LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

I really wanted Garcetti to negotiate funding from the IOC for the Sepulveda Line from Expo/Westwood to Van Nuys to be completed by 2028. It is very relevant for connecting the Airport to the Westside (Volleyball, Olympic Village at UCLA, transfers to purple and expo) to the Orange Line (transfers to Valley Sports Cluster. I also think a short blue line extension to CSU Dominguez Hills/the South Bay Sports Cluster should happen.

By extension....do you mean rerouting the entire line or have a smaller line getting linked to CSUDH? because I actually would hate that idea either way. I think a Vermont line would be better. denser corridor servicing a totally different populace. a feeder line from the blue to CSUDH would be dead on arrival because of the area. Mostly factories, warehouses, single family homes and mobile home parks.

[caligrad]

An interesting thing though. Not to take it seriously since it is politics. Our current Prez, when asked about LA and the olympics, said (back in January i believe) that if we were to win the bid, he would ask congress to find a billion or 2 for tranist and other needs for the city because he thinks the olmypics are great and good for any american city....I wonder if thats still on the table? HAHAHAHA Because hands down i would take it all and put it on the purple to the sea to finally get it done and over with so we can all collectively move on with our lives and other tranist needs haha. I posted a link way back on this thread with the article.

My MAIN beef with metro and LA tranist as a whole is that...... A lot of our tranist line needs can be meet sooooooo easily. We have avenues that are wide enough to throw light rail down the center. We have old red car right of way lines that are STILL sitting vacant nearly a hundred years later. Like whats the deal ????? why cant this get done ??? For instance. Vermont line needs to happen link to downtown/expo park/ CSUDH with Pedro and the port. WHY hasnt it happened yet? WHY ? Vermont is ridiculously wide once it gets passed expo park, soooo wide that there is random underutilized parking in the CENTER OF THE STREET IN SOME SECTIONS ! just boggles my mind. The same with Hawthorne blvd in the south bay. Its ridiculously wide at 4 lanes of traffic on each side AND parking in the center of it. Why not slap light rain in the center of both ???? have a road diet and add some DAM* trees....it just drives me crazy.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by caligrad

By extension....do you mean rerouting the entire line or have a smaller line getting linked to CSUDH? because I actually would hate that idea either way. I think a Vermont line would be better. denser corridor servicing a totally different populace. a feeder line from the blue to CSUDH would be dead on arrival because of the area. Mostly factories, warehouses, single family homes and mobile home parks.

My first thought had been about creating express blue line service from Long Beach to DTLA, and creating a service pattern in which local trains terminate around Compton, and express trains skipping most stops from DTLA to Compton, then serving all stops south to Long Beach. I then realized that the local trains could then split from the blue line route and terminate at the main anchor in the area (CSUDH) along a short 2 mile extension, so as to best maximise the service opportunities created by a local/express pattern. I then thought that the first step in this could be the spur, so as to give the South Bay Olympic Cluster MetroRail service.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by caligrad

An interesting thing though. Not to take it seriously since it is politics. Our current Prez, when asked about LA and the olympics, said (back in January i believe) that if we were to win the bid, he would ask congress to find a billion or 2 for tranist and other needs for the city because he thinks the olmypics are great and good for any american city....I wonder if thats still on the table? HAHAHAHA Because hands down i would take it all and put it on the purple to the sea to finally get it done and over with so we can all collectively move on with our lives and other tranist needs haha. I posted a link way back on this thread with the article.

The least political response I can give is that rail transit does not have friends in Washington. The White House is using Denver and Los Angeles as examples of the diminished need for federal spending on rail because we have successfully taxed ourselves. So... don't bet on it. I wouldn't anyway.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by NSMP

The least political response I can give is that rail transit does not have friends in Washington. The White House is using Denver and Los Angeles as examples of the diminished need for federal spending on rail because we have successfully taxed ourselves. So... don't bet on it. I wouldn't anyway.

If Dems gain control in 2018, they could put funding in the budget, and that would still give 9 years until necessary completion.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Yeah but Garcetti is focused on replicating the success of 84 which means leveraging funding for city programs, not new more-expensive regional projects. New infrastructure increases the risk of budget overruns, an impractical risk if, say, your primary reason for hosting the Olympics is to develop your bona fides for higher office. Garcetti is cautious, more than anything.

