LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

...unless you 4 track every subway line.

A transit nerd wet dream.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

However suggesting repealing Prop A and C dollars to build more tunnels is not a viable solution.

It's not about building more subways per se, but rather using an existing revenue stream that offers more flexibility than Measures R/M, which require the outlined projects (transit and otherwise) first be completed before "wet-dream" ideas like, say, extending heavy rail to Whittier can be realized?

One of the limitations with interlining that DC and BART are facing now is that those branches limit capacity on the core trunks so its a balancing act, you don't want too many lines servicing corridors...unless you 4 track every subway line.

If the trunks are long and significantly longer than the branches, or if you get creative and design a system where each branch of one line forms the spine of another line (something that I'm playing around with), then I think it's less of a problem — especially if the trains are automated — because most people would be getting on and off along the trunk.

BART's issues come from the fact that its trunks consist of 3-4 lines, while WMATA is designed to get people in and out of a small, office-heavy core and because there are relatively few stations that serve urban residential areas.

With a more web-like network (i.e., less core-centric and more neighborhood-serving), the more likely you are to have short-distance trips (i.e., trunk trips). And because LA's urban structure lends itself to more transfers, a trunk is only inconvenient if the first train that arrives isn't part of the branch the transfer rider wants to travel on. Hence you want to make trunk corridors as lengthy as possible to increase the chances of the riders' destinations being situated along the trunk. I also think that seeing more trains coming and going (whether or not it's the train one wants to get on) has psychological value.

Do you agree with the general idea that interlining is a more cost-effective way to rapidly expand our HRT system in all directions (rather than stand-alone lines)?

[Quixote]

The problem with the state of LA rail is that there isn't a critical mass of ridership that demands costly, transformational game-changers. The current slate of projects won't be enough to accumulate that critical mass because it's either too slow, not car-competitive, or doesn't take people where they want to go.

The public will hear about the opening of this line and that line and how it will help alleviate congestion, only to be inevitably disappointed.

[sopas ej]

Just to confuse people? Naah, it was an agreement between Paris' RATP and LA Metro to rename a few stations in both cities briefly as a "passing the baton" between 2024 Summer Olympics host Paris to 2028 Summer Olympics host Los Angeles.


Sortiraparis


Sortiraparis


Metro Los Angeles Facebook page

Article: 2024 Olympics: six Paris metro stations change names to pass the baton to Los Angeles

[Busy Bee]

They must mean Boulevard Hollywood...

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

It's not about building more subways per se, but rather using an existing revenue stream that offers more flexibility than Measures R/M, which require the outlined projects (transit and otherwise) first be completed before "wet-dream" ideas like, say, extending heavy rail to Whittier can be realized?

Interesting twist.

However, if that corridor needs more grade separations (which based off past posts you have implied) in the form of subway tunnels, you're back to square one where it is best to accelerate those projects and at least get the core minimum operating segments (MOS) completed before moving to the next phase or including new projects to politically leap frog over other projects.

Which goes back to thankfully in my role as an advocate for the Business Community forced the Metro Board to have a "Come to Jesus" moment in 2018-19 to realistically look at the cashflow and develop core projects to complete so that the board stays on task and not get distracted to add other projects (Vermont HRT, LA Streetcar, Pico/Flower subway station with the Washington/Flower junction grade separated) without realizing the cash flow and try to politically leapfrog no matter how tempting all of which wastes more scarce Measure M, Prop A and C resources.

It's not perfect but its slowly improving.

If the trunks are long and significantly longer than the branches, or if you get creative and design a system where each branch of one line forms the spine of another line (something that I'm playing around with), then I think it's less of a problem — especially if the trains are automated — because most people would be getting on and off along the trunk.

With that idea for one seat rides - if I am reading what you are suggesting correctly- you are sacrificing the strengths of frequency and reliability in the automation to have a route go on multiple trunks? Which means you will need a lot of passing tracks and track duplication.

Just take a page out of Paris Metro, keep the trunk with a single route (Like WMATA's Red Line) on that line and have high frequency and design the transfer stations require a minimum of vertical circulation to make them easier and intuitive to use. If you are running service at a high frequency and you need to transfer, the transfer time is minimal. Add their Metro with an overlay of the RER along with their surface LRT lines that they have expanded over the last two decades and that is a great network.

We are building a transit foundation, just stay the course and at least complete the BRT/Bus Only lane network, improve bus/rail operations along with finishing the pillar projects.

BART's issues come from the fact that its trunks consist of 3-4 lines, while WMATA is designed to get people in and out of a small, office-heavy core and because there are relatively few stations that serve urban residential areas.

