LA Expo Line Riders Appear to be New Transit Riders

May 6th, 2013 | Posted by

The Expo Line has only been open for a year, is only halfway complete on its journey from downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica, and yet it’s already seeing significant ridership growth.

Expo Line at La Cienega / Jefferson station

Neon Tommy has the story:

Ridership on weekdays has been increasing at a steady clip of about 1,000 per month, reaching an estimated 26,000 per day during the week. Given that Metro projected about 27,000 riders per day by the year 2020, that number is very good. The number of people riding the Expo Line may pass that benchmark in the coming months.

Obviously that’s a sign of a successful rail line, on course to meet its ridership projections seven years ahead of schedule. There’s a lot of latent demand for rail in this part of LA, as suggested by the fact that many of the Expo Line riders are new to transit:

A common criticism of light rail is that it diverts riders from buses and fails to draw drivers out of their cars. Thus, light rail lines can fail to have an impact on traffic and congestion, but can cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

This does not appear to be the case with the Expo Line. Metro’s publicly available ridership statistics show that bus routes that connect with the Expo Line, and routes that run along similar parallel corridors, all have maintained steady ridership numbers.

The article goes on to describe increases in the number of transit passes being used at USC, schools using the trains to get to museums and other educational and cultural destinations at Exposition Park, and so on. In any case, the Expo Line has induced new transit demand rather than simply shuffling existing users between modes.

If you build it, they will ride. California is full of latent demand for passenger rail. That’s true for the Expo Line and it’s true for high speed rail. Just like HSR systems around the world have attracted new riders away from planes and automobiles, so too will California’s HSR system. There’s no ideological or cultural attachment to the car in California, not these days. People are ready for an alternative, particularly if it runs on rails.

  1. synonymouse
    May 6th, 2013 at 22:47
    #1

    Too bad Jesse Haugh is not still around to experience the humiliation of being so utterly wrong.

    The diesel bus crowd was wrong in 1950; it was wrong in 1960; it was wrong in 1970. Nothing was different then from now except the mindset of the people in power. They are the same “expert consultant” class except now they have concluded out of nowhere that rail is ok to be fashionable for the moment and there is a bunch of money to be made.

    I suggest there was more transit ridership relatively in 1950 and better farebox recovery(unions were not so powerful and greedy)than today. But that did not stop Haugh.

    Day after tomorrow PB will come up with another “Skybus” or monorail scam. You can count on it.

    synonymouse Reply:

    aerial fucking tram

    D. P. Lubic Reply:

    “The diesel bus crowd was wrong in 1950; it was wrong in 1960; it was wrong in 1970. Nothing was different then from now except the mindset of the people in power.”

    And that could also very well be the change of generations I’ve been speaking of, the passing of the generation that thought “Rail old, rail bad, bus and car new, bus and car good.”

    At least, that’s what I hope it is!

    Now, if only we can get some people to reexamine steam railroading, at least for an expanded heritage service. . .heck, I’d jump for joy just to see a real, revived, heritage Califonia Zephyr running down the Feather River again. . .as would Syn. . . :-)

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The only place you are going to see steam is heritage railroads. They cost to much to run.

    Nathanael Reply:

    Yeah — steam really is obsolete tech, even though modern steam engine designs have made some major efficiency improvements. Boiling water is simply not an efficient method of energy conversion. Honestly, I’m surprised that steam is still used for power generation. (Albeit in turbine engines rather than piston engines.)

    The waste is too high; all thermal engines are inherently highly inefficient, due to fighting entropy. Converting heat to work is not a good way of doing things.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    They tried using coal directly in the turbines. Researched it for decades. There may still be research going on. Turbine blades don’t last long when you blow acidic gritty stuff through them. If coal is cheaper than … garbage… steam turbines make sense. They make sense if you want to burn the garbage. IIRC modern coal fired plants can be almost as efficient as natural gas turbine plants. Multiple stages of steam turbines and the waste steam drives a last stage that uses turbines driven by a liquid with a much lower boiling point.

    Nathanael Reply:

    It’s the burning which is the waste. Contrast the efficiency of hydroelectric or photoelectric or wind turbines.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Depends on how you measure efficiency. Wikipedia says the maximum theoretical efficiency of photo-voltaic is 32%. Coal plants easily match that. 32% when the sun is shining. 0% at midnight. Windmills don’t have the midnight problem but they can have it right in the middle of peak demand when the wind decides to stop blowing. Hydro doesn’t have those problems but try to find a good site. Some good sites, the few that there are, won’t be used. For instance

    http://delawarewatergap.org/TOCKS_ISLAND_DAM_PROJECT.html

    Pumped storage is the most efficient way to store energy. Unfortunately there aren’t a lot of flat topped mountain with a lake at their foot laying around. Not that the few that exist could be used.

    http://library.marist.edu/archives/mehp/scenicdecision.html

    …though that one had an estuary at it’s foot.

    Turning Northern Quebec into a hydro site is coming along. The people from the First Nations aren’t too thrilled. So well that 80% of the people in Quebec heat their houses with electricity. Electric heat is almost 100% efficient. No carbon if the electricity is coming from hydro. Or nuclear. It’s a really lousy way to make heat. Heat pumps with lousy efficiencies are able to gets 200%. They don’t make those kind anymore, not for commercial sale. Ground sourced heat pumps can do 400%. Yet people in Quebec use resistance style electric heat. Hmmm…..

    .. depends on how you define “efficient”

    synonymouse Reply:

    @ D.P.

    My point is that these “transit experts” are for the most part neither expert nor true friends of electric rail. They just throw money away. Exemplary points of fact.

    1. They have the chance and opportunity to deploy a first-rate 21st century north-south rail link thru Tejon but instead insist on pissing away billions in the Tehachapi hinterlands.

    2. SMART is SNAFU – about the only saving grace is reconstruction of the trackage south of Novato(which GGT has always wanted to pave)and it is a bit of a standard gauge bulwark against the goddam BART Empire.

    4. Geary gets nothing – not even trolley buses, meanwhile no doubt the city fathers are planning to fork it over to broad-gauge BART. Where is TWU 250A? That is supposed to be their jobs and their territory.

    5. The Central Stubway is a Tutor basket case, now and forever more..

    6. The East Bay apparently is considered too slummy to even deserve a trolley bus, let alone a streetcar. Hell AC Transit buses do not even merit reserved lanes on the $6bil Bayconic Bridge.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    pissing away billions in the Tehachapi hinterlands.

    It’s a passenger railroad. It makes sense to go where there are passengers. How many people live in the Antelope Valley. How many in Las Vegas. How many across the Tejon? not that the Tejon would have a station like Palmdale will.

    synonymouse Reply:

    **** Vegas – let Sheldon Adelson, Steve Wynn and Harry Reid pay for their train layout.

    Tehachapi is the freight detour necessitated by trying to get sub-3% gradients via the gruelingly circuitous.

    Tejon is the modern route – the Santa Fe identified it a century ago, just could not afford it in the face of internal combustion.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The Coast route is the modern one. There I’ve made an unsupported assertion too.

