HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6861  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2024, 1:07 AM
Easy's Avatar
Easy Easy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
The light rail mode allows transit agencies to pick up "easy wins". They can build 5X as much surface light rail as heavy rail subway but rarely are able to create a transformative project. The United States is now peppered with dozens of somewhat-useful light rail lines but has few TOD's to show for it.
LA has certainly had some easy wins with light rail but the K wasn't one of them. Three underground stations plus a massive $900 million infill station push the final cost to about $375 million per mile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6862  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2024, 2:09 AM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy View Post
LA has certainly had some easy wins with light rail but the K wasn't one of them. Three underground stations plus a massive $900 million infill station push the final cost to about $375 million per mile.
The K line and the Eastside E, both current East LA and the future phases into Whittier and Hollywood are way too grade separated to utilize the benefits of Light Rail... The Blue Line, Expo, and Gold line were pretty much easy targets for LRT as they had an abandoned railroad right of way to work with. The green line could have been any technology as LRT is a moot point on a completely freeway grade separated line with a fully elevated west end.

So happy for the new option the Sepulveda pass could bring us with an elevated rail technology, so LA can finally choose if we want at grade localized (LRT), below grade rapid (HRT) or elevated high frequency (SKYtrain) on future brand new lines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6863  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2024, 2:44 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerDude View Post
So when will the Purple Line extend to Lincoln in Santa Monica?
Who knows, but I know Metro, or maybe the Westside Coalition just earmarked 20 million to further study the route. I'm sure momentum for the extension will pick up when the current Purple Line construction wraps up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6864  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2024, 5:17 AM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy View Post
LA has certainly had some easy wins with light rail but the K wasn't one of them. Three underground stations plus a massive $900 million infill station push the final cost to about $375 million per mile.
The Crenshaw line partly used an abandoned railroad right-of-way. That's how they ended up with mediocre-at-best station locations like this:


A "downtown" station of any kind needs to be solidly in the downtown, not on the edge of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6865  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2024, 7:50 PM
Swede's Avatar
Swede Swede is offline
YIMBY co-founder
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sol.III.eu.se.08
Posts: 6,761
And am I seeing this right:
The station has no exist to the NW side of the station? Only to the 5 lane road to the SE?

Some seriously bad planning if you want people to actually use the station.
__________________
Forumers met so far:
Huopa, Nightsky, Jo, wolkenkrabber, ThisSideofSteinway, jacksom, New Jack City, LeCom, Ellatur, Jan, Dennis, Ace, Bardamu, AtlanticaC5, Ringil, Dysfunctional, stacey, karakhal, ch1le, Hviid, staff, kjetilab, Þróndeimr, queetz, FREKI, sander, Blue Viking, nomels, Mantas, ristov, Rafal_T, khaan, Chilenofuturista, Jonte Myra, safta20, AW, Pas, Jarmo K, IceCheese, Sideshow_Bob, sk, Ingenioren, Ayreonaut, Silver Creations, Hasse78, Svartmetall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6866  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2024, 8:02 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,386
^I suspect the thinking is the immediate area around the station will eventually be totally rebuilt into TOD.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6867  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2024, 8:29 PM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
^I suspect the thinking is the immediate area around the station will eventually be totally rebuilt into TOD.
I think you're right. Once that station is directly connected to LAX, adjacent land values will likely rise enough to justify the redevelopment of parcels such as the directly adjacent Don Lee Farms food processing plant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6868  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2024, 8:43 PM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,854
Double post
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6869  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2024, 10:25 AM
LineDrive LineDrive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
The light rail mode allows transit agencies to pick up "easy wins". They can build 5X as much surface light rail as heavy rail subway but rarely are able to create a transformative project. The United States is now peppered with dozens of somewhat-useful light rail lines but has few TOD's to show for it.
There are some parts of the LA region where a Light Rail line isn’t so bad as long as it’s done CORRECTLY. But it is not done correctly. Not half ass. Correctly means easy and quick transfers. Fully grade separated (No traffic crossings etc), closer to Heavy Rail frequency etc…

Further expanding on that - the transfer between E line and K line is horrific from what I’ve read. It’s supposed to be seamless - you go upstairs or downstairs and jump aboard the other line. Not supposed to be a go upstairs, out of the gates, cross the street, enter into fare gates again so on and so forth type of thing.

The lack of grade separation in some areas - like the A/E lines on Washington for instance - is second grade and a detriment to the overall system.

Also the planning for the ESFV line - stations every block it seems like are going to make the thing crawl - and on a line that goes to nowhere …it seems to be a waste.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6870  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2024, 11:04 AM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by LineDrive View Post
There are some parts of the LA region where a Light Rail line isn’t so bad as long as it’s done CORRECTLY. But it is not done correctly. Not half ass. Correctly means easy and quick transfers. Fully grade separated (No traffic crossings etc), closer to Heavy Rail frequency etc…
The Blue line was designed very well as a light rail, which is why it was built quickly, within budget and has been the top performing single line in the country. San Diego pioneered the first modern LRT system which was built primarily at grade, relating with auto traffic when necessary and being separate only when a right of way was available. Its success catalyzed the building spree of LRT across the country. Before the 1980’s debut of the San Diego trolley, every system being built in the country was a fully grade separated heavy rail. The strength and allure of light rail is in its design’s flexibility to lower cost… overhead catenary power supply put out of reach from people/cars, and heavier auto collision resistant trains allows them the ability to interact with cars and surface elements while protecting passengers. These and other things contribute to LRT having a top speed of 55-60 mph.

Heavy rail has a higher top speed of 70-80 mph with quicker acceleration attributed to efficiencies like the trains being lighter than “light rail” because they don’t need to be auto crash rated and are usually designed with 3rd rail power which must be protected from the public. It’s interesting how we in the States call Light Rail “Light Rail” when the trains are many times heavier per square foot than a “Heavy Rail” for safety reasons

What you describe above as a completely grade separated system could be done with our higher speed/higher capacity heavy rail trains if it’s on its own right of way… even if it’s on the surface. Over grade separating Light rail defeats its inherent benefits and we end up with a costlier system that is both slower and lower capacity when it could have been heavy rail rapid transit from the get go if it was going to be fully grade separated

Last edited by hughfb3; Apr 19, 2024 at 9:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6871  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2024, 2:11 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,462
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6872  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2024, 9:15 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 377
For those of you that live on the Westside, here is your chance to provide some feedback on BBB's service plan as they prepare for D line extension.

The website is here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories...f90d5b28ecf7e2

You can download the PDF and read it before taking the survey. At the end of the survey, they have a free form suggestion box. I made two suggestions:
1. Reroute Rapid 7 terminus to Wilshire/La Cienega station instead of Wilshire/Western
2. Extend Route 5 from Century City to Wilshire/Rodeo instead of going south on Motor Ave to Palms Station on the Expo line.

Some notable BBB service change proposals:
1. Route 14 terminus change to Culver City Transit Center instead of K line Westchester Station. This probably make much more sense given that people living on the Centinela corridor and Playa Vista are far more likely to to go Culver City mall than try to catch the K line from Westchester. And once K line opens all the way to LAX station, makes more sense to transfer to BBB Route 3 (Lincoln Blvd) or Culver City 6 (Sepulveda) from the LAX station anyway.

2. Elimination of Rapid 3 and Rapid 7. This seems to be a significant rethink for BBB on how best to service the two most heavily travelled corridor in its service area. The trade off is supposedly more frequent service on Route 3 and 7. I have to say that if there are bus lanes on both of these road, you wouldn't need Rapid service... perhaps BBB knows something we don't about when LADOT plans to implement the bus lanes. I recommended keeping Rapid 7 for rush hour but with service to La Cienega station instead.

3. Route 3 serves LAX station instead of Aviation.

4. Route 5 becomes a shuttle service between Century City station and SMC. As noted, I recommend an extension to Rodeo station so it can double as local circulator on South Beverly Drive between Wilshire and Olympic which has no bus service.

5. All UCLA services terminates at an off campus parking garage instead of Hilgard Terminal or Akerman. I have no words for this... ultimate triumph for a single elderly NIMBY who has waged a 20 year battle against UCLA and BBB to stop the buses from passing her house.

6. Route 14 (Bundy), 15 (Barrington), 16 (Walgrove) all terminate at VA Hospital station instead of randomly at an intersection in Brentwood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6873  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2024, 1:50 AM
Easy's Avatar
Easy Easy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
^I suspect the thinking is the immediate area around the station will eventually be totally rebuilt into TOD.
Yeah, Inglewood has already rezoned to incentivize TOD. The people mover will end there as well, so this will be a significant transfer station.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swede View Post
And am I seeing this right:
The station has no exist to the NW side of the station? Only to the 5 lane road to the SE?

Some seriously bad planning if you want people to actually use the station.

In my experience most riders using this station transfer to and from the buses that stop here. This area will likely look very different in a decade. Imo rail transit shouldn't necessarily be built strictly according to existing conditions but to planned conditions as rail will help shape the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6874  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2024, 2:33 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
In addition to building rail to where people want to go (including station placement and facilitating easy transfers), the operations and maintenance are also critical. All the LRT lines have lousy headways that just don't encourage high ridership. Metro in turn justifies said lousy headways based on limited ridership demand. Current headways:

LRT:

8 minutes peak (A/E only)
10 minutes throughout the day
20 minutes starting around 8 p.m.

HRT:

12 minutes throughout the day
20 minutes starting around 9 p.m.


A very useable system:

2 minutes (or less) peak
4 minutes off peak all the way until midnight
8-10 minutes from midnight to 2 a.m.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6875  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2024, 4:16 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,082
^ I did always find it odd that the subway is so infrequent. Even 5 minutes daytime and 10 minutes evenings and early morning would be fine. But 12-20 min for a metro line.... no
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6876  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2024, 12:55 PM
Swede's Avatar
Swede Swede is offline
YIMBY co-founder
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sol.III.eu.se.08
Posts: 6,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy View Post
In my experience most riders using this station transfer to and from the buses that stop here. This area will likely look very different in a decade. Imo rail transit shouldn't necessarily be built strictly according to existing conditions but to planned conditions as rail will help shape the future.
Couldn't agree more.
Rail infrastructure is a long term investment that shapes the city around it (if allowed to). Sure, build so that a new line ties into other parts of the transit system and to significant trip generators, but over the longer term the intermediary stations will fill in with more housing/workplaces/shops/schools/... so that they also become trip generators (if allowed to). Once the connection to LAX and the C line is in service the ridership is bound to really go up. Which will make stops like DT Inglewood go way up in boardings as well. Which will drive infill & densification surrounding the station. Which developers of course are already aware off.
All that said, rebuilding the station so that there could be a convenient exit to the other side of the station (and to across Florence) won't be cheap. Tho I guess it's better to have the station built in a budget-friendly way now than to have the project delayed of budget debates.
__________________
Forumers met so far:
Huopa, Nightsky, Jo, wolkenkrabber, ThisSideofSteinway, jacksom, New Jack City, LeCom, Ellatur, Jan, Dennis, Ace, Bardamu, AtlanticaC5, Ringil, Dysfunctional, stacey, karakhal, ch1le, Hviid, staff, kjetilab, Þróndeimr, queetz, FREKI, sander, Blue Viking, nomels, Mantas, ristov, Rafal_T, khaan, Chilenofuturista, Jonte Myra, safta20, AW, Pas, Jarmo K, IceCheese, Sideshow_Bob, sk, Ingenioren, Ayreonaut, Silver Creations, Hasse78, Svartmetall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6877  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2024, 7:28 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
^ I did always find it odd that the subway is so infrequent. Even 5 minutes daytime and 10 minutes evenings and early morning would be fine. But 12-20 min for a metro line.... no
Right? It’s absurd. The areas the HRT serves are where the ridership’s at. Why not simply automate the damn thing and provide 5-minute headways throughout the day? The jobs of a few dozen train operators should not come at the expense of tends of thousands more riders.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6878  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2024, 12:18 AM
Easy's Avatar
Easy Easy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,579
Regarding headways, LA metro took a big hit during the pandemic as did many transit operators and they have been slowly returning to normal.

Based on memory, and I apologize for any inaccuracies, historic peak headways were:

Blue: 5-6 minutes pre-expo and 8 minutes after but went to 10 minutes due to interlining issues
Expo: 8 minutes and then 10
Green: 7-8 minutes
Gold: 8 minutes?
Red/Purple: 10 minutes

Current headways were posted above.

In December, I believe that the B/D are going to 10 minute peak, matching the, albeit abysmal, all time high.

Also in December the K and C will go to 8 minute peak upon the airport connector station opening.

In 2025 the D will go to every 5 minutes when the phase 1 stations open.

In 2026 or 2027 the D will go to every 4 minutes to meet FTA loan obligations. Unfortunately I think that the B goes back to every 12 minutes when that happens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6879  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2024, 4:04 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,462
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6880  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2024, 5:30 PM
LAsam LAsam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,805
^Would be better if it went directly to Union Station rather than a Metrolink station in Rancho Cucamonga, but it is what it is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:49 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.