HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7041  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2024, 2:29 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,453
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7042  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2024, 8:32 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 7,005
Has anyone heard of the "Festival Trail"? I have not, this is the first time I'm hearing about it. It's mentioned and linked in the following article:

From dwell.com:

Can L.A. Really Pull Off a “Car-Free” Olympics?

Ahead of the 2028 games, the city has set ambitious transportation goals that could forever transform how Angelenos get around.


Text by Alissa Walker

While some will watch the Summer Olympics to see how many gold medals end up around gymnast Simone Biles’s neck, others will tune in for glimpses of a different type of win: Paris’s astounding transition away from cars in the years leading up to the games. After her election in 2014, Mayor Anne Hidalgo used the 2024 Olympics to accelerate a transportation revolution that kicked vehicular traffic off major thoroughfares, expanded the region’s Metro system, built 600 miles of bike lanes, planted 65,000 trees, and created over 200 pedestrian plazas outside schools.

The result is a Paris where residents overwhelmingly opt for other modes of transportation over cars; Over the last two decades, car traffic has fallen 50 percent, and so have injury crashes and air pollution. (And, as some in Paris have noted, the infrastructure updates have made it easier to weave through unpredictable games-related closures.) Throughout the French capital, the change is tangible: cacophonous corridors replaced with quieter and safer streets, glaring pavement swapped with shady green microforests.

In August, the baton will be handed to Los Angeles, host of the 2028 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games. L.A. has hosted the games two times before, and the city has built a civic identity around being ready to leverage the risk of a megaevent that’s thrown dozens of other cities into crisis. In 2017, when Paris and L.A. were awarded their games simultaneously, Hidalgo and former L.A. mayor Eric Garcetti signed an agreement to align their climate goals leading up to the events. But seven years later, it’s becoming increasingly unclear if L.A. can deliver part of its 2028 Olympics promise: to produce what planners have dubbed the "car-free games."

The declaration is a practical one: There’s no parking at venues due to security perimeters, so games-goers will have to largely do without cars to traverse a 500 square-mile region. This is, of course, already the reality for many Angelenos; Metro, L.A.’s transit authority, serves nearly one million people daily. But the city’s wide, dangerous, and perpetually clogged streets make getting around very difficult without a car—let alone with 10 million Olympics ticketholders moving around town. Which may explain a recent messaging shift by some officials, who are now calling them "transit-first" games, signifying an attempt to (slightly) walk back the "car-free" commitment.
To achieve a "car-free games" in L.A., two things need to happen: "Reduce car space, and increase investment in non-car modes," says Yonah Freemark, principal research associate in the Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center at the Urban Institute, who has studied Paris’s reduction in car use. Leaders haven’t carved out more room for sidewalks, bike lanes, and plazas, he says, which is what L.A. needs to work on most. "L.A. is just not designed for the same level of walkability," says Freemark. "There hasn’t been enough work to ensure the streets are safe and comfortable for pedestrians and bikers."

L.A. is delivering on other sustainability aspects of its bid. The LA28 organizing committee promised the "radical reuse" of existing facilities: venues are being privately funded, at no costs to taxpayers, and hopefully, leveraged to turn a profit, like organizers famously did in 1984. (Although L.A. is fudging a little by allocating $54 million in public money to a convention center renovation.) Classic venues will be back in rotation, including the L.A. Memorial Coliseum (used in both the 1984 and 1932 games), Dodger Stadium, and the Rose Bowl in Pasadena; with newer billionaire-bankrolled venues in adjacent Inglewood (SoFi Stadium and the Intuit Dome) added to the mix. "We are going to deliver the right games for L.A., not change L.A. to fit the games," LA28 chairperson Casey Wasserman said in July. LA28 is applying such a light touch to L.A.’s built environment that it won’t be erecting temporary facilities for softball and canoe slalom—these events will be held will be held in Oklahoma City.

