[Wright Concept]

The MTA approved funding for Expo Line, East LA Gold Line is under construction and now their efforts on getting the Gold Line to Azusa/Montclair

For LA in the upcoming years, after the Gold Line to Azusa/Montclair, which project should be the next project that the MTA should pursue?

[ThreeHundred]

I said this before..but I think the Red Line should be extended to Century City, and either curve south and have it meet at one of the Exop Stations, or build a elevated, driverless busway that connects the two lines.

Don't make the Red Line go to the ocean seeing as how sooner or later the Expo Line will get there.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

The Downtown Connector is the single most important mile-and-a-half rail project that can be built in Southern California. It will close the gap in the light-rail system, and in so doing provide for tons of people a single-seat ride to, from and through Downtown LA.

After that, I pick the Red Line to Westwood.

[LAMetroGuy]

The Downtown Connector is the single most important mile-and-a-half rail project that can be built in Southern California. It will close the gap in the light-rail system, and in so doing provide for tons of people a single-seat ride to, from and through Downtown LA.

After that, I pick the Red Line to Westwood.

my thoughts exactly :yes:

[sbocguy]

Yeah, I picked the DT Connector also, with the Wilshire Red Line an extremely close second...

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Nothing will have a larger impact on Los Angeles as a whole than having a subway reach Westwood, IMO. It'll finally CONNECT two regions long segregated. Having a subway through Beverly Hills and Century City stopping at UCLA, will be the talk of the country (and of course LA). The tremedous benefits the subway will have for one of the busiest corridors in North America will have a ripple effect on the perception of rail in LA by causing people from all over to demand more rail (especially throughout West Central).

[POLA]

LIght Rail: Downtown Connector

So, is the idea of a heavy rail connector just a pipe dream now? Well, if it's light I think it will have to be raised!

[Easy]

The downtown connector by a long way.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

LIght Rail: Downtown Connector

So, is the idea of a heavy rail connector just a pipe dream now? Well, if it's light I think it will have to be raised!

We already have a "heavy rail connector" - it's called the Red Line! :eat:

Light rail refers to compatibility with the light-rail systems. So a light-rail train can be underground, surface, or elevated, or any combination. For instance, the Blue Line north of Pico is a light-rail subway, and the Eastside Light Rail will be underground for almost 2 miles.

I think the light-rail connector must be grade separated - either underground or elevated. Any benefits of rail will disappear due to traffic congestion, if the train is subject to street traffic.

I'd prefer a light-rail subway all the way to Little Tokyo or Civic Center, where it would emerge from a portal to connect with the Gold Lines.

[Wright Concept]

I believe next up to Bat for the MTA should be the Downtown Connector, because with the Tunnel Sections of the connector, it can provide the push and momentum to repeal the Prop A funding Ban,
*which dominoes into possible funding the Subway to Westwood
*Which begins the discussion of something for the 405 Freeway or some direct connection to LAX/Green Line with the Red Line.
*Then all the connector pieces start to fall into place such as, increasing tracks and service on Metrolink to feed the Connector and the Red Line.

The connector sparks the chain reaction!

[lakegz]

I put the downtown connector because of what it would facilitate. Its a great base to start with.

My heart wants more freeways though.

[Art]

Dtc for the sheer practicality, although wilshire redline is a close second and whittier redline is sniffing it's ass for third.



I have a DTC kwestion that I has been bugging me: If(and it should be) it is undergound thru downtown where and how will it rise up to at-grade level? First street is way too narrow in LilTokyo all the way to past alameda, which makes this a tight situation. Another liltokyo station will have to also be built on first street just west of alameda if line routes switch one day(ela-expo,blue-pas).

I still wish someone could negotiate that meruelo/sci arc guy to develop that empty lot on first street instead. Since the goldline station is gonna be placed on the edge of that lot, they could save some dough by combining a trench-style station and the buildling undergound parking excavation. But I wonder how nimbyish the temple just east of this lot would be to such a move too.

[Wright Concept]

Dtc for the sheer practicality, although wilshire redline is a close second and whittier redline is sniffing it's ass for third.



I have a DTC kwestion that I has been bugging me: If(and it should be) it is undergound thru downtown where and how will it rise up to at-grade level? First street is way too narrow in LilTokyo all the way to past alameda, which makes this a tight situation. Another liltokyo station will have to also be built on first street just west of alameda if line routes switch one day(ela-expo,blue-pas).

I still wish someone could negotiate that meruelo/sci arc guy to develop that empty lot on first street instead. Since the goldline station is gonna be placed on the edge of that lot, they could save some dough by combining a trench-style station and the buildling undergound parking excavation. But I wonder how nimbyish the temple just east of this lot would be to such a move too.

The only street that could work is running it underground or elevated on Temple and then have it come to grade before Alameda. Then trains could turn North up to Union Station en route to Pasadena/SGV or South to Little Tokyo en route to East LA.

[jessie_sanchez]

I think the GoldLine should be extended from Pasadena westward across Eagle Rock, Glendale, Burbank, and into Hollywood, and meet up with one of the RedLine stations....preferable Vine Station....but of course that will never happen.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

Since the Eastside Extension is being built above ground, it looks like Temple east of Alameda will be the best place for a Connector Portal. This would locate the wye-junction at the only place that is feasible: Temple/Alameda. This also makes for very flexible routing.

I can't imagine the Connector would be elevated as it passes City Hall on Temple Street. Too much security risk, as well as the fact that it would block views of one of LA's most important landmarks.

[Art]

so where would the alignment fo the DTC go north fom first street to temple?

[Wright Concept]

so where would the alignment fo the DTC go north fom first street to temple?

I'm not sure I follow your question.

I was thinking of a portal between San Pedro and Alameda that comes to grade at Alameda, which should create an interesting wye so that trains can run North or South on Alameda from Temple. Trains running South on Alameda would stop at Little Tokyo and follow the East LA Gold Line routing.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

Art, the Connector would come out of the tunnel somewhere on Temple, heading toward Alameda. The junction would allow trains to go in either direction - up toward Union Station/Pasadena, or south toward Little Tokyo/East LA.

This picture shows one way it could work. Red is heavy-rail, Blue and Gold are light rail. Notice the Blue-Gold junction at Temple/Alameda:

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/7615transit2.jpg

[Art]

OK, I git it. :)

[Wright Concept]

US dependence on foreign oil growing - experts
By Robert Gibbons
1 hour, 35 minutes ago



U.S. dependence on foreign crude will keep growing despite efforts to spur domestic production, as demand in the world's largest energy consumer outpaces output, industry and government experts said Tuesday.

The rising need for oil shipments to the nation's ports could even hit a level soon that foreign crude producers might have a hard time matching -- translating into likely declines in the nation's stockpiles.

"The longer-term trend points to increasing imports and increasing reliance on imports," said Doug MacIntyre, analyst for the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the statistical wing of the Department of Energy.

"Most people expect that over the next couple of weeks we might see crude inventories begin to fall, because to maintain 10.5 million (barrels per day of imports) or more would be a high level," he said.

The United States is currently processing about 15.5 million bpd of crude oil into fuels, with little more than a third of that supply coming from domestic fields, according to government data.

Recent high crude futures prices, reaching a record $58.28 a barrel on April 4, have attracted a flood of imports and helped raise U.S. crude inventories to a six-year high at 334 million barrels as of May 13.

Refineries are expected to increase their crude oil consumption to around 16 million bpd in the coming weeks to feed summer gasoline demand and stockpile enough heating oil for the coming winter, requiring an unprecedented sustained flow of imports.

"We're only producing domestically about 5.5 million bpd of crude, which includes Alaska," said MacIntyre. "In order to keep inventories from falling when we reach 16 we will have to import 10.5 million bpd."

The prognosis for increased foreign dependence comes as U.S. lawmakers struggle to hammer out an energy bill. President Bush's administration hopes to open up to drilling parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and provide tax incentives to spur exploration.

"Drop in a bucket," said Rick Mueller, Oil Manager at Boston-based Energy Securities Analysis Inc.

"The volumes they're talking about, by the time they start to come on line in 2011 or 2012, probably will not match up with growth in U.S. demand alone, and that doesn't take into account continued decline of other U.S. fields."

In the most recent government data, U.S. crude oil imports jumped nearly 900,000 bpd to 10.86 million bpd in the week to May 13, the fourth highest weekly average on record.

Oil demand in the United States has grown about 2 percent since 2003, while domestic production has slumped about 30 percent to 50-year lows due to declines in mature oil fields. New production from the Gulf of Mexico has helped offset the decline in onshore domestic output this year.

"Imports? They represent the past of the U.S., the present and the future," said Tim Evans, senior energy analyst at IFR Energy Services.

"Two years ago we were importing about 9.5 million bpd. Last year we were hearing a lot of hand wringing from the Department of Energy about how we didn't know if sustained imports above 10 million bpd is possible.

"Now it's not only possible, it's routine and we're pushing 11 million bpd as the upper threshold," said Evans.

All agreed that the mathematics point to a need to include production and conservation in the mix of solutions.

"The mathematics would dictate looking at both sides of the equation, supply and demand," said MacIntyre.

"Absolutely, a greater emphasis on conservation, particularly auto fuel efficiency, is really the largest untapped source of barrels," said Evans. "We're unlikely to boost domestic output a million bpd..., but it would not be that hard to save a million bpd."

Evans noted that with the U.S. gasoline demand averaging around 9.5 million bpd, "if we were to knock that down by million, that would be a 10.5 percent improvement. And if you have a sports utility vehicle that currently gets 15 miles per gallon, you would need an increase only to 16.6 mpg in order to make that 10.5 percent."

"We could basically do that with our eyes closed," said Evans. "Just when you see the ad for the Hummer, turn the page. But that's not something U.S. refiners would like to see, and is not something automakers want to see because their product and profit mix are more based on the truck type vehicles."



Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

[cookiejarvis]

From an engineering and funding standpoint, it might be more feasible to build a cross platform link between the blue and gold lines at Union Station rather than shoehorn some sort of complicated wye configuration near Temple and Alameda.

After a stop at Disney Hall, I could just as easily see the Blue line continue north along Hope and travel along a viaduct above the Hollywood Freeway until it reached Union Station. You could even put a Blue Line stop between both Spring and Main to serve/connect both the Civic Center and El Pueblo.

[Wright Concept]

From an engineering and funding standpoint, it might be more feasible to build a cross platform link between the blue and gold lines at Union Station rather than shoehorn some sort of complicated wye configuration near Temple and Alameda.

After a stop at Disney Hall, I could just as easily see the Blue line continue north along Hope and travel along a viaduct above the Hollywood Freeway until it reached Union Station. You could even put a Blue Line stop between both Spring and Main to serve/connect both the Civic Center and El Pueblo.

Two questions;
1) Do you see the Disney Hall station being a subway or an elevated stop? If the answer is a subway station then how and where do you transition this to the elevated track?

2) If you were to make this travel along above the Hollywood Freeway, how high do we have to build this elevated track, since at Hill Street (the very first street that you will encounter) is between 3 to 4 stories difference between Grand and Broadway the streets next to Hill.

I'm asking these questions to make the point that it's probably more difficult to engineer that set up then to just building the Wye.

[Wright Concept]

As of May 26, 2005; Like I thought it would be. The top two are:

2) 10 Votes= Red Line to Westwood
http://tinypic.com/fbj71j.gif

1) 12 Votes= DowntownConnector
http://tinypic.com/5dta2p

[LongBeachUrbanist]

From an engineering and funding standpoint, it might be more feasible to build a cross platform link between the blue and gold lines at Union Station rather than shoehorn some sort of complicated wye configuration near Temple and Alameda.

