German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseDaily Transit Links Roundup for 6/24/08
Contributed by Fred Camino on June 24th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
- Is it bad public policy that a 72-mile commute takes just shy of 3 hours? Methinks it’s a bad personal policy.
- Is the American Dream changing? Methinks it’s just reorienting to the lifestyle that offers the most freedom.
- Is a trip to San Pedro to ride the Red Cars a good idea for a “staycation”? Methinks Pam from Santa Monica would approve.
- Are the train arrival times gone for good because of mean bloggers? Methinks they are just being fixed because of mean bloggers.
- Rail Riders Union wants a 1-cent sales tax to fund the Subway to the Sea. Methinks…
Discussion
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
The Rail Riders Union is well-intentioned, but not very strong on doing research before they speak.
State law says that the maximum sales tax that can be charged residents of any county is 9.25%, and when voters in the city of South Gate authorized a 1% increase on purchases made within their city, they hit the cap for Los Angeles County. Metro will only be allowed to add 0.5% because the legislation authorizing it specifically exempts them on a one-time basis to exceed the cap.
The Metro Board already knows all this (it was discussed in committee last week) so the RRU will be going nowhere making this proposal before them.
I just hate how the LA Times sees roads as the only way to improve transportation. They put no blame on her for living where she does. It’s her own stupid decision.
The request is for a 1-cent increase right? not a 1-percent increase?
The Times story about Aundraya Reliford’s “horrific” 72-mile commute is just amazing.
Because, you know, there aren’t any homes with big backyards where children can play safely any closer to Santa Monica than Rialto.
Oh, right - but they’d cost more.
And there aren’t any jobs closer to Rialto than Santa Monica?
Oh, right. They might not pay as well.
You want a high-paying job AND low-cost housing AND a fast commute?
Then buy yourself a goddam helicopter and quit expecting taxpayers to foot the bills for overbuilt transportation infrastructure to try to make your idiotic commute fast and pleasant.
If your high-paying job doen’t pay you enough to let you live near where you work, then it’s not a high-paying job.
We can’t build our way out of congestion - building more capacity just makes for bigger and more intractable forms of congestion.
If you build it, they will come - and they’ll keep on coming until it’s congested again.
If you want to live here, you need to figure out how to adapt to congestion - because the congestion isn’t going to go away, no matter how much we build.
If you don’t want a horrific commute, then don’t live 72 miles away from your job.
What I love is that a 2.5 hour 72 mile commute means that her average speed is 27 miles per hour which is not that bad for traveling through, as the write noted, “one of the most densely crowded landscapes in the world”.
The sense of entitlement the car culture brings is beyond compare.
And don’t forget low taxes for the wealthy!
Conservatives have been selling this fantasyland for years, if only taxes on the wealthy were low enough…
Given that she does the majority of her commute by commuter rail transit, maybe there’s something more than “car culture entitlement” going on here?
Frankly, I think the sense of entitlement displayed by people who think that taxpayers nationwide should kick in billions of dollars to build them tax-subsidized chauffered local transit on private grade-separated roadways, so that they can make stupidly long commutes in comfort is just as glaring.
The car culture isn’t the only culture around here with entitlement issues.
LA MapNerd:
Great point. Maybe suburban culture? False-sense of privacy culture? Rural nostalgia culture? Have yr cake and eat it too culture?
Not knowing her whole story, I’d refrain from being so judgmental. At the very least, she’s trying to use transit, rather than driving the whole mess.
Things don’t always fall into place so neatly. Once upon a time, I could walk to work every day from my apartment, and often did. Problem was: that job didn’t pay particularly well (among other issues), and I was actively looking for a new one. So I got the new job, which was a thirty-minute drive each way (transit was *possible*, but generally too much of a hassle because of a couple of infrequently-running routes. But I had a co-worker who rode the #573 up from Westwood every day….)
Next job was south of Downtown….about an hour’s drive on the 405 and 105 or I could (and did) take the Metrolink, Red and Blue Lines, about an hour and a half each way.
I’ve moved since then, and now my Metrolink+Red+Blue commute takes about 2 hours each way. Since driving is about the same (and far more stressful), I don’t mind, although there are several things MTA could do to speed things up a bit….
Perhaps when the Expo Line opens to Santa Monica, this particular commute will improve. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing…
Living near inner-ring employment centers like DTLA or Santa Monica would be much more attractive for families with school-age children if inner-city schools were better and parks were more abundant.
Kimberleigh-
The point is that Metro needs to commit funding to rail construction, not operations, buses, etc. and fully fund Gold Line, Expo Line and all Subway to Sea alternatives.
