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. |
Quote:
Aaron (Glowrock) |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Two more maps for glowrock...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2565/...d43b2415_b.jpg From Wikipedia http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3103/...f89d5370_b.jpg From Wikipedia |
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. |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
Quote:
* 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:
|
Quote:
And I noticed that you intentionally left out the Crenshaw station. It's too huge of a gap between Western and La Brea. :no: 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. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Now if we could shift the Feds attention from financing wars and finance our infrastructure, we could have a stronger fighting chance. Quote:
* 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:
|
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.
|
we need two lines to Santa Monica because they serve different areas. What we really need is an additional line to Venice.
|
Three Rail Projects Could Have Timelines Moved Up, Mayor & Advocates Seeking More
http://laist.com/attachments/la_zach...rerspeedup.jpg 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. |
^ With the exception of the Westside Subway and 405 Corridor, it's rather impressive.
|
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? |
^ 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? |
According to that Map, with the funding we have in place now, we can have 10!!! new rail lines or segments!
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
fuck yeah, we will unify the westside with the eastside by 2036! what progress! :rolleyes:
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 |
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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.