  2. Donk
    May 6th, 2013 at 23:21
    #2

    They key to the Expo line is that it actually goes to some meaningful destinations. Even though it is really slow in some parts, it drops you off right next to your destination if you are going to USC, Downtown, to the Museums, Staples, the Coliseum, LA Live, or the Galen Center.

    This argument is exactly why I am so pissed that we are blowing money on the Crenshaw Line and Foothill extensions. The 3 busiest employment centers in LA are Downtown, LAX, and UCLA/Westwood (forgot where I read this). So it is obvious that we should stop screwing around with second rate rail lines that are political payoffs, and instead focus on the ones that have destinations that people are going to want to commute to. The obvious lines to focus on are the Purple Line, the 405 Line, and the Regional Connector.

    (And yes, the Crenshaw Line is supposed to go to LAX, but if you look at maps of commuting/travel patterns to LAX from within the LA Basin, that corridor isn’t even on the radar).

    angeleno Reply:

    Although I’ve had some success over the years coaxing a few life-long Angelenos onto Metro Rapids, none have viewed the experiences as anything more than novelties. That was until Expo Phase I opened. I’ve talked friends into trying Expo I to get to games at Galen, Staples and (even with the pre-Regional Connector pain that is transferring through DTLA) to the Rose Bowl. Amazingly, several of these friends subsequently started using Expo I for their weekday commutes. I know first hand that Expo I is attracting new riders. It goes to show that if we build transit that is reliable and goes to desirable locations, even “car-obsessed” Angelenos will hop on.

    You are absolutely right; once we get the Purple Line extended to Brentwood, the Regional Connector providing “one-seat” light-rail rides across the basin and a Sepulveda Corridor line to link West LA to the Valley, we will have a system providing access to the job engines here in LA and ridership will soar. The fact that we will wait a generation to complete these vital lines (barring a resurrected Measure J or a beefed up Fast Forward America) so we can pour money into lines to the eastern hinterlands of the county is frustrating.

    The implications for HSR are obvious. We must make sure HSR accesses population centers (rather than speeding through empty land between LA and SF) and reaches downtown locations (rather than bypassing them with Park and Ride satellite stations.

    synonymouse Reply:

    The only venue in the San Joaquin Valley that is going to have a “population center” for decades ongoing is Sacramento, which is doing quite well with lrt. Certainly Valley jerkwaters do not justify bodacious BART-style hollow-core. Total waste when I-5 can save billions and precious minutes.

    Paul H. Reply:

    The Fresno Metropolitan Area has a million people. A waste of HSR line would have been I-5, which would have bypassed almost 4 million people in the Central Valley, the highest population growth area in California. In the future, more people will be living in the Central Valley by the fact that its cities are surrounded by food, land is cheap, and the cost of living is reasonable compared to the rest of California.

    The fact that you can’t understand this fact alone is why NOBODY takes you seriously in terms of the route for this project.

    Clem Reply:

    The current plan maroons Sacramento, a metro area with 3 million people, for an indefinite period. An I-5 alignment does not cut off any CV communities, all of which can still connect to HSR by other means and will certainly clamor for those noisy 220 mph express trains carrying out-of-town business people to slow down as they roar through their downtowns. I find Synonymouse serious and reasonable.

    VBobier Reply:

    Well an i5 HSR alignment is never going to happen, you don’t have the power to it so either, syno or no syno.

    VBobier Reply:

    Correction:

    Well an i5 HSR alignment is never going to happen, you don’t have the power to make it so either, syno or no syno.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    It might in 2212 when there’s so many passengers on the old line that they need to build a new line.

    Paul H. Reply:

    Clem, take it from someone who lives in the Valley: We are tired of being an afterthought. We want high-speed rail, we don’t want to get on another 70mph train to transfer in the middle of nowhere to a high-speed train. Put high-speed rail where people are, that’s the purpose of building it. Connecting cities, especially those under-served, is the ultimate goal of building high-speed rail. Building HSR on I-5 would be marginally faster for some, but would bypass millions who are considered ‘jerkwater’ by those same people who would benefit from an I-5 alignment.

    Joey Reply:

    There is a middle ground: the West-of-99 route. Cities still get served, either via lower speed downtown station loops or with greenfield stations when that is not justified, and you don’t have to worry about the noise of express trains downtown. True, more farmland would be required, but even if you overcompensate the landowners it’s still cheaper than pushing express trains through cities.

    Amanda in the South Bay Reply:

    That’s a good point, there’s a compromise position in the West of 99 route. I think what the people who
    insist on serving CV cities dont realize is that there is a *tradeoff* with choosing the route the HSRA is choosing. If you want to serve more people, fine, but its gonna be a lot more expensive and not as fast.
    And I guess Fresno is more deserving than Sacramento.

    joe Reply:

    How can this be middle ground ?

    It’s a compromise between the official HSR alignment and the preferences of some blog commenter’s and rail advocates.

    And it takes more farmland – which is okay because rail expert commenters don’t farm.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    It takes orders of magnitude less farmland than what currently exists. Much less than farmland lost to wide freeways and new subdivisions.

    synonymouse Reply:

    @ Amanda

    When it comes to hsr all cities and towns in California are equal; it is just that Palmdale, Fresno and San Jose are more equal.

    synonymouse Reply:

    I have no problem with west of 99; hell initially I thought 99 was the way to go.

    But you have no idea what you are getting – standard gauge BART. Ugly-ass hollow-core and noisy as hell. That’s all incompetent PB knows how to to do. Most of the ridership, what little emerges, will be curiosity seekers.

    Sorry, imho, Fresno is a hot, smoggy Cleveland of the future. What economy California will have is in the coastal area. Agricultural is better than a bedroom slum of LA. Best to roll the clock back about 50 years for the Valley. Small is beautiful.

    Meanwhile Oakland cannot even get a trolley bus.

    In any event Tejon is better for everybody. Even Palmdale, which is better served by an upgraded Metrolink.

    And definitely **** caroetbagger Harry Reid et al.

    Joey Reply:

    I’m unsure as to how anything but the first sentence of that relates to the merits of the CV routing choice.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The Cuyahoga caought fire, more than once if I remember correctly. Fresno would need a river for that. They’d also need Shaker Heights in it’s trolley car suburb glory – Shaker Heights never lost it’s trolley cars – and something like the Red Line. Lake Erie, an airport like Cleveland’s…

    synonymouse Reply:

    They are flattening whole streets in Cleveland. The incredible shrinking city. Fresno’s future.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    They are abandoning whole streets in Detroit.

    Wdobner Reply:

    There is a middle ground: the West-of-99 route. Cities still get served, either via lower speed downtown station loops or with greenfield stations when that is not justified, and you don’t have to worry about the noise of express trains downtown.

    So they can build the downtown CV stations now, and then add the bypasses at a later time when express traffic through those stations justifies the expenditure.

