LOS ANGELES | METRO Project Rundown 2.0 (non-downtown)

[scania]

Fortunately this isn’t The Bay…as much as people love Dodger paraphernalia, I see a lot of people on a daily basis that can’t drive to Dodger Stadium, can now take public transportation to go to the store. It also would be locals and tourists who simply would go just to check it out. I really don’t understand how anybody that lives in LA can’t see how popular this attraction would be for the city.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by scania

Fortunately this isn’t The Bay…as much as people love Dodger paraphernalia, I see a lot of people on a daily basis that can’t drive to Dodger Stadium, can now take public transportation to go to the store. It also would be locals and tourists who simply would go just to check it out. I really don’t understand how anybody that lives in LA can’t see how popular this attraction would be for the city.

I have no doubts that it would be a popular tourist attraction. The question is more so if this is the ideal mode of transport for the use case. I guess the argument for it is that high capacity rail will never come to Dodger Stadium, and it's better than nothing, which is what there currently is.

[scania]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I have no doubts that it would be a popular tourist attraction. The question is more so if this is the ideal mode of transport for the use case. I guess the argument for it is that high capacity rail will never come to Dodger Stadium, and it's better than nothing, which is what there currently is.

Exactly exactly! I look at it this way…it’s another option to get to Dodger Stadium. It will encourage some to not drive, and it will enhance the game experience for thousands of Dodger fans. We would also be the first MLB to have this option to get to the stadium. It will also generate revenue for China Town. It will definitely bring more tourists to that area.

[craigs]

I'm agnostic about the gondola. It would be expensive considering the relatively small numbers of people that it would carry during peak hours, let alone the rest of the week. That said, there's no question in my mind that the gondola would be fun, provide good skyline views, and be well utilized on game days. I have been taking Metrolink out of Union Station every workday for several weeks now, and there are always tons of Dodgers fans lined up to take the bus shuttle on game days. But it won't get much use the rest of the year.

[ed21x]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I have no doubts that it would be a popular tourist attraction. The question is more so if this is the ideal mode of transport for the use case. I guess the argument for it is that high capacity rail will never come to Dodger Stadium, and it's better than nothing, which is what there currently is.

Gondolas have a surprisingly high capacity despite their slow appearance because of their continuous flow and low headway. The proposed system would be able to transport the same amount of passengers per hour as a light rail system. Anything more than that cannot be justified because you will be operating too much excess capacity when there isn't a Dodger game going on. Also, the fact that it may become a tourist attraction weighs heavily, as you just mentioned.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by ed21x

Gondolas have a surprisingly high capacity despite their slow appearance because of their continuous flow and low headway. The proposed system would be able to transport the same amount of passengers per hour as a light rail system.

Source?

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by craigs

Source?

Yo, it’s not that hard to type in a search bar or chat gpt. You wasted a whole post, adding to the pages just to post a snarky comment when you could have done a simple search…. Being that most of our light rail trains are running at seating only capacity and not full standing capacity most times, the numbers are actually somewhat comparable. In the below numbers, they are indicative of the double lines subway tunnel at 3 min headways while most of the system does not operate like this, but just giving the best of the best numbers.

For instance, LA Metro’s light rail trains typically consist of multiple cars, each with a seating capacity of around 70 passengers. With trains operating at frequencies that allow for up to 30 trains per hour, the system can achieve capacities ranging from approximately 4,050 to 8,100 pphpd, depending on train length and frequency . Passenger Per Hour Per Direction (PPHPD)

Assuming 20 trains/hour (3-minute headways) on a well-performing LA line like the E or A Line:
• Seated-only pphpd: ~4,200 passengers
• Full load pphpd: ~10,800 to 12,000 passengers

A real-life example of a high-capacity aerial gondola system with passenger-per-hour-per-direction (pphpd) numbers similar to light rail is the Mi Teleférico system in La Paz–El Alto, Bolivia.

Key Facts:
• System Name: Mi Teleférico
• City: La Paz and El Alto, Bolivia
• Opened: 2014 (expanded in phases)
• Lines: 10 (as of 2025)
• Max Capacity: Up to 6,000 pphpd per line
• Technology: Continuous-movement gondola with detachable cabins
• Cabin Size: Typically 10 passengers per cabin
• Headways: As frequent as every 12 seconds during peak

This system was designed specifically to serve as urban mass transit, not just as a tourist attraction or last-mile connector. It connects two cities separated by steep topography—much like how Los Angeles could use gondolas to bridge elevation differences (e.g., Union Station to Dodger Stadium or from Bunker Hill to lower Broadway). Being as that most of LA’s system runs with much lower frequencies at 7 min max in rush hour and still not with full trains, the gondola’s numbers are quite comparable to LA’s current light rail usage capacities

A quick chat gpt reveal that took 2 min to type, then copy paste.

