talk about a big slap in the face. we're the largest city on there besides NYC and our funding fits into Sacramento and Orlando (each) three and a half times.

and really,... Salt Lake City and Phoenix?! Salt Lake City's ENTIRE metro population is like 2 of our Long Beaches. and even Long Beach only has a few stops of the blue line (maybe a million dollars worth of rail). but there's Salt Lake getting $180 million.

even Denver... does anyone even leave that airport once they land there or is everyone going somewhere else?

the yellow dot should never be bigger than the green dot, and certainly not this nation's second city. forget paying federal this year. those other green dots have stolen from our pot of gold.

I am completely lost of what that map is supposed to be telling me, what is a New Starts Project? Sorry but I don't follow FTA news that much...

Oh, croyboy, for Denver I do hear I-70 heading down from the Rockies looks just as bad as our I-15 from Vegas at the end of the weekend, so they do have to address that, just not sure those $$$ goes to fixing that issue.

^ New Starts is the name of the federal funding program.

Croyboy, that map is rather misleading. The amount of federal funds each metro area receives is based on the Full Funding Grant Agreement(s) they have with the FTA. The MTA has only one such FFGA and that is for the Gold Line Eastside Extension, with an FTA commitment of $490.7 million. Most of that amount has already been appropriated, with FY2010 being the final year (hence the small amount). The reason why NYC's green blob is so much bigger is because their FFGAs are, what else, bigger. For instance, the Second Avenue Subway has an FTA commitment of $1.3 billion. The MTA is looking to establish new FFGAs with the FTA for the Westside Subway and Regional Connector, which would likely make our green blob bigger than NYC's.

Section 5309 New Starts (FFGA Commitment): $490.70 million
Section 5309 Fixed Guideway (Modernization): $23.10 million
Flexible Funds (STP and CMAQ): $189.88 million

Total: $703.68 million


FY2005 -- $85.80 million
FY2006 -- $155.19 million
FY2007 -- $259.07 million
FY2008 -- $78.4 million + (unknown amount)
FY2009 -- $80.784 million + (unknown amount)
FY2010 -- $9.5 million + (unknown amount)

Total: $668.744 million + (unknown amount)

Metro to Hold Public Hearings on Crenshaw Transit Corridor Project (http://www.metro.net/news_info/press/Metro_141.htm)

...

The complete listing of public hearings is as follows:


Wilshire United Methodist Church Hall of Fellowship: Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2009, 6-8 p.m.; 4350 Wilshire Blvd., LA, CA 90010; served by Metro Bus lines 38, 210, 710.
West Angeles Church Crystal Room: Thursday, Oct. 1, 2009, 6-8 p.m.; 3045 Crenshaw Blvd., LA, CA 90016; served by Metro Bus lines 38, 210, 710.
Inglewood High School Cafeteria: Saturday, Oct. 3, 2009, 10 a.m.-Noon; 231 S. Grevillea Ave., Inglewood, CA 90301; served by Metro Bus lines 40, 111, 115, 212, 740;
Transfiguration Church Hall: Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2009, 6-8 p.m.; 2515 W. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., LA, CA 90008; served by Metro Bus lines 40, 42.

...

Just a reminder, the next round of Crenshaw meetings begins tomorrow.

^ New Starts is the name of the federal funding program.

Croyboy, that map is rather misleading. The amount of federal funds each metro area receives is based on the Full Funding Grant Agreement(s) they have with the FTA. The MTA has only one such FFGA and that is for the Gold Line Eastside Extension, with an FTA commitment of $490.7 million. Most of that amount has already been appropriated, with FY2010 being the final year (hence the small amount). The reason why NYC's green blob is so much bigger is because their FFGAs are, what else, bigger. For instance, the Second Avenue Subway has an FTA commitment of $1.3 billion. The MTA is looking to establish new FFGAs with the FTA for the Westside Subway and Regional Connector, which would likely make our green blob bigger than NYC's.

Now, in English. Once those green blobs equate, then I'd be satisfied. New Starts, as the program title, suggests grants that are rewarded for new construction on new lines, not just refurbishment or maintenance. So, this process leaves me confused. Why would established lines of transportation require MASSIVE New Starts funding? Because you can bitch and whine about need in an advanced manner- you should be rewarded with funding money at the expense of the rest of the nation? bullshit..

^ The Gold Line Eastside Extension isn't a new project?

Agency Seeks Deep-Pockets Contractor Willing to Fast-Track Gold Line Extension Project (http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_13447468)

By Dan Abendschein and Ryan Carter, Staff Writer
September 29, 2009

MONROVIA - Wanted: Private contractor willing to put up $100 million to $150 million to expedite construction of the first segment of the 24-mile Gold Line extension to Claremont.

Nearly 200 people, many of them representing engineering firms, turned out Tuesday at a Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority event where officials explained how companies can bid for work related to the extension project.

Authority officials had previously set a completion date of 2013 for the first phase of the rail line, but the agency lacks funding to ensure completion by that date. It is seeking to hire a contractor that can afford to finance the project up front, then receive reimbursement over time, officials announced.

The downside would be that interest on the financing could ultimately cost the agency $30 million, Extension Authority CEO Habib Balian said.

"But we think it's worth it, considering the price of labor and steel and other materials in this economy," said Balian. "We can save a lot of money and get the project going sooner."

The authority has a commitment to receive up to $875 million from Measure R funds, but the money will likely trickle in as annual allotments through 2019.

Thomas M. Wilson, a vice president at Pasadena-based Parsons Engineering, who attended the meeting, said it was ironic that the extension project is ready to go but does not have sufficient funding. Usually, he said, it's the other way around.

Still, said Wilson, Parsons is interested in bidding on Gold Line projects.

"We've been watching the project for years," he said. "They are really ready to go....We'd be interested in doing the engineering for the project."

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board has not yet reached an agreement about when each Measure R project will receive funding - that issue will be discussed at its October board meeting.

An initial staff recommendation calls for the first phase of the Gold Line to be funded on a schedule that would push the completion date back to 2017.

Ara Najarian,cq head of the MTA board, said he doesn't expect the Gold Line to be a top priority for the board for the next few years.

"There are still officials at the MTA who want to kill the Gold Line project," said Najarian. "I've been working hard to quell that uprising."

The largest single contract related to the extension project is pegged at $320 million and will involve most of the work on the rail line. Authority officials are hoping to find a contractor willing to commit $100 million to $150 million in financing toward that contract.

The authority is also set to award a $30-million contract for bridge work. The agency is asking for an up-front commitment of $5 million from the contractor eventually selected to do that project.

Officials hope to break ground on the first phase of the extension by June 2010. The first phase would extend the Gold Line from Pasadena to the Azusa/Glendora border.

Gold Line officials also said Tuesday they anticipate receiving federal funding for the second phase of the line, which would take it to Claremont. Officials hope to complete that phase by 2017.

Now, in English. Once those green blobs equate, then I'd be satisfied. New Starts, as the program title, suggests grants that are rewarded for new construction on new lines, not just refurbishment or maintenance. So, this process leaves me confused. Why would established lines of transportation require MASSIVE New Starts funding? Because you can bitch and whine about need in an advanced manner- you should be rewarded with funding money at the expense of the rest of the nation? bullshit..

What "Westy" is saying is that until we have a new starts project designed and its impact reports done we have no reason to have a big blob. The Expo II is going ahead w/o New Starts Funding and so are other smaller projects on the LRTP. By passing Measure R we can get started on some of the smaller LRT and busway projects w/o waiting for the Feds, that is why Measure R was/is so important. When we go to the Feds asking for money we want it for the gigantic projects like a Purple/Pink/Downtown Connector package. NYC had to wait 30 years to get that 2nd Ave subway under construction AGAIN. We don't want to have to wait that long to get our smaller Expo II, Crenshaw, Foothill Extension etc. projects done.

By passing Measure R we can get started on some of the smaller LRT and busway projects w/o waiting for the Feds, that is why Measure R was/is so important. When we go to the Feds asking for money we want it for the gigantic projects like a Purple/Pink/Downtown Connector package. NYC had to wait 30 years to get that 2nd Ave subway under construction AGAIN. We don't want to have to wait that long to get our smaller Expo II, Crenshaw, Foothill Extension etc. projects done.

The other potential strategy to this with Measure R and local funding for the other projects is that we're more likely to receiver a higher share of Federal funding for those big ticket and cost-effective projects like Regional Connector and Wilshire Subway to Westwood.

The idea is because other projects that are directly connected to the other project in that is being proposed like the Regional Connector can have the local funding for other non-FTA new Starts funded projects count as a federal match to the Regional Connector. Expo Phases 1 and 2 will be approx $2.0B in cost, Pasadena and Foothill Gold Lines will be $1.5B in total cost, both of these corridors will benefit with the Regional Connector, both of these lines will operate inside the Regional Connector which means that possibly there is a a potential with federal funds for the Regional Connector to be paid for entirely with federal funds even with as low as a 35% percent funding match or approx $1.2 B.

besides new starts in NYC and L.A. (or actually not L.A.), what's with these other cities? what are they starting up that's worth so much? i can barely see even portland having something that big on the scale.

^ Portland has multiple projects receiving New Starts funding, so it adds up. Besides, $74 million is not very much. Like I said, it all depends on the FFGA with the FTA. So, really, the local agencies are the ones who decide how much funding they get based on what projects the decide to place in front of the FTA. Though, they have to be cost-effective and have at least some local money to show for.

^^ That is so right. I concur. Exactly what I'm saying. Time to get a big, green blob of our very own. The local effort for an Empowerment Zone back in the early 90's still haunts the f***ing hell out of me though. Is this happening all over again with Metro? I want a big green f***ing BLOB

We probably had a very big blob in the early 90's when the Red and Purple HRT subways were being built while NYC and Portland and whatever city you see on there with a big blob had a very little one by comparison. Because of the way that the Fed is structured at this time let's pay what we can for what we can afford through Measure R and then go to the Feds when we really need the money for extending our subway and DTC. Why ask the Feds for money when we don't even have the studies done for the projects that we will need some financial help with?
The strategy is to use every measure possible to build your transit system. Feds, State, Local and public/private(which happens to be my least liked).

^ Once every frickin' project on the LRTP is completed, which is decades from now, I see total ridership reaching upwards of 2 million. People will be singing a very different tune about LA mobility.

If gas price is cheap, most will drive. The sprawl thru the IE with aid from highways like the 210 being extended to San Berdoo will not help. Just makes it easier to drive; and I'm usually the guy advocating more highways.

If gas price is cheap, most will drive. The sprawl thru the IE with aid from highways like the 210 being extended to San Berdoo will not help. Just makes it easier to drive; and I'm usually the guy advocating more highways.

I can go into detail but I'll make it short. First came the sprawl, then came the 210. It was extended at a time the area was plenty developed. It just bad to have freeways end in a city and not end at another freeway.

If gas price is cheap, most will drive. The sprawl thru the IE with aid from highways like the 210 being extended to San Berdoo will not help. Just makes it easier to drive; and I'm usually the guy advocating more highways.

Not if traffic is a nightmare and parking scarce and expensive.

Be careful, I've gotten that exact response several times in the past and never hear from them again.

I actually DID get an email back from them, but it was only a reiteration of what I already knew.

Wait a minute...... who's FCE? Go post your face and sign in

Harbor Subdivision (http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/harbor_subdivision/meetings.htm)

October 19, 2009, 11am-1pm
Metropolitan Water District, Room 2-145
700 N Alameda St
Los Angeles, CA

October 19, 2009, 6-8pm
Lawndale Community Center Annex
14616 ½ Grevillea Av
Lawndale, CA

October 20, 2009, 6-8pm
Carson Community Center
801 E Carson St
Carson, CA

October 21, 2009, 6-8pm
Jackie Robinson Academy Auditorium
2750 Pine Av
Long Beach, CA

October 22 2009, 6-8pm
Hyde Park-Miriam Matthews Library
2205 Florence Av
Los Angeles, CA


Westside Subway Extension (http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/meetings.htm)

Tuesday, October 22, 2009, 6– 8pm
Stations to be discussed: Wilshire at Bundy, 26th, 16th & 4th Street
Santa Monica Public Library – Multi-Purpose Room
601 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Served by Metro Lines 4, 20, 33, 333, and 720 and Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Validated vehicle and free bike parking is available.

Monday, October 26, 2009, 6– 8pm
Stations to be discussed: Wilshire at Crenshaw, La Brea & Fairfax
Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) – Terrace Room, 5th Floor
5905 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90036
Served by Metro lines 20, 720, 920, 217 & 780. Validated vehicle parking is available in the Museum’s 6th Street underground garage. Enter from 6th and Ogden.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 6– 8pm
Stations to be discussed: Hollywood/Highland, Santa Monica Boulevard at La Brea, Fairfax & San Vicente & Beverly Center
Pacific Design Center
8687 Melrose Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90069
Served by Metro Lines 4, 10, 105, 305 & 704. $10 self-parking is available in the Pacific Design Center Parking Lot off Melrose. Metered street parking is available on San Vicente Blvd.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 6– 8pm
Stations to be discussed: Wilshire at La Cienega & Beverly
Beverly Hills City Hall – Municipal Gallery
455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Served by Metro Line 4, 14, 16 & 704. Free 2-hour parking is available in the adjacent structure.

Thursday, November 5, 2009, 6– 8pm
Stations to be discussed: Century City, Westwood/UCLA & VA Hospital
Veterans Administration – Wadsworth Theatre
11301 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90073
Served by Metro Lines 20 & 720 and Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines 2, 3 & 4. Free parking is available in the lot adjacent to the theatre.


Regional Connector (http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/connector/meetings.htm)

Thursday, November 5, 2009; 6:30-8 pm
Lake Avenue Church
393 N Lake Ave, Pasadena

Saturday, November 7, 2009; 10 am - noon
Wurlitzer Building
818 S Broadway, Los Angeles

Tuesday, November 10, 2009; noon to 1:30 pm
Board Room, Los Angeles Central Library
630 W 5th St, Los Angeles

Thursday November 12, 2009; 2 pm to 3:30 pm & 6:30 pm-8 pm
Japanese American National Museum (JANM)
369 E 1st St, Los Angeles

Gold Line Eastside Extension

Turnstiles being installed at the two subway stations...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2515/3986012114_d5ec74a593_b.jpg
From Flickr, by bigbend700

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3491/3985247459_4fe1586d96_b.jpg
From Flickr, by bigbend700

:banana::cheers:Gold Line Eastside Extension

Turnstiles being installed at the two subway stations...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2515/3986012114_d5ec74a593_b.jpg
From Flickr, by bigbend700

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3491/3985247459_4fe1586d96_b.jpg
From Flickr, by bigbend700

anyone know when these things will work. i still pass by them like they're nothing. plus, metrolink rider tickets... are they compatible in any way?

I'm really impressed with the scale and overall look of these stations. Really am! They look great and they've got all the security bubbles hangin'..... ready to go.

Gold Line train platform at Union Station. When the extension opens in November 2009 (projected), Eastside Extension (Under Construction); Continues southeast from Union Station.

Little Tokyo/Arts District October 4, 2009 Los Angeles

Pico/Aliso October 4, 2009

Mariachi Plaza Underground station October 4, 2009

Soto Underground station October 4, 2009
Indiana October 4, 2009

Maravilla October 4, 2009 East Los Angeles

East L.A. Civic Center October 4, 2009

Atlantic Metro October 4, 2009
Foothill Extension-Phase 2A (Planned); Continues east from Sierra Madre Villa station

This information is in WIKIPEDIA************************

anyone know when these things will work. i still pass by them like they're nothing. plus, metrolink rider tickets... are they compatible in any way?

They eventaully will but why would you be so concerned about it?

I'm really impressed with the scale and overall look of these stations. Really am! They look great and they've got all the security bubbles hangin'..... ready to go.

Clearly other than DC the most beautiful stations in the country.

Are you sure about that? It seems like the Beverly/Whittier options are the favorites for Eastside II.
Currently, those two are falling out of favor because Montebello doesn't want the line to affect their streetscapes they just completed and Whittier doesn't want to use the Greenway which used to be a abandonded Railroad right of way to connect into Whittier. Right now based on reading the local cities statements in the local media and discussion with the planners at Metro it's down to;

* Washington Blvd to Whittier or
* 60 Freeway corridor to Montebello/South El Monte.

No full consensus has been made yet it appears equally split because the alignments are so far apart, Also there has been no official report published at this time or a decision of these alternatives to a Locally Preffered Alternative.

Here's the confirmation on the updated Eastside Corridor Phase 2, they will narrow down alternatives at the October Metro Board Meeting to:

* Washington Blvd to Whittier or
* 60 Freeway corridor to Montebello/South El Monte.

http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2009/10_October/20091014P&PItem8.pdf

^ Hence why I'm not in the least bit excited about that project. Both options suck.

They eventaully will but why would you be so concerned about it?

i guess cuz i'm a proud transit rider and i want transit to make money so they can continue on with other projects, and faster.

Do public agencies really make any money? Isn't that the reason why we tax ourselves to support them? Should the library or the post office really make money?

An interesting philosphical issue that should get a discussion going, especially when talking about quasi-public efforts like transportation. Almost no one would argue that police or fire should make money, only that they out-source functions they are not good at (preparing meals, renting and maintaining space, obtaining clothing and supplies) and otherwise manage expenses with good sense and efficiency (stop projects that aren't working). But transportation is a service that is normally handled by private industry (car rental, cab, airlines, trains). So should we expect a profit?

For airlines, the answer seems to be yes, as most countries have given up on going-it alone, swallowed their national pride and merged their airlines into larger investor-held operating consortia and reduced governement ownership or at least involvement in management. Of course, this is no guarantee that you are going to stop losing money (that's how a free market works) but it has reduced the losses enormously.

Subways and other local transit are viewed differently, mostly because there is no chance of making them profitable (unlike airlines, where there is some chance and rapid market reaction, PR and smart spending can actually move you ahead of competitors). These are expected to run at a loss, but provide a service. Here I think there is some reason not to expect a profit, but there is still some reason to set operating guidelines AS IF you expected a profit and measure variances from that. As Klam notes, taxes make up for the shortfalls, whether from mistakes or public policy.

