German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseDaily Transit Links Roundup
Contributed by Fred Camino on April 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 am
- Hey Prius driver! You can’t park for free anymore! Haha!
- Local congress members join the fight to make the Foothill Gold Line extension a reality.
- Los Angeles drivers need more roads, not taxes on their gasoline to fund… ugh… alternative transportation.
- Riding the all-night bus to Long Beach, a tale for night owls.
- Zoning laws prevent cities from being walkable, which is great because walking is like, really really hard. [via CarFree USA]
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
The 60 bus line story was very interesting. I have only had to take an owl service bus once. It was the 156 in the Valley. At the time I had a gf living in Hollywood and we had gone out to downtown L. A. By the time I got back to the NOHO station all of the other buses had stop running and I had to go all the way to Northridge. The best thing I could do at the time was to get the 15 and get off in front of the Van Nuys courthouse. I had some friends living nearby so it was like one in the morning when I knocked in their doors. Thankfully they opened. The next morning got on the first 233 en route to get the 166 at Nordhoff to go home.
ps. correction. Twice. Another time I got a taxicab from NOHO to Northridge.
Owl service needs to be maintained and upgraded. Los Angeles doesn’t have a reputation as a 24-hour City like New York or London. One of the great things about living in London is that I knew I could catch a bus to anywhere in in the city after the Tube closed from Trafalgar Square.
——————————–
The political deal to be made to get the necessary transit money is the Gold Line(s) and the Purple Line. So make the deal already.
That 3rd link is funny. Obviously the only form of transportation is roads. Everyone knows that.
From the Gold Line article:
“Over $2 billion in private investment has already been committed to development projects along the Foothill extension. We need to move forward on this important project for the good of the entire Los Angeles region.”
This is precisely why the Gold line should not be built, though it is also precisely why local SGV leaders are going to fight tooth and nail for it. The Gold line is going to be a development gravy train for that area, sucking up transit funds and development that should be directed towards the urban core if LA ever intends to extricate itself from the planning mess it currently finds itself in. This is the same principle that lies behind blocking the Las Lomas development. Why direct development to the SGV where it will be less accessible to the region as a whole than if it were centrally located? In this instance what is good for the SGV will be terrible for the entire Los Angeles region, in terms of both transit and further sprawl. I hope Metro resists this mounting pressure, though I fear the momentum could make it unavoidable.
The problem with that line of thinking, although from a strict urban planning point of view is probably astute, is that it ignores political reality. The underlying issue for the Purple Line is not what is best in terms of urban planning. If that were the case, we never would have had sprawl and car culture and the abandonment of our former mass transit system. Waxman and Yaroslavsky never would have been able to delay subway construction for 20 years if were solely about the merits of urban planning. If the only elected officials supporting (or in some cases merely not obstructing) the Purple Line are the ones for whom the Purple Line goes through their district, it will not get built or financed, despite its merits.
I’m a pragmatist. There will be immense development anyway with millions more headed to Los Angeles County in the decades ahead. Obviously, the Gold Line(s) is not as necessary or high as priority from an urban planning point of view as the Downtown Regional Connector and the Purple Line to Santa Monica. The likely “deal” that allows the funding for the Purple Line to come through will involve the Gold Line(s) to bring the SGV aboard, and probably a SFV project as well as a South Bay project. If the political price of the Purple Line are both Gold Line extensions, it is a price worth paying for the greater good.
I’ve had to take late night buses–usually the Foothill Transit’s Silver Streak or formerly the 481, to get from downtown to West Covina. After a certain point, they run every hour.
There are a surprisingly large number of people who need to get from here to there after dark.
I was so appalled by the third link that I wrote a whole post about it over at streetsblog. Ugh, pure 20th century transportation thinking. I hope they do a better job advising their readers for investments.
Nobody takes IBD seriously, I assure you.
Gandhi said, “First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
From the third link:
Don’t expect the automobile entitlement folks to give up their car culture quietly.
