HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3701  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2016, 1:19 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
None would have been fine with me.
That's just you. Do you support measure M? Because if you do, it would not have happened without highway construction included.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3702  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2016, 1:31 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
it would not have happened without highway construction included.
Which is moronic.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3703  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2016, 1:43 AM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
You could also argue the other way as well.
No I don't think you could. The capacity expansion is definitely greater on a $ spent basis I think. The argument against it is on expected utilization.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3704  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2016, 1:57 AM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
That's just you. Do you support measure M? Because if you do, it would not have happened without highway construction included.
Of course that's just me... I'm not sure if you read the whole exchange I had or not. By all means, swing away on more highway funding, makes no difference to me.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3705  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2016, 7:03 AM
spoonman's Avatar
spoonman spoonman is offline
SD/OC
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Yes they were cheaper, but they also took a minimum of one hour longer. How long would one have to wait on the platforms in Oceanside to switch trains today, as the services are today? How much is your time worth, $10, $15, $20, or more an hour? The fare difference was $15 for a one way trip.
Coaster and Metrolink are slower because they provide "local" service, meaning more stops. Also is the time it would take to transfer in Oceanside.

The argument was that if the Coaster and Metrolink combined forces to provide a single seat, single ticket ride from DTLA to DTSD, it would be cheaper to use than the Amtrak service, which is more of a long distance service.

Besides reduced cost, Coaster and Metrolink tickets could include transfers to other metro transit options. Also, scheduling could provide local and express services at rates lower than Amtrak.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3706  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2016, 7:27 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,424
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonman View Post
Coaster and Metrolink are slower because they provide "local" service, meaning more stops. Also is the time it would take to transfer in Oceanside.

The argument was that if the Coaster and Metrolink combined forces to provide a single seat, single ticket ride from DTLA to DTSD, it would be cheaper to use than the Amtrak service, which is more of a long distance service.

Besides reduced cost, Coaster and Metrolink tickets could include transfers to other metro transit options. Also, scheduling could provide local and express services at rates lower than Amtrak.
Do you believe they would provide express services at the same price as local services? I don't.

What additional services does Amtrak provide aboard the Surfliner that isn't supplied on Coaster and Metrolink?
How about a handicapped or regular restroom in every car? How about allowing food and drinks aboard the trains? How about selling food and drinks aboard the trains? How about providing luggage racks? How about having reclining seats? Every one of these additional services cost Amtrak more to provide, which is amongst the reasons why their fares are higher.
Now, I'm not going to suggest having all these services are needed on a less than three hour trip between downtown LA and SD. But certainly you will want some of them on a six hour trip between Santa Barbara and San Diego.

Then you have to consider the subsidy each train requires. Amtrak's higher fares means the Surfliners almost break even, with he fares paying 90% or so of the costs to run the trains. Coaster and Metrolink lower fares means they will never break even, the fares paying around 30% or so of the costs to run the trains. Amtrak can run three Surfliner trains for the same subsidy as running a single Coaster/Metrolink commuter train. So which train is more likely to have higher frequencies in the future?

Last edited by electricron; Dec 6, 2016 at 7:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3707  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2016, 5:25 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar View Post
After working at home for the last few years, I started a job in Culver City. I've been driving alone to work for the past couple of months, using Waze as a co-pilot, but experiencing one-way commute times of anywhere from 1 hour to 1 hour 30 minutes, averaging about 1 hour 10 minutes each way to/from Glendale. (18-20 miles, depending on where Waze takes me).

So, being a public transit fan, last week I bit the bullet and decided to try Metrolink/Metro, even though it would take a car trip to the train station, 3 trains, and a 15 minute walk at the end. Even if it took longer time and cost more money than driving, my thought was that at least I wouldn't be stressed by driving, and maybe I could even work on the train.

My route was:
Home --> (drive) --> Glendale Station --> (Metrolink) --> Union Station --> (Red/Purple Line) --> 7th St Metro --> (Expo Line) --> Culver City Station --> (15 minute walk) --> Work

Total Cost: Metro Round Trip: $3.50 Metrolink Round Trip: $5.00; Total $8.50

Verdict:
The morning commute was not bad, Metrolink was on time, the transfer to Red/Purple was easy and quick, as was the transfer to Expo. Expo actually was not delayed too much on the street-running section, and I had an actual seat on the train, despite the train being crowded. I left my house at 7:20, and walked into work at 8:55, for an elapsed time of 1 hour 35 minutes. I think this is about as fast as the trip would be, considering I didn't have to wait more than about 4 minutes for any train. It was cool to see all the commuters walking through Union Station going to their various destinations. It had that "big city bustle" you don't always get here in LA except for the freeways.

