LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

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.

Folks LOS to VMT is not the magical cure all that advocates are making it out to be. In some cases because of how it is inconsistent the reporting will be guess what will happen the default LOS will come back. The key thing is that the priority should be about improving sidewalks and streetscapes.

Right now the VMT trick is great for bike advocates for bike lanes but we screw the transit rider in the process.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Buses just aren't an option for choice riders (if we're being honest), unless they're for first/last mile. LA's simply too geographically vast for buses or bicycles to be the average person's primary mode of transportation. The only way to fundamentally change how Angelenos travel is by building an extensive heavy rail system and making our metro area more DTLA-centric.

Choice riders are so called because they have a choice, and that choice usually begins and ends with "what is the most efficient means of getting from point A to point B?"

If we have BRT on most of the corridor where service is reliable and just as fast or faster than driving, choice riders will flock to such a system. If someone is just going two miles between Midtown Santa Monica and UCLA, or from Century City to Mid City, having a functional BRT system is just as important as having crosstown rail service.

The geographic vastness of LA is also a red herring with regards to BRT. Of course you wouldn't want to construct a BRT service that covers distance like SGV to Westside, the way 720 Rapid does - rail is better at covering those kind of distance. But BRT works in distance for example, between Downtown LA and Westside (Wilshire, Santa Monica, Olympic, Pico, Venice... take your pick), or Hollywood to South LA (Vermont, Western), Mid City to South Bay (Crenshaw, La Brea/Hawthorne, La Cienga) or Westside to LAX (Lincoln, Sepulveda, Westwood).

The point is that in the most dense part of LA basin, it is long past the time to debate whether BRT is necessary. The road capacity is not going to grow so we have to increase the utilization rate. And the only proven way to increase utilization in such urban environment is to carve out dedicated road space for transit vehicles.

[Trae]

They have started using both tracks at the 7th/Metro Station for the Blue and Expo lines. Has helped a lot with breaking up the crowded platforms and trains seen to be in and out faster. Can't wait until the regional connector is complete.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by bzcat

Choice riders are so called because they have a choice, and that choice usually begins and ends with "what is the most efficient means of getting from point A to point B?"

If we have BRT on most of the corridor where service is reliable and just as fast or faster than driving, choice riders will flock to such a system. If someone is just going two miles between Midtown Santa Monica and UCLA, or from Century City to Mid City, having a functional BRT system is just as important as having crosstown rail service.

The geographic vastness of LA is also a red herring with regards to BRT. Of course you wouldn't want to construct a BRT service that covers distance like SGV to Westside, the way 720 Rapid does - rail is better at covering those kind of distance. But BRT works in distance for example, between Downtown LA and Westside (Wilshire, Santa Monica, Olympic, Pico, Venice... take your pick), or Hollywood to South LA (Vermont, Western), Mid City to South Bay (Crenshaw, La Brea/Hawthorne, La Cienega) or Westside to LAX (Lincoln, Sepulveda, Westwood).

The point is that in the most dense part of LA basin, it is long past the time to debate whether BRT is necessary. The road capacity is not going to grow so we have to increase the utilization rate. And the only proven way to increase utilization in such urban environment is to carve out dedicated road space for transit vehicles.

An example of this in LA is the Silver Line where choice riders are leaving the Blue Line to utilize the Silver Line BRT because of the reliability and security of service is better. So what matters to all riders choice or otherwise is having reliable and frequent service.

Orange Line BRT doing wonders for the SF Valley, Before the Expo Line was completed to Santa Monica the 720 was one of the major BRT (with the peak period bus lanes)

[K 22]

Originally Posted by Trae

They have started using both tracks at the 7th/Metro Station for the Blue and Expo lines. Has helped a lot with breaking up the crowded platforms and trains seen to be in and out faster. Can't wait until the regional connector is complete.

I think Pico Station is the one to be worried about most - especially when the connector is up and running.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by bzcat

Choice riders are so called because they have a choice, and that choice usually begins and ends with "what is the most efficient means of getting from point A to point B?"

If we have BRT on most of the corridor where service is reliable and just as fast or faster than driving, choice riders will flock to such a system. If someone is just going two miles between Midtown Santa Monica and UCLA, or from Century City to Mid City, having a functional BRT system is just as important as having crosstown rail service.