The transportation plan is a different story. In 2018, Metro’s board of directors approved Twenty-Eight by ’28, a list of 28 major transportation projects to be accelerated in advance of the games that will serve as the ultimate legacy improvements for everyday commuters. In April, L.A. Mayor and Metro board member Karen Bass touted the latest $900 million in federal dollars awarded for games-related transit infrastructure. "I look forward to more accessibility and easier travel for Metro’s current riders and for future riders, as we continue preparing to be on the world stage," she said. It’s still not quite enough funding; six years later, only a handful of the original 28 projects are complete. Some are on track for 2028, like a people mover connection from LAX to the K and C lines, and the completion of the D line subway to Westwood, where athletes will stay on the UCLA campus.

[...]


A rendering of the Festival Trail.


The Festival Trail proposes a non-vehicular network to connect various venues for the 2028 L.A. Olympics.

The Festival Trail
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7043  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2024, 9:00 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 9,390
Looking at that map, you can really see how big of an impact that K Line Northern Extension would have. For folks coming from the SFV, instead of having to go all the way downtown, then transferring onto a slow E Line, and then transferring again onto the K Line, and then transferring again onto the Inglewood People Mover, you'd simply have to transfer from the B Line onto the K Line which would be fast since it's fully grade separated/underground. And then transfer onto the Inglewood People Mover. The amount of time saved would be substantial. Too bad it won't be ready until 2047.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7044  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2024, 10:13 PM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
Looking at that map, you can really see how big of an impact that K Line Northern Extension would have. For folks coming from the SFV, instead of having to go all the way downtown, then transferring onto a slow E Line, and then transferring again onto the K Line, and then transferring again onto the Inglewood People Mover, you'd simply have to transfer from the B Line onto the K Line which would be fast since it's fully grade separated/underground. And then transfer onto the Inglewood People Mover. The amount of time saved would be substantial. Too bad it won't be ready until 2047.
I'm still hopeful it can be built out sooner than that. Never say never!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7045  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2024, 11:39 PM
LAsam LAsam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,855
An extension of the K Line to Hollywood and a new rail line across the Sepulveda Pass seem like the most transformative additions that could be made at this point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7046  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2024, 6:31 AM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,754
Speaking of the Inglewood people mover, with the K Line Rail yard already built and operating, why hasn't metro looked into the feasibility of a rail line that connects with the E Line Terminus in Santa Monica, Travels under Lincoln Blvd, come out of the ground at Jefferson Blvd in Playa Vista where Lincoln become unnecessarily very wide, travel the center of the entire stretch to then connect with the LAX transit center and K line and future Sepulveda line ? .....

But why end there, Arbor Vitae Street (where The LAX transit center is) actually goes to the front door of Sofi Stadium, extend the new line down this street to hit Sofi, the Forum, The new Clippers arena AND shopping district?

If they wanted more bang for their buck, they could wrap around the line to go down Hawthorne Blvd, via century blvd, to link up with the Greenline station and end it there until maybe in the future extend it all the way down Hawthorne Blvd (which is also very very wide) to hit the Del Amo mall ? Tourists alone would utilize this line to the max.

I brought up the Inglewood people mover because it looks like funding is being chipped away ever so slowly. But, i kinda understand with a nearly 2 billion price tag, I would rather that money goes to a Lincoln Blvd. line. If you map out this line the whole way, it makes economic sense and would have some of the heaviest ridership numbers, plus could share the K line rail yard with some necessary expansion if needed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7047  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2024, 6:53 AM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,754
Speaking of sharing Rail Yards to save space and etc. The Fact that there isn't an LRT down the center of Venice Blvd. is criminal at this point.

That hits Venice beach, culver city, the expo line, grazes mid-city, hits next to the future K line northern extension station at San Vicente, hits Pico union and the ends downtown either at its own station downtown or it can share the A/E line at Pico and flower. I would say share all the way to 7th street metro station, but I imagine the headways would be entirely too close.

