GETTING THERE FROM HERE-While feelings and opinions will certainly be mixed as to whether or not the Measure R rail, road, freeway and other projects have yet been successful, our reality is that LA County had to "save itself" during an era when both the federal and state governments were shirking their responsibilities to fund transportation/infrastructure (T/I).
Now LA County must figure out a way to sustainably operate the next generations of our expanding transportation system, all the while pressuring Sacramento and Washington to make up for their past failures.
As we consider a second "Measure R-2", the need for both private and public planning and funding--at all levels--is equal to the need to establish methods allowing our transportation and infrastructure to work, so that our economy can work.
Those elected leaders who have placed funding of defense, welfare/public services and health care above T/I, and those elected leaders who have taken such a libertarian view of government that T/I remains grossly underfunded, are guilty of managerial malpractice. Only public safety is a higher priority than the mobility, clean water/air, electricity and communications that T/I entails and enables.
So it's good to have the spirited debate on whether our T/I dollars are being spent well, and on the right priorities, but the need to crack open the state or federal transportation budget, even if other priorities are asked to have their budget portions reduced, is paramount.
An increase in the gas tax, for example, provided we don't decrease other sources of transportation funding, and spend transportation funding well, might be one of the best ways to pay for transportation compared to all the other proposed ideas (congestion pricing, taxing drivers on how many miles they drive, etc.).
Which means that Republicans who want to spend less on everything need to start proclaiming what T/I projects (water, transportation, power, etc.) we MUST spend money on, and Democrats who spend on T/I only as an afterthought must tell the education, social services and other lobbies to STAND DOWN and be more cost-effective to allow for more T/I spending.
Because T/I spending creates the economy that pays for everything else that government funds...deal with it!
And we must "deal with it" on a local level when the discussions of rail/bus transit operations, as well as guaranteed transportation spending to pay for those operations, are confronted and resolved:
1) LAX Connect and the connection of our growing rail system to our airport system:
It really IS big news to learn that Metro Boardmembers Don Knabe, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Mike Bonin and Eric Garcetti led a unanimous Metro Board to approve the Alternative A2 Crenshaw/LAX light rail plan and establish an extra 96th/Aviation station to link with a future LAWA-funded People Mover and the central airport terminals.
The creation of a Metro Crenshaw Line/LAWA People Mover link and a LAX Connect will likely be one of, if not the biggest, draw for voters to support a Measure R-2 that includes everything from freeway improvements to extensions of the South Bay Green Line and Foothill Gold Line, an Orange Line Busway-to-Rail upgrade, and perhaps even a Valley-Westside-LAX north-south rail line.
LA Councilmember and Metro Boardmember Mike Bonin is absolutely correct when he states that he doesn't buy the very low figures about train-to-the plane usage to LAX. South Bay, East LA, Southeast LA County, Orange County and other LAX-bound commuters all WANT remote access to LAX.
And let's not forget the tens of thousands of LAX-region workers who want to access LAX remotely on a daily basis. Just watch the demand for extensions of the Green Line, Crenshaw Line and other lines go up once folks know they can go to traffic-snarled nightmare destinations like LAX, Downtown and Universal Studios via a new, traffic-free alternative.
Furthermore, the LAX Connect plan allows for multiple LAX access points to disperse the traffic to, from and around LAX. The establishment of a rail/bus system in the this commercial/industrial region allows for a new jobs powerhouse to create more middle-class jobs for families than we've seen in years, from Westchester to the South Bay to Inglewood to Norwalk/Downey...and with affordable, convenient mobility, to boot.
Burbank Airport is also presenting its own car rental/train access plan, which includes MOVING WALKWAYS from the nearby Metrolink station. These walkways are sorely overdue at LAX as well, and will be needed for both Metro Rail and People Mover access to the individual airline terminals, as well as within the long concourses within these airline terminals.
It is uncertain whether the remote check-in portion of LAX, currently to be located at the Intermodal Transportation Facility (ITF) planned by LAWA for a location at Airport/96th, would all be moved to the Metro Rail station to the east at 96th/Aviation, but there is a logic for a security screening and separation of LAX-bound traffic to LAWA operational turf via the People Mover and the originally-planned ITF at Airport/96th.
Other operational questions to be answered now is how and where a relocated LAX City Bus Center would exist and operate, and how local, car-rental, hotel and Metro buses/vans would connect to the Green/Crenshaw Lines and/or People Mover instead of the central LAX airline terminals.
It should also be remembered that, should the Crenshaw/People Mover lines be up and running by 2020 or so, there's not going to be any future Westside/Valley rail lines for years to come, so that this LAX Bus Center is critical as a link for LAX commuters from the north and west. The Bus Center isn't an afterthought...it's a fundamental component of any LAX/Regional transportation system.
2) Creating regional transportation centers at LAWA, the Westside, the Valley and elsewhere
LAX isn't the only transit/transportation hub in the making, and Union Station Downtown isn't the only center in need of a planning/land use facelift.
The Westside, with its future Expo and Wilshire lines, and a long-desired north-south rail line to connect the San Fernando Valley with the Westside (and, ideally, LAX and the South Bay), needs its own regional transportation center as well. Ditto for the West Valley, the East Valley (perhaps at/near the Burbank Metrolink station) and other far-flung sites as well.
