LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[202_Cyclist]

Too bad Congress (i.e. John Boehner & Co.) doesn't have the same commitment to investing in mobility that local governments have. A national infrastructure bank and a commitment to investing in the mobility in the surface transportation reauthorization would go a long way to creating jobs, reducing our dependence on oil, and increasing connectivity. According to the GO(B)P, however, if we just have more tax cuts for billionaires, an occasional Middle East war, and witch-hunts against anyone not exactly like them, the economy will take care of itself.


Los Angeles County is poised to accelerate its rail projects


With financial support from Measure R, a voter-approved sales tax, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's proposed $4.15-billion budget could pay for planning or construction for roughly a dozen lines.



By Ari Bloomekatz
Los Angeles Times
May 15, 2011

"While many agencies are cutting back, Los Angeles' aggressive rail expansion is picking up steam.

The county's Metropolitan Transportation Authority unveiled this month a record $4.15-billion budget that includes money for about a dozen rail lines that are either under construction or being planned.

If all goes as anticipated, Metro in the next year would begin construction of a new rail line along Crenshaw Boulevard, complete the Expo Line to Culver City and continue work on an expansion of the Gold Line from Pasadena to Azusa...."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-metro-budget-20110515,0,5813284,full.story

[ardecila]

Great picture. Light rail doesn't get any sexier than that.

[pesto]

sorry, wrong thread

[kalifese]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

I've been to Queens obviously (many times). But until you come to the SGV in LA, you can't really form a solid opinion on where the best Chinese food is in the US. The variety of Chinese, Taiwanese, Cantonese, etc. here is the best I've tasted anywhere in the US. Obviously if NY had better Chinese food I would have been happier there! LOL

But besides just food, the Chinese immigrant population resides in the Monterey Park area which should be tied to rail transit, which MIGHT actually help spur new development in Chinatown in DTLA. Providing easy access to Chinatown may give the area a boost.

dude i lived in new york all my life and live in l.a. county/pasadena for 8 years so i've been to sgv many times to eat chinese there, obviously. there are more chinese people in the greater new york area compared to l.a. there are many mom and pop type places but there are also many high-end chinese restaurants in ny which is the trend nowadays.

[edluva]

$4.15 billion is really not much money - all of that could easily be spent on just the subway extension. pasadena-azusa is concessionary money down the toilet. i see all of these slow as hell, semi-useful LRT projects as childs play until our subway extension opens. they'll all have pretty laughable ridership stats for the next couple decades regardless of what special connector is built- honestly, how many people who already want to go from highland park or boyle heights to south la choose to drive for lack of a downtown connector? the one seat ride hypothesis is way overrated as far as ridership goes. LRT in current iteration is slow as fuck no matter how you want to slice it

LA is going to suck for a lot longer than you think.

[bricky]

Originally Posted by kalifese

dude i lived in new york all my life and live in l.a. county/pasadena for 8 years so i've been to sgv many times to eat chinese there, obviously. there are more chinese people in the greater new york area compared to l.a. there are many mom and pop type places but there are also many high-end chinese restaurants in ny which is the trend nowadays.

I think Flushing is developing into the most interesting Chinese community in the entire US. What with the new malls built and the big Flushing Commons development under way, coupled with a true urban fabric. It has potential to become NY's Shibuya or something like that, 20 years down the line. Or at least a giant version of Manhattan's Koreatown, as Chinese people get more trendy. But I have also heard the Chinese food is better on the West Coast. Generally Asian food in NY is just not that great. Or to put it another way, it downright sucks if you're familiar with the real deal. Don't know about Cali as much though.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by edluva

$4.15 billion is really not much money - all of that could easily be spent on just the subway extension. pasadena-azusa is concessionary money down the toilet. i see all of these slow as hell, semi-useful LRT projects as childs play until our subway extension opens. they'll all have pretty laughable ridership stats for the next couple decades regardless of what special connector is built- honestly, how many people who already want to go from highland park or boyle heights to south la choose to drive for lack of a downtown connector? the one seat ride hypothesis is way overrated as far as ridership goes. LRT in current iteration is slow as fuck no matter how you want to slice it

LA is going to suck for a lot longer than you think.

