|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 20, 2016 0:17:08 GMT -8
At this juncture, it would just be better to build an entirely new LRT line from the Garment District to the Commerce/Montebello Metrolink Station by way of Olympic Bl. and then add an extension from the Metrolink Station to Whittier. I'm sorry, it's just becoming more and more apparent that the East L.A. Gold Line was really an after though when the plug was pulled on the Purple Line extension to East L.A.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Feb 20, 2016 14:28:35 GMT -8
Well, I'm a little intrigued by the new alternatives. I'd rather have the Citadel on the route than strip malls at Whittier/Garfield. If it can skip some of that pokey section at Maravilla/ELA CC/Atlantic, that would be a bonus.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 24, 2016 22:19:01 GMT -8
Maybe the routing for the extension needs to be approached from a different angle, the angle being what constitutes a destination east of Atlantic Avenue and then connect those since it seems tunneling will be necessary evil.
It's funny, but routing the Gold Line from it's current terminus (Pomona Bl./Atlantlic Av.) to anywhere onto Washington Bl. is akin to routing the Expo Line on Exposition Bl. to 3rd St. That would simply not happen; the concept would have been laughed out of the planning meeting. Why? Because there was always an expectation of the Westside getting a Purple Line extension. If the Eastside were to get a Purple Line extension--finger crossed, you never know who's reading--this ridiculous Gold Line extension would become a non-issue that fades into obscurity fast.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 25, 2016 14:19:00 GMT -8
Maybe the routing for the extension needs to be approached from a different angle, the angle being what constitutes a destination east of Atlantic Avenue and then connect those since it seems tunneling will be necessary evil. It's funny, but routing the Gold Line from it's current terminus (Pomona Bl./Atlantlic Av.) to anywhere onto Washington Bl. is akin to routing the Expo Line on Exposition Bl. to 3rd St. That would simply not happen; the concept would have been laughed out of the planning meeting. Why? Because there was always an expectation of the Westside getting a Purple Line extension. If the Eastside were to get a Purple Line extension--finger crossed, you never know who's reading--this ridiculous Gold Line extension would become a non-issue that fades into obscurity fast. Yes of course - if we know Whittier Blvd will get heavy rail within a reasonable time period, no one would be proposing a Golf line extension on Washington Blvd. But since we know just the opposite - that there will not be heavy rail (or any rail besides this Gold line extension) for the foreseeable future, we need to make lemonade with the lemons we have.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 25, 2016 14:52:07 GMT -8
^ But, I mean, do we know that FOR SURE?
I don't know much about how the details of sales tax measures work, but when would we find out exactly what this new Measure R2 would fund?
$120 Billion is an awful lot of money (3x the original), and I just find it hard to believe that only the Westside Extension to Santa Monica, the beginning of the Vermont Subway, and the relatively short Bob Hope extension would be the only Heavy-Rail lines on the table...
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 25, 2016 15:12:04 GMT -8
^ But, I mean, do we know that FOR SURE? I don't know much about how the details of sales tax measures work, but when would we find out exactly what this new Measure R2 would fund? $120 Billion is an awful lot of money (3x the original), and I just find it hard to believe that only the Westside Extension to Santa Monica, the beginning of the Vermont Subway, and the relatively short Bob Hope extension would be the only Heavy-Rail lines on the table... $120B is the entire measure. Only 30% or less than a third of it is going to rail construction. The rest goes to Metrolink, rail operations, bus operations, highways, local return, etc... I don't think the Burbank Airport or Vermont Subway will make it to the proposal if you look at Move LA's latest Strawman proposal. Unfortunately, a lot of the tunneling projects involve light rail such as the Green Line to the Norwalk Metrolink Station, Crenshaw Line to Hollywood, the Sepulveda Pass.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Feb 25, 2016 20:55:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 25, 2016 21:58:42 GMT -8
They base it on polling, input from cities and local government. My guess is that the final proposal will look very similar to this. Like I said it actually is not a lot of money for building rail transit like everyone assumes. In any case, I still think it is a long shot to get this tax approved. What do you think it should have in it that it currently doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Feb 25, 2016 23:03:25 GMT -8
They base it on polling, input from cities and local government. My guess is that the final proposal will look very similar to this. Like I said it actually is not a lot of money for building rail transit like everyone assumes. In any case, I still think it is a long shot to get this tax approved. What do you think it should have in it that it currently doesn't. I don't understand why a whopping 25% of the funds would be dedicated to transit operations; that seems a bit excessive. Even lowering its share to 20% (and diverting the 5% to transit projects) would be significant to the tune of an extra $12 billion -- enough to build two major HRT extensions. It's just really frustrating how watered-down and politically-driven this proposal is; the projects with true transformative potential are being bypassed in favor of low-hanging fruit. I can't believe that they would only "consider" extending the Purple Line to 17th Street in Santa Monica (not even to the sea). It's an utter crock of (bleep).
