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

[Wright Concept]

Now if you add the Downtown Connector to the Mix, that segment's ridership will increase automatically by 50% to over 100,000 riders.

But between 7th St and Santa Monica 72-80,000 sounds about right because this route is the same length as the Orange Line which works out to be over 5,000 riders per mile! Which is pretty good.

[bobcat]

MTA ridership figures for May:

Red Line 143,830
Blue Line 84,554
Green Line 39,134
Gold Line 18,078
Orange Line 21,828


All are all time record highs except for (you guessed it) the Gold Line.

[Wright Concept]

Actually the Gold Line had a good increase of about 2500-3000 riders

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ I think the problem is obvious. Gold Line is slow and there's really nothing you can do about that. It goes through NIMBY-molasses and their "express" line is a joke. I wanted to pull my hair out riding that line. The express train would "wiz" by stations at an amazing speed of about 3 miles per hour.

Plus, the fact that the Gold Line train waits for what seems like FOREVER at Union Station to apparently collect riders is another test on one's patience. I think it wouldn't be so bad if you waited 10 minutes at Union Station on the train counting seconds (for what feels like hours) if you just zoomed off kinda like the Blue Line. But instead, the Gold Line fucks with your head: first you zoom off to Chinatown and it actually feels pretty darn fast, then as you past that, you start getting slower and slower until you eventually end up racing old grandmas strolling on the streets.

I think this issue will be resolved when the East Side Gold Line is finished because trains will just drop and pick passengers up at Union Station as they either go on their way to East LA or Pasadena. Plus, I spoke to someone at MTA (forgot his name) and he said it is totally possible to build a more direct transfer stairwell down to the Red Line. Instead of walking upstairs and around into the concourse.

[Wright Concept]

^ Yes, we all know.

We've said this for Lord knows how long. But let's just be happy for now that the bloody line has more than the usual 15,500 people. Let's give this line a celebratory exhale that it showed a significant increase in almost a year.

[Damien]

Caught the Gold Line last night, for the first time viewing it from a transit planning prospective, and again I'm convinced that
-more than half of the crossings at Meridian Way should be closed the other half fitted with crossing-gates, and a fence can be built
-it could be traveling much faster in its trench and underground portions
-there's still room for sound mitigation in the residential neighborhoods
-it seems like reducing traveling speed is the only sound mitigation heading into Chinatown station.

I mean is this line really just $50 million (or less) from cutting 5 minutes off it's travel time?

[Wright Concept]

Caught the Gold Line last night, for the first time viewing it from a transit planning prospective, and again I'm convinced that
-more than half of the crossings at Meridian Way should be closed the other half fitted with crossing-gates, and a fence can be built

Closing half of the street crossings will be the best way cause you'll double the speed to up to 35-40mph without a crossing gate. BTW there's no room along the ROW to install a crossing gate and not be a visual obstruction to drivers.

-it could be traveling much faster in its trench and underground portions
-there's still room for sound mitigation in the residential neighborhoods
-it seems like reducing traveling speed is the only sound mitigation heading into Chinatown station.

I mean is this line really just $50 million (or less) from cutting 5 minutes off it's travel time?

Yep, just between $20-30 M(the amount they were so happy about saving)

Regarding Chinatown, I think since that track is actually banked a little bit that they can run faster and make less noise. But adding to the scretching are the crossovers that occur on the incline right after the curve.

Also the line needs added substations to provide the extra power needed to operate trains faster and more frequently, like in the straight-away grade seperated section of the line on the 210 until Del Mar. This will be taken care of with the Gold Line to East LA.

[Damien]

Closing half of the street crossings will be the best way cause you'll double the speed to up to 35-40mph without a crossing gate.

I'm guessing you'd need the fences as well.

BTW there's no room along the ROW to install a crossing gate and not be a visual obstruction to drivers.

I didn't think about that. If that is the case this entire Meridan Way section in Highland (?) should have been trench or properties should have been purchased.

Yep, just between $20-30 M(the amount they were so happy about saving)

It's amazing that they would be happy about saving a few pennies on one line (relatively speaking) when they're giving fuel to anti-rail arguments in the process, thereby hurting future growth of the system.

Regarding Chinatown, I think since that track is actually banked a little bit that they can run faster and make less noise. But adding to the scretching are the crossovers that occur on the incline right after the curve.

The level of noise made when heading into Chinatown station should be considered unacceptable for our rail system. I mean there aren't even any sound barriers on the outskirts of the track. Something more should have been done.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

It's amazing that they would be happy about saving a few pennies on one line (relatively speaking) when they're giving fuel to anti-rail arguments in the process, thereby hurting future growth of the system.

Well keep in mind this was the first project following the Red Line, which many considered a boondoggle. So many people were very impressed and relieved by the fact that the Gold Line came in under budget.

But yes, we are paying for it now. The new substations should help. And hopefully the Meridian stretch will be reworked to separate the tracks from street traffic (i.e., close the crossings). That will probably require another EIR though, or at least an amendment process with public input etc. Could take a lot of time and money.

[Wright Concept]

Or with that they can work that with the City of LA where all this is in and cut right through the processes because you can call it a traffic mitigation rather than an MTA grade separation.

Also for closing off the streets (at least in my mind) I not talking about fencing or building cul-de-sacs just drill a set of 5 holes along and put small concrete bumpers in them that can be removable for special events or street festivals with reflective strips so folks can see it and one-way direction signs. This way you don't need crossing gates because they're only going 35-40 mph like the Washington Blvd Blue Line section and you double the speed of that section which can shave a minute off the running time.

Also like trying to grade separate the Washington Blvd section of the Blue Line in the future, it's better to just use a new right-of-way a short distance away like Figueroa Street and build the tunnel or elevated.

One thing to keep in mind is that right after the Highland Park station the train goes from at-grade then continues on the Arroyo Seco Bridge because of the steep drop in elevation so an elevated would be very very high and a tunnel would be very,very deep and much longer since South Pasadena is right near by.

[Wright Concept]

Most likely on the MTA agenda or done by 2020

http://i8.tinypic.com/24y9u83.gif

[Wright Concept]

http://www.metro.net/news_info/press/metro_139.htm

Metro Orange Line Weekend Ridership Set a Record in July
• Average weekday boardings also remain strong

By DAVE SOTERO

(Aug. 16, 2006) Weekend ridership on the Metro Orange Line reached a new record in July, with an average of 12,813 Saturday boardings and 10,428 Sunday boardings.

Since December 2005, Saturday ridership has risen from about 9,500 boardings, while Sunday boardings have climbed from about 7,300.

Overall, the Orange Line continues to experience strong ridership, with 20,760 average weekday boardings as of July 2006. The service set a ridership record in May 2006, when average weekday boardings reached 21,828.

Metro anticipates ridership will continue its strong pace in September with the return of students traveling to and from school.

“The strong weekday and weekend ridership on the Metro Orange Line demonstrates how strategically important this service is for all of our customers,” said Richard Hunt, general manager of the San Fernando Valley Service Sector. “It doesn’t just benefit workday commuters – it’s also a great way to travel across the Valley on weekends for recreation, shopping and other personal trips.”

In a Metro Orange Line survey conducted earlier this year, 31 percent of respondents indicated that they used the line to travel to destinations other than work, such as medical appointments, shopping and recreation.

The survey also found the Orange Line attracted a large percentage of new and discretionary riders. Thirty-two percent were either new riders or riders who had used Metro for less than a year, while about 37 percent said they had a car available for their trip.

Metro-139

[colemonkee]

^ Wow, so 37% of riders could have used their car. That's a pretty encouraging statistic.

[Wright Concept]

I'm happy for the busway, but imagine that number for light rail on the same corridor that would shave 10 minutes off the running time.

But 37% is very good for the Busway.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

When do you think, if ever, this busway will be converted to LRT?

[Wright Concept]

When a light rail branch of the Gold Line goes through to Burbank and Glendale. Then it will get a look at rail. Probably 25-30 years from now.

[Wright Concept]

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/3597916.html


South Bay's 'Unused jewel' eyed for mass transit line
Train tracks along Harbor Subdivision might eventually be used by the MTA to connect to LAX and beyond.
By Dan Laidman
Copley News Service

For decades, freight trains rumbled regularly from the Port of Los Angeles to the rail yards of downtown over 27.6 miles of tracks cutting through the heart of the South Bay.

Then the Alameda Corridor opened in 2002 and took much of that traffic away. The old right of way -- known as the Harbor Subdivision -- went from 20 train trips a day to barely a handful.

Transportation planners have long suspected that the route could have a second life as a mass transit line connecting South Bay commuters to the rest of the region, and now officials are taking the first steps toward making that a reality.

While a Harbor Subdivision mass transit line is still only speculation, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority embarked on an analysis this summer of what transportation options might be possible on the route.

"I'm just delighted that we're beginning to look at these existing right of ways and how we can make them more effective for mass transit," Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl said. "I think the energy's there now, I think the commitment is there now, I think the political leadership is there now, and now is the time to act."

Several factors have spurred the MTA to take a new look at the Harbor Subdivision, which one of its predecessor agencies purchased from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway in 1992. Worsening traffic in the region has encouraged officials to put a new focus on mass transit, and the election of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa brought a new emphasis on public transportation to the MTA.

Data on right of way

Meanwhile, the Transit Coalition advocacy group has prodded officials about the Harbor Subdivision at every opportunity. The organization maintains an extensive archive of information about the right of way on its Web site, thetransitcoalition.us.

"It's an unused jewel," said Bart Reed, executive director of the group. "It's a gem of the transportation system that hasn't been recognized by the community."

Reed envisions an extension of the Metrolink regional rail system along the right of way. It would provide South Bay commuters with a link to jobs all around Southern California, he said, and spare them increasingly long and costly car trips.

"The South Bay has been an orphan to fast public transportation," he said. "It's been left out of the mix."

Planners at the MTA caution that the Harbor Subdivision is not even included in their current long-term plan, so any mass transit line there could be two decades or more away.


"Right now we're just looking at it from a technical feasibility analysis of what you could do on that line and what you couldn't do for that line," said Renee Berlin, director for the agency's South Bay area planning team.

Planners are looking at various types of mass transit, Berlin said, including regional rail similar to Metrolink, light rail such as the Green and Blue lines or a busway like the Orange Line.

The Harbor Subdivision presents a unique challenge to planners because it stretches through a variety of different environments, from densely urban downtown Los Angeles to the fringes of Los Angeles International Airport, the residential and commercial stretches of Torrance, Lawndale, Carson and an industrial part of Wilmington.

Also, while most rail activity has shifted east to the Alameda Corridor, BNSF Railway still runs a few trains each day along the northern and southern parts of the Harbor Subdivision under an agreement that dates back to the sale of the right of way.

"As long as we're still able to do that we'll work cooperatively on their plans," said Lena Kent, a spokeswoman for the company, who added that BNSF shares some routes with Metrolink.

Around Councilman Rosendahl's office, the Harbor Subdivision has the nickname "The LAX Express." The Westchester-area representative said he likes the idea of regional rail on the Harbor Subdivision because it could relieve LAX-area traffic congestion by bringing in passengers by public transportation, and by sending travelers from Los Angeles to airports in Ontario and Palmdale, which are near Metrolink stops.

Hahn favors idea

Harbor Area Councilwoman Janice Hahn also favors mass transit along the Harbor Subdivision.

"I think the whole Harbor Area is disconnected from good mass transit," she said. "This would connect Wilmington eventually to the Green Line, so I think this is a good rail line to connect the Harbor Area."

Both Hahn and Rosendahl believe commuter rail on the Harbor Subdivision would complement local light rail along an extended Green Line.

Transit type weighed

Jacki Bacharach, executive director of the South Bay Council of Governments, favors some type of mass transit on the right of way, but is not yet sure what type would be best.


"It's got a real great connection to the whole regional system, so to use it for that would be very effective," she said. "But it also could connect Inglewood to Torrance and other South Bay areas."

Transportation planners expect to wrap up their technical analysis of the Harbor Subdivision in three to four months.

The MTA board has already allocated $100,000 for a second study.

[bobcat]

Thanks for the article. Is there a good map of this right of way somewhere?

[Steve2726]

Thanks for the article. Is there a good map of this right of way somewhere?

I think this is it:
http://thetransitcoalition.us/TTC_mta-harborsubdivisionindex.htm

http://thetransitcoalition.us/Maps/MTA-HarborSubdivisionMap600.gif

[bobcat]

Thanks!

