SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=171029)

202_Cyclist Jun 17, 2014 3:18 PM

Report urges new light-rail station, circulator train for LAX travel
 
Report urges new light-rail station, circulator train for LAX travel

By Laura Nelson
LA Times
June 16, 2014

"In a slight advancement of the decades-long debate over how to bring rail to Los Angeles International Airport, transportation officials Monday voiced their support for a project they said could solve one of Southern California’s most vexing and infamous planning dilemmas.

In a report made public Monday, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority staff members called for a $1.7-billion project that would include a train and a new light-rail station 1.5 miles to the east of LAX’s passenger terminals.

The $200-million station at 96th Street and Aviation Boulevard would connect to the Green Line, the Crenshaw Line and a so-called "people-mover," which would likely resemble San Francisco International Airport's circulator train. Although airport officials have not finalized a route, the circulator train could connect Metro rail to a consolidated rental car facility, a planned ground transportation hub and LAX's passenger terminals..."

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...616-story.html

StethJeff Jun 19, 2014 3:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 6621514)
Report urges new light-rail station, circulator train for LAX travel

By Laura Nelson
LA Times
June 16, 2014

"In a slight advancement of the decades-long debate over how to bring rail to Los Angeles International Airport, transportation officials Monday voiced their support for a project they said could solve one of Southern California’s most vexing and infamous planning dilemmas.

In a report made public Monday, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority staff members called for a $1.7-billion project that would include a train and a new light-rail station 1.5 miles to the east of LAX’s passenger terminals.

The $200-million station at 96th Street and Aviation Boulevard would connect to the Green Line, the Crenshaw Line and a so-called "people-mover," which would likely resemble San Francisco International Airport's circulator train. Although airport officials have not finalized a route, the circulator train could connect Metro rail to a consolidated rental car facility, a planned ground transportation hub and LAX's passenger terminals..."

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...616-story.html

Whatever it costs to make the system useful, accessible, extensive, and a clear alternative to cars/lots/garages/traffic/etc, I say do it. Especially when it comes to a city's airport(s), major railway stations, CBD, major universities, large cultural squares/parks, sports stadiums. In LA's case, the airport is far and away the top priority and should've been when this system was rolled out decades ago. Being one of the busiest airports on Earth, off of arguably the busiest freeway in the nation, and relatively central within the metro compared to other major airports, this ought to be a no-brainer. If the pencil pushers between Metro and LAX determine that the best way to connect the airport efficiently to the rest of the system is with a new station, then so be it. A connection to LAX is worth 5x wherever they decide to extend the Gold Line to in either direction or whatever commuter busway is built in the SFV. Dude, just build the fucking thing already.

202_Cyclist Jun 19, 2014 2:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StethJeff (Post 6624020)
A connection to LAX is worth 5x wherever they decide to extend the Gold Line to in either direction or whatever commuter busway is built in the SFV. Dude, just build the fucking thing already.

The new FAA Associate Administrator for Airports was most recently LA's chief legal counsel and was head legal counsel for LA World Airports prior to that. Additionally, Jerry Brown recently hired the head staff person for the Democrats on the House Aviation subcommittee to be his Dept. of Transportation and CA high speed rail lobbyist: http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18534 .

LAofAnaheim Jun 19, 2014 2:59 PM

Crenshaw Line is already under construction. The contract was awarded last year and full heavy construction has been kicking on Crenshaw, Inglewood and Prairie since January. The Crenshaw Line is expected to open in 2019. Another project financed by Measure R :)

As for this new station. If further approved, then it would be an add-on to an already constructed line. The Crenshaw Line will have a closer station to LAX (Century/Aviation) but LAX is requesting that Metro construct another station of an already under constructed line just .3 miles further away with this proposal. LAX argues 96th street will be cheaper and quicker to open to LAX. Whereas, the Century station (ironically closer to LAX) will open later and cost more to construct the People Mover connection.

As for delays, this is LAX finally talking to Metro. LAX has dragged their feet for years as they rather get the parking revenue. Now that Metro had something under construction, LAX is making Metro pour in more costs to something exhaustively studied. Century makes more sense than 96th. But it looks like Metro will adhere to LAX plans because everybody wants a rail connection to LAX. Unfortunately, LAX didn't work with Metro on the year long studies in the 2000s. To put it in perspective, LAX is adding another car lane to the airport. Got to love their priorities.....

