SF Valley Transit Zone Meeting Report WAS Re: LA County transit zones (from posts in Zev's Competition)
Michael Higby
Kymberleigh Richards wrote:
> They also have the largest geographic area to service (oh, sorry, I guess
> that's your whole point ... break it up into more easily mis-managed chunks)
> and provide more service than any other agency.
I've got to believe that there is a better way to go than transit zones,
reforming the MTA for one (bankruptcy would be an option). The MTA is
the sum of its parts. Will breaking it up into numerous chunks make it
more than it is? I don't know.
I was at the Valley Transit Zone Community Advisory Committee last night
in North Hollywood (with Dana Gabbard and Charles Hobbs - where were you
Kym?). Richard Alarcon made his opening pronoucements and then a
presentation was made by DOT staff. Those appointed to the committee
(some were not even sure which council member appointed them!) were the
usual suspects, Chamber of Commerece types, etc. There was one elderly
woman who said she has been working on transit issues for 45 years,
whatever that means. Another young man, a deputy district attorney, said
he rides Metrolink, the only admitted public transit user on the several
member committee. The most refreshing member seemed to be a 25 year old
staff member for a social service agency in Pacoima. He said he doesn't
use transit right now because he literally lives three blocks from his
job. For whatever reason, other than one middle aged African-American
woman, a young Hispanic man, a middle aged Asian man, an elderly white
woman and a middle aged white woman, the bulk of the board were middle
aged white men. It did not seem representative of the mostly young and
working class folks who ride the bus.
LADOT had done some of their homework, for the most part, and explained
the process for this first time meeting. They will be meeting on a fast
track (next meeting is next Wednesday at Valley Plaza Recreation Center
at 7pm) in order to prepare their application to the MTA. The entire
exercise is predicated on the notion that a Valley Transit Zone could
save 25% over the MTA. Transit experts in the audience were dubious of
this notion, and expressed concerns over seamlessness of travel, in
going from one jurisdiction to another.
The most amusing moment of the evening came when one committee member,
in addressing the issue of the BRU consent decreed, said that if the
Valley had its own transit zone, that would relieve MTA to the point
that they could shift the Valley resources and buses over to the
"inner-city" in order to service the consent decree. ROTFL!
Kymberleigh Richards
>I was at the Valley Transit Zone Community Advisory Committee last night
>in North Hollywood (with Dana Gabbard and Charles Hobbs - where were you
>Kym?).
Working. (If Alarcon's staff would do a better job of promoting meetings, I
could arrange to get off, but when I only hear about it a day or two in
advance, no way.)
>The most amusing moment of the evening came when one committee member,
>in addressing the issue of the BRU consent decreed, said that if the
>Valley had its own transit zone, that would relieve MTA to the point
>that they could shift the Valley resources and buses over to the
>"inner-city" in order to service the consent decree. ROTFL!
Oh, I wish I could have been there to set that one straight. Or did they not
allow public comment?
Kymberleigh Richards
Member, Southern California Transit Advocates <http://socata.lerctr.org>
Member, MTA Passenger Advisory Committee, Northern Region, West Valley
dgab...@hotmail.com
Last night's meeting was useful for seeing how much politics is behind the
drive for zones. L.A. Councilmember Richard Alarcon is seeking a State Senate
seat. His lengthy remarks at start of the meeting lacked only the handing out
of "Alarcon for Senate" buttons. I suspect he wants the creation of a SF
Valley zone to be the the centerpiece of his campaign (interesting fact: his
major opponent for the seat is former Assemblyman Richard Katz, who authored
the bill that created MTA!), which could explain the tight deadline in his
council resolution (90 days) to determine whether a zone is feasible. Since I
will miss next Wednesday's meeting (it conflicts with the monthly meeting of
the MTA Citizen Advisory Committee - which is always a useful source of
information) I am writing a letter to the Committee (with copies to various
interested parties) to get on the record the serious concerns I have about
this issue. This is too important an issue to allow parochialism and
short-sighted politics to be the dominant forces in evaluating it.
And for the advocate of zones, I hope you consider the possibility that
whatever replaces MTA doesn't have to be better, it could be worse (as Thomas
Rubin, the ex-RTD controller, fondly likes to point out, the peasants after
the overthrow of the Czar said "Now things can only get better!") ;-)
Dana Gabbard
President
Southern California Transit Advocates
http://socata.lerctr.org
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Michael Higby
Kymberleigh Richards wrote:
> Oh, I wish I could have been there to set that one straight. Or did they not
> allow public comment?
There was public comment, at the end of course when the committee
members wanted to go home. But it was all very informed public comment,
featuring Dana Gabbard and Roger Christenson, among others.
Colin R. Leech
alt.california and la.general snipped.
Michael Higby (mhi...@pacbell.net) wrote:
>
> I was at the Valley Transit Zone Community Advisory Committee last night
> in North Hollywood ... Another young man, a deputy district attorney, said
> he rides Metrolink, the only admitted public transit user on the several
> member committee. ... the bulk of the board were middle
> aged white men. It did not seem representative of the mostly young and
> working class folks who ride the bus.
Transit advisory committees should be composed of transit users.
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
Brian Fagan
Colin R. Leech wrote:
>
> alt.california and la.general snipped.
>
> Michael Higby (mhi...@pacbell.net) wrote:
> >
> > I was at the Valley Transit Zone Community Advisory Committee last night in North Hollywood ... Another young man, a deputy district attorney, said he rides Metrolink, the only admitted public transit user on the several member committee. ... the bulk of the board were middle
> > aged white men. It did not seem representative of the mostly young and working class folks who ride the bus.
Colin R. Leech wrote:
> Transit advisory committees should be composed of transit users.
I was at that meeting and all others so far. There is a learning curve
that the committee must clear, but they seem to be intelligent people. I
agree that some transit users should be on the board, but this board is
not organized so it can find new ways to improve transit, such as,
realigning bus routes or finding new ways to move people around. It was
organized to create a new agency for the San Fernando Valley. Just
because someone uses the bus doesn't necessarily make them an expert on
how to create an agency. Once, the new agency is formed, then an
advisory board of transit users should be created to give its input on
how best to improve transit.
Brian Fagan
Michael Higby
Brian Fagan wrote:
> I was at that meeting and all others so far. There is a learning curve
> that the committee must clear, but they seem to be intelligent people. I
> agree that some transit users should be on the board, but this board is
> not organized so it can find new ways to improve transit, such as,
> realigning bus routes or finding new ways to move people around. It was
> organized to create a new agency for the San Fernando Valley. Just
> because someone uses the bus doesn't necessarily make them an expert on
> how to create an agency. Once, the new agency is formed, then an
> advisory board of transit users should be created to give its input on
> how best to improve transit.
I attend SoCaTA meetings and sometimes get frustrated at what I call the
"administrivia" of transit, bus routes, bus makes, etc. I am much more
interested in the broader transit issues, economic development, policy,
etc., however, I find the "transitheads" expertise something that I can
defer to, and something I appreciate.
I've also attended a few of the transit zone committee meetings, and
while they mostly seem like nice people, I quite honestly got to believe
that most of these people are in over their heads. Its not about
creating a new agency, its about politics. Its about getting Richard
Alarcon elected to the state senate, and its about directing MTA dollars
to favored LADOT contractors, and the LADOT itself (you can almost see
the LADOT staff salivating at every meeting).
It would be nice if the "leadership" of the Valley got intellectually
honest and actually dealt with the problem of the MTA, rather than
engaging in this charade. Most of the people appointed are the "usual
suspects" who get appointed to every advisory committee and are not
representative of the average Valley resident.
