daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > North American Skyscrapers Forum > Metropolis & States > Los Angeles > Los Angeles forums > Transportation-Infrastructure

Transportation-Infrastructure All about Bridges, Subways and Urban Transport, Railways, Maritime, Freeways and Highways » Aviation



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 13th, 2007, 06:05 AM   #1
saiholmes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,129
Likes (Received): 324

Los Angeles MTA

Los Angeles Area Metro Developments and Discussion.

LA Metro, MTA now:



LA Metro, MTA in 3 years:



The Dream (By Damien Goodman)



Metrolink

LA Metro Stats:


anyone have a metrolink map, and LA MTA stats? current stations, milage, etc. i remember seeing it recently. also, stats on the two new lines.

Last edited by LosAngelesSportsFan; February 13th, 2007 at 11:22 AM. Reason: Making this the official LA metro thread
saiholmes no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old February 13th, 2007, 06:07 AM   #2
saiholmes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,129
Likes (Received): 324

Calif.’s future may be paved with fees
By Evan Halper, Times Staff Writer
7:53 PM PST, February 12, 2007



SACRAMENTO — In California, birthplace of the freeway, where motorists can traverse all but a small fraction of the state without encountering a tollbooth, the free ride may be coming to an end.

There is emerging consensus in the Capitol that the state should follow the path already blazed elsewhere and look to tollways — public and private — to help bankroll new roads.

Local and state transportation agencies are already planning several such projects on busy urban corridors, and some of the world's largest investment firms are lining up with proposals that could leave them in control of some major new roads.

Voters last November approved billions in borrowing for roads, but that was only a start; the money won't meet all the state's transportation needs and never was intended to. Nor would anything short of a major increase in the gas tax — one for which voters appear to have no appetite. That leaves tolls.

"The existing way of paying for these projects is not going to work," said Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach). "We're used to free roads and everything being free. That is a 1950s model. If we want to move forward, we are going to have to head in a different direction."

Under pressure from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has been pushing for the state to start shifting the cost — and some control — of road building to the private sector, lawmakers last May authorized government agencies to build four demonstration projects in partnership with investment banks, shipping companies and other businesses.

The companies would put up money for the projects, and in return could end up owning a share of them. Or at least be guaranteed some of the revenues they generate.

The Legislature has yet to sign off on what roads would be built under the arrangement, but has stipulated that they must serve the movement of goods. The California Department of Transportation is already suggesting a toll road for trucks that would go from the Port of Long Beach to the Inland Empire, and a toll road for cars and trucks at the Mexican border near San Diego that would have its own border crossing.

State and local transportation planners have joined with the governor's office to lobby lawmakers for authority to broker more deals with private companies.

"This should only be a beginning," Mark Pisano, executive director of the Southern California Assn. of Governments, said of the projects approved in May. At a recent legislative hearing, Pisano told lawmakers that his organization wants to work with private companies to build a controversial 8-mile tunnel that would link the 710 Freeway to Pasadena, a project estimated to cost at least $2 billion.

Federal transportation officials are cheering these planners on.

"This is the next step," said Tyler Duvall, assistant secretary for transportation policy at the U.S. Department of Transportation. He flew to Sacramento from Washington last month to urge legislators to build more toll roads, preferably in partnership with the private sector.

"Every single private investor cites California as the dream place to invest," he said.

Currently, the state has 82 miles of toll roads — the first of which opened in 1993 in southern Orange County — and drivers make about 590,000 trips on them daily. Tolls vary by route and time of day.

A short hop on the 73 Freeway can cost as little as 50 cents. A one-way trip on the 10-mile-long 91 Express Lanes at rush hour can come to $9.25.

The American Automobile Assn. in California, which has more than 6 million members, does not oppose tolls on new roads. But many drivers do.

"The lifestyle we have in this state is the result of our freeways," said Pete Van Nuys, a San Clemente salesman who says he drives up to 60,000 miles a year. "If I have a small business, I should be able to drive and deliver goods and services without having to pay onerous tolls."

Some taxpayer groups say the state should make better use of existing resources.

"We shouldn't have to resort to toll roads," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. "There are a host of studies showing we are simply not using our transportation dollars wisely. Before we dream up new ways to raise revenue, we should get smarter about how we use the money we have."