    Joey Reply:

    Actually as a matter of the IOS, that might make sense, since you won’t really have express trains until the entire line is completed. That specific comment about station loops doesn’t apply to every city though – Fresno it applies for sure, but the geometry of Bakersfield doesn’t lend itself well to this – under Tehachapi you’d probably just force all trains to slow down through downtown and under Tejon you’d build a greenfield station. Merced and Modesto might be worth putting station loops in, but that’s not really relevant to the Phase 1/Pacheco discussion.

    Wdobner Reply:

    the geometry of Bakersfield doesn’t lend itself well to this – under Tehachapi you’d probably just force all trains to slow down through downtown and under Tejon you’d build a greenfield station.

    Yes, trying to shoehorn a downtown Bakersfield station into Tejon is almost impossible. You either end up building miles of duplicate ROW for locals east of 99, or you end up with a stub likely following their new Westside Parkway into the old Amtrak station. Either way it’s going to be expensive or extremely inconvenient to build and operate.

    But I wouldn’t characterize Techachapi as locking a Bakersfield bypass’ route in the same manner as Tejon. If Bakersfield gets some sort of extraordinary reduction in speed then a 220mph bypass passing to the south and west of the city, essentially the other two legs of the downtown route’s hypotenuse, could be a competitive route for express trains. But I’ve never quite understood why nobody discusses an eastern bypass of Bakersfield. The area isn’t exactly flat, but the developed land definitely ends to the west of the mountainous terrain. The oil rigs might present some problems, but at least the owners are engaged in a land use that is entirely more obnoxious than anything the CHSRA might do. This allows the expresses to avoid downtown Bakersfield, cut the corner, and rejoin the local tracks somewhere southeast of Shafter.

    joe Reply:

    “An I-5 alignment does not cut off any CV communities, all of which can still connect to HSR by other means ”

    Of course the I-5 alignment cuts out the CV cities. One cannot complain about the East Bay being cut out of HSR (it isn’t) while dismissing that the CV can get to I-5 HSR by other means.

    IMHO, leaving the State capital for a later section assures it will be built.

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    Awesome plan, bro.

    By GilroyLogic(tm), making service to Los Angeles the very lowest priority in the state — after, but not limited to, HSR connections to Gilroy, Imperial Gables, Bolinas, Eureka, Yreka, Lee Vining, Panamint Springs, Olancha, the Farralones and Santa Catalina — that will ensure the whole system will be built.

    So, logically … If she weights the same as a duck … she’s made of wood … And therefore … A WITCH!

    The consistency of your thought processes is remarkable.

    joe Reply:

    I can’t wait for ground breaking this July.

    How insightful to note an advantage of building HSR in the CV. It creates an incentive fro LA to build out to the HSR segment and to do so with fast choo-choos. I couldn’t be happier.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Have you forgotten the back and forth about how much oggly goodness would come from building a 100 million dollar HSR station in Barstow?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    There’s a bit of difference between a ten minute BART ride from Oakland to San Francisco to get to the HSR station and an hour long bus ride from Fresno to get to the HSR station.

    Richard Mlynarik Reply:

    We’re all relying on you to concentrate on your Core Competency of providing us with incomprehensible context-free non sequitur analogies about Poughkeepsie, Allentown, Trenton, Park Avenue, Tulsa, Kansas City, the New Jersey Turnpike, Newark, the Lackawanna Cut-Off, Commodore Vanderbilt, Port Jervis, Elizabethtown, Matamoras, Hell’s Kitchen, the Queens Midtown Tunnel, Staten Island, Albany, Laramie, New Carrollton, Cheyenne, Jersey City, Ithaca, Chartres, Schenectady, Rensselaer, Danbury, New Brunswick, the Tappan Zee Bridge, Queensboro, Camden, Stamford, Woodlawn, Baltimore, the Camden Line, Friendship Heights, New Rochelle, Bergen, Montauk, Atlantic City, Stroudsburg, Allentown, White Marsh, Rochester, Morningside Heights, Secaucus, Jenkingtown, Fern Rock, Mineola, Scarsdale, Cos Cob, and Hicksville?

    Please, stick to geography you remotely comprehend.

    joe Reply:

    He’s right. Obviously you know it and had to make a straw man and knock it down.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    and the horse you rode in on

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    An I-5 alignment does not cut off any CV communities, all of which can still connect to HSR by other means

    50 mile bus rides from Fresno to the station out on I-5 adds an hour to everybody’s trip. Building 50 miles of track sucks up all the money you saved by not going to Fresno in the first place. It means the trip from Fresno to Bakersfield has an hour long bus ride on the Fresno end and half hour bus ride on the Bakersfield end. Google says you can drive from Fresno to Bakersfield in 1:45. Sounds real enticing doesn’t it.

    sgv railrider Reply:

    The San Gabriel Valley is not the hinterlands as you’ve stated. We have congestion on the East -West freeways (210, 10 and 60 freeways) and roads as well. I believe there will be sufficient metro train commuters in the eastern San Gabriel Valley to justify the Gold Line extension. Currently, the commuters have to drive to eastern Pasadena to access the Goldline to downtown. Many will not do that. If stations were closer to them, many will opt to take the train to Pasadena, downtown LA, and beyond and thus reduce the congestion of the freeways. Also, the current railroad right of way along the east-west corrider is there for the extension with no costly tunneling involved. And there is widespread community support for the project.

    I do not disagree that more transit is needed in the LA westside to relieve traffic such as extending crenshaw line to Hollywood redline and something along the 405 corridor. But those projects are so cost prohibitive and are not construction ready. I hope those projects will come sooner than later also. Let’s just take advantage of what is available now and build out the network over time.

    Angeleno Reply:

    I had never considered the eastern SGV as a “major metropolitan or cultural center” (Merriam-Webster), but these are admittedly subjective criteria. For those who do, the SGV is not a hinterland.

    Much more objective, however, are criteria for “construction ready” and “cost prohibitive.” Both the Regional Connector and the Purple Line Extension are construction ready. Utility relocation began a couple of months ago for the Regional Connector and exploratory drilling will begin in a couple of weeks for the Purple Line. As for cost prohibitions, the CEI for the Regional Connector is a bit better and the CEI for the Purple Line Extension is a bit worse than that of the Foothill Extension. The access the Regional Connector and the Purple Line Extension will provide to jobs and housing is orders of magnitude greater than what the Foothill Extension will offer. The timetables for completing the three projects are driven not by “what is available now,” nor by cost prohibitions, nor by construction readiness nor by usefulness, but rather by politics. Politics trumping utility is always frustrating.

    sgv railrider Reply:

    Yes, I agree politics do play a major role in metro planning and I agree it gets frustrating at times. But that’s the reality of it. Politicians get elected and re-elected for a reason – to get a piece of the pie for their constituency. But I think the worst thing is to alienate portions of the population by not including them within the metro system. Look at Measure J, it got defeated by the narrowest margin because certain areas voted against the measure because it didn’t affect them, or worst yet, voted no because of NIMBY.

