LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Rebuilding the at-grade expo and blue line approaches to the downtown connector ought to be a very high priority but I don't believe that it's in the cue.

That's just putting lipstick on a pig. The Expo Line is fundamentally flawed insofar as the route it traverses between Downtown and Santa Monica is less direct than the 10 Freeway. And the Blue Line along Washington is also another example of how at-grade LRT just follows the street grid, rendering it second-fiddle to the car.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by electricron

To decrease costs of building underground stations is to dig them out with cut and cover techniques. Drilling them out with moving drills may be cheaper for the corridor in general, but much more expensive at station locations.
Either way you build it, the stations must be dug out before the corridor is built, because doing it afterwards requires shutting the corridor down. To keep the corridor up, dig out all the station locations first. Whether you actually build the stations now or later does not matter. Never-the-less, the digging costs for in fill stations is not cheap.

Well, the D Line extension's seven new stations are being constructed using the cut-and-cover method, the total cost for the 9.1-mile project being $9.5 billion. Is $1 billion per station pretty much the standard rate nowadays?

If so, then we need to start using Bechtel's suggested approach for their Sepulveda proposal.

[Quixote]

Six-car HR4000 test train:

• Video Link

[Quixote]

Metro Rail ridership surpassed 200K for the first time post-pandemic. All lines have seen stable ridership and steady gains, except the B/D Lines:

Q1/2020: 115,184
Q2/2020: 51,503
Q3/2020: 58,331
Q4/2020: 60,395

Q1/2021: 52,444
Q2/2021: 60,693
Q3/2021: 67,798
Q4/2021: 80,194

Q1/2022: 80,529
Q2/2022: 74,229
Q3/2022: 72,256
Q4/2022: 76,897

Q1/2023: 81,161
Q2/2023: 85,407
Q3/2023: 73,819
Q4/2023: 64,534

Q1/2024: 63,862
Q2/2024: 65,977


It's interesting that ridership declined in Q4 2023, despite the fact that Metro increased headways from an abysmal 15 minutes to a still-abysmal 12 minutes in September. The headways have remain unchanged, even though Metro said that they would operate trains every 10 minutes (still abysmal) starting this past June. And we're potentially looking at 15-minute headways for the B Line once the D Line extension opens, since Metro promised the FTA 5-minute headways (originally 4-minute headways) and they don't have enough rolling stock.

So the B Line is basically going to be unusable for the rest of this decade. Perhaps Metro could start improving the passenger experience by installing turnstiles that prevent fare evasion, essentially to keep homeless and addicts off trains and platforms.

[FromSD]

Originally Posted by Quixote

It's interesting that ridership declined in Q4 2023, despite the fact that Metro increased headways from an abysmal 15 minutes to a still-abysmal 12 minutes in September. The headways have remain unchanged, even though Metro said that they would operate trains every 10 minutes (still abysmal) starting this past June. And we're potentially looking at 15-minute headways for the B Line once the D Line extension opens, since Metro promised the FTA 5-minute headways (originally 4-minute headways) and they don't have enough rolling stock.

These numbers are for the B/D lines only, right? Isn't part of the ridership loss in the second half of 2023 due to the opening of the Downtown Regional Connector in June of that year? Gold Line riders used to transfer to the B/D line at Union Station and ride to 7th/Metro where they could then transfer to the Blue and Expo lines. With the Regional Connector they no longer need to make those transfers.

Still, it is a little disappointing that ridership on LA's high quality heavy rail metro line from North Hollywood to Downtown isn't higher, especially given that the Hollywood Freeway is a parking lot much of the time. I expect that heavy rail ridership will go up significantly when the B line makes it to the West Side, but still....

[Quixote]

Shouldn't the Regional Connector's impact be one of increased utility across the entire system? That and the increase to 12-minute headways should at least offset some of the riders who once had to transfer.

What accounts for the wild ridership fluctuations pre-RC? You didn't see that with any of the other lines.

