HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #701  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2010, 3:51 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
I'm not holding my breath.
According to newer reports, it's gonna open this Monday March 15th.

Angels Flight funicular to reopen Monday
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #702  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2010, 3:37 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,905
30/10 does the job (LA Times)

Antonio Villaraigosa needs a good partner like Sen. Boxer in Washington to help him advocate for this. Can you imagine Carly Fiorina or Chuck DeVore making any effort to get this funding to build sustainable transportation and create jobs for LA County residents?



30/10 does the job

The mayor's innovative plan to complete regional transit projects in just 10 years is a win-win.

Los Angeles Times
March 19, 2010

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...tory?track=rss

When Los Angeles County voters agreed in 2008 to raise their sales taxes to improve local public transit, they may not have considered that some of the new trains wouldn't start running during their lifetimes. Measure R promised a slate of vital projects, including an extension of the Wilshire Boulevard subway, light-rail lines to Los Angeles International Airport and the Eastside, and busways in the San Fernando Valley -- but some won't be built until the end of the initiative's 30-year time span.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa thinks that's too long to wait. He's absolutely right.

The mayor has been spending a lot of time in Washington lately talking up his "30/10" proposal, one of the more innovative ideas to come from City Hall. The gist: Villaraigosa wants to shorten the completion of a dozen Measure R projects to a decade. It's not clear how this would be done, but the simplest and most direct way would be for the federal government to serve as L.A.'s banker, supplying the money up front to build the new transit lines. The county would pay the Feds back over the course of 30 years with the $40 billion that the tax hike is expected to raise.

Villaraigosa says his plan would create 166,000 construction jobs at a time of soaring unemployment. Such figures should be viewed with skepticism, but there is no question that the infusion of federal cash would have a big stimulative effect in Southern California, where the construction sector is particularly in need of a boost. Over the longer term, it also would reduce gridlock, create alternatives to driving amid rising gasoline prices and clean our notoriously foul air. And best of all, as Villaraigosa has been repeatedly stressing in Washington, it wouldn't add to the federal deficit because the money would come as a loan, not a handout.

One California senator, Democrat Barbara Boxer, is very much on board with the 30/10 plan. But new ideas can be tough to sell in the Capitolsays his plan. We'd urge the rest of the California delegation to learn more about it. We can't think of a reason why lawmakers in either party would object.

Well, OK, we can think of one. Led by county Supervisor Mike Antonovich, some north county and San Gabriel Valley politicians fret that the cash infusion would discourage federal investment in projects that aren't included in Measure R, such as a future light-rail line to Ontario International Airport.

Backers of this speculative venture have been a deeply divisive force, threatening to derail the far worthier Wilshire subway and campaigning against Measure R even though it will benefit their region. Voters didn't listen to these voices when they approved the sales tax hike, and neither should members of Congress.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #703  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2010, 6:22 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Looks like both California senators are on board

Quote:
Feinstein backs Villaraigosa plan to speed transportation projects

March 18, 2010 | 12:55 pm

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Thursday gained another important ally in his push for federal aid to speed expansion of the region’s transit network: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Feinstein called the mayor’s "30/10 Plan" to complete 12 transit projects in 10 years instead of 30 "an innovative idea" that could help ease Los Angeles’ legendary traffic gridlock while creating jobs.

"As someone who believes that bold national infrastructure expansion programs are exactly what we need right now, I think the 30/10 Plan could become a national model for how to build up communities across the country," she said in a statement.

Feinstein earlier this week expressed concern about the long line of requests for federal aid, even as Villaraigosa was in Washington lobbying for federal support for his proposal. She noted in her statement Thursday that the mayor's proposal calls for paying back any federal loans from Measure R, a half-cent sales tax increase approved by county voters last year.