If the enabling legislation has not been passed, why not try to amend it? Why not cut a donut around South Gate and exempt them from the new tax? Let’s think outside the box to try to make progress for Los Angeles?
I have to agree with LA MapNerd about the helicopter! haha. I have done a fair amount of sacrifice in anticipation of what is happening, and I have to admit that as a a result I have no sympathy for those who want it all and want others to subsidise it.
As for putting so much into rail rather than buses, as someone above implied, I remain rather hesitant. the ever-shifting ways of L.A. might make a single rail line obsolete by the time it is finished, which would not be good. On the other hand, if the density along rail lines are maintained (and the way the Green Line has worked is an example of how it might not be as great as folk wished it would be), then the long overdue efforts would be worth the trouble. The buses do need to run better, and I feel the buses should be well-funded as those lines can be shifted to shifting accommodate passenger loads as nabes increase and decrease in population. A good example is the M15 in Manhattan/Harlem, which goes up Allen/First Ave. It takes as long for that line to go from the ferry terminal (in Battery Park) to 125th Street as it does for the coach to Philly to go from where that same muni bus turns onto Allen (under the Manhattan Bridge in Chinatown): 1.5 hours. The 1,9 up the west side and the 6 up the east side take far less time to travel the same route as the M15. It would be very nice to have a comparative set of bus and rail lines from one side of L.A. in a similar fashion, to be sure.
But what will L.A. be like in five or seven years?
BusTard, employment nodes in central Los Angeles haven’t shifted all that much even in the last 20 years; there just isn’t enough non-residential land in the city and immediately adjacent jurisdictions (Santa Monica, Burbank, Beverly Hills, El Segundo, etc.) for major spatial changes to take place. The notion of Los Angeles being “ever-shifting” is seriously overhyped. If you don’t believe me, go over to Ralph and Goldy Lewis Hall at USC and take a look at the posters of Chris Redfearn’s and Gen Giuliano’s work on identifying employment nodes in greater Los Angeles.
The other thing is that there are legitimate family reasons for making that commute. Not trying to make assumptions, but a lot of custody agreements do restrict individuals to a certain range, or force parents sharing the kids to drive out of direction. The folks live on one part of town or the other, or free child care is a 20 mile out of direction trip, etc.
Questions answered …
A one-percent sales tax increase is equal to one-cent per dollar additional sales tax, therefore the two terms are interchangeable for purposes of discussion.
The difficulty in amending the legislation is that it has already passed the Assembly and is now being heard in Senate committees. If there was to be an amendment, it would require new hearings in the Assembly committees and a new vote on the Assembly floor, then go back to the Senate again. It is generally considered politically risky to try to get a new vote when asking for an increase in what was originally voted on, because if enough members of either side of the Legislature were to change their minds and vote the measure down, the whole bill is then killed (you can’t go back to the previous version).
Building rail cannot happen in a vacuum. When lines are built, the zoning at key stations must be changed to permit significant density. This creates an incentive to generate permanent residential and employment construction, as appropriate.
But we cannot discount the bus system. It is a vital part of the puzzle. It’s sad that we’ve been so demoralized by suburban entitlement that it has become an either/or proposition. By setting the bus advocates against the rail advocates the suburban Stalinists win. We have to see it all as a single effort, and not at odds with one another.
“The notion of Los Angeles being “ever-shifting” is seriously overhyped. If you don’t believe me, go over to Ralph and Goldy Lewis Hall at USC and take a look at the posters of Chris Redfearn’s and Gen Giuliano’s work on identifying employment nodes in greater Los Angeles.” Cheers, Mr. McFerrin, I will certainly do that.
I suppose my concern is based in the new downtown demographic comprised of former West side and Valley residents, as well as ever more folk moving east toward San Berdoo to escape the bursting real estate bubble. (FT wil be having a special section next month focused solely on Los Angeles real estate, which is rather scary owing to the nature of the paper.) And yet there is that promised influx of people headed or sooon to be heading here, which is sure to make quite the mess, and I have to admit that I have no idea how that will end.
In any case, I appreciate the suggestion and plan to pop by.
While I agree it is part of a larger, single effort, both sides are not equally to blame.
I don’t know a single rail advocate who wants to dismantle the bus system. Every rail advocate I know also wants a strong bus system too.
However, the BRU wants to dismantle and obstruct rail period. The BRU does need standing up to until such time they wish to play a constructive role in Los Angeles transportation future.