[LongBeachUrbanist]

To me it's a no-brainer to the Harbor Subdivision, the only question is what is the right mix. I like the idea of running Metrolink trains along that route at least to LAX. Beyond LAX, I'm not sure whether Metrolink service would be best, or if maybe continuing the Green Line south would be better.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Two fucking decades.......or more??? What is this? Africa?

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Jesus, seriously. if the row is there, how hard can it be to lay some god damn track and get it going. its a no brainer. 2 decades or more, are they kidding me. God no wonder people dont really care about mass transit here, its not feasable for them to use it in their lifetimes. God, speed this shit up. if Madrid, or whatever city it is can add 50 miles of subway in two years, we sure can add above ground line in less than 25 years.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ This is LA. We're not Denver or Atlanta (You know, real cities). They do things much faster there.

[Wright Concept]

To me it's a no-brainer to the Harbor Subdivision, the only question is what is the right mix. I like the idea of running Metrolink trains along that route at least to LAX. Beyond LAX, I'm not sure whether Metrolink service would be best, or if maybe continuing the Green Line south would be better.

IMO, Portions of the Right of way can handle both. Like linking a potential Crenshaw Line using the right-of way and then operate on the South Bay branch of the Green Line using the south part of the railroad on to the Galleria and Del Amo.

For the entire corridor it's Metrolink all the way. Build it simple and quick and then schedule service every 30 minutes. Then incramentally add service and electrify it so it can operate even more service. We'd have a heavy rail capacity at Commuter Rail prices.

[Wright Concept]

Jesus, seriously. if the row is there, how hard can it be to lay some god damn track and get it going. its a no brainer. 2 decades or more, are they kidding me. God no wonder people dont really care about mass transit here, its not feasable for them to use it in their lifetimes. God, speed this shit up. if Madrid, or whatever city it is can add 50 miles of subway in two years, we sure can add above ground line in less than 25 years.

And given that the key portion of it runs through Bernard Parks district, it may take that long. He wants light rail, but the stop spacing isn't suited for that, not yet at least. The MTA planners are saying the same thing but they rarely think outside of the box.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

add a few more years for Parks to figure out what color is suitable for him and the line so now the timeline is 30 years. great.

[edluva]

If we ever get rail to service the eastern end of LAX where the subdivision passes, won't we still need a people-mover or tram to get passengers into and out of terminals? That would require an additional transfer just to go, what, an extra half mile? Because I can't imagine them tunneling for push-pull

[Wright Concept]

If we ever get rail to service the eastern end of LAX where the subdivision passes, won't we still need a people-mover or tram to get passengers into and out of terminals? That would require an additional transfer just to go, what, an extra half mile? Because I can't imagine them tunneling for push-pull

You would still need a people mover for a Green Line extension or Metrolink style service, because of the layout of the airport. The key element is to make transfer is effortless as possible. If the stations were designed where the trains could be on opposite sides of the platform like a "Local-Express" NYC train, that would make the change very quick and easy.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

yes, imagine three lines feeding the People mover, the green, the LAX Express and the eventual 405 line.

[Damien]

My idea for the southern portion of the Harbor Subdivision makes it part of a 405 line, connecting Long Beach, the South Bay, LAX, westside and Valley. If 405 traffic is any indication it should be built heavy rail.

If the $4 billion Red line money is used to turn the trains north from Wilshire/Westwood into the Valley (as opposed to west to Santa Monica Pier), and the Green line is connected to LAX all that would be necessary is to fill the gaps: Wilshire/Westwood to LAX and from Redondo Beach down to the Blue line via primarily the Harbor Subdivision.

[colemonkee]

Damien, you need to get in there and talk some sense into these people. :tup:

[edluva]

You would still need a people mover for a Green Line extension or Metrolink style service, because of the layout of the airport. The key element is to make transfer is effortless as possible. If the stations were designed where the trains could be on opposite sides of the platform like a "Local-Express" NYC train, that would make the change very quick and easy.

so tunneling is out of the question? suppose they were to decide on DMU or EMU? Wouldn't it be nice if we got an underground spur off the subdivision terminating directly under the airport like O'Hare or Dulles?

A people-mover would be cheaper, but how much so? I don't know much about cost, but I feel like the tunnel would be very short, and a single undergound station might be cost-competitive with building what would be essentially 2 stations in the metrolink-serviced alternative... a transfer station where the subdivision currently passes, and another station for the people-mover within the airport. Or am I way off?

[Wright Concept]

It would be nice, but while you're at it, there might as well be one for the Green Line too. Where would you put this station at the airport?

[Damien]

The current layout of LAX is so limiting that most expansion plans involve serious terminal reconfiguration and carries with it a hefty price tag. It's an expense that in my opinion, currently is not worth it. And I think if you asked most people and planners if they'd spend the money upgrading LAX or building a couple of rail lines connecting to LAX, they all would choose the latter.

Then again, maybe I'm a bit biased as I've never really understood the airport fascination. I'm the type of traveler that always does e-check-in and arrives 40-45 minutes before take off, which means I typically spend no more than 10 minutes sitting in the terminals. In my eyes the only purpose of the facility is to service the plane taking me to my destination. I don't need to be wowed by it and I definitely won't ever buy the overpriced food and drinks.

[edluva]

It would be nice, but while you're at it, there might as well be one for the Green Line too. Where would you put this station at the airport?

well, would it be possible for the harbor sub to be converted to DMU and have the green line share tracks and station into and under the terminals.

[Wright Concept]

well, would it be possible for the harbor sub to be converted to DMU and have the green line share tracks and station into and under the terminals.

They could share tracks but not the same track on the station platforms because the width of the trains are different. Typical DMU 9'6"-10'6, Green Line trains 8'6".

[Wright Concept]

Backing sought in MTA fight
Bus Riders Union asks neighborhood councils to support decree
BY RACHEL URANGA, Staff Writer
LA Daily News


The Bus Riders Union, a grass-roots group that forced the MTA to replace thousands of buses and add routes through a consent decree that is about to expire, is drumming up support to keep the measure alive.
But instead of turning to the City Council or other influential partners, the riders union is working with neighborhood councils.

Though neighborhood councils are grappling for more power in the city, the riders union is betting on their alliance-building potential in what could be a drawn-out fight.

"We think these are prime issues that the community should rally behind, and that is just what we are doing, going out to the community and trying to win forces," said Manuel Criollo, lead organizer for the Bus Riders Union.

"(Neighborhood councils) are a new arena to begin to tackle important questions facing the city, and the consent decree is one of those critical questions."

The riders union says that if the judge does not extend the consent decree before it expires in October, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority will hike bus fares and cut service.

But MTA Chairwoman Gloria Molina says the riders union is using "scare tactics," saying that while the MTA faces tight budget constraints, it will not necessarily cut bus routes.

"Trying to scare people that they are going to cut service and increase fares is unfair," she said.

So far, of the 21 neighborhood councils consulted, only Pacoima and West Hills have backed the Bus Riders Union.

"Neighborhood councils are trying to address things that are truly important to our community and our stakeholders... But it's also becoming a clearinghouse of issues," said Brady Westwater, chairman of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Congress' Council.

The 1996 decree came out of a Bus Riders Union lawsuit accusing the MTA of heavily subsidizing subways for suburban riders at the cost of poor urban bus riders.

It pushed the MTA to spend more than $1 billion to add services and reduce overcrowding.

But over the years, MTA officials have complained that the requirements force them to run duplicate lines. And with buses so heavily subsidized - only about a third of the cost is covered by passenger fares - MTA officials have conceded that fare hikes are on the horizon.

rachel.uranga@dailynews.com

(818) 713-3741

[netwerk01]

This brings to light a question which maybe someone here can answer:

What kind of work do groups like the Transit Coalition and other pro-rail advocacy organizations do to lobby and collaborate with the neighborhood councils? Between having a strong lobbying arm (such as Friends of the x Line) combined with aligning the neighborhood councils, this seems to be one way to either align support or co-opt local NIMBYs.

It is good to have the support of the mayor, but, the neighborhood councils are now a legitimate (albeit currently not too powerful) voice which may increase in power as the years go on. How are we currently aligned with them to support the vision of expanded rail service?

[Wright Concept]

^ Well for the Transit Coalition we work directly with or are in some neighborhood councils and business improvement groups so that our coalition is dealing directly with "stakeholders" both residential and business.

When I lived down by USC I was starting with the Vermont neighborhood council who would directly be one of the BRU's possible locations. Thankfully those who are in the South LA councils also frequently attend MTA Governance council meetings so they know their antics and know that they are all sizzle and no steak.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

F@Ck the BRU! :D

Down with the CD!

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-colors25aug25,1,3030773.story?coll=la-headlines-california

MTA Board Deadlocks on Color Scheme for Westside Light Rail Line
By Jean Guccione
Times Staff Writer

August 25, 2006

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has built a busway (Orange) and is digging a new rail line (Gold) through the Eastside.

But when it comes to the color designation for the new downtown-to-Culver City light rail line, the MTA board is hopelessly deadlocked.

So for now, it won't have a color.

Transit agency staffers recommended that the railway be called the "Aqua Line."

But Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard C. Parks, an MTA board member, wants it marked on maps in a rose-like color.

Neither proposal won a majority of board votes at a meeting Thursday.

So for now, the project will be known only as the "Expo Line," named for its route along Exposition Boulevard. It will be the only line in the system without a color designation.

MTA board members have tried for months to ignore the impending color challenge.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, an aqua supporter, expressed amazement Thursday about how much time he has devoted to the issue.

Unless there is a resolution, new maps will probably use a broken black line to show where the proposed track will run.

But Yaroslavsky had another idea: the "Invisible Line."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MTA agrees to the name 'Expo Line'
Color on map still debated
BY RACHEL URANGA, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

After months of wrangling, the MTA board finally agreed Thursday to name the new light-rail route between USC and Culver City the Expo Line, but couldn't resolve whether it should be designated rose or aqua.
The Expo Line is now the only commuter route named for a region and not a color, like the MTA's Orange, Blue, Green and Red lines.

City Councilman Bernard Parks has been fighting for months to get his colleagues on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board to designate the route as the Expo Line, in recognition of the Exposition Park he represents. And he also insists that the route should be designated as rose color on MTA maps in recognition of the park's landmark rose gardens.

"The issue that comes to pass is that color has never been brought to the community for discussion," Parks said.

The color aqua - which is backed by MTA staffers, Friends 4 Expo Transit, the city of Santa Monica and a handful of Westside groups - would not reflect the Southside communities, Parks said.

Moreover, he said, the poorer communities it runs through could gain economic benefits by having a rail line that brands their area.

But the drawn-out debate over colors got some board members peeved.

"At some point this board has gotten to listen to the people and not politicians ... but the hundreds and hundreds of people that have advocated for this and want this. And I think it's a slap in their face and a slap in the staff's face," said MTA board member and Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, calling the debate "unseemly."

"I have resented the minimal amount of time I have had to spend on this, roped in to spend on this. But it is serious in one sense, it telegraphs to the community what our worldview is about how we make decisions."

MTA officials say even after laying down 73 miles of rail and subway, they have never faced such a drawn-out debate over a color designation.

In fact, moments after the board spent nearly an hour debating colors, it quietly and unanimously voted in favor of naming the leg of the Red Line that runs from Union Station to Wilshire and Western the Purple Line. It also adopted silver as the color to designate the El Monte express busway and the bronze for the Harbor express busway.

Maya Emsden, deputy executive officer of creative services, said if she could, she would keep the line invisible. But for now, as the MTA prepares to break ground on the $640 million light-rail line, she will use black on maps to indicate the Expo Line.

rachel.uranga@dailynews.com

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Bernard Parks is an idiot.

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-westside27aug27,1,5868452.story?page=3&cset=true&ctrack=1&track=rss

THE STATE
Job Boom Makes Driving a Chore on the Westside
Economic growth draws new residents and 300,000 workers a day from outside the area, stretching commutes and fraying nerves.
By Martha Groves and Sharon Bernstein
Times Staff Writers

August 27, 2006

Customers calling in for their pizza deliveries from the Domino's in Westwood typically live within a mile or two of the parlor.

But these days, Domino's drivers say they often endure wicked traffic from the moment they leave the store, turning what once was a quick delivery into a 30-minute, and sometimes a 45-minute, ordeal.