    Yes, I want the regional connector and yes, I want the purple line extension to be built much faster than the current rate. I believe we need them and they are construction ready (except for the portion under BHHS). They are being funded and are in pre-construction. I am hoping for the Phase 2 Crenshaw Line to reach West Hollywood and the Hollywood Red Line. But I also want the Goldline to be extended at both ends to Whittier and to Montclair. And the I-405 corridor to the SF Valley needs some kind of rapid transit. Funding is the real issue. Let’s hope our local politiicians and citizens come together and push for additional funding for these systems. It’s always expensive, but we need them. Freeways can be widen only so much.

  3. Travis D
    May 7th, 2013 at 03:54
    #3

    I just wish I knew which new EIR they are going to get done with first. I mean Sac – Merced hasn’t even had a proper alternatives analysis yest.

  4. Eric
    May 7th, 2013 at 07:32
    #4

    The fact that ridership is “still rising” is to be expected. The same has happened with other systems. It takes people a while to switch their habitual travel choices.

    Of course, it’s good that ridership is above expectations.

  5. Donk
    May 7th, 2013 at 07:47
    #5

    When I ride the Expo line in the mornings, there are definitely a descent amount of white collar workers on board – the sort of people you almost never see on LA buses, except for maybe the Wilshire rapid bus. These I assume are mostly new transit riders.

    The USC people on the train are also mostly new transit riders. And obviously so are all of the sports fans, museum visitors, and tourists that use the line.

  6. Keith Saggers
    May 7th, 2013 at 07:47
    #6

    Interesting on where to locate stations

    http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Greengauge-21-submission-to-the-ITC-on-the-spatial-effects-of-HSR.pdf

    StevieB Reply:

    Locating stations in urban cores breaks the unsustainable pattern of sprawl development of the 20th century.

    The pattern of development for the last 100 years has been one of increasing spreading (or sprawl), with low density housing, retail and distribution centres, regional hospitals, business parks and other new employment zones all developed in rural and suburban areas, very often remote from established urban centres. This has created a new distribution of demand for travel that has been increasingly hard to serve with low carbon/low energy efficient transport modes (walk, cycle and public transport). It is a development pattern that has had a symbiotic relationship with ever higher car ownership and use and with lengthening car trip lengths. But in this era of high fuel prices, its economic sustainability as a development pattern has to be questioned. Its environmental sustainability credentials have always been poor.

    This will be a disappointment to the car culture generation that followed the second world war. Their numbers are diminishing but they are currently at the peak of their economic and political power.

    jimsf Reply:

    locating stations in the urban core, while useful for urban core folks, isn’t going to break the sprawl pattern. It just means people farther will have to drive instead of taking the train.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Wide freeways out in the sprawl don’t get people in the core to work any faster. What’s your point?

    StevieB Reply:

    You are thinking too short term. Development follows transportation access. Demand for commerce will increase near HSR stations. Residential demand will follow. Entire patterns of development will change to accommodate the demand. In the decades and centuries to follow development requiring automobiles will wither.

    jimsf Reply:

    I think cars will change form, but personal transportation will always be the what people want, ever since humans learned to ride horses, and donkeys and camels, and leared to attach animals to wheeled vehicles, ones own personal transport has always been the goal to strive for. if you didn’t own a camel or a horse, then you were a nobody. so no matter how much transit we built, people will always want their own personal vehicles.

    of course that doesn’t mean we shouldnt buildt transit. of course we should.

    Also all the tens of millions of people that won’t live in big cities, will live in places where personal transport is required. especially as cities become more crowded and unbearable, more people will move away.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Just because your delicate sensibilies are offended by density like those in Brooklyn doesn’t mean everybody wants to live in suburban splendor.

    jimsf Reply:

    well Ive done density to death. Y0u spend a couple decades in the tenderloin and see how great it is. I just happen to know that many, many many, people happen to love suburban splendor. Ive never had the luxury. so its big dream to someday actually have a house with a yard, and no god awful people living on top of me. Ill be you own a home and a car. and ill bet almost everyone on this blog has a car. and while young people find the city to be exciting, its not that exciting when your 60 and getting mugged and mowed down on the muni escalator while thugs are stealing your i phone out of your hand.

    In fact, I have decided I no longer support a rail link to palm springs because once I retire, I don’t want all that trash from la to have easy access. Im moving there for peace and quiet by the pool and I don’t want to be disturbed unless its to refill my pina colada thank you. if you don’t mind.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Having a lawn to mow when you are 60 and your arthritis is acting up is no fun either. Nor is living someplace where you have to drive everywhere and you are 70 and can’t see very well after dark anymore. Try it when you are 80 and can’t drive anymore.

    jimsf Reply:

    desert landscaping. and, when you’re retired, you don’t have to leave the pool to go anywhere.

    Although they have a very nice local transit out there which I have used many times. lots of old folks use it.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Once a hour on most lines, once every 45 minutes on two lines and once every 20 minutes on the busy line isn’t a very nice. It’s not even nice.

    jimsf Reply:

    Its nice enough. whats the rush when youre retired, 70, and its 123 degrees out. More of the oldies should be on the bus, still too many little old ladies who cant see over the dash of their marquis driving around. I already can’t see at night but once you know the way its not bad.

    Joey Reply:

    The rush when it’s 123 degrees out is to get into an air conditioned building. Or maybe I just can’t handle that because I grew up in San Francisco.

    StevieB Reply:

    I do not own a car and do not desire one. Two years ago I sold my car to be dismantled. I walk or take public transportation everywhere. More people every day are looking to live in walkable neighborhoods where they do not require a car to do every daily task.

    Joey Reply:

    You want nothing to do with urban areas but seem to believe you should have a say in what their future looks like. How do you justify that?

    jimsf Reply:

    I have a say as long as I can fill out the ballot. My main beef here is that there are lot of 20 somethings here who, while they have good ideas and some idealism about the future, tend to discount too many people to sweepingly. its like ” everyone should give up there cars or pay x and everyone should smash into tiny apartments in the city”

    with complete disregard for peoples real life situations. real life situations where they HAVE to have a car, CANT just up and move, dont have luxury of living the way you think they should live.

    Im not here saying everyone should live in the suburbs, But you all seem to think that everyone should drop what theyre doing and do as you dictate. its not gonna happen.
    you can’t just discount the way other people live, by choice, or by necessity. Thats what Im trying to remind you of. You wanna live urban, knock yourself out. Il bet no one on this blog has spend more time on public transit than I have. Nor lived in ridiculously horrible tiny spaces. And managed to enjoy it some of the time. but don’t think youre going to change the world cuz it doesn’t change. all you can do is whats best for you. leave other people alone.