One can be an advocate for an improved, first-rate, comprehensive bus system without tearing down or trying to obstruct needed rail projects.
I still believe a rising transit tide lifts all transit boats.
——————–
As for the M15 in Manhattan, there is a reason they’ve broken ground again on the 2nd Avenue Subway again despite the costs. The M15 just isn’t enough.
———————
This whole “we can move the bus route, but not the rail line once it’s built” is one of the biggest straw dogs of the anti-rail folks. Whatever “shifting” that happens, there isn’t a single rail line in New York or London that isn’t still needed. In fact, they are both adding to their already comprehensive system. A new hot neighborhood, should that happen, is a call to ADD to existing service, not subtract from somewhere else.
Wilshire Blvd. was suitable for a subway 50 years ago, and will be suitable for one 50 to 100 years from now, and into the indefinite future.
With 3 million more people expected to arrive in Los Angeles County in the next three decades, there will no doubt be new areas of greater density, but I don’t see any area of density suitable for rail becoming less dense and unsuitable anytime soon.
So are the Rail Riders Union communist? Do they have communist leanings? Are they on the left? Are they members of the SEIU?
Or did they just call themselves the Rail Riders Union to mock the BRU.
I’m not a fan of the BRU, but I’m also no fan of petty childishness.
I think the RRU should change it’s name to something that does not comes off as automatically adversarial.
I think Bert said something about being nice tricks more people into do your bidding than being mean or something like that…
Browne
Not me, it was Schopenhauer.
Peter McFerrin:
You referring to this?
Not all sprawl - Evolution of employment centers in Los Angeles, 1980 - 2000
I just got back from the Metro Board of Directors Meeting. It was the zoo I expected.
There were large groups there in favor of the Expo Line and the Gold Line and the BRU.
One big pet peeve about the public comment portion. Why does the BRU get a block of time (10 minutes) without an organization like the Rail Riders Union or SCTA or the Transit Coalition getting their 10 minutes? There were also other people with the BRU speaking as “individuals”. There were many people and many organizations with differing opinions who didn’t get to speak and be heard because the BRU was allowed 10 minutes, plus several individual comments as well.
Also, who is this John Walsh who spoke several times in his anti-rail rants when so many people, some who waited for hours didn’t get to speak once? I guess signing up to speak for every issue on the agenda is one way to get your same rant out there over and over again while depriving others of a chance to speak later.
I think the use of the name Rail Riders Union is a GREAT choice by the people who started the organization, not childish at all. If the RRU can insist on equal time, it knocks the BRU down a peg. The BRU then becomes just another advocacy organization instead of one Metro feels it has to treat with kid gloves or give special treatment over other advocacy organizations. I don’t see that as childish at all. I see it as a very effective choice. Right now the media will go to the BRU for an anti-rail quote, without going for an organization that supports rail as a counterweight.
As for the results, I had to leave after the public comments, but before any votes were taken. But, the attendance spilled over into the two backup rooms and the cafeteria. There is certainly a lot of passion about this topic.
ubrayj02: That’d be it, yeah. The paper you linked is more or less a recapitulation of research Giuliano’s been doing for 20 years and Redfearn’s been doing for at least 5.
Dan Wentzel asks a good question about John Walsh, a figure who moves like Zelig through MTA Boardrooms and other arenas of transit public policy. I’ve also seen John Walsh disembarking from a bus at Hollywood & Vine, seemkingly having an intense conversation with his rabbit friend Harvey. Does psychosis, borderline or otherwise, disqualify a citizen from influencing public transportation issues? Apparently not. If only Mr. Walsh was unique.
I know it has to be hard to chair a meeting like today. There were people who waited hours to speak who didn’t get to speak and Walsh got to speak five times. Perhaps the rules should have been adjusted to limit people to one public comment that day only. Of course, the idea of changing the rules because one person cannot control himself seems unfortunate. However, today was ridiculous.
I don’t want to take his right to speak away. He should have had the same one minute today everyone else who spoke received. But, I don’t want to take away someone else’s ability to speak so this one person can say the same thing several times.
I guess that’s just the nature of these type of forums.
Here’s a letter I wrote to the MTA Board of Directors based at what I saw at today’s meeting:
—————————-
Dear Metro Board of Directors,
Thank you for having today’s meeting and accepting feedback on the proposed Long Range Transportation Plan. I have addressed the substance of the plan in other correspondence, so I would like to address my concern with the meeting itself.
My heart and appreciation goes out to Chairwoman O’Connor. It must have been very difficult to chair the public comment portion in a meeting like today’s.
