|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 17, 2008 8:00:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 17, 2008 8:25:14 GMT -8
oh thank god, city of san gabriel is not on that list. but that makes sense as they have been waiting for the ACE project for over 15 years... bottleneck blog
|
|
|
Post by wad on Oct 18, 2008 5:10:22 GMT -8
I got a mass mailing from an outfit calling itself "Continuing the Republican Revolution." Often, these mass-mailers are not real organizations but DBAs created just to send out these mass mailers telling you how you should vote.
Interestingly, this mailer said vote Yes (!!!) on both Proposition 1A and Measure R.
However, they both contain an asterisk which denotes "Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate and ballot measure, or independently ..."
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 18, 2008 10:05:33 GMT -8
However, they both contain an asterisk which denotes "Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate and ballot measure, or independently ..." what the heck does that mean?
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Oct 18, 2008 16:01:54 GMT -8
It's stupid politics ... the San Gabriel Valley city councils are opposing Measure R, as revenge after Metro Board refused to put the Foothill Goldline Extension on a list of projects.
If Measure R doesn't pass ... we might never see the Foothill Goldline get built in our lifetimes. That's what revenge does for you.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 18, 2008 16:14:29 GMT -8
I heard that the sales tax is doing poorly in polling and that no one is expecting that it will pass. Has anyone else heard anything?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Oct 19, 2008 4:42:19 GMT -8
However, they both contain an asterisk which denotes "Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate and ballot measure, or independently ..." what the heck does that mean? It means that this pamphlet was a mass-mailing gimmick. This outfit would endorse the typical Republican positions, like Yes on 8, obviously, but for others, it would recommend a way to vote depending on how a campaign buys an endorsement. The Yes on 1A and R camps must have bought the endorsements.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Oct 20, 2008 20:42:05 GMT -8
The Yes campaign now has four nice ads produced, although I still haven't seen any on TV. Check them out here.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 21, 2008 9:01:03 GMT -8
watch ktla in the morning. for the last week or so i have been seeing at least one measure R ad per 15 minuets of news.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 21, 2008 9:04:18 GMT -8
bottle neck blogi have to say after reading some of these comments i am truly dissapointed in democracy. this kind of intoxicatingly necessary measure in the hands of "joe six pack the plumber" is just ... scary
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 25, 2008 11:39:36 GMT -8
Dereliction of Duty! Election Commentary (CityWatch Article, 10/24/08) By Ken Alpern
A very interesting group of politicians are opposing the ballot measure Proposition R, the half-cent sales tax that would fund the decades-overdue rail, freeway and other transportation initiatives we’ve neglected for the past 30-50 years.
Dereliction of Duty, Example #1: In particular, the San Gabriel Valley political leadership (led by Supervisor Michael Antonovich) is opposing the proposition because the rest of the county didn’t accommodate their plan to fund the needed Foothill Gold Line that would connect the Pasadena Gold Line to a route that roughly parallels the 210 freeway...at the expense of every other needed project in the county, including the Expo Line and the Green Line/LAX extension.
It appears their plan is to fund the Foothill Gold Line and never raise the funds for any other project (their current strategy), or to pursue the strategy of killing funding for everything if they don’t get their way. This does appear to be the Year That The City of L.A. Reached Out To The San Gabriel Valley, but the latter’s political leadership chose to slap that helping hand away and instead to pout and pretend that San Gabriel Valley residents don’t benefit by projects that happen to be near their jobs within the city limits of Los Angeles .
Let me summarize for a moment what the San Gabriel Valley loses should Proposition R fails:
1) Freeway improvements to the 605, 10, 210, and 710 and 60 freeways
2) Alameda Corridor East getting fast-tracked, which will establish the busiest freight corridor in the nation and get hordes of trucks off the 60 and 10 freeways while eliminating the mind-numbing freight train shutdowns of the cross-streets that SGV residents suffer through every day
3) Foothill Gold Line to Montclair, complete with the rail maintenance yard that's needed to actually run a Foothill Gold Line. (Currently, their financially/politically unlikely and simplistic $80 million local/$320 million federal Gold Line funding plan doesn't include that vital yard, and they would expect Metro to pay for it)
4) Eastside Gold Line extension to serve more regions of the Eastside without rail transit
5) Fast-track the Downtown Light Rail Connector to connect the Pasadena Gold Line (you know, the one that has less ridership than the Orange Line Busway) to the rest of the countywide light rail network and finally achieve the ridership that the Gold Line Authority failed to accomplish
6) Metrolink funding increases for both operations, safety upgrades and service to SGV residents
7) Local bus service funding for the individual cities in the SGV
8) ...and, yes, the Wilshire Subway extension that so many SGV residents use (actually, they're one of the largest groups of Subway riders)
This isn't just mass hysteria on the part of the SGV political elite, it's Dereliction of Duty, and it must be brought to the public light. San Gabriel Valley residents are being poorly represented, and it’s hoped that the individual commuters will behave more like adults than the overgrown teenagers who claim to represent them and vote for Proposition R.