Blue Line weekday ridership in April 2011 - 82,086. Weekend is only hampered because of ongoing sporadic closings due to Expo Line construction. (http://www.metro.net/news/pages/ridership-statistics/)

Our light rail ridership is 3rd in the nation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_light_rail_systems_by_ridership)

Now, please defend your "pretty laughable ridership stats" statement.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Blue Line weekday ridership in April 2011 - 82,086. Weekend is only hampered because of ongoing sporadic closings due to Expo Line construction. (http://www.metro.net/news/pages/ridership-statistics/)

Our light rail ridership is 3rd in the nation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_light_rail_systems_by_ridership)

Now, please defend your "pretty laughable ridership stats" statement.

And L.A. is third only because they included the SF Cable Cars with the SF numbers. The Cable Cars are basically a Disneyland ride.

But I wouldn't look for Edluva to enlighten. Basically the pattern I've noticed with his/her posts is that if it's in/from/about L.A., it must suck.

[LAofAnaheim]

The Expo Line to Culver City will put us over the top of San Francisco. We'll only be 2nd to Boston in terms of light rail ridership.....until Crenshaw Line, Gold Line to Asuza, Expo Line to Santa Monica and the downtown connector are completed...then we'll have the highest ridership light rail system in the nation.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

The Expo Line to Culver City will put us over the top of San Francisco. We'll only be 2nd to Boston in terms of light rail ridership.....until Crenshaw Line, Gold Line to Asuza, Expo Line to Santa Monica and the downtown connector are completed...then we'll have the highest ridership light rail system in the nation.

And LA will still "suck" according to some.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

And LA will still "suck" according to some.

Well, in Edlvuva's defense, Light Rail is often slow, especially parts of the Blue Line, Expo Line, and Eastside Gold Line Extension, sometimes to the point of, well, pointlessness. Eventually, it's going to have to be grade-separated. Shame that Metro is looking to the present, not the future, when building out the rail lines.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Well, in Edlvuva's defense, Light Rail is often slow, especially parts of the Blue Line, Expo Line, and Eastside Gold Line Extension, sometimes to the point of, well, pointlessness. Eventually, it's going to have to be grade-separated. Shame that Metro is looking to the present, not the future, when building out the rail lines.

I get it. But think back 20 or so years ago. L.A. had ZERO miles of rail (light or heavy).

People are happy that it's being built at all. The voters approved funding through Measure R, so they are committed to it as well. It is something to celebrate, but inevitably, some people seem to be locked into the "it's not as good as New York" mentality. Do I think the Gold Line extension to Montclair or wherever is critical? No. But I think the Expo Line will be very successful, having a link to LAX proper will be great. Grade separated would be great, but again we are dealing with limited funding in this economic environment, Measure R aside.

The Purple Line extension is the one I'm most excited about, and I hope it gets green-lighted soon, and the Beverly Hills NIMBYs can go f- themselves.

[edluva]

thank you illith dude. you alone prove to me that some la forumers are not as shallow as i believe

laofanaheim -- i'm shocked to know that you of all people would resort to ridership stats to prove a point!

the fact of the matter is your bragging about los angeles LRT (that's light rail transit) ridership coming in second to boston's omits the fact that in addition to LRT, boston has an HRT subway with ridership of 600,000/day.

And in typical fashion, you also forgot to do some analysis - Boston's LRT only needs some 26 miles to acheive its ridership of 240,000/day. Los angeles by contrast, has over twice as much route mileage (62 miles) and yet despite that, achieves ridership of about 100k fewer. you also forgot to mention SF has a HRT system as well (have you heard of BART?). you are pretty funny.

but my point wasn't to make a mockery of your attempt to sound smart but rather to highlight the fact that LRT is a form of transit that is used primarily for smaller distances than what is being employed in los angeles, and most often for much smaller cities, and that for a city of world class aspirations as los angeles, building a primarily suburban LRT rail network which "competes" with freeway routes is a joke and will never gain traction in terms of real-world impact.

building a LRT line to parallel the 210 will not get people to abandon the 210. likewise with the 10, the 105, and the 60. it won't even attract much future traffic growth - who in the hell is going to take the gold line to commute from the inland empire to pasadena or long beach? don't kid yourselves. the expo is a move in the right direction, but still too slow to be of much impact for most people along the route.

