Expansion proposals

[edit] Official
Purple Line: Los Angeles mayor and MTA chair Antonio Villaraigosa has announced his intention to extend the Purple Line from its current terminus at Western Avenue to downtown Santa Monica. MTA has not officially announced this project. In the past there was a federal ban on tunnel construction in the Miracle Mile District, due to lingering concerns over large pockets of methane gas underneath it. On October 27, 2005, a panel selected by the MTA Board and Congressman Henry Waxman, formerly a vocal opponent of the subway extension, declared that extension of the subway was safe. On December 16, 2005, Waxman introduced H.R. 4571 to the U.S. House to allow subway tunneling under Wilshire Boulevard. On September 19, 2006, H.R. 4571 passed the U.S. House of Representatives, removing a major roadblock preventing the construction of this extension. A Senate equivalent of this bill is currently stalled in the U.S. Senate.
Blue Line: Initial plans for the Blue Line called for it to travel all the way to Union Station and beyond; thus, the Gold Line was originally known as the "Pasadena Blue Line." A subway tunnel of approximately two miles (known as the "Downtown or Regional Connector") connecting the 7th St/Metro Center to the future Eastside Extension at First and Alameda would allow the Blue and Expo Lines to reach Union Station, Pasadena and the Eastside, and vice versa. However, because a county subway construction funds initiative (passed in 1998) bans public funding for extension work, all work has been halted. In September 2005, the MTA board publicly indicated its desire to take up this project again, a call heartily endorsed by the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times.
Gold Line: Using former Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway trackage and right-of-way in the San Gabriel Valley, The Metro Gold Line Foothill Construction Authority is working to extend the northern branch of the Gold Line eastward, from its current terminus in Pasadena to the city of Montclair in San Bernardino County, or even possibly to L.A./Ontario International Airport. As the population density is lower in this portion of the county and projected ridership is lower, other projects have been given a higher priority than this extension. The 24-mile (39 km) Foothill Extension (so named because the route is just to the south of a mountain range) does enjoy popular support from all of the twenty-three cities along its route. The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments recently obtained federal funding for environmental studies and hopes construction of the first segment to Azusa can begin in as early as 2007 with a possible completion in 2010. The second segment to Montclair is hoped to be completed by 2014. That the extension has been seriously considered at all is due in large part to the advocacy of former Azusa city manager Rick Cole, a vocal smart growth proponent. With the completion of the Foothill and Eastside extensions by 2014, the Gold Line would become the longest Metro Line, and maybe even the longest light rail line in North America, surpassing the 22-mile (35 km) Blue Line with over 50 miles (80 km) of rail.
Green Line: The long-delayed reconstruction of Los Angeles International Airport will include a Green Line spur to the new terminal. Los Angeles City Council member Bill Rosendahl has called for this spur to be extended to Marina Del Rey or even Venice along Lincoln Boulevard, citing MTA white papers indicating the feasibility of such an extension. The extension would fix the Green Line's issue of being a route that goes "from nowhere to nowhere." The MTA has also in the past listed on its list of possible projects an extension at the Green Line's eastern end, linking the Green Line to the Metrolink station in Norwalk, possibly with a short underground segment.
Regional Connector (Downtown Connector) project: Proposed mass transit rail project in downtown Los Angeles, connecting the Blue Line to Union Station. The project would allow Blue Line trains to terminate at Union Station which would allow easier connections, ease crowding on the downtown section of the Red and Purple lines, and would allow Gold Line vehicles to travel to the large shops in south LA for their heavy maintenance (they currently need to be trucked). This connection would begin at the 7th Street/Metro Center station, which is currently the northern terminus of the Blue Line. The project is still at very preliminary stages of planning and thus no alignment has yet been determined, but a number of alignments have been informally studied and proposed. The connector was envisioned as far back as 1992, when in its Long Range Transportation Plan, LACMTA envisioned the Blue Line running through downtown to Union Station and onward to Pasadena. The connector was not completed due to lack of funds and realignment of the Red Line eastside extension which became an extension of the Pasadena Gold Line.

[edit] Citizens' advocacy
Rail advocates have proposed the following lines:

The Yellow Line is a proposed light-rail line which would run from North Hollywood to Downtown L.A., serving the communities of Burbank, Glendale, Silver Lake, and Echo Park en route. Part of the proposed route, a former Southern Pacific railway alignment along Chandler Boulevard in Burbank, has recently been converted by the City of Burbank to a bicycle path and parkway, thus reducing the likelihood this line would come to fruition. The Yellow Line proposal also advocates use of the former Belmont tunnel built by the Pacific Electric system, not in use since 1955. The land adjacent to the tunnel exit near Second Street and Beverly Boulevard in downtown Los Angeles, long vacant, has recently been sold. An apartment complex is now being built on the site, making it much less likely this area could be used for a new rail line.
The Silver Line is another light-rail proposal which would operate from El Monte to Hollywood, passing through the western San Gabriel Valley, Union Station, Downtown L.A., Echo Park, and Silver Lake along the way. It would use existing rail between El Monte and Union Station in downtown Los Angeles. (This is unrelated to the Foothill Transit "Silver Streak" bus service, which also serves the San Gabriel Valley as of March 19, 2007, and uses buses similar to those of the Metro Orange Line.)
The Harbor Line would serve residents of the Harbor Area, by connecting it to the rest of Los Angeles by linking it to the MTA's existing light rail system. The line would serve as a convenient way for people to visit San Pedro, which is currently undergoing a state of rapid redevelopment (with the Port's Bridge to Breakwater proposal and other condo projects). This route would use the long-abandoned right-of-way known as the Harbor Subdivision, which MTA currently owns.[5] Part of this route would also form the basis of the proposed LAX Express.
The Get L.A. Moving Plan is a proposal lead by author Damien Goodmon with the support of local and international transit advocates, planners and engineers, which primarily combines already built lines, and extensions that have been throughly studied by the MTA and predecessor agencies to illustrate the type of rail transit system that would exist if they came to fruition. It would create a system which would be competitive with the best systems that are in the world (i.e. London and New York). The Get L.A. Moving Plan includes cost estimates, suggested construction schedules, construction methods and financing, and cites rail construction systems around the world including Madrid, Washington D.C. and several Asian countries as precedence.

You just copied this out of Wikipedia.

ha ha ha, guess im not gona read it then

You just copied this out of Wikipedia.

Why is everyone so negative? Let him thread baby, let him thread!Who care's where he got it, I don't!:)

^ On the note..... I would really like to see the Yellow Line come into service in a near future. It would benefit NorthEast Angelinos very much.

Why is everyone so negative? Let him thread baby, let him thread!Who care's where he got it, I don't!:)

Anyone could have posted this thread, it's completely worthless. We've been talking about these lines in the LA Transit Thread.

There needs to be a line serving the Sunset strip, the Beverly Center, and the Grove, either teh silver line or a detour of the red line?

MTA sets sights on Broadway
Can a transit mall make it there? Transportation officials think it's just the ticket for downtown L.A.
By Cara Mia DiMassa and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers
May 26, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/media/thumbnails/graphic/2007-05/30067269.gif

Broadway in downtown Los Angeles was long a symbol of the bustling city: site of the city's original shopping district, a boulevard for protest marches and the home of a rich confluence of movie palaces, once home to star-studded premieres and thousands of moviegoers nightly.

The street's fortunes have ebbed and flowed along with most of downtown. And now, as a loft and condo boom brings thousands more residents to the area, transportation officials are considering a bold effort to remake Broadway.

They are talking about converting portions of the street into a transit mall, widening the sidewalks and allowing only transit buses on the street.

The idea of remaking the bustling shopping district — now an eclectic mix of stores and restaurants, mostly aimed at a Latino clientele, and a dozen or so historic movie theaters — is hardly new.

An almost identical plan was proposed and eventually abandoned in 1977.

But lately, the transit mall concept is getting another chance — thanks in part to the changing face of downtown.

"It was time we took a fresh look at how we serve downtown," said Ed Clifford, director of service planning for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

The agency's plan, he said, is "part of a larger discussion on downtown, about the role transit would play in its future. The city is trying to beautify it, and this could possibly line up with some of those things. So what we are doing is shopping it around."

Under the plan, which is still preliminary, the street would be closed to traffic between 2nd and 9th streets, except for buses and delivery trucks. Officials would rework the sidewalks and streetscapes to encourage pedestrian traffic along a street that is already one of the city's most heavily trafficked on foot.

When city planners floated a similar plan 30 years ago, as part of an effort to revitalize downtown's east side, an artist's rendering showed widened sidewalks with double and triple rows of street trees, as well as parking bays for the buses to make their stops.

But Clifford said the plan never got off the ground — in part because of concerns about how it would affect parking for the theaters' customers.

Although most of the theaters have closed, some Broadway merchants now echo similar concerns.

Maria Iturbe, owner of Michelle's Cosmetics, a small stand between 4th and 5th streets that sells everything from hosiery to herbal medicine to gift wrap, said she worried that fewer cars would mean fewer eyeballs scanning Broadway's vibrant but edgy landscape for shopping opportunities.

"I think that would just cause there to be less traffic of commerce," Iturbe said. "When there's cars, people in there are looking around to see what there is. They may not stop right away, but they might say, 'Look what's over there' and come back later. Business is bad enough as it is."

Frank Schultz, manager of the historic Los Angeles Theater on Broadway between 6th and 7th, said he liked the idea of making Broadway a pedestrian zone. But he questioned the idea of a transit mall.

"If they want to do something like that, they need to eliminate even the buses," he said. "This halfway thing makes no sense to me. But then again, a lot of the things going on down here make no sense to me."

But the idea has many supporters — especially among those who live downtown. Downtown resident and blogger Eric Richardson said the transit mall is a "perfect fit for Broadway."

"I think Broadway is uniquely positioned for this sort of use because it is such a pedestrian-heavy street," he said. "It's a street where the majority of traffic already is people walking, and the majority of people who come to the street are coming via public transit or parking nearby and walking."

Soccorro Carrillo, 45, a shopper from Boyle Heights who usually takes the bus to Broadway, also liked the proposal.

"I think people would get here faster on the buses because they wouldn't have to be stopping as much for all the cars."

Broadway is one of L.A.'s most storied streets, perhaps most famous for its ornate movie palaces.

Before World War II, it and 7th Street were downtown's major shopping destinations, drawing customers from around the region by car and trolley.

The business district declined after the war as shopping centers opened in the suburbs. But Broadway bounced back as a shopping destination for Latino immigrants.

Many — but far from all — customers now take the bus to get to Broadway. But the street also remains a major traffic thoroughfare across downtown.

Clifford said there were no preliminary cost estimates for the plan — or ideas about who would fund it.

"We have to see first if there's interest," Clifford said, "then we would see who would fund it."

Other downtowns have found success with similar transit malls. Denver, Dallas, Calgary, Canada, and Portland, Ore., have similar pedestrian-transit zones.

Los Angeles city officials have long touted Broadway as the potential heart of a new entertainment district, centered around the historic theaters. Others have indicated an interest in returning upscale shopping destinations to the area.

A spokeswoman for the office of Councilman Jose Huizar, who represents the district, said discussions about remaking Broadway were "exciting" — though still too preliminary to comment on directly. She said that she would like to see them rolled into ongoing discussions about the reintroduction of a trolley system to downtown.

Blogger Richardson agreed. "It's a street that doesn't depend on people being able to drive down it."

MTA fee hikes still leave rail plans unsure
Even after winning the biggest fare increase in more than a decade, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority still finds itself in a cash crunch that keeps several projects in limbo.
By Jeffrey L. Rabin and Rong-Gong Lin II, Times Staff Writers
May 26, 2007

Even after winning the biggest fare increase in more than a decade, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority still finds itself in a cash crunch that leaves several rail projects in limbo.

If it survives an expected legal challenge, the boost in fares will help stabilize the transit agency's deficit-ridden finances. But the increase is significantly less than what MTA staffers originally sought to close a projected $1.8-billion deficit over the next decade.

That leaves the MTA with a fundamental challenge that has faced the agency since its birth 14 years ago: how to operate a vast bus system while simultaneously building or expanding light-rail and subway lines.

The MTA has dramatically increased its mass-transit network this decade, finishing the Red Line subway to North Hollywood and opening the Gold Line from downtown L.A. to Pasadena and the Orange Line, a busway across the San Fernando Valley. The agency is in the midst of building two more rail lines at a combined cost of $1.5 billion: a downtown-to-Culver City route known as the Expo Line and an extension of the Gold Line from downtown to East L.A.

MTA Chief Executive Officer Roger Snoble offered a sober assessment Friday of what comes next.

Although he believes the agency can afford to complete and operate the Culver City and East L.A. lines, he said other transit projects now being considered, including one busway extension, could face significant delays.

"There has been a big expectation that we will get it done sooner than is financially possible," Snoble said. "This whole experience shows we need to be realistic about our expectations…. It may delay some projects."

Among them:

‧ The Expo Line extension from Culver City to Santa Monica, where officials have already purchased property around the Sears department store near City Hall and plan to convert the store's auto center building into a transit center.

‧ The Gold Line extension that would run from Pasadena to Montclair, in San Bernardino County, with a possible link ending at LA/Ontario International Airport. The line has been pushed aggressively by officials in the San Gabriel Valley, who have long complained that their region has no light rail service.

‧ The Green Line extension from its Aviation station near El Segundo to Los Angeles International Airport.

‧ The Orange Line extension from Woodland Hills to Chatsworth.

‧ The much-discussed $4.8-billion "Subway to the Sea" under Wilshire Boulevard that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa made a top priority when elected.

Only a dream?

Without a massive infusion of state and federal funds, officials said, the Wilshire subway remains only a dream. "That's got a long way to go," Snoble said.

The stakes are high, because there is general agreement that the MTA's current 73-mile rail network simply doesn't go enough places to lure motorists out of their cars. The agency's planners hope that pushing rail and busways farther into the Westside, San Gabriel Valley, South Bay and San Fernando Valley will create a system in which more people can get to their destinations. With L.A.'s population rising, officials worry that congestion on major boulevards and freeways will worsen, slowing bus service further.

The first set of fare hikes, which will hit bus and rail riders July 1, will generate at least $30 million in new revenue the first year, about 11% more than current levels, Snoble said. But it's less than the MTA chief had wanted.

A second wave of increases will be implemented in July 2009, possibly followed by another hike in 2011. That should provide the agency with enough revenue to operate the East L.A. and Culver City lines now under construction, as well as the other bus and rail services.

Already, an intense behind-the-scenes fight is underway between politicians from the Westside and the San Gabriel Valley over what rail project should follow the two now being built.

Westside forces are pushing for the $800-million Expo Line extension, saying traffic in their region is worse and that building a rail link to the ocean would be a huge relief valve. San Gabriel Valley forces say their area is underserved by rail and are pushing for a $1.4-billion route that would end in the fast-growing suburbs of San Bernardino County. (Both projects are at least six to seven years from completion.)

It is sobering'

Transit advocates Friday said they are worried that the MTA's financial problems could cause delays on their projects.

"It is sobering," said Darrell Clarke, a Santa Monica planning commissioner and co-chairman of Friends 4 Expo Transit. "We need a network of new rail lines, not just a couple of little new ones."

LaVerne Mayor Jon Blickenstaff said the MTA's problems probably mean that the competition for funding will heat up.

"There's a critical need for a better transit system, [but] it's all very expensive to build and operate, and the subsidies are not nearly adequate," he said.

Members of Congress from L.A. County and transit lobbyists in Washington are trying to win approval of special provisions that would allow the local money being spent on the Culver City and East L.A. lines to be used to draw federal dollars for the extensions.

If successful, this effort would give the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Valley lines an extra source of funds. But even Snoble is skeptical. "It's really a hard sell," he said.

The fare increases approved by the MTA board Thursday will significantly increase what riders pay.

The cost of the monthly pass will gradually rise from $52 to $75 by July 1, 2009. The day pass — the most popular pass — will rise from $3 to $6 over the same period. The single-ride cash fare will rise the least, from $1.25 to $1.50 over the next two years.

Critics of the increase have already threatened to sue the MTA in federal court, arguing that the agency is ignoring the needs of working-class bus riders to build a grand rail system. Bus riders and civil rights groups sued the MTA on similar grounds in 1994, resulting in the agency's signing off on a consent decree that kept fares stable and resulted in improved bus service.

Connie Rice, a civil rights attorney who fought the MTA often over the last decade, said Friday that the increased fares will again hit the poor hard.

"They are going to make poor people's lives even more miserable," she said. "It looks like they are back to business as usual."

MTA officials have warned that without the fare increases approved Thursday, they might not be able to operate the Culver City and East L.A. rail lines after they are built.

Such restrictions would also be bad news for some projects in their early planning stages. L.A. officials are pushing for a light rail line along Crenshaw Boulevard and Florence Avenue from the Expo Line to LAX. There are also studies of a downtown route that would connect the Blue Line and Gold Line.

MTA board member Pam O'Connor, a Santa Monica councilwoman, said boosting fares was a difficult decision — but a needed one for the future of mass transit in L.A.

"You have to have a solid foundation," she said. "And, frankly, we were on shaky ground."

(INFOBOX BELOW)

At risk

Expo Line extension
Where: From Culver City to Santa Monica
Est. Cost: $800 million or more
Purpose: Would bring rail to the beach and traffic-
clogged Westside.

--

Gold Line extension
Where: From Pasadena to Montclair
Est. Cost: $1.4 billion
Purpose: Would connect L.A. rail system to the fast-growing Inland Empire.

--

Green Line extension
Where: From near El Segundo to LAX
Est. Cost: $150 million or more
Purpose: The two-mile route would fill infamous "missing link," connecting rail line to LAX parking lot.

--

Orange Line extension
Where: From Woodland Hills to Chatsworth
Est. Cost: $135 million or more
Purpose: Successful busway would cross the full Valley. Costs less than rail.

--

Purple Line extension
(Wilshire subway)
Where: From Mid-Wilshire to Santa Monica
Est. Cost: $4.8 billion
Purpose: Would run through heart of city. Expensive but potentially popular.


http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2007-05/30068165.gif

well damnit...

