Irvine Guideway Canceled

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
A

AMRivlin_IHB

New member
The City council has voted to cancel the Irvine Guideway connecting the great park to Irvine Metrolink to the Spectrum and possibly on to the Hospital.

<a href="http://svctwww1.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ctcbooks/2009/0209/021909/38_2.1e.pdf">http://svctwww1.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ctcbooks/2009/0209/021909/38_2.1e.pdf</a>



They spent nearly 4 million thus far, and now scrapped any future plans.



I think the council should be ashamed. They are now returning the 120,000,000 of Measure M money so Santa Ana can claim the funds.



Centerline was scrapped and now this.



I am sure it wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but we have to start by connecting our Metrolinks to our commerce and housing. Otherwise we will be in 2090 and still wondering why Irvine has no mass transit.



And to all you car junkies, time to sit back and reflect, the road is only one method of transit infrastructure. We need to invest in a better system today.
 
[quote author="Irvinite" date=1235406132]The City council has voted to cancel the Irvine Guideway connecting the great park to Irvine Metrolink to the Spectrum and possibly on to the Hospital.

http://svctwww1.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ctcbooks/2009/0209/021909/38_2.1e.pdf



They spent nearly 4 million thus far, and now scrapped any future plans.



I think the council should be ashamed. They are now returning the 120,000,000 of Measure M money so Santa Ana can claim the funds.



Centerline was scrapped and now this.



I am sure it wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but we have to start by connecting our Metrolinks to our commerce and housing. Otherwise we will be in 2090 and still wondering why Irvine has no mass transit.



And to all you car junkies, time to sit back and reflect, the road is only one method of transit infrastructure. We need to invest in a better system today.</blockquote>
If people actually felt that way, El Toro would be an International Airport and light rail (think Portland, OR) would be everywhere already. Voter support doesn't agree with you.
 
Well my jury is out on OCX, but it is very clear to me voter support for transit systems is sorely misguided. (The centerline fight was a bunch of ignorant yuppies worrying about land values, did a bunch of good) Many cities have these systems and they don't bring the negatives that some jaded people predict. I know I am not backing that up with numbers and facts, and maybe i can in time.



Why wouldn't you want to go to work or school on a lightrail? This area has little rain, is built to be walkable, but you can't move between activity hubs or connect to living spaces. And the answer that california likes to drive is not valid. Look at the bay area and how bart has filled out over 30 years giving people alternatives.
 
[quote author="Irvinite" date=1235413203]Well my jury is out on OCX, but it is very clear to me voter support for transit systems is sorely misguided. (The centerline fight was a bunch of ignorant yuppies worrying about land values, did a bunch of good) Many cities have these systems and they don't bring the negatives that some jaded people predict. I know I am not backing that up with numbers and facts, and maybe i can in time.



Why wouldn't you want to go to work or school on a lightrail? This area has little rain, is built to be walkable, but you can't move between activity hubs or connect to living spaces. And the answer that california likes to drive is not valid. Look at the bay area and how bart has filled out over 30 years giving people alternatives.</blockquote>
BART shuttles poor people across the bay, college students to campus, and green people around town, but it's still subsidized at every point along the way. The reason that most mass transit is not self-sufficient is pretty simple: people can't pay what it truly costs to transport them by rail or bus. If they could, they would most likely drive.



Not because they like it but because when you drive you get immediate transportation. From where you are and when you want to leave to where you want to go and when you want to get there, along with any personally signifigant stops along the way. Try telling a train conductor running along Michelson that you need to stop real quick to grab a quart of milk, pick-up your drycleaning, and return the movie rentals before going home to make dinner. In your own car, you don't have gentlemen like graphrix slobbering all over you as he sleeps in the next seat, you don't have to smell tenmagnet's AXE body spray, or listen to no_vaseline humming show tunes.



Irvine was designed with cars in mind, but also with long walks and bike rides, too. Public mass transportation only works in areas where residential density is high and comingled with the stores, shops, and restaurants that support and rely on them. Irvine has none of that and, in most ways, it is the opposite of what Irvine does want. Mass transit means easy access, not just for the people you want there, but also the people that you don't want there. Until places like Woodbridge, University Park, Turtle Rock, and other older Irvine villages are razed and replaced with medium to high-density housing... there really isn't a *need* for light rail.
 
My wife took a job in the San Gabriel Valley to replace her job in Irvine. There is no way to take mass transit to work without using TWO cars.



When we lived in Chino Hills, she could take a bus, if she would tolerate a two hour layover on the way home + a 4 hour commute on the bus.