The bottom line is what most of us have been saying on this newsgroup
for a few years, that the MTA needs reform from the top down, and
breaking it off piecemeal is not the answer. We need to change the way
we do things, not just change the people who are doing it. Otherwise,
expect more of the same. Its sort of the same problem with secession -
are we better off if we have a city that will be run by Jeff Brain,
Paula Boland, Burt Boeckman, et al, than we are having a city run by
Dick Riordan, Rita Walters, Nate Holden, John Ferraro, Jackie Goldberg,
Hal Bernson et al? I don't see it. More of the same ice cream, maybe
just a different flavor.
But nothing will change until the populace gets off its ass and elects
some decent people. And I fear that will not happen anytime soon.
Michael Higby
The last meeting was last night and their website still has the agenda
from last week! And no other information.
Their next meeting will be at Valley College, and they are going to ask
the BRU to be there. So everyone ought to show up for the entertainment
value alone!
By the way, the guy who asked for the BRU was Dennis Zine, one of the
big cheeses at the Police Protective League (the LAPD union). Kind of
surprised me because he once gave this very right wing presentation
about the City Council, illegal aliens, etc. at a CPAB meeting. I
wonder if he knows about their socialist agenda, which includes the
following from one of their publications:
-- by Eric Mann, Cynthia Hamilton, Anthony Thigpenn,
Dean Toji, Laura Pulido, Geoff Ray, Robin Cannon, Lian
Hurst Mann, and the Urban Strategies Group.
" RECONSTRUCTING L.A. FROM THE BOTTOM UP,
calls for massive public investment and social welfare
spending, direct income transfers to the poor, mass
transportation, a moratorium on police funding, sustainable,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
environmentally sound development and a challenge to
corporate prerogatives and power--as a way of rebuilding the country
from the bottom up."
And if they want to hear the BRU over SoCaTA, then they really don't
want to get anything done.
Brian Fagan
Michael Higby wrote:
>
> I've also attended a few of the transit zone committee meetings, and
> while they mostly seem like nice people, I quite honestly got to believe
> that most of these people are in over their heads.
I can't agree with you more. I am still trying to get on myself as a
mayoral appointee (don't know if it will work), but I was disheartened
to see that only 6 or 7 people know something about transit issues and
only one knows anything about transit zones and he works for Laidlaw. I
don't think these were political appointments so much as they were
appointed by Councilmembers who didn't know what the hell is going on.
Typical of LA.
> Its not about creating a new agency, its about politics. Its about getting > Richard Alarcon elected to the state senate, and its about directing MTA dollars
> to favored LADOT contractors, and the LADOT itself (you can almost see
> the LADOT staff salivating at every meeting).
It is definitely about creating a new agency for the Valley. Yes, it is
also about politics, but that is the world we live in. We have to deal
with it and move on. If can't tell by now, I am a firm believer in the
transit zone. It may not solve all of our problems and it may end up
just like the MTA (very doubtful though), but it is at least an
opportunity to improve our system the way we (the Valley) would prefer.
We would be stupid to pass this up, because the MTA won't improve it for
us.
Except for the $25,000 contract to the current LADOT consultants, I
don't think LADOT and their favored contractors will get very much money
out of this. Of course, there are only a few private transit operators
left, so it is possible that the winner of a bid to operate the Valley's
transit could also work for LADOT. If the governing board of the new
agency is independent and are residents of the Valley who are transit
intelligent, most problems should be avoided. But then again, this is
LA.
> It would be nice if the "leadership" of the Valley got intellectually
> honest and actually dealt with the problem of the MTA, rather than
> engaging in this charade. Most of the people appointed are the "usual
> suspects" who get appointed to every advisory committee and are not
> representative of the average Valley resident.
I believe creating transit zones is a solution to MTA's problems. It
takes operations out of their hands and leaves them with the regional
issues and overall funding responsibility.
> The bottom line is what most of us have been saying on this newsgroup
> for a few years, that the MTA needs reform from the top down, and
> breaking it off piecemeal is not the answer. We need to change the way
> we do things, not just change the people who are doing it. Otherwise,
> expect more of the same.
I agree with you, the MTA does need top to bottom reform. However, I
don't think it is going to happen. The political interests on that board
are too powerful to allow any loss in their current positions. So, we
(the Valley again) could sit around and keep waiting for some kind of
reform (if it comes it won't be substantial) or we can try to reform and
improve our area.
> Its sort of the same problem with secession -
> are we better off if we have a city that will be run by Jeff Brain,
> Paula Boland, Burt Boeckman, et al, than we are having a city run by
> Dick Riordan, Rita Walters, Nate Holden, John Ferraro, Jackie Goldberg,
> Hal Bernson et al? I don't see it. More of the same ice cream, maybe
> just a different flavor.
I will refrain from giving my personal opinions of the people listed
above, but I will say that the Valley could be better off by itself.
Right now, the Valley only has 6 votes (hard to include Ferraro) on a 15
member council and none of those other votes like the Valley. I pretty
sure most outright despise the Valley. I would much rather have 100% of
the council representing the Valley than the current 40%. Everything is
going to depend on the financial costs, which will be studied if
ValleyVote gets enough signatures.
> But nothing will change until the populace gets off its ass and elects
> some decent people. And I fear that will not happen anytime soon.
Depends on who is defining a decent person. I hope to run for office one
day (don't know why :-)) and I think of myself as a decent person, but
since I will for fight for what I believe is right, I will probably piss
off some special interest groups and I am sure I won't be a decent
person in their eyes.
Brian
Michael Higby
Brian Fagan wrote:
>
> Michael Higby wrote:
> >
> > I've also attended a few of the transit zone committee meetings, and
> > while they mostly seem like nice people, I quite honestly got to believe
> > that most of these people are in over their heads.
>
> I can't agree with you more. I am still trying to get on myself as a
> mayoral appointee (don't know if it will work), but I was disheartened
> to see that only 6 or 7 people know something about transit issues and
> only one knows anything about transit zones and he works for Laidlaw. I
> don't think these were political appointments so much as they were
> appointed by Councilmembers who didn't know what the hell is going on.
> Typical of LA.
Good luck to you. Seems as if, however, they've already picked their
team, unforutantely, and none of them know anything about transit. I
don't think you have to be a bus rider to know about transit. I don't
take the bus, because 1) I have a car (actually a van :> ) and 2) my
work is 1.5 miles from my house. But if I did work downtown, or even in
the West Valley I would most likely use Metrolink or an express bus.
Even though I don't use transit, I like to think I know something about
it, and I did take the bus many years when I was younger and didn't
drive and/or have a car. I use transit most of the time when I go to
SoCaTA meetings (though the last couple of times I didn't because I
didn't wake up early enough!) and when I was taking Coro leadership
classes downtown, there was a few times I used Metrolink and bummed a
ride back (because Metrolink was closed for the night - a problem) with
one of the other participants.
Enough of a personal ramble. I agree with you about the committee, and
I have a question: Is the guy who works for Laidlaw Irwin Rosenberg? I
got that impression. He seems to be the most vociferous on the committee
that wants a zone. If he works for Laidlaw, isn't that a conflict of
interest??? Anyway, from watching City Council meetings on cable, I know
that Laidlaw is very politically connected and is involved with some of
Alarcon's pet charities. Get the picture yet?
I think its a little, as you describe, that the council members doing
the nominating of these people have little clue, but I think they have
some clue - they want to pick people they know who won't rock the boat,
who are very engratiated with the "system." All of these people, for the
most part, have been around and some are involved with various city
contracts.
> > Its not about creating a new agency, its about politics. Its about getting > Richard Alarcon elected to the state senate, and its about directing MTA dollars
> > to favored LADOT contractors, and the LADOT itself (you can almost see
> > the LADOT staff salivating at every meeting).
>
> It is definitely about creating a new agency for the Valley. Yes, it is
> also about politics, but that is the world we live in. We have to deal
> with it and move on. If can't tell by now, I am a firm believer in the
> transit zone. It may not solve all of our problems and it may end up
> just like the MTA (very doubtful though), but it is at least an
> opportunity to improve our system the way we (the Valley) would prefer.
