[ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

[ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

Messagepar Manu22 » Jeu 17 Fév 2005 20:11

Hello,
Je vous propose cette visite virtuelle de la ligne rouge du métro de L.A. ! C'est hyper bien fait, on prend le métro, sort des stations, etc.
Cela m'a permis de découvrir le métro de L.A. qui, je pense maintenant, est le plus beau du monde ! Les stations sont magnifiques et hyper propres !
Voici l'url: http://www.metrovr.net/metro/
Il faut le dernier quicktime/
Bon voyage !
Manu22
 

Messagepar jerem17 » Jeu 17 Fév 2005 22:10

C'est super bien fait ça doit demander un boulot énorme !
Mais c'est des images de synthèse ou des panoramas photo ?
Avatar de l’utilisateur
jerem17
Route Nationale
Route Nationale
 
Messages: 382
Enregistré le: Mar 15 Fév 2005 17:53
Localisation: La Rochelle

Messagepar Jacques a53n » Ven 18 Fév 2005 13:47

Je vous conseillerais de vous procurer le livre Metro Arts & Métro Poles écrit par Marianne Ström. Il y a quelques superbes photos sur ce métro.

Pour en venir à ce métro de L A c'est la continuité des tendances années 70 en raison de l'aspect coloré voir psychédélique des stations. Cela change énormément du concept épuré ou "rabat-joie".

A la vue de ce métro, le style 70's n'est pas vraiment passé de mode .... pour notre plus grand plaisir.

Mes coups de coeur :

- Pershing square & Westlake Mc Arthur Parc, voire d'autres stations plus récentes.

Parmi les stations inspirées du métro de Los Angeles :

- Olaias ( métro de Lisbonne) et certaines stations récentes du métro de Munich.
Jacques a53n
 

Re: [ USA ] Visite virtuelle du métro de L.A.

Messagepar Disturbman » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 09:22

Je cherchais un sujet sur L.A. mais je n'en trouve aucun (ou alors je l'ai raté). Ce qui est fort étonnant alors que la ville connaît une période d'investissement massif dans ses transports en commun ferré avec le plan 30/10 (qui est une acceleration des investissements prévus) du maire.

Sur le sujet, voir the Transport Politic:

L.A.’s 30/10 Plan Advances Suddenly with a $546 Million Loan for the Crenshaw Light Rail Project

Federal commitment will move project forward, increasing prospects for Mayor Villaraigosa’s massive 30/10 transit plan. This could be a model for other cities, though the availability of more financing is unclear.

Los Angeles’ 30/10 plan, designed to shoehorn three decades’ worth of transit construction into just ten years, always seemed like a long-shot. Though backed by a voter-approved sales tax, the proposal would rely on the unlikely commitment of billions of dollars in loans from the federal government. In the process, L.A. County hoped to have by 2020 twelve new or extended fixed-route transit lines at the cost of some $14 billion.

Thanks to the ambitions of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the apparent willingness of the Obama Administration’s Department of Transportation, the process has suddenly made a major jump forward with the announcement today of a $546 million low-interest loan and a $20 million grant to spearhead work on the proposed Crenshaw light rail line. That $1.4 billion project will connect the city’s existing Green Line at LAX Airport with the currently under construction Expo Line at Exposition Boulevard, running through the cities of Los Angeles and Inglewood. The funding will allow the project to be completed by 2016, rather than 2018 as expected.

Observers nationwide should be evaluating the approach L.A. has taken on this project very carefully: This method, in which local governments promise a long-term revenue stream to pay back low-interest loans from Washington, could be a model for future infrastructure creation everywhere. Or it may at least allow the nation’s second-largest city to advance the fast-paced transit expansion program it has been planning.

Two financing sources made this deal possible: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans and the TIGER II grant program. The TIFIA funds, representing the $546 million loan, will be leveraged by the $20 million TIGER grant; they will be eventually repaid over the course of thirty years using Measure R sales tax revenues dedicated to transit by voters in 2008. TIFIA acts as something equivalent to a national infrastructure bank and has already been used to fund construction on Denver’s Union Station and San Francisco’s Transbay Transit Center, two of the nation’s most impressive planned intermodal transportation hubs. TIFIA credit assistance may be able to support a total of about $2 billion in TIGER projects.

Though TIGER II grants will fund a number of new infrastructure projects (I will discuss them in further detail next week when they are officially announced), this relatively small grant for Los Angeles could be the most important because of the unique financing structure it inspires. Similar arrangements could be used to fund the construction of all of the other twelve planned transit lines in the 30/10 plan. The Westside Subway extension and the Regional Connector are likely to enter the construction phase over the next few years; each could be built more quickly if they were financed under similar schemes.

Metro L.A. claims that moving the transit construction process ahead by up to twenty years could reduce project delivery costs by almost four billion dollars in year-of-delivery dollars — from $17.5 billion to $13.7 billion. Building the lines first and then paying for them later could allow the city to profit from expanded infrastructure investments over the course of the thirty year-period of sales tax collections, rather than have the new infrastructure be spread out throughout the period. It’s a win-win situation for the city and not bad at all for the federal government, since it can continue to offer loans at low interest rates — they are virtually guaranteed to be paid back thanks to the commitment of tax funds. That means these loans don’t add to the federal deficit in the long-term.

