LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[WonderlandPark]

I had no idea that the Crenshaw corridor was to start construction next year. Same with the Foothill extension. Disappointed with the subway to the sea schedule, I thought that would come before the Crenshaw.

And what is "eastside access"?

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by edluva

fuck yeah, we will unify the westside with the eastside by 2036! what progress!

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

Again, all that is only with Measure R funding.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

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)[/URL]

That's fine. I only suggested that they provide partial funding, so that could involve paying for the cost of the two stations underneath the central terminal area.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

I had no idea that the Crenshaw corridor was to start construction next year. Same with the Foothill extension. Disappointed with the subway to the sea schedule, I thought that would come before the Crenshaw.

Do you honestly believe that timeline for a second? This is Villaraigosa's "baby" and legacy we're talking about here. It's also the top candidate for FTA New Starts funding. If we had all the funding, then we could complete the entire project in 6 or so years -- 2019 versus 2036. Tell that to Obama.

And what is "eastside access"?

Per the Measure R website...


East Light Rail Access (Gold Line)

Increases access, including pedestrian and bicycle, to the Gold Line Eastside Light Rail project.

Area(s): City of Los Angeles

[DJM19]

^I agree, I think there is the political will and the funding available to get the purple line done in the next decade (as it should be)

[edluva]

yeah, we'll see what mythical "political will" presents itself to cut subway to westwood's timeline by 17 years. yeah.

other than the connector and expo, the rest of the list is filler with little to no substantive impact on LA's transit culture. this "city" disappoints once again

by 2043 or whatever "accelerated" schedule brings us our one trunk subway, the world will have moved on to newer things and LA will remain far behind...with one trunk subway and a bunch of little streetcars to nowhere. and then consider how much time it takes to impact transit culture (developments) - another couple decades after lines open at least...by midcentury we might have the ridership of boston. i'm so excited

you amateur transit planners should do your best to lobby for expanded ada standards if you're going to want to use this pathetic "system".

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Wilshire/Robertson has about the same residential density as Wilshire/Beverly and Wilshire/Westwood. Take a look at that area again using the link I provided. It is DENSE. And what's wrong with 3-8 stories? Are you expecting more skyscrapers to be built?

I saw the links and then I went right to Beverly/Wilshire where there is slightly more residential density because there are series of 4-5 story apartments mixed with 10-15 story high rise office buildings with more on the way. Westwood is even denser than Wilshire/Robertson coupled with that area being LA's 2nd or 3rd CBD, UCLA being a hop-skip-jump away and the high-rise condo towers just east of Westwood and its no contest.

I expect more development. Because 3-8 stories exist right now around other areas without a subway station along the corridor.

That's because ridership projections for the Wilshire Subway are severely underestimated. I can't believe a corridor that dense, both commercially and residentially, barely meets the FTA standard. Something's wrong.

Also keep in mind that other pieces factor into FTA ridership modeling. One important piece is what lines currently exist or are under construction to tie into the subway extension. The more lines and system connectivity already built into the system the greater likelihood the line will perform well. In the case of the Wilshire Subway, these are the following lines that are currently included into the study:

* Current Red/Purple Line
* Current Blue Line
* Gold Line to Sierra Madre Villa
* Current Green Line
* Under Construction East LA Gold Line
* Under construction Expo Line to Culver City.
* Orange Line BRT
* Harbor/El Monte BRT
* Rapid buses
* Current bus network

Notice this doesn't include Expo to Santa Monica, or Foothill Gold Line or Green Line to LAX, Crenshaw Corridor.

This helps explain the point in the previous post about the Regional Connector. Its cost effectiveness rating for the subway portion was very good as is without the Expo Line to Santa Monica, Foothill Gold Line to Azusa and Crenshaw Corridor.

Once those are built and operating the cost-effectiveness of the project improves significantly.

Again the moral of the story is Density and Development will be the key to getting Federal New Starts $$$. Density of surrounding areas related to the cost of the transit infrastructure, and Density of the network the extension will connect to when it opens.

If we were to do this then wouldn't that offset the cost of an additional station?

Yes, that is the precise point.

And this is not achievable along Wilshire?...
Just because there's low-density doesn't mean a station is dismissible.

Is there a formal development plan in place in conjunction with the building of the subway station along the corridor?

Is there private development funding in line for key projects and the projected station locations ready to go by the time construction of the subway breaks ground?

No, until that is on the table to the FTA, the FTA will treat it as if it doesn't exist or will never exist. That is why the future impacts need to present and at the table with financing in-line and ready to go for such developments. Because then it tells the FTA we are using it for mobility and improving the land-use. That was the key reason why they gave Charlotte funding for their successful LRT starter line. They had their ducks in a row and the FTA saw they were serious.

It's like if our bus system were to bypass Beverly Hills and other wealthy areas because the populace can afford to drive. Transit is supposed to serve everyone.

