I just don't understand the monorail fetish. Proponents always say that LA could have them everywhere but monorails like HRT are mainly grade seperated if I'm correct and monorails are elevated from every picture I've ever seen. How would they not run into the same deterrences of expense and public objection (especially in LA) to anything elevated that would block people sunlight? Have you seen the new Gold Line bridge floating above the 101? How much thinner would a monorail bridge have been?

I just don't understand the monorail fetish.

Monorails are sexy, thus appeal more to the public imagination. They also have the feel of being "futuristic" as opposed to "what everyone else has".

So basically it's all intensional feelings of sexy, cool maybe even krazy?

Taken from the debates raging on over at the Transit Coalition. Fixexpo.org's call to arms this week.



Stand Up for the Safety of Our ChildrenBy Damien Goodmon @ 4:00 AM July 01, 2008

This Wednesday evening at 6:30 at the Foshay Learning Center auditorium the most important meeting to date in our battle with the MTA to build the Expo Line underground through the South L.A. community will take place.

The Judge and the Commissioner in our case before the California Public Utilities Commission, from whom the MTA must receive approval before they can lay tracks, will be providing one last opportunity for the public to comment before the Public Utilities Commission on the deadly, disruptive and discriminatory street-level railroad crossings around Dorsey High School, which is just 10 feet from the tracks, and Foshay Learning Center, which is just 50 feet from the tracks.

We have confirmed that CPUC Commissioner Timothy Simon has been pressured by Westside politicians, and our own City Council member, Bernard Parks, who represents the area around Foshay, to rubberstamp the MTA’s unsafe plan and ignore the requests of the community, the neighborhood councils, LAUSD, UTLA and the Parent Collaborative.

It's only through great legal maneuvering of our lawyers and the pressure of public opinion that we’ve been given a public hearing and trial in the face inappropriate and unethical political interference into this judicial process by Mr. Parks, state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, and likely others.

But Wednesday night is not about the politicians or the lawyers. Wednesday night is about you.

Wednesday night is a public hearing. It is your time for the Judge and the Commissioner to hear you either in words or through your presence.

There are 700 seats in Foshay Auditorium. Wednesday night is about you putting your name on one of those seats and committing yourself between now and then to making sure your neighbors, friends, co-workers and family put their names on the many other seats.

So what are you going to do on Wednesday night?

Will you help pack the Foshay Auditorium?

Will you stand with your South L.A. community, parents and teachers? We need you there.

Will you stand up for the safety of the Foshay and Dorsey children?

Will you stand up for justice against the MTA’s discriminatory design of the Expo Line that makes no child west of La Cienega walk across the tracks, while forcing thousands of our South L.A. children to walk across them EVERY DAY for the next 100 years?

The media will be there. What message do you want to send to those watching?

The Foshay Learning Center is at 3751 Harvard Blvd., Los Angeles 90018, one block east of Western and Exposition.

Comments from poster "Gokhan" about the meeting this week:

Foshay School/Harvard Blvd public meeting tonight

What we saw tonight at the meeting was people who were misinformed by Damien, who were blindly and mindlessly opposing to the project, without any constructive arguments, like usual NIMBYs. The public comments were anywhere between ridiculous and overly exaggerated. This is what happens when so many lies are passed around. Bernard Parks personally responded to Damien's claim about him pressuring CPUC and said to the public that it was a lie as well. The people don't get the fact that 35 MPH trains following the same traffic signals as cars are actually a lot safer than those cars.

There was almost no single comment about the existing Harvard Blvd pedestrian tunnel, which was repeatedly emphasized by the Judge Kenneth Koss and the Commissioner Timothy Alan Simon to be the only focus of the meeting. Instead people chose to repeat Damien's environmental-racism claims and kept shouting for a subway, which were irrelevant to this meeting. Commissioner Simon said he only ruled for this meeting because he thought he could gather some useful public opinion but he was frustrated by the lack of constructive public input and the unruly behavior to the point that he almost called off the meeting.

Damien himself is apparently having trouble passing false information now because he had to correct himself at least three times about the sentence he was trying to make about the Culver City environmental-racism claims, while he kept saying the exact opposite of what he wanted to say.

Colleen Mason Heller's husband/attorney Larry Heller showed his lack of competency as usual. He even referred to the articulated buses on Western Ave as "attenuated" buses.

LAUSD spokeswoman contradicted herself by saying that no light-rail should be built next to any school, while in reality the Eastside Gold Line is being built next to schools and LAUSD is OK about it.

The judge stated that if it wasn't thanks to Damien, all the crossing would have been approved long time ago. What this means is that the Expo Authority has already proved that Harvard and Farmdale are safe and since Damien is failing to prove otherwise but rather choosing to attempt to deceive the public by false racism and other outrageous claims, the original crossing designs in the Expo applications should be approved in September. It's almost a relief that Expo is finally about to move full-speed forward. A project of such critical need to people of such great diversity has been needlessly threatened to be delayed.

More.......

I should really congratulate Bernard Parks for being so incredibly courageous and dignified and coming to the meeting to defend himself and stand up against the NIMBYs, despite Expo CEO and attorneys pleading to him not to do so because of legal reasons. He is a unique politician who will go for a cause despite all the political pressure. The smirk on Damien's face was gone as soon as he stated that he never had any formal conversation with the Commissioner Simon on the CPUC process, and the only conversation that took place was him inviting the commissioner for an Expo right-of-way tour.

Bernard Park gave a very good speech and in that speech he explained how the Blue Line accident rate got much lower during the last several years. Towards the end of his speech, the incredibly unruly crowd kept interrupting him and he had difficulty finishing his speech. As a result he wanted to leave but the crowd would follow him. Apparently in the lobby he told to Damien's face that he keeps lying.

Colleen Mason Heller's husband/attorney Larry Heller, who is representing their group Neighbors for No Rail, looked like Mark Geragos trying to defend Scott Peterson. He just kept foaming without much substance, threatening with lawsuits.

Damien's attorney representing United Community Associations, Inc. (believe it or not that's the new official, legal name of Damien's group), a soft-spoken man from San Francisco, doing pro bono work for them, was very kind and polite and he thanked to CPUC for organizing this meeting. He doesn't seem to be much interested in a serious battle with CPUC. He simply asked for a subway, which, of course, will never happen anyway.

Perhaps the most interesting statement was the one by a long-time Culver City NIMBY and Expo foe. She said that the claims that Expo was not being built at-grade in Culver City was false. She said they are building Expo at-grade in Culver City as well, next to their schools. A panicked Damien on the other side of the room was shaking his head sideways rapidly. Apparently the NIMBYs are their own worst enemy.

Comments by public were outrageous. Several people said that the trains will have "unregulated" speeds. Come on, do these people have any idea what they are talking about? There was one kid who shocked me by how dumb she was. She was having a tantrum and saying, "How can you put a train next to a school? My friend lives directly across the school on Exposition. How is she going to get to the school once the train is built?" Hello... The same way she always does, either through the Harvard Blvd tunnel or Western Ave crossing. LOL But can you blame these people for being so clueless and misinformed after having been mislead and misinformed by Damien to such a great extent?

The fallout in the LA Times editorial section:

**Re ‘Stand up for the Safety of Our Children,’ July 1.
What is Damien Goodmon asking of us?

Is he trying to create a solution that is looking for a problem?

There is no problem.

The MTA, the Expo Construction Authority and L. A. City Councilman Bernard Parks had it right the first time. The Blue and Gold lines pass within feet of schools and there has never been a problem.

If anything the light rail lines are used to take students to events and outings. The new Gold East L.A. Line passes within feet of one grammar, one middle and two high schools — and no one is objecting or even complaining.

Rail lines pass and have passed schools around the country for 150 years.

There aren’t groups of parents and educators who are objecting to the Expo Line to be built at grade passing the Foshey Learning Center and Dorsey High School, Only Damien Goodmon and the people he was able to agitate are concerned about the crossings.

I suggest that you visit the disputed crossings. See just how dangerous they will be.

Farmdale does not even rate a traffic signal. The students are in much more danger from being hit by a car than a train.

Why is Damien getting so much press for his Fix Expo? Maybe Damien wants to use this made-up battle to get recognized as a community leader.

So far he has cost all of us $350,000 in lawsuits. How much more will he and his group cost us in delays and much needed money?

Again the two crossings that are being considered are only problems in theminds of Damien and his followers. Not in the real world.

This all reminds me of a story my uncle once told me about meetings for the original red line. The area he lived in was going to have a vent installed on the hill side for the subway, and everyone in his neighborhood showed up at the meeting enraged.

They all came with talking points they'd been given, screaming about water tables and just generally reciting from rote a bunch of reasons why a subway was evil and the engineering was substandard. My uncle quickly realized that none of them actually had any idea what they were talking about, they just knew they were opposed and so someone gave them a list of made-up grievances so they didn't have to say what they really felt (ie, we won't use the subway, poor people will, so we don't want it).

Damien is an embarrassment to LA. For awhile, I was fooled into thinking he was actually "bright" (being a Harvard student and all) and would help promote the cause for expanding rail in LA. However, it's clear as day now how he's using this situation he's created to somehow further his own political career. He's hoping that he'll be viewed as a community leader (as someone noted above) and that eventually he'll use this when he runs for office.

It's funny how it's now turning on him and that his political career may have ended before it has even begun.

I have a question: Are they asking any of these high school kids that they're so concerned about to come to these meetings? Give their input? I'd love to see a high schooler just say "Well....yeah, I think if we just teach everyone to be safe, this would be great. I personally would love to take this rail line."

I have a question: Are they asking any of these high school kids that they're so concerned about to come to these meetings? Give their input? I'd love to see a high schooler just say "Well....yeah, I think if we just teach everyone to be safe, this would be great. I personally would love to take this rail line."

There was one kid who shocked me by how dumb she was. She was having a tantrum and saying, "How can you put a train next to a school? My friend lives directly across the school on Exposition. How is she going to get to the school once the train is built?"

Why is it so difficult to actually believe that someone might possibly have a different opinion on this issue based on pretty strong grounds?

The Friends 4 Expo folk believe what they do, I believe what I do. I make no apology for using my talents and the talents of my organization to work to achieve what we believe is right. Instead of belittling your points by relying solely on personal attacks or a discussion of personal motivation, why not go ahead and do the same?

The reality is public opinion is on the side of safety, especially around schools, and grade separation. The reality is most people realize politics often gets in the way of good engineering. This is no exception.

But let me take a moment to comment on the "running for political office" thing, it really makes me chuckle because it is frankly so ignorant.

I realize to some who consider transit the end all be all this might seem like the most important thing in the history of the world. But well before Get LA Moving, I was on the national staff of a front-runner's presidential campaign and assisted the national African-American outreach arm, where I developed a roladex of influential black leaders, and thereafter, among other duties I was the national spokesman for an organization attempting to stop a Supreme Court nomination.

I was working right beside the people who would become the senior advisers to the president of the fricking United States in a Democratic administration, and attempting to prevent a man from taking seat on the highest court in the land. Additionally, my uncle was the senior adviser to the most powerful politician in Los Angeles for 20 years.

Like so many things around this issue, it is laughable to think I'd "need" Fix Expo or Get LA Moving to run for office, or that the way to run for office is to piss off every local black elected official.

But I understand why the statements are made. It distracts people from the facts like the former LADOT General Manager saying the Expo operation near Expo Park was unsafe for pedestrians and would lead to major gridlock: link (http://www.expocommunities.com/info/Gloria_Jeff-Expo_Park.pdf)

It distracts people from the fact that the PUC's engineers wanted grade separation at Farmdale and around Expo Park but for a lot of reasons unrelated to railroad safety chose not to protest the Expo Authority's applications.

It distracts from the fact that where and how we build our rail lines in this region is completely politically-based.

Make this a discussion about "Damien Goodmon's political ambitions" and all those memos and discussions about rail transportation engineering, all those criticisms of Metro's grade crossing policy, light rail safety, and traffic impacts of at-grade rail go out the window.

I know the game. Seen it before. If my candidate or cause was facing an opponent that was talented, had public opinion on their side and had a bucket load of smoking memos I might even advise them to do the same.

Adios!

Oh and never been a problem around Blue Line schools?

That's just preying on the ignorance of people too lazy to use google.

Metrolink growth strains station parking capacity
A ridership surge has already jammed lots, and the Orange County line's planned expansion will soon make it even harder to find a spot.
By David Reyes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 5, 2008

Until recently, Blaine Bridenball's morning involved a well-practiced routine: Get up, eat and drive to the Metrolink station in Buena Park by 7:15 for his commute to Los Angeles.

Then gas prices skyrocketed, and Bridenball found that the parking lot at the new train station was filling to capacity earlier and earlier.

"With each month it seems you add another five minutes," he said. "Now, the lot is full by 6:50 a.m."

This week, Bridenball joined hundreds of transit riders who have been boarding a shuttle bus at a nearby park for a two-mile ride to the train station -- a stopgap solution to a growing problem.

A surge in Metrolink ridership and plans to sharply increase the number of trains running on weekdays are forcing transportation planners to speed up projects to add parking at Orange County's train stations.

Until recently, 300 parking spaces were required at newly built stations.

"We believed that would be sufficient for many years," said Darrell Johnson, Orange County Transportation Authority commuter rail manager.

"The new standard we're now demanding is 500 spaces."

That standard will be used when the county's 12th Metrolink station, in Placentia, is built in three years.

Meantime, by 2010 officials hope to have trains running every 30 minutes from 5 a.m. to midnight on weekdays between Fullerton and Laguna Niguel.

Seven locomotives and 59 passenger cars are on order, new track has been laid, and additional parking must be either finished or near completion when the expanded service begins, officials say.

Until that happens, cities have been scrambling to set up shuttle services from Metrolink stations to residential areas, major employers, resort areas and shopping malls.

Nowhere is the increased demand for parking more evident than in Buena Park.

Its station opened 10 months ago, and unexpectedly high ridership has already forced OCTA and the city to spend $220,000 on shuttle services for a year.

Plans for more parking are in the works.

"This shuttle is a good idea," said Felix Mendez, 30, of Garden Grove. "The station is closer to my home, but with the parking problem I would have to take the train at Fullerton, and that's in the opposite direction of where I need to go."

In Laguna Niguel, OCTA just acquired two acres where the California Department of Transportation plans to close a maintenance yard in two years. Taking its place will be 150 parking spaces.

In Fullerton, the county's busiest station, the lots fill up fast. The city and OCTA are working to build a 1,000-space parking garage at the site of a former citrus packing company nearby.

Down the line in Tustin, OCTA is about to move forward on a planned parking garage with 825 spaces.

In Irvine, valets were hired to wedge cars into its Metrolink lot. The practice ended when customers decided it was cheaper to park their own cars.

Now, OCTA and the city are spending $27 million for a four-story, 1,500-space parking structure that is to open by September.

"With the anticipated upgrade in train service by OCTA in two years, this new facility will meet the increased demand," said Louie Gonzalez, an Irvine city spokesman.

But immediately, the Irvine project will make the daily commute a bit easier for people like Andrew Silber, 37, of Rancho Bernardo,

About a year ago, he paid $2,500 for "a beater" -- a car he keeps parked at the packed Irvine station.

He drives it a few miles back and forth to his office, where he is a partner in a video game company.

"I did it to avoid 2 1/2 hours on the freeway," he said. "When I'm on the train, I can get work done, rest, and catch up on things. There's less stress."

http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2008-07/40688679.gif

There is something to be said about not being exhausted by freeway driving. Having someone do the driving for you can actually benefit the area economically I guess. Will someone tell me about Damien? I posted something on him here a month or so back about an appearance he had in front of the city council. What's his M. O., in a nutshell? I'd like for him to post in English next time.. and no more of this 'adios' crap :)

Why is it so difficult to actually believe that someone might possibly have a different opinion on this issue based on pretty strong grounds?.....

Make this a discussion about "Damien Goodmon's political ambitions" and all those memos and discussions about rail transportation engineering, all those criticisms of Metro's grade crossing policy, light rail safety, and traffic impacts of at-grade rail go out the window.

I know the game. Seen it before. If my candidate or cause was facing an opponent that was talented, had public opinion on their side and had a bucket load of smoking memos I might even advise them to do the same.

Adios!

sorry but all i hear is that you believe that high school students are to stupid to know when to cross the street!!! the economical benefits that this line will bring trump all your concerns about safety. look at the blue line and gold line, 99% of the accidents are from stupid drivers and not pedestrians, the fault lies with the driver not the train just build the line and stop wasting our limited resources.

Damien thank you for stopping by. I think many forumers on this board would like to hear why you have taken the position that you have and how this will benefit LA 100 years from now.

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/la-bus-brt-orangeline-appr-Reseda-B.jpglightrailnow
So "at grade" is dangerous to school children? Is this it? "At grade" is dangerous, period! Has nothing to do with age of the victims or their respective intelligence. Case in point: Two women drive along and their car is caught on a track. They procede to walk the rest of the way. The track (at grade) was parallel to a concrete wall. Those two women had no way of knowing that wall would keep them from escaping the car now being dragged toward them. Has anything happened along the 'orange' line in the valley yet? That idea is a tragic accident waiting to happen. This kind of decision making occurs when people in charge do things half-assed and on-the-cheap! The city saves money while the people pay...with their lives. Are high schoolers smart enough to know, sure- that when you go up against a train, the train always wins? Accidents will happen. I mainly don't like "at grade" because it impedes intersecting traffic along its entire route. It is not the stuff of a modern city.

Accidents will happen. I mainly don't like "at grade" because it impedes intersecting traffic along its entire route. It is not the stuff of a modern city.

Actually, having slow auto traffic is the stuff of a modern city.

Oh and never been a problem around Blue Line schools?

That's just preying on the ignorance of people too lazy to use google.

How about since the mitigations were implemented? Those same mitigations that will be in place on the Expo Line.

Since the mitigations were implemented?

Which mitigation measures are you referencing and more importantly:

a) what evidence do you have that these unidentified mitigation measure would have prevented the accident?
b) if the mitigations themselves prevent accidents and deaths, then why do lines with far less safety mitigation measures kill a fraction of the people and are involved in a fraction of the number of accidents?

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j142/damienwg/Light-RailFatalitiesUSAToday.jpg

Take a look at just a few of the accidents that have occurred in just the past 18 months with the Blue Line that involved children and young adults:

Lavert Baker Jr (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/27/local/me-trainfatal27) entered the crossing BEFORE the gates came down, freaked out and turned just in time to be killed by a train that was carrying his closest sister. He was walking home from school:
“He was in the middle when the lights started blinking and the arms went down,” she said. She heard the train’s horn three times and saw the train slow as it approached the boy, who turned to look just before the train hit him.

Maxmiliana Gomez (http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:39YNbIYrCVEJ:www.cpuc.ca.gov/EFILE/MOTION/77267.pdf+maxmiliana+gomez&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a) ran across the street against the light either trying to make the train or run across traffic:
The Long Beach-bound light-rail train was unable to stop before striking 20-year-old Maxmiliana Gomez. The Blue Line driver stated that a group of three -- two males and Gomez -- attempted to run across the tracks in front of the train. The young woman was unsuccessful in her attempt and she was declared dead at the scene.

"Maxi Force Airbags" were used to extricate the body from underneath the train, which took an hour.

The accident delayed service on the downtown-to-Long-Beach line.

A 19 year old near Trade Tech (http://laist.com/2008/04/07/two_for_the_blu.php) was likely trying to do the same:
If a Metro Blue Line vs. pedestrian incident early this morning downtown at Grand Avenue and Washington Boulevard leaving a 19-year-old man in critical condition was not enough, then hear this.

And these are just the youth/youngster pedestrian deaths and accidents that were REPORTED just in the past 18 months, and can be found via google search. (You want to see the denied Public Records Act requests from Metro when I ask for the list of all accidents involving people under the age of 25?)

But I answered the mitigation claim a long time ago people just keep bringing it up as though I didn't.

The at-grade crossings without crossing gates, (21 of the 27 at-grade crossings on Expo Phase 1) are all median-running (Exposition Blvd east of Arlington to Figueroa and at Crenshaw), and side street running (Flower Street) and are identical to the median and side street running portions of the Blue Line and yes in those sections they've done all they can to mitigate it.

And again, what mitigation measure is supposed to prevent a kid from freaking out in the middle of a crossing when the arms and bells start to lower or a young adult from running across the street, likely to catch the train?

The reason the Blue Line is so deadly and accident-prone in comparison to it's peers were identified by MTA as environmental. They were identified in '98. These are MTA's own words (http://fixexpo.blogspot.com/2007/09/booz-allen-hamilton-study.html):
"One aspect of this study is to analyze those factors that may contribute to the MBL's high accident rate as compared to other light rail systems. There are several factors that contribute to the accident rate including:

"1. The MBL travels through a high population density area with a diverse varied social-economic community. The high density results in increased pedestrian and automobile traffic as compared to other transit properties. In addition, the communities through which the MBL travels requires special attention to language and literacy issues when disseminating public outreach and education information."

"2. The MBL traverses through an industrial center of Los Angeles. The industrial center results in increased trucking and shipping traffic near the MBL. The increased truck traffic results in increased driver frustration due to slower street traffic speeds. This frustration may result in increased crossing gate running and illegal left turns."

[snip]

"4. The MBL has one of the highest ridership counts for light rail lines in the Country. This factor is perhaps the most important contributor to the grade crossing accident rate. The high ridership results in increased pedestrian traffic near stations as compared to other light rail systems. In addition, although MTA Operations does not allow high passenger loads dictate safe operations, there is pressure to maintain travel times and headway schedule requirements (e.g., passenger trip from Los Angeles to Long Beach in less than one hour)."

These conditions are equal or more intense on the Expo Line. There's more anticipated ridership per mile. Worse vehicular traffic. A similar diverse ethnic population around the tracks. The question is, if you know these facts are you not willfully repeating proven mistakes by building a similar system.

And by the way you can't find anything that approaches the insanity of Farmdale anywhere on the entire Metro system.

So "at grade" is dangerous to school children? Is this it? "At grade" is dangerous, period! Has nothing to do with age of the victims or their respective intelligence.
Case in point: Two women drive along and their car is caught on a track. They procede to walk the rest of the way. The track (at grade) was parallel to a concrete wall. Those two women had no way of knowing that wall would keep them from escaping the car now being dragged toward them.
Has anything happened along the 'orange' line in the valley yet? That idea is a tragic accident waiting to happen. This kind of decision making occurs when people in charge do things half-assed and on-the-cheap! The city saves money while the people pay...with their lives.
Are high schoolers smart enough to know, sure- that when you go up against a train, the train always wins?
Accidents will happen. I mainly don't like "at grade" because it impedes intersecting traffic along its entire route. It is not the stuff of a modern city.

I think the bigger point is that a high-schooler or person can cross a track safely 1,000 times but it just takes one to end it all. Lavert Baker Jr walked across those tracks every day to and from school - likely MORE than 1,000 times, and he freaked out one day and now he's gone.

Also, the reality is it's not cheaper to the municipality, it's just a lower construction cost. But the construction cost is a fraction of the actual cost of the transport system and economy.

With at-grade rail there's a much higher maintenance cost, there's a cost to the economy from air pollution due to increased vehicle trips due to the crossing gate disruption, alteration of traffic signals (where there are no crossing gates), and closure of streets. The slower train traveling speeds mean fewer riders: a direct hit on the operator's cost (just look at the Gold Line's cost-per-passenger numbers vs. the Blue Line). Fewer riders mean fewer cars off the road, meaning limited development opportunities due to compensation for the necessary parking capacity. There's a cost to government for adding to the road capacity again to compensate for the riders who aren't getting out of their cars. The additional road capacity is also needed to compensate for the additional vehicle delay.

I could go on. And I haven't even entered the realm of diminished property value for those DIRECTLY along the right of way due to noise and vibration (see the 50 lawsuits along the Gold Line) and lost community cohesion, and the legal liability of these crossings given the established record stating accidents and deaths are certain.

But to answer your question, yes there were a lot of accidents with the San Fernando Valley busway pictured in your post (I refuse to dignify it with a color!) But there are several distinctions between buses and 225-ton light rail trains among them shorter breaking distance, the ability to curve to avoid/lessen impacts, lighter vehicles.

i was just reading this thread at random. at grade rail can work, just not in a large, already congested city like los angeles.

when people visit... portland, or some mid sized german city, marvel at the quaintness of the tram cars, and expect the same to work in los angeles, they're wrong.

i'll use portland as an example since it's held up (for many good reasons) as a beacon for the little that's right about current day domestic urban planning. portland would benefit if its max system were tunneled through downtown. it would be a lot faster, allow for longer trains, it would absolutely not have to deal with traffic tie ups, right hand turns, etc.

the downside, is that the initial costs are higher, AND at-grade is more easily accessible. while the initial costs are indeed higher, a fully grade separated system does compensate (see above). accessibility is a strange issue. there's no reason to have grade separated public transit in a smaller center. but in large cities like los angeles, riders will have to go down/up a flight of stairs in exchange for a much faster commute.

i was just reading this thread at random. at grade rail can work, just not in a large, already congested city like los angeles.

when people visit... portland, or some mid sized german city, marvel at the quaintness of the tram cars, and expect the same to work in los angeles, they're wrong.

i'll use portland as an example since it's held up (for many good reasons) as a beacon for the little that's right about current day domestic urban planning. portland would benefit if its max system were tunneled through downtown. it would be a lot faster, allow for longer trains, it would absolutely not have to deal with traffic tie ups, right hand turns, etc.

the downside, is that the initial costs are higher, AND at-grade is more easily accessible. while the initial costs are indeed higher, a fully grade separated system does compensate (see above). accessibility is a strange issue. there's no reason to have grade separated public transit in a smaller center. but in large cities like los angeles, riders will have to go down/up a flight of stairs in exchange for a much faster commute.

The reality is, as contentious as this issue is, almost everyone except for the "streetcar lovers" agree. (Mind you I'm not saying a streetcar wouldn't work in some portions of the city, Downtown in particular, but Expo sure as heck is NOT a streetcar system.) Almost everyone I know rolls their eyes when people insinuate that the streetcar system Los Angeles had back when Century City was a studio backlot or that the solutions to Los Angeles' transportation problems would look anything like a city like Portland or Phoenix. They'd be laughed out of town if someone went to LADOT and suggested such a thing.

Simply, there are reason people like the Asst. General Manager of LADOT has said, "I think all rail should be grade separated." As a student and advocate of rail transit, I don't dismiss such comments from people in such high positions easily.

But there's this defeatist attitude that at-grade is the best we can do given the political conditions. In my opinion, there's a lot of problems with that mindset, namely we constantly underestimate at-grade system construction cost and the final product actually becomes cost-competitive with grade separated systems, but initially that cost is political dismissed as too expensive when projects are approved. If people were told back in 2005 that the eventual Expo Line would come in at 2 - 2.2 billion, what are the chances it ever would have been approved?

There is only one reason to build 10 miles of at-grade rail instead of 5 miles of grade separated rail: it's a big region with a lot of unmet need. Our politicians consider these lines at best feathers in their caps and others are actually blowing smoke up everyone's butt claiming the slow systems will actually relieve traffic. To make an impact on urban traffic hundreds of thousands of drivers need to be taken off the street. Not a few. Yes people will ride it. I'm not saying they won't. I'm saying my definition of success isn't just ridership - it's the number of cars taken off the road. It is not until you free-up that roadway capacity, by providing that competitive travel time system that you can be given an environment to successfully implement the smart growth policies (widened sidewalks, bike lanes, vehicle lane drops, increased density) without screwing up things even worse.

Nonetheless, if there is unmet need, new resources are required. But it's rather nonsensical to think the way to grow the pot and bring projects online faster is by pushing a mode (at-grade rail) that will always find pretty well founded opposition - at least in our immediate metro area. (Whether the opposition is reported or not, or leads to legal/political efforts is completely dependent on the resources of the communities impacted. Indeed it is comical to think people in my community didn't express reservations before the bull-bulldozers started rolling, a fact that is clearly disputed by just looking at some of the old EIRs and the eventual EIR.)