202_Cyclist Jun 19, 2014 3:52 PM

LAofAnaheim:
Quote:

As for delays, this is LAX finally talking to Metro. LAX has dragged their feet for years as they rather get the parking revenue.
I attended a panel discussion, "Enhancing Airport Value," last week here in Washington. Nearly all of the panelists spoke about the importance of non-aeronautical revenue for the financing of airports and one of the most important sources of non-aeronautical revenue is parking revenue and rental car fees. LA World Airports seems like it is being perfectly rational, although at the expense of improved mobility for much of the rest of Southern California.

blackcat23 Jun 20, 2014 4:20 PM

http://zev.lacounty.gov/blog/a-stowaway-on-expo-2

Courtesy of Zev, a quick ride through part of Expo Phase II.

edluva Jun 27, 2014 5:46 AM

looks like we're getting a legitimate LAX station...


Metro Board approves new station at Aviation/96th as best option to connect to LAX people mover


http://lametthesource.files.wordpres...map1.jpg?w=584

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs...140626-002.jpg

and thanks to Garcetti, the station should be enclosed, include airline check-in, flight info boards, bathrooms, and taxi/car drop-off, retai, and a bike hub (?). the people mover could be completed "as soon as 2022" according to the source (highly doubtful if history is any indication) and would stop at a consolidated rental car facility. What I don't get is the need for a Aviation/Century station less than half a mile away. it is redundant and would only serve to slow down the train and add to the already high cost of the connection.

bobdreamz Jun 27, 2014 9:06 AM

^ Reminds me of what Miami currently has which is a people mover from the Airport to a Inter-modal center that connects with a rental car facility & with Metrorail, Metrobus , taxis and the Tri-Rail commuter rail that takes you W. Palm Beach all under one roof.
Good news for LA.

losangelesnative Jun 28, 2014 5:36 AM

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/...et-train-line/

Jaycruz Jul 2, 2014 6:20 PM

Living in LA for a few months now, I can see where a LOT of transit lines can go in place and I'm sure the city will put them into place eventually. I like where the city is going. LA is on the verge of being the city with more transit options available than any other if you think about it. Just wished that the process would speed up a tad bit.

Muji Jul 29, 2014 5:34 PM

The LA Times ran a feature yesterday about fare evasion on Metro Rail. The main metric used is the difference between Metro's ridership estimates and the number of recorded entries (not a perfect indicator, but a fairly good one). It's a decently balanced article, and the figures in there are well worth a browse. Overall, things have improved since the beginning of gate latching. In January 2013, the systemwide ridership estimate was about double the number of actual paid entries; in April 2014, ridership exceeded paid entries by about 30%. Unsurprisingly, gains have been most impressive on the Red and Purple Lines, where all stations are now gated, while most of the light rail lines continue to lag behind.

Link: http://graphics.latimes.com/los-angeles-metro-riders/

edluva Jul 31, 2014 9:19 PM

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...ry.html#page=1

Audit exposes management failures at L.A.'s Bureau of Street Services

thought I'd post this... an article exposing the culture of incompetence and indifference pervasive throughout LAs municipal government. LA is one of the worse managed big cities out there given the resources allotted it by residents. it's full of bureaucratic pensioners who could care less about innovation or difference-making. LA needs to recruit visionaries from more forward thinking, educated cities (eg Seleta Reynolds) in order to shake things up because it sure as hell can't breed them from within.

what makes my blood boil is the fact that the bureau of street services failed to collect a total of $198 million since 1998 to fund street repairs. it also failed to spend an additional $21 million from 2010 through 2013 that it was given via feds (it was returned to the feds) and instead, it just sat on its ass while the backlog of streets needing repair continued to pile up.

and this is just one agency. I can guarantee this goes on throughout local government. DWP, for instance, has a 200 year water main replacement plan in place (water mains don't even last a century)

I can't believe they're keeping the director, sauceda, after this revelation. in addition to her, we've had clowns like gil cedillo, paul koretz, parks, and former councilman Richard Alarcon who is currently being indicted on perjury and voter fraud. one step forward, two steps back. LA is full of dumb uneducated people with power, and this is the result.

