avoid backtracking. A significant amount of cargo coming in through the two ports stays in Southern California, and officials fear unnecessary congestion if cargo is transported to the inland port on trains, only to be redistributed to trucks that would need to ship it back to the Los Angeles area.

An inland port could also increase pollution levels and congestion in the Antelope Valley, which the U.S. Census reaffirmed last month as one of the fastest-growing communities in the country.

Lancaster Mayor Henry W. Hearns acknowledged those concerns, but added that growth in the Antelope Valley is inevitable, and the region stands to benefit from the inland port idea.

"It's going to raise our economic status; it's going to bring jobs," Hearns said.

Several officials, however, stressed the importance of further study before going forward with the plan.

"It's very important to look at the transportation infrastructure and make sure the site will work," said Thad Brundrett, a land development expert who spoke at Wednesday's meeting. "You can't just go out and build the facility, and hope someone will show up."

Many many issues facing our region.

^ Exactly!

Ok, I must comment on this whole BRT business (orange line). Let me start by saying when I first heard the orange line being a bus line I almost started to cry. I thought why waste money on this bus crap if we are not a third world country. I mean people will ride trains not busses

Fast forward to the day I heard this......

Busses can ONLY go so far. They have tight capacities and have little or no room to expand. With the success of the orange line and the almost double the load that they expected to carry. The orange line is only a couple of months away from getting converted to LIGHT RAIL. With most if the right aways already complete and others just a couple of man hours away from being full right aways....we are all set. I have also heard rumors that the orange line was constructed with the intent to UPSIZE latter. Meaning light rail.

If BRT's are a step to get a real train in my city, I'll take it. It's almost guaranteed to get converted assuming the people use it, and they will (Look at the orange line).

Also ,most of the future proposed BRT's will also be set up to convert to light rail later :banana2:

If you look at the BRT's almost all the work has been done for light rail conversion. Even current orange line stations

The rumor your hearing now about converting the Orange Line in a Light Rail is the reason why soooo many opposed it. When we heard about the idea MTA had my ex~neighbors were pist. I still remember that there was hood meetings to get more info and find ways of stopping it. Even thought once upon a time a train use to run down Chandler back in the days.

Once it was approved everyone knew that it would eventually be upgraded to Light Rail. To them it was a lost cause and waste of tax payer money. I guess they were wrong and now their worst nightmare might be coming sooner than they thought.

If it becomes Light Rail, I hope it gets expanded East along the Chandler Corridor into Burbank. So those commuters would connect to the Red Line into the City.

I wonder what role is the Orange Line Light Rail going to have with the proposed Yellow line. Since both will meet in the Chandler right of way/Red Line Station?

I think he means that if it were to be converted to lrt it would only take a couple of months.......I've heard of no talk of converting the Orange Line to rail.
Ironically, the method of creating a bus line and then converting it to rail is really a waste of tax payers money when you could have just made it light rail to begin with. Your neighbors are/were selfish and short-sighted people who don't have anything invested towards the betterment of the city as a whole. They should all be laid out in the path of an approaching Orange Line bus.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-subway14jul14,0,6474248.story?page=2&coll=la-home-center

This is a long article so I won't post it, but its worth reading. Although the title would lead you to believe that the article is negative towards the subway, it actually shows some potential. The most intriguing part to me is the discussion of a private company building and operating the extension. I for one am all for this as the MTA has proved itself flacid to NIMBYs throughout the county. Even if the extension didn't go private, I do think the city of LA should branch off from the MTA and once again have its own transit authority. It just pisses me off more than I can even describe to see people in the suburbs clammering for rails, when the true urban neighborhoods have still yet to receive their fare share of rail.

Anyways, read the article if you have a minute.

It's a beautiful Saturday morning and I don't want to get pissed off.....but I will read the article.

Sorry, "solong" didn't realize it was the same article.

