LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[pesto]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Gold Line backers reach accord with Monrovia landowner

The construction authority overseeing the rail project's extension from Pasadena to Azusa will pay the property owner $24 million to settle six suits over the price of 4.8 acres needed for a maintenance yard.

By Dan Weikel
Los Angeles Times
February 15, 2012

"Facing a 2015 construction deadline and the uncertainty of a long court fight, the builders of a San Gabriel Valley light-rail project have agreed to pay a Monrovia property owner $24 million to settle six lawsuits related to a dispute over the price officials offered him for his land.

Under the settlement, the Gold Line construction authority will give George Brokate of Excaliber Property Holdings his asking price for 4.8 acres in Monrovia that are needed for a maintenance yard for the Foothill extension, which will run from Pasadena east to Azusa.

Brokate's attorneys contended, among other things, that rail officials undervalued their client's property on the southwest corner of Evergreen and Shamrock avenues at $5.8 million during condemnation proceedings..."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,6878837.story

Do I smell something? Oh, well, it's just the taxpayer's money. And, after all, this is a critical project.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

what was metro supposed to do? they were handcuffed by this douchebag who threatened to sue. The lawsuit would have cost metro 4 times as much as the settlement and would have delayed the project 2 years. dont blame metro, blame the guy who wanted to sue and cashout.

[M II A II R II K]

Park 101 Keeps the Ball in the Air


19 February 2012

By Bill Fulton

Read More: http://www.cp-dr.com/node/3132

Southern California’s most ambitious freeway “cap” proposal is still going forward – though there are literally mountains to move before the cap is constructed. At a discussion Thursday of the so-called “Park 101” project, a half-dozen panelists debated methods for moving the cap forward. But all were enthusiastic – and it’s clear that if the Park 101 cap by Union Street is constructed, several more in Southern California will quickly follow.

“Let’s get this thing into environmental,” said Doug Failing of L.A. Metro, who formerly served as Caltrans District 7 director in Los Angeles. His comment summed up the day. Park 101 is a proposal to cap several blocks of Highway 101 in the vicinity of Union Station in Downtown Los Angeles. But the cap isn’t the only aspect of the project. The project’s proponents have also suggested that several under-used onramps and offramps be reconfigured or eliminated, opening up lots of land either for development or for parks.

.....

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe LA's Commuters Are Finally Ready to Embrace Mass Transit


Feb 20, 2012

By Patrick Healy and Bill French

Read More: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...139768063.html

.....

"Ultimately it is the economic factor that is the biggest contributor to public transit ridership," said Sunyoung Yang of the Bus Riders Union. "That contributes to ridership." The Union is hoping Metro will be able to hold the line on fares, and restore some of the cuts in neighborhood bus service in recent years. Metro has continued to expand its rail and dedicated lane service. Coming on line in the next few months will be two major projects: th extension of the Orange Line Busway in the West San Fernando Valley and the first phase of the Expo light rail line from Downtown Los Angeles to Culver City.

- "What we've always seen is that when people try transit, if they have a good experience, if they understand that it's easy, and if they've routed out that first trip right, they usually go back to it," says Damien Newton of LA.Streetsblog.Org. But in many cases, unless you get rid of your car and insurance, the difference between the cost of transit and even five dollar a gallon gasoline is not significant. UC Santa Barbara student Emily Westmoreland considered leaving her Mustang and taking Amtrak home to Los Angeles, but it did not pencil out. "It's a little cheaper for me to use my car," said Westmoreland. "But I definitely am for public transit."

.....

[pesto]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

what was metro supposed to do? they were handcuffed by this douchebag who threatened to sue. The lawsuit would have cost metro 4 times as much as the settlement and would have delayed the project 2 years. dont blame metro, blame the guy who wanted to sue and cashout.

OK; shame on your Mr. X for taking stupid people's money needed for useless projects. Or maybe it's the legal system (part of the govt.) or failure of MTA to obtain rights before begining construction?

[pesto]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Park 101 Keeps the Ball in the Air


19 February 2012

By Bill Fulton

Read More: http://www.cp-dr.com/node/3132

A nice idea and I wholly suport it. Unfortunately, a couple of problems.

Not a word about funding.

Caltrans is the biggest hold-up, because they "own" the rights over the freeway and won't give any of them up ever? Thanks, Caltrans.

[Jasonhouse]

Originally Posted by From Article

But in many cases, unless you get rid of your car and insurance, the difference between the cost of transit and even five dollar a gallon gasoline is not significant. UC Santa Barbara student Emily Westmoreland considered leaving her Mustang and taking Amtrak home to Los Angeles, but it did not pencil out. "It's a little cheaper for me to use my car," said Westmoreland. "But I definitely am for public transit."

$50 says she didn't factor in depreciation from mileage or the cost of added maintenance. I bet she still won't realize transit would have been cheaper even when she's replacing her struts, tires and brakes for ~$2000.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by pesto

OK; shame on your Mr. X for taking stupid people's money needed for useless projects. Or maybe it's the legal system (part of the govt.) or failure of MTA to obtain rights before begining construction?

i have zero idea what you are saying here. are you agreeing or disagreeing?

