Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest-ID-82121.asp" target="_blank"><b>Latest: Anaheim Streetcar Addition Hitting Snags Due to Pricing</b></a> <p>The Voice of OC updates the project to add street cars to Anaheim and why the price tag is causing the Orange County Transit Authority to balk. Among the reasons are demands put on by Disneyland and the resort district including "<span>a power system that eliminates overhead electrical wires in certain areas so they won't harm the aesthetics of the resort; a higher number of train cars so the system can deliver tourists to Disneyland; and higher infrastructure costs because of increased traffic in the resort district."</span></p>
Originally Posted By schnebs (Sigh) Why am I not surprised? Given the history of failed attempts at mass transit in OC, it was only a matter of time before the "we don't need mass transit, we should get busses and road improvement instead" crowd started balking. Yes, busses would be cheaper than a streetcar or anything else. But lotsa luck convincing anyone to abandon their cars to ride a bus unless they have no other choice; I can't say I've noticed a lot of tourists riding OCTA to get around the area. (I'd be curious to know how ART has done, though...)
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt >>Among the factors that Anaheim officials acknowledge have driven up the cost include: a power system that eliminates overhead electrical wires in certain areas so they won't harm the aesthetics of the resort....<< Huh? What? In a million years I would have never thought that Disney would consider overhead wires to be a visual impairment in a public street, especially when the company fawned over ugly concrete monorail beams since the 50s. I won't even get into the irony of this and the inclusion of overhead wires on DCA's new Red Car trolley system. If Disney is balking at this then make them pay for the more expensive power alternative. "But lotsa luck convincing anyone to abandon their cars to ride a bus unless they have no other choice" My thoughts exactly. They'll never have the same ridership with buses that they'll have with trams. Even if ridership was the same, the capacity couldn't possibly be comparable.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Disney doesn't own the streets, so I don't think they get much of a say for what gets done to them. More likely, it's the Anaheim Resort District's strict codes (which were developed in large part with Disney's influence) that prohibit something like overhead wires (despite the presence of the Monorail beam). That's the same reason that all of the businesses along Harbor Blvd have those fancy matching signs, there are more palm trees lining the streets than you can shake a stick at, and the Disneyland Hotel lettering on the top of the towers was removed a few years back. It creates a lot of headaches for getting anything done in that area, but it also makes it much more pleasant than the surrounding area and makes it feel like you've arrived somewhere, rather than simply another block of stripmalls. While the article managed to avoid the name, this project sounds like it is the Anaheim Regional Connector (ARC). Last I heard (which was admittedly about a year ago), they still hadn't decided whether it would be a streetcar or another system. The design is being done so it can be built as bus rapid transit (BRT), streetcar, or a fixed guideway system similar to airport trams. They would all follow the same route, stopping near the stadium/ARTIC, in the Platinum Triangle area, at the Pumbaa lot, and by the convention center (and possibly one more past that?). While I agree they need a good connection from the train station to the resort area, I can see why this might not be the most popular idea among people looking at a budget. It will add a great piece of infrastructure to Anaheim and make it a more viable destination, but it will also be expensive to build in the short term
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt The article says Disney is opposed to the power lines. Bad reporting?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Among the factors that Anaheim officials acknowledge have driven up the cost include: a power system that eliminates overhead electrical wires in certain areas so they won't harm the aesthetics of the resort; a higher number of train cars so the system can deliver tourists to Disneyland; and higher infrastructure costs because of increased traffic in the resort district.<< It doesn't say if "the resort" means Disneyland Resort or the Anaheim Resort District. Given the strict rules of the specific area plan, and how much the City doesn't like Disney (despite how much money they pump into the economy), my money is that it means the ARD. And since the article didn't reference the Anaheim Rapid Connection (I had the name wrong but acronym right) by name, but rather uses the vague term "Anaheim streetcar", I suspect it's lazy reporting, if not downright bad reporting.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt You're right Ferret. The link to the LP recap states: "Among the reasons are demands put on by Disneyland and the resort district including "a power system that eliminates overhead electrical wires in certain areas so they won't harm the aesthetics of the resort; a higher number of train cars so the system can deliver tourists to Disneyland; and higher infrastructure costs because of increased traffic in the resort district". I guess that's where I got it from.
