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

[Damien]

I'm not opposed to a Getty Center station. I just wonder how necessary it would be. It's a diversion that adds a mile and requires a station. If Getty isn't willing to pay for at least half the cost of the diversion it shouldn't even be considered.

As for Ventura/Sepulveda, I hear you about the activity at the intersection, but to get to Van Nuys Blvd would require an 85 degree turn with a heavy rail vehicle. How and where do you see the big Bredas making that turn? I'm guessing you're thinking the trains would already be facing east by the time it reached the station.

And I've heard you mention a park-and-ride before, but I'm not quite sure where you're putting it.

Oh and why no Canoga Blvd San Fernando busway extension on your map? You don't think it will happen?

[LosAngelesBeauty]

We need our transit system to take our residents and visitors to major cultural destinations that benefit the reputation of Los Angeles as a city rich in culture. The people who are abreast with LA development are very aware of what this city offers. However, many people come to LA and leave unexposed to our high culture (not to mention even people who have lived here their entire lives). This really shapes the image people have of LA as being a "cultural wasteland." This is not only an injustice to the city, but incredibly detrimental to the economy, especially tourism.

In my opinion, I believe investing in a station at Getty Center would be very beneficial to the region by giving people easy access to one of the best museums in the country. We will already have a station located at LACMA in the future extension of the Purple Line, so to continue that concept of linking together our city's best cultural amenities would be not only wonderful, but smart.

[solongfullerton]

^^^ you're right in that a city like LA should have an obligation to get its citizens and touritsts to its major cultural institutions, however, you also need to do a cost benefit analysis to determine whether a huge undertaking like a Getty Center station would be worth the money.

IMO, I think the best situation would be a shuttle from Westwood, where ever the rail station may be. it could run every 10-15 minutes or so, just like the shuttle they have now to the VA for overflow parking.

I guess this would be like the Hollywood Bowl situation. People who want to see a show at the Bowl take the Red Line to H&H and board a shuttle from there.

[Damien]

We need our transit system to take our residents and visitors to major cultural destinations that benefit the reputation of Los Angeles as a city rich in culture.

Yes, of course. And like I said, if the Getty is willing to pony up the money, then all means let them have their rail station. And lets be clear it would be THEIR rail station. Unlike MOCA the station would serve no other purpose than to put riders at the steps of the Getty Center's tram.

[Quixote]

^^Has there been any consideration of extending the subway from North Hollywood in place of the Orange Line buses?

[Quixote]

BTW all this is great news. Eventually, tourists will not feel the need to rent a car!

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ Yea, remember we said that one day in LA, u may not need a car and you were incredulous? lol There will come a day when you can get around the best parts of West Central without a car.

[Quixote]

But no trip to Southern California is complete without a visit to the OC and San Diego. So tourists may need to rent a car during their visit but not when visiting attractions in LA County. But the subway MUST have access to the Getty Center and Malibu.

And one complaint I have is that we are encouraging light rail. Well, something is better than nothing. But light rail is appropriate for cities like Phoenix, San Diego, Portland, etc. but NOT for a city such as Los Angeles. We need the subways. That's why I'm excited about this whole extending the Purple Line along Wilshire to Santa Monica idea. I also read saw the possibility of the Purple, Expo, and Green Lines being connected together. Again, I would rather see a subway than light rail.

Other than that, I think by 2020, LA will have a much more elaborate public transportation system. So much so that a car will not be necessary regardless of whether you're a resident or tourist. I really believe that this expansion of rail combined with the renaissance of DTLA will eventually result in LA obtaining alpha world city status!

[Wright Concept]

^^Has there been any consideration of extending the subway from North Hollywood in place of the Orange Line buses?

Yes. Originally the Orange Line corridor was slated for Light Rail but politics and NIMBYism got in the way. It can still be converted to rail but not without a lot of disruption to the existing Busway.

And one complaint I have is that we are encouraging light rail. Well, something is better than nothing. But light rail is appropriate for cities like Phoenix, San Diego, Portland, etc. but NOT for a city such as Los Angeles. We need the subways. That's why I'm excited about this whole extending the Purple Line along Wilshire to Santa Monica idea. I also read saw the possibility of the Purple, Expo, and Green Lines being connected together. Again, I would rather see a subway than light rail.

Light Rail means capacity not mode of how the route will travel.

In Boston and San Francisco they have their Light rail "trolleys" run in subways and they carry close to 150-250 thousand riders a day through the key parts of their cities.

Good local examples are the Blue Line and Green Line. For the Blue Line despite it's light rail characteristics, by moving the Washington Blvd street running portion to a tunnel or elevated and lengthing the platforms to 4 or 5 car lengths then it would start to become a Heavy Rail line. The Green Line is completely grade-separated yet can only carry a certain capacity of riders. Again with some small platform extentions this becomes Heavy Rail since the right-of-way is separated from traffic/pedestrians.

[Damien]

Yes. Originally the Orange Line corridor was slated for Light Rail but politics and NIMBYism got in the way. It can still be converted to rail but not without a lot of disruption to the existing Busway.

I'm still trying to figure out whether it HAS to be converted or not within 10 years. Any insights on that PV?

And has anyone bothered to figure out how much it would cost to convert the line to rail?

[Wright Concept]

I'm still trying to figure out whether it HAS to be converted or not within 10 years. Any insights on that PV?

And has anyone bothered to figure out how much it would cost to convert the line to rail?


Ok kiddies gather 'round for milk, cookies and storytime.

Here's the deal.

There was a clause in the original Proposition (Prop 108)that was used to pay for the Right-of-way. It stated that it had to be used for rail transit use. Given the politics of the busway that one small section between Valley College and North Hollywood can only be used for Underground rail, per the Robbins Bill (This bill would probably be easier to repeal).

Now with those restrictions the State Assembly gave permission to use the right-of-way for Busway use, but that clause that I mentioned in the beginning is still in play. And that they have about ten years to upgrade to rail or the MTA will have to repay the State the cost of the right-ow-way escalated in 2015 dollars.

Here's where this situation gets trickier. The MTA had to borrow money thorugh local bonds to pay for the busway, since at the time the State was broke and couldn't deliever on its funding to pay for the busway (A certain past mayoral candidate was involved in this named Bob Hertzberg) and Grey Davis was being recalled and now we have the Governator.

Through an agreement with the state, the MTA will be repaid at a future time, since state transportation Money were taken away from this project. Since the MTA is essentially paying for the busway out of mostly local monies and the state owes them for them having to borrow that money. It almost seems as if this will stay a busway because the cost of right-of-way aquistion will be lower than or equal to the MTA's local amount that they had to borrow to get the project going.

But rail is not totally out of it. The right-of-way is pretty wide between 60 to 100 feet in some stretches, where this can be built as an at-grade/aerial light rail on segments of the existing busway from Warner Center to North Hollywood and possibly continue along the railroad to Burbank which can then meet with a proposed Burbank-Glendale LRT line that has been studied, planned and studied some more since God knows how long.

It is still on MTA's Long Range Transit Plans. If this Burbank/Glendale Line gets built then there is a possiblity of continuing this route West through the Valley, if no-other route or right-of-way is available and/or cost-effective. Also a rail study can be added as an addendum to the existing Orange Line project studies at later date, since this could be done on this right-of-way that the MTA already owns. Also the light rail proposals were not withdrawn from the proposals, since they actually scored the highest on the original studies so it still has some life to it. All that is needed is a simple repeal of the Robbins ban and Eureka Light Rail can be looked at again. Much like a certain Subway down Wilshire Blvd.

[Wright Concept]

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/articles/2006/10/16/letters/letter01.txt

Expo Line Is Just a Start

Dear Editor,

It's great to hear that the Expo Line is finally being built ("Eager Eyes for the Expo Line," by Andrew Moyle, Oct. 2). But when it opens in 2010, there will still be a glaring gap from the Seventh Street subway station to First and Alameda streets that needs to be filled without having to hop on the Red Line to make a double transfer. That will make travel times longer and discourage potential riders from using the system.

What the business community, Downtown residents and city officials should be doing is keeping this momentum going and tie the future Expo and East L.A. light rail lines to the existing Blue and Gold Lines. They should link important projects and new developments, such as Grand Avenue and L.A. Live, and connect Downtown with a growing regional rail network. This Flower and First Street transit corridor should be separated from the crossing automobile traffic as much as possible, yet be pedestrian friendly, something that will complement the proposed streetcar.

If this opportunity isn't grasped, Downtown will suffer from a severe lack of connectivity and cohesiveness, an essential element to keep this vibrant area flourishing and evolving.

-Jerard Wright, Los Angeles

[colemonkee]

I saw that yesterday in the print addition. Well said, sir! :cheers:

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-greenline23oct23,0,5133733.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Proposed rail line would go to LAX
The $1-billion route along Crenshaw and Florence would compete for transit funds with other expensive projects.
By Jean Guccione
Times Staff Writer

October 23, 2006

Los Angeles officials are drawing a new route aimed at finally closing perhaps the biggest gap in the region's mass transit system: A lack of a rail line flowing directly into Los Angeles International Airport.

Planners envision a new light rail line that would run along Crenshaw Boulevard and Florence Avenue between Exposition Boulevard and the airport. Although still in the early planning stages, officials believe that the line could be opened by 2015 if they can secure the $1 billion needed to build it.

The proposal is the latest in the long, star-crossed efforts of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to get light rail to LAX.

The Green Line, which runs along the 105 Freeway from Norwalk to El Segundo, was supposed to terminate at the airport. But budget problems prompted the MTA to scrap the LAX connection.

As a result, getting to the airport by commuter rail isn't easy: Travelers must transfer, with luggage and, in some cases, small children, from the Metro Green Line station to a shuttle bus for the short ride into the terminal.

Transit officials are not giving up on the Green Line extension. But they see many benefits in focusing on the Crenshaw line.

"Obviously, Crenshaw is very heavily traveled. It meets all the criteria for a good line. It goes through commercial areas. It goes near schools," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, an MTA board member who for the last 12 years has worked to get the proposed line built.

Crenshaw is one of the county's busiest busways, with an average of 35,000 boardings a day, according to transit officials. The proposed rail line would record an estimated 43,400 daily boardings by 2025.

The MTA is currently on a mass-transit building boom. It's now constructing an extension of the Gold Line into East Los Angeles and recently approved an extension of the Orange Line busway in the San Fernando Valley and construction of the Exposition Line from downtown to Culver City.

The Crenshaw line and the LAX extension of the Green Line would have to compete for funding with the much-discussed — and very expensive — idea Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has championed of building a subway down Wilshire Boulevard from the Mid-Wilshire district to Santa Monica.

"If the [state infrastructure] bond measure passes, Metro will have more discretionary money available for new projects," agency spokesman Marc Littman said.

The Green Line was planned to end at the airport's long-term Parking Lot C, where passengers could board a small automated train called a people mover to the terminal. City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who represents the airport area, believes that it's time to proceed.

"It's a no-brainer to me that we need light rail into LAX," he said. "That will take a tremendous stress off of our highways and also be better for the consumer."

Rosendahl also envisions someday linking the extended Green Line to Santa Monica and the Westside's Exposition Line. At his request, the City Council recently dedicated $250,000 for an MTA study on the feasibility of doing that.

County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who sits on the MTA board, supports both projects.

The Green Line should be extended in an effort to "undo historically bad choices by the MTA," his transportation deputy, Michael Cano, said. He blamed local officials for acting to protect parking revenues and shuttle bus operators.

The Green Line extension also raised concerns with the Federal Aviation Administration about possible interference with aircraft because the train was supposed to cross near the ends of two runways. The proposed Crenshaw line, by contrast, would enter the airport to the north, far from any flight paths.

Until a rail line is built, more than 1 million travelers a year are boarding FlyAway shuttles from downtown Los Angeles and Van Nuys to the Los Angeles airport.

More than 70% of the more than 150,000 riders who have boarded at Union Station since March got there by bus, train, shuttle or taxi, demonstrating their commitment to mass transit when available, said Paul Haney, deputy executive director of airports and security for the city agency that operates LAX.

"There is less congestion, less emissions, and the experience of using the airport will be much more pleasant for travelers as a result of it," he said, noting that automobile traffic is down 26% in the terminal since Sept. 11, 2001. The number of airline travelers, by comparison, is down just 6% over the last five years.

To further reduce car traffic, airport officials plan to open a total of eight FlyAway locations around the county by 2010.

Shuttle service from Van Nuys Airport and MTA headquarters at One Gateway Boulevard, near Union Station in downtown Los Angeles, costs $3 each way. For an additional $5, domestic travelers can now check luggage curbside at FlyAway stations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jean.guccione@latimes.com

[Wright Concept]

A recap on what's being planned or built.

http://i14.tinypic.com/48hh2bo.gif

[solongfullerton]

Don't forget about Rosendahl's Green Line Extension to Santa Monica

[SunMonTueWedThuFriSa]

Who's proposing the N-S valley line? And there's a long-range gold line eastside extension to whittier?