Dereliction of Duty, Example #2: This is being perpetrated by Supervisor Gloria Molina, who views all current freeway and rail construction efforts by Metro through the prism of a single concept: Revenge!
Gloria Molina never forgave Zev Yaroslavsky and the MTA Board (MTA is now called “Metro”) for funding the Red Line Subway to the San Fernando Valley and then shutting down new Red Line construction to the transit-dependent Eastside because Metro ran out of money.
Frankly, I then and still now share her outrage, although at this immediate time my outrage is directed towards Supervisor Molina, who is still stuck in the past and cannot and will not look to the future…and who therefore is making herself “Exhibit A” as to why the Board of Supervisors needs term limits.
Four questions that Supervisor Molina needs to answer, especially because she’s so wrapped up in underfunding transportation that she’s ignoring the economic needs of her own transit-dependent, gridlocked district:
1) Now that we’ve got an Eastside Light Rail Extension opening up next year, one that will link up with one-seat rides to the Expo, Blue Pasadena Gold Lines once the Downtown Light Rail Connector is completed, why aren’t you dealing with our present reality by weighing in on, if not championing, that Connector—no one more than Eastsiders will benefit from that project!
2) Now that Metro has been pursuing more projects for years to create a 21st-century rail/freeway network, why have you suddenly chosen to be the penny pincher and ignore any attempt to study and create the overdue Red Line extension to regions not served by the Eastside Light Rail project, when you clearly have no problem funding health, welfare, educational and other initiatives for L.A. County?
3) The Westside already needs both the Expo Light Rail and the Wilshire Subway, and won’t the Eastside similarly need both an Eastside Light Rail and an Eastside Subway for the megadense region to the southeast of Downtown?
4) What political or other motivations pushes you to want the Eastside Light Rail extension to precede along the less-traveled 60 freeway corridor instead of the denser region directly east to Whittier? Heck, you could even demand that the Eastside extension be dropped altogether and have the Red Line Subway to the southeast be pursued instead.
The problem that the Eastside faces is twofold:
First, its political champion, Supervisor Molina, is so full of anger that she will not put that emotion aside long enough to articulate 20/20 vision for the 21st century (and I speak as someone also angry that the Green Line never reached LAX but who focuses my energies to fixing that problem).
Second, there is no Eastside grassroots group like Friends4Expo Transit or Friends of the Green Line to direct their political leadership on new projects to help fix transportation shortcomings.
I remember when Friends4Expo Transit fought then-Mayor Riordan and Supervisors Yaroslavsky and Burke to make the Expo Line a light rail and not a busway, and it’s high time the grassroots of the Eastside confronted its own political leadership. The pay is nonexistent, but (as with neighborhood councils) the feeling of being empowered to change our world and that of our children is just priceless!
In contrast …
Agree to Disagree Example #1 (but no Dereliction of Duty here): I am much more sympathetic to the opposition of Supervisor Don Knabe, who sincerely believes that these economic hard times make any tax increase more difficult to pursue. While I believe that an infrastructure program would be vital to boosting the economy of our county, thereby allowing this tax increase to pay for itself, I’ve never seen Mr. Knabe behave with the shortsighted and provincial behavior displayed by the rest of the Board of Supervisors.
I would, however, like to remind Mr. Knabe that the South Bay Cities Council of Governments favors the long-overdue and originally-planned Green Line extensions to LAX and the South Bay Galleria, and that the freeway upgrades (405, I-5, 605, 105, 710 and 91) in the South Bay and Southeast portion of the county, as well as repairs and upgrading of the Vincent Thomas Bridge, would very much benefit his residents as well as the entire county.
On a final note, it should be emphasized that provisions exist in Proposition R to change funding priorities should the county change its mind. Supervisor Yaroslavsky and Mayor Villaraigosa will be out of office long before this planned sales tax expires, after all, and no one expects the transportation debates to ever just go away.
