|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Mar 16, 2008 17:33:59 GMT -8
The plans for the Valley definitely have room for improvement.
Here's my shortlist, which I'd include even in the unfunded section.
- Extending Orange Line on west side to Metrolink and on the east side to Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena Gold Line. - Alternative #9 on the Westside Transit Cooridor Extension Study would provide for a one-seat ride to/from North Hollywood/East Valley to/from Westside - Sepulveda LRT from LAX to Metrolink would provide a desperately needed connection from West/Central Valley to/from Westside. - Extending Red Line to Burbank Airport Metrolink Station. - Bus-only Lane on Ventura Blvd. from Universal City to Warner Center (someday a subway).
I am stunned there is nothing, not even a bus lane, going from LAX to Metrolink, even unfunded.
Ventura Blvd. should be looked at for at least rush-hour bus-only lanes now on the route to building something more substantial in the future.
The lack of methods to get to/from the Valley and to/from Westside is astonishing. Even the 761 bus is embarassing, pooping out at Wilshire Blvd., forcing people to catch another bus, before they can even get on their destination buses via Santa Monica, Olympic, Pico, Venice, Washington. Extending the 761 down to Washington or even LAX should have been a no-brainer. The Culver City Sepulveda Rapid and the separte MTA rapid still leaves a very weak manner of getting from the Valley to the Westside. What about a SuperRapid 961 with service from Metrolink to LAX making VERY limited stops (Orange Line, Ventura, Wilshire, Santa Monica, Pico, Fox Hills Mall, LAX)?
With all the countless people who snake through passes and canyons every day, lack of improvement for Valley to/from Westside is the biggest shortcoming in their draft plan.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Mar 30, 2008 9:01:36 GMT -8
Get LA Moving has been dormant for a while, but as posted on the MetroRiderLA blog on 3/18, Get LA Moving is going to be weighing in: The reality is the Crenshaw Line, as currently envisioned by Metro is only about $250-400 million from being a 100% grade separated project.
Why build a system for the next 100 years in the traffic capital of the country and not spend the extra 25-40%?
Look at the Long Range Transportation Plan, and the make up of the 13 member Metro board and you’ll see why. Simply, there is a competition for limited funding, therefore Metro is not currently in the business of building good transit, but instead in the business of building lots of transit throughout a very large county.
What’s needed is not just new resources, but a renewed sense of collectivism and new method of building projects in this region. Otherwise, as the final page of the Draft LRTP shows, we’re not even making a dent.
The plan is not very ambitious, and the “strategic plan” is not strategic at all. It’s a smorgersboard of pet projects thrown on a map with “Plan” slapped across it, when it’s really not.
Internationally, look to Shanghai and Madrid to see a real Long Range Transportation Plan. Locally look to the great success of rail transit in America in the 20th century: Washington, D.C. Even observe the process occurring now in Denver and Dallas. Through their diversity in system, regional needs and challenges, and modes there is a commonality in system-wide thinking.
We have to plan and think region-wide - not project specific. Focusing on corridors in a region as polycentric as ours is detrimental, and it costs a whole lot more money. This is the major point of Get LA Moving.
Here’s just an example of how system-wide planning, and a little long-term vision could be used to drastically reduce the cost of extending the Wilshire subway just a couple of miles, as I stated in the Transit Coaliton message board regarding the Crenshaw LRT:
The focus needs to shift from interlining to:
a) simultaneous construction of Crenshaw and Wilshire (as Jerard suggest)
b) using the same tunnel boring machine (if possible) for both Crenshaw and Wilshire
c) identifying the resources to build the stations through alternative funding
d) possibly (I'm almost afraid to type it), combined contracts and uniform station design (economy of scale)
RESOURCES 1) There's no reason (even if you want Crenshaw/Expo at-grade), that we shouldn't be working to build this station TODAY as part of Expo Phase 1.
2) Pico/San Vicente is in the middle of a major redevelopment area. Have the next project built their simply have the station box included within it. Have any idea how much that land will increase in value the second it's identified as a station location?!
3) Wilshire/La Brea could be financed a variety of ways: BID, BAD, TOD, density bonus, and (I think) Wilshire Bus-Only Lane money
SIMULTANEOUS CONSTRUCTION If we give up a Crenshaw/Wilshire station (and put that 10-20 mil from selling the land toward the Wilshire/La Brea station), just point the darn TBM east once the Crenshaw Line reaches Wilshire, and extend the Purple line by 2 miles without even breaking a sweat.
That would just leaves Adams/Crenshaw station where the total cost would be bore by Crenshaw LRT, literally making the Crenshaw project north of Exposition a $300-500 million project, saving the county at least a billion when considering the phased implementation/stand alone cost for Wilshire and Crenshaw.
And god how many more riders would we see? We'd take Crenshaw from a 40-45K line to what 80? Add some 25K riders (low ball number) to the Purple Line by just spending a hundred million or so?
As is the point with G.L.A.M.: it's the economy of scale, stupid!
Put another way the savings can only occur with SYSTEMWIDE thinking and large construction contracts. Metro is doing a decent job marketing the plan, likely in anticipation of future ballot measures to increase revenue.
