Tag Archives: mass transit

Mayor Villaraigosa’s Good Week

I consider Antonio Villaraigosa’s term as mayor to be generally a disappointment.  Brought into office with a lot of hope and even more hype, Villaraigosa has certainly made his way around the city, the nation and the world, appearing at every event from the biggest gala to random neighborhood picnics, but he hasn’t gotten a whole lot done other than commandeering the school board.  It’s as hard to govern Los Angeles as it has California, but the energy and enthusiasm Villaraigosa has for the job seems to be an end in itself, and it certainly isn’t channeled into an agenda that can be at all considered progressive.

However, this has been a pretty good week for him.  He started by presiding over his first same-sex marriage, which may have been a political calculation but still reflects his abiding belief in equality, so I applaud it.  Then, he announced his support of a half-cent sales tax hike to fund mass transit.  Big-city mayors are obviously sensitive to transit issues, but Villaraigosa is making sure they are prioritized.  This could be a reaction to a Metro Board study that showed on-time rates to be among the worst in the nation.  The Metro Board has hired ten more supervisors in response to that, and yesterday they drafted the proposal for the sales tax increase for the November ballot as part of a 25-year plan.  If Villaraigosa, who sits on the Metro Board and appoints three other members, can make himself the poster child for expanded transit, and transform LA from a car city to a more vibrant transit culture, he will have left a positive legacy.  

Finally, Villaraigosa’s LAPD successfully fought a court challenge over its policy banning officers from “initiating contact with people for the sole purpose of learning their immigration status.”  It’s a resource question but also one about the kind of city we want to be, one that is humane and respects the dignity of our people or one like an Eastern Bloc nation constantly asking everyone for their papers and engages in ethnic profiling.  The LAPD now has the legal right to continue their policy.

The Mayor certainly has higher aspirations, and with some more weeks like this, he may actually deserve them.

LA transit ridership at an all-time high

People have a funny way of adapting.  They know that the oil companies are as far from committed to lowering gas prices as possible, so they’ll look to lower the cost of commuting rather than search for useless answers to drop gas prices like offshore drilling, which would do absolutely nothing.  The Metrolink rail system in LA isn’t perfect and doesn’t work for everyone, but people are making it work more than ever before.

Commuter rail ridership broke an all-time record this week, and Caltrans reported a dip in freeway traffic as commuters across California struggled with record gas prices.

Metrolink recorded its highest number of riders in a single day ever Tuesday – 50,232 – a 15.6% increase over the same amount of business last year on June 17. Metro Rail ridership last month shot up 6 percent over May 2007, said Dave Sotero, a Metro spokesman.

Meanwhile, Caltrans officials said today that traffic on California freeways dropped 1.5% compared with last year – or the equivalent of a billion fewer miles traveled, said spokesman Derrick Alatorre.

Just that miniscule drop is the difference between gridlock and a relatively smooth ride.  Not to mention the fact that hundreds of thousands of gallons of gas are being saved.  Between all that and not having to be constantly confronted by idiots driving while holding their cell phones, the LA commuting story is a little less bleak.

This is all happening under a BROKEN transit system.  Imagine what could happen with a little investment.

L.A.’s Mass Transit Mess: How Metro Wasted An Hour Of My Life

I’m heartened by the fact that there’s a sharp and pronounced move toward mass transit nationwide (the ridership levels are the highest since 1957) in the wake of $4 gasoline.  So heartened, in fact, that I wanted to join the movement.  My current commute to work is a straight line, rare in Los Angeles, where I could conceivably take Santa Monica Boulevard all the way from my house to the office.  I calculated the options for bus service, and figured I could save $2 a day and a gallon of gas worth of carbon emissions (L.A. buses are, for the most part, clean-air vehicles) without an appreciable increase in my commute time.  I went on the Metro website and located the proper bus route, and made out this morning to catch my ride.

It never showed up.  The bus route initially offered on the site was inaccurate, and a separate bus didn’t pick up at the stop offered.  There was no corroborating information at the bus stop, and after about a half-hour I just walked home and got in the car.