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 26, 2016 8:40:26 GMT -8
They base it on polling, input from cities and local government. My guess is that the final proposal will look very similar to this. Like I said it actually is not a lot of money for building rail transit like everyone assumes. In any case, I still think it is a long shot to get this tax approved. What do you think it should have in it that it currently doesn't. I don't understand why a whopping 25% of the funds would be dedicated to transit operations; that seems a bit excessive. Even lowering its share to 20% (and diverting the 5% to transit projects) would be significant to the tune of an extra $12 billion -- enough to build two major HRT extensions. It's just really frustrating how watered-down and politically-driven this proposal is; the projects with true transformative potential are being bypassed in favor of low-hanging fruit. I can't believe that they would only "consider" extending the Purple Line to 17th Street in Santa Monica (not even to the sea). It's an utter crock of (bleep). Because transit is massively more important than rail by one to two orders of magnitude. buses are much more flexible transit and carry millions a day, while rail is inflexible and carries hundreds of thousands a day.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 26, 2016 8:53:09 GMT -8
I don't think this will pass if this is how it is constructed. If the local return is decreased and freeway spending is increased, it might have a chance, but it's not a balanced proposal and rail skepticism is on the rise, politically, in Los Angeles. It's smart to put the valleys in priority one, but a small project like connecting the subway to burbank airport and future high speed rail station isn't included. And the purple line extensions are unacceptable for wasting money without finishing the job. it will never fund sufficiently the Sepulveda line, but perhaps we will get a Sylmar To LAX hyperloop line out of modifying the measure down the road.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Feb 26, 2016 9:37:24 GMT -8
Hopefully Trump being the Republican presidential nominee will keep a lot of the conservatives away from the voting booth.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Feb 26, 2016 9:40:04 GMT -8
Isn't this measure also about accelerating the timelines of the Measure R projects (like Measure J)? If it means getting the Purple Line to West LA by 2025, then that alone makes it worth it.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 26, 2016 12:15:42 GMT -8
I don't understand why a whopping 25% of the funds would be dedicated to transit operations; that seems a bit excessive. Even lowering its share to 20% (and diverting the 5% to transit projects) would be significant to the tune of an extra $12 billion -- enough to build two major HRT extensions. It's just really frustrating how watered-down and politically-driven this proposal is; the projects with true transformative potential are being bypassed in favor of low-hanging fruit. I can't believe that they would only "consider" extending the Purple Line to 17th Street in Santa Monica (not even to the sea). It's an utter crock of (bleep). Because transit is massively more important than rail by one to two orders of magnitude. buses are much more flexible transit and carry millions a day, while rail is inflexible and carries hundreds of thousands a day. Anytime a rail line is opened it needs operations tax money too, because local rail is a massive money loser operationally. The bigger the system the more operations tax money is needed. Also, fares are low at $1.75 and they will have to extend that low fare for a while if it passes and that of course costs money. If this doesn't pass you will fares quickly rise to $2.00 and then $2.25 probably not too long after.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 26, 2016 12:22:26 GMT -8
I don't understand why a whopping 25% of the funds would be dedicated to transit operations; that seems a bit excessive. Even lowering its share to 20% (and diverting the 5% to transit projects) would be significant to the tune of an extra $12 billion -- enough to build two major HRT extensions. It's just really frustrating how watered-down and politically-driven this proposal is; the projects with true transformative potential are being bypassed in favor of low-hanging fruit. I can't believe that they would only "consider" extending the Purple Line to 17th Street in Santa Monica (not even to the sea). It's an utter crock of (bleep). Because transit is massively more important than rail by one to two orders of magnitude. buses are much more flexible transit and carry millions a day, while rail is inflexible and carries hundreds of thousands a day. Most everyone in LA County doesn't think SM should get the Purple Line when they are already getting Expo. I personally would be fine with it going to Bundy as I think that is possible. Even getting it to 17th Street is probably fantasy and that is why Move LA puts it in the category if somehow money came available. It is probably too expensive given the other choices and if they are going to spend money on a line from Expo to Sylmar it probably isn't all that necessary.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 26, 2016 12:37:11 GMT -8
Because transit is massively more important than rail by one to two orders of magnitude. buses are much more flexible transit and carry millions a day, while rail is inflexible and carries hundreds of thousands a day. Anytime a rail line is opened it needs operations tax money too, because local rail is a massive money loser operationally. The bigger the system the more operations tax money is needed. Also, fares are low at $1.75 and they will have to extend that low fare for a while if it passes and that of course costs money. If this doesn't pass you will fares quickly rise to $2.00 and then $2.25 probably not too long after. With the recent and future rises in the minimum wage, fare increases will meet less resistance in the future than they have met with in the great recession.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 26, 2016 12:50:58 GMT -8
