Post by bennyp81 on Jun 20, 2005 6:07:32 GMT -8
Art Lewellan
User ID: 3048514 Sep 19th 12:31 PM
If we must admit the impossibility of maintaining a transportation system based on an overdependence upon the personal auto and admit that land use goals must reduce need for long distance travel, light rail becomes the only transportation mode which can fill the goals of regional travel within the modern city's "essentially combined" urban/suburban structure.
Regional transit must include the speed, comfort & energy efficiency of light rail. But more than that, light rail is essential for restructuring regional economies to reduce the need for long-distance trave, when assumptions about auto overdependence become a reality.
WPBonjour
User ID: 0038914 Oct 3rd 9:43 PM
Presently we have welfare for the automobile and personal transportation. Outside of certain areas it is practically a necesity to acquire a car as other options are almost nonexistant. There seems to be general agreement that early in this century demand for petroleum will exceed production. It should be interesting to see what happens when the price of gasoline skyrockets and the return of the long lines at the gas stations which we had in the 1970 years return. In the meantime I only hope shortsighted interests are unable to block the Expo. Blvd. light rail which by its very location can only become the most heavily traveled.
Robert
User ID: 1940534 May 22nd 4:48 AM
We need to get all the cities and counties out of the picture. So much money goes to small cities to drive around empty busses. We need an agency that is run by profesionals that looks at the big picture, that can put in the system without getting approval from every city, county. An integrated system with express rails, high speed trains, and feeder busses. No more short haul air travel (under 400 miles).
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 9th 9:37 AM
The rain-related delays on the Blue and Green Lines yesterday are confirmation to me that what Los Angeles needs is not more light rail but rather an expanded Red Line, monorail and/or elevated heavy rail, AND, of course, hundreds if not thousands more buses.
dweb
User ID: 1383404 Nov 9th 3:07 PM
We shouldn't "overdose" on one type of system. In my opinion (humble) we should have commuter rail, light rail, subways, bus service, and quite possibly a monorail, but not as important as the other systems.
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 9th 3:44 PM
Once, I would have favored more and more light rail for Los Angeles. I no longer do. I still support the Gold Line, of course, as it was built so expeditiously, which demonstrated very clearly how much the majority WANTED it. And I feel that the Eastside should have its line. As for Expo, well, my present attitude is that if it gets built, it gets built; if it doesn't, it doesn't.
Andrew
User ID: 0269124 Nov 9th 4:21 PM
Shame on you John. There are many constituencies who will benefit hugely from Expo. Focus for the moment on those without cars who live a long way away from the beach and it is a Sunday in July and it is 100 degrees inland! They can use their transit passes and get all the way, fast and comfortably to Santa Monica! That kind of capability, in my opinion, says a lot about what kind of city we have here.
OK, there are the "rapid" buses, but PForce's notes on his trips describe a less than ideal solution.
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 9th 4:28 PM
Andrew, if the majority want the Expo Line to be built, it will be. I once was quite excited about it. I've simply lost interest.
Roberto
User ID: 8374593 Nov 9th 4:39 PM
Light Rail lines work fine in other cities with rain. Our system just has to be upgraded or fixed or something.
Roberto
User ID: 8374593 Nov 9th 5:29 PM
You should try taking Rapid Bus from Wilshire/Western to Santa Monica some day ... it's only "Rapid" compared to another bus. It's a very long, uncomfortable, jerky ride. I'll keep driving that route until Expo is open.
Very naive. That's not the way things work in L.A. Political games and pandering to wealthy business interests are more important here, and as far as where future rail lines will go, you can throw all logic out the window.
The "majority" wanted the Eastside Red Line extension, so where is it? The "majority" seems to favor a Light Rail line from Downtown to El Monte, so why isn't it on the MTA's radar? The "majority" wants an LAX spur, is it under construction? The "majority" grumbles loudly every time the Red Line trains stop at Wilshire/Western, so are they tunnelling further west? I'm pretty sure I can show a "majority" thinking a rail connection to Dodger Stadium is a good idea, so why isn't it there?
I've never seen any referendums on the ballots letting the public decide if they want these lines built or not, so obviously that's not up to the local citizens.
James Fujita
User ID: 1049474 Nov 9th 9:52 PM
I don't recall hearing about any rain related delays on the Blue and Green lines last year. what kind of delays are we talking about?
