Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even with that, it's true that LA did not receive a good number of funds in proportion to its population when compared to the other cities on the map. However, that's from not having enough plans ready and willing to go to warrant funding. There has been constant infighting within the various municipalities and neighborhoods in LA when it comes to mass transit.\
How so? LAMTA has tons of plans for various different projects they want to complete that need funding. The plans are there and have been there for years. The problem with the cities is deciding which ones should have priority b/c since LA always gets screwed they know they won't get funding for all of them, when they probably should. The biggest hurdle to these big ticket projects in LA is FUNDING, not that lack of plans to build something.
Quote:
Have you read the details about Measure R? A timeline of THIRTY YEARS to get a subway to Santa Monica? A mere extension to Westwood to take at least TWENTY? Most of the details for the expansions are still fairly murky. It's a wonderful thing that the measure passed, but keep in mind that Measure R included highway and street improvements and expansions--definitely not just a vote for mass transit.
What does this have to do with your assertion that LA's population as a whole does not support funding public transit? Only 35% of Measure R included projects related to highways and streets. And that 35% includes money for grade separations, which helps rail, and carpool lanes. The 15% devoted to local streets also includes money for bike lanes and pedestrian improvements as well. Measure R is mostly geared towards transit and not highways. Clearly LA's population DOES support funding for mass transit.
How so? LAMTA has tons of plans for various different projects they want to complete that need funding. The plans are there and have been there for years. The problem with the cities is deciding which ones should have priority b/c since LA always gets screwed they know they won't get funding for all of them, when they probably should. The biggest hurdle to these big ticket projects in LA is FUNDING, not that lack of plans to build something.
What does this have to do with your assertion that LA's population as a whole does not support funding public transit? Only 35% of Measure R included projects related to highways and streets. And that 35% includes money for grade separations, which helps rail, and carpool lanes. The 15% devoted to local streets also includes money for bike lanes and pedestrian improvements as well. Measure R is mostly geared towards transit and not highways. Clearly LA's population DOES support funding for mass transit.
The plans were there, but they were likely not that far along. Since Measure R is such a recent measure and is neither meant to be the main source of funds nor does it have a very fast timeline, it's unlikely that many of the plans had completed environmental impact statements and a good plan for long-term funding made. If the plans weren't good enough and shovel-ready, they were unlikely to be funded. Other cities simply had better, more advanced plans with higher priority. It got its 76.2 million for this round of capital projects funding, and it's unlikely this is a case of DC trying to give socal the shaft.
Hasn't LA and its populace been notoriously short-sighted? I grew up in LA, and I was and am an avid fan of public transportation. However, things like Measure R are a very recent affair. Public transportation has been neglected and that is certainly the fault of the public. This might be a change of heart, but it certainly doesn't have a great track record.
35% is a pretty significant amount isn't it? I don't think there needs to be an "only" appended to that.
The plans were there, but they were likely not that far along.
So you don't even know how far along their plans are do you? You just make an assumption b/c it didn't get federal money that it must not have proper plans. Did it ever occur to you that some politicians have more sway than others and can steer more federal money to their districts? It happens all the time and different areas get screwed b/c of it. Kern County gets an incredibly large amount of funding per capita, more than any other CA county, from the feds for transportation b/c of one of it's representatives has sway on certain committees. It is not some completely transparent process that gives a fair playing field to all players and it's pretty naive to think it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Hasn't LA and its populace been notoriously short-sighted? I grew up in LA, and I was and am an avid fan of public transportation. However, things like Measure R are a very recent affair. Public transportation has been neglected and that is certainly the fault of the public. This might be a change of heart, but it certainly doesn't have a great track record.
You seem to be stuck in the past constantly when it comes to LA's attitude towards public transit. I'm talking about the present here, not past mistakes. What does LA's attitude towards transit when you were growing up have to do with federal transportation funding in 2009/2010?
Quote:
35% is a pretty significant amount isn't it? I don't think there needs to be an "only" appended to that.
And that 35% includes work related to transit as well and isn't devoted to just highway expansion. Do buses not drive on pot hole ridden roads that need resurfacing? Don't express buses use carpool lanes? Don't pedestrian and bikeway improvements help complement transit? Don't Grade separations make for faster and safer travel for both cars and rail? Measure R was largely public transit related more so than anything else.
Public Transit is horrible in Seattle. Takes me 45 to 54 minutes to get from Ballard to Capitol Hill via bus, while I can do it in 10 min just driving.
Public Transit is horrible in Seattle. Takes me 45 to 54 minutes to get from Ballard to Capitol Hill via bus, while I can do it in 10 min just driving.
The public transit within Downtown Seattle and immediate surrounding areas such as the SU campus area is pretty good...right?
So you don't even know how far along their plans are do you? You just make an assumption b/c it didn't get federal money that it must not have proper plans. Did it ever occur to you that some politicians have more sway than others and can steer more federal money to their districts? It happens all the time and different areas get screwed b/c of it. Kern County gets an incredibly large amount of funding per capita, more than any other CA county, from the feds for transportation b/c of one of it's representatives has sway on certain committees. It is not some completely transparent process that gives a fair playing field to all players and it's pretty naive to think it is.
