|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Sept 13, 2007 17:54:34 GMT -8
I'm surprised that no one posted this, but it was finally repealed today!
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Sept 13, 2007 17:59:05 GMT -8
For the record, it's repealed by the Senate, not just the House, so Waxman's hurdle is now cleared! I saw this posted on the Bottleneck Blog this morning also was also surprised no one mentioned it.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Sept 13, 2007 18:18:47 GMT -8
"Tunneling Ban Lifted!" - Not Yet!The bill still has a long way to go. President Bush has threatened to veto it, saying it exceeds his budget limit. Source: www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/9753747.htmlWe need to convince him not to veto as his reasoning appears to be unjustified. The original law outlawed tunneling under Wilshire Bl due to safety issues. The safety issues have been resolved; so this ban is now redundant. Can we move on now? This federal ban has just about nothing to do with keeping the federal budget in balance! It was about keeping Wilshire Bl free from hazards. This bill is not asking for federal funding; it's about throwing out a redundant ban. I think we should contact the White House about this before we're stuck with this ban until next November.... Contact: www.whitehouse.gov/contact/Ask the White House: www.whitehouse.gov/ask/index.html
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Sept 13, 2007 21:02:46 GMT -8
The problem is that the language for the repeal is a part of the budget, and if Bush doesn't like one part of that budget, then that which we have been waiting for goes down the tubes with it.
I don't think that Bush has a problem with repealing this, it's just the budget that he doesn't like.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Sept 13, 2007 21:13:59 GMT -8
I can't see why our "President" would veto such a bill that serves the National interest.
A veto would only show his opposition towards greenhouse gas reduction, and prove once and for all he is an Oil industry puppet.... which we all knew anyway, but why make it so obvious ?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Sept 14, 2007 2:24:51 GMT -8
The bills must first go to a conference committee. Then it goes to Bush.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Sept 16, 2007 20:08:50 GMT -8
OMFG!! and why did we vote for him....
|
|
|
Post by erict on Dec 21, 2007 15:57:37 GMT -8
From Councilmember LaBonge who now advocates to overturn a county ban on funding for heavy rail construction, which would take a vote of the people. "We need to leverage as many resources as we can to get this subway built in our lifetime," he said. "It took 18 years from design to construction for the first. It shouldn't have to take so long this time around. Cost of the segment from Western to Santa Monica is estimated at $4.5 billion. Mayor Villaraigosa advocates for a public-private funding mechanism.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 21, 2007 16:55:19 GMT -8
It's definitely a step forward, but we've got quite a few steps forward before we revisit the subway construction again. Hopefully, we'll see some nice ballot initiatives in the fall of 2008 to help move things forward with respect to funding.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Dec 21, 2007 18:07:33 GMT -8
First, the ban is NOT YET lifted. OK. Yes, the bill to remove banning use of Federal Funds has passed the House, the Senate and the Conference Committee. Next step: the President must sign it and then there is an effective date for the law to go into effect.
When President Bush signs the budget bill, and there is aways the chance he will veto it, and after the bill takes effect is when the funding ban will be lifted. Watch for newspaper stories announcing that the President has signed the budget bill.
Then, it takes about 3-5 years until this project, which is not even on the Long Range Transportation Plan at Metro, goes through the Alternatives Analysis (in process), LPA, EIS/EIR, Preliminary Engineering and gets to political consensus.
Despite what Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa says, this project will not leapfrog over existing projects such as Expo, Crenshaw and the Downtown Regional Connector.
Additionally, despite the misinformed statements by Councilmember Tom LaBonge, there is NO AVAILABLE funding left from Prop. A and C, which is the local ban from using these currently non existent funds to build underground.
To actually fund the subway and other highly ranked projects, voters in Los Angeles County will have to go to the ballot and approve funds to build further projects.
The January 10 MoveLA Transportation Funding Conference will focus on possible taxes which can be brought to the voters.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 21, 2007 19:59:24 GMT -8
Since the tunneling ban reversal is in the bill for Iraq funding, President Bush will sign the bill. It is a big step for the subway, but as others have said it has a long way to go. It will make the Long Range Plan when it is finally released.
