Meh. Get over the squabbling, everyone. Discussions about the good/bad things that would come out of Measure R made sense before the election. Not anymore. And getting personal about this stuff just makes you look juvenile.

Let's realize that we all want better transit options for people in L.A. county and start thinking about things that help to make that happen.

Since Umberto changed his mind, I guess that leaves Randall BusTard (and possibly alex, I can't tell how he finally voted), so anything posted on the Bus Bench about project funding must be ignored now." -Kym

Since you are unable to restrain yourself from making snide and incompetent remarks on public forums, let me just say that you need to stop being a jerk. I have seen how you lot run your little organisation, and it is a bit of a joke, to state the least. That you are forever making sure everyone what you do with respect to Metro ("Since I’m a Metro governance councilmember, I disqualify myself from the prize aspect of this, but I did want to answer the question." What kind of juvenile posturing is that?!) and neighbourhood councils, is long past tiresome. Your idiotic reasoning on why The Bus Bench should be ignored, however, is one that prompts me to tell you to go screw yourself.

You and Dana had the chance to debate me live. One wonders why you did not, when instead Hang Fung (to his credit, although I cannot understand why he wastes time with you a schmuck such as you) was there to represent what you could not possibly have done.

I do not like you, and yet I have not stooped to telling folk to ignore socata. You are a schmuck, and if your behaviour is what Metro condones, then there is far worse trouble at One Gateway than even we at The Bus Bench believe.

Kym if you look at The Bus Bench, I also write on it. I also pay for the hosting, do the crappy design and take care of all costs associated with The Bus Bench.

I voted yes on Measure R, but unlike certain people I'm open to perspectives that are not exactly the same as mine and not only that, I don't feel that people who don't agree with me are morons.

I don't think I'm the goddess of all that is public transit.

Anyone who pays taxes will have a right to make a comment on whatever their taxes will pay for even if they didn't vote for a particular measure.

"he's also the one who gained fame for his series on stopped escalators that never acknowledged the fact that misbehaving youth " kym

That is your opinion. I don't find it always to be the acts of youth, anyways...we have a new series starting next year and I'm sure Metro or the people they pay will not be able to scapegoat children for their incompetence in The Bus Bench's new area of interest.

Browne

In my not-so-humble opinion, anyone who voted "no" on Measure R has forfeited his or her right to make any comments on how the money is spent over the next 30 years.

Since Umberto changed his mind, I guess that leaves Randall BusTard (and possibly alex, I can't tell how he finally voted), so anything posted on the Bus Bench about project funding must be ignored now.

Of course, he's also the one who gained fame for his series on stopped escalators that never acknowledged the fact that misbehaving youth who think it's "fun" to hit the emergency stop button (which then requires someone with a key to restart the escalator) is the biggest cause of the problem ...

1. The horrendous traffic there is a result of what has already been built. The subway and Expo are remedial measures. These are things that should have been running 30-35 years ago.

You could leave the Westside land use patterns frozen in time and still get the same traffic patterns.

2. Real estate speculation is a moot point for the next few years, anyway. We're going to have to make do with the projects that were built during the bubble and make them last.

3. Actually, office buildings are the least worst traffic impacts you can have. Generally, they produce the least traffic and they concentrate traffic to a few hours. Retail use produces the most traffic, since it brings in all three (employees, services, customers) spread throughout the day.

"put limits on real estate development" How do we do that? Ban having kids? That is where most of our growth is coming from.

The reason traffic doesn't improve when new transit systems start operating in L.A. is because our population is increasing. But that does NOT mean that the new transit systems haven't reduced smog, greenhouse gas emissions, or dependence on foreign oil The transit systems HAVE reduced each of these things. Here's why: as more people start living in this county, those additional people start driving on our freeways, canceling out the effect of people giving up driving to use the new transit systems.

Evidence:
Ridership on all the metro rail lines and all metro-controlled buses increased from Sep 2007 to Sep 2008 by anywhere between 6% (on the buses) and 30% (on the gold line). Many people claim that ridership increases on rail lines are just due to bus-riders switching from bus to rail, but that's not the case this time, since bus ridership is up as well. So where did all these new bus and rail riders come from? Clearly they are at least partially from people who decided to stop driving and take public transit instead, due to the higher gas prices.