    Joey Reply:

    Maybe some people are saying that, but I don’t think any of this is about forcing people to live anywhere. People can live wherever they want, but that doesn’t mean that it has to be subsidized. Would it be such a terrible thing to stop building exurban freeway extensions? Or even to prioritize high ridership urban rail projects over low volume commuter rail extensions which struggle to fill a few trains a day?

    swing hanger Reply:

    Something I notice( more in the newspaper comment sections) is this knee-jerk reaction of equating any rail transit development or high density living as an assault on the right to live in a single family detached home. But what is being proposed is not some wholesale shift in living arrangements, but rather giving people more choices in how they live. A transit suburb can have high density “living on top of another” housing near the transit stations as well as stores, but outside of that others can live in their suburban tract homes and not even bother with taking a train or bus, if they wish. For some reason in North America, perhaps because everything is so ideologically driven, things must always be set in black/white, for/against terms, rather than a more nuanced, organic manner we see in other advanced countries.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    where they HAVE to have a car,

    Just awful the way no one was able to do anything before Henry Ford started to build cars… 100 years ago. Just think if there had been an Interstate between Venice and Beijing Marco Polo could have done his trip in months instead of 24 years

    joe Reply:

    Hilarious. Urban areas are indeed subsidized. It’s okay to pump water hundreds of miles and have a large energy foot print but road and rail infrastructure better be cost effective and heavily scrutinized. Wouldn’t want to waste train capacity and encourage those free-living suburbanites.

    Joey Reply:

    Yeah, I’m sure San Francisco is getting a whole bunch of Gilroy’s precious tax dollars.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    Cities have lower per capita energy footprint than their suburbs, and when those cities are dense and have reasonable transit, their per capita energy footprint is much smaller. 80% of the heat loss from a single-family detached house is via the ceiling and floor; put people in a 6-story apartment building and most of that energy consumption goes down, and that’s if you assume apartment sizes don’t shrink.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Urban areas are indeed subsidized.

    You have a cite for that? The most densely populated state is New Jersey. For every tax dollar New Jerseyans send to the Federal government they get 61 cents back. In the free wild open unsubsidized spaces of North Dakota for every tax dollar they send to Washington they get $1.68.
    Rhode Island the second most densely populated state breaks even. By the standard of Masschusets, the third most densely populated state and Connecticut the fourth most densely populated state, Rhode Island is rather poor so they send less to the Federal Government per capita than people in Connecticut or Massachusetts. Masschusetts gets 82 cents for every dollar they send to the Federal government. For every dollar Connecticut sends to the Federal Government they get 69 cents. How about Maryland the fifth most densely populated state? For every dollar Maryland sends to the Federal Government they get $1.30 back. Maryland and Virginia are a bit anomalous though. Lots of people in Maryland and Virginia work for the Federal Government so the wages they earn in Washington DC is allocated to “spent in Washington DC” and the taxes they pay on the income is accounted as “collected from Maryland” For every tax dollar DC sends to the Federal Government they get …well the chart is for states and if someone published what DC gets back it would be embarrassingly high. Delaware the 6th most densely populated gets 77 cents for every dollar they send to the Federal Government. The subsidies those people in urban states get is awful isn’t it?

    How about New York that with that hellhole of urban blight New York City? New York is the 7th most densely populated state. For every dollar New Yorkers send to the Federal Government they get 79 cents. Even with the Federal Government contributing to the 8 Billion dollar East Side Access project and the 5 billion Phase 1 of the Second Ave subway.

    40 percent of the people in New York State live in New York City. They fund 60 percent of the State budget. In other words the other 60 percent of the people in the state fund 40 percent. Who is getting subsidized? The people upstate would prefer one didn’t ask because 20 percent of the population of the state lives in New York City suburbs and sends 20 percent of the revenue the state collects. In other words 40 percent of those free independent souls upstate contribute 20 percent of the state revenues.

    And for what it’s worth New York City sends water astounding distances from upstate reservoirs. It’s not pumped. It flows by gravity.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2010/02/17/federal-taxes-paidreceived-for-each-state

    derived from a report that used Federal Government sources to come up with numbers.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    Adirondacker, your numbers are almost a decade out of date, since the Tax Foundation stopped bothering updating its report in 2005. You can get new numbers from the IRS and the Census Bureau.

    See here for numbers per state as of 2010 and here for links to sources. In 2010, Rhode Island and North Dakota had about the same per capita income, both a little higher than the national average. Rhode Island got 81 cents on the dollar, less than anywhere else in New England; North Dakota got $1.47. Jersey was down to $0.49.

    I really wish I had county-level numbers, but the IRS only publishes tax receipts per state.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Recent numbers don’t come with an effective graphic. Somewhere someplace someone does county level.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States

    Good enough, for me anyway, to not care…. There 1.5 million people in the Dakotas. Nassau County NY is on the list. 1.3 million people in Nassau. How many counties are there in the NYC CSA? How many are on that list?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    … another quick little tidbit. I copied the stuff from Wikipedia into a worksheet.
    Added up the population of the counties on the list, in Blue States – California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York. Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington.
    it would be the biggest state in the country at 38.7 million. It’s 12% of the population of the US.
    10 million of them in California. I suspect the people who will complain that people in Eureka shouldn’t pay taxes for LA’s whatever should SFTU. Just like the ones that complain that people in Glens Falls shouldn’t pay taxes for things in New York City.
    The population in the Red State high income counties is 6.4 million. They are all suburbs of big cities except for Alaska which is Anchorage and it’s suburbs. That suggests to me that people in Red States should STFU when they complain about how much they are subsidizing “cities”

    joe Reply:

    Yeah, I’m sure San Francisco is getting a whole bunch of Gilroy’s precious tax dollars.

    More likely Gilroy is where their SF’s underpaid public servants will be living. Low income housing in the Peninsula is for fire and police. We have a few Mountain View Police officers in town with children my son’s age.

    We offer affordable housing and connectivity to the peninsula and SF via choo-choo.

    joe Reply:

    Cities have lower per capita energy footprint than their suburbs… not when they get so large water is pumped 100s of miles. The surface area to volume ratio limits cell size and also impacts city efficiency. Far better to have smaller cities than a Judge Dredd Mega City sucking water and food from a massive footprint.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    Do the math. Food transportation’s environmental footprint is approximately zero.

    http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/quick-note-on-food-transportation/

    But the suburbs aren’t self-sufficient in water or food, either. These aren’t agricultural rural areas; these are urban areas with low density and lots of cars.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Chicago gets their water from Lake Michigan. The same place they go swimming on warm days.
    New York City ships it’s water far but … it flows by gravity alone. Yep turn on the tap in Tottenville and the water gets there by gravity. Or Far Rockaway. Whlle Chicago gets it’s water from a mile or so out in Lake Michigan it’s done some pretty amazing things to make sure it’s sewage doesn’t end up in Lake Michigan. New York, up until quite recently, more or less threw it in the harbor and hoped for a strong tide. So did Boston. Was quite the issue in the 1988 election if I remember correctly. I’m not gonna go look. Boston gets it’s water from Western Mass. That’s not hundreds of miles. I suspect cities like Buffalo, Cleveland, Toronto just suck their water out of the lake like Chicago does… Toronto does something, they use the water downtown for cooling before it goes where ever for treatment. I suspect when you whine about “100s of miles you have the desert southwest in mind” Or even San Francisco. Wikipedia says the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct is “gravity driven” They musta got the same clever engineers that let New York do that. The people who deliver water to Los Angeles work for the LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Wikipedia says the LADWP generates electricity. Whether or not they generate more than they use isn’t clarified. I suspect more than they use because there is a blurb about selling the excess to other utilities after demand in Los Angeles is met.