However, I have a huge concern about how the Public Comment portion was structured for Items 51 and 54 on the agenda, regarding the Long Range Transportation Plan and the proposed Sales Tax Increase.
I understand why the various service sectors were each given 10 minutes to address their concerns. They each represented many cities and groups with different points of view.
I do not understand why the so-called Bus Riders “Union” was given a 10 minute block of time when other advocacy groups were not. In addition, several of their supporters were also able to speak additionally during individual comments. This is unfair.
There were many people representing various organizations who waited hours to speak and were not given a chance to address the Board. Other transit advocacy organizations had one person speak for the alloted time giving that organization’s point of view. Southern California Transit Advocates had one person speaking for one minute, as did the Rail Riders Union, and every other group present. The “BRU” is simply one advocacy organization out of many in Southern California. No one organizations deserves that kind of special privilege just because their members are loud and demanding. The BRU speakers were repetitive in their comments. One person from the BRU could have stood up and given their point of view in one minute, just like every other organization that was there. That would have allowed enough time for probably 15 other individuals and organizations with differing points of view to address the Board.
In the future, I ask the Board do the one of the following in the spirit of fairness:
A) If the BRU is given a significant time slot, that the following other transit advocacy organizations: Southern California Transit Advocates, The Transit Coalition and the Rail Riders Union, also be given the SAME amount of time as the BRU; Or,
B) Do not give the BRU a block of time, and let one individual speak in one comment period for the whole organization, as happened with the other advocacy groups today.
The time has long since come to stop giving the BRU special privileges it doesn’t warrant, especially when their speakers all had the same basic rant.
I am not trying to take away their freedom of speech or their right to their opinion. I absolutely defend the right of the BRU, and of any advocacy group, to speak and address the Board like any other organization. I ask in the future that the BRU be given the same treatment as every other advocacy organization, no better and no worse.
I feel really bad for those 15 individuals and organizations who waited for up to four hours to be heard by the Board, and didn’t get a chance to speak, but could have if it weren’t for the special privilege and extra time given to the BRU. No more special treatment, please.
Best regards,
Browne, you are right about the Rail Riders Union being a childish name.
It comes off more as a joke with such a derivative nickname. Also, it cannot just take positions to zag while the BRU zigs.
The RRU, if it tries to evolve, ends up traveling a well-traveled road. As far as transportation advocacy goes, there are the Southern California Transit Advocates and The Transit Coalition. They’re both very sharp on all aspects of public transit: operations, finance, politics. They’re also well-established and well-known among local officials. There are also transportation committees of other established organizations: The Sierra Club, The Auto Club (it is concerned about public transit as well, and not adversarially) and numerous chambers of commerce and other civic organizations.
What kind of niche does the RRU try to fill? And how could it differentiate itself among other groups, especially considering that there is significant overlap of membership?
I sincerely hope it doesn’t try to be the un-BRU and promote civic psychodrama through t-shirt wearing and making the appearance of a movement. The BRU’s overuse of those devices has poisoned the well for the nonsense.
BusTard wrote:
This happened once, as you know: The Green Line. The aerospace industry collapsed before the service started in 1995. Yet, as ridership statistics show, it went from a dreadful low of 10,000 boardings in 1995 to coming close to 40,000 boardings now.
The Green Line is an interesting case, and defies almost any convention you can think of. First off, let us know why we even have a Green Line in the first place: It was to get the Century Freeway built. Everything else — the airport, aerospace, an extension to Orange County — is merely a footnote. Yes, how L.A. to build a rail line just to get a freeway.
The Green Line should have been fortunate even to get that 10,000 boardings. Yet it has tripled and may quadruple soon.
The other rail lines have seen similar results. They have all shown ridership growth throughout their years of service.
When you hear arguments for rail, you’ll often hear the purpose is to provide car drivers an end run around traffic or to promote a development that leads to compact. Some reasons are better than others, but all of these presuppose that public transportation in L.A. is a blank slate.
A big reason of the L.A. rail lines to capture such high ridership has to do with their proximity to parallel high-frequency bus lines. The Blue Line parallels busy lines on Avalon Boulevard, Central Avenue and Pacific/Long Beach Boulevards. To say that all the Blue Line did was “force” bus riders on to the train, well, the lines still have the same routing and mostly the same schedules as they did in 1990 when the Blue Line opened. Plus, all of these lines now have limited-stop service, and the Blue Line is even flanked by two Rapid lines as of Monday.