If sales tax revenues come in as expected, L.A. will be able to collect $5.8 billion to spend on transit capital projects by 2020; in order to fund all lines, it will need another $8 billion in loans from the federal government, to be returned with interest between 2020 and 2040. Thus today’s commitment represents about one-sixteenth of the total this region hopes to receive from Washington.

This funding may or may not be enough to assure the construction of the Crenshaw line; L.A. Metro has yet to make clear whether it hopes to win New Start grants from the Federal Transit Administration to cover some of the costs of the line. Almost every major transit project in the United States has been partially funded with these allocations. Over the next ten years, the agency expects to collect a total of $1.6 billion in New Start revenues, but how they will be distributed has not been enumerated so far.

The 8.5 miles of the Crenshaw Line are expected to attract between 15,200 and 21,300 daily riders, not terrible for a line of this sort, but not fantastic either considering that the shorter Expo Line Phase I is expected to move more than 40,000 daily users. A connection to Wilshire Boulevard, the primary axis of jobs in the region, could not be funded according to L.A. Metro’s financing plan, therefore limiting the use of this corridor. The future extension of the Crenshaw corridor north into Beverly Hills and south to the South Bay, however, would make it an important link in the overall regional transit system.

Whether the construction of similar projects both in L.A. and in the U.S. as a whole will be possible under such a financing schemes remains to be established. L.A. may be a special case because of the large amount of local funds it has already committed to the cause. If other cities want to speed up their transit construction programs, they may have to increase the amount of non-federal funding devoted to the projects. Moreover, Washington will have to find a way to increase its grant-making to ensure that there are enough New Start dollars to pay for a reasonable share of all of these projects.


Source

et

How Feasible is Antonio Villaraigosa's 30/10 Gambit for Los Angeles Transit?

Mayor of nation’s second-largest city fights to advance city’s transit planning… by twenty years. It’s a job that necessitates a national infrastructure bank that does not yet exist.

Forget that old cliché about Los Angeles. It’s not the old highway-obsessed metropolis it used to be. In fact, as L.A. matures, it’s densifying, shedding its abhorrence towards public transportation.

The region already has one of the most ambitious transit expansion plans in the country; a new light rail line to East L.A. opened last year, the Expo light rail line from downtown to Culver City is under construction, and dozens of other routes are in planning throughout Los Angeles County. The passage in November 2008 of Measure R, an additional half-cent sales tax for transit, means that these projects aren’t just conjectural.

But L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has always been a strong proponent of new rail and bus lines, isn’t satisfied by the thirty-year timetable that will be required to complete the projects lined up for $13.7 billion in local funding. (Measure R would also fund $27 billion in transit operations, maintenance, and roads projects.) Current financial assumptions indicate that the Mayor’s highest priority–an extension of the Westside subway (Purple Line) to Westwood–wouldn’t be complete until 2032. A fixed guideway link along I-405 between the San Fernando Valley and UCLA would have to wait until 2038.

For Mr. Villaraigosa, this situation isn’t feasible: he wants his subway as soon as possible, rather than force his city’s inhabitants to spend decades more in congestion. But over ten years, Measure R is only expected to bring in about $3 billion for transit capital projects–enough to build the first phase of the subway, but nothing else. Because the Metropolitan Transportation Authority represents L.A. County’s ten million inhabitants, not just the city’s four million, prioritizing a line that would provide service to a tiny percentage of the region’s overall geographic area would not be politically feasible.

In October last year, the mayor suggested an alternative: ask the federal government to loan Metro billions of dollars to complete the majority of the county’s transit projects, in the city and out, in ten years, rather then thirty. The transit authority would then pay Washington back for twenty more years as revenues from Measure R trickled in.

The 30/10 proposal would allow Metro to construct the full Westside extension, but also two easterly extensions of the Gold Line, two new branches for the Green Line, several busways in San Fernando Valley, a link along I-405, and new light rail lines downtown, along Crenshaw Boulevard, to Santa Monica, and via the West Santa Ana branch corridor. The West Santa Ana branch corridor would be served by commuter rail. All by 2020.

It was a brilliant solution to an intractable political problem by ensuring the extension of transit in corridors everywhere in the county within a tight time frame. The fight over which lines to prioritize would simply not have to happen.

This “big bang” strategy would not only dramatically improve the city’s public transportation system by opening rapid transit lines to areas of the county previously ignored, but also act as a stimulus for hundreds of thousands of construction workers currently out of work. But who in Washington would be ready to make such a deal? How serious was the mayor anyhow?

Considering the Mayor’s schedule over the past several weeks, it appears he’s dead-set on the proposal. Last week, he went to Washington to garner the support of several members of Congress, and got it, including from influential Oregon Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, who is currently running for reelection, announced that she would support the effort. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood signaled that he was open to the opportunity in a meeting in Los Angeles last month.