The evening commute, however, was not so good, and it was mostly due to the Expo Line. First, it was packed. Not just "crowded", but almost "LA needs to hire those guys in Tokyo who push people into subways" packed. On the one hand, it's a good thing because it means it's popular. On the other hand, so much for "relaxing" on your way home as you squeeze in and stand uncomfortably close to dozens of strangers. By the time we got to Vermont, it was a little less crowded, but I wasn't able to get a seat until we got to USC. That, however, was not as big of a deal as how freaking SLOW it went. We slowly creaked along, stopping at various points for seemingly no reason whatsoever. Until finally just before we got to Pico we just stopped. And waited. And waited. I looked at my watch and it took almost an HOUR to get from Culver City to 7th Street. In the meantime, the Metrolink was getting ready to depart, and if I missed it, I was going to be stuck at Union Station for 50 more minutes until the next train. We finally got to 7th St Metro, I just missed the subway (of course). Finally caught that, ran through Union Station, and made it to my train with 2 minutes to spare. (Side note: Was Metrolink taken over by the Swiss or something? Those guys are ON TIME.) I left work at 5:20pm, walked through my door at 7:10pm. Almost 2 hours.

I really wanted to like going by transit. Unfortunately for me, it's just not a viable solution unless a freeway gets closed down by some catastrophe. There is no way the Expo Line is running 40-whatever minutes from Santa Monica to Downtown in the evening, if my experience is any indication. The Downtown Connector will help when it's done in a few years, but the street running section of Expo is a fatal flaw unless they do something to prioritize the trains.

At the end of the day, for me driving is cheaper, faster, and less stressful, which is disappointing because I really wanted to turn into a regular public transit user. Maybe I'll give it another try in the new year and see if my experience was just an anomaly.
I am glad you tried transit but I think you are greatly underestimating the total cost of travel. AAA estimates the cost of driving per mile for a small sedan is $0.4386 cents per mile (gas, vehicle depreciation, insurance, maintenance, financing, etc...). Gas is more expensive in CA than the national average, so the cost per mile might be slightly more than this. Based on 43.8 cents per mile, your round-trip commute would cost $15.78 - $17.55 when you include the total cost of driving.

The real cost-savings of transit come when you are able to be 'car-lite,' and only own one car per household instead of two cars.

You referred to it above but another significant benefit of transit is the opportunity cost of your time. When you're driving, you can: 1) listen to the radio, 2) curse at the cars in front of you, or 3) talk on your phone on speaker phone. When you are taking transit, you have the ability to use your commute time to be productive and respond to emails, read the news, play Candy Crush or whatever it is that kids play on their phones thees days.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3708  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2016, 8:13 PM
Ragnar Ragnar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
I am glad you tried transit but I think you are greatly underestimating the total cost of travel. AAA estimates the cost of driving per mile for a small sedan is $0.4386 cents per mile (gas, vehicle depreciation, insurance, maintenance, financing, etc...). Gas is more expensive in CA than the national average, so the cost per mile might be slightly more than this. Based on 43.8 cents per mile, your round-trip commute would cost $15.78 - $17.55 when you include the total cost of driving.

The real cost-savings of transit come when you are able to be 'car-lite,' and only own one car per household instead of two cars.

You referred to it above but another significant benefit of transit is the opportunity cost of your time. When you're driving, you can: 1) listen to the radio, 2) curse at the cars in front of you, or 3) talk on your phone on speaker phone. When you are taking transit, you have the ability to use your commute time to be productive and respond to emails, read the news, play Candy Crush or whatever it is that kids play on their phones thees days.
The problem is I would still have to have a car to drive to/from the train station (or Uber/Lyft -- an additional expense). In addition, it is difficult to be productive on a train when you are smashed in with hundreds of your closest "friends" and have to hold on to keep from falling over. And it is VERY difficult to be productive in the subway when there is no cell service.

The productivity aspect of transit (at least LA transit) is highly overrated at this point. At least I can make private business calls in the comfort of my car.

Hopefully as more light rail cars come on line, the crowding will ease. Hopefully internet access will come to the subway. Hopefully the Expo line will be given signal prioritization. Hopefully Metrolink will provide additional services to fill the gap between 6:45 and 7:35pm. And hopefully the Downtown Connector will make life easier (in 4 years).

I haven't given up on using transit for my commute, but there are a lot of things that need to be fixed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3709  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2016, 9:48 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar View Post
The problem is I would still have to have a car to drive to/from the train station (or Uber/Lyft -- an additional expense). In addition, it is difficult to be productive on a train when you are smashed in with hundreds of your closest "friends" and have to hold on to keep from falling over. And it is VERY difficult to be productive in the subway when there is no cell service.

