L.A. Metro Area Transit: What's Next? - Page 7

LongBeachUrbanist · #**121** Posted **Aug 18, 2006, 8:23 PM**

To me it's a no-brainer to the Harbor Subdivision, the only question is what is the right mix. I like the idea of running Metrolink trains along that route at least to LAX. Beyond LAX, I'm not sure whether Metrolink service would be best, or if maybe continuing the Green Line south would be better.

LosAngelesBeauty · #**122** Posted **Aug 18, 2006, 9:06 PM**

Two fucking decades.......or more??? What is this? Africa?

LosAngelesSportsFan · #**123** Posted **Aug 18, 2006, 9:31 PM**

Jesus, seriously. if the row is there, how hard can it be to lay some god damn track and get it going. its a no brainer. 2 decades or more, are they kidding me. God no wonder people dont really care about mass transit here, its not feasable for them to use it in their lifetimes. God, speed this shit up. if Madrid, or whatever city it is can add 50 miles of subway in two years, we sure can add above ground line in less than 25 years.

LosAngelesBeauty · #**124** Posted **Aug 18, 2006, 9:36 PM**

^ This is LA. We're not Denver or Atlanta (You know, real cities). They do things much faster there.

Wright Concept · #**125** Posted **Aug 18, 2006, 9:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LongBeachUrbanist

To me it's a no-brainer to the Harbor Subdivision, the only question is what is the right mix. I like the idea of running Metrolink trains along that route at least to LAX. Beyond LAX, I'm not sure whether Metrolink service would be best, or if maybe continuing the Green Line south would be better.

IMO, Portions of the Right of way can handle both. Like linking a potential Crenshaw Line using the right-of way and then operate on the South Bay branch of the Green Line using the south part of the railroad on to the Galleria and Del Amo.

For the entire corridor it's Metrolink all the way. Build it simple and quick and then schedule service every 30 minutes. Then incramentally add service and electrify it so it can operate even more service. We'd have a heavy rail capacity at Commuter Rail prices.

Wright Concept · #**126** Posted **Aug 18, 2006, 9:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Jesus, seriously. if the row is there, how hard can it be to lay some god damn track and get it going. its a no brainer. 2 decades or more, are they kidding me. God no wonder people dont really care about mass transit here, its not feasable for them to use it in their lifetimes. God, speed this shit up. if Madrid, or whatever city it is can add 50 miles of subway in two years, we sure can add above ground line in less than 25 years.

And given that the key portion of it runs through Bernard Parks district, it may take that long. He wants light rail, but the stop spacing isn't suited for that, not yet at least. The MTA planners are saying the same thing but they rarely think outside of the box.

LosAngelesSportsFan · #**127** Posted **Aug 18, 2006, 10:02 PM**

add a few more years for Parks to figure out what color is suitable for him and the line so now the timeline is 30 years. great.

edluva · #**128** Posted **Aug 18, 2006, 10:03 PM**

If we ever get rail to service the eastern end of LAX where the subdivision passes, won't we still need a people-mover or tram to get passengers into and out of terminals? That would require an additional transfer just to go, what, an extra half mile? Because I can't imagine them tunneling for push-pull

Wright Concept · #**129** Posted **Aug 18, 2006, 10:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edluva

If we ever get rail to service the eastern end of LAX where the subdivision passes, won't we still need a people-mover or tram to get passengers into and out of terminals? That would require an additional transfer just to go, what, an extra half mile? Because I can't imagine them tunneling for push-pull

You would still need a people mover for a Green Line extension or Metrolink style service, because of the layout of the airport. The key element is to make transfer is effortless as possible. If the stations were designed where the trains could be on opposite sides of the platform like a "Local-Express" NYC train, that would make the change very quick and easy.

LosAngelesSportsFan · #**130** Posted **Aug 18, 2006, 10:49 PM**

yes, imagine three lines feeding the People mover, the green, the LAX Express and the eventual 405 line.

Damien · #**131** Posted **Aug 18, 2006, 11:42 PM**

My idea for the southern portion of the Harbor Subdivision makes it part of a 405 line, connecting Long Beach, the South Bay, LAX, westside and Valley. If 405 traffic is any indication it should be built heavy rail.

If the $4 billion Red line money is used to turn the trains north from Wilshire/Westwood into the Valley (as opposed to west to Santa Monica Pier), and the Green line is connected to LAX all that would be necessary is to fill the gaps: Wilshire/Westwood to LAX and from Redondo Beach down to the Blue line via primarily the Harbor Subdivision.

colemonkee · #**132** Posted **Aug 18, 2006, 11:55 PM**

Damien, you need to get in there and talk some sense into these people.

edluva · #**133** Posted **Aug 19, 2006, 9:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PracticalVisionary

You would still need a people mover for a Green Line extension or Metrolink style service, because of the layout of the airport. The key element is to make transfer is effortless as possible. If the stations were designed where the trains could be on opposite sides of the platform like a "Local-Express" NYC train, that would make the change very quick and easy.

so tunneling is out of the question? suppose they were to decide on DMU or EMU? Wouldn't it be nice if we got an underground spur off the subdivision terminating directly under the airport like O'Hare or Dulles?