[Wright Concept]

That previous map was not a fantasy map, but a visual of which corridors are most ready to get built and how they related to the existing network once the East LA Gold Line and Expo Line to Culver City are built by 2010.

Those that were studied and or have updated Major investment study done in the last 5-10 years. Having the studies done increases the likelyhood of getting them built.

*The San Fernando Valley North-South started it's MIS in 2002 and has funding earmarks for the full project. This is to be a BRT not LRT, unless a miracle happens like the Valley get their acts together.

*The Whittier Extension was part of the East LA Gold Line studies done in 2000-2002 again that is studied and a motion was carried that this will be the eventual terminal.

* Crenshaw/Mid City has had studies done in 1999 and a revised MIS as recently as 2003 to reflect possible changes north of Expo and to determine the technology of the corridor, BRT or LRT. Currently LRT is the locally perferred alternative with increased rapid bus service as an alternate.

*Downtown Connector, Wilshire Corridor, Burbank/Glendale, Green Line to South Bay and Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs has had updated MIS or revised their studies to prepare for an EIR in the last 5-10 years. Since these lines are more strategic in nature used to connect a potential bridge. Downtown Connector will bridge light rail lines together, Green Line to Norwalk will link it to an intercity Amtrak/Metrolink station, Wilshire west need no explanation. The Burbank/Glendale and South Bay Lines are directly tied to other projects.

*The Lincoln or Sepulveda Line still need an updated or revised MIS to even get started so that is why those are not on the map, the last one on that route was in 1992. So I don't know what route it would take and which stops. Same goes for the Harbor-Subdivision, there's now money to study but the final study whether it will be light rail or Metrolink commuter rail has yet to be determined.

Hence they are not reflected on this map.

If that were the case I'd have the Vermont Corridor, Whittier Corridor, one re-routing the Blue Line through a tunnel via Fashion District and South Park, 405/Van Nuys Blvd Corridor, a 710/Atlantic Corridor, Subway via Sunset Strip, Venice Blvd Corridor and Northern extension of the Mid City/Crenshaw corridor up to Hollywood. But those corridors haven't begun the MIS-EIR process thus they are not shown.

Some of those corridors are reflected here in this strategic map.

http://i14.tinypic.com/4htnklc.gif

[Wright Concept]

MTA consent decree lifted
BY RACHEL URANGA, Staff Writer
LA Daily News
Article Last Updated:10/25/2006 01:02:20 PM PDT

Paving the way for significant changes at the MTA, a federal judge today lifted a 10-year-old consent decree that forced the agency to spend $1.3 billion to expand bus service for the urban poor.

In a major victory for the Metropolitan Transportation Agency, the judge ruled that the agency had taken all "reasonable steps" to improve the bus system for poor minorities, easing crowding, extending service and adding hundreds of buses.

The decision sets the stage for a massive reorganization of Metro bus lines mandated under the decree but that officials say have been a drain on the budget.

"This is good for the people of the city and the county of Los Angeles," said Charles Safer, the MTA's lawyer. "The judge's decision vindicates the MTA's position."

But lawyers for the Bus Riders' Union - whose lawsuit prompted the decree - warned against any cuts in service to poor, minority riders.

"If they gut the bus system, we will be back in court asking for an extension to the decree after the fact," said Richard Larson, an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Larson also said the MTA must still implement a wide-reaching new service plan set to be completed by 2010.

In his decision, U.S. District Court Judge Terry Hatter noted that the decree, which had provided specific orders that sometimes generated controversy, was in hindsight "a less than perfect document."

"As a result, it is impossible to achieve absolute compliance," he stated.

rachel.uranga@dailynews.com

(818) 713-3741

[colemonkee]

So what exactly does this mean? Will the MTA have more money for rail projects? Will bus service in lower income areas suffer? Or was this just a ploy by the BRU to force more shifts for the drivers?

[Wright Concept]

So what exactly does this mean? Will the MTA have more money for rail projects? Will bus service in lower income areas suffer? Or was this just a ploy by the BRU to force more shifts for the drivers?

Part of will mean small operating helps like in an emergency for the LRT lines they can operate bus bridges until service or a track is free to operate.

The Labor ploy was definitely part of the reason for the BRU. Bus service in lower income areas will increase and become faster on some services as parts. Money for rail capital won't increase as part of it, that is a fixed amount per County Props A and C. What it will allow are $$$ to pay for preventative maintenance of vehicles and services so that this case doesn't happen again something that bound the MTA during the Consent Decree.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

If Eric Mann and Criollo died/disappeared/went away today, we would be one step closer to a happier LA. :)

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Bye Bye BRU!! MotherFU&^ers

[WesTheAngelino]

Although I think the Consent Decree has been a good thing for the transit dependent of Los Angeles, the BRU is totally out of control. Per example, from their website:

Top 10 Reasons
Why L.A. Needs 1,000 Less Police!

#10 - 1,000 more reasons why LAPD can profile you, harass you, label you and your neighbors a gangsta’, eventually bust you on some petty thing, get you caught up into the criminal ‘injustice’ system and land you into a shiny new prison cell. Since 1984 there have been 1,500 new “crimes” added to the books and 21 prisons have been built to lock us up in California.

#9 - Black and Brown Trumps Blue! We call on all Black and Latino police officers (and all officers of good will) to expose the structural racism inherent in the policing system. We call on you to stand with the community; you know this expansion will have racist repercussions.

#8 - While the large majority of politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, have been riding the “tough on crime” wave - Black and Latino youth are being locked-up in record numbers. There are 2.3 million people in U.S. jails and prisons, almost a million of whom are Black people and 500,000 of whom are Latinos.

#7 - Next time you hear a knock on your door, it won’t be the Girl Scouts, it will be the police ramming it down. The U.S. Supreme Court has weakened the 4th Amendment and its protection against unreasonable search. The police no longer have to knock, announce themselves, nor wait even 20 seconds before entering your house.

#6 - Policing will account for 40% of the current Los Angeles City Budget. LAPD’s budget increased 20.5% over the last three years. This should be cut and used for 1,000 new buses.

#5 - Chief Bratton’s “Broken Windows” policing leads to more broken dreams, broken families,and more arrests for being Black, Brown and broke. Under William Bratton’s leadership as New York police commissioner (1994-1996), complaints of police brutality went up 67% and arrests went up by 50%.

#4 - Devin Brown and Suzie Peña were killed by the LAPD. Stanley Miller was kicked and beaten with 11 baton blows. Worse, Mayor Villaraigosa’s police commissioners voted in favor of hiding the identity of any officer that is involved in a police shooting. Police brutality will not be resolved by adding 1,000 more officers as touted by Chief Bratton. Progressive people in law enforcement worry that a massive expansion of the police force leads to a recruitment pool of more unstable and racist applicants.

#3 - Police are the first line in the prison conveyor belt. L.A. County holds the illustrious record of the highest arrest rate in the United States. Each year, 180,000 adults go through LA jails and 15,000 youth go through juvenile hall.

#2 - The Mayor and L.A. City Council are trying to circumvent L.A. City voters by pushing an increase in trash collection fees to fund 1,000 more police, without voter approval. Mayor Villaraigosa and the City Council can try to increase the police force by 1,000 more officers. But, we expect them at minimum to let the public decide. They must also be more honest with the public that this fee increase is: 1) a tax, and 2) being used to increase the police force.

#1 - LAPD’s first target is Black and Latino youth; the next target is the progressive movement. An unfettered, unchallenged, ever growing police force will devastate our communities. Remember the nightmare of Rampart and the beating of Rodney King? It is urgent that progressive forces in the City actively oppose the growing police state. We are kidding ourselves if we don’t remember the devastating impact that the LAPD and other law enforcement agencies have had on our movements. Who framed Geronimo Pratt who spent his entire adult life in prison on trumped up murders charges? Who swung the batons at the protestors at the Chicano Moratorium? Who was responsible for violently attacking Latino Janitors struggling for a living wage? Who limited our ability to peacefully protest and attacked our events at the 2000 L.A. Democratic Party Convention?

Mayor Villaraigosa is not at the forefront of ordering wiretapping, infiltrations or sending provocateurs to stop our movements, but he must recognize the consequences of his actions. Does Mayor Villaraigosa really control the LAPD? Does the Mayor really control the growing ‘anti-terrorism’ enforcement mentality pushed by people like President Bush and LAPD Chief Bratton? Folks lets get real here. The ‘War on Terror’ is code for a growing threat of fascism. Aren’t you worried that you might already be under surveillance? Inside the progressive movement, should we really be having a debate on 1,000 more police for ‘community safety’? We all know that true community safety lies in the reconstruction of the social-safety net, not more police. We expect proposals from the Mayor’s office and City Council that call for the massive expansion of social services like a 1,000 more buses, 1,000 more teachers, and 1,000 more parks. The Strategy Center’s Community Rights Campaign and the Bus Riders Union urges you to join us in demanding that Mayor Villaraigosa and the L.A. City Council repeal the POLICE TAX!

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is indeed for real, no joke. Read it all at busridersunion.org

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

is that for real or a joke? seriously? i cannot believe that anyone would ever take this stupid organization seriously, such as the newspapers that quote them, if they ever read this shit. Jesus Christ.

[DJM19]

Wow. That some pretty bltant race baiting

[Wright Concept]

You know ppl's views of subway transit in LA have changed when things like this are occurring, in Beverly Hills, no less:


westsidechronicle.com, October 9, 2006

Committee Proposes Subway Route, Station Locations

Beverly Hills continues to work with the Metropolitan Transit Authority as discussions move forward about extending the Metro Red Line to the Westside, with the city’s Mass Transit Committee (MTC) making preliminary recommendations for route alignments and station locations within the city limits.

The committee, which consulted with traffic experts Kaku & Associates, was created about six months ago to discuss Beverly Hills’ interests in regional mass transit and has expressed support for a route alignment along Wilshire Boulevard with station locations at Wilshire and La Cienega boulevards and at Wilshire Boulevard and Rodeo/Beverly drives.

The committee reviewed a total of four different route alignments and 11 station locations. The review took into consideration that it is most realistic to expect a station location at Fairfax Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard east of city limits, and a station location in Century City at Avenue of the Stars west of city limits. The committee also visited several different Red Line station locations to view how each station fit into the community where it was located.

According to another committee report, stations are generally one mile apart and should be located where transit ridership potential is the highest. The nearest anticipated stations outside of Beverly Hills include Fairfax Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard to the east, assuming a Wilshire alignment; West Hollywood to the northeast, assuming a Santa Monica and San Vicente boulevards alignment; and Century City to the west, assuming all alignments. The recommended stations would serve both ends of the city and would allow for visitor traffic throughout the area.

The line was originally intended to run along the Wilshire Corridor to Santa Monica, but a 1985 methane gas explosion at a Ross Dress For Less in the Fairfax area incited Cong. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) in 1986 to legislate a ban on Federal money used for tunneling under certain portions of Wilshire Boulevard ostensibly due to methane gas safety concerns. The MTA has maintained that technological advances will allow it to tunnel safely.

Los Angeles Mayor and MTA head Antonio Villaraigosa has declared an extension of the Red Line to downtown Santa Monica a major priority and is offering visionary slogans such as “subway to the sea” and “..the most utilized subway in the nation, maybe the world.”

In the past, Westside residents reportedly balked at a subway that would make their community more accessible from the “economically disadvantaged” Eastside. An initiative in 1968 that would have built a subway to West Los Angeles was rejected by voters. With present density and traffic gridlock, many people have done a complete turnaround on the idea of a Wilshire Boulevard subway.

Waxman, whose Westside district the extension would pass through, even sponsored a repeal of the tunneling law, which was repealed last month by the House of Representatives and awaits a Senate vote. The Mass Transit Committee has not yet finalized its recommendations, however, “it clearly supports including Beverly Hills within the proposed Westside Subway extension,” the committee’s report said. “After receiving community input at a proposed town hall meeting, the committee’s goal is to finalize formal written recommendations for council consideration in December.

“I think this committee is being an active player in the planning process by participating in the regional planning process,” Deputy Director of Transportation Aaron Kunz said.

The town hall meeting is scheduled for Oct. 19.

Here's a diagram of the cross section of a Subway station in Dallas. This station was a bored tunnel that was done via TBM with the developer paying for the work to excavating the passageways and the local agency paying the developer as the contractor to do work to carve out the platform areas via mining.

http://i13.tinypic.com/33afpsm.gif

This can be an idea to build the Wilshire Subway. The MTA/Metro pays for the work to bore the tunnel. The developer pays to mine and carve out the location per the specs. Especially when the developer is building a high-rise that will need deep caisons to support the building. This can be done cost effectively by the developer/contractor.

