LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[202_Cyclist]

Regarding the Expo Line photos, it is simply amazing the commitment Los Angeles County is making to transit. The Gold Line extension last year and this planned route opening later this year show how rapidly this city is changing, as does the expansion of Metrolink. Hopefully this trend continues with the Westside extension to Santa Monica and high speed rail. When all the projects proposed with Measure R funding are completed, it is probable that LA will have the nation's second or third most extensive rail system, ahead of the DC region.

Now, if only Orange County can get its act together.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Regarding the Expo Line photos, it is simply amazing the commitment Los Angeles County is making to transit.

And it will only accelerate. The truth is, Measure R is only the beginning. There are so many other projects that have yet to be realized:

Purple Line Extension to Whittier via Whittier Blvd to Sante Fe Springs Ave.

Red Line to San Pedro via Vermont Ave.

Full length 405 corridor LRT from San Fernando to Long Beach, via Van Nuys Blvd, 405 Freeway and Harbor Subdivision.

LRT from Regional Connector to Burbank Metrolink Station.

Silver Line LRT from Hollywood/Vermont station to Baldwin Park or La Puente.

Green Line Santa Monica extension, via Lincoln Blvd.


These are my ideas:

LRT from Union Station to Venice via Blue/Expo Line ROW, Washington Blvd, Hoover Ave and Venice Blvd.

Full length Crenshaw Corridor LRT from Hollywood Bowl to Del Amo Mall, via mostly Crenshaw Blvd and Hawthorne Blvd (IOW, Crenshaw Corridor no longer goes to LAX, it continues down Crenshaw).

Red Line Ventura Blvd branch, to at least 405 corridor.

BRT from Orange Line Lankershim station to Gold Line Memorial Park station via Chandler Bikeway, 5 freeway, 134 freeway, and Colorado Blvd.

LRT to Eagle Rock via Eagle Rock Blvd. Would probably be a branch of the Gold Line.

LRT from Buena Park Metrolink station to Redondo Beach, via Artesia Blvd and 190 St.

LRT from Sierra Madre to Long Beach, via Rosemead Blvd.

Now, if only Orange County can get its act together.

Hopefully it can get it's own monorail or LRT system built within the next couple decades.

[JDRCRASH]

And of course High Speed Rail lines to Vegas and Phoenix would help.

So will Metrolink extensions to LAX and maybe Long Beach, Mentone, San Jacinto, Temecula, Huntington Beach, Victorville, Palm Springs, and perhaps, if technically feasible, to Arrowhead/Big Bear.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by suga

Simply ridiculous. The city of whittier fought against the most logical and practical location for the light rail line, and the one that would garner the highest cost-benefit, the whittier blvd option. They basically killed a century long investment that can totally change the dynamics of the city for a 2 year old dirt trail and the assurance that their cash cow is left undisturbed. The whittier bl/greenway option also followed the old PE line that whittier was built around, meaning the community aesthetic and layout would have been the most accomodating for this alignment. The alignment they now selfishly back runs down an industrial truck corridor and ends at an isolated hospital, leaving the rail line with little proximity to any residential area, nonetheless any major activity hub.

I agree. Washington Boulevard is ill-suited for a rail line and the proposed route terminates at the periphery of town. I haven't the slightest clue why Whittier is so receptive to this option.

IMO, the ideal option would be an at-grade alignment along Beverly Boulevard and the Whittier Greenway; such wouldn't preclude a heavy rail extension along Whittier Boulevard.

-The washington alignment option is so far from making FTA funding guidelines (beacuse of poor ratings on cost benefit analysis) we would have to totally fund it ourselves.

None of the alignments come even close to meeting FTA standards for New Starts funding, so I don't see this as an issue.

-The strip of washington that the train will be el is a heavy truck corridor, meaning no pedestrian value and the high possibility that a trcuk will take out a pylon eventually. No other train is el in an industrial area like this in the whole county.

And it doesn't help that they want to make portions of the alignment at-grade to reduce costs.

-The SR60 cost projection is based on some absurd notions of how the line will be built. The train is envisioned as running elevated on top of an elevated freeway that has plenty of room on the south edge to facilitate a rail line, meaning the grade seperation is already built in, but MTA people are too stupid to make use of it and get grade seperation with at-grade costs.

Actually, the planned route *does* travel along the wayside (and not in the median) of the freeway.

If we were willing to hammer an at-grade train through some of the most dense parts of the county (east LA), then it is absurd to now waste money building the line elevated through the largest patch of low density open space on the eastside.

