Comments on: A Very Astute Critique of Highways by an Editor of The Weekly Standard http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/03/03/a-very-astute-critique-of-highways-by-an-editor-of-the-weekly-standard/ Covering Los Angeles's livable streets movement Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: panhandledan http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/03/03/a-very-astute-critique-of-highways-by-an-editor-of-the-weekly-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-4529 panhandledan Wed, 04 Mar 2009 08:08:39 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1815#comment-4529 "1. Stations could be located away from the freeway at ~ 1 mile intervals." That is to say, stations could be every one or two miles, but positioned a few hundred feet or more away from the freeway with overpasses and underpasses. “1. Stations could be located away from the freeway at ~ 1 mile intervals.”

That is to say, stations could be every one or two miles, but positioned a few hundred feet or more away from the freeway with overpasses and underpasses.

]]> By: panhandledan http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/03/03/a-very-astute-critique-of-highways-by-an-editor-of-the-weekly-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-4528 panhandledan Wed, 04 Mar 2009 08:05:32 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1815#comment-4528 Hi Mark, there's no doubt that the middle of a freeway is not the ideal place for a train station. However, so much of what has stopped transit construction is the cost and legal quagmire of right-of-way. Here are a few points to consider, and I'd like to know yours or anyone else's opinion, because a number of us are considering lobbying for this: 1. Stations could be located away from the freeway at ~ 1 mile intervals. That way, almost all the track could be on the freeway, taking advantage of pre-existing corridors. 2. If stations ARE located on the freeway, they can possibly be underneath, elevated, or sound-isolated and air filtered. In fact, filtration and isolation is precisely what we attempt to do in thousands of individual vehicles, but could probably do it better with a few stations. I would think this would not be expensive in comparison to the grandiose freeway overpasses we regularly build today. 3. Unlike the 105, the 405 freeway does pass within a mile of a number of key high-density places, including UCLA/Westwood Village, LAX, Howard Hughes Center, the Getty, Westside Pavillion Mall, Fox Hills Mall many other malls, hotels, business districts and high density residences. 4. Green Line may have some downsides. Further, it doesn't even go anywhere. Yet it is quite popular, and cost less than a billion dollars for 17 miles. Consider a 405 line which could incorporate advantages listed in points 1, 2, and 3, above. What do you think? Criticism is appreciated. Hi Mark, there’s no doubt that the middle of a freeway is not the ideal place for a train station. However, so much of what has stopped transit construction is the cost and legal quagmire of right-of-way. Here are a few points to consider, and I’d like to know yours or anyone else’s opinion, because a number of us are considering lobbying for this:

1. Stations could be located away from the freeway at ~ 1 mile intervals. That way, almost all the track could be on the freeway, taking advantage of pre-existing corridors.

2. If stations ARE located on the freeway, they can possibly be underneath, elevated, or sound-isolated and air filtered. In fact, filtration and isolation is precisely what we attempt to do in thousands of individual vehicles, but could probably do it better with a few stations. I would think this would not be expensive in comparison to the grandiose freeway overpasses we regularly build today.

3. Unlike the 105, the 405 freeway does pass within a mile of a number of key high-density places, including UCLA/Westwood Village, LAX, Howard Hughes Center, the Getty, Westside Pavillion Mall, Fox Hills Mall many other malls, hotels, business districts and high density residences.

4. Green Line may have some downsides. Further, it doesn’t even go anywhere. Yet it is quite popular, and cost less than a billion dollars for 17 miles. Consider a 405 line which could incorporate advantages listed in points 1, 2, and 3, above.

What do you think? Criticism is appreciated.

]]> By: MarkB http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/03/03/a-very-astute-critique-of-highways-by-an-editor-of-the-weekly-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-4526 MarkB Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:05:42 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1815#comment-4526 Rail down freeway medians isn't as good as it appears. Take a look at the Gold Line on the 210. The station platforms are NOISY, full of exhaust fumes, tire and brake dust, and did I mention they're NOISY! WHAT??? I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! Secondly, freeways don't go *to* places, they bypass or go *near* places, leaving horrendous "last mile" problems. Take a look at the Green Line for that. Or take yet another look at the Gold Line on the 210: where do the stations dump passengers? In the middle of nowhere, mid-block, often with very little around. Freeways are built to serve motorists. Rail is built to serve everyone but. Their needs are very different, and so should be their routing. Rail down freeway medians isn’t as good as it appears. Take a look at the Gold Line on the 210. The station platforms are NOISY, full of exhaust fumes, tire and brake dust, and did I mention they’re NOISY! WHAT??? I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!