If the Wilshire Subway needs to be stopped at, say, Century City in order to fund other projects, then that can happen under this Proposition. If the 710 Subway under South Pasadena does not get pursued because of local opposition, then funds can be shifted to other freeway projects under Proposition R.
What will NOT happen is the shortfall of the transportation spending we’re suffering from if this proposition fails to pass, and we will NOT get any state or federal matches if we don’t as a county demand that transportation achieve a higher budgetary status…and we will NOT see these projects get any cheaper.
Ultimately, this proposition is not about this or that politician. It’s about what we want for our children and our children’s children, not the adults who behave like children when it comes to transportation spending for the 21st century.
(Ken Alpern Co-Chairs the CD 11 Transportation Advisory Committee. Alpern is also a CityWatch contributor.) ◘
CityWatch Vol 6 Issue 86 Pub: Oct 24, 2008
|
|
|
Post by hermes333 on Oct 25, 2008 14:55:26 GMT -8
I ride transit. Mostly buses since there is no light or subway on the Westside of Los Angeles. I drive. I know gridlock as a bus passenger and as a driver. Gridlock is an economic and ecological catastrophe. Proposition R is one step to alleviate traffic and to expand mass transit with buses and rail.
I do have experience riding light rail, the Blue, Green and Gold Lines; and subway, The Red and Purple Lines. I am involved in grass roots transit agencies to promote mass transit, to which I devote a lot of my time.
From my observations in these transit groups, I seem to be one with more experience riding transit on a regular basis than other members. In meetings in person, on group boards, in e-mails, and wherever and to whomever I can get my message to, I am opposed to anymore light rail or bus lines in the middle of freeways such as the Green Line. To those of you who know me, this is not new. I feel adamantly that it is inhuman to have people wait for trains or buses in the middle of freeways. For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, I suggest you ride the Green Line. Buy and All-Day Metro pass and get off at various stations. The noise and exposure to the vehicle exhaust and dust in a confined train platform is something that should never be duplicated.
When the first commercial for Proposition R was on television, I took some comfort that a sensible approach was being taken by its supporters. My Yes vote was solid. However, after seeing the latest television Prop. R commercial, my vote is now quivering.
In the latest ad there is a shot of gridlocked freeway, and then drawn down the meridian came a single rail line, and then a light rail riding this line. I am now questioning where this proposition will be spending the money if approved. Does this mean that the plans of Metro are to put more light rails in the middle of freeways? If so, I am inclined to vote No. I cannot in good conscious vote for a proposition which is in favor of a type of transit system which I fundamentally oppose.
When I’ve raised my voice against any more transit systems in freeway meridians, I have been seconded in my view, which I take to mean that others share my view. If so, I am disturbed by who is running the campaign for this proposition. Did they do any research with transit groups regarding light rail systems? If so, whom did they talk with?
The light rail in the middle freeway is the height of “windshield estimate:” ideas on how transit should work concocted while driving. This type of think is completely removed from the transit experiences of transit riders. This ad signals the proposition’s support for more light rail in freeway medians. Do they really mean it? Or is this campaign being run by an agency which doesn’t know transit?
This latest commercial shows a single track line. Does the ad agency and Metro and other Prop. R backers have any idea of negative association of this image after the Metrolink disaster in Chatsworth? Anyone who even briefly followed that accident in the news, print or broadcast, knows full well that two trains collided because they were sharing a single track.
Yet, this single track image is shown in the commercial. This is a disastrous image to be presenting. Who is in charge of this campaign? Was Metro even consulted, and if so, how could they let this go through after the Chatsworth disaster? This ad is completely wrong headed and just wrong.
Perhaps as a mass transit advocate it would have been better to just remain silent and think that this commercial will quietly slide away. But there are times when silence is dangerous, and for myself, this is one of those times.
I am angered and mystified that 1.) This commercial is advocating an inhuman mass transit system (the middle of freeways) and 2.) That the ad agency and Prop. R backers could be so incredibly tone deaf (or is it indifference) towards the image of a single track rail line after the Chatsworth Metrolink disaster, an incident which can set back by years future mass transit projects under the perception of fear and incompetence.
