Transportation headlines, Wednesday, April 23

Have a transportation-related article you think should be included in headlines? Drop me an email! And don’t forget, Metro is on TwitterFacebook and Instagram. Pick your social media poison! 

Transit-related note: Thanks to Kings fans for riding the Expo and Blue Lines to last night’s game. Lucky bounce, Sharks. Games four and six will be at Staples Center. 

Gold Line being challenged on possible terminus at Ontario Airport (Los Angeles Newspaper Group)

The San Bernardino Association of Governments is opposing a state bill that would give the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority permission to plan and study a third segment of the project between Claremont and Ontario Airport. SANBAG says it wants to first study other options for connecting transit to the airport, which in recent years has a seen a significant decline in air passenger travel. The airport segment lacks funding at this time. The Construction Authority is an independent agency that is building the Gold Line extension to Azusa with Measure R funds; Metro will operate the line when completed.

Pay lanes have better result on 10 freeway than 110 freeway, report says (Los Angeles Newspaper Group)

A look at the Metro staff report issued earlier this week that offered a preliminary analysis of the performance of the ExpressLanes on the 10 and 110 freeways during their one-year pilot period. Excerpt:

For example, on the 11-mile stretch of the 110 Freeway between Adams Street and the 91 Freeway during the morning commute, it took on average 2 minutes longer to travel on the ExpressLanes than when the lanes were regular High Occupancy Vehicle lanes. The evening commute showed no change, the report stated.

On the 14-mile stretch of ExpressLanes installed in February 2013 on the 10 Freeway from the 605 Freeway to Alameda Street in Los Angeles, commuters got where they were going more than 2 minutes faster on average. Even the general-purpose lanes showed a near 2-minute decrease in travel time, compared to before the lanes were implemented.

The analysis, by the Federal Highway Administration, noted that the ExpressLanes have still met many of their goals — for example, ridership on the Silver Line has increased 27 percent and use of the ExpressLanes has increased since they began, resulting in increased revenues.

The Metro Board of Directors on Thursday will consider whether to keep the lanes beyond January 2015.

‘Rail to River’ project envisions greenway along rail tracks (KCET)

A look at the proposal being studied by Metro to use 8.3 miles of the Harbor Subdivision rail right-of-way for a pedestrian and bike path between the Los Angeles River and the Crenshaw/LAX Line. Here’s a recent Source post on Metro’s ongoing study. As noted in the KCET article, one big challenge is that parts of the old rail corridor are narrow and may not be able to accommodate both a future rail or BRT line (although nothing is imminent) and a walking and biking path.

A look at L.A.’s second-year bike lane implementation list (Streetsblog L.A.)

A good look at some of the bike lane projects under consideration by the city of Los Angeles. As Joe Linton notes, some of the current lanes seem more opportunistic than strategic whereas some of the second-year lanes would connect between current bike lanes and help build a true biking network. Looks like several of the projects would intersect or be near future Metro Rail lines, which is important for first- and last-mile connections.

 

6 replies

  1. Interesting that SANBAG doesn’t want the Gold Line Foothill Extension to ONT at this time. I would think that by extending the Gold LIne to ONT it might increase passengers at ONT. Being that the City of Ontario and LAWA have an ongoing legal dispute in progress SANBAG my not want Gold Line Construction Authority acts to support LAWA’s arguments. Maybe SANBAG should consider building a people mover from the Metro Riverside Line ONT station to the Passenger Terminals so passengers don’t have to wait hours for a bus to happen to come by.

  2. Agreed in against extending the Gold Line to Ontario Airport. The airlines themselves do not want to fly to LA-Ontario, even if it’s cheaper to land there. The idea of flights to secondary airports were popular back in the 1990s, but it died out when high jet fuel prices made it cost inefficient to fly there.

    Instead, all the airlines have shifted their focus back to LAX as it’s the international hub for all three major global airline alliances (oneworld, Star Alliance, and Skyteam). There will always be flights to Tokyo-Narita, Seoul-Incheon and London-Heathrow out of LAX. Hence, that’s why three major domestic airlines (American, United, and Delta) all fly there as the US partners for these major global alliances.

    Face the reality. Japan Airlines, Korean Air, and British Airways or any of the big international airlines have no interest in flying to LA-Ontario. There will never be flights to Tokyo, Seoul, London, or any other international destinations from there. If the major international airlines have no vetted interest in Ontario, neither will the domestic airlines.

    Hence, we should stop wasting money in over extending Metro Rail beyond LA County over to San Bernardino. It’s already stupid idea as it is that we pay the same flat rate fare no matter how short or far. Now you want to extend it all the way to Ontario Airport so that it’ll be the same flat rate price whether you take the train from Santa Monica to Ontario Airport or go from your apartment to your neighborhood supermarket?

    The money should be better spent on fixing the fare structure, studying the 405 Line, and increasing bus services for LA County.

  3. Warren, Here is an explanation of SANBAG’s stance

    http://sanbag.ca.gov/about/agendas/2014/04-14_board-r11.pdf

    Metrolink Riverside line operates mostly peak hour/peak direction so would not be overly useful to serve airport users

    http://www.metrolinktrains.com/schedules/line/name/Riverside/service_id/1149.html

    “wait hours for a bus to happen to come by”. Omnitrans route 61 serves the Ontario Airport (or at least near it) with 15 minute frequency for about 15 or so hours per day. For that service area that is very good service level.

    http://www.omnitrans.org/schedules/route61/

  4. There could easily be a bus that would run from Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink station (the SB Line has more frequency than the Riverside Metrolink Line) to ONT running along most of the same route Omnitrans 81 uses today. But LAWA, and especially its current director, are hostile to transit (see the struggle to get a light rail station built at her previous airport SEA as reference) so I don’t expect any change in the status quo.

  5. The easiest way to serve ONT would be a subsidized SuperShuttle similar to what Metro offers as a shuttle from North Hollywood Station to the Burbank Airport. But that would mean LAWA would have to pay.