HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3401  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2016, 1:43 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,865
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by caligrad View Post
^^^ The problem with that idea (taxing the people who actually use it) creates another reason why people wont actually use it. Meaning. When fares were raised last year, if I remember correctly, people were ready to riot almost lol, and some blamed the decline in ridership to the increase in fares ( even though I would say lower gas prices did that). But I get what you're saying.

I would actually support a flat 5-10 cent tax for rail and strictly for rail to get a lot more projects done within 20 years. meaning. Expanding rail through out the basin and the Valley. Once the rail is in place. The tax gets dropped. Rail in the LA area (LRT to be exact) should be really cheap and not even nearly expensive as it is because there are a lot of old red car line right of ways still around and a lot of abandoned rail lines (freight and other old commuter/metro rail) still laying around throughout the city.

I think the only way LA will get its current rail plans done quickly is if its awarded the Olympics again, which might be the case, and the Feds pump billions into the region to make the city "look pretty"
If you double the sales tax rate, people would be leaving the area in droves, you wouldn't need additional transit. Your argument works both ways.

A sales tax is a regressive tax worse than increasing fares, because it taxes life essentials and not just rides.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3402  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2016, 3:39 PM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikemike View Post
Timeline revisions of the more important transit corridors per the "No Sunset" plan. Listed are theoretical opening dates per Metro.

- Purple Line phase 3 to VA: accelerated from 2035 to 2024.
- Sepulveda pass corridor: from 2039 to 2033
- Crenshaw Blvd Northern Extension: from 2055 to 2047
- Lincoln Blvd BRT: from 2054 to 2047
- Vermont Blvd (BRT?): - Accelerated to 2028 (though this corridor is so prelim I don't know what exactly's being "accelerated")

- Conversion of Lincoln and Vermont from BRT to some kind of Rail is still not funded until AFTER 2060 under this new financing scheme. I take that to imply BRT, not rail, is planned for Vermont by 2028.

So in essence, Metro's planned transit network is a watered down version of a real transit network, much like how the metropolis it serves is a watered down version of urbanism. Makes sense.
I disagree with Quixote. This is not the stuff of wet dreams. LA's so-called "accelerated timeline" would be a disappointment in any other city of LA's purported global stature.

Jesus Christ. So someone born today won't ride some of these rail-lines until they're well into their 40s. This may be worst-case scenario like Quixote mentioned, but if that's the case government officials better make it clear to the voters if they want their bill to pass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3403  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2016, 5:57 PM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,202
^^^ Yeah the timelines are ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
If you double the sales tax rate, people would be leaving the area in droves, you wouldn't need additional transit. Your argument works both ways.

A sales tax is a regressive tax worse than increasing fares, because it taxes life essentials and not just rides.
Oh I know. Reason why I said that I would support it. I know most would rather walk than to pay 5-10 cent flat sales tax strictly for rail. But the thing about Tax, as the politicians love to show us, is that its easy to squeeze it in somewhere. Maybe a payroll tax for Angeleos (10 cent flat for every paycheck for a few years) or other ways can help. I doubt that people would leave in droves for something as small as 5-10 cents if its attached to their payroll tax because truth be told, taxes have doubled if not tripled in California since the 90s but we didn't lose millions, we actually gained.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3404  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2016, 10:18 PM
Bootstrap Bill Bootstrap Bill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
If you double the sales tax rate, people would be leaving the area in droves, you wouldn't need additional transit. Your argument works both ways.

A sales tax is a regressive tax worse than increasing fares, because it taxes life essentials and not just rides.
As much as I hate taxes, this isn't so bad. a five cent increase would only mean an additional $500 per year for $10,000 in taxable purchases. I don't spend anywhere near that much. If it means that we get a world class transit system, then go for it. Many people will be able to give up their cars and save much more than they would pay in additional sales tax.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3405  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2016, 10:30 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,865
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by caligrad View Post
^^^ Yeah the timelines are ridiculous.

Oh I know. Reason why I said that I would support it. I know most would rather walk than to pay 5-10 cent flat sales tax strictly for rail. But the thing about Tax, as the politicians love to show us, is that its easy to squeeze it in somewhere. Maybe a payroll tax for Angeleos (10 cent flat for every paycheck for a few years) or other ways can help. I doubt that people would leave in droves for something as small as 5-10 cents if its attached to their payroll tax because truth be told, taxes have doubled if not tripled in California since the 90s but we didn't lose millions, we actually gained.
Gain yes, but at the same rate?
Population of California:
1940 6.95 million
1950 10.68 million; a 53% increase with a gain of 3.73 million
1960 15.87 million; a 48% increase with a gain of 5.19 million
1970 19.97 million; a 25% increase with a gain of 4.07 million
1980 23.67 million; a 18% increase with a gain of 3.7 million
1990 29.96 million; a 26% increase with a gain of 6.26 million
2000 33.99 million; a 13% increase with a gain of 4.03 million
2010 37.35 million; a 3% increase with a gain of 3.36 million

The rate of increase of population is much lower now with higher taxes than it was earlier. I'm not sure even more taxes in California is sustainable.