    How about the Salt River Project for Phoenix? Like Los Angeles it was and is a water and power scheme. Like Los Angeles it seems like they are a net generator of electricity.

    …nah it would be much better if we all lived on four acre lots that are big enough to keep our septic system away from our well… which needs an electric pump to get the water out of the ground, an electric pump to get the water to come out of the faucet and is a four mile drive from any place else not someone’s house on a four acre lot.

    joe Reply:

    Freshwater in general is becoming scarce. It will worsen as rainfall patterns shift and generally runoff decreases.

    Chicagoland, the region uses wells and the lake is shrinking in part due to the lack of ice cover and pumping wells.

    My “whining” refers to CA, my state, and the transportation of water and pending water projects. It might also be coloured by the research I’ve done in hydro-ecology in the west. We used to have the largest lake in north america in the CV.

    SF flooded a pristine valley for water goes to the bay area. LA impact the owens valley. these are not minor impacts.

    Dense cities are energy inefficient beyond how Alon does the”math”. They even create microclimates like miheat islands and reduce local precipitation.

    Really the hidden agenda is to rationalize living in cramped apts complexes like they have in Vancouver.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    We used to have the largest lake in north america in the CV.

    When did they move the Central Valley to the Midwest?

  7. Donk
    May 7th, 2013 at 07:54
    #7

    What we really need for this line to perform better is the Regional Connector. It is a PIA having to transfer to the Red/Purple line to get to the Gold line.

    Too bad they plan to bypass Union Station on the East-West Gold line (Expo/ELA). I have not seen any analyses on this yet, but I would guess that there would be the highest demand from the Expo Line and the Pasadena Gold Line for transfers to Metrolink and Amtrak. They could instead run Expo-Pasadena that go thru Union Station and LB-ELA trains that bypass Union Station.

    I am not sure that I am right, but they should at least do a study to determine which pairs make the most sense in terms of ridership, instead of simply assuming that E-W and N-S are best.

    sgv railrider Reply:

    I completely agree with you. I think the Expo Line should be linked to Union Station especially if the Crenshaw Line is built adjacent to LAX (with LAX terminal people mover). Getting passengers from LAX to Union Station with fewer transfers will greatly improve the overall system. Perhaps historically, the Blue Line was supposed to have extended to Pasadena so Metro kept the same vision with the regional connector. I also hope Metro can make this logical change.

    Nathanael Reply:

    “Too bad they plan to bypass Union Station on the East-West Gold line (Expo/ELA).”

    Well, that’s just an operational choice. I wouldn’t worry about it. If there’s overcrowding solely on the downtown-Union Station section of the Blue Line, due to transfers, they can reverse the pairing.

  8. jimsf
    May 7th, 2013 at 08:51
    #8

    One advantage sf has, is the layout of the city allows all the lines to converge and run through the core terminating at the water. But it looks like in LA they could do something similar. I see the red and purple line running through the core to laus. Could they extend the blue and expo line along the same route and terminate them at laus as well, maybe on surface streets since they are lrv, and maybe loop the gold line further around through downtown as well so that gold line downtown workers won’t have to transfer?

    Paul Dyson Reply:

    The Blue Line and Expo should be in tunnel into downtown. Typical failure to invest in a serviceable route, we end up with street running on Washington and a surface flat junction where the Expo and Blue line meet. And as Donk writes, piss money away on the Foothill extension of the Gold Line. Two most vital transportation projects for SOCal? Regional connector for transit and LAUS run through (aka SCRIP) for regional and intercity. Get the core right and the branches work much better.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Precisely the same problem the PE had – the essential infrastructure necessary to move to the next level of competivity and relevance costs a fortune.

    If the PE had enjoyed civic support and funding to systematically upgrade(read your downtown tunnels) it probably would have survived, similarly to the way SF streetcars managed to due to the Twin Peak and Sunset tunnels. It did not help that the LARy was narrow gauge. Little stuff matters.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    your downtown tunnels

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subway_Terminal_Building

    jimsf Reply:

    well I don’t see how the gold line is a bad idea. The san gabriel valley is not the hinterlands and metro is obligated to expand to and serve all parts of the county.

    i think you could just run the blue and the expo on the surface above whatever street that is that the purple and red go under downtown just like the f runs above the jklm on market. works fine.

    Donk Reply:

    I am not at all opposed to the Gold line Foothill extension. As long as it is done after the regional connector, the Purple line, and the 405 line. And the run-thru tracks, as Paul mentioned.

    jimsf Reply:

    The thing is that things are done when they can be done. Things can’t always be done in the order that one person wants.

    Joey Reply:

    The Regional Connector, run-through tracks, and AFAIK Purple Line are all ready to go. It’s just a question of what they decided to seek funding for first.

    StevieB Reply:

    The Regional Connector and Purple Line have funding in the White House budget. They are highest priority.

    BMF of San Diego Reply:

    They are all funded. Except the run-through tracks, of which, I have no knowledge. As currently planned, the projects will be ready as such:

    2016
    Foothill Gold Line Extension from Sierra Madre Villa to Azusa
    Exposition Line Phase 2 from Culver City to Santa Monica

    2019
    Crenshaw Line

    2020
    Regional Connector
    Blue Line extended through downtown and to San Gabrial Valley (Azusa)
    Expo Line extended throguh downtown to East Los Angeles
    (Gold Line alignment is assumed by the Blue & Expo Lines)

    2023
    Purple Line Extension to Wilshire/La Cienega (formerely known as Westside Extension)

    Other projects are funded; however, would only open earlier if something like the 30/10 Initiative were to pass. That includes:

    Airport Metro Connector
    South Bay Extension from Redondo Beach to Torrance
    Purple Line Extension from Wilshire/La Cienega to Westwood/VA
    East LA Extension to Whitteri or El Monte

    Still, other projects may occur too; however, I believe additional funding needs to be identified.
    West Santa Ana Branch
    Sepulveda Pass

    Paul Druce Reply:

    Run through is funded via 1A I believe.

    Joey Reply:

    AFAIK a lot of the Purple Line’s funding (particularly for later stages) is up in the air. Or it has funding but that funding isn’t going to exist for another decade.

    Paul Dyson Reply:

    @jimsf: You got it backwards, the Gold extension is to be done where one person (Antonovich) wants, not where people who use transit would want it.

    BMF of San Diego Reply:

    One term, “Geographic Equity”

    synonymouse Reply:

    luv it, but how does that translate?

