L.A. Metro Area Transit: What's Next?

[Vangelist]

Edluva's post is just a regurgitation of **really,** old cliches about "ew vapid hollyweird" as written by a biased anti-LAist (usually east coast in origin, having to perpetuate NY = "high-culture, LA is merely "pop" so it's inferior lie - but NY generates "pop" worldwide!). Ranters as such are usually unaware of or ignoring the fact that "Hollywood" was created by and always has been/is run by, essentially, New Yorker WASP/Jews...any argument to the contrary is bollocks, as even at this moment the titans of "the industry" sit in their Manhattan glass towers on 5th and 6th Avenues - as did the Cohns and the Warners before them, etc - ocassionally flying out here for business but maintaining the top echelons of the "industry" decisions there. (Obvious example: do you even know how often Mr. Weinstein comes to LA? He loathes it!) Their immediate subordinates had no interest, historically speaking, of developing LA into any distinct sort of city since the versatile aspect of its built environment would of course have to be maintained to nurture the "world-backlot" nature of the place, filling in for "wherever" at moment's notice. This is slowly changing as the urbanity increases; as someone "in the industry" (wince) let me tell you that I'm running into Curbed-LA-addicted producers all the time. (Who want to have pedestrian-oriented offices downtown...but bemoan the westside/western address of the Big 3 and Top 5. Not a single soul, in addition, doesn't desire some sort of improvement to public transit). And of course, no authentic struggling actors are in charge of making any civic or architectural decisions, in this metropolis or any other =) How many anti-intellectual stupids are there in 1 square mile of Jersey vs. the same area of the Valley anyway? Has no one done a study? I'm shocked.
Rather than something as superfluous as profession, again race is the more pivotal and revealing issue. The fact that indigenous Mexicans are finally taking the top-most reins of Angeleno gov't after a century is a much more significant development in its evolving leadership, and not just for the fear-factor it espouses in shrinking WASP power-bases...remember, geographically and culturally this always was, upto a century-and-a-qurter ago, and to an extent always will be the capital of "Mexifornia," with considerable aspects of the Pan-Asian and Middle Eastern communities thrown in, that are increasing and altering the urban character's entire gestalt. The recent ruckus over Beverly Hills ballots being entirely printed in Farsi for non-English speakers - forget Spanish, but Farsi! - is a good example. Now LA should just declare war on the US and secede when we start to bomb Iran, and the circle shall be complete

[Wright Concept]

Back to discussing LA Transit...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-expo2nov02,1,5143948.story

From the Los Angeles Times
Expo light rail line needs more cash, officials say
The downtown-to-Culver City project will require an additional $145 million if it's to be finished as planned, construction managers say.
By Jeffrey L. Rabin
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

4:05 PM PDT, November 1, 2007

Transit officials today said they need an additional $145 million to build the Expo Line light rail system from downtown L.A. to Culver City, saying rising construction costs are largely to blame.

Despite evidence of rising costs, transit officials had been lowballing their projections of the annual increase in labor and materials for the $640-million project.

Richard Thorpe, chief executive officer of the Exposition Construction Authority, said officials assumed that labor and materials would increase at a rate of 3.5% a year.

But construction costs were actually rising at over 11% annually -- more than three times faster than their projections. Based on recently negotiated construction contracts, Thorpe said the 8.6-mile rail line "cannot be completed as originally planned" without $145 million in additional funding.

The construction authority board is expected today to vote to ask the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the additional money. Without it, Thorpe has said the first phase of the project will end at the La Cienega station, short of Culver City.

The disclosure that the project is nearly 23% over budget comes at a critical time.

The construction authority cannot lay tracks across intersections along the route without approval from the California Public Utilities Commission. The agency has scheduled public hearings next week on whether the design of the rail line is safe, particularly where it would pass Dorsey High School.

Community activists in the Crenshaw District argue the trains cannot be operated safely at Exposition Boulevard and Farmdale Avenue, where students would have to cross the tracks. Opponents of the design received a boost today when the safety committee of the Los Angeles Unified School District went on record against the rail line if it is built at street level close to schools.

The motion by school board member Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte calls for the district to exhaust all legal options with the MTA to eliminate at-grade crossings that present a danger to pedestrians.

jeff.rabin@latimes.com

[DowntownCharlieBrown]

Back to discussing LA Transit...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-expo2nov02,1,5143948.story

Community activists in the Crenshaw District argue the trains cannot be operated safely at Exposition Boulevard and Farmdale Avenue, where students would have to cross the tracks. Opponents of the design received a boost today when the safety committee of the Los Angeles Unified School District went on record against the rail line if it is built at street level close to schools.

The motion by school board member Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte calls for the district to exhaust all legal options with the MTA to eliminate at-grade crossings that present a danger to pedestrians.

jeff.rabin@latimes.com

Would the least expensive solution to this be to build a pedestrian bridge over the tracks for the students? Is that one of the alternatives being discussed?

[Hubris]

http://bp0.blogger.com/_k8Y0SWU8PJM/Rym__7u6Z_I/AAAAAAAAACk/55XpSWglWoE/s1600-h/espacio+coches.jpg?

[Quixote]

Cost of L.A.-to-Culver City rail line rises by $145 million

Officials say their original budget greatly underestimated how much the expense of labor and materials would increase.

By Jeffrey L. Rabin and Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
November 2, 2007

Transit officials said Thursday that they will need an additional $145 million to build the Exposition light rail line from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City, once again underscoring the huge financial stakes involved in constructing a rail system to the Westside.

Rapid increases in construction costs have ballooned the project's original $640-million budget to $785 million, officials said, and threaten to shorten the line before it reaches Culver City. The project broke ground in August.

Faced with the nearly 23% increase in costs, members of the Exposition Construction Authority voted Thursday to ask the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to provide the extra money. The MTA will operate the rail system.

Despite evidence that construction costs were rising in recent years, project officials seriously underestimated the rate of inflation for labor and materials when they developed the Expo Line's budget in 2005.

In a written report, Richard Thorpe, chief executive of the Expo authority and the MTA's top construction official, said the budget assumed that the price of labor and construction materials would increase 3.5% annually. But construction costs actually rose an average of more than 11% a year, Thorpe said.

Based on recently negotiated contracts, he wrote that the 8.6-mile first stage of the line "cannot be completed as originally planned" without the additional funding from the MTA. Without it, Thorpe said, the line will end short of Culver City, probably at the La Cienega station.

Before discussion of the cost overruns, Santa Monica Councilwoman Pam O'Connor, who chairs the MTA board, abruptly left the Expo board meeting. As she raced to her car outside the county Hall of Administration, O'Connor said she had a prior engagement out of town and had to get to the airport.

Los Angeles Councilwoman Jan Perry, who chairs the construction authority, left right after the overrun discussion and said she had to get to another event.

In an interview later she said that all members of the Expo board had been briefed on the budget problems and were aware that the project faced a substantial deficit.

"We knew," she said

After the meeting, Thorpe defended the projections used to develop the $640-million budget, saying no one could have foreseen such a rapid rise in construction costs.

His comments echoed those of MTA Chief Executive Roger Snoble, who said the cost of steel, concrete and other materials has increased dramatically in recent years.

If the MTA provides the additional money to the Expo Line, Snoble acknowledged, it will come at the expense of future rail projects the agency is considering. The MTA board could take up the issue at its meeting late this month.

The public disclosure of the cost increases comes at a critical time for the Expo project. The construction authority cannot lay tracks across intersections along the route without approval from the California Public Utilities Commission.

The PUC has scheduled back-to-back hearings next week on whether the design of the line is safe, particularly where it would pass Dorsey High School.

Community activists say the trains cannot be operated safely at street level through the intersection of Exposition Boulevard and Farmdale Avenue, where students would have to cross the tracks. Expo authority officials have insisted at community meetings and in legal papers filed with the PUC that running the trains by the school at street level is safe. They are expected to defend that position at a PUC hearing Tuesday in Culver City.

Bowing to mounting community concern, the Expo board voted Thursday to ask Thorpe to come back next month with an analysis of the cost of building a pedestrian crossing over the tracks, constructing a pedestrian tunnel under them or elevating them as they pass Dorsey. The new price tag does not include the cost of any of those options. Current plans call for the line to begin rising just west of Dorsey to reach an elevated station at La Brea Avenue.

Opponents of the present design for the Farmdale/Exposition intersection got a boost Thursday when Los Angeles school board member Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte introduced a motion opposing "any at-grade design of the Expo Light Rail Line along streets in close proximity to school sites."

The school district's safety committee took no stand on the motion, which is expected to go before the full board at its next meeting, Nov. 13.

Although the epicenter of the dispute is the crossing near Dorsey, the line would also pass within 100 feet of four other schools.

Until recent weeks, the Expo authority assumed L.A. Unified would go along with its plans. For the most part, mid-level school safety managers had presumed that street-level train crossings were inevitable. They had focused instead on working out smaller measures to enhance safety.

LaMotte said she wasn't aware of the potential risk until she attended a public meeting last month at Dorsey.

She reassured Expo Line critics Thursday: "I can talk pretty strongly and pretty loudly and you have my support. And I don't intend to back off."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-expo2nov02,1,5143948.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true)

[sopas ej]

What do you guys think of this??

-----------

From the Los Angeles Times:

L.A. subway plans take a radical shift

A new route along Santa Monica Boulevard is considered instead of the Wilshire corridor, bypassing the Miracle Mile and Hancock Park.

By Rong-Gong Lin II, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 3, 2007
After trying for three decades to build a subway down Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles County transit officials are now considering a radically different route that would send the Westside rail line though Hollywood, West Hollywood and the Beverly Center area.

The new proposed alignment for the "Subway to the Sea" would extend west from the Hollywood/Highland Red Line station, roughly following Santa Monica Boulevard through Beverly Hills, a route that backers say should dip south to connect with the Beverly Center mall and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.

The new concept is still in its preliminary stages, and the Wilshire alignment remains on the table. But even though officials don't have funding for the $6-billion project, the new concept has sparked much debate because of how crucial many officials see the subway to easing the Westside's traffic woes.

The new route would bypass the Miracle Mile and Hancock Park, where opposition remains strong to a subway from residents in the upscale residential district.

At the same time, officials and residents in Hollywood and West Hollywood are rolling out the welcome mat, saying the younger, apartment-living residents in that area would be more likely to take the subway.

"We have a tremendous ridership base that would use it," said West Hollywood Councilman Jeffrey Prang.

But the new route perplexes some transit experts, who note that bus ridership is much higher on the Wilshire bus lines than on those along Santa Monica Boulevard.

Buses that run along Wilshire attract 64,300 boardings a day, making it the top bus corridor in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority area, which covers much of Los Angeles County. Santa Monica Boulevard's bus ridership comes in a distant fourth, with 34,900 boardings a day. (Two boardings make up one round trip.)

"The preferred route is where the highest-density corridor is, and that's definitely along the Wilshire area," said Genevieve Giuliano, director of the National Center for Metropolitan Transportation Research at USC.

The MTA's rail planning has come under scrutiny since officials revealed Thursday that the light-rail Exposition Line from downtown to Culver City is expected to cost $145 million, or nearly 23%, more than the original budget called for.

The MTA is examining the pros and cons of each subway route to determine which one deserves further study for an environmental impact report. Officials have not come up with a cost estimate for either alignment.

The last detailed study to explore extending the subway westward was done more than 15 years ago. A subway along Wilshire has long been considered a crucial part of the backbone for a rail system in L.A.

When the idea was raised in the early 1980s, residents and businesses rose up to oppose it, citing concerns about construction delays, the danger from underground methane deposits and a possible increase in crime.

But over the last three decades, some of that opposition has dropped as traffic has worsened.

At a recent public meeting, Miracle Mile resident Diana Eisele, 54, recalled how difficult it was for her relatives from London and Rome to navigate L.A.'s mass transit system.

"It's downright embarrassing trying to get them around the city," said Eisele, who lives two blocks north of Wilshire on Citrus Avenue.

Eisele also said she has suffered her share of the increasing congestion. She teaches fitness programs for senior citizens around the city. Recently, she had to reschedule the start of her class in West Los Angeles from 9 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. because morning traffic is so unpredictable. Still, she says she is often late.

But others along Wilshire remain opposed to a subway there.

"Subways were developed for vertical cities of the last century. This is a horizontal city," said Mike Genewick, president of the Windsor Square Neighborhood Assn., known for its stately historic mansions.

He said he feared that a subway stop at Wilshire and Crenshaw boulevards, and added pressure for development, would "block sunlight and increase crime in single-family residential area."

The subway is getting a much better reception a few miles north.

"Places with larger, more expensive homes tend to be more resistant to anything that impacts their neighborhoods," said West Hollywood's Prang. In his city, "you have a very receptive community that will welcome mass transportation options."

Erik Sanjurjo, a member of the Hollywood United Neighborhood Council board, said the proposed shift to Hollywood and West Hollywood makes demographic sense.

"I think there's a lot of young people who move around that area; that part of the city has a lot of jobs, entertainment, restaurants and theater," he said. "There's a lot of activity; the people of that area want a way to move around."

But in Beverly Hills, some officials seem to favor Wilshire over Santa Monica.

"Wilshire Boulevard gets really clogged in the afternoon; almost at times it becomes like a parking lot," said Mayor Jimmy Delshad. "On Santa Monica Boulevard, we face a lot of homes."

Beverly Hills' mass transit committee has endorsed the Wilshire alignment, which would run through the city's primary commercial district. Nearly 75% of the traffic through Beverly Hills does not involve a stop there but is a result of commuters going to and from downtown L.A. and the Westside, Delshad said.

Even if officials can agree on a route, whether the $6 billion needed to build the subway can be found remains a major question. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's aides say they are studying possible funding scenarios, including "benefit assessment districts" that would levy extra taxes on property owners within half a mile of the subway line. Another idea is to find a private firm that could build and possibly operate the subway.

But some MTA officials say the Subway to the Sea is just too expensive and that the money should be spent on smaller transit projects such as busway and freeway expansions.

MTA officials are reviewing comments they received from public meetings last month on the subway and say they expect to present the board with a route recommendation by summer.

http://www.latimes.com/media/mapimage/2007-11/33613274.gif

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rail3nov03,0,2826046.story?coll=la-home-center

-----------

I think it's lame some people want the subway to bypass the Miracle Mile, what with the museums in that area and all. It'd be great if they could build BOTH extensions.

[Echo Park]

It's a good point that young people who navigate Hollywood/WeHo to Beverly Center would be more likely to use the train. Obviously both routes should be built but as far as priority goes, Wilshire still takes the cake. It is simply too gridlocked and more dense than any other corridor for any other route to be considered right now.

[LAofAnaheim]

But some MTA officials say the Subway to the Sea is just too expensive and that the money should be spent on smaller transit projects such as busway and freeway expansions. - Oh my lord...how many more freeway expansions do we need? Don't we want people LIVING and WORKING in the CITY.Let's not take all our open space for freeways. What about gas costs? You think gas will ever be below $3/gallon?

What annoys me the biggest is when gas prices rise the officials have the nerve to say "get out of your cars and take public transit"...well, if you as an official do not support transit development, and you built this very effective and efficient freeway system and a 3rd rate transit system....why should I take public transportation???

[DowntownCharlieBrown]

Buses that run along Wilshire attract 64,300 boardings a day, making it the top bus corridor in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority area, which covers much of Los Angeles County. Santa Monica Boulevard's bus ridership comes in a distant fourth, with 34,900 boardings a day. (Two boardings make up one round trip.)
I too hope they build both segments. However, I wonder how many of the 64,300 bus riders board the bus from west of the Santa Monica/Wilshire planned station (where the segments join) and take the bus all the way to downtown. If that number is significant, I would imagine the vast majority of those bus riders would hope on the subway to get downtown no matter which segment is built. And you would still get the added ridership of those that would commute by subway to downtown that would never take the bus, thus decreasing traffic on Wilshire.

As I look at the map of the proposed segments, once one of the lines is built, what is left of the other segment has to be a lot less expensive and hopefully will be built soon after the other is complete.

[ocman]

It amazes me how the opposition can have so much power. When is the MTA going to stop trying to make everyone happy? There's no leadership. It doesn't really matter. I can't imagine in any way possible that LA would get $6 billion dollars for this project alone.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ The cost will increase every year. Materials and labor aren't getting any cheaper (inflation and a high demand for construction materials will keep prices prohibitively high). In the short time that the Expo Line has been under construction, we're already experiencing higher costs "unforeseen." What makes any of you think that the $6 billion price tag for the subway to the sea will remain constant? For all we know, that price will easily hit $10 billion by the end of the decade. Rising oil prices will increase costs for construction at all levels: manufactoring, transportation, labor, insurance, etc.

[Echo Park]

"Subways were developed for vertical cities of the last century. This is a horizontal city," said Mike Genewick, president of the Windsor Square Neighborhood Assn., known for its stately historic mansions.

He said he feared that a subway stop at Wilshire and Crenshaw boulevards, and added pressure for development, would "block sunlight and increase crime in single-family residential area."

Although I must say after reading this I almost want to say let these kinds of people like Mike Genewick stew in their traffic cesspool. Attitudes like that only make a SaMo line more enticing because people who lives in hoods like WeHo, Hollywood, Echo Lake and Silver Park tend to be younger, more liberal and are therefore more community oriented. Community oritented outlook tends to be the most welcoming toward public transit. But one simply has to look at Wilshire, where every 60 ft 720 bus is filled to the brim with passengers, a lot of them working class commuting from east side communities to service jobs on the west side. This subway is as much for them as it is for shortsighted folks who live along this corridor like the guy i quoted above. (Seriously, blocking sunlight!? Is this jackass gonna sue mother nature next for every cloudy day? What a joke)

[Echo Park]

But some MTA officials say the Subway to the Sea is just too expensive and that the money should be spent on smaller transit projects such as busway and freeway expansions. - Oh my lord...how many more freeway expansions do we need?

For reals, yo. Who elects these people?

[Vangelist]

Omg Wtf Lol

Building A **subway** Blockz Teh Sunlight

L0l

[LongBeachUrbanist]

I can't imagine in any way possible that LA would get $6 billion dollars for this project alone.

It can be done. If the locals are for it and serious enough to put lots of money forward, the project will be able to raise state and matching federal dollars.

As some have suggested, what is currently needed is leadership. We need to get our act together.

The longer we delay, the more it's going to cost. Look at Expo. Why are we building that without federal dollars? And now the delays (coupled with the rapidly devaluing dollar) have increased the costs by 23%?

We need some leadership! Antonio, where are you?

[sopas ej]

It can be done. If the locals are for it and serious enough to put lots of money forward, the project will be able to raise state and matching federal dollars.

As some have suggested, what is currently needed is leadership. We need to get our act together.

The longer we delay, the more it's going to cost. Look at Expo. Why are we building that without federal dollars? And now the delays (coupled with the rapidly devaluing dollar) have increased the costs by 23%?

We need some leadership! Antonio, where are you?

He's too busy having affairs. ;)

[jlrobe]

News Brief

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is holding two public meetings Downtown this week to gather feedback on its Regional Connector Transit Corridor Study. The study will analyze various alignments, station locations and transit modes for the possible connection of the Metro Gold, Blue and Expo lines through Downtown. Meetings will feature a formal presentation and displays offering several layout options for an area that includes approximately two square miles of Downtown. Attendees will be invited to submit written comments on the proposals. Meetings will be held Tuesday, Nov. 6, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. at the Central Library, 630 W. Fifth St., meeting room A; and Wednesday, Nov. 7, from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Japanese American National Museum, 369 E. First St., Central Hall. Those unable to attend the meetings can submit comments by phone, fax, mail or email through Nov. 21. More information is at (213) 922-7277 or metro.net/regionalconnector.

[Wright Concept]

He's too busy having affairs. ;)

No he's not. He's hiding in a shell with Jim Hahn. :jester:

[LAofAnaheim]

Keep in mind...Antonio has done great stuff for the downtown renaissance and the focus on Metro transit. I haven't heard past LA mayors mention the LA subway as frequently as Antonio does. Whatever Antonio did last summer does suck, but he's been more of an asset to Los Angeles than any other elected official would have been today.