G.L.A.M. is going to weigh in. I hope to put together draft comments this weekend/early next week to have people chew up. The goal is to push the debate, challenge these guys (the pols) and show them what is possible - what their engineers and all the region know needs to be done, and maybe just maybe inch us further in that direction. I obviously haven't completed the draft comments, but they'll be a version of something I put together about a year ago: 10 years 10 billion campaign. It's a phase 1 version of the GLAM to build 125 miles of new grade separated rail in 10 years at a capital cost of 10-15 billion (primarily local funding): -Purple Line: Wilshire/Western to Wilshire/Federal with a new Artist District station -Bronze Line (405 line): Van Nuys Civic Center (current Orange Line station) to South Bay Galleria -Expo Line: Phase 2 with a diversion to Santa Monica College -Blue Line: Downtown Connector -Peach Line (Parks' Rose Line): Hollywood/Highland to LAX & Del Amo Mall (two branch lines) -Red Line: Wilshire/Vermont to Home Depot Center/CSUDH -Eastside Line: Beverly/Atlantic to Whittier Quad (built to heavy rail specifications for future conversion), and Union Station to CSULA (getting started on the Silver Line) -Gold Line: Memorial Park (Old Town Pasadena) to Sepulveda/Van Nuys (the SGV-SFV connector) -Pink Line: Blue Line Slauson Station to Norwalk Metrolink -Green Line: Infill stations at Atlantic & Western Things are being tweaked here and there from the April 2007 version. The geographic layout is below, with the new lines in black. (To explore the direct routing of the new routes, you can go to this google map):
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Mar 30, 2008 15:05:01 GMT -8
There is an article in the Los Angeles Times regarding Ventura Blvd. Ventura Blvd. always seemed like a natural for a subway line to me, eventually. Glad to see you included it. The Southeast San Fernando Valley is sort of ground zero for tranist expansion vs. automobile entitlement.
|
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by simon on Mar 30, 2008 21:23:33 GMT -8
I've lurked here a bit, but this is the first time I feel I might actually have something to add. As someone who grew up right next to Ventura Blvd, I have a lot of trouble picturing a successful bus lane or any sort of light rail. Ventura isn't very wide (two lanes each side, a center turn lane, and parking spots), so I'm not sure what could be removed to make room for something. The businesses all depend on the parking and the community is dominated by frustrated homeowners who are opposing all the development being done around the street already.
In the distant future I'd love to see a subway line down Ventura, but I feel like it's the sort of situation where nothing's going to happen until AFTER a successful North-South line is built (Sepulveda? 405? Something else?). Once some sort of real game-changer like that is built, then I think there'd be a big incentive to build real transit options down Ventura and the NIMBYs would be appeased. If you tried to do anything right now they'd see it as a big inconvenience that would drive too much development on a street that actually moves pretty surprisingly well despite all the cars.
Oh, and I might as well add that the map and plan posted above sounds really awesome.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 31, 2008 4:43:23 GMT -8
When the controversy surrounding the potential widening of the 101 freeway occurred a few years ago, I remembered telling those opposing the widening (I favored at least making sure there was at least the same number of lanes to smooth out traffic) that a Ventura Blvd. subway was a good idea but it currently existed only on "Planet Never". Yes, I was booed by the NIMBY's but I still feel I made a lot more sense than they did, because all they said was a mindless chant of "mass transit" without any details whatsoever.
I also communicated with a few folks to discuss a local movement to look more into the Ventura Blvd. subway idea, and to perhaps get a growing local movement to pursue it into long-range planning and funding efforts.
In short, it went nowhere, because the SF Valley is very good at saying no but lousy at coming together and pushing for a new project. The Orange Line was something Zev had to shove through. I suspect that future efforts with the Expo and other light rail lines, as well as a Wilshire subway, will revive efforts for the excellent Ventura Blvd. subway idea, but I'm afraid the SF Valley will have to have examples of other successful regional ventures before it gets its own act together.
Pity. Still, it's not inconceivable that once the core light rail network is built (Expo, Eastside Phase I, Gold Line to Azusa, Downtown Connector and Crenshaw), the next focus will be on a subway network that includes a gigantic circle of a Red, Purple, 405 and Ventura Blvd. lines.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Mar 31, 2008 5:58:10 GMT -8
"the next focus will be on a subway network that includes a gigantic circle of a Red, Purple, 405 and Ventura Blvd. lines." --------
Hmm. Wouldn't it be great to have a "Circle Line" like London? You could board somewhere on Ventura Blvd. and have a one-seat ride to Century City or LACMA.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 31, 2008 20:48:36 GMT -8
Don't have LA County and Greater London maps handy to compare, but I think an LA "Circle" line as proposed would be of a much larger diameter that the London version.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 1, 2008 4:59:26 GMT -8
It would be a $20 billion venture, although it would be something that would pump trillions into the nation's economy over the next century.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 18, 2008 7:15:57 GMT -8
Sorry about the length, but I wanted to be comprehensive in my comments:
To the Metro Board, the Metro Staff, SCAG, and to all those cc'ed:
My comments must be interpreted as representing my opinions alone, and not that of the organizations to which I am affiliated (with one exception), I owe it to the organizations and their members that have educated and influenced these opinions--including the CD11 Empowerment Congress Transportation Committee, The Transit Coalition, Sierra Club Transportation Committee, Friends4Expo Transit, Friends of the Green Line, Mar Vista Community Council and the Westside Village Civic Association.
