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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



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 May 9th, 2011, 07:54 PM   #721
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Ok, first, you can't use the Rail capital of World as an example. Japan is heavily Dependant on Rail. I mean, it's not like they had a choice but to upgrade. Second, why wasn't Boston's green line upgraded HRT before it had a huge deficit? The green line has been around for decades, the high ridership it has didn't just appear and was certainly around before MBTA tanked.

Seriously, how dare you use Tokyo as an example. Using Japan as a comparison for anything involving is rail is just as low as it gets.
Are you asking why the Green Line in Boston was not switched to heavy rail?

If so, the answer is simple. Cost. In order to convert the Green Line and its 4 branches to heavy rail would simply cost too much. You would have to order all new rolling stock, rebuild every station and you would have to bury the B, C and E lines as those 3 run in the median of busy streets. Only the D line could be done without the need to bury the lines as it does not run with any streets.

Last edited by massp88; May 9th, 2011 at 08:01 PM.
massp88 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 9th, 2011, 09:45 PM   #722
soup or man
Avant Garde
 
soup or man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,759
Likes (Received): 867

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post

The Gold Line has been under-performing in terms of ridership. Much of the problem is attributed to the dreadfully slow segment south of Pasadena, where it runs on surface streets. If you look at the number of cars traveling I-10 and I-210 through Claremont, you could certainly build the case for heavy rail. A slow light rail line might not be competitive in terms of travel time even with a congested freeway. A heavy rail line would do better.
To be fair, that section of the Gold Line runs along a very narrow street in a dense residential neighborhood with loads of kids. Every time I've ridden through that area, there is a lot of kids running around.

Diego: Just use Metro's map.

__________________
Far from basic.
soup or man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2011, 01:17 AM   #723
State of the Union
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 12

Finally got home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
Certainly the ridership on the Blue Line could have justified heavy rail. The same is true for the expected ridership on the Expo/Aqua Line.
Once the Purple Line hits Santa Monica, there is no need for he Expo Line to be Heavy Rail. And apparently you have forgotten about the downtown connector. The Gold Line will become the blue Line(In original plans and documents, the Gold Line was called the "Pasadena" Blue Line) so gold line has to be heavy rail as well, which brings me to the next point.

Quote:
The Gold Line has been under-performing in terms of ridership. Much of the problem is attributed to the dreadfully slow segment south of Pasadena, where it runs on surface streets. If you look at the number of cars traveling I-10 and I-210 through Claremont, you could certainly build the case for heavy rail. A slow light rail line might not be competitive in terms of travel time even with a congested freeway. A heavy rail line would do better.
No disrespect, but this has the smell of bull$hit all over it. One slow segment is not going deter it's riders. Not only that, this slow segment is so short compared to the length of the entire line. The rest of Pasadena segment of the line is either completely elevated or on private ROW. Speed wise, heavy rail wouldn't beat it by much, maybe a few minutes if that. Now if we talking Eastside extension, then your argument makes more sense. The Gold Line Eastside would be much faster with signal synchronization.

The Green Line's speed from completely separated and with few stops per mile hasn't really pushed beyond 40,000. It's even faster than the red line, yet the red line has over 4 times as much ridership. Further proving my point that it's about the right density that gives ridership, not speed.

Quote:
If you look at BART, you might have been able to build the case that light rail would have sufficed for some of the branches when they first opened. As the population has grown and traffic congestion has increased, heavy rail has to be seen as the wise choice.
eBART. Nuff' Said.
State of the Union no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2011, 02:14 AM   #724
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Finally got home.
Once the Purple Line hits Santa Monica, there is no need for he Expo Line to be Heavy Rail. And apparently you have forgotten about the downtown connector. The Gold Line will become the blue Line(In original plans and documents, the Gold Line was called the "Pasadena" Blue Line) so gold line has to be heavy rail as well, which brings me to the next point.
Under the present plans, the Purple Line will not be reaching Santa Monica. It will terminate in Westwood. A future extension to Santa Monica is frequently discussed, but it is not funded and is not included in the construction timelines.

Quote:
No disrespect, but this has the smell of bull$hit all over it. One slow segment is not going deter it's riders. Not only that, this slow segment is so short compared to the length of the entire line. The rest of Pasadena segment of the line is either completely elevated or on private ROW. Speed wise, heavy rail wouldn't beat it by much, maybe a few minutes if that. Now if we talking Eastside extension, then your argument makes more sense. The Gold Line Eastside would be much faster with signal synchronization.
The initial segment of the Gold Line between downtown and Sierra Madre was forecast to have a daily ridership of around 30,000. It consistently had a ridership of around 20,000 prior to the opening of the extension to East Los Angeles. The most common complaint that I heard about the initial segment is that it was slower than driving.