If the links didn't physically connect at LAUS, you'd lose the ability to have single-seat rides from any point to any other. And if you want to connect them at LAUS, I would think you'd need to split the tracks, then enter the platform from both ends by wrapping around either side of the station. IMO, this sounds much more complicated than a wye-junction at Temple/Alameda.

[cookiejarvis]

Two questions;
1) Do you see the Disney Hall station being a subway or an elevated stop? If the answer is a subway station then how and where do you transition this to the elevated track?

2) If you were to make this travel along above the Hollywood Freeway, how high do we have to build this elevated track, since at Hill Street (the very first street that you will encounter) is between 3 to 4 stories difference between Grand and Broadway the streets next to Hill.

I'm asking these questions to make the point that it's probably more difficult to engineer that set up then to just building the Wye.

I'll have to revisit the area again to check the viability of this but here's the general idea:

The Concert Hall station would be underground. I would take the Blue Line all the way up to Hope until the Hollywood Freeway, at which point it would veer East along the hill slope parallel to the Cathedral. The line would surface around Aliso and Broadway with partial street running along Aliso and then continue viaduct to Union Station.

[Wright Concept]

Could the 405 be a transit corridor sleeper in this "race"?, Stranger things have happended
http://tinypic.com/fbj584.gif

Inaction means gridlock for years


By Lisa Mascaro, Staff Writer

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration has jeopardized a deal to get $400 million in federal funds to fast-track adding a critical car-pool lane on the northbound San Diego Freeway into the San Fernando Valley, Rep. Howard Berman charged Monday.
Schwarzenegger aides acknowledged that the administration is more concerned with the Alameda Corridor East project and fears that throwing its full support behind easing congestion on the 405 Freeway might jeopardize funding for the effort to move freight more quickly out of the harbor area.

But Berman, D-Van Nuys, said the 405 funding is extra money the state could get to dramatically speed up construction of the car-pool lane now scheduled for completion in 2018.

He said time is running out on the deal and accused the Schwarzenegger administration of dashing hopes to get the lane that would provide enormous relief for thousands of commuters.

"It's unfathomable why California leaders won't fight for California," said Berman.

"I'm pretty upset. This was a chance to speed up (construction). I don't see an administration hungry to take advantage of a chance of getting some federal money that will go to some other state.

"This is not the guy who's out there demanding California get its fair share -- 'the Collectinator."'

Time is running out on the deal. The federal highway bill is in the final stages of negotiations before a conference committee on which Berman has won support for the 405 Freeway project that would create a car-pool lane from Interstate 10 through the heavily congested Sepulveda Pass to the 101 Freeway.

But state officials said their priority has been on goods-movement projects -- notably for the Alameda Corridor East, where they are counting on $900 million to provide grade separations for freight across the San Gabriel Valley and points east.

They say they are doing the best they can to support the 405 project but that it came into the legislative process late -- after they had already formed a consensus around 388 projects for California.

"We don't dispute this is potentially a huge shot in the arm for mobility in California, but we have in essence, with the exception of the (Alameda Corridor East) and some goods-movement projects, not endorsed any of those 388 that are not regional in nature," said John Barna, deputy secretary for transportation in the state's Business, Transportation and Housing Agency.

"Because this emerged late in the consensus-building process, we have been trying to do what we can. We have tried to do what we think is reasonable within the consensus principles."

Berman has been working for the past three years to get funding for a northbound car-pool lane on the San Diego Freeway, one of the main arteries between the Valley and the Westside.

The money would build the high-occupancy-vehicle lane from the Santa Monica Freeway to the Ventura Freeway -- one of the last car-pool lanes to be built for a grinding commute through the Sepulveda Pass.

He has won support from the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to get the allotment into the massive nearly $300 billion highway bill pending before Congress.

But the committee wants support from the state on two fronts: a 20 percent contribution toward the cost and a pledge to get work seriously under way during the 4-year life of the bill.

Berman said the state's response has been lukewarm.

"There's no zeal, no intent to make both happen," Berman said.

State transportation officials responded in two letters to the congressman that goods movement was their top priority.

"We would not want to see funding for the Alameda Corridor East diminished," wrote Sunne Wright McPeak, who heads the administration's Business, Transportation and Housing Agency.

State officials also wrote that it would be impossible to finish the project under the required time frame without utilizing a construction process called "design-build" -- which has been shot down by the Legislature this session.

Barna said the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency cannot commit to a fast-track construction schedule until it can get the Legislature to allow the design-build process.

"We are working very hard in Sacramento to get that," he said. "We would have loved to have said this is going to be our design-build poster child."

With only days left until the federal conference committee wraps up negotiations on the highway bill -- ending the chance to add or delete items before it goes to Congress for approvals -- the chance to get the 405 project fades.

Rep. James L. Oberstar of Minnesota, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said talks will be concluded soon.

"It makes it difficult for us to advocate on behalf of House members for this project since the state is not forthcoming," he said.

"I'd support it because I believe the need has been demonstrated now and the growth trend for the future is such that, if investments are not made within the next five years, 10 years from now it'll be one of the poster children for congestion in America."

Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association President Richard Close, who drives the 405 on most weekdays to work on the Westside, remains hopeful the governor will provide the leadership needed to seal the deal.

"The traffic jams on the 405 northbound affect all residents of the Valley and anyone trying to do business in the Valley. Unless we get this money now, we may not get the required money for another 15 years. It's all in the hands of the governor."

Lisa Mascaro, (818) 713-3761 lisa.mascaro@dailynews.com

[cookiejarvis]

How would the 405 carpool lane play into the hands of a westside transit corridor? To piggyback transit on this project you'd have to throw out the existing carpool plan and go back to the drawing board. Unless you're thinking of somethin' else.

[Wright Concept]

How would the 405 carpool lane play into the hands of a westside transit corridor? To piggyback transit on this project you'd have to throw out the existing carpool plan and go back to the drawing board. Unless you're thinking of somethin' else.

Simple, because it's current. And a guy with a big vision who holds a powerful seat on the MTA board right now can make that move.

To look at planning something for this corridor. The timing could work or massage this into the corridors favor to start planning for it. Keep in mind even though the Westwood Red Line and Downtown Connector already had EIRs and Designs, they are out of date, and will basically require them to start from scratch. In other words the 405 line is on the same footing planning wise as Red Line to Westwood and Downtown Connector

[Wright Concept]

so where would the alignment fo the DTC go north fom first street to temple?

I've been flirting with this for a couple of weeks and this just might work to run the DTC down 2nd Street. The only drawback right now is that along Second Street is where they're building a lot of new residents whose front windows will face the street.

http://tinypic.com/6z9gxs.jpg

From the 7th Street Metro Center, the tunnel will continue north (with 4 tracks in some locations to facilitate trains ending between the 7th/Metro and 4th St and Bunker Hill. A similar set up is done in Boston with their Green Line trolleys some trains end downtown while others continue through) with a station on 4th/Flower. The Tunnel curves north east on to Second Street, on top of the existing Second Street Tunnel with a Station on Bunker Hill/Grand Avenue.

Between Olive and Hill Street the tunnel because of the sloping topography will create a "portal" and becomes an elevated structure which will continue the rest of the way.

A stop can be placed on Spring Street incorporating a new development into the actual station platform. Another stop will be located on the SW corner of First/Alameda- for the Little Tokyo/Arts District station-doing the same element by turning the ground floor retail into a entrance of the rail station.

From 1st/Alameda the Connector will continue as an elevated until the Flyover bridge by Union Station and to the First Street Bridge where First street rises in slope in order to meet up with the bridge, because it makes no sense to try to bring it to street level to only then bring it back up to an elevated (creating a Roller-Coaster ride)

So in other words about 0.5 mile of it will be in a tunnel, the other 1.25 to 1.5 miles will be elevated, so that it can level itself with the topography and create the potential of sweeping City views.

Cost:
0.5 mile SUBWAY (@ $300 M/mile)= $150 Million
1.5 miles ELEVATED (@ $110 M/mile)= $165 Million
10% for Administrative Fees and change orders= $35 million
______________________________________________
Total= $350 Million in 2006 dollars
=$235 million/mile for all grade separation

[LongBeachUrbanist]

It's certainly a cost-effective plan, and in principle I have no objection to an elevated train. My big concern would be the increasing number of residents along Second Street who would probably object to trains going by their windows. As their numbers increase and the real-estate values rise, it will be more and more likely that these people will becoming screaming NIMBYs.

[DJM19]

everything should be tunnel!

[Wright Concept]

It's certainly a cost-effective plan, and in principle I have no objection to an elevated train. My big concern would be the increasing number of residents along Second Street who would probably object to trains going by their windows. As their numbers increase and the real-estate values rise, it will be more and more likely that these people will becoming screaming NIMBYs.

That is my only fear that would make the cost of the project out of reach. That the very new residents supplying the boom for an Urban Lifestyle would want suburban peace-and-quiet

[DJM19]

just cause they dont wabt rail on next to their window doesnt mean they want a piece of suburbia.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

For the record:

On Second Street the Higgins Building is already occupied, 2nd/Central and the Alexan Savoy are close to opening, and the Related project is in the pipeline. Also there are the Kawada and New Otani hotels.

Third Street has residents in Casa Heiwa, Douglas and Grand Central, coming soon are Teramachi, Irvine Byrne, and Medallion and Zen are in the planning stages.

[WesTheAngelino]

Well, I voted for a heavy rail on Vermont, an idea I've supported several times on this forum.

However, the DT connector does sound like a great idea as long as it is grade separated. Being able to go from LB to Pasadena or East LA to Culver City (once the Expo is finished) without making a single transfer is real power and mobility.

I'm all for the redline extension, but as I've said before I'm a bit skeptical about the ridership it will have and what effect it will have on the city. I dont see it, as others do, as this magical thing that will make LA rail crazy and get rich Westsiders out of their cars and onto transit. If DT and the Westside are as segregated as some of you claim, then who exactly would be traveling along a subway from each point? This is where I think the Metro Rail has failed: not connecting communities which are already connected. The Blue Line for example connects South Central with DTLA, but is that area more connected to DTLA or is it more connected to Inglewood and points in between? Is Pasadena really that connected to DTLA? I think it's obvious to everyone that it isn't nearly so as it is to Glendale, Burbank, or even Hollywood (which is why I think a rail from Noho or Sunset/Vermont through those areas would have made a lot more sense than the current alignment).

[Wright Concept]

Well, I voted for a heavy rail on Vermont, an idea I've supported several times on this forum.

However, the DT connector does sound like a great idea as long as it is grade separated. Being able to go from LB to Pasadena or East LA to Culver City (once the Expo is finished) without making a single transfer is real power and mobility.

I'm all for the redline extension, but as I've said before I'm a bit skeptical about the ridership it will have and what effect it will have on the city. I dont see it, as others do, as this magical thing that will make LA rail crazy and get rich Westsiders out of their cars and onto transit. If DT and the Westside are as segregated as some of you claim, then who exactly would be traveling along a subway from each point?...

This map just indicates a structured strategy of which lines should be planned and built next;
(1) SFV Orange Line BRT
(2) ELA Gold Line LRT
(3) WLA/Expo Line LRT
(4) SGV/Foothill Gold Line to Azusa
(5) Downtown Connector via Bunker Hill, Phase 1 Phase 2 planning via Fashion District
(6) LAX/Crenshaw/Mid-City Green Line
(7) South Bay Galleria and Norwalk Green Line Extensions
(8) Sunset Blvd (Silver Lake, Echo Park, Elysian Park) LRT
(9) 405 Corridor Rail Line (LRT or HRT from WLA/Expo Line to Van Nuys)
(10) Subway/Elevated via Wilshire or Vermont Corridor
http://tinypic.com/5o5i4j

The Subway/Elevated to Westwood, by itself will not do that especially when nothing is built for the 405 where that Freeway can be a Parking lot on some days. But it's a start, at the very least it will allow existing 75 to 90 thousand bus riders and Metro Rail users quicker access to those destinations on the Westside. If anything the region will use it more than the just those residents. Plus most of the focus will be on the Mid-Wilshire/Hollywood portion so when the piece to at least Westwood is finished UCLA students and other residents can reach the attractions of Mid-Wilshire and Hollywood, they don't neccessarily have to go to Downtown.