Matthew Hetz
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 25, 2008 14:59:58 GMT -8
Prop. R's rail lines are what's on the hopper: Expo, Green/LAX, Green/South Bay Galleria, Gold Line to Azusa and beyond, Wilshire Subway, Crenshaw Corridor and Wilshire Corridor rail projects. With the exception of the Gold Line, I believe there won't be any further freeway median lines.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Oct 25, 2008 23:05:28 GMT -8
Prop. R's rail lines are what's on the hopper: Expo, Green/LAX, Green/South Bay Galleria, Gold Line to Azusa and beyond, Wilshire Subway, Crenshaw Corridor and Wilshire Corridor rail projects. With the exception of the Gold Line, I believe there won't be any further freeway median lines. I agree with the Good Doctor, there will be no more train corridors built on L.A. County Freeways, it is to expensive! So rest easy Mr. Hetz. and vote Yes on Measure R! P.S. La Opinion endorsed Measure R and so did the Daily Breeze and the Daily News!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Oct 26, 2008 3:10:29 GMT -8
Mr Hertz, I fear you are reading way too much into the Prop R ads. None of the proposed transit routes in prop R have any stations in median (the gold line extension does run in the 210 median for about a mile but has no stations on the freeway, though the current Gold Line has three and a possible 60 freeway Eastside extension would be alongside the 60 not in the median) except possibly a 405 busway but that corridor is not at all determined and far off in the future. The MTA seems to have learned that freeway medians are bad places for bus stations after the debacle of the Harbor Transitway so I'm doubtful that will happen since its both inhuman and unnecessarily expensive. Most likely they will use the carpool lanes and get off the freeway to stop at major points such as Orange Line, Westwood/UCLA, Fox Hills and LAX. Even better by the time it comes around to planning this line the MTA will likely have found the benifits to making this a heavy rail corridor (somone I know at the MTA tells me this is already happening) in which case it would run under a major street like Sepulveda rather than in a freeway.
Most Los Angeles County voters do not use transit but they do use freeways. I'm pretty sure the image is just there to reinforce that fact that the train will move while you are stuck in traffic on the freeway. The purpose of the ad is to get voters familiar with the concept of prop R. Also as another note, the passage of Prop R would give the MTA more money for non transit corridor capital upgrades. That would give MTA the money to put in soundwalls at the median stations that currently exist; money that they don't have now and why they tell us they can't do anything about soundwalls on the Green and Gold lines. So please vote yes on Prop R and be sure to continue to take up your concerns with the MTA
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 26, 2008 8:51:51 GMT -8
Excellent analysis, Antonio--by the way, now that La Opinion has come out in favor of Prop. R (thanks for that info, roadtrainer), are there any more Eastside papers or grassroots groups that can let Ms. Molina know that she's hurting her constituents bigtime by her terrible stance on Prop. R?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 26, 2008 11:28:44 GMT -8
question, does the Transit Coalition officially support Measure R?
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Oct 26, 2008 13:43:58 GMT -8
Also, Mr. Hetz, please do not regard single-track as an ultimate evil. Although the uniformed media and a certain senator have been busy making single-track lines seem like massive disasters waiting to happen, that it simply not the case. They have portrayed single-track lines this way to get more attention and they have been entirely successful.
Countless other passenger/freight railroads throughout the world have run single-track railroad segments without incident . Single-track railroad is often the correct thing to build, given funding, ROW, or tunneling considerations.
