Final Funding Piece Falls Into Place for Los Angeles Rail
The California Transportation Commission has allocated $315 million for phase one of the $640-million, 8.4-mile Exposition light-rail line in Los Angeles. This assures that the downtown-Culver City link will be completed by 2010, says Samantha Bricker, chief operations officer for owner Exposition Construction Authority. A local joint venture led by FCI Constructors Inc., Fluor Corp. and Parsons Corp. has started its negotiated design-build contract, broken into 19 work packages, says Bricker. For each package, “we negotiate the construction price at about 85% design, and then we award the contract to them,” she says.
What amazes me is that downtown and LA and Culver city arent really that far apart - so what the hell is up whith LA's rail network? Nonexistent? I know theres a ton of freight lines in LA - any plans to use them for rail transit?
One major problem with existing rights-of-way --the same problem that helped lead to the gradual demise of rail transit here (1920s-1950s)-- is that they're at grade. Any reactivation of new, more intensive service means more traffic congestion at crossings.
Also, with few exceptions, light rail and subways fall outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad Administration, which means they can't share the same tracks as mainline freight railroads, and must be physically separated from such operations.
The CTA Orange Line in Chicago is a good example of how existing freight railroad rights-of-way can be converted to transit use, but the process is much more complicated than simply running subway cars down freight tracks, even though the actual track specifications are virtually identical.
i'm not sure they could use the freight lines for public transit b/c so much product comes here thru the ports that it may screw up distribution channels and systems for business.
i'm sure they run on a fairly tight schedule and trust me when i say that planning product distribution channels, networks, and transportation is tricky, I couldn't even imagine working in additional trains...
...then again, one never knows until they try, but my guess is the power of the National Product will prevail over local public transportation. I wouldn't want L.A. to be held responsible for price increases of Gizmo That or Widget What.
Besides that, there was a rail network started in the late 1800's that was in service till the 1960's but most of that rail has been demolished or is covered up in a few medians. links:
I'm just thankful that L.A. is starting to get "back on track", pun intended, with rail. I read the other day as well that the federal ban on digging a tunnel down Wilshire to extend the Purple Line was just lifted last week, so that work can start (hopefully) again.
As for running commuters on rails - the chicago area has 2 of the largest intermodal freight yards in the country and is the 2nd largest intermodal switching point after Hong Kong - its just not a destination/ origination port like LA. The volume of freight traffic is enormous here yet we have an awesome system of passanger trains running on freight rails. I dont understand why LA cant either - well the at grade crossings certainly is one issue but in the long run a metro rail line network would be so beneficial for commuter congestion. I know LA is multi nodal and doesnt have a core downtown like NY or CHI but the nodes are still few -
next big step is the san diego to san fran california high speed train. but the governator vetoed the funding again, maybe it will be approved next year.
then there is the LA to Vegas high speed rail link, and I've heard about an Eastern Sierra Bakersfield to Mammouth Mountain rail link that the Owens Valley is hoping for.
yeah, those are fun maps! well, i suppose that for the "majority" of los angeles proper, there just isn't any rail in the first place, so using freight lines would be...well...a tad bit pointless (in my opinion at least).
also, where the freight lines are, there isn't that much else. i mean, i guess it would be good if i worked at the Port. the freight lanes don't really go anywhere.
so - i'm not sure where the freight rails are in chicago, but if it works for them then +1 chicago. :)
and we do have some subway - and with the addition of the expo line and the hopeful addition of the purple line extension...well...we are off to a start!
as far as i understand the expo line will be built on an existing freight right of way which was bought by the mta some time ago. at the present time they are pulling up the existing tracks and placing cages for caissons which so far my best guess are for stations. (i can't actually imagine a station big enough to require caissons, nor can i imagine they will require so many as they have piled in their staging site so i'm still guessing).
my personal wish is for los angeles to build an elevated light rail system. i wish the powers that be stopped seeing the subway as a status symbol for the city. just as our downtown will never be the same as new york, our transportation system will never be the same as new york either. we are different and should celebrate that.
i see the subway as an enormous waste of money. i believe the construction costs for parts of the redline ran in the $3,000,000/mile range. this does not include the hollywood areas which needed to be rebuilt three times before the line even opened. with newer construction techniques the construction costs could drop to $2,000,000/mile.
