|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Oct 15, 2009 14:02:37 GMT -8
Zev is threatening to put a measure on the ballot baring Measure R funds from being used on the Gold Line Foothill extension From the California Real Estate Journal _______________ www.carealestatejournal.com/newswire/index.cfm?sid=&tkn=&eid=904977&evid=1L.A.'s Subway Hits New Roadblocks By KEELEY WEBSTER CREJ Staff Writer The battle over Measure R funds is heating up again in Los Angeles, with Westside politicians supporting funding for a Westside subway and Eastside politicians wanting the money to be spent to extend the Gold Line from Pasadena to San Bernardino County. Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky told audience members at a Westside Urban Forum event held Sept. 18 that Eastside politicians on the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board had proposed allocating $745 million of local funds - including $440 million in Measure R funds - for construction of the Westside subway project. "We said we would set aside money for the subway, but there has been a heist of the money by board members representing other parts of the county," Yaroslavsky said. "They want us to fund the majority of the Westside subway project with federal funds." Seven of the board's 13 members are opposed to a large portion of the Measure R money being used for the subway and are trying to divert it to other projects, including an extension of the Gold Line to San Bernardino County, Yaroslavsky said. Yaroslavsky said he is considering having an initiative put on the ballot to block the diversion of the funds dedicated to the Westside subway through passage of Measure R. The move would mean seeking a 65 percent federal matching grant to fund the entirety of the project, Yaroslavsky said. Cost estimates for the project in 2008 dollars are $6.1 billion for the Wilshire subway alignment or $9 billion for a Wilshire/West Hollywood combined subway, said Dave Sotero, a Metro spokesman. Measure R set aside $4.1 billion for the Westside subway over a 30-year period, Sotero said. Measure R is expected to bring in $40 billion for transportation projects over the next 30 years. Before any money is dispersed to any mass-transit projects, 15 percent will be taken off the top and distributed to cities for street repairs, Yaroslavsky said. The justification from Eastside politicians is that the Westside subway project will have the most ridership and therefore is more likely to qualify for federal funds, Yaroslavsky said. But the highest percentage of matching funds provided by the government is a 50 percent match, and the federal government hasn't funded at that level since Jimmy Carter was president, he said. Projected ridership is 61,000 riders per day for the Wilshire alternative and 79,400 riders for the combined alternative, Sotero said. The study, done as part of the alternatives analysis phase, also estimated 34,000 to 36,600 additional boardings throughout the Metro system as a result of the subway extension, he said. The project is in the draft environmental-impact statement and environmental-impact report phase, Sotero said. The draft EIS/EIR is expected to be released for public review in mid-2010, he said. The Metro board will be asked to adopt the draft EIS/EIR and a locally preferred alternative in late 2010, Sotero said. It is expected to take until late 2011 before the final EIS/EIR is completed, he said. A Pivotal Vote Voters approved a half-cent sales tax under Measure R that was targeted for Los Angeles County transportation projects in November 2008. Without funding from the sales tax, the board was looking at a shortfall of $60 million for projects it had planned around the county. The Metro board had postponed a vote on its long-range transportation plan pending a response from voters on the initiative. It is due to vote on its long-range transportation plan on Oct. 29. The long-range plan replaces a seven-year plan adopted in 2001. Many of the goals laid out in 2001 have not been completed and would be added to the new plan. Prior to a vote approving language for the Measure R bill in July 2008, several Eastside politicians objected to inclusion of funding for a Westside subway. Among the detractors was Gloria Molina, a supervisor in the first district of Los Angeles County, who said she did not want plans for a subway included as the Metro board had not even approved plans to go forward with such a project. She also said she objected to the fact that the region she represents was denied a subway and had to settle for Metro's light-rail Gold Line. The board approved the language in July 2008 in a 10-2 vote allowing it to be placed on the ballot. Molina, who could not be reached for comment, wasn't present for the vote. The battle over the money coming from Measure R continues as the board has not yet passed a long-range transportation plan. The board's decision to delay voting on the long-range transportation plan meant that a plan to extend the Gold Line farther into the San Gabriel Valley missed last year's deadline for federal funding. Measure R did not specifically include funding for the Gold Line extension. Eastside politicians have expressed concern in the past about the loss of developments planned that were contigent on the Eastside extension. At the Oct. 29th board meeting, the board will decide on how to allocate the money collected from Measure R, Sotero said. The current battle over funding for the subway makes the mayor's hoped-for 10-year outlook for a completed subway unrealistic, Yaroslavsky said. "The subway will not come in 10 years," Yaroslavsky said. "It is not that we do not want it. There is a war developing on the Metro board among the 13 members." - E-mail Keeley_Webster@DailyJournal.com |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 15, 2009 19:13:14 GMT -8
Sorry, Zev.
