LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[saybanana]

All six new Foothill Extension stations have had station dedications. Cant wait to see them when the line opens next year. I've been following their "I Will Ride" facebook page. Looks great.

[Quixote]

I know some people like to knock the Foothill Extension for its futility. While it won't single-handedly alter the commute patterns of LA County residents (no project will), it's still an important and necessary piece of the transit puzzle. It will be a convenient resource for those streetcar suburbs, connecting them with Pasadena and of course Downtown. Stops at Azusa Pacific University and Citrus College (and eventually the University of La Verne and Claremont Colleges) will make this rail line more usefulness than it's typically given.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I know some people like to knock the Foothill Extension for its futility. While it won't single-handedly alter the commute patterns of LA County residents (no project will), it's still an important and necessary piece of the transit puzzle. It will be a convenient resource for those streetcar suburbs, connecting them with Pasadena and of course Downtown. Stops at Azusa Pacific University and Citrus College (and eventually the University of La Verne and Claremont Colleges) will make this rail line more usefulness than it's typically given.

I don't think people knock it for "futility". There is no argument that it is all things considered, a relatively low priority corridor. It got build because ROW exists and there was political support. If we really prioritized the money towards "bang for the buck", Gold Line extensions are weak investments.

The success of Gold Line extension now rest with the cities along the line. Some like Azusa seems to be quite on board with development and zoning. Others like Arcadia are kind of stuck in the past and is going to waste good opportunity to transform their community.

[Quixote]

^ Well, if measured in terms of projected ridership, it certain would fall under the category of "futility"; most of the rail projects planned are. We're not building a system that will fundamentally alter the urban structure of our metro area. But, like I said, the Foothill Extension is still a piece of the puzzle. It's just low-hanging fruit, as you put it.

And as for Arcadia, the station is only a 10-minute walk to Santa Anita Park; that could generate some good ridership. We're still evolving as a transit city, but people will gradually change over time.

[CCs77]

Originally Posted by bzcat

I don't think people knock it for "futility". There is no argument that it is all things considered, a relatively low priority corridor. It got build because ROW exists and there was political support. If we really prioritized the money towards "bang for the buck", Gold Line extensions are weak investments.

The success of Gold Line extension now rest with the cities along the line. Some like Azusa seems to be quite on board with development and zoning. Others like Arcadia are kind of stuck in the past and is going to waste good opportunity to transform their community.

I think that it has to do with the measure R estipulating (I don't not if officially but at least unofficially) that every subregion of the Los Angeles County should have its piece of the cake. For the foothills would be the gold line extension.

[202_Cyclist]

LA World Airports is starting FlyAway bus service between LAX and Long Beach.

LOW-COST, NONSTOP FLYAWAY BUS SERVICE BETWEEN LAX AND LONG BEACH TO BEGIN IN DECEMBER
http://www.lawa.aero/newsContent.aspx?ID=2072

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by bzcat

The success of Gold Line extension now rest with the cities along the line. Some like Azusa seems to be quite on board with development and zoning. Others like Arcadia are kind of stuck in the past and is going to waste good opportunity to transform their community.

Last Sunday, out of curiosity, I checked out all 6 new Gold Line stations. What you said about Azusa and Arcadia, I actually think it's the reverse. The city of Azusa totally wasted the opportunity to build a more urban-style TOD adjacent to its downtown station by allowing a huge Target with tons of parking to be built adjacent to it instead. That Target should have been built in more of a suburban area conducive to big box-type developments. Now, that Target will be there for a while, I assume, and people will still be going there by car; it definitely does not make it pleasant for pedestrians walking along that parking lot-adjacent sidewalk.

The Arcadia station is just two blocks north of 1st Avenue and Huntington Drive, the heart of downtown Arcadia. I think that Metro station has the potential to make that area a lot more lively, and might even encourage more varied and interesting businesses to locate there. As it is now, downtown Arcadia is kind of lackluster.

