Metro's long range plan: How will it affect you?

How would you like your commute speed to drop another 14 miles per hour? That's what Metro projects will happen to freeway speeds by 2030 due to population and employment growth in the L.A. area -- if we do nothing to fix the situation.

So the plan is to, you know, do something -- namely reduce single-passenger car trips. Yesterday, Metro released a draft of its 2008 Long Range Transportation Plan (PDF) that covers what the Metro wants to achieve between now and 2030 -- everything from smart growth to air pollution reduction to bike-rail connections. Some key features:

• 32 more miles of rail
• 160 more miles of carpool lanes
• 400 more miles of Metro Rapid service
• 14 tons of air pollution reduction

There are also plans to improve bicycle access to transit hubs, better pedestrian projects, smart growth partnerships, and, of course, widened freeways. Perhaps the most disappointing fact about this $152 billion-dollar plan is that most of the projects are still unfunded, though L.A. did recently get some state money.... 

Check out the maps and plans to see how your favorite mode of alternative transportation would be affected. The draft is 52 pages long -- but a bunch of pages just have pretty pictures, so it's a pretty quick read.

Then get your two cents in on the plan during this 45-day public review period. You can write, phone, or email in your comments -- or make your way to one of these public meetings to voice your opinions in person:

• March 26, 6:30 p.m., Westside Cities, Plummer Park, 7377 Santa Monica Bl, West Hollywood
• March 27, 6:30 p.m. Central Los Angeles, Metro Headquarters, One Gateway Plaza, Board Room – 3rd Floor, Los Angeles
• April 3, 6 p.m., South Bay Cities, Carson Community Center, Room 107, 801 East Carson Street Carson
• April 8, 6 p.m., San Gabriel Valley, Potrero Heights Elementary School, 8026 East Hill Dr, Rosemead
• April 10, 6 p.m., Gateway Cities, Progress Park Plaza West, 15500 Downey Av, Paramount
• April 22, 6:30 p.m., North Los Angeles County, Larry Chimbole Cultural Center, Lilac Room – 1st Floor, 38350 Sierra Highway, Palmdale
• April 23, 6 p.m., San Fernando Valley, Marvin Braude Constituent Service Center, Room 1B, 6262 Van Nuys Bl, Van Nuys,

After the public review, the Metro board will vote on whether or not to adopt the plan in June.

Comments

[lsm]

Predicting exactly how much slower our traffic will crawl by 2030 without these projects is even hazier than predicting exactly how much they will end up costing to build, operate and maintain. We can clearly predict, however, that our population and our fuel costs should continue to climb and that however much these projects will cost will be much more than our city, county, state and federal governments can currently cough up. Although we may not be clear about the exact magnitude of the difference, we should also clearly see that the admittedly onerous expense of investing in these projects now will pale compared to the financial, quality of life and environmental disasters we will leave to future Southern Californians if we duck our responsibility today. Before refusing to dig into our pockets today to build this vital infrastructure, we should picture ourselves and our children creeping along gridlocked streets and freeways while we poison our air with the partially oxidized remains of exorbitantly priced fossil fuels.

We should be well past discussing whether or not we should invest today in this vital infrastructure. Given our current inability to secure government funding, our discussion should now turn to the best combination of tax increases, user fees, public-private partnerships, special development districts and congestion pricing that will fund these projects. We may also want to discuss if Metro is the best organization to complete these projects quickly and economically. Thoughout these discussions, however, we should remain clear with ourselves and with our elected officials that we demand these projects be built and that they be built as quickly as possible.

[Kate]

This map makes the lack of routes between the Valley and the Westside really obvious.

[m]

I know someone got creamed for asking if the SFV was chopped liver in the past on this blog, but man, really, do all of the people that live in the valley work in the valley or downtown? None of the people I know that live in the SFV work there (including myself). Is the SFV a really small population compared to other parts of LA? Do they just not anticipate the population growing in the valley (the tear down of houses and apartments and replacement with more dense condos and apartments makes me think differently on this topic though). This map confuses me. I know many people that live in the valley and commute to the Santa Monica area and there is still no good public transportation (a 2 hour bus ride each way doesn't count as even a reasonable alternative -- sorry) solution for them to get there. Isn't the 405/101 one of the worst intersections in the U.S.? Maybe eventually the 405 will turn into a pedestrian/bike way and a busway only since those forms of transportation will be as fast as driving down the freeway.