This pretty much sums up Metro's planning (or lack thereof) in regards to the Eastside Extension II. IOW, it doesn't make any sense. I encourage you and anybody else who doesn't want our taxpayer money to go to waste to send your comments to Metro and object to the two objectionable options on the table.

[JDRCRASH]

Have there ever been alternatives put back on the table for rail projects in Metro's history?

[Quixote]

^ Yes. Metro is revisiting Alternative 8 (100% underground) for the Regional Connector.

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by suga

Simply ridiculous. The city of whittier fought against the most logical and practical location for the light rail line, and the one that would garner the highest cost-benefit, the whittier blvd option. They basically killed a century long investment that can totally change the dynamics of the city for a 2 year old dirt trail and the assurance that their cash cow is left undisturbed. The whittier bl/greenway option also followed the old PE line that whittier was built around, meaning the community aesthetic and layout would have been the most accomodating for this alignment. The alignment they now selfishly back runs down an industrial truck corridor and ends at an isolated hospital, leaving the rail line with little proximity to any residential area, nonetheless any major activity hub.

Now they want to use the same facts they ignored to promote the most useless alignment option possible?

They screwed themselves by killing the most beneficial alignment possible, and now they must pay for their myopic shallow viewpoint.

Here are other reasons why their little scheme is BS obviously crafted by selfish people with no idea about transportation policy:

-The washington alignment option is so far from making FTA funding guidelines (beacuse of poor ratings on cost benefit analysis) we would have to totally fund it ourselves.
-The strip of washington that the train will be el is a heavy truck corridor, meaning no pedestrian value and the high possibility that a trcuk will take out a pylon eventually. No other train is el in an industrial area like this in the whole county.
-There is a empty right of way (for the old PE line) less than a mile south of washington.

Agreed!

-The SR60 cost projection is based on some absurd notions of how the line will be built. The train is envisioned as running elevated on top of an elevated freeway that has plenty of room on the south edge to facilitate a rail line, meaning the grade seperation is already built in, but MTA people are too stupid to make use of it and get grade seperation with at-grade costs. The train is also planned to go el through whittier narrows, a low density giant park with few crossings (I believe 3-4 for for 3.5 miles) and no real need for grade seperation. plenty of land is avaliable to support a 25' ROW, some crossing gates are all that is needed at the at-grade crossings. If we were willing to hammer an at-grade train through some of the most dense parts of the county (east LA), then it is absurd to now waste money building the line elevated through the largest patch of low density open space on the eastside.

That assumption is based on the fact that the state may not give us that 'right-of-way' due south of the existing freeway because that belongs to the state. Caltrans may just say "Hell no" to that idea and we're left with the other idea. Personally I'm not too sold on either corridor because there are available right of ways that can be used.

Washington Blvd is a waste of a corridor, the 60 isn't any better but there is some merit with better study such as looking at how it could benefit the communities of La Punete, Walnut, Hacineda Heights, Rowland Heights, Industry, Diamond Bar

[JDRCRASH]

From Pasadena Star News,

Our View: Two tracks for Gold Line East

Posted: 01/16/2010 06:14:07 AM PST

Early battle lines are already being drawn, pitting Pico Rivera, Montebello, Santa Fe Springs and Whittier against a coalition of 60-Freeway cities for a future leg of the Metro Gold Line light-rail train.

It's a healthy competition. Cities recognizing a regional problem - freeway gridlock - rolling up their sleeves to advocate for a local mass transit option.

But the fighting ultimately is unnecessary.

We say, why choose between the two proposed routes of the Gold Line East? Metro should build both.

Arguments are strong for both routes, which are the two remaining alternatives being studied.

The Washington Boulevard route would send the line south on Garfield Avenue to Washington Boulevard through Montebello, Pico Rivera and Santa Fe Springs, ending at the edge of Whittier's Uptown adjacent to Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital, which has some 3,500 employees.

It would link a freeway-less Whittier to the outside world for the first time and open up possible expansion into Orange County.

It would serve the needs of low- and middle-income residents, connecting them to East Los Angeles and jobs in downtown L.A. and through other train connections, to points west. And this route would also provide a boost to Whittier job sites and retail clusters.

Of course the southeast county region, the "Gateway Cities" region, should be connected to the rest of L.A. County.