The Gold Line Eastside Extension will begin revenue service on November 14th...

http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2009/10_October/20091015EMACItem24Handout.pdf

Do public agencies really make any money? Isn't that the reason why we tax ourselves to support them? Should the library or the post office really make money?

Well, these agencies still should strive to not lose money.

WESTSIDELIFE
TANKS YOU, FOR YOUR INFORMATION.

Well, these agencies still should strive to not lose money.
I agree with that but it seems that you're still coming from the philosophical viewpoint of money over morale. Some things will never make money(and who cares) and some things will lose money overall but if it's for the betterment of the common good, so be it.

Gold Line Eastside Extension II (http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/eastside_phase2/meetings.htm)

Tuesday, October 20, 6-8pm
Montebello Golf Course
901 Via San Clemente
Camino Conference Room
Montebello, CA 90640

Thursday, October 22, 6-8pm
Pio Pico Women’s Club
9214 Mines Av
Pico Rivera, CA 90660

thanks. i'll try and make it to montebello one. well, mainly because I rather be in montebello than pico rivera, even tho I live closer to pico rivera :shifty:, and I think the golf course is a nicer location...

Expo Light Rail project coming down to the wire



opinion and commentary

That Rutherford Guy
The demise of western culture?


October 12, 2009 (tomorrow)

The final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Expo Light Rail, Phase 2 will be submitted to Expo's Board of Directors early next year for final approval — but we all will get a sneak peek on Wednesday.

There are two major problems with Expo service in Santa Monica. One is the location of a maintenance/train storage yard on Verizon's property between Stewart Street and Centinela Avenue, adjacent to Exposition Boulevard. The other is the route Expo will take down Colorado Avenue to a termination at Fourth Street.

Neighbors and members of the Pico Neighborhood Association have voiced their opposition to noise, pollution and other negatives associated with having such an industrial operation near homes. One plan is to position the maintenance facility at the northern edge of the property, isolating it from neighbors by building new multi-story, mixed use buildings to block sound from drifting across Exposition.

But, isn't there something wrong with building apartments, of all things, as buffers for noise and pollution?

Pico neighbors recently toured light rail maintenance facilities in Pasadena and the South Bay courtesy of the Expo Construction Authority. Reactions were mixed with some folks saying that an indoor facility may mitigate much noise and potential pollution while others were concerned about the screeching of 270-foot long trains weighing several hundred tons as they turn in and out of the yard.

Some neighbors would like to see the yard moved to another location although the Expo Construction Authority has evaluated and eliminated some 40 possible sites leaving the Verizon site as the best location.

More problematic for me is track alignment that would send as many as 24 trains per hour up and down the center of Colorado Avenue at street level from roughly 17th Street to Fourth Street. The Expo Authority originally recommended a partially elevated alignment down Olympic Boulevard with elevated flyovers at Lincoln Boulevard and freeway off ramps before terminating above ground at Fourth Street. Putting the "visual blight" of overpasses ahead of safety and traffic, City Hall unfortunately backed Colorado.

On Colorado, traffic and parking lanes will be removed to accommodate track. With trains running at grade, numerous and lengthy traffic delays will occur at intersections with 20th, 17th, 14th,11th, Seventh and Fifth streets and Lincoln Boulevard, leaving motorists in traffic jams plenty of time to enjoy the uncluttered view.

Then, there are the safety issues. A similar street level (at-grade) configuration can be found on Washington Boulevard in downtown Los Angeles, which is part of the most accident-prone section of Metro's Blue Line: "America's deadliest light rail line." Conversely, the South Bay Green Line with its elevated track and isolated alignment is virtually 100 percent accident free.

The Pasadena Gold Line (PGL), which Expo cheerleaders often use as an example of how safe at grade light rail can be, is an entirely different system that runs mostly on an isolated right-of-way and within the center divider of the Interstate 210.

According to the Citizen's Campaign to Fix Expo, there's no section of the PGL that compares to the Colorado plan backed by City Hall. The PGL operates with congestion-inducing crossing gates and grade separation at crossings with heavy traffic like Lincoln here.

The only portion of the 13-mile line that doesn't have crossing gates or grade separation is a short, 3/4-mile section on a nearly traffic-free, two-lane, residential street in Highland Park where 45 percent of all the Pasadena Gold Line's accidents still occur even with trains slowing to 20 mph and an "all-red" requirement at crossings.

On Wednesday, Oct. 14, at 6:30 p.m., an update on Expo's final EIR will be presented for public comment at the Civic Auditorium. Go! Speak up, especially about the Colorado alignment, which closely parallels adjacent multi-family residences and will cause multiple accidents and cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in settlements for injuries and deaths.

And, if someone says, "It works in Amsterdam, Prague and Copenhagen," tell 'em, "Santa Monica isn't quaint, old Europe."

[...]


Bill can be reached at mr.bilbau@gmail.com

^^Can someone write a mass e-mail that we can all sign our names to in order to oppose these statements?

Some of us don't oppose all of those statements including myself. I'd much rather see an Olympic elevated alignment over a Colorado Blvd at-grade running train. Being a frequent rider of the Blue Line I know all too well that it's the Washington section and the Long Beach Blvd section that are both slow and potentially dangerous. When I was in Chicago I noticed that many of the elevated alignments do not run directly overhead major blvds but a block or two away along an adjacent ROW. Looking at Google Maps Colorado is just one block away from Olympic so for those that go on about how it won't be integrated into the City of SM if it runs along Olympic all of that is just mush. The Expo Authority seems to prefer Olympic as well but it's the City of SM that wants a Colorado running Expo train.

As far as the maintenance facility goes, well it's going to have to go somewhere.

for the maintenance facility, the answer is mitigation on site and a one-time payment by SM to people near the facility for the loss of value. The payment is funded by temporary fees paid by property owners benefitting from the line (e.g., SM Place, 3rd St.).

Damn I wish I was still living in my apartment in West LA, the Final EIR meeting for Expo Phase II on October 7, at St. Andrew's Lutheran Church on National, was just walking distance from my old place.

I do not have any concerns about Phase II anymore once they picked the preferred alignment, so I'll just let the locals bicker on Wednesday and read the Final EIR once it is posted online.

Oh, the presentation is on the website anyways...

for the maintenance facility, the answer is mitigation on site and a one-time payment by SM to people near the facility for the loss of value. The payment is funded by temporary fees paid by property owners benefitting from the line (e.g., SM Place, 3rd St.).

Good idea but I think the community is opposing the maintenance facility on the grounds of being surrounded by a toxic triangle, their words not mine. Bite the bullet and use Bergamont Station for what it was intentionally meant to be used for.

I agree. I was only addressing the conceptual answer for that type of local injury caused by a project of obvious overall benefit. If the issues legitimately go to the long-term safety of the area, then you have to rethink the project altogether.

I wonder if a downtown maintenance yard could be used in the future for Expo and all lines that will be running along the Downtown Connector rails? That way the maintenance facililty in SM would only be temporary until the DC is built.

The Metro Board held their October meeting yesterday. The Gold Line Eastside Extension II has officially been narrowed down to State Route 60 and Washington Boulevard. Here's the PowerPoint presentation...

http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2009/10_October/20091014P&PItem8Handout.pdf

I could care less about either Eastside Ext frankly speaking. All of the real work needs to be done on the opposite side of the county. Besides anyone have any clue why Molina isn't pushing to get an extension of the Red Line into the Eastside?

^ Now that it has been narrowed down to those two alternatives, I don't see why she wouldn't. Both alignments suck; one runs alongside a freeway and the other passes through industrial wasteland. Neither make any sense whatsoever. With Whittier Blvd., you cut through the density and commercial heart of the East Los Angeles region.

Quite honestly, the best alternative might be the No Build. It's just such a waste of money. The entire Eastside Extension project, including the first phase, is such a major disappointment.

both will be necessary eventually, so get them done while it's cheap. light rail is perfect for industrial commuters (heavy rail for more dense neighborhoods). besides, aren't the inland cities like monrovia fully sided with these projects? that's a rarity these days. i think the same cities are gaining at least partial funding too.

Quite honestly, the best alternative might be the No Build. It's just such a waste of money. The entire Eastside Extension project, including the first phase, is such a major disappointment.

It's quite an accomplishment to become a disappointment before you even open. :lol:

^ Other than the 1.8 miles of subway, it's just a crappy streetcar.

So you want all subway in East LA? But I thought that you wanted all development concentrated downtown.

^ Stop trying to bait people into futile arguments. That's what the Health Care Reform Discussion thread is for.

^^It isn't futile, it's a valid question. Subways are meant for places with huge development. East LA has decent density, not enough to warrant a full subway. So how can you justify a subway for the area, especially considering your views on monocentric development?

And please, leaving the trolling to PMs.

^ The Gold Line Eastside Extension is a major disappointment vis-à-vis what we could've had (Red Line HRT extension). But I'm one to recognize progress, so I'll accept this glorified streetcar for what it is, even if it ultimately means settling for less. However, with the two sucky alternatives left for Phase II, there's still hope for a subway along Whittier Blvd. Neither of the remaining alignments would satisfy the needs of East LA (the region) because it completely bypasses the density and commercial heart.

There. Now let's take the road less traveled and leave it at that before it snowballs into something futile.

You know,......... resistance is futile

Mayor's Effort to Fast-Track Westside Subway Faces Challenge (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/mayors-effort-to-fasttrack-westside-subway-faced-challenge.html)

By Ari B. Bloomekatz
October 20, 2009

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s efforts to fast-track the long-stalled Westside subway faced a challenge Tuesday when a bipartisan group of congressional representatives said the current plan is unlikely to get immediate federal funding.

Villaraigosa has been pushing to have the subway completed in 10 years, more than 15 years earlier than current estimates.

At his urging, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board agreed to submit the subway expansion, as well as a plan to build a light-rail link through downtown, as the county’s two projects to compete against a national pool of federal funding.

But the 14 members of Congress who signed a letter released today said those two programs don’t have a good shot at immediately getting federal funding. Further, they said that L.A. County risks not get anything from the federal New Starts program unless it adds other regional rail proposals, including an extension of the Gold Line in the San Gabriel Valley and a rail line down Crenshaw Boulevard in South L.A. and the South Bay.

“We are very concerned that Los Angeles County is not positioning itself well to receive its fair share of New Starts funding in the near- and long-term,” the delegation wrote. “Metro’s current plan puts the County at risk of being out of the New Starts funding queue for several years, perhaps for the entire surface transportation reauthorization bill.”

The letter was signed by Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), David Dreier (R-San Dimas), Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), Jane Harman (D-Venice) and Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles), among others. The letter underscores a regional battle underway on the MTA board over which transit projects to pursue and how best to receive federal funding for those projects.

Villaraigosa, L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and others are pushing to make the Westside a top priority. Officials have been trying to build the line for decades but have faced numerous barriers, including the estimated $5-billion or more price tag.

Other officials, however, have questioned the logic of only pursuing federal funding for the Westside extension and the regional connector, and say those projects – particularly the subway – are aimed at only pleasing one region while others are made to wait or build projects that are not as favorable.

For example, Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas wants the Crenshaw/South Bay Transit Corridor to be built using light rail, not bus, and said that next month the MTA board will vote on which of the two options to implement. If that project, like the Westside subway, pursues federal funding, the light rail would be more plausible and it would even be possible to build the rail underground in some parts.

In response to the letter, Ridley-Thomas said that it means “that no one plan should dominate. No one rail line should dominate.”

Anyone see this diagram of Metro's LRTP? (If this pic is too big, I apologize)

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2009/10/metros_latest_long_range_transpo_plan_out_begging_for_approval.php#more
http://la.curbed.com/uploads/Picture%205.png

They say that it could take up to 40 years to do all this. :( Your thoughts?

^ That map isn't complete. This is a better representation of Metro's long-term plans. Note, it doesn't include the colloquially named Pink Line, the refined Harbor Subdivision route, or the potential Crenshaw extension farther north. Also, Metro plans on accomplishing all of that within a 30-year window.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/3357514809_45ff61df99_b.jpg

Is there any future plans to convert the Orange Line (Valley) into Light Rail?

^ No official plans yet, but it's more than likely on the table.

^ It seems like it has alot of riders all hours of the day. So I was hoping to see it upgrade into Light Rail. Are they also considering extending Eastbound (Burbank/Glendale/Elysian Park/Chinatown into Downtown. I remember that was brought up a few moons ago?

^ Yes, the Orange Line has already exceeded the 2020 ridership forecast. It's a big success.

And yeah, the Orange Line will probably be replaced as an extension of the Burbank-Glendale LRT. The ROW is already there, so it makes perfect sense.

umm if they do those north-south spurs off of the Orange Line, wouldn't that make it harder to transition the line into Light Rail? Or should Light Rail just ignore those and leave those as BRT?

^ Why would it make it any more difficult? The BRTs branch off from the Orange Line.

^ Why would it make it any more difficult? The BRTs branch off from the Orange Line.

i was looking for a yes or no, so in a way you answered my question. lol.

Looking at Westside's map last page shows that the Gold Line Foothill extension would be going through some of the least dense areas in the county. I think it's insane that people think this project should come before the westside extension or the regional connector. I understand that we're all paying measure R taxes but people need to realize how important the ws extension and RC are, how many jobs they're near.

aaron: I wonder about that too. It seems with HSR hitting Riverside, Ontario, Pomona, Industry and maybe 1 or 2 other stops, most of the are from Fontana/Riverside to DT would be within 5 miles of rail. Maybe some LR connecting to the HSR stops would be better. And the north edge of the SGV is distinctly undense.

I think people in the area are pushing for the Foothill Extention because of how packed the east-west freeways are through the area, the 210 and the 10 are usually jamed with cars. I think when it does get built it will mostly be people getting on at one end and getting off at the other end, sadly. Most of those cars on freeways such as 210 are probably from IE, going into LA county. Will the LA-IE-SD High Speed Rail improve the freeways in the San Gabriel Valley? Or is High-speed rail not ideal for daily commutes? And Metrolink currently goes from LA to IE, actually two complete separate lines connects the two areas, and yet the freeways are still jammed? If these commuters are not getting off the freeways to instead take Metrolink, would they really take high-speed rail?

I might be getting off of the topic about the light-rail line, but I am talking about other rail lines that goes from LA-IE.

I think the main reason people would want the Foothill Extension of the Gold Line is because it is using an existing rial right-of-way, while the Westside extensions and the regional connector both requires very expensive digging. People just want results fast, and unfortunately that means they would prefer something that is useless faster rather than something extremely important later. I am not saying that is right, it is just how many people think. People are narrow sighted, sadly.

Other than East LA, the dense areas East of Downtown I think is along the current SB Metrolink route, or actually the "Silver Line" route on some of these maps (a proposal that is almost entirely ignored)

I bet those people on the 210 and the 10 needs to get to the Westside, but with the complete absence of rail rapid transit west of Koreatown, those commuters are willing to cling on to their car commutes. Metrolink already serves the those coming through the SGV, most just don't want to bother being bogged down on a bus for their final leg of their commute. Bring on the Metro Purple Line! It'll be an added value to the current San Bernardino and Riverside Metrolink lines.

I just happened to start a new job near the currently under construction Expo Line. Near the upcoming La Cienega station. There is a lot of aerial sections over there. I see big support columns being put up. Massive work! So many tall cranes, I feel like if one moves a little too far, something is going to far on my car :lol:

Just wanted to share that little tidbit. I would line to bring a camera so I can walk around and take pictures, but I work at a marketing firm so I am a bit too busy. Maybe before/after work some day.

I bet those people on the 210 and the 10 needs to get to the Westside, but with the complete absence of rail rapid transit west of Koreatown, those commuters are willing to cling on to their car commutes. Metrolink already serves the those coming through the SGV, most just don't want to bother being bogged down on a bus for their final leg of their commute. Bring on the Metro Purple Line! It'll be an added value to the current San Bernardino and Riverside Metrolink lines.

That does seem to be the case. you make a good point. I personally can't wait for regional connector, because then I can finally hop on the Gold Line in East La, to my job which is right before Culver City. :cheers:

Is there any future plans to convert the Orange Line (Valley) into Light Rail?

Nope. Even as a native SFValley boy, I would love to see the Metro Orange Line converted to rail, but the rapid transit line is a done deal and is doing well, albeit with more abundant need for personnel to run it.

Between Van Nuys and North Hollywood station, it isn't serving its needs. There is a proposal from Metro to run a new line using silver/gray Metro Liner colored 45C buses duplicating the 233 to Burbank Blvd and running express to North Hollywood station; it's line 902. The Orange Line usually gets inundated at Van Nuys; which shows that most riders have likely migrated from the former 156 service before it got truncated.

The other issue is that people are not going to North Hollywood on the Red Line, most still needs to travel further; if that wasn't the case, then what can explain the perpetually filled NoHo and Universal parking lots, while Van Nuys and Sepulveda's lots languish in emptiness.

I just happened to start a new job near the currently under construction Expo Line. Near the upcoming La Cienega station. There is a lot of aerial sections over there. I see big support columns being put up. Massive work! So many tall cranes, I feel like if one moves a little too far, something is going to far on my car :lol:

Just wanted to share that little tidbit. I would line to bring a camera so I can walk around and take pictures, but I work at a marketing firm so I am a bit too busy. Maybe before/after work some day.

Lotsa pics of expo line construction in last few pages of first thread here: http://transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=expoline

DASH downtown Live Map

For those of you who would like to get around downtown without a car
here is the live map of DASH services
you can actually see the bus move on the screen

http://dtdash.com/

Metro Board Approves 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan, a 30-Year Blueprint for Transportation Development (http://www.metro.net/news_info/press/Metro_173.htm)

October 22, 2009

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Board of Directors has approved the 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) that will guide transportation development in the county through the year 2040, a period in which the county is expected to experience unprecedented growth.

