HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2009, 5:06 PM
JDRCRASH's Avatar
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill View Post
If it's going to Beach Blvd. then why not head south to Knott's Berry Farm and then south east to the Disneyland Resort area and then finally to John Wayne Airport?

Yes, it would be very long, so make the OC portion limited stop/express service. Stops only at Knott's, Disneyland and John Wayne Airport.

The hard part will be paying for it, but I think this could eventually happen.

To save money they could make most of the OC portion of the Purple Line an El....
Thats pretty long. I would rather have OCTA take over the Monorail and make it a county wide system there.

BTW, I meant having the Gold Line use Whittier Blvd after the Sante Fe/Washington/Whittier intersection. The farthest the Gold Line Eastside should go is the Brea Mall, and only by using the Greenway ROW after Beach Blvd. But given the pressure to extend the Bike Trail to Orange County, I don't know if that's even possible.

Last edited by JDRCRASH; Sep 23, 2009 at 5:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2009, 5:08 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
Exclamation Whittier Blvd extension

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
According to Wright Concept, the de facto resident LA transit expert, an eastward HRT extension down Whittier is very much a possibility because the Beverly and Whittier options for the Gold Line East II have run out of steam. This time, the subway would branch off down 7th St. to serve the Historic Core before switching over to 6th St. and eventually Whittier Blvd.

Or the more likely scenario is that it will continue from Union Station and the current Red/Purple Line rail yards near Sci-ARC under the LA River and proceed under Whittier Blvd.
__________________
"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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2009, 7:53 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
#GoDodgers
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,694
^ Any chance of repealing the Prop A and C ban?
__________________
"I'm an LA guy, can't help it." -- Tiger Woods
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2009, 8:05 PM
Bootstrap Bill Bootstrap Bill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
Thats pretty long. I would rather have OCTA take over the Monorail and make it a county wide system there.

BTW, I meant having the Gold Line use Whittier Blvd after the Sante Fe/Washington/Whittier intersection. The farthest the Gold Line Eastside should go is the Brea Mall, and only by using the Greenway ROW after Beach Blvd. But given the pressure to extend the Bike Trail to Orange County, I don't know if that's even possible.
I'd like to see an electrified Metrolink that runs 24/7, as often as every 15 minutes during peak hours and no less than once an hour at night.

The entire system should be grade separated with its own track (no sharing with freight trains) and a 30 day pass good on the entire system plus all connecting bus/rail lines should cost no more than $200.

Is this doable?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2009, 10:06 PM
JDRCRASH's Avatar
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill View Post
I'd like to see an electrified Metrolink that runs 24/7, as often as every 15 minutes during peak hours and no less than once an hour at night.
That would be nice.

Quote:
The entire system should be grade separated with its own track (no sharing with freight trains) and a 30 day pass good on the entire system plus all connecting bus/rail lines should cost no more than $200.

Is this doable?
I think it depends on the ROW. Some may not, because the CAHSR is eventually going to be sharing some ROW's with the Metrolink.

I don't know width of some of these ROW's, though. Westsidelife or WC (Wright Concept) might know.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2009, 10:12 PM
Bootstrap Bill Bootstrap Bill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
Depending on where it is, probably not, given that some of the ROW's the Metrolink uses will also be shared by the HSR eventually.
Metrolink could eventually become an El,or better yet, put it in a covered trench...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2009, 10:23 PM
JDRCRASH's Avatar
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,721
Sorry for me editing my comment, Bootstrap. But I needed to fully clarify on what I meant.

BTW, I think the Burbank route is gonna be trenched:

(see 8:05)
Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2009, 10:49 PM
Bootstrap Bill Bootstrap Bill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by StethJeff View Post


If the current set of projects aren't scheduled to be completed until 2020 or whatever, and a line to Venice isn't even on the horizon, "eventually" won't even be during my lifetime.
Sign up for cryonics!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2009, 10:52 PM
Bootstrap Bill Bootstrap Bill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
Sorry for me editing my comment, Bootstrap. But I needed to fully clarify on what I meant.

BTW, I think the Burbank route is gonna be trenched:

(see 8:05)
Video Link
Is there a timeline for the various segments of CaHSR? When can we expect service to begin?

Any news on fares yet? I hope they have some kind of monthly pass for the SoCal segments....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2009, 11:45 PM
JDRCRASH's Avatar
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,721
I think the SJ/SF and LA/OC segments are gonna be built first.

You could check the official thread, which is in the Regional Section under United States "Pacific West".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2009, 9:11 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

From Dolores Roybal, the Project Manager of the Regional Connector, the actual public release of this will occur later but these are confirmed dates and times for the meetings. I'll get a follow-up on any public comment submission deadlines.
"There will be a series of five Community Update meetings for the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project on the following dates and times:

Nov. 5 at 6:30pm, Lake Avenue Church, 393 N. Lake Avenue, Pasadena
Nov. 7 at 10am, Wurlizer Building, 818 S. Broadway, Los Angeles
Nov.10 at Noon, Los Angeles Central Public Library, 630 W 5th St., Los Angeles
Nov.12 at 2pm, Japanese American National Museum, 369 1st St, Los Angeles
Nov 12 at 6:30pm, Japanese American National Museum, same address as above"
__________________
"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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2009, 9:18 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
Press release from the Metro website:
Westside Subway Extension, Regional Connector Projects To Seek Federal Funding

In a move that places Los Angeles County in contention to receive its fair share of future federal rail funding, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board of Directors today voted to pursue long-term funding agreements through the US. Department of Transportation to build the Westside Subway Extension and Regional Connector projects.