[hughfb3]

In other news, the Hollywood Echelon Studios development is now at and poking above street level. The two tower cranes are quite nice in the area. Also coupled with the double tower cranes for Sunset/Western development there are 4 cranes in a sightline.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

In other news, the Hollywood Echelon Studios development is now at and poking above street level. The two tower cranes are quite nice in the area. Also coupled with the double tower cranes for Sunset/Western development there are 4 cranes in a sightline.

Great! The midrises around Santa Monica and Vermont are adding decent density too. They couldve been taller of course, but anything is better than than light industrial/auto parts crap. Take those things to the I.E

[craigs]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

Yo, it’s not that hard to type in a search bar or chat gpt. You wasted a whole post, adding to the pages just to post a snarky comment when you could have done a simple search….
. . . .
A quick chat gpt reveal that took 2 min to type, then copy paste.

My post was not snarky, and asking for a source to back up a claim like that is completely legitimate. Your snotty response did contain some interesting information along with the attitude. However, it's still not as cut and dry as the claim made it seem. When I asked ChatGPT: "Do gondolas offer the same passenger capacity as light rail trains?" this is the response I got:

Originally Posted by ChatGPT

No, gondolas do not offer the same passenger capacity as light rail trains. Here's a comparison:

Gondolas (Urban Cable Cars):
Typical Capacity: 1,000–3,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd)

Cabin Size: 8–35 passengers per cabin (most common cabins hold 8–15)

Cabin Frequency: Every 10–60 seconds

Best for: Short distances, steep terrain, or hard-to-reach urban areas

Light Rail Trains (LRT):
Typical Capacity: 5,000–20,000+ pphpd

Train Size: Each vehicle can carry 150–300+ passengers, and trains can have 2–4 or more cars

Frequency: Every 5–15 minutes typically, though can be more frequent

Summary:
Light rail has a much higher capacity than gondolas and is better suited for moving large numbers of people over longer distances in urban corridors.

Gondolas excel in niche situations—steep slopes, rivers, or where ground infrastructure is limited—but aren't a replacement for high-capacity rail.

[Nouvellecosse]

Showing that the max capacity for one being "up to 6k pphpd" and the other being literally double that does not seem to be "the same" at all. And a system's capacity is based on what it is capable of carrying, not on what it actually carries. If an urban system maxes out with seated passengers and leaves significant unused standing space then it is operating at well below capacity. Perhaps one could argue that the demand on a given route isn't enough to justify an LRT's capacity and a gondola would suffice. But that's very different from saying their capacity is the same.

And yeah, asking for a source isn't snarky unless it was accompanied by some eye roll emoji or something. But a whole drawn out "let me google that for you" routine certainly is.

[FoldingBoxes]

Originally Posted by ed21x

Gondolas have a surprisingly high capacity despite their slow appearance because of their continuous flow and low headway. The proposed system would be able to transport the same amount of passengers per hour as a light rail system. Anything more than that cannot be justified because you will be operating too much excess capacity when there isn't a Dodger game going on. Also, the fact that it may become a tourist attraction weighs heavily, as you just mentioned.

If that gondola is even *perceived* to have relieved traffic at games then it will be the hot new thing all over the LA Basin, and maybe elsewhere. I hope they build it, and I hope it works.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I have no doubts that it would be a popular tourist attraction. The question is more so if this is the ideal mode of transport for the use case. I guess the argument for it is that high capacity rail will never come to Dodger Stadium, and it's better than nothing, which is what there currently is.

The gondola capacity is 5,000 pph per direction. Comparable to a light rail terminating at Dodger stadium but less than heavy rail. But let's be honest. The constraint for either rail mode will be the elevators to the underground station. It will have to be deep underground because the hill is too steep to get to the top without a long, winding, very expensive route.

Are you suggesting that you'd rather spend taxpayer money to serve the stadium with rail than let a billionaire finance the gondola out of their own pocket? If so, I'm very much against.

