Deadline for L.A.'s subway to the sea is a literal one


By Steve Hymon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 24, 2007

Let's begin with the quote of the week, courtesy of Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl:

"My plan is to be alive when the subway to the sea happens."

It's hard to knock such a plan. It may also be worth noting that Rosendahl is 62, and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics show that his life expectancy is about 81. In other words, subway proponents and Rosendahl should mark the year 2026 on their calendars.

Rosendahl's chances were increased last week when Congress repealed a ban on federal funding of subway tunneling in parts of the city. The repeal is part of a $516-billion appropriations bill that President Bush is expected to sign.

The repeal triggered a City Hall news conference at Union Station, where Rosendahl made his remarks, and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said he's working on a funding plan.

Attentive readers may recall that the subway-to-the-sea extension from its terminus at Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue to Santa Monica was one of the big promises Villaraigosa made during his 2005 campaign.

So why doesn't he have a funding plan already -- now that he's been in office more than 900 days?

I asked the mayor that question at the news conference. Here's his response:

"You'd rain on any parade, wouldn't you? Let me just say, Stevie -- and you're at your best when you're raining on parades. Let me explain something. . . . Tom Bradley ran for mayor and said he would get a subway in 18 months, and it took 18 years. Yet we all know him as the father of the subway . . .

"If this was so easy, someone would have done it a long time ago," the mayor added.

This, in fact, is a very fair point for the mayor to make. The ban on tunneling on the Westside was put in place 22 years ago out of safety concerns by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), who later changed his mind after new evidence showed that tunneling would be safe and credited the mayor with creating the momentum to get the ban repealed.

"I offered to reopen this issue 10 years ago," Waxman said. "But the MTA wasn't interested because they didn't have the money. The mayor said he wanted the option" to pursue the subway project.

And Waxman, added, the mayor was persuasive.

What's next?

The subway still is far from being approved by the board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The only thing the MTA has approved so far is an in-progress study of whether a subway is the best option for Westside mass transit. It is also starkly clear that no one has $5 billion sitting around for a subway. At best, the federal government usually kicks in only half the cost of such projects, and a 1998 voters' prohibition on using local sales tax money for subway tunneling remains in place.

"It has to be repealed," said Councilman Tom LaBonge after the news conference. "No one in Congress is going to give us a dollar if it isn't."

More bad news. Previous sales tax money for the MTA already is earmarked for other projects. This is the reason LaBonge believes a parcel tax is needed, while his colleague Jack Weiss is pushing for a partnership with private firms to get the subway built.

And that's the million-dollar question, so to speak: Will local pols ask voters for any kind of tax increase?

The mayor won't say, although his office has explored the option in the past.

It will be interesting to see how this develops. The presidential election in November should offer the kind of high turnout that is needed to get a tax measure for this type of project passed. The thinking in political circles is the higher the turnout, the more mass transit users will vote.

The bet here, too, is that pols would go for a sales tax increase rather than a parcel tax -- which is often a great way to incite opposition from homeowners. That said, a sales tax increase would be controversial because Los Angeles County's sales tax is already among the highest in the state.

A half-penny sales tax hike also holds the promise of raising in the neighborhood of $500 million a year for transit projects, including the subway. Getting that kind of money would be a big score for politicians who like to talk about mass transit.

Councilwoman Wendy Greuel didn't say whether she would support a tax increase but offered this observation: "The best way to get support for mass transit is to actually build it."

[U][SIZE="4"]
Councilwoman Wendy Greuel didn't say whether she would support a tax increase but offered this observation: [B]"The best way to get support for mass transit is to actually build it."

Which is what I've been saying all along. It might be best to allow Expo to arrive in Santa Monica or getting the Gold Line out to Montclair, Claremont, Azusa?? or wherever they want to take the damn train so that when we go to the polls asking for a tax increase Westside along with SGV residents and bussinesses will have already seen a direct benefit to there communities. Or the argument could be made that there has been enough rail put into place (between commuter and inter/urban rail you got damn nearly 500 miles of track already) so now is the time to go to the voters. Or thirdly, wave the Gold Line in SGV and the completion of the Expo to Santa Monica like a carrot in the faces of those constituents and promise that those projects will be part of the comprehensive package.

The subway to the sea will have a fight on its hands but I believe it will prevail!



Sponsor Sat 22 Dec 2007
Supervisor warns Subway will cripple needed Regional TransportationPosted by admin under County of LA , Transportation
Los Angeles County Supervisor and MTA Director Michael D. Antonovich criticized the passage of legislation lifting the ban on new subway construction to extend the Red Line to the sea through the cities of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and Santa Monica.

“Funding this $10 billion dollar subway to the sea will cripple the regional transportation needs of taxpayers in the County’s other 84 cities and unincorporated communities,” Antonovich said.

“The public — who voted against additional subway funding in 1998 — remembers the disruption caused by the Red Line. Spending $5 billion dollars for a mere 17 mile subway paralyzed the building of a regional transportation network. However, it was not a complete fiasco — it did benefit the special interests.”

Antonovich said if the cities of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and West Hollywood desire a subway, they should use their own communities’ resources and creative financing options including redevelopment strategies, benefit assessment districts and private funding, rather than draining vital public transit dollars away from a regional transportation program.

He said that regional transportation crisis requires the MTA to focus on cost-effective projects including the Gold Line Foothill Extension to Claremont, the Gold Line Eastside Extension to Whittier, the Exposition Line to Santa Monica, the Crenshaw Busway to LAX, the connector between the Orange Line in North Hollywood to the Gold Line in Pasadena and improved rail service to the Santa Clarita and Antelope Valleys.

“An aggressive expansion of rail to LA/Palmdale and Ontario Airports will alleviate traffic congestion on the 405 and other freeways and roadways leading to the highly-congested LAX,” Antonovich said.

http://westranchbeacon.com/blog/2007/12/22/supervisor-warns-subway-will-cripple-needed-regional-transportation/

Metro Purple Line Could Be Extended To Ocean

Bush Expected To Sign Federal Legislation Lifting Tunneling Ban

December 20, 2007

LOS ANGELES -- Local officials Thursday hailed federal legislation expected to be signed by President George W. Bush that would lift tunneling restrictions along Wilshire Boulevard, making it possible to extend the Metro Purple Line west and create a subway to the ocean.

"Twenty-one years ago, Washington derailed the hopes for a Westside subway, and today, we're back on track," said Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. "After more than two decades of waiting and planning, it's now time to take definitive action to ease traffic congestion on the Westside and improve the quality of life throughout L.A. County."

The repeal of the tunneling ban restriction is included in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday. If signed by Bush, it will overturn a ban originally authored in 1985 by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, that prevented the Metro Red Line from being extended past Western Avenue.

Because of the ban, Metro had the line extend north to North Hollywood, creating a subway that was actually two lines.

Last year, the Metro Board agreed to rename the Metro Red Line between Union Station and Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue the Metro Purple Line.

That is the segment that could extend west thanks to the lifting of the tunneling ban, which was enacted when Waxman argued that possible methane explosions made tunneling in that area too dangerous. In 2005, an independent peer review panel determined the area was safe for tunneling.

That determination helped convince Waxman to author legislation lifting the ban.

"I'm glad that new technological developments have led to a new consensus that tunneling can be done safely," Waxman said. "I'm grateful that Congress has just approved my bill to repeal the 1985 restrictions and to allow Los Angeles to explore new options in meeting our city's traffic problems."

Despite the success in Washington, the "subway to the sea" is still far from a sure thing.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board has yet to decide whether to move forward with plans to extend the subway. Villaraigosa and Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky have both supported the idea, but Supervisor Mike Antonovich has argued it would be too costly to complete.

The project would cost at least $5 billion and take 10 years to build. It would be by far the most expensive Metro line in Los Angeles County.

Villaraigosa has touted the route as a way to relieve traffic in one of the city's most congested areas, and as a way to give inner-city residents an easy way to reach the beach.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: KNBC (http://www.knbc.com/news/14900868/detail.html)

Metro Purple Line Could Be Extended To Ocean

...

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board has yet to decide whether to move forward with plans to extend the subway. Villaraigosa and Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky have both supported the idea, but Supervisor Mike Antonovich has argued it would be too costly to complete.

...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: KNBC (http://www.knbc.com/news/14900868/detail.html)

That's fucking bullshit. Too costly? Erm, this is a project long overdue -- one that should've been completed nearly a decade ago. I don't care how much the costs associated with this project skyrocket. We NEED and DESERVE this damn subway and will take no less than that! :mad:

Which is what I've been saying all along. It might be best to allow Expo to arrive in Santa Monica or getting the Gold Line out to Montclair, Claremont, Azusa?? or wherever they want to take the damn train so that when we go to the polls asking for a tax increase Westside along with SGV residents and bussinesses will have already seen a direct benefit to there communities. Or the argument could be made that there has been enough rail put into place (between commuter and inter/urban rail you got damn nearly 500 miles of track already) so now is the time to go to the voters. Or thirdly, wave the Gold Line in SGV and the completion of the Expo to Santa Monica like a carrot in the faces of those constituents and promise that those projects will be part of the comprehensive package.

The subway to the sea will have a fight on its hands but I believe it will prevail!



Sponsor Sat 22 Dec 2007
Supervisor warns Subway will cripple needed Regional TransportationPosted by admin under County of LA , Transportation
Los Angeles County Supervisor and MTA Director Michael D. Antonovich criticized the passage of legislation lifting the ban on new subway construction to extend the Red Line to the sea through the cities of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and Santa Monica.

“Funding this $10 billion dollar subway to the sea will cripple the regional transportation needs of taxpayers in the County’s other 84 cities and unincorporated communities,” Antonovich said.

“The public — who voted against additional subway funding in 1998 — remembers the disruption caused by the Red Line. Spending $5 billion dollars for a mere 17 mile subway paralyzed the building of a regional transportation network. However, it was not a complete fiasco — it did benefit the special interests.”

Antonovich said if the cities of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and West Hollywood desire a subway, they should use their own communities’ resources and creative financing options including redevelopment strategies, benefit assessment districts and private funding, rather than draining vital public transit dollars away from a regional transportation program.

He said that regional transportation crisis requires the MTA to focus on cost-effective projects including the Gold Line Foothill Extension to Claremont, the Gold Line Eastside Extension to Whittier, the Exposition Line to Santa Monica, the Crenshaw Busway to LAX, the connector between the Orange Line in North Hollywood to the Gold Line in Pasadena and improved rail service to the Santa Clarita and Antelope Valleys.

“An aggressive expansion of rail to LA/Palmdale and Ontario Airports will alleviate traffic congestion on the 405 and other freeways and roadways leading to the highly-congested LAX,” Antonovich said.

http://westranchbeacon.com/blog/2007/12/22/supervisor-warns-subway-will-cripple-needed-regional-transportation/

no one makes my blood boil more than the king of all idiots, but i will not get into it right now as its Christmas Eve. Obviously Antonovich has NO idea what the hell he is talking about.

He said that regional transportation crisis requires the MTA to focus on cost-effective projects including the Gold Line Foothill Extension to Claremont, the Gold Line Eastside Extension to Whittier, the Exposition Line to Santa Monica, the Crenshaw Busway to LAX, the connector between the Orange Line in North Hollywood to the Gold Line in Pasadena and improved rail service to the Santa Clarita and Antelope Valleys.

“An aggressive expansion of rail to LA/Palmdale and Ontario Airports will alleviate traffic congestion on the 405 and other freeways and roadways leading to the highly-congested LAX,” Antonovich said.

http://westranchbeacon.com/blog/2007/12/22/supervisor-warns-subway-will-cripple-needed-regional-transportation/

^^
Cool so sense he believes that other regional projects need and should be completed as well then we should use the carrot and stick approach to ol' Mikey boy.......we put a comprehensive transit proposal in front of the voters that include those most important projects that he mentioned above as well as all of the other transit projects that need to be completed, roll them all up in one burrito. At this point a comprehensive transit package put in front of the voters is almost inevitable. I mean, even the most conservative like Antonivich sees the need of at least light rail and busways. Even his constituents in places like Glendora for god's sake are demanding light rail!

We need to get rid of Antonobitch if we are serious about the Purple Line, since he will always oppose it. But as that first article above said, it would be an achievement if this was built in even 20 years. And the MTA should be expanding not just the Purple but also the Red Line westward... I wish it wouldn't take generations for all of this to materialize but that's the way it is, politically. I'm glad Wendy can joke "just build it" though - well, Wendy, why don't we? Oh yeah, no cash

[It's Time to Move LA!
A business, labor, health, environmental, and community conference to discuss strategies to finance a modern transportation system in LA County
Thursday, January 10, 2008
8:30 a.m - 4:00 p.m.
The Center at Cathedral Plaza
555 W. Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Greetings!


LACTFC invites you to attend It's Time to Move LA!, a community conference to address Los Angeles County's transportation funding challenge by bringing together key constituencies to explore alternative transportation funding and implementation strategies. It ought to be clear to all - an effective transportation funding program is needed to ensure a robust and efficient transportation system in 21st century Los Angeles.It's Time to Move LA! will set the stage for business, labor, health, environmental and community leaders to perhaps find a common agenda that can ultimately be presented to Los Angeles County leaders, agencies and, possibly, voters.
Join us in this vital dialogue.
Denny Zane
LA County Transportation Funding Collaborative

CONFERENCE TOPICS

State constitutional amendment permitting voter approval of transportation funding with 55% vote Ensuring state sales taxes on gasoline go to transportation purposes
State or county gas tax increase
County voter-approved taxes, such as sales or parcel taxes
City voter-approved taxes, such as sales or parcel taxes
Public-private partnerships
Congestion pricing, county or city based
Assessment districts
Transit oriented tax-increment districts
Driver's License fee increase
Motor vehicle registration fees in LA County, e.g., based on vehicle weight, vehicles miles traveled, estimated mileage and emissions, or a simple flat rate
Climate Impact Fees or carbon taxes
Monetized carbon credits
County transportation bonds
Parking fees or surcharges
Traffic or parking fine surcharges
Developer mitigation fees for transit, perhaps in lieu of parking


REGISTRATION
Registration includes admission, breakfast, lunch and conference materials.

Registration Fee: $25 per person (check, cash or credit card)

Scholarships available upon request.

Seating is limited. For planning purposes, we request your RSVP. Send your RSVP via email to TransportFundLA@aol.com.
TO REGISTER BY CHECK: Make checks payable to: Community Partners FBO LA County Transportation Funding Collaborative.
Checks can be mailed LACTFC at the address below or presented at the door on the day of the conference.

TO REGISTER BY CASH: Cash registration will be taken at the door on the day of the conference.

TO REGISTER WITH A CREDIT CARD: To register with a credit card, click HERE to go to the Community Partners website. Select "Donate" from the Quick Links menu. Then select "Donate By Credit Card." BE SURE TO SELECT LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING COLLABORATIVE UNDER "DESIGNATE A PROJECT" ON THE ONLINE DONATION FORM.


I'd be interested in splitting the cost perhaps 4 ways with others who might be interested and we could do 2 hour shifts each. I cannot possibly sit through 8 hours of this stuff(I don't think I can)......3 others interested?
http://launionaflcio.org/news/07_12_21-Transportation.php


edit

TAP Cards Available Starting January 25th

We all knew it was coming. A major step in the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s controversial master plan for automated fare collection systems, Transit Access Passes (or simply TAP cards) will go on sale January 25th, 2008.

According to TAP info brochures now available at Metro ticket counters: “Soon we’ll be replacing your old paper pass with the new Transit Access Pass: TAP! It’s a durable plastic card you can use month after month.”
Metro states that the new $80 million TAP card system is superior to the current paper ticket system because they’re “Smart, Simple and Secure,” and are durable enough to last for three years of use. They will also act as refillable “debit cards” for frequent users and give monthly riders unlimited access for the same flat monthly fee.
Another big part of Metro’s hype is “the ease of connecting services… simply tap when you board.” All bus and rail operated by Metro are now equipped to accept TAP, and over the next two years all municipal lines in LA County will accept them as well. Until then, Metro-to-Muni connections will require the proper cash fares or paper transfers.


From what we gather, TAP cards will be an option for frequent riders in addition to the current per-trip paper tickets, but will replace paper Metro monthly passes altogether.

Which leads into my first question: how does this new electronic system better serve monthly riders? After all, what’s more convenient than not having to “tap” at all? Well, the new TAP system is obviously not all about enhanced convenience, as the MTA is trying to have us believe.

As last week’s LA Weekly article touched on, the MTA wants to start collecting data on its passengers. This fact is glaringly clear where MTA states on its info brochure that all monthly riders will be required to “tap” upon entry to rail stations, and if they fail to do so, can be cited for fare evasion!
How will they know? Fare inspectors will now carry card readers to detect whether a rider has tapped in or not.
My second question relates to the TAP card system’s effect on buses. Currently, when a large group of people board buses there are two lines: one to the right for cash fares and a second to the left for pass holders to flash-and-go. Under the new TAP system, will all riders be required stand in the same line in order to reach the TAP target? This could potentially slow down bus operations during peak hours. This card will actually speed up entry onto the bus. I remember when NYC went from cash to card access for metrobus and it really sped up boardings onto the bus.

As we’ve said before, this all seems to be a ruse to phase in distance-based fares for rail travel. After all, you don’t spend total of $110 million (considering the additional $30 million for turnstiles) to make things a little more “smart, simple and secure” when there’s no problem with the ticketing system in the first place.

http://boardarchives.metro.net/Agendas/2007/11_November/20071114AAdHoc.pdf

What is this "Imperial/Wilmington/Rosa Parks Metro Rail Station Master Plan"?

Interesting observation:
Monday, December 31, 2007
SoCal Voices 3: Former Mets Transportation Engineer Marybeth Miceli Looks at Staples Center
Have a Very Transit New Year...Or At Least Try


As the former transportation engineer for the NY Mets, I was in charge of traffic demand management, VMS, wayfinding, transit, remote parking, shuttles, and general coordination with the zillion different agencies involved with transportation around Shea Stadium and the new Citi Field currently under construction in the parking lots adjacent to Shea. I spent two years on the project. I tell you this so you are aware of where I am coming from when I speak about the transportation access and egress at the Staples Center during a recent Lakers games.


Now, I have never before been to the Staples Center (being new to the L.A. area and neither rooting for the Lakers, nor the Clippers, nor the Kings, nor the Sparks, nor whoever else plays there). So I began by visiting the Lakers website for directions to the arena because I was going to a Lakers game. On the directions page, there is no mention of mass transit anywhere (though we will find out later, there is mass transit around the arena and we witnessed some people even taking it!) Not one mention of transit. In fact, you can’t even find any mention of transit on the entire site! My favorite part though is that under the directions it boasts, "the arena is accessible from many freeways", well of course it is, we’re in L.A. The handy dandy map provided is very helpful in showing all of the plentiful surface parking around the stadium but oddly, doesn’t show the many transit stops that are even closer than the parking at times. See below for the Lakers’ super helpful map.




By contrast, the NY Mets give transit directions first and have pushed transit through deals with the major transit rail agencies in the NY Metro area and a ton of advertising. You can see their very detailed and helpful directions here.

In fact Mr. Met and Mayor Bloomberg have encouraged mass transit to the game (the extensive ‘Take the Train to the Game’ campaign) in various TV and print ads, as well as in the stadium itself. The Mets have also added a ferry service as another appealing transit option.
So, of course, after seeing how poor the Lakers website was, in disbelief, I went searching for mention of transit and the Staples center anywhere.


I found it...sort of.


So, if you visit the Staples Center website and go to the directions page and scroll to the bottom, you can get...a phone number for the transit agency...wow, that’s great, thanks Staples Center.


Hey Lakers, Hey Staples Center, pay attention! Go to the Kings website...they list something called... transit.


Well, ok, they list trains and not buses but we’re getting closer to useful.


Then I went to the Clippers site and got very excited because they have a whole page called "Public Transportation", FINALLY.


Except...the page lists the same contact info as on the Staples site with this paragraph added:
"There are many alternative forms of transportation to STAPLES Center events, including Metro Rail and Metro buses which frequently stop near STAPLES Center. If you're coming to STAPLES Center by train, Metro Rail Pico Station is only a block away from the STAPLES Center. To find the route that's best for you, use the Trip Planner on http://www.metro.net/default.asp."


Well, ok, at least the Clippers acknowledge the existence of alternative transportation (though I’d like to point out mass transit is not the only form of alternative transportation but I guess I’m being picky) whereas it seems maybe the Lakers think it is some sort of mythical creature and refuse to use their website to propagate such a myth.


Well, enough about the Lakers joke of a website. Moving on.


Upon arriving at the arena, I was impressed...yes impressed. The parking permits are color coded so that traffic management teams can easily identify and direct vehicles to the correct parking area.


The signage and VMS (variable message signage) was well distributed. The pedestrian wayfidning was well planned, very visible and even architecturally appealing. The pedestrian walkways and crosswalks were well marked and wide. The signal timing allowed for easy pedestrian crossing to surrounding parking lots. The pavement markings for vehicles were clear. And to be fair, the immense amounts of surface parking is shared between venues which is better planning than designated parking for just Staples or just Nokia (though it looked as though a Nokia specific parking structure was being built.) Even during egress, they close Chick Hearn Blvd. for pedestrian safety and ease of egress from the arena. All in all the operations and planning in the immediate vicinity of the stadium was well thought out and executed.


However, here are my suggestions. So much more can be done to enhance the fan experience, to encourage patronage of the local businesses and vendors and generally for urban revitalization in the area.


1. The parking lots are spread out around the vicinity of the arena. Great, let’s use this to promote local businesses or local vendors as it is done around Oriole Park at Camden Yards.

If the parking layout is not going to be used for revitalization then just build one tall parking structure and allow the immense amount of surface parking land to be used to revitalize the neighborhood.
2. Transit...on the Lakers website...promote transit deals...consistency of information between teams and venues. Transit, transit, transit equals less congestion. And many stadiums are now planning transit oriented development (TOD) with residential and retail venues around the arena. That would certainly help revitalize the area.
3. Since Flower is a bike route, maybe some bike parking and some mention on the website.
In short, there are many things the Staples Center does correctly...for vehicles and people walking from their vehicles, period. There is so much more that can be done though. Transit should be encouraged and patronage of local businesses and/or vendors should be encouraged. With such a busy arena and large theater right in the area so much more can be done to encourage revitalization of the neighborhood. One might dare to say that the large venues there have an obligation to work with the city to encourage such a revitalization, certainly everyone would benefit. And transit would play a large role.

So, at the very least, let’s try to promote the use of transit and reduce congestion in the area. It can and has been done. The NY Mets have successfully achieved and maintained a modal shift from approximately 25% transit to 50% transit with a concerted marketing effort by the Mets and the MTA and by providing LESS parking. Perhaps a lesson can be learned here. Provide less parking, encourage mass transit and maybe, just maybe we can get people out of their cars and onto mass transit.

New Year’s is described on Wikipedia as "an event that happens when a culture celebrates the end of one year and the beginning of the next year." Wouldn’t it be great if we could at least try to embrace transit culture in L.A. in the New Year and dissuade the insane car culture here?

Marybeth Miceli served as the senior transportation engineer for the New York Mets in 2006 and 2007. She now lives in Los Angeles and serves as Chief Operating Officer of an engineering firm.

http://boardarchives.metro.net/Agendas/2007/11_November/20071114AAdHoc.pdf

What is this "Imperial/Wilmington/Rosa Parks Metro Rail Station Master Plan"?


Caltrans District 7 has offered to fund part of our Congestion-Pricing Feasibility Study using
$800,000 of their planning grant funds. SCAG also is considering doing a regionwide
congestion-pricing study. We are working with SCAG to avoid any duplication of effort and
use some of their funds for our study.
Additionally, Metro applied for and was awarded two Caltrans Transportation Planning
Grants in the FY 2007-08 fuding cycle totaling $458,000. Of this amount, $250,000 is to be
used to prepare a master plan for improvements at the Wilmington/Rosa Parks Metro Green
Line station. The remainder of $208,000 is to be used to prepare a plan that works with
communities to achieve consensus on appropriate land use intensities around transit
stations within the City of Los Angeles.

http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2007/11_November/20071114P&PItem9.pdf



This Master Plan will explore the feasibility of public-private
opportunities (affordable housing and retail), promotion of new
arts and cultural activities, links to job opportunities, as well as
recruitment of visitors that may help bring new vitality, higher
land values, and increased tax revenue to this chronically
depressed neighborhood.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grant_files/0708/Recommendations_EJ.pdf page 4

So just a plan to bring TOD? Thanks for that.

About the whole Staples center transit thin, they should just mention that you can ctahc the 33/333 on Venice and you can get off the stop like 2/3 blocks away from the staples center! The people on the westside dont havee the expo line yet, so push the 33/333 line!

Enlist private partner for subway expansion
By Carolyn Kubota and Jack Weiss
Article Last Updated: 12/31/2007 07:24:31 PM PST

Despite the seemingly endless controversy surrounding Los Angeles' traffic problems, there are three basic facts on which most transportation experts agree:

The Los Angeles area subway system doesn't go to enough destinations to be a viable alternative for many people.

A subway running from downtown to the Westside, mostly under Wilshire Boulevard, is the spine needed to spur a successful regional mass transit system.

And here is no realistic prospect of public funding from the federal, state, or local governments to pay for such a subway.

So if we want to get serious about building a subway now, or about making needed San Fernando Valley transportation improvements, it's time to think outside the usual box of taxes and bonds and consider a public-private partnership to build the transportation system Los Angeles needs.

As the Red Line was approaching Wilshire and Western a decade ago, construction costs approached $350 million per mile. Fully building-out the Red Line to the sea would probably cost on the order of $5 billion.

Yet while each level of government grapples with budget shortfalls, funding of that magnitude is simply unrealistic. However, some investment bankers estimate that $700 billion may be available in the capital markets for public-private partnerships.

Overseas the private sector often helps build and operate transportation infrastructure. Recently, U.S. state and local governments have
Advertisement
also turned to private investors to finance large projects that otherwise would have been beyond the government's reach.

In 2004 Chicago entered into a 99-year lease for an aging 7.8 mile toll road called the Chicago Skyway. Chicago received $1.8 billion in cash, and the private operator assumed responsibility for everything from funding capital improvements to removing road-kill and filling potholes.