You had your chance and screwed over the further construction of the subways in the first place.
Apology NOT accepted.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 15, 2009 21:15:19 GMT -8
This administration is more transit-friendly than any we've seen since Carter, so I really do NOT think it's unlikely we'll see a 60% or even higher federal match if we're really stuck with using our local Prop. R funds for the Expo, Crenshaw and Foothill Gold Lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 16, 2009 6:36:30 GMT -8
This administration is more transit-friendly than any we've seen since Carter, so I really do NOT think it's unlikely we'll see a 60% or even higher federal match if we're really stuck with using our local Prop. R funds for the Expo, Crenshaw and Foothill Gold Lines. If they hijack Measure R funds from the subway to a Gold Line extension, it could have numerous negative effects. One would be the most vital project in LA County would be heavily delayed. The Pink Line would almost surely be cut off and not happen. Counting on a 65% match from the federal government is a bit of a pipe dream. We'll be lucky to get 50%, even with an Obama administration. Also, who knows if Obama will even still be in office in 4 years or if Congress will still be Democratic. This could kill the subway extension in favor of a lightly used Gold Line. Gotta love our politicians. They try to cut the funding for a heavily used project to fund marginal projects, because they know those other projects could never get any federal support. This is the height of irresponsibility and the problem with politicians only supporting projects in their district. We are going to end up with long lightly used rail lines that touch numerous political districts. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 16, 2009 12:39:34 GMT -8
I want the Purple Line extended as much as the next person, but I just don't like seeing other projects suffer to expedite certain others.
Like someone pointed out in another thread, I think there's enough funding out there to build Damien Goodmon's super-Get L.A. Moving map, but there's just so many public and political knots to be untied in getting a lot of it built.
But the money IS out there. It just takes people with the right political know-how to get it and rally public support.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 17, 2009 7:13:17 GMT -8
There is not that much money out there actually, since Highways are receiving a majority of federal funding. I am all for the foothill extension, but not at the expense of the dire needs of a westside subway. It's simply a given that the westside has the worst traffic in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles has the worst traffic in the nation - so where should the funding go? The Wilshire line already carries 60,000+ people a day. There are wants and there are NEEDS.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 18, 2009 20:43:34 GMT -8
...agreed, erict, but unfortunately this law was crafted so that each part of the county would get something. The Foothill Gold Line to Azusa is being placed behind the Expo Line to Santa Monica AND possibly the Subway, and we're trying to figure out how to squeeze in the Downtown Connector and the Crenshaw Line LRT (connecting the Green Line and Expo Line to Century/Aviation and LAX) at the same time.
I really don't think that the line should proceed anywhere east of Azusa any time soon, but a cynic could easily say to any bigtime Subway supporter, "OK, put the second and more expensive and contentious phase of the Expo Line and the Crenshaw Line on hold, and build the higher-ridership Subway out farther, while you focus on the Downtown Connector sooner!"
...and that cynic would probably have a few pretty darn good points to make, right?
This Prop. R is a countywide fund where we're asking the whole county to pay for projects that often benefit the more congested Westside and Downtown/Mid-City regions, and we're going to need to figure out a way to please all parties (and the taxpaying constituents).
My own personal compromise is to tell the Foothill Gold Line bloc: "OK, we'll push that Foothill Gold Line to Azusa, but not an inch further east until BOTH the Azusa Line with its rail yard AND the Downtown Connector is finished and we can figure out what sort of ridership we can anticipate for the entire Foothill Gold Line. Similarly, there is NO need to push the Eastside Gold Line anywhere along the 60 freeway or Washington Blvd. until we get that Downtown Connector, either."
