LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

NSMP, I'm confused by your post where you say Metro is building the purple line at 700m/mi. I thought costs were considerably lower than that, which is why I asked why construction costs have nearly doubled from ~400m/mi.

I was under the impression that our costs were in the 400-500 range, which is damn good for American HRT.

Costs are $500m/km which is prob what you are thinking of if you are using Alon Levy's comparisons. It is quite good by American standards.

[ChargerCarl]

Gotcha

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Prohibition is too blunt a tool. Case in point, the problems you are referring to have been solved and we still can't use A/C funds to even fund *plans* for below grade rail

The 1998 ban was more of a public voice not giving Metro any confidence in what they were doing at that point in time. They have been solved because planners after 1998 had to think outside the box to solve the problem without using the convenient well of dollars which is paid through local sales tax by local taxpayers who vote.

It is the same approach Metro uses now to go after State and Federal grants to plan below grade segments of projects which there is the density and demand we'll get the state, federal or city funds to plan it.

* That is how the Purple Line conversation got started again in 2004 (5-6 years later by Councilmember Tom LaBonge), then a study commissioned by the City of Beverly Hills then with that study a coalition formed with City of LA and Westside cities to get Federal grants to fund the environmental studies.

* It is that creativity that enabled the Eastside Gold Line to get built with 1.8 mile tunnel through East LA using Federal Dollars.

* The underpasses for the Pasadena Gold Line and Expo Line were funded through state CMAQ funds. The study of the Regional Connector used local city and state Prop 1B (2006) funds to start it's study.

If we didn't have that prohibition, We would not have Measure R and M which can fund that subway planning and show to taxpayers that with the dollars we have, we can deliver projects on time and on budget. Which again goes to the core point of the prohibition, no matter how blunt it may have been. It was the taxpayers saying enough is enough.

Like it or not without that prohibition there would have been no trust between the taxpayers and elected leaders for at least 20 years to actually do what's right to fund the system to all parts of LA County let alone plan a single new subway line. I am looking at this from an optimistic lens of when life throws you lemons, make lemonade approach instead of woe is us. The former ensures that that latter never happens, where as if LA took a woe is us approach we would never get anything done.

Now there's a solid track record of delivery to where now in 2016, Close to 20 years later we can talk about removing that restriction and recently over 72% of voters (through a strong coalition among business, labor, environmental, community leaders) supporting another 1/2 cent sales tax!

[NSMP]

If we didn't have the prohibition we wouldn't have Measure R/M is not a good trade-off. We are still paying taxes into Prop A/C and they are CURRENTLY being used to fund freeway cost overruns for Measure R's 405 widening! Why is that a good thing?

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

If we didn't have the prohibition we wouldn't have Measure R/M is not a good trade-off.

Not a good trade off to now have over $100B in additional investment to our LA County Transportation infrastructure, the majority of it is going to Transit and we have the opportunity to finish the Wilshire Subway to Westwood and complete other lines throughout LA County?

You're joking right?

The same influx of new dollars you would need to plan, build and operate all these new subway lines you'd like Prop A and C to fund it's planning in right? There was nothing in the prohibition to prevent new non Prop A and C sales tax dollars to fund subways. Now with Measure M we have a pot of one-cent that can be used to plan and fund subway corridors.

Originally Posted by NSMP

We are still paying taxes into Prop A/C and they are CURRENTLY being used to fund freeway cost overruns for Measure R's 405 widening! Why is that a good thing?

And those Prop A and C dollars are currently being used to pay for the OPERATIONS of the service to the Metro Rail and Bus system and finance other new non-subway transit corridors. Oh you just reminded me of another reason of the clusterf*** that was the 1990's in LA transportation building the creation of the Bus Riders Union and a federally mandated Consent Decree so again time will show when public opinion sours on something it not only rains it pours hard!

https://www.kcet.org/departures-colu...infrastructure

I think the time healing wounds is a damn good trade off because now there is a proven track record to where the public can trust Metro to do the right thing, so it easier to remove a prohibition like that. In order to rescind a voter mandated prohibition, you have get voter support to remove it, this is Politics 102.