I remember when I first moved to South Pasadena in 1998, before the Metro Gold Line opened, the area of Mission Street/Meridian Ave. was kind of run-down, with very little foot traffic. There were just junk/antique shops, and an Italian restaurant, and it was an area that most people just drove through. After the Gold Line station went in, the area totally revitalized, and now it's very lively with people walking around, and drivers actually trying to find street parking to patronize the shops and restaurants. And of course people also arrive there by train. So I think Arcadia will definitely benefit from its Metro station.

The only stations that gave me the sense that they were in the middle of nowhere were the Duarte and Irwindale stations. Apart from the City of Hope, which isn't really a quick jaunt from the station, there's nothing else around the Duarte station. And the Irwindale station is near the 210 freeway and a business park. I suppose that area MIGHT change as a result of the station, if the city of Irwindale does some zoning changes.

And I will add, the Citrus College/APU Station didn't seem all that convenient to those two college campuses. I was expecting the station to be closer to the campuses.

Originally Posted by Quixote

And as for Arcadia, the station is only a 10-minute walk to Santa Anita Park; that could generate some good ridership. We're still evolving as a transit city, but people will gradually change over time.

Santa Anita Park is only active for part of the year, no? Like I mentioned above, I think the Arcadia Station will generate some more foot traffic to downtown Arcadia.

[retina]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Last Sunday, out of curiosity, I checked out all 6 new Gold Line stations. What you said about Azusa and Arcadia, I actually think it's the reverse. The city of Azusa totally wasted the opportunity to build a more urban-style TOD adjacent to its downtown station by allowing a huge Target with tons of parking to be built adjacent to it instead. That Target should have been built in more of a suburban area conducive to big box-type developments. Now, that Target will be there for a while, I assume, and people will still be going there by car; it definitely does not make it pleasant for pedestrians walking along that parking lot-adjacent sidewalk.

The Arcadia station is just two blocks north of 1st Avenue and Huntington Drive, the heart of downtown Arcadia. I think that Metro station has the potential to make that area a lot more lively, and might even encourage more varied and interesting businesses to locate there. As it is now, downtown Arcadia is kind of lackluster.

I remember when I first moved to South Pasadena in 1998, before the Metro Gold Line opened, the area of Mission Street/Meridian Ave. was kind of run-down, with very little foot traffic. There were just junk/antique shops, and an Italian restaurant, and it was an area that most people just drove through. After the Gold Line station went in, the area totally revitalized, and now it's very lively with people walking around, and drivers actually trying to find street parking to patronize the shops and restaurants. And of course people also arrive there by train. So I think Arcadia will definitely benefit from its Metro station.

The only stations that gave me the sense that they were in the middle of nowhere were the Duarte and Irwindale stations. Apart from the City of Hope, which isn't really a quick jaunt from the station, there's nothing else around the Duarte station. And the Irwindale station is near the 210 freeway and a business park. I suppose that area MIGHT change as a result of the station, if the city of Irwindale does some zoning changes.

And I will add, the Citrus College/APU Station didn't seem all that convenient to those two college campuses. I was expecting the station to be closer to the campuses.




Santa Anita Park is only active for part of the year, no? Like I mentioned above, I think the Arcadia Station will generate some more foot traffic to downtown Arcadia.

Thanks for the update on the Gold Line stations. It has always been a stretch to increase ridership on the Gold Line. I like the new development near the Sierra Madre Village station but of course the giant multilevel parking garage is given priority. It will always be a quick and painless electrified commuter rail to Pasadena. The Pasadena to DTLA route, on the other hand, is painful. The slow and meandering crawl, not to mention the forced transfer at LAUS, does not shave any time off the commute. Hopefully, the regional connector will help but Gold Line was necessary for the passage of Measure R and the upcoming R2.

[King Kill 'em]

Yeah the Arcadia Station has a lot of potential. There's an assload of surface parking to build on around a nice park to seal the deal.