The one exception is the recent vote of the Los Angeles CD11 Empowerment Congress Transportation Committee, which just voted in the following resolutions:
1) Support for a Green Line LAX extension
2) Support for the Crenshaw Line LRT alternative over the BRT alternative that connects the Green Line to the Exposition Line at Crenshaw/Exposition, with a future extension to a planned Westside (e.g., Wilshire Corridor) Transit Project
3) Support for an underground Downtown Light Rail Connector as the next major project to be included in the transit-related portion of the Constrained Metro Long Range Transportation Update, that best establishes Westside transit links to Downtown destinations and a regional light rail network
Another resolution favoring a proposed 405 Busway project utilizing the current and future 405 HOV lanes, with wording to be derived at a future date, was also passed by the Committee.
My own interpretation of the sentiments behind these resolutions suggest that there is considerable support in CD11 for long-overdue projects to create a mass transit network, and that current and future work to connect the Westside, the Mid-City regions, Downtown and LAX to each other should be expedited. I have heard almost universal support for this network from city, county, state and federal elected officials from throughout the region, although there is some divergence of political opinions towards the prioritization and methods needed to create this network.
(There is no shortage of CD11 support for a Westside (Wilshire Corridor) transit project, but the desire to connect our current rail lines to each other was the committee's top priority)
I am also aware of the strong local and political support for another overdue project in the San Gabriel Valley, the Foothill Gold Line to Azusa (with an ultimate goal of reaching Ontario Airport), as well as the controversial debate over whether or not to create a Green Line Construction Authority to expedite a Green Line extension to LAX with stations at/near Century/Aviation, a future LAX Consolidated Rental Car Facility, and with a terminus at LAX Parking Lot C.
Unfortunately, increased projected costs for both the Expo and Crenshaw Corridor Projects has delayed the funding and construction not only of these projects but other key/overdue projects such as a Downtown Light Rail Connector, the Westside (Wilshire Corridor) Transit Project, and the Foothill Gold Line Extension to Azusa/Citrus.
We now have several Hobson's choices as to how we proceed with a 21st-century mass transit network for L.A. County, which is as difficult a conundrum as to how we proceed with extending/completing our 20th-century freeway network. The Mid-City/Westside traffic situation is arguably more critical than that of the San Gabriel Valley, but those regions have not achieved the consensus that now exists in the San Gabriel Valley...and the San Gabriel Valley's own transportation needs are getting more acute as well. Furthermore, can we really wait until 2025 to create LAX/rail connections to the rest of the county with the Crenshaw Corridor Project?
I therefore find the political bickering between the Westside/Mid-City/Downtown regions on one hand, and the Eastside/San Gabriel Valley on the other hand, to be entirely inappropriate and displaying the wrong sort of leadership this county so urgently needs. Is the debate over whether to create LAX/rail connections with the rest of the county, vs. a Foothill Gold Line Project by 2025 a reasonable one? How about the debate over whether to build the Westside portion of the Expo Line vs. a Foothill Gold Line extension to Azusa by 2013, with the other delayed until 2020? Or even the debate over whether to create a Green Line/LAX extension as part of ongoing LAX reconfiguration plans by 2012 or to include it in the Crenshaw Corridor Project by 2025?
I therefore propose the following solutions: 1) All city, county, state and federal budgets need to take a more appropriate and balanced approach to include our transportation needs, and will enjoy favorable funding initiatives if the specific benefits of these initiatives are clearly articulated to the taxpayer (whether they be by road, freeway, rail, or any other modality or alternative). So long as we continue to drastically underfund transportation, and treat it as an afterthought after other priorities have been addressed, we will continue to pursue a ridiculous and counterproductive fight over an increasingly insufficient transportation budget.
a) Inasmuch as I favor the environmental benefits of high-capacity transit lines like those described above, it is the benefits towards our economy and our quality of life that must be emphasized first, both at a political level and to the commuters, voters and taxpayers of L.A. County. If our county suffers from decreased mobility and insufficient infrastructure, it is our economic health that suffers the most and prevents us from funding and addressing our other budgetary priorities, such as health care, education, our environment and safety/security.
b) Inasmuch as I recognize the political nature of transportation funding, it must be done in a nonpartisan manner that reflects the economic benefits to the entire region, state and nation. All rail, freeway and other projects and initiatives that reduce congestion and increase mobility benefit L.A. County's economy, quality of life and environment, and it is an inappropriate debate to determine which project does so more when they all require decades-overdue funding and implementation. Furthermore, since the entire state and nation benefits from the economic enhancement of L.A. County with respect to its being a net tax donor and a critical source of half the nation's freight traffic, we must emphasize that enhancing L.A. County mobility does not lead to benefits that are limited locally.
c) Finally, transportation funding must not devolve into a red/blue state argument but rather should be focused on the economic realities of our urban regions being tax donors, while our rural regions are tax recipients, and that when urban counties of both red and blue states have their economies improved via increased mobility, the entire nation benefits.
