Page 82 of 116 FirstFirst ... 3257727980818283848592107 ... LastLast
Results 1,216 to 1,230 of 1740
  1. #1216

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France / Los Angeles
    Posts
    38,886
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mass Transit 2 the Disneyland Resort

    Paul Ryan Trying to Kill High-Speed Rail to Vegas

    In a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood last week, the chairs of the Senate and House Budget Committees urged the administration not to approve a $5.5 billion loan for the project. XpressWest has been waiting for news on that loan since they applied way back in December 2011, and Vegas Inc. seems to think that the Ryan/Sessions letter could be a sign that the government is getting ready to respond. Calling XpressWest "costly, wasteful and high risk," the letter cites a 2012 report from the libertarian Reason foundation that concluded that high-speed rail projects are "plagued by optimistic ridership and revenue forecasts, financial losses and capitol (sic) cost overruns."

    But Vegas Inc's source claims the letter is merely "a political diversion to slow the administration's efforts on high-speed rail." In the meantime, alcoholic train enthusiasts will be able to ride the regular-speed party train to Vegas starting next January, when the Xtrain starts service.
    Paul Ryan Trying to Kill High-Speed Rail to Vegas - High-Speed Rail - Curbed LA

  2. #1217

    • Rock Star Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    13,661

    Re: Mass Transit 2 the Disneyland Resort

    He's right. I think it would be pretty sweet, but I prefer it to cost about a tenth of the estimates.
    "Here You Leave the World of California Today and Enter the World of, um, er, California Today."

  3. #1218

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France / Los Angeles
    Posts
    38,886
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mass Transit 2 the Disneyland Resort

    Busway or Light Rail on Van Nuys? Metro Opens Up the Debate

    The light rail option would see about 4,000 more riders per week and an average journey would take 35 minutes from end to end--about six minutes faster than the busway solution. Those six minutes come with a hefty price tag, however: the low end estimates for each option are $1.8 billion for rail vs $250 million for the bus.
    Busway or Light Rail on Van Nuys? Metro Opens Up the Debate - The Commute - Curbed LA

  4. #1219

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France / Los Angeles
    Posts
    38,886
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mass Transit 2 the Disneyland Resort

    Quote Originally Posted by sediment View Post
    He's right. I think it would be pretty sweet, but I prefer it to cost about a tenth of the estimates.
    Just because something is cheaper right now doesn't mean it's a better investment for the future. Transit is like Costco, the more money spent up front the more value you get for your investment over the long haul.

  5. #1220

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France / Los Angeles
    Posts
    38,886
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mass Transit 2 the Disneyland Resort

    [There are] five potential plans (including a big tunnel and a light rail line) for dealing with the four and a half mile space between the end of the 710 and the beginning of the 210--these five (whittled down from 42) will be studied for the final environmental impact report, due out in 2014, according to the Pasadena Star-News. Each option was evaluted for how it "would minimize travel time, improve connectivity and mobility, reduce congestion on the freeway system, reduce congestion on local streets and increase transit ridership," as well as environmental impact and cost.
    The Final 5 Options For Closing the 710 Freeway Gap - The Commute - Curbed LA

    See also:
    Metro releases final Alternatives Analysis report for 710 study - Pasadena Star-News

  6. #1221

    • Under that tree again!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,499

    Re: Mass Transit 2 the Disneyland Resort

    It's all well and good if they want to add bus lines, or expand light rail in that area. Both should happen.

    What must happen is connect the freeways. Nobody is getting out of their car to get on a bus or train to get to the other freeway, without their car to drive on that other freeway. They need to link it up. It's a problem it's messed up.

    The reason they are thinking about an expensive tunnel is because they never preplanned a road there and the cost of buying the houses in the way is too much. They messed that up decades ago.
    Be Cool Stay in School!
    Next year I'm trying for a summer internship at Stark Industries.

  7. #1222

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France / Los Angeles
    Posts
    38,886
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mass Transit 2 the Disneyland Resort

    No actually, they have owned all the houses that are along the route since the 1960's, but the community doesn't want a freeway to go through that area. So it's been stalled ever since and now they're finally considering a solution. Either a freeway tunnel or street improvements or increased bus service or a light rail.

    The rest of what you're saying is true, people aren't getting out of their cars to make part of their trip on the light rail, but the responsible parties just want to increase mobility and decrease congestion in that area and once and for all be DONE with this mess.

  8. #1223

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France / Los Angeles
    Posts
    38,886
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mass Transit 2 the Disneyland Resort

    Speaking of the CAR CULTURE, this is interesting reading:

    The Urbanophile » Blog Archive » Los Angeles Reconsidered by Drew Austin

    Reyner Banham, for one, attributed LA’s inscrutability to his own limitations and taught himself to drive so that he could read the city in its original language: “It’s a poor historian who finds any human artefact alien to his professional capacities, a poorer one who cannot find new bottles for new wine.”
    Visiting Los Angeles last weekend (and many times before that) has reaffirmed my belief that it is one of the most urban cities in the world by almost any definition of the word. Among the most striking features of LA, contrary to its reputation, is its incredible density.

    Throughout the city, from Koreatown to the Valley, Los Angeles is packed tightly with human activity. Signs announcing 20 different stores accompany two-story strip malls; apartment complexes overlook the back edges of gas stations; and cars wring every square inch out of parking lots that are frequently too small. Instead of a suburban sprawlscape, Los Angeles is better understood as the highest possible density that is traversed primarily by automobile. Unlike New York’s three-dimensional congestion, LA’s is mostly confined to a single plane, but it fills those two dimensions almost as effectively.