Quote:
The Green Line's speed from completely separated and with few stops per mile hasn't really pushed beyond 40,000. It's even faster than the red line, yet the red line has over 4 times as much ridership. Further proving my point that it's about the right density that gives ridership, not speed.
Yes, the Green Line has also been under-performing. My understanding is that some large employers along the Green Line route closed between the time that the line was planned and the line opened. It was never expected to have ridership similar to the Red Line. It is grade-separated mainly as a consequence of being built in a freeway median. The Green Line was part of the deal for the construction of the Century Freeway.

Quote:
eBART. Nuff' Said.
Yes, BART is choosing construction cost savings over future ridership by choosing to switch modes for eBART and use DMUs for the extension east of Pittsburgh. I expect there will be a point in time at which this will be seen as a mistake.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2011, 02:48 AM   #725
State of the Union
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
Under the present plans, the Purple Line will not be reaching Santa Monica. It will terminate in Westwood. A future extension to Santa Monica is frequently discussed, but it is not funded and is not included in the construction timelines.
Wait Wait Wait, I though you were speaking in the long term. You explained that in long term HRT was better choice for BART. I'm speaking long term now. The long term plan is to get the purple line to Santa Monica. It will only take just over 3 miles of subway to the purple line to the Beach from the planned VA Hospital Terminus.

Quote:
The initial segment of the Gold Line between downtown and Sierra Madre was forecast to have a daily ridership of around 30,000. It consistently had a ridership of around 20,000 prior to the opening of the extension to East Los Angeles. The most common complaint that I heard about the initial segment is that it was slower than driving.
When has Rail ever been faster than driving? Unless it's in a highly congested area like Downtown LA, Hollywood or Wilshire,(Of which the red line does very well) or High Speed Rail the car will always win. I think the Gold Line's ridership more has to do with the fact that area it covers is not dense, and that it goes though affluent neighborhoods. Even when I Foothill extension and regional connector is complete(and connected with the Blue Line), I still only see the Pasadena segment getting 40,000 at best.

Quote:
Yes, the Green Line has also been under-performing. My understanding is that some large employers along the Green Line route closed between the time that the line was planned and the line opened. It was never expected to have ridership similar to the Red Line. It is grade-separated mainly as a consequence of being built in a freeway median. The Green Line was part of the deal for the construction of the Century Freeway.
So it was built in the median of a freeway, so what? So are quite a few sections of BART and rail lines around the country.


Quote:
Yes, BART is choosing construction cost savings over future ridership by choosing to switch modes for eBART and use DMUs for the extension east of Pittsburgh. I expect there will be a point in time at which this will be seen as a mistake.
On the site it says that the DMU would not replace HRT long term, and that IF the demand calls for it, it would be converted. This I would like to see. Maybe since it's only 2 stations it would be possible, but I see it going the way of Boston's green line.
State of the Union no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2011, 03:50 AM   #726
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
You continue to miss the point. It's not about how Tokyo got there, it's about what it is today. The fact is, building a new rail line doesn't get much second thought in Japan. In the US, politicians and wealthy folks are constantly trying to kill any rail expansion. Honestly, you can't use Japan as a comparison when a rail line has it's own super model, and a baseball team ad advertising a new train, or a famous musician who loves trains and does a commercial for the line. Come on, I've seen this in Japan Thread. Totally different outlook on rail.
I believe you are the one missing a point here.
Japan was not always open hearted about subway constructions since they had Tokyo public transit ver. 1.0 AKA street trolleys handling all the necessary requirements and a lot of speculation arose with plans to develop the subway system AKA Tokyo public transit ver. 2.0.
What changed the attitude is it was able to generate operation profits forcing nay sayers to become silent which gave the Transit board (AKA Bureaucrats) to flex their muscles even more.
With more development it provided more convenience to the users which enhanced ridership and more operation profit was generated creating a cycle you see today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
When has Rail ever been faster than driving? Unless it's in a highly congested area like Downtown LA, Hollywood or Wilshire,(Of which the red line does very well) or High Speed Rail the car will always win. I think the Gold Line's ridership more has to do with the fact that area it covers is not dense, and that it goes though affluent neighborhoods. Even when I Foothill extension and regional connector is complete(and connected with the Blue Line), I still only see the Pasadena segment getting 40,000 at best.
This is not necessarily true, it all has to do with route alignment. Heavy rail even with narrow gauge, it's top speed is around 110Km/h so it will always be much faster then car traffic.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2011, 05:32 AM   #727
State of the Union
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
I believe you are the one missing a point here.
Japan was not always open hearted about subway constructions since they had Tokyo public transit ver. 1.0 AKA street trolleys handling all the necessary requirements and a lot of speculation arose with plans to develop the subway system AKA Tokyo public transit ver. 2.0.
What changed the attitude is it was able to generate operation profits forcing nay sayers to become silent which gave the Transit board (AKA Bureaucrats) to flex their muscles even more.
With more development it provided more convenience to the users which enhanced ridership and more operation profit was generated creating a cycle you see today.
Ok, since you are completely stuck on trying to tell me how Tokyo wasn't always the train capitol as it is now, even though it's completely irrelevant, I'm going to drop it. I'm not missing the point, I understand what you are saying, but it completely misses what I was arguing in the first place.