The subway is a collection of several of the busiest bus lines in L.A.: Wilshire Boulevard, Vermont Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard. The tunnel through the Cahuenga Pass has actually resulted in better bus service for the San Fernando Valley. Before the subway, the busiest Valley lines all had to run to downtown L.A. in some way: 94, 420 and 424. A lot of the run time was consumed serving central L.A. Line 420 became Line 156, and has been rendered a relic by the subway and Orange Line. Line 424 became Line 150 and Rapid Line 750. Line 94 has undergone several transformations, but it allows riders in the northeast Valley who cannot use Metrolink to take Line 224 to North Hollywood and get to the subway. Before the subway, these lines consumed tremendous resources and hampered reliability of service in the Valley. A decade ago, the Valley was demanding secession and a new Foothill-like transit agency. Now, the turnaround has been amazing.
So, consider a “remedial” rail network an equally compelling case for improving L.A.’s public transportation. We need rail lines to relieve pressure from the bus system. You don’t improve the bus service by plying more service on an already overtaxed system.
A couplea folk mentioned John Walsh. I get the idea he still lives in Hollywood. If I recall correctly, He usta have a Web site in the mid- to late-1990s. It expressed his views. I met him a couplea times back then, and talked to him on the telephone. He was angry but lucid. I had wondered what happened to him.
As for the BRU, I find it a bit of bull. I had tried to work with them in the 1990s, but I found that they were more interested in recruiting people for their cause than attempting to make the MTA accountable as well as more than barely functional. I do not know if the group is communist or what, but they move like a beached whale or a multi-national corporation: slowly, inefficiently and with great waste. (Yes, waste with a “w.”) And I am not appreciate of the guy who heads it up, whose name, I believe, is Chris.
“As far as transportation advocacy goes, there are the Southern California Transit Advocates and The Transit Coalition.”WAD
In regards to opposing opinions to the BRU the two aforementioned groups are what I would go to. If the RRU is trying to be satirical or artful ok, but if they plan on being an advocacy group their tactics are ridiculous. If you think what the BRU does and how they go about things is silly, why would you copy them in a half ass way.
Also the same mindset that brings about things like the people who founded RRU are the same reason there is no rail on the Westside in the first place.
Let us not forget the reason the rails stop where they do, it was because certain people didn’t want certain people in “their” neighborhoods.
Racism is the reason the rails don’t go to the sea. I was raised in LA I remember even if everyone else tries to forget that big glaring fact.
Browne
Jeez, I haven’t heard about John Walsh in ages. Remember when he threw paper cups at the MTA Board and yelled “I Want Your URINE” ?
Back to the meetings: This giving the BRU an extra 10 minutes is bull. Hey, MTA, the Consent Decree is over, so you don’t have to kiss their behinds anymore. They get 1 minute like everybody else from here on out, ‘k?
Buses, trains, autos, and planes are all welcome, at least by me. The point isn’t get rid of one transit method or the other, but to relieve those that are overtaxed and bring to the forefront those methods that have been forgotten (in this case, rail).
We need buses. We need cars and trucks. We need trains. And we need planes. I don’t think we need ferries through.
In any case, buses, freeways, and airports are buckling under the pressure. Trains need to be invested in to inject some equilibrium into LA’s transit nightmare.
Some people cling to one method over the other as the end-all be-all method of transportation. BRU is batshit insane about buses. Some will never give up their cars, or ever shut up about how cars are evil, selfish, blah blah blah. And yes, some of us are frothing at the mouth over trains.
In any case, rail is the underdog, and that’s what I root for. But buses, cars, and planes all have a place.
BusTard wrote:
Are you thinking of Eric Mann?
He founded the Labor/Community Strategy Center, and the Bus Riders Union was its most successful sub-movement.
Eric Mann, not a group of disaffected bus riders, founded the Bus Riders Union. He’s a lifelong scholar of leftist politics, and has been in a variety of movements.
Kymberleigh Richards — all recent unpleasantness aside — has maintained a Bus Riders Union truth site. It doesn’t directly paint him as a communist, but it does poke holes in it being a people’s movement.
We have the Catalina Island ferries, which are priced for recreational rides but are vital links to the mainland. But, you’re right, ferries with moorings on the Pacific Ocean wouldn’t work here.
Yes, Wad, it were Eric. (I could not recall correctly, and it was many years ago.)
How about the Marina Del Rey Waterbus?
http://beaches.co.la.ca.us/bandh/Events/Waterbusbrochure042308.pdf
Or Long Beach Transit Aquabus/Aqualink?
http://www.lbtransit.com/services/aquabus.aspx
http://www.lbtransit.com/services/aqualink.aspx