Agreed and however what is wrong with having dedicated bus only lanes to connect the two Beverly Hills stations being planned? That would add transit accessiblity to the area in question and feed into the subway stations it could even do better circulation within the neighborhood to connect to the stations.

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.

I agree with you on that context if money was no object however finances are going to affect the design quality and character.

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

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.

The Expo Right of Way ends in Santa Monica and it's a short distance away from the Pier, Beach and Promenade. It also connects to a larger commercial base of jobs (Watergarden, Colorado Avenue) compared to Venice Beach.

In terms of regional draws, Santa Monica is larger, but what is there to say we won't have a line to Venice beach eventually. We are in the beginnings of our system framework.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by Wright Concept

The Expo Right of Way ends in Santa Monica and it's a short distance away from the Pier, Beach and Promenade. It also connects to a larger commercial base of jobs (Watergarden, Colorado Avenue) compared to Venice Beach.

In terms of regional draws, Santa Monica is larger, but what is there to say we won't have a line to Venice beach eventually. We are in the beginnings of our system framework.

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.

I'd hate to go along with edluva, but he's right. It's pretty sad how slow we are chugging along just to catch-up to Europe 50 years ago.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Wright Concept

I saw the links and then I went right to Beverly/Wilshire where there is slightly more residential density because there are series of 4-5 story apartments mixed with 10-15 story high rise office buildings with more on the way. Westwood is even denser than Wilshire/Robertson coupled with that area being LA's 2nd or 3rd CBD, UCLA being a hop-skip-jump away and the high-rise condo towers just east of Westwood and its no contest.

The residential density around Robertson continues south of Wilshire too. Look there. There's also a good amount of commercial density distributed along Wilshire for a good 1/4-mile or so. So, while it isn't Beverly or Westwood, the point is that Robertson is a center in its own right.

I expect more development. Because 3-8 stories exist right now around other areas without a subway station along the corridor.

Maybe at Beverly, but for the most part there's very little 3-8 story density. It's mostly single-story businesses.

Notice this doesn't include Expo to Santa Monica, or Foothill Gold Line or Green Line to LAX, Crenshaw Corridor.

Won't they soon factor into the rating because they're due for construction before Wilshire?

I just think it's a bit ridiculous that Wilshire, which single-handedly connects LA's major institutions and attractions, barely meets the cost-effectiveness standard, most likely due to severely underestimated ridership projections.

Once those are built and operating the cost-effectiveness of the project improves significantly.

Wait, didn't you just say that under construction projects are included in the rating?

Again the moral of the story is Density and Development will be the key to getting Federal New Starts $$$. Density of surrounding areas related to the cost of the transit infrastructure, and Density of the network the extension will connect to when it opens.

What I'm arguing about is that there already exists enough density along Wilshire to justify the subway extension and that it should not just barely meet the standard. I believe the FTA standard has been set too high. That is my point.

Yes, that is the precise point.

So why isn't Beverly Hills doing such? Wouldn't they kill to have another subway stop?

Agreed and however what is wrong with having dedicated bus only lanes to connect the two Beverly Hills stations being planned? That would add transit accessiblity to the area in question and feed into the subway stations it could even do better circulation within the neighborhood to connect to the stations.

Because no one wants to ride a bus.

I agree with you on that context if money was no object however finances are going to affect the design quality and character.

In my mind, Beverly Hills should be doing everything in their power to fight for a station at Robertson.

[bobcat]

Would it be possible for MTA to issue bonds which would be repaid using Measure R funds to help speed things up? And would that even be advisable?

[dktshb]

Man the timelines are all so depressing. I wish we could go back in time when the city had its mass transit in place. Speaking of which, what is going on with the talk about bringing the electric streamliner cars back to Broadway?

[Quixote]

^ Any date will be depressing because none of the most significant projects are any further than the environmental stage, with a few not even having undergone any studies yet. So, given the set of circumstances, the timeline is very good, dare I say impressive (err, I think I said that already)? The reality is, a decade is considered right around the corner in transit years. I look at where I was ten years ago and it seems like an eternity. Then I remind myself that it's already been three years since Expo broke ground. Three years ago, the Wilshire Subway was nothing but a pipe dream. That is not the case anymore. Take a look at the LRTP map on the first page and you'll see that most of the projects there are Measure R deliverable. Of the six that are not, only two are without an existing ROW. Those two, however, will easily meet the FTA standard because of the connections they'll have.

I'll say once again that passing Measure R was absolutely critical to securing this region's future. We did what we had to do, and we passed it. Now it's a question of how we can accelerate the timelines of these projects even more. Three projects are set to get going next year, and once they do, other projects will enter the picture. For instance, an extension of the Crenshaw Corridor to the Purple Line is on the agenda, which then renders a La Brea extension inevitable. Once we deliver a few of these projects, there will be more will and momentum to pass another transit measure. Lines that were previously considered fantasies will then become serious proposals and they'll find it much easier to pitch their cases to the FTA.