As for the Subway/Elevated along Vermont Avenue(this is one of my other pet rail corridors with the connector and 405 being more critical, I live on Vermont btw.) Just like Wilshire, Vermont I believe one of the busiest bus corridors on the system with 50 to 55 thousand riders a day. Plus this would be developers and businessman's dream because there are still open parcels for development and rehabillitiation. And there's a wide parkway Right-of-way that can allow the train to run elevated yet still provide space underneath for pocket parks and a bikeway along it.


Realistically this is what the vision would look like

http://i1.tinypic.com/n2l36v.gif

[Wright Concept]

Los Angeles Daily News
Antonio takes lead on transit
By Lisa Mascaro
Staff Writer


Thursday, July 28, 2005 - Taking a firm grasp of the helm of the MTA, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa spelled out a bold plan for revitalizing the city's mass-transit system Thursday with a long-term agenda of bus, rail and subway projects.

In his first board meeting since winning election, Villaraigosa told a standing-room-only crowd it is an honor to serve as chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. He said it will take years to bring to fruition many of his bold dreams -- like a subway extension under Wilshire Boulevard -- but he vowed to put plans in motion.

"We must have a vision and a long-term plan for the future, including investment in new rail lines. We must get projects ready to (go) and grow the budget pie in Washington and Sacramento," he said.

"This does not mean we will open a subway to the sea during my term. But it means we have to start planning for this and other sensible projects."

More than 100 members of the Bus Riders Union attended the meeting and urged the mayor to persuade the 12 other board members to fulfill a court order for up to 660 additional buses to relieve overcrowding. The BRU entered into a consent decree nearly a decade ago to settle its civil rights lawsuit against the MTA.

BRU organizer Manuel Criollo said the group was heartened that Villaraigosa pledged to build a "first-class" bus system and pleased that he had moved up the public comment portion to the beginning of hours-long meetings.

As commuters told of problems during a lengthy public comment period, Villaraigosa made personal connections -- asking one speaker for his list of suggestions, assigning staff to take down the complaints of others.

Unlike his predecessor, former Mayor James Hahn, who declined to chair the MTA, Villaraigosa indicated he will play a major role in setting the agenda for the $2.8 billion agency that sets transportation policy countywide.

He said safety would be a top priority, especially in the wake of the London and Madrid train bombings.

And while he promised to improve the bus system, he downplayed rumors of a pending fare hike, calling it "premature."

"For me, I need a lot more evidence to demonstrate a fare increase is appropriate at this time."

He also touted the experience his three appointees -- Councilman Bernard Parks, former San Fernando Valley Assemblyman Richard Katz and Valley civic leader David Fleming -- will bring to the board.

But the mayor said a region as vast as Los Angeles County needs options, which include building more rail lines and improving freeway travel. He also called for staff members to report next month on a Wilshire Boulevard transit lane, a rail connector to link all lines downtown and MTA equal-opportunity efforts.

However, the mayor was sidelined on a handful of votes -- buying safety gloves, acquiring property, hiring consultants for the Exposition line -- because of the MTA's strict policy that prohibits board members from voting if they've received $10 or more in campaign contributions from those having business before the agency.

Still, other board members and transit advocates welcomed his approach.

"He told it clear. He's going to Washington. He's going to Sacramento. He's going to do it -- no ifs, ands or buts," said Bart Reed of The Transit Coalition.

"His message was, while we're going to plan and build for the future, we're not going to ignore today's riders," said Katz.

Supervisor Michael Antonovich welcomed the mayor's regional approach.

"The supervisor applauds the mayor for being inclusionary," said Antonovich's transportation deputy, Michael Cano.


--
Lisa Mascaro, (818) 713-3761 lisa.mascaro@dailynews.com

Here are Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's top MTA priorities:

Safety: Ensure security systemwide.
Budget: Increase revenues, but not fares. Cut waste.
Transit: Plan subway extension. Build Exposition light-rail line to Santa Monica, the Gold Line to the San Gabriel Valley and connection to Los Angeles International Airport. Study downtown rail connector, Wilshire Boulevard transit lane.
Freeway: Finish car-pool system, including northbound San Diego Freeway lane. Improve freeway interchanges, including 101-405 and 5-14.

[Wright Concept]

This coming to the MTA Board Wednesday at 1:00pm and Thursday at 9:00 am

Downtown Connector (http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2005/09_September/20050914Item7P&P.pdf)

[LongBeachUrbanist]

^ Thursday, not Tuesday. In other words,
MTA Board Meeting, Wednesday 1pm

Exec Mgmt/Audit Meeting, Thursday 9am.
I will try to make it Wednesday. The Metro Connector is IMO the most critically-needed piece of rail in the system, and would be a great boon for Downtown. This thing needs to get onto the Long Range Plan.

[Wright Concept]

LA Times: Downtown Connector (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-subway2oct02,0,7741703.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials)

EDITORIAL
You can't ride a study

October 2, 2005


IF YOU'RE RIDING METRO RAIL from, say, Pasadena to Staples Center, here's what you have to do: Take the Gold Line to Union Station, where you have to switch to a Red Line train, which you take to the 7th Street station, where you have to switch to a Blue Line train, which will take you to the Pico station. From there it is a two-block walk to Staples Center.

In other words, it can be done — but not quickly or easily.

The proposed solution is a 1.5-mile subway that would connect the Blue Line and the Gold Line through the middle of downtown Los Angeles. Though not a high priority now, such a line would be crucial when two giant mixed-use projects downtown are completed: The L.A. Live entertainment complex around Staples Center and the Grand Avenue project near City Hall. The connector would allow people to take one train straight from Grand Avenue to L.A. Live.

It will be years or maybe decades before the connector is built — if ever. But the excessive caution of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board is only slowing the process, perhaps fatally.

The board was originally asked to approve a study of the line's costs, estimated ridership, timeline and funding sources at its Thursday meeting. But the motion was amended by Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke to become an analysis of the costs of studying such matters. In other words, a call to study the downtown connector became a call to study the costs of doing a study.

Burke's efforts to protect public funds and ensure that a low-priority project doesn't interfere with more important matters are admirable. But it's possible to be penny wise and pound foolish. It's vital to study the connector now because developers are in the planning stages of the Grand Avenue project. Decisions need to be made soon on the location of the line and its stations so they can be incorporated into the Grand Avenue design. If they have to be added later with no prior planning, it will add enormous expense and difficulty.

The MTA staff has been directed to complete its cost analysis before the November/December board meeting. When it does, the board should stop dithering and spend what it takes to complete a real study.

[DJM19]

yeah, they really do need to start working on the downtown connector study now.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

Waiting until Nov/Dec for a feasibility to begin isn't too big deal to me. But it is just another example of the type of delaying that goes on w. respect to these kinds of necessary projects.

That was an excellent editorial. I'm glad to see more and more people speaking up for a better Metro system.

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-subwednesday12.6oct12,0,1910048.story?coll=la-news-comment-letters

'Downtown connector' study is a dead end

October 12, 2005

Re "You can't ride a study," editorial, Oct. 2

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has a long list of worthy projects that are priorities; unfortunately, state funding has been cut, federal funding is short and most of these projects are not funded in the foreseeable future.

The "downtown connector" is a worthy project but one that is not on the MTA's priority list. This 1 1/2 -mile project would cost more that $250 million to construct and take money from the MTA's other priority projects.



Projects on the MTA's priority list constitute a multibillion-dollar commitment over the next several years, and there are simply not enough funds available in the near future to meet all of the worthy projects that we wish to build.

As a result, to spend $1.5 million to study the "downtown connector" project that we don't have the funding to build any time in the next 10 years is a waste of money at this time.

YVONNE B. BURKE

ZEV YAROSLAVSKY

Supervisors
Los Angeles County

[LongBeachUrbanist]

^ So the "analysis of the analysis" was in fact a tactic by Burke to kill this thing. This editorial shows her true motives.

Yvonne and Zev are idiots.

[cookiejarvis]

Projects on the MTA's priority list constitute a multibillion-dollar commitment over the next several years, and there are simply not enough funds available in the near future to meet all of the worthy projects that we wish to build.--Zev

Meanwhile...

L.A. Times: Cash Flowing Into State Coffers (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget13oct13,1,5661395.story?coll=la-headlines-california)

"Spike in tax receipts fuels unexpected jump in revenue of more than $1.2 billion, with much of the extra money collected last month"

[Wright Concept]

The irony to this whole thing is that the County Supervisors got a $300+ Million Surplus and Burke and Yaroslavsky is worried about a mesely 1.5 million. And if this is the cost of the study why analyze the cost to study when the cost is already known.

What is angering me more is that Villaraigosa hasn't said anything about this when this was all going down.

[cookiejarvis]

That $300 mil will probably get gobbled up by County hospitals trying to stay afloat under the weight of the uninsured masses. Gotta love that free market!

[pdxstreetcar]

Design the downtown connector so that in the future a line can branch off using the old Pacific Electric tunnel, but as mentioned it would have to deal with the Westin. Regardless, its an un-used tunnel so its definately of some value.

How serious are the plans to electrify Metrolink? I had heard that there were pretty serious plans back in the early 90s to electrify it.

[Wright Concept]

Not when they build a housing development that's blocking the tunnel portal which would make this tunnel useful.

[Wright Concept]

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Metrolink moves on
The OCTA will add 36 daily trips, weekend rides and new parking spots.

By JIM RADCLIFFE
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

ORANGE – Metrolink, the commuter railway that has become Orange County's mass-transit backbone, will go from 40 to 76 weekday trips and add thousands of park-and-ride spaces along the lines by 2009.

Weekend service could begin by next spring.

Under a $383 million plan unanimously adopted by the Orange County Transportation Authority board Monday, seven locomotives will be purchased along with more than 50 passenger cars for Metrolink, which has three lines that cut through Orange County.

The OCTA, which killed off its light-rail project last month, is focusing its attention on beefing up Metrolink.

The railway averages 14,000 boardings per weekday in the county, with authority officials projecting that the number will swell to more than 30,000 by 2010.

"In five years we'll have twice as much Metrolink service as we have now," said Paul Taylor, an OCTA executive director. "The money's in hand. We control the money."

In two weeks, the OCTA board will consider approval of a detailed financial plan.

In large part, the $383 million will come from Measure M, the county's half-cent sales tax.

Metrolink's Orange County operating budget is $8.5 million and would rise to $18.9 million by 2010.

Centerline money

The demise of the long-debated CenterLine project, the 9.3-mile light railway from downtown Santa Ana to John Wayne Airport, allows the OCTA to use the money elsewhere.

CenterLine, which itself was to grow into a multicity railway, died in part because the federal government lacked interest in pay half of the $1 billion cost.

The Orange County changes to Metrolink, which runs though six counties and includes stops in Los Angles, Riverside and Oceanside, were always meant to be.

"It would have been done much more slowly," Taylor said. "We can now do in five years what might have taken 15 years."

The move pushes Metrolink more to the mainstream. Now, it largely runs in peak hours, so the long-distance commuter can take it to and from work.