    Fake Irishman Reply:

    The first part of the Gold line extension going first was a deal with a certain county supervisor to get his support for Prop R. All-and-all, it was a good deal: get support for the Wiltshire subway, Crenshaw line and Expo line getting sped up by years. Too bad they couldn’t get him on board for Prop J: then LA would have a really good rail system complete by 2025 instead of 2045.

    bixnix Reply:

    Antonovich was asking for too much. LA County has many other lines to start before the Gold Line serves San Bernardino County. He’s termed out in 2016, anyways.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Can he take Jerry with him? They can all party with Antonio up at the Ranch golf course.

    jimsf Reply:

    shouldn’t the gold line go east to pico and whittier and meet a green line ext in whittier? and what about a line along the pch from long beach through the beach cites lax santa monica?

    bixnix Reply:

    Metro has proposed the Gold Line Eastside Extension phase 2 eastward to either Monterey Park via the 60 freeway or Whittier via Garfield and Washington. It’s moving forward, but funding comes after the DT connector and the Wilshire subway, so it’ll be a long time before it happens, unless America Fast Forward gets going. Extending the Green Line north into Whittier doesn’t have the ridership for that to happen anytime soon. Bigger priorities would be this GLEE light rail and perhaps a Whittier Blvd subway.

    The PCH line is proposed already as an extension of the Green Line south from it’s present terminus in Manhattan Beach. Long term, it’ll go all the way to the blue line in Long Beach.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    Wilshire is not a branch.

    Paul Dyson Reply:

    Pedant. In relation to a downtown loop, the hub of the system, all lines radiating out are branches. Wilshire is probably the most important, but still are branch.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    See, I don’t think run-through tracks are going to get as much ridership as the Westside Subway, not without rethinking how Metrolink is run. Remember, the big ridership numbers always come from the in-between neighborhoods, i.e. neither the downtown area nor the suburbs.

  9. jimsf
    May 7th, 2013 at 08:55
    #9

    The blue line loop in long beach should be broader as well as it should serve over to the east/ belmont/univeristy and west to the port and cruise terminals?

  10. jimsf
    May 7th, 2013 at 09:07
    #10

    ot but these are some of the best shots of tgv ive seen. nicely done. really makes it easy to visualize this in california one day. down the valley and through the hills. nice context.

    bixnix Reply:

    The high desert could be interesting, too. On those windy days in the high desert (which is just about every day), are 60mph crosswinds or wind-blown debris going to slow the train? The ride is going to be a two hour tour showing all sorts of climates.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Your point is well taken and I believe that issue figured in the UP CEO’s estimate of CAHSR top speed at around 160mph.

    300 non-stop express miles in the middle of I-5 at somewhat slower sustained speeds due to these various restraints can mitigate the time penalty. Same for the shorter Tejon mountain crossing.

    They will need the time saved.

    EJ Reply:

    His “trains in the desert” series (featuring Spanish HSR) is great if you really want to see HSR trains running in a California-esque environment. He’s actually a very talented film-maker in general.

    D. P. Lubic Reply:

    I like his general channel site name, “In Cows We Trust,” which is where his complete video list is:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/dashloc?feature=watch

  11. Roger Christensen
    May 7th, 2013 at 12:22
    #11

    I would think where the San Fernando Valley HSR IOS stop is located will impact future LA plans.
    A Sylmar stop would serve the proposed Van Nuys Blvd light rail.
    A Bob Hope Airport stop could spur a Red Line extension from NoHo or revive the duplicitous Burbank Glendale light rail proposal alongside Metrolink.

    Paul Dyson Reply:

    Good question Roger, but where? (not to mention when)? Of course it’s only a $68 billion project, you can’t expect them to know where the stations are going to be, not even the interim terminus.

    jimsf Reply:

    id assume the sf valley hsr station would be at the downtown burbank metrolink station.

    StevieB Reply:

    The Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station location has been eliminated from consideration.

    jimsf Reply:

    oh. how come? seems like that would be the logical place.

    Joey Reply:

    It would be the logical place. But we know already that not all decisions made about this project are logical.

    StevieB Reply:

    The city of Burbank does not want the station at the Metrolink Station location. It is in a difficult to get to location in an industrial area on the opposite side of the I-5 from downtown Burbank. With terrible pedestrian access shuttle buses connect to the downtown, media district and airport. The area for expansion is constrained and access roads are limited.

    jimsf Reply:

    well a great project then would be to depress the i-5 through downtown burbank and cover it over and use that space for development.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    You gonna be able to get a billion dollars an acre for land in Downtown Burbank?

    jimsf Reply:

    my point is that rail to the suburbs gives drivers an option.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    How does burying I-5 in a trench, in the city, get them rail? Like the mitigation solution for the Big Dig in Boston was to build a tunnel from South Station to North Station? BTW the Greenway in Boston isn’t worth a billion an acre and Burbank ain’t downtown Boston.

    jimsf Reply:

    (that post belongs in a different thread – about downtown burbank being constrained)

    jimsf Reply:

    joey. stop being so negative. there may be some decisions you don’t like but overall, you know the project is a good one.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    There’s nothing wrong with being negative when there are things to be negative about.

    Joey Reply:

    You’re correct – I support the project. It’s the implementation I have issues with it. Why should I not express those issues?

    jimsf Reply:

    yes I misread your comment. thought you said “all the decisions”

    jimsf Reply:

    well I didn’t realize that row is so close to bob hope so I guess an airport station makes sense as people can arrive by air and continue their trip throught cali from there.

    jimsf Reply:

    how about an airport station with an airtrain connecting hsr, the terminal, and the amtrak/metrolink

    thatbruce Reply:

    @jimsf:

    Far too helpful to the average commuter. This. Is. America!

    Paul Dyson Reply:

    An airport station is the most likely choice with a people mover through the airport to the station on the Coast line. There is a state law requiring connectivity between intercity and airports.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    How about something like this.

    http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/03/burbank-proposes-putting-their-hsr-stop-at-burbank-airport/

    jimsf Reply:

    well, id say since burbank has metrolink for commuters already, that hsr at the airport would be good because you could have air rail thru ticketing. fly into burbank and complete your trip to bakersfield by hsr.

    joe Reply:

    http://www.burbankairport.com/home/whats-new.html
    Regional Intermodal Transportation Center at Bob Hope Airport

    Bob Hope Airport is moving forward with the development of a Regional Intermodal Transportation Center (RITC) to be located along Empire Avenue, across from the Bob Hope Airport Train Station. The RITC will be a three-level structure housing a consolidated rental car facility and rental car customer service building and will include a bus transit station on the ground level. An elevated moving walkway will convey rental car customers and rail and bus passengers between the airport passenger terminal and the RITC, making Bob Hope Airport uniquely convenient and accessible via multiple transportation modes.

    On May 14, 2012, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority voted to award contracts totaling $81,179,000 to build the first phase of the RITC. The transportation center is scheduled to open in summer 2014.

    Joey Reply:

    None of this helps the case for HSR at Burbank Airport, which would be on the opposite side of the airport.

    joe Reply:

    RITC, BUR and HSR at one location. A moving walkway from RITC to BUR and HSR connecting to BUR.

    And be careful to suggest BUR is large that the other side is some vast distance.
    BUR http://goo.gl/maps/RPr3B

    ORD http://goo.gl/maps/kWrXs

    The footprint of ORD terminal clearly shows a HSR at BUR is manageable.

