- Written by Ken Alpern
09 Oct 2012
GETTING THERE FROM HERE - The LAX Specific Plan Amendment Study (or SPAS, which in this case has nothing to do with Jacuzzis or being a klutz), is the result of years of study, outreach and debate on the part of LAX, LA World Airports, the City of Los Angeles and neighboring communities. Nine alternatives exist for LA World Airports and the City of Los Angeles to vote on, and the most cost-effective and environmentally-friendly alternatives are Alternatives 2 and 9.
Simply put, Alternatives 2 and 9 are the best alternatives for LA and LAX to move into the 21st Century and they merit our collective support.
Simply put, demolishing, relocating and rebuilding the northern airline terminal structures is inevitably more expensive, disruptive and environmentally-impacting than is a refurbishing and modernization of the existing structures, and that latter alternative (part of Alternative 2), merits our collective support.
Simply put, relocation of the northern airfield to the north, and accompanying destruction and razing of the adjacent portion of the commercial district of adjacent Westchester, results in a permanent loss of City revenue and is more expensive, disruptive and environmentally-impacting than is a relocation and modernization of our existing northern runway, and that latter alternative (part of Alternative 2), merits our collective support.
Simply put, a Consolidated Rental Car Facility with an adjacent Green/Crenshaw Line rail station at/near Century/Aviation is more efficient, cost-effective and more amenable to high-capacity, heavily-utilized car/train/rail/bus/pedestrian intermodal transportation connections than is our current arrangement with car rental and transit connections that aren’t pedestrian-friendly and easily accessible, and that former alternative (Alternative 9) merits our collective support.
Simply put, a connecting LAX People Mover that is a rail alternative to link the Green/Crenshaw MetroRail Lines, the latter of which just received a $545.9 million loan from the federal government to expedite its construction and lower construction costs, with the Central Terminal Area is the modern, compatible, and commuter-preferred alternative (Alternative 9), and merits our collective support.
Simply put, the $200 million that County Transportation Measure R (the half-cent sales tax approved by county voters in 2008) assigns to a Green Line connection to LAX was meant only as seed money to properly study and prepare for the next steps of the MetroRail to LAX project that the entire county needs as part of a 21st Century transportation network. Planning and funding efforts to build a comprehensive rail network linkage to LAX merits our collective support.
Simply put, County Transportation Measure J absolutely DOES allow funding and fast-tracking of the Green Line and Crenshaw Line connections to LAX from the Westside, Mid-City and South Bay regions, in addition to fast-tracking and lessening construction costs of other Measure R projects, and it merits our support.
Simply put, it’s up to U (you!) to weigh in on the LAX SPAS before the upcoming Wednesday deadline. It’s hoped that you will support Alternatives 2 and 9, and it’s hoped that you will vote in favor of County Transportation Measure J in the upcoming November elections.
Prop 38-On a tangentially-related note, I want to thank those who noted the following typo from my previous CityWatch article, which supported Proposition 38 (the Munger initiative) and opposed Proposition 30 (the tax initiative of Governor Brown and the coalition of the Sacramento Legislature/ Public Unions, the latter of which has arguably gotten us into this fiscal mess).
I wrote that “Proposition 38, has a sliding scale of income taxes from individuals who make as little as $7,316 a year, but the sales taxes of Proposition 39 would arguably affect poorer individuals even more.” This should have read that Proposition 30 would arguably affect poorer individuals even more; clearly I typed “39” instead of “30”.
That said, I still support Proposition 38 and oppose Proposition 30, if we MUST raise taxes to preserve K-12 education funding, in order to not let the rest of our budgetary process remain unreformed. Too much of Sacramento remains broken, and shouldn’t be let off the hook at taxpayer expense.
Vol 10 Issue 81
Pub: Oct 9, 2012