[Echo Park]

Keep in mind...Antonio has done great stuff for the downtown renaissance

Like what? You're praising him for talking about the subway. Big whoop. I can talk about the subway too. The downtown renaissance came before Villaraigosa took office. He talks a big game but when Expo is running low on funds or when the transporation bond was raped by the state he is completely silent. All talk and no action, that's been the Villaraigosa administration so far.

[sopas ej]

Like what? You're praising him for talking about the subway. Big whoop. I can talk about the subway too. The downtown renaissance came before Villaraigosa took office. He talks a big game but when Expo is running low on funds or when the transporation bond was raped by the state he is completely silent. All talk and no action, that's been the Villaraigosa administration so far.

I totally agree. I thought James Hahn was a better mayor. If I lived in the City of LA I would've voted for him for another term. James Hahn accomplished a lot in his term in office, he just did a lot of good things behind the scenes and didn't really publicize; he wasn't a saber-waver like the current mayor of LA. All talk and no action, that pretty much sums up Villaraigosa.

[ocman]

He's proven to be really ineffective. I'm still waiting to learn of the one major accomplishment that will establish his legacy before his term is over.

[Wright Concept]

http://www.sgvtribune.com/search/ci_7372160?IADID=Search-www.sgvtribune.com-www.sgvtribune.com

This should make our forum buddy Art very happy.

Metro line on track
Plans told for new leg of light-rail extension
By Fred Ortega, Staff Writer


The Metro Gold Line Eastside extension is yet to be completed, but officials are already planning for a second leg of the line that could reach as far as Whittier.

The $898 million Eastside extension, which will run from Union Station through East Los Angeles and end near the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Pomona Boulevard near Monterey Park, is on schedule and slated to open in 2009.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials have already scheduled a series of public meetings to discuss options for the second phase of the line, said Metro spokesman Jose Ubaldo. The meetings will take place in some of the cities that could be traversed by the new line, including Whittier, Montebello, Rosemead and Pico Rivera.

The mode of the future transit line has yet to be determined, Ubaldo said.
"We are looking at proposing either light rail a rapid busway like the Orange Line or rapid bus service like Metro Rapid," said Ubaldo. Possible routes could follow Beverly Boulevard, Whittier Boulevard or the Pomona (60) Freeway.

The Whittier and Beverly boulevard routes, as well as a third option along Washington Boulevard via Atlantic Avenue, would end in Whittier.

While a rapid transit line connecting Whittier to downtown Los Angeles and the rest of the Metro rail system would be an "absolutely wonderful idea," Whittier City Councilwoman Cathy Warner said she had questions about the plan's viability. "The reality is it has to be paid for and constructed," said Warner. "Is it possible to obtain funding for it? Do we do it with a bond? And then there are the concerns associated with construction."

The proposed Gold Line extension to Montclair has run into similar funding issues. While environmental reviews and design plans have already been completed and the construction authority in charge of the project already owns the right-of-way for the line, the plan hinges on approval of $8 million in operating expenses from MTA and another $400 million for construction of the first phase.

Gold Line Extension Construction Authority officials are in the process of lobbying the state and federal government for the funding. They insist that they could start construction as early as next year, as long as the money comes through.

Rosemead City Councilman John Nunez said he was excited about the probability of the Eastside extension. But he added that the proposed 60 Freeway route, which would take the line past his city, is the most logical option.

"Going down the 60 makes sense because you could feasibly use it to get to the (Ontario) airport," said Nunez. "Montebello would also be very interested in having the route go there because they have a mall there. It is just a natural way."

Plans are also being considered to lengthen the proposed Gold Line extension to Montclair down to the Ontario Airport.

Ubaldo, the MTA spokesman, said Metro is projecting 23,000 daily passenger boardings on the first phase of the Gold Line Eastside extension by 2025. He said the authority does not have ridership projections yet for the second phase.

"This is a study only; we don't really have the funds to do anything more," said Ubaldo. "It would take at least 10 years to finish a project like this, and that is why we want to start planning now."

The meetings will take public input on the proposed lines and analyze those suggestions to determine which is most feasible from the perspective of environmental impact, economic feasibility and ridership. Revised options will be brought back to the public in March 2008, and the final locally preferred alternatives will be presented to the Metro Board by September 2008.

The meetings will be held at 6:30 p.m. Thursday at Palm Park, 5703 Palm Ave., Whittier; at 9 a.m. Saturday at the Senior Center, City Park, 115 S. Taylor Ave., Montebello; at 6:30 p.m. Nov. 14 at Potrero Heights Elementary School, 8026 E. Hill Drive, Rosemead; and at 6:30 p.m. Nov. 15 at North Park Middle School Cafeteria, 4450 Durfee Ave., Pico Rivera.

fred.ortega@sgvn.com

(626) 962-8811, Ext. 2306

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-expo7nov07,1,7437718.story?coll=la-headlines-california

From the Los Angeles Times
Expo Line safety fears are aired
Hundreds of South L.A. residents turn out to urge the PUC not to allow light-rail trains to run at street level near Dorsey High School.
By Jeffrey L. Rabin
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

November 7, 2007

The California Public Utilities Commission will closely scrutinize the safety of the planned Exposition light-rail line after South Los Angeles residents told officials they fear that running trains at street level would pose an unacceptable risk to the public.

More than 400 people turned out Monday night to tell PUC Commissioner Timothy Simon and an administrative law judge that running trains along an old railroad right of way would lead to the death and injury of students crossing the tracks near Dorsey High School.

Speaker after speaker voiced opposition to the operation of the trains at street level in the median of Exposition Boulevard. They demanded that the rail line be built below street level to eliminate potential conflicts with students and motorists, particularly where Exposition Boulevard crosses Farmdale Avenue next to the high school.

The intensity of the opposition struck Simon. "This process has been extraordinarily informative to me. The people have spoken," he told the crowd. "I'm looking at all the crossings and their risk factors from a different perspective."

Simon promised to pay particular attention to the safety of the line where it would pass the high school and the Foshay Learning Center near Western Avenue and Exposition.

The Exposition Construction Authority is seeking state approval to lay tracks across more than three dozen intersections from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City.

Simon last month issued a preliminary ruling rejecting the arguments posed by leaders of Expo Communities United, which opposes the street-level design. But he agreed with the opponents that a full-scale public hearing was needed to examine the safety of the proposed crossing near Dorsey.

A full evidentiary hearing on the application to lay tracks across that intersection was postponed until January after the construction authority's board of directors voted Thursday to study alternatives to the street-level design.

The options being considered involve changing the design so that trains would run over or under the intersection. A variation would keep the tracks at street level with a pedestrian crossing over or under the tracks.

Authority consultant James Okazaki opened the hearing with computer simulations of what the Dorsey intersection would look like after the installation of traffic signals, wider sidewalks, crosswalks and a holding area next to the tracks.

Okazaki insisted that the intersection would be safer with trains operating than it is today.

Numerous speakers said some high school students would see the crossing gates and fencing around the tracks as an opportunity to demonstrate their athletic prowess. Others accused the construction authority of having a double standard for safety in heavily minority neighborhoods along Exposition compared with USC.

The tracks will be in a trench where the rail line leaves Flower Street and turns west onto Exposition Boulevard near the southeast corner of the campus. The authority board recently agreed to add a street-level station at USC/Exposition Park.

USC engineering professor Najmedin Meshkati presented PUC officials with a lengthy report on ways the Exposition line could be designed with greater safety features.

Some but not all of the features suggested in the report were incorporated into the Exposition project design.

But Meshkati said more could be done to protect the public at street-level railroad crossings.

To underscore his point, Meshkati quoted a Southern California transit official who said after a 2003 accident involving a Metrolink commuter train that "every grade crossing is an accident waiting to happen."

jeff.rabin@latimes.com

[Wright Concept]

LA TIMES

Letters to the editor
November 10, 2007


Wilshire vs. Santa Monica
Re "Subway planners take sharp turn," Nov. 3

Transit officials considering Santa Monica Boulevard instead of Wilshire Boulevard for a subway route reminded me of the old saw about the boy searching for his lost quarter under a streetlight. When asked if that was where he lost it, he replied: "No, but the light is better here." Similarly, transit officials are considering a transit line on Santa Monica not because that's where the highest transit demand is but because it's politically easier. They ought to remember that Angelenos will have to live with the consequences of this decision for many decades and perhaps even centuries. They need to pick the route that best serves commuters regardless of the politics.

Daniel J. Stone
Los Angeles



Routing the subway along both Wilshire and Santa Monica and having them meet in Beverly Hills and then continue on Santa Monica would be brilliant. Routing the subway only along Wilshire would still be great. Routing the subway only along Santa Monica would be a huge mistake because it would force anyone wanting to travel directly east or west between downtown and the Westside to take a 20-minute detour. This route option would discourage a great number of potential riders and for that reason should be rejected.

Jim Shafer
Los Angeles



Just build it already. This subway route is long overdue. It's too late for me, but when I worked in Los Angeles, I would have gladly ridden an overcrowded -- but fast -- subway, even if it detoured through Hollywood, instead of driving or riding the miserably slow buses along Wilshire (which I did for a year). Sure, Wilshire is the ideal route, but if the residents of Hollywood and West Hollywood are welcoming it, and those of Hancock Park and the Wilshire Corridor are not, build it along Santa Monica. Let the former reap the long-term benefits.

Carl Almer
Rochester, N.Y.



I hope Mike Genewick, president of the Windsor Square Homeowners Assn., realizes that the old saw about the subway bringing crime and blight rings false. Cars, buses, bicycles and self-locomotion allow anyone, law-abiding or not, to enter all the streets around Windsor Square. If he is that concerned, I suggest that he move to the gated Fremont Place nearby.

Andrew P. Crane
Los Angeles



The Green Line to the airport doesn't actually go to the airport, and now the Wilshire subway won't actually go on Wilshire. Different politicians, same old stupidity.

Gerald A. Caterina
Huntington Beach



The MTA is legally required to study all reasonable transit alternatives to serve the Westside, not just a "subway to the sea" or a Wilshire Boulevard alignment. All potential transit projects are required to follow a well-established alternatives analysis process mandated by state and federal environmental regulations to ensure that the project meets the public's needs and qualifies it to compete for future state and federal matching funds.

In addition to analyzing these possible alignments, Metro is evaluating different transit modes, including subway, above-ground rail, Bus Rapid Transit and a "no-build" scenario to ensure that we meet requirements for grant funding and recommend the most cost-effective, locally preferred alternative to our board next year.

The public process is the necessary first step in developing a project that can compete for funding and, ultimately, bring better transit service to the Westside.

Roger Snoble
Chief Executive Oficer
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Los Angeles

[sopas ej]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-expo7nov07,1,7437718.story?coll=la-headlines-california

From the Los Angeles Times
Expo Line safety fears are aired
Hundreds of South L.A. residents turn out to urge the PUC not to allow light-rail trains to run at street level near Dorsey High School.
By Jeffrey L. Rabin
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

November 7, 2007

The California Public Utilities Commission will closely scrutinize the safety of the planned Exposition light-rail line after South Los Angeles residents told officials they fear that running trains at street level would pose an unacceptable risk to the public...

Speaker after speaker voiced opposition to the operation of the trains at street level in the median of Exposition Boulevard. They demanded that the rail line be built below street level to eliminate potential conflicts with students and motorists, particularly where Exposition Boulevard crosses Farmdale Avenue next to the high school. Etc. etc. blah blah blah.



People who try to beat trains while driving, and walking into the path of oncoming trains... isn't that Darwinism/natural selection at work?

[edluva]

^i agree. but little kids need protection before being subject to the selective forces of LRT.

[Easy]

People who try to beat trains while driving, and walking into the path of oncoming trains... isn't that Darwinism/natural selection at work?

People getting sick is also natural selection. Should we eliminate medicine?

[SC_00_05]

People getting sick is also natural selection. Should we eliminate medicine?
Yeah, and we ought to put up continual fencing along the Grand Canyon to protect the people. :rolleyes:

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Obviously we are all in agreement that this Expo Line should be grade-separated. It would never kill someone on the street and it would be much faster. The true underlying issue is the lack of money allocated to rail construction and the idea of "time is of the essence." Why? Because construction materials and labor is going to get more and more expensive as production of cheap conventional oil declines. China and India as well as the rest of the world (including ourselves) are not waning in our demand for energy voluntarily. That translates into longer and longer delays for rail as well as any other form of infrastructure including high-rises in Downtown LA.

I think many of us here are aware of the miserably long process it takes to get anything done in the United States (esp. LA), so people are going to take any form of resistance as another set-back, even if it has to do with making the Expo Line safer and FASTER by grade separating it.

[sopas ej]

People getting sick is also natural selection. Should we eliminate medicine?

The very fact that the field of medicine exists is evidence of natural selection at work; it's an example of people coming up with ways to try to increase rates of survival. Stupidity is not involved... whereas it is involved for the case of people not watching out for trains; one would think that would be a no-brainer. People can't help getting sick, but they CAN help walking or driving into the path of trains.

Apples and oranges.

[sopas ej]

^i agree. but little kids need protection before being subject to the selective forces of LRT.

I don't consider high school age kids to be "little" kids. They're old enough to know better.

Dorsey High is an old school, I wouldn't doubt that when trains rolled down Exposition Blvd. in the old days, people didn't give it a second thought.

I of course would rather have all future mass transit rail projects be subways, but if the Expo Line must be surface light-rail, oh well, people should learn how to be careful with it. We have no problems with kids crossing the street with cars and all, so why not teach them about trains?

[Echo Park]

there's an elementary school right next to the 103rd st. station of the blue line. i dont recall any problems on that particular intersection. in fact that station serves that community well.

[LAofAnaheim]

Expo Line project status update on Phase 1 (should be a very interesting meeting):

http://www.buildexpo.org/handouts/11%2013%2007%20%20NOTICE%20Expo%20Project%20Status%20Update%20DOWNTOWN.pdf

[LongBeachUrbanist]

Let's be clear: people aren't riled up about train safety. They're riled up because they feel they are being subject to some injustice. They feel like they've been railroaded (no pun intended) by public officials who are disrespecting them because they are people of color.

Historically, poor and minority Angelenos have been victims of environmental racism that was very real. The freeway projects in South L.A. (105 Freeway) and East L.A. displaced tens of thousands of mostly poor, mostly brown people and ruined their neighborhoods. The Manchester Square and Chavez Ravine projects are further examples. So I understand why people would be sensitive.

In fact, the EIR process was created to address these injustices and make sure the people have the primary voice in the decision-making process.

Here's my issue. For Expo Phase I, the EIR process has been completed. The MTA has created a very objective policy on grade-separations. The public has had their chance to voice concerns. The Expo Authority has addressed safety concerns with mitigation. Nobody's home is being destroyed. And IMO, no unreasonable burdens are being placed on anybody, other than to pay attention when crossing the railroad tracks.

My anger about this subject also comes from a viewpoint of fairness. Why should this transit project, which will bring benefits to tens of thousands of Angelenos, be threatened by a small group of activists who want to circumvent the EIR process by cynically exploiting people's fears and memories of racism?

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ I have to agree that bringing up the race card every single time is really, really old. It's tiring hearing about it and minorities themselves are tired of hearing about it, not just "privileged" whites and Asians. :rolleyes:

[sopas ej]

What I also find ironic is that the Expo Line goes through a heavily minority area and would directly service that community; and the militant Busriders' Union would always complain about how rail is only built to service affluent whites. But every time I ride the Metro Rail, it's mostly non-whites who ride it!

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ I agree it should be grade-separated because it would be able to speed past areas without having to slow down. But the idea that it is not grade-separated because of purposefully trying to screw over blacks and people of Mexican/South American descent is ridiculous.

I hate it when people group Minorities into one group as if it's a Minority vs. White thing. Actually Asians and Asian Americans from the last time I checked are "minorities," yet they are hardly included into that category because they don't fit. They are financially successful and usually are highly educated. I wonder why these race-card sensitive freaks never bring up that it's actually Asian/Whites in one group based on their own racist stereotyping?

[sopas ej]

...Actually Asians and Asian Americans from the last time I checked are "minorities," yet they are hardly included into that category because they don't fit. They are financially successful and usually are highly educated...

I know we're straying off topic, but this stereotype of Asians is actually eroding, and has been for a while. One needs only to drive through Rosemead, parts of El Monte, Eagle Rock and other areas to see that not all Asians are financially successful and highly educated.

Asians have always been a very diverse group, culturally and socio-economically.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ That's true too.

But there is obviously that perception in society that Asian Americans and Asians are generally better-off financially (look at San Marino) and educated (look at the UC system and what demographic is usually after whites in the Ivy Leagues).

I'm not saying that there are NO POOR Asians and Asian Americans, but I'm not saying there are NO POOR whites either. It's not about reality, it's about perception. And that's why Asians and Asian Americans are left out of the picture 99% of the time when it comes to racial/ethnic discussions about "inequalities."

[LAofAnaheim]

I went to the Expo meeting this last Tuesday evening. Progress is still being made. They can continue track construction on all alignments outside of Farmdale (b/c the CPUC has delayed the grade crossing decision until January). Expo expects to begin heavy construction on Flower south of Washington to their trench next month.

In regards to Farmdale, the Expo authority has 15 days left (they were given 30) to come up with 6 alternatives for Farmdale/Dorsey. One of them will most likely be chosen in January. This is everything from pedestrian bridges, closing Farmdale, grade seperation via over/underpass, or pedestrian underpass. The least expensive would be pedestrian crossings, the most is definitly going to be grade seperation. So...Expo will continue to chug along b/c they have plenty of construction to move along, so a delay is not expected yet due to Dorsey.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

I'd guess the least expensive option would be to close Farmdale.

[LAofAnaheim]

By closing Farmdale, they'll have to build a pedestrian bridge. The least expensive option is around $3 - 4 million, which is a pedestrian overpass. The most expensive option is building an underpass, which could be $35 million.

[Echo Park]

Looking for a Connection

http://images.townnews.com/ladowntownnews.com/content/articles/2007/11/19/news/news04.jpg
The Gold Line currently runs from Pasadena to Union Station, and is being extended to East L.A. A new plan for a Downtown Regional Connector would help people navigate between the Gold, Blue and coming Expo lines. Photo by Gary Leonard.

Some See Proposed Transit Project as Downtown's Missing Link

by Anna Scott

Depending on who you ask, Downtown Los Angeles in 15 years - with the completion of L.A. Live, the $2 billion Grand Avenue plan and thousands of residential units - could either be a quagmire of congestion or a model of urban planning.

The Gold Line currently runs from Pasadena to Union Station, and is being extended to East L.A. A new plan for a Downtown Regional Connector would help people navigate between the Gold, Blue and coming Expo lines. Photo by Gary Leonard.

Hoping to contribute toward the latter, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is in the early stage of planning a project that would connect the four light-rail lines that will eventually traverse Downtown, creating more direct routes throughout L.A.

The Downtown Regional Connector would create a link between the Gold Line, which opened in 2003 and connects Pasadena to Union Station; the upcoming Gold Line Eastside Extension, which will continue the route through East L.A., with completion expected in 2009; the Blue Line, which runs between Long Beach and a station at Seventh and Flower streets; and the future Expo Line, which will also feature a Seventh and Flower stop as it stretches to Culver City.

Metro officials recently launched a study of various options for the proposed connector, including an aboveground or at-grade light-rail or a subway. The study area encompasses approximately two square miles, roughly bounded by the 101 and 110 freeways, Alameda Street and Seventh or Ninth streets.

The proposal is estimated to cost between $250 million and $800 million, said Metro project manager Dolores Roybal, who added that no attempts have yet been made to identify funding sources. The system is likely at least 10 years away, she said.

Nonetheless, at a series of public meetings held by Metro over the past few weeks, the proposal has generated serious discussion Downtown, where many view the connector as a potentially vital counterpart to the neighborhood's multitude of development projects.

"We think it's very important to ensure that proposed routes maximize Downtown development and revitalization efforts," said Veronica Perez Becker, vice president of legislative affairs for the Central City Association. "We also feel that anything that makes transportation work more effectively and that recognizes Downtown as a transportation hub is a good thing."

A Long Haul

The Downtown connector was originally conceived nearly two decades ago as an extension of the Blue Line north to Pasadena, but was abandoned in the early 1990s because of a lack of funding.