'Subway to the Sea' plan still adrift
Despite some hopeful signs, a Wilshire line remains hung up on the question of who will foot the $5-billion price tag.
By Ari B. Bloomekatz and Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writers
July 14, 2007



Graphic
Subway stumbling blocks
click to enlargeDespite moves in Congress this week to lift a longtime ban on subway tunneling, the epic struggle to build a subway under Wilshire Boulevard remains very much in the slow lane.

The "Subway to the Sea" has long been seen by transportation leaders as a key to easing L.A.'s notorious traffic congestion — but its $5-billion price tag has long been a stumbling block.

Over the last year, the subway has been the subject of much discussion. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called the "Subway to the Sea" crucial to the city's future and made it a top priority. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), who two decades earlier had pushed through legislation effectively banning tunneling under Wilshire, had a change of heart, and bills moved forward in Congress this week to reverse course.

But although political opposition has eased, money remains a seemingly unmovable obstacle.

Villaraigosa's office over the last year has been quietly gauging whether the public would agree to foot the bill. In one of the many private polls it has commissioned on a variety of subjects, the mayor's office asked residents if they would support some type of tax increase to pay for the subway and other transit improvement.

The results have not been released. But City Hall sources have said gaining the needed two-thirds majority for either a bond measure or a sales tax hike for the subway looks daunting.

Midway through 2007 — with high turnouts expected for next year's presidential primary and general election — Villaraigosa has yet to produce a proposal to take to voters to help pay for the project.

His aides say they are studying all possible scenarios. These include "benefit assessment districts" that would levy extra taxes on residents within half a mile of the subway line. Another idea is to find a private firm that could build and possibly operate the subway.

"The project is possible, but it is not a done deal," said Deputy Mayor Jaime De la Vega. "What needs to change is that we need to grow the funding pie."

One vocal supporter of the subway is Jane Usher, president of the Los Angeles Planning Commission. Yet, Usher believes that the Westside line was closer to getting built when she worked as general counsel for Mayor Tom Bradley in the early '90s than now, when there is no consensus or funding plan in place.

"I thought it was going to happen back then and then I watched the dismantling of consensus in the 1990s and replaced with so much less than was promised," Usher said. "Building a rail line takes a consensus and that consensus is bigger than the mayor, though I believe he can lead us in that direction — and I believe he is."

Officials at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates L.A.'s other rail projects, have in recent months stressed that the project is far from a top priority.

"We're just really starting and any project of this magnitude is a long-haul program because we have to do the planning studies, preliminary engineering, [receive] environmental clearance, get our funding partners in place. This is not something that we can do quickly," said MTA Chief Executive Officer Roger Snoble.

A telling moment will come later this year when the agency's board approves a long-range plan that prioritizes future projects. Villaraigosa and his appointees to the board are pushing for the subway to be at or near the top of the list.

The MTA is now working to complete two new rail lines — to Culver City and to East L.A. Moreover, the Wilshire subway faces tough competition for funds from other regional rail proposals, including a less expensive line that would connect Pasadena with the Inland Empire.

The MTA board approved a $5-million "alternatives" study of the Wilshire subway last month, a necessary step that requires the agency to justify why the line should be built. But several board members who approved the study pointedly raised questions about the project's viability.

"When we speak in terms of competing for federal funds, there's also other projects we're looking at for federal funds," said board member and Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe. "I want to be clear that this action, although a first step, is not in any way, shape or form approving a 'Subway to the Sea.' "

In the end, local taxpayers will probably have to contribute heavily to the subway effort, as they do in most large mass transit projects being constructed around the country.

Art Guzzetti, vice president of policy for the American Public Transportation Assn., said the federal government rarely, if ever, pays 100% of big capital improvements, such as a new light-rail or subway line. Instead, the federal government usually chips in about half — and only after local agencies show they can provide the rest.

Some subway backers are not giving up on a sales tax increase.

