HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #781  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2010, 4:13 AM
bmfarley's Avatar
bmfarley bmfarley is offline
Long-Time Californian
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California; All Over
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
"...By the way, from looking at the maps of New York's subway system, it seems several lines use the same ROW in many cases. ..."

But, whatever, there are plenty of possibilities that deserve as much or more attention right now, like a Purple Line extension to Whittier.
I spoke to "sharing track". Of coure, to share track means you are also sharing the ROW, but, being in the same ROW does not mean 'sharing trackage.' Bottomline, the intent was to point out that a limited number of trains can occupy the same physical space over a period of time.
__________________
- Think Big, Go Big. Think small, stay small.
- Don't get sucked into a rabbit's hole.
- Freeways build sprawl. Transit builds cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #782  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2010, 4:18 AM
bmfarley's Avatar
bmfarley bmfarley is offline
Long-Time Californian
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California; All Over
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeHundred View Post
Why not have the Green Line be 2 lines? Green Line A could go to LAX and Green Line B could go to wherever it will ultimately end up.
I am not certain that changes much, although more capacity would open up on what-ever sement has less green line service, then it becomes a coordination thing.
__________________
- Think Big, Go Big. Think small, stay small.
- Don't get sucked into a rabbit's hole.
- Freeways build sprawl. Transit builds cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #783  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2010, 6:14 PM
Wright Concept's Avatar
Wright Concept Wright Concept is offline
I just ran out of B***sht
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 2,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post

The Crenshaw Line doesn't really serve anyone: it starts in low density housing and manufacturing with huge parking lots that make walking to the stations impractical; goes endlessly through low density housing (try and find 3 buildings over 2 stories for 5 miles in the middle of the Crenshaw route); and ends in the middle of the least developed part of Wilshire.
Connections to DT make no sense since Green/Blue already goes there; and anything along the 405 beats the Crenshaw Line to the westside. Taking a car up the 405 at Friday rush hour would be MUCH quicker.
If you're coming from Westwood or Century City (maybe) on the 405 you're right, however the Beverly Hills/Mid Wilshire/WeHo area where is no such direct freeway which makes transit line very time competative and useful to serve the direct connection.

Quote:
...and ends in the middle of the least developed part of Wilshire
An opportunity to spur new growth and develeopment combined with the Wilshire Purple Line extension with a major transfer station at that hub.

This also depends on which location on Wilshire you're refering to. Wilshire/San Vicente? Wilshire/Fairfax? Wilshire/La Brea? It couldn't be Wilshire/Crenshaw which has been eliminated for Rail contenion.

Quote:
...And some day it may connect to the hip parts of La Brea and Melrose (just like the black, Latino and Korean families along the route have been demanding?)...And who exactly is going from Washington or Pico and Crenshaw to LAX? And why would anyone from DT (or going through DT) use Crenshaw for LAX when Blue/Green exists? Ditto for the westside; car or shuttle along the 405 is much faster.
Those folks on Washington or Pico along Crenshaw maybe those TSM workers at the Airport Terminals or who work on the Cargo areas to service a load your luggage on those planes.

Also those black, Latino and Korean families who are trying to look for better employment centers quickly (Westside and South Bay/El Segundo -one of the 10 largest in LA County employment) which is what this service would provide and connections from other lines to feed the network.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully
The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #784  
Old Posted May 3, 2010, 8:23 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500


Sneak Peek Look: Metrolink's New Cars, Touted as the 'Safest Passenger Rail Cars in the USA'

By Zach Behrens
May 3, 2010

Metrolink today is previewing one of their new 117 Crash Energy Management (CEM)-enabled cars. After the deadly 2005 Metrolink crash in Glendale that left 11 dead, officials began looking into safer cars. The 2008 crash that left 25 dead in Chatsworth only reemphasized that need for safety.

The cars are supposedly reduce the impact with "unique collision-absorption technology" and are a first for the country, which is garnering praise from federal officials. Other safety features the agency is rolling out include monitoring engineers with a camera and installing positive train control, a GPS technology that can prevent trains from colliding into each other.

