Comments on: Judy Chu Highlights Metro Board Meeting, Still No Answers from Metro

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:19:07 +0000

Thank you Nate! You hit it right on – these selfish “I will ride” members would like any rail line, as long as it served them (and them only). Who cares if it is cost effective! Who cares if only a few thousand people will ride! As long as THEY will ride, that’s all that matters for our region, right?
Albert: even if you consider ridership per $ spent, the subway and regional connector are still superior projects BY FAR (much more valuable for the amount of ridership we gain on our system and for the hundreds of thousands of people that will gain greater access to the jobs on the westside (and downtown). Foothill might be a great project, IF ten or twenty OTHER PROJECTS got built first! Projects in areas with greater density of jobs and residents! You still do not understand this fundamental point and you will never know why Foothill is such a ridiculous project (deemed so by transportation planners, professionals, academics, urban planners,…basically any expert in the field). You BUILD PROJECTS THAT WILL BENEFIT THE MOST AMOUNT OF PEOPLE – this is such a basic idea even a 5 year old could understand it. Apparently, the selfish SGV residents cannot (or refuse to not understand it). Here’s to rail lines to the door step of every single family home in every sprawling suburb in the entire region!!! (but first for the sprawling suburbs of SGV, of course)

By: Albert

Albert — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:09:11 +0000

Peter, Ricardo, Nate: the Westside Subway will cost hundreds of millions more per mile to build than the Foothill Extension, so it should carry a lot more riders. Again, I do not disagree that the Subway is an important regional project. However, I do believe that we should be building transit in areas that are able to accept growth in the future. Southern California continues to receive millions of new residents and we need to prepare for the future with smart growth around transit, and not just take care of the problems we created in the past. I believe that the Foothill Extension provides a great opportunity to do just that. At this point, I think we should agree to disagree.

Ultimately, I hope we all get what we need, a comprehensive public transit system that takes us at least 40 years into the future.

By: Nate

Nate — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:24:46 +0000

If the San Gabriel is paying so many awesome taxes to the County as whole, why is every town its own municipality, and keeping all its own money? Basically every time I want to eat in Monterrey Park, I can be assured that poor communities will never see a dime of those sales taxes. So don’t pretend like the poor poor rich SGV is getting some short end of the stick. In normal places, taxes are paid and redistributed, thats called a stable democracy.

You all choose to build in that sprawly suburb way and choose to move there and then clog up our freeways with your loco commutes. Why not except a Metrolink or similar commuter rail which is much more appropriate for your bedroom communities.

Foothill was in Measure R, but only a certain sum. Now you want more because you can’t get federal match. You can’t get federal match because your project is redonk.
Its really simple, your project is an epic fail. Theres no point in all this. Its like saying, I want a subway to my house! I said I need it! So it must be true!

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:01:23 +0000

Albert, you have once again shown you know nothing about transportation whatsoever. How is a bunch of people writing statements that they use the Foothill Extension any indication of its actual potential success?? OF COURSE there should be lots of people who say they will ride – in fact, hundreds of thousands of people should be saying it if the line is to be a true “mass transit” line – anyone could get easily over ten times as many people to say they will ride the Westside subway or regional connector. You truly live in your own little fantasy world where huge public projects that use valuable taxpayer money are decided simply by a few people claiming they will use it. How about looking at the actual MODEL and RIDERSHIP DATA. Westside Subway – 80,000 new riders. Foothill Phase 1 (the MEASURE R PROJECT): less than 10,000! Hopefully you have even the most basic of math skills – get a clue, your project is a WASTE OF MONEY and it will NEVER get federal funding (the FTA would simply laugh at the application based purely on the cost vs. ridership and the land use patterns and density of the San Gabriel Valley).

By: Albert

Albert — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:55:02 +0000

http://www.iwillride.org/?tag=voice-of-sgv

Click it. Read it. The comments from San Gabriel Valley residents seem to paint a very different picture than you’re trying to portray.

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:03:39 +0000

Ricardo is right – Albert obviously does not know a thing about mass transit. He is clearly only trying to secure taxpayer money for a project that will have VERY low ridership and will benefit himself and a few individuals out in the sprawling San Gabriel Valley. I have also spoken with transportation planning officials, as well as representatives from various electeds’ offices, and they all have nothing but disgust for this project. Albert knows this project is not cost effective and he knows that projects like the Westside subway are much more vital to this region.

He clearly does not have a solid education in any realm realted to rail planning, or even basic math skills, since he has proven he doesn’t have a clue about simple cost-benefit analysis.

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:29:29 +0000

Thank you for FINALLY acknowledging that the Foothill Extension project is vastly inferior to many other worthwhile rail projects this county needs. You just made your point – Foothill is in Measure R so why should we care about its cost effectiveness? A narrow-minded, selfish group of suburban home owners decided that they want light rail to boost their property values in an area where there are seas of parking lots in the midst of a built environment that punishes anyone who decides to walk or bike or take transit anywhere. Albert knows Foothill is a weak project (ridership estimates are actually under 10,000 for the phase that will supposedly be built with Measure R funds) and he knows that there are many corridors in LA County that DESERVE RAIL before a corridor like Foothill. Albert, you have proven you know nothing about transportation planning or HOW and WHERE mass transit works. You obviously have no background in this area and are only seeking to advance a project that will directly benefit yourself. You have yet to address many issues brought up here, including the fact that all urban and transportation planning professionals and academics know the Foothill Extension project as a COMPLETE JOKE AND WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY. I know several planners at Metro, PB, as well as professors at UCLA and USC and they all could go on for hours about why Foothill is such a terrible project. Thanks for advocating such an inferior project in a region that suffers from a lack of investment in VIABLE public transit. I invite all of LA County to ride the Foothill Extension when it opens – oh wait, it doesn’t go anywhere most people of this County WANT OR NEED to go to!!!

By: Albert

Albert — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:52:23 +0000

Ricardo, like Transportaion Planner, you still failed to address my points – all the while continuing to bash the SGV.

Address these points:
“You’re still arguing like it’s pre-November 2008. Measure R passed. The Foothill Extension was included in it. The tone of your arguments come off as if we’re still deciding what projects to include into Measure R.

Speaking of Measure R, millions of SGV residents pay into that tax as well. But the reasoning from you is that the SGV should just pay into that tax for the sake of another region because that region’s residents need it more – like the SGV is already free from congestion and doesn’t need an ounce of traffic relief. Please address that.”

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:40:08 +0000

IF SGV deserves rail, then which areas of the county do not??? Can you answer that simple question Albert? Out of all the corridors in LA County with higher population and job densities than Foothill, which should NOT get rail simply because the SGV “deserves” it more??? Why is the Foothill corridor so special?

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:37:21 +0000

Wow, “many SGV residents work in Downtown Los Angeles” and actually TOLD you they will ride the Foothill Extension??! Congratulations, you just conducted your own professional and scientific planning/transportation study based on actual existing and future conditions! Please, Albert, you are so delusional about the SGV you must think it is another Manhattan or San Francisco. People TELLING you they are going to ride means absolutely nothing. I can also go out and get millions of people to TELL me they will ride any other hypothetical rail line throughout the county. You sound like someone who doesn’t live in LA County, let alone SGV – or you just don’t know what the definition of DENSITY is and how mass transit works. Take a course in transportation planning, THEN develop your arguments/main points based on actual education and knowledge of your surrounding built environment.