Unquestionably, such arrangements can include risks. The toll for the Chicago Skyway went from $2 to $2.50 on the day the private operators took over, and may rise as high as $5 in the next 10 years. Moreover, management of the Skyway could change over time as companies are bought and sold over the term of a lengthy lease, and service could suffer as a result.

But such risks can be managed. To prevent exorbitant fares, Los Angeles could subsidize use of the subway just as it ensures accessibility for lower-income residents to basic utility, trash and other services. Predictable, fair rules for fare increases and stringent service standards could be negotiated up-front.

A public-private partnership for subway development could take a variety of forms. Denver's FasTracks Regional Transportation District (RTD) is using a public-private partnership to build commuter rail, light rail, and dedicated bus lanes in a $4.7 billion, 12-year project.

The RTD's private partners will provide funds to build the infrastructure, and the RTD will retain ownership and operate the transportation facilities once they are built. The RTD will then repay the construction costs over a longer period of time, much like a 30-year mortgage.

Still another option could be a partnership to permit construction of the subway on a public right-of-way. Although the government would own the completed subway, the private contractor could build, operate and maintain it for a number of years to recoup its costs and receive an appropriate return on its investment.

It's time to face facts - constructing subways won't get any cheaper over time, and the governments that have funded transportation in the past won't get any richer. A public-private partnership could be just the ticket to the transit system Los Angeles needs. Carolyn Kubota is a partner with the O'Melveny and Myers law firm. Jack Weiss is a member of the Los Angeles City Council.

http://www.dailynews.com/editorial/ci_7851652

This isn't really a transit issue, but I drove on the Pasadena Freeway today near Dodger Stadium and the landscaping that they're doing is amazing. I guess that project is finally underway? If anybody is going by there and could take pictures I would really appreciate it.

Which project is this one?

I'm pretty sure that it's this one.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/aboutdist7/projects/arroyo_seco/arroyo_seco_plan.html

If Southern California was meant to be "The largest metropolitan area the world has ever knowned"..then why werent subways built not a decade or two ago but nearly a century ago??
This is another reason why I think the early city planners of Los Angeles were complete idiots. We shouldn't be worrying about public transportation, the renovation of downtown, and many other parts of Los Angeles county if things would have been done right since the begenning! sadly we are fighting them now.

No, things were right in the beginning. Los Angeles had the most rail in the whole country! But then came the freeways....

Exactly! LA had the largest interurban light rail system in the world but times changed. Most cities in the US and around the world switched over to the autobus including London, New York and Paris. But what these cities also had were subways in addition to their vast streetcar networks that were a product of the worldwide city beautiful building boom of the late 19th century and early 20th. At this time density and population wouldn't have justified subways in LA County seeing that the area had only 250,000 people at the turn of the century. Throughout the first half of the 20th century subways were nary built anywhere as the autobus and the automobile became more popular and thought to be more efficient at the time. This was around the time that LA decided that it would be "forward-thinking" and invest in a massive freeway/highway building network which made lots of sense then since the rise of the suburb was just beginning to happen. Any urban planner at the time would have sensed the trend in changing demographics seeing that some of our greatest world cities were starting to lose population in there core and did so for the next 50 some odd years. It was only the transit revival of the late 50's and 60's that we started to see cities begin to invest back into rapid grade seperated transit again, i.e. BART.
So I guess you can call it "bad" planning if you want but really LA oddly enough became an established city during the time that our major "old and cold" cities were in decline and during the rise of suburbia. Therefore the city has a mix of urban/suburban, high density masked as low feel to it. It's just a product of its time.
But if you truly are concerned about LA's transit future you should attend the Citizens action meeting on the 10th of this month to discuss how we can reasonably build the best network for our metro and possibly even one of the greatest in the world.

It's Time to Move LA!
A business, labor, health, environmental, and community conference to discuss strategies to finance a modern transportation system in LA County
Thursday, January 10, 2008
8:30 a.m - 4:00 p.m.
The Center at Cathedral Plaza
555 W. Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Greetings!

Yeah I can also see where they were going with the freeways, but you can only use the freeway if you own a car. With the major immigration populations comming into the country at the time they needed to realize that good and efficient public transportation was needed. Also, the city of Los Angeles was designed to be spread out since the begenning so having public transportation connecting all parts of the city was very important as well. One thing that really amuses me, is that San Diego has learned from our mistakes. San Diego doesnt have nearly as much traffic as we do and it's already widening its freeways immensely. Its also creating hiuge carpool lanes to accomodate traffic as it keeps on growing. Another aspect is that all over San Diego, old retail construction and buildings are being completely renovated to keep up with the times. This takes that "ghetto" look out of the city.
I dont favor San Diego but it also doesnt surprise me that it has learned from L.A.'s mistakes in maintaining the city. Though San Diego is making drastic changes, they dont compare the amont of immense changes Los Angeles is trying to fulfill.

The car was cheap at the time, and there was still the bus.

The car was not cheap just that the dollar was worth more. They may be a bit more expensive now but they still range at about the same price just different figures. In a country with a capitalist mentality, you will always have poor populations. Especially with the large amount of immigrants that the U.S. legally let in with the Bracero Act during and after WWII. One of the main reasons the subways were built in NYC, Chicago, and SF was because of the large immigration populations that needed a sort of public and fast transportation to get to work.

It's Time to Move LA!
A business, labor, health, environmental, and community conference to discuss strategies to finance a modern transportation system in LA County
Thursday, January 10, 2008
8:30 a.m - 4:00 p.m.
The Center at Cathedral Plaza
555 W. Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Greetings!

Is this free?

Regarding the Cathedral transit meeting, this article appeared in the Times opinion section today:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-transit05jan05,0,5026827.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail

Ending L.A.'s gridlock

There are ways to build a mass transit system that works, but finding the money is the hard part.
January 5, 2008


Next week, politicians, engineers, labor leaders, environmentalists and assorted wonks will gather to try to solve one of L.A.'s knottiest policy problems: how to build a decent public transit system in a city where the need is almost overwhelming and the funding entirely inadequate. Appropriately enough for an initiative that may require divine intervention to succeed, it will be held in meeting rooms at downtown's Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels.

The goal of Thursday's conference, which is expected to feature such luminaries as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce President David Fleming and California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols, is to develop political consensus that might later result in legislation or ballot measures. A wide range of strategies is on the agenda, involving ways to wrest more transit money from the state and ways to assess Angelenos to fund their own system.

Two things are clear about the list of proposals under consideration: There are very good ideas out there, so no one should think that a top-notch transit system in L.A. -- including a subway to the sea -- is a hopeless quest. And any initiative that involves the state government, at least in the short-term, is probably dead on arrival.

California is facing a $14.5-billion shortfall this year; proposals to put tighter controls on state gas-tax money to assure it's spent on transportation rather than being diverted to other purposes seem quaint when our schools are staring at a $1.4-billion budget cut and 30,000 prison inmates may have to be released early. Planners on Thursday are also expected to discuss a possible state constitutional amendment that would allow voter approval of taxes dedicated to transportation by a 55% vote, rather than the current two-thirds majority. Important as transportation is, it's questionable whether it deserves special tax privileges not given to other state priorities, such as education. It's also certain that rural voters, who don't give two figs for big-city public transit, will reject any attempt to send their tax dollars to places like L.A. and San Francisco.

It's clear that if Los Angeles wants better public transit, Los Angeles has to pay for it. There is a long list of ways to make that happen, involving varying degrees of pain. They include higher state or county gas taxes, higher county sales or parcel taxes, congestion pricing, toll lanes, tax-increment financing in transit districts, local bonds, higher vehicle registration fees, higher parking fees, surcharges on parking or traffic tickets, and assessments on real estate developers.

When weighing all these options, planners should keep two concepts at the top of their minds. First, the best taxes and fees discourage the kind of behavior that causes the problem policymakers are trying to solve and targets those responsible. Second, they should be progressive, meaning that they should be paid by those best able to afford them. That should rule out regressive instruments like higher sales taxes, which hurt the poor disproportionately and do little to alter transportation habits.

When it comes to traffic, the bad behavior that planners should seek to discourage is solo commuting -- we should look for ways to charge lone drivers a fee. Such assessments are fair because the people causing the problem pay the cost of its solution. They're relatively progressive because those who have jobs to drive to are presumably better able to afford the fee than those who don't, or who can't afford a car. And they're effective because the fee itself discourages solo commuting and thus helps reduce traffic independent of subways or bus lines built with the proceeds. Funding sources that meet these criteria include congestion pricing, toll lanes or roads, and eliminating free parking at businesses countywide.

Another form of bad behavior that should be taxed is driving a low-mileage, high-emissions vehicle. One excellent way of doing this is to impose a special registration fee on gas-guzzlers. Another way of accomplishing the same goal is to raise the gas tax -- a great idea, but one that has little chance of political success as gas prices push toward the $4-a-gallon mark in California.

Solo drivers and SUV owners aren't rotten or irresponsible people; there are hundreds of thousands of them in L.A. County, including most members of The Times' editorial board. But their behavior is causing social harm in the form of traffic and pollution, and it's appropriate for them to bear the cost. And if a better transit system results, they could eventually leave their cars in the garage and stop paying the fee.

The car was not cheap just that the dollar was worth more. They may be a bit more expensive now but they still range at about the same price just different figures. In a country with a capitalist mentality, you will always have poor populations. Especially with the large amount of immigrants that the U.S. legally let in with the Bracero Act during and after WWII. One of the main reasons the subways were built in NYC, Chicago, and SF was because of the large immigration populations that needed a sort of public and fast transportation to get to work.

Relatively speaking it was cheap. :ohno: And no one can deny the fact that ridership was dwindling.

"I97" respectively saying you don't know what the $%&*#$ you're talking about. First LA the city wasn't meant to be "spread out" seeing that if the Valley was not acquired(for water, not to be more spread out) in 1915 the city would be smaller in area than NYC and Chicago. Immigrants were not streaming into LA at the time, most don't understand that this is somewhat a recent phenomena. LA was considered the "whitest" big city in America until well after the 2nd half of the 20th century...so your statement about subways on that matter doesn't fit.
Also, SF was not with the rest of the major cities building subways at the turn of the 20th century. They had a system similar to ours, only much much smaller. SF didn't begin building a modern heavy rail subway system until 1964. Ever heard of the "freeway revolt" in SF? This was due to the fact that the city had aggressively begun building freeways in leiu of mass transit......hmmmm sounds like SF was effected by the same Post World War II suburban movement like the rest of the country.
What gives me hope that LA one day will have the largest transit system in the US is that by DNA, LA does everything a little behind the curve but huge. The largest interurban electric rail system then the one of the largest freeway systems in the world. Now (and most don't even know this) has the largest rail network including commuter in the state, a system that would put the puny San Diego system to shame! You should read up on your LA history a bit more, it's quite fascinating!

Immigrants were comming into all of California since the mid 19th century. At a large scale during and after World War II. Ive read a lot on the history of Los Angeles, mainly because, like you said, it is very interesting. Another thing, like you mentioned "LA does everything a little behind everyone else", and in my opinion a little TOO far behind. I, like you, also have hope; but when are they actually gonna build the metro line to the ocean? Its 2008 and we are discussing something that should have been discussed in the 60's. Like your quote states "because of what it may portend, feared". That is exactly true! Los Angeles has potential that no other city in the world has, but it saddens me that its potential wasnt fully uncovered sooner.

It has been discussed since the 60's. We didn't really need it back then, traffic wasn't too bad. It has been needed since at least the 80's though, and I really like K's enthusiasm.

I would think that most of the immigrants back then worked on the farms in the area.

It has been discussed since the 60's. We didn't really need it back then, traffic wasn't too bad. It has been needed since at least the 80's though, and I really like K's enthusiasm.

I would think that most of the immigrants back then worked on the farms in the area.

Yes you have a point, but if you believe "Los Angeles is meant to be the largest Metropolitan area the world has ever knowned" then you need to think ahead for the future. You need to see the big picture not just the present.

But when they built the system did they really expect the traffic to snarl up like it does today? Did they see a lack of funding and rising construction costs for transit? We were known as "The City of the Future" for a while, and we promoted single family homes and a commute on freeways to the job centers. That model failed as evidenced by traffic, and unfortunately newer cities are still following that model.

Exactly they didnt!
like you said it failed and thats exactly my point.

ever hear of the recent blueline proposal... A subway to Santa Monica. buses don't solve problems minus busways like in san fran. Does traffic on whilshire speed up when a bus comes no!

Good luck on those gazillions of pipes metro

^^
Don't know what that is all about????

The meeting on Thursday can be free I believe if you email them for a "scholarship". I just told them that I was a student interested in urban planning/mass transit and they wrote me back with a free entry. Finally, what the Times has bemoaned since I've been living in LA is finally happening, though that previous article was lukewarm at best.

Exactly they didnt!
like you said it failed and thats exactly my point.

So what exactly were you trying to prove?

So what exactly were you trying to prove?

Since I live in and love Los Angeles, not really anything against it. Im trying to show that we need to think ahead in everything we do for Los Angeles. For example, underground parking for every super market in L.A. may be unecessary now but 10 years from now, it will be a big problem. We shouldnt wait until problems become hiuge conflicts, like the expansion of the freeways, Broadway revitalization, Metro expansion, renovation of parts of the city, because then we lack funds for bigger problems when we could have dealt with it when it wasnt so big.

Well this is what we're trying to prove by getting together for that meeting at the Cathedral to find ways that we can pay for this system locally, because the state and feds are worthless and slow respectively. It works when we work.

Since I live in and love Los Angeles, not really anything against it. Im trying to show that we need to think ahead in everything we do for Los Angeles. For example, underground parking for every super market in L.A. may be unecessary now but 10 years from now, it will be a big problem. We shouldnt wait until problems become hiuge conflicts, like the expansion of the freeways, Broadway revitalization, Metro expansion, renovation of parts of the city, because then we lack funds for bigger problems when we could have dealt with it when it wasnt so big.

Sorry, this is how government works in a lot of ways. And the bigger the gov't, the larger bureaucracy the slower the wheels seem to turn. I think that the city is doing the right thing by putting together a general plan on how we want our city to look and feel. Also that's why the nascent Planning Commission has started suggesting areas that could absorb density while retaining some of our low density, single family home neighborhoods. The planning process here in LA works additionaly slower because of the Neighborhood Governace Council that sort of kinda gives the 'hoods within the city a say in how they want to look and feel. I haven't done much research on it but our neighborhood councils must be stronger than in a city like NY where I've seen in the past decade a row of sublime restored brownstones become hovered over by a new 40 story luxury condo i.e. Harlem and Williamsburg.

Unfortunately it seems that our national, state as well as local government works in a crisis-response mode. Remember, while the raw dollars that could be building a subway to the sea are going towards another "crisis" like building more schools...what was that? Like a 10 billion dollar measure to build more schools in LA county. That's why on Thursday we will be discussing how to alternatively fund and subsequently build a comprehensive transit system.

I think that the city is doing the right thing by putting together a general plan on how we want our city to look and feel.
So how broadway looks now was decided by a general plan?
as well as 6th street outside of downtown? and South Park?
Those are all areas we are trying to renovate.
Also that's why the nascent Planning Commission has started suggesting areas that could absorb density while retaining some of our low density, single family home neighborhoods. The planning process here in LA works additionaly slower because of the Neighborhood Governace Council that sort of kinda gives the 'hoods within the city a say in how they want to look and feel.
So does that explain why Los Angeles has many different "faces"?
theres too many people in LA to try to come with a compromise of how we want our city to look or at least parts of it IMO.
Unfortunately it seems that our national, state as well as local government works in a crisis-response mode. Remember, while the raw dollars that could be building a subway to the sea are going towards another "crisis" like building more schools...what was that? Like a 10 billion dollar measure to build more schools in LA county. That's why on Thursday we will be discussing how to alternatively fund and subsequently build a comprehensive transit system.

Well I wish I could attend the meeting, but unfortunately I cannot. If you can inform us about the following meetings that would be great. Again, the only reason I ask these questions is because I want to be more informed about whats going on and how things happen. Thanks for the info.

You're not asking any questions. You're just stating random thoughts that lead into nothing. You're kinda repeating what we're saying, but not really.

Whatever. In the end, we all want a huge mass transit map all over LA.

yeah kinda agree with "kid A" but we can vet.
IMO yes I believe there are too many people in LA fighting for what they want their city to look like and be but LA is hardly unique in this regard. Remember everything is highlighted here because this is one of the world's premier cities. All of the little problems are exposed on a world stage just like the problems in Paris, London and Johannesburg. Also LA is not really the city but 88 smaller municipalities fighting for there own unique vision as well.

Further the general plan has just been drawn up for the first time in the city's history. This sort of follows a similar time line of another great city (NYC) who towards the end of the 19th century aggressively started to get it's "shit together" by participating in the City Beautiful movement and attacking its overcrowding and congestion problems. This was around the time that Central Park was built as well as the famous or infamous for some subway system which ironically was privately funded but how much I'm not sure. I think I'll go read up on that since LA is increasingly realizing that we can't rely on the state nor the Feds to solve our problems.

You're not asking any questions. You're just stating random thoughts that lead into nothing. You're kinda repeating what we're saying, but not really.

Whatever. In the end, we all want a huge mass transit map all over LA.

No, you're wrong. Those are not random thoughts in my head. Those are real issues that need to be discussed.

But how is it a true discussion when in an earlier post I state that the city has put together the first ever Planning Commission for simple things like street furniture to really significant things like density targets and your response is "so how Broadway looks now was decided by a general plan?", when I just stated that the city just recently assembled the first ever real planning commission. Where's the discussion?
I think many of us are exhausted and rightfully frustrated with the unfounded attacks on the city, dipped in a bratty-type of criticism and then skewered atop some sort of myopic view that a city's life is continually on some sort of straigtaway instead of realistically a collection of peaks and valleys. Additionally their seems to be laced within these consistently critical rantings a subtle yearning for LA to exhibit much more of a burgeois facade than the prolitareat reality that is constantly pushed in our face less we be blind or go only from bubble to hubble all day long or both.

The mystery of the Green LineBy Gene Maddaus, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 01/09/2008 01:24:01 AM PST


Standing as a testament to government dysfunction, the Green Line light-rail line stops two miles short of LAX.

From the platform at the Aviation Station, passengers can see the track heading toward the planes in the foggy distance, but stopping abruptly in a nearby parking lot.

How could Los Angeles transportation officials have spent $700 million to build the Green Line, which runs 20 miles between Norwalk and Redondo Beach, while dodging the nation's third-busiest airport along the way?

In the dozen years since the Green Line opened, cities like San Francisco, New York and Portland have built rail lines directly to their airports.

Meanwhile, efforts to complete a two-mile spur to Los Angeles International Airport have stalled for lack of funding, making the original decision to avoid the airport all the more frustrating and baffling.

"Most people look at government and they think it's a conspiracy. It's so hard to believe it's as inept as it is," said Ruth Galanter, a former Los Angeles city councilwoman whose district included the airport. "I used to believe in conspiracies, until I discovered incompetence."

The culprits cited most often by conspiracy theorists are the taxi drivers. How could they get away with charging $50 fares if travelers could pay a few bucks and hop on light-rail instead?

This theory explains a boondoggle in terms of a recognizable human motive: greed.

But Mitch Rouse, who owned


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

Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SuperShuttle and several cab companies at the time the Green Line was being built, says he would have welcomed an LAX stop.
"Anything that gets people out of their cars benefits the taxi industry," Rouse said. "Some would take rail into the airport and then not want to wait in line when they got back and jump in a cab."


And while he was a donor to various political campaigns, Rouse said he didn't have the clout to sway the officials deciding the Green Line route.

"I should be flattered that somebody would think I'd have that much power," he said. "But, alas, such is not the case."

Others involved in the planning of the line confirm the taxi industry played no role in bypassing the airport. Which brings the theorists to the second potential culprit: Los Angeles World Airports, the city entity that owns and operates LAX and had the power to block the rail line.

And, arguably, it also had a motive since the airport draws much of its revenue from parking fees.

But LAWA officials say that wasn't a concern since rail would have had a relatively trivial effect on parking fees compared with other opportunities for growth.

"Transit isn't going to have a significant impact on our revenue," said Mike Doucette, chief of airport planning. "We'd prefer to see it. If there was a great regional transit system that fed the airport, that helps us."

Asked to respond to the conspiracy theories, Doucette said, "They all came from the grassy knoll."

The actual explanation for the route is much more complicated.

The first thing to understand is that the Green Line was not built on its own merits, but as a condition for the construction of the Century Freeway.

Planning started in the 1970s, with the thought that the 105 Freeway could relieve traffic congestion along Century, Manchester, and Firestone boulevards and Imperial Highway. But there was fierce opposition from the community because the project would destroy homes and slice up neighborhoods, many of them housing low-income residents.

Lawsuits were filed, resulting in a 1979 federal consent decree that allowed transportation officials to move forward with the project. However, they had to provide affordable housing near the freeway, along with a mass-transit line that would be built along the freeway median to minimize its disruption to the community.

The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, the precursor to today's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, began the process of planning the route.

At the western end of the Century Freeway, the line could either go north to LAX, which employed about 35,000 people, or south to El Segundo, home to about 90,000 aerospace workers.

"It was a clear decision it would be better to go into the El Segundo employment area," said Richard Stanger, who was the commission's director of rail planning. "The models and everything indicated it was much better to go into El Segundo and focus on the needs of the everyday worker."

But the models could not predict the collapse of the Soviet Union and, with it, the aerospace industry. By 1993, El Segundo had lost 45,000 jobs.

By that point, however, construction of the Green Line was well under way.

So transportation planners studied ways to build a "northern extension" connecting the Green Line to LAX. However, the concept was beset by problems, most of which still exist.

At the time, LAWA was working on a modernization plan that included a "people mover" - a monorail that would serve all the terminals and deposit passengers at an off-site location. Clearly, the train should go there - but where would that be?

(Fifteen years later, the modernization plan is progressing, with improvements to runways and separate terminals. However, the off-site element has been taken off the table.)

The Federal Aviation Administration also worried that a rail line would interfere with navigational equipment at the end of the runways and that overhead electric wires would intrude into flight paths. To solve that issue, the line would likely have to go underground, greatly increasing its cost.

Although LAWA officially supported the Green Line link, the transit panel felt the support didn't go very deep. Members speculated that LAWA didn't want to give the county control over its property, didn't think people would use the train or believed the project was simply a pipe dream.

Whatever the case, the Transportation Commission didn't press the matter very hard.

"We had a pocketful of money and communities that wanted rail, and we wanted to make rail real," recalls Jacki Bacharach, then chairwoman of the LACTC's rail planning committee.

"Part of what we were saying was, `OK, let's do it, let's show people we mean business.' So if we didn't get cooperation pretty fast, we closed up the end of the line and said let's use the money where we can use it."

When facts were faced, it didn't look good for the Green Line extension to the airport: Other projects had a higher priority, there was no legal requirement to take the line to LAX, there were significant planning and engineering hurdles, and money was short. The "northern extension" was dropped from the MTA's plan.

When the Green Line opened along the Century Freeway route in 1995, It was immediately tagged the "train to nowhere."

It was the least-used train in the MTA light-rail system until 2003, when the Gold Line opened and fared even worse.

MTA set up a free shuttle between the Aviation station and LAX, but it's used by just .3 percent of LAX passengers, officials say. The shuttle is used primarily by LAX employees, who now number about 54,000 - enough to rival the El Segundo employment area.

As things now stand, the best near-term prospects to connect the Green Line and the airport would be to build a people-mover between LAX to the Aviation station - a plan proposed earlier this decade and then shelved - or a light-rail system from Crenshaw that would connect with the Green Line at Aviation and would require an LAX people-mover at Century Boulevard.

Though that project is at the earliest planning stages, it has dedicated funding and would also provide a more direct route to downtown Los Angeles than the Green Line offers.

As for the long-term prospects, a coalition of elected leaders and transit advocates are still working to extend the Green Line to the airport and beyond - perhaps as far up the coast as Marina del Rey. Assemblyman Ted Lieu offered a bill this session that would create a Green Line construction authority, but it was defeated.

Ken Alpern, who co-chairs Friends of the Green Line, says there's some cause for optimism since LAX officials are cooperating with politicians and transportation planners. They see an emerging consensus, and hope that means there will be a second chance to cash in on a huge missed opportunity.

"The history of this is so sordid," Alpern said. "But the future of this looks so promising."

gene.maddaus@dailybreeze.com

It was the least-used train in the MTA light-rail system until 2003, when the Gold Line opened and fared even worse.

As an outsider who has only been following LA's transit develops in recent years, I have to ask: Why has the Gold Line been so disappointing in terms of ridership? From what I've seen in pictures and videos, it is a very clean and modern light rail line, it actually goes places (Union Station, Old Pasadena), and the stations seem well kept. It also seems like a very scenic ride. So why is it so underused? I would think that just the fact that Old Pasadena is easily accesible would be a boost to ridership.

It's a line that proves that a ROW is not necessarily the best way for a train to go. The stations aren't placed well, there isn't much density, and it doesn't go to the heart of downtown. In fact, it doesn't connect well to the rest of the system. There are a few problems, but ridership will greatly increase with a downtown connector and the completion of the Expo Line. People from Pasadena and the SGV will be able to go on one train from Pasadena to Long Beach and with one transfer can go to Hollywood and/or Santa Monica.

But how is it a true discussion when in an earlier post I state that the city has put together the first ever Planning Commission for simple things like street furniture to really significant things like density targets and your response is "so how Broadway looks now was decided by a general plan?", when I just stated that the city just recently assembled the first ever real planning commission. Where's the discussion?
I think many of us are exhausted and rightfully frustrated with the unfounded attacks on the city, dipped in a bratty-type of criticism and then skewered atop some sort of myopic view that a city's life is continually on some sort of straigtaway instead of realistically a collection of peaks and valleys. Additionally their seems to be laced within these consistently critical rantings a subtle yearning for LA to exhibit much more of a burgeois facade than the prolitareat reality that is constantly pushed in our face less we be blind or go only from bubble to hubble all day long or both.

