HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4401  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2017, 6:44 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Trump for Treason.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: No Trump. No KKK. No racism in the USA.
Posts: 3,996
Green line extension

Could light rail through South Bay be built in time for 2028 Olympics? Stay tuned

Daily Breeze
Oct. 15, 2017
By Nick Green

"Proponents of a long-dormant 4.6-mile light rail extension that would slice through the South Bay to Torrance are attempting to find the money and commitment to finish the project by 2028, when Southern California will host the Summer Olympics.

Metro has resurrected plans for the line, which would connect with the Green Line extension that already comes into the South Bay and cut through Lawndale and Redondo Beach to its terminus in Torrance. The current time table, however, calls for a groundbreaking in 2026 and completion sometime in 2030 through 2033, however.

“Would it be prudent to accelerate it just for the Olympics?” asked Jacki Bacharach, executive director of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments. “That’s the discussion we’re going to have probably for the next six months...”

http://www.dailybreeze.com/2017/10/1...cs-stay-tuned/
__________________
No Trump. No KKK. No racism in the USA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4402  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2017, 9:43 PM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,202
Its infuriating that Metro takes the cheap way out of things but not always the easiest.

We all see that Metro is infatuated with light rail. FINE. Go the cheap and easy way of doing what was done with the blue line in Long Beach. We have plenty of extra wide avenues and boulevards, why not throw light rail down the center of those on the cheap and give signal prioritzation ?

Hawthorne blvd is soooo wide, its literally, at most points, 4 lanes wide on both sides WITH PARKING IN THE CENTER OF IT ????? rip up the parking, plop down some light rail and call it a day. There are other streets just as wide and just as busy that can be done the same way. With Signal priortization ofcourse.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4403  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 12:29 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,598
Well if Metro is insistent on extending the Green Line WHY DON'T THEY EXTEND IT TO THE FUCKING METROLINK STATION A MILE AWAY LIKE A RATIONAL FUCKING TRANSIT AGENCY THAT IS TRYING TO CREATE A COHESIVE FUCKING TRANSIT SYSTEM LIKE A TRANSIT AGENCY IS SUPPOSED TO DO
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4404  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 12:55 AM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 466
They are going to do that, and have already started scoping it because they think they can accelerate it.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4405  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 3:43 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
They are going to do that, and have already started scoping it because they think they can accelerate it.
Thank god. Such an embarrassing gap in our transit system. Honestly, if can get the Sepulveda line done down to Expo and Sepulveda, and the Crenshaw Line up to Hollywood by 2028, I'd be comfortable in saying that LA has reached the bare minimum of having a usable and comprehensive transit system for the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4406  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 5:34 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: California
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
Could light rail through South Bay be built in time for 2028 Olympics? Stay tuned

Daily Breeze
Oct. 15, 2017
By Nick Green

"Proponents of a long-dormant 4.6-mile light rail extension that would slice through the South Bay to Torrance are attempting to find the money and commitment to finish the project by 2028, when Southern California will host the Summer Olympics.

Metro has resurrected plans for the line, which would connect with the Green Line extension that already comes into the South Bay and cut through Lawndale and Redondo Beach to its terminus in Torrance. The current time table, however, calls for a groundbreaking in 2026 and completion sometime in 2030 through 2033, however.

“Would it be prudent to accelerate it just for the Olympics?” asked Jacki Bacharach, executive director of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments. “That’s the discussion we’re going to have probably for the next six months...”

http://www.dailybreeze.com/2017/10/1...cs-stay-tuned/
^^^ This is really the reason I supported the Olympics. In another city such things might be a boondoggle or white elephant but not in LA where there’s the population but a dearth of public transport. I hope they bump up the time line.
__________________
“Skyscrapers! Unhealthy ugly giants! To live and work as close as to the land is a blessing! Remember, you are not a cloud! Come down and live on the ground!”
― Mehmet Murat ildan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4407  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 11:23 AM
phoenixboi08's Avatar
phoenixboi08 phoenixboi08 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Brunswick, NJ
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by caligrad View Post
Its infuriating that Metro takes the cheap way out of things but not always the easiest.

We all see that Metro is infatuated with light rail. FINE. Go the cheap and easy way of doing what was done with the blue line in Long Beach. We have plenty of extra wide avenues and boulevards, why not throw light rail down the center of those on the cheap and give signal prioritzation ?

Hawthorne blvd is soooo wide, its literally, at most points, 4 lanes wide on both sides WITH PARKING IN THE CENTER OF IT ????? rip up the parking, plop down some light rail and call it a day. There are other streets just as wide and just as busy that can be done the same way. With Signal priortization ofcourse.
Wait, aren’t they building it within the freight ROW? I think that’s cheaper/easier/faster than trying to put it in a road - at least, in LA - no?

I’d be interested in knowing just how much ridership would change in either scenario; it sounds like that’s what you’re getting at.

In any case, doesn’t the Harbor Subdivision extend nearly all the way down to Long Beach? It seems like they should just extend the Green Line there in one fell swoop, instead of continuing these incremental extensions, which require yards/facitilities to be built at each terminus when they should simply be located once, in the most logical endpoint.