Likewise, a train extending farther east along the right-of-way of the Pomona (60) Freeway (not in the middle of the freeway but on the shoulder) would connect commuters in Montebello, South El Monte and even El Monte (through a shuttle link) to Los Angeles jobs. Also, by the time funding is awarded and the project is completed in 2037, it could pick up weekend riders at Whittier Narrows (the site of increasingly well attended celebrations for Mexican Independence Day, Cinco De Mayo, Asian festivals) as well as the soon-to-be-built Discovery Center.
But the biggest potential for a weekend trip generator would be the possible extension to Ed Roski's Industry NFL stadium in the hills near the junction of the 57 and 60 freeways. What a plus to have a local train actually go to a destination! That would be a first for Los Angeles County.

Both scenarios - both city coalitions - make strong arguments. To choose between the two rail routes would wrongly leave out one of these scenarios. We believe both areas would have the population and boardings to support rail line extensions by the completion date for one, which is 27 years from now.

What are the other transportation alternatives? There are no new freeways being planned to handle population growth in the region. Carpooling and bicycles can only make a small impact. And Star Trek-like transporting probably will still have a few years to go. Rail lines are the most cost-effective alternative to single-occupancy commuting.

So let the competition continue - for now. It's healthy to have cities working one side or the other. And when new data is released on the feasibility of these routes in 2011, perhaps one route will emerge as the first to be built, and the other as the next.

But until then, we are envisioning both legs of a growing Gold Line East serving these two sub-regions. It's a vision for the future we can get behind.

Source: http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_14206720

[Quixote]

I saw this posted in the other LA transit thread. 202_Cyclist, you should post all the latest news and updates here from now on. This thread discusses all things related to sustainable and environmentally friendly transportation in the five-county CSA.

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

This is from the TransitRider OC blog.


Metrolink Service Expansion Program
1/18/09

http://www.transitrideroc.com/





These two photos display a before and after shot of crossovers and switches, just north of the Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo train station, allowing flexibility for trains to move on or off the main line when Metrolink service expansion is implemented. A crossover allows a train to move from one track to another. A switch is the mechanism that moves the track to direct a train onto a different path.
Source: http://www.transitrideroc.com/

Despite the recently announced service reductions, Metrolink and OCTA are continuing to push forward on the service expansion program later this year.

The increased service will operate between the Fullerton and Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo train stations.

To increase trips along this rail corridor and provide the high quality, reliable service commuters expect from Orange County, a number of track and signal improvements are underway.

Construction started at the Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo and Fullerton stations in fall 2009 and has included expanding passenger platforms and building additional train turnback facilities to allow the trains to turn around more efficiently.

And while we're on the subject of Metrolink improvements...

[LAdude]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

^ Yes. Metro is revisiting Alternative 8 (100% underground) for the Regional Connector.

This is actually very encouraging. The Whittier Blvd. option made the most sense of all the routes, but it got eliminated! How do we get that option back into the running before it is too late? I am willing to write letters/ show up to meetings, but I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction.

Also, if and when Whittier Blvd. becomes an option again, I think there are many sections of the train that should be underground much like the Crenshaw line they are building in Los Angeles. Just my two cents.

[JDRCRASH]

If Whittier Blvd was eliminated, it probably isn't coming back. I'm sure the residents nearby have some responsibility in it's elimination.

Besides, this opens the opportunity for a Purple Line extension, no matter which alternative for the Gold Line Phase II is chosen.

[CityKid]

It's a little different than talking about Metro Rail, but I thought it was relevant to LA transportation. This is from the LA Times:

Long Beach makes way for bicycles

The city is proactive in becoming more cyclist friendly, even creating 'sharrows' for bikes and cars to share lanes. And 20 miles of new bike lanes are coming soon.

By Tony Barboza

January 25, 2010 | 6:22 p.m.

A dozen notables mounted bikes outside the entrance to Long Beach City Hall late last year for the unveiling of a metallic bicycle sculpture with a lofty proclamation:

"Long Beach, the most bicycle friendly city in America," it reads in bold steel lettering under the likeness of an antique bicycle.

It was a little premature, leaders admit.

"But we're striving for that," said City Manager Pat West, a longtime cyclist.

While other cities spin their wheels, Long Beach is joining the ranks of places such as Portland, Ore., San Francisco and New York City that have made safe passage for bikes a priority, even at the expense of traffic lanes.

And as Los Angeles reviews comments to a draft of a bike plan that proposes 696 miles of new bikeways, Long Beach is taking action.