I believe I’ve remedied the situation and now see a way clear to using the proper transit system.  But the arduousness of the task is the real point.  At a time when gridlock is literally making Angelenos insane, and the reduction of just a tiny percentage of cars on the road would alleviate it, at a time when gas is so expensive that violence is breaking out as gas pumps and fuel thieves are resorting to siphoning gas out of engines, the structure of mass transit in the nation’s second-largest city is a total embarrassment.  I’m fortunate enough to be able to afford the high cost of gasoline and don’t need to use public transit; furthermore, I am able to stagger my schedule and the commute is not even that taxing.  But I want to ride clean, out of a sense of social responsibility and simple peace of mind.  Somehow the entire Northeast corridor can be lined with all sorts of rail systems and we can’t get a bus to stop every few blocks on a major artery serving multiple communities (Santa Monica, West LA, Beverly Hills,  West Hollywood, Hollywood, Los Feliz).  The city of Los Angeles actually has more density per mile than Portland, Oregon, which has an excellent public transit system.  There’s no ingenuity put into transit, or resources for that matter, and the overlapping jurisdictions of public officials just dissolve any policy prescription into a squabble among supervisors and city councilmen and the like.  They don’t even bother to update the signs; guess it’s too costly.

On the other hand, there’s a freeway in Marina del Rey that’s 2 miles long.  It’s probably the most unused freeway in America.  But it had a federal stamp of approval and was an accomplishment local pols could point to, so up it goes.

What character remains in L.A. is being crushed by endless parades of cars and the honking of horns.  The society has become hyper-local out of necessity (and actually the best transit systems, like the Big Blue Bus in Santa Monica, serve a small, local area).  But that could all change so easily, with a little personal responsibility and a bus that runs on time.

Arnold Again Tries to Kill California Public Transportation

I hate when history repeats itself. This year’s May Revise budget proposal has some ugly similarities with last year’s, particularly when it comes to public transportation cuts. In May 2007 Arnold proposed a $1.3 billion cut to mass transit. Ultimately $700 million was slashed, bringing to a halt transit projects around the state designed to help commuters get out of their cars and avoid the crippling impact of soaring gas prices.

Now, Arnold is proposing to raid public transportation funds again, to avoid tax increases. John Laird’s budget overview makes clear that Arnold intends to cut over $400 million from state assistance to local public transit. This is an act of madness, as Californians are crying out for alternatives to the car. Ridership on local transit systems is soaring, but these systems are also being squeezed financially by rising fuel costs – especially diesel costs (which here in Monterey are just under $5 per gallon).

These proposed cuts are going to make it difficult for local systems to maintain their current levels of service, and will certainly make it hard for them to expand service to meet rising demand. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Arnold wants to drive commuters back into their cars.

Almost exactly a year ago I denounced Arnold’s proposed cuts and, sadly, the words are as true now as they were in 2007:

Underneath the green veneer, Arnold is still the same conservative Republican who seeks to destroy the environment. What explains Arnold’s desire to destroy public transportation? It’s two interrelated factors. The first is that Arnold simply is not an environmentalist. He is fixated on the automobile as a form of transportation. He thinks more freeways are the solution, not more public transportation. The screaming demand of millions of Californians for public transit don’t register with him.

The second is that Arnold is in the pockets of Big Oil. They have donated well over a million dollars to his various funds since November 2006, even though he isn’t eligible for re-election in 2010. As their gouging of Californians continues, the oil companies know that a backlash is coming. They want to prevent that at all costs, want to ensure that they hold the line in California lest they set a trend for the rest of the nation.

If Arnold destroys California’s public transit systems, Californians will not have any alternative but to pay the exorbitant costs at the pump. The middle class will sink further into financial ruin.

Arnold’s public transportation cuts are a catastrophic disaster for the state of California. Not only will they make global warming worse, not only will they make our environment more polluted, more prone to fire, and mired deeper in drought, but his cuts will ruin family budgets, eventually causing lost jobs and further destroying the state’s middle class.

