Amendments to SB 79 will be published on Tuesday. This is what I'm hearing: 1) Tier 3 stops (most Metrolink + less-urban areas) have been removed 2) Local government opt-outs around fire zones + historic 3) Clarified language around planned stops
Replies
Will be curious to see the amendments around historic stuff as that’s been a real battle recently. But I’m also of the mind the legislature may take more action on the overall issue of historic district abuse soon
aug 30, 2025, 1:16 am • 3 0 • view
You just know #2 will be heavily abused. Let’s hope they drop that or, the least, tightly define “historic” such that it apples only to officially designated historic sites at the time of the bill’s enactment lest Beverly Hills designates the Wilshire/La Cienaga intersection as “historic”. Ugh. 😑
aug 29, 2025, 9:52 pm • 9 0 • view
My advice to people is to not freak out about any of these changes, and wait for the language to come out.
aug 29, 2025, 11:00 pm • 21 3 • view
“I’d like a plain bagel with everything on it, please.”
aug 29, 2025, 10:54 pm • 9 0 • view
Limiting scope is kind of the opposite of extra bagel topping. But also a common problem lol
aug 30, 2025, 4:49 am • 3 0 • view
bsky.app/profile/brad...
aug 29, 2025, 10:13 pm • 0 0 • view
Only the D line? That’s the worst exemption.
aug 30, 2025, 3:18 am • 2 0 • view
#2 is fucking awful, but if it only applies to historic districts created before the bill is signed into law then it wouldn't hurt the impact of the bill too much? If it also applies to new historic districts then... my lord.
aug 29, 2025, 9:31 pm • 23 0 • view
Following
aug 29, 2025, 9:52 pm • 2 0 • view
Exactly this @scottwiener.bsky.social.
aug 29, 2025, 9:53 pm • 8 0 • view
elements of this, ranked by how ok i am with them: 1. Ferry Service (Tier 3) removed 2. Planned stop clarifications 3. Fire Hazard Zone opt-outs 4. Less-frequent commuter rail (Tier 3) removed 5. Historic Zone opt-outs 6. Suburban Counties (Tier 3) removed I only really dislike the last 2-3
aug 29, 2025, 10:51 pm • 2 0 • view
Will there be any clarification w/r/t busway/lane ambiguity? As has come up a few times lately
aug 29, 2025, 10:46 pm • 0 0 • view
It applies to full-time bus lanes or busways, if the stop also meets the Major Transit Stop definition. I'm not sure what the confusion is that you're referring to.
aug 29, 2025, 10:57 pm • 1 0 • view
Referring to the bunch of discussion in this thread - in which there were several questions. J Line applicability, why the author's seemingly stated intent doesn't seem to align with what's actually written, and a couple other points
aug 30, 2025, 4:36 am • 0 0 • view
The author apparently said the J Line qualified but may not know what the J Line is. There isn’t a reason why the J Line should qualify unless other freeway buses like MTS 225 and 235 are going to qualify as well.
aug 30, 2025, 4:45 am • 1 0 • view
The J line will qualify at the point of dedicated freeway stations, but not at the point where it is in mixed traffic
aug 30, 2025, 8:14 am • 0 0 • view
Except that the toll lanes are much less quality than a full time bus lane. That may end up costing the Rubios’ vote.
aug 30, 2025, 4:20 pm • 0 0 • view
#2 fuuuuuuuuck
aug 29, 2025, 9:12 pm • 10 0 • view
Hopefully in the future they can pass a bill that repeals these amendments. Especially #2
aug 29, 2025, 9:34 pm • 6 0 • view
But, I am gonna wait till Tuesday, and I’m gonna hope these amendments aren’t actually gonna be that bad or ridiculous as you’ve heard, i hope #2 was just gossip, and not an actual real amendment because that would suck.
aug 29, 2025, 9:37 pm • 4 0 • view