If the city is able to move forward on the 30/10 project, it will set quite an intriguing precedent for the dozens of other cities across the country currently considering major transit expansion proposals. The multi-billion-dollar bridge loan Mr. Villaraigosa hopes to have handed over to Metro would be a unique solution to a problem caused by limited short-term revenues. And it implies that Washington should get into the game of agreeing to act as an investment bank for municipalities that can guarantee a source of income over the long term.

If anything, L.A.’s proposal is the best example yet of a project that could really take advantage of a national infrastructure bank, which could provide low-interest loans to governmental agencies to pursue major projects of future importance. The bank would be able to rely on Measure R as an assurance that it will eventually get its money back, and L.A. will be able to benefit from a quick advancement of its rail and bus systems, creating a veritable rapid transit network that in the United States would rival only New York’s in route length.

But the national infrastructure bank does not yet exist. Nor does the Federal Transit Administration have the funds or mandate to pursue a similar policy. So, unless Congress acts on its own, Los Angeles’ transit plans will continue to be relegated to a thirty-year timetable.

Today, with one senator blocking funding for the Department of Transportation and 2,000 workers currently furloughed, it seems unlikely that politicians in Washington will be able to get their together well enough to fund transit at standard levels, let alone sponsor a national infrastructure bank.

That’s a disappointment, since the twelve projects Mayor Villaraigosa has selected for investment would each contribute to the creation of a strong transit system in America’s second city, something that’s been sorely lacking for decades.

Update, 21 March: The Source revealed last week the Mayor’s plan for the 30/10 project, demonstrating the planned expenditures as well as expected completion dates for each of the projects, as shown in the updated map above. Here are the basics:

#Current long-range transportation plan assumes $18.3 billion in transit expenditures over 30 years. 65% of funds would come from Measure R, with 23% from New Starts and 12% from other sources.
#The 30/10 Initiative would allow total expenditures to be reduced to $14.7 billion because of avoided inflation, since projects would be completed in ten years, twenty years ahead of schedule. More cost savings could also be possible because of a cheaper construction market.
#Of that $14.7 billion, $5.8 billion is expected to be available from existing sources, with around $8.8 billion still necessary, which could be provided through a loan from the federal government.
#Measure R would then pay back its $8.8 billion in debts for projects completed between 2010 and 2020 with $10.4 billion in tax revenue received between 2020 and 2040.


Source
Disturbman
Périphérique
Périphérique
 
Messages: 529
Enregistré le: Jeu 11 Oct 2007 09:51

Re: [ USA ] Visite virtuelle du métro de L.A.

Messagepar Disturbman » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 09:25

Dans les plans de L.A. on trouve aussi le prolongement d'une ligne de métro vers Santa Monica.

L.A.’s Westside Subway is Practically Ready for Construction, But Its Completion Could be 25 Years Off

» The Wilshire Corridor metro extension’s final environmental impact statement is released.

Of the nation’s public transportation improvement projects, Los Angeles’ Westside Subway is one of the most important: It would offer an alternative option for tens of thousands of daily riders and speed travel times by up to 50% compared to existing transit trips. It would serve one of the nation’s densest and most jobs-rich urban corridors and in doing so take a major step forward towards making L.A. a place where getting around without a car is comfortable.

L.A. County’s transit provider, Metro, released the final environmental impact statement for the 8.9-mile Westside Subway project last week, providing the most up-to-date details on a multi-billion-dollar scheme that is expected to enter the construction phase next year. The project received a positive review by the Federal Transit Administration in the Obama Administration’s FY 2013 budget, and it is likely to receive a full-funding grant agreement from Washington later this year. Local revenue sources generated by taxes authorized over the years by voters will cover the majority of the project’s cost.

But questions about the project’s completion timeline remain unanswered: Will L.A. have to rely on conventional sources of financing, or be able to take advantage of federally-backed loans to speed construction?

In addition, the project’s specific plans for station construction suggest that there are opportunities to improve station layout and do more to develop land around certain stops.


(I) The Project’s Significance

Many of the rail expansion projects being built in the United States today serve corridors with rather limited existing bus service — there are few people who currently take the bus from downtown Washington to Tyson’s Corner or Dulles Airport, for instance, but a huge Metro extension is currently being built to connect the three, fundamentally to build a new market of transit riders.

L.A.’s westside, on the other hand, already has a very large base of transit users, and most of them are concentrated on the Wilshire Boulevard Corridor, which runs from downtown, through Beverly Hills, the Century City business district, and UCLA, before reaching Santa Monica. The three intermediary areas together contain about 150,000 jobs, about as many as downtown L.A. — and most of them are concentrated within a quarter mile of the street. The city’s famed congestion, especially severe in this area, has attracted people to transit: The local and express bus routes along the line — the 20 and 720 — carry about 60,000 daily riders.

