LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by numble

If you get funds for this project, you can only get 25% federal funding for this project. Metro is probably seeking 40-50% federal funding if they ever seek federal funds for Purple, Sepulveda, WSAB, Vermont or Crenshaw.

Not the same program, but the Obama-era TIGER program worked in a similar way. That program was designed to channel money directly from the executive branch to municipal governments so as to circumvent obstructionism by Republican-controlled state governments.

However, the city where I live elected a Tea Party Democrat (yes, such a thing existed) and he wasted the TIGER grant applications on pet projects for his rich donors. None of the projects had any chance of winning (he actually submitted a vehicular bridge proposal with no bike or public transportation feature for a federal grant aimed at...bikes and public transportation), but he got to tell his donors that "he tried".

The problem with the way rail is funded in the United States since about 1980 is that the selection process has favored light rail that uses existing ROW's (like the Expo Line). With 30 years of hindsight, we know that light railways have failed to transform any U.S. city, even Portland and Dallas, where they have built very large networks.

Traditional subways, by contrast, can and do completely transform cities when built on a large scale, but we only have two postwar examples in the United States - Washington and San Francisco.

I was in Miami last weekend for the first time in 20 years and the Metrorail system, despite being completely grade separated and very fast, has failed to significantly shape that city in the 40 years that it has been in operation. Miami Beach, which has no rail transit, is somehow significantly more dense than Miami, which does.

[Busy Bee]

Yes

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Yes

And as I mentioned on another thread, there is a strong corollary between the rental car/transit strategy that now exists at MIA and what is planned for LAX.

In each case, there will be an automated people mover that connects the terminals to a rental car facility roughly one mile away. At MIA, the people mover's terminal station is a short walk (100-200 feet) from the new Metrorail branch built to serve the airport several years ago. You can also access the diesel commuter rail to Ft. Lauderdale. My guess is that much if not most of the usage of these links is by airport workers, not out-of-town tourists.

The big problem with Miami is that a good chunk of visitors and tourists are bound for Miami Beach, which does not have a rail link. Nobody with money rides Metrorail to downtown Miami and then switches to a bus.

In LA, their planned rail link will have the advantage of traveling in more directions than the two MIA rail links, but the disadvantage of all of them being light rail as opposed to faster heavy rail. In order to attract significant public transportation ridership to LAX from Mid-City Los Angeles, there is going to have to be something faster than the Crenshaw Line. The Sepulveda line is 10+ years away. I have occasionally drawn a diagonal line from LA Union Station to LAX - a straight tunnel with maybe one station at USC and another at the new stadium would be transformative for travelers and LAX workers.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Traditional subways, by contrast, can and do completely transform cities when built on a large scale, but we only have two postwar examples in the United States - Washington and San Francisco.

I was in Miami last weekend for the first time in 20 years and the Metrorail system, despite being completely grade separated and very fast, has failed to significantly shape that city in the 40 years that it has been in operation. Miami Beach, which has no rail transit, is somehow significantly more dense than Miami, which does.

Maybe the problem isn't the transit mode of light or heavy rail, but the city's general attitude toward density, growth, and car use. More specifically, the share of regional jobs that are located downtown, and the presence (or not) of freeways that let people drive downtown easily.

SF of course is not a leader in housing growth, but they started from a strong foundation of prewar density and had strong downtowns in SF, Oakland and Berkeley. DC generally has a more technocratic attitude than other cities (for obvious reasons) so regional leaders have embraced dense, planned growth around Metro stops, and more importantly, the Federal government and other employers have put many thousands of jobs near Metro as well. Both cities also strongly rejected new freeways that would have allowed people to drive into downtown.

Atlanta is high-growth, but anti-density and pro-car so they have not built much density around MARTA stops until very recently. Even the density that is around MARTA stops doesn't lead to much ridership, because jobs are scattered around the Perimeter and not accessible to MARTA, and the jobs that remained downtown are relatively easy to drive to thanks to huge freeways and endless parking lots/garages. Dallas is very similar, but replace MARTA heavy rail with DART light rail.