Measure R dollars have not gone to Sepulveda Pass HOV lane widening. That project uses 70% sources from Federal and State dollars with local Prop C dollars. Some basic research can spot that claim out.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...156f894550970c

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Measure R dollars have not gone to Sepulveda Pass HOV lane widening. That project uses 70% sources from Federal and State dollars with local Prop C dollars. Some basic research can spot that claim out.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...156f894550970c

Ah, I see, however, Prop C dollars are also mopping up the settlement

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...128-story.html

"The $297.8-million agreement follows years of disagreements between Kiewit Corp. and Metro over how the freeway widening was managed. Kiewit has said in legal filings that Metro’s repeated changes to the project’s design and failure to identify and relocate utilities added significantly to delays....

The settlement will be funded through the sale of bonds financed by Proposition C, a half-cent sales tax that Los Angeles County voters approved in 1990, she said."

[NSMP]

And not a good trade-off because it's unproveable. There's no way to know when you institute a blanket ban in the 90s that it will EVER come back around.

And yes, i agree that now the prohibition can probably be repealed by popular vote. I think that was where my original post on the matter began.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

And not a good trade-off because it's unproveable. There's no way to know when you institute a blanket ban in the 90s that it will EVER come back around.

On a theoretical basis, yes there is no way of knowing if it will come back around however in this case(and possibly other cases) the prohibition was based on public trust and financing. When both public trust is restored and financial prudence is rewarded and merit positive trends of that then you have some track record that you can base it on to make repeal possible.

[NSMP]

I get where you're coming from but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think that was the right action to take at that time, even given the context and the outcome. If anything, hopefully we can agree that the restrictions should be lifted as soon as they possibly can be.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

I get where you're coming from but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think that was the right action to take at that time, even given the context and the outcome. If anything, hopefully we can agree that the restrictions should be lifted as soon as they possibly can be.

Agreed

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

On a theoretical basis, yes there is no way of knowing if it will come back around however in this case the prohibition was based on public trust and financing and generally when both merit positive trends of that then you have some track record that you can base it on to make repeal possible.

You're giving them way too much credit. I highly doubt that when the bans were instituted, a repeal decades on was ever considered by Yaroslavsky/Waxman. Political pandering (and that's exactly what motivated them) is almost never conducted with any policy foresight. Just look at where current transit money is (not) coming from almost three decades later. The ban was and is typical playbook material of LA's neighborhood council-derived political fiefdoms. For example, if rational, safety-motivated decision making was truly Waxman's concern as you suggest above, an investigation into how to mitigate tunneling risks in his so-called "methane zones" could have been conducted taking best-practices from similarly difficult conditions in Japan, but instead Waxman took draconian measures to ban all funding full-stop (to pander to his suburban-minded constituents of course). No nuance whatsoever.

You see, LA is and has always been a conservative city. Don't let the demographic blue-wave (Mexicans and Central Americans) or the Democratic voting pattern of it's Whites fool you into believing that our residents are urban sophisticates who appreciate, much less understand the value of public spaces, public transit, diversity, and multi-modality. The DNA of LA's power-structure is and always has been Conservative, no matter how many of its participants ostensibly profess to be "liberal". Just because White Angelenos voted for Dukakis and just because they publicly championed minorities doesn't mean they are okay living with them. The difference between "LA liberals" and those from SF or Chicago is that LA liberals (and Angelenos in general) are satisfied self-proclaiming as liberals, as long as they don't have to do the work. The "liberal" base that controlled Waxman and Yaroslavsky harbor the same type of cognitive dissonance as the "liberals" who control Paul Korez as well as basically all of Santa Monica. They're "liberals" only when convenient (as long as it doesn't bring bike lanes, or bring "those people", or limit parking, etc). In my experience LA is a half-ass city because it's residents are generally half-assed people, politically speaking. In short, they're sell-outs. Ryan Gosling said it best in Lalaland - Angelenos worship everything and value nothing. And believe it or not, the cynical motivations of Waxman, Yaroslavsky, Koretz, and SMRR stem directly from this local culture.

[ChargerCarl]

^heh, you give too much credit to SF "progressives" who loudly champion immigrants but do everything in their power to keep them out of SF.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

You're giving them way too much credit. I highly doubt that when the bans were instituted, a repeal decades on was ever considered by Yaroslavsky/Waxman. Political pandering (and that's exactly what motivated them) is almost never conducted with any policy foresight. Just look at where current transit money is (not) coming from almost three decades later.

