|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 8, 2007 21:09:31 GMT -8
wellllll.... Ken, I think you're painting with a bit too broad of a brush when you say "they" don't give a hoot. I know you're too smart of a person to think in terms of "us" vs. "thems" if you look at where the state has been headed in terms of land use issues, open space preservation and especially when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, you can't call that lip service. California now has one of the more progressive anti-global warming laws in the nation, and I think it is a shame that the federal government has been dragging its feet when it comes to allowing California to exceed national standards. however, I see your point and I think there is something of a disconnect between what the state is attempting to do in terms of stopping pollution on the one hand, and seemingly ignoring one of the more obvious solutions to the problem on the other hand. I'm not sure its entirely deliberate, either. it may sound naive, I think one of the bigger challenges for transit organizations has always been to simply raise awareness, to let people know that we exist, to force these people to connect the dots between the environment and transit. (edit: this year's budget was doomed from the start. it was known from the very beginning that there were holes that needed to be plugged, but there aren't any big obvious billion-dollar chunks of waste to be cut. there probably was a better solution, but finding that would have required both time and compromise, two things which were in short supply as the summer dragged on. I suspect that part of the problem is that we don't think of tax cuts as "spending" and that is how we ended up where we are today.)
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 30, 2007 22:06:58 GMT -8
Despite its challenges and pitfalls, 2007 was overall a pretty good year for transportation and mass transit.
Speaking only for myself, I just sent this a few days ago to the Metro Board--some of you may have already seen it, and it's anyone's guess whether it'll be read or make a difference in this great, big world of ours:
To the Metro Board: Happy New Year, from a Westside and Regional Transportation Advocate
I have worked a great deal in the past with grassroots organizations and neighborhood councils that are involved with various urban planning and transportation endeavours, but now speak only for myself. I am hoping you all had a private and pleasant Hanukkah and Christmas, and wish you and your families nothing but health and happiness in this exciting New Year of 2008. As a family man with a baby due in the days to come, nothing is more important than family, and I imagine we all do what we can to make our world better for our children.
I first want to thank you all for taking the brave steps forward to right-size the budget and length of the first phase of the Expo Line to Venice/Robertson, a move that will link the Westside and Mid-City areas to Downtown Los Angeles and the rest of the growing county mass transit network. The years of waiting for federal approval of the Expo Line, as well as the surge in costs for all infrastructure projects, made a budgetary increase all but inevitable despite the unpleasantness of such increased costs. Although money doesn't grow on trees, it's only fair to fund both rail, road and freeway projects appropriately, and to build them all the right way the first time.
I also wish you the best of luck in confronting both the needs of the voters/commuters/taxpayers, as well as the legal and technical obligations of developers as we find a way to combine future planning and transportation in building a 21st century Los Angeles County. Past and present regulations all-too-often favor the profits of a few at the expense of the majority, and please consider ways to require all developers, small and large, to property mitigate for all parking and traffic impacts and not burden the rest of us under the guise of outdated and inappropriate "by-right" laws, or under the guise of "pro-affordable housing" and "pro-transit" regulations that benefit neither affordable housing or mass transit.
Furthermore, please explore ways to create more, not less parking in a manner that gets cars off surface arterial and residential streets while also creating better links to bus/rail transit--the two are NOT mutually exclusive, and can establish a more bicycle/pedestrian/transit friendly county while enhancing our economy and the small businesses that support it. Mixed-use parking structures that enhance consumer access (via both transit and personal automobile usage) will get businesses developing while obviating streetside parking that is entirely inefficient in our modern times.
Whether it's smoother automobile flow or more mass transit, a sound economy and a sound environment are not, and have never been, mutually exclusive. Let's plan our county's future with that in mind, and with the understanding that NO ONE uses transportation in a manner that does anything but help our economy. It is our transportation infrastructure that supports the economy, and the era of starving transportation while spending on other priorities must come to an end (it's the transportation that will create the economy to support the other priorities!).
To Mr. Antonovich and Najarian and Fasana, I wish you all the best as you fight to proactively improve traffic and create mass transit in the eastern portion of our county, and avoid the transportation messes that have afflicted other portions of the county while representing the overlooked needs of the taxpayers/voters you represent. I believe the Alameda Corridor East project is both a local and national priority that will get thousands of trucks off our roads and enhance our economy, and I also believe the Foothill Gold Line deserves local/state funding to get that line expended to Irwindale/Azusa. There will, however, be the need to spend money in the future on subways, such as those likely to occur both Downtown and on Wilshire Blvd., because they will benefit your commuting constituents as well.
To Supervisor Burke, I wish you well during the remainder of your public service, but also must ask you whether or not your legacy of blocking a Green Line extension to LAX is one you wish to continue to embrace. Your absence at the Green Line Interagency Task Force that was conducted by L.A. World Airports was both troubling and obvious, and I must remind you that those who suffer the most are South L.A. residents who work at LAX. Please recognize that those of us fighting for this Green Line/LAX extension view this project as the logical first step of a north-south Crenshaw Light Rail Line to connect LAX and the Green Line to the Expo and Wilshire Lines. Many of us fighting for the Green Line/LAX extension and Crenshaw Rail Line are those you previously opposed when you once fought the Expo Light Rail Line...as you discovered before, we're not your enemies but your allies. Must you choose to fight us again, when our goal is improve the economy, environment and quality of life for South L.A. and the Crenshaw district?
To Supervisor Yaroslavsky and Mayor Villaraigosa, I want to thank you both for your dogged efforts to improve transportation. I think we all can look back at previous decisions and find both merit and regret, but I think the two of you are sincere in your efforts to improve the economy, environment and quality of life for county residents, and I urge you both to work together as much as possible. Together, you are as formidable a force for change as anything I've seen in our county in decades.
To Supervisors Knabe and Molina, I wish you both well in your efforts to create a regional mass transit network, with connections both Downtown and at LAX, and to do so in a cost-effective manner that makes such efforts viable.
To Councilmembers O'Connor and Lowenthal, I wish you the best in present and future efforts to improve the mobility and the environment at Santa Monica and Long Beach, and in bringing together all portions of the county. In 2010, when the fourth light rail line to access Downtown Los Angeles is completed, I hope that the two of you will be at the forefront of plans to make the Expo and Blue Lines "complete" by a fast-tracked Downtown Light Rail Connector that--like the LAX/Green Line connection--is vital to creating a true and decades-overdue mass transit network for our county.
I want to again thank you, the entire Metro Board not only for the work you do to improve transportation but in your other endeavours such as health care, education, safety/security and the environment. I wish you and your families the happiest and healthiest of New Years.
Most Sincerely, Kenneth S. Alpern, M.D.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 31, 2007 0:17:01 GMT -8
Mixed-use parking structures that enhance consumer access (via both transit and personal automobile usage) will get businesses developing while obviating streetside parking that is entirely inefficient in our modern times. Sorry Ken....but are you saying that curbside parking is inefficient? Curbside parking is the core of urban development. We don't need 5 lane highways on city streets. The worst thing LA has done for our urban environment is the "anti-gridlock" zoning, which increases the efficiency of personal automobile, thereby giving more people incentives to use their personal cars over mass transit. There's a difference in the urban environment when you see people park on the streets and walk into the shops from the sidewalk, instead of parking in a parking structure and taking the elevator into their store, without them ever stepping foot on the sidewalks. I'd hope to see more street parking in the future, thereby increasing patronage at street-facing retail and preventing more "urban-faux" developments like the Grove, or 3rd street Promenade, which are surrounded by massive parking structures.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 31, 2007 6:05:41 GMT -8
We've had this conversation before, I believe. Whether it's bus-only lanes, bicycle lanes, widened sidewalks and the like, streetside parking can be replaced with something that is more efficient and transit-friendly on major streets like Olympic, Pico and Wilshire.
Furthermore, if there's not enough parking (there's not), what happens is spillover parking on adjacent residential streets vs. preferred parking districts on those adjacent streets, all of which poses a hassle to all vs. lots of extra parking (probably which should have always been mandated by past/present parking requirements).
The idea is to add more parking and give lots of easy access for automobile commuters and multimodal transit opportunities to enhance a pedestrian and business atmosphere on major thoroughfares.
Having cars zoom along right next to pedestrians isn't smart, and I consider the Third Street Promenade to be a first-rate example of what parking structures can do. The only flaw in the latter is that perhaps there's still not enough parking in those structures, and there's no adjacent Expo Line yet to obviate the use of the automobile altogether.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 31, 2007 9:24:36 GMT -8
Yep...we've had this conversation before. I was just understanding what you were requesting to the city council.
Just want to give you a prime example of what I envision with street parking and residential store-fronts. Have you been to 11th & Hope in downtown? You'll see the South Group reversed the usual LA requirement of widening roads and removing street parking for large urban developments and instead, maintained/added street parking, widened sidewalks, and highlighted pedestrian crosswalks, and it has created the perfect landscape in downtown.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 1, 2008 18:32:28 GMT -8
It's important to remember that you and I are pretty much on the same page, here, LA of Anaheim. We both want more pedestrian-friendly and commuter-friendly streetscaping, whether it's the Third Street Promenade and/or the 11th/Hope examples (I've not been to the latter, but it sounds pretty good if involves more pedestrian amenities). My big question in both venues is whether there are enough easy-access lots to get the cars safely and quickly out of the streets and away from the pedestrians when streetside parking is all filled up (which will happen if the businesses are successful, right?). I still prefer a nice row of hedges and/or trees instead of a row of cars to separate traffic from pedestrians, but they both do the separation.
What I don't want is to make it difficult for shoppers to get to their business destinations. What I've learned so far is that mass transit is excellent for commuting...but may be horrible for shopping (especially if you're doing a lot of it, visiting multiple venues, and with kids in tow).
Sorry, folks, but we've got BOTH shopping and commuting to deal with when we discuss transportation, and while I think it's ideal to be able to walk/bike or make a short car trip to the nearest grocery store, placed ideally within easy access in every neighborhood, the car is still king when it comes to the big weekly shopping runs families need to make for their large food and other grocery acquisitions that every family needs.
The idealists will get pissed off to hear this last comment, but the pragmatists will understand it quite well: ASK YOUR FEMALE AND FAMILY-ORIENTED NEIGHBORS...THEY'LL CLUE YOU IN AS TO WHEN TRANSIT IS DESIRED BUT WHEN THE CAR IS STILL NECESSARY (and most of them are probably pro-transit).
|
|