Ok so thinking somehow thoroughly about the most feasible way to substitute the all time climbing price tag of the LA subway, I came up with a basic solution exploited in Chicago, the elevated rail. Why? It's cheap and could offer a lot more stops than other methods of rail, no structures need to be razed, and it could be massively used throughout a lot of freeways, and why not, boulevards. Maybe this isn't a great idea after all, I am sure city officials and the MTA already know about this possibility and opted out of it, and maybe some forumers also, but at least it will create discussion. And yes Ferny, another transit thread!
I made a quick and decent demo using Paint, please do not judge me on it.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g189/FROMLOSANGELES/myidea2.jpg

I understand that this is a preliminary diagram but, how does one from the street level access the platform? It looks as if you'd have to do some significant freeway widening for small sections of the freeway at stations that alone may negate any cost advantage you may have.

Well freeways mostly are elevated across intersections so, idk if you've seen those pedestrian bridges from one side of the freeway to the other, but parallel to the street. And the freeway slob is not wide or scaled, it's just there to show there is a freeway.

Because NIMBYs would throw stones at anything that'll take away a piece of their view of the sky! :lol:

I was walking through Hollywood yesterday and crossed over the 101. Over to the left I noticed some stairs leading down to a shoulder on the freeway that was at one time thought to be a place (I guess) where people would simply wait for a bus (on the noisy freeway) and the express bus would come and pick them up and whisk them away just like a car. Um,,,,,,,,,,all of this has been talked about and even tried as stated above. It doesn't work! We've also found that freeways are some of the poorest conduits in attracting people to public transport. They don't interact with neighborhoods, yet they bore through them doing there job of getting people through your area as quickly as possible. For transit to be truly useful it will meet your area, not bore through but enhance your neighborhood and encourage development and a sense of community around it. Yes, it should be fast and efficient but never at the sake of also building around and within a community. This is where the bus or train on a freeway thing just doesn't work unless it's some sort of commuter train.

i think the freeways would have worked better if they were all sunken freeways when built (below ground level) like the 101 through downtown or the 10 between national blvd and santa monica beach.

this would have allowed us to build elevated transit along the median of the freeway and actually still kept it grade separate (also like certain areas of the green line).

on top of that (if needed) we could have put park caps along the entire length of our freeways or even pedestrian only shopping streets. streetcars would have worked too, even on top of the submerged freeway and trains

Rail just doesn't work in the middle of a freeway. It's near nothing, is not friendly to commuters (because of the extra walking in not so nice under/overpasses), and is very loud if you are waiting for a train. Building on our ROWs and centering development there (not parking structures) would seem to be our best option.

^It does if its commuter rail like BART.

Heres my solution, heavy rail, express trains, and gates.

I hate BART in middle of the freeway. There just had to be a better way.

It still works well......i guess........its just incredibly expensive and slow.

^It does if its commuter rail like BART.

Heres my solution, heavy rail, express trains, and gates.

Except that it doesn't mesh with the community at all. The closest station to Lafayette up there is in the middle of the freeway. If it was down on Mt. Diablo Blvd it would serve a really nice destination, but it doesn't. So the best way to get to the station and to Lafayette is by car. :nuts: Do you see the problem?

The problem is, people dont like elevated rail, nor do they like boarding a train in the middle of the freeway, and unloading from a train in the middle of a freeway. And theres often considerable walking from the freeeway to the real thick of things

Using the middle of freeways could be a good thing. I've seen it in Beijing. The important thing is, stops don't have to be located on the freeway. The train could join up with the freeway again and again. I've seen it..... in my mind :)

But it doesn't make any sense. There are no businesses along freeways. Freeways are just where you go when you're on your way to somewhere else. Why would I want a station there? No one wants to go to a freeway. Putting rail on or near boulevards is a much better option.

Imagine if in downtown we put all of our rail on top of or below the freeways instead of actually downtown. The same reason for not putting those stations on the freeway are why we should not put stations in freeways anywhere.

Well obviously you wouldnt do that downtown. Were not saying its a better option but in the suburbs of the BART system it becomes a park and ride regional connector with most stations in the middle of freeways and it still draws good numbers.