Canadian cities have had a lot more success with light rail, because they didn't build freeways to the same extent and because they kept jobs downtown. Calgary and Edmonton both have strong LRT systems and Toronto is about to join the club with several LRTs underway.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Maybe the problem isn't the transit mode of light or heavy rail, but the city's general attitude toward density, growth, and car use. And the share of regional jobs that are located downtown.

That's correct but the fundamental problem is that the greatest ROI is usually the most expensive option, which is usually a subway directly beneath a region's busiest avenues for several miles in various directions, but the full ROI of a real subway isn't calculated by the feds. For example, future parking garages that aren't built because they aren't necessary aren't calculated as part of the grant process.

BART's ROI would be much higher if they built dense high-rise residential at the suburban stations where such construction is not currently allowed. They do it in Toronto and their system has huge ridership as a result.

As has been shared here in the past, the Wilshire subway was always going to be the #1 line in LA. The density is already there. Thanks to Henry Waxman, et al, it was instead preceded by the Hollywood line and upwards of 100 miles of good-but-not-transformative light rail.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Atlanta is high-growth, but anti-density and pro-car so they have not built much density around MARTA stops until very recently. Even the density that is around MARTA stops doesn't lead to much ridership, because jobs are scattered around the Perimeter and not accessible to MARTA, and the jobs that remained downtown are relatively easy to drive to thanks to huge freeways and endless parking lots/garages.

I think Atlanta's big problem was and always will be the existence of the I-285 loop. It's pretty close to downtown in all directions, meaning everywhere can get to everywhere relatively easy. This means downtown's only big advantage over any suburban location is...MARTA, and MARTA is okay but not great.

By contrast, Nashville does not have rail transit...but it doesn't have a loop highway, either. Despite its lack of rail and lousy bus system, its downtown is coming to dominate because it's pretty much impossible to get from one suburb to another without going through downtown or sitting all afternoon on country roads. Nashville is never going to have a loop, either. The I-840 arc, which opened around 2015, is extremely far from downtown Nashville, even if it is ever completed. It's 30+ miles from the downtown.

In another 10 years we might see further proof that the freeway loops that encircle Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and other cities with rail systems are single-handedly keeping their downtowns from dominating, and no rail system short of a real subway like Washington's Metro can keep things downtown-focused.

[ardecila]

I think you're mixing up cause and effect. The reason those cities chose light rail is because of their pre-existing anti-urban, pro-car attitudes. Light rail was an easy compromise that required a lot less local money but still provided the "feather in the cap" of having a rail system.

And even if those cities did build heavy rail, the anti-urban, pro car bias in those cities would prevent them from realizing any of the benefits, because they won't allow TOD and the jobs aren't near downtown anyway. We don't have to speculate about this - Atlanta and Miami prove it.

I don't think the growth of Nashville necessarily validates anything. Miami is building highrises too, but it has nothing to do with transit access or commuting patterns. There's just lots of yuppies that want to live in luxury buildings and a city that will allow them to be built.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I think you're mixing up cause and effect. The reason those cities chose light rail is because of their pre-existing anti-urban, pro-car attitudes. Light rail was an easy compromise that required a lot less local money but still provided the "feather in the cap" of having a rail system.

The last locality to "pay cash" for its regional transit system was BART. The nascent BART was able to cooperate with MUNI to build a shared 4-track subway under Market St. because the feds weren't involved in any way. The only duel-agency project funded in part by the feds that I can think of is the four-track 63rd St./East Side Access tunnel that was built around 1970.

Since the late 1960s (so post-BART, since construction in the Bay Area was already underway by the time today's funding mechanism took shape) every single transit system has been built partly with federal funds and the awarding of those funds was dependent upon building projects that the FTA awarded grants for at that particular time. From the late 1960s and until Reagan, a midsized city could apply for heavy rail funds. After Reagan they couldn't.

That means everyone has had to bend their proposals to a top-down system rather than build exactly what their particularly city and region needs. As we all know, the United States is a wildly eclectic place. Some cities are hot. Some are cold. Some are hilly. Some are flat. Some have oceans, rivers, lakes. Some have little water or are in the desert.