Gas was at $3.50 when I wrote that. We’re now at $4 and climbing fast. Arnold’s attack on public transportation is nothing short of an attack on the California economy and on the wallets of every Californian. It is the height of hypocrisy to claim to protect those wallets by not raising taxes and to then force voters to shell out more money in gas purchases. Higher taxes would help lower the cost of transportation for Californians, growing the economy and leaving more green in family budgets at the end of the month.

Arnold’s budget is flawed in many respects. This seems one of the most obvious – and one of the easiest targets for a counterattack.

Evening Open Thread

Some links that I’ve picked up along the way:

• Assemblymember and former Banking Committee Chair Ted Lieu had a good piece yesterday on the foreclosure crisis and how continuing a laissez-faire attitude toward a deregulated lending industry is a recipe for even more disaster.  AB 1830 is the vehicle to crack down on irresponsible lenders and ban risky loans.

• Steve Wiegand writes about the circuitous route the Governor has taken this year, first toward fiscal austerity, then toward revenue enhancement, and everywhere in between.  Schwarzenegger is completely squeezed, knowing his legacy and reputation is on the  line and at his wit’s end over how to bridge the chasm between Republican intransigence and a way forward for California.

• The California Labor Fed has released its endorsements for legislative races.  Not a lot of surprises here, nor a lot of variance from the CDP endorsements, although Carole Migden and Bob Blumenfield didn’t see their endorsements vacated on the convention floor.  The Labor Fed can endorse multiple candidates in one race, which allows them to wiggle out of some of the more contested primaries (in AD-14 they actually had a TRIPLE endorsement).  The Labor Fed does bring member education, and in some cases money and volunteers, so it’s not a little thing.

• Wired’s Autopia looks at LA’s future in mobility.  In a word, I would call the report frustrating.  It’s basically going to take forever until the city truly has the transit system it deserves; right now, just 7% of the city uses mass transit.

• Mayor Villaraigosa takes a strong stand against ICE raids.

“I am concerned that ICE enforcement actions are creating an impression that this region is somehow less hospitable to these critical businesses than other regions,” Villaraigosa wrote in a March 27 letter to Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security […]

In his letter, Villaraigosa said ICE has targeted “established, responsible employers” in industries that have a “significant reliance on workforces that include undocumented immigrants.”

“In these industries, including most areas of manufacturing, even the most scrupulous and responsible employers have no choice but to rely on workers whose documentation, while facially valid, may raise questions about their lawful presence,” he wrote. He said ICE should spend its limited resources targeting employers who exploit wage and hour laws.

“At a time when we are facing an economic downturn and gang violence at epidemic levels, the federal government should focus its resources on deporting criminal gang members rather than targeting legitimate businesses,” said Matt Szabo, the mayor’s spokesman.

In general I agree with worksite rules enforcement, but the issue does seem to be out of proportion and balance.  It’s selective.

• This is a really interesting and refreshingly honest article by Brad Plumer on the SEIU/UHW situation.

Green vehicle fees: an idea whose time has come

The governor exacerbated the budget problem on his first day in office by slashing the vehicle license fee and denying the state billions of dollars in revenue.  He could return money to the state’s coffers without going back on his promise, by hewing to his supposed environmental credentials and following the will of the people:

Californians support the idea of charging “green” vehicle fees that would make drivers of gas guzzlers pay higher taxes and offer discounts for those driving less-polluting vehicles, according to a survey by a transportation researcher at San Jose State University.

The state now charges drivers registration and licensing fees and gasoline taxes at rates that do not take into account vehicles’ pollution levels. But the survey, conducted by Asha Weinstein Agrawal, a research associate with the university’s Mineta Transportation Institute, found that Californians would support a variety of taxes and fees to raise money for transportation improvements as well as combat global warming, including:

— Raising vehicle registration fees, which now average $31, to an average of $62 and having higher-polluting vehicles pay higher rates and cleaner cars lower rates.

— Offering rebates of up to $1,000 for people who buy new cars that emit very little pollution and levying a surcharge of as much as $2,000 on those purchasing gas hogs.