-- Richard Simon in Washington, D.C.
Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-projects.html
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #704  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2010, 2:01 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,352
Nice. Momentum is building.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #705  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2010, 4:20 AM
Kingofthehill's Avatar
Kingofthehill Kingofthehill is offline
International
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oslo
Posts: 4,052
Great news. Though, it is still a pity that people out in places out in the 626/909 area codes will have transit before those living in some of the densest parts of the city, and of whom would be much more inclined to use it on a regular basis...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #706  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2010, 4:38 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingofthehill View Post
Great news. Though, it is still a pity that people out in places out in the 626/909 area codes will have transit before those living in some of the densest parts of the city, and of whom would be much more inclined to use it on a regular basis...
Look, i'm not saying we got a higher priority than the Westside, but the fact is that the Subway-to-the-sea(Westwood, at least), Crenshaw Corridor, Expo Line Phase II, and 405 corridor are ALL on Measure R.

The only real project in the SGV that the money funds is the Gold Line Foothill Extension. And it's only being done faster because it's LRT.

And i'm not so sure if the San Bernardino Metrolink line is gonna be double-tracked under Measure R.
__________________
Revelation 21:4

Last edited by JDRCRASH; Mar 20, 2010 at 4:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #707  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2010, 3:19 PM
dennis1 dennis1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,253
Wow mad congrats to LA for moving forward with this.

I only wish Toronto could do the same.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #708  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2010, 3:39 PM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 7,648
Wish the 30/10 plan included a subway between Hollywood and Beverly Hills that serviced West Hollywood, but oh well. I still love the 30/10 idea and I would assume it's definitely better to push it now while a more transit-friendly political party is in power in Washington.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #709  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2010, 4:12 PM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles/ Tahoe
Posts: 5,047
Thank you Villaraigosa, Sen. Boxer and Feinstein! I am starting to really like Villaraigosa again.

I would like Waxman to be vocal and support this too, since he's the one who helped delay subway progression for 2 decades.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #710  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2010, 4:22 PM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles/ Tahoe
Posts: 5,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGuy View Post
Wish the 30/10 plan included a subway between Hollywood and Beverly Hills that serviced West Hollywood, but oh well. I still love the 30/10 idea and I would assume it's definitely better to push it now while a more transit-friendly political party is in power in Washington.
I'd rather it did too but Los Angeles, BH and West Hollywood will still be connected. From Hollywood tho you'd just have to back track to Vermont/Western and transfer from the red line to purple line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #711  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2010, 8:50 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,473
The next round of public meetings for the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor begins next week. This time each meeting will discuss specific stations, so it could be interesting.

Quote:
You are invited to participate in Station Area Planning and Maintenance Facility Planning workshops for the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor. Each meeting will focus on a different segment of the corridor and will present specific information on the station(s) located in that segment. Please note which stations are associated with each meeting. The same general information on maintenance facilities will be presented at every meeting, including an assessment of all new sites under study in this phase of analysis and an update from our maintenance facility meeting on February 24th.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010
6pm – 8pm
Ascension Lutheran Church Hall

5820 West Bl
Los Angeles, CA 90043
(Focusing on Florence/West station)
Served by Metro Line 108

Wednesday, March 24, 2010
6pm – 8pm
Westchester United Methodist Church

8065 Emerson Av
Los Angeles, CA 90045
(Focusing on Aviation/Manchester and Aviation/Century stations)
Served by Metro Line 115 (walk 1/3 mile north)

Thursday, March 25, 2010
6pm – 8pm
Saint Mary’s Academy School Gym

701 Grace Av
Inglewood, CA 90301
(Focusing on Florence/La Brea station)
Served by Metro Lines 40, 111, 211

Saturday, March 27, 2010
10am – 12pm
Christ the Good Shepherd Episcopal Church

3303 W Vernon Av
Los Angeles, CA 90008
(Focusing on Crenshaw/Martin Luther King Jr., Crenshaw/Vernon and Crenshaw/Slauson stations)
Served by Metro Lines 40, 105, 210, 305, 710, 740

Wednesday, March 31, 2010
6pm – 8pm
Lula Washington Dance Theatre

3773 S Crenshaw Bl
Los Angeles, CA 90016
(Focusing on Exposition/Crenshaw station)
Served by Metro Lines 102, 210, 305

WORKSHOP AGENDA
30 Minutes Open House and Maintenance Facility Planning Discussion
90 Minutes Station Site and Station Area Planning Workshop