Former Santa Monica Mayor Denny Zane is organizing a nonprofit group tentatively called Subway to the Sea, and said that raising the sales tax could possibly provide enough money for construction.

One key question is who should be taxed. Transportation experts believe a countywide sales tax measure faces an uphill battle because the subway would run through only one part of the county — on the Westside. Moreover, other regions like the San Gabriel Valley are competing for rail lines in their areas.

"Everybody is banging their head against the wall and saying 'how can we pay for this?' " said Bart Reed, executive director of the nonprofit Transit Coalition. "How can we take an electorate that doesn't completely understand the project and get them to go for this?"

The idea of a subway down L.A.'s premier boulevard has been talked about for decades. Wilshire runs through several of the area's biggest hubs, including the Miracle Mile, Beverly Hills, Westwood and Santa Monica — and passes near Century City. Officials in the early 1980s planned for the subway to run from downtown to the corner of Wilshire and Fairfax Avenue. But in 1985, an underground methane gas explosion a mile north at a Ross Dress for Less store raised concerns about the safety of a tunnel. The gas threat was emphasized by longtime subway critics and homeowner groups who feared their residences would explode. Still other residents worried about crime if the line opened Westside neighborhoods to so-called outsiders.

Rep. Waxman responded to the 1985 blast by pushing through legislation prohibiting federal funding for any tunneling projects in the area. Improvements in underground digging technology and a favorable 2005 safety study from several tunneling experts across the country changed Waxman's mind. The appropriations bills in the House and Senate that would allow federal funding are expected to be voted on this fall.

And then the hard work begins.

It remains to be seen if Villaraigosa has the political muscle or even the willingness to push a tax increase, although he raised garbage pickup fees in his first year in office. The mayor is widely expected to run for governor in 2010, and few believe that he will be judged by voters solely on one mass transit project, particularly if he can claim that he got the subway moving forward in the planning process.

"Even back in the olden days when Mayor Tom Bradley was promoting some kind of coordinated mass transit system, it still took years before there was even a hole in the ground for a subway," said Councilman Herb Wesson, whose district includes the Koreatown terminus for the subway. "But no one can take away from him that he initiated it."

Some advocates for bus riders are among those fighting the subway, saying money would be more efficiently spent on more buses.

"We think it is a grotesquely expensive project," said Francisca Porchas, lead organizer of the Bus Riders Union, based in Los Angeles.

These realities don't stop some from dreaming.

Pedro Nava, 33, lives on the Westside and commutes about 45 minutes each way to his job as an education reformer near Vermont Avenue and Washington Boulevard.

One Friday morning last month, Nava walked out of a bagel shop with a coffee in hand, ready to tackle that day's tough commute. If a subway was available, Nava said he would hop right on. "If you have a bad day on the road, you're likely to have a bad day at work," Nava said. "The commute is stressful … stress really affects your health."

--


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ari.bloomekatz@latimes.com

steve.hymon@latimes.com

Times staff writer Rong-Gong Lin II contributed to this report.

^^ My God that article again!*

Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Plan approved for new Measure M funds
OCTA expects to start with $1.6 billion of transportation projects by 2011.
The Orange County Register

ORANGE – The money is still years away, but the Orange County Transportation Authority already has begun spending millions.

Acting now, OCTA officials say, will help complete freeway projects years earlier – saving money long-term and sparing commuters from even greater traffic headaches.

On Monday, a seven-member OCTA committee unanimously approved an "early action plan" that would allow five freeway projects to begin construction before any revenue is collected from the renewed half-cent sales tax.

In all, OCTA officials expect $1.6 billion in transportation improvements to be underway by the time the renewed Measure M takes effect in 2011. Officials estimate the tax will bring in $12 billion over its 30-year lifespan.

"What we heard loud and clear from voters leading up to the vote on Measure M was that they wanted us to do what we could, as soon as possible, to relieve the congestion," said Carolyn Cavecche, the OCTA board chairwoman.