— Levying a mileage-based tax that would replace the 18-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax. The per-mile amount would vary depending on how much a vehicle polluted the air.

“The public is very supportive of these green taxes and fees,” said Agrawal. “This shows that it is realistic to improve the way we collect transportation taxes in this state.”

You could even make this revenue-neutral for all I care and it would still have a meaningful impact.  But if the budget could be improved and the air quality at the same time, all the better.  The governor talks a good game on global warming but hasn’t yet called for the kind of action necessary.  This could be coupled with a direct investment in mass transit and incentives for transit riders, so that those who can’t afford low-emitting vehicles aren’t adversely affected.  We’re not going to get rid of the car culture in one fell swoop, so encouraging consumers to buy clean energy vehicles while implementing the proper smart growth and transit policies (along with massive renewable infrastructure) will get us there in stages with a meaningful reduction in emissions right at the beginning.  The people want it, the government needs to give it to them.

George Skelton Is Shrill

The Royal and Ancient Hermetic Order of the Shrill has a new member, and he’s particularly amped up about some of the little goodies tucked away in the state budget, which is once again too heavily constructed on the backs of the poor:

Anyway, it was about the time of the wine-tasting that the legislative leaders hatched their plan to roll California’s most vulnerable.OK, maybe I’m guilty of a cheap shot. But it’s no more a cheap shot than picking the pockets of the poor in order to bring spending and taxes closer into balance.

The victims list includes 1.2 million impoverished aged, blind and disabled, plus 500,000 welfare families, mostly single moms with two kids.

Skelton is particularly shrill about the delay in the cost of living adjustment (COLA) for seniors on state and federal assistance, and the cuts to public transit, which for many who can’t afford cars is the only recourse to get around (although we need to sever that link between class and public transit, and soon).  Skelton is particularly disappointed in some so-called progressive leaders:

It was a sign of scandalized Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s loss of political clout that he didn’t personally fight for the transit funds, as he has for other L.A. causes in the past. “He has been AWOL,” says one leading Democrat. “He’s been wounded.”

Democrats, however, haven’t exactly been fighting for the aged, poor and disabled either. Republicans wouldn’t be expected to. But Democrats are supposed to be the defenders of the destitute. Instead, they suddenly surrendered to Republicans last week after vowing to hold their ground.

Any budget is going to be a mixed bag under the 2/3 requirement.  But it does appear to me that winners and losers were very clearly chosen based on their political clout.  The blind, the elderly, the poor, they all don’t donate to campaigns the way that teachers do (no slam on teachers, just reality).  Drug offenders who saw a cut in Prop. 36 treatment funds don’t host fundraisers at the halfway house.  Where you stood in this budget depended upon where you sat, and if you didn’t have a place at the table, forget it.

Maybe that has to do with the donations rolling in for the term limits initiative.  Or maybe it’s just easier to dismiss those who have little voice and little chance to mobilize.

How Do I Use the Bus When the Drivers Are on Strike?

OK, this will sound bizarre to all of you who believe in the stereotype of people in “The OC” speeding around in Hummers and Maseratis… But I often ride the bus here. That’s why I’m now worrying about
the bus workers’ strike that started at 12:00 AM today.

I don’t know what’s happening to the buses that usually glide down Bristol Street just outside my house. I don’t know if I can take the bus today to where I had been planning to go. I’m now wondering if my idea of being more eco-friendly by using mass transit was a stupid idea after all.

But more importantly, I’m worrying about all those hundreds of thousands of people who depend on the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to get around. How do they get to work and to school and to the grocery store now? What the heck will happen to all these people?

Follow me after the flip for more…

Right now, OCTA bus drivers are paid between $13 and $21 an hour. That may sound good, but consider how much it costs to make do in a place with such a high cost of living as Orange County. And consider that they haven’t had a pay increase in years. And consider that the wage and benefit package that’s being offered by OCTA won’t meet the projected living standards offered by the county. The only reason why the drivers are going on strike is because they can’t keep up with inflation and the rising cost of living.