Democrats have long resisted private toll roads, pointing to problems that have arisen in the state's few experiments with private roadways. California, which once was a pioneer in public-private partnerships, soured on the idea after some high-profile missteps.

Example: In Orange County, to close a deal with a company called California Private Transportation, the state agreed not to make any improvements to public roads within a mile and a half of the company's toll lanes on the 91 Freeway. Congestion in the public lanes grew intolerable, and the state ultimately bought the toll lanes for $207 million.

Meanwhile, a private toll road long ago authorized and finally scheduled to open in San Diego County this summer has been beset by lawsuits and cost overruns. The project's final price tag — $683 million — is 70% higher than planners estimated.

The project initially called for the state to take control of the road after 35 years. Lawmakers last year scaled that back to 45 years so that the private company building it will be able to recoup its money by collecting tolls for an extra decade.

Officials in the governor's office say such setbacks are minor bumps in the road.

"We have learned a lot of lessons" from California's existing toll roads, said Sean Walsh, a senior policy advisor to the governor, "as have the rest of the country and the world."

But, he added, "people who keep going back and looking at them as an example of something that is wrong ignore the fact that it is a model now being used successfully around the world."

Indeed, several states are looking to private companies to take over their roads or build new ones. Indiana has turned over its 157-mile-long turnpike, known in the Midwest as the "Main Street of America," to a consortium of foreign investors. Illinois negotiated a similar deal with its Chicago Skyway. New Jersey and Pennsylvania are exploring similar deals with their famed turnpikes.

Texas, where virtually every major road currently being built will have tolls, is looking to the private sector to construct a 4,000-mile network of car and truck toll lanes that would feed into a port. The project, economists say, would position Texas to compete with California as the entry point for goods shipped from Asia, especially if the 710 Freeway continues to deteriorate.

In all, 21 states have passed laws encouraging public-private road-building partnerships. Many are making the move at the urging of the federal government, which provides financial incentives for involving the private sector.

California's Legislature has stopped short of giving local transportation agencies broad authority to cut deals with private road builders, as other states have. Some planning experts and economists are encouraging them to step things up.

"California is famous for the freeway, and it has been a great thing," said Joel Kotkin, an author of books on demographics and planning. "But it is from a time when the state had a lot of money coming in. We are in a different situation now. You have to start looking at these other options. The alternatives are gridlock or spending the state into bankruptcy."

Others caution that international investment firms are accountable to their shareholders, not the driving public. They say California should seek alternatives that don't give such companies too much control.

Regardless, drivers are eventually likely to be reaching for their wallets more often.

"New construction is going to have to be financed at least in part by tolls," said Lowenthal. "Who will control them is an open question."
saiholmes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2007, 06:21 AM   #3
Westsidelife
LAL | LAD | LAK
 
Westsidelife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,729
Likes (Received): 51

Thanks for creating this thread. I was just thinking that we should create a thread dedicated to mass transit.
__________________
"I'm an LA guy, can't help it." -- Tiger Woods
Westsidelife no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2007, 06:43 AM   #4
godblessbotox
la is pritty
 
godblessbotox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Dieguana
Posts: 2,327
Likes (Received): 15

ugh... not toll lanes.

build the trains first, then the tolls to get the rest off the road.
not tolls first, were is everyone going to go? surface streets?
__________________
go silver line go!!!
...go aqua line go???

me+flickr=joy
godblessbotox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2007, 07:33 AM   #5
Fern~Fern*
Non-Register User
 
Fern~Fern*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Golden State*
Posts: 7,858
Likes (Received): 174

That a pricey toll Road..... that's like two eight balls in a paper bag.
Fern~Fern* no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2007, 07:42 AM   #6
Fern~Fern*
Non-Register User
 
Fern~Fern*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Golden State*
Posts: 7,858
Likes (Received): 174

The Metro Purple Line of the Los Angeles County Metro Rail is a heavy rail metro line in Los Angeles.

It is one of Los Angeles' two subway lines (along with the Red Line), and one of the five Metro Rail lines (three are light rail, largely surface lines). Although they separate in different directions west of downtown Los Angeles, the two subway lines (Purple and Red) were until recently considered two branches of one line, and are still marked this way in most stations, on schedules, and on older rail maps. As of March 2006, the combined Red and Purple lines averaged over 138,000 daily weekday boardings.