The two projects are expected to score highly in the rankings necessary to secure Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA) under current federal New Starts requirements. The Federal Transit Administration administers the New Starts program for major capital transit investments nationwide. Projects eligible for future funding through this program must compete with other projects nationwide to be selected to enter into these types of contractual agreements.

Both the Westside Subway Extension and Regional Connector projects are slated to provide critically needed transit linkages for existing transit riders traveling to, from and through some of the most densely populated and commercially significant areas of Los Angeles County. They are both included in the Measure R half-cent sales tax expenditure plan and the agency’s draft Long Range Transportation Plan that is scheduled for future Board consideration.

“These two projects will not only result in significantly greater connectivity in the Metro subway and light rail systems, but also will result in a dramatic increase in overall system ridership and user benefits,” said Ara Najarian, Glendale City Council Member and MTA Board Chair. “In short, they are our best chance to secure future federal funds, and in so doing, will free up precious local monies for other regionally significant transportation projects.”

The Board’s decision to select the two local rail projects and advance those projects in the New Starts Program could establish reliable, multi-year funding as early as the federal Fiscal Year 2012. Over the past six years, for example, the agency has received an average of $80 million per year in federal rail funding through the New Starts program.
Without this federal match, the agency would be forced to utilize local funds to build heavy and light rail projects, which would make completion of the promised Measure R program of county transportation projects difficult to accomplish.

The Westside Subway Extension is estimated to cost $4.2 billion in today’s dollars for completion of the Measure R segment from the current terminus of the Metro Purple Line at Wilshire/Western Station to Westwood. Measure R funds would be used to match federal funds. The project is currently in its Draft Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR) phase, and the MTA Board is expected to make a decision on a preferred alignment later next year.
Ridership has been projected at 49,000 new station boardings for the Wilshire alternative to Westwood. An additional 27,000 boardings are estimated to be generated throughout the Metro system as a result of the subway extension. The project would connect key job centers such as Century City and Westwood with the growing Metro Rail system.

The $1.3 billion Regional Connector project would receive $160 million in escalated Measure R funds. Also in its Draft EIS/EIR phase, the MTA Board is expected to make a decision on a preferred alignment late next year. The project would connect the existing Metro Gold and Blue Line light rail lines through Downtown Los Angeles.
In addition to joining these two lines, the project also would enable trains to run directly between the Gold Line Eastside Extension, expected to open in 2009, and the Expo Line, which will connect Downtown L.A. to Culver City in the 2010-2011 timeframe.
The Regional Connector anticipates generating 16,000 new systemwide boardings and additional ridership on the connecting light rail lines through the county. The line would connect major downtown activity centers, provide a one-seat regional ride and reduce transit travel times by 12-20 minutes.

For additional information, visit http://www.metro.net/westside and http://wwwmetro.net/regionalconnector.
__________________
"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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2009, 10:40 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,582
49,000 additional riders with the extension to westwood? that seems way to low. Wright, whats your take?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2009, 10:45 PM
JDRCRASH's Avatar
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,721
No way in hell is it only 50,000, especially with all the development that will follow the extension.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2009, 11:21 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 LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
49,000 additional riders with the extension to westwood? that seems way to low. Wright, whats your take?

That number is good conservative value given:

* The ridership is based on current and under construction Metro Rail system (Red/Purple, Blue, Green, Gold, ELA Gold and Expo to Culver City)

* It doesn't factor any other Measure R project unless that line is under construction or near completion,

* It is assuming a shift mostly from the existing Rapid bus 720,

* FTA only factors in the developments if they are directly connected to the project such as TOD. No such assumption was made or could be made.

* Along the corridor from Westwood to Wilshire/Western, ridership wise the weakest section of the line is from Wilshire La Cienega to Wilshire/Western, so half of the line.

* 49,000 new boardings is still very good for the 8 mile corridor, that is roughly 6,000 riders/mile which is a good value.

So 49,000 is a good baseline conservative value which is enough to garner a needed Medium FTA cost-effectiveness score because it would move many riders who are travelling longer regional distances. Do I think the ridership for this corridor should be higher, yes to roughly 9000 to upwards of 12,000 riders/mile or 72,000-96,000 riders would be the more likely range once we include other projects and improvements in the next few years under Measure R.
__________________
"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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2009, 12:47 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,582
thanks so much for the detailed response.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2009, 8:13 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
#GoDodgers
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,694
I thought the FTA could only fund one project at a time? Did the new administration revoke that rule?

And $80 million per year on average? As if that's going to be enough.
__________________
"I'm an LA guy, can't help it." -- Tiger Woods
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2009, 10:54 AM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,262
Westsidelife-- Maryland is seeking funding from the FTA for two new rail projects, the Purple Line (Montgomery- Pr. George's County) and the Red Line (Baltimore) simultaneously. Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071901745.html . I don't know if the requirements are different for funding two local rail projects within one city, however.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2009, 11:47 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
#GoDodgers
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,694
^ I think it used to be one project at a time per MSA. In the case of those two Maryland projects, they're in two separate MSAs. Meh, who knows?

The FTA rule is a huge setback to those cities that have major aggressive expansion plans in the works. So much momentum toward upgrading inter-city rail but none for metropolitan systems. Such a shame. If that doesn't change soon, then we'll have to pass another transit tax measure.
__________________
"I'm an LA guy, can't help it." -- Tiger Woods

Last edited by Quixote; Sep 25, 2009 at 12:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2009, 2:32 PM
JDRCRASH's Avatar
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,721
Or we could look to the State if it finally settles it's ridiculous circus.
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 3:55 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.