Quote:
This is not necessarily true, it all has to do with route alignment. Heavy rail even with narrow gauge, it's top speed is around 110Km/h so it will always be much faster then car traffic.
Not quite. Look at my post, I said congested areas. 110Km/h is still only around 70 mph. I can easily beat that on the freeway in non-congested areas. Plus we are not even including the fact it has to stop at stations, or the fact that you have to walk or connect to a bus to get to your final destination. Everyone knows Mass transit isn't the fastest way to get anywhere, especially since a car takes you directly to your destination. The LA Green Line is even faster than HRT red line(fully grade seperated, some stations 2-3 miles apart, etc) and it is still easily beat by the car, especially since I-105(The freeway the green line travels in the median of) is rarely congested.
State of the Union no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2011, 06:34 AM   #728
Svartmetall
Ordo Ab Chao
 
Svartmetall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Past: Northampton, UK (19 years), Auckland NZ (7 years), Now: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 14,074
Likes (Received): 8810

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Not quite. Look at my post, I said congested areas. 110Km/h is still only around 70 mph. I can easily beat that on the freeway in non-congested areas. Plus we are not even including the fact it has to stop at stations, or the fact that you have to walk or connect to a bus to get to your final destination. Everyone knows Mass transit isn't the fastest way to get anywhere, especially since a car takes you directly to your destination. The LA Green Line is even faster than HRT red line(fully grade seperated, some stations 2-3 miles apart, etc) and it is still easily beat by the car, especially since I-105(The freeway the green line travels in the median of) is rarely congested.
Actually, when you factor in traffic lights and getting to the motorway/freeway then it begins to even things out more. When you factor in the availability of parking and then walking to your destination it evens the score further yet. Also, he's wrong about narrow gauge rail - 160km/h is perfectly normal on narrow gauge and as for the requirement of a bus feeder service - not always, this simply depends on how dense the network is.

I can name a number of cities where due to the factors I describe above it is actually quicker, cheaper and more convenient to take mass transit compared to driving, but that's a story for another topic.
Svartmetall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2011, 02:00 PM   #729
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Wait Wait Wait, I though you were speaking in the long term. You explained that in long term HRT was better choice for BART. I'm speaking long term now. The long term plan is to get the purple line to Santa Monica. It will only take just over 3 miles of subway to the purple line to the Beach from the planned VA Hospital Terminus.
The Expo/Aqua Line is expected to be operational to Santa Monica in 2015. The baseline construction schedule for the Purple Line has it operational to Westwood in 2036. There is no published schedule date for completion of the Purple Line to Santa Monica. The Expo/Aqua Line is likely to be the only rail transit connection to Santa Monica for decades.

If LACMTA had confidence that the Purple Line could be completed to Santa Monica in a timely manner, they probably would have truncated the Expo/Aqua Line at Sepulveda. Regardless, it seems silly to justify a light rail line by saying that a parallel metro line will be built to solve the speed and capacity problems.

Quote:
When has Rail ever been faster than driving? Unless it's in a highly congested area like Downtown LA, Hollywood or Wilshire,(Of which the red line does very well) or High Speed Rail the car will always win. I think the Gold Line's ridership more has to do with the fact that area it covers is not dense, and that it goes though affluent neighborhoods. Even when I Foothill extension and regional connector is complete(and connected with the Blue Line), I still only see the Pasadena segment getting 40,000 at best.
There are lots of cities where the subway/metro is faster than driving. The Red/Purple Lines and Green Line in Los Angeles are already probably faster than driving for some commuters.