Theoretically, in the long-term, a new service pattern could be implemented with some Blue Line trains at Long Beach & at Willowbrooks/Rosa Park continuing on as Green Line trains and vice versa, effectively creating a “Circle Line.”

Given existing development pressures in Long Beach (citizens think higher desntities without better transit are unwarranted) and the Olympics, just extending the line fully at once seems to make the most sense ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Video Link
__________________
MCRP '16
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4408  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2017, 7:33 PM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,202
^^^ Yeah, metro is following old rail ROWs but the problem with doing it that way is that its a hit or miss which might be lowering potential ridership totals by missing all the key points of interest. Cheaper rail is never good rail. Like the green line extension. Its current route seems to be overly excited about the south bay galleria, a mall that has been struggling for a while now. Yeah its being partially torn down and turned into a mixed use project with excessive parking but, building transit on "Maybes" has never worked and the green line is the poster child of this and at aero space industry it will built to support.

Hawthorne Blvd. is probably one of the busiest streets in the south bay if not LA in general. Its northern end, it becomes La Brea. The Hawthorne portion is mostly straight, really wide, has all kinds of jobs and businesses along its route, not to mention the Del Amo mall and a straight shot to PCH which could eventually get its own rail line.

The northern end of Hawthorne gets a name change to La Brea, another dense corridor, full of businesses and land marks. A Hawthorne line could have its northern terminus be Hollywood blvd or the front door of the Chinese theater. Not to mention, it passes within less than half a mile of the forum, future football stadium and potentially a new NBA stadium in Inglewood. Its a no brainer line that would see high ridership but metro would rather zig zag endlessly and say "well at least we tried".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4409  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2017, 1:25 PM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 466
It's kind of interesting to blame them for not seeing the future. Planning for the Crenshaw line predates the NFL coming back to town by over a decade. Anyway, a line on Hawthorne that interlined with the Crenshaw Line north to La Brea would do everything you're saying. There's no real merit to tunneling under ladera heights in order to skip Crenshaw. Way more expensive and no ridership potential.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4410  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2017, 5:45 PM
phoenixboi08's Avatar
phoenixboi08 phoenixboi08 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Brunswick, NJ
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
It's kind of interesting to blame them for not seeing the future. Planning for the Crenshaw line predates the NFL coming back to town by over a decade. Anyway, a line on Hawthorne that interlined with the Crenshaw Line north to La Brea would do everything you're saying. There's no real merit to tunneling under ladera heights in order to skip Crenshaw. Way more expensive and no ridership potential.
Right...that was implicit, I thought. I think they're clearly already thinking of an extension to Inglewood, at least that's what's been reported.

It would make sense to make use of the Harbor Subdivision w/ the Green Line (mostly, if they just extend it to Long Beach) and extend the Crenshaw Line along that corridor.
__________________
MCRP '16
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4411  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2017, 8:22 PM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 466
You're saying the opposite thing as caligrad - use the existing ROW instead of Hawthorne Bl.

The connection to the stadium is not likely to be a light rail extension. It will probably be a people mover or monorail. Urbanize might have more on that soon.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4412  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2017, 12:11 PM
phoenixboi08's Avatar
phoenixboi08 phoenixboi08 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Brunswick, NJ
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
You're saying the opposite thing as caligrad - use the existing ROW instead of Hawthorne Bl.

The connection to the stadium is not likely to be a light rail extension. It will probably be a people mover or monorail. Urbanize might have more on that soon.
I was more so misunderstanding your point.

I suppose what I’m trying to get at is that Metro seems to have a strategy of interlining lines together, as an interim step, before later branching them off.

I could see a future in which the Harbour Subdivision is used for a southern extension with both Crenshaw/Green Line interlining (if that’s even possible), and later on making use of the northern half of the subdivision (to LAUS) to create a new line (that would internline with the Green Line to Long Beach), and then then create a new branch of the Crenshaw Line down a different corridor.

I just don’t think it’s inherently zero-sum for Metro to build within the cheaper corridor for now, and then “fill in” the network later, provided there is good enough ridership for the former - hence, why I think they ought to just go down to Long Beach outright.
__________________
MCRP '16
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4413  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2017, 5:44 PM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 466
I definitely agree that it would have made more sense to include the full corridor to Long Beach in Measure M. It's a key failing of M that it doesn't extend the corridor as defined in Measure R at all. Not one extra stop.

Metro has indicated on several occasions that they intend to run both Green and Crenshaw Line trains on the Harbor Sub, although lately Steve Hymon has been saying that's not yet set in stone. Interlining is a bad plan here (mostly because of where the branch point is), and they should keep the lines separate until the time comes to extend the Green Line north on Lincoln. But the connection will be in place, via the Crenshaw Line, to do exactly what you're talking about using the northern part of the Harbor Sub.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4414  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2017, 3:14 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
I definitely agree that it would have made more sense to include the full corridor to Long Beach in Measure M. It's a key failing of M that it doesn't extend the corridor as defined in Measure R at all. Not one extra stop.

