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.
ART OF TRANSIT. Photo via Instagram @metropproachability
L.A. OKs bridge plan opposed by bicyclists and pedestrian activists (L.A. Times)
The L.A. City Council yesterday went ahead with the contentious plan for the Glendale-Hyperion bridge between Atwater Village and Silver Lake. The unanimously approved plan calls for one sidewalk and four vehicle lanes on the bridge once the $50-million retrofit is complete. Opponents of the plan had proposed an alternate with sidewalks on both side of the bridge, leaving room for only three vehicle lanes.
Advocates of the approved plan were concerned about the increased congestion that the alternative plan might create. Opponents were against the plan primarily over concerns of pedestrian and bicyclist safety. On the council’s decision:
Councilman Mitch O’Farrell, who represents Atwater Village, said it was “completely unnecessary” to reduce the number of car lanes because the city was still providing an uninterrupted sidewalk for pedestrians. He added that a new pedestrian bridge was being created nearby.
“We don’t want to push for a road diet when one isn’t needed,” O’Farrell said.
According to the city staffers, another reason the plan was pushed forward in its current form was because pedestrian traffic on the bridge didn’t warrant the additional sidewalk. Opponents argue this is because the bridge in its current state is unsafe for pedestrians.
Though the plan was approved, the advocate’s fight may not be over. The Times hints that they may pursue litigation on how the plan will affect accessibility. Somewhat related, there are also plans in the works for a pedestrian and bike bridge south of the Hyperion Bridge.
OCTA Board approves $1 billion balanced 2015 – 2016 budget (Orange County Breeze)
Always fun to see what other transit agencies are up in their spending plans. Our neighbors to the south, the Orange County Transportation Authority, approved its annual budget on Monday. At $1 billion, it’s less than one-fifth the amount of Metro’s $5.6-billion budget the Metro Board adopted last month.
Interestingly and perhaps unsurprisingly, OCTA’s budget allocates nearly the same amount for street, road and highway improvements combined than it does for bus operations and maintenance. The remaining $130 million goes to rail operation expenditures — i.e. its share of paying for Metrolink, which is also funded by four other counties (Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura).
How our cars, our neighborhoods, and our schools are pulling us apart (Washington Post)
Emily Badger from the WaPo Wonkblog adds more evidence to the decades-old trend of decreased civil engagement and social isolation that was most famously brought to light by Robert Putnam in his book “Bowling Alone.” The result of this trend is seen in a growing divide between individuals and a decline in trust, social capital and ultimately the power to unite around common objectives. Excerpt:
This familiar argument is particularly relevant now to many of the bitter debates we’re having around racial unrest and even poverty. If rich and poor, black and white, don’t share the same commons — if they attend separate schools, live in separate neighborhoods, swim in separate pools, rely on separate transportation — then there’s little reason for them to mutually invest in any of these resources.
Our transit choices aren’t helping to mitigate this trend either. Emily notes that in 1960, 63 percent of Americans got to work via private automobile. That number is now 85 percent with about 75 percent of commuters driving alone.
77 ways to design the letter “M” (CityLab)
CityLab looks at the design of 77 public transportation logos throughout the world and groups them into a handful of categories ranging from basic to abstract. L.A. Metro’s logo is in the “slightly tweaked” category. With its distinctive diagonal line in the middle of the “M” being the only difference between it and other simple Metro logos, it looks like the right categorization.
Metro logos from across the globe. (Photo: Mark Byrnes / CityLab)
Metro logos worldwide range from the standard M to the abstract, often signifying something deeper and symbolic. For the latter, take for example the Tokyo Metro heart logo that serves to remind the agency “that we serve the heart of Tokyo with thoughtful, heartfelt service.” Fair enough, I suppose, but I thought it was a teddy bear resting on a heart-shaped pillow. Sure, I might have had to stare at the logo like it was a Magic Eye book, but how’s that for abstract?
Anyway, of the logos in the article, which one speaks to you?
Every neighborhood has a different cast of public transit characters (Zocalo Public Square)
Yolanda Martinez (Photo: Zocalo Public Square)
The latest from the Zocalo rider series.
Feel free to follow Joe on Twitter if that’s your thing.
Categories: Transportation Headlines
In the case of Night School, they weren’t even backed by venture capitalists. It was one person’s idea to use school buses that weren’t being used during the night to bring late night owl services between SF and Oakland that SF MUNI couldn’t provide, for a reasonable price of $8 per ride or $15 per month.
Leave it to government to shut down it down through layers of red tape and bureaucracy.
If government can’t provide services that the people want (night owl services), whose to blame one entrepreneur to start his/her own service themselves? Why should government interfere and get in the way? Are they afraid of a little competition?