I'm confident that a changed political climate in the next few years will make funding for all this eventually possible, hang tight Angelenos!

Funny how people want something for nothing. The BRU chanting that fares should be free, why? So that no rail can be built. Why? To make the oil and car people who fund them happy!

The BRU is racist in thinking that the only mode of transit that poor minorities ever deserve is buses.

MTA OKs study of Wilshire subway extension
From a Times Staff Writer
June 29, 2007

The Metropolitan Transportation Agency board of directors on Thursday approved a $3.6-million feasibility study of the much-discussed extension of the Wilshire Boulevard subway.

The study will look at alternate routes and preliminary engineering and environmental issues. It will take up to 18 months to complete.

In approving the study, board members say they are not necessarily backing the so-called "Subway to the Sea" project, which would run along Wilshire from the Mid-Wilshire area through the Miracle Mile, Beverly Hills, Westwood and to Santa Monica. The subway would cost at least $4 billion.

cool beans. now if we could just start the other 12 needed rail lines i would be a very happy person

I think these are the most likely lines that will be completed next decade(if any):
Expo extension Santa Monica
Purple Line to Santa Monica/Whittier Blvd
Gold Line to Azusa
Harbor Transitway
Crenshaw Line

^^You don't think the MTA would go for a Vermont Line rather than a line on the Harbor Transitway?

To me their seems to be much more political will for a Harbor Line that would take you to the airport.

Just a quick question?

How come lately there has not been any updates on the Expo Line? At first there was excitement and great reviews and now as if forgotten. Does anyone have any updates on this project?

^^It's under construction. There's just not much to see at this stage.

I pass it daily on my way to work. They are removing the pine trees from the center of Exposition Blvd where the train will run......ooowwweeeee! exciting!!

Just a quick question?

How come lately there has not been any updates on the Expo Line? At first there was excitement and great reviews and now as if forgotten. Does anyone have any updates on this project?

we need someone from around there to be posting construction updates!

When I get back home, I can start. I live a block away from Western/Expo.

Hopefully you'll have some Tokyo pics!!!

we need someone from around there to be posting construction updates!

I received notification this week that beginning Monday, July 9, 2007 they begin digging of the trench that will become the one underground section of the Expo Line on Flower Street (south of Jefferson), turning west on Exposition until just past the entrance to USC.

The trees are being removed (basically all the way to Vermont) so they can use the center of Expo as an equipment staging area and construction yard. They are supposed to be stored someplace for use when the project is completed (or donated to other locations if they do not fit into the landscape plan).

nice. i keep seeing more and more of those grey expo trains sitting in the metro rail yard just a bit above the gold line tracks coming into la. the first day i saw them i thought they look kind bad but there growing on me

Hopefully you'll have some Tokyo pics!!!

I'm going to Japan on the 21st...and will take a wholee lot of pics.

nice. i keep seeing more and more of those grey expo trains sitting in the metro rail yard just a bit above the gold line tracks coming into la. the first day i saw them i thought they look kind bad but there growing on me

I'd really like to see what those would look like with a different paint scheme.

photoshop my man... photoshop

Edit

Bill to lift ban on Wilshire subway clears U.S. Senate panel
From a Times Staff Writer
July 13, 2007

A U.S. Senate committee Thursday voted to lift a longtime ban on subway construction under Wilshire Boulevard, bringing subway backers a step closer to having the ban permanently lifted.

The Senate Appropriations Committee inserted language overturning the ban into its annual transportation, housing and urban development bill.

The 22-year-old ban has blocked federal funding for subway construction along the Wilshire corridor because of safety concerns over methane gas.

The Senate committee's approval is only one step in repealing the ban. The Senate bill and one passed by the House must go to the floor for debate, be reconciled and approved, and signed into law by President Bush.

The committee's action is a victory for politicians pushing for the Metro Red Line extension who say it is safe to build the subway.

California Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein issued statements immediately after the Senate panel's vote projecting that the ban would be repealed and that traffic congestion in a city notorious for tense drivers would be a bit more relaxed.

"This subway project is a critical step in reducing the terrible congestion in Los Angeles," Boxer said. "We've been told this project can be done safely, so it's time to move forward."

This isn't really an expansion proposal as much as an upgrade to the current system. Why can't all the outdoor light rail stations have solar panels installed on them? Imagine how much money that would save them every year. It will at least put a dent in Metro's operating budget.

Downtown Should Bring Back the Streetcar
Portland Success Shows That System Could Spur Development And Reduce Traffic

http://images.townnews.com/ladowntownnews.com/content/articles/2007/07/16/news/news06.jpg

by Homer Williams and Dike Dame / http://www.downtownnews.com/

As the financial and cultural anchor of the West Coast, Los Angeles typically exports creative ideas to communities around the country. Thus, it may seem odd to suggest that America's second-largest city should actually import a transportation concept from Portland, Ore.: a downtown streetcar system.

There are numerous reasons to do so: Having a streetcar could stimulate new development, reduce traffic, and bring the neighborhoods of Downtown closer together.

The idea of a streetcar connecting Los Angeles neighborhoods is neither new nor radical. During a 90-year period, Los Angeles developed one of the largest streetcar networks ever constructed. By the 1930s, the system had nearly 600 miles of track, used more than 1,200 cars and was a major factor in shaping the city's development pattern. Yet after World War II, the automobile enabled rapid development of suburban housing and significantly changed the urban landscape. The Los Angeles streetcar system began to decline as public resources were instead invested in highways. By 1963, the streetcar system had been abandoned.

Many cities that abandoned their systems are taking a fresh look at the streetcar's potential to revitalize and energize the urban core. In the late 1990s, we saw the potential for a streetcar revival to connect and energize downtown Portland neighborhoods. A group of business leaders, with encouragement from the city, formed a private non-profit to design and construct a new streetcar line connecting an abandoned rail yard with the core of the city. The proposal from Portland Streetcar Inc. reflected the development plans of each institution and neighborhood that would be affected, thus gaining immediate acceptance. In turn, businesses agreed to support a rate increase at public parking garages in the central business district. The new revenue was then bonded by the city for construction.

Since opening in September 2001, the Portland Streetcar has become an integral part of the central city, providing visitors and residents alike with a convenient option for moving through downtown and accessing the regional light rail system. The streetcar also links the city with its transportation history, which included a wide network of trolleys and streetcars going back more than 100 years. The project is one of the best examples in the Northwest of public and private commitments generating a unique transit and development solution. It has led to new and dense urban neighborhoods within the city core.

Los Angeles has been considering resurrecting its own streetcar system for nearly a decade. If our experience in Portland is any guide, this vision can be realized, but only if city leaders and private developers embrace a common objective, forge a workable partnership and commit to making a joint investment.

The benefits of a local circulator in Downtown Los Angeles are clear. A modern streetcar can be useful, attractive and cost-efficient, especially compared to light rail (the cost in Portland was less than one-fifth the capital cost of a comparable light rail system per track mile). In addition, a modern L.A. streetcar can be designed to fit the flavor of the neighborhoods and provide easy pedestrian access. But perhaps most important, a Los Angeles streetcar system could be an economic engine and a community builder.

Our experience shows that the streetcar can accelerate the pace of private development by 200% to 300%, yielding a high return on public investment. From an initial investment of $57 million, Portland has already seen more than $2.5 billion in new, diverse development spring up along the seven-mile Portland Streetcar line, with enormous potential ahead as the line is extended to the South Waterfront, the largest redevelopment project in Portland history. Keep in mind, this took place in a city that has fewer than 800,000 people within its bounds. Imagine the potential financial and community benefits in a city the size of Los Angeles.

In addition to accelerating new development, a Los Angeles streetcar line could organize and connect those investments and help create a stronger sense of community Downtown. New amenities and services become available. Density increases, commutes decrease. Building becomes more creative and integrated. And by mitigating the need to drive and park, a streetcar reduces traffic and the carbon emissions that come with it. It would stimulate pedestrian activity and help humanize the streets of Los Angeles. The result would be a healthier, sustainable urban environment, more attractive for residents, workers, visitors and small businesses alike.

In Portland, we underestimated these positive community impacts. With the streetcar now in place, there are no longer islands of development in Portland's urban center. Instead, the streetcar acts as a "spine" that connects and energizes urban neighborhoods. Residents, students and tourists use it. Businesses also gravitate toward it, understanding that the streetcar provides both visibility and foot traffic. This unifying effect could be especially meaningful in Los Angeles, where the future vitality of Downtown will depend on connecting its business, cultural, entertainment and residential communities. Bunker Hill, the Fashion District, the Music Center, the Historic Core, South Park - all these areas are thriving, but they cannot reach their full potential in isolation.

In the coming years, Portland's streetcar will continue to shape the urban fabric and spark new neighborhood development. It is a continuing example of development shaping transit and transit shaping development to create a better urban life for the community.

There is no reason Los Angeles can't duplicate - and even far exceed - this success in the renaissance of its downtown. All that's needed is vision, willpower and a shared commitment from city and private leaders.

Homer Williams and Dike Dame are partners in Williams & Dame Development and principals in the South Group, a leading developer of new condominium projects in Downtown Los Angeles. The South Group has more than 1,700 housing units planned or underway including Downtown's first new residential buildings in more than 20 years: Elleven, Luma and Evo.

'Subway to the Sea' plan still adrift
Despite some hopeful signs, a Wilshire line remains hung up on the question of who will foot the $5-billion price tag.
By Ari B. Bloomekatz and Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writers
July 14, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2007-07/31170662.gif

Despite moves in Congress this week to lift a longtime ban on subway tunneling, the epic struggle to build a subway under Wilshire Boulevard remains very much in the slow lane.

The "Subway to the Sea" has long been seen by transportation leaders as a key to easing L.A.'s notorious traffic congestion — but its $5-billion price tag has long been a stumbling block.

Over the last year, the subway has been the subject of much discussion. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called the "Subway to the Sea" crucial to the city's future and made it a top priority. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), who two decades earlier had pushed through legislation effectively banning tunneling under Wilshire, had a change of heart, and bills moved forward in Congress this week to reverse course.

But although political opposition has eased, money remains a seemingly unmovable obstacle.

Villaraigosa's office over the last year has been quietly gauging whether the public would agree to foot the bill. In one of the many private polls it has commissioned on a variety of subjects, the mayor's office asked residents if they would support some type of tax increase to pay for the subway and other transit improvement.

The results have not been released. But City Hall sources have said gaining the needed two-thirds majority for either a bond measure or a sales tax hike for the subway looks daunting.

Midway through 2007 — with high turnouts expected for next year's presidential primary and general election — Villaraigosa has yet to produce a proposal to take to voters to help pay for the project.

His aides say they are studying all possible scenarios. These include "benefit assessment districts" that would levy extra taxes on residents within half a mile of the subway line. Another idea is to find a private firm that could build and possibly operate the subway.

"The project is possible, but it is not a done deal," said Deputy Mayor Jaime De la Vega. "What needs to change is that we need to grow the funding pie."

One vocal supporter of the subway is Jane Usher, president of the Los Angeles Planning Commission. Yet, Usher believes that the Westside line was closer to getting built when she worked as general counsel for Mayor Tom Bradley in the early '90s than now, when there is no consensus or funding plan in place.

"I thought it was going to happen back then and then I watched the dismantling of consensus in the 1990s and replaced with so much less than was promised," Usher said. "Building a rail line takes a consensus and that consensus is bigger than the mayor, though I believe he can lead us in that direction — and I believe he is."

Officials at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates L.A.'s other rail projects, have in recent months stressed that the project is far from a top priority.

"We're just really starting and any project of this magnitude is a long-haul program because we have to do the planning studies, preliminary engineering, [receive] environmental clearance, get our funding partners in place. This is not something that we can do quickly," said MTA Chief Executive Officer Roger Snoble.

A telling moment will come later this year when the agency's board approves a long-range plan that prioritizes future projects. Villaraigosa and his appointees to the board are pushing for the subway to be at or near the top of the list.

The MTA is now working to complete two new rail lines — to Culver City and to East L.A. Moreover, the Wilshire subway faces tough competition for funds from other regional rail proposals, including a less expensive line that would connect Pasadena with the Inland Empire.

The MTA board approved a $5-million "alternatives" study of the Wilshire subway last month, a necessary step that requires the agency to justify why the line should be built. But several board members who approved the study pointedly raised questions about the project's viability.

"When we speak in terms of competing for federal funds, there's also other projects we're looking at for federal funds," said board member and Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe. "I want to be clear that this action, although a first step, is not in any way, shape or form approving a 'Subway to the Sea.' "

In the end, local taxpayers will probably have to contribute heavily to the subway effort, as they do in most large mass transit projects being constructed around the country.

Art Guzzetti, vice president of policy for the American Public Transportation Assn., said the federal government rarely, if ever, pays 100% of big capital improvements, such as a new light-rail or subway line. Instead, the federal government usually chips in about half — and only after local agencies show they can provide the rest.

Some subway backers are not giving up on a sales tax increase.

Former Santa Monica Mayor Denny Zane is organizing a nonprofit group tentatively called Subway to the Sea, and said that raising the sales tax could possibly provide enough money for construction.

One key question is who should be taxed. Transportation experts believe a countywide sales tax measure faces an uphill battle because the subway would run through only one part of the county — on the Westside. Moreover, other regions like the San Gabriel Valley are competing for rail lines in their areas.

"Everybody is banging their head against the wall and saying 'how can we pay for this?' " said Bart Reed, executive director of the nonprofit Transit Coalition. "How can we take an electorate that doesn't completely understand the project and get them to go for this?"

The idea of a subway down L.A.'s premier boulevard has been talked about for decades. Wilshire runs through several of the area's biggest hubs, including the Miracle Mile, Beverly Hills, Westwood and Santa Monica — and passes near Century City. Officials in the early 1980s planned for the subway to run from downtown to the corner of Wilshire and Fairfax Avenue. But in 1985, an underground methane gas explosion a mile north at a Ross Dress for Less store raised concerns about the safety of a tunnel. The gas threat was emphasized by longtime subway critics and homeowner groups who feared their residences would explode. Still other residents worried about crime if the line opened Westside neighborhoods to so-called outsiders.

Rep. Waxman responded to the 1985 blast by pushing through legislation prohibiting federal funding for any tunneling projects in the area. Improvements in underground digging technology and a favorable 2005 safety study from several tunneling experts across the country changed Waxman's mind. The appropriations bills in the House and Senate that would allow federal funding are expected to be voted on this fall.

And then the hard work begins.

It remains to be seen if Villaraigosa has the political muscle or even the willingness to push a tax increase, although he raised garbage pickup fees in his first year in office. The mayor is widely expected to run for governor in 2010, and few believe that he will be judged by voters solely on one mass transit project, particularly if he can claim that he got the subway moving forward in the planning process.

"Even back in the olden days when Mayor Tom Bradley was promoting some kind of coordinated mass transit system, it still took years before there was even a hole in the ground for a subway," said Councilman Herb Wesson, whose district includes the Koreatown terminus for the subway. "But no one can take away from him that he initiated it."

Some advocates for bus riders are among those fighting the subway, saying money would be more efficiently spent on more buses.

"We think it is a grotesquely expensive project," said Francisca Porchas, lead organizer of the Bus Riders Union, based in Los Angeles.

These realities don't stop some from dreaming.

Pedro Nava, 33, lives on the Westside and commutes about 45 minutes each way to his job as an education reformer near Vermont Avenue and Washington Boulevard.

One Friday morning last month, Nava walked out of a bagel shop with a coffee in hand, ready to tackle that day's tough commute. If a subway was available, Nava said he would hop right on. "If you have a bad day on the road, you're likely to have a bad day at work," Nava said. "The commute is stressful … stress really affects your health."

I think a streetcar would be a hit along Hollywood Blvd stretching from Los Feliz at the intersection of Hollywood and Vermont to Hollywood Proper terminating at Hollywood and La Brea.

sailhomes, do you post anything besides articles? j/k Anyways, both Klamedia and I both posted this article in the transit thread.

I think a streetcar would be a hit along Hollywood Blvd stretching from Los Feliz at the intersection of Hollywood and Vermont to Hollywood Proper terminating at Hollywood and La Brea.

I think thats a hell of an idea Klam. It got me to thinking, what if after the the wilshire subway is extended, that it became a sort of cross town express line and we had multiple streetcar lines/loops to cover the areas that the subway doesnt get to. Most people think of streetcars and downtowns, but since LA is so decentralized, we have to think a little out of the box. Obviously a streetcar downtown would be a hit as well, but also add in a streetcar in Hollywood serving the area you mentioned, another line or loop in the miracle mile area serving the museums/farmers market/ceders/beverly center, a line up a down westwood blvd between UCLA and the westside pavillion or expo line stop, a loop connecting Beverly and Olympic in the K-town area, and another one perhaps in BH and WeHo. I think a streetcar in Studio City and NoHo would also fair well.

Of course the big kicker is that the streetcars would have to have easy access to atleast one subway station if not more. In some cases they might even overlap track for a short distance. Yes, the cars would have to run in traffic, but, they would get people out of their cars. Also, because of the sexiness of rail, the streetcars would get riders who would normally refuse to ride a bus.

Thoughts?

^^ Yeah I like that idea, for some reason* Dunno why? but I do*

This may sound strange of me but I would like them to ONLY be designated in areas w/ very very high tourist foot traffic. The reason: We can't get away from the fact that this is a proletariat city where the demarcation line between rich and poor is drawn deeper than in any city in America, if not the developed world. I would hate to see a great idea killed by the logic of poor people need busses to get around not some shiny, fancy, nostalgic and limited mode of transport geared towards tourists and the non-minority middle and upper classes. Do you see where I'm getting at? If we can designate them for Downtown, Hollywood, Santa Monica (proven tourist destinations) the MTA could most likely push it through. This is not SF where the tourism often tramples upon the poor and working class, a cutesy city. This is LA, a big, dirty, trashy city with the highest #'s of illegal immigrants in the country and equally the highest disparity between rich and poor. This is a real city with very real social issues to conted with much more than a shiney street car running down the middle of every blvd to show the world that we can be cute too. I wouldn't want to see them overlap busses too much (the real workhorses of our system)where the MTA would start to discontinue services. So although I am all for them in some hoods I'm leary that they are going to work on the level of say a Portland or even San Diego.

