LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Right but the notion set forth a few posts back was ridership decreased only because of the Blue Line closures. While I have no doubt that affected ridership, that is a small blip in the fluctuations of ridership ups and downs. Metrolink just posted record ridership numbers which is great.

It’s largely responsible for the enormous decline in ridership across Metro Rail. Expo Line also closed two critical stations (7th Street / Metro Center, Pico) for a few months and opened again this past weekend. Other reasons for decline have been mentioned... Uber/Lyft, more people having access to cars, Metro making a terrible decision to reduce frequencies past 8 PM, etc. These really don’t speak to the appetite people have for more transit.

And where in LA are you going to build new freeways? We have a severe shortage of housing, so good luck with even suggesting we tear down thousands of housing units. And I’m sorry, but do you even give two fucks about the environmental effects of what you’re advocating for? Dude, take a lot at our sky on a normal day.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Quixote

It’s largely responsible for the enormous decline in ridership across Metro Rail. Expo Line also closed two critical stations (7th Street / Metro Center, Pico) for a few months and opened again this past weekend. Other reasons for decline have been mentioned... Uber/Lyft, more people having access to cars, Metro making a terrible decision to reduce frequencies past 8 PM, etc. These really don’t speak to the appetite people have for more transit.

And where in LA are you going to build new freeways? We have a severe shortage of housing, so good luck with even suggesting we tear down thousands of housing units. And I’m sorry, but do you even give two fucks about the environmental effects of what you’re advocating for? Dude, take a lot at our sky on a normal day.

First off a big part of the climate in LA consists of the marine layer which is often associated with smog. Though smog gets mixed in with this, I am aware of it. Freeways don't cause smog-- cars do. I've made this argument many times here and so far no one has disputed it. The engine of the car is what causes pollution as well as other various components contributing to fine particulate emissions.

Yes I care greatly about the environment as I hike and explore it all the time. I am a Sierra Club Member, I donate to WWF, have an America the Great Pass I use the shit out of, etc. I care about mobility just as much and unless you want to live in a cave or force everyone to pander to your version of what you decide is most efficient, we need freeways. Far too many posters on this forum have their heads in the sand, respond with stupid and snide remarks, and provide no argument other than induced demand(!!!) or the environment with no further insight.

We have a severe housing shortage because of problems created by the liberal government in the state and on local levels. Removing several thousand housing units won't worsen it and arguably will make it better by allowing better mobility and fostering a healthy economy as such. Some homes torn down, property owners and renters properly compensated, and other areas of the city become more dense because of it. This is done all the time in other countries and used to be the way here until the same people constantly opposing the housing you want got too much clout blocking freeways from being built. Arguably decisions, more than likely made of out of racist spite, the plow through minority prominent communities were practical, though again racist, and the best path forward was many of the routes. That wasn't always the case, yet where the racism becomes perfectly evident is the rich, white communities that were successful in stopping these routes. Wealth is also a factor. With all of that said, it has become tricky to build new surface freeway routes as ones that are needed for regional efficiency through impoverished or minority strong communities are shot down as racist. The rich raise a stink and then go onto to complain about traffic after they shoot down a good proposal out of selfishness.

So yes I am suggesting were tear down "thousands" of units and that is not of the slightest reasons new freeways in LA to connect gaps are a political non-starter. You should calm down which you clearly aren't based on your post. You should rest easy knowing what I want ain't happening, chief. Now now and not for a long while if ever. The HDC(if built), SR-138, and CA 70 are likely the last freeways ever constructed in LA county. It is getting almost impossible to simply widen freeways as shown by the 710. We shall see how the 105 and 405 widening proposals go. I hope the most ambitious widening proposals are selected but I am skeptical they happen at all at this point.

The freeways I suggest built are tunneled using various methods(cut and cover where possible) and caps to better connect any communities divided and reduce the need for properties. With more and more freeways and roads not all of them have to be the monster 20 lane freeways that have become the norm in LA. With more connections many of these proposed freeways can be a measly 8 lanes and flow just fine.

https://la.curbed.com/2019/2/1/18204...n-trains-buses

Before blue line closures and shown ridership down. NOT entirely because of Blue line.

[Quixote]

An update on the Crenshaw northern extension, courtesy of numble on Twitter. As predicted, nobody wants an aerial alignment. Adoption of a locally-preferred alternative is anticipated by May 2023, with construction beginning no sooner than 2025.

[Quixote]

And for context:



A fully-underground La Brea alignment would still be considerably cheaper than the baseline Fairfax alignment, which only projects 1,500 more riders. And if you're going to serve Santa Monica Blvd., you should cover La Cienega and San Vicente as well. The Fairfax option should be axed, Vermont was stupid to begin with, and San Vicente makes more practical sense than La Cienega. Both are still too circuitous for my taste, and my preference is still La Brea... and the only one that would qualify for 50% FTA New Starts matching funds, assuming more (or all) of La Cienega and San Vicente are given below-grade configuration.