"Long beach is a built-out city and yet they're finding a way to make east-west and north-south corridors that are safer and more inviting," said Jennifer Klausner, executive director of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group. "There's no reason L.A. can't do the same thing. It doesn't have to be the slow-moving cog in the machine."

At a time when cities are cutting expenses across the board, Long Beach has raised $17 million in state and federal grants to improve its bike system through traffic improvements, education and bike share programs. In the next six months, the city will be resurfacing 20 miles of streets to include new bike lanes, part of a plan that includes painting and paving more than 100 miles of bike infrastructure.

In spring, the city hopes to install traffic circles on less-traveled streets parallel to thoroughfares and designate them "bike boulevards" -- preferred routes for cyclists.

Also in the works are plans to replace entire lanes of traffic with protected bikeways. And in what's bound to be a controversial move, the city is looking at taking away prime parallel parking spots -- the ones most convenient to shops and restaurants -- and putting "bike corrals" in their place.

"We can fit 15 customers where we used to fit one," said Charles Gandy, the city's bike mobility coordinator. "This is about differentiating Long Beach from L.A. and Orange County."

City planners have gone far and wide for input, bringing in experts to give advice, the mayor of Bogota, Colombia, and Copenhagen's traffic engineer among them.

And officials have enlisted a corps of volunteers -- from young fixed-gear-riding hipsters to paunchy, middle-aged road cyclists -- to help out with tasks such as bike counts, which will help determine where more bike lanes will be placed.

Street by street, cyclists and motorists are seeing changes, the most dramatic of which took place last summer when lanes of green paint appeared on one of the city's busiest stretches, providing an early test of how the city will balance car traffic with cyclists' rights to safe routes.

The green strip created a "sharrow" -- a 6-foot-wide space in the middle of the right lane of traffic on both sides of 2nd Street in Belmont Shore. It was intended to be a stark reminder that drivers must share the road with cyclists.

But when the green lane appeared last summer, it startled drivers and cyclists alike in the often traffic-choked retail district, drawing national attention for pitting the two against each other. "City puts bicycles directly in the path of motorists," USA Today wrote in a blog post.

"There was a lot of confusion from cyclists and motorists because there was green paint all over the place," said Dominic Dougherty, manager of the Bikestation, a business that provides bike rentals, parking and repair in downtown Long Beach. "And confusion breeds anger."

Gandy said the green strip "better articulates the existing law," which allows bikes to travel with vehicular traffic.

"We haven't given cyclists any more privileges than before the green stripe, we've just made it more obvious," he said.

But others say the green lanes have emboldened cyclists too much, with many weaving in and out of traffic, riding four-deep and making the already clogged street impassable.

"We just don't understand" the purpose, said driver Anne Long, an insurance agent who lives blocks from 2nd Street. "Are we supposed to pull over and go around them? I just stay behind them and go really slow until there's an opening in the other lane."

But others say that slowly, behavior is changing; cyclists are being more consistent about where they ride and drivers are being more attentive.

"When it first got put in we thought, 'Oh my God, everyone is going to get murdered,' " said Jean-Marie Garcia, a hair stylist who rides her baby-blue beach cruiser to work on Second Street every day. "But gradually over time, drivers have adjusted. They're slowing down."

Volunteers counted bikes before and after the green lanes appeared. According to a December report by the city, the number of cyclists on Second Street increased by 29% while the number of bikes on the narrow sidewalk waned by 22%.

And there have been only two incidents since they debuted: both involving cyclists running into cars.

Calling the green lanes an early success, the city is undertaking other bike-oriented enhancements. Last month, crews painted more green on two busy intersections where early morning road bikers congregate. The "bicycle boxes" give cyclists a designated place in front of cars to safely wait for the signal to change.

The city is also working with businesses and community groups to provide incentives such as 20% lunch discounts for cyclists -- to get people to ride to work, shops and restaurants.

The port-adjacent community also has some built-in features that may ease its quest for bike friendliness.

For one, it's flat and built on a grid -- easy to get around on a simple beach cruiser.

While it's a city by any measure, its digestible size makes bike transportation a more plausible alternative than in the sprawl of Los Angeles.

And the city already has continuous bike paths along three of its borders: the San Gabriel and Los Angeles rivers and the beach.

"We have such a huge advantage over other cities because we have these things," said City Manager West, who rides a road bike around town on the weekends.

"We're doing a lot of things outside of the box -- at least for Southern California," he said.

One example is the city's spin on a recent rise in bike thefts: It's a good thing, West and others joked, because after all, it indicates more people are out riding bikes.

