LOS ANGELES | Public Transport

[fieldsofdreams]

Question: will the streetcar line be connected to the Blue Line in some way? If that's the case, it could mean that the light rail vehicles for the new line can share the same maintenance facilities with the Blue Line yards.

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

Question: will the streetcar line be connected to the Blue Line in some way? If that's the case, it could mean that the light rail vehicles for the new line can share the same maintenance facilities with the Blue Line yards.

No, the streetcar would not tie in with the Blue/Expo Lines; since they shortened the route a few months back, they don't even cross tracks at grade.

[twentyfivetacos]

Watched a documentary on Los Angeles a few weeks ago. Apparently LA buses are the most overcrowded in the US yet in the past 25 years LA has spent all its money on rail lines which only serve rich white areas and hasn’t spent a cent improving bus services which are mainly used by blacks and Mexicans.

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by twentyfivetacos

Watched a documentary on Los Angeles a few weeks ago. Apparently LA buses are the most overcrowded in the US yet in the past 25 years LA has spent all its money on rail lines which only serve rich white areas and hasn’t spent a cent improving bus services which are mainly used by blacks and Mexicans.

Typical Bus Riders Union propaganda: illogical and inaccurate. Crying "racism," and distorting facts in order to manipulate public sympathy is disgraceful.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

No, the streetcar would not tie in with the Blue/Expo Lines; since they shortened the route a few months back, they don't even cross tracks at grade.

The next question: where will the maintenance yard be if the streetcar and the Blue Line tracks do not cross each other? It seems like the streetcar will just run in a loop without a side track that will run to its storage yard for nightly maintenance.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Typical Bus Riders Union propaganda: illogical and inaccurate. Crying "racism," and distorting facts in order to manipulate public sympathy is disgraceful.

Really? Probably it's time to change those stereotypes because I have a very different vision as a bus rider. For me, buses are of great public service to everyone, in which people can ride them to get to many great places in a city, and it is an accessible form of transportation that people can enjoy. It is an alternative to driving -- sometimes even cheaper -- and it is environmentally-friendly.

[blackcat23]

The next question: where will the maintenance yard be if the streetcar and the Blue Line tracks do not cross each other? It seems like the streetcar will just run in a loop without a side track that will run to its storage yard for nightly maintenance.

That's a question that the Streetcar organization hasn't been able to answer yet. Obviously they have to build some form of maintenance facility, but they have yet to clarify when or where. I'm sure it's something that will be answered before they start lobbying the Feds for funding.

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

Really? Probably it's time to change those stereotypes because I have a very different vision as a bus rider. For me, buses are of great public service to everyone, in which people can ride them to get to many great places in a city, and it is an accessible form of transportation that people can enjoy. It is an alternative to driving -- sometimes even cheaper -- and it is environmentally-friendly.

Bus transit is a very good thing: it's more efficient and environmentally friendly than the personal automobile. The political advocacy group known as the Bus Riders Union, on the other hand, is a problem.

This is a group with a tenuous grasp on basic facts. For example (from the list of demands from their website): the BRU want Metro's bus fleet doubled...but they want a 66% reduction in fares. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

They advocate for a bus-only system, an idea which ignores the reality that a bus-only system is woefully inadequate for a metropolitan region of nearly 13,000,000 people.

The BRU claims that Metro's rail lines are being built to serve only affluent white communities. Of course, if anyone has ever set foot on a Metro train, it's clear that the vast majority of passengers are neither affluent nor white. If anyone has looked at a map, you know that most of the communities these lines go through aren't wealthy.

As I said earlier, if one thing disgusts me about the BRU above all else, it's their liberal use of the word "racism." Loaded language is an easy way to manipulate political/public will when your ideas suck.

Metro proposed a fare hike? RACISM! Los Angeles wants to hire more police officers? RACISM! Tax proposal to finish transit projects 20 years ahead of schedule? RACISM! Metro starts building a subway down Wilshire? RACISM!

If they could offer a well stated, factually based counter-argument to these things, the BRU would actually have some worth. Instead, they just sling accusations of racism against any and everything that displeases them. Basically, the BRU dishonors people who have actually fought and suffered real discrimination in their misguided cause to oppose rail transit in Los Angeles.

[bmfarley]

Love LA!

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by twentyfivetacos

Watched a documentary on Los Angeles a few weeks ago. Apparently LA buses are the most overcrowded in the US yet in the past 25 years LA has spent all its money on rail lines which only serve rich white areas and hasn’t spent a cent improving bus services which are mainly used by blacks and Mexicans.

do you work for the BRU? cause thats a plate of fucking bullshit right there.

[Suburbanist]

The BRU is just hideous and racist. Apparently, it is not satisfied that more than 60% of the ridership on trains are non-Caucasian White. Too much withes riding those damn trains.

BRU argument is like those complaining against police intervention on a gang-infested housing project, not because of "police violence" or else, but because getting rid of crime increase the value of properties and then promotes "gentrification". It actively advocates the use and expansion of a lower standard and less efficient solution (buses) just so that it keeps not appealing to middle classes and more affluent constituencies that would "leave their neighborhoods alone"..

If the BRU existed in 1870, it would be advocating against sanitation and running clean water in favor of water hoses and outhouses.

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

The BRU is just hideous and racist. Apparently, it is not satisfied that more than 60% of the ridership on trains are non-Caucasian White. Too much withes riding those damn trains.