I began this research by first committing myself to ignoring all of the B.S. I was told about people's personalities and frankly being unafraid of being called a "NIMBY," perhaps because, I don't know, I've been out of junior high school for over a decade now so I stopped carrying about whether I could sit at the cool kids table during lunch, and in fact a lot of the kids at the table aren't cool at all. :)

As has been revealed in this discussion, said NIMBY communities often present very legitimate arguments (traffic impacts, accidents, speed, life cycle cost, alternative options), but a side that wishes to not confront those arguments, in large part because they are legitimate, can only successfully get the issues ignored by getting people to focus on the most ridiculous ones (I don't want those people in my backyard).

Just look at how people attempt to diminish my credibility on this issue by insinuating that I'm running for office. (Oh no, he can't possibly be aided by facts and documents, here's the REAL reason.)

The consensus indeed the voters are for grade separation. People don't get up in the politics of transit, they see the big picture: traffic. Crossing gates that are down 40-75 seconds, or having trains stop at red lights, or taking roadway capacity in this environment is a tough sell to the masses - hell it's a tough sell to TRANSIT ADVOCATES!

Give the people a system they believe actually works, goes where people actually want to go and the resources problem takes care of itself. And the irony of course, as stated with Get LA Moving, is the greater the amount to put down the lower the capital cost (economies of scale).

Regarding the accessibility issue, the one advantage with established rights-of-way like Expo is that you have the space for shallow stations. Here's the picture of the Memorial Park open-cut station in Old Town Pasadena:

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii205/fixexpo/MemorialPark8.jpg

The actual number of steps a rider has to take to reach the platform from the street is nearly the same as would be necessary if the station were at-grade.

Additional, such shallow open-cut stations (which often cost the fraction of the cost of full deep cut-and-cover stations) are not possible down Wilshire, but are on an established right-of-way. In general I'm in favor of shallow stations, whether cut-and-cover or open-cut for the same accessibility reason.

Damien, I'm not so surprised that you don't post at TTC message boards anymore. Did Darrell and Gokhan run you out of town?

Also, you did just as I expected. You don't give actual numbers for recent accidents, you only bring up specific examples. Not very surprised.

Decreased property values? With light rail? Not in this country. In fact, all of your arguments against light rail sound like the very real arguments against freeways. Light rail brings communities together, bring some attention to the community, increases pedestrian activity (especially at-grade rail). I guess you'd rather use unfounded statements.

The Blue Line has higher ridership than the Gold Line because of speed? So then according to you, the Blue Line has a higher average speed. Right? Strange that the only light rail line that exceeds the Gold Line in speed in our Metro system is the Green Line. So that means that the Blue Line is slower.

Higher pollution because of light-rail? So we'll blame the train that produces no pollution for extra congestion caused by the cars that produce a lot of pollution. That makes a lot of sense.

But there's this defeatist attitude that at-grade is the best we can do given the political conditions.

There are a lot of advantages with at-grade rail that you ignore when you make statements such as these.

To make an impact on urban traffic hundreds of thousands of drivers need to be taken off the street. Not a few.

The best way to do that is with better city planning (increasing density and traffic and providing the infrastructure for more efficient means of transport). A few rail lines will not fix that (look at New York, a ton of rail lines, but still a lot of sprawl and heavy car dependence outside of Manhattan). The problem is our heavy car dependence, and it will take more than rail lines to fix that. You're making it seem as though at-grade rail is hindering our efforts to lessen our car dependence. On the contrary, it is actually better than grade-separated rail for this effort because it slows down traffic and is very attractive.

This is very enjoyable to read. Damien thanx again for stopping by and I hope the "Gohkan's" and the "Darrell's" of the transit world stop by as well. Many of us who post on this board are very young or either in school already studying some branch of Urban Planning. We will be the people 10 or 20 years from now making the decisions of whether the Yellow and Silver Lines will be aerial, submerged or at grade. I hope that more of our top transit advocates in the city stop by to say their piece.

You know, though I browse these boards a lot and am interested in this issue, the huge hullabaloo surrounding this line has often confused me. I feel like I showed up in year four of a five year argument.

My outsider impressions from the last year go like this (I've waffled on this issue a few times):
1. I generally think grade-separated rail is always better than at-grade rail even in situations where it looks like it doesn't make financial sense (because wait twenty years and you'll be glad you built infrastructure that can last forever). If I were dictator for life, I'd choose subways for places where it made no economic sense because I assume it will someday.

2. Looking at the pictures of the Farmdale/Exposition crossing, I don't understand why this is considered a particularly bad spot for at-grade crossing. It's not even a stop light. It's stop signs.

3. I find myself agreeing with both sides a lot, but I think the central thing that makes this conflict get out of control is the claim of environmental racism. I'm not one to just dismiss things like this, but I think it's a claim that was necessary for the lawsuit to go forward that is simply unfair. There are a ton of valid reasons to push to make the line somehow run separated at more intersections and valid reasons why that isn't possible, but looking at the pictures of this intersection and listening to these arguments for a year, I really don't buy the idea that this is racism trying to shove a commuter line down an ethnically diverse community's throat.

It's a messy issue because in any discussion of safety for a train line you essentially have to assume fatalities, and so the question becomes are you saying a certain accident rate is okay because statistically it's the best you can do or for some other reason? Personally, I think this train line would've been designed this way no matter the ethnic background of the people nearby, and that leaves the other arguments against it, which make a ton of sense (speed, ridership, safety, etc.), but which are not capable at this time of reopening the decision making process for the line and which the city officials have already weighed and decided do not outweigh the benefits for the communities involved and the extra costs associated.

To sum up a long ramble, in my dumb opinion, protesting the decision is probably the right thing to do if you think it's a bad decision that can be fixed (which is again debatable based on how much extra money you think they can scare up, my gut says not enough money) or if it's actually something that will be a huge disaster and is better off not happening than happening the way it will. I think that the racism issue was brought up to generate a lawsuit and I think it's going to needlessly pit members of the community against a project that when completed, most will find really useful and a major improvement for the area.

I'm not sure how this loose opinion characterizes me, but I'd guess it puts me into the category of "thinks the problems with this line are the same problems faced by lines everywhere and not out of step with other projects."

One more random aside, I do really disagree with people referring to people who get hit by trains as idiots or making it an intelligence issue. Sometimes when something really stupid happens that gets a person killed, we have to look at it and make a judgment on how likely the accident was to occur and what should or should not be done about it. I myself, have found blue line stops, for instance Pico when you're going to a Laker game, where I found myself in awkward, possibly dangerous positions because of bad design and too many people on too crowded a street with not enough space and bad signs. Hopefully every crossing on the at-grade lines we build can be held to a high standard and made as safely as possible to avoid crap like that.

Damien, I'm not so surprised that you don't post at TTC message boards anymore. Did Darrell and Gokhan run you out of town?

Tony, why the heightened focus on the personal? You've just been presented with several arguments by people other than myself. Why not engage them and defend your position? Check the junior high school nany-nany-nany at the door if you can, and lets talk about your arguments, among them light rail is good because "it slows down traffic."

That statement allows me to begin this post on a positive note, because I agree, at-grade light rail in Los Angeles will worsen traffic. :) But if you're an at-grade rail advocate, I caution you to keep this one quiet, because I think you're going to have a tough time building an at-grade network by asking voters to spend billions on transportation projects to slow down traffic! In fact I think in the history of rail transit, I don't think ANYONE has EVER stated that we should build a rail project to slow down traffic.

Aside from the new territory your argument presents, there's the reality that Los Angeles' planning and traffic problems present. We're a region where people live in Paramount, because they can't afford the rents to live close to their good paying jobs in Manhattan Beach. We have long-trip commutes (the Expo corridor in particular), and lots of economic/jobs centers. The need is to commute between these centers quickly, thus it seems counter-intuitive to suggest that the way to address this problem is by building a system that makes these regional commutes longer. That additional commute time comes at a cost: lost productivity and additional congestion, which has impacts on air quality among others. Our air quality dollars go towards transportation projects to improve not worsen our air.

But understand this light rail system especially between Vermont and 7th Avenue cuts the Jefferson Park community in half with the street closures. Have you driven Exposition since the K-rails have been put up? All of those streets now closed off are intended to be permanently closed off not just to vehicular traffic but to pedestrian traffic. 8 closed off streets in just a little over 1.5 miles. This is a highly residential community, it's being cut in half. Walks across the street are being turned into half-mile endeavors.

And for the residential community west of 7th Ave, go to google maps and see the portion of the Expo Line between Crenshaw and Farmdale. People currently walk across the right-of-way to see neighbors on the other side of the track. No more with Expo. People who want to walk to Rancho Cienega Park from the east/northeast now have to literally walk 0.5 mile because access there is being cut off.

It's not what most people consider "bringing a community together."

I and others believe the division actually harms development opportunities by forcing people that would have otherwise walked to drive. And that drive requires more roadway and parking capacity, and those additional vehicular trips mean more congestion and more air pollution.

Even if you want to argue that the increased congestion will lead to higher ridership (the "Make it worse for everyone to push them onto transit" argument), on this corridor in particular a lot of the major destinations are a mile or more away from the stations. They require transfers to buses, which...will be caught up in the additional congestion.

As I think people can see by reading the above paragraphs, there are reasons no one openly admits that light rail slowing down traffic is a good thing, especially when there's not a transport system alternative that maintains or improves commute times (that's the major difference with New York, which you cite in your post, and what we're doing here.)

Regarding the attractive statement, that's one opinion and you're entitled to it. I and others are of the opinion that a parkway/bikeway above the right-of-way with a train operating in a tunnel below is actually far more attractive. :)

And yes, there is diminished property value at the properties that are directly adjacent to the tracks. These are the homes/properties that are the buffer to the noise and vibration. As I said above over 50 lawsuits have already been filed along the Gold Line. (You might want to read some of these documents: link (http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/proceedings/C0610015.htm).) Incidentally, as anyone who has ridden the Blue Line through Watts, Willowbrook and Compton knows, the only reason they haven't been filed around the Blue Line is because those communities are likely too poor and underrepresented to do the same. Then again, that doesn't mean lawsuits haven't been filed (LACTC said the Blue Line noise level would be 64 dbs in places they're 94 dbs!), but if they are claims, they're not reported. Again Tony, you're probably confusing this line and light rail in this city with something that has been or was built elsewhere.

But here's the even bigger point, are you arguing that property values wouldn't increase with the line in a tunnel?

And all I present are anecdotes? That's a joke right? www.FixExpo.org (http://www.fixexpo.org) is filled with data - probably too much data.

From a Fix Expo post just in November (http://fixexpo.blogspot.com/2007/11/parks-defends-blue-line-accidents.html):
There have been 172 accidents and 28 deaths on the Blue in the past 5 years, and over 796 accidents and 88 deaths in the 17 years of operation. The low over that span of time was 27 in 2005, and the high was 40 in 2004.

-In the post above in this thread I cite the graph that shows the number of fatalities for the first 12 years of operation.

-I've stated repeatedly that over a dozen youths and young adults have been injured and killed in accidents with the Blue Line. The number is likely actually far greater, but Metro won't give me their accident reports. I pointed to some of those accidents in the above post.

-The Reply Brief and Motion for Reconsideration both of which are linked on the FixExpo.org website are filled with data, including the fact that 76% of the then 790 accidents on the Blue Line occurred in the median and side-street running portions that are identical to the Flower Street and Exposition Blvd portion (east of Arlington).

I'm nothing if not thorough Tony.

And no I did NOT state that the Blue Line has higher ridership just because of speed. What I did say is that fewer riders on that system have lead to a higher operating costs. The Gold Line has its own set of problems.

Regarding Darrell Clarke and Gohkan Esirgen, I've made a decision that I have better things to do with my time than waste it on those who continually lie/spin in the case of Darrell, and those who hide behind the anonymity of the internet to lob personal attacks, but never say a word in person in the case of Gohkan. They're running a propaganda campaign, not a debate, that's clear. They can have fun without me.

But in case you were wondering, the tipping point were these two issues:

1) Darrell's claim that area directly adjacent to the Expo tracks in Culver City is actually non-white.

This is a claim both refuted by common sense by any person who knows the area, but also the census tracts data itself. Add up the block group level data Caucasian population (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-CONTEXT=dt&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P004&-tree_id=4001&-redoLog=true&-all_geo_types=N&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=15000US060377024001&-geo_id=15000US060377024002&-geo_id=15000US060377024003&-geo_id=15000US060377024004&-geo_id=15000US060377024005&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en) and you come up with 1959 people, which is about 704 less than the number of white people identified in the census tract data (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=14000US06037702400&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US06%7C05000US06037%7C16000US0617568%7C86000US90232%7C14000US06037702400&_street=hayden+ave&_county=&_cityTown=culver+city&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=search_by_address&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=050&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=). I call it the vanishing 700 white folk. :)

But if that's not enough, it's clear he's uninterested in the facts, so he deliberately pushes the spin given that he continues to purport it even AFTER someone referenced even more recent and conclusive data that shows that the area is majority-Caucasian (http://transittalk.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=expoline&action=display&thread=74&page=12#5199):

Darrell, You may want to find more up to date numbers than the 2000 Census. My wife is a Demographer with an expertise in Los Angeles and has said that neighborhood had its make up changed radically in the past 8 years. We live on the other side of Culver City and have felt the effects of the city's redevelopment strategy which is to gentrify the Neighborhoods, as evidenced by the harassment of the homies on our street by CCPD.

He followed-up with more specifics and anecdotal evidence stating he actually lives near the community (http://transittalk.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=expoline&action=display&thread=74&page=13#5205)

Outside of the Decennial Census, there are many companies that collect data (Census, ACS, Yearly Pop Estimates and other sources) and model population, demographics etc. at a very minute level. This data is used by people like my wife for specific businesses and/or city planning purposes and for very good reasons (depite her own feelings about public transportation, which is why I still love her) she refused to let me quote real numbers directly here. But also note that the data can be admissible in a court of law.

The reason I questioned your numbers in the first place is not because I happen to have a data fairy on hand, but I know the neighborhood. 2 years ago we were looking to live there and lost out on several apartments because we were not quick enough and we have several friends who now live within the boundaries of your map. Next time you're at Surfas, Fathers Office, Beacon Etc. go across the street in to that neighborhood I believe you will find the change and the various shades of blue, pink and orange hair dye is noticeable.

When people are told the facts they're presenting are not facts at all yet they continue to push them, well those are people are not worth arguing.

2) Darrell's claim that "modern" light rail just isn't built in a tunnel.

First, Darrell's claim that light rail wasn't totally grade separated. Then myself and others pointed to several systems that were.

Darrell's response was to claim that modern light rail wasn't grade separated. Then myself and others pointed to modern systems that were.

Darrell's most recent claim was reduced down to "modern light rail isn't constructed in a tunnel" and that the feds don't pay for that. Then I pointed a light rail system in a tunnel currently under constructed being funded by the federal government (http://transittalk.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=expoline&action=display&thread=70#5607):
Shall we turn our attention to the Seattle University Link LRT project.

Wouldn't you know it's a "modern light rail line" that is ... wait for it: IN A BORED TUNNEL!

The feds are executing a $750 million dollar match for the $1.8 billion dollar 3.1 mile University Link, which primarily due to topography, crossing a river, really deep stations, etc. has a substantially greater per mile cost than a grade separated Expo Phase 1. It's over $500 million a mile, yet the feds are funding this MODERN LIGHT RAIL LINE that is in an extended tunnel.

He responded to that post, as he did the others, including one pointing to the Buffalo light rail line built primarily in a tunnel in the "modern light rail area" but has he stopped his ridiculous straw man argument. Absolutely not! Here's his spin from just a couple of days ago (http://transittalk.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=expoline&action=display&thread=74&page=17#5784):

"below grade, which includes the possibility of trench or tunnel (bored or cut-and-cover) or some combination thereof, from Trousdale to La Brea with cost-efficient open cut stations", has never been built in the 30 years of modern U.S. light rail."

Darrell Clarke is leading a propaganda campaign plain and simple, not an actual debate. By repeating the same spin over and over again, he hopes he can eventually transform the spin into "facts" and create some rebuttal to the opposing arguments, which are far more persuasive to the masses than his. I have better things to do with my time. So yes, I'm done explaining why an area that is clearly majority-white is majority-white, light rail at 55 mph has vibration impacts, Ballona Creek is not in South LA, at-grade is not as safe as grade separated rail, among other ridiculous things I've had to waste my time explaining in the face of Darrell Clarke's spin.

And regarding Gohkan, I'll begin responding him when he actually begins stating the vitriol he spews online vocally and publicly at the many meetings he attends. I've completely stopped reading his posts, because I'm just not going to dignify people who hide behind the anonymity of the internet with my attention or a response. Like I said above, I've been out of jr. high school for over a decade now.

I don't even know where to begin. Now rail lines DIVIDE communities?

I find myself agreeing with both sides a lot, but I think the central thing that makes this conflict get out of control is the claim of environmental racism. I'm not one to just dismiss things like this, but I think it's a claim that was necessary for the lawsuit to go forward that is simply unfair. There are a ton of valid reasons to push to make the line somehow run separated at more intersections and valid reasons why that isn't possible, but looking at the pictures of this intersection and listening to these arguments for a year, I really don't buy the idea that this is racism trying to shove a commuter line down an ethnically diverse community's throat.

The environmental justice argument is just one of many, and racism is not a word I toss around lightly. But it is what it is.

The statement of Fix Expo is this and only this: the safety hazards and adverse impacts of Expo Line PHASE 1 (and Expo Line Phase 1 alone) are being imposed disproportionately on majority-minority and/or low-income populations that are not being imposed on the one Caucasian middle-to-upper class community in which EXPO LINE PHASE 1 passes through.

I completely agree, Metro will screw anyone they can. But in this case, in the process of bowing to Culver City's JUSTIFIED pressure, the end product was one that violates environmental justice laws.

And I wasn't the first one to bring up the topic of environmental justice on Expo. Heck, I'm not even the most prominent one. Take a look at Burke's motion in 2001 in response to the Draft EIR (pdf (http://www.expocommunities.com/info/burke_ej_motion.pdf)):
I remain quite concerned over the issues of Environmental Justice reflected in the mitigation and safety issues along the Exposition corridor.


It only gets better from there.

In full disclosure, those comments were directed to a full Expo to Santa Monica with a Sepulveda-Venice diversion, that at the time had no grade separation at La Brea or Figueroa, but the principles being espoused are the same as those being stated today.

The focus of Rancho Park/Cheviot Hills simply shifted to west of La Cienega/Culver City when the Expo Line project was stopped at Culver City and at-grade crossings at Jefferson/National and Washington/National were changed to elevated.

I don't even know where to begin. Now rail lines DIVIDE communities?

Well first of all, the concept of a rail line dividing a community is nothing new, but that's just an interesting fact.

But I didn't say "rail lines divide communities?" I did say that this rail line divides this community. And I cited as my basis the closure of streets and erection of walls and fences.

Spend 5 seconds on Google maps and take into account that the only streets that people will be able to cross between Vermont and Farmdale are:
-Raymond
-Halldale
-Normandie
-Denker
-Western
-Gramercy Place
-Arlington (crossing gates)
-7th Ave (crossing gates)
-11th Ave (crossing gates)
-Crenshaw
-Buckingham (crossing gates)
-Farmdale (crossing gates)

And at some of these streets left turns/U-turns will not be permitted in some directions.

Wisconsin, Catalina, Budlong, La Salle, Harvard, Hobart, 2nd Ave and 3rd Ave will never be allowed to cross the tracks again.

If you're closing off streets and putting up walls and fences where there are currently none, forcing commuters who once could just walk across the street now trek on a 0.5-mile journey, are you claiming that's not division, that there is no loss to community cohesion?

The statement of Fix Expo is this and only this: the safety hazards and adverse impacts of Expo Line PHASE 1 (and Expo Line Phase 1 alone) are being imposed disproportionately on majority-minority and/or low-income populations that are not being imposed on the one Caucasian middle-to-upper class community in which EXPO LINE PHASE 1 passes through.

Completely ignoring Expo Phase II.

As for this light rail line dividing the community, there's not really that big of an impact it seems. This is a highly residential area as you say and as such pedestrian activity is at a minimum (going by worldwide standards). Still though, arguing for more crosswalks would be much more worthwhile than arguing for a whole trench. But in this median-running section, which would you be more worried about: the train or the cars?

Slow down traffic; provide options other than auto travel; increase density through mixed-use developments (and more parks). This is a much more sustainable form of development than building on the fringe, but it is not possible with auto-dominance. Doing this will require that cars begin to be expelled from the city. I know that many would disagree with me, of course, but they still see the car as the only way to travel. A little education can go a long way. Either way, Expo won't diminish capacity of those roads, but I would assume that just by having light-rail in the median you will slow down traffic. This will increase the efficiency of travel on those roads and decrease pollution along that route (and people trying to make turns from a residential street will find a new path instead of waiting all the time to make that turn.

You know as well as I do that at-grade would increase property values just as much as grade separated. And I think that Boston and San Diego would say that property values would increase, despite that horrible noise and vibrations. It's just unbearable isn't it! :nuts: You're not going to get any sympathy from me on that issue; I lived next to a freeway for 15 years. That's with heavy pollution, real noise (very easy to get used to), etc.

"And regarding Gohkan, I'll begin responding him when he actually begins stating the vitriol he spews online vocally and publicly at the many meetings he attends. I've completely stopped reading his posts, because I'm just not going to dignify people who hide behind the anonymity of the internet with my attention or a response. Like I said above, I've been out of jr. high school for over a decade now."

So that makes his points less valid?

Wisconsin, Catalina, Budlong, La Salle, Harvard, Hobart, 2nd Ave and 3rd Ave will never be allowed to cross the tracks again.
they shouldnt be crossing Expo to begin with from those streets there are no Ped-Xing.

Not only that, limited ped activity on those streets. So how much of a true affect is this "wall" or "fence" gonna have?

And no theres still no division in the community or is LACMTA building a Berlin Wall that i dont know about.

People cant walk anymore?

Theres no issue here.

Oh did I mention j-walking a 2-way street(expo) is much more dangerous than a controlled at grade train crossing?

Wisconsin, Catalina, Budlong, La Salle, Harvard, Hobart, 2nd Ave and 3rd Ave will never be allowed to cross the tracks again.



If this is indeed the case I think that Metro should be forced to create pedestrian crossings.....but what happened to the bike path and greenway adjoining Expo? I thought it would be like our Orange BRT line which has increased pedestrian activity for that area.

So this means that Raymond, Halldale, Dalton, Denker, 7th, Buckingham, and Farmdale will all be retained?

I invite everyone to look at this with Google Maps and try to decide for yourself how large the impact of these street closures will be.

they shouldnt be crossing Expo to begin with from those streets there are no Ped-Xing.

Not only that, limited ped activity on those streets. So how much of a true affect is this "wall" or "fence" gonna have?

And no theres still no division in the community or is LACMTA building a Berlin Wall that i dont know about.

People cant walk anymore?

Theres no issue here.

Oh did I mention j-walking a 2-way street(expo) is much more dangerous than a controlled at grade train crossing?

I'm sorry BEATSLIM, but there's way too many inaccuracies reported as truth.

First, those are...or I should say were legal pedestrian crossings. There were never "don't cross" signs at these intersections. Just because a cross walk isn't marked doesn't make it jaywalking. Every street corner in the state of California is a legal pedestrian crossing location.

Second, the statement that there's no pedestrian activity in this area has been made without any justification whatsoever. Where's it coming from?

Third, it's sad that I actually have to bring in an illustration to make this point, but alas, here you go:

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii205/fixexpo/Wisconsin-Budlong.jpg

Those are three streets (Wisconsin, Catalina and Budlong) that before Expo, people and vehicles could cross the tracks, but no longer can. There's the picture of a car making a left at Budlong in the picture! I just don't see how one could claim that closing them off would not harm community cohesion.

The statement was made that this line is bringing communities together. I'm stating it's dividing it. Are you and Tony really arguing that putting up walls and fences and closing off legal crossings on a street that is completely residential on both sides (with completely residential streets behind the streets) is not dividing the community?

Does it really require a white paper to explain that people live on one side of the tracks, but have neighbors, friends and family members on the other side of the tracks? Geez Louise!

And yes, when tens of thousands of cars and thousands of pedestrians every day are rerouted to intersections whose cycles have been altered primarily for the worse there is a significant individual and cumulative impact.

And there are a lot of ways of making a crossing safer that don't involve adding a train to it!

I invite everyone to look at this with Google Maps and try to decide for yourself how large the impact of these street closures will be.

Vehicular and pedestrian the impacts are great.

Here's an example of the impacts of driving from Raymond/39th to Raymond/37th:

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii205/fixexpo/trafficdiversion.jpg

The commute that was possible before Expo is in blue. The only options now are shown in aqua, red and green.

As you can see, in general the result is vehicle diversions to already overburdened major north-south streets that now have to deal with increased congestion at intersections that are already being stretched with longer traffic cycles to compensate for the new train. The increased left turns (and U-turns) where possible, mean longer left turn cycles, which equals more vehicular delay and/or longer turning lanes, which = less parking capacity.

And anyone that wants to see the impact could have gone to this section in the morning while all the schools were in session and seen the traffic on the streets: GRIDLOCK!

If this is indeed the case I think that Metro should be forced to create pedestrian crossings.....but what happened to the bike path and greenway adjoining Expo? I thought it would be like our Orange BRT line which has increased pedestrian activity for that area.

Well the reason they close the crossings is because they want to eliminate the opportunities for accidents. It's a give and take and the problem with at-grade rail. And the reality is it just leads to more traffic diversions to the signalized crossings. The diversions and traffic impact in general lead to frustrated and impatient drivers, who are thereby more inclined to engage in risk-taking driving increasing the probability of car-car, car-train and car-pedestrian accidents.

Where they can fit trees they do. There is a bike path along the entire route. West of Arlington there's more space on the right-of-way to create a SFV busway type of foliage.

Completely ignoring Expo Phase II.

Expo Phase 2 EIR hasn't even been approved, adopted or built! And I think it's quite a stretch to think even when all the work is done, Phase 2 in the form currently presented could ever make it through the courts. They've been screwing up since day one - back to their statements that Venice Blvd was too narrow to fit at-grade tracks. Incidentally, the threat of legal challenge is why Culver City had a leg to negotiate on and the end product looked very different from the one proposed in the DEIR.

Nonetheless, the FTA and courts can only evaluate those projects that are actually approved.

But in this median-running section, which would you be more worried about: the train or the cars?

Can't one be worried about both! The difference is Metro can spend a few hundred million and completely eliminate the concern about one, and have mitigation measures to lower the concerns about the other.

Here's my question: if you could eliminate damn near all car accidents by just investing 30-40% more in the roadway infrastructure, who would actually be against it?

You know as well as I do that at-grade would increase property values just as much as grade separated.

So you think living next to a set of tracks with trains coming 240 times a day, with regular noise disruption and vibration does not have an adverse impact on property values?

You see, the discussion about property values and light rail often blends the data of those properties outside the immediate impact area, with those in the immediate impact area. Did you click on the link I provided with the references to the damages and impacts on properties near the Gold Line? None of these things would have occurred with a below grade Gold Line.

So that makes his points less valid?

I wouldn't know any of his recent points, I've stopped reading him. I do know that when I was wasting my time by reading him, he was making completely unfounded statements and predictions and I and others were suggesting he correct himself pointing to rather conclusive information as the basis, yet he never would.

For example, he was misinterpreting Metro's grade crossing policy and predicting grade separations at Phase 2 crossings I was telling him there wouldn't be any, and I was cautioning him against making any presumptions before Metro came down with their determinations. Who has been proven right? Me. Has he corrected himself? Absolutely not - just take a look at the Expo wikipedia page.

Also, he and Darrell continue to profess that Expo Phase 1 will be about 25-33% faster than the most optimistic calculation that's come out of Metro. And purposefully misrepresents our position and events, makes unfounded and inaccurate insinuations that aren't at all necessary to debate this issue.

Frankly, I have no desire to waste time debating grown men acting like children. He's trying to turn this issue into a Jerry Springer show and I'd much rather just change the channel and ignore him.