The population of Los Angeles County is projected to grow by almost 3 million people over the next 30 years. The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) examines the impacts this growth will have on the mobility of the county, which includes increasing demand on streets, highways, buses and trains, and it recommends what can be done to address those impacts within anticipated revenues.

The LRTP also includes new funding resources that include monies generated by the passage of Measure R, a new half-cent sales tax for LA County as well as federal stimulus dollars that will flow to the region under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

The LRTP anticipates the collection and distribution of $298 billion countywide through FY2040 from all local, state, and federal transportation funding sources. The funds will be used for transit services, highway maintenance, and for the development of numerous transit and highway transportation improvement projects all over Los Angeles County.

Countywide bus and rail operations accounts for $106.5 billion (36%) of the uses forecasted by the plan and bus and rail capital uses account for $57.6 billion (19%) of the plan. Highway maintenance and improvements make up $94.4 billion (32%). Debt service accounts for $26.9 billion (9%) of the plan and other uses $12.6 billion (4%).

Some components of the recommended plan’s transportation program include:

Completion of the Eastside light rail project
Completion of the Exposition Light Rail project to Culver City
Phase II Exposition light rail to Santa Monica
Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid transit
Downtown Regional Connector (Blue & Gold Line connection)
The Crenshaw Corridor Transit project
San Fernando Valley North/South Metro Orange Line Canoga Extension
San Fernando Valley East North/South Rapidways
Eastside Light Rail Access (Pedestrian & Bicycle link)
Gold Line Foothill Light Rail Extension (Segment including vehicles & yard)
Green Line Extension to LAX
Westside Subway extension to Fairfax/Century City/Westwood
Gold Line Eastside Extension
Green Line Extension Redondo Beach Station to South Bay Corridor
San Fernando Valley I-405 Corridor Connection
West Santa Ana Branch Corridor
California High Speed Rail (Los Angeles County)

Some examples of highway projects in the LRTP include:

I-405 northbound carpool lane from I-10 to US-101
I-405 carpool lanes from SR 90 to I-10
I-5/State Route 126 interchange reconstruction phase I & II
SR-60 carpool lanes from I-605 to Brea Canyon Road
I-5/SR-14 carpool lane direct connector
I-5 carpool lanes from SR-118 to SR-170
I-5 carpool lanes from SR-134 to SR-170
I-10 carpool lanes from I-605 to Puente Ave & from Puente to Citrus avenues
I-5 Carmenita Road interchange improvements
I-5 carpool and mixed flow lanes from I-605 to Orange County Line
I-710 South and Route 710 North Gap Closure projects
Other highway improvements in various parts of the County

The LRTP also encourages more ridesharing, walking and bike riding, telecommuting and improved management of truck traffic and goods movement.

The LRTP is built on strategic financial projections of revenues from federal, state and local taxes and subsidies, as well as revenues from passenger fares, advertising, real estate rentals and other sources.

The approval of the 2009 LRTP does not constitute final Board action on individual projects. Projects will return to the Board for further action at key milestones in the planning, environmental and project development process. The LRTP document itself will be made available for public distribution in Fall 2009.

Metro Board approval of the Long Range Transportation Plan means the plan will now be submitted to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the designated planning organization for a six-county region, for inclusion in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

The RTP demonstrates how Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial counties will meet federal mandates, particularly air quality requirements. Only projects and programs included in the RTP are eligible for federal funding.

A new bookmark to add...

The Source (http://thesource2.metro.net/) is LA's newest transportation blog, providing frequent news and updates.

WESTSIDE SUBWAY PREVAILS IN MTA'S LONG RANGE PLAN
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/49973695.gif

In a victory for the mayor, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board today reaffirmed the Westside subway and a rail connection through downtown L.A. as the agency's top priorities for federal funding.

The board took the action despite calls from some in Southern California's congressional delegation that the MTA add other projects to its priority list for New Starts federal money, including light-rail extensions in the San Gabriel Valley, the Southside and the Eastside.

But backers of those projects did get a consolation prize as the MTA approved its long-range transportation plan, which outlines how it will spend an estimated $300 billion over the next 30 years.

The MTA board decided that those projects should be allowed to seek other types of federal funding.

Under the plan, L.A. County could see a significant increase in rail service in the coming decades. The extension of the Gold Line, for example, from Pasadena to the east could be complete by 2013, according to agency planning the line. The MTA agreed to operate the line if it is built before 2017.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has been trying to fast-track the long-delayed Westside subway proposal.

He has been pushing to have the subway completed in 10 years — more than 15 years earlier than under current estimates. At his urging, the MTA board agreed to submit the subway expansion, as well as a plan to build a light-rail through downtown, as the county's two projects to compete for a share of a national pool of federal funding. http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/untitledjjhhy.jpg THAT'S RIGHT, BABY! I DO'D IT!
Ari B. Bloomekatz LATIMES

Strikes me as a victory for good sense. Purple/Pink and HSR from Riverside to Union Station strike me as the highest priority. Then HSR from the north Desert and from Anaheim.

After that, I think Sepulveda/Lincoln/405 needs priority. The LAX, Westchester, Culver City, Marina, Venice, SM areas are getting a lot of memdium-rises and acres of 3-5 story apartments replacing sfh's and gas stations. Traffic is already a nightmare (as compared to Crenshaw or Western or Vermont, where it is moderately bad).

I admit that the fwys. between LA and the IE are totally congested. However, I doubt that the Gold Line Extension is the answer. HSR for sure for the long commutes, and what's already there for the shorter commutes.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2794/4038569087_3599bd575f_o.jpg
From The Transport Politic

Under the plan, L.A. County could see a significant increase in rail service in the coming decades. The extension of the Gold Line, for example, from Pasadena to the east could be complete by 2013, according to agency planning the line. The MTA agreed to operate the line if it is built before 2017.

what does that even mean?
numbers must be backwards or the line won't be used in 4 years, and why wouldn't mta operate an extension of their own line?

Well I see the Pink Line, Purple Line Extension, all Green Line extensions, Crenshaw, Expo, Downtown Connector, and both Gold Line extensions. The others I'm just speculating are the Yellow Line (which was all but scrapped I thought), Vermont Line, Sepulveda, Harbor Subdivision (both commuter rail and light rail), a Gold Line/Red Line connector through Glendale, and the people mover at LAX.

This map is full of dreams, nice dreams, but just dreams nonetheless.

^ Why do you say that? Looking at the map, most of it is either already built, under construction, undergoing studies, or partially funded through Measure R. It's a distant reality, but that's what we're working towards.

Yellow Line? Vermont? Green Line to Santa Monica? I wouldn't expect any of those for at least 20 years.

^ Those are official proposals certified in the LRTP. A distant reality they are; a dream they are not.

For those of you who lives in the Inland Empire and happen to work at downtown LA and plan to take the Gold Line, I'm afraid you will always be late for work. :ohno:

For those of you who lives in the Inland Empire and happen to work at downtown LA and plan to take the Gold Line, I'm afraid you will always be late for work. :ohno:

unless youre taking a helicopter, there is no fast way to get to Downtown from the IE. you will have a HSR option in a few years, and you can also use the metrolink now.

HSR: Riverside to LA: 33 min
Ontario to LA: 25 min
Gold Line: Montclair to LA: 75 min. (although much closer than Riverside or Ontario)

And if you want to get technical, the Gold Line doesn’t even go to the IE so if you’re in Ontario, SB, Fontana, Riverside, etc., HSR is your only bet.

If I’m in the IE and want to get to DT or the Westside, I’m screaming to build HSR and the Purple Line (Riverside to CC in 57 min., assuming it’s about the same as the time to Universal, which is 7 stops past Vermont/Wilshire), omitting connection times.

Delaying Purple or HSR to get Gold Extension is just shooting yourself twice.

New light rail line to East LA to open next month
The Associated Press
Posted: 10/26/2009 10:44:16 AM PDT

LOS ANGELES—A light rail line extension to East Los Angeles will open next month after five years of construction.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced the Nov. 15 opening on Monday for the 6-mile-long Gold Line extension from Union Station in downtown to the city's east side. The new segment will have eight stations, two of them underground.

The $890 million project started in 2004. When it opens, it'll link East Los Angeles to Koreatown, the San Fernando Valley, Pasadena, Long Beach and the South Bay area on 79 miles of track.

Metro says it'll offer free rides on the Gold Line on opening day.

Free rides? I want Mariachis! And free churros and Jonathan Broxton sized burritos. And where's J-Lo? California knows how to party.

Speaking of which, Mariachi Plaza is already looking spiffy. I always thought of it as looking more like a ruin than anything contemporary, but the whole plaza seems to be getting work and there are two large vacant lots that look like they are ready for building. Can you spell gentrification?

Delaying Purple or HSR to get Gold Extension is just shooting yourself twice.

Who said that the subway is being delayed because of Foothill? C'mon, I wish you people would read.

Foothill has been studied and is ready to go. The SGV cities that will be effected by the train really want it so there is strong political will for this train and they stand united. Since Foothill is ready to go and the political will is there what the pols of the SGV have pushed through is actually the opposite of "pest"s quote up above, they are asking why do we have to wait for the Subway to the sea to complete its studies before we get moving? What happened Thursday is probably the best compromise we could get for a countywide agency. The Purple Line extension along with the Downtown Connector will both go for Fed New Starts Funding and there is alot of optimism that these two projects will have close to no problem recieving them. So we begin building these sometime next decade. Ok. But the Foothill folks are still saying why would they need to wait for these projects to go forward when there project is ready to go? The compromise is that we all know that the Foothill will probably not get Fed funding so we will pay*(yes, us) for this line to get up and running if even if it does not receive Fed funding and to start on its construction as soon as possible. Ridley-Thomas also fought hard for Crenshaw so this line as well will most likely end up being paid* (by us) since there is major speculation of whether it can win Fed money.

So as it looks:
Eastside Gold: 2009
Expo Phase I: 2011 (maybe)
Expo Phase II: 2013 (big maybe)
Foothill Gold: 2013
Crenshaw: Sometime next decade
Purple Line: Mos 1(to Fairfax), Mos 2(to Century City), Mos 3(to Westwood): sometime next decade
Downtown Connector: Sometime next decade

Of note:
The compromise is that the Pink Line and the final extension of the Purple to SM cannot happen before Foothill or Crenshaw.

read more here:http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/10/22/los-angeles-has-big-transit-ambitions-but-which-project-comes-first/
The comments are really enlightening as well.

what does that even mean?
numbers must be backwards or the line won't be used in 4 years, and why wouldn't mta operate an extension of their own line?

Just more savvy politics by the SGV pols in pinning the MTA down to operating this line once it's built. Look everybody knows that the MTA does not want this line so the agency could let an authority build it and then deny funding to operate it. So SGV is basically saying we'll build it but you must operate it once it's built. And they got it.

Bottom line: Measure R is a countywide sales tax. If we want more trains and busses and shit on the Westside in particular then the Westside along with BH, SM, CC and Weho need to pass another bond to specifically bring rail transit to that particular area. Everyone that pays into the pot must be thrown a bone.......that's the way it is. Or my other proposal is to just break up this too large of a county.
It could be worse. We could be BART that has to deal with 5 counties who bicker and end up neutering Bay Area rail. Remember when BART was created 2 of the 5 counties opted out and voted against the agency and Bart only passed by 1% only after the 2/3 threshold was lowered for a day so that it could pass. In contrast, Measure R passed the 2/3 threshold! What the county demonstrated with all of its fragmentation is that we will all sink or swim together.

I got to thinking about the Goldline Eastside Extension and I think I figured out why I'm excited for this open...This will be the first line to show going into downtown from a different perspective. I love the views of downtown from the bridges and it will be great for some photo ops.

My point: if I live in IE or SGV, and want to get to DT or CC, I want to complete Purple and HSR from Riverside to Union Station earlier (say, 2014). After that is done, I don’t need the Eastside Extension. So move Eastside Extension funds to Purple or HSR and get them done earlier.

I’m assuming that the short Montclair-Azusa or Azusa-Pasadena commutes are not as important as the Riverside/Ontario to DT or CC, even to IE and SGV locals. The local congressmen seem to be fighting for something to point at rather than something useful to their constituents.

And don't doubt that people will point at underutilized Crenshaw or Gold Lines and vote to cut off all funding for mass transit. Then you can push everything back 20 years.

^ Dude if we can't get MONORAIL's what makes you think we are getting HSR?

So move Eastside Extension funds to Purple or HSR and get them done earlier.



Cmon "pest" I'm sure you are aware that Measure R funds are strictly allocated to be equally shared throughout the county. You just can't begin moving funds around to pay for the subway. This is what other parts of the county were afraid of so it was strictly worded into Measure R where funds were to be directed.

I am OK with the law; I am saying that HSR from Riverside to DT and Purple line are better uses of IE/SGV transportation funds in that they actually serve and benefit IE/SGV residents (that is, getting them somewhere they want to go). If you want to be silly-technical, then call the part of HSR between Riverside and DT "the SGV/Inland Empire Line". The politicians can work out the details if the will is there.

The Gold Line Extension could be handled by bus. The dense and booming part of SGV is south of the 10 in any event.

^ Dude if we can't get MONORAIL's what makes you think we are getting HSR?

Because monorails are terrible in terms of cost-effectiveness. The money you spend doesn't get you much in terms of ridership.

I am OK with the law; I am saying that HSR from Riverside to DT and Purple line are better uses of IE/SGV transportation funds in that they actually serve and benefit IE/SGV residents (that is, getting them somewhere they want to go). If you want to be silly-technical, then call the part of HSR between Riverside and DT "the SGV/Inland Empire Line". The politicians can work out the details if the will is there.

The Gold Line Extension could be handled by bus. The dense and booming part of SGV is south of the 10 in any event.

Building on the premise that Measure R funds were and are intended to be evenly spread throughout the county we then can't turn around and deny them a line while still asking them to help pay for others elsewhere. I think all of us have argued and debated about this line and have hoped that the SGV could be dissuaded from fighting for Foothill extension but the SGV is a united front on this issue. There sentiment is they pay into the pot so they want Foothill Gold. So tell me "pest" do we put on the upcoming ballot an initiative to block the SGV from receiving funds similar to Zev's law back in '98 that blocked any local money going towards tunneling effectively killing a still much needed Eastside Subway? If it passed we could redirect those SGV funds to speed up the building of the Westside Subway.........but the county would most likely split and another Measure R probably would never pass again.

Eastside Gold Line party time
Posted by Kim Upton on October 27, 2009 - 1:21 pm
http://thesource.metro.net/2009/10/27/eastside-gold-line-party-time/

The Edward R. Roybal Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension will open to the public Sunday, Nov. 15, with free rides from one end of the Gold Line to the other — East Los Angeles to Pasadena — and celebrations are planned along the route.

On Sunday, festivities will take place from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at four stations: East LA Civic Center Station, Mariachi Plaza, the Little Tokyo/Arts District and Union Station.

Here are some details on a few of the events:

East LA Civic Center Station

Where: Third Street and Civic Center Way (near the East L.A. Public Library)

What: Live performances of Chicano rock, a spectacular farmers' market plus tasty food booths, local artisans and special exhibits from the County Bike Coalition and Metro Bike programs.

Mariachi Plaza Station

Where: First Street and Boyle Avenue

What: Live Mariachi music and a special block party to mark the Gold Line's debut.

Little Tokyo/Arts District Station

Where: Alameda and First streets

What: Live karaoke on stage, delicious cuisine from dozens of nearby restaurants, special family activities and booths representing businesses and organizations from the area.

Union Station

Where: East Portal, Union Station stop on the Metro Gold Line and Metro Red Line, corner of Cesar Chavez Avenue and Vignes Street.

What: A display from Madame Tussauds Hollywood, bands, food booths and, just maybe, a visit from Santa.

-- Kim Upton

Everyone keeps saying the Foothill Gold Line Extension will be helpful to SGV, but really, it is foothills. It is like putting a light rail line along the north-facing foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains and saying that will be helpful to SFV. That is how I am seeing this.

I live roughly in the center of the SGV, so the Foothill Extensions would not help me that much. Just wanted to voice my opinion. I loved the idea of this extensions at one point, but that was before there was HSR going from LA to IE...

Somehow both proposed extensions of the Gold Line seems to make it way through the two least dense portions of SGV O_o

Alex: I agree. I've been restraining myself from saying so, but now that you point it out: the Gold Line extension has struck me as a way for yuppies to get to Pasadena Old Town. The part that's already built just about reaches the limits of what people are going to want to do on a streetcar to get DT; I don't think extending it helps much.

The real growth and density in SGV is in the south and of course in Pomona and the IE. Gold Line just doesn't do much for them. HSR does.

What we need is an extension of the Red Line under Valley Blvd. I've not yet seen a day where that street isn't congested. It's awful and needs a subway!

Everyone keeps saying the Foothill Gold Line Extension will be helpful to SGV,

Everyone like who? The only folks talking about the benefits of Foothill Gold are its supporters, the I Will Ride folks and a very vocal minority. Most of us know that this line should not be built this soon. Hell, the MTA doesn't even want to build it, up until this point they've been very reluctant of including it in any of its immediate projects. So I'm still wondering where you got this Everyone from? Everyone like who?

Alex: I agree. I've been restraining myself from saying so, but now that you point it out: the Gold Line extension has struck me as a way for yuppies to get to Pasadena Old Town. The part that's already built just about reaches the limits of what people are going to want to do on a streetcar to get DT; I don't think extending it helps much.

The real growth and density in SGV is in the south and of course in Pomona and the IE. Gold Line just doesn't do much for them. HSR does.

This same sentiment is being discussed on every transit blog in the city. So no need to "restrain" yourself, join the masses.

The compromise is that the Pink Line and the final extension of the Purple to SM cannot happen before Foothill or Crenshaw.

Speculation. The legislation doesn't contain specific language that prioritizes Foothill and Crenshaw over the West Hollywood and Santa Monica extensions.

