HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #821  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 9:48 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
I love the idea of TOD. But where it is doing best is around subways and in the core of LA, not in the outer suburbs. A tour of the Red and Blue Lines stations might be useful. We could count the number of new 3, 5 or 10 story buildings within 2 blocks of each stop. In other words, I don’t see huge changes in density in Azusa, Monrovia or the north edge of the SGV generally and even less along Crenshaw. I could be wrong, but I want more evidence before laying down rail.
What about the Gold Line? You neglected that line altogether. However I have a rhetorical question, "Where's the best place/corridors to build a heavy rail subway line?" Would it make sense for then that TOD around the heavy rail to be denser because its a major activity center to begin with which would justify the investment in the heavier capacity rail.

Also what evidence would you need? A redevelopment plan per each city or station along the alignment(s)?

Quote:
MTA says that it’s 75 minutes Montclair to Union Station. I assume this is a best hoped for. I can’t find any estimates on Crenshaw.
Crenshaw Corridor LRT from Expo to Aviation Green Line is an 8.5 mile distance (per the AA/EIR documents) is a 20 minute travel time which is 15-25 minutes faster than current travel.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #822  
Old Posted May 9, 2010, 4:25 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
According to a few on the Transit Talk Coalition forum that say the've attended the metro meetings, the Purple Line 405 extension into the SFV is dead:

http://transittalk.proboards.com/ind...ead=78&page=12
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #823  
Old Posted May 9, 2010, 7:56 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
According to a few on the Transit Talk Coalition forum that say the've attended the metro meetings, the Purple Line 405 extension into the SFV is dead:

http://transittalk.proboards.com/ind...ead=78&page=12
IMO, a Purple Line over the 405 is not quite dead, but infeasible per the current plans. A separate line would be a better idea and could theoretically go that way.... assuming engineering, politics, and funding allowed it.
__________________
- 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
     
     
  #824  
Old Posted May 9, 2010, 8:53 PM
suga suga is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 535
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
According to a few on the Transit Talk Coalition forum that say the've attended the metro meetings, the Purple Line 405 extension into the SFV is dead:

http://transittalk.proboards.com/ind...ead=78&page=12
That info is incorrect, I spoke to several MTA staff and it isn ttrue. The commentor noting that is confused because original scoping meetings had large scale alignment options, one with a 405 portion, that were not chosen. That means a 405 extension was not killed, but was only presented as part of an option that wasnt chosen.

The reason the Mayor's 10/0 plan still has that option is that it was not killed because it is too far ahead in planning to be in Metro's chop block.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #825  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 6:14 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,473

Legado’s Derek Jones with a rendering of a mixed-use project located near a future Expo station in Culver City. (Photo
by Ringo Chiu)


Developers Ride Culver City Line

Projects now on track near future train station.

By Howard Fine
April 26, 2010

For years, a desolate stretch of Culver City has separated two thriving districts – a downtown area that now features trendy restaurants with packed outdoor patios, boutiques, hotels and movies, and the old Helms Bakery site, home to furniture galleries and a popular bar.

But now, a kind of no man’s land in between – several blocks of abandoned property and out-of-date shops – appears on the verge of getting built up, thanks to an oncoming train line.

Commercial and mixed-use redevelopment projects are planned for three abandoned parcels around the site of the expected Expo light-rail station at Venice and Robertson boulevards.

The development has the promise of transforming Culver City.

“We hope it becomes a hub that ties the downtown to the east Culver City area,” said Culver City Mayor Andrew Weissman. “Having transit-oriented development at three of those four corners next to the station can be extraordinarily meaningful in development of the corridor in between these two areas.”

“The train station is going to bring a whole new energy to the area,” said Joseph Miller, president of Beverly Hills real estate services firm Runyon Group, who recently purchased one of the parcels out of foreclosure.

Miller plans to turn an abandoned car dealership complex at Washington and National boulevards into a hip urban retail center that he hopes will draw USC students and other Expo line riders.

Across the street, Legado Cos. is planning a four-story, mixed-use project with 115 apartments atop 32,000 square feet of grocery store and pharmacy space. The project is expected to cost nearly $60 million.

“We’re timing the delivery of this project so it opens within one quarter of the opening date for the Expo line,” said Derek Jones, Legado’s chief operating officer.

The largest parcel is on the other side of the planned station. It’s a mostly vacant, weed-strewn six-acre site that the city would like to turn into a major mixed-use destination project with up to 200,000 square feet of office space, 70,000 square feet of retail, a boutique hotel and up to 200 residential units.