We ain't New York. Maybe once the high speed choo choo gets built things will change but I doubt it.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235433428]My wife took a job in the San Gabriel Valley to replace her job in Irvine. </blockquote>


Hey! So she did find a new job? Congrats!
 
[quote author="SoCal78" date=1235441797][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235433428]My wife took a job in the San Gabriel Valley to replace her job in Irvine. </blockquote>


Hey! So she did find a new job? Congrats!</blockquote>


About 3 weeks ago. Turns out, it was an upgrade from what she had before. And they have more work than they can get to. Apparently, nobody wants to be a water engineer. I guess nobody likes doing municipal sewer systems. Too bad, their loss.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235448579][quote author="SoCal78" date=1235441797][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235433428]My wife took a job in the San Gabriel Valley to replace her job in Irvine. </blockquote>


Hey! So she did find a new job? Congrats!</blockquote>


About 3 weeks ago. Turns out, it was an upgrade from what she had before. And they have more work than they can get to. Apparently, nobody wants to be a water engineer. I guess nobody likes doing municipal sewer systems. Too bad, their loss.</blockquote>


Yep, the wife is getting offers to go work out in the desert and build some select chemical items. We are on the fence about that.... But it seems engineering is becomming to difficult for the most recent generation and the baby boomers are retiring early in light of the current economy. Engineering are becomming more valuable, but then again, i'm seeing ALOT of Chinese/Indian engineers.



-bix
 
[quote author="biscuitninja" date=1235460884][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235448579][quote author="SoCal78" date=1235441797][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235433428]My wife took a job in the San Gabriel Valley to replace her job in Irvine. </blockquote>


Hey! So she did find a new job? Congrats!</blockquote>


About 3 weeks ago. Turns out, it was an upgrade from what she had before. And they have more work than they can get to. Apparently, nobody wants to be a water engineer. I guess nobody likes doing municipal sewer systems. Too bad, their loss.</blockquote>


Yep, the wife is getting offers to go work out in the desert and build some select chemical items. We are on the fence about that.... But it seems engineering is becomming to difficult for the most recent generation and the baby boomers are retiring early in light of the current economy. Engineering are becomming more valuable, but then again, i'm seeing ALOT of Chinese/Indian engineers.



-bix</blockquote>
in the lands of billions, there are LOTS of everything
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1235417951]

BART shuttles poor people across the bay, college students to campus, and green people around town, but it's still subsidized at every point along the way. The reason that most mass transit is not self-sufficient is pretty simple: people can't pay what it truly costs to transport them by rail or bus. If they could, they would most likely drive.



Not because they like it but because when you drive you get immediate transportation...



Irvine was designed with cars in mind, but also with long walks and bike rides, too. Public mass transportation only works in areas where residential density is high and comingled with the stores, shops, and restaurants that support and rely on them. Irvine has none of that and, in most ways, it is the opposite of what Irvine does want. Mass transit means easy access, not just for the people you want there, but also the people that you don't want there. Until places like Woodbridge, University Park, Turtle Rock, and other older Irvine villages are razed and replaced with medium to high-density housing... there really isn't a *need* for light rail.</blockquote>


(As a disclaimer, I am 28, I am not a green (I think global warming is a fad), and I "own" a MY07 car.

I still stand behind "STARTING" mass transit, especially if it is 50% off.

I hear all of your points, and I have taken some transportation planning courses in the past.



Bravo! is coming to harbor at the end of the year in Santa Ana/Fullerton. I am sure it will work because of the large population riding it already.

Irvine Center Drive might get one in a few years. What was wrong with a 2-3 station guideway and study connecting 2 major locations.



As far as I can see:

1. There is no getting around the multiple stops, without great density, to provide short headways

2. Route 70 Edinger/ICD/Moulton as you call bart is the poorman shuttle, I ride from Harvard to the Spectrum daily with most of the cooks and maids on that cooridor

3. I didn't propose a city wide system, but why is it too much to establish connections from our Metrolinks.

(TUS-SNA)

(IRV-Spectrum/Village Housing)



As a side not the iShuttle is always empty, it becomes my private shuttle to John Wayne, there are many reasons for this failure

1. Lack of stops for any housing

2. Lack of attractive "shuttle style busses"

3. and people just dont care / need it



I know masstransit does not ever "pay" for itself.

I propose a county if not region wide gas tax (2-3 cents) to subsidize any mass transit. Offering the 7th lane on the 5 at mission viejo costs money, expanding HOV lanes at 605 is another subsidy. Why pump all your money into something that is clearly unsustainable.
 
[quote author="Irvinite" date=1235522051]

I know masstransit does not ever "pay" for itself.