[202_Cyclist]

Amtrak expands bus service to Coachella Valley

February 21, 2012
Palm Springs Desert Sun


"Amtrak expanded its bus service between Fullerton, Riverside and the Coachella Valley, a Caltrans spokeswoman said today.

The Pacific Surfliner Thruway bus links the Fullerton Amtrak station to Palm Springs, Palm Desert, La Quinta, Indio, Cabazon and Riverside. The line started running Dec. 5, but Amtrak did not announce the bus link until it was sure all the kinks were worked out, Holly Vogel of Caltrans said..."

http://www.mydesert.com/article/2012...sey=nav%7Chead

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by pesto

OK; shame on your Mr. X for taking stupid people's money needed for useless projects. Or maybe it's the legal system (part of the govt.) or failure of MTA to obtain rights before begining construction?

How many times must you be told that this isn't a "useless" project? Why not do some research into the destinations this project would serve instead of simply relying on misleading ridership predictions and the flaws of Phase I? Last I checked ridership for the Orange line exceeded expectations. Why can't this project do the same?

Oh right, the majority of money HAS to go to the Purple Line extension. The truth is the the westside has nobody to blame but itself. Its local politicians have failed to be vocal and get involved in the planning of the subway, unlike their SGV counterparts. They LET the local NIMBYs have a voice and be a distraction... When was the last time you heard NIMBYs in the SGV complain about tye foothill extension?

[pesto]

Sorry, I'm can't expect that ridership will exceed expectations. In fact, I think that is impossible.

This is not a personal vendeta. It's just that it doesn't look like much of a priority compared to, say, Purple, Pink, a Vermont or Western project, the 405 corridor. This really is a pokey train through low-density, with no regional shopping or commercial centers in its path once you leave Pasadena.

But isn't it pretty much understood that this is a loser and was done for political purposes? Even so, further south in the SGV would have hit more people and business centers (say, El Monte, West Covina, Pomona).

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by pesto

Sorry, I'm can't expect that ridership will exceed expectations. In fact, I think that is impossible.

I think its too early to conclude that. With Citrus College and APU in the vincinity, there's a great deal of potential, particularly for the terminus station. The former has a lot of low and mid income students already take the bus, and the latter has many students that can likely afford to drive, but ride their bikes instead (that's why foothill blvd's sidewalks were widened a couple years ago with a bike lane installed).

This is not a personal vendeta. It's just that it doesn't look like much of a priority compared to, say, Purple, Pink, a Vermont or Western project, the 405 corridor. This really is a pokey train through low-density, with no regional shopping or commercial centers in its path once you leave Pasadena.

Well the area around the monrovia station has a bit of potential to be a "mini" pasadena. And bus ridership on the 187 FT line during peak hours (along with bus arrival frequency at that time-15 minutes I believe) would seem to suggest that the demand is at least somewhat there, though I don't have the numbers as of now.

But isn't it pretty much understood that this is a loser and was done for political purposes? Even so, further south in the SGV would have hit more people and business centers (say, El Monte, West Covina, Pomona).

Of course it was partly political. The only other rail project in eastern LA county funded under Measure R is the Eastside Extension. Without the Foothill Extension, there's no way the measure would have made it past the voters, (as it is, the majority approval vote was narrow). And Indeed, I wanted to see the Silver Line included in the 2008 proposal, but alas, it was not meant to be.

IOW, including the Foothill Extension was a necessary sacrifice that people in say, in the vincinity of the Vermont Corridor, had to be willing to make in order for the rest of the county(as a whole) to gain a favorable view of transt. I think it means that if a Measure R2 is eventually proposed, it might have support in the SGV, even if there aren't any new rail projects in the area included under such a measure.

[M II A II R II K]

Metro pushes again for lockdown on fare evaders


February 24, 2012

By Ari Bloomekatz

Read More: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb...gates-20120224

The subway and light-rail system has largely operated without locked gates, trusting that 97% of passengers would buy tickets. But that hasn't been so, with a loss of millions of dollars in revenue.

- "There are a lot of people who have been avoiding their fares," said Zev Yaroslavsky, a county supervisor and Metro board member. "We're leaving millions and millions of dollars on the table." Yaroslavsky wrote Thursday's motion asking for a plan to implement gate-locking at Metro rail stations within six months. He added that it has been "a long, painful, teeth-pulling exercise" to reach this point.

- The Metro board Thursday passed another measure to ask other transit system operators in the region to change their ticketing systems to sync with Metro's Transit Access Pass. Eight municipal bus operators are already TAP-enabled and Metrolink officials say they will follow suit this spring. Yaroslavsky said one reason Metro officials failed to lock the gates sooner is because they were operating under the false assumption that only 3% of riders were evading fares.

- "It's impossible that in a system where there's, practically speaking, no checking whether people paid their fare or not, that 97% would pay their fare," Yaroslavsky said. The Metro staff tested locking gates at 10 stations last fall and winter and reported increased revenue at the 7th Street/Metro Center and North Hollywood stations by 18% to 22%.

.....