The geographic vastness of LA is also a red herring with regards to BRT. Of course you wouldn't want to construct a BRT service that covers distance like SGV to Westside, the way 720 Rapid does - rail is better at covering those kind of distance. But BRT works in distance for example, between Downtown LA and Westside (Wilshire, Santa Monica, Olympic, Pico, Venice... take your pick), or Hollywood to South LA (Vermont, Western), Mid City to South Bay (Crenshaw, La Brea/Hawthorne, La Cienga) or Westside to LAX (Lincoln, Sepulveda, Westwood).

The point is that in the most dense part of LA basin, it is long past the time to debate whether BRT is necessary. The road capacity is not going to grow so we have to increase the utilization rate. And the only proven way to increase utilization in such urban environment is to carve out dedicated road space for transit vehicles.

I never was debating the merits of constructing more bus and bike infrastructure... that's a straw man on your part.

My entire approach is to put myself in the shoes of people who are ambivalent to urbanism and transit. While I haven't conducted some sort of poll or survey, I don't think it's presumptuous on my part to say that it's either rail or bust for the masses. You're not going to convince people to forgo their private automobiles in favor of the bus as their primary mode of transportation. Even bus lines with dedicated lanes are still too slow for crosstown service when you consider the number of stops made (more than rail) and the fact that they're subject to the same traffic signals as automobiles; bona fide BRT service like the Orange and Silver Lines are the exception to the rule. And this isn't including issues pertaining to image and socioeconomic status, which I won't get into.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I never was debating the merits of constructing more bus and bike infrastructure... that's a straw man on your part.

My entire approach is to put myself in the shoes of people who are ambivalent to urbanism and transit. While I haven't conducted some sort of poll or survey, I don't think it's presumptuous on my part to say that it's either rail or bust for the masses. You're not going to convince people to forgo their private automobiles in favor of the bus as their primary mode of transportation. Even bus lines with dedicated lanes are still too slow for crosstown service when you consider the number of stops made (more than rail) and the fact that they're subject to the same traffic signals as automobiles; bona fide BRT service like the Orange and Silver Lines are the exception to the rule. And this isn't including issues pertaining to image and socioeconomic status, which I won't get into.

First, I think you are being presumptuous. Most people who are ambivalent to transit still understand the concept of time savings. When congestion get to the point where it takes much longer to drive than take the BRT to go a few miles, people will switch.

Second, my point, which you've totally ignored is that a functional BRT system is just as important for short trips as crosstown trips on rail. And talk about straw man... you are going on about BRT being too slow for crosstown service. I've never said anything using BRT for crosstown trips. In fact, I said you want to use rail for those trips. Let's be very clear, I'm not talking about BRT for crosstown trips. I'm talking about BRT for short trips in dense urban areas. It's not an either / or answer, unless of course you want it to be - your blanket dismissal of utility of buses for "choice riders" is why I posted my rebuttal in the first place. There are many millions of car trips in LA that can be eliminated if bus was the most practical way to go 3 or 4 miles (let say from Mid City or West Hollywood to Century City... a totally typical commute of a lot of my employees). It's how most European and Asian cities work. There is a finite point in road capacity in urban area and people who don't care about transit will eventually come to find out they are paying a premium in time spent in traffic. The solution is to speed up buses. Not ignore it. It's impractical to build rail on every major street but totally feasible to build bus only lane and BRT network on every major street.

We've reached peak hour practical road capacity some time ago in LA basin with single occupant automobile (the theoretical capacity is probably still a bit higher) so trip time for those 3 or 4 miles trips in the LA basin is never going to improve. The only way to improve mobility is to increase the carry capacity of those roads and that's by giving priority space to transit vehicles.

So yes, build rail, lots of it to facilitate crosstown trips. But also build BRT, lots of it to facility shorter trips.

[numble]

Propositions A and C, which give a total of 1% to Metro required simple majorities to pass as they occurred before 1997.

In 1997, California voters passed Proposition 218 to requires local governments to get two-thirds approval to raise any local taxes. Most people thought Proposition 218 meant that any increase in local taxes proposed (from government or private citizens) requires two-thirds approval.

The California Supreme Court just ruled that the two-thirds rule only applies to government entities (Metro is still considered a government entity), and that private citizen initiatives, even involving a tax increase, can be passed by a simple majority:
http://legal-planet.org/2017/08/28/c...n-prop-13-218/

...California Supreme Court ruled today that any city or county “general tax” measure (i.e. not one for a specific purpose like transit or parks) that is placed on the ballot via the initiative process (a petition signed by 15 percent of the city’s voters) is not bound by Prop 218 requirements.

...