More cautious because there are rumors he is looking for a higher political seat (Senator, Governor or higher) and any risk where it is not practically 90% of the way done he's not going to take. Which is mostly how he operates anyway.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

More cautious because there are rumors he is looking for a higher political seat (Senator, Governor or higher) and any risk where it is not practically 90% of the way done he's not going to take.

It's why I'm not a huge fan of him. No backbone and safe to a fault. He's a generic politician whose agenda moves with the wind around the unruffled feathers of city council. A weak mayor for a weak LA mayoral seat.

Angelenos are political sheep (politically stupid and ignorant - see the extremely low voter participation rate). They need a strong leader to tell them what they need because they don't know what they need. Garcetti is not such a person. Despite its more recent progressive affiliations, LA is still a conservative city at its bones. One that did few things, and when things were done, it was usually decided locally. Our Richard Daley was a racist named Sam Yorty. Our roots have always been to resist progress and change, and things aren't so different today, despite all the TBMs underground and all the Mexican immigrants.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by caligrad

My MAIN beef with metro and LA tranist as a whole is that...... A lot of our tranist line needs can be meet sooooooo easily. We have avenues that are wide enough to throw light rail down the center. We have old red car right of way lines that are STILL sitting vacant nearly a hundred years later. Like whats the deal ????? why cant this get done ??? For instance. Vermont line needs to happen link to downtown/expo park/ CSUDH with Pedro and the port. WHY hasnt it happened yet? WHY ? Vermont is ridiculously wide once it gets passed expo park, soooo wide that there is random underutilized parking in the CENTER OF THE STREET IN SOME SECTIONS ! just boggles my mind. The same with Hawthorne blvd in the south bay. Its ridiculously wide at 4 lanes of traffic on each side AND parking in the center of it. Why not slap light rain in the center of both ???? have a road diet and add some DAM* trees....it just drives me crazy.

Because a little known piece of legislation called SB 743 authored by then Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg which gives Transit Districts CEQA exemption from needing an environmental impact report (EIR) for projects (more importantly it was used for the Sacramento Kings arena to circumvent CEQA). However its only for districts and not corridors which would help LA more. With districts you get these half baked road diets that are great for cyclists but miserable for transit users. But in order for an area to get a Bus Only Lane or BRT it will need a full study which is silly to me because doing transit priority projects ultimately helps pedestrians, cyclists and Motorists if there are signal synchornization and improvements that benefit the entire street. But that requires an EIR to study for the transit in order to obtain funding.

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

If Dems gain control in 2018, they could put funding in the budget, and that would still give 9 years until necessary completion.

So we still have to do the Environmental reports in order to get the funding so no amount of Olympic games coming in 2028 will accelerate the need to get funding together. No amount of change in the politics in DC will change the fact that first you need funding to do the study and complete the study...then you can talk about budget line items to build the projects.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

It's why I'm not a huge fan of him. No backbone and safe to a fault. He's a generic politician whose agenda moves with the wind around the unruffled feathers of city council. A weak mayor for a weak LA mayoral seat.

Angelenos are political sheep (i.e. politically stupid and ignorant - see the extremely low voter participation rate), and they need a strong leader to tell them what they need. Because they don't know what they need.

The irony here is that if LA had a strong leader voters would revolt that heavy handed leadership. It's a double edged sword if there ever was one.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

With LA 2028 all but a done deal, Expo/Blue Line upgrades should be at the top of the list for most important projects. I really don't care if there are other projects in front of the line. You can't marry yourself to a strict 30-40-year schedule because new needs and priorities will inevitably come about over the course of several decades.

That is true but that is dependent on cash flow needs to build the existing promised projects voters wanted and asked for. No amount of Olympic bids are going to change that. Also the current cash flow of Measure M because so many of the projects were promised to be accelerated in the first decade you have little room for new things. Any adjustment to that will cause a ruckus to the mechanism that funds and delivers these projects.

So this is what I tell others;
1) Author a better written motion. The original motion in February for the purposes of Downtown Rail capacity was so poorly written staff couldn't go to the next point.
2) Show me the money. Figure out where the new money will come to do a full study first without jeopardizing existing projects. This is most important in political motion writing and reverse engineering, anticipate the roadblocks and solve them early. Once you start there you can cobble the other funds together from other state, federal and even private sources to figure out how to build this.