So OCTA is starting to budge. Why couldn’t they budge sooner? And why can’t they just agree upon a fair deal with the drivers? Some 220,000 riders depend on these buses to get around every day. And now that the entire Orange County bus system is in limbo, how can these people get around?

Maybe a few of these people have their own cars. Maybe some of these people have friends who can give them rides. But what about all those folks who have no access to a car? Are they just screwed?

So this strike isn’t a good deal for any one. The drivers need a living wage that will help them get by in such an expensive place to live as OC. The riders need buses to get them to where they need to go. And the OC economy depends on these workers and consumers who use the bus to get around.

So what happens now? I guess I’ll have a hard time getting around today. Perhaps I can bum more rides off my dad. But what about all those folks who can’t bum a ride off my dad? How will they get down Bristol Street to the mall now? How will they get to work at that sushi place in Newport? How will they get to the grocery store off 17th Street?

I guess that’s the way the strike blows.

CA-37: Two-Day-Late Debateblogging

I hope you guys appreciate me, because I managed to get through the entire 90-minute debate for the June 26 primary in the 37th Congressional District to replace the late Juanita Millender-McDonald held on Thursday night.  11 Democrats were on stage, and because they were all given 2 minute opening statements, the debate really didn’t cover much ground.  But actually, the fact that the moderator was a clueless local news anchor from LA’s ABC7 who had virtually no connection to the district was a good thing, as the persistent issues of race played out in the media in the campaign were fairly nonexistent in the debate.

Detailed two-day-late debateblogging on the flip…

Let’s take a look at each candidate’s opening statement:

Ed Wilson: former mayor of Signal Hill, a small city in the district.  He immediately went after the whole ethnicity issue, saying “this is not a black seat or a white seat or a Hispanic seat, it’s your seat.”

Peter Matthews: He’s the PDA-endorsed candidate who has run for office many times, including challenging Millender-McDonald in a primary in 2006 (and getting 10,000 votes).  Matthews is running on the progressive issues on getting us out of Iraq, closing the inequality divide, providing single-payer universal health care, and restoring tax fairness.

Jenny Oropeza: The state Senator was strong on the war, saying “we need to get out of Iraq now.”  She talked about the environment, health care, revising NCLB, and needing to “turn around trade agreements” that sacrifice American job (that was cheering).  She closed with “You know my record,” playing off her experience serving the area.

Laura Richardson: Assemblywoman Richardson is also running on her record.  She kind of messed up her move from talking about Iraq to domestic issues, saying “I want to talk about the war in America” and then claiming that Al Qaeda is running rampant (I think she meant in Waziristan, not Long Beach).  Didn’t seem like much of a public speaker.

Valerie McDonald: The late Congresswoman’s daughter talked about her ties to the area, the need to keep families together in the black community, and the importance of education.

Bill Grisolia: He’s a longtime employee of Long Beach Memorial Health Center, so universal health care was one of his themes.  But he was at his most powerful discussing the war in Iraq, and his desire to cut funding except to bring our troops home.  He also tried to blunt the experience argument by saying “What have the electeds done for you?”

Mr. Evans: I forget his first name and it doesn’t matter.  He’s a far-right immigrant-hating loon who somehow was let into the Democratic primary.  He proudly namechecked Lou Dobbs in the first sentence of his statement and called himself a closed-borders candidate.  There is a sense in the black community that immigrants are in competition with them for low-paying jobs, but this was the most extreme out-and-out black bigot I’ve seen.

Alicia Ford: Spent her entire statement talking about something she did a decade ago that ABC7 didn’t cover, which made her bad.  Also actually said “In Compton, they are without… a lot of things.”  Stirring.

Lee Davis: Her whole statement decried the front-runner assumptions of the media, and said that “if the top three had any self-respect they’d leave this stage right now” to allow for equal access, and then actually WAITED for them to leave the stage.  They, er, didn’t.

George Parmer: a truck driver from Long Beach, the first to actually call for impeachment and call out the Democratic leadership for their sell-out on capitulation in Iraq.

Jeffrey Price: Talked mainly about lobbying and ethics reform.

