|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 26, 2010 14:44:53 GMT -8
Yaroslavsky's 1998 Proposition A subway sales tax ban made it effectively impossible to build to build subway. Busway was all that was left. To come to the defense of Zev, you couldn't have built more than a mile of a subway with all left Proposition A money; so, the ban of Proposition A funds for subway was a moot point. Besides this ban was necessary to make the Gold and Expo Lines a reality at the time. But Robbins indeed killed the LRT by siding with the NIMBY opposition and passing the nothing-except-deep-bore-subway law. He later served a two-year prison sentence for corruption.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 26, 2010 14:49:26 GMT -8
Why doesn't the Valley lobby its politicians to repeal the Robbins law? Because it's too late. The valley already has BRT instead of LRT, and tearing it down would mean wasting a new investment and stopping existing transit service for years. But I wish the lawsuit against the Orange Line had been successful. Then we could have the Robbins law thrown out and have LRT built on the Chandler right-of-way. They could even extend the Red Line as an elevated subway. But now this right-of-way is occupied by BRT.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 26, 2010 15:29:50 GMT -8
The Valley did lose out by Robbins and his followers demanding "subway or nothing". But anyway, now there doesn't seem to be any great desire to push for light-rail on the Orange Line corridor, since the line seems to be working quite well as a BRT busway. If the Red Line ever does get extended, it will likely be to Burbank Airport, not to west to Warner Center. Whatever you do, don't refer to it as "Robbins Bill" (which was passed into law). California lawmakers voted to strip Alan Robbins' name from every bill bearing his name, due to his conviction on bribery and corruption charges.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 26, 2010 15:32:02 GMT -8
^ You could spray shit with air freshener, but it doesn't change where it came from. Besides this ban was necessary to make the Gold and Expo Lines a reality at the time. True, but let's be honest: that's not why Zev pushed the ban. Why doesn't the Valley lobby its politicians to repeal the Robbins law? Because it's too late. The valley already has BRT instead of LRT, and tearing it down would mean wasting a new investment and stopping existing transit service for years. But the ban should (and can if it's a ballot proposition) be overturned and the Orange Line should still be upgraded to LRT. It wouldn't cost that much, and there's growing demand for it.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 26, 2010 16:25:08 GMT -8
But the ban should (and can if it's a ballot proposition) be overturned and the Orange Line should still be upgraded to LRT. It wouldn't cost that much, and there's growing demand for it. I'm not sure it would be that cheap. The private ROW does exist, utilities have been removed, and the ROW has been soundproofed. But the bulk of the costs are still there. Any utilities crossing the ROW would need to be relocated, and Metro would need to install tracks, platforms, traction power lines and substations, and communication systems. Plus, the line would need vehicles, as well as a new light rail maintenance facility (since there is currently no facility in the Valley). Before all that, Metro would have to prioritize the project, identify funding and complete an EIR.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 26, 2010 16:55:18 GMT -8
But the ban should (and can if it's a ballot proposition) be overturned and the Orange Line should still be upgraded to LRT. It wouldn't cost that much, and there's growing demand for it. I'm not sure it would be that cheap. The private ROW does exist, utilities have been removed, and the ROW has been soundproofed. But the bulk of the costs are still there. Any utilities crossing the ROW would need to be relocated, and Metro would need to install tracks, platforms, traction power lines and substations, and communication systems. Plus, the line would need vehicles, as well as a new light rail maintenance facility (since there is currently no facility in the Valley). Before all that, Metro would have to prioritize the project, identify funding and complete an EIR. Let's assume 10 grade separations at $10 million each, five elevated stations at $20 million each, $100 million for train controls, $100 million for trackwork, $100 million for third-party costs, $100 million for LRVs, and $50 million for the maintenance facility. Therefore, I would estimate it around $650 million. Of course, this is assuming that Mark Ridley-Thomas doesn't insist on underground for this line like he did for the Crenshaw Line, which tripled its cost. Then it would be $2 billion like the Crenshaw Line. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 26, 2010 22:01:19 GMT -8