Culver City redevelopment officials are trying to assemble the land, which is split among several owners. They hope that process will wrap up this year and then the city can issue a request for proposals from developers. Any proposal will have to include an extra 600 parking spaces for commuters using the Expo Line. The start of construction, though, is at least three years away.

The real estate slowdown of the last three years has prompted Legado to drop 15,000 square feet of office space from its proposal and to switch from condos to apartments.

Culver City Turnaround

Over the last 20 years, the area around City Hall and Sony Studios has been transformed as restaurants, shops and entertainment venues have opened. The district now has a thriving nightlife scene that attracts people from throughout the L.A. region.

A similar transformation has taken place – though on a smaller scale – at the old Helms Bakery complex, which is near the other developments and about a mile east of the downtown district. The famed bakery, which closed in 1969, was converted into an antique furniture gallery. More recently, the property owner, development company Walter N. Marks Inc., has brought in an assortment of furniture shops, along with some cafes and the popular Father’s Office bar.

In between the two popular sections of Culver City is the missing link: some light manufacturing facilities, a now-abandoned car dealership complex and assorted older shops. The redevelopment projects, spurred by the placement of the train station, would bring everything together.

“We’ve been an island out here,” said Wally Marks, president of his eponymous company. “The rail line and these projects will provide a really big boost to this portion of the city and link our Helms Bakery complex with the bustling downtown area.”

The catalyst for the redevelopment proposals is the Expo light-rail line, the first rail link between downtown Los Angeles and L.A.’s Westside.

The $680 million first phase of the line – under construction – runs from downtown, near USC and west along the former freight line along Exposition Boulevard to Culver City. The $1.5 billion second phase, still in final planning stages, will run from Culver City through Cheviot Hills and West Los Angeles, and into Santa Monica.

The first phase will begin operating to La Cienega Boulevard next year, and the Culver City station is scheduled to open in 2012.

The Venice-Robertson station will be elevated, which will add expense and time. The total cost of the station is expected to be near $60 million.

Enticing Developers

The 2012 opening date has given Culver City officials and developers extra time to hone their plans for the parcels surrounding the station while waiting out the recession. The focus has been on proposals for transit-oriented development, which relies heavily on foot traffic to and from the rail line.

This transit-oriented development “will bring housing, employment and shopping together in ways that are uniquely important to the city and the region by promoting goals of improved air quality and mobility,” said Sol Blumenfeld, director of community development for Culver City.

To entice developers to these parcels, the city will allow slightly higher densities than current zoning. In exchange, developers will be asked to provide or pay for one of four “community benefit” options: additional parking, more open space, streetscape improvements, or a shuttle service to the rail station and nearby destinations.

Jones said the Legado project, known as Legado Crossing, will take advantage of the additional density; in exchange, he said the project will include extra open space. The project is slated to include a grocery store, a drugstore, a couple of restaurants and small retail shops. The site is now home to an abandoned building supply store and a lot being used for vehicle storage. Construction is scheduled to begin this year.

In recent years, Culver City residents have voiced concerns about traffic and parking associated with new development. And residents have raised concerns about the additional traffic the Legado project would generate. Jones said his company would pay for traffic mitigation measures at nearby intersections. He added that having grocery and drug stores on site means residents of the project could shop on foot.

The Miller parcel across the street was long home to a series of car dealerships, called Culver City Import Group, owned by the Miller family. The dealerships were unrelated to the larger Miller Automotive Group. Culver City Import Group eventually closed and the family sold off the land to a local private equity firm. But then the real estate collapse hit and the parcel went into foreclosure. In September 2009, one member of the Miller family, Joseph Miller, stepped in to buy the land back while it was still in foreclosure. (Miller is a cousin of Daniel Miller, the Business Journal’s real estate reporter. Joseph Miller is also featured on Page 26 in this week’s 20 in Their 20s special report.)

Miller said he plans to rehabilitate most of the existing buildings and turn the site into a hip urban shopping center comparable to the Lab in Costa Mesa or Space 1520 in Hollywood. He said he will present plans to the community over the next few months and to the city by the end of the year. Because planning is still in flux, Miller said he could not give a firm cost estimate.

“The coming Expo line was the single biggest reason why I decided to buy back the site,” he said.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #826  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 11:20 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
wright: Gold Line to Pasadena I supported because Pasadena is a legitimate center, but too close for HSR. But ridership is disappointing. Gold Eastside I was very luke-warm about (no density, no employment centers, no obvious growth potential).