2) Whether it is the creation of Construction Authorities (such as those which exist for the Expo and Foothill Gold Lines), or the creation of new tax corridors, we must create an environment that allows for the expedited and simultaneous funding and construction of multiple transportation projects.
a) I am disappointed that the two aforementioned construction authorities have either not been empowered or not sufficiently pursued the private funding from all the developments to be planned and to benefit from the creation of the rail lines to which these authorities are devoted.
b) Whether it is a Green Line Construction Authority or some other mechanism to expedite the private/L.A. City/LA World Airports funding of a Green Line/LAX extension as part of ongoing LAX reconfiguration efforts, it has the potential to construct the first mile (a FAA-required and approved covered trench along the Harbor Subdivision ROW) and station (at Century/Aviation) of the future Crenshaw Corridor Project, thereby saving approximately $100 million or more in future costs to the latter project. Any arguments as whether a Green Line extension to LAX would interfere with funding for the Crenshaw Corridor Project shows a profound lack of understanding towards the bigger picture, especially since the Green Line Interagency Task Force that has been meeting for the past year on this project has included Metro officials who are on the same page with LAWA, LADOT, CD11, state and federal representatives in ensuring that this extension would expedite--and not interfere--with a future Crenshaw Corridor Project connection to LAX.
c) Although the entire county will benefit from these rail projects, it is especially the City of Los Angeles that will benefit from the Expo, Crenshaw and Downtown Connector lines, and if the City of Los Angeles also wants to enjoy a Westside (Wilshire Corridor) Transit Project within years and not decades, it needs to either create a new Construction Authority, tax corridor or other mechanism to expedite its funding and construction while not interfering with that of light rail projects that access the entire county. As with a Green Line extension to LAX, the City of Los Angeles has the ability to work with developers and bypass other layers of government to facilitate the planning, funding and construction process of a Wilshire Corridor Transit Project, and the City should capitalize on this situation to its own benefit while recognizing that this project will otherwise likely have to wait behind up to three light rail projects before it can be addressed.
d) Similarly, with billions being devoted in private funding towards Downtown development, it should be relatively easy to fund the Downtown Light Rail Connector with most or all coming from the private sector.
3) Parking/multimodal transportation centers should be created at all major mass transit stations to accommodate all modes of commuting, and the dogmatic paradigm of parking structures causing increased, not decreased, traffic and adjacent residential parking problems needs to be reevaluated and possibly abandoned.
4) Mixed-use development (with sufficient parking) to enhance our commercial corridors and mass transit ridership can both increase our local economy, improve mobility and help our environment and quality of life.
5) There is insufficient financial incentives to have private businesses and/or governmental agencies to change their hours of operations to encourage commutes during off-peak hours, as well as insufficient financial incentives to encourage telecommuting or bicycle commuting as alternatives to car/bus/rail commuting.
6) SCAG needs to be on the same page with respect to its MagLev projects as Metro, the LADOT, the OCTA, the RTA and Caltrans, and needs to revisit more cost-effective alternatives such as the very successful Metrolink service that provides long-distance commuters with an alternative to using their cars. For example, rather than create a cost-ineffective MagLev project between Anaheim and Ontario, would the purchase and creation of a new Metrolink Right of Way between these two regions better serve the taxpayers of Southern California with respect to freeway-commuting and airport-related traffic?
7) As much freight rail grade separation and other incentives to provide a cheaper and more efficient alternative to unnecessary and environmentally-problematic truck traffic should be expedited for the benefit of the local and national economy, and legislation should be passed to either incentivize or require truck traffic to be redirected towards off-peak hours.
The answers lie before us if we have the shared political will and mature approach towards solving our transportation problems. Thank you for your past efforts, and I believe we can look forward to favorable results from your future efforts stemming from a consensus that can be achieved only by working together between political levels, and between elected officials and their constituents.
Most Sincerely,
Kenneth S. Alpern, M.D. West Los Angeles
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jun 24, 2008 11:08:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 1, 2008 14:56:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 3, 2008 9:45:02 GMT -8
thanks for the link erict.
my first impressions were... "balls, no silver line" i know most of you think its a waste, but not us folks in the CSGV. though the ACE corridor would have to be built first before any hope of a silver line. So i will accept this.
im glad to see the list of projects and some of there acceleration status.
also, what is the "#12 east los angeles corridor"?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 3, 2008 14:51:02 GMT -8
I've been reading the comments on the LRTP, and I'm thinking this should be required reading for everyone on this message board. Yes, some of the comments are typical political requests and some of the comments are quite dry; but a lot of these are interesting.
It is refreshing to see so many comments supporting the Expo Line, the South Bay extension of the Green Line, the Subway to the Sea (like it or not, the moniker is catchy!), the Gold Line SGV extension, etc. etc. and even the people simply demanding "more trains!" "more transit!"
Still, it is somewhat disappointing to see how unfocused and uninformed the general public seems to be. Why waste time e-mailing the MTA about water issues? Or about education? Or even the bus rider who had one complaint, that there weren't enough bus benches on Fairfax. 0.o
Then there are the bike coalition folks and it is disappointing to see that some of these bike folks are anti-rail (because trains are stealing from bikeways. Or something like that. I think.) And the guy who wants trains to Disneyland and Magic Mountain.
There are the monorail nuts and the freeway rail activists, both of whom seem to have the religious mindset of creationists denying that fossils exist.