> We would be stupid to pass this up, because the MTA won't improve it for
> us.
I think for you its about creating a new agency, and I think your desire
is genuine. I applaud your enthusiasm.
But you also have to recognize, and you're naive if you don't, this is
about the following:
1) Giving Alarcon a leg up in the Senate race. Katz created the MTA
and Alarcon would love to pin the old MTA on Katz and the new VTZ on
himself. You might be a Republican and be supporting Ollie McCaulley,
but
any Republican, especially one as conservative as McCaulley, hasn't got
a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected in that district, unless
MAYBE someone could pin some kind of horrible scandal on Katz or
Alarcon,
and given the current political climate (ala Bill Clinton), those two
guys are pretty clean. So that is why Riordan, the Police Union and
other conservatives are supporting Alarcon because a) even though he's
a Democrat, he's pretty moderate to conservative and b) the
conventional
wisdom is that Katz has the stronger chance to win and so if Alarcon
returns to the City Council, these guys don't want to piss him off.
Still,
Alarcon thinks that if he can do this transit zone, he has a chance
against
Katz. Why do you think they are on a fast track to get this done in 90
days? 90 days from March is election day, or at least close to it.
2)Taking some of the secession heat off. The City Council doesn't
care about sandbagging the MTA (and getting some of their funding to
boot) if it means getting some mileage in the Valley.
3)Money. Because the tranzit zone requires competitive contracting,
that means more business for city vendors and more money for Council
campaign coffers. Yes indeed, Jackie Goldberg and Rita Walters will
cry bloody murder if the union drivers are paid substantially less
than the MTA drivers, but the contractors will be smart and adhere to
living wage, etc. because they know they can still underbid the MTA
and make a killing, just cutting costs in other areas, some legitimate
(given MTA waste), others not so legitimate.
4)...and finally, actually creating a transit zone. If it works out
better (which I am not sure it will), that's icing on the
abovementioned
cake.
> Except for the $25,000 contract to the current LADOT consultants, I
> don't think LADOT and their favored contractors will get very much money
> out of this. Of course, there are only a few private transit operators
> left, so it is possible that the winner of a bid to operate the Valley's
> transit could also work for LADOT. If the governing board of the new
> agency is independent and are residents of the Valley who are transit
> intelligent, most problems should be avoided. But then again, this is
> LA.
Don't hold your breath. The VTZ still will be under the thumb of the LA
City Council and the contracts will go to all the favored contractors.
Of course, LADOT is looking at bigger budgets if this goes through,
meaning they can hire more staffers, etc.
> > It would be nice if the "leadership" of the Valley got intellectually
> > honest and actually dealt with the problem of the MTA, rather than
> > engaging in this charade. Most of the people appointed are the "usual
> > suspects" who get appointed to every advisory committee and are not
> > representative of the average Valley resident.
>
> I believe creating transit zones is a solution to MTA's problems. It
> takes operations out of their hands and leaves them with the regional
> issues and overall funding responsibility.
I don't see how having numerous transit operators is going to work. If
anything, I'd like to see MTA split into a rail agency and a bus agency
similar to New York. New York carries way more passengers than LA and
they only have three or four agencies (if you count in PATH). When you
consider the entire tri-state metro area, you've got pretty much the
same real estate as LA County.
> > The bottom line is what most of us have been saying on this newsgroup
> > for a few years, that the MTA needs reform from the top down, and
> > breaking it off piecemeal is not the answer. We need to change the way
> > we do things, not just change the people who are doing it. Otherwise,
> > expect more of the same.
>
> I agree with you, the MTA does need top to bottom reform. However, I
> don't think it is going to happen. The political interests on that board
> are too powerful to allow any loss in their current positions. So, we
> (the Valley again) could sit around and keep waiting for some kind of
> reform (if it comes it won't be substantial) or we can try to reform and
> improve our area.
I think its criminal to say screw the rest of the county, lets just take
care of ourselves. In any case, we are still taxpayers in LA County
(last time I checked the SFV was in LA County) and if its possible to
run buses for $40 less an hour in the Valley, its possible in the entire
county, and I demand it be done everywhere.
> > Its sort of the same problem with secession -
> > are we better off if we have a city that will be run by Jeff Brain,
> > Paula Boland, Burt Boeckman, et al, than we are having a city run by
> > Dick Riordan, Rita Walters, Nate Holden, John Ferraro, Jackie Goldberg,
> > Hal Bernson et al? I don't see it. More of the same ice cream, maybe
> > just a different flavor.
>
> I will refrain from giving my personal opinions of the people listed
> above, but I will say that the Valley could be better off by itself.
> Right now, the Valley only has 6 votes (hard to include Ferraro) on a 15
> member council and none of those other votes like the Valley. I pretty
> sure most outright despise the Valley. I would much rather have 100% of
> the council representing the Valley than the current 40%. Everything is
> going to depend on the financial costs, which will be studied if
> ValleyVote gets enough signatures.
I'd like to see the Valley be 3 or 4 cities, that would really give you
local control. Otherwise, us out here in the East Valley will be under
the thumb of the West Valley.
What the Valley should be doing now (and working on studying secession
in the meantime) is 1) totally support charter reform and make sure they
don't fuck it up and 2) start getting ready for the next council
redistricting to make sure that the Valley gets councilmembers that
cover only the Valley and gets council districts that don't break up
communities (i.e. Van Nuys has five councilmembers, North Hollywood has
four, none of whom have North Hollywood as a majority of their
district).
> > But nothing will change until the populace gets off its ass and elects
> > some decent people. And I fear that will not happen anytime soon.
>
> Depends on who is defining a decent person. I hope to run for office one
> day (don't know why :-)) and I think of myself as a decent person, but
> since I will for fight for what I believe is right, I will probably piss
> off some special interest groups and I am sure I won't be a decent
> person in their eyes.
I am sure you are a decent person, and as long as you are honest,
intellectually and otherwise, you will do fine. Most of these
politicians are liars, never will say what they think or stand for,
unless it's been focus grouped and market tested as the majority view.
They have no balls. If you have balls, even if I don't agree with your
viewpoints, and you are honest, I would support your efforts.
Charles P. Hobbs
Hank Fung (SoCalTip) wrote:
>
> In article <3523C2...@pacbell.net>,
> Michael Higby <mhi...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >The last meeting was last night and their website still has the agenda
> >from last week! And no other information.
> >
>
> ?
http://www.loop.com/~dot (Yes, this is a LADOT website. I figured that
they used the private ISP because of all the bureaucracy involved in
updating the official City of LA website. .. )
Hank Fung (SoCalTip)
In article <3523C2...@pacbell.net>,
Michael Higby <mhi...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>The last meeting was last night and their website still has the agenda
>from last week! And no other information.
>
And their web site is...
?
--
**Hank Fung****************************************hf...@lerami.lerctr.org**
Finally, a web site with content: http://www.lerctr.org/~hfung/
Southern California Transit Information at http://socaltip.lerctr.org/
Brian Fagan
Michael Higby wrote:
> 3)Money. Because the tranzit zone requires competitive contracting,
> that means more business for city vendors and more money for Council
> campaign coffers. Yes indeed, Jackie Goldberg and Rita Walters will
> cry bloody murder if the union drivers are paid substantially less
> than the MTA drivers, but the contractors will be smart and adhere to
> living wage, etc. because they know they can still underbid the MTA
> and make a killing, just cutting costs in other areas, some legitimate
> (given MTA waste), others not so legitimate.
>
> Don't hold your breath. The VTZ still will be under the thumb of the LA
> City Council and the contracts will go to all the favored contractors.
> Of course, LADOT is looking at bigger budgets if this goes through,
> meaning they can hire more staffers, etc.