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by Quixote

And for context:



A fully-underground La Brea alignment would still be considerably cheaper than the baseline Fairfax alignment, which only projects 1,500 more riders. And if you're going to serve Santa Monica Blvd., you should cover La Cienega and San Vicente as well. The Fairfax option should be axed, Vermont was stupid to begin with, and San Vicente makes more practical sense than La Cienega. Both are still too circuitous for my taste, and my preference is still La Brea... and the only one that would qualify for 50% FTA New Starts matching funds, assuming more (or all) of La Cienega and San Vicente are given below-grade configuration.

One thing that concerns me is the transfer stations. They need to be done right or the increased connectivity will be an illusion and not a reality. The current setup at Expo/Crenshaw is a disaster. You should be able to step off the Crenshaw line and walk directly upstairs and onto an Expo train - not outside, cross a street and back through fair gates.

Thus it’s pivotal that the stations that connect with the Purple Line at Wilshire and the Red Line in Hollywood are done right. Those two stations HAVE to be Subway stations and have to have a direct connection with those other lines.
I hope Metro is considering that.

On another note, the funding issue needs to be addressed because this is one of the projects they just can’t get wrong. As long as it’s fully grade separated then it’s not the end of the world - but most of this needs to be Subway. I like Fairfax not because it’s all Subway but because of the destinations it passes - but La Brea being quicker and roughly the same amount of passengers - might be a good compromise to go LaBrea but with a Subway

[Quixote]

^ La Brea, Fairfax, and La Cienega should all have subway lines running underneath. The population density doesn't support having three subway alignments spaced so close to each other, but the commercial activity and desirability to access places in and around those arterials do.

This is the frustrating thing with LA's medium density... not dense enough to automatically warrant HRT, but too big (population and geography wise) for slow, low-capacity at-grade LRT.

What LA really needs (if we're living in fantasyland) is to build each subway line with local and express trains operating at all times. You would use a 55-60' TBM and have two levels, each level containing two tracks with a center platform to make transferring from local to express service easy and convenient. The local trains would stop every half-mile, while express trains would allow riders to get from anywhere to anywhere in the county in less than an hour.

[Rational Plan3]

The London congestion charge has worked as far as it goes. Private car use in inner London continues to fall. But the population has continued to surge. The main cause of growth has been Uber, (Taxis are exempt from the congestion charge at the moment) and a massive growth in light delivery vehicles as people have shifted to internet delivery.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

And for context:



A fully-underground La Brea alignment would still be considerably cheaper than the baseline Fairfax alignment, which only projects 1,500 more riders. And if you're going to serve Santa Monica Blvd., you should cover La Cienega and San Vicente as well. The Fairfax option should be axed, Vermont was stupid to begin with, and San Vicente makes more practical sense than La Cienega. Both are still too circuitous for my taste, and my preference is still La Brea... and the only one that would qualify for 50% FTA New Starts matching funds, assuming more (or all) of La Cienega and San Vicente are given below-grade configuration.

La Brea route will be neglecting where the City of West Hollywood will want and have buy in on the alignments that will best serve their city because they will be contributing $$$. The city recently approved investigating tax-increment financing strategies to help fund the acceleration of this extension through their city.

Though La Brea being the cheaper option going underground but it is only a small dot of the line will serve their city. Metro and the board will ultimately cater to that need where Fairfax and San Vicente options are stronger because it serves more of WeHo.

Originally Posted by LineDrive

One thing that concerns me is the transfer stations. They need to be done right or the increased connectivity will be an illusion and not a reality. The current setup at Expo/Crenshaw is a disaster. You should be able to step off the Crenshaw line and walk directly upstairs and onto an Expo train - not outside, cross a street and back through fair gates.

Thus it’s pivotal that the stations that connect with the Purple Line at Wilshire and the Red Line in Hollywood are done right. Those two stations HAVE to be Subway stations and have to have a direct connection with those other lines. I hope Metro is considering that.

On another note, the funding issue needs to be addressed because this is one of the projects they just can’t get wrong. As long as it’s fully grade separated then it’s not the end of the world - but most of this needs to be Subway. I like Fairfax not because it’s all Subway but because of the destinations it passes

The phasing of segments and transfer connections are key and I believe that if you have to phase a project of this size, you have to go with the alternative that has the most ridership based on how it is phased. I believe Fairfax has an advantage.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

La Brea route will be neglecting where the City of West Hollywood will want and have buy in on the alignments that will best serve their city because they will be contributing $$$. The city recently approved investigating tax-increment financing strategies to help fund the acceleration of this extension through their city.