202_Cyclist Aug 8, 2014 6:25 PM

Santa Ana selects preferred streetcar route
 
Santa Ana selects preferred streetcar route

By Douglas John Bowen
Railway Age
Aug. 7, 2014

http://www.railwayage.com/media/k2/i...ed3af650_L.jpg
Image courtesy of Railway Age.

"By a 4-to-0 vote, the Santa Ana, Calif., City Council has chosen a proposed 4.1-mile streetcar route along the city's Fourth Street as a preferred option over a route along Fifth Street, citing existing foot traffic as a factor.

The council vote, taken Tuesday, Aug. 5, 2014, came despite near-immediate pushback from area residents and local businesses concerned about streetcar construction and loss of parking.

City officials see the Santa Ana line as an initial segment of a larger system linking with a similar streetcar proposed for nearby Anaheim, and eventually perhaps reaching beyond Orange County into neighboring Los Angeles County..."

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/...tml?channel=61

202_Cyclist Aug 8, 2014 6:47 PM

ARTIC transit station on track to open by year's end
 
ARTIC transit station on track to open by year's end
A 67,000-square-foot terminal will provide passengers with access to trains, buses and taxis.

BY ART MARROQUIN
Aug. 7, 2014
Orange County Register

http://images.onset.freedom.com/ocre...ic.0808.cc.jpg
The Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), a bus and train depot near Angel Stadium is expected to be open at the end of the year. Anaheim city officials on Thursday took reporters on a tour of the facility. (Image courtesy of the Orange Co. Register)

A canopy of white, plastic pillows encase a new transportation hub under construction near Angel Stadium.

Inside, crews continue to install gleaming glass windows and other shiny fixtures at the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, a 67,000-square-foot terminal that will provide passengers with access to trains, buses and taxis by December.

“It’s always been my objective to introduce transit to a whole new group of people, and not to just build something like this for people who are already using transit,” Natalie Meeks, head of Anaheim’s Public Works Department, said Thursday afternoon as she led reporters on a tour of the future transit station..."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/a...n-transit.html

bobdreamz Aug 8, 2014 7:52 PM

^ Very nice design for a Intermodal Center! There are 12 slides here :

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/a...sit.html?pic=2

edluva Aug 9, 2014 11:56 PM

Big, big news for California. The fact that probably few here even know about it shows how little forumers here understand urbanism, and demonstrates how superficial our fanboy project updating and our obsession with power lines (citywatch ;)) appears in the grand scheme of things. For anyone who cares, this is real, fundamental change, the likes of which will see us move more towards a European model of city-building and set precedence for a nationwide end to limitless sprawl

Yesterday in Sacramento the LOS (Level of Service) planning metric was removed as a required element of CEQA (EIR) reviews of proposed developments. This applies as much to environmental reviews of private sector developments (housing/retail etc) as it does to infrastructure (eg road diets)

the significance is huge. LOS has probably been the single biggest source of ammunition for NIMBY lawsuits against dense ped-friendly developments nationwide, and as a single planning metric, probably contributed most to the sprawl that American cities are notorious for because it made sprawl much more cost-effective for developers than urbanism. LOS has been invoked by NIMBYs to de-densify developments by labeling any impact on car throughput and car throughput alone an "environmental impact" which must be mitigated. The effect was that all developers/municipalities were forced to mitigate forseen impacts to car traffic by widening streets/freeways, downsizing proposals, and altering urban design in order to accommodate increased traffic, making for the car-centric urban landscape prevalent throughout America.

Without LOS, developers need not worry about their impact on automobile traffic, so long as alternate transportation modes are made available. This means that municipalities will be free to divert a greater share of transportation funding to non-automobile based mitigations such as bike and rail infrastructure, and it means developers can propose denser projects focused on pedestrians/bicyclists rather than cars, without facing the spectre of costly project-killing lawsuits. This change alone is going to do more to accelerate urbanization of California cities than all of the half-assed low quality urban infill going on today.

Quote:

California Has Officially Ditched Car-Centric ‘Level of Service’

Ding, dong…LOS is dead.

At least as far as the state of California is concerned.

Level of Service (LOS) has been the standard by which the state measures the transportation impacts of major developments and changes to roads. Level of Service is basically a measurement of how many cars can be pushed through an intersection in a given time. If a project reduced a road’s Level of Service it was considered bad — no matter how many other benefits the project might create.