Since Reagan, with rare exception, new construction transit grants have been limited to mediocre light rail lines. That's what the FTA is forced to do. With rare exception it can't do anything else within the bounds the funding mechanisms that are in effect.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

I’m very pro-rail transit but this is one project I’m rooting against - because it’s a glorified streetcar and eye sore. This should’ve been part of the Sepulveda line or at least a grade separated LRT line that connects to the red line in NoHo or becomes part of the Orange line (with LRT conversion).

This project is a giant boondoggle.

It really is. I wish Metro would get its head out of its ass and rethink this project. If you can't justify subterranean HRT then build grade running BRT in the interim. Remove the on street parking and convert it to bus only until a subway can be built.

Then again Metro is about to butcher the Crenshaw Line before it even opens years behind schedule.

[homebucket]

Inglewood City Council approves $1.4B people mover
It would connect the Crenshaw/LAX Line with SoFi Stadium and Intuit Dome
APRIL 21, 2022, 8:30AM STEVEN SHARP



As construction hits a key milestone at the new people mover system linking the Crenshaw/LAX Line to the LAX central terminal area, another project seeking to link the 8.5-mile light rail line to nearby destinations is taking a step forward.

Last week, the Inglewood City Council voted to approve plans for the Inglewood Transit Connector (ITC), a monorail-like system which would link the Crenshaw Line's Downtown Inglewood Station to SoFi Stadium and Intuit Dome, the future home of the Los Angeles Clippers.



...

The ITC would run on a roughly 1.6-mile route, with automated electric vehicles running along an elevated viaduct above Market Street, Manchester Avenue, and Prairie Avenue. In addition to the northern terminus adjacent to the Crenshaw Line, plans also call for stops at Manchester Avenue and Hardy Avenue.

City officials estimate that the project will generate up to 700 construction jobs and 10,000 indirect jobs. Approximately $328 million in funding for the ITC has been secured to date, with an additional federal environmental review process expected to make the project eligible for new funding sources.



Construction of the ITC is expected to occur over a period of 46 months between January 2024 and November 2027, with completion in advance of the 2028 Summer Olympic Games.

When operational, the ITC is expected to run trains on normal headways of six minutes, with service as frequent as every two minutes during NFL events. Ridership estimates forecast that up to 414 passengers would use the system during weekday peak-hour conditions, with up to 11,450 passengers using the people mover during NFL events.

https://la.urbanize.city/post/inglew...b-people-mover

[plutonicpanda]

^^^ they should continue it down Prairie to 120th and then east to Crenshaw to connect with the Greenline and the Hawthorn Airport area.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

^^^ they should continue it down Prairie to 120th and then east to Crenshaw to connect with the Greenline and the Hawthorn Airport area.

Yeah it's only 1.3 more miles to the C (Green) Line. Might as well take it all the way and create a connector rather than an out and back spur. It's also notable that there is no actual station at Intuit Dome. Fans would have to walk an additional quarter mile from the Prairie/Hardy station.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

As has been shared here in the past, the Wilshire subway was always going to be the #1 line in LA. The density is already there. Thanks to Henry Waxman, et al, it was instead preceded by the Hollywood line and upwards of 100 miles of good-but-not-transformative light rail.

One could argue that the B (fka Red) Line has transformed North Hollywood, but that's about it.

As for the Wilshire corridor, the extension of the D (fka Purple) Line through Mid-Wilshire, Beverly Hills, Century City, and Westwood out to the VA hospital will make it all the more useful, and ridership should increase notably. But it really should run all the way to the beach to reach its full potential as the spine of public transit in Los Angeles.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Since Reagan, with rare exception, new construction transit grants have been limited to mediocre light rail lines. That's what the FTA is forced to do. With rare exception it can't do anything else within the bounds the funding mechanisms that are in effect.

This is simplistic - very little about the history of planning/transportation involves bad people acting unilaterally. Even Robert Moses was only able to ram expressways through NYC because the middle class and the elites supported him! I don't deny that Reagan had an impact on FTA, but he hasn't been president since 1988. In Chicago, our last heavy rail expansion was authorized and funded during the Reagan administration - by the Gipper himself, if you believe the stories.