The CPUC butting their noses into regulating transit (why? transit has nothing to do with utilities) is a fine example of government over-reach and over-regulation, creation of an artificial monopoly to protect their own interests, and exemplifies the maze of bureaucracies and red-tape involved that one needs to start their own business in California.
What Night School has shown is that the same thing can happen here in Los Angeles. Metro faces budget problems, decides to cut services, some entrepreneur decides to run their own bus service on their own to fill in those gaps. Then the CPUC gets involved and says that person can’t do that.
Who wins? Nobody.
Solution? Government (CPUC) should stop interfering with startup companies that aims to offer mass transit solutions that municipal agencies cannot provide.
“If rich and poor, black and white, don’t share the same commons — if they attend separate schools, live in separate neighborhoods, swim in separate pools, rely on separate transportation — then there’s little reason for them to mutually invest in any of these resources.”
The alternative view is that government shouldn’t be interfering in people’s lives such as telling them which neighborhood they should all live in, which swimming pool they all have to go to, or what mode of transportation they have to get somewhere either, and neither should government have total monopoly over these areas either.
If one were to use the swimming pool example, let’s take away all private pools in people’s backyards, shut down swimming pools in fitness clubs and water parks like Hurricane Harbor and Raging Waters, monopolize them that government should be the sole provider of swimming pool services all in the name of equality.
Sorry, but if a person earns their own money to take a family trip to Hurricane Harbor or Raging Waters, and wishes to get their by their own car or what not, that’s their money so it’s up to them to decide to do with it, and certainly none of government’s business to tell them they can’t do all that and they must use public swimming pools and have to get there using public transit services.
No one is claiming the government is doing/or should do any of the things you mentioned. The only thing I can possibly think of that backs your points are use taxes or taxes on activities with negative externalities. And if you don’t support things of that nature, here is some light reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cost
Also, based on your tone throughout this diatribe, I feel like you are not well versed in redlining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining) or any of the countless public/private practices that have caused our society to be as segregated and disconnected as it is today.
“No one is claiming the government is doing/or should do any of the things you mentioned. ”
1. Government controls mass transit monopoly.
2. Most commonly accepted excuse up to this point: “There’s no profit in mass transit. If private enterprise sees there’s profit, they’ll be doing it already. Since they’re not doing it, government is running it in their place.”
3. A startup in San Francisco decides to start a social experiment to run privately run mass transit with VC funding (Leap http://rideleap.com/, Night School http://www.night.sc/news/)
4. Government shuts them down in order to prevent competition from happening
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Leap-Transit-shut-down-by-the-state-for-operating-6276298.php
http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/night-school-failed-because-it-followed-law
5. All the while the same government agency that bullies small startups, lavishes themselves with $250 dinner plate parties paid for by taxpayers and taking bribes from utility companies that they’re supposed to regulate
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Furor-over-250-a-head-fundraiser-honoring-6076084.php
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2014/10/cpuc-president-michael-peevey-pg-e.htm
If you’re against redlining, then you should be for competition to take shape between public and private mass transit. A government monopoly only encourages growth in one area while overlooking another. Don’t tell me redlining is happening here in LA today. Look at how much service Metro has cut, look how little Metro coverage is below the 105, look how poorly Metro is run, and look how much flat rate fare hikes hurt the transit dependent.
If Metro can’t provide those services or heed to consumer demands and only offers fare hikes, tax hikes, or service cuts as their only solutions, perhaps a private mass transit competitor could work better.
Introduce a spice called “competition” and you’ll have both (or more) parties going after whatever market is available up for grabs. Maybe a little competition is just what Metro needs to start taking their job seriously and start listening to the people’s (market) demands instead of continually begging for taxpayer money all the time.
Competition is good. If Metro doesn’t listen like offering distance based fares and considers it’s a wise way of charging people that going from Long Beach to Pasadena should cost the same $1.75 as going from MacArthur Park to 7th/Metro, but a competitor starts offering fares that range between $0.50-$5.00 and more people start taking the competitor, then it’ll force Metro to keep up with their competitor by getting rid of the flat rate fare format.
But we’ll never have public vs. private mass transit competition take shape if government says that’s not allowed here in CA, being regulated by the CPUC who has the final say on who can or cannot operate mass transit services. Being said that, the state of CA, the CPUC, and Democrats in charge today seem like they’re not really that different from Standard Oil or US Steel: corrupt entities who wishes to maintain their vested monopolies to control their interests and crush competitors.
Is there any sevice changes for this month
Hi Diego,
There will be some minor changes to a few routes taking place later this month, and we’ll update as soon as the information is on metro.net.
Thanks!
Anna Chen
Writer, The Source
“According to the city staffers, another reason the plan was pushed forward in its current form was because pedestrian traffic on the bridge didn’t warrant the additional sidewalk.”
Man, Los Angeles is a frighteningly backwards place sometimes.