The proposal was retooled to fit subsequent light-rail expansions, including the construction of the Gold Line. Metro conducted an initial feasibility and cost study of the current proposal in 2004, and the agency's board approved funding for a full-fledged study last year.

Earlier this month, Metro officials held two informational meetings - both Downtown - on the project. They also participated in a discussion at last week's Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council meeting.

There, community members questioned how the Downtown Connector would gel with developments underway in the area, particularly the Grand Avenue plan, which is expected to create 2,600 new housing units, plus retail and a hotel.

In response, Roybal said Metro is looking into building a station on Bunker Hill, adjacent to the project. In a separate interview, Beatrice Hsu, vice president of development for Related Cos., said that the developer is working closely with Metro and "would be very interested in having a stop somewhere in the vicinity of the project."

Others questioned whether officials are considering how the Downtown Connector might complement a proposed Red Car trolley that would run along First Street to Broadway, Olympic Boulevard and Figueroa Street. That system "would start to be the backbone of transportation Downtown," said DLANC President Russell Brown at last Tuesday's meeting.

Despite questions, area stakeholders have generally expressed enthusiasm about the Downtown Regional Connector.

"It's an absolutely necessary piece of the puzzle for regional connectivity," said Downtown resident and gallery owner Bert Green. "It has to be done; it's a plan for the next 100 years."

Perez Becker of the Central City Association said she expects that "if they make it easier to do so, more people will come through and to Downtown."

Looking Ahead

Metro officials expect to produce a final report on the Downtown Connector, with preferred routing options, by July 2008, said Roybal.

If the Metro board approves the report, officials can then begin an environmental study, which could take up to three years. They would also start to look for funding at that point.

"On a very aggressive schedule," said Roybal, riders can expect the connector to be running in seven to 10 years. While Metro has endured, and continues to face, major funding challenges across the board, officials, at least for now, seem dedicated to the Downtown Connector.

"It's extremely important to establish connectivity," said Diego Cardoso, a Metro executive officer and a city planning commissioner.

"We're talking here about the future of Los Angeles," he said. "We're talking about the future of Downtown."

Contact Anna Scott at anna@downtownnews.com.

http://www.downtownnews.com/articles/2007/11/19/news/news04.txt

[Wright Concept]

http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_7576445?source=most_emailed
SGV Tribune
Federal Gold Line funds expected
By Fred Ortega, Staff Writer

November 28, 2007

PASADENA - Congress members said Tuesday they expect to secure about $320 million in federal funding for the first phase of the Gold Line extension - as long as state and local officials can come up with the remaining $80 million.

Speaking at his office, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, said there was a "good chance" that language guaranteeing an 80 percent commitment would make it into the final version of a federal transportation bill. A representative for Rep. David Dreier, R-San Dimas, also was optimistic about the federal funding.

"(Dreier) is very confident about a federal match," said Alisa Do, Dreier's spokeswoman, who was joined by representatives from half a dozen other state and federal lawmakers at the summit, as well as mayors from the various cities along the proposed 24-mile, light-rail route from Pasadena to Montclair.

Environmental studies and preliminary design work have already been completed for the project, which could reach the border of Azusa and Glendora by 2011. But officials need about $400 million to build that first phase of the line.

That means state and local agencies have to come up with about $80 million if they want to start the project on schedule by the end of next year.
"I feel confident the (Federal Transit Administration) will help us, but they won't simply accept our word - they want money on the table," said Schiff, who was joined via teleconference by Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-Santa Fe Springs, during the meeting. They promised to present a letter to federal transportation officials touting the bipartisan show of support for the project by local officials.

The meeting also included strategy sessions to determine where the local funding would come from, Schiff said.

The focus of the strategy sessions was the roughly $3.6 billion in mass-transit funding provided by Proposition 1B, the transportation bond approved by voters last year.

"Pursuing that bond money is the chief avenue we are considering," said Rob Charles, chief of staff for Assemblyman Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina. "There is of course the option of direct appropriation, though that is less likely given the current state budget crunch."

Any Gold Line funding from the Proposition 1B bond would have to first be approved by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Charles said.

Based on allocation formulas determined by the state Legislature, the MTA should receive about $1 billion of the $3.6 billion in Proposition 1B money available for mass transit, said John Fasana, a Duarte councilman and MTA board member.

"Metro will probably program about $160 million of that money this week, but none of that will be for the Gold Line," said Fasana. "Frankly, many board members including (Los Angeles) Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa are very frustrated that they haven't programmed any of that money for new projects."

That is because much of the funding is being used to backfill about $300 million MTA lost earlier this year, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger shifted more than $1 billion away from the state transportation budget.

"Our hope is that going forward we will be able to get at least some of that money for the Gold Line," said Fasana, who did not rule out the floating of bonds by local municipalities to make up the difference.

"We are going to have to decide as cities what we are willing to do at the local level," Fasana said.

All of the local officials present Tuesday pledged their support for the project.

"We are very excited," said Montclair Mayor Paul Eaton. "Almost daily, people in my city call us and ask when they are going to be able to ride the light rail."

Monrovia Mayor Rob Hammond said his residents have already been dealing with increased congestion since the connection of the 210 Freeway to the 15 Freeway opened.

"We have to give our residents alternatives (to driving)," Hammond said. "If we don't do something now, the problems are only going to get worse."

fred.ortega@sgvn.com

(626) 962-8811, Ext. 2306

[Echo Park]

the mayor wants to have Olympic traffic signals favoring commuters heading east and Pico for commuters heading west (or is it the way around). Wouldn't that create gridlock for commuters going in those opposite directions as well as creating traffic on residental north south routes as nimbys would complain? Id rather they have just been one way streets.

Hey PracticalVisionary (or anyone else), say hypothetically the purple to SaMo would start construction today, would it be possible to open the line piece by piece, i.e. finish the la brea station, open it and have it be a temporary terminus until the rest of the line is built or do stations get build simultaneously? Still learning about these things.

[LAofAnaheim]

^ We should have bus only lanes on major arteries not expected to have a Metro rail line (i.e. La Brea, Sunset Blvd, Olympic, Pico, etc...).

[Wright Concept]

the mayor wants to have Olympic traffic signals favoring commuters heading east and Pico for commuters heading west (or is it the way around). Wouldn't that create gridlock for commuters going in those opposite directions as well as creating traffic on residental north south routes as nimbys would complain? Id rather they have just been one way streets.

Yes, but he's got Riordan rejects in his Administration so I'm not surprised by this result.

Hey PracticalVisionary (or anyone else), say hypothetically the purple to SaMo would start construction today, would it be possible to open the line piece by piece, i.e. finish the la brea station, open it and have it be a temporary terminus until the rest of the line is built or do stations get build simultaneously? Still learning about these things.

Yes, That is usually how it's done because what will really dictate how fast the project can be completed are MONEY, MATERIAL and LABOR.

If you don't have enough LABOR, MONEY and/or MATERIAL they can operate the station by station approach. If there's plenty of MONEY but lack MATERIAL and LABOR then a segment by segment phased approach would work so that they build the appropriate pieces get those done and by the time the construction crew is done on the heavy stuff like building the station shells and boring the tunnels on one segment, they can move on to the next segment, while the "small" sub-contractor crew work on the little pieces like the station tiles, handrails, signage, art installations, etc.

[Wright Concept]

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_7585072
LA DAILY NEWS
$52-a-parcel tax proposed for transportation
By Rick Orlov, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 11/28/2007

Los Angeles City Councilman Tom LaBonge said Wednesday that he will call for a countywide parcel tax, designed to raise $1.7 billion, to help make long-term improvements to the region's transportation system.

The proposal came as the council's Transportation Committee recommended approval of an 18-month process to develop a 20-year transportation plan.

But officials said the tax proposal would need support from all cities within Los Angeles County, as well as from county supervisors.

Holding up a $1 bill, LaBonge said he will propose the countywide parcel tax of $52 to fund solutions to traffic congestion. Coupled with that, he said, officials would seek to lift a ban on heavy-rail construction that has constrained transit planners.

"I want to see us not only build a subway to the sea, but subways from the Valley to downtown, down to San Pedro, everywhere in the city," LaBonge said.

LaBonge said he does not yet have a specific plan and has not prepared a proposal to submit the parcel tax to other jurisdictions in the county and to place it on a ballot for voter approval.

Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, who introduced a proposal for a transportation mission statement, said it is designed to broaden transportation improvements.

"We will continue to do the left-turn lanes and the traffic signals and all the other short-term solutions, but we need to also look at what we can do long-term, so we have a plan in place that we can tell state and federal officials how we will use the money," Greuel said.

LaBonge also called for a regional summit to include representatives from Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Ventura, San Diego and Santa Barbara counties to cooperate on transportation planning.

Councilman Richard Alarcon said the city has been hampered by not having a strategic plan to present to state and federal officials when they determine transit funding.

"We need to be city-centric in our planning, but we also need to develop support around the region," Alarcon said.

rick.orlov@dailynews.com 213-978-0390

[DowntownCharlieBrown]

PV now equals WC?

[LAofAnaheim]

We should make this an annual parcel tax.

[Wright Concept]

PV now equals WC?

Yep and WC does sound kind of funny(WC = Water Closet or Toilet) but it's connected to my email and my business that I run part time.

[edluva]

I really want to popularize use of the term "Waxman Line" when referring to Wilshire's 720 rapidbus. I really do encourage all of you sspers to start using it when talking to your fellow lay-transit-users - friends and strangers alike. It's a really good underhanded way of popularizing the purple-line issue.

[Echo Park]

An End to the Free Ride on Trains in Los Angeles

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/03/us/required600.jpg
Fare-collecting gates may come to stations in Los Angeles’s transit network, replacing an honor system that
not all riders honor.


By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
Published: December 3, 2007

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 2 — It may be hard to fathom for subway riders in cities like New York, Chicago and Boston, but the transit system in Los Angeles has no turnstiles, gates or other barriers where tickets are collected or checked.

Under a proudly distinct honor system intended to buck East Coast practices and reduce operating costs, riders buy their tickets, get on the train and present them to a sheriff’s deputy or civilian inspector — if any happen to ask.

But after 14 years of trust, Los Angeles is preparing to join those cities where slipping past, under and over transit turnstiles and gates is an art form.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/03/us/multas650.jpg
A report found 5 percent of passengers did not buy tickets.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board voted last week to take the first step toward installing 275 ticket gates on the entire 17.4-mile subway and at many light-rail stations.

The move came after a study given to the board in October found that some 5 percent of people who rode the subway, light rail and a new rapid bus line on weekdays did so without paying the fare, $1.25 one way or $5 for a daily pass. As a result, the report said, the authority lost about $5.5 million in revenue annually.

Fare-collecting gates, which could cost $30 million to install and $1 million a year to maintain, would yield an extra $6.77 million in recovered fares and other savings, according to the report. The board voted 11 to 1 on Thursday to have staff members write a plan for installing the gates, with final approval expected in January.

Some saw the move as another sign of the shifting ecology of Los Angeles.

“Unfortunately, as L.A. gets to be more urban, it has these breakdowns of trust that happen in big cities,” said Joel Kotkin, a Los Angeles resident and author of “The City: A Global History.” “It’s the flip side of all the good things.”

At the Wilshire/Vermont station Friday, with a steady stream of people walking past vending machines and under a sign reading “Ticket required beyond this point,” riders who have looked suspiciously at their brethren applauded the move.

“We all should know and respect the law,” said Maria Cervantes, 43, a dressmaker buying a ticket at the station. “I see a lot of people just walk on, and I don’t think it is because they have the day or month pass.”

But other riders were skeptical, saying they had watched inspectors walk the trains checking tickets without catching many people.

“I would like to know if the money gained is really more than the money they are going to spend,” said Jacob Holloway, 24, a graphic designer with a monthly pass.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/03/us/rider650.jpg
Jacob Holloway, a rider with a monthly pass shown at the Wilshire/Vermont station, said he wondered if the ticket
gates would take in more money than they cost to install and operate.

The board member who voted against the proposal, Richard Katz, shared the sentiment.

Mr. Katz, a former member of the California Assembly, said he feared that the turnstiles would impede evacuations in emergencies. He said he also doubted that the struggling agency could afford the cost, which he predicted would escalate and wipe out potential savings. The agency’s $3 billion budget is expected to have a $75 million deficit next year.

“Dollars are very tight,” Mr. Katz said.

But agency planners said that the gates would eventually pay for themselves and that something needed to be done to control scofflaws on the rapidly expanding system. The gates could also improve security and be used for smart cards, passes with computer chips in them that would make it more practical to charge distance-based fares and give riders more options to pay beforehand.

“We have grown substantially,” said Jane Matsumoto, a executive with the transportation authority who is working on the gate proposal. “But trying to enforce the numbers of riders over the large geography is difficult.”

Ms. Matsumoto said it would take about 18 months to phase in the gates.

The train system started in 1990 with a 22-mile light rail line from Long Beach to downtown Los Angeles. It added the Red Line subway in the 1990s, as well as several other light rail lines that now total some 90 miles. About 7.4 million people used the rail lines last month.

The American Public Transportation Association said the Los Angeles subway was the only one in the country that did not have a gated pay system, though other cities with newer and smaller light rail systems relied on the honor system to encourage ridership and to save on the cost of turnstiles and related expenses.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[RAlossi]

Hey! That's my boyfriend!!

[KarLarRec1]

^ Ha! As I was scrolling through the article, I thought "Jesus, he's cute." Nice catch. ;)

[sopas ej]

Not that I mean anything by it or that I care, but are most of you posters gay?

[RAlossi]

Funny how this question comes up every 6 months or so.

[sopas ej]

I've only been on these boards since about the end of July, and I've noticed that it seems most if not nearly all the posters on here are male, with many mentioning boyfriends/partners. I just find that interesting, is all. I guess most women and straight guys aren't into skyscrapers or urbanism? Hehe!

[Affrojuice]

Commuter kicks car habit
By Kerry Cavanaugh, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 12/05/2007 09:16:04 AM PST

L.A. City Urban Designer and Planner Simon Pastucha of Pasadena...

Two years ago, Simon Pastucha - an urban designer and planner for the city of Los Angeles - left his Mercedes SUV at the dealership and hasn't looked back.

But how does a professional with children and far-flung meetings survive in car-centric Los Angeles without owning an automobile?

Quite easily, I found after tagging along with Pastucha on his commute.

We met at his Pasadena home at 6:40 a.m. on a foggy Tuesday morning. In his black suit, scarf, messenger bag and sensible, yet stylish shoes, Pastucha fits the image of a professional, urban commuter.

We made the eight-minute walk through his quiet, "Leave It to Beaver" neighborhood to Del Mar Boulevard. We waited a few minutes on the sidewalk for the small, hybrid-electric shuttle bus - its low hum the only noise - that would drop us at Colorado Boulevard.

The Memorial Park station is a block away, but we popped into Famima, the Japanese convenience store that is synonymous with urban, walkable living. It's like an upscale 7-11, with coffee, sushi, small grocery items and carryable sizes of household necessities such as laundry detergent.

Famina is the kind of store that caters to the car-free, Pastucha told me. The stores usually have no parking. Everything is small and easy to haul by hand.

It's a little pricey, I noted, calculating the cost of a supersize container of Tide I could buy at Target.

Yes, he answered, but he can pay a little extra
Advertisement

because he's saving so much by not owning car.

Touch , Simon.

And just how much money does he save?

Pastucha used to lease a Mercedes SUV for $500 a month. Add in insurance, gasoline and parking, and his transportation bill was around $1,000 a month - or roughly $30 a day.

Now, he spends around 20 cents a day. (The city of Los Angeles gives him a $50 a month stipend for transit.)

Initially, after turning in his Mercedes, Pastucha put himself on the waiting list to buy a Toyota Hybrid Prius.

"But one day I noticed, what's all this money in my bank account?" he recalled. "So I said, I'm going to see how long I can do this. I'll try to give it a year."

The Gold Line dropped us at Union Station and we walked to City Hall. Door to door, his commute is 55 minutes.

"It's slightly less efficient time-wise," Pastucha said. "But that's time I'm claiming for myself. I found two hours in my day, and that's more time to read the paper, read my book, watch a movie or stare out the window - all the things that people don't have time to do."

As one of the Planning Department's two urban designers, Pastucha spends his days advising developers and city agencies on how to make L.A. a more walkable, welcoming and attractive city. So it helps to see the city from foot or passenger window.

"As a designer, I'm trying to work out how the city functions," he explained. "We have billions of dollars invested in this (transit) system. We need to see what works and what doesn't."

That afternoon as Pastucha and I rode the Gold Line back to Pasadena, I peppered him with the "How?" and "What if?" questions he gets all the time.

How does he handle big purchases? He shops on-line or arranges delivery.

You can't live on Famima-sized food forever. What about groceries? He walks to a Trader Joe's in Pasadena or orders on-line through vons.com and the supermarket delivers.

How does he meet friends on the Westside, which isn't the most transit-friendly area of the city? Pastucha arranges for a friend to pick up him up at the nearest subway stop.

What does he do if there's an emergency? How does he get home fast? This happened last year, Pastucha said. He was at work downtown and his daughter got violently ill at school; so he walked across the street to a hotel, caught a taxi to her school, picked her up and took the taxi home.

But, Pastucha adds, he's not totally transit-dependent. He has a $10-a-month Flexcar membership that allows him to check out a car for $6 an hour, which includes gas, mileage and insurance.

And he frequently rents a car on the weekends - when the rates are cheaper at $25-a-day - to handle larger errands or shuttle around his children.

Shortly after Pastucha got rid of his car, his kids - Rachel, 10, and Joshua, 7 - asked when he was going to get a new one. He'd pick them up at school, and Joshua would inquire: "Do you have a car today?"

Pastucha said he gave them a choice: "Do you want toys and surprises or do you want me to have a car?"

They chose the toys and surprises.

Now Rachel and Joshua are seasoned bus riders. Pastucha picks them up at school, they walk several blocks to catch the ARTS bus, ride back to Del Mar Street and hit the sidewalk for the eight-minute walk back home.

Pastucha makes a compelling case for getting rid of the car. He's saving lots of money, walking more, enjoying the ride to work every day, and still has the ability to rent a car if needs it.

"I've just learned to think differently," he said. "We're all so dependent on a car 100 percent of the time. How about being being dependent about 90 percent of the time?"

Later, as I drove home to the Valley on the Hollywood Freeway - my speedometer rarely above 10 miles per hour and my gas tank ready for another $40 re-fill - I figured my family could save at least $4,000 a year if we got rid of one of our two cars.

I could take the bus to the Red Line, instead of driving to the Universal City station as a I usually do.

That would add 20 minutes each way to my commute, but the savings could pay for a vacation in Italy or even a Vespa scooter so I could recreate my own Roman Holiday in L.A.

Maybe Pastucha is onto something.

[Echo Park]

Hey! That's my boyfriend!!

Actually when I posted that I wanted to ask if that guy happened to be a poster here. I was thinking "hmm dudes that look like that don't usually take the metro. I bet he's an SSPer!"

Resident art critic turned urban design critic, Christopher Knight, has a few issues with the installation of turnstiles at subway and light-rail stations.

-------------------

CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK

MTA is on the wrong track

The agency's plan to install turnstiles at subway and light-rail stations is a betrayal of their design.

By Christopher Hawthorne, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 5, 2007

The subway station is one of the newest building types in Greater Los Angeles. It is also one of the most thoroughly under-examined. When was the last time you thought, even fleetingly, about the design of L.A.'s subway and light-rail stops?

One reason the stations have remained relatively anonymous, architecturally speaking, is that most have settled comfortably into the city's landscape. Particularly on the Gold Line -- where above-ground stops in Chinatown, Highland Park, South Pasadena and elsewhere have an open, airy feel and real urban charisma -- these designs successfully reflect the energy and spirit of Southern California. That's no small accomplishment when you consider that for many Americans the very idea of a rail line is synonymous with older, vertical cities, dank underground spaces and creaking infrastructure.

So why is the Metropolitan Transportation Authority so determined to tinker with that success?

The MTA board voted overwhelmingly last week to push forward with a plan to install turnstiles in all its underground stations and in what it calls "strategic" stops along the light-rail Gold and Blue lines. The proposal has been in the news mostly for its economic and political implications. It would cost an estimated $30 million and save roughly $6.8 million per year by eliminating the cost of carrying the 5% of riders who exploit the current honor system by failing to buy a ticket.