>
I can't say these problems would be eliminated, but they could be
reduced by doing two things. First, the zone should be created as a
public transit authority (NOT like Hayden's proposal) and second,
institute a two-tier governing board.
The public transit authority, would not require cities to sign a joint
powers agreement since it is created by the state legislature. This
public transit authority would be more independent of city politics,
because it doesn't exist at the will of the city or several cities.
The governing board would be similar to Foothill Transit, but the
executive board would have private citizens as appointees. Appointed by
the mayors of each city that was a zone member according to their
representative proportion. With council approval of course. This board
would meet at least monthly and would be responsible for approving
contracts, setting policy, compiling the budget and proposing new
service. The other tier would be the elected officals, who would meet
once a year and approve the annual budget, fare and route structures and
capital improvements. This board should be a good compromise between
politicians who want a say in the new agency and citizens who can
effectively manage it. It may not be perfect, but I think it would work.
Once the new agency is created, it could hire a general manager and a
very small staff, who are loyal to the agency and report to the board.
They could draft all contracts for management, operations and/or
maintenance and keep a close eye on the winners. At first there could be
one or two management contracts, one or more operations contracts which
could include maintenance or that could be contracted separately.
I would fight any attempt to have LADOT operate the new zone, because as
I have said before this would be nothing more than replacing one
downtown bureaucracy with another. The whole point of this zone is for
Valley control. Although, I see no reason why LADOT couldn't be one of
the bidders to provide service. Even MTA would have the right to bid on
service. I doubt they would win though.
> I think its criminal to say screw the rest of the county, lets just take
> care of ourselves.
I didn't mean to imply that the other areas of the city or county could
go to hell. The Valley currently has the opportunity to take over its
transit services and try to improve them and it should seize that
opportunity before it is lost. The other areas of the city or county can
just as easily try create a zone too. The Valley could actually make it
easier for other areas to do this, if the Valley is successful.
I think the Valley can only be successful if it can strip politics, as
much as possible, from the process. Hopefully, by doing what I suggested
above.
Brian
Matthew Mitchell
In article <6fnl8o$o...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>Transit advisory committees should be composed of transit users.
I'd not narrow the field so much. There are other important constituencies
which ought to be represented, particularly employers.
I served on the Citizen Advisory Committee to SEPTA from 1987 to 1990,
perhaps when the committee was at its peak in terms of having a diverse and
dedicated membership. I was dumped for political reasons, and several
other really good people got term-limited out. One of the other members
(Dick Voith, a transportation economist and daily rider) became
Vice-Chairman of the SEPTA Board. One of the other good people was
employed by a downtown department store--he had the needs of both shoppers
and employees in mind.
/_\ Matthew Mitchell, Newsletter Editor
/[ ]\ Delaware Valley Association of Railroad Passengers
/ | \ PO Box 7505, Philadelphia PA 19101-7505
/ _|_ \ voice: 215-673-6445-message box 3, fax 215-885-7448
--------- http://www.libertynet.org/~dvarp
Dan Kegel
Charles P. Hobbs wrote:
> http://www.loop.com/~dot (Yes, this is a LADOT website. I figured that
> they used the private ISP because of all the bureaucracy involved in
> updating the official City of LA website. .. )
There's an interesting page there:
http://www.loop.com/~dot/PPT95H_97b.htm
where they propose, among other things, a "Metro Rapid Bus"
service, bigger busses, station stops, and a unified pass...
I didn't see any reference to a 100% vomit-free-bus pledge, though :-)
I'm going to the April 8th meeting to propose one!
- Dan
--
Reply to dank at alumni.caltech.edu
The opinions expressed in this message are my own,
and are not the opinions of my employer.
Charles Darwin - a guy with a Vastly dangerous idea!
Michael Higby
Herc Wad wrote:
> > but I was disheartened
> >to see that only 6 or 7 people know something about transit issues and
> >only one knows anything about transit zones and he works for Laidlaw.
>
> Most likely, he will offer his services...if his company gets the contract.
> Be afraid if Laidlaw operates in your area. Be very afraid.
This guy is named Irwin Rosenberg and apparently he works for Laidlaw.
And he is serving on the Transit Zone committee. He is the most vocal
member on there and is very insistent on the zone. No wonder - they
stand to make a lot of money if they got the Valley Transit Zone.
Is this a conflict of interest?
Apparently the Daily News isn't interested in checking this out. Maybe
the Times will cover it. I hope that the Finger at the New Times will
check it out.
Michael Higby
Cross-posted from la.transportation
Herc Wad wrote:
>
> Mike Higby wrote:
>
> >This guy is named Irwin Rosenberg and apparently he works for Laidlaw.
> >And he is serving on the Transit Zone committee. He is the most vocal
> >member on there and is very insistent on the zone. No wonder - they
> >stand to make a lot of money if they got the Valley Transit Zone.
>
> I wouldn't be too surprised if part of the deal is for Laidlaw to start service
> without a competitive contract. This guy may be a mouthpiece for the Canadian
> transportation conglomerate.
>
> (I'd also be worried if the Valley provides paramedic service and contracts it
> out to American Medical Response. They are also a Laidlaw-owned corporation.)
>
> >Is this a conflict of interest?
>
> Yes. Especially if Laidlaw gets the contract. Whatever name they operate by.
> Laidlaw Transit, Charterways, DAVE...
>
> I'm just concerned about the shitty service they are known to provide.
>
> >Apparently the Daily News isn't interested in checking this out. Maybe
> >the Times will cover it. I hope that the Finger at the New Times will
> >check it out.
>
> Send an e-mail to them, and see if they'll do it.
>
> SoCalTIP, Southern California's Comprehensive Transportation Information Page:
> <http://socaltip.lerctr.org>
Charles P. Hobbs
Dan Kegel wrote:
>
> Charles P. Hobbs wrote:
> > http://www.loop.com/~dot (Yes, this is a LADOT website. I figured that
> > they used the private ISP because of all the bureaucracy involved in
> > updating the official City of LA website. .. )
>
> There's an interesting page there:
> http://www.loop.com/~dot/PPT95H_97b.htm
> where they propose, among other things, a "Metro Rapid Bus"
> service, bigger busses, station stops, and a unified pass...
They are discussing these ideas at the various area meetings, too.
(Beware, though, the map on that site is a browser-busting **485 K**.
I'm
trying to convince them to reduce the size of their graphics! Until
they do, you can look at these maps at
http://socata.lerctr.org/g/westside600.gif or
http://socata.lerctr.org/g/westside800.gif)
Michael Higby
Brian Fagan wrote:
> > I think its criminal to say screw the rest of the county, lets just take
> > care of ourselves.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that the other areas of the city or county could
> go to hell. The Valley currently has the opportunity to take over its
> transit services and try to improve them and it should seize that
> opportunity before it is lost. The other areas of the city or county can
> just as easily try create a zone too. The Valley could actually make it
> easier for other areas to do this, if the Valley is successful.
I don't think its productive to balkanize the city just because one part
isn't working. Reform has to start at the top. Otherwise, the region
will suffer. We just can't have some little area decide they don't want
to be part of the whole, for whatever reason, and make a whole lot of
noise about breaking off. It doesn't help them in the long run and it
doesn't advance the region. That's why places like San Francisco are
going to continue to steal our major corporations and our federal
funding as well!
I think that DOT or someone should do a historical presentation to the
group, as to why the RTD was started in the first place, back in the
early 60s (in fact I think it was the same year I was born - 1964). It
was because there were all these seperate bus operators and things were
disjointed. They were going to unite the bus system and build lots of
rail lines. The bus system they built was pretty good, but the rail
lines were just too ahead of their time. People in LA were too stuck to
their cars and just couldn't envision the traffic mess we have today.