Broadway, McArthur Park and others need to be discussed by these "Planning Commission's" not us necessarily. Hopefully they take action and not just talk, which like you said we are all fed up with. Personally, Im more fed up with how parts of Los Angeles have turned out to be throughout the years.

anyone know what "Between-Car Barriers" are?

noticed from the metro site that there is a public hearing on it on the 10th

heres to hoping for these:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/43/83993002_6c6e20eae9.jpg?v=1136753079
from nibushi (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32239674@N00/83993002/) on flickr

It's a line that proves that a ROW is not necessarily the best way for a train to go. The stations aren't placed well, there isn't much density, and it doesn't go to the heart of downtown. In fact, it doesn't connect well to the rest of the system. There are a few problems, but ridership will greatly increase with a downtown connector and the completion of the Expo Line. People from Pasadena and the SGV will be able to go on one train from Pasadena to Long Beach and with one transfer can go to Hollywood and/or Santa Monica.

It is a low performing line compared to the Blue Line which is the most popular single light rail line in North America but it has spurred some incredible developments around it like none other. Also the script isn't finished being written on the Gold Line since the Eastside extension is under construction and the northern most extension to Montclair is being heavily pushed.

Yeah, but I didn't want to mention those extension because I only wanted to talk about the leg of the line that exists now (plus with the Downtown Connector, I don't know if the Eastside Extension will remain named the Gold Line).

botox, I think that people have been pushing for that on the freeway light rail stations in order to cut the noise on the platform.

anyone know what "Between-Car Barriers" are?

noticed from the metro site that there is a public hearing on it on the 10th

heres to hoping for these:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/43/83993002_6c6e20eae9.jpg?v=1136753079
from nibushi (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32239674@N00/83993002/) on flickr

I thought these were so you can't fall onto the tracks of an oncoming train. They open only when the doors of the train open.

As anyone who has been following transit knows today is the "Time to move LA" broad coalition meeting downtown at the new cathedral. I somehow awoke myself at 6:30 am to catch the first part of the forum which began at 7:45. I am on break now and will return in the afternoon to hear Donald Shoupe. There are many more "suits" than common folk in the audience so I felt a bit out of place but I got over it rather quickly. One thing that I've already taken from the forum is that a regional mass transit system is completely doable for LA, the 17th largest economy in the world. The talk is to put it on this November's ballot.

I wish that I could be there, but with classes and the terrible long bus ride to get there, I couldn't (well I could go now, but I have some work to do). I hope that you can give us a lot of details K. Is anyone there taking a video of it? About how many people are there?

anyone know what "Between-Car Barriers" are?

noticed from the metro site that there is a public hearing on it on the 10th

heres to hoping for these:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/43/83993002_6c6e20eae9.jpg?v=1136753079
from nibushi (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32239674@N00/83993002/) on flickr

These sliding doors are pretty fancy and they have them in the Shanghai stations. I don't think they're necessary, but are they really are neat looking, very futuristic.

I wish that I could be there, but with classes and the terrible long bus ride to get there, I couldn't (well I could go now, but I have some work to do). I hope that you can give us a lot of details K. Is anyone there taking a video of it? About how many people are there?

I guess I'll get around to reporting the meeting to you but I just got home and I'm kinda pooped.
>It can be done but it's going to be tuff, what else is new? Not so tuff if we can get the 2/3 majority mandatory lowered though.
>Massive public support exists but funding are the real issues.
>Perhaps put a half-cent sales tax on the ballot in November.
>Many many funding options exist from market rate parking meters on the supply side to carbon emission tax and fees on all freeway on ramps.

Very long meeting. The mood that I gauged was we are all so sick of talking about something that we already know. We are all so exhausted and fed up with these squabbles like the one going on over Expo at Dorsey and the one that will come when Expo attempts to go through Cheviot. Zev spoke today and I agreed with everything that he said especially when he stated that 'these parochial disputes must be met and settled. But never should their be an option on the table that the project will be halted'.
Wish that I could tell you otherwise but kids we're not out of the woods yet.

Sales Tax Hike Could Fund Subway to Sea

L.A. County voters may decide on the half-cent increase in November's election.

By Steve Hymon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 11, 2008

If enthusiasm can get a subway built, the long-sought underground rail line from downtown Los Angeles to the Pacific gained a modicum of momentum Thursday after a day-long meeting of leaders focused on getting the $7-billion project built after decades of inaction, study and lots of, well, talk.

Casting an eye toward the November presidential election, several key politicians said they were open to asking voters to approve a tax increase to partially pay for the so-called "subway to the sea" and a slew of other road and mass transit projects in Los Angeles County.

Several officials raised the possibility of a half-cent sales tax hike. If approved by voters, such an increase would bring the county's sales tax rate to 8.75%, tying it with Alameda and Contra Costa counties' as the highest in California.

Among those who said they may support the idea were Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and a pair of county supervisors, Yvonne B. Burke and Zev Yaroslavsky.

"I'm a cynic by design," said Yaroslavsky, current chairman of the five-member Board of Supervisors. "I'm skeptical you can get 66 2/3 " -- the percentage of favorable votes need to approve an increase -- "during a recession. . . . Nevertheless, it's a tool that has to be considered."

A poll commissioned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority showed that two-thirds of voters would support a new transportation tax. But the poll's first question made no mention of a subway but did mention widening eight freeways in Los Angeles County.

Villaraigosa gave a passionate speech about the subway, saying it would have among the most riders of any line in the country. He also said the project would cost $7 billion but offered no firm detail on how to pay for it. MTA estimates have put the cost of the line at $5 billion.

In his speech and in an earlier interview, Villaraigosa said a sales tax hike was an option. But around City Hall, the thinking is that he won't make a decision on pursuing a transit tax until after Feb. 5, when voters will be asked to authorize a telephone tax that the city needs to balance its budget.

Los Angeles County Federation of Labor chief Maria Elena Durazo said her group of more than 800,000 union members might be willing to support a tax increase for subway construction. More resolute was Pam O'Connor, chairwoman of the MTA board and a Santa Monica councilwoman. O'Connor said the expected high turnout in November could help get such a tax increase passed.

Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) said he is pushing legislation that would lower the threshold needed to pass a bond for transit project. Feuer said he is also pursuing other legislation that could potentially allow a portion of the property taxes collected from some parcels along Wilshire Boulevard to be used for the subway.

More than 300 people attended the meeting at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. It was organized by several groups that have long pushed for more mass transit.

Denny Zane, the lead organizer, is a former mayor of Santa Monica and a consultant who started the Subway to the Sea Coalition. Zane said the point of the meeting was to show area politicians that a broad coalition of interests would stand behind a campaign for transit funding.

Another organizer, Bart Reed, was more blunt. "Even if we wanted to put something on the ballot, we need the buy-in from the politicians and organized labor and all the power players in the city and the public," he said.

The officials agreed it would be difficult to raise subway money any other way.

Congress last month lifted a 1986 ban on subway funding put in place by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), who said the ban was imposed for safety reasons, although critics have long contended the ban was done to please homeowners who didn't want a subway in their neighborhood. Still, the most the federal government has ever awarded for a single mass transit project is $1.2 billion for a Long Island Rail Road tunnel in New York City.

Meanwhile, the state budget gap of $14 billion appears to preclude any help from Sacramento. In Los Angeles, MTA officials said they have $60-billion in long-range projects but no money to build them. Existing half-penny sales tax increases approved by county voters in 1980 and 1990 are committed elsewhere, and, voters in 1998 prohibited that money from being spent on subway tunneling.

The debate now is whether it's time to return to voters to create a new pot of money. The MTA quietly spent $65,000 in November to conduct a poll of 1,200 residents across the county. Two-thirds of the voters who responded said they would approve a sales tax increase directed to a variety of projects. "We're even getting Republicans to support this," said John Fairbank, of the polling firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates. "Traffic is at such a frustrating level."

Transit advocates emphasize that any tax increase would not just be for the subway. It would be likely to include an array of projects across the 4,084-square mile county -- freeway widenings, street repairs and rail projects.

A majority of the 13-member MTA board, comprised mostly of elected officials, would have to vote to put it on the ballot.

Tony Bell, a spokesman for Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who is on the MTA board and represents less-densely populated north L.A. County, said his boss would probably not support an increase because "all the money would be drained into the subway."

Eagerly watching the debate unfold are a number of private interests who want to contribute money as part of a private-public partnership.

Those types of deals come in a variety of forms but typically involve the private sector's assuming some or all of the cost of building and operating a project in return for a fee or a cut of the project's profits.

Such deals are becoming popular enough that, last month, the investment committee of the California Public Employees' Retirement System, the $250-billion state employee pension fund, voted to invest in partnerships that build public works projects.

A CalPERS spokesman said this week that no specific projects are targeted.

"There are hundreds of billions of dollars of private capital that is available," said Kathleen Brown, head of the infrastructure group for the west region of Goldman Sachs and a former state treasurer. "CalPERS is the tip of the iceberg of public pension funds getting into this."

Paul Ryan, who runs the infrastructure advisory group for J.P. Morgan, said a public- private partnership on public transit may be profitable -- if the right deal can be struck. He also pointed to another problem facing infrastructure projects: rising construction costs.

"If you delay a project right now for five to seven years, construction cost increases means that delivering the same project to customers is going to cost you 1 1/2 to twice as much," Ryan said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-subway11jan11,1,1191159.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true)

Don't just sit there! Take a stand.
http://www.relievetraffic.org/

Don't just sit there! Take a stand.
http://www.relievetraffic.org/

The 241 extension would go through a state park. It's a horrible idea and would also be a catalyst for further sprawl in what was once a pristine natural area.

EmeraldCity blog LATIMES: Subway to the Sea: Worth a half cent sales tax hike?
Would you pay an extra half cent in sales tax to fund the subway to the sea? That seems to have been the hot topic of discussion at "It's Time to Move L.A.!" the mass transit funding conference held Thursday. Steve Hymon of the L.A. Times reports that several key politicians -- including Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and county Supervisors Yvonne B. Burke and Zev Yaroslavsky -- said they may support raising our county's sales tax rate to 8.75%.

While the subway to the sea idea to extend the subway down Wilshire Boulevard has widespread support, the project -- expected to cost $7 billion according to Villaraigosa or $5 billion according to Metro -- isn't funded. As Hymon reports, federal funding isn't likely to meet the demands, because $1.2 billion is the biggest award the federal government has given for a single mass transit project. State funding is unlikely too, considering that we already have a budget gap of $14 billion.

Thus, the sales tax hike idea. The Daily News estimates that an extra half cent tax could generate $4.5 billion within 6 1/2 years. (via LAist). However, that money would go not just to the subway project, but also a number of other transportation projects in L.A. County -- so the subway to the sea would still need to find other funding too.



http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/extension-1.jpg

To get a sales tax increase passed, the 13-member Metro board needs to first vote to put it on the ballot. Then, the measure needs to be approved by two-thirds of the voters. Metro did conduct a recent poll that showed more than two out of three voters would indeed support a tax increase -- but that poll seems to have emphasized freeway expansion more than subway funding.
What do you think? Is an extra half cent sales tax worth your getting from downtown L.A. to the Santa Monica beach in 35 minutes?

The supposed freeway expansion that the LA Times is referring to is the completion of the 710. Frankly, I know die-hard transit advocates who would agree that the 710 needs to be completed, if not just for better goods movements. MTA is very candid about what they want to spend the money on and everything following a 710 expansion would be rail and bus service and carpool lanes. The LA Times is already beginning this slow campaign to convince citizens that the MTA is trying to dupe or hoodwink them. The Chicago Times....I mean LA Times is a piece of shit, we all know this.
At the moment Mike Fuer is trying to get the new tax threshold down from 2/3 of a vote to 55%......hell that's the only way the Bay Area got BART!

A two thirds new tax threshhold is really ridiculous. When it takes fifty percent to remove a tax and two thirds to add one, that's just a recipe for irresponsible behavior. I know we all hate paying taxes (who wouldn't?) but we also have one of the biggest and most desperately in need of change transit systems in the country, and I'm pretty sure taxes were actually higher back when they had the funds to build this system in the first place.

:ohno: The MTA's train wreck :ohno:

By pouring money into rail projects, the agency is pushing riders off the buses.

By James Moore and Tom Rubin
January 13, 2008

Last year was an unexpectedly auspicious year in the history of public transportation in Los Angeles. Transit ridership -- bus and rail -- rose to 497 million boardings, a level not seen since 1985. That means less traffic congestion, stronger revenue for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and more poor people without cars getting around the city.

But there's a wrinkle to this success. Since the mid-1990s, the transit agency, on court orders, has reinvested in its bus service, and this has helped bring back riders. Unfortunately, it may get no better from here on because of the agency's goal of building a rail network.

This is not the first time the MTA has faced this problem. In the early 1980s, bus boardings soared because sales tax revenue generated by passage of Proposition A in 1980 was used to subsidize fares at 50 cents. But in 1986, this money was shifted to rail projects, initially for the light-rail Blue Line that runs from downtown Los Angeles to Long Beach. It was the first step in a long-term effort to reintroduce rail transit into L.A.

With the subsidy gone, bus fares rose sharply and ridership dropped. Blue Line service began in July 1990,but total bus and train ridership continued to plummet, reaching a low of 364 million boardings in 1996.

In late 1996, the MTA settled a discrimination lawsuit brought by minority and low-income bus riders seeking improvements in bus service. Rather than continue the trial, the agency accepted the terms of a federal consent decree negotiated with the Bus Riders Union. Over the next 11 years, it added buses, started new lines and held fares in check to improve the country's most overcrowded bus system. As a result, users of public transit gradually started to increase again. Yes, some chose the Blue, Red, Green and new Gold rail lines, but the majority of riders returned to buses. Most of the new rail riders were former bus riders forced to use trains because of bus service changes. And others were attracted by low rail fares and the added bus service that got them to and from the rail lines.

Paradoxically, the MTA's rail projects, which required fare increases and reduced bus services, have cost the transit system riders. Using MTA data, our analysis indicates that they produced a drop in train and bus ridership of more than 3 billion boardings from 1986 to 2007.

Although we've now gotten back to 1985 levels in terms of public-transit use, the county population has grown by more than 2 million since then. That means, on a trip-per-capita basis, the transit system is still not performing -- by 20% -- as well as it did 22 years ago.

The MTA says it has spent $7.1 billion on its Blue, Red, Green and Gold lines through June 2006.But this number ignores billions more dollars in associated expenditures, such as $100 million for Green Line rail vehicles, $153 million for the canceled Red Line extension to East Los Angeles and the canceled extension from Mid-City, and $899 million now being spent to extend the Gold Line to the Eastside. Phase I of the Exposition Line from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City will add more than $800 million to MTA spending, and Phase II of the line will cost at least $1 billion. The $7.1 billion also excludes $1.5 billion to operate the rail lines for the last 18 years and more than $4 billion to maintain them through 2025. And don't forget the billions of dollars in interest on borrowing to build the lines.

Taking all this into consideration and adjusting for inflation, the MTA has spent more than $11 billion since 1986 to build its rail network, and the effect has been to reduce total transit ridership on the system by more than 3 billion boardings. That's a bizarre result.

And transit service is certain to get worse. MTA data show that the median household income of its riders is less than $15,000 annually. Their transit choices are very sensitive to fares. But to help pay for its continued rail expansion, the MTA will have to raise fares as high as politically possible, then cut service and routes if ridership drops in response to the increases. Freed from federal court oversight in October 2006, the agency increased bus fares in July. Since then, ridership has dropped by 5%. More fare increases are scheduled for July 2009.

The politicians who sit on the MTA board should be held accountable for this cynical strategy of pursuing rail lines at the expense of overall public-transit use and on the backs of low-income, bus-dependent riders. Bus fares and transit investments should promote not discourage transit use.

James Moore is chairman of the Daniel J. Epstein department of industrial and systems engineering and director of the transportation engineering program at USC. Tom Rubin is a transit consultant.

^^:ohno:^^

Uh, this rhetoric is so old and tired and so BRU yesterday bullshit. Didn't we just have a citizens transit meeting on how to raise funds for a comprehensive transit system???? Not once did anyone on those panels suggest raising fares to hurt the poor!! In fact all the talk was about congestion pricing, freeway access pricing, property taxes within districts receiving the rail line, higher car registration fees, gas taxes and so on.....mainly to circumvent any fare raise on taxing on the already overburdened and financially strapped! This is why we don't have a comprehensive rail system now! The car and oil industry and fools like Eric Mann promote this sort of falseties to supress and repress the poor in actuality while being paid off by the aforementioned corporate organizations. You could ask anybody anyday of any year riding the 720 whether they'd wish the Purple Line extended to SM and you would get one answer.......yes!
I seriously doubt that James Moore nor Daniel Epstein ride the bus.

One of those people came from USC? I never would have guessed, lol.

So what really caused the drop in ridership that they mention?

The supposed freeway expansion that the LA Times is referring to is the completion of the 710. Frankly, I know die-hard transit advocates who would agree that the 710 needs to be completed, if not just for better goods movements. MTA is very candid about what they want to spend the money on and everything following a 710 expansion would be rail and bus service and carpool lanes. The LA Times is already beginning this slow campaign to convince citizens that the MTA is trying to dupe or hoodwink them. The Chicago Times....I mean LA Times is a piece of shit, we all know this.
At the moment Mike Fuer is trying to get the new tax threshold down from 2/3 of a vote to 55%......hell that's the only way the Bay Area got BART!


You are so right. People think Politicians are anti-transit, when in fact the LA times and Joel Kitkon are the only real officials were are anti-transit. Angelenos are largely dumb as well.

Anyhow, I went to the "its time to move LA conference". I posted this RANT on another forum, and I dont feel like rewriting it, so I am going to post it now.

I will take this time to clear something very important up. Generally speaking, Angelenos hold this city back, not politicians.

Zev is not as bad as we all think. I actually paid 25 bucks and spent my whole work day attending that "Its Time To Move LA conference". The LA times coverage was pretty crappy. It didnt capture that all day event that well at all.

Zev is an ELECTED official, and even though (at least according to him) he wants heavy rail, light rail, and buses, he doesnt have the power to make them happen. He covers 2.3 million people, and he cant go against their will. He is doing what he was elected to do, serve his constituents. Luckily for us, the MTA, and politicians at large, are not as dumb as Joel Kitkon and the LA times staff writers. Most realize that rail is the future.

It isnt his fault that his constituents are idiots. If there was enough grass roots eforts to back him up, I am sure he would be pushing hard for the subway. instead, he is faced with people who hate rail, and foolishly want meger roadway enhancements instead. He must go with the majority. He doesnt have the authority to do otherwise.

PEOPLE in LA hold it back, not its leadership! During the conference, leaders said some really great things. THe organized labor unions wanted rail. The LA councilmembers wanted rail. The entire MTA board pretty much wants more rail (heavy or otherwise). All politicians say the same thing though...."by and large, Angelenos just dont support heavy rail enough, and without that support, things like this just cant get built".

When he first got elected, Mayor Antonio Villaragoisa was ridiculed for even mentioning the subway to the sea, but he received huge accolades for fixing traffic lights. That act saved commuters all of 2 minutes each way, yet they applauded his efforts. At the same time, the redline could save them an hour, yet they didnt even blink an eye when he mentioned it. That is the world our political leaders live in, in LA county.

In the north bay area, you can hardly widen any roads without environmentalists, transit lovers, and citizens at large going crazy. Here, if you widen a freeway you are a hero. Here, if you build better sidewalks or build more rail, you are a hero to about 20% of the people. To the rest, you are wasting precious freeway money.

Bay Areans pushed BART through, not the politicians. I was always jealous because it seems while LA struggles to build rail while the bay area keeps expanding theirs. I thought at first that the state and fed favored the bay more than LA. It turns out that the Bay has hundreds of grass roots groups that routinely fight for transit and the environment. Through their efforts alone, they raised 12 billion in LOCAL money for their transit projects in the last 6 years. This isnt the politicians mind you, but average citizens. If 12 billion fell on our laps, Angelenos would have a hissy fit if 5 billion went towards a subway! At least 5 years ago they would.

Let's look back to rail in LA during the 80s. If it hadnt been for the 105 compromise where poor communities who were displaced via eminent domain, we wouldnt have the green line. Had it not been for transit dependent minorities, we wouldnt have the blue line. Dont let the BRU fool you, the momentum created by transit dependent minorities just BARELY gave Mayor Bradley enough wiggle room to fight tooth and nail for the red line. It didnt come easy at all.

Obviously Mayor Bradley could have used more help because the CITIZENS of beverly hills and Hancock Park, and the CITIZENS of greater LA county lead Waxman and Zev to kill the subway. THe politicians didnt just wake up one evening and fight the subway. Angelenos were screaming bloody murder after every new mile of the redline was finished. In other cities, citizens would have rejoiced when the redline opened. Instead, it had token applause, and caused a much larger uproar. Even today, 75% of Angelenos dont even know it exits, and 95% have never even dreamt of riding it.

I know this is just a hollywood movie, but PLEASE PLEASE watch the first 5 minutes of the movie Volcano. I know its fictional, but the first shot of the movie opens to people protesting the red line. That movie actually captures the mood of Angelenos during that time. THat is what our politicians had to deal with. In contrast, in the Bay Area, businesses and residents were PUSHING for the BART not FIGHTING it.

If you think that things like that are in the past, you are wrong. The only reason the expo line is being built today is because of a decade of grass roots efforts. Anglenos wanted wider freeways, not toy trains, and it took grass roots to get it through.

Dorsey Highschool and Cheviot Hills threaten to destroy all the work. After the "Its time to move LA" conference, the chair of the MTA was HOUNDED about dorsey high school. He was there on his own free time in support of more rail just to be harrassed by people who want to make the expo line a subway through that area. These people have good motives, but are straining an overstrained MTA. The person who suggested undergrounding the expo line is going too far IMHO and is a regular poster on this very forum. I am sorry to call him out, but I have to disagree with his efforts. Also, if he thinks he can GetLAMoving by 2030 for 30 billion, he is dreaming if he requires every line to be undergounded when it crosses an area of importance. Alright, I digress, so I will leave this alone.

In other places, city residents SUPPORT their MTA and fight places like cheviot hills and Dorsy High school. Instead Angelenos leave our politicians to the wolves. When miracles like the expo line get completed, it ends up on the back page of our newspapers.

In the end, very few people in LA care enough to get involved. The only people who care are NIMBY's like westchester, cheviot hills, and dorsey high school. These people are the only ones talking!!! There should be a group called "Angelenos against gridlock and pollution" and they should literally go to EVERY community or scoping meeting and fight these people. They should dispel lies about safety, noise pollution, crime, and decreasing property values. They should counter the BRU at every step. They should go around talking about the benefits of a car free urban area. They should talk about smog, global warming, commute times, and obesity. Instead, the NIMBY's talk about baby killers and environmental racism. Dont blame the politicians for this mess, blame Angelenos! Unless we start blaming ourselves, nothing is ever going to get done in this town.

I live within walking distance of Palos Verdes (yes I said walking!). I have driven way out of my way to go to meetings in the heart of los angeles. I have written MTA members, and I have tried to start what little grass roots efforts I can. I can tell you right now. We are darn luckily to have pro-transit politicians in office. Angelenos are the most inactive and apathetic people I know when it comes to politics.

PS. At the conference, EVERY politician said that they would be okay building the subway, more light rail, and making long term improvements. Almost all of them said LA NIMBYs are way to powerful, and all of them said, Angelenos need to fork over more tax money to make any of this a reality. There was a long discussion on funding. Here is what was said

1) We need MANY measures to make sure there is a steady stream of local money, but the most important is a new sales tax. Without that, there just wouldnt be enough to build everything.
2) You need 2/3 vote to pass a county wide sales tax.
3) People are fighting to make it a 55% vote. But that fight is a long shot
4) People in LA WILL NOT vote on any increase in taxes unless they KNOW it will directly benefit them.
5) Mega projects do not work in LA, but if a comprehensive plan isnt laid out that specifically says "this money will help YOU", then it wont happen. Even though there is a comprehensive plan, you have to build in phases in this town. You cant build Mega Projects. This was said by Zev himself.
6) To gaurantee that money does get used for the subway, it would be good if you explicity mention that on the ballot measure.
7) about 68% of LA county was in favor of increasing taxes (before the recession news or the 14 billion dollar deficit) but that poll had language that eluded to freeway widening, not rail. The one was exclusively rail oriented was in the 40% range. Not even CLOSE to enough to pass. apparently, campaigning only works if you are at 60+ and want an additional 6 points to get something passed. According to a polling expert.
8) We could use private-public partnerships (P3), but the Oakland Bart P3 resulted in a fare of $5 one way for only 2 miles of track. In general, the state restricts alot of private-public options, and it is diffiuclt to use them to the same benefit as traditional construction methods. Oaklands high fare is because of estimated low ridership and construction costs in the bay area.
8b) Florida used public private partnerships to save 50% on one of their projects. These partnerships help speard the risk of these projects away from the tax payer. If there are any overuns, the company has to eat it. There are rules on fares. Private companies only get to own the infrastructure for 30 years, but it depends on the contract.
8c) Private markets have tons of upfront capitol. In the public sector, it takes alot of liquid via taxes to raise 5 billion up front. Public private partnerships can help get expensive subways started, instead of waiting decades for capitol.
9) The MTA is strongly favoring the downtown connector over the subway to the sea. I waited all day to ask the MTA chair why this was, but he got hounded by anti-expo rail folks, so I totally blew my chance! Zev himself said "I dont know why the subway to the sae isnt being looked at. We could build it to la cienega for now, and that would cut the commute time for many by 30 minutes. Instead, we are trying to save people 5 minutes with the downtown connector".
10) The MTA wants to do the crenshaw corridor, but it isnt known whether BRT or light rail is the way to go.
11) Zev said that in his experience, counties like LA never pass tax increases during a looming recession. If you miss time it and the measure doesnt pass, it could be years before you can get a tax increase through. So times is critical.
12) One option discussed was to make a ballot measure to increase taxes and say "This money will be used for transit only. Retrofitting freeways for eathquake resistance. Fixing key interchanges. Making safety improvements and other key upgrades. Fixing potholes. Adding more bus services. Adding more rail projects, including heavy rail". In this case, the MTA doesnt have total jurisdiction. The MTA might only get say 30% of that. Of that 30% it has to work on building new lines and maintaining other lines and increasing bus service. It isnt known how much could be used specifically for the subway. Again, Zev suggested that the subway be built in 4 stages (to fairfax or la cienega. Then through beverly hills. Then to UCLA. Then to Santa Monica). That way, at least you can make progress. He doesnt know how enough money will become available to build the whole line at once. Although he said, if they got a whole bunch of money, that might be a priority after crenshaw and the downtown connector
13) Zev did mention that no corridor in los angeles was more deserving than wilshire. He also mentioned that no area of LA was more deserving of rail than the west side

As anyone who has been following transit knows today is the "Time to move LA" broad coalition meeting downtown at the new cathedral. I somehow awoke myself at 6:30 am to catch the first part of the forum which began at 7:45. I am on break now and will return in the afternoon to hear Donald Shoupe. There are many more "suits" than common folk in the audience so I felt a bit out of place but I got over it rather quickly. One thing that I've already taken from the forum is that a regional mass transit system is completely doable for LA, the 17th largest economy in the world. The talk is to put it on this November's ballot.