The D Line extension will help. It's Metro's signature project, and I get the feeling that they're somewhat willing to "go the extra mile" to make sure that their $9.5-billion investment is a success (especially given the complicated history, and that the extension will be completed just in time for the Olympics) that will win over Westsiders and prove to everyone that they can deliver on at least one expansion project that actually goes to places where people want to go.

We've passed two half-cent sales tax increases in the last 16 years, and there hasn't been much to show for it:

Expo Line from Culver City to Santa Monica
Gold Line from Pasadena to Azusa
Crenshaw Line (partial opening)
Regional Connector

And I believe Expo and Gold mostly used other funding sources.

The ESFV light rail is a joke, and one that will cost $3.7 billion. Gold Line East II and Green Line to Torrance won't be game-changers. And dedicating hundreds of millions to dollars each to one BRT corridor here and one there is a waste. Save the money and build something expensive, yet cost-effective enough to get federal funding.

[Quixote]

The first step in breaking free of the Measure-R-based trap is to repeal the Props A/C subway tunnel ban. I don't know why this hasn't been discussed in earnest, as I think it would face little voter opposition.

Prop A allocates 35% for rail development, and both A/C set aside 40% for "discretionary" use.

Props A/C pull in a combined $2.2 billion annually. So that's $1.265 billion in revenue each year that in theory could be used for subway construction (if the ban is repealed). After 4-5 years, you have enough local funds for both D Line to Santa Monica and Vermont HRT to show the Feds and ask them to pay for half the capital costs.

I'm sure though that some of those funds are being paired with R/M to finance and accelerate other projects currently on the table, although not for game-changers like the K Line northern extension or much of Sepulveda.

[FromSD]

The Regional Connector does improve the utility of the entire system, but its most direct impact on ridership is going to on the light rail lines.

Even before the pandemic, public transit ridership in LA was flagging, even with the opening of new lines. I think the post-Great Recession economic recovery allowed some formerly transit-dependent people to opt for cars. Plus Uber and Lyft made their appearance and probably soaked up ridership from people who took public transit during the occasional night out.

Post pandemic, work from home no doubt hurt ridership on the B and D lines which both directly serve Downtown. And for both the light and heavy rail lines (not to mention the buses), the recent media scrutiny of security and quality of life problems hasn't helped ridership. These concerns tend to reduce choice riders in particular so that the only people who ride public transit are those who can't afford personal transportation.

What have we gotten from the Prop. R and M sales tax revenues? You omit the 9 mile B line heavy rail extension for which construction is almost complete. And remember that these revenues also go to subsidize bus operations and to add freeway car pool lanes. But I completely agree with you on the East SFV light rail line. It seems to be purposely designed to cost a huge amount of money without providing service that is any faster than the existing buses. I would also fault Metro for spending way too much money on the interchange station between the Crenshaw line and the LAX people mover. I don't know why they couldn't build a station for less than $900 million.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by FromSD

Even before the pandemic, public transit ridership in LA was flagging, even with the opening of new lines. I think the post-Great Recession economic recovery allowed some formerly transit-dependent people to opt for cars. Plus Uber and Lyft made their appearance and probably soaked up ridership from people who took public transit during the occasional night out.

Post pandemic, work from home no doubt hurt ridership on the B and D lines which both directly serve Downtown. And for both the light and heavy rail lines (not to mention the buses), the recent media scrutiny of security and quality of life problems hasn't helped ridership. These concerns tend to reduce choice riders in particular so that the only people who ride public transit are those who can't afford personal transportation.

What have we gotten from the Prop. R and M sales tax revenues? You omit the 9 mile B line heavy rail extension for which construction is almost complete. And remember that these revenues also go to subsidize bus operations and to add freeway car pool lanes. But I completely agree with you on the East SFV light rail line. It seems to be purposely designed to cost a huge amount of money without providing service that is any faster than the existing buses. I would also fault Metro for spending way too much money on the interchange station between the Crenshaw line and the LAX people mover. I don't know why they couldn't build a station for less than $900 million.