"They usually want to carry two to three more orders because it takes so long," said Domino's manager Arnulfo Fernandez, adding that the eatery won't let them for fear of robberies.

"So they suffer with the tip money they're losing," he said.

Westside traffic has always been bad, but Fernandez, 18, is convinced that "it has gotten worse."

Though communities around Southern California struggle with traffic problems, transportation experts and government officials agree that there is nowhere quite like the Westside, where rapid development and a boom in entertainment-related jobs have brought congestion on streets and freeways to new levels.

"Most people in Westwood cope by running errands in the morning," said Laura Lake, a longtime community activist and slow-growth advocate. "In the afternoon, it will take twice as long."

Population on the Westside has jumped 23% since 1990 (compared with a 6% increase for Los Angeles as a whole).

But experts say the biggest culprit in rush-hour traffic snags is a boom in Westside commercial development that has lured and created jobs.

Job growth has transformed the area into the region's premiere commercial hub, second only to downtown Los Angeles in the number of jobs. Each day, workers pour into office buildings lining busy corridors such as Wilshire Boulevard, the burgeoning towers of Century City and the rows of Santa Monica office parks that have become a mecca for media companies such as Yahoo! and MTV.

One problem: Primarily because housing is so expensive, only about 30% of these workers actually live on the Westside, according to a Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority study. That leaves more than 300,000 people a day commuting to the area.

So many workers drive to Santa Monica from other parts of the region that the city's population nearly doubles during the day, to 150,000 from 87,000 at night. Beverly Hills' population more than triples, said David Mieger, director of Westside planning for the MTA.

After the early-1990s recession, communities sought out new industries and employers to boost their local economies.

"It's a case of be careful what you wish for," said Hasan Ikhrata, the transportation expert at the Southern California Assn. of Governments. "With jobs and population comes more traffic and more air-quality problems."

And further growth is coming. The MTA projects that the Westside's population will jump by an additional 15% and jobs by 23% in the next 15 years.

The Westside building boom is the biggest since the 1980s, with high-rise condos slated for Century City and Beverly Hills and clusters of development planned for Marina del Rey and Playa Vista.

The federal government has even talked of building a nearly 1-million-square-foot FBI headquarters at the Federal Building site on Wilshire and developing some of the open land on the nearby Westwood Veterans Affairs campus.

Already, the Westside's job growth has turned some long-standing commuting patterns on their heads.

Take the Santa Monica Freeway. For decades, the challenge during the morning rush period was getting to downtown Los Angeles from the Westside. Now, the far tougher commute goes in the opposite direction as workers struggle each morning to go west from points east, where housing is more plentiful and affordable.

According to the association of governments, an average of 227,026 vehicles drove past the Bundy exit of the Santa Monica Freeway each day in 2005, an increase of about 14,000 cars in just five years.

Samantha Culbert was one of those east-to-west commuters.

After she got married and moved to Mt. Washington from Santa Monica, the stress of commuting to her Westwood job quickly got to her.

Going from a 20-minute drive to a 90-minute schlep "took a real toll on me both mentally and physically," Culbert said. "The traffic was bumper to bumper on the 10. If I took side streets — going through Beverly Hills or so forth — it was just as bad as the freeway. Olympic was congested, Beverly Boulevard, 3rd Street, Santa Monica, Wilshire."

While spending three hours a day commuting, Culbert gained weight and became lethargic and "grouchy." To save time, she did her grocery shopping on her lunch hour, stashing perishables in a cooler that she kept in her car.

She finally quit her job and now is director of public affairs for Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center in Los Feliz, happily commuting 20 minutes each way once again.

The Santa Monica Freeway is far from the only problem.

Traffic on the San Diego Freeway has increased even more: to 268,126 vehicles per day at the Culver Boulevard exit in 2005, up from 246,273 per day in 2000.

Then there is Wilshire Boulevard, which the MTA has declared the busiest road in Los Angeles County. MTA research shows that during the evening rush, it can take as long as 19 minutes to drive just one mile of Wilshire near the San Diego Freeway.

MTA analysis has identified numerous Westside intersections where traffic is worsening. Among those at the top of the list: Venice Boulevard and Overland Avenue, Sunset Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway, and Sunset Boulevard and Chautauqua Boulevard, where traffic has increased 38% since 1999.

"If there isn't gridlock due to heavy traffic, there's gridlock due to detours and construction projects," said architect Howard Lichtman of Culver City. "Wherever you want to go, it's taking longer than you expect."

Traffic delays prompted Lichtman, owner of Lichtman Design & Construction, to stop accepting all but big construction jobs in the San Fernando Valley. "At one time, you used to be able to drive to the Valley in 30 minutes," he said. "Now it can be twice that …. It means half a day to get out there and back."

David Botwinick, president of Kater Litho in Hollywood, allows his drivers extra time to get across town to deliver or pick up printing jobs for Westside entertainment-industry clients.

"If my client's screaming 'Where's my package?' I say he left 35 minutes ago and should be walking through the door," Botwinick said.

But when he calls the driver on the company's two-way communication system, he inevitably finds that the guy is stuck in traffic.

Fixes for the tie-ups are few and far between.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has vowed to improve traffic flow by more aggressively towing cars parked illegally during rush hour.

Santa Monica officials have added 1,000 affordable and market-rate housing units in the downtown area, hoping to get workers to move closer to their jobs or buses. Officials in the seaside community acknowledge a severe jobs-housing imbalance but say the problem pervades the region.

The Westside is the most densely populated area in Los Angeles without a light rail or subway line. That will change if the MTA moves forward with plans to build the Expo Line from downtown to Culver City.

"The Exposition on a dedicated right-of-way would provide a meaningful alternative to being choked in traffic on the 10," said Kate Vernez, an assistant to Santa Monica's city manager. "It's a combination of mass transit along key corridors and mixed-use development. That seems to be a winning scenario."

But most transit experts say the Expo Line alone is not enough, in part because it would run well south of the most densely populated areas.

The answer, they believe, lies in finally building a long-discussed subway under Wilshire from Koreatown to Santa Monica. Villaraigosa has said building the subway is one of his top priorities.

But the idea faces many challenges, including some community opposition, lingering concerns about methane gas and, most daunting, the hefty price tag. The cost of subway construction is estimated at $300 million to $350 million a mile. It's roughly 13 miles along Wilshire from the subway's current western terminus at Western Avenue to the beach.

For now, commuters are learning to live with the backups.

Renee Travlos skips breakfast some mornings to begin the half-hour commute from her Fairfax district home to her job as office manager for a law firm near Brentwood.

If she leaves later than 8:15, her drive time doubles and she's late for work.

Travlos' nearly seven-mile drive takes anywhere from half an hour to an hour or more, including 20 minutes to travel the mile between the Santa Monica Freeway and her Barrington Avenue office.

In her previous job, Travlos, 35, drove seven miles in the opposite direction — along Olympic Boulevard into downtown Los Angeles — in a mere 20 minutes.

"It was no problem," she said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writer Jean Guccione contributed to this report.

*

(INFOBOX BELOW)

More employment, more traffic on the Westside

Traffic experts say the explosion in job growth on the Westside over the last two decades has worsened the region's traffic. Only 30% of Westside workers live there, meaning more than 300,000 people commute into the area daily.

1) Wilshire Boulevard near the San Diego Freeway

During rush hour, it can take up to 19 minutes to drive a mile along the street.

2) Santa Monica Freeway at Bundy Drive

An average of 227,026 vehicles a day drove past the junction in 2005, an increase of about 14,000 since 2000.

3) San Diego Freeway at Culver Boulevard

An average of 268,126 vehicles a day drove past in 2005, an increase of almost 22,000 since 2000.

4) Lincoln at Manchester

26,000 vehicles during daily rush hour in 1999; 30,345 in 2005.

5) San Diego Freeway at La Tijera Boulevard

An average of 288,000 vehicles a day drove past in 2005, an increase of about 10,000 since 2000.

*

Sources: Westside Cities Council of Governments, Southern California Assn. of Governments, Metropolitan Transportation Authority


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

[solongfullerton]

ummmmm........subway to the sea!?!?!?!?!?!?

[yakumoto]

A major bonus of extending the red line to century city, isn't only the boost in riders on the red line, but that almost all the major employment centers will be connected with metrolink, so out of city commuters will finaly have a way of completely avoiding traffic.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

how can they pretty much avoid the best possible solution? Barely a paragraph on the Subway extension and the Expo, and not even a mention of a 405 line or something like that? There should have been a article on new rail possibilities in the west LA area and should have mentioned the Purple Line, Expo, and 405 line. now that could make a big difference, not spending 500 million on a god damn carpool lane.

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-watertaxi28aug28,1,1709836.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Floating the Idea of Southland Water Transportation
A ferry service in Marina del Rey has been popular this summer. But experts disagree on whether the concept holds water on a wider scale.
By Deborah Schoch
Times Staff Writer

August 28, 2006

One man boarding the WaterBus on this sunstruck afternoon in Marina del Rey is headed home after a beer at a waterfront restaurant. A weary couple clambers on with two bikes. The motor whirs loudly as the little craft moves into the channel, seagulls cawing overhead.

"Look! Seals!" someone calls out, and even seasoned commuters who ride this route several times a week pivot toward the three sleek harbor seals slumbering on a nearby dock.

It is a typical weekend aboard the WaterBus, the only county-run public water transit in Los Angeles County that encourages residents to leave their cars at home and travel by boat — whether to a restaurant, Mother's Beach or the new Ralphs supermarket over on Admiralty Way.

On its face, this $1-a-ride shuttle that circles within Marina del Rey is a bare-bones service for residents and tourists.

Yet some wonder if it could grow into something more. Ridership has climbed since the county halted a less successful shuttle and launched the WaterBus two months ago, and some residents say they are taking the service as a way to avoid bumper-to-bumper traffic exacerbated by the building boom sweeping the Westside.

"If they're doing any kind of construction, you're dead meat," said Mary Redmond, 61. "Lincoln — it's a parking lot. So is Admiralty Way." And if she were to drive to the new Ralphs plaza, "There won't be a parking spot in sight."

Over the years, dreams have come and gone of a coastal L.A. served by commuter ferries, much like those in Seattle, San Francisco and New York. Today, no agency is actively pursuing the idea, but some wonder if its time has come.

With gas more than $3 a gallon and coastal traffic in gridlock, could cities lining Santa Monica Bay be ripe for fleets of water shuttles?

Could the WaterBus add a loop to Santa Monica Pier and back? Could a larger version carry commuters from, say, San Pedro and Redondo Beach to the Westside?

Highly unlikely, some officials say. Costly and inefficient, say others.

"Not something in our purview," says Dave Sotero, spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

But others don't dismiss the idea so quickly.

Water transit is a whimsical idea, "but there may be a practical angle to it," says Marina del Rey resident S. David Freeman, who oversees the Port of Los Angeles and drives the congested 405 and 110 freeways daily to his office in San Pedro.

"Nothing is ever total whimsy in this world," added Mark Pisano, executive director of the Southern California Assn. of Governments: "As we grow and develop, it's an option that's clearly going to have to be considered."

For now, the little WaterBus operates only on summer weekends with four boats holding from 20 to 58 passengers, and ends Sept. 4. It makes six stops on the three-mile run, including the restaurant-lined dock at Fisherman's Village. There, passengers line up at a quaint blue-shingled hut to buy a $1 ticket for one ride or a $5 all-day pass.

David Vaughn, 49, is exactly the kind of resident promoters hope to attract.

"I drive 10 hours a day. I drive at work, and then drive an hour to get to work," said Vaughn, a U.S. Postal Service equipment operator who has begun parking his car on weekends and traveling by boat to the supermarket or local restaurants.

The shuttle reminds Mary Ciecek, 26, of the water taxis she rode in Venice, Italy, during a European trip. She tried out the WaterBus with a Marina del Rey friend and generally approved, although she found the pace too leisurely, unlike Venice "where it was just like clockwork."

Ciecek, who commutes from Redondo Beach to the Mid-Wilshire area, said she would consider water travel if it would take less time than driving.

She paused, thinking hard:

"If there was a ferry that took me to Santa Monica, and then, if I could take a subway to where I work…. "

But no subway runs under Wilshire Boulevard, and no ferry connects Redondo Beach and Santa Monica, although, over the decades, big-thinking planners have fought for both.