The trains are faster than public buses, and the fares may keep the less affluent away. A one-way, weekday ticket for the 15-mile ride from Anaheim to Irvine is $5.75.

About 45 percent of Metrolink's operating budget is subsidized by taxpayers.

With the expanded service, to be in place by late 2009, Metrolink in Orange County will run on weekends and later on weekdays, stretching to 11 p.m. instead of 8 p.m.

The most traveled part of the OC Metrolink web – from Fullerton to the Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo station – will offer a train every 30 minutes for much of the day instead of just during peak hours, said Darrell Johnson, OCTA's manager of commuter rail.

Cecila Gallardo was on the 5 p.m. eastbound train Monday. An administrative assistant at UCI Medical Center in Orange, she lives in Corona and was happy to hear more trains will be running.

"I used to drive the 91 for many years," she said. "It's a 25-minute ride (on Metrolink) instead of an hour and 25 minutes."


Parking improvements

Several thousand parking spots will be added at some existing Metrolink stations. (A station in Buena Park is to open in the summer.)

In all, the project will spend more than $50 million on railroad improvements.

More than $170 million will go to build parking structures and spaces; $20 million from other governmental sources will also go to parking.

For some of the new trips that run outside Orange County, agreements must be signed with a railway or another county, but they are expected to be secured.

Metrolink is 13 years old and has been in Orange County since 1994. Of the system's 512 miles, 87 are in the county.

[bobcat]

^Good move by OCTA. Metrolink is oftentimes overlooked, but it has a lot of potential to attract large ridership as it continues to expand. The whole system needs to be double tracked with service at least once every hour.

[Wright Concept]

BTW, that is the next part of OC's Metrolink Move.

[sbocguy]

Sweet! Hopefully, this added service will apply to the entire Orange County Line and not just the segment within OC... I'd love to be able to ride the train up to and back from Union Station for dinner or a Sunday afternoon Dodger game, without paying the higher Amtrak fares...

EDIT: Whoops, guess I need to read more. From this quote, it looks like they're actually making an effort to *coordinate*, something that's sorely lacking for the most part in SoCal's transit network.

For some of the new trips that run outside Orange County, agreements must be signed with a railway or another county, but they are expected to be secured.

[SSLL]

I'd like to see subway to Santa Monica first.

[sbocguy]

^The money for the added commuter train service is *NOT* being taken away from the MTA construction budget... OCTA is a totally different agency, and Measure M funds are earmarked for *Orange County* transportation improvements. Plus, the amount they're spending is pocket change compared to what the Wilshire subway's going to cost...

EDIT: LOL... On second thought, you're probably just answering the original quesiton of the thread... if that's the case, the Red Line extension's a very good choice, IMO just a hair behind the DT Connector for providing a crucial link in LA's system.

EDIT #2: OK, $383 million dollars is actually a significant fraction of the cost of the Red Line extension, not "pocket change" as I originally said... man, I'm just not with it today... :nuts:

[Wright Concept]

Transit agency details 'contract'
OCTA officials announce how they intend to spend $11.8 billion if voters approve of renewing the Measure M half-cent sales tax.

By JIM RADCLIFFE
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

ORANGE – Nearly $1.5 billion would be spent to add lanes and fix interchanges along the Riverside (91) Freeway and build, if eventually approved, an elevated highway nearby if Orange County voters approve an extension of a half-cent sales tax.

An additional $1.7 billion would go for new lanes on the San Diego (I-5) Freeway and related improvements such as a rebuilding of the congested interchange at Ortega (74) Highway in San Juan Capistrano under a draft proposal unveiled Wednesday.

In all, 24 wide-ranging transportation projects costing $11.8 billion would be completed over the next three decades if voters decide to renew the half-cent Measure M sales tax. About 54 percent of the voters passed Measure M in 1990, and it's due to expire in 2011. The Orange County Transportation Authority is trying to extend the tax, but this time, due to changes in state law, two-thirds of the voters must approve it. OCTA is required to detail projects that would be funded by the tax.

Even if voters provide the money, the projects must be approved by local governments.

The improvements cover all regions of the county and do not include controversial projects such as a highway tunneled through the Santa Ana Mountains.

OCTA officials will seek more input from county and city leaders before finalizing what they call a "contract" with the voters on what would be done.

"We're going to have an added lane in each direction on nearly every freeway," said Monte Ward, an Orange County Transportation Authority official who is overseeing planning for an extension of Measure M.

More than $2.2 billion would keep Metrolink commuter trains chugging along and expand service.

Max Harris, 69, of Laguna Hills would vote for a Measure M extension if it indeed fixes streets and interchanges people use, such as the ones he takes to church: "Ortega Highway is a bloody mess."

[LAMetroGuy]

Yes, adding lanes... that will fix it! Why doesn't OC understand that just adding lanes will NOT solve the problem. UGH!!!!

[POLA]

^I thought that too. so stupid.

[RAlossi]

Isn't the 5 superhuge anyway down there? What's gonna happen when they get to Buena Park (or wherever it is) and they see that, no, LA didn't expand the 5 to 10 lanes in each direction...

[cookiejarvis]

Ya, it's useless to expand the 5 anymore through Orange County if L.A. still has only 3 lanes in either direction between Santa Fe Springs and the 710.

[Last Chance]

downtown connector

[Wright Concept]

Transit woes prompt call for higher sales tax
By Rick Orlov, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

Saying he believes frustrated Los Angeles motorists are at the breaking point, a city official called Wednesday for a study to add a half-percent to the county sales tax to increase spending on transit programs.
"People are fed up. They are tired of being stuck in their cars going nowhere," Councilman Bill Rosendahl said. "I don't think we can afford to wait any longer to make changes. We need to make improvements now, not 50 years from now."

Rosendahl's proposal is preliminary, and he said he will seek a report from city staff on what would be required to place such a measure before voters, when would be the best time and what could be included in the tax.

The suggestion came as the council gave routine approval to a Metropolitan Transportation Authority report updating the council on a study showing that modern technology would make it safe to tunnel under Wilshire Boulevard for a subway.

The study by specialists for the MTA convinced Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, to seek legislation lifting his prohibition on such tunneling after an explosion more than 20 years ago in the Fairfax area. Lifting the ban is needed to make federal funds available for any future project.

Rosendahl said initial estimates for completing a subway to the Pacific Ocean along Wilshire Boulevard - as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has proposed - could run more than $5 billion.

"I think we, as elected leaders, have to find a way to get the funding to make this happen," Rosendahl said. "It isn't only a Wilshire subway. It's the Exposition Boulevard line. It's the Green Line. It's all the programs we're doing so we can get people out of their cars."

Aides to the mayor said he wants to review any information on a sales-tax proposal. In the past, he has said he is concerned about asking voters too often to approve tax increases to pay for programs.

But some said Wednesday they already oppose the move.

Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said his group will come out against the measure if it's on the ballot - just as it has opposed previous sales-tax increase proposals.

"Los Angeles County already has the highest sales-tax rate in the state at 8.25 percent, and one cent of that goes for transit programs," Coupal said. "Until the county and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority can prove they can get spending under control, there is no way we can support this."

Coupal said he believes voters also would reject any plan to increase taxes, as they did in 2004 when they turned down Proposition A that would have boosted funds to hire more police officers and sheriff's deputies.

Rosendahl said he believes the region's traffic problems have left little choice.

"I think if we lay out a program that shows how it will help people, they will support it," Rosendahl said.

Rick Orlov, (213) 978-0390

[Wright Concept]

METRO NEWS PRESSROOM

January 19, 2006
CONTACT--
Dave Sotero/Marc Littman
Metro MEDIA RELATIONS
(213) 922-3007/922-2700
www.metro.net/press/pressroom
e-mail-- mediarelations@metro.net
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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

Metro to Introduce New Limited Stop Service on Metro Gold Line Beginning Feb. 13

Metro Rail’s first limited stop service to shave five minutes off Metro Gold Line commute, a 15 percent savings

Beginning Monday, February 13, Metro will launch limited stop service on the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Gold Line that will shorten end-to-end rush-hour travel times from 34 minutes to just 29 minutes, a 15 percent time savings for weekday commuters.

The new service, the first of its kind on the 73-mile Metro Rail System, will stop at five of 13 Metro Gold Line stations: Union Station, Highland Park, Mission, Del Mar and Sierra Madre Villa. Station stops were chosen based on a number of factors including passenger boardings, parking availability and business development.

Weekday-only limited stop service will consist of six trains running every half hour in both directions during the morning and afternoon rush hour periods. Limited stop trains will supplement Metro’s existing non peak-hour train service running every 15 minutes during these times. No additional fares will be required to utilize limited stop service.

“The new trend at Metro is faster service,” said Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is also Chairman of the Metro Board. “With the addition of limited stop service providing increased time savings, the Metro Gold Line gives LA commuters another good reason to use public transit.”

Heading Northbound from Union Station to Sierra Madre Villa, trains are currently scheduled to operate every half hour from 5:35 a.m to 8:05 a.m. and 3:50 p.m. to 6:20 p.m. Southbound trains starting at Sierra Madre Villa to Union Station will also run every half hour from 6:05 a.m. to 8:35 a.m. and 3:50 p.m. to 6:20 p.m. Limited stop train schedules are coordinated with the Metro Red Line at Union Station to facilitate interline connections.

Commuters who miss their limited stop trains will still be able to catch a regularly scheduled train within a few minutes during the peak-hour periods of 6 a.m to 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. Alternately, passengers who board the wrong train can ride to another station and catch a regular train back to their station.

“I anticipate ridership on the Metro Gold Line will be even stronger when commuters discover they can now get between Pasadena and Downtown LA in under half an hour,” said Roger Snoble, Metro CEO. “At Metro, we are pulling out the stops to provide faster commutes for our transit patrons, and limited stop service on the Metro Gold Line is just the most recent example. Metro Express Lines, Metro Rapids and the Metro Orange Line are all achieving substantial transit time reductions across the county.”

Last year, Metro introduced Metro Express Lines 577X and 550X, which utilize freeway high-occupancy vehicle lanes to slash commute times in the South Bay, San Gabriel Valley and Long Beach areas. Five-minute peak-hour service on the Metro Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley now takes commuters between Woodland Hills and North Hollywood in about 41 minutes, a substantial time savings that compares favorably with driving on the 101 freeway during rush hour. Metro Rapids – 25 percent faster than Local Buses – now travel on 15 high-traffic corridors in L.A. County, with four additional lines planned by this summer.

Commuters seeking to utilize the Metro Gold Line Limited trains can park at four of its station stops. Union Station contains 2,000 paid parking spaces. A new parking structure at the Mission Meridian Transit Village in South Pasadena will provide 140 free spaces. Del Mar Station has 600 paid spaces, and Sierra Madre Villa Station has 850 free and 100 reserved parking spaces.

Those seeking to connect by bus to the stations can utilize the following bus lines:

Union Station: Metro Bus Line 33, 333, 40,740, 42, 439, 444, 445, 446, 745, Commuter Express: Metrolink Shuttle, 430, 534, Dash "D", Foothill Transit 699, Santa Monica Municipal 10, Santa Clarita 794, Antelope Valley 785, Orange County Transit 701. Nearby connecting lines are: Metro Bus Line 70, 71, 78, 370, 79, 378, 68, 368, 304, 484, 485, 487, 490, 489, Foothill Transit lines 480, 481,482, 486, 488, 492, 494, 498, 499, 493, 497, Dash route Lincoln Heights China Town.

Highland Park: Metro Bus Line 81, 83, 176, 256, DASH Highland Park/Eagle Rock.

Mission: Metro Bus Line 177, 256, 686, 687, ARTS 20, 51/52.