James Fujita
User ID: 1049474 Nov 9th 9:58 PM
oops. didn't see the posts elsewhere.
as for why more rail lines aren't built, there are multiple reasons why things aren't better than they are. personally, I wouldn't want referendums on rail lines just on the general principle that the No on Rail crowd would be able to block the vote on a bunch of BRU distortions, half truths and other NIMBY arguments.
the "majority" doesn't have transportation as a very high priority in their lives and it would be easy to sway them with a reasonable sounding but completely illogical anti-rail argument.
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 9th 10:39 PM
Bingo!
James Fujita
User ID: 1049474 Nov 9th 11:59 PM
to clarify: saying that transportation isn't a high priority for the "majority" doesn't mean that they would oppose it, only that they don't have all the facts needed to make the logical decision. if people understood rail transit, they would probably support it, but most people know as much about rail transit as I know about quantum mechanics.
Roberto
User ID: 8374593 Nov 10th 12:22 AM
Yes, James, good save :-)
I strongly disagree with your first statement however, that "the 'majority' doesn't have transportation as a very high priority in their lives".
People have to commute almost every day in L.A., and very long distances at that. I hear constant complaining about freeway traffic, street gridlock, etc, on a daily basis. The typical conversation at the office every morning is everybody's horrible commute, if there were accidents blocking lanes, etc. Transportation is indeed something that affects all Angelenos greatly. And everybody realizes that it takes alot longer than it should.
Just because some people propose solutions that don't involve rail (like freeway widening, etc) doesn't mean they are anti-rail. It just simply hasn't crossed their mind that rail could work in L.A., because we don't yet have a very developed network. Those are the people that are just begging to be turned into rail advocates. Lots of them have been to New York or London, so rail isn't totally foreign to them ... they just don't know that such a system could possibly be implemented in L.A.
I'm happy to hear that there weren't rain delays last year however ... maybe something was different this year, maybe it was windier? I intend to find out, there were lots of angry (and cold and wet) rail commuters on Friday.
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 10th 10:13 AM
Tee hee!
James Fujita
User ID: 1049474 Nov 10th 12:53 PM
the trouble is, transportation is like the old saying about weather: everybody talks about it, but nobody ever does anything about it.
many people are absolutely clueless about transit. if they know anything about light rail or the subway or Metrolink, it's that it doesn't go where they want to go, when they want to go and constructing it will cost lots of money- money that could be spent on things like teachers, schools, police officers, etc.
look at the letters to the Times. people complain about their commute, but for every transportation letter, there's a dozen writing about bombing Iraq/ stopping those darn immigrants/ defending the Catholic church/ Gray Davis/ why the Valley needs a city/ Bush is an idiot/ those darn liberals/ crime/ I didn't vote and I'm proud/ etc.
the "majority," if such a thing exists in such a diverse city like ours, doesn't know what it wants, transportation-wise.
and unless we can get people to focus on it, the "traffic sucks. oh well, where's my coffee?" people will always prevail
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 10th 1:10 PM
SUVs. This is what the majority clearly wants transportation-wise, it seems to me. But hey, at least they also agreed to a very good transit system for the City of Los Angeles, so THAT is good!
Art G
User ID: 9454293 Nov 10th 2:04 PM
I think all of us are clearly forgetting that the working class in LA(and immigrants,etc.) constitute a large percentage of the population, yet they arent accurately portrayed or included in most civic or social decisions in this metropolis(and every other). I believe if everyone in LA was polled about funding for public transit, after being honestly educated on the situation and options, there would be an overwhelming push for public transit. Lets be honest, most rail opponents are either selfish(and have some countryside cottage fantasy about where they live), racist/classist, or sadly ignorant or manipulated(BRU). Plus people are very short sighted on issues. They dont realize the negative impacts cars and car culture has on our surroundings aesthetically, environmentally, etc. I think the first intelligent step to getting LA up to par as far as public transit is concerned is throught the media and a strong PR campaign with 2 tiers: rallying and waking up the already transit dependant(mostly working class, and enlightening the rest of the public on our situation, future, and options.
Robert
User ID: 8750183 Nov 10th 4:26 PM
There are two many reasons for NIMBY's, The first and most important is: I won’t use it, so why should I pay for it. The second is “I don’t want those XXXXX” in my neighborhood.” Put in any type of minority, race or social economical class for XXXXX.
The other reasons are not because they believe in what they say, but the reasons are like “Motherhood” and “We must protect our Children,” they sound good.
Bob
Roberto
User ID: 8374593 Nov 10th 7:35 PM
James,
The problem is the huge disconnect between the local citizens and the people running the city. I am a perfect example of this. I finally started investigating how the transportation politics works, and also how things work in general in the city of L.A., and to be totally honest I am completely shocked by how inefficient and how influenced by special interests our city is. And now I see why nothing ever gets done in L.A. It's political gridlock with a capital G.
