GETTING THERE FROM HERE - Despite ongoing controversies, Metro continues to make summer headlines in its march towards an ultimate goal of creating a 21st Century transportation network to rival other major metropolitan regions throughout the world. Metro’s immediate goal, however, is to ensure this rapid summer pace by extending the half-cent sales tax of Measure R to 2069 with a voter-approved amendment this November.
Before jumping into the headlines, however, it’s easy to forget the projects and analyses that slip past the attention-grabbing votes and decisions. For example, not only is there a huge freeway project on the Westside to connect and upgrade the 405 freeway between the 10 and 101 freeways, there are other huge freeway projects such as the 405/22/605 freeway connection in Southeast LA County at the Orange County border.
These freeway projects are both funded, in large part, by Measure R, and have major Metro input and oversight. Furthermore, the planning and momentum towards a huge (and decades-overdue) I-710 freeway upgrade between the ports and SR-60 enjoys favorable consensus despite its $5 billion cost. The equally-overdue and equally-expensive Wilshire Subway gets the headlines and controversy, but for reasons that might not always be so easy to figure out.
In large part, the I-710 is a freeway and major transportation corridor that already exists, so it’s easier to upgrade and improve than it is to create a new freeway and major transportation corridor. The Wilshire Subway is, if one looks into the original planning of LA County’s freeway system, a replacement for what was once supposed to be a freeway along that corridor, and it will, once completed, carry hundreds of thousands of commuters a day…just like a freeway.
Furthermore, it’s to be remembered that a decade ago, in 2002, the idea of building major rail and freeway projects was considered a pipe-dream. The 101/405 freeway intersection project caused Caltrans, Metro and just about everyone to chap their hands with never-ending handwringing over how to get the money, and the Wilshire Subway, Expo Line and a Green Line to LAX caused numerous headaches and facial contortions over the eye-rolling of skeptics.
Now it’s 2012, with the year 2015 or even 2020 (when many of these projects are slated for completion) not so far away:
1) Expo Line proponents, riders and analysts are all wondering how the Famous Frog that separates and directs trains between the Blue and Expo Lines between USC and Downtown could have been incorrectly built, but Metro has a first-rate inspector that will officially determine how and when to fix and/or replace it. Sooner or later, service will be interrupted on both lines when the problem is corrected, but safety is NOT a problem.
2) Operational problems on Phase 1 of the Expo Line leave plenty of blame to be shared by both the Expo Authority (whose Board was and still is relatively closed from public input and chose a lousy contractor for most of its work--and has inadequate station design, shelter, bicycle amenities and a very slow Phase 1 to show for it) and Metro (whose Board delayed the purchase of new train cars for years and has a nice new Expo Line but with shabby old cars riding on it).
3) The second phase of the Expo Line enjoys a much better contractor (Skanska/Rados) and is aggressively starting with utility relocations and now a new rail bridge at Centinela. Whether it’s the lawsuit by those opposing grade-level Expo Line crossings reaching the California Supreme Court, or an uncertain Casden project at Sepulveda/Pico/Exposition, we should expect to see the Authority march forward with new rail bridges springing up throughout the Westside during the summer and fall of 2012.
4) Phase 2 of the Expo Line is scheduled for opening in 2015-16, but issues such as sufficient parking, the Expo Bikeway (or lack thereof), and station design can, will and must be fought by Westsiders who want the new line to be something they will use. It’s understood that those who oppose the Expo Line, and those Phase 1 Expo Authority Board members who tried to take over the line and make it “theirs” are to blame for lack of public input—but the opportunities to improve the entire line still exist, and more people exposed to MetroRail means more voices to demand improvements.
5) Speaking of improvements, the glaring need to improve neighbor education, safety and operational issues surrounding the busy but problematic Blue Line (the first modern MetroRail line, but old compared to the myriad newer lines) is finally being addressed by a Metro task force.
6) The Downtown Light Rail Connector, arguably as important a rail project as either the Wilshire Subway or MetroRail connections to LAX, and which will connect four light rail projects Downtown with a second subway to access City Hall, Little Tokyo and Bunker Hill, is moving forward with both governmental and financial support, despite the legal opposition posed by those concerned about construction impacts on local businesses.
7) The Metro Board did approve sending a proposed extension of Measure R to the voters this November, coupled with a vital “Fasana Amendment” that allows for more flexibility between freeway and rail funding within a given geographic region. While Glendale City Councilman Ara Najarian might pay the political price for voting for this extension and amendment, this approval does leave the opportunity for:
a) Funding for an unpopular and controversial I-710 tunnel under South Pasadena to be shifted for two very popular rail projects in the San Gabriel Valley: the extension of the Foothill Gold Line to Claremont and the freight rail grade separation project known as the Alameda Corridor East
b) An idea that needs a great deal more attention: reducing funding and extension of an unnecessary Eastside Gold Line Extension in order to expedite an overdue widening of the I-5 freeway between the I-605 and I-710 freeways.
8) After being threatened by a lawsuit from Metro, the County Board of Supervisors voted to place the Measure R extension on the November ballot for the voters to decide. Not surprisingly, Supervisor Antonovich opposed this item, but Supervisors Yaroslavsky, Ridley-Thomas, and Knabe voted for it (despite the latter two’s concerns and personal opposition), with Supervisor Molina not being in attendance.
So the big question of whether to pursue these projects at an aggressive pace falls to the voters this November. Expect a great deal of attention between now and November to be placed on the proposed Measure R extension, which will be on the same ballot as a presidential election and a host of state initiatives that range from Sacramento reform to state tax hikes.
LA County voters have the opportunity to emulate the rejected transit tax initiative in Atlanta, which failed because of a lack of coherence, consensus and trust among politicians and voters in creating a better transportation system.
LA County voters also, however, have an opportunity to pursue a much clearer vision—and with much greater consensus than what occurred in Atlanta—of freeway and rail projects for the 21st Century to be built after debating and discussing them for the past 50-100 years.
(Ken Alpern is a former Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee, chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and is co-chair of the non-profit Friends of the Green Line (www.fogl.us). He can be reached at [email protected]. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 64
Pub: Aug 10, 2012