This morning, a media preview will take place in Colton, where the Korean-made trains will be assembled in hopes of deploying them in the fall. The cars were originally proposed to be made in Los Angeles, bringing in 200 jobs (.pdf), but the plan was scrapped because the space needed was to be turned into a park. The public will be able to check out the cars in San Bernardino and Union Station May 8th, which happens to be National Train Day.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #785  
Old Posted May 3, 2010, 9:29 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500

These were the place mats awaiting guests at yesterday's conference. Nice work Transit Coalition - DN

A Clean, Green, Vertical Los Angeles – The 30/10 Love Train

By Gloria Ohland
April 30, 2010

(Since leaving the LA Weekly, where she did everything from review bands to serve as transportation writer, Gloria Ohland has been heavily involved in the transit reform scene. Most recently she worked with the T.O.D. advocacy group Reconnecting America. You'll be seeing more of her writing here in the very near future...DN)

Let’s be clear: The “30-10” transit plan to build nine new rail and three new bus rapid transit lines over a decade is a really big deal. That infusion of investment ($18 billion for transit capital out of a total $30 billion for capital and operations) and jobs (166,000) could jolt LA County at least part-way out of the recession. But even more importantly, the coalition that has come together in support of 30-10 – business, labor, enviros, elected officials, Metro board members – is also a big deal. Some say it’s the first time the L.A. County Congressional delegation has ever united in support of something.

And if the Move LA coalition can mobilize this “30-10” transportation and economic development game-changer what’s to stop the coalition from going even further?

I refer you to this map that was passed out at Denny Zane’s Move LA confab on Thursday at the downtown Cathedral, which was attended by some 300 people including everyone from Mayor Villaraigosa to California Assembly Transportation Committee Chair Bonnie Lowenthal. Not all the new lines on this map are funded by Measure R. But those that aren’t are either under construction or under serious consideration. Add to that the bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure that could be funded by the $6 billion of Measure R funding that’s allocated for Local Return to cities. This represents a massive investment in non-auto infrastructure. Suddenly LA looks a lot like a transit metropolis.

But there’s more: Because of SB 375 most cities in LA County will be seriously considering “going vertical” around new rail stations to reduce VMT and GHG emissions. Former Urban Partners developer Dan Rosenfeld, now deputy to Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas, told the audience he thinks projects near stations should be able to move ahead “by right” if they’re green, have an affordable component, and no more than one parking space per unit. He suggested a height limit of 200 feet in neighborhoods along Wilshire, for example, and 80 feet in neighborhoods like downtown Pasadena – the same as the Moule and Polyzoides designed Del Mar Station that Rosenfeld developed.

Admittedly, 30-10 is not the perfect plan. For example, it’s expediting $10 billion for highway projects. And never mind whether you believe LA Metro will actually be able to do a good job of concurrently managing 12 new transit projects, or that we’ll be able to find the money to operate them. “It’s a little like mounting a mission to the moon and invading Europe at the same time,” Richard Little, director of USCs Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy, told the audience. And it’s true that the political coalition supporting 30-10 is a little fragile, as was noted by Inglewood Councilmember Danny Tabor as well as other elected officials who won’t see rail lines getting built anywhere near their cities.

But meetings in Washington DC have intensified and the next 60-90 days are considered critical; something needs to happen before Congress adjourns for the summer. Senator Barbara Boxer, considered politically vulnerable in Southern California, is working hard to get LA the money – maybe with a bridge loan or a loan guarantee that could help leverage funding from the private sector.

The federal government appears sympathetic. And why not? L.A. County is the only place where residents have voted to tax themselves three times in order to build a transit system; in L.A. County we now pay 1.5 cents of the sales tax to transit. No other region in the U.S. has come to the federal government and been so bold as to ask for a $9 billion loan for transit and offered to pay it back. That is exactly the kind of behavior that the Obama Administration should be encouraging.

Thirty-five speakers representing the Move LA coalition were arrayed across the large room facing each other in two large half-circles, brainstorming about ways to fund the infrastructure that the U.S. so badly needs to stay competitive with countries like China, for example, which is building 46 high-speed rail lines. There were conversations about investing pension fund money from CalPERS, CalSTERS and SEIU. And allowing transportation commissions to add a $30 “congestion fee” to the cost of a car license; multiply that by the 7 million cars in LA County and it could raise $200 million a year to pay for transit operations. And by reducing parking requirements for developers who buy lifetime transit passes for their renters or buyers – providing Metro with a steady stream of money for operations as well as riders.

“Imagine how many votes we would have gotten for Measure R if voters knew that we’d build all the rail lines in 10 years,” said Zane, who moderated the day-long discussion. “If we also lowered the votes required to pass local sales tax measures from 67 percent to 55 percent it would be a new day for transportation in California.”

The gathering also provided Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa with an opportunity to be triumphant. "People laughed at me when I said Los Angeles would become the cleanest, greenest U.S. city. But we could attain that goal if we go vertical and build transit villages around all the new stations,” said the Mayor. "I told President Obama that it's important that we build these new transit lines during his administration."
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #786  
Old Posted May 3, 2010, 11:05 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Do you see why people don't trust government with money? To get 3 good projects you have to build 6 doubtful ones and even then the guy in Inglewood and others are threatening to jump because "what does it do for me?"

