Have a transportation-related article you think should be included in headlines? Drop me an email! And don’t forget, Metro is on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Pick your social media poison!
LAX shooting (Daily Breeze)
Media coverage of today’s shootings at Terminal 3 at Los Angeles International Airport. It needs to be noted that law enforcement has not officially confirmed the details of this story and others.
When the Metro Orange Line was rail (KCET)
The L.A. City Council this week approved a resolution by Councilman Tom LaBonge urging the state Legislature to repeal the 1991 law that prohibited a rail line being built in the Orange Line’s corridor. Yes, the Legislature in all its, uh, wisdom approved a law outlawing rail from being built in what used to be a rail corridor, one reason the Orange Line today is a bus.
What does this mean for the Orange Line’s future? Not much, really. The Council passes all sorts of resolutions and who knows if the Legislature will bother to tackle this one, even as many Valley residents advocate for a rail line across the Sepulveda Pass and along Van Nuys Boulevard.
Which brings up another obstacle: funding. The aforementioned Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor and East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor projects are both set to receive Measure R funding and include rail as among the alternatives under study. There’s no money at this point for an Orange Line conversion, nor is there any plan under current consideration by Metro, nor is a rail conversion proposed in Metro’s Long Range Transportation Plan.
Chart of the day: a sharp drop in infrastructure spending in the U.S. (Wonk Wire)
The chart resembles the trajectory of the roadrunner going over the cliff. Don’t fret, says the accompanying article: it’s inevitable we’ll have to fix it later, albeit at an insanely high price due to inflation and such. Whew!
Plan to add toll lanes to 405 in O.C. dismissed as ‘Lexus lanes,’ draw heat (L.A. Times)
Among several alternatives being studied to improve traffic on the 405 in Orange County: 14 miles of congestion pricing toll lanes. The Times manages to find city officials unhappy with that alternative, griping that it will dump traffic on city streets or be an unfair tax.
In other words, the Times wrote the story for the lowest common denominator. No advocates of the congestion pricing alternative are quoted nor is there an explanation of the theory of congestion pricing and what some say about whether or not it works.
Categories: Transportation Headlines
Considering the ridership and frequency that the Orange Line runs at (every 4-5 mins., with EACH BUS a “standing ride only”!), how could it NOT have been a “light-rail line” to BEGIN WITH? There I go using LOGIC again! I know, the MTA doesn’t go for THAT!
Without any tax subsidy the old MTA bought up several other bus companies in the Los Angeles area paid for from revenues from the fare box . The fare was about 20 cents then.
If taxpayer funds aren’t available for infrastructure spending, all we need to do is make profit from it and use that to sustain our infrastructure.
Funding will not be an issue if transit becomes profitable.
Asian countries knows how to do that. Why can’t we do that here? Is there some stupid law saying transit can’t be run for profit?
Uh, please delete my previous comment. And please don’t omit minor details like the fact that it only prohibited AT GRADE rail, and that the people pushing the law wanted the Red Line subway extended (a position I happen to agree with), rather than opposing MetroRail in general. Not that I don’t deserve a good lashing with a wet noodle for not looking at the KCET link before commenting.