    The classical definition of “city” is a hobgoblin that still haunts the urban discourse: a recognizable downtown (which LA has, in fact) with a transit system connecting the periphery to the center (which LA also has). Those forces ceased to drive urban development more than a century ago, yet we still understand cities to be the residue of that obsolete growth model.

  9. #1224

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France / Los Angeles
    Posts
    38,886
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mass Transit 2 the Disneyland Resort

    Re: 710 Freeway

    The report explains that the study team evaluated each of the 12 initial alternatives - which were already narrowed down from 42 - based on how well each option would minimize travel time, improve connectivity and mobility, reduce congestion on the freeway system, reduce congestion on local streets and increase transit ridership.

    The team also looked at each alternative's impact on the environment and local communities as well as it's cost efficiency and cost feasibility.



    The report estimates that the freeway tunnel will cost $5.4 billion, the bus route will cost $50 million, the light rail route, which will also be largely an underground tunnel, will cost between $2.4-$2.6 billion, the traffic management option will cost $120 million and the "no build" will not cost anything.
    Metro releases final Alternatives Analysis report for 710 study - Pasadena Star-News

  10. #1225

    • Rock Star Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    13,661

    Re: Mass Transit 2 the Disneyland Resort

    Quote Originally Posted by CaliforniaAdventurer View Post
    Just because something is cheaper right now doesn't mean it's a better investment for the future. Transit is like Costco, the more money spent up front the more value you get for your investment over the long haul.
    Once they're built, there is still more cost. That is what a lot of people don't get, about a lot of things.
    "Here You Leave the World of California Today and Enter the World of, um, er, California Today."

  11. #1226

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France / Los Angeles
    Posts
    38,886
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mass Transit 2 the Disneyland Resort

    Once they're built they can at least collect fares. It's true these fares don't always pay off the investment or cover operations, but we don't expect freeways to be paid for by motorists using the same formula.

  12. #1227

    • Rock Star Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    13,661

    Re: Mass Transit 2 the Disneyland Resort

    Quote Originally Posted by CaliforniaAdventurer View Post
    Dig a trench and cover. Very simple.
    Not sure how "light rail" is even an option. The issue is that there is too much thru-traffic on city streets, not too much city traffic on city streets.
    Making a freeway is the obvious solution. It was 60 years ago as well.
    So, dig a trench, then cover it, then make a nice park on top.
    From the study itself:
    The lack of continuous north-south transportation facilities in the study area has the following consequences, which have been identified as the elements of need for the project:

    • It degrades the overall efficiency of the larger


    • regional transportation system.
    • It causes congestion on freeways in the study area.
    • It contributes to congestion on the local streets in the study area.

    It results in poor transit operations within the study area.

    "Here You Leave the World of California Today and Enter the World of, um, er, California Today."

  13. #1228

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France / Los Angeles
    Posts
    38,886
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mass Transit 2 the Disneyland Resort

    Your thrifty ideas have been eliminated from the 42 proposals that were evaluated, Sediment.

    That's just it. Nobody in that area is going to allow the houses bulldozed or a cut and cover.

    A 5 billion dollar bored tunnel is the only freeway proposal under consideration.

  14. #1229

    •   
    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    15,116

    Re: Mass Transit 2 the Disneyland Resort

    Quote Originally Posted by sediment View Post
    Dig a trench and cover. Very simple.
    Not sure how "light rail" is even an option. The issue is that there is too much thru-traffic on city streets, not too much city traffic on city streets.
    Making a freeway is the obvious solution. It was 60 years ago as well.
    So, dig a trench, then cover it, then make a nice park on top.
    From the study itself:

    [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
    Yes, this ^
    Waiting for Godot Micechat.com

  15. #1230

    • Rock Star Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    13,661

    Re: Mass Transit 2 the Disneyland Resort

    F-6 or F-7 seem to be the best. (Page ES-10.) I lean to F-7, because it provides a practical alternative to long-range north-south traffic (trucks from harbors to points north) through SoCal instead of that mess of 101/10/5/110 downtown. Leave that for people actually going downtown.

    "Highway alternatives" do not solve anything. Create more city traffic.

    huh. Page ES-13, which has a table attempting to rank the alternatives, see things my way. So, they must be right!

    Again, the point for this particular stretch is not to increase transit. Anyone traveling from, say, Long Beach to Pasadena is likely ALREADY USING BLUE AND GOLD LINE!
    The worst traffic and biggest polluters on the road are trucks. Especially idling and accelerating trucks. They do this when trying to get through downtown from harbors to points north on The 5. Banning them is a solution, not not a very practical one.
    Pages that follow all show the F options (freeways) are the optimal solution.

    A little concern about the noise issues. It is noise that would have been somewhere else, so other areas will see decreased noise. Increase in noise is the trade-off for less traffic on the streets. I wonder how some of those people get out of their houses on the alternative roads between The 710 and The 210.

    OK, so F-7. We're all in agreement.
    Last edited by sediment; 03-12-2013 at 10:21 AM.
    "Here You Leave the World of California Today and Enter the World of, um, er, California Today."

Similar Threads

  1. Mass Transit to Disneyland Resort
    By CaliforniaAdventurer in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 1667
    Last Post: 03-11-2009, 01:36 PM
  2. [Question] Mass Transit from Irvine to Disneyland?
    By Disneymom in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-17-2008, 12:18 AM
  3. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 10-17-2007, 03:31 PM
  4. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-21-2007, 10:17 PM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-28-2006, 09:03 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •