HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2009, 3:14 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,889
Glowrock, dont forget UCLA on that list!

Just curious, anyone have a list of the top traffic generators in LA? i would assume that LAX, UCLA, USC, Staples Center, USC Medical and the Getty have to be on there. I want to see how many are or will be connected by transit in the near future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2009, 5:51 AM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
Glowrock, dont forget UCLA on that list!

Just curious, anyone have a list of the top traffic generators in LA? i would assume that LAX, UCLA, USC, Staples Center, USC Medical and the Getty have to be on there. I want to see how many are or will be connected by transit in the near future.
Hey, I did mention Westwood, so UCLA's already there!

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"My first day in Chicago, September 4, 1983. I set foot in this city, and just walking down the street, it was like roots, like the motherland. I knew I belonged here." -- Oprah Winfrey
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2009, 8:25 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wright Concept View Post
I would agree with that sentiment, I forgot about Koreatown. I had to respond in a hurry. I used to live in City West right by Good Samaritan Hospital and traffic was a nightmare between there and Downtown during rush hour because of the workers around City West and the people who live in the Pico-Union and Westlake areas coming home. I wished they had built the Red/Purple Line station there around Wilshire/Witmer. But this could still include bus only lanes or a streetcar between those two points to serve this role.
Has the MTA even considered adding an infill station there? Is it too early to be discussing infill stations?

Quote:
Yes it's a little farther however some sacrifices are made to gain speed with the longer stop spacing AND save some $$$ by not building an additional station that would be evaluated to death by the beancounters at FTA.
Again, I think a special exception needs to be made here. Anyone who's been down that stretch of Wilshire knows that the commercial density there clearly, CLEARLY deserves a station. It's a no-brainer to me.

Quote:
That is more Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center area which would serve the whole of these points and is a current bus transfer point to reach those destinations.
But that's half a mile away and walking uphill is a different story. Melrose is an activity center in its own right.

Quote:
Yes, it would. How could it work without disrupting service is that you essentially building a new tunnel inside of an existing tunnel. I'm typing this from memory of how they did it for a subway station I believe in Toronto and Madrid.

* They would carve out the new platform areas around the existing box tunnel.
* Add create the columns for the new station walls.
* Lay new lateral beams across the span between the two new station walls.
* Connect the new lateral beams to the roof of the existing tunnel (to help create support to the existing tunnel thereby reducing service disruption).
* Cut open the sides of the existing tunnel in safe intervals.
* Use the existing tunnel roof and new lateral beams as the basis for a new slab for the new mezzanine that will tie the old tunnel and new tunnel together and then build a new station roof slab along the new platform walls and new mezzannine.
* Pour earth on top and walla, we'll have a new infill subway station.

If this were a bored tunnel this would be a lot more complicated because the tube creates the bulk of the structural strength in the tunnel and cutting it open will require disrupting service for a lengthy period of time because they would essentially have to build the tunnel over again at this new infill station.
When did that happen in Toronto and Madrid? What were the costs?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2009, 8:32 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,972
Two more maps for glowrock...


From Wikipedia


From Wikipedia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2009, 7:33 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,926
Now that I think about it more, having the Crenshaw Corridor go up La Brea to La Brea/Santa Monica makes more sense than having it end at Wilshire, since there will probably be more ridership.

But I don't think the Red Line/ Purple Line connection should have a station at San Vincente, because the street there is wide enough to build a light-rail from the Crenshaw Corridor in the future if density is great enough.
__________________
Revelation 21:4

Last edited by JDRCRASH; Jul 11, 2009 at 7:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2009, 8:46 PM
mdiederi's Avatar
mdiederi mdiederi is offline
4
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: JT
Posts: 4,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
heres some news regarding Google and LA Transit.

