Other actions taken today by Metro's Board of Directors

A few other nuggets from today’s Board meeting:

•(Item 32) The Board delayed a vote on a proposal to rename six train and bus stations.

•(Item 54) The Board, after considerable public testimony, voted to hold off canceling bus service on Line 442 pending a three-month review of what could be done to improve ridership on the line to make it more economically feasible.

•(Item 30) The Board approved a resolution to seek a change in federal law that would allow Metro to require contractors to have local hiring programs on projects in which Metro is contributing at least half the costs. Federal funding prohibits this.

•(Item 39) The Board approved going forward with improvements at Eastside Gold Line street crossings, including in-street warning lights and more signage.

•(Item 6) The Board approved a “renewable energy” policy for the agency that states that Metro will consider and pursue renewable energy technologies as part of its projects, although the technology has to be practical and feasible.

•(Item 12) The Board approved a motion to begin the process of having park-and-ride lots owned by Caltrans transferred to Metro. The idea is to better maintain the lots and make security upgrades. In our post on Metro’s crime stats, we explained that car thefts have been a problem at Caltrans-owned lots along the Green Line.

8 thoughts on “Other actions taken today by Metro's Board of Directors

  1. (Item 32) Good move. Wasting taxpayer money on station name changes is not a great idea especially in tough economic times. The money can be put to better use to convert free park-and-ride lots into paid lots so more revenue can go back to Metro. Station name changes can happen later from the revenue earned from parking fees.

    (Item 12) Start charging money for those free park-and-ride lots. Revenue earned from paid parking stalls can help pay for security at those lots. It will also add another layer of security to make stations safer.

  2. I would had hoped to hear something about TAP, considering the many aspects left unheard. I saw many fliers on the Gold Line saying the turnstiles will be locked, but yet have been told how/when the Metrolink/EZpass solution will work.

  3. Angry Middle Class,

    I think first thing is getting more security on the actual trains (all of them). That will get more and more “Middle Class” and maybe even “Upper Middle Class” riders on the trains, like back east/midwest.

    I hear that you are angry, yet changing a station name can actually increase ridership and is a very small part of the overall picture. Lets see how this all plays out.

  4. There are things I don’t agree with Angry Middle but Item 12 is a definite Yes.

    Another thing LA Metro should start considering is what to do with the parking situation. As of late parking is running out too quickly, and will only run out quicker once service starts on Expo. It’s already becoming a problem with Norwalk – I can only remember 10 years ago when parking was easy to find there in a typical weekday at 7 AM. Not anymore.

  5. What Metro could do about the parking situation is to charge each of the lots so they are always at 90% capacity leaving spots for those who need to park at the lots on a non regular basis. The revenue generated from the parking fees could be used to add additional feeder bus services for those who can’t afford or don’t want to pay the parking fees.

    Metro could even link the parking payment system to TAP just like BART and WMATA do with their Clipper and Smartlink cards.

  6. I like the idea Mospeada proposed, the fees could help the sorely lacking feeder services. Station like Highland Park, Southwest Museum, Del Mar, don’t even have Park and Ride lots but could be served well by feeder busses for those who live 30 mins waling, but is 10 mins by bus.

    Also TAP would be great to integrate it with, but loan some spaces to Car Sharing services also. (Zipcar, LAX Carshare) so that space serves more than one person, and will create more mobility in and around the station and more reason for people to go to the station that aren’t quite somewhere where things are, but would be good for someone who wants to go to Glendale from Lincoln Heights/ Cypress park station can use the Gold Line to that station and rent a zip car to make the rest of the trip and back.

  7. I like item 6 as long as it doesn’t turn out to be just throwing money at options and nothing being done. Renewable energies are important to helping keep down the dependency on non-renewable resources. Lets make all of Metro as green as possible :)

  8. The study in item 39 highlights perhaps the biggest flaw in the the mentality of LA transportation planning and how skewed it is towards motorists at the detriment of transit. The vast majority of the study seems focused on lost time to motorists while trivializing the positive effects on the gold line (or any rail line for that matter). This pervasive approach by LADOT (or whoever else it may concern) to surface transportation is what is hindering our surface transit and its ability to rapidly move people from point A to B and attract more riders. Right now the eastside gold line is a joke from an operating standpoint. It takes almost 25 minutes to go 6 miles with only 8 stops. Sure it has one grade separated section, but its so small that any advantage picked up there is immediately negated by all the slowdowns and stopping at intersections and that’s all without the station stops. While this study may result in a few small improvements, it doesn’t solve the overall issue. And from the looks of it the expo line will most likely suffer from these same problems. Is this really how we want our rail lines to operate? Is this really the vision for rapid transit in Los Angeles? That’s my two cents.

Comments are closed.