My point is this: when we read this message board, filled with transit-savvy rail fans, it is easy to get caught up in the idea that the public is with us, and to a certain degree they are, but we still have a lot of public education to do — unless we really like monorails to Magic Mountain.
Some of my favorite quotes from the comments:
"The plan should set forth what we need to do to move faster than we do now, not slower."
"Let's dispose of the subways and build a monorail system for 5-10 times less money."
"The so-called Plan is not a plan. Rather, it is a list of projects..."
"Between downtown Long Beach and downtown LA there are some 19 light rail stations. With the exception of downtown Long Beach, all of the stations are nothing more than a stop in the middle of nowhere."
"bypass Beverly Hills altogether"
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 10, 2008 7:23:06 GMT -8
From the LA Weekly
Do You Trust MTA With $40 billion? Vast sums spent on West Coast mass transit haven't paid off. Now they want a tax By JILL STEWART AND TINA DUPUY Wednesday, July 9, 2008 - 11:58 am
The other day, in a hip-looking building housing the architectural firm VTBS, former Santa Monica Mayor Denny Zane revved up a small crowd, including two state legislators, developers, and environmental and labor groups, asking them to urge voters to increase the county sales tax next November. The goal: $40 billion for mass transit over the next 30 years.
Pro-growth: Denny Zane embraces the hotly disputed projections that 3 million more people will jam L.A. As supporters of the proposed tax munched on crackers laden with puffs of gourmet cheese, the affable Zane said that Los Angeles must prepare for another 3 million residents, and he is convinced that without dramatic investment in mass transportation, the area is in for “a world of hurt.”
“Chicago is coming to L.A. in the next 30 years,” he said, citing a not exactly universally embraced population projection. “We better be ready for it.”
But voters will be asking much harder questions than those lobbed at Zane a few days ago. The proposed transit projects, included on a wish list being peddled by the MTA, are not guaranteed — and they heavily emphasize rail projects, including the “subway to the sea” and the Expo Line to the Westside. Voters might question the scope when they learn that cities with extensive light-rail systems have been unable to take more than 1 to 2 percent of the cars off the road.
In fact, a recent study by Seattle’s Washington Policy Center, of the six West Coast cities that have invested in light rail since 1995 — L.A., Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Portland and Seattle — found it costs a princely $82,000 to $240,000 for each transit rider they have wooed on to their systems.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is slamming the tax, which would be the third half-cent “transit” charge piled atop the local sales tax, pushing it to 8.75 percent.
In 1980, politicians similarly promised that a half-cent tax would build a modern transit system. In 1991, L.A. leaders again claimed that an additional half-cent was needed. Those dual transit taxes, Proposition C and Proposition A, provide MTA with an annual $1.4 billion windfall, but the agency has delivered only a fraction of what was promised.
Even the darling of mass-transit advocates, the city of Portland — which has embraced “transit-oriented development” and so-called “smart growth” — is in the throes of massive congestion, and local critics say the dense urban-development projects that were supposed to reduce Portland’s traffic have had the opposite effect. A nonscientific 2005 survey of more than 400 Portland residents showed that they wanted tax dollars to be spent on better roads. “Transit” came in a distant fourth in Portland.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa seemed to acknowledge that some of the thinking will have to focus on making things easier for cars, when he attempted to create a one-way plan for Olympic and Pico boulevards to move traffic between the disastrous Westside and downtown.
But he failed to do his homework, and without the public’s support, the plan blew up in his face — just like his abruptly abandoned idea to charge a toll on the 210 freeway’s commuter lane.
As first proposed by Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, the one-way plan on Pico and Olympic would have stretched 14 miles, from the beach to downtown. But that plan was dramatically reduced to a seven-mile stretch, and then citizens filed a temporary restraining order. On May 5, Judge John Torribio ruled that an environmental-impact report was required.
Zane and other backers of the transit tax say they have done their homework to garner public support, and a recent poll showed that 73 percent of voters support the higher tax.
At the recent tax-increase launch event, state legislator Mike Feuer made its November passage — it must get 66 percent of the vote — sound like nothing less than a transformational moment. “We’re going to make a generational leap forward,” he said, “or consign the next generation to congestion that is unbelievable.”
But the experiences of several other cities do not bear Feuer out. The new transit systems consistently serve only a nominal percentage of workers, and several are awash in scandal. A June series in the Miami Herald has rattled the transit-advocacy movement, with its in-depth tales of rail lines never built.
Zane says his ace in the hole is the fact that liberal Los Angeles voters turning out for Barack Obama are going to be very pro-tax. But, he agrees, he still has “a lot of convincing to do.”