The Chatsworth incident was caused by a train passing a signal that should have been displaying red. (Whether or not it actually was red is a question that will probably never be resolved.) A train passing a false signal is not a problem for only single-track railroads segments. An ignored red signal can have equally-deadly consequences on any railroad with any number of tracks. That's why we have red signals.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Oct 26, 2008 18:12:55 GMT -8
question, does the Transit Coalition officially support Measure R? [glow=red,2,300]We sure do 100 %! [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 26, 2008 18:34:36 GMT -8
I do wish the commercial would mention more of the diversity of support for Measure R, including the Lung Association, the Automobile Club, the Sierra Club, and several chambers of commerce.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 26, 2008 20:43:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 26, 2008 21:32:44 GMT -8
I concur with metrocenter--and yes, The Transit Coalition toooooooooooootally supports Proposition R!!! [glow=red,2,300]We sure do 100 %! [/glow] just wanted to be sure. added it to the los angeles county sales tax page on ballotpedia
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Oct 28, 2008 22:36:12 GMT -8
I think a lot of people support Measure R because it promises to take cars off the road. No, not their cars, but other people's cars. The irony, of course, is that Measure R won't solve traffic problems if they don't get out of their cars and get on the subway, once it's completed. And in the unlikely event that rush hour traffic doesn't exist anymore, people riding transit who have access to cars will see this and jump back into their cars, creating traffic once again! It reminds me of this Onion article. www.theonion.com/content/news/report_98_percent_of_u_s_commutersIn the end I'm not supporting Measure R because it might alleviate traffic. I couldn't care less about traffic. It won't mean anything to me while I'm riding the rails. I hope traffic gets even worse after these new rail projects open up! In fact, cities with robust metros have some of the worst traffic, including Tokyo, New York, and Seoul. I'm supporting Measure R because it improves mobility for those of us who are unwilling or unable to drive. Let the suckers keep their cars. I want trains and dedicated bus lanes (where rail would be overkill). I wish there could be a full separation between those modes of transportation where people ride alone and those were people ride together. Of course, I can't vote for it, but I'm letting my Los Angeles County friends know what it's all about and why they should vote yes on it.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 28, 2008 22:44:44 GMT -8
Efficient mass transit never reduces traffic!!! Look at New York, Chicago, Hollywood (yes, Hollywood with the Red Line), Paris, London, etc... Is there any less traffic? NO! All transit development done is allow for alternatives and greater density building. Cities become more dense around their metro systems, thus allowing greater number of people to flow in/out of their city. So, this notion of "reducing traffic" is a ridiculous point. But, if it's the only way to sell the sales tax, then I'll do it.
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Oct 30, 2008 19:12:23 GMT -8
This might be too late to post but students from USC and UCLA will be out at Figueroa/Exposition and Wilshire/Westwood to hold "Gridlock Rallies" in support of Measure R and Proposition 1A. Denny Zane contacted some people in the planning schools and democrat clubs to get some activism to highlight the issues and get media attention (there already was an article about the Bruins). We'll be out there from 4pm to 6pm on Halloween with posters!
And if you're so inclined and in the areas, join us if you see us!
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 31, 2008 22:10:59 GMT -8
Even though some of the political leaders here in San Gabriel Valley have come out against "R", as have some friends who live in Monrovia, I'm voting Yes, and I've advised my daughter in Glendora to do likewise. Earlier this month I received a list of voting recommendations from a buddy over in the Other Valley (Sherman Oaks), and he advised "Yes on R", even though the SFV would probably have even fewer benefits from the tax increase. Much as I hate to be on the same side as Zevsky, I think "R" is about as good as it's gonna get.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 1, 2008 19:21:23 GMT -8
Whether or not the subway will alleviate traffic to West L.A. remains to be seen. Depends on the attitude of SoCal drivers. But on a typical day ... the subway WILL be the fastest way to get to Santa Monica, right behind a private jet or helicopter.
The commercials promise traffic relief ... that's the best selling point for this measure. But the heart of this sales tax should go to alternative transportation.
I think too much of the money will go to freeways and streets. Also, I think that Metro Board shot themselves in the foot by voting against the Foothill Goldline Extension.
A lot of San Gabriel Valley residents had their heart set on extending the line. If Measure R passes (Hopefully) there's still no guarantee for Goldline Extension funding.
And now that the politicians in those SG Valley cities oppose Measure R. There will probably be even less a chance of funding.
I worked my butt off for the Foothill Goldline boosters. It's a waste. What a shame.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 1, 2008 23:12:18 GMT -8
How Long Will You Wait for the Traffic to Move? The Last Word on Prop R By Ken Alpern (from CityWatch e-Newsletter, 10/31/08)
I've spent several months now describing how and why the cities and county of LA must pull together to create a 21st-century transportation system that would do for the Economy, Environment and Quality of Life what the 20th-century transportation systems did so well.
This 21st-century system requires freeway expansions and road repairs where they can reasonably be done, and rail projects where they cannot be done anymore (i.e., there is no longer any room). Such a system would be funded--seriously, really, actually funded--via Proposition R, the countywide half-cent sales tax that would cost each county resident an average of $25 a year (less than a tank of gas). These funds couldn't be stolen away by the state or anyone else, would not be paid by bonds for future generations to be stuck with the bill, and would result in $40 billion over 30 years that would be legally-mandated to create:
1) The Expo Line to the Westside, the Eastside Gold Line to the far Eastside, and a Downtown Light Rail Connector to tie both these lines and the Blue and Pasadena Gold Lines together to connect the whole county to Downtown.