Del Mar: Metro Bus Line 256, 267, 260/361, ARTS 20, 40, 51/52, Foothill Transit 187. Nearby connecting lines are Metro 180/181, 687, 780, ARTS 10, LADOT 549, Foothill Transit 690.

Sierra Madre Villa: Metro Bus Line 177, 181, 266, ARTS 31/32, 40, 60, Foothill Transit 187, Montebello Transit 20, Sierra Madre Commuter Loop. Nearby connecting lines are Metro 264, 267, 268.

Metro will initiate a number of steps to help patrons identify limited stop trains and station stops. Trains themselves will be designated by “Limited Stop” headsigns on both ends of the trains and on the sides. The inside dash of the train also will contain limited stop placards. On board, limited stop service announcements will be made by train operators. The train’s automated announcement system will also advise patrons of approaching stops.

At stations, banners will be installed to inform patrons of the new limited stop service. As an additional safety precaution, Metro will paint yellow lines on platforms to remind patrons at the by-passed stations to keep away from the platform edge when limited stop trains pass through.

Agency ambassadors also will be stationed at all Metro Gold Line stations for the first week of limited stop service to help the public with questions and hand out pamphlets about the new service.

Metro’s Community Relations Department has developed a comprehensive outreach program for raising awareness for the new limited stop service in communities along the Metro Gold Line alignment. Efforts include briefings with local officials and presentations at Chinatown, South Pasadena and Pasadena City Council meetings and Chambers of Commerce. Informational brochures will be made available in three languages and in Braille, and will be distributed on train seats and at local school districts and community centers.

[Wright Concept]

^ I wonder how they will designate which trains are Locals and which ones are Express.

[Wright Concept]

The LookOut news
http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2006/January-2006/01_27_06_Westside_Officials_Mount_Public_Campaign.htm
Westside Officials Mount Public Campaign for Transit Funds
By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer

January 27 -- Zero is the number of dollars currently earmarked for mass transit systems within California cities -- including the proposed Light Rail line to Santa Monica -- under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed $222 billion infrastructure bond.

That fact -- and the reality that Westside traffic is still crawling along at speeds rivaling bicycles -- prompted Los Angeles City Council member Bill Rosendahl and Santa Monica officials Tuesday to urge area residents to complain to the Governor and State officials about the lack of transit funding.

"One of the most pressing challenges facing our neighborhoods, our city and our region is the crushing traffic gridlock we deal with every day,” Rosendahl said. “We have a rare opportunity to make major progress on that issue - if you act now."

"I am asking you to join me in writing Governor Schwarzenegger and our state lawmakers,” Rosendahl wrote in a letter to constituents. “Please urge them to correct this error and dramatically increase the amount of money set aside in the bond proposal."

Under the current proposal, more than $80 billion will help shore up state highways and other roads, while $5 billion will be set aside for transit and rail services, such as Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner.

Yet of that $5 billion, no money would be reserved for mass transit within cities including the proposed Exposition Line into Santa Monica, the Red line subway down Wilshire, the Green Line to LAX and a north-south mass transit project along Lincoln Boulevard.

That would leave Mass Transit Authority (MTA) officials turning to the federal and county governments for help, which could delay the proposed projects by several years, according to Rosendahl and others.

“Just like other parts of California need more roads, Los Angeles needs a better mass transit system," said Santa Monica Council member Pam O'Connor, who is the MTA Board’s vice chair. "There is no more room for roads in Los Angeles, we need something else."

O'Connor said she and other MTA officials are pushing to "close the gap" in state funding.

"We're working both as an organization and as individuals on this," she said. "All of us and our cities can and will be working to influence this… to get Los Angeles, the largest county in the state in terms of population, the funding we need."

[solongfullerton]

i live on the westside and have already emailed my concerns to my local state representatives and the mayor. i encourage all LA residents to do the same. What we should do is put together some kind of letter that we can all sign (or mabye just put our names and addresses/phone numbers on) and it send/email it to the governor and LA area representatives to let them know that its now okay to ignore mass transit anymore, especially when there could be $222 billion to improve the living coniditions in our great state. I'm not the best writer in the world, but would really like to help put something like this together. what do you all think?

[Wright Concept]

^You took the words out of my mouth

[colemonkee]

I'm in. Can somebody put it on a Web site form that automatically emails? If so, I could send the link to everyone in my building, many of which are pro-transit and would probably "sign" the petition.

[solongfullerton]

im sure a lot of you heard about savethederby.com i guess they've set up a petition on their website with over 5000 names on it. I think doing something like that would be the most effective way to show the amount of people who support the expansion of public transit in not just LA, but the whole state. maybe we could throw the idea over to the guys at the transit coalition and one of them could put something together. they seem to be a very organized group and probably have the means to put together a website. or maybe someone on these boards knows how to do something like that. ideas????

[solongfullerton]

i was just checking out that derby website and it looks like they use a host site for the petition and it doesnt look like it costs anything. www.petitionthem.com is the host and petition submission page is http://www.petitionthem.com/?sect=submit so maybe someone who has better writing skills than myself can put together something. throught these boards and SSC and word of mouth im sure we could get thousands of names on the list too.

[RAlossi]

I'm also concerned about the lack of funds for mass transit. Yeah, the current proposal gives a good chunk of money to the Alameda Corridor-East, but building roads in San Bernardino County is NOT going to help people in LA. It's going to encourage more people to live farther away. Plus, what's going to happen when they get into the "city" anyway? Those LA-area freeways aren't going to be expanded. It's going to be like the 5 at the LA/OC border, but even worse.

[Wright Concept]

http://www.sgvtribune.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=3575415

Article Display Date: March 7, 2006


Don't divert Gold Line funds

San Gabriel Valley Tribune

THIS is a crucial time for the Gold Line, under attack not only from subway supporters from the west side of
Los Angeles County but from seemingly all comers who have decided it's a boon-doggle, not worth the cost to extend it 24 miles to Montclair.

Instead, some critics say, why not use the money that would go toward another "fixed" railway to a "fixed" bus route on the freeway. Well, that line already exists and goes from El Monte to downtown Los Angeles along the San Bernardino (10) Freeway.

Others say we need more buses, period, even with the newly completed Orange Line but the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has fought tooth and nail against Foothill Transit, an alternative bus agency. Foothill plans its own "express" bus line to downtown L.A., set to launch next year.

Although the Gold Line is managed by MTA, it was built under a separate construction authority and so will the

eastern extension that will connect the Pasadena leg to western San Bernardino County through the San Gabriel Valley foothill communities.

This is one of the main reasons for the MTA's continuing denigration of the Gold Line.

That the original Gold Line from Pasadena to Los Angeles was brought in on time and under budget, unlike the other light-rail lines built by MTA, rankles some on the Metro board.

But we're guessing current criticism is a run-up to divert funding to the proposed

Red Line subway extension that would connect North Hollywood to Santa Monica. The proposed 13-mile line has been dubbed the "Subway to the Sea." Might as well call it "Pie in the Sky" for all the obstacles strewn along the proposed underground tracks.

First, law must be changed. Because of a methane gas explosion during an earlier attempt at a subway in this area, undergrounding was banned. Nor can one penny from a 1-cent sales tax instituted for transportation be used for a subway under Wilshire Boulevard.

Then there's the astounding $4.8billion price tag, more than it took to build the Blue, Gold, Green and Orange lines

combined, according to an MTA report released last month.

That's today's estimate. Once construction gets under way, the cost undoubtedly will go up.

Can you say money pit?

Let's be honest about rail costs. At $300million permile, this subway will be no bargain. Compared to the $900million it cost to construct the entire 14-mile Pasadena-to-Los Angeles Gold Line route, it's just too

expensive to consider ahead of above-ground lines.

The push behind the

subway extension comes from newly elected Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the current Golden Boy of

Los Angeles-area politics and the chairman of the MTA board.

Our only objection to another subway at this time is that it could take dollars away from the Gold Line extension, ready to begin construction and on the congressional track for federal funding.

This extension is needed. All freeways used by motorists to get to Los Angeles-based employment - from the Pomona (60) to the San Bernardino (10) to the Foothill (210) - are jammed.

New communities are rising in San Bernardino County,

so gridlock is likely to continue without alternatives for commuters who live east but work in cities to the west, including those along the Gold Line, particularly

Pasadena and of course,

downtown Los Angeles.

Leaders in Glendale and Burbank also want the Gold Line to extend into their cities and eventually connect with the Red Line. A fine suggestion and another sensible project that ought to come before a second subway.

Now is the time for the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, leaders of communities along the Gold Line extension and our representatives on the MTA board to press forward and demand inclusion of the Gold Line in the MTA's Long Range Plan.

Our region has fought too hard and too long for our light-rail line to allow funding to be drained away to the sea on a project for which the initial three miles alone will take a decade to construct.

============================================================

http://www.sgvtribune.com/yourview/ci_3595706

Unite for all lines

Re "Don't divert Gold Line funds" (March 7):

The techniques used for the on-time and on-budget Gold Line to Pasadena are being applied for the future East Los Angeles and Expo Light Rail lines. They can be used to build this Wilshire tunnel and future tunnels such as the one for the Long Beach (710) Freeway or a downtown regional connector that would tie the Blue, Gold, ELA and Expo light rail lines together in a single network stretching from the inland valleys to the beaches, which can improve the ridership on this vital Foothill Extension and build political consensus from all regions to build other rail extensions.

Tunnelling technology has improved significantly.

So far there have been no issues in building the 1.8 mile East L.A. Gold Line tunnel - and in fact it can bring the costs of the project down.

With available railroad right-of- ways decreasing for transit use, elevated trains bringing visual blight and surface land being expensive as it is, building below the street level will be the best real-estate bargain in the long run to solve our transit issues.

As vice president of the Transit Coalition, I say to L.A. County political leaders: Why are you fighting over crumbs between two very necessary projects.

Let's fight to gain more of the funding pie!

Jerard Wright

Los Angeles

[LongBeachUrbanist]

Nice, thanks for the response Jerard. I'm glad to see this YIMBY fighting for transit in his neck of the woods, but his attacks on other badly-needed projects, like the Central Subway, are misguided.

I'd like to see more of our leaders looking to expand the pie. For my money, I think AV's doing a pretty good job on that front.

[bobcat]

Sorry, but this rant is just absurd. To have the gall to call the wilshire subway a money pit when the Azusa extension would rival the Harbor Transitway in the degree of 'boondogglery' (or whatever the word is :D ).

Apparently the projected ridership for it is so low that it doesn't even qualify for federal funding. I love how the writer attributes the low projected ridership to a "glitch.":sly:

So does anyone know what the current projected ridership for the line is?