Everyone like who? The only folks talking about the benefits of Foothill Gold are its supporters, the I Will Ride folks and a very vocal minority. Most of us know that this line should not be built this soon. Hell, the MTA doesn't even want to build it, up until this point they've been very reluctant of including it in any of its immediate projects. So I'm still wondering where you got this Everyone from? Everyone like who?

"Everyone" was a bit too general of a term to use, sorry. I just used that as a lack of a better term. Really, I was speaking just within the people in this topic. Actually that would happen to include you. You have been speaking of SGV cities when speaking about Foothill extension, haven't you? You seem to be taking my reply in a larger context then I have originally intended. I also did not mention about how important or not important the line is, I was only speaking about who will or will not benefit from it, if it did exist.

You're replying as if I am here bragging about how good it would be. I actually intended to been very critical of such a line. Sorry if it could get misunderstood.

What we need is an extension of the Red Line under Valley Blvd. I've not yet seen a day where that street isn't congested. It's awful and needs a subway!

the silver line if and when its built is supposed to follow valley to el monte transit station.
on that note a bus going down valley and branching off mission going to san gabriel is needed also.

the silver line if and when its built is supposed to follow valley to el monte transit station.
on that note a bus going down valley and branching off mission going to san gabriel is needed also.

For most of its path it would actually be above Valley Blvd on a ROW.

Speculation. The legislation doesn't contain specific language that prioritizes Foothill and Crenshaw over the West Hollywood and Santa Monica extensions.

How is speculation what the LRTP specifies?

"Everyone" was a bit too general of a term to use, sorry. I just used that as a lack of a better term. Really, I was speaking just within the people in this topic. Actually that would happen to include you. You have been speaking of SGV cities when speaking about Foothill extension, haven't you? You seem to be taking my reply in a larger context then I have originally intended. I also did not mention about how important or not important the line is, I was only speaking about who will or will not benefit from it, if it did exist.

You're replying as if I am here bragging about how good it would be. I actually intended to been very critical of such a line. Sorry if it could get misunderstood.

I assume that we're most likely furthering the same thought but saying it in a different way.

How is speculation what the LRTP specifies?

It's speculation because the LRTP *doesn't* specify such a thing. The only thing it says is that Foothill and Crenshaw must find non-New Starts funding sources. Their future extensions could very well seek New Starts, but that's only an assumption right now. The West Hollywood and Santa Monica extensions are potential candidates, as is the I-405 Corridor.

What is the thinking on the 405 corridor? Is it bus-lines down the 405, hooking up at WLA for the Purple Line and other busses? Or is some kind of rail going to be stuck in the middle? You could probably argue for that kind of pattern from San Fernando to Irvine, since it is jammed pretty much all the way.

The third and final round of public meetings for the Harbor Subdivision Alternatives Analysis was completed last week. The DEIS/DEIR should commence sometime early next year.

Project Update Presentation - October 2009 (http://metro.net/projects_studies/harbor_subdivision/images/project-update-presentation-october-2009.pdf)

Project Display Boards - October 2009 (http://metro.net/projects_studies/harbor_subdivision/images/project-display-boards-october-2009.pdf)

Villaraigosa has bullish plan for rail transit projects
October 29, 2009 | 6:44 pm
By Ari B. Bloomekatz
The Los Angeles Times

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/images/2008/08/20/subway.jpg

If Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has his way, Los Angeles County is about to embark on a commuter rail building boom the likes of which the region has never seen.

On Friday, the mayor will unveil an ambitious but politically risky transportation plan that fast-tracks several high-profile rail projects to be completed within the next decade. That's a big speed-up because officials have generally been talking about completing them within 30 years.

Villaraigosa has made building more rail a top priority of his administration — though he's the first to admit it's going to take more than speeches and good intentions to get it done.

「Yes this is a stretch-goal, yes this is going to be tough, but I think by now folks shouldn't count me out,」 Villaraigosa told The Times in an interview.

「The fact is that this is the most important thing that we can do to alleviate congestion and gridlock, to improve the quality of our air and to really vindicate the people's will for the need to address transportation,」 he said.

The mayor scored a big victory last year when voters approved a sales tax measure to help fund the projects, which include a subway to the Westside, the extension of the Gold Line in the San Gabriel Valley, the extension of the Expo Line to Santa Monica and new rail lines down Crenshaw Boulevard and through downtown L.A.

The mayor's office estimates that the revenue from Measure R and other available funds would provide only an estimated $5.2 billion if they were to expedite the projects. The rest would have to come from private sector partners, the federal government or other public funding.

Villaraigosa has made it clear he thinks the Westside subway — by far the most expensive project with a price tag of $5 billion to $6 billion — is his top priority. That has sparked conflict with backers of other rail projects demanding that their lines be given equal consideration.

By fast-tracking projects throughout the region, the mayor could ease those concerns — but only if enough money is available. And that remains an open question.

The mayor's office says the county needs at least $10 billion in additional funds to complete the projects in 10 years. The first step, he said, is building a regional coalition to promote the project.

Then the hard part — finding sources of funding, whether in the form of public-private partnerships or money from the federal government in the form of a no-interest loan, among other ways, the mayor's office said.

Villaraigosa said he thinks the federal government would be more likely to give Los Angeles County money for the project than other cities because of the passage of Measure R.

He also thinks it will be an attractive offer because, during tough economic times, it would create thousands of jobs much faster than originally planned.

Art Leahy, chief executive of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said that, hypothetically, if there was sufficient funding, the agency would be able to accelerate projects and that it may be cheaper to expedite projects now because 「right now we're in a period of relatively low construction costs.」

Villaraigosa will discuss the plan for the first time Friday at the Los Angeles Business Council's 2009 Mayoral Housing, Transportation and Jobs Summit at UCLA.

He will tell the group that 「30 years is too long」 to wait and that all 12 transit projects he wants to expedite can be built in a decade. It's called the 「30/10」 plan, and he will joke that some might say he's 「coming up with another dream.」

「The projects are going to happen, there's no question about that, and I'm going to be very aggressive at getting federal funds.... My goal is to make it happen sooner rather than later,」 Villaraigosa said. 「I recognize that it's a daunting task, but I love the challenge and I'm up for it.」

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/villaraigosa-has-bullish-plan-for-la-rail-transit-projects.html

Let's go Tony V!!

GOOD. If Tony can pull through with this he'll go down in the L.A. mayoral hall of fame up there with Tom Bradley.

Let's go Tony!

Finally, an LA politician who shows some semblance of cognizance. You gotta love Villar for that, even if he falls short in other areas.

"Free rides? I want Mariachis! And free churros and Jonathan Broxton sized burritos. And where's J-Lo? California knows how to party."

J. Lo? That was eons of time ago. She's an old hag by now. :lol:

El Toro! El Macho! Let's here it for Tony V.!

I might even forgive the AnsaldoBreda contract if he gets this to work out in 10 years.

If he needs volunteers or door knockers, I'm so there!

It's speculation because the LRTP *doesn't* specify such a thing. The only thing it says is that Foothill and Crenshaw must find non-New Starts funding sources. Their future extensions could very well seek New Starts, but that's only an assumption right now. The West Hollywood and Santa Monica extensions are potential candidates, as is the I-405 Corridor.

You've always had problems with reading between the lines. From the Transit Politic which provides a link to the Times:
Update, 23 October: The Board of Los Angeles Metro has approved a $300 billion, 30-year plan that prioritizes the Westside Subway and the Regional Connector. An amendment will force Metro to operate the Foothills Gold Line extension by 2013, four years before originally planned… as long as area officials are able to find the funds to fast-track the project’s construction.
So if the Foothill Authority can find the funds (and they will) Metro would be forced to operate the line and this could happen before the Westside Subway. You may call it an assumption but I call it politicking and this most likely will happen.

^ That's only for the extension to Azusa. :okay:

:yes:

http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/10/30/villaraigosa-announces-coalition-to-speed-up-measure-r-transit-construction/

At a meeting of business leaders earlier today, Mayor Villaraigosa officially announced his plan, previewed earlier today in the Times, to aggressively pursue private and federal funds to complete all rail projects included in Measure R within ten years. Villaraigosa has often talked about completing his favorite project, the Subway to the Sea.

Basically, Villaraigosa is hoping to build a county-wide coalition to begin finding new sources of revenue for rail projects. Whether these funds come from public or private sources has yet to be determined.

One part of the plan that is sure to be controversial is his plan is to front-load funding for transit projects over the next ten years. By pushing transit first, the Mayor hopes to attract more federal and private investment. Villaraigosa is hoping to avoid a fight amongst rail activists by moving all projects quickly at once. Metro estimates he's going to need to find another $12 billion in funds, in addition to the $13 billion of Measure R funds that are available for rail projects, to meet his ambitious goal. All of this is assuming he can convince the Metro Board to go along with his plan in the first place.

The full text of the advisory, helpfully provided by Neon Tommy, is also available after the jump. If more details become available later today, this post will be updated. (update: I just replaced the advisory with the release. Not a lot of new news, but still a big thanks to Neon Tommy.)

MAYOR ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA
City of Los Angeles

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 30, 2009

Contact:
Lisa Hansen
213-978-0658
-or-
Press Office
213-978-0741


MAYOR PLANS TO ACCELERATE PUBLIC TRANSIT PROJECTS

“30/10” Will Push to Accelerate Use of Measure R Transit Funding

LOS ANGELES – Promoting his vision for sustainability and an improved public transportation system, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa today announced
that he is beginning to build a coalition to support the acceleration of the 30 years of transit projects included in Measure R into 10 years. The “30/10” program would leverage the $13 billion approved by voters for 12 transit projects to expedite construction and bring jobs
and environmental benefits to LA sooner.

"Thirty years is too long to wait when we can build all twelve projects in the next decade,” said Mayor Villaraigosa. “When we have workers
hungry for high quality jobs, companies that are ready to hire, the dirtiest air, and the worst traffic congestion in the nation, thirty years is just too long.”

In a speech at the Los Angeles Business Council’s Annual Mayoral Housing, Transportation, and Jobs Summit held today at UCLA, the Mayor
outlined his plan to build a coalition of transit advocates, environmentalists, business, labor, health advocates, and community
groups to support the “30/10” program.

The “30/10” Coalition would draw on the same groups that last year helped pass Measure R, the local half-cent sales tax, by 68% during a
recession.

"This is about transforming a region, increasing access to and efficiency of public transit and creating sustainable communities and a
thriving economy,” Mayor Villaraigosa added.

Preliminary projections of the sustainability benefits of “30/10” include:

● 1.8 times more carbon dioxide removed from the air
● 2.4 times more nitrous oxides removed from the air
● 2.2 times fewer miles driven
● 4.2 times more new rail boardings
● The creation of over half a million jobs through 2020.

Because Measure R will provide approximately $13 billion for transit projects over the next 30 years, the MTA will have the ability to repay
funds with guaranteed local sales tax revenues. This unique local match capacity is expected to open opportunities for advancing the funding and
paying it back over time.

Once a strong coalition of support for “30/10” is built, they will reach out to Congress, the Obama Administration, and others to build
support and develop a financing plan for the acceleration of the projects.

Last week the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved its Long Range Transportation Plan for the next 30 years. The
12 projects are estimated to cost $20 billion and include $6.8 billion in non-Measure R funding.

The Measure R transit projects Villaraigosa plans to accelerate include:

● The Westside subway extension
● The Regional Connector light rail connector in Downtown Los Angeles
● The Crenshaw corridor transit project
● The Foothill Extension of the Metro Gold Line
● The Expo light rail line on the Westside Phase 2
● The Green Line connection to LAX
● The Green Line extension to the South Bay
● A San Fernando Valley 405 Corridor Connection
● The Orange Line Canoga Extension
● West Santa Ana Branch Corridor
● San Fernando Valley North-South Rapidways
● Eastside Extension to El Monte or Whittier

^^ SICK!! you guys seem so lucky. Can you by any chance show us a map of all these new routes that will be built?

In Miami we had just 3 proposed lines (thought it was really just 2) to be built and when the economy fell out, it all fell apart. So all we are getting is that our single train route will finally connect to the airport.

^

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2719/4060066452_850d8a9528_o.jpg

This is what we need! Finally, the mayor speaks up on the whole public transportation issue. First build the rail that will connect the region within 10 years. For the remaining 20 years, build the lines that connect the neighborhoods within this city. The Silver line, vermont line, possibly a Washington blvd. line. This is exciting!

Anyone here in the least bit skeptical about the plausibility of Villaraigosa's plan? For starters, the West Santa Ana Branch and I-405 Corridors have yet to begin their studies, which typically take about 5 years to complete. Then there's the issue of funding. There's no reason why the Feds would all of a sudden shell out New Starts funds left and right, especially for projects that are not in the least bit cost-effective. I think the best way to go about this plan is to use bonds and to pay the debt back through future Measure R revenues. That way you leave Prop A & C money for the non-Measure R projects like the Harbor Subdivision, Green Line extensions to Santa Monica and Norwalk, Burbank/Glendale LRT, Silver Line, Yellow Line, etc. Some of those projects might even be able to qualify for New Starts once the next funding cycle arrives. Hopefully the Prop A & C tunneling ban is lifted by then.

bold move mayor... i'm with you, but it will take a miracle to get this approved.

WSL: of course, you’re right; there’s zero chance it’s all done on Jan 1, 2020. But it’s like when you start with me and you’re trying to build Dwight Howard: almost anything you do is going to be a huge improvement. Other discussions have made it clear that the priorities are Purple, Pink, Expo, Crenshaw, Gold Eastside. I would substitute in HSR from Riverside and Anaheim to DT and accelerate the 405 corridor in exchange for Crenshaw and Gold, but opinions can differ.

I am guessing that engineering and construction is not a problem. The real question is: money and how many community hearings and route battles can MTA handle at once.

Anyone here in the least bit skeptical about the plausibility of Villaraigosa's plan?

Skeptical? We don't have the luxury to be skeptical. Like "pest" and "croyboy" said, anything short of a miracle will not get this done, this is too ambitious and visionary for the latte sipping w/ a laptop armchair advocate. Where do I sign up?

Klam: I like the attitude! What's the saying: I believe in it BECAUSE it is impossible.

I'll take that as harmless jesting. Madrid did it. Seoul did it. Shanghai did it. Why not an American city?

I'll take that as harmless jesting. Madrid did it. Seoul did it. Shanghai did it. Why not an American city?

Because we need to make the necessary changes in our urban planning and I don't think that we'll do it.

And I thought implementing necessary infrastructure like rail lines was "urban planning". But honestly "phatt" you don't have to believe that it can be done. I and people like me will do everything that we can to see that bold moves like this one that the Mayor is pushing for, bold moves that the Bike Coalition is pushing for and bold moves that Goldberg is pushing for to increase density is eventually realized. So you can sit around pontificating about what you think can or cannot be done while the rest of us are out with shovels making it happen.

Klam: don't get senstive; I do like the attitude. Anybody can set get involved in a project that is obviously do-able and non-controversial. But getting involved in what appears to be impossible says that you really want to make changes.

Phatt: what changes do we need and why won't they get done? Not trying to start a bitter debate but I am curious.

Phatt: what changes do we need and why won't they get done? Not trying to start a bitter debate but I am curious.

More density, market priced street parking, to get rid of minimum parking requirements, and tolls on freeways. At least that's what I can think of this minute.

LOL, now would be a good time for me to NOT jump in! :lol:

One of California's toughest commutes getting relief with 91 Freeway widening
Ari B. Bloomekatz
The Los Angeles Times
November 2, 2009 | 5:25 pm

One of Southern California’s toughest commutes is about to get somewhat easier.

Officials Tuesday will break ground on a $59.5-million project to widen the eastbound 91 Freeway with the hopes of easing congestion for commuters along the heavily traveled stretch between Orange and Riverside counties.

The section through the Santa Ana Canyon has long been considered one of the worst freeway bottlenecks in the nation, connecting bedroom communities in the Inland Empire to job centers in Orange and Los Angeles counties.

The roughly 6-mile-long project will run from the 241 Freeway, a toll road, to the 71 Freeway and will add one lane to the four existing eastbound lanes, excluding two express lanes.

“The 91 corridor, that’s been one of the toughest puzzles to solve,” said Peter Buffa, chairman of the Orange County Transportation Authority. “There’s 300,000 cars traveling that route each day.”

He said the agency also hopes to eventually widen the freeway in both directions from the 55 Freeway to the 241 toll road. Commuters in that area got another boost this week with today's grand opening of new lanes on the 241 toll road, another route channeling Inland Empire commuters into Orange County.

The “Fast Trak” toll lanes run through the Windy Ridge toll plaza. Some 50,000 commuters pass through that plaza each weekday and the new lanes on the 241 Freeway are supposed to ease traffic flow to and from the 91 Freeway, said Jennifer Seaton of the Transportation Corridor Agencies. Seaton said that stretch of the 91 Freeway east of the 241 Freeway can be “very, very congested” and that the backup affects commuters using the toll road.

Transportation officials have been talking for decades about how to ease the commute between the Inland Empire and Orange County.

More than a decade ago, officials opened toll lanes along a portion of the 91 Freeway, offering less congestion for commuters willing to pay the price. The 241 toll road, which runs from the 91 into South Orange County, was also designed to improve the commute.

The 91 runs through a narrow canyon amid several mountain ranges, making it hard to build additional freeways between the Inland Empire and Orange County. In recent years, planners have talked about tunneling 11.5 miles through the Cleveland National Forest to build a new route, but those plans are still very much in the conceptual stages.

Orange County transportation officials said the bulk of the 91 widening project, $47.9 million, is being funded with federal stimulus dollars and local agencies.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/11/one-of-californias-toughest-commutes-getting-relief-with-91-freeway-widening.html

Here are the commuting stats for Greater Los Angeles. If you want to see how LA fares in comparison to other metropolitan areas, check out my post on SSP (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4537674&postcount=30).

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 8,108,522 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 5,989,352 ... 73.9%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 975,359 ... 12.0%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 414,596 ... 5.1%
Walked ... 201,787 ... 2.5%
Other means ... 162,064 ... 2.0%
Worked at home ... 365,364 ... 4.5%

Interesting list. A lot of those other cities drive alone as much or more than we do. We carpool more than anyone else except Houston, I guess those carpool lanes do make a difference.