"Ferry Service Touted as Method to Ease Freeway Commuter Congestion," reads a 1991 headline in The Times above a story about Santa Monica and several South Bay cities studying ferry travel as an alternative to the San Diego Freeway, which even then was jammed.

The idea foundered because of engineering challenges, recalled Santa Monica planner Paul Foley. A floating platform would be required at Santa Monica Pier so passengers could board and disembark, he said, and a deteriorating breakwater needed repairs.

An even grander plan surfaced later in the 1990s, proposed by William T. "Ted" Gurnee of La Jolla, a 20-year naval architect and marine engineer who moved on to running ferry operations in Southern California, Hawaii and the East Coast.

Gurnee conceived of a high-speed ferry between cities in San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles counties. His dream: five boats moving at up to 50 knots, carrying 2,000 passengers and relieving traffic on the overburdened Interstate 5. But although the U.S. Department of Transportation backed the idea, local governments never rallied to help with the required federal subsidies, he said. He closed his firm.

"The technology exists to do it now," he said, "but I suspect it will take $5-a-gallon gas to do it."

In Long Beach, the successful 75-passenger Aqualink carries tourists between Alamitos Bay, the Queen Mary and the Aquarium of the Pacific. The shuttle is run by Long Beach Transit, whose chief operating officer, Guy Heston, said he thinks water commuting has a future.

"If you just step back and look at it — here's all this water. The entire Southern California coast. It sure makes sense to think about how we could take advantage of it and get people out of their cars," he said.

A Long Beach-based shuttle could run to Orange County, San Pedro or even farther, he said, adding that the logical place to discuss such ideas would be at the MTA.

But no one at the MTA is thinking about ferries.

And although Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa frequently vows to make Los Angeles "the Venice of the 21st century," a spokesman hastily clarified that he is speaking of economic prosperity — not of water taxis pulling up to Venice Beach.

Still, the WaterBus is thriving.

The county Department of Beaches and Harbors unveiled the service June 30, replacing the less popular Marina Coastlink Water Shuttle. With a $260,000 budget, a new name and a fare cut, WaterBus ridership topped 10,000 in the first six weeks of service, more than in its predecessor's entire three-month run last year.

Just like bus riders everywhere, WaterBus patrons have plenty of suggestions: faster service, clearer signs, more seats, more direct routes and an easier way to buy tickets.

Alfredo Sosa Jr., 14, is too young to drive, but he would choose the WaterBus over a car for the same reasons that might attract car commuters: It is not the Blue Line or an MTA bus, but a bona fide boat.

"It's exciting," Sosa said. "And I like the cool air."

[Wright Concept]

MTA agrees to the name 'Expo Line'
Color on map still debated
BY RACHEL URANGA, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

After months of wrangling, the MTA board finally agreed Thursday to name the new light-rail route between USC and Culver City the Expo Line, but couldn't resolve whether it should be designated rose or aqua.
The Expo Line is now the only commuter route named for a region and not a color, like the MTA's Orange, Blue, Green and Red lines.

City Councilman Bernard Parks has been fighting for months to get his colleagues on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board to designate the route as the Expo Line, in recognition of the Exposition Park he represents. And he also insists that the route should be designated as rose color on MTA maps in recognition of the park's landmark rose gardens.

"The issue that comes to pass is that color has never been brought to the community for discussion," Parks said.

The color aqua - which is backed by MTA staffers, Friends 4 Expo Transit, the city of Santa Monica and a handful of Westside groups - would not reflect the Southside communities, Parks said.

Moreover, he said, the poorer communities it runs through could gain economic benefits by having a rail line that brands their area.

But the drawn-out debate over colors got some board members peeved.

"At some point this board has gotten to listen to the people and not politicians ... but the hundreds and hundreds of people that have advocated for this and want this. And I think it's a slap in their face and a slap in the staff's face," said MTA board member and Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, calling the debate "unseemly."

"I have resented the minimal amount of time I have had to spend on this, roped in to spend on this. But it is serious in one sense, it telegraphs to the community what our worldview is about how we make decisions."

MTA officials say even after laying down 73 miles of rail and subway, they have never faced such a drawn-out debate over a color designation.

In fact, moments after the board spent nearly an hour debating colors, it quietly and unanimously voted in favor of naming the leg of the Red Line that runs from Union Station to Wilshire and Western the Purple Line. It also adopted silver as the color to designate the El Monte express busway and the bronze for the Harbor express busway.

Maya Emsden, deputy executive officer of creative services, said if she could, she would keep the line invisible. But for now, as the MTA prepares to break ground on the $640 million light-rail line, she will use black on maps to indicate the Expo Line.

rachel.uranga@dailynews.com

Obviously someone thinks the same thing. What a big waste of time it is.

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

Community politics

Re "MTA agrees to the name 'Expo Line"' (Aug. 25):

Councilman Bernard Parks is worried about involving the community, yet has not asked the community newspapers like the Wave and Sentinel or the neighborhood councils in on the discussion and have them weigh in on it.

It is amazing that Parks is so stubborn about the color of this line and worries about "the poorer communities it runs through could gain economic benefits by having a rail line that brands their area." Wouldn't having a Trader Joe's, tree-lined streets and safer streets help the community and gain economic benefits? Methinks this is a diversion to ensure his re-election next year.

- Derick Harris

Los Angeles

[cookiejarvis]

Looks like the MTA is gearing up to start the "pre-proposal" process on Phase II of the Expo Line. Proposed revenue service for Culver City to Santa Monica-- 2015:

http://www.buildexpo.org/contract.htm

"Attachment D" has all the good infoporn.

[netwerk01]

/\ Thanks for the headsup on this! :tup:

There are some great photos of the Expo ROW near Cheviot Hills which really makes the case for this routing in the attachment. I didn't see estimated travel times between the two alignments mentioned, but, all of the standard advantages of a grade separated ROW are present, it seems.

Expo ROW I-10 Undercrossing:
http://static.flickr.com/57/230241217_ad99df0804_o.jpg

Expo ROW near Northvale Road:
http://static.flickr.com/83/230241287_e3b44e006b_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/83/230241375_81e8981914_o.jpg

Compare this to trains stuck on Sepulveda or trying to turn left from Venice to Sepulveda using the alternate alignment...

[cookiejarvis]

It would be insanity for the MTA to pick the Venice/Sepulveda diversion over this stretch of the Expo Right-of-Way between Venice/National and Pico/Sepulveda. The MTA already owns it, and it's a mile shorter than the alternative route.

[Wright Concept]

And when it operates between 5-9 minutes faster. I think they are going to lean toward the route on the Right-of-way since it's wide, quick, short, cheap and Cheviot Hills aren't bitching too much anymore. They see that the route is in a trench next to the noisier 10 freeway.

[Damien]

Anyone want to bet me that less than a year after Expo Phase II is operational, Cheviot Hills homeowners association and like will be passing motions requesting a stop be added at Westwood Blvd?

[Wright Concept]

Well they haven't figured out the stops for the alignment yet so there is still potential to have a station serve Westwood Blvd.

[Damien]

PV,

Several specific questions I've never really asked about Expo Phase I:

1) Why is the USC/Coliseum station considered optional? Is it just about USC's moaning or is it about money? Isn't the station supposed to be at-grade?

2) Exactly what will be the routing and grade-levels from the Expo ROW to the Flower street alignment, and are the Jefferson and 23rd St stations set in stone or is that being worked out as well?

3) What are the specific problems with the Washington/National terminus as it it currently proposed?

Well they haven't figured out the stops for the alignment yet so there is still potential to have a station serve Westwood Blvd.

There appears to be plenty of room for a park-and-ride and the station would be less than a 1/4-mile walk from the Westside Pavilion. Does Cheviot Hills WANT the station now, is my concern.

[Wright Concept]

1) Why is the USC/Coliseum station considered optional? Is it just about USC's moaning or is it about money? Isn't the station supposed to be at-grade?

In a sense both. USC wants that section to be underground with or without a station so that it doesn't block the view of Trousdale. But they are realizing that they would have to pay for that extended tunnel and potential station.

2) Exactly what will be the routing and grade-levels from the Expo ROW to the Flower street alignment, and are the Jefferson and 23rd St stations set in stone or is that being worked out as well?

From the 12th Street Subway portal it will run at grade down the eastern portion of Flower Street with signal priority until south of Jefferson where it will run in a short tunnel under Figueroa/Expo. The 23rd and Jefferson stations are set because the MTA went with the Flower Street option.

3) What are the specific problems with the Washington/National terminus as it it currently proposed?

This is an issue I have documented since 2002 that the MTA needed to address in respect to the entire Expo Corridor and why studying segments independent of the entire route or system is penny wise but pound foolish.
At the Venice/Washington/National station area will require a grade separated station because of the traffic issues. The original 2001 study assumed that at-grade would be ok but realized in 2004 that it wouldn't.

Also how they construct the elevated grade separation is dependant on which route the MTA takes for Phase 2 of Expo will it stay on the right-of-way or take the Venice- Sepulveda diversion. That decision affects the design, engineering and construction of that station. Because curving the track and elevated bridge costs a little more to build than a straight track.

There appears to be plenty of room for a park-and-ride and the station would be less than a 1/4-mile walk from the Westside Pavilion. Does Cheviot Hills WANT the station now, is my concern.

Well it's not in Cheviot Hills anymore. Now we're reaching Westside Village/Rancho Park. Honestly I don't know, if they want it or not.

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-aqua01sep01,0,7050247.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-aqua01sep01,0,7050247.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail)
EDITORIALS

Please, Just Pick a Metro Color

Flip a coin or something -- just stop wasting public time with the stupid train-hue ado.

September 1, 2006

AT FIRST, THE WHOLE AQUA vs. cardinal vs. rose debate seemed kind of funny. Board members at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority have been hopelessly deadlocked over the symbology of color, unable to decide on a visual designation for the new light-rail line that will run down Exposition Boulevard from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City beginning in 2010 at the earliest.

But now that the argument has eaten untold hours at half a dozen MTA committee and board meetings since March, we're no longer laughing.

Some want to call the train the Cardinal Line because it runs past USC, whose colors are cardinal and gold. Others favor the Aqua Line, to symbolize the ocean, though it won't yet go that far. (It's hoped that the tracks will eventually make it to the coast in Santa Monica somewhere, but the route hasn't been planned.) Still others favor the Rose Line because of Exposition Park's famous rose garden.

The great color debate reached its apex of absurdity last week when the MTA board, after about an hour of pointless discussion, deadlocked on a vote that was intended to resolve the matter.

With cardinal apparently out of the running, the battle is now down to rose and aqua. The latter color is favored by the MTA staff, which has been using it for years on maps. But City Councilman Bernard Parks frets that aqua doesn't "resonate," whatever that means. He has somehow persuaded half the MTA board to take his side, including Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who should know better.

In the meantime, the project will simply be known as the Expo Line, making it the only MTA line named after a street rather than a color. On maps, it will probably show up as a broken black line.

This debate is as pointless as it is silly. It's not as if the five existing transit-line colors symbolize anything. The new color needs to have two qualities: It needs to stand out on a map, and it needs to be different from the other colors.

Last we checked, the rainbow still had seven colors. Some innovative transit planners — including in L.A.! — have even gone beyond the basic seven and chosen a color outside the rainbow. Maybe at their next meeting the MTA board could hear a presentation from Sherwin-Williams.

Our position on the hue review: We couldn't care less. Flip a coin, play a game of rock-paper-scissors, pick a color out of a hat — and move on to more important business, such as expanding the subway down Wilshire Boulevard. Thousands of commuting Angelenos will be tickled pink.

[colemonkee]

^ Amen.

[netwerk01]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mta3sep03,1,1828070.story?coll=la-headlines-california
Which Way for the Next Light-Rail Line in L.A. County?
L.A. transit agency weighs competing plans for lines to the Westside and San Gabriel Valley.
By Jean Guccione
Times Staff Writer

September 3, 2006

As they prepare to set spending priorities for the next quarter-century, Los Angeles County transit officials are bracing for a head-on collision over where to build the next light-rail line.

Should the Westside's proposed Expo Line be extended all the way from downtown to Santa Monica? Or should Pasadena's Gold Line grow 13 miles east to Montclair?

Though construction is still years away, long-range planning decisions reached over the next several months will determine the pecking order for major county transit projects through 2030.