As far as I know, there is nothing statutory that requires FTA to give preference to light rail over other modes. Transportation is a federal-state partnership and it takes two to tango, as the saying goes. Light rail was genuinely popular with local officials and planners because it addressed the huge disruptions and cost overruns that plagued the earlier generation of metro systems. It was popular with Federal officials because they realized they would never get the funding to build heavy rail systems in most American cities. FTA pivoted to light rail for new systems because that was the consensus position.

Honolulu is the first completely new rail system in America that is NOT an LRT since the LA Red Line opened in 1993. Predictably, it has been plagued with massive cost overruns and years of delay because that's just how America works.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It was popular with Federal officials because they realized they would never have the funding to build heavy rail systems in most American cities.

It was anticipated that UMTA 1970 - which was absolutely massive - would be periodically renewed, just like the highway bills. Instead, there was just one UMTA because Reagan put an end to the thing.

FTA pivoted to light rail for new systems because that was the consensus position.

The runaway inflation of the 1970s undermined UMTA 1970. That's how we ended up with the Second Ave. Subway construction being abandoned, but also why Baltimore only has one heavy rail subway line - inflation forced them to build their second line as surface light rail.

[Busy Bee]

Light rail is a bandwagon driven by it's sometimes real but also perceived cost savings over metro/heavy rail.

Long term benefits of metro/heavy rail in the CBA are often ignored in the face of the lower hanging fruit of light rail constructability and cost.

[FromSD]

[QUOTE=jmecklenborg;9629268]I think Atlanta's big problem was and always will be the existence of the I-285 loop. It's pretty close to downtown in all directions, meaning everywhere can get to everywhere relatively easy. This means downtown's only big advantage over any suburban location is...MARTA, and MARTA is okay but not great.

That may be a factor, but isn't another problem for MARTA the fact that the Georgia state government is hostile to Atlanta and to anything it sees as primarily benefitting Atlanta city residents? I've read that the state's support for MARTA has been nil, hence the lack of extensions to the system after its initial build-out. Atlanta voters approved a tax increase that will help fund rail enhancements inside the city. And one of the ring counties that had opted out of MARTA has now opted in. So that will also help. But MARTA has the disadvantage of operating in a state whose government places a low priority on its success.

The Georgia state legislature voted to allow the wealthy Buckhead area of Atlanta to hold a referendum to secede from the city. The other residents of Atlanta get no say in the matter. That is typical of the state government's active antagonism towards the city.

[FromSD]

[QUOTE=craigs;9629770]One could argue that the B (fka Red) Line has transformed North Hollywood, but that's about it.

The first two light rail lines in LA (the Blue and Green Lines) happened to run primarily through economically disadvantaged parts of the county, so it's not entirely surprising that they didn't precipitate a lot of development. I think the Red/Purple Lines have had a big impact on Koreatown, and development momentum is building even more in anticipation of the Purple Line extension to west of the 405. And there has been a lot of development near the Expo Line in Culver City, West LA and Santa Monica. Has it been transformative? Probably not since these areas were already favored investor targets. But this isn't to say that LA Metro and the City of LA couldn't have done more to facilitate TOD near rail lines.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by homebucket

https://la.urbanize.city/post/inglew...b-people-mover

Sepulveda Transit Partner's "Heavy Rail" proposal for the Sepulveda Pass corridor considers using Vancouver Skytrain technology which can scale from people mover to high capacity metro. It would behoove Inglewood to coordinate their rolling stock platform with whatever is chosen for Sepulveda pass so that these two can be linked in the future creating a one seat ride from the Valley/Westside to the Stadiums. But that would be too smart, but who knows, they could surprise us

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

Sepulveda Transit Partner's "Heavy Rail" proposal for the Sepulveda Pass corridor considers using Vancouver Skytrain technology which can scale from people mover to high capacity metro. It would behoove Inglewood to coordinate their rolling stock platform with whatever is chosen for Sepulveda pass so that these two can be linked in the future creating a one seat ride from the Valley/Westside to the Stadiums. But that would be too smart, but who knows, they could surprise us

It looks like most of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor alignment proposals have it terminating at LAX. I suppose it could theoretically continue eastwards, on top of, or under either Arbor Vitae or Century to the sports complex. Are there any plans that have mentioned that?