|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 22, 2005 22:08:38 GMT -8
Last Wednesday night (May 18), on ABC's late night TV talk show "Jimmy Kimmel Live," they had a comedy skit that showed Los Angeles Star Wars fanatics pit agaist New York Star Wars fanatics as each of them waited in lin in their respective cities.
In Los Angeles, a group of Star Wars fanatics, in costume, waited in front of the Mann's Chinese Theatre on Hollywood Boulevard. Kimmel interviewed them, and then told them to say something insulting to NY SW Fanatics, to see which one was the most diehard fans.
After he got the LA SW fans to speak, he ran down the Walk of Fame and into the Hollywood/Highland Metro station (the pylon by itself was shown in a shot) and then you heard a sound effect of the Millenium Falcon wooshing by. The next scene was Kimmel hurriedly running out of NYC's 7th Avenue subway station to deliver the message to the NY SW fans.
The whole skit had Kimmel running into and out of the two subway stations, it was hilarious.
Imagine if it were ever possible...Hmmm...
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 11, 2007 15:19:58 GMT -8
Statement: Santa Monica City Council Member and Metro Board Chair Pam O’Connor RE: Repeal of Congressional Provision Prohibiting Use of Federal Funds for Tunneling Along the Wilshire Corridor
Metro is pleased that the House Committee on Appropriations voted today to pass a transportation funding bill for Fiscal Year 2008 that includes language repealing a two decade old ban on subway tunneling along the Wilshire Corridor. This prohibition, enacted by Congress in 1986, strictly prohibited the use of federal funds for subway construction along the busy Wilshire corridor.
This represents a huge step as Metro begins planning for the future. This development in Washington, DC also increases Metro’s transportation alternatives as we strive to improve the mobility of the region.
Metro is deeply appreciative of Congressman Waxman’s efforts to include this language reversing the subway tunneling ban in the House version of the transportation funding bill. We look forward to having this provision included in the final transportation funding bill that is signed into law later this year.
The Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to consider its transportation spending bill for Fiscal year 2008 tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 11, 2007 16:02:12 GMT -8
Hmm...hasn't the Red (Purple) Line tunneling ban under Wilshire been repealed 3 times by the House over the last year? When is the Senate going to repeal the ban? They say tomorrow but that's what I've heard for over a year.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 11, 2007 17:15:43 GMT -8
I think the senate already repealed it- we were waiting for the house to repeal it - which takes longer.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 11, 2007 19:28:00 GMT -8
Good news about the ban repeal. Hopefully the Senate won't screw anything up!
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 11, 2007 23:44:34 GMT -8
I think the senate already repealed it- we were waiting for the house to repeal it - which takes longer. Usually, it's the other way around. The House, being 435 members, has institutional procedures to keep business moving along. Much of the important activity takes place within committee, and floor time is far shorter.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jul 12, 2007 4:46:26 GMT -8
The issue of removing the subway ban has never had any blockage or probems the House. It has already passed an independent reversal bill to allow Federal Funding for the subway.
To review, for those that didn't see the other thread on this issue, the Senate received this subway bill and one member pulled the bill, thus killing it. He killed it to get attention to move his bill, as that is a tool in the Senate.
So, the next Metro Federal Strategy was to include the reversal of the Subway Ban in the Fiscal Year 2008 bill. So, now it has again moved through the House. However, the issue remains to get approval in the Senate.
That is where this matter keeps getting blocked. We will see.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 12, 2007 19:14:15 GMT -8
The article only says that the appropriation committees were passing the bills. Is it correct to assume that we're still waiting on a full vote from both houses? Would that just be a formality?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 12, 2007 23:33:12 GMT -8
The article only says that the appropriation committees were passing the bills. Is it correct to assume that we're still waiting on a full vote from both houses? Would that just be a formality? All federal bills must be passed by both the House and Senate. Because both chambers pass bills with different language, it goes to a conference committee where the product resembles a little of both bills. It is this conference bill that must be passed.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 13, 2007 7:27:25 GMT -8
I'm cautiously optimistic, but well aware that this is NOT through the Senate and NOT signed by President Bush into law yet, so this federal hurdle is just not yet behind us. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope they do the right thing in Washington...