    The high school comment I recall was “Would you throw he/her out of bed for eating crackers?” I would not.

    Joey Reply:

    The HSR stop is going to be at least 1200m (3/4 mile) from the current terminals, and even farther from this new intermodal facility. Too far for a moving walkway. Frequent shuttles might do the trick.

    And what does ORD have to do with anything? ORD is a massive hub airport with several terminals (most of which have more capacity than the entirety of BUR) and a people mover. And ironically, HSR will probably reduce the need to expand at Burbank more than it will increase it, by diverting NorCal-SoCal air traffic.

    joe Reply:

    So the walking distance is about equal to traversing an airport like ORD.

    Look at the maps – same scale.

    It is hyperbole to suggest walking across Bob Hope Airport is arduous. Piece of cake.

    Joey Reply:

    Again, ORD has a people mover. Even at the extreme, the farthest distance you have to walk is far less than 1 km to get from the people mover to your gate (and less than 500m in most cases). If you’re transferring the total distance might be a bit more, but then one of your journey legs is probably a very long haul flight anyway (the kind which doesn’t exist at BUR). And that’s all within the terminal buildings.

    I reiterate, the best you can probably do for BUR is run a frequent bus shuttle between the HSR station and the terminals, which believe it or not is a reasonable solution. People aren’t exactly going to flock to a BUR transfer, but that was never going to be the case anyway.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    Best you can do is stop building airport-oriented transit, let alone at an airport with 5 million passengers a year of whom 63% are heading to destinations within 3 hours on HSR. There’s a perfectly good location in downtown Burbank that could be turned into a transit-oriented secondary downtown, is the point of convergence of two Metrolink lines, and could host Amtrak trains if Amtrak chooses to stop there instead of at the airport.

    joe Reply:

    ORD is larger, connections from say SFO to Iowa require getting from Terminal 1 C gate to Terminal 3 K Gate which a a very long walk. LAX also has some remote gates that require a bus ride.

    DFW requires a shuttle.

    So HSR can connect to BUR via any mechanism and people can pretend it’s just another connection at an airport hub.

    Joey Reply:

    Sure they can. That doesn’t mean it’ll turn BUR into a hub airport or that the connection will ever generate much ridership. And like Alon Levy says, there are plenty of reasons to prefer the downtown location (from which it is still possible to run shuttles).

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    5 million passengers a year of whom 63% are heading to destinations within 3 hours on HSR.

    So if between the 5 million of them decide to use HSR at the same rate New Yorkers use Acela to get to DC they’ll have 1,771,875 less passengers. Hmmmm.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    … but that also implies that 1,771,875 will still be going to the airport to use HSR….. Hmmm.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    CDG has 60,000,000 annual passengers, but its TGV station has 3 million, of whom two thirds connect to the RER (link). You can’t compare rates of airport station use per air passenger with rates of city station use per city resident, because city residents live in the city the entire year whereas air passengers by definition use the airport just once a year.

  12. BMF of San Diego
    May 7th, 2013 at 12:54
    #12

    I’ll admit that I have played an online game. Call Of Duty Blackops is a first person shooter on XBOX and they recently released a new player map of an HSR train station. One of the station kiosks include a map of the proposed California HSR system. I thought that was interesting.

    BMF of San Diego Reply:

    A quick search revealed:
    http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Express_(map)

    Travis D Reply:

    Amusingly that map has the state high speed rail system terminate in Oakland with the line approaching from the valley via Richmond, Antioch, Brentwood and Stockton.

    Robert Cruickshank Reply:

    Apparently they decided to solve the age-old Altamont vs Pacheco debate by going with Carquinez.

    Joey Reply:

    And yet they clearly list Gilroy, San Jose, and “Redwood” as stops.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Well… ” It features fast-moving bullet trains that can kill. ” is going to put a damper on ridership.

  13. Keith Saggers
    May 7th, 2013 at 14:45
    #13
  14. Keith Saggers
    May 7th, 2013 at 14:48
    #14

    sorry, LAX

  15. Keith Saggers
    May 7th, 2013 at 15:16
    #15

    or Bob Hope

  16. jimsf
    May 7th, 2013 at 16:43
    #16

    Im all for subways, but would it be cheaper to extend the purple line on an aerial the rest of the way?

    EJ Reply:

    Probably – but you’ll never get the folks in mid-Wilshire, Westwood, and Bev Hills to agree to an El. Lotta money and a lot of influence in those neighborhoods.

    bixnix Reply:

    Besides that, putting an el on top of the busiest boulevard in L.A. would be a complete nightmare. The pillars would be blocking hundreds of driveways or occupying lanes. Metro is currently adding a dedicated BRT lane on a large portion of Wilshire as well.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Take it from Berkeley you do not want an elevated. I guess unless you think property values are too high.

    Joey Reply:

    Yeah, El Cerrito has really turned into a dump since they put BART in.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    So have Short Hills and Cos Cob

    synonymouse Reply:

    El Cerrito was nicer before BART.

    But Telegraph Avenue was pretty sketchy even then(mid-sixties)

    Joey Reply:

    Bart never has and never will run along Telegraph, above or below ground. The closest it comes is about half a block away in the middle of SR-24. But that’s in the middle of SR-24, which takes up the vast majority of that structure. But it seems that even a freeway AND and elevated BART line can’t keep property values down. Rockridge continues to be one of the most expensive parts of Oakland, and a thriving retail district.

    Drunk Engineer Reply:

    Joey,
    Try visiting the wrong side of the aerials.

    Actually…don’t do that. Wouldn’t want anything bad to happen to you.

    Drunk Engineer Reply:

    Link didn’t come through:

    http://oaklandwiki.org/Ghosttown

    jimsf Reply:

    oh please. that area has had problems since before bart. it has nothing to do with bart aerials. The majority of neighborhoods near bart aerials are more expensive than most people can even afford. i assure you I know the bay area better than you ever will.

    ridiculous assertion.

    Joey Reply:

    Look – I’m not going to say that BART’s implementation of viaducts (and other things) isn’t terrible. But the claim that elevated rail lines automatically decrease property values is naive and uninformed.

    jimsf Reply:

    el cerrito del norte was “my stop” back in the high school days…. I dubbed it the coldest place on earth ( it sits directly in line with the gg bridge and the weather the comes though there.
    but yeh, el cerrito is considered to be a pretty nice area to live and one of the very first places where TOD was built but it wasn’t caled TOD back there or a transit village, it was just “hey lets put these dense apts close to bart cuz it makes sense”

    notice the rent for living 25 feet from the bart aerial is 2300 for a one bedroom.

    BMF from San Diego Reply:

    The approved project is underground all the way to Westwood area. Aerial was not advanced beyond the initial planning phase.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    Many things are possible with enough bulldozers…. c.f. Cross Bronx Expressway.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    The Wilshire subway deviates from Wilshire to serve Century City; that can’t be done above-ground.

Comments are closed.