Though La Brea being the cheaper option going underground but it is only a small dot of the line will serve their city. Metro and the board will ultimately cater to that need where Fairfax and San Vicente options are stronger because it serves more of WeHo.

I still want the original “Pink Line” HRT and think it would be cost-competitive if interlined with the Purple Line.

[Quixote]

And having an alignment along Santa Monica Blvd. essentially means that a would-be Santa Monica / Sunset line would be limited to 3-car, 270' foot trains... which is probably insufficient for the demand along such a route.

This was at one point on the table. Why should we have to choose between La Brea, Fairfax, or La Cienega / San Vicente when we now, in 2019, have a no-sunset 2% county sales tax dedicated to funding transportation?

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

And having an alignment along Santa Monica Blvd. essentially means that a would-be Santa Monica / Sunset line would be limited to 3-car, 270' foot trains... which is probably insufficient for the demand along such a route.

This was at one point on the table. Why should we have to choose between La Brea, Fairfax, or La Cienega / San Vicente when we now, in 2019, have a no-sunset 2% county sales tax dedicated to funding transportation?

These are two corridors with two completely different needs. One will be needed for north-south travel the other for East-West travel. Besides that you can have both the LRT and HRT share the same corridor for a key segment. That is being studied right now on Van Nuys Blvd with respect to the Sepulveda Pass Corridor.

Besides that original Pink Line was not going to be as cost-effective as you think (that was why it was removed from consideration). It needed the full corridor to serve the eastern portion of Echo Park, Silver Lake, Sunset Junction, etc. and that Pink Line placed operational constraints on the western portion of the Purple Line. The very critiques on why it is justifiable to want the Southern Vermont Red Line extension because it would relieve something off the Purple Line.

And if the platforms are lengthened from 270' to 360' with full grade separation you have a heavy rail corridor. That 270' limit is self governed with Metro Planning within the length of operating at-grade on some city blocks. It was written by them and it can get changed by them in the same breath. When you couple that with strategic grade separations then you can expand the system within the resources we have incrementally without jeopardizing other projects that are being funded by these revenues. This is where I am placing my efforts on pushing the agency on the needed capacity expansions without needing subways and do more with the available 2% funding for transportation that has to serve multiple needs and uses. Because there are other corridors/parts of the county that need to see real improvements to the system so that they can ride and use the services.

[Quixote]

^ Right. Since Crenshaw is supposed to provide a north-south travel route, La Cienega and San Vicente aren't efficient alignments. This is evidenced by the fact that they project only marginally higher ridership despite serving many more destinations. The bottom line is that it would suck if you wanted to get from LAX to Hollywood/Highland... it's too circuitous, traveling 3 miles west and back. It's trying to fit a square into a circle.

And is it even possible to lengthen a subway station platform (given the way ours are constructed) without having to shut down the station itself? It's not as simple as extending the platform; you'd actually have to knock down concrete walls.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ Right. Since Crenshaw is supposed to provide a north-south travel route, La Cienega and San Vicente aren't efficient alignments. This is evidenced by the fact that they project only marginally higher ridership despite serving many more destinations. The bottom line is that it would suck if you wanted to get from LAX to Hollywood/Highland... it's too circuitous, traveling 3 miles west and back. It's trying to fit a square into a circle.

Agreed, that's why my support are for; 1)Fairfax and 2)La Brea

And is it even possible to lengthen a subway station platform (given the way ours are constructed) without having to shut down the station itself? It's not as simple as extending the platform; you'd actually have to knock down concrete walls.

It will require a shutdown however if this is part of your "State of Good Repair/System Modernization" budget then you could do that. I know with the Expo Line, the construction authority actually designed the elevated platforms for longer 4 car trains. Look at how a 3 car train sits on the platform there is about 50' of additional space at both ends (around where the elevators are located) to berth a 4 car train. This will be a problem for the Regional Connection however if this was strategically coupled with that Flower Street tunnel extension towards USC then there is a real reason to make these upgrades.

Think about this when the Gold Line goes all the way to Pomona/Claremont. Will Metro really rebuild this line as a subway when the line goes over capacity? No the most effective approach is extending platforms where available (I know South Pasadena station will be tough) and strategically grade separate.

The NYC Subway (IRT lines, 1,2,3,4,5,6) used to only hold trains 5 cars (about 240') in length through Manhattan. Then they lengthened the station platforms to 10 cars (approx 500') in the 1960's to handle future growth which they have now filled up. So I don't see why LA can't do this for our regional LRT lines to be more the Pre-Metro operation they were destined to be in the first place.