The potential result is that any citizen, nonprofit or business group that wants to place a special tax measure or fee on the ballot for something like a new school or transit line may only need a simple majority voter approval, provided they can get enough signatures for their measure. And unless barred by some other law, I gather there’s nothing stopping agency representatives or elected leaders in their individual capacities from sponsoring these campaigns in ways that essentially amount to the city, county, or agency sponsoring the measure themselves.

As an example, take a transit sales tax measure in a place like Los Angeles County. In the past, the county’s transportation agency, LA Metro, has sponsored these initiatives under their state law grant of authority, and the county supervisors have approved placing them on the ballot. Due to Prop 218, they’ve required two-thirds approval.

But now suppose an elected leader who serves on Metro, or a nonprofit or business group closely aligned with Metro, wants to place such a tax measure on the ballot. Provided they can fundraise for the signature gathering (which would be expensive in a county as large as Los Angeles), they would now only need a simple majority approval at the ballot box. In short, this decision could be transformational for local “self-help” efforts to fund badly needed infrastructure projects.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by numble

Propositions A and C, which give a total of 1% to Metro required simple majorities to pass as they occurred before 1997.

In 1997, California voters passed Proposition 218 to requires local governments to get two-thirds approval to raise any local taxes. Most people thought Proposition 218 meant that any increase in local taxes proposed (from government or private citizens) requires two-thirds approval.

The California Supreme Court just ruled that the two-thirds rule only applies to government entities (Metro is still considered a government entity), and that private citizen initiatives, even involving a tax increase, can be passed by a simple majority:
http://legal-planet.org/2017/08/28/c...n-prop-13-218/

I was just coming here to post about this. This is HUGE and very under-reported. This opens up the possibility of someone placing a true urban transit measure on the ballot that doesn't fund any freeways or trains to the exurbs in an effort to get a 2/3rds vote.

It'd be great to see one that focuses exclusively on boosting bus service and building a high-quality BRT network on our major corridors, accelerating the most worthy Measure R/M projects (Vermont HRT, Crenshaw northern extension, Eco-rapid line, and Sepulveda HRT), and extending the Purple Line to Santa Monica. Maybe some money for grade separations thrown in there as well.

Only problem is that many LA county jurisdictions have now reached their maximum sales tax. A new measure would need to a different mechanism (parcel tax? income tax? gas tax??).

[OhioGuy]

East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Takes Another Step Towards Reality
by STEVEN SHARP on September 01, 2017, 10:59AM

Metro has released a draft environmental impact report for the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor (ESFVTC), a project with funding from Measures R and M that could bring a bus rapid transit or light rail line to the Van Nuys corridor.

The ESFVTC spans approximately 9.2 miles, starting at the Sylmar Metrolink station in the north and terminating at the Van Nuys Orange Line bus station in the south. As of 2010, the immediate surroundings of the transit corridor was found to be home to over 167,000 people in 2010, out of the approximately 458,000 people living in the larger study area. Employment within this section of the San Fernando Valley totaled 141,000 as of 2010, with approximatley 30 percent of those jobs in the immediate vicinity of the transit corridor.

To serve this population, Metro is studying a variety of transit modes, including curb-running bus rapid transit, median-running bus rapid transit, low-floor light rail and traditional light rail transit.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

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.

When people know everything about nothing, you get a lot of repetitiveness, filler, unnecessary insults, continues exaggerations and they result to going completely off topic. Seriously...talking about people voting for a Mayor 60 freaking years ago and how those people are sooo much smarter than current Angelenos ???? You've GOT to be joking?? No one in their right mind would compare city governments/needs/people of 1955 to what's happening NOW. As of RIGHT NOW, in comparison, LA is heading in the right direction.

Oh hell. While we're at it. Lets compare the USA to Greece....Oh no, not the current Greece, that's embarrassing. Lets compare the USA with Ancient Greece and call that fair instead .

I.....Just....Cant.... HAHAHA

In other relevant news. Are there updated numbers on the Expo Line and Gold Line Ridership numbers?

[NSMP]

Both more or less flat in July. August should be up by the end of next week.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by numble

The California Supreme Court just ruled that the two-thirds rule only applies to government entities (Metro is still considered a government entity), and that private citizen initiatives, even involving a tax increase, can be passed by a simple majority:
http://legal-planet.org/2017/08/28/c...n-prop-13-218/

Take your pick:

Move LA, Transit Coalition, Investing in Place

[NSMP]

Idk about Move LA, but the other two don't have the resources to run that kind of campaign at least at present.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by caligrad

When people know everything about nothing, you get a lot of repetitiveness, filler, unnecessary insults, continues exaggerations and they result to going completely off topic. Seriously...talking about people voting for a Mayor 60 freaking years ago and how those people are sooo much smarter than current Angelenos ???? You've GOT to be joking?? No one in their right mind would compare city governments/needs/people of 1955 to what's happening NOW. As of RIGHT NOW, in comparison, LA is heading in the right direction.