And in defense of our rail network, many los angeles forumers will note how x years ago, los angeles had "virtually no rail network" as though shining a spotlight on that consolation fact somehow changes the quality of our pathetic rail network. how sad indeed are we?

as far as i'm concerned there are no moral victories when it comes to reality - and the reality of it is, our transit network will suck ass into the forseable decades when compared with most first-world (and increasingly, third-world) standards. "but we did good for having nothing 25 years ago" - who gives a sht. it still sucks.

[ardecila]

^^ You play the cards you're dealt. If you can't deal with the LA region's unwillingness so far to commit the ~50 billion for an HRT network, then you're free to move to NY or a foreign city with the rail network you want.

I don't really see why you insist on trashing Metro's light-rail plan. It's not like there's another American city right now with the resources to build a heavy rail network from scratch. SF, DC and Atlanta all benefited by being the first non-Northern cities to request federal transit funding, so they got tons of money, and they were able to build heavy-rail systems (DC especially, since the money comes from there in the first place).

But now that every big/medium-sized city in the country is vying for rail funding, LA can't possibly scrape together enough Federal funds for a heavy-rail network. The only possibility is for Angelenos to finance the construction themselves, either at the state or local levels, and Measure R's sales tax is about as high as the voters would accept.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^^ You play the cards you're dealt. If you can't deal with the LA region's unwillingness so far to commit the ~50 billion for an HRT network, then you're free to move to NY or a foreign city with the rail network you want.

I don't really see why you insist on trashing Metro's light-rail plan. It's not like there's another American city right now with the resources to build a heavy rail network from scratch. SF, DC and Atlanta all benefited by being the first non-Northern cities to request federal transit funding, so they got tons of money (DC especially, since the money comes from there in the first place).

But now that every big/medium-sized city in the country is vying for rail funding, LA can't possibly scrape together enough Federal funds for a heavy-rail network. The only possibility is for Angelenos to finance the construction themselves, either at the state or local levels, and Measure R's sales tax is about as high as the voters would accept.

Seriously. In the real world there are major financial and political issues to deal with. Unfortunately we don't live in fantasy land where funding is unlimited and NIMBYs are non-existent.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by bricky

I think Flushing is developing into the most interesting Chinese community in the entire US. What with the new malls built and the big Flushing Commons development under way, coupled with a true urban fabric. It has potential to become NY's Shibuya or something like that, 20 years down the line. Or at least a giant version of Manhattan's Koreatown, as Chinese people get more trendy. But I have also heard the Chinese food is better on the West Coast. Generally Asian food in NY is just not that great. Or to put it another way, it downright sucks if you're familiar with the real deal. Don't know about Cali as much though.

100 percent right about Flushing. I also agree about East Coast Chinese food, but this is both subjective and too big to comment on authoritatively. Just enjoy.

[pesto]

LRT: You don't build for the sake of building; you build because it's what you need. If LRT isn't really useful, then spend your money on something else or hold-off and build HRT when affordable. Don't fall into the kind of thinking that government, bond dealers, construction companies and unions want you to adopt: you gotta build something really expensive right now!

In general, pokey transit connecting nowhere will get LA on the permanent "do not fund" list for the feds. And they will be right.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Well, in Edlvuva's defense, Light Rail is often slow, especially parts of the Blue Line, Expo Line, and Eastside Gold Line Extension, sometimes to the point of, well, pointlessness. Eventually, it's going to have to be grade-separated. Shame that Metro is looking to the present, not the future, when building out the rail lines.

Nowhere did he mention slowness of light rail. His quote was because of paltry ridership statistics.

In regards to slowness, there are 2 areas in which light rail is painfully slow and I would agree with the anger/angst about riding it during those stretches. The Blue Line south of PCH station and Gold Line eastside extension. Outside of those 2 areas, the light rail moves at a relatively good speed.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by edluva

thank you illith dude. you alone prove to me that some la forumers are not as shallow as i believe

laofanaheim -- i'm shocked to know that you of all people would resort to ridership stats to prove a point!

the fact of the matter is your bragging about los angeles LRT (that's light rail transit) ridership coming in second to boston's omits the fact that in addition to LRT, boston has an HRT subway with ridership of 600,000/day.