And Boxer supports it mainly to save herself after 12 years of representing the Bay Area and telling LA to KMA.

And to bail out the lines that will have no riders, Move LA suggests that we basically "force the bastards to take mass transit no matter how much they hate it" by taxing and subsidizing.

Do you really think this is good government? Or is it arrogance being given power?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #787  
Old Posted May 3, 2010, 11:26 PM
mas1092 mas1092 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 44
It's a shame that $10 billion has to go to highways. That's a lot of money that could be better used for more lines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #788  
Old Posted May 4, 2010, 1:44 AM
bmfarley's Avatar
bmfarley bmfarley is offline
Long-Time Californian
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California; All Over
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by mas1092 View Post
It's a shame that $10 billion has to go to highways. That's a lot of money that could be better used for more lines.
Agreed. A moritorium should be placed on building highways.... where-ever a traffic lane is constructed, a car will take its place. Improvements only for safety considerations.
__________________
- Think Big, Go Big. Think small, stay small.
- Don't get sucked into a rabbit's hole.
- Freeways build sprawl. Transit builds cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #789  
Old Posted May 4, 2010, 1:55 AM
bmfarley's Avatar
bmfarley bmfarley is offline
Long-Time Californian
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California; All Over
Posts: 1,302
This...



...is a ridiculous map.

Too many lines merge and diverge from the same set of tracks. Many are not operable... too many trains on the same line. Ie. LAX and points to the south... 3 or 4 lines! LAX and northeast along Harbor Subdivision... 2-4 lines. Pasadena to North Hollywood, Geesh! Unless multiple sets of tracks go along with these ideas, then I am afraid they just will not work.

And what is the deal with all the lines connected to LAX? How many are truly needed to go there? If BART to SFO were an example.... ridership is not as great as one might assume. LAX is an area on a map... lots of concrete and users toting baggage. Granted, airport employees is a market; A MARKET. But, look at their hours that they work.... mostly outside of peak commute times when freeway capacity is sufficient. I am not against an LAX connection, but 4 lines!!!?!!!
__________________
- Think Big, Go Big. Think small, stay small.
- Don't get sucked into a rabbit's hole.
- Freeways build sprawl. Transit builds cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #790  
Old Posted May 4, 2010, 2:18 AM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmfarley View Post
Agreed. A moritorium should be placed on building highways.... where-ever a traffic lane is constructed, a car will take its place. Improvements only for safety considerations.
Yeah, god forbid some major choke points on our highways get fixed...

Come on, now. I'm all in favor of any and all things to improve transit in the L.A. Basin, but putting a moratorium on freeways is flat-out stupid. No new freeways will likely be built in the L.A. area (except for POSSIBLY a link to complete the 110 or 710 through Pasadena, good luck with that, though! ), it would only entail new lanes of traffic where needed, along with some updated interchanges... Are you telling me that some of these extremely clogged, outdated interchanges we have should never be updated? Take for instance the 405/101 disaster... Or how about the 5/134 nightmare? Maybe the 110/5 monstrosity?

I think a program that gradually improves freeway chokepoints and interchanges should be part of an overall transit system. Focus on the rail and bus routes, but also pay attention to the highways.

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"Deeply corrupt but still semi-functional - it's the Chicago way." -- Barrelfish
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #791  
Old Posted May 4, 2010, 2:31 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
Guys, the $10 billion earmarked for highway improvements is part of the Measure R program. No highway improvements, no Subway to the Sea or Regional Connector. That's the way it works, unfortunately.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #792  
Old Posted May 4, 2010, 3:02 AM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,945
Quote:
Yeah, god forbid some major choke points on our highways get fixed...

Come on, now. I'm all in favor of any and all things to improve transit in the L.A. Basin, but putting a moratorium on freeways is flat-out stupid. No new freeways will likely be built in the L.A. area (except for POSSIBLY a link to complete the 110 or 710 through Pasadena, good luck with that, though! ), it would only entail new lanes of traffic where needed, along with some updated interchanges... Are you telling me that some of these extremely clogged, outdated interchanges we have should never be updated? Take for instance the 405/101 disaster... Or how about the 5/134 nightmare? Maybe the 110/5 monstrosity?
I am sure there are specific interchanges that can be improved but usually there is enough highway capacity, it is just used inefficiently. Congestion pricing, to encourage people to make discretionary trips in non-peak hours, should be used before spending billions to add new lanes. Encouraging carpooling to raise the average vehicle occupancy rate from 1.2 to 1.7 or 2 people per vehicle would also add significant capacity to Southern California's highways while costing very little.