But imagine how many more people it would get if the stations could actually serve people who are going to the community and not to their cars. I'll use the Lafayette example again. By being on the freeway, if someone wanted to go to those restaurants to eat at one of those restaurants or go to one of those little shops, they are pretty much forced to drive. Having the station in the middle of the freeway surrounded by parking lots forces a lot of walking and does absolutely nothing to improve the surrounding neighborhood except for lessening traffic on the freeway. Having a station in the middle of the freeway also does not solve the problem of people using their car to run all of their errands. Putting stations in the middle of the town instead would encourage higher densities so that people could live closer to grocery stores and transit. Instead, Lafayette is still a very low-density town with a lot of auto traffic. It could be much nicer, but instead it is still littered with parking lots and no good way to get to the "downtown" besides driving.

Putting those train cars and stops right smack in the middle of the street would just increase traffic jams and reduce accessibility, especially in the "hardcore" suburbs.

Putting those train cars and stops right smack in the middle of the street would just increase traffic jams and reduce accessibility, especially in the "hardcore" suburbs.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by hardcore suburbs, maybe a place like Moreno Valley? Either way, there are many benefits to slowing down traffic and forcing people to find other options to get to work. If people can't drive, then they have to walk, and more walkable communities are what we should be seeking.

I assume you know the problems of suburban development, so I'll just list the major contributors: open roads, cheap parking, and communities that are pedestrian unfriendly (mostly via fast cars and suburban zoning). If we want our city to progress more, then we have to move away from the car and to more efficient forms of transportation. This means that we can't continue to cater to the car at the level that we do now.

Yes I meant places like that.
But how do we shift correctly from car pedestrian to more urban oriented transit?, smacking rail in an already congested boulevard will only add to the problem, and without proper advertisement, many people won't even be aware of the services a train line could bring, therefore not become users, at least that's how I see it.
I think the MTA should really step it up a notch on advertising the already existent rail lines, and start getting people familiar with the subway to the sea idea and other propositions.

With the limited budget that they have, I think that Metro has done a great job with advertising. Haven't you seen the billboards throughout the county and even some of the TV ads?

Also, I feel that the shift from suburban build-out planning to urban walkable communities planning is starting to get stronger. Many of our new developments are occurring downtown and near transit centers. But we still have many of our old habits that we need to break; we need to stop widening freeways and we need to get rid of our minimum parking requirements. It is happening, but I think that we need Metro and the city planning department to work together more. If we are going to change this city, then these two need to be synonymous.

"Smacking rail in an already congested boulevard" will add to the problem only if we don't rezone the surrounding area. If you slow down the car traffic on that boulevard by bringing rail and then plan for a more mixed-use medium density community around that station then you will begin to see real change. Of course, I don't think that we can ever entirely get rid of suburbia in the area, but if we want options besides going to work in traffic and living 50 miles away from our jobs then we need to start planning this city better. The only way we can do that is if rail goes where it needs to and we have appropriate density and job concentrations near our rail stations. But like I said in another thread, it seems like we need a court mandate to do anything like this: just look at the problems with the Universal City TOD project and the fits over the Expo Line to see that the only sensible way for our city to grow is being blocked by delusional people. I guess there really is a reason why this city has the nickname that I hate so much.

But this is not a uniquely LA problem in fact I think that LA is in a better position than its sunbelt bretheren because the area does have some very high density areas that will justify rail, so it's a very big myth that the entirety of the area is one of dispersment.

Along w/ the point that "phatt" brought up is that we are actually witnessing a metro area in some spots where rail is present(Pasadena, NOHO, Koreatown, DT Long Beach etc) move from its primary attention of car capacity and movement to walkable more pedestrian oriented environ. I think that it was a great idea early on by the designers of what is now our Metro Rail to not use freeways as conduits for our rail lines. Thank God we'd experimented already by trying to use busses in a similar manner and it failed badly. The Blue Line running along its own ROW to LB was a much better idea than the train running along the 110 like the very little used Harbor Freeway bus conduit. I can see commuter rail running along the freeway when stations are over 2-3 miles apart but it seems that BART is trying to be all things to everyone therefore the Bay Area's commuter rail and #'s suck.

The problem is of dispersement, but the rare combination including a higher than average suburban density at greater distances. The budgets they have will almost never be able to deal with this issue unless we get some real help from Washington, and we have yet to sell our situation to them. Any other major cities in this country that can say they have greater transit crisis?