Critic's Notebook: There's a growing disconnect on a better-connected L.A.The movement for more mass transit meets constant resistance from opponents who view projects through a narrow, car-centric lens. Just look at the Purple Line subway debate.Rendering of a park to be built on Spring Street between 4th and 5th streets in downtown Los Angeles, designed by Lehrer Architects. (Courtesy Lehrer Architects)By Christopher Hawthorne, Los Angeles Times Architecture Critic October 24, 2010Someday, maybe, Los Angeles will come into its own as a post-suburban city, fully comfortable with density and multifamily housing and the coexistence of private cars, pedestrians, cyclists and mass transit. Clearly, though, that day remains a long way off, even if we continue to see tantalizing glimpses of how a more public, better-connected L.A. might look. Consider the wildly contradictory evidence of the last few weeks. On Oct. 10, an estimated 100,000 Angelenos, on foot and on their bikes and skateboards, filled the streets to celebrate CicLAvia, which was modeled on a similar event in Bogota, Colombia, and, for most of a Sunday, closed more than 7 miles of L.A.'s boulevards to cars. The event drew many more participants than even its organizers were expecting, reflecting a growing constituency in Los Angeles for changes to the streetscape benefiting pedestrians and cyclists. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, meanwhile, continued to make significant progress on extending subway and light-rail lines across the region, even announcing a new federal loan of $546-million that will finally connect LAX to the Metro system. At the same time, Los Angeles and Santa Monica both advanced plans for new parks: on Spring Street in downtown L.A., where architect Michael Lehrer is designing a 35,000-square-foot pocket park, and in Santa Monica's Civic Center, where the talented landscape architect James Corner is working with architect Frederick Fisher on a pair of adjacent parks totaling 7 acres. Anyone who took those pieces of news to mean that L.A. is entirely ready to move beyond its car-loving, sprawling ways — and start paying real attention to the shared spaces of the city — was in for a rather harsh dose of reality, however. It came most clearly in the form of angry reaction to a draft version of an environmental impact report released by Metro for the planned Purple Line subway extension across the Westside. The draft EIR was full of promising news for those of us who see subway lines to the Westside — whether that means the Purple Line or, a little farther to the south, the Exposition Line to Santa Monica by way of Culver City — as crucial elements, both practically and symbolically, in L.A.'s civic maturation. It indicated, for instance, that riding from downtown's Union Station to Westwood would take roughly 25 minutes. (In bad car traffic, that trip can take three times as long.) Perhaps most important, the report was a reminder that much of the funding for an extension of the line from its current terminus at Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue to Westwood (or slightly farther west, to the Veterans Affairs campus) is already secured, thanks to sales-tax revenue from Measure R, which passed in November 2008 with 67 percent of the vote. None of those details mattered to the subway's most vocal opponents, however. They jumped on a single detail buried in the EIR: the admission by Metro that the subway would do little to alleviate traffic congestion on the Westside. For a number of pundits and writers, the traffic issue alone was enough to prompt them to renew their attacks on the Purple Line extension as a massive boondoggle. In the LA Weekly, Patrick Range McDonald lined up source after source to condemn the Westside subway as "a giant public works project to please unions and special interests" and suggested that "county road-capacity projects put off for decades" might be a better use for Measure R money. Increasingly, he wrote, opponents of the subway are asking how Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa "can justify a subway that's more PR icon than traffic relief project." Those complaints were echoed on a number of well-read websites around town, including Mark Lacter's LA Biz Observed, part of Kevin Roderick's LA Observed family of blogs. Calling the subway plan "nonsensical," Lacter wrote, "You can't expect taxpayers to shell out many billions of dollars and suffer through years and years of inconvenience for a public works project that will not improve their lives." I'm a fan of Lacter's writing, but like many subway opponents he sees the issue of transit through an exceedingly narrow lens, assuming that the only plausible reason to build a line across the Westside is to make life easier for Angelenos driving around in their cars. For Lacter, McDonald and others, new mass transit will "improve their lives" only if it makes car traffic move measurably faster. Its only benefit is as a mechanism for "traffic relief." It doesn't seem to have occurred to either writer that anybody in Los Angeles will actually want to, you know, ride the new trains. There are legitimate reasons to oppose the Westside subway, which comes with a staggering price tag. But the fact that it won't improve traffic is not one of them. The large and enviable subway