Damn you were there?!?! I am pissed that I stopped reading this thread (partially because I was behind on my own grassroots effort and felt embarrassed to show my head again).

We should have met up! I am pretty dissappointed in myself.

My assessment of the conference was different. in short I thought almost all politcians wanted it, but there was a 56 billion dollar shortfall. More over, I learned that Angelenos and the lack of grass roots efforts is the reason of lack of rail, not politicians. I also felt that during the recession, it will be too difficult to get the revenue we need, but the MTA wants to build a new rail line every 2-3 years continuously, it just doesnt have money. The subway to the sea is on the MTAs radar. It is behind the downtown connector and the crenshaw line but ahead of the gold line extension to monrovia.

FYI folks. This is another post I made on another forum.

There should be a website dedicated to the Purple Line being extended akin to the one you posted.

http://www.subwaytothesea.org/home.php

Actually I attended the "ITs time to move LA" conference. This conference was the motivation behind the LA times Article "Sales Tax Hike for the subway".

This was the ad for the very successfully conference.
http://www.subwaytothesea.org/moveLAconference/invitation.htm

If you follow their website they ask for volunteers and donations.

I started my petition (although I only have 10 signatures :). I am also giving support to this coaltion. To be honest, they havent asked me to do anything yet. I figure my hard earned money should help their cause. Denny Zane works hard, and I know he is using my money well.

I am working on a very similar website, but I am lazy (or busy). For now, here is a quick way to support the cause.
http://www.subwaytothesea.org/actnow/endorse.php

Pass this link around to as many colleagues as you can. If you are on myspace, link it. If you post on forums, link it. You downtowners, start posting this around petes cafe, groundwork, or pass out flier during the ralphs lunch rush. People need to know that a coalition currently exists and is gaining serious momentum. If you know of a better group, send me the link.

My effort (which is very slow going) is less about getting large groups and more about courting the individual Angeleno. When the powers that be say "special interests want this, not normal Angelenos dont", I want to have signatures that say otherwise. So far, 10 signatures is total crap, but I suspect it will get better?!?

^^:ohno:^^

Uh, this rhetoric is so old and tired and so BRU yesterday bullshit.


The BRU is very tired, but Denny Zane just pretty much killed them. Their days are numbered. Denny, as well as eveyone here, knows we need the best (not just the largest) bus system in the country to be mobile. However, the best bus system means nothing without at least the tied-for-third best rail network to go with it. We need both!

The labor union, with 800,000 workers, supports rail!!!!!!!!!
That is a knife straight through the heart of the BRU. If the labor union puts their money where their mouth is, we can celebrate the death of the BRU!! If Denny is smart he should ally with the labor union immediately and champion both rail and buses!

Organized working class labor is WAY more powerful than the BRU.

One thing that really amuses me, is that San Diego has learned from our mistakes. .

Actually, this shouldnt be amusing at all. Almost every city in the world has learned from LA's mistakes. LA is the most unique city in the world in my opinion. It was an American city built after the centralized city layouts of the 19th century, and before post-war sprawl was well understood. It, like no othre city, is what I consider a transition city. It is neither central like NY, nor is new enough or sparse enough to be like Houston. Parts of Atlanta are older than LA, but 90% of Atlanta is newer.

The world now knows that you cant stuff 3 million people in 10500ppl/sq mi, and an additional 10 million on top of that 3 million, with almost no open space, and uniformly dense throughout. That is a massive amount of people. SD and Miami seem large and dense but they are NOTHING compared to the size of Los Angeles. Luckily for them, they had the luxury of watching us choke to death in our traffic.

Amazing post jlrobe, I read it first on SSP and then just saw it here as well... keep up the good work in relaying this precious information to those of us who are unable to attend such meetings. By and large, I completely agree with your assessment of the situation. Having grown up on the west coast and having lived on the east coast for the past 6 years now, I completely agree that generally speaking Angelinos are in a constant state of political inertia. I know very, very few people back home that are in favor of rail and even fewer that would ride existing rail today. It's simply the sad state of LA's denizens.

That LA Times opinion piece is written by a vaguely libertarian USC professor who basically wants the bus system turned over to private enterprise. No surprise he comes out against rail and then tries to hide it by claiming he supports buses. I wrote a letter to the editor in response and I suggest others do the same so that at least one of us gets printed as a counter-point.

That LA Times opinion piece is written by a vaguely libertarian USC professor who basically wants the bus system turned over to private enterprise. No surprise he comes out against rail and then tries to hide it by claiming he supports buses. I wrote a letter to the editor in response and I suggest others do the same so that at least one of us gets printed as a counter-point.

It is interesting. Anyone who supports buses should support rail and vice versa. In only a few cities on the entire planet does a "bus only" system actually work well. In LA, where the landscape is vast, and people have to travel 10-20 miles, rail is the only way to do it efficiently on select corridors. Unless buses can go throughout the central areas at 60mph and stop every 1-2 miles, I dont them working. It would take hours to go vast distances, and asking Angelenos to live work and play within a 3-4 mile span is just lunacy.

Likewise, we cant build enough subways to cover the whole landscape. People will eventually have to hop on a bus to reach their final destinations.

Rail needs bus and bus needs rail in this town. These are two peas in a freakin pod if you ask me.

The silly people at the BRU and LA times dont get it, but everyone else does luckily!

If this were Manilla, and people lived on top of each other, and worked 12 hour days, then I would say bus-only is the way to go.

I came away from the "Move LA" meeting in a positive frame of mind. The most Dorsey will get is a pedestrian overpass or a momma patrol which I think at best the overpass is the most legit. Rail lines in LA county run into this stuff all the time.....remember the unknown cemetary that was going to stop the Gold Line on the Eastside?http://www.knbc.com/news/5192464/detail.html

But let's not give the Bay Area undo credit, BART collided with stiff opposition as well. In fact the threshold had to be lowered from the 2/3 vote to 50% and it narrowly passed with 51% of the vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit

I've asked this question before, are we in essence incrementally building a regional transit system already? Think about it......in the past 18 years we have put into service 2 heavy rail lines, 3 light rail lines, 1 busway and initiated a Rapid Bus program. And did I even mention the 400 mile......yes 400 mile commuter rail system? The cat is out of the bag folks. As more and more districts and jurisdictions see the success of enhanced transit e.g. the cranes of Hollywood, the new Old Town Pasadena, the soon urban revamping of Noho and Universal City they are going to want a train as well. The outlook really isn't that dire if you are living in LA of 2008 and not the LA of 1988. Remember people Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and Santa Monica have formed an alliance to figure out how to get the subway to run through there municipalities. Maybe it's better just to continue building incremently or on the DL if you will.

So what really caused the drop in ridership that they mention?

Every major transit system worth mentioning has seen a decline in ridership from time to time. It could be due to mismanagement of the system, cutbacks for lack of funds, security issues on the lines etc. The way these folks are talking they'd rather scuttle the entire system because of a drop in ridership #'s instead of finding out what the problem is and fixing it. Yep, these folks really care about the poor.:ohno:

I came away from the "Move LA" meeting in a positive frame of mind. The most Dorsey will get is a pedestrian overpass or a momma patrol which I think at best the overpass is the most legit. Rail lines in LA county run into this stuff all the time.....remember the unknown cemetary that was going to stop the Gold Line on the Eastside?http://www.knbc.com/news/5192464/detail.html

It was very positive for what it was. Especailly brining in different groups like labor. I just get frustrated that even in 2007, we have obstacles that we shouldnt. Again, that wont hinder me from doing my job.

I felt badly because of the talk about recession and how difficult it might be pass the sales tax this year. What a horrible time for a recession. I guess out of frustration I kept thinking "this is the perfect time to pass a measure, but the dumb deficit and recession are going to kill our efforts". I know these problems always arise, but the expo line is very sensitive to me. I actually attended one of those expo line circuses, I mean, alignment meetings. It was crazy. I got so angry. The fact that expo line is some 12 years or something in the making frustrates me. The fact that it has 4 different parts calling for upgrades and concessions always reminds me of cheviot hills. That in turn reminds me of racist west siders blocking the red line which would have been an incredible assest today had it not been blocked. Anyhow, I know these things happen. I am less frustrated today.


But let's not give the Bay Area undo credit, BART collided with stiff opposition as well. In fact the threshold had to be lowered from the 2/3 vote to 50% and it narrowly passed with 51% of the vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit


When the BART was first built for 15 billion in todays dollars, it did receiver stiff oppoisition. this was in the late 60s as well. I was commenting on current efforts to expand it the BART. The Bay Area is not the end all be all, but I get frustrated when I am outdone by my former home :). Currently, the Bay Area transit champions are kicking our a$$es. LA faces more complex issues than the bay. Considering our unique obstacles, I give our very FEW grass roots poeple and pro-transit politicians A LOT of credit.



I've asked this question before, are we in essence incrementally building a regional transit system already?


IMHO, absolutely. As I reported above, the MTA chair would like to build a new line every 2-3 years. He is troubled that right now, there is no line slated to break ground in the next 2-3 years.


The outlook really isn't that dire if you are living in LA of 2008 and not the LA of 1988. Remember people Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and Santa Monica have formed an alliance to figure out how to get the subway to run through there municipalities. Maybe it's better just to continue building incremently or on the DL if you will.

I agree. LA in 2008 is better. Almost every politician on the westside wants heavy rail,light rail, and buses. The problem is money and urgency. Aside from that, I am happy.

You and I, as always, are in agreement. As I stated before the strategy is to reduce the 2/3 into simple majority. Maybe you got a different feeling from the meeting, but I took that as a very daunting milestone.

If that is achieved, and if the recession is less severe than we think it will be, and if people are properly educated in time, and if the measure is written up correctly, I have no doubt we will allocate enough funds for the VITAL subway, as well as buses and light rail for all. Getting those things accomplished came off as more challenging than usual because of several factors.

any news on grade crossings?

Sorry but we're going to have to do some pandering.......as long as we keep the county politicians awash in the mindset that they will be getting a train line out of this....it will pass. Keep BH, SM, CC, Weho (basically the "progressive Westside)and the raging fighting tiger that ironically is the SGV in your back pocket and the opposition that will of course come from the South Bay and the SF Valley will not be able to thwart the rest of the county. It's great that Zane is out of the Westside because I believe with his track record he knows how to pacify these people.
Expo is going to give us problems people but we have to wait and see what the PUC has to say very soon. One point I would like to make is that I have said before that I consider the 15 x 5 mile expanse from downtown to SM and from the Hollyhood Hills down to around the 10 to be LA's Manhattan for lack of a better analogy. Any rapid transit project interfacing with this dense area should be completely grade seperated. With that said I hope everyone understands that if the PUC calls for any type of new grade seperation this will put the project back 2-3 years since the EIR would have to be re-opened forcing the study of a new impact report.

Sorry but we're going to have to do some pandering.......as long as we keep the county politicians awash in the mindset that they will be getting a train line out of this....it will pass. Keep BH, SM, CC, Weho (basically the "progressive Westside)and the raging fighting tiger that ironically is the SGV in your back pocket and the opposition that will of course come from the South Bay and the SF Valley will not be able to thwart the rest of the county. It's great that Zane is out of the Westside because I believe with his track record he knows how to pacify these people.
Expo is going to give us problems people but we have to wait and see what the PUC has to say very soon. One point I would like to make is that I have said before that I consider the 15 x 5 mile expanse from downtown to SM and from the Hollyhood Hills down to around the 10 to be LA's Manhattan for lack of a better analogy. Any rapid transit project interfacing with this dense area should be completely grade seperated. With that said I hope everyone understands that if the PUC calls for any type of new grade seperation this will put the project back 2-3 years since the EIR would have to be re-opened forcing the study of a new impact report.

What will pass? a measure for increased sales taxes, or the 2/3 to simple majority provision

i personally think recession or no recession the sales tax would perform well either barely passing or almost passing. I would like to see the 2/3 lowered to a simple majority to ensure that it indeed would pass. But I think between the SGV and all of the Westside municipalities along with the rest of the LA urban core even w/o the threshold being lowered it still may pass with the right type of outreach.

Two thirds is an incredible burden. It sounds easy right now with no opposition groups in place yet, but wait till "consumer" groups and other anti-tax folks start screaming about corruption and stolen funds and chasing businesses out of California.

I really don't like the idea of imposing another sales tax (I said that I was conservative, I guess it's finally coming out). With the past two sales tax hikes we were promised a full system, and now they're trying to get us a third time? You know the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me THREE TIMES?!" I know, there are various reasons why the money wasn't enough, but I really can't see this being supported (and I would vote for it, but I can see this getting defeated very easily). I'd rather raise the gas tax (can the county even do that?), increase vehicle license fees, put a carbon emission tax, implement congestion pricing, a tax based on miles driven, etc. To me, our system should be paid by that which causes congestion and pollution (because mass transit produces no local pollution, unless we are talking about Diesel operated lines, in which case the pollution is less than that which is produced by all of the people in those trains riding in cars on their own). I really hope that the MTA examines more of these options instead of pursuing another sales tax increase.

I really don't like the idea of imposing another sales tax (I said that I was conservative, I guess it's finally coming out). With the past two sales tax hikes we were promised a full system, and now they're trying to get us a third time? You know the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me THREE TIMES?!"...

I feel the only way a sales tax initiative would pass is if Metro doesn't promise voters the moon on transit corridors and projects. Going by the histories of the last two sales tax initiatives there's only a 6-9 year window to spend most of the money and get most of it built and operating. So the priority corridors with their EIRs complete or in process and can be complete within 18 months are the ones that should get first dibs at the money because they'll be ready to build so it can beat inflation and rising construction/material costs, an important fact in a recession!

On top of that if there's enough local funding we could then bank that towards going for federal money for the subway so that at the very least it reaches UCLA/Westwood even gain more for future subway corridors like Vermont and or Whittier Blvd.

If a proposal was written like this for just TRANSIT CORRIDOR projects (current EIR status) ;


ALL LA COUNTY
* Downtown Connector (In Alternatives Analysis)
* 30 Minute service on 3 busiest Metrolink corridors within LA County; Antelope Valley, San Bernandino and Orange County Lines. (No EIR required)
* Added late evening/owl service on Bus corridors. (No EIR needed)

WESTSIDE
* Expo Phase 2 to Santa Monica (In Draft EIR)
* Purple Line Extension, length at least La Cienega Blvd or Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center to be of any utility by itself (In Alternatives Analysis)

S.F. VALLEY
* Complete all San Fernando Valley North-South BRT's (In EIR stage)
* Capacity upgrades to Orange Line (No EIR needed)

S.G. VALLEY
* Foothill Gold Line to Azusa/Citrus College (In draft EIR. Minor supplemental EIR needed to include Metrolink technology for corridor eastern portions of corridor)
* San Bernandino Line Metrolink upgrades and track expansion via Foothill Corridor (combine with Foothill Gold Line EIR)

SOUTH BAY
* Crenshaw Corridor from Green Line to Wilshire/La Brea tie into Purple Line (In Alternatives Analysis)
* Green Line to LAX and South Bay Galleria (Re-open and revise EIR)

GATEWAY
* Eastside Gold Line extension (In Alternatives Analysis)
* Broadway Transit Mall (May not require EIR if this is FTA Small Starts)
* Added late evening/owl service on Bus corridors. (No EIR needed)

NORTH COUNTY
* Antelope Valley Line Metrolink upgrades (No EIR required)

Future Corridor Studies for a future funding provisions 8-10 years from now.
* Funding for EIR studies on future corridors (Vermont Subway, Lincoln Blvd, 405-Van Nuys-Sepulveda, Norwalk Green Line extension, Blue Line grade separation)

Just visited the SSP forum and read the transit thread.....amazing! There are no sides to be taken but there are questions to be asked. "Jrobe" keep up your "getting to the bottom of it all" approach. I really appreciate this wholly dynamic experience around transit that is happening in LA and all of the info that was dispensed on a forum outside of the venerable Transit Coalition, it makes me believe that not just transit nerds are becoming more and more interested in the made-for-Hollywood history of transit as well as the present day struggles. That has been one of the best point and counterpoint discussions on transit that I've ever witnessed as I said outside of the Transit Coalition.

Edit.

So what really caused the drop in ridership that they mention?

Remember around this time that the RTD began to turn over some of its lines to interagencies. Big Blue in SM, Culver City, Montebello, Foothill, Torrance all took some ridership with them, funny how this is never talked about. In my calculations if you include all interagencies that run in the county plus all of the said MTA bus and rail lines LA has the 2nd highest transit ridership in the country and if you put that up against our MSA pop we get somewhere around 16% riding theoretically speaking. In contrast Chicago has 21% and SF has a very nice 29%. But when we look at Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, Vegas, San Diego and Miami we get #'s well under 10%.
That's why I really don't understand why this is not a no-brainer. We have alot of people riding our busses and trains every single day (myself included)but as I've come to realize these people are not considered "real people"(myself included).

New round of Westside Corridor Meetings!!
Get off of the laptop and go participate!!
Thurs., Jan. 31, 6 pm - 8 pm., Los Angeles County Museum of Art – West, Terrace Rm, 5th Fl., 5905 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles
Tues., Feb. 5, 6 pm – 8 pm, Westwood Presbyterian Church., 10822 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles
Wednesday, Feb. 6, 6 pm – 8 pm, Plummer Park, 7377 Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood

Westwood Presbyterian Church doesn't seem too far away from me. :) Of course if anyone is willing to lend me a ride, it's only about a 2 minute ride.

I didn't even consider interagencies. How could they have been overlooked? This is a glaring example of how statistics can be skewed and I'm glad that I didn't just accept it.

k, were did you get that info. i just looked at the metro site for the westside corridor and it makes no mention of any new meetings

Whats funny about the whole Expo st./Farmdale crossing is that the cars on that street really crazy. If you're going in west on Expo, there is space for two lanes of cars, but there is no such divider between cars driving. Just this morning, I witnessed so many cars weaving around other cars, one almost hitting a school bus. That should be fixed.

Has a student ever been hit around there? Anybody know?

I don't know why such a big deal is made out of such a dinky crossing. More attention should have been paid to grade separate the line at Crenshaw and Vermont, those are much more deserving.

k, were did you get that info. i just looked at the metro site for the westside corridor and it makes no mention of any new meetings

Oh really! I got it from Siel, the "green LA girl" she has a blog in the Times online. I assumed it to be accurate info coming from her. Here is the link:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/emeraldcity/2008/01/subway-to-the-1.html

I really don't like the idea of imposing another sales tax (I said that I was conservative, I guess it's finally coming out). With the past two sales tax hikes we were promised a full system, and now they're trying to get us a third time? You know the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me THREE TIMES?!" I know, there are various reasons why the money wasn't enough, but I really can't see this being supported (and I would vote for it, but I can see this getting defeated very easily). I'd rather raise the gas tax (can the county even do that?), increase vehicle license fees, put a carbon emission tax, implement congestion pricing, a tax based on miles driven, etc. To me, our system should be paid by that which causes congestion and pollution (because mass transit produces no local pollution, unless we are talking about Diesel operated lines, in which case the pollution is less than that which is produced by all of the people in those trains riding in cars on their own). I really hope that the MTA examines more of these options instead of pursuing another sales tax increase.

While, I do think metro could have been better, constructin costs in CA went up over 270% since 1993. I dont remember where I read that article, but that is alot. I think most people project it to rise 3% per year. It has gone up around 9% per year. That is three times faster than normal.

Hopefully construction has leveled off and will increase proportionally to that of sales tax revenue.

Either way, it needs to get passed.

Whats funny about the whole Expo st./Farmdale crossing is that the cars on that street really crazy. If you're going in west on Expo, there is space for two lanes of cars, but there is no such divider between cars driving. Just this morning, I witnessed so many cars weaving around other cars, one almost hitting a school bus. That should be fixed.

Has a student ever been hit around there? Anybody know?

ask damien. He'll know.

Remember around this time that the RTD began to turn over some of its lines to interagencies. Big Blue in SM, Culver City, Montebello, Foothill, Torrance all took some ridership with them, funny how this is never talked about. In my calculations if you include all interagencies that run in the county plus all of the said MTA bus and rail lines LA has the 2nd highest transit ridership in the country and if you put that up against our MSA pop we get somewhere around 16% riding theoretically speaking. In contrast Chicago has 21% and SF has a very nice 29%. But when we look at Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, Vegas, San Diego and Miami we get #'s well under 10%.
That's why I really don't understand why this is not a no-brainer. We have alot of people riding our busses and trains every single day (myself included)but as I've come to realize these people are not considered "real people"(myself included).

New round of Westside Corridor Meetings!!
Get off of the laptop and go participate!!
Thurs., Jan. 31, 6 pm - 8 pm., Los Angeles County Museum of Art – West, Terrace Rm, 5th Fl., 5905 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles
Tues., Feb. 5, 6 pm – 8 pm, Westwood Presbyterian Church., 10822 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles
Wednesday, Feb. 6, 6 pm – 8 pm, Plummer Park, 7377 Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood

THanks for the update. I should go!

While, I do think metro could have been better, constructin costs in CA went up over 270% since 1993. I dont remember where I read that article, but that is alot. I think most people project it to rise 3% per year. It has gone up around 9% per year. That is three times faster than normal.

Hopefully construction has leveled off and will increase proportionally to that of sales tax revenue.

Either way, it needs to get passed.

I will vote for it even though I am against it because infrastructure is so desperately needed. If I were offered the choice between a sales tax increase and a gas tax increase, I'd take the second in a heartbeat.

But isn't the gas tax too vulnerable to be misused and has been siphoned off for other non-pt projects? Isn't that why we are looking for alternative funding? If the threshold can be lowered I believe the new sales tax could pass.

The reason we are looking for alternative funding is because a gas tax increase wouldn't fly today. If there was a proposition for it, language could be put into it demanding all that money be used for PT. I don't know who thought up increasing the sales tax, but I don't like it. Why can't we tax the things that directly lead to our congestion? This is why I'm in favor of congestion pricing, gas tax increase, tax for miles driven, etc.

The reason we are looking for alternative funding is because a gas tax increase wouldn't fly today. If there was a proposition for it, language could be put into it demanding all that money be used for PT. I don't know who thought up increasing the sales tax, but I don't like it. Why can't we tax the things that directly lead to our congestion? This is why I'm in favor of congestion pricing, gas tax increase, tax for miles driven, etc.

Now one of the things I was thinking about with the taxes on motorists is that there's almost no incentive to build the transit infrastructure because you'll earn more funding without having to do anything now.

I'd hold off on the extra congestion pricings until the baseline system using a moderate sales tax coupled with vehicle registration fees to build the list I posted above. Then right after those are built cause it'll take this much lobbying to get accomplished go after raising the gas tax to go towards highway/freeway maintenance and keep precious sales tax monies back to transit which will be better utilized and spread farther.

Nissan exec: Car culture is fading
Worldwide, people are losing interest in automobiles, one executive says.
By Alex Taylor, Fortune senior editor



GM wins car of the year award for the second year in a row.
Play video
More from Fortune
Dealing for delegates

Apple magic fizzles

Citi's credit hangover


FORTUNE 500
Current Issue
Subscribe to Fortune

DETROIT (Fortune) -- If you are looking for some insight into what the automobile of the future will look like you could do worse than talk with Tom Lane. An American, he runs all of Nissan's Product Strategy anad Product Planning from his office in Tokyo.

Unlike most executives, he welcomes the imposition of new U.S. fuel regulations that mandate 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

"It is not an issue" for Nissan (NSANY) he says.

He expects the new regs to drive more small cars, improved technoloy, and a broader variety of shapes and sizes, as designers try to get more variety out of similarly-sized vehicles.

But he points to some discouraging global trends that don't bode well for the industry.

He notes that consumers in Japan are losing their mojo when it comes to cars. The population is aging, and younger drivers would rather spend their money on new cellphones and Internet access.

"Japan is increasingly not interested in new cars," he says.

The population in Europe is aging too, and Lane sees similar ennui spreading there. As car ownership becomes more expensive and cities increasingly impose congestion pricing on car usage in center cities, he sees car owners switching to mass transit for their daily commute, and then renting cars for longer trips.
"The U.S. is headed that way," he says. "The challenge for us, going forward, is a more interesting offer. Doing a better Sentra or an Altima isn't going to do it."

finally in press release format


Metro to hold public update meetings on Metro Westside Extension Transit Corridor Study

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) will be conducting several upcoming meetings to update the public on the agency’s Westside Extension Transit Corridor Study. The study, which evaluates ways to improve mobility on the Westside of Los Angeles, will be held at the following locations:

Thursday, January 31: Los Angeles County Museum of Art-West, 6-8 p.m., LACMA-West Terrace Room, 5th Floor, 5905 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, Metro Service provided on Lines 20, 720, 920, 217 & 780. Validated parking is available in the lot on the southeast corner of Wilshire & Spaulding.

Tuesday, February 5: Westwood Presbyterian Church, 6- 8 p.m., 10822 Wilshire Boulevard (at Malcolm Avenue), Los Angeles, CA. Metro Service provided on Line 20, 720 & 920.Free parking available at the location

Wednesday, February 6: Plummer Park, 6-8 p.m., 7377 Santa Monica Boulevard (at Plummer Place), West Hollywood, CA, Metro service provided on Line 4. Free parking available at the location.