Best guesses: Heavy rail s/b along 405, and eventually along Beverly (DT to the Pink) and along Pico (DT to the sea), plus Purple and Pink, of course. Expo Line should have been as well since the USC, Culver City, Sepulveda areas are going to grow in density.

The other long lines are HSR (or nothing) and the short ones are LRT (e.g., Glendale). I understand that this is not what is actually going to happen, but I am just responding to your question.

Evidence: demand for housing and development. WeHo, BH, SM, much of WLA is turning down multi-story projects at every council meeting. I am going to guess that 80 of the 100 tallest buildings in LA are within 1 mile of Wilshire, and Beverly and Pico parallel Wilshire to the north and south (just as Hollywood-Santa Monica does further north. Density exists, employment exists and demand is there. It's a sure bet.

All of this is contingent on future development and subject to change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #827  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 3:15 PM
suga suga is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 535
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
wright: Gold Line to Pasadena I supported because Pasadena is a legitimate center, but too close for HSR. But ridership is disappointing. Gold Eastside I was very luke-warm about (no density, no employment centers, no obvious growth potential).

Best guesses: Heavy rail s/b along 405, and eventually along Beverly (DT to the Pink) and along Pico (DT to the sea), plus Purple and Pink, of course. Expo Line should have been as well since the USC, Culver City, Sepulveda areas are going to grow in density.

The other long lines are HSR (or nothing) and the short ones are LRT (e.g., Glendale). I understand that this is not what is actually going to happen, but I am just responding to your question.

Evidence: demand for housing and development. WeHo, BH, SM, much of WLA is turning down multi-story projects at every council meeting. I am going to guess that 80 of the 100 tallest buildings in LA are within 1 mile of Wilshire, and Beverly and Pico parallel Wilshire to the north and south (just as Hollywood-Santa Monica does further north. Density exists, employment exists and demand is there. It's a sure bet.

All of this is contingent on future development and subject to change.
Regarding the esgoldline: Just FYI, the population densities around every station are above 15k per square mile, reaching above 30-40k per mile around Mariachi, Soto and Indiana stations. Even the least dense areas are as dense as Santa Monica and basically all of the wilshire corridor west of k-town.

The esgoldline is already coming close to ridership projections (projected in 10 yrs:13k, now at 9-10k a day), and covers a community where ridership isnt fickle. The ridership issue you note has nothing to do with how many large buildings are in an area, it has to do with fickle riders when you service more wealthy communities not taking PT. In poor areas, there is always built in ridership, which is why the blue line is stuffed yet hits no tower clusters at its most busy stops, why the busiest goldline station is highland parke station, why the greenline still gathers brisk ridership while going nowhere, and why we need to fund rail lines that go to working class nodes in the central basin much more than 20 lines running through Santa Monica.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #828  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 7:26 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
suga: I don't entirely disagree; these are not black and white decisions. The Gold Line has not been a disaster but not a ringing success either. As I said, I was surprised that ridership wasn't higher.

ES is still new, but there is low potential for growth unless something is built out there. I don't see the rush of investment except right at the stations, where the city or MTA has made improvements (e.g., Mariachi). This is just not material to total ridership. Not the same way that SM could add people along Wilshire, around the Medical Centers, and in half a dozen other spots; or mid-Wilshire keeps adding buildings at or near transit.

I'm just trying to put limited funds where they are going to for sure not be wasted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #829  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 8:52 PM
Kingofthehill's Avatar
Kingofthehill Kingofthehill is offline
International
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oslo
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
I'm just trying to put limited funds where they are going to for sure not be wasted.
Where (besides the Purple Line extension) do you think they will not be "wasted?"

I, too, would like to see more attention/funds directed towards the more affluent sections in the Middle and to the West of the city, but like suga, know that with "choice" riders, you lost the almost guaranteed ridership you'd get be sure to get in less affluent parts of town.

Choice riders, for the most part, want and encourage transit here, but not at the expense of their cars, and (unfortunately) in some instances, most certainly not in their neighborhoods. Such riders want it for strictly weekday commuting purposes, and IMO, are less inclined to use it recreationally or outside of the aforementioned hours. Talking the talk by purporting to be green or environmentally-conscious/friendly, but from my outsider's perspective (outsider because I don't drive, bike everywhere), rather reluctant to walk the walk. Aside from peak hours, the Gold Line to Pasadena -- Metro's first rail endeavor into an middle/upper class area..I think -- is largely devoid of riders. By and large, the above doesn't apply to the ridership patterns present in places like the neighborhoods ringing Downtown, South LA, the deep SFV, etc; usage in those places is far more static and less reliant on the AM/PM rush hours.