(format: average weekly boardings in 9/2007 --> avg weekly boardings in 9/2008, % change) Source: http://www.metro.net/news_info/press/Metro_169.htm

Metro Orange Line
25,618 --> 27,987 + 9.25%

Metro Red/Purple Line

136,355--> 149,699 +9.79%

Metro Green Line

40,576--> 45,346 +11.75%

Metro Gold Line

19,579--> 25,511 +30.3%

Metro Blue Line

77,834--> 84 ,917 +9.1%

Directly Operated Bus Lines

1,179,359--> 1,253,620 +6.3%

Now, what if all those rail and bus lines didn't exist? Then the people for whom driving had become more expensive would not have a transit system to fall back on, and would have been forced to keep driving (emitting greenhouse gases, pollution, and sucking up oil), or make other drastic and unwelcome changes to their lifestyle like moving their residence or changing their jobs. The fact that those transit systems WERE there meant they were able to use them. Each of those people that switched to transit represents an automobile off the road, and therefore their usage of those transit systems means a reduction of emissions and oil dependence PER CAPITA. As the population goes up, yes our gross oil usage will probably go up as well, but the amount of oil used PER PERSON will go down if we have good public transit available, and people willing to use it.

So yes, traffic will continue to go up if we have a public transit system, just due to the fact that our population is growing. But it won't go up as much as if we didn't have a public transit system, since many people then would not have a choice other than driving.

What you are advocating, voting no on Measure R, will prevent people from having more non-car transporation options, which will keep the contribution to traffic/pollution per person constant. Since the population will rise regardless this will make our pollution and traffic worse than if more transit options were available.

Oh, I've visited the Yes on R website. And you're wrong about them not having a single expert in the field to back up their claims, which are not limited to improving traffic. The claims they are making is that expanded rail and bus and metrolink service will provide more non-car transit options to citizens of L.A. county:

Here's just a few:
-Dr. Irving Kett, Chair of the Department of Civil Engineering, Cal State LA*
-Jonathan P. Stewart, Professor and Vice Chair, UCLA Civil & Environmental Engineering Dept. *
-Phil Recht, former Deputy Administrator of National Highway Traffic Safety*

The media gallery here: http://www.yesonmeasurerla.com/gallery.htm#video
provides leaders in safety and civil engineering discussing the infrastructure repairs and safety improvements that will result from the increase in funding from Measure R, as well as a leader at the American Cancer society endorsing R for funding public transit that will get people to drive less, producing less greenhouse gas emissions and unhealthy smog emissions.

Alex, your problem is that you are thinking from a car-driver's perspective. You're worried about whether car-drivers' traffic will get better or worse. You don't seem to be worried at all about our dependence on foreign oil, our emission of greenhouse and smog gasses, making more options available to those who can't afford to drive, or making this city more inviting to tourism.

Guess what: as the population of L.A. county increases (30% by 2030), traffic will ONLY get worse. Expanding the freeways won't solve it, and you have already stated that building rail lines won't necessarily help the car-drivers. What WILL get people to give up their car-commutes is providing them with more transit options at lower prices. We've already seen the ridership of the metro rail lines go up 10% from sep 2007 to sep 2008. Thats' alot more people who have decided it's worth the price difference to take public transit (due to increasing gas prices). Their cars are no longer on the road, and that is good for the environment, good for people's wallets, and good for their health (mental and physical).

The current drop in fuel prices is due to the tanking world economy, not because there is suddenly a huge supply of oil. As we recover from this bad economy, those oil/gas prices will continue their climb. We need to find a better solution. Public Transit helps the entire county.

Your only argument against Measure R that I have heard is that R won't stop traffic from getting worse. The problems with having a car-dependent city go far beyond traffic. You can continue to campaign against over-development even if Measure R passes. (although, campaigning against development in the 2nd biggest city in the nation seems like a pretty futile effort, if you ask me). The only difference will be that we'll also have more transit options for the population of this county.

There is almost NO other way to raise these funds in dysfunctional California. Prop 13 makes local bond funding difficult or impossible (or too expensive). County and City budgets are strained. The anti-tax crusaders like the Reason Foundation take money from the oil industry to fight transit, and portray themselves as protecting the common man. How else will be get this done?

If Measure R is defeated, it might take 10 more years to secure basic funding. If it passes, the funds can be secured immediately against future revenue collections. What's the problem here?

If Obama is elected, there will be significant federal funding available for transit, and these funds could be used to attract matching funds. That is looking pretty likely.

Yes, I say. Yes on Measure R.

I've got the ballot in my hand right now.