The Purple Line has two other official names: the A Line, and Line 802. These are rarely used by residents, but occasionally appear on official documents. The same designations are also applied to the Red Line.


Check it out the Purple Line has other names....
Fern~Fern* no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2007, 11:02 AM   #7
LosAngelesSportsFan
Moderator
 
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,421
Likes (Received): 180

Moved original post here.

L.A. rethinks open design of subways
The slow response to a mercury spill prompts talk of adding gates, security and other on-site staff.
By Jean Guccione and Andrew Blankstein, Times Staff Writers
February 11, 2007



As Los Angeles transit officials pour millions of dollars into cameras and other high-tech security devices in the wake of 9/11, one major security gap persists: No one is stationed underground to help subway passengers in a crisis.

Unlike most U.S. subways, Los Angeles' works on the honor system. There are no gates to pass through, no turnstiles that open when a fare is paid and no attendants — let alone police officers — stationed on the platforms.

Subway planners designed it that way, hoping the open feel would encourage riders in a place weaned on the automobile but also reduce operating costs.

But now — after Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials were embarrassed by the botched response to a mercury spill that was left on a downtown platform in December for eight hours — the look of Los Angeles' subways might change.

There is growing discussion among MTA board members and other local officials about a major overhaul of how the stations work — adding barriers and possibly gate attendants as well as more security officers. Some officials say the mercury incident proves that the agency's reliance on closed-circuit cameras to show what's going on underground is inadequate.

"If we go to gates, we would have a station attendant there all the time," said Roger Snoble, the agency's chief executive officer, who plans to present a report on the issue in the coming weeks. "They would be there to help keep an eye on things."

Adding security personnel and MTA staff would change the atmosphere of the system as well as boost security. It would also be costly.

An MTA study produced last year found that hiring 500 instation attendants would cost $24 million annually. Installing turnstiles in the subway's 16 stations would cost between $50 million and $150 million. To secure the subway, the report said, three attendants per shift would have to be added at each of the subway's 54 entrances.

Some riders — who are expected to buy tickets though usually they are not checked — say they can go days without ever seeing a sheriff's deputy or any uniformed transit workers on their trains or in stations.

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies patrol the subway, riding the rail lines among stations. About 100 deputies and uniformed fare inspectors patrol 73 miles of subway and light rail — leaving parts of the system uncovered for long stretches.

Without full-time transit workers on site, passengers in an emergency must find an intercom to contact operators at a distant bunker. That is the only source of communication with the outside world. There are no pay phones in subway stations, and cellphones don't work that far underground. (Other subway systems have paid to have their platforms wired for cellphone use but the MTA has not.)

Since 9/11, the MTA has touted its increased security measures, which focus largely on adding hundreds of closed-circuit television cameras to platforms and trains. Those efforts cost about $80 million a year.

Though security experts have praised the effort, they also say not having personnel in stations leaves vulnerabilities.

Experts say adding transit workers and law enforcement to Los Angeles' subway stations would be a plus — especially as the number of daily riders continues to increase. Ridership stands at nearly 250,000 weekday boardings for the entire rail system.

But they caution that it could give passengers a false sense of safety in the tunnels.

"It adds a level of security without saying that if you add people you will not have an attack," said Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, chairwoman of UCLA's urban planning department, who has studied transit terrorism around the globe.

Train bombers in London and Madrid killed hundreds after passing through turnstiles under the watchful eyes of gate agents in those stations, as did the attackers who released poisonous sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.

"Fixed posts at all stations would probably be a good thing," said Sheriff's Cmdr. Dan Finkelstein, who is in charge of transit services. "Any employee in that kiosk is a lot better than we have now."

Washington, D.C., transit workers manning each of the 86 subway stations are responsible for visually inspecting the platforms and watching for suspicious activity.

In New York's subway system, station agents staff information booths around the clock to assist passengers.

In Chicago, the system's 21 subway stations are gated and customer assistants or security guards are present whenever the trains are running.

Security concerns led Dallas officials to assign transit police around the clock to their only underground light-rail station: Cityplace, north of downtown.