From CurbedLA
Google Transit for Metro is Here (in Beta)

Monday, July 6, 2009, by Adrian Glick Kudler

googletransit.jpg

Google launched a public beta version of Google Transit for the Los Angeles metro area this weekend, after a long, hard wait. The partnership will be officially announced soon, following an initial testing period. In March, an anonymous source told LAist that Metro had a beta version ready to go and only needed to sign off on a public launch, which it was hesitant to do. In June, Metro released transit data sets for developers, setting off speculation that Google Transit for LA Metro would go live within the month. Et voila! There are still some kinks to be worked out, as reported by Militant Angeleno, who broke the story this morning, but here we are, catching up with Flagstaff and Fresno.
I checked it out. When you do a "get directions" search, there's a drop down menu where you select "by public transit".
Sample: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sour...h&z=10&start=0

And who's next http://laist.com/2009/07/10/the_list...ogle_trans.php

Last edited by mdiederi; Jul 11, 2009 at 8:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2009, 10:19 PM
Wright Concept's Avatar
Wright Concept Wright Concept is offline
I just ran out of B***sht
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 2,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
Has the MTA even considered adding an infill station there? Is it too early to be discussing infill stations?
I haven't heard any discussions on infill stations yet. Its a little too early to tell. I think once the Purple Line reaches Century City and couple of the Measure R projects become reality this could become a very real conversation.

Quote:
Again, I think a special exception needs to be made here. Anyone who's been down that stretch of Wilshire knows that the commercial density there clearly, CLEARLY deserves a station. It's a no-brainer to me.
Personally, I disagree because the commercial density is on par, its the residential density that is the deciding factor to tell if the investment is worth it. The projected ridership at Wilshire/Robertson was one of the lowest on the corridor meaning that would tip the balance in getting no Federal New Starts funding. Right now as suggested in the Alternatives Analysis Phase a Purple Line extension with the following stations from Wilshire/Western:

* Wilshire/La Brea
* Wilshire/Fairfax
* Wilshire/La Cienega
* Beverly Hills
* Century City
* Westwood

Will barely give us a Medium FTA cost-effectiveness score. Once it slips below Medium, there better be a solid density, redevelopment and transit restructuring plan to go with this to make the ridership pencil out. The one recent exception to that rule was Charlotte with their new starter LRT on abandonded rail right of-way and upgraded existing streetcar infrastructure. Charlotte was about 10-15 cents off from the Medium rating, which would give the FTA's blessing. However because the Charlotte Planners worked out Public-Private partnerships to coincide with the stations along the line to be built and moved in by the time the rail opened and they utilized existing infrastructure and developed the abandoned railroad corridor, the FTA approved it because it showed solid public and private backing.


Another example similiar to Robertson is around Wilshire/Rimpau. There are a number of high-rise buildings surrounding that intersection. It would have some distance (about 0.6 miles from La Brea, 0.75 miles from Crenshaw, 1.25 miles from Western) Could a station work? No, because the residential density surrounding this area would never get any denser or bigger. If there is one location that should have consideration for infill is the City West/Good Samaritan area. It has a high residential density, high transit dependancy, moderate to high commercial density all factors in having good ridership at the stations.

Personally, I would like a combination of 1/2 mile stop spacing in core zones mixed in with farther spaced stop spacing to maximize the accessiblity along the entire corridor. Unfortunately I don't have the $$$ to do it, however another idea would utilize BRT with signal pre-emption or priority on the street with the HRT below to give the best of all possible worlds. Speed, efficiency, accessiblity and cost-effectiveness.


Quote:
When did that happen in Toronto and Madrid? What were the costs?
Like I said that description was from memory from a Construction article about Toronto (North York Centre), around the late 80's. Madrid is more recent but costs I don't have in front of me, the design of their tunnels are closer to the cut-cover tunnel concept.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully
The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?

Last edited by Wright Concept; Jul 12, 2009 at 11:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2009, 4:53 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wright Concept View Post
Personally, I disagree because the commercial density is on par, its the residential density that is the deciding factor to tell if the investment is worth it. The projected ridership at Wilshire/Robertson was one of the lowest on the corridor meaning that would tip the balance in getting no Federal New Starts funding. Right now as suggested in the Alternatives Analysis Phase a Purple Line extension with the following stations from Wilshire/Western:

* Wilshire/La Brea
* Wilshire/Fairfax
* Wilshire/La Cienega
* Beverly Hills
* Century City
* Westwood
Sorry, I can't agree. There is high residential density north of Wilshire and plenty of opportunities for mixed-use development along Wilshire and Robertson Blvds. (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.asp...0478&encType=1)

And I noticed that you intentionally left out the Crenshaw station. It's too huge of a gap between Western and La Brea.