Metro held early scoping meetings in October 2007 to help guide the development of alternatives to address the growing traffic and congestion in the 38 square-mile study area. Nearly 500 individuals attended these meetings and more than 450 formal comments were submitted by the close of the comment period.

Metro has now reviewed all public comments and, based on this feedback, has developed a number of alternatives for further analysis including various modes, alignments and station locations. These upcoming meetings will update the public about the results of the scoping process, the emerging alternatives, and next steps in the study’s progress.

Content presented at these meetings will be identical, so interested parties should attend at the time and location most convenient for them. An open house will be scheduled from 6-6:30 p.m, followed by a presentation between 6:30-7 p.m. Discussion will follow from 7-8 p.m. For additional information or questions, please visit the Westside Extension Transit Corridor Study website at www.metro.net/westside or contact the project information line at 213.922.6934.

Metro’s Alternatives Analysis Study is the first step in the environmental clearance process. The Metro Board of Directors will determine whether to move the project forward to subsequent environmental review stages based in part on the results of this study.

http://metro.net/news_info/press/metro_8_009.htm

still not on the project page though

from CityBEAT:
Scream if you hate trafficIf elected leaders won't accelerate, let's put our own measure on the ballot
By Alan Mittelstaedt

See report cards on the mayor and other conference participants in Frontlines.

Call it Diamond Lane Paranoia, named for the failed, five-month experiment in carpool lanes on the Santa Monica Freeway in 1976. The way-before-its-time Jerry Brown administration plan led to a ban on Caltrans ever again taking existing freeway lanes and turning them into carpool lanes.

Or diagnose it as a bad case of Methane Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome, after the explosion of seeping gases in the Fairfax district in 1985. Political and racist forces combined to produce a federal law that stopped the westward route of the Red Line subway. Only last month was this unnecessary law finally extinguished.

Or consider it Zev’s Act of Revenge, the 1998 voter-approved ban pushed by County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky to keep sales taxes from paying for subway projects and punish and reform an often wayward transit agency.

All three of these skeletons in L.A.’s transit closet haunted – or seemingly returned to life – during some of the most crucial moments at the “Move L.A.” conference last week. Or, more like they danced around in the heads of a few of the panelists and paralyzed them when the time came to plot the next steps. Someone should have called for the Jaws of Life to extricate them from the wreckage of the past. Negativity and hyper-caution strangely seemed out of place in a room full of energetic and inspiring speakers, from County Federation of Labor’s boss Maria Elena Durazo, who pledged her union members are “ready to work to get new transportation measures,” to Phil Angelides, who could have whipped Arnold in 2006 if he had fired up voters the way he did with his opening remarks that likened the importance of solving L.A.’s traffic mess to JFK’s promise in 1961 to land on the moon by the end of the decade.

The next time you’re in your car inching along Santa Monica Boulevard, with the 405 looming in the distance for the next 30 minutes, consider this question: How hard should it be to ask voters if they’re sick and tired of traffic jams and wouldn’t mind spending a few cents every day to build a subway? Or a light-rail to San Dimas? Or a train from Newhall to downtown or LAX?

“If something backfires, we won’t have a second chance to try it in the very near future,” said Martin Wachs, a Rand Corporation transportation expert with four decades of experience studying the way traffic moves or fails to do so in California.

Come on, Martin, you’re too wise to believe in ghosts. Voters are fuming about traffic. Chances are they’d give up their firstborn for a fast commute. But if they don’t go for a tax increase, so what? Wait another year or two and ask again. No one’s going to run out and lobby a judge or a politician to bar such questions from future ballots. One thing seems pretty clear: We’ve learned enough from the mistakes of reactionary politicians in the past three decades and there would be an uprising before anyone would let them pass a ban on using the ballot box.

Convened by former Santa Monica Mayor Denny Zane, a champion of extending the subway to the sea, the all-day affair focused on ways to pay for the region’s road and transit needs. Ideas ranged from a half-cent sales tax, adding a fee on car registrations, assessing property owners along transit routes to involving private contractors in the building and managing of projects.

But by the end of the day, no decision was reached on what to do. Coverage of the conference that showed up that night on TV news and in the next day’s headlines made it sound like a sales tax measure was imminent; the operative word, it “could” happen. Zane’s goal is to land a funding measure, a sales tax or other fee, on the November 8 ballot, when a large turnout in a presidential election promises a high turnout of young and lower middle class voters prone to support transit projects. Before that happens, smaller meetings will follow, with each of the constituencies present last week: Labor, social justice and the business interests.

And the volume promises to rise above conference-room mellow. Some of the players want to throw road, bridge, and freeway extensions on the table, and there was even talk of one of the most divisive projects of modern times, the 710 connector that would rip 5.5 miles through South Pasadena. Metropolitan Transportation Authority board member David Fleming put in a plug for the project during his noon-hour speech when the conference hall emptied out for the lunch line in the lobby. His colleague, Richard Katz, called South Pasadena’s opposition an example of “a handful of people delaying a project that could benefit from the region.”

The conference fostered such conflict and open dialogue, good and bad. One of the cornerstone presentations came from pollster John Fairbank, of Fairbank, Maslin & Maullin. His poll of 1,200 voters last November found that most would support a half-cent sales tax increase for transportation. The poll questions are loaded up with road projects, and do not focus on subway or light-rail projects. Nor was that the purpose of the $65,000 survey paid for by Metro, which, of course, must worry about more than transit projects.

Examining the poll, and hearing survey question after question about roads and bridges in Long Beach and Pomona and the Santa Clarita Valley, you can’t help but wonder how well the goals of Zane and his coalition, particularly the transit advocates, mesh with Metro. Certainly they share common ground, but there are differences. And Zane knows it, but seems confident that he can navigate the waters and find the life raft that satisfies all the interests.

“Either for congestion reduction or greenhouse gas emission reduction, you can’t be talking predominantly about highways. It’s just not going to work,” says Zane, in a post-conference interview. “On the other hand, the environmental community needs to appreciate that there are highway needs. A successful effort at the ballot box is going to reflect some blending of those objectives.”

As for what will appear on any ballot measure, or how it will be paid for, Zane says: “I’m hoping to get it focused by the constituency groups that might have their discussions separately but then come together and form a steering committee to try to advance some kind of campaign vision.”

Seven months remain before a decision must be made whether a transportation measure will be ready in time for the Nov. 8 ballot. At this time, while the various constituencies are still talking, it makes sense to push for the Metro board to place the item before voters. But if the agency’s 13-member board gets stuck in low gear, or seeks to include projects that stall progress on a world-class transit system, Zane and his coalition should consider a petition drive to gather 434,000 signatures to force the board to place a transit-dominated measure before voters. While the legal authority of a community-based effort to impose a tax or fee would be doubtful, or downright impossible, according to the state Board of Equalization, the political force of hundreds of thousands of constituents demanding the item be placed before voters could not be ignored. It’s an option Zane is not considering – yet.

Right now, his money is on the Metro board taking action and placing the item before voters. “My hunch is there will be a ballot measure,” Zane says. “I’m not certain it will be a sales tax. But the shape of the electorate is too significant to not make a real good effort. A high turnout means lower-income and younger voters come out in larger numbers. Those are voters who are generally receptive and want to make investments in things like public transportation and education.”



Tickets, please, this train is leaving the stationWestside legislator Mike Feuer approached the podium in the conference room at the downtown cathedral like a general trying to figure out how to best dispatch his battalion into the heat of battle.
He tapped into the muses of leadership in a rousing speech filled with his legislative agenda. The first-term assemblyman and former member of the L.A. City Council will not be sitting around waiting for others to act. He says up to two-thirds of his bills will deal with transportation issues.

For General Feuer, the casualties of lost time and pollution caused by the carbon-dependent economy are mounting. No long windy sentences for him: “The first word is urgency. The second key word is coalition. The time for action has to be now. The coalition that has been focused on transportation issues hasn’t been muscular enough and we can do better. Today I view as a very important moment of beginning a resurgence to do better.”

Feuer backed up his strategy chatter with deeds. He’s pushing legislation to lower the threshold for tax measures to be approved by a 55 percent majority instead of the two-thirds now on the books. And he asked the group to help him win Republican support for his bill.

“Unless there is some transformative work in this coalition, particularly by members of the business community, this bond measure is going to have a very hard time getting through the legislature,” says Feuer, who chairs the Assembly Transportation Committee. “Transportation is not a partisan issue. It is an issue for all of us. Republicans need to join Democrats in putting this on the ballot. This is the year to get past the talk and to get it done. We’ve done it for education. We should do it for transportation.”

Of all the speeches, Feuer’s alone focused on specifics. He challenged the crowd to join his fight. “I want to inspire people to find something in this agenda to move forward right now. This is an urgent matter. I am here to issue a call to action that’s concrete and that’s tied to specific legislation that we can do as a team.”

One law already on the books allows Metro to assess properties along transit routes special fees. A few amendments proposed by Feuer would extend some of the deadlines built into the bill, and make it easier for Metro to set up assessment districts. Another proposal would set aside a portion of property tax revenues along Wilshire Boulevard to help pay for the subway to the sea.

“If this happens properly, the pool of funds that could be before the voters could be adequate to do everything in terms of transportation that everyone wants to achieve in metropolitan Los Angeles in the next 20 years. Think about that. That’s what on the table.”

Down the line, Feuer wants Sacramento to change the structure for the gas tax. It’s been 18-cents-a-gallon since 1995, so it doesn’t go up when the price of gasoline goes up. More important, it doesn’t provide an incentive for the state to promote cleaner-burning cars, which use less gasoline. Similarly, car registration fees should take into account the state’s priority to see to it that people give up their gas guzzlers. “Voters should have the opportunity to decide this. Then we can ideally take real action to tie the problems that carbon creates to reducing those problems.”

By the way, if Gov. Schwarzenegger had not made the car tax one of his big themes in the recall election of 2003, the state would be pulling in about $8 billion. But changing that is off the table during the reign of no-tax Arnold. “It was a bad idea when it was eliminated,” Feuer said, in response to a question last Thursday. “It’s an even worse idea now. But the reason it will never be rolled back is the governor is utterly, utterly committed to keeping that position.”

Zane says his coalition will lobby the GOP legislators to help win passage of the 55 percent constitutional amendment in Sacramento. The amendment would then appear on ballots around the state on Nov. 8, and would require only a majority approval to win. An L.A. tax measure could appear on the same ballot and win by 55 percent.

Feuer deserves the Speaker of the Day Award. If he succeeds in Sacramento, we’ll pay his plane fare to Washington, D.C.



Pollster forgot apple pie and motherhood
People are enraged about traffic.
Pollster John Fairbank delivered what, at first blush, seemed to be wonderful news to the conference.

Voters surveyed last November would support a sales tax measure for a wide range of transportation and road projects. It was too heavy on roads and too light on visionary projects

Try to hold your breath and read the ballot item run by voters:



“Traffic Relief, Rail Expansion and Transportation Safety Measure:
“To relieve traffic congestion by adding lanes to the 5, 10, 60, 101, 210, 405 and 605 freeways, adding right and left turn lanes, synchronizing signals and repairing potholes, eliminating diesel buses and trucks, earthquake retrofitting bridges, tunnels and overpasses, and extending light rail and improving public transit, shall the County sales tax be increased by one-half cent, with local control, required annual independent financial audits and no funds to be used for administrators’ salaries?”

Anyone opposed to that is nicknamed Dr. No, picked up a call forwarded by mistake to a call center in New Delhi or is waiting for the government to send over someone to do their ironing for them. Fairbank says the support for the measure is overwhelming, but why wouldn’t it be?

Voter support nears the 70 percent range when details are spelled out about projects in their area. The spiel got very specific in seven Planning Areas, from South L.A. to the valleys. Results also were broken out by supervisorial district: “We walk the voter through what the problems are, what the needs are, why this money is needed and again, by zone, we tell what we will accomplish, what we will improve in their area. Then we come back and ask them, ‘Now that you’ve heard the facts on how this measure will affect your community, how will you vote?’ And when we do this kind of campaign with these voters about what they will see and what effect it will have, it’s goes up to the 69 and 70 percent range. We have a margin that is right on two-thirds.”

Voters, in this poll at least, see a mix of small- and big-ticket items, projects that take a year and a decade or longer

“Synchronizing traffic signals, extending light rail transit, pothole repair are among measures getting the most support,” Fairbank says. “Significantly, the light rail message has continually expanded and grown as one of the preferred solutions among voters of the last few years.”

But just because the numbers look good, including the $660 million a year a sales tax increase would bring in, don’t assume the politicians are sold on going to the voters with it. That would be too easy, and these politicians show too many scars from past battles.



Kicking and screaming to the ballot booth
Thirty-two years ago, Los Angeles commuters were in a tizzy about the new phenomenon of carpool lanes. Caltrans stole two lanes of the morning and afternoon commute from the rest of the drivers on the Santa Monica freeway and declared war: Only buses and vehicles carrying at least three people could use the lanes.

A fresh-faced city councilmember by the name of Zev Yaroslavsky signed onto a lawsuit that stopped what was to be a year-long pilot project in its fifth month. Federal Judge Matt Bryne found that Caltrans broke the law by failing to do up a battery of environmental reports. Then-Assemblyman Mike Antonovich tried to pass a law that would keep anything like it from ever happening again. An L.A. Times story on Aug. 15, 1976, matter-of-factly put it: “Never have transportation planners tried to oust motorists from an existing freeway lane and designate it for preferential use by special vehicles.” Still today too many people consider a car with three people in it to be a “special vehicle.”

Not as much has changed in the intervening years as you might think.

Pollster Parke Skelton sat on the last panel of the day with a couple of politicians – including Yaroslavsky and Richard Katz, chairman of the state Assembly Transportation Committee two decades ago and now a mayoral appointee on the Metro board.

Skelton, of course, looks at the numbers and sees the time is right to put the item on the ballot this fall.

“We have to get ourselves ready for the best election. It’s certainly November,” said Skelton. “The need to localize a measure like this is incredibly important. You’re not going to pass a subway to the sea bond measure in West Covina. You’ve got to run a series of inner-locking regional campaigns.”

He estimated the cost of the campaign at $6 million. “The caveat there is that the most effective campaign in the world is only going to move numbers on a tax measure by a handful of points – 4 or 5 points.”

Skelton urged caution, invoking some of the ugly ghosts from transit’s past. “The worst thing in the world would be to put this on the ballot and have it crushed. It would set you back for decades.”

Yaroslavsky didn’t need anyone to encourage him to be cautious. “I never say never, but it has been my experience in 32-and-a-half years as an elected official that you don’t try to ask people to raise taxes when they’re afraid they’re going to lose their income. I don’t care how bad the traffic is. People aren’t going to be inclined to vote this way. It’s just the way it is. Also, just to be a little more provocative, it’s been my experience in 32-and-a-half years, that when you have a recession, traffic improves because fewer people are working.”

Zane said he’s still pushing for a November vote. And if it’s on the ballot – and loses, will the world end?

Demand for action won’t let up until traffic does, Zane says, who learned a lesson or two from his rent control battle in Santa Monica. The first time it lost, but he rebounded six months later, and his victory in 1979 set off a national trend. “If there is a compelling need that you’re responding to, like the transportation need, it’s only going to get worse unless there’s major intervention. The conditions for voter support only improve over time.”

For commuters, the only thing to fear is cautious politicians stuck in the Diamond Lanes of the past.

Greg Katz contributed to this story.

i like how zev thinks the traffic problem will be a non-issue because we have a recession on the horizon. good forward thinking

Maybe this is an obvious question, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut:

Transit can bring TOD.
This recession is brought about by the housing market crash.
Transit would increase home values.
Won't rail help housing in our area and decrease the intensity of the recession here?

I don't know of any good arguments against building this.

Zev should know that during recession periods, it's actually easier and cheaper to bid out large projects because it's more competative and builders will be looking for work. IOW, Nov. 2008 is the best time to do a ballot proposal! What he doesn't want to say is don't get our hopes up with a blank check sales tax ballot.

Instead we'll need sometime to what I alluded to in an earlier post not only for political regional pull but to create a set project price and make sure it doesn't go over it so that greedy builders are weeded out of the way first.

Current transit on the freeways is exactly like having heart disease. Waiting to do anything about it is like having an infected wound on your leg. L. A., you're literally going to have to find a bullet to bite on and amputate that leg to save yourself. You've waited wayyy too long already, and it's starting to look like cowardice! :)

imagine what raising the gas tax by $0.10/gallon would do. Allocate these funds to counties where the gas was purchased strictly for transit related projects. There are more drivers in LA county than probably anywhere in the world. This is a nonregressive tax, penalizing those who drive excessively. And if you think about it, on an individual level it wouldnt even cost the average citizen that much money. Lets say the average car gets 20mpg and the driver of that car drives 20,000/year. Do the math and thats 1000 gallons of gas a year. Multiply that by 10 cents and you get $100 extra per year spent on gas. Then mulitply this number by the 5 million or so drivers in LA and all of sudden you get $500 million. Obviously this is not enough to build a subway to the sea, but if you bid the job to private companies at the lowest cost and finance the project, you could easily payoff multibillion dollar projects within 10-15 years. This isn't even taking into account the possibility of obtaining federal funds. $100 a year people! even those making minimum wage can afford that. we're talking $8.33 per month.

i like how zev thinks the traffic problem will be a non-issue because we have a recession on the horizon. good forward thinking

Zev is right and Zev is wrong. I worked in the silicon valley in the late 90's. Back during the good ole days. Traffic was a complete disaster. By 2002, there were 200,000 jobs lost, and traffic was a breeze. Zev quoted that in LA recessions (I was still in SF at the time) traffic also drops.

However, he is wrong in that some skysrapers are yet to be completed all along wilshire. Ktown, Century City, Westwood, and city-west all have skyscrapers in the process of completion. Plus, once this recession is over, traffic will spring board back into catastrophic levels.
Boom times ALWAYS outpace infrastructure. It is important to utilize what little breathing room we have to put infrastructure in place before we either
a) get chocked to death by the next big boom
b) Miss out on the economic benefits of a big boom because our infrastructure prevents it.

Both scenarios are horrible, and we need to spend the next 3 years playing catch up. Traffic might dip, but for a max of 2 years. The traffic dip will not get us back to 2001 levels, and most Angelenos feel that traffic in 01 was bad enough.

So again, he is right, and he is VERY wrong.

Maybe this is an obvious question, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut:

Transit can bring TOD.
This recession is brought about by the housing market crash.
Transit would increase home values.
Won't rail help housing in our area and decrease the intensity of the recession here?

I don't know of any good arguments against building this.

It is very beneficial and natural to perform job creation during recessions by focusing on infrastructure improvement. Much better than fake stimulus packages like artificially low interest rates (although decreasing the value of the dollar is a very good thing, but that is another thread and board altogether).

Yes on 91

Proposition 91

1182. (SA2005RF0123)

Transportation Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Proponent: James Earp, c/o Richard D. Martland (916) 446-6752

Prohibits retention of funds earmarked for the Transportation Investment Fund in the General Fund for use unrelated to transportation after 7/1/08. Requires repayment by 6/30/17 of transportation funds retained in the General Fund in years prior to 2007-08. Eliminates General Fund borrowing of specified transportation funds, except for cash-flow purposes (repayment required within 30 days of adoption of budget); current law allows borrowing for three years where Governor declares transfer would cause significant negative fiscal impact on governmental functions and Legislature enacts authorizing statute. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: No revenue or cost effects. Increases stability of funding to transportation in 2007-08 and thereafter; reduces somewhat the state’s flexibility to use specified transportation funds for other (nontransportation) activities. (SA2005RF0123) (Full Text)

So the OCTA has put their bus schedules and routes into Google Maps. Because of that, it would take me 3 hours to get from downtown LA to Long Beach. When will Metro put their maps in and why would they not have done it already?

You mean getting from dwtwn to LB via an Orange County bus? But why would anyone want to do that when the Blue Line could get you there in under an hour? I guess I don't understand your question. All of the rail stops in LA are specified on Google.

There is an option on Google Maps. If you want to use PT, it will show that in the directions (like when you get driving directions). The MTA has put nothing there, but the OCTA has, so it will only show OCTA buses.

You mean getting from dwtwn to LB via an Orange County bus? But why would anyone want to do that when the Blue Line could get you there in under an hour? I guess I don't understand your question. All of the rail stops in LA are specified on Google.


^^ Exactly! I sometimes wonder why sticky has to come up with shit like that... :ohno:

Obviously Fern has no idea what I'm talking about either. Go to Google Maps to get directions. Say you want to go from Downtown Los Angeles to Long Beach. When you get your DRIVING DIRECTIONS, select the tab that says TAKE PUBLIC TRANSIT. It'll tell you to take OCTA because the MTA has not put in their information on Google.

^^ Or you can go to www.mta.net instead, right?

Except it's pretty slow and the map isn't that nice.

Fern: a constant source of negativity.

in fact I think mta.net's trip planner is better than OCTA's page on Google. Just read the help and you will know how to use it. mta.net is very detail and useful.

Except that there's no preference for rail. If you want to go from Pasadena to Los Angeles, it will tell you to take the bus and not the Gold Line.

Fern: a constant source of negativity.

thats for sure

It gives you the option to select rail only if available. It also gives you the option to choose how far you wish to walk. So if your trip is to the Fashion District but you choose not to walk at all it will give you a bus option from say, Pasadena. If you indicate that walking 1/4-1/2 mile is not a problem for you it will suggest rail for your trip with the remainding distance a walk.

How do you do the option for PT? I tried to find it.

The trip planners pretty bad. After you enter your results there's a "change request" link at the top of the options. It's just really stupidly done, to bury that option, and frankly I find it almost always picks something really stupid for your route. Also its time estimates are so vague as to be useless.

I find the real use of it is to enter your info and then use the results to figure out which maps and schedules to go look up so you can figure it out on your own. It also has a bad habit of naming stations in weird ways, like calling Universal City "Universal City Sta" and other places that require you typing "Sta" (for station) to get better results.

Actually here's a link to the trip planner with the rail option at the bottom. Careful with the walking distance option. That also doesn't seem to work right: http://socaltransport.org/tm_pub_start.php

Oh and this guy has a trip planner guide and some guides for using public transport for basic stuff like LAX: http://notesfromthebus.com/planner.html

I have to give it up to the SGV.....while on the other side of town their is concern about children playing "horse" with a moving train the Gold Line extension cities are putting up R$1 million each for a mostly at-grade train:
Lawmakers push light-rail projectMetro Gold Line plan gets strong backing
By Fred Ortega, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 01/23/2008 11:52:31 PM PST


With a key decision on extending the Metro Gold Line expected today, Rep. Hilda Solis and other local lawmakers are working behind the scenes, meeting with officials and writing letters to try to make the planned light-rail line to Montclair a reality.
The El Monte Democrat and her colleagues, Rep. David Dreier, R-San Dimas, and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, met last week with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to discuss local transportation-related issues, including the $1.4 billion, 24-mile Gold Line extension from Pasadena to Montclair.

Villaraigosa, who wields multiple votes on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board, has expressed support for plans to further extend the line to the Ontario Airport. His support is key because the MTA Board will vote today on whether to include the project in its long-range transportation plan, a move that Gold Line officials say is crucial in order to keep the extension in the running for hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding.

Solis, who has also written to the MTA urging it to include the project in its long-range plan, was confident about the extension's prospects.

"It is going to happen," she said Wednesday.

Dreier, a longtime Gold Line supporter, has also written to the MTA Board urging it to fund the extension, said spokeswoman Alisa Do.

"This is something that is long overdue," said Do, noting that the environmental studies and preliminary design for


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

Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the extension are complete and officials are ready to break ground. "We need to continue the stream of federal dollars coming into the Southland, and the Gold Line is the project for that."
None of the other projects vying for the MTA's long-range plan list, including the proposed "Subway to the Sea" Westside extension to Santa Monica, are anywhere near as ready to begin construction as the Gold Line, Do added.

And with a connection to the Ontario Airport, the Gold Line extension also would benefit residents on the Westside by providing a rail alternative to LAX, Solis said.

"The Gold Line would alleviate congestion on that side of town, so it is a win-win for everyone," she said.

Getting the project on the MTA long-range plan list is a necessary step in order for officials to apply for federal transportation grants for the extension, said Habib Balian, CEO of the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority.

Legislators have included language in a federal transportation bill that could give the project 80 percent funding, or roughly $320 million, to build the first leg to the Azusa-Glendora border. But even if the bill is approved, the 80 percent language is only a recommendation and does not guarantee all of the money, Schiff said.

In addition, local officials still have to come up with the remaining $80 million for the first leg. Cities along the route have so far pledged $1 million each, but Gold Line extension officials hope that the MTA will be able to provide the bulk of the local funding.

Schiff said he has been calling individual MTA Board members to urge them to include the project in the long-range plans and to ask them to use Proposition 1B funds - approved by voters in November 2006 as part of a $20 billion transportation bond package - to come up with some of the $80 million in local funding needed. The board is scheduled to program about $200 million of those funds today, but MTA staff is recommending that the bulk of that money go toward bus improvements, not for rail.

Schiff said that with the MTA's long-term commitment and part of the Prop. 1B funds, "We feel pretty good about our chances" of getting the federal matching grants.

He also said during his meeting with Villaraigosa, the mayor expressed concerns about the congestion problems in the San Gabriel Valley and reiterated his support for the Gold Line's extension to the Ontario Airport.

A spokesman for Villaraigosa did not return calls Wednesday seeking comment.

fred.ortega@sgvn.com

(626) 962-8811, Ext. 2306

24 mile extension? what in the world?

Not my favorite Metro project and not Metro's favorite project from what I've heard on the inside but these people have formed their own Construction Authority so that they could ask the Feds for money on their own w/o Metro. Once the Feds alot the money to the Gold Line CA Metro would be foolish not to use the money that the gov't has put up, Metro needs the gov't for its other more coveted projects. Besides the Blue Line is 22 miles long and I would like to see a 4 mile extension to the LB airport.

^ True, but the reality is that they are not asking for much both short and long term, just $80M to build and the bulk of the ridership will be up Azusa Citrus College (12.2 miles) with the rest of the line could be built as a Metrolink corridor tie-in to the San Bernandino Line. This is also the way to provide an effective high-speed link to Ontario Airport without breaking the bank and have the ability to do a Public-Private partnership with the airport extension.

why would they extend to the ontario apt. before LAX?

politics

"And with a connection to the Ontario Airport, the Gold Line extension also would benefit residents on the Westside by providing a rail alternative to LAX, Solis said."
Solis isn't talking about westsiders going allll the wayyyyy to Ontario on an at grade piece as an alternative to L A X? Really?