But the vast majority of Angelenos are totally clueless about how the politics works (like I was before a few months ago). Most assume that if something is needed, then the city will invest in it and build it. Period. Boy, were we wrong or what. The fact that L.A. is also a very vast and segregated metropolis, sheltered from the "leaders", only makes the problem worse. Art paints a good picture of the problem particularly from an Eastside point of view. The people here do indeed want things done, but the wealthier Westside often has the ability to stamp out any plans for money to be spent on this side of town. Not only is the Westside wealthier, but they also know how to play the politics. Eastsiders don't understand the game.
Another problem in L.A. is that people are so used to transportation hassles that they accept 2-hour commutes in each direction as a way of life. Many of the strongest rail advocates are people like me ... Angelenos who left the area for a few years and saw how much more free time people in other cities have and how that allows them to have a higher quality of life compared to L.A. How much more time they can spend with friends and family. How much later they can leave the house to go to work. How easy it is to make last-minute appointments and dinner-dates. How much quicker you can get in and out of a big stadium for a concert or soccer game. And on and on and on.
Once people get a taste of a transportation improvement, I am confident they'll get hungry for more. Right now lots of Angelenos don't kow what they are missing, and that suits the politicians just fine. The Red and Blue lines have given a few people a taste of a better lifestyle, but we've not yet reached critical mass to make a big difference in the County (the Green Line seems to have a lower percentage of former auto commuters than the other two, probably because it doesn't hit any big destinations or serve any major corridors). I think the Gold Line is going to whet alot of appetites for more efficient rush hour commutes countywide.
And NIMBY's is one thing, but I think we also need to create a new term in L.A. ... NITBYE ... Not In Their Back Yard Either. That's the main problem I'm having right now, there seems to be little resistance (so far) to Silver Line from people along the route, but there are lots of people in other areas around the County that don't want the line built and have threatened to stop it. Not only do they not want rail in their neighborhoods, but they don't want OTHER people to have rail either, no matter what the locals think! That boggles my mind.
Ray Bianco
User ID: 0471064 Nov 11th 10:50 PM
I'm going to take strong issue with the statement above. The problem isn't our neighbors or other areas of the city. The westside has done nothing to warrant such an label. There is incredible need that exists throughout our region and not enough resources to solve all the problems at once.
Surely per capita incomes rise as one gets closer to the ocean... but so does the per capita tax contribution (income, property, sales and gas taxes). Yet despite this lopsided financial geography, it's hard for me to comprehend how the residents of the "west" have controlled the transit debate to the detriment of the east... The west doesn't control the mayor's office, the council, the supervisors or the MTA or SCRRA boards...
A brief inventory of east oriented projects proves that the west has NOT been fighting for it's own interests...
COMMUTER RAIL: EAST of Downtown Los Angeles there are three separate subsidized Metrolink lines. West of downtown... SCRRA has no near term plans to do a thing.
LIGHT RAIL: East of downtown extends the soon to open Pasadena Gold Line. Citizens from all areas wrote letters demanding the project stay on schedule and budget while eastside suburbanites jeopardized the project through their repeated appeals and demands for luxuriant grade separations.
Next up at bat is the east of downtown extension of the Gold Line. One hears only anticipation and support for this project from every corner. No one argues this line is a long time coming.
High on the "political will" list is the eventual extension of the Pasadena line to Claremont. I hear no chorus of dissent (I tried), even though there are many other projects which the MTA would put higher on the list.
Meanwhile for westsiders/Expo boosters, with the Republican Congress and executive firmly in control, all should start praying for enough funding for MOS-1.
RAIL FREIGHT: Alameda Corridor East - Approx. $1 billion. Capitalism - there's no stopping tihs train. Not a single soul would object.
FREEWAYS: Caltrans and the freeways East of downtown are no less attended to... I added up about $2.2 billion worth of construction: The widening 1-5 from Orange County to the 710 (to 10 lanes) $1.7 billion; The plans to close the HOV gap between the 110 and route 14 at $180 million; And the installation of new HOV lanes on I-10 from I-605 to Route 57 for another $300 million.
BUSES: Wasn't it the BRU's ability to marshall transit dependent political support that brought about the consent decree? Are the tens (or hundreds?) of millions of transit tax dollars applied toward purchases of buses not in some way benefiting east side riders? If not we better ask for a special prosecutor!!!