Although a cynic would say the same for the second phase of the Expo Line (no second phase until the Downtown Connector is built and we see Expo Line ridership), the decision HAS been made to prioritize the Expo Line to Santa Monica and the Crenshaw Line between the Green and Expo Lines.
So...just getting that first phase of the Subway to Fairfax or thereabouts really IS a tall order, and shouldn't be denigrated considering all the other countywide projects being pursued.
I've said this before in previous posts years ago, and it probably bears repeating: each phase of the Subway will need 2-3 accompanying light rail line projects countywide in order for political balance. That means Purple Line to Fairfax and the Foothill Gold Line/Expo Line in one effort. That also means Purple Line to Century City and Crenshaw Line and Downtown Connector in another effort.
Horribly slow, and horribly unsettling to all sides, but anything less will lead to blowback and a failure to achieve the political compromise we needed for Prop. R to pass.
...and we need to continue with city, state and federal efforts to supplement what we're doing at the county level.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 19, 2009 7:15:23 GMT -8
I think your on to something with this light to heavy rail formula.
I have no doubt that the Foothill will break ground soon, I just don't think it will get federal funding. I would say that East LA, the Westside, and Crenshaw(maybe) have a greater need for rail than the Foothill, but since Foothill is ready and willing where others are fighting and bickering, Foothill will win out over one of these.
Once the Gold Eastside opens it should be painfully obvious why everyone in Los Angeles County needs the Regional Connector. Maybe even Gloria Molina will take notice.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 19, 2009 11:07:36 GMT -8
Once the Gold Eastside opens it should be painfully obvious why everyone in Los Angeles County needs the Regional Connector. Maybe even Gloria Molina will take notice. How so? |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 19, 2009 15:19:44 GMT -8
Once the Gold Eastside opens it should be painfully obvious why everyone in Los Angeles County needs the Regional Connector. Maybe even Gloria Molina will take notice. How so? The Regional connector will finally connect the Gold line (and the Blue/ Expo lines) to : 1) Downtown Los Angeles, which the current Gold line goes near but not quite to Downtown 2) East Los Angleles and the Westside without a transfer 3) Long Beach and Pasadena/Azusa/Clairmont without a transfer Without the Regional connector you will need to transfer to the Red Line and then transfer to the various lines, adding a substantial amount of time. Also, Metro will be able to move trains from one line to another (including the Green line) more easily. Also the RC would add several stops downtown that would be popular destinations. I probably missed something else, it really will make the whole rail network work better. |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 19, 2009 16:07:07 GMT -8
I agree with your analysis, Eric...but I think that Ms. Molina is so stuck in the "Eastside should have been a Red Line Subway extension" that she may not take the Connector too seriously as much as she would take it as a pathetic consolation prize.
I think she would have preferred an extension of the Red Line from Metro Center to the current terminus at Atlantic for the Eastside LRT...all underground. History may indeed show she was right, by the way, and I really have a great deal of empathy for the Eastside not getting its subway.
However, focusing on our current reality also takes some political courage and maturity, which I am afraid I just am not seeing from Supervisor Molina. Pity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Oct 19, 2009 18:39:01 GMT -8
Once aine Gold Eastside opens it should be painfully obvious why everyone in Los Angeles County needs the Regional Connector. Maybe even Gloria Molina will take notice. How so? To reduce transfers and increase operational efficiancies. Because without Staples Center to Chinatown will be a three train trip. Because without, East L.A. to Santa Monica will be a three train trip and from East L.A. to downtown will be a two train trip. So trains can be transfered to various lines easily when demand calls for it and so trains can be sent to various yards for repairs. And of course there will be NEW service under downtown L.A. making Metro even more convenient. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 19, 2009 19:36:15 GMT -8
Yes we all know why the regional connector is needed. I was questioning a specific comment in erict's post where he said that that after Linea de Oro opens everyone will see why the connector is needed. I even quoted that bit. I was wondering if he was anticipating heavy ridership showing that a connector is needed or perhaps light ridership as an indicator. IMO the regional connector is the most cost effective section of rail that's planned and offers the greatest benefit aside from extending the purple line. But I don't anticipate the gold line extension highlighting that need in any substantial way that would be apparent to people that don't ride the gold line.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Oct 19, 2009 21:47:11 GMT -8