It is no surprise, then, that the corridor has been a focus of L.A. transit investment proposals for decades. The Purple Line subway, which currently terminates at the Wilshire and Western station, was supposed to extend much further into the city when it was first designed, but the threat of gas explosions, a lack of adequate funding, and significant political opposition delayed that action. Yet the election of Antonio Villaraigosa to the mayoralty of L.A. City in 2005 altered the situation entirely, as he ran on a platform that explicitly endorsed the project’s completion and he later campaigned for a sales tax increase to pay for the project — 2008′s Measure R — passed by a large majority of voters. An alignment with seven new stations was selected by Metro in Fall 2010 after three years of studies, though final decisions on station locations were not announced until this week.

Estimates released by the agency point to the degree to which the subway will improve the performance of the transit system, whose service to the westside is currently plagued by traffic-induced delays. Trips from downtown’s Pershing Square to UCLA will decline from 55 to 25 minutes. Riders travelling from South L.A. will save 23 minutes on their journeys; those from east L.A. and Pasadena will save 29 minutes (see above image). These travel time savings are enormous — more than almost any other transit project in the country — and will attract a projected 49,300 daily riders to the line.

Though the subway’s completion will likely not reduce congestion on the highways (because automobile capacity, it seems, never ceases to be consumed), those who need to travel within the corridor will get a new, much faster travel option that is in many cases faster than that which is offered by private automobile, a remarkable achievement in the realm of public transit.

(II) Questions of Time

Because all of L.A. County’s voters approved the Measure R sales tax increase, it would have been unreasonable to focus all revenues in one corridor (and indeed, one suspects that such a plan would not have been approved). Thus the Westside Subway shares the stage with a blizzard of other transit projects being funded over the next twenty years, including the Regional Connector, Crenshaw Corridor, Exposition Line, Gold Line Extensions, South Bay Green Line Extension, and Orange Line Extensions, among others. The large quantity of funds being consumed to build these lines mean that under conventional financing techniques, the Westside Subway will not be completed to its proposed terminus at the V.A. Medical Center until 2036. Only the first phase — a 3.9-mile link to the intersection of Wilshire and La Cienega — would be done by 2020.

For Mayor Villaraigosa and much of the L.A. community, this timeline is unacceptable: To have to wait almost twenty-five years to see a long-planned project completed is scary. Yet the Westside Subway’s $4.4 billion cost (in 2011 terms) is too large for the county to raise money for in a short time period.

Thus L.A. proposed its 30/10 initiative — later renamed America Fast Forward — to use federal loan guarantees to reduce the cost of borrowing and essentially use tax revenues expected to be raised in the future to pay for projects today. This proposal, concretized in the expansion of TIFIA proposed by the U.S. Senate in its transportation reauthorization bill earlier this month, would make it possible for L.A. to build its full subway line by 2022, fourteen years ahead of schedule. Advancing the project’s completion would reduce year-of-expenditure costs for the project from $6.29 billion in the 2036 completion date scheme to $5.66 billion in the sped-up scheme. And it would do it without increasing the level of federal grant commitments to the project, just by reducing borrowing costs for the local agency. Because future residents of L.A. will benefit from transit expansion now, it does not seem unreasonable to use future revenues to pay for the project.

Yet there remains a possibility that the U.S. House, controlled by a GOP delegation that has opposed practically all legislation that Democrats have proposed, will decide not to pass the Senate’s bill and therefore prevent the expansion of the TIFIA program. This would put the timely completion of the Westside Subway in serious doubt.


(III) Station Location

Whatever the Westside Subway’s overall merits in terms of travel time improvements, there remain significant questions about how exactly the line will be constructed. After all, a well-designed transit project is not only one that moves people quickly from station to station but also one that cultivates dense, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.

Though for the most part the project’s construction has been welcomed by affected neighborhoods, the Century City station — about halfway down the line — has undergone significant opposition because of the proposed alignment. Metro supports the construction of a stop under Constellation Avenue, in the heart of the Century City business district, compared to an alternative under Santa Monica Boulevard, about two blocks north. This is the reasonable choice as the latter alignment runs through an earthquake-prone zone, faces a golf course, has half as many jobs within a quarter mile (10,000 versus 20,000), and would see a third fewer daily boardings according to current estimates (5,500 versus 8,600). Though some locals have complained that the Constellation routing would run under Beverly Hills High School and therefore put students in danger, those concerns are hyperbolic considering precedent in other cities and the obvious advantages of that alignment.

Although most of the stations on the proposed line will have entrances at street intersections in relatively dense, urban areas,* the stop at the end of the line, at Westwood/V.A. Hospital, is an exception. The station exit as proposed would deposit people onto a series of winding paths just adjacent to a parking lot and a section of Wilshire Boulevard that is effectively an expressway (at the intersection with Bonsall), about 1,200 feet away from the entrance to the V.A. Medical Center (see above image). The situation is made worse by the parkland just adjacent to the stop and the impassable barrier of I-405 northeast of the stop. This is a pedestrian-hostile environment that will offer a disincentive to taking the train.

