|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 15, 2008 10:02:51 GMT -8
I've heard about desires to extend the Red Line (or Orange Line) to the Burbank Airport.
Is this practical or should any Red Line extension head north up Lankership or should the Orange Line be turned into an extension of the Red Line so there is a "one-seat" ride to the Northwest Valley.
I like the idea of a Burbank Airport extension.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 15, 2008 11:50:23 GMT -8
well, at the very least, it should be possible to link the Red Line to Burbank Airport; and certainly the airport would be a worthwhile destination.
I'm not exactly sure what the routing would be.... north on Lankershim, I'm guessing since that is how the tracks are aligned at Lankershim/ Chandler. and then east on whichever street most deserves it (presumably Burbank or Vanowen, you wouldn't want a Burbank Airport train to head north of Vanowen or east of North Hollywood Way)
let's be frank, though. money is tight and any new construction in the Valley is going to run into a lot of NIMBY opposition. it may be a long time before they get another rail or (shudder) BRT line.
under the circumstances, I'd be happy just to see what could be done to expand service on the Metrolink line to Burbank. Orange County is moving forward with its plans to beef up its Metrolink service, what about points north of Union Station?
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jan 15, 2008 20:34:03 GMT -8
The Transit Coalition is in a position to beef up service in LA County with Metrolink MAX. Change will not happen unless those who care ask for improvement. As a first line of action, the coalition needs us to write letters to the Metro Board that shows support of 30-minute headways on Metrolink trains from Chatsworth to Laguna Niguel and elsewhere. For greater ease, we can also fill out postcards and send them off to respective Metro Board members. The letters we write can instill interest in regional rail by bringing it to the attention of transportation leaders. Bob Hope/Burbank Airport will have a direct connection to this service. Right now under Rail2Rail, all Metrolink ticketholders may ride the Pacific Surfliner trains too into LAUS from the airport. There are now 65 daily trains to/from LAUS and Bob Hope/Burbank airport stations.
|
|
vnc
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by vnc on Jan 15, 2008 21:55:47 GMT -8
Actually. If you did extend the Red line to The Bob Hope Airport. That would be a good thing. Not too Airports have a Subway, Commuter and Intercity Rail Stations together. You would get people who Live in Hollywood and in That Area. Who would use the Red Line to the Burbank. Instead of taking a Bus. And You would also relieve the traffic problems at Bob Hope with the Subway. And That might also help relieve traffic to LAX. You could get the Subway Station right in front of the Terminals. or near where people don't have too far to walk
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 16, 2008 15:45:18 GMT -8
Actually. If you did extend the Red line to The Bob Hope Airport. That would be a good thing. Not too Airports have a Subway, Commuter and Intercity Rail Stations together. You would get people who Live in Hollywood and in That Area. Who would use the Red Line to the Burbank. Instead of taking a Bus. And You would also relieve the traffic problems at Bob Hope with the Subway. And That might also help relieve traffic to LAX. You could get the Subway Station right in front of the Terminals. or near where people don't have too far to walk I don't think anybody's saying that a Red Line extension would be a bad thing, it's just a matter of priorities. we already have a Metrolink stop at the airport; it just makes more sense to expand an existing service at this time than it would to start the planning process for a subway line that could be years into the future.
|
|
|
Post by kingsfan on Jan 16, 2008 16:21:36 GMT -8
We should also remember that Burbank Airport is subject to a development freeze by it NIMBY neighbors. They cannot even build an outhouse without starting a new fight.
Why spend money for a subway to that airport when it never be more than a minor stop ? NoHo has proven that there is money to be made via subway stations so that opportunity should be used wisely.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 18, 2008 9:39:59 GMT -8
Perhaps the Burbank Airport makes more sense than as an extension of the Orange Line. I do wonder how that stretch of the valley between North Hollywood and Pasadena (namely Burbank and Glendale) can be brought into the system, but that probably won't be the Red Line.
I did love using Metrolink and catching it at downtown Burbank.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 18, 2008 11:51:12 GMT -8
Well, it still ranks highly on the Metro's list of potential projects that are out there. Interesting how we might see LAX, Ontario, Burbank and even Palmdale Airports serve not only as airports but as transportation centers...maybe more as a coincidence than anything else, but perhaps also because they're areas of commerce and high noise/traffic already so that they're good candidates for transportation centers.