systems of the world — London's, New York's — were not built, and do not manage today, to substantially improve the flow of cars. Indeed, it's worth remembering that virtually every city we think of as cosmopolitan and walkable, from Paris to Tokyo, also has terrible gridlock. Car traffic in Los Angeles is going to continue to get worse as our population grows, even if we continue to widen roads and freeways, and whether or not we build more transit lines. What we need — desperately — are other mobility options, at the small scale of the bike lane and shaded sidewalk, the medium scale of the bus line and the major scale of the subway tunnel. Nonetheless, the subway continues to operate as a symbol of anxiety-producing change. In the 1980s, when we first tried to build a subway across the Westside, a methane explosion under a Ross Dress for Less store on 3rd Street gave Rep. Henry Waxman and other politicians cover to help kill a transit project many of their constituents feared and loathed in equal measure. A quarter-century later, the subway still has the power to warp common sense. Luckily, many Angelenos — particularly, it must be said, younger ones and ones who live some distance from certain subway-fearing precincts on the Westside — see the issue very differently. Many of them made a persuasive case in the comments section of McDonald's LA Weekly piece, wondering why the paper — on other issues a consistently liberal voice — turns so conservative and obstructionist when it comes to transit, traffic and growth. As one reader noted, "It's ironic how this publication tries so hard to be urban and hip, yet at the same time seems to devote every other issue to bemoaning the fact that L.A. is losing its resemblance to a nondescript Midwestern burg. It often seems to me [its editors] should simply move, lock, stock, and barrel to Bakersfield or Fresno, since that seems to represent the kind of cityscape and infrastructure they want: no expensive rapid transit, and no tall buildings." Indeed, as that comment points out, attacks on mass transit and worries about creeping density are two sides of the same coin. Both are driven by fears that Los Angeles is losing the characteristics — easy private mobility, room to spread out — that have always made it, as a suburban metropolis, so different from other American big cities. Take a recent flap over proposed town houses in Echo Park — and City Council President Eric Garcetti's reaction to it. Garcetti is knowledgeable and thoughtful on issues related to density, growth, transit and park space. But like any L.A. public official, he remains vulnerable to the prevailing political winds, which often blow strongly against the idea of a denser city. Earlier this month, his office announced that it would not support construction of the controversial eight-unit project, which would be in Garcetti's district. The project, made possible by the city's 6-year-old small-lot housing subdivision ordinance, would build eight town houses, each about 19 feet wide and 45 feet high. Critics in the neighborhood called that level of density unreasonable, and Garcetti agreed — a sign that L.A. to a large degree still sees itself as a single-family metropolis, a place where even three-story town houses can seem as threatening as skyscrapers. More and more, I am convinced that the gap between those who welcome additional density and crave mass transit and those who are on guard against such change is widening, and indeed will come to define the political landscape in Los Angeles for the next decade or two. To a certain extent, CicLAvia and events like it have a role to play in helping bridge that gap, mostly because they provide a way to see the cityscape with fresh eyes and at unusually close range. But they shouldn't be confused with enlightened, permanent changes to the city, mass transit improvements chiefly among them. Those seem as tough to achieve as ever. christopher.hawthorne@latimes.com Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 27, 2010 7:38:55 GMT -8
Hooray for Westside YIMBYs!Metro Source reports that a group calling itself LA Neighbors United published a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times today, in support for Alternative 3, "Subway To The Sea". Part of the ad is here: The ad asks readers to call the Metro Board (213-922-6000) before tomorrow's meeting and encourage Board members to vote for Alternative 3 to Santa Monica. The group is also mentioned in the recent story in the Los Angeles Business JournalThe Source goes on to explain why Alternative 3 cannot be built until new funding is identified. But in any case, it's good to see people enthusiastic about the subway and organizing themselves to push for it.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Oct 27, 2010 8:36:30 GMT -8
LOL, they had to use a WMATA car in the ad? The Red Line has been in service for almost 18 years, you think that someone would have a suitable pic or two in all that time
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 27, 2010 10:29:22 GMT -8
BTW, I love how people are now saying it "only" goes to the VA. How times have changed.