Therefore, I fail to see how Westsiders are able to "stamp out" Caltrans, SCRRA, or MTA plans/ability to develop transit options that benefit residents east of downtown.
Respectifully.
Roberto
User ID: 8374593 Nov 11th 11:50 PM
Ray ... you forgot that the Gold Line is really just a lower-scale replacement for the Red Line East. Zev and others were successfully able to pull the carpet out from under the feet of East L.A., since politically, he knew they were unable to retaliate against him in his bid for mayor (East L.A. is not City of L.A.)
Since I'm the one that has finally stepped forward to push the Silver Line project, I have been trying to spread the word all over the county. So far, I've had enthusiastic response from communities right along the route, all the way from El Monte to Silver Lake. I'm sure NIMBY's will eventually surface (probably businesses that get scared of the street closures for construction), but the only threats I've had so far are from people far away from the route.
I've had people from The Valley and the Westside say that they will vigorously protest against the project since I have no right to ask the County to spend "their" money in areas that they feel are not important.
I don't want this to be an East vs West battle either, but myself, and others like Art, are just expressing the sentiment that is already out there. The Eastside has a strong sentiment that it gets treated like a backwater of L.A. County. The fact that in 2002, 12 years after the Blue Line opened, the Eastside STILL has no Metro Rail service, despite having some of the strongest local support and highest ridership projections anywhere in the County, should shed a little light on why they feel jilted. Meanwhile, the focus seems to be to try to convince areas with heavy NIMBY presence ... Wilshire and The Valley ... to grudgingly accept a rail line. If other congested corridors are ready, why not service them now? By the time they are constructed, then maybe Wilshire will be ready.
Read the old messages on these boards. People here have said that they will not support any Eastside rail projects unless Wilshire is first. Many have also slammed the Gold Line extension to Claremont and demanded that it be stopped until after the Wilshire subway is built. They don't care if the locals back the project strongly, or about the fact that the more total miles of Metro Rail track there are in the network, the greater the chance the other areas will have to cave in to the pressure.
Oh, and Metrolink ... it's been a great benefit to business commuters that live more than 15 miles away from Downtown, but it's had very little impact in the areas we're concerned about. Not only are the stations too sparse, but service is too infrequent and too expensive for most local transit users. The areas myself and Art are trying to provide rail service to include the areas within 10-15 miles of Downtown. It's an extremely dense, gridlocked, transit-dependent area.
The fact that I-10 is the only freeway that I know of in the County that has a 3-person minimum for carpool lanes (and it still gets backed up) is a glaring sign that there is a severe mobility problem there. It takes about an hour to get from Downtown to El Monte in the afternoon, and vice versa in the morning (a distance of about 11 miles). As of today, no relief for this heavily congested corridor is on the boards, not even on the MTA's 25-year plan.
The reason? Politics. People in those areas along I-10 don't know how to play the political games that are necessary to get things done in L.A., and they also don't have the big business wealth to influence city decisions.
But honestly, the only hostile negative responses I've had to Silver Line have been from people in The Valley and West L.A. Which shocked me ... why do they care so much? They don't even want rail in their neighborhoods, but they get very jealous when others lobby for it. Which is why I coined the term NITBYE above (Not In Their Backyards Either).
Also, my post was strictly about Metro Rail, I was not concerned with Caltrans and freeway widening, since my goal is to expand the passenger rail network and allow more people the option of not using their cars. I never made the claim that Eastside freeways were neglected, nor do I even know the facts. I consider those issues to be irrelevant to the lack of Metro Rail service and expansion of the rail network. Same with freight.
Respectfully hoping L.A. can unify and get its whole act together soon ... getting lines built in heavily congested areas with little NIMBY resistance will benefit the entire Metro Rail network as a whole.
Andrew S
User ID: 0269124 Nov 12th 12:10 AM
You have sold me on the needs of the East Side. I sure don't want anything to come ahead of Expo though.
I'd sort of like to see DMU service every 20 minutes on some of the lines used for Metrolink e.g. Burbank, Glendale, Burbank Airport. Perhaps that would have some application on the East Side. I know it is not that easy ...
User ID: 3048514 Sep 19th 12:31 PM
If we must admit the impossibility of maintaining a transportation system based on an overdependence upon the personal auto and admit that land use goals must reduce need for long distance travel, light rail becomes the only transportation mode which can fill the goals of regional travel within the modern city's "essentially combined" urban/suburban structure.
Regional transit must include the speed, comfort & energy efficiency of light rail. But more than that, light rail is essential for restructuring regional economies to reduce the need for long-distance trave, when assumptions about auto overdependence become a reality.