We look forward to your participation at the Station Area and Maintenance Facility Planning Workshops. Please RSVP to Ms. Roxi Reeves at rreeves@leeandrewsgroup.com or call her at 213.891.2965 and specify which meeting you plan to attend so that we can plan accordingly.
http://www.metro.net/projects/crenshaw_corridor/
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #712  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2010, 7:43 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,473
Here's the presentation from the recent meeting on the optional Crenshaw station...

http://www.metro.net/projects_studie...esentation.pdf

What do you guys think? Should we build a station there or not? Personally, I'd rather have one than not, but I do realize that $153 million for an extra 4,200-4,300 riders is not in the least bit cost-effective and that development opportunities in and around the station area are limited. However, a whole neighborhood would be served and money would be saved by building the station now as opposed to decades later.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #713  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2010, 9:01 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
I don't think that Hancock Park will be rezoned, but Hancock Park is less than 1/3 of the area around Wilshire/Crenshaw. Another 1/3 (towards the existing Western station) is already zoned for dense development. Most of the remaining 1/3 (especially on Wilshire itself) seems doable.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #714  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2010, 9:03 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
BTW, why is the Hollywood/Highland station going to be a transfer station for the Pink Line?
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #715  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2010, 11:44 PM
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
BTW, why is the Hollywood/Highland station going to be a transfer station for the Pink Line?
As opposed to.... ?

If the thinking is that those Pink line trains can go to North Hollywood, or the other way to Downtown LA, it's basically not constructible without shutting down the Red Line, and scheduling the trains would be nearly impossible - the Pink would already run with the Purple and the Purple runs with the Red.
__________________
- 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
     
     
  #716  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2010, 3:48 PM
mwadswor's Avatar
mwadswor mwadswor is offline
The Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
Here's the presentation from the recent meeting on the optional Crenshaw station...

http://www.metro.net/projects_studie...esentation.pdf

What do you guys think? Should we build a station there or not? Personally, I'd rather have one than not, but I do realize that $153 million for an extra 4,200-4,300 riders is not in the least bit cost-effective and that development opportunities in and around the station area are limited. However, a whole neighborhood would be served and money would be saved by building the station now as opposed to decades later.
2 questions. The presentation says that building a station box now but not finishing the station is impractical. Why? That would be my preference unless there's a good reason not to do it.

Also, the presentation mentions that Crenshaw will not be the transfer point for the Crenshaw line if/when the Crenshaw line gets extended north to Wilshire, their studies say it needs to be farther west. Have they identified the potential transfer station yet? IMO they need to design and build it as a transfer station now to prevent too much disruption when the Crenshaw line gets extended. Obviously, the trains won't be able to transfer there, but they need to design it with pedestrian transfers in mind and build anything now that will be too disruptive to build in the future with the station in service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmfarley View Post
As opposed to.... ?

If the thinking is that those Pink line trains can go to North Hollywood, or the other way to Downtown LA, it's basically not constructible without shutting down the Red Line, and scheduling the trains would be nearly impossible - the Pink would already run with the Purple and the Purple runs with the Red.
I understand that building the pink line tracks so that trains can run onto the red line tracks at the north end will cause a lot of disruption, but I have trouble supporting the pink line without that connection. It's a lot of money to add only a couple of stops to a line with little possibility of being extended. It looks a lot better and it would be a lot more practical if pink line trains could start in Santa Monica, go through Beverly Hills and continue north on the red line tracks past Highland. I have trouble believing that the red line would have to be shut down for an extended period to make that connection possible. They should be able to reduce it to one track while the other track is being worked on.