Villaraigosa is targeting 2011 to start construction, but that is probably a wild guess (hope) at this point, especially with uncertain funding. Hopefully a Democrat can take the Presidency and Congress can stay blue. With that, there is always a longshot that the Feds will start funding projects like this that reduce oil consumption and environmental destruction more equitably with road construction (say a 75% match). The feds were supposed to fund the Beverly Hills Freeway, which was never built, so an argument that this is a substitute. The local tax issue may not be such a problem then. That is a lot of ifs though.
Virtually any other poor 3rd world country would already have a subway here, but the US is so anti-train and anti-transit it is near impossible to build public transport here. Anyone who has traveled can easily see this from Santiago, Chile which has battled its smog problem by building a huge and very nice subway system to Delhi, India, which can't provide electricity 24 hours a day, but has built a modern and efficient subway.
I don't see how a public-private partnership would work to build a subway, since the operating revenue would be low. Are they going to charge $10 a ride then and everywhere else in the system gets a $2 charge?
Ultimately this project has to get done for the city to thrive. The congestion on the Westside is just absolutely unbelievable and development will soon ground to a halt just about everywhere from community outrage. Once the developers are stopped from building, but then are allowed to with a subway, then a strong consensus can build. It took awhile for LA to approve a return of mass transit after many failures, but ultimately the right thing was done. This is the same case.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Dec 21, 2007 20:24:06 GMT -8
Can we please stop saying that it is Republicans that are holding us back. I don't consider myself Republican, but I do side with them a lot, and it kind of saddens me that we are all aligned with the misinformed and those with mal-intent. A "blue congress" will not necessarily fix all of our transit problems.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 21, 2007 22:58:58 GMT -8
Tony brings up a good point--yes, this current President is probably as anti-transportation (especially anti-mass transit), but it was a Democrat (Waxman) that stopped tunnelling to begin with, and it was other Democrats (Burke, Yaroslavsky) who have fought the Expo Line and Wilshire Line planning and funding in the past.
It's safe to say that, right now, both political parties in Congress are fighting for more transportation dollars--locally, GOP politicians have teamed up with Democrats in the SGV to fight for the Foothill Gold Line, and it was GOP politicians like John Fasana of Duarte that first got the Expo Line promoted to begin with.
I think it's safe to say that Democrats nationally will help us more than rural GOP politicians (broadly speaking), but both parties have fought the President vigorously over transportation. Then, of course, will we see a Democratic Congress make sure the funds go in part to Southern California, and not entirely to Northern California?
Furthermore, will the Democrats in Sacramento prioritize transportation as much as they prioritize education and health care?
On average, I've seen Democratic politicians talk more about mass transit than Republican politicians...but not about funding it as much as they do with other priorities. I've also seen Democratic politicians describe transportation/mass transit more in terms of the environment and more governmental jobs, which doesn't get the voter support that mass transit does with respect to the economy and developing private sector jobs.
It's very easy to make this a red/blue thing, and we must ask ourselves why more Democrats are on this board and at mass transit events than are Republicans...but, in general, the most successful transportation advocates are either moderate Democrats and/or moderate Republicans who value working with both sides of the aisle to create these projects.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Dec 22, 2007 0:40:50 GMT -8
Can we please stop saying that it is Republicans that are holding us back. I don't consider myself Republican, but I do side with them a lot, and it kind of saddens me that we are all aligned with the misinformed and those with mal-intent. A "blue congress" will not necessarily fix all of our transit problems. This is not a defense of the Republicans by any means. Keep this in mind, the two people who did the most harm to the subway are Democrats: Henry Waxman and Zev Yaroslavsky. The person who did the most harm to public transit as a whole is a communist. So it seems circular firing squad leans to points left.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Dec 22, 2007 0:42:59 GMT -8
It's definitely a step forward, but we've got quite a few steps forward before we revisit the subway construction again. Hopefully, we'll see some nice ballot initiatives in the fall of 2008 to help move things forward with respect to funding. The only one I'd like to see is a repeal of Zev's Law.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Dec 22, 2007 7:18:11 GMT -8
As the Los Angeles Times put it editorially this year, repeal of Zev's law which bans the use of Prop. A & C funds to build underground, would actually have ZERO effect. Repeal would be another worthless deception to the voters. Why? There is no money in the Prop. A & C accounts, so it is Magical Thinking to believe that this would get us Subway Funds.