I'd like to see this list in about 20 years to compare our transportation numbers with now. Hopefully more than 10% of our workforce will commute by public transportation by then.

http://thesource.metro.net/2009/11/03/a-hollywood-halloween/#more-1199

I love that article. I recommend everyone to take public transportation [in general], but during Halloween its a different story.

I got off of work [3rd street promenade] and met up with my bestfriend who was my bride. We walk to the 4/704 bus stop and met some nice people. Had a lot of laughs while waiting for the bus. When the bus came, the bus driver told us to just hope on board. FREE RIDE! About 9 of us board the bus with excitement.It seems a lot of people had this idea as well since it seemed more costumed people got on. It was party on the bus! We were singing along to songs from Sublime, Journey, and a couple of others. Everyone had a blast!

I'd like to see this list in about 20 years to compare our transportation numbers with now. Hopefully more than 10% of our workforce will commute by public transportation by then.

They won't be as long as housing prices remain so high in the city. People are sill moving away from the prices and the traffic.

Isn't the general theory that when you make an area desirsable (e.g., by creating urban amenities, new housing), you cause demand to go up, which pushes up prices, which forces the poor out, which puts them in mass transit so they can work in the areas they can't afford to live in? This is the whole point behind desirable big cities (London, Paris, Manhattan, SF, etc.). Mass transit is there to allow the middle class and poor to have a decent alternative to driving into DT.

Isn't the general theory that when you make an area desirsable (e.g., by creating urban amenities, new housing), you cause demand to go up, which pushes up prices, which forces the poor out, which puts them in mass transit so they can work in the areas they can't afford to live in? This is the whole point behind desirable big cities (London, Paris, Manhattan, SF, etc.). Mass transit is there to allow the middle class and poor to have a decent alternative to driving into DT.

Except that prices are not going up because of extra amenities. They are going up because population is going up, making those residences closer to jobs more and more desirable. More people, more traffic.

It's been one year since we voted in favor of Measure R. One year ago today, we decided to vote for CHANGE. We decided that we wanted a higher quality of life and that an extra $25 a year was well worth it. With Measure R's passage, we are guaranteed construction of miles upon miles of transit projects. We now have a local funding source that allows us to pursue federal matching funds for projects like the Westside Subway and Regional Connector (which cannot be built through Prop A & C money) and entitles us to greater leverage. That opens up a world of possibilities. With momentum now in our favor, it's just a chain reaction from here on out. On November 4, 2008, the future of Los Angeles was secured. :cool:

It has to do with quality of life more than anything else. LA is increasingly losing its mainstream appeal because of the traffic gridlock and pollution; it's turning more and more people off. Cities like NYC and SF are uber expensive, even more so than LA, but they continue to attract scores of middle and upper class folk because they offer high-paying jobs and quality urban environments. Guess what, TRANSIT will do the trick.

How much time will new freeway lane save commuters?
Addition of eastbound 91 lane among many projects planned for freeway.
By ERIC CARPENTER
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

ANAHEIM – How much time could one extra lane to the eastbound 91 save commuters traveling from Orange County into Riverside County?

Fifteen minutes, Caltrans officials said Tuesday during a groundbreaking ceremony for a 6-mile-long addition scheduled to open to motorists by the end of 2010. That's according to traffic studies of the area, they said.

The start of a construction of a new lane was cause for celebration among transportation officials and some motorists – while it left other commuters skeptical that it will ease congestion.

Under a tent on a dirt road overlooking the 91 freeway stood Caltrans officials, four mayors and transportation leaders from Riverside and Orange counties – counties that for years had been at odds over what to do with the 91.

But Tuesday's ceremony was a symbol that help is on the way – on more than one front – for a notorious choke point.

"Commuters saving 15 minutes. That's time they can spend with their families instead of on the road," said Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, also a member of the Orange County Transportation Authority board. "That will have a huge impact on very many lives."

The project will use $47.9 million in federal stimulus funds to add six miles of lane to the eastbound 91, between the 241 toll road in Anaheim Hills and the 71 freeway in Corona.

The eastbound 91 has five freeway lanes – narrowing to four near Green River Road – and two toll lanes.

Riverside County contributed $5 million and Orange County $6.6 million to planning and designing the project.

Several motorists who routinely travel the 91 said they were skeptical that more than $58 million is going toward adding a single lane.

"It'll be just another snail trail," said Brad Larsen, who commutes between Riverside and Orange each weekday. "That's a waste of money. I wish I knew what the solution was out there, but I think they could start by opening up the toll lanes to everybody."

Officials with the Orange County Transportation Authority said they plan to keep the 91 Express (toll) Lanes, which funded the county's share of designing the 91 expansion.

But other changes could come.

The Riverside County Transportation Commission wants to:

‧Extend the toll lanes in each direction from where they end, just east of the 241, to Pierce Street in Riverside – about 12 miles.

‧Add one freeway lane in each direction between the 15 and 71 freeways.

Also, the OCTA hopes to:

‧Add a westbound lane to the 91 freeway, between the 57 and I-5 freeways.

‧Add a lane in both directions to the 91 freeway, between the 55 freeway and the 241 toll road.

"I love where I live, and I love where I work," said Jorge Mendoza, who lives in Riverside and works in Cypress. "I just hate the commute. And I'm glad to see they are trying to make it better."

Here are the commuting stats for Greater Los Angeles. If you want to see how LA fares in comparison to other metropolitan areas, check out my post on SSP (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4537674&postcount=30).

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 8,108,522 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 5,989,352 ... 73.9%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 975,359 ... 12.0%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 414,596 ... 5.1%
Walked ... 201,787 ... 2.5%
Other means ... 162,064 ... 2.0%
Worked at home ... 365,364 ... 4.5%
This is a statistical list of the Los Angeles CSA.....why in the world would you base your transit ridership on the CSA of an area? That's like taking the commute percentages of Poughkeepsie or Camden, NJ and somehow making them reflective of NYC transit ridership. You can only judge the LA metros ridership within the county since the MTA is only a county-wide agency. And within this county there are a plethora of interagencies that you must count as well. Per my research LA has 12% - 16% commute/ridership patters which puts it somewhere in the middle but gaining fast. By contrast Chicago has somewhere around 22%, SF 29% and NYC with the highest at about 50%. I've seen other studies that confirm that LA is at about 12% mainly because we have more people riding busses than anyone else except NYC. Repeat: The MTA does not have jurisdiction over Orange County transit, Riverside transit or any area (more or less) outside of the county so judging an entire CSA's ridership stats is pretty stupid and I've noticed that it's never done with NYC or SF.

It has to do with quality of life more than anything else. LA is increasingly losing its mainstream appeal because of the traffic gridlock and pollution; it's turning more and more people off. Cities like NYC and SF are uber expensive, even more so than LA, but they continue to attract scores of middle and upper class folk because they offer high-paying jobs and quality urban environments. Guess what, TRANSIT will do the trick.

Attract a bunch of DINKS and Empty Nesters.....yeah that's great but still lose population. LA has had traffic FOREVER and pollution used to be much worse than it was now.........LA has never and likely will never lose "mainstream appeal" (whatever the fuck that means). Even when NYC was in the doldrums and bleeding people like a hemophiliac it still had a certain appeal to a certain demographic and now we romanticize that period. It seems LA (though quite younger) is in that same type of league. Even after the early 90's Uprisings, even after mudslides, earthquakes and fires the city and its surrounding area still GAINED in population. Your opinion on this is baseless.

And as a sidenote, those are the only folks who can afford transit in the BA. My one-way ride from SFO to Berkeley with one transfer was $8.60!!! Is this still considered public transportation? A one-seat ride on the Flyaway which picks you up from your terminal is only $7 by comparison and that is not even public transit. If you want a city where only the monied can afford to live within it and enjoy the immediacy of it then I hope you move.

This is a statistical list of the Los Angeles CSA.....why in the world would you base your transit ridership on the CSA of an area? That's like taking the commute percentages of Poughkeepsie or Camden, NJ and somehow making them reflective of NYC transit ridership. You can only judge the LA metros ridership within the county since the MTA is only a county-wide agency. And within this county there are a plethora of interagencies that you must count as well. Per my research LA has 12% - 16% commute/ridership patters which puts it somewhere in the middle but gaining fast. By contrast Chicago has somewhere around 22%, SF 29% and NYC with the highest at about 50%. I've seen other studies that confirm that LA is at about 12% mainly because we have more people riding busses than anyone else except NYC. Repeat: The MTA does not have jurisdiction over Orange County transit, Riverside transit or any area (more or less) outside of the county so judging an entire CSA's ridership stats is pretty stupid and I've noticed that it's never done with NYC or SF.

Stop with your pissy attitude.

Using metropolitan areas is a better way to gauge transit ridership/culture because it reflects the commute patterns of the suburbs. If you were to limit the statistics strictly to, say, Chicago's city limits, you'd be factoring out the very successful Metra system, which is more indicative of Chicago's strong transit culture than the L. FYI, Metrolink serves the 5-county Los Angeles CSA, so these statistics are quite fair. Also, it factors in any and all public transit, regardless of the agency.

BTW, Camden, NJ is in the Philadelphia area.

Attract a bunch of DINKS and Empty Nesters.....yeah that's great but still lose population. LA has had traffic FOREVER and pollution used to be much worse than it was now.........LA has never and likely will never lose "mainstream appeal" (whatever the fuck that means). Even when NYC was in the doldrums and bleeding people like a hemophiliac it still had a certain appeal to a certain demographic and now we romanticize that period. It seems LA (though quite younger) is in that same type of league. Even after the early 90's Uprisings, even after mudslides, earthquakes and fires the city and its surrounding area still GAINED in population. Your opinion on this is baseless.

Wow, and so the self-righteous bull continues. Not that I was expecting anything different.

National studies do in fact show that LA is increasingly losing its mainstream appeal; people would rather be in places like Austin, Atlanta, and Denver. Yeah, LA has had nightmare traffic for as long as we can remember, but it's never and still doesn't offer QUALITY options. NYC and SF continue to be uber expensive, but everybody still wants to be there. Why? Because their respective metropolitan regions aren't choked in smog and their commuters have quality alternatives to sitting in gridlock. On top of which, they offer high-paying jobs and unique urban environments that are to be found nowhere else.

And please don't pretend that the NYC of the 70s and 80s was every bit as attractive to young folk as it is today. It wasn't too long ago that NYC was considered Hell, but its image really started to take a turn (for better or worse) sometime in the late 90s with shows like Sex and the City and Friends. Now it's THE place to be in the country, despite it being THE most expensive. Shows like Gossip Girl, The City, etc. and the images they sell are still very much in full force.

And as a sidenote, those are the only folks who can afford transit in the BA. My one-way ride from SFO to Berkeley with one transfer was $8.60!!! Is this still considered public transportation? A one-seat ride on the Flyaway which picks you up from your terminal is only $7 by comparison and that is not even public transit. If you want a city where only the monied can afford to live within it and enjoy the immediacy of it then I hope you move.

It's still a lot cheaper than driving. And it doesn't matter so much there because folks in the Bay Area, on average, are a lot wealthier than the rest of the country.

And please don't throw that "please move" crap in my face. Stop being so damn sensationalist.

National studies do in fact show that LA is increasingly losing its mainstream appeal; people would rather be in places like Austin, Atlanta, and Denver. Yeah, LA has had nightmare traffic for as long as we can remember, but it's never and still doesn't offer QUALITY options.
And of course those places mentioned up above like Austin and Atlanta have world class transit.:)
NYC and SF continue to be uber expensive, but everybody still wants to be there. Why? Because their respective metropolitan regions aren't choked in smog and their commuters have quality alternatives to sitting in gridlock. On top of which, they offer high-paying jobs and unique urban environments that are to be found nowhere else.
More baselessness. These are two cities that bled there population for roughly the second half of the 20th century while Los Angeles still grew eventhough it was ripping out its rail mass transit.

And please don't pretend that the NYC of the 70s and 80s was every bit as attractive to young folk as it is today. It wasn't too long ago that NYC was considered Hell, but its image really started to take a turn (for better or worse) sometime in the late 90s with shows like Sex and the City and Friends. :lol::lol:
The three pillars of destruction of old NYC: Giuliani, Disney and Sex In The Silliness. And you admit that eventhough NYC has had a comprehensive mass transit system for at least the past 100 years folks still considered it "hell". So does transit make the city or does it not? You seem to be yet again contradictive of yourself.
Now it's THE place to be in the country,:lol: despite it being THE most expensive. Shows like Gossip Girl, The City, etc. and the images they sell are still very much in full force.
Gossip Girl!! Use a mess!

Stop with your pissy attitude.

Using metropolitan areas is a better way to gauge transit ridership/culture because it reflects the commute patterns of the suburbs. If you were to limit the statistics strictly to, say, Chicago's city limits, you'd be factoring out the very successful Metra system, which is more indicative of Chicago's strong transit culture than the L. FYI, Metrolink serves the 5-county Los Angeles CSA, so these statistics are quite fair. Also, it factors in any and all public transit, regardless of the agency.

.

So perhaps something that we can learn from this is that each area must be judged on its own unique commute patterns and individual merits. Just as in your opinion including areas outside of the CTA's jurisdiction highlights Chicago's strong commuter rail ridership via Metra and not highlighting that does the area a disservice. Equally, highlighting our overall scant public transit commute patterns via our commuter rail and lumping that in with our overall very strong countywide bus ridership #'s in effect neutralizes those strong bus #'s and only does Los Angeles a disservice while misleading the reader.

And of course those places mentioned up above like Austin and Atlanta have world class transit.:)

They offer stable, good/high-paying jobs. They also don't have our traffic problems, so quality mass transit isn't nearly as much of a concern.

More baselessness. These are two cities that bled there population for roughly the second half of the 20th century while Los Angeles still grew eventhough it was ripping out its rail mass transit.

Because we all know that growth trends from several decades ago bear much relevance to where people want to be today. :|

:lol::lol:
The three pillars of destruction of old NYC: Giuliani, Disney and Sex In The Silliness. And you admit that eventhough NYC has had a comprehensive mass transit system for at least the past 100 years folks still considered it "hell". So does transit make the city or does it not? You seem to be yet again contradictive of yourself.

The city was filthy and dangerous back then. It hadn't undergone urban revitalization yet.

Gossip Girl!! Use a mess!

Use a pawanoid fweak!

So perhaps something that we can learn from this is that each area must be judged on its own unique commute patterns and individual merits. Just as in your opinion including areas outside of the CTA's jurisdiction highlights Chicago's strong commuter rail ridership via Metra and not highlighting that does the area a disservice. Equally, highlighting our overall scant public transit commute patterns via our commuter rail and lumping that in with our overall very strong countywide bus ridership #'s in effect neutralizes those strong bus #'s and only does Los Angeles a disservice while misleading the reader.

Not really, because LA County is but one county in a 5-county metropolitan region. That should be simple enough to understand.

They offer stable, good/high-paying jobs. They also don't have our traffic problems, so quality mass transit isn't nearly as much of a concern.



Because we all know that growth trends from several decades ago bear much relevance to where people want to be today. :|



The city was filthy and dangerous back then. It hadn't undergone urban revitalization yet.



Use a pawanoid fweak!
Please show me #'s that indicate that NYC and SF are outpacing LA in growth, since these are places that "everyone" wants to be.

Not really, because LA County is but one county in a 5-county metropolitan region. That should be simple enough to understand.
Our MTA only covers LA County! Therefore it would be unfair to begin to pull in Orange County #'s or Riverside #'s to realistically prove true commute patterns within Los Angeles County.

They offer stable, good/high-paying jobs. They also don't have our traffic problems, so quality mass transit isn't nearly as much of a concern.



Because we all know that growth trends from several decades ago bear much relevance to where people want to be today. :|



The city was filthy and dangerous back then. It hadn't undergone urban revitalization yet.



Use a pawanoid fweak!

Why do you tend to lie to attempt to win an argument? Austin and Atlanta don't have traffic congestion problems? These two cities are repeatedly in the top lists of most congested cities!! "Westy" even people in Santa Monica can see your nose after that lie.
And then your ramblings on about NYC before (its current) go at urban revitalization.....if you knew anything of whence you speak you would know that it aint the first time the city needed to be "cleaned" up and likely won't be the last. Cities need to be cleaned up every so often, it seems to be a never-ending process.
And lastly "Westy" we both know what kind of people that you consider truly of the 'walking upright' and the ones that you don't. But yes, the city seems to be still growing albeit slower than the 1930's but still in positive growth mode. In fact LA has never chalked up a true deficit in growth.....like ever, oh my god!
No, the well-heeled strolling down Alvarado she clutching a Coach purse and he looking smart in his pair of Kennth Cole's looking forward to that boat ride at Mac Arthur Park has yet come to pass. Instead we have Lupe at that same park with her 3 kids playing happily nearby, one in the stroller and one on the way. This is where LA is today, now and presently. So if you don't like it all I can say is run away Carey run away.

The East L.A. leg of the Gold Line opens November 15th

Please show me #'s that indicate that NYC and SF are outpacing LA in growth, since these are places that "everyone" wants to be.

New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA
2005: 21,392,437
2008: 22,154,752
+3.6%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA Combined Statistical Area
2005: 17,314,128
2008: 17,786,419
+2.7%

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA
2005: 7,014,896
2008: 7,354,444
+4.8%


Here is the actual study. Scroll down to page 3. You'll see that LA was quite popular in the earlier part of the decade, but now interest is waning. The poll and above statistics confirm each other.

http://harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/pubs/Harris_Poll_2009_10_05.pdf

Our MTA only covers LA County! Therefore it would be unfair to begin to pull in Orange County #'s or Riverside #'s to realistically prove true commute patterns within Los Angeles County.

I'm measuring commute patterns in metropolitan areas. Using counties is quite arbitrary because SF County is SF (city) and NY County is Manhattan.

