LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[electricron]

Did the Rams, Chargers, and Clippers kill it? No.
Did Inglewood vote to kill it? No.
"Looks like these were the ciites that voted no: Rancho Palos Verdes, El Segundo, Gardena, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, Lomita, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estate, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estate and Torrance."

Hmmm, were any of these cities that voted no anywhere close to the less than 2 mile long people mover line in Inglewood?

"Plans for a 1.7-mile proposed people mover that would drop Los Angeles rail riders off at the foot of SoFi Stadium have been upended after South Bay cities voted down a request for $493 million more to build the project, putting into jeopardy $1 billion of federal funding."

Why should they pay for the over budget people mover line?
Why isn't Inglewood being asked to raise the money itself?
This is what usually happens when you ask Peter to pay for Paul's toys.

News articles like these often do not report the whole truth.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by TowerDude

I think the State should limit the legal maximum attendance levels at these venues until they agree to either a people mover or a subway line extension to their facilities.

Maybe limit them to 50% capacity until they agree.

Lol there are so many legal reasons they couldn't do this. Even if the political winds were behind it (they never would be), this definitely wouldn't hold up in court and the state/city would have to pay damages. The state can't partially shut down a business because it wouldn't pay for infrastructure that was not a condition of approval. That's extortion.

[craigs]

Port of Los Angeles receives unprecedented $400-million grant to electrify operations


A pleasure boat motors past container ships and cranes at the Port of Los Angeles in December 2021. (Luis Sinco)

Tony Briscoe
Los Angeles Times
October 29, 2024

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has awarded the Port of Los Angeles more than $400 million to support its transition to electric cargo-moving equipment — a major boost to efforts aimed at curbing pollution at America’s busiest container port.

The so-called Clean Ports grant, announced Tuesday, is part of a larger $3-billion initiative to deploy zero-emission equipment at the nation’s ports, which are significant sources of lung-searing smog and greenhouse gas emissions.

The Port of Los Angeles received the largest single award, securing $411 million in federal funding. The port and its private partners have committed an additional $236 million in matching funds for zero-emission initiatives.

“This transformative investment will be a tremendous boost to our efforts to meet our ambitious zero-emission goals, improve regional air quality and combat climate change while accelerating the port industry’s transition to zero emissions across the country,” said Gene Seroka, executive director at the Port of Los Angeles.

The landmark grant, funded through the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, will significantly accelerate the port’s efforts to replace diesel-powered equipment with all-electric alternatives.

The funding is expected to finance the purchase of more than 400 pieces of cargo-moving equipment, such as yard tractors and forklifts. The grant also aims to increase the number of battery-electric trucks and expand the port’s charging infrastructure.
. . . .

[LAsam]

I wonder if the Port of Long Beach got anything or just Port of LA? Electrifying operations at the port(s) seems like a sensible idea, assuming there's sufficient power to supply them. I'd have to imagine they will require a considerable amount of electrical energy.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by LAsam

I wonder if the Port of Long Beach got anything or just Port of LA? Electrifying operations at the port(s) seems like a sensible idea, assuming there's sufficient power to supply them. I'd have to imagine they will require a considerable amount of electrical energy.

No, the Port of Long Beach was inexplicably left out of this round of funding. Per the article, "Six other California ports were also awarded federal funding: Oakland, Oxnard, San Diego, San Francisco, Stockton and Redwood City."

[TowerDude]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Lol there are so many legal reasons they couldn't do this. Even if the political winds were behind it (they never would be), this definitely wouldn't hold up in court and the state/city would have to pay damages. The state can't partially shut down a business because it wouldn't pay for infrastructure that was not a condition of approval. That's extortion.

A court that wouldn't hold it up would need to be investigated and possibly disciplined.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by TowerDude

A court that wouldn't hold it up would need to be investigated and possibly disciplined.

That's not how it is done in the USA. Losers at court can always appeal to the next higher court. You don't discipline judges or juries. Besides, who has the legal power to do the disciplining? No one!