LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by numble

The highway portion is actually 17%. Reducing it to 15% will net you an extra $2.39 billion.

Which at the going rate of construction costs on Measure M transit projects, will essentially pay for half the inflation

[Quixote]

I think the drafters of Measure M allocated too much for transit operations/maintenance too. If they instead focused on building rail lines of true quality to optimize ridership, then Metro could probably generate enough revenue from both passenger fares and advertising to sustain O/M.

Originally Posted by numble

The highway portion is actually 17%. Reducing it to 15% will net you an extra $2.39 billion.

But that's almost enough to extend the Purple Line to Wilshire/4th. And I'm sure that extra 2% didn't mean the difference between Measure M passing or failing when it garnered a 71.15% vote.

Props A/C and Measures R/M are all no-sunset, so it's absolutely essential that we change the legislative terms at some point to reflect shifting needs/priorities.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I think the drafters of Measure M allocated too much for transit operations/maintenance too. If they instead focused on building rail lines of true quality to optimize ridership, then Metro could probably generate enough revenue from both passenger fares and advertising to sustain O/M.

During the 2015-16 ramp up to Measure M, these were regular news occurrences in other transit networks about costly State of Good Repair issues. That despite decent farebox recovery, they have had to sacrifice on maintenance over a long period of time to keep up with ridership demand and raising operational costs;
(click on each city to get links to an article on the state of good repair needs of the system)
MBTA Boston,
NYC Subway,
DC Metro,
CTA Chicago,
SF BART

These older network have had funding issues to keep up basic modernization & maintenance for their busy networks. It is a good thing that in Measure M funding for operation and maintenance because we are not going to get it from state and federal earmarks. Also, if you accelerate the delivery of these transit projects like Sepulveda Pass etc to arrive sooner, that means you got to have the funds to operate them and those funds have to come from somewhere.

Personally, I would love for full farebox recovery for our system but there lies the next issue even with these sales tax dollars We will still need to look at corridors that will get us the most ridership, be the most cost-effective on capital costs and projects that seek to reduce operational costs.

But that's almost enough to extend the Purple Line to Wilshire/4th. And I'm sure that extra 2% didn't mean the difference between Measure M passing or failing when it garnered a 71.15% vote.

Props A/C and Measures R/M are all no-sunset, so it's absolutely essential that we change the legislative terms at some point to reflect shifting needs/priorities.

Behind the scenes that extra 2% helped leverage virtually universal support by all of the COG's and local city councils, the only one that was opposed was in Gateway Cities COG and even their opposition was soft in nature because of the difference in these percentages. There were negotiations around the percentage for local return that was a sticking point for local cities to leverage Measure M dollars for local improvements.

In North LA County Measure M had over 61% support because of these inclusions, in previous measures R and J they had only support in the low 50% range. In the South Bay and SGV regions that extra percentage in highway and right proportions in other pots ensured that it passed the two-thirds threshold in these subregions.

[M II A II R II K]

Gold Line foothill extension receives $126 million — enough to complete the line to Pomona

https://www.dailybulletin.com/2019/0...ine-to-pomona/

.....

- After a tense debate, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Governing Board voted Thursday, Aug. 8, to give up $126 million in discretionary transportation dollars to fully fund the Gold Line foothill extension to Pomona. By a 27-0 vote late Thursday, the regional body agreed to give the Gold Line Construction Authority the money, paving the way for the awarding of a design-build contract on Wednesday, Aug. 14, for the $1.5 billion project.

.....

[202_Cyclist]

If Gold Line is extended to Ontario airport, would it be feasible to extend the Gold Line farther east to the San Bernardino Transit Center to connect with the Redlands - San Bernardino light rail? Alternatively could that transit line be extended to Ontario?

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

If Gold Line is extended to Ontario airport, would it be feasible to extend the Gold Line farther east to the San Bernardino Transit Center to connect with the Redlands - San Bernardino light rail? Alternatively could that transit line be extended to Ontario?

