HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #941  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2010, 9:35 PM
Steve2726's Avatar
Steve2726 Steve2726 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: L.A.
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post

Construction on the $1.7 billion transit center is tentatively scheduled to occur between 2012 and 2018, Diaz said.
This seems a little steep, is it going to be made of gold with diamond encrusting?

This is either a typo or they aren't mentioning what else is included, eg: consolidated rental car facility, people mover, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #942  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2010, 9:38 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,473
^ Typo. The $1.7 billion is the cost of the Crenshaw/LAX Line.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #943  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2010, 11:44 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is online now
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,401
From Curbed LA:



Quote:
Well, he didn't really draw it--we did--but the city councilman and member of the council's transportation committee wrote a commentary in today's Daily News advocating for several rail lines to be extended. Being The Daily News, LaBonge made a big play for extending the Red Line subway further into the Valley, specifically underground to Victory and Laurel Canyon boulevards and then above ground on the 170 and then along the 5 to Santa Clarita (don't hold your breath). LaBonge also wants the Gold Line extended westward to Glendale and Griffith Park, and eventually to the Burbank airport. As previously mentioned, LaBonge wants the subway to extend into the Arts District, which is a nice idea, but the Gold Line already skirts its border in Little Tokyo, so it probably wouldn't be a big priority to Metro.
The USC Express? More Thoughts from LaBonge.>>>>


LaBonge also calls for a subway line connecting the station at Koreatown to USC via Vermont--both the subway connection to Bob Hope airport and the Vermont subway are unfunded projects included in Metro's long range transportation plan, so basically they're on Metro's radar but far off from fruition. Ed.'s note: the map we used is Metro's most recent, which includes projects under construction--the Gold Line Foothill extension isn't included in their map yet, possibly because it just started pre-construction this summer.
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/0...o_map.php#more
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #944  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 12:36 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,473
Sounds like LaBonge would make a great successor to Villaraigosa. Red Line to Santa Clarita is a bit excessive, though.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #945  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 7:58 PM
LAsam LAsam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,767
Westside subway won't relieve much traffic, according to MTA's draft environmental impact report

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ct-report.html

While the proposed Westside subway extension is expected to provide substantial benefits to transit riders, the multibillion-dollar project -- contrary to one of its selling points -- will do little to relieve traffic congestion in West Los Angeles, a new environmental review shows.

Released Friday, the subway’s draft environmental impact report states that the project will give transit users more options and allow them to travel across town much faster than the municipal buses that serve the densely populated Wilshire corridor.

Transit officials estimate that a one-way subway trip from downtown Los Angeles to Westwood would take about 25 minutes, something that is now difficult to do in a car at rush hour. Buses make the trip in at least 50 minutes, a time that will only lengthen as Wilshire Boulevard and parallel thoroughfares become increasingly choked with traffic.

The report shows, however, that in 2035 the subway extension will only result in a tiny reduction in autombile use -- around 1% -- and that the San Diego Freeway, the Santa Monica Freeway and major streets along the line will remain heavily congested due to population growth.

“Remarks that transit relieves traffic congestion are common, but they are without a factual basis,” said Tom Rubin, a transportation consultant and former transit agency executive in Southern California. “The roads in Los Angeles are so far over capacity, it is difficult to get improvement from new transit projects.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #946  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 8:09 PM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,517
There will always be traffic. Transit's purpose is to provide a viable alternative.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #947  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 8:10 PM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is offline
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 2,720
^ Some odd things:

1. In 25 years traffic will decrease by 1% if the subway is built...that seems like an AMAZING improvement from the null plan of not building anything. The population in the area in 25 years is likely to be much higher than now which means more people who would, without a subway, have to drive or take the bus. With the subway, even 25 years down the line, even on their own terms, traffic would not increase.

Furthermore this entirely assumes that further traffic improvements wouldn't be made in the intervening 25 years which is, in itself, fairly ridiculous. I mean hell the exact same argument could be made for just about any city anywhere (if we do absolutely nothing for 25 years then traffic won't decrease! wow!!)

2. The last couple of lines have the most irresponsible argument I think I've read in a long long time. It seems like what Rubin is saying is that the LA traffic problem is so far gone that NOTHING will help and so therefore we ought do nothing...? What?

Sticking one's head in the sand does absolutely nothing. Assuming that the city, its traffic, and especially the cultural attitude toward mass transit will stay the same in the next quarter century is idiotic especially in a climate in which those attitudes and those patterns are already changing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #948  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 8:17 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,473
The two DEIS/DEIR documents released today...

...

Westside Subway Extension
http://www.metro.net/projects/westsi...eir-sept-2010/

Regional Connector
http://www.metro.net/projects/connec...is-eir-report/
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #949  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 8:28 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,846
From Los Angeles Downtown News:

Underground Option Frontrunner for Regional Connector

Draft Environmental Report Released Today
by Ryan Vaillancourt, Staff Writer
Published: Friday, September 3, 2010 12:50 PM PDT

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority staff prefers an all-underground alignment for the two-mile Regional Connector transit link.