With a more web-like network (i.e., less core-centric and more neighborhood-serving), the more likely you are to have short-distance trips (i.e., trunk trips). Because LA's urban structure lends itself to more transfers, a trunk is only inconvenient if the first train that arrives isn't part of the branch the transfer rider wants to travel on. Hence you want to make trunk corridors as lengthy as possible to increase the chances of the riders' destinations being situated along the trunk. I also think that seeing more trains coming and going (whether or not it's the train one wants to get on) has psychological value.

Do you agree with the general idea that interlining is a more cost-effective way to rapidly expand our HRT system in all directions (rather than stand-alone lines)?

Depends on how wide of a network we are trying to serve?

I think Paris, Madrid and many German Stadbahn/S-Bahn metro systems is the model LA should mimic. Frequent tight grid of core lines with frequent regional lines with multiple core connections to/from urban lines.

For example, I had suggested and advocated for the Southeast Gateway Corridor become a electrified Metrolink line because;

• 1) it is not sharing tracks with the A Line or any other LRT line,
• 2) The northern terminal is Union Station,
• 3) avoids a needless and costly tunnel to reach Union Station by combining this project with the Link US to gain more Federal Dollars and help spearhead electrifying Metrolink on some core routes like Antelope Valley or the San Bernardino Line.
• But alas right now that got shot down...at the moment.

FRUGAL comprehensive planning and thinking is what is needed -which I believe you are articulating here- because you have to be creative to figure out ways to expand the system with limited resources and do more with less. I can go back 6-7 years when all the board's attention for damn near the first week of Measure M dollars being collected was to look at let's grade separate Washington/Flower and I am thinking, Board, you have this Southeast Gateway project that is going to require a costly tunnel, couldn't we try to combine efforts to save resources?

The problem with the state of LA rail is that there isn't a critical mass of ridership that demands costly, transformational game-changers. The current slate of projects won't be enough to accumulate that critical mass because it's either too slow, not car-competitive, or doesn't take people where they want to go.

The public will hear about the opening of this line and that line and how it will help alleviate congestion, only to be inevitably disappointed.

I think HLA that voters approved in March will slow down the expansion of curb lane BRT network on busy bus corridors throughout the city/region. Why is that important? This is where we start mapping out and proving where the future rail corridors will go! And this is a tried and true way to comprehensively and systematically expand the system.

I personally believe the way we are building out the system once we finish;
MOS segments of the A Line Eastside extension to the Citadel and Southeast Gateway, we will start to build the web-like grid network (with the other pillar projects K Line South to Torrance & North to Hollywood and Sepulveda Pass, complete the C Line to Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs, B Line to Burbank Airport)that we need, combined with Metrolink service improvements and double tracking on core lines (Antelope Valley, Ventura County Line to Chatsworth, San Bernardino Line) we can get a lot accomplished and serve more riders.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Interesting twist.

However, if that corridor needs more grade separations (which based off past posts you have implied) in the form of subway tunnels, you're back to square one where it is best to accelerate those projects and at least get the core minimum operating segments (MOS) completed before moving to the next phase or including new projects to politically leap frog over other projects.

Well, first we need to figure out how to reduce the cost of subway construction. I think Bechtel's proposed "offset" method for the Sepulveda corridor is ingenious, as it makes platform extensions relatively easy when more capacity is needed. The second thing we need to do is build elevated and even at-grade HRT (conventional stock) where possible, which Metro is averse to for whatever reason.

With that idea for one seat rides - if I am reading what you are suggesting correctly- you are sacrificing the strengths of frequency and reliability in the automation to have a route go on multiple trunks? Which means you will need a lot of passing tracks and track duplication.

The basic premise for interlining is to create long trunks with proven ridership because:

1) It makes use of existing infrastructure and high ridership, rendering branch creation/extension more cost-effective. Think about how much more expensive the D Line subway would be if it didn't have the shared trackage with the B Line between US and Wilshire/Vermont.
2) Yes, it creates more one-seat ride opportunities (if you live along the trunk). Be able to go more places without needing to transfer makes the system more useful, even if frequency takes a bit of a hit. Having to get off a train and go up or down stairs/escalators to (maybe) catch a transfer can be a hassle.

Just take a page out of Paris Metro, keep the trunk with a single route (Like WMATA's Red Line) on that line and have high frequency and design the transfer stations require a minimum of vertical circulation to make them easier and intuitive to use. If you are running service at a high frequency and you need to transfer, the transfer time is minimal. Add their Metro with an overlay of the RER along with their surface LRT lines that they have expanded over the last two decades and that is a great network.[/QUOTE]

But the Paris Metro is already built out. Here in LA, we can't afford to build a bunch of lines from scratch. That's the whole premise of my argument.