Albert Robles: a write-in candidate in a 17-candidate field.  Best of luck to you.  I mean, if you can’t get the papers in on time…

The first question was on Iraq, and pretty much the entire field is committed to getting out now, so on that big issue, there’s not a lot of daylight and everyone is on the right side.  Peter Matthews went so far as to suggest that there ought to be impeachment investigations into lying us into war, and announced his support for HR 333, the impeachment of Dick Cheney.  The moderator actually did the “raise your hands” thing on the impeachment question, and I think 8 or 9 candidates raised their hands, including Jenny Oropeza (it was a wide shot on a postage stamp video window, so I could be wrong).  Mr. Evans, of course, kept calling the President the “commander-in-chief” and yelled at everybody for undermining him in a time of war.  I think there’s a place for him in the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

On Iran, Jenny Oropeza has sadly bought into the bullshit rhetoric that they are a threat to our national security and that all options have to be on the table regarding their nuclear program.  She also said that she thinks diplomacy has failed because this President is incapable of it.  Only Alicia Ford understood that Iran is not an imminent threat, but then she went on about how China is a threat to this country and how in Compton they don’t have “things.”

Transportation and port security was a major topic, with the Port of Long Beach in the district.  Most candidates supported efforts to green the ports, including State Sen. Alan Loewenthal’s $30 container fee for clean air proposal.  Peter Matthews pressed the need for public transit to aid a cleaner environment.  Valerie McDonald was good on this issue as well.  George Parmer, the trucker, maintained that many truckers own their equipment and can’t afford to modernize their trucks, and so some of the funds from the container fee should trickle down to them.  I didn’t see much difference here.

A big topic was the events at MLK/Harbor Medical Center’s ER, which has been in the news lately, as a woman fell dead in the waiting room while the hospital staff did nothing.  Most of the candidates believed MLK/Harbor should remain open and would support the $200 million in federal funding that goes into it annually, though Ed Wilson and Valerie McDonald stressed accountability.  Laura Richardson said a platitude like “this situation must be dealt with” but didn’t explain how.  Peter Matthews mentioned that he organized a picket at MLK/Harbor 2 years ago and the only result was that they cut beds in half.  Bill Grisolia stressed the need for cooperation in the community, perhaps nurses college training partnerships to get more staff in there.  Many stressed the need for universal healthcare so that poor people aren’t relying on the ER as their last resort.

On a question about Wal-Mart, Oropeza proudly claimed that she fought against a Wal-Mart in Long Beach, and now there’s an Albertson’s there!  (Does she not read the news about the looming grocery strike and how Albertson’s in particular is trying to screw their workers again?)  The major candidates were in agreement on this, though only Valerie McDonald mentioned that workers ought to have the right to organize.  I take it she’d support the Employee Free Choice Act.

In final thoughts, Oropeza said she wouldn’t support the current immigration bill but didn’t say why, George Parmer advocated a national paper ballot because “votes are being stolen,” and Ed Wilson wanted to stop Congress from raiding Social Security and Medicare funds.  Laura Richardson took a cheap shot when she mentioned some local shooting and claimed she was the only candidate there (what, if you run for Congress, you have to know where the shootings are?).

My impression is that the candidates, by and large, are fairly similar and fairly progressive, as befits the district.  Oropeza and Richardson are politicians who are playing some political games.  Oropeza doesn’t seem all that informed on a couple crucial issues, and Richardson is clearly running a “vote for me, I’m one of you” race.  I was impressed with Valerie McDonald and Bill Grisolia.  Peter Matthews certainly has all of his progressive chops down, and it will be interesting to see if he can leverage the grassroots energy in Southern California from PDA and translate it into votes.

Who’s Slowing Who Down? Who’s Making Who Look Bad?

OK, I just saw this latest piece of folly from every one’s favorite Republican Insider, Jubal/Matt Cunningham of Red County/OC Blog:

The Los Angeles Times published a truly remarkable article today: “MTA Fears A Bottleneck At OC Line.”

