Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It needs to be recognized, first, that if you include both traditional "streetcars" and the interuban services of 1900-1950, Light Rail has been with us for a long time. Its resurgence over the past three decades can be linked to a convergence of several societal factors -- the recognition of a finite supply of pertoleum, the easing of the racial polarization which fueled suburban growth, and growth in both numbers and influence by several segments of the population for which the automobile is not a suitable option.
Nevertheless, I believe that the unquestioning embrace of Light Rail by a strongly outspoken advocacy at one end of the present political polariztion has led to the over-extension of some Light Rail systems -- Portland being the most prominent example.
The current practice of driving several hundred miles every week by wealthy ex-urbanites is likely to be increasingly punished at the gas pump, but I don't see this as the end of the auto-centric culture; autos will become smaller, more-confining and less-crashworthy, and the trade-off to nass transit will establish itself at a shorter distance.
But the private, individualized vehicle is here to stay at some point on the travel-options spectrum; nobody except the most militant of the eco-Fascists takes issue with that. We are likley due for a repeat of the previous 70-year cycle, hopefully with the swings in public opinion less drastic, and more infrastucture preserved this time around.
I agree with some exceptions. I especially agree with the bolds.
Denver's light rail/heavy rail system may be as good an example as Portland's of over-reaching.
I think autos will continue to become more fuel efficient, we may finally be "walking the walk" of the talk that started in the 70s in that regard.
Also, when you look at the census bureau stats, there are not really all that many wealthy ex-urbanites driving several hundreds of miles a week.
Most people are not going to give up their personal transportation, IMO. You're not going to be able to put that genie back in the bottle.
I've only been on it once and I didn't find it to be that slow, but that was on a Saturday. But pretty much every comments section on articles about the Expo Line have complaints about the speed near DTLA (never road the B Line in Boston I guess ). I believe they are working on the signal timings to improve its speed through Exposition Park and South Park / DTLA.
According to its schedule it takes 29 minutes to go from 7th Street / Metro Center to Culver City. Probably have to add another 20 minutes for it to get to Santa Monica in Phase II.
It's at-grade but on a separate ROW for much of the route. Doesn't have mixed lanes with car traffic though. Orange Line and Expo Line have around the same grade separation.
Thats what I though. Which makes me wonder why they chooses BRT for the Orange Line and LRT for the Expo Line. What they are trying to do with the Orange line, is baffling to me.
I think light rail is one of these things our children's children are going to look back at and laugh, just like we look at the old urban renewal projects and say "what were they thinking?" It seems virtually every city, even small cities like Salt Lake City, are building light rail and "TOD" at the end of the lines which is anything but actual TOD. I have documented Denver's problems before. Our transit agency ran out of money, even after we voted to increase taxes to complete the damn project. Now they are saying instead of extending LR to the northwest, they will build only so far, and then institute BRT for the rest. This has angered some of the suburban governments in the NW corridor, to the extent that one community is talking about witholding the tax receipts from the new tax until RTD can get its act together and complete the project.
Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on these systems.
I don't know. I'd take it from my home in Stapleton to my job in the tech center if the 225 and DIA lines were complete. It's a miserable commute and I hate driving. I don't think they'll be tearing out LR lines in 50 years. By then, there will be more density within the metro area. Much of the TOD is just getting started, so I think it's hard to judge Denver's enitire system until it's completely built out and development around all the stations is more mature. But what's the other option? Just let the freeways get to be as bad as LA? I lived in the LA area for 10 years and it's to the point where you feel trapped. You can't get anywhere with all the traffic.
I agree with some exceptions. I especially agree with the bolds.
Denver's light rail/heavy rail system may be as good an example as Portland's of over-reaching.
I think autos will continue to become more fuel efficient, we may finally be "walking the walk" of the talk that started in the 70s in that regard.
Also, when you look at the census bureau stats, there are not really all that many wealthy ex-urbanites driving several hundreds of miles a week.
Most people are not going to give up their personal transportation, IMO. You're not going to be able to put that genie back in the bottle.
