LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Easy]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Do you have a link to a map? The only 1980s heavy rail plans I've seen were Wilshire to Santa Monica with North Hollywood via Fairfax. I've never seen one where the red line continued into East LA.

I don't know if it was ever planned. I think that it was more of a wish/idea that was promoted by former county supervisor Gloria Molina. It was supposed to go down Whittier instead of 1st/3rd which would have been far superior to todays compromise.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Do you have a link to a map? The only 1980s heavy rail plans I've seen were Wilshire to Santa Monica with North Hollywood via Fairfax. I've never seen one where the red line continued into East LA.

Here is a link that shows all the plans at various stages for LA's transit post Red/Yellow Cars. We are basically just now finishing the buildout of this 1970's era plan that began constuction in the 1980's. The Subway extension would have been part of the Santa Ana extension which continued the red line into East LA before turning south. It was never meant to stop at Union Station. Only thing missing now from this map is Crenshaw North to Hollywood
http://scsra.org/library/rapid-transit-history/

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

The Subway extension would have been part of the Santa Ana extension which continued the red line into East LA before turning south. It was never meant to stop at Union Station.

Interesting. So it appears to me that the line was deflected to Union Station in order to take advantage of the available storage yard space AND to create a connection for the later Gold Line branches. I assume that from the very beginning they knew that there would need to be (at least) two subway lines downtown to both adequately serve the core area and provide the capacity for various outward branches.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Interesting. So it appears to me that the line was deflected to Union Station in order to take advantage of the available storage yard space AND to create a connection for the later Gold Line branches. I assume that from the very beginning they knew that there would need to be (at least) two subway lines downtown to both adequately serve the core area and provide the capacity for various outward branches.

I misspoke…, what I meant to say is that Union Station was never meant to be the Terminus. It was always planned to go into East LA once the westerly extensions were complete. But also, Union Station didn’t come into Rapid Transit planning until the late 80’s and then finalized in 1990 when Metro purchased the rights to use the station from Union Pacific. Before then, it would have just gone direct through the financial district and historic core on its way to East LA. Once Union Station came in the picture, they created the curvature of the current line in the initial operating segment for a “temporary” terminus at Union

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

Once Union Station came in the picture, they created the curvature of the current line in the initial operating segment for a “temporary” terminus at Union

...well the Red Line could still be made to continue on this originally planned path, extending easterly from the service/maintenance yard to Wittier Ave. We're in the United States so it's not possible but imagine a rezoning of the area between Wittier and the existing Gold Line...that could become a fairly large transit-oriented high density area.

[Quixote]

This is big. No, it's not the $3.5-billion (or so) windfall we need to construct the last 3.5 miles underneath Wilshire, but it does set things in motion!

At their December meeting, the Westside COG will vote to approve spending approximately $100m in discretionary Measure M funds on BRT and bus infrastructure improvements, and about $20m for predevelopment activities for D Line extension to Santa Monica.

https://twitter.com/numble/status/15...CjqfSSmLAsAAAA

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

Angelenos dont want Light Rail. What we want is a fast grade separated easily connected rail system. Metro; up until the the Sepulveda pass, has only given us the choice of "Light" & "Heavy" rail.

Here's hoping we finally get Skytrain technology which is designed to be grade separated at a cheaper cost that the heavy rail systems we've been building and faster than the light rail systems we've been pushing underground when we want a little more speed to make up for the stopping at traffic lights.

Yes.

LA’s in a tough spot. We have the population, congestion, and sprawling geography to necessitate grade-separated rail, but the medium- to medium-high density, wide streets, and longer blocks make at-grade light rail low-hanging fruit.

Elevated and even at-grade alignments can be found along many of the world’s best/busiest rapid transit systems’ lines.

There should be elevated lines along portions of Venice, Santa Monica, and Vermont. Because the streets are so wide, the viaducts would actually improve aesthetics IMO, with Ivy covering the pylons to soften the structure (and prevent graffiti).

These are the only drawbacks to elevated rail that I can think of:

1) Inevitable NIMBYism right off the bat
2) Like at-grade rail, you have much less flexibility with alignments — meaning they run along streets. A direct route from the heart of Century City to the heart of Westwood (i.e. phase 2 of the D Line extension) is only possible with subway.
3) On excessively hot days, trains would have to operate at slower speeds.
4) No matter the speed, there will be some level of noise… but the same is true for at-grade as well.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

You have to look up the plans before Metro was Metro, when it was the Southern California RTD.

http://scsra.org/library/rapid-transit-history/

I believe at one point there one or two proposals in the early- to mid-20th century that called for building a heavy rail system larger than the NYC Subway (it’s two painful for me to look up). But that was when car culture and suburbanization took off, and LA was a conservative city back then.

