|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 28, 2007 10:47:53 GMT -8
The problem is that the fare increases only pay for the current level of service we got. Which is quite poor. It doesn't pay for more rail construction. If only we can pass a Sales tax or bond measure for these. We could have everything built in a decade. Um, all of the capital expenses of our rail projects are pretty much funded by bond measures, sales tax revenue and state & federal transportation funds. When you say capital expenditure do you mean the equipment purchased and not the labor and equipment rental associated with construction? Because the non-capital expenditures would seem to be most of the cost associated with construction. Also it was Roger Snoble that said that the smaller than requested fare increases have put future rail construction in jeopardy. It very much seemed to confirm the position of the BRU that was saying that the fare increases were going to be used to build more rail.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 28, 2007 20:59:56 GMT -8
Not really...the federal government (and likely state government as well) will not throw money at constructing a project that won't be funded for operations. Securing the operating money opens the door to federal funds to construct these projects.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 4, 2007 5:26:25 GMT -8
This is an altered version of one of my recent communications to Friends of the Green Line--which, by the way, is separate from The Transit Coalition but has many of the same goals:
The extensive news coverage that transportation and mass transit has recently enjoyed means that, regardless of divergence of opinion on how to do it, our region is trying to expand its focus on increasing mobility and reducing congestion. That means more local, state and federal funding efforts for transportation that includes both freeways, roads and mass transit. The recent vote by the Metro Board, to which the article below refers, does something the long-standing Consent Decree prevented for a decade: the creation of a fare system and farebox recovery percentage comparable to other major cities in the nation. Both as a physician and as a transportation advocate, I recognize that we all want cheaper fares, gas costs, medical copays and deductibles, taxes, movie ticket costs, etc. Who doesn't want to pay less to get more? Yet the biggest crime we face in failing to have everyone who truly can pay more actually do so is the deleterious impact on those who truly cannot pay more. Whether it's transit fares or medical costs, I am infinitely much more concerned about the senior or disabled individual on a fixed income than I am about the person who is unhappy about rising costs but still sports iPods, cell phones, laptops, extensive cable TV service, etc. The senior or disabled person is truly poor, while the others might not be rich but should be expected to pay their fair share (or at least as much as they do in other American cities!). Our next battles are in Sacramento and in Washington, where the need to fund transportation on an equal footing with education and health care is paramount. Reversing the $1.3 billion spillover fund grab that the governor proposed is our first battle, and we need to ensure that appropriate federal support is there as well. It's funny how education and health care spending are "investments in our future" while transportation spending, which supports the whole dadburn economy, is "pork" and should somehow be paid for by the private sector. Keep in touch, Ken Alpern Co-Chair, Friends of the Green Line
|
|
|
Post by streetmedic on Aug 15, 2007 8:04:14 GMT -8
I was watching NBC 4 news this morning and they had a teaser ad for the upcoming 11:00 am news saying that the city council is about to take up the issue of a Wilshire Blvd. dedicated bus lane after the Federal Government has offered up $20M in funding. All I've found on the subject so far is latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2007/08/wilshire-bus-la.htmlI'm starting to think that this city is completely hopeless.
|
|
Adrian Auer-Hudson
Junior Member
Supporter of "Expo Light Rail - Enabler for the Digital Coast".
Posts: 65
|
Post by Adrian Auer-Hudson on Aug 15, 2007 9:00:18 GMT -8
"I'm starting to think that this city is completely hopeless. " :-)
This could actually be a great tactic. See how quickly the NIMBYS start shouting for a subway when two lanes of the entire length of Wilshire become bus lanes. It could also be a good revenue source, given a hefty fine for abusers.
Adrian
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 15, 2007 9:34:00 GMT -8
I don't understand why Transit advocates are upset of bus only lanes. This promotes PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. Guess what! A bus will go faster than a car, and that's great news. Makes public transportation convenient over the personal car.
Every major city has bus only lanes in high capacity corriders, why can't Wilshire be the same? Yes, we need a subway, and we all recognize that fact. The MTA acknowledges it as well. What happens when the Subway to the Sea diverts to Century City off Wilshire? Well, those commuters will board a bus only lane to complete their jouney.
Don't be scared, a wilshire subway I'm sure is still on the table. A bus only lane gives people an option. Should we remove the bus only lanes on Figueroa and Spring Street b/c we have the soon Expo Line and the Red Line that service the same corridors, respectively?