But the proposal also promises to have a substantial architectural and urban-design effect. Indeed, 10 or 20 years from now, what we will probably remember about the turnstile plan is not whether it saved money for the MTA but that it marked the moment when the physical design of the system moved, in both literal and symbolic terms, from open to closed.

For me -- and I suspect for many other Angelenos -- the 5% premium represented by those who cheat the system seems an acceptable price to pay for the architectural and aesthetic benefits of its openness. As its staff prepares to send a final gate plan back to its board in January, the MTA shouldn't overlook the extent to which the best-designed stations, by their very sense of fluid connection to the city, attract new riders even as they make fare-skipping possible.

This is particularly true for above-ground stations served by light rail as opposed to subway stations buried beneath the streets. The typical MTA subway station was designed from the start to accommodate turnstiles. Adding them would certainly change the sense of flow and freedom that now characterize any MTA subway trip, but it wouldn't fundamentally alter the architecture of the stations.

The open-air stations, though, were never meant to include turnstiles, which could ruin their careful balance of accessibility and security. Take the South Pasadena stop on the Gold Line, officially known as Mission Station. With architecture by McLean & Schultz, a firm in Brea, and artwork by Michael Stutz, the station is open to the neighborhood on all sides.

Riders simply walk from the sidewalk, or from the pocket park that abuts the station, onto the tracks, where they can pick up a train heading east toward Sierra Madre or southwest into Chinatown and downtown. Those disembarking at Mission can walk directly onto adjoining sidewalks, entering the street life of the city instantaneously.

The success of the Mission station, from an architectural point of view, is now inextricably connected to the revival of the neighborhood as a whole, which is unusual in Southern California in its compact walkability. Would the station seem as attractive if the area around it weren't thriving? Perhaps not. But would all of the nearby restaurants and wine bars have opened up there without the proximity to one of the best-designed, easiest-to-use stations in the region? That too seems unlikely.

MTA official Jane Matsumoto, who has helped spearhead the gate plan, told me by phone Tuesdaythat Mission Station and other stops like it on the Gold Line have "architectural constraints" that make adding turnstiles impractical. It's encouraging to hear that gates are unlikely there, but the very phrase she used suggests that the culture of the MTA sees these issues less clearly than it should.

It's not architectural constraints that make gates impossible in South Pasadena. It's openness -- an appealing lack of constraints. The Mission design should be a model for future stations, not seen as an anomaly.

Matsumoto has been looking closely at the particulars of gate design lately. As any regular subway rider knows, some gates are better designed and work more smoothly than others. The "iron maiden" gates popular in some parts of the New York subway system, heavy barriers that run from floor to ceiling, would look particularly out of place here. Other types include the "parting leaf" gates used in Washington, D.C., and the bi-fold, "saloon-style" variation.

The MTA, which will add gates first on the Red Line, is leaning in the direction of simple turnstiles. In particular, Matsumoto likes the clean-lined turnstiles produced for some new stations in London -- including Norman Foster's Canary Wharf stop on the Jubilee Line -- and New York by a San Diego company called Cubic Transportation Systems. Cubic has been in discussions with the MTA about providing turnstiles here.

A key question moving forward is whether, in a system as interconnected as the MTA's, with bus, subway and light-rail lines flowing together, it's possible to impose a variety of approaches to security and gates. The MTA clearly thinks it is. But in deciding where to add turnstiles, the MTA and the City Council should keep in mind that a turnstile is as much an architectural instrument as a fiscal one -- as much physical, visual and psychological barrier as money-saver.

There is, finally, something dismaying about the plan in purely symbolic terms. This MTA move to close off the transit system comes at a time when politicians are pushing a variety of misguided plans to allow cars to move more freely through the region. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's support for widening the 405, paired with the new proposal to turn Olympic and Pico boulevards into streets that would act as one-way thoroughfares during rush hour, make it clear that shopworn transit strategies more appropriate for 1950s Los Angeles than the 2007 version still have plenty of political currency.

In that sense, the MTA's gate proposal is ill-timed. At a moment when the agency could be winning points with residents by promoting the reliability and openness of its transit system -- in sharp contrast to the kind of time-management Russian roulette we all play when we drive out onto the freeways -- it is pushing for a change synonymous with obstruction.

Simply as a public-relations strategy, it leaves something to be desired.

christopher.hawthorne @latimes.com

[ocman]

That article is by Christopher HAWTHORNE, the architecture critic of LAT.

[Vangelist]

I can't believe he's arguing against turnstiles on some "architectural" / design basis. Absurd

[Echo Park]

That article is by Christopher HAWTHORNE, the architecture critic of LAT.

D'oh! I think Christopher Knight is their art critic. I get them confused.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

^ I believe he was Peter on the Brady Bunch!

[Wright Concept]

Tom LaBonge
L.A.’s top cheerleader wants money for public transportation projects and time to go on a hike in Griffith Park

http://www.lacitybeat.com/media/235/50-3rd-story.gif
Illustration by Scott Gandell


You probably have an uncle like Tom LaBonge. The fourth district councilmember knows an absurd amount of obscure city history, and he wants to tell it all to you in stream of consciousness form, out of chronological order. Consecutive pages of his storybook depict William Mulholland, Tom Bradley, the Dodgers, and Griffith Park Observatory; every interview he gives might as well be a night of story-time at Central Library.

To further his town historian persona, he’s served most of his adult life in one or another city government post – as an aide to former councilmembers Peggy Stevenson and John Ferraro, and to Mayor Richard Riordan, and as community relations director for the DWP – and has been one of the most visible users and supporters of Griffith Park, which falls in his district. As such, he’s cultivated an image as “cheerleader of L.A.” (He claims it’s a title others have bestowed on him, though Wikipedia suggests he gave it to himself.) His website even bears the charmingly innocuous motto, “Let’s continue to enjoy and love the great City of Los Angeles.”

But his harmless reputation belies his recent push to take the lead on transit issues within the city council. As vice chair of the transit committee, LaBonge has pressed those issues, going so far as to propose a parcel tax to fund transit improvements. While driving to pick his son up from football practice, he chatted with CityBeat about gridlock, his cheerleader image, and how Olympic Boulevard got its name.</I> –Greg Katz


CityBeat: In a big picture sense, what’s it going to take to get the city moving again?
Tom LaBonge: We have to have a constant discussion and campaign about transit in the region. The southern end of the state is in gridlock. Along with my colleague Mr. Bill Rosendahl, we want a congress, a convention, a discussion totally on transit. We all know it’s a problem, but we have to have steps to take forward and try to attack it. 100 years ago, they attacked the problem of no water in Los Angeles when they built the aqueduct. There needs to be a Mulholland-type person that’s going to step forward and say, “We’ve got to do something about moving people around in this state.”


Are you transit’s Mulholland?

All I want to do is my part and talk loudly. I am, in 2008, going to be talking often about transit with different ideas and concepts. One of the ones I talked about was just a thought: I said, “Okay, what’s a tank of gas cost? $52 or more. That’s a dollar a week.” There’s almost 3 million parcels of land. Let’s say every land owner that had a parcel paid $52. That would raise, in 10 years, over a billion dollars. People may vote it up, they may vote it down; property owners are very sensitive about additional parcel taxes. But they’re sitting on a freeway right now and not getting to enjoy their homes, and for a dollar a week, it may be worth it to raise that local share. And we have to repeal the county ban on using local funds for heavy rail. Next year, the Dodgers will celebrate 50 years in the city. The day they were coming to L.A., there was a one-column-inch story in the left side of the Los Angeles Times saying the Board of Supervisors voted down a request for the state to add transit to any freeway purchases. Just think if they’d bought that back in ’58! When Los Angeles meets its maker, we will go to Heaven because … of what the freeway builders did. But now we’ve overwhelmed what they envisioned. There’s nothing like a freeway when there’s nobody on it. I went the other night from downtown to West Los Angeles, westbound at 6:30 at night, in seven minutes, at below speed limit.


So back to your parcel tax idea -
A lot of people won’t vote for it, but you gotta discuss something.

Is it going to take a two-thirds vote?
I’m doing all the research on that right now. In addition, we gotta ask ourselves, on our driver’s license, that’s a multi-year license. Maybe it becomes an annual fee. We gotta pay our way out of this. All I want is discussion, because I really believe, and this is true: I’m honored to serve the city. I’ve been working for the city 34 years. When Tom Bradley ran for mayor I was in junior college, and he said, “I will have transit in 18 months.” It took 18 years! Whatever we’re talking about today, to conceivably see a difference, it may be a decade or two.


What do you think of the plans to favor one-way traffic on Pico and Olympic?

I remember in the old, old days, as a kid, they would cone streets off to give them additional lanes. I would almost think we should do reverse lanes with cones, maybe just for Olympic, and maybe just restrict the left turns. I also ask that we look at Adams and Washington, which parallel the Santa Monica Freeway. We look at Venice Boulevard and San Vicente Boulevard, which are six-lane highways, as alternatives in doing creative things with transit. In the San Fernando Valley, since it’s important we look at the whole region, we look at Roscoe, Sherman Way, and Victory to be smarter streets. I don’t know if I would do Pico. I think we study it all, we look at it all, but Pico is not – see, Olympic Boulevard is pretty much a major highway. It has three lanes in each direction for the most part. But Pico is a substandard street at many locations, not as wide, and there’s revitalized neighborhood commerce that would be wiped out by severe restrictions.


So you’re against the mayor’s proposal?

Well, we have to study it more. There’s some community hearings going on, and I want to drive it again. The first community [meeting], we had a half-full council chambers of people from West L.A. who were concerned about the negative impact. I haven’t been swayed, but I listen to people. People brought up some good points. We’re going to look at it again. We’ll make some decisions coming up here in late January, February.


What do you think of Zev Yaroslavsky’s plan?
Zev has a plan that is counterflow, and that’s different from the mayor’s plan. Let’s have full discussion of all these plans and try to come up with an idea! But the first plan is – and I’m a sinner, I haven’t done it enough – we gotta get our own tails out of our own cars, and get on public transit just to break the logjam.


You had spoken out in favor of a Silver Lake DASH. What’s next for that?
Well, there’s the 175 bus that goes around John Marshall High that’s only used when school is in session, and the 203 goes around Silver Lake, and I had discussions with the MTA to see what we could do to convert all those energies into a positive flow. The big thing in Silver Lake is to get a little more availability for us to ride our bikes to Hyperion Avenue or other places.


Then the Silver Lake DASH is on hold?
We just extended the DASH up to the observatory. There wasn’t any public transit up there, but now they do have that. But I support short-hop bus service … and it would be good to have near Silver Lake.


You’re a bike advocate, a Griffith Park advocate, and you want to fix gridlock. Why can’t you bike through the Griffith Park DWP Light Festival while there are cars there?
The impact they thought would be, if you had children, and cars going through there – you’re going to see a change next year. We had a very successful bike night on the first night, and multiple very successful nights of walk-only. What we’re going to see in the future are more car-free nights.


[B]What’s your favorite city trivia?
One you can get people on all the time is: Why did they call it Olympic Boulevard? They say, “The Olympics in 1932.” But why that street? Well, it was the tenth Olympiad, and Olympic Boulevard is between 9th and 11th streets.


What do you think your role on the council is? How did you decide that, on council, you’d be “the cheerleader of L.A.?”
I wasn’t a cheerleader at Marshall, I was a captain of the football team. But it’s a compliment that people give me. I think it’s important to believe in the city, and that’s what I try to do: make people believe in the city. There’s always a lot of challenges that make people feel like this ain’t the best place, but it is a great place, you know? It is a great place.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

A press release (http://metro.net/news_info/press/metro_221.htm) from metro.net (http://metro.net):

Federal Funding for Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension and Metro Rapid Included in House Omnibus Spending Bill

* Bill Lifts Prohibition on Subway Tunneling

The U.S. House of Representatives gave final approval today to a massive omnibus appropriations package that provides funds for the Eastside Extension of the Metro Gold Line as well as other transportation programs, clearing it for the President’s signature.

“The final version of the omnibus spending bill is very good news for Metro,” said Metro Board Chair Pam O’Connor. “It represents a down payment on the larger investments needed to improve mobility for LA County residents.”

The bill approved today includes a provision sponsored by Congressman Henry Waxman that repeals the longstanding federal prohibition on subway tunneling along the Wilshire Corridor. The bill also includes $78.4 million in New Starts funds for the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension and $16.3 million in Small Starts funds for the Metro Rapid System Gap Closure Project. In addition, the omnibus bill provides $400 million for transit security grants, an increase of 45% over last year’s enacted level.

“The funding provided for the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension by congress is another positive step towards the successful completion of this vital transportation project,” said LA County Supervisor and Metro Board Member Gloria Molina.

President Bush is expected to sign the omnibus appropriations bill into law before the end of the week.

“This year’s successful outcome on Capitol Hill could not have been possible without the hard work and advocacy of the entire Los Angeles County Congressional Delegation, with special appreciation to Representatives Lucille Roybal-Allard and Henry Waxman and Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer,” said Metro CEO Roger Snoble.

Snoble also noted, “Metro Board Chair Pam O’Connor and the Metro Board members have worked tirelessly together as a team on this very successful advocacy effort. These are important victories for Metro. I am greatly appreciative to Chair O’Connor and the entire Metro Board, for devoting significant time and effort in advocating for Metro’s priorities.”

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-localgovtqa24dec24,1,7808317,full.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=4&cset=true
From the Los Angeles Times

Deadline for L.A.'s subway to the sea is a literal one
By Steve Hymon
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 24, 2007


Let's begin with the quote of the week, courtesy of Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl:

"My plan is to be alive when the subway to the sea happens."

It's hard to knock such a plan. It may also be worth noting that Rosendahl is 62, and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics show that his life expectancy is about 81. In other words, subway proponents and Rosendahl should mark the year 2026 on their calendars.

Rosendahl's chances were increased last week when Congress repealed a ban on federal funding of subway tunneling in parts of the city. The repeal is part of a $516-billion appropriations bill that President Bush is expected to sign. The repeal triggered a City Hall news conference at Union Station, where Rosendahl made his remarks, and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said he's working on a funding plan.

Attentive readers may recall that the subway-to-the-sea extension from its terminus at Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue to Santa Monica was one of the big promises Villaraigosa made during his 2005 campaign.
So why doesn't he have a funding plan already -- now that he's been in office more than 900 days?

I asked the mayor that question at the news conference. Here's his response:

"You'd rain on any parade, wouldn't you? Let me just say, Stevie -- and you're at your best when you're raining on parades. Let me explain something. . . . Tom Bradley ran for mayor and said he would get a subway in 18 months, and it took 18 years. Yet we all know him as the father of the subway . . .
"If this was so easy, someone would have done it a long time ago," the mayor added.

This, in fact, is a very fair point for the mayor to make. The ban on tunneling on the Westside was put in place 22 years ago out of safety concerns by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), who later changed his mind after new evidence showed that tunneling would be safe and credited the mayor with creating the momentum to get the ban repealed.

"I offered to reopen this issue 10 years ago," Waxman said. "But the MTA wasn't interested because they didn't have the money. The mayor said he wanted the option" to pursue the subway project.

And Waxman, added, the mayor was persuasive. What's next?

The subway still is far from being approved by the board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The only thing the MTA has approved so far is an in-progress study of whether a subway is the best option for Westside mass transit. It is also starkly clear that no one has $5 billion sitting around for a subway. At best, the federal government usually kicks in only half the cost of such projects, and a 1998 voters' prohibition on using local sales tax money for subway tunneling remains in place.

"It has to be repealed," said Councilman Tom LaBonge after the news conference. "No one in Congress is going to give us a dollar if it isn't."
More bad news. Previous sales tax money for the MTA already is earmarked for other projects. This is the reason LaBonge believes a parcel tax is needed, while his colleague Jack Weiss is pushing for a partnership with private firms to get the subway built.

And that's the million-dollar question, so to speak: Will local pols ask voters for any kind of tax increase?

The mayor won't say, although his office has explored the option in the past.
It will be interesting to see how this develops. The presidential election in November should offer the kind of high turnout that is needed to get a tax measure for this type of project passed. The thinking in political circles is the higher the turnout, the more mass transit users will vote.

The bet here, too, is that pols would go for a sales tax increase rather than a parcel tax -- which is often a great way to incite opposition from homeowners. That said, a sales tax increase would be controversial because Los Angeles County's sales tax is already among the highest in the state.
A half-penny sales tax hike also holds the promise of raising in the neighborhood of $500 million a year for transit projects, including the subway.

Getting that kind of money would be a big score for politicians who like to talk about mass transit.
Councilwoman Wendy Greuel didn't say whether she would support a tax increase but offered this observation: "The best way to get support for mass transit is to actually build it."

On a traffic-related note, what happened recently in Los Angeles?
The city installed two modern parking meters in a municipal lot in North Hollywood. The mayor's press office even provided a photo showing what a heavenly moment it was. Attentive readers may recall that the city's 40,000 parking meters are old, easily vandalized, gobble coins like Jabba the Hutt and sometimes spontaneously reset.

The new meters accept coins, credit cards and debit cards, and you can sign up online -- at www.mparkusa.com (http://www.mparkusa.com) -- to pay by cellphone.

The city is planning to roll out more of the machines in the next few months.
If they work, it could mean fewer unnecessary citations and more revenue for the city. And if they don't work, please e-mail us your stories.

What agency may be thanking its lucky stars today?

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
As we've noted, agency officials have said they need a big, snowy winter in the West to avoid water shortages next year. Until recently, things didn't look good.

Then came last week's storms. Mammoth Mountain was reporting that 3 feet of snow fell, and snow sensors across the Eastern Sierra -- from which melted snow flows to the city's aqueduct -- were showing serious improvement.

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but . . . the winter is still young and a dry La Niña weather pattern is predicted to prevail in Southern California this year. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is expecting a dry winter for the entire Southwest.

What did the council's planning committee do about McMansions last week?
It punted the issue. Again. More questions need to be answered. So the committee will take up a proposed ordinance for the third time at its Jan. 8 meeting.

Many other cities already have dealt with the issue of outsized homes, and it will be interesting to see if or when the ordinance reaches the full council for a sorely needed debate.

And our little gift to the City Council?

Amid all the grandstanding, backslapping, fundraising and other antics by L.A. politicians, it's easy to overlook some accomplishments in the last year:
* Large apartment and condominium buildings can now participate in the city's recycling program.
* Although members probably waited too long to do it, the council greatly increased relocation fees paid to tenants who are evicted when their apartments are converted to condominiums.
* About 22,000 storm drains have been installed with filters to catch garbage before it flows into the L.A. River. There are, however, thousands more drains that need to be similarly outfitted.
* The council approved a master plan for the revitalization of the river. The plan smartly breaks up the effort into more than 200 achievable projects.

Next week: Looking ahead to 2008.

steve.hymon@latimes.com

[Affrojuice]

Gold Line work upsets East L.A. merchants

MTA officials say the light rail line will bring prosperity to businesspeople.
By Jean-Paul Renaud, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 27, 2007
The Gold Line extension into East Los Angeles promises to carry development and prosperity into an area long troubled by poverty and blight.

But some business owners along the neighborhood's busy 3rd Street, where a large section of the six-mile, above-ground rail line is being built, say the roadwork and street closures have all but halted commerce in the area. Some merchants say they have been forced to skip rent payments and lay off employees. They even wonder whether they will be around to see the train whiz by.

Concern over rail-line work
Graphic
Concern over rail-line work
click to enlarge

"The worst that I can remember was the El Niño year . . . but it was nowhere as bad as this," said Fred Lane, whose E.L.A. Hand Car Wash has been in his family for three decades, and in the neighborhood for more than half a century.

Lane said he had lost more than a third of his business since construction began last year.

"I don't know what's going to happen, to be honest with you," Lane said. "I'm just trying to make it to my next mortgage payment. I'm basically running the carwash at a loss right now and begging other family members for help."

But the pains of growth will subside -- and business will blossom -- once the tractors and bulldozers are finished and the Gold Line opens, proponents of the light rail line say. And public funds are available to help businesses through these tough times.