What I have always agreed with you on the most is that Metrolink is an extremely undervalued/underutilized. But like the RER, I don't think Metrolink should be a substitute for Metro Rail. Why should the A Line have (or it did once upon a time) 6-minute peak headways while Metrolink operates every 15 minutes? Metrolink is not a traditional commuter rail network like LIRR or Metra but more like ACE or VRE (Virginia Railway Express). I believe its value and potential lies in the fact that it connects the outer counties with LA.

I think Paris, Madrid and many German Stadbahn/S-Bahn metro systems is the model LA should mimic. Frequent tight grid of core lines with frequent regional lines with multiple core connections to/from urban lines.

I certainly don't think of those as "tight-grid" systems. A picture-perfect example of such is the Beijing Subway.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Quixote

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.

The Expo Line is fundamentally flawed in that it was a)spun as a major transit corridor when it's a secondary-at-best corridor and b)the fact that is was completed to DT Santa Monica was used as an excuse to not complete the u/c Wilshire heavy rail subway line to DT Santa Monica.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Well, first we need to figure out how to reduce the cost of subway construction. I think Bechtel's proposed "offset" method for the Sepulveda corridor is ingenious, as it makes platform extensions relatively easy when more capacity is needed. The second thing we need to do is build elevated and even at-grade HRT (conventional stock) where possible, which Metro is averse to for whatever reason.

I go back to Frugal and simple. A lot of that I feel can be done with first our LRT by going to 4 car LRVs operation because once you strategically grade separate it makes no sense to leave the same max train length. Add an extra train for capacity, that will then get Metro to see that expanding the HRT on elevated viaducts and grade separated surface Railroad ROW could work.

The basic premise for interlining is to create long trunks with proven ridership because:

1) It makes use of existing infrastructure and high ridership, rendering branch creation/extension more cost-effective. Think about how much more expensive the D Line subway would be if it didn't have the shared trackage with the B Line between US and Wilshire/Vermont.
2) Yes, it creates more one-seat ride opportunities (if you live along the trunk). Be able to go more places without needing to transfer makes the system more useful, even if frequency takes a bit of a hit. Having to get off a train and go up or down stairs/escalators to (maybe) catch a transfer can be a hassle.

The problems with that is unless each branch can get by on the same frequency you will overload one line over the other, I cite the DC Metro with the Orange, Silver and Blue Lines sharing the trunk.
West of the Capitol the Orange and Silver Lines need more frequent service at the expense of the Blue Line which impacts Blue Line service east of the Capitol where more demand is needed.
So if multiple lines share, it has to be a shorter trunk not longer to ensure you are not degrading service.

But the Paris Metro is already built out. Here in LA, we can't afford to build a bunch of lines from scratch. That's the whole premise of my argument.

But we need to do the dirty-dirty and build line by line, just like Paris did. One thing Paris does well that we can start doing because we have a funding stream for is consistently build out our projects and continual incremental expansion, just has Paris has continually done since its first Metro line in 1900.

What I have always agreed with you on the most is that Metrolink is an extremely undervalued/underutilized. But like the RER, I don't think Metrolink should be a substitute for Metro Rail. Why should the A Line have (or it did once upon a time) 6-minute peak headways while Metrolink operates every 15 minutes? Metrolink is not a traditional commuter rail network like LIRR or Metra but more like ACE or VRE (Virginia Railway Express). I believe its value and potential lies in the fact that it connects the outer counties with LA.

I am suggesting it as a substitute however, it is an untapped resource. However within the LA County/Greater LA Metro service area, why not have frequent 15 minute service (for example the AV Line to Santa Clarita, VC Line to Chatsworth, SB Line to Montclair) and then outside of that they operate every 30 minutes. This service expansion coupled with transforming the land-use planning to be more like town centers at these stations will improve ridership longer term.

The key point that I will bring up is that Metrolink needs to improve its frequency and do the incremental capital and operational improvements needed to make those other investments to improve intermodal connections to the Metro like a C Line extension to Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs and or B Line extension to Burbank Airport worth while.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The Expo Line is fundamentally flawed in that it was a)spun as a major transit corridor when it's a secondary-at-best corridor and b)the fact that is was completed to DT Santa Monica was used as an excuse to not complete the u/c Wilshire heavy rail subway line to DT Santa Monica.

Fundamentally flawed, What a load of steaming hooey!

Expo was never spun as a major corridor., even back in 1992 when Metro purchased the Right-of-way.