But how do you make any case when Bush is out fighting his little wars?

[B][COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]Any other major cities in this country that can say they have greater transit crisis?[/LEFT]

Don't know but the MTA strike hurt pretty bad.

There's still money for highway construction is there not?

Besides, this country's budget problems have so much more to do that with just the war. It always annoys when people think that we would have a huge surplus if we weren't fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan.

^^ honestly the budget for transit would probably not change a cent whether our country was fighting or not.

Mass Transit doesn't work well on Freeways IMO. Look at the 10, 110, 105, and the 210.

There's still money for highway construction is there not?

Besides, this country's budget problems have so much more to do that with just the war. It always annoys when people think that we would have a huge surplus if we weren't fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan.

How could you think otherwise? (Mind you, these are year old figures...everyone knows the budget is higher this year than last.)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/17/business/0117-biz-webLEONHARDT.gif

the 200 billion would still be used for military purposes (and that estimate includes retirement). it can't be tapped into, just like it's illegal to take from the set budget for schools to use for infrastructure.

isn't our subway to the sea gonna cost 200 billion? :tongue3:

There's still money for highway construction is there not?

Besides, this country's budget problems have so much more to do that with just the war. It always annoys when people think that we would have a huge surplus if we weren't fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan.

3 trillion dollars more added to our infrastructure wouldn't hurt. Do you know anything about the lack of Federal response to Hurricane Katrina and why? Along with the "conservatives" in office who basically believe that mass transit is a precursor to some sort of socialist experiment and basically is just transportation welfare for folks who if they were truly the rugged individuals that inhabit our thoughts of the American dream would just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, take personal responsibility for themselves and go out and buy a car.

Is the total for the Sea Subway going to cost 200 billion? Come on.......

I can't wait til the previous generation dies. Like, the baby boomers and the republicans in office. I have this feeling that my generation and the ones after it are the ones that are totally gonna turn this fucking country around. The new goals aren't build, build, build, and expand some more anymore. It's time to start designing cities for the people who live within them! Make it safe and easy for everyone to get around, whether it's by walking, cycling, taking the bus, or driving. And greenery is of the utmost importance; people should be able to live, work, and play within a reasonable distance of their home. I imagine an LA in the not-too-distant future where one can go to work, go to the park, get a few groceries, and be able to go even further by trains, all within a 5-block-radius of their home.

C'mon with the future! :banana:

3 trillion dollars more added to our infrastructure wouldn't hurt. Do you know anything about the lack of Federal response to Hurricane Katrina and why? Along with the "conservatives" in office who basically believe that mass transit is a precursor to some sort of socialist experiment and basically is just transportation welfare for folks who if they were truly the rugged individuals that inhabit our thoughts of the American dream would just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, take personal responsibility for themselves and go out and buy a car.

I'm with you that the federal government's hesitation to fund transit is simply asinine, but don't let some Bush hatred obscure the truth. The money we're spending in Iraq would not all go to infrastructure. Have you seen what our national debt is? The money from Iraq would just go to repaying our debt, but it wouldn't even be close to eliminating that debt. The problem is so much bigger than just the war. Irresponsible spending is killing us.

Is the total for the Sea Subway going to cost 200 billion? Come on.......

:lol: c'mon... i've read about this for too long (estimates for the wilshire extension to santa monica are between 5 to 7 billion).

besides, our attempt for federal funds with or without war probably would have got us the same amount of money if approved. we're not the only city asking for it, and we're probably one of the last on the list of priorities to the feds anyway, as far as our transit is concerned.

this brings up a question i have: is the LACMTA even a civic institution or is it legally a private investor?

I think the best thing for LA, for now, it's the move to bring back the trolleys to downtown. It will make people want to move to a mass-transit rich section of the city and it could eventually lead to a citywide system (wishful thinking).

I'm with you that the federal government's hesitation to fund transit is simply asinine, but don't let some Bush hatred obscure the truth. The money we're spending in Iraq would not all go to infrastructure. Have you seen what our national debt is? The money from Iraq would just go to repaying our debt, but it wouldn't even be close to eliminating that debt. The problem is so much bigger than just the war. Irresponsible spending is killing us.