And Long Beach is getting attention for its efforts. This week, the city is hosting delegations from some admirers: transit planners in Los Angeles, Glendale and other nearby cities who would like to draw inspiration from the Long Beach bike plan.

It's a shift for Long Beach, where, like in many other Southern California communities, the car still reigns supreme, said Andréa White-Kjoss, president and chief executive of Bikestation, the Long Beach-based firm that has seven bike transit centers in California, Seattle and Washington, D.C.

"If we can do it here," she said, "you can do it anywhere."

[email protected]

[Quixote]

^ Bicycles are a good topic of discussion and they are most certainly relevant to LA transportation. Thanks for posting that.

[Quixote]

Sorry, I just had to post this photo...


From Flickr, by Benjamin Page

[202_Cyclist]

^Westsidelife-- that is a great photo. There are few places more scenic than Southern California after the big winter storms.

Another Expo Line setback

Bloomekatz, Ari B.
Los Angeles Times
January 28, 2010

After neighbors bemoan late-night noise, a round-the- clock construction permit is revoked.


The long-delayed Expo Line was recently dealt another setback when
authorities revoked a permit that allowed construction 24 hours a day, seven
days a week.

Authorities said they revoked the permit last week because of complaints
about noise during late-night construction on the line.

The move could further delay construction, which is already more than a year
behind schedule, and add to the $862-million price tag to complete the first
segment from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City.

That cost has already grown by more than $220 million over the project's
original budget of $640 million. The line is planned to eventually reach Santa
Monica.

Richard Tefank, executive director of the Los Angeles Police Commission,
which has jurisdiction to issue variances to the noise ordinance in the city of
Los Angeles, said the 24-hour permit on one section of the line was revoked
after an investigation into noise complaints in some of the surrounding
neighborhoods.

"The majority of people [investigators] spoke with indicated that the noise
was disruptive for them, impacting their quality of life," Tefank said, adding
that one investigator visited surrounding neighborhoods at 2 a.m. one evening and heard loud disruptions.

Without the 24-hour permit, construction is allowed between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, and from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends and holidays.

Richard Thorpe, chief executive of the Exposition Metro Line Construction
Authority, the organization responsible for getting the line built, said he was
surprised when the commission revoked the 24-hour permit and that it was
important to speed up construction.

In a letter to Police Commission President John Mack, Thorpe wrote that the
authority had taken several steps to curb noise during nighttime construction
and was instructing the project's contractor to request the authority's
permission before doing night work.

Thorpe and Tefank met Wednesday to discuss the project, nighttime
construction and noise complaints from area residents.

Tefank said they came to an agreement that the Expo authority would submit
30-day construction plans to the commission, outlining when and where nighttime work is needed and why at those times, and the efforts made to reach out to area residents and mitigate noise. If the authority wants to close down entire intersections or streets over a weekend, that must be a separate request.

Based on the plans, Tefank will decide whether to issue a temporary variance
for each 30-day period or weekend closure request.

"We understand the necessity to complete the project, but as we clearly
mentioned to them, our interest is for the community's ability to have peace and quiet, as much as can be when you're having this type of construction," Tefank said.

[202_Cyclist]

State lawmakers take aim at free parking

There is too much of it, they say, and it encourages people to drive instead of taking the bus, walking or bicycling. A Senate proposal would prompt cities and businesses to reduce its availability.

By Patrick McGreevy
LA Times
January 29, 2010

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politi...rnia+Politics)&utm_content=Google+Reader

State lawmakers are taking aim at what some of them see as a menace to California's environment: free parking.

There is too much of it, the legislators say, and it encourages people to drive instead of taking the bus, walking or riding a bike. All that motoring is
contributing to traffic jams and pollution, according to state Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), and on Thursday he won Senate approval of a proposal he hopes will prompt cities and businesses to reduce the availability of free parking.




"Free parking has significant social, economic and environmental costs," Lowenthal said. "It increases congestion and greenhouse gas emissions."

Republicans opposed the measure, saying the Legislature should not be meddling in how much people pay to park.

"If local governments want to entice people to shop or do business in a particular area, that is entirely their business. Not the state's," said Sen. Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach).

The bill, supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Sierra Club, provides financial incentives for cities and counties to stop providing free parking on the street and at government offices and to reduce the amount they require businesses to provide.

Cities that take such action could get more state money for parking garages and transit programs and bonus points in competing for state grants.