Hopefully the proposed toll-road through San Onofre in OC/SD is scraped for good. That would have seriously degraded one of the few remaining undeveloped sections of Southern California's coast.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #793  
Old Posted May 4, 2010, 3:47 AM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,527
I think the only thing ridiculous on the map is probably the 4 lines serving the south bay. Stop some at the airport or something.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #794  
Old Posted May 4, 2010, 3:57 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmfarley View Post
...is a ridiculous map.

Too many lines merge and diverge from the same set of tracks. Many are not operable... too many trains on the same line. Ie. LAX and points to the south... 3 or 4 lines! LAX and northeast along Harbor Subdivision... 2-4 lines. Pasadena to North Hollywood, Geesh! Unless multiple sets of tracks go along with these ideas, then I am afraid they just will not work.
Again I don't see the point of Crenshaw in the long term continuing to make LAX it's destination. The Forum/Hollywood Park, Hawthorne Shopping Center, El Camino College, Del Amo Mall are all underserved by rail, and extending Crenshaw south to any of those points makes alot of sense while adding new stations along the way, instead of using stations that the Harbor Subdivsion LRT line will already serve.

I'm also hoping the Green Line at some point stops going South of LAX, and instead goes to Santa Monica after hitting the airport. The 405 Corridor and Harbor Subdivision should use these stations instead.

Quote:
And what is the deal with all the lines connected to LAX? How many are truly needed to go there?
Green Line, Harbor Subdivision (LRT & Metrolink-for express), 405 Corridor. One of them on the map is also the People Mover.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #795  
Old Posted May 4, 2010, 3:59 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
Guys, the $10 billion earmarked for highway improvements is part of the Measure R program.
I think a large chunk of that is from the 710 tunnel.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #796  
Old Posted May 4, 2010, 4:08 AM
bmfarley's Avatar
bmfarley bmfarley is offline
Long-Time Californian
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California; All Over
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
Guys, the $10 billion earmarked for highway improvements is part of the Measure R program. No highway improvements, no Subway to the Sea or Regional Connector. That's the way it works, unfortunately.
I am talking about expansion... stop them. We don't need to perpetuate auto-centric society with a 710 extension, or a State Route 2 extension.
__________________
- Think Big, Go Big. Think small, stay small.
- Don't get sucked into a rabbit's hole.
- Freeways build sprawl. Transit builds cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #797  
Old Posted May 4, 2010, 4:49 AM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmfarley View Post
I am talking about expansion... stop them. We don't need to perpetuate auto-centric society with a 710 extension, or a State Route 2 extension.
I don't know enough about the Glendale Freeway extension proposal, if there is one, but something's gotta be done concerning the 710/110/210 freeways not connecting in Pasadena (or just outside of Pasadena). The problem is that Pasadena faces immense traffic problems because of the two freeways becoming surface streets just before they would interchange with the 210... Perhaps only the 710 should connect, I don't know, but something's gotta be done here...

As far as NEW freeways, I don't think anything's even close to being on the table right now. The 105 was the last major freeway in L.A. to be constructed, at least outside of the Orange County tollways, of course.

What people DO forget about when they see L.A.'s freeways is that there are huge geographic limitations as where to even build new freeways. For instance, I know that a connector between south Orange County and Riverside County, something along the lines of the current route of Ortega Highway, was considered, but of course the terrain simply makes it unfeasible...

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"Deeply corrupt but still semi-functional - it's the Chicago way." -- Barrelfish
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #798  
Old Posted May 4, 2010, 4:59 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
^ If I remember correctly, there's a proposal to connect the 241 to the 15 via tunnel, possibly as an extension of the 133.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #799  
Old Posted May 4, 2010, 5:15 AM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
^ If I remember correctly, there's a proposal to connect the 241 to the 15 via tunnel, possibly as an extension of the 133.
I do recall something like this being proposed, but this would be a HUGE tunnel with an even bigger expense! It's many miles between the end of the 241 and the 15, the costs would be astronomical!

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"Deeply corrupt but still semi-functional - it's the Chicago way." -- Barrelfish
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #800  
Old Posted May 4, 2010, 6:26 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
The trouble with the map can be seen by comparing it with a NYC subway map. Once you get rid of the distortions, you see a dense mass of lines in Manhattan and a few thin lines going out across the rest of the city. Translating to LA, over time there should be a lot more subway in the area between DT and the ocean, Sunset Blvd. to maybe Exposition and along 405 to LAX. This is where density now exists and where it should be encouraged (not mandated, encouraged) for the future.

Where there are legitimate centers of density (LB, Pasadena) there s/b light rail; further centers (OC, the IE) requires HSR, not a pokey LRT going through endless suburbs. Parts of South Central, SFV, SGV, Southeast LA County don’t need LRT at all or have sufficient already. Buses will do just fine for them.
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:10 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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