The RTD bus system was actually pretty good until Bradley started
mucking with it, and later folks like Riordan, Yarovslasky, Antonovich,
Alatorre, et al. (which makes Zev's full frontal assault against rail
totally hypocritical by the way).
By the way, I was intially interested in the transit zone idea, but the
more I hear, the more I am against it. That doesn't mean the MTA is
working, its just that a transit zone is as bad an idea as the MTA.
> I think the Valley can only be successful if it can strip politics, as
> much as possible, from the process. Hopefully, by doing what I suggested
> above.
You have too many special interest groups (homeowners, VICA, Chambers of
Commerce, etc.) that you can't keep politics out of it. Unfortunately,
all of these special interests have no vision and are basically brain
dead and/or self-serving when it comes to these issues.
dgab...@hotmail.com
In article <352678...@pacbell.net>,
mhi...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> Brian Fagan wrote:
>
> > > I think its criminal to say screw the rest of the county, lets just take
> > > care of ourselves.
> >
My feeling is if zones are the way to go we should include a regional
framework with the MTA board changed into an oversight body like the Bay Area
and San Diego have. Maybe if the MTA no longer spends, only distributed money
according to formulas, the present collection of politicians will lose
interest and let the MTA Board be appointed. SO.CA.TA could then do things
like release report cards evaluating board member's performance,
qualifications, etc. to try and minimize the sort of problems past appointees
created.
I just want a logical process not a freewheeling muddle.
For the people who claim a zone would be more oriented to the community, I
should point out the Foothill Transit meetings are held at 8 a.m. on a
weekday.
Is no one else disturbed about the Citizen Advisory Committee member who
gushed how after three years a Valley Zone would be free to do anything it
wants? While he was touting Valley residents controlling their own destiny
this also means the Zone can run service that isn't well coordinated for
transferring where they connect with other agencies. Which is what already
occurs generally between the various providers in the region.
Here is a further interesting question - if a Zone produces sufficentsavings
to be formed but falls short of what LADOT achieves with its contracted
commuter lines would the L.A. City Council approve having those lines added to
the zone? Why? I wonder if the bottleneck for a zone won't be council approval
of making a zone application. As Brian has pointed out, at times the
councilmembers are quite parochial.
Brian Fagan
Michael Higby wrote:
>
> You have too many special interest groups (homeowners, VICA, Chambers of
> Commerce, etc.) that you can't keep politics out of it. Unfortunately,
> all of these special interests have no vision and are basically brain
> dead and/or self-serving when it comes to these issues.
I can't speak for the homeowners groups, but I can for the chambers of
commerce and VICA, because that is how I got involved in transit issues.
I am currently an Area Vice President for the United Chambers of
Commerce (which represents all Valley chambers, except Burbank)and work
with VICA's transportation committee. The people involved in these
groups are very intelligent and transit smart.
Brian Fagan
dgab...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> For the people who claim a zone would be more oriented to the community, I
> should point out the Foothill Transit meetings are held at 8 a.m. on a
> weekday.
Well, the Foothill Board is made up of politicians from the member
cities. Need I say more. Appointees who work during the day, would
obviously want to meet in the evening and possibly on a few weekends.
> Is no one else disturbed about the Citizen Advisory Committee member who
> gushed how after three years a Valley Zone would be free to do anything it
> wants? While he was touting Valley residents controlling their own destiny
> this also means the Zone can run service that isn't well coordinated for
> transferring where they connect with other agencies. Which is what already
> occurs generally between the various providers in the region.
If the board is made up of appointees, I believe they would have enough
sense to work on cooperative agreements. I don't know if these other
agencies have even tried to work together.
> Here is a further interesting question - if a Zone produces sufficentsavings
> to be formed but falls short of what LADOT achieves with its contracted
> commuter lines would the L.A. City Council approve having those lines added to
> the zone?
Depends on what you mean by falling short. If it is operating costs,
LADOT could use that as an excuse to keep the lines, but those lines
could be transferred to the zone along with LA's contribution for
running them and the zone would operate those lines at its cost. Won't
cost LA City any more money.
Pierre A Plauzoles
In a previous article, mhi...@pacbell.net (Michael Higby) says:
>Brian Fagan wrote:
>
>> > I think its criminal to say screw the rest of the county, lets just take
>> > care of ourselves.
If the rest of the County want to act like a bunch of nitwits and bury
their heads in the sand of their washes and gravel pits and those of
their neighbors, let go hang themselves.
>> I didn't mean to imply that the other areas of the city or county could
>> go to hell. The Valley currently has the opportunity to take over its
>> transit services and try to improve them and it should seize that
>> opportunity before it is lost. The other areas of the city or county can
>> just as easily try create a zone too. The Valley could actually make it
>> easier for other areas to do this, if the Valley is successful.
>I don't think its productive to balkanize the city just because one part
>isn't working. Reform has to start at the top. Otherwise, the region
>will suffer. We just can't have some little area decide they don't want
>to be part of the whole, for whatever reason, and make a whole lot of
>noise about breaking off. It doesn't help them in the long run and it
>doesn't advance the region. That's why places like San Francisco are
>going to continue to steal our major corporations and our federal
>funding as well!
>
>I think that DOT or someone should do a historical presentation to the
>group, as to why the RTD was started in the first place, back in the
>early 60s (in fact I think it was the same year I was born - 1964). It
>was because there were all these seperate bus operators and things were
>disjointed. They were going to unite the bus system and build lots of
>rail lines. The bus system they built was pretty good, but the rail
>lines were just too ahead of their time.
Not *that* good. If it were, it would have adapted to meet the needs of the city and its environs as they changed, and we would not now be in the mess in which we find ourselves today.
>People in LA were too stuck to their cars and just couldn't envision the
>traffic mess we have today. The RTD bus system was actually pretty good
>until Bradley started mucking with it, and later folks like Riordan,
>Yaroslavsky, Antonovich, Alatorre, [and so on]. (which makes Zev's full
>frontal assault against rail totally hypocritical by the way).
1/ The people of Los Angeles are "stuck to their cars" to such an extent
because the LAMTA and SCRTD did not adapt to the needs of the people, and
now the LACMTA is stuck with the results of that inattention and their
own financial corruption is only compounding the mess produced by the
ineptitude of people who don't know how to run a transit system. Paying
attention only to the 8-5 workday commuter is not the way to run a
system. There are now many people who have all kinds of other wours,
many of whom could easily use bus or rail service of the type the LACMTA
is equipped to deliver. In fact, there are times I go to Hollywood or
West Los Angeles and the Ventura, Hollywood and San Diego Freeways are so
crowded one could wonder why the rush hour traffic when it is 8 or 10
pm. MTA service levels just don't cut the mustard, and, yet, if you look
at the situation, it all boils down to one thing: lack of support, both
financially and in terms of the community commitment.
2/ Hypocritical is too weak a term. Riordan seems to be trying to make
some sense out of the mess we are in, although I don't know how well what
he is doing will succeed - except for the Alameda Corridor (Riordan has
some good ideas, but I don't know if he has the right people advising him
on transit and related matters). Where Antonovich is concerned, I don't
get the same impression from what he and some others have been doing and
saying. As a matter of fact, I wonder if Antonovich might not have the
oil and auto industries' money in his wallet. I will remember his antics
in his tv ads during the political campaign against Baxter Ward for a
very long time. Maybe Ward's train was not state of the art, but that is
not the point. It was better than anything else we had at the time.
As long as the people leave the sheep pen gate open for wolves like
Antonovich to get into, we will have problems. What we need at the helm
of the MTA is people who 1/ understand the MTA's needs and the reasons
for them, 2/ appreciate the benefits of a well-run transit system, and 3/
are willing to put out the effort to do what is needed to get the results
the transit users of Los Angeles can see in a manner that is constructive
for the community at large instead of benefitting their own buddies and
then leaving the community with a system in a total shambles, riddled with
public ridicule and burdened with massive debt due to a monstrously
over-budget subway.