Secondly, freeways don’t go *to* places, they bypass or go *near* places, leaving horrendous “last mile” problems. Take a look at the Green Line for that. Or take yet another look at the Gold Line on the 210: where do the stations dump passengers? In the middle of nowhere, mid-block, often with very little around.

Freeways are built to serve motorists. Rail is built to serve everyone but. Their needs are very different, and so should be their routing.

]]> By: LuminaryCrush http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/03/03/a-very-astute-critique-of-highways-by-an-editor-of-the-weekly-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-4522 LuminaryCrush Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:50:17 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1815#comment-4522 Well, I'll tell you what, one way to help shore up real estate values in this housing depression would be to put a moratorium on all subdivision development in the US - forcing development and re-development of current municipal areas and eventually leading to denser habitation. In addition, right NOW local governments should move to acquire right-of-way for rail while property values are low and eminent domain would be least expensive. Absolutely PanHandle, that's been my thought for years (re: light rail in Los Angeles) - I'd mandate every freeway to have it right down the center & provide ample park-n-rides near stations. At least with freeways we have many right-of-way issues pre-resolved, and that's one of the biggest hurdles to Los Angeles rail deployment. And, dammit, can the green line actually go to the airport instead of deliberately swerving away from it!?!? That reeks of taxi lobby. Well, I’ll tell you what, one way to help shore up real estate values in this housing depression would be to put a moratorium on all subdivision development in the US – forcing development and re-development of current municipal areas and eventually leading to denser habitation.

In addition, right NOW local governments should move to acquire right-of-way for rail while property values are low and eminent domain would be least expensive.

Absolutely PanHandle, that’s been my thought for years (re: light rail in Los Angeles) – I’d mandate every freeway to have it right down the center & provide ample park-n-rides near stations. At least with freeways we have many right-of-way issues pre-resolved, and that’s one of the biggest hurdles to Los Angeles rail deployment. And, dammit, can the green line actually go to the airport instead of deliberately swerving away from it!?!? That reeks of taxi lobby.

]]> By: panhandledan http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/03/03/a-very-astute-critique-of-highways-by-an-editor-of-the-weekly-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-4520 panhandledan Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:25:11 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1815#comment-4520 Freeways represent "sunk" investment, perhaps not the best. But why not capitalize on it by putting light rail down the center of the most congested L.A. freeways, in the model of the Green Line on the 105? The 10 would probably be exempted, since the Exposition line is well under way, and we may actual have a subway to the sea in our lifetimes along Wilshire. But what about our North-South corridor on the west side: the 405? Comments? Freeways represent “sunk” investment, perhaps not the best. But why not capitalize on it by putting light rail down the center of the most congested L.A. freeways, in the model of the Green Line on the 105?

The 10 would probably be exempted, since the Exposition line is well under way, and we may actual have a subway to the sea in our lifetimes along Wilshire.

But what about our North-South corridor on the west side: the 405?

Comments?

]]> By: FixHighways http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/03/03/a-very-astute-critique-of-highways-by-an-editor-of-the-weekly-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-4506 FixHighways Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:23:36 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1815#comment-4506 It is sad. Had Eisenhower stayed around or had a third or fourth term as President I wouldn't be surprised if he would have done a large investment in building high speed rail after the highways like he saw during WW2. It is sad. Had Eisenhower stayed around or had a third or fourth term as President I wouldn’t be surprised if he would have done a large investment in building high speed rail after the highways like he saw during WW2.

]]> By: Umberto Brayj http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/03/03/a-very-astute-critique-of-highways-by-an-editor-of-the-weekly-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-4504 Umberto Brayj Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:02:54 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1815#comment-4504 That Caldwell piece really is remarkable. It is a bit sad, however, how "conservatives" have jumped on the state-spending bandwagon all these years. Like our policies with Israel, there really is no legitimate opposition to the direction our country takes with highway funding (other than fighting over who gets how much for highways in their congressional districts). Our freight rail system really ought to be improved, but we keep throwing money away at suburban sprawl and development. That Caldwell piece really is remarkable. It is a bit sad, however, how “conservatives” have jumped on the state-spending bandwagon all these years. Like our policies with Israel, there really is no legitimate opposition to the direction our country takes with highway funding (other than fighting over who gets how much for highways in their congressional districts).

Our freight rail system really ought to be improved, but we keep throwing money away at suburban sprawl and development.

]]>