If that's Exposition Blvd. in the above, then the median now reserved for a buffer zone complete with palms can be used for mass transit. Elevate it, or submerge it. With the current mode of elevated transport, unfortunately you'll have the noise associated with aluminum cars on steel frames on steel track. That looked like a nice neighborhood and I wouldn't want to impose that kind of racket on it. If it were quieter, then I would choose the 'el' option. Too bad we're at least 15 years prior to solar fed elevated maglev transit. Let's just keep that to the amusement parks for now:ohno: Subterranean pathways are ideal in that they DON"T INTERFERE WITH SUFACE STREET TRAFFIC. Whether it's pedestrian or vehicular. Do you see any freeways at surface street level? Why would any seperate mode of transportation be any different? A shallow trench approach would be a mess in a residential area like the one above because there will be sewer systems, flood runoff systems and utilities that may be buried at that level that will have to be re-routed- or am I wrong about that? So, 60 feet down looks like the way to go for Exposition Boulevard. Start taxin' :)

Expo Phase 2 EIR hasn't even been approved, adopted or built! And I think it's quite a stretch to think even when all the work is done, Phase 2 in the form currently presented could ever make it through the courts. They've been screwing up since day one - back to their statements that Venice Blvd was too narrow to fit at-grade tracks. Incidentally, the threat of legal challenge is why Culver City had a leg to negotiate on and the end product looked very different from the one proposed in the DEIR.

So then Metro's standard grade crossing policy (which was applied in Expo Phase I) will not be used the same way in Expo Phase II?

Here's my question: if you could eliminate damn near all car accidents by just investing 30-40% more in the roadway infrastructure, who would actually be against it?

I would and for a few reasons. We already spend enough on road infrastructure, the auto has had priority in this city for long enough. It's time to start focusing on other methods of transport. Also, spending more will not eliminate all car accidents. There will be stupid drivers always. The only way to eliminate car accidents is to eliminate any traffic.

So you think living next to a set of tracks with trains coming 240 times a day, with regular noise disruption and vibration does not have an adverse impact on property values?

You're exaggerating the vibrations (and why would there be any less with a trench?) and the noise is not that great especially since that can be mitigated.

I wouldn't know any of his recent points, I've stopped reading him. I do know that when I was wasting my time by reading him, he was making completely unfounded statements and predictions and I and others were suggesting he correct himself pointing to rather conclusive information as the basis, yet he never would.

You also completely stopped posting at TTC message boards, and there was much more going on there than just Gokhan and Darrell.

Milquey, we shouldn't be following the example of freeways for how we build our rail lines. Those have been a great scourge on our city and they are a completely different animal.

You're saying that elevated or subterranean rail is better for community cohesion and looks more visually appealing? What about the Gold Line through Pasadena or the Blue Line through Long Beach?

My hometown is the only city I know that propels it's citizenry with the latest, cutting edge technology (like magnetic propulsion), but only at its amusement parks- for fun!

At first I thought you ment Vegas. Which if that was the case, I would've loled hard seeing as how the Vegas monorail costs 5 dollars one way, doesn't go anywere it should, breaks down alot, and is never used. More people use the free monorail between NYNY/Luxor/Mandalay Bay.

Milquey, we shouldn't be following the example of freeways for how we build our rail lines. Those have been a great scourge on our city and they are a completely different animal.

You're saying that elevated or subterranean rail is better for community cohesion and looks more visually appealing? What about the Gold Line through Pasadena or the Blue Line through Long Beach?
I really don't know about the particulars of the problems with enacting comprehensive mass transit in a vast metropolitan area with this many chiefs in charge. The freeway system has served very well and I consider the system responsible for the standing Los Angeles enjoys today however, those days are gone. Gone are the days when everyone can use the freeways by themselves, alone in their own car. I'm not even thinking aout the physical infrastructure of the argument. All I know is that it is smarter to seperate the different modes of transportation and to keep the systems independent of each other, on different physical planes and self sustaining; meaning: The systems should not be allowed to share infrastructure to the point where they rely on the other's energy or signaling capabilities. I don't see how Damien thinks that "at grade" systems are competitively cost effective in construction, when it is obviously cheaper to build on the ground as opposed to above or below it, but "at grade" costruction allows the possibility of two objects occupying the same space at the same time- and that's a no-no in the physical realm :)At first I thought you ment Vegas. Which if that was the case, I would've loled hard seeing as how the Vegas monorail costs 5 dollars one way, doesn't go anywere it should, breaks down alot, and is never used. More people use the free monorail between NYNY/Luxor/Mandalay Bay.
Whenever I drive by on The Strip I look for that! Sleek, black and moves fairly well, and I like the elevated support structure. Like a heavy duty park ride! :)

Phattonez, I'm going to assume, is an advocate for mass transportation in the city and county and could care less about people and their cars, which is commendable. At grade transportation like the various (Blue Line, Expo Line, Orange Line..) is something he thinks is a do-able undertaking, and would benefit the areas where it will appear regardless of its intersecting and transecting nature. Damien is obviously a political advocate for safety issues regarding such transportation. Child safety, neighborhood and environmental impact and quality of life issues? At what capacity do you work for or against the city or county, Damien?

well i would just like to say that it nice to hear at least someone opposed to the expo line. i still want it built though. but everything needs a good discussion before it can go forward. meaning that you must hear all sides whether for or against the project. so thanks damian for your input and opinions they are greatly appreciated. i will look forward to hearing the pro and cons for expo II in about 5-6 years.

i know the question has already been answered, but im to lazy to read all the info that is in damiens links, and on this forum, so damian what other alternative do you propose for the exposition area?
a bus way?
elevated rail?
subway?
i know you mentioned shallow stations like a the memorial park stop on the gold line.
but i think we can all agree that we need an alternative mode of transportation in that area. right??

i will look forward to hearing the pro and cons for expo II in about 5-6 years.

No. You should be reading about them NOW. Ahead of time. When the planning stages are happening. in 5 years is when construction should be starting. That would be too late to give any input because all the design work would have been planned out.

And I hope you know he isn't just giving "opinions". He's straight-on sueing Expo. WASTE OF TIME.

Rail lines dividing communites? More like DAMIEN dividing communities.

If that's Exposition Blvd. in the above, then the median now reserved for a buffer zone complete with palms can be used for mass transit. Elevate it, or submerge it.
...A shallow trench approach would be a mess in a residential area like the one above because there will be sewer systems, flood runoff systems and utilities that may be buried at that level that will have to be re-routed- or am I wrong about that?
So, 60 feet down looks like the way to go for Exposition Boulevard.


Have we completed the Wilshire Blvd subway yet? The reason why I ask this is by the time you do that kind of mitigation for Expo (the 60' below grade subway) you better off building the Wilshire Subway with ridership and demand that will justify building the corridor in that manner.

Well the reason they close the crossings is because they want to eliminate the opportunities for accidents. It's a give and take and the problem with at-grade rail. And the reality is it just leads to more traffic diversions to the signalized crossings.

How would the shallow railway trench be any different from the at-grade crossings? How many railway trenches do you know of that are built have entry pass-throughs every 3/16 of a mile? I can't think of any I work by two of them every day.

Now we could include Pedestrian Z crossings (crossings that would help actively force pedestrians to look both ways and directions on the tracks with the flashing active "Train crossing" signs) to connect to the schools with a crossing guard at Budlong to handle the peak load of students crossing Exposition. There lies the question, do we really need to build a trench to do something that a specifically designed pedestrian crossing would do?

Where they can fit trees they do. There is a bike path along the entire route. West of Arlington there's more space on the right-of-way to create a SFV busway type of foliage.

It is not a full bike path the entire route, sections of Phase 1 there's room for only a Class 2 bike lane, there is a difference between the two.

i know the question has already been answered, but im to lazy to read all the info that is in damiens links, and on this forum, so damian what other alternative do you propose for the exposition area?
a bus way?
elevated rail?
subway?
i know you mentioned shallow stations like a the memorial park stop on the gold line.
but i think we can all agree that we need an alternative mode of transportation in that area. right??

You do know that this thing is already under construction right?

Peculiar to discover extensive postings about someone who's not been a member of this board, no?

These have been covered extensively on The Transit Coalition's board (http://transittalk.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=expoline), but I'll do a recap for the folks here.

1) Darrell's claim that area directly adjacent to the Expo tracks in Culver City is actually non-white.

http://friends4expo.org/images/expo-blockgroups-800.jpg

It's obviously true in the 2000 U.S. Census data that the two Census Block Groups closest to the Expo Line in Culver City are majority-minority. Tract 7024, Block Group 2, the one immediately north of the tracks, was 45% Hispanic and 33% White.

Here's a consolidated version of the 2000 Census Block Groups within 1/4 mile of the Expo Line phase 1, colored gray for majority Black or African-American, blue for majority Hispanic or Latino, and pink for majority White. I added purple for majority of minorities (no one group is a majority), and green for USC and Exposition Park (few USC on-campus dorm residents show up in the total Census count of 246, also majority-minority at 42% White, 28% Asian).

I also indicated the grade crossings as red dots and grade separations as red lines. Some obvious conclusions are:

* Majority-minority Culver City's 3,800 feet of grade separations (which Culver City resident Marta Zaragoza said weren't even grade separated at last week's PUC workshop at Foshay) are less than half the length of majority-minority Los Angeles' 9,300 feet.

* The USC area from Vermont to Adams, the only area with a White majority Block Group, has nine grade crossings (Adams, 28th, the HOV on-ramp, 30th, Jefferson, Trousdale, Watt, Menlo, and Vermont), hardly special treatment.

2) Darrell's claim that "modern" light rail just isn't built in a tunnel.

Mis-stating what I've written. Modern light rail in the U.S. (new lines built in the last 30 years, beginning with San Diego in 1981) has been generally at-grade but with the flexibility to be above or below ground where necessary.

Recent examples are the Pasadena Gold Line, Eastside Gold Line (http://light-rail.blogspot.com/2008/06/los-angeles-eastside-construction.html) (tracks in the median of streets except the tunnel under Boyle Heights where 1st Street is too narrow), Portland's latest Interstate MAX (http://light-rail.blogspot.com/2008/07/portland-interstate-max.html), and Phoenix (http://transittalk.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=expoline&action=display&thread=74&page=17#5780) (passing Osborn Middle School, on the right, in the median of Camelback Road, below).

http://friends4expo.org/images/phx-osbornms-xing-600.jpg

Seattle's (http://www.soundtransit.org/x1171.xml) under-construction line is about half at-grade in boulevard median, as well as elevated along freeways or in short tunnels where no other right-of-way exists.

A couple of critics have claimed that grade separation of the Expo Line is necessary to meet federal funding standards. Reality is just the opposite: at-grade light rail better meets cost-effectiveness standards for scarce federal funding. In fact, a tunnel under campus sought by the University of Minnesota has been removed to qualify the proposed Minneapolis-St. Paul Central Corridor line.

Conversely, the equivalent of "below grade, which includes the possibility of trench or tunnel (bored or cut-and-cover) or some combination thereof, from Trousdale to La Brea with cost-efficient open cut stations (http://transittalk.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=expoline&action=display&thread=70&page=12#5605)" has never been built in the 30 years of modern U.S. light rail, not to mention would financially kill the already-under-construction Expo Line.

The facts speak for themselves, despite (self-referential?) claims of "spin".

Wisconsin, Catalina, Budlong, La Salle, Harvard, Hobart, 2nd Ave and 3rd Ave will never be allowed to cross the tracks again.

If Expo supporters and South LA neighbors requested additional grade crossings I'd expect the Expo Authority would respond favorably. Say at Budlong or Catalina? (Personal note: my mother's grandparents lived on Budlong south of the library.)

I think aside from the environmental racism claim what Damien is arguing against is at-grade rail in an area as dense as Los Angeles, LA is the densest urban area in the US. So the arguments and examples of Phoenix and Seattle having at-grade rail in their communities tend to fall flat. Once again aside from the environmental racism claim Damien when posting here 2 years ago and the development of his GLAM campaign has always spoke out against at-grade rail in LA on the basis of density. My question is if we build at-grade knowing that our neighborhoods are only going to increasingly become denser is this a smart thing to do? Does it lack foresight? Is the MTA truly committed to a Long Range Transportation plan when some of this at-grade rail will eventually need to be trenched, submerged or elevated?

On the other hand are Damien and "Milq" coddling a car-culture that needs to be inhibited? Making it more difficult to drive around the city would be akin to NYC not imposing a parking requirement for residential, not providing or providing very little free and if not free very expensive parking. And of course the counterargument will be 'but we don't have a NYC system'. But do you build the system first and then comprehensively begin to reign in motorists? Or are street closures (to car traffic) like what is happening with Expo and has happened with other lines just by default what happens to your area when a transit alternative is made available?

arguing against is at-grade rail in an area as dense as Los Angeles, LA is the densest urban area in the US. ... Is the MTA truly committed to a Long Range Transportation plan when some of this at-grade rail will eventually need to be trenched, submerged or elevated?

Yes, that great statistic that L.A. is denser than all other metropolitan areas, including New York City. But areas along other light rail corridors are as dense or denser - think of downtown San Francisco, downtown San Diego, and downtown Portland, not to mention the Eastside Gold Line.

Here's a map of population density along the Expo Line, based on 2000 Census Tracts.

http://friends4expo.org/images/expopop.gif

This comparable (1990 Census) map of the c. 2000 proposed Eastside corridor to Whittier, that was subsequently shortened to Atlantic, shows that mostly-at-grade corridor has even denser population than Expo.

http://friends4expo.org/images/eastpop.gif

I don't expect light rail corridors to later be grade-separated. I do expect the Wilshire corridor subway to be built, that will both widen the service area across the Westside and provide a lot more capacity. And other new lines will be built.

An analogy is we have one grade-separated freeway and multiple at-grade boulevards across the Westside.

We should be trying to increase other modes of transportation besides driving. Driving severely limits pedestrian activity (just look at Westwood Village), produces a lot of pollution, and is much more unsafe than rail, biking, or walking. Also these latter 3 modes are much more efficient than driving. So why, in a city that has reached the end of its suburban building limit, are we still focusing on the least efficient mode of travel?

We all want to improve our city's center and many other areas of our city. The only way to do that is by focusing development inward instead of forcing fringe development because of our strict zoning regulations. Instead of having all single-family homes at someplace like Exposition/Western, why can't we develop more mixed-use development. So instead of people having to drive to run errands and do everything else that they want, they can just walk there. Of course, this is impossible to do with the way roads are in our city. They are virtual highways, and no one wants to walk across that. The slower the traffic, the more pedestrian activity which is beneficial in so many ways.

I know I kind of diverged from talking about Expo, but this is one of the benefits of at-grade light rail. It will slow down traffic, bring pedestrian activity, bring development, and lead us to develop a more sustainable city form.

Of course, if we still want fast moving traffic and we want to continue to depend upon driving as our sole means of transportation, then light rail is the worst kind of development that we can have, but I'm sure that we all want to diverge from that.

My question is if we build at-grade knowing that our neighborhoods are only going to increasingly become denser is this a smart thing to do? Does it lack foresight? Is the MTA truly committed to a Long Range Transportation plan when some of this at-grade rail will eventually need to be trenched, submerged or elevated?


I don't think that most of the neighborhoods around expo phase 1 are going to become denser because its all along a street that doesn't really have much space for mixed use developments and I'm pretty sure most of the home owners along expo [phase 1] would not want that to happen. I could only imagine sections like Western/Expo, La Cienega/Expo, and around the culver city terminus have space and activity for that kind of development.

You do know that this thing is already under construction right?

yeah i do i just wanted to know what would have been an alternative if it wasnt already underconstruction.

I don't think that most of the neighborhoods around expo phase 1 are going to become denser because its all along a street that doesn't really have much space for mixed use developments and I'm pretty sure most of the home owners along expo [phase 1] would not want that to happen. I could only imagine sections like Western/Expo, La Cienega/Expo, and around the culver city terminus have space and activity for that kind of development.

You don't think homeowners would fold if developers offered them enough money?

yeah i do i just wanted to know what would have been an alternative if it wasnt already underconstruction.

Mostly-at-grade light rail and a mostly-at-grade busway like the Valley's Orange Line were the two alternative modes considered in 1998-2001, after the Red Line subway extension to Pico/San Vicente was cancelled in 1998.

Huge public support for light rail made a big difference in the Metro Board decision for phase 1 of Expo light rail in 2001.

I don't think that most of the neighborhoods around expo phase 1 are going to become denser because its all along a street that doesn't really have much space for mixed use developments and I'm pretty sure most of the home owners along expo [phase 1] would not want that to happen. I could only imagine sections like Western/Expo, La Cienega/Expo, and around the culver city terminus have space and activity for that kind of development.

Agreed. Three current planning activities are phase 1's Los Angeles La Cienega / Jefferson Expo Line Station Area TOD (http://www.compassblueprint.org/tools/jefferson) and Culver City Washington / National Specific Plan (http://www.ci.culver-city.ca.us/articles/articles.asp?id=193), and phase 2's Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element (http://www.shapethefuture2025.net/) transit villages at Bergamot Station and Memorial Park.

I think aside from the environmental racism claim what Damien is arguing against is at-grade rail in an area as dense as Los Angeles, LA is the densest urban area in the US. So the arguments and examples of Phoenix and Seattle having at-grade rail in their communities tend to fall flat.

What about San Francisco? What about outside the US and go to Germany who builds a mix of light rail Urban metros in extremely dense urban areas in both at-grade and when 3-5 lines converge together underground.

My question is if we build at-grade knowing that our neighborhoods are only going to increasingly become denser is this a smart thing to do? Does it lack foresight? Is the MTA truly committed to a Long Range Transportation plan when some of this at-grade rail will eventually need to be trenched, submerged or elevated?

No, I don't believe it is a lack of foresight because there will be a variety of corridor styles and densities which is essential in an economically healthy urban region.

Having a careful balance between BRT(Busway or Bus Only lanes), LRT and HRT is important in striking a major chord in operating an effective multimodal transportation system so that we are not in competition with ourselves in terms of development. The transit design modes identify a zoning/planning and land-use hierarchy that is essential for stronger regional planning.

Now let's look at Expo carefully. What do you think would happen to Expo once we build a few other lines like Wilshire Subway to Westwood or having a north-south corridors like Crenshaw Corridor, 405 Freeway Parallel Rail Line or a Vermont Subway. All that would happen is that the Expo corridor trips will shift from a main/commuter line to a high capacity back-up feeder line to other corridors creating dare I say it a transit network.

The key thing is that we haven't build these lines yet.

What about San Francisco? .

But referencing SF would be have me assume that you are talking about the MUNI trolley system. We're not building Expo like a slow running trolley are we?

But referencing SF would be have me assume that you are talking about the MUNI trolley system. We're not building Expo like a slow running trolley are we?
MUNI isnt just a trolley system:ohno: it includes streetcars, buses, trolleys AND light rail lines. get your facts straight.

Expo line reminds me alot of the T or the J.

I promised myself i wouldnt be on this site so much since im on holiday but I have one more thing to say, do you guys think there should be more 1 way streets in Los Angeles?

I promised myself i wouldnt be on this site so much since im on holiday but I have one more thing to say, do you guys think there should be more 1 way streets in Los Angeles?

Simple answer: no way. We don't need highways at ground-level and running through intersections.

But referencing SF would be have me assume that you are talking about the MUNI trolley system. We're not building Expo like a slow running trolley are we?

No it's similiar to their newer LRT extensions like the N to CalTrain and the new T on Third Street. From the West Portal Station east are the portions of the Muni Metro that I would relate to our LRT system since they are newer in age and similiar in operation. That is if we are talking about overall density.

MUNI isnt just a trolley system:ohno: it includes streetcars, buses, trolleys AND light rail lines. get your facts straight.

Expo line reminds me alot of the T or the J.

If you're going to correct someone no need to be an ass about it. My reply was in the form of a question wasn't it?

I must say that I am charmed to hear "phattonez" extreme(to most folks) approach to impedement of the car at all costs. Damien stated basically that you wouldn't get much public support from a deliberate plan to clog streets by running at-grade light rail. But a byproduct of rapid mass transit is hopefully increased density and development and one of my top wishes for LA in the 20teens is the reduction of required parking in residentials perhaps as low as .5 car per unit. If we were upfront with the public about what the effect of rail mass transit can possibly have on neighborhoods like increased density and a reduction of parking I wonder if they would support that either?

If we were upfront with the public about what the effect of rail mass transit can possibly have on neighborhoods like increased density and a reduction of parking I wonder if they would support that either?

Simple answer. Hell no!

The closest I would see would be the support of building strategic parking structures that then makes land on the street more pedestrian/transit friendly and usable and over time allows the density to occur because they can't complain that there's no place for parking.

... you wouldn't get much public support from a deliberate plan to clog streets by running at-grade light rail. ... If we were upfront with the public about what the effect of rail mass transit can possibly have on neighborhoods like increased density and a reduction of parking I wonder if they would support that either?

The engineering and environmental process is quite clear about mitigating effects on traffic from light rail trains passing. For example, the phase 2 intersection analysis proposes to add an additional traffic lane where increased stopped time from gated crossings vs. existing traffic signals would be significant.

On the second point, Santa Monica's current General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) process is a good example of seeking to plan a shift from existing auto-oriented development to more sustainable transit-, pedestrian-, and bicycle-oriented "complete neighborhoods" that cap traffic.

To learn more, start with Chapter 1.3, "Strategy Framework", in the "Chapter 1" PDF download and Chapter 2.3, "Transportation", in the "Chapter 2" PDF download at the Santa Monica LUCE website (http://www.shapethefuture2025.net/). A lot of public workshop and consultant time went into these, and there's a lot of detail yet to complete.

Gas prices nudge Southern California drivers onto mass transit -- slowly
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/40758271.jpg
Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times
Bryanne Sykes, 50, a periodic train commuter for 10 years, decided six months ago to take the train from Long Beach to her job in downtown L.A. every day. Her resolve hardened with the increases in gas prices.
The car habit dies hard, but observers notice train parking lots filling faster and more professionals packing seats for the ride to and from work.
By Joe Mozingo, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 8, 2008

She thought about it for four years. She wanted to try it, but kept balking.

"I was scared," says Francine Choi, a Los Angeles County employee who lives in Long Beach. "I was worried I'd get mugged." And then a couple months ago, filling her BMW at a Chevron near work, she gasped when she saw the total pass $60. Then and there, she summoned the courage to do it at last.

Choi rode the Metro Blue Line to work the next day.

"Now I take naps on the way home" says Choi, 45, extolling the light-rail line between downtown L.A. and Long Beach and the $150 or so she saves by riding it every month.
With gas prices shooting into orbit, mass transit ridership is trending upward -- barely.

Car culture has stubborn roots in Southern California. The vast majority of Southern Californians are holding tenaciously to the privacy and convenience of their own cars, over the crush of humanity on the region's trains and buses.

But longtime riders notice more professionals aboard a system that has mostly served low-income workers who don't have the option to drive.

Now the parking structure at the Willow Street stop in Long Beach is full by 8:30 a.m. -- and spaces used to go empty all day. Some of the riders are not so much new to the system as they are nagged by gas prices to take it more often.

Bryanne Sykes, 50, decided six months ago to take it every day. She parks her Volvo S60 in the spillover parking lot at the Willow station, a good quarter-mile walk to the train.

She scrambles to get a seat on the west side, knowing that the sun beats through the windows on the east side during summer. "You ride and you start strategizing," she says.

Sykes, a student advisor at the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising, has been riding the train periodically for 10 years. But the extra half-hour or so it took her to get to and from work in downtown Los Angeles always put her back in her car. When her children were young, she couldn't spare the time. Now, her youngest is in high school and she doesn't need to race home. As gas prices climbed, her resolve hardened.

She saves about $180 a month in gas, minus the $62 for a monthly Metro pass.

She loves being able to read the paper and doesn't mind having to park farther away, with all the new riders. In fact, she is elated that she lost 10 pounds walking about three miles a day to and from her stations. And the broader spectrum of riders eases what for some is a stigma -- that the train is full of gangbangers and homeless people.

"The good thing with gas getting more expensive is, more and more people are riding it," says Sykes.

In the past, when she got back to Long Beach about 9 p.m., the lonely walk to her car, down a dark street between the tracks and a park, was eerie. "I would stay on the phone with my husband as I walked," she said.
"In the last month, it's me and 10 other people with briefcases and computers," she says.

Ridership on Metro buses and trains has risen steadily since January, but has yet to surpass the ridership before a rate increase cut passenger numbers last July. Average weekday boardings on Metro buses were 1.12 million in January, and 1.26 million in May, when the last available statistics were taken. But May 2006 saw 1.31 million average weekday boardings.

Light-rail ridership has seen roughly the same trend, albeit on a much smaller scale. The Blue Line has gone from 69,731 average weekday riders in January to 79,291 in May, the Red Line from 124,358 to 141,659, the Gold Line from 19,001 to 23,141.

Passenger levels on Metrolink trains, serving the Antelope Valley and Ventura, Riverside, Orange, and San Bernardino counties, jumped nearly 6% from May to June, and 12% over last year. The 48,046 average weekday boardings in June were the highest ever.

Still, up to 97% of trips in Southern California are in cars, according to the Southern California Assn. of Governments. In the Los Angeles Metro area, which includes northern Orange County, there are about 4.3 million lone drivers commuting every week day, and 600,000 carpooling vehicles.
But as the economy sinks and gas prices continue to rise, transit officials expect more refugees, like Steve Sendor, a commercial real estate broker from Venice.

As the real estate business withered, he couldn't justify driving his gas-swilling Jeep Grand Cherokee to work in Century City. With no rail options, he had no choice but to hop on the workhorse of L.A.'s mass transit system, the bus.

"It's not as inconvenient as I thought," he said. "It adds about 45 minutes of productive time to my day."

He reads documents and business news. And he saves about $50 a week, he estimates.
Riders' experiences on the buses, of course, vary widely, depending on the route and time of day.

Attorney Susan Seager started taking mass transit from South Pasadena to Century City. She walks to the Gold Line train, takes it Union Station, where she jumps on LADOT Commuter Express to work. "The seats are cushiony and soft," she says "There are no homeless people. There are no screaming children."

But the last Commuter Express leaves Century City at 5:30, and she often has to take a Metro bus down Olympic Boulevard. "It's very bumpy," she said. "Your teeth practically fall out. The other day a woman was hitting her child. We had to get into it, 'Please, don't hit your child.' It's exhausting to ride the Metro bus."

And even on a good day on her beloved train and Commuter Express, the trip takes an hour and 40 minutes -- to go about 20 miles. "What I really hate about the commute is how I don't see my kids," she says.

That minute-to-mile equation is what keeps many people in their cars. Even with traffic jams, driving is usually faster.

Steve Johnson, 61, waited last week for a train at Union Station after shopping in the Fashion District. He said he would love to take mass transit from Simi Valley to South Gate, where he teaches.

One night in 2005, he planned the trip for the next morning. But he realized that his route looked like a circuit board. He'd be taking Metrolink to Union Station, catching the Red Line to the Blue Line, which he'd ride to the Firestone stop, where he would catch a bus to his school.

He would leave his house at 4:45 a.m. and be lucky to get there when school started at 7:30 a.m. He normally left at 6 a.m. and pulled into the school parking lot just after 7.

He decided to put the trip off a day. The train he had considered boarding on that January morning was involved in a massive pileup near Glendale that killed 11 people and injured about 180.

"Somebody up there was trying to tell me something," he said.

Committed to staying in his car, Johnson picks up a car-pooler to cut the cost.

But others find pleasant surprises when they investigate their mass transit options. Richard Covey, a school teacher as well, discovered an express bus from Laguna Hills to South Coast Plaza that delivers him within walking distance of his middle school in Santa Ana.

He started taking it late March -- and kicks himself for not doing it sooner. The walking invigorates him, and his stress level dropped precipitously. Now he has to set his alarm on his 25-minute ride home so he doesn't sleep right through his stop.

Recently, when he woke up, he looked around at the eight or so other riders.