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."
|
|
norm
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by norm on Jul 14, 2007 7:51:08 GMT -8
A decent piece with a quote from Bart Reed from Saturday's online LA Times. www.latimes.com/news/local/los_angeles_metro/la-me-subway14jul14,1,674136.story?track=rss 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." -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ari.bloomekatz@latimes.com
|
|
|
Post by kingsfan on Jul 14, 2007 14:48:46 GMT -8
No way the "Subway To The Sea" will ever generate enough public support for a general tax increase. Its benefits are too limited to the Westwide, especially considering the Westside is already soon to be have the Expo Line.
To get enough support the project will either have to go to the Valley (Van Nuys) or be part of a larger transit package serving multiple communities.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 14, 2007 15:47:48 GMT -8
No way the "Subway To The Sea" will ever generate enough public support for a general tax increase. Its benefits are too limited to the Westwide, especially considering the Westside is already soon to be have the Expo Line. To get enough support the project will either have to go to the Valley (Van Nuys) or be part of a larger transit package serving multiple communities. Even though I am a long time supporter of the Red/Purple Line extension I tend to agree that it will be difficult at best to get a sales tax increase to pay for this. It would have to be packaged with a fare reduction and other rail lines to have a chance and even then I think it would be difficult with 2 sales tax increases already going to transit. It is such a shame that this country funds freeways and highways at almost 100% regardless of the benefit that they provide (Alaskan bridges to no where for example) while a worthy project like this goes wanting for funds. Everywhere else in the world builds these projects, but in the US we deem them too expensive while doing everything for the auto. I personally like a gas tax for LA County to pay for rail expansion, but that has little chance either. Another possibility that might provide some small amounts of funding would be a car rental tax in LA County. Since few residents rent cars this might work, but the amount it would generate would be limited (any bit helps though). Bottom line is we need more federal and state monies and with the democrats increasingly in charge we may have a small chance.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 14, 2007 16:34:20 GMT -8
Actually I think LA county would foot a tax increase if it were to include more than just the Purple line subway del mar, and also included the foothill extension as well as an LAX express, and a RED line extension to Sylmar. Why stop at 5 Billion...make it 12 Billion and get more. It will happen when people realize there is no way out of the traffic jam.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jul 14, 2007 17:00:04 GMT -8
I think with some time, this trend will change. This country belongs to us, the Republic. Elected officials have term limits. Speaking with ordinary people, more and more are discovering that we need a better, regional public transportation system. More people are learning that building and expanding general purpose freeway lanes are not answers. More people are dreaming of having a more effective and a faster transportation system. Look at the ridership figures on regional routes such as the Metro Red Line, Blue Line, Orange Line, Metrolink, Amtrak, and other commuter bus lines. The demand for transit is there.
Eventually, ordinary people will run and be elected to a local City Council and onto Mayor if found favorable by the citizens; then he/she may run and be elected governor, and if favorable by the Republic, will be elected president.
The people are beginning to wake up, and our government system is a democracy. This freeway-centric trend will change.
As for now, I think Metro should brainstorm funding ideas and study them. Regardless of construction costs, Metro should proceed with preconstruction planning so we're not left waiting.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 14, 2007 17:06:03 GMT -8
Actually I think LA county would foot a tax increase if it were to include more than just the Purple line subway del mar, and also included the foothill extension as well as an LAX express, and a RED line extension to Sylmar. Why stop at 5 Billion...make it 12 Billion and get more. It will happen when people realize there is no way out of the traffic jam. Good point. If everyone anticipates getting their piece of the pie it will be much easier to garner support. I'd throw the downtown connector in there as well. That will directly benefit the districts served by the blue, gold, and expo lines. There still needs to be some sort of set priority and I'd have to put the foothill extension at the bottom of just about any list.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 16, 2007 9:06:13 GMT -8
what they need to do is dig out a copy of that old 1980 Proposition A proposed transit lines map.