[colemonkee]

There's heavy machinery along the Expo Line just west of La Cienega. I believe they are doing underground work at this time (laying pipe), but it appears to have something to do with construction of the Expo Line. And they have cleared out all of the parking lots in median of National Blvd west of the intersection of National and Jefferson. Something tells me they'll start work at both ends for this one. Pictures when I actually remember to bring my camera.

[Wright Concept]

Sounds like utility relocation for preparation for the elevated bridge they are building from La Cienega, across Ballona Channel to near the end of the line.

[colemonkee]

As usual, you are probably correct. So will the La Cienega station be on the east side of La Cienega?

[Wright Concept]

^More than likely on the East Side of La Cienega, but I wouldn't be surprised if they used both sides of La Cienega as a way to mitigate the park-ride commuters, buses turning into the terminal area and the extra traffic that they'll generate at that location

[colemonkee]

Wait, if the train is raised above grade, how would it generate more traffic?

[Wright Concept]

I just got this in my email last night and I'm going to post it here. Sorry in advance for the late notice.

Come testify in support of the subway extension this Thursday at Beverly Hills City Hall!

Dear Friends:

If at all possible, please plan to attend a town hall on the "subway to the sea" proposal" at Beverly Hills City Hall ( 455 North Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210) this Thursday, Nov. 2 at 7:30 pm. This red line extension (recently given a name of its own: the "purple line") is an extremely critical project for our gridlocked region's future.

It is critical that subway supporters have a voice at this meeting: please plan to attend. Otherwise, the same "not in my backyard" attitude partially responsible for blocking the project before will prevail again. Please also pass this message along to neighbors and colleagues who support the subway extension.

You can be sure that those who fear the subway will speak up at the meeting. The question is, will you? We need to have a balanced debate, with subway supporters well represented. I have attended a briefing by Metro's top Homeland Security official and the top Sheriff's dept official responsible for subway crimes, and believe that the subway will not negatively impact our community. In fact, I believe it will be a big boon for mobility.

At this meeting the Mass Transit Committee will present its findings and seek public input before developing a final recommendation for City Council consideration. For more information, please call 310-285-2566.

Hope to see you there!

[Wright Concept]

Wait, if the train is raised above grade, how would it generate more traffic?

It's not the train that will cause the traffic, it is the connecting facilities that will cause a little more traffic. The park-ride users converging to the station. Also Metro is planning on having close to 9 bus routes (37, 38, 68, 217, 439, 534, 780, Culver City 1 and 4) end there routes at La Cienega/Jefferson.

Most of them will be coming from the North and making a left at that intersection but this isn't impossible to mitigate with things like left-turn lights and bus-only lanes. So that the buses will have space to layover and park. Personally I think they should use both sites to provide the best mitigation relief so that everything isn't converged at one entrance or exit ramp.

[Wright Concept]

I just got this in my email last night and I'm going to post it here. Sorry in advance for the late notice.

Come testify in support of the subway extension this Thursday at Beverly Hills City Hall!

Dear Friends:

If at all possible, please plan to attend a town hall on the "subway to the sea" proposal" at Beverly Hills City Hall ( 455 North Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210) this Thursday, Nov. 2 at 7:30 pm. This red line extension (recently given a name of its own: the "purple line") is an extremely critical project for our gridlocked region's future.

It is critical that subway supporters have a voice at this meeting: please plan to attend. Otherwise, the same "not in my backyard" attitude partially responsible for blocking the project before will prevail again. Please also pass this message along to neighbors and colleagues who support the subway extension.

You can be sure that those who fear the subway will speak up at the meeting. The question is, will you? We need to have a balanced debate, with subway supporters well represented. I have attended a briefing by Metro's top Homeland Security official and the top Sheriff's dept official responsible for subway crimes, and believe that the subway will not negatively impact our community. In fact, I believe it will be a big boon for mobility.

At this meeting the Mass Transit Committee will present its findings and seek public input before developing a final recommendation for City Council consideration. For more information, please call 310-285-2566.

Hope to see you there!

[POLA]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mayor14nov14,0,101311,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Mayor rides the SUV, not the MTA
Villaraigosa promotes the use of public transit, but he doesn't spend much time on the city's bus and subway system.

By Duke Helfand
Times Staff Writer

November 14, 2006

From the moment he took office nearly 18 months ago, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa made traffic gridlock a cause celebre — exhorting Angelenos to help solve the problem by forsaking their cars whenever possible.

"You've got to use public transit," Villaraigosa said just last week while unveiling an automated signal system to help unclog busy intersections. "You can't keep on pointing to someone else and saying it's their responsibility."

But Villaraigosa's own travel habits don't match his public pronouncements.

The mayor rarely, if ever, takes the bus or the train to work. Instead, he rides around town in a GMC Yukon chauffeured by a Los Angeles police officer who doubles as a bodyguard.

Unlike many others in Los Angeles, Villaraigosa has easy access to public transportation.

He lives just one block from Wilshire Boulevard, one of the city's most accessible and heavily traveled public transit corridors and one where, he often says, he would like to extend the subway.

No one, of course, expects the ultra-busy mayor to step on a bus or train every time he visits a school or holds a news conference, as he travels from one end of the sprawling city to the other. But that's not to say some regular use isn't feasible, transit riders say.

Just about any morning, the mayor could catch a bus on Metro Rapid route 720 at Wilshire and Crenshaw boulevards, transfer to the nearby Red Line subway and arrive at City Hall in about the time it takes to shower, shave and eat a bowl of cereal.

To gauge the trip, a Times reporter caught the 8:31 a.m. bus Monday down the street from Villaraigosa's official residence in Windsor Square.

The time to City Hall was 44 minutes. Along the route, bus riders and subway regulars sounded off about the mayor's commuting habits.

"Get out and ride the transit like you tell everyone else — not just a day, but a week or two," scolded Jackie Sanders, 39, as she bounced around the crowded Metro Rapid 720. It was the last of three buses she rides every morning from Baldwin Village to Koreatown, where she is studying to become a pharmacy technician.

The view from underground had a different shading.

George Lee, a mainstay on the Red Line between Koreatown and downtown, said Villaraigosa is missing a superb opportunity to bond with citizens of Los Angeles in air-conditioned trains that offer ample seating and a smooth ride.

Lee, who lives just blocks from the mayor and works at a temporary employment agency downtown, said he takes the train also because it saves money on gas and parking.

"Instead of being in your car and being sheltered from other people, you get to interact with other cultures," said Lee, 38. "It gives us a chance to say hello and communicate with other people. We're not meant to stay in cars."

Villaraigosa, who sits on the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board, insisted that he practices what he preaches.

He pointed out that he takes a bus, train or light rail about once a month from one event to another despite a hectic calendar that regularly crams half a dozen events into his day.

"I'd like to do more, but my problem is I have to go all over the city," the mayor said Monday while sitting in the Yukon before an appearance in Watts. "It's very tough because of my schedule."

Other public officials have their own takes on getting around the congested city while on an overloaded schedule.

Wendy Greuel, who chairs the City Council's Transportation Committee and lives in Studio City, said she takes the Red Line or carpools with her chief of staff once a week and takes the subway to Hollywood or downtown on the weekends with her family to see movies or attend cultural events.

"I have to walk the walk," Greuel said. "I have to take public transit if I am asking others to do it. As elected officials, we have to set an example."

But Councilman Herb Wesson, another Transportation Committee member, said he does not take buses or trains because, like the mayor, his days are so packed and the distances he must travel are so great.

"Given the type of work I do, it just doesn't work for me to take public transportation," said Wesson, who noted that he does ride the subway when he visits New York because it is so convenient. "I've taken the Red Line once that I can remember, maybe twice."

He added: "When I think about it, I believe that we do have a responsibility from a symbolic standpoint."

Los Angeles' public transportation system is a work in progress and does not yet reach into corners of the far-flung city.

Officials say help is on the way: They expect to snare a large portion of nearly $20 billion in transportation bonds approved by state voters last week.

The money would pay to expand rail systems, synchronize traffic lights, improve roads and other measures aimed at reducing what is arguably one of Los Angeles' biggest urban headaches.

Those ideas resonated with commuters on the bus Monday, but they also wanted the mayor to get a firsthand look at commuting problems.

"At least he should see how long it takes to go from his house to downtown," said Sanders, the pharmacy trainee on her third bus of the morning. "It's just so congested, and sometimes you end up on the wrong one."

http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2006-11/26403836.gif

[solongfullerton]

That bastard! he doesnt do shit for this city! *tongue in cheek*

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-highway16nov16,1,669540.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

MTA panel wants $1.7 billion in transit bonds
The Los Angeles County agency's priority road projects include ending bottlenecks on the 5 at the O.C. line, and a carpool lane on the 405.
By Jean Guccione
Times Staff Writer

November 16, 2006

Widening the heavily congested Santa Ana and San Diego freeways tops Los Angeles County's wish list of highway projects seeking new state infrastructure bond money.

Transportation planners want to eliminate the bottleneck on the Santa Ana Freeway at the Los Angeles-Orange County line, where five lanes of traffic funnel into three lanes in each direction.

They also hope to secure $730 million in state bond money to build a northbound carpool lane on the San Diego Freeway between the Ventura and Santa Monica freeways.

The southbound lane along the same stretch is under construction. To finance those and other highway construction projects, a Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority committee on Wednesday recommended that the full board petition the state for $1.7 billion in bond money.

"We recognize that these are some of the most important projects to increase mobility and help good movements in the Los Angeles region," said Doug Failing, who heads the California Department of Transportation's Los Angeles-area district.

Under Proposition 1B, approved by voters last week, the California Transportation Commission will divvy up $20 billion for transportation capital projects statewide.

The first available pool of money, dubbed the Corridor Mobility Improvement Program, will distribute $4.5 billion on a competitive basis. Nominations are due Jan. 16.

The MTA board is scheduled to seek funding for these freeway projects:

• Adding carpool lanes on the Golden State Freeway, between the Hollywood Freeway and the 134 Freeway in the San Fernando Valley: $73 million.

• Filling a gap in the El Monte Busway, a carpool lane, on the 10 Freeway between Baldwin Park and San Bernardino County: $356 million.

• Creating a smoother transition from the eastbound 10 Freeway to the southbound 605 Freeway: $71 million.

• Widening California 138 from Avenue T to California 18 in the Palmdale/Lancaster area: $111 million.

• Making technological improvements, such as ramp meters and loop detectors in the freeway and traffic light synchronization on arterial streets, to improve rush-hour traffic flow: $40 million.

"We've asked for $1.7 billion," said David Yale, the agency's director of regional planning. "That's more than we actually expect to get in the competition, but we didn't want to ask for less."

Even with the influx of new money, commuters on the Santa Ana Freeway shouldn't expect immediate relief. It will take at least 10 years to design and build the four-lane expansion through La Mirada, Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs and Downey.

That will be six years after Orange County completes a $251-million project to widen the last two miles up to the Los Angeles County line.

Until now, the transit agency had committed $1 billion to adding the carpool and mix-flow lanes to match those in Orange County, and was scouring its capital budget for more.

"The trouble is that it is going to cost $1.4 billion to build," Yale said. The MTA is planning to seek $387 million from the state.

He credited the state bond issue with moving the projects ahead though not necessarily much faster. "The bonds make it more certain that we can deliver in 2016," he said.

On the Westside, carpool lanes on the northbound San Diego Freeway could be completed four years sooner, under a deal to design and build the project simultaneously.

Richard Close, president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn., believes closing the gap in the northbound carpool lane through the Sepulveda Pass is long overdue. Not only will it encourage motorists to carpool, but the extra lane should also ease the evening commute into the San Fernando Valley.

"When you only have a carpool lane in one direction, you only have half an incentive," said Close, an attorney who spends up to an hour driving home from his Santa Monica office.

Benefits of the bond issue go beyond the immediate construction projects, transportation officials said.

The infusion of bond money frees up local transportation dollars for unfunded projects, such as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's proposed Red Line subway to the sea and extension of the Expo Line from Culver City to Santa Monica.

Highway projects, such as carpool lane connectors where the Golden State Freeway meets the San Diego Freeway in the San Fernando Valley, also may be built sooner.

The full MTA board will consider the priority list at its next meeting Dec. 7 at its headquarters in downtown Los Angeles.

The state commission will allocate the money by March 1.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jean.guccione@latimes.com

[Damien]

"Insanity, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." -Einstein

[SunMonTueWedThuFriSa]

Right. Take 10 years to expand that portion of the I-5 to four lanes, which by then the population will have expanded enough to fill up those four lanes essentially congesting it as it is today.

[Wright Concept]

In my email:


Greetings—



The attached notices announce a DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR Design Presentation and Project Update Meeting regarding the Exposition Light Rail Line project. The purpose of the meeting is to highlight key design elements and receive community input.



The Design Presentation is scheduled for:



When: Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Where: Alexander Science Center School
Multi-Purpose Room
3737 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90007
Time: 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.



Please forward this announcement to area stakeholders that might be interested.