Long at the Metro Long Range Transportation Plan. The version out in fall 2007 assumed that there would be $4 billion in unprogrammed funds available in the last 5 years of the LRTP (2025-2030). The LRTP is coming back to the Board with a strong possibilty in January 2008. With the funding shortfalls from the state and federal governments, the LRTP has significantly reduced the unprogrammed shortfall, so any new projects may remain unfunded.
So, should you ask for the repeal of Zev's law, like Tom LaBonge is doing, you will learn a little math: the net available funds when you have zero available continues to be ZERO.
Again, I will mention the All Day Transportation Funding Conference "MoveLA" on Wednesday, January 10, 2008. The purpose is to look at all funding possibilities that citizens of Los Angeles County can take to "Save Themselves". As a result of a complete evaluation of different funding devices and consensus of those attending, there will be community buy in to clearly see the next funding steps.
Move LA may point out that some changes in state legislation to adjust the initiative majority from 67% to 55% are required and there could be a package of different taxes proposed to fund NOT JUST the Purple Line, but all the other projects such as Green, Gold, Crenshaw, DTRC, Harbor Subdivision, Orange and Metrolink. The package would also include roads, to get buy in from the San Gabriel Valley and the North County.
As always, nothing is simple in transportation. Should the President sign the budget and the subway ban be lifted, the process to allocate Federal Funds is still in either the 2009-2015 or the 2016-2022 transportation bill. The subway WILL NOT be a package ready to go in 2008-2009 for the successor to SAFETY-LU, but Expo, Foothill Gold and the Downtown Regional Connector will probably be our $1 billion ask. In SAFETY-LU, we got $500 million and the Red Line was finally just paid off by the feds.
So, with Subway engineering ready to go in about 2010-2011, things would have to drastically change in DC to get this funded before 2015. It is interesting that the Mayor claims that construction will start in 2011. There are huge steps that need to happen in 36 months, in addition to having a pot of Multiple Billions to pay for this. Stay tuned for further developments.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 22, 2007 8:39:52 GMT -8
I don't see it as magic. We at least now have a mechanism for getting the local money that we need. And that transportation bill is revised every year isn't it? I don't see why we wouldn't be able to get federal funds added sometime before 2015. And won't there likely be state funds for this project?
I think that a lot of what happens will depend on the economy. If we are stuck in a malaise or a recession for the next few years I would tend to agree with you, but if the economy takes off and jobs are added we'll see construction start within the next 3 years...okay that last bit is magic.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Dec 22, 2007 9:43:30 GMT -8
I don't see it as magic. We at least now have a mechanism for getting the local money that we need. And that transportation bill is revised every year isn't it? I don't see why we wouldn't be able to get federal funds added sometime before 2015. And won't there likely be state funds for this project? I think that a lot of what happens will depend on the economy. If we are stuck in a malaise or a recession for the next few years I would tend to agree with you, but if the economy takes off and jobs are added we'll see construction start within the next 3 years...okay that last bit is magic. OK, piece by piece: What mechanism? Metro has NO MONEY to build anything new. That means if you want to build $1 billion worth of subway (3 miles), you defer another project such as Crenshaw, Expo II or the DTRC. Because of the politics of the region, this just isn't going to happen. Prop. A & C are NOT available. In fact, as you may recall, A & C are tapped out for fare subsidy to the bus and rail system. In January 2008, Metro is going to formally present HUGE service cuts and there will be public hearings in February. While one solution would be to increase the fares again, that won't happen. The Federal Transportation bill is revised every 6 years. The last one, due to limits put out by President Bush, was two years late. The Highway Trust Fund is in the Red and without say a 20 cent per gallon tax increase, it's not a good bet to figure funds for the next Federal Bill. Federal elected officals are NOT likely to increase the gas tax. The is NO revision of Federal Funds each year. Appropriations are given each year, but they are programmed over a six year cycle. Again, Expo II, Foothill Gold Line to Azusa and the Downtown Regional Connector are the package that have a political compromise to be submitted for the next Federal 6-year funding cycle. What you speculate, versus reality is vastly different. Do you read the papers? Do you understand that the State of CA has a $14 Billion budget gap? What has NOT been said is what is going to be cut. Sure