BRU argument is like those complaining against police intervention on a gang-infested housing project, not because of "police violence" or else, but because getting rid of crime increase the value of properties and then promotes "gentrification". It actively advocates the use and expansion of a lower standard and less efficient solution (buses) just so that it keeps not appealing to middle classes and more affluent constituencies that would "leave their neighborhoods alone"..

If the BRU existed in 1870, it would be advocating against sanitation and running clean water in favor of water hoses and outhouses.

Well said. The BRU's platform is built on reverse discrimination (i.e. public transportation should not serve anyone but working class minorities).

[sweet-d]

Originally Posted by twentyfivetacos

Watched a documentary on Los Angeles a few weeks ago. Apparently LA buses are the most overcrowded in the US yet in the past 25 years LA has spent all its money on rail lines which only serve rich white areas and hasn’t spent a cent improving bus services which are mainly used by blacks and Mexicans.

Yeah that's what almost every city in the US is like that when it comes to public transportation. People can get in and out of the city with public transport not from point a to b within the inner city.

[Slartibartfas]

Originally Posted by Gil

The southern end of the loop runs on one-way streets, probably necessitates the larger size. As for the northern end, even though both streets are two-way, I think they were trying to avoid having to eat up half of a street with the ROW. It would also require another one-way loop to turn around if a looping facility wasn't carved out somewhere.

There are several streetcar lines in Vienna running two ways on the important one way ring road. (Actually the ring loop line there was done away with completely a few years ago, except for a single tourist tram, because its not what people want) They connect to a multitude of subways and buses but if they were one way only they would be utterly useless. At least if your aim is to create a serious means of transportation, not a toy.

Yes, you might have to sacrifice additional space of car transportation if you want to have the real deal, but is it better to use half the space for some half hearted solution that does not work or double the space for a solution that could function well as a real means or transportation?

If the streetcar does take off, perhaps it'll lay the groundwork for further growth. Unless they plan on making parts of the entire loop double-track perhpas they should build a connecting track on 7th between Hill and Broadway so that you can loop with either the northern or southern segments.

Isn't it self defeating to create a dysfunctional track and than make its functioning a precondition for its upgrade to a functional state?

[k.k.jetcar]

Isn't it self defeating to create a dysfunctional track and than make its functioning a precondition for its upgrade to a functional state?

Yes, it is strange, but this is the USA, where infrastructure gets short shrift and/or is hyper-politicized- by building something, anything, it creates political momentum for more funding in the future, that is if the political winds are blowing the right way at that moment.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by k.k.jetcar

Yes, it is strange, but this is the USA, where infrastructure gets short shrift and/or is hyper-politicized- by building something, anything, it creates political momentum for more funding in the future, that is if the political winds are blowing the right way at that moment.

I believe that mentality should change over time. Imagine Japan advancing in rail technology by leaps and bounds, even to the point that trains are interconnected and interoperable with other rail lines outside of their respective jurisdictions... I wonder when Los Angeles can operate its Metro subway trains to the Metrolink network (assuming that the rail gauges for both systems are the same)?

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by k.k.jetcar

Yes, it is strange, but this is the USA, where infrastructure gets short shrift and/or is hyper-politicized- by building something, anything, it creates political momentum for more funding in the future, that is if the political winds are blowing the right way at that moment.

The political will is really the issue here. President Obama is pushing for a mere $50 billion in infrastructure spending with the budget talks (mind you a tiny fraction of what is really needed). Look at what a frosty reception that's received from the republican side of the aisle.

You know the state of US politics is sad when something so logical as road repair becomes a partisan issue.

[Slartibartfas]

I am well aware that you can't create a dense, high quality, high capacity PT network over night (unless you are China, go figure US) but you can very well start with a stem line that works for its limited length and creates useful relations. After all, it connects to some major already existing (or soon existing) lines. But if its one way, it is simply totally impractical. You usually don't go one way. And if there is no equal offer the way back few will use what actually is a bad service.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

The political will is really the issue here. President Obama is pushing for a mere $50 billion in infrastructure spending with the budget talks (mind you a tiny fraction of what is really needed). Look at what a frosty reception that's received from the republican side of the aisle.

You know the state of US politics is sad when something so logical as road repair becomes a partisan issue.

...a major reason: whenever the people win in terms of getting things done, it becomes worse for the Republicans because they live in a "bubble" where they circulate facts within each other, in which most of them are fabricated lies and scare tactics aimed at the low-educated people living in many states. And those same Republicans are the ones who want to block everything Obama wants to pass... And they were the people who initiated such ideas to begin with, from stimulus to healthcare reform. It is what is called "hypocrisy" in a grand scale.

[k.k.jetcar]

Angelenos aren’t the only ones griping about how difficult it is to get to and from L.A. International Airport on public transportation. On Thursday, the outgoing chairman of the powerful House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee made it clear that he’s not happy either.

At a hearing on high speed rail, Republican Congressman John Mica of Florida wanted to get something off his chest about a slower version of rail. He asked El Segundo Democrat Janice Hahn to deliver a message to L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: get light rail all the way to the airport – or else.

Hahn agreed, saying "the thought that people stop a mile short, try to get on a shuttle and get to the airport is the reason people aren’t taking public transportation."

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/politics/2...uild-light-ra/

[diablo234]

Considering how close the Green Line runs to LAX I always thought it was pretty stupid to not connect the rail system to the terminals either directly or through a people mover system similar to Newark/JFK Airports in NYC.