Wow thanks for posting that LAdude! I hope many of us transit geeks on this board will attend

It's been nearly a decade since I've been there. Looks totally different!

anybody attend Mayor V.'s 10 year plan meeting and willing to share?

The W Hotel subway entrance now looks pretty much like the renderings from a few years back. Maybe better.

^ Streetsblog LA has a Youtube video on the presentation...

Move L.A. Wants to Get Moving!

By Stephen Box
December 15, 2009

Denny Zane is calling on the Measure R Champions and challenging them to engage in a second round of battle, this time mobilizing to embrace the 30/10 campaign which will leverage the anticipated $40 Billion in funding and then expedite the process so that 30 years of transit construction can be completed in the next 10 years.

This "all or nothing" campaign has several anticipated benefits, including significant discounts on American product, significant environmental impact, significant employment opportunities, and, most of all, the completion of the 12 mega-transit projects that are currently in line, all within 10 years.

...

• Video Link

I hope this project not only revitalizes a rather seedy part of Downtown, but also sparks a streetcar revolution. Streetcars are cheaper and quicker to construct than LRT and they are more attractive than buses. Since LA cannot build a dense rail network in the inner city, streetcars are the way to go IMO.

Streetcar Project Receives Federal Funding, Wants to Ask for More

By Eric Richardson
December 14, 2009

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles Streetcar, Inc. and Councilman Jose Huizar last week announced $250,000 in Congressional funding, but the project's sights are set on bigger dollar amounts. Executive Director Dennis Allen said that the project plans to apply for $25 million out of a $280 million grant fund just created for "urban circulator projects."

Until now, the project had been unsure whether it would be going for federal money to cover part of its estimated $90 - $100 million construction cost. "If you go for the federal funding, it just extends your timeline," said Allen. Funds from the new grant program, announced on December 1 by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, come with drastically reduced requirements, allowing them to be put to use much quicker.

...

After much delay, DC finally received its streetcars from the Czech Republic this week.

The FEIR for Expo II has been released and can be viewed here.

how likely is it that theyre gonna go venice/sepulveda?

^ The Expo Authority selected the Expo-Colorado alignment as the LPA back in April.

so basically none.

thanks for the quick answer westsidelife.

It makes sense, really. Venice should have it's own line into Downtown.

While I agree Venice should have rail too, I disagree that it needs to head downtown. Look at all the neighborhood problems they had with the Expo line, that basically followed an old freight railroad corridor. Imagine the problems they will have in a street environment.

^ Huh? Wouldn't street-running rail, especially on a wide street such as Venice Blvd., be less susceptible to NIMBYism?

Good news but where specifically where are the streetcars going to run? Just down Broadway? Anybody have a map layout of how extensive this will be?

^ http://www.lastreetcar.org/wp-conten...90707_web1.pdf

Why would it? If there were any schools on Venice Blvd, the crazys would want the light rail tracks to go over or under its crossing street. Imagine that in the median of a city street. Or worse yet, fencing in the tracks so kids and cars can't cross at all, all in the name of safety.

Thanks Westsidelife. There are certain elements of all 3 that I like but none of them as a whole. I suppose I would also like a line either up Main or Los Angeles St. too.

I'd also like to see one go up Sunset from Union Station to Vermont (connects to the red line there) and then up Vermont ending at Griffith Park with stops in Los Filez and Silverlake and just below Dodgers Stadium, but I suppose that would never happen. Sunset Junction Silverlake and Los Feliz would be well served by it.

Streetcars are definately not a win-win. They compete for space that cars and pedestrians use and are slow... providing less incentive to use. IMO, streetcar may be best applicable to a small area, contained to an individual town like Glendale or Pasadena or Long Beach. But, traversing longer distances with the objective to reduce congestion by providing travel time benefits... better modes are light or heavy rail.

Maps are online... just look. they are basically running up and down Broadway with turn-around areas up on Bunker hill and down by 11th or 12th.