The productivity aspect of transit (at least LA transit) is highly overrated at this point. At least I can make private business calls in the comfort of my car.

Hopefully as more light rail cars come on line, the crowding will ease. Hopefully internet access will come to the subway. Hopefully the Expo line will be given signal prioritization. Hopefully Metrolink will provide additional services to fill the gap between 6:45 and 7:35pm. And hopefully the Downtown Connector will make life easier (in 4 years).

I haven't given up on using transit for my commute, but there are a lot of things that need to be fixed.
Hopefully local transit service will some day be improved to eliminate the need to leave your car at a Park n Ride all day. How can anybody go from a two car family to a one car family if you still need to drive to the closest rail station? The real advance in transit comes when riders can make their entire trip efficiently on transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3710  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2016, 6:44 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,508
Final results for Measure M:

71.15% YES

28.85% NO
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3711  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2016, 10:40 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
Which is moronic.
Which is your opinion.

You do realize good walkability isn't just about transit, right? It has to do with how cities are developed. In this case LA is a sprawled out city and you reasonably expect to have mass transit everywhere it is cheaper to build huge freeways in low density areas yet you have to have urban freeways because people in their car have every right to access the urban core just as you do in your bus, bike, train, or whatever you want to see take you there, but they also deserve the proper accommodations and expansions to the freeway system that currently exists to ease traffic for cars.

If anyone thinks traffic will go away due to mass transit, they are kidding themselves. Traffic only goes away for those who choose to use mass transit. But fortunately, we live in a free society and we don't dictate how people live... or that's the way it is supposed to be. So people can choose between mass transit or car but don't expect to not have a freeway system throughout the metro and not having a massive voter base which primarily relies on cars to fund a transit tax and not have freeway expansion included in it. That is foolish. I wouldn't ask to have a car dominated core(which I think should be changed) and it is to reach a better balance, but it seems there are those who ask for the extremes like doing away with freeway expansion which is moronic.

Last edited by plutonicpanda; Dec 7, 2016 at 10:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3712  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2016, 10:45 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
No I don't think you could. The capacity expansion is definitely greater on a $ spent basis I think. The argument against it is on expected utilization.
It also comes down to how people want to live as well. You most certainly can argue the other way. How many people use rail in LA vs. car?

I'm not arguing against rail here and I'm happy to see it, but there are tons of benefits that come with cars and highways. As construction and engineering techniques advance, the cost of constructing freeways will go down and that argument will be void. It wasn't long ago when new urbanists said cars will go the way of the dodo bird due to fuel costs but not only will fuel get cheaper but more efficient cars and alternative fuels will only make automobiles more appealing to people. America is car country first and will always be. More rail certainly isn't a bad thing, but I find it rather humorous the hostility that is taken against cars on online development forums.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3713  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2016, 10:46 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
Of course that's just me... I'm not sure if you read the whole exchange I had or not. By all means, swing away on more highway funding, makes no difference to me.
Well, just me, if it were me, I absolutely would have included more freeway expansion. Though I realize on here that is an unpopular opinion.

I also want to express this again, I support the ongoing rail construction in LA and like the plan so far. I am excited to see future investment in and around Los Angeles.

Last edited by plutonicpanda; Dec 7, 2016 at 11:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3714  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2016, 12:23 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,508
Metro has awarded CRRC a contract to build their next batch of HRVs.

Quote:
Quietly, Metro approved the issuance of this contract in the last meeting.

The contract ends up going to Chinese government owned CRRC. LA becomes the third major metro in the US to place an order with CRRC, after Boston and Chicago. The only 2 qualified bidders were CRRC and Hyundai Rotem, with the CRRC bid coming in about $24M (3.5%) cheaper, and with higher local employment numbers.

The car shells will be produced in Changchun, China (a city heavy in transportation manufacturing in China's far northeast) and then shipped to Massachusetts where CRRC is currently constructing a new facility, to be outfit with its systems. CRRC has promised significant subsystems, including HVAC, lighting, and propulsion, will be constructed in LA. The cars will be Buy America compliant.