I propose a county if not region wide gas tax (2-3 cents) to subsidize any mass transit. Offering the 7th lane on the 5 at mission viejo costs money, expanding HOV lanes at 605 is another subsidy. Why pump all your money into something that is clearly unsustainable.</blockquote>
Conversely, why levy a new tax for something that very few people want and that will ALWAYS be unsustainable? Why should a struggling single mom be forced to cut back just so you can ride a pretty train rather than walk, or ride a bike, or carpool?
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1235529525]Conversely, why levy a new tax for something that very few people want and that will ALWAYS be unsustainable? Why should a struggling single mom be forced to cut back just so you can ride a pretty train rather than walk, or ride a bike, or carpool?</blockquote>


Because it is investment in the future. Perhaps Irvine does not need a rail line today but as the city and county grows 50 years from now this will likely make more sense. And I don't believe the guideway involved new taxes but used Measure M money which was approved by voters in OC. Let's start building rail today at 2009 dollars rather than 2059 dollars.



LA is suffering from a historical lack of investment in transporation infrastructure and voters there just approved a sales tax hike (Measure R) in November to improve transportation options. I will add that this Measure required a 2/3rds majority and it still got approved. Had something been done 20 yrs prior this tax hike might not have been necessary.



Initially I was very happy to see that the Irvine City Council had the foresight to move forward with a mass transit system like the Irvine Guideway. This news is disappointing.
 
[quote author="Irvine_Lurker" date=1235530622][quote author="Oscar" date=1235529525]Conversely, why levy a new tax for something that very few people want and that will ALWAYS be unsustainable? Why should a struggling single mom be forced to cut back just so you can ride a pretty train rather than walk, or ride a bike, or carpool?</blockquote>


Because it is investment in the future. Perhaps Irvine does not need a rail line today but as the city and county grows 50 years from now this will likely make more sense. And I don't believe the guideway involved new taxes but used Measure M money which was approved by voters in OC. Let's start building rail today at 2009 dollars rather than 2059 dollars.



LA is suffering from a historical lack of investment in transporation infrastructure and voters there just approved a sales tax hike (Measure R) in November to improve transportation options. I will add that this Measure required a 2/3rds majority and it still got approved. Had something been done 20 yrs prior this tax hike might not have been necessary.



Initially I was very happy to see that the Irvine City Council had the foresight to move forward with a mass transit system like the Irvine Guideway. This news is disappointing.</blockquote>
I'm not debating the attributes of light rail in LA. They have long had the density needed to make it viable and had Orange County not been developed as an LA suburb in the 50's they would not have abandoned the trolley car lines in favor of more freeways. However, Irvine was not planned with mass transit in mind. It was designed to avoid mass transit needs, with wide arterials and large set backs from existing freeways. Irvine will never have the population density needed to make fixed mass transit viable. Not now, and not in 2059.
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1235531301][quote author="Irvine_Lurker" date=1235530622][quote author="Oscar" date=1235529525]Conversely, why levy a new tax for something that very few people want and that will ALWAYS be unsustainable? Why should a struggling single mom be forced to cut back just so you can ride a pretty train rather than walk, or ride a bike, or carpool?</blockquote>


Because it is investment in the future. Perhaps Irvine does not need a rail line today but as the city and county grows 50 years from now this will likely make more sense. And I don't believe the guideway involved new taxes but used Measure M money which was approved by voters in OC. Let's start building rail today at 2009 dollars rather than 2059 dollars.



LA is suffering from a historical lack of investment in transporation infrastructure and voters there just approved a sales tax hike (Measure R) in November to improve transportation options. I will add that this Measure required a 2/3rds majority and it still got approved. Had something been done 20 yrs prior this tax hike might not have been necessary.



Initially I was very happy to see that the Irvine City Council had the foresight to move forward with a mass transit system like the Irvine Guideway. This news is disappointing.</blockquote>
I'm not debating the attributes of light rail in LA. They have long had the density needed to make it viable and had Orange County not been developed as an LA suburb in the 50's they would not have abandoned the trolley car lines in favor of more freeways. However, Irvine was not planned with mass transit in mind. It was designed to avoid mass transit needs, with wide arterials and large set backs from existing freeways. Irvine will never have the population density needed to make fixed mass transit viable. Not now, and not in 2059.</blockquote>


I agree with your comments about how Irvine was planned. But I disagree that it would not be used. If you could connect Metrolink to the CBD/Airport and to the Spectrum, when the lines would open businesses would be growing again and offer attractive commute alternatives, bringing jobs back to OC. There are only 2 things keeping people in OC, an expensive mortgage they want to hold on to, and pleasant weather. 2059 Irvine will have fixed mass transit methods. And if there is a single mom who is so hard up, that 1 dollar per tank of gas is too much (~50 bucks a year) then maybe people should be more responsible. (Now I dont want to get flamed, but people are always filling their guzzlers with high priced gas, and that is their choice. Maybe she can push the gas peddle with less force and regain that dollar in less gas consumption)



Irvine Lurker: It is digusting they started this project, and now canceled it. I emailed Mayor Kang, and he promised to get back to me, but it will most likely be the same rubbish, Irvine Citizens don't want this thing, so I don't either. (Or even worse, The great park is on hold, so we canceled the transit line)



Speaking of needs, why do we need the Great Park (1 billion) over a transit system. Everyone already has parks in Irvine. (It was concieved to stop 777s from roaring over our homes, and maybe this was the right choice, but....come on)



We need to change attitudes, the anti Centerline group wanted "A Jaguar per Irvine Tax Payer" Oh that was a great alternative. Instead today (2009 opening) Centerline could be connecting our county, and who is driving a Jaguar now? Centerline was a 1 billion dollar investment (Fullerton-SNA-Irvine) , now it would cost double or triple that.
 
Not to mention Irvine Station will be the future home of HSR, and a fixed transit line would greatly improve connections to this future line.
 
Mass transit viablity depends on population density, which depends on multi-family structures, which Irvine will not have as long as HOAs exists. Your stated argument assumes there will be a future "need" when everything about Irvine's government and development guarantees that need will never materialize. Now that the highrise condo experiment has failed miserably, it will be another generation before it is tried again. If you want to bring jobs back to the OC, then lower taxes, rents, and put in a decent airport.
 
I came to Irvine in 2002 left and returned in 2005, so I was not around for what sounds to be a clear lack of PR and wise decision making for the centerline project.

I don't disagree with anything said by any of you.

Density, City Structure with clear nodes, less road infrastructure, differing lifestyle, all seem to be the reasons for not having mass transit.

on the flip side of that coin

DeCongestion, ease of access, Green (if you want to sound hip), improved access to a commercial and residential node, and if the project/experiment worked possibly changed perceptions towards this mode of transit.



I don't think there is any case to call a transit line ugly, look at irvine, most of Bren Beige is ugly, and the commercial zones are just concrete boxes, so I dont think a tram or small trolley line would look bad, in fact it might make Irvine look futuristic.



Can you tell me what negatives you see, to connecting Irvine Amtrak/Metrolink/HSR to The Spectrum and Village Apartments, with future connections to IRMC and maybe as far as UCI?



The cost for the initial leg is subsidized at 50% off from Measure M funds, and leftover Centerline funding.
 
[quote author="Irvinite" date=1235538135]I came to Irvine in 2002 left and returned in 2005, so I was not around for what sounds to be a clear lack of PR and wise decision making for the centerline project.

I don't disagree with anything said by any of you.

Density, City Structure with clear nodes, less road infrastructure, differing lifestyle, all seem to be the reasons for not having mass transit.

on the flip side of that coin

DeCongestion, ease of access, Green (if you want to sound hip), improved access to a commercial and residential node, and if the project/experiment worked possibly changed perceptions towards this mode of transit.



I don't think there is any case to call a transit line ugly, look at irvine, most of Bren Beige is ugly, and the commercial zones are just concrete boxes, so I dont think a tram or small trolley line would look bad, in fact it might make Irvine look futuristic.



Can you tell me what negatives you see, to connecting Irvine Amtrak/Metrolink/HSR to The Spectrum and Village Apartments, with future connections to IRMC and maybe as far as UCI?



The cost for the initial leg is subsidized at 50% off from Measure M funds, and leftover Centerline funding.</blockquote>
I honestly think those funds should be spent... just not in Irvine. The areas of the county with higher population density and lower population income would be far greater served by low cost mass transit that is already paid for with this money. It makes no fiscal sense to put mass transit in areas where there will not be mass ridership. Replacing the Bravo! express busses with Portland-style light rail makes more sense from both a fiscal and practical standpoint. Running a line out to Irvine serves few at great cost with little per-dollar benefit. I mean honestly, Irvine already has the best standard of living in OC and you are upset that they aren't gilding the lily?
 
Is it just me, or is the more ominous part the fact they canceled the mass transportation portion of the Great Park? I mean, it?s not really that big a surprise that the Great Park won?t be built in my lifetime???..but this is just one more sign of the apocalypse. Don?t mind me. I?m just bitter because they wrecked a perfectly decent race track to have a place to fly a balloon.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235549372] I?m just bitter because they wrecked a perfectly decent race track to have a place to fly a balloon.</blockquote>


You meant to say, airport, for daily flights from Sydney to OCX



:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top