Of course it was pandering, no one saying it is not pandering but there were too many silent champions at that time who would risk their political necks out for this, there were no rational voices on those boards 20+ years ago that had the gumption to say "Wait a minute, let's slow this down a bit."

The same pandering that was there to make these decisions will be the same pandering needed to overturn the damn things. It's called political will...an unfortunate side effect of power politics.

Now in Zev's case because I have been following the Metro Board activities off and on since 2003 out of college, Zev votes with a strong fiscal conservative bent to make sure the budget is in line even when it is a project in his district so a lot of the moves he made that time had that written all over it with a scent of pandering. Keep in mind Phase 3 of the Red Line went through his district and was under construction.

When there are the supporters there in the case of the Expo Line via Friends for Expo, that shows the power of organized community members and homeowners being FOR something his mind is swayed and he became their biggest champion for completing the Expo Line because the relationships are built from that understanding!

It's easy for some to play armchair historian now and say 20 years ago this shouldn't have happened this way, but unfortunately we don't have a physical device that allows time travel back to undo decisions that were made. But to not look at the context as to why something occurred and acknowledge WHY it occurred will guarantee the same mistakes will be made now and in the future. So if there are too many cost over runs with the projects or shoddy construction and a recurring basis this may happen again or stop efforts in the repeal.

What we have in front of us in this moment in time is an opportunity with close to 72% support for Measure M and with some of you wanting so desperately to repeal the voter supported ban on Prop A & C funding subways.

The stars are aligning.

Go for it, put in the work to do that. Organize people, get the message out and raise the money to do a campaign for a future election to get folks to be FOR something.

Originally Posted by Bikemike

The ban was and is typical playbook material of LA's neighborhood council-derived political fiefdoms. For example, if rational, safety-motivated decision making was truly Waxman's concern as you suggest above, an investigation into how to mitigate tunneling risks in his so-called "methane zones" could have been conducted taking best-practices from similarly difficult conditions in Japan, but instead Waxman took draconian measures to ban all funding full-stop (to pander to his suburban-minded constituents of course). No nuance whatsoever.

True in the case of Waxman's methane ban it was all political and that ended up happening, 20 years later with Mayor Villaraigosa, it could have happened sooner with Mayor Hahn in 2003-04 but Waxman didn't like Hahn personally so that didn't happen.

Originally Posted by Bikemike

You see, LA is and has always been a conservative city. Don't let the demographic blue-wave (Mexicans and Central Americans) or the Democratic voting pattern of it's Whites fool you into believing that our residents are urban sophisticates who appreciate, much less understand the value of public spaces, public transit, diversity, and multi-modality... And believe it or not, the cynical motivations of Waxman, Yaroslavsky, Koretz, and SMRR stem directly from this local culture.

This obvious sounds like you live in CD 5 and want to get rid of Koretz in the next election.

But you are right there is a lot of conservatism still in the back of minds in Los Angeles residents in particular homeowners in LA and they are the base pandered to the most because (Gasps) they vote the most often, most frequently and they are organized.

If anything the election of Trump as President should be clear as to why he won and what lesson to be learned as the ultimate civics lesson.

Until Millennials and other younger demographics get up off our asses and actually canvas neighborhoods to get folks who don't usually vote out to vote and make a difference in getting folks out to vote consistently even in boring midterm elections because it is the midterm elections that shape the focus of the presidential election and not when it is just a Presidential election, that trend and mindset will never change.

[Quixote]

Happy New Year.

Metro Announces Federal Funding to Bring the Subway to Century City by 2026

...

Metro has lined up nearly $1.5 billion in federal funding to bring the Purple Line subway west to Beverly Hills and Century City by 2026, with stops at Wilshire Boulevard and Rodeo and Avenue of the Stars and Constellation Boulevard.

The transit agency announced Wednesday that it has secured a $1.187-billion Federal Transit Administration grant and a $307-million Department of Transportation loan for this stretch of the Purple Line’s extension, called Phase Two.

Metro officials said they will pitch in local dollars, too: $836 million in revenue from Measures R and M, two countywide sales tax hikes passed by voters in 2008 and 2016, respectively. Without that money, the federal funding might not have landed, they said.

...