WPBonjour
User ID: 0038914 Oct 3rd 9:43 PM
Presently we have welfare for the automobile and personal transportation. Outside of certain areas it is practically a necesity to acquire a car as other options are almost nonexistant. There seems to be general agreement that early in this century demand for petroleum will exceed production. It should be interesting to see what happens when the price of gasoline skyrockets and the return of the long lines at the gas stations which we had in the 1970 years return. In the meantime I only hope shortsighted interests are unable to block the Expo. Blvd. light rail which by its very location can only become the most heavily traveled.
Robert
User ID: 1940534 May 22nd 4:48 AM
We need to get all the cities and counties out of the picture. So much money goes to small cities to drive around empty busses. We need an agency that is run by profesionals that looks at the big picture, that can put in the system without getting approval from every city, county. An integrated system with express rails, high speed trains, and feeder busses. No more short haul air travel (under 400 miles).
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 9th 9:37 AM
The rain-related delays on the Blue and Green Lines yesterday are confirmation to me that what Los Angeles needs is not more light rail but rather an expanded Red Line, monorail and/or elevated heavy rail, AND, of course, hundreds if not thousands more buses.
dweb
User ID: 1383404 Nov 9th 3:07 PM
We shouldn't "overdose" on one type of system. In my opinion (humble) we should have commuter rail, light rail, subways, bus service, and quite possibly a monorail, but not as important as the other systems.
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 9th 3:44 PM
Once, I would have favored more and more light rail for Los Angeles. I no longer do. I still support the Gold Line, of course, as it was built so expeditiously, which demonstrated very clearly how much the majority WANTED it. And I feel that the Eastside should have its line. As for Expo, well, my present attitude is that if it gets built, it gets built; if it doesn't, it doesn't.
Andrew
User ID: 0269124 Nov 9th 4:21 PM
As for Expo, well, my present attitude is that if it gets built, it gets built; if it doesn't, it doesn't.
Shame on you John. There are many constituencies who will benefit hugely from Expo. Focus for the moment on those without cars who live a long way away from the beach and it is a Sunday in July and it is 100 degrees inland! They can use their transit passes and get all the way, fast and comfortably to Santa Monica! That kind of capability, in my opinion, says a lot about what kind of city we have here.
OK, there are the "rapid" buses, but PForce's notes on his trips describe a less than ideal solution.
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 9th 4:28 PM
Andrew, if the majority want the Expo Line to be built, it will be. I once was quite excited about it. I've simply lost interest.
Roberto
User ID: 8374593 Nov 9th 4:39 PM
Light Rail lines work fine in other cities with rain. Our system just has to be upgraded or fixed or something.
Roberto
User ID: 8374593 Nov 9th 5:29 PM
OK, there are the "rapid" buses, but PForce's notes on his trips describe a less than ideal solution.
You should try taking Rapid Bus from Wilshire/Western to Santa Monica some day ... it's only "Rapid" compared to another bus. It's a very long, uncomfortable, jerky ride. I'll keep driving that route until Expo is open.
if the majority want the Expo Line to be built, it will be.
Very naive. That's not the way things work in L.A. Political games and pandering to wealthy business interests are more important here, and as far as where future rail lines will go, you can throw all logic out the window.
The "majority" wanted the Eastside Red Line extension, so where is it? The "majority" seems to favor a Light Rail line from Downtown to El Monte, so why isn't it on the MTA's radar? The "majority" wants an LAX spur, is it under construction? The "majority" grumbles loudly every time the Red Line trains stop at Wilshire/Western, so are they tunnelling further west? I'm pretty sure I can show a "majority" thinking a rail connection to Dodger Stadium is a good idea, so why isn't it there?
I've never seen any referendums on the ballots letting the public decide if they want these lines built or not, so obviously that's not up to the local citizens.
James Fujita
User ID: 1049474 Nov 9th 9:52 PM
I don't recall hearing about any rain related delays on the Blue and Green lines last year. what kind of delays are we talking about?
James Fujita
User ID: 1049474 Nov 9th 9:58 PM
oops. didn't see the posts elsewhere.
as for why more rail lines aren't built, there are multiple reasons why things aren't better than they are. personally, I wouldn't want referendums on rail lines just on the general principle that the No on Rail crowd would be able to block the vote on a bunch of BRU distortions, half truths and other NIMBY arguments.
the "majority" doesn't have transportation as a very high priority in their lives and it would be easy to sway them with a reasonable sounding but completely illogical anti-rail argument.