On a sort of related note, I do not believe that extending the Orange Line Busway to Burbank and then the Pasadena Gold Line, extending the Red Line to Burbank Airport, and increasing Metrolink service/publicity as mutually exclusive. They're all good ideas and allow the Burbank/Glendale area to be part of a countywide rail/transit network.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 20, 2008 14:18:52 GMT -8
Well, it still ranks highly on the Metro's list of potential projects that are out there. Interesting how we might see LAX, Ontario, Burbank and even Palmdale Airports serve not only as airports but as transportation centers...maybe more as a coincidence than anything else, but perhaps also because they're areas of commerce and high noise/traffic already so that they're good candidates for transportation centers. Los Angeles' regional airports are also victims of geography. except for Palmdale, most of our airports are located in such a way that it has been very easy for development to grow around them. (unlike other metropolitan airports such as Dulles, Gatwick or Narita, which are relatively isolated from the cities they serve) this has been both a blessing and a curse; on the one hand, LAX is now fairly well surrounded by NIMBYs who have trapped the airport like Gulliver's Lilliputians. on the other hand, this relative closeness means that it is almost inevitable that our airports will eventually be served by not one but, in fact, several transit lines- which, only enhances their viability as transportation hubs. assuming of course, that we as Southern Californians are smart enough to recognize this potential.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 21, 2008 5:21:11 GMT -8
on the other hand, this relative closeness means that it is almost inevitable that our airports will eventually be served by not one but, in fact, several transit lines- which, only enhances their viability as transportation hubs. assuming of course, that we as Southern Californians are smart enough to recognize this potential. Served is much different than people who actually use transit to get to the airport. BART was extended to SFO, and ridership has been abysmal. In fact, the airport extension came at the expense of massive service cuts to San Mateo County bus service. SamTrans lost more boardings than the BART extension gained. If there is going to be service to an airport, people should use the system.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 21, 2008 8:14:40 GMT -8
Has London, New York, Paris, et al lost bus ridership when their rail lines were extended to the airport? Probably. But, do people traveling to/from those great cities talk about the bus cuts? Nope. We talk about how easy it is to get from the Central Business District to the airport via train. I hope to hear the same about LA soon.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 21, 2008 8:57:51 GMT -8
Your concerns are well-founded, wad, but there are already tons of folks using the LAX/Green Line shuttles--those who work at LAX. The planned Green Line extension is not only going to provide a gateway for future lines to the Westside (Lincoln/Sepulveda) and Mid-City (Century/Aviation), but ties in with a planned LAWA People Mover and potential Metrolink lines.
Even the taxicabs would probably love to drop folks at Century/Aviation to make it easier for them, especially if congestion pricing ever gets set up at LAX.
The SFO/BART linkage is different than the Green Line/LAX linkage in a lot of respects.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 22, 2008 22:58:38 GMT -8
no two cities' experiences are exactly alike, and I'm not entirely sure what went wrong with San Francisco; but I do know that when I'm visiting a city, rail service to the airport definitely beats bus service (especially with luggage), and express rail beats regular stop service. BART is not express, and therefore might not have been the best choice for SFO. Caltrain should have a closer connection at SFO; Heathrow has both an Underground stop and express trains.
I realize that not everyone on this board appreciates the value of express trains; and not everyone who goes to the airport is a passenger.