And in typical fashion, you also forgot to do some analysis - Boston's LRT only needs some 26 miles to acheive its ridership of 240,000/day. Los angeles by contrast, has over twice as much route mileage (62 miles) and yet despite that, achieves ridership of about 100k fewer. you also forgot to mention SF has a HRT system as well (have you heard of BART?). you are pretty funny.

Oh edluva...thank you for the setup! First of all, you said "pretty laughable ridership statistics" as your first argument and now you changed it to mean per mile. Love the change in your argument all of a sudden...very quaint.

Okay, let's talk about "per mile" ridership

Using the statistics from here (yes, I know statistics) - Q2 2010: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=186818

LRT LA - 154,100 / 61.7 miles = 2,497/mile ridership
LRT Boston - 241,100 / 25.4 miles = 9,492/mile ridership
LRT San Francisco - 154,000 / 45.6 miles = 3,377/mile ridership

Yes, LA looks really bad now..really bad. We're 1,000 less per mile than San Francisco.

Oh, but wait, you also brought in the arguement that Boston and SF have HRT. Wouldn't you know.......but Los Angeles has HRT as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's look at those pr mile stats as well, eh (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=186818)

HRT LA - 155,500 / 17.4 miles = 8,936/mile
HRT Boston - 496,200 / 38 miles = 13,058/mile (I thought you said Boston has 600,000 daily ridership outside of LRT..re-read your comment)
HRT SF - 347,700 / 104 miles = 3,343/mile

Okay, Boston beat us again. Who cares...it's a more established city that had over 100 years to build more rail with higher ridership, but LA is inching closer now, with the Red Line only opening in January 1993!

Oh but wait a second, you asked me if I knew about BART. Of course I did, but the argument started about LRT with "pretty laughable ridership statistics". Now that you brought BART into the equation.....it looks like LA's HRT smokes BART out of the water!! And our system is less than 20 years old compared to SF with a system that started in the '60s. I wish you lived in SF so you would laugh in the face of every SF'er who is proud of their BART which is no match for our LA Metro Red and Purple Lines!!

Okay, I'm not going to get into more ridership detail, but you can see we can all have fun with statitics. Jut giving me a blanket statement that LA Metro has "pretty laughable ridership statistics" just insuinates fear and hatred toward Metro, which is unjust. Look at my source link and you'll see those "laughable" statistics from Miami Metrorail (61,200 over 22 miles), Baltimore (54,700 over 16 miles), etc... I wouldn't put us in the same league as New York, DC or Chicago today. I'm not an idiot..we know where the best transit systems in the US are. But to say LA's is weak....uh, there's a lot more weaker. But we shouldn't always do city v. city, we're here to make Los Angeles a better place (or at least I hope that's our goal when we talk amongst Los Angeles behind our computer without ever showing our face )

Originally Posted by edluva

but my point wasn't to make a mockery of your attempt to sound smart but rather to highlight the fact that LRT is a form of transit that is used primarily for smaller distances than what is being employed in los angeles, and most often for much smaller cities, and that for a city of world class aspirations as los angeles, building a primarily suburban LRT rail network which "competes" with freeway routes is a joke and will never gain traction in terms of real-world impact.

building a LRT line to parallel the 210 will not get people to abandon the 210. likewise with the 10, the 105, and the 60. it won't even attract much future traffic growth - who in the hell is going to take the gold line to commute from the inland empire to pasadena or long beach? don't kid yourselves. the expo is a move in the right direction, but still too slow to be of much impact for most people along the route.

You make valid points in these paragraphs. This is the edluva I enjoying listening to (not when you keep saying LA is s*** to other cities, sometimes that gets tiring).

First of all, I think you are talking about the Green Line along the I-105 and Gold Line along the I-210.