Bus only lanes are needed all over the city. Bus only lanes will work on Ventura, Sepulveda, Olympic, Pico, etc... To make it clear, I hate and will not support Bus Rapid Transit though (i.e. Orange Line). A seperated grade busway is stupid, that should have been rail. Let's not confuse bus only lanes with BRTs, that's where I see most people have their fear.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Aug 15, 2007 13:57:19 GMT -8
Wilshire Blvd isn't even wide enough to add bicycle lanes, how can it be wide enough to accomodate bus only lanes. Take away two car lanes.... I don't think anyone on the Westside would be pleased with that.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Aug 15, 2007 17:16:57 GMT -8
It's just not smart transit planning. Taking two lanes from the most traveled boulevard in the city - and thereby one of - if not the most congested street west of the Mississippi on it's face just doesn't make sense. Doing it, while still allowing private vehicles to make right turns is just plain retarded. Right-turns will still have to yield to pedestrian traffic, and rapid bus stops are on the far-side of the intersections. So whereas in the past buses would/could go around vehicles waiting to turn right, by being in a middle lane, they'll simply be waiting.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 15, 2007 17:30:50 GMT -8
Is that true? Buses will be confined to the bus only lane and will not be able to pass slower buses/right lane turners?
I swear that in London & Paris that was not the case. They had the bus only lane, but would still use the other lanes for passing if needed.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Aug 15, 2007 19:03:00 GMT -8
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Aug 16, 2007 21:32:42 GMT -8
First of all, it shouldn't be Bus Vs Rail. It should be Bus&Rail Vs. Traffic. It was the BRU that made it Bus Vs Rail. second, it would be impossible for wilshire to have bus only lanes. Theres is no room for street widening, and it would clog up parallel streets. Thats kinda why we are trying to get the construction of the purple line going.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Aug 16, 2007 22:01:17 GMT -8
Actually, this is what I found out from the press: The far right lane that is now used for traffic during rush hour and parking at other times will soon be open for busses only during rush hour. At other times, this lane will be used for street parking and busses will share the next lane over with the cars. If street widening is a concern (which I believe is a very expensive option), echo it to Metro and the City of LA officials should they propose other bus lane projects in the city.
Echo that to the BRU, but good luck getting them to listen. Also, bring that on to our elected officials too. Some of our officials think that a BRT system can work just as well as a rail system. Not to say that BRT is bad (I've rode Metro Rapid and the ride was not bad at all), I believe it should not be a replacement or substitute for rail transit, especially the Wilshire Bl corridor.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Aug 16, 2007 23:00:06 GMT -8
As much as we want the subway extended over striping bus lanes, the reality is that we're more likely to get funding for the bus lane, the opportunity is there and LA County is going for it. With our state taking away funding from transportation, we are already having problems trying to fund the second phase of Expo to Santa Monica, not to mention the bickering on the ROW for the second phase. If we can't finish Expo and the Foothill Gold Line extension, then how are we going to get the Purple Line done? By the time the Purple Line gets to Santa Monica, we'd all be gone; and there would still be no rail link between the West LA and the San Fernando Valley.
We should take every option we can take, and the bus only lane is a good start. It can be used as a demonstration for other corridors, mainly ones with Rapid, that would allow a more comfortable ride for the ones who really help mitigate traffic congestion, public transportation riders (note I'm not just saying bus riders). Of course, rail would be the superior option, and not just any rail (i.e. Blue/Gold Line), but grade-separated rail (i.e. Red/Purple); however the funding is not there; the feds would frown at such a project. At the very least, you make public transportation look good (moves faster than the private/single occupancy automobile), people will ride it. I ride the Orange Line everyday, and yes, it's a bus, but the demographics in that bus resembles what I would see on a train, specifically the Red Line, although, that's what it connects to, but it shows that you can make a bus look good.
As for that guy who opposes the lanes in the LA Times article, it's not punishment to the drivers for taking away the lanes, it's their realization that they think they own the road, however, that attitude is what got congestion there in the first place. It's not all about increasing the capacity to move vehicles, but finding a more efficient way to move people. If that guy hates the idea of having to park somewhere and take the bus to work, then he'll hate my workplace, where they took out a parking structure to construct new buildings and some employees are forced to park offsite and use the shuttle; luckily, the Red Line runs there too.
So I would like to see the bus lane project go ahead. Even if we're to extend the Purple Line, it would not go too far, more likely west to La Brea where the Metro Customer Center is now.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 21, 2007 12:32:11 GMT -8
I think the thing that worries transit fans about projects like this, I know the thing that worries me, is that politicians have a lazy tendency to do the least amount required of them, declare victory and then pull out.
that's not necessarily going to happen in this case, but I think one could make a legitimate argument that bus-only lanes could fall into this category.
I'm just Devil's Advocating here, of course. in reality, I think that the perfect solution would involve BOTH bus lanes and the Purple Line. however, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some politicians would be satisfied with the half-solution that bus lanes would offer; and that "half-assed-ism" may be a bigger threat for us to counter than do-nothing NIMBYism.
|
|