As Metro’s Steve Hymon notes, the V.A. Hospital stop will play an important role in serving the region’s veterans, but terminating the line there misses tens of thousands more people living further southwest along Wilshire in dense neighborhoods. They, too, should be provided improved transit service, but they will have to wait until 2036 or later to see another subway extension because of budget limitations. Many of them will likely want to drive to the station in order to take the subway because of the significant time savings offered, but Metro proposes no park-and-ride facilities there. Though bus connections will be important, the agency is effectively losing out on potential passengers by not providing for that need.

It would make sense for Metro to consider working with the V.A. Hospital to develop the parking lot directly abutting the stop into a high-density residential or office use, considering the significant demand likely to be spurred on by the completion of the subway.

* With stations spaced at about one station per mile, the argument could be made that these neighborhoods are not being served well enough, especially the community situated between the proposed UCLA and Century City stations, which would be about two miles apart.


Source
Disturbman
Périphérique
Périphérique
 
Messages: 529
Enregistré le: Jeu 11 Oct 2007 09:51

Re: [ USA ] Visite virtuelle du métro de L.A.

Messagepar Disturbman » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 09:40

Mais, en attendant, Metro vient de mettre en service la première phase d'une ligne de light rail vers Santa Monica, l'Expo Line. Ouverte à la fin avril, on entend déjà les pros-automobile et antis-investissement gouvernementaux crier à la dépense inutile en se basant sur la fréquentation du premier mois. La ligne aurait transporté en Mai 11.000 passagers par jour ouvrable en moyenne, loin, fort loin des 27.000 prévus. On se retrouve ici dans un cas assez similaire à ce qu'on a pu entendre à Toulouse à propos du T1. Sauf que, voilà, la fréquentation augmente petit à petit. En Juin, Metro fait état d'une fréquentation en nette augmentation à plus de 16.500 passagers par jour ouvrable. Bref, on est loin du désastre que certains annoncent.

D'ailleurs, on peut aussi noter en consultant les chiffres de fréquentation de Metro que le réseau ferré à vu une fréquentation record avec près de 42.000 de passagers par jour de plus par rapport à juin 2011. Les chiffres sont d'ailleurs aussi en nette augmentation par rapport à juin 2010 qui avait vu une fréquenation légérement inférieure à juin 2011. Une augmentation qui fait plus que compenser la perte sur le réseau de bus.

Il sera intéressant de voir l'évolution de ces chiffres au fil des mois à venir.

http://www.metro.net/news/ridership-statistics/
Disturbman
Périphérique
Périphérique
 
Messages: 529
Enregistré le: Jeu 11 Oct 2007 09:51

Re: [ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

Messagepar Disturbman » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 09:58

A propos de la fréquentation de l'Expo Line, un article de Curbed Los Angeles :

Despite Setbacks, Expo Line's Ridership Up 50 Percent

Ridership on the new Expo Line light rail is growing at a steady clip, even with track issues at its Downtown junction with the Blue Line and light synchronization issues on Flower Street. According to numbers from Metro, daily ridership on the Culver City-to-DTLA line in June was 16,569, up from about 11,000 in May, a 50 percent increase. Expo opened its Culver City and Farmdale stations on June 20, which likely provided a bit of a boost. But as evident with the other rail lines, it takes a while for Angelenos to realize trains run through their city. Meanwhile, all the other rail lines posted ridership increases or records last month, which speaks to the idea that adding more lines boosts the entire system--the Daily News recently reported that some Valleyites are taking Expo to get to the Westside, going southeast on the Red Line and then west on Expo to avoid the 405. Ridership should only get better for Expo as the academic year begins next month at USC--the university has three stops on the line.

The main gripe about Expo is that, while the train moves quite fast between Culver City and USC (where it's elevated for many stretches), it hits too many traffic lights when moving at street-level on Flower Street near South Park. Bart Reed, the head of the Transit Coalition, which advocates for better public transportation, had some good news to report last week. Writing on the Transit Coalition's comment boards, he said "I had breakfast with Frank Alejandro, Metro Executive Officer, Transit Operations. His next meeting of the day was with LA Dept. of Transportation to attempt to identify how Metro and the City of LA can work together to speed up Expo. The results from this meeting may take a couple of months, but it is amazing that both sides are working to identify fixes to speed up the line."



Source
Disturbman
Périphérique
Périphérique
 
Messages: 529
Enregistré le: Jeu 11 Oct 2007 09:51

Re: [ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

Messagepar Disturbman » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 10:50

Enver a écrit:En projet, notamment :
- une liaison de Expo/Crenshaw (Expo Line) à Aviation/LAX (Green Line), couplée à une desserte de l'aéroport par une branche de la Green Line.


Il me semble d'ailleurs que les travaux ont commencé cet été sur la Crenshaw Line. MES prévue pour 2016 et 2018.