Most commuters would welcome the presence of transit workers as they wait for the train, especially at night.

"It would most definitely improve the situation," said Leonel Perez-Roura, 33, of Glendale.

In an emergency, PerezRoura, a paralegal who uses the subway to get from courthouse to courthouse, said he would alert authorities using the emergency intercoms.

"They are supposed to be by the escalator or the fire extinguisher," he said, looking around the Wilshire-Vermont station for one within eyeshot. There were three on the platform: one at each end and one in the center. No signs directed passengers to the intercoms.

Vickie Chatigny, 57, of Llano said she has determined how far up the escalator she must climb to get cellphone reception to contact authorities in a crisis.

"I know in situations you have to rely on yourself," said Chatigny, a supervisor with Los Angeles County Superior Court. "I don't think [transit officials] take security serious."

Such sentiments are fueled in part by the MTA's response in December when a man spilled mercury on the Pershing Square platform. After dumping the hazardous substance, he called the MTA operator on an intercom and reported what he had done. But for reasons that are not clear, no one came to investigate or clean up the spill.

Several train riders touched the substance before a passenger called police eight hours later. Hazardous materials crews eventually removed the mercury.

MTA officials acknowledged that their staff botched the response to the spill — and this has prompted calls for major improvements.

Some have said that, had an attendant or guard been on duty, he might have realized the danger sooner or at least cordoned off the area to prevent riders from touching the mercury.

"It may not be a matter that you can stop people" who commit terrorist acts, said Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, an MTA board member. "But at least you'll have something in place so they realize that they are being seen."

Others are more dubious — especially given the high costs involved.

"What would have been different?" asked county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, an MTA board member. He said he questions the decision to build a barrier-free subway but doesn't know if changing course now is the best use of scarce transit funds.

Loukaitou-Sideris and other experts say training employees to respond effectively in a crisis is more vital to passenger safety than where the workers are located.

"If you are going to have people, it's important to have people who are trained and know how to respond appropriately," said Martin Wachs, a transportation expert at Rand Corp.

Assigning transit and law enforcement personnel to stations would bring Los Angeles more in line with the rest of nation's subway systems.

Last edited by LosAngelesSportsFan; February 13th, 2007 at 11:23 AM.
LosAngelesSportsFan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2007, 11:23 AM   #8
Westsidelife
LAL | LAD | LAK
 
Westsidelife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,729
Likes (Received): 51

What are the Harbor and El Monte Transitways? I'm not familiar with those. Please fill me in!
__________________
"I'm an LA guy, can't help it." -- Tiger Woods
Westsidelife no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2007, 01:51 AM   #9
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,842
Likes (Received): 0

EDIT: No one needs to see the stupid mistake I made here.
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2007, 05:50 AM   #10
saiholmes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,129
Likes (Received): 324

Bond money rolls in for L.A. roads
By Evan Halper, Times Staff Writer
12:56 PM PST, February 16, 2007

SACRAMENTO -- Relief is coming to drivers on some of Southern California's busiest freeways.

State officials today announced the first set of projects likely to be funded with the bond money voters approved in November and there are some big ones in the Los Angeles area. They include:

• Widening I-5 from the Orange County line to the 605 Freeway.

• A new carpool lane on I-10 between Baldwin Park and West Covina.

• A network of carpool lanes connecting the 22, 405 and 605 freeways in northern Orange County.

Staff members at the California Transportation Commission, a state panel that oversees funding for highways and mass transit, included the projects in their recommendations for how the state should allocate the first $2.8 billion of $19.9 billion in borrowing that voters authorized for transportation.

The borrowing was approved as part of a $37.7-billion public works bonds package championed by the governor.

The commission staff chose the road projects from a list of 149 proposed by the state Department of Transportation and regional transportation agencies. Nearly $3 in spending was proposed for every $1 the commission has to allocate in this first round of projects. The money is designated for congestion relief on busy corridors.

The recommendations will be voted on before the end of the month by the full board, which is composed of nine members appointed by the governor. Construction could begin on some of the projects as early as fall.

The 43 projects recommended by the staff could save motorists statewide some 270,000 hours of sitting in traffic.

Among the projects that did not make the cut in this round were proposals to widen the 91 Freeway and to put more carpool lanes on the 405 and 10 freeways. Officials at the commission suggested that such projects could be approved in another round next year or could be funded through other government transportation programs.

The commission will be involved in the dispersion of some, but not all, of the remaining transportation bond money. Those funds will be designated for specific needs, including congestion relief on local roads, repairs on 400 miles of Highway 99 in Central California, public transportation, goods movement, emissions reduction and transportation safety.
saiholmes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2007, 09:50 AM   #11
Elsongs
"There It Is, Take It!"
 
Elsongs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: City of Angels
Posts: 1,012
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferneynism View Post
The Metro Purple Line of the Los Angeles County Metro Rail is a heavy rail metro line in Los Angeles.



The Purple Line has two other official names: the A Line, and Line 802. These are rarely used by residents, but occasionally appear on official documents. The same designations are also applied to the Red Line.


Check it out the Purple Line has other names....
The numbered rail lines are part of the MTA's operational lingo; the bus lines are numbered in a certain way (all bus line numbers 99 and below go through Downtown; Lines 100-299 are lines that do not go through Downtown; 300-399 lines are limited lines; 400-499 are express lines; 500-699 are reserved for special routes; 700-799 are Rapid Lines.

The 800-series lines are given to the rail lines, which are numbered in order of when they first opened:

801: Metro Blue Line (1990)
802: Metro Red Line (1993)
803: Metro Green Line (1995)
804: Metro Gold Line (2003)

I don't know whether the Purple Line will get its own number (it should), so I'm not sure if that or the Exposition line will be 805.

Only train operators, dispatchers and maintenance crews are concerned with the 800-line numbers.
__________________
"I prefer The Road Less Traveled -- There's less traffic there."
Elsongs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2007, 10:55 AM   #12
Fern~Fern*
Non-Register User
 
Fern~Fern*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Golden State*
Posts: 7,858
Likes (Received): 174

^ Interesting....

Here a quick questions what's the difference between Rapid and Limited buses?
Fern~Fern* no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2007, 11:08 AM   #13
Westsidelife
LAL | LAD | LAK
 
Westsidelife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,729
Likes (Received): 51

L.A. needs subway extension

Readers comment on editorial questioning a multibillion-dollar investment in the subway extension.
From Daily Breeze Readers

We did not receive any direct responses to this week's Question of the Week: "A federal ban on extending the Red Line subway from downtown L.A. through Santa Monica was lifted last week. Would such a subway line reduce freeway traffic and aid commuters, or would it be another money pit?"

Your opinion that the "subway to the sea" offers little bang for the buck flies in the face of a lot of discussion about Westside traffic. Given the economic activity, jobs, taxes and traffic generated on the Westside, I would not begrudge that area both the subway and the Expo light rail line.

The beneficiaries will include tens of thousands of people working on the Westside but living in far-away communities where housing is more affordable. Many will come from the 50-plus communities connected to the subway by Metrorail. Leveraging all existing transit investments in Los Angeles, the potential benefits of the subway are incalculable.

As a South Bay resident who would love to see some viable transit options, I say stop talking about getting the Green Line to Los Angeles International Airport. The master plan for LAX includes an automated people mover (i.e. train) that connects the LAX terminals with the Green Line at Aviation Boulevard and Imperial Highway. Problem solved, with airport money!

-- ANDREW SHADDOCK

Manhattan Beach

No doubt many will recoil from the cost of building a subway along Wilshire Boulevard, but the reality is that there aren't any better alternatives. Putting rail above ground requires a dedicated right of way and grade separations, or else the railroad will interfere with car traffic. When one adds the cost of grade separations and considers the lower capacity of light rail, the per-trip cost of light rail isn't as inexpensive as one might hope.

Furthermore, before preaching the benefits of bus-only guideways, consider that buses have an even lower capacity than light rail. Within a few years, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority will need to upgrade the Orange Line to rail, or its buses will burst at the seams.

If we move to finish the Wilshire subway, we will be in the position within a decade to complete the backbone of our new transit map: perhaps a Green Line extension to Los Angeles International Airport, and from LAX to the Expo Line and Wilshire subway along Lincoln Boulevard? A Green Line extension to Torrance, Carson and Long Beach?

