LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Bikemike]

By the way has anyone seen the new bikes hare stations going up in Santa Monica? They look kind of flimsy and cheap compared with those operated by Alta (of Citi bike, Bay Area Bike Share, and Divvy). I appreciate that Santa Monica's bikes will each have their own on-board computer/GPS tracker, enabling bikes to be "returned" at non-station sites for rider convenience (for a pretty ridiculous fee, though) and as a result the SM stations don't have computers on each rack like other systems do, but still they could have used more imagination. The racks look like nothing more than a sheet of metal. A casual glance at it and you'd think it was a cardboard demo station.

It also annoys me that Metro flew in the face of common sense and selected a different operator than both Long Beach and Santa Monica. Interoperability stands to be a major problem. For instance, imagine hiring a bike from Venice and riding into Santa Monica. It was LA's fault that Santa Monica and Long Beach had to go it alone first - getting anything off the ground in LA is damn near impossible and they couldn't waste any more time waiting for LA's ineffective government to take action. SM and LB were already way late to the bike share game as it was. Another case of Los Angeles' short-sighted planning and balkanized politics.

[Quixote]

Full podcast of sit-down interview with new Metro CEO Phil Washington:

http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/20.../the-takeaway/

[202_Cyclist]

Streetcar plan cleared by OCTA: Light-rail line would get $56 million from local Measure M taxes

BY NICOLE KNIGHT SHINE
Orange Co. Register
Aug. 24, 2015

"In a bid to win federal approval and matching funds for a new foray into light rail, the board of the Orange County Transportation Authority on Monday pledged $56 million in local sales taxes to the OC Streetcar.

With the commitment, the agency stands to gain up to $144 million from a competitive federal grant program called New Starts to spend on the planned $289 million light-rail line. The hop-on, hop-off service would would carry commuters, tourists and shoppers to jobs, stores and the Santa Ana train station, traversing four densely populated miles from Santa Ana to Garden Grove.

Supporters say the streetcar brings much-needed mass transit to car-centric Orange County. Critics contend that ridership estimates of 6,000 passengers per day seem optimistic, and say operating costs will be steep..."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/o...ion-santa.html

[losangelesnative]

CALTRANS is giving away 25,000 for any resident who can design the most successful way to improve transportation the deadline to submit is October 13th

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by losangelesnative

CALTRANS is giving away 25,000 for any resident who can design the most successful way to improve transportation the deadline to submit is October 13th

could i send in this? lol

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...8A&usp=sharing

[losangelesnative]

I'd give it a shot

[bzcat]

Potential game changer in LA's rail construction plan... Metro is looking to join a new FTA pilot program that could accelerate construction on the purple line and the LAX peoplemover so both can open before the 2024 Olympics.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...&dlvrit=649324

[Quixote]

Wait, the LAX people mover is currently scheduled for completion in 2028?!

I've been captain of the anti-Olympics ship up to this point, but I'll quickly change my stance if it means getting the Purple Line to the VA Hospital *and* the LAX people mover done by 2024. Not sure how it would work, but I'm glad that it's being discussed at the very least.

[Bikemike]

Why couldn't they have expedited it anyway? I think it's stupid that we need the urgency of a potential Olympics bid to provide the political impetus to do what LA badly needs regardless. Whatever will get them to take action is good, I suppose

[sportbiker]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

Why couldn't they have expedited it anyway? I think it's stupid that we need the urgency of a potential Olympics bid to provide the political impetus to do what LA badly needs regardless. Whatever will get them to take action is good, I suppose

This is the fourth time Metro and/or the City have tried to speed things up.

1. Remember Villaraigosa's 30/10 initiative? It was designed to pull money forward to speed up construction. Try as he might, he didn't have the pull to persuade lawmakers up the food chain to give L.A. a try.
2. Remember "American Fast Forward"? That was when Villaraigosa got Boxer and Feinstein on board to broaden the program and create a national program to speed up construction in many cities. Despite a multi-year effort, they couldn't get it past a Republican congress.
3. Remember "Measure J"? That would have extended the Measure-R tax, allowing Metro to bond against future revenues so they could -- wait for it-- speed up construction. It won but it lost. 66.5% of the voters said "yes" but it needed 66.7% "yes" to pass. So, about 1/3 of the voters said "FU" to the other 2/3.
4. Now Metro's trying to utilize a new (NEW, as in "not available before") federal pilot program designed to speed up construction. The program itself has nothing to do with the Olympics, but Metro is using the games as another card to play, attempting a stronger hand.