That’s the message in the draft environmental impact report on the project, released by Metro today. The report analyzes impacts and mitigation measures associated with three alignment options, but places the all-underground option as the frontrunner.

“Typically you don’t identify a staff-preferred alternative in a draft environmental document, but due to fact that the community played such a large role in development of the [underground] alternative, I thought that it would be appropriate to recognize all of their hard work,” said project manager Dolores Roybal Saltarelli.

The $1.2 billion connector would add two miles of new subway track that would link Little Tokyo with Seventh Street Metro Center and allow passengers to travel from Pasadena to Long Beach, or from East L.A. to Culver City, without transferring. It would add four new subway stations, at Fifth and Flower streets; Second and Flower streets; Second Street, between Spring Street and Broadway; and at First and Alameda (see rendering). But Metro says in the report that it may need to cut costs, in which case the agency says eliminating the Financial District station at Fifth and Flower streets would be a consideration.

[...]

For the rest of the story, click this.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #950  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2010, 4:46 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
I really don't like the way the times reported on that report concerning the traffic reduction from the Subway to the Sea.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #951  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2010, 10:41 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Found this in the SGV Tribune delivered to me today

Quote:
Perspectives: A tale of two Gold Line extensions; 60 Freeway route will best serve SG Valley

By Judy Chu
Posted: 09/04/2010 07:16:01 AM PDT


(SGVN/Staff Photo by Sarah Reingewirtz)
A light rail train leaves the Atlantic Station of the LA Eastside Goldline extension as the line is tested Wednesday, October 21, 2009 in East Los Angeles.


Imagine a San Gabriel Valley crisscrossed by fast, efficient mass transit, with light rail lines traversing the north and south of the Valley and interconnected by rapid bus links, creating a grid that connects our residents, industrial and educational centers with the rest of the Los Angeles Basin through a high-capacity, pollution-free system.

It's not that hard to imagine, because we are actually halfway there. Construction has finally begun on the second phase of the Gold Line Foothill Extension, with the line being extended east from east Pasadena along the northern foothills. By 2013, this line will run to the edge of the Valley at the Azusa/Glendora border. Metro, along with local transit agencies including Foothill Transit and Montebello Bus Lines, already provide excellent bus service throughout the Valley, and to points beyond.

Now, the last component to giving our residents a truly complete, regional mass transit system is within our grasp. For the past year, Metro has been examining two alternatives to extending the Gold Line Eastside Extension past its current terminus at Atlantic and Pomona boulevards in East Los Angeles.

The only option that makes economic, regional and common sense is the one extending the line along the Pomona (60) Freeway through the southern San Gabriel Valley.

According to previous estimates, the SR-60 alternative is significantly lower in cost than the second option, along Washington Boulevard toward Whittier. The state of California already owns the right of way along the 60 Freeway, while building the line along Washington Boulevard would in all likelihood require purchasing many private properties, including homes and businesses, through eminent domain.
The lack of a need for eminent domain along the SR-60 Route is the reason Montebello, the city that would be most negatively impacted by the Washington Boulevard option, has joined a diverse and united coalition of cities in the southern San Gabriel Valley that support the 60 Freeway alignment. In fact, every city along the proposed line - Montebello, Monterey Park, Rosemead and South El Monte - is on board with the project. And what's more impressive is that cities not directly on the line, including El Monte and Industry, have joined this coalition, helping to ensure we will be well positioned in the future to fight for resources and make further regional transportation connections.

But cities are not the only members of the SR-60 Coalition. Looking forward to two east-west rail lines traversing the Valley, agencies such as Foothill Transit and Montebello Bus Lines have already committed to expanding and improving north-west service connecting the two Gold Lines. This would complete the grid, providing frequent, rapid bus service between rail stations on the north and south ends of the valley while connecting to key destinations in between, from Metro's El Monte Transit Station to our various state and community colleges including Cal Poly Pomona, East Los Angeles, Rio Hondo and Mt. SAC. Just like our Foothill Extension, the Eastside Extension could become a second "Brain Train" through the San Gabriel Valley.

But it doesn't end there. Unlike the Washington Boulevard alternative's planned terminus in Whittier, the SR-60 route is ripe for further expansion to current and future destinations, including the planned world-class football stadium in Industry, Industry's Metrolink station - one of the region's busiest - and further links east to the Ontario Airport and the fast-growing Inland Empire. Providing a light-rail link to the Los Angeles Stadium alone will preempt the huge influx of visitors that will flood to our region once professional football returns to Los Angeles, and influx that would otherwise further clog our already jam-packed freeways.

And that is where the true benefits of such a comprehensive system lie. Even before a stadium is built, imagine the impact of taking thousands of vehicles daily off of two of the three major highways that traverse the Valley from east to west. Imagine the benefits in terms of time saved, increased productivity and economic development, reduced pollution and improved quality of life.

For all these reasons, I have joined the SR-60 Coalition, along with scores of other local elected officials including state Assembly members Mike Eng and Ed Hernandez. Considering that Measure R only allocates $1.2 billion to the Eastside Extension Phase II, a figure below the total cost for either alternative, we need a unified coalition of state, federal and local officials to leverage the resources necessary to get the job done. And the only route that has that type of unanimous and dedicated support is the SR-60 alternative.