Why do you tend to lie to attempt to win an argument?

My arguments are largely logos-driven, as opposed to your more pathos tendencies. Who has the better ethos?

Austin and Atlanta don't have traffic congestion problems? These two cities are repeatedly in the top lists of most congested cities!!

Who said that they didn't have traffic congestion? I said that they don't have *our* traffic problems. You will not convince anyone that Austin and Atlanta are known for their traffic congestion just as much as LA is.

"Westy" even people in Santa Monica can see your nose after that lie.

It's so easy to call someone a liar when you yourself can't present a valid argument. All you do is whine and complain. Wright Concept, phattonez, pesto, and myself have all been on the receiving end of your self-righteous, pissy attitude.

And lastly "Westy" we both know what kind of people that you consider truly of the 'walking upright' and the ones that you don't.

Apparently you shrug at the terms "middle class" and "upper class". Last I checked, there were such things as upper/middle class blacks and Hispanics. And as if being educated and wanting to make money are such terrible, terrible things. I think it's something called human nature. :|

But yes, the city seems to be still growing albeit slower than the 1930's but still in positive growth mode. In fact LA has never chalked up a true deficit in growth.....like ever, oh my god!

I never implied that LA was or is losing in population. I pointed out that growth is slowing down (a good thing in my book) and that interest is waning (confirmed by the poll and statistics).

No, the well-heeled strolling down Alvarado she clutching a Coach purse and he looking smart in his pair of Kennth Cole's looking forward to that boat ride at Mac Arthur Park has yet come to pass. Instead we have Lupe at that same park with her 3 kids playing happily nearby, one in the stroller and one on the way. This is where LA is today, now and presently. So if you don't like it all I can say is run away Carey run away.

Sensationalism at its finest. You're by far the person I love arguing with the most, because it's just so easy.

New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA
2005: 21,392,437
2008: 22,154,752
+3.6%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA Combined Statistical Area
2005: 17,354,555
2008: 17,786,419
+2.5%

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA
2005: 7,014,896
2008: 7,354,555
+4.6%


Here is the actual study. Scroll down to page 3. You'll see that LA was quite popular in the earlier part of the decade, but now interest is waning. The poll and above statistics confirm each other.

http://harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/pubs/Harris_Poll_2009_10_05.pdf

West can you provide the source for these numbers? I just checked wiki and the 2005 numbers for SF and NY csa looks more like their 2000... From 2000 through 2008 LA still had the biggest gain out of these three CSA, percentage and numerical wise. % NY and SF were not even half of LAs gain... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_primary_census_statistical_areas

^ They're from the Census Bureau's 2008 American Community Survey. The 2005-2008 growth rates illustrate my point -- that growth was explosive in the early part of the decade, but is now slowing down.

^ They're from the Census Bureau's 2008 American Community Survey. The 2005-2008 growth rates illustrate my point -- that growth was explosive in the early part of the decade, but is now slowing down.

Can you provide a link please? I just don't understand how the 2005 numbers from SF and NY can be almost the same as their 2000. That will mean that their growth for this decade only happened in the last three years.:dunno:

^ http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IPTable?_bm=y&-context=ip&-reg=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201:001;ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201PR:001;ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201T:001;ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201TPR:001&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-tree_id=308&-redoLog=true&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=33000US348&-geo_id=33000US408&-geo_id=33000US488&-geo_id=NBSP&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en

I also corrected some of the numbers I posted earlier.

Well good for these numbers. Who gives a flying fuck if certain people are leaving? I'm not and I still have to get to work in half of the time that it usually does.

Metro officials prepare to seek federal money for subway and connector projects
Steve Hymon
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority - The Source
Posted by Steve Hymon on November 5, 2009 - 9:22 am

We launched the Source quickly last month in time to report on the October meeting of the Board of Directors. But I wanted to circle back and try to better explain something that happened at the September meeting — when the Board voted to seek federal funds for both the Westside extension of the subway to Westwood and the downtown regional connector light rail.

The news of the day is that Metro officials are now hoping to secure that federal money by late summer 2011 and, on a more immediate note, are preparing to immediately seek millions of dollars in President Obama’s next budget to help pay for preliminary engineering of the projects. The best way I can summarize what this means: the political game involving the projects has now largely shifted from Los Angeles County to Washington D.C.

Both projects are getting money from the Measure R sales tax increase approved by voters last year. Getting that money was essentially the first half of the funding game. But that money — $4.1 billion for the subway and $160 million for the connector — doesn’t flow to the subway or connector all at once. That’s why Metro officials hope to secure federal money to add to the Measure R money, giving them enough to open the first phase of the subway to Fairfax and the connector in 2019. The federal money request is the second half of the funding game.

The Federal Transit Administration (the FTA) runs a program called “New Starts” to help transit agencies pay for big new rail and busway projects. New Starts provided for about $490 million of the $898 million cost of the Gold Line Eastside Extension line that is opening later this month. But once the Gold Line is complete, Metro doesn’t have any other projects in the New Starts funding pipeline.

Agency staff at last month’s meeting pointed out to the Board that the result is that Los Angeles County isn’t getting its fair share of federal dollars — that’s the message the above graphic tries to convey. Of course, it’s also fair to point out that to get New Starts money one must first ask and fill out several forests’ worth of paperwork. New Starts funding doesn’t just fall out of the sky and until recently Metro hasn’t asked for more New Starts money because: 1) until Measure R passed there weren’t many big projects in the works, and; 2) the Metro Board had not agreed what to ask for.

In the meantime, other regions were asking. And getting. The following is the current crop of projects either getting New Starts money or expected to (”LRT” is an acronym for “light rail transit”):

Phoenix, Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail
Los Angeles, Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension
Denver, Southeast Corridor LRT
Denver, West Corridor LRT
Washington DC Metropolitan Area, Largo Metrorail Extension
Chicago, Ravenswood Line Extension
Minneapolis-Big Lake, Northstar Corridor Rail
Northern New Jersey, Hudson-Bergen MOS-2
New York, Long Island Rail Road East Side Access
New York, Second Avenue Subway Phase I
Portland, South Corridor I-205/Portland Mall LRT
Pittsburgh, North Shore LRT Connector
Dallas, Northwest/Southeast LRT MOS
Salt Lake City, Mid Jordan LRT
Salt Lake City, Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail
Northern Virginia, Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project Extension to Wiehle Ave.
Seattle, Central Link Initial Segment
Seattle, University Link LRT Extension
Sacramento, South Corridor Phase 2 (FFGA)
Orlando, Central Florida Commuter Rail Transit — Init. Oper. Seg. (FFGA)
Northern New Jersey, Access to the Region’s Core (ESWA)
Houston, North Corridor LRT (FFGA)
Houston, Southeast Corridor LRT (FFGA)

Let’s go through that list. The New York metro area has three projects, including the first phase of a new subway under Second Avenue and $3 billion for a new tunnel under the Hudson River to add train service between New Jersey and Manhattan. Several other metro areas have two projects apiece — including Denver, Salt Lake City, Seattle and Houston. Nothing against Utah — it’s very scenic! — but Utah has a population of only 2.7 million people. Los Angeles County has more than 10 million. (here’s a link to a federal spreadsheet with more info about the above projects and here’s a link to a lengthy federal report with more details about the projects).

But, as the list shows, it’s unusual to have more than two projects per region or per state. That’s why the Metro Board in September decided to ask for money for two projects, the subway and the connector. But that request made some people unhappy.

Fourteen members of Congress and several state legislators wrote the Metro Board last month asking them to expand their request in order to get money for the Foothill Gold Line extension, the Crenshaw Corridor project and an extension of the Eastside Gold Line. And some elected officials continue to insist more projects should be added to Metro’s New Starts list.

However, the Metro Board at the October meeting decided not to change its New Starts request. That was not surprising — did anyone really expect the Board to tear up something it had just agreed to? However, the Board did approve an amendment as part of the agency’s long-range plan that seeks to get other federal money for the Crenshaw Corridor, the Foothill Extension and the subway project.

Metro officials have now started looking for that money. One source of money that Metro officials are looking at is the next version of the federal TIGER program — it stands for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery — which was originally part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

As for the subway and the regional connector, the first big hurdle that Metro officials hope to clear is to secure money for preliminary engineering of the two projects. Officials are working on estimates of the cost of that now. It will almost certainly be a multi-million dollar request.

There are two ways to get the money. The first is for the Obama Administration to direct the FTA to pay for it as part of the President’s 2011 fiscal year budget; the request must be submitted by Metro within the next few months.

If that doesn’t happen, then Metro will have to seek an appropriation for the engineering money from Congress. That would put the ball in the court, among others, of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is on the Senate’s Appropriations Committee.

But it’s no sure thing Congress would grant the money — members of Congress, both outside and within California, could stymie the request for any number of reasons. For example, they may not like the subway or regional connector projects. Or they may feel that other projects in the region are more worthy.

The engineering money is important because it allows the subway and connector projects to keep moving forward at a steady clip. Metro federal affairs manager Raffi Hamparian said the agency hopes to have an agreement in place for the New Starts money for the subway and connector projects by Sept. 2011. If that happens, construction could hypothetically begin soon thereafter, assuming all the environmental studies and design work is complete.

http://thesource2.metro.net/2009/11/05/metro-officials-prepare-to-seek-federal-money-for-subway-and-connector-projects/#more-1280

^ http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IPTable?_bm=y&-context=ip&-reg=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201:001;ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201PR:001;ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201T:001;ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201TPR:001&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-tree_id=308&-redoLog=true&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=33000US348&-geo_id=33000US408&-geo_id=33000US488&-geo_id=NBSP&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en

I also corrected some of the numbers I posted earlier.
Got caught up in yet another lie.

Can you provide a link please? I just don't understand how the 2005 numbers from SF and NY can be almost the same as their 2000. That will mean that their growth for this decade only happened in the last three years.:dunno:

He's not taking into account the whole decade. It's like looking at just the projections for let's say 2006 where SF may have gained over San Jose for that one year and discounting the other 9 years where it was losing pop or not exceeding SJ's growth. Even more importantly (to win an argument) he is including the entire CSA which eventhough Riverside-San Bernadino was hit hard by the housing bust may not be entirely reflective of Los Angeles County. In other words, "Westy" is stroking the numbers to get himself off.
But to switch over to something that is inconsistent, where is "Milq"?

My arguments are largely logos-driven, as opposed to your more pathos tendencies. Who has the better ethos?



Who said that they didn't have traffic congestion? I said that they don't have *our* traffic problems. You will not convince anyone that Austin and Atlanta are known for their traffic congestion just as much as LA is.



It's so easy to call someone a liar when you yourself can't present a valid argument. All you do is whine and complain. Wright Concept, phattonez, pesto, and myself have all been on the receiving end of your self-righteous, pissy attitude.



Apparently you shrug at the terms "middle class" and "upper class". Last I checked, there were such things as upper/middle class blacks and Hispanics. And as if being educated and wanting to make money are such terrible, terrible things. I think it's something called human nature. :|



I never implied that LA was or is losing in population. I pointed out that growth is slowing down (a good thing in my book) and that interest is waning (confirmed by the poll and statistics).



Sensationalism at its finest. You're by far the person I love arguing with the most, because it's just so easy.

More mindless jabber from the jibber king.

:cheers:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/11/crenshaw-boulevard-light-rail-line-plan-gets-a-boost.html

MTA report calls for light rail, not rapid bus line, on Crenshaw corridor

A proposed transit line that will run through South Los Angeles should be light rail, not a rapid bus line, according to a report released by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

South L.A. officials and community groups cheered the recommendation from Metro staff and said the project estimated to cost at least $1.7 billion will provide unprecedented transit opportunities for residents who so far have been under-served by the county's rail network.

"We do consider it a victory," said Trevor Ware, chief operating officer of the Los Angeles Urban League.

"Look at the transportation options that we have now. We have buses on Crenshaw and we see other neighborhoods that are developing other types of transportation options," Ware added.

"To have a decision made that we will have light rail - that's so much faster and will have so much more of an economic impact - we need that too," he said.

The proposed line would run about 8.5 miles from the intersection of Exposition and Crenshaw boulevards, down Crenshaw, southwest through Inglewood and south to a stop near the airport and a connection with the Green Line.

About 2.5 miles of the project is proposed as a subway, including a section that would run underneath Leimert Park, said Metro's project manager Roderick Diaz.

The recommendation from Metro staff must still be approved by the planning and programming committee and then by Metro's board of directors.

Dan Rosenfeld, a senior deputy for L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, said the project could create some 7,800 jobs and that groundbreaking could begin as early as 2012 if funding can be secured.

^^^^Good! Awesome, that's great news. :cheers:

Hopefully a more rational decision at the committee and board reviews.

One good thing: at least part of it is underground; unfortunately it is not in the narrow part of Crenshaw north of the 10, but at least its underground.

http://shametrainla.typepad.com/.a/6a00e393399ea788340120a54c7a62970b-pi

There had better be a huge, damned good looking switch on Wilshire at Western for victims going to the airport! Anyone have the interiors on that station?

Our MTA only covers LA County! Therefore it would be unfair to begin to pull in Orange County #'s or Riverside #'s to realistically prove true commute patterns within Los Angeles County.

I can be consistent, when I wanna. I'm not sure I want to travel back into City-Data land again and argue the attributes of The Hills/Gossip Girl - MSA/CSA world, but the reason local governments use Consolidated Metropolitan Statistics is because they want government money for interstate transportation projects when they affect urban areas. The 5, or even 6 county urban area is NEVER taken into account when tabulating traffic patterns for this area while New York has the states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and even Pennsylvania now while NO ONE DRIVES BETWEEN L. A. and Orange County or San Bernardino County or even Ventura County! It's always been silly and I've never been able to find an answer for it. I'm going to assume that local representation isn't strong enough to assert to Washington that our Metropolitan Area is actually that inclusive or connected! "Grease" is the word and the squeeky wheel gets it!

Got caught up in yet another lie.

I copied and pasted the same number twice. My mistake. It happens.

He's not taking into account the whole decade. It's like looking at just the projections for let's say 2006 where SF may have gained over San Jose for that one year and discounting the other 9 years where it was losing pop or not exceeding SJ's growth. Even more importantly (to win an argument) he is including the entire CSA which eventhough Riverside-San Bernadino was hit hard by the housing bust may not be entirely reflective of Los Angeles County. In other words, "Westy" is stroking the numbers to get himself off.

LOL, you're trying your damn hardest to find excuses for every little thing. You just can't accept things for what they are. You tickle me.

More mindless jabber from the jibber king.

More mindless retorts from the mindless retorts king. I'd have more respect for you if you'd at least cut out the personal attacks and present a decent argument.

Hey guys, here are two videos on YouTube that show a complete run-through of the Gold Line Eastside Extension from Union Station all the way to Atlantic. It's really cool, but it shows how the trains can go way too slow in some parts.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe5NVrTTW3U
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTpkCKmTYdQ&feature=related

^^:) It opens Sunday Nov 15th

Schwarzenneger chose the bullet train over intracity commuter rail upgrades. (1.1 Billion)Comments?

Schwarzenneger chose the bullet train over intracity commuter rail upgrades. (1.1 Billion)Comments?

It's not likely we would've gotten the money had it been for commuter rail upgrades. The money is for HSR, which means risking $1.1 billion since commuter rail is not high-speed. That money would've probably been lost to states such as Florida and the Midwest.

May I humbly suggest dividing this thread into more topic-based threads, such as the Gold Line, The Purple Line, Highway Improvements etc.? Some of these threads exist, but in an ad-hoc and disorganized manner. Perhaps the moderator could start these to promote uniformity and clarity. This thread, as it is, is too unwieldy and bogged down in disputes which neither enlighten nor entertain.

In the same spirit of creating some order.

We should make this thread the LACMTA, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportaion Authority. For the discussion of Metro rail, light rail, and buses. It should be a sticky.

Los Angeles MTA

Schwarzenegger quietly quashed effort to improve commuter rails
The governor ordered officials to seek federal money only for the proposed bullet train between San Francisco and San Diego. Rail advocates say the commuter line upgrades should take priority.

November 13, 2009

Reporting from Sacramento and Los Angeles - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger quietly spiked an effort last month to win $1.1 billion in federal high-speed rail stimulus funds for 29 projects to improve the safety, speed and capacity of heavily traveled commuter corridors through Southern California.

Instead, he ordered state officials to seek money for only one project -- the proposed bullet train between San Francisco and San Diego.

The governor's decision was intended to increase the state's chances of receiving high-speed rail money, officials said. California is competing with more than 40 applicants from 23 other states.

But the action has sparked debate among rail advocates about whether too high a priority is being placed on the high-speed train project at the expense of the second-busiest rail corridor in the nation, where budget-strapped commuter services have been trying to improve safety, add track and cut travel times from San Diego to Santa Barbara.

Eliminated from the state application for federal funds was almost $170 million for positive train control -- computer-guided braking systems designed to prevent collisions and allow conventional trains to safely travel at 110 mph. Such automated systems, which the federal government wants installed by 2015, would have prevented the Metrolink crash in Chatsworth last year that killed 25 people in the worst rail accident in modern California history.

Also removed was $969 million in railroad crossing improvements, track additions, overpasses and a variety of maintenance projects designed to benefit the busy corridor between San Diego and Los Angeles as well as the main rail line through Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. The routes are used by Amtrak, the Coaster, Metrolink and major freight lines such as Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe.

One major goal of commuter rail services has been to reduce the travel time between San Diego and Los Angeles from about three hours to two hours.

"I am not happy about it," said Art Brown, chairman of the government authority that oversees the Los Angeles-San Diego corridor. "There were lots of projects in the application to improve intracity rail service. The system will remain a slow-speed service, and safety has been one of our big concerns."

The California Department of Transportation's rail division, which had worked with transportation agencies in Southern California to prepare the application, was ready to submit the paperwork to Washington by the Oct. 2 deadline.

But Schwarzenegger quashed the request and told state officials to only seek $4.7 billion in federal rail stimulus funds for the high-speed train project to bolster its chances of getting funding.