We look forward to having you join us. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 213-243-5535 or e-mailed at ggonzalez@exporail.net.



Thank you.

Gaby Gonzalez
Government/Community Relations Representative
Exposition Construction Authority
707 Wilshire Blvd., 34th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel. 213-243-5535
Fax 213-243-5553

[ReDSPork02]

Crews finish dig on one Eastside tunnel
Giant twin boring machines are being used to carve two passages below ground for the Gold Line extension into Boyle Heights.
By Jean Guccione, Times Staff Writer
November 17, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/los_angeles_metro/la-me-tunnel17nov17,1,2902369.story?track=rss


A giant boring machine, nicknamed Lola, pushed through the dirt beneath Boyle Heights on Thursday, marking the completion of a subway tunnel that will eventually connect downtown to East Los Angeles.

"This is a huge breakthrough, literally and figuratively, for this community," said Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who grew up near the Boyle Heights construction site at 1st and Lorena streets.

The twin 1.7-mile tunnels are part of the $900-million Eastside extension of the Gold Line light-rail route through the Little Tokyo/Arts District, Boyle Heights and East Los Angeles, ending at Atlantic and Pomona boulevards.

A second tunnel — being excavated by a similar boring machine, dubbed Vicki — still has about 1,000 feet to go before being completed within the next few weeks.

"We are moving forward," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, who chairs the MTA board, pledging "to connect all of these communities by public transportation."

The six-mile extension will have eight stops, including two underground in Boyle Heights, and is slated to open in late 2009.

The trip from East Los Angeles to Union Station will take 17 minutes.

When the extension is completed, passengers will be able to travel from East Los Angeles to Pasadena without changing trains.

Plans are being discussed to eventually extend the rail line through the San Gabriel Valley to Ontario International Airport.

The Eastside tunnels were built about 60 feet below ground because the streets are too narrow for the light-rail trains.

The boring machines, which weigh more than 2 million pounds each and are 344 feet long and 22 feet in diameter, excavate, then line the tunnel with 1-foot-thick pre-cast concrete walls.

On average, the machines dig 50 feet of tunnel a day. In all, enough dirt has been removed to fill a football field 15 stories high.

The same tunneling technology was used on the Red Line subway and is proposed for connecting the Foothill Freeway in Pasadena with the Long Beach Freeway in Alhambra.

Boyle Heights resident Art Herrera has been working to get a commuter train through East Los Angeles since 1992, when plans to build a subway there were derailed.

Herrera, 70, envisions a light-rail system that not only eases the commute for area residents but also creates a bustling retail center, like the one in Hollywood, that attracts new visitors.

"It's going to bring a new dimension to the community," he said.


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

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-woo18nov18,1,1527196.story

An above-ground solution for Wilshire traffic
A dedicated bus lane for the Metro Rapid Line 720 would cost less in time and money than digging a subway to Santa Monica.
By Michael Woo and Christian Peralta
MICHAEL WOO, a former L.A. city councilman, is a member of the Los Angeles City Planning Commission and teaches urban planning at USC and UCLA. CHRISTIAN PERALTA is managing editor of Planetizen.com.

November 18, 2006

THERE'S NO question that we need alternatives to sitting in L.A. traffic, and the Wilshire Boulevard corridor is as good a place as any to start.

While the continuation of the Red Line subway along Wilshire championed by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and others is a worthy goal, the project's $5-billion cost is staggering. Even if the money is found, the 10 years it would take to construct is too long to wait for a solution to our worsening congestion there. Why not improve what's already working on Wilshire: Metro Rapid Line 720, which boasts about 50,000 boardings a day between East L.A. and Santa Monica?

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's BRT (or "bus rapid transit") experiment on Wilshire and in other parts of the city is like a bus system on steroids. In order to approximate the speed and capacity of a more expensive urban rail system, the Metro Rapid buses exploit their advantage over conventional MTA buses by scheduling more frequent service, fewer stops, coordination with subway station locations and even a device that extends a green light for an approaching bus.

Now, transit planners want to make the Metro Rapid system even more productive by installing a dedicated bus lane along Wilshire and implementing a prepaid fare system, similar to the Valley's Metro Orange Line. These improvements could cut bus travel time between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica by an estimated 20% to less than 50 minutes, making a Wilshire BRT line competitive with a subway.

However, there are complaints about traffic problems and the temporary loss of business during construction. There are also concerns about the permanent loss of street parking if the curb lane is used for buses or, alternatively, the destruction of Wilshire's signature planted median if center lanes are created for the buses. These objections are threatening to derail both the MTA's current one-mile pilot project in West L.A. and the entire Wilshire plan.

Local officials now considering the fate of the bus lane ought to look at how Bogota, Colombia — a metropolis of nearly 7 million residents — tackled its traffic problems. Former Mayor Enrique Peñalosa spearheaded a 300-mile system of bus lanes, bicycle paths and pedestrian streets that is widely credited with dramatically reducing urban traffic. By 2005, there was a 32% reduction in commute times and a 40% drop in air pollution, according to one study.

The success in Bogota has shown that bus rapid transit is a proven solution for moving people efficiently. New York and San Francisco, cities with mature rail systems, have recently announced plans to build bus rapid transit lines using dedicated lanes. All this suggests that before we consider spending $5 billion — and waiting at least 10 years — for a subway, Los Angeles should be investing a fraction of that sum to create a first-class BRT system on Wilshire by the end of 2008.

The MTA estimates that it would cost $232 million to complete the dedicated lane on Wilshire. The savings over a subway system would be more than enough to justify spending money on replacement parking, traffic management, transitional assistance for affected businesses and more trees to replace the planted medians.

Dedicating road space to bus riders makes transit work better for everyone, and it ultimately benefits motorists by reducing the number of cars on the road. Instead of caving into parochial interests, county and city officials should push for dedicated lanes along all of Wilshire Boulevard.

[Damien]

Los Angeles looking to Bogota or Curitiba for our transportation solutions is like the Oakland Raiders looking to the Baldwin Hills Titans pop warner football team for answers to their problems with their team.

Here's the class of cities Los Angeles, is justifiably apart of:London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city#Alpha_world_cities_.28full_service_world_cities.29).

If we want an answer as to how to build a rail network quickly, cheaply and safely we need to be inviting Madrid Metro President Manuel Melis and Madrid Mayor Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón. And they're going to say things like (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=117896):

"Many cities around the world desperately need new metro lines, but they cannot afford to build them at an estimated $300 million to $400 million/mile, nor be forced to wait a dozen years for the lines to become reality. The truth is that these estimates of costs and time are simply wrong. In Madrid, with all humbleness, we have now proved it on more than one occasion."

And point to the fact that they are creating tunnels and stations for under $50 million a mile.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ How is this information NOT pushed through in Los Angeles media? If anything, the mayor should be put in touch with these Spanish officials immediately. That way we can shut the shit news we've been getting about subway construction from crap papers, esp. the Dickface News.

Anyone working on getting this news to the mayor? Or even Gloria Molina?

[RAlossi]

Even getting it to the Times may have some kind of impact. I know they like to bandy the "300 million/mile" figure around a lot, but if they got wind of the 50 million/mile figure they might report it.

EDIT: Even the Downtown News might be able to put something out there on it. The editors and writers on that paper are realllly friendly and interested in things related to transit.

[Damien]

^ How is this information NOT pushed through in Los Angeles media? If anything, the mayor should be put in touch with these Spanish officials immediately. That way we can shut the shit news we've been getting about subway construction from crap papers, esp. the Dickface News.

Anyone working on getting this news to the mayor? Or even Gloria Molina?

Thus far, I've just been pushing to get the MTA to study it. We need an official: L.A.'s been doing it this way vs. Madrid is doing it this way type of document. My first public on-the-record reference to it will occur at the next MTA meeting in December. Between now and then I intend on passing the study I do have on it around to the transportation deputies of each of the MTA Directors.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ Good work!

[Wright Concept]

Los Angeles looking to Bogota or Curitiba for our transportation solutions is like the Oakland Raiders looking to the Baldwin Hills Titans pop warner football team for answers to their problems with their team.

Here's the class of cities Los Angeles, is justifiably apart of:London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city#Alpha_world_cities_.28full_service_world_cities.29).

If we want an answer as to how to build a rail network quickly, cheaply and safely we need to be inviting Madrid Metro President Manuel Melis and Madrid Mayor Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón. And they're going to say things like (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=117896):

And point to the fact that they are creating tunnels and stations for under $50 million a mile.

The cost is $85 million a mile, but that is still pretty good. I think I see the secret. It's economy of scale.

Madrid paid a small premium to get most of the material and equipment up front in order to build everything at once, instead of segment by segment. Also this might play into a fact as to why housing is slowing down and costing more in the LA area a lack of trained affordable skilled labor. If this supply was abundant then the cost of projects will actually go down and quality improves.

When you have a good supply of that it's easier and cheaper to do large scale projects and build things like LA Live in 2 years instead of 4 years, One of the tallest buildings in the world at the time, The Empire State Building was done in 14 months!

[Damien]

The cost is $85 million a mile, but that is still pretty good.

You're right. I was looking at the bids and not the final contract cost.

And if our skilled labor force isn't big enough, while spending the next 2-4 years studying what needs to be built and how, have our junior colleges offering night classes and/or certification programs. It's not like we have a shortage of young to middle-aged men in Los Angeles interested in good-paying skilled labor union jobs.

Madrid paid a small premium to get most of the material and equipment up front in order to build everything at once, instead of segment by segment.

With a long-term expansion plan and revenue stream I would hope we would/could do the same.

[Vangelist]

Damien, you're doing a great job! I wish you luck on your December endeavor with this - we're all v proud of you and excited about this, just wanted to remind you of that

[Vangelist]

Okay...so if they can do it WHY CAN'T WE AGAIN ?

Beijing planning to build world's biggest subway - AFP

Mon Nov 20, 1:18 AM ET

Beijing is planning to build the world's biggest subway and dramatically expand its bus network as part of efforts to combat the city's fast-increasing traffic grid-lock, state press has said.

The Chinese capital will expand its subway system to 273 kilometers (169 miles) by 2010 and to 561 kilometers by 2020, surpassing London as the city with the world's most extensive underground, the reports said.

The city's current metro rail system is 115 kilometers, with 54 kilometers of subway.

The city's newly approved five-year public transport plan will shift the focus from building roads for car use to constructing a high-speed public transport system to ease the growing grid-lock, the China News Service said.

"When Beijing citizens are in the city center, we want them to be able to get to places faster by using public transport than by using a car," the report quoted Liu Xiaoming, vice head of the city's traffic department, as saying.

Besides completing five new rail lines by 2010, including an already announced light rail connecting the city center to the airport, Beijing will also build 300 kilometers of specialized bus lanes, Liu said.

The China News Service report did not detail the costs for such a plan.

But by 2010, it is hoped that 40 percent or more of the city's daily commuting will be done on public transport, with up to six million passengers commuting by rail and over 13 million travelling by bus daily, it said.

Although Beijing currently only boasts two subway lines and two light rail tracks, three more underground lines are under construction and slated to be completed by 2008 when the city hosts the Olympic Games, the China Daily said.

Beijing's efforts to build public transport has greatly lagged behind the city's construction of new highways, ring roads and widened streets to meet the demands of the 2.75 million cars currently plying city streets.

"Motorized vehicle use is growing rapidly and by 2010 it is estimated that there will be 3.5 million vehicles in the city," Gu Shengli, another city traffic official told the China New Service.

"This will bring the city huge traffic pressures that cannot be alleviated through the mere expansion and building of new roads."

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-transit21nov21,0,2925096.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail

EDITORIAL
L.A.'s transport priorities
Besides the planned freeway upgrades, money from Prop. 1B should fund subway extensions and light rail.

November 21, 2006

IF IT HELPS PEOPLE OR things move more quickly and efficiently, L.A. needs more of it. With more drivers and more transit needs than any other county in the state, plus the busiest port in the nation, Los Angeles will get a sizable share of the money from Proposition 1B, the bond package passed two weeks ago that provides $19.9 billion for infrastructure. Now planners just have to figure out how to spend it.

Most of the money will be allocated according to preset criteria that identify the most beneficial projects. About $11.3 billion will go to various regions for highway and road projects; locally, the top priorities include widening the Santa Ana and San Diego freeways and installing technical improvements to speed rush-hour traffic. Another $2 billion or so will go for things such as grade separations at railway crossings and a replacement for the crumbling Gerald Desmond Bridge at the Port of Long Beach.

About $1 billion for public transit is expected to go to Los Angeles County, and given that transit funds are usually matched by federal money, that means at least $2 billion worth of new projects locally. Unfortunately, those spending decisions can be the most political.

