Wilshire bus lane update. Plus Metro gets a blog

The monthly Metro Chats with Metro Board Chair Pam O'Connor haven't exactly been informative in the past, even inciting Sean Bonner of LA Metblogs to go so far as to call them "publicity stunts filled with canned answers and non information." But we did get some details in yesterday's chat about the timeline for the bus-only lane on Wilshire. O'Connor said:

In about 3 years (2011) Metro hopes to be operating a bus-only lane on Wilshire from downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica (about 12.5 miles) during the morning and afternoon rush hours...and it should improve travel times by about 25 percent with a dedicated lane and signal priority. Funding has been recommended in the President's proposed budget and we hope to get additional federal monies next year. Construction could start as early as the 4th quarter of this year.

Three years seems like a really long time, though I'm glad to hear that we at least have a tentative date when the project'll actually come to fruition. The Wilshire bus lane project recently received $5 million in state funding  -- though Metro still needs more money to finish the project.

Incidentally, this Metro chat was supposed to be about Metro's new draft Long Range Transportation Plan and ways to fund traffic relief -- though as has been the case with all the other chats, the questions were mostly random inquiries -- or complaints -- people had about transportation issues in L.A.

Still, Metro's ramping up its efforts to get the public -- especially the public on the web -- engaged with the Long Range Transportation Plan. Yesterday, Metro launched a new "Imagine" site that collects the plan's "story," the full draft of the plan, ways to contact Metro about the plan, and information about public meetings on an easy-to-navigate site, hopefully making it easier for Angelenos to get involved.

The "Imagine" site's even got a blog. So far, there's just one post -- penned not by an individual but by "Metro" -- that's basically an excerpt of the Plan's stated goal. Will the blog be as impersonal and canned as the previous Metro chats have been? 23 eager comments on that bland first post seem to show that the public hopes otherwise --

Comments

[Dan W.]

"Incidentally, this Metro chat was supposed to be about Metro's new draft Long Range Transportation Plan and ways to fund traffic relief -- though as has been the case with all the other chats, the questions were mostly random inquiries -- or complaints -- people had about transportation issues in L.A."

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

Blame the moderator, who I am sure wanted only softball questions put forth to the Chair.

I submitted two intelligent, comprehensive questions which weren't answered.

These Chats are a farce. The Chair is probably too reticent to say anything meaningful that could be interpreted to commit the MTA to anything in particular.

I don't plan on taking time out of my busy scheduled to pay attention to chat where only softball questions are asked and only the vaguest, non-committal answers are given.

These chats as they are currently set up and moderated just aren't a productive use of anyone's time.

[Dan W.]

Thanks, Siel for mentioning the MTA's new "Imagine site". This should be followed up with billboard's near popular destinations saying, "Imagine... Metrorail could go here!"

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

Here is the post I made on the Imagine Blog.

"I’ve just looked at the draft Long Rage Transportation Plan and the high-density areas of of West Hollywood, western Hollywood, the Santa Monica Blvd. corridor, the Beverly Center area, La Cienega and Fairfax Blvs. are not mentioned anywhere, and the countless people who snake through passes and canyons between the Valley and the Westside are given no public transit alternative, even in the "unfunded" portion of the plan. I find that astonishing, or maybe the better word is "appalling".

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

Here is a letter I sent to the MTA after reviewing the draft plan.

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 the Dowtown Regional Connector, and I congratulate and celebrate their 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, to/from the Valley to/from the Westside.

2) Also missing is any mention of a line from LAX north/south to Van Nuys Metrolink 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.

Please revise your draft plan to include these two projects.

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

But what do I imagine?

I imagine the Downtown Regional Connector built and the Purple Line extended all the way to Santa Monica via Century City and LAX connected to downtown in a one-seat ride. These three things are our highest public transit priorities.

I also imagine the "Pink Line" built between North Hollywood and Century City through West Hollywood and Hollywood via Santa Monica Blvd. (but not via the lesser corridor of Sunset).

I also imagine a Sepulveda LRT line between LAX and Metrolink in the Valley.

I also imagine the Red Line being extended to the Burbank Airport Metrolink Station.

I also imagine a LAX Transit Center as a "Union Station West", connecting a full service bus terminal, a people mover to the LAX terminals, and platforms for the Green Line, Crenshaw LRT, Sepulveda LRT and Lincoln LRT and maybe even Metrolink connector from Union Station.

I also imagine the Orange Line being turned into light-rail and being extended from Metrolink into the northwest valley and through
Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena to the Gold Line.

I also imagine six bus-only lanes -- on Wilshire, Santa Monica, Vermont, Western, Pico and Ventura Blvds.

I also imagine the Pink Line once built extended via Santa Monica Blvd. from Century City to Sunset Junction and then be extended down Sunset to Union Station.

I also imagine a Ventura Blvd. subway between Universal City and Warner Center.

I also imagine ever-increasing rapid and local bus service.

Of the already planned projects, I also imagine and assume that the Expo Line will be completed to Santa Monica through Cheviot Hills, the Crenshaw Line will go to LAX, the Gold Line will be completed to Montclair on the northern leg and Whittier on the southern leg, and the Green Line will be extended to LAX, South
Bay Galleria and Santa Fe Springs Metorlink.

Thank you for imagining with me.

Now please help bring these things roughly in the order in which I've named them."

[Bryan Motz]

Why isn't the Los Angeles Times covering this regional transportation debate? I went to Metro's community meeting in the San Gabriel Valley on April 8 and tons of people were there, L I V I D and organized ...stating their dissatisfaction with the draft plan, because it does not have the Gold Line Foothill Extension in the Budgeted category, and asking (way too nicely) for Metro to amend the plan and move up Foothill Extension into the budgeted category.

I was surprised to learn that it is the most ready-to-construct option that Metro has, yet they have bumped up other less ready projects ahead of the Foothill Extension. Meanwhile the right-of-way has been acquired for millions of dollars, $2 billion in public and private investment for transit-oriented developments are waiting to break ground, and people who have been promised this light rail line are really going to be pissed if their tax dollars go to pay for another project on the Westside.

Do you need more, LA Times? C'mon and cover this story already! For example, why is the "Crenshaw Corridor" given precedence in the budgeted plan when studies are years off in the planning... while the Foothill Extension is almost ready to construct! What kind of politics is Metro playing here? ...

Public comment is due by April 25, 2008.
http://www.metrogoldline.org/Metro/Foothill%20Extension%20Support%20Packet.pdf