the prisons and schools are mentioned. But, you haven't heard about the cuts coming to the Statewide Rail Program. They could be really disturbing. And, it is well known behind the scenes that statewide transportation funds are again being cut. Yes, the economy is going down. And will continue to do so for the next 3-4 years. With housing and mortgage issues, home building is going into recession mode. This information is in the business pages of the papers. Read the trends. The Sunday Daily News has a nice chart showing Housing Sales. Homes aren't selling. So, we just can't rely on the state or federal government. The bad signs are all there. One thing we can do is to raise Billions of Dollars locally within Los Angeles County by taxing ourselves. Right now that is the real solution to get things built. We, locally actually pay for it. Or we wait another decade or two.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 22, 2007 14:51:05 GMT -8
I didn't mean to set off a firestorm of Democrat vs. Republican. I agree many democrats have opposed public transit and been major problems (Waxman, Zev, etc..) and there are some republicans that are behind transit. However, generally speaking Republicans at the state and local level especially are very harsh on public transit (Antonovich, the Republicans in the state legislature, even Arnold to some degree to name a few).
The federal level is not much better as we were lucky to get the original Red Line funding out of the Republican Congress (remember Rep. Wolfe of Virginia who chaired the transportation committee and always held up funding or tried to reduce it). Republicans won't increase the gas tax ever. Not a single republican voted for the 4.3 cent gas tax increase 15 years ago (not a single one). How do you fund transit if you refuse to pay for it.
Republicans generally think of promoting energy independence through corn ethanol or hydrogen which may be 20 years out from commercial use (Bush and Arnold to name two prominent ones). Republicans are generally also against greenhouse gas emission caps, which public transit could help meet.
Of course that doesn't mean that by a long shot we'll have great transit funding with the Dems in charge. We just may have a fighting chance though. Dems represent cities largely and Republicans are the party of the rural voter with the suburbs increasingly split (don't believe me, just take a look at the county by county results of the last several presidential elections). Rural areas and distant suburbs view public transit as a waste. Without Democratic support, Amtrak would be shuttered. Few candidates running now are talking about transit, although Bill Richardson was an exception, when he said that cities like LA should get more light rail funding from Washington. You think you will hear a Republican presidential candidate say something like that. Not going to happen.
With things like the car tax at the state level reduced and now our massive budget deficit, transit is going to get the short end badly as we already saw last year to some extent. The only hope is at the federal level and that is faint as well with the large budget deficits incurred over the last 6 years, but as long as bridges to nowhere are not funded in rural republican states like Alaska, there may be a chance that transit gets its due.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 22, 2007 16:40:58 GMT -8
What mechanism?Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to your post regarding Zev's law and meant to say that if the ban on using sales tax was lifted then we would have a mechanism. In January 2008, Metro is going to formally present HUGE service cuts and there will be public hearings in February. While one solution would be to increase the fares again, that won't happen.That's very interesting considering that Pam O'Connor said just last month that they are looking at increasing service on the blue and green lines. If they increase rail and cut bus service that won't go over very well with the BRU.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Dec 22, 2007 17:14:22 GMT -8
I'd be more scared about the Bus Drivers Union going on strike than the BRU.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 22, 2007 17:29:30 GMT -8
I'd be more scared about the Bus Drivers Union going on strike than the BRU. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Dec 22, 2007 18:35:53 GMT -8