there are also problems with land lines like the one proposed for exposition. it has already been mentioned here that streets are congested. granted the new lines will for the most part be going in parallel with the majority of the traffic, but adding more signals to an already overloaded system is asking for problems.
on a related topic, i think people would stop worrying so much about the subway if the mta made it easier to ride the bus. right now people ride the bus more out of necessity than convenience. they would benefit from simplifying the lines. create a map similar to the subway map that shows the major lines and where they run. it would be much easier to take the bus in la if you knew how to get from point a to point b. they could post these maps in bus shelters instead of the giant advertisement. smaller bus stops (i.e. just the post with the small sign on top would benefit from a posted bus schedule for the buses stopping at that point.
i haven't been keeping up with the expo line. running lines on what was once a freight right of way seem to be working fine in the valley (818 biatch! lol). one of the anticipated problem is the increase in traffic congestion where these line intersects a highway. currently, with the low frequency of busses running, it isn't much of a problem. one feature i like are the bike lanes that run parallel.
one of the bigger obstacles in light rail construction in l.a. is the conflict among beureaucracies...imagine running a line through multiple districts each having their 'say' about the line. there isn't one power that can supercede all these districts. (again, not in my backyard)
there are simplified diagrams (stickers) of the routes on their respective posts and depending on whether it's a major stop, some will have approximate interval times. but that's as much information you're gonna get without having to get a printed schedule. there are some major stops that have large bad ass maps of all the lines. a printed copy from the website might be necessary for those unfamiliar...i've seen some of the culver city bus stops having schedules and route diagrams but their system is not as widespread. i agree, spaceghost, unless you have a mental map of the roads and the major neighborhoods, it might be difficult to ride l.a's public transport without those maps you've suggested.
the metro rapid is a success as far as connecting major destinations(frequent busses, fewer stops, running on major roads)...i can go from santa monica beach to ucla in 15-20 minutes, then to the valley in another 20-30 minutes...its the tributaries that are less fun...
the LA bus shelters aren't owned by the mta but by clear channel. the city and mta get 'free' shelters in their deal for clear channel to sell adverts and keep the profit - so good luck getting anything other then adverts on those illuminated panels.
an 'elevated light rail system' system won't be so light- look at the lines running down the 110 and 105- those are pretty heavy structures. other cities (ie, nyc) have been removing elevated lines as much as possible due to their blight on the adjacent properties from shadows, noise, and dangerous vertical supports (remember the chase scene in the french connection?). So an elevated doesn't cut it in activating the street or resolving vehicle/transit conflicts like you get with a subway.
There are the utopian gondola/aerial tram solutions, but I have yet to see any installations beyond disney/world fairs. There is a new tram in seattle/portland(? seen in AR last month or two) connecting the university to a satellite campus- but that isn't a multi-stop transit system. You'd also get lots of political resistance from people living along the route with their fear of reduced property values.
I'm interested in how well the transitway in the valley is working out- but this wouldn't work in the basin - not enough available land. So LA is stuck fitting transit into the existing infrastructure and weaving it into the urban fabric or reinventing private automobile use into smaller vehicles with higher rider per vehicle rates.
"they could post these maps in bus shelters instead of the giant advertisement."
"the LA bus shelters aren't owned by the mta but by clear channel. the city and mta get 'free' shelters in their deal for clear channel to sell adverts and keep the profit - so good luck getting anything other then adverts on those illuminated panels."
this will work but it doesn't have to be one or the other. practically, this map only needs about, what?, 2'x2'...lets say 3'x3'...there are spots.
the transitway in the valley took over a strip of railway that was unused for years, so it was reasonable to construct it there. fare is based on an honor system just like the subway. you can say this encourages anyone to ride the system. the transitway alone is fast: from north hollywood to woodland hills in about 20 minutes plus the busses are extra long...it's the connecting lines/tributaries that are a bitch and time consuming. one disadvantage though of the existing strip of land is that the line, for the most part, runs along residentials...i would like to see other major components of the city build along this line (offices and what have you) as opposed to seeing people's backyard fences and the back of commercial buildings. i'm not sure about the basin...like what you said tk, space...
an elevated light rail system will create too much of a footprint unless it's centered on a freeway like segments of the blue line.
i forgot to mention that originally, the red line subway was going to extend to woodland hills, instead of stopping at north hollywood: could not afford to continue. so the transitway became a less costly alternative.