Don't get me wrong: Ihave ridden it from end to end, and I like the Metro
subway, but it needn't be the mess it has been. The geology of the
Hollywood area through which it had to tunnel was partly known before the
tunneling began. The weaknesses in the geologic data should have been
addressed beforehand, and the availability of better data, coupled with a
more conscientious contractor, could quite possibly have prevented the
Hollywood Boulevard collapse..
>By the way, I was intially interested in the transit zone idea, but the
>more I hear, the more I am against it. That doesn't mean the MTA is
>working, its just that a transit zone is as bad an idea as the MTA.
I think the transit zone idea is not the solution its proponents are making it out to be. MTA should either stay at the reins (if it can be reformed) or get out of the way altogether. Better yet, MTA should be only the County's transit oversight agency,
not an operator (but, again, only if it can be reformed). I say give the San Fernando Valley its own agency, like Santa Monica, Long Beach, and the San Gabriel Valley have.
>> I think the Valley can only be successful if it can strip politics, as
>> much as possible, from the process. Hopefully, by doing what I suggested
>> above.
>You have too many special interest groups (homeowners, VICA, Chambers of
>Commerce, etc.) that you can't keep politics out of it. Unfortunately,
>all of these special interests have no vision and are basically brain
>dead and/or self-serving when it comes to these issues.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think the residents of Los Angeles are that
bad off. The problem is ignorance of the realities of transit. This may
be best shown by the American High Speed Rail Corporation's proposal to
build a new rail line between Los Angeles and San Diego several years
ago. Someone put out an illustration of what a train on the line would look
like. Unfortunately, the catenary in the picture resembled that in vogue
in the 1880s on the East Coast, rather than the modern style that would
have been put up over the line they were proposing. The project died in a
hail of criticism shortly thereasfter (although I am positive there were
many other reasons for its demise).
Talk about presentations, someone shpould o a presentation (really, a
media blitz) on the whole idea to the community at large and show the
community what the system could really be like. Do it right and the
people attending will understand what is going on, and will tell those
who did not attend.
Where there's a will, there's a way. Is the will there in the larger
community? I don't know; although I would like to say it is, I can't -
maybe later, but not now. If it isn't there, we have to build it.
--
Pierre Plauzoles ae...@lafn.org
Canoga Park, California
Pierre A Plauzoles
In a previous article, dgab...@hotmail.com () says:
>t> <3524B8...@pacbell.net> <352678...@pacbell.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.95.194.52
>X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Apr 05 00:06:58 1998 GMT
>X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; I)
>
>In article <352678...@pacbell.net>,
> mhi...@pacbell.net wrote:
>>
>> Brian Fagan wrote:
>>
>> > > I think its criminal to say screw the rest of the county, lets just take
>> > > care of ourselves.
>> >
>> > I didn't mean to imply that the other areas of the city or county could
>> > go to hell. The Valley currently has the opportunity to take over its
>> > transit services and try to improve them and it should seize that
>> > opportunity before it is lost. The other areas of the city or county can
>> > just as easily try create a zone too. The Valley could actually make it
>> > easier for other areas to do this, if the Valley is successful.
>> By the way, I was intially interested in the transit zone idea, but the
>> more I hear, the more I am against it. That doesn't mean the MTA is
>> working, its just that a transit zone is as bad an idea as the MTA.
>>
>> > I think the Valley can only be successful if it can strip politics, as
>> > much as possible, from the process. Hopefully, by doing what I suggested
>> > above.
>>
>> You have too many special interest groups (homeowners, VICA, Chambers of
>> Commerce, etc.) that you can't keep politics out of it. Unfortunately,
>> all of these special interests have no vision and are basically brain
>> dead and/or self-serving when it comes to these issues.
>
>My feeling is if zones are the way to go we should include a regional
>framework with the MTA board changed into an oversight body like the Bay Area
>and San Diego have. Maybe if the MTA no longer spends, only distributed money
>according to formulas, the present collection of politicians will lose
>interest and let the MTA Board be appointed. SO.CA.TA could then do things
>like release report cards evaluating board member's performance,
>qualifications, etc. to try and minimize the sort of problems past appointees
>created.
>
>[....]
>
>For the people who claim a zone would be more oriented to the community, I
>should point out the Foothill Transit meetings are held at 8 a.m. on a
>weekday.
>
>Is no one else disturbed about the Citizen Advisory Committee member who
>gushed how after three years a Valley Zone would be free to do anything it
>wants? While he was touting Valley residents controlling their own destiny
>this also means the Zone can run service that isn't well coordinated for
>transferring where they connect with other agencies. Which is what already
>occurs generally between the various providers in the region.
>
>Here is a further interesting question - if a Zone produces sufficient
>savings to be formed but falls short of what LADOT achieves with its
>contracted commuter lines would the L.A. City Council approve having
>those lines added to the zone? Why? I wonder if the bottleneck for a
>zone won't be council approval of making a zone application. As Brian
>has pointed out, at times the councilmembers are quite parochial.
All quite true, but the key to the smooth running transit service is not
the establishment of a zone, but rather the establishment *and
maintenance* of cooperative agrements and lines of communication among
the various transit providers in the area and between them and the
communities they serve (and between the various communities as well).
The attitude Beverlky Hills is said to have had some time back (and may,
for all I know, still have) according to which they wanted no part of
rail transit in any way shape ot form even if it did not stop within
their City is not constructive or conducive to good relations or good
communications.
Colin R. Leech
After actually reading through a long article, I came across this:
Michael Higby (mhi...@pacbell.net) wrote:
>
> I don't see how having numerous transit operators is going to work.
Even today there are coordination problems among the many existing transit
agencies in the area. It's inevitable.
> If anything, I'd like to see MTA split into a rail agency and a bus agency
> similar to New York.
No. The MTA has subsidiaries:
- NYCT runs the subways and buses
- LIRR and Metro North run commuter trains
> New York carries way more passengers than LA and
> they only have three or four agencies (if you count in PATH).
They also have much different geography (and probably demographics).
They have much more concentration of development as compared to the
suburban sprawl of LA.
Other agencies in the NYC area (not a complete list):
- PATH is run by the Port Authority
- NJT runs both buses and trains (although they don't integrate well with
one another)
- various ferry companies
- NYCDOT buses and their contracted private companies (although these
effectively form a seamless system with the MTA-NYCT buses); they also run
the Staten Island Ferry
- lots of individual bus companies in suburban areas (LI Bus in Nassau
County, various other county systems)
Kymberleigh Richards
In article <6gsohd$p...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) writes:
>Michael Higby (mhi...@pacbell.net) wrote:
>> If anything, I'd like to see MTA split into a rail agency and a bus agency
>> similar to New York.
>> New York carries way more passengers than LA and
>> they only have three or four agencies (if you count in PATH).
>They also have much different geography (and probably demographics).
>They have much more concentration of development as compared to the
>suburban sprawl of LA.
If ever I saw a logical argument against splitting LACMTA up into smaller
agencies or zones, that was it, Colin.
Kymberleigh Richards
Member, Southern California Transit Advocates <http://socata.lerctr.org>
Member, MTA Passenger Advisory Committee, Northern Region, West Valley
========================================================================
Would your business benefit from a professional market research study?
Contact California Survey Research Services at <cs...@calsurvey.com> ...
========================================================================
Kymberleigh Richards
In article <6gub9v$b...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) writes:
>>>They also have much different geography (and probably demographics).
>>>They have much more concentration of development as compared to the
>>>suburban sprawl of LA.
>>
>> If ever I saw a logical argument against splitting LACMTA up into smaller
>> agencies or zones, that was it, Colin.
>Thanks, Kym, but now you've lost me ...