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 9th 10:39 PM
the "majority" doesn't have transportation as a very high priority in
their lives
their lives
Bingo!
James Fujita
User ID: 1049474 Nov 9th 11:59 PM
to clarify: saying that transportation isn't a high priority for the "majority" doesn't mean that they would oppose it, only that they don't have all the facts needed to make the logical decision. if people understood rail transit, they would probably support it, but most people know as much about rail transit as I know about quantum mechanics.
Roberto
User ID: 8374593 Nov 10th 12:22 AM
Yes, James, good save :-)
I strongly disagree with your first statement however, that "the 'majority' doesn't have transportation as a very high priority in their lives".
People have to commute almost every day in L.A., and very long distances at that. I hear constant complaining about freeway traffic, street gridlock, etc, on a daily basis. The typical conversation at the office every morning is everybody's horrible commute, if there were accidents blocking lanes, etc. Transportation is indeed something that affects all Angelenos greatly. And everybody realizes that it takes alot longer than it should.
Just because some people propose solutions that don't involve rail (like freeway widening, etc) doesn't mean they are anti-rail. It just simply hasn't crossed their mind that rail could work in L.A., because we don't yet have a very developed network. Those are the people that are just begging to be turned into rail advocates. Lots of them have been to New York or London, so rail isn't totally foreign to them ... they just don't know that such a system could possibly be implemented in L.A.
I'm happy to hear that there weren't rain delays last year however ... maybe something was different this year, maybe it was windier? I intend to find out, there were lots of angry (and cold and wet) rail commuters on Friday.
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 10th 10:13 AM
to clarify: saying that transportation isn't a high priority for the
"majority" doesn't mean that they would oppose it, only that they don't
have all the facts needed to make the logical decision.
"majority" doesn't mean that they would oppose it, only that they don't
have all the facts needed to make the logical decision.
Tee hee!
James Fujita
User ID: 1049474 Nov 10th 12:53 PM
the trouble is, transportation is like the old saying about weather: everybody talks about it, but nobody ever does anything about it.
many people are absolutely clueless about transit. if they know anything about light rail or the subway or Metrolink, it's that it doesn't go where they want to go, when they want to go and constructing it will cost lots of money- money that could be spent on things like teachers, schools, police officers, etc.
look at the letters to the Times. people complain about their commute, but for every transportation letter, there's a dozen writing about bombing Iraq/ stopping those darn immigrants/ defending the Catholic church/ Gray Davis/ why the Valley needs a city/ Bush is an idiot/ those darn liberals/ crime/ I didn't vote and I'm proud/ etc.
the "majority," if such a thing exists in such a diverse city like ours, doesn't know what it wants, transportation-wise.
and unless we can get people to focus on it, the "traffic sucks. oh well, where's my coffee?" people will always prevail
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 10th 1:10 PM
the "majority," if such a thing exists in such a diverse city like ours,
doesn't know what it wants, transportation-wise.
doesn't know what it wants, transportation-wise.
SUVs. This is what the majority clearly wants transportation-wise, it seems to me. But hey, at least they also agreed to a very good transit system for the City of Los Angeles, so THAT is good!
Art G
User ID: 9454293 Nov 10th 2:04 PM
I think all of us are clearly forgetting that the working class in LA(and immigrants,etc.) constitute a large percentage of the population, yet they arent accurately portrayed or included in most civic or social decisions in this metropolis(and every other). I believe if everyone in LA was polled about funding for public transit, after being honestly educated on the situation and options, there would be an overwhelming push for public transit. Lets be honest, most rail opponents are either selfish(and have some countryside cottage fantasy about where they live), racist/classist, or sadly ignorant or manipulated(BRU). Plus people are very short sighted on issues. They dont realize the negative impacts cars and car culture has on our surroundings aesthetically, environmentally, etc. I think the first intelligent step to getting LA up to par as far as public transit is concerned is throught the media and a strong PR campaign with 2 tiers: rallying and waking up the already transit dependant(mostly working class, and enlightening the rest of the public on our situation, future, and options.
Robert
User ID: 8750183 Nov 10th 4:26 PM
There are two many reasons for NIMBY's, The first and most important is: I won’t use it, so why should I pay for it. The second is “I don’t want those XXXXX” in my neighborhood.” Put in any type of minority, race or social economical class for XXXXX.
The other reasons are not because they believe in what they say, but the reasons are like “Motherhood” and “We must protect our Children,” they sound good.