Now, thanks to legislation passed last year and a yearlong effort by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), California will no longer consider “bad” LOS a problem that needs fixing under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . This won’t just lead to good projects being approved more quickly and easily, but also to better mitigation measures for transportation impacts.

Late yesterday, OPR released a draft of its revised guidelines [PDF], proposing to substitute Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for LOS.

In short, instead of measuring whether or not a project makes it less convenient to drive, it will now measure whether or not a project contributes to other state goals, like reducing greenhouse gas emissions, developing multimodal transportation, preserving open spaces, and promoting diverse land uses and infill development. ...

http://la.streetsblog.org/2014/08/07...el-of-service/

Busy Bee Aug 10, 2014 3:37 AM

Awesome! And thanks for the thorough explainer.

202_Cyclist Aug 10, 2014 2:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobdreamz (Post 6685067)
^ Very nice design for a Intermodal Center! There are 12 slides here :

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/a...sit.html?pic=2

I agree, it is a very nice station. My complaint, however, is the amount of parking surrounding this, the Pond, and Angel stadium. The is a great opportunity to develop a walkable neighborhood around this station instead of having a sea of surface parking.

I recall reading last year that the owner of the Angels (lets go Halos!) was interested in building housing near the stadium.

EDIT-- here are details about the proposal:
"A city-hired appraiser, for example, said Tuesday night that after making room for parking and roads, 86 acres of the property could be developed with 3,070 housing units, 410,000 square feet of retail space and 750,000 square feet of offices..."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/c...-property.html

dabcom Aug 10, 2014 9:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edluva (Post 6685992)
Big, big news for California. The fact that probably few here even know about it shows how little forumers here understand urbanism, and demonstrates how superficial our fanboy project updating and our obsession with power lines (citywatch ;)) appears in the grand scheme of things. For anyone who cares, this is real, fundamental change, the likes of which will see us move more towards a European model of city-building and set precedence for a nationwide end to limitless sprawl

Yesterday in Sacramento the LOS (Level of Service) planning metric was removed as a required element of CEQA (EIR) reviews of proposed developments. This applies as much to environmental reviews of private sector developments (housing/retail etc) as it does to infrastructure (eg road diets)

the significance is huge. LOS has probably been the single biggest source of ammunition for NIMBY lawsuits against dense ped-friendly developments nationwide, and as a single planning metric, probably contributed most to the sprawl that American cities are notorious for because it made sprawl much more cost-effective for developers than urbanism. LOS has been invoked by NIMBYs to de-densify developments by labeling any impact on car throughput and car throughput alone an "environmental impact" which must be mitigated. The effect was that all developers/municipalities were forced to mitigate forseen impacts to car traffic by widening streets/freeways, downsizing proposals, and altering urban design in order to accommodate increased traffic, making for the car-centric urban landscape prevalent throughout America.

Without LOS, developers need not worry about their impact on automobile traffic, so long as alternate transportation modes are made available. This means that municipalities will be free to divert a greater share of transportation funding to non-automobile based mitigations such as bike and rail infrastructure, and it means developers can propose denser projects focused on pedestrians/bicyclists rather than cars, without facing the spectre of costly project-killing lawsuits. This change alone is going to do more to accelerate urbanization of California cities than all of the half-assed low quality urban infill going on today.




http://la.streetsblog.org/2014/08/07...el-of-service/

Awesome.

202_Cyclist Aug 11, 2014 6:57 PM

eHighway system coming to ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles
 
eHighway system coming to ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles

By Karen Robes Meeks
LA Daily News
Aug. 10, 2014

http://www.dailynews.com/apps/pbcsi....h=400&maxw=667
Image courtesy of the LA Daily News.

"Next summer, technology that powers today’s trolleys and streetcars may soon power trucks traveling to and from the nation’s two busiest seaports in a demonstration that officials hope will lead to cleaner air.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District in July is expected to start a yearlong demonstration of an “eHighway” system near the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

The first of its kind in the U.S., the $13.5 million highway project to be built starting in early 2015 will consist of a two-way, 1-mile overhead electric catenary system that will run on Alameda Street from East Lomita Boulevard to the Dominguez Channel..."

http://www.dailynews.com/article/201...NEWS/140819971


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.