HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3501  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 5:01 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by StethJeff View Post
Doesnt matter how its presented to me, it seems silly to only have 1 North-South line going through that section of the city. The Pink line needs to happen and both La Brea and La Cienega (or some other combination of major N-S streets should be in play.
Very true. This area of the city needs much more than what is currently planned.

I also thought the Crenshaw line should have been routed onto MLK at the northern end to serve the Baldwin Village area as well. Would make an easier connection to La Brea and La Cienga as well. Would then need to go underground to link with the Expo line and points north, but...
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3502  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 8:33 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,473
^ Nah, I think what they're building is the most logical solution. The Expo/Crenshaw station was originally planned to be at-grade; the station at Vernon was merely optional at one point.

Baldwin Village may be residentially dense, but that isn't enough to justify putting a subway station at Coliseum (or wherever) when you also have Expo Line stations at La Brea and Farmdale close by.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3503  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 8:58 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
Yeah I hope they are keeping that in their back pocket, since it would be a comparatively easy campaign when/if Measure M passes. But doing it first might jeopardize their ability to pass a new tax.

Also, I don't want to suggest that it would be a panacea. Those funds are being programmed and pledged to various projects regularly. But the ability to issue bonds off of Prop A/C could still conceivably be used to (as I mentioned on Urbanize) complete the WeHo/SaMo segments of the Purple Line.
Yes. Achieving a simple majority vote on any measure related to transit improvements should be a cinch, especially when it doesn't involve any additional taxes. You also don't need to sell the public on more underground rail; that's something everyone values.

I also wonder what role LA's Olympic bid plays into all of this, as it's looking more and more like we're the frontrunner. Could this be an opportunity to also get the Purple Line to Santa Monica (site of beach volleyball events)? I know that six years from the start of construction to the time of opening is a bit of a stretch, but they could just focus on the Wilshire/4th station first and then open the other three afterward. As I said before, you can always find a way to make things work with a little vision and creativity.

I guess all of that hangs in the balance as we wait on Measure M.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner

Last edited by Quixote; Sep 22, 2016 at 9:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3504  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 11:01 PM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
Yes. Achieving a simple majority vote on any measure related to transit improvements should be a cinch, especially when it doesn't involve any additional taxes. You also don't need to sell the public on more underground rail; that's something everyone values.
What a difference 20 years makes

Quote:
I also wonder what role LA's Olympic bid plays into all of this, as it's looking more and more like we're the frontrunner. Could this be an opportunity to also get the Purple Line to Santa Monica (site of beach volleyball events)? I know that six years from the start of construction to the time of opening is a bit of a stretch, but they could just focus on the Wilshire/4th station first and then open the other three afterward. As I said before, you can always find a way to make things work with a little vision and creativity.

I guess all of that hangs in the balance as we wait on Measure M.
I agree we look like the frontrunner. Not sure about the SaMo extension. Phase 1 should be the trickiest with the tar pits, fossils, methane zone, etc, but still Metro expects that that segment of tunnel will take 2.5 years, beginning I think in January. Lots of work can be done simultaneously, but tunneling will have to be done consecutively. Maybe the subsequent phases will be much faster. It's going to be tight, no matter what.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3505  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2016, 8:48 AM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
Yeah I hope they are keeping that in their back pocket, since it would be a comparatively easy campaign when/if Measure M passes. But doing it first might jeopardize their ability to pass a new tax.

Also, I don't want to suggest that it would be a panacea. Those funds are being programmed and pledged to various projects regularly. But the ability to issue bonds off of Prop A/C could still conceivably be used to (as I mentioned on Urbanize) complete the WeHo/SaMo segments of the Purple Line.
Great!!! so can someone quickly start a petition to repeal "The Act of 1998" that barred money from props A/C being used on subway In time for November. Anyone??? Think about it... Measure M and tons of extra money for subways. We could get the pink line heavy rail AND a Crenshaw light rail to Hollywood via LaBrea or Fairfax. Let's do it before this currently proposed compromise is committed. How many signatures are required for Los Angeles County ballots? #VotePink #GoWestHollywoodPink #BringBackThePinkLine #WehoHeavy #LaBreaLight #FairfaxLight #TakeBackTheAct #WhatHappenedIn1998 #TheActOf1998

West Hollywood should be fighting for the repeal of this which could do even greater good for their city with a pink line and a light rail subway up La brea or fairfax. Making them a nexus. I'm sure those environmental reports from a few years ago could be dusted off. Any Weho people know people in Weho to get this off the ground?

Last edited by hughfb3; Sep 23, 2016 at 9:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3506  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2016, 6:05 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,473
I think repealing the subway ban is the only way to get the Purple Line to Santa Monica within a reasonable timeframe. I also think that it may be part of Metro's PPP plans to deliver, say, the Sepulveda subway much sooner. Let's hope NSMP is right in that they really are just keeping it in their back pocket as a safety net of sorts.