A good question.... where will the streetcars be stored and maintained?????

Why does it matter? Streetcars for all intents and purposes are just LRT embedded in the street. As long as the trains are interoperable (that is, a train can run on the Gold, Blue, Expo, etc), that's all that should matter.

Yes, Pasadena is actually working on the Feasibility Study right now for a streetcar system in Downtown Pasadena. I am hoping that there will be leadership and great effort to find the $100 million it'll take to fund the entire system.

I don't think there should be anything intended for commuters in the DT to Westside area that is above ground. This area will have bad traffic forever and the streetcars add to the congestion. In this area, put transit underground.

I can make an exception for the Bway Trolley because it is basically a tourist attraction and convenience (connects LA Live, Bway theaters and shopping, civic center, Music Center). It will incidentaly help get local residents around within DT, but this is not a commuter function or the trolley's primary function. The same argument applies for Hollywood Blvd. to Melrose and Farmer's Market; and along the coast from Washington to SM: use the cuteness factor to attract tourism and get some rewards for locals as well

Within DT, I could live with extending it to Chinatown, Dodger Stadium (with some other conveyance to elevate people to the stadium). Up Sunset to Vermont and toward Alameda and the river is tempting, but I wonder if this can't be covered adequately by buses?

It's only a matter of time until Pasadena does one; and I can picture Glendale running it out of Americana and right onto Brand Blvd.

I think Anaheim would be a great place for a couple streetcar lines. One would connect Disneyland to the Anaheim Metrolink station (future locaton of the ARTIC). Another serve Disneyland and the major hotels.

^ A monorail is actually the best way to connect Disneyland with the Anaheim train station only because it actually matches the whole theme goin' on, AND it would be A LOT faster whisking people to and from the theme park and the train station. A street car would be VERY slow if the intention is to get people between point A and B in the fastest way possible without much walkable urban interests in between.

LosAngelesBeauty--

You joke about this but Anaheim is actually considering build a monorail system from the proposed transit center (ARTIC) to Disneyland. The monorail would cost $500M to go 3.5 miles, or $140M per mile. This is nearly four times the estimated cost per mile of DC's proposed streetcar system. Instead of this Fantasyland monorail, OCTA should restore some of the bus service that was reduced earlier this year with their draconian cuts or increase Metrolink frequencies.

Here's more information about the project.

http://www.transitrideroc.com/2009/1...pensive-slow-m

http://www.ocregister.com/news/anahe...rail-city.html

Why so expensive I'll never understand. Place a bunch of pylons, nothing new when highways have it all the time, lay out some prefab concrete beams (much less elaborate than a causeway bridge), hook up the power supply boom done. I know Im grossly oversimplifying but seriously $140 M/mile? what the hell? Reason I'm saying is because it would be the best choice for the area.

^ Freeways cost more than subways!!

dl and LAB:

This reminds me of discussions about the LA subway 20-30 years ago; people were horrified about the cost and time it would take. Someone argued that the subway could be built in 5 years at 1/4 the price if there were waivers from the minimum wage for 5000 construction workers, draftsmen, support services, parts suppliers, etc. It would also help the Mexican economy and this pattern could be replicated in any city across the country. (I don't think there were any numbers to support any of this, but you get the idea.)

The theory was that it didn't take any US jobs, since at those prices the work simply would not be done.

Of course, this wasn't going to happen, but interestingly an analog to it is occurring in government grants for transportation, energy, etc. The US company that gets the bid outsources labor to China, equipment and technology purchases to Germany and Spain, etc. And, oddly, most republicans and democrats are OK with this (there isn't much choice for some of it).

dl3000--

I am not too familiar with this area but why would an aerial monorail be the best choice for this area? Elevated highways (Whitehurst Freeway in DC, Alaska Viaduct in Seattle) are usually horrific for surrounding pedestrian activity. Wouldn't light rail be more affordable and contribute to a livable, walkable community near the ARTIC transit hub and the Platinum Triangle?