Anytime a rail line is opened it needs operations tax money too, because local rail is a massive money loser operationally. The bigger the system the more operations tax money is needed. Also, fares are low at $1.75 and they will have to extend that low fare for a while if it passes and that of course costs money. If this doesn't pass you will fares quickly rise to $2.00 and then $2.25 probably not too long after. With the recent and future rises in the minimum wage, fare increases will meet less resistance in the future than they have met with in the great recession. I'd like to think you are right but am doubtful. I paid a $1.00 in 1988 and with inflation that is more like $2.00 now, but people complain like no other in this City for things like this. $2.00 is a reasonable fare, especially when compared to other cities. I think eventually they will go to distanced based fares, but that will be a tough and expensive transition.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 26, 2016 19:15:13 GMT -8
I almost NEVER see advertisements on TV and the radio proclaiming the benefits of taking the trains, just to "Go Metro" in general. I feel like Metro could do a lot better in that regard, and I think it would make a HUUUUUUUUGE difference in PR, particularly with the older, retired conservatives residents who are more likely sitting at home watching TV or listening to the radio, while the majority of the younger crowd is working. I don't think this will pass if this is how it is constructed. If the local return is decreased and freeway spending is increased, it might have a chance, but it's not a balanced proposal "Balanced" my a$$; for years it was the other way around. If anything, the amount allocated to rail transit should be DOUBLED in this next measure to make up for the decades and decades of countless billions it took to reach this imbalance in the first place, not solely becasue of the building, widening, and extending of these miles and miles of freeways, but by the dismantling of the unrivaled Red Car network as well. I can't help but wonder what LA would look like today if the Red Car network was UPGRADED rather than dismantled in addition to all the new freeways... Well I have a feeling this summer will be CRUCIAL. If nothing "BIG" goes wrong with the Expo Line, there should be no reason why county residents won't have a more favorable opinion of rail come November. I think the Sepulveda Pass project ALONE would garnish alot of support, but if you let the public know you can combine that with the NS Rapidway project up to Sylmar, my god support from the Valley could be unprecedented.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 28, 2016 12:38:36 GMT -8
Because transit is massively more important than rail by one to two orders of magnitude. buses are much more flexible transit and carry millions a day, while rail is inflexible and carries hundreds of thousands a day. Anytime a rail line is opened it needs operations tax money too, because local rail is a massive money loser operationally. The bigger the system the more operations tax money is needed. Also, fares are low at $1.75 and they will have to extend that low fare for a while if it passes and that of course costs money. If this doesn't pass you will fares quickly rise to $2.00 and then $2.25 probably not too long after. I would just chime in as well that an extensive system with very low headways is a huge waste. At some point the best marginal benefit you can provide is running decent service on the system you have instead of sprawling outward with trains coming only every 15 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 28, 2016 14:30:16 GMT -8
Anytime a rail line is opened it needs operations tax money too, because local rail is a massive money loser operationally. The bigger the system the more operations tax money is needed. Also, fares are low at $1.75 and they will have to extend that low fare for a while if it passes and that of course costs money. If this doesn't pass you will fares quickly rise to $2.00 and then $2.25 probably not too long after. I would just chime in as well that an extensive system with very low headways is a huge waste. At some point the best marginal benefit you can provide is running decent service on the system you have instead of sprawling outward with trains coming only every 15 minutes. Agree very much. It is worse to build bad rail than no rail at all. It just undermines any future expansion. I've always advocated for building more useful and targeted rail which means heavy rail in some cases including the Eastside. The problem is that you can't build nearly as much so areas get left out and that is a problem politically. The Eastside Gold Line is kind of a disaster, because now that tthat card has been played we have to build two branches off it that are poor lines in many respects. I think an Eastside Red Line would have been much more successful, but would not go nearly as far East. Overall, my fear is that we are building too much problematic light rail while still not changing the overall transport dynamic. If we build at all around stations, we are building car oriented apartments with plenty of parking not really a transit oriented city. We are soon to exceed the mike length of BART and Chicago, but won't exceed their ridership, which is telling.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 28, 2016 15:44:44 GMT -8