I generally think it’s a waste of resources extending the gold/future “A” line AT ALL because plenty of other projects need money and it’s not a high priority area at all - it’s reached far enough into that part of LA county. HOWEVER, if it could be extended to an Ontario airport station I think I’d feel a little different. With maybe 50% of trains going to Pasadena, 25% to Azusa and 25% going as far as Ontario airport.

At the same time the Red line should be extended to a joint Metrolink station at Burbank airport; and when extending the Greenline in South Bay - extend it all the way to connect with the “A” Line in Long Beach, passing through Long Beach airport. That way all 4 area airports have a Metro connection.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

I generally think it’s a waste of resources extending the gold/future “A” line AT ALL because plenty of other projects need money and it’s not a high priority area at all - it’s reached far enough into that part of LA county. HOWEVER, if it could be extended to an Ontario airport station I think I’d feel a little different. With maybe 50% of trains going to Pasadena, 25% to Azusa and 25% going as far as Ontario airport.

At the same time the Red line should be extended to a joint Metrolink station at Burbank airport; and when extending the Greenline in South Bay - extend it all the way to connect with the “A” Line in Long Beach, passing through Long Beach airport. That way all 4 area airports have a Metro connection.

Orange County voters dropped the ball by not approving the Center Line in the early 2000s, allowing a connection to Santa Ana/John Wayne.

[numble]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I think the drafters of Measure M allocated too much for transit operations/maintenance too. If they instead focused on building rail lines of true quality to optimize ridership, then Metro could probably generate enough revenue from both passenger fares and advertising to sustain O/M.



But that's almost enough to extend the Purple Line to Wilshire/4th. And I'm sure that extra 2% didn't mean the difference between Measure M passing or failing when it garnered a 71.15% vote.

Props A/C and Measures R/M are all no-sunset, so it's absolutely essential that we change the legislative terms at some point to reflect shifting needs/priorities.

Even high-ridership transit systems like New York and DC do not generate enough revenue to cover operations and maintenance. The estimates for accelerating the 28x2028 projects (including the high ridership WSAB and Sepulveda lines) is that Metro needs to find another billion to cover operating these projects earlier than anticipated. Farebox recovery will always be a fraction of what is needed.

That 2% would still be allocated through the Measure M allocation process, which means only about 50% available for allocation and the rest divided up into the different subregions by population.

The ways that Measure J failed needs to be the starting point for understanding why Measure M is designed in the way that it was designed. A key issue was COGs and Metro board members actively campaigning against it because it was perceived as being too city-focused.

Technically, Measure R will sunset, and Measure M will just double its tax rate when Measure R sunsets. This is a distinction that matters because Measure R has different allocation formulas (such as 20% for highways versus 17% for highways).

Changes to the transportation measures will need to be approved by the Metro Board, which is dominated by County and COG representatives (9 seats) compared to the 4 City seats. There is a bloc of non-city majority votes that often push subregional priorities, such as voting to overturn staff’s decisions on the Green Line service, approving Measure M funding for fiber optics networks that have little to do with transportation, denying staff from studying bus-only lanes in Pasadena, etc.

[Quixote]

Measure J garnered 66.11% of the vote in an election marked by major conservative pushback; it failed by only 15,961 votes. I personally think a more subtle shift in strategy probably could’ve done the trick. The bottom line is that A/C/R/M, as currently constituted, won’t be able to deliver half of the projects we need to revolutionize transportation in LA, and that a new approach is needed. Can we at least agree on that?

[bzcat]

If Gold line is extended beyond Pomona, I think operationally, it has to become its own line. It just doesn't make any sense to operate a line from Long Beach to Ontario (or god forbid Redlands...)

A new crosstown E-W light rail line from Warner Center to Ontario Airport will make SGV-SFV commute easier and the only justification for extending the Gold line further. You can operate Warner Center to Sierra Madre, and every other train will continue to Ontario. A new transfer station will have to build somewhere near Pasadena to facilitate transfers between the Crosstown line and Long Beach line.