that map had lines to every part of the county, and I think rail transit in L.A. would have never gotten past the anti-tax extremists if Prop. A hadn't offered something for everybody.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 26, 2007 12:27:17 GMT -8
It seems the MTA are planning a subway etension after all, and are holding public meetings: Public Invited to Participate in Metro Westside Extension Transit Corridor Study Meetings in October Public Comment Requested The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) will be conducting several meetings in October to obtain public comment on the agency’s Westside Transit Corridor Study, which will analyze various transit alternatives and environmental impacts for the possible extension of the Metro Red Line or Metro Purple Line to West Los Angeles. Agency consultants will evaluate potential environmental impacts for several transit modes, including Bus Rapid Transit on dedicated lanes, at-grade or aerial Light Rail Transit, subway or aerial heavy rail. All meetings are from 6-8 p.m. and will be held at the following locations: Tuesday, October 9, Emerson Middle School, 1650 Selby Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024 Thursday, October 11, Pan Pacific Recreation Center, 7600 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90036, Tuesday, October 16, Wilshire United Methodist Church, 4350 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90005 Wednesday, October 17, Beverly Hills Public Library Auditorium, 444 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Thursday, October 18, Santa Monica Public Library, 601 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90401 Metro’s Alternatives Analysis Study is the first step in the environmental clearance process. The Metro Board of Directors will determine whether to move the project forward to subsequent environmental review stages based in part on the results of this study. Possible destinations along the Westside Extension Transit Corridor include the Fairfax District, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Century City, Westwood/UCLA, West Los Angeles and Santa Monica. The meetings will provide the public a first opportunity to learn about the several alternatives in detail and provide input. Metro will provide a review of the proposed project goals and objectives, present opportunities to speak with project representatives, display maps and photographs of various transit alternatives and allow the public’s submission of written and verbal comments. Those unable to attend the meetings can submit their comments by writing to Mr. David Mieger, AICP, Project Manager and Deputy Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Mail Stop: 99-22-5, One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Comments may also be submitted through the “Contact Us” page of the project web site at www.metro.net/westside, or by phone on the project information line at (213) 922-6932. Comments should be received no later than Thursday, Nov. 1, 2007. For more information on these meetings or the study, visit the Metro Web site at www.metro.net/westside.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 26, 2007 12:29:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Sept 26, 2007 22:25:52 GMT -8
what they need to do is dig out a copy of that old 1980 Proposition A proposed transit lines map. Not so fast. Just like how the 1960s-era Jetsons cartoon pictured flying cars in our present, the Los Angeles of the future as envisioned in 1980 is not the same reality that exists today (for both better and worse). Ever watch Blade Runner? I seriously doubt that the planners back then thought the Lakers, Kings and Clippers would be playing Downtown (they never even thought the Clippers would be playing home games in Los Angeles). They likewise never thought there would be an LA Live!, the loft boom explosion, the 405 being the worst freeway for traffic, bike racks on buses or even a transit system called "Metro." To cut it short, the transit corridors planned 27 years ago don't necessarily equate to transit corridors that would make sense today. So yes, as bureaucratic as it sounds, these planning studies and meetings are necessary.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Sept 26, 2007 23:19:02 GMT -8
what they need to do is dig out a copy of that old 1980 Proposition A proposed transit lines map. Not so fast. Just like how the 1960s-era Jetsons cartoon pictured flying cars in our present, the Los Angeles of the future as envisioned in 1980 is not the same reality that exists today (for both better and worse). Ever watch Blade Runner? Maybe not, but the Terminator movie is coming true. An evil robot named Arnold has taken over our budget, and is killing off humanity one by one with traffic gridlock and air pollution. Hast la vista, Kaalifornia
|
|
|
Post by wad on Sept 27, 2007 2:40:17 GMT -8
Maybe not, but the Terminator movie is coming true. An evil robot named Arnold has taken over our budget, and is killing off humanity one by one with traffic gridlock and air pollution. Hast la vista, KaaliforniaIn fairness, the Democrats were more responsible for looting public transportation this last budget session.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 27, 2007 6:31:27 GMT -8
Weeeeell, to my understanding both parties, for different reasons, raided transportation. The Democratic legislature originally wanted to dig into bond money to balance the budget and have the entire Spillover Fund go towards transportation, but the Republicans said no--especially because they can't stand mass transit spending with a passion (at least the Republicans who now lead the California GOP).