I shudder at what you think is "irresponsible spending" and my "hatred" for Bush is so much larger than Bush so no need to coddle me. But curiously do you have any idea of how a "conservative" ran up such a national deficit? Sure couldn't have come from our anemic social programs that the "conservatives" have raped and pillaged for the past 30 years. There seems to be some glaring holes in your rhetorical questions that are just too rhetorical to further question, so let's move on shall we? We do know one thing.......and that is we need folks in office who will advocate for better infrastructure namely transportation infrastructure. Here is a very interesting article that I found and that I heard this same man mention this very topic in his speech tonight:

Biden Likes Trains
Monday, August 25, 2008, by Dakota

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presidential nominee Barack Obama's pick of Senator Joe Biden as a running mate prompted a sprinkling of weekend blogger chatter about Biden's love of public transportation. New Republic: "One final thought: I suspect we'll be hearing a lot about Biden's Amtrak commute. The image of the average guy, riding a train, is powerful. As a fan of trains and public transportation, that makes me even more pleased." And more via Gristmill:"...Biden, who commutes roundtrip from Delaware to D.C. each workday on Amtrak, has long promoted the national rail system. He was named "Champion of the Rails" by Amtrak in 2001, and the American Passenger Rail Coalition presented him with a "Rail Leadership Award" in 2002." And if Obama wins, rumor is that he'll name Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer as the head of the Department of Transportation, so we'll all get subways, trains, and streetcars in Los Angeles tout suite! Dream a little dream.

[QUOTE=croyboy;24556438besides, our attempt for federal funds with or without war probably would have got us the same amount of money if approved. we're not the only city asking for it, and we're probably one of the last on the list of priorities to the feds anyway, as far as our transit is concerned.

[/QUOTE]

Last on the list? Why? Back up this statement.

You cynics are basically just lazy thinkers. If you don't believe that nothing will change no matter who we elect please just stay home so that the rest of us can elect people into office who have shown that they understand that a government is meant to govern and that spending enormous amounts of capital to resurrect our ailing national infrastructure is an investment that must be made.

Rail Advocates See The Right Ticket With Biden
by Megan Scully

Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2008

Advocates of passenger rail will likely have little trouble getting on board with the No. 2 on the Democratic ticket.

It is no secret that Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden is one of Amtrak's most frequent riders, using the train system for his daily commute from Wilmington, Del., to his office on Capitol Hill.

Indeed, Biden, whose son Hunter also happens to be vice chairman of Amtrak's board, made a surprise appearance at the Wilmington train station on Monday, glad-handing with and accepting congratulations from familiar faces.
But the Delaware senator who would be vice president has also been an advocate for Amtrak during his tenure in the Senate -- a position that could benefit the subsidized train service should Democrats win the White House.

Most recently, Biden was among the first senators to co-sponsor the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007, which authorizes $11.4 billion for Amtrak over the next six years.

The measure easily passed the Senate in October and a similar bill was approved by the House this summer. The legislation is now tied up in House-Senate conference negotiations.

"As someone who rides the train every day, Sen. Biden has always been a champion for passenger rail and has been a key supporter of our bipartisan Amtrak bill," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., chairman of the Senate Commerce Surface Transportation Subcommittee, said in a statement.

Amtrak, which relies heavily on the largesse of lawmakers, was somewhat restrained in its reaction to Biden's selection. But a spokesman acknowledged that, if Democrats win in November, the train service could have a friend in the White House.
"Senator Biden is a longtime enthusiastic supporter of Amtrak and a regular passenger, riding frequently between his home in Delaware and his office in Washington," said Cliff Black. "We would expect Senator Biden to continue his support if elected vice president."

Biden's track record on Amtrak differs markedly from that of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who has railed against subsidies for Amtrak.:bash::bash::ohno::ohno:

"McCain has consistently not been a supporter of Amtrak," said David Johnson, deputy director of the National Association of Railroad Passengers. "His voting record in the Senate speaks for that.":ohno::bash:
While one could assume his stance on Amtrak would follow McCain to the White House if elected, "a change of heart is always possible," Johnson said hopefully.

Bruce Richardson, president of the policy institute United Rail Passenger Alliance and a former Amtrak consultant, argued that McCain's position on Amtrak is "greatly misunderstood."

"I don't think Senator McCain would oppose passenger rail if it was done right," Richardson said.