So I ask the residents of the San Gabriel Valley and our local leaders to join us and imagine what the future can hold as we move forward toward a truly comprehensive mass transit system that will serve as a model for our region and our state. Together, we can turn this dream into a reality.

Rep. Judy Chu, D-Monterey Park, is a member of Congress from California's 32nd District.
Source: http://www.sgvtribune.com/opinions/ci_15992967
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #952  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2010, 10:45 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
The more I think about it, the more I think both routes are bad, and I would rather take "No-Build" and choose to have a Purple Line extension from Downtown.

However, if I had to choose, I still consider this route the lesser of the two evils. And while the stadium should be a side-benefit and not the primary one in building this alternative, it can be extended only 3 miles north on Grand Ave to Mt. San Antonio College (Mt. SAC), which is attended by over 40,000 students.

The route to Whittier was badly planned and could've been better, but instead we have a cheapened version of a Whittier Blvd route that doesn't even go on Whittier Blvd AT ALL.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #953  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2010, 12:59 AM
manrush manrush is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Greater Boston
Posts: 103
Any news on the Nippon Shary railcars?

Are they all being refurbished and repainted in the new livery?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #954  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2010, 9:27 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is online now
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,401
From Curbed LA



Quote:
Behold the proposed Silver Line bus station in downtown. Currently called the "Union Station/Patsaouras" station, this new elevated stop will serve riders of the Silver Line, that nearly year-old line that connects the South Bay and the San Gabriel Valley to Downtown. So you know what you're looking at: The glowing "M" is located above the Denny's restaurant on Ramirez Street and the road right to the left of the "M"-- heading toward the mountains--is Vignes Street. Designed by Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects (who also did Patsaouras Transit Plaza) and STV Inc, this new bus station will make it easier for Silver Line riders to connect to other lines, according to Tim Lindholm, Director of Capital Projects at Metro. (Currently, Silver Line riders get out on Alameda Street, right where the busway ends.) Metro will go out for bids on the $15 million project in November, according to Lindhold, and then it's another 18 months until it's finished.
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #955  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2010, 11:36 PM
dl3000's Avatar
dl3000 dl3000 is offline
500 foot Groundscraper
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 492
That is a sexy rendering whoever made that. How with this affect the southern rail approach plans for Union Station though?
__________________
"San Diego...drink it in, it always goes down smooth" - Ron Burgundy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #956  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2010, 4:53 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
I'm concerned how this would affect plans to extend the Red Line east on the el monte busway and Garvey.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #957  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2010, 5:31 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is online now
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
I'm concerned how this would affect plans to extend the Red Line east on the el monte busway and Garvey.
Is that in Metro's long term plans?
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #958  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2010, 5:58 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeHundred View Post
Is that in Metro's long term plans?
Okay, I guess "plans" is the wrong word. I haven't seen it in Metro's 30 year long term plan, but a lot of people (bloggers) want to see the Red Line extended into the San Gabriel Valley (presumebly while the Purple Line is extended to Whittier) because Garvey, Main, and Valley are dense, busy corridors that need traffic relief. SGV north of the 10 is already getting the Silver Line, so a line on Garvey makes sense.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #959  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2010, 7:00 PM
Sodha Sodha is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
Okay, I guess "plans" is the wrong word. I haven't seen it in Metro's 30 year long term plan, but a lot of people (bloggers) want to see the Red Line extended into the San Gabriel Valley (presumebly while the Purple Line is extended to Whittier) because Garvey, Main, and Valley are dense, busy corridors that need traffic relief. SGV north of the 10 is already getting the Silver Line, so a line on Garvey makes sense.
Remember....rail lines NEVER bring traffic relief...they bring alternative transportation options. There is no "traffic relief" in Hollywood (Red Line), Koreatown (Purple Line), El Segundo (Green Line)....or even London, Paris, New York, Chicago, San Francisco. Rail is only deserving if density is there (and expected) and alternative transportation options do not exist. Ask people in other major cities how traffic is a problem..and you won't hear about it, because options exist; but yet, there still is plenty of traffic. Try driving from one end of Paris to the other end at 5 pm...you won't get far. The same will happen to LA no matter how much more rail we develop.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #960  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2010, 9:09 PM
mfastx mfastx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sodha View Post
Remember....rail lines NEVER bring traffic relief...they bring alternative transportation options. There is no "traffic relief" in Hollywood (Red Line), Koreatown (Purple Line), El Segundo (Green Line)....or even London, Paris, New York, Chicago, San Francisco. Rail is only deserving if density is there (and expected) and alternative transportation options do not exist. Ask people in other major cities how traffic is a problem..and you won't hear about it, because options exist; but yet, there still is plenty of traffic. Try driving from one end of Paris to the other end at 5 pm...you won't get far. The same will happen to LA no matter how much more rail we develop.
Well, yeah, of course cities with METRO systems will have traffic, they're big cities. But I guarantee you that if you remove those METRO systems, traffic will increase. So they kinda are long-term traffic relief.
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 2:11 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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