Basically, Metropolitan Transportation Authority is complaining the Orange County Transportation Authority‘s ongoing program of freeway widening is making MTA look bad. OCTA’s freeway-centered investment collides with MTA’s lightrail-centered priorities at the LA-OC county line in the form of traffic bottlenecks. It’s a vivid illustration of the different outcomes of the two agencies priorities.

OCTA has funneled its money into transportation modes the vast majority of people actually use: freeway and roads. As a result, our freeways move faster than those in Los Angeles. The MTA, by contrast, has prioritized its money into modes of public transit that far fewer people use, i.e. light rail. Or as OCTA Director Jerry Amante put it:

“We build lanes, not trains.”

And we’re supposed to be proud of that? OK, so widened freeways may be useful in relieving traffic in the short-term. As long as we have all these cars on the road, we have to have something for them to drive on. But really, wouldn’t some long-term solutions also help here?

Follow me after the flip for more as I explain why OCTA shouldn’t exactly be gloating over this…

So why should LA County MTA not feel so bad about not keeping up with the freeway expansion happening across the county line in Orange County? Perhaps because MTA has surpassed all the other transportation agencies in Southern California in mass transit? After all, MTA was named “America’s Best Public Transportation System” due to record high ridership, very high commuter satisfaction, and the amazing success of the Orange Line rapid bus service in the San Fernando Valley. MTA should really be proud of the high quality of transit service that they offer to Los Angeles County.

But what do I know about this? What does some “crazy environazi, anti-car zealot” from Orange County know about how successful MTA has been with its transit lines in Los Angeles? Well, I actually use the subway and the bus whenever I’m in Los Angeles, and boy is it great! I can take the Red Line from Downtown LA to Hollywood, and I never have to wait too long for a train as there’s one about every 10 minutes. I can take the 720 Rapid Bus down Wilshire Blvd. from Koreatown to Santa Monica, and I can be at the pier in about 45 minutes. That actually isn’t bad when compared to the nasty congestion often seen on the freeways (with OR without widening). And even late at night, I’m never stranded as there are now 24-hour bus routes throughout LA. Just look at the MTA system map, and try to tell me that Los Angeles County’s transit agency isn’t doing a terrific job of moving people.

Obviously, LA County has figured out the secret to success in not just relieving traffic, but also reducing air pollution and doing something to stop the climate catastrophe. We all know that our vehicles emit much of the carbon dioxide that’s causing climate change. So what can we do about it? Well, how about riding the clean, efficient local mass transit service?! And with all these people riding Metro buses and trains, LA County MTA really is doing its part to fight climate change. But of course, pollutions isn’t the only thing that’s reduced by all this mass transit service. We have to realize that more people using these buses and trains also means FEWER CARS ON THE STREETS AND FREEWAYS. And fewer cars on the streets and freeways means LESS TRAFFIC! If anything, LA County is really

Now compare and contrast what Los Angeles County is doing to Orange County’s preferred “traffic relief” plan. Now yes, we do have buses. And yes, there is Metrolink rail service to Los Angeles and the Inland Empire. However, our transit network in Orange County doesn’t really cover the whole region like what MTA is trying to do in LA County. Perhaps this is because our transportation “solutions” have been centered on expanding freeways and streets. And oh yes, let’s not forget the toll roads. Now don’t get me wrong, roads are important. And so long as we have all these cars on the road, we have to improve our roads to help people with their commutes. However, this is only a short-term solution.

Over the long term, we can’t sustain all these cars on all these roads. So long as we continue developing farther and farther away from urban cores, and all we do about this is build more roads that only spark more development, we’ll never see long-term traffic relief. This is why we need smarter development and smarter transportation planning. And when it comes to smarter transportation planning, Los Angeles County is doing this. If we want long-term traffic relief, environmental health, and an overall better community, we need to figure out how to take these cars off the road and get people moving in a more efficient manner.

This is why Jubal/Matt shouldn’t be gloating about temporary bottlenecks in South LA County. LA County MTA might have a temporary problem that they will have to solve by improving the 5 and 405, but they are implementing a long-term solution to their overall traffic problem by expanding bus and commuter rail options. Hopefully one day soon, more people here in Orange County will push OCTA to do the same.