LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Perklol]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

"“If you’re going to the airport, you use UberX, who cares,” said Mr. Heitzler, the Venice artist. “But if you have to go to a party at the Chateau” — the see-and-be-seen celebrity-magnet Chateau Marmont — “you at least go black car. Or even a giant S.U.V. There’s nothing better than getting out of a giant S.U.V. at the Chateau by yourself.”

[Eightball]

Gold Line, Expo Line extensions may sit idle waiting on rail cars to carry passengers

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-ne...rry-passengers

[bzcat]

The issue about Metro rail riders having lower income than the general population in LA is a bit of a red herring. The residential area with rail service in LA County are predominately lower income so of course you are seeing the pattern of lower average income in the riders. Compare to NYC where rail service is omnipresent in the highest income residential neighborhoods.

The "income gap" will close when Expo Phase 2 opens and will continue to shrink as Purple line makes its way west.

[Swede]

Originally Posted by Eightball

Gold Line, Expo Line extensions may sit idle waiting on rail cars to carry passengers

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-ne...rry-passengers

That's no good. However, seeing as how all 78 cars will be done by early 2017 and delivery of the first ones will start next year, I wonder what line will be getting enough cars to start full operation first. The gold line extension will be done later but requires far fewer cars. Expo needs more but will be done earlier (and has a higher PAX projection). Interesting dilemma that will play out.

[IMBY]

Originally Posted by Muji

It is unbelievable to me that some people at Metro (and apparently the LA Times) actually blame "not enough free parking" for slow ridership growth, rather than the true underlying cause of poor land use decisions and infrastructure investments that overwhelmingly favor solo driving over transit.

For example, they've put out their estimate that they lose 1,500 per day at the North Hollywood Red Line station due to the lot being full. Somehow, it doesn't seem to occur to their spokespeople that ridership would also be a lot higher if the station weren't literally surrounded by a sea of parking (Google Maps view: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1689.../data=!3m1!1e3).



Just imagine the extra ridership they'd have if the station were actually surrounded by a walkable, high-density, mixed-use neighborhood!

I'd refer anyone who wants to read more about Metro's strange commitment to free parking to some of Joe Linton's articles on Streetsblog LA:

http://la.streetsblog.org/2014/10/22...nd-misleading/

http://la.streetsblog.org/2014/03/30...metro-parking/

I've always wondered why there wasn't more density along the stops of light rail lines in L.A., particularly the older blue line from Long Beach to DTLA, and where you, incredibly, see single family homes yet at some of those stops.

In a recent Economist magazine, there was the explanation: 76% of L.A. is still zoned for single family homes!

And what can be done to change it? By now, there should be some mid-to-high density housing, at least around the Compton and Watts train stops!

[Swede]

Maybe have up-zoning withing 2 blocks of each stop be part of the planning for the lines? And try to do it at existing stops.

LA isn't the only place not to do this. Stockholm still has single family home -zoned areas around subway stations that are over 50 years old. Upzone already!

[202_Cyclist]

IMBY:

I've always wondered why there wasn't more density along the stops of light rail lines in L.A., particularly the older blue line from Long Beach to DTLA, and where you, incredibly, see single family homes yet at some of those stops.

I've posted about this before. Access magazine had a good article addressing this specific topic-- lack of transit-oriented development next to the Blue line stations.

Opportunities and Challenges for TODs in Southern California

By Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris
Spring 2013

"When the concept of transit-oriented development (TOD) first appeared in the 1980s, many planners and academics enthusiastically endorsed it as a way to increase transit ridership and mitigate sprawl. But actual implementation of TOD projects in Southern California was slow to follow. Developers and funding institutions worried about TODs viability in a region married to the car.

Today, however, the concept of TOD has moved from academic debates to implementation around the country. In Los Angeles County, private developers have built many housing and mixed-use projects near transit stations, and more are planned. Municipalities, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and even many developers are enthusiastic about building near transit. Why has development around transit become popular? What are the motivations, incentives, constraints, and problems of building adjacent to stations? What strategies will likely attract development around stations?