The $900-million project officially began more than three years ago with the burrowing of a tunnel in Boyle Heights. In East L.A., work began about a year ago along 3rd Street, where trains will glide down the center of the three-lane roadway.

When completed in 2009, the line will traverse more than 15 blocks on 3rd Street, then head north on Indiana Street before turning east onto 1st Street, eventually disappearing into a tunnel under Boyle Heights until reemerging near Little Tokyo and into Union Station. The extension will connect the neighborhoods to a 73-mile network of light rail and subway that crisscrosses the county.

But the economic damage to markets, restaurants and barbershops affected by the construction -- about 90% of the businesses are running in the red, according to Chamber of Commerce officials -- has some leaders in the area questioning the benefits of the upcoming rail line.

"The iron horse is roaring through East L.A.; it's in the name of progress, but it really does amaze me how much of a rupture that it is going to be for East Los Angeles," said state Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), whose district includes the businesses along 3rd Street. "It's a bit frightening. You almost have to stop and think, was this the right thing to do, to run it through here?"

Romero was among a group of political leaders who fought for the Gold Line extension. Some of those who stood by her at the groundbreaking three years ago, however, still believe that the rail line ultimately will be good for the community.

"It is proven to be the case almost anywhere else where you build this kind of light rail system, it does create an opportunity for businesses to flourish," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, who represents the area.

Molina added that not everyone is unhappy: "There are businesspeople who have been there for a long time and want it to stay exactly the same, and there are others who look forward to the Gold Line."

Yvette Robles Rapose, community relations manager for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the agency that is building the line, agreed.

"The only thing that's going to be different between having no train and having a train is that there's going to be an influx of people coming to the Eastside that have never been there before," Robles Rapose said.

"They're going to shop there, they're going to eat there, and they're going to provide opportunities that were never there before the train came," she said.

Robles Rapose has a $250,000 advertising budget this year to help businesses let customers know that they have not closed up shop. The MTA has printed banners and fliers and even set up an online-buying website for a store that sells uniforms.

According to data provided by the county, 129 merchants in East L.A. have complained to the MTA about the loss of business since construction began. Of those, 115 businesses have accepted some help from transit officials.

"Is it inconvenient? Yes, it's inconvenient," Robles Rapose said. "Is it going to change the face of the community? Yes, but only for the better."

Some business leaders, however, fear that the area's economy won't survive much longer -- no matter how many banners are raised or websites set up.

"I think unfortunately, a lot of these businesses are going to leave and not come back because the losses are going to be so great they're not going to reinvest in that area," said Gustavo Camacho of the Greater East L.A. Chamber of Commerce.

"I don't think everyone at the end of the day comes out winning," he said. "I don't think it's going to have fruitful results. In essence, it's going to hurt local businesses in the area."

Merchants in other parts of the city have faced similar challenges when rail-building projects rolled through their neighborhoods. In the 1990s, some businesses along Wilshire Boulevard didn't survive subway construction through the Mid-Wilshire area. Even the Walk of Fame was damaged when workers dug under Hollywood Boulevard as they constructed the Red Line.

But merchants in East L.A. said the sting of progress is even more painful here, an area that was struggling economically before the construction started.

"The people are different, the businesses are different," said Rocki Esparza, owner of Manny's El Loco Restaurant. "People that have businesses here are barely surviving."

Esparza's fast-food Mexican eatery has been on the corner of 3rd Street and Atlantic Boulevard for 16 years, building a regular lunchtime crowd of neighborhood residents and area workers.

Large concrete barriers and small orange cones along this section of the construction zone have limited access to the restaurant's parking lot -- turning a once lively spot where seating was scarce during peak hours into a place with plenty of empty tables.

Esparza has turned to catering events and delivering food to homes, as well as laying off two of her 10 employees.

"I think I've lost my customers, and I don't really think that they'll be back," she said. "The only reason I've stayed in business is because we've been well-rooted. But I've depleted my savings, and I'm wondering about my future."

[LongBeachUrbanist]

King Taco seems to have done a great job of weathering the project. I passed by it on Saturday. Now that construction on the station/platform has passed the point of maximum disruption, there were long lines for dinner tamales and tacos at King Taco, just like you would've seen a couple of years ago.

In fact, a bit farther east, there is a new hotdog/hamburger stand getting ready open soon. It is just down from a Gold Line stop. One has to imagine that as a business they are looking beyond 2009 and seeing great potential.

[suga]

^
That stand has been there for a while, and just recently changed ownership. I think that the opening signs are a bit old, my Bf's mom lives by there and we visited a lot recently.

But there is no doubt that heavy handed construction has had a big toll on businesses, especially those that are street fronting and lost ALL street parking.

[Echo Park]

OT but do we really need 40 banners of LATINO 96.3 LA'S #1 PARTY MUSIC banners plastered in every subway station on the columns, on the ceiling and all over the walls? These ads are driving me nuts

[RAlossi]

I think Metro's still testing the ads. First the Angus Beef McDonald's ads, now this... It'll probably open up to different competitors soon.

[Wright Concept]

http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=6730&IssueNum=239

L.A. Sniper: The Transit Boss
Ex-Santa Monica mayor calls in top leaders and special-interest groups to talk about how to pay for a real rail network

~ By ALAN MITTELSTAEDT ~
http://www.lacitybeat.com/media/239/01-Sniper-stry.gif
Photo by Oscar Zagal~
Denny Zane: A man with a plan to rescue commuters


Three decades ago, ex-UCLA grad student Denny Zane took on the powers-at-be in Santa Monica over greedy landlords and made history by pushing through a rent-control ordinance that became a national model.

In the intervening years, he became mayor of the once-utopian seaside village, where in the 1980s, he oversaw the development of the pedestrian-friendly Third Street Promenade, and made sure the right-of-way was acquired for the Expo Line light rail.

Now, the former middle school math teacher, philosophy-turned-urban planning grad student and modern-day consultant, is bringing together the powerful interests and players in Southern California for a strategy-setting session January 10 in the name of public transportation and to finish the subway to the sea, among other projects.

Inspirational speeches will give way to nuts-and-bolts discussions about breaking up L.A.’s car-and-freeway love affair, but don’t expect to witness any tongue lashings of those who derailed the subway dreams of two decades ago. The arm-in-arm celebration of Congressman Henry Waxman and County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky boarding the Red Line at the Civic Center station will have to wait. Zev’s been invited, and we hope to hear his vow to lobby and campaign and fight for the subway to Santa Monica and for transit projects; Henry’s not on the guest list, but we’ll settle for an e-mail of support to be read to the crowd.

The conference next week deals with pragmatism, raising money, constituent-building, and persuading politicians to do the right thing.
“This is really focused on taking the bull by the horns in L.A. County,” says Zane. “You can’t have a first-class community and a third-class transportation system.”

The main obstacle, of course, is money: “Waiting for the state and federal government to solve our problems is just bogus. It’s just not going to happen. We have to take care of it ourselves, and frankly it’s doable.”
Last October, the 60-year-old Zane brainstormed ideas with his like-minded allies, including Environment Now President Terry O’Day, Gloria Ohland of Reconnecting America and Jamie McCormick of Coalition for Rapid Transit. They outlined a strategy centered around organizing people – the public and elected leaders – in the name of transit progress.

Getting L.A. moving will take an infusion of billions of dollars, trickling in from a special fee or tax increase, that requires voter approval. The goal of the January 10 session: figure out what funding measure makes sense for the November 8 ballot, when a high turnout in the presidential election would be expected to attract an extra 5 or 6 percent of transit-savvy voters. For an idea of how fast the money adds up from a ballot measure, consider this rough example: A $100 annual fee on every automobile would raise $25 billion to $30 billion over 25 or so years.

The sales pitch for voters will touch on more than the $5 billion extension of the Purple Line from its dead-end at Wilshire/Western to Santa Monica. “Suddenly the strategy for a subway becomes, by necessity, a strategy that requires a countywide plan. We’re kind of all in it together,” says Zane. “You have to go to voters with more than just a subway. Instead of having the San Gabriel Valley or the San Fernando Valley or north L.A. County competing with the subway for scarce dollars, the real strategy has to be how do we get all these constituencies and regions working together so there’s enough money for all of these projects.”

A successful campaign will tout projects that will please a majority of voters and include perhaps, a Red Line subway extension to Burbank Airport, a north-south line through the Sepulveda Pass connecting the valley to LAX and an express train to Ontario Airport. It also will involve L.A.’s powerful special interests. “Every part of the county has to see a major improvement and the constituencies that drive politics – the business community, the labor community, the environmental community, and the social justice community – need to be involved.”

Current law now requires that tax increases win two-thirds of the vote. Zane’s goal is to persuade lawmakers, on an urgency basis, to approve a constitutional amendment lowering that threshold to 55 percent. Such a measure would require two-thirds approval by the legislature and also approval at the ballot box. So it’s possible that voters will see the proposed constitutional amendment along with a funding measure on Nov. 8.
All of this leaves little time to waste stuck in traffic.

Hammering out the details of the campaign strategy will fill every minute of the all-day session. Called “It’s Time to Move L.A.,” or simply Move L.A., the program is broken into four segments: The first panel will explore state and federal options, where this year, signs of hope are emerging. “The federal transportation program gets revised every six years, and that will be on the plate of the new administration, almost immediately,” Zane says. “And that’s a big opportunity for reshaping where federal dollars go in a way that could be very positive for Los Angeles County.”

The second panel will explore possible roles by the business community, including public-private partnerships often touted by Councilmember Jack Weiss and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and a fee assessed from business owners along a transit route. “One of the things we want to do is not just have one funding stream, but have several funding streams,” Zane says. “It’s a way to create greater equity.”

The third panel will focus on how the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Los Angeles and other cities can raise money. Ideas include parking surcharges or dedicating a portion of traffic fines to transit projects. Congestion pricing, charging drivers by annual miles traveled, or a surcharge on car registrations also will be considered.

The fourth panel will come up with a game plan and set out details on “Where do we go from here,” Zane says. “I might draft a straw man proposal to serve as a point of departure.”

Putting together a conference around the holidays proved a tough task, and the lineup remains in flux. As it turns out, the day of the conference will be a busy one around the state: The governor will deliver the state budget to the legislature, Sen. Barbara Boxer is holding a hearing in Los Angeles on the EPA’s interfering with California’s efforts to crack down on greenhouse emissions, and the Expo Line Rail Authority and California Transportation Commission meet.

Villaraigosa is planning to speak at the conference, and two county supervisors, Yvonne Burke and Yaroslavsky, have been invited. Zane didn’t invite Waxman because the focus of the one-day conference is on local and state initiatives. Perhaps a transcript of the conference will move Waxman to take a lead role in fighting for federal approval – and money – for the subway and other projects. If he plays his cards right, we’ll propose naming any future Wilshire/Fairfax station in Henry’s honor, but he needs to lobby and advocate for the project. At this point, it’s unclear whether he’d even show up for the dedication ceremony.

Panelists could include assorted Metro staffers and board members and Mary Nichols, head of the California Air Resources Board; Mike Feuer, chair of the Assembly 8 Transportation Committee; John Fairbank, Fairbank, Maslin & Maulin; Maria Elena Durazo, secretary-treasurer of the County Federation of Labor; Marty Wachs, the transit guru from the Rand Corp; Manuel Pastor Jr., director of USC’s Program for Environmental and Regional Equity; and David Fleming, president, L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce.

While the exact funding measure that may go to the voters remains up in the air, Zane says he’s not sold on a sales tax increase. Nor does he necessarily think it would be a good idea to repeal Measure A, the 1998 voter-approved measure championed by Yaroslavsky that banned the use of sales-tax revenues for subway projects. The money generated from two such sales tax increases is tied up in decades’ worth of projects, so repealing the measure might mislead voters into believing they had just liberated a pot of money; in fact, abandoning Measure A would make the most sense if another sales tax increase was in the works.

Nothing quite puts the power of a democracy on display than when people join together to take their cause to elected officials. To Zane, however, it’s business as usual. “What’s surprising to me is that it should be surprising to anybody that constituency groups need to be pushing the agenda forward. And that we imagine we should be relying on elected officials to do all of that for us so the rest of us can go home and just take it easy and let them do the work. Really that’s not how things get done. Officials need to be responsive and show a willingness to take some risks to move the agenda forward, but they are responsive to constituency involvement. We expect them to be the creators of it all of the time. Obviously there’s an interplay. But you need to have constituency politics, especially if you’re looking at the ballot box.”

Councilmember Tom LaBonge, for one, welcomes Zane’s role. LaBonge’s proposal for a $52 a year parcel tax to fund transit projects is one idea that will be discussed at the conference. (By the way, the idea came to him one day while filling his wife’s car with that amount of gas.) LaBonge, who spouts off about public transit with the zeal of a subway-platform preacher, welcomes passionate advocates for public transit. “A poll doesn’t win or lose it. You’ve got to educate the public and fight for it.”

It’s been some 30 years since Zane took on city hall – and won in Santa Monica. He’s learned a few things along the way.

“The No. 1 thing is that organized constituencies are the most important drivers and that’s what we need to try to accelerate. That’s what rent control was. It wasn’t just wise elected officials saw a problem and addressed it. On the contrary, the wise elected officials didn’t want to address it. The renter constituencies had to organize and make it happen.
“And that’s key lesson here: You can’t wait for elected officials to solve problems.”


Sends ammo and insults to BigAl@lasniper.com.

Moving L.A.
Thursday, Jan. 10
The Center at Cathedral Plaza
555 W. Temple St. For details and to register, go to www.subwaytothesea.org (http://www.subwaytothesea.org)

[Echo Park]

Enlist private partner for subway expansion

By Carolyn Kubota and Jack Weiss
Article Last Updated: 12/31/2007 07:24:31 PM PST

Despite the seemingly endless controversy surrounding Los Angeles' traffic problems, there are three basic facts on which most transportation experts agree:

The Los Angeles area subway system doesn't go to enough destinations to be a viable alternative for many people.

A subway running from downtown to the Westside, mostly under Wilshire Boulevard, is the spine needed to spur a successful regional mass transit system.

And here is no realistic prospect of public funding from the federal, state, or local governments to pay for such a subway.

So if we want to get serious about building a subway now, or about making needed San Fernando Valley transportation improvements, it's time to think outside the usual box of taxes and bonds and consider a public-private partnership to build the transportation system Los Angeles needs.

As the Red Line was approaching Wilshire and Western a decade ago, construction costs approached $350 million per mile. Fully building-out the Red Line to the sea would probably cost on the order of $5 billion.

Yet while each level of government grapples with budget shortfalls, funding of that magnitude is simply unrealistic. However, some investment bankers estimate that $700 billion may be available in the capital markets for public-private partnerships.

Overseas the private sector often helps build and operate transportation infrastructure. Recently, U.S. state and local governments have also turned to private investors to finance large projects that otherwise would have been beyond the government's reach.
In 2004 Chicago entered into a 99-year lease for an aging 7.8 mile toll road called the Chicago Skyway. Chicago received $1.8 billion in cash, and the private operator assumed responsibility for everything from funding capital improvements to removing road-kill and filling potholes.

Unquestionably, such arrangements can include risks. The toll for the Chicago Skyway went from $2 to $2.50 on the day the private operators took over, and may rise as high as $5 in the next 10 years. Moreover, management of the Skyway could change over time as companies are bought and sold over the term of a lengthy lease, and service could suffer as a result.

But such risks can be managed. To prevent exorbitant fares, Los Angeles could subsidize use of the subway just as it ensures accessibility for lower-income residents to basic utility, trash and other services. Predictable, fair rules for fare increases and stringent service standards could be negotiated up-front.

A public-private partnership for subway development could take a variety of forms. Denver's FasTracks Regional Transportation District (RTD) is using a public-private partnership to build commuter rail, light rail, and dedicated bus lanes in a $4.7 billion, 12-year project.

The RTD's private partners will provide funds to build the infrastructure, and the RTD will retain ownership and operate the transportation facilities once they are built. The RTD will then repay the construction costs over a longer period of time, much like a 30-year mortgage.

Still another option could be a partnership to permit construction of the subway on a public right-of-way. Although the government would own the completed subway, the private contractor could build, operate and maintain it for a number of years to recoup its costs and receive an appropriate return on its investment.

It's time to face facts - constructing subways won't get any cheaper over time, and the governments that have funded transportation in the past won't get any richer. A public-private partnership could be just the ticket to the transit system Los Angeles needs.

Carolyn Kubota is a partner with the O'Melveny and Myers law firm. Jack Weiss is a member of the Los Angeles City Council.

[BrandonJXN]

OT but do we really need 40 banners of LATINO 96.3 LA'S #1 PARTY MUSIC banners plastered in every subway station on the columns, on the ceiling and all over the walls? These ads are driving me nuts

At least it isn't as bad as those gross giant McDonald's ads from last year. They were almost obscene. :yuck:

[Wright Concept]

ENERGY

Oil enters triple-digit territory
One big trade pushes crude briefly to the $100 mark. Analysts blame speculators and the U.S. government.
By Elizabeth Douglass, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 3, 2008

It was a single trade in the middle of a slow day on the New York Mercantile Exchange that sent crude oil to $100 a barrel.

The fundamentals of supply and demand were responsible too. But the driver Wednesday was one record-setting purchase -- for a single lot, or contract, of 1,000 barrels of the benchmark grade of U.S. crude scheduled for delivery in February.

http://www.latimes.com/media/thumbnails/graphic/2008-01/34537981-02195349.gif

Nobody had ever paid $100 a barrel before on the Nymex or, possibly, anywhere else.

"I'm calling it the one lot heard around the world," said Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at Alaron Trading Corp.

The big buy pushed light, sweet crude up $4.02 to $100 at midday. The previous peak trading price was $99.29 on Nov. 21.

"For 30 years, we've been talking about how we'd never get to $100 oil," said Amy Myers Jaffe of Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy in Houston. "Psychologically, that's just shocking."

The historic moment was fleeting. Oil closed at $99.62, up $3.64.

Still, that was a record, beating $98.18 the day after Thanksgiving. And it was distant from a year ago. On Jan. 2, 2007, oil closed at $61.05. (Adjusted for inflation, the price in April 1980 was between $99.04 and $101.70, depending on whose calculations you use.)

Flynn and other analysts, along with some economists and politicians, said the blame for $100 oil should be shared by speculators and the government.

The Bush administration said Wednesday that it wouldn't release any crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve -- a move that could have checked prices by putting more product on the market -- and added that it planned to continue buying until the reserve was full. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the Bush plan "counterproductive."

Traders were influenced by other events and worries, including political unrest in Nigeria and Pakistan and the falling value of the dollar, the currency used in the world oil market. In addition, the effect of the 1,000-barrel trade was magnified by anemic post-holiday volumes that were well below normal for the New York exchange.

"But more than anything, it was the market's obsession with $100-a-barrel oil," Flynn said. "It really shows you that when a market is fixated on a particular price, it has a tendency to sometimes get there."

Whatever the cause, oil is well above $99, and that threatens to make gasoline, diesel and home heating oil prices rise.

The odds of a jump at the pump increased as futures traders bid up the price of gasoline for February delivery to a record-high trade of $2.578 a gallon, then finished the day with a peak close of $2.569 a gallon, up 7.81 cents.

Motorists are already dealing with prices at unprecedented highs for this time of year. Nationwide, the average cost of self-serve regular gasoline was $3.049 a gallon Wednesday, almost 73 cents higher than a year earlier, according to AAA. In California, the average was $3.314 a gallon, up more than 66 cents compared with Jan. 2, 2007.

Some believe the average could reach $3.50 to $3.75.

"The problem for the consumer is that if they hear that oil is hitting $100 . . . they know that the gas price will be pushing up further above $3," said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at Global Insight.

"And the higher gasoline prices are coming on top of a lot of other problems."

Diana Diaz, a choir and piano instructor at Duarte High School, was dreading the trickle-down effect.

"It makes me angry. It makes everything more difficult and more expensive. This means that the price of milk is going to go up. Even my cup of coffee is going to be more because of these oil and gas prices," said Diaz, 37, who has cut most of her driving down to three essentials: work, singing engagements and visits to her boyfriend in San Pedro. "I'm living at home to save money; there really isn't any more that I can do."