Last on the list? Why? Back up this statement.

it's an expression, klamedia, but please read further:

before we've had our grants for transportation (highway and public) tapped into, even as recent as the grants given to us after the 2006 votes.


http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/08/local/me-gridlock8

our own hurdles including lifting the ban on using sales tax money to fund transit took way too much time (around a decade to get this issue back into court and a year or two during that same time to make the decision to lift the ban).

we're on the list, but who in the federal gov't is in a hurry?

obviously, we need the funding, but i hate that political parties and political opinions of parties made it as some people's personal factors for slow (or no) transit construction.

i think McCaine should have supported the amtrak subsities, but it's a republican "belief" that a private business can earn the money they need legitimately if the people really wanted it around (very flawed in my opinion). they probably wouldn't have supported the city's hand in helping downtown projects like grand ave or la live either.

democrats slowed down progress too. LA is pretty much all democrat and many just a few years ago opposed the red line going through to santa monica or even the expo down venice blvd. you think that high school along expo is republican? or college students at USC? but they still didn't want to see the thing

i don't want to put too much faith in either party. and many elected candidates change their stances on matters in office

i have more faith in the 1/2 cent sales tax and the local voters getting us where we need to be. i can hardly wait, but i say that every year that goes by.

i think obama would have me for transit, but i think overall, there are more important qualities that a president needs to take on before transit like healthcare, social sec reconstruction, defense, blabla (i'm undecided on the president). i'll get around on a bus for now as long as someone is taking care of those things. i'll vote on governor and mayor for my local needs and metro/statewide rail system

Do buses have effective air conditioning?

It depends on how the driver feels. If s/he is a guy who gets cold easily, then no.

Whose talking about parties? I'm talking about folks who believe in investing in our infrastructure and those that are not. The Green Party has a much better mass transit platform than either dominant party put together.

it's an expression, klamedia, but please read further:

before we've had our grants for transportation (highway and public) tapped into, even as recent as the grants given to us after the 2006 votes.


http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/08/local/me-gridlock8

our own hurdles including lifting the ban on using sales tax money to fund transit took way too much time (around a decade to get this issue back into court and a year or two during that same time to make the decision to lift the ban).

we're on the list, but who in the federal gov't is in a hurry?

It wasn't an expression it was a statement that you made that I answered to. An expression is a common saying like, "We'll let the dust settle" or "Fudge pies have the tastiest holes".

I believe that every city has its own unique issues that the Feds look at and admittedly some fare better than others. But the repealing of Waxmans law and considering that Zev's Prop A and C local money wouldn't help this project anyway puts LA in no worse position than somewhere like NYC where numerous start and stops on its 2nd Ave line after nearly 50 years has begun again.

http://intransitionmag.com/Summer_2008/LA_Subway.html
Three years ago, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa included in his campaign a pledge to build a “Subway to the Sea.” In truth, the Subway to the Sea was a peppy alliterative fiction. Metro had no active plans at the time of the election, and upon election Villaraigosa was allowed to appoint only four of Metro’s 14 board members (including himself). But the slogan resonated strongly enough that it caught the imagination of both the public and the city’s leadership.

“[Subway opponents] are becoming isolated as the community broadly recognizes that you can’t have a first-class economy without a first-class transportation system,” Zane said.

“There’s a palpable change on the Westside,” said Jody Litvak, who is leading the Metro’s Westside outreach efforts. “People get it. … Their travel times get worse. People are very supportive.”


Rios Clementi Hale Studios
Rios Clementi Hale Studios has drafted a long-range master plan for Century City, the Los Angeles area's largest concentration of office buildings outside downtown. Intended to make Century City more pedestrian-friendly, the plan anticipates a potential subway portal at Santa Monica Boulevard and Avenue of the Stars--six miles west of its current terminus.
This enthusiasm arrives at a pivotal moment in the city’s history. To Metro’s relief, a judge allowed the consent decree to expire on schedule in 2006, and higher-density development has been underway all over the city. Meanwhile, Metro overcame historical derision to win a national transit award in 2005, and even the city’s stereotypical racial tensions—epitomized years ago by Rodney King and “Boyz N the Hood”—have receded from the spotlight in the face of a common enemy: traffic.

Perhaps most importantly, Waxman brought about the repeal of his funding ban, allowing Metro to finally do more than just daydream about revving up the boring machines. Freed from the ban, Metro released earlier this year the results of the Westside Extension Alternatives Analysis Study, a preliminary step towards garnering support and making the project eligible for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts funding.

i didn't say it wasn't a statement, but rather more of an expression in a statement since i don't know anything about any federal list of things to do.

more importantly, how many transit lines already have funding? when can we expect completion dates? at grade, separate grade? light rail, heavy rail, other?

all important questions. how is the green party and can they help us directly with our transportation needs?

yeah other cities have their transportation needs too and we're all fighting for the same attention for federal grants.

given even $5 billion more for our transit would change how we want our system to be set up like, where we want each line to go, it probably would be separate grade for LRT and HRT, and we would get this streetcar system up and running sooner.

just that money could jump start us and we would be able to pay for our transit system faster and gain enough to really get more lines coming in.

TOD would be crazy and housing needs would be more easily met as well

Heres my solution to the Manhattanization of the Los Angeles Westside.
http://i36.tinypic.com/30vkqki.jpg

Just to distinguish:
A line- Santa Monica Blvd
B Line- Beverly Via Santa Monica
C Line- Wilshire Blvd
D Line- Olympic
J Line- Pico/Venice
K Line- La Cienaga
L Line-(Not shown Vermont or Western)
O Line-(Not shown) Supelveda
1 Line- (Not shown) Lincoln
V Line- Pico

ABCDJV will all go to the Ocean

These lines plus buses and cabs throughout the westside would give us our own version of Manhattan:)

And what kind of lines are those? Subway?
And what about the east side! I want some of that stuff too!

Its all subway.

For the eastside I know Whittier Blvd could use a subway line. That and the existing Gold line ext to Whittier should tie that corridor off nicely.

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/money.jpg mostphotos.comHeres my solution to the Manhattanization of the Los Angeles Westside.
We don't have that uriney smell yet, do we? Let's leave that out!

As of right now, our transit efforts are strictly regional. It'll be another 30 years or so until we can focus on bringing adequate transit to the city itself. I propose we create a new, separate transit agency for LA city (think Muni Metro).

So, you're thinking of seceding the city's taxpayer monies from the County's Metro? An independent agency that would devote the entire tax collected from the city proper and invest the amount entirely on projects within the city? Would Los Angeles benefit more without the neighboring cities portion? We would have to break from the Metro completely, wouldn't we? Have we received more than our fare share? We may have all along, which is why there is so much delay. How would we handle moving our lines through unincorporated lands or other cities in our way as in the Subway to the Sea? So, what you're saying is, we should set up our own city agency, put a city-wide tax on the ballot and use the slightly lesser amount to get things started and moving immediately? Would anyone go for that, or is that too proactive for the people of Los Angeles? Should we call it: MOVE LA for: MOBILE OPPORTUNITY VIA EVERYONE in LOS ANGELES ?

I wish they would bring some type of Rail transit to the Harbor Area besides Long Beach. The 550 is crowded as hell when I try to get to school.

It'll be another 30 years or so until we can focus on bringing adequate transit to the city itself.
Very True.

I wish they would bring some type of Rail transit to the Harbor Area besides Long Beach. The 550 is crowded as hell when I try to get to school.

I'm not sure, I think there's a proposal to extend the Green Line to the South Bay Galleria. But aside from that, in all honestly, the South Bay in general isn't gonna be seeing anything really for decades. Even if there were proposals, there's loads of NIMBYs around here who'd send it smashing to the ground.

So true. When I moved to San Pedro this year, I found out this area of the city may have some of the worst NIMBYs around.

The NIMBYs here actually grouped up with NIMBYs from R.P.V. to fight against a 1,200 unit master planned development, that is going to redevelop an old abandoned naval housing development. If they put up that big of a fight for that, I don't even want to think of Light Rail down Gaffey anytime soon.

They may actually go for a shiny new train, it seems that everyone wants one these days. It's the natural density that a rail line encourages that they seem not to want.

It's a vicious cycle that really has no end.

An auto-dependent city is growing.
Traffic increases
Residents pine for rail so that traffic will decrease (without realizing that it won't work)
Rail is built
Density is increased along those rail lines
Traffic increases

And the cycle continues until the city stops growing. In LA's case, we have no signs of that in the foreseeable future. Of course, NIMBYs realize this so they try to stop density near those rail lines, not realizing that traffic is going to increase no matter what.