Even if both light-rail proposals are considered worthy, some transit officials doubt that the federal government would spring for two $1-billion transportation projects in the same county at the same time, escalating the competition for federal dollars.

"There is no question that traffic is getting worse everywhere," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who wants the Westside's Expo Line extension built next. "Now the question is, if you have a limited amount of money, where do you spend it?"

Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas) says funds should be allocated to the San Gabriel Valley, where thousands of new, affordable homes are luring workers and increasing freeway congestion.

Dreier envisions someday extending the line even farther east, to Ontario Airport — a move that he argues also would benefit the Westside by shifting some travelers away from Los Angeles International Airport.

"We need to build Expo, but the Gold Line is my priority," Dreier said in an interview Thursday. "I think we have the potential to do both."

The dueling proposals are attracting more attention now as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority moves closer to deciding which of dozens of proposed transit improvements should be funded in coming years.

Projects must be part of the agency's long-range plan to qualify for federal funds. The plan is scheduled for adoption early next year.

This year's competition is particularly fierce as officials anticipate how they might spend up to $12 billion on one-time capital projects if voters approve the state transportation bond issue in November. Without voter approval, the agency would allocate an estimated $7 billion in existing funds to new projects.

Even with the state bond money, transit officials said, they still would have to seek matching federal funds to begin building light-rail extensions within the next few years. The MTA's capital funds cover streets and highways, as well as buses and rail.

"Money is going to be very tight," said Carol Inge, chief planning officer. "We have a longer list of projects than we have money overall."

Officials have yet to decide which projects they will request funding for in the long-range plan, Inge said.

Construction priorities are based on ridership projections and cost effectiveness, measured in costs per mile and costs per passenger, according to MTA board policy.

In 2001, the last time projects were ranked, the MTA board of directors gave the Expo Line a high priority.

Construction is scheduled to begin soon on the first part of the line — from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City.

The next proposed segment, from Culver City to Santa Monica, is in the long-range plan but has not yet been funded. It is expected to cost $750 million to build.

The Gold Line extension did not make it into the MTA's 2001 long-range plan. A preliminary draft of the agency's 2006 priorities shows other, more costly, projects — such as Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's proposed subway to the sea — ranking higher.

Because ridership on the Gold Line's 14-mile route between Union Station near downtown Los Angeles and Pasadena turned out to be lower than expected, a further extension of the line was placed somewhere in the middle of this year's preliminary long-range plan.

Ridership on the Pasadena line hit a high of 20,000 weekday boardings in July, according to the MTA. Weekend ridership, however, has dropped significantly over the last year.

Duarte City Councilman John Fasana, who sits on the MTA board, said ridership would increase if the Pasadena-based line were extended farther into the fast-growing San Gabriel Valley.

The region's three east-west freeways are packed with big trucks serving the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as well as thousands of commuters, many traveling from their homes in the Inland Empire.

Last year, the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino issued 51,000 residential building permits, and their region ranked seventh in the nation for new-home growth, according to California Department of Transportation statistics. More than 153,000 permits were issued in those two counties in the four previous years.

Still, Yaroslavsky said the Gold Line ridership numbers, estimated at 6.3 million boardings a year, do not support the proposed extension at this time. Statistics, he said, favor additional mass transit on the burgeoning Westside as a top countywide priority.

"If you look at this objectively and leave the politics out, it bears no comparison to anything else," he said of the Westside's need.

The Westside has no commuter rail line. Its two freeways, the Santa Monica and San Diego, are "parking lots," he said. And the area's major hubs — Santa Monica, Century City, Westwood and Culver City — are experiencing major residential and commercial growth.

Duarte's Fasana said he expects that the Gold Line extension would be included in the upcoming long-range plan — and that, if the state bond measure passes, "I think there is an ability to build both projects."

Gold Line proponents aren't taking any chances. They are trying to leap-frog ahead of the proposed Westside line by appealing directly to Congress for funds.

Habib Balian, chief executive officer of the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, is leading the charge. He acknowledges that the strategy is "totally unconventional."

The construction authority was created by the Legislature to oversee construction but not operation of the Gold Line to Pasadena. The MTA runs the line.

Balian doesn't view his renegade tactics as distracting support for the Expo Line in any way.

"I believe all meritorious projects will be funded," he said.

Balian pointed out that he is not asking the MTA to pay for construction of the extension. The agency simply would have to commit to run the extended Gold Line — at a cost of about $10 million a year — after it is built.

The MTA needs to promise to pay for operation of the rail line for federal construction funds to be secured, he said.

While waiting for decisions, both sides are proceeding as if their projects have made the cut.

Even before ground has been broken on the Expo Line to Culver City, its construction authority is seeking proposals for an environmental study of construction from Culver City to Santa Monica.

The Gold Line construction authority, meanwhile, is studying the effect of its proposed two-phase extension: 10.5 miles from Pasadena to Azusa, followed by 13.1 miles to Montclair.

People on both sides acknowledge that the county's need for public transportation is great everywhere.

Despite his support for the Gold Line project, Dreier said freeway congestion on the Westside and elsewhere affects all Los Angeles County residents, no matter where they live.

"My constituents want to have the ability to go to the beach, the mountains, the desert or wherever," he said.

*

jean.guccione@latimes.com

[SD_Phil]

^Gold Line is desperately needed from my personal experience (I grew up in Azusa). For purely self interested reasons I would prefer to see the Gold Line (finally) get funding. Most of the rail is already there anyway from the old rail line that used to straddle the 210.

[RAlossi]

I'm glad that we're having this debate -- "Should we fund Expo to SaMo first or Gold Line to Montclair?" -- instead of "Should we be building any rail at all?"

Both are desperately needed, but the Expo Line to SaMo will draw more riders than the Gold Line, IMO, and will be more cost effective.

[edluva]

Both are desperately needed, but the Expo Line to SaMo will draw more riders than the Gold Line, IMO, and will be more cost effective.

I disagree. I don't believe that the Gold Line extension is "desperately needed" at all. I think it should be dead last in priority.

[Art]

I think the gold line is desperately needed to Azusa becuase the areas the alignment passes runs through are generally the poorer minority sections of their respective cities(you know, the poorer areas are generally near trains/industry), beyond that I dont really care. Of course Expo should be of a higher priority all the way to Santa Monica.

[RAlossi]

I disagree. I don't believe that the Gold Line extension is "desperately needed" at all. I think it should be dead last in priority.

Well seeing as how I spent a good portion of my life living in the Foothill area of LA County, I've got a good sense of the conditions there. The argument that there are thousands upon thousands of working-class people in dense living conditions is valid. I don't think I would support a line to Montclair above other extensions/lines, but Art is correct in saying that the extension to Azusa should at least be considered.

The true beauty of the Gold Line Foothill Extension isn't that people from Azusa will take it to Downtown LA for jobs; its true purpose is to bring people to and from the job/shopping/population center of Pasadena. More people will be using it to get to Pasadena than to DTLA from the SGV, in my opinion. Metrolink can and does cover longer-distance commutes.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ I think more rail is obviously better, but it's important to get the wealthy people around too on the Westside by continuing Expo to Santa Monica and having the Purple Line extended to the ocean.

The upper crust shouldn't have to endure hours of wasted time in their cars. Let's get rail for both rich and poor! (But don't forget about the rich!)

Also, it'll be great for the housekeepers and gardeners to have quicker access to the Westside instead of being stuck on cramped buses or sitting right along side all the other cars stuck in traffic if they do have a car. That way these hard working people can get back to their children and family a lot faster as well!

It's a win-win for everyone when you have rail on the Westside (the heart of LA).

[LosAngelesBeauty]

In Los Angeles, the Desire of Some Is Named Streetcar

A report prepared for city officials says downtown trolleys would be a boon for development.

By Steve Hymon
Times Staff Writer

September 5, 2006

A new study that will probably reinvigorate a decades-old debate about mass transit in Los Angeles concludes that bringing back streetcars to downtown would spur more development and attract riders. It also contends that trolleys could peaceably share the road with cars.

The report, expected to be released this week by the Community Redevelopment Agency, also makes another point: Reintroduced trolleys have met with success in many other cities, and there's no reason they can't in Los Angeles.

In other cities, "the streetcars have inspired and promoted economic revival, they have encouraged and attracted tourism, and they have supplemented the existing, everyday public transit services already in operation," concludes the study, which was written by several transportation consultants.

"This isn't just a cute little tourist attraction," said Carol Schatz, president and chief executive of the influential Central City Assn., which represents downtown businesses. "We need a sophisticated and fun circulator that ties together all the vibrant districts that are spread around downtown."

While downtown is still heavily dotted with parking lots, a mini-construction boom is underway as new buildings are built and old offices are converted to residences. At least 7,600 residential units are in the development pipeline, the new L.A. Live entertainment complex is rising next to Staples Center and planning is underway for a Grand Avenue redevelopment project.

The study proposes connecting the southern and northern parts of downtown. Trolleys would run on tracks down the middle or the side of streets amid car traffic, and the streetcars would be powered by electricity from overhead wires.

There are hurdles, the most notable of which is the cost — $60 million to $73 million.

There is also the matter of political will in City Hall, which oversees a metropolis where streetcars were removed, albeit four decades ago, to clear the way for more automobiles. Although the idea of bringing back streetcars has been around for years, this particular proposal comes not from transit organizations but from the redevelopment agency, which is tasked with reinvigorating downtown, among other areas. And it was Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Los Angeles), not city officials, who corralled the $100,000 for the report.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office declined to comment on the study or the idea of returning trolleys to the streets. The mayor has been pushing for a larger light-rail line that might run on surface streets and would traverse downtown to connect the existing Long Beach and Pasadena light-rail routes to future lines to the Westside and East Los Angeles.

Streetcars hold a special place in the history of Los Angeles. The streetcar system in Southern California, which blossomed in the late 1800s, once had over 1,000 miles of track, with Los Angeles at the center. But civic leaders preferred buses, and streetcars had difficulty competing with the door-to-door convenience of automobiles in a growing and sprawling region.

After the final five lines were shut down on March 31, 1963, most of the rolling stock was sold to the transit system in the Egyptian capital of Cairo, and the Los Angeles Convention Center eventually occupied the site of the city's old trolley yards.

But why spend millions for a trolley system when the city already has a fleet of DASH buses circulating downtown? The buses, after all, don't require tracks or power lines and offer more route flexibility.

Streetcar advocates argue that people who don't like riding buses are more willing to ride aesthetically pleasing streetcars, which are usually quieter and don't weave in and out of traffic. They also believe that streetcars, like other fixed-route lines, lure development.

"There's something about the reliability and obviousness of a rail line that trumps the bus every time," said Gloria Ohland, a vice president with Reconnecting America, a group dedicated to building housing near rail stations. "And obviously it works for developers because they see rail lines in the street and they know the public sector has made a commitment to that neighborhood."

Streetcars have become something of a rage in urban planning circles. Seattle; Memphis, Tenn.; Little Rock, Ark.; Charlotte, N.C.; Dallas and Portland, Ore., have brought back trolleys in recent years and Atlanta is seriously considering doing so. Closer to home, the Port of Los Angeles opened a 1.5-mile trolley line in 2003 as a tourist attraction.

Perhaps the most talked about is in Portland, where a six-mile trolley line traverses a neighborhood known as the Pearl that until the 1990s was rail yards. After it was rezoned to allow for housing to be built, the area has thrived with new lofts and businesses. The addition of the trolley, in 2001, helped, advocates say.

"Since 1997, when the city committed to build the trolley, until today, there has been $2.3-billion worth of investment near the trolley, 7,248 residential units have been built and another 4.6 million feet of commercial space," said Vicky Diede, the project manager for Portland Streetcar.

Diede said that the most impressive statistic for her agency is that prior to the streetcar project, most of the development near the future line was built at half the allowable density. Since the project, she said, new buildings within one block of the line are at 90% of the potential density — meaning that the real estate has become much more desirable.

In Los Angeles, the new study is only a beginning, and the CRA has not yet taken a position. If there's a push to go forward, another study will be needed to work out some of the more technical aspects and to settle on a route.

Schatz said that although downtown businesses would probably be willing to shoulder some of the financial load, the city probably would need to come up with at least $40 million at a time when federal funding for trolleys is in short supply.

"I don't think it's a pipe dream," said Councilwoman Jan Perry, whose district includes much of downtown. "When you look at all the new buildings coming on line here, I think that anything that could serve residents and tourists, and reduces the number of car trips, can't just be rejected."