"It's a balancing act to be financially responsible and act to move these projects forward. Waiting until 2011 would not be acceptable."

Projects given high priority include adding: a northbound lane to the 57 freeway for much of the way between Lincoln Avenue and Lambert Road; lanes to the 91 between the 55 and 241 toll road; and lanes to the 91 eastbound between the 241 and 71 in Corona.

The plan also would allow for improvements on the 405 Freeway, between the 55 and 605 freeways.

The OCTA already has spent about $3 million since voters approved the renewed Measure M in November, borrowing from other revenue sources.

Cavecche said starting early will save money on the cost of concrete and steel and qualify projects for state and federal grants and matching funds.

The seven-member Transportation 2020 Committee – all belonging to the full OCTA board – has spent months working with OCTA staff members to iron out the plan's details. The full OCTA board is set to consider the plan Aug. 13.

The plan would add $19.4 million to this year's OCTA budget and allow for 11 new employees. The new staffing would cost $1.1 million – ranging from $47,000 for an office specialist up to $173,000 for a director of contracts.

Supervisor Bill Campbell, who serves on the committee, questioned the need for the new staffers.

OCTA executive Art Leahy responded: "There's an awful lot of money and activity here. We've been relying heavily on consultants; we're concerned that we have sufficient resources moving forward."

But with Orange County it's all road widening and no real mass transit developments. In contrast w/ LA it's all mass transit and some road widening projects notably carpool lane creation.

I hate that the night service fare is now the same price as the regular fare. WTF!

it was different?

Yeah it used to be 75 cents after 9.

What is KidA talking about?

Caltrans to add carpool lanes on 101
The $150-million project to begin in 2011 will cover six miles in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties to help ease congestion.
By Gregory W. Griggs, Times Staff Writer
July 18, 2007

To help ease congestion, Caltrans has committed more than $150 million to add carpool lanes along a busy stretch of the 101 Freeway in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.

Six miles of carpool lanes will be added in each direction from Mobil Pier Road in Ventura County to Casitas Pass Road in Santa Barbara County, said Caltrans spokeswoman Jeanne Bonfilio. The new lanes will link to a three-mile stretch of high-occupancy vehicle lanes under development in Santa Barbara County, from the Ventura County line to Carpinteria.

The funds are part of the first installment of a $19.9-billion transportation bond measure, Proposition 1B, approved by California voters in November. With no local sales tax for transportation projects, Ventura County is solely dependent on state money for such road improvements.

"We are not unpleased with how we have done with the program," Ginger Gherardi, executive director of the county's Transportation Commission, said of the allocation.

Caltrans consultants will next prepare the needed environmental documents. If approved, the final design for the extra lanes will be drawn up, with construction expected to begin in winter 2011 and wrap up by summer 2013.

Gherardi said that the eastern portion of Ventura County still had the five top priority transportation projects, including two underway — widening and modernizing of the 118 Freeway from the Los Angeles County line to Tapo Canyon Road, and adding an extra lane in each direction on California 23, which connects Thousand Oaks and Moorpark.

"That's our No. 1 priority — finishing what's already under construction," Gherardi said.

The commission is still working with Caltrans to secure nearly $33 million needed to complete the 118 Freeway widening.

Just last month, California transportation commissioners agreed to set aside $6.28 million from the Proposition 1B funds to add an offramp and onramp on the 118 at Rocky Peak Road.

By completing this work with contractors already on the scene for the widening project, planners expect to save millions of dollars.

Gherardi said other county road priorities include expanding the junction of the 101 and the 23, widening the western portion of the 118 Freeway from Tapo Canyon Road into Moorpark and making more than $100 million in improvements to the 118 west of the 23. The 118, despite its role as a main truck route, becomes a two-lane road in Moorpark and winds through more than a dozen miles of mostly farmland until it reaches the eastern edge of Ventura.