Oh, and as I've said time and time again, if Metro (or any of the forumers here "concerned" about the allocation of funds) really wanted instant ridership gains, they should build a subway down S. Vermont Blvd. The ridership would be through the house; the current Rapid bus servicing the corridor is the 2nd most ridden in the system (with Wilshire being the 1st). (BTW, another example of LA's transit paradigm where the routes going "nowhere," aka non-descript, blue-collar neighborhoods, are the most trafficked and utilized).

And regarding Boyle Heights, I feel it is poised for not only development at its 2 subway stations, but should expect an influx of priced-out yuppies/first-time homeowners in the areas most intact and closest to DTLA. Finally, now that the ESGL has pretty much shattered the psychological barrier between the "Eastside" and the rest of the city, the gentrification jump across the river is not a matter of if, but when.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #830  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 10:10 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
After Gage st, Vermont corridor should be an L.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #831  
Old Posted May 12, 2010, 6:22 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Well, ES is a done deal for now. Let's wait a year or two and see how many new developments are in process.

In theory the thing to do would be to focus efforts on Purple and Pink for 3-5 years and get them done. Then 405 and some LAX solution. At that point you have 5 or more years of further insight into what areas are really catching fire and which aren't. Maybe DT-Glendale-Burbank. Maybe HSR from Riverside-Ontario-El Monte-DT, with short feeders, instead of Foothill. Maybe Vermont or Western rather than Crenshaw.

I support Vermont underground for as far as possible. I don't know whether being so close to Blue Line is an issue but my guess would be it beats Crenshaw in people and growth potential. Does anybody know how the Crenshaw bus does as far as ridership?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #832  
Old Posted May 24, 2010, 5:20 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,905
House Ways & Means Committee hearing on infrastructure banks

I didn't get a chance to watch this hearing but Antonio Villaraigosa testified before the House Ways & Means Committee to advocate for a national infrastructure bank and discuss the 30/10 plan. Mr. Villaraigosa's opening statement is posted on the Committee's website via YouTube. I would have like to have watched the entire hearing because the Q&As following the opening statements are usually more useful.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearin....aspx?TID=8493
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #833  
Old Posted May 24, 2010, 7:40 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
I don't know whether being so close to Blue Line is an issue but my guess would be it beats Crenshaw in people and growth potential.
I'm more worried about the Silver Line BRT.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #834  
Old Posted May 26, 2010, 10:46 PM
mwadswor's Avatar
mwadswor mwadswor is offline
The Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,536
http://thesource.metro.net/2010/05/2...ion-on-june-1/

Quote:
State hearing on Expo’s proposed Farmdale station on June 1

Posted by Steve Hymon on May 26, 2010 - 1:30 pm

As the Expo Line is under construction between downtown Los Angeles and Culver City, there remains one street-level crossing that needs state approval: at Farmdale Avenue, adjacent to Dorsey High School in South L.A.

The original plan for the line was to have the tracks cross Farmdale at street level without a station. To make a very long story short, both the Los Angeles Unified School District and some community members protested, saying that having the crossing next to a school would be unsafe.

After many months of negotiating, the Construction Authority and the LAUSD have negotiated a solution: a station at Dorsey High School that will require all trains to come to a complete stop before crossing Farmdale.
That's a creative solution.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #835  
Old Posted May 27, 2010, 12:13 AM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
And dead in the water. Don't even start on this. Racism, povertyism, safety, schools and more! Even when to hold the hearings is controversial.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #836  
Old Posted May 27, 2010, 7:33 AM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,517
I dont support the station as I feel its unnecessary, but if it is going to be built then the whole area needs to be up-zoned to higher density.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #837  
Old Posted May 27, 2010, 6:26 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
You might want to go to the hearings and raise that point. But park near the door.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #838  
Old Posted May 28, 2010, 10:33 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Exclamation 710 Tunnel Update

Quote:
710 Tunnel project takes big step forward despite protest meeting takeover


By Dan Abendschein, Staff Writer
Posted: 05/27/2010 06:48:50 PM PDT



Correspondent Photo by James Carbone
Gabriel Stratchota, 30, resident of Los Angeles and member of the local Bus Riders Union,
is arrested Thursday May 27, 2010 by Los Angeles County Sheriffs while protesting upcoming
bus fare increases.