Originally Posted by NSMP

Also, not to be even more of a wet blanket, but there are not going to be any super ambitious transit accelerations because of the Olympics. I mean, I really really doubt it. We might be a target for some of the first major cash allocations from CA SB1, but I find it very unlikely that Congress is going to pony up brand new non-programmatic $ for rail (which they hate) in CA/LA (which they also hate)

You're not the only wet blanket here, I proudly take my wet blanket title not to damper the mood but to figure out a way around the pitfalls.

My prediction for projects that will get accelerated for 2028 Olympics because of where it is on the project schedule and cost-effectiveness.
* Westside Purple Line to Westwood/VA
* Sepulveda Pass HOT & Express Bus
* Grade Separations for the Orange Line Busway
* South Bay Green Line to Torrance
* West Santa Ana Corridor (for added Downtown system Capacity needed to build a grade separated Flower Street)

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

The irony here is that if LA had a strong leader voters would revolt that heavy handed leadership. It's a double edged sword if there ever was one.

Exactly. The problem with our electorate is it's tyranny of the minority. Voter turnout of a vocal minority (12%) reflects a populace which barely knows who's mayor. Those 12% are the same folks ensuring councils keep them protected from the "unwashed masses". The unwashed masses (the rest of LA) doesn't read the news and couldn't care enough to make a difference anyway.

LA definitely isn't a Seattle or Chicago, that's for sure. Our weak mayor-council gov't would work better with a more educated and engaged populace. Unfortunately, LA's entrenched conservative culture is perpetuated by a disinterested electorate and as such, remains a city that has reactive rather than proactive transit and urban planning.

I've always said, LA is only nominally "progressive" due to a its large amount of poor and disengaged Mexicans, rather than an enlightened and engaged democratic voter base. With LA, progressive change comes via a slow chipping away at its conservative bones. Ever wonder why liberal movements have never originated here? LA is NOT a progressive city.

LA wants to be liberal but actually is conservative. It's a brown Santa Monica, only dictated by racial rather than age- related voting patterns.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

More cautious because there are rumors he is looking for a higher political seat (Senator, Governor or higher) and any risk where it is not practically 90% of the way done he's not going to take.

New infrastructure increases the risk of budget overruns, an impractical risk if, say, your primary reason for hosting the Olympics is to develop your bona fides for higher office. Garcetti is cautious, more than anything.

I don't disagree!

[caligrad]

^^^ I second that one. I forgot Garcetti is looking at a higher office. I heard Antonio is running too. So seems like we may be stuck with our current plans for a while until election year at least.

I try not to feed into the LA isn't *insert random city* BS, because I've learned that people are basing their assumptions off of TV and movies or just flat out lying. But seriously? Chicago? a city that politically is a MESS and full of out right corruption in plain view. Its been on the news for years with Rahm Emanuel constantly apologizing. I was in Chicago last month.. Transit needs a HUGE face lift. Streets are a mess. Highways are a mess. I was far from impressed. So the constant over hype really isn't needed. Take away the tall buildings and what do you have left? Bakersfield.

I was in Seattle back in June. Another city that people love to over hype. Don't get me wrong. i loved the vibe. but. The sheer amount of parking podiums was astonishing. The lack of pedestrian friendly developments under construction was odd and new construction wrapped around with LA like plazas was surprising. It took me nearly an hour to get from the airport to downtown because of an accident in the odd train/bus tunnels. And even then the train was god awful slow for a distance that isn't that long.

So I need certain people to start posting photos to justify their odd comments because I've taken PLENTY while on my world tour to say... YOURE WRONG.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by caligrad

Chicago? a city that politically is a MESS and full of out right corruption in plain view. Its been on the news for years with Rahm Emanuel constantly apologizing. I was in Chicago last month.. Transit needs a HUGE face lift. Streets are a mess. Highways are a mess. I was far from impressed. So the constant over hype really isn't needed. Take away the tall buildings and what do you have left? Bakersfield.

Co-Sign on that, I went to college in Chicago and it was a political shithole then and it still is one.

However perceptions are becoming the new reality as most people/places and things need to spin an aura of something to be palatable.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

The irony here is that if LA had a strong leader voters would revolt that heavy handed leadership. It's a double edged sword if there ever was one.

Not really. I thought Villaraigosa was pretty strong.

Originally Posted by Bikemike

With LA, progressive change comes via a slow chipping away at its conservative bones. Ever wonder why liberal movements have never originated here? LA is NOT a progressive city.

As a Democratic who is a technocratic neoliberal, not a "leftist progressive," I like that. Having moved here from Oregon, I can definitely say that many of the populist left wing politics are not a good thing at all.

