one time it took a whole minute to open a 7/metro and somebody pulled the emergency handle to let everyone off. then a bunch of metro staff rushed over to tell us we weren't supposed to do that... sorry guys, you lost

i don't know that i want wiener any closer to foreign policy levers, whether that's as governor or congressperson. staying as the state senate housing guy is where he'll get his best work done regardless.

I do wish more Metro stations had proper names instead of intersection names. Maybe the Hollywood ones can stay.

A2. Also on the farecap note, it's extra interesting that they wouldn't focus in on the fact that implementing farecapping was effectively a fare decrease accoss the board? It represented a 20-30% drop in fares for passbuyers, and even more for frequent riders who didn't plan enough to buy passes.

I happily assume that the report writers also don't want that outcome and simply didn't think through this element of their report. An issue probably more from thoughtlessness than malice. Still - a very clear indicator of who's writing this that it didn't occur to them.

In my experience, both from people I've spoken with and observation, group (2) skews way more low-income and immigrant than the tap userbase. I'm not comfortable with the assertion that we should implement something that charges these people most heavily!

But also, with no fare cap increase, this increases two groups disproportionately: (1) rare riders (ok, fine, whatever, no huge impact to them), and (2) riders who tend to only pay in cash and thus do not reach a fare cap.

If we keep the cap the same while increasing fares to $2.50, that number becomes 8 rides. I might be wrong about this, but: the report's numbers seem to assume that extra 40% in fares on *every boarding* that you're probably not getting from fare cap riders.

A1. I want to come back around and focus on the seeming assumption in this report that the fare caps would stay the same under an increase of the one-way fare. I would guess that most Metro riders (with tap cards) are capping out most weeks (currently takes around 10 rides).

As I said above: most of the other principles I can understand but view my own direction on. Will be interesting to see if this gets any hold.

Leaving this unaddressed is a major shortcoming of the report. If we're arresting, we will be catching a number of people who have boarded without fare without intending to (it happens.) and who shouldn't reasonably be expected to carry ID with them everywhere. (Nobody should.)

3. A heavy fare enforcement system through administrative citations runs into a major unaddressed issue - I would expect that a lot of the people this proposal hopes to remove from the system wouldn't be carrying identification. Your options are, best I can tell, to let them go or arrest them.

Even $70 extra per month is something a family of 5 living on $82k in los angeles might notice! I know I made some assumptions for this number, but I think they're fairly reasonable? Even if you scale it down, the impact is still present.

And the LIFE line is quite low once you get up to a 4 or 5 person household. Some napkin math: I would expect $1.75 -> $2.50 to come with a weekly cap increase of $18 -> $25. A family of 5 × $7 more per week × 2 weeks per month after LIFE rides expire.

but also that this report seems to only conceptualize the one-person household, and also seems to assume that a fare increase wouldn't come with an increase in fare cap? The 20 LIFE rides run out quickly (I wish they were also subject to a cap. 3/day & 10/week, maybe?)

2. This statement really misses the mark for me - it feels like nobody involved in writing this has ever had to sign up for LIFE. It's not the easiest to navigate (losing a tap card requires a hassly phone call, for example, and loading your 20 rides/month is far from perfect) -

1. just sort of a major mistake here that indicates a sort of certain-part-of-town bias: the G Line is currently not capable of proof-of-payment enforcement while Van Nuys station is under construction til ~'27 and with all-door boarding not active.

i can amicably disagree with a lot of this but there are some terrible sticking points for me:

Thanks, good to know - was still curious about whether we'll still see 10 minutes on both lines before D1 opens, as some previous plans had shown (incl. FY25 budget), or if that part's been scrapped now

@metrolosangeles.bsky.social have been thinking about this recently. i know the 10 min service got delayed - i think due to HR4000s taking a while to arrive? and was wondering if 10/10 service is in the plans once the D Line reopens. seems there'd be enough 4000s now?

is that not part of what makes it iconic? plenty of other beaches i could visit for beach standard

massive concrete plaza i hope it's a massive concrete plaza metro plepleplease make it a massive concrete plaza!!!! 💗💗💗💗

yeah, i know - their official position of "support alt 6 oppose alt 4" could be better but could be worse. bob a's presence on the vision committee also doesn't escape me

speaking of sepulveda alt 5. you won't believe who else is talking about it this week
www.shermanoaksnc.org/assets/docum...

i also have to wonder about the possible effectiveness of running some trains down sepulveda, maybe to meet s line at sherman way? might not have the population capture, might not produce any travel time benefits, but could improve capacity on some of the spokes

stops tantalizingly close to northridge metrolink. i get the connection to vn still works pretty well, but maybe a missed opportunity?

hey asked staff about this. answer: yes, still could happen but not quite there yet.

long story short: nextgen called for us replacing Line 92 owl with other service - -but ridership stayed high on 92 and we kept owl. So looking for resources to add owl on 94.

marines guarding the passport office might be the single corniest thing I've ever seen

do you think the coinstar kiosk knows its car is still parked there

@metrolosangeles.bsky.social is owl 94 ever gonna happen :(