To address these questions, I will use the examples of two Los Angeles County light-rail lines. The Blue Line, which opened in 1990, connects downtown Los Angeles to downtown Long Beach. This line used the existing right-of-way of an earlier railway. The Blue Line has been operating for 22 years but, by and large, has not catalyzed development around its stations. With the exception of a few TODs, primarily near the Long Beach stations, there has been little development along this transit corridor. On the other hand the Gold Line, which opened in 2003 and links downtown Los Angeles to Pasadena, has generated considerable development around many of its stations. In the thirteen years that separate the inauguration of the two lines, many changes—which are partly responsible for the new-found popularity of TODs—took place in the region. .."

http://www.uctc.net/access/42/access42_socaltods.shtml

[bzcat]

The Access article is pretty good but missed one of the main issue with Blue Line - Metro doesn't own any properties around the Blue Line stations like it does with Red Line, Gold Line, Expo Line and going forward, the Purple Line extension. The genesis of TOD along Gold Line and Red Line all started when Metro either sold the land around the station, or actually build the TOD itself so that didn't happen with the Blue Line. Lacking that initial push, the desire from private sector to redevelope along the Blue Line has been low due to various reasons.

[blackcat23]

http://thesource.metro.net/2014/11/0...ire-boulevard/

Long wait is over: groundbreaking ceremony today for subway extension under Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, Calif. – Leaders of the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) today joined federal, state and local elected officials in the Mid-Wilshire District of Los Angeles to break ground on the long awaited Metro Purple Line Extension Project, the largest, most ambitious public works project in the Western United States.

In July, Metro’s Board of Directors approved a contract with Skanska, Traylor and Shea (STS), a Joint Venture, to construct the Purple Line Extension Project. Construction of the subway extension will connect West Los Angeles to the region’s growing rail network, making it possible to travel between Downtown Los Angeles and Westwood in 25 minutes. The first subway segment will extend the Purple Line 3.9 miles from the existing Wilshile/Western Purple Line terminus near Koreatown into Beverly Hills. Three new underground stations are planned at Wilshire/La Brea, Wilshire/Fairfax and Wilshire/La Cienega, providing fast, frequent, high-capacity transit service farther west along busy Wilshire Boulevard.

[LAsam]

Skanska got the Expo Line and now the subway extension. Is it typical that the same construction firm gets two major separate projects like that? Either way, glad this is getting underway... and it can't come quick enough.

[edluva]

very happy its skanska and not tutor perini

[Ragnar]

Who is in charge of the other projects? I think Parsons has the Gold Line extension. Who is doing Crenshaw and the Downtown Connector?

[edluva]

finally, concrete plans for bikeshare for some part of LA. it appears the network will extend into parts of west LA and venice. about time. SM would be the one to make progress on something that has become a no brainer in cities the world over.

http://www.santamonicanext.org/2014/...in-l-a-county/

SANTA MONICA POISED TO HAVE FIRST BIKE SHARE SYSTEM IN L.A. COUNTY


It’s finally happening!

Santa Monica could move forward with plans for a 500-bicycle bike share program at this Tuesday’s City Council meeting.

After more than two years of planning and waiting, the City Council will decide whether to approve a contract with CycleHop, LLC for the purchase and operation of the new system, which would place 65 to 75 stations throughout the the bayside city, in Venice to the south, and West L.A. to the east.

“Bike share is overdue for our region and I’m glad Santa Monica is taking the lead on making bike share happen,” said Santa Monica Mayor Pam O’Connor, who sits on the Metro Board of Directors. “By the time Expo Light Rail opens in 2016 our city’s bike share facilities will be ready.”

The new system, if approved, could be up and running by next summer, according to staff. As proposed, the program would cost the $8.1 million over seven years. Those costs would be defrayed by about $1.5 million generated annually with user fees and advertising/corporate sponsorship fees, according to the staff report.

Because Santa Monica’s bike share will likely be incorporated into a regional model in the future, much of the planning is being done in coordination with Metro and the Westide Council of Governments (COG). Back in 2012, it was recently-elected State Assemblymember Richard Bloom — formerly a Santa Monica City Council member — who convened the Regional Bike Share Committee to oversee coordination of any such program.

“Metro considers Santa Monica to be one of its pilot areas for a regional system it hopes to coordinate,” City staff wrote in the report. “Staff is seeking concurrence from Metro on a price and fee structure and parameters for system identity so that the proposed Santa Monica system may merge as smoothly as possible into the regional system as it develops.”

It’s particularly exciting to see this item go before the City Council because, for Santa Monica, it has been a long time coming. And, with Expo Light Rail expected to begin shuttling passengers to Santa Monica in 2016, bike share would help move people to and from the stations without their cars.

The bayside city has already been a regional leader on bike share. Santa Monica voted to 5-to-1 to seek vendors for a bike share program back in 2012 and in 2013, it was the only city that had managed to secure grant money from Metro and the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) – more than $2 million – to launch a program.