however, that is precisely why I am glad that Los Angeles' airports will likely have multiple opportunities for rail and bus connections: the Green Line for commuters, Metrolink for the possibility of express trains to downtown, and of course the Flyaway buses, plus who knows what other connections to the Red Line or even high speed rail?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 23, 2008 5:10:03 GMT -8
Has London, New York, Paris, et al lost bus ridership when their rail lines were extended to the airport? Probably. But, do people traveling to/from those great cities talk about the bus cuts? Nope. We talk about how easy it is to get from the Central Business District to the airport via train. I hope to hear the same about LA soon. The "great cities" argument is the best reason for not building rail to airports. What about Cleveland and St. Louis? Both run rail lines directly into airports, but apart from that, greatness probably took the first plane out of town. Both have moribund economies and are losing populations. Most cities in the Sunbelt, where the major population and job growth is occurring, don't have rail transit to the airports and it's not hurting their economic prospects. People find ways of getting to the airport even with no train. I still maintain that the cost-to-ridership potential for airport rail service falls within a best-case scenario of the lowest priority to the worst-case of not building it at all because it would be a waste of resources.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 23, 2008 5:20:14 GMT -8
no two cities' experiences are exactly alike, and I'm not entirely sure what went wrong with San Francisco; Well, BART got to the airport. The trains are there. Maybe it was never going to be right. The routing is certainly good. It's really fast in San Mateo County, and the San Francisco stops are in the Civic Center and Financial District, and even gets across the bay in a timely manner. BART does not go to Marin County, the communities along the San Pablo Bay, or south of the airport to Silicon Valley, the Monterey Peninsula or the upper San Joaquin Valley. SFO serves regions hundreds of miles from the airport. SFO also has plenty of airport parking, rental car and hotel shuttles, vans and dedicated motorcoach services similar to FlyAway. It's a heavily saturated area. However, if you lived in the county of the airport, you'd just seen local bus service massively reduced to pay for the BART extension. The county cut the bus service to pay for that extension. It ended up losing more of that bus ridership than any activity that materialized on the train.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 24, 2008 11:43:50 GMT -8
The "great cities" argument is the best reason for not building rail to airports. What about Cleveland and St. Louis? Both run rail lines directly into airports, but apart from that, greatness probably took the first plane out of town. Both have moribund economies and are losing populations. Most cities in the Sunbelt, where the major population and job growth is occurring, don't have rail transit to the airports and it's not hurting their economic prospects. People find ways of getting to the airport even with no train. I still maintain that the cost-to-ridership potential for airport rail service falls within a best-case scenario of the lowest priority to the worst-case of not building it at all because it would be a waste of resources. wow, Wad, you're sounding dangerously close to anti-rail. if a rail line is good enough to connect Santa Monica to downtown, why is it not good enough to connect LAX to downtown? if a city like Phoenix can get by without a rail line to SkyHarbor, why can't it get by without the rail line that it is currently building to Tempe? after all, as of today, they still don't have light rail (building it is not the same thing as having it) and their economy is indeed doing fine! (in fact, Phoenix's construction is having the same short-term effect on local businesses as the Gold Line extension is having on East Los Angeles. light rail is, for the time being, making business worse) if a rail line to the airport is a waste of resources, then what about other underperforming light rail lines such as the Gold Line? are they not a waste of resources? please enlighten us!
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 24, 2008 12:25:25 GMT -8
BART does not go to Marin County, the communities along the San Pablo Bay, or south of the airport to Silicon Valley, the Monterey Peninsula or the upper San Joaquin Valley. SFO serves regions hundreds of miles from the airport. SFO also has plenty of airport parking, rental car and hotel shuttles, vans and dedicated motorcoach services similar to FlyAway. It's a heavily saturated area. However, if you lived in the county of the airport, you'd just seen local bus service massively reduced to pay for the BART extension. The county cut the bus service to pay for that extension. It ended up losing more of that bus ridership than any activity that materialized on the train. although I am a rail transit fan, I do not always keep up with the news in other cities, and so I was curious to see what San Franciscans had to say about the BART-SFO connection: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/08/BART.TMPI'll admit it's a little dusty, but still good. from the article: "Officials say the chief culprits of BART's ridership woes on the Peninsula are the dot-com bust of 2000 that meant the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and therefore fewer commuters than anticipated..." I guess San Francisco belongs in the same category as Cleveland and St. Louis, eh? He who lives by the dot-com, dies by the dot-com? ;D "SamTrans, the Peninsula bus system, has paid for the train's operations. BART remains responsible for capital expenditures. That unique agreement stems from the fact that San Mateo County does not belong to the BART district whose residents in Alameda, San Francisco and Contra Costa counties have been required to pay sales and property taxes to fund the transit system." the bold emphasis is mine. but, San Mateo has had opportunities to join BART. if San Mateo had wanted to, they could have found ways to keep the SamTrans airport buses running. they chose, for whatever reasons, not to. look, BART isn't perfect. it has all of the signs of having been overbuilt. why did they not build it to a standard gauge? there are problems to BART that have had nothing to do with the airport extension. BART may not have been the best choice for the airport. if there is a lesson to be learned from the BART experience, it is this: Do not put all your eggs in one basket.worried about the MTA taking money away from buses? go complain to the BRU. worried about low ridership? go recruit Mr. James E. Moore of USC. he'll provide you with plenty of ammo. San Francisco's situation is NOT analogous to Los Angeles. L.A. will never be Tokyo, London or New York, so does that mean we should stop trying to build rail? no, it means that we need to come up with solutions. here's one: finish the Green Line AND bring Metrolink in via the Harbor Subdivision.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jan 24, 2008 18:27:16 GMT -8
Two things I've got to appreciate about our transit system here in LA are the EZ Pass (soon to be TAP) and Rail2Rail. Passengers arrive at Burbank, buy a Metrolink ticket to Downtown LA, board the first train that arrives whether it be Metrolink or the Surfliner, and they're good to go until they get to their final destination in LA.