The Monrovia Station just has the problem that it's kind of far south from where all the action is in Monrovia on Myrtle. However development will continue south and it'll be fine.

Duarte meh, Irwindale meh

Both the Azusa stations do their job it's just Azusa itself that's the problem. North of the last station is a huge suburban housing development that just makes me cringe because of the wasted opportunity, ugly style and poor planning. But I guess the brightside is we can technically say our metro is large enough to reach the outer suburbs at this point.

[bobbyv]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...007-story.html

[King Kill 'em]

Today when I was going to lunch at my friend's house from school, an old RTD bus came down this residential street guided by two police motorcyles and a white van. Probably filming I'm guessing.

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by bobbyv

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...007-story.html

It's sad how 2/3 of poll respondents favor highway projects more than rail.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

It's sad how 2/3 of poll respondents favor highway projects more than rail.

To be fair, Los Angeles has a shit ton of bad traffic and certainly needs many highway projects as well.

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

To be fair, Los Angeles has a shit ton of bad traffic and certainly needs many highway projects as well.

You know the last time they added new lanes to the 405 it was still just as clogged.

[bzcat]

Something very significant for LA transit became law last week without any media coverage

Governor Brown signed AB726 into law that created an exemption in the CA Vehicle Code to allow Metro to operate 82 ft buses on the Orange Line.

This will be a very welcome improvement to the overcrowding on the Orange Line during rush hour

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB726/2015

[Busy Bee]

^does anyone know if Metro is purchasing the AutoTram Grand or the Youngmen New Liner Series super long bus? Or are they going with a MAN or Van Hool? Obviously no North American bus builder makes such a product (blessing in disguise?).

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

You know the last time they added new lanes to the 405 it was still just as clogged.

It surprises me how many people in LA continue to subscribe to the myth that lanes will alleviate traffic to any degree. No wonder progress is so slow here.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

You know the last time they added new lanes to the 405 it was still just as clogged.

Roads form a network. You can't just upgrade one part of a network and expect to fix a problem. You have to upgrade the entire network. You're acting like you expected adding a few dozen lane miles to have an effect on a network with hundreds of thousands of lane miles.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Roads form a network. You can't just upgrade one part of a network and expect to fix a problem. You have to upgrade the entire network. You're acting like you expected adding a few dozen lane miles to have an effect on a network with hundreds of thousands of lane miles.

I am confused-- where is all of this extra land to expand the entire network of roads? More lanes encourages more sprawl which encourages more traffic which encourages.....

Here is a good article about the fallacy that continually adding more lanes will reduce highway congestion: http://www.uctc.net/access/25/Access...0to%20Stay.pdf .

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

I am confused-- where is all of this extra land to expand the entire network of roads? More lanes encourages more sprawl which encourages more traffic which encourages.....

Unfortunately Los Angeles (and many other cities) didn't properly plan for population growth and so now there simply isn't an easy solution. Existing corridors are bpxed in and what were once supposed to be future corridors were given back to low-density developers after the so called, "freeway revolts". The only real solution now is to bulldoze those neighborhoods down which never should have been built in the first place.

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Here is a good article about the fallacy that continually adding more lanes will reduce highway congestion: http://www.uctc.net/access/25/Access...0to%20Stay.pdf .

No, increasing lanes and building new highways definitely and unequivocally reduced congestion (you article even says as much). It's a misconception that adding more lanes doesn't help because as I discussed before (and as your article discusses) the road system is a network and improving one path simply diverts more people onto that path and the improvements are spread out over 10 different parallel routes instead of just on the single widened highway. In fact orthogonal roads can often see INCREASED congestion as drivers divert to the improved areas of highway and then back. Again, you have to intelligently improve the whole network, not just one or two individual routes. What your articles discusses is basically demand DESTRUCTION by making suburbs unpalatable and forcing people to other locations or cities. That technically works, but it's incredibly inefficient. Proper zoning is the direct and efficient way to improve commute times and distances. Congestion is a huge waste of money for an economy (because as we all know time is money).