[pesto]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Metro pushes again for lockdown on fare evaders


February 24, 2012

By Ari Bloomekatz

Read More: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb...gates-20120224

Metro needs a thorough cleaning. I think I mentioned in one of these threads that I talked with a mid-level exec in MTA about 2 years ago and he said that non-payers were over 10 percent but that they had been told to claim it was lower because the gates and software weren't working right and had to wait for budget and rework. Meanwhile it appears that about 20 percent of the people have been walking in, which creates a culture of entitlement, allows derelicts and troublemakers in, makes statistics look too low, etc.

What exactly are the advantages of tolerating this?

[all of the trash]

TAP is such a joke.

I usually buy a monthly pass so I never tap the card when I enter metro stations because it is validated for the rest of the month. One time I was short on money so I only bought a weekly pass, but I had not realized I 'added value' and not 'added pass' so I assumed it worked like a monthly pass and I had been boarding the trains for a week without tapping. When I tapped to see if it had expired, it deducted credit for the first time and I still had 19.50 on it. A minor thing for me but for novice metro riders I can see how this would be confusing. Add to that they still issue paper passes and new riders see people using TAP cards and are trying to tap the turnstiles with their paper passes. And then the tap pads are inconsistent with their locations on platforms, depending on which line you're riding.

[202_Cyclist]

This is good to see. I biked to work here in DC on Monday and at a time when gas is nearly (or perhaps more in CA) $4 per gallon, I used zero gallons of gas and didn't pay one cent to get to work.

'A real roadmap,' as 832 miles in new bikeways come to Los Angeles County

By Melissa Pamer
02/28/2012
LA Daily News

"More than 830 new miles of bikeways would be added to unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County -- including on curving roads through the Santa Monica Mountains -- under a plan approved by the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

Three years and dozens of public outreach meetings in the making, the County of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan is a guide for building bike paths, lanes and routes over the next 20 years.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said the plan would "give us a real road map -- no pun intended -- to take our bicycle planning and implementation to a new level...."

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_20066319?source=rss

[202_Cyclist]

Greater Greater Washington has a post comparing the Walk Scores surrounding the stations of various rail systems in metro areas in US. Los Angeles had the highest, with a Walk Score of 90.7, above New York, DC, and Boston.

Which city's rail system has the best Walk Score?
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/...st-walk-score/

[pesto]

Makes sense. The Red and Purple and different from the other lines. They are urban, not suburban. They are going to differ from the others in terms of likelihood of TOD, walkability, levels of ridership; in other words, in terms of need and importance to the city.

[M II A II R II K]

For L.A., How to Build an Airport Rail Connection That Makes Sense for Passengers?


March 9th, 2012

By Yonah Freemark

Read More: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...or-passengers/

PDF Routes: http://www.metro.net/projects_studie..._2012_0301.pdf

Los Angeles leaders, like those of many major cities, are very interested in improving public transportation access to the airport. Such projects are perceived to be politically palatable transit investments because they are appealing to a wide spectrum of the population, including people — especially the economically influential — who do not usually take the bus or train. Unfortunately, even when they’re built, these connections often fail to live up to expectations. Can L.A.’s planned airport rail link do better?

- Currently, the Green Line runs from Norwalk to Redondo Beach, mostly along the Century Freeway; customers can switch to airport-bound buses at the Aviation station. But there is no direct rail service into the airport, and buses entering and circulating around LAX’s eight terminals are slow. As a result, virtually no one takes transit: Today, just 1% of air passengers and 9% of employees arrive by public transportation. As a comparison, according to the most recent Census statistics, 7.1% of Los Angeles County residents take transit to work and 11.0% of Los Angeles City residents do the same. There is certainly room for improvement.

- Meanwhile, the transit agency won millions of dollars in aid from the federal government for its 8.5-mile Crenshaw light rail line, which will run east of the airport by 2018 and connect to the Green Line, but again, not provide direct airport access. All this leaves L.A. grasping about for a plan. This year, L.A. Metro planners are performing an alternatives analysis on the corridor with the goal of selecting a locally preferred alternative for the route in 2013. All but the most basic route would require more funding than the $200 million currently available, so there is no guarantee that the project will be built this decade; even so, the airport will likely contribute hundreds of millions of dollars in airplane landing fees to the line, so something will probably be built eventually.

- The average customer using the line would save the most time if the light rail line were simple rerouted under the terminal (and this would attract the most new customers), but this would be an expensive and duplicative approach, since it would parallel the north-south Crenshaw Corridor. One obvious question is why the Crenshaw Line wasn’t designed to run through the airport on the way to the Green Line, but it is too far along on the design process to change course now. Other options would provide direct light rail service as a branch from the Green Line or a circulator, either in the form of a people mover or a bus rapid transit line, connected to the Crenshaw Line or an intermediate station.

.....

[pesto]

Crenshaw Line is one of the most complete wastes of money around. It was put in strictly for political purposes and wanders aimlessly through low-rise residential, industrial areas with multi-acre parking lots, and misses LAX to boot. Its northern terminal is at the least dense part of Wilshire, miles from either DT, Century City or the westside.

It is not too far along to change course; their just isn't any political will to do so.