The City opted to wait for the region to catch up, since it is vital for the functionality of a regional bike share system that different cities don’t have incompatible systems.

At a Metro Board meeting in October 2013, O’Connor said, “Hopefully, we’re all going to work together, but we can also get something going sub-regionally. Santa Monica shouldn’t have a different bike share system than Los Angeles or Culver City.”

But, according to City staff, any further delay would jeopardize the grant money Santa Monica has secured.

Staff is also recommending that the new bike share program go with a “smart-bike” – manufactured by Social Bicycles (SoBi) – model, instead of a “smart-rack” model.

Smart Bike

“SoBi’s ‘smart-bike’ system (one in which the technology for renting, releasing and locking the bicycles is on the bikes rather than on the racks) was also preferred for its advantage in offering a lower per-station capital cost than was anticipated because it does not require that a pay kiosk be incorporated into each station,” according to the staff report.

“Instead, each bike is capable of accepting payments and releasing the bike-locking mechanism independently via a mobile, web and administrative software that interacts with the smart-bike hardware,” the report reads.

[Eightball]

Man, bike share and the Expo Line will be huge for Santa Monica.

Glad to see the Purple extension groundbreaking go forward.

I took a couple of rough pics earlier today of the new station being constructed at Expo/Crenshaw. Amazing that 5 rail lines are under construction at this time.

Expo/Crenshaw station under construction by thaeisahtbizall, on Flickr

Expo/Crenshaw station under construction by thaeisahtbizall, on Flickr

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Who is in charge of the other projects? I think Parsons has the Gold Line extension. Who is doing Crenshaw and the Downtown Connector?

Skanska is involved in a few of them.

• Kiewit-Parsons is the contractor for Gold Foothill.
  
• Skanska-Rados is the contractor for Expo 2.
  
• Walsh-Shea is the contractor for Crenshaw.
  
• Skanska-Traylor is the contractor for Regional Connector.
  
• Skanska-Traylor-Shea is the contractor for Purple Line.

[Eightball]

LA Streetsblog's today's headlines (from this AM) has a lot of incremental progress on transit (expo 1 and 2 now fully connected, gold line ext news, lax/crenshaw construction (which I posted pics of a few days back), santa monica approves bikeshare etc

http://la.streetsblog.org/2014/11/12...eadlines-1602/

[blackcat23]

Some before/after renderings of Van Nuys Boulevard with light rail, streetcar, BRT, etc. All of the options under study in the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor.

http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.c...y-transit.html

Before:



After:

[DenseCityPlease]

^Very interesting. I wonder how this plays out.

So the project is meant to open in June 2018, yet in choosing the best option for the corridor a hugely relevant piece of information -- the amount of funding available -- will not be known with certainty until after the proposed Measure R2 hits the ballots in November 2016. Is it possible Metro can delay a decision until after this date, but still be able to finish the project in less than two years?

As things stand now, light rail is out of the question for financial reasons. But if Measure R2 passes, then all of a sudden anything other than light right rail is inexcusable, especially given the widespread regret about the Orange Line having been downgraded to BRT. Seems to me like the timelines aren't lining up here...

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

^Very interesting. I wonder how this plays out.

So the project is meant to open in June 2018, yet in choosing the best option for the corridor a hugely relevant piece of information -- the amount of funding available -- will not be known with certainty until after the proposed Measure R2 hits the ballots in November 2016. Is it possible Metro can delay a decision until after this date, but still be able to finish the project in less than two years?

The other way around... Metro needs to this LRT project to be the center piece of R2 to attract votes from SFV. So the decision will certainly be made before R2 goes for vote. If Metro recommends BRT, R2's chance of passing with 66.67% is not good.

As things stand now, light rail is out of the question for financial reasons. But if Measure R2 passes, then all of a sudden anything other than light right rail is inexcusable, especially given the widespread regret about the Orange Line having been downgraded to BRT. Seems to me like the timelines aren't lining up here...

The other thing to keep an eye on... Metro's prefer mode here BRT. But the comments during the initial scoping public comment period was overwhelming in favor of light rail. The June 2018 opening date was obviously tipped towards BRT... but either way, there is no chance this line opens by that time, either as BRT or LRT.

[Eightball]

LA Streetsblog just RTed someone stating that the dispute between Kinkisharyo and the union has been resolved, and the rail car facility will stay in Palmdale. Great news if true, hopefully cars can be delivered on time for the opening of the new rail lines next year.