First the Gold Line - I'm going to make no excuses for the Gold Line along the I-210, that was an idiotic move to make the last 3 stations along the I-210 (Lake, Allen and Sierra Madre). But it's what we received in the end and nobody (not I) will boost about them. However, the next Gold Line extension to Foothill will have no stations along the freeway. I think politicians and activists have gotten smarter and realized those were idiotic placement of stations. Now, you have to realize that Metro had NO intentions of extending this line further than Asuza, heck even Asuza was a stretch. This is the "problem" you have when politicians are mobilized, working together and pressuring the Agency to extend the Gold Line. This project was Tier II Unfunded, but the only way it got to funded status was to get the SGV's support for Measure R. Metro knew how s***ty of a project this was and didin't even want to consider this for New Starts funding, which apparently SGV thought they could achieve. Whatever, Asuza is fine as the stations between Sierra Madre & Asuza are primarily located in downtown areas. It was either extend the Gold Line east or widen the 210 freeway and lord knows how many more freeway widendings are needed...

Green Line - Metro never initially planned for the line. It came out a consent decree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Green_Line_(LACMTA)). And everybody knows the theories of why it never went to the airport and why it goes to the South Bay instead..but not quite enough. It's a dead horse. Anyways, this was not a well planned line to stay in the freeway median, but what do you expect with a legal settlement train line? This is like Farmdale on Expo Line. It's only because of a legal settlement........not Metro who decided this. So, you can't blame Metro on a legal settlement between Caltrans and the disenfranchised along the Imperial corridor. Caltrans had to get Metro to step in. If anybody, blame Caltrans.

Originally Posted by edluva

And in defense of our rail network, many los angeles forumers will note how x years ago, los angeles had "virtually no rail network" as though shining a spotlight on that consolation fact somehow changes the quality of our pathetic rail network. how sad indeed are we?

as far as i'm concerned there are no moral victories when it comes to reality - and the reality of it is, our transit network will suck ass into the forseable decades when compared with most first-world (and increasingly, third-world) standards. "but we did good for having nothing 25 years ago" - who gives a sht. it still sucks.

Yes, it is a shining light. Imagine the political difficulties in 1985 trying to get people to change from freeway mode thinking into rail thinking. Today, you see Measure R that's more rail focused than freeway focused. We were not there during 1985 (well, not on Skyscraper forum arguing), and our transit vision is nowhere as it is today, but there were thousands of Angelenos who just wanted something and it finally happened...Metro rail. Today, people complain about "I'll retire before the train gets to UCLA". So what...there are people in the 1980s that only hoped to get a train between downtown and Hollywood. We, as Angelenos in 2011, can enjoy that fact.

edluva, I can tell from you, that nothing will make you happy. Even if our subway went to Santa Monica, or had a full built out Expo Line, or Green Line to LAX..I'm sure there is something you'll complain about (oh, I can't take a train from Long Beach to Manhattan Beach....I have to transfer if I take a train between UCLA and USC...). Keep talking in negativity....and we just have a negative perception of you.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by pesto

LRT: You don't build for the sake of building; you build because it's what you need. If LRT isn't really useful, then spend your money on something else or hold-off and build HRT when affordable. Don't fall into the kind of thinking that government, bond dealers, construction companies and unions want you to adopt: you gotta build something really expensive right now!

In general, pokey transit connecting nowhere will get LA on the permanent "do not fund" list for the feds. And they will be right.

Outside of the Green Line, which has the infamously coined "nowhere to nowhere" train......but what other train goes "nowhere".

As mentioned to edluva above...Green Line was due to a consent decree between the people in the Imperial corridor and Caltrans. Metro was not even involved in the lawsuit, but had to come in and figure out a solution. This was a legal settlement, not a well planned line (think Farmdale situation and how sucky that will be).

I know the talking point of saying our trains "go nowhere" sounds great!...but it's factually wrong.

Destinations located on Metrorail (within a quarter mile..as that's what most people will walk) - Union Station, Koreatown, Olvera Street, Financial District, Civic Center, Pershing Square, East Hollywood District, Los Feliz village, Hollywood, Mann's Chinese Theater, Hollywood/Vine, Boyle Heights, Mariachi Plaza, Old Town Pasadena, South Pasadena, Chinatown, Little Tokyo, East LA, downtown Long Beach/Pine Avenue, Staples Center/LA Live!, and Los Angeles City College.

Thos are some pretty good destinations so far. But LA is a big place. In 2012, we'll be connected to USC, Expo Park and Culver City. Our trains do go "somewhere", let's stop harping on the same old tired slogan for the Green Line and applying it to all of Los Angeles.