"I realized that the only ones awake were myself and the bus driver," he said.
joe.mozingo@latimes.com Los Angeles Times

I must say that I am charmed to hear "phattonez" extreme(to most folks) approach to impedement of the car at all costs. Damien stated basically that you wouldn't get much public support from a deliberate plan to clog streets by running at-grade light rail. But a byproduct of rapid mass transit is hopefully increased density and development and one of my top wishes for LA in the 20teens is the reduction of required parking in residentials perhaps as low as .5 car per unit. If we were upfront with the public about what the effect of rail mass transit can possibly have on neighborhoods like increased density and a reduction of parking I wonder if they would support that either?

There's no way that they would support it if they knew that their precious car would be restricted in maneuverability. Simply put, the car culture does not die easily. As long as we consider the auto as the primary means of moving people around, then we will be stuck in eternal suburbia (mid to high density don't mix with high auto use). We will need a gradual shift, that's for sure, but we need more than just a gradual shift in order to change people's perceptions about transportation.

I'd like to hear from the no at-grade folks. I'm starting to like this near guerilla approach in inhibiting car travel!

I should have a more in-depth post about this on a website (I'm not going to say which website until I get an official okay from the owner) soon, but I thought I'd post a small summary of the argument.

This city is growing, and there is no way to deny that at all. Either we can build the same way we have (fringe development while ignoring the inner-city) or we can develop our inner-city. If we contain the development and revitalize our inner-city, we will cut down on air pollution, stop paving over land (less groundwater contamination and all of the other problems that are associated with paving over land). Because if we build out, the only option is to provide infrastructure for cars. Of course, if we want to build more dense, mixed-use development, which is more sustainable for many reasons (and is associated with less crime), we know that it is not compatible with cars. We need more efficient modes of travel: rail, bike, walking. Of course, this main problem is we still have suburban ideas which are very strong in this city, but it will not allow more density, so this will force more fringe development. If we traffic calm our streets, we can allow for more mixed-use mid-rise density. It is more sustainable and more attractive. This will reduce the urban heat-island effect, and is more efficient in its use of energy.

Of course, there is a lot more that I will post about later (more about city-planning and zoning and other things like that) when I do the full summary, but it's not really relevant to this thread.


Also, this doesn't really prove anything conclusively, but which looks nicer:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.959451,-118.275676&spn=0.017015,0.037594&t=k&z=15
or
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=59.259388,18.087101&spn=0.041942,0.150375&t=k&z=13

1st is LA (I hope everyone recognizes it) and the 2nd is Stockholm. Not that Stockholm is the perfect example, but they have grown around those forests without completely consuming them.

I like the first link.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Plans for $400 million freeway project push forward
OCTA, Caltrans meeting set for Wednesday to tell residents about west-county project.
By JAIMEE LYNN FLETCHER
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

The Orange County Transportation Authority and Caltrans are looking to bring residents into the loop on a $400 million project expected to ease freeway congestion in west-county cities.

The agencies this month will hold open house meetings to discuss details of the West County Connectors project, which will affect Seal Beach, Rossmoor, Los Alamitos, Garden Grove and Westminster.

The first meeting is Wednesday night at Loyal Barker Elementary School in Garden Grove.

The project will add car-pool lane freeway connectors and improve some on- and off-ramps on the I-405, 22 and I-605 freeways.

Plans are in the final design stages and construction is expected to start in 2010. Work is anticipated to take about three years.

Project specifics:

‧Directly connect the northbound I-405 freeway car-pool lanes with the northbound I-605 car-pool lanes.

‧Revamp the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge crossing over the 405.

‧Reconstruct the 22 and 405 freeway connectors in both directions.

‧Reconstruct the eastbound 22 freeway connector to the northbound 605 freeway.

‧Directly connect the westbound 22 at Valley View Street to the northbound 405.

‧Reconstruct the Valley View Street bridge that crosses the 405 and 22 freeways.

‧Add landscaping and sound walls.

Let Orange County spend their way into oblivion!

Let Orange County spend their way into oblivion!

In 20 years I wonder if they'll still be saying, "We're proud to build roads."

As long as Ol' Joel Kotkin can live there all by himself in the middle of a deteriorating highway a few decades from now with his catheter attached to his Antique Hummer's commode....inhibiting his mobility to Los Angeles...

...I don't care what happens to Orange County!!!

But come to think of it with all of this impediment to auto mobility how will that play into our need to ship goods out of our bread basket the LA/Long Beach Port Complex?

But come to think of it with all of this impediment to auto mobility how will that play into our need to ship goods out of our bread basket the LA/Long Beach Port Complex?

it will help our ports. more trains=less cars=less congestion=faster cargo transport on local freeways.
but i think anthonio is trying to add more rail lines for union pacific to increase rail capacity, and having less truck traffic. so trying to move away from the car will benefit the port.

More trains does not mean less cars, as nice as that would be. You can't build rail so that your drive will speed up.

klamedia, notice I never said anything about completely cutting off the flow of auto traffic, just slowing it down. And I've only been talking about residential/commercial areas, not industrial areas. You might as well have roads there for the freight.

More trains does not mean less cars, as nice as that would be. You can't build rail so that your drive will speed up...And I've only been talking about residential/commercial areas, not industrial areas. You might as well have roads there for the freight.

Precisely, more trains mean a more efficient use of space and movement of good and services.

Valley's Orange Line has appeal
By Sue Doyle, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 07/09/2008 09:54:26 PM PDT

http://i37.tinypic.com/1zf34n8.jpg

NORTH HOLLYWOOD — Soaring gas prices have fueled record-high ridership on the Orange Line, where passengers in June took a record average of 26,596 daily bus trips, officials said Wednesday.

The 63 percent jump since buses first pulled away from the North Hollywood station in October 2005 has prompted Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials to call for more buses to run the 14-mile route and to consider adding express lines.

"We encourage people to save money and stick it to OPEC," said county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a Metro board member, at a news conference.

Metro's board last month adopted a proposal to extend the busway four miles north to the Metrolink station in Chatsworth along Canoga Avenue. However, the agency still must vote on a final environmental impact report in January 2009.

Meanwhile gas prices at the pump Wednesday in Los Angeles averaged $4.57, up nearly 50 percent from a year ago, according to the American Automobile Association's Fuel Gauge Report.

At the same time, motorists' demand for gasoline across the country has dropped 2 percent from the same time last year, according to the federal Energy Information Administration's weekly petroleum status report.

The skyrocketing gas prices are enough to make Peter Bunce, 46, leave his car in his Van Nuys driveway. He now hops on the Orange Line to commute downtown, where he works as a language teacher.

"I can't even back my vehicle out of my driveway for under $5," Bunce joked Wednesday as he waited for the Orange Line.

More popular

http://i37.tinypic.com/14klf13.gif

Breaking all previous records, weekday trips taken by Orange Line riders grew 8 percent from May to June, with 26,596 boardings recorded, according to Metro. The Orange Line had just 16,360 average daily weekday trips in its first month of operation.

Saturdays on the bus line that ends at Warner Center also netted 15,629 boardings in June, a 10 percent jump from May.

The popularity of the $330 million Orange Line has surprised transit officials who initially projected 22,000 weekday riders by 2020.

But that forecast was surpassed 17 months after the bus line took off. By March 2007, weekday ridership reached 23,243, according to Metro.

Orange Line rider Andre Stewart, 67, is saving for a compact car that won't drain his wallet. Meanwhile, the North Hollywood man rides mass transit and sees crowds growing larger for the bus.

"I've noticed more people waiting for the Orange Line," Stewart said. "It's harder to get a seat."

The transit agency is reviewing express lines that could speed up the 38-minute commute across the Valley by 8 percent, said Richard Hunt, general manager for Metro's Valley sector.

Fewer stops?

One option is omitting stops and sticking to the most popular ones, such as Reseda, Van Nuys and Sepulveda boulevards.
"The growth of the Orange Line is phenomenal," Hunt said.

Last August, the transit agency introduced a 65-foot bus to the Orange Line, the longest bus in America and one capable of holding 16 more passengers than 60-foot buses.

Metro officials aim to phase in nine more of these behemoths to the bus line but are waiting for legislation to clear allowing the nontraditional-sized buses on the street, Hunt said.

Christopher Rodriguez, 20, of Hollywood said that despite the swarms of people, he'll still ride the Orange Line — even if it means standing in an aisle for his trip's duration.

"There are definitely more people on board," said Rodriguez. "For me, it's convenient. It runs across the whole Valley."

Maybe if it didn't have to stop for cross streets, then they would be able to add some more buses.

Or converting it to rail? Fat chance!

So "Phatt" back to your impeding car travel in the city and reducing travel times. What would be our strategy in selling this to voters?

Right now, it would be impossible. You have to try it out in small segments first (more TOD with this style of development) and then see how successful it is before you can target it in other places. Actually, these should all be TOD, but I think that right now, the big projects that would be able to do this would need to be situated near stations that have a ton of parking (hopefully using up that parking space for development). Otherwise no one would allow it.

Have we had any TODs that were pedestrian friendly, mixed-use, medium density, with a lot of green and little parking (preferably with small, traffic-calmed roads)? Not that I'm aware of. We have to try this out at a rail station somewhere. Maybe when we hear about a new TOD in the planning stages we can try to convince them to try building more mixed use and if it is a large project then try to get them to build a pedestrian-friendly village.

You two are funny with the guerrilla approach. Sell us. How much of a percentage of the total commuter population of this particular city do you want using mass transit and what percentage left on the freeways?

For commuting everyday, I would hope that everyone would embrace other modes of transportation. Of course, I never said that I want roads completely closed or freeways completely abandoned. There is a time and a place for cars, but for every day commutes, they just don't work.

The problem is that we are dependent on the auto. I'd like us to have other options so we're not dependent on cars to get around.

Give us percentages so we can feel you :)

A Giant Black Hole http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/2008-07-horse.jpg
La Canada Flintridge is fightin' mad over the advancement of a bill in the State Legislature that will create a public-private partnership to connect the 710 and 210 Freeways through a tunnel. Naturally, the biggest losers are the horses. "Senate Bill 1350, in a “gut and amend” process, had its original contents regarding equestrian safety in Bear Valley completely removed and changed to address a public/private partnership in the development, operation and maintenance of the Long Beach tunnel connecting the two freeways." Estimated cost of the tunnel: $6 billion. Valley Sun

Give us percentages so we can feel you :)

For what?

If you're living in the city, you shouldn't be using your car to commute. It's ridiculously expensive, terribly inefficient, and pollutes way too much. Why commute by car when every other mode of transportation is cheaper and better for the environment?

You two are funny with the guerrilla approach. Sell us. How much of a percentage of the total commuter population of this particular city do you want using mass transit and what percentage left on the freeways?


there are days in my commute were i need to go to the bank, or run and buy tomatoes. those days i wish to use my car.

but driving every fucking day, fighting people trying to cut me off. looking out for people preoccupied with there dog on there lap. of simply driving slowly in the hov lane for an entire week can be damn annoying.

taking the bus, being randomly late. not showing up, having crazy hobos on the ride with you, or spending twice as long as you would driving. doing this everyday can be quite a strain.

the trick here is giving our great region of 18 million a choice. right now we have a choice to buy a car, pay insurance, pay for gas, pay for oil, [if we are smart pay for tires and brakes] pay for car washes and pay with the environment.

on the other hand i would not want to live in a city were i would need to check out a bus timetable to go hang out with a buddy. or go up to the mountains.

this all is not even taking into account the fact that we are just getting more and more people. and no more land. eventually were all going to just have to bring an air mattress to work and hope our families dont forget what we look like

so my % would be 50-50

There is much more than riding the bus. What if you could walk to where you wanted to go or could ride a bike? Maybe even take a train? There are a lot of options that we are denied when we build a ciy like we have.

>>So "Phatt" back to your impeding car travel in the city and reducing travel times. What would be our strategy in selling this to voters?

You can't inverse the process: selling a product that hasn't been completely created yet. First the product, then the sale. First you must build the extensive, modernized, comprehensive mass transit system and then gently start coaxing people out of their cars - like any good salesmen.

>>For what?

If you're living in the city, you shouldn't be using your car to commute. It's ridiculously expensive, terribly inefficient, and pollutes way too much. Why commute by car when every other mode of transportation is cheaper and better for the environment?<<

Define "in the city." Redefine "inefficiency."

Example: me. I am currently living in the hood of Pico-Union; I work in Mid-Wilshire.

It would take me 50 minutes to an hour to take the bus to work. Probably the same to bike. But driving down Olympic and then the shortcuts I use, it takes me 13-16 minutes, max. Time is money is my life right now; I'm working more than one job and don't have those 40ish minutes to waste.

If the Expo Line was actually completed, it might take me 45? If there was a Purple Line extending past Western, I bet it would be 30 minutes. Fantastic; I'd be all for it.

If, if, if.

It's not just "nice" but necessary to dream, to "Imagine" as the marketing campaign says.

But we're not there yet.

taking the bus, being randomly late. not showing up, having crazy hobos on the ride with you, or spending twice as long as you would driving. doing this everyday can be quite a strain.
Here we go attempting to pit transit vs private auto travel times again. The only reason why these two are being compared is because you have access to a vehicle. If you didn't have access to a private car nor could you readily park your car when you got to where you were going this would not be an issue.

Transit time from tip of Manhattan island on the 1 transfering to the A Express: Over 50 minutes-1 hour.
By private car or cab: Less than 30 minutes

Both outside of rush. Yet NYC metro accounts for 50% of all daily trips by transit. You must change your perception or transit will NEVER work for you.




on the other hand i would not want to live in a city were i would need to check out a bus timetable to go hang out with a buddy. or go up to the mountains.



A bus that takes you hiking too! Can't you just rent a car? This is a very unreasonable expectation of public transit.

Philosophically I completely agree with klamedia, but when it comes to the tangibles I need to be more pragmatic :)

Transit time from tip of Manhattan island on the 1 transfering to the A Express: Over 50 minutes-1 hour.
By private car or cab: Less than 30 minutes

Both outside of rush. Yet NYC metro accounts for 50% of all daily trips by transit. You must change your perception or transit will NEVER work for you.

A bus that takes you hiking too! Can't you just rent a car? This is a very unreasonable expectation of public transit.

Tip of what to where takes 1 hour? :) When is there no rush hour in L. A.? :) Is it realistic to compare a compact sandbar in the middle of a river to a metro area that traverses mountain ranges? :) So, what percentage gets to shop at Costco and what percentage gets to ride the rails? Can't do both! :)

There is much more than riding the bus. What if you could walk to where you wanted to go or could ride a bike? Maybe even take a train? There are a lot of options that we are denied when we build a ciy like we have. bus was my nebulous term for transit. sorry

k...your really missing my point. cars work for some, transit works for some. not everyone can live and work in hollywood. sertinly not everyone wants to live in corona and work in century city.

Here we go attempting to pit transit vs private auto travel times again. The only reason why these two are being compared is because you have access to a vehicle. If you didn't have access to a private car nor could you readily park your car when you got to where you were going this would not be an issue.

right, i have a car because i have places to go. and metro dont go there. you sound like we live in the best transit city in the world. your dreaming. as long as metro relies on the backbone of buses that "run" every hour past 10am or 6pm a car is a requirement for anyone outside of hollywood and downtown.

Transit time from tip of Manhattan island on the 1 transfering to the A Express: Over 50 minutes-1 hour.
By private car or cab: Less than 30 minutes Both outside of rush. Yet NYC metro accounts for 50% of all daily trips by transit. You must change your perception or transit will NEVER work for you.

why would anyone want to take MORE time getting were they want to go? honestly? there are times were i live that i would just rather walk to were i am going as to not have to drive / look for parking.

k, your words are not going to change my live. i already waste about 2 hours of my day taking the redline to the orange to get to work. [it would take 2.5 hours if it were not for my "perception" device]
i do it because i love my new job, but i hate driving there. not because its too far, not because gas too much. but simply because i can just sit back and do whatever it is i feel like without having to worry about other peoples ability to drive.


A bus that takes you hiking too! Can't you just rent a car? This is a very unreasonable expectation of public transit.
jesus dude, what i was tring to say is that there are times when i need my car. times when i need to buy a weeks worth of grocerys on the few days when i have the time to do it. for instance, theres no way im going bring 6+ bags with me on a bus/train.

why would i rent a car when i have the funds to own one?
would you rent an air conditioner for the few times a year when you use it?

This is exactly the point I'm getting at: this city has been shaped for the car and only the car. Why should there be jobs in Corona (unless you're a farmer or something) that you can't walk to.

The car is the most expensive option for transportation by far, and that's without even figuring in external costs (pollution, sprawl, accidents, etc.). This city is forcing us to commute via the most expensive option. Let's say you have a job in Santa Monica. You can't afford to live there, so you move to the SFV. Once there, you need a way into the city. You can take the Rapid Line over the Sepulveda Pass (which is anything but rapid) or you can drive your car that will get you right to your destination. Anybody who could afford it would take their car. There is no other option. As long as we don't have options, we will forever be stuck in congestion.

There are two options to solve this specific problem. Either you can bring more housing to Santa Monica, or you can get a transit line from the SFV to Santa Monica. Which do you think is easier?

There is a two-fold problem in this city: transit and planning. We have strict zoning regulations which put residential in its own little area and commercial in its own little area. This forces us to commute, usually by car. What if we put the two together, started zoning for more mixed use? I could just walk to my job instead (or bike if I'm so inclined). What's so bad about that? We could do that and not even need a transit line (not saying that transit is unnecessary, but the main problem in this city is that we are continuing in the philosophy of suburban planning, not sustainable urban planning).

Yes and no. Yes, we need to change zoning and fast! We also need to reduce parking requirements and rid the city of ALL free parking.

But the heaviest of weights fall on the people of this city who are still thinking in a car mentality and asking transit to do things that it wasn't designed to do. Even if you took a job in Santa Monica and decided to live in the SFV and let's say that the 405 BRT line was in place as well as the fully extended Purple Line. Well realistically you would have to walk out of your door to the 405 line take that then transfer onto the Purple Line and then arrive in Santa Monica where it shouldn't be unreasonable for you to walk 1/4 of a mile to 1/2 mile to your job. Even in the best scenario it's going to take you 45-1 hour.

Believe me even when our system is completely built out if gas is cheap and parking is readily available lots of folks will still be reasoning that their car is faster than transit. Look at all of the people who drive from Noho to Downtown or from Pasadena to Downtown......It's not going to change EVEN IF YOU HAVE A FULLY BUILT OUT SYSTEM until you make it IMPOSSIBLE and a chore for people to drive. That's why fully building out a system first and then trying to coax people out of their cars is backwards. At least we need to do what we are doing now which is instituting tolls and strategically planning to place increased hardships on people who decide to drive in this city. Work with where the system is at present instead of this pie-in-the-sky "only if" mentality when we could be doing some amazing shit with what we got even now!

Example:
Toll the 110 from Pasadena to downtown LA-Gold Line alternative (during rush only to start)
Toll the 101 from Noho to Downtown LA-Red Line alternative
Toll the 105 from Norwalk to LAX-Green Line alternative
Toll the 110 or the 710 from Long Beach to Downtown LA-Blue Line alternative
Ban cars from the El Monte Busway immediately!
Place a congestion charge on Wilshire from Wilshire/Western to Downtown LA-Purple Line alternative.

I'm sick of the excuses from "I have to get groceries" to "but it takes me twice as long".
Gee, how do people all over the world who don't own a car ever get their groceries? Is their a special train or bus, perhaps the "grocery bus" that comes and picks you up and takes you to the store? Even if a grocery store is within walking distance if you are going to buy enough food to fill 10 bags it's going to be a chore.

The car-culture has lulled this nation into a helplessness where one can't even seem to figure out how to get groceries from a store without a car!

Tip of what to where takes 1 hour? :) When is there no rush hour in L. A.? :) Is it realistic to compare a compact sandbar in the middle of a river to a metro area that traverses mountain ranges? :) So, what percentage gets to shop at Costco and what percentage gets to ride the rails? Can't do both! :)

I wasn't comparing "a compact sandbar" to our entire metro area which is at the root of the problem here. Thanx "Milq" for bringing that point up though!


First you assume that I'm comparing Manhattan to ALL of Metro LA.....now why would I do something like that when we both know that Manhattan is not but only 1 borough out of 5 that exist in NYC and of course we are aware that the NYC metro area goes as far east as Conneticut and west as NJ? In fact that would be disingenuous of me to compare an island that is 13 x 3 miles to a metro area of more than 1,000 sq miles now wouldn't it? So let me ask you before we go any further.....why would you assume that I'm comparing Manhattan which is a small part of NYC (compared to Queens, Brooklyn and SI) to such a large area of not just the City Of LA but to all of the 88 cities that make up LA county hence the Los Angeles MSA? Does that make any sense? To you?

That's, I think, exactly what I was getting at klamedia. The root of our problem is the way our city is laid out. It's not convenient if you're living in a single-family house to walk to a grocery store to get some food (yes, it actually is possible to walk to a grocery store). This is one of the reasons why having Ralph's come downtown was such a big deal. People who were living there had to drive a long ways to get any groceries, it was like a typical suburb in that respect. Now they can just walk there to get their groceries.

We should be focusing on building dense, walkable urban villages that do not require a car to get around. Instead, we keep building out and infilling, destroying our environment and strengthening our dependence on the most expensive form of transportation that we know.

Instead, we keep building out and infilling, destroying our environment and strengthening our dependence on the most expensive form of transportation that we know.

la county has been built out for some time now, save the norther sections over the san gabriel mountains. endless suburban building is more of a concern for orange, riverside, and san bernardino counties.

also, infill is not a bad thing. it should not be clumped with building out and destroying our environment

la county has been built out for some time now, save the norther sections over the san gabriel mountains. endless suburban building is more of a concern for orange, riverside, and san bernardino counties.

also, infill is not a bad thing. it should not be clumped with building out and destroying our environment

So then why do we continue with suburban zoning (except for downtown and TODs).

Why is infill not a bad thing? We have almost no open space in LA.

How's the balance between investing in Public Transport and Roadways in Los Angeles?

In 2008, just from the MTA, 9% of the budget went to streets and highways and 58% goes to buses and rail (excluding Metrolink).

However, this does not consider CalTrans.

^^ Translate that into passenger miles, and you'll see investments in mass transit aren't that bad.

Making any kind of judgment without figuring in the money spent by CalTrans on the region is really pretty worthless. Finding the budget for that organization isn't as easy for me.

Metro's budget information is here (http://www.metro.net/about_us/finance/finance_info.htm#budget). Can anyone find the CalTrans budget with information on the amount spent in LA?

According to Caltrans source (http://www.dot.ca.gov/docs/sb1266/SB1266FormulaDistributionbyCounty.pdf)

They've spend 1 billion on mass transit and 490 million on local streets & roads for LA County. I don't know if those include freeways.

Metro is spending 1.147 billion on buses, 722 million on rail, 295 million on roads.

So that's roughly 2.8 billion on rail in the county and roughly 800 million on roads. So yes, we're going in the right direction, but we're still not zoning correctly, and means that rail lines will continue to be underutilized a variety of ways (not just ridership).

So then why do we continue with suburban zoning (except for downtown and TODs).

Why is infill not a bad thing? We have almost no open space in LA.

you dont understand the word infill. infill means taking existing zoning and converting it to higher density buildings.

not every city is zoning for suburban development. my home city of san gabriel has been re-zoning large tracks of the city for mixed-use, higher density all over the city limits. centered around high volume bus routes. simply because there is no other space

Playa Vista is not infill? What you're talking about sounds like redevelopment, not infill. But anyway . . .

But for the most part, this city is still zoning with a suburban mindset. And they are still forcing a ton of parking, and not really offering a pedestrian village. Everything you really need should be near where you live. But all I see is expansion of roads and the continuation of the catering to the car-dependent culture.

I think even Chris would agree that more options is a good thing. Being able to walk or bike to where you want to go would be nice.

Here Phatty and Klammy- this guy's w/you :)
The joy of $8 gas
Why life would be better if the cost of fuel here were as high here as in Europe.
Joel Stein
July 11, 2008

I love $4 gas. It makes me appreciate freedom. I watch as the dollars spin and think, "You, Triceratops, did not get squished by an asteroid in vain. You got squished for a $60 drive to Vegas."

So I didn't go to Wednesday's MoveOn.org protests against high gas prices, which included one at the most expensive gas station in the city, the 76 in Beverly Hills. MoveOn's news release explained: "We want to make sure the world knows that Beverly Hills residents are fed up with gas prices and want a president in the White House who will bring the cost of gas down." MoveOn always understands the problems plaguing Americans, such as the cost of gas in Beverly Hills. If the group succeeds on this issue, I hope it'll next tackle the onerous two-year contract on the new iPhone and how late heirloom tomatoes arrived this year.

If MoveOn and Barack Obama really were going to bravely confront America with hard, necessary truths, they'd tell us how great $4 gas has been for us. With public transit use nationally at a 50-year high, traffic dropped 2.1% in the first four months of this year across the country. That mileage reduction -- along with people driving smaller cars, and more slowly, to save gas -- could mean that 12,000 fewer people will die in traffic accidents this year, according to a study by professors Michael Morrisey at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and David C. Grabowski at Harvard Medical School. Air pollution has been reduced enough, according to UC Davis economics professor J. Paul Leigh, to prevent 2,200 respiratory-related deaths over the last year. Less eating out and more walking and biking could mean a 10% reduction in obesity, according to Charles Courtemanche, an assistant economics professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. And, apparently, higher gas prices also keep econ professors employed.
Yes, it's easy for me to revel in $4 gas because I'm rich. And because my wife and I own a Mini Cooper and a Prius. And because I work at home. And because some of the mutual funds I own contain a fair amount of Exxon Mobil stock. And because I'm brave enough to ignore the manufacturer's suggestion to use high-octane gas.

Cheap gas is unfair. Driving creates huge social costs in the form of traffic, health-damaging pollution and global warming that aren't suffered solely by the person buying the gasoline. Governments usually set up idiotic systems to offset such social costs (emissions trading, ethanol subsidies, taco truck regulations) instead of forcing individuals to pay for their own mess by adding a tax to remedy the imbalance. That kind of tax -- the most fair kind, really -- is called a Pigovian tax, and its use is why gas costs $8 to $10 a gallon in Europe, where they have fewer road deaths even though they drive like complete idiots.
If the U.S. were to slowly jack up gas taxes until we're in the $8 range, life would be better. We'd not only be safer and have reduced greenhouse-gas emissions, we'd probably be happier too. Studies show that the only thing that consistently increases personal happiness is social interaction; high gas prices have led to real estate prices falling faster in suburbs and exurbs than in cities, so we may soon have more content downtown-dwellers. Those same studies show that the thing that makes people least happy is commuting, and telecommuting is way up this year. We could use the tax revenue to fund public transportation. And we'd go back to the days when driving a car was a way to show people what a rich jerk you were. In other words, we would no longer need SUVs for that.

Sure, $8 gas is unfair to poor people, but so is all of capitalism. Rich people get more of the globe's resources. No one has a right to cheap gas any more than he has a right to other things needed for a full and productive life, like an iPhone or a weekly newspaper column where you can tick people off.

We spent 50 years using government money to build the freeways that led to the driving-centric, mall-rat lifestyle I grew up with, so it will surely take decades more to restructure our society into something better. And as bummed as I am to pay a lot for gas, it's a fair price for improving society. I also think government should look into some kind of heavy taxation on Facebook usage.

jstein@latimescolumnists.comLos Angeles Times

Yesterday, all the buzz was about the Orange Line's record ridership last month. Today, Metro released the June 2008 numbers for all their rail lines, which had an increase in daily ridership, up 12.8 percent. Around 309,000 people rode the rails, most of them, 153,928, on the subway system.

But with all the public transit participation, Hymon reports that a could-be county measure that would raise the sales tax for transit funding may not happen due to timing of a state legislature vote and the timing of the November ballot going to the printer.
Steve Hymon/LATimes/LAist

If parochial interests derail this ballot initiative before it can even make it on the ballot, that's an absolute disgrace. Let the people vote on it. If it fails, fine, that sucks, but it's probably a once in a generation opportunity to save the city and the entire region and it better get on the ballot.