It's a sad fact that our Metro system was pieced together with incompatible modalities. We can't run the Gold Line light rail onto the Red Line heavy rail out to the Orange Line busway; only two lines do have a non-revenue connection and that is the Blue and Green Lines. Unlike Dallas' DART (which I recently took a trip to ride on), San Diego Trolley, SF Muni Metro, NYC MTA Subway, Denver's RTD, we don't have much in terms of interlining (which is what the Regional Connector will accomplish) to facilitate ease of fewer transfers aside from the Red/Purple Line, although currently it's moot considering the Purple Line for the past 13 years is still a mile stub. It's a sad reality what hindrance LACMTA (and its predecessors SCRTD and LACTC) had to endure on what would have been a wonderful system today. The Metro Red Line would have ran from the current Sepulveda Orange Line station to East LA continuously and would have served their constituents wonderfully (the demographics are the same), instead it's gonna have to be a ride on a light rail line to heavy rail subway to a busway no thanks to NIMBYs and politicians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Oct 19, 2009 22:27:47 GMT -8
The Metro Red Line would have ran from the current Sepulveda Orange Line station to East LA continuously and would have served their constituents wonderfully (the demographics are the same), instead it's gonna have to be a ride on a light rail line to heavy rail subway to a busway no thanks to NIMBYs and politicians. What we can now never have:  The wasted potential of our rail system is indeed a sad reality. Rail lines bring their own usefulness but they also bring a certain "potential value" based on future extensions they allow. Presently, the Purple Line has little value of its own it does have tremendous "potential value" to go west. Yet a lot of opportunity has been squandered because the Red Line seems to have nowhere to go to the north or to the east. The Orange Line blocks what should have been saved for the Red Line in the Valley. On the east end, it was once proposed for the Red Line for replace the El Monte Busway and later to instead go to East LA. Now both routes are impossible. What growth can our HRT system ever see besides along Wilshire? |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 20, 2009 6:57:04 GMT -8
Yes we all know why the regional connector is needed. I was questioning a specific comment in erict's post where he said that that after Linea de Oro opens everyone will see why the connector is needed. I was thinking that Eastsiders who travel to Hollywood, the westside, or even downtown (or vice-versa) will have to transfer to the Red line, and then transfer again to the Blue line or Expo, and will turn to the politicians and demand that the connector be built to reduce these inconvenient transfers. I had a job for a bit that required 3 transfers - Hollywood to El Segundo (Red to Blue to Green), and the transfers took up a lot of my time. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 20, 2009 7:05:33 GMT -8
The Metro Red Line would have ran from the current Sepulveda Orange Line station to East LA continuously and would have served their constituents wonderfully (the demographics are the same), instead it's gonna have to be a ride on a light rail line to heavy rail subway to a busway no thanks to NIMBYs and politicians. What we can now never have: The wasted potential of our rail system is indeed a sad reality. Rail lines bring their own usefulness but they also bring a certain "potential value" based on future extensions they allow. Presently, the Purple Line has little value of its own it does have tremendous "potential value" to go west. Yet a lot of opportunity has been squandered because the Red Line seems to have nowhere to go to the north or to the east. The Orange Line blocks what should have been saved for the Red Line in the Valley. On the east end, it was once proposed for the Red Line for replace the El Monte Busway and later to instead go to East LA. Now both routes are impossible. What growth can our HRT system ever see besides along Wilshire? Wait a minute! Its not possible now? On the Eastside, Whittier Blvd is still an option as a future subway corridor to serve East LA and Gateway Cities. The SFV that wide right-of-way which also serves the Orange Line we could still build an elevated guideway right next to the operational Orange Line. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Oct 20, 2009 8:05:03 GMT -8
The SFV that wide right-of-way which also serves the Orange Line we could still build an elevated guideway right next to the operational Orange Line. Well I will admit both projects are still possible. Yet both projects are now dead last on the list of Metro projects for the next 50 years. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 20, 2009 9:51:07 GMT -8