[Quixote]

West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor Technical Refinement Study
http://media.metro.net/projects_stud...dy_2015-07.pdf

[Quixote]

Of the remaining four options (West Bank - Pacific/Alameda, West Bank - Pacific/Vignes, West Bank - Alameda, and West Bank - Alameda/Vignes), can we all agree that West Bank - Alameda is far and away the most logical and cost-effective alternative? How can it not be? It's the cheapest one with the highest projected long-term ridership.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Of the remaining four options (West Bank - Pacific/Alameda, West Bank - Pacific/Vignes, West Bank - Alameda, and West Bank - Alameda/Vignes), can we all agree that West Bank - Alameda is far and away the most logical and cost-effective alternative? How can it not be? It's the cheapest one with the highest projected long-term ridership.

Sometimes a glitch in the matrix works in our favor

Metro can probably add an interchange between Blue line and WSAB viaduct somewhere just north of the Slauson station for not much money. This will allow Metro to run the Blue line on the viaduct directly to Union Station.

[Quixote]

^ No kidding. How often is it that comment sense, in this day and age, prevails politically and financially? Oh wait, part of that is not the case here. The city of Cerritos voluntarily opted not to have a station within their city limits.

I'm also bummed that they're not planning on building a station at Lakewood Avenue (even if there's nothing but industrial wasteland surrounding that intersection) given the potential bus connections; it's a majory cross-county artery that connects Sierra Madre and Long Beach!

The same goes for placing the Downey station at Gardendale instead of Imperial Highway.

[Quixote]

Another thing, it'd be great if they could integrate the Alameda alignment with the Regional Connector Little Tokyo station. It could go off on a westward tangent and have a stop at, say, 6th/San Pedro. Constructing a subway station would costly, but it'd be partially offset by the fact that you don't need to build a brand new elevated station in Little Tokyo.

[mas1092]

http://www.metro.net/news/ridership-statistics/

I occasionally check this site every now and then and it seems like every time I have checked that ridership has been dropping. I always found it super weird since LA has expanded a few lines and opened the new Expo line. Any ideas?

[Muji]

I think these are the most likely culprits of falling ridership over the past year or so. [1] Metro finally latched its turnstiles at all Red/Purple Line stations, as well as some light rail stops, mostly between mid-2013 and mid-2014. [2] Fares were restructured in September 2014, increasing prices of regular fares and non-student passes. Though I doubt it's as significant of a factor, relatively low gas prices probably haven't helped ridership either.

Metro has actually been seeking suggestions for how to improve ridership, and their online feedback form still appears to be active: http://www.metro.net/about/local-ser...ship-comments/

[saybanana]

I also think cost of living along with gentrification has pushed transit choice/transit dependent users further away. They are probably driving a car or using another non Metro transit system. The ones replacing them are usually higher income who may have a car or ride a bike, maybe don't need to commute for work using multiple transfers. But I also think the low gas prices have an impact on ridership stats. Who knows?

In my area of Highland Park that used to be ~1/3 in poor/poverty and immigrant class with many using public transit has been slowly shrinking and moving away the past 5 years due to rising rents/evictions/gentrification. The ones moving in are usually car dependent despite decent PT service and much higher income bracket.

[Muji]

That's a great point, saybanana. It's sadly ironic that the growing desirability of the neighborhoods best served by Metro Rail (Koreatown, Westlake, Downtown) could be leading to lower transit ridership. It's yet another reason for the region to focus its affordable housing efforts around denser transit nodes.

[Eightball]

Station dedication held for new Gold Line stations
http://thesource.metro.net/2015/09/2...line-stations/