I rode the MTA to work a total of 3 times... That quickly stopped once I was ticketed $123 for having a cup of coffee on the gold line platform at Union Station.
wtf?...they must stricter with the newer systems. couldn't you have just said "ok i'll get rid of it"? to avoid the ticket...the busses don't allow drinks as well but the drivers have been cool...
Yeah... I was detained for about an hour at Wilshire and Vermont by LA County Sherriffs for taking photographs of the station. They became extremely hostile when they discovered that I had as-built drawings of the station in my bag.
All this of course because I was working for the developer that was redesigning the station entrance. These details were not deemed germane until much later.
Dammson, first the security guy told me to get rid of it. I promptly went to the nearest trash receptacle to dispense of my beverage... I took one last swig of the drink I had just paid for and as the coffee was leaving my hand into the trash, I kid you not, the security officer called out "I saw you take a sip! You just disobeyed an order! I have to write you ticket!" Bam! thank you for the $123 cup of coffee sir!
From their email:
"The Westside Urban Forum has long followed efforts to extend the subway to the Westside. This effort has taken on new momentum with Mayor Villaraigosa's interest in building a "Subway to the Sea" and Metro is just beginning the studies which could lead to such a project. Metro is seeking public input and the Westside Urban Forum encourages all of its members and friends to take advantage of the opportunity to be heard.
Please open the attached notice or log on to the study web site at www.metro.net/westside for more information about the study including on how to comment in person or in writing. WUF looks forward to hosting another Forum event on this critical transportation link in the near future as the project scoping process moves forward!"
***********
I'm guessing the WUF has agreed to spread the word. Click the link for a .pdf flyer from the MTA. I'll be going to the meeting on the 16th.
There are a lot of north-south rails in LA from downtown/east LA to Long Beach/ south central, the exposistion rail is probably the only east-west one.
If I had money, I'd buy real estate in Culver City
LA Rail Funding
From ENR
Final Funding Piece Falls Into Place for Los Angeles Rail
The California Transportation Commission has allocated $315 million for phase one of the $640-million, 8.4-mile Exposition light-rail line in Los Angeles. This assures that the downtown-Culver City link will be completed by 2010, says Samantha Bricker, chief operations officer for owner Exposition Construction Authority. A local joint venture led by FCI Constructors Inc., Fluor Corp. and Parsons Corp. has started its negotiated design-build contract, broken into 19 work packages, says Bricker. For each package, “we negotiate the construction price at about 85% design, and then we award the contract to them,” she says.
What amazes me is that downtown and LA and Culver city arent really that far apart - so what the hell is up whith LA's rail network? Nonexistent? I know theres a ton of freight lines in LA - any plans to use them for rail transit?
One major problem with existing rights-of-way --the same problem that helped lead to the gradual demise of rail transit here (1920s-1950s)-- is that they're at grade. Any reactivation of new, more intensive service means more traffic congestion at crossings.
And this only one problem...
Also, with few exceptions, light rail and subways fall outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad Administration, which means they can't share the same tracks as mainline freight railroads, and must be physically separated from such operations.
The CTA Orange Line in Chicago is a good example of how existing freight railroad rights-of-way can be converted to transit use, but the process is much more complicated than simply running subway cars down freight tracks, even though the actual track specifications are virtually identical.
i'm not sure they could use the freight lines for public transit b/c so much product comes here thru the ports that it may screw up distribution channels and systems for business.
i'm sure they run on a fairly tight schedule and trust me when i say that planning product distribution channels, networks, and transportation is tricky, I couldn't even imagine working in additional trains...
...then again, one never knows until they try, but my guess is the power of the National Product will prevail over local public transportation. I wouldn't want L.A. to be held responsible for price increases of Gizmo That or Widget What.
Besides that, there was a rail network started in the late 1800's that was in service till the 1960's but most of that rail has been demolished or is covered up in a few medians. links:
map:
http://www.erha.org/pe_system_map.jpg
from this org:
http://www.erha.org/index.htm
third comment lists streets with medians that cover up Red Car rail:
http://lacitynerd.blogspot.com/2006/10/hollywood-slash.html
I'm just thankful that L.A. is starting to get "back on track", pun intended, with rail. I read the other day as well that the federal ban on digging a tunnel down Wilshire to extend the Purple Line was just lifted last week, so that work can start (hopefully) again.
WOW - thats all gone?