Quote:
Will barely give us a Medium FTA cost-effectiveness score. Once it slips below Medium, there better be a solid density, redevelopment and transit restructuring plan to go with this to make the ridership pencil out. The one recent exception to that rule was Charlotte with their new starter LRT on abandonded rail right of-way and upgraded existing streetcar infrastructure. Charlotte was about 10-15 cents off from the Medium rating, which would give the FTA's blessing. However because the Charlotte Planners worked out Public-Private partnerships to coincide with the stations along the line to be built and moved in by the time the rail opened and they utilized existing infrastructure and developed the abandoned railroad corridor, the FTA approved it because it showed solid public and private backing.
And that right there is the underlying problem. The FTA deliberately makes it difficult to get New Starts funding, so much so, that many projects won't get built. It's pretty clear that, given America's limited urbanity, most projects won't ever be eligible. The bar has been set too high. Even the Subway to the Sea, one of the most cost-effective projects that will ever fall onto the FTA's agenda, barely meets the frame of eligibility. It's ridiculous.

So why can't we do the same? Eliminating stations is not the solution. If there's a need, then there's a need. We need to work around those needs.

Quote:
Another example similiar to Robertson is around Wilshire/Rimpau. There are a number of high-rise buildings surrounding that intersection. It would have some distance (about 0.6 miles from La Brea, 0.75 miles from Crenshaw, 1.25 miles from Western) Could a station work? No, because the residential density surrounding this area would never get any denser or bigger. If there is one location that should have consideration for infill is the City West/Good Samaritan area. It has a high residential density, high transit dependancy, moderate to high commercial density all factors in having good ridership at the stations.
Again, if it weren't for the strict FTA rules, then this wouldn't be an issue. In NYC, low density outer Queens has several subway stops.

Last edited by Quixote; Jul 13, 2009 at 5:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2009, 12:37 AM
Wright Concept's Avatar
Wright Concept Wright Concept is offline
I just ran out of B***sht
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 2,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
Sorry, I can't agree. There is high residential density north of Wilshire and plenty of opportunities for mixed-use development along Wilshire and Robertson Blvds. (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.asp...478&encType=1)
Compare that with Wilshire/Fairfax, Wilshire/La Brea, Wilshire/Beverly, Century City and Westwood? It's not close at the moment and most of that residential density is greater around the Beverly Center/Cedars Sinai area. Also the limit of density along that corridor at Wilshire/Robertson is 6-8 stories for Commercial, 3-4 stories depending on lot size. We could get those same increases regardless of a subway station. If a solid Beverly Hills zoning plan were shown for a massive upzoning in that area in conjunction with the subway station and that area could then we'd have something to work with.

Quote:
And I noticed that you intentionally left out the Crenshaw station. It's too huge of a gap between Western and La Brea.
Its a gap that Metro has an optional station, it needs further review. I'm just recording those facts.
In addition there are two neighborhood areas that have very rigid HPOZ's (Historic Preservation Overlay Zoning) that makes the ability to increase the density impossible for not only residents but commercial. Given the cost of Subway stations are a good chunk of the cost of the subway work which affects that rigid FTA Cost-effectiveness rating, so station placement is essential.

Despite the trade-off of no station @ Crenshaw (playing the other side for a moment) it makes up for it with a faster operating speed between the two areas trimming two minutes off of the running time which means potential increases to ridership to offset that rigid cost-effectiveness rating.

Quote:
...That right there is the underlying problem. The FTA deliberately makes it difficult to get New Starts funding, so much so, that many projects won't get built. It's pretty clear that, given America's limited urbanity, most projects won't ever be eligible. The bar has been set too high. Even the Subway to the Sea, one of the most cost-effective projects that will ever fall onto the FTA's agenda, barely meets the frame of eligibility. It's ridiculous..
There is only so much $$$ to go around. Regional Connector is more cost-effective that the Wilshire Subway right now and that doesn't include Expo to Santa Monica or the Gold Line extension to Azusa/Citrus College, that rating can improve even more.

Now if we could shift the Feds attention from financing wars and finance our infrastructure, we could have a stronger fighting chance.


