Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Let's Bring Light Rail Back To the Harbor Area!

This post is a contrbution to this blog from;

This is their second post contribution concerning a light rail line in the harbor area. I am very interested in seeing a light rail line in the harbor area, and I support their efforts to bring back light rail to our area.


The Port of Los Angeles recently announced that it has reopened the public comment period of its long-awaited Bridge to Breakwater proposal.

As you may know, the original master plan drafted in 2004 remarkably included only two sentences regarding a potential future link to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's light-rail system.

The plan's future success appears to play off the axiom: If you build it, they will come. But a more accurate description of the Port's mantra should be: If you build it, they will come -- provided they have a way to get there.

The Port's recent announcement provides an opportunity to dramatically shift the focus of the project and to make linking the project to the MTA's light-rail system a reality. You may be asking yourself, "What can I do to help?

Send an Email as soon as possible to the following addresses:

In a brief, concise manner indicate that you;

(1) support the bridge to breakwater proposal but only with a much greater emphasis on connecting the project with the MTA's light-rail system.

(2) believe that any revitalization of the waterfront in excess of several hundred million dollars would be foolish without linking it to the city's mass-transit system.

Thank you!


Kris said...

Having only followed the Bridge to Breakwater plan for the past year, I don't claim to be an expert on how the approval process and public reception has evolved over the past 2-3 years. However, part of me thinks the new, stripped-down plan is a good thing.

If you try to package everything under the sun in an all-encompassing 30-year plan and then try to get everyone to agree on it, that is one BIG hurdle. This new approach trims out some of the fat and packages it in something that will be completed in 5 years.

While I am sure there are a lot of other great ideas (like Light Rail) for SP that aren't considered in the current iteration of the Plan, I would expect it to be a lot easier for people to swallow these proposals in smaller bites. There is no reason to hold up the larger project so that people can continue to fight or discuss certain aspects that are or are not included. The goal here is to see action, not continue bickering for the next 5 years.

The mantra of "smart growth" has been established, and as long as that is not forgotten in future proposals, the redevelopment will be successful.

M Richards said...

Excellent Comments Kris!

I think you are going to love your new hometown once you move in.

Light Rail has an added benefit for the harbor area as it is a transportation system that is used by many folks who also visit the harbor area on Saturday and Sunday.

Both the Fish Market and the old Ports of Call area welcome a great many of our neighbors from central and east L.A. Most of them are from Mexico and Central America, and everyone seems to enjoy visiting the port.

My primary idea for the B2B project was to add one more vessel to join the U.S.S. Lane Victory as an historical and tourist site. I know the harbor wouldn't be able to hold a full size Aircraft Carrier, but there is a helicopter carrier/assualt ship in mothballs in Suisan Bay in Northern California that could probably find a home at the B2B site.

I have no idea how much it would cost to acquire it, but both the U.S.S. Intrepid in New York, and the U.S.S. Midway in San Diego draw tourists and their dollars to their ports and provide great historical values to their sites, as well.

See, a scaled down carrier for a scaled down project!

I would agree with you that a smaller project that can actually be built in a shorter period of time would be great! I would hope the whole project could be planned, land acquired, and completed during one regime of city government. Politicians, when replaced, seem to imagine different projects than the folks that come after them. So getting everything done during the terms of the mayor and 15th district councilmember, would make things run easier. It doesn't matter to me which mayor or which councilmember it is, as long as they both stick it out from beginning to end.

Congratulations on being the first person to use the word "iteration" on this blog. I am off to my dictionary now to see what it means!

Be well,

Anonymous said...

just get rid of the carpool lane on the 110 and use it for a train connecting downtown to the port. Visitors can easily go from the port to downtown and the airport via the greenline..

Anonymous said...

it is unwise to invest such a large sum of money with no way to transport people to the finished product. in the interest of moving away from fossil fuels, this is not trivial. indeed, it is necessary.

M Richards said...

I was wondering....

Whether the ridership of the Blue linehad lessened the need for bus transportation along the route it serves?

Whether the polution cause by generating electricity needed to run the light rail lines is less than the polution generated by all the other transportation modes they replace?

Whether there is sufficient numbers of folks who would choose to use a light rail line that has San Pedro on one end and either downtown L.A. or the Green line station at the 105 on the other end?

Whether it might be a good idea to have the new line start in San Pedro, snake past Harbor College, continue snaking through Wilmington, having a stop near C.S. Dominguez Hills, then up near the 110 to downtown?

The Blue line uses extra cars the Green line never seems to need. Perhaps there is enough of a potential ridership in the areas between San Pedro and downtown L.A. that might want to use a new line, somewhat parrallel to the Blue line.

It is much easier to grow a tree than it is to grow new dinosaurs.