What the hell: "Yes on R".

http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/07/22/highway-funding-the-last-bastion-of-socialism-in-america/

My point is with investment priorities that look like that, seeing a far more balanced approach to funding mass transit versus cars in Measure R seemed like a huge gain to me. I'm not arguing against we need to re-prioritize the money we already have, I think we should be doing both. LA is so far behind relative to it's size and estimation of population growth that I feel something like Measure R is a necessity. That is if we want to leap frog to an efficient and effective system to play catch up with all the other cities that didn't ax their rail infrastructure.

If it were up to me I'd love to see a tax on vehicle miles traveled (with a scale for vehicle weight class) pay for these projects instead. But given the fact so many still feel addicted to their vehicle miles, I see that as having even less hope of passing. Especially after hearing of lotteries getting more interest where they changed from prize money to free gas cards even though the value of the money was greater.

About the nix a freeway project and it will fund all of our bicycle dreams, that is probably true, but our city's leadership lacks the political will to fund bicycle projects. Money wise, bike projects are the cheapest transportation project to fund relative to everything else, it's not a matter or money as much as it is short sighted leadership. We couldn't even convince the politicians we should have a 1% guarantee for ped and bike infrastructure, what makes you think we can get a whole freeway projects worth. I think a 5%-10% model shift is going to be a serious hurdle for L.A., considering Portland barely gets cycling numbers like that. We need a culture shock in America as much as we need investment to get more bikes on the road. It's going to take more than money to do that.

However I will diverge from Dana's criticisms a bit. Knowing what you do in your community, I think you're a pretty exceptional force for change amongst those you interact with, and even those who just see you hauling epic groceries in a cargo bike. Obviously I disagree with you on Measure R, but I think it's amazing the work that you do, and hope you keep on doin what your doin.

I get the points you are trying to make, but I still feel like the compromises in Measure R are worth the benefits.

"Traditionally mass transit spending had eaten more in the range 10% or less of the pie compared with automobile projects. This measure would lock in significant funding for mass transit on more equal footing with automobile spending, marking a real shift in priorities for Los Angeles even with some freeway projects thrown in."

Gary Kavanaugh,

Is there an already made info-graphic that can demonstrate this point?

To both of you:

WTF are you talking about? Utopian? "Visionary"? Give me a break! I don't give a crap about utopia! I DO care about providing more options to get around town _ I just prefer not to throw billions of dollars at an issue because other people can't do their friggin' homework and figure out how to build a movement around shifting funding priorities. Sales taxes hurt the lowest end of our society hardest. I don't think that a proposal like should get a stamp of approval simply because it's got the rail junkies all pumped up.

I heard Assemblyman Feuer in L.A. Council in January, and he is a bright guy, but he was on a tear about how we should fund every transit project possible with sales tax revenue, and allow that revenue to be tied to bonds for an even greater sum. I know I'm not the only one who sees things like that and thinks, "You have no political gumption, so my grandkids will be paying for it?"

Nix one freeway project, and the money for that could fund a 5%-10% modal shift in the entire county to bicycles. This isn't Utopian. It's a bread-and-butter local politics issue. Similar things can be done for more rapid bus service in the county.

We don't need untold billions of dollars to squeak out less than half of it for real transit improvements. We need to take money that is already locked into the MTA's car-only budget and put it in another pot. There is nothing "visionary" about that!

This baloney "We should fund every freeway, train line, bus project, etc." line is baloney. I don't think the voters are going to go for it. At least not this voter.

Good luck with your purist approach. One guy spent 35+ years and never got one inch of progress. Bet you are going to have the same success.

I don't want to wait for the perfect lets only fund livable streets measure to come into being for substantial progress to be made. If it were all cars cars cars, then hell yes I would say shoot it down, hope it burns in flames. But transit projects have the bigger list of improvements with this measure, and our transit system needs every bit of support it can get.

Every day thousands of cars idle on the 10 freeway in a giant snake of a parking lot at rush hour. We need efficient high capacity trains to reduce car use for trips like this. The Rapid buses are overwhelmed and filled to capacity. With state budget shortfalls, we are barely going to be able to keep the same level of bus service as it is let alone continue rail expansion. Rail can move more people faster and more efficiently, and should be the backbone of the system. The rapid bus system is a stop gap measure that is not sufficient in many traffic heavy corridors. If we get a solid train system as a backbone, we can prioritize more buses to increase frequency and connections for local travel.

These issues aren't going to go away while we craft our perfect Utopia measure and try to pitch it to City Hall.