Both sides had different priorities than transportation, and both share in the blame.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 27, 2007 13:11:51 GMT -8
Gov. Gray Robot Davis radid the transit funds as well, all for the "children". Practically every Democrat has done this as well as Republican.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 27, 2007 15:02:17 GMT -8
Governor Gray Davis was going to institute a heavy car tax, wasn't he? I think some of that was meant to shoulder to the transportation funding.
Anyways...no matter what party it is, transportation is poorly funded; especially mass transit. The basic problem is the automaker lobby provides millions and millions to politicians, whereas the transit lobbyists can only give thousands and thousands. No matter how s***ty the automaking industry gets, they will always spend top $ on lobbying. Face it, automobiles have everything going against them (i.e. quality of life, lack of exercise, pollution, global warming, oil demands, etc..) and mass transit has everything going for it. In a perfect world, transit would win....but in reality, the lobbyists have a ton of pull.
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Sept 27, 2007 17:32:34 GMT -8
Gov. Davis was going to reinstitute the Higher Vehicle License fee [raise it back to 2% from .65% of the vehicles worth] which would have been used for Local Governments only and that money now has to come from somewhere else . It was the Main reason he was recalled. See: www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-greene3sep03,0,174869.story?coll=la-promo-opinion Take care - P.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Sept 27, 2007 22:43:50 GMT -8
Gov. Davis was going to reinstitute the Higher Vehicle License fee [raise it back to 2% from .65% of the vehicles worth] which would have been used for Local Governments only and that money now has to come from somewhere else . It was the Main reason he was recalled. Uh, that's news to me. Wasn't it failing to get a budget passed and the rolling blackouts?
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Sept 28, 2007 10:29:18 GMT -8
The big reason he failed to get the Budget passed was the VLF. The rolling blackouts were just icing.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Sept 28, 2007 13:19:00 GMT -8
The funny thing is... I really believe that a Vehicle Tax increase would hit the spot. It can raise badly needed funds for mass transit projects that have been put off for decades.
A car tax would also penalize owners of monster SUV's during the "Hummer Craze" a few years ago, and make them accountable for the roadways, and air quality that they are destroying. Sometimes we must sacrifice individual luxuries to benefit society as a whole.
We could raise the L.A. County sales tax to improve mass transit. But our traffic debacle is MUCH LARGER than the County borders. People are commuting from Ventura, Orange, Inland Empire, even Kern County !!!
We need to raise funds on a regional level, not a County level. Alot of drivers aren't from LA County. If this were a European country, with modernistic principles, we would've tripled the Car License Fees and Gov. Gray Davis would be Senator Gray Davis.
|
|
|
Post by dasubergeek on Sept 29, 2007 17:08:48 GMT -8
The funny thing is... I really believe that a Vehicle Tax increase would hit the spot. It can raise badly needed funds for mass transit projects that have been put off for decades. If I thought that the government was ACTUALLY going to spend that money on transportation, I might agree with you... however, we already have one of the highest tax burdens in the country and every time we send a message to Sacramento to get off the dime and build for transportation (freeway OR transit), they repurpose the money elsewhere. So no, no more free money for Sacramento to channel into the insatiable maw of the "won't you please think of the children" education lobby. Restoring the VLF to its 2% rate would also cause the tax on a one-year-old Civic Hybrid to go from $198 to nearly $500, thus penalising people who really are trying to tread lightly. And, oddly enough, Orange and Riverside counties already have this in place, Measures M and A, respectively. Orange County even renewed Measure M for another 20 years, and you can tell the difference as soon as you cross the border. (Technically, LACo has half a percent sales tax for transportation too, but it pretty much goes toward keeping the bloody Bus Riders' Union mollified.) We'd also be taxed at a rate befitting a European country. I don't want that. If we would just use the transportation funds for transportation, we could dig ourselves out of this mess. [/quote]
|
|