• It was built because there is an available ROW,
• Potential (that has been realized) that has similar characteristics to the Blue Line between LA and Long Beach
• the Westside population and jobs warranted some high capacity service other than a rapid bus until the Wilshire Subway got back off the ground because of the Prop A and C subway ban of 1998.

With the current high ridership demand between Downtown/USC and West LA it shows that this has been a wise investment for Metro.

[numble]

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.

There is actually little tangible benefit to spending money on a voter campaign to remove the Prop A/C ban on subway construction. First off, the ban doesn't apply to station construction, which is the most expensive portion of subway projects. Secondly, Metro finance staff have demonstrated multiple times that they can use accounting maneuvers to get around that ban very easily. The vast majority of Measure R/M projects are not subway projects, so they just swap Prop A/C money for Measure R/M money if they ever need to access Prop A/C funds for subway construction. They have done this time and time again:

Prop A/C was used for cost overruns on Purple Line two times: https://x.com/numble/status/13936841...r8fihK6NT7JHrQ

https://x.com/numble/status/12945007...r8fihK6NT7JHrQ

Swapping means that Prop A/C will be used to pay for Measure R/M projects and the freed up Measure R/M money then goes to the subway project. So in the first link, Prop A money was used to pay for $83.57m of the K Line instead of Measure R, freeing up $83.57m of Measure R money that can be spent on subway construction. In the second link, Prop A and C money was used to pay for $200m of the K Line instead of Measure R, freeing up $200m of Measure R money that can be spent on subway construction.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by numble

There is actually little tangible benefit to spending money on a voter campaign to remove the Prop A/C ban on subway construction. First off, the ban doesn't apply to station construction, which is the most expensive portion of subway projects. Secondly, Metro finance staff have demonstrated multiple times that they can use accounting maneuvers to get around that ban very easily. The vast majority of Measure R/M projects are not subway projects, so they just swap Prop A/C money for Measure R/M money if they ever need to access Prop A/C funds for subway construction. They have done this time and time again:

Prop A/C was used for cost overruns on Purple Line two times: https://x.com/numble/status/13936841...r8fihK6NT7JHrQ

https://x.com/numble/status/12945007...r8fihK6NT7JHrQ

Swapping means that Prop A/C will be used to pay for Measure R/M projects and the freed up Measure R/M money then goes to the subway project. So in the first link, Prop A money was used to pay for $83.57m of the K Line instead of Measure R, freeing up $83.57m of Measure R money that can be spent on subway construction. In the second link, Prop A and C money was used to pay for $200m of the K Line instead of Measure R, freeing up $200m of Measure R money that can be spent on subway construction.

Beautifully put...A/C gives Metro flexibility to maneuver with Measure R and M projects.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

They must mean Boulevard Hollywood...

Looks like it's pissing off xenophobic and anti-American freaks from the far right and far left in France, so it's got to be good.

• Video Link

Guess it's just a little kiss between the 2 cities, so to speak.
No big deal.

[hughfb3]

Foothill Gold Line has released an update video. This line is by far the most beautifully designed transit project we have in my eyes. Everything the Gold Line construction authority has done has been on time, no fuss or controversy and even the oldest section from DTLA to Pasadena is still better looking than the “modern” elements of much newer lines like the Expo phase 1 with its high-maintenance, non-functional, modern lighting scheme that has looked busted for the past several years as there are too many unnecessary lights for Metro to keep up just for the sake of being modern and futuristic... but the future will always come, then go. It takes a lot to keep up with non functional stuff and Metro has completely let go of keeping those canopy lights fully lit.

The simple classical functional design will far outlast the modern style of many of the other lines out there

https://youtu.be/5B3HaNd2ACU?si=Behdf_No1p07SE1D

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Which goes back to thankfully in my role as an advocate for the Business Community forced the Metro Board to have a "Come to Jesus" moment in 2018-19 to realistically look at the cashflow and develop core projects to complete so that the board stays on task and not get distracted to add other projects (Vermont HRT, LA Streetcar, Pico/Flower subway station with the Washington/Flower junction grade separated) without realizing the cash flow and try to politically leapfrog no matter how tempting all of which wastes more scarce Measure M, Prop A and C resources.

Are you saying you advocated against pursuing the Pico/Flower subway station with the Washington/Flower junction grade separated now? If so why? I feel like that's some of the best return on investment money metro could spend. It's a flaw that now dogs the majority of the light rail system since the L/A/E lines are tied together. If I had it my way, that would be a top priority project.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Are you saying you advocated against pursuing the Pico/Flower subway station with the Washington/Flower junction grade separated now? If so why? I feel like that's some of the best return on investment money metro could spend. It's a flaw that now dogs the majority of the light rail system since the L/A/E lines are tied together. If I had it my way, that would be a top priority project.