Five years ago, nothing was on the horizon. No funding and no plans. Even getting to Fairfax was a long shot.
Now we are realistically talking about building the subway past Fairfax, past Beverly Hills and Century, and past Westwood/UCLA and past the 405. Maybe within 10 years.
The "Subway to the Sea" rhetoric was a fantastic sales pitch, even if the reality will fall a bit short. It got people talking and excited about the prospect of the new subway, which will serve the central spine of Los Angeles and get people to and from the Westside.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 27, 2010 11:33:39 GMT -8
YIMBYs? They're not YIMBYs. They're Trojan NIMBYs.
The second half of that ad is a lot more telling than the first half, and its strange that the Source would cut that second half off. The second half is all about zoning laws, rezoning and density. Strip away the pro-subway veneer, and underneath that is a bunch of neighborhood council NIMBYs concerned about the same sort of density that building subway stations, light rail lines and mass transit always encourages.
They want the subway, but so does everybody else: the people who want others to take the subway. The NIMBYs who "want the subway" on Wilshire, not in Century City.
And this group wants the subway without any of the side-effects of New Urban denser development which would make the subway that much more useful.
I'm all in favor of preserving R-1 neighborhoods, but I also think those of us who don't want to live the Brady Bunch lifestyle should have transit-friendly options available, and that includes subway stations with mixed-use apartment/ condo/ retail on top.
Don't fall for the expensive, full page ads.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 27, 2010 13:47:13 GMT -8
It's an odd message, to be sure. The group is clearly anti-growth, anti-urban, anti-spending and pro-road. So I'm not sure why they would advocate for the subway all the way to the sea.
Theory 1: the group is trying to use the "build it right or build nothing at all" approach, with the hopes that Metro will decide to build nothing.
Theory 2: Brentwood homeowners in the group are concerned about traffic to the VA and want to push that traffic west.
Theory 3: maybe this group thinks the subway (which is already funded) will take cars off "their" streets, and therefore help maintain their suburban illusion for a few more years.
BTW, on the group's website, I only see evidence of one person in the group ("Cary Brazeman"). Everything else posted on that website is from neighborhood groups or other public groups.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 27, 2010 14:47:04 GMT -8
We still need to it to go to Santa Monica. Allows for MUCH more density.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 27, 2010 15:19:16 GMT -8
What if they consolidated two stations at 16th & 26th to one station at 20th Street? 20th Street is a decent north/south street for circulating bus service and perhaps one station instead of these two, will bring this whole segment in cheap enough for new starts funding. Just thinking out loud. Feel free to tell me why this is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 27, 2010 15:44:47 GMT -8
What if they consolidated two stations at 16th & 26th to one station at 20th Street? 20th Street is a decent north/south street for circulating bus service and perhaps one station instead of these two, will bring this whole segment in cheap enough for new starts funding. Just thinking out loud. Feel free to tell me why this is wrong. That is not necessarily a bad idea. The idea behind a 16th Street station is that it would serve a major hospital (Santa Monica UCLA hospital). Also, 26th is really a more important and busier street than 20th. However, this portion of the line between 4th Street and Westwood is the weakest in terms of ridership, but I am not sure it would make enough of a difference. It would be a good question for the MTA staff. Like I said before, we are going to have a bunch of system gaps in the 3 mile range including this one. Pretty much all of these gaps are going to be expensive (i.e. subway) and it is going to be a mad scramble to complete them. I still have some hope for filling some of these gaps as Measure R is allocating somewhere along the lines of $4.1B to the Purple Line, but if New Starts come in as expected, the Westwood extension will only use $2.8M. Also, do we really expect the 710 freeway tunnel to come to fruition. It would certainly be nice to see that project killed and those funds used for these transit gaps, but I am sure it won't be that easy (not even sure if Measure R would allow those funds to then be used for transit as it might have to stay in the freeway category, which would be most unfortunate).
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 27, 2010 17:25:08 GMT -8
BTW, I love how people are now saying it "only" goes to the VA. How times have changed. Five years ago, nothing was on the horizon. No funding and no plans. Even getting to Fairfax was a long shot. Now we are realistically talking about building the subway past Fairfax, past Beverly Hills and Century, and past Westwood/UCLA and past the 405. Maybe within 10 years. The "Subway to the Sea" rhetoric was a fantastic sales pitch, even if the reality will fall a bit short. It got people talking and excited about the prospect of the new subway, which will serve the central spine of Los Angeles and get people to and from the Westside. This is so true. For all the years I rode transit to my job downtown, it was completely out of the question that there would be an extension of the subway west along Wilshire. There were so many obstacles from funding to methane and the federal law banning it to the fact that the plan initially was to go south along Pico. We have come so far so quickly it is sometimes hard to realize how bleak things looked 8, 10 or 12 years ago. However, I do agree that there was a total breakdown somewhere along the lines. The LRTP should have allowed for the subway to go to at least West LA (i.e. Bundy), because with any type of New Starts funding there would have been enough funding to get it here at least and this would mark a pretty close tie in to Expo (BBB Line 14) to bridge the mile difference and getting it to Bundy would at least reach past a lot of the extreme congestion in the area that backs up from the 405/Westwood. I bet the ridership to Bundy as a terminal would have been pretty good. Definately a massive opportunity lost.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 27, 2010 21:30:10 GMT -8
We did have the meeting out here in Gold Line Foothill Extn. country and it was almost a non-event. No angry NIMBY's, no posturing politicians, and no John Walsh or Damien Goodmon types. See my (brief) report in the GLFE section.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Oct 28, 2010 4:00:00 GMT -8
Theory 1: the group is trying to use the "build it right or build nothing at all" approach, with the hopes that Metro will decide to build nothing. This would be the closest explanation, but their intent is not to force Metro to build nothing. The group's intent to recommend Alternative No. 3 (all the way to Santa Monica) is akin to installing top-of-the-line software on a low-memory computer. In other words: resource hang. The group wants Metro to commit to a project that it won't have money for in order to hang it in a planning-stage review, or to push the project to create the funding crisis Metro saw in the 1990s trying to get the existing subway built. Remember, Metro was on the brink of bankruptcy in the 1990s in large part due to subway construction. Metro had to go begging for federal bailouts in order to complete the subway and keep its operations afloat. When Metro itself doesn't want to commit to building beyond the one station west of Westwood, we might as well not overextend the transit account. Just remember, don't take this group's words at face value. The guy who founded it was a former real estate executive and now leading a PR firm. He's practicing the dark arts of communication here. Don't take words at face value. Also do some reading at SourceWatch to familiarize yourself with public relations ploys.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 28, 2010 6:19:11 GMT -8
Prediction for today is that the Metro Board of Directors will approve the staff recommendation for LPAs to go into further engineering study.
