LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[craigs]

Originally Posted by homebucket

https://cal.streetsblog.org/2024/08/...ion-a-rebuttal

I'm all for electrifying those Metrolink lines--if riders don't have to bear the significant financial burden. I have only taken one round-trip on the Antelope Valley Line, and I liked the experience. The trains were clean, the conductor is always moving through the cars, and the other riders were sane and orderly. But Metrolink fares are already high, especially compared with Metro's trains, and I think large fare increases to pay for electrification would significantly depress the system's already-low ridership.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by craigs

I'm all for electrifying those Metrolink lines--if riders don't have to bear the significant financial burden. I have only taken one round-trip on the Antelope Valley Line, and I liked the experience. The trains were clean, the conductor is always moving through the cars, and the other riders were sane and orderly. But Metrolink fares are already high, especially compared with Metro's trains, and I think large fare increases to pay for electrification would significantly depress the system's already-low ridership.

According to the article, it does say that Metrolink could utilize federal funding or state HSR money (what % of that of the full price tag is unclear), but it's off the table as long as the agency refuses to take it seriously. There is some cost savings built in since Governor Newsom may sign A.B. 2503 this month, which would exempt Metrolink from the frivolous CEQA lawsuits, and CSHRA has already funded environmental impact reports for electrification of the Burbank to Anaheim route, further reducing costs for Metrolink.

It also notes that it will take time to plan, secure funding, and build out the infrastructure for Metrolink, which is why the board needs to show some leadership and commit to electrification now.

[craigs]

Speaking of Metrolink, here's a fantastic map showing average weekday ridership by station from LA Redditor misken67:



That adds up to an average of 23,553 workday Metrolink riders.

[craigs]

LA County officials announced that a "14.5-mile segment of the 19-mile, $7.1 billion Metro Southeast Gateway Line is now eligible for federal funding." Utility work on the project is expected to begin by the end of this year.

[llamaorama]

That seems lower than what I was expecting for such a huge network in a giant city.

I wonder if the system would work better with shorter more frequent trains. Like 2-car stadler DMU's running every 30 minutes 7 days a week would easily handle those volumes and be more useful and attract more ridership.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

That seems lower than what I was expecting for such a huge network in a giant city.

I wonder if the system would work better with shorter more frequent trains. Like 2-car stadler DMU's running every 30 minutes 7 days a week would easily handle those volumes and be more useful and attract more ridership.

Yeah, Metrolink commuter rail ridership was never spectacular but it's way down since COVID. That's because the hub of the Metrolink system is Union Station in downtown LA and the model is to serve downtown commuters. As elsewhere, a lot of the downtown office jobs have gone to WFH some or all days.

[Quixote]

Metrolink’s utility, beyond faster and more frequent service, would benefit from thru-running. This is why I think it’s a good idea to convert Metrolink into a BART-like system, possibly compatible with our HRT, to serve urban LA County — no different than how the A Line functions. Suburban stations/riders could enjoy peak headways of 2-5 minutes. It would be an expensive, yet more cost-effective approach to expanding high-capacity rail because there is already some built-in ridership.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by craigs

I'm all for electrifying those Metrolink lines--if riders don't have to bear the significant financial burden.

That’s where Props A/C and Measures M/R should come into play. There should be a plan to gradually decrease the apportionment of highway and local return funds, reallocating them to transit expansion and upgrades.

The resistance comes from the high capital costs vis-a-vis immediate ROI. The catch-22 has always been that to justify expenditure you need the ridership, but generating the ridership requires expenditure. Instead, we mostly get watered-down, politically satisfying projects that do nothing to move the needle.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by craigs

LA County officials announced that a "14.5-mile segment of the 19-mile, $7.1 billion Metro Southeast Gateway Line is now eligible for federal funding." Utility work on the project is expected to begin by the end of this year.

For that $7.1 billion, we could finish the Subway to the Sea and possibly get the B Line down to the 105 because of the cost-effective nature of those routes.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Quixote

The resistance comes from the high capital costs vis-a-vis immediate ROI. The catch-22 has always been that to justify expenditure you need the ridership, but generating the ridership requires expenditure. Instead, we mostly get watered-down, politically satisfying projects that do nothing to move the needle.

Yep, pretty much