The California Transportation Commission will decide how much transit money will go to L.A., but the decisions on which projects to pursue will be made by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Board members have a history of pursuing narrow political interests over doing what's right for the county as a whole. County Supervisor (and MTA board member) Michael Antonovich, for example, is a fierce opponent of extending the Red Line subway along Wilshire Boulevard, preferring projects of far lower public value, such as an extension of the Gold Line to the San Gabriel Valley, which would benefit his own constituents.

A Red Line (Purple Line, good grief can a reporter get the facts straight!) extension along Wilshire from its terminus at Western Avenue to at least Fairfax Avenue should be at or near the top of the MTA's priority list. Another priority should be a planned light-rail line along Crenshaw Boulevard to Los Angeles International Airport, directly connecting LAX to downtown by rail. A third would be the so-called downtown connector, a 1.5-mile subway line unifying the different rail lines that converge in the area, allowing, say, a rider to get from Pasadena to Staples Center without multiple train changes.

Many will argue that these projects are all downtown or Westside-centric and that they don't take the rest of the county into account. They're right. But these projects are also the ones that would have the highest projected ridership, in areas where needs are greatest. Those should be the decisive criteria.

[SD_Phil]

A Red Line (Purple Line, damn) extension along Wilshire from its terminus at Western Avenue to at least Fairfax Avenue should be at or near the top of the MTA's priority list. Another priority should be a planned light-rail line along Crenshaw Boulevard to Los Angeles International Airport, directly connecting LAX to downtown by rail. A third would be the so-called downtown connector, a 1.5-mile subway line unifying the different rail lines that converge in the area, allowing, say, a rider to get from Pasadena to Staples Center without multiple train changes.

Many will argue that these projects are all downtown or Westside-centric and that they don't take the rest of the county into account. They're right. But these projects are also the ones that would have the highest projected ridership, in areas where needs are greatest. Those should be the decisive criteria.

Okay, believe it or not, I've been converted. I agree with these priorities. How far will $2billion go though?

[Wright Concept]

Okay, believe it or not, I've been converted. I agree with these priorities. How far will $2billion go though?

To answer the question:

http://i7.tinypic.com/2csjoz6.gif

[Art]

Supervisor Molina is gonna be gunning for a whittier blvd purple line extension after I get ahold of her transit deputy.

[yakumoto]

Supervisor Molina is gonna be gunning for a whittier blvd purple line extension after I get ahold of her transit deputy.


That always made sense to be because the Red line tracks alread go down to Whittier next to the LA river, it wouldn't take that much to extend them.

[solongfullerton]

Okay...so if they can do it WHY CAN'T WE AGAIN ?

Beijing planning to build world's biggest subway - AFP

Mon Nov 20, 1:18 AM ET

Beijing is planning to build the world's biggest subway and dramatically expand its bus network as part of efforts to combat the city's fast-increasing traffic grid-lock, state press has said.

The Chinese capital will expand its subway system to 273 kilometers (169 miles) by 2010 and to 561 kilometers by 2020, surpassing London as the city with the world's most extensive underground, the reports said.

The city's current metro rail system is 115 kilometers, with 54 kilometers of subway.

The city's newly approved five-year public transport plan will shift the focus from building roads for car use to constructing a high-speed public transport system to ease the growing grid-lock, the China News Service said.

"When Beijing citizens are in the city center, we want them to be able to get to places faster by using public transport than by using a car," the report quoted Liu Xiaoming, vice head of the city's traffic department, as saying.

Besides completing five new rail lines by 2010, including an already announced light rail connecting the city center to the airport, Beijing will also build 300 kilometers of specialized bus lanes, Liu said.

The China News Service report did not detail the costs for such a plan.

But by 2010, it is hoped that 40 percent or more of the city's daily commuting will be done on public transport, with up to six million passengers commuting by rail and over 13 million travelling by bus daily, it said.

Although Beijing currently only boasts two subway lines and two light rail tracks, three more underground lines are under construction and slated to be completed by 2008 when the city hosts the Olympic Games, the China Daily said.

Beijing's efforts to build public transport has greatly lagged behind the city's construction of new highways, ring roads and widened streets to meet the demands of the 2.75 million cars currently plying city streets.

"Motorized vehicle use is growing rapidly and by 2010 it is estimated that there will be 3.5 million vehicles in the city," Gu Shengli, another city traffic official told the China New Service.

"This will bring the city huge traffic pressures that cannot be alleviated through the mere expansion and building of new roads."

What blows me away is that I went to Beijing for a week over the summer and their traffic isn't that bad compared to here. Great for them, but I just feel that Americans are so spoiled with their cars, that to most, even rail transit is below their socio economic status.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

The city's newly approved five-year public transport plan will shift the focus from building roads for car use to constructing a high-speed public transport system to ease the growing grid-lock, the China News Service said.

"When Beijing citizens are in the city center, we want them to be able to get to places faster by using public transport than by using a car," the report quoted Liu Xiaoming, vice head of the city's traffic department, as saying.

"This will bring the city huge traffic pressures that cannot be alleviated through the mere expansion and building of new roads."[/I]



WOW! Beijing, and the Chinese, are already light-years ahead of most "sophisticated" American cities! They "get it." And honestly, it's not too hard to get. Congested roads cannot be widened and then expected to be sustainable. Most Americans think of it this way because they're pretty much some of the dumbest things alive on the planet.

It's amazing how just a few decades go, most Americans thought they were the shit and lived in this bubble (and many, many still do) that they're somehow really cool. LOL Little do most people know that the very cities they looked down upon will be surpassing them soon.

It's like the geek that was made fun of in high school by the popular kids and now that "geek" is turned into a swan and the once popular kids are the ones being laughed at! America is seriously a joke now.

[Vangelist]

Well, um, a lot of other American cities HAVE gotten it; let's not kid or deny ourselves there.

What the hell is wrong with OUR city and its stubborness? Why are there STILL fuckwads like Antonovich on the county board actively oppose any form of transit growth or expansion, as Zeb and Waxman also did for decades? Why can't we fire these assholes?

[DaveofCali]

Okay...so if they can do it WHY CAN'T WE AGAIN ?

Beijing planning to build world's biggest subway - AFP

Mon Nov 20, 1:18 AM ET

Beijing is planning to build the world's biggest subway and dramatically expand its bus network as part of efforts to combat the city's fast-increasing traffic grid-lock, state press has said.

The Chinese capital will expand its subway system to 273 kilometers (169 miles) by 2010 and to 561 kilometers by 2020, surpassing London as the city with the world's most extensive underground, the reports said.

The city's current metro rail system is 115 kilometers, with 54 kilometers of subway.

The city's newly approved five-year public transport plan will shift the focus from building roads for car use to constructing a high-speed public transport system to ease the growing grid-lock, the China News Service said.

"When Beijing citizens are in the city center, we want them to be able to get to places faster by using public transport than by using a car," the report quoted Liu Xiaoming, vice head of the city's traffic department, as saying.

Besides completing five new rail lines by 2010, including an already announced light rail connecting the city center to the airport, Beijing will also build 300 kilometers of specialized bus lanes, Liu said.

The China News Service report did not detail the costs for such a plan.

But by 2010, it is hoped that 40 percent or more of the city's daily commuting will be done on public transport, with up to six million passengers commuting by rail and over 13 million travelling by bus daily, it said.

Although Beijing currently only boasts two subway lines and two light rail tracks, three more underground lines are under construction and slated to be completed by 2008 when the city hosts the Olympic Games, the China Daily said.

Beijing's efforts to build public transport has greatly lagged behind the city's construction of new highways, ring roads and widened streets to meet the demands of the 2.75 million cars currently plying city streets.

"Motorized vehicle use is growing rapidly and by 2010 it is estimated that there will be 3.5 million vehicles in the city," Gu Shengli, another city traffic official told the China New Service.

"This will bring the city huge traffic pressures that cannot be alleviated through the mere expansion and building of new roads."

Wow! What humiliation upon L.A.'s fuckin red tape! They are going to expand their subway system by nearly 100 miles in only 4 years!!! And we can't even get a damn 13 mile extension approved and under construction. Its projected that the red line extension, if approved, would be built by 2020, and Beijing is going to have about 21X that (271 miles) built by that time!!!

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-subway27nov27,0,1906479,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Beverly Hills doesn't want to miss the subway
By Jean Guccione
Times Staff Writer

November 27, 2006

Beverly Hills officials, sensing that a subway to the sea is inevitable, want to ensure the train doesn't pass them by.

They are preparing to select a route and two station locations to best serve residents, as well as business owners and their employees.

It doesn't seem to matter that the city has little say over the path of the proposed 13-mile subway that would travel between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica. Or that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which would design, build and operate the subway, is still at least a year or two away from picking the route.

Forget, too, that no money has been set aside for the $5-billion project. Or that using federal funds to tunnel under Wilshire Boulevard still is illegal.

Beverly Hills residents, some of whom once opposed a subway, may be set to endorse a Wilshire Boulevard route from Western Avenue that would include one station at La Cienega Boulevard, and another between Beverly and Rodeo drives.
At community meetings, city leaders have confronted residents' fears of subway crime and potential terrorism. They warn naysayers that, without a subway, traffic on the Westside will only get worse.

"There is an incredible sea change of attitude from resistance to support for the subway," said Allan Alexander, a former Beverly Hills mayor who co-chairs the city's mass transit panel.

Mayor Steve Webb is leading the charge.

He's trying to put Beverly Hills in the best position to lobby federal, state and local officials for the money needed to build the rail line and to make sure it goes through his city.

Webb directed Alexander's subway study committee to "determine what's in our best interest."

The subway study committee's tentative endorsement of the route through the city is to be finalized next month and sent to the City Council for consideration at its January meeting.

A consultant hired by Beverly Hills said Wilshire Boulevard was chosen because it is surrounded by high-density residential and commercial development. It is the county's most heavily traveled transit corridor, according to the MTA.

The committee considered but rejected a route along Santa Monica Boulevard from the subway's Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue station.

Last year, during his campaign for Los Angeles mayor, then-City Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa promised to restart the Westside subway project — more than two decades after it had been derailed.

Longtime subway opponents Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), whose district includes parts of West Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who represents the Westside, now are working with Villaraigosa to try to complete the east-west rail line.

But that's still several years away. First, the proposed subway must be added to the MTA's long-range plan — an essential element for federal funding — and given a high priority.

Even with the MTA board's endorsement, the proposed Red Line subway extension faces stiff competition for construction money.

It will have to vie with plans to extend the Expo Line from Culver City to Santa Monica, the Gold Line through the San Gabriel Valley to the Ontario International Airport and the Green Line from El Segundo to Los Angeles International Airport.
Meanwhile, the agency's planners are dusting off old studies, dating to 1994. Planning alone could take up to two years to complete. The MTA board recently authorized a mere $100,000 to hire a full-time planner to oversee the project.

That's all the money currently dedicated to building the subway to the sea. Efforts by Waxman to overturn a federal ban on subway funding along Wilshire are stalled in the U.S. Senate.

Waxman introduced the measure after experts concluded last year that a subway could be built without risk of another methane explosion like the one that ripped through a Fairfax-area clothing store in 1985. Although no one was killed, concerns about the blast helped lead to the stopping of subway construction.

There is another funding complication. In 1998, Los Angeles County voters, in a move led by Yaroslavsky, barred the use of transportation sales tax revenue for tunneling.

No one is suggesting that ban be lifted. Instead, transit officials, including Yaroslavsky, believe local money may be used for non-tunneling parts of the subway project.

Subway advocates are optimistic, especially with passage earlier this month of a $20-billion state infrastructure bond issue.

But critics, such as the Bus Riders Union, argue that bond money should be used to improve bus service.

To make it all happen, MTA officials, who rarely proceed without local support for regional transit projects, welcome the city of Beverly Hills' early efforts to rally support.

"The seriousness and detail of their work shows their commitment for our common vision for improving transit service," Villaraigosa, an MTA board member, said in a statement last week.

Alexander, a longtime subway advocate, believes mass transit is essential to conveniently ferrying many thousands of workers and visitors in and out of the city daily.

"It will allow people to come to work in the city, shop in the city, visit the city without bringing more cars to the city," he said.

The population of Beverly Hills, with just 35,000 residents, swells weekdays to 250,000. Nearly 28,000 people a day board buses along Wilshire Boulevard within the city's limits.

"I'm hoping that by our taking the initiative in this regard that Century City, Mid-Wilshire, Westwood and even Santa Monica will begin focusing on this," Alexander said.

Beverly Hills officials may still have to persuade some residents. At a recent public meeting, one resident fretted that subway stops create potential terrorist targets. Another expressed concern about transit-related crime.

Overall, however, the tide seems to have turned.

"Anything that we can do to get cars off of our streets will be a plus for the quality of the life for the residents as well as assist the businesses," resident Joe Safier said at a meeting this month.

The business community also is on board.

"Gridlock is such a problem on the Westside that it must be relieved, and we must be part of the equation," Dan Walsh, chief executive of the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce, said Friday.