The A and E Lines also serve Downtown and would ostensibly be affected by WFH and those opting for rideshare services. What I'm pointing out is the wild inconsistency of B/D Line ridership, something that isn't the case with the LRT lines. What the B/D Lines do have over the LRT lines is that they serve denser neighborhoods and are (on paper) more conducive to regular ridership like most urban rapid transit systems.

B/D Line ridership peaked in Q2 2023, which by that time WFH and the post-pandemic economic recovery/boom were in full force and headways were 15 minutes. There are many reasons that might explain why ridership has dropped nearly 25%, and I think the impact of the Regional Connector is significant but overstated.

[caligrad]

I think 2 lines that will DRAMATICALLY increase ridership on the metro is obviously the Sepulveda line and the Vermont line once (if) it ever gains traction. I feel a Vermont line all the way down to Pedro would be the game changer LA has been looking for. The Sepulveda line getting to LAX is a must. Metro needs to look into setting up a network in the Valley that gets folks to the Sepulveda line but also the Burbank airport.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by FromSD

The Regional Connector does improve the utility of the entire system, but its most direct impact on ridership is going to on the light rail lines.

Even before the pandemic, public transit ridership in LA was flagging, even with the opening of new lines. I think the post-Great Recession economic recovery allowed some formerly transit-dependent people to opt for cars. Plus Uber and Lyft made their appearance and probably soaked up ridership from people who took public transit during the occasional night out.

Post pandemic, work from home no doubt hurt ridership on the B and D lines which both directly serve Downtown. And for both the light and heavy rail lines (not to mention the buses), the recent media scrutiny of security and quality of life problems hasn't helped ridership. These concerns tend to reduce choice riders in particular so that the only people who ride public transit are those who can't afford personal transportation.

What have we gotten from the Prop. R and M sales tax revenues? You omit the 9 mile B line heavy rail extension for which construction is almost complete. And remember that these revenues also go to subsidize bus operations and to add freeway car pool lanes. But I completely agree with you on the East SFV light rail line. It seems to be purposely designed to cost a huge amount of money without providing service that is any faster than the existing buses. I would also fault Metro for spending way too much money on the interchange station between the Crenshaw line and the LAX people mover. I don't know why they couldn't build a station for less than $900 million.

He didn't omit the new extension to Westwood. That is the D line, not the B line.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by craigs

He didn't omit the new extension to Westwood. That is the D line, not the B line.

I only listed projects completed after the passage of Measure R in 2008, leaving out Gold Line east and Expo I because those were funded using other means.

The point is that while we now have more funds than ever for capital expansion projects, Metro has decided to scale back its ambitions. No longer is rail along the Harbor Subdivision or Alhambra trench included in the LRTP.

[Quixote]

Metro is fine with the idea of demolishing 200+ homes to widen the 5 Freeway (something that has since been rolled back). Why can't they acquire the real estate along the Harbor Subdivision and turn it into a 6-8-track ROW with the promise of express and local services, and thru-running Metrolink and HSR?

[bobbyv]

https://abc7.com/post/san-fernando-v...rant/15275046/

[craigs]

Originally Posted by bobbyv

https://abc7.com/post/san-fernando-v...rant/15275046/

For those who don't click on mystery links, this is about the feds granting $893M to the East San Fernando Valley light rail project.

From Streetsblog LA, here is a map of the project:

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

The first step in breaking free of the Measure-R-based trap is to repeal the Props A/C subway tunnel ban. I don't know why this hasn't been discussed in earnest, as I think it would face little voter opposition.

Prop A allocates 35% for rail development, and both A/C set aside 40% for "discretionary" use.

Props A/C pull in a combined $2.2 billion annually. So that's $1.265 billion in revenue each year that in theory could be used for subway construction (if the ban is repealed). After 4-5 years, you have enough local funds for both D Line to Santa Monica and Vermont HRT to show the Feds and ask them to pay for half the capital costs.