The world's oil supplies are delicately balanced with global demand. The outlook for the next 12 months is better than it was a year ago, though, because demand is easing and production is expected to rise.

"The world produced more oil in November than we ever have before," said Flynn of Alaron Trading. "I think that could improve next year."

And so far, shockingly high oil prices have merely eased demand; they haven't flattened the economy.

"We all imagined that the day that we would have $100 oil would be the day of total crisis. And we're here, and we're all blase," said Rice University's Jaffe. "I think it's unwise to think that."

Demand for oil and its chief product, gasoline, is starting to falter, especially in the U.S., beset by a dive in housing prices, rising foreclosures and high debt loads.

In California, the world's third-largest market for gasoline, consumption has fallen for six consecutive quarters.

Lu Mohler, owner of the Latte Lu coffee bar in Cardiff-by-the Sea, Calif., tends to customers from a stand at a Valero gas station. They've been cutting back.

"They'll buy a regular coffee instead of a latte," Mohler said. That means $1.75 instead of $3.25. "Or they might come here once a week instead of once a day."

That took a toll, she said. "I had the hardest year ever."

elizabeth.douglass @latimes.com

Times staff writer Ronald D. White contributed to this report.

[Wright Concept]

A public-private partnership for subway development could take a variety of forms. Denver's FasTracks Regional Transportation District (RTD) is using a public-private partnership to build commuter rail, light rail, and dedicated bus lanes in a $4.7 billion, 12-year project.

The RTD's private partners will provide funds to build the infrastructure, and the RTD will retain ownership and operate the transportation facilities once they are built. The RTD will then repay the construction costs over a longer period of time, much like a 30-year mortgage.

... A public-private partnership could be just the ticket to the transit system Los Angeles needs.

Carolyn Kubota is a partner with the O'Melveny and Myers law firm. Jack Weiss is a member of the Los Angeles City Council.

I wish they'd got their facts straight Denver is only doing their Union Station as a centerpiece of a public-private partnership which their FasTracks plan is centered around. They're trying to build a multi-modal facility through the cost in exchange for denser zoning and air rights around the station so the developer can go bigger without sacrificing his bottom line. Most of the other corridors are existing railroads or preserved right-of-ways in which helps make this pencil out.

LA could mimic what is being done in Vancouver for their Canada Line but they would have to redesign and rethink their whole station designs and layouts. Vancouver is making it work by building a much smaller 150' long footprint which is only 1/3 the size of LA's subway 450' long subway platforms. But they're making it heavy rail with automated driverless operation, something LA would have to rework.

In addition, a public-private partnership (PPP) could only work on land that can reach additional density easily if a straight Wilshire alignment is used it won't work because the corridor in question is maxed out and there are HPOZ's along the corridor that will limit height and density which is the central pieces for a plan like this to work. The only corridors I could see this working are maybe Venice Blvd, Van Nuys and Vermont because there's existing density which support the existing ridership but there's room for more growth which is the key for making a PPP work out.

[Echo Park]

Looks like Lexus lanes are coming to LA.


Plan For L.A. County Toll Roads in Fast Lane
By Steve Hymon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

January 9, 2008, 8:11 PM PST

Plan For L.A. County Toll Roads in Fast Lane If they can win a huge federal grant, Los Angeles County transportation officials said Tuesday that rush-hour toll lanes could become a reality on three local freeways by spring 2009.

The prediction underscored what has been a radical turnaround for leaders who only eight months ago were reluctant to do anything more than study "congestion pricing" as a way to discourage drivers when freeways are clogged.

That hesitation caused Los Angeles to miss out last year on a share of more than $1 billion in federal assistance. But another round of federal money will be in play over the next two months, and officials hope their change of heart will help them snag the $648 million needed to set up the toll lanes and make other transportation fixes.

During a briefing for reporters, MTA and Caltrans officials acknowledged that toll lanes remain controversial in Los Angeles, though they have been used for years on one freeway in Orange County. But the time is right, they said, to try something new in a region with among the worst traffic in the nation.

"I know that this has caused a lot of conversation," said Roger Snoble, chief executive of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. "We have to do something. It's really pretty evident to us that things are getting worse."

Snoble added: "We've been stuck in the same old rut."

The plan would convert existing carpool lanes into toll lanes on 85 miles of three freeways: the 110 between downtown Los Angeles and the Artesia Transit Center at 182nd Street; the 210 between downtown Pasadena and the 605; and the 10 between downtown Los Angeles and the 605.

A second phase would convert carpool lanes on the 10, 210 and 60 freeways from the 605 to the San Bernardino County line. On the 60, a carpool lane under construction east of the 605 would have to be completed first.

The ambitious plans would be contingent on the region's winning that chunk of federal money. The MTA and Caltrans overall want to spend $1.4 billion on a variety of transportation fixes that would include the toll lanes.

The U.S. Department of Transportation held a competition last year for cities or regions willing to deploy congestion pricing as part of their traffic-busting plans. Promising only to study the concept, Los Angeles County officials were bounced from the competition in the first round.

After receiving public heat for that failure, the MTA board -- composed mostly of elected officials from across the county -- voted 12 to 0 to try again.

The premise behind congestion pricing is to control freeway flows by charging a toll that fluctuates depending on the volume of traffic. If traffic is heavy, the price goes up. When traffic is light, the price goes down.

The portion of the 91 that connects Orange and Riverside counties is the only Southland freeway with congestion pricing in place. Tolls range from as low as $1.20 to as high as $10 from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. on the eastbound side on Friday afternoons.

The tolls that Los Angeles County freeway drivers might pay have not been decided.

Snoble and Douglas Failing, director of the local California Department of Transportation district, hedged on one potential sticking point that has emerged in the last month: whether multi-passenger vehicles would also have to pay to use lanes they currently travel in free. MTA officials have said pricing schemes would probably be tiered, with single-occupant vehicles paying the most but all drivers possibly paying something.

Snoble and Failing said there was still a chance that carpoolers would not be charged -- especially those driving on the 110 freeway, which has two carpool lanes in each direction and the ability to handle more vehicles.

Critics of the toll plan say people who carpool shouldn't be charged, since they're already doing something that benefits other motorists.

MTA board member Richard Katz agreed and said Tuesday that he has received complaints from people upset that carpoolers might have to pay.

"There is no interest in charging carpoolers to use carpool lanes, even if we do charge single-occupancy vehicles," Katz said.

The impending application for federal transportation money does not answer a related question either: If tolls are based on the number of people in a car, how do authorities verify that number?

No toll booths are expected to be built. Use of the lanes would probably be monitored by electronic devices that motorists would be given to put in their cars.

Snoble and Failing said there are tools -- such as cameras and heat sensors -- that authorities could use to monitor occupancy and issue citations to cheaters. But Failing said he could see how problems might result if a heat sensor detected a "passenger" who turned out to be a big dog.

Congestion pricing is not the only controversial idea on the plate of local transportation officials these days. The MTA conducted a poll in November to gauge whether residents might be open to a tax increase to pay for mass transit projects such as the "subway to the sea," according to two sources familiar with the survey.

The results showed that residents were fed up with traffic and were open to a tax hike, but would still have to be persuaded for any such increase to pass. A daylong conference Thursday organized by the Subway-to-the-Sea Coalition will explore the subject further.

[LAofAnaheim]

Remember...the congestion pricing will be on the 3 freeways that suitable alternatives exist (Metrolink, El Monte busway, and the Harbor Expressway). If you don't want to pay a toll and not sit in traffic, take the alternative. If you want a fast commute, pay a toll. That's up to you. Sometimes "middle-class" and "poor" people are willing to pay to drive over 50 mph. Would you?

Why is it okay to raise MTA fares but not allow congestion pricing? Which hurts the "poor" more? If it's not congestion pricing, we could face another round of fare increases, that's the real truth. Already, we have passed one round, but another increase is discussed (besides the proposed increase in 2011), especially if Arnold takes the spillover funds AGAIN. The funds from congestion pricing will be used for the corridor itself (a binding agreement made when doing congestion pricing). However, additional state/federal funds that were meant to serve these corridors can be freed for other projects like the Crenshaw Corridor, Downtown Connector, Gold Line to Whittier, etc... Congestion pricing is fair pricing.

[DJM19]

Im not sure how they would work out the whole pricing (or free) thing with carpooling. Presumably the censor attached to your car certainly wont know when you carpool or not, so its going to charge the same amount every time. If that in conjunction with heat sensor is what calculates your cost, I think that can be easily fooled.

[DowntownCharlieBrown]

On the 91 Expressway, at the point you pass under the sensor, you have a choice of lanes. One for carpools and one for non-carpools (which get charged a fee). There is a booth that sits in the middle of the Expressway that I presumed has a person viewing the cars passing in the carpool lane. Perhaps in conjunction with heat sensors, a decision is made to have a cop chase the car. Btw, there are usually cops on motorcycles waiting at the booth. It would take a lot trips through the carpool lane to make up for the fee charged for breaking the law. I use the 91 a lot to visit my parents, and have never falsely used the carpool lane.

[sopas ej]

From the Los Angeles Times:

Sales tax hike could fund subway to sea

L.A. County voters may decide on the half-cent increase in November's election.
By Steve Hymon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 11, 2008

If enthusiasm can get a subway built, the long-sought underground rail line from downtown Los Angeles to the Pacific gained a modicum of momentum Thursday after a day-long meeting of leaders focused on getting the $7-billion project built after decades of inaction, study and lots of, well, talk.

Casting an eye toward the November presidential election, several key politicians said they were open to asking voters to approve a tax increase to partially pay for the so-called "subway to the sea" and a slew of other road and mass transit projects in Los Angeles County.

Several officials raised the possibility of a half-cent sales tax hike. If approved by voters, such an increase would bring the county's sales tax rate to 8.75%, tying it with Alameda and Contra Costa counties' as the highest in California.

Among those who said they may support the idea were Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and a pair of county supervisors, Yvonne B. Burke and Zev Yaroslavsky.

"I'm a cynic by design," said Yaroslavsky, current chairman of the five-member Board of Supervisors. "I'm skeptical you can get 66 2/3 " -- the percentage of favorable votes need to approve an increase -- "during a recession. . . . Nevertheless, it's a tool that has to be considered."

A poll commissioned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority showed that two-thirds of voters would support a new transportation tax. But the poll's first question made no mention of a subway but did mention widening eight freeways in Los Angeles County.

Villaraigosa gave a passionate speech about the subway, saying it would have among the most riders of any line in the country. He also said the project would cost $7 billion but offered no firm detail on how to pay for it. MTA estimates have put the cost of the line at $5 billion.

In his speech and in an earlier interview, Villaraigosa said a sales tax hike was an option. But around City Hall, the thinking is that he won't make a decision on pursuing a transit tax until after Feb. 5, when voters will be asked to authorize a telephone tax that the city needs to balance its budget.

Los Angeles County Federation of Labor chief Maria Elena Durazo said her group of more than 800,000 union members might be willing to support a tax increase for subway construction. More resolute was Pam O'Connor, chairwoman of the MTA board and a Santa Monica councilwoman. O'Connor said the expected high turnout in November could help get such a tax increase passed.

Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) said he is pushing legislation that would lower the threshold needed to pass a bond for transit project. Feuer said he is also pursuing other legislation that could potentially allow a portion of the property taxes collected from some parcels along Wilshire Boulevard to be used for the subway.

More than 300 people attended the meeting at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. It was organized by several groups that have long pushed for more mass transit.

Denny Zane, the lead organizer, is a former mayor of Santa Monica and a consultant who started the Subway to the Sea Coalition. Zane said the point of the meeting was to show area politicians that a broad coalition of interests would stand behind a campaign for transit funding.

Another organizer, Bart Reed, was more blunt. "Even if we wanted to put something on the ballot, we need the buy-in from the politicians and organized labor and all the power players in the city and the public," he said.

The officials agreed it would be difficult to raise subway money any other way.

Congress last month lifted a 1986 ban on subway funding put in place by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), who said the ban was imposed for safety reasons, although critics have long contended the ban was done to please homeowners who didn't want a subway in their neighborhood. Still, the most the federal government has ever awarded for a single mass transit project is $1.2 billion for a Long Island Rail Road tunnel in New York City.

Meanwhile, the state budget gap of $14 billion appears to preclude any help from Sacramento. In Los Angeles, MTA officials said they have $60-billion in long-range projects but no money to build them. Existing half-penny sales tax increases approved by county voters in 1980 and 1990 are committed elsewhere, and, voters in 1998 prohibited that money from being spent on subway tunneling.

The debate now is whether it's time to return to voters to create a new pot of money. The MTA quietly spent $65,000 in November to conduct a poll of 1,200 residents across the county. Two-thirds of the voters who responded said they would approve a sales tax increase directed to a variety of projects. "We're even getting Republicans to support this," said John Fairbank, of the polling firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates. "Traffic is at such a frustrating level."

Transit advocates emphasize that any tax increase would not just be for the subway. It would be likely to include an array of projects across the 4,084-square mile county -- freeway widenings, street repairs and rail projects.

A majority of the 13-member MTA board, comprised mostly of elected officials, would have to vote to put it on the ballot.

Tony Bell, a spokesman for Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who is on the MTA board and represents less-densely populated north L.A. County, said his boss would probably not support an increase because "all the money would be drained into the subway."

Eagerly watching the debate unfold are a number of private interests who want to contribute money as part of a private-public partnership.

Those types of deals come in a variety of forms but typically involve the private sector's assuming some or all of the cost of building and operating a project in return for a fee or a cut of the project's profits.

Such deals are becoming popular enough that, last month, the investment committee of the California Public Employees' Retirement System, the $250-billion state employee pension fund, voted to invest in partnerships that build public works projects.

A CalPERS spokesman said this week that no specific projects are targeted.

"There are hundreds of billions of dollars of private capital that is available," said Kathleen Brown, head of the infrastructure group for the west region of Goldman Sachs and a former state treasurer. "CalPERS is the tip of the iceberg of public pension funds getting into this."

Paul Ryan, who runs the infrastructure advisory group for J.P. Morgan, said a public- private partnership on public transit may be profitable -- if the right deal can be struck. He also pointed to another problem facing infrastructure projects: rising construction costs.

"If you delay a project right now for five to seven years, construction cost increases means that delivering the same project to customers is going to cost you 1 1/2 to twice as much," Ryan said.

steve.hymon@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-subway11jan11,1,1191159.story?coll=la-headlines-california

[dragonsky]

Don't just sit there! Take a stand.
http://www.relievetraffic.org/

[edluva]

....

"I'm a cynic by design," said Yaroslavsky, current chairman of the five-member Board of Supervisors. "I'm skeptical you can get 66 2/3 " -- the percentage of favorable votes need to approve an increase -- "during a recession. . . . Nevertheless, it's a tool that has to be considered."...






dumb-fuck zev is the reason this vote exists to begin with.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Don't just sit there! Take a stand.
http://www.relievetraffic.org/



There should be a website dedicated to the Purple Line being extended akin to the one you posted.

[Vangelist]

I loathe Yaroslavsky. Why is this man still in power?

But no words can describe the abhorrence I have towards Antonobitch. These are the assholes why LA is in the state it is today - their "leadership" - amongst other factors

[LAofAnaheim]

dumb-fuck zev is the reason this vote exists to begin with.

Actually..it makes no difference. Like I said in a previous area, Prop A & C are tied to the Crenshaw Corridor, Expo Phase II (if we need more cash than Prop 1B can give), Downtown Connector, etc... And remember the multiple road/bus improvements as well. We won't be able to use Prop A & C until 2020 at the earliest for the Purple Line extension.

This new vote gives us a chance to raise cash faster and not rely on federal funding.

[edluva]

^it makes no difference *now*, you're correct.

[jlrobe]

I will take this time to clear something very important up. Generally speaking, Angelenos hold this city back, not politicians.

Zev is not as bad as we all think. I actually paid 25 bucks and spent my whole work day attending that "Its Time To Move LA conference". The LA times coverage was pretty crappy. It didnt capture that all day event that well at all.

Zev is an ELECTED official, and even though (at least according to him) he wants heavy rail, light rail, and buses, he doesnt have the power to make them happen. He covers 2.3 million people, and he cant go against their will. He is doing what he was elected to do, serve his constituents. Luckily for us, the MTA, and politicians at large, are not as dumb as Joel Kitkon and the LA times staff writers. Most realize that rail is the future.

It isnt his fault that his constituents are idiots. If there was enough grass roots eforts to back him up, I am sure he would be pushing hard for the subway. instead, he is faced with people who hate rail, and foolishly want meger roadway enhancements instead. He must go with the majority. He doesnt have the authority to do otherwise.

PEOPLE in LA hold it back, not its leadership! During the conference, leaders said some really great things. THe organized labor unions wanted rail. The LA councilmembers wanted rail. The entire MTA board pretty much wants more rail (heavy or otherwise). All politicians say the same thing though...."by and large, Angelenos just dont support heavy rail enough, and without that support, things like this just cant get built".

When he first got elected, Mayor Antonio Villaragoisa was ridiculed for even mentioning the subway to the sea, but he received huge accolades for fixing traffic lights. That act saved commuters all of 2 minutes each way, yet they applauded his efforts. At the same time, the redline could save them an hour, yet they didnt even blink an eye when he mentioned it. That is the world our political leaders live in, in LA county.

In the north bay area, you can hardly widen any roads without environmentalists, transit lovers, and citizens at large going crazy. Here, if you widen a freeway you are a hero. Here, if you build better sidewalks or build more rail, you are a hero to about 20% of the people. To the rest, you are wasting precious freeway money.

Bay Areans pushed BART through, not the politicians. I was always jealous because it seems while LA struggles to build rail while the bay area keeps expanding theirs. I thought at first that the state and fed favored the bay more than LA. It turns out that the Bay has hundreds of grass roots groups that routinely fight for transit and the environment. Through their efforts alone, they raised 12 billion in LOCAL money for their transit projects in the last 6 years. This isnt the politicians mind you, but average citizens. If 12 billion fell on our laps, Angelenos would have a hissy fit if 5 billion went towards a subway! At least 5 years ago they would.

Let's look back to rail in LA during the 80s. If it hadnt been for the 105 compromise where poor communities who were displaced via eminent domain, we wouldnt have the green line. Had it not been for transit dependent minorities, we wouldnt have the blue line. Dont let the BRU fool you, the momentum created by transit dependent minorities just BARELY gave Mayor Bradley enough wiggle room to fight tooth and nail for the red line. It didnt come easy at all.

Obviously Mayor Bradley could have used more help because the CITIZENS of beverly hills and Hancock Park, and the CITIZENS of greater LA county lead Waxman and Zev to kill the subway. THe politicians didnt just wake up one evening and fight the subway. Angelenos were screaming bloody murder after every new mile of the redline was finished. In other cities, citizens would have rejoiced when the redline opened. Instead, it had token applause, and caused a much larger uproar. Even today, 75% of Angelenos dont even know it exits, and 95% have never even dreamt of riding it.

I know this is just a hollywood movie, but PLEASE PLEASE watch the first 5 minutes of the movie Volcano. I know its fictional, but the first shot of the movie opens to people protesting the red line. That movie actually captures the mood of Angelenos during that time. THat is what our politicians had to deal with. In contrast, in the Bay Area, businesses and residents were PUSHING for the BART not FIGHTING it.

If you think that things like that are in the past, you are wrong. The only reason the expo line is being built today is because of a decade of grass roots efforts. Anglenos wanted wider freeways, not toy trains, and it took grass roots to get it through.

Dorsey Highschool and Cheviot Hills threaten to destroy all the work. After the "Its time to move LA" conference, the chair of the MTA was HOUNDED about dorsey high school. He was there on his own free time in support of more rail just to be harrassed by people who want to make the expo line a subway through that area. These people have good motives, but are straining an overstrained MTA. The person who suggested undergrounding the expo line is going too far IMHO and is a regular poster on this very forum. I am sorry to call him out, but I have to disagree with his efforts. Also, if he thinks he can GetLAMoving by 2030 for 30 billion, he is dreaming if he requires every line to be undergounded when it crosses an area of importance. Alright, I digress, so I will leave this alone.

In other places, city residents SUPPORT their MTA and fight places like cheviot hills and Dorsy High school. Instead Angelenos leave our politicians to the wolves. When miracles like the expo line get completed, it ends up on the back page of our newspapers.