Although, I am hoping for the following: - eliminate Century City Santa Monica Station option an opting for Constellation - further consider the straightest alignment, including Constellation South alignment
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 28, 2010 7:18:13 GMT -8
Theory 1: the group is trying to use the "build it right or build nothing at all" approach, with the hopes that Metro will decide to build nothing. This would be the closest explanation, but their intent is not to force Metro to build nothing. The group's intent to recommend Alternative No. 3 (all the way to Santa Monica) is akin to installing top-of-the-line software on a low-memory computer. In other words: resource hang. In just the last two days, I have seen comments using this logic appearingon blog/news stories. One example is from the Source story itself ( emphasis added by me): Metro Board, you MUST vote for alt #3. I will only be restating what others have already said, but it’s imperative to finish what was started so long ago. Another disingenuous subway to Westwood won’t change the car dynamic enough to make the subway a success. Why spend 4.2 billion for half a line when you can spend the 25% more and get the whole thing? How can you justify, even in monetary terms, leaving out the city, the sea, to which this whole subway was based on. Alternative #3 is the only way to go! --Tyke This is the NIMBY's "Hail Mary" pass with ten seconds on the clock. This strategy will die this morning once the LPA is selected.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 28, 2010 7:26:06 GMT -8
BTW, please somebody report back from this morning's meeting. (My request for the morning off was denied - my team have a huge project due on Monday.)
Of particular interest: (1) LPAs selected by the Board for both subway projects; (2) speakers in support/opposition to the Century City station; and (3) action taken on Mark Ridley-Thomas' proposal to rewrite/dilute the grade-crossing policy.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 28, 2010 8:27:15 GMT -8
BTW, please somebody report back from this morning's meeting. (My request for the morning off was denied - my team have a huge project due on Monday.) Of particular interest: (1) LPAs selected by the Board for both subway projects; (2) speakers in support/opposition to the Century City station; and (3) action taken on Mark Ridley-Thomas' proposal to rewrite/dilute the grade-crossing policy. Follow the action on Twitter: twitter.com/lastreetsblogand twitter.com/blogdowntownLooks like Zev's motion has passed to study all effects of tunneling....
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 28, 2010 9:06:23 GMT -8
Sounds like people are stepping up to the Beverly Hills elitists RT @lastreetsblog: "Via Dan Wentzel: What about the psychological impact of selfish, wealthy NIMBYs thwarthing this project for two decades...".
Priceless...
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 28, 2010 9:32:16 GMT -8
Listening at work, on the phone (213-922-6045).
LOL at Darrell's line: "I get to be the lead in to John Walsh?" - classic!
John Walsh: "It's crazy -- Beverly Hills sounds like John Walsh!" Yes John, that is crazy. Enjoy your 60-day ban from Metro's public meetings!
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 28, 2010 9:49:54 GMT -8
Sounds like people are stepping up to the Beverly Hills elitists RT @lastreetsblog: "Via Dan Wentzel: What about the psychological impact of selfish, wealthy NIMBYs thwarthing this project for two decades...". Priceless... This was in response to someone in Beverly Hills complaining about the psychological effects of the subway being put under Beverly Hills High School.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 28, 2010 10:09:05 GMT -8
@dan Wentzel...were you at the meeting?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 28, 2010 10:17:40 GMT -8
Zev talked about the importance of building the station at Constellation (the entire station would serve Century City as opposed to half of it serving the golf course if built under Santa Monica Blvd), Beverly Hills High School opposition, and safety (hazards of methane). He asked for additional studies of the route options and safety. He said that Beverly Hills is no different than Westwood, where the line will also go under houses, and the safety issue must carefully be studied everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 28, 2010 10:21:53 GMT -8
Zev talked about the importance of building the station at Constellation (the entire station would serve Century City as opposed to half of it serving the golf course if built under Santa Monica Blvd), Beverly Hills High School opposition, and safety (hazards of methane). He asked for additional studies of the route options and safety. He said that Beverly Hills is no different than Westwood, where the line will also go under houses, and safety issue must carefully be studied everywhere. Good job Zev!
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 28, 2010 10:22:05 GMT -8
@dan Wentzel...were you at the meeting? Unfortunately not. I am following the tweets.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 28, 2010 10:23:38 GMT -8
He also asked Beverly Hills High School to start talking with them (on their building plans etc.) instead of opposing the project.
|
|