[ChargerCarl]

Socal has always been a bastion of non-religious conservatism, among whites at least.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by caligrad

So I need certain people to start posting photos to justify their odd comments because I've taken PLENTY while on my world tour to say... YOURE WRONG.

For someone who doesn't understand the historic nuances of the references to Chicago or Seattle, an education would be helpful before any more juvenile replies with caps-locks gets thrown around.

Chicago's current political state is nothing to envy. But Mayor Daley's (the first one) administration was borne out of a heavily progressive and highly participative electorate (unlike LA's which is probably the lowest turnout of any major city in the US). The only time LA put a strongman mayor into office with a mandate was with the election of Sam Yorty, a conservative racist who could be mistaken for a Missouri politician. This is very telling and illustrates the point that:

1. LA's historically had a conservative power-base, and at its heart, is a conservative city with a conservative legacy (as opposed to Chicago's liberal one) that progressive agendas must continue to fight uphill against.
2. LA's electorate is generally stupid This is borne out by political illiteracy of the masses of untapped pro-transit/urbanist voting block. The people who vote tend to be white, and whites in LA are urbanistically stupid.

Seattle likewise has a highly educated and high turnout voting base which holds its council-members accountable to the same agenda that its mayor is held to (Cedillo and Koretz would never have been able to pander to the same kind of demographic populism among Seattlelites) That's how its able to have even more progressive code and zoning enacted than Santa Monica, the supposed most progressive city in SoCal, despite also being a weak mayor-council gov't.

The "issues" you found with Seattle have more to do with its size than with being regressive with TODs, transit, and all that. The point is, Seattle's electorate has *willingly* taken measures to funnel new growth into transit and walkability, and doing things LA's electorate continues to resist to this day, despite both having similar urban challenges (suburban-urbanism). SAD

but I bet you didn't know this.

[NSMP]

I'll have a post on transit and the Olympics up Monday. I think you all can probably glean what I'm going to say from my comments here though.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

The "issues" you found with Seattle have more to do with its size than with being regressive with TODs, transit, and all that. The point is, Seattle's electorate has *willingly* taken measures to funnel new growth into transit and walkability, and doing things LA's electorate continues to resist to this day, despite both having similar urban challenges (suburban-urbanism). SAD

but I bet you didn't know this.

That is because of topographical reasons not because of some grand insight on planning, they have no choice but to build up along those corridors.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

That is because of topographical reasons not because of some grand insight on planning, they have no choice but to build up along those corridors.

It's obvious Seattle is growing up. LA is too. Topographical or geographic factors yield the same result, and yes, there's nothing academic about scarcity of land. But I'm more concerned with whether one is doing a good job of growing up. I'm more focused on steps taken by Seattle to setting the foundation for livable growth - eg. unbundling parking from housing and other land uses. Seattle is not only doing this in downtown but also in its various classified Urban Centers. This in addition to reduced parking in its classified Urban Villages. Then as a whole, reduced parking for all commercial projects of a given square footage, as well as in pedestrian corridors - in Seattle, whatever podiums are built henceforth will be voluntary, not forced as with LA - none of these steps are politically feasible in LA - not even in downtown. Not even in Santa Monica (gasp!). Nevermind unbundling in the lessor "nodes" of LA as we often like to call them. That there's this much political appetite for "a war on cars" in a city with far less transit dependency and infrastructure than LA says everything about the electorate. I'm not saying Seattle is all smooth sailing, far from it. But all of these things require the cooperation of city council - which obviously represents a huge wall of resistance in LA. And because the council is popularly elected, the ability to get progressive policy enacted IS a direct reflection of the electorate's "grand insight" (or lack thereof). Seattleites as a whole get it.

What's the political appetite for selling the abolishment LOS to LA's electorate? Seattle's planners are revisiting whether the current iteration of LOS makes sense for its 2035 transportation element. Good luck seeing it brought up in LA's council. Or anywhere in LA gov. Hell, SLO is ahead of LA in this regard. In CA, the abolishment of LOS is coming from NorCal. LA and other SoCal has so far only been resisting its demise.

On average, LA's electorate is too stupid to appreciate the value of progressive zoning such as this. Cedillo just got reelected by a landslide. Koretz, Ryu, Price, all of these idiots are popular here and wouldn't see light of day in Seattle. A city (or country) is only as smart as the people it votes into office. As a whole, Seattleites want progress. As a whole, Angelenos don't even know what progress looks like LOL.