Chamber members suspect the traffic congestion they encounter daily could someday discourage visitors from shopping, eating and doing other business in their city.

It also could make it difficult to attract workers.

"We have to make it a piece of cake to get here," Walsh said.

*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jean.guccione@latimes.com

[LosAngelesBeauty]

I am still disheartened by the lack of STRONG support in the LA media toward the "subway cause." Call me picky, but the article by Jean was focusing too much on dissenting views against subway construction and not enough on supporting views. Everything in that article had a "but" to a positive step forward.

I was personally at the transit meeting in Beverly Hills at City Hall (along with Bart and Damien and others) and I saw that most people were emphatically PRO-subway expansion. The lady that was concerned about "terrorism" and "crime" probably never left the Westside in her little life and was swayed by the end of the meeting as person-after-person supported the subway.

But the article doesn't make that known. It makes it seem like LA is STILL retarded and backward and I think the LA Times/Daily News LOVES (they get an orgasm off of it) to do this. I don't even know how to describe it, but they like maintaining the status quo, even if its literally KILLING our city.

I am really starting to hate the media in LA...

[Vangelist]

>>The committee considered but rejected a route along Santa Monica Boulevard from the subway's Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue station.
<<

I still don't get this either. Don't mean to be asking for a mile when an inch is being considered, but as Damien and others have pointed out in the past, for the transit to ever be effective on a large scale, multiple routes will have to be developed, just like in...um, every other city that has a subway. The point is not just to get from A to B, but from A to evreywhere

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ You're dealing with retards brainwashed by the LA culture that it's "impossible" to build a subway because we're too "spread out" and we have earthquakes. LOL Both of which should not impede subway expansion in LA.

1) We are not truly that spread out if you focus on West Central. Expand the subway in this area and you have yourself..... heaven.

2) Earthquakes are more frequent in Taipei and Tokyo and Mexico City. They all have subways. They're all running just fine. People don't know this because they're retarded.


I'm sick and tired of seeing how stupid Americans are.

[Wright Concept]

The whole Beverly Hills thing was all about what would be effective FOR the City of Beverly Hills. The Santa Monica Blvd portion IN BEVERLY HILLS won't be effective, but considering all the activity along Santa Monica and Sunset Blvds in West Hollywood, that's not to say that it shouldn't be built, it's not Beverly Hills place to say for the entire 13 mile corridor, just the areas in their city limits. Beverly Hills is trying to be pro-active in their look at it, for that they should get a polite applause. For all description purposes, A Wilshire corridor line will have a stop or two in Beverly Hills, a potential Santa Monica Blvd line won't have one, simple problem solved!

Another thing I thought was interesting in a previous article a few posts back was that they looked at the area around the Beverly Center/Cedars Sinai though it's a major trip destination and traffic generator it wasn't going to work (ie. It wasn't in the CITY of BEVERLY HILLS, it's actually in the edge limits of the city of LA) so this study was just for them to give the MTA/Westside Cities COG their choices as to what would be best for them if the more likely route was built which is straight down Wilshire when the formal studies are performed.

[Damien]

By the way these are just recommendations the city of Beverly Hills is giving to the MTA. Others know a lot more about the specfics of the process but in general it's up to the MTA (or whatever authority the state creates to expand the Wilshire line) to utimately determine where the stations are and the particular alignment.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

the article by Jean was focusing too much on dissenting views against subway construction and not enough on supporting views. Everything in that article had a "but" to a positive step forward. ... I am really starting to hate the media in LA...

That's a problem in general for U.S. media: lately journalists seem to think that fairness means covering both sides of every issue equally, no matter how imbalanced the arguments are. The emphasis is on equal coverage of competing claims, with little critical analysis.

Here in L.A., to fight for a subway is to fight a two-front battle. On the one hand, you have the mass of upwardly-mobile suburbanites who think that the subway is for poor city people, that they (suburbanites) are never going to use the subway, so therefore it is not worth the expense. On the other hand, you have the poor, who have been manipulated by the BRU and their ilk, into thinking that a subway is an indulgence for the rich that takes away transit dollars from bus service.

In other words, the cause of sensible transit is crippled by the myopia of our segregated populations. We identify more with our isolated demographics (usually related to $$ and language), and less with a common collective identity (i.e., as Angelenos first). We are handicapped by our fear of transit (which to many is an unknown), and a profound distrust of "other" people and their motives. All coupled with an uncritical media and a decision-making process that rewards the loudest voices on both extremes of the political spectrum.

We are going to get a comprehensive transit system only when L.A. develops a great mass of middle-class urban residents who recognize their common identity and future as Angelenos and as neighbors. It is going to take a broad groundswell of support to get the rail system we all deserve.

[Wright Concept]

We are going to get a comprehensive transit system(insert word) only when L.A. develops a great mass of middle-class urban residents who recognize their common identity and future as Angelenos and as neighbors. It is going to take a broad groundswell of support to get the rail system (insert in blank word) we all deserve.


You could fill that in, with City, Neighborhood, Streets etc...

[edluva]

what LBU said - that's why I don't like the fact that we have an agency serving the interests of an area as expansive and politically balkanized as LA county, exercising power over the transportation interests of LA proper. What ends up happening is rich, semi-densely populated suburbanites as far out as Azusa and Arcadia end up telling MTA that they want *their* money to go toward trains to nowhere that they're not going to use anyways just because they can. This setup dissolves the ideally need-based prioritization

A more localized transit agency would be drawing on fewer dollars, but a larger share of those dollars will be spent on projects that actually serve a purpose, because the people actually voting on transit will be served by the transit, and there won't be whiney power-trips to spoil that more direct relationship between the electorate and the money. If we want broader regional transit planning we should bank on SCRRA because you're never going to get suburbanites to take the local 35mph LRT to go to Levitz.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

I just rode the bus back to downtown in the morning (from Monterey Park) and I have to say I HATE taking the bus. IT TAKES FUCKING FOREVER. It's slow and it's pointless. I wanted to pull my hair out. I kept on thinking there should be a group formed directly to attack buses instead of just having the STUPID FUCKING BRU hold the cards. GRRRR! I hate buses!

[MapGoulet]

I just rode the bus back to downtown in the morning (from Monterey Park) and I have to say I HATE taking the bus. IT TAKES FUCKING FOREVER. It's slow and it's pointless. I wanted to pull my hair out. I kept on thinking there should be a group formed directly to attack buses instead of just having the STUPID FUCKING BRU hold the cards. GRRRR! I hate buses!

Brigs, it's time to get a car. Now put down the gun and slowly step off the bus.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ LOL


Yeah I do need a car soon. I can't stand the bus anymore. If the BRU thinks it has anything to do with a struggle between the rich and poor, they are the stupidest pieces of shit ever laid. If they fought for more rail, they would be able to get to places faster (better quality of life) and probably wouldn't be so god damn pathetic and constantly refer to themselves as the poor disadvantaged. Shit, if they fought for rail, they could get around this city faster than the wealthiest billionaire in his Bentley. I sure hate the BRU (wish they would ALL DIE in a painful death) and I hate buses too.

[SunMonTueWedThuFriSa]

I never understood the BRU's opposition to rail. Bus routes and rail lines have a symbiotic relationship. The rail lines act as feeders to bus routes. If anything having a comprehensive rail system would HELP bus riders get to their routes quicker. Isn't this common sense?

[Wright Concept]

what LBU said - that's why I don't like the fact that we have an agency serving the interests of an area as expansive and politically balkanized as LA county, exercising power over the transportation interests of LA proper. What ends up happening is rich, semi-densely populated suburbanites as far out as Azusa and Arcadia end up telling MTA that they want *their* money to go toward trains to nowhere that they're not going to use anyways just because they can. This setup dissolves the ideally need-based prioritization

A more localized transit agency would be drawing on fewer dollars, but a larger share of those dollars will be spent on projects that actually serve a purpose, because the people actually voting on transit will be served by the transit, and there won't be whiney power-trips to spoil that more direct relationship between the electorate and the money. If we want broader regional transit planning we should bank on SCRRA because you're never going to get suburbanites to take the local 35mph LRT to go to Levitz.

I think back to what certain County Supervisor says about funding the Wilshire Subway or any other subway in Los Angeles. "If it's their will let them do it"

The more I think about it the more it makes sense.

If LA were to float a bond let's say $ 2.5 Billion dollars (folks they tried to push originally $2 billion in bonds this past election, but only prop H got to the ballot) and they were to only build within the city limits of LA, lets say the Wilshire Corridor until Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center. Maybe one down the Vermont Corridor from Wilshire until King Blvd or Slauson to serve the transit dependant and the BRU zealots would have no leg to stand on, since it would allow the current 58,000+ bus riders better service. Or even on the Whittier Corridor from Lorena to Downtown. Extentions that are just enough to make a dent and gain a lot of riders, but not deep enough that it requires them to purchase more trains cause now they'll be directly dealing with MTA. This also serves a dual function to help with LA re-zoning efforts to make transit oriented development and strengthening neighborhood fabrics.

The city would have the bargaining power with the County/MTA on future lines since the Federal Transit Authority can count LA's investment on the subway to go towards future projects, such as adding busway feeders to all the rail lines or streetcar or continuing the subway corridors , like the Wilshire corridor to at least UCLA/Westwood, the Vermont Corridor to Artesia Blvd and Whittier Corridor to Norwalk. Similiar set-ups were done to quickly expanding Portland, Denver, Salt Lake City and Dallas' systems. Build most of it locally and then bank that to the FTA in future expansions. LA can now get the lion's share of federal funds for spent in the city of LA since they've put more of their "own money" on the subway. Notice I'm not making LA a competative transit entity to MTA, just doing something similar to the Expo and Gold Line Joint Powers Authority.

Plus reducing Federal requirement bureaucracy for these city Limit subway always speeds the project up significantly so that LA can pull a similiar Madrid expansion. Get the subway planned, funded, built right and running in 5-6 years.



http://i6.tinypic.com/6pqtvdw.gif

[Damien]

I'll be watching the numbers closely to see if with the advances in tunneling technology, and increase in the cost of at-grade and elevated rail whether subway has become more cost competitive. If it is, it really completely changes the debate.

While I do want and think we need a massive countywide commitment, I think what is more important is that projects are completed as quickly as possible without compromising design, construction and safety standards. People don't like having their taxes increased for a project that they might not even be alive to see. And I have to think that constructing subways can be, in some instances, faster than at-grade or elevated rail down the middle of roads.

So much has to change. But I find it essential that we identify what, create a wish list and work toward implementing each of them, so that when the money does come - and it will, even if by piece meal - we can maximize its impact.

[Wright Concept]

Removal of Tunnel Boring Machines to Cause Sporadic Closure of First Street in Boyle Heights

For the next three months, First Street, between Fresno and Lorena streets, will close sporadically while the tunnel boring machines used in the construction of the twin tunnels for the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, are being dismantled and extracted from the East Portal. Work will be done randomly on any weekday from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

These activities will require large crane operations on the north side of First Street. The first tunneling machines to be removed from the underground box of the East Portal will be “Lola”, which just finished 1.7 milesegment of the eastbound tunnel from First and Boyle streets to First and Lorena streets, two weeks ago.

Residents should expect parking restrictions on the north and south side of First Street between Fresno and Concord. Access to homes and business will be maintained.

The Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, which will feature eight stations (two underground), will span six miles from Union Station in downtown Los Angeles via the Arts District/Little Tokyo and Boyle Heights to Atlantic/Pomona Boulevards in East Los Angeles. It is scheduled to open in late 2009.

Residents who need more information should contact Metro Community Relations at (213) 922-2259.

Metro-205

[LosAngelesBeauty]

---So why don't we just have each and every city just pay for their own transit needs if the rail route goes thru them? (referring to what Antonovich says below about the Purple Line being funded by the cities it runs thru)

Antonovich is an IDIOT from HELL! Building a subway down Wilshire is actually EXACTLY geared toward REGIONAL PLANNING since Wilshire Blvd. is the most significant commercial thoroughfare in Southern California. Having the Purple Line extended would essentially connect with Union Station, and therefore, the entire Metrolink system.

A person could work in Century City and live in Claremont, and be able to take the Metrolink to Union Station and whisk away toward Century City and actually get there on time!!!

Will the stupid Gold Line extension to Ontario be able to do that? Antonovich should fucking rot!!!


nbc4.tv


Supervisor: Wilshire Blvd. Subway Could Make Traffic Worse

POSTED: 6:43 pm PST November 28, 2006

LOS ANGELES -- Traffic congestion in Los Angeles County could get even worse if a subway is built under Wilshire Boulevard because the project will take funds away from other transit improvements, Supervisor Mike Antonovich said Tuesday.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other transit officials have long advocated for a "subway to the sea," which would likely extend the Metro Red Line west along Wilshire Boulevard.

In January, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board will consider adding the project to its Long Range Transportation Plan, which is a 25-year blueprint for transit planning in Los Angeles County.