If Los Angeles does not make needed investments in rail in the near future, gridlocked traffic will continue to eat away at our quality of life and guarantee that each day continues to be a fight against the clock -- and each other's cars.

-- JOSH GLUCK

Los Angeles
__________________
"I'm an LA guy, can't help it." -- Tiger Woods
Westsidelife no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2007, 07:04 PM   #14
saiholmes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,129
Likes (Received): 324

State freeway upgrades bypass much of L.A.
Interstates 5 and 10 would get some attention, but the $2.8-billion proposal is called 'unacceptable.'
By Evan Halper and Dan Weikel, Times Staff Writers
February 17, 2007

SACRAMENTO — Relief is coming to drivers on some of Southern California's busiest freeways, but not enough, according to local transportation planners who say the region is being shortchanged on its share of bond money voters authorized in November.

State officials on Friday announced the first projects likely to be bankrolled with the funds, part of a public works borrowing package championed by the governor. They include widening a portion of the 5 Freeway in the Los Angeles area, adding a carpool lane to a section of the 10 Freeway and installing a network of carpool lanes connecting the 22, 405 and 605 freeways in northern Orange County.

Left unfunded were several proposals that would have brought more relief to those major roads and to the heavily congested Riverside Freeway and other busy corridors.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, who chairs the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board, called the recommendations "an insult to the people of Los Angeles County" and "unacceptable."

Los Angeles County, where 28% of Californians live and which has the most congested highways in the state, has been recommended for less than 12% of the funds on the project list.

The list was released by staff members at the California Transportation Commission, a state panel that oversees funding for highways and mass transit. It shows their recommendations for allocating the first $2.8 billion of the $19.9 billion in borrowing that voters approved for transportation.

The commission staff chose the projects from 149 proposed by the state Department of Transportation and regional agencies. The agencies proposed to spend nearly three times the amount the commission had to disburse in this first round. The money is designated for congestion relief on busy highway corridors.

The bond money, which doesn't cover all costs, will be supplemented with state, federal and local funds.

The full board, whose nine members are appointed by the governor, will vote on the recommendations at the end of the month. Construction could begin on some of the projects by fall.

The list of projects to be funded may still grow. The bond measure authorizes initial spending of $4.5 billion, or $1.7 billion more than the commission staff is proposing. The staff recommended that the board wait until next year to allocate the rest of the money, when planning for some of the projects that didn't make the first cut will be more complete.

There is no precise timetable for allocating all of the bond money. But local transportation planners will be pushing hard for the board to release more of that money now. They will make their case at a hearing before the full commission in Sacramento on Tuesday. The commission staff assumes that some requests will be granted.

The first cut is "a floor, not a ceiling," said John Barna, executive director of the commission. "I imagine as we discuss this over the next week or so the number will grow."

He acknowledged that the southern part of the state received less funding than it is entitled to under state formulas. He said the commission would rectify that by the time all of the funds were doled out.

But Barna defended the initial list, saying the bond money should not be dispensed according to how many people live in an area but on the projects that will do the most to relieve congestion in an overall region. The staff, he said, chose projects based on "readiness for construction, demonstrable congestion relief and connectivity benefits" and "geographic balance."

The bond money that remains after the $4.5 billion is disbursed will also be earmarked specific purposes, among them congestion relief on local roads; repairs on 400 miles of California 99 in the central part of the state; public transportation, including light rail and buses; goods movement; emissions reduction; and transportation safety.

The 43 projects recommended Friday could save motorists statewide 270,000 hours of sitting in traffic, according to commission documents.

One that did make the cut in Los Angeles — at least partly — is the widening of Interstate 5 from the 605 Freeway to the Orange County line.

The 6.7-mile stretch is one of the oldest and least improved sections of the interstate. The highway creates one of the worst bottlenecks in the state near the Orange County line, where it narrows from 10 lanes to six.

Planners estimate that it will cost $1.15 billion to widen that stretch of the 5 Freeway to 10 lanes, including carpool lanes in each direction. They were hoping to receive $387 million in bond money for the project, but the commission staff recommended less than half that amount.