Gold Line faces delay
Funding requires ridership model
By Gary Scott Staff Writer

Pasadena Star-News
Construction of the Gold Line extension from Pasadena to Azusa could be delayed from three months to one year because of a glitch in
calculating potential ridership on the train.
Every transportation project seeking federal funds must submit ridership projections to the Federal Transportation Authority, which then uses
the numbers to rank projects.
The ridership model being used to analyze the Gold Line appears to be excluding certain segments of the population, resulting in artificially low
numbers, officials from the Gold Line Construction Authority said.
"The model does not exist for a light rail rider," said Monrovia Mayor Rob Hammond, a member of the construction authority board. "There is
not a template out there. There isn't one in the nation."
The current model appears to have a mild prejudice against middle-class commuters. According to Habib Balian, CEO of the construction
authority, the current model presumes that bus riders will be the group most likely to ride the Gold Line light rail. But construction authority
officials believe the train will be filled with people who rarely if ever ride a bus in the San Gabriel Valley.
"You have people in the San Gabriel Valley with half-million dollar homes and $100,000-plus incomes who have never taken the bus but would
consider taking light rail," Balian said.
Unless the authority can figure out how to alter the model to capture this population, the Gold Line numbers may be too low to qualify for FTA
funding.
"The FTA has to buy into the model. This is not something we do in a vacuum," Balian said.
The ridership model was not a concern for the first leg of the Gold Line, from Los Angeles to Pasadena, because it did not rely on federal
funding.
The second leg, from Pasadena to Montclair, is projected to cost more than
$1 billion, with at least half coming from the federal government.
Balian said the delays could push the start of construction on the first phase out to Azusa to sometime between fall 2007 and fall 2008. The
second phase of the extension project out to Montclair, scheduled to be completed in 2014, should be unaffected.
gary.scott@sgvn.com
(626) 578-6300, Ext. 4458
Page 1 of 1 Print Article
1/17/2006

[LongBeachUrbanist]

From www.mta.net:

Metro Secures $208 Million in State Funding
for the Exposition Light Rail Transit Project
California Transportation Commission approves first of two state funding requests

The California Transportation Commission (CTC) today approved the allocation of $208 million in Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funding for the Exposition Light Rail Transit Project that will provide a major source of funding to the project.

“We thank the CTC for recognizing the needs of Los Angeles and for approving our funding request for the Expo Line,” said Los Angeles City Mayor and Metro Board Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa. “This funding helps keep the Expo Line on track. The CTC’s continuing partnership with Los Angeles is vital to our efforts to grow our public transit system and reduce traffic congestion.”

Last week, Metro officials had asked the CTC during their Southern California State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Public Hearing to fund the 8.5-mile Exposition Light Rail Project indicating it was critical that investment of state monies be allocated to the project.

“This is a critical project for our region,” said County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a member of Metro’s Board of Directors. “When it’s finished, the Exposition Light Rail Project has the potential to relieve some of the heavy traffic on the Santa Monica Freeway, which makes the CTC’s allocation of these state dollars a win-win situation for all Westside commuters.”

Construction on the line is expected to start this summer. The Exposition Light Rail Transit Project will share two stations (7th Street/Metro Center and Pico/Chick Hearn) with the Metro Blue Line in downtown Los Angeles where the line will then proceed west on the Metro-owned right-of-way on Exposition Boulevard, which parallels the congested I-10 Freeway with a terminus just east of Washington/National in Culver City.

Eight new stations will be constructed by the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority for a total project cost estimated at $640 million. A second phase would extend the Exposition Line to the City of Santa Monica.

Metro is requesting a total of $523 million from the CTC. This would include $315 million in LA County’s share of the 2006 Sate Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and $208 million in TCRP funding approved today.

The recent allocation of the $208 million was committed by the state legislature and governor in June 2000, but the CTC has been unable to meet that commitment until now, due to the state’s General Fund deficits. The CTC will take up Metro’s request for the $315 million at its April 27 meeting held in Fresno.

Metro officials expressed appreciation to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Los Angeles legislative delegation for their continued support for transportation improvements throughout the region.

The allocation of these state dollars will free up transportation monies from the previously established Exposition Line budget that could possibly fund projects such as transit projects and/or carpool lanes on the northbound I-405 Freeway over the Sepulveda Pass, I-5 Freeway from Route 170 to the 134 Freeway, and the I-10 Freeway from Puente to Citrus or other transportation improvements.

[WesTheAngelino]

Sorry, but this rant is just absurd. To have the gall to call the wilshire subway a money pit when the Azusa extension would rival the Harbor Transitway in the degree of 'boondogglery' (or whatever the word is :D ).

Apparently the projected ridership for it is so low that it doesn't even qualify for federal funding. I love how the writer attributes the low projected ridership to a "glitch.":sly:

So does anyone know what the current projected ridership for the line is?

Gold Line faces delay
Funding requires ridership model
By Gary Scott Staff Writer

Pasadena Star-News
Construction of the Gold Line extension from Pasadena to Azusa could be delayed from three months to one year because of a glitch in
calculating potential ridership on the train.
Every transportation project seeking federal funds must submit ridership projections to the Federal Transportation Authority, which then uses
the numbers to rank projects.
The ridership model being used to analyze the Gold Line appears to be excluding certain segments of the population, resulting in artificially low
numbers, officials from the Gold Line Construction Authority said.
"The model does not exist for a light rail rider," said Monrovia Mayor Rob Hammond, a member of the construction authority board. "There is
not a template out there. There isn't one in the nation."
The current model appears to have a mild prejudice against middle-class commuters. According to Habib Balian, CEO of the construction
authority, the current model presumes that bus riders will be the group most likely to ride the Gold Line light rail. But construction authority
officials believe the train will be filled with people who rarely if ever ride a bus in the San Gabriel Valley.
"You have people in the San Gabriel Valley with half-million dollar homes and $100,000-plus incomes who have never taken the bus but would
consider taking light rail," Balian said.
Unless the authority can figure out how to alter the model to capture this population, the Gold Line numbers may be too low to qualify for FTA
funding.
"The FTA has to buy into the model. This is not something we do in a vacuum," Balian said.
The ridership model was not a concern for the first leg of the Gold Line, from Los Angeles to Pasadena, because it did not rely on federal
funding.
The second leg, from Pasadena to Montclair, is projected to cost more than
$1 billion, with at least half coming from the federal government.
Balian said the delays could push the start of construction on the first phase out to Azusa to sometime between fall 2007 and fall 2008. The
second phase of the extension project out to Montclair, scheduled to be completed in 2014, should be unaffected.
gary.scott@sgvn.com
(626) 578-6300, Ext. 4458
Page 1 of 1 Print Article
1/17/2006


Rediculous. This is nothing but bladerdash from someone trying to secure political pork. I don't know what the profile of the average GL rider looks like , but I do know that the profile of the average MTA rail rider is nearly identical to the average bus rider.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

From the Los Angeles Times

Bond Defeat Felt at City Hall

Mayor's housing, transit and park plans bank on funds from governor's public works proposal, which foundered in Sacramento this week.

By Duke Helfand
Times Staff Writer

March 17, 2006

The collapse of a public works bond proposal in Sacramento this week could deliver a serious blow to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's plans for building affordable housing, expanding parks and extending a subway line to the Westside — all key elements in his ambitious blueprint for Los Angeles.

And it could spoil an opportunity for the Democratic mayor and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, two of the state's most dynamic political personalities, to work in concert advancing their separate agendas.

Villaraigosa was counting on tens of millions of dollars from the bonds and had even boasted privately in recent days that Los Angeles would reap a bonanza from the public works package.

Now, several of his pet projects, and his vision for Los Angeles, could face uncertain prospects.

But Villaraigosa said he remained "eternally optimistic," predicting, like others in Los Angeles and Sacramento, that state leaders would agree to place a public works bond on the November ballot. The bond missed its opportunity to make the June ballot when the state Senate refused this week to take action on it after the Assembly approved only portions of Schwarzenegger's proposal.

A November measure could provide crucial backing for Villaraigosa's initiatives, even if the dollars roll in later than originally anticipated.

"I'm deeply disappointed that we weren't able to take advantage of the opportunity to invest in California's infrastructure," Villaraigosa said in an interview. "I believe that we can't allow this opportunity to be denied by partisanship. It is just too important to the future prosperity of our city and our state."

Villaraigosa — who once served as Assembly speaker — had negotiated with lawmakers and Schwarzenegger's office to secure what he called Los Angeles' "fair share" of the anticipated public works money.

He traveled to Sacramento last month with City Council President Eric Garcetti and other officials to lobby for money to build affordable housing. He also spoke publicly in Los Angeles about the need for the bond to include funding for urban parks.

He called state leaders hourly at various points to weigh in on the complicated package.

Without the state dollars, the city would probably struggle to meet the agenda Villaraigosa set out during his first months in office.

The mayor this week announced that the city would spend nearly $51 million from its affordable housing trust fund to build 14 apartment complexes around L.A. for low-income residents. Every dollar spent by the city, he pointed out, would attract an additional $3 in public and private money.

Some of the funds for these projects will come from a 2002 state housing bond. But that revenue stream is expected to dry up next year, leaving the city without one of its key funding sources for new housing unless a new bond is passed.

Housing advocates said they hoped state leaders would provide the crucial funding in a November bond. Otherwise, they said, the effect could be devastating — not only for efforts to help the working poor but also for housing programs aimed at getting the homeless off the streets.

"There is going to be more and more overcrowding, more and more people living in garages," said Lisa Payne of the Southern California Assn. of Non-Profit Housing. "That raises public health issues."

Los Angeles also could face fallout in the areas of public transportation and parks.

Villaraigosa had sought help in paying for several mass transit initiatives intended to ease traffic congestion on city streets. His priorities include a north-south busway in the San Fernando Valley, traffic-light synchronization in the city and an extension of the Red Line subway down Wilshire Boulevard from Western Avenue to Fairfax Avenue, part of his "subway-to-the-sea" plan.

The mayor's vision of more parks greening Los Angeles also would have to wait.

He said a November bond might delay these projects but would not block his dream of the city as an oasis where parks flourish and traffic moves efficiently.

The delay of the bond, he said, "obviously makes all of those things more difficult. I continue to believe that we can work across partisan lines in the best interests of our city and our state."

Villaraigosa appeared with Schwarzenegger in Los Angeles in January to promote proposed transportation projects that would have been funded by the bond.

The unusual pairing of the Democratic mayor and the Republican governor offered them an opportunity to seize the mantle of bipartisanship in the name of the public good.

This week's failed negotiations on the bond will probably forestall any further collaboration, as Schwarzenegger turns his attention to salvaging his proposal and Villaraigosa continues his own lobbying campaign to stake a claim for Los Angeles in any future plan.

But political strategists from both parties said that Villaraigosa and Schwarzenegger's mutual interests will probably trump party affiliations as the November election draws closer.

"It's about getting something done for the state," said Democratic political consultant Parke Skelton. "Both of them have enough savvy to put aside differences when they are pursuing common objectives."

[LongBeachUrbanist]

A five-month delay isn't too bad. As long as the bond eventually comes through for the November ballot, with enough help for the needs of our cities.

[Wright Concept]

Gold Line gains a fast track to federal funding

By Gary Scott Staff Writer
Pasadena Star-News

PASADENA - What is a little financial independence worth?
About $5.4 million to the board overseeing construction of the Gold Line train from Pasadena to Montclair.

Transportation officials notified the Gold Line Construction Authority on Friday that it is now eligible to receive funds directly from the federal government, removing a layer of red tape that nearly cost the agency $2.9 million.

"It just streamlines the whole process," said Habib Balian, chief executive officer for the construction authority. "It is another piece of the puzzle coming together."

The designation gives the authority immediate access to two large grants that had been sitting idle. The first, at $2.9 million, will be used for routine planning and design. The second, at $2.5 million, is slated for a comprehensive study of housing and retail development planned along the line.

Balian said this list of projects will serve to leverage additional federal funds by showing legislators that the Gold Line is a tool for spurring economic investment.

"This is great news for both the project and for the cities along the corridor," said La Verne Mayor Jon Blickenstaff, chairman of the construction authority.

There are 11 cities along the 24-mile extension and many have plans to develop transit-related projects at or near the proposed Gold Line stops.

Extending the Gold Line to Montclair is expected to cost $1.2 billion, with most of that amount coming from federal transportation dollars.

Being able to tap into those funds directly should simplify matters, Balian said, by ensuring the construction authority can set its own timetables.

The Gold Line almost lost the $2.9 million grant because the pass-through agency, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, failed to take necessary steps in a timely matter, according to Balian.