Under the federal economic stimulus plan, about $8 billion is available for high-speed train projects, which can include conventional rail improvements to increase train speeds. The federal Department of Transportation is expected to decide which projects to fund by January.

Planners say the high-speed network would ultimately cost at least $45 billion and stretch nearly 800 miles from San Diego to San Francisco, with a branch running to Sacramento. Trains would exceed 200 mph on some stretches, prompting officials to say that a trip between Los Angeles and San Francisco could take as little as two hours and 38 minutes.

In the days after learning that Caltrans was pressing ahead with its request to seek money for local projects, members of the California High Speed Rail Authority pushed the governor to keep the focus on winning funding for the bullet train.

Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, chairman of the authority's board, talked with the governor by phone. The effort was aided by David Crane, a gubernatorial advisor who also is a high-speed rail board member.

Pringle said that state applications for federal money already ask for more than $1 billion for conventional rail projects -- money that would come from a different pool of economic stimulus funds. About a third of the request -- $390 million -- is for rail corridors in Southern California, state records show.

"California is in the lead position to receive high-speed rail funding," Pringle said in a recent interview. "We should not be competing with ourselves."

Pringle and Crane found a ready audience in Schwarzenegger, who is a big backer of the state's push to be first in the nation with a 200-mph train line, a project that could create up to 130,000 jobs.

"The governor's goal was to submit the most highly competitive application possible to ensure that California receives as much funding as possible," said Camille Anderson, a Schwarzenegger spokeswoman. "California's competitive edge is without question high-speed rail."

Critics say the corridor between San Diego and Santa Barbara was denied an unprecedented opportunity to fund a variety of long-awaited projects in order to favor what they view as a flawed high-speed rail proposal that is surrounded by uncertainty, duplicates some existing service and is decades from completion.

They say the bullet-train project is years from breaking ground and that important conventional rail improvements would be delayed because they wouldn't get enough funding from other federal or state sources.

The governor "took shovel-ready projects and put them aside, " said Rich Tolmach, president of the California Rail Foundation. "Hundreds of millions of dollars were thrown away. Now these rail projects will not get their fair share of federal stimulus money."

Tolmach and other critics said the Caltrans rail division and other transportation agencies would try to seek alternate funding, but those sources are not as large as the federal funds allocated for high-speed rail, and the state has little money because of an unprecedented and ongoing budget shortfall.

"We may never get this money now," said Jim Mills, a former state senator who helped to create commuter rail service between San Diego and Los Angeles. "The lives of rail travelers will be jeopardized by this. One of the major items requested was positive train control, which can prevent the kind of accidents that have occurred on Metrolink."

However, Richard Katz, a former assemblyman who sits on the Metrolink, high-speed rail and Metropolitan Transportation Authority boards, was more optimistic that conventional rail projects, such as positive train control, would not be jeopardized by the governor's concentration on high-speed rail.

For example, Katz said, Metrolink, which serves six counties, needs roughly $200 million to $210 million to install positive train control by 2012.

About $70 million has been requested from other federal sources, and efforts are underway to try to redirect $97 million from state transportation bonds that are earmarked to rebuild the Colton railroad crossing.

If positive train control cannot get enough federal or state funding, Katz said he believes the MTA would lend Metrolink the money.

"We are still in good shape overall," Katz said. "We're applying for everything we can get our hands on. I think we will do well in all our funding requests."

I don't know how to feel about that. Hmm, cause I want the HSR also.

As I said, commuter rail improvements probably wouldn't have been awarded stimulus funds because it's not for high-speed rail. That's sort of the point of the stimulus funds, to build HSR.

WHICH IS THE BEST WAY WEST FOR L. A. SUBWAY http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-mad-smileys-286.gif (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/Free-Animal-Smileys/)
. http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/jamescaan3333-1.jpg JAMESCAAN/FLICKR . Wilshire or West Hollywood? As a subway extension draws closer to reality the debate over the route intensifies. . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/markbosterlat.jpg Commuters wait for connecting trains at the rail station near the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue in Los Angeles. The Wilshire Corridor is one of the busiest in the nation .
Building a subway through the Westside has been the Holy Grail of transportation planners for decades, and many feel they are closer to tunneling than ever before.

Backers envision subway cars packed with shoppers balancing Prada and Barneys bags after Beverly Hills shopping excursions and surfers with their boards tucked under their arms heading for the morning waves, as well as workers.

But now, as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has pushed to fast-track the long-delayed Westside subway extension, there is debate about whether the route for the roughly $5-billion project gets the most bang for the buck.

It's a familiar problem in Los Angeles, a city developed for the automobile whose sprawl makes it difficult for rail lines to cover enough ground to make commuting simple.

The first leg of the Westside extension would spur west from the existing Purple Line along Wilshire Boulevard from Western Avenue to Fairfax Avenue. Wilshire is L.A.'s legendary roadway, lined with office towers, shops and restaurants. The route would go through the Miracle Mile shopping district and stop at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, which has lobbied heavily for the line.

From there, future phases would take the Purple Line through Beverly Hills, Century City and Westwood.

That route, however, bypasses some key Westside shopping and business areas in Hollywood and West Hollywood, including Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the Beverly Center and the Pacific Design Center.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is considering an extension route that would cover those areas, but it probably would not be built until after the Wilshire link is done.

The mayor wants the entire Purple Line extension to Westwood completed in the next 10 years, a tall order for a project that has been discussed for nearly four decades and still needs funding.

Current plans have the subway reaching Westwood by 2036, using a mix of revenue from an L.A. County transportation sales tax and federal funding that the MTA is seeking but has not yet received.

"We really determined that Wilshire would have to come first. You're trying to hook up the Purple Line with Beverly Hills, Century City and Westwood, where the big ridership would be," said David Mieger, MTA's project manager for the subway.

"The heaviest-used bus lines, the heaviest-congestion corridors, are north and south of Wilshire Boulevard."

The MTA unveiled the West Hollywood extension to great enthusiasm from community groups. The leg would run as an extension from the Red Line in Hollywood through parts of Hollywood and West Hollywood and would connect with the proposed extension of the Purple Line near the intersection of Wilshire and La Cienega boulevards. The Purple Line would then go west along Wilshire to Westwood.

The Purple Line extension to Westwood would generate an estimated 49,000 daily boardings at the new stations and a total of 76,000 new daily boardings throughout the system, according to early studies from the MTA that are being updated. Ridership would increase by 17,900 at new stations if the West Hollywood link is built, according to MTA numbers.

That compares to an average of 78,955 weekday riders on the Long Beach-to-downtown L.A. Blue Line, 149,597 on the downtown-to-North Hollywood Red Line, 38,619 on the Norwalk-to-Redondo Beach Green Line and 22,476 on the downtown-to-Pasadena Gold Line, according to the most current ridership counts from the MTA.

The dilemma is a familiar one for transportation planners, who have struggled to build light-rail routes to capture the most riders possible.

This is difficult because Los Angeles is so spread out and designed for the car, not rail lines.

L.A. has far fewer rail lines than New York, Chicago and other large cities, so passengers often must transfer to buses to complete their trips.

Con Howe, the former director of planning for the city of Los Angeles and now managing director of the CityView Los Angeles Fund, pointed to one example: the MTA's decision not to build the Green Line into Los Angeles International Airport, meaning that people who want to take public transportation to the airport have to take a shuttle to the passenger terminal.

"Unlike New York City, you're never going to have 100 years of subway construction in the city," he said.
. Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, chairwoman of UCLA's Department of Urban Planning, said the West Hollywood alignment is important because the idea of transit is to go to "where you have major concentrations of jobs and people."

"There is a trade-off: It would cost considerably more money. It's all about how much money is available," she said.

Loukaitou-Sideris said that Angelenos are not tapped into a pedestrian culture and that most people are reluctant to walk more than a quarter-mile to a destination.

If that holds true, many who would take the Wilshire subway would need transit to places such as Cedars-Sinai, the Beverly Center and the Westside Pavilion.

Some commuters said they were excited about the Wilshire extension but added that a route through West Hollywood made more sense to them.

Last week, Sharon Richards stepped off the subway at the end of the line and made her way to the Metro Rapid bus that runs along Wilshire Boulevard -- the fourth part of her roughly two-hour commute to work in West Hollywood.

"Oooooh, it's gonna be packed," she said as the 720 Rapid approached. "Feel like a sardine."

Richards, 61, has been commuting from Upland to her job as a manager at Cedars-Sinai for more than two decades.

She wakes before dawn, drives to a park-and-ride and catches a bus in Montclair just after 5 a.m., arrives at Union Station where she takes the Purple Line to its last stop, takes the Wilshire bus to La Cienega Boulevard and then hoofs for it the last stretch, a little more than half a mile, to her desk.

"I'm late," Richards muttered as she rushed off the 720.

She said a direct stop near the Beverly Center and Cedars-Sinai would help her and other employees commute.

Jeanne Flores, senior vice president in charge of human resources at Cedars-Sinai, said that fewer than 10% of the 11,000 employees at the medical center use public transportation to get to work.

"The public transportation systems just are not adequate to support our location and the hours that people work," Flores said. "People resign because they just can't do the commute anymore."

Supporters of the Wilshire corridor say it is the simplest and most logical route to take and would be heavily used. They don't deny that a route through West Hollywood would be beneficial, but they note the huge population, cultural and employment centers along the Wilshire route and say that places like Cedars-Sinai and the Beverly Center will be close to future stops along that alignment.

"There's absolutely no question that it should go straight out Wilshire," said Los Angeles City Councilman Tom LaBonge, whose district is included in the first phase of the subway.

"At the same time, the concept of coming off the Hollywood line is absolutely necessary as well, because that is the de facto Beverly Hills freeway."

LaBonge is referring to the ill-fated freeway that the California Department of Transportation wanted to build along Santa Monica Boulevard from north of downtown to West Los Angeles.

Residents strongly opposed the freeway, and the plan was eventually killed. But that decision is considered one factor in the Westside's notoriously congested traffic.

The Beverly Hills freeway could have run through West Hollywood, where the Mayor Pro Tem, John Heilman, now strongly supports a subway.

Heilman said the West Hollywood route make sense because it would provide a rail alternative for north-south commuters who live in the Valley but work on the Westside.

"No one disputes that Wilshire needs to be served, but a lot of the traffic that is going westbound is coming over from the Valley" and through West Hollywood, he said.

The MTA's directors will make a final decision on the Westside subway alignment next year.

Officials said it's possible that the West Hollywood route could be built after the Purple Line gets to Westwood -- if it ever gets that far. But then, it would probably compete for money with a plan to build the Purple Line extension through Santa Monica.
ari.bloomekatz@latimes.com . ARI BLOOMEKATZ LATIMES

^ My mish-mash set of comments...

1) What the phuck is with the endless stream of dumbassery? First it was wanting Foothill to be a top priority; now it's West Hollywood over Wilshire? Come phucking on!
2) WHAT THE PHUCK is with MTA's endless stream of conservative ridership projections? The Westside Subway having the same ridership as the Blue Line? COME PHUCKING ON!
3) Why doesn't Sharon Richards take Metrolink instead? There's a station in Upland! HELLO!
4) THANK GOD the Beverly Hills Freeway was killed! Just imagine if they hadn't canceled it. YIKES!

Maybe I'm not reading well but there doesnt seem to be much of a point here. Is he saying anything besided Purple is really imortant and Pink almost as important? That doesn't strike me as a debate, just an opinion which is very probably true.

Let's pretend we live in China and build both at the same time and finish them in 8 years!

^^ Agreed! In fact, let's build all of the rail lines planned across LA now!

A fun little video from yesterday. Who knew there could be such fanfare over a glorified streetcar? And even though Gloria Molina won't shut up, I understand how she feels about losing out on the subway.

yu_kLaNZvvQ

A fun little video from yesterday. Who knew there could be such fanfare over a glorified streetcar? And even though Gloria Molina won't shut up, I understand how she feels about losing out on the subway.

That glorified streetcar with the underground segments that doesn't share traffic lanes?

It would and will go faster, but from what I hear there are a lot of politics involved.

^ Hence why I used the term "glorified" to describe it. ;)

^ Hence why I used the term "glorified" to describe it. ;)

If that's the case, then you can call anything a glorified streetcar. Heck, even a subway is a glorified streetcar.

^ LMAO, stop being evasive and trying to act like you don't know what I'm talking about. :|

I'm entitled to my opinion; my opinion is that this is a glorified streetcar. You don't have to agree with it, and you shouldn't. :cool:

You're right, I shouldn't agree with it because it makes no sense. If you have a problem with speed, I'm with you on that. However, a streetcar would absolutely be limited by this current speed. The Eastside Extension can and should go much faster than this. It probably could too if that section over the 101 was done by a machine instead of a driver (you could program it to balance the qualms about wear and tear and qualms about speed).

Also, I've heard that the street running sections are currently going about 20-25 mph, when the speed limit is supposed to be 35 mph. I think we'll see more fencing around the track in the months/years to come.

^ LOL, glorify it even more by adding additional fencing! At the end of the day, though, it's still a streetcar. And even with the safety upgrades, Molina will still be yearning for the HRT extension that could have been. Speaking of which, I wonder if and when Gloria Molina will start championing a subway along Whittier. The remaining two options for Eastside II don't preclude it at all.

^^So what we should just abandon it already? We can and should make it faster. Fencing will allow it to go faster.

^ I was being satirical.

Either way, this glorified streetcar doesn't adequately meet the transit needs of East LA, rendering an HRT extension possible. That's the only silver lining I can think of.

It would be a lot cheaper to improve our current infrastructure.

^ What more can be done beyond the planned safety upgrades?

Oh pleeeze! Just get The Mayor on television and have him tell the little kiddies of the city.. "Listen up, little kiddies! These things ain't stoppin'.. so if you get hit- consider yourself a hero who took one for progress!" Thin the herd. :) Nice vid by the way, West :)

^ What more can be done beyond the planned safety upgrades?

Do you know that gates aren't allowed in median-running sections?

AN EXTENSION OF MORE THAN THE GOLD LINE ...
Sunday's opening of eight new Metro stations on a path from downtown to East L.A. lays down tracks toward an exciting future.
. http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/4106597379_997a7eb786_b.jpgTRANSITPEOPLE/FLICKR . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/50454705.jpg AL SEIB/LATIMES The Gold Line extension's opening gives the feeling that things are looking up for mass transit in L.A. Here's a look back up toward the street from the underground track at one of the two new subterranean stops. . It would be tough to overstate the level of cynicism that exists in certain corners of the Los Angeles establishment about the future of mass transit in Southern California. For many power brokers and longtime observers of the political scene, disparaging the chances of the region ever putting together a comprehensive transit system is some combination of rhetorical tic and parlor game.

In fact, the progress we've already made on a subway and light-rail network -- full of delays and misjudgments as it has been -- is remaking the physical and psychological terrain of Los Angeles in some profound ways. As more neighborhoods and landmarks are brought into transit's orbit, their relationship to the rest of the city and region shifts, giving us a powerful means of seeing the built environment with fresh eyes.

From that point of view, the opening on Sunday of the eight new Metropolitan Transportation Authority stations that make up the Gold Line extension -- six above ground and two below, reaching south and then east from Union Station into Little Tokyo, Boyle Heights and East Los Angeles -- is among the most significant civic milestones the city has reached in several years.
. http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/bigbend70043.jpg BIGBEND700/FLICKR . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/50454735.jpg AL SEIB/LATIMES . Design effects

The design of the new stops, overseen by architect Frank Villalobos and the firm AECOM, is in general more refined than the first stretch of the Gold Line, which opened in 2003 and in some stations delivers commuters directly into a narrow corridor squeezed between howling lanes of the 210 Freeway. But none is world-beating or likely to become a landmark in its own right.

A few show the pitfalls of earnestness, not to mention the deadening effect of endless design-review meetings at the bureaucratic and neighborhood level. (Does every station need to be a consensus-tested expression of community pride? I confess I'm not convinced.)

Among the above-ground stops in particular, less is definitely more: The stations that work best tend to be the ones that promote a fluid, easy connection between sidewalk and platform.
. http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/bigbend7006554.jpg BIGBEND700/FLICKR .
The real significance of the stations' debut on Sunday flows, instead, from the fact that with every substantial extension of the rail and subway network -- and this is a major one, with a price tag of $898 million, a large chunk of it to pay for 1.8 miles of underground tunneling -- another piece of the future Los Angeles comes startlingly into focus. More transit means more pedestrians, more people who pay attention to the shape and design of the city up close. That, in turn, means a growing constituency for shared space in Los Angeles and new interest in our long-neglected streetscapes and public sphere.

To put it another way: Transit and the life of the street are inextricably intertwined, and a boost to one is almost always a boost to the other.

At the same time, as trains trace new paths across the city, some of the divisions that for generations have made Los Angeles a balkanized collection of neighborhoods may begin to wobble or fall away.
. http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/transitpeople87968578.jpg TRANSITPEOPLE/FLICKR . That's not to say that some homogenization of L.A.'s various parts is on its way or should be our goal. Quite the opposite: New transit lines tend to throw the vibrant differences among neighborhoods into high relief.

Connecting a city

And yet they also promote a new sense of connectivity and fluidity in how we put the city and region together in our minds. In this case, by extending the Gold Line a mere six miles, Metro has woven new urban connections among downtown, Little Tokyo, the banks of the L.A. River, Boyle Heights and East Los Angeles.
. http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/3843950326_7bd308c852_b.jpg BIGBEND700/FLICKR .
The arts district has a different, arguably closer relationship with Little Tokyo. Commuters will better understand, simply by seeing this landscape out the train window, how improvements to Boyle Heights relate to plans to remake the banks of the river.
. http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/transitpeople66678.jpg TRANSITPEOPLE/FLICKR . A similar batch of interrelationships will be forged each time Metro expands further: as the Expo Line moves south and west into Culver City and then Santa Monica, and as the Gold Line's Foothill Extension stretches east through the San Gabriel Valley. The fact that the underground section of the Gold Line was built without incident or cost overruns may help tamp down lingering doubts about the logistics of building the Subway to the Sea extension west along Wilshire Boulevard.