The commission staff declined to fund a $950-million project to add more than 10 miles of carpool lanes to the northbound 405 Freeway between the 10 and 101 freeways. With more than 300,000 cars a day, it is one of the busiest stretches of the 405. The staff was concerned that the start date for construction in late 2011 was too far off and suggested the board reconsider the project next year.

The project list does include funding for carpool lanes along a 10-mile section of the 5 between the 134 and 170 freeways.

It also includes money for carpool lanes on the 10 Freeway from Puente Avenue in Baldwin Park to Citrus Street in West Covina.

In Orange County, projects that were recommended include a network of carpool lanes that would connect the Garden Grove Freeway to the 405 between Seal Beach Boulevard and Valley View Street and from the 405 to the 605 between Katella Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard.

The Orange County Transportation Authority will receive money to widen the northbound side of the 57 Freeway from the Riverside Freeway to Lambert Road.

"It is kind of hard for us not to say, 'Thank you,' " said Arthur Leahy, executive director of the Orange County Transportation Authority, who noted that his county would get more money than much larger Los Angeles County.

But the commission recommended funding for only one of four projects to relieve congestion on the busy Riverside Freeway through northeastern Orange County. Caltrans studies show that commuters using the highway experience some of the worst delays in the state.

In Riverside County, one of seven projects was given the nod: a $62.3-million proposal to add lanes in each direction to Interstate 215 from Interstate 15 to Scott Road.

The county did not get recommendations for $752 million more it had requested for widenings, carpool lanes, interchanges and connectors on interstates 15 and 215 and the Riverside Freeway.

"We are disappointed," said John Standiford, a spokesman for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. "But they have yet to allocate the rest of the money, and there is still the State Transportation Improvement Program."

Standiford said that funding the Interstate 215 project was a "big priority" for the county and would help eliminate congestion caused by merging traffic.

San Bernardino County also got much less than it had hoped: $153 million of $531 million requested.

The money will be used to widen and improve interchanges along Interstate 10 through Fontana, Rialto, Redlands and Yucaipa. New ramps are also planned for the 210 Freeway and Interstate 215.

The commission did not approve funding for widenings and interchange work for Interstate 15 through Victor Valley, one of the fastest growing areas in the Inland Empire and an emerging cargo hub for the region.

"The 15 is a major commuting route and a truck route. But none of the high desert projects received funding," said Cheryl Donahue, a spokeswoman for the San Bernardino Assn. of Governments, a regional planning agency. "We are concerned about that."

saiholmes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2007, 10:06 PM   #15
Fern~Fern*
Non-Register User
 
Fern~Fern*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Golden State*
Posts: 7,858
Likes (Received): 174

I hope some of those funds can be use for a connector from the interchange 170/101/134. When you drive down south on the 170 there's no connector to the 101 west. Which means you have to exit Moorpark drive to Laurel CYN make a left then quick right into the 101. ViceVersa there's no way to connect to the 170 when driving East on the 134/101. Same thing you have to exit on Tujunga drive pass the park then re-enter the FWY going North 170. This was such an inconvenience when I use to live up there...
Fern~Fern* no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2007, 11:16 PM   #16
godblessbotox
la is pritty
 
godblessbotox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Dieguana
Posts: 2,327
Likes (Received): 15

that was not intentional?
i thought it was part of some far reaching traffic control thingy
__________________
go silver line go!!!
...go aqua line go???

me+flickr=joy
godblessbotox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2007, 12:39 AM   #17
Fern~Fern*
Non-Register User
 
Fern~Fern*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Golden State*
Posts: 7,858
Likes (Received): 174

I never really understood it either so hopefully it can be finally done.

Also when driving on the 170 north where it merges with the 5. Same thing there's no connector to the 5 south into Burbank/Glendale area. Your force to exit one FWY and re-enter another FWY.
Fern~Fern* no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2007, 03:05 AM   #18
godblessbotox
la is pritty
 
godblessbotox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Dieguana
Posts: 2,327
Likes (Received): 15

well... as far as that one, i could imagine that there was never a plan for that. why whould you take the 170 north to take the 5 south? just take burbank or whatever. but yah i guess it would save from some congestion somewere
__________________
go silver line go!!!
...go aqua line go???

me+flickr=joy
godblessbotox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2007, 08:03 PM   #19
redspork02
Seems itnever rainsnSoCal
 
redspork02's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Los Angeles/Redlands C.A.
Posts: 734
Likes (Received): 70

MTA discounts fares on bus 18 routes
From Times Staff Reports
February 19, 2007


Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials are discounting fares on 18 bus routes this week to encourage ridership. The weeklong promotion, which runs through Saturday, reduces fares to 50 cents from $1.25.

