HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #721  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2010, 11:50 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by PragmaticIdealist View Post
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.
Well, given that you need to take a shuttle from the Metrolink station, it can be used. Besides, alot of people I know from the SGV that fly take Ontario International Aiport instead of LAX because of the traffic.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #722  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2010, 4:36 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,935
U.S. officials eager to climb aboard Villaraigosa's L.A. transit plan (LA Times)

U.S. officials eager to climb aboard Villaraigosa's L.A. transit plan

Even some lawmakers from other states see merit in the Los Angeles mayor's idea for massive federal loans to ease congestion and create jobs.


A light-rail car gets a test on the Gold Line extension. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wants to build 12 transit lines in 10 years instead of 30 years. (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times)

By Richard Simon
Los Angeles Times
3/29/2010

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...803,full.story

Reporting from Washington - Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's bid to secure federal funds for fast-track expansion of the Los Angeles region's transit system is gaining support from Washington officials who say it could serve as a national model for speeding economic recovery and reducing pollution and traffic congestion.

The Obama administration and influential members of Congress are exploring ways to aid the car-clogged city with a federal loan, economic stimulus funds or other assistance so it can build 12 transit lines in 10 years instead of 30.

"Everyone who has ever driven in L.A. knows that more and better transit in that region is a must, and the sooner it's in place, the better," said Roy Kienitz, the undersecretary for policy in the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Although political challenges lie ahead that could be as daunting as navigating the L.A. freeways at rush hour, the mayor's plan has drawn the enthusiasm of not only California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein but lawmakers from other states.

"My colleagues really like this," said Boxer, who is well-positioned to help as chairwoman of the Senate committee that will write the next big transportation bill. "We think this is really a model for everywhere."

Rep. John L. Mica of Florida, the top Republican on the House Transportation Committee, was also eager to aid the mayor. "I'll do everything I can to help him," he said.

The federal government gives loans for transportation projects, but rarely has it provided assistance on the scale that Villaraigosa is seeking. Legislation will probably be needed.

While mayoral aides are working to determine how much federal funding they will need, Villaraigosa recently said the Metropolitan Transportation Authority faced a gap of up to $8.8 billion if it was to accelerate a 78-mile expansion of the region's 102-mile network of rail lines and buses in operation or under construction.

Besides the mayor's pet subway extension to the Westside, other projects he hopes to speed up include a long-sought rail extension to Los Angeles International Airport, a Crenshaw Boulevard line, a Gold Line extension through the San Gabriel Valley and busways in the San Fernando Valley.

Villaraigosa said that any money Washington advanced to L.A. would be repaid from the $40 billion projected to be generated over the next 30 years from a half-cent sales tax approved by county voters last year -- a selling point that has resonated with lawmakers.

"A lot of legislators are responding to the fact that we're not just asking for a handout from D.C.," Villaraigosa blogged after a recent trip to Washington.

The mayor has spoken with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and the White House about his plan.

Of the $8.8-billion gap, most would come from a combination of private financing and bonds, such as Build America Bonds, established in the economic recovery bill to cut interest costs for local and state infrastructure projects.

At least $500 million to $750 million in federal aid would be needed starting in three years, said MTA board member Richard Katz.

If the MTA simply sold bonds at conventional rates, it wouldn't be able to afford to build all 12 projects, he said.

In a recent appearance before Boxer's public works committee, Villaraigosa said there was a national interest in expediting the projects in order to produce jobs and environmental benefits sooner.

The growing attention to his plan is a turnaround from a few months ago when, according to Villaraigosa, "everybody laughed us out of their offices."

The proposal has gained notice among Villaraigosa's fellow Democrats in Washington who are eager to create jobs in what is shaping up to be a tough November election.

Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.), chairman of the House subcommittee on highways and transit, has become among the most enthusiastic supporters.

And Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee, will consider incorporating ways to aid Los Angeles and other cities as his panel writes the new transportation bill, spokesman Jim Berard said.

Kienitz, the undersecretary of transportation, said the mayor's plan could serve as a template for other regions eager to expand transit networks, including Denver, Salt Lake City, Seattle and Houston.

Still, much political uncertainty remains.

"Unfortunately, there's no current mechanism in law that would allow the federal government to loan L.A. or anyone else that much money upfront and have it paid back over so many years," Berard said.

The mayor's efforts come amid increasing political anxiety in Washington over the massive federal budget deficit, notwithstanding his assurances that a federal loan would be repaid.

"We are always leery of promises that are too good to be true," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, expressing concern about the risk to taxpayers if there are cost overruns.

Competition for transportation funds is fierce. Lawmakers from other states are often wary of doing anything special for California, which they think has outsize influence on Capitol Hill. And they are concerned about giving too much aid to one region for fear it will take away money for projects in their towns.

"Lobbyists for Kansas City, Indianapolis or Atlanta that want to see their transit system expanded realize that any extra money L.A. gets, they don't get," said Wendell Cox, a former Los Angeles County transportation commissioner who runs a consulting firm in St. Louis.

One possible source of aid -- stimulus funds designated for innovative transportation projects -- drew applications for 40 times the available amount in the last round. Another possible source -- a $4-billion infrastructure innovation fund proposed by President Obama -- still must be approved by Congress.

Villaraigosa could be aided by members of California's 53-member House delegation, bigger than any other state's. On the other hand, the mayor could find it difficult to unite California's famously fractured delegation behind his proposal.

"Being fiscally conservative, I think it is not better for the economy to spend money when you're deeply in debt," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #723  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 1:02 AM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles/ Tahoe
Posts: 5,053
Thanks for posting. That is very exciting news but still a little frustrating because it seems like even if this idea is feasible and comes to fruition it will need to involve legislation. Can just a transportation committee vote to approve this? If it requires a full house and senate vote I cannot see any legislation passing, or passing only if every district tacks on their own project that they claim is of equal importance to their city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #724  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 3:32 AM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,935
^The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee will be holding a hearing where this will likely be discussed on Apr. 14. The President's FY2011 budget contains $4B for a new National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...sportation.pdf). This will require the approval of the entire Congress, not just the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Rep. DeLauro (D-CT) sponsored H.R. 2521, which would create a national infrastructure bank (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...2521ih.txt.pdf). There are 46 co-sponsors on this legislation but, of course, nobody from the Party of Doom has signed on yet. There are a few valid concerns about the national infrastructure bank but my prediction is that with unemployment near 10 percent, Republicans oppose this proposal that will likely create many jobs at their peril.

http://transportation.house.gov/hear...px?NewsID=1148

April 14, 2010
10:00AM

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

Using Innovative Financing to Deliver Highway and Transit Projects•2167 Rayburn House Office Building
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #725  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2010, 3:59 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
^ I don't think County angelenos that opposed Measure R are gonna be happy if they don't see quick results from their sacrifices.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #726  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2010, 3:25 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,498
An interesting read that hits the nail on the head in terms of LA's potential as a transit city...

Los Angeles: The Next Great Transit Metropolis?

Posted by Jarrett, HumanTransit.org
March 31, 2010

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's campaign to accelerate the construction of rail transit his city is deservedly in the news, not just for his own persistence but also for the excitement it's generating in the Obama administration, in Congress, and in other cities who would love to see a precedent-setting response. But it's also very useful and inspiring to transit planners working overseas, like me.

When I talk about North American public transit to people here in Australia or New Zealand, I don't talk much about New York or Boston or other old cities where the depth of urban history approaches that of Europe; Australians and New Zealanders already know Europe better than most Americans do. I talk a bit about Portland, because of its land use laws, extensive light rail, and special downtown. I talk about Vancouver, becuase of SkyTrain, and its growth management, but above all because of its dramatic densification over the last few decades.

But when I really want to surprise them, and shift their thinking, I talk about Los Angeles. Educated Australians, like educated Europeans, have mostly been there as tourists, and they remember it with the kind of fascinated delight that could just as well be called horror. Even if they haven't been there, they know it as the car capital of America, the city they'd least think of as the next great transit metropolis.

Los Angeles may still seem hopelessly car-dominated today, but it's fortunate in its urban structure, in ways that make it a smart long term bet as a relatively sustainable city, at least in transport terms. Two things in particular: (a) the presence of numerous major centres of activity scattered around the region, and (b) the regular grid of arterials, mostly spaced in a way that's ideal for transit, that covers much of the city, offering the ideal infrastucture for that most efficient of transit structures: a grid network.

...
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #727  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2010, 4:36 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,498
Wow, that was quick. Here's the presentation from the latest round of public meetings for the Westside Subway Extension...

http://www.metro.net/projects_studie...April-2010.pdf


Some comments...

1) The bad news is that the Wilshire/VA Hospital station is still on the table. The good news is that they've created an option to end the line at Wilshire/Westwood. I read on The Transit Coalition that there's only enough funding to get the subway as far west as the VA Hospital, so that's why they chose it over Barrington -- pretty stupid. If we have to settle for the VA Hospital, then I'd rather just terminate the line at Westwood.
2) I continue to support a station directly under Wilshire/Westwood as opposed to the UCLA parking lot.
3) It looks like the Century City station will be at Constellation instead of Santa Monica. Good.
4) It looks like the Wilshire/Rodeo station is still located at Beverly. That's good because there's activity north, south, east, and west or Beverly.
5) What's the connection structure for?
6) Not sure whether I want the connection to the West Hollywood line to be at La Cienega or Rodeo.
7) I support a station at Crenshaw, though I doubt it will get built.
8) It looks like they moved the Beverly Center/Cedars-Sinai station down to 3rd St. from Beverly. I can't decide which location is better. Beverly is slightly closer to Robertson (by 0.1 miles) and better serves the Beverly Center and the Sofitel. Beverly is also a bit more vibrant. On the other hand, 3rd St. serves much more density. I don't know which location better serves Cedars-Sinai. I think I prefer Beverly to 3rd.
9) Why such low ridership projections?
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner

Last edited by Quixote; Apr 13, 2010 at 6:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #728  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2010, 5:07 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Wait, you mean you're willing to stop it from going to Santa Monica?
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #729  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2010, 5:28 AM
Vangelist Vangelist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 678
Hey Westsidelife, is there any reason why the Pink Line, or whatever the West Hollywood route from Hollywood & Highland to Wilshire via Weho/ the Bev Center is called these days...why that's not in the 30/10 plan?

Or will it be added?

Does anyone know the status of the West Hollywood line??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #730  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2010, 5:41 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,498
^ The Pink Line does not have any funding under Measure R or any other local funding source. That means we either have to repeal the Prop A & C sales tax ban or pass another transit sales tax measure. So basically, the Pink Line is a very distant reality at this time.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #731  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2010, 8:23 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
1. Westwood: exits at Wilshire/Westwood will create too much congestion; this will be by far the most heavily used station and the people and UCLA shuttles on the street will jam the corner. You can divert the people underground and forbid pedestrians crossing at ground level, but better for the buses is to move to Gayley. This will be the center of new development that UCLA has planned that can accommodate shuttles and relevant retail.

2. I think the VA stop is desired because of intermodal links to bus, car and rail along 405. They need parking and a large station, and Barrington is too far from the 405. Or was there some other reason for the VA being chosen?

3. Beverly is better than 3rd for the Pink Line. the SM/SV stop is actually well east of San Vicente to accommodate the turn. This will leave a lot of WeHo retail (Doheny, Robertson and the eastern part of Beverly) further from transit. Moving the station north like this won't hurt people to the south since Wilshire already has a series of stations.

4. Let's get this mother funded!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #732  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2010, 3:04 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Or was there some other reason for the VA being chosen?
I think it was because of ridership at certain times of the day.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #733  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2010, 9:45 PM
mas1092 mas1092 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 44
I've recently taken an interest to LA and its transportation system.. but..

Why is LA building its transportation system like it is a midsized city/region?

LA is the second biggest metro in our country with almost 13 million people. Why does it keep building light rail and bus rapid lines? Shouldn't LA be building elevated or underground heavy rail lines, comparable to D.C., Chicago, and NYC? All these light rail and bus rapid lines are going to need to be upgraded soon.

Can someone please explain to me why this is happening? I'm going to assume it is because of transit opposition and/or lack of funds. (If either of these is the reason, it's a shame because LA deserves a world class system.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #734  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2010, 10:01 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
It's both.

I've actually been told by some on the transit talk coalition forum that there are LRT vehicles available that can go 65, 75, even 80 Mph.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #735  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2010, 11:46 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
mas1092: totally agreed. I cringe every time that we waste another billion on slow LRT on semi-busy streets just because that's the only thing you can afford when everyone demands a line in his district.

Scrapping much of the LRT and focusing on subways in the DT and Westside area and HSR with few stops connecting the outer suburbs would be money well spent. Add a few trolleys in touristy areas and let the rapid buses handle the other areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #736  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2010, 12:22 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by mas1092 View Post
I've recently taken an interest to LA and its transportation system.. but..

Why is LA building its transportation system like it is a midsized city/region?

LA is the second biggest metro in our country with almost 13 million people. Why does it keep building light rail and bus rapid lines? Shouldn't LA be building elevated or underground heavy rail lines, comparable to D.C., Chicago, and NYC? All these light rail and bus rapid lines are going to need to be upgraded soon.

Can someone please explain to me why this is happening? I'm going to assume it is because of transit opposition and/or lack of funds. (If either of these is the reason, it's a shame because LA deserves a world class system.)
The light rail line going all the way through the San Gabriel valley is just madness. It needs a faster line over such a large distance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #737  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2010, 12:40 AM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,610
Once the economy recovers, there will be demand for just about everything (cars, air travel, food, clothes, etc.), which will spike the price of oil again. We are already at the peak of global oil production (meaning we ain't gonna keep up with demand induced by population and economic growth). We are at about 85 million barrels a day, IIRC. Many countries around the world are aware of this and have begun investing billion$ on alternative and more sustainable energy sources (wind off the cost of the UK, solar power in Germany, etc.).

The United States and energy-resource-hog areas like Las Vegas, Orange County, etc. are clueless and it'll be interesting to watch the reaction to ignorant people who have absolutely no idea where their food comes from and how it got to their supermarket and onto their little tables.

Las Vegas may be the first city in the US to become "dry" as the watershed continues to drain without any substantial replenishment as thirsty hotels and lawns as well as climatic shifts in precipitation continue to squander every single last drop.
__________________
DTLA Rising
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #738  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2010, 1:51 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocman View Post
The light rail line going all the way through the San Gabriel valley is just madness. It needs a faster line over such a large distance.
That doesn't mean it should be metrolink.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #739  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2010, 8:11 PM
mas1092 mas1092 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 44
Aren't some of the light rail lines already reaching full capacity?

I think I read that the blue line is already at full capacity, and that the expo line will be at full capacity by the time it gets to Santa Monica.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #740  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2010, 9:51 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,406
I think I remember hearing that the Orange Line (BRT) reached it's 20 year ridership estimation in about a year.
__________________
Washed Out
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:33 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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