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jul 10, 2008 8:23:35 GMT -8
From the LA WeeklyDo You Trust MTA With $40 billion?Vast sums spent on West Coast mass transit haven't paid off. Now they want a taxBy JILL STEWART AND TINA DUPUY Wednesday, July 9, 2008 - 11:58 am But voters will be asking much harder questions than those lobbed at Zane a few days ago. The proposed transit projects, included on a wish list being peddled by the MTA, are not guaranteed — and they heavily emphasize rail projects, including the “subway to the sea” and the Expo Line to the Westside. Voters might question the scope when they learn that cities with extensive light-rail systems have been unable to take more than 1 to 2 percent of the cars off the road. In fact, a recent study by Seattle’s Washington Policy Center, {isn't this a libertarian think tank??} of the six West Coast cities that have invested in light rail since 1995 — L.A., Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Portland and Seattle — found it costs a princely $82,000 to $240,000 for each transit rider they have wooed on to their systems. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is slamming the tax, which would be the third half-cent “transit” charge piled atop the local sales tax, pushing it to 8.75 percent. Ah, Jill is very busy quoting the Reason Foundation and other libertarian think tanks. Look at the common 2% argument. For motorists, this includes every segment of a total journey, i.e. from home to newsrack, to coffee, to the cleaners, to child care, to work, child care, the market, the specialty store. Look that counts as 8 trips. You may have one bus / rail trip, but you do all the other necessities while walking, so one trip. And look at the road network. 10's of 1,000's of miles of roads versus 82 miles of rail and a bus network and with that little, it actually gets a decent percentage in spite of the libertarian distortions and misuse of the numbers. Shame on Jill. But no surprise.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 10, 2008 9:30:48 GMT -8
That was a tough read. Basically, she makes the same assumption that it seems like everyone else makes: the only important commute is the one in a car.
So what if there is still congestion or even worse congestion than before: the bottom line should be "are people's travel times decreasing?"
Sad to think that after all the work that's been done in LA on transit, people still see cars as the only way to commute, and many don't even know that we have a transit system. And people say that the money we approved through Props A & C went to nothing, I guess the Red Line, Purple Line, Blue Line, Gold Line, Green Line, Orange Line, and Expo Line are nothing.
What will it take to change people's perceptions?
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jul 10, 2008 11:49:47 GMT -8
Gas over $5:00 a gallon
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 6, 2009 18:15:15 GMT -8
The new post-Measure R staff proposed Long Range Transportation Plan was noted by Steve Hymon and is available for download from the Planning & Programming Committee agenda here ( PDF). Here is the Recommended list of Transit Corridor projects (first page of Attachment B): Transit Corridors -- $ Millions (YoE) -- Open Year (FY)Metro Gold Line Eastside Light Rail Transit (LRT) -- 899 -- 2010 Exposition LRT Phase I: 7th Street Metro Center to Culver City -- 862 -- 2011 San Fernando Valley North-South Metro Orange Line Canoga Extension (R) -- 223 -- 2013 San Fernando Valley East North-South Rapidways (R) -- 100 -- 2013 Exposition LRT Phase II: Culver City to Santa Monica (R) -- 1,646 -- 2015 Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transitway -- 124 -- 2015 Metro Gold Line Foothill LRT Extension (6)(R) -- 905 -- 2017 Metro Green Line LRT Extension to LAX/Crenshaw Corridor: Segment 1 - 1 mile -- 443 -- 2018 Metro Green Line LRT Extension to LAX (R): Segment 2 -- 300 -- 2018-2022 (depending on LAX contribution) Regional Connector (R) -- 1,158 -- 2018 Westside Subway Extension to Westwood (R): Segment 1 to La Cienega -- 2,350 -- 2019 Segment 2 to Century City -- 2,597 -- 2026 Segment 3 to Westwood -- 1,497 -- 2032 Crenshaw Corridor (3)(R): Segment 2 (mode is TBD) -- 2,004 -- 2029 Metro Green Line LRT Extension: Redondo Beach to South Bay Corridor (R) -- 570 -- 2035 Metro Gold Line Eastside LRT Extension (R) -- 2,845 -- 2037 San Fernando Valley 1-405 Corridor Connection (R) (mode is TBD) -- 2,420(8) -- 2038 West Santa Ana Branch ROW Corridor (R) -- 405(8) -- As additional funds become available (R) Projects included in Measure R (3) Technology to be determinted; cost assumes LRT (6) Measure R funds estimated to fund segment to approximately Glendora, including yard and vehicles (8) Measure R contribution only Tier 1: Currently Under Planning Study/Environmentally Cleared/Route Refinement Study/Previously StudiedBurbank/Glendale LRT from LA Union Station to Burbank Metrolink Station Harbor Subdivision Alternate Rail Technology (ART) Metro Gold Line Eastside LRT Extension Branch not funded in Recommended Plan Metro Gold Line Foothill LRT Extension (beyond segment funded by Measure R) Metro Green Line LRT Extension between Norwalk Station and Norwalk Metrolink Station (Elevated or Underground Light Rail) Westside Subway Extension (beyond segment funded by Measure R) Tier 2: Candidates for Further Project DefinitionMetro Green Line LRT Extension between South Bay Galleria and Pacific Coast Highway Harbor Transitway Station Metro Green Line LRT Extension from LAX to Expo Santa Monica Station Metro Red Line Extension from North Hollywood Station to Burbank Airport Metrolink Station "Silver" Line LRT between Metro Red Line Vermont/Santa Monica Station and City of La Puente SR-134 Transit Corridor BRT between Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station and Metro Gold Line Del Mar Station Vermont Corridor Subway "Yellow" Line LRT between Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station and Regional Connector
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jan 6, 2009 18:32:10 GMT -8
^^ nice and disappointing. god i hope we get billions of government cash funneled into our county
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 6, 2009 19:31:03 GMT -8
I saw on the purple line route recommendation agenda that they're hoping to start construction 33 months from now and that they expect construction to last 7 years. I had thought that was for the entire line, but I guess that it's just segment 1. They also seem to be strongly considering the WeHo subway, but since that connects after La Cienega I guess that is at least a decade away.