Waiting for some type of resolution are people such as Jim Walker, who in the final days of the streetcar system in Los Angeles spent some of his free time photographing the trolleys as they scooted about town.

After the last train rolled, he avoided downtown. "I just closed the door because I didn't want to see the destruction," said Walker, 70, who is now the historian for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

"I didn't think they would ever come back," Walker added. "But a lot of things happened since then that I never thought would, and I guess I still have some faith."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
steve.hymon@latimes.com

[LongBeachUrbanist]

^ There is a trend in DTLA so far to avoid putting transit on the main boulevards, e.g., Blue Line on Flower (not Figueroa), Red Line on Hill (not Broadway). It always comes down to the supposed impact on auto traffic.

Hopefully this time the planners won't be so short sighted. I'd much rather see a trolley on Seventh, Broadway or Grand than on Eighth, Olive or Spring. If you look at any of the great U.S. trolley systems, they go down the big streets, reinforcing them as the main locations for pedestrian and retail activity. Putting them on side streets makes them less effective and confuses tourists.

[Art]

A trolley down Broadway would be amazing. And they have the room since they cleared the street of parking a few years back.

[cookiejarvis]

"There's something about the reliability and obviousness of a rail line that trumps the bus every time," said Gloria Ohland, a vice president with Reconnecting America, a group dedicated to building housing near rail stations.

Wasn't Ohland trying to pimp out Curitiba style "Subway on Wheels" Bus Rapid Transit during Richard Riordan's tenure?

[colemonkee]

My ideal trolley route would run in a loop down Grand from First and Grand to 12th and Grand or Pico and Grand, turn east along 12th or Pico to Broadway, up Broadway to 4th, down 4th to Main, then up Main to first, then west on 1st to complete the loop. This would connect all of downtown (including the planned Grand park), and cement most of Broadway and all of Grand as "grand" thoroughfares. It would also help spur development at the Medallion site, one of the key sites linking the OBD, Little Tokyo and the Civic Center.

[Wright Concept]

That's similiar to what I've had in mind and make a pair of loops Using Grand and Hill/Spring as the North-South streets. A North Loop that operated from 1st down to 8th Street; and a South Loop from 6th to 12th St. So that future streetcar lines can be linked to it from USC, Pico-Union, Central City West, Echo Park, Chinatown, Little Tokyo/Arts District, Lincoln Park/Lincoln Heights and Fashion District forming a compact but efficient network so there's a hierarchy of where the development goes and how it gets accessed.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office declined to comment on the study or the idea of returning trolleys to the streets. The mayor has been pushing for a larger light-rail line that might run on surface streets and would traverse downtown to connect the existing Long Beach and Pasadena light-rail routes to future lines to the Westside and East Los Angeles.

I hope they don't consider building this connector on the surface. That would be the dumbest thing yet.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

My old idea for the downtown trolley route:

http://static.flickr.com/85/235345152_f18fab597b_o.jpg

My only concern now is how big Figueroa is getting, it might be difficult to have a trolley on that street. It would probably have to be either elevated or run along Flower.

As for the Downtown Connector, I'm okay with either a subway or an elevated route. An at-grade connector would make zero sense.

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mta3sep03,1,1828070.story?coll=la-headlines-california
Which Way for the Next Light-Rail Line in L.A. County?
L.A. transit agency weighs competing plans for lines to the Westside and San Gabriel Valley.
By Jean Guccione
Times Staff Writer

September 3, 2006

As they prepare to set spending priorities for the next quarter-century, Los Angeles County transit officials are bracing for a head-on collision over where to build the next light-rail line.

Should the Westside's proposed Expo Line be extended all the way from downtown to Santa Monica? Or should Pasadena's Gold Line grow 13 miles east to Montclair?

Though construction is still years away, long-range planning decisions reached over the next several months will determine the pecking order for major county transit projects through 2030.

Even if both light-rail proposals are considered worthy, some transit officials doubt that the federal government would spring for two $1-billion transportation projects in the same county at the same time, escalating the competition for federal dollars.

"There is no question that traffic is getting worse everywhere," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who wants the Westside's Expo Line extension built next. "Now the question is, if you have a limited amount of money, where do you spend it?"

Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas) says funds should be allocated to the San Gabriel Valley, where thousands of new, affordable homes are luring workers and increasing freeway congestion.

Dreier envisions someday extending the line even farther east, to Ontario Airport — a move that he argues also would benefit the Westside by shifting some travelers away from Los Angeles International Airport.

"We need to build Expo, but the Gold Line is my priority," Dreier said in an interview Thursday. "I think we have the potential to do both."

The dueling proposals are attracting more attention now as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority moves closer to deciding which of dozens of proposed transit improvements should be funded in coming years.

Projects must be part of the agency's long-range plan to qualify for federal funds. The plan is scheduled for adoption early next year.

This year's competition is particularly fierce as officials anticipate how they might spend up to $12 billion on one-time capital projects if voters approve the state transportation bond issue in November. Without voter approval, the agency would allocate an estimated $7 billion in existing funds to new projects.

Even with the state bond money, transit officials said, they still would have to seek matching federal funds to begin building light-rail extensions within the next few years. The MTA's capital funds cover streets and highways, as well as buses and rail.

"Money is going to be very tight," said Carol Inge, chief planning officer. "We have a longer list of projects than we have money overall."

Officials have yet to decide which projects they will request funding for in the long-range plan, Inge said.

Construction priorities are based on ridership projections and cost effectiveness, measured in costs per mile and costs per passenger, according to MTA board policy.

In 2001, the last time projects were ranked, the MTA board of directors gave the Expo Line a high priority.

Construction is scheduled to begin soon on the first part of the line — from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City.

The next proposed segment, from Culver City to Santa Monica, is in the long-range plan but has not yet been funded. It is expected to cost $750 million to build.

The Gold Line extension did not make it into the MTA's 2001 long-range plan. A preliminary draft of the agency's 2006 priorities shows other, more costly, projects — such as Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's proposed subway to the sea — ranking higher.

Because ridership on the Gold Line's 14-mile route between Union Station near downtown Los Angeles and Pasadena turned out to be lower than expected, a further extension of the line was placed somewhere in the middle of this year's preliminary long-range plan.

Ridership on the Pasadena line hit a high of 20,000 weekday boardings in July, according to the MTA. Weekend ridership, however, has dropped significantly over the last year.

Duarte City Councilman John Fasana, who sits on the MTA board, said ridership would increase if the Pasadena-based line were extended farther into the fast-growing San Gabriel Valley.

The region's three east-west freeways are packed with big trucks serving the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as well as thousands of commuters, many traveling from their homes in the Inland Empire.

Last year, the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino issued 51,000 residential building permits, and their region ranked seventh in the nation for new-home growth, according to California Department of Transportation statistics. More than 153,000 permits were issued in those two counties in the four previous years.

Still, Yaroslavsky said the Gold Line ridership numbers, estimated at 6.3 million boardings a year, do not support the proposed extension at this time. Statistics, he said, favor additional mass transit on the burgeoning Westside as a top countywide priority.

"If you look at this objectively and leave the politics out, it bears no comparison to anything else," he said of the Westside's need.

The Westside has no commuter rail line. Its two freeways, the Santa Monica and San Diego, are "parking lots," he said. And the area's major hubs — Santa Monica, Century City, Westwood and Culver City — are experiencing major residential and commercial growth.

Duarte's Fasana said he expects that the Gold Line extension would be included in the upcoming long-range plan — and that, if the state bond measure passes, "I think there is an ability to build both projects."

Gold Line proponents aren't taking any chances. They are trying to leap-frog ahead of the proposed Westside line by appealing directly to Congress for funds.

Habib Balian, chief executive officer of the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, is leading the charge. He acknowledges that the strategy is "totally unconventional."

The construction authority was created by the Legislature to oversee construction but not operation of the Gold Line to Pasadena. The MTA runs the line.

Balian doesn't view his renegade tactics as distracting support for the Expo Line in any way.

"I believe all meritorious projects will be funded," he said.

Balian pointed out that he is not asking the MTA to pay for construction of the extension. The agency simply would have to commit to run the extended Gold Line — at a cost of about $10 million a year — after it is built.

The MTA needs to promise to pay for operation of the rail line for federal construction funds to be secured, he said.

While waiting for decisions, both sides are proceeding as if their projects have made the cut.

Even before ground has been broken on the Expo Line to Culver City, its construction authority is seeking proposals for an environmental study of construction from Culver City to Santa Monica.

The Gold Line construction authority, meanwhile, is studying the effect of its proposed two-phase extension: 10.5 miles from Pasadena to Azusa, followed by 13.1 miles to Montclair.

People on both sides acknowledge that the county's need for public transportation is great everywhere.

Despite his support for the Gold Line project, Dreier said freeway congestion on the Westside and elsewhere affects all Los Angeles County residents, no matter where they live.

"My constituents want to have the ability to go to the beach, the mountains, the desert or wherever," he said.

*

jean.guccione@latimes.com


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-thursday7.4sep07,0,4617779.story?coll=la-news-comment-letters (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-thursday7.4sep07,0,4617779.story?coll=la-news-comment-letters)

Color the transit riders red

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
September 7, 2006


Re "Which Direction for Light-Rail Growth?" Sept. 3

L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky is right. Pull away the politics and look at ridership, and the Westside priority is clear. But when federal money is controlled by a San Dimas congressman, common sense is thrown into the sausage factory. So far, backroom alliances have ignored public input, and we've remain deadlocked for months on what color to assign the Expo Line. What does this mean for the process of building these rail lines?

ROGER CHRISTENSEN

Sherman Oaks

•



Where should the next light-rail line go in L.A. County? The answer is simple: south. The harbor area is devoid of any link to good, reliable mass transit. Of course, the Westside and L.A. International Airport deserve attention, but San Pedro is witnessing a massive amount of development. By 2020, streets in the harbor area will turn into parking lots.

CHRIS YANG

Rancho Palos Verdes

•





Re "Please, just pick a color," editorial, Sept. 1

I have a suggestion: Why not designate the Expo Line the "plaid line"? Everyone would have his favorite color.

PAUL SAILER

Los Angeles

[Wright Concept]

http://dailynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=4340043

EDITORIAL, September 15, 2006
'Orange Lining' the Valley
North-south busway expansion deserves a higher priority

LA Daily News

THE term "redlining" refers to the way that insurance or mortgage companies use geographic riskiness to determine how to do business with people in generally less-affluent neighborhoods. It's widely considered a bad thing.
"Orange Lining" could be the transportation equivalent. Like its cousin, orange-lining refers to the disparity between the priority the Metropolitan Transportation Authority gives to projects in the San Fernando Valley and the rest of the region.

The MTA has orange-lined the Valley by tossing it some change in the form of the east-west busway while spending many billions of dollars on subways and rail lines in other parts of the city.

Currently, the MTA has two Westside projects, the light-rail Expo Line and an extension of the Red Line subway down Wilshire Boulevard, with a rail line in the Eastside in the works. All three are tremendously costly, especially when compared with the low-cost busway that Valley residents are getting.

Extensions that open up the North Valley corridors should have top priority, or at least priority equal to that of one of the Westside projects. That is why it's incomprehensible the MTA can't open a six-mile busway extension to Chatsworth along the Canoga Avenue right of way until 2012 - or even get started on the badly needed East Valley extension.

It's true that Valley residents in the past fought off subways or light rail, and because of this got a busway at $300 million. But it's also true that Westsiders so opposed the subway that they got a federal law passed to block it and that voters throughout L.A. blocked further use of local transit taxes for subway construction.

The Orange Line is a huge success and was built quickly and at low cost. Those are compelling arguments for giving the transit needs of the North Valley a higher priority.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

http://dailynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=4340043

EDITORIAL, September 15, 2006
'Orange Lining' the Valley
North-south busway expansion deserves a higher priority

LA Daily News

THE term "redlining" refers to the way that insurance or mortgage companies use geographic riskiness to determine how to do business with people in generally less-affluent neighborhoods. It's widely considered a bad thing.
"Orange Lining" could be the transportation equivalent. Like its cousin, orange-lining refers to the disparity between the priority the Metropolitan Transportation Authority gives to projects in the San Fernando Valley and the rest of the region.

The MTA has orange-lined the Valley by tossing it some change in the form of the east-west busway while spending many billions of dollars on subways and rail lines in other parts of the city.