LOS ANGELES - After six hours, two long interruptions by protesters, two arrests and a meeting relocation, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board Thursday approved funding for environmental studies for the 710 Freeway tunnel project.

While the action is a big step towards making the project a reality, the drills won't be coming out anytime soon: The board's action commits $59 million toward more environmental impact studies that will take three to five years to complete.

San Gabriel Valley leaders at the meeting noted that tunnel proponents have already waited a long time.

"Forty studies and 40 years and we finally have found a win-win situation," said state Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-El Monte, who urged the board to vote for the project.

The decision was not easy. Twice the board meeting was disrupted by members of the Los Angeles-based Bus Riders Union (BRU), who took over the meeting to protest a countywide fare hike scheduled to take effect next month.

A second interruption came in the middle of the deliberation over the 710 funding.

The MTA board then moved into closed session for three hours, leaving the room to protestors, who chanted and sang. Ultimately, the board relocated its public meeting to a back room, broadcasting the proceedings over speakers.

As the board deliberated, sheriff's deputies declared the protest an "unlawful assembly," ordering the crowd to disperse. Most left willingly and re-gathered outside. But two people were arrested for refusing to leave.

Representatives of the BRU had mixed feelings about the results.

"It's a victory in a way but also a bit of a defeat," said Eric Mann, a local labor activist who co-founded the BRU. "Having a public agency meet behind closed doors is moving towards dictatorship."

Terry Francke, general counsel of Californians Aware, an open-government group, said state law does allow officials to relocate a public meeting when angry mobs take over a forum.

But reporters should be allowed at the alternate location and public comment should be permitted to continue in the presence of the board, Francke said.

Instead, speakers at Thursday's meeting spoke into a microphone to an empty MTA board room.

One man, Val Marquez of El Sereno, waited three hours to comment on the 710 project. He was the last person requesting to comment, but he never got the chance to speak.

"This is like four years of fighting this project, and I was hoping to speak before they made a decision," Marquez said.

Before the protesters' interruption, more than a dozen people, mostly from South Pasadena and La Cañada Flintridge, spoke against the tunnel proposal. Several local elected officials showed up to voice support.

The original proposal for the 710 tunnel project was a 4.5-mile route under South Pasadena that would link the current end of the freeway to the 210 Freeway.

A Caltrans feasibility study has taken a look at a much wider group of options, defining five zones where the tunnel could go.

Zone 1 and 2 are within the city of Los Angeles and run toward the 2 Freeway. Zone 3 goes north through South Pasadena and Pasadena, Zone 4 heads northeast toward the 210 through Arcadia, and Zone 5 heads east toward the 605.

The most vocal opposition has come from South Pasadena and La Ca ada Flintridge residents over general concerns about the tunneling. La Ca ada Flintridge residents, in particular, are worried about the potential for increased traffic on the 210 Freeway.

Leaders of most of the San Gabriel Valley have rallied behind the project, and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments has endorsed it.

There is not yet a definitive cost estimate for the project, though some estimates have put it at over $10 billion. The MTA is hoping to pursue a private partner to help pay construction costs and operate it as a toll tunnel to recoup the costs.

MTA officials were quick to point out Thursday that all funding for the environmental work will come from Measure R, the half-cent county sales tax voters passed in 2008. That means the money could not go toward operating costs that might have helped the agency avoid a bus fare increase.

MTA spokesman Marc Littman said the agency faces a $250 million operating deficit and will be forced to cut more than 500 jobs.

dan.abendschein@sgvn.com

626-962-8811, ext. 4451
Source: http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_15178050
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #839  
Old Posted May 28, 2010, 11:28 PM
StethJeff's Avatar
StethJeff StethJeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,068
South Pasadena can have a legitimate gripe about the 710 tunnel, but La Canada Flintridge? Come on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #840  
Old Posted May 28, 2010, 11:42 PM
PragmaticIdealist PragmaticIdealist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by suga View Post
The ridership issue you note has nothing to do with how many large buildings are in an area, it has to do with fickle riders when you service more wealthy communities not taking PT. In poor areas, there is always built in ridership, which is why the blue line is stuffed yet hits no tower clusters at its most busy stops, why the busiest goldline station is highland parke station, why the greenline still gathers brisk ridership while going nowhere, and why we need to fund rail lines that go to working class nodes in the central basin much more than 20 lines running through Santa Monica.
I just posted something related to this issue in another thread of this forum.

Monorail trains, if they are designed well, might be able to attract a more upscale ridership than subways, which treat transit passengers like mole people.
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 8:30 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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