olong

Meeting round 3 today. This one just for SGV Forward. Not much new content other than the presentation of the bus lanes along Atlantic in MPK, I think this is mainly for more outreach, yay. They mentioned not many transit riders at last mtg. No alternative selected yet for Garvey project

Jesse Zwick thread on tsfka Twitter about behind-the-scenes politics/history of Measure ULA:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/20159...

Yeah politically data security would be the biggest reason private utilities might be opposed, but the systems in other states have varied levels of access which assuage that worry, so they really shouldn't be opposed to a decent bill. And it's not like their records depts are profit centers

There are examples in other states where more or less similar systems have been introduced (CO, MN, MT recently) and I think politically it's possible to align stakeholders - govt, private utilities, engineering, and construction - on this.

I do have various ideas for the bill and the mechanism of centralizing utility asset data but haven't gotten around to actually writing one.

Probably best to do it on the state level imo. I've been told there's been interest in this + general SUE practices among people at Caltrans in the past but the champions retire and nothing comes of it, so I think legislatively is the way to go

Prorated by length the IOS estimate would even be around $16B

City of Lawndale didn't want a station which is why there were just two planned for the ~slain extension.

(I do agree fwiw that in a vacuum Hawthorne isn't a bad alignment, it's closer to Alt 6 than monorail to make a Sepulveda comparison, it's just the politics and specifics that make it bad)

For Torrance light rail extension, Metro board sided with Lawndale nimbys, approved expensive difficult alternative alignment not recommended by staff. Already-delayed Torrance rail will be further delayed.

LA transit agency seeks to override state law allowing more homes near train and bus lines The L.A. Metro Board of Directors voted to oppose implementation of SB 79, calling for a countywide exemption.

L.A. Metro, the main transit operator for Los Angeles, just voted to oppose SB 79, a law legalizing the construction of housing near stations. You can't make this stuff up. Legislators should remember this the next time they come to Sacramento begging for more money.
laist.com/news/housing...

10,000 Leo Pustilnikov clones.

Metro presentation at SCAG this week teases major expansion of automated bus lane enforcement (!). Metro plans to use on-bus AI cameras on all bus lanes. On-bus cameras to go from 100 Metro buses to about 400. Capital cost will be included in Metro FY26-27 budget.

Jordan Downs for other observers... the streetscape is definitely *decent* yeah. My opinion when I walked through there once though was that it was still much wider than it needed to be, especially for a new street grid. I guess they wanted to connect Century and Tweedy

FTA could help but really important to have an internal engineering/planning team that is directing and interrogating what Program Management consultants are producing. And re-visiting existing standards to validate them.

Why Metro has trouble doing things that help people outside of cars Metro Los Angeles is LA County’s transportation agency — and it’s responsible for countywide initiatives like rail expansion, bus rapid…

Why @metrolosangeles.bsky.social has trouble doing things that help people outside of cars michaelschneider.medium.com/why-metro-ha...

It's because of the overlay of design requirements such as noise barriers, larger safety coefficients for structures (everything is bulkier), more clearances (taller viaducts), evacuation walkways etc. And the incapacity to do integrated design, so it's just a clumsy patchwork.

Metro Seeks Carve Out From State Housing Law Designed to Override Local NIMBY Opposition - Mar Vista Voice At a January 15 meeting of Metro’s Executive Management Committee, Metro quietly advanced a legislative position that would weaken a state law whose central purpose is to take land use control away fr...

Read @marvistavoice.bsky.social breakdown of Metro push to gut state law (SB79) that facilitates housing near transit stations marvistavoice.org/metro-seeks-...

One of the biggest problems for the site imo is that a feed like this is not the default. The flexibility is nice and all, but the optimal slopfulness of a default feed is not zero! Everyone's first encounter with bsky is either following or discover and they have to find this one by word of mouth

A few observations
- Many of these places are kind of dead, with vacant storefronts because there are big box stores nearby that create competition
- The treatment of the street could be much more pedestrian-friendly, which would help businesses thrive
- These should be mixed use with housing

Street view with one story buildings

Every Southern California suburb has a "main street" like this, with 1-story commercial buildings facing the sidewalk. When considering that they are in the suburbs, is this good or bad urbanism?

I have come to believe that at least every 150 years or so the government needs to be completely redone, else it just becomes too entrenched in tradition to really do anything. And it makes all sorts of silly things mandatory. Line Americans having rights based on someone’s name

Interesting wikipedia picture with painted curb extensions - most people aren'y behaving as if the painted area is intended for their use upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...

Really shameful from whoever directed the analysis tbh... Just a focus on building capital projects without a single care given to the service provided. The LRT definition issue seems to be real (in-service LRT stops count, but planned ones are ambiguous) but otherwise this is purely ideological.

Some opposition is now couched in SB79 - but these folks already were anti-transit, long before SB79. Major Metro lines always got/get flack from nativist nimbys. Examples: Beverly Hills sued the f*** out of Metro to kill the subway. Suburban Westsiders fought Expo. It's not SB79, Jake.

Metro staff say they are pushing for several changes to SB79 - including entirely exempting L.A. County from SB79 because it's not needed because L.A. is already doing the transit thing so well! [That's *not* a quote, but that's more-or-less the gist of what Metro legislative staff said]

The worst part is we have an awful gubernatorial field with Bonta giving a final no, but Wiener isn't going for it because he doesn't think he's fit for executive roles or whatever (and ok he may well have gone on to lose the primary to Porter or someone)

....-- and ---..., very innovative

He’s baaaack
And big mad!!

Initial operating segment recommended by Metro staff cuts off the segments north of the G line and south of the D line

I really doubt they'd go this far, Metro's generally not too averse to takes and the construction costs for the spur here would be far higher than acquisition costs for a site nearer Van Nuys (not to mention yet another round of G line disruptions)