As for running commuters on rails - the chicago area has 2 of the largest intermodal freight yards in the country and is the 2nd largest intermodal switching point after Hong Kong - its just not a destination/ origination port like LA. The volume of freight traffic is enormous here yet we have an awesome system of passanger trains running on freight rails. I dont understand why LA cant either - well the at grade crossings certainly is one issue but in the long run a metro rail line network would be so beneficial for commuter congestion. I know LA is multi nodal and doesnt have a core downtown like NY or CHI but the nodes are still few -
Anyways - great maps siggy
next big step is the san diego to san fran california high speed train. but the governator vetoed the funding again, maybe it will be approved next year.
then there is the LA to Vegas high speed rail link, and I've heard about an Eastern Sierra Bakersfield to Mammouth Mountain rail link that the Owens Valley is hoping for.
yeah, those are fun maps! well, i suppose that for the "majority" of los angeles proper, there just isn't any rail in the first place, so using freight lines would be...well...a tad bit pointless (in my opinion at least).
also, where the freight lines are, there isn't that much else. i mean, i guess it would be good if i worked at the Port. the freight lanes don't really go anywhere.
so - i'm not sure where the freight rails are in chicago, but if it works for them then +1 chicago. :)
and we do have some subway - and with the addition of the expo line and the hopeful addition of the purple line extension...well...we are off to a start!
as far as i understand the expo line will be built on an existing freight right of way which was bought by the mta some time ago. at the present time they are pulling up the existing tracks and placing cages for caissons which so far my best guess are for stations. (i can't actually imagine a station big enough to require caissons, nor can i imagine they will require so many as they have piled in their staging site so i'm still guessing).
my personal wish is for los angeles to build an elevated light rail system. i wish the powers that be stopped seeing the subway as a status symbol for the city. just as our downtown will never be the same as new york, our transportation system will never be the same as new york either. we are different and should celebrate that.
i see the subway as an enormous waste of money. i believe the construction costs for parts of the redline ran in the $3,000,000/mile range. this does not include the hollywood areas which needed to be rebuilt three times before the line even opened. with newer construction techniques the construction costs could drop to $2,000,000/mile.
there are also problems with land lines like the one proposed for exposition. it has already been mentioned here that streets are congested. granted the new lines will for the most part be going in parallel with the majority of the traffic, but adding more signals to an already overloaded system is asking for problems.
on a related topic, i think people would stop worrying so much about the subway if the mta made it easier to ride the bus. right now people ride the bus more out of necessity than convenience. they would benefit from simplifying the lines. create a map similar to the subway map that shows the major lines and where they run. it would be much easier to take the bus in la if you knew how to get from point a to point b. they could post these maps in bus shelters instead of the giant advertisement. smaller bus stops (i.e. just the post with the small sign on top would benefit from a posted bus schedule for the buses stopping at that point.
i haven't been keeping up with the expo line. running lines on what was once a freight right of way seem to be working fine in the valley (818 biatch! lol). one of the anticipated problem is the increase in traffic congestion where these line intersects a highway. currently, with the low frequency of busses running, it isn't much of a problem. one feature i like are the bike lanes that run parallel.
one of the bigger obstacles in light rail construction in l.a. is the conflict among beureaucracies...imagine running a line through multiple districts each having their 'say' about the line. there isn't one power that can supercede all these districts. (again, not in my backyard)
there are simplified diagrams (stickers) of the routes on their respective posts and depending on whether it's a major stop, some will have approximate interval times. but that's as much information you're gonna get without having to get a printed schedule. there are some major stops that have large bad ass maps of all the lines. a printed copy from the website might be necessary for those unfamiliar...i've seen some of the culver city bus stops having schedules and route diagrams but their system is not as widespread. i agree, spaceghost, unless you have a mental map of the roads and the major neighborhoods, it might be difficult to ride l.a's public transport without those maps you've suggested.
the metro rapid is a success as far as connecting major destinations(frequent busses, fewer stops, running on major roads)...i can go from santa monica beach to ucla in 15-20 minutes, then to the valley in another 20-30 minutes...its the tributaries that are less fun...
spaceghost-
the LA bus shelters aren't owned by the mta but by clear channel. the city and mta get 'free' shelters in their deal for clear channel to sell adverts and keep the profit - so good luck getting anything other then adverts on those illuminated panels.
an 'elevated light rail system' system won't be so light- look at the lines running down the 110 and 105- those are pretty heavy structures. other cities (ie, nyc) have been removing elevated lines as much as possible due to their blight on the adjacent properties from shadows, noise, and dangerous vertical supports (remember the chase scene in the french connection?). So an elevated doesn't cut it in activating the street or resolving vehicle/transit conflicts like you get with a subway.