Grade separation in this area is key. The resort district and the Stadium (the parking lot of which will be the location of ARTIC) is at the crossroads of several major avenues in the northern Orange County and Souther LA area, namely Katella Ave, Harbor Blvd, and Ball Rd. Getting quick transportation that bypasses all of this from a station to Disneyland and the Convention Center (the destinations of the resort district) would make it very easy and enticing for local LA visitors (the biggest demographic of Disneyland attendance) to hop on a train down to Disneyland. It would be in Disney and the Convention Center's best interest to focus the routing to just those two destinations as those are the main draws to the area. It is not meant to shuttle locals to their homes like a light rail system, it is to shuttle tourists and visitors more than anything. Disneyland already has a transportation hub for hotel shuttles and bus routes so that could become an intermodal transit center. And on top of that but less politically relevant, Disneyland already has a monorail, so the interface between the public system and Disneyland's system in the form of some transfer station seems like an ideal match and there is even space for such a station at the eastern entrance of the resort where the shuttle stops are.

I saw those and they look decent, but as the line is still a couple years away from opening and the streetcar yard hasn't yet been built what was the rush?

Villaraigosa adviser's new job: Help bring light rail to LAX (Torrence Daily Breeze)
 

Villaraigosa adviser's new job: Help bring light rail to LAX

By Art Marroquin Staff Writer
Posted: 12/24/2009 04:10:59 PM PST

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_14066384?source=rss

One of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's top advisers will be transferred Jan. 4 to a new job aimed at finally bringing a light rail system to Los Angeles International Airport.

Deputy Mayor Diego Alvarez is leaving Villaraigosa's office to become regional transportation coordinator for Los Angeles World Airports, according to a memo issued this week by Villaraigosa's chief of staff, Rev. Jeff Carr.

The Mayor's Office could not be reached for comment.

Alvarez will also develop plans with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to extend the Metro Gold Line to LA/Ontario International Airport, which is also owned by LAWA.

This will be Alvarez's second stint for LAWA, where he previously worked as the executive assistant for government relations for several years.

"We are delighted to have Diego back at the airport, where he will be coordinating and affecting communication between LAX, Ontario airport and the MTA, continuing our goal of regional transportation," said Michael Molina, LAWA's senior director of external affairs.

Two years ago, Villaraigosa appointed Alvarez as deputy mayor of legislative and intergovernmental relations, where he served as chief liaison to federal, state and local government agencies. Alvarez, a graduate of George Washington University Law School and University of California, Irvine, held similar government liaison roles during the mayoral tenures of James Hahn and Richard Riordan.

For now, the Metro Green Line's stop at Aviation Boulevard and Imperial Highway drops passengers about two miles away from LAX, forcing travelers to board a bus to complete a trip to the airport.

To help close the gap, the MTA board earlier this month signed off on the $1.7 billion Crenshaw Line, which would link the Green Line to the Exposition Line.

The 8.5-mile Crenshaw Line includes a proposed stop at Century and Aviation boulevards, which would drop travelers about a mile from LAX. From there, LAWA would be in charge of connecting passengers to the airport via a bus or tram.

However, a Los Angeles City Council committee directed airport officials in July to study whether it's possible to bring either the Green Line or the Crenshaw Line directly to LAX by building a stop on the site of a 20-acre parking lot adjacent to Terminal 1.

I don't believe that is going anywhere.... or went anywhere.

True; of course, past Arlington (heading TO downtown) the street narrows quite a bit.

Your sounding alot like Damien Goodmon...

It could still happen if the Alameda Corridor East Project is planned right. It would be known as the "Silver Line", from Hollywood to El Monte (maybe even Walnut).

Light Rail actually WAS what I was thinking of. It could go to downtown via Venice, Hoover, and Washington to connect with the Expo and Blue Lines.

Happy Holidays to everyone! I'm sorry about the delayed responses, as I haven't had enough time to peruse this forum; only quick glances and short replies here and there.

Sorry, it was poor wording on my part. By "street-running" I didn't mean at-grade. Your reference to Expo, whose ROW runs through a mostly residential area, suggested to me that a street (commercial) environment would be better. NIMBYs wouldn't have to worry about at-grade rail along a busy street such as Venice Blvd., as grade separation (be it above or below) would be much more cost-effective.

Of the three options, I think the first one is the best. The more area that's covered, the more opportunities there will be for new development. A streetcar along Main St. could definitely work and would help spur revitalization in the Toy and Fashion Districts. I'm hopeful that the current project in the works will spark some sort of streetcar revolution not just in Downtown, but all over the city as well.

Never say never. As a matter of fact, it's an official project on the LRTP. Interestingly enough, what you described is actually a former PE route, so a streetcar would be very fitting. I think a streetcar would be great in the short-term, with the ultimate solution being HRT.

I'm saying streetcars should complement HRT/LRT, not replace them. These HRT/LRT lines we're building are 2-3 miles apart and there's not enough money or political leverage to build a denser network. Streetcars would "fill in the gaps" and, secondly, add some nice ambiance.

LRT has higher capacity and therefore requires more grade separation. Any LRT line in the central city would have to be at least partially grade-separated, unless it's running on an exclusive ROW or along a very wide street. And, again, I'm talking about streetcars serving neighborhoods, not regions.

Regarding the LAX rail connection, I think bringing the Green Line to the parking lot adjacent to Terminal 1 would be a futile solution. First of all, that site is still situated on the periphery of the airport, so that would still require an automated people mover to be built. Second of all, the site could be put to better use as the location of a new passenger terminal. That would speed up the modernization process.

What type of streetcars are you speaking of; Vintage (turn of the century), Historic (1950's era; SF), or Modern (Portland)?

For the time being, i'll assume Modern... like Portland's.

Whether a rail line is streetcar or light-rail, there is an associated cost to build and operate. Implementing a modern streetcar line, for the most part, is no different than the pursuit of light-rail. Of course, modern streetcars could have 'level boarding' and lower profile stations; however, the cost differential is nominal, and, possible offset assuming stations are closer together. Basically, in my opinion, your statement is an over-simplification; however, agreed that they could provide more ambiance.


Higher capacity does not equal more grade separation. Do you mean frequency? More frequency provides more capacity? Either way, frequency of service must be considered with vehicular volume and delays. Pedestrians too. All that before deciding to grade-separate.

As I understand it, the main difference between streetcars and LRT is weight. Streetcars are substantially cheaper and faster to build than LRT because they are lighter (less capacity) and therefore do not require the large amounts of utility relocation that building LRT requires. That is why streetcars can typically run on LRT tracks but LRT cannot run on streetcar tracks.

They are not two different names for the same thing, they are two completely different modes of transit that fulfill different needs. And the cost difference between the two modes is certainly not negligible. Just look at the entire streetcar network that Washington DC is building for less than the typical cost of any one LRT line in LA or elsewhere.

Respective of mode, streetcar or LRV, the cost differences are marginal. Respective of 'where' the mode is applied... in a street or on a seprate right-of-way... that is where you'll see the cost differences.

But, an LRV and streetcar mode constructed in a street.... will have similar costs. Weight differences will have a marginal difference in total project cost.

It depends on the implementation. I've already stated that any LRT line built in LA's central city would have to be grade-separated, more likely than not below-grade; both of us know the costs associated with tunnel boring and constructing subway stations. When you look at it that way, there's a stark difference in costs.

Fewer utility relocations, lighter vehicles, and less labor also contribute to reduced costs.

It can in some instances. Stations with greater passenger loads require wider platforms. Also, a conventional 3-car LRT train would not be able to travel at-grade in some places because of the shorter blocks. And, yes, by higher capacity I also meant more frequency.