In the end, very few people in LA care enough to get involved. The only people who care are NIMBY's like westchester, cheviot hills, and dorsey high school. These people are the only ones talking!!! There should be a group called "Angelenos against gridlock and pollution" and they should literally go to EVERY community or scoping meeting and fight these people. They should dispel lies about safety, noise pollution, crime, and decreasing property values. They should counter the BRU at every step. They should go around talking about the benefits of a car free urban area. They should talk about smog, global warming, commute times, and obesity. Instead, the NIMBY's talk about baby killers and environmental racism. Dont blame the politicians for this mess, blame Angelenos! Unless we start blaming ourselves, nothing is ever going to get done in this town.

I live within walking distance of Palos Verdes (yes I said walking!). I have driven way out of my way to go to meetings in the heart of los angeles. I have written MTA members, and I have tried to start what little grass roots efforts I can. I can tell you right now. We are darn luckily to have pro-transit politicians in office. Angelenos are the most inactive and apathetic people I know when it comes to politics.

PS. At the conference, EVERY politician said that they would be okay building the subway, more light rail, and making long term improvements. Almost all of them said LA NIMBYs are way to powerful, and all of them said, Angelenos need to fork over more tax money to make any of this a reality. There was a long discussion on funding. Here is what was said

1) We need MANY measures to make sure there is a steady stream of local money, but the most important is a new sales tax. Without that, there just wouldnt be enough to build everything.
2) You need 2/3 vote to pass a county wide sales tax.
3) People are fighting to make it a 55% vote. But that fight is a long shot
4) People in LA WILL NOT vote on any increase in taxes unless they KNOW it will directly benefit them.
5) Mega projects do not work in LA, but if a comprehensive plan isnt laid out that specifically says "this money will help YOU", then it wont happen. Even though there is a comprehensive plan, you have to build in phases in this town. You cant build Mega Projects. This was said by Zev himself.
6) To gaurantee that money does get used for the subway, it would be good if you explicity mention that on the ballot measure.
7) about 68% of LA county was in favor of increasing taxes (before the recession news or the 14 billion dollar deficit) but that poll had language that eluded to freeway widening, not rail. The one was exclusively rail oriented was in the 40% range. Not even CLOSE to enough to pass. apparently, campaigning only works if you are at 60+ and want an additional 6 points to get something passed. According to a polling expert.
8) We could use private-public partnerships (P3), but the Oakland Bart P3 resulted in a fare of $5 one way for only 2 miles of track. In general, the state restricts alot of private-public options, and it is diffiuclt to use them to the same benefit as traditional construction methods. Oaklands high fare is because of estimated low ridership and construction costs in the bay area.
8b) Florida used public private partnerships to save 50% on one of their projects. These partnerships help speard the risk of these projects away from the tax payer. If there are any overuns, the company has to eat it. There are rules on fares. Private companies only get to own the infrastructure for 30 years, but it depends on the contract.
8c) Private markets have tons of upfront capitol. In the public sector, it takes alot of liquid via taxes to raise 5 billion up front. Public private partnerships can help get expensive subways started, instead of waiting decades for capitol.
9) The MTA is strongly favoring the downtown connector over the subway to the sea. I waited all day to ask the MTA chair why this was, but he got hounded by anti-expo rail folks, so I totally blew my chance! Zev himself said "I dont know why the subway to the sae isnt being looked at. We could build it to la cienega for now, and that would cut the commute time for many by 30 minutes. Instead, we are trying to save people 5 minutes with the downtown connector".
10) The MTA wants to do the crenshaw corridor, but it isnt known whether BRT or light rail is the way to go.
11) Zev said that in his experience, counties like LA never pass tax increases during a looming recession. If you miss time it and the measure doesnt pass, it could be years before you can get a tax increase through. So times is critical.
12) One option discussed was to make a ballot measure to increase taxes and say "This money will be used for transit only. Retrofitting freeways for eathquake resistance. Fixing key interchanges. Making safety improvements and other key upgrades. Fixing potholes. Adding more bus services. Adding more rail projects, including heavy rail". In this case, the MTA doesnt have total jurisdiction. The MTA might only get say 30% of that. Of that 30% it has to work on building new lines and maintaining other lines and increasing bus service. It isnt known how much could be used specifically for the subway. Again, Zev suggested that the subway be built in 4 stages (to fairfax or la cienega. Then through beverly hills. Then to UCLA. Then to Santa Monica). That way, at least you can make progress. He doesnt know how enough money will become available to build the whole line at once. Although he said, if they got a whole bunch of money, that might be a priority after crenshaw and the downtown connector
13) Zev did mention that no corridor in los angeles was more deserving than wilshire. He also mentioned that no area of LA was more deserving of rail than the west side

[jlrobe]

dumb-fuck zev is the reason this vote exists to begin with.

Its complicated. If we educate Angelenos, we will get rail. Most officials are pro-transit.

[jlrobe]

There should be a website dedicated to the Purple Line being extended akin to the one you posted.

http://www.subwaytothesea.org/home.php

Actually I attended the "ITs time to move LA" conference. This conference was the motivation behind the LA times Article "Sales Tax Hike for the subway".

This was the ad for the very successfully conference.
http://www.subwaytothesea.org/moveLAconference/invitation.htm

If you follow their website they ask for volunteers and donations.

I started my petition (although I only have 10 signatures :). I am also giving support to this coaltion. To be honest, they havent asked me to do anything yet. I figure my hard earned money should help their cause. Denny Zane works hard, and I know he is using my money well.

I am working on a very similar website, but I am lazy (or busy). For now, here is a quick way to support the cause.
http://www.subwaytothesea.org/actnow/endorse.php

Pass this link around to as many colleagues as you can. If you are on myspace, link it. If you post on forums, link it. You downtowners, start posting this around petes cafe, groundwork, or pass out flier during the ralphs lunch rush. People need to know that a coalition currently exists and is gaining serious momentum. If you know of a better group, send me the link.

My effort (which is very slow going) is less about getting large groups and more about courting the individual Angeleno. When the powers that be say "special interests want this, not normal Angelenos dont", I want to have signatures that say otherwise. So far, 10 signatures is total crap, but I suspect it will get better?!?

[Wright Concept]

9) The MTA is strongly favoring the downtown connector over the subway to the sea. I waited all day to ask the MTA chair why this was, but he got hounded by anti-expo rail folks, so I totally blew my chance! Zev himself said "I dont know why the subway to the sea isnt being looked at. We could build it to la cienega for now, and that would cut the commute time for many by 30 minutes. Instead, we are trying to save people 5 minutes with the downtown connector".

I guess building Expo Line Phase 2 to Santa Monica with this would save his constiuents the same 30 minutes and save many more the same amount of time by reducing the transfers and improving access with direct trips. In fact building the Connector would add the capacity needed to extend the Purple Line west by shifting the trips.

[Damien]

There's a certain cognitive dissonance that comes in advocating for a $5 billion dollar investment for the subway to the sea in one breadth, and arguing against an additional $200 million to build the Expo Line correctly through South LA in the next.

LOL!

By the way, can anyone tell me why when the "methane problem" surfaced the MTA didn't simply draft plans to build an elevated down Wilshire?

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Affrojuice]

http://www.subwaytothesea.org/home.php

Actually I attended the "ITs time to move LA" conference. This conference was the motivation behind the LA times Article "Sales Tax Hike for the subway".

This was the ad for the very successfully conference.
http://www.subwaytothesea.org/moveLAconference/invitation.htm

If you follow their website they ask for volunteers and donations.

I started my petition (although I only have 10 signatures :). I am also giving support to this coaltion. To be honest, they havent asked me to do anything yet. I figure my hard earned money should help their cause. Denny Zane works hard, and I know he is using my money well.

I am working on a very similar website, but I am lazy (or busy). For now, here is a quick way to support the cause.
http://www.subwaytothesea.org/actnow/endorse.php


your post was actually very eye opening and inspirational for me. thanks for the links to the different grass roots organizations, i signed myself up!!

[jlrobe]

There's a certain cognitive dissonance that comes in advocating for a $5 billion dollar investment for the subway to the sea in one breadth, and arguing against an additional $200 million to build the Expo Line correctly through South LA in the next.

Well, on the surface there might be a cognitive dissonance as you put it. As a scientist, my favorite phrase is counter intuitive.

1) $200 million assumes that cost over runs don't happen. Looking at your map, and your over 300 miles of rail, I would estimate that we would need about 30 or so of these 200$ upgrades. I havent looked at your map closely enough however, so that is just a guess. Add in rising construction costs, and possible underestimation, lets make it 30*250 million. That comes to a cool 7.5 billion if we had to underground at key intersections. Not as much as I exaggerated before, but not a drop in the bucket either. Really, you are simply setting a precendent, which Angelenos LOVE. Everyone will have their own favorite "key" intersection to force the "ugly" rail underground so they dont have to suffer noise pollution. Just listen to the cheviot hills BS complaining about everything from noise pollution to rail being child murderers. It is sad how bad Angelenos can get.

AS you know, LA is heavily urbanized, and if you want to cover it uniformly with rail, every community will have their own contentious 200 mill upgrade.

Also, as you know, Culver city, USC, and Dorsey high school have ALL requested upgrades, while cheviot hills wanted an entire diversion. This is 4 changes totaling potentially 600 million more than originally conceived. This is just one ROW line too. Just think about the other lines you dreamt up. The expo fought USC, and is still fighting dorsey, and will have to fight Culver City as well. I bet 100 bucks, that they will run into another protest before even reaching Culver City. In my opinion, this isnt just an isolated 200 million deal.

IMHO, I think that the 200 million really adds no value to our system at all. That is a real problem for me. I think if counselors, parents, and signs are used, safety is not an issue. How they heck can you get hit by a train that travels on a fixed grid, on a fixed schedule, and can be seen 400 feet away?

As you say, the subway does cost 5 billion,and it is counter intuitive, but it adds tons of value. For starters, our heavy rail system is one of the top ridership/mile in the country. IT is only like 13 miles and has more ridership than every other light rail line combined. The expo will have good ridership to, but so far, our heavy rail has proven itself as a super workhorse.

Asia has a huge propensity to invest in los angeles. First Japan, now Korea, and in the next 15 years, china. They will most likely pour tens of billions into the los angeles economy over the years. Especially as Asia explodes. Where is all of that investment going to go? Along the wilshire corridor! I dont care if its westwood, century city, SaMo, Ktown, or downtown. Asia is going to invest billions and billions into LA and it will likely go there, especially with rail. With proper zoning, and allowing for affordable housing when possible, the entire central wilshire corridor could have westwood towers up and down it. With infrastructure in place, there is no telling the amounts of money that could pour into it.

All 4 CBD will be connected on one line. If you think of them as one entity, it will be the most powerful CBD west of Manhattan and East of Tokyo. We need heavy rail connecting these important centers and VERY efficiently.

It goes through the heart of los angeles (It actually gives LA a clear center), and pays for itself 10 times over in pure economic development in the next 50 years. A Valley line could tie into the wilshire subway directly connecting potentially half a million commuters directly with their jobs.

I like the expo alot, but I dont think it can be compared to the wilshire subway.

Not everything is created equal. There are tons of lines in the bay area for BART, but everyone knows the transbay tube cost 5 times more than any other line. Everyone also knows that it is the most crucial part of their entire system.


By the way, can anyone tell me why when the "methane problem" surfaced the MTA didn't simply draft plans to build an elevated down Wilshire?


Beverly Hills said that an elevated track would never be allowed through their city. I suggest we just elevate it until we get to beverly hills. Anyhow, if it isnt a subway, you cant get from beverly hills, to century city, back up to UCLA. If century city isnt connected, it will lower the value of the line.

Also, elevated track does take SOME automobile real estate , but not much. If drivers are ready to give up some street real estate, then making an elevated track until la cienega, might be cost effective. Anyhow, the cost of elevated structures in urban areas has nearly tripled, while the cost of undergrounding continues to drop in real dollars due to tunneling technology (As you yourself have pointed out on your previous posts).

In response to your actual question. People on the westside did not want a subway. It was forced upon them by Mayor Bradley. Bradley had a vision, they had a nightmare.

Anyhow, on the Dorsey issue, maybe I am mistaking?!? Maybe the city was selling culver city, cheviot hills, dorsey high, and USC short. Maybe I dont know enough to judge. Maybe all 4 of these organizations have a reason to point fingers at the MTA. To me, they seem like small issues. Especially when you go to other cities and see rail right on top of everything from colleges to churces to hospitals. I guess there, people know to respect rail!?!

[Damien]

Well, on the surface there might be a cognitive dissonance as you put it. As a scientist, my favorite phrase is counter intuitive.

1) $200 million assumes that cost over runs don't happen.

And you're more likely to blame the victim (the community) for making these demands than MTA for designing the line incorrectly?

Looking at your map, and your over 300 miles of rail, I would estimate that we would need about 30 or so of these 200$ upgrades.

You came in late. Much of GLAM was developed here. It started as a compilation of at-grade light rail, elevated and subterranean. I switched it to 100% grade separated when the Transit Service Policy demand thresholds were introduced to me (any line over 50K should be designed 100% grade separated is what MTA says - but again, fault the community for ignoring this policy - not MTA), my suspicions about tunneling cost savings were validated, and I began to realize that community acceptance (to garner more voters and to avoid lawsuits) and time were crucial components of the plan. With respect to time, longer working periods would be required and construction below grade can and should take place 24-7 whereas at-grade and elevated it can only occur during certain hours. I also, unlike MTA, was very sensitive to the issue of design discrepancy.

I havent looked at your map closely enough however, so that is just a guess. Add in rising construction costs, and possible underestimation, lets make it 30*250 million. That comes to a cool 7.5 billion if we had to underground at key intersections. Not as much as I exaggerated before, but not a drop in the bucket either. Really, you are simply setting a precendent, which Angelenos LOVE. Everyone will have their own favorite "key" intersection to force the "ugly" rail underground so they dont have to suffer noise pollution.

All of the rail through residential communities is below grade in the GLAM plan. And the estimated cost was $31-38B. Give FTA a call to find out why the noise and vibration mitigation standards in residential communities are higher than commercial areas.

Just listen to the cheviot hills BS complaining about everything from noise pollution to rail being child murderers. It is sad how bad Angelenos can get.

So which of these statements is NOT true:
-Overland/Exposition intersection is less than 100 feet from Overland Elementary School
-Horns and cross gates cause noise pollution that require mitigation
-Children have been killed by MTA's light rail

No regional rail advocate is every going to be successful by hoping to railroad powerful communities. That's what happened here. I started digging and discovered a pile of crap so deep that primarily was being covered up and ignored because of personalities and preconceived notions. So many people got so convinced that the messenger wasn't worth listening to that they ignored their message that had way too many justifiable statements.

Maybe because I'm experienced in coalition building I take a more mature approach to it all. Then again for those who have never done it nor are expected to do it in the future I suppose sitting on the couch and complaining is completely suffice.

AS you know, LA is heavily urbanized, and if you want to cover it uniformly with rail, every community will have their own contentious 200 mill upgrade.

Actually that's one of the major advantages of subways and major draw back of at-grade rail. Subway design is pretty consistent for its entire length, whereas with at-grade rail, every block is a new design.

Also, as you know, Culver city, USC, and Dorsey high school have ALL requested upgrades, while cheviot hills wanted an entire diversion.

And if MTA had their way they'd be blowing through these areas at-grade with limited sound walls and landscaping. Come down to reality and understand how public works projects work in the real world and find out why MTA has such a bad reputation nationally and among local agencies. To get projects built construction costs are lower than actually anticipated and proposed mitigation measures are minimal. That's where all projects start. Then the squeaky wheel gets oil and the project is refined to what is passable. It's the cost of doing business.

Additionally, if you'd like I'd be more than happy to let you take a look at the boxload of agency documents pertaining to the USC, Dorsey, Culver City and other sections that illustrate the severe impacts of project regarding everything from pedestrian and motorist safety, traffic circulation, and redevelopment potential.

I have no problem with debate. And I welcome the opportunity to bring folk up to speed. About the only thing I have little tolerance for are those who have no concern for and refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that there are negative impacts to the project that require mitigation. With most I can have a health discussion about what is sufficient mitigation, but the folk who think "ahhh mitigation schmitigation" do more disservice to rail transit advocacy than the BRU. These are exactly the wrong type of people who should be going into neutral communities trying to win people over.

This is 4 changes totaling potentially 600 million more than originally conceived. This is just one ROW line too. Just think about the other lines you dreamt up.

1) Most of the lines weren't "dreamt up," but a compilation of previously studied/proposed MTA lines placed on a single canvass.

2) I'm not of the opinion that building 80 miles of crappy rail instead of 50 miles of good rail is a wise investment of tax dollars. But then I'm actually thinking about getting people out of cars, annual operating costs, life cycle costs in general - you know all those calculations involved in creating good transportation projects.

The expo fought USC, and is still fighting dorsey, and will have to fight Culver City as well.

Culver City got most of what they wanted.

I bet 100 bucks, that they will run into another protest before even reaching Culver City. In my opinion, this isnt just an isolated 200 million deal. IMHO, I think that the 200 million really adds no value to our system at all. That is a real problem for me.

Then you don't understand the current design of the line or limitations of it. Venture over to the Transit Coalition board search my name and bring yourself up to speed.

I think if counselors, parents, and signs are used, safety is not an issue.

I suppose if it were even the PUC would have let this one slide. They let most of the others through. Is it possible there might be a problem with the design here?

How they heck can you get hit by a train that travels on a fixed grid, on a fixed schedule, and can be seen 400 feet away?

Anyone who has spent an hour at a Blue Line crossing recognizes how incredibly remarkable there's only been 800 accidents in the past 17 years.

As you say, the subway does cost 5 billion,and it is counter intuitive, but it adds tons of value. For starters, our heavy rail system is one of the top ridership/mile in the country.

False.

IT is only like 13 miles and has more ridership than every other light rail line combined.

In the county, yes.

The expo will have good ridership to, but so far, our heavy rail has proven itself as a super workhorse. Asia has a huge propensity to invest in los angeles. First Japan, now Korea, and in the next 15 years, china. They will most likely pour tens of billions into the los angeles economy over the years. Especially as Asia explodes. Where is all of that investment going to go? Along the wilshire corridor! I dont care if its westwood, century city, SaMo, Ktown, or downtown. Asia is going to invest billions and billions into LA and it will likely go there, especially with rail. With proper zoning, and allowing for affordable housing when possible, the entire central wilshire corridor could have westwood towers up and down it. With infrastructure in place, there is no telling the amounts of money that could pour into it.

All 4 CBD will be connected on one line. If you think of them as one entity, it will be the most powerful CBD west of Manhattan and East of Tokyo. We need heavy rail connecting these important centers and VERY efficiently.

It goes through the heart of los angeles (It actually gives LA a clear center), and pays for itself 10 times over in pure economic development in the next 50 years. A Valley line could tie into the wilshire subway directly connecting potentially half a million commuters directly with their jobs.

Not everything is created equal. There are tons of lines in the bay area for BART, but everyone knows the transbay tube cost 5 times more than any other line. Everyone also knows that it is the most crucial part of their entire system.

Those were some great paragraphs, but it has nothing to do with the cognitive dissonance that is believing $5 billion can be found for Wilshire from the same budgets where $200 million can't be found for Expo.

Beverly Hills said that an elevated track would never be allowed through their city.

So when Beverly Hills makes a mitigation request, MTA should abide. But when USC, Culver City and South LA make mitigation request, they should go Cheney themselves? Keep talking brother.

I suggest we just elevate it until we get to beverly hills. Anyhow, if it isnt a subway, you cant get from beverly hills, to century city, back up to UCLA. If century city isnt connected, it will lower the value of the line. Also, elevated track does take SOME automobile real estate , but not much. If drivers are ready to give up some street real estate, then making an elevated track until la cienega, might be cost effective.


1) Elevated can be built where it takes up limited to no street real estate it's just very ugly.

2) How can you state concerns about consuming small street real estate with elevated, but no concern with permanently eliminating lots of street space with at-grade light rail doesn't?