Bob
Roberto
User ID: 8374593 Nov 10th 7:35 PM
James,
The problem is the huge disconnect between the local citizens and the people running the city. I am a perfect example of this. I finally started investigating how the transportation politics works, and also how things work in general in the city of L.A., and to be totally honest I am completely shocked by how inefficient and how influenced by special interests our city is. And now I see why nothing ever gets done in L.A. It's political gridlock with a capital G.
But the vast majority of Angelenos are totally clueless about how the politics works (like I was before a few months ago). Most assume that if something is needed, then the city will invest in it and build it. Period. Boy, were we wrong or what. The fact that L.A. is also a very vast and segregated metropolis, sheltered from the "leaders", only makes the problem worse. Art paints a good picture of the problem particularly from an Eastside point of view. The people here do indeed want things done, but the wealthier Westside often has the ability to stamp out any plans for money to be spent on this side of town. Not only is the Westside wealthier, but they also know how to play the politics. Eastsiders don't understand the game.
Another problem in L.A. is that people are so used to transportation hassles that they accept 2-hour commutes in each direction as a way of life. Many of the strongest rail advocates are people like me ... Angelenos who left the area for a few years and saw how much more free time people in other cities have and how that allows them to have a higher quality of life compared to L.A. How much more time they can spend with friends and family. How much later they can leave the house to go to work. How easy it is to make last-minute appointments and dinner-dates. How much quicker you can get in and out of a big stadium for a concert or soccer game. And on and on and on.
Once people get a taste of a transportation improvement, I am confident they'll get hungry for more. Right now lots of Angelenos don't kow what they are missing, and that suits the politicians just fine. The Red and Blue lines have given a few people a taste of a better lifestyle, but we've not yet reached critical mass to make a big difference in the County (the Green Line seems to have a lower percentage of former auto commuters than the other two, probably because it doesn't hit any big destinations or serve any major corridors). I think the Gold Line is going to whet alot of appetites for more efficient rush hour commutes countywide.
And NIMBY's is one thing, but I think we also need to create a new term in L.A. ... NITBYE ... Not In Their Back Yard Either. That's the main problem I'm having right now, there seems to be little resistance (so far) to Silver Line from people along the route, but there are lots of people in other areas around the County that don't want the line built and have threatened to stop it. Not only do they not want rail in their neighborhoods, but they don't want OTHER people to have rail either, no matter what the locals think! That boggles my mind.
Ray Bianco
User ID: 0471064 Nov 11th 10:50 PM
Art paints a good picture of the problem particularly from an Eastside point of view. The people here do indeed want things done, but the wealthier Westside often has the ability to stamp out any plans for money to be spent on this side of town. Not only is the Westside wealthier, but they also know how to play the politics. Eastsiders don't understand the game.
I'm going to take strong issue with the statement above. The problem isn't our neighbors or other areas of the city. The westside has done nothing to warrant such an label. There is incredible need that exists throughout our region and not enough resources to solve all the problems at once.
Surely per capita incomes rise as one gets closer to the ocean... but so does the per capita tax contribution (income, property, sales and gas taxes). Yet despite this lopsided financial geography, it's hard for me to comprehend how the residents of the "west" have controlled the transit debate to the detriment of the east... The west doesn't control the mayor's office, the council, the supervisors or the MTA or SCRRA boards...
A brief inventory of east oriented projects proves that the west has NOT been fighting for it's own interests...
COMMUTER RAIL: EAST of Downtown Los Angeles there are three separate subsidized Metrolink lines. West of downtown... SCRRA has no near term plans to do a thing.
LIGHT RAIL: East of downtown extends the soon to open Pasadena Gold Line. Citizens from all areas wrote letters demanding the project stay on schedule and budget while eastside suburbanites jeopardized the project through their repeated appeals and demands for luxuriant grade separations.
Next up at bat is the east of downtown extension of the Gold Line. One hears only anticipation and support for this project from every corner. No one argues this line is a long time coming.
High on the "political will" list is the eventual extension of the Pasadena line to Claremont. I hear no chorus of dissent (I tried), even though there are many other projects which the MTA would put higher on the list.
Meanwhile for westsiders/Expo boosters, with the Republican Congress and executive firmly in control, all should start praying for enough funding for MOS-1.
RAIL FREIGHT: Alameda Corridor East - Approx. $1 billion. Capitalism - there's no stopping tihs train. Not a single soul would object.
FREEWAYS: Caltrans and the freeways East of downtown are no less attended to... I added up about $2.2 billion worth of construction: The widening 1-5 from Orange County to the 710 (to 10 lanes) $1.7 billion; The plans to close the HOV gap between the 110 and route 14 at $180 million; And the installation of new HOV lanes on I-10 from I-605 to Route 57 for another $300 million.