It's a sad fact that our Metro system was pieced together with incompatible modalities. We can't run the Gold Line light rail onto the Red Line heavy rail out to the Orange Line busway; only two lines do have a non-revenue connection and that is the Blue and Green Lines. Unlike Dallas' DART (which I recently took a trip to ride on), San Diego Trolley, SF Muni Metro, NYC MTA Subway, Denver's RTD, we don't have much in terms of interlining (which is what the Regional Connector will accomplish) to facilitate ease of fewer transfers aside from the Red/Purple Line, although currently it's moot considering the Purple Line for the past 13 years is still a mile stub. It's a sad reality what hindrance LACMTA (and its predecessors SCRTD and LACTC) had to endure on what would have been a wonderful system today. The Metro Red Line would have ran from the current Sepulveda Orange Line station to East LA continuously and would have served their constituents wonderfully (the demographics are the same), instead it's gonna have to be a ride on a light rail line to heavy rail subway to a busway no thanks to NIMBYs and politicians. I am a big believer that we have favored light rail in too many cases where heavy rail would do a better job and serve many more people in a nearby corridor (Ventura Blvd vs. Orange Line for example). However, there is no way we would have a subway all the way to the 405 in the Valley or the Westside by now even without Zev's Law. There simply hasn't been the money there. I am doubtful even the Eastside Red Line would have been able to be built by now. We haven't had any rail open in well over 6 years. I am not sure what would have changed that from a funding perspective. Even with local funding in Measure R we are seeing how difficult it is to build the Purple Line extensions now. As for Eastside Gold, with the DTC, I am not sure how much worse off the ridership would be compared to the subway as the Gold Line is extending farther than the Red Line would have. However, I do worry that without the DTC, its slow speed, lack of job centers, and what some believe to be poor station placement, the Eastside Gold is going to be a disappointment from a ridership perspective at least at first. I hope I am wrong, but that is my initial hunch. |
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Oct 20, 2009 13:22:41 GMT -8
The Eastside goldline will essentially be an upgrade of several East-West Metro bus lines that already criss-cross East LA. Passengers who used to depend on the buses can now have dependable and more efficient light rail to move them faster during rush hour.
Why is everyone attacking the Foothill Extension ? The San Gabriel Valley pays its fair shair of Measure R tax money. Why stick them with only the El Monte busway ? It might not make sense from a Westsider's perspective, but each person wants their own share.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 20, 2009 16:05:10 GMT -8
I agree with Whitman, and while I am the first to promote the Downtown Connector as the logical next extension of the Gold Line after Azusa (and which should be done before the line goes anywhere east of Azusa), I think that the Foothill Extension is a truly popular project locally. Even if it's just to get this off our plates, I'd say that the FIRST extra money we can get from Sacramento should go for this project.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 20, 2009 18:27:24 GMT -8
Why is everyone attacking the Foothill Extension ? The San Gabriel Valley pays its fair shair of Measure R tax money. Why stick them with only the El Monte busway ? It might not make sense from a Westsider's perspective, but each person wants their own share. I kind of agree, although I don't know why it's light rail or nothing. Maybe a better use of their fair share of the tax money would be to begin to upgrade Metrolink. Getting rid of some of the crossings, increasing service levels, or electrification would all be good uses. Especially considering that high speed rail may come to our area in another decade a more efficient Metrolink connection makes a lot of sense. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 20, 2009 18:48:40 GMT -8
I live in Pasadena, so maybe I have a biased perspective on this, but I also think that the Foothill extension to Azusa should be started ASAP for the 2013 opening. I don't think that it should be any higher priority than the DC or the Subway extension, but if those truly are not going to be starting construction for a minimum of ~3 years, then my preference would be to have the Expo phase 2 and Foothill construction happening at the same time. Get those 2 projects underway, and then focus all effort on getting federal funds for the other 2 projects. Depending on the funding timeline and the economy (i.e. Measure R $), the Crenshaw line would be my next priority. That pretty much covers the next 10 years of construction. Anything beyond 10 years, in terms of planning, is essentially guesswork. Look how Measure R changed things for a good example of this. When they have the LRTP meeting Thursday, I'll bet there will be a compromise where the SGV interests get the Foothill extension to Azusa by the 2013 date, if they agree to back off on anything beyond that. Besides, then I wouldn't have to drive all the way to the Westside to take pictures  RubberToe |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 20, 2009 19:21:22 GMT -8
One other thing that I forgot to mention. The 210 freeway is pretty horrific during rush hour. Especially since they opened the new Eastern stretch several years ago. Anything that can help with that is a good thing. Not sure how it compares to others (10, 101) since I avoid those at all costs...