Oh hell. While we're at it. Lets compare the USA to Greece....Oh no, not the current Greece, that's embarrassing. Lets compare the USA with Ancient Greece and call that fair instead .

I.....Just....Cant.... HAHAHA

In other relevant news. Are there updated numbers on the Expo Line and Gold Line Ridership numbers?

Wow, you don't follow politics too much do you? Comparing the political legacy of decades to a civilization 3000 years ago - very provocative . Anyone with an ounce of education (and depth) knows that political legacies in modern US cities/counties/states last decades. The LA of Sam Yorty was alive and well by Daryl Gates' regime. It took an outsider named Bratton to redirect the culture, and it took a second riots to bring in outsiders such as him. Mike Antonovich was a supe for 36 years, gifting us an entire generation of stonewalling liberal agenda, particularly where it came to transit (look up his comment on 'gang rape' lol. Demographic change has been LA's only savior (and even then, it fails to make dramatic change - it's VERY gradual, and full of populist ignorance ). These are just a couple examples of the intransigence of political inertia. But it'll all fall on a deaf ear, since speaking to you is like speaking to someone who watches too much MTV on their free time. I know we're all products of our environment, but you could benefit from reading less TMZ

P.S. Betcha didn't know who Sam Yorty was before I mentioned him, did you

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Folks LOS to VMT is not the magical cure all that advocates are making it out to be. In some cases because of how it is inconsistent the reporting will be guess what will happen the default LOS will come back. The key thing is that the priority should be about improving sidewalks and streetscapes.

Right now the VMT trick is great for bike advocates for bike lanes but we screw the transit rider in the process.

It's difficult to conceive of a situation where the use of VMT and the cessation of LOS would inhibit sidewalk and streetscape improvements. We are merely replacing a planning metric that hinged solely on mitigating the number of cars delayed, with one that mitigates excessive car usage. How could this be a bad thing? The net positives vastly overwhelm any negatives. Yes the reporting is a work in progress, but even the case of a faulty metric for VMT (and I'm sure the ultimate metric will be well thought out - after all, virtually all abolitionists of LOS are from the smarter half of our state ) will be vastly better than abating developments in order to favor automobile throughput as an "environmental concern". LOS has been the primary reason why American roads are basically 6 lane highways, and its cities are ped-hostile suburban wastelands with minimal attention given to "sidewalks and streetscapes".

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Idk about Move LA, but the other two don't have the resources to run that kind of campaign at least at present.

Perhaps a consortium of the three then, with contributions from private agencies and developers? You're the one with the public policy background here; what do you think? How could we make this work?

I'm just glad that we've now identified a legal loophole through which approval from the Board of Supervisors can be circumvented. As long as politicians prioritize serving their electoral jurisdictions over addressing the needs of their greater community, which is basically what it means to be an elected public official (so, in other words, that won't ever happen), then we'll never be able to get to where we want to be.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Perhaps a consortium of the three then, with contributions from private agencies and developers? You're the one with the public policy background here; what do you think? How could we make this work?

Pretty much what you just said. Put stuff in about upzoning and making development easier to appease developers, and the equivalent for unions.

[NSMP]

Yeah, I mean, Move LA is very proud of their role in the shaping and passage of Measures R and M. Maybe they would be interested in helming a campaign. You probably also want a group whose strength is community organizing. The Board of Supervisors is retrograde, and that's a problem. But only needing 50%+1 would allow much better projects to be built.

IMO City of LA should go it alone. There are so many good corridors wholly within the City. Mostly between Central City, South LA and West LA, but it would also make it easier to provide short routes to win support in the SFV and NELA.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Yeah, I mean, Move LA is very proud of their role in the shaping and passage of Measures R and M. Maybe they would be interested in helming a campaign. You probably also want a group whose strength is community organizing. The Board of Supervisors is retrograde, and that's a problem. But only needing 50%+1 would allow much better projects to be built.

IMO City of LA should go it alone. There are so many good corridors wholly within the City. Mostly between Central City, South LA and West LA, but it would also make it easier to provide short routes to win support in the SFV and NELA.

I would add in Culver City, Inglewood, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood to the measure, if that is possible.