There are the utopian gondola/aerial tram solutions, but I have yet to see any installations beyond disney/world fairs. There is a new tram in seattle/portland(? seen in AR last month or two) connecting the university to a satellite campus- but that isn't a multi-stop transit system. You'd also get lots of political resistance from people living along the route with their fear of reduced property values.
I'm interested in how well the transitway in the valley is working out- but this wouldn't work in the basin - not enough available land. So LA is stuck fitting transit into the existing infrastructure and weaving it into the urban fabric or reinventing private automobile use into smaller vehicles with higher rider per vehicle rates.
"the LA bus shelters aren't owned by the mta but by clear channel. the city and mta get 'free' shelters in their deal for clear channel to sell adverts and keep the profit - so good luck getting anything other then adverts on those illuminated panels."
this will work but it doesn't have to be one or the other. practically, this map only needs about, what?, 2'x2'...lets say 3'x3'...there are spots.
the transitway in the valley took over a strip of railway that was unused for years, so it was reasonable to construct it there. fare is based on an honor system just like the subway. you can say this encourages anyone to ride the system. the transitway alone is fast: from north hollywood to woodland hills in about 20 minutes plus the busses are extra long...it's the connecting lines/tributaries that are a bitch and time consuming. one disadvantage though of the existing strip of land is that the line, for the most part, runs along residentials...i would like to see other major components of the city build along this line (offices and what have you) as opposed to seeing people's backyard fences and the back of commercial buildings. i'm not sure about the basin...like what you said tk, space...
an elevated light rail system will create too much of a footprint unless it's centered on a freeway like segments of the blue line.
i forgot to mention that originally, the red line subway was going to extend to woodland hills, instead of stopping at north hollywood: could not afford to continue. so the transitway became a less costly alternative.
I HATE YOU METRO RAIL! http://www.sunilhall.com/ninjakun/lametro/index.htm
I rode the MTA to work a total of 3 times... That quickly stopped once I was ticketed $123 for having a cup of coffee on the gold line platform at Union Station.
move to Chicago, you can piss on our trains
wtf?...they must stricter with the newer systems. couldn't you have just said "ok i'll get rid of it"? to avoid the ticket...the busses don't allow drinks as well but the drivers have been cool...
Yeah... I was detained for about an hour at Wilshire and Vermont by LA County Sherriffs for taking photographs of the station. They became extremely hostile when they discovered that I had as-built drawings of the station in my bag.
All this of course because I was working for the developer that was redesigning the station entrance. These details were not deemed germane until much later.
anyone else love the concrete smell of the red line stations?
Dammson, first the security guy told me to get rid of it. I promptly went to the nearest trash receptacle to dispense of my beverage... I took one last swig of the drink I had just paid for and as the coffee was leaving my hand into the trash, I kid you not, the security officer called out "I saw you take a sip! You just disobeyed an order! I have to write you ticket!" Bam! thank you for the $123 cup of coffee sir!
Here ya go:
http://www.westsideurbanforum.com/uipublish_files/20071001subwaytosea.pdf
From their email:
"The Westside Urban Forum has long followed efforts to extend the subway to the Westside. This effort has taken on new momentum with Mayor Villaraigosa's interest in building a "Subway to the Sea" and Metro is just beginning the studies which could lead to such a project. Metro is seeking public input and the Westside Urban Forum encourages all of its members and friends to take advantage of the opportunity to be heard.
Please open the attached notice or log on to the study web site at www.metro.net/westside for more information about the study including on how to comment in person or in writing. WUF looks forward to hosting another Forum event on this critical transportation link in the near future as the project scoping process moves forward!"
***********
I'm guessing the WUF has agreed to spread the word. Click the link for a .pdf flyer from the MTA. I'll be going to the meeting on the 16th.
There are a lot of north-south rails in LA from downtown/east LA to Long Beach/ south central, the exposistion rail is probably the only east-west one.
If I had money, I'd buy real estate in Culver City
cheviot hills residents are in nimby mode...
here are some opposition literature
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.