Originally Posted By TP2000 Not so sure tourists won't ride a bus instead of a tram. The entire east "Esplanade" area is full of ART buses being packed full with tourists every morning and every night. The trick is making the buses Disneyland-specific and clearly not available or useful to locals or commuters. The OCTA, RTD and LA bus systems use the Harbor Blvd. intersections as a major transfer and bus stop facility, and those are the buses the tourists would avoid. I can't blame them; every time I am stopped at that Harbor intersection and look over at the "folks" waiting for their bus under the monorail beam it's a very sad slice of humanity, with some clearly mentally impaired people, a few unsavories who must have arrest records or simply want to look like they've spent some time in prison, and then a person or two who obviously has an aversion to showers and laundry detergent much less a comb or an iron. I wouldn't want to sit with them for 10 seconds, much less a 10 minute crowded bus ride while I'm on my hard-earned vacation. But if there was a separate bus system, perhaps run by ART and using very flashy articulated buses with only the 4 stops called out by the trolley system, then the tourists would use it. And the locals and unsavories would have no need or desire to use that bus because it wouldn't really get them anywhere.
Originally Posted By TP2000 I should add that it's important to realize this entire Resort District mass transit system is dependent on the big eastern terminus; the ARTIC train station opening next year. Both ARTIC and the mass transit connector to it were dreamed up five years ago, when the High Speed Rail was going to land in Anaheim as the southern terminus for the state-wide system. That looks very, very unlikely to ever happen now. And even if high speed rail does happen in Anaheim, it's something that won't arrive until the 2030's decade. Without dozens of bullet trains dumping off passengers from San Francisco every day at ARTIC, the need for a connector system to Disneyland and the Convention Center seems to be moot. At this point, and for the next 20 years, the system would simply be connecting the Convention Center to Disneyland three blocks north, and then on to the Cheesecake Factory two blocks east. What's the point in that???
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Easy access to great cheesecake?<< Having eaten at the Convention Center, I can tell you that you should not underestimate this. This project will literally save lives.
Originally Posted By schnebs <<Not so sure tourists won't ride a bus instead of a tram. The entire east "Esplanade" area is full of ART buses being packed full with tourists every morning and every night.>> I can't speak to most of the ART routes, but I can tell you why the busses from the Garden Grove-area hotels are packed: The cost is included with your hotel stay and you'd lose your space in the hotel parking lot if you moved your car. You're spot-on about why tourists won't ride OCTA (although it should be noted that many of the poor saps that ride OCTA are DLR cast members!), and they sure as heck aren't going to walk a couple of miles to the Park. Since they'd have to spend $15 and ride on a bus anyway depending on which lot they're directed to (yes, Toy Story, I'm looking at you), ART doesn't wind up looking all that bad. Like I said, people will abandon their cars and ride busses if they don't have any other choice. My dream solution would be a Peoplemover system (as in the one imagined for Walt's EPCOT, not as in one formerly in Tomorrowland) connecting the DLR (including Downtown Disney and the parking structures), the Convention Center, Angel Stadium/ARTIC, and many of the hotels (not necessarily door-to-door, but at least within a short walk to the stations on the major streets). But a snowball would have a better chance of surviving an August afternoon at Disneyland than a system like that would have of ever being built.
Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl 1. What's "ugly" about monorail beams? 2. I remember, back in the 1980s, people swore up and down that a trolley line connecting downtown Long Beach to downtown LA, with an alignment passing through Watts and Compton, would be a bad idea: that it would be a locus for gang wars, that Angelinos were too in love with their cars to willingly abandon them, and that it would attract so few riders that it would be cheaper to pay the handful of potential riders to drive the freeways, than to run trolleys. And what happened? Right. The Blue Line turned out to be the safest place in town during the L.A. Riots, and within the first ten years, Metro realized that they'd made most of the station platforms a full carlength too short to accommodate the number of people cramming themselves in. 3. Likewise, everybody said that the Red Line subway would be a subway-to-nowhere, attracting no riders, and then, to make certain it really DID go nowhere, they used a relatively minor problem with underground gas to keep the original main line from going past Wilshire & Western, effectively turning the original Hollywood branch into the main line. And what happened? Right. At peak hours, L.A.'s subway trains are as crowded as any in New York City. Whenever there are naysayers on rail projects, whether it's urban, regional, corridor, or intercity, it doesn't take much digging to find out that the thing they most fear is that rail will succeed, and will out-compete something the naysayers have a stake in.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>And what happened? Right. The Blue Line turned out to be the safest place in town during the L.A. Riots...<< Since I was not in LA during that time, I cannot attest to how safe or unsafe the light rail line was during the riots. However, from conversations with former coworkers who worked on the Blue Line's design and construciton, I know that they had a very difficult time building it because of the location. Building materials and tools were often stolen from the jobsite, and required far more security than the average job. While the Blue Line seems relatively safe these days, I'm still not sure I'd want to ride the entire length of it And while the ridership may or may not have met expectations (again, I have no information in either direction), transit projects always spawn urban renewal projects in the areas immediately surrounding staitons. More traffic (on foot, bike, or car) means more people to spend money, whcich makes for more businesses, more tax revenue, etc. While the transit line itself may not make up its construction and operation cost, the economic benefit is almost always worth it. And while we're at it, fun fact: the LA Metro's Gold Line, which connects Pasadena to east LA, via LA Union Station has more daily riders than the entire Metrolink system. (and let's not even talk about how all the lines will get renamed once the Regional Connector is completed, creating a light rail link between 7th Street/Metro Center and Union Station/Little Tokyo)
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "1. What's "ugly" about monorail beams?" All of it. A boring ribbon of concrete supported by a straight line of equally boring concrete pillars for a couple of miles would be an eyesore, especially in an urban environment like Anaheim. <a href="http://thecityfix.com/files/2010/04/Las-Vegas-Monorail.jpg" target="_blank">http://thecityfix.com/files/20...rail.jpg</a> That's pretty ugly. With California's strict earthquake regulations a monorail beam down Katella would most likely end up looking similar to TDL's hideous and clunky design: <a href="http://texastaitai.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/6a00e54ee0437788340133ed87a4c7970b-pi.jpg" target="_blank">http://texastaitai.com/wp-cont...b-pi.jpg</a> I'd rather see a ground based streetcar system with overhead wires on that route than a monorail.
Originally Posted By TP2000 They could help the monorail aesthetics a lot with trees and foliage along the route. But your point is valid Hans; monorail beams are not inherently gracious or pretty. They need a lot of extra work and $$$ to help them blend in and improve the streetscape, rather than degrade the streetscape.
Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl > While the Blue Line seems relatively > safe these days, I'm still not sure > I'd want to ride the entire length of > it While I don't ride the entire length of it (I think I may have done so once, purely as a joyride), I regularly ride from Wardlow to 7th/Metro, to attend concerts at the Bowl and at Disney Hall, or to go to Exposition Park, or Pasadena, or from Warlow to Willowbrook, to work video crews at the ice rink in El Segundo, and have been doing so an average of 2-3 times a month (peaking at 1-3 times per week during the Bowl season) for over a decade, and out of all that, I've been threatened EXACTLY ONCE (and on that one occasion, the motorman put a very quick end to the incident). Much safer than driving. And as to monorail beams, well, I regularly vacation in Seattle, where the Seattle Center Monorail has been in service for decades. Its double-track beamway blends in rather nicely. Just as the Epcot line at WDW is far less visually obtrusive than the WDW freeway system. You want obtrusive and ugly, consider what was on top of part of the San Francisco Embarcadero, from 1959 to 1989. Then compare it with today's lovely, tree-lined, trolley-tracked SF Embarcadero.
Originally Posted By schnebs I'll second what's been said about the Blue Line. I've ridden the entire length several times for joyrides, and I've used the line a lot to get from Union Station to the Convention Center; I've never had any problems or feared for my safety, either. I've felt more nervous riding some Metro bus routes. As far as monorail beam aesthetics: Ever seen where the Blue Line and Gold Line travel above grade? Those places aren't exactly gonna win any prizes, either. The Seattle Monorail tracks look better than any of the things I've just mentioned.