"Plagued by cost over-runs, sinkholes and economic damage, the current $5 billion, 17-mile Red Line helped to create the regional gridlock we now face by draining scarce transportation funds away from vital projects for the county's other 87 cities and 134 unincorporated communities," said Antonovich, who also sits on the Metro board.

Representatives from the mayor's office could not be reached for comment.

Extending the Red Line from downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica could cost an estimated $5 billion and take 10 years to build. That price tag would make the project more expensive than the Blue, Gold, Green and Orange lines combined.

Instead of extending the subway, funds could be spent to extend the Metro Gold Line to Ontario Airport, the Metro Green Line to LAX, the Metro Expo Line to Santa Monica or Metrolink track improvements in Palmdale, Santa Clarita and Chatsworth, Antonovich said.

Funding an extension of the Metro Red Line could be a major hurdle. One subway mile costs about $350 million to construct. In 1998, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky sponsored an initiative that barred the use of county sales tax money for subway projects.

A subway that runs through Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica should be funded by those cities, Antonovich said.

"They should use their own communities' resources and creative financing options including redevelopment strategies and benefit assessment districts, rather than draining vital transit dollars away from regional transportation projects which are required to alleviate regional traffic congestion," Antonovich said.

[solongfullerton]

This shit really gets to me. Yes, the MTA is the transit agency for the whole county, but its a county that revolves around the city of LOS ANGELES. Antonovich is suggesting that there be more rail outside of the city of LA than in it. I don't understand how anyone can argue against the only rail line would serves the heart of the city all the way from the east to westside. why dont we see more articles and editorials saying how stupid antonovich is and how the SGV already has rail.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

i really do hate that motherfucker as i have said before. i hope his car explodes. what a fucking retard.i will call his office tomorrow

[cookiejarvis]

Subways are anti-children. Won't anybody think of the children!!??

A friend of mine used to work for Antonobitch. Believe me, he wasn't too enamored with him either.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

i really do hate that motherfucker as i have said before. i hope his car explodes. what a fucking retard.i will call his office tomorrow


I second that motion! :D

[Vangelist]

Antonobitch isn't an idiot. He's pure evil; he and others like him know what they're doing and they're going to keep preventing transit to be built in LA for as long as they can - hey , theyve been successful at it for this long. Zevvy used to be in that same club, along w/ Waxman, but for whatever reason they've done a turnabout and now (supposedly) support the subway. Bureaucrats like these guys need to be el!miniated

[Wright Concept]

nbc4.tv


Supervisor: Wilshire Blvd. Subway Could Make Traffic Worse

POSTED: 6:43 pm PST November 28, 2006

"Plagued by cost over-runs, sinkholes and economic damage, the current $5 billion, 17-mile Red Line helped to create the regional gridlock we now face by draining scarce transportation funds away from vital projects for the county's other 87 cities and 134 unincorporated communities," said Antonovich, who also sits on the Metro board.

Representatives from the mayor's office could not be reached for comment.



The silence from Jaime De La Vega and some of the staff what speaks volumes to me. A simple bite that has been mentioned here on this board wouldn't have made it a Antonovich slant.

I mean something so dear to one's campaign like building a better mass transit network I would have everyone on staff memorize and believe in that so it flows like water when you have the reports asking you the questions. I mean, maybe I'm being very neurotic about it, but then again it doesn't hurt.

[Damien]

The silence from Jaime De La Vega and some of the staff what speaks volumes to me. A simple bite that has been mentioned here on this board wouldn't have made it a Antonovich slant.

I mean something so dear to one's campaign like building a better mass transit network I would have everyone on staff memorize and believe in that so it flows like water when you have the reports asking you the questions. I mean, maybe I'm being very neurotic about it, but then again it doesn't hurt.

In the mayor's possible defense his communications department is undergoing a, how do you say "massive reconstruction." From an email I got, that I have no problem posting since it's made it to the blogs:

Friends:

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is looking to hire some highly qualified people for his press office. Here's what's available:

Senior Press Secretary: Oversee day-to-day media relations; act as primary spokesperson; work with communications director in developing and coordinating message and strategy; manage breaking events; craft message points; brief, staff, and travel with the Mayor.

Press Deputy/Secretary: Act as spokesperson on designated issues; respond to media requests and inquiries; coordinate events; brief and staff the Mayor.

Press Aide: Provide general support to the press team; monitor and clip media coverage; draft press releases and advisories; respond to media inquiries; support event-building and advance functions; act as liaison to community outlets and new media; manage website and update content.

Assistant Speechwriter: Assist communications director in drafting speeches, talking points, op-eds, releases, and newsletters. Provide general editorial and research support for communications and press staff.

Advance Director: Design, advance, and build media and community events; brief Mayor on logistics; manage events.

Interested applicants should send letters/resumes/references to: xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.com

Pass on the word to anyone who might be interested.

Thanks

Guess he didn't like the whole SUV swipe. :notacrook:

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-a2anniversary30nov30,1,5414449.story?coll=la-headlines-california

TIMES PAST
1925: Streetcar tunnel opens new era

November 30, 2006

Nov. 30, 1925: Los Angeles' "first section of underground electric railway" opened with much fanfare — including a Chamber of Commerce luncheon for 1,100 people at the Biltmore Hotel — and The Times declared it "the beginning of a new era in transportation" for the city.

The privately owned Pacific Electric Railroad started work on the one-mile tunnel in May 1924, The Times reported. The new route connected Hollywood and Glendale with downtown Los Angeles.

"Scenes in the underground chambers of the terminal at Hill Street prior to the starting of the first train at about 2 o'clock … rivaled those of the famous 'shuttle' between Times Square and the Grand Central in New York," the newspaper said. "Thousands gathered in the street and on the sidewalks outside the terminal long before the departure of the train which was waiting for the delegation of dignitaries who had attended the luncheon."

The Pacific Electric Band serenaded those first riders.

[edluva]

I think back to what certain County Supervisor says about funding the Wilshire Subway or any other subway in Los Angeles. "If it's their will let them do it"

The more I think about it the more it makes sense.

If LA were to float a bond let's say $ 2.5 Billion dollars (folks they tried to push originally $2 billion in bonds this past election, but only prop H got to the ballot) and they were to only build within the city limits of LA, lets say the Wilshire Corridor until Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center. Maybe one down the Vermont Corridor from Wilshire until King Blvd or Slauson to serve the transit dependant and the BRU zealots would have no leg to stand on, since it would allow the current 58,000+ bus riders better service. Or even on the Whittier Corridor from Lorena to Downtown. Extentions that are just enough to make a dent and gain a lot of riders, but not deep enough that it requires them to purchase more trains cause now they'll be directly dealing with MTA. This also serves a dual function to help with LA re-zoning efforts to make transit oriented development and strengthening neighborhood fabrics.

The city would have the bargaining power with the County/MTA on future lines since the Federal Transit Authority can count LA's investment on the subway to go towards future projects, such as adding busway feeders to all the rail lines or streetcar or continuing the subway corridors , like the Wilshire corridor to at least UCLA/Westwood, the Vermont Corridor to Artesia Blvd and Whittier Corridor to Norwalk. Similiar set-ups were done to quickly expanding Portland, Denver, Salt Lake City and Dallas' systems. Build most of it locally and then bank that to the FTA in future expansions. LA can now get the lion's share of federal funds for spent in the city of LA since they've put more of their "own money" on the subway. Notice I'm not making LA a competative transit entity to MTA, just doing something similar to the Expo and Gold Line Joint Powers Authority.

Plus reducing Federal requirement bureaucracy for these city Limit subway always speeds the project up significantly so that LA can pull a similiar Madrid expansion. Get the subway planned, funded, built right and running in 5-6 years.

Couldn't that scenario have been possible with a municipal transit agency? Tokyo and London have sprawling dense suburban tracts, but there's no question that their metro's function primarily for mobility within relatively discrete urban cores. I think that's because their "regional" transit agencies are accountable to what is geographically and functionally consistent with an american municpality (or what they call "metropoli" - areas on the scope of hundereds of sq miles, not thousands).

I say this because even though they more closely resemble our counties politically, it's geography that dictates the funcionality of mass transit networks. Mass transit networks are built for the feet, not the car - so using census-derived definitions of urban areas which bias our auto-based commuting patterns makes less sense. By getting the county to fund the construction of light rail, we're in essence building what's supposed to be a pedestrian-driven modality by consulting auto-driven commuters. SCRRA is the 5-county agency, and MTA is LAC's 1500 sq mile agency. What about the city of LA? The political reality doesn't reflect the physical one and we get a transit network that reflects a tug-of-war between county politics and ridership studies - light rail becomes the MTA's marketed answer to freeway congestion when it never should have been.

Many other large urban areas have it relatively idiot-proof - either they have a government entity whose jurisdiciton happens to superimpose the functional urban center (the TMG, greater london) or they have a local/private agency mind the transit needs of a local patronage, in addition to some broader entity. The MTA is trying to make a city of a county and as much as I praise rail for its ability to transform cities, I don't think it will succeed this way. Distances of that sort will only be served by the auto. It's how we got here to begin with. Santa Monica has a municipal agency so why does LA rely on the approval of 87 other cities, congressmen, and an umbrella government to get *local* service?

[Wright Concept]

Couldn't that scenario have been possible with a municipal transit agency? Tokyo and London have sprawling dense suburban tracts, but there's no question that their metro's function primarily for mobility within relatively discrete urban cores. I think that's because their "regional" transit agencies are accountable to what is geographically and functionally consistent with an american municpality (or what they call "metropoli" - areas on the scope of hundereds of sq miles, not thousands).

I say this because even though they more closely resemble our counties politically, it's geography that dictates the funcionality of mass transit networks. Mass transit networks are built for the feet, not the car - so using census-derived definitions of urban areas which bias our auto-based commuting patterns makes less sense. By getting the county to fund the construction of light rail, we're in essence building what's supposed to be a pedestrian-driven modality by consulting auto-driven commuters. SCRRA is the 5-county agency, and MTA is LAC's 1500 sq mile agency. What about the city of LA? The political reality doesn't reflect the physical one and we get a transit network that reflects a tug-of-war between county politics and ridership studies - light rail becomes the MTA's marketed answer to freeway congestion when it never should have been.

Many other large urban areas have it relatively idiot-proof - either they have a government entity whose jurisdiciton happens to superimpose the functional urban center (the TMG, greater london) or they have a local/private agency mind the transit needs of a local patronage, in addition to some broader entity. The MTA is trying to make a city of a county and as much as I praise rail for its ability to transform cities, I don't think it will succeed this way.

Distances of that sort will only be served by the auto. It's how we got here to begin with. Santa Monica has a municipal agency so why does LA rely on the approval of 87 other cities, congressmen, and an umbrella government to get *local* service?

The City of LA has one in the name of LADoT, they do the street and traffic works as well as operate the local community transit services to feed the Metro Regional bus services called DASH and Commuter Express. All that is needed is to expand their scope of work and Eureka they could build/contract out the subway line.

One more thing I'll add is that by having the city go it alone without federal help, it doesn't put the subway with any Federal competition with any other Metro projects, such as Crenshaw/Prairie Corridor, Downtown Connector, Whittier Gold Line extension, Green Line extention to Del Amo Mall. All projects that will have a damn good shot at getting federal funds and leap frogging over the Foothill Gold Line.

This is the very reason I think the city can and should go it alone via a local bond because you cut out the other 87+ cities and LA County with their boundaries, baggage and bullshit and go directly to the city at large. Contain the subway/transit improvements within the city boundaries and the other potential NIMBY's can't say anything and it will more of the scarse monies will be spent towards construction rather than to bureaucrats.

Then when the sucker is completed, LA would have a leg up with the county/state/federal towards more projects in LA, not big stuff but smaller things like BRT and Streetcar services that will carry more riders than some of the "regional" projects.

But in terms of building a system, take a good look at DC's system, if you've ever been there, they function eeriely similar to LA Metro where you have pockets of dense urban areas mixed in with typical suburbia and sub regional centers that are close by. And their ridership is close to 800,000 riders a day and now they are slowly infilling some spots to have the mix of local and regional service.

The way I see it for the LA's system, some key dense corridors should have been built with 4 track local-express like NYC because they can tailor travel patterns better and increase the maximum potential capacity.

[Damien]

As long as the Valley gets its piece of the pie I think what PV is saying makes a heck of a lot of sense. And did I mention how much I love it when he cites precedent?!

[DaveofCali]

I think the Metrolink connection (which connects the entire L.A. region to downtown L.A.) should be emphasized with the vision for the Wilshire Purple Line. Mayor Villaraigosa should emphasize the critical link of the Wilshire Purple Line to the entire L.A. region as a whole, perhaps by also working to strengthen Metrolink, and emphasizing the greater vision in his speeches (since right now, for Villaraigosa to say something in his speeches is really all it takes to start to promote something for L.A.)