I'm sure though that some of those funds are being paired with R/M to finance and accelerate other projects currently on the table, although not for game-changers like the K Line northern extension or much of Sepulveda.

Magically making Prop A and C dollars eligible for subways will not automatically make these resources available for tunnels.

Personally I feel existing Prop A and C resources can be better utilized for upgrading Metrolink corridors in LA County (double tracking and more frequent service) to get it out of being the bastard stepchild Regional Rail into a useful transportation alternative WHILE;

• We are still operating our bus and rail network (Metro and Muni),
• Converting these buses to all electric based of the State mandates,
• Pay for local return projects that local cities use for road maintenance and street repairs that buses run on.
• Replacing the rail vehicles that Prop A and C dollars are used for.
• State of Good repair/Rail modernization Prop A and C were also used for modernization of the A Line and soon to be future modernization improvements that will be needed on the B, C, D and E and future other lines.
• Let me take this a step further with the push from some advocates to accelerate delivering these projects faster, once these capital projects are done, they now need operational dollars that will need to come for an easy source, Prop A and C because of their flexibility (minus the no subways due to the voter approved 1998 ban)

Switching these dollars for more subways, I feel will decimate transit service operations and negatively impact the system.

Currently there are five signature projects after the A Line Foothill extension, LAX Station and D Line extension to Westwood are completed.

Each project is a massive undertaking that will requiring more grade separations, while still paying off the debt of accelerating the first decade of Measure M projects that were listed above.

• Southeast Gateway Transit Corridor
• South Bay (C & K Line) extension to Torrance
• E Line extension to Whittier
• K Line extension to Hollywood
• Sepulveda Pass from Van Nuys to West LA and subsequently to LAX

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by electricron

To decrease costs of building underground stations is to dig them out with cut and cover techniques. Drilling them out with moving drills may be cheaper for the corridor in general, but much more expensive at station locations.
Either way you build it, the stations must be dug out before the corridor is built, because doing it afterwards requires shutting the corridor down. To keep the corridor up, dig out all the station locations first. Whether you actually build the stations now or later does not matter. Never-the-less, the digging costs for in fill stations is not cheap.

Be careful Electricron, You're using too much logic there.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I only listed projects completed after the passage of Measure R in 2008, leaving out Gold Line east and Expo I because those were funded using other means.

The point is that while we now have more funds than ever for capital expansion projects, Metro has decided to scale back its ambitions. No longer is rail along the Harbor Subdivision or Alhambra trench included in the LRTP.

What planet have you been living on?

They had to scale back ambitions due to construction cost inflation after the pandemic. That has turned things on its head.

Construction cost inflation of materials has contributed to the increase in costs:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-materials-us/

2024: Construction Analytics predicts that inflation will be 4–5% in 2024, which could lead to real volume growth of 6%. This is the first time real volume growth has been this high since 2015.

2023: In June 2023, the cost of many construction materials increased by more than 7%.
2022: The average inflation rate for nonresidential buildings in 2022 was 12%.
2021: The average inflation rate for nonresidential buildings in 2021 was 8%.
2011–2020: The average inflation rate for nonresidential buildings was 3.7%.
2014–2019: The average inflation rate for nonresidential buildings was 4.4%.

These are just for commercial building construction for transportation construction these numbers are generally 20-25% higher.

May 2024: Construction input prices decreased 0.9% due to lower energy prices and a slowdown in inflation. This was the first time input prices decreased in 2024.

https://www.constructionbriefing.com...035326.article

[Quixote]

^ They had already scaled back ambitions when they started drafting the updated LRTP, which I have to imagine was before the pandemic broke out in March.

Inflation has made all projects more expensive, which makes white elephants like ESFV LRT (originally BRT), Gateway Line, and Eastside II all the more ridiculous and an increasingly poorer return on investment.

LA really needs to build an HRT system a la DC Metrorail or BART with lots of interlining:

1) Built-in ridership and existing stations make extensions more reasonably affordable and cost-effective right off the bat
2) If designed right with lots of spines, you have frequent headways at all hours of operation