At a bare minimum, the pink line tracks should allow trains coming from either Union Station or Santa Monica to easily get on the pink line tracks. As it stands now, I believe only a connection from Santa Monica onto the pink line is being built. That may be the only service requirement today, but there's no harm in being prepared for potential future needs, and I can't believe it would cost that much more to just add another potential direction to the connection that's already planned on being built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #717  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2010, 6:23 PM
Kingofthehill's Avatar
Kingofthehill Kingofthehill is offline
International
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oslo
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
Here's the presentation from the recent meeting on the optional Crenshaw station...

http://www.metro.net/projects_studie...esentation.pdf

What do you guys think? Should we build a station there or not? Personally, I'd rather have one than not, but I do realize that $153 million for an extra 4,200-4,300 riders is not in the least bit cost-effective and that development opportunities in and around the station area are limited. However, a whole neighborhood would be served and money would be saved by building the station now as opposed to decades later.
Yeah, it certainly doesn't hurt to have one, even if Metro is only building a box/shell of it now and would be further developing it in the future. I don't care what anybody says, it just doesn't make sense to have a 2-mile service gap along the city's grandest and most significant thoroughfare. And if for whatever reason the area bulks up and densifies, we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot by skipping the area altogether.

Though, if a Crenshaw station would come at the expense of another, more important station/and or we'd be pressed for cash, I'd say we could pass on it. Finally, as a cyclist, I'd much rather those precious funds be used for *at least* a half-decent system of bike lanes/sharrows/bike-related infrastructure; the existing options are nothing but a huge disappointment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #718  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2010, 8:37 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,473
The Metro Board of Directors approved the funding transfer agreement with the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority earlier this morning. A groundbreaking date for the 11.4-mile Foothill Extension is tentatively set for June 19.

http://thesource.metro.net/2010/03/2...-rail-project/
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #719  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2010, 8:28 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,905
$690 million OKd for Gold Line extension to Azusa (LA Times)

$690 million OKd for Gold Line extension to Azusa

The MTA board's approval of the funding means the project is on track to break ground in June and begin service in 2014.

By My-Thuan Tran
LA Times
March 26, 2010

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,6507584.story

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board on Thursday approved $690 million in funding for the extension of the Gold Line in the San Gabriel Valley, marking a significant step forward for the project.

The money would go toward extending the light rail line 11.3 miles from its current terminus at Sierra Madre Villa Avenue in Pasadena to Azusa. The board's approval means the project is on track to break ground in June and begin service in 2014.


Javier Solorzano, 18, left, chats with his brother Daniel, 11, as they ride the Gold Line along the 210 Freeway in Pasadena. The money allocated to the extension project comes from the half-cent-on-the-dollar sales tax hike that voters approved in 2008. (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times / March 25, 2010)

The extension is one of several major rail projects being planned for L.A. County in the next few years, including an extension of the Expo Line into Santa Monica, a new line down Crenshaw Boulevard into the South Bay and an extension of the Eastside portion of the Gold Line.

There has been much debate about which projects should get funding, and county Supervisor Mike Antonovich said it's important that a line outside the city of Los Angeles received money.


"We need to have a regional transportation network and not one that just favors one city," he said. "Los Angeles has cannibalized the funds, and this is the first time we have been able to bring 'regional' to the front of the plate instead of the back of the bus."

Antonovich said the extension -- with stops in Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale and Azusa -- would move the area toward a "truly regional transit system."

Cities are looking at creating a high-tech corridor and building housing and multi-use commercial projects along the line, which parallels the 210 Freeway.

Planners would like to eventually extend the Gold Line all the way to LA/Ontario International Airport in San Bernardino County.

With the Thursday vote, $690 million in revenue from Measure R will be transferred to the Gold Line Construction Authority. County voters approved the measure in 2008 to increase the sales tax by half a cent on the dollar for 30 years to raise $40 billion to construct specific mass transit projects.

The Gold Line funding effectively moves the scheduled opening of the Azusa extension to 2014 from 2017, Antonovich said, because it allows for the construction authority to seek bids for faster construction in a private-public partnership.

Building the extension would generate 6,900 jobs, a third of them construction-related, during the three-year project, according to the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.

The second phase of the project would add stations in Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont and Montclair and is estimated to cost about $600 million to $700 million.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was in Washington earlier this month lobbying Congress to support the region's rail projects. He has made a priority of extending the subway to the Westside.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #720  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2010, 11:43 PM
PragmaticIdealist PragmaticIdealist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 337
The Gold Line to Claremont should be a high priority, especially since the line would have intermodal connectivity with Metrolink there. But, extending the line to Ontario International Airport should not be a priority since such a service would be mostly redundant.
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 3:33 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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