Claremont is served by I-10, I-210, and the San Bernardino Metrolink line. There is talk of electrifying the San Bernardino Metrolink line and increasing the frequency of the trains to provide a metro-like service. Perhaps that solution will someday provide the speed and capacity that the Gold Line lacks. Again, it seems silly to justify a light rail line by saying that a parallel metro line can be developed to solve the speed and capacity problems.

Quote:
So it was built in the median of a freeway, so what? So are quite a few sections of BART and rail lines around the country.
I think we are actually in agreement that the Green Line has adequate speed and capacity. We will see what the future extensions do to change that.

Quote:
On the site it says that the DMU would not replace HRT long term, and that IF the demand calls for it, it would be converted. This I would like to see. Maybe since it's only 2 stations it would be possible, but I see it going the way of Boston's green line.
I suppose that you could justify building any sort of line with the logic that it could be shutdown for a couple of years and rebuilt if future traffic demand requires it. I expect this sort of approach eventually will be needed for the Blue Line, unless a plan is developed to build a parallel metro line.

As a final note, I would like to say that I think everyone participating in this thread realizes that money is the critical factor that is deciding the configuration of the metro and light rail lines in Los Angeles. It represents a major change in the thinking of the citizens and political leaders in Los Angeles that money is actually being spent on rail transit, but this doesn't change the fact that the present plans don't reflect what is actually needed.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2011, 02:13 PM   #730
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
... Look at my post, I said congested areas. 110Km/h is still only around 70 mph. I can easily beat that on the freeway in non-congested areas. Plus we are not even including the fact it has to stop at stations, or the fact that you have to walk or connect to a bus to get to your final destination. Everyone knows Mass transit isn't the fastest way to get anywhere, especially since a car takes you directly to your destination. The LA Green Line is even faster than HRT red line(fully grade seperated, some stations 2-3 miles apart, etc) and it is still easily beat by the car, especially since I-105(The freeway the green line travels in the median of) is rarely congested.
I was recently on I-10 east of downtown Los Angeles. I was with my family in the HOV lane traveling eastbound at the speed limit. An eastbound San Bernardino Metrolink train blew past me. I understand the rail speed limit without ATC is 79 mph. That is probably how fast the Metrolink train was going. I believe the light rail and metro trains in Los Angeles are capable of speeds in the 65 to 70 mph range.

The important thing for transit is the total travel time. This includes time getting to the station and waiting for the train in addition to the time required for the ride. On the automobile side, it includes the time to find parking. A major factor favoring transit ridership in many large cities is that parking is simply not available or is prohibitively expensive. That all seems obvious. Those are the reasons I avoid driving when visiting New York, Boston, Washington, San Francisco, and some other large cities.

Last edited by greg_christine; May 10th, 2011 at 02:33 PM.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2011, 06:31 AM   #731
State of the Union
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 12

I was half way writing this long @ss post, but I'm tired of writing. I will leave at the money issue, but I'm still not convinced that HRT is right for every corridor, even for cities that have large metro systems. I actually get the vibe that you have something against light rail as whole, unless it's part of some system thats been around for 100 years. I bet if we still had our Pacific Electric lines with no HRT wouldn't be saying anything.

Again, you guys refer to crowded downtown areas. Hell even I use the Blue Line when going to downtown long Beach because parking sucks. With the new metrolink Express trains, it shaves off 30 minutes, which makes it actually comparable to driving. Proving my point that station stopping effectively kills any train's chance of beating the car no matter how fast it goes.



The purple Line will be open by 2020, 2023 latest, count on it. In fact take my word for it.
State of the Union no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2011, 01:49 PM   #732
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
I was half way writing this long @ss post, but I'm tired of writing. I will leave at the money issue, but I'm still not convinced that HRT is right for every corridor, even for cities that have large metro systems. I actually get the vibe that you have something against light rail as whole, unless it's part of some system thats been around for 100 years. I bet if we still had our Pacific Electric lines with no HRT wouldn't be saying anything.

Again, you guys refer to crowded downtown areas. Hell even I use the Blue Line when going to downtown long Beach because parking sucks. With the new metrolink Express trains, it shaves off 30 minutes, which makes it actually comparable to driving. Proving my point that station stopping effectively kills any train's chance of beating the car no matter how fast it goes.