But the traffic-choked Westside always did, and still does, have an ideal and obvious location for a regional transportation center near the future Exposition/Sepulveda Expo Line station, particularly on the industrial-zoned land adjacent to and under the I-405 freeway. This location is also adjacent to major surface arterials such as Pico and Sepulveda Blvds.
Unfortunately, the leadership of both the City and County of Los Angeles were forced to choose between a Westside populace that presumed proper land use would occur but got the horrifically-NON-transit-oriented Casden/Sepulveda project instead, and a lobbying/politically-contributing juggernaut led by the ogre-like Alan Casden himself.
Questions now abound as to what will be built at that site, but the land adjacent and under the freeway must be acquired and utilized to the public's benefit. What to do with the unused land next to and under the freeway can best be answered by Metro...so it's not unreasonable to include a Westside Regional Transportation Center, and any other major land parcels to be developed and constructed by Metro, as part of a future Measure R-2.
Ditto for any land parcels needed to create parking structures, perhaps utilizing public/private partnerships, for other major rail (or even bus) stations to enhance access to our growing Metro Rail system. Those Neighborhood Council leaders and private individuals screaming about the lack of parking for the Expo Line, and for other Metro rail lines and Rapid Bus stations aren't delusional, and aren't to be dismissed.
Unless, of course, Metro doesn't want to see a Measure R-2 passed by the voters...who want, understandably, want to benefit from the transportation system they're paying for.
3) More funds for operations, and not just from Measure R-2
Measure R-2 is a great start to ensure operations for road upkeep, rail service upkeep, bus service upkeep, etc. But it's only a start. As aforementioned with the gas tax alternative (which is easy to hate, but it's easier to hate other alternatives more), we need more federal dollars to pay for literally hundreds of billions a year of decades-overdue transportation projects.
Businesses, landlords and developers usually do NOT mind if their required fees and taxes go towards transportation and other infrastructure that will benefit them and their tenants, but they understandably DO mind if those fees and taxes goes into a general slush fund towards political/cronyistic garbage to help a few connected insiders.
This "City General Fund" nonsense must end. One of the portions of the recent settlement between the JMB-promoted Century City Center and its neighbors was a requirement for JMB to pay for certain mitigations to enhance traffic flow on Pico and Robertson Blvds. The City could NOT touch those revenues, because otherwise those mitigations would not occur.
Again, this "City General Fund" nonsense must end. That the Westside had to fight for its own local developer-funded transportation monies to pay for the Sepulveda Blvd. Expo Line bridge against certain non-Westside City Councilmembers' objections (and they damn well know who they are) stinks of petty politics if not downright racism, and it's hoped that the current Mayor and City Council have put an end to this type of improper policy.
Frankly, Downtown should be grateful that the San Fernando Valley didn't enlist the Westside with its own potential city when it tried to secede from Los Angeles, because both West L.A. and Valley residents are equally sick of being used as ATM machines by other portions of the City.
The City and County of Los Angeles are entirely justified in funding big projects both Downtown and on Crenshaw Blvd. Urban redevelopment and economic development are so obviously righteous that it's both ridiculous and racist to fight such worthy endeavors ... but taxpayers, businesses and developers of all localities have the right to demand the lion's share of their hard-earned money be spent on local mitigations.
Because when businesses, developers and groups of homeowners can put their money into local betterments under their control, they'll open their wallets and spend more. Truly, they will.
4) Planning that is REALLY Transit-Oriented and Affordable
One of the biggest and most upsetting shocks associated with the development of mass transit is the ability for developers to become enabled to break the law (or, at the very least, to break the intent of the law) for "transit-oriented development" or "affordable housing"...when it's done merely to create more overdevelopment.
Such ingenuous and sneaky behavior on the part of developers and their enabling, often-paid-off politicians just destroys the desire of taxpayers and voters to pay for more transit, because no one will knowingly vote for something that will hurt them. Transit corridors and adjacent regions are the perfect locations for affordable housing, and those locations are to be used...not abused.
"Affordable housing" is supposed to serve a purpose: to keep people out of their cars and accessible to their destinations. There are three main groups of individuals for which affordable housing should exist:
a) Senior Affordable Housing--Low-income seniors who cannot afford, and should not operate, a motor vehicle.
b) Student Affordable Housing--Low-income and other students who cannot afford, and/or do not desire to pay for and maintain, a motor vehicle.
c) Commercial Affordable Housing--Low-income workers who perform necessary jobs but who should live within walking and/or transit distance of their employment, and are ideally best given options to avoid their cars to keep traffic down.
"Affordable housing" is NOT market-value homes/condos/apartments, and is NOT meant to allow crafty or connected individuals to finagle their way into otherwise-expensive living units. For example, the Westside is a beach-adjacent, nice place to live...or so we've heard. But if one is not a student, a low-income senior or a low-income worker, one need not be guaranteed a place to live there.
And "supply and demand" is NOT the same as breaking the law when it's convenient to do so.
So, in conclusion, we've got a lot of great, wonderful reasons to pass a Measure R-2. Let's make it a measure that meets both operational realities as well as our idealistic dreams.
Let's make Measure R-2 the kind of big vision, big picture law that--as with the road/interstate policies of a bygone era--will make future generations proud of us, and want to emulate us, because we made their lives so much more enriched and empowered.
(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member 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 and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at [email protected] This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . He also does regular commentary on the Mark Isler Radio Show on AM 870, and co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us . The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 63
Pub: Jul 1, 2014