What mechanism?Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to your post regarding Zev's law and meant to say that if the ban on using sales tax was lifted then we would have a mechanism. In January 2008, Metro is going to formally present HUGE service cuts and there will be public hearings in February. While one solution would be to increase the fares again, that won't happen.That's very interesting considering that Pam O'Connor said just last month that they are looking at increasing service on the blue and green lines. If they increase rail and cut bus service that won't go over very well with the BRU. OK, if there was an election to reverse Zev's Law, here is the result: Should the taxpayers overturn the ban to use local Prop. A & C to build below ground, you would again realize that there IS NOT any money left in the twin half cent sales taxes to build the subway. As I have said before, ALL the money from Prop. A & C is spoken for until 2030. So, how would we benefit by overturning a law that ultimately effects a funding source that has no money available to build a subway? The rail budget is not being cut right now. But, when dealing with politicians, something will happen like at the last fare increase hearings: The Mayor wanted to cut rail service to avoid the fare increase. It was a stupid idea, but it was proposed. Yes, the head of Metro Rail plans to adjust Green Line service, just like the Gold Line service was fixed on 12/16/07, to allow a rail trip with the best connectivity. The Bus Riders Union? What's that? The Consent Decree ended 420 days ago. And that is when the power and influence of the BRU ended. I can tell you since the decree terminated, most public officials look toward them with disdain, not respect. Sure they brought out 1,500 folks to the fare hearings. And we got the same fare increase we would have gotten, had they not shown up at all. It doesn't really matter what Pam O'Connor said. Metro is reducing bus service hours this coming fiscal year. It's a reduction of 220,000 service hours. On another post I'll publish the reductions being put out to public hearings in February.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 22, 2007 22:57:02 GMT -8
To a large degree, everyone is right. By and large, Republicans DO suck compared to Democrats when it comes to mass transit, but where the rubber hits the road the results remain the same: lots of talk by Democrats, but no funding, and lots of trash talking by GOP leaders against mass transit.
Yet leaders in both parties are trying to do the thing that makes the most economic sense, and I think both parties are having a change of the guard to reflect changing times.
We've got a harsh 1-2 years in the state's economy, so I would read every word of Bart's commentaries and memorize them. It's unpleasant to read, but the truth will set you free.
That said, were we to vote for another sales tax increase to build rail lines, then it WOULD behoove us to free up usage of the sales tax for future subway construction. To vote for that successfully, though, a lowering of the tax threshold from 67% to 55% is probably a must. Lots of things need to happen, and happen in the right order.
I think the biggest thing we need to remember (including the Mayor) is that things DO need to be done in this right order. For example, there are a batch of light rail lines that stand in front of the Wilshire Subway as much as the Orange Line and Eastside Light Rail stood in front of Expo a few years ago. Expo, Crenshaw, Green Line/LAX and Foothill Gold Line projects need to get their due before we can lay down a hunk of money for the Wilshire subway, and I wish the Mayor would speak more about these other lines.
He's got his plans, though, and he's one of the smartest transportation politicians we've had in decades...but like the rest of us, he's not perfect. Bart is absolutely correct in that $1 billion for an Expo/Downtown Connector/Gold Line will likely be included in the next six-year transportation omnibus bill, which will satisfy the guns-pointed-at-each-other deadlock we're seeing with the Expo and Foothill Gold Lines, as well as the all-hugs-and-kisses we're seeing with the Downtown Connector.
But is Bart correct in that L.A. County will only get $1 billion for rail projects in the six-year omnibus bill? Everyone knows that the Crenshaw Project (likely to be another rail project) is another $1 billion (after Expo) project that stands between the immediate present and his pet Wilshire subway project. Maybe the Green Line/LAX extension, which to some degree is part of the Crenshaw Project, also stands in his way.
So perhaps L.A. County will get more than $1 billion...maybe even $2.5 billion or more as the desire to start ALL of these overdue projects gets increasingly more political and grassroots support. Other cities throughout the country are screaming for more funding for THEIR overdue projects as well, and we're seeing bipartisan disdain and resentment against this President for investing more in the transportation/economic infrastructure of the Mideast more than in our own country.
Naively perhaps, I predict a next six-year transportation omnibus bill that is virtually twice the size of what we just passed, simply because all parts of the nation are screaming about it; don't be surprised if a gas tax hike also occurs.
I cannot speak for what the leading presidential contenders (and by that, I mean those who stand a chance of winning the actual election and not just the primary) want to do with transportation, but I predict that Clinton, Giuliani, Obama and Romney all intend to spend a LOT more than Bush on transportation (he's arguably the worst transportation president in the past half-century) in general because they want that to enlarge our nation's economy.