SF needs a similar program. Their transit systems need an "EZ Pass"/"TAP" program: both monthly passes, and single day passes. Like our system here in LA, there should be one pass for local and BRT travel, and one for express/commuter buses.
The local EZ Pass should also allow passengers unlimited trips on BART in the urban areas of SF which includes the airport, while the express permits unlimited rides systemwide. BART right now lacks both a day and monthly pass; passengers pay for each trip. The San Diego Trolley uses distance based fares, yet offers both day and montly passes for unlimited systemwide rides on the rails.
Caltrain should have a similar program offered to its ticketholders just like Metrolink ticketholders. Caltrain tickets should allow for free rides on local buses and the urban areas served by BART.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jan 24, 2008 23:05:35 GMT -8
The concept of an "all carriers" fare system reminds me of someone who told me about visiting a European country (probably Switzerland) where one pass was good on most railways, tram systems, buses and even lake steamers. This is one of the attractions of the automobile: Fill it up with gas (or diesel) and you can (to borrow a song title from the 60's) "Go where you want to go, do what you want to do". No fumbling for exact change, no dealing with ticket machines (or ticket inspectors). This is one of the reasons why I oppose gates/turnstiles at LA Metro stations--it must be as easy as possible for non-regular transit riders to use the system.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 25, 2008 3:16:38 GMT -8
wow, Wad, you're sounding dangerously close to anti-rail. I am not as fanatical about rail as some on this group, but I hardly would be considered anti-rail. I think rail should go first and foremost to where the ridership justifies such service. And, because rail is expensive, there are priorities that should be set, so the most patronized lines need to be built first. This means: 1. Wilshire subway to the sea 2. Vermont subway from Wilshire to at least the Green Line 3. A rail service along Santa Monica and Sunset Boulevards 4. A rail service along the Mission Road right of way to El Monte 5. An MIS for the 405 freeway, which could be a busway in the freeway or a rail line along Van Nuys and Westwood boulevards 6. Gold Line extension to Whittier 7. Light rail along the Harbor Subdivision to LAX 8. Lincoln Boulevard rail line Note number 7 and 8. In these instances, I support a rail extension to LAX. That's because it would be a stop on the line, not the linchpin for the line's ridership. In the case of 7, I maintain this corridor should be light rail and not Metrolink because there's a very high ridership potential along Slauson Avenue between Inglewood and Huntington Park. Metrolink would shut out these communities from transit access. Also, my selections are based on knowing where the highest transit demand is right now. Bus ridership is the best, most reliable indicator for rail line success. This is because rail ridership patterns are similar, but more intense, than bus patterns. If there's a rail project I oppose, it's because the low ridership potential compounds the high expense. I have little regard for the Sprinter, the Foothill Gold Line and the San Jose system. If it's rail, it has to be used well.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 25, 2008 14:03:45 GMT -8
Wad- I guess nobody told you that half a loaf is better than none.
I disagree with assigning the Green Line extension and the Harbor Sub #7 and #8 priorities, because I think the idea of airport rail has more merit than you give it credit. but right now I want to address another issue:
the fact of the matter is that the Sprinter is almost open, but a Vermont subway is not even on the MTA's radar; San Jose has its light rail system but it may be years before Whittier gets a rail line and the Foothill light rail line is probably much closer to becoming a reality than most of the projects on your list, even including the Subway to the Sea.
it is foolish to oppose a rail project when a local community has fought hard for it and will continue to fight for it. the San Gabriel Valley had a dream, they presented a unified front, they had a right of way and they got what they desired.
when we fight against rail projects, we are doing the work of the Bus Riders Union and the Reason Foundation for them.
it is important to have these discussions so we can work out our strategies and solve problems; but once a project gains momentum (such as the Expo Line has, or apparently the Downtown Connector is close to doing), either lead, follow or GET OUT OF THE WAY.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jan 25, 2008 15:17:08 GMT -8
I also agree with making the Harbor Sub a light rail line. The local ridership in Huntington Park and along Slauson will be astronomical and it would tie in with a Crenshaw light rail line along the western part of it. Addiitionally it could take some pressure off of the Blue Line going into downtown since right after it crosses the Slauson station it curves upward through Huntington Park to Union Station. I also think that we need to start planning our future light rail lines for 4 car trains, which means no more street running (because blocks limit car lengths) though at grade ROW rail with crossing gates would still work . This would be a great place to start.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 25, 2008 16:51:05 GMT -8
Light rail to LAX is pretty far down my list as well. Many employees will use it, but I doubt that many tourists or local travelers will.