I honestly don't know where to begin for a response; it appears we're comparing apples and oranges. Certainly, a streetcar arrangement will be less expensive than a light-rail system which includes grade separations and/or tunnels.

Light rail can run on streets, look at the HBLR in Jersey City. This is my issue with the streetcar/light rail debate. For all intents and purposes, LRT running on streets is a streetcar, and a streetcar can run on separate track. Heavy rail can actually be at grade level (look at the northern reaches of the L in Chicago).

I think streetcars should be an upgrade from buses.

A station will be built at Farmdale, rather than a more expensive pedestrian bridge with elevators. From The Transit Coalition:

Here are better renderings of the Farmdale station area. To view the other 16 images, simply change the number in the URL address.

That's actually not a bad idea. Personally, I think more stations in this area will just add more ridership. One mile station spacing is for suburbs, not cities. Why not add a station between Western and Crenshaw (a distance of 1.5 miles) at Arlington?

But what's up with the ridiculous 8' high glass walls at the intersection? Is it just me or is there something wrong with all the many so-called safety devices for crossing the tracks with absolutely nothing keeping cars from running you down when you cross the street? People walk across tracks just fine on light rail lines across the country without crossing guards, flashing lights and glass walls - why can't they do it in LA?

Welcome to the 2010s! This will be a very busy decade. Here's what we can expect to be completed in the next 10 years. As you can see from the list, at least one project will open every year (except for 2016).

Expo Line to Crenshaw (2010)
Expo Line to Culver City (2011)
Orange Line to Chatsworth (2012)
Metrolink to Perris (2012)
Gold Line to Azusa (2013)
Expo Line to Santa Monica (2014)
Downtown streetcar (2014)
Wilshire BRT (2015)
Gold Line to Montclair (2017)
Crenshaw Corridor (2018)
Green Line to LAX (2018)*
SFV BRT (2018)
Purple Line to Brentwood (2019)
Regional Connector (2019)
CAHSR from LAUS to ARTIC (2019)

*The Green Line extension to LAX will interface with the Crenshaw Corridor, essentially making it the same project. Whether or not the trains will stop closer to the airport remains up in the air. It is also unclear when the LAWA people mover will be built, such providing a true LAX connection.


These two projects will be ready for construction in 2013. Although no specific timeline has been set for either one, both can be completed before 2020.

Gold Line to Whittier or El Monte
Green Line to Torrance


Metrolink will add an additional 12 cars between Fullerton and Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo starting this year, with the ultimate goal being 32 additional cars providing 30-minute headways. The timeline for this project is unknown at this point.

The Placentia Metrolink station will begin construction in 2012-2013, but no completion date has been given.

The West Santa Ana Branch Corridor will begin its Alternatives Analysis Study this year and be ready for construction in 2015, making a 2019 completion date unlikely.

The I-405 Corridor will presumably begin its Alternatives Analysis Study either this year or next year.

The timelines for the remaining Metro Rapid, Metrolink, and CAHSR routes as well as the DesertXpress/CA-NV Interstate Maglev are nebulous at this juncture.

Everything else is pretty much on the back burner, for now at least. It'll be very interesting once 2013 rolls around because Metro will have a "clear table". All of the projects being studied now will be under construction, so one wonders what will come next.

And we can speculate all we want as to what the future holds... greater taxicab presence, more bike infrastructure, more bus only lanes, new potential rail routes, repealing the Prop A & C ban, passing another transit tax measure, etc. There are so many possibilities for this decade, certainly much more than previous ones. This will be fun.

30/10!!!:banana:

Yay!!

Is the purple line going to open a few stops before 2019? It would be nice if it was funtioning to at least Fairfax within 5 years.

Wouldn't Gokhan be wrong anyway, considering there's a Wilshire Grand Hotel next to the 7th Street/Metro Center Station and the Renaissance Hollywood hotel at the Hollywood and Highland Station?