German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseMetro Looks to the Future and Says, “Si Se Puede”
Ahh, the audacity of hope… for a car-free future.
Last week, Metro released to the public their Draft Long Range Transportation Plan. The LRTP is a document that looks to assess and address the transportation needs of the Los Angeles area for the next 25 years. A quarter of a century is a pretty big number, it’s hard to say if I’ll still be blogging when I’m 52, but if I am I’ll be able to link back to this post and review how the plan was implemented.
The next 40 days are crucial for the next 25 years, since Metro is allowing public comment on their plan until April 25th. In order to encourage people to get involved, Metro has launched the Barrack Obama inspired “Imagine” campaign, in which Metro asks people to imagine a better future. Yes we can!
The Imagine campaign may be Metro’s best marketing campaign yet. It’s certainly the most complete. The LRTP document[PDF] itself is beautifully designed, with inspiring photography that spans pages and equally inspiring copy. The website is bold, colorful, easy to navigate, and interactive. There’s even what I believe to be a Metro first… a blog! The blog even accepts comments. There’s also a full on advertising assault, with billboards and posters promoting the Imagine campaign popping up all over the city.
Such audacity!
Join the conversation about the Long Range Transportation Plan in the new MetroRiderLA Forum.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
People can also submit questions at http://www.mta.net for Chair Pam O’Connor’s live chat this Wednesday.
Mine probably will not be chosen because it isn’t convenient or easy. But, that’s what I would ask.
Yes, it looks like they did a great job.
This campaign is as good as the “Miss Traffic” campaign is awful.
I just hope people get the message come to some of public meetings!
I have never been to a public meeting before, though I have had the intention. I used to live in the San Fernando Valley and know where they meet; however, now I live in Compton. I am guessing the corresponding sector would be Carson. Just as a tip, what does one expect for the first time?
Well, you’ll see 5-7 people on a panel discuss amongst themselves an agenda. There may be a presentation from someone that may include visual aids. There will be 30 or so chair for viewers. To speak during the public comment portion, you’ll need to register. As soon as you arrive, ask to put yourself on the public comment list. You’ll have 2 or 3 minutes to give your comments at a podium. That’s about it.
Nothing will be resolved
until we have a comprehensive Subway system!
Los Angeles is well behind the rest of the world (among big cities) in its mass transit network, and current public transportation is inadequate to draw sufficient number of patrons.
So, Subway throughout the city - is what we desperately need, and only then will we have a reliable option, and we’ll be able finally to leave our cars behind!
The problem Alek, is that is VERY unlikely to happen. If the damn subway to the sea is so hard to get, and god knows how many years away, how soon do you think we’ll have a comprehensive subway system? Call me cynical, but the answer is very likely: never.
What we need are other creative solutions that can work right now. We need to improve the quality of service of our current system. We need to build what we can and what is funded in a smart way that is logical and creates patterns of business and travel that do not require the car. We need more REAL transit oriented development. We need more people willing to think creatively and outside of the box. And we need to grow the transit subculture to show others that this is a lifestyle.
We do need a comprehensive rail system, but that is built one alignment at a time. Very little of it, unfortunately, will be underground. New York and London’s subway systems have significant portions of them above ground, and London has now gathered together portions of above ground rail as an “overground” in addition to its computer rail system.
For “subway”, If we can get the Dowmtown Regional Connector AND the Purple Line to Santa Monica, we should consider ourselves grateful. Most of the other rail projects, like the Expo, Crenshaw, and Sepulveda LRTs will have to be mostly above ground for cost reasons.
40% of the NYC “subway” is above ground.
Above ground or below ground is irrelevant. The only thing that’s important in designing a real transit system is grade separation. Even though I think that rail is generally the way to go, I would argue that grade separation is even more important than the choice between heavy-rail/light-rail/bus. Mixing an already screwed traffic situation in with your transit system is nonsensical, just look at the blue line for an example. Could you imagine that on the westside now? It wouldn’t move.
In addition to that, I think that the MTA and the city must make sure that on street media, transit vehicles have absolute right of way (enforcable by heavy fines) and their own lanes if possible.
I agree with you in principle, Ben, but I would not apply that to the Expo Line. That was never seen as anything other than an at-grade line for most of it. It will be safe enough and we cannot afford to gold plate the Expo Line when that money is needed to get the Purple Line and Downtown Regional Connector built.
I would have to agree with Ben, while noting that traffic separation and gated grade crossings are also a factor. The long stretch of separate right of way and gated crossings between Washington and Willow is what makes the Blue Line bearable. Vis à vis the LRTP, I would like to see the impractical northward extension of the Red Line replaced by an extension of the proposed Crenshaw Line northwards to Hollywood via La Brea, grade separated north of Adams or at least the 10.
Something tells me that Damien Goodmon won’t be too happy about any grade crossings on the Crenshaw Line.
Johnny,
The reality is the Crenshaw Line, as currently envisioned by Metro is only about $250-400 million from being a 100% grade separated project.
Why build a system for the next 100 years in the traffic capital of the country and not spend the extra 25-40%?
Look at the Long Range Transportation Plan, and the make up of the 13 member Metro board and you’ll see why. Simply, there is a competition for limited funding, therefore Metro is not currently in the business of building good transit, but instead in the business of building lots of transit throughout a very large county.
What’s needed is not just new resources, but a renewed sense of collectivism and new method of building projects in this region. Otherwise, as the final page of the Draft LRTP shows, we’re not even making a dent.
The plan is not very ambitious, and the “strategic plan” is not strategic at all. It’s a smorgersboard of pet projects thrown on a map with “Plan” slapped across it, when it’s really not.
Internationally, look to Shanghai and Madrid to see a real Long Range Transportation Plan. Locally look to the great success of rail transit in America in the 20th century: Washington, D.C. Even observe the process occurring now in Denver and Dallas. Through their diversity in system, regional needs and challenges, and modes there is a commonality in system-wide thinking.
We have to plan and think region-wide - not project specific. Focusing on corridors in a region as polycentric as ours is detrimental, and it costs a whole lot more money. This is the major point of Get LA Moving.
Here’s just an example of how system-wide planning, and a little long-term vision could be used to drastically reduce the cost of extending the Wilshire subway just a couple of miles, as I stated in the Transit Coaliton message board regarding the Crenshaw LRT:
Metro is doing a decent job marketing the plan, likely in anticipation of future ballot measures to increase revenue.
G.L.A.M. is going to weigh in. I hope to put together draft comments this weekend/early next week to have people chew up. The goal is to push the debate, challenge these guys (the pols) and show them what is possible - what their engineers and all the region know needs to be done, and maybe just maybe inch us further in that direction.