BUSES: Wasn't it the BRU's ability to marshall transit dependent political support that brought about the consent decree? Are the tens (or hundreds?) of millions of transit tax dollars applied toward purchases of buses not in some way benefiting east side riders? If not we better ask for a special prosecutor!!!
Therefore, I fail to see how Westsiders are able to "stamp out" Caltrans, SCRRA, or MTA plans/ability to develop transit options that benefit residents east of downtown.
Respectifully.
Roberto
User ID: 8374593 Nov 11th 11:50 PM
Ray ... you forgot that the Gold Line is really just a lower-scale replacement for the Red Line East. Zev and others were successfully able to pull the carpet out from under the feet of East L.A., since politically, he knew they were unable to retaliate against him in his bid for mayor (East L.A. is not City of L.A.)
Since I'm the one that has finally stepped forward to push the Silver Line project, I have been trying to spread the word all over the county. So far, I've had enthusiastic response from communities right along the route, all the way from El Monte to Silver Lake. I'm sure NIMBY's will eventually surface (probably businesses that get scared of the street closures for construction), but the only threats I've had so far are from people far away from the route.
I've had people from The Valley and the Westside say that they will vigorously protest against the project since I have no right to ask the County to spend "their" money in areas that they feel are not important.
I don't want this to be an East vs West battle either, but myself, and others like Art, are just expressing the sentiment that is already out there. The Eastside has a strong sentiment that it gets treated like a backwater of L.A. County. The fact that in 2002, 12 years after the Blue Line opened, the Eastside STILL has no Metro Rail service, despite having some of the strongest local support and highest ridership projections anywhere in the County, should shed a little light on why they feel jilted. Meanwhile, the focus seems to be to try to convince areas with heavy NIMBY presence ... Wilshire and The Valley ... to grudgingly accept a rail line. If other congested corridors are ready, why not service them now? By the time they are constructed, then maybe Wilshire will be ready.
Read the old messages on these boards. People here have said that they will not support any Eastside rail projects unless Wilshire is first. Many have also slammed the Gold Line extension to Claremont and demanded that it be stopped until after the Wilshire subway is built. They don't care if the locals back the project strongly, or about the fact that the more total miles of Metro Rail track there are in the network, the greater the chance the other areas will have to cave in to the pressure.
Oh, and Metrolink ... it's been a great benefit to business commuters that live more than 15 miles away from Downtown, but it's had very little impact in the areas we're concerned about. Not only are the stations too sparse, but service is too infrequent and too expensive for most local transit users. The areas myself and Art are trying to provide rail service to include the areas within 10-15 miles of Downtown. It's an extremely dense, gridlocked, transit-dependent area.
The fact that I-10 is the only freeway that I know of in the County that has a 3-person minimum for carpool lanes (and it still gets backed up) is a glaring sign that there is a severe mobility problem there. It takes about an hour to get from Downtown to El Monte in the afternoon, and vice versa in the morning (a distance of about 11 miles). As of today, no relief for this heavily congested corridor is on the boards, not even on the MTA's 25-year plan.
The reason? Politics. People in those areas along I-10 don't know how to play the political games that are necessary to get things done in L.A., and they also don't have the big business wealth to influence city decisions.
But honestly, the only hostile negative responses I've had to Silver Line have been from people in The Valley and West L.A. Which shocked me ... why do they care so much? They don't even want rail in their neighborhoods, but they get very jealous when others lobby for it. Which is why I coined the term NITBYE above (Not In Their Backyards Either).
Also, my post was strictly about Metro Rail, I was not concerned with Caltrans and freeway widening, since my goal is to expand the passenger rail network and allow more people the option of not using their cars. I never made the claim that Eastside freeways were neglected, nor do I even know the facts. I consider those issues to be irrelevant to the lack of Metro Rail service and expansion of the rail network. Same with freight.
Respectfully hoping L.A. can unify and get its whole act together soon ... getting lines built in heavily congested areas with little NIMBY resistance will benefit the entire Metro Rail network as a whole.
Andrew S
User ID: 0269124 Nov 12th 12:10 AM
You have sold me on the needs of the East Side. I sure don't want anything to come ahead of Expo though.
I'd sort of like to see DMU service every 20 minutes on some of the lines used for Metrolink e.g. Burbank, Glendale, Burbank Airport. Perhaps that would have some application on the East Side. I know it is not that easy ...