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 20, 2009 20:17:07 GMT -8
I live in Pasadena, so maybe I have a biased perspective on this, but I also think that the Foothill extension to Azusa should be started ASAP for the 2013 opening. I don't think that it should be any higher priority than the DC or the Subway extension, but if those truly are not going to be starting construction for a minimum of ~3 years, then my preference would be to have the Expo phase 2 and Foothill construction happening at the same time. Get those 2 projects underway, and then focus all effort on getting federal funds for the other 2 projects. Depending on the funding timeline and the economy (i.e. Measure R $), the Crenshaw line would be my next priority. That pretty much covers the next 10 years of construction. Anything beyond 10 years, in terms of planning, is essentially guesswork. Look how Measure R changed things for a good example of this. When they have the LRTP meeting Thursday, I'll bet there will be a compromise where the SGV interests get the Foothill extension to Azusa by the 2013 date, if they agree to back off on anything beyond that. Besides, then I wouldn't have to drive all the way to the Westside to take pictures RubberToe I'd agree with just about all of that. Although it isn't my favorite project by any means, since the Foothill Gold Line is about ready to go, lets just build it as soon as possible. Costs are only going to go up, and right now it is pretty cheap to get to Azuza. One thing I don't like is having to pay to operate a mostly empty line, but we'll have to live with that. Putting anything beyond Azuza in the LRTP is silly. The Pink Line and some of the Subway to the Sea isn't in there. When are people going to be sensible and push for a Metrolink upgrade on the SB line? I work with all sorts of people on the Westside who live in El Monte, Alhambra, Baldwin Park, etc... If there were a subway, they would be all over that as they are miserable with the traffic getting to and from work, but they need a good Metrolink service on the SB line to go along with that. On Crenshaw, I am starting to think the best thing for this project is to punt for 3-4 years. By then, we could have Expo Phase II, the DTC, the Purple Line to Fairfax, and the LAX People Mover (this one I'm not sure can be ready to go by then) under construction. The ridership models could then be updated and I think you would then show a line that has good ridership and can get some federal funds under the new transportation bill. There might be more of a chance to get this to Wilshire as it really needs to get there to become a successful line. The only problem is that we'd have the subway, the DTC, and Crenshaw all competing for federal funds, which is a lot to ask. As of right now, I don't see how Crenshaw can be built though. There isn't enough Measure R money for it to even get to Expo. |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 20, 2009 20:37:38 GMT -8
...and I think that we need to keep up the fight to make sure that Sacramento is contributing. A whole lotta reorganization is needed to make sure that we don't have to do it all ourselves or pray we get help from Washington.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 20, 2009 20:39:08 GMT -8
www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_13600641#I don't understand our congressional delegation. Do they not know how these lines get funded. How do they think, a line like Crenshaw or the Gold Line that shows very little ridership in current models will beat out those from other cities. It is all politics. I do agree that Expo Phase II should be included in the request for federal funds. I know the argument is that this will slow down the construction, but this is just good stewardship of precious county dollars. The worry is that this is another LA/Westside project so then if this gets funded, someone may say, why should more federal tax dollars go to another project in roughly the same area. You just can't win. I'm getting tired of all the politicians just trying to bring home the pork for their district and not being reasonable or good neighbors or just plain doing the right thing. Like I said previously, Crenshaw should be mothballed until additional lines come under construction and it can actually get federal funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Oct 20, 2009 20:49:34 GMT -8
Transfers are a bane of the everyday Metro bus commuter, me included (who uses the modality of the Metro Rail, Transitway, and Rapid). In my case, I'm lucky enough to live near the busiest corridor of the SFV, Van Nuys Blvd. Even with the 233 and 761 rolling through, they are sometimes not consistent and would easily have 60BRTs filled to the brim when the headways increase. One mitigation measure somewhat like the DTC for buses is Metro's proposed creation of Metro Line 902, NoHo Red Line direct to Van Nuys duplicating 233 north of the OL station using silver/gray Metro 45C buses.