That's, I think, exactly what I was getting at klamedia. The root of our problem is the way our city is laid out. It's not convenient if you're living in a single-family house to walk to a grocery store to get some food (yes, it actually is possible to walk to a grocery store). This is one of the reasons why having Ralph's come downtown was such a big deal. People who were living there had to drive a long ways to get any groceries, it was like a typical suburb in that respect. Now they can just walk there to get their groceries and it snows there!



This is yet another excuse used by many. We live in the densest metro area in the US. Do a google map search! I GUARANTEE YOU that their exists a grocery store or a store that sells vegetables and/or fruit within 1/2 a mile of everyone living in LA City proper. I bet you that their are probably a multiple # of them at that ! Seeing that within reason a person should be able to walk up to 1/2 a mile comfortably if you're healthy and bike up to 5 miles as well I'm sure many can do what many of us do here as well as in other cities. 1)Buy a very large backpack or put a basket on your bike and 2)go shopping. Repetition of these type of excuses only tend to at best coddle and at worst hobble the general public. I used to use a"granny cart"when I lived in NY to go and get my groceries.

Please go here to find out how walkable your neighborhood actually is, it may surprise you!http://www.walkscore.com/index.shtml

It's a myth that this city is built in a completely suburban mode evidently by the fact that anywhere within the city and I will go so far as saying anywhere within the basin or Valley 99% of us are within 1/4 of mile walking distance of some sort of public transportation. Yes, I agree the city needs to continue to change it's zoning for denser development and if anyone has been keeping up with the very NOW fight between the Gail Goldberg's of the world and many of our Neighborhood Councils you would know that along with building more rapid transit that denstiy bonuses and zoning changes are FRONT AND CENTER. Every week their is a new article relating to this fundamental battle to remake LA in the Los Angeles Times. Who missed the LA Weekly MEGA SPREAD about the Density Wars??
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/city-halls-density-hawks-are-changing-las-dna/18410/
http://www.laweekly.com/news/features/whats-smart-about-smart-growth/16507/

The densification of LA and subsequent further urbanization of the city has passed its conceptual stage, rather it is happening NOW! And the little decisions that we make now are going to effect how we live in this city for years to come, so please get involved!!

Another battle over development. http://la.curbed.com/archives/2008/05/santa_monica_de.php

These are the places that I have lived and these are their scores:

Silver Lake(present):86
Marina Del Rey:88
Inglewood, CA:54
Crown Heights, Brooklyn NYC:82
Jamaica Queens, NYC:72
Harlem, NYC:98
Harlem, NYC:95
San Antonio, TX:32
http://www.walkscore.com/index.shtml

In contrast, places that have been deemed by the City Planning Dept. to be able to absorb density the greatest and has access to Rapid Mass Transit in Los Angeles(a suburban city?):
Koreatown:95 (Wishire/Western)
Westlake-MacArthur Park:89(Alvarado/Wilshire)
Hollywood:92(Hollywood/Highland)
North Hollywood:91(adjacent to Red Line Noho station)

It's not convenient, and the only people who will walk half a mile are the ones that don't want to lose the parking space near their apartment (noticed this in Brentwood). For everyone else, they will drive that 1/2 mile because it isn't the shortest walk in the world. If you build more ground floor-retail with housing above, then you'll get more people walking. But I wouldn't expect many people to go walking 1/2 a mile to get groceries every day or every few days. For some it works, but for some, after a long day at work, the last thing they want to do is spend half an hour shopping and then 40 minutes walking when they can be relaxing. Driving there is a hassle, no doubt, but the walk seems like the much worse option.

Maybe you don't agree with me on that, but I think we both agree on the big issue.

And so then these people who don't want to walk or do anything out of their comfort zone should shut the fuck up about traffic and just sit and rot inside their deathmachines whilst in traffic.

For everyone else, they will drive that 1/2 mile because it isn't the shortest walk in the world... But I wouldn't expect many people to go walking 1/2 a mile to get groceries every day or every few days... Driving there is a hassle, no doubt, but the walk seems like the much worse option.

Maybe it depends on what the pedestrian sees and feels when they are walking that 1/2 mile. If it is a pleasant environment -with street trees and adequate lighting, trash recepticales- taking a few bags of groceries 1/2 mile in 20 minutes is reasonable because the walk home can be a recharging experience. If that 1/2 mile corridor is a shithole, then of course they'll drive. However that shithole won't get any better catering to folks isolated by driving through this shithole instead of them walking In the shithole so they know they'll have to do things to make them better with better pedestrian treatments.

Metro Rail, Metro Orange Line Set New Ridership Records as Commuters Balk at Paying High Gas Prices (http://www.metro.net/news_info/press/metro_122.htm)

July 11, 2008

Metro Rail ridership records were set on several rail lines in June 2008 as commuters and others parked their cars and opted for cheap and fast service to avoid high gas prices. The Metro Red and Purple subway lines, the Metro Gold and Green Lines all set weekday ridership records and the Metro Blue Line fell just short of a record. Metro Orange Line buses also set a ridership record.

Last month 309,000 passengers boarded Metro Rail trains on an average weekday, up 12.8 percent, compared to a year earlier. About half of those riders (153,928) rode the subway, which connects downtown Los Angeles and Universal City and North Hollywood via Hollywood with a spur to Wilshire and Western.

For the second month in a row, the Metro Gold Line from downtown Los Angeles to Pasadena, set a new ridership record with 26,338 average weekday boardings, up 31.8 percent in June 2008 over last year.

"The cost-effective, convenient alternative to driving propelled the Gold Line to an all-time high in ridership," said County Supervisor and Metro Board Member Michael D. Antonovich.

The Metro Green Line connecting Norwalk and El Segundo nabbed a record with 44,034 boardings, and the Metro Blue Line, which travels from downtown Los Angeles to Long Beach, experienced its second highest ridership with 84,353 average weekday boardings.

The popular Metro Orange Line, a 14-mile busway that operates like a “train on rubber wheels” from North Hollywood to Woodland Hills in the San Fernando Valley, boosted weekday ridership by 4.4 percent over last year to 26,596 boardings.

An even better measure of Metro Rail’s growing popularity is to compare total boardings for the fourth quarter of FY2008 (April-May-June) with the fourth quarter of FY2007. Metro Rail ridership surged 7.13 percent.At the same time, Metro bus ridership, which had been lagging following last summer’s fare hike, bounced back. It’s still down 1.96 percent for the quarter compared to last year but it had been down as much as 7 percent in previous quarters.

Metro schedulers observe that a sharp drop in Metro Day Pass sales has resulted in bus riders making fewer extra discretionary trips, however, Metro Rail has consistently gained new commuter riders eager to avoid pain at the gas pump. Combined Metro Bus and Rail ridership was just about even in the fourth quarter compared to a year earlier.

The combination of cheap fares and fast service competitive with driving is luring more riders, according to Metro officials who note that Metro’s $5 day pass is about what a gallon of gas costs and if thecost of fuel, vehicle depreciation, maintenance, insurance and parking are factored in, those who use public transitor opt for vanpools or carpools can easily save well over $6,000 a year by getting rid of one of the average family’s 2.5 cars and trucks.

November ballot may be full of tax, bond measureshttp://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/40911435-12141217.jpg
By David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 12, 2008
abbreviated:
As he supports the new anti-gang tax, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has also been pushing for a half-cent countywide sales tax increase to raise at least $30 billion over three decades for road and rail projects, including his much-touted subway to the sea.Villaraigosa, who saw administration of the city's anti-gang programs transferred to his office July 1, has been trying to persuade officials throughout the county to line up behind the half-cent sales tax increase, which would direct billions of dollars to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

That measure has been put in danger as representatives of the San Gabriel Valley and the Eastside have warned that their communities might not see enough of a benefit from such a tax. Similar rumblings have come from Long Beach and cities immediately north of it.

david.zahniser@latimes.com
Los Angeles Times

Maybe it depends on what the pedestrian sees and feels when they are walking that 1/2 mile. If it is a pleasant environment -with street trees and adequate lighting, trash recepticales- taking a few bags of groceries 1/2 mile in 20 minutes is reasonable because the walk home can be a recharging experience. If that 1/2 mile corridor is a shithole, then of course they'll drive. However that shithole won't get any better catering to folks isolated by driving through this shithole instead of them walking In the shithole so they know they'll have to do things to make them better with better pedestrian treatments.

Damn! Where did you people grow up.....Mayberry??

Welcome to Brooklyn where I never drove(no car) and had to walk to the grocery store sometimes in freezing temps and w/ snow on the ground......

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/bedstuy3.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/bedstuy2.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/bedstuybrooklyn.jpg

and had to walk by people sitting on their front stoop who looked like this:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/bedstuy4.jpg

street recepticles and pretty street lights were 'bout the last thing that was on my mind. It's sad what an unrealistic view of the world that car culture has ushered in. It's almost this antiseptic type of attitude where not only do you not want to be inconvenienced but you tend to have such limited exposure to your fellow citizen that you become laughably out of touch.
There really isn't any way around it......most of us are within 1/2 mile of a grocery if not closer what keeps us from walking are built in class prejudices and the needed by most assurance of our peers. In other words, because other people are not doing it....so we won't either mentality.


And so then these people who don't want to walk or do anything out of their comfort zone should shut the fuck up about traffic and just sit and rot inside their deathmachines whilst in traffic. -"Kid A"

Damn! Where did you people grow up.....Mayberry??
...and had to walk by people sitting on their front stoop who looked like this:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/bedstuy4.jpg


That's funny, that is funny..... here's a history lesson on the early attempt at mass transit in Los Angeles... July 12, 2008
LAistory: The 1925 "Hollywood Subway"
Think LA's relationship with underground rail transit began with the first tunnels blasted out to make way for the Red Line? Think again! LA's first subterranean transit system was a short stretch of tunneling dubbed the "Hollywood Subway," which moved its first passengers under the city in 1925 via electric interurban rail cars. http://laist.com/2008/07/12/laistory_the_19.php Lindsay William-Ross/LAist

Street recepticles and pretty street lights were 'bout the last thing that was on my mind. It's sad what an unrealistic view of the world that car culture has ushered in. It's almost this antiseptic type of attitude where not only do you not want to be inconvenienced but you tend to have such limited exposure to your fellow citizen that you become laughably out of touch.
There really isn't any way around it......most of us are within 1/2 mile of a grocery if not closer what keeps us from walking are built in class prejudices and the needed by most assurance of our peers. In other words, because other people are not doing it....so we won't either mentality.


While I agree with the antiseptic generalization, people live in Los Angeles because of the things perceived there that they demand. Street receptacles, lights, trees. It's all illusion, this life, so you want the things you want... to be around you- if you can manage it. People also live there so they don't have to run into Biggie Smalls on a stoop, or try to walk a half mile in the snow or the absolute teeth whitening heat of Las Vegas, where I live. Are there enough facilities within the half mile distance of most people there? I'd almost feel like I would need a concealed weapon toting my groceries back to my home no matter where I live. Or is that just me. I could certainly use the exercise and I wouldn't mind walking in rain either. I don't think Angelenos are used to public confrontation, or social gathering- yet :)

Damn! Where did you people grow up.....Mayberry??

No South Central LA and lived in Chicago for 6 years.



Welcome to Brooklyn where I never drove(no car) and had to walk to the grocery store sometimes in freezing temps and w/ snow on the ground......

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/bedstuy3.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/bedstuy2.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/bedstuybrooklyn.jpg

and had to walk by people sitting on their front stoop who looked like this:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/bedstuy4.jpg

street recepticles and pretty street lights were 'bout the last thing that was on my mind.


There is a difference between adequate lighting and pretty street lights, because if the pretty street lights don't work what good has it done?

I find people sitting on their porches/stoops a welcoming thing when walking because of this interaction, others with the antiseptic mentality usually find it welcoming because it says we enjoy this street and are making the best of it.

It's sad what an unrealistic view of the world that car culture has ushered in. It's almost this antiseptic type of attitude where not only do you not want to be inconvenienced but you tend to have such limited exposure to your fellow citizen that you become laughably out of touch.
There really isn't any way around it......most of us are within 1/2 mile of a grocery if not closer what keeps us from walking are built in class prejudices and the needed by most assurance of our peers. In other words, because other people are not doing it....so we won't either mentality..

Very true about Car culture but how hard is it for a city to meet the simple demands of its citizens to put in a street light, not a pretty street light, but a street light?

LA is full of street lights.....let's move on from that argument.

I'm convinced that the only way to truly horde people onto mass transit is to limit their options.....sounds anti-American but it's true. Toll the roads, ban free parking, reduce parking requirements in residential and even allow some units to pass on parking all-together, enforce alternate street parking on every street within the City of LA, ban front facing parking lots, provide density bonuses, continue to provide employer incentives to work with transit, create bike lanes countywide, encourage mixed use development, group auto repair shops and auto dealers into specific zones, eradicate drive-thru's, put the affordable housing initiative back on the ballot and continue until it passes and give breaks to developers who build affordable/workforce housing........and on and on......

So life in L.A. depends on a car? Hardy souls prove it just ain't so
By Sue Doyle, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 07/13/2008 12:36:37 PM PDT


Click photo to enlargeG. Maximilian Zaru does not own a car, and uses the bus and... (John McCoy/Staff Photographer)«12»

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REACT: Could you live without your car?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a city obsessed with the automobile, living in Los Angeles without one - on purpose - seems unthinkable, unreasonable, maybe even a little nuts.

But with the days of low-cost gas gone and no national alternative-fuel plan at hand, living car-free is one way some Americans pursue their own energy plans to help save money.

Globally, a car-free movement is afoot to shrink dependence on automobiles and create places where vehicles are unnecessary.

Locally, however, the car-free idea breezes into Los Angeles on Earth Day and other environmental days and floats out 24 hours later. Some say the county's public transportation system is too limited to make living without a car possible.

But some from all walks of life are deliberately living car-free in Los Angeles and have no regrets about their lifestyle change. They shared their stories with the Daily News.

Teacher hopes his dates like green - and the bus

Growing up in Los Angeles, G. Maximilian Zarou dreamed of the day he could sit behind the wheel of his first car.

When he was finally old enough, in 1992, he bought a junky 1972 Ford LTD that got about eight miles to the gallon.

For seven years he poured cash into the "money pit" before the jalopy finally died. While the fifth-grade schoolteacher saved for another set of wheels, he relied on buses and friends with cars to get around.

But once he had stockpiled the cash for new wheels, Zarou


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

Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chose not to bother. He'd started viewing cars as luxuries, not necessities. "I've never regretted it. There are so many reasons not to have a car. There's pollution. The war. And also the cost," said Zarou, 32, who gave up driving in 2000. "I don't pay for parking. I don't get tickets. Whenever gas prices go up, it doesn't affect me."

The decision not to own a car prompted other changes in Zarou's life. He deliberately moved to an apartment just steps from the Red Line subway station and works two bus stops away from the rail.
Door to door, it's a 45-minute commute from his place in East Hollywood to Hoover Street Elementary School downtown. His transportation costs $70 a month.

When visiting his grandparents in Palos Verdes, Zarou rents a car. Those are the times when the tension involved with driving hits him.

"It adds to your stress level," he said. "But on the bus, I can read and look around the city. I don't feel like I can do anything to beat this traffic, so I stop worrying about it."

Dating without a car can pose problems. He tells women from the start of relationships that he lives car-free - a fact that some dates find adventuresome.

Zarou said that if the type of car he owns is important to a date, then she's the wrong woman for him.
"Dating is a little awkward, because women aren't that impressed when you meet them at the restaurant and accompany them on the bus," Zarou said. "But I hope people respect that decision."

Clean-environment advocate pedals the policy he preaches

Joe Linton scrapped his car 16 years ago in favor of his four bicycles, buses and rail, but to this day some friends give him directions for using freeways as if he still drives.

The reality of his preferred, car-free lifestyle doesn't always sink in with others. Many are baffled to learn that it's possible to live without a vehicle in Los Angeles.

"It's somewhat uncommon for people of means to choose to be car-free. People are surprised," said the 44-year-old downtown Los Angeles resident. "But I think it's become less surprising in the last couple of years than in the 1990s."

Linton, who works in environmental policy and advocacy at Occidental College, sold his car in 1992. He made the life-changing decision after experimenting with mass transit for nearly two years while putting only 700 miles on his car odometer - a period he calls "car light."

He has learned that once someone figures out how to commute without a motor vehicle, divorcing the car lifestyle comes easily. His monthly transportation costs are less than $100, mainly for bicycle parts, bus and rail fares.

Still, there are limits.

"You have to plan ahead a little more, and you can't really do a party in Pasadena and a party in Santa Monica on the same night," Linton said. "You have to pick one or the other. It does make me more local."

Cycling up to 100 miles a week for work and recreation, Linton has collided with cars three times. One crash dislocated his shoulder. Two other accidents left him unscathed but damaged his bike.

But he glides through the traffic-clogged streets of Los Angeles on his bicycle unafraid. Determined. Proud.

"If I'm biking at midnight or at rush hour, it takes me the same time to get somewhere," he said. "There's no worry to leave before 5 p.m. to avoid traffic. It's pretty much set."

When it comes to saving money, college student, 19, walks the walk

Shelling out $45 to fill the gas tank on her small hatchback drained Christina Campa's wallet until January, when she reached the point of no return.

Handing the keys back to her father, who gave the Pierce College student the 1994 Saturn as a gift, the 19-year-old decided it was time to walk. Everywhere.

"I couldn't afford it anymore. Having a car was a bill I could do without," said Campa. "I figured if gas prices keep going up, I'm going to have to change my lifestyle eventually, so I had better do it now."

Working at an outdoor gear store less than a mile from her Northridge home, the political science major strolls along the sidewalk to her job in customer service. She walks to friends' houses and to the store.

Though she's been nearly crushed two times by left-turning vehicles and seldom sees her 6-month-old brother and her mother living in Lancaster, she's pocketing an extra $200 a month by not buying gas.

Rarely stepping out of the San Fernando Valley, Campa hops on the bus - costing up to $30 a month - for errands across town. When she misses the bus, she walks.

"I feel more fit, and I have a lot more money now that I'm not spending it on gas. That helps a lot," Campa said. "It was a burden to think about. Now it's something I don't have to think about."

Bicycle Bob Pierce has a van for sale; he quit drviving it about four years ago Idling in traffic and watching his gas-gulping van get less than 10 miles to the gallon spurred Bob Pierce to start living car-free four years ago.

Now known as Bicycle Bob to friends, the 54-year-old metal buyer pedals to work, grocery stores - even out to lunch every Friday behind a caravan of colleagues driving their cars to a treasured Mexican restaurant.

And when valets greet the lunch bunch and take car keys, Pierce hands over his steel-frame bicycle. It's parked at no charge aside from a tip, a small price to pay to remain free of a motor vehicle.

"It takes me five minutes longer to get to work on my bike than it does to drive," the Chatsworth man said of the two-mile commute. "But it doesn't cost me anything other than food for the calories to ride."

Gas cost less than $2 a gallon when Pierce made the switch, so he's unsure how much money he has saved since he ditched his car. His transportation costs reach about $70 every two years for new bicycle tires, plus occasional bus and train tickets.

Still, most of his savings on gas have been wiped out by rising food costs and the generally high cost of living in Southern California.

"I can't imagine how people can still drive a car with the price of gas and have a savings account," Pierce said. "It has to be check-to-check, unless you're fortunate enough to have a high-paying job."

Grocery shopping every two weeks, Pierce lugs home the ice cream, bananas and frozen pizzas in a wagon trailer hitched behind his bicycle.
He generally travels no farther than the San Fernando Valley on weekends and remains loyal to his bicycle-riding lifestyle, rain or shine.

Meanwhile, his 1970 Volkswagen van sits with a for-sale sign in his driveway collecting dust. "It has three-fourths of a tank of gas in it," he said. "So the price just went up."

LA is full of street lights.....let's move on from that argument.

I'm convinced that the only way to truly horde people onto mass transit is to limit their options.....sounds anti-American but it's true.

You've just killed the patient. Do you have a defibrillator? :)

I'm convinced that the only way to truly horde people onto mass transit is to limit their options.....sounds anti-American but it's true.

Any cyclist would tell you that we need more options, so would people on the Westside, and people in the SGV. We need to be able to walk, bike and take rapid transit, not a pseudo-rapid bus.

Not that making motorists pay their fare share (getting rid of free parking and increasing the gas tax) is a bad idea.

i don't think that we can get people using our mass transit system by limiting our options. we should instead give more options.

in the future, gas emmisions won't even matter because we will be using alternative unharmfull "fuels" to get our vehicles going: like hydrogen or electricity (i don't mean to dismiss our current fueling problems).

people who do decide to drive are annoyingly circling the streets longer looking for better parking. parking should be provided in better ways that still allow a pedestrian friendly environment. like ramps from the street that connect to a parking structure in the center of a block but is surrounded with retail outside facing the sidewalks topped off with office or residential units (maybe both). rail works with this as well, underneath or even through the parking structure, undergound or above the street.

in our city centers, i still believe there should be some kind of cost to parking even at one's place of residence. i'm still unsure of what our tolling for freeways should be in the future. freeways divide communities already with one side of the freeway and the other side, but now the destinations would be divided as well. if you go anywhere it would cost extra. maybe tolling would help for now, but i might like to see it gone once funds are in place or at least more easy to come by with public transit ridership

many people that i've talked with, whether they drive or take public transit would still like an extended/expanded rail system and finished freeways (the 710 for example) as well as better parking

it's the options that will help us. public transit nore cars will help us by themselves. kind of like the human body: we can't work with just blood, or just hormones, or just nervous impulses... we need it all

The way I see it, fast cars inhibit our two most efficient modes of transportation: walking and cycling. So the slower car go the better. It cuts down on pollution and brings more walkable areas.

The way I see it, we have two options. Either we should raise gas taxes an insane amount so that motorists are paying all the costs of driving (costs of roads and maintenance and costs from accidents and costs for death, however you can do that, and costs for suburban development and resulting groundwater pollution and urban heat island effect, basically, the external costs) which adds up to a ton of money (even more than Europe pays) (we would need all of this money to continue building roads and widening to combat increasing traffic congestion), or we can make our roads more inhibitive of car travel (though still allowing it) and make them more friendly to our much more efficient modes of transportation (in this case gas taxes would still need to be raised, although not nearly as much because all you would really need to pay for is maintenance of roads).

Democrats must agree, Libertarians must agree (otherwise driving is a form of socialism), and Republican must agree (otherwise they look like left-wingers). The sad part is, no one agrees because our country doesn't take seriously these other, more efficient modes of transportation and coddles us with low gas prices.

Democrats must agree, Libertarians must agree (otherwise driving is a form of socialism), and Republican must agree (otherwise they look like left-wingers). The sad part is, no one agrees because our country doesn't take seriously these other, more efficient modes of transportation and coddles us with low gas prices.

with that, i'd have to agree.

though i don't know if the current economy can handle extreme price raises. not just for the personal vehicle, but for shipping and trucking. i do believe most delivery should be delivered by frieght train, but we need the network for that to be improved (it should be worked on).

No doubt we'd have to keep the road network around for freight (even though we could put a lot more on rail), but there would be no reason to have wide roads in our more residential areas.

As for paying for freight travel, we do it now without gas tax covering all of it, like it should. So couldn't we just continue that system for freight? But I really stress pushing more freight onto rail. This way you could electrify it and GREATLY reduce pollution, especially here. Freight trucks are notoriously dirty, and freight rail is too. Electrifying freight would be a godsend.

It's the attitude that we have a right to consume and waste in such an outrageous fashion that will either force us into having less options anyway(depletion of resources) or it will kill us. The idea that we should have an infinite range of options therefore and infinite amount of energy to power those options is a complete lie.......the American dream needs to be finalized. And the exaggerated version of the American dream, one that states "you can have it all" has now spread worldwide and it's simply killing us or will kill us at some point.
Either we come up with some alternative energy that doesn't have harmful waste in its equation or we begin to severly limit our options towards the use of our traditional industrial era means of energy i.e. oil, coal......

Even if we began to use solar cars we would still have a limit on how many we could put on the road at one time. The truth is that one must curtail all sorts of personal freedoms while wantingly being a part of a collective, inwhich I believe a city to be.

No doubt we'd have to keep the road network around for freight (even though we could put a lot more on rail), but there would be no reason to have wide roads in our more residential areas.

As for paying for freight travel, we do it now without gas tax covering all of it, like it should. So couldn't we just continue that system for freight? But I really stress pushing more freight onto rail. This way you could electrify it and GREATLY reduce pollution, especially here. Freight trucks are notoriously dirty, and freight rail is too. Electrifying freight would be a godsend.

agreed

It's the attitude that we have a right to consume and waste in such an outrageous fashion that will either force us into having less options anyway(depletion of resources) or it will kill us. The idea that we should have an infinite range of options therefore and infinite amount of energy to power those options is a complete lie.......the American dream needs to be finalized. And the exaggerated version of the American dream, one that states "you can have it all" has now spread worldwide and it's simply killing us or will kill us at some point.
Either we come up with some alternative energy that doesn't have harmful waste in its equation or we begin to severly limit our options towards the use of our traditional industrial era means of energy i.e. oil, coal......

Even if we began to use solar cars we would still have a limit on how many we could put on the road at one time. The truth is that one must curtail all sorts of personal freedoms while wantingly being a part of a collective, inwhich I believe a city to be.

i'm not necessarily saying "infinite", but more options is more my aim.

yes we could get damn close to running out of resources pretty fast, especially since we are not the only ones requiring dirty fuels lately.

those in charge of certain areas of economy pretty much know that getting fuel has become competitive and the resources are becoming more scarce. we all know that change is not only forced upon us by our own lifestyle changes, but by the fact that it won't be physically provided for us or at least not enough of it.

i'd say the american dream is the same now as it was starting out or maybe it just can't ever be finalized and continues evolving. if you want to be able to drive anywhere or do anything in general, you can, there's just certain restrictions especially with costs. it may be luxury, but these are still important industries that should be evolved or built upon. same with public transit. the dreams or sayings are not necessarily lying, but these things are harder to come by today. the american dream is your own, but i don't really even think of it as the american dream... it's just not my mindset. my dreams are my own.

you wanna live in the city, you gotta know your personal limitations and be MORE aware of what's around you. suburbs are better for the personal vehicle. and i'd have to say that los angeles suburbs are poor examples of the traditional or common american suburb. our suburbs are way more crowded then the norm. the point is no, you can't have both (if you're a regular 5 to 6 figure joe like everyone else). it's either the city or the burbs for you, unless you pull off the 7 figures and lead a life with two loves in it, being two homes.

July 14, 2008
More Taxis for Los Angeles?On Wednesday, the City Council will be voting on a six-month taxi cab pilot program for downtown and Hollywood. But the Department of Transportation has a concern, according to a report (.pdf) of theirs: "There is a possibility that during peak hours, key lanes of traffic could be impeded by taxi operations generated by the pilot program." LA Times Road Sage Steve Hymon translates: "They're scared silly of anything that may slow down some bloke in a car." LAist

It's a part of the anti-gridlock zoning. If you can't park in that 3rd lane during rush hour, then it doesn't make much sense to have taxis stopping there.

That being said, anti-gridlock zoning is a joke, turning our roads into virtual highways.

July 14, 2008
Tensions Flare as Rosendahl Cancels Bicycle Meeting
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/crimanimal_mass_02.jpgblog.wired/crimanimal
Cyclists from around the City were looking forward to Councilman Bill Rosendahl's Community Forum scheduled for tonight and it was that significant citywide interest that may have been responsible for causing the Forum to be canceled.

It was last Wednesday that Councilman Rosendahl called for the Forum in response to the significant outcry over the Mandeville Road Rage incident of July 4th that left two cyclists badly injured, the motorist facing multiple felony charges and the community divided, with many shocked at the motorist's behavior and others complaining that the cyclists had it coming.

LAist broke the story a week ago and the debate roiled. The LA Times article of Wednesday has received over 600 comments to date, many of them vehement in their criticism of the cyclists in this incident as well as of cyclists in general. The LAWheelmen received an email from a woman stating "HOORAY FOR THE DOCTOR. It's about time you lawless bunch of crayolas get what you deserve! There are several of us current and former La Habra Heights residents ready, willing and able to testify on behalf of the doctor. YOU DON'T OWN THE STREETS, don't follow the law and are a blight on society."