After Villalobos and AECOM handled the preliminary architecture of the new stations, each one was then handed off for final design to a separate architect-artist team. The standout designs are the two at the eastern end of the extension.
.
The Atlantic Station, by AECOM architects Todd Osborne and Russell McCarley and the artist group Adobe L.A., pairs a series of sail-like canopies with colored-cement benches and a lacquered, floridly painted robot sculpture at its western entrance.

The East L.A. Civic Center station, by Villalobos with artist Clement Hanami, suggests a row of blooming poppies and adds a burst of bright color to its stretch of 3rd Street.
. http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/4106127613_35f4b92ce0_b-1.jpg TRANSITPEOPLE/FLICKR
Each of the two underground stations, meanwhile -- the cerulean-blue Soto Station by architect Aziz Kohan and artist Nobuho Nagasawa, and Mariachi Plaza Station by architect William Villalobos and artist Alejandro de la Loza -- is a tri-level design that adds a sizable new public plaza at street level. The visible coordination between art, architecture and signage at the stations -- and even the perforated-metal bicycle lockers built at or near a number of the them -- is a direct result of Metro's decision several years ago to create its own design studio, which now has a staff of more than 20.

Economic force

The Gold Line extension has also produced a number of important urban ripple effects. Several transit-oriented commercial and residential developments, including some planned for land owned by Metro immediately adjacent to the new stations, remain stalled by the poor economy; but other important changes to the route served by the train have already been completed or are underway, including the repaving of 3rd Street, the widening of the First Street Bridge and the construction of a pair of public high schools.

The extension has also managed to reawaken the potential of the Museum of Contemporary Art's Geffen Contemporary building. Still among the most underrated art-world designs of Frank Gehry's career, the warehouse building has been closed for 10 months as the museum struggled with financial woes.

But now, as the Geffen reopens in time to hold one segment of a major new exhibition of MoCA's permanent collection, it does so with a new Metro stop directly across Alameda Street -- and to find itself as central, if not more so, to the cultural and geographical makeup of Los Angeles than the main MoCA building on Grand Avenue.

Sightseeing tour

In the broadest sense, particularly because most of the new route is above ground, the Gold Line extension provides a number of ways to consider anew the city's architecture.

Along with the Geffen and City Hall, the buildings visible from the train include Rafael Moneo's Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels; Coop Himmelblau's Central High School No. 9; Gilbert Stanley Underwood's twin-domed Terminal Annex Post Office; Dodger Stadium; Thom Mayne and Morphosis' Caltrans District 7 Headquarters; and along First and Third streets a horizontal panorama of vernacular architecture including pink-stucco bungalows, car-detailing shops, taco stands and signs for Jewish, Serbian, Catholic and Chinese cemeteries. .
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/4106891388_de12c75ebf_b-1.jpg TRANSITPEOPLE/FLICKR .
Perhaps the most dramatic architectural views are the changing vistas of the downtown skyline that come into view as you move west on the new route from Boyle Heights and across the river and then as the train navigates a tight S-curve over the Hollywood Freeway and its dense field of red brake lights.
. http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/4106890546_19f4c109e4_b.jpg TRANSITPEOPLE/FLICKR . Many of those same views have long been available by car or bus or on foot, of course. But there is something more memorable -- more liberating, even -- about seeing them from a train running along dedicated tracks, floating free of capricious traffic.
christopher.hawthorne@latimes.com CHRISTOPHER HAWTHORNE LATIMES

Happy day!

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/top_render.jpg . 23RD and Flower - PHASE I http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/DSC_096720hirez20copyrighted.jpg . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/DSC_068420hirez20expo20copyright202.jpg . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/expo665.jpg . EXPO

NOVEMBER 2009 . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/4103767436_a5d07a4442_o-3.jpg . ERIC RICHARDSON

NOVEMBER 2009 . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/4103767436_a5d07a4442_o-3.jpg . ERIC RICHARDSON

Nice Milqy! Great article and pics by Christopher Hawthorne. Makes me wanna get on those Breda trains and just explore! Those new stations look beautiful. Can't wait for the Expo Line to get completed!! Very excited for the future of transit in our city. :banana::banana::banana::banana:

I've driven the routes of the Expo, Phase 1 and Gold Line Extension looking for safety issues and they haven't exactly jumped out at me (admitedly, I'm not an expert). Yet the politicians and blogs today are full of concerns about safety.

Does anyone realize that people walk along roads all the time without fences and are not constantly jumping onto the road and getting run over? There are accidents, of course, in fact, lots of them. But that's sort of my point: whether cars or rail, there will be some accidents. And on transit, the effects of alcohol or other drugs is greatly minimized, since at least you won't be driving.

I guess the politicians have to talk about safety so they can jump on the "good guy" side when someone walks onto the tracks without looking or listening. But enough already.

HOw much of the expo line is going to be grade seperated?

WHAT THE PHUCK is with MTA's endless stream of conservative ridership projections? The Westside Subway having the same ridership as the Blue Line? COME PHUCKING ON!

The Conservative Ridership figures are less likely to get kicked back by the feds which will delay the much needed grant money to build the infrastructure. If they are overly optimistic, the FTA will kick it back and have them redo them, wasting valuable time, energy and $$$.

On what part of the leg of the Expo Line is that trench?

They're going to be done this summer? Like in 7-8 months?

^ Huh?

Not much of the Expo Phase 1 is grade seperated, the trench under Fig, the bridges over La Brea and La Cienega and I think others west of la Cienega.

The Conservative Ridership figures are less likely to get kicked back by the feds which will delay the much needed grant money to build the infrastructure. If they are overly optimistic, the FTA will kick it back and have them redo them, wasting valuable time, energy and $$$.

How about figures that are neither overly optimistic nor overly conservative?

Not much of the Expo Phase 1 is grade seperated, the trench under Fig, the bridges over La Brea and La Cienega and I think others west of la Cienega.

Spank you very much, that was my question. Where on the route is that trench :)
So Figueroa huh, nice.

^^ My equipment says the trench in the picture is located on Flower just south of 23rd. The concrete corridor seems to have its own path over the 110 and continues south to Exposition Park, even though the train is scheduled to turn west before then.

How about figures that are neither overly optimistic nor overly conservative?

Good Luck on that.

^^ My equipment says the trench in the picture is located on Flower just south of 23rd. The concrete corridor seems to have its own path over the 110 and continues south to Exposition Park, even though the train is scheduled to turn west before then.

I wish I had equipment like yours...

I wish I had equipment like yours...
Man, I if had a nickle for every time I've heard that....

^ ....then you'd have a nickel.

;)

I guess this qualifies as an "infrastructure" discussion.

On what part of the leg of the Expo Line is that trench?

the only trench I know of is near USC, under Figueroa & Exposition

oh wait, that was already stated. doh. *needs to check for last page of topics more often*

Get back out there and check again

it is hard to observe these things from Mars.

although really, only part i know a lot about is La Cienega & Jefferson, since that will be the station closest to my work.

That's quite the commute

We haven't had a photo update on the construction progress of the Expo Line in a while. Here's a lengthy update from The Transit Coalition:

It's been quite a while since the last time we visited the Expo Line, and we were at dark regarding the progress as a result. But the nice thing about the break was that it was so shocking to see all the progress at once. It is exhilarating to see the Expo Line come back to life after so many years. Our hard efforts are now paying off. This will be a great line, bringing back and important part of LA history.

We start at the Venice/Robertson Station. A lot of steel cages and cranes are in this area. The foundations and supports will be done soon here but the falsework and bridge construction won't start until next summer because the new contractor (not FFP) won't be hired until April:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1135.jpg

Next is a funky looking support at Wesley St by National Blvd (south of Washington):

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1136.jpg

Two more supports are lined there:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1137.jpg

Just east of Ballona Creek are two supports. On the west side of Ballona Creek, they had to remove one of the supports because they realized that they drilled through the tie-back of the existing bridge. The tie-back and support will be redesigned and rebuilt in the future. So, the Ballona Creek LRT bridge will be delayed for a few months now:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1138.jpg

This is the arched La Brea bridge, looking north:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1139.jpg

La Brea bridge and ramp looking west:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1140.jpg

Crenshaw Blvd rail crossing:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1141.jpg

And this is what we all have been waiting for. Rail tracks have now been installed on the ballast. The railroad right-of-way is finally looking like a railroad again. It's amazing how fast the track installation is. They have laid 0.6 miles of track in only one week. No wonder it took only a few years for Henry E. Huntington to build railroads everywhere in LA. If you don't have utility relocation, environmental work, and grade separation, track installation is a breeze. This is at 11th Ave looking west to Crenshaw Blvd:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1142.jpg

You can see the concrete ties on the eastbound tracks and the wooden ties for the crossovers on the westbound track:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1143.jpg

Crossover with wooden ties looking east at 11th Ave:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1144.jpg

Close-up:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1145.jpg

Looking west at Crenshaw. Rail is not straight yet. I guess it's the job of the big yellow machine (a rail grinder?) to align the rail perfectly straight:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1146.jpg

115 (pounds per yard) and 2008 is stamped on the rails:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1147.jpg

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1145_cropped_2.jpg

Another shot looking west near 11th Ave:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1148.jpg

7th Ave looking west:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1149.jpg

7th Ave looking west close-up:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1150.jpg

They are laying black landscape cloth on the subballast to retard weed growth. Then they lay ballast (coarse gravel) and put the ties and tracks on top of that, before they cover the ties with ballast. This is near Normandie:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1151.jpg

A traction-power substation just west of Vermont Ave:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-11-18/IMG_1152.jpg

We are looking forward to riding this line to as far as La Cienega Blvd in November 2010.

Anybody know why they use wooden ties for crossovers?

Cushions better the mecanics ?

It's probably easier to manipulate and make specific for the position on the crossover.

Ties and other load bearing units should remain consistant materially.

Okay, so here are the presentations from the latest rounds of meetings (I already posted the Harbor Subdivision presentations -- they can be found on page 231)...

Crenshaw Corridor
http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/crenshaw/default.htm
http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/crenshaw/default.htm (LPA recommendation)

Gold Line Eastside Extension II
http://metro.net/projects_studies/eastside_phase2/images/eastside-phase2-project-update-community-open-house.pdf

Westside Subway Extension
http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/Station-Info-Mtg-Presentation.pdf

Regional Connector
http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/connector/default.htm

Purple Line: stations at CC, Wilshire/Gayley, VA, Bundy, 26th: seems like a lot of stations in a small area. I assume that the VA station is going to have some inter-modal connection and parking? Room for a 405 Line station?

^ Everybody should take a look at the presentation for the Westside Subway Extension. Please send your comments to the MTA here (http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/contact_us.htm). TELL THEM TO RECONSIDER A STATION AT WILSHIRE/BARRINGTON! THEY CHOSE A STATION AT WILSHIRE/VA HOSPITAL INSTEAD! WILSHIRE/VA HOSPITAL COMPLETELY BYPASSES THE HIGH DENSITY AND OFFICE BUILDINGS OF WEST LA! WILSHIRE/VA HOSPITAL WOULD BE A SUBURBAN PARK-AND-RIDE STATION; BARRINGTON WOULD BE A TRUE URBAN STATION! ALSO, REMEMBER THAT MEASURE R DOES NOT CONTAIN FUNDING FOR THE SUBWAY TO GO ALL THE WAY TO BUNDY, WHICH MEANS THAT THERE WOULD BE NO STATION SERVING THE HIGH DENSITY OF BRENTWOOD IF WE WERE TO GO WITH THE VA HOSPITAL LOCATION! I KNOW THIS IS ANNOYING AS HELL, BUT IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THIS RIGHT AND NOT F*CK IT UP! IF YOU CARE ABOUT CREATING AN ACCESSIBLE, URBAN STATION THEN YOU WILL FLOOD THE MTA WITH COMMENT FORMS AND/OR EMAILS STATING THAT THE STATION MUST BE AT WILSHIRE/BARRINGTON, NOT WILSHIRE/VA HOSPITAL!!!!!!!!!!!

My post at SSP:

Okay, so I just sent an annoying and poorly written mass PM to 38 (yes, 38 forumers) of you encouraging that you all send in your comments to the MTA regarding the placement of the station immediately west of the 405. If you did not get a PM and/or if you're not familiar with what's being discussed, I'll try to bring you up to speed. Back in August (when the last set of public meetings were held), the MTA had narrowed the terminus MOS 3 station (the station immediately west of the 405 Freeway) to two locations -- Wilshire/Barrington and Wilshire/VA Hospital. Well, as of the most recent round of meetings, the Wilshire/Barrington option has been axed in favor of a station at Wilshire/VA Hospital. If you're familiar with these two locations, you'll know that Metro made an absolutely horrible decision. If you're not familiar with these two locations, then let me direct you to these links...

Wilshire/Barrington
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=pp7drj53vf3q&scene=6971696&lvl=1&sty=b

Wilshire/VA Hospital
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=pp84qj53vvd7&scene=32854367&lvl=1&sty=b&where1=Los%20Angeles%2C%20CA

I think those aerial shots speak for themselves. Perhaps those two visuals can persuade all 38 of you (and those who are reading this post) to just take a minute or two to contact the MTA (http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/contact_us.htm) and let them know that they made a huge mistake by selecting a station at VA Hospital over Barrington. The subway only has enough Measure R funding to go one station west of the 405, so it's either a Barrington or VA Hospital station serving Brentwood (which one does a better job? -- don't answer that). The Bundy station does not have funding and it will come much later down the road. And it too bypasses the bulk of the density and activity, so Brentwood would not be adequately served by the subway.

Never Wait for a DASH Bus Again
Department of Transportation Introduces New Vehicle Tracking System
by Anna Scott, Staff Writer
Published: Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:22 PM PST
Los Angeles Downtown News

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES – The Los Angeles Department of Transportation has launched a new system that allows passengers to obtain real-time schedule and route information on Downtown DASH buses. The program, said LADOT Head of Transit Operations Corinne Ralph, aims to cut down on the problem of “bunching,” which happens when several buses arrive at a stop at once, followed by a long lag time before the next bus.

“We have tried various things over the years including adding staff and checks to make sure the buses were spaced out,” said Ralph. “We are already getting feedback from the public indicating that this is a very useful addition.”

Downtown DASH riders can access bus arrival times in one of three ways: by looking online at dtdash.com; by calling (213) 785-3858 and, when prompted, inputting the bus stop number on the bus stop pole; or texting “dtdash ####” to 41411 (with #### standing for the stop number). Meanwhile, Ralph said, bus contractors and LADOT officials will have access to the same information to track vehicles and identify problem areas.

I have a question just now about the Gold Line Eastside Extension II. For the SR-60 LRT option, how is it planned to be at-grade or "retained fill" through the western area of Whittier Narrows? The Rio Hondo river would be flowing right through that path. Currently the 60 has a bridge over the Rio Hondo. Sorry if this is dumb question, I am no civil engineer.

^ Everybody should take a look at the presentation for the Westside Subway Extension. Please send your comments to the MTA here (http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/contact_us.htm). TELL THEM TO RECONSIDER A STATION AT WILSHIRE/BARRINGTON! THEY CHOSE A STATION AT WILSHIRE/VA HOSPITAL INSTEAD! WILSHIRE/VA HOSPITAL COMPLETELY BYPASSES THE HIGH DENSITY AND OFFICE BUILDINGS OF WEST LA! WILSHIRE/VA HOSPITAL WOULD BE A SUBURBAN PARK-AND-RIDE STATION; BARRINGTON WOULD BE A TRUE URBAN STATION! ALSO, REMEMBER THAT MEASURE R DOES NOT CONTAIN FUNDING FOR THE SUBWAY TO GO ALL THE WAY TO BUNDY, WHICH MEANS THAT THERE WOULD BE NO STATION SERVING THE HIGH DENSITY OF BRENTWOOD IF WE WERE TO GO WITH THE VA HOSPITAL LOCATION! I KNOW THIS IS ANNOYING AS HELL, BUT IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THIS RIGHT AND NOT F*CK IT UP! IF YOU CARE ABOUT CREATING AN ACCESSIBLE, URBAN STATION THEN YOU WILL FLOOD THE MTA WITH COMMENT FORMS AND/OR EMAILS STATING THAT THE STATION MUST BE AT WILSHIRE/BARRINGTON, NOT WILSHIRE/VA HOSPITAL!!!!!!!!!!!

why the hell wilshire/va hospital? don't they come up with potential ridership estimates to help them choose stations? :bash: (bashing MTA, not you)

The full Alternatives Analysis Study for the Harbor Subdivision...

Alternatives Analysis Study – November 2009 (http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/harbor_subdivision/alternatives_analysis_study.htm)

Given the nearness of the VA station to Gayley/Westwood, I can only assume that there is further transit development planned for the VA area. They mention a park-and-ride type facility but is there a plan for a larger station at some point, something that integrates the 405 transit solution with the Purple Line? If that is the idea, then the volume of car and human traffic there will be enormous, much more than Barrington could handle. Very large parking facilities would be required.

Or is there other large-scale development planned for the VA? If not, the decision to go there seems inexplicable.

I don't know, but it doesn't seem to make much sense to me to start something from the ground up when Brentwood is already probably dense enough itself to warrant rail.

Admitedly, Barrington is a fairly dense area and could easily be made more so. But if the theory is to put a HOV lane on the 405 and there may be rail down the middle at some time, you will want a WLA station that can accommodate many cars (presumably with electric vehicle recharging stations in most parking places) and can accommodate an inter-modal station (buses, LRT, Purple line, cars). I don't know if there is enough room at Barrington, or a convenient way of getting huge numbers of cars from the 405 over there.

The VA is sort of nowhere, but it is right on the 405. Of course, I know it's hard to build anything on VA property, but public works like transit may get an exception from the feds, especially if it is convenient for the vets and their families.

^ If a rail line is planned to run alongside the 405, then it defies any and all logic to have a park and ride station at the VA Hospital.