LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion - Page 81

LosAngelesSportsFan · #**1601** Posted **Sep 7, 2011, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

^ The Gold Line's Memorial Park station is only 2 blocks away from Colorado.

A Hollywood Bowl station is being considered for the northern Crenshaw extension.

Wow, i didnt know that about the Hollywood bowl station! it seems so obvious, i dont know why they skipped it.

True about memorial park, but a station on colorado would be huge.

LAofAnaheim · #**1602** Posted **Sep 7, 2011, 7:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

A Hollywood Bowl station is being considered for the northern Crenshaw extension.

Woah, woah woah...before we start spreading this word...please give me your source of this information. I have never heard a word of this from Metro, the Source, Streetsblog, or any member of the Transit Coalition (who work really closely with Metro).

Metro only published a northern extension study in 2009 but it mentions NOWHERE about a Hollywood Bowl station.

http://www.metro.net/projects_studie...-%20Report.pdf

The only REASONABLE northern extension of the Crenshaw Line is up to Santa Monica boulevard (read the study).

LAofAnaheim · #**1603** Posted **Sep 7, 2011, 7:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Wow, i didnt know that about the Hollywood bowl station! it seems so obvious, i dont know why they skipped it.

True about memorial park, but a station on colorado would be huge.

LASF....before you get excited about a Hollywood bowl station, let's see the Source. I've never seen anything like this produced and I talk closely with the Transit Coalition, Streetsblog, etc.. I would have heard something from a credible source if this was true. Let's not spread misinformation.

Memorial Park is 2 blocks from Colorado, it's already packed during the Rose Parade. There's no need for a closer station. Note: the Eiffel Tower stadium in Paris is like 1/4 mile away and people in Paris don't complain. We can walk 2 blocks! And they're small urban blocks!

Quixote · #**1604** Posted **Sep 7, 2011, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Wow, i didnt know that about the Hollywood bowl station! it seems so obvious, i dont know why they skipped it.

True about memorial park, but a station on colorado would be huge.

It's a 0.1 mile walk. If you walk along the old easement, it should take you no more than 2 minutes to reach Colorado.

I like the location of the Memorial Park station. There's better access to the park, the Senior Center, and City Hall. The old easement provides a quick and direct route to Colorado. It's very cool.

Quixote · #**1605** Posted **Sep 7, 2011, 10:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Woah, woah woah...before we start spreading this word...please give me your source of this information. I have never heard a word of this from Metro, the Source, Streetsblog, or any member of the Transit Coalition (who work really closely with Metro).

Metro only published a northern extension study in 2009 but it mentions NOWHERE about a Hollywood Bowl station.

http://www.metro.net/projects_studie...-%20Report.pdf

The only REASONABLE northern extension of the Crenshaw Line is up to Santa Monica boulevard (read the study).

It's from an old video (that has since been edited) of one of the meetings. If you look closely, you can make out the word "Bowl" at the top. But who knows, maybe the plans have changed.

LAofAnaheim · #**1606** Posted **Sep 7, 2011, 11:28 PM**

Interesting....good find Westsidelife. However, now that the Pink Line was shelved and Metro feels compelled to give West Hollywood a rail transit line, I expect the line to go north on San Vicente (hence why the La Cienega/Wilshire Purple Line station was moved to east of La Cienega) and then go west on Santa Monica until it reaches Hollywood/Highland. Though, a stub station to Hollywood Bowl would be awesome, but I cannot envision us building a station that would only be used evenings for 100 days a year. Doesn't sound cost effective.

LosAngelesSportsFan · #**1607** Posted **Sep 7, 2011, 11:32 PM**

its true that its only used for about a 100 days a year, but its a huge trip generator no? i think it would service plenty of people. imagine how easy it would be to get to the bowl from mid city, west LA and santa monica with the completion of purple, expo and crenshaw. Wow, i just realized that LA is looking like a totally different city in 5 - 7 years.

LAofAnaheim · #**1608** Posted **Sep 8, 2011, 12:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

its true that its only used for about a 100 days a year, but its a huge trip generator no? i think it would service plenty of people. imagine how easy it would be to get to the bowl from mid city, west LA and santa monica with the completion of purple, expo and crenshaw. Wow, i just realized that LA is looking like a totally different city in 5 - 7 years.

There's a good analysis on Metro's Source as to why the Bowl station on the Red Line station never was built:

http://thesource.metro.net/2011/09/0...ollywood-bowl/

Quixote · #**1609** Posted **Sep 8, 2011, 1:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Interesting....good find Westsidelife. However, now that the Pink Line was shelved and Metro feels compelled to give West Hollywood a rail transit line, I expect the line to go north on San Vicente (hence why the La Cienega/Wilshire Purple Line station was moved to east of La Cienega) and then go west on Santa Monica until it reaches Hollywood/Highland. Though, a stub station to Hollywood Bowl would be awesome, but I cannot envision us building a station that would only be used evenings for 100 days a year. Doesn't sound cost effective.

Yes, I know. I'm always up-to-date with the latest plans.