>IMHO the argument against splitting up a large agency like the MTA is the
>balkanization of service, with lack of coordination among the resulting
>agencies. Balanced against that is the ability to have more local control
>as compared to a large bureaucracy that isn't sensitive to local
>conditions.
>What does the density of development have to do with whether the LA MTA
>should be one agency or several?
I was referring, Colin, to your statement that New York has different
geography and demographics than Los Angeles, and that you cannot apply the
same standards to LACMTA as exist in New York (as Mike Higby was attempting to
do in the post you replied to).
I probably edited the quoted portion badly.
Charles P. Hobbs
Kymberleigh Richards wrote:
>
> In article <6gub9v$b...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) writes:
>
> >>>They also have much different geography (and probably demographics).
> >>>They have much more concentration of development as compared to the
> >>>suburban sprawl of LA.
> >>
> >> If ever I saw a logical argument against splitting LACMTA up into smaller
> >> agencies or zones, that was it, Colin.
>
> >Thanks, Kym, but now you've lost me ...
>
> >IMHO the argument against splitting up a large agency like the MTA is the
> >balkanization of service, with lack of coordination among the resulting
> >agencies. Balanced against that is the ability to have more local control
> >as compared to a large bureaucracy that isn't sensitive to local
> >conditions.
>
> >What does the density of development have to do with whether the LA MTA
> >should be one agency or several?
>
> I was referring, Colin, to your statement that New York has different
> geography and demographics than Los Angeles, and that you cannot apply the
> same standards to LACMTA as exist in New York (as Mike Higby was attempting to
> do in the post you replied to).
>
> I probably edited the quoted portion badly.
I don't know all that much about New York or why they do the things they do. I
do know
about Los Angeles, and they've always had multiple bus operators, and I don't
see that
changing anytime soon. We might as well put our energy toward an interagency
pass or
something useful like that. . .
As far as the Valley Zone. . .I haven't personally decided, either way, for or
against.
If we develop the universal pass, such a zone might not be the earthshaking
matter some
people claim it would be. On the other hand, the zone proponents should also
look at other
ways to get some of what they want (i,e, reducing costs through
contracting/BDOF, acquiring a
separate fleet of buses for use in the Valley, etc.)
However, there are other parts of the county that bother me. Ever look at a
bus map of
the South Bay (that portion of LA County generally south of I-105)? You could
count the number
of "real" MTA bus lines (e.g. not contracted, BDOF, or municipal carrier) on
the fingers of
one hand now. Same for Southeast LA County. Perhaps in those places, a zone
would make more sense,
as the service would probably be more consistent.
Colin R. Leech
Kymberleigh Richards (kric...@pacbell.net) wrote:
> In article <6gsohd$p...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) writes:
>>Michael Higby (mhi...@pacbell.net) wrote:
>
>>> If anything, I'd like to see MTA split into a rail agency and a bus agency
>>> similar to New York.
>
>>> New York carries way more passengers than LA and
>>> they only have three or four agencies (if you count in PATH).
>
>>They also have much different geography (and probably demographics).
>>They have much more concentration of development as compared to the
>>suburban sprawl of LA.
>
> If ever I saw a logical argument against splitting LACMTA up into smaller
> agencies or zones, that was it, Colin.
Thanks, Kym, but now you've lost me ...
IMHO the argument against splitting up a large agency like the MTA is the
balkanization of service, with lack of coordination among the resulting
agencies. Balanced against that is the ability to have more local control
as compared to a large bureaucracy that isn't sensitive to local
conditions.
What does the density of development have to do with whether the LA MTA
should be one agency or several?
Michael Higby
Colin R. Leech wrote:
> Michael Higby (mhi...@pacbell.net) wrote:
> >
> > I don't see how having numerous transit operators is going to work.
> > New York carries way more passengers than LA and
> > they only have three or four agencies (if you count in PATH).
>
> They also have much different geography (and probably demographics).
> They have much more concentration of development as compared to the
> suburban sprawl of LA.
I don't know exactly how much the demographics are different, other than
in New York, white people are willing to use transit. Yes, Manhattan is
a different creature, but I would say when you consider the metropolitan
tri-state area, its about the same size piece of real estate as LA
County. You could even say that Manhattan is like West LA, South
Central and Downtown, the Valley is like Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx
are like the San Gabriel Valley, Staten Island is like the Santa Clarita
Valley, Connecticut is like Ventura County, New Jersey is like San
Bernardino and Long Island is like Orange County. :>
In any case, LA-MTA could learn a lot from NY-MTA.
sno...@ix.netcom.com
One thing that the New York MTA has done on some of it's services is publicly
announce managers for certain areas.
STATION MANAGERS-Some of the larger subway and railroad stations have a manager with
a public phone number. If you have a complaint or a suggestion about his/her station
you have someone to talk to or write to. Probably some of the smaller stops have a
group or zone manager. The other good point about this is that you get transit staff
out of their office so they can actually see what is going on.
LINE SUPERINTENDENT-Each subway and rail line has a manager with a public phone
number. Same as above. Because of construction work at night, a connecting shuttle
was established that was not coordinated with the slower running main line train. A
citizen complained to the Line Superintendent who personally went out at night to
observe and made an "on the spot" decision that the shuttle would wait for the
connection.
The LA MTA has o get it's supervisors and managers out of the Taj Mahal and out on
the streets to see what is going on. Everyone at the Taj Mahal should ride transit
one day a week and find out what the people think of service.
I am not able to ride transit because of the hours that I work down here in the South
Bay. One day I took the bus to work and had to wait 1 hour and 35 minutes for a
connecting bus at the Green Line station that is supposed to run every 60 minutes.
There was no number to call to check on the bus that forgot to make the 1 block loop
to Marine Station.
It took the MTA over 6 months to post a sign at the Rosecrans Street Stop at the
Harbor Transitway.
Look at the overcrowding of the Pico services (I know that many other lines are also
overcrowded). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that short-turns that run
local on Pico could be used to relieve overcrowding.
NEW PET PEEVE-Hawthorne Service at the South Bay Galleria-During the PM Rush there
are many trips tha pull in from the South Bay Galleria. When it was entirely out of
Division 5 these busses would make the long loop down to 182nd even though they had
no passengers remaining. Sometimes the bus would be empty at Rosecrans. A savings on
wear & tear and maintenance and FUEL could be had if the busses just pulled in when
they discharged their last passenger. You could still pay the operator for their full
time just pull the bus in early. There are so many busses on this portion that they
do get bunched. Yes, I know that some busses have to make the loop to go north again
or are to be swapped out for another bus, but a call to the dispatcher would solve
the problem.
--
Dave Snowden
Redondo Beach, California
sno...@ix.netcom.com
Armando Avalos
sno...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> The LA MTA has o get it's supervisors and managers out of the Taj Mahal and out on
> the streets to see what is going on. Everyone at the Taj Mahal should ride transit
> one day a week and find out what the people think of service.
Yeah, and it won't be too much trouble for them. Inside Gateway Plaza, they could get on
the 33, 40, 42, 55, 60, 333, 434, 436, 439, 442, 444, 445, 446, 447, 466, and 497, and
from the intersection of Cesar Chavez and Vignes (where all of the street stops should
be removed in favor of the plaza), the 68, 70, 71, 78, 79, 378, and 379.
> I am not able to ride transit because of the hours that I work down here in the South
> Bay. One day I took the bus to work and had to wait 1 hour and 35 minutes for a
> connecting bus at the Green Line station that is supposed to run every 60 minutes.
> There was no number to call to check on the bus that forgot to make the 1 block loop
> to Marine Station.
Oops!
> It took the MTA over 6 months to post a sign at the Rosecrans Street Stop at the
> Harbor Transitway.
And the ATE driver that I caught on the 125 at that very locatiion actually stopped
there! It was a surprise to me. And yet, there are sitll no stops at the other stations
(Manchester, Slauson).