We should just focus on getting Measure M passed first; that's the big hurdle that needs to be cleared (and like four years ago, it'll most likely be a nail-biter) before anything else gets settled. Without Measure M, there's really no money to build the Sepulveda subway.

The A/C/R/M combination would represent 2% of our sales tax solely dedicated to transportation, yielding an annual revenue of around $3 billion. One-third of that would be reserved for construction of new transit projects, so we could potentially be looking at roughly $1 billion coming in each year. Oh the possibilities...
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner

Last edited by Quixote; Sep 23, 2016 at 6:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3507  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2016, 10:07 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3508  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2016, 7:16 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,905
Opposition to Metro's ambitious transit plan simmers in southern L.A. County

Measure M would greatly benefit LA County. It would be unfortunate if this ballot measure failed.

Opposition to Metro's ambitious transit plan simmers in southern L.A. County

By Laura J. Nelson
LA Times
October 3, 2016

"Four years ago, a ballot measure to expand mass transit across Los Angeles County failed by less than 1 percentage point, a slim defeat attributed to voters in a chain of small, coastal cities outside the region’s core.

A similar dynamic has emerged this year in the southern part of the county, where leaders are opposing the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s most ambitious plan yet to expand and upgrade transportation options across Southern California.

Metro’s ballot proposal, known as Measure M, would raise an estimated $860 million per year to fund transit operations, untangle highway bottlenecks and build nearly a dozen rail lines and extensions, including a rail tunnel through the Sepulveda Pass and connections to Pacoima, Norwalk, Claremont and Torrance..."

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...nap-story.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3509  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2016, 8:44 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 444
Metro press release on using P3s to accelerate Measure M projects. If Phil Washington can successfully execute a few P3s that significantly accelerate project timelines, that would be huge.

http://thesource.metro.net/2016/10/1...-under-review/


“My desire is that these projects listed above be completed prior to our scheduled opening dates,” said Washington. “An example would be possibly completing the West Santa Ana Branch project by 2029.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3510  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2016, 8:57 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,905
This is great news. Joshua Schank, LA MTA's Chief Innovation Officer, was previously the head of the Eno Foundation in Washington, DC, where he advocated extensively for public/private partnerships and he undoubtedly has a lot of industry connections.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3511  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2016, 5:26 AM
losangelesnative's Avatar
losangelesnative losangelesnative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 357
Metro Bikeshare to expand to Pasadena this summer:

http://la.curbed.com/2016/10/11/1325...share-pasadena
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3512  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2016, 3:07 PM
Muji's Avatar
Muji Muji is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 1,183
The Expo Line will begin running with six minute headways (roughly 6 am - 8 pm) on weekdays, effective October 23!

http://urbanize.la/post/expo-line-tr...ore-frequently
__________________
My blog of then and now photos of LA: http://urbandiachrony.wordpress.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3513  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2016, 10:47 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,473
^ Such awesome news. All of our rail lines need to operate at that frequency throughout the day.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3514  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2016, 6:54 PM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 522
Planning committee today going to discuss a study for Union Station-Burbank transit options. Notably, potentially including 4 new stops on the Metrolink Ventura/Antelope Valley trunk running at higher frequencies
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3515  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2016, 6:58 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
We really need metrolink electrification
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3516  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2016, 7:32 PM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
We really need metrolink electrification
Well it could've been part of CAHSR but Metrolink felt like it didn't need all that!
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3517  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2016, 8:47 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,473
I don't think adding more stops on the Metrolink line is the solution. Metrolink should be kept strictly commuter rail -- an express service between LA and its outlying suburban/exurban areas.

Wasn't it always the assumption that the West Santa Ana Branch Corridor would continue north?
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3518  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2016, 9:04 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
If we could get electrification we could potentially transform it into a high frequency, urban mass transit line. That's how it's done in other countries. Theres really no benefit in separating commuter/urban transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3519  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2016, 9:14 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
If we could get electrification we could potentially transform it into a high frequency, urban mass transit line. That's how it's done in other countries. Theres really no benefit in separating commuter/urban transit.
That's easier said than done. The tracks aren't compatible with LRT technology, so that precludes any possibility of through-routing. The only way to make that work would be to also use EMU vehicles on the WSAB, and that's not going to happen.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3520  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2016, 3:09 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
I don't think adding more stops on the Metrolink line is the solution. Metrolink should be kept strictly commuter rail -- an express service between LA and its outlying suburban/exurban areas.

Wasn't it always the assumption that the West Santa Ana Branch Corridor would continue north?
I would hope the WSAB would turn onto Sunset and then head up Glendale/Brand into Glendale before interlining with the Orange Line.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
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 9:00 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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