There are obviously still people out there who believe that there is a road-based, automobile-based solution to the economic and environmental problems caused by car culture, congestion and sprawl.
His attitude is classic, “maybe ALL money from the gasoline tax should go to roads”. I hear this over and over again from conservatives and libertarians. They act as if roads and freeways aren’t a public subsidy, nor do they see that economic productivity preserved and restored and instigated by public transit improvements lifts their economic boat as well. They still think that building public transit is “paying for someone else’s transportation” and totally negate that improved mobility helps them too. But then libertarians and conservatives really don’t buy into the concept of common goods, social goods, or public goods at all so therefore this would normally not occur to them.
I’m still waiting for a Southern California politician with the courage to say that a high-quality, automobile-entitlement, car culture isn’t economically or environmentally sustainable anymore in Los Angeles no matter how many roads and freeways are built, now that gasoline prices are ever-rising, congestion is getting ever worse, and the limits of sprawl have been reached.
But, perhaps it’s better not to rile them up. Let them sit in their metallic boxes reminiscing about how good motoring used to be back in the old days while the rest of us work on the public transit infrastructure we need.
Except, of course, public auto roadways. Those, for some reason, are okay. Just like how all government regulation is bad, except for zoning laws that keep their suburbia safe and filled with ample parking.
For the record I am in favor of public matching funds 2:1 for every dollar of taxes on transit going back to transit.
Dan,
I think we’re arguing two different points and in agreement on both. However, I really think you’re conceding defeat too early. One of the great opportunities of this transit debate is the possibilty of catalysing LA politics. Part of that is creating and shaping the conversation, be it by engaging the public on transit issues or articulating the different political ideologies.
I have no doubt Hilda Solis is acting out of her desire to best serve her constituents (I’m actually a minor fan of hers since hearing her speak a few years back). Hers is a voice to be engaged, which can persuade as well as be persuaded. However, Mike Antonovich is a true ideologue, parochial and nakedly antagonistic to transit and the center city. The Foothill extension may very well get built, if for no other reason than his holding the Purple Line ranson. However, if there is ever to be a change in the political conversation, we need to challenge and expose that ideology, put it on the public record, and exact some political price from him. Otherwise, down the road if the Foothill extension undermines larger transit goals, anti-transit ideologues like Antonovich will shoulder none of the blame even as he lays it at the feet of transit itself.
One of the most galling things for me is hearing Zev Yaroslavsky continue to pontificate about density and planning after he so royally screwed LA transit-wise. His halting of the Purple Line should be hung like an albatross around his neck, particularly when he tries to portray himself as some sort of champion for the everyman against developers and density. But he continues on, with no damage done to his credibility, and easily reaping the benefits of his constituents’ discontent.
Perhaps that is the case. However, I also believe one needs to pick their battles. Having lived in La Verne a lifetime ago, I can see the benefits of the Gold Line. (Of course, if we could get Metrolink running all day and into the late evening, many of those same benefits could be obtained too.) The Gold Line isn’t a boondoggle. It not like one of those bridges to nowhere in Alaska. It will benefit the communities where it goes and, as development will continue anyway, brings an opportunity for transit-oriented development in the San Gabriel Valley.
I agree it’s not the highest priority, but as it will still provide a net benefit, I don’t think that with all the battles we have, that this is the best fight to pick. I also believe in a rising tide in transit building.
My battles are reserved not for people who genuinely want transit, but to the automobile-entitled and delusional-NIMBYs who are trying to thwart public-transit projects. On the merits of urban planning, you are probably right. It’s just not the battle I wish to pick.
You’re right about Antonovich. He and his successor will no doubt attempt to hold the Purple Line hostage until the Gold Line is committed to going all the way to Montclair.
That’s my main issue with this Gold Line Foothill Extension. It’s redundant! Plus, that distance and density is far better served by commuter rail than light rail. More Metrolink service is essential anyway, so why isn’t the fight for that. It’s gotta be a better use of resources and money, right?