The purple Line will be open by 2020, 2023 latest, count on it. In fact take my word for it.
I actually agree with just about everything you are writing, or at least hope that it is true. Heavy rail is not right for every corridor, but it would be right for the Blue Line and Expo/Aqua Line corridors, and I do hope that the federal government allocates some money to expedite construction of the Purple Line all the way to Santa Monica.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2011, 03:22 AM   #733
ddxv
forests
 
ddxv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 231
Likes (Received): 147

LATimes Light Rail Expansion

Light Rail Expansion

Quote:
latimes.com/news/local/la-me-metro-budget-20110515,0,5726891.story

latimes.com

Los Angeles County is poised to accelerate its rail projects

With financial support from Measure R, a voter-approved sales tax, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's proposed $4.15-billion budget could pay for planning or construction for roughly a dozen lines.

By Ari Bloomekatz, Times Staff Writer

May 15, 2011

advertisement

While many agencies are cutting back, Los Angeles' aggressive rail expansion is picking up steam.

The county's Metropolitan Transportation Authority unveiled this month a record $4.15-billion budget that includes money for about a dozen rail lines that are either under construction or being planned.

If all goes as anticipated, Metro in the next year would begin construction of a new rail line along Crenshaw Boulevard, complete the Expo Line to Culver City and continue work on an expansion of the Gold Line from Pasadena to Azusa.

It would be the first time L.A. would have three rail projects under construction at the same time.

The rail expansion has been mostly shielded from cutbacks related to the bad economy because a large portion of the funding comes from Measure R, the .5-cent sales tax voters approved in 2008.

The budget proposes more than $1 billion for Measure R projects that also include scores of highway efforts, including $11.5 million for planning of the High Desert Corridor that would connect the Antelope and Apple valleys and funds for an extension of the Valley busway, known as the Orange Line, from Canoga Park to Chatsworth.

But the big-ticket item is rail.

And officials hope Measure R will bring this form of mass transit to corners of the county that until now have not had rail as an option. The biggest example is the densely populated, traffic-choked Westside. Phase One of the Expo Line goes to Culver City, and Phase Two is to go to Santa Monica.

The Crenshaw Line would take rail into parts of South L.A. and Inglewood, while the Gold Line extension would push L.A.'s rail network east from Pasadena to Azusa. Proposed extensions would take it to Montclair and then to Ontario International Airport.

"We were very fortunate to get a mandate from the voters in the depth of the depression," said David Yale, Metro's deputy executive officer. "So we are busy, especially on the planning and construction side."

Metro's rail expansion is also buttressed by state and federal funds as well as a $750-million bond that was issued in 2010 and sold to investors that include Barclays Capital and Goldman Sachs.

Dozens of agencies around the country have chosen to raise money for transit projects at the ballot box, including those in Denver, Seattle and Austin, Texas.

But transit watchers across the country say this region has become the prime example of how to raise money for rail and is an innovator in pursuing loans to speed up construction.

Earlier this year, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa introduced his America Fast Forward plan to leverage loans from the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act and to create federally backed transit bonds for private investors.

If it is achieved, Villaraigosa said, Metro would be able to build many of the Measure R projects in 10 years instead of 30.

"You have this archetype of L.A. as the highway city of America. Really, in fact, the voters are saying we're looking to invest in a mode outside of driving. There's really serious rail investment, and that really gets after that archetype," said Adie Tomer, a transportation expert with the Brookings Institution.

"All of a sudden you have this really big powerful place that's not just changing mind-sets about who they are but has the potential to dramatically remake the way you get around it," Tomer said. "It's a huge opportunity.... It is going to definitely be felt and watched across the country."

But there are significant barriers to the proposed budget and to officials' plans of speeding up projects.

It is still unclear whether funds from Proposition 1B, a transportation bond measure passed by voters in 2006, will be available this fall.

That could affect several projects, including the second phase of the Expo Line.

The federal government may also not reauthorize the surface transportation bill, which would make it increasingly difficult to build projects faster.

The budget is 6.3% larger than this year's and does not include any wage increase for Metro employees, though the agency is still negotiating with labor unions.

Metro's budget is balanced partly because of a slew of bus service cuts planned for June and other reductions to bus operating and capital expenses.

The cuts would eliminate several lines and would result in a 5.2% reduction in the number of hours Metro provides service.

Officials say that they would cut only lines with low ridership and that passengers on those lines would have other easily accessible options. But some groups, including the Bus Riders Union, say those cuts are unnecessary and would make it more difficult for riders, particularly in low-income communities, to get around.