When a store provides free parking, the cost to maintain, clean, insure, secure and light the parking lot is passed on to shoppers in higher prices for goods, said Justin Horner, an analyst with the NRDC. Free street parking is paid for by the entire community in the form of higher taxes, he said.

Lowenthal said that when businesses pay for their employees' parking, more of them drive to work.

"It's nice that we've been treated to this luxury," Lowenthal said. "The problem with free parking is it's not free."

[mwadswor]

"If local governments want to entice people to shop or do business in a particular area, that is entirely their business. Not the state's," said Sen. Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach).

I hate to agree with a Republican on a transit issue, but I agree that this isn't and shouldn't be a state issue. I'm all for restricting and reducing free parking and I think a lot of cities across the country, but particularly in southern California, need to be doing a much better job of reducing parking requirements/availability.

That said, California is a very large state, and what makes sense for pretty much the entire western half of the state just doesn't make sense for a lot of inland California. SD, LA, SF, even a lot of the central valley cities have good mass transit, enough density to warrant more mass transit, and desperately need to stop encouraging cars so much. Needles, CA (for example) is in an entirely different world and doesn't need to be having its parking requirements legislated based on what makes sense in Sacramento.

Restricting free parking is absolutely the right idea, but it needs to be happening at the local and maybe county level, not the state level. This is simply an issue that's going to be too nuanced based on local conditions for any state law to really make sense.

[pesto]

Big Brother at work. Just reading something like this probably gets 200 businesses that were considering moving or staying in California to move somewhere else. "Look, Fred, in California the government even tells you how much to charge for parking."

Free parking isn't free, but no one is asking the government to pay for it either. Go work on the friggin' budget and failed school system instead.

[Quixote]

Expo Timetable Stays on Track, but Faces Hurdle

By Miriam Finder
January 29, 2010

LOS ANGELES — No delays are expected to result from the revocation of a permit that allowed around the clock construction on the Expo Line that will come to Santa Monica in its second phase. However, delays may occur if the second phase's environmental impact report does not pass its Feb. 4 review.

Rick Thorpe, Expo Authority CEO, said he is optimistic that the Expo Construction Authority Board will approve the report, but that nothing is certain until all the public testimony is heard and the meeting is over.

If the board disapproves the report, portions would have to be redone, which could cause delays of eight to 10 months, Thorpe said.

"Obviously, Feb. 4 is a critical juncture in the project," he said.

Although already a year behind schedule, Thorpe said everything now is on schedule to keep the project moving smoothly.

The Los Angeles Police Commission withdrew the construction permit due to noise complaints. Overnight work has been banned.

"Now they're saying they want to know when we're working, how many hours … and that the community has been notified," said Thorpe. "All of which I think is reasonable and doable."

The finished line will run from Downtown Los Angeles through Culver City and possibly along Colorado Avenue ending at Fourth Street in Downtown Santa Monica.

[CityKid]

Originally Posted by mwadswor

I hate to agree with a Republican on a transit issue, but I agree that this isn't and shouldn't be a state issue. I'm all for restricting and reducing free parking and I think a lot of cities across the country, but particularly in southern California, need to be doing a much better job of reducing parking requirements/availability.

That said, California is a very large state, and what makes sense for pretty much the entire western half of the state just doesn't make sense for a lot of inland California. SD, LA, SF, even a lot of the central valley cities have good mass transit, enough density to warrant more mass transit, and desperately need to stop encouraging cars so much. Needles, CA (for example) is in an entirely different world and doesn't need to be having its parking requirements legislated based on what makes sense in Sacramento.

Restricting free parking is absolutely the right idea, but it needs to be happening at the local and maybe county level, not the state level. This is simply an issue that's going to be too nuanced based on local conditions for any state law to really make sense.

If you read the language from the article, the bill provides financial incentives to places that decide not to provide free parking. It does not outright restrict parking. The local governments would still have the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to provide parking free of charge. The financial incentives for not providing free parking weighed against the outrage of their constituents would likely determine which way the local governments decide to go. That means that places such as Needles may decide to continue providing free parking without penalties because it does not make sense for them, but Los Angeles or Long Beach could.

It's interesting to point out that the Long Beach Development Services released a preliminary study regarding rezoning of Long Beach Boulevard (p. 31) last September which suggests that lowering the free parking requirements along the corridor will encourage more transit oriented development. I think the bill is a good idea, but I also think it's awfully good timing on Lowenthal's part that this bill is being proposed now when the City of Long Beach is considering implementing the kind of policy that his bill seeks to encourage with state funds.