Aussi actuellement en travaux:
- la deuxiéme phase de l'Expo line, de Culver City jusquà Santa Monica. MES prévue pour 2016.
- première phase du prolongement de 38,5km de la Gold Line vers les Foothills au nord. MES prévue pour 2015.
Disturbman
Périphérique
Périphérique
 
Messages: 529
Enregistré le: Jeu 11 Oct 2007 09:51

Re: [ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

Messagepar Jake Sully » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 12:10

Je suis toujours étonné que ces grandes villes américaines ont des réseaux de transport en commun lourd digne d'une ville de province française. Je sais bien que là-bas, c'est le "tout voiture", mais c'est quand même assez affolant de constater cela.
Avatar de l’utilisateur
Jake Sully
Route Départementale
Route Départementale
 
Messages: 221
Enregistré le: Ven 20 Avr 2012 19:33
Localisation: Esbly

Re: [ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

Messagepar Biglower » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 13:32

Moi c'est justement ce que j'aime et qui me fascine à Los Angeles : la bagnole y est reine comme nulle part ailleurs : un vrai sentiment de liberté. Et il faut bien une ville capitale de la voiture dans le monde comme Paris pourrait être capitale du métro. Vive la diversité.
Avatar de l’utilisateur
Biglower
Autoroute
Autoroute
 
Messages: 2921
Enregistré le: Sam 12 Avr 2008 18:32
Localisation: Lyon (et A86 Ouest)

Re: [ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

Messagepar Disturbman » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 14:00

Oui, un sentiment de liberté si tu as ton permis et une voiture. Ce n'est pas pour moi la définition de la liberté mais plutôt son contraire, c'est une fausse liberté, forcée, captive. Pour moi la liberté c'est de pouvoir aller n'importe où à pied ou à vélo.
Disturbman
Périphérique
Périphérique
 
Messages: 529
Enregistré le: Jeu 11 Oct 2007 09:51

Re: [ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

Messagepar G.E. » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 14:18

Le modèle américain d'urbanisation est clairement extensif et il repose massivement sur la voiture. Ceci dit, dans les grandes agglos, il y a souvent un réseau de bus qui offre une desserte fine, même dans les Etats les plus pro-voitures.
Avatar de l’utilisateur
G.E.
Patrouilleur
Patrouilleur
 
Messages: 21430
Enregistré le: Ven 29 Avr 2005 19:22
Localisation: Alpes

Re: [ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

Messagepar nanar » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 14:22

Et aucun flic ne t'a interpellé pour cause de "loitering" ?
J'ai un mauvais souvenir de LA : J'y débarque d'un bus Greyhound en pleine nuit et je me dis que je vais finir la nuit sur un siège de la station de bus, puis chercher un p'tit hôtel au matin. Pas moyen, dès que tu fermes les yeux un garde vient donner un coup de matraque sur le siège "Don't sleep !!". Je sors de la station (5h du matin), je traverse une rue déserte, paf deux flics en bagnole viennent m'engueuler parce que le feu était rouge pour les piétons (j'ai joué au français con qui sortait de sa campagne, ça peut aider).
J'ai quitté la ville, pour n'y plus jamais retourner, dès 9 heures du matin.
Modifié en dernier par nanar le Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 14:50, modifié 2 fois.
nanar
Autoroute
Autoroute
 
Messages: 2514
Enregistré le: Lun 06 Juin 2005 14:44
Localisation: Lyon

Re: [ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

Messagepar basco - landais » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 14:49


pourrais tu m'indiquer où il se trouve ?
merci
Avatar de l’utilisateur
basco - landais
Patrouilleur
Patrouilleur
 
Messages: 9241
Enregistré le: Sam 30 Aoû 2008 18:29
Localisation: A63 pas loin du PK 148 (Sud Landes)

Re: [ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

Messagepar basco - landais » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 15:54

Enver a écrit:
basco - landais a écrit:

pourrais tu m'indiquer où il se trouve ?

A San Pedro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfront_Red_Car

Merci ...
Bonne idée de balade :mrgreen:
Avatar de l’utilisateur
basco - landais
Patrouilleur
Patrouilleur
 
Messages: 9241
Enregistré le: Sam 30 Aoû 2008 18:29
Localisation: A63 pas loin du PK 148 (Sud Landes)

Re: [ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

Messagepar Disturbman » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 16:47

Enver a écrit:Sinon, tiens ...
pour finir sur le hors sujet bagnoles, c'est tout frais -> http://la.streetsblog.org/2012/08/08/de ... dium=email

J'avais déjà lu un papier à ce sujet, ca m'avait bien fait rire. Il faut quand même pas mal d'aplomb et de cynisme pour prétendre qu'un projet d'agrandissement d'une autoroute va améliorer la qualité de l'air. Ca va peut-être aider au début en fluidifiant le trafic mais l'infrastructure finira par se remplir et la situation sera alors encore pire qu'avant. La seule solution pour diminuer cette polution c'est encore les alternatives à la route.

A propos des bus, de la conduite, de l'état des infrastructures routiéres à LA et de la culture automobile il y aussi ce papier qui avait été publié il y a peu sur les utilisateurs de la nouvelle Expo Line.

But a trend that's surprised some transportation officials, San Fernando Valley residents are boarding trains to get to jobs near the Expo Line.