[Busy Bee]

Anybody see the spot on Measure M on that American Swamp doc on MSNBC?

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

The bottom line is that A/C/R/M, as currently constituted, won’t be able to deliver half of the projects we need to revolutionize transportation in LA, and that a new approach is needed. Can we at least agree on that?

What's your definition of revolutionizing transportation in LA and what approach do you suggest?

That on top of not just sales taxes, we have state 'carbon taxes' (cap and trade) and State Gas Taxes (SB 1) funds that go towards transportation infrastructure however in decades past especially with the state raiding these dollars to balance the budget.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

What's your definition of revolutionizing transportation in LA and what approach do you suggest?

Building a system that allows over a million Angelenos to live car-free and one that can yield ridership of about 3 million (we're a county of 10 million) on an average weekday. Basically a lot of grade-separated rail lines running at high frequencies, supplemented with a fully electrified Metrolink.

Projected ridership for some of the expensive difference-makers:

1) Sepulveda from SFV to LAX (229,000)
2) Vermont Red Line extension (144,000)
3) Crenshaw North along La Brea (87,200)
4) Purple Line extension to SM (let's assume 125,000... 10K/mile)

Add in the Regional Connector, and that's 600K new riders right there on top of the existing 300K for a systemwide total of about 1 million.


Then throw in:

1) Santa Monica/Sunset line
2) Purple Line extension along Whittier
3) Pico-Venice subway
4) Red Line extension in the SFV
5) HRT alignment along the Alhambra trench (perhaps an extension of #1 or #3)
6) HRT alignment from Glendale to the South Bay along Brand/Western
7) Green Line extension up Lincoln
8) HRT alignment serving South LA east of the 110

(and more)

I'd imagine those eight projects together would cost nearly $100 billion, but when you factor in the ridership potential, it comes out to roughly $50,000 per rider (as a comparison, Purple Line extension is $45,000 per rider).

Get rid of any interlining and make each line fully automated running 21 hours a day with 2-minute peak headways, 4 minutes off-peak. That would A) maximize ridership because you're offering a convenient, reliable service, B) maximize revenue, and C) minimizes operational costs. This is the point I was trying to get at with my "system pays for itself" argument.

As for what new approaches to take:

1) Repeal A/C tunnel ban
2) An LA city-only ordinance based on a parcel tax
3) More Metro ExpressLanes
4) A periodic "re-evaluation" of the A/C/R/M expenditure ordinances based on shifting needs (for example, gradually reducing highway apportionment over time as rail mode share increases). Future generations shouldn't be locked into legislative language that was approved half a century ago under different circumstances.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Quixote

4) A periodic "re-evaluation" of the A/C/R/M expenditure ordinances based on shifting needs (for example, gradually reducing highway apportionment over time as rail mode share increases). Future generations shouldn't be locked into legislative language that was approved half a century ago under different circumstances.

This is ridiculous. LA MetroRail has been reporting decreasing ridership.

Secondly spending on mass transit is already disproportionately spent on rail over freeways even though a large majority still drive. Going by your logic freeways should be getting a super majority of the funds but hey lets praise double standards!

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

This is ridiculous. LA MetroRail has been reporting decreasing ridership.

Secondly spending on mass transit is already disproportionately spent on rail over freeways even though a large majority still drive. Going by your logic freeways should be getting a super majority of the funds but hey lets praise double standards!

LA already has an elaborate freeway system and a vastly underdeveloped rail network, so why shouldn't most of the investment be disproportionately allocated toward rail construction?

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by bzcat

If Gold line is extended beyond Pomona, I think operationally, it has to become its own line. It just doesn't make any sense to operate a line from Long Beach to Ontario (or god forbid Redlands...)