I know someone also mentioned the "Ozone Action" days where all bus rides are free in Austin to help combat their air problems. This actually applies to Houston, Dallas and San Antonio as well as other large areas in Texas! If the single most effective way to reduce carbon emissions for a household are to get ride of a car, I am sad that LA does not even consider this since it has the worst air in the country. Maybe it would be free many days in the summer, but maybe this is cheaper than dealing with all of the resulting health problems of the citizens. I am wondering if I should move back to Texas just for my health...

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/ozone_actionday.pl

[Kevin]

I would argue the single most effective action a household could take to reduce their carbon footprint would be to stop eating meat:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/19/climatechange.climatechange

But I do love my Metro...

[Dan W.]

"This map makes the lack of routes between the Valley and the Westside really obvious."

----------------------------------

I’ve just looked at the draft plan and the City of West Hollywood and Santa Monica Blvd. isn’t mentioned anywhere. It’s quite ballsy for the MTA to then have its scoping meeting for the Westside at Plummer Park in West Hollywood on Santa Monica Blvd. In the early Westside Transit Corridor Extension Project, the City of West Hollywood was left out of the scoping meetings. I find it ironic that they’d choose to have their one Westside scoping session for the Draft Long Range Transportation Plan in the City of West Hollywood along Santa Monica Blvd. If the MTA is planning to pat Santa Monica Blvd. alignment supporters on the head, thank them for participating, and then send them on their merry way so they can get back to their original plan of one alignment, Wilshire Blvd. only, then I guess in some perverse way they get points for the willingness to do it in person, face to face. But, I expect there will be many people attending that event to demonstrate support for SMB not being left out.

Here is a letter I sent to the MTA after reviewing the draft plan. They are accepting comment for 45 days (well, 44 now):

Dear MTA,

Thank you for releasing today the draft of MTA’s Long Range Transportation Plan for comment.

The greatest public transit priority the MTA is facing is completing the Purple Line out to Santa Monica via Century City and I congratulate and celebrate it’s inclusion in the draft plan.

Unfortunately, there are two major things missing from draft plan.

1) The City of West Hollywood and a potential heavy or light rail alignment on Santa Monica Blvd. isn’t mentioned anywhere (or even a rush hour bus-only lane). This is inconceivable to me after their was great support shown in the scoping meetings for a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment or two alignments on the westside (Santa Monica Blvd. and Wilshire Blvd.) Jody Litvak, of the MTA, even expressed in City Beat that the MTA was surprised at how much support was expressed for a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment. This alignment would provide a valuable alternative to getting to/from Hollywood and the Westside, and if Alternative #9 is chosen, from the Valley to the Westside.

2) Also missing is any mention of a line from LAX north/south to Metrolink or even Sylmar in the Valley. Not everyone travels to/from downtown and the countless people who snake through passes/canyons each day desperately need alternatives. Alternative #9 in the Westside Transit Cooridor extension project would offer an alternative for travel from the East Valley to the Westside, and a Sepulveda based extension of the Green Line from LAX to Metrolink would offer a viable alternative for travel from the West Valley and the Westside.

Thank you for taking feedback. I will be encouraging everyone I know, especially transit riders to have a look and also give their feedback too.

Best regards,

----------------------------------

I realize that the Alternatives Analysis is still underway for the Westside Transit Corridor Extension study, but as the map shows a Wilshire Blvd. alignment ONLY, it’s not a mystery where they originally planned to be leaning.

If you want connections to/from the Valley to/from the Westside that offer a viable alternative to snaking through passes and canyons in ever worsening congestion.

If you want the East Valley connected to the Westside in addition to the Purple Line extension along Wilshire Blvd., then please send an e-mail to WestsideExtension@metro.net and say you support Alternative #9 which contains both alignments.

If you want a West Valley connected from Metrolink to the Westside/LAX via Sepulveda Pass, and the East Valley connected to the Westside via Santa Monica Blvd., then please send an e-mail to metroplan@metro.net and say you want BOTH to be included in the Long Term Transportation Plan.

Time is the essence. There are 43 days left to get comments in on the Long Range Transportation Plan draft and the alternatives analysis for the Westside Transit Corridor Extension is happening NOW.

Please do not expect "someone else" to do your advocacy for you.

Believe me, the NIMBYs make themselves heard loudly, over and over again.

The anti-rail forces, either automobile-entitlement folks who want all transportation funding to go to road and freeway expansion and the bus-only transit extremists make themselves heard.

The MTA needs to hear from you and hear from you pronto. A quick e-mail will just take a few minutes.

Thanks!!!!

WestsideExtension@metro.net
metroplan@metro.net

[Brad]

I'm still reading the plan but I'm prety confused about Metrolink vs. Metro Rail. It says that Metrolink has 512 miles of tracks and ~44000 daily riders while Metro Rail has 80 miles of tracks and ~260000 daily riders. Does anyone know if hte Metro Rail tracks are shared with Amtrak or freight? It's also interesting to see some of the proposed transit maps out there, especially the Crenshaw right of way and its potential uses (light rail, busway). I'm pretty amazed that there is still no good way of getting to/from LAX.

[Kate]

"Please do not expect "someone else" to do your advocacy for you."

Oh, I don't. It's evident that no one else is doing it, so I have to. Which makes me wonder why we're electing people, but that's a different issue.

But my original point still stands, I think. Huge numbers of people commute from the San Fernando Valley (and points north) to the Westside (and points south). How does this plan address that? More of what we have now, even though it clearly doesn't work.

[Dan W.]

The plan doesn't.

It ignores the countless people who snake through passes and canyons every day.

That's why I suggested sending an e-mail to the MTA and to our elected officials indicating support for Alternative #9, which has the "one-seat" ride from North Hollywood to the Westside via Santa Monica Blvd., and advocating a line from LAX to Metrolink via Sepulveda.

Even the 761 bus was designed to be as unhelpful as possible as it poops out at the southern end on Wilshire Blvd., rather than allowing people to make direct transfers onto Santa Monica, Olympic, Pico, Venice or even LAX.

[Simon]

Two Things: Why the eff isn't the LA Times covering this (no, this blog does not count)?

My god, it's a 150 billion dollar proposal about reshaping traffic in LA and as far as I can tell, it hasn't even gotten a blurb. Shame on the LA Times.

Second: Yes the lack of a North-South Valley to West Side proposal does suck, but think about it this way. Until they get the Wilshire line built (hardly a given despite what everyone says), there'll literally be nothing for a north-south line to connect to. Once they make real progress on the Wilshire line, then I expect a north south line to start being more seriously discussed.

[Dan W.]

"Two Things: Why the eff isn't the LA Times covering this (no, this blog does not count)?:
-------------

Two possibilities come to mind.

The L.A. Times gets revenue from car sellers. Their advertisers don't want to hear or have it reported that Los Angeles car culture is unravelling.

The editors themselves probably drive to work and are basically uninformed or in denial about the unravelling of Los Angeles car culture.

Many of the readers of the Times don't want to hear that their car culture way of life will only decline in the years ahead no matter what Caltrans or the MTA does.

The L.A. Times Bottleneck Blog is still remaining "neutral" on the "Subway to the Sea", when most reasonable people realize it is our biggest public transit priority along with the Downtown Regional Connector.

There are a lot of people who want some magical car-based, road-based solution to our "bottlenecks" and there is none. There is no automobile-based solution to keeping Los Angeles economically and environmentally sustainable -- even if everyone owned a hybrid.

The denial of this runs deep. The Los Angeles "Car Culture" is based on the assumption that you and everyone you know and everyone you want to know uses an automobile to drive and park anytime, anyplace, anywhere, conveniently and affordably, and those people who use transit are just poor people who would drive if they could afford a car and the marginal who aren't worth consideration (i.e. transit as "transportation welfare"). This culture and mindset, popularized by such columnists as Tom Rubin, is falling apart at the seams as Los Angelenos experience ever worsening congestion, ever-higher gas prices, and increasing densification with the limits of sprawl.

The underreporting of MTA's Long Term Transportation Plan is similar to the underreporting of NBC/Universal's decision to move TO the subway is part of this too. A non-altruistic corporation has decided that in the long-term it will not be able to depend on its clients and employees being able to drive an automobile to their old location. "The subway doesn't go anywhere" is being replaced with "anywhere is going to the subway". Therefore, even people who are unwilling to use transit for whatever reason will still have their lifestyles and business practices changed because they, like NBC/Universal, will have to consider transit accessibility into their professional appointments and social engagements whether they use transit or not.

However, the establishment of Los Angeles that still lives in Sam Yorty's suburban L.A. doesn't want to hear it or know it. Hence, this and other signs of the decline of the L.A. car culture as we have known it are underreported.

Social historians 100 years from now doing research on the rise of Los Angeles Car Culture in the 50's and the decline of Los Angeles Car Culture five decades later will look for source material and comment how the Los Angeles Times completely missed the story.