|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 16, 2007 17:46:33 GMT -8
Is it possible to put a cap over the 210 in Pasadena and then have some small buildings go on top of it? This way, the Lake Station can actually be worth something.
The cap would be raised so that you could have a small amount of dirt for foundation, and then a road with a wide median to run through the middle. This way: 1. Pasadena will get new buildings and more revenue. 2. The Gold Line will get more passengers because the Lake Station will actually go somewhere. 3. There won't be a huge gap in downtown Pasadena. 4. Traffic relief with that extra road. 5. If this were to work, then it would set a precedent for putting a cap over the 105 and making some of those stations more useful.
|
|
|
Post by gibiscus on Jun 20, 2007 5:48:17 GMT -8
I think the 110 and 101 downtown should be capped.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 20, 2007 9:15:16 GMT -8
They planned on doing that for the 101 in Hollywood. Under the current guidelines they can only build a park or a street w/ landscaping. But anything's better than what it is now.
But think about all the car fumes trapped in the tunnel...
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 20, 2007 9:52:02 GMT -8
The car fumes do not stay in. They are pumped out and they have to be cleaner than what comes out of the car.
We need to change the guidelines so that we can build something above the freeway. Even if it's small structures. But I agree, a park would be nice, but I would like more urbanization above the 210. Less noise and more pedestrian friendly is what we really need. (Maybe a trolley down Lake Ave. and through Old Town Pasadena?)
|
|
|
Post by gibiscus on Jun 21, 2007 0:07:28 GMT -8
There should be a 2-line Pasadena trolley system: 1) Colorado Blvd between Orange Grove and Sierra Madre Villa, with a west extension to the Rose Bowl via a dedicated ROW down to Arroyo Blvd and an east extension to the Arboretum and Santa Anita. 2) Lake Ave between the 210/Gold Line and California Blvd, then east on California to Caltech, with an extension going further on California to Allen, then turning south to enter the Huntington Library, and a northern extension to Altadena.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 21, 2007 7:51:26 GMT -8
Pasadena could really make some money by raising costs for parking in Old Town. They could use the money from parking to fund a trolley system.
It seems that the way to fund any kind of system is to raise the costs of parking. Imagine if you had to pay $3 an hour for parking. Wouldn't you consider walking/taking the bus/taking a trolley at that point?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 21, 2007 9:38:58 GMT -8
I'd be careful about raising parking costs too much, because parking is one of those things that people get really riled up about. and at $3 per hour, you're still not going to be able to raise revenue fast enough. you would need to be able to show immediate results, otherwise people won't go for it. "pay now, get a trolley in five years?" you're asking people to pay $3 for parking or switch to taking the trolley, but you're talking about a trolley that doesn't exist yet and a Gold Line that wouldn't be able to serve all of Old Town's potential customers. what if people decide not to pay the $3 and just stay home? what happens then? (trust me, people factor these things in to their decisions)
it would be better for Pasadena to put a citywide bond measure on the ballot; let the trolley supporters put forth their best arguments for building it and let the voters decide if they would support such a thing. if it succeeds, you'd get the funds you need and be able to start construction much faster without attracting the animosity that a parking rate increase would bring.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 21, 2007 10:29:54 GMT -8
But which is it that people are more against? Raised taxes, or raised parking prices? I would propose a bond that would pay for the trolley, but then once the trolley is finished, increase the parking costs in order to pay back the bond.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 21, 2007 12:27:09 GMT -8
the beauty of a bond measure is that it doesn't automatically set off the knee-jerk anti-tax reaction that a gas tax or even a parking increase would. it provides people with an instant, tangible reward to vote for- in this case, investing in the trolley.
bond measures aren't perfect, and anti-tax crusaders won't sit down without a fight, but until people get it through their thick heads that you can't get improved services without having to pay for them, a bond measure represents the least-painful way of paying for those improvements.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 24, 2007 15:36:53 GMT -8
What is the law that states that only parkland can be built over freeway? What is the possibility of getting that removed so that we can build other things on top of freeways?
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Apr 14, 2009 20:00:06 GMT -8
you know where they need to cap (besides some of the mentioned above) the 5(and possibly 2) through Elysian Valley That neighborhood is so cut off a caped freeway with a huge park would be amazing for the surroundings!
|
|