Like I said, it's only a start, but it's a huge step forward. Now, if you're in your 30s, then maybe I can empathize with your frustration.

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

The residential density around Robertson continues south of Wilshire too. Look there. There's also a good amount of commercial density distributed along Wilshire for a good 1/4-mile or so. So, while it isn't Beverly or Westwood, the point is that Robertson is a center in its own right.

I looked south and that strengthens my argument.

Won't they soon factor into the rating because they're due for construction before Wilshire?

They'll update the numbers once they get into the final EIR. By that point the East LA Gold Line and maybe Expo to Culver City would have been operating for a few months to get a firmer ridership projection.

Wait, didn't you just say that under construction projects are included in the rating?

Yes, I did. Those numbers are based on a projection and is included because by the time the studies are done the line will be operational. All that inclusion does is allow for adjustments to improve the ridership to the extension once these lines are operating.

So why isn't Beverly Hills doing such? Wouldn't they kill to have another subway stop?...In my mind, Beverly Hills should be doing everything in their power to fight for a station at Robertson.

Its good enough that they created their own formal study as a precursor to this AA/DEIR to see where stations should go and where in Beverly Hills station(s) should be located. Beverly Hills wanted at two stations to serve their city. Those two at the moment (Wilshire/Beverly and Wilshire/La Cienega)

Because no one wants to ride a bus.

I think they will once two subway stations are nearby. I think they will if the buses had their own dedicated lane. I believe they will when the bus runs on-time. Oh gee wait a minute, they could start riding the bus right now!

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

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.

I'd hate to go along with edluva, but he's right. It's pretty sad how slow we are chugging along just to catch-up to Europe 50 years ago.

Sad, but true. However instead of bitching that its not fast enough be content that it's happening at all. However what is there to say that City of LA and Culver City couldn't get together an fund a study to build a line down Venice Blvd to feed off of Expo or even the Purple Line?

What is preventing that from happening? Not a damn thing. Maybe persistent communications with those representatives will get an idea like that moving instead of being a huge void.

[JDRCRASH]

^ I agree; we don't need somebody to consistantly state the obvious, and not follow up with any solutions. It really is getting annoying...it may even border the line of trolling.

Originally Posted by StethJeff

I'd hate to go along with edluva, but he's right. It's pretty sad how slow we are chugging along just to catch-up to Europe 50 years ago.

Soooo, are you saying that we'll get no assistance from the state and federal level by then?

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Wright Concept

I looked south and that strengthens my argument.

How so?

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.asp...2370&encType=1

Its good enough that they created their own formal study as a precursor to this AA/DEIR to see where stations should go and where in Beverly Hills station(s) should be located. Beverly Hills wanted at two stations to serve their city. Those two at the moment (Wilshire/Beverly and Wilshire/La Cienega)

I think you meant to say at least two? I don't see why they wouldn't want three.

I think they will once two subway stations are nearby. I think they will if the buses had their own dedicated lane. I believe they will when the bus runs on-time. Oh gee wait a minute, they could start riding the bus right now!

There's a stigma attached to riding the bus. Rail, not so much. I hope you're right, though.

[JDRCRASH]

I don't mind taking Transit, be it Bus or Rail. But theres something about trains that makes me like them more.

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

I think you meant to say at least two? I don't see why they wouldn't want three.

That's right. That was requested by the city of Beverly Hills through their funded study.

There's a stigma attached to riding the bus. Rail, not so much. I hope you're right, though.

And that stigma is through delays, long waits and unreliability. Improving the bus in those areas help lure people to use the bus. A perfect example is the Rapid bus on Wilshire Blvd. All they were were existing limited stop services, with 'new' branding and marketing strategy. And it worked.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

^ I agree; we don't need somebody to consistantly state the obvious and not follow up with any solutions. It really is getting annoying...it may even border the line of trolling.

Sort of sounds like your first year on SSP. By the way, classy how that comment is directed at me simply because I posted a less than enthusiastic opinion that you don't happen to agree with.

And what "solution" are you expecting someone to come up with on these boards to the several-decade-long problem that is transit in LA? I'm curious.

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Soooo, are you saying that we'll get no assistance from the state and federal level by then?

We might. But then again, I wouldn't get my hopes up when it comes to public finances (please see: THE NEWS), construction, transit, or LA's ability to get anything done. Planets had to align themselves for us to have what little we have now. I'm just doubtful that the Metro can accomplish everything it sets out to do within any reasonable amount of time. Even then, the projected 2030 transit maps still put LA far behind . . . well basically everyone.

I don't understand why anything other than pure jubilation over Metro's timeline is met with such hostility.