In the case of rail, transfer penalties do hurt potential ridership as the service would not satisfy picky commuters who'd prefer one seat rides. The fear of missed or untimed transfers puts off some others. If built right, our Metro system would have had ridership that rivaled DCs Metrorail or Chicago. However, with such tight funding, Metro is playing a balancing act of building a decent system with the limited funds available; at least the DTC will be the first step in the right direction for LA to start interlining service and capture that potential market.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 30, 2010 19:05:18 GMT -8
This CityWatch Article addresses one of Measure R's chief opponents, and one who claims to be among the Foothill Gold Line's greatest proponents yet is arguably one of its greatest past and future threats: Michael Antonovich.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're Welcome, Mr. Antonovich, for the Foothill Gold Line
ALPERN’S ALLEY
By Ken Alpern
It’s tough, sometimes, for someone like me (who likes to stay neutral but usually leans conservative) to get upset at Supervisor Michael Antonovich, but there are times when he makes it rather easy for just about anyone to feel that way about him. After all, despite the best intentions of so many Westside and other Angeleno transit advocates to fight for the Good Supe’s desired Foothill Gold Line, he still keeps smacking away at us.
Thanks, dude…and “you’re welcome” for the Foothill Gold Line!
You know, I thought that politicians were supposed to be rather smart at being diplomatic and building bridges in order to advance their pet projects, but at this time it appears that Supervisor Michael Antonovich was and is the single greatest threat to the creation and extension of the Foothill Gold Line.
After all, he and Supervisor Gloria Molina (another screaming meamie) fought like hell against Measure R, the half-cent sales tax that is paying for everything from the I-405 and I-5 widenings to the Wilshire Subway to the Expo Line to the now-funded Foothill Gold Line from its current Pasadena terminus to the Azusa/Irwindale region.
Fortunately, Supervisors Antonovich and Molina’s constituents ignored their fearless (and clueless) leaders and voted in Measure R. Now we see roads resurfaced, freeways improved and rail lines constructed that could never otherwise be done in our lifetimes, and we also have a powerful source of credibility as we demand more Los Angeles County projects be funded by Washington and Sacramento.
Metro will transfer up to $810 million in Measure R and other funds to the Foothill Extension Gold Line Construction Authority, and following its completion Metro will (as with the Pasadena and Eastside segments of the Gold Line) operate the Foothill Gold Line as well as a planned rail maintenance yard in Monrovia to benefit the entire Eastside and county rail grid.
Stations will be in Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale and Azusa, which will have two stops, and hundreds of parking spaces and many large transit-oriented developments are planned for this line, which will provide an alternative to the traffic-soaked I-210 freeway in the San Gabriel Valley.
Because of a lack of immediately-available funds, a creative and innovative loan from the firm chosen to build it will be repaid by Metro funds with the idea that the sooner it’s built, the lower the interest and labor costs for this project. Previously, this truly shovel-ready and locally-favored project would have languished until 2017 for completion and opening, but it might now be opened as early as 2014.
So, Mr. Antonovich, did you say “thanks” to the Mayor of L.A. and to Westside politicians who pushed for this project but would not let it get in the way of other worthy projects such as the Expo Line and the Wilshire Subway and a light rail link to LAX? Did you acknowledge that regional alliances such as those that created Measure R was a good thing?
No, you were still sniping at Los Angeles and its Mayor while everyone else in the San Gabriel Valley and throughout the region were trying to make nice and cooperate for a change.
Which is rather sad, because I’m one of the few Westside transit advocates who first debated and fought for this project against other Westsiders who thought this was a lousy project compared to the higher-ridden Red/Purple Line Subway and who pointed out that the Pasadena Gold Line had horrible ridership (less than the Orange Line Busway, for crying out loud) …so why extend it?
You see, I “get it” as to what the Foothill Gold Line is all about, because I grew up in Long Beach where most of us stayed the hell away from megadense, traffic-laden Downtown L.A. and I know that the Foothill Gold Line is NOT going to be used by many riders wanting to go to Downtown but instead to/from Pasadena. Downtown-bound riders will use Metrolink or their cars, most likely.