Yeah I drove through MacArthur PArk today and I know for a fact that there are kids in Santa Monica who will never step foot in that area. They probably don't know it exists.

I think a streetcar would be a hit along Hollywood Blvd stretching from Los Feliz at the intersection of Hollywood and Vermont to Hollywood Proper terminating at Hollywood and La Brea.

That is a terrific idea! Much better than the now defunct Holly Trolly.

Yeah I drove through MacArthur PArk today and I know for a fact that there are kids in Santa Monica who will never step foot in that area. They probably don't know it exists.

Perfect!!:banana:

Public transit needs a future
The governor would shift funds to other uses. Here's one way to pump some back.
By Mike Feuer, MIKE FEUER (D-Los Angeles) represents the 42nd Assembly District and chairs the budget subcommittee on Transportation.
July 16, 2007

FOR ANYONE who endures Los Angeles' endless rush hour, this year's state budget negotiations are hurling California toward some crucial choices: Do we raid public transit funds — even as we strive to reduce traffic congestion and combat global warming? Do we shift the state's transportation funding priorities away from freeways toward subways, light rail and busways?

California voters understand the depth of our transportation crisis and how to work our way out of it: According to a recent poll, voters now consider public transit the solution to our congestion woes by a margin of 3 to 1.

It is surprising that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is bucking this trend, especially given his efforts to slow climate change. The governor's proposed budget would swipe $1.3 billion from public transit next year. Worse, he has proposed taking $600 million in bonds voters recently approved for new transit projects and using that to backfill funding for those already in the pipeline.

Just the threat that the governor's proposal might be adopted is affecting transportation decisions: This month, the California Transportation Commission may postpone allocating the $314 million necessary to complete the first phase of Los Angeles' Exposition Line, the much-anticipated light rail project between downtown and Culver City.

The $1.3-billion raid of transit funds — strongly supported by Republican legislators — is the biggest device the governor has proposed to balance his budget. Given the amount at stake, all sides will have to compromise. To limit cuts to indigent children and blind and disabled people, for instance, some of the governor's huge hit to transit may have to stand. But there is much we can do to prevent consigning ourselves to perpetual gridlock.

A solution centers on a pool of funds known as the "spillover," which grows when gasoline prices jump, and its potential relationship to Proposition 42, the California initiative mandating that all gas sales tax money be spent on transportation.

Established under Gov. Ronald Reagan, the spillover is a fund based on the amount by which gasoline sales tax revenue exceeds the amount generated by the sales tax on all other goods. By law, all spillover money is to be spent only on public transit, under the premise that when gas prices are high, buses and trains are more important than ever and cost more to operate. This year, however, as part of his $1.3 billion budget-balancing scheme, the governor proposes to siphon off hundreds of millions of spillover dollars.

For the long term, we need an entirely different vision. To start, rather than leave the spillover so vulnerable to short-sighted budget maneuvers, we could place it under the protection of Proposition 42. The infusion of spillover money — estimated at nearly $4 billion over the next three years alone — would bolster support for a second, larger step: changing Proposition 42's anachronistic allocations formula. Currently, only 20% of Proposition 42 funds are dedicated to public transit and 80% principally to state highways and local roads. A two-thirds vote of the Legislature could give priority (or at least parity) to public transit for the first time.

Imagine the effect in Los Angeles. Changes like these could bring us $200 million or more in new public transit funding next year alone. Put another way, only two years of such an increase would fund the state's entire contribution to the Exposition Line, including its extension to Santa Monica.

A version of this idea emerged from the Assembly subcommittee I chair. It awaits discussion during budget deliberations. As with any proposal of this magnitude, it spurred controversy. Many city and county governments resisted any change they believed would benefit transit at the expense of local roads. But here's the key: With so much additional spillover money available, it is possible both to increase public transit's share and make plenty of revenue available to local governments.

Of course, automobiles — ideally powered by clean fuels — will have their place in the California of tomorrow. If we make the right moves now, however, we can give Californians better public transit alternatives.

We approved a bond, and we expected it to go towards new projects, not the funding of transit that we already have. We should not stand for this, it is ridiculous.

All I can say is Bonds are evil...

All I can say is Bonds are evil...

It's not the bond that's wrong, it's the politicians who are in control of the money who are wrong. This money should be off limits to funding current transportation.

This about it like this. We're paying back bonds with a bond . . . WTF?! We wanted this for new projects, it doesn't make any sense to use the money the way they are doing it, especially since THEY ARE NOT TAKING ANY MONEY AWAY FROM PROP 1A which was intended for highways. I didn't vote but I can't can't believe that this is happening. If this is the way that my money going to be spent, then why should I vote?

Funny bit this discussion took place before the elections. I always said "Hell no Bonds" there bad karma. Besides that there a waste of money and hardly ever accomplish anything.

Also your absolutely right, who was the stupid one who thought of a new bond to pay for an old bond.

State budget still blocked; governor pushes
Republicans keep the bill from passage, despite intervention from Schwarzenegger, who sided with Democrats.
By Evan Halper and Patrick McGreevy, Times Staff Writers
July 21, 2007

SACRAMENTO — Besieged Senate Republicans continued to block passage of a state budget Friday night even as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger publicly sided with Democrats and urged GOP senators to give up the fight.

The deadlock in the Senate persisted despite the Assembly passing a budget on a bipartisan vote following an all-night session into Friday morning. The Assembly has since disbanded for a monthlong recess. GOP lawmakers complain that the Assembly spending plan does not cut deep enough and are holding out for more reductions.

On Friday night, Schwarzenegger, whose role in budget talks has largely been limited this year, stepped in to warn Senate Republicans that he will not support their demand to cut the state's operating deficit — $700 million under the budget plan passed by the Assembly on Friday — to zero.

"Bringing the operating deficit to zero this year would mean a cut to the education budget," he said. "The question now is whether we cut education funding, and I don't think that's what the people of California want. I will not cut education."

He said the Assembly plan is "a budget the people of California can be proud of."

The governor's statement came after repeated pleas by Senate Leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) for his help getting at least two Senate Republican votes — the number needed to implement a state budget. Schwarzenegger's comments suggest he is losing patience with the impasse and will begin putting political pressure on the GOP holdouts.

But Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman of Irvine said the members of his caucus were not ready to fold. He declared that no budget would be passed Friday. "There's a number of issues still outstanding," he said. "We're still spending too much."

Ackerman said that in addition to spending reductions, Republicans want to see certain environmental regulations on business relaxed and want more say in how billions of dollars in public-works borrowing approved by voters in November gets spent. He declined to disclose all his specific demands.

"I have a list, but I'm not going to give it to you," he told reporters. "We've given the list to all the negotiators, and they're the ones that can make the decision. Every time we give them a list, it gets rejected."

Democrats, who have already given in to several GOP demands, welcomed the governor's involvement. They have agreed to curb public transportation spending by nearly $1.3 billion, delay welfare cost-of-living increases for the elderly and disabled and scale back drug treatment programs for prisoners.

Any attempt by the Senate to adopt a budget that is substantially different from the one the Assembly passed could leave the state in financial limbo for weeks, since the Assembly won't be in town to approve it. Such a delay would leave the state unable to make scheduled payments to school districts, local governments and vendors.

Perata said getting the two Republican votes "is the governor's responsibility, and he's engaged. I'm quite confident that sooner or later they will come along." In the meantime, he says he will keep the Senate in session until a budget is passed. He has ordered a lockdown of the Senate, which forces lawmakers to remain in the chamber until he releases them.

"We've put up our votes," he said. "We've done what we are supposed to do…. As far as I'm concerned we will stay here until the Republicans decide somehow it's in their best interest and their constituents' interests to vote for it.

"At some point it becomes an embarrassment to the state and eventually becomes an embarrassment to the chief executive," Perata said. "And I don't think he deserves to be embarrassed, not over this budget."

Meanwhile, a controversial $500-million package of tax breaks approved as part of the Assembly budget deal appeared unlikely to survive.

The 63-page bill that would give big tax advantages to Hollywood film companies, jet owners, energy firms and other businesses came as an affront to many in the Capitol who had been involved in tax issues for years yet had no idea the policies would be jammed into a budget deal.

"They specifically did it in the middle of the night because they know every time this stuff sees the light of day it is rejected," said Lenny Goldberg, president of the union-backed California Tax Reform Assn.

The sun had barely risen before the bill that had just been passed began to fall apart.

The cost of the package — which includes five different corporate tax breaks — had been grossly underestimated by Assembly staffers, who declared to the press it would amount to a relatively small $140 million a year. It turned out to be several times that. Getting the wording right in the bills proved trickier than expected, as well.

The Assembly signed off on the plan around 4 a.m. Friday. A few hours later, policy analysts and lobbyists all over town — even those who favored tax breaks — were declaring it a debacle. By evening, Assembly leaders were sending out a memo in the Capitol stating that one key part of the bill, a research-and-development tax credit for companies, had an error in it that could result in business taxes actually going up.

A tax break on jet fuel that was intended to be targeted to the airline industry was unintentionally written in a way that would allow private jet owners to dodge the tax as well. A tax break intended to help multi-state businesses with a large payroll in California was estimated by the Assembly to cost $39 million a year. The state Franchise Tax Board had a different amount in mind: as much as $400 million.

"Their tax package had a few problems," Ackerman said.

Perata called passage of the tax package an "irresponsible action to take in the dark of night without any debate or discussion." He declared the proposal "dead on arrival" in the Senate.

Lawmakers in the Assembly say they have no regrets about bringing the tax issues into the budget debate.

"The Assembly continues to believe that we need to have a debate about using the tax code to create and keep jobs in California," said Steve Maviglio, spokesman for Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez. "This was never meant to be the be-all and end-all to do that. We moved the bill to the Senate to continue to work on it."

No cars on Wilshire
An above-ground rail line to the ocean, along with bike lanes and a few buses, would ease L.A. traffic immeasurably.
Michael Balter
July 22, 2007

Forget the "subway to the sea." It is a dramatic and radical idea to relieve traffic congestion on the Westside, but extending the Wilshire Boulevard Purple Line from its current terminus at Western Avenue to Santa Monica probably won't happen.

An even more dramatic and radical idea -- and one that wouldn't cost $5 billion and take at least 10 years to complete -- would be to turn Wilshire Boulevard into a car-free, rapid-transit, bicycle-friendly transportation artery. How?

First, ban all automobiles from the entire 15-mile length of the boulevard. Second, beginning at its Western Avenue station, bring the Metro Rail to street level and run it to and from the sea on two sets of rails in the center of Wilshire, which has four or more lanes down its entire length and is thus wide enough to accommodate the route. Third, create bus lanes running east and west for riders who want to make more frequent stops, leaving express service to the Metro Rail. Fourth, install protected bicycle lanes in each direction at the edges of the boulevard and provide inexpensive, self-service rent-a-bike stations every 300 yards (as in Paris) so riders can pick up a bike anywhere on Wilshire and drop it off where they like.

There are some practical problems. Overpasses or underpasses might have to be built at key intersections to channel cross traffic. Side-street access to some parking structures would have to be created. And the possible mini-congestion caused by cars forced to turn around on smaller streets that dead-end at Wilshire would have to be handled. Still, compared with the estimated cost of building a subway -- more than $300 million a mile -- solving these problems would be inexpensive. And because a lot of the Metro Rail infrastructure already exists, the price tag of bringing it above ground and extending it to the sea would be at the low end of the $30 million to $70 million a mile currently estimated for street-level light rail.

The remaking of Wilshire Boulevard should not take place in a vacuum. The Exposition Line from downtown to Santa Monica must be built, Olympic and Pico boulevards should be turned into one-way streets, and every major street should be fitted with bike lanes.

In "Utopian Essays and Practical Proposals," social critic Paul Goodman proposed banning all private cars from Manhattan, a proposal far more ambitious than keeping them off one thoroughfare in Los Angeles. He even suggested that a candidate for mayor run on such a platform. "The candidate would lose on the first try," Goodman wrote, "because he would be considered radical and irresponsibly adventurous; but he would win the second time around, when people had had the chance to think the matter through and see that it made sense."

Freeing Wilshire Boulevard of cars makes perfect sense.

Is this guy retarded? The main part of Wilshire Boulevard is jobs. You cannot take cars off the road, no matter what.

If we had full support from the public, then we would be able to build our Metro system completely grade separated the way it should be. But instead, we get light rail through streets that goes 15 mph.

None of the light rail lines in LA avg 15 mph, you're thinking of the fully grade seperated NYC local trains. And it's more than just public support (which is seemingly fairly strong towards a Wilshire subway line)it's also Federal dollars and state dollars as well. The only real solution to raise money for our very own transit needs looks like to tax auto drivers, even more. That means toll roads and congestion pricing and the like.

None of the light rail lines in LA avg 15 mph, you're thinking of the fully grade seperated NYC local trains. And it's more than just public support (which is seemingly fairly strong towards a Wilshire subway line)it's also Federal dollars and state dollars as well. The only real solution to raise money for our very own transit needs looks like to tax auto drivers, even more. That means toll roads and congestion pricing and the like.

I meant the parts that are in the middle of a street go about 15 mph.

I dont understand why taxes on gas arent higher. I think California can definitely afford raising taxes on gas at least double.

I dont understand why taxes on gas arent higher. I think California can definitely afford raising taxes on gas at least double.


^ We should raise your rent instead!

If the gas tax would help in funding more transit projects then by-golly-do it! We are in a crisis!

But then we'll have people like Ferney crying until they buy a hybrid.

You and I both know the answer to that one........YOU DON'T LISTEN!

Just something I noticed... some of you guys act like higher gas prices don't also hurt the poor. I know for a fact some of my friends spend 60 bucks a week driving around LA and it doesn't bother them one bit. They could care less if gas got more expensive.

I mean, I truly understand that the money needed to fund mass transport needs to come from somewhere, so it might as well come from a source that will help take some cars off the road... but the cars that are coming OFF the road aren't the rich guys. They're the people who can no longer afford gas and now are forced to take public transport, regardless of how inconvenient it may be for them. Meanwhile, the people for whom gas is a negligible cost will keep on driving and enjoying the fewer cars on the road.

This isn't really a criticism of anything anyone specifically said... just a comment.

I mean, plenty of very wealthy people only get around manhattan in personal vehicles. You'll never be able to stop that.

Raising the gas taxes isnt a target at the rich. Unfortunately, the rich are going to continue doing what they want to do despite what happens to taxes. Hopefully theses taxes will get a few cars off the road and provide more funding for transit. I find it irritating when people talk about the rich and poor every time some change in fares or taxes occur.

I agree and I don't want to turn this into a thread about socioeconomic disparity or anything like that. My comment wasn't intended towards anyone in particular, because I'm sure EVERYONE here is in favor of rail expansion and better mass transport. I just think sometimes we need to check ourselves, to see that we're not becoming as myopic as the people who adamantly refuse change of any sort.

But then we'll have people like Ferney crying until they buy a hybrid.


Hello? I'm doing my part so back off!

Raising the gas taxes isnt a target at the rich. Unfortunately, the rich are going to continue doing what they want to do despite what happens to taxes. Hopefully theses taxes will get a few cars off the road and provide more funding for transit. I find it irritating when people talk about the rich and poor every time some change in fares or taxes occur.


That what Matt just said......

Exactly "dweeb"! Donald Trump gets driven around Manhattan while I schlepped it on the train during the middle of a snow covered winter..........that's how it goes in our current system. So in not trying to force LA or Cali to adhere to a higher standard or a completely different form of government, raise the gas tax and those who can no longer afford to the luxury to drive will be forced onto the bus and trains. Really, that's how all successful transit systems work, they make it incredibly hard for those that can't afford to own and maintain a private auto to consider the alternatives. For instance, very high parking rates downtown, tolls or the nascent congestion pricing. It's time for LA to balance its personal freedom and libertarian belief system that has infected it w/ some good ole' authoritarianism. It's obvious that most people when it comes down to it don't care about the collective and then it becomes really warped where personal freedoms start to dictate what is best for the collective i.e. let's build more roads for private cars instead of transit for the masses.

It's obvious that most people when it comes down to it don't care about the collective and then it becomes really warped where personal freedoms start to dictate what is best for the collective i.e. let's build more roads for private cars instead of transit for the masses.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Budget impasse may stall projects
The state transportation commission is advised to not fund any plans, including an L.A.-area light rail line, until a spending plan is OKd.
By Evan Halper, Times Staff Writer
July 26, 2007

SACRAMENTO — The first statewide effects of the nearly monthlong budget impasse may be felt today when transportation projects are expected to be put on hold, as Republican vows to reject a spending plan without major cuts to parks, healthcare and social services provoked a torrent of criticism.

Staff at the California Transportation Commission advised board members meeting in Glendale this morning to put off approval of $800 million in projects until a budget is in place. The release of funds for the projects, including the Expo light rail line linking Culver City to downtown and work on the 105 Freeway near Los Angeles International Airport, is expected to be delayed until the board's next meeting in September.

The consequences of the impasse could soon spread elsewhere. By the end of July, roughly $1.1 billion in other scheduled payments could be withheld, state Controller John Chiang said.

Local schools, county governments, community colleges and contractors doing business with the state are among those that would not receive checks.

School groups have begun flooding state Senate offices with calls and e-mails, as well as demanding a budget during daily news conferences held in the districts of GOP senators they believe are vulnerable to public pressure.

"For a lot of people there will be a significant impact," Chiang said of the impasse. "Those that don't have money saved are going to be hit hard."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed frustration with the situation Wednesday.

"I'm concerned, because what I don't want to have happen is that people start not getting paid in California," he said at a news conference in South Lake Tahoe. "I think the time has come now to solve this problem and to come to an agreement."

But an agreement continues to elude the Senate, which so far has failed to sign off on the bipartisan spending plan approved by the Assembly on Friday. GOP lawmakers say that budget proposal spends too much.

On Wednesday, they presented their own plan, which had nearly $842 million in additional cuts, including elimination of a drug treatment program and reductions in spending on prisons, state parks and medical care for the poor.

The proposal could come before the full Senate today, but no Democrats have indicated they will support it.

Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, but at least two Republican votes are needed to reach the two-thirds majority necessary for passage of a budget.

The 15 Republicans in the Senate have agreed not to vote for a budget until it has the support of a majority of the caucus.

Senate Leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) said Republicans put "all the welfare issues back on the table after we had negotiated them off the table." Democrats had agreed to scale back other social service expenditures by hundreds of millions of dollars, as well as cut spending on public transportation by $1.3 billion.

The GOP plan was immediately attacked by a wide range of interest groups, which said the cuts would devastate the poor, harm the environment and leave the state vulnerable to losing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal matching funds.

A statement issued by a coalition that includes the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense and every other major environmental group in the state was titled "Senate Republicans Declare Open Season on the Environment."

The coalition warned that a demand by the lawmakers to restrict enforcement of a landmark law passed last year to curb greenhouse gases "is a radical departure from established state policy." Business interests "want a moratorium now while they delay and obstruct regulation in the future."

Republicans defended their call to change the law, saying it is needed to curb overzealous enforcement of greenhouse gas emission regulations by state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown. They said Brown is filing lawsuits aimed at projects the law was never intended to stop.

Brown, in turn, said the Republicans were trying to "gut" environmental laws "as the price of their voting — a month late — on this year's budget."

The GOP senators have so far resisted pressure from interest groups to fold. But that pressure intensified after the lawmakers disclosed their demands to the public Wednesday. Defenders of many of the state programs targeted by the GOP proposal began taking a more active role in pushing for adoption of the Assembly budget.

"This is a bad idea," said Traci Verardo-Torres, director of legislation and policy for the nonprofit California State Parks Foundation, of a provision in the plan that would cut the state parks maintenance budget by $15 million. She said it could hurt California's tourism industry.

Service Employees International Union Local 1000, California's largest state employee union, called a proposal not to fill 6,000 vacant jobs in the state workforce a "cheap stunt that will turn into a big payday for well-connected contractors."

Officials from the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance called the GOP plan to save $120 million by eliminating a drug treatment program created by voter initiative in 2000 "the height of fiscal irresponsibility." The program has helped 70,000 Californians stop using drugs and stay out of jail, they said. A UCLA study concluded the program saves $2.50 for every $1 invested, alliance officials said.

Still, Republicans showed no sign of backing down.

"All the law enforcement I have talked to think the program is not a success," said Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman of Irvine.

He also defended the biggest cut in the plan: a $300-million reduction in welfare payments that would lead to tens of thousands of families losing state assistance.

Staff at the nonprofit California Budget Project said such a cut could leave the state out of compliance with federal rules, resulting in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in matching funds. Republican budget staff disputed that finding.

Despite pledges not to reduce spending on public safety, the GOP plan would cut $49 million from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Some of the proposals could violate court settlements reached between the department and inmate attorneys or hinder the department's efforts to upgrade its technology, experts said.

The lawmakers are proposing to cut an increase in the number of prison dentists, as well as a boost in their pay, that was ordered by a federal court. The proposal comes as the state's inability to comply with the orders of federal judges leaves the prison system vulnerable to being taken over by the courts.

Senate Budget Committee Vice Chairman Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Murrieta) said the state shouldn't spend money in the hopes of satisfying federal judges, whom he described as unpredictable: "If anybody knows what they are thinking, they ought to be headed to Las Vegas."

"The lawmakers are proposing to cut an increase in the number of prison dentists, as well as a boost in their pay, that was ordered by a federal court. The proposal comes as the state's inability to comply with the orders of federal judges leaves the prison system vulnerable to being taken over by the courts."

WTF? We need dentists for prisoners instead of money for transit? What a joke.

It's time for LA to balance its personal freedom and libertarian belief system that has infected it w/ some good ole' authoritarianism.




libertarianism is society's greatest evil



we really, really need a more heavy-handed local/regional government. things would get done much, much faster if those assholes and their inbred NIMBY and BANANA cousins could be ignored.... or deported.

ha.

I mean, plenty of very wealthy people only get around manhattan in personal vehicles. You'll never be able to stop that.

Parking spaces in Manhattan are going for well over $200,000, but those who can afford them are still buying.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/us/12parking.html?ex=1185768000&en=244ec936695c27a0&ei=5070

There needs to be a line serving the Sunset strip, the Beverly Center, and the Grove, either teh silver line or a detour of the red line?



which line will that be included in?

^ Quoting yourself now! :hilarious


... speaking of Metro Expansions, what's going on with the Orange Line extended route to Chatsworth?

I think it's still under construction, but I haven't heard much about it.

There's actually funding available for the expansion?

^ Quoting yourself now! :hilarious


... speaking of Metro Expansions, what's going on with the Orange Line extended route to Chatsworth?

lolololololololololol^^ :lol: :lol: :lol:

which line will that be included in?

Yeah, which line will that be included in, Robert? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/WestsideMetro.gif

^^ If only the PurpleLine was being extended to Fairfax for the time being. I'm sure MTA can make this happen to keep Angelinos happy!

now thats what i want to see. is the extension of the purple line going to be n wilshire? if so your gonna hve the same kind of people that were mad about hollywood blvd being messed happening to wilshire as well.

now thats what i want to see. is the extension of the purple line going to be n wilshire? if so your gonna hve the same kind of people that were mad about hollywood blvd being messed happening to wilshire as well.

People in L. A. are gonna have to be team players from now on, for the sake of its future. :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/WestsideMetro.gif

will the red line get extended east and the blue line north?

lol... in case you haven't heard the recent news about the State Budget... I seriously doubt ANY projects will happen until transit starts getting more funding again. Obviously, traffic isn't an issue of high importance in California worthy of putting tax money towards fixing.

I agree with a Monorail on wilshire... BUT!! the Subway is there

what line will serve Monterrey Park?

the Metro Gold Line

what line will serve Monterrey Park?


^^ Gold Line would be close but not close enough. last stop is on Atlantic/60 FWY.

what line is this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/88/DowntownMetro.gif/300px-DowntownMetro.gif

well blue line, but I ment what project?

what line is this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/88/DowntownMetro.gif/300px-DowntownMetro.gif


The only project in that picture os the East Side Gold Line extension....

no the dotted blue line

no the dotted blue line


^ That's actually the underground segment of the Blue Line.

no thats an extension project in dotted blue. the solid blue is current.

That's the proposed DT Connector.

so it woudn't have a new station?

^^It will have 3 more stations.

Is it a real plan or hypothetical?

It's a real plan, the MTA has been researching it for years. The problem is where to get the money for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LACMTA_Regional_Connector


here is the plan go down to links abd open the file and it shows that it will have three new stations.

expo line funding is a done deal. the line will be ready in OhTen.

^^Phase II is not a done deal yet.

expo line funding is a done deal. the line will be ready in OhTen.



^ Where's your source?

Heard it in the news today...

funding is complete for the phase one only.

Phase one to be completed by 2010.

The final alignment for the second phase (Culver City to Santa Monica) is not even finalized let alone funded.

Expansion proposals

[edit] Official
Purple Line: Los Angeles mayor and MTA chair Antonio Villaraigosa has announced his intention to extend the Purple Line from its current terminus at Western Avenue to downtown Santa Monica. MTA has not officially announced this project. In the past there was a federal ban on tunnel construction in the Miracle Mile District, due to lingering concerns over large pockets of methane gas underneath it. On October 27, 2005, a panel selected by the MTA Board and Congressman Henry Waxman, formerly a vocal opponent of the subway extension, declared that extension of the subway was safe. On December 16, 2005, Waxman introduced H.R. 4571 to the U.S. House to allow subway tunneling under Wilshire Boulevard. On September 19, 2006, H.R. 4571 passed the U.S. House of Representatives, removing a major roadblock preventing the construction of this extension. A Senate equivalent of this bill is currently stalled in the U.S. Senate.
Blue Line: Initial plans for the Blue Line called for it to travel all the way to Union Station and beyond; thus, the Gold Line was originally known as the "Pasadena Blue Line." A subway tunnel of approximately two miles (known as the "Downtown or Regional Connector") connecting the 7th St/Metro Center to the future Eastside Extension at First and Alameda would allow the Blue and Expo Lines to reach Union Station, Pasadena and the Eastside, and vice versa. However, because a county subway construction funds initiative (passed in 1998) bans public funding for extension work, all work has been halted. In September 2005, the MTA board publicly indicated its desire to take up this project again, a call heartily endorsed by the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times.
Gold Line: Using former Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway trackage and right-of-way in the San Gabriel Valley, The Metro Gold Line Foothill Construction Authority is working to extend the northern branch of the Gold Line eastward, from its current terminus in Pasadena to the city of Montclair in San Bernardino County, or even possibly to L.A./Ontario International Airport. As the population density is lower in this portion of the county and projected ridership is lower, other projects have been given a higher priority than this extension. The 24-mile (39 km) Foothill Extension (so named because the route is just to the south of a mountain range) does enjoy popular support from all of the twenty-three cities along its route. The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments recently obtained federal funding for environmental studies and hopes construction of the first segment to Azusa can begin in as early as 2007 with a possible completion in 2010. The second segment to Montclair is hoped to be completed by 2014. That the extension has been seriously considered at all is due in large part to the advocacy of former Azusa city manager Rick Cole, a vocal smart growth proponent. With the completion of the Foothill and Eastside extensions by 2014, the Gold Line would become the longest Metro Line, and maybe even the longest light rail line in North America, surpassing the 22-mile (35 km) Blue Line with over 50 miles (80 km) of rail.
Green Line: The long-delayed reconstruction of Los Angeles International Airport will include a Green Line spur to the new terminal. Los Angeles City Council member Bill Rosendahl has called for this spur to be extended to Marina Del Rey or even Venice along Lincoln Boulevard, citing MTA white papers indicating the feasibility of such an extension. The extension would fix the Green Line's issue of being a route that goes "from nowhere to nowhere." The MTA has also in the past listed on its list of possible projects an extension at the Green Line's eastern end, linking the Green Line to the Metrolink station in Norwalk, possibly with a short underground segment.
Regional Connector (Downtown Connector) project: Proposed mass transit rail project in downtown Los Angeles, connecting the Blue Line to Union Station. The project would allow Blue Line trains to terminate at Union Station which would allow easier connections, ease crowding on the downtown section of the Red and Purple lines, and would allow Gold Line vehicles to travel to the large shops in south LA for their heavy maintenance (they currently need to be trucked). This connection would begin at the 7th Street/Metro Center station, which is currently the northern terminus of the Blue Line. The project is still at very preliminary stages of planning and thus no alignment has yet been determined, but a number of alignments have been informally studied and proposed. The connector was envisioned as far back as 1992, when in its Long Range Transportation Plan, LACMTA envisioned the Blue Line running through downtown to Union Station and onward to Pasadena. The connector was not completed due to lack of funds and realignment of the Red Line eastside extension which became an extension of the Pasadena Gold Line.

[edit] Citizens' advocacy
Rail advocates have proposed the following lines:

The Yellow Line is a proposed light-rail line which would run from North Hollywood to Downtown L.A., serving the communities of Burbank, Glendale, Silver Lake, and Echo Park en route. Part of the proposed route, a former Southern Pacific railway alignment along Chandler Boulevard in Burbank, has recently been converted by the City of Burbank to a bicycle path and parkway, thus reducing the likelihood this line would come to fruition. The Yellow Line proposal also advocates use of the former Belmont tunnel built by the Pacific Electric system, not in use since 1955. The land adjacent to the tunnel exit near Second Street and Beverly Boulevard in downtown Los Angeles, long vacant, has recently been sold. An apartment complex is now being built on the site, making it much less likely this area could be used for a new rail line.
The Silver Line is another light-rail proposal which would operate from El Monte to Hollywood, passing through the western San Gabriel Valley, Union Station, Downtown L.A., Echo Park, and Silver Lake along the way. It would use existing rail between El Monte and Union Station in downtown Los Angeles. (This is unrelated to the Foothill Transit "Silver Streak" bus service, which also serves the San Gabriel Valley as of March 19, 2007, and uses buses similar to those of the Metro Orange Line.)
The Harbor Line would serve residents of the Harbor Area, by connecting it to the rest of Los Angeles by linking it to the MTA's existing light rail system. The line would serve as a convenient way for people to visit San Pedro, which is currently undergoing a state of rapid redevelopment (with the Port's Bridge to Breakwater proposal and other condo projects). This route would use the long-abandoned right-of-way known as the Harbor Subdivision, which MTA currently owns.[5] Part of this route would also form the basis of the proposed LAX Express.
The Get L.A. Moving Plan is a proposal lead by author Damien Goodmon with the support of local and international transit advocates, planners and engineers, which primarily combines already built lines, and extensions that have been throughly studied by the MTA and predecessor agencies to illustrate the type of rail transit system that would exist if they came to fruition. It would create a system which would be competitive with the best systems that are in the world (i.e. London and New York). The Get L.A. Moving Plan includes cost estimates, suggested construction schedules, construction methods and financing, and cites rail construction systems around the world including Madrid, Washington D.C. and several Asian countries as precedence.




http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=ExpoLine&boardid=dream&spec=6278641

http://joequality.com/rail.html

http://joequality.com/rail.html




A Perfect System of Metro Rail?
My fascination with rail/subway in LA grows each day, so I've managed to design a system that could open up the entire Greater Los Angeles Area. There is an explanation of the lines, showcasing existing, planned, and possible future expansion.

Current lines:

Red Line: from Union Station to Wilshire/Western; Wilshire/Vermont to North Hollywood
Blue Line: 7th/Fig in downtown to Long Beach
Green Line: Redondo Beach (but not actual sand) to 105/605 via 105 Freeway
Gold Line: Union station to Pasadena
Orange Line: North Hollywood to Woodland Hills (only a BRT - Bus Rapid Transit along a dedicated busway)
Planned/Developing lines (completion around 2009/2010):

Gold Line Eastside Extention: Union Station to Atlantic/Pomona in East LA
Expo Line: Phase I from 7th/Fig to Venice/Robertson in Culver City. Phase II to a new Santa Monica Transit Center at the old Sears building by 3rd Street.
Joe's Rail Lines:

extend Red Line down Wilshire and then south to the Santa Monica Transit Center (this probably will happen after Expo is done though); extend the other spur northwards thru North Hollywood, San Fernando, cluminating in Sylmar
extend Blue Line to Union Station via a downtown connector that makes a stop at Bunker Hill; then from Untion Station it goes to Glendale (both downtown and Metrolink stops), Burbank (including a much-needed stop at Burbank Airport), Pacoima (tranfer point to Red and Orange Lines), and sharing track (subway) with the Red Line to Sylmar
extend Gold Line from Pasadena eastward all the way until Claremont (this might happen eventually); it could even go to the Ontario Airport too; the southern branch will go in a southeast direction to end in Whittier
Green Line spur from Aviation station to LAX and then up Lincoln to the Santa Monica Transit Center (either subway or elevated, since Lincoln Blvd is so fucked up now anyway); extend it east to the Metrolink station in Norwalk; extended it south thru the South Bay cities including stops at the Galleria, Redono, Torrance, and ending at the Long Beach Blue Line ending
extend Orange Line to Canoga Park (probably will happen) and continue north to Chatsworth (Metrolink Station), Northridge (including CSUN), and going eastwards to the transfer point in Pacoima (oh and because this systems is far, far in the future with near-limitless funds, it will be a rail instead of a busway); the whole Orange Line could be made into a giant SFValley loop by sharing with either Red or Blue Lines (I didn't do it here though)
Venice/Hollywood Line is an Expo Line spur westward down Venice to the beach (there is a median there already; above ground); also have it go eastward on Venice to La Cienega, turn north all the up to Beverly Center, to the Sunset Strip and on Hollywood Blvd to connect to Red Line at Hollywood/Highland (subway from above the 10)
Sepulveda Line from LAX all the up to Sylmar, hitting Howard Hughes, Fox Hills, Culver City, Westside Connection mall, UCLA, Ackerman, Getty Center, etc, ... (subway)
Crenshaw Line from LAX, north on Crenshaw to Pico/San Vicente Transit area, becomes a subway and connects with the Red Line at La Brea, up La Brea all the way to Hollywood/Highland
Harbor ROW Line that follows the Crenshaw Line, but continues eastward on the ROW directly to Union Station (important transportation link)
Commerce/Whittier Line spurs off the above line eastward to end up in Whittier and the southern branch of the Gold Line
Silver Line from Wilshire/Santa Monica to Beveraly Hills Civic Center, Bev Center, Farmer's Market, then eastward along Melrose to Red Line at SM/Vermont; then it goes thru Silver Lake, Echo Park, Dodger Stadium (during the season only), Olvera Street, and finally at Union Station via shared tracks with the Gold Line. West of Vermont is subway, whereas east can be a mix of sub and elevated. The Line continues eastward paralleling the Metrolink tracks stopping at CSULA, Alhambra, San Gabriel, and finally El Monte
San Pedro/Pasadena Line from San Pedro up Normandie and Vermont (sharing with Red Line) and then connect to the Blue Line in Glendale; then it goes east to Pasadena, connecting with the Gold Line and the...
...Pasadena/Long Beach Line, which goes south thru SGValley and Long Beach, with everything in between, including the LB Airport and two Metrolink lines/stations
The map below is not to scale. Also it is a very rough draft and looks ugly. I didn't have a chance to fill each station, but will make a cooler map (like an official one) with all the stations later.

^ Why are you posting then quoting yourself, then posting again, then again quoting yourself Robert?

I must say your one funny racist.... :hilarious

Getting back to topic, so Expo phase 1 is funded.... Excellent! :banana:

whats racist about these proposals?

Yes, getting back on topic.
The 1st phase of the Expo Line has got its seed money to continue pushing west. No, Phase 2 has not been funded but can we get Phase 1 put in the ground first. Here is the article:

http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2007/September-2007/09_06_07_Expo_Line_Funding_Gets_Green_Light.htm

Expo Line Funding Gets Green Light
By Lookout Staff

September 6 -- The Expo light-rail line to Santa Monica moved closer to reality Wednesday after the California Transportation Commission greenlighted $315 million for the stalled project.

The funding, which was approved unanimously without debate, comes after a budget deadlock in Sacramento threatened to delay the project, which is expected to alleviate congestion on the traffic-snarled Westside.