To summarize, I predict the short-term pain that Bart describes but a long-term enhancement of transportation funding and construction that will be to our century what President Eisenhower's domestic efforts were for last century.
Hang in there, and keep fighting, folks! I don't see the traffic and the anguish it's causing getting any better!
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 23, 2007 10:03:28 GMT -8
Couple of things:
First, repealing the A & C ban may not immediately provide capital funding to build the subway (I can't remember the numbers, but trust Bart's assessment), but it does provide the assets after the programmed year 2030 needed to take out bonds if necessary. To pass a 25-30 year bond, we need mechanisms to pay it back.
Second, it's a joke to pretend that there's no big difference between the two parties on this issue, and there wouldn't be a total sea change between a Democratic president and the Bush administration.
The three democratic front runners all have policies and platforms that are pro-transit. They all talk about combating global warming and returning good paying jobs to America through a green economy. Edwards just came out with an instant economic recovery plan (again through the creation of "green collar" jobs) that he specifically suggest we invest more money in light rail.
Simply, while the Republican Party fights the theory of global warming and defends the carbon-oil based economy, the Democrats are putting forth plans to beat it through investment in American infrastructure and that includes transit (low emission buses, rail, etc.). Just look at what happened in Bali and what's happening between the President and Arnold right now regarding emission's standards. Now, of course not all Republicans are anti-green economy, but all of the front runners and all of the major players in Washington who take the checks and determine the platform and policy are anti-taxes. More investment means more taxes, and that ultimately is the real problem with the Republican Party, and the major difference between the two parties.
None of the Republican candidates for president are going to hit the stump/use the bully-pulpit to talk about getting off our carbon-oil based economy as a component in our campaign against terrorism as president's plan to invest a trillion dollars over the next 20 years to upgrade American infrastructure. The Democratic candidates will, and this would be a complete 180 from our current president/administration.
I've been arguing for 2 years that global warming is the catalyst to request more investment in transportation infrastructure locally, and it's proving so nationally. A green economy provides pork for all regions (wind mills and ethanol in rural America, solar panels on the west coast, rail projects/bus upgrades in urban areas, etc.) and investment in existing power structure in Washington (energy companies). So it's not like it's going to take a lot of arm-twisting to get something accomplished in Washington. It just takes the right president willing to tax the oil and energy companies and challenge their profits. Not one Republican candidate will, and that unwillingness in Bush and the Republican Congress from '94-'06 is why this country's infrastructure is an embarrassment.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Dec 23, 2007 23:19:09 GMT -8
Not everyone likes the idea that the Subway Ban will be lifted when the President signs the Omnibus Fiscal Bill:
The West Ranch Times: Saturday, 22 December 2007 Supervisor warns Subway will cripple needed Regional Transportation
Los Angeles County Supervisor and MTA Director Michael D. Antonovich criticized the passage of legislation lifting the ban on new subway construction to extend the Red Line to the sea through the cities of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and Santa Monica.
“Funding this $10 billion dollar subway to the sea will cripple the regional transportation needs of taxpayers in the County’s other 84 cities and unincorporated communities,” Antonovich said.
“The public — who voted against additional subway funding in 1998 — remembers the disruption caused by the Red Line. Spending $5 billion dollars for a mere 17 mile subway paralyzed the building of a regional transportation network. However, it was not a complete fiasco — it did benefit the special interests.”
Antonovich said if the cities of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and West Hollywood desire a subway, they should use their own communities’ resources and creative financing options including redevelopment strategies, benefit assessment districts and private funding, rather than draining vital public transit dollars away from a regional transportation program.
He said that regional transportation crisis requires the MTA to focus on cost-effective projects including the Gold Line Foothill Extension to Claremont, the Gold Line Eastside Extension to Whittier, the Exposition Line to Santa Monica, the Crenshaw Busway to LAX, the connector between the Orange Line in North Hollywood to the Gold Line in Pasadena and improved rail service to the Santa Clarita and Antelope Valleys.
“An aggressive expansion of rail to LA/Palmdale and Ontario Airports will alleviate traffic congestion on the 405 and other freeways and roadways leading to the highly-congested LAX,” Antonovich said.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Dec 24, 2007 0:15:03 GMT -8
Supervisor Leghorn's screed is reminiscent of Ron Paul's "NAFTA Highway" moment.