Metro has indicated on several occasions that they intend to run both Green and Crenshaw Line trains on the Harbor Sub, although lately Steve Hymon has been saying that's not yet set in stone. Interlining is a bad plan here (mostly because of where the branch point is), and they should keep the lines separate until the time comes to extend the Green Line north on Lincoln. But the connection will be in place, via the Crenshaw Line, to do exactly what you're talking about using the northern part of the Harbor Sub.
They do put a footnote in the ordinance for that Green Line project to say that there will be studies to extend it to the Blue Line in Long Beach. It says that no construction funds will be used to fund the studies, but it does not say that they cannot use Green Line Measure M funds on the construction of any such an extension.

Measure R+M brings the total funds for the project to $891 million.

An idea of the costs for the various additional segments can be found on page 5 of this document (2009 dollars) http://media.metro.net/projects_stud...ectiveness.pdf

Based on the link, the cost to get to Torrance is $494 million, but the $400 million extra brought by Measure M is not enough to get to the Blue Line, unless they can get funding elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4415  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2017, 3:18 PM
phoenixboi08's Avatar
phoenixboi08 phoenixboi08 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Brunswick, NJ
Posts: 541
Good to know.
__________________
MCRP '16
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4416  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2017, 6:54 PM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 28
I think that this is a great idea. Would love to see the numbers on population density and projected ridership to get a better sense of how this compares to competing projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4417  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2017, 12:22 AM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
They do put a footnote in the ordinance for that Green Line project to say that there will be studies to extend it to the Blue Line in Long Beach. It says that no construction funds will be used to fund the studies, but it does not say that they cannot use Green Line Measure M funds on the construction of any such an extension.

Measure R+M brings the total funds for the project to $891 million.

An idea of the costs for the various additional segments can be found on page 5 of this document (2009 dollars) http://media.metro.net/projects_stud...ectiveness.pdf

Based on the link, the cost to get to Torrance is $494 million, but the $400 million extra brought by Measure M is not enough to get to the Blue Line, unless they can get funding elsewhere.
I think you've misread the politics of the footnote. That Metro study the Green Line to Long Beach was a request of Long Beach, which is a member of the Gateway Cities COG, not the South Bay Cities COG (funder of the present extension). That is why it's stipulated that the study will not be funded using capital dollars for the Green Line Extension. The South Bay has not shown an interest in extending the line further, as evidenced by them opting not to extend the project area any further than that laid out by Measure R.

Supposing the extension costs less than available funds, that money can be used to fund other projects within the subregion, but only once it is agreed upon by the board members that all costs related to the project have been finalized which could be when the line opens or several years afterward. At that point, even if it were sufficient money to get to the Blue Line, which as you noted, it won't be, that money could not be spent within the city of Long Beach.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4418  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2017, 12:32 AM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 466
All of which to say, yes it could be extended further, but not really through Measure M money. Which is why I called that a major failing of the measure.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4419  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2017, 3:26 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,865
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
All of which to say, yes it could be extended further, but not really through Measure M money. Which is why I called that a major failing of the measure.
What was promised to the voters during the Measure M and Measure R referendums? Is Metro failing to build what was promised, or are proponents wishing to change the funding priorities from what was promised?

If the promises were not clear in the first place, maybe the voters should have rejected the Measures?

One thing is clear, apparently neither Measure provides enough funding to build everything, especially those items not promised, and possible some items that were promised.But that's not something new here. There's never enough money to do everything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4420  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2017, 4:20 AM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
What was promised to the voters during the Measure M and Measure R referendums? Is Metro failing to build what was promised, or are proponents wishing to change the funding priorities from what was promised?
M and R were planned through entirely different-looking processes. R was unabashedly designed to fund the Purple Line Extension, and the expenditure plan put together by the Villaraigosa-era Metro Board was front loaded with unfunded projects from the LRTP to build a broader support base. Most projects included in R were nowhere near fully funded. Had the Great Recession not happened, or, had the federal legislature moved more aggressively on infrastructure stimulus in 2009, we might have been able to build more of the R program. But that didn't happen, so we tried Measure J, and that failed too.

M was put together by the COGs and subregions. COGs are joint powers authorities consisting of contiguous groups of cities (and parts of cities in LA's case), along with the ports, airports and some other entities. They operated as geographic blocs determining their needs within the constraint of a population-based dollar cap given to them by Metro. This "bottoms-up" approach, as Metro calls it, was meant to be more equitable and representative, despite the fact that it was fairly opaque, screwed Central and South LA (i.e. Places Where People Ride Transit), and elevated some of the least accountable public entities around.

The failure here is not that Metro is breaking promises, nor that people are expecting more than what was promised. It's that the COGs by and large were completely incurious about the region's transit needs. SGV, South Bay, Gateway Cities, all of them basically just threw money at whatever rail line they happened to know existed and shrugged. That's why we're getting the two-pronged Gold Line to nowhere and why the Green Line is still only going to Crenshaw Bl in Torrance.


Quote:
If the promises were not clear in the first place, maybe the voters should have rejected the Measures?
Yeah i mean.. it's a close call. Wait for something better or hope you can get 2/3 approval? I ended up voting yes personally even though I was not happy about the project list.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:01 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.