A people-mover would be cheaper, but how much so? I don't know much about cost, but I feel like the tunnel would be very short, and a single undergound station might be cost-competitive with building what would be essentially 2 stations in the metrolink-serviced alternative... a transfer station where the subdivision currently passes, and another station for the people-mover within the airport. Or am I way off?

Wright Concept · #**134** Posted **Aug 19, 2006, 3:30 PM**

It would be nice, but while you're at it, there might as well be one for the Green Line too. Where would you put this station at the airport?

Damien · #**135** Posted **Aug 19, 2006, 8:43 PM**

The current layout of LAX is so limiting that most expansion plans involve serious terminal reconfiguration and carries with it a hefty price tag. It's an expense that in my opinion, currently is not worth it. And I think if you asked most people and planners if they'd spend the money upgrading LAX or building a couple of rail lines connecting to LAX, they all would choose the latter.

Then again, maybe I'm a bit biased as I've never really understood the airport fascination. I'm the type of traveler that always does e-check-in and arrives 40-45 minutes before take off, which means I typically spend no more than 10 minutes sitting in the terminals. In my eyes the only purpose of the facility is to service the plane taking me to my destination. I don't need to be wowed by it and I definitely won't ever buy the overpriced food and drinks.

edluva · #**136** Posted **Aug 20, 2006, 12:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PracticalVisionary

It would be nice, but while you're at it, there might as well be one for the Green Line too. Where would you put this station at the airport?

well, would it be possible for the harbor sub to be converted to DMU and have the green line share tracks and station into and under the terminals.

Wright Concept · #**137** Posted **Aug 20, 2006, 3:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edluva

well, would it be possible for the harbor sub to be converted to DMU and have the green line share tracks and station into and under the terminals.

They could share tracks but not the same track on the station platforms because the width of the trains are different. Typical DMU 9'6"-10'6, Green Line trains 8'6".

Wright Concept · #**138** Posted **Aug 23, 2006, 3:32 PM**

Backing sought in MTA fight
Bus Riders Union asks neighborhood councils to support decree
BY RACHEL URANGA, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

The Bus Riders Union, a grass-roots group that forced the MTA to replace thousands of buses and add routes through a consent decree that is about to expire, is drumming up support to keep the measure alive.
But instead of turning to the City Council or other influential partners, the riders union is working with neighborhood councils.

Though neighborhood councils are grappling for more power in the city, the riders union is betting on their alliance-building potential in what could be a drawn-out fight.

"We think these are prime issues that the community should rally behind, and that is just what we are doing, going out to the community and trying to win forces," said Manuel Criollo, lead organizer for the Bus Riders Union.

"(Neighborhood councils) are a new arena to begin to tackle important questions facing the city, and the consent decree is one of those critical questions."

The riders union says that if the judge does not extend the consent decree before it expires in October, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority will hike bus fares and cut service.

But MTA Chairwoman Gloria Molina says the riders union is using "scare tactics," saying that while the MTA faces tight budget constraints, it will not necessarily cut bus routes.

"Trying to scare people that they are going to cut service and increase fares is unfair," she said.

So far, of the 21 neighborhood councils consulted, only Pacoima and West Hills have backed the Bus Riders Union.

"Neighborhood councils are trying to address things that are truly important to our community and our stakeholders... But it's also becoming a clearinghouse of issues," said Brady Westwater, chairman of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Congress' Council.

The 1996 decree came out of a Bus Riders Union lawsuit accusing the MTA of heavily subsidizing subways for suburban riders at the cost of poor urban bus riders.

It pushed the MTA to spend more than $1 billion to add services and reduce overcrowding.

But over the years, MTA officials have complained that the requirements force them to run duplicate lines. And with buses so heavily subsidized - only about a third of the cost is covered by passenger fares - MTA officials have conceded that fare hikes are on the horizon.

rachel.uranga@dailynews.com

(818) 713-3741

netwerk01 · #**139** Posted **Aug 23, 2006, 3:48 PM**

This brings to light a question which maybe someone here can answer:

What kind of work do groups like the Transit Coalition and other pro-rail advocacy organizations do to lobby and collaborate with the neighborhood councils? Between having a strong lobbying arm (such as Friends of the x Line) combined with aligning the neighborhood councils, this seems to be one way to either align support or co-opt local NIMBYs.

It is good to have the support of the mayor, but, the neighborhood councils are now a legitimate (albeit currently not too powerful) voice which may increase in power as the years go on. How are we currently aligned with them to support the vision of expanded rail service?

Wright Concept · #**140** Posted **Aug 23, 2006, 4:00 PM**

^ Well for the Transit Coalition we work directly with or are in some neighborhood councils and business improvement groups so that our coalition is dealing directly with "stakeholders" both residential and business.

When I lived down by USC I was starting with the Vermont neighborhood council who would directly be one of the BRU's possible locations. Thankfully those who are in the South LA councils also frequently attend MTA Governance council meetings so they know their antics and know that they are all sizzle and no steak.