All 64 cars are scheduled to be in the fleet by Summer 2021.

https://metro.legistar.com/Legislati...amp;FullText=1
http://transittalk.proboards.com/thr...le-procurement
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3715  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2016, 12:39 AM
Car(e)-Free LA Car(e)-Free LA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
It also comes down to how people want to live as well.
I don't think Angelinos particularly like driving or cars at all--I don't even think we have a so-called "car culture." I think we have a convenience culture where Angelinos will take whatever method is quick, cheap, and comfortable, and when our transit system is fully built out, cars simply can't realistically compete.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3716  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2016, 6:05 PM
sportbiker sportbiker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
Metro has awarded CRRC a contract to build their next batch of HRVs.



http://transittalk.proboards.com/thr...le-procurement
Only two bidders? That's surprising. I wonder what kept other players (eg, Kawasaki, Bombardier, Siemens) from bidding?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3717  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2016, 7:29 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA View Post
I don't think Angelinos particularly like driving or cars at all--I don't even think we have a so-called "car culture." I think we have a convenience culture where Angelinos will take whatever method is quick, cheap, and comfortable, and when our transit system is fully built out, cars simply can't realistically compete.
I don't like calling it a convenience culture either, it's just basic economics. People will take whichever mode of transit is fastest. Currently for 95% of trips in the county it's via car. If we want that to change we need land use reforms.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3718  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2016, 8:31 PM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA View Post
Hello everybody,

I have been working on a plan for building SMB rail, a Crenshaw North extension up La Brea, and rail to the beach. Furthermore, it creates an actual rail grid and stops at all the main destinations. Note that this map only includes lines relevant to this proposal specifically and Measure M, which is why the purple line to Santa Monica, for instance, is not included. Please tell me what you think.



This shows the full 3 phase build out of my proposal. The light green line follows Venice, La Cienega, San Vincente, Santa Monica, and Sunset. I call it the Boulevard Line for short because of all the boulevards it follows.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This image above shows the full build out of my proposed phase one. The Boulevard Line goes from Hollywood/Highland to Wilshire/La Cienega, interlining for the time being with the Crenshaw Line north of Santa Monica/La Brea. The way this works can be seen by this image below:

I propose that each Crenshaw Line train, upon reaching Hollywood/Highland, turn south and become a Boulevard Line train to Wilshire/La Cienega, then turn back north to Hollywood/Highland, and south again along the Crenshaw Line. This allows the Boulevard Line to use the Crenshaw Line's yard for the time being.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Metro does not have the funding to complete this, this shortened version below of the Boulevard Line, combined with Crenshaw North up La Brea, is SHORTER than the proposed Crenshaw North Line up San Vincente and Santa Monica:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, below is my proposed Phase 2 of the project, with the Boulevard line extending from Culver City to Vermont/Santa Monica:
UrbanizeLA has a piece about this extension on their site today. I think you have a great idea and should keep promoting the idea of a phase 1 from Hollywood highland to San Vicente. This could appease all that west Hollywood wants for now, with later phases to Venice. You should propose this to Metro office of extraordinary innovations chief Joshua Schank or to Phil Washington. Other people to include to get the ball rolling would be the transit coalitions Bart Reed and MoveLA.

IMO diverting Crenshaw to San Vicente is all off. With that same money or routing idea, just start it from highland and go west.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3719  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2016, 5:44 AM
Car(e)-Free LA Car(e)-Free LA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughfb3 View Post
UrbanizeLA has a piece about this extension on their site today. I think you have a great idea and should keep promoting the idea of a phase 1 from Hollywood highland to San Vicente. This could appease all that west Hollywood wants for now, with later phases to Venice. You should propose this to Metro office of extraordinary innovations chief Joshua Schank or to Phil Washington. Other people to include to get the ball rolling would be the transit coalitions Bart Reed and MoveLA.

IMO diverting Crenshaw to San Vicente is all off. With that same money or routing idea, just start it from highland and go west.
Thanks. I will definitely do all of those things. I'm starting an advocacy group for it that I call Metro Done Right, and I'm hoping to get it online by February. Until then, I would love it if you could tell everybody you know about it and fill out this form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1vIz...requested=true , so we can start building a base of support. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3720  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 4:15 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,216
Burbank, Metro to negotiate agreement for new Metrolink station at Hollywood Burbank

Burbank, Metro to negotiate agreement for new Metrolink station at Hollywood Burbank Airport


A Metrolink train crosses Grandview Avenue in Glendale in this file photo taken on Thursday, Sept. 20, 2012. Metro is expected to break ground on a new Metrolink station near Hollywood Burbank Airport in February. (Roger Wilson / Burbank Leader)


By Anthony Clark Carpio
LA Times
Dec. 14, 2016

"With Metro moving forward with its project to build a Metrolink station on the north side of Hollywood Burbank Airport, Burbank City Council directed the city manager to negotiate with the transportation agency to draft an operations-and-maintenance agreement for the new facility.

Council members unanimously voted during a meeting Tuesday to have City Manager Ron Davis start talks with Metro, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority — known as Metrolink — and the city of Los Angeles to figure out which agency will be in charge of operating and maintaining the estimated $15-million station on San Fernando Boulevard west of Hollywood Way..."

http://www.latimes.com/socal/burbank...213-story.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:46 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.