"Once everybody knew what the problem was and what had not happened between 2004 and 2005, Caltrans jumped in to fix it," Balian said.

The mix-up further strained already tense relations between the two agencies and helped convince construction authority officials that financial independence was needed.

Over the next couple of years, the construction authority will collect another $16 million in federal earmarks to continue planning.

Construction on the Gold Line extension is scheduled to begin in 2008, with the Pasadena-to-Azusa leg scheduled to open in 2010 and the Azusa-to-Montclair leg opening four years later.

gary.scott@sgvn.com

[Wright Concept]

I've been tinkering with this plan for about a week, in between doing taxes among other things.

And if this is planned right this shouldn't cost too much money.

What I'm thinking now is first extend the platform at 7th St Metro about 100' for longer 4 car trains then run north on Flower to First Street. Station at 4th/5th Streets, "BUNKER HILL" easy to do cause there's nothing but bloody parking structures there anyways so who cares and can be done to a new method where all they would need to build are connections to the other entrances. This can be explained at the Civic Center station.

Turning deep below the Disney Hall from Flower to First with a CIVIC CENTER station between Grand/Olive and Hill Streets with small station portals at the following locations Grand Avenue development, the Park for the demolished County Courthouse and the existing Red Line 1st/Hill portal(creating another transfer to the Red Line) so that the development can still go on as planned in case the politics get in the way and prepare for future construction that is minor in disruption. The way tunnel construction has improved can even allow this tunnel to be mined like the one they did in Dallas Cityplace Station.
http://i13.tinypic.com/33afpsm.gif
They used the TBM's to bore the train tubes then mined along side of it creating a second tube which is then connected together to the other portals so the Mezzanine is essentially a large extension of the platform which can allow for future expansion for longer trains.

Continuining down First the tunnel will turn about 30-45 degrees and shoot Northeast under the eventual demolished Parker Center and parking structures on San Pedro/Temple, the new Little Tokyo/City Hall/Artist District station will be located between these two sites to reduce mitigation needed if the station were built on First Street in Little Tokyo.

This helps add to the charm of the area so that you stroll throught the museums and plazas in Little Tokyo on route to the subway station, it's convinent for City Hall users cause it's only a block away. It's great for Artist District users since they only have to go one more block.

Plus since these sites are right and not on the street, this will allow the tunnel to be built closer to the surface to allow trains to come to grade quicker to their regular routes for ELA routes back to First before Vignes and for SG Valley trains on Alameda before the elevated guideway. A little mitigation is needed for the tracks to allow trains to be re-routed around these new train portals.

I apologize in advance for the blurriness in the image here's a visual:
http://i3.tinypic.com/vpaq1z.jpg

[Wright Concept]

This is coming from the Daily News so you can take this with a grain of sand or salt

Article Launched: 4/26/2006 12:00 AM


Mayor fumbles MTA clout
City Hall officials ignore hearing on muting L.A. voice in transportation
BY HARRISON SHEPPARD, Sacramento Bureau
LA Daily News

SACRAMENTO - A bill that would reduce Los Angeles' influence on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board sailed through a legislative committee Tuesday after nobody from L.A. City Hall showed up to oppose it.
The bill calls for Los Angeles to give one of its four seats on the 14-member board to the South Bay cities that are also part of the MTA system.

"I am absolutely in shock that the city of Los Angeles is not here in opposition," said Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, who chairs the Transportation Committee. He noted that Los Angeles city officials had not even submitted a letter in opposition.

State Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, offered one possible explanation for city officials' absence: They don't care.

"The L.A. MTA has had not one but two 30-day strikes over the last several years, and nobody seemed to notice," McClintock cracked. "Why, then, would anybody notice a change in the representation of the MTA board?"

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa chairs the MTA board and has said transportation is one of the top priorities of his administration.

But a spokesman for the mayor could not explain why there was no representative at the hearing or why city officials had not previously made their position known.

"The mayor does oppose this," spokesman Darryl Ryan said. "There will be an `opposed' position from the (City) Council and the MTA in coming days."

City Hall representatives' absence was particularly puzzling because Villaraigosa had signaled strong interest in the MTA last year when he took office. He opted to personally chair the MTA board, while his predecessor, Mayor James Hahn, had allowed his deputies to attend the board meetings in his place.

Villaraigosa also has proposed an ambitious slate of projects for the agency, including an expanded subway to the sea, new light-rail lines and a better car-pool system.

Along with Villaraigosa, one City Council member and two citizens appointed by the mayor hold L.A.'s four seats on the MTA board, giving the city a strong voice in governance.

Others on the board are four members representing the 87 other cities in Los Angeles County; the five county supervisors; and a nonvoting member appointed by the governor, usually a representative of the California Department of Transportation.

A bill by Sen. Bob Margett, R-Diamond Bar, would let the Los Angeles mayor appoint only one and not two public members and give the other cities five rather than four appointees. The fifth would specifically be earmarked for a newly created South Bay sector.

The measure, Margett said, would create a board structure more in line with the distribution of population in the county.

"Presently there is an imbalance in the structure of the MTA, putting cities and communities at a disadvantage when it comes to equitable representation and funding," he said.

An MTA spokesman said the authority's board is expected to consider taking a position on the bill at its regular meeting later this month.

The proposal, Senate Bill 1507, passed through the Transportation Committee, 10-2. The three committee members whose districts include part of the city of Los Angeles - McClintock, Sens. George Runner, R-Lancaster, and Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles - all voted for the bill.

Runner said he supports the bill because it accurately reflects shifts in the county's population as L.A.'s suburbs boom.

While his district includes parts of the San Fernando Valley, he noted that other cities in his district, such as Palmdale and Lancaster, might benefit from shifting a vote away from Los Angeles.

"The key issue, it seems to me, is the board ought to be distributed based upon where people are living," Runner said. "That's to me what this adjustment was."

harrison.sheppard@dailynews.com

(916) 446-6723

[Wright Concept]

Just Dreamin'

http://i3.tinypic.com/x587ew.gif

http://i3.tinypic.com/wmbh8x.gif

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gasoline28apr28,1,4507452,full.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

From the Los Angeles Times
GOP Offers Consumer Fuel-Relief Package
It includes a $100 rebate, but its Arctic drilling component will probably doom it. Democrats' proposals are expected to fare no better.
By Maura Reynolds
Times Staff Writer

April 28, 2006

WASHINGTON — Fearing public ire over rising gasoline prices, Republicans on Thursday unveiled a series of proposals aimed at giving consumers some relief, including a $100 rebate.

Democrats derided the GOP plan, and its political chances appeared weak.

The Democrats said that although the package incorporated some ideas they already had introduced, it contained a provision that almost assuredly would torpedo its passage: opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, a measure that repeatedly has stalled in Congress.

"Joining a rebate for consumers with [the drilling proposal] is not, I believe, a sincere effort," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).

Emotion over fuel costs ran high on Capitol Hill, illustrated by a five-hour filibuster staged by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). He refused to leave the Senate floor in an effort — ultimately unsuccessful — to press for a vote on forcing oil companies to pay more to the government for the right to drill for oil on public land. Some of that drilling is exempt from payments.

"Government subsidies may be needed when the price is low, when we have to simulate production," Wyden said. But such relief is uncalled for "at a time when prices are soaring to record-high levels."

By the end of the day, the two parties essentially played to a draw — neither the rebate idea nor Democratic proposals, which include a moratorium on federal gasoline taxes, appeared to have much chance of becoming law.

But the theatrics made clear that each party wanted to demonstrate its sensitivity to rising prices — and wanted to direct public anger toward the opposing camp.

At an outdoor news conference with the Capitol dome as a backdrop, Republicans blamed the price surge on Democrats, who they said had blocked measures to increase oil production, such as drilling in the Arctic.

"Those who stand up and criticize … and suggest that somehow or another that the blame [for gasoline costs] is upon those of us who had been pushing for increased supply of energy in this country, I think they need to look in the mirror," said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), chairman of a GOP task force that drew up the party's proposals. "Democrats are the ones who have simply blocked every attempt for us to build transmission networks — whether it's electric transmission networks, or whether it's oil and gas networks, or whether it's energy generating, or whether it's oil and gas production."

Democrats blamed the high prices on Republicans, who they accused of being too cozy with large oil companies and too eager to pass out tax breaks to them. They dismissed the rebate as a meaningless gesture, arguing it would wind up in oil company coffers because consumers would use it to buy gasoline.

"It is disappointing that neither skyrocketing gas prices nor obscene oil company profits can break the bond between Bush Republicans and Big Oil," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

The back-and-forth in Washington came as the world's largest publicly traded oil company, Exxon Mobil, reported first-quarter profits of $8.4 billion, up 7% from the first three months of 2005.

The increase fell short of Wall Street expectations. But the report accelerated the criticism of oil companies from politicians.

"Quarter after quarter, oil companies post unheard-of profits at the expense of farms, businesses and family budgets," said Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).

"We need to figure out what's behind these prices and work together to put stronger consumer protections on the books."

The high gasoline prices — above $3 a gallon in some regions of the country — result from a confluence of forces that have constricted supply. Experts say few measures under discussion on Capitol Hill would have much effect.

"Unfortunately, there's nothing, really, that can be done that's going to affect energy prices or gasoline prices in the very short run," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told lawmakers at a hearing Thursday.

But with elections coming in November, lawmakers appeared undeterred.

"There is no silver bullet," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). "There is nothing, nothing we can do that can compensate for the fact that today we're 60% dependent on foreign sources of oil. But we can put forth a bold agenda."

Under the Republican plan, a $100 rebate would be sent to taxpayers making less than $125,000 a year.

Stabenow has proposed a $500 rebate, which she said would cover the average cost of higher gas prices for most families.

The GOP package also called for:

• A summer suspension of the 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal retail gasoline tax, to be paid for by ending some oil industry tax breaks. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) previously proposed a 60-day gas-tax holiday.

• New authority for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate possible price gouging. Democrats accused Republicans of undermining their own proposal, however, by limiting the measure to retail pricing and excluding wholesale distributors from scrutiny.

• Increased incentives for the development and purchase of hybrid vehicles.

• New authority for the Department of Transportation to increase fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.

Many Republicans, including President Bush, previously had opposed raising those fuel efficiency requirements, known as CAFE standards. But on Thursday, Bush endorsed the idea.

At a gas station in Biloxi, Miss., Bush said he would "use it wisely if Congress would give me that authority."

Bush earlier this week announced steps that underscored his concern about gasoline prices, including a suspension of government oil purchases to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But, as with the various congressional proposals, experts said the White House moves would have little impact on the rising fuel costs.

During his mini-filibuster, Wyden said existing royalty-payment breaks for oil companies had cost the federal government at least $20 billion in lost revenue.

"Oil companies are supposed to pay royalties to the federal government when they extract oil from federal lands. But in order to stimulate production of oil in our country, the federal government, over the last decade, has been discounting these royalty fees," Wyden said. "So, on top of the oil companies' record profits, record tax breaks and record prices consumers are paying at the pump, there are now record amounts of royalty relief granted to the oil companies as well."

Wyden's position earned quick support from at least one Republican, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona. He offered to cosponsor Wyden's measure, which would suspend the subsidies whenever the price of oil topped $55 a barrel.

Still, votes on this and other proposals could be stymied by Senate rules. They have been offered as amendments to an emergency spending bill for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for post-Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Parliamentary procedures for the legislation may block action on the energy-related measures.

Times staff writer Elizabeth Douglass in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

i hate our goverment, i really do. Think for the future and not for your pockets you cowardly, selfish , self serving fuckers. Like opening up anwr is going to do anything for the price of fuel for the next 10 years!! by that time, we should be off oil completely, but with these incompetent hacks in charge, we will be soley dependant of oil in 2015. were going backwards.