You seem to be stuck in the past constantly when it comes to LA's attitude towards public transit. I'm talking about the present here, not past mistakes. What does LA's attitude towards transit when you were growing up have to do with federal transportation funding in 2009/2010?
And that 35% includes work related to transit as well and isn't devoted to just highway expansion. Do buses not drive on pot hole ridden roads that need resurfacing? Don't express buses use carpool lanes? Don't pedestrian and bikeway improvements help complement transit? Don't Grade separations make for faster and safer travel for both cars and rail? Measure R was largely public transit related more so than anything else.
You can actually look at their plans to see if they are already underway and whether or not they have completed their environmental impact statement. I write likely because maybe there's something you know that I don't, but their own website hasn't listed those or other prerequisites for the vast majority of their projects. They also don't have these projects currently under construction, but projects like the Second Avenue Subway and Fulton Street Transit Center had already gone through their planning stages and were/are currently under construction.
What's the point of belittling what I say by asking if it's ever occurred to me that some politicians have more sway than others? Yes, it's occurred to me--California is not somehow underrepresented in the federal government. It (California and LA) does have powerful and senior politicians in DC. Los Angeles County, due to its density, has a relatively large number of congressional districts and a correspondingly large number of representatives. Your argument doesn't fly so well given that SF has so many senior members in Congress (the three most notable being Speaker of the House Pelosi, Senators Feinstein and Boxer who is Chairwoman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works) and also hasn't received much for mass transit on this round of funding. The funding process is transparent--it went to works ready, cleared or currently under construction. The idea that LA is the target for some government slighting is silly (especially considering how little the expansions actually call for right now on the time table they've set out and how much work is currently being done).
I am stuck in the past because there's inertia. Measure R is a very recent affair. The mass transit system is fairly recent affair. Thus, a lot of the projects are not at the level where they're ready to be funded. Had LA's mass transit planning started earlier and the populace had this resolve earlier, LA's mass transit would be in a much more advanced stage and there would be projects already off the ground that can be funded.
Yes, Measure R swings toward mass transit. It also has significant selling points and funding beneficial to people who drive.
You can actually look at their plans to see if they are already underway and whether or not they have completed their environmental impact statement. I write likely because maybe there's something you know that I don't, but their own website hasn't listed those or other prerequisites for the vast majority of their projects. They also don't have these projects currently under construction, but projects like the Second Avenue Subway and Fulton Street Transit Center had already gone through their planning stages and were/are currently under construction.
Most of the articles I have read about LA metro's planned extensions in the LA Times have said that many of them are ready to be built and the only thing preventing it is FUNDING. And LA does have several projects already under construction at the moment, the Expo line and the Gold Line extension, which opens soon.
Quote:
What's the point of belittling what I say by asking if it's ever occurred to me that some politicians have more sway than others? Yes, it's occurred to me--California is not somehow underrepresented in the federal government. It (California and LA) does have powerful and senior politicians in DC. Los Angeles County, due to its density, has a relatively large number of congressional districts and a correspondingly large number of representatives. Your argument doesn't fly so well given that SF has so many senior members in Congress (the three most notable being Speaker of the House Pelosi, Senators Feinstein and Boxer who is Chairwoman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works) and also hasn't received much for mass transit on this round of funding. The funding process is transparent--it went to works ready, cleared or currently under construction. The idea that LA is the target for some government slighting is silly (especially considering how little the expansions actually call for right now on the time table they've set out and how much work is currently being done).
Despite CA having some powerful politicians it still gets short changed by the federal govt. For every $1.00 CA sends to the federal govt in tax revenue it only gets $.79 back. And it doesn't matter how powerful Pelosi or Feinstein are unless they are on the right committee when it comes to transportation funding, which they are not. It's also silly and naive how you actually believe that federal funding is completely transparent and there is some even playing field for all. Earmarks, pork barrel projects, etc... get real, areas can get screwed out of federal funding b/c of the whim of politicians.
Quote:
I am stuck in the past because there's inertia. Measure R is a very recent affair. The mass transit system is fairly recent affair. Thus, a lot of the projects are not at the level where they're ready to be funded. Had LA's mass transit planning started earlier and the populace had this resolve earlier, LA's mass transit would be in a much more advanced stage and there would be projects already off the ground that can be funded.
Many of these plans have been around for years and the biggest problem for most were funding. They've had many projects in the pipeline for a while. But you've also claimed several times before that LA's population is not supportive of transit, which is simply not true today. That's why I said you are stuck living in the past b/c you still don't seem to accept the change in attitudes of Anegelno's towards public transit.
Quote:
Yes, Measure R swings toward mass transit. It also has significant selling points and funding beneficial to people who drive.
I'm surprised that so many are praising LA. My car free experience in LA was tiring and unpleasant at best. I was too young to rent a car at the time so I had to make due but would not want to go through that again. Now granted this was 8 years so maybe LA has improved but for me in 2001 it sucked not having a car in LA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