Also Metro's fiscal year is July-June so when they say 2010 for East LA I don't think that their plan to open in July of this year has slipped. It's just that July will be the 2010 fiscal year. Expo I guess really could be 2011 depending on what happens with Farmdale.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jan 6, 2009 20:24:32 GMT -8
I am a simple man and I have a very simple opinion on this matter.
NO NEW FREEWAYS OR FREEWAY EXPANSION UNTIL THE WILSHIRE SUBWAY, THE CRENSHAW CORRIDOR, EXPO, ALL GOLD LINE EXTENSIONS, AND THE DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR ARE OPEN.
That's pretty much it. They passed a no tunneling for subways law. I've got a law for you, no more freeways. How's that? You'll see how fast these transit projects get done.
I don't even live in Pasadena and I'll fight the 710 extension for all I'm worth. This is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 22, 2009 16:30:14 GMT -8
After the Screams: Metro's Long Range Transpo Plan PassesThursday, October 22, 2009, by Neal Broverman Amid reports of people in costumes, shouting matches, and impassioned speeches from politicians (most notably Gloria Molina, member of the LA County Board of Supervisors), Metro managed to pass its long range transportation plan, which sets the agenda for the next few decades of rail, bus, and freeway planning. The big issue was Westside subway vs. Gold Line extension; two projects fighting for top priority. Metro has been prioritizing the subway for federal money because they think they can get more New Starts funds for that project than the suburban Gold Line extension. Well, looks like Metro is still placing the subway (and Downtown Connector) as candidates for federal dollars, but Gold Line-supporters got a sizable bone thrown their way. An amendment from County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas was passed with the LRTP. It reads: 1. Require Metro to study several possible funding sources that could be used to build the Crenshaw Corridor and Foothill Gold Line Extension lines quicker. These include federal climate change transit funds, special parking districts and benefit assessment districts. 2. Require Metro to begin operating the Foothill Gold Line Extension when the light rail line from Pasadena to Azusa is complete. The long-range plan calls for Metro to begin operating the line in 2017, but the Foothill Gold Line Extension Authority says the line could be built quicker than that. 3. “Metro shall not take or reallocate the portion of Measure R funding which was specifically approved by the voters for bus system improvements and operations.” 4. Re-evaluate funding for widening the 5 freeway from the 605 to 710 freeways. 5. Allocate $1 billion in unallocated funds from the long-range plan to a project that would built truck lanes and HOV lanes on the 5 freeway from the 14 freeway to the Kern County Line. Also passed was $4.5 million in safety improvements for the Gold Line Eastside Extension, and according to Metro's Source blog, this won't delay next month's opening. And Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa released a statement on the LRTP: "Today we worked together to build consensus for our regional transportation roadmap. This plan represents our shared vision, and we are now ready to get these projects rolling. The transit projects including the Westside Subway, Regional Connector, Gold Line Foothill Extension, Crenshaw Line, will create much needed jobs, improve our environment and get people places faster. Now, we must work together to get all the Measure R projects built in an efficient and timely manner." Meanwhile, everyone will be watching how those federal dollars are spent. City Controller Wendy Greuel spoke today at the Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum luncheon, held today at the Wilshire Grand Hotel, and noted that transportation is now the number one issue facing the city. “We have to make sure the federal stimulus money coming is in being spent wisely,” said Greuel, making the comments just about an hour before the plan passed. · Metro Passes LRTP [Source]
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 22, 2009 17:55:54 GMT -8
Board gives nod to long-range plan; Foothill Extension could open earlierPosted by Steve Hymon on October 22, 2009 - 4:07 pmA long-range plan that includes about $300 billion in road and transit projects and other Metro programs was unanimously approved Thursday afternoon by the agency’s Board of Directors. The plan is supposed to guide Metro for the next three decades. Many of the projects included in the plan were part of the Measure R sales tax increase approved by Los Angeles County voters last year. The real significance of the plan, said Metro officials, was that it sends a clear signal to Sacramento and Washington lawmakers that county officials have actually agreed on something — a precursor to prying money from both the state and federal governments. The plan has been in the works for more than 18 months and for all the talk about it and the delays in adopting it, there were only two significant changes made by the Board on Thursday: an amendment by Board Member and County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas directed Metro to begin operating the Foothill Gold Line Extension from Pasadena to Azusa as soon as the project is complete and not in 2017, as the plan originally stated. In addition, the amendment also requires the agency to expand the number of places it’s looking for money to speed up the building of the Foothill Extension to Montclair, the Crenshaw Corridor line (which is expected to be a light rail line) and the Westside extension of the subway. Habib Balian, CEO of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Construction Authority, said the move should allow the line to open in 2013. While Measure R provides the line more than $700 million in funding, it doesn’t all come at once — so the challenge for the line is to find money to allow construction to begin sooner rather than three or four years from now. “We’ve figured out a plan to get it done earlier,” Balian said. “Our plan to build against revenue holds water.” The construction authority wants to borrow money from the contractor hired to build the line and then repay the contractor later. “The plan was put out to contractors and they liked it,” Balian added. The selection process of a contractor will now begin, Balian said, and he would like to break ground in June 2010. The line runs for 11.5 miles from