By Friday, Rosendahl had changed the venue of the Forum in response to the anticipated crowd and then on Saturday, the Forum was canceled with the explanation that officials of the homeowner groups and bicycling clubs expressed concern that "the tenor of media coverage and of blog posts would make a Monday public meeting counter-productive."

A commenter by the moniker Beekeeper expressed disappointment with Rosendahl's decision saying "There is no respect for bicyclist's right to use public roads and the Public Forum that could have occurred could have been a opportunity to address the concerns of bicyclists."

Through it all, there had been much debate online as to the reasons behind the cancellation and cyclists have refocused their energies on other opportunities to raise awareness such as today's Storm the Bastille ride.

Riding from all over the City, cyclists will be gathering at the Santa Monica & Vermont Red Line Station and riding to City Hall for a noon rally where they will present the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and urge the City of LA's leadership to join the cycling community in making LA a great place to ride.
Zach Behrens/LAist

Wouldn't this story go more appropriately in the "Car Free/Car-Lite" thread and the one about parking meters go in this one which is entitled "LA Transit Issues"?

Any news for Dodger's shuttle?

Gates for Metro Red & Purple LinesThe next step in moving on from the honor system to the gated system in LA's subways and some light rails was announced today. $16.1 million in transit security funding was awarded to Metro by the state towards implementation of the gating system. 379 fare gates will be installed within the next 18 to 24 months. "The gates are expected to reduce the need for civilian fare inspectors and sworn law enforcement will also be freed of fare checking responsibilities at gated stations, allowing them to focus primarily on station security," said a Metro statement released via e-mail. Zach Behrens
LAist

Any news for Dodger's shuttle?

It's supposed to start after the all-star break, and since the all-star game was yesterday, you'll just have to wait for the next homestand.

Adventures in Signage Testing Out A LED on Main Street http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/200808dfghj.jpg
That more expensive sign, which has LED lights, went up three weeks ago at Main and 1st in Downtown as part of a Department of Transportation project to see if LED signs are easier for drivers to see. "I'm doing reflecting tests," Zaki Mustafa, chief of field operations at the Department of Transportation, tells us. He also drives by the sign at night as part of his testing. "The cost is outrageous," he said, unprompted, of the new sign. He also said the old signs require no maintenance, whereas the new ones do. He said he'll make a decision next month on whether the city should use these new signs. The ones currently used by the city cost $70.
Curbed LA

Gates for Metro Red & Purple LinesThe next step in moving on from the honor system to the gated system in LA's subways and some light rails was announced today. $16.1 million in transit security funding was awarded to Metro by the state towards implementation of the gating system. 379 fare gates will be installed within the next 18 to 24 months. "The gates are expected to reduce the need for civilian fare inspectors and sworn law enforcement will also be freed of fare checking responsibilities at gated stations, allowing them to focus primarily on station security," said a Metro statement released via e-mail. Zach Behrens
LAist

while riding the red line today i saw at least 3 arrests for fare evasion. metro is on a real arresting spree. there were 2 other arrests on the gold line while going to school yesterday. :eek2::nono:

Hail! Hail! (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2008/07/hail_hail.php)

By jwilliams
July 16, 2008

The City Council today gave their longwinded stamp of approval to a pilot program that will allow citizens to hail a taxi (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2008/05/city_approves_h.php) in Hollywood and Downtown LA. The program will establish protocols for taxis to load and unload passengers in previously restricted "no parking" zones (not including bus zones). If the program is a success (measured how, we're not sure), the city's 2,300 cabs will be able to pick up people flailing their arms on the street. The program is expected to start a week after the Mayor and Council give their approval. [Curbed Staff]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/16/22307111_92af15363d.jpg

Downtowners Rejoice, Hail-a-Taxi Pilot Wins Approval! (http://www.angelenic.com/1007/downtowners-rejoice-hail-a-taxi-pilot-wins-approval/)

By Stephen Friday
July 16, 2008

Downtown will never be the same again.

After winning unanimous approval at today’s City Council meeting, the Hail-a-Taxi initiative — a plan to get enhance the urban experience by encouraging a new cab culture in this city — will soon implement its six-month pilot program here in Downtown.

Residents, business owners and visitors in the heart of Los Angeles will find quick travel over short distances much more friendly as taxi drivers are given the freedom to pick up passengers outside of designated zones, allowing for instant curbside hailing.

City officials are moving to launch the program as early as August 1, 2008.

Official Press Release Issued today by Jan Perry’s Office:

The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously today to support the “Hail-a-Cab” program. The proposed program would create a six-month pilot program that would allow point-to-point taxi service within Downtown and a portion of Hollywood, giving pedestrians the freedom to hail taxi cabs curbside.

“It’s simple. We are a major metropolitan city and we need to afford our residents the flexibility to access and use every form of transportation option available to them. Hailing a cab is the natural next step in the evolution of downtown,” said Councilwoman Perry who authored the motion and shepherded it through the City’s legislative process. “Now, if a person wants to go from the Biltmore Hotel to the Convention Center or from Union Station to City National Plaza or from a sidewalk on Grand Avenue to the Fashion District, they can just hail a cab.”

The “Hail-a-Cab” idea was spearheaded by Hal Bastian of the Central City Business Improvement District. Over three years ago, Bastian presented his idea to Councilwoman Perry who agreed that downtown Los Angeles needed to start allowing what is common practice in other dense metropolitan areas; simply put, people needed the freedom to hail a taxi cab.

Council President Eric Garcetti, who seconded the motion, thought the program would also be a great fit in Hollywood: “This pilot program is an important step toward strengthening transportation alternatives in Los Angeles. Bringing this pilot to Hollywood builds on the walkable, transit rich infrastructure of our most famous neighborhood.”

The current model for taxi service in downtown and Hollywood makes it very difficult to use a taxi locally. The pilot program allows individuals to use a cab in these two urban centers by hailing it, allowing taxi service to function as a realistic means of transportation locally within these areas. The six-month pilot program will allow taxi drivers the flexibility to actively load and unload passengers in some otherwise restricted areas curbside. Currently, taxi cab drivers that stop at colored curbs and risk heavy fines and tickets from law enforcement officers. Taxis will still be prohibited from stopping at designated bus stops.

“The Hail-a-Cab program is a win-win for Angelenos. It will decrease traffic in two of the most gridlocked areas of our City, while making Los Angeles more accessible and business friendly,” said Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, chair of the City’s Transportation Committee. “With this program and our shuttle and DASH service, we are providing a real transportation alternative in downtown and Hollywood.”

“It is only sensible that people should have the option to hail a cab downtown in one of the densest parts of the city. This makes sense for tourists who are unfamiliar with the city as well as residents who need the occasional convenience of a taxi. We need to do everything we can to help people downtown circulate from place to place. This is a long time coming and I look forward to being able to hail a cab myself very soon,” added Councilmember Jose Huizar who represents a portion of Downtown Los Angeles.

In late December of 2007, Councilwoman Perry introduced a motion, seconded by Council President Eric Garcetti asking the Department of Transportation to create a plan that would allow pedestrians to hail a taxi cab in downtown, one of the densest parts of the city. The program was supported by both the Taxi Cab Commission and the City’s Transportation Committee. While an exact date for the program launch is not set, the “Hail-a-Cab” pilot program could start as early as August 1, 2008.

-Council Unanimously Approves Hail-a-Taxi (http://blogdowntown.com/2008/07/3468-council-unanimously-approves-hailataxi) (blogdowntown)
-Summer Tourism Season Picks Up, but Downtown Still Can’t Hail a Cab (http://www.angelenic.com/786/downtown-los-angeles-hail-a-cab-initiative/)
-Hail-a-Taxi Gets a Go, Downtown to Be Test Subject (http://www.angelenic.com/622/hail-a-taxi-gets-a-go-downtown-to-be-test-subject/)

This may be a boon for the Red Line, but when will Long Beach and Santa Monica join in?

edit edit edit edit edit

should be able to hail a cab anywhere in LA. get private vehicles off the road and make way for those gold crown vics :)

July 16, 2008
Councilman Eric Garcetti Writes in on Traffic http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/138658909_0fa326c9d2.jpgla metblogs
Yesterday, we highlighted Steve Hymon's explanation on why there is traffic in Los Angeles. We started off by saying something we heard LA City Council President say to a group of people a year ago. In a phone conversation with his office, we said we stated his thoughts, but very simply and that if he wanted to clarify and expand, to please do so. Garcetti did just that in the comments section this morning. Here's what he had to say:

To be clear, I mentioned that there are some cities that have no traffic and that this is a reflection of the lack of economic depression (e.g., Detroit in recent years, etc.). LA's traffic, which needs to be solved, is nevertheless a reflection on some level that people still want to be in LA and that there is a lot of economic activity here.

That said, I believe that traffic is the most important issue we have to solve in our city, from the pollution it causes, the frustration it brings about, and the lost economic efficiency that results from long commutes in inadequate infrastructure.

One of the main drivers of traffic is the spatial mismatch between jobs and homes that exists in the city. Several factors have led to this mismatch - land prices, the previously low cost of gas and driving in general, and subsequent development focused around the automobile.

In regards to Hollywood, it is a main activity center for the City of Los Angeles, and therefore, not only does the area experience the traffic from those who work and live in this area on a daily basis, congestion is created from discretionary trips that people make to go eat, get a haircut, shop, or watch a movie. And yes, these discretionary trips are the sign of a good economy. So, while we don't advocate for congestion, and we do notice that there is a positive correlation to the economy, it also signals to us that we need to improve options for transit, walking, and biking - all things that we have or are currently working on.

We also need to do everything we can to overcome the lousy planning of the past, where very little consideration was given to the balance between retail, jobs, and housing because our past leaders thought it would always be easy and convenient to get in a vehicle and drive quickly across large distances to our next stop. There are some communities where more people are living closer to where they work and play and this helps improve traffic for everyone.

Thanks for keeping the conversation going. We will update you as we continue some of our efforts to measure the jobs-housing imbalance (we are working on this now with some local universities) and as we look at creative and effective ways of mitigating that imbalance.
Thanks for writing in, Eric!

LAist

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/forum.jpgMID-WILSHIRE: This Friday at the El Rey, there's a public meeting dubbed "Wilshire Corridor: Are We Ready for the Subway?" Special MTA Wilshire Subway Briefing and Status Report Legislative and Financing Update featuring Richard Katz, MTA Board Member, and MTA Senior Staff. At that event, you get a lunch buffet, but it costs $20. http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/Forum-3.gif

damn to late to RSVP :)

If the sales tax passes the subway WILL happen. What? With Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and West Hollywood all clamoring for a piece of it! I think we are really going to see transit come into its own in LA next decade/

^ True. But exactly how much transit? That is the question. We cannot keep moving at our current pace.

Need more subway lines in LA. Plain and simple.

About $7.8 billion will go toward freeway and road projects according to Steve Hymon. It's making me rethink whether or not I should vote for this. I want to vote for these rail projects, but I'm sick and tired of worthless road expansion.

there is still time for change. unless the oil bubble pops between now and november, then i think that we'll be okay. people wont want to see a freeway under construction when they know a train or busway can be built in that same location and they can ride it for practically nothing. but if oil continues its fall down ($16 in 3 days yikes!!!) then you can kiss the tax hike good buy, or if passed it will be used for roads and mass transit gets kicked off again :(

About $7.8 billion will go toward freeway and road projects according to Steve Hymon. It's making me rethink whether or not I should vote for this. I want to vote for these rail projects, but I'm sick and tired of worthless road expansion.


$7.8 billion over how many years? When you divide it up most of that sound like stuff like Soundwalls, metering, maintenance, Tow trucks and a few HOV lane projects. Inflation will more than likely eat up 40% of that figure right off the bat so that's $4.8 billion over 30 years makes that roughly $160M a year for 30 years. In my math and given the upkeep of roads which also improves or bus services over the tax, that is very little to give up.

also, realigned streets and parking improvements. besides, some of our freeways do need expansion (60 for example). not just for us, but like movement of goods. it is small compared to just public transit

I guess You can't walk in L. A! :) Pedestrians Still Getting Ticketed in Koreatownhttp://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/nnnbbb.jpg
Thursday, July 17, 2008, by jwilliams
As first reported in February, and followed-up by an LAPD rebuttal, the police are staking out the corner of Vermont and Wilshire ticketing pedestrians who enter the street when the hand starts flashing. The ticketing continues and the debate rages, but in the end you're going to get a ticket if you cross on the flashing red. Please tell your friends.

"So over the past few weeks, LAPD officers continue to ticket unsuspecting pedestrians crossing the street from the subway station to the buses on Vermont Ave.

One day last week, a man crossed the street-- entering the crosswalk after the hand had begun flashing, but safely crossed before the light changed-- and hopped onto a bus. The cop followed him onto the bus and made him get off; the bus driver then pleaded with the cop to let him go! The officer didn't relent, and proceeded to ticket the poor guy.
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/mmmbbbb.jpg
"The following day, I said hi to the cop, and asked if I could make a suggestion. I politely said, "Why not just stop people from crossing, rather than wait until they've already crossed to ticket them? Wouldn't that be safer?" He snarled and waved his book of tickets at me: "That won't do any good! We can't babysit these people all day long everyday! The only way to make 'em learn is to ticket them! That way, they won't do it when we're not around..."
CurbedLA

$7.8 billion over how many years? When you divide it up most of that sound like stuff like Soundwalls, metering, maintenance, Tow trucks and a few HOV lane projects. Inflation will more than likely eat up 40% of that figure right off the bat so that's $4.8 billion over 30 years makes that roughly $160M a year for 30 years. In my math and given the upkeep of roads which also improves or bus services over the tax, that is very little to give up.

My biggest problem is the amount of money going to the 710 for that tunnel and improvements to on-ramps and such for capacity improvement. Why are we worried about improving capacity? If it's about goods movement, then is the Alameda Corridor East not going to have any impact on freight movement out of the region? Or is it to try to cater to the people who still drive when alternate modes are easily accessible to them?

I just feel like roads are getting too much of a chunk of the money from a tax that is being marketed as a transit expansion tax. Especially since the state is still funding roadway improvement and the federal government still helps out with this. It seems like my taxes would be going to waste on fruitless road projects. I'm fine with it going to maintenance and to help pay for converting road lanes to bike/bus lanes, but why should we try to increase capacity on a freeway that will just be filled up again a year after the project is completed?

croyboy, the 60 has 5 lanes for most of that route through LA county. Does that really need to be expanded?

$40 billion will be generated from this tax. About 20% will be for roads. Really? The county that tried to build roads to ease congestion for about 35 years still doesn't realize that it's impossible? Carpool lanes are nice, but there is an easier way to get that done than widening the whole freeway, and all it takes is a repealed law so that we can take away an existing lane and convert it to an HOV lane.

I'm all for the sales tax and will not stand in the way of rail,bus and other transit projects getting 40% of the pie along with the Federal matching funds that will come along with that. To reject the sales tax is a very stupid strategy acknowledging that we have one of the greatest freeway systems on Earth and we just can't wish it away or let it fall into disrepair. Yes, I would like to see transit getting 60% of the pie and roads getting 40% but it's about building momentum.

I was walking down Hollywood Blvd yesterday and told myself that the hordes of people, the nightlife, the construction, the vibrancy of Hollywood has grown exponentially because of that one little Red Line subway. The investment in the route has already paid for itself and has done more than that if you include projects that haven't even started yet. What will the downtown connector do for LA's downtown? What will the Expo built fully out complimented by the Purple Line built out do for our urban core? I don't see how a transit advocate could not support this opportunity.

I was walking down Hollywood Blvd yesterday and told myself that the hordes of people, the nightlife, the construction, the vibrancy of Hollywood has grown exponentially because of that one little Red Line subway. The investment in the route has already paid for itself and has done more than that if you include projects that haven't even started yet. What will the downtown connector do for LA's downtown? What will the Expo built fully out complimented by the Purple Line built out do for our urban core? I don't see how a transit advocate could not support this opportunity.
Now wouldnt you like that all over the westside?:)

Subway:)

and that 710 tunnel thing is a joke. We could use that money to fund another line.

From the LA Times:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/07/snoble-im-feeli.html

Comment 1: I know I keep bringing up this subject, but it seems like it keeps getting worse and worse. I mean on one hand I really want these rail projects to get funding and I know that they're desperately needed. On the other hand, I'm tired of any new road construction. There's no point in expanding roads, and I don't want my money going to waste. So, should I allow these road junkies to get another hit just so that these projects that were needed 20 years ago can finally get funding, or should I vote against it in protest of this grandiose waste of money?

Comment 2: I think it's important for people to realize that there is no magic bullet.

We've got millions of people here and even if everything on this list got built, traffic will still suck. The difference will be you won't have to be in that traffic. We'll all have more options and millions more people will be able to get where they need to go.
The big thing some people just can't accept is that you can't ever stop building infrastructure. People whine about every piece of construction taking too long or never finishing, but we're never going to be "done."

hey as a long time SGV resident. i know that were gonna get what we want.
i say this not to gloat or tease, but as a political observer, with a few friends and family members in local politics that fight tooth and nail to get what they want no matter the cost. its kinda sad to see.

i know the question has already been answered, but im to lazy to read all the info that is in damiens links, and on this forum, so damian what other alternative do you propose for the exposition area?
a bus way?
elevated rail?
subway?
i know you mentioned shallow stations like a the memorial park stop on the gold line.
but i think we can all agree that we need an alternative mode of transportation in that area. right??

dachacon,

Of course I agree. I'm a transit advocate. I see the existing and future need, potential ridership and how the corridor fits into the system.

The Fix Expo solution is two prong:
1) Begin operations to the Vermont Ave temporary termini ASAP

Extend the Figueroa trench 0.3 miles to Vermont, as the PUC engineers requested repeatedly, and place the Expo Park/Vermont station below grade (in the trench) between Menlo and Watt Way.

This can be done easily within the existing EIR, because an extended trench option to Watt Way (which is just 2 blocks/0.1 mile from Vermont) has already been approved, as has beginning operations to Vermont. This allows Expo to be built and operational to Vermont by 2010. It also eliminates the duplicitous and unnecessary dual stations in the area (Trousdale is 0.2 miles from Vermont), mitigates the Exposition Park/USC special event traffic and safety problems, and maintains the character of the many true assets to the area, among other benefits.

2) Complete and approve an environmental review to change the design from Vermont to La Brea portion (4 miles of the 8.6 mile project) to underground with open cut stations at the existing station locations: Western, Crenshaw & La Brea.

The community is willing to accept a trench, tunnel (bored or cut-and-cover) or some combination there of, to connect the open cut stations.

The process could be done in time to begin building the section in dispute and have it operational to Culver City well before the line is intended to reach Santa Monica. It allows the project to impact all directly adjacent residential communities along Phase 1 of the line equally and eliminates some huge safety hazards. The added construction cost to the existing project, per our engineers own estimate, which are extrapolated from the Gold Line tunneling costs and current raw material cost is about $250-300 million. (That cost does not include the admin costs.)

And again, it also does not at all compromise bringing a full Expo to Santa Monica online on time. Indeed it actually does the reverse, by providing the necessary precedence for grade separation in the most problematic areas along the Phase 2 route.

We identified and have been requesting, to no avail, the additional funding come from existing resources, namely Proposition 1B. No action to date has been made to go after the money for the Fix Expo request, although $218 million has gone towards the project for everything and everywhere other than the Fix Expo request.

That's the gist of the Fix Expo proposal.

Personally, I will be advocating that in the Downtown Connector process the Flower St tunnel and Figueroa trench be connected. And by that time, trust me when I say I won't be alone. The problems in operating the two lines on the Flower St segment, the problems at Flower/Adams and Flower/HOV will be well known by then.

Changing those two segments from at-grade to grade separated does so much to make possible current spur lines. No spur line is operationally possible off the Expo Line. It makes possible a spur line to LAX via Crenshaw corridor, a spur line to Venice via Venice Beach or UCLA/Westwood via 405/Sepulveda.

I mean the reality is the operational confines alone of the primarily at-grade design of Expo Phase 1, likely account for a daily loss of 75-100K rail riders per day - MINIMUM.

Damien is obviously a political advocate for safety issues regarding such transportation. Child safety, neighborhood and environmental impact and quality of life issues?
At what capacity do you work for or against the city or county, Damien?

milquetoast,

Well, according to the LA Times, I'm a visionary, and according to Rick Thorpe I'm tenacious and very intelligent. LOL! (Trust me when I say that's not all Rick would have to say about me.)

I don't easily fit into categories. But if you were to try to sum it up in 1 sentence: I'm a progressive advocate for justice, government transparency, accountability, community empowerment, who happens to also be a rail advocate and experienced political consultant.

As kidA stated, Fix Expo is involved in a legal process with the MTA. What kidA neglects to mention is that I and my community have exhausted political and administrative processes and are up against a political machine that is far greater than the citizens of South Los Angeles are or ever have been. The media, law and actual courts (not the PUC) are the only venues we have left to fight because the others have all FAILED. So you either sit down shut up and accept it, or you stand up and fight. We've chosen the latter.

Once again aside from the environmental racism claim Damien when posting here 2 years ago and the development of his GLAM campaign has always spoke out against at-grade rail in LA on the basis of density.

klamedia,

The reason some 70% of GLAM is subway was not just density. Dispersed density was one issue on a long list of independent and related reasons, including but not limited to:
-Traffic impacts
-Construction time and impacts
-Current travel patterns/challenges (i.e. long-distance travel demands)
-System and line capacity
-Long-term maintenance cost
-Long-term economic benefits
-Design uniformity
-The need to directly serve existing economic and population centers
-The need for region-wide and local community acceptance to earn the political support to make the massive capital investment

Having said all of that, to be clear Get LA Moving (http://www.getlamoving.com) and Fix Expo (http://www.fixexpo.org) are two separate efforts. Some of the Fix Expo issues are similar and both are lead by me (though GLAM is dormant), but the solutions and the priorities are different.

Fix Expo's primary focus is to improve rail safety, preserve a community, and obtain equal investment and treatment for a typically politically under-served community.

GLAM's objective is to adequately contribute to an discussion about how to solve massive planning and traffic problems, (dare I say rationally), and build a movement emphasizing the importance of the NOW.

If they were the same, the request for Expo would be for a fully grade separated single-bored subway, as opposed to the request being just a redesign of the 4 of the 8.6 miles of the line (Vermont to La Brea) to below grade in a trench, tunnel (cut-and-cover or bored tunnel) with open cut stations.

I know I kind of diverged from talking about Expo, but this is one of the benefits of at-grade light rail. It will slow down traffic, bring pedestrian activity, bring development, and lead us to develop a more sustainable city form.

phattonez,

That thinking among other things, ignores the fact that we're a pretty big region with a lot of amenities and job/activity centers that are very dispersed and that a regional solution (our big problem) is needed in addition to a local solution.

It ignores that the highest paying jobs are quite a distance from the most affordable neighborhoods, where even people making the median income in Los Angeles are struggling. (Have you ever ridden the 720 bus?)

That thinking assumes that the development that accompanies our rail transit SYSTEM is intended to transfer these large dispersed economic centers (Downtown LA, Downtown Glendale, Downtown Pasadena, LAX/El Segundo, Westwood, Century City, Warner Center, Beverly Hills, Culver City, USC, Hollywood, etc.) into the neighborhoods where systems are being built or that such is even feasible in the neighborhoods. (The development around the stations is primarily for housing that runs contrary to so many smart growth principles. And the housing, by the way is not even in the ball-park for the surrounding community. It's only affordable to the people who make enough to actually live near the job centers that are supposed be connected by the system!)

I know what it is like to live in a city with traffic calming, bike lanes everywhere, heavy pedestrian traffic, wide sidewalks and street amenities. Cambridge, Massachusetts is the city that is the model, THE STANDARD, by which "well planned smart growth" cities are compared.

But you can't look at Cambridge and ignore that:

a) In addition to the narrow streets, pedestrian furniture and bike lanes there are two HUGE employment centers right in our backyard (Harvard University and MIT/Kendall Square)

b) If people are not employed in Harvard/Kendall Square, they're at most 10-15 minute walk/bus ride or bike trip from a grade separated Red Line station that transports people to the other major economic center in the region: Downtown Boston.

And to provide some perspective, the distance between Harvard Square and Downtown Boston is the distance between 7th Street Metro and the Wilshire/Western Station!

If you calmed traffic (to allow for the pedestrian/bike amenities you and I both desire) throughout a region this dispersed have you any clue how much more time we'd all spend commuting either in our cars, buses, on a primarily at-grade light rail system or some combination thereof?

The solution in my opinion, is to increase transport capacity with new rights-of-way (grade separated) to mitigate the smart growth, while also reducing the EXISTING and future stress on the roadway system to allow for the pedestrian oriented planning.

At-grade light rail on Expo Phase 1 and many others in this corridor given the current and future environments, requires a constant process of mitigating the mitigation.

Have we completed the Wilshire Blvd subway yet? The reason why I ask this is by the time you do that kind of mitigation for Expo (the 60' below grade subway) you better off building the Wilshire Subway with ridership and demand that will justify building the corridor in that manner.

I guess that all depends on how you are defining "justify?" I will discuss more below.

How would the shallow railway trench be any different from the at-grade crossings? How many railway trenches do you know of that are built have entry pass-throughs every 3/16 of a mile? I can't think of any I work by two of them every day.

Sounds like a good argument for a tunnel: cut-and-cover or bored. Good thing the Fix Expo position clearly states both of those as options. Again, trench, cut-and-cover tunnel, bored tunnel, or some combination thereof.

Now we could include Pedestrian Z crossings (crossings that would help actively force pedestrians to look both ways and directions on the tracks with the flashing active "Train crossing" signs) to connect to the schools with a crossing guard at Budlong to handle the peak load of students crossing Exposition. There lies the question, do we really need to build a trench to do something that a specifically designed pedestrian crossing would do?

There's no space for Z-crossings in the median of Expo.

Now let's look at Expo carefully. What do you think would happen to Expo once we build a few other lines like Wilshire Subway to Westwood or having a north-south corridors like Crenshaw Corridor, 405 Freeway Parallel Rail Line or a Vermont Subway.

So your argument is that in a network, the line's ridership would not "justify" the cost of grade separation?

Let's dissect that for a minute.

Advocates for the line have constantly touted the comparative population density around this line vs. other light rail lines in the country as a primary reason to support the line being LRT over BRT. You're now arguing that "the network" will take care of the capacity and time loss issue (and thereby ridership loss issue). Well then why not build the Expo as BRT instead of LRT?

How can you possibly justify a $865 million investment that will be pointless 20 years from now?

If "the network" is going to take care of many of the problems mentioned, (among them: speed), why not build the line as a bus way and save 500-600 million for another project? A busway that you must admit provides the added opportunity for branch bus lines that can directly serve the major activity nodes that are 1-2 miles away from the Expo right-of-way (Downtown Culver City, Crenshaw Mall/Leimert Park & Baldwin Village on Phase 1)?

Because in that debate "Expo BRT" wins and "Expo As Designed" loses.

If you want to argue that BRT doesn't bring about the type of development that LRT does, it is a bit unfair to omit that Expo As Designed takes away roadway capacity and capability, not just for vehicle movements, but for sidewalk widening, metered parking, street furniture, free-flowing pedestrian movements (i.e. closed streets) and the many other important components in creating inviting pedestrian oriented districts?

And if BRT's comparative maintenance costs are s the basis for Expo As Designed given that BRT's maintenance cost are higher than LRT, is it not fair to discuss the maintenance costs for grade separated rail vs. at-grade rail, in which grade separated rail has a lower maintenance cost than at-grade rail?

Because in that debate "Expo Grade Separated" wins and "Expo As Designed" loses.

And if in that discussion about maintenance costs, isn't it fair to allow a comparative analysis between elevated railways (a 50 year life cycle) vs. subway (a 100 year plus life cycle)?

Because in that debate "Expo Elevated" loses and "Expo Subway" wins.