Quote:
So why can't we do the same? Eliminating stations is not the solution. If there's a need, then there's a need. We need to work around those needs.
What is the "need", how is that "need" defined? Because any "need" can pose itself as a need. That is why of the rules. Without those kind of rules you'll have silly and much more wasteful projects like BART to San Jose or Boston's Silver Line BRT subway or a subway from Chatsworth to Simi Valley. How do we work around that, well we could do a number of ideas;

* Build the station footprints to be much smaller (abotu 150') and have a driverless automated system like Vancouver's under construction Canada Line. This reduces the cost to build, operate and maitain. (The Unions would raise hell about that, no operators)

* Build the stations using slave labor. (Construction trades would raise hell)

* Have stronger public-private partnerships with development, landbanking and increases in zoning for growth. The Toronto's first subway, Yonge Street subway was done with this in mind with a intensive upzoning along the entire subway corridor at the same time as the subway was being built.

In Charlotte's case they were building on an existing rail right-of-way. (Something we don't have on Wilshire) If Wilshire corridor had an easement or strip of land that we could utilize to build the right-of-way and then develop on top and around it, like Charlotte did and is doing with the developers then its a win-win. One, because construction would be easier and cheaper. Two, there is another financing source to offset the subsidy, the building of new developments in conjunction of building the rail meant a greater catchment of ridership that would bring.

The Feds saw Charlotte's LRT plan as not only for mobility of moving people but building affordable and economically sustainable neighborhoods, that economically sustainable neighborhood means more $$$ for Washington D.C.

* Not go after Federal funding and do the thing ourselves and treat the Feds as our In-laws that we can't stand and don't need or want any help from them because we'll have to play with their rules.


Quote:
Again, if it weren't for the strict FTA rules, then this wouldn't be an issue. In NYC, low density outer Queens has several subway stops.
First of all, those were built before there was an FTA, they were built privately without union labor and not needed fire sprinklers and other fire/life safety requirements in their infrastructure. You can't compare the two.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully
The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?

Last edited by Wright Concept; Jul 14, 2009 at 12:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2009, 4:05 AM
StethJeff's Avatar
StethJeff StethJeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,068
Can anyone explain the rationale behind having the Expo Line end in SaMo? SaMo is already the terminus of the future subway. Why doesn't the Expo Line go into Venice Beach instead? It's one of the region's biggest tourist draws, a popular place for locals, and pretty dense in its own right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2009, 4:22 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,889
we need two lines to Santa Monica because they serve different areas. What we really need is an additional line to Venice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2009, 4:34 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,972
Three Rail Projects Could Have Timelines Moved Up, Mayor & Advocates Seeking More


Part of Metro's Power Point presentation (.pdf) for this week's meeting

By Zach Behrens
July 13, 2009

On July 1st, our taxes in LA County increased a half penny on the dollar to fund a mix of transportation projects, whether they be rail, highway or something else, thanks to Measure R, which was voted in by the public last November. This Thursday morning, Metro will hold a Measure R committee meeting (.pdf) to discuss aspects of that and part of that discussion will be the possibility of moving up the timelines of three projects.

Those projects are moving opening dates of the regional connector in downtown from 2025 to 2018, the second Gold Line Eastside Extension to 2035 to 2018 and the Green Line to LAX from 2028 to 2017.

That has Gold Line Foothill Extension advocates worried.

"We will be at the workshop to ask that the schedule be amended to accelerate the Foothill Extension by four years," wrote Habib Balian, the CEO of the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, in an e-mail reprinted on a blog dedicated to the rail line. "Speaking of the opening date for Measure R projects, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has set a goal to 'build eight Measure R rail projects on time or ahead of schedule' in his second term in office. We are very supportive of his efforts, especially his plan for the Foothill Extension."

In Villaraigosa's plan, he envisions building eight rail projects on time or ahead of schedule including the Gold Line Foothill Extension to Azusa by 2013.

Last edited by Quixote; Jul 14, 2009 at 4:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2009, 4:36 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,972
^ With the exception of the Westside Subway and 405 Corridor, it's rather impressive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2009, 5:15 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,926
And thats without future federal (maybe even state) assistance; with it, i'm sure another new project or another phase of the Westside subway could be completed sooner.