"While the size of the budget has increased, bus service has continued to decline," said Sunyoung Yang of the Bus Riders Union. "The agency acknowledges more is being spent on capital at the same time that the agency works to make the bus system more efficient. But reading the fine print, we know that there are choices being made to spend less … each year on bus operations."

Some of the savings from cutting bus lines can be attributed to fuel costs. This year Metro expects to spend about $82 million on fuel and propulsion power, and it projects spending $7 million less next year. Officials say they would save $2.2. million in costs from the service reductions but also face a $900,000 increase in electricity expenses because of the Expo Line.

Brian Taylor of UCLA's Institute of Transportation Studies said that with its aggressive plans for new projects, Metro should begin thinking about how to raise money for operating the lines once they are built.

"The MTA has been trimming some service and things, and at the same time they've been expanding their programs. Hopefully they'll figure out how to get the money to operate and maintain them after they've been built," Taylor said. "There's less and less money to maintain things."

He suggested that once the lines were built, there would probably be the political will to raise money for operations because no one wants rail cars to be stuck in their tracks.

The proposed budget must still be approved by the Metro Board of Directors, and the document may change some. A public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.

To see Metro's Measure R projects, go to: http://goo.gl/91CzC

[email protected]

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
ddxv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2011, 02:12 AM   #734
State of the Union
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 12

Ridership numbers for the light rail lines is out for April:

http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/a...04-11Large.jpg

The numbers are from a member at the Transit Coalition.

Looks like the Gold Line is catching up to the green line fast. The Eastside extension seems to be getting pretty decent ridership for just a year and a half of service. Not surprsing since that when I rode it 2 weeks ago the Eastside stations seemed fairly busy. The Gold Line probably also got a boost by serving two different corridors. Eastside Commuters can now go to Pasadena and vice versa. Bring on the Regional Downtown Connector!
State of the Union no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2011, 05:01 AM   #735
CCs77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,116
Likes (Received): 2445

Three cool videos of Los Angeles Metro Rail I found in Youtube:

First, a time lapse trip of the entire Gold Line, just in three and a quarter minutes.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9k86lBV5824" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k86l..._order&list=UL


Second, real time drive-by for the length of the Expo Line, phase I in construction.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Luu44aDL-rc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luu44...layer_embedded

Third, time lapse walking trip for the rigth of way of Expo Line, phase II, very interesting.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2EEd72CDAgc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EEd7..._order&list=UL

all of them with very good music.
CCs77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2011, 09:00 PM   #736
dachacon
Registered User
 
dachacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 834
Likes (Received): 164

210 bridge is about to start construction
http://thesource.metro.net/2011/06/2...idge-over-210/
dachacon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2011, 02:28 AM   #737
soup or man
Avant Garde
 
soup or man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,759
Likes (Received): 867

Hell is about to arrive in Los Angeles.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun...eeway-20110607
__________________
Far from basic.
soup or man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2011, 08:37 PM   #738
State of the Union
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 12

Sepulveda Bl is going to be a grid-lock. In fact, this could grid-lock half the freeway system. US 101, Interstate 5, State Route 170 would be hit the hardest. Culver CityBus might as well not even run the 6, and Big Blue Bus might as well discontinue service east of Bundy Dr.

EDIT: Thank goodness for weekends, because if this were to happen on weekday, you would have thought darkness itself descended upon the entire LA Basin....

Last edited by State of the Union; June 30th, 2011 at 08:43 PM.
State of the Union no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2011, 06:25 AM   #739
FDW
Registered User
 
FDW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 532
Likes (Received): 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Sepulveda Bl is going to be a grid-lock. In fact, this could grid-lock half the freeway system. US 101, Interstate 5, State Route 170 would be hit the hardest. Culver CityBus might as well not even run the 6, and Big Blue Bus might as well discontinue service east of Bundy Dr.

EDIT: Thank goodness for weekends, because if this were to happen on weekday, you would have thought darkness itself descended upon the entire LA Basin....
As a San Franciscan that's had to deal with several Bay Bridge closures over the past few years I laugh at your puny definition of hell.
FDW no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2011, 08:20 PM   #740
bmfarley
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 54
Likes (Received): 0

Yes, the Bay Bridge closures are significant. What the Bay Bridge is to the Bay Area, the 405 Sepulveda pass is the same for Los Angeles. The Bay has a bay. Los Angeles has a mountain.

Last edited by bmfarley; September 5th, 2011 at 08:34 PM.
bmfarley no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
los angeles

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 Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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

tech management by Sysprosium