A new crosstown E-W light rail line from Warner Center to Ontario Airport will make SGV-SFV commute easier and the only justification for extending the Gold line further. You can operate Warner Center to Sierra Madre, and every other train will continue to Ontario. A new transfer station will have to build somewhere near Pasadena to facilitate transfers between the Crosstown line and Long Beach line.

I totally agree that if the (What is currently) upper gold line is extended to Pomona then the orange line conversion should be done substantially sooner than planned - because like you said it’s virtually it’s own line.

Essentially the smart plan would be: convert the Orange Line to grade separated LRT: TBD where it begins, Chatworth ML; Warner Center or Pierce College). So, in an ideal situation what you would have is; For purposes of this post only: We’ll label these lines A, B and C.

Line A • (SFV to SGV) Chatworth to
Pomona (via Van Nuys, Via NoHo, Dt Burbank (ML), San Fernando/Western, San Fernando/Grand View, DT Glendale, Colorado/Broadway then Memorial Park) and onward to Pomona

Line B • (SFV to WSAB) - Starting at Chatworth, following the Orange Line route connecting with Sepulveda line at Van Nuys then connecting with Red Line at NoHo; then Chandler/Hollywood Way, Chandler/Buena Vista, DT Burbank, San Fernando/Western, San Fernando/Grand View, Colorado/San Fernando, Atwater Village, Edendale, Echo Park, Dodgers Stadium, (then cutting back toward DT) to Bunker Hill, (then following the regional connector route to Little Tokyo and then merging with the WSAB.

Line C • (The Future “A” or “Blue” line) - Following the path that is planned but not going from Long Beach all way to Pomona. Instead, having 60% of trains going Long Beach to Pasadena, 40% going to Azusa

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Building a system that allows over a million Angelenos to live car-free and one that can yield ridership of about 3 million (we're a county of 10 million) on an average weekday. Basically a lot of grade-separated rail lines running at high frequencies, supplemented with a fully electrified Metrolink.

Projected ridership for some of the expensive difference-makers:

1) Sepulveda from SFV to LAX (229,000)
2) Vermont Red Line extension (144,000)
3) Crenshaw North along La Brea (87,200)
4) Purple Line extension to SM (let's assume 125,000... 10K/mile)

Add in the Regional Connector, and that's 600K new riders right there on top of the existing 300K for a systemwide total of about 1 million.


Then throw in:

1) Santa Monica/Sunset line
2) Purple Line extension along Whittier
3) Pico-Venice subway
4) Red Line extension in the SFV
5) HRT alignment along the Alhambra trench (perhaps an extension of #1 or #3)
6) HRT alignment from Glendale to the South Bay along Brand/Western
7) Green Line extension up Lincoln
8) HRT alignment serving South LA east of the 110

(and more)

I'd imagine those eight projects together would cost nearly $100 billion, but when you factor in the ridership potential, it comes out to roughly $50,000 per rider (as a comparison, Purple Line extension is $45,000 per rider).

Get rid of any interlining and make each line fully automated running 21 hours a day with 2-minute peak headways, 4 minutes off-peak. That would A) maximize ridership because you're offering a convenient, reliable service, B) maximize revenue, and C) minimizes operational costs. This is the point I was trying to get at with my "system pays for itself" argument.

As for what new approaches to take:

1) Repeal A/C tunnel ban
2) An LA city-only ordinance based on a parcel tax
3) More Metro ExpressLanes
4) A periodic "re-evaluation" of the A/C/R/M expenditure ordinances based on shifting needs (for example, gradually reducing highway apportionment over time as rail mode share increases). Future generations shouldn't be locked into legislative language that was approved half a century ago under different circumstances.

Totally agree with Metrolink improvements and I would even go beyond that and try to integrate some of those new corridors as Metrolink to expand the service boundaries and get more trip combinations. LA Area "BART" or West Coast LIRR, that is essential to build up the commuter/transit riding culture you need to justify the decrease in freeway funding especially when other corridors need to be included such as a transit corridor alternative to the 605 freeway from East Long Beach/Seal Beach to the Foothill Gold Line.

For example, there are ROW's still in place in the South Bay/Gateway Cities areas that would be perfect for a Metrolink style express rail service and then run in an elevated/tunnel service in the Central Core.

However I don't believe repealing A/C tunnel ban is a smart move because you have to have the operational resources available to maintain this expanded system. If you want to expand Metrolink and allow for more Express Lanes in #3, you definitely don't want tunneling projects eating up resources within LA County that can be used for Metrolink/Express Lane conversions AND upgrades to help with those improvements.

#2 is something that I have been advocating for close to two decades but when the Great Recession hit in 2008-09 and the Governor took away CRAs in 2010-11 (Community Redevelopment Agencies) that basically made cities play catch up to resources needed for economic redevelopment. But I think with the Opportunity Zone conversation from Trump's Tax plan and the State looking at bringing the framework back to redevelopment this is promising.

As for #4, per the current ordinances for Measures R and M, there is room for this re-evaluation but that is limited to once a decade basis and it must pass the Metro Board by a 2/3 vote and if there significant adjusting has to be amended in the legislature. Sounds like a high bar but it is there for a reason because a lot of these projects to plan, review, build and operate will take about a decade to construct. But to Plutonicpanda's point that re-evaluation can work against you, I will use as a hypothetical if the Metro Board comes with a different composition where they see the declining transit ridership trend as a reason to stop building rail and bus corridors and put that money towards highway and street repair and maintenance.

[Quixote]

^ But Metro's primary responsibility is building and operating public transportation services in LA County, and they actually focused on building a system that takes people where they want to go and not do stupid things like cutting headways to 20 minutes past 8:00 (!), they won't have to worry about large declines in ridership. Metro's really good at self-sabotage.

I'm just sick of people complaining and clamoring for results (traffic, smog, expensive housing, homeless), but aren't actually willing to do what it takes to realize said results.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Quixote

LA already has an elaborate freeway system and a vastly underdeveloped rail network, so why shouldn't most of the investment be disproportionately allocated toward rail construction?

LA arguably as one of the most disconnected freeway systems in the country. A huge portion of it was not built. LA also some of the least freeway lane miles per person of any city. Impressive freeways? Sure. LA area has many of my favorite freeways simply because of how wide and beautiful they are. But elaborate? I would disagree.

It's also important to note the anti-freeway sentiment that has been evident lately in the government here. 710 south project being halfassed. 710 tunnel being scrapped entirely and then the funds used to enhance traffic flow through the corridor being scrutinized. LA needs more freeways and many more freeways at that. Traffic is going to worse and worse if capacity expansions are not built and that is exactly what is happening. There are few expansion projects occurring and the ones that are basically only add an HOV lane and maybe a GP lane in each direction. But yet there are tons of mass transit projects happening with many more in the pipeline. That is a good thing but lets not pretend that freeways are getting much investment in LA.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

LA arguably as one of the most disconnected freeway systems in the country. A huge portion of it was not built. LA also some of the least freeway lane miles per person of any city. Impressive freeways? Sure. LA area has many of my favorite freeways simply because of how wide and beautiful they are. But elaborate? I would disagree.

It's also important to note the anti-freeway sentiment that has been evident lately in the government here. 710 south project being halfassed. 710 tunnel being scrapped entirely and then the funds used to enhance traffic flow through the corridor being scrutinized. LA needs more freeways and many more freeways at that. Traffic is going to worse and worse if capacity expansions are not built and that is exactly what is happening. There are few expansion projects occurring and the ones that are basically only add an HOV lane and maybe a GP lane in each direction. But yet there are tons of mass transit projects happening with many more in the pipeline. That is a good thing but lets not pretend that freeways are getting much investment in LA.

Do people still believe freeway improvements actually improve traffic?

What's wrong with being anti-freeway exactly?