BTW, the Harbor Subdivision wasn't included in Measure R? Why?
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2009, 5:40 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,972
^ Public-private partnerships are also another way we can accelerate the timeline of some of these projects. (http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/ppp/default.htm)

As for the Harbor Subdivision, the Green Line South Bay Extension is essentially the same thing. I think the PPP program could work for the Harbor Subdivision. Maybe the airlines at LAX could pay for part of the LAX Express?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2009, 6:11 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,889
According to that Map, with the funding we have in place now, we can have 10!!! new rail lines or segments!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2009, 6:16 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wright Concept View Post
Compare that with Wilshire/Fairfax, Wilshire/La Brea, Wilshire/Beverly, Century City and Westwood? It's not close at the moment and most of that residential density is greater around the Beverly Center/Cedars Sinai area. Also the limit of density along that corridor at Wilshire/Robertson is 6-8 stories for Commercial, 3-4 stories depending on lot size. We could get those same increases regardless of a subway station. If a solid Beverly Hills zoning plan were shown for a massive upzoning in that area in conjunction with the subway station and that area could then we'd have something to work with.
Wilshire/Robertson has about the same residential density as Wilshire/Beverly and Wilshire/Westwood. Take a look at that area again using the link I provided. It is DENSE. And what's wrong with 3-8 stories? Are you expecting more skyscrapers to be built?

Quote:
There is only so much $$$ to go around. Regional Connector is more cost-effective that the Wilshire Subway right now and that doesn't include Expo to Santa Monica or the Gold Line extension to Azusa/Citrus College, that rating can improve even more.
That's because ridership projections for the Wilshire Subway are severely underestimated. I can't believe a corridor that dense, both commercially and residentially, barely meets the FTA standard. Something's wrong.

Quote:
What is the "need", how is that "need" defined? Because any "need" can pose itself as a need. That is why of the rules. Without those kind of rules you'll have silly and much more wasteful projects like BART to San Jose or Boston's Silver Line BRT subway or a subway from Chatsworth to Simi Valley. How do we work around that, well we could do a number of ideas;
There's clearly a need for a station between La Cienega and Beverly. The commercial and residential density along that 1.3-mile gap speaks for itself.

Quote:
* Have stronger public-private partnerships with development, landbanking and increases in zoning for growth. The Toronto's first subway, Yonge Street subway was done with this in mind with a intensive upzoning along the entire subway corridor at the same time as the subway was being built.
If we were to do this then wouldn't that offset the cost of an additional station?

Quote:
The Feds saw Charlotte's LRT plan as not only for mobility of moving people but building affordable and economically sustainable neighborhoods, that economically sustainable neighborhood means more $$$ for Washington D.C.
And this is not achievable along Wilshire?

Quote:
First of all, those were built before there was an FTA, they were built privately without union labor and not needed fire sprinklers and other fire/life safety requirements in their infrastructure. You can't compare the two.
I know that. I'm talking more about the design aspect. Just because there's low-density doesn't mean a station is dismissible. It's like if our bus system were to bypass Beverly Hills and other wealthy areas because the populace can afford to drive. Transit is supposed to serve everyone.

In the case of Wilshire/Robertson, if we disregard finances for a second and focus entirely on the design, then it makes absolute sense to place a station there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2009, 6:32 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
According to that Map, with the funding we have in place now, we can have 10!!! new rail lines or segments!
Yup, it only highlights just how critical it was to pass Measure R. I don't know what we would've done if things had panned out differently. This is a huge, huge step forward but it's still only a start. We need another transit measure to get the remaining LRTP projects rolling. Still, Measure R will be instrumental in changing the perception of LA transit and building positive political will and momentum.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2009, 11:32 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
fuck yeah, we will unify the westside with the eastside by 2036! what progress!

and by 2015, monrovia and montebello will be on the map!

now i know that by 2070 or so, my great grandkids will be able to traverse our city in urban fashion. la is on the up and up
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2009, 1:59 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Trump for Treason.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: No Trump. No KKK. No racism in the USA.
Posts: 4,382
Westsidelife-- "As for the Harbor Subdivision, the Green Line South Bay Extension is essentially the same thing. I think the PPP program could work for the Harbor Subdivision. Maybe the airlines at LAX could pay for part of the LAX Express?"

The FAA prohibits using AIP funds for transit projects that are off of the airport propoerty. With regard to paying for transit at airports, FAA funding can only be used for "Certain mass transit airport access projects located entirely on airport property and designed and intended exclusively for use by airport passengers." (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs...rp_lrd_002.pdf)

The airlines also do not have any money to pay for extending the Green Line. As the Wall Street Journal noted yesterday, revenue at US carriers will drop by approximately 20% this year ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1247...googlenews_wsj ). This is in addition to the $35B that US airlines lost from 2001-2005.
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 5:48 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.