[cookiejarvis]

My problem with the LADoT is that their auto-centric mindset is as intractable as it is over at CalTrans. A lot of changes in department philosophy would have to take place first before trusting them with more local transit authority.

I'm also worried that another agency competing against the MTA will revive another "RTD vs LACTC" pissing match.

[Wright Concept]

It wouldn't and couldn't because the guidelines/conditions (vehicle dimensions, track gauge, platform lenghts, ADA accesiblity, Station layouts, etc.) were already set for the Metro.

All the LADoT would be doing is contracting the work on the tunnels based upon the Heavy Rail specs. And then in for future projects serving the City of LA such as Streetcar/BRT/Bus only lanes, the City could then be "repaid" for their costs of doing the subway on their own.

In fact it would remove a ton of time from having the Metro and LADoT coordinate work together, for such things as traffic mitigation, removing of parking during construction, having traffic officers at busier intersections. It basically puts them in the driver seat and can make better decisions on their own and a lot quicker.

Also this puts the DWP in reach as well since those departments are joined at the hip money wise at least, for utility relocation during construction such as burying "ugly powerlines underground" (You hear that Citywatch!)

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-subway27nov27,0,1906479,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines


Beverly Hills doesn't want to miss the subway
By Jean Guccione
Times Staff Writer

November 27, 2006

Beverly Hills officials, sensing that a subway to the sea is inevitable, want to ensure the train doesn't pass them by.

They are preparing to select a route and two station locations to best serve residents, as well as business owners and their employees.

It doesn't seem to matter that the city has little say over the path of the proposed 13-mile subway that would travel between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica. Or that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which would design, build and operate the subway, is still at least a year or two away from picking the route.

Forget, too, that no money has been set aside for the $5-billion project. Or that using federal funds to tunnel under Wilshire Boulevard still is illegal.

Beverly Hills residents, some of whom once opposed a subway, may be set to endorse a Wilshire Boulevard route from Western Avenue that would include one station at La Cienega Boulevard, and another between Beverly and Rodeo drives.
At community meetings, city leaders have confronted residents' fears of subway crime and potential terrorism. They warn naysayers that, without a subway, traffic on the Westside will only get worse.

"There is an incredible sea change of attitude from resistance to support for the subway," said Allan Alexander, a former Beverly Hills mayor who co-chairs the city's mass transit panel.

Mayor Steve Webb is leading the charge.

He's trying to put Beverly Hills in the best position to lobby federal, state and local officials for the money needed to build the rail line and to make sure it goes through his city.

Webb directed Alexander's subway study committee to "determine what's in our best interest."

The subway study committee's tentative endorsement of the route through the city is to be finalized next month and sent to the City Council for consideration at its January meeting.

A consultant hired by Beverly Hills said Wilshire Boulevard was chosen because it is surrounded by high-density residential and commercial development. It is the county's most heavily traveled transit corridor, according to the MTA.

The committee considered but rejected a route along Santa Monica Boulevard from the subway's Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue station.

Last year, during his campaign for Los Angeles mayor, then-City Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa promised to restart the Westside subway project — more than two decades after it had been derailed.

Longtime subway opponents Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), whose district includes parts of West Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who represents the Westside, now are working with Villaraigosa to try to complete the east-west rail line.

But that's still several years away. First, the proposed subway must be added to the MTA's long-range plan — an essential element for federal funding — and given a high priority.

Even with the MTA board's endorsement, the proposed Red Line subway extension faces stiff competition for construction money.

It will have to vie with plans to extend the Expo Line from Culver City to Santa Monica, the Gold Line through the San Gabriel Valley to the Ontario International Airport and the Green Line from El Segundo to Los Angeles International Airport.
Meanwhile, the agency's planners are dusting off old studies, dating to 1994. Planning alone could take up to two years to complete. The MTA board recently authorized a mere $100,000 to hire a full-time planner to oversee the project.

That's all the money currently dedicated to building the subway to the sea. Efforts by Waxman to overturn a federal ban on subway funding along Wilshire are stalled in the U.S. Senate.

Waxman introduced the measure after experts concluded last year that a subway could be built without risk of another methane explosion like the one that ripped through a Fairfax-area clothing store in 1985. Although no one was killed, concerns about the blast helped lead to the stopping of subway construction.

There is another funding complication. In 1998, Los Angeles County voters, in a move led by Yaroslavsky, barred the use of transportation sales tax revenue for tunneling.

No one is suggesting that ban be lifted. Instead, transit officials, including Yaroslavsky, believe local money may be used for non-tunneling parts of the subway project.

Subway advocates are optimistic, especially with passage earlier this month of a $20-billion state infrastructure bond issue.

But critics, such as the Bus Riders Union, argue that bond money should be used to improve bus service.

To make it all happen, MTA officials, who rarely proceed without local support for regional transit projects, welcome the city of Beverly Hills' early efforts to rally support.

"The seriousness and detail of their work shows their commitment for our common vision for improving transit service," Villaraigosa, an MTA board member, said in a statement last week.

Alexander, a longtime subway advocate, believes mass transit is essential to conveniently ferrying many thousands of workers and visitors in and out of the city daily.

"It will allow people to come to work in the city, shop in the city, visit the city without bringing more cars to the city," he said.

The population of Beverly Hills, with just 35,000 residents, swells weekdays to 250,000. Nearly 28,000 people a day board buses along Wilshire Boulevard within the city's limits.

"I'm hoping that by our taking the initiative in this regard that Century City, Mid-Wilshire, Westwood and even Santa Monica will begin focusing on this," Alexander said.

Beverly Hills officials may still have to persuade some residents. At a recent public meeting, one resident fretted that subway stops create potential terrorist targets. Another expressed concern about transit-related crime.

Overall, however, the tide seems to have turned.

"Anything that we can do to get cars off of our streets will be a plus for the quality of the life for the residents as well as assist the businesses," resident Joe Safier said at a meeting this month.

The business community also is on board.

"Gridlock is such a problem on the Westside that it must be relieved, and we must be part of the equation," Dan Walsh, chief executive of the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce, said Friday.

Chamber members suspect the traffic congestion they encounter daily could someday discourage visitors from shopping, eating and doing other business in their city.

It also could make it difficult to attract workers.

"We have to make it a piece of cake to get here," Walsh said.

*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jean.guccione@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-friday1.4dec01,0,425660.story?coll=la-news-comment-letters

Westside subway and bus service

December 1, 2006

Re "Beverly Hills doesn't want to miss the subway," Nov. 27

Does Beverly Hills want a subway that people will use, or a subway as an expensive ornament? Routing the proposed Red Line subway extension under the empty buildings on Wilshire Boulevard makes little sense. The subway should jog north from the county Museum of Art to the congested Farmers Market area, then west to the Beverly Center, downtown Beverly Hills and Century City. Then, it should tunnel northwest to UCLA.

Putting the subway too far away from destinations such as the Grove, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the Park La Brea apartments is pouring money down an endless hole.

HANS LAETZ

Malibu

•



By claiming that the recently passed infrastructure bonds should be used to improve bus service, the Bus Riders Union proves that its priorities are not about improving transportation but instead are a continual pursuit of publicity. Bonds are for long-term investment, not operational costs.

Hopefully, with the end of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority consent decree, we can have an open and meaningful dialogue about the future of our region, not one held hostage by empty rhetoric and perpetual, stage-managed protests.

DANA GABBARD

Los Angeles

The writer is executive secretary of Southern California Transit Advocates.

[Wright Concept]

Ontario courts Gold Line extension
By Mason Stockstill Staff Writer
San Gabriel Valley Tribune

ONTARIO - Though the city's western border is more than a mile from Los Angeles County, Ontario wants a piece of its big neighbor's transit system.

The city has joined a coalition of municipalities working to build an extension of the Metro Gold Line from Pasadena to this area.

More importantly, the city's leaders are pushing to locate the light-rail line's final station at LA/Ontario International Airport, rather than the currently proposed Montclair Transit Center.

"It makes a lot of sense for transportation corridors to have a main place they're going to," said Mayor Paul Leon. "Isn't it much better to say `I'm going to Ontario Airport' ... rather than just saying we're going to head east until the rail line ends?"

As it now exists, the Gold Line runs from downtown Los Angeles to east Pasadena.

When it was first proposed, the extension through the San Gabriel Valley on the old Santa Fe right-of-way was going to end in Claremont. But officials in San Bernardino County lured planners into Montclair, saying the transit center there made a natural terminus for the line.

Since then, the idea of going still farther into San Bernardino County and ending at the Ontario Airport gained traction among officials heading the charge.

"Because there's been interest from our board, we're going to sit down with folks in a preliminary way," said Susan Hodor of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority. "It will set the groundwork for what we need to do, should this be an idea that San Bernardino County would embrace."

The move by Ontario to join the Gold Line authority's board, approved by the City Council on Tuesday, comes at a momentous time for the rail project, whose existence depends on a strategic plan being developed in Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority operates several light-rail transit lines, as well as a single subway and thousands of buses.

In order to qualify for federal funding, the Gold Line Foothill Extension needs to be listed as a high-priority item on the MTA's long-range plan, which is under development.

But the Gold Line is just one of several transit projects that could qualify for that money, several of which are becoming more politically popular.

For example, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa - who controls four seats on the MTA's 13-member board - promised during his 2005 campaign to work toward extending the Red Line subway in Los Angeles.

Carol Inge, the MTA's executive officer for planning, said the long-range plan will be updated next spring.

"At that time, this project, along with other projects, will be presented to the board for funding consideration," Inge said.

With transportation funding dollars scarce, the dueling proposals and political alliances have thrown the Gold Line project for a loop.

Still, the Gold Line extension has powerful allies.

Rep. David Dreier, R-Glendora, has said the project is a virtual done deal, though he's had to play "hard ball" with local leaders in Los Angeles over federal funding.

Additionally, the Gold Line extension is further along in its planning and environmental review process than the subway extension or other transit projects being considered, Hodor said.

"All the right-of-way is purchased. We have resolutions of support from all of these cities," she said. "We're really poised to begin construction as soon as these issues are resolved."

mason.stockstill@dailybulletin.com

(909) 483-9354

[Damien]

As I and other have suggested, extending the line to Ontario Airport might actually validate the eastern portion of the line.

PV, has anyone approached the Foothill Extension authority to get them to at least consider EMU instead of LRV, since the costs are supposedly so much less?

If we could, for example, get them to break the $1.5 billion the LRT system would require into 800 mil upgrading for double-tracked EMU (20 mil a mile plus $100 mil contingency plus $50 mil for Irwindale yard) and the other 700 mil on the Downtown Connector, it MIGHT win them a lot more friends regionally.

I wonder if there would be a reduction in the operating costs.

[SunMonTueWedThuFriSa]

Would an extension to Ontario airport make the gold line the longest light rail line in the country?

[Damien]

Would an extension to Ontario airport make the gold line the longest light rail line in the country?

Just to Montclair would make it the longest in North America.

I don't know who holds the title of longest light rail line in the world.

[Wright Concept]

As I and other have suggested, extending the line to Ontario Airport might actually validate the eastern portion of the line.

PV, has anyone approached the Foothill Extension authority to get them to at least consider EMU instead of LRV, since the costs are supposedly so much less?

If we could, for example, get them to break the $1.5 billion the LRT system would require into 800 mil upgrading for double-tracked EMU (20 mil a mile plus $100 mil contingency plus $50 mil for Irwindale yard) and the other 700 mil on the Downtown Connector, it MIGHT win them a lot more friends regionally.

I wonder if there would be a reduction in the operating costs.

It'll cost more IF they go with EMU's since it's a higher voltage needed not to mention a whole new vehicle added to the system with a neccessary maintainance facility, yard and workshops.

The advantage the LRT has is that it's now a basic kit of parts that is already done across the board, there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

The nice part of adding this to the scope of the LRT project is that they could quickly add an Addendum to the previously done EIR of the Foothill Extension so that they can get it funded quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the push needed to add an additional Metrolink stop within the Ontario Airport area, since the tracks are near by.

[dragonsky]

OCTA teams up with Google to provide bus trip planner
Bus riders can find detailed maps, departure times and bus stop locations online.
By ELLYN PAK
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Bus users can do away with cumbersome foldout bus maps and plan their trip ahead of time online.

The Orange County Transportation Authority has teamed up with Google to provide an online trip planner with detailed street maps and satellite photos.

The service includes bus departure times, bus stop and transfer locations and estimated trip times.

The agency and Google have worked together for a year to launch the service.

Orange County and Burbank are the only ones in the state to join Google Transit; six other transportation agencies across the country have joined.

Visit www.google.com/transit for a personalized bus plan.

[Quixote]

Found these pics of the future Expo Line cars while browsing flickr.

http://static.flickr.com/113/302406488_0c2c464825.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/102/302406114_49242f813a.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/116/302405719_522813d9f2.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/103/302405277_45cd8a019d.jpg?v=0