We are soon to exceed the mike length of BART and Chicago, but won't exceed their ridership, which is telling. LA Metro Rail surpassed SF BART in 2012, when ridership was above 360,000/day, before the recent bus cutbacks/eliminations, fare hike, and ridership decline in most recent years. BART has since increased ridership to above 400,000/day as LA Metro Rail has declined. Any guesses for what BART's sprawling suburban rail network is doing right? It's like the people running LA Metro Rail don't understand that the buses (and people's dignity) are probably the most important part of the equation to growing ridership.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 28, 2016 15:50:23 GMT -8
We are soon to exceed the mike length of BART and Chicago, but won't exceed their ridership, which is telling. LA Metro Rail surpassed SF BART in 2012, when ridership was above 360,000/day, before the recent bus cutbacks/eliminations, fare hike, and ridership decline in most recent years. BART has since increased ridership to above 400,000/day as LA Metro Rail has declined. It's like the people running LA Metro Rail don't understand that the buses (and people's dignity) are probably the most important part of the equation to growing ridership. Maybe for a month or two, but not for any sustained period of time and we are well behind now.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 28, 2016 15:56:47 GMT -8
That's what I'm saying. What is BART doing well and where is Metro Rail failing? There's a lesson somewhere in this.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 28, 2016 17:00:22 GMT -8
That's what I'm saying. What is BART doing well and where is Metro Rail failing? There's a lesson somewhere in this. Our system hasn't grown because it is mostly geared only for poor people because it is usually faster to just drive in LA and the lines miss a lot of key work areas like Westwood and Century City. As illegal immigrants have been given drivers licenses in the couple of years they just get cars. As people have gotten more jobs in LA over the last few years they just opt to buy cars and stop using transit. We'll see if this changes in the next years
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 28, 2016 17:25:43 GMT -8
I don't buy the cars and illegals argument, here's why: SF Bay Area is also in California, where illegals can get driver licenses, yet the SF BART still has a growing ridership despite having much higher fares that are based on distance traveled, this is where the BART is more like Metrolink, the BART has long waits, usually 20 minutes or 15 minutes on peak. Also, let's not forget that a larger percentage of BART users drive to stations and park in its enormous garages in Dublin, Millbrae, Richmond, etc. Last but not least, BART entirely misses most of City of San Francisco proper necessitating a transfer to SF Muni because BART only has 4 stations in the downtown area in an direct equivalent to the Metro Red Line's 4 downtown stations and beyond downtown SF there's 3 more stations in neighborhoods that are notably less dense than LA's MacArthur Park (LA's best performing station) and Koreatown (densest neighborhood in the state). What exactly makes an LA Metro "geared only for poor people?" Existing in a majority poor neighborhood where rents are still affordable? You mean like how poor people dominated the 16th & 24th St stations on the SF BART for the last 40 years?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 28, 2016 20:05:14 GMT -8
I don't buy the cars and illegals argument, here's why: SF Bay Area is also in California, where illegals can get driver licenses, yet the SF BART still has a growing ridership despite having much higher fares that are based on distance traveled, this is where the BART is more like Metrolink, the BART has long waits, usually 20 minutes or 15 minutes on peak. Also, let's not forget that a larger percentage of BART users drive to stations and park in its enormous garages in Dublin, Millbrae, Richmond, etc. Last but not least, BART entirely misses most of City of San Francisco proper necessitating a transfer to SF Muni because BART only has 4 stations in the downtown area in an direct equivalent to the Metro Red Line's 4 downtown stations and beyond downtown SF there's 3 more stations in neighborhoods that are notably less dense than LA's MacArthur Park (LA's best performing station) and Koreatown (densest neighborhood in the state). What exactly makes an LA Metro "geared only for poor people?" Existing in a majority poor neighborhood where rents are still affordable? You mean like how poor people dominated the 16th & 24th St stations on the SF BART for the last 40 years? LA has a much much bigger illegal immigrant population. I'm guessing something like 10 times the Bay Area's. There are large parts of LA where approx. 50% of the pop is illegal I am going Downtown tomorrow morning and I'll take Expo. Last time I did this I noticed how few professional Downtown workers were riding even during the morning rush hour. This isn't the case in SF at all. Here people think 30 minutes from Culver City is too long when they can drive in 20 and there are parking options even Downtown. On the weekend the ridership on the Red Line is often very poor. I really notice this when I go to other cities. There have also been numerous breakdowns especially on the light rail lines from rail car breakdowns to car-train accidents to overhead catenary and power problems plus a ton of maintence closures on the Blue Line as well as the never ending night maintenance on the Red/Purple Lines
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Feb 28, 2016 21:46:23 GMT -8
BART has the commuters into SF over the barrel as the only competition with BART is commuting on the bridges, which have tolls. That's a reason that BART can continue jacking the price, because the tolls on those bridges have been going up, as well. LA has no such problem, and our cost of living is lower in LA as we're not forced to pay tolls or BART fares.