I “get it” that the Pasadena Gold Line was a necessary precursor to the Foothill Gold Line, which has arguably been the true goal of San Gabriel Valley politicians and planners for many, many years. I “get it” that the Pasadena Gold Line was and is virtually a separate but connected line than the Foothill Gold Line, and that while the Pasadena Gold Line reaches its ultimate potential after the Downtown Light Rail Connector is completed, the ultimate potential of the Foothill Gold Line is enhanced by its eastern reaches to Claremont and Ontario Airport.
Again, Pasadena and Eastside Gold Line riders are mostly Downtown-bound and are thwarted by a lack of direct access to the current Blue and Green Lines and the future Expo Line…but Foothill Gold Line riders will be college students and local commuters, most of whom who want no part of Downtown life but want an alternative to the I-210 freeway.
This is why I’m constantly in disagreement with most of my fellow transit advocates because I don’t have a problem recognizing light rail lines as more passenger/commuter friendly alternatives to those freeways than HOV/carpool lanes which requires carpooling. I see light rail lines as the Expo and Foothill Gold Lines as adjuncts to the east-west I-10 and I-210 freeways, and I see the Blue and Pasadena Gold Lines as adjuncts to the north-south I-710 and I-110 freeways.
Similarly, I see the Eastside Gold Line Extension along the SR-60 freeway as an opportunity to create a commercial corridor to allow development to occur in a brand new area, while other transit advocates gnash their teeth because they view the automobile as the agent of the Antichrist. At this time, I’ve yet to see the numbers “666” underneath any automobile, bicycle, bus, light rail car or heavy rail car, so I kinda like them all and want to see motorists and bicyclists and pedestrians and transit options all work together because they’re NOT mutually exclusive.
I like to have alternatives, and so does Supervisor Antonovich and the San Gabriel Valley political leadership that are fighting for freeway upgrades as well as light rail to prevent the Inland Empire from turning into the same traffic-laden nightmares that much of the City of Los Angeles has become.
So why, Supevisor Antonovich, do you continue to play the role of Prince of Perpetually Pissed-Off Passion Posed at People Promoting Partnership from the City of Los Angeles?
Ya do know, right, that this new agreement from Metro does not fund construction of the second phase of the Foothill Extension to Montclair? Ya do know, right, that the agreement doesn’t fund the third phase from Montclair to Ontario airport, either, and that you’ll probably need the City and County of Los Angeles to support further eastward extensions of the Foothill Gold Line when the first phase opens in about 2014, and that our Mayor is already trying to find a way to link L.A.-owned Ontario Airport to mass transit…right?
Or are you just fighting with Gloria Molina as to which of you is a better advertisement for term limits?
Anyway, Supervisor Antonovich, I know you probably don’t give a damn about me because I am not one of your constituents (actually I am, because I live in L.A. County which you are supposed to run, even those regions outside your district). Maybe you’ll therefore ignore my advice when I suggest you’re hurting your constituents and the future of the Foothill Gold Line when you continue to rail (pun intended) against the City of Los Angeles.
Maybe you’ll also ignore those among your constituents who will benefit from the Downtown Light Rail Connector and the Wilshire Subway that Mayor Villaraigosa is also fighting for (San Gabriel Valley residents really DO work within and west of Downtown, you know).
But as a taxpayer and a transit/transportation advocate, I personally won’t hose or hurt your constituents like you seem to be willing to do. I think that San Gabriel Valley taxpayers deserve a Foothill Gold Line as well as all the freeway, road and rail connections possible to enhance their EEQ (Economy, Environment and Quality of Life).
So let’s celebrate the long-overdue groundbreaking of the Foothill Gold Line, because it’s an example of what L.A. County has needed for decades.
And even though you’ll drink a barrel full of lye before you ever thank Mayor Villaraigosa and the taxpayers of the City of Los Angeles who will help pay for that Foothill Gold Line…you’re welcome, Supervisor Antonovich!!!
(Ken Alpern is a Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) and is both co-chair of the MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee and past co-chair of the MVCC Planning Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and also chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at Alpern@MarVista.org. This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)
CityWatch
Vol 8 Issue 25
Pub: Mar 30, 2010
|
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Mar 31, 2010 13:06:42 GMT -8
Thanks for the backgrounder, Ken. Despite the history, I'm sure we can look forward to a well-crafted speech of congratulations on opening day from a smiling Supervisor Antonovich as the Azusa station opens for business.
|
|