I know, that's what I mean. So you would rather carry 50-100 lbs of luggage onto a train for 2 hours to Ontario than drive 20-30 minutes by car to LAX and keep you luggage safe. Now, if lived in Duarte, El Monte, West Covina, etc., then I would do that as an alternative. But, for people in SoPas, or the SGV in general, that enjoy public transpo, doesn't Bob Hope Airport have a rail stop?

Before we do any extensions or new rail, we should have light rail going into all airports, whether it be SNA, LAX, LBC, or Burbank (abb.?). That way, if there is a cheaper flight somewhere besides LAX, people don't need to take a taxi all the way up to Hollywood, Downtown, Pasadena, etc. or down to the OC!! Good god, I can't imagine doing that, but I bet some do.

^ True, but the reality is that they are not asking for much both short and long term, just $80M to build and the bulk of the ridership will be up Azusa Citrus College (12.2 miles) with the rest of the line could be built as a Metrolink corridor tie-in to the San Bernandino Line. This is also the way to provide an effective high-speed link to Ontario Airport without breaking the bank and have the ability to do a Public-Private partnership with the airport extension.

Have they conceded the rest of the line after Azusa to be a commuter rail corridor? Because on the website that shit goes all the way out to Montclair with each city passionately jockeying for a piece of the rail.
http://www.metrogoldline.org/

Metro has but the Construction Authority has not, in the Draft LRTP. In addition, there is a quiet movement to make this adjustment because the reality is that Metro will not pay for the operation/maintenance of such as long line and would be in everyone's best interest to make the adjustment.

Metrolink doesn't need a full EIR to operate this, they can as an interim operate the service on the current Frieght track and incrementally upgrade to two tracks or Metrolink operating on it's own corridor.

Well the whole line is in jeopardy now and it might be Metro playing hardball with the SGV to shorten the line:

Setback for Gold Line extensionMTA board leaves project off funding list
By Fred Ortega, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 01/24/2008 10:37:49 PM PST


LOS ANGELES - Top regional transit officials voted unanimously Thursday to leave the Gold Line extension off a critical funding list, dealing a setback to plans for a 24-mile rail link between Pasadena and Montclair.
The 13-member Metropolitan Transportation Authority board effectively delayed construction of the $1.4 billion project until at least the end of 2009, subject to final approval of the regional funding list by mid-year.

Supporters of the extension had hoped to break ground before year's end, with initial service to Azusa and Glendora by late 2009, said authority CEO Habib Balian.

"But all this will add time to the project, causing a six-month to a year delay," said Balian. "We won't be able to get started when we wanted to."

The Metro Board voted to keep the Gold Line on a secondary list of strategic but unfunded projects within a draft long-range plan. The draft list approved Thursday faces a 45-day public review, with the board to vote on a final plan in June.

The Gold Line project needs placement on the MTA's primary list of funded projects to be considered for matching federal grants.

There is still a possibility for projects like the Gold Line to make it onto that primary list, said MTA Board member Richard Katz.

"It is a mistake to assume this (draft) long-range plan is written in stone at this point," he said. "The list may change as it goes forward."

Metro Board member John Fasana, a Duarte


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

Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
councilman, left open the possibility of getting the Gold Line on the primary list by delaying the allocation of $169 million in state funds until the board votes on the final version of the long-range plan in June. Officials hope some of that money could be used to provide local funding for the line.
Calls to Fasana following the meeting were not returned Thursday.

Fasana was backed by Board Vice Chair Antonio Villaraigosa in deferring the allocation of the funds, which come from the Proposition 1B transportation bonds approved by voters in November 2006. While Metro staffers are recommending the bulk of that money go to bus purchases and retrofits, they have left room for some of the funds to be spent on "miscellaneous transit projects," which could include the Gold Line.

The fact that some of that Prop. 1B money could still be used to provide the local funding needed to get the Gold Line on the primary list was heartening to Nick Conway, executive director of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments.

"That is progress, and I think that is a good sign for the Gold Line and the San Gabriel Valley that we are going to persevere and make this dream a reality," said Conway, who characterized delays on a project of the Gold Line's magnitude as "inevitable."

Rep. Hilda Solis said Wednesday she hoped the Gold Line would make the top list.

Solis, D-El Monte, said she and other Congress members had met with Villaraigosa last week and that he had expressed support for the project and its potential to link the rest of Los Angeles County via rail to Ontario International Airport, thereby relieving congestion at LAX.

"I am very disappointed that the MTA failed to recognize the importance of the Metro Gold Line extension in today's vote," Solis said Thursday. "I have worked for years to balance the transportation needs of our region, and I'll continue to push this important project along with my colleagues in Congress and other local officials."

A spokesperson for Villaraigosa did not return calls Thursday.

The project also found itself below Villaraigosa's favored "Subway to the Sea" on the secondary long-range plan list, which Metro officials said was organized according to "performance ranking," or the chances each project has to secure additional funding.

The Gold Line's environmental studies and preliminary designs have been completed and all rights-of-way have been acquired, unlike the mid-Wilshire-to-Santa Monica subway plan.

Gold Line supporters hope to secure up to $320 million in matching federal grants and $80 million in local funds for the $400 million cost of extending the existing line from Pasadena to Azusa.

A secondary leg from Azusa to Montclair is slated to begin operation by 2014, and officials are conducting a $500,000 study to examine extending the line's terminus to Ontario International Airport.

fred.ortega@sgvn.com

(626) 962-8811, Ext. 2306

All that you ever wanted to know about fare gates and fare collection/inspection:(Scroll down to the essay by Richard Stanger)
http://streetheatla.blogspot.com/2008/01/turnstile-plan-delayed.html

Even if the whole line was electric commuter rail, it would be a great benefit, and it should be studied more.

There is an option on Google Maps. If you want to use PT, it will show that in the directions (like when you get driving directions). The MTA has put nothing there, but the OCTA has, so it will only show OCTA buses.

LA runs its own trip planner.

A detailed bus map is online.
There are maybe 1000 lines. It is ridiculous. I cant even read it because it is too full with bus lines.

Anyhow, google isnt the end all be all, but it would be nice if MTA used it. ACtually, google can go online themselves and process the data! It would take 10 times as long bceause there are 10 times as many buses in LA versus the OC.

If Google did that then they would have to do it for every city. And the map is easier to use on Google.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a22/godblessbotox/2008-draft.jpg

Those projects sound amazing. IF only they could build two of each at the same time. That would be glorious.

I took a look at the new LRTP as well last night and I'm completely baffeled that the 405 corridor from the valley down to the airport only received small mention. That commute is probably the worst in the whole city without a rail alternative. Soooooooooooo many people live in the valley and work in SM, Century City, Beverly Hills, Westwood, etc...

Besides that, the priority list looks pretty good. Lets just get the f*&^ing subway started already.

Replace 405 Busway with Sepulveda Subway.

Thanks so much for posting that. That's what I wanted to see -- a comprehensive and well thought out transportation plan for the long-term.

Regarding the plan itself, under what category does the Crenshaw Corridor project fall under? And the timelines for some of these projects are just depressing.

Botox, could you please post the link to that? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.

Botox, could you please post the link to that? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.
yes, i had to go eat and just wanted to post the info first. ive been trying to find the link. i know its on my work machine. give me at least till tomorrow to scrounge it up

link:
http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2008/01_January/20080116P&PItem54.pdf

for anyone interested in digging up information. google advanced search is handy. just add metro.net to the "only this domain" category and switch the file type to "pdf"

metro has a world of information available

Los Angeles is getting lucky in that they are planning a whole mess of transportation options and will get them well good job LA that is the future it needs to go more public transit options

Okay that looks awesome, but someone seriously tell me in some detail (and please, don't ignore this, fill me in!) what is the:

- Silver Line - and will it be going through Silver Lake on its way to La Puente? Or where?

- Yellow Line - it's going from NoHo to ...where??

- Vermont Corridor Subway

and what happened to the plan to extend the Red Line westward down Santa Monica Blvd through Weho to meet up with the Purple Line on Wilshire, as was suggested last summer? That seemed VERY crucial to include...and it's troubling that it's not included here.

Or is it and I'm just missing it?

And like phatt said, the "405 Busway" should be "Sepulveda Line" instead...hey Tom LaBonge himself suggested it a couple months ago! :)

But seriously..can someone answer my questions? I am going to keep daydreaming of this probably in an erroneous manner until someone does

ENLIGHTEN ME, BABY

silver line - light rail from vermont/santa monica through sunset junction to union station via sunset then out to east la and la puente.

yellow line - light rail line that would more or less follow the 5 freeway north from union station through glendale and burbank then head west and meet the red line in noho.

vermont corridor - this is a possible southern extension of the redline from wilshire/vermont down past usc to the green line's vermont station. the vermont rapid bus is the second most traveled route in the city, behind only wilshire!

and what happened to the plan to extend the Red Line westward down Santa Monica Blvd through Weho to meet up with the Purple Line on Wilshire, as was suggested last summer? That seemed VERY crucial to include...and it's troubling that it's not included here.

That's merely an alternative plan to extending the Purple Line down Wilshire. It's either one or the other. If I were to choose between the two, it would definitely be the Purple down Wilshire.

IMO, we desperately need both lines. Since we're dredging up this project and finally starting to hammer out a transportation plan for the long-term, we might as well go all out. I don't know the probability of both lines receiving federal funding, let alone coming into fruition, but several of the attendees at the various meetings for this project have recommended the MTA consider having both a viable option.

Get involved!! Attend the Westside Corridor Meetings!!

http://www.metro.net/news_info/press/metro_8_009.htm

That's really REALLY sad, that it's one of the other. The hell... I thought when that purty little map came out showing both lines in the Fall, it meant BOTH were being considered at the same time. And considered how hungry-desperate for transit Weho seems, it just seems strange that they're not going to get anything at all. Are you sure that it's now "one or the other," ? When did this switch happen, and why would the MTA put both on the map with all hat discussion last Fall of expanding both routes? Also...call me crazy, but I think that after all the "priority" ones listed on the thing above, the Santa Monica Blvd extension should be the MOST important. Nothing else.

I mean think about it. I live in Central Hollywood. To go to Santa Monica, I'm now going to travel East (to Western) and then South (to Wilshire) just to go West? That's ridiculous and hello MTA...unacceptable!! At least don't tease us with those maps if you don't follow through.

I'm not shocked, but guess more sad that there is NO Santa Monica Blvd westward expansion on the list above. Hollywood to West Hollywood to Beverly Hills to Century City is only, oh, probably one of the densest runs in LA? With more "shopping / entertanment/ activity destinations" than Wilshire, not to mention the amount of businesses, it cannot be overlooked

> silver line - light rail from vermont/santa monica through sunset junction to union station via sunset then out to east la and la puente.

Does this mean it would actually come near Dodger's Stadium ?

I actually attended the meetings last fall and have talked to two MTA officials one of which who headed up the Crenshaw meetings and the other who was an actual panelist on the "Time to move LA" forum in the early part of January. It may come to the cynics surprise that both a Santa Monica alignment as well as a Wilshire Blvd extension are both on the table and are being pushed by various factions outside(Weho)and within the MTA. Since the SaMo Blvd alignment was introduced I've only heard how great and necessary it would be to have both. The SaMo blvd Red Line hasn't even been studied or even an official price given it so how could it be an either or situation. At this point it's just an idea. This is why it is so important to get involved. Not only do you not have to rely on faulty second and thirdhand info of the projects but the MTA officials are pretty accessible as well. I actually had lunch with one of them after the forum in January and he spoke rather candidly. If the MTA had its way there would be subways and light rail crisscrossing the entire county. The fact that it's a large bureaucracy we can assume that their is lots of red tape and a certain amount of ineptitude that is just built-in. So the problem is not necessarily a lack of ideas I mean almost every alignment you can think of has been studied, some more than once,there is really nothing to hide. The MTA lacks money and/or the political will to build alot of these lines. In some cases where the money and the political will are in existence you still have "real people" to deal with who may feel the line isn't safe and who will slap a lawsuit on a project to stop it i.e. Expo/Dorsey controversey.
So get involved! Attend the meetings so that you can acquire a firsthand knowledge of these upcoming projects.

Yeah I want to get involved. What about the dodger stadium potential for the Silver Line?

Lengthy discussions about routes, alignments, cost, obstacles, popularity, MTA involvment about the Silver Line. Read it til you pass out.
http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=ExpoLine&boardid=silver&spec=6278583

An excerpt from Donald C. Shoup's (UCLA - Department of Urban Planning) paper - "The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements."
December 9, 1999
Originally Published in Transportation Research Part A Vol. 33 (1999), pp. 549-574

Conclusions: Time for a Paradigm Shift
Although it would be presumptuous to call urban planning a science, minimum parking requirements in planning resemble a paradigm in science. According to Thomas Kuhn (1996), a paradigm is a conceptual scheme that has gained universal acceptance throughout a profession, and each profession’s practices embody its ruling paradigms.

Kuhn argued that scientific education inculcates in students an intense commitment to the existing scientific paradigms. But planning education ignores parking requirements, and therefore does not inculcate in students any commitment to them. Instead, motorists have come to expect the free parking that the requirements produce. The planning profession’s commitment to parking requirements is based not on education and science but on motorists’ yearning to park free.

Discussing the difficulty of paradigm shifts in science, Kuhn asks, “How can a conceptual scheme that one generation admiringly describes as subtle, flexible, and complex become for a later generation merely obscure, ambiguous, and cumbersome?” Without doubt, minimum parking requirements are obscure, ambiguous, and cumbersome. In addition, minimum parking requirements impose enormous hidden costs, and they impede our progress toward important social, economic, and environmental goals. Planning for parking deserves a new paradigm.

Minimum parking requirements are based on two highly unreasonable assumptions: (1) the demand for parking does not depend on its price, and (2) the supply of parking should not depend on its cost. This neglect of price and cost stems from a belief that planners can assess community needs and can regulate the land market to meet these needs. Regulation is justified in many cases where market prices fail to communicate social costs. But market failure does not justify minimum parking requirements.

Without considering the price of parking--as if it were irrelevant--urban planners foretell how many parking spaces every land use needs. In practicing the art of predicting demand without considering price, urban planners resemble the Wizard of Oz, deceived by his own tricks. After he is exposed, the Wizard laments, “I have fooled everyone so long that I thought I should never be found out… [but] how can I help being a humbug when all these people make me do things that everybody knows can't be done?”

Letting prices determine the number of parking spaces will transfer to the market an important function that urban planners now perform. But this does not mean an end to planning for parking because planners should regulate many other features of parking that affect the community, such as aesthetics, landscaping, layout, location, pedestrian access, provisions for the handicapped, setback, signage, and stormwater runoff.

Pricing curb parking rather than requiring off-street parking will improve urban design, reduce traffic congestion, restrain urban sprawl, conserve natural resources, and produce neighborhood public revenue. Eliminating parking requirements will also reduce the cost of housing and of many other goods and services. In conclusion, deregulating the quantity and increasing the quality of parking will improve transportation, land use, and the environment.


Link to the full paper - http://www.vtpi.org/shoup.pdf

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2255/2231068733_7f99f3f9a5_o.jpg
18 route alternatives will be presented starting tomorrow at Westside Transit Corridor meetings with the public
meeting times (http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/westside/default.htm)

go!

People please attend one of these meetings. This is where you can voice your opinions and talk one on one w/ Metro officials.

I don't understand why they don't connect purple line and aqua line together. This is weird.

^^:ohno:^^Ugh!!!

Klam, i think he meant why dont they connect in SM when they end, im guessing you are assuming he wants only one line.

Where is exactly is the meeting. Is it actually in one of the buildings at LACMA or near it?

I would like to see the Red Line meet up with the Purple and Expo Lines via La Brea. Why isn't that a proposed alignment?

I just wrote a bulletin on myspace for peopl to join the meetings. I already got one other girl to forward the bulletin. Crazy.

I would like to see the Red Line meet up with the Purple and Expo Lines via La Brea. Why isn't that a proposed alignment?

I think that it would work as a Crenshaw Corridor Expansion.

Klam, i think he meant why dont they connect in SM when they end, im guessing you are assuming he wants only one line.

I meant at Santa Monica. Thanks. Because I have the same doubt with the green line and metrolink orange county line at Norwalk. I also like the route above ground on Wilshire. Then people can appreciate the train just the same as San Diego. Riders can enjoy the beautiful Wilshire Boulevard as well.

I like how this map shows that certain alignments are just too far out of the way. I also like that by showing all the potential stations, we see that we need to choose wisely as to how many stations are built and exactly where to place these stations.

For example, a station actually at the UCLA campus would require some serious maneuvering (sp?) and add some extra distance to the extension. The same goes for using San Vicente as a route. We also want to be fair to all resident of the area and make sure that each seperate municipality gets its fair share (yet not too many) stations. Santa Monica certainly doesn't need more than 3, maybe 4 stations. The same goes for BH and WeHo.

Lastly, I believe that the purple line extension should strictly stay under WIlshire, minus the Century City diversion. I also believe the future Hollywood subway extension should take care of serving the Cedar Sinai, Beverly Center area before meeting up with the Wilshire line. This could be done by heading west from Hollywood/Highland using either SMB or Sunset, then heading south down La Cienega and then heading west again down Beverly back to SMB before meeting up with the purple line. Also, since Wilshire and Santa Monica remain relatively close once they intersect, I highly doubt that there is a need at this time for two lines that head to the beach.

Alright boys and girls here's the latest. Taken from the Transit Coalition and the venerable Mr. Bart Reed:
It appears that many of the motions filed by Expo Communities United have been denied. This includes requests for payment, blockage of 36 grade crossing and filing of additional documentation. As you can read, the Administrative Law Judge ruled against all items from ECU. The only two remaining issues are the Farmdale and Harvard Blvd. crossings which will be reviewed in an upcoming Evidentiary Hearing (date still undetermined).

I don't know if there are any further appeals that ECU can take. Stay tuned.

Here is a link to the actual document:
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/efile/RULINGS/78162.pdf

Also a link to the Expo Communities United site:
http://www.expocommunities.com/

The Transit Coalition:
http://transittalk.proboards37.com/index.cgi

Public to weigh in on Westside subway routes
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/35034154.jpg
Rick Meyer / Los Angeles Times
TUNNEL VISION: MTA officials have come up with about a dozen potential subway routes for the traffic-choked Westside, most following either Wilshire or Santa Monica boulevards. A final route is expected to be selected this spring.
Alternates for the still tentative Westside train to the sea will be the subject of a series of public meetings.
By Steve Hymon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 31, 2008
Local transportation officials have come up with a list of about a dozen potential subway routes on the Westside, with most of the corridors following either Wilshire Boulevard or Santa Monica Boulevard -- or both.

All of the routes, along with other mass transit options for the congested Westside, will be discussed at a series of public meetings that begin tonight. Officials with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority will study the feasibility of the routes before releasing their preference this spring.

The subway project, estimated to cost $5 billion to $7 billion, has no funding and has not undergone a required environmental review. Nor has a new subway been approved by the MTA board, which consists mostly of elected officials and their appointees.

The route proposals are part of an ongoing "alternatives study" to determine what kind of mass transit would best serve the Westside. The MTA's proposed routes were based on public comment received in recent months.

The many different routes are expected to spur discussion. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, for example, has touted a line that follows Wilshire through Beverly Hills, before veering south to Century City. The line would swing back north to rejoin Wilshire near UCLA in Westwood.

But some West Hollywood officials and residents have been pushing for a line down Santa Monica Boulevard, which has been spruced up in recent years and is lined with many popular shops, restaurants and bars.

MTA maps show several scenarios for the so-called "subway to the sea." It could leave the existing subway line in Hollywood and travel under Santa Monica Boulevard before turning north to Wilshire. Or it could travel west to Beverly Hills, where it would join a second subway that follows Wilshire.

"We thought a lot of people would choose" one route or the other, said Jody Litvak, the MTA spokeswoman for the Westside transit study. "But a lot of people said they're both good and do them both."

Litvak said there was an obvious obstacle to doing both: lack of money.

Transit advocates are pushing local elected officials to ask voters in November to approve some way to pay for new transportation projects -- most likely a sales tax or bond measure. Villaraigosa and others have so far refused to commit.

As part of their study, MTA officials also are obligated to review other types of mass transit, including improving bus service -- perhaps with bus-only lanes -- or building an elevated rail or a monorail.

The vast majority of people who attended earlier MTA meetings said they support a subway, and MTA officials said there were problems with the other approaches. People in "the Wilshire corridor have historically resisted anything at ground level or above," said David Mieger, the Westside project manager with the MTA.

Officials also said an elevated line would have to follow the street grid, whereas an underground line could deviate from the grid to serve employment hot spots such as Century City and UCLA.

Maps of the potential routes are expected to be posted soon on the MTA's website at www.metro.net.

Ok Klam, I'm coming to the gay Weho mtg next Wednesday. How am I going to find you?

So glad to hear that! Um, unfortunately I won't be at that one I'll be at the one on Wilshire I believe a day before. But please do go and report back to us how it went.

http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/bart_reed/6654/

A true transit fighter! Where's Eric Mann and the BRU??Bart Reed
The Transit Coalition founder on his fight to save 25 bus routes
When Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced that he wanted to axe Metro’s 25 worst performing bus routes, it sent Bart Reed into overdrive.

Reed, executive director of transportation-minded non-profit The Transit Coalition, founded the group in 2001 to push for those elusive “regional transit solutions” that everyone’s always talking about. Pulling together politicians, academics, business interests, and activists throughout L.A. County – and beyond – Reed has been pushing for improvements in the interplay between Metrolink, Metro, the Orange County Transit Authority, and the myriad other players in the Southern California public transit game.

So it was with much chagrin that he heard Villaraigosa’s call to cut bus service. Some of the lines on the guillotine, Reed says, are the only routes that connect the San Fernando Valley’s blue collar workers to jobs, its students to community colleges, its families to hospitals, and all of the above to regional rail connections. Just after a meeting with Valley business leaders on the potential of service cuts he calls “draconian insanity,” Reed spoke with CityBeat to dismantle Metro’s spin, argue that rail turnstiles won’t ever pay for themselves, and get in a few shots at departing County Supervisor and Metro board member Yvonne Burke.

–Greg Katz

CityBeat: What bus lines are up for elimination and why should we worry about it?

Bart Reed: The Metro staff has ordered that 200,000 hours worth of bus service be cut. This is being instigated by the mayor, who wants to cut the 25 worst-performing bus routes in the Metro system.

The bottom performers at Metro aren’t necessarily bad routes when they’re looked at as if they were run by Big Blue Bus, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Santa Clarita Transit, Glendale Beeline, or one of the other municipal operators. They help senior citizens get to the doctor, they help students get to school, they help workers get to jobs. Strategically, if you start to excise them, you’re left with big gaps in the bus system and it hurts the community’s mobility.

There’s a lot of duplicity and mistruth coming from Metro. One specific example of a proposed cut where the lies are bigger than reality is a bus route on a street called Hubbard in San Fernando and Sylmar. The bus essentially connects a whole bunch of bus service with the Sylmar Metrolink station and it shuttles people up to Mission College and also to connect with other bus routes on streets like Glen Oaks, Borden, Foothill, and the college. It’s a brand new bus route that was created about a year ago, and it’s been accepted by the community.

The community ends up with a lot less service, because [Metro reported that] it “duplicates other service.” Well, in two and a half miles, for a quarter of a mile it duplicates some other service because if you’re coming out of a train station, and going on the radiating streets out, it shares the same street with two other bus routes. This one goes a couple miles north to the college – a direct connection to the college. But they put in their [report], “Duplicates other service.” The politicians who don’t know how to read see “duplicates” and say, “We’ve got to get rid of duplicates!”

The gaps just become profound. I spoke to some business leaders in the northeast Valley at lunch today, and they’re all aghast at what’s going on, because people aren’t going to have a way to get to jobs. It’s going to hurt the people who are really the working poor, the people that are below the poverty lines.

How does Metro make these cuts without getting an earful from bus riders?

There’s sort of an insidious way that MTA has set up the bus service oversight and delivery. It used to be that the Metro board itself ultimately had to rule on the changes in bus service. But MTA has put in another level of government called the sector governance councils. The SGCs were supposed to have some level of autonomy, but what ends up actually happening is: The bus cuts come before the SGC, and they’re told, “Either accept these cuts or we’ll cut something else.” Instead of saying, “Hey, this is wrong, we shouldn’t be cutting the service,” it’s the local people who are forced to do the draconian cuts, and then it doesn’t really filter upward to the county supervisors. They don’t feel the pain. The mayor doesn’t feel the pain. The other appointees don’t feel the pain. They’ve insulated themselves from the pain of the consumers.

How does the addition of turnstiles to the rail system play into this?

There’s a canard that goes around by some of the supervisors. Most of the riders of the Metro bus and Metro rail system have monthly passes or they buy day passes. When you get on the train, there’s nobody to show your pass to, so you keep it in your pocket. Then there’s these other people who aren’t regular riders, who get this perception that nobody paid, because they’re looking at the minorities who ride the trains and the buses … and they don’t see anybody showing passes.

What happens is, there’s people like Yvonne Burke – whose sparkling record is that she cheats, too; she didn’t live in her district for a long time, and now that she’s leaving office, she doesn’t have anybody going after her, criminally, to force her to live in her district – saying, “Oh, all these people are cheating. We need to put gates in.”

The companies that put the gates in – that’s $150 million installation, or something of that nature. To avoid Metro taking a heavy hit on putting out that capital, there’s a contract where they’re going to lease the gates to Metro. When you lease something rather than buying out capital-wise, you end up paying a lot more money, because the lease guys, not only are they making money on the capital, but they’re also making money financing the lease over 10, 20, 30 years.

Then [Metro] came up with a number, something like $5.5 million [a year] in fare cheating. If you pick through the numbers, you find that they’re really only losing $2.2 million in fares, not $5 million.