The argument could be made that the E and D lines are already close enough, but both will be miles north and south, a Venice line fills a very large gap.... And as a LRT, that's completely above ground and in the center of the street, i would imagine the price tag shouldn't be wildly expensive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7048  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2024, 6:06 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Everyone please watch Andert's video and submit a comment to Metro. The giant palace-like station boxes for the K line extension is totally unnecessary and is adding years of construction and countless $billions to the budget.

Here is what I wrote... feel free to copy and paste.

~~~

to: klinenorth@metro.net

I'm writing in support of the K line Northern extension project for the hybrid alignment. However, I want to express a concern regarding the design of the stations. It appears they are all over-designed with massive footprint for no apparent reason. And on top of that, almost every station has a crossover track which doesn't seem necessary for operation. Since the underground station excavation is the biggest part of the budget for the rail project, Metro would be wise to consider smaller station boxes that are more in line with worldwide light rail standards, and indeed, Metro's own station designs on the recently completed Regional Connector project on the A and E line.

For the Santa Monica/La Brea station, I urge Metro to consider an underground entrance connection to WeHo Gateway which will be good for ridership.

And lastly, I had submitted a comment during the initial scoping for the project to suggest Metro study the possibility of preserving a future East-West rail line on Santa Monica. This will probably require a junction to be constructed on the east side of Santa Monica/La Brea station, and another junction to be constructed at San Vicente/Santa Monica. These two junction boxes will not be cheap but it will be leave plenty of flexibility for future extensions. Metro should learn from its planning mistakes in the past with Gold Line Little Tokyo and Red line at Vermont Station. Building a rail line through key locations or throughfare without planning for future extensions is shortsighted and extremely costly in the long run.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7049  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2024, 6:07 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
just a pool of mushy goo
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,726
They should definitely invest in those junction box provisions though for future expansions. Like he says though, they probably won't. Pennywise and pound foolish.
__________________
Everything new is old again

Trumpism is the road to ruin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7050  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2024, 6:18 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by caligrad View Post
Speaking of the Inglewood people mover, with the K Line Rail yard already built and operating, why hasn't metro looked into the feasibility of a rail line that connects with the E Line Terminus in Santa Monica, Travels under Lincoln Blvd, come out of the ground at Jefferson Blvd in Playa Vista where Lincoln become unnecessarily very wide, travel the center of the entire stretch to then connect with the LAX transit center and K line and future Sepulveda line ? .....

But why end there, Arbor Vitae Street (where The LAX transit center is) actually goes to the front door of Sofi Stadium, extend the new line down this street to hit Sofi, the Forum, The new Clippers arena AND shopping district?

If they wanted more bang for their buck, they could wrap around the line to go down Hawthorne Blvd, via century blvd, to link up with the Greenline station and end it there until maybe in the future extend it all the way down Hawthorne Blvd (which is also very very wide) to hit the Del Amo mall ? Tourists alone would utilize this line to the max.

I brought up the Inglewood people mover because it looks like funding is being chipped away ever so slowly. But, i kinda understand with a nearly 2 billion price tag, I would rather that money goes to a Lincoln Blvd. line. If you map out this line the whole way, it makes economic sense and would have some of the heaviest ridership numbers, plus could share the K line rail yard with some necessary expansion if needed.
Lincoln Blvd light rail is on Metro's long range plan. But it is supposed to be getting BRT first. Neither are funded of course.

Once construction starts on Sepulveda and K line north, the Westside council should push for the following:

1. Sepulveda extension from E line to LAX (this is priority #1 - I will debate anyone on this)
2. Lincoln Blvd light rail Santa Monica to LAX (I'm not opposed to extension to Inglewood as you outlined... maybe a good idea to get South Bay support)
3. Venice/Pico light rail. This one is not in Metro's long range plan but has been discussed many times on this forum and others.
4. D-line extension to Santa Monica.
5. WASB extension from Union Station to Westside via Santa Monica Blvd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7051  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2024, 8:31 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,511
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:17 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.