Wednesday’s action "ensures continued progress without interruption in building the Expo light-rail line to Culver City and ultimately to Santa Monica," Zev Yaroslavsky, who chairs the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors wrote in a statement issued shortly after the vote.

"It hastens the day we can finish the project and bring mass rapid transit and a measure of genuine traffic relief to the people of West Los Angeles."

The commission’s move provides nearly half of the $640 million needed to complete the first phase of the Exposition Line -- an 8.5 mile stretch of rail from Downtown Los Angeles to Culver City -- which began construction last year.

The first phase is slated to be finished in 2010, paving the way for the next phase that will connect Culver City to Santa Monica, which is still in the planning stages..

Wednesday’s vote came despite worries that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s cuts in transportation funding would indefinitely stall the Expo line, which would end in Downtown Santa Monica.

Earlier this year the Santa Monica City Council supported the most direct path into the city, following an existing right-of-way along Exposition Boulevard.

The other proposed route to Santa Monica would add approximately one mile of track along Sepulveda Boulevard and Venice Boulevard, before linking back up at Exposition Boulevard near the 405 Freeway and coming into Santa Monica.

In addition to making recommendations on the path, the council adopted a Planning Commission proposal that asks Construction Authorities to consider adding a third Santa Monica station near Santa Monica College on 17th Street on the public right of way, running parallel to Olympic Boulevard

The station would serve Santa Monica College, as well as businesses and high-density apartments in the area, according to City officials.

Currently, four possible Santa Monica sites are being considered for the project, according to maps unveiled at a March 6 public meeting.

However, transit officials have said fewer stops would keep ridership high and the line a success.

Currently two stations are likely under consideration -- Bergamot Station and a site on Colorado and Fourth Street, the proposed light rail terminus, where the City recently purchased a building from Sears for $35 million.

I wonder what the expo station will by nere the Westside Pavilion becasue the tracks are in teh middle of a residential neighborhood. I think they should summerge is in that part between overland and sepulveda and build a pedestrain tunnel conecting the station to the Westside Pavillion.

I never mentioned anything about phase II

The station would serve Santa Monica College
YES!!!!

than it would have to go along Pico. the expo track is several blocks from SMC.

how would it serve westside pavillions is the track is a fews blocks south in the middle of a residential area? I suggested building a trench in that part.

Yes, getting back on topic.
The 1st phase of the Expo Line has got its seed money to continue pushing west. No, Phase 2 has not been funded but can we get Phase 1 put in the ground first. Here is the article:

http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2007/September-2007/09_06_07_Expo_Line_Funding_Gets_Green_Light.htm

Expo Line Funding Gets Green Light
By Lookout Staff

September 6 -- The Expo light-rail line to Santa Monica moved closer to reality Wednesday after the California Transportation Commission greenlighted $315 million for the stalled project.

The funding, which was approved unanimously without debate, comes after a budget deadlock in Sacramento threatened to delay the project, which is expected to alleviate congestion on the traffic-snarled Westside.

Wednesday’s action "ensures continued progress without interruption in building the Expo light-rail line to Culver City and ultimately to Santa Monica," Zev Yaroslavsky, who chairs the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors wrote in a statement issued shortly after the vote.

"It hastens the day we can finish the project and bring mass rapid transit and a measure of genuine traffic relief to the people of West Los Angeles."

The commission’s move provides nearly half of the $640 million needed to complete the first phase of the Exposition Line -- an 8.5 mile stretch of rail from Downtown Los Angeles to Culver City -- which began construction last year.

The first phase is slated to be finished in 2010, paving the way for the next phase that will connect Culver City to Santa Monica, which is still in the planning stages..

Wednesday’s vote came despite worries that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s cuts in transportation funding would indefinitely stall the Expo line, which would end in Downtown Santa Monica.

Earlier this year the Santa Monica City Council supported the most direct path into the city, following an existing right-of-way along Exposition Boulevard.

The other proposed route to Santa Monica would add approximately one mile of track along Sepulveda Boulevard and Venice Boulevard, before linking back up at Exposition Boulevard near the 405 Freeway and coming into Santa Monica.

In addition to making recommendations on the path, the council adopted a Planning Commission proposal that asks Construction Authorities to consider adding a third Santa Monica station near Santa Monica College on 17th Street on the public right of way, running parallel to Olympic Boulevard

The station would serve Santa Monica College, as well as businesses and high-density apartments in the area, according to City officials.

Currently, four possible Santa Monica sites are being considered for the project, according to maps unveiled at a March 6 public meeting.

However, transit officials have said fewer stops would keep ridership high and the line a success.

Currently two stations are likely under consideration -- Bergamot Station and a site on Colorado and Fourth Street, the proposed light rail terminus, where the City recently purchased a building from Sears for $35 million.


I must add that those are some great news for future Expo Riders. But yet I have not heard from the BRU? I understand most here dislike the BRU and whatnot but what are they planning against this rail line??? Curious!

With the consent decree gone they really don't have alot of leverage. They also lost out in sueing the MTA over fare increases.

LATIMES
Gold Line Is Under Construction
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 14, 2007 - Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has reversed course and is now endorsing the extension of a light-rail train line from Pasadena through Montclair and out to Los Angeles-Ontario International airport.

Transportation activists in the San Gabriel Valley and San Bernardino County are hoping to attract state funds to bring the Gold Line east from its current terminus in Pasadena about 35 miles east to the airport, passing on an old Santa Fe rail alignment through Montclair.
Villaraigosa had been reluctant to endorse the Gold Line extension to Montclair, much less Ontario. He has been campaigning for funding to extend the Wilshire Boulevard subway west through the Fairfax District, Beverly Hills and West L.A. to Santa Monica.

But the mayor's spokesman, Darryl Ryan, told the Valley News that providing rail service to Ontario International would accomplish the city's goal of regionalizing airport services and relieving congestion at and surrounding LAX.

"We want to make sure resident of Los Angeles and all over the county have transportation alternatives," Ryan told the paper. "Extending the Gold Line to Montclair is important in that respect."

Duarte City Council member John Fasana praised the Los Angeles mayor's warming up to the mass transit project through the San Gabriel Valley and western San Bernardino County.

Gold Line extension advocates note that environmental studies have been completed, the old Santa Fe railroad line has been purchased, and Gold Line construction could begin within a year. The proposed "Subway to the Sea" may be morethan a decade away from construction.

The Gold Line already runs parallel to the Pasadena (110) Freeway from Los Angeles Union Station northeast to Pasadena, and then east down the middle of the Foothill (210) Freeway to Sierra Madre Boulevard. An extension now under construction will bring light rail service from Union Station southeast to Boyle Heights and East Los Angeles.

The proposed "Subway to the Sea" may be morethan a decade away from construction.

That's beyond ridiculous.

That's beyond ridiculous.

If that's the case, don't bother. That's beyond insult!

This is a backroom deal so that AV can get his Subway to the sea under construction before his re-election. I hate that the Gold Line ext is going to happen but welcome to LA county politics folks.

LATIMES
Gold Line Is Under Construction
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 14, 2007 - Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has reversed course and is now endorsing the extension of a light-rail train line from Pasadena through Montclair and out to Los Angeles-Ontario International airport.

Transportation activists in the San Gabriel Valley and San Bernardino County are hoping to attract state funds to bring the Gold Line east from its current terminus in Pasadena about 35 miles east to the airport, passing on an old Santa Fe rail alignment through Montclair.
Villaraigosa had been reluctant to endorse the Gold Line extension to Montclair, much less Ontario. He has been campaigning for funding to extend the Wilshire Boulevard subway west through the Fairfax District, Beverly Hills and West L.A. to Santa Monica.

But the mayor's spokesman, Darryl Ryan, told the Valley News that providing rail service to Ontario International would accomplish the city's goal of regionalizing airport services and relieving congestion at and surrounding LAX.

"We want to make sure resident of Los Angeles and all over the county have transportation alternatives," Ryan told the paper. "Extending the Gold Line to Montclair is important in that respect."

Duarte City Council member John Fasana praised the Los Angeles mayor's warming up to the mass transit project through the San Gabriel Valley and western San Bernardino County.

Gold Line extension advocates note that environmental studies have been completed, the old Santa Fe railroad line has been purchased, and Gold Line construction could begin within a year. The proposed "Subway to the Sea" may be morethan a decade away from construction.

The Gold Line already runs parallel to the Pasadena (110) Freeway from Los Angeles Union Station northeast to Pasadena, and then east down the middle of the Foothill (210) Freeway to Sierra Madre Boulevard. An extension now under construction will bring light rail service from Union Station southeast to Boyle Heights and East Los Angeles.

doesnt an amtrack or metrolink line go out there?

Take our urban rail to union station, then use union station to switch to metrolink or amtrack. Dont wast our urban rail on that!

This is a backroom deal so that AV can get his Subway to the sea under construction before his re-election. I hate that the Gold Line ext is going to happen but welcome to LA county politics folks.

Well, he better get gauranteed support for the subway before doing this.

athens built a similar light rail (pretty sure it's light rail) extension to its far-off airport for the olympics in 2004. I rode it last year from the airport to the city center. For the first 10 + miles of my trip, I was the only one on the train

boo gold line to nowhere

Well, he better get gauranteed support for the subway before doing this.
I think he has it so long as he supports this rightly called "boondoggle" and I might even march and chant w/ the BRU if they take up the mantle that this line is racist or classist or whatever foolishness they'll come up with......I hate this line sooooooo much but I'm keeping my eyes on the prize......that's why I will be attending the Purple Line ext meeting tomorrow!!!!! Remember AV was against this line before he started Living La Vida Telenovela.

boo gold line to nowhere

:yes:

I'd rather it be built now to relieve freeway traffic into Los Angeles.
besides, in any real city, transit was laid down first for development to take place.
this thing will generate development for the foothill area as it has created a better way of life for pasadena.

This is actually a great idea.

We need trains going EVERYWHERE.

The folks who built the green line should be put in the chipper. The airports are the biggest draw for transit in the area.

Green Line SHOULD have connected to LAX.

Red Line SHOULD continue north Burbank.

Gold Line SHOULD continue to Ontario.

I am sure all these things will happen some time in the future as rail continues to be the only alternative.

Do you hate it because you think it will take transit dollars away from other projects--namely the Purple line?

If you all want to be mad, get mad at the stupidity of expanding the 405 and adding silly car pool lanes. Anyone who drives the 405 regularly knows that the car pool lanes get congested at the same time the rest of the freeway does. And more than half the time you get STUCK in the stupid carpool lane while the other lanes are moving.

This is the true waste of transit money.

ALSO, GET MAD at the CA government for taking transit dollars raised from gas taxes to pour into the general fund.

These are real issues of government corruption, not backing future transit lines.

Naw, it's none of that. It's just thats such a long distance for a LIGHT RAIL. WASTE OF MONEY.

hey, if someone doesn't want to go to Ontario airport, they don't have to go there. other people can use it and boost ridership and in turn the mta gets it's funding for bigger, better projects. and people don't have to ride the whole line. they could be from azusa going to pasadena or something.

better now while people want it and other developers don't get in the way. look at all the problems we have today with our lines just because of developers putting obstacles up and mta redoing every impact report because of it and the cost of tearing something up so the line can go through.

Have you been to other big cities around the world? The underground in London goes on and on and on. You can get EVERYWHERE on that thing. And NYC. It just makes sense to connect transportation lines to airports. Plus, from what it sounds like there are existing tracks and right of way all the way to Ontario that the Gold line can take advantage of. Might as well. It is inevitable AND useful.

It is going to take ages, but eventually the space between all these lines will be filled in. Once the purple line is in, and the expo line reaches SM and the green line finally reaches lax, I imagine a north/south line bisecting all of them.

I think the issue that myself as well as other are having with the Gold Line expansion is the prioritization. Except for maybe the DTC, I think everyone here believes that the purple line extension is the most important for the region. I think the other issue that people may have with the Gold Line extension is that it is not even in the city of LA and even could possible extend beyond the county of LA. Obviously LA is the hub of SoCal and easily has the worst traffic of any other city in the county/region and most people think that the city should be receive rail before the distant suburbs.

btw, nyc's and london's urban rail networks are extremely extensive (i've been on both), but they don't really stretch beyond their respective city's limits, if at all.

traffic on the 210 10 and 60 is horrible. Alot of people commute to and from LA from that distance. Might as well provide these people alternatives metrolink and light rail . Besides didn't the old electric train system La had go out that far?

^^Yeah, but that was more like commuter rail.

my point was that Ontario is SO far for a light rail line... we're talking over an hour to get from the airport to union station on LRT... the Swedes are building high-speed bullet trains to their airports and we're sending a relatively slow-moving street car miles and miles and miles out there... seems more suitable for commuter rail (like the RER in Paris) at least!

my point was that Ontario is SO far for a light rail line... we're talking over an hour to get from the airport to union station on LRT... the Swedes are building high-speed bullet trains to their airports and we're sending a relatively slow-moving street car miles and miles and miles out there... seems more suitable for commuter rail (like the RER in Paris) at least!


^ Instead of bitchin' about it, you should be glad that any rail is being built. Wether is a slow ass rail line (phattonez) or high speed rail. btw who gives about Paris, this is Los Angeles!

I give a shit about Paris because their metro and RER is so amazing you have no idea.

I give a shit about Paris because their metro and RER is so amazing you have no idea.


^ Fine move to Paris then!

^ Instead of bitchin' about it, you should be glad that any rail is being built. Wether is a slow ass rail line (phattonez) or high speed rail. btw who gives about Paris, this is Los Angeles!

:ohno: Everyone finally agrees with me about slow rail and I still get hassled.

I agree wit u phattonez. its all about priorities guys. gold line may be necessary (im not too familiar with the ontario area of la) but i do know from my trips down to la that the westside needs rail BAD, real bad. purple first, then maybe gold (after they do a study to determine the best mode of transit along that corridor, which sounds from u guys like it may be commuter or express rail instead)

Attended the Purple Line ext meeting last night:

It was 60/40 for a subway and the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods (Hancock Park) came out as well pushing a busway.....folks if you want anything changed you've got to get involved! These people still exist! They were crying about their quality of life within their few blocks and fearing the kind of development that a Purple Line ext would bring. They also talked against a Crenshaw stop if their was going to be a subway at all. Other nut cases got up talking about LA not being dense enough for a rapid rail transit system or the buzz word too "spread out". If you want change folks, you 've got to get involved. Check out what the next meetings are and attend, even if you don't live in the area. I willl be at the Crenshaw meeting this Sat and the Expo meeting Thursday after next.

Funny thing happened, while waiting for the Purple Line on my way back home I ran into the guy who is on the team heading up the Crenshaw Corridor meetings. He's also working on the Phase III Gold Line.....where does the Gold Line go after it makes it to East LA committee.

No sign of the BRU.

Jchernin, my idea is that if it is going to be built, it should be built as commuter rail with light rail vehicles. This way you would not have to transfer once you get to Pasadena. However, I don't know of any type of vehicle that runs like light rail with the speeds of commuter rail.

Well, I guess it would have to stay light rail to at least Irwindale for the benefits of that rail yard. The light rail operation should stop at Azusa. So if anyone wants to get to say, San Dimas, from downtown, they would have to wait for a special Gold Line Train. This would be just like the Express Trains that no longer run. Hopefully that makes sense.

I still think that the frequency of trains should be increased on that Metrolink corridor that runs south of the Ontario Airport. Having both of these would be great for traffic in Eastern LA County and would take a great load off of LAX.

The Foothill Extension . . . eventually. Improve Metrolink first before we go spending more than a billion dollars on a brand new rail line that could be better spent on areas with much greater traffic (although the 210 and 10 near the 605 can compete with any other traffic in LA).

To those who say they are afraid the Gold Line Extension proposal will eclipse the Purple Line, you might need a little more information about how rail gets built. The Purple Line is extremely complex and a political nightmare that may take many years to sort out. In the time that it takes to sort out and hopefully begin construction, Congress will look for cities who have projects that need funding. They will not fund a project that MIGHT get built. They fund projects that are ready to go. If L.A. does not have projects ready to go, funding will go to Chicago, NYC, Dallas, Seattle, S.F. etc. SO, it makes sense to put a project that seems to have no political hurdles and has a clear and available alignment. Call this the use it or lose it opportunity. Furthermore, connecting a major regional airport to Los Angeles rail will make for a compelling political sales pitch for funding.

To those who say that Ontario is not in Los Angeles. Well, if you have driven down the 10 lately, you may have noticed that L.A. never stops. Ontario IS part of Metro L.A. Connecting rail from L.A. to major air hubs is good for the entire region.

To those of you who say, who cares about Paris. Only a very poor manager would not look at other extensive rail systems in order to duplicate the elements that work and avoid their mistakes. The Orange Line was inspired by bus systems in South America.

To those who say the Ontario Airport is too far away. Well how far is JFK from the Bronx? (BTW, JFK is not in NYC proper. Right? Right.

And in London, rail that is similar to lite rail as in the Gold Line goes all over the country. But if you want to make a direct comparison, the Picadilly Line goes from Heathrow to Central London. A distance that is similar to the distance between Ontario and Downtown Los Angeles.

Hey, I am not trying to argue, I am just saying that we should be excited about ANY improvements to L.A. mass transit. I hated the Orange Line and lo and behold it is a huge success. (As a Valley resident, I still feel cheated tho!) I am sure that in the next 20 years all of these lines will be completed--Expo to SM, Purple Line to SM, Red Line to Burbank Airport, Orange Line to Chatsworth/Canoga Park, and let's hope they finally get that damn Green Line to actually connect to LAX!

He's also working on the Phase III Gold Line.....where does the Gold Line go after it makes it to East LA committee.


^ The East L.A. extension can we go further in a near future. Does MTA have high hopes for this leg to already think about extending it. If it is extended where would it go? Montebello/Whittier area?

^ The East L.A. extension can we go further in a near future. Does MTA have high hopes for this leg to already think about extending it. If it is extended where would it go? Montebello/Whittier area?

Whiitier would be nice the line could end at the whittier/washington/Painter five point. Theres already a old rail bridge that sits above the intersection. Could be converted to a station.