Although I said the route was "up for discussion" in an earlier post, I realize that it's pretty much a no-brainer that the San Vicente alignment will be chosen because, as you mentioned, the Pink Line has been scrapped. I just hope provisions are made for an extension down Santa Monica that would continue on toward Downtown and, perhaps, Glendale.

all of the trash · #**1610** Posted **Sep 8, 2011, 5:36 AM**

It isn't the geographical distance thats the issue with the Memorial Park station, its more the mental distance. In a sense of urban design, stop on Colorado would give the gold line prime visibility, and under ground station opening up to a vibrant, crowded sidewalks is exactly what we expect when speak of 'destinations' in relation to the metro system. Anyone know why a Colorado station wasn't built? Seems like a no-brainer. I can't imagine a red line stop on Selma and Highland instead of Hollywood and Highland.

Quixote · #**1611** Posted **Sep 8, 2011, 6:27 AM**

^ Probably due to logistics. A station on Colorado wouldn't have been constructible using the cut-and-cover method without having to tear down buildings. The only other option would've been using TBMs, which is much more expensive.

202_Cyclist · #**1612** Posted **Sep 9, 2011, 9:44 PM**

In traffic-choked L.A., a car lane is given to bicycles

City officials unveil a new 2.2-mile path stretching along 7th Street from Catalina Avenue in Koreatown to Figueroa Street downtown. All that was needed was paint, a few signs and some traffic light adjustments.

A cyclist uses the new bike lane on 7th Street in downtown Los Angeles. The lane used to be for cars only. (Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)

By Ari Bloomekatz
Los Angeles Times
September 9, 2011

"In a city known for traffic gridlock, deliberately eliminating an entire lane for cars could be politically dubious.

But that's just what officials did Thursday as they unveiled Los Angeles' newest bicycle lane, a 2.2-mile stretch along 7th Street from Catalina Avenue in Koreatown to Figueroa Street downtown.

"Hold on to your hats, folks, we're actually removing a lane for a car — in favor of a bike lane — in Los Angeles," City Councilman Ed Reyes said during a news conference at MacArthur Park. "By doing so, we, as a city, are changing the way we see bicycles, as not only a recreational vehicle but as a legitimate form of public transportation."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2793713.story

all of the trash · #**1613** Posted **Sep 10, 2011, 3:09 AM**

^Being that I live in ktown, frequently go downtown, and use a bike as a primary mode of transportation, this is awesome news! Are there plans to extend it beyond Fig though? All the way to LA River perhaps, or Main st at least?

Muji · #**1614** Posted **Sep 10, 2011, 3:23 AM**

According to LADOT, the next phase of the bike lanes will be from Figueroa to Soto St in Boyle Heights. Apparently due to lack of funding, no time table is yet in place for that if I remember correctly.

all of the trash · #**1615** Posted **Sep 11, 2011, 12:33 AM**

That's a shame. They should have started with the downtown portion first. That's the segment most dangerous for bike riders. Once you ride on 7th into westlake and koreatown, I found enough space between the right lane and parking lane that filling it in with a bike lane was barely necessary.

LosAngelesSportsFan · #**1616** Posted **Sep 12, 2011, 4:29 PM**

Expo phase 2 officially started! Expo, gold, crenshaw, orange all under construction at the same time. Amazing how.times have changed.

202_Cyclist · #**1617** Posted **Sep 12, 2011, 7:22 PM**

Construction of Expo Line's second part to begin
"This phase will involve a new group of contractors, a fixed budget and a larger contingency fund for unknown costs, says the head of the Expo Line construction authority."

Expo Line personnel check a train doing a test run at Western Avenue and Exposition Boulevard. (Al Seib, Los Angeles Times / September 11, 2011)

By Ari Bloomekatz
Los Angeles Times
September 11, 2011

“Los Angeles transportation officials readily admit that building the first phase of the Expo Line has been trying, costing hundreds of millions of dollars more than originally budgeted and suffering nagging delays.

But city and county leaders hope to leave those problems behind when they gather in Santa Monica on Monday to mark the start of construction of the second phase of the rail line — the first to reach far into the traffic-clogged Westside since trolleys ran some 50 years ago…”

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,6612096.story

Quixote · #**1618** Posted **Sep 12, 2011, 10:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Expo phase 2 officially started! Expo, gold, crenshaw, orange all under construction at the same time. Amazing how.times have changed.

Formal construction of the Gold Line Foothill Extension will begin next year; right now it's just the "basket bridge" over the 210.

The Crenshaw Corridor is also beginning next year.

SD_Phil · #**1619** Posted **Sep 13, 2011, 12:46 AM**

^Fantastic news though. Wish these lines had been started long long ago but the Los Angeles county of 2020 will be almost unrecognizable in terms of transit connectivity compared to the Los Angeles of 2000.

StethJeff · #**1620** Posted **Sep 13, 2011, 5:01 AM**

The Harbor Subdivision + direct connection to LAX (1 or 2 stations within the terminals) is what I am holding out for. No matter what LA County looks like by 2020, it will be considered woefully incomplete in my mind until the above happens. A direct connection between the airport and the city transit hub is damn near obligatory for both Angelenos and out-of-towners to truly feel like LA has a mature and useful transit system. Being able to take the rail from LAX is pretty much the only way you can challenge people's 60+ year old perceptions about car-obsessed LA.