Colin R. Leech
Michael Higby (mhi...@pacbell.net) wrote:
> Brian Fagan wrote:
>> [...]
> I don't think its productive to balkanize the city just because one part
> isn't working. Reform has to start at the top. Otherwise, the region
> will suffer. We just can't have some little area decide they don't want
> to be part of the whole, for whatever reason, and make a whole lot of
> noise about breaking off. It doesn't help them in the long run and it
> doesn't advance the region. That's why places like San Francisco are
> going to continue to steal our major corporations and our federal
> funding as well!
If you want to talk about balkanization, the SF Bay Area has been referred
to as the Beirut of public transportation. :-(
>> I think the Valley can only be successful if it can strip politics, as
>> much as possible, from the process.
Not going to happen, anywhere, ever.
> You have too many special interest groups (homeowners, VICA, Chambers of
> Commerce, etc.) that you can't keep politics out of it. Unfortunately,
> all of these special interests have no vision and are basically brain
> dead and/or self-serving when it comes to these issues.
Fred B. Young Jr.
Armando Avalos wrote:
>
> sno...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > It took the MTA over 6 months to post a sign at the Rosecrans Street Stop at the
> > Harbor Transitway.
>
> And the ATE driver that I caught on the 125 at that very locatiion actually stopped
> there! It was a surprise to me. And yet, there are sitll no stops at the other stations
> (Manchester, Slauson).
That's interesting. Perhaps it's because Figueroa is a little closer to
the freeway
at Manchester and Slauson than it is at Rosecrans. Or Operations and
Planning
just forgot. :)
Related: Does anyone know the exact freeway surcharge on the Transitway
between Figueroa/Exposition and Rosecrans station? In the flyer MTA
put out it indicated that it was a 3-zone trip, yet when I took the 550
recently, I only had to pay $1.00 extra (2-zone). Given that the 550 is
a BDOF line, I was thinking that maybe the driver, being a recent hire,
was unfamiliar w/ the fare structure and that a "real" driver on the 444
or 445 might charge me 3 zones (though starting this Sunday (4/19),
the 444 and 445 (along with the 439) will also be BDOF).
--
Fred B. Young Jr.
USC-University of Southern California
"Later, Grizzly dudes"
--Bart Simpson
Hank
Herc Wad wrote:
> Speaking of capital costs, does the Zone also wish to imitate Foothill in
> "starting from scratch" buying new capital investments? Foothill got a fleet of
> new Gilligs (and a few AM Generals in the very beginning), and even received
> new bus yards.
Irwin Rosenberg, the guy who works for Laidlaw and serves on the Valley
Transit Zone board, said that the Valley would get new buses, and the
existing buses would be transferred back to the MTA in order to meet the
consent decree. Wonder what the BRU thinks about that one! :>
> I've never even heard of any goals the Zone is set out to do, other than lower
> costs.
Elect Richard Alarcon to the State Senate.
> Let's not forget why the Valley has such low service. MTA is also supplying the
> demand. Regardless of how much more service the Valley would get, I doubt it
> will garner many new riders. Transit dependent folk might flock to the Valley
> more, but only to be met by tensions of the elite that live there.
Okay Wad, there you go again bagging on the Valley. You forget how the
Valley is very diverse and has lots of transit dependent folks.
And the only reason why the non-transit dependent don't ride for the
most part, is the service. That's why we need rail, but then you
probably already know that.
It seems to me that the only way to get transit going is to pursue two
twin goals: 1) Improve service for the transit dependent; and 2) Get
people out of their cars. Doing only one and not the other will not
achieve the critical mass needed to get the system going. Transit
zones, consent decrees, etc. are just gimmicks to placate one special
interest group or another. Lets do something that makes the region
work, rather than tear it down.
Kymberleigh Richards
>That's interesting. Perhaps it's because Figueroa is a little closer to
>the freeway
>at Manchester and Slauson than it is at Rosecrans. Or Operations and
>Planning
>just forgot. :)
That's Stops & Zones, not Operations Planning.
Armando Avalos
Fred B. Young Jr. wrote:
> That's interesting. Perhaps it's because Figueroa is a little closer to
> the freeway
> at Manchester and Slauson than it is at Rosecrans. Or Operations and
> Planning
> just forgot. :)
It's still a treacharous walk from Figueroa to that station.
> Related: Does anyone know the exact freeway surcharge on the Transitway
> between Figueroa/Exposition and Rosecrans station? In the flyer MTA
> put out it indicated that it was a 3-zone trip, yet when I took the 550
> recently, I only had to pay $1.00 extra (2-zone). Given that the 550 is
> a BDOF line, I was thinking that maybe the driver, being a recent hire,
> was unfamiliar w/ the fare structure and that a "real" driver on the 444
> or 445 might charge me 3 zones (though starting this Sunday (4/19),
> the 444 and 445 (along with the 439) will also be BDOF).
About the fare, it is an extra $1.50 zone fare ($.75 for seniors/disabled) to travel from any
point in D/T to Rosecrans Station. It probably was the sheer inattentiveness of the driver
during his or her training that it's three zones from D/T to Rosecrans, not 2. It used to be
( or would have been (if the station were open at the time) two because of the promotional fare
that started when the Transitway opened (August 1, 1996 -- a Thrusday) The promotional fare
ended back in January 1 of this year. Like I said, they probably just didn't listen.
Speaking of stupidty, be on the look out for BDOF driver # 25967. Last I checked, he charged a
man with a Disabled card and pass zone fare. He didn't charge me anything because he thought
my joint Foothill stamp was a zone stamp. Please remind him (and any other driver that tells
you otherwise) that all discount pass holders (K-12, college/vocational, senior/disabled) are
NOT REQUIRED to pay the zone fares. This happened March 7 at on the run that leaves W.
Hollywood Library at 4:05 PM.
Armando Avalos
Armando Avalos wrote:
> Speaking of stupidty, be on the look out for BDOF driver # 25967. Last I checked, he charged a
> man with a Disabled card and pass zone fare. He didn't charge me anything because he thought
> my joint Foothill stamp was a zone stamp. Please remind him (and any other driver that tells
> you otherwise) that all discount pass holders (K-12, college/vocational, senior/disabled) are
> NOT REQUIRED to pay the zone fares. This happened March 7 at on the run that leaves W.
> Hollywood Library at 4:05 PM.
Sorry. I forgot to mention that this happened on Line 550.
I also forgot to mention that someone had the bad habit of defecating and urinating inside the
elevator at Rosecrans Station. Eww!
Fred B. Young Jr.
Armando Avalos wrote:
>
> Armando Avalos wrote:
>
> > Speaking of stupidty, be on the look out for BDOF driver # 25967. Last I checked, he charged a
> > man with a Disabled card and pass zone fare. He didn't charge me anything because he thought
> > my joint Foothill stamp was a zone stamp. Please remind him (and any other driver that tells
> > you otherwise) that all discount pass holders (K-12, college/vocational, senior/disabled) are
> > NOT REQUIRED to pay the zone fares. This happened March 7 at on the run that leaves W.
> > Hollywood Library at 4:05 PM.
And now these guys will be on the 439,444 and 445 (as of 4/19) :P
>
> Sorry. I forgot to mention that this happened on Line 550.
>
> I also forgot to mention that someone had the bad habit of defecating and urinating inside the
> elevator at Rosecrans Station. Eww!
Gross! :P
(Now I'm glad the one time I got off at the Rosecrans station, the
elevator wasn't
working)
I'm beginning to think that Rosecrans station was a big waste of time
and money.
No one parks in that lot they built (I'm sure the people who owned the
homes
that were demolished to make room for the lot will be delighted to hear
that),
and I've seen a total of 2 people (or maybe it was the same person
twice) use
that 125 stop at the station (the time I used it, I walked to Figueroa
to catch the
125, because I didn't trust that the ATE drivers knew about the stop
yet).