|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Nov 2, 2008 10:55:52 GMT -8
Toll lanes would really help things in the SGV. It would lessen the intensity of rush hour and spread out traffic more evenly, get funding for projects on the Riverside and San Bernardino Lines and may even fund a Gold Line extension. What I think is most appalling is that no one even considers toll lanes for the 101. What reason is there for not putting them there? The 101 alternate includes the Orange Line and the Red Line. How can toll lanes be proposed for the SGV which does not even have frequent rail but not for Hollywood which does?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 2, 2008 21:16:53 GMT -8
What blasts me is that there's still this confusion about Metrolink and MetroRail somehow being mutually exclusive. Metrolink is for long journeys and MetroRail is for short journeys--so is it so hard to conceive of riders taking Metrolink for long, fast rides and then switching trains to MetroRail for the last few miles to get to their local destinations.
Metrolink brings commuters from the SGV to Downtown. The Foothill Gold Line brings people from one portion of the 210 Corridor to another portion of that same corridor.
It's just that simple.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 3, 2008 12:14:09 GMT -8
The Foothill Gold Line brings people from one portion of the 210 Corridor to another portion of that same corridor. If that's the case then I simply think that the Foothill Extension is a monumentally unimportant project. The subway to the sea, the Crenshaw Corridor, developing the Harbor Subdivision, extended the Green Line to LAX and Norwalk, and generally improving Metrolink service are by far way more important projects than some foothill light rail line. For Measure R to be in dispute over the Gold Line is hilarious to me.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 3, 2008 17:16:18 GMT -8
And that "who cares about the San Gabriel Valley" attitude may well cause Measure "R" to be defeated tomorrow. Why should we help pay for something that many, if not most, of us SGV residents will rarely, if ever, use? I don't like being an isolationist or a roadblock on the path of progress, but we should be getting something for our money. The Foothill Extension IS important in my homeland! I will probably "hold my nose" and vote yes, but I'm still pondering (and my wife has already told me she's against "R").
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Nov 3, 2008 18:17:50 GMT -8
But see, I was under the impression that there is money dedicated to the Gold Line Foothill Extension. The only problem is that it was not the amount of money that the Foothill Extension supporters wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 3, 2008 18:50:37 GMT -8
What the SGV opponents can't quite seem to grasp is that if Measure R goes down, the Foothill Extension goes down with it.
Something vs. nothing. Some tough math for ya right there.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 3, 2008 20:13:36 GMT -8
Notice that I said that in my opinion, the foothill extension isn't as important as other rail projects. But I didn't say that it shouldn't be built, nor do I oppose it being funded with Measure R.
The more rail the better. And I'm in Orange County for crying out loud. I can't even vote on this.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 3, 2008 20:18:05 GMT -8
And that's why I (and some folks in the SFV) favor the measure. Yet three out of five County Supervisors are against it, as is the Pasadena Star-News. By refusing to listen to the SGV and other outlying areas, the Downtown-Westside oriented Metro people may have shot down their plans along with everybody else's. Sometimes it's a wonder that anything gets done in LA County.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 3, 2008 21:28:15 GMT -8
And that's why I (and some folks in the SFV) favor the measure. Yet three out of five County Supervisors are against it, as is the Pasadena Star-News. By refusing to listen to the SGV and other outlying areas, the Downtown-Westside oriented Metro people may have shot down their plans along with everybody else's. Sometimes it's a wonder that anything gets done in LA County. What isn't clear is what did these politicians in the SGV really want. They never have made a public case as to what needs to change in the Measure to get their support. They certainly never offered their own proposal. They are more similar to the Bus Rider's Union than anything else, because they are upset with the MTA over a separate issue. They wanted the MTA to support their plan to have the Gold Line extension leap frog other projects in the Long Range Plan (other projects that have much higher ridership like Expo). When this did not turn out in their favor they came out against anything the MTA was doing in a childish scorched earth policy saying those evil people in LA who control everything were shortchanging them. Part of their argument is that an extension to LAX only benefits the