If you’re putting in a system that requires attendants – you go to New York, or you go to San Francisco to the BART system – every station has two employees working three shifts, seven days a week. Metro’s got 10 or 20 stations that would be eligible for employees to service the stations. You’re talking about putting in employees somewhere at the basis of $10, $20, $30 million a year in new employees.

They’re trying to minimize how they’re going to have the attendants. They say, “If there’s an attendant … [it will be for] every five stations.” Can you imagine a guy with a wheelchair sitting there at the turnstiles because the attendant has a 10 or 15 minute trip to get there?

This whole thing is a cruel draconian trick upon the powerless bus riders and the transit system users and it’s totally insulated by a Metro board that doesn’t know how to do the math. [They plan to] waste more public funds in perpetuity on contractors that don’t tell the truth on their reports to the board.

One of the board members, Richard Katz, to his credit, knows that something is wrong here. But then you have the hysteria from the Yvonne Burkes.

Do you think the board would have a better understanding of transit if they rode it more?

The politicians, because they don’t use the system, they don’t understand what kind of draconian inconveniences they’re foisting upon the public. They just don’t have the vision. It’s nice to know the mayor rode the bus yesterday or something like that, but he doesn’t ride it every day, and he doesn’t really understand how it is in other cities, how many employees are there, what kind of staffing you need.

The actions by the board are going to make the system extremely user unfriendly. They try to justify it by saying they’re going to put bomb-sniffing facilities in the fare gates. But you can put the bomb-sniffing and all the other high-tech stuff into the barrier-free system. The big lie has been pushed and forced upon [us] by Burke … and it’s real unfortunate. The public is the one that lives this, our employees that need to get to jobs in San Fernando, Sylmar, Pacoima, other parts of the San Fernando Valley, so they can pay for a fare attendant to collect no money.

So glad to hear that! Um, unfortunately I won't be at that one I'll be at the one on Wilshire I believe a day before. But please do go and report back to us how it went.

Can you give me a ride?

going today, plan on giving a full briefing after all is said and done

new fact sheet up:
http://metro.net/projects_programs/westside/02_fact_sheet.pdf

I think I may go to the Westwood meeting on the 5th.

meeting run down.

metro showed a awesome [spaghetti] map showing there composite of all the lines and spirs. and a lot of talk about how many people wanted what.

then explained how they were surprised about people wanting both a wilshire and santa monica alignment. then a run down of some choice alternatives. basically some example maps/ alignments of subway combined, subway wilshire, subway santamonica, lrt combined, lrt santa monica... and so on. was good to hear how metro took the comments and some pros and cons of different systems.

the comments section i could have not wasted time listening too, some people were well spoken and knew what they said. others were not so much. hancock park is worried about noise vibrations from subway under there homes. mostly everyone is happy. one dude wants better rapid buses. and programs to get people out of there cars and into buses. [very forward thinking]

so yah. a lot of the same old from the comment section. have to let the brain stew for a bit before i send off my comments concerns in email format.

but you guys should go and hear all this for yourselves. im a horrible reporter

http://metro.net/projects_programs/westside/2008_01-02_presentation.pdf

That's a good solid report (both your comments and Metro's own PDF). I know it would make things ridiculously expensive, but the dual subway line approach down both Wilshire and Santa Monica seems like the obvious choice. It'd take a lot of money, but it'd once and for all destroy the argument that the subway doesn't go anywhere. I guess if the money is too unreasonable, just focus on Wilshire first but with a Phase II concept for Santa Monica.

The great thing about the dual approach is that it's super forward thinking. You can have two huge traffic corridors in one project and make sure that the new subway line isn't immediately over-crowded with no room to expand. I really hope they get something on the ballot this year and it passes. Ten years is really too long to wait for this subway, but if they don't get it going this year, we could miss the opportunity and have to wait twenty or even thirty years for this kind of momentum again.

Did you name yourself after Loyd Sigmon, the father of the "Sig alert"? If so, you are bad news dude :cheers:

Wait till L A. eventually grinds to a halt! Then the money will come, because no money will be made, and L. A. is a leading manufacturer with a kick ass port to boot! Keep the people fluid, and everything will be alright.:cheers:

LA seems much more forward thinking towards transit than it was 20 or even 10 years ago. I guess having the worst traffic in the nation will do that to ya! ;)

Great crisis can bring great change.

I've looked it over, and I think that I like alternative 9 best of all. If the two subways are not possible, then it's option 1. I like the direct route from the Red Line with no transfer, but maybe it would bring increased revenue? Is that the rationale for forcing a transfer at Hollywood/Highland? I liked the other ideas for the Wilshire Subway, but I think that those routes would be better as a streetcar than subway. They just diverge too much.

I like 15 (or 16) the best. I think the Wilshire line going up to the Grove makes more sense, and the Santa Monica line dipping down to the Beverly Center and Cedars Sinai is VERY important, instead of just running through Beverly Hills for no reason after San Vicente when it isn't even going to make anymore stops in that area. This would be a vital counterexample to the people that say the subway "doesn't go anywhere," - but we have to plan it now that it DOES go to specific destinations like this. Yeah, the major hospital in Los Angeles would be a good start as a destination..

If they can't do that, #9 I guess. But it seems like a waste of an idea then

all those deviation add travel time and cost. and may loose or gane ridership. which is why metro is going to study all of these options and tell us what they found in a few months.
also with those deviation there are possible lawsuits from home owners who are going to have there homes tunneled under.

that opinion was really the only concern the people had at last nights meeting

all those deviation add travel time and cost. and may loose or gane ridership. which is why metro is going to study all of these options and tell us what they found in a few months.
also with those deviation there are possible lawsuits from home owners who are going to have there homes tunneled under.

that opinion was really the only concern the people had at last nights meeting

Depending on how this is designed very few homes will have to be tunneled under and the technology of Earth Pressure Boring Machines will make sinkholes very unlikely.

If they go from Wilshire to San Vicente to the Beverly Center/Cedars then go down 3rd Street past Doheny it continue on a diagonal there will be all of 10 homes they'll have to tunnel under because once it's in Downtown Beverly Hills the streets are at diagonals with the subway. From Wilshire/Beverly to Century City that diagonal could continue or just follow the original path down Santa Monica Blvd.

This diversion like Century City are so vital to making this line a success from opening day to Westwood.

My one comment on the LRT proposals is that they make no attempt to suggest tying or running it on Expo Line.

Well let's hope that this will never be considered seriously as an LRT modal opt.

Well let's hope that this will never be considered seriously as an LRT modal opt.

god i hope so.

anyhow wright, im not saying that it should not done. or that homes should not be tunneled under. but you have to realize as far as metro is concerned, they dont even know if anything is going to be built at all.

Well let's hope that this will never be considered seriously as an LRT modal opt.

Neither the people at the meetings or probably the MTA Board are seriously considering anything besides subway.

god i hope so.

anyhow wright, im not saying that it should not done. or that homes should not be tunneled under. but you have to realize as far as metro is concerned, they dont even know if anything is going to be built at all.

I realize that fact. But that also has to be understood in order for them to figure out how much the project is going to cost so that they need to understand the method(s) in which they'll be building it and then they can look for sources of funding.

Well let's hope that this will never be considered seriously as an LRT modal opt.

On the Wilshire Corridor, I doubt it because it runs into the same problems with the Monorail(extra transfer large space for transfer facilities and finding a location for a maintenance yard), as for Santa Monica Blvd corridor, it's possible simply because of Expo and Santa Monica would be very close to each other past the 405 and if Wilshire is the heavy trunk piece the LRT would be a feeder to the HRT subway.

Yeah but what's being talked about is not the old Silver Line alignment headed down SM blvd all the way to Union Station but a branch off of the pre-existing Red Line HRT. So I'm 99% sure that anything spurring out of Hollywood/Highland would be of compatible HRT.

Maglev to ONT may be the ticket
Article Created: 02/02/2008 04:39:49 PM PST

The proposed high-speed train from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to Ontario is an exciting prospect for many reasons. It would fuel economic growth for the region while reducing air pollution and freeway congestion. And it would not involve much taxpayer money.
Los Angeles City Council gave the train system initial approval last week by creating a joint powers authority with Ontario and West Covina that will further study the project and, if it's a go, act as the construction authority for the magnetic-levitation train line.

Maglev trains have been talked about for many years in Southern California government circles, but the huge expense of building the systems has prevented implementation of the plans. What's different - and promising - about this proposal is that a private company wants to spend $26 billion to build a system that would ferry freight and passengers through this congested area.

American Mag-Lev, based in Atlanta, says it could complete the first spur, from the ports to downtown L.A., in three years. Freight is actually the key to this plan, because that's where the money is.

The ports of L.A. and Long Beach handle about 43 percent of the nation's imports, about $300 billion worth of goods in 14 million containers every year. That trade is a huge source of jobs and economic activity for Southern California, fueling the logistics industry that is so important to the Inland Empire.

Unfortunately, the trade is also an enormous source of health-threatening emissions, especially the particulate matter expelled by diesel engines. Studies have shown the detrimental effect on children's developing lungs in the Inland Empire. Whether you live in San Bernardino, Crestline or Ontario, port-related pollution affects your family's health.
There's also the matter of truck congestion on our freeways. Port trade is predicted to triple or quadruple by 2025, but our freeways and our lungs can't take all the truck traffic and diesel train traffic that would add.

That's where the maglev train would come in, propelled by electromagnetic force at up to 310 mph. It would take countless polluting diesels off the roads.

American Mag-Lev plans to recoup the $26 billion in building costs by shipping freight. The firm wanted to move only cargo, but the Southern California Association of Governments insisted on a passenger component, said Ontario Councilman Alan Wapner, a member of the SCAG Transportation Committee.

Moving passengers on the maglev between downtown Los Angeles and L.A./Ontario International Airport, with a stop in West Covina, would also take some commuters off the roads and would allow the Ontario airport to reach its passenger potential.

And American Mag-Lev has plans to extend its line to Barstow eventually. (what's in Barstow?)

Of course, there are many hurdles before all this comes to pass. SCAG would have to secure rights of way and, Wapner points out, the plan has not yet received enough scrutiny to prove valid. American Mag-Lev's belief that it can build the line much more cheaply than other companies might be overly optimistic.

But this is a plan with huge potential upsides for the region. Every effort should be made to bring it to fruition.

Maglev for freight? There's not really a point. If the point of this is to reduce pollution, then just electrify the Alameda Corridor.

^^ I think one of the biggest advantages is this: "That's where the maglev train would come in, propelled by electromagnetic force at up to 310 mph."

But what I'm trying to say is that you don't need that speed for freight.

:banana:Judge orders transit funds' return
Ruling could add $409 million to deficit, but lets $779 million shift stand.
By Jim Sanders - jsanders@sacbee.com

Raiding $409 million in public transportation funds to help balance California's state budget last year was illegal, a Sacramento Superior Court judge ruled this week.

But Judge Jack Sapunor sided with the state in its diversion of an additional $779 million for programs such as home-to-school transportation.

The ruling, issued Wednesday, comes as the state is struggling with a projected budget deficit of $14.5 billion.

H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the state Department of Finance, said the Schwarzenegger administration hopes to craft a solution that would not necessarily deepen the massive shortfall.

"We are gratified that the court has sustained the majority of our proposed use of ($1.2 billion)," Finance Director Mike Genest said in a written statement.

"We will work with the Legislature to ensure that this decision does not result in any additional costs to the general fund in the current year or in the future," Genest said.

Sapunor's decision stemmed from a suit brought by the California Transit Association, a trade organization for agencies that operate buses, light rail and other mass transit programs.

Joshua Shaw, director of the association, said he is "very disappointed" with the ruling but that no decision has been made on whether to appeal.

"The ruling perpetuates an unfortunate trend over the last few years in which governors and legislatures have diverted dedicated public transportation funds to the detriment of citizens who rely on a healthy and robust public transit system," Shaw said.

The Sacramento lawsuit targeted a $1.2 billion shift last year from the state's Public Transportation Account, created by a 1990 initiative and funded by motor fuel sales tax.

State officials had argued the diversion was legal because the money was to be spent on transportation-related debt and programs such as driving students to school or people with special needs to developmental centers.

Opponents countered that voters specifically intended money in the Public Transportation Account, including the disputed $1.2 billion, to be used for buses, light rail and other forms of mass transportation – not for serving limited numbers of riders in designated programs.

Sapunor ruled that the state could not use $409 million in mass transportation funds to reimburse the general fund for past debt service payments on Proposition 108 bonds, which expanded rail transportation. The judge's ruling says the $409 million shift "does not serve any transportation planning or mass transportation purpose."

By ordering that $409 million be returned to the Public Transportation Account, Sapunor apparently deepened the state's budget gap.

But Palmer said the goal is to restore the $409 million for mass transit in a way that frees an equivalent amount for return to the general fund.

If the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger can agree on such a strategy, it conceivably could neutralize any impact on the budget, he said.

Shaw called such accounting maneuvers "technical game playing." The key issue is that California simply can't afford all its priorities, he said.

"They should not shift money from one pot to another to cover expenses," he said. "They should raise revenues or cut expenses."

Once again this is the latest with Expo. Taken from the Transit Coalition forum:
The ECU is not the same as "the community". It is a NIMBY group that tried but failed to kill Expo, using the rallying cry of "environmental racism".

Nearly all protests and motions of ECU were dismissed by the Public Utilities Commission, in its Jan 28 ruling. As for the Farmdale and Harvard crossings, the burden of proof now falls to the ECU.
Judges ruling actual document:
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/efile/RULINGS/78162.pdf

that maglev stuff sounds awesome.

I find the maglev concept really, really, really questionable. I don't have a problem with the city listening to the offer, but there seem to be some obvious objections:

The idea that you’re gonna get a 27 billion dollar MagLev built solely with private investment seems totally ludicrous. Has this company proved they can raise that sort of money? What’s more, won’t it just end up with a Las Vegas Monorail situation where the company has to go so deep into debt to build the monorail that eventually the city has to either bail them out or let them die?

Even if the thing would be profitable, could it possibly be profitable enough, fast enough to pay off such a ludicrous debt? Not to mention the huge NIMBY issues with an elevated maglev monorail zipping across super high-value land. Not to mention that passenger service is a complete after thought for this line (they only added it at prodding from the city), so there's not gonna be a lot of incentive to build useful stations when the ultimate goal is to move freight across the city as fast as possible.

I’m not saying Private-Public Partnerships aren’t worth pursuing, but people have to recognize that they’re not some type of magic trick. And they have to think about building a full transportation system, not fifty incompatible parts.

I know that I've read that before, where did you copy it from? Or did you just post that on another forum?

Can you get maglev in a trench? This way you upgrade all rail along the corridor and there is no noise pollution. I'm sure that this would quell many NIMBY fears.

I posted it on Metroriderla.com's comment section (formerly metrorider.elhay.net).

I'm not opposed to a mag lev on any sort of principle, I just find all the opinion articles raving about how this is so much better than spending money on a subway to be really, really unrealistic. Kind of like dreaming that a rich billionaire will come buy you a house instead of working hard to get a down payment together so you can get a good mortgage.

Wilshire bus-lanes plan to get $23.3 million from FTA
Local money is already in hand to complete the $27-million project and the lanes could open by early 2011, MTA says.

By Steve Hymon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
10:33 AM PST, February 5, 2008

The Federal Transit Administration announced today that it would award $23.3 million over the next two years to help fund bus lanes on a portion of Wilshire Boulevard through the heavily congested Westside.

The lanes will be used during the morning and evening rush hours and would stretch from the Santa Monica-Los Angeles boundary to Valencia Street, which is just west of downtown Los Angeles. The project does not include the part of Wilshire that traverses the city of Beverly Hills.

Rex Gephart, director of regional transit planning for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said that his agency did not have time to consult Beverly Hills officials before the application deadline last fall. He said that local money is in hand to complete the $27-million project and the lanes could open by early 2011.

The bus lanes will be next to the curb, and private vehicles making right-hand turns will be allowed in them. City of Los Angeles transportation officials have estimated that the lanes will allow buses to improve their average speed during rush hour from below 12 miles per hour to about 16 mph and shave up to 12 minutes off a bus trip between Santa Monica and downtown.

Also today, FTA Administrator Sherry Little announced that the federal government had committed $50 million next year to continue preliminary work on a planned 22.7-mile extension of Metrolink commuter rail service that would connect the cities of Riverside and Perris.

Hopefully both Beverly Hills and Santa Monica will sign on for this bus lane as well. However, I don't think SM has a third lane to make available to busses unless they got rid of street parking during rush hour like LA has done on most major thoroughfares. What a dissapointment if BH doesn't also agree to the bus lane.

any word from any of the other two westside corridor meetings?

I posted this on metroriderla.com. This is in relation to the Farmdale crossing dillemma.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/concertino58/farmdale.jpg

-Aqua: Expo Line

-Yellow: New sidewalks. North of Expo Line, you won’t be able to cross. Only right or left turns. South of Expo line, only left turns on Farmdale; 3 way stop sign.

-Purple: New overhead pedestrain bridges. I was thinking that kids in wheelchairs or other disbilities, it should be a flat bridge. Not on with steps. So in order to accomplish the necessary height so it [purple bridge on left, lets say im walking out of Dorsey and I’m south of the Expo line]] goes over the trains, it would have to start elevating going west, then once it starts to be high enough, it curves north, goes over train, the curves east and you’re north of the Expo line. Vice versa with the one on the right. Going east, then north, the west. So it forms a circle when viewing from above [the map doesn’t show the circle concept]

Some news from the meeting:
http://streetheatla.blogspot.com/2008/02/expos-bumpy-ride-continues.html

the pedestrian bridge(s) is a great idea, but honestly, do you think its really going to stop hundreds to thousands of high school kids from walking over the tracks? at least it will give them the option i suppose.

The overpasses are a waste. Crossing guards are enough. Besides, the people at Dorsey have already said that an overpass does not meet their demands.

I'm increasingly becoming convinced that this isn't about safety it's about NIMBY.

^^You weren't convinced of that from the start? Anti-rail people have been there for YEARS. They just finally found a legal way to stop this train.

I'd been trying to approach this objectively since I've had great respect for Damien and this was a cause he is deeply involved in. I still believe that perhaps his motivations are altruistic but not of the others involved.

^^The way he sounds at Metro Rider is just nasty. I've lost a lot of respect for him over this Farmdale Issue. It's not because he believes that it should be underground there, he's free to think whatever he wants. But the way he condescends and will not listen to anyone else is so egotistical and it's tough to respect anyone like that.

http://metroriderla.com/2008/02/04/friends-4-expo-statement-on-farmdale-crossing/

There is a lot of influence in this area by the Cheviot Hill people and the BRU. I'm not saying that Damien is involved with them, but they have spread lies in the community.

Los Angeles Density!

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


This is an off topic post about LA's density. I have been trying to categorize LA's urban landscape for the past year, just for general knowledge. I have been trying to dig up better numbers since I am trying to petition for the subway expansion. anyhow, if you find another thread where this is relevant, let me know so I can make a post there.

Anyhow, here goes.

Washington DC is the benchmark city. DC has a urban core, and metropolitan population 580,000 and 5.2 million people respectively, and an urban population density of 9,600 ppl/sq mile.

LA has an "city proper", metropolitan, and combined contiguous urbanized area of 4 million, 13 million, and 17.5 million respectively, with a city proper population desntiy of 8,528 ppl/sq mile. (Here I used the dept of finance estimate because I heard it is more accurate at counting undocumented workers compare to unofficial census bearue data.)

Already, LA is very close in density to Washington DC, however its population is WAY larger in every category.

I took this even a step further.

According to http://www.demographia.com/db-la-distr.htm

The entire population of Houston (2.15 million) live in an urban area of 14,300 pp/sqmi in Los Angeles. That is tremendous population at a tremendous density. LA is like Houston?!? Well Houston's density is only 3,701, so I think not!

Almost the entire population of San Francisco, 728,000, live in an urban area with a density of 22,625 pp/sqmile. This is compared to SF's density of 15,834. So an SF amount of people live in an urban area 50% DENSER than SF. (I am not saying those neighorhoods are more urban than SF. SF has more jobs, more commerce, more wealth, and a much more elegant density. However, one cannot deny how many people call LA's urban core home)

Just looking at the densest tracts is misleading and not a fair comparison. To be somewhat fair, we have to look at a contiguous central core that has tons of industrial and commercial areas to go along with its denset housing tracts.

That leads me to http://www.demographia.com/db-la-area.htm
Which suggests that LA's urban core of 1.8 million people live in a contiguos centralized urban area with a density of 13,665 ppl/sq mile. That is pretty impressive. (This does not take into account that LA has grown, according to dept of finance, by 11% from 3.6 millon to over 4 million. My projected current population density is thus 15,193. I am certain this is wrong because the valley has grown faster than the central area.)

Using a slightly different definition of urban core via http://www.demographia.com/db-la-sector.htm
One will find that LA has a population of 1.57 million people with a density of
density of over 15,534 ppl/sq mile. (17,243 in 2008 using same assumptions.)

This is all very impressive. Still, what's more impressive is that cities like Philly, Boston, DC, and Chicago have VERY dense cores followed by pretty sparse suburbs. Not only is LA's core substantially dense as noted above, but LA also has significantly dense contiguous inner and outer "suburbs".

In fact, according to http://www.demographia.com/db-2000porphxla.htm
12 million people live in an urban area of a very moderate 7,000 ppl/sq mile. 12 million people make up the seventh largest state in the entire US, and they live in area denser than most normal cities! In fact, if it were only a little larger, LA's dense urban area would be the largest state in the US after Florida, NY, Texas, and of course CA! Again, living in a dense area of 7,000 ppl/sq mile. Aside from NYC, no other urban area in the US can even come close to boasting this amount of adjacent urbanization.

Suburbs such as Long Beach, Santa Monica, Inglewood, etc. are denser than Washington DC. In fact, Long Beach is denser than Washington DC, and has nearly the same population.

Laslty, I wanted to pass along this EXCELLENT SUMMARY of how LA differs from cities like Portland or Houstonhttp://www.demographia.com/db-porla.htm

Many cities like portland have trolleys, light rail, huge biking infrastructure and a thriving new urbanism movement. People like Joel kotkin and the LA times will try to convince you that LA can copy these city's urban policies. They contend that LA is no where near like Chicago, and thus should not have any truly urban policies. They know tremendous swaths of Los Angeles are dense, but they don't share that with the public. Instead they quote LA's moderate OVERALL density, which include 130 sq miles of sparley populated mountain and the pacifc ocean, in the hope of making people think LA should lean more towards suburban planning instead of true urban planning. They always show pictures of Manhattan or quote Manhattan densities in order to prove that urban planning of any kind doesnt belong on the west coast. They don't want to tell you that comparing most cities to Manhattan is misleading at best. They dont want to mention more modest urban cities like Toronto, Washington DC, Boston, and Philly that are very similar to LA in terms of commercial and residential density and total numbers. They purposefully forget to mention that Atlanta and Toronto both have extensive subway systems. They justify LA planning by citing success stories in Portland when they know good and well that Portland isnt even as dense as the Valley! The above URL does a decent job of summing up what I have known for years.

Out of fairness, I want to mention that altough LA is extremely dense in many areas, what also matters is JOB density. I have yet to find a site that breaks down job density, but it would be very interesting to do a similar breakdown. Also, LA is not as centralized as many other areas, although it does have more centralization than many urban planners care to admit.

I'd been trying to approach this objectively since I've had great respect for Damien and this was a cause he is deeply involved in. I still believe that perhaps his motivations are altruistic but not of the others involved.

Nice job being politically correct. Last time I called Damien out on the expo line, (after overhearing a VERY TROUBLING conversation at a transit meeting) he effectively called me an idiot who knows nothing about transit or coalition building.
In the end, I still respect Damien for his work, but I don't really understand his motivation.

I've looked it over, and I think that I like alternative 9 best of all. If the two subways are not possible, then it's option 1. I like the direct route from the Red Line with no transfer, but maybe it would bring increased revenue? Is that the rationale for forcing a transfer at Hollywood/Highland? I liked the other ideas for the Wilshire Subway, but I think that those routes would be better as a streetcar than subway. They just diverge too much.

I am a rouge here, but I do NOT like the Santa Monica alighment all the way to wilshire! It does offer a quick route from west hollywood to santa monica, but I much prefer it simply stop and go down la cienega to wilshire. That section of la cienega is the heart of the booming mid-cty west, west hollywood, beverly hills area. It gives people access to W 3rd st, beverly, melrose, and of course, a very busy and fast growing la cienega. Meanwhile this alignment still gives people a way to transfer from west hollywood onto the purple line.

One of the other benefits is that it completely avoids the area of beverly hills north of santa monica and west of la cienega. This portion of beverly hills is ultra wealthy like hancock park and I doubt they want a subway "supposdely vibrating" near their 10 million dollar homes.

The last benefit is that it leaves a potential area of extension. The la cienega line could be extended from the purple line into downtown culver city where it will meet the expo line. Of course it may not be built for 20 years, but at least the hook is there. If it were built it would connect three separate metro lines and provide a vital, central, north/south route.
Someone would be able to go from,

1)West Hollywood to Santa Monica via la cienega leg
2) Culver City to Central Los Angeles via the la cienega line
3) West hollywood to Culver city via the la cienega line
4) Hollywood to Culver city via the la cienega line
5) Hollywood to central los angeles via the west hollywood and la cienega line

Culver City and its surrounding areas could redevelop into a dense commercial and residential hub and give people immediate access (via subway) to many other areas of interest in Los Angeles.


Best of All, the most expensive apect of subway construction is the stations. Only three stations need to be built to connect culver city to central LA via la cienega.

I took a look at the new LRTP as well last night and I'm completely baffeled that the 405 corridor from the valley down to the airport only received small mention. That commute is probably the worst in the whole city without a rail alternative. Soooooooooooo many people live in the valley and work in SM, Century City, Beverly Hills, Westwood, etc...

Besides that, the priority list looks pretty good. Lets just get the f*&^ing subway started already.

Not only do I want a la cienega line in the somewhat distant future, but I feel the next two most important lines are

the subway to the sea, followed by the pink line valley connector. The pink line west valley line should run from the orange line near Van Nuys all to the westwood and wilshire subway stop. A ton of track needs to be built, but remember, subway stations cost the most. Only 1 unique undergound station need to be built over the entire LINE!

