Take our survey on transportation!

ExpoOpening.jpg

Tell us how you would invest in transportation: Would you prioritize investments in rail, bus, bike lanes and wider sidewalks, freeway improvements, road repairs? Some or all of these? Depending on where you live and work tell us which of the projects listed in our survey (link is below) you would support. A new transportation funding measure is under discussion and people across LA County are talking about which projects to fund. We are working with LA Metro on formulating the agency's Long Range Transportation Plan — which increases the likelihood that particular projects will get funded — and trying to understand priorities across the county.

It should take only 5-10 minutes. Weigh in on the particular projects that are being discussed for funding! A red asterisk indicates a mandatory question. Once completed, press send and please share using the social buttons!

  • commented 2015-07-29 23:49:32 -0700
    Why no detailed mentions of future BRT expansions? They’re way cheaper and can connect smaller areas with flexibility. http://la.streetsblog.org/2014/06/03/guest-opinion-the-future-of-los-angeles-is-bus-rapid-transit/
  • commented 2015-07-29 15:26:06 -0700
    Public transportation is too expensive as it is now! If we want to increase ridership we need to make it very cheap (i.e., no more than $1.00).
  • commented 2015-07-28 12:49:54 -0700
    Completely agree with Solution Seeker. Put this money towards building our system, not buffering the status quo.
  • commented 2015-07-25 14:34:39 -0700
    The bottom line is that we want to know that our money will be spent on infrastructure that will fundamentally transform mobility in our region, not maintain the status quo. Move LA’s last “straw man proposal” had only 25% of the generated revenue allocated to Metro Rail. Are you kidding me? I understand that this measure needs to appeal to as wide a voter base as possible if it’s going to pass, but I’m of the belief that you woo the people through quality over quantity.

    This measure needs to bring new projects to the table, not just seek completion of the Measure R projects. Gold Line extension to Claremont and Whittier? Those are total yawners. In what way are those projects game-changers compared to a heavy rail subway line between Sylmar and LAX or the Purple Line extension to Santa Monica? Move LA Team, do you understand this?
  • commented 2015-07-25 07:02:29 -0700
    The key is light rail – the more we have, the more it becomes the crucial link for public transit, with bus, taxies, cars, etc., being auxiliaries to rail rather than the other way around.
  • commented 2015-07-24 19:35:54 -0700
    I am surprised there is interest in spending the public’s money on long-range mobility plans without taking any effort to understand how autonomous vehicles can improve the future of public mobility.
  • commented 2015-07-24 11:03:26 -0700
    What happened to the Glendale, Burbank, Burbank Airport LRT that ha already been environmentally cleared. The residential population density, job density, connecting to airport, and walkability of these areas seem strange to now over-look. Anyone know if this an option or what happened to it?? Metrolink is infrequent and too expensive for average user.
  • commented 2015-07-24 08:38:00 -0700
    We cannot mitigate congestion by building more freeways, since they are prohibitively expensive in an urban area and immediately become chokepoints for single-occupant vehicles and large trucks. The SR710 route completion would only create an extension of the crowded truck route from the harbor to the 210 and northbound, creating an enormous mess where the 710 would join the other freeways. The 210 is already overcrowded at commuter times and adding large trucks to the mix will make it impossible for automobiles to drive.
    Light rail lines are the best solution for commuters. The eastside extension of the Gold Line from Azusa to Ontario (to the airport would be best) should be a high priority. An extension of the Purple line (or any of the lines) to the terminal areas of LAX would relieve congestion on the 405 and surface streets and put us on par with many European cities (e.g..London).
    A light rail/subway line through the Sepulveda Pass would certainly relieve congestion on the 405, which, for the $Bs spent, has only cut a few minutes off of the commute since the roadway was “improved”. The Downtown Regional Connector to join the existing lines is much needed to avoid having to transfer multiple times to continue to Long Beach and the Westside.
  • commented 2015-07-24 07:57:15 -0700
    While I support the idea of more Public transit, I completely disagree with how it is being handled. Why does the Train NOT go to LAX? I was all for the subway extension down Crenshaw Blvd, until I learned that it will come above ground the 1 mile that it crosses in front of my house and two schools for no engineering or practical reason..( No stops, no stations) While it is below ground everywhere else! There were Contractors that bid the whole line underground, but these were apparently rejected…
  • commented 2015-07-24 06:19:03 -0700
    The SR710 North project is a poison pill. Not only is it politically divisive and will draw intense opposition to the entire Measure R2, if included, but it also is a cost iceberg. That is: although the current penciled-in cost for the project is small, the true project cost and technical difficulty (if the Tunnel option is selected as expected) is in reality IMMENSE, and would engulf Metro to the point of sapping all other project resources in terms of both funding and staffing.
  • commented 2015-07-23 23:12:03 -0700
    Will NOT vote for measure if funding will support any of these projects: SR-710 freeway tunnel, I-710, and High Desert Corridor. If these projects are included, I will campaign against the measure.
  • commented 2015-07-23 19:58:16 -0700
    I’ll vote for the measure no matter what, but to allot any less than 33% of the revenue to Metro Rail and Metrolink would be a disappointment. It’s crucial that we get these rail projects done ASAP. Repaving lanes on streets and highways can literally happen overnight.
  • commented 2015-07-23 17:27:56 -0700
    If money for any or all of the High Desert Corridor, Interstate 710 or SR 710 Projects are included in Measure R-2, not only would I not vote for the measure — no matter how many GOOD transit projects are included — but I would devote my my resources and efforts to DEFEATING the entire Measure R-2 2016 Initiative…
  • commented 2015-07-23 17:25:48 -0700
    I support surface light rail only. This is earthquake country. It would be a lot easier to rescue folks who have derailed than to search and rescue for people buried in a collapsed tunnel. The 405 should have had a light rail placed in the center instead of the commuter lanes. In fact if we had light rail down the middle of the main freeways we could eliminate the commuter lanes because of the reduced car traffic. Buses, taxis, Uber, and family vehicles could drop people off at the train stops and stations. Can you imagine the 101 and 134 having a light rail running parallel down the center going East and west or a set of rails going north and south along the 405? That’s just for starters. There’s the 118 and the 210 and the 5. There will always cars on the roads and freeways but a light rail intelligently designed and operated would go a long way to reduce traffic congestion and pollution.
  • commented 2015-07-23 12:50:24 -0700
    Just voted. While I definitely support rail over the Sepulveda Pass, whether in a tunnel or elevated, I do NOT support a toll tunnel for cars, which would just encourage more driving and add to congestion on tributary streets. The survey linked the two together. I support only the addition of rail over the pass. The recent HOV lane debacle on the 405 over said pass once again proved the folly of adding lanes to reduce congestion. It’s never worked, and never will.

Donate Volunteer Find an Event

connect

get updates