In an unusual commute that takes them east to ultimately end up west, Valley commuters catch the Red Line from North Hollywood or Universal City stations, transfer at 7th Street stop in downtown, and head across town on the Expo Line. Their hustle underscores a growing frustration with the traffic-clogged San Diego (405) Freeway, and the jammed-up canyon roads that connect the Valley with the Westside.

Faced with no other ways to get over the hill, the new Expo Line line is drawing Valley residents, some of whom are commuting by public transportation for the first time.

Until two weeks ago, North Hollywood resident George Araujo, 35, had never regularly ridden a bus or a train in Los Angeles. On Tuesday night, about 6 p.m, he boarded a train in Culver City and leaned back in the seat.

"It takes about the same amount of time as driving, but it's lot easier," said Araujo, whose commute from Culver City, where he works an art director, takes about an hour to North Hollywood.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials don't have figures on how many of the 14,000 daily Expo Line boardings are Valley residents.

But in an email, Metro manager and analyst R. Scott Page, wrote that staff "observations at 7th/Metro show that trains coming from North Hollywood deposit a large number of patrons at this station who are seen moving upstairs to the Metro Blue and Expo Lines platform."

And Valley residents were found on 11 out of 12 Expo Line trips taken by a Daily News reporter last week.

For many, the Expo Line replaces an uncomfortable bus trip. Sherman Oaks resident Earl Jordan, an executive at West Angeles Church in Crenshaw, used to take a Rapid Bus down Wilshire Boulevard from the Red Line. Now he picks up the Expo Line downtown.

"The bus," sighed Jordan on a recent morning, "is bumpy. This is so much smoother and quieter. I'll read. I'll do the emails going in."

Jordan isn't sure if the commute - which takes about 50 minutes - is faster than if he drives his car, but the savings is significant: With a company discount, he spends $155 on an annual Metro pass, or about $3 a week on his commute.

Valley residents aren't just using the train for work. Both North Hollywood resident Dairenn Lombard and his wife own cars, but they recently traveled to an exhibition at the California Science Center near USC on the Red and Expo lines. He also commutes four days a week to his job at the edge of Culver City - a trip that involves the Red Line, the Expo Line, two buses and takes about 90 minutes.

"There's just no easy way to get to the Westside from the Valley," said Lombard, who saves about $300 a month by leaving his car at home. "This is as efficient as it gets."


Source
Disturbman
Périphérique
Périphérique
 
Messages: 529
Enregistré le: Jeu 11 Oct 2007 09:51

Re: [ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

Messagepar G.E. » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 17:10

Disturbman a écrit:J'avais déjà lu un papier à ce sujet, ca m'avait bien fait rire. Il faut quand même pas mal d'aplomb et de cynisme pour prétendre qu'un projet d'agrandissement d'une autoroute va améliorer la qualité de l'air. Ca va peut-être aider au début en fluidifiant le trafic mais l'infrastructure finira par se remplir et la situation sera alors encore pire qu'avant. La seule solution pour diminuer cette polution c'est encore les alternatives à la route.


Ce n'est pas un mystère (sauf peut-être en France ?) que la congestion est synonyme de pire qualité de l'air, en plus de tous les autres aspects. La fluidification du trafic par l'élargissement de l'autoroute apportera un bienfait direct. Il faudrait cependant voir si les nouvelles voies créées seront à leur tour congestionnées aussi sec : ce n'est pas forcément évident si le réseau conduisant à l'autoroute est lui aussi saturé.

Sans opposer TC et route, ce qui est stérile et terriblement hypocrite, l'élargissement pourrait servir à développer la place des TC en dédiant une partie des voies nouvelles au covoiturage et aux transports publics. Cela existe déjà à plusieurs endroits aux USA.
Avatar de l’utilisateur
G.E.
Patrouilleur
Patrouilleur
 
Messages: 21430
Enregistré le: Ven 29 Avr 2005 19:22
Localisation: Alpes

Re: [ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

Messagepar Disturbman » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 17:49

Non, on parle de passer de 2*5 à 2*7. ;)

Mais je crois qu'il a été suffisament prouvé qu'élargir les autoroutes ne mène qu'à un abaissement temporaire de la congestion et que ca ne réglera jamais le problème. Les solutions qui marchent et qui ont été testées pour diminuer la congestion étaient justement de faire disparaître des voies de circulation. Contre-intuitif mais ca a foncitonné déjà à plusieurs endroits (comme Séoul et les US). Après, ça ne peut certainement pas fonctionner partout et tout le temps mais c'est ce qui a permis de démontrer empiriquement que le trafic automobile avait un comportement de fluide. C'est d'ailleurs ce genre de démonstration qui, couplé à la baisse des budgets d'équipement, qui pousse certaines villes US à envisager la suppression certaines de leurs autoroutes urbaines.
Disturbman
Périphérique
Périphérique
 
Messages: 529
Enregistré le: Jeu 11 Oct 2007 09:51

Re: [ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

Messagepar Biglower » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 20:08

Ok évidemment L.A. est la ville des excès dans un pays d'excès. Ok il y a une énorme pollution induite, elle est connue pour son smog. Certes ils n'y roulent pas avec des twingos. Certes le réseau de TC est vraiment maigre pour une métropole de cette taille. Il y a évidemment de grosses marges de progrès tout en gardant son identité. Mais c'est pas un hasard si la Californie avait beaucoup misé sur le développement de la voiture à hydrogène (je me demande ce que ça devient d'ailleurs).