Currently, the MTA has two Westside projects, the light-rail Expo Line and an extension of the Red Line subway down Wilshire Boulevard, with a rail line in the Eastside in the works. All three are tremendously costly, especially when compared with the low-cost busway that Valley residents are getting.

Extensions that open up the North Valley corridors should have top priority, or at least priority equal to that of one of the Westside projects. That is why it's incomprehensible the MTA can't open a six-mile busway extension to Chatsworth along the Canoga Avenue right of way until 2012 - or even get started on the badly needed East Valley extension.

It's true that Valley residents in the past fought off subways or light rail, and because of this got a busway at $300 million. But it's also true that Westsiders so opposed the subway that they got a federal law passed to block it and that voters throughout L.A. blocked further use of local transit taxes for subway construction.

The Orange Line is a huge success and was built quickly and at low cost. Those are compelling arguments for giving the transit needs of the North Valley a higher priority.


Top priority???? Equal to the Westside? Are you kidding me??? The Westside is LA's de facto downtown LA.

[RAlossi]

Yeah, the Valley shot themselves in the foot with voting for two measures -- the anti-subway measure and the ban on light rail west of NoHo.

They forget that the subway goes into the valley, a very significant investment even if it does only go to NoHo.

They're so selfish. They don't think that there are needs in South LA, East LA/SGV, Westside, South Bay, as well as the Valley? Jeez. They just got the Orange Line, and they need to work with what they have for the time being before anything continues.

An extension of the busway in the West Valley will NOT be as cost-effective as the South-Valley Orange Line is. With the Orange Line, there was a proven track record of actual bus ridership, whereas I don't think there is much bus ridership on the Canoga corridor. Let them ride the bus FIRST, then once they've proved that there's a ridership out there, THEN the MTA can prioritize the Orange Line-North.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

The Westside, our most important center in LA, needs to be taken care of before all this talk about anywhere else.

[Wright Concept]

LA DAILY NEWS

http://www.dailynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=4359469

Congress may lift L.A. subway curbs
Western extension of line could lose another barrier
BY LISA FRIEDMAN, Washington Bureau
LA Daily News

WASHINGTON - After 20 years, Congress is about to declare it safe for Los Angeles to build a subway to the sea.
A bill by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, set for a House vote Wednesday, would repeal a two-decades-old ban that Waxman himself authored prohibiting the use of federal dollars to tunnel through the Wilshire corridor. The measure's passage would pave the way for Washington to help fund Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's almost $5 billion transit vision of a 15-mile Metro Red Line extension from Wilshire Center to the Pacific Ocean.

"This is good news," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, whose district is divided by Wilshire Boulevard. "If it is approved and signed by the president, it would resurrect the option of using federal funds. We will be able to talk credibly about extending the Red Line for the first time in 20 years."

Waxman's bill has the strong support of Rep. David Dreier, R-Glendora, and is expected to easily pass the House.

Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Monday called the repeal "long overdue" and said she will work to have it put to a Senate vote as soon as possible.

With only three weeks left in the legislative session, however, it remains unclear if the bill can be signed into law this year.

Building the so-called subway to the sea has emerged as one of Villaraigosa's top transit priorities. The mayor said Monday he met with Waxman last week during a lobbying trip to Washington and he expects the bill will be successful when it comes before Congress.

The decades-old plan essentially withered when a methane explosion in 1985 raised serious concerns about safety, and Waxman pushed through legislation banning the use of federal funds for tunneling projects in the Fairfax area. He reversed his position in 2005 after a five-member panel of experts issued a report declaring that advancements in construction technology now made tunneling safe.

Cost, however, remains a major issue for some members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, who also sit on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board.

Construction on the subway is projected to last 15 years and cost about $300 million per mile, totaling $3.9 billion. Adjusted for inflation, the final cost would be about $4.8 billion.

"The future of commuter rail is not underground," said Tony Bell, spokesman for Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich. "It's too expensive and it's too disruptive to our communities."

Arguing that Waxman's bill will take crucial federal dollars away from other projects - connecting San Bernardino and Ventura counties, for example - Bell said Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and L.A. should find a way to fund a subway on their own.

The almost 90 other cities and 134 unincorporated communities that would be affected by the subway, he said, "have no interest in a drain to the sea."

Waxman said he also is mindful of the cost but maintained the subway is necessary to relieve traffic congestion along the heavily traveled corridor.

"I know it is a very high priority for Mayor Villaraigosa. It is an essential part of the plan he has to alleviate traffic problems," Waxman said. "I don't want a bill that was passed 20 years ago to stand in the way."

MTA spokesman Mark Littman said the board this summer approved hiring planning staff to examine the possibility of a Red Line extension. But no votes on actually funding the subway work will come until next year, he said.

While MTA officials have given no estimate on how many people would ride the subway, Littman projected it would become one of the region's most popular lines.

"Based on our bus experience, we know we'll carry a lot of people out there," he said.

While supporters of the Red Line extension also are banking on getting money from the state infrastructure bond measure on the Nov. 7 ballot, Littman said the ability to obtain matching funds from Washington is crucial. The federal government chipped in about $2 billion for the original Red Line work - nearly half the cost of that project, he said.

"Lifting this prohibition would be a major boost to the project," he said.



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

LOS ANGELES TIMES

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-redline19sep19,0,7328539.story?coll=la-home-headlines

In Reversal, Waxman Seeks to Repeal Ban on Red Line Tunneling
In a boost for Red Line extension, Rep. Henry Waxman leads a campaign to reverse his 1985 measure. But many obstacles remain.
By Noam N. Levey
Times Staff Writer

September 19, 2006

WASHINGTON — Two decades after the federal government effectively blocked construction of a subway to Los Angeles' Westside, Congress is on the verge of clearing a major obstacle to the long-deferred project.

At the urging of Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), the House is expected Wednesday to repeal a ban on tunneling through West Los Angeles, a key step in Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's drive to bring the Red Line from its current Mid-Wilshire terminus to the sea.

Senate approval is expected soon afterward.

"The progress of Mr. Waxman's legislation is great news for Los Angeles," the mayor said in a statement Monday, adding that it would "allow the city to renew its partnership with the federal government to reduce traffic congestion."

The 13.2-mile extension, which transit officials estimate would cost at least $4.8 billion, is still years away.

And even with a congressional blessing, the project faces many more obstacles, not the least of which is the difficult and politically delicate task of raising money for the project.

But Waxman's push to repeal a ban he championed after a 1985 subterranean methane explosion in the city's Fairfax neighborhood further fuels the campaign to revive the city's most ambitious public transit line.

A few years ago, that campaign seemed all but dead.

Cost overruns, massive disruptions and construction defects in the 1990s sapped public support for subway construction in Los Angeles County.

In 1998, county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky seized on public anger to push a ban on the use of local sales tax money for further tunneling, limiting the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's ability to extend the Red Line to the west.

But increased traffic through the Westside has rekindled support for a subway. West Hollywood and Beverly Hills, once leery of a connection to the region's public transit system, now support the project.

And during the 2005 mayoral campaign, Villaraigosa made the Red Line a central part of his expansive vision for modernizing Los Angeles.

Today, Yaroslavsky, who said he favors a Red Line extension, says his ban would not preclude the subway project because sales tax dollars could be used for non-tunneling parts of the project while other local money could be used to fund the tunneling.

For his part, Waxman said he simply wanted to remove the tunneling ban now that experts have concluded that construction can be completed without risk of further methane explosions.

But the 16-term congressman said others would have to lead the campaign for the Red Line. "I'm going to defer to local leaders," Waxman said.

Villaraigosa has made it clear that he is ready to lead the charge.

His efforts will get a boost if voters approve a massive state infrastructure bond measure this fall that could make as much as $1 billion available for the Red Line extension.

But the mayor — whose administration has been focused for months on his school district control efforts — continues to face big obstacles to making his subway dream a reality.

In Los Angeles, other local politicians support building transit lines that would almost certainly cost a fraction of the subway.

A mile of subway can cost 10 times as much as a mile of light-rail line.

The mayor is already contending with irritated county Supervisors Mike Antonovich, who wants to extend the Gold Line into the San Gabriel Valley, and Gloria Molina, who has criticized the mayor for his aggressive Red Line campaign.

Molina, who heads the MTA board, has been a longtime champion of the Gold Line extension into Los Angeles' Eastside, which is part of her district.

The five county supervisors have permanent seats on the MTA board.

Bus rider advocates are leading the opposition. "It's going to be a $5-billion hole in the ground that's going to bankrupt the bus system," said Manuel Criollo, a spokesman for the Bus Riders Union.

He wants transit officials to buy and operate 1,000 more buses instead of pumping billions of dollars into a subway extension.

The Red Line project faces additional challenges in Washington, where the region's congressional delegation is also split over which rail lines should be built first.

Additionally, other Los Angeles projects are further along in getting federal funding.

The Eastside Gold Line extension, which is underway, is already receiving money from Washington.

And MTA officials are working to secure federal money for the Exposition Line, which is to be built from Exposition Park to Culver City and, officials hope, ultimately to Santa Monica.

During a visit to Capitol Hill last week, Villaraigosa downplayed the remaining challenges, noting the many years it took former Mayor Tom Bradley to begin construction of the subway.

"Tom Bradley didn't get a subway built in his first term," Villaraigosa said.

*

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept

O.C. Moves Toward High-Speed-Rail Service to L.A.
A $7-million study would look at the feasibility of such a route, part of a proposed 700-mile corridor.
By David Reyes
Times Staff Writer

September 19, 2006

High-speed rail has long been a dream — a fantasy, some would say — of mass-transportation enthusiasts in Southern California. But on Monday, planners in Orange County decided to take a $7-million step toward making such travel between Los Angeles and O.C. a reality.

The money would pay for preliminary engineering and environmental work to find out whether it's feasible to use the existing train corridor for an added electrified track to whisk passengers from Los Angeles' Union Station to Anaheim in as little as 15 minutes.

"This approval ensures that if funds become available to build the system, we will have an L.A.-to-Orange County route," said Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle.

A transit committee will recommend the funding at Monday's Orange County Transportation Authority board meeting. The board is expected to approve it.

A statewide bond initiative to build a network of high-speed-rail lines had been planned for the November election but was removed from the ballot. The measure, which seeks nearly $10 billion, is now expected to be voted on in 2008.

The 700-mile high-speed-train system is planned to serve the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego.

High-speed rail has been in use in Japan for decades. But it has met with mixed results in the United States.

The heavily promoted system serving Washington, D.C., New York and Boston has suffered numerous stoppages because of alleged design flaws that landed Amtrak and the manufacturer of its Acela Express train in court. Service has resumed, but only on a limited basis.

In California, when the concept was introduced, the proposed route was just Los Angeles to San Francisco, said Paul C. Taylor, executive director of development for the transportation authority.

"By putting $7 million on the table, we will help jump-start the Los Angeles-to-Anaheim route," Taylor said.

To date, only the San Francisco Bay Area has approved preliminary rail studies, said a California High Speed Rail Authority spokesman.

"Assuming voters approve the bond, we're looking at improvements to the corridor in five to six years," said Mehdi Morshed, the rail authority's executive director in Sacramento. "The train won't be running for another 10 to 12 years."

The train system would use the existing corridor, but — because trains would go much faster — alignments, right of way, improved grade crossings and other factors must be studied, Morshed said.

The fastest speed for a Metrolink train is 79 mph. But high-speed trains could reach 125 mph going into Los Angeles, Taylor said.

"It will be a short trip, maybe taking only 15 minutes, because you don't have any stops," said Pringle, who is also an OCTA board member representing Anaheim.

Anaheim, which recently partnered with OCTA and acquired a 13 1/2 -acre property near Angel Stadium for a major transportation hub, has the most to gain from high-speed rail.

The city recently announced plans to build one of the largest transit centers in Southern California, which would include a 20,000-square-foot Metrolink station, 1,000 parking spaces, a pedestrian underpass and pedestrian plaza. The second phase will add 2,000 parking spaces, a high-speed-rail station and a pedestrian bridge linking the station to the Arrowhead Pond.

Metrolink serves a total of more than 5,000 daily commuters in Orange County, a Metrolink spokeswoman said. Ridership for August was up 6% from last year, the spokeswoman said.

"We believe that many people want to and will commute from Anaheim to Los Angeles," Pringle said.