Yes he mentioned Montebello as well as El Monte.
"Surf" I guess you have a point. London's system is hugely extensive and I guess ours will be as well. I'm sure their was some naysayers who balked at the idea of the Blue Line going all the way to Long Beach. I still don't like this line too much primarily because I don't see myself using it nor others who live around me.

WHITTIER!!!

Jchernin, my idea is that if it is going to be built, it should be built as commuter rail with light rail vehicles. This way you would not have to transfer once you get to Pasadena. However, I don't know of any type of vehicle that runs like light rail with the speeds of commuter rail.

Well, I guess it would have to stay light rail to at least Irwindale for the benefits of that rail yard. The light rail operation should stop at Azusa. So if anyone wants to get to say, San Dimas, from downtown, they would have to wait for a special Gold Line Train. This would be just like the Express Trains that no longer run. Hopefully that makes sense.

I still think that the frequency of trains should be increased on that Metrolink corridor that runs south of the Ontario Airport. Having both of these would be great for traffic in Eastern LA County and would take a great load off of LAX.

The Foothill Extension . . . eventually. Improve Metrolink first before we go spending more than a billion dollars on a brand new rail line that could be better spent on areas with much greater traffic (although the 210 and 10 near the 605 can compete with any other traffic in LA).

I'm gonna bump this since I don't know if anyone saw this and I want to see what everyone thinks about it.

To those who say the Ontario Airport is too far away. Well how far is JFK from the Bronx? (BTW, JFK is not in NYC proper. Right? Right.

Actually JFK is in Jamaica Queens (inside NYC)

It's about 16-18 miles from the Bronx to JFK, but it's about 35 miles from downtown LA to Ontario.


http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/8418/616px5boroughslabelsnewdk7.th.png (http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=616px5boroughslabelsnewdk7.png)

I realized not everyone is familiar w/NYC geography. For clarification: in this image, 1/Blue = Manhattan, 2/Yellow = Brooklyn, 3/Orange = Queens, 4/Red = Bronx, 5/Purple = Staten Island. The lavender grey area labeled with the airplane on the north side of Queens by the Bronx is LaGuardia airport. The much larger lavender grey area labeled with the airplane in the southeast corner of Queens (Jamaica area) is JFK airport.

It's about 15-18 miles from Manhattan, depending on where you come from. (I originally said it's 15 from the Bronx but it's probably a little farther from most areas in the Bronx)

^^How far is it from Manhattan to JFK?

Whiitier would be nice the line could end at the whittier/washington/Painter five point. Theres already a old rail bridge that sits above the intersection. Could be converted to a station.


^ That would sound like a great extension to really consider. Although it's quite a way from Atlantic Station. But a good idea to review! Also would they (MTA) ever consider renaming the Gold Line into it's own separate color line? Hmmmmm!

With the Downtown Connector the color of the Eastside Extension would have to change. I would think that the Gold Line would turn into the Blue Line and the Eastside Extension would be a part of the Expo Line.

With the Downtown Connector the color of the Eastside Extension would have to change. I would think that the Gold Line would turn into the Blue Line and the Eastside Extension would be a part of the Expo Line.


Yeah, GL need to end @ US. ESX should be rename to gray line!

Whiitier would be nice the line could end at the whittier/washington/Painter five point. Theres already a old rail bridge that sits above the intersection. Could be converted to a station.

It's being converted into a bike/nature trail.

Wash./Pickering is already demolished

It's being converted into a bike/nature trail.

Wash./Pickering is already demolished


Wow really well that sucks, that bridge above the intersection gave the area character almost like the gateway to whittier. I guess Montebello or Pico Rivera:) it is.

^^Maybe they're going to reconstruct the bridge? I mean, are you really going to add bikes to a 6 way intersection?

^^Maybe they're going to reconstruct the bridge? I mean, are you really going to add bikes to a 6 way intersection?

^ Why not?

Would you want to wait for a bike after waiting for all the cars? Might as well make a bridge that is wide and strong enough to support any future rail.

is anyone going to the subway meeting in santa monica tonight?

^^That would be the meeting for me, but I've got a midterm tomorrow. Hopefully someone can give us a report about it tomorrow.

is anyone going to the subway meeting in santa monica tonight?


I would love to attend but I fear for my safety. Some forumers might surprise me and kick my butt. I really can't understand why?

It's interesting...Metrolink zooms by Ontario Airport...and..in the parking lot area no less! A Metrolink stop at Ontario Airport would be great for the people who are coming long distances. But those with short distances, (i.e. Azua/Pomona/Montclair to Ontario Airport) the Gold Line would work well. I'm sure L.A. politicians don't believe many Angelenos will use Ontario. It will benefit the people more in the SGV than the residents in the L.A. basin. But, any extension of rail lines is fine by me, as long as we are done with expanding freeways & building more parking garages.

It's interesting...Metrolink zooms by Ontario Airport...and..in the parking lot area no less! A Metrolink stop at Ontario Airport would be great for the people who are coming long distances. But those with short distances, (i.e. Azua/Pomona/Montclair to Ontario Airport) the Gold Line would work well. I'm sure L.A. politicians don't believe many Angelenos will use Ontario. It will benefit the people more in the SGV than the residents in the L.A. basin. But, any extension of rail lines is fine by me, as long as we are done with expanding freeways & building more parking garages.

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be much synergy between the Metro Rail and Metrolink. I think a big opportunity exists here for improving our ability to move throughout the Metro area.

With the Downtown Connector the color of the Eastside Extension would have to change. I would think that the Gold Line would turn into the Blue Line and the Eastside Extension would be a part of the Expo Line.

I wonder if the reason that the mta is keeping "gold line" as the name for the eastside extension is to boost the current gold line's dismal ridership numbers in order to secure funding for the eventual extension to azusa or where ever they plan on building that thing to.

With the Downtown Connector the color of the Eastside Extension would have to change. I would think that the Gold Line would turn into the Blue Line and the Eastside Extension would be a part of the Expo Line.


Are you saying the Blue Line would merge into the Gold Line?

I wonder if the reason that the mta is keeping "gold line" as the name for the eastside extension is to boost the current gold line's dismal ridership numbers in order to secure funding for the eventual extension to azusa or where ever they plan on building that thing to.


^ You have to do what ever it takes to secure the funds...

It seems MTA is not going to loose out on what their entitle to $$$$$$*

Are you saying the Blue Line would merge into the Gold Line?

The original plan was for the Blue Line to be extended to Pasadena, but the Downtown Connector was never built, so the Pasadena portion needed a different name.

This is misinformation. The Gold Line ext to Ontario is being handled by a Joint Powers Authority that can bypass the MTA (and has) to request funds from Washington to build there line. The Expo line also has a JPA and it seems like things get built faster w/ these kinds of unions. So even if the MTA doesn't like the idea of a Gold Line ext these people are already talking to Washington and Sacramento about their train and if they secure the funding the MTA must take it seriously.

Expo Line will not go to Culver City if the Venice/Washington station is not elevated says Culver City mayor....stop it at La Cienega. Also Culver City needs to pay for the line and hasn't........more below:
City Has Yet To Give Funds for Expo Line By Gary Walker



(Oct. 4) Nearly two years after the Mid-Cities Exposition Light Rail was green lighted by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Board of Directors, Culver City is the only city that the light rail train will service that has not made its financial disbursement to the project, as all of the participants in the light rail initiative have been asked to do.

Funding for the Expo Line has been a major concern in recent months, as well as Culver City’s insistence that the station be constructed on an elevated platform to better serve its residents and create a link to the city’s burgeoning downtown and nearby arts district. But building such a rail line station will require more money than is in the current budget of $640 million – and Metro officials say that without Culver City’s allotment, is highly improbable.

After weathering the possibility of several delays and setbacks in their efforts to bring mass transportation to the Westside due to a state budget crisis and political posturing, Metro authorities and the Expo Line received a timely shot in the arm last month when the California Transportation Commission, which is responsible for the programming and allocation of funds for the construction of highway, passenger rail and transit improvements throughout California, allotted more than $314 million to the light rail project. That infusion of funds, say representatives of the MTA, has breathed new life into the rail initiative, which will now allow construction to continue in downtown Los Angeles and hopefully to Culver City, where they say the train is due to arrive within the next three years.

Culver City is the only city of the three municipalities – Los Angeles and Santa Monica are the other two – that has not made a contribution to the expenditures of the light rail line. Los Angeles, where the majority of the train is expected to run during the first leg of the line, will contribute approximately $35 million to the light rail initiative, and Santa Monica has purchased the land where its stations will be located.

It has been estimated that Culver City would be asked to provide between $5-10 million toward the light rail effort, considerably less than the other two cities.

Metro officials also stipulated in interviews with the News that they will pursue the additional money that would be necessary to build an elevated station, which is the option that nearly all Culver City merchants, lawmakers, public safety leaders and citizens desire. Since the approval of the Metro EIR almost two years ago – which the Culver City Redevelopment Agency approved by a vote of 4-1 – the train design has called for an at grade, or ground level, station in the first phase of the project at Wesley Street and National Boulevard, an option that east Culver City residents vehemently opposed. "We will continue to look for other sources of funding for an elevated station, but right now, the plan is to build the temporary station at Wesley Avenue and National Boulevard," Samantha Bricker, the chief operating officer for the Expo Line, pledged.

The local government’s subsidy could make a difference in how the station in the first leg of construction is built. If Culver City paid its portion, "That would make it more likely for [an elevated station] to happen," the Expo COO replied.

According to Shelly Wolfberg, the city’s intergovernmental relations officer, the city's financial payment to the Expo Line has yet to be placed on the City Council’s agenda. "We are still in negotiations with Metro," she said in an interview this week. "The item [regarding a monetary assessment for the Expo Line] has not gone to the City Council for their direction."

Due to a number of factors, many residents in Culver City remain distrustful of Metro and are not convinced that even with the $5-10 million dollar contribution, the desired above grade station might not get built. "I’m not sure that would make a difference in our getting an elevated station [at Venice and National]," said Vicki Daly Redholtz. She mentioned the tension between the agency and homeowners in South Pasadena who have accused transportation authorities of going back on their word regarding the trajectory of the station.

Vince Motyl is also unsure that the line will reach Culver City in the first stage of construction, and doubts that the city government can afford to pay the sum that Metro officials estimate is due them. "For Culver City to come up with [$5-10 million] is a pipedream," Motyl, an east Culver City homeowner said. "Remember, this is an MTA project, so the question is: With the money that they have, how far can they go with [the light rail line]?" he asked.

Transportation officials are in the process of determining how far west the line will go in the first leg of the light rail project. "While our construction schedule is on time, we are assessing our entire project budget and we need to assess if we have sufficient funds to go all the way to Culver City at this point," said Bricker.

"Everyone should pay their fair share, because in the end that will make it a better project if the light rail line gets to the Washington and Venice corridor," said Ken Alpern, a Mar Vista plastic surgeon who is the co-chair of the Mar Vista Community Council’s Transportation Committee and a vocal advocate of mass transportation and the Expo Line. "When you have a project like this, you need to build it right the first time."

Alpern recalled that voters in Arcadia had passed a bond measure last year to obtain the necessary funding in order to have an elevated station along the Gold Line in their city. "That is the perfect example of a city that wants to make difference in reducing congestion," he said. "So while I’m a big fan of building the station right the first time, especially when it’s at county expense, I think that it’s totally appropriate to ask Culver City to contribute at least $5 million."

All of the current Culver City council members have adamantly opposed the interim station and some have suggested that, despite what the transportation agency has determined, the station will be built above grade on an elevated track. Some, like Mayor Mayor Alan Corlin, who represents Culver City on the multi-city Expo Joint Powers Authority, has suggested that if an elevated station cannot be built by 2010 instead of the interim station, the line should be stopped at La Cienega Avenue instead of proceeding to Culver City.

The mayor indicated that cost overruns during the first stage of construction of the light rail line has played a large role in exceeding what Metro’s original budget of $640 million for the first phase. "It’s apparent that we will need more money than what was originally planned," Corlin said. "And any money that we give will not be for the temporary station," he added. "We’re giving money for the elevated station."

Others have been more forceful in their insistence on having a station that their constituents have demanded. "Our position is unequivocal that when the train comes to Culver City, the station will not be at grade, and there will be no interim station at Wesley and National, and it will be an above grade station," Scott Malsin, the chair of the Redevelopment Agency, asserted during an interview in July. "We’re quite confident that the station will be north of Washington Boulevard when it does finally get here."

If the train does not arrive in Culver City in the first stage, that could set the stage for a domino effect that could jeopardize planned developments in east Culver City and possibly delay the second stage of the line, says Vice Mayor Carol Gross. "What would we do with the transit-oriented developments that are in the works [along the Washington-National corridor]?" she asked. "What are we going to do about the redevelopment money that we have tied up in these projects? And what do we expect the developers to with their projects?"

She also believes that having the train come to the Westside can influence potential funding for an above grade station. "If the train stops at La Cienega, then there will be fewer riders on the train, and that will make it much more difficult to get federal funding for the second phase of the light rail," Gross pointed out. "For people from Culver City, Venice, Mar Vista or Beverly Hills, to travel to Venice and National will be a lot easier than going all the way to La Cienega for a variety of reasons, including convenience and proximity."

Alpern believes that the Expo Line was underfunded from the start. "I am tired of seeing Metro pull out all the stops for freeway improvements, but when it comes to rail projects, we always do things on the cheap and cut corners with disastrous results," he said.

He also chided those who believe that the train should stop east of the 405 freeway in the first phase of the project instead of arriving in Culver City. "I am aware that there are people who are hell bent on stopping the line at La Cienega, and that is not in line with reducing Westside traffic congestion," Alpern said. "I think that the question is: Are those people who feel this way playing the victim, or are they just engaging in NIMBism?"

With few alternatives to explore, members of the Redevelopment Agency board have pursued other methods in an effort to locate the necessary funding for the preferred elevated track.

Last year, Malsin suggested that Urban Partners, a real estate planning, investment and development firm that is seeking to build a mixed-use development in the triangle near Venice and National Boulevards, could be a willing partner in helping to acquire the financial resources to construct an elevated station in the first leg on the light rail instead of the planned interim station. "We have a great ally in Urban Partners," he said last October after the company was given an extension to an earlier exclusive negotiating agreement. "They are very motivated to find the funds [for an above grade station]."

Metro is unaware of any funding that the developer has been able to secure. "I’ve heard lots of talk [about private funding], but nothing has been approved by us," said Terry Matsumoto, Metro’s chief financial officer.

Dan Rosenfeld, the founder and principal of Urban Partners, confirmed in July that his firm has not been able to secure funding for Culver City’s effort to pay for an above grade station, which would be more compatible with its plan for a multi-use development.

Earlier this year, Malsin, Corlin and City Manager Jerry Fulwood journeyed to Washington, D.C. in search of federal funds, but were rebuffed and returned home empty-handed.

The Expo Line will begin in downtown Los Angeles and is due to arrive in Culver City in 2010. The extension of the rail project is expected to begin shortly thereafter and run to the beach in Santa Monica by 2014, say Metro officials.

According to an employee of the city manager’s office, Fulwood was out of town and could not be reached for comment for this story.

I went to the meeting in santa monica. It was awesome. Everyone for for a grade separated rail from downtown to the ocean. Over half wanted a subway, while some wanted a monorail. Only one person wanted an at grade solution. No one liked him. the BRU came, but they came too late and missed the meeting. It was great. The BRU will be presenting on Monday in santa monica, so someone might want to go to offset his comments :).

Anyhow, everything looked great! Very exciting times. It looks like the MTA might get serious about the subway.

Supposedly their is a subway coalition. I am contacted the "head" of the coalition to find out what its about. I am trying to network and see who else is out there that supports subways. Fun times.

did anyone go to a differnet meeting? Was there as much support for a subway.

I wonder if the reason that the mta is keeping "gold line" as the name for the eastside extension is to boost the current gold line's dismal ridership numbers in order to secure funding for the eventual extension to azusa or where ever they plan on building that thing to.

Hmm....the Gold Line eastside is an extension of the current line. Why would you have a different name for the same line? It's not 2 seperate lines MTA is building, it's a continuation.

The only way the Gold Line moniker will change is when the Downtown Connector is built.

I went to the meeting in santa monica. It was awesome. Everyone for for a grade separated rail from downtown to the ocean. Over half wanted a subway, while some wanted a monorail.


^^ OH Really! What was the reaction for the Monorail proposal. I would had made a standing ovation for that magnificent idea... :applause:

"Go MTA Monorail...." :banana:

Hmm....the Gold Line eastside is an extension of the current line. Why would you have a different name for the same line? It's not 2 seperate lines MTA is building, it's a continuation.

The only way the Gold Line moniker will change is when the Downtown Connector is built.


when the DT Connector is built will the blue line merge with the goldline to East LA or stop at Union Station or Little Tokyo?

^^ OH Really! What was the reaction for the Monorail proposal. I would had made a standing ovation for that magnificent idea... :applause:

"Go MTA Monorail...." :banana:

:ohno: 4 modes of transit on Metro Rail (if you count the Orange Line). Yeah, that would make sense.

when the DT Connector is built will the blue line merge with the goldline to East LA or stop at Union Station or Little Tokyo?

That is to be decided at a later date. Firstly, the Gold Line extension is a continuation of the current Gold Line. Once the Downtown Connector begins construction, then names will be re-shuffled.

phattonez, it's about 15-18 miles from Manhattan to JFK airport (obviously Manhattan is very long so it depends what point in Manhattan you are starting from).

10 miles as the crow flies.

Went to the Crenshaw Alignment meeting on Saturday morning........mostly everyone was for rail, at least 99%. Of that percentage 100% wanted the line to be fully grade seperated (read: below grade) going through Leimert Park....the "Save Leimert Park" group was in attendance and local residents. Got into the usual banter w/ homeowners complaining that a train w/ overhead wires would lower their property values. And in an act of desperation one homeowner said something that if the BRU were there they would have shitted in their pants; "Why are they putting trains only in poor areas?"

will the expo go to Leimert Park?

Expo will nto go through Leimert but it isn't far from it at all. You would have to transfer to the crenshaw line.

Crenshaw line? Is that a bus line?