[sopas ej]

My concern with the Dodger Stadium gondola was how ugly the renderings look:










If/when it does get built, I guess I can get used to the way it looks.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Showing that the max capacity for one being "up to 6k pphpd" and the other being literally double that does not seem to be "the same" at all. And a system's capacity is based on what it is capable of carrying, not on what it actually carries. If an urban system maxes out with seated passengers and leaves significant unused standing space then it is operating at well below capacity. Perhaps one could argue that the demand on a given route isn't enough to justify an LRT's capacity and a gondola would suffice. But that's very different from saying their capacity is the same.

And yeah, asking for a source isn't snarky unless it was accompanied by some eye roll emoji or something. But a whole drawn out "let me google that for you" routine certainly is.

I must be reading text incorrectly lately, based on my own listening but it sounded spicy to me. If it wasnt I apologize @Craigs.

The numbers I put up, what I said was comparable is the max capacity of the gondola with the actual real time numbers and frequency of how our light rail system is operating today... LA Metro's light rail system handles around 7,000 to 8,000 passengers per hour per direction... That's what comparable as our light rail system does not operate at max with 3 min headways and is rarely standing room only.

Hollywood Echelon Studio's


Apple's office building near Culver City

[citywatch]

beverlyhillscourier.com

Two titans of the design world have joined forces to create a new vision for one of the most famous corners of Rodeo Drive. It will take shape as a new Louis Vuitton flagship designed by acclaimed architect Frank Gehry. Set to open in 2029, the flagship will span the block bounded by Rodeo Drive, South Santa Monica Boulevard and Beverly Drive.

As a flagship, it will break through the boundaries of traditional retail into the full “Louis Vuitton lifestyle.” In addition to diverse product lines, bespoke client experiences, a restaurant and café, it will house the first permanent exhibition space for Louis Vuitton in the U.S.

Interiors of the project will be completed under the supervision of architect Peter Marino, who helmed the Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills project originally proposed for the site.

voters in BH 2 yrs ago didn't allow this proposal for a hotel...




getting there from dtla in the future...

https://youtu.be/993-mbTgppE?si=uaY789XEFRZcBhHp

.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Showing that the max capacity for one being "up to 6k pphpd" and the other being literally double that does not seem to be "the same" at all. And a system's capacity is based on what it is capable of carrying, not on what it actually carries. If an urban system maxes out with seated passengers and leaves significant unused standing space then it is operating at well below capacity. Perhaps one could argue that the demand on a given route isn't enough to justify an LRT's capacity and a gondola would suffice. But that's very different from saying their capacity is the same.

And yeah, asking for a source isn't snarky unless it was accompanied by some eye roll emoji or something. But a whole drawn out "let me google that for you" routine certainly is.

My later post of 5,000 pph per direction comes from the Draft EIR. That's what's most accurate.

The light rail numbers in the earlier post are inaccurate for this situation because they are totals for an undetermined line length and include people getting on/off at intermediate stations. For this instance you have to assume that the train gets full and no one exits until they reach Dodger Stadium.

LA Metro light rail vehicles hold a max of about 135 people per car and LA limits lengths to 3-car sets, so about 500 people per train. LA Metro typically runs a max of 10 trains per hour, so that's 5,000 pph, same as the gondola.

But again, it's probably the elevators that will limit capacity. A light rail or subway station at Dodger Stadium from Union station will likely be very deep. Similar to Grand on the A/E lines but even deeper. Access would be by elevators. Even with 10 elevators that's likely significantly less than 5,000 pph.

[Blesha13]

LA needs another W/E mass transit. What happened to the “Pink Line” light rail proposal along Santa Monica Blvd via Sunset Blvd? That area needs it. I’m surprised that’s not part of the 28 by ‘28.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by craigs

I'm agnostic about the gondola. It would be expensive considering the relatively small numbers of people that it would carry during peak hours, let alone the rest of the week. That said, there's no question in my mind that the gondola would be fun, provide good skyline views, and be well utilized on game days. I have been taking Metrolink out of Union Station every workday for several weeks now, and there are always tons of Dodgers fans lined up to take the bus shuttle on game days. But it won't get much use the rest of the year.

Guys, you're missing the biggest point here. The Gondola is privately financed, so as far as the public is concerned, it's FREE to build. I can't for the life of me understand people saying we shouldn't build it because it doesn't solve ALL our problems. If it provides ANY net benefit shouldn't we be routing for a private group to build it??

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by citywatch

voters in BH 2 yrs ago didn't allow this proposal for a hotel...




getting there from dtla in the future...

.

Just pure unadulterated NIMBYism at its worst. Voters shouldn't be trusted with these decisions.