Paul is getting support because he's alerted people of the federal government building a NAFTA Highway to connect our northern and southern neighbors, which would likely mean the further erosion of American manufacturing.
He is dead-set against such a project, and it struck a chord with Paul's libertarian and disaffected rural white supporters. When the FHA and state highway bureaus were asked about the plans, they all said ...
"Huh? What NAFTA highway?"
Both Leghorn and Paul are rallying against a potential idea but without a framework to actually carry it out.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 24, 2007 5:58:46 GMT -8
Well, fortunately, we've got term limits...and that can be said for all of our five county supervisors. Still, is County Supervisor really standing on his own when he fears that the cost of the Wilshire Subway will gobble up all of our regional transportation dollars?
I grew up in Long Beach, and live now in West L.A., and am well aware of the mindset/paradigm of staying faaaaaaaaaar away from Downtown L.A. and its environs because of congestion/crime/urban blight/paranoia/claustrophobia. I'm also aware of local pride on the part of taxpayers who want to spend money on their own region of the county, and can relate in part not so much to Antonovich but to his constituents.
Go ahead, folks, ask yourselves: do San Gabriel Valley taxpayers really want that Subway, or do they want that Gold Line first to Azusa, Claremont and Ontario? Do they want that Subway, or do they want more Metrolink? SGV voters, despite Antonovich's rantings, want those projects, and they pay taxes, too.
Do South Bay planners and residents who want the Green Line to go to the South Bay Galleria Mall want to placed behind the Subway? They pay taxes, too.
Do Burbank/Glendale residents want the Subway placed before some sort of Orange/Gold Line rail or bus connector? They pay taxes, too.
Those of us on this Board, and those of us who've studied this for years, know that these projects are not really mutually exclusive at all, and that they all form part of a vital and interdependent network to serve all portions of the county.
So I again must report that the past and soon-to-be-present Metro Long Range Transportation Plan favors a slew of long-overdue light rail plans that may not have the monster capacity of a Wilshire Subway but do extend more miles (and therefore affect the lives of more geographic regions of voters) than the Subway.
Spare me the arguments of how the Subway affects the entire county; I know it does, but most voters/commuters in the 'burbs still avoid the Downtown L.A. region like the plague and are disconnected from it at this point in a spiritual/psychological way that makes them want to only access cultural and employment centers close to their familiar environs.
The best thing we can do is to achieve a multifaceted strategy that both clears the way for county funds to pay for future subways (be they Downtown Connector, Wilshire Subway, a subway portion of a Crenshaw light rail line at areas that demand grade separation, or even a Green Line eastern extension to the Norwalk Metrolink station under Imperial Highway), and create a new sales tax devoted solely to the construction of these projects.
Meanwhile, the state and the feds need to dedicate a portion of their budgets that devote a more equitable fraction of their spending to transportation/infrastructure compared to, say, health care and education and social services in order to pay for both T/I operations and construction.
...and, despite blatherings of private/public partnerships for transportation that have limited benefit, I think both political parties are coming to that understanding and will pursue it in full force after this President is gone. They're already fighting him on Amtrak and local spending after Hurricane Katrina, and I don't see that trend fading because I do NOT see national traffic or infrastructure needs getting any better.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 24, 2007 6:09:11 GMT -8
By the way, I disagree with Supervisor Antonovich's cheap shot about a Crenshaw Busway. It should be a light rail line that connects Expo to LAX on the first phase, and extends north to the Wilshire subway on the second phase (although it would be nice to do it with one project).
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 24, 2007 10:36:56 GMT -8
I agree with Ken. Everyone around the county has different ideas regarding what, if any, transit projects we should be spending our money on. That's one of the reasons that I think that the downtown regional connector would be the one project that most of the voters could get behind. It links all of the light rail projects and provides better mobility for everyone. But then again packaging them together like Damien suggested months agao does make the most sense. We have voted for bundled projects in the past and I don't see why we wouldn't do so again.
And I really hope that Crenshaw is approved as "L" and not "B" RT.
|
|