So now we're back to the capital cost argument given that Expo As Designed is about $350 million (or 30%) less than Expo Subway: $1.2 bil vs. $865 mil. But even if we're not going to discuss maintenance costs, is it fair to talk about capital costs for Expo As Designed vs. Expo Subway, while ignoring the TRUE ECONOMIC costs to the taxpayers who are footing the bill for the project, given that Expo As Designed results in slower travel times (to riders and vehicles), increased vehicular storage capacity in development and on the road (to mitigate the mitigation), higher system operating costs due to lost ridership, and on and on and on?

Because, again in that debate "Expo As Designed" loses.

Expo As Designed loses undoubtedly to Expo Grade Separated and Expo Subway in all but one category: people like trains and at-grade is cheaper than grade separated. And the only way to come to any other conclusion is to conveniently and simplistically use an evaluation that omits so many others factors and verifiable/predictable externalities. It requires pretending that Expo is built in and will operate in a vacuum.

Stated simply:
Every argument for Expo Phase 1 being built primarily at-grade, is an argument against it being built at all! And every argument for Expo Phase 1 LRT being built at all is an argument for it to be built grade separated.

Now back to the network argument. First off, the Wilshire corridor at most points is 3 miles from the Expo corridor, which incidentally is nearly the same distance between the 91 freeway to the 105 freeway. (Would you argue that the 105 freeway was not needed given the proximity of the 91?)

Of course both a grade separated Expo and Wilshire line are needed, just like the 91 and 105 are needed. Because Expo serves a corridor completely separate from Wilshire for most of it's route and TODAY there is good population density with more anticipated. Even more population density is physically possible, though environmentally infeasible, given the adverse externalities of the at-grade "network." Put another way, building Expo the way we are is imposing constraints on our area especially between Vermont and La Brea. Nonetheless, I can think of a hundred different current commute patterns that TODAY derive on the Expo Corridor between Vermont and Palms en route to a destination, in which connecting to a north-south bus at an Expo Line station would be far faster than schlepping up to the Wilshire corridor.

Again, the travel trip time savings comes in getting to that Expo Line station fast.

Simply put, the car culture does not die easily.

phattonez,

I don't consider it a battle against the "car culture." From the traffic perspective, I consider it a battle against immobility.

You can't inverse the process: selling a product that hasn't been completely created yet. First the product, then the sale. First you must build the extensive, modernized, comprehensive mass transit system and then gently start coaxing people out of their cars - like any good salesmen.

Vangelist, the reality is coaxing would not be necessary if the system was competitive. But that requires building our lines differently, among other requirements.

I don't think that most of the neighborhoods around expo phase 1 are going to become denser because its all along a street that doesn't really have much space for mixed use developments and I'm pretty sure most of the home owners along expo [phase 1] would not want that to happen. I could only imagine sections like Western/Expo, La Cienega/Expo, and around the culver city terminus have space and activity for that kind of development.

kidA,

You need to spend more time at the community meetings going on in your own backyard. The Vermont-Figueroa corridor is already undergoing a massive change. There are plans to bring the Normandie 5 redevelopment area down to Expo to Western. Crenshaw has so many projects going on I can't even remember them all. Jefferson and Exposition are being discussed for total rezoning. Conceptual plans for the area around La Brea were drawn up years ago. Plans around La Cienega are being drawn up now.

I don't consider it a battle against the "car culture." From the traffic perspective, I consider it a battle against immobility.
immobility to what?

July 18, 2008
City Council Endorses Sales Tax Plan
by Damien Newton

Despite opposition from several key members, the Los Angeles City Council endorsed Metro's sales tax proposal and expenditure plan. An earlier motion called on Metro to fund certain projects, such as a streetcar for the downtown and a Green Line extension to the airport, but an amendment offered by Council Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel removed those stipulations in favor of blanket support for the resolution which could increase LA City's coffers by $40 million a year in Local Return funds.

Councilman Tony Cardenas challenged the support for the sales tax plan noting that many of those Local Return funds would most likely be used by the city to fill its funding gap caused by cost overruns. When they finally showed up to the meeting, a half hour after Cardenas first wondered where LADOT was, LADOT executive John Fisher admitted that the city has a projected yearly shortfall of $12 million in transportation projects funded by previous ballot propositions and could use Local Return funds to fill that gap. In other words, the City of Los Angeles could be using 30% of its Local Return on projects that are already nearly funded; further reducing the potential pool of funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects. As recently as yesterday, Metro officials have tried to assure advocates for non-motorized transportation that there will be plenty of funds for sidewalks and bicycle projects in the Local Return set aside.

Most of the Council supported the proposition, especially Bill Rosendahl. The longtime advocate for a Green Line extension was promised by Metro CEO Roger Snoble that the plans for a Green Line extension to LAX would be accelerated and could begin construction within the next two years. Councilman Parks, who sits on the Metro Board of Directors, also enthusiastically endorsed the sales tax and took great pains to defend it from Cardenas and others who attacked it.

Cardenas was joined in opposition to the sales tax by fellow San Fernando Valley Councilman Richard Alarcón who is still angered that a redirection of funds he allocated for a busway in his former Senate District were reallocated for the Orange Line. Alarcón, who has repeatedly said that he doesn't trust Metro, vowed to fight the sales tax in his district without 100% guarantees that funds would be spent on the projects as promised to voters. Metro's spokespeople were unable to offer an absolute guarantee because the authorizing legislation allows the Metro Board to change priorities by a two-thirds vote.

The resolution eventually passed by a vote of 11 to 3.

Without Rosendahl's repeated request for a re-opened public comment, public comment was closed in a committee meeting that occurred the same time as the Transportation Committee's big bike meeting, advocates for cyclists and pedestrians would have again been shut out of the process. As it was both myself and LACBC's Dorothy Le testified asking for the Council to back a 1% set aside for bicycle projects and another 1% for pedestrian projects. Le's testimony must have hit home as staff for Wendy Greuel engaged in a spirited debate after her time as a public speaker expired.

Meanwhile, the petition asking Metro to allocate some of the sales tax proceeds to bicycle and pedestrian projects crossed the 100 signature line.

Streetsblog Los Angeles

Explore the Most Walkable Neighborhoods
#8 Long Beach, CA
#9 Los Angeles, CA
http://www.walkscore.com/rankings/

yay we beat portland.
it's unfortunate that walkscore is such a joke.

Oh it is? I guess it's a joke that SF and NYC are at the top, guess it should be Orlando and Detroit.

immobility to what?

huh???

phattonez,

I don't consider it a battle against the "car culture." From the traffic perspective, I consider it a battle against immobility.

I'll look at the rest of this novel later when I have an hour of my time to waste, but I just wanted to know what you think is a bigger hindrance to our mobility: car dependence or an at-grade rail line.

At grade is a hindrance to anything that would have to cross its path. Sheer numbers of cars have overwhelmed its auto-centric infrastructure. The city should stop expanding, in a nutshell, and only a certain number of vehicles should use its freeways and surface streets. The rest should be ready to inhabit the mass transit- assuming we have it by then.

At grade is a hindrance to anything that would have to cross its path.

This is not a brick wall. People can wait a few seconds before passing. But if Damien is going to claim that he is fighting against immobility, then maybe he should be talking to city planners and get them to zone his area differently. The problem is that people need wheels to get everywhere, not that a train is going to come through.

The only reason anything is built at grade is because of technology restraints or MONEY. At grade is the very basic, lazy, cheap way of doing transit. Would you rather have people and vehicles stop, with all the variables associated with stopping, and waiting... like miscommunication, and misspent energy, or tragedy? Everyone's being political because of money, but I don't care how much it costs and I would tell that to the city or county's face. Seperate your infrastructure, modes and technologies and just build it!Time's a wastin' :)

Statements like that completely ignore the many benefits of at-grade rail. It slows down traffic, is easily accessible, makes streets safer and more aesthetically pleasing for pedestrians, can be a boon to business and mixed-use development, and is cheaper. But cheaper is not the only reason.

The only reason anything is built at grade is because of technology restraints or MONEY. At grade is the very basic, lazy, cheap way of doing transit. Would you rather have people and vehicles stop, with all the variables associated with stopping, and waiting... like miscommunication, and misspent energy, or tragedy? Everyone's being political because of money, but I don't care how much it costs and I would tell that to the city or county's face. Seperate your infrastructure, modes and technologies and just build it!Time's a wastin' :)

To be completely truthful when I first heard about Expo being built mostly at-grade I was thoroughly dissapointed. Even when I think back to the time that I first arrived in Los Angeles and took the Blue and Gold Lines I was extremely frustrated that a)the Blue Line ran down the center of a street like a glorified bus and worst of all worsts is that it actually had to stop at signals and allow cars to pass in front of it. I also found this to be a very backwards approach implemented in Long Beach which to this day is nearly infuriating for me to ride that portion of the line. b) I could not for the life of me understand why the Gold Line ran down the center of Marmion Way like a slow street trolley in SF actually yielding for pedestrians!! The frustrating thing about LRT in LA is that for instance when I get on the Blue Line downtown I'm fully grade seperated and expecting a quick and besides the station stops not too many to none incidental stops in between. What happens is that you rise out of the tunnel and after Pico you are in a boulevard median, very frustrating. And I know that the fully grade seperated local trains in NYC on average lag in speed behind the mixed grade seperated trains here in LA but we have to be honest and consider the psycholgical factor of a train stopping at a red light while a car passes in front of it on the rider who may already have access to a car, the means to operate it and a place to park it. If we intend to continue to build at-grade trains then we need to get very serious about limiting parking up to 1/4 to 1/2 mile of any rail station, easing parking requirements and tolling our roads.

The only reason anything is built at grade is because of technology restraints or MONEY. At grade is the very basic, lazy, cheap way of doing transit. Would you rather have people and vehicles stop, with all the variables associated with stopping, and waiting... like miscommunication, and misspent energy, or tragedy? Everyone's being political because of money, but I don't care how much it costs and I would tell that to the city or county's face. Seperate your infrastructure, modes and technologies and just build it!Time's a wastin' :)

I like how a project that goes for almost 1 billion[Expo phase1] is considered "lazy and cheap". Maybe your expectations are too high for a city that doesn't have full support from it's citizens. We need rail and we need it now. If you're a driver and are too lazy to wait 4-5 seconds just to let a train pass, then you shouldn't have a right to drive. I don't feel safe when cars are driving as fast as they want. I live right near Expo and car zoom on by. Hopefully Expo trains will slow down this mentality that roads are only meants for privately owned vehicles that kill people daily. It's my road too!

My expectations are still expecting

The irony of course is that if the real anticipated capital costs were supplied in the early planning stages, the grade separated option would have had a chance.

But when this project was being sold as a $550 million dollar project (and then a $640 million dollar project), the $1.1-1.2 billion dollar grade separated option never had a shot.

It's only when the real capital cost is known ($864 million...and counting) that that $1.1-1.2 billion dollar grade separated option looks cost competitive. But again, understand that at the end of the day the only selling point for at-grade light rail is that the capital costs is lower than grade separated rail and people like trains. So LRT capital cost is almost always drastically underestimated. Expo Phase 1 is no exception.

And seriously, more education is needed regarding LRT delays (start with google people and if you want have a conversation with those who live around these lines). I mean seriously where does 4-5 second delay get pulled from?

And the issue is not JUST the speed of the traffic; it's the amount of delay and removal of necessary current and future roadway capacity (the at-grade crossings of major intersections are a huge rock that ripples throughout the road system).

There are plenty of intersections where today it takes during rush hour 3 cycles to get through the intersection, so traffic isn't going 45 mph anyway. Increasing that delay from 3 cycles to 4-5 cycles doesn't decrease the speed of the vehicles, it increases the motorist's travel time, area's air quality and congestion, and, where possible, reroutes major arterial traffic down residential streets.

No, really- get this city moving or it will die! And I don't mean 'die' in the literal sense but you won't recognize it after it happens. The city will loose it's standing and be bypassed needlessly. The economy will be ruined and resort to a lesser being. You can't even get people out to see the beach at night without some chaos resulting (Santa Monica's recent 'GLO'). City centers will have to be systematically established BY NAME or else the city will always remain fractured, and heavy transit lines will have to connect those centers so that they will thrive and lesser transit lines can branch out from there. A complete redesign of the cityscape may be necessary. Seriously, God help us :)

Well let's see. Without the rail line, traffic doesn't move. With the rail line, traffic does move. Without it, you pretty much have to drive. With it, you have a choice.

You can't plan a city and try to build road infrastructure to get your way out of traffic unless you plan on paving over the entire city.

The problem has been and will continue to be auto-dependence and seeing the car as the only way to travel. It seems that the problem is not freeways and road infrastructure, but the way out city is planned. When where you have to go is not accessible by a short walk (short is relative), then you get traffic because people have to take so many trips via car. Change that, and you can get people mobile again. They will never be mobile by car in this city, but we can actually get people moving.

[COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]You can't even get people out to see the beach at night without some chaos resulting (Santa Monica's recent 'GLO').

Really!! What happened at Glow? I was there all night and it was peaceful. If you didn't get to attend you missed it. Hundreds of thousands of people from Santa Mon all the way down to Venice! It was great and I mean great! So many people arriving by bus....it would have been twice as huge had the subway been in operation. We camped out with my tent on the beach all night. Didn't get home until 9am the next morning. Bussed and biked all the way!!

^^:lol: Just the usual - traffic on the 10 backed up to the 405 and beyond, insufficient bike routes, insufficient parking, Big Blue Buses stopping at their usual 11 pm, and the unusual - having tens of thousands of people milling around Santa Monica at night (which I've read was cool!) That's what I left on a reply board:> "That Subway to the Sea is looking better and better, isn't it?" :)

The Last Of The Famous Los Angeles Streetcars
Monday, July 21, 2008, by Marissa Gluck

Transit nerds - prepares to have your minds blown. This three-minute video features excerpts from a film about the last days of LA's streetcars, including the W and S lines as well as the "streamlined PCC-type cars. Most of these cars were painted two-tone green. You'll see the entire routes of the system's five remaining lines, which were identified as R, S, V, P and J." LA almost looks like San Francisco.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JnP8I2R4_g CurbedLA

Beverly Hills Getting Two Stops on "Subway to the Sea"
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/beverly_hills_90210.jpgFOX
Or so MTA CEO Roger Snoble told a group of wheelers and dealers at a Beverly Hills chamber of commerce meeting last week, the Beverly Hills Courier reports. Possibilities include Wilshire/La Cienega, Wilshire/Robertson, Wilshire/Beverly Drive, and Century City (which is not really Beverly Hills). Snoble also said city leaders and residents have no objections to the subway, as opposed to the last time they tried to build this thing. Well, actually, there's one thing BH mayor Barry Brucker is concerned about: parking. On a recent trip to London and Paris, he noticed that most residents and businesses are, at most, four or five blocks from a metro stop. This won't be the case with the Purple Line, clearly, which in its current form, has no commuter parking lots. Parking or not, Snoble said the Beverly Hills extension could open by 2015.
CurbedLA

^^:lol: Just the usual - traffic on the 10 backed up to the 405 and beyond, insufficient bike routes, insufficient parking, Big Blue Buses stopping at their usual 11 pm, and the unusual - having tens of thousands of people milling around Santa Monica at night (which I've read was cool!) That's what I left on a reply board:> "That Subway to the Sea is looking better and better, isn't it?" :)

So the event was miserable because people chose to drive and couldn't find any parking? BS. IT was great seeing many people in one area. Things like this don't really happen in LA. It was kind of a mass gathering to celebrate the summ er[I felt].

I got there by bus. Took some friends who never take the bus. They had fun, we had fun.

It really must've sucked if you were stoopid enough to drive and/or arrive by bus or car after 7pm.

I drove to Glow at 1AM.
Traffic was nonexistent, and I parked on 5th and SM blvd.
It seemed like a huge exodus of people was happening just as I arrived.

On a recent trip to London and Paris, he noticed that most residents and businesses are, at most, four or five blocks from a metro stop.

Which is why it'll be quite a challenge to get people to convert to mass transit entirely.

I drove to Glow at 1AM.
Traffic was nonexistent, and I parked on 5th and SM blvd.
It seemed like a huge exodus of people was happening just as I arrived.

to bad theirs no train going there. i would have gone but i didnt want to deal with parking and traffic. events like this and the dixy daisy electric carnival are events that need a rail line next to them. :cheers:

Electric Daisy Carnival (Expo Line)

IT was great seeing many people in one area. Things like this don't really happen in LA. It was kind of a mass gathering to celebrate the summer[I felt].

July 22, 2008
A Glowing Disaster or Success? http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/arronproctor-1.jpg arronproctor
Opinions on the SaMo Fest are StrongThe official count for Glow in Santa Monica this weekend is now at 200,000 people with 75,000 there at the same time, according to the Santa Monica Police Department. For the most part, comments left on an LAist post (and other sites) about the event were very strong and negative. However, from there, the biannual event can only come back in 2010 as a slamming success, drawing the same large crowd and pleasing even more people. And not everyone had a bad time. LAist Special Projects Editor Elise Thompson shared the magic she experienced and some wicked photos yesterday (and so did our LAist Featured Photos contributors on Flickr, whose photos are below)
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/knot-1.jpgKnot http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/Knot2-1.jpgKnot http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/RossReyes-1.jpgRoss Reyes http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/moneydick-1.jpg moneydick
According to one Santa Monica employee, who wished to remain anonymous, there were a lot of problems internally, logistically, politically, etc. However, the employee noted here lies a huge opportunity for the city. "The beach isn't an integrated part of the nighttime experience in Santa Monica... I saw people really enjoying being on the beach late at night. Granted, the beach became more attractive because of the problems with the event and people were having fun because none of the beach rules were being enforced, but I thought it was a rare treat to hang out on the beach at night with a whole bunch of people, run into friends and be part of a big party." If Santa Monica's beach was open at night, would that benefit the city? LAist

Wish I was there

Whatever!!!?? I had a blast! The only people who are complaining are people who can't seem to get themselves out from underneath a steering wheel. THERE WAS EVEN A FREE BIKE VALET!!!! Please! Who drives a car to an event that is projected to bring in a quarter of a million people!! And everyone knows that SM doesn't have enough parking for that many people and shouldn't have to either. The 720, 4, 20 and so on were all running and have a terminus in Santa Monica. Even if there was a train present many people would still be toting around the excuse of little to no access to transit therefore they drove. Look at how accessible the Staples center is to transit and watch the lines of cars after the game.
I hope this happens again with even less parking but a bigger push to ride Metro.

REPEAT: THERE WAS A FREE BIKE VALET! NO EXCUSES!!

Glorified suburban hicks.

^^ lol did you ride your bike there? :laugh:

Toll lanes get nod

The California Transportation Commission just unanimously approved the plan in Los Angeles County to convert the carpool lanes on parts of the 10, 110 and possibly the 210 freeways to toll lanes.

Don't get too excited or outraged. Now it's the Legislature's turn to kick the tires of the proposal. And there's no predicting the ways of Sacramento.

-- Steve Hymon

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/07/toll-lanes-get.html

Who says people don't use mass transit here!??!?!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3265/2696421983_5c1cb5d05c_b.jpg

Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Car-pool lanes on 55 changing Tuesday
New policy will allow in-and-out access on the freeway.
By ELLYN PAK
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

Beginning Tuesday, drivers of vehicles carrying two or more people on the 55 freeway will be able to enter or leave the car-pool lanes where they choose – part of a plan to overhaul the car-pool system in the county.

A 5.5-mile stretch on the 55, between the 17th Street overcrossing and the 91 freeway interchange, will become "continuous-access."

The Orange County Transportation Authority and the state Department of Transportation today announced the boundaries of the newfangled car-pool lanes and when they are to be converted.

Starting Tuesday, crews will replace the double, solid-yellow lines that separate the car-pool lanes from the regular ones with temporary dotted striping. Permanent striping is scheduled to begin the week of Aug. 10 and expected to be complete at the end of August.

"This isn't just going to be convenient for Orange County commuters; it'll be safer," said Carolyn Cavecche, an OCTA board member who helped kicked off the effort last year to change the county's car-pool policies.

Typically in Southern California, car-pool lanes are restricted to drivers with two or more people in the car – and vehicles may enter and exit the lanes only in designated areas.

The 55 would be the second freeway in Southern California on which drivers can enter or leave car-pool lanes where they choose. Continuous-access lanes were first incorporated on the 22 as a pilot project in late 2006 and remain in place.

Cavecche, also Orange's mayor, said a recent OCTA poll shows that 70 percent of commuters on the 22 like the switch.

"We think this is part of a trend that will affect the state," said Chris Norby, the OCTA's chairman and a county supervisor.

Last month, a newly signed bill eliminated a requirement for a 4-foot-wide buffer between car-pool and other lanes on the 55 and allowed local officials to pursue changing car-pool policies on that freeway.

The 55 was the only freeway in the state that had such a buffer restriction: The state Vehicle Code required that the freeway's car-pool lanes had to be physically separated from the other lanes. The new state law, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last month, does away with that provision.

In addition, transportation officials expect to finish a study within 18 months of plans to add an extra lane to the freeway.

The 55 opened in the early 1960s and carries 276,000 vehicles each day. It is expected to carry 357,000 drivers by 2025.

^^ thats orange county why put in the la forum??

orange county IS los angeles "area"... we're more like fighting siblings... l.a. is the big brother. actually this is better for traffic too. whatever effects them effects us (though slightly). this plan will speed up our traffic time by a fraction of a percentage.

^ nit-picky. it relates to the la area at least.

i have to say continuous access is definitely better. as a bay area resident, that is how our freeways are already, and im reminded how much of a pain it is to drive down there in those lanes, when i go down with my gf. ive missed my exit at least once

I think that the plan with putting those double yellow lines was to separate the traffic so that the carpool lanes could move quickly while the rest of the freeway is stuck in traffic. However, I think you still get the same problem with the way they are designed now compared to how they would be with continuous access (the only exception I can think of is the El Monte Busway because it is completely separated and maybe the Harbor Transitway because it has a thru-lane at those carpool exits). It's a great experiment and I'm very interested in seeing the time differentials on that freeway.

As for congestion pricing. I just don't understand the approach. It's meant to speed up carpool lanes, but now we are going to have to pay to get the high speed? What about the people who have been carpooling and were promised faster speed? They did exactly what they were supposed to do and now they're going to have to pay? It seems that we should have at least researched upping the minimum capacity for those carpool lanes that were moving excessively slow and if that wasn't enough then adding another lane by taking away from a mixed-flow lane. If our real goal is to get more people to carpool, then wouldn't taking away from the ease of single-occupancy driving be the best way to accomplish this? And why are we not attempting this on the 101, 105, or the 710? These are other freeways that have options (the 210 has no other alternatives really) and congestion pricing would push people onto transit.

This whole plan reeks of a lack of practicality.

We have cleared 1 major hurdle. Steve Hymon is reporting that the sales tax has passed the Metro board.

So only 2 steps left: the state legislature and the voters.

Btw, there were only 2 no votes from the Metro board. Are you surprised that they're from the SGV? (Mike Antonovich and Duarte City Councilman John Fasana)

A recap of the day's events should be up here (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/) soon.

MTA votes to seek sales tax hike to fund L.A. County transit, roads
The board takes a major step toward a series of projects over the next three decades, including the long-awaited subway to the sea. The state Legislature must approve the ballot measure first, though.
By Dan Weikel and Steve Hymon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
3:26 PM PDT, July 24, 2008

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board today voted overwhelmingly to seek a half-cent sales tax increase that could raise between $30 billion and $40 billion for transit and highway projects, including the first link of a long-awaited subway to the sea.

The move by the 13-member board, approving a ballot measure for the Nov. 4 election, is a major step that could lead to construction of several dozen transportation projects in the county over the next three decades.

Before the measure can be placed on the ballot, the Legislature must authorize it -- a decision that Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa says he is confident will happen soon. A bill, AB 2321, by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) is pending in the Senate.

"This is a historic moment," Feuer told the Metro board before the vote. "We know our residents are calling on us to seize this moment. This is an opportunity that won't come again, not for a generation."

If approved, Measure R would boost Los Angeles County's sales tax rate to 8.75% by imposing an additional half a percent for transportation.

It would be the third such transportation measure passed by voters; the others were also half-cent increases approved in 1980 and 1990, with their revenue earmarked for transit projects and carpool lanes. The Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. estimates that the average county resident would pay about $25 a year more due to the new tax.

Metro officials say the measure could raise $30 billion to $40 billion over its 30-year life span, depending on the state of the economy and consumer spending habits. About 65% of the revenue would be used to expand the county's bus and commuter rail systems, while 35% would be earmarked for highways, streets, bikeways and sidewalks.

The county's rail system includes Metrolink, the Red and Purple Line subway system, and the Blue, Green, and Gold light rail lines. Metro also operates one of the largest transit bus systems in the nation.

Thirteen mass transit projects and 16 road projects would split the pot. There would also be about $6 billion to be shared by all the cities in the county for their own projects.

Various elected officials, particularly those representing the San Gabriel Valley, have complained that their regions might not get their fair share of projects from the sales tax, and they want assurances that a Gold Line extension would be funded immediately.

In particular, they want the board to give the Gold Line $80 million now so they can begin seeking more than $300 million in federal money.

Villaraigosa, who chaired the meeting, held a press conference earlier this morning to reiterate his view that the spending plan for expected sales tax revenue fairly spreads money to transportation projects throughout the county.

But, the mayor acknowledged, "there are many who are going to argue they didn't get enough."

County Supervisor and Metro board member Gloria Molina said she could not support the sales tax because the list of projects was thrown together quickly and was not fair to some parts of the county.

"I think we are hurting ourselves in the long run," Molina said.

On the final vote, she abstained, and County Supervisor Mike Antonovich and Duarte City Councilman John Fasana voted no.

Transportation planners say the ballot measure could help relieve some of the nation's worst traffic congestion and provide commuters better transit options.

For more than two decades, the Los Angeles area has consistently ranked No. 1 in the country for its arduous commutes. Today, studies show that the average motorist in the region is delayed 72 hours a year due to traffic congestion -- about double what it was 25 years ago.

If nothing is done, regional planners predict that the delay could grow by up to 80% in the county by 2030, when the population is expected to grow from 10 million to 12 million.

Metro officials say the added sales tax is needed to help overcome decades of under-investment in the region's highways and transit systems.

For years, so little state money has been available that major transportation projects have been delayed and California's vast highway system has steadily fallen into disrepair.

Rising construction costs and a failure to raise state and federal fuel taxes since the mid-1990s have sharply reduced the ability of state and local government to keep pace with the transportation demands of a growing population.

The situation has become particularly acute since 2001. During the last seven years, Govs. Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with state legislators, have repeatedly diverted state transportation money to help balance deficit-plagued budgets.

Roughly $5.8 billion in highway and mass-transit funds were diverted during the state's repeated budget crises and have not yet been repaid.

Further shortages of transportation funds for the state could occur in 2010, when the federal highway trust fund is expected to go into deficit, jeopardizing billions of dollars in projects around the nation.

The county's proposed sales tax increase is similar to other measures that have been adopted by surrounding counties during the last 25 years. They include Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino, which sought the tax revenue to offset declines in state transportation funding.

Orange County's Measure M, which required a two-thirds majority, was placed on the ballot several times in the late 1980s and early 1990s before it was passed by voters. The tax was renewed by voters last year and is expected to generate $12 billion for transportation projects from 2011 through 2041.

http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2008-07/41212053.gif

A lot riding on proposal for L.A. County road and transit sales tax

Gas prices are up, traffic is down and mass transit ridership has gone through the roof.

With those issues on the table, the Metro board meets Thursday and has a big decision on its plate: should voters be asked in November to raise the sales tax in Los Angeles County by a half-cent for the next 30 years to pay for new mass transit and road projects?

Such a tax increase, if approved, is expected to raise $30 billion over the next 30 years and perhaps ignite a building boom for rail and road projects (that's the Gold Line's east L.A. extension in the photo above). But the board and other area politicians and officials have been quarreling over how to spend that money and the fighting, which has largely been along geographic lines, may lead to the sales tax effort falling apart.

If the sales tax is approved by voters, how much money would be raised and how would it be spent?

The sales tax increase would be in effect for 30 years and is expected to raise at least $30 billion, although that number could be higher or lower depending on the spending habits of Los Angeles County.