Quant aux personnes qui ne peuvent pas se payer une voiture certes il y en a, particulièrement dans les communautés hispaniques j'imagine mais posséder et utiliser une bagnole est quand même bien moins cher là-bas qu'en France. L'essence ne coûte rien même si elle a pas mal augmenté, l'achat d'une bagnole d'occasion ne coûte pas grand chose non plus et sont en général en bon état avec un kilométrage élevé.

Après sur le débat de savoir si un élargissement d'autoroute induit forcément une augmentation de trafic puis une congestion future je dis ok.
Mais attention, car il ne faut pas se focaliser sur l'autoroute seule car elle appartient à un réseau. Or bien souvent, si cette autoroute se remplit rapidement, c'est principalement parce que le réseau secondaire était lui aussi archi saturé et donc celui-ci se trouve finalement allégé par le trafic qui va lui préférer l'autoroute si celle-ci a une meilleure capacité. Donc au final, ce ne sera pas du nouveau trafic mais du trafic aspiré ailleurs sur le réseau secondaire tout simplement. Sinon ça n'augmenterait pas aussi vite. Et c'est donc bénéfique car ils consommera sur l'autoroute et libérera des quartiers de vie de pollution et de bruits inutiles.

Ensuite je pense qu'il faut distinguer deux cas : les pénétrantes, particulièrement en bordure des villes, qui elles encouragent la péri urbanisation de plus en plus loin et donc l'augmentation du trafic, et les circulaires qui elles se contentent de décharger le réseau secondaire voisin voire le centre.

A Paris c'est l'exemple typique où nombre de personnes qui au lieu de prendre l'itinéraire le plus simple, c'est à dire l'autoroute de bout en bout, préfèrent emprunter le réseau secondaire en heure de pointe. Et celui-ci, avec ses feux, carrefours et forcément aussi ses bouchons n'est pas bon du tout pour la pollution engendrée. Si les gens en sont venus à faire 2h30 de bagnole par jour, c'est vraiment pas par plaisir !

Bref, le problème n'est pas simple mais affirmer qu'élargir va forcément réduire la pollution ou l'inverse forcément diminuer le trafic, c'est aller un peu vite en besogne. Ca dépend vraiment de la structure du réseau et de la ville à mon avis.
Avatar de l’utilisateur
Biglower
Autoroute
Autoroute
 
Messages: 2921
Enregistré le: Sam 12 Avr 2008 18:32
Localisation: Lyon (et A86 Ouest)

Re: [ USA ] Transports en commun à Los Angeles

Messagepar Disturbman » Jeu 09 Aoû 2012 23:08

Non non, il a bien été démontré que les nouvelles infrastructures induisent des trafics qui n'existaient pas forcément au par avant. Les exercices de mitigation de la circulation automobile, du moins les quelques tentatives qui ont été faites de par le monde, ont souvent bien démontré qu'une fois l'autoroute ou la voie rapide disparue, des usages disparaissaient et que la circulation qui se repportait sur le réseau secondaire était moins pénalisante et polluante car la circulation plus fuide, mieux répartie, moins importante et que, souvent, les trajets étaient aussi plus courts. Il faut aussi voir que si l'autoroute a une capacité importante, celle-ci n'est alimentée que par des points d'accès restreints et que le trafic qui passe par l'autoroute doit aussi y être acheminée par le réseau secondaire.

Mais je ne dis pas qu'on réglera les problèmes de circulation en supprimant les routes (quoique :P :lol: ) mais bien que l'augmentation du nombre de voies d'autoroute n'était pas un moyen de faire diminuer la pollution ni même la congestion. Sinon ca ferait longtemps que les villes américaines seraient d'une fluidité exemplaire, or elles connaissent des niveaux de congestions improbables pour leur taille.

Pour en revenir à l'exemple du passage d'une 2*5 à une 2*7 voies à L.A., le projet semble fort improbable et ne réglera certainement pas la question de la pollution et la congestion automobile dans la ville. La seule solution serait vraiment de passer à une approche différente, repenser l'usage de l'espace urbain et dépenser les milliards que coûtera ce programe d'élargissement ailleurs, dans des modes alternatifs et arrêter la course en avant.

Quand à Paris (et je parle du Grand Paris), la ville n'est tout simplement pas faite pour l'importance du trafic routier qui y transite et il n'existe pas forcément un choix alternatif valable pour se rendre d'un point à un autre.
Disturbman
Périphérique
Périphérique
 
Messages: 529
Enregistré le: Jeu 11 Oct 2007 09:51

Suivante

Retourner vers Transports en commun à l'étranger

Qui est en ligne

Utilisateurs parcourant ce forum : Aucun utilisateur enregistré et 1 invité