Calgary Alberta in its C-Train is taking this incremental approach with their LRT system that moves about the same number of passengers as our current Metro System. All they have done is lengthened platforms and strategically grade-separate their lines to handle the demands.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

I know with the Expo Line, the construction authority actually designed the elevated platforms for longer 4 car trains. Look at how a 3 car train sits on the platform there is about 50' of additional space at both ends (around where the elevators are located) to berth a 4 car train.

This is something I've wondered before, and it's good to know they had the presence of mind to design for the future.

[LineDrive]

Why are we talking about something that’s never going to happen? (pink line)

The real question is why are they not going to start construction on Crenshaw north until 2025, why do they seem primed to half ass this project like every other project? And WHEN is LA going to decide to either go all in or all out on mass transit? This half ass approach is going to lead to billions spent on infrastructure that’s not going to be used to its full potential.

If we had any kind of ambition in this country in the way we did in the 50’s with the interstate highway act or the early 60’s with declaring we would go to the moon: Then LA would have an elite mass transit system and could have a lot of it built in time for the 2028 Olympics. Get with it.

[Quixote]

^ This is actually one of Metro’s wisest moves, pushing for advancement on a project that’s relatively new to the table (although the motive is to repay WeHo for supporting Measure R to the tune of 86%).

The only “half-assed” thing about this project is the suggestion of at-grade segments, in which case it will probably end up being a fully below-grade extension based on the feedback received. And luckily, the would-be at-grade segments don’t have any proposed stations, so making it subway wouldn’t add significant costs.

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ This is actually one of Metro’s wisest moves, pushing for advancement on a project that’s relatively new to the table (although the motive is to repay WeHo for supporting Measure R to the tune of 86%).

The only “half-assed” thing about this project is the suggestion of at-grade segments, in which case it will probably end up being a fully below-grade extension based on the feedback received. And luckily, the would-be at-grade segments don’t have any proposed stations, so making it subway wouldn’t add significant costs.

I realize not every project should be Subway and not every project should go with the most expensive route. But Crenshaw North is one of the core 4 projects that NEEDS to be given the do it right or don’t do it at all treatment.

This needs to be Subway. The transfer stations at Expo, Wilshire and Hollywood need to be simultaneous It needs to be almost all Subway - The one thing I like is they’re considering the future need for an extension to the Hollywood bowl

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

If we had any kind of ambition in this country in the way we did in the 50’s with the interstate highway act or the early 60’s with declaring we would go to the moon: Then LA would have an elite mass transit system and could have a lot of it built in time for the 2028 Olympics. Get with it.

Unless we start taxing the ultra-rich at 90%+ like we did in the 50s and 60s ambition isn't going to cut it, there's simply no money to pay for something like that. That's what really gets me about images like this:



That yellow floor, the one about a third of the way up the underground options? That's this project's allocation of Measure M's funding. The funding that between this and other projects has already been completely spoken for until 2050. That means that if you want to have anything other than an at-grade LRT line on La Brea, you're going to have to go through Metro's project list and cut it from something else.

Metro might very well decide to do that, but I think we need to be honest with ourselves about what is realistically possible given Metro's funding.

[Quixote]

^ This project should be cost-competitive enough to qualify for 50% FTA New Starts funding, being that the projected ridership for every alternative is over 10,000 per mile (that's high by US standards). The $2.4 billion allocated is more than half the cost of a fully below-grade La Brea alignment, and with the Fairfax option you could potentially bridge the funding gap with other federal and state funds.

But it's clear that we don't have the means to build a full subway along La Cienega or San Vicente. That in conjunction with marginally higher ridership and significantly longer travel time compared to the fastest option means that those two options are out anyway... unless local sentiments change regarding an aerial configuration, which I don't see happening.

[numble]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

Why are we talking about something that’s never going to happen? (pink line)

The real question is why are they not going to start construction on Crenshaw north until 2025, why do they seem primed to half ass this project like every other project? And WHEN is LA going to decide to either go all in or all out on mass transit? This half ass approach is going to lead to billions spent on infrastructure that’s not going to be used to its full potential.

If we had any kind of ambition in this country in the way we did in the 50’s with the interstate highway act or the early 60’s with declaring we would go to the moon: Then LA would have an elite mass transit system and could have a lot of it built in time for the 2028 Olympics. Get with it.

There is about a 2 year period for alternatives analysis which is currently being completed. After that, every transit project needs a CEQA environmental impact report in California, the earliest that can be done is October 2022. If you want federal funding, you need to complete a NEPA environmental impact report, and the earliest that can be completed is December 2024. You then need to put the project out to bid, which takes about a year. The current Gold Line extension bidding process took about 2 years.



If you prepare the reports too early before you have money to construct, you run the risk of having to spend another year to refresh the report. The Eastside Gold Line and Green Line South extensions had that issue. If I recall correctly, there were reports prepared around the time of Measure R/J and they are now redoing them since they plan to build them for the 28 by 2028 plan.