the end of the Gold Line at Sierra Madre Villa to Azusa. Balian said that money left over from the project would be applied to the second phase, taking the line all the way to Montclair. Ridley-Thomas was very pleased with the plan, too. One of his primary concerns is the Crenshaw Corridor project, which will primarily run down Crenshaw Boulevard and connect to LAX. The budget for the project currently is $1.7 billion, but Ridley-Thomas wants it increased to $2.1 billion so that the project could go underground in some places to avoid busy intersections. “We have to go underground, otherwise we’re going to end up like the Expo Line at Dorsey and Foshay,” Ridley-Thomas said, referring to safety issues that have delayed construction of the Expo Line near Dorsey High School and the Foshay Learning Center. His amendment calls for Metro to pursue a variety of funding, including federal climate change funds, benefit assessment districts (a type of tax levied against those living near lines), parking revenues and public-private partnerships. In the past few days, 14 members of Congress and eight state legislators wrote the Board and asked them to expand the number of projects seeking federal funds. The Board unanimously voted last month to pursue federal funds for the subway and the regional connector and — not surprisingly — did not consider changing that request on Thursday. Other than the Foothill Gold Line, the other opening dates for projects in the long-range plan remained intact. That includes the 2036 date for the subway extension reaching Westwood, although Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has said repeatedly that he plans to seek federal money to get the line to Westwood in 10 years. “Today we worked together to build consensus for our regional transportation roadmap,” Villaraigosa said after the meeting. “The plan represents our shared vision, and we are now ready to get these projects rolling. The transit projects including the Westside Subway, Regional Connector, Gold Line Foothill Extension, Crenshaw Line, will create much needed jobs, improve our environment and get people where they are going faster.” Here’s the link to the Metro news release on adoption of the plan. -- Steve Hymon
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 30, 2009 6:33:22 GMT -8
just watching ktla this morning, the mayor wants to build the long range plan in 10 years?
also they mention he wants to get most of it done now because it would be cheaper and people need work.
they report that hes looking for a lot of money from the fed. anyone know what the backstory is?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 30, 2009 9:22:41 GMT -8
The backstory is that we should have spent some of that bailout money for banks, which they used to pay bonuses to their executives, on desperately needed infrastructure projects.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 30, 2009 9:24:28 GMT -8
The backstory is that we should have spent some of that bailout money for banks, which they used to pay bonuses to their executives, on desperately needed infrastructure projects. political opinions aside, is there any substance to this or is it simply the mayor looking for smoozing points with the public?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 30, 2009 11:05:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 30, 2009 11:11:35 GMT -8
I think that there's the feeling in the air that if we can't grab an extra billion or so for projects like this at our current political juncture, then it'll not happen for years.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 8, 2009 22:42:37 GMT -8
Since it has been a year since Measure R passed and we are about to get our first new rail extension in over 6 years, it is important to take some perspective to how far we have come.
Talk of the Harbor Sub and many other rail lines would have been unthinkable more than a year ago. We'd be lucky to get Phase II of Expo without Measure R. After that, who knows what would have come next, but it would have probably taken until the next decade to get that. The subway and Regional Connector would be totally dead.
Looking back 10 years, the situation seemed almost hopeless and in fact we haven't accomplished all that much in the last decade. The BRU was in control. We had no more funding for much of anything. I certainly look forward to the next decade much more than I did 10 years ago as we have some groundwork to get a lot done, especially by the end of the decade with Purple Line extension, the Regional Connector, a real airport connection and CAHSR. ;D
It will be nice to see our system become a real part of the city. It seems now that we really more have a skeletal system even with 300k riders. We need something like 750k -1M riders to really become part of the fabric of LA County in a meaningful way.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 9, 2009 11:40:56 GMT -8
Since it has been a year since Measure R passed and we are about to get our first new rail extension in over 6 years, it is important to take some perspective to how far we have come. Talk of the Harbor Sub and many other rail lines would have been unthinkable more than a year ago. We'd be lucky to get Phase II of Expo without Measure R. After that, who knows what would have come next, but it would have probably taken until the next decade to get that. The subway and Regional Connector would be totally dead. Looking back 10 years, the situation seemed almost hopeless and in fact we haven't accomplished all that much in the last decade. The BRU was in control. We had no more funding for much of anything. I certainly look forward to the next decade much more than I did 10 years ago as we have some groundwork to get a lot done, especially by the end of the decade with Purple Line extension, the Regional Connector, a real airport connection and CAHSR. ;D It is weird because I was in High School in 1998 when all this stuff occured. But tracking it and looking at old emails and letters of rebuilding this momentum is very exciting. The way it becomes meaningful is that we build corridors that connect to destinations. Going for a goal of X number of riders is nice, however I think with the Regional Connector tying our LRT lines through and getting the Wilshire Subway to at least Westwood and getting a north-south line from the Airport to at least Wilshire because that very framework to really move forward on, to where now there's competion to want to build MORE transit projects in our region.
|
|