Although ridership is down on Metro rail, it'll turn around. The fare gates, the creation of the Silver Line, and availability of driver's licenses have contributed to the lull, but those are one-time events. All of the people moving downtown (what, about 10K per year?) will be taking more Metro trips, especially when the Regional Connector is running; the five (FIVE!!!) new routes under construction now are going add on a ton of ridership, no doubt about it.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Feb 28, 2016 22:12:49 GMT -8
I do believe that Metro needs to do a better job of making the subway cars look and smell better, though. And the 7th St. blue line platforms smell like piss. It's tough to get more ridership if the place stinks.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 29, 2016 11:58:28 GMT -8
BART has the commuters into SF over the barrel as the only competition with BART is commuting on the bridges, which have tolls. That's a reason that BART can continue jacking the price, because the tolls on those bridges have been going up, as well. LA has no such problem, and our cost of living is lower in LA as we're not forced to pay tolls or BART fares. Although ridership is down on Metro rail, it'll turn around. The fare gates, the creation of the Silver Line, and availability of driver's licenses have contributed to the lull, but those are one-time events. All of the people moving downtown (what, about 10K per year?) will be taking more Metro trips, especially when the Regional Connector is running; the five (FIVE!!!) new routes under construction now are going add on a ton of ridership, no doubt about it. Exactly. The Bay bridge tolls acts like a congestion charge in effect. So people take BART if they work in Downtown SF. If LA has congestion charges (which is the only way to "fix" traffic), then people will take Metro and other alternatives a lot more seriously.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 29, 2016 13:29:54 GMT -8
LA has a much much bigger illegal immigrant population. I'm guessing something like 10 times the Bay Area's. There are large parts of LA where approx. 50% of the pop is illegal I could only find a few sources that can put an estimate on the amount of "illegals": "The study by the University of Southern California’s Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration estimates that about 7 percent of California residents – or more than 2.6 million people – are in the country illegally. In Los Angeles County – the nation’s most populous – 1 in 10 residents is illegal. Sixty-three percent of those undocumented residents in Los Angeles are Mexican, 22 percent are from Central America and 8 percent are from the Philippines, China, or Korea." Christian Science Monitor, May 2013I have friends who are illegal (one Filipino, one Russian) that are just trying to get by and don't take advantage of the "unprecedented rights, benefits, and protectections" because they are afraid to do so, and yes they do use LA Metro exclusively, and do live in affordable neighborhoods near those stations or bus routes—so do I. Strangely none of the folks claiming the City and County to be broke is exactly exclaiming to have LA County start charging to use the highways through its natural choke points, the various mountain passes (405, 101, etc), to pay for its own upkeep, let alone a necessary cultural shift. Heck, even Dallas with its 27-lane Katy Expressway has toll fees... Dallas also steadily expanding a what is America's largest light rail network at over 200 miles of track which is gets only about 60,000/day, for the whole system—it's like Dallas is more progressive than LA on transportation policy and for them the end result really doesn't matter. We've digressed so far, why won't they just put this Eastside Extension phase under the Whittier Blvd where the ridership is?
|
|