Thanks for posting the direct link to the report. For some reason, the link off the meeting agenda goes to a page that said there were no documents submitted at the time the agenda was posted. That's on The City Clerk's head, not LADOT's.

People can now read the report and make their own decisions.

I will say that at the meeting there was definately a feeling of frustration both from the Dodger executive and the City Councilmembers and that's what I was trying to capture in the post. Many of the numbers discussed in the second page for cost estimates, actually pretty much all of them, were not part of LADOT's presentation. Maybe it was just the presentation that was lacking, reading the report now I see that there was some progress made.

If I could hop in the Open Planning Project's time machine and go back to yesterday this article might read a little differently, but I will say that the mandate from the 2/27 T committee meeting and the expectation of the councilmembers was that we should be working on getting bus service for opening day. Neither LADOT or Metro has shown the energy to even attempt to get service going in that time period.

Please keep reading and posting...negative feedback helps keep me honest,

D

let's give it up for the "tepid endorsement" of the year. so, the racks have been "insalled." past tense. i know they didn't used to be be there.

good job damien. i think they did this in part because of the awareness you helped create.

did they say how many? i want some details, pronto. i might hop on over there on my lunch break tomorrow.

Here's a link to the related documents:

http://tinyurl.com/2s8xqf

Your summary is misleading in a few areas.

1. You don't give a background on the supposed "Hill" excuse. In the report which can be found from the link above, the concern was for narrow and hilly streets, a valid safety concern for buses. Additionally, that was not a blanket excuse for not providing public transportation to Dodger Stadium, but seemingly a concern for rerouting existing DASH service.

2. You frame the issue like DOT is uninterested in providing transportation and cite the Council voting to have DOT report back with further information. Again, check the link above, and that is exactly what the DOT's recommendation was.

3. You don't give any (brief) history on the issue. Check the report linked above for that.

4. Are you serious about your citation of the "disparity" between cost estimates? You cite the estimate of 200k in a paragraph in which you're blasting LADOT. But that estimate is Metro's. Confoundingly, the next paragraph is framed as Councilmembers LaBonge and Alarcon discounting the 200k estimate with their own 2.4k per game guestimate. Well, newsflash, 2.4k times 81 MLB games is 194k for an utterly incomprehensible difference of 6k.

It's good that you're covering this, but you're not doing it very well.

http://web.archive.org/web/20051029033755/http://www.metrosilverline.com/

So the only solution to our problem is to have a light rail built to the stadium. And the only way this is going to happen is if the McCourts are granted an NFL team and the NFL stadium is built on the parking lot. Check out the following link, it was a proposed light rail line that would go to Dodger Stadium with multiple access via north and south.

Wow, those are some of the best BS excuses I've heard.
So, since 2004 when the buses were last provided to the stadium (correct?), apparently LADOT has let their buses deteriorate to the point o utter uselessness? Is that what they are saying by talking about getting the buses up the hill? Since I've not been to Dodgers stadium, I have a question...is this hill something cyclists have to get up too? Perhaps LADOT should switch to manpower? Maybe the executive board could pedal people up the hill if their buses can't make it!

And um...the Mets provide their own shuttles to every game from remote parking, not once has the FTA ever been mentioned or been a concern.

You think LADOT just has a book of excuses and they close their eyes and point to one in the book for whatever meeting they are attending? Just another fine example of beaurocratic laziness. I'm glad the transportation committee saw through this and are forcing them to find solutions. I only fear it will be too late for this season at the rate this has been moving.