Dept. of Twitter:
Awesome. Except this should be implemented on every line in LA. https://t.co/sbXzu3YYVq
— Yonah Freemark (@yfreemark) October 16, 2017
— Erik (@erik_griswold) October 16, 2017
TUNNEL [noun] tun·nel ˈtə-nᵊl
a covered passageway; specifically: a horizontal passageway through or under an obstruction pic.twitter.com/6OEnFIkWVo
— Metro Connector (@MetroConnector) October 17, 2017
I suspect 100 percent of you know what a tunnel is. But cool pic. This is the northern part of the Crenshaw/LAX Line under Crenshaw Boulevard — specifically the section between Expo/Crenshaw and Leimert Park Station.
— Josh Paget (@MidCityJosh) October 17, 2017
— Sean Parlan (@seanparlan) October 17, 2017
— The Global Grid (@theglobalgrid) October 17, 2017
— Tom Henkenius (@Henkenius) October 17, 2017
1/ Would be great for Metro staff to highly encourage the team to have the lane for the express before and after games. I know they aren't
— xicana (@xicanabruinette) October 15, 2017
This last one is a bit of a tough issue, given that the parking lot at Dodger Stadium Express is vast and traffic is going every which way after games, especially the big ones.
Why congestion pricing might work in L.A. (Curbed LA)
First, a very significant caveat: there is no actual proposal on the table to begin tolling an entire freeway or entry to a particularly congested part of the region.
Over the summer, the Southern California Assn. of Governments — the regional planning agency that most residents have never hard of — has been floating the idea. Their big pitch: Angelenos, they claim, are wasting on average 100 hours a year stuck in traffic and congestion pricing would remedy that.
Over at Curbed, Matt Tinoco has a very smart take on the idea and proves himself a very worth cruxfinder:
The challenge with Los Angeles is that if it suddenly cost, say, $10 to drive through a congested district like Hollywood or Downtown, the region’s current mass transit would hardly be able to pick up the slack. This isn’t to say that Los Angeles isn’t well on its way to giving people more options for mass transit, but the fact remains that we aren’t there yet.
As Matt writes, London used $s from its congestion pricing to improve bus service. So there’s that and, as Matt notes, Metro is in the early stages of restructuring its bus system. But which comes first?!
I’m not sensing any great appetite for congestion pricing outside of The Urbanist Echo Chamber and I’m not sure how much more appetite people have for more taxes or tolls. Transpo-wise, voters went for the Measure M sales tax increase last year — which is a good thing — but now we’re facing a 12 cents per gallon gas tax increase on Nov. 1 and a big vehicle registration fee increase, too.
Could congestion pricing come to our region? Sure. But my hunch is that we’re more than a few years away and the number of transit projects, the frequency of transit and capacity of transit will have to vastly improved first.
The case of the missing platform doors (Transport Politic)
Yonah Freemark tries to figure out why doors and barriers that keep people and trash from falling onto train tracks at transit stations are common around the globe — but not in the U.S. His leading theory:
The best explanation I have is that management is simply uninterested in making the decisions necessary to bring their technologies up to speed. Given their (real or imagined) sense of being constantly under siege, transit agency leadership would prefer to just keep the existing system working as it does today: Better safe than sorry. And the repeated complaints of one board member, not backed by others and not likely to raise the concerns of the political official who appointed him (the governor), simply doesn’t matter enough.
As Yonah writes, money is certainly an issue, too. Although it’s not like transit money is growing on trees elsewhere on the planet. Or maybe Americans — who manage to mangle a lot of people in cars — feel that transit is already far safer and safe enough. Which is kind of a low bar.
The New York MTA has been removing some subway seats to increase space on crowded trains and reduce the time it takes to load/unload riders.
The reaction: mixed.
We certainly have some crowded trains at peak hours here. What’cha think? Would fewer seats fly here? Comment please.
Categories: Transportation Headlines