Westside and the people who live right next to the airport, which is ridiculous. This is the regional thinking that makes sure our system goes to nowhere. Don't we need to get away from this type of thinking. An airport extension will benefit a lot more than the people who live in the immediate airport vicinity, but not according to SGV officials, who only see this as an LA project. Make no mistake, if Measure R goes down and even though I want to think it will pass, it will be near impossible to get to 66.7%, the Gold Line extension is toast. We'll be lucky to get the rest of Expo built. After that, it will be Crenshaw, the DTC, and maybe an airport connection, but it is likely none of those will ever happen without an additional funding source. Also, Metrolink service will not be expanded much if at all, and the Alameda Corridor East project in the SGV will be delayed years and may not ever have funding. Also, the Long Beach Freeway will probably never be expanded. There is the possibility that 2 years from now, the State gets its act together and reduces the threshold on transportation initiatives to 55% and a new tax can get through, but it won't be a presidential election and that will be tough as well. By then it will at least become apparent to the SGV that they need to be part of the process or their quality of life will suffer too.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 4, 2008 5:56:22 GMT -8
I think that masonite words things pretty well, but that spokker and Bob Davis BOTH bring up good points.
If the SGV wants to throw away the ACE and the freeway and the local road/bus/transportation funds along with the hope for their own Foothill Gold Line, then that's their craziness.
Furthermore, if Obama wins and the Bush cronyism that allowed so much political power for the Foothill Gold Line supporters (who, in so many words, said to heck to Expo and every other project in the county) at the expense of the rest of the county, then the FTA and local/federal government efforts to create a network to establish the Expo, Green/Crenshaw, Downtown Connector and even Wilshire projects will continue and the Foothill Gold Line will have to wait a very long time.
That said, let me emphasize that a Foothill Gold Line that supports transit-oriented development and an alternative to the horribly-congested 210 freeway is also an alternative to having every job in the Westside! Having more jobs in the eastern portion of the county, and throughout the Inland Empire is the smartest way for traffic to improve.
On a similar level, shouldn't more employment be pursued in Riverside County instead of forcing Riverside, Corona and Temecula residents to commute to Orange County via the 91 freeway?
There's a lot of planned development along the 210 Corridor that would pull a lot of cars off the road that would otherwise go to Downtown and the Westside...so yes, the Foothill Gold Line is a very good idea.
Unfortunately, the SGV leaders have done a horrible job of emphasizing the benefits to the whole county of this Foothill Gold Line, and their lack of teamwork will also horribly backfire against them should this proposition fail because of their narcissism and petulance.
If the Westside and Mid-City want to have their own projects, (and same with the SGV), then it'll be up to the cities themselves to find new plans to fund their own projects locally.
...and I suppose it wouldn't hurt to ask the developers to come up with the local match for projects that will benefit them initially more than any other group!
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 4, 2008 19:44:16 GMT -8
Heard a guy on the Tom Leykis show say that MTA already gets 10 billion/year so they should not get anymore money. Hehe
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Nov 4, 2008 19:48:19 GMT -8
And what about bike paths, left-turn lights, road/freeway fixes, and all the other NON-RAIL aspects? Anti-R people don't even consider that!
Well, 10 minutes until close. Good luck, R!
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 4, 2008 20:14:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 4, 2008 20:58:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 4, 2008 21:01:19 GMT -8
indeed, but its only 216,000 votes thus far
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 4, 2008 22:09:20 GMT -8
It has just updated to 11% of precincts and increased from 64.0 to 64.5%. I think 2.2% more needed. It will be so sad if it doesn't pass after being so close. High-speed rail is also having a tough battle. Down to 48.5% now. Needs 50%. Let's stay hopeful. If these don't pass, I will extend my congratulations to those few for setting LA and CA decades behind through their antirail campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 4, 2008 22:26:28 GMT -8
64.9% @ 16% now. There is hope.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Nov 4, 2008 22:29:39 GMT -8
Who knows, maybe the precincts voting strongly for R haven't been turned in yet. On another note, 1A has flipped and is in the Yes side now.