Gosh phatto, they don't have to know that! Let's use the carrot-and-stick lie that rail decreases traffic. Lying is how most politicians get into office right? :lol:

Even though the end result is right, lying's not an acceptable means to that end (at least not for me). But I guess that's what's going to get the Foothill Extension built.

Btw, please call me phatt. Phatto sounds like, well you know. :)

Do whatever it takes to get the line built. Then see how weak the argument seems when the NIMBY's fight against density. Like "phatt" said some NIMBY's are gettin' hip to the 'train spawns density' truth but many of them see a new train as an investment in their community and something to show off to their friends from out of town in reality the Portland effect.

Rail just doesn't work in the middle of a freeway. It's near nothing, is not friendly to commuters (because of the extra walking in not so nice under/overpasses), and is very loud if you are waiting for a train. Building on our ROWs and centering development there (not parking structures) would seem to be our best option.

WMATA's Orange Line in Virginia is partially in the central reservation of Interstate 66 and it's one of the busiest sections of urban rail in the US. It does work.

^^ it's just that our green line is like passing through kansas

Minimum Knowledge about Minimum Parking Requirements
http://thecityfix.com/minimum-knowledge-about-minimum-parking-requirements/

In most urban neighbrohoods, the externality that swamps all others is that putting in more units without parking makes already terrible parking in NY and other cities even worse. For this reason, the locals normally strongly object. But, hey, what do they know; they're the ones who live there. Maybe the bureaucrats who live in the suburbs should outlaw parking on their blocks first?

btw, if 16 percent don't own cars, then 84 percent of renters do own cars, so it sounds like a pretty smart thing to provide parking spaces rather than adding to on-street parking congestion.

The thrust of the article is not to just eliminate parking. The quibble with parking is that it is non-discretionary. You cited that perhaps 16% of said residents don't use or have a need for parking, well in today's parking minimums those 16% of non-users aren't even taken into consideration. That same 16% are forced to pay for their unit at a higher cost because parking has been indiscriminately bundled into the cost. I pray for the day when a developer can eliminate just 16% of parking from new residentials but even that at this point is a far out concept.
And "Pest" you and I both know that you don't cure traffic congestion with more parking just as you don't try to curb teen sex by not providing them with condoms. Sex will occur in cities as traffic will occur with teens. There's no cure.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/08/hugebus02082010-1280706868.jpg

China to build ginormous buses that cars can drive under (video)
By Richard Lai posted Aug 2nd 2010 9:13AM

Seriously, this is the future that China's envisioning: huge friggin' buses engulfing smaller cars on the road. Despite the silly picture and the eccentric "3D Express Coach" branding, this cunning project by Shenzhen Huashi Future Car-Parking Equipment actually makes sense. The idea is to make use of the space between regular-size cars and bridges, thus saving construction costs as well as minimizing congestion impact by allowing cars to drive underneath these jumbo buses. Fancy hitching a ride? You better start planning your move to Beijing's Mentougou district, which is where Huashi will commence building its first 186km of track at year's end. For now, enjoy the Chinese demo video after the break (translation text at source link).


Read More: http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/china-to-build-ginormous-buses-that-cars-can-drive-under-video/

Read More: http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/china-to-build-ginormous-buses-that-cars-can-drive-under-video/

That would never work in America. The merging would be awful....

Incidentally, one of the chief reasons New York has its on-street parking problems is because the meters are priced artificially-low.

People are hunting for cheap, government-subsidized parking spaces.

Are there any areas in LA that could benefit from introducing streetcars or trolleybuses?

PI: well, yeah, and I suppose Wal-Mart and Target are benefitting from setting their parking charges "artificially low" (that is, free). And I suppose quiet suburban neighborhoods could put up parking meters on their steets and catch those "free riders" that park in front of their houses?

Is that what you're suggesting? If you're just trying to get more people to move to Texas it's easy enough to do: raise the price of everything.

manrush: I think most people view streetcars/trolleys as good only for very limited ranges within relatively dense areas (DT, Pasadena, SM, Hollywood). But I can also see them in the SFV or SGV as connectors to HSR stations. It depends on the density. But I think buses are the way to go except where demand is obvious.