Last edited by electricron; Jun 14, 2016 at 10:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3406  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2016, 6:57 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 217
This is not going to be a popular opinion on here, but I personally am not a big fan of light-rail in Los Angeles, especially when it goes out into the suburbs. I feel as if it defeats the purpose. The average voter or citizen in LA will likely believe it will relieve congestion on the freeways and the people who want it for the right reasons(in their mind) aren't solve what they seek to achieve which is a more walkable city. I don't see much of problem with connecting city centers to downtown, but I think running lines from the airport to Hollywood and trying to establish a true mass transit network is not the way to go. Wider freeways and roads are a much better alternative and grade separated transit is the best way to prevent conflict.

Walkability and good urbanism isn't about good mass transit, it's about scale. That is just my opinion of course, but with a city as spread out as LA, transit doesn't make much sense. The transit is already very good here for how spread out the city is. Now in NYC, or downtown San Fran or Seattle, heck, even in Downtown LA, I support it, but not around the metro. LA is a car city and that is simply by culture.

I would support new rail lines from San Bernardino and Ventura given it is all grade separated and high-speed. We're in the 21st century, 20mph average speeds don't cut it. A train with a few stations traveling at about 200MPH would be better and offer a better alternative which would possibly entice riders off of the freeway and maybe make a step forward to making the city a little bit more transit friendly even if they aren't encouraged to move closer to their work.

I'm open for debate so please let's do it. Keep in mind I'm an avid biker and I use the metro rail all the time, so I'm not against walkability. I do also like freeways and cars as well.

BTW, even the new timelines for the new metro ballot projects are a joke. The high-desert expressway isn't being built for the next 30+ years!!! WTF!!!!! Are cars even going to be around? Is mass transit even going to be around? I mean who knows how we're going to get around. 30 years might not seem like that long, but think of where this city was 30 years ago. Think about all the advances in communication, health, transportation in the last 30 years. Self driving cars, Uber, rebuilding of America's streetcar system, etc. Why even plan for that when it is needed now? Same thing with the downtown streetcar.

Also, what is up with lack of bike projects? They need new bike trails and routes. It would be nice to see dedicated bike trails along the 101, 110, and the 405.

Also, they should look at PRT. Personal rapid transit. Being as this country likes to be self sufficient which is why we aren't as mass transit friendly as Europe, PRT might be something that could work well. It is grade separated and can be implemented on streets with no effect to drivers once its done. Then if traffic does die down, street diets can be in order.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3407  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2016, 5:40 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 274
Today I took the Expo line eastbound from SM station. As I was getting on, a guy was talking to the driver and commented "you made it here in 44 minutes! great job" but followed up saying "yesterday the trip took closer to 55 minutes". He went on to say that he thought they could get it down to closer to 40 minutes if signals align once all of the kinks are worked out. The driver responded "not with the new trains we can't! maybe with this one though, I love this train" (we were on a Seimens P2000).

I'm hoping that the commentary on the new trains is just due to issues that need to be worked out and that they will eventually be just as quick as the Seimens P2000s. This also demonstrated that the line could get much quicker. If the operator could make it to the whole way in 44 minutes without signal preemption, maybe 40 minutes could actually be achievable with it. FWIW my train made the trip to Expo/Sepulveda in around 9:30, 30 seconds early!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3408  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2016, 1:17 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 5,237
I think PRT is a definite option. I don't think it is at all practical for major cities or very busy corridor but it could be extremely successful as a connecting system to the local LRT and especially commuter rail lines. It gets rid of the dreaded last mile and save money on building huge barking garages at stations. This is also beneficial as it leaves those parking spaces open to TOD development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3409  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2016, 9:25 AM
Swede's Avatar
Swede Swede is offline
YIMBY co-founder
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sol.III.eu.se.08
Posts: 6,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
I think PRT is a definite option. I don't think it is at all practical for major cities or very busy corridor but it could be extremely successful as a connecting system to the local LRT and especially commuter rail lines. It gets rid of the dreaded last mile and save money on building huge barking garages at stations. This is also beneficial as it leaves those parking spaces open to TOD development.
But it has a huuuge drawback: cost of infrastructure. Needs a station on every block with ADA compliant access.
There is a much simpler option in the works: self-driving cars. All the advantages on PRT without the disadvantages.
__________________
Forumers met so far:
Huopa, Nightsky, Jo, wolkenkrabber, ThisSideofSteinway, jacksom, New Jack City, LeCom, Ellatur, Jan, Dennis, Ace, Bardamu, AtlanticaC5, Ringil, Dysfunctional, stacey, karakhal, ch1le, Hviid, staff, kjetilab, Þróndeimr, queetz, FREKI, sander, Blue Viking, nomels, Mantas, ristov, Rafal_T, khaan, Chilenofuturista, Jonte Myra, safta20, AW, Pas, Jarmo K, IceCheese, Sideshow_Bob, sk, Ingenioren, Ayreonaut, Silver Creations, Hasse78, Svartmetall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3410  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2016, 7:59 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 5,237
I certainly doesn't need a station on every block. People would be more than willing to walk 3 or 4 blocks to get to the PRT station.