Thirteen mass transit projects and 16 road projects would split the pot. There would also be about $6 billion set aside that would be returned to each city in the county -- and its unincorporated areas -- for use on transportation improvements as they see fit. This could include everything from pothole repair to bike lanes.

Which mass transit and road projects would get money?

As currently formulated, here's a list of the big winners:

$7.9 billion for county-wide bus operations and expansion
$6 billion to local cities for transportation needs on per capita basis
$4 billion for a Westside subway extension
$1.1 billion for Metrolink operations and expansion
$1 billion for a mass transit project along the 405 freeway in Sepulveda Pass
$971 million for Crenshaw Boulevard light rail or busway
$925 million for completion of the Expo Line light rail to Santa Monica
$735 million for the extension of the Gold Line from Pasadena to Claremont
$906 million for interchange improvements on the 405, 110, 105 and 91 freeways in the South Bay
$780 million for a 710 freeway tunnel under South Pasadena
$590 million for 605 freeway interchange improvements
$590 million for 710 freeway improvements in south L.A. County
$400 million for Alameda Corridor East street crossing separations
$250 million for countywide soundwall expansion

You can find the complete spending list at this link to ordinance on Metro's website. The list is on pages 25 to 27.

That's a lot of projects -- is there enough money to finish them all?

Sepulveda_pass No. And this is an important point. The spending plan that Metro has put together for the sales tax revenue shows the estimated construction costs in 2008 dollars. Even now, most of the projects on the list would still need to get some state, federal and possibly private money to be finished.

It's also important to note that the sales tax revenues do not all show up at once - they would flow into local coffers over the next three decades. So the cost of some projects today could greatly rise by the time they are built and many would not be constructed for years, such as the proposed transit project along the 405 freeway through the Sepulveda Pass (pictured at right). That one isn't slated to be done until, gulp, 2038.

Why so many projects?

Politics. A sales tax increase needs two-thirds support by voters to pass and many local officials believe the only way to achieve that is to spread the benefits around. L.A. County covers 4,084 square miles and has more than 10 million people -- making it the most populated county in the nation. And it has big-time transportation needs.

That's the reason that Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, at a recent Metro Board meeting, said that the county needs $100 billion in transportation needs, although he would be very happy to have the $30 billion or more from the sales tax.

Is the sales tax definitely going to make the fall ballot?

No. If the Metro Board votes to go forward with the proposal Thursday -- and it appears the seven votes are there to do so -- the state Legislature still must approve a bill, AB 2321, that would allow the county to take the tax to voters.

Various elected officials, particularly those representing the San Gabriel Valley, have complained that the region would not get its fair share of projects from the sales tax and they want assurances the Gold Line would get sales tax money immediately, saying the project is ready to begin construction. Metro recently upped the funding for the Gold Line in the sales tax plan to $735 million, but not enough to win support from some Valley officials.

In particular, Gold Line advocates want the Metro Board to vote for a motion by board members John Fasana and county Supervisor Mike Antonovich to give the Gold Line $80 million in funding now. On Thursday, five members of Congress from the Valley dispatched a letter to Metro board members insisting on the $80 million.

The money, Gold Line advocates say, would make the project eligible to seek federal funding, although it remains far from certain that Congress would be willing to allocate more than $300 million for the project. Typically, Congress pays for half or less of new rail projects.

Fasana said Wednesday that he can't support the sales tax plan as written because it leaves too many questions unanswered. "I've got some concerns about equity," Fasana told me today. "My [other] issue is that some of these projects will get built and some won't."

One of his concerns is where the money goes if a project such as, for example, the 710 tunnel falls through. Does it go to the subway? The Gold Line? Is it spread around the county in a fair way?

Fasana also said that he could support the sales tax, but needs to see amendments on Thursday to the sales tax plan that the Gold Line would get money in a timely fashion.

What are the supporters saying?

“I’m not surprised by the parochialism –- to a large extent people are elected to deliver for their district,” said Richard Katz, the former assembly member and Metro board member. “I get that part, but I don’t think people fully comprehend what benefits their district.”

His point: because many people commute such great distances in the county, projects have an impact upon their immediate area –- a commuter in Claremont, for example, could take Metrolink to the subway a Beverly Hills job. Katz also said that significant sums of money have been shifted to San Gabriel Valley projects and added, "I think everyone needs to take a step back and see what they risk if this thing falls apart."

Roger Snoble, Metro's CEO, has argued that the sales tax is the best chance for Los Angeles County to get billions of dollars in funding. "Without it" -- the money -- "it's extremely bleak," Snoble told the California Transportation Commission on Wednesday. "And we won't be adding much capacity to the system."

--Steve Hymon

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/07/todays-meeting.html#more

Sepulveda Pass better be subway. 1 subway line in 30 years is a joke especially with a possible 27 billion on the table for the next 30 years.

The sales tax increase would be in effect for 30 years and is expected to raise at least $30 billion, although that number could be higher or lower depending on the spending habits of Los Angeles County.
Gawd, just raise the tax a full penny. That way, you can have 30 billion for transit projects and 30 billion for all the bad spending habits that would have syphoned money away from transit projects. And if you can't raise more than half a cent at one time, wait until you can again :ohno: Easy!

The timeline for the completion of the projects is such a joke. The Westside Subway Extension completed in 2034-2036? The Regional Connector completed in 2023-2025? Can we even wait that long with soaring gas prices, worsening traffic gridlock (already worst in the country), and heavy air pollution (also worst in the country)? Somebody please tell me it's merely a conservative projection.

Why you want this tax hike http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/subwaymayor-764139.jpgmitchglaser.com
A sales tax increase, says the mayor, puts us on the road to a better L.A.
By Antonio Villaraigosa
July 24, 2008
In 2005, I asked Angelenos to join me in re-imagining their city as a dynamic world capital defined by its flexibility and mobility, not by traffic and smog.

I challenged them to imagine communities connected not by bigger, wider highways but by a real network of public transit options -- rapid buses, trains and subway lines -- connecting every neighborhood in our county's 88 cities.


I asked them to imagine cleaner and greener neighborhoods where we each pitch in to combat global warming and create a more sustainable city.

Today, when I take the helm as chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, I will seek to place a measure on the November ballot increasing the county sales tax by half a cent to raise the badly needed funding to help make this vision a reality.

Over the last three years, public transportation in Los Angeles has received an unexpected boost as record gas prices have changed the math and more commuters are ditching their cars for trains and buses. Yet, as a board member of the MTA, I have also watched every year as transit lines get cut, projects are scaled back and critical construction on our clogged freeways is delayed by budget concerns.

Lack of political will and lack of funding have always been the fundamental obstacles in the way of a vision that demands long-term commitment and big investment.

The political will is now here. We have the opportunity to create a greater Los Angeles no longer chained to its cars and dependent on foreign oil, and where we are making smarter investments to ease traffic congestion and improve our quality of life.

The measure other board members and I are proposing -- which will raise the sales tax from 8.25% to 8.75% -- would bring in $40 billion over 30 years while costing the average Angeleno less than the price of half a tank of gas per year.

It would help us expand our growing subway system into a comprehensive network that really goes places, so that a student at USC or a commuter in the Valley could finally take the train to the Westside or LAX -- and tourists could reach Hollywood Boulevard without having to get into a car.

It would give regional cities the flexibility and money to repair cracked roads, fill potholes and make intersections and streets safer for pedestrians and bikers.

It would fortify our network of rapid bus lines and allow for more service in the underserved corners of South L.A., the Valley and East L.A.

And it would fill in the funding gaps on critical highway projects such as the widening of our clogged artery, Interstate 5 between the 605 Freeway and the Orange County line.

Quite simply, it would fundamentally reshape Los Angeles -- and Southern California. And in the process, it would pump $32.1 billion in construction funding alone into our economy and create more than 210,000 jobs.

Los Angeles is not immune to the economic chill blowing across America. But the costs of the status quo are unacceptable. In L.A., traffic congestion costs the region $9.3 billion every year, and we waste 384 million gallons of gas stuck in traffic. The average commuter spends three full days each year trapped in gridlock -- 72 hours devoted to traffic, not family -- while the congestion blocking our delivery trucks is driving up shipping costs by up to 250%.

Our population and economy will only continue to grow. Unless we have a comprehensive plan for improving traffic, the gridlock will continue to get worse.

Unfortunately, we can no longer reliably wait on Sacramento or Washington to come through. Just this week, Sacramento dealt a major blow to plans to invest in our roads when lawmakers, trying to balance the budget, hinted that they would raid $2.5 billion in state funds that voters earmarked for transportation projects. At the same time, federal gas tax revenues are fluctuating while inflation drives up the costs of our construction projects.

In this vacuum, the cities of Los Angeles County need to come together and step up. In my mind, there is no comparison between the $25 our measure will cost the average Angeleno each year and the estimated $2,000 we each spend on wasted gas, car repairs and time lost in traffic.

It's an investment we can't afford not to make, and it's going to take all 88 cities in the county -- all 10 million Angelenos -- to come together. It's time to fund our dream of a re-imagined Los Angeles.

Antonio Villaraigosa is the mayor of Los Angeles.

The timeline for the completion of the projects is such a joke. The Westside Subway Extension completed in 2034-2036? The Regional Connector completed in 2023-2025? Can we even wait that long with soaring gas prices, worsening traffic gridlock (already worst in the country), and heavy air pollution (also worst in the country)? Somebody please tell me it's merely a conservative projection.

What? I'll be fucking dead by then, if this doesn't kill me earlier! We're not building the fucking pyramids by hand here, we're building transportation with great, big machines! The fucking Chunnel didn't take this fucking long!

FUCK!

Don't Expo II and Crenshaw already have committed funding in place? I thought the MTA was only holding back on those two because the SGV residents were threatening to vote against the new sales tax increase.

how much can we expect from the feds??
normally congress funds aobut 35% so were really gonna get about 50 billion?

^^ lol did you ride your bike there? :laugh:
Per my response at #2187 "I bussed and biked there".

What? I'll be fucking dead by then, if this doesn't kill me earlier! We're not building the fucking pyramids by hand here, we're building transportation with great, big machines! The fucking Chunnel didn't take this fucking long!

Better tell the state how you feel, they're the ones screwing over transit agencies. Do you realize how many billions they owe? This has been going on since about 2000 and there is no indication that they will stop.

You may also want to tell the federal government to fund more transit projects. They still highly favor road over rail.

The timeline for the completion of the projects is such a joke. The Westside Subway Extension completed in 2034-2036? The Regional Connector completed in 2023-2025? Can we even wait that long with soaring gas prices, worsening traffic gridlock (already worst in the country), and heavy air pollution (also worst in the country)? Somebody please tell me it's merely a conservative projection.
These are all conservative projections for political purposes. You don't want the Subway to the Sea to look as if it is leap frogging over other county projects but didn't any of you read what SNOBLE said to the BH Courier about getting it that city by 2015?? Please keep up!

Besides, read deeper into this. We all know that the 710 project will probably fall through with even more lawsuits put out by SoPas. So that money will go towards other rail and busway projects....trust. Also the bus operations is said to get the largest piece of the pie.....7 billion!!!! How many more Rapid Busses do we need. This is also a sly way of building more (hope)grade seperated busways like the 405 busway line that with more study will be upgraded to LRT but for now it would still fall under bus operations. C'mon people where is your savvyness? Don't you know that the SGV and SFV are waiting to kill this sales tax with their "me me me" attitude and constant victimization strategies? The only way we're going to see predominantly West County projects as the top priorities is if we break up the county. Untill then, everyone is going to have be served and feel like they are getting something out of this new tax.

With $1 billion promised to a Sepulveda route, I really think that they're going for something else besides BRT or LRT (or at least I really hope so). If we actually build something that goes over the pass and not under it, we will regret it for decades.

I'm hoping that the 710 money will go to bus-only lanes like the ones we will have on Wilshire soon so that our buses can actually be competitive to commuting in a car.

I'd be surprised if this tax passes. Yes, I'll be the first in line to vote for it but I'm getting the feeling that Angeleno's really don't want anything fixed. First everyone begs for this and then when it materializes it's opposed. I thoroughly believe that the LA Weekly is in bed with the car, oil and anti-density folks.

It won't be ONE CENT because you would have to pass yet more legislation to get it on the ballot. There would be even more opposition in the print media if the MTA was entrusted with not just $40 billion but $80 billion and much more infighting.

On one hand the print media thinks it's foolish for the subway to end at Westwood but yet is sympathetic to the SGV wanting a Gold Line boondoggle to Ontario as a display of their getting a piece of the pie.

This tax must pass and it must pass now but even if it does I'd be surprised.

^^ i dont thing so. ive been talking about this at work and most are in favor of the tax. there all hyped up about being able to take the train to the beach, wether its the expo line or the wilshire line. so i think that alone can get the needed votes. demographically the SGV holds about 16% of the county wide population. so i dont know why the board is craving to there demands. the 710 will not be built south pas. will fight it to the death, and what do you do with 7 billion for bus improvements? god i hope buying more 60ft busses because those are needed badly on all bus lines especially the rapid lines.
anyways im advocating for this tax at work and church and ive gotten alot of positive feedback.

With $1 billion promised to a Sepulveda route, I really think that they're going for something else besides BRT or LRT (or at least I really hope so). If we actually build something that goes over the pass and not under it, we will regret it for decades.

From what I understand it's currently an HOV-BRT project on the LRTP, however a study needs to be done to determine that. That is the importance of getting that on the plan so that there is $$$ to study and eventually build it.

... demographically the SGV holds about 16% of the county wide population. so i dont know why the board is craving to there demands...

Because they represent I've been told between 20-25% of the moderate-conservate voters who show up at the polls every election cycle that's why.

the 710 will not be built south pas.

Exactly, however that will be in the SGV area. So because it maynot be built there they can shift that money within that subregion. That money could mean extra extension of the Gold Line towards Montclair or a new Burbank-Glendale LRT or Metrolink improvments.

A similiar situation takes place in the Gateway Cities for the Maglev project. Most advocates and planners know that a study will basically say that this project makes no sense, however because there's $$$ left over for Gateway Cities needs, that could go towards Metrolink Orange County Line service upgrades within LA County and a Green Line extension to the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Station to connect with Metrolink.

====

One thing that really gets me with some of the statements that a Sales tax is regressive and it hurts the poor. A sales tax is the most equitable way of funding projects because who will spend more with disposable income, it's the Middle and Upper Classes. The lower/working class simply pay what they can on neccessary purchases when they get something for the $1 menu at McDonalds or makes non-food purchases at Food4Less.

Expo and Wilshire arent nearly enough to cover the westside

Dodger Stadium shuttle begins tonight

Trolley2 Mass transit returns to Dodger Stadium this evening when city of Los Angeles DASH buses start running a new route between Union Station and the ballpark.

The flier, at right, shows the route -- it's basically from Union Station straight up Cesar Chavez and Sunset to Elysian Park. The buses run from 90 minutes before the game until one hour after -- for those who like to stay until the bitter end. The ride is free.

We wrote about this last month. The Dodgers wouldn't help pay for the service, saying that mass transit isn't their responsibility, rather it's a civic function. The team did promise to help publicize the bus, which it appears to be doing -- although I wonder if that trolley at the right can afford to eat at the stadium.

The Dodgers are also intent on developing some of the land around the stadium. That could mean to a loss of some parking or an increase in the number of people going up the hill, which perhaps is the reason that the team wants to get people on the bus.

Either way, it's intriguing that the team is embracing something that could cost it parking revenue. With parking at $15 a pop and the high price of gas, now seems the time to strike.

A prominent elected official once suggested to me that I bear a distinct resemblance to a rain cloud, and in that spirit I would like to suggest that another bus be added that picks fans up at some downtown eateries and bars. The last time I was at the stadium I whipped out a $20 bill to pay for two watery beers and discovered it wasn't enough; next time I'm eating and drinking before the game.

-- Steve Hymon

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/07/dodger-stadium.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/images/2008/07/25/trolley2.jpg

Expo and Wilshire arent nearly enough to cover the westside

thats two train lines what else do you need. a line going down sunset? i know its a congested area but the money and political will is not there. there just going to have to settle for a subway, and LRT.

How about something down La Cienega, Sepulveda, and Santa Monica.

Just because the money and will isn't there, doesn't mean that they are not good ideas.

thats two train lines what else do you need.

I hate this kind of thinking, seriously. It be like saying the A train is the only train NYC really needs:ohno:

Santa Monica
Sunset
Vermont
Sepulveda
La Cienaga
Olympic
Beverly/Melrose
Pico
Venice

Take your pick(s)

Fans wait on deck for mayor, then enjoy Dodger Stadium shuttle's return
Amid high gas prices and the $15 stadium parking fee, the lift from Union Station goes over well on its first night, with 500 to 600 taking advantage of the free ride to Chavez Ravine and back.
By David Wharton, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
3:25 PM PDT, July 26, 2008

Let us count the reasons for the crowd of Dodger fans that gathered outside Union Station on a warm summer evening.

Gas prices approaching $5 a gallon. The $15 it costs to park at the stadium.

"Every single game I'm paying," season-ticket holder Rudy Montoya said. "It adds up pretty big."

Big enough to lure Montoya and an estimated 500 to 600 others downtown Friday for the debut of a new - and free - shuttle that will circulate between the train station and Chavez Ravine for every home game.

By most accounts, the inaugural "Dodger Trolley" was a success.

The majority of riders were ferried up the hill, a trip of 10 or so minutes, and unloaded outside the stadium well before the first pitch. All but a small group landed back at Union Station within an hour of the final out.

"You get tired of driving," said Dick Martin, who took light rail from Pasadena. "I think I'd do this again."

Not that all went smoothly. Not on the first try.

Team executives started the evening by parking a blue-festooned minibus in Union Station's main entrance where it might attract attention and make for a dramatic television shot. Soon, an official-looking woman was telling them to move because they were blocking traffic.

After several minutes of testy discussion, the celebration was allowed to stay put.

Then Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa arrived to shake hands and take the maiden voyage. But most of the minibus was reserved for politicians and other officials, with only a few fans welcomed aboard.

The rest were ushered around the corner to larger, plain-looking buses.

"We'll be following this shuttle in our shuttle," a bus company employee announced cheerily to a momentarily puzzled crowd.

That first run accommodated the initial rush. Thereafter, fans arrived sporadically and waited only a short time.

Many had paid $5 to take rail and bus service from their homes, while others parked at nearby lots that charged $6 or less. It wasn't just the money -- they wanted to avoid traffic.

"Driving up the hill," said Miguel Reyes of Manhattan Beach, referring to congested surface streets leading into Dodger Stadium. "It's like 20 to 30 minutes."

Which is exactly the point team and local officials hope to drive home.

A city bus line that ran to Dodger Stadium was discontinued in 1994 because of budget constraints and declining ridership. In 2004, Friday night shuttles from Union Station attracted only 400 passengers a game.

This time, the city is spending $70,000 in surplus transportation funds to reacquaint fans with public transportation.

"With the high gas prices, this is a great time to get people to try," City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel said.

The "Dodger Trolley" recalls "Trolley Dodgers" -- one of several names, including the Superbas and Bridegrooms, the team went by in its Brooklyn years.

The shuttles begin 90 minutes before each game and run continuously until an hour afterward. They make two stops along Sunset Boulevard, at Figueroa Street and Marion Avenue.

Ben Fournier and his buddies, who came north from Lakewood, said they enjoyed riding into the stadium with other fans. And waiting half an hour for the return trip did not seem so bad, not with cars idling all around them, inching toward the exits.

"Look at the parking lot," Fournier said. "This is much better than trying to drive out of here."

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-07/41254564.jpg

I hate this kind of thinking, seriously. It be like saying the A train is the only train NYC really needs:ohno:

Santa Monica
Sunset
Vermont
Sepulveda
La Cienaga
Olympic
Beverly/Melrose
Pico
Venice

Take your pick(s)

i say build them all!!! but were just going to have to face reality that people on the eastside are not going sit and see there tax dollars on a train that serves the west side. i mean yeah you can use is ONCE in a while to go to the beach during the summer, but the fact is you cant have a train going down every major street, though it would be nice to have a train running down every busy street. then you can start talking about a train down Broadway, Beverly, Huntington Dr./Main St., Figuroa, Spring, Mission, Valley, Garvey Ave. so on and so forth. i mean im all for it. it certainly will kill the idea that trains dont go everywhere and therefore i should not ride them, but people to be frank are selfish, and only think about what they get in return, rather than what benefits the community. it a sad sad world that we live in.

If they are not completely stupid the SGV knows that there is no way in hell that they will see their precious Gold Line move an inch east if they kill this tax. If they could have built their train without the $40 billion they would have done so already. Not only do they already have a rail line + metrolink coverage but the MTA already threw them a bone in getting the line to at least Duarte. These people are selfish and I don't know if they understand how energized this voting season will be with Obama running. So many new people will be out voting and so many people of color. The SGV could find themselves on the wrong side of the coin if they continually act like spoiled children and the tax passes(even if by a hair) anyway.

What's even funnier is the deft strategy that the MTA is using. Basically, SGV if you oppose the tax you get no 710 tunnel:lol::lol:
And this is why road construction must be in the proposal because you could use highway construction as a means of political strategy to get more rail projects pushed through.
http://www.egpnews.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=browse&pageid=916&id=62684

Fans wait on deck for mayor, then enjoy Dodger Stadium shuttle's return
Amid high gas prices and the $15 stadium parking fee, the lift from Union Station goes over well on its first night, with 500 to 600 taking advantage of the free ride to Chavez Ravine and back.
By David Wharton, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
3:25 PM PDT, July 26, 2008

Let us count the reasons for the crowd of Dodger fans that gathered outside Union Station on a warm summer evening.

Gas prices approaching $5 a gallon. The $15 it costs to park at the stadium.

"Every single game I'm paying," season-ticket holder Rudy Montoya said. "It adds up pretty big."

Big enough to lure Montoya and an estimated 500 to 600 others downtown Friday for the debut of a new - and free - shuttle that will circulate between the train station and Chavez Ravine for every home game.

By most accounts, the inaugural "Dodger Trolley" was a success.

The majority of riders were ferried up the hill, a trip of 10 or so minutes, and unloaded outside the stadium well before the first pitch. All but a small group landed back at Union Station within an hour of the final out.

"You get tired of driving," said Dick Martin, who took light rail from Pasadena. "I think I'd do this again."

Not that all went smoothly. Not on the first try.

Team executives started the evening by parking a blue-festooned minibus in Union Station's main entrance where it might attract attention and make for a dramatic television shot. Soon, an official-looking woman was telling them to move because they were blocking traffic.

After several minutes of testy discussion, the celebration was allowed to stay put.

Then Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa arrived to shake hands and take the maiden voyage. But most of the minibus was reserved for politicians and other officials, with only a few fans welcomed aboard.

The rest were ushered around the corner to larger, plain-looking buses.

"We'll be following this shuttle in our shuttle," a bus company employee announced cheerily to a momentarily puzzled crowd.

That first run accommodated the initial rush. Thereafter, fans arrived sporadically and waited only a short time.

Many had paid $5 to take rail and bus service from their homes, while others parked at nearby lots that charged $6 or less. It wasn't just the money -- they wanted to avoid traffic.

"Driving up the hill," said Miguel Reyes of Manhattan Beach, referring to congested surface streets leading into Dodger Stadium. "It's like 20 to 30 minutes."

Which is exactly the point team and local officials hope to drive home.

A city bus line that ran to Dodger Stadium was discontinued in 1994 because of budget constraints and declining ridership. In 2004, Friday night shuttles from Union Station attracted only 400 passengers a game.

This time, the city is spending $70,000 in surplus transportation funds to reacquaint fans with public transportation.

"With the high gas prices, this is a great time to get people to try," City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel said.

The "Dodger Trolley" recalls "Trolley Dodgers" -- one of several names, including the Superbas and Bridegrooms, the team went by in its Brooklyn years.

The shuttles begin 90 minutes before each game and run continuously until an hour afterward. They make two stops along Sunset Boulevard, at Figueroa Street and Marion Avenue.

Ben Fournier and his buddies, who came north from Lakewood, said they enjoyed riding into the stadium with other fans. And waiting half an hour for the return trip did not seem so bad, not with cars idling all around them, inching toward the exits.

"Look at the parking lot," Fournier said. "This is much better than trying to drive out of here."

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-07/41254564.jpg


Quick question about those white buses on the picture above^^ I've seen then all over the city quite a few times... are they part of MTA?

Do you think that the Gold Line East LA extension will spark gentrification over there?

^ Probably. I passed through Northeast Los Angeles today on the Gold Line and the hoods looked pretty clean. I'm sure home values appreciated with the addition of the Gold Line.

If they are not completely stupid the SGV knows that there is no way in hell that they will see their precious Gold Line move an inch east if they kill this tax. If they could have built their train without the $40 billion they would have done so already. Not only do they already have a rail line + metrolink coverage but the MTA already threw them a bone in getting the line to at least Duarte. These people are selfish and I don't know if they understand how energized this voting season will be with Obama running. So many new people will be out voting and so many people of color. The SGV could find themselves on the wrong side of the coin if they continually act like spoiled children and the tax passes(even if by a hair) anyway.

the majority of the san gabriel valley is republican, i used to work as a museum docient at the norton simon museum, and alot of people always complained about how taxes are to much, traffic is bad so we need more freeways, (on the north side though), they might as well be in orange county!

the majority of the san gabriel valley is republican, i used to work as a museum docient at the norton simon museum, and alot of people always complained about how taxes are to much, traffic is bad so we need more freeways, (on the north side though), they might as well be in orange county!

Traffic is bad there and the SGV is mostly middle class and they pay a ton in taxes. That said, they could be educated in transportation, and although there are some that still want more freeways, many see the advantage with rail.

Just have to defend SGV people, after all, that's where I grew up.

They want more freeways but complain about taxes??? So how do they expect to pay for these infrastructure upgrades? Damn and the people of South LA and East LA always are said to want handouts and about wanting something for nothing. Republican=Pathetic.

Obviously this is not everyone there. After all, this is the area that gets you the best Metrolink ridership, so don't classify them as crazies.

^ Probably. I passed through Northeast Los Angeles today on the Gold Line and the hoods looked pretty clean. I'm sure home values appreciated with the addition of the Gold Line.

Before the Gold Line broke ground, South Pasadena tried to kill it almost, and look what they get in return for their negativity, a new improved Mission District that was basically crap before the Gold Line came in. :ohno:

"No horns, no bells, keep trains below 20 mph"
South Pasadena Residents

Obviously this is not everyone there. After all, this is the area that gets you the best Metrolink ridership, so don't classify them as crazies.

not all are crazies, but the crazies are the ones that vote and go to community meetings, and dictating how things should go.

:lol:our job is now to get the non crazies to the polls and vote for what is right:lol:

I personally think the new gold line is a blunder. the densest core of the SGV is through the 10 including Monterrey Park. the area the gold line is going to be extended through is sparsley populated and would not attract a decent ridership. the Gold Line should be extended to Monterrey Park through the East LA extension or the Red Line should be extended east.

^ http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/eastside_phase2/default.htm

thats sounds like it would go through a dense area but whittier is far out of the way and would probably happen in the distant future. I have heard about a potential silver line that would go from El monte to Downtown and than to hollywood through a sunset subway and could eventually conect with the pink line to westhollywood.

I looked at the map. there are several options for eastward expansion. it is possible for one extension to go through monterrey partk to el monte and another to whittier. El Monte should be the priority because of the density.

Remember this is one reason why Gloria Molina is still pissed. The Red Line was to initially go subway into East LA but between cost overruns and Zev's no tunneling Prop A bill it killed the subway into E. LA. And lest we forget, the Prop A ban on subway tunneling was put up to voters in 1998 and passed! The people of LA can only blame themselves when they begin to complain.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2008/04/blast_from_the.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rWF2TWFGGQ

Subway going to into East LA(banned):
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/losangtransitwredlineeastla1992.gif
and Purple Line going as far as I suppose Westwood
and the Red Line extending as far as the Orange line but as a subway!
but the Valley killed that one

LA can only blame itself....

Quick question about those white buses on the picture above^^ I've seen then all over the city quite a few times... are they part of MTA?

LADOT