The Vermont subway is on the MTA's radar because it's on the Long Range Plan that was just approved. At least it was on the proposed list and I assume that it's on the approved one. I don't know how far down the list it is. Hopefully someone will let us know when the LRP is available for download. (hint)
I don't see how the Harbor Subdivision would work as light rail. They'd have to get the freight trains to run outside of light rail operating hours. Is that feasible?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 25, 2008 17:11:40 GMT -8
Well, now you know why Metro is considering going with DMU on the Harbor Subdivision to allow both Metrolink and Metrolink-compatible regional and local service on that line. I'm not saying it's the right way to go, but it does show that Metro is trying to grapple with both regional and local commuter concerns on that corridor.
As for the Green Line, the ridership of the shuttles between Aviation/Imperial and LAX is already huge because all of the workers. The Green Line ridership is already up to 35,000 or more, and not only would we get a short-term jump in ridership but it would enable all the other connecting future lines by establishing the key Century/Aviation rail hub for the Westside and South Bay.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jan 25, 2008 17:56:31 GMT -8
Hopefully someone will let us know when the LRP is available for download. (hint) update for the draft LRP 2008
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jan 25, 2008 18:08:02 GMT -8
Boy that price tag for Phase 2 just keeps going up and up and up.
1-2 miles shorter than Phase 1, yet twice the price.
Hmm...I guess theres some validity to those concerns in phase 1 communities that phase 2 would get a Lexus, while Phase 1 is being built like a Yugo.
"Our lives begin to end the moment we become silent about things that matter." -Martin
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jan 25, 2008 19:09:48 GMT -8
This list is ridiculous for a lot of reasons. For one, the Expo Phase 2 cost tag. Either that is a combined price tag or Laura Chick needs to do one of her audits (yah I know she is city not county but you get the point). If it really is 1.6 billion just for phase II then thats 2.4 billion total and we should've just just extended the Purple Line to Century City at that price. Not to mention if its 1.6 then theres no denying Damien's argument in a court of law.
Next complaint, Eastside line trackwork is almost finished and line testing is supposed to start in October so there is no way in hell that its opening in 2010. Also why are they spending 200 mil on a Wilshire busway that wont even be done for 18 years. Use that money for an extra mile for the Purple Line. Last complaint, Crenshaw not done for 17 years? And this list I'm critiquing is just stuff that the MTA is committed to. At this rate, we'll see rail down Vermont in 2065
P.S. Maglev is still alive. Tell metro to stop wasting our precious ROWs on busways and maglevs and crap
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jan 25, 2008 19:31:40 GMT -8
So the Orange Line is a Chinese rickshaw? I won't mind the Yugo then, plenty of people in the Valley won't mind either.
BTW, it should be noted that the reason the majority of our rail system doesn't go where people go is because the routing is limited by legacy ROWs. The Metro Blue, Green (yes parts of it, along with the I-105 are on old railroad ROWs), Gold, and Orange Lines exists because of the ROWs, the same with the future Expo Line. Only the Metro Red and Purple Lines goes where the destinations are, albeit, they are also subway lines that can run anywhere they want. If Metro had no limits on where to build rail, especially underground, we'd have a Wilshire subway instead of the Expo Line to Santa Monica (following Rapid 720), a subway following Rapid 780's route would hit more spots, especially in Glendale, towards Pasadena instead of the Gold Line going through quiet SoPas, a Ventura Boulevard subway would replace the Orange Line (following Rapid 750). Note that the Metro Rapid hits more destination spots, but only because the only mode of transit other than subways to get to those spots is with buses.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 25, 2008 20:19:35 GMT -8
Thanks jejozwik, but I did see that list on the MTA website earlier today. I'm not sure if those are listed in terms of priority and it'll be interesting to see the costs, ridership projections, and anticipated timeline. Crenshaw 2025 isn't necessarily a good sign of things to come. Depends on your perspective I guess, but if that's the first project after expo...
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jan 25, 2008 22:16:01 GMT -8
|
|