1) @ Orange Line station west of the 405 (above ground station)
2) one-two blocks north of ventura blvd (or on it) near the 405 (undeground station)
3) At Westwood and Wilshire subway station (already existing underground station)

This will connect the valley to the basin via the red line to the east, and the pink line to the west. The red line and pink line would be linked via the orange line.

In the future, the orange line could be upgraded to a light rail if ridership demands it after completion of the pink line.

The rest of the valley could have mass transit upgraded by making bus only feeder streets and shuttles serving specifc areas like bob hope airport and CSUN.

If cost is an issue, go BART style and send it down the middle of the 405 or elevate it over the mountains. This line has to be RAPID transit heavy rail.

Connecting the valley to the west side is useless without the purple line, but with a completed purple and expo line, it is ESSENTIAL.

Again, as ridership skyrockets, businesses can move along transit corridors, and shuttles and bus only lanes can sprout up. There will be very little reason to drive over the 405 or 101 in the future if rail is built correctly.

I like how this map shows that certain alignments are just too far out of the way. I also like that by showing all the potential stations, we see that we need to choose wisely as to how many stations are built and exactly where to place these stations.

For example, a station actually at the UCLA campus would require some serious maneuvering (sp?) and add some extra distance to the extension. The same goes for using San Vicente as a route. We also want to be fair to all resident of the area and make sure that each seperate municipality gets its fair share (yet not too many) stations. Santa Monica certainly doesn't need more than 3, maybe 4 stations. The same goes for BH and WeHo.

Lastly, I believe that the purple line extension should strictly stay under WIlshire, minus the Century City diversion. I also believe the future Hollywood subway extension should take care of serving the Cedar Sinai, Beverly Center area before meeting up with the Wilshire line. This could be done by heading west from Hollywood/Highland using either SMB or Sunset, then heading south down La Cienega and then heading west again down Beverly back to SMB before meeting up with the purple line. Also, since Wilshire and Santa Monica remain relatively close once they intersect, I highly doubt that there is a need at this time for two lines that head to the beach.

Why put a stop in UCLA? It is expensive, almost impossible, and will force the line to be a bit slower. Why not run a shuttle! A shuttle is not a regular bus. It can pick students up every 5-10 minutes from the westwood and wilshire stop and make several stops in UCLA campus (Bschool, Med school, main campus area). Problems solved!

I think having subways serve key areas directly is important, but sometimes, its best just to have a shuttle do the last 1500 feet.

I agree with you. The wilshire subway should not have ANY diversions except century city. Any other destination that is .5-1.5 miles away can EASILY be served by a shuttle. A shuttle is a destination to destination service. It doesnt suffer from frequent stops like regular bus service.

I like 15 (or 16) the best. I think the Wilshire line going up to the Grove makes more sense, and the Santa Monica line dipping down to the Beverly Center and Cedars Sinai is VERY important, instead of just running through Beverly Hills for no reason after San Vicente when it isn't even going to make anymore stops in that area. This would be a vital counterexample to the people that say the subway "doesn't go anywhere," - but we have to plan it now that it DOES go to specific destinations like this. Yeah, the major hospital in Los Angeles would be a good start as a destination..

If they can't do that, #9 I guess. But it seems like a waste of an idea then


hundreds of thousands of people dont take the subway merely to go to a mall. Use shuttles to serve specific destinations. Shuttles are used in SF all the time. I used to work near UCSF that required 3 transfers and about 1 mile walk and over 1 hour total time. After figuring out they had a shuttle, I took one bus to the shuttle, then the shuttle DIRECTLY to work. It took me 30 minutes and I loved it. Shuttles serving SPECIFIC places (as opposed to geneal buses) are extremely efficient and can be immensley popular. I think that signs should be placed at every subway stop that has a particular shuttle. For instance, at Wilshire and LA cienega, signs could say "Sedars Cinai Shuttle, left platform" and Wilshire and Fairfax station could have signs saying "Grove Shuttle to the right". That way people clearly understand that there are great ways to get to their final destinations.

There is no reason to divert subways when shuttles can work perfectly fine.

Again, you make a great point about the santa monica line. It is less useful west of la cienega. It should stop at la cienega and serve the many places of interest.

I find the maglev concept really, really, really questionable. I don't have a problem with the city listening to the offer, but there seem to be some obvious objections:

The idea that you’re gonna get a 27 billion dollar MagLev built solely with private investment seems totally ludicrous. Has this company proved they can raise that sort of money? What’s more, won’t it just end up with a Las Vegas Monorail situation where the company has to go so deep into debt to build the monorail that eventually the city has to either bail them out or let them die?

Even if the thing would be profitable, could it possibly be profitable enough, fast enough to pay off such a ludicrous debt? Not to mention the huge NIMBY issues with an elevated maglev monorail zipping across super high-value land. Not to mention that passenger service is a complete after thought for this line (they only added it at prodding from the city), so there's not gonna be a lot of incentive to build useful stations when the ultimate goal is to move freight across the city as fast as possible.

I’m not saying Private-Public Partnerships aren’t worth pursuing, but people have to recognize that they’re not some type of magic trick. And they have to think about building a full transportation system, not fifty incompatible parts.

I dont understand the maglev. For 26 billion, LA could have the most efficient transit netwokr outside of manhattan. Pollution could be cut 40%, land use would be transformed, LA could become affordable through density upzoning, LA could be more walkable, and there would be a higher quality of life.

Why spend that kind of money on a maglez? Just put electrified rail to move cargo. The ports have already set up a plan to remove diesel trucks coming into the port. Speed shouldn't be an issue!

A lot of the people at UCLA take public transit, it would be a benefit to ridership. It is about a 20 minute walk to get to Wilshire from UCLA, and a lot of people might rather take a car than walk all that way.

For instance, at Wilshire and LA cienega, signs could say "Sedars Cinai Shuttle, left platform" and Wilshire and Fairfax station could have signs saying "Grove Shuttle to the right". That way people clearly understand that there are great ways to get to their final destinations.

There is no reason to divert subways when shuttles can work perfectly fine.

Except when said shuttles will carry a lot of existing riders going will be going to that destination and that destination will give the transit corridor more of a push to be built. In addition the land uses around the Wilshire/La Cienega area would not and could not support future density. Same thing for Century City that is a 'diversion' off the main Wilshire line.

Except when said shuttles will carry a lot of existing riders going will be going to that destination and that destination will give the transit corridor more of a push to be built. In addition the landuses around the Wilshire/La Cienega area would not and could not support future density. Same thing for Century City that is a 'diversion' off the main Wilshire line.

la cienega and wilshire have plenty of room for density. Will it be 90 stories? No. But uniform 8 story development and 25,000 pp/sq mile density isnt small.

The "diversrion" for century city is serving 8 towers AND a mall (unike the grove which is just a mall). Actually, just recently, a 60 story tower was proposed for century city but will likely be opposed for lack of a "diversion".

Shuttles do work extremely well. They can EASILY carry the demand to the grove and sedars senai. In fact, In SF, shuttles and buses serve USCF (a much much bigger operation) just fine.

A shuttle connected to the rail line give the rail line plenty of push to be built. in my mind, anything within 2 miles of a subway in a region such as los angeles should be considered directly served. Exceptions are made for corridors like century city that can still suppor 3 65+ tower skyscrapers, add ones, and other significant densification.

I too like the shuttle idea as well, it helps bring destinations closer to future subway stops. Extensive DASH service combined with subways could really get people where they need to be without ever stepping foot in their cars, it already works downtown.

I am a rouge here, but I do NOT like the Santa Monica alighment all the way to wilshire! It does offer a quick route from west hollywood to santa monica, but I much prefer it simply stop and go down la cienega to wilshire. That section of la cienega is the heart of the booming mid-cty west, west hollywood, beverly hills area. It gives people access to W 3rd st, beverly, melrose, and of course, a very busy and fast growing la cienega. Meanwhile this alignment still gives people a way to transfer from west hollywood onto the purple line.

One of the other benefits is that it completely avoids the area of beverly hills north of santa monica and west of la cienega. This portion of beverly hills is ultra wealthy like hancock park and I doubt they want a subway "supposdely vibrating" near their 10 million dollar homes.

The last benefit is that it leaves a potential area of extension. The la cienega line could be extended from the purple line into downtown culver city where it will meet the expo line. Of course it may not be built for 20 years, but at least the hook is there. If it were built it would connect three separate metro lines and provide a vital, central, north/south route.
Someone would be able to go from,

1)West Hollywood to Santa Monica via la cienega leg
2) Culver City to Central Los Angeles via the la cienega line
3) West hollywood to Culver city via the la cienega line
4) Hollywood to Culver city via the la cienega line
5) Hollywood to central los angeles via the west hollywood and la cienega line

Culver City and its surrounding areas could redevelop into a dense commercial and residential hub and give people immediate access (via subway) to many other areas of interest in Los Angeles.


Best of All, the most expensive apect of subway construction is the stations. Only three stations need to be built to connect culver city to central LA via la cienega.


you won me over

I think the SMB still has to go west of La Cienega to San Vicente to properly serve West Hollywood, and should then curve back towards La Cienega following San Vicente, hitting up TBC and Cedars. Going any further west on SMB into BH is pointless, as you say...but we can't half-ass it as far as West Hollywood is concerned. Remember, the subway should go where PEOPLE already go - not the other way around

Southern California officials not on board with plan to use bond money for railroads

Under Schwarzenegger's proposal, the rails would get $170 million in voter-approved funds. Officials say the dollars should go toward road improvements that would ease congestion.
By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 11, 2008
SACRAMENTO -- A proposal by the Schwarzenegger administration to use $170 million in voter-approved bond money for projects benefiting two private railroads is drawing ire from Southern California officials who want the funds for road improvements and other projects.

The officials have complained that the administration plans to take money that should ease gridlock for motorists and use it instead on less important projects to help private interests -- the Union Pacific Railroad and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway.

"I don't understand it," said Yvonne B. Burke, chairwoman of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. "The railroads should pay for it. The people of Southern California were the ones who approved those bonds, and they should get the benefit."

Public interest advocates point to the millions of dollars that railroads have pumped into the campaign coffers of the governor and others.

Since 2003, the two railroads have contributed $2.2 million to California political campaigns, including $142,000 to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger committees and $200,000 to the campaign to pass the transportation bond measure.

"Voters don't know if decisions about who gets the money are based on who contributed or on merit," said Tracy Westen, chief executive for the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles. At issue are funds from Proposition 1B, a $20-billion transportation bond measure approved by voters in 2006 after a campaign by the governor and legislative leaders.

The proposition earmarked about $3 billion for projects to improve the flow of goods through ports and transportation corridors, including highways and rail lines.

The railroads and the administration have argued that the rail projects, proposed by Caltrans Director Will Kempton in a Jan. 17 letter to the California Transportation Commission, are exactly the kind of expenditures envisioned by the initiative's backers. The Times obtained the letter through the Public Records Act.

The proposed projects would benefit the state's economy and the environment by removing bottlenecks in the rail system that slow the movement of freight from the busy ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland, Kempton said.

They would also fulfill one of Schwarzenegger's top goals, backers say: to encourage more public-private partnerships.

The biggest project in the package calls for the construction of a 1.4-mile railroad bridge that would eliminate a bottleneck in Colton by allowing one train to pass above another.

State transportation officials said in a recent report that Colton, in San Bernardino County, is "a major choke point that adversely impacts rail freight and has delayed implementation of additional passenger rail improvements."

Separate tracks used there by Union Pacific and Burlington Northern cross, often forcing trains on one line to a side rail to await passage of trains on the other track.

The Colton project would cost $148 million, with the two railroads picking up half the bill and the rest coming from Proposition 1B money.

Another proposal involves spending $43 million to cover half the cost of providing extra tracks and improved tunnels for Union Pacific trains over Donner Pass in Northern California. The third project would use $53 million to cover half the cost of expanding the tracks and tunnels used by Burlington Northern over Tehachapi Pass.

Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Julie Soderlund denied any tie between the railroad contributions and the projects proposed by the administration.

"The governor makes decisions based on what he believes is in the best interest of the people of California," she said. "The governor supported Proposition 1B because California needs to invest in its infrastructure for roads and transportation."

In recent comments to Southern California transportation officials, Dale Bonner, secretary of the state Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, acknowledged that the proposals were controversial.

"We don't have any recent history or precedent for taking taxpayer dollars and investing in what . . . are essentially private assets," Bonner said. "This is a form of public-private partnership that we are trying to work through to see how we can assure the public that their needs are going to be addressed in a way that truly benefits the public and not simply puts more money in the pockets of the railroads."

"I think we are looking at some very creative ways of doing that," he said.

Although the ballot measure specifically allows for rail projects, many local officials said the priority should be projects with some benefit for the public stuck in traffic, including freeway improvements and grade separation projects that would allow motorists to go over or under rail crossings so they are not forced to sit idling as trains pass.

"We think the intent of Proposition 1B was for public interchanges and not for the use of the railroad industry," said San Bernardino County Supervisor Gary Ovitt of Ontario. "Most people thought the dollars would be used for public transportation projects."

Ovitt is vice president of the San Bernardino Associated Governments, a coalition of elected officials from San Bernardino County that serves as the area's transportation planning agency. The group has asked the state commission to use the transportation bond money to improve freeways and provide grade separations at rail crossings.

"They are of benefit to the community more so than to the railroads," said Barstow Mayor Lawrence Dale, president of the association.

Railroad officials said the projects would benefit the public in many ways.

"If we want to continue to be an economic powerhouse, we have to invest in our goods movement infrastructure," said Zoe Richmond, a spokeswoman for Union Pacific.

The rail lines serve some of the busiest ports in the country, including Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland, and have a major effect on California's economy, Richmond said.

The state's application for the funding notes that Union Pacific is a key rail hauler from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to distant gateways, including St. Louis, Chicago, New Orleans and Memphis, Tenn.

Juan Acosta, a lobbyist for Burlington, said if trains did not have to sit idling at busy crossings, fewer delays and less pollution would result.

Meanwhile, Kempton acknowledged officials' concerns about the Colton project.

"Local concerns must be fully considered before any decision is made to include the Colton project in the . . . program," Kempton wrote to the transportation commission.

The proposals are scheduled to be debated in commission hearings beginning Wednesday in San Francisco.

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com

Times staff writer Jeff Rabin contributed to this report.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-railfight11feb11,0,2045640,full.story

Dear Community Member,



You are invited to a Metro project update on the Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor Study. Please join us at one of the four meetings below for a status report on the project. Please forward this announcement to your colleagues, friends and neighbors. We welcome and encourage your participation.



Roxi Reeves

Lee Andrews Group, Inc.





Crenshaw/Prairie Transit Corridor Study

Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor
Project Update Meetings
en Español | Study Area Map

You are invited to a Metro project update on the Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor.

Please Join Us

Wednesday, February 20, 6:30 – 8pm
Darby Park
3400 W. Arbor Vitae, Inglewood, CA 90305
Served by Metro Line 210

Thursday, February 21, 6:30 – 8pm
US Bank Community Room
5760 Crenshaw Bl., Los Angeles, CA 90043
Served by Metro lines 40, 108/358, 210, 710 and 740

Saturday, February 23, 10 – 11:30am
Nate Holden Performing Arts Center
4718 W. Washington Bl., Los Angeles, CA 90016
Served by Metro Line 35

Monday, February 25, 6:30 – 8:00 PM
Wilshire United Methodist Church
4350 Wilshire Bl., Los Angeles, CA 90010
Served by Metro Line: 20, 210, 710, 720

In October 2007, Metro held three public scoping meetings to obtain community input on the scope of the alternatives to be studied in the Alternatives Analysis/ Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. Based on feedback from these meetings as well as more detailed technical analyses, some potential routes or alignments have been eliminated from further consideration and others have been added. Please join us to receive a status report of the project and schedule for future steps.

For more information, visit metro.net/crenshaw or call 213-922-2736

Content presented at these meetings will be identical, so make sure to attend at the time and location more convenient for you.

I think the most frustrating part about all these LA transit issues is that progress is so painfully slow. I mean imagine if they put a sales tax for a subway on the ballot and it lost because it got 60% instead of 66%? That'd just be so painful. I'm starting to think the only real hope is to wait for another administration in the white house so that we can get a real transportation plan and more federal money for stuff like this.

la cienega and wilshire have plenty of room for density. Will it be 90 stories? No. But uniform 8 story development and 25,000 pp/sq mile density isnt small.


What are the zoning and lot sizes in this area? How even with this subway that kind of development may not happen?

The "diversrion" for Century City is serving 8 towers AND a mall (unike the Grove which is just a mall). Actually, just recently, a 60 story tower was proposed for century city but will likely be opposed for lack of a "diversion".

The area right next to the Grove called CBS TV City is major job center in the area, in addition to the greater residential density that helps support ridership. These were the deciding factor that got the Grove built in the first place. Cedars Sinai is a major research and medical center that is a large job employer that operates 24/7. With that location you're closer to West Hollywood, going by your 2 mile rule you post later meaning the La Cienega corridor doesn't even need to be built thus the diversion reduces the cost of addition tunneling, in the same case as building La Cienega reduces a Santa Monica Blvd corridor. So this diversion is the most prudent and most effective corridor in terms of long term transit planning and operation.

Shuttles do work extremely well. They can EASILY carry the demand to the grove and sedars senai. In fact, In SF, shuttles and buses serve USCF (a much much bigger operation) just fine.

Not when the traffic on the north-south corridors they're running are in bumper to bumper traffic and also not when they're being concentrated to one point of connection and there's limited sidewalk space. That is the deciding factor in all this in my mind.

A shuttle connected to the rail line give the rail line plenty of push to be built. in my mind, anything within 2 miles of a subway in a region such as los angeles should be considered directly served. Exceptions are made for corridors like century city that can still suppor 3 65+ tower skyscrapers, add ones, and other significant densification.

Normally I would agree with you 100% but in this instance when the transfer could take as long as the trip and the number of people making the transfer is significant at one point and there's little room for all of these people transfering then there's something that has to be considered and studied seriously because that means you have to operate more buses stuck in congested traffic and or take a long time to board a large number of passengers.

Metro to Hold February Public Meetings for Regional Connector Transit Corridor Study

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) will be conducting two public meetings for the agency’s Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project February 26 and 28, 2008.

* Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2008: 6:30 – 8:00 p.m., Japanese American National Museum, 369 E. 1st Street, Los Angeles
* Thursday, Feb. 28, 2008: Noon – 1:30 p.m., Los Angeles Central Library, 630 W. 5th Street, Los Angeles

The Project Update Presentation will last approximately 30 minutes, followed by a 60-minute Question and Answer Session for both meetings.

The study analyzes various transit alternatives for the possible connection of the Metro Gold Line, Metro Blue Line and Expo Line through downtown Los Angeles, and considers various transit modes, alignments and station location options for an area that encompasses approximately two square miles of downtown Los Angeles, including the communities of Little Tokyo, the Arts District, the Historic Core, the Toy District, Bunker Hill, the Financial District, the Jewelry District, and the Civic Center.

Metro held two public scoping meetings last November to obtain community input on the scope of the alternatives to be studied in the Alternatives Analysis. Based on feedback from these meetings, Metro has identified some potential alignments and station locations for more detailed technical analysis.

The public is invited to the meetings to receive a status report on the project and to learn about the schedule for future steps.

For more information, visit metro.net/regionalconnector or call 213.922-7277.

http://metro.net/news_info/press/metro_020.htm

draft long range plan update:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2207/2270340804_97d6530bdd_o.jpg

full pdf
http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2008/01_January/20080116P&PItem54Revised.pdf

why are things crossed out?

its a draft. the things crossed out were one the first draft, but modified/eliminated/newly added to the second draft

Will the planned busway for the 405 Freeway be similar to the Harbor Transitway?

^^I don't see how that's possible. It wouldn't only cost $200 million.

^ So will it be BRT?

Crenshaw light-rail route picked
By Gene Maddaus Staff Writer
Article Launched: 02/21/2008 10:10:48 PM PST

While the "subway to the sea" has dominated the discussion of the future of transit in Los Angeles County, officials are laying the groundwork for a project that has gotten much less attention: a light-rail line along Crenshaw Boulevard.

The Crenshaw line would connect the Expo Line to the Green Line, and pass within a mile of Los Angeles International Airport. It has a higher priority than a subway extension along Wilshire Boulevard and, unlike the Wilshire line, it has committed funding.

This week, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced it has also settled on a preferred route for the Crenshaw line, bringing it closer to reality.

At a community meeting Wednesday night, MTA officials released a plan to run the line along existing track through an industrial area of Inglewood, avoiding the city's main commercial thoroughfares.

Roderick Diaz, the project manager, said cost had been a major consideration. That drew some fire from community members, who accused the staffers of skimping on the line, which could make it harder for passengers to use.

"It doesn't maximize the benefit of being in Inglewood," said Councilman Danny Tabor. "Don't let cost be the driving factor. Ridership is what you're going to need in the long run to make anything profitable."

The MTA also has shelved the idea of extending the Crenshaw Line north to link up with the existing subway terminus at Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue.
Advertisement
Diaz said that Crenshaw becomes too narrow north of Exposition and that the surrounding neighborhood is incompatible with rail transit.

That means the entirety of the Crenshaw Line will be south of the Santa Monica (10) Freeway, and its only link to downtown Los Angeles will be via the Expo Line, which is now under construction.

The MTA's proposal is to build track along Crenshaw Boulevard from Exposition Boulevard to just north of Florence Avenue, passing through bustling commercial areas in Leimert Park and Hyde Park.

The line would then turn west to pick up existing freight track, passing through Inglewood and over the San Diego Freeway. It would turn south and run through a trench as it passed LAX, before linking up with the existing Green Line station at Aviation Boulevard.

The project is still many years away, but the MTA staff is beginning the process of reaching out to the local communities for reaction in advance of preparing an environmental report, which should be finalized in 2010.

One of the most tantalizing possibilities is that the Crenshaw Line could provide rail access to LAX. That would require the cooperation of Los Angeles World Airports, which has periodically considered building a "people mover" to carry passengers between the terminals and a rail station.

In a letter last fall, LAWA officials encouraged the MTA to strongly consider the needs of air passengers when deciding where to put the Crenshaw Line. Specifically, LAWA floated the possibility of a terminal at Century Boulevard and Aviation, where the rail line, bus lines and a people mover could converge.

The MTA's recommended route would keep that option alive, though the idea of a central passenger collection point has been criticized because it might create a potential terrorism target. The concept has been dormant since Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was elected.

Another key element of the MTA plan is that Crenshaw trains would be able to use Green Line and Expo Line tracks - meaning that passengers could take a train from home in Leimert Park to work in El Segundo without having to switch trains.

That would not be possible if the MTA had chosen to run the track along Prairie Avenue or Hawthorne Boulevard to the Green Line, as some in Inglewood would have preferred. Had the MTA chosen that route, Crenshaw passengers would have had to get off the train and go to a different platform to catch the Green Line, as is now required at the intersection of the Green Line and the Blue Line in Watts.

But the MTA's decision also means that the track will not stretch down into Hawthorne. An earlier proposal called for the line to extend as far south as Hawthorne and El Segundo boulevards, but that is now off the table.

Several Inglewood officials have urged the MTA to bring the train along the city's busiest boulevards. Some have suggested turning south at Prairie Avenue and then west at Century Boulevard, which would allow the train to pass by LAX while also cutting through the heart of Inglewood's commercial area.

But Diaz suggested that such a detour would cost an extra $500 million to $800 million.

As is, the project is expected to cost $1 billion to $1.6 billion.

The MTA is also considering a cheaper option: building a dedicated busway along the existing freight lines. That idea, however, has considerably less public support.

The MTA is now soliciting public comment on where to place bus or rail stations.

gene.maddaus@dailybreeze.com

WANT TO GO?

The MTA will hold two more community meetings to hear public comment on the Crenshaw Line:

10 to 11:30 a.m. Saturday at the Nate Holden Performing Arts Center, 4718 W. Washington Blvd., Los Angeles.

6:30 to 8 p.m. Monday at the Wilshire United Methodist Church 4350 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles.


coolio


http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_8330592

Wow. I'm amazed. All my life I would read Westways Magazine [the one sent to AAA members] and just read up on SoCals offerings. Fun magazine that offers information to travelers and locals. All my life, I never read anything about public transportation mentioned in this magazine. Well, today I started flipping though the MArch/April issue and to my surprise, a whole page, titled L.A. By Subway, was dedicated to teaching people about the Metro Redline. It offered a great subway map with 11 different locations that could be found along the redline. Mentions that you can get a day pass and talks about the monthly tours offered about Metro art.

AAA is advocating subway use? But why?

AAA is advocating subway use? But why?

less people driving = less accidents, more money AAA does not have to give away in insurance claims

less accidents = saving more lives

the more people of the road the better.

also, why put expo phase 2 on olympic? put it on pico. nobody is on olympic in santa monica. ridership would be much higher because you would be passing smc:)

pico is too narrow, to put a line there would require the loss of a lane in each direction, or no street parking. olympic has a nice large median, though santa monica wants it on colorado so i dont think pico is on anyone radar

also, why put expo phase 2 on olympic? put it on pico. nobody is on olympic in santa monica. ridership would be much higher because you would be passing smc:)

Olympic is where the jobs are. Also, the line won't be on Olympic, it will be using the ROW, which runs next to Olympic. Near the Water Garden/Arboretum(sp?) area, the line will cut over to Colorado and run down the middle of the street all the way down to the Sears. This shouldn't be that big of a deal for the people who live off of Pico because there are a lot of bus lines and shuttles that run north/south between Pico and Olympic.

With the new developments planned for the North Hollywood and Universal City stations, does anyone know if Metro plans to increase parking capacity at these stops? I ask because I planned to use the subway in order to go for a job interview I had scheduled downtown. I got to Universal City over an hour before my interview, but could not find a parking space. After circling the lot and surrounding streets several times, I just decided to drive downtown since I couldn't risk being late. I wonder how many other examples there are of potential transit patrons opting to drive instead simply because they could not find parking? This has happened to me before at the North Hollywood station. Usually, Universal City has at least a few spaces in the far back corner of the lot, but not that day. Which is good in some way I guess because it shows that the subway is being heavily used, but it also turned away a potential customer.