^^ OH Really! What was the reaction for the Monorail proposal. I would had made a standing ovation for that magnificent idea... :applause:

"Go MTA Monorail...." :banana:


Everyone who respects rail, respected evreyone's grade separated suggestions, including monorail. The subway proponents did jab at the idea a little. They said lies like "monorail isnt as earth quake safe", which is somewhat wrong, and they also said "monorail isnt as high capacity", which is correct, but the capacity can be made reasonably high with proper engineering.

At the same time, two subway enthusiats went so far as to say that elevated tracks would add blight, which is also somewhat wrong. I think that a monorail would not more blight wilshire than Chicago's Loop blights downtown chicago. We all know that chicago's downtown is not very blighted.

Anyhow, when I went up to give me talk, I said the following
“I don’t know what the solution is, but right now, Angelenos are turning away jobs, amenities, cultural attractions, and housing in the name of congestion. We are in a crisis.” I told the MTA that they should pretend that LA had 15 rails lines and design the route and stops based on that fictional system. I told them to stop being short sighted by planning for 2015, and build this subway to be world class well into 2060. I told them that an example would be to connect the expo, a potential green line from the airport, and the subway together in a single santa monica train station. Laslty, I said “If you have monorail, you will have two modalities. That isn’t necessarily bad, but think about the WHOLE system and how efficient and convenient it would be to connect, operate, and maintain separate modalites.” I told them to study Japan or get a Japanese consultant since Japan is sprawled like LA, is seismically active, and has many modalities.

That was the end of my talk, due to time constraints.

They REALLY want people to email them ideas and concerns. They will only be getting about 1000 emails, so they will probably read EVERY email. Every email is important. You can also leave a concise voice message at 213-922-6934.

Went to the Crenshaw Alignment meeting on Saturday morning........mostly everyone was for rail, at least 99%. Of that percentage 100% wanted the line to be fully grade seperated (read: below grade) going through Leimert Park....the "Save Leimert Park" group was in attendance and local residents. Got into the usual banter w/ homeowners complaining that a train w/ overhead wires would lower their property values. And in an act of desperation one homeowner said something that if the BRU were there they would have shitted in their pants; "Why are they putting trains only in poor areas?"

There is always a conspiracy against the poor :). This time its trains, next time its condos, another time its fast food. My four uncles used to live in South Central when it was still called that. People in that area fought each other WAAAAAAY more than than outsiders ever did. I am extremely happy that leimert park has a strong community and is banding together for rail. This TRUE COMMUNITY is crucial for south LA.

PS: SF has TONS of overhead wires. I think their property values are just fine.

They REALLY want people to email them ideas and concerns. They will only be getting about 1000 emails, so they will probably read EVERY email. Every email is important. You can also leave a concise voice message at 213-922-6934.

What is the email address?

Attended the Purple Line ext meeting last night:

It was 60/40 for a subway and the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods (Hancock Park) came out as well pushing a busway.....folks if you want anything changed you've got to get involved! These people still exist! They were crying about their quality of life within their few blocks and fearing the kind of development that a Purple Line ext would bring. They also talked against a Crenshaw stop if their was going to be a subway at all. Other nut cases got up talking about LA not being dense enough for a rapid rail transit system or the buzz word too "spread out". If you want change folks, you 've got to get involved. Check out what the next meetings are and attend, even if you don't live in the area. I willl be at the Crenshaw meeting this Sat and the Expo meeting Thursday after next.

No sign of the BRU.

Just email them.
Trust me, every email counts! The NIMBYs are FAR easier to defeat than before. Let's take it to em.
http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/westside/contact_us.htm#TopOfPage

The deadline is fast approaching!!!

What is the email address?

Just go to the site that was posted here a few days ago and read it. There are several ways to reply. The more, the merrier. Just remember to leave all of your contact info on there.
http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/westside/contact_us.htm#TopOfPage

A concise statement would work just fine like the following

"I live/work/play on the west side, and I want a subway going down wilshire from downtown to the ocean. It is the single most important line in the MTA’s jurisdiction. I think the westside’s infrastructure would still be inadequate after the completion of a busway or at-grade rail, thus I believe those solutions would be a complete was of space, time, and money.”

I am sure they wont get more than 1000 email submissions in favor of grade-separated rail so EVERY COMMENT COUNTS.

We have momentum, let’s keep it!

Expo hits another snag........environmental racism is to blame......I didn't take too seriously the old lady who was yelling that they lied about the Expo line at the Crenshaw meeting, unfortunately this argument is gaining steam.

Expo Line plan runs into resistancetemplate_bas
template_bas
A proposed train crossing near an L.A. high school will make an intersection safer, officials contend. Not so fast, critics say.
By Jeffrey L. Rabin and Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 21, 2007
Dorsey High School is the focal point of an increasingly heated fight between transit officials determined to build a light-rail line from downtown Los Angeles to the Westside, and Crenshaw District residents who fear that fast-moving trains will threaten the safety of students crossing the tracks.

The first leg of the rail line, scheduled to open in 2010, will run near the 2,000-student high school where at 3:08 p.m. most weekdays, chaos reigns.

After school, hundreds of students flood across the intersection of Exposition Boulevard and Farmdale Avenue, walking home or awaiting pickup. Ice cream trucks beckon. Cars wait six-deep in all directions, sometimes blocking traffic when they pull up to and away from the curb. Students walk or run past the scene or loiter under the mature pepper trees in the boulevard's grassy median -- an old railroad right-of-way that soon will become the path for trains carrying commuters between downtown L.A. and Culver City.

Critics insist that running trains at 35 mph across the intersection is unsafe. To avoid potential collisions between trains, students and motorists, they want the tracks built above or below ground, but not at street level. To do anything less, in their view, is environmental racism.

"This project is unfair to this community and the students who live here," said Beverly Manuel, Dorsey's dean of students, as she helped police the mass exodus Thursday. "If this were anyplace else, changing this design would not be an issue."

Opponents of the design note that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board last month approved spending an extra $23.3 million to add a station at USC/Exposition Park and to pay for safety improvements at several points along the Expo Line route.

But transit officials say they only have the money to pay for a street-level crossing at Dorsey. To elevate the rail line across the intersection would cost at least an extra $25 million, further straining the Expo Line project's $663.3-million budget.

Richard Thorpe, chief executive of the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, said the intersection will be much safer than it is now with the installation of traffic and warning lights, wider sidewalks, bells and barriers to prevent people and cars from crossing the tracks when a train is approaching.

Thorpe points to an excellent safety record on MTA's Gold Line, which runs near schools between downtown L.A. and Pasadena.

The bureaucracy of the Los Angeles Unified School District, belatedly, is joining the public debate. After several years of restrained analyses, district officials have been stirred to action by community activists who have appealed to school administrators, visited school board members and taken over a local neighborhood council.

The construction authority cannot lay tracks across intersections along the rail line without the approval of the state Public Utilities Commission, which has jurisdiction over safety at railroad crossings.

After touring the route and reviewing the record, Timothy Alan Simon, a commissioner on the public utilities board, last week rejected community protests and gave preliminary approval for running trains across nine intersections along Exposition Boulevard. The lone exception was the Dorsey crossing.

Simon, a San Francisco attorney and former appointments secretary to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said he wanted to hear the Crenshaw community's concerns.

"The speed of the trains through the crossing is a safety issue," he said.

Simon has scheduled a public hearing Nov. 5 at Dorsey. The following day in Culver City, the commissioner and an administrative law judge will hold a formal evidentiary hearing on whether or not to allow the construction authority to proceed with the street-level crossing.

The Dorsey crossing is the last on an 8.6-mile route that is still awaiting state regulatory approval, even though activists also have filed formal objections to the street-level design elsewhere. The tracks will lie within 100 feet of five schools and close to nine others.

Construction of the rail line and other transit projects has become a major goal of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other elected officials in the area. But the Expo Line now entails political as well as potential safety risks.

Resistance to the project's design is deepening, especially in the neighborhoods that surround Dorsey, one of a handful of Los Angeles high schools that remain predominantly black.

All those elements came to the fore Wednesday night at a community forum that drew more than 100 people to the school's auditorium.

Damien Goodmon, a community activist who has spearheaded opposition to the Expo Line's design, told the crowd that "Dorsey is the poster child for all that is wrong with this project."

Goodmon noted that the rail line will run in a fenced-off trench for several blocks near USC and that Culver City officials have demanded an above-ground station in their community. He also accused construction authority officials of having a double standard about safety.

L.A. Unified board member Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte likened the dispute to a latter-day civil rights struggle.

"Nothing will happen that you don't want to happen in our community if you stand together," she said.

LaMotte vowed to oppose the Expo Line project unless changes were made to protect the safety of Dorsey students.

Steve J. Bagby Sr., president of the Dorsey High Alumni Assn., urged the crowd to get involved but also emphasized that critics were not opposed to the transit project.

"Everybody is for the Expo Line. We just want it to be safe," he said.

A stream of speakers joined the critics.

"Environmental racism is alive and well," said Michelle Colbert, a member of a local neighborhood council. She challenged City Councilman Herb Wesson, who was the only public official who has a say in the Expo Line matter to attend the forum.



Wesson is a voting member and vice chairman of the Exposition Construction Authority's board of directors, which approved the street-level design.

The councilman, who once held the powerful post of state Assembly speaker, upset many in the crowd when he said that even if he became the one vote on the seven-member Exposition board to oppose the current design, it would not accomplish anything.

The construction authority's board members include City Councilman Bernard C. Parks, county Supervisors Yvonne B. Burke and Zev Yaroslavsky, and other elected officials.

Parks, Burke and Yaroslavsky also sit on the board of the MTA, which has ultimate authority over spending for the Expo Line and will operate the trains. None of them attended the community forum, but all voted last month for safety enhancements near USC and Los Angeles Trade Tech College.

Villaraigosa, another key player, missed the vote on the USC alterations. The mayor controls four seats on the 13-member MTA board.

"Obviously, the health and safety of the people living along the Expo Line are important and a top priority for me and the MTA," he said Friday.

Last spring, Burke asked Thorpe to present options for dealing with safety concerns at Dorsey. Thorpe told reporters that three options were considered: the street-level crossing; a pedestrian bridge over the tracks that would cost $5 million; and running the trains over the intersection on an aerial structure. The last option would cost at least an extra $25 million, he said.

Thorpe said the added USC/Exposition Park station addressed concerns about how to handle crowds from a major event, such as a football game at the nearby Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

Thorpe said the MTA had agreed to slow the trains from 55 mph to 35 mph at Dorsey before and after school. Barriers would lower to block off the tracks for passing trains, which won't stop at the intersection.

Critics cited the recent collision of a Gold Line train traveling at 20 mph and an SUV that ran through a closed crossing gate in Highland Park as evidence of the potential danger of the Dorsey crossing. Community activist Goodmon said the SUV "crumpled like a potato chip bag."

Back at the intersection of Exposition and Farmdale, a fight broke out at 3:15 p.m. Thursday between two girls. A van screeched to a halt to avoid hitting a police officer who dashed over to break things up. Some students ran over to watch. Others lined up at the ice cream trucks. Younger students, from an elementary school north of Exposition, crossed unsupervised. An older boy skateboarded down the middle of Farmdale. Another student, riding a bike without a helmet, shot through the intersection, ignoring stop signs.

"Kids are kids," said Manuel, Dorsey's dean of students. "You will have students who will try to beat the train. Someone is going to end up being killed right here on this spot."

jeffrey.rabin@latimes.com

howard.blume@latimes.com

It's not going away.......:?
$500K rail study set
KOA to examine ending Gold Line at Ontario airportBy Andrea Bennett, Staff Writer


ONTARIO - KOA Corp. of Monterey Park and Ontario will conduct a $500,000 study of options for ending the Metro Gold Line at LA/Ontario International Airport, officials announced Wednesday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
View Map: Gold Line route

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 12- to 16-month study will be underway in November.
Among its tasks, the team will hold community outreach meetings, assess public and private rights-of-way, conduct traffic analyses, and identify potential rail routes and station locations.

"This is momentous for us," said Habib Balian, CEO of Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority. "As you know, when you go after a project this size, it takes many years to come to fruition. We need to get started on this project."

Current plans include extending the line 24 miles from east Pasadena to Montclair in two phases, which still await federal approval and funding.

But adding an extra six to eight miles would bring the light rail line all the way to the airport, which is a terminus that


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

Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
makes a lot more sense than Montclair to many local, state and federal officials.
"I think it makes the line better," said Robert Clark, Community Development Director of Montclair, which has spent the past three years developing a mixed-use and residential "transit village" around its station.

"Everyone agrees the light rail should supply access to the airport," Clark said. "It'll probably strengthen the value of the line and our trans-center, too."

Ontario Mayor Paul Leon said the link to LA/ONT would give an expanding region an essential connection.

"The Inland Empire is growing. From 2000 to 2020, the area's population is expected to go from 3.26 million to 5.28 million - up by 2.02 million," Leon said.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa recently endorsed the link to LA/ONT with its potential to ease congestion at LAX by taking travelers directly to the Ontario airport instead.

Monrovia Mayor Rob Hammond said the future rail will also transport commuters to work, alleviating traffic.

"Imagine a future of lost productivity from people sitting on the freeway. Traffic is the further fracturing of the American family," Hammond said. "We need to get that fixed."

San Bernardino Associated Governments, Sanbag, and the Southern California Association of Governments, SCAG, are paying for the $500,000 study.

Since the actual route from Montclair to LA/ONT has not yet been carved out, public outreach will be a critical part of the project, Balian said.

A short video was shown at the end of the meeting, depicting the many destinations the extended line would offer travelers and concluding at LA/ONT.

Balian said the promotional video will begin airing on local cable channels in an effort to drum up public support for the project.

andrea.bennett@dailybulletin.com

(909) 483-9347

I DONT CARE. BUILD THAT EXPO LINE DAMMIT!!

^^ no shit...and what the hell is "environmental racism"?!?!?! what bs!!

^^ no shit...and what the hell is "environmental racism"?!?!?! what bs!!


Some lame ass word some whako professor came up with.

^^Don't take them so lightly, they have some good evidence as support.

IF any of you can make any of the meetings that are being held all over the metro for different lines, you really should. Instead of sitting typing in your comments about dream lines and bitching about transit in LA, it's time to take a stand. With that said, attended my third meeting last night in Cheviot Hills for the Expo Phase II line. Folks, this line is in jeopardy! Culver City, Santa Monica and parts of West LA want this line but the Cheviot folks came out in full force last night and presented some very convincing arguments to the point that I now am re-examinig my position. Although I believe that the line should maintain the ROW in Phase II, the issue of at-grade crossings was compelling. Of course their were folks who didn't want a train to come through there even if it was invisible but it was the "Smart Rail" people who are pro-Expo but w/ the minimum amount if any grade crossings. They have vowed to delay the train if it is not built right. Last night was by far the most dramatic meeting that I've been to yet. Shouting. Threats to be removed out by police. Not surrendering the mic. And yes folks, tears. If you can attend any of these historic meetings that are all happening at once(truly an amazing period for transit in LA)I behoove you to do so. Commenting on SSC is simply not enough or at least email the MTA w/ your suggestions/comments. Also, the Venice/Sepulveda diversion is no joke folks. I feel that it's a 50/50 chance that it will be diverted down Venice Blvd. Why do I feel that way? I will scan the information that was offered to everyone upon entering the meeting and you can come to your own conclusions.

This is the Expo Phase II Report Card. If you look below all modes and alignments are essentially graded as to which would have higher ridership, cost more, impact the environment most, etc. The Venice/Sepulveda alignment is give high marks and in some cases higher than the ROW. We will all be riding this train so 4 years from now when the thing is up and running is not the time to complain when it's heading down Venice and stuck waiting for a traffic signal to turn green.

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

The back side:

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

Nothing of the sort is being built there yet.

IF any of you can make any of the meetings that are being held all over the metro for different lines, you really should. Instead of sitting typing in your comments about dream lines and bitching about transit in LA, it's time to take a stand. With that said, attended my third meeting last night in Cheviot Hills for the Expo Phase II line. Folks, this line is in jeopardy! Culver City, Santa Monica and parts of West LA want this line but the Cheviot folks came out in full force last night and presented some very convincing arguments to the point that I now am re-examinig my position. Although I believe that the line should maintain the ROW in Phase II, the issue of at-grade crossings was compelling. Of course their were folks who didn't want a train to come through there even if it was invisible but it was the "Smart Rail" people who are pro-Expo but w/ the minimum amount if any grade crossings. They have vowed to delay the train if it is not built right. Last night was by far the most dramatic meeting that I've been to yet. Shouting. Threats to be removed out by police. Not surrendering the mic. And yes folks, tears. If you can attend any of these historic meetings that are all happening at once(truly an amazing period for transit in LA)I behoove you to do so. Commenting on SSC is simply not enough or at least email the MTA w/ your suggestions/comments. Also, the Venice/Sepulveda diversion is no joke folks. I feel that it's a 50/50 chance that it will be diverted down Venice Blvd. Why do I feel that way? I will scan the information that was offered to everyone upon entering the meeting and you can come to your own conclusions.


So what were some of the points they made that made you rethink your opinion? Because I really, truly honestly can't think of any that would really make things better for the city. The ROW is the fastest, easiest way to construct this and wouldn't take as long like the venice route would take. MANNNN....why can't the city just decide where it goes and whatever the city says, thats final. Fuck all these meetings and old people who don't matter to the city anymore. I need to get around this city and they aren't making it any better for us.

Going to these meetings have really opened my eyes. It made me realize that even NYC wouldn't have their system with all of the noisy elevated trains if the people of that day were as proactive, informed and well researched as the homeowners were last night in Cheviot Hills. This wasn't just NIMBYism, this was (some) people who have spent hours researching the facts. My biggest issues with the Orange, Gold and Blue lines are the at-grade areas. All of the intersections where the bus has to slow down for the Orange Line. The Marmion Way section of the Gold Line and the Washington Blvd and Long Beach street running section for the Blue Line. I am certainly pro Expo and pro ROW but Metro is like any other public agency, they have a tendency to cut corners. I believe Metro will make changes to alot of the at-grade crossings under political pressure. USC now has a below grade station. La Brea now has an aerial station after it was going to be an at-grade station but Burke made a big stink about it. Culver City is not allowing the train to come into the city without an aerial station. I think Metro is doing a great job but we need to stay on top of them and make them find the money to do this right the first time.

Did anyone mention trenching through the ROW as an alternative? I highly doubt there is much utility infrastructure, if any, under ground there. They could use a 3rd rail also rather than the overhead lines to power the line through that section. This would also help keep the noise levels down for the neighbors and its really not too long of a distance.

I think Metro is doing a great job but we need to stay on top of them and make them find the money to do this right the first time.

Even though I feel that the Expo Line is essential and I'm discouraged to hear of any possible delays, I do agree that it needs to be done right the first time. I'm not a fan of at-grade light rail. It slows trains down to ridiculously slow speeds and can make them essentially buses on railways.

If these rail lines are not done correctly, the masses will not use transit and will begin to view transit projects as a waste of money. I know money is a big issue for Metro right now, but the Expo Line should not be built on the cheap. I once again feel the need to cite my hometown of Baltimore as an example. Baltimore has a light rail line that was rushed to completion in 1992. The line is sufficient in outlying areas, but once it hits downtown, it slows to a snail's pace since it is completely at-grade in the middle of city streets with traffic flowing right next to the trains. It stops at nearly every traffic light, which further increases delays. And this is supposed to be an acceptable heavy rail substitute? When downtown, there is really no difference between the light rail and a bus. I hope LA can take a lesson from Baltimore and build a line that is truly a convenient alternative to driving.

^^ completely agree with you.

what i don't understand is the enormous amount of money used for projects like this. I mean, from my understanding, most of the infrastructure is already existing.

PSA for all of you transit geeks:

http://metro.net/projects_programs/westside/video.htm

awesome! thanks k



edit: does anyone have a youtube account and/or knows how to post this there? could find more people to get involved there

edit: nevermind, audio cuts out and video becomes usless at end

So what were some of the points they made that made you rethink your opinion? Because I really, truly honestly can't think of any that would really make things better for the city. The ROW is the fastest, easiest way to construct this and wouldn't take as long like the venice route would take. MANNNN....why can't the city just decide where it goes and whatever the city says, thats final. Fuck all these meetings and old people who don't matter to the city anymore. I need to get around this city and they aren't making it any better for us.

It is vital that the city engage its residents in order to provide services that the residents at large want. The city shouldnt plan in a vacuum. the problem with LA is that people by and large have no civic duty or pride and are not actively involved in city politics. As a result, only the NIMBY's and anti-whatevre groups come out.

I live in south redondo beach/Palos Verdes (because my wife prefers it), about 40 minutes drive away from the west side, and I do what I can to support meetings. Suburbanites like me shouldnt have to do anything. The urbanites from the "city" should be fighting to improve LA, but unfortunately, most of the educated forward thinking urbanites are spread all over LA county. More over, we are outnumbered as a group by about 10 to 1 county wide. Some of us are in burbank, pasadena, west hollywood, santa monica,long beach. Some of us are in LA, but in the valleys, neglected south LA, or the forgotten harbor area. I have attended 3 meetings, and have been keeping up with hollywood and downtown, but its tough. It is like having people from Fremont drive to San Francisco to attend a transit meeting. It doesnt make sense, but in LA, it has to be done for now.

That being said, people from mid-city west, santa monica, ktown, downtown, hollywood, silver lake, west hollywood, and venice need to step it up because these NIMBYs can be beaten! Anyhow, my baby right now is the subway to the sea and I am working with someone to brainstorm on how to support it. The expo line is too heated for my blood. I might go to a meeting though. Where is friendsoftheexpo ?!?!

Very true. Civic pride brings civic responsibility. But my theory is that civic pride won't happen until all of these areas are truly united and we begin to walk in each others hoods. With that said, I believe that the central core hoods(Hollywood, Los-Silver-Echo, Koreatown)are becoming more and more pro-active. But Santa Monica seems to be have spawned a young activist crowd.

Very true. Civic pride brings civic responsibility. But my theory is that civic pride won't happen until all of these areas are truly united and we begin to walk in each others hoods. With that said, I believe that the central core hoods(Hollywood, Los-Silver-Echo, Koreatown)are becoming more and more pro-active. But Santa Monica seems to be have spawned a young activist crowd.

According the website all meetings are done for now. If you plan on going to another meeting, send me a heads up. If I am free, I will attend.

It is a hassle, but if you or anyone else goes, I will make the trek up. One day, I would like the choice of living in "the city".

PS: Santa Monica is pretty urban though. They arent anti-development. they are like SF. SF used to be against manhattanization, freeways, traffic generators, but they werent suburbanite NIMBY's. They just had a different idea of density. I would be surprised if Santa Monica citizens are truly becoming suburbanites.

I'm 19 years old and I feel like my voice should be heard at these meetings instead of rotting NIMBYs who don't care about other people's needs. I always see the dates for allt hese emetings, but I feel like there should be one chart where I can see what meeting is coming up. It's really hard keeping up with all the ones that just happened that I really wanted to go to, but kept forgetting about what dates because they were scattered all over. So if anyone can help me out, that would be fabulous.

PS: Santa Monica is pretty urban though. They arent anti-development. they are like SF. SF used to be against manhattanization, freeways, traffic generators, but they werent suburbanite NIMBY's. They just had a different idea of density. I would be surprised if Santa Monica citizens are truly becoming suburbanites.

Yeah, Santa Monica always struck me as one of the most "pro-urban" places in LA County. Just the fact that right now they're ready to welcome with open arms not one but two rail transit lines.

No, I meant that "Yes" the city has spawned a young, activist crowd that is pro-transit/bike/pedestrian and anti-car.

Btw, I heard it from an MTA employee that a Gold Line extension meeting will be held in November. No not the one to Ontario but Phase II of the Eastside Extension out to Montebello or El Monte.

^^I haven't heard anything about an expansion of that line. I thought that it would go to Whittier, not El Monte, but I didn't think that it would happen for years.

I Love Santa Monica!!!

VIVA SANTA MONICA!!!!


Gold line to Whittier would be SOOOOOOOO useful for me since my folks are there. WOW!!

http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/eastside_phase2/meetings.htm

http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/eastside_phase2/study%20area%20map.pdf

http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/eastside_phase2/meetings.htm

http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/eastside_phase2/study%20area%20map.pdf

Wow, did this just start today?

http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/eastside_phase2/meetings.htm

http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/eastside_phase2/study%20area%20map.pdf


oh hot damn! el monte!! el monte!!

Ok so there is:

Westside corridor study
Crenshaw study
Expo phase 2 studies
Eastside corridor
Downtown connector
Gold line Ontario extension

Am I missing one? Very exciting times. Lets do more fare increases!

I will definitely be at the palm park meeting

oh wait... the el monte station would be even further away then the pasadena gold line. crap

Fuck lightrail. Just make everything a subway. Sheessssh.

^^Hey, subways only where there is the density. Besides, light rail can operate as heavy rail if it's completely grade separated.

I really initially felt (and still do but it's under construction already) that the Expo Line should have been heavy rail. Now since it is being built as LRT I just want it to have the most grade seperation that the budget can handle.

yes, you missed the study going on from Warner Center to Canoga Park/Chatsworth

Why did sooo many of us who comment on this board daily miss these historic meetings? It's not as if this is going to ever happen again, all at once as it did. Their were at least 3 meetings for every alignment proposed. None of you couldn't make at least one meeting for one alignment? And don't give me that 'I didn't know' line. The schedules were plainly printed out and were on both SSP as well as here. Please try to make the meetings in the future. You can't really complain about a problem if you aint doing shit about it.

At least send in information by email or phone call if you can't go. That way you get your input in everything, even if it's not feasible for you to go to the meetings.

I really initially felt (and still do but it's under construction already) that the Expo Line should have been heavy rail. Now since it is being built as LRT I just want it to have the most grade seperation that the budget can handle.

As you and I know, the expo line should have been heavy rail with a sepulveda light rail line connecting UCLA and mar vista/venice to the expo. Instead, the expo is a sorry freakin light rail line and we cant even keep it along it ROW. So the expo is not only trying to handle heavy rail duties in a light rail package, but it is also getting diverted and trying to cover the duties that a sepulveda light rail line should cover.
LA has no urgency. Even the face of these problems steming from our auto-centric culture, LA still thinks its Sacramento. Its sad.

Anyhow, are there any more expo meetings?

the last one listed was oct. 25

The Sepulveda Line should definitely be heavy rail.

Why did sooo many of us who comment on this board daily miss these historic meetings? It's not as if this is going to ever happen again, all at once as it did. Their were at least 3 meetings for every alignment proposed. None of you couldn't make at least one meeting for one alignment? And don't give me that 'I didn't know' line. The schedules were plainly printed out and were on both SSP as well as here. Please try to make the meetings in the future. You can't really complain about a problem if you aint doing shit about it.

went to red/purple meetings. could not go to crenshaw expo due to the fact i was in china. though i do plan on attending the eastline extension meeting in rosemead. thats like 5 min from my house :)

Eastside Extension Phase II dates have just been announced. Check the thread Greater Los Angeles Transit.

DONT MISS THESE!!


Downtown Regional Connector Meetings:

Map: http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/connector/study%20area%20map.pdf
Early environmental scoping meetings have been scheduled to provide the public with the opportunity to comment on the scope of the Alternatives Analysis (AA):

Tuesday, November 6, 2007
11:30am -1:30pm
Central Library, Meeting Room A
630 W. 5th St., Los Angeles, CA 90071
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
6:00-8:00pm
Japanese America National Museum
369 E. First St., Los Angeles, CA 90012
Comments may also be submitted via phone, mail, or e-mail. Visit Contact Us for more information. All comments must be received by the end of the early scoping period, Nov. 21, 2007.

Eastside Transit Corridor Meetings Phase II
November 8, 10, 14 & 15
You are invited

Metro invites you to an Early Scoping Meeting about the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project. The goal of the proposed project is to improve mobility in the Corridor by connecting with the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension (under construction) to cities further east of Los Angeles. The meeting’s purpose is to obtain public feedback on the project’s purpose and need and potential alternatives including rail and bus options, as part of an Alternatives Analysis (AA). This Analysis will study and narrow down alternatives for possible further environmental review. Light Rail Transit (LRT), currently used in the Metro Gold Line, is being considered.

We want to hear your thoughts and welcome your participation.


Please Join Us

6:30 – 8:30 pm, Thursday, November 8
Palm Park
5703 Palm Av
Whittier, CA

9 – 12 noon, Saturday, November 10
Senior Center at City Park
115 South Taylor Av
Montebello, CA

6:30 – 8:30 pm, Wednesday, November 14
Potrero Heights Elementary School
8026 East Hill Dr
Rosemead, CA

6:30 – 8:30 pm, Thursday, November 15
North Park Middle School/Cafeteria
4450 Durfee Av
Pico Rivera, CA
Meeting Agenda

Open House

Review the proposed study goals and objectives
Speak with project representatives
View study displays and maps
Submit written/verbal comments
Project Presentation

Learn about the project in a presentation by Metro staff

Public Comment Forum

Put your comments on the record. Verbal comments will be recorded. Written comments may be submitted at the meeting or no later than November 30, 2007 to:

Kimberly Yu, Project Manager
Metro
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012
or yuki@metro.net or fax to 213.922.3005

For more information, visit metro.net/eastsidephase2 or call 213.922.3012

DONT MISS THESE!!


Downtown Regional Connector Meetings:

Map: http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/connector/study%20area%20map.pdf
Early environmental scoping meetings have been scheduled to provide the public with the opportunity to comment on the scope of the Alternatives Analysis (AA):

Tuesday, November 6, 2007
11:30am -1:30pm
Central Library, Meeting Room A
630 W. 5th St., Los Angeles, CA 90071
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
6:00-8:00pm
Japanese America National Museum
369 E. First St., Los Angeles, CA 90012
Comments may also be submitted via phone, mail, or e-mail. Visit Contact Us for more information. All comments must be received by the end of the early scoping period, Nov. 21, 2007.

Eastside Transit Corridor Meetings Phase II
November 8, 10, 14 & 15
You are invited

Metro invites you to an Early Scoping Meeting about the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project. The goal of the proposed project is to improve mobility in the Corridor by connecting with the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension (under construction) to cities further east of Los Angeles. The meeting’s purpose is to obtain public feedback on the project’s purpose and need and potential alternatives including rail and bus options, as part of an Alternatives Analysis (AA). This Analysis will study and narrow down alternatives for possible further environmental review. Light Rail Transit (LRT), currently used in the Metro Gold Line, is being considered.

We want to hear your thoughts and welcome your participation.


Please Join Us

6:30 – 8:30 pm, Thursday, November 8
Palm Park
5703 Palm Av
Whittier, CA

9 – 12 noon, Saturday, November 10
Senior Center at City Park
115 South Taylor Av
Montebello, CA

6:30 – 8:30 pm, Wednesday, November 14
Potrero Heights Elementary School
8026 East Hill Dr
Rosemead, CA

6:30 – 8:30 pm, Thursday, November 15
North Park Middle School/Cafeteria
4450 Durfee Av
Pico Rivera, CA
Meeting Agenda

Open House

Review the proposed study goals and objectives
Speak with project representatives
View study displays and maps
Submit written/verbal comments
Project Presentation

Learn about the project in a presentation by Metro staff

Public Comment Forum

Put your comments on the record. Verbal comments will be recorded. Written comments may be submitted at the meeting or no later than November 30, 2007 to:

Kimberly Yu, Project Manager
Metro
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012
or yuki@metro.net or fax to 213.922.3005

For more information, visit metro.net/eastsidephase2 or call 213.922.3012

im totally going to the pico rivera one. My dads boss is a city council member maybe i can convince him to go.:banana:

You didn't have to quote that whole thing.

Now, as for the path, I like going onto Beverly Blvd. then Garfield Ave. to the ROW and then take that ROW to the Washington Whittier intersection.

Just send an email to yuki@metro.net with your ideas. We need get in as much input as possible. I don't know if there are any NIMBY's along the route, but who cares what they say if the people of Los Angeles need this line and express their concern?

Last day to put in comments for the Westside Projects:
http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/westside/form.htm

I will advocate for Purple Line to SM along Wilshire. The Red Line spurring off from Highland under Sunset to meet the Purple in Century City. And Expo to keep the ROW in Phase II but consider grade seperations.

Exciting times people!!

^^I'm exactly the same way (except I do want a station at Wilshire and Beverly Glenn, but Century City is more important). How do you feel about Phase II of the Eastside Extension?

I'll support it of course but I'm not familiar with the proposed alignments areas.

Expo Line running out of money. Could only make it to La Cienega.......

Expo light rail line needs more cash, officials saytemplate_bas
template_bas
The downtown-to-Culver City project will require an additional $145 million if it's to be finished as planned, construction managers say.
By Jeffrey L. Rabin, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
4:05 PM PDT, November 1, 2007
Transit officials today said they need an additional $145 million to build the Expo Line light rail system from downtown L.A. to Culver City, saying rising construction costs are largely to blame.

Despite evidence of rising costs, transit officials had been lowballing their projections of the annual increase in labor and materials for the $640-million project.

Richard Thorpe, chief executive officer of the Exposition Construction Authority, said officials assumed that labor and materials would increase at a rate of 3.5% a year.

But construction costs were actually rising at over 11% annually -- more than three times faster than their projections. Based on recently negotiated construction contracts, Thorpe said the 8.6-mile rail line "cannot be completed as originally planned" without $145 million in additional funding.

The construction authority board is expected today to vote to ask the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the additional money. Without it, Thorpe has said the first phase of the project will end at the La Cienega station, short of Culver City.

The disclosure that the project is nearly 23% over budget comes at a critical time.

The construction authority cannot lay tracks across intersections along the route without approval from the California Public Utilities Commission. The agency has scheduled public hearings next week on whether the design of the rail line is safe, particularly where it would pass Dorsey High School.

Community activists in the Crenshaw District argue the trains cannot be operated safely at Exposition Boulevard and Farmdale Avenue, where students would have to cross the tracks. Opponents of the design received a boost today when the safety committee of the Los Angeles Unified School District went on record against the rail line if it is built at street level close to schools.

The motion by school board member Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte calls for the district to exhaust all legal options with the MTA to eliminate at-grade crossings that present a danger to pedestrians.
jeff.rabin@latimes.com

^^ I don't understand? why the big fuss? doesn't the gold line go very close to schools also? Do they feel that these high school kids are idiots or something? (at least, that what I'm thinking) whatever happened to common sense?

gold line touches no high schools to my knowledge.

Yeah it just passes within 10 feet from houses.

Seriously that gold line basically passes through some peoples backyards lol

Is another Eastside extension all that necessary? Again, it's great to hear of all these transit projects in the works, but this one wouldn't have a significant ridership base.

http://metrorider.elhay.net/2007/11/01/metro-expo-line-the-telenovela/
Please Read!

Guys, the official thread for discussing LA mass transit is the "Greater Los Angeles Area Transit" thread.

Is another Eastside extension all that necessary? Again, it's great to hear of all these transit projects in the works, but this one wouldn't have a significant ridership base.

GET OUTTA HERE!!!!!!

If they build it and it goes to whittier you better believe they will ride it!!

Guys, the official thread for discussing LA mass transit is the "Greater Los Angeles Area Transit" thread.

The other thread are for projects built or in operation already such as the Metro Bus System, the existing and revenue rail lines, Metrolink and so on. The Expo Line Phase 1 is still attempting to be built therefore it should fall under "expansion" projects until it comes into full service.

The other thread are for projects built or in operation already such as the Metro Bus System, the existing and revenue rail lines, Metrolink and so on. The Expo Line Phase 1 is still attempting to be built therefore it should fall under "expansion" projects until it comes into full service.

The other thread has a post count three times that of this one and began running months before this one did. Existing, under construction, approved, proposed, and fantasy transit networks fall under the broader title of "Greater Los Angeles Area Transit". It doesn't make sense to have more than one thread discussing LA mass transit.

i agree. im gonna close this thread. from now on, Transit issues should be discussed in the other thread that i will rename.