[Damien]

This is great example of what's wrong with the two parties in Washington. Republicans propose using the treasury to give money to taxpayers, a lot of whom really don't need it. Democrats propose using the treasury to better target the "rebate" and at a higher amount. In the mean time the culprits, big business (in this case Big Oil) is getting off scot free. In the case of Republicans, you can't bite the hand that feeds you, and they're always willing to throw just enough scraps to taxpayers to claim some type of populist slant. In the case of Democrats this is the difference between the modern American liberal and the progressive. Liberals try to offset the harm done by corrupt corporate America. Progressives want to use the power of the government to go after corrupt corporate America. If Democrats ever hope to win back middle America they'll take a far more progressive and populist approach to politics.

[Wright Concept]

delete

[Wright Concept]

MTA won't raise fares for one year
Reserves to be tapped
BY RACHEL URANGA, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

Metropolitan Transit Authority officials Monday announced a $3 billion budget for 2006-07, promising to expand bus and rail service and pay for it by dipping into reserves rather than raising fares.
Walking a financial tightrope, officials say they will put off rate hikes for one year and cover a projected $112 million deficit by draining reserves to just $66 million by the end of the budget year.

"We are doing everything we can," said Roger Snoble, the MTA's CEO. "Even though we are looking at difficulties in the future years, the money we are provided with we use very efficiently."

Snoble said raising rates is one of the few ways to help pay for the 1.2 million bus and rail boardings made daily.

But some MTA board members blame the agency's bloated bureaucracy, saying costs have soared and precious transportation dollars have been wasted on future projects.

"The agency has more fat in it that has been identified," said Zev Yaroslavsky, a Los Angeles County supervisor and board member. "There are funds now being spent on planning and analysis that are not likely to see the light day for many years."

Yaroslavsky says the agency has been reluctant to pare down soaring salaries and failed to rein in costs at construction sites.

"Every department of the agency has to be looked at. There can be no sacred cows," he said.

"Left to their own devices the MTA bureaucracy will propose a status quo budget. They will not move people around or make cuts where cuts make sense."

Noble, who calls his agency the country's "leanest," has cut 554 positions over the last four years. He said it has also increased ridership 4.7 percent and boosted fare-box revenues 9 percent over the last year. But the revenues - projected at $295 million - pale compared with the costs of operating rail and buses - about $1.1 billion.

The agency has also made $5 million in cuts to administrative departments, including $274 million from the CEO's office as well as deferring some construction work and putting off mechanical work on 20 older buses in the fleet.

At the same time, the MTA will continue plans to construct the Gold Line extension into Boyle Heights, design a Mid-City light rail project and complete the 101 Ventura Freeway overcross at the 405 San Diego Freeway.

The agency will also continue to extend bus services as required by a 10-year federal consent decree set to expire this year. Seven Metro Rapid lines will be opened over the next year including one through San Fernando Road and Lankershim Boulevard. Under the order, the MTA must continue expansion of bus services for poor and minority communities.

"This is a self-imposed budget crisis," said Manuel Criollo, lead organizer for the Bus Riders Union. Money should be spent on increasing Rapid bus service instead of investing high-cost subways and freeway projects.

"Again bus riders are going to be the ones left holding the bag."

rachel.uranga@dailynews.com

(818) 713-3741

[LongBeachUrbanist]

"This is a self-imposed budget crisis," said Manuel Criollo, lead organizer for the Bus Riders Union. Money should be spent on increasing Rapid bus service instead of investing high-cost subways and freeway projects.

"Again bus riders are going to be the ones left holding the bag."

Really, this is a BRU-imposed budget crisis. In all likelihood, the MTA decided not to raise fares in order to ensure that the Consent Decree will be allowed to expire this fall. The current expiration date is 29 October, which is five months and 20 days from today.
:cheers:

Next year it will most likely redo the fare structure, with fare hikes across the board. This is not only desperately needed, but also fair, given the increased fuel costs we all must pay.

[ManMadeMound]

Wow, the BRU is truly ludicrous. What do they really think they're going to accomplish with all of their tactics. They're worse NIMBY's then the people at the Daily News! They truly have tunnel vision and it seems like they've never looked back to see what has gone wrong with transit and what we can really do to fix it.

[Wright Concept]

Here's my revised transit map for LA. I'm using a new designation for the Busway/BRT lines since they are part of the network. Just want to get some comments on how this looks and if this approach to the Busways will work for rail purists as well as keep this way-finding document honest.

http://i5.tinypic.com/13yji53.gif

http://i6.tinypic.com/153s6m8.gif

http://i6.tinypic.com/1568dvq.gif

[Buckeye Native 001]

Sweet.

[colemonkee]

PV, do you imagine the Pink Line busway as an elevated busway above the 405?

[Wright Concept]

I don't know honestly, I'm just basing the 405 Busway (not the Pink line) as utilizing the HOV lanes with adjacent bus stations spaced about 2-5 miles apart similar to Metrolink for more long distance express routes with few stops from Antelope Valley/Palmdale all the way down to the South Bay.

I'm visualizing a parallel rail line next to it operating in a tunnel under the mountains with serving a more local interest, it could be an extension of the Purple Line with a branch off of Expo meeting at Westwood.

Both Busway and Rail would feed each other. To make sure you'd serve the Valley and Westside. And I think this would be the most effiecent and cost-effective model because we're maximizing the strengths of both busway and rail.

[colemonkee]

^ I like it. We need to get you appointed simultaneously to the MTA and Senate Appropriations Committe.

But back to the title of this thread, "What's Next?", I think the Aqua/Expo line is definitely next. Literally overnight, they closed off one of the eastbound lanes of Exposition from Figueroa to past the Expo/Rodeo split. In the lane closest to the median, they simply removed the white dashed lines and replaced them with double yellow solid lines. There are turn lanes open on major streets, but this could be the beginning of preping for construction traffic control. Yippee!

[Wright Concept]

^ Yes they are starting the preliminary utility and traffic work for it, much like they did for East LA. I believe groundbreaking will start in August, which would be nice as a "birthday gift"

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Thats scary. i signed on today with one thing in mind, ask when Expo is starting, and there are two posts on the subject. Damn mind readers. Thats great news, cant wait to see the heavy construction.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

^ Just to clarify, the current project plan for Expo is:

:) pre-construction work, now;
;) official groundbreaking, this summer;
:banana: heavy construction, early 2007.

[Wright Concept]

Orange Line heads toward overcapacity

BY RACHEL URANGA, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

With the Orange Line nearly surpassing its 15-year ridership goals in just seven months, transit experts say the MTA should consider expanding the line and even adopting a light-rail system - sooner rather than later - to meet soaring passenger demand.

Spurred by rising gas prices and a surprisingly strong appetite for public transit, thousands more passengers than anticipated are boarding the 14-mile, $330 million busway each day.

And while the Metropolitan Transportation Authority says it can handle the load, transport experts say a capacity problem looms.

"The system was underbuilt and underfunded," said Nate Brogin, a former chairman of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association's transportation committee. "What we need is to go back and rebuild the system, the correct way - not the cheapest."

A longtime advocate of above- or below-ground transportation, including rail and subterranean busways, he and others say the bus line could reach capacity sooner than the MTA thinks.

But MTA officials say with buses running every three minutes, ridership would have to soar - from close to 22,000 now to 30,000 to 40,000 - before it hit capacity.

"We are not anywhere near (exceeding) capacity of the line," said Gary Spivac, an MTA manager in charge of the San Fernando Valley.

Yet, with gas prices hovering around $3.40 a gallon, the demand could come sooner than the MTA plans, experts warn. Ridership along the busway has followed a steady climb upward, rising 31 percent since opening. The agency has already had to add four buses along the route.

Across the county, the MTA has logged a surge in riders, with rail ridership climbing 18 percent over last year. MTA bus ridership has increased 10 percent in the past 12 months.

Agency officials who spent $270,000 in May to promote "Free yourself, Go Metro" - a bus-over-car campaign - largely pin the jump to gas prices.

"These ridership rates won't go down because the cost of driving is going to continue to go up with the direct cost that commuters pay (in gas) and in time," said Hasan Ikhrata, director of planning and policy for the Southern California Associations of Governments.

"We should have thought about this last year. You are providing good and needed services but you need a much higher level of frequency than you have today."

Ikhrata says buses should be running every 20 seconds rather than every three minutes as they do now. Others take a harder line, calling for a long-term rail project, a notion long dismissed as being too costly.

"Clearly there is a demand here," said Richard Katz, a mayoral appointee to the MTA board and former Assembly member who sat on the transportation committee for more than a decade. "We have to look at what we can do to meet the needs of the riders. I don't want to see people turned off because the buses are too crowded.

"In the long term, we need to look at if we need to switch to light-rail buses."

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, officials and transit advocates wrestled over how to supply the sprawling Valley's growing commuter class with an effective transportation system.

But NIMBY-ism and opposing views that ranged from a monorail over the Ventura Freeway to a subway, forced officials to settle on a much less ambitious busway system that could be built for less money.

Considered the Cadillac of the MTA system, the busway boasts its own landscaping, right-of-way and a bike path. The 57-seat, train-like buses see more riders than the $898 million Gold Line that runs from Pasadena to downtown Los Angeles.

Early surveys of the line showed that 20 percent of the riders were new to public transportation.

"It's a no-brainer," said Richard Petty of North Hollywood, a public transportation convert. "I asked myself, Do I really need to drive to work?"

For three months, the former car commuter has been loyal to the Orange Line. But over that time he's seen an uptick in passengers and now says he avoids the packed buses at the 5 p.m. commuting hour.

An early advocate of the line, MTA board member Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said the agency should hold off at least 18 months to determine whether ridership will remain steady or plunge if gas prices fall.

But, he adds, the Orange Line's unique pathway allows it to expand with more buses or even into light rail. Already, he said, the MTA is speaking with bus manufacturers about higher-capacity vehicles.

"This is a good problem to have because it's really not a problem. It's a capacity management issue," said Yaroslavsky, an MTA board member and longtime advocate for the Orange Line.

"There is no practical limit to what the Orange Line can handle. It should be encouraging the MTA to promote this approach to public transit elsewhere in the county and in the Valley."

Staff Writer Angie Valencia contributed to this story.

rachel.uranga@dailynews.com

(818) 713-3741


Overgrown oranges
Hey MTA, get cracking on near-capacity busway

LA Daily News

IT'S now become quite pass to marvel at the success of the Orange Line. Since its opening week last fall, the east-west San Fernando Valley busway has set ridership records. Last month, an average of 22,000 people - the size of a small city - rode the Orange Line every day.

And now MTA officials say the line is about to reach its capacity. Apparently, the thirst for the Orange Line was greater than anyone dared to hope.

With gas prices high, the demand on the popular bus line is going to get even heavier. Transportation officials must be prepared, and not merely try to respond once it happens. Whether it will take more buses, larger buses or changing bus schedules, the MTA needs to be planning now for the immediate future of the Orange Line.

But as this faster-than-expected growth illustrates, a plan to get us through the year isn't enough. Rather than throwing the usual crumbs to the Valley after investing in other areas, such as the Westside, the MTA must put a new Valley transportation project on the front burner.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

The MTA is retarded when it comes to "forecasting" the ridership of any line. Do they honestly think that after opening the Expo Line that the ridership will ONLY be 44,000 boardings a day by 2020??? They've got to be smoking crack.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

i think the Expo estimate is 72,000 when the line reaches Santa Monica, and that is definitley on the low end. that number is probably for the segment to Culver City.