Phase Two is part of a nine-mile extension of the Purple Line that will be built in three sections. Once all three phases are finished, the Purple Line will stretch from Downtown Los Angeles, past its current terminus at Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue in Koreatown, to the VA West Los Angeles Medical Center in Westwood.

Construction on the third and final segment is expected to start in 2019, and when it opens, it will take riders from Downtown to Westwood in 25 minutes. Metro originally planned to open the final segment in 2035, but under Measure M, it could open sooner, sometime between 2024 and 2027.

It doesn’t look like the federal funding announced today will help hasten construction of Phase Two, which is set to kick off in 2018. Metro officials had already planned to have Phase Two up and running in 2026.

Recently, Metro has said it would try to speed up construction, if the city wins its bid to host the 2024 Olympics. But the announcement today pegs the opening date as 2026—two years too late. The Source does say, “Metro is aiming to finish the project at an earlier” than 2026. But no guarantees.

...

http://la.curbed.com/2017/1/4/141668...y-city-funding

[a very long weekend]

still outrageously slow, but i'll take it.

you know, i started thinking about trump becoming president and i couldn't sleep last night, and one thing that struck me was that the level crossings that all of us on here despise about the LA system may one day seem like a work of pure genius.

basically, in ~10 years, the tech will be such that most autos and all industrial vehicles (big trucks, buses, etc) will be automated enough that they'll pick up signal priority. this will give trains the 'berth' to speed through intersections with a high level of safety, with the main issue being pedestrian or errant non-automated motorist, which will become more and more rare.

the point is it could be that we've been super unhappy with how metro is saving money doing level crossings, and that these have been pretty much ruining service during the rush hours. but, in future, these money-saving moves, which mean that the system can be extended elsewhere, may well seem like a really savvy investment.

[Busy Bee]

I'm sorry but the idea that everyone is going to stop manually driving their vehicle because autonomy is an option makes about as much sense as saying all humans are going to stop having sex with each other because one can artificially inseminate themselves from the comfort of home.

What AV kool-aiders fail to understand is that for a very strong plurality of car owners driving is therapeutic. Its not at all times and for all drivers, but is a undeniably real and huge component. Will autonomous be great for long distance highway driving, yes. Will cars become smarter with safety features that override the faults and weakness of human operators, yes. Do I think that AV's will replace people's desire to operate a vehicle for thrill and pleasure, not a fat chance. And goodness, why would you want it to?

I could be wrong but I doubt it. Especially within the next 40-50 years.

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I'm sorry but the idea that everyone is going to stop manually driving their vehicle because autonomy is an option makes about as much sense as saying all humans are going to stop having sex with each other because one can artificially inseminate themselves from the comfort of home.

What AV kool-aiders fail to understand is that for a very strong plurality of car owners driving is therapeutic. Its not at all times and for all drivers, but is a undeniably real and huge component. Will autonomous be great for long distance highway driving, yes. Will cars become smarter with safety features that override the faults and weakness of human operators, yes. Do I think that AV's will replace people's desire to operate a vehicle for thrill and pleasure, not a fat chance. And goodness, why would you want it to?

I could be wrong but I doubt it. Especially within the next 40-50 years.

I'd say the exact opposite is true.

99% don't give a shit and just want to get to work.

[a very long weekend]

^ yeah, i especially think that people my age and younger who grew up in cities really don't at all see driving as therapeutic.

anyway, my point was just that vehicles will have a sufficient degree of automation that their communication with signaling will make it so that trains can safely speed through level crossings, instead of slowing like they do now.

[Busy Bee]

^Stressful and routine commuting inside and around dense congested cities notwhistanding, but again not for everyone and not at all times. No one buys a Dodge Challenger or even a Jeep to have a computer drive it for them. Forums filled with urbanists like this tend to be a feedback loop, but I stand by the fact that a huge portion of the population does not share your enthusiastic projection that fullly automated vehicle control will replace human desire to sit in the drivers seat of a fun-to-drive car and have fun, well, driving. The recreational aspect of motoring is being severally underestimated by the nascent AV futurists here and elsewhere.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

I don't think people will pay thousands of dollars just to drive ESPECIALLY IN LA. Maybe people will rent a car to go to Big Sur or something occasionally. The city government could always ban all non AVs on non Caltrans roads.