This won't get you to Disneyland any faster, but it's an exciting development.
Proposal would park a park on top of downtown L.A. freeway - latimes.com
Printable View
This won't get you to Disneyland any faster, but it's an exciting development.
Proposal would park a park on top of downtown L.A. freeway - latimes.com
Why can't they just build a freeway from The 710 to The 210, and put a cap on it???
Capping freeways could potentially be related to transit in one major way.
Freeways could be used more often as right-of-ways for transit, especially since a significant amount of development has already occurred around on- and off-ramps over the years. But, these transportation corridors are incompatible with adjacent residential uses, and highway overpasses do not create very good pedestrian environments. So, when people move to and from a transit vehicle, they would be in the unpleasant domain of the car.
Capping the freeway can potentially solve this problem and knit a pedestrian-oriented and mixed-use environment together around a transit station.
30/10 my friend, it's always listed dead last but it's in the plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by sediment
I like the idea of pedestrians being able to cross freeways where ever they like, as opposed to today where a pedestrian may have to walk an hour to find a crossing point. However, where would all the exhaust fumes be vented from all the vehicles? It's bad enough walking across a freeway bridge in the open air *cough choke* And if the ventilation failed the freeway would need to be evacuated quickly before motorists fell unconscious at the wheel. (unless these caped freeways were only for electric cars ;) )Quote:
Originally Posted by PragmaticIdealist
No they would have vents that blew the exhaust out and fresh air into the tunnel. Tunnelling 101, babe!
Quite true. But those fans require significant quantities of electricity to run, as do the overhead lights you need inside the tunnel to light it. "Solatube" style skylights would cut the lighting cost during the day - But now your parkland is dotted with skylight tubes popping out of the lawn every fifty feet...Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaAdventurer
And when you turn it into a totally enclosed environment you also have to worry about hazardous materials transport - Just like any major tunnels in the state, the Overly Paranoid get their say.
Now we have to stop and re-route every tank truck with petroleum products, or cryogenics, or compressed gas cylinders, Propane delivery, etc. and the regional deliveries have to use surface streets. Or they have to go far out of their way to avoid that stretch of freeway on their long-distance hauls passing through town.
And that parkland tunnel conversion puts a huge crimp in going to alternate fuels in this country - many existing tunnels you can't drive a Propane or LNG or CNG or Hydrogen powered passenger car thorough, or any sort of motorhome or camper or travel trailer with a Propane bottle for the furnace and stove - they simply apply those restrictions to Any Vehicle, Period.
Nice idea, but think it all the way through first.
You could cover it over without the nasty restrictions, but it would take a lot more engineering and far larger open ventilation slots and gaps to allow for natural convection to do most of the ventilation work. Meaning a lot of large walled-off areas of the park where the vents poke through, and the traffic noises waft out.
(Still need vent fans to gather and expel the heavier-than-air gases that would pool in low areas and storm drain culverts and on the roadway, but they wouldn't be nearly as critical.)
--<< Bruce >>--
That's what we have YOU for, mister. ;)Quote:
Nice idea, but think it all the way through first.
Westward Ho, Subway to the Sea: Latest Meeting Brings Talk of Century City, Westwood Stops : Purple Line Extension : Curbed LAQuote:
At last night's meeting in Westwood regarding the western leg of the Purple Line extension, things were civil: No shouting, no NIMBYism. As Metro explained the potential stops at Westwood and Century City (the option at Constellation and Avenue of the Stars is pictured above--by us), earthquake concerns, the depths of the tunnels, and the financial "easements" provided to homeowners who will live atop the subway, the message from the mostly 50+ crowd was, "You have our support, just be careful."
Lazarus had something in the paper the other day. Great new idea about putting mass transit above the freeway rights of way! Such genius. [/sarcasm]
Let me go and find it.
OK, this isn't it, but I think in this one, he gets a cramp from patting himself on the back about a prior column:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may...zarus-20100514
OK, here it is:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...1491029.column
Second page:
All sound familiar??Quote:
Longer term, although I believe subways are best for metropolitan areas, L.A. would probably be best served by an elevated rail system — maybe a monorail, maybe something else. Elevated lines and stations are significantly cheaper to build than subways, and it would be relatively easy to begin with existing freeway routes.