Much of what causes the low ridership on LRT/Commuter rail stations has nothing to do with the rail service and everything to do with the connecting bus service.

The train maybe fast and frequent but that doesn't do much if you then have to sit around the station for a half an hour or more waiting for your connecting bus. This is particularly true in suburban stations off-peak hours, late night, and on the weekends when service is very limited.

Much of the system could be built with the savings from not having to build monstrous parking garages around the stations and being able to sell those lands for TOD. Land around rail lines always commands a premium price and PRT allows the cities to take advantage of it.

Like I say I don't think it's practical for main route but for circular routes of 3 or 4 miles around the stations, it could be very effective by getting rid of the dreaded "last mile" which is a big issue in suburban areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3411  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 8:30 AM
Swede's Avatar
Swede Swede is offline
YIMBY co-founder
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sol.III.eu.se.08
Posts: 6,697
Walk 3-4 blocks? To get to a feeder line? Nope. People will take their cars instead. To get people out of their cars it has to be less of a hassle.
A far, far smarter plan is to up-zone everything with a half mile or so of the LRt stations. That will create more housing while also adding passengers to the LRT.

Seriously, PRT is a 60s pipe-dream that has already been made redundant by self-driving cars. PRT has no advantages that they don't. There is no need to build all that new infrastructure.
__________________
Forumers met so far:
Huopa, Nightsky, Jo, wolkenkrabber, ThisSideofSteinway, jacksom, New Jack City, LeCom, Ellatur, Jan, Dennis, Ace, Bardamu, AtlanticaC5, Ringil, Dysfunctional, stacey, karakhal, ch1le, Hviid, staff, kjetilab, Þróndeimr, queetz, FREKI, sander, Blue Viking, nomels, Mantas, ristov, Rafal_T, khaan, Chilenofuturista, Jonte Myra, safta20, AW, Pas, Jarmo K, IceCheese, Sideshow_Bob, sk, Ingenioren, Ayreonaut, Silver Creations, Hasse78, Svartmetall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3412  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 8:25 PM
losangelesnative's Avatar
losangelesnative losangelesnative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 357
Wow to start flying from LAX to iceland http://www.labusinessjournal.com/new...s-lax-flights/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3413  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2016, 1:47 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,865
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swede View Post
Walk 3-4 blocks? To get to a feeder line? Nope. People will take their cars instead. To get people out of their cars it has to be less of a hassle.
A far, far smarter plan is to up-zone everything with a half mile or so of the LRt stations. That will create more housing while also adding passengers to the LRT.
A typical urban block in most cities is 300 feet, 400 feet max.
Therefore; 3 blocks = 900 or 1200 feet; 4 blocks = 1200 or 1600 feet. A half mile = 2,640 feet.

Why do you recommend up-zoning everything within a half mile -2640 feet -when 1200 feet is too far to walk? Wouldn't a quarter mile - 1320 feet - be a better range for up-zoning?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3414  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2016, 5:02 AM
NativeOrange's Avatar
NativeOrange NativeOrange is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Westminster/Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Gain yes, but at the same rate?
Population of California:
1940 6.95 million
1950 10.68 million; a 53% increase with a gain of 3.73 million
1960 15.87 million; a 48% increase with a gain of 5.19 million
1970 19.97 million; a 25% increase with a gain of 4.07 million
1980 23.67 million; a 18% increase with a gain of 3.7 million
1990 29.96 million; a 26% increase with a gain of 6.26 million
2000 33.99 million; a 13% increase with a gain of 4.03 million
2010 37.35 million; a 3% increase with a gain of 3.36 million

The rate of increase of population is much lower now with higher taxes than it was earlier. I'm not sure even more taxes in California is sustainable.
You realize that the higher the overall number, the lesser the rate will be even if an increase in raw numbers stays roughly the same, right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3415  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2016, 6:47 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,865
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by NativeOrange View Post
You realize that the higher the overall number, the lesser the rate will be even if an increase in raw numbers stays roughly the same, right?
Yes, that's why I posted the data in my earlier response to show that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3416  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2016, 4:06 PM
blackcat23's Avatar
blackcat23 blackcat23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,362
Run-through tracks and new passenger concourse for Union Station

SCRIP project, rebranded at Union Station, will build up to ten tracks across the US-101 freeway trench and add a passenger concourse of up to 600,000 square feet.