The idea was introduced by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and affects routes serving more than 50 destinations throughout Los Angeles County, including job centers, hospitals, schools and museums.

The bus lines included in the reduced-fare promotion are 102, 265, 275 and 577X in the Gateway Cities area; 550, 127, 202, 209 and 305 in the South Bay; 154, 168, 233 and 761 in the San Fernando Valley; and 177, 201, 258, 214 and 220 in West Los Angeles.
__________________
L O S
A N G E L E S




LETS GO DODGERs!!!!!
redspork02 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2007, 08:03 PM   #20
redspork02
Seems itnever rainsnSoCal
 
redspork02's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Los Angeles/Redlands C.A.
Posts: 734
Likes (Received): 70

Local Officials to Lobby State for More Transportation Funding
LOS ANGELES, February 19, 2007 - Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will hand out flyers on a busy Los Angeles thoroughfare Monday to ask commuters to urge state officials to provide the Southland with its "fair share" of traffic relief funding, according to the Mayor's Office.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also on abc7.com:

Daily Newsletter | Breaking News Alerts | Eyewitness News team Bios

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He will also head to Sacramento with other local officials to lobby for more transportation funds.
On Friday, state officials announced the first $2.8 billion in transportation projects recommended for funding under a $37.7 billion public works bond package backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and approved by the voters in November.

The recommended projects include widening the Golden State (5) Freeway between the 605 Freeway and the Orange County line; a carpool lane for the 10 Freeway; and carpool lanes to connect the 22, 405 and 605 freeways in northern Orange County.

But several other proposals were passed over -- projects that some say would have brought more relief to the 5 and 10 freeways, as well as to the 91 Freeway and other increasingly congested corridors.

Local officials complained that Los Angeles County was being shortchanged because the county has 28 percent of the state's population and some of the most congested roads in the country, but less than 12 percent of the funds are being recommended for the area.

Villaraigosa's office said California transportation officials recommended cutting $1 billion worth of freeway projects sought for Los Angeles County, including funding for a northbound carpool lane on the 405.

Los Angeles county Supervisor Gloria Molina, who chairs the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board, called the recommendations "an insult to the people of Los Angeles County" and "unacceptable," according to the Los Angeles Times.

The 43 projects on the list -- boiled down from 149 proposals -- were put together by the state Transportation Commission, a nine-member panel that oversees funding for highways and mass transit.

The commission, which is appointed by the governor, is set to finalize the projects by the end of the month, and construction could start as early as this fall.

The bond money will be augmented with state, federal and local funds.

John Barna, executive director of the commission, acknowledged that Southern California got less funding than it is entitled to under state formulas, but said the commission would balance spending by the time the entire bond issue was spent.

Orange County fared a little better than its northern neighbor.

"It is kind of hard for us not to say 'thank you,'" said Arthur Leahy, executive director of the Orange County Transportation Authority.

Still, the Riverside Freeway, which stays clogged with commuters driving to and from jobs in the Inland Empire, was not a first-round pick.

In Riverside County, a $62.3-million proposal to add lanes in each direction to Interstate 215 from Interstate 15 to Scott Road did make the list.

Monday afternoon, Villaraigosa, Rep. Howard Berman, D-Los Angeles, state and local officials will hold a news conference at the Federal Building in Westwood to urge state transportation officials to "restore funding for traffic relief projects promised to L.A. commuters," according to the Mayor's Office.

Following the news conference, Villaraigosa will distribute flyers to motorists along Wilshire Boulevard, urging them to call and e-mail state officials to demand Los Angeles's "fair share" of traffic relief funding.

Villaraigosa and a delegation of local leaders will be in Sacramento Tuesday to lobby state officials for more traffic relief funds for Los Angeles. The mayor will also testify before the state Transportation Commission.
__________________
L O S
A N G E L E S




LETS GO DODGERs!!!!!
redspork02 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
los angeles, transportation

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu