Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
426 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Which do you think should come first? The current debate is whether money should be used to bring more rail to the Westside, or for the Gold Line Montclair extension.
 

·
Shaken, never Stirred
Joined
·
8,014 Posts
Oh God not another transit thread.... your killing me here!!!!! :eek:hno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
426 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
The thing is that with the Gold Line extension is that there is a lot of room for dense mixed-use development and plus, the cities along the route said they wouldn't support the sales tax for transportation for the November ballot if it isn't built.
 

·
Silver Lake
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
Unfortunately or fortunately we are going to have to end up building both.

Los Angeles may be the city but it is part of the larger LA metro area so the entire county must be accessible and feel as though they are being treated respectfully or nothing will get built. Since close to 100 years now LA has meant from Pasadena to Santa Monica the concept of LA being "88 cities" is so ingrained that it has become DNA, so you must feed all of the hungry little monsters in between or no one will be happy.

This is not NYC in the sense that the mother city can say "**** you! There wouldn't be a you without me". Pasadena, Long Beach, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Whittier all feel as though they are distinct and unique places and contribute to the world renowned vitality of the LA urban area. They have their own minor economies that help put LA at 3rd place as top economies IN THE WORLD!

The only way out of this is to pass the 1/2 cent sales tax and begin to implement a plan that would build a line down Wilshire as well as one to Azusa as well as to Whittier and in 20 other different directions. We are just going to have to bite the bullet and build out a mass transit system more on the lines of London (and possibly greater)that is multi-modal and connects the ENTIRE urban area and yes, it will be massive! We've already begun to construct the spine of a massive system anyway so let's finish it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,500 Posts
Unfortunately or fortunately we are going to have to end up building both.

Los Angeles may be the city but it is part of the larger LA metro area so the entire county must be accessible and feel as though they are being treated respectfully or nothing will get built. Since close to 100 years now LA has meant from Pasadena to Santa Monica the concept of LA being "88 cities" is so ingrained that it has become DNA, so you must feed all of the hungry little monsters in between or no one will be happy.

This is not NYC in the sense that the mother city can say "**** you! There wouldn't be a you without me". Pasadena, Long Beach, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Whittier all feel as though they are distinct and unique places and contribute to the world renowned vitality of the LA urban area. They have their own minor economies that help put LA at 3rd place as top economies IN THE WORLD!

The only way out of this is to pass the 1/2 cent sales tax and begin to implement a plan that would build a line down Wilshire as well as one to Azusa as well as to Whittier and in 20 other different directions. We are just going to have to bite the bullet and build out a mass transit system more on the lines of London (and possibly greater)that is multi-modal and connects the ENTIRE urban area and yes, it will be massive! We've already begun to construct the spine of a massive system anyway so let's finish it.
I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it.

Whatever gets built first, we really need to condemn the attitude that it has to be "my part of town first" before we agree to pay for any of it. Logic suggests the Wilshire line is the most important right now but the gold line extention needs to be built as well. So does the Crenshaw line and the extension of the Orange line in the valley.

If we try to hold some parts of the county for ransom, nothing will ever get built.
 

·
Strategist, Thinker, Doer
Joined
·
256 Posts
Posted from an older January 2008 post.

I really don't like the idea of imposing another sales tax (I said that I was conservative, I guess it's finally coming out). With the past two sales tax hikes we were promised a full system, and now they're trying to get us a third time? You know the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me THREE TIMES?!"...
I feel the only way a sales tax initiative would pass is if Metro doesn't promise voters the moon on transit corridors and projects. Going by the histories of the last two sales tax initiatives there's only a 6-9 year window to spend most of the money and get most of it built and operating. So the priority corridors with their EIRs complete or in process and can be complete within 18 months are the ones that should get first dibs at the money because they'll be ready to build so it can beat inflation and rising construction/material costs, an important fact in a recession!

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

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


ALL LA COUNTY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·
Bleed Dodger Blue
Joined
·
1,773 Posts
Oh wow, that was from a long time ago. Well I definitely do support it; I just don't know about the rest of the county seeing as how they've done this before in the past. I'll be voting for it, and I'm sure that everyone else here will do the same.
 

·
Silver Lake
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
Posted from an older January 2008 post.



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

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

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


ALL LA COUNTY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future Corridor Studies for a future funding provisions 8-10 years from now.
* Funding for EIR studies on future corridors (Vermont Subway, Lincoln Blvd, 405-Van Nuys-Sepulveda, Norwalk Green Line extension, Blue Line grade separation)
And this still wouldn't be nearly enough.....but this is exactly how it will have to be. The concept of LA is pushed all day long by its residents, I mean last night at the bar a guy said I live in LA and when pressed as to where he lived in LA he said Long Beach!! I was once a big proponent of getting people to say LA when it ONLY meant the city of LA but I've given up on that campaign. This idea that LA is the entire metro area and not a metro area that happens to be named LA with a bunch of other individual and seperate cities has helped and hurt the region but probably more helped in the beginning but LA is not the same city she was 50 years ago when everyone pretty much agreed on one concept for the region. Pasadena, Long Beach?, Santa Monica gets it but Burbank, Glendale and many other slow growth conceptual areas and cities don't and this holds back the massive urbanization of the LA dream plan pushed by Wendy Ghruel and City Hall.
But this civic infighting has created a terribly dynamic and at the same time fractured metropolis and we both reap from and pay for this situation daily.

At some point LAdot will have to pass its own transit sales tax on just the citizens of LA city to get much needed transit works out of the pipeline. I mean we're talking about compromising one of the most needed subway projects(Purple Line ext) IN THE WORLD in leiu of Azusa???, Montclair???, Duarte??? wanting a choo-choo train too!!! This shit is krazay!!! But on Team LA Metro Area everyone thinks that they are the captain!!

I think the city of LA is increasingly finding herself in a bad marriage.
 

·
Strategist, Thinker, Doer
Joined
·
256 Posts
City of LA should go alone!

But this civic infighting has created a terribly dynamic and at the same time fractured metropolis and we both reap from and pay for this situation daily.

At some point LAdot will have to pass its own transit sales tax on just the citizens of LA city to get much needed transit works out of the pipeline. I mean we're talking about compromising one of the most needed subway projects(Purple Line ext) IN THE WORLD in leiu of Azusa???, Montclair???, Duarte??? wanting a choo-choo train too!!! This shit is krazay!!! But on Team LA Metro Area everyone thinks that they are the captain!!

I think the city of LA is increasingly finding herself in a bad marriage.
I made these posts close to two years ago when Get LA Moving was on the radar to explain this precise dichotomy.
Part 1: 11/28/2006
Part 2: 12/1/2006
Part 3: 12/3/2006
Part 4: 1/25/2007

I think back to what certain County Supervisor (Antonovich) says about funding the Wilshire Subway or any other subway in Los Angeles. "If it's (their) the city's will let them do it"

The more I think about it the more it makes sense.

If the City of LA were to float a bond let's say $ 2.5 Billion dollars (folks they tried to push originally $2 billion in bonds this past election, but only prop H got to the ballot) and they were to only build within the city limits of LA, lets say the Wilshire Corridor until Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center. Maybe one down the Vermont Corridor from Wilshire until King Blvd or Slauson to serve the transit dependant and the BRU zealots would have no leg to stand on, since it would allow the current 58,000+ bus riders better service. Or even on the Whittier Corridor from Lorena to Downtown. Extentions that are just enough to make a dent and gain a lot of riders, but not deep enough that it requires them to purchase more trains cause now they'll be directly dealing with MTA. This also serves a dual function to help with LA re-zoning efforts to make transit oriented development and strengthening neighborhood fabrics...
 

·
Strategist, Thinker, Doer
Joined
·
256 Posts
And this still wouldn't be nearly enough.....but this is exactly how it will have to be.
But this civic infighting has created a terribly dynamic and at the same time fractured metropolis and we both reap from and pay for this situation daily.
True, however if it's structured in such a way that we can realistically and honestly regain trust with the taxpayers/voters. Let's not forget we are only 10 years removed from the Prop A subway ban and 15 years removed from the madness that created the BRU and 18 years from the blank checks that got the planners thinking they can build everything! Without realizing that inflation and costs are going to eat up whatever plans not on the table.

This will be something that will pay dividends in the long run since these key pieces can make a dent in the voter confidence and are built appropriately and completed without delays or troubles then when these are operational there will be another sales tax for a new set of projects to build and complete without bonding like crazy. Doing enough of these will have to get the County thinking of consistently requiring a certain percentage from the budget to go only toward the LA County Metro Transit system.
 

·
Silver Lake
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
Maybe one down the Vermont Corridor from Wilshire until King Blvd or Slauson to serve the transit dependant and the BRU zealots would have no leg to stand on, since it would allow the current 58,000+ bus riders better service.
Do they
even matter anymore??? I live w/ a due paying BRU zealot and I told him to save his little yellow shirt....it may be worth something someday.
 

·
Strategist, Thinker, Doer
Joined
·
256 Posts
^ No they don't however, they still have a very rich sugar daddy supporting them so it's best to ensure that we do our due-dilegence to avoid them from being relevant again.
 

·
Bleed Dodger Blue
Joined
·
1,773 Posts
wtf is Montclair?
It's in San Bernardino County, right at the edge of LA County, and it already has it's own Metrolink stations, which is not true of many of the other Foothill Communities that are vying for the Gold Line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
834 Posts
^^ it already has a metrolink station, what more does it need? im all for the westside line all the way to santa monica. and i live in the san gabriel valley. come on 20,000 rideres to over a potential 500,000 a day minimum if it gets built.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top