OK, last comment before I have to, like, work and stuff.
You’re probably right. I feel the same in terms of picking battles and I’m sure every reader of this site can name a few projects that appall them but that they’ve come to simply accept. I don’t think the Gold line would be a total disaster either, but I don’t think it is the best solution to the problem SGV residents want addressed. Unfortunately, its the only solution being proposed, and I think Antonovich wants to keep it that way.
Its much easier to forcefully say “no” to something when you offer something to say “yes” to in exchange. To that end I really have nothing to offer, though I think connectivity to a higher frequency and lengthened service Metrolink, perhaps by a Big Blue Bus-ification of Foothill Transit would acheive that.
THAT I totally support and that can be done years before the Gold Line is finished.
Metrolink is the best kept (perhaps intentionally) secret in transportation in Los Angeles. Regular all-day into the late evening trains would transform the service. Turning Foothill Transit into BBB-level service would be great. All of that can be done short-term.
Dan, regarding Metrolink- another issue that should be dealt with (in addition to more frequent service and evening service) is express trains. Running express trains from places like Chatsworth, Montclair etc., would make Metrolink a very attractive option. I used to ride Metro-North into work every morning when I lived in NY, and travelled approximately 30 miles into Grand Central. That trip took me roughly 30 minutes thanks to commuter peak hour express service, while a Metrolink trip from Chatsworth to Union (approximately 30 miles) takes nearly double that time.
You are right about Express trains, which are also important. How about a Wilshire Blvd. express track? I guess we should just count our blessings if we ever get any track.
Does anyone know about the viability of a direct Metrolink ride from Union Station to a LAX transit terminal?
There’s no way that the Gold Line would be redundant. It hits Azusa, Monrovia, and most importantly Pasadena. Do you think a Metrolink rider is going to take Metrolink and then go backtrack into Pasadena? It doesn’t make much sense.
Run the line as light rail out to Azusa and then commuter rail like service to Ontario (where it could possibly connect to another Metrolink line).
I’m sorry, I’m with John on this one. Connecting Azusa to Pasadena by light rail is cannot be a transit priority in Los Angeles. Rename the Gold Line the Sprawl Line. I mean seriously, Azusa??? Transit funding is harder to find than rare gems and we want to spend some of it to go to Azusa? A comparatively sparsely populated area 30 miles from the central city? No real offense to Azusa, but c’mon! No one’s going to walk to that station, it’s going to be a park-and-ride Metrolink station, it’ll take you 30 minutes to get to Pasadena, an hour to Los Angeles. I jus’ don’t like it.
View Larger Map
This is where the Azusa “Downtown” Station will be.
Some of the routes (#187, #482 and the Silver Streak) already run pretty late now (Silver Streak is 24-hour). Ridership at that time of night isn’t particularly heavy (the buses might be full leaving LA or Pasadena, but taper off without picking up many new riders)
I don’t think the Gold Line extension is necessarily a bad idea. Most of the proposed stations would end up in/near city centers (Azusa, Glendora, La Verne, Claremont, perhaps San Dimas). I personally believe taking it to Ontario is of questionable benefit, mostly because I think San Bernardino County, or at least the urbanized portion of it, needs to plan their own rail services a bit more rationally than just tacking some badly-defined route on the end of the Gold Line….
Fred, I never said that it was a priority. And you can’t really determine the benefit of a line from its final station. I mean, the end of the Green Line has a few homes and 2 freeways, yet it is a highly productive line.
I’m not saying build it now, far from it. But I just don’t think that it’s a bad idea. The only other alternative for SGV people to get to Pasadena is the 210. The carpool lanes are as slow if not slower than regular mixed-flow traffic, which is already slow itself. Definitely not a fun ride, even the 10 is better. There needs to be an alternative to the 210 east of Pasadena. That traffic goes all the way to Azusa.
Btw, if you zoom south on Azusa Avenue, you will see something that looks more suitable to rail service.