For example, an elevated track could run down the center of the 405 to the 10, make its way downtown and then loop up the 101 back to the 405. Once that's running, we build out from there. Getting a line to Los Angeles International Airport would be very high on my to-do list.
So how would we pay for a transit system that experts say would cost tens of billions of dollars? Here's where the real pain starts.
Top of Page 3 -- now I REALLY think he's reading this thread:
Quote:
Politicians won't tell you this, but here's what a lot of experts think: Public transit will thrive only if it's funded primarily by higher gas taxes, higher parking fees and higher car-registration fees.
Measure R's sales tax hit up everyone. Instead, we need to focus on those who stand to benefit most from improved transit systems — drivers — while simultaneously creating incentives not to drive.
Congestion pricing is another piece of the puzzle. This is a method being experimented with or considered by major cities worldwide. The way it works is that prices to use highways or to enter high-traffic areas vary throughout the day.
An L.A. driver might not have to pay anything to use the 405 late at night. But it might cost a buck or two during rush hour. Similarly, you might have to cough up a little scratch if you head into downtown during work hours.
I certainly agree with the last paragraph:Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaAdventurer
The response should be that the freeway monorails will not be the ONLY means of transit. And certainly, they are more for longer-distance traveling from or to an extremely popular destination, like LAX. With fewer stops than one should be imagining, and the stops would be somewhere away from the freeway. For an imaginary The 405 line the stops might be:Quote:
The freeway corridors are, I think everyone agrees, tempting for transit because the right-of-way is already there. But here’s the policy question: if one of our goals is to create pedestrian-friendly, transit-friendly communities, does it make sense to put rail lines in the middle of freeways — where they are often disconnected from surrounding neighborhoods?
1. Somewhere in Santa Clarita.
2. Mid-Valley, at Flyaway (parking is already there).
3. Federal Building in Westwood.
4. Wherever the ""Subway-to-the-Sea" crosses the 405 (optimal would be The Federal Building in Westwood).
5. LAX, at proposed transit hub (meeting up with Green Line).
I think I'd rather have a BART-like system on rails at around Freeway Grade.
Let's go hog-wild:
6. Long Beach Airport.
7. East along The 22.
8. North along Harbor Blvd.
9. End at Disneyland.
Curbed LA : The Los Angeles Neighborhoods and Real Estate BlogQuote:
One of the oft-mentioned, but usually discarded ideas for moving Angelenos around the city involves laying down a monorail system. One idea kicking around since at least 2006 involves a monorail system running above Wilshire Boulevard, for instance. In a Businessweek interview with Rick Caruso, the developer outs himself as a monorail fan: He makes a brief mention of his plan to put a "monorail along Interstate 10 from downtown Los Angeles" and says that it would go up faster than the Subway to the Sea.
Additionally, the story has Caruso talking about running for Mayor. Via Bloomberg: “I’m leaning towards it” when Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is termed out in 2013, Caruso said. “I have to make a decision probably sometime next year.” Indeed! The chatter Curbed has heard is that Matt Middlebrook, VP of Government Relations for Caruso Affiliated, who worked under Mayor Hahn, is already putting together a team for Caruso's run. Perhaps Caruso will run on a monorail platform?
· L.A. Mall Maestro Caruso Eludes Slump, Considers Mayoral Run
Check out this website, it's geared towards making 30/10 a reality...
http://www.movela.org/Quote:
Welcome to Move LA! Move LA’s mission is to build a broad constituency that will advocate for the development of a comprehensive, diverse, robust, clean, and financially sound public transportation system for Los Angeles County and champion strategies to accelerate its implementation.
The Challenge
Quote:
Los Angeles County is one of the most important economic and cultural engines in the United States. We are also America’s gateway to the growing economies of the Pacific Rim, making the efficiency of our transportation system a crucial issue for the world. Famously, our community is also the most auto dependent in the nation with the most congested highways and the worst air pollution. Over the past several years, traffic congestion has become increasingly severe while gasoline prices have soared, prompting significant public outcry and worries of economic and environmental decline. Public concern over the state of our transportation system has greatly increased.
Quote:
Report on four groups competing to provide rail service from LA to Vegas.
The Associated Press: 4 plans compete to provide LA-Vegas train service
For me, and plenty others:
1. Has to be faster than driving.
2. Has to be priced commensurate with being faster than driving.
3. Has to be somewhat flexible in arrival and departure.
4. As few stops as possible.