I think Metro is preparing for Measure R's defeat; they have announced public hearing dates for the Wilshire bus lane project just today, because that's about all Wilshire will ever get if R doesn't pass.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 4, 2008 22:53:14 GMT -8
65.71% @ 23%. Only 0.96% away now.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 4, 2008 23:05:50 GMT -8
66.37% @ 29%. 0.30% to go. Very good trend so far.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 4, 2008 23:06:09 GMT -8
66.37! woo hoo!
now just stay that way
|
|
fredcamino
New Member
Los Angeles Public Transit Lifestyle
Posts: 28
|
Post by fredcamino on Nov 4, 2008 23:07:36 GMT -8
oh geez i cant watch *covers eyes but peeks out a little*
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 4, 2008 23:12:38 GMT -8
oh geez i cant watch *covers eyes but peeks out a little* im with you there. i cant watch it anymore. to bed i go, hopping to awake to a new day in los angeles mass transit construction
|
|
fredcamino
New Member
Los Angeles Public Transit Lifestyle
Posts: 28
|
Post by fredcamino on Nov 4, 2008 23:21:22 GMT -8
off to bed with ye! imma shotgun a beer and wait this one out...
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Nov 5, 2008 0:48:02 GMT -8
12:43 Update:
YES 938,438 NO 469,179
TOTAL 1,407,617
YES % = 66.669%
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 5, 2008 0:48:39 GMT -8
Talk about a cliffhanger! R - MTA SALES TAX YES -- 938,438 -- 66.67% NO -- 469,179 -- 33.33%
Precincts Reporting 57% Last Updated: 00:20 11/05/2008 Slightly better is: 1A -- Safe, Reliable High-Speed Train Bond Act YES -- 3,300,288 -- 51.3% NO -- 3,145,032 -- 48.7%
60.1% precincts reporting as of Nov. 5, 2008, at 12:39 a.m. I'm relieved that Propositions 7 and 10 are losing decisively (65.6% and 61.1% NO, respectively).
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Nov 5, 2008 1:26:06 GMT -8
1:21 AM Update: 71% Reporting
LOS ANGELES MTA "R"-TRAFFIC RELIEF SALES TAX HIKE Total Reporting:70% YES 1,152,273 NO 565,443
TOTAL = 1,717,716
% YES = 67.082%
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 5, 2008 1:37:21 GMT -8
Slight progress: R - MTA SALES TAX YES -- 1,267,855 -- 67.23% NO -- 617,946 -- 32.77%
Precincts Reporting 77% Last Updated: 01:19 11/05/2008 And: 1A - Safe, Reliable High-Speed Train Bond Act YES -- 3,828,490 -- 51.9% NO -- 3,560,701 -- 48.1% 72.9% precincts reporting as of Nov. 5, 2008, at 1:26 a.m.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 5, 2008 1:48:12 GMT -8
1A is hitting 52.1 with 79 percent reporting.
Measure R is 67.3 with 83.66 percent reporting.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 5, 2008 1:48:46 GMT -8
The latest status: 67.30% @ 83%. Remember that 66.67% is needed. The nice thing is that the trend has so far almost uniformly been upward, except at one point it dropped from 66.4% to 66.2% and then climbed to 66.3, 66.5, 66.7, 66.9, 67.2, and now 67.3. The numbers have been being updated @ every 20 minutes/7% new precint reportings, and if the trend doesn't reverse, Measure R will pass! We will know for sure in one hour and I'm tempted not to go to bed yet. 1A -- high-speed rail -- has already passed in my opinion, with a comfortable 52.2% @ 79% precincts reporting.
|
|