*

[Damien]

"The future of commuter rail is not underground," said Tony Bell, spokesman for Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich. "It's too expensive and it's too disruptive to our communities."

Somebody explain to that idiot the difference between commuter rail and urban rail and that with modern tunnel boring machines subways are the least disruptive form of rail construction.

Arguing that Waxman's bill will take crucial federal dollars away from other projects - connecting San Bernardino and Ventura counties, for example - Bell said Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and L.A. should find a way to fund a subway on their own.

If Antonovich is so worried about the voters of San Bernardino and Ventura county, maybe he should step down from the LOS ANGELES COUNTY Board of Supervisors and run in one of their elections.

[Damien]

Ideally, this (or something like this) is what I think we should all be striving for in LA County. We need a system that connects all parts of the county, directly serves our major destinations, and it needs to built as close to simultaneously as possible, so that each district feels invested in lines outside of their local community and places they may frequent, and to end the political fighting between leaders and communities we need to be strong allies in our effort to secure state and federal funding.

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j142/damienwg/goodmon_final.gif

[DJM19]

Well I think they need to adopt a plan like that (as a whole) and stick with it, not diverting from it for pet projects elsewhere. I think something comprehensive like this can intimidate a tax payer, but also show them that its a lot of rail being added, they know where the money will go.

[cookiejarvis]

The "Ayes" have it...

Today, the House of Representatives unanimously approved lifting the federal ban on "Methane Exclusion Zones" for the Wilshire Subway.

The bill now moves to the Senate for approval.

http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/lgwww_bill.pl?204653

[DJM19]

:banana: wonderful.

[Damien]

Anyone know if it is scheduled to make it to the floor of the Senate? There's a only a handful of days left in the session.

[jamesinclair]

"Construction on the subway is projected to last 15 years and cost about $300 million per mile, totaling $3.9 billion. Adjusted for inflation, the final cost would be about $4.8 billion."

Wait, what? You cant do that.

"Mcdonalds recently introduced a 99 cent burger. Adjuested for inflation in 2024, it really costs you 3.41!"

[DJM19]

It takes 15 years to build a subway? damn

[Damien]

It takes 15 years to fund the building of the subway using the current financial plan.

Average tunnel boring machine digs 50 feet a day, although this completely depends on the geological and tunneling conditions. But if it stays on pace at 50 feet a day the tunnel would be dug in less than 4 years.

The record by the way for a tunnel boring machine is around 250 feet per day.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

"Construction on the subway is projected to last 15 years and cost about $300 million per mile, totaling $3.9 billion. Adjusted for inflation, the final cost would be about $4.8 billion."

Wait, what? You cant do that.

"Mcdonalds recently introduced a 99 cent burger. Adjuested for inflation in 2024, it really costs you 3.41!"

EXACTLY! Thank you for making that very OBVIOUS point that no one has seemed to point out in the media. It's SOOOO ridiculous how the media seems to be almost TRYING to purposefully sabatoge the subway by constantly EMPHASIZING how expensive it would be! Do they do the same thing for ANYTHING else?????? SUCH AS the 710 extension to the 210? Do they EMPHASIZE how much it will be adjusted for inflation?? It's absolutely ridiculous! I do NOT understand why the media in LA does that? WHY?? Why would u purposefully destroy ur own city?

[ChrisLA]

I don't know if this was posted yet, and I didn't think a new thread was need. Anyway I figured it would be fitting in this one.


New 12-minute Map Can Help Riders Go Metro More Easily
In a hurry? Metro has a brand new map that shows, at a glance, bus lines that run every 12 minutes or less throughout the county. No timetable necessary. The “12-Minute” Map is the latest Metro tool to help riders get where they want to go more easily. And it may be the first of its kind in the country.

“We’ve never seen anything like it and we work with about 150 transit agencies all over the world,” said Rick Wood, president and chief executive officer of CHK America, a company that designs passenger information publications for transit agencies. “The reason is probably that there are not a lot of agencies that can do it.” Wood said. “Los Angeles is one of the few that offers service that good.”

The map was designed to save customers time and effort. They can simply plot their trip and go to a bus stop anytime during the day, knowing their bus will arrive shortly. “Visitors and occasional riders in particular can use it to plan common trips without delving into the intricacies of the system,” said Warren Morse, Metro deputy executive officer for communications. “So it makes transit easier to use and compliments our many sources of more detailed information: the complete system map, the Trip Planner at www.metro.net and our telephone customer information agents.”

The “12-Minute” Map is a significant departure from the typical city transit map model, which is large in size, geographic and generally plots all lines in the system. The complete Metro map, Morse said, includes all of Metro’s routes, as well as those of municipal carriers throughout Los Angeles County. The new “12-Minute” Map is made up primarily of major routes on major streets.

Another difference is that a standard transit map usually needs to be used in combination with a timetable. Not only is the “12-Minute” Map much simpler to read; it provides all the information needed to plan a trip ... no timetable necessary. “All they need is to carry along that one little piece and they can access a lot of LA,” Wood said.

The new “12-Minute” Map is available at Metro Customer Centers and on the Web at www.metro.net.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

The 12-minute map is here (http://www.metro.net/news_info/publications/12min_map_eng.pdf).

I wonder when MTA publications will start using purple for the Wilshire Subway, now that the new color designation has been approved.

[Wright Concept]

^
The frequency guides was one of the ideas pushed through the Governance council to aid new riders and visitors to our system. Let's hope this become a mainstay for Metro Communciations.

As for the new maps, they will start at the earliest December 2006 or more likely by February of 2007 next year when they do their schedule adjustments and rotate their maps. This also is pending the decision on the color of Expo Line or Expo Line.

[Wright Concept]

L.A. subway bill powers past House
Senate to vote after Nov. 7
BY LISA FRIEDMAN, Washington Bureau
LA Daily News

WASHINGTON - A major barrier to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's vision of a subway to the sea began falling Wednesday when Congress moved to end a 21-year ban on using federal money to tunnel under Wilshire Boulevard.
The House passed the bill by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, on a unanimous voice vote. The measure needs Senate approval before it can be signed into law, and it does not guarantee any money for the project.

But repealing the ban that Waxman helped impose in 1985 would give the project a chance for federal funding.

"This is the first step, a small step. But you all know that without that we wouldn't able to get the federal dollars that we need," Villaraigosa said.

"This effort was the single biggest priority in the '80s because everybody knew it was the line that would get us the most bang for the buck. It would move more people than any other line in the United States of America."

Matt Szabo, a spokesman for the mayor, said Villaraigosa has made no specific legislative requests but is working to secure about $5 billion in state, local and federal funds for the 15-mile subway extension between Wilshire Center and Santa Monica.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is expected to help bring the bill to a Senate vote. While only a few days remain in the legislative session, there will be venues for the bill to pass when Congress returns after the midterm elections in November.

In the House, Waxman's bill and the subway plan were hailed by transportation leaders.

"This project moves us further in the direction of advancing the cause of transit in our national transportation inter-modal system," said Rep. David Oberstar, the leading Democrat on the House Transportation Committee.

"It will make an enormous contribution" in Los Angeles, Oberstar predicted.

Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., also a leading member of the transportation panel, said passage of Waxman's bill means more comprehensive transit planning can take place in Los Angeles.

Still, the subway to the sea received mixed reviews.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks, said he favors lifting the ban on federal funds, but believes an Orange Line extension to Chatsworth and other local projects deserve to be a higher regional priority.

"Just because it's not prohibited doesn't mean it has to be the very next priority for our region. It would be a great thing to have. It also would be a very expensive thing," he said.

Sherman also said any subway extension would "beg for" the creation of a line between Wilshire and Van Nuys.

The subway to the sea had been a long-standing transit dream that essentially died in a methane explosion during construction of the Red Line in the Fairfax District in 1985.

The blast prompted Waxman to insert language into a funding bill that prohibited the future use of federal funds to tunnel under the Wilshire corridor. He reversed his position in 2005 after a five-member panel of experts declared that advancements in construction technology now make it safe to tunnel.

But Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich criticized the proposal.

"This $5 billion boondoggle is a drain to the sea that would cripple the regional transportation needs of the county's other ... cities and the 1.5 million taxpayers who reside in unincorporated communities," Antonovich said in a printed statement.

He called instead for a Gold Line extension to Claremont, an Eastside extension to Whittier, an Orange Line extension to the Gold Line in Pasadena and other Metropolitan Transportation Authority projects.

"The public who voted against subway funding remember the disruption caused by construction of the current $5 billion, 17-mile subway and how it paralyzed the implementation of a regional transportation system," he said.

Staff Writer Kerry Cavanaugh contributed to this report.

[Wright Concept]

MTA panel backs studies paving way for Orange Line

BY RACHEL URANGA, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

Efforts to extend the Orange Line got a boost Wednesday when a key MTA committee unanimously backed dual studies that pave the way for building a $135 million extension along Canoga Avenue and other extensions down heavily trafficked Van Nuys Boulevard and other corridors.
Board members said it was crucial that the studies gain the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board's approval next week to take advantage of nearly $100million in state funding that will expire by 2009.

Under the proposal that goes to the full board next week, the agency will do an environmental study along Canoga Avenue. A second study of major north-south corridors would force the MTA and the city's Department of Transportation to come up with plans to create bus lanes along Van Nuys and Sepulveda boulevards and other major north and south corridors.

In an earlier report, MTA staff members suggested an extension along Canoga Avenue - which runs along an existing right-of-way rail line and would connect Warner Center to the Chatsworth Metrolink station. The report said the extension would be better than adding a bus-only lane and making some other improvements.

The bus-only lane, however, would cost a fraction of a Canoga Orange Line extension - the MTA already owns the right of way along Canoga Avenue and would not have to relocate parking.

If the extension is built on Canoga Avenue, more than three dozen businesses that lease MTA property along the right of way would be dislodged.

rachel.uranga@dailynews.com

[cookiejarvis]

The subway to the sea had been a long-standing transit dream that essentially died in a methane explosion during construction of the Red Line in the Fairfax District in 1985.

More lies courtesy the Daily News. Who needs fact checking when you have an editorial agenda to uphold?

[Damien]

Do the Valley politicians realize how ridiculous they sound to everyone, including Valley voters when they suggest an Orange Line extension should be a higher priority? If the San Gabriel Valley cities politicians, which are far more believable competitor for federal funding can be brought on board (fed funds is really the only way the Gold Line extension will be built), what's wrong with the Valley politicians?

Then again, all of this may force Villaraigosa to either advocate the simultaneous creation of a Purple line 405 spur under the Sepulveda Pass and above Van Nuys Blvd to the Orange Line or a Purple line 405 diversion all together. I support both; the diversion would likely cost the same, and a 405 spur an additional $1-1.5 billion.

Go for the spur Villa! Because really, when lobbying Congress is there that much of a difference between $5 billion and 6? :notacrook: :notacrook: :notacrook:

[J Church]

I've been raving to folks about the 12-minute map. MTA and CHK are also going to be rolling out spider maps before too long. If you haven't seen those ...

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/spiders/

There's a prototype at Union Station, apparently:

http://www.mapsusa.com/images/union_st.gif

And next time you're in a bookstore, pick up the current issue of Communication Arts. There's a great piece about the Metro Design Studio.

[Wright Concept]

Do the Valley politicians realize how ridiculous they sound to everyone, including Valley voters when they suggest an Orange Line extension should be a higher priority? If the San Gabriel Valley cities politicians, which are far more believable competitor for federal funding can be brought on board (fed funds is really the only way the Gold Line extension will be built), what's wrong with the Valley politicians?



I've learned long ago when reading sound bites from Mike Antonovich to read between the lines. He doesn't care about the Gold Line to Montclair he's worried about $$$ to build the 710 tunnel.

He's using that the Foothill, Busway and Eastside Lines as bait, then when they negociate he'll switch them for a tunnel for the 710. Watch how this will unfold. I wouldn't be surprised if that what they're bargaining for.

As for the Orange Line busways, it's much to do about nothing, that money to build those projects are earmarked from the State. All they were asking for is to go ahead with the studies because the $$$ will disappear in two years if nothing is done.

[WesTheAngelino]

In addition to the 12 minute map the MTA seriously needs to work on it's so called trip planner. My carless friends have given up on it on my suggestion and now just call me for transit directions.

Also, why can Seatle have an online Next Bus system and we can't? The capability is there if anyone's ever seen the ATSAC control room.