MetroRiderLA

Today’s LA Times has a column by Ali Modarres, an urban geographer from the Pat Brown Institute of Cal State LA.

He argues that high density development will increase the urban heat-island effect, and is therefore worse for the environment.

This article outraged me because it’s a clear example of how science gets abused by policy makers. Or, in this case, policy-wonks. (This was the worst example I’ve seen since I read an article claiming that wind turbines would reduce the Sierra snowpack by reducing wind energy.)

The urban heat-island effect is real: As we pave over the natural landscape and replace it with asphalt, these surfaces retain and release heat from the sun. As a result, cities have higher temperatures than surrounding farmlands or parks.

The problem with this argument is that the urban heat-island effect sets in at fairly low levels of development. The alternative to LA’s high density movement is not a pastoral landscape or leafy suburbs: It’s Orange County, it’s Riverside, it’s the San Fernando Valley. These areas are already almost entirely developed, and the heat island effect is already extremely strong here.

The main point of the article seems to be that we need more open-space and energy efficiency to counter the heat-island effect. I have no argument with that (no, let me rephrase: I am in very strong agreement here). But I am very skeptical that you can meet either of these goals by opposing high-density development. The only alternative to high-density development is spawl. That or draconian population control.

To be fair, the author makes this point about the likely environmental benefits of high-density development in LA:

High-density development is usually considered environmentally friendly if it occurs near subway, rail or bus lines, and people can abandon their cars to get around. But unless people actually do take advantage of public transit and reduce their energy consumption, the environmental costs may outweigh the benefits.

He may be right about that. But under the sprawl-scenario, this isn’t even an option.

An article in today’s LA Times discusses the various projects the MTA has planned to address congestion, and how it lacks funding sources for all of them.

Click here for the map. [If that didn't work, sorry! Try the LA Times site directyl]

Essentially, the MTA is pinning its hopes on getting Sacramento to raise the gas tax, or to allow congestion pricing, as in London and (maybe sooner or later) New York.

The article highlights a bunch of light rail projects the MTA would like. It’s nowhere near as extensive as some projects others have mentioned, but here are the highlights:

-A Vermont Ave light rail from the Red Line to the Green Line.
-Crenshaw Boulevard from Wilshire to the Green Line’s Aviation Boulevard/LAX, through Leimert Park
-A downtown Blue Line to Gold Line connector, making a 1-transfer trip from Long Beach to Pasadena
-Bob Hope Airport/Metrolink Extension of the Red Line
-Silver Line from Hollywood to Downtown to La Puente in the San Gabriel Valley
-Extension of the Gold Line from East LA to Whittier
-Extension of the Green Line both north and south along the Bay, from Santa Monica to Wilmington
-Yellow line along the 5 from NoHo to Downtown through Silverlake.

What do you guys think? How does it compare to other fantasy maps you’ve seen? Any of these you particularly like/dislike?
What about funding sources? What would be the most economical? Do any of the funding sources have a chance at passing within the next 3 years?
How do these plans hold up to the inevitable BRU accusations of transit-racism?

For those of you unfamiliar with it, ExperienceLA is a website put together by the MTA to encourage people to take transit to cultural events throughout Los Angeles. It has neighborhood guides, trip planners, and current events.

Anyhow, take a look at their website. They are conducting a survey to assess how well it works, so give them your feedback.

In the current issue of The District Weekly (Long Beach’s alternative independent weekly) has a cover story about its future vision for Long Beach. Perhaps as a response to the City’s own visioning plan for the year 2030.

Among its descriptions of a vibrant theater district, a family-friendly amusement center, and a gloriously restored waterfront is the “Blump” or the “Blue Whale Trolley,” which connects downtown Long Beach to Los Angeles and Orange County.

Of course, the article is meant as satire, or as a statement that for its future, Long Beach should look to its past. The last page of the issue shows historical photos of Long Beach’s past, such as its theater district, the Pike amusement center, the Rainbow Pier, and (of course!) the Red Cars, or “Blimps.”

So what’s the take-home message of this article?
-Public transit was part of what made Long Beach a great city. Destroying it in the 1960s has seriously damaged Long Beach’s heritage and identiy.
-Public transit must be part of Long Beach’s future. It’s the glue that holds together the City’s efforts at rejuvenation and integrates it with its northern and eastern neighbors.

The article is not yet online–it usually gets posted a few days after the paper hits the streets. Check it out, at least for the pretty pictures.

[tags]long beach, surf, bus, transit, youth, outdoors, orange county[/tags]

The City Council of Long Beach may create a “Surf Bus” to take inner-city youths to nearby beaches, where they can learn to surf and engage in other wholesome outdoorsy activities. Presumably, the nearby beaches include those in Orange County (like Huntington), or maybe the South Bay. It’s modeled after the LA Surf Bus, which takes inner city LA youth to Santa Monica and other beaches.

Here’s a link to the story on LBReport.com.

I strongly support reconnecting urban youth with the outdoors, and I strongly support transit. But this story raised a few flags:

-Is a dedicated bus necessary, when OCTA and other agencies already take people from downtown Long Beach to surfable beaches? Is a youth-only bus service necessary for liability issues?
-Isn’t it kind of sad that Long Beach, once the surfing capital of SoCal, has to outsource our beaches? Our beach is surfless (thanks to the Breakwater) and dirty (thanks to y’all living in the LA and San Gabriel River watersheds, as well as our offshore oil rigs).

OK, that’s my thoughts on this issue. I’d like to hear yours!

Wad’s post about LA having the 4th best downtown got me thinking about how we rank in terms of public transit.

So I looked up the 11 cities in California with populations over 300,000 (the cutoff used by Paul Shigley), and looked up a wee bit about their public transit options.

OK, so here are the cities in CA with populations over 300,000 (in decreasing order). (For your edification, I put the name of the rail service provider, if there was one). (Source for most of this info came from Wikipedia’s entry on light rail. It’s woefully out of date, but I don’t have the wherewithall to fix it.)

Los Angeles (Metro and Metrolink)
San Diego (Trolley)
San Jose (VTA)
San Francisco (Muni and BART)
Long Beach (Metro)
Fresno (none)
Sacramento (SacRT)
Oakland (BART)
Santa Ana (Metrolink)
Anaheim (Metrolink)
Bakersfield (none)

In terms of ridership (according this article in Wikipedia, unless otherwise specified), here’s the ranking of our cities:

SF/Oakland BART (320,000 riders per day) (source)
SF Muni (145,000 rpd) (SF Muni’s webpage says 700,000, but this includes the busses as well as rail)
LA/Long Beach Metro (128,100 rpd) (Metro’s webpage says 275,000 for Red, Green, Blue, and Gold lines)
SD Trolley (96,700 rpd) (SD Trolley’s website says 75,000 rpd)
Sacramento RT (49,800 rpd) (SacRT’s website says 14 million/year, or 39,000 rpd)
LA/Santa Ana/Anaheim Metrolink (32,000 rpd) (source)
San Jose VTA (29,800 rpd) (VTA’s website says 27,000 rpd)

I would love to hear what the Metroriders think of these in terms of public transit. Who’s the best?