Maybe I'm different, but I actually dislike/hate driving my car most of the time. I'd rather have the majority of what I need (bank/grocery store/gym, etc.) within walking distance of my home and take public transit for further needs, like work. I enjoy driving if I have the road to myself, but that's not reality. And Denver seems to do a poor job with freeway construction. I can't believe how many freeways only have 2 or 3 lanes in each direction, causing unnecessary congestion. They should have added 2 lanes in each direction to the 225 while they were going to all the trouble.
I agree with some exceptions. I especially agree with the bolds.
Denver's light rail/heavy rail system may be as good an example as Portland's of over-reaching.
I think autos will continue to become more fuel efficient, we may finally be "walking the walk" of the talk that started in the 70s in that regard.
Also, when you look at the census bureau stats, there are not really all that many wealthy ex-urbanites driving several hundreds of miles a week.
Most people are not going to give up their personal transportation, IMO. You're not going to be able to put that genie back in the bottle.
But there will always be people who can't or wont drive. The transportation needs of those people will need to be meet.
There are also other challenges to be meet. Like the fact that we will be running out of oil within the next 30 - 40 years. Will alternatives be ready in time? If not, public transit is going necessary.
Also congestion, with the ever increasing population. Where are all those private automobiles going to fit? Two light rail tracks carry as many people as an eight lane wide freeway.
Thats what I though. Which makes me wonder why they chooses BRT for the Orange Line and LRT for the Expo Line. What they are trying to do with the Orange line, is baffling to me.
We mentioned it before, but it was purely politics.
Some homeowners along the Chandler corridor (where the Orange Line generally runs) did not want surface LRT so they insisted on a Red Line extension through the Valley. As mentioned before it does not have the proper population densities to warrant a heavy rail extension plus Metro (RTD I believe at the time) did not have that kind of money - in fact the entire Gold Line LRT project was cancelled for a short time. The community refused to support any surface rail line and got their representative to pass a law:
Quote:
Prior to his 1993 conviction and prison sentence for accepting bribes,[20] California state Senator Alan Robbins introduced a piece of legislation which prohibited the use of the corridor for any form of rail transit other than a "deep bore subway located at least 25 feet below ground." The California Legislature passed it as law in 1991.
So San Fernando Valley, you got what you wished for. Stop complaining about being "neglected" by Metro. You had your chance and you blew it. Take a look at the San Gabriel Valley as a suburban community that has embraced their LRT.
This is no joke one of the reasons:
Quote:
Objections cited included noise and perceived danger to a large Orthodox Jewish community which the right-of-way bisects. Because Shabbat prohibits driving or using electricity from sundown Friday through Saturday, those travelling to synagogue are compelled to walk and, while not backed by any studies, claim to be exposed to greater potential danger by crossing rails on foot, especially at night. Groups were organized and funded by the community to kill anything but a subway.
We mentioned it before, but it was purely politics.
Some homeowners along the Chandler corridor (where the Orange Line generally runs) did not want surface LRT so they insisted on a Red Line extension through the Valley. As mentioned before it does not have the proper population densities to warrant a heavy rail extension plus Metro (RTD I believe at the time) did not have that kind of money - in fact the entire Gold Line LRT project was cancelled for a short time. The community refused to support any surface rail line and got their representative to pass a law:
Can that law be reversed?
I can see another problem for the Orange Line. The obvious poor quality paving of the busway. It seems they have already had problems with it. That stuff is just not going to hold up to the constant bus traffic. The maintenance cost are going to skyrocket, as it ages. If they are going to keep as BRT, they are going to have to replace the asphalt with thicker concrete.
Yes. For a short time there was a law that banned any funds from going towards subway expansion in LA due to methane levels in the ground on the Westside. After it was discovered these concerns could be mitigated, the ban was reversed and that is why the Westside extension is happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom
I can see another problem for the Orange Line. The obvious poor quality paving of the busway. It seems they have already had problems with it. That stuff is just not going to hold up to the constant bus traffic. The maintenance cost are going to skyrocket, as it ages. If they are going to keep as BRT, they are going to have to replace the asphalt with thicker concrete.
I've never heard of this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). I believe they are working on the signal timings to improve its speed through Exposition Park and South Park / DTLA. 