I never said that, I said that our priorities should be about getting the first decade Measure M projects completed so that there is cashflow to actually pursue ideas.

With respect to the Pico/Flower issue, my problem has been from day one of the motion that was piecemealed together was that it only studied the station and not looked at the network. Because by looking at the network there are opportunities to leverage new projects and even resources to complete that goal. Back when creating Measure R from all the projects, there was a duh moment where folks realized damn why not connect these LRT lines through Downtown a reason why Regional Connector was important to complete.

Within Measure M, the Southeast Gateway Transit Corridor option going to 7th Street Metro Center was a perfect opportunity for it. I have always asked and thought it was a problem that the Metro didn't serious look at adding the A line through the grade separated route and tie into the Flower Street tunnel to actually relief the capacity issues at Pico/Flower station and help Washington/Flower junction operations.

DTLA WSAB Downtown Route Opportunities by Jerard Wright, on Flickr


Better utilizing Measure M resources within building the right alignment(s) could actually solve our problems.

...I alluded in my earlier post which is utilizing this tunnel to enable Blue Line trains and then after a 4 track Fashion District station split off of the main 8th Street tunnel and create a short 0.5 mile tunnel to then tie it into the existing Flower Street tunnel around 9th Street, if we are going to spend billions into another DTLA tunnel lets solve a couple of core capacity problems at the same time an eliminate more construction headaches for Little Tokyo.

[sopas ej]

The map is a little bit outdated in that Greyhound now operates out of Union Station. The Greyound Terminal on 7th and Alameda closed in 2022.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

The map is a little bit outdated in that Greyhound now operates out of Union Station. The Greyound Terminal on 7th and Alameda closed in 2022.

Whoopie! I did this map sketch over the Cartifact map in 2021.

The bigger point is not that Greyhound Terminal moved to a new location but the fact that we could better leverage Measure M resources within the voter approved projects like Southeast Gateway corridor to solve multiple problems within the same projects.

[SoCalKid]

WrightConcept - thanks for your explanation (and map!). I agree with you - Metro would benefit from more long-term planning rather than the piecemeal approach we often see. This is something Nick Andert talked about a lot in a recent youtube video he posted. I like your idea on the Southeast Gateway line a lot. It seems though that politics have forced that line to terminate at Union Station instead though, which I think is a big mistake.

But even if we could get the Southeast Gateway line to do what you're proposing, the Downtown portion is likely ~15 years away right? I just think there needs to be a major effort to fix our street running light rail NOW as it's a major issue. In my view, Metro needs to focus on a few things relating to this - fixing the Washington wye, closing streets (and the damn freeway entrance!) in the stretch from USC to 7th/Metro, fixing Pico station, and implementing signal preemption or something that achieves a similar effect. All of those except for grade separation should be possible in the short term (and hopefully some pedestrian bridges for the Pico Station can make a big difference). And I guess what I was advocating for was tackling the likely necessary grade separation of some portion of the wye through Pico station as soon as possible as well (medium term), because I think it will be difficult for our light rail system to run as smoothly as it should without that.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

But even if we could get the Southeast Gateway line to do what you're proposing, the Downtown portion is likely ~15 years away right? I just think there needs to be a major effort to fix our street running light rail NOW as it's a major issue. In my view, Metro needs to focus on a few things relating to this - fixing the Washington wye, closing streets (and the damn freeway entrance!) in the stretch from USC to 7th/Metro, fixing Pico station, and implementing signal preemption or something that achieves a similar effect. All of those except for grade separation should be possible in the short term (and hopefully some pedestrian bridges for the Pico Station can make a big difference). And I guess what I was advocating for was tackling the likely necessary grade separation of some portion of the wye through Pico station as soon as possible as well (medium term), because I think it will be difficult for our light rail system to run as smoothly as it should without that.

To fix most of the signal pre-emption now, requires LADOT to stop pussyfooting around and put their General Manager in charge of LADOT Laura Rubio Cornejo to the fire to implement the signal priority.

However the larger items the cost of these projects are going to be very expensive, will require an EIR AND there are other projects already in the queue for completion such as;

• South Bay K Line Extension to Torrance
• Southeast Gateway Corridor
• E Line extension to Whittier
• K Line Northern Extension
• Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor

These projects like the grade separation, Pico Station upgrades and Washington/Flower junction will require significant funds and an environmental impact review to complete. Where it has to obtain those $$$ while not leapfrogging other projects that the voters supported and passed.

However the fixes you are suggesting if they are simple like for the signal preemption that can work.