2) Light rail extensions that link LAX to both the Expo and Green Lines, as well as light rail and busway extensions to the South Bay Galleria Mall and the San Fernando Valley, as well as a Foothill Gold Line that extends from Pasadena to Claremont.
3) A Wilshire Subway to the Westside (and probably a light rail link from that Subway to LAX via Crenshaw Blvd.)
4) An upgraded, better-serviced and modernized Metrolink system to serve the entire county
5) Freeway lanes and upgrades to I-5, I-105, I-110, I-710, I-210, I-405, I-605, SR-14, SR-60, SR-91, SR-134, SR-138, and SR-170. 6) Freight rail grade separation projects such as the Alameda Corridor East that would remove the need for the hordes of trucks utilizing our freeways to use quicker, cheaper, safer and cleaner rail systems and eliminate the need for traffic stops for intersecting cross-streets at these freight routes.
7) Subsidize and reduce the fares of seniors, the disabled, students and the transit-dependent.
8) Dramatically increased funds available for, and dedicated to, signal synchronization, street resurfacing and pothole repair, bicycle/pedestrian improvement programs, electronic signage and safer bus stops.
9) Over 200,000 new jobs created to construct these projects, to say nothing of the economic stimulus (and who knows how many jobs) that would be created by enhanced mobility throughout the county and region, considering the economy we now have based on our current transportation infrastructure.
10) Truly cleaner air, genuine alternatives to the daily car commute, huge incentives and alternatives for businesses to locate next to transit lines, and less money spent by commuters on gas (and, of course, less dependence on fossil fuels).
My final pre-election questions to you, the voting readers of CityWatch, are as follows:
1) Is living in the county that has the worst traffic and air quality in the nation something you feel proud of?
2) Is a spending plan that guarantees defined and strategic projects and transportation priorities a better way of doing business than what we've suffered through for the past 30 years?
3) Is an average of $25 (less than the cost of a tank of gas) a reasonable price for the average county resident to expect quality road and rail construction and maintenance?
4) Do we finally want Los Angeles County to be a place where tourists actually want to go and spend their money to enhance our economy, or a place to escape from because traffic is so awful?
5) There is a high likelihood that the high-speed rail bond measure will pass (that measure requires majority-only approval); do we want to be able to access that high-speed rail at Union Station via a countywide rail/transit system?
6) Isn't it time that L.A. County, the second-biggest metropolitan region of the county outside of New York, finally had first-rate Metrolink commuter service like every other major metropolitan region in the country and world has?
7) How long do we want to wait for our freeways, surface and residential streets to be upgraded and maintained? Five years, or thirty years?
8) How long we do want to wait for the Wilshire Subway to the Westside (which would probably be the busiest, most-traveled subway in the nation) to be built? Five years, or thirty years?
9) How long do we want to wait until our countywide rail system connects to LAX and our other regional airports? Five years, or thirty years?
10) How long do we want to wait until we take action to improve our environment, our health, and our quality of life (and, of course, that of our children and grandchildren)? Five years, or thirty years?
It's up to us, and whether we really are ready to do something about the problem we complain about and suffer through every day.
It's up to us.
(Ken Alpern Co-Chairs the CD 11 Transportation Advisory Committee. Alpern is also a CityWatch contributor.) ◘
CityWatch Vol 6 Issue 88 Pub: Oct 31, 2008
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 1, 2008 23:13:23 GMT -8
If the foothill extension is built with express service in mind, I think it would be a good project.
But I don't think anybody is going to ride a light rail line from Azusa to Downtown LA daily. I would take Metrolink for that.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 2, 2008 0:10:15 GMT -8
It's not Azusa to LA, it's Azusa to Pasadena (or Pasadena to Duarte). I've seen the 210 Freeway get clogged long before the nominal "rush hour". I used to have a job that sometimes called for working on trucks in a yard in Monrovia, on the north side of the 210. It wasn't uncommon to hear big-rig airbrakes applying; I'd look up at the freeway and know "something" had happened--and this would be at 10:30 AM! We San Gabriel Valley natives deserve alternatives to crowded freeways too!
Regarding Metrolink, if you live in Monrovia, it's a long, congested, gravel truck dodging haul to Metrolink El Monte. Azusa residents have to go to Covina (a little closer, but good luck finding a parking spot). One bit of good news from Metrolink, they've added four trains on the San Bernardino Line, filling some gaps in the morning--no more three hours between trains. Now if we can just build more double track and electrify the line.......
|
|