Anyhow, the cost of elevated structures in urban areas has nearly tripled, while the cost of undergrounding continues to drop in real dollars due to tunneling technology (As you yourself have pointed out on your previous posts).

That's now. Back in mid 90s to early 2000s elevated was cheaper to build than subway. Again, the question was why when the methane problem surfaced didn't they just push an elevated down Wilshire.

You've already answered the question: affluent communities said elevated was unacceptable. Like the Expo Line you don't consider the merits of their request and suggest applying it throughout the entire line, but instead suggest building it as poorly as necessary to build it cheaply, and in the process suggest stuffing down the design that has a substantially greater environmental impact down the throat of other communities, while complying with the request for more mitigation in the affluent community. And you recommend so without missing a beat. Forgive me and the rest of social conscious people for being appalled.

In response to your actual question. People on the westside did not want a subway. It was forced upon them by Mayor Bradley. Bradley had a vision, they had a nightmare.

1) Read up on the construction mitigation problems of Red Line MOS1 and MOS2.

2) You've confused two not exactly independent issues. Simply, elevated has been considered unacceptable by the affluent residential communities off Wilshire for decades.

Anyhow, on the Dorsey issue, maybe I am mistaking?!? Maybe the city was selling culver city, cheviot hills, dorsey high, and USC short. Maybe I dont know enough to judge. Maybe all 4 of these organizations have a reason to point fingers at the MTA. To me, they seem like small issues.

If it's not your home, not your kids, not your learning environment, not your commute, I could see how it would be possible for you to consider them small issues.

Especially when you go to other cities and see rail right on top of everything from colleges to churces to hospitals. I guess there, people know to respect rail!?!

Different crossing designs, different frequencies, different mitigation measures, different vehicles, different alignments, different traffic circulation patterns. There's a whole science to this rail engineering thing and yet when I point it out so many are still intent on saying "a set of tracks is a set of tracks is a set of tracks." :shrug:

[jlrobe]

And you're more likely to blame the victim (the community) for making these demands than MTA for designing the line incorrectly?


I didnt know USC, Culver City, Cheviot Hills, and Dorsey High school were all victims. I still dont know that. Maybe after a few more iterations, I will discover that.

I am all for total grade separation as that allows the light rail to travel at an average speed of 25 mph, as opposed to slower.



All of the rail through residential communities is below grade in the GLAM plan. And the estimated cost was $31-38B. Give FTA a call to find out why the noise and vibration mitigation standards in residential communities are higher than commercial areas.


Well, I did a similar analysis given todays construction costs. For just 60 miles of heavy rail, and 120 miles of light rail (or essentially the same mileage as BART) it would cost the MTA about 25 billion. I recall the GLAM having far more than that. Its a good plan, but in my estimate, the 60 billion touted by the MTA (which includes other improvements), might only have 1/3 the rail you proposed. I could be missing something. You spent a lot of time, and assumed economics of scale, so I know you didnt just make the numbers up. According the the chairman of the MTA, LA county has never succeeded in mega projects, and rail will never be massively built at the same time allowing economics of scale or quick construction to become a reality. That is just HIS opinoin, but I use it as a reference point. There is one thing I disagree with about his statements. The freeway system was a mega project that was completed in fairly short order. The red car system was probably laid at the same time and quickly. So, all of these different variables and facts have to be considered. I still think that the 31-38 should be more like 38-43, or more.



So which of these statements is NOT true:
-Overland/Exposition intersection is less than 100 feet from Overland Elementary School
-Horns and cross gates cause noise pollution that require mitigation
-Children have been killed by MTA's light rail


A child somewhere in the US just got killed this morning in a car. A kid probably dies eveyday in a car accident in Southern CA . Buses have hit kids. Heck, even a biker may have killed a kid at some point. Kids get killed by anything and everything. If a rail line is TOO dangerous, it should be made safer, but in my opinoin, cars are more dangerous than trains. Traffic cops, reduced speed limits, and larger crosswalks mitigate the effect of cars, but cars probably still end up killing kids.

Again, in Paris, Belgium, and Berlin, I see rail 100 feet from anything. in SF, their light rail (ultra light and ultra slow) goes about 20 feet from businesses and schools. It is essentially right off the sidewalk. Like 5 feet off the sidewalk. Why not make the rail go slower for that small stretch.

Horns are noisy, but lights and gates make very little noise. Loud ringing bells do make noise, but who says you need that? Why not have a simple barrier, pedestrian bridge, and flashing lights. Is that not enough?!?

Again, all the statements are true, but I dont see what they have to do with 200 million. Again, maybe there is more to it than those three facts, like an inherent design flaw which I am still unaware of.


No regional rail advocate is every going to be successful by hoping to railroad powerful communities.

Especially in Los Angeles. From where I stand, it seems very different than my stints in NYC, SF, and Tokyo. I still love my new home, but as you can see, I get terribly frustrated. It takes a lot of time getting used to LA politics.



Maybe because I'm experienced in coalition building I take a more mature approach to it all. Then again for those who have never done it nor are expected to do it in the future I suppose sitting on the couch and complaining is completely suffice.

I have done alot of stuff in SF. Make no mistake. LA is the most difficult city in the US (not the world) for making a coalition across communities and getting regional things done. AS you said, you grew up in that hood, so you know far better than I how to take a "mature" approach to solving problems.


Actually that's one of the major advantages of subways and major draw back of at-grade rail. Subway design is pretty consistent for its entire length, whereas with at-grade rail, every block is a new design.


You are right. Actually, I quote your struggle to help mine. I tell people that if they want to make the subway into a cheaper light rail, then every intersection will be forced to be undegrounded through activism. cost over runs and delays will end up costing the MTA more than the subway itself. Might as well just do a subway.

We are in agreement. The light rail should have never been a light rail. That should have been heavy rail since day one. If I believe that, then why am I complaining? Because, the concessions dont seem to make sense to me. Maybe I am unfairly comparing other systems around the world that I have different nuances. That is quite possible. Maybe there is something I dont know, that you know. Maybe there is something the MTA has done specifically that is making you cry fowl. Up to this point, I hear a lot of generalizations, but I dont know what the MTA conspired to do specifically to endanger the community unnecessarily. I am not playing devil's advocate. I really want to know. Surely there is some reason why Damien Goodman is involved.


Additionally, if you'd like I'd be more than happy to let you take a look at the boxload of agency documents pertaining to the USC, Dorsey, Culver City and other sections that illustrate the severe impacts of project regarding everything from pedestrian and motorist safety, traffic circulation, and redevelopment potential.


Those specific documents are precisely what I want. How come you havent posted any of these documents on this forum to help us understand more?

So, the MTA screwed up on the entire line, and that the expo line wasnt built at all to internationally and nationally set standards. The safety and design hearings that they claimed to have had must have not roused the proper scrutiny. Maybe the expo really should cost 1.5-2 billion to build right. I didnt know that. I thought it could be made cheap and run well, but it sounds like it is inherently a multibillion dollar line masked to seem like a cheaper one.

When it comes to traffic and ped safety, I am not an expert, but my comments are based off of my observations.


I have no problem with debate. And I welcome the
opportunity to bring folk up to speed.
[/QOUTE]
Good man.

[QUOTE=Damien;3281059]
About the only thing I have little tolerance for are those who have no concern for and refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that there are negative impacts to the project that require mitigation.


Well, I am no idiot, that's for sure. Evidence is evidence to me. My agenda will never cause me to be blind to bullet proof evidence. If someone said, "Jeremy, the US standard for noise levels measured on an SPL meter are 31 dB at a distance of 100 feet and the expo is not in spec". Then I would say fine, get it to within spec.
I dont care if the expo line is good for the region,if there are certain design standards, they should be upheld. That is what standards are for. Building a cheap car that kills people at 20 mph collisions is not okay.
That being said, I dont know what the tolerable decible levels are and the levels being heard by the community at a fixed distance. I have been around light rails that are very quiet when traveling at moderate speeds. Again, until I get out there with an SPL meter and read the spec, I dont know.

Again, I dont know why a barrier, pedestrian bridge, and lights (with no sound) is adequate enough. Maybe you can tell me why this situation is unique other than the fact that it is 100 feet from a school. I am sure there are other reasons that you arent filling me in on.

I always used to tell my students, "Sometimes there is more to a problem than there seems. There are subtleties and nuances that are not obvious or are simply counterintuitive." This may be a subtle point, or it may not be obvious why this is a safety concern.

Again I know that sometimes grass roots efforts must be made in order to be a watch dog over government. It is grass roots efforts and lawsuits that forced the government to use standards and a self policing verification check. If not, government would be sued left and right. ACtually, if it is found that the MTA did not make the rail to within spec and someone died, I am sure they would be sued. So, I understand the concept of which you speak. I just dont get the merits of this particular one.


1) Most of the lines weren't "dreamt up," but a compilation of previously studied/proposed MTA lines placed on a single canvass.

I know. You spent time in the transit library, and drafted many lines from proposals that never came to fruition. I also spent time at the transit library, and transit pages at UC Berkeleys transit center. I am an academic, and love to read. Your rail lines are familiar. I have seen red car lines. I know history. I have read almost every post you ever made on these various forums, dating back years, including the transit coalition and their horrible looking forum pages. I even remember seeing posts about you building your website, starting with your myspace page. Dont worry. I know, and I never forget details. Never.


2) I'm not of the opinion that building 80 miles of crappy rail instead of 50 miles of good rail is a wise investment of tax dollars. But then I'm actually thinking about getting people out of cars, annual operating costs, life cycle costs in general - you know all those calculations involved in creating good transportation projects.


Yep. Did I say your rail was crappy? I doubt it. You have more stops than the MTA does and ever will. YOu have more planned rail stops than NYC metro has in their entire network. It seemed like hundreds. I am not saying it wouldnt be a valuable if GLAM's map got built. Everyone here respects your vision about rail. You dont have to prove it to me. You put in the work. Again, Im not an idiot, and I am well aware of how many variables you put into the mix. I know, because you told me. I know your life story man (well, not really). ANYTHING you put into print, I not only read, but i memorized because that is what I do. I even memorize what Edluva says, even though I only agree with him half of the time.


Venture over to the Transit Coalition board search my name and bring yourself up to speed.

I read it. Like i said, I have read everything you ever wrote. Growing up where you did, taking transit coming up, etc. etc. etc. I read it. I know it. I followed it.


Anyone who has spent an hour at a Blue Line crossing recognizes how incredibly remarkable there's only been 800 accidents in the past 17 years.


Does the train go behind the traffic light as opposed to between traffic lights? I could see that being a problem if not dealt with properly. THat has to be 100 times the national average. TO me, it seems if the MTA is actually at fault and paying for them, their attorney should be fired for not recommending a redesign. Even still, 100 times the national average is ridiculous. Even if there were about 150,000 car accidents in LA county over that time period, 800 is way too much.

I dont see how design standards arent at the forefront when the MTA "seems" to have more accidents than every other light rail in the entire US combined probably. That is just insane.

I almost want to drive out there and take a look at it this famous intersection.

Have I ridden it? Yes. I have ridden every line, except the orange line, at least once. I take the red line whenever I can since it is literally one of the best trains in the country.
I took the redline to go see wicked last night in hollywood. Did I have to use it? No. But it sure was cool to step right outside of a subway stop to see a big show in the city!


Those were some great paragraphs, but it has nothing to do with the cognitive dissonance that is believing $5 billion can be found for Wilshire from the same budgets where $200 million can't be found for Expo.

Well, I called it being counter intuitive. How can LA build a 400 million dollar school and spend 10 billion school overcrowding, but not have enough to help the homeless? We spend billions on our freeways, yet we cant seem to find any money for rail.

To answer your question directly, we CANT find the money for the subway, hence there is no subway. We have to make people know that they cant live without it. That is how Bush sold his war, and how we sell our freeway budget. That is precisely what has to be done to get the subway built.

We can discuss this further if you like.


So when Beverly Hills makes a mitigation request, MTA should abide. But when USC, Culver City and South LA make mitigation request, they should go Cheney themselves? Keep talking brother.

Beverly hills, like culver city, is a separate city. If LA tried to force rail through their city, the US government would tell LA to take a f%^king hike. It has nothing to do with deserving. LA doesnt own beverly hills as much as we like to think we do. If we can annex them, great, but I dont see that happening, so whatever they say goes!



1) Elevated can be built where it takes up limited to no street real estate it's just very ugly.


It still takes some. Even monorail takes some street real estate. Sure, its only left turn lanes, but it takes some. IF you can get drivers to concede, I am all for it. Do I think LA deserves a subway? Yes. Do I think LA gets screwed from internal and external forces? Absolutely. Maybe a subway isnt in the cards for us. However, I will fight for it. In the end, I dont care about looks or coolness. I dont care about people using it for live/work AND PLAY. I dont care about LA becoming more like a real city like SF or NY. I do care a lot actually, but that is not my MO. I am really concerned with long term economic domination, land use, housing, air quality, and mobility. If people used rail to go to work, but went back to their suburbs to hide, I wouldnt care so much (although I would care). in the end I want tons of manageable job and residential density. I want access and jobs for all. Rapid transit aka heavy rail, achieves that in cities the the size of LA. As asian explodes, LA can be the next econominc superpower and spread that wealth throughout its population. It just needs better land use and mobility to achieve it. If we dont have the rail in place before the next economic explosion, companies will invest elsewhere and we will again find ourselves underfunded, gridlocked, poor, and with a housing shortage.


2) How can you state concerns about consuming small street real estate with elevated, but no concern with permanently eliminating lots of street space with at-grade light rail doesn't?

People on wilshire will never give it up. They arent transit dependent. They want their road more than transit. If they would, and we could build heavy rail rapid transit without a subway, so be it. I want a subway, but if it cant be done it cant be. I have said many times, I wish the expo as a rapid transit system.



That's now. Back in mid 90s to early 2000s elevated was cheaper to build than subway. Again, the question was why when the methane problem surfaced didn't they just push an elevated down Wilshire.

You are right. Crappy west siders screwed us over. I cant control that now. THey didnt want it.


You've already answered the question: affluent communities said elevated was unacceptable.

That is correct. Beverly hills to be exact. Hancock park as well, but primarily beverly hills.


Like the Expo Line you don't consider the merits of their request and suggest applying it throughout the entire line, but instead suggest building it as poorly as necessary to build it cheaply,


Again, I assumed it was a cheaper line, not a line that should have cost 1.5-2 billion, but was artificially reduced below standards to its current price tag.
If the expo line is below standards and if the blue line does have a 100 times higher accident rate than other light rail lines, then the MTA is hiding much more than most of us know.



Forgive me and the rest of social conscious people for being appalled.

If something is legitamately wrong, it is up to the community to be a watchdog.


1) Read up on the construction mitigation problems of Red Line MOS1 and MOS2.

I have to petition this week for the red line, but I will read it this week. I hope it is a good read.


2) You've confused two not exactly independent issues. Simply, elevated has been considered unacceptable by the affluent residential communities off Wilshire for decades.

I havent confused anything. I may have combined two arguments instead of separating them, but that is due to laziness, not confusion. Beverly Hills has long outlawed elevated rail. Did I type something different?


If it's not your home, not your kids, not your learning environment, not your commute, I could see how it would be possible for you to consider them small issues.

You are correct. Whether you have merit or dont, I am the regionalist you are the backyarder. You are OBVIOUSLY not a NIMBY, but it is my duty as an Angeleno to push through something I think will benefit my city. It is your duty, as a neighorhood advocate, to stop me if you think regional gain is being achieved to the detriment of your community. If I am wrong, then I will stop fighting you. It is what it is. We will not always be on separate sides, but we happen to be for now until I better understand how 4 groups are holding up the expo line.

I will fight cheviot hills to keep the ROW. I will fight Westchester for LAX improvements. I will fight for what I think is important for LA to move forward. I dont want to steam roll anyone unnecessarily, but in LA, the only people who talk are the community at hand. Communities like beverly hills have fought elevated rail. If they were in los angeles, I would fight them to. I will fight everyone for what I feel is important. My agenda is regional mobility. IF the MTA failed minimum safety requirements, and if there is a chance that there will be 800 accidents, I will stop fighting on this particular issue. I cant believe their design paper work made it through if it was designed this badly. Well, I can, and I cant.


Different crossing designs, different frequencies, different mitigation measures, different vehicles, different alignments, different traffic circulation patterns. There's a whole science to this rail engineering thing and yet when I point it out so many are still intent on saying "a set of tracks is a set of tracks is a set of tracks." :shrug:

I myself am an engineer/scientist. I built my own advanced set of functions of discrete random vectors to do my own mathematical analysis (For fun and primarily for my agenda: the subway). I have dreamt up using wireless sensor networks for maximizing surface street capacity based on different metrics (constrained capacity, minimizing the maximum time across a path). I even dreamt up some software that could use a GPS enabled cell phone to give eveyone up to the minute ETA's on buses by sending text message inquiries. Timing, frequencies, crossings are not complicated in the slightest for me at all.

There may very well be a science to it. I actually wish there were, so I could read it. I have read some papers on traffic stuff, but the mathematical rigor truly sucks many times. Some papers are very good, but most are not that rigorous. It is a different field than traditional engineering. At times, it seems more of an art of experience and less of a pure math or science. I could be wrong. If you have any papers PLEASE send them to me. I love good analysis, and would very much appreciate a good reference on the subject matter. I can go to the transit library or UCLA next week and pick up a few books and papers. I dont want to be looking aimlessly, so if you have a good reference that covers this particular issue, I would actually love to read it.

I am sure there are classic examples of good and bad intersections. They might have a stacking example where a rail lane travels behind a red light instead of between two red lights. I am sure they have different discussions and stats on these types of lines.

Another example could be building obstructions where people have to be only 20 feet from the rail tracks in order to have a good enough angle of vision to see the rail line coming. I am not familiar with the field, so I can only conceive of 3 types of intersectoins that are extremely dangerous. Maybe there are 10 well known at-risk case studies that every safety professional learns.

Again, if the MTA did not meet mininum safety or noise specs, then I say, keep them in spec.

Let me end by saying, I have read all of your posts, and I have your map downloaded on my computer (actually on three of them). I am not stuck in my ways. If there are specifics, I would love to hear them. I will take a look at the red line documentation that you speak of.

[Vangelist]

This thread is finally getting good again

[Damien]

I have a busy day ahead of me so forgive the brevity.

I am the regionalist AND the backyarder. It is possible to do both, and it's not smart to attempt to build regional systems without considering the local impacts. Indeed a true regionalist would want to build a product that produces the maximum regional benefit.

Which does that: an Expo Line that goes from downtown to Santa Monica in 37 mins or 58 mins? An Expo Line trunk with the capacity for spurs down Venice to Venice Beach, Crenshaw to LAX, and up Sepulveda to UCLA or this product?

From a regional standpoint this is a slam dunk. Build the trunk to handle 60 second headways (grade separated is the only way) and create such a system. It would serve at least 250K riders per day at less than the cost of the Wilshire subway (125K to Santa Monica + 60K to LAX + 30K to Venice Beach + 40K to UCLA). I'm not saying build one and not the other, but the argument that the corridor isn't worth the investment or there's no regional benefit is just plain wrong.

Additionally, 8.5 miles in 30 mins is NOT 25 traveled miles per hour. It's very far from it actually. I haven't written about it yet, but the Expo Authority has lowered its projected forecast year ridership by 16,000 from 43K/day to 27K/day. That's essential a net no benefit, just public transit modal shift. It is rapid bus/BRT numbers at hundreds of times the capital and operational cost. This is one of the main reason MTA was having such difficulty getting the line through FTA New Starts application: the line is too slow to attract choice riders. Don't believe me, call the FTA.

Regarding documents, if someone wants to donate about $300 to a paypal account so I can send this box a documents to a photocopy shop so they can be scanned I'll be more than happy to transport them. Until then, I'll have to scan them when I have time.

Besides this should be enough to keep you busy:

1) Application for Reconsideration
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/EFILE/MOTION/77266.pdf
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/EFILE/MOTION/77267.pdf

2) Reply Brief:
http://www.expocommunities.com/info/ECU_Reply_Brief.pdf

3) Opening Brief:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/EFILE/BRIEF/72640.pdf

You can google the referenced policies in the Reply Brief and read them for yourself. Most of them can be found on the net.