__________________
Urbanize LA - Covering real estate development, architecture and urban planning in the Greater Los Angeles Area.

Please follow on Twitter @UrbanizeLA, Facebook and Instagram.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3417  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2016, 1:45 AM
Muji's Avatar
Muji Muji is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 1,150
Well, just as Metro took a good step forward in opening the Expo Line and Gold Line extensions, it is taking two big steps back by making huge cuts to evening service on Metro Rail. Unsurprisingly, this announcement is absent from its flyers announcing service changes on bus lines, and is buried deep in the announcement at the Source: http://thesource.metro.net/2016/06/2...ains-to-azusa/.

As of June 26, all of the rail lines will be running with 20 minute headways after about 8 pm. Up until now, Metro has run 10 minute headways after 8 pm on the Expo, Blue, and Gold Lines (not sure about the Green Line). While the Red Line has been running at 20 minutes headways and basically no Purple Line service on weeknights (already unacceptable), the substandard service will now affect Friday and Saturday evenings as well. [New timetables here] What is most egregious is that nighttime service on the Red/Purple Lines is now even worse than it was when I moved here in 2010.

Apparently Metro has just given up on doing anything about falling rail ridership altogether, and is perfectly content to run at third-rate levels of service.
__________________
My blog of then and now photos of LA: http://urbandiachrony.wordpress.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3418  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2016, 8:07 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalKid View Post
Today I took the Expo line eastbound from SM station. As I was getting on, a guy was talking to the driver and commented "you made it here in 44 minutes! great job" but followed up saying "yesterday the trip took closer to 55 minutes". He went on to say that he thought they could get it down to closer to 40 minutes if signals align once all of the kinks are worked out. The driver responded "not with the new trains we can't! maybe with this one though, I love this train" (we were on a Seimens P2000).

I'm hoping that the commentary on the new trains is just due to issues that need to be worked out and that they will eventually be just as quick as the Seimens P2000s. This also demonstrated that the line could get much quicker. If the operator could make it to the whole way in 44 minutes without signal preemption, maybe 40 minutes could actually be achievable with it. FWIW my train made the trip to Expo/Sepulveda in around 9:30, 30 seconds early!
The new P3010 trains are experiencing a lot of problems on Expo line. Mainly with slow speeds and jerky brakes. For example, the P2000 travels at 50 mph between Farmdale and La Cienega station (the fastest part of Expo with no speed restriction and fully elevated/gated) but the P3010 will barely hit 30mph. The slow speed is causing the P3010s to miss red lights at other parts of Expo line and causing bunching problems, forcing the faster P2000 and P865 to slow down and wait at stations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3419  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2016, 4:17 PM
blackcat23's Avatar
blackcat23 blackcat23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,362
http://urbanize.la/post/plans-lax-rail-link-move-ahead

Metro releases the DEIR for Aviation/96th Street Station, which will link to the future LAX automated people mover

__________________
Urbanize LA - Covering real estate development, architecture and urban planning in the Greater Los Angeles Area.

Please follow on Twitter @UrbanizeLA, Facebook and Instagram.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3420  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2016, 5:20 PM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is offline
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Historic Core
Posts: 2,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muji View Post
Well, just as Metro took a good step forward in opening the Expo Line and Gold Line extensions, it is taking two big steps back by making huge cuts to evening service on Metro Rail. Unsurprisingly, this announcement is absent from its flyers announcing service changes on bus lines, and is buried deep in the announcement at the Source: http://thesource.metro.net/2016/06/2...ains-to-azusa/.

As of June 26, all of the rail lines will be running with 20 minute headways after about 8 pm. Up until now, Metro has run 10 minute headways after 8 pm on the Expo, Blue, and Gold Lines (not sure about the Green Line). While the Red Line has been running at 20 minutes headways and basically no Purple Line service on weeknights (already unacceptable), the substandard service will now affect Friday and Saturday evenings as well. [New timetables here] What is most egregious is that nighttime service on the Red/Purple Lines is now even worse than it was when I moved here in 2010.

Apparently Metro has just given up on doing anything about falling rail ridership altogether, and is perfectly content to run at third-rate levels of service.
wtffff has anyone written any articles about this yet?
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 5:21 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.