[Quixote]

In other cities, the Harbor Subdivision and the dedicated ROWs used by the A Line and Metrolink would be 6-8 tracks and not be shared with freight. I really wish Metro would’ve built the Blue Line (now A) for EMU trains compatible with the heavy rail lines. To negotiate the sharper turns and steeper slopes, they could’ve used vehicles similar to the Chicago L. No foresight.

I wish we had a system like Melbourne’s where you have HRVs running at-grade; that’s what Metrolink should’ve (and can still be) been.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

...well the Red Line could still be made to continue on this originally planned path, extending easterly from the service/maintenance yard to Wittier Ave. We're in the United States so it's not possible but imagine a rezoning of the area between Wittier and the existing Gold Line...that could become a fairly large transit-oriented high density area.

The only logical explanation as to why they chose this nonsensical route is because they want to save Whittier for heavy rail. When you consider that this would be an extension of the D/B Lines, the project could probably be cost-effective enough to compete for 50% matching federal funds.

Same thing with the stupid ESFV glorified BRT. We need to think holistically.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Quixote

The only logical explanation as to why they chose this nonsensical route is because they want to save Whittier for heavy rail. When you consider that this would be an extension of the D/B Lines, the project could probably be cost-effective enough to compete for 50% matching federal funds.

Interesting. In a perfect world they could bundle this project with the Purple Line extension from the VA to DT Santa Monica. They aren't physically adjacent, of course, but there could still be some benefit in planning/building the two projects simultaneously with a 2~ year offset in order to keep specialized staff continuously employed.

There also might be a clever way to have either the red or purple line turn back at Union Station (or more likely the proposed Arts station), then have a second train on the Wittier line deflect as it approaches DTLA and head straight across to the existing 7th St. station (in a new station box) and then serve some area west, north, or south of that point.

[hughfb3]

Urbanize posted a story from The Source about there being a groundbreaking ceremony where new renderings were revealed for the Van Nuys Light Rail project. This is Light Rail done as light rail is designed... At-Grade through a dense area. Not trying to be a subway or elevated rapid transit. This community clearly wants the modality they chose. The renderings look beautiful

I totally get that this line could tie in with Sepulveda pass as one line, but the people who live around here obviously want something more local with more stops and less of a regional line with stations further apart. It's 6.7 Miles long with 11 stations. There are loads of small businesses along this corridor and they are actually getting the best of both worlds because they will still have access to the big rapid regional Sepulveda line just two boulevards to the west. This is everything. And in future the big regional Sepulveda line could still travel north along Sepulveda to Sylmar/San Fernando. So the east/central Valley will have both a real rapid transit line and a fully functioning local line

Metro really listened to many varied needs/wants and discovered a way to give this area everything and I applaud them. This is how I envision future neighborhoods in LA, rapid lines fully grade separated whisk people in from afar and in close proximity are the local at grade trains slowing down the pace, thereby providing visual access to the neighborhood shops and residents. And… the locals were smart in that; this way, Van Nuys is now THE destination to get to and not just something to pass through

[Illithid Dude]

That is a *very* optimistic reading of the Van Nuys Line

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

Urbanize posted a story from The Source about there being a groundbreaking ceremony where new renderings were revealed for the Van Nuys Light Rail project. This is Light Rail done as light rail is designed... At-Grade through a dense area. Not trying to be a subway or elevated rapid transit. This community clearly wants the modality they chose. The renderings look beautiful

I totally get that this line could tie in with Sepulveda pass as one line, but the people who live around here obviously want something more local with more stops and less of a regional line with stations further apart. It's 6.7 Miles long with 11 stations. There are loads of small businesses along this corridor and they are actually getting the best of both worlds because they will still have access to the big rapid regional Sepulveda line just two boulevards to the west. This is everything. And in future the big regional Sepulveda line could still travel north along Sepulveda to Sylmar/San Fernando. So the east/central Valley will have both a real rapid transit line and a fully functioning local line

Metro really listened to many varied needs/wants and discovered a way to give this area everything and I applaud them. This is how I envision future neighborhoods in LA, rapid lines fully grade separated whisk people in from afar and in close proximity are the local at grade trains slowing down the pace, thereby providing visual access to the neighborhood shops and residents. And… the locals were smart in that; this way, Van Nuys is now THE destination to get to and not just something to pass through

Do you work in public relations ?

Fact is this line is a waste. It’s half assed and serves little purpose

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

Do you work in public relations ?

Fact is this line is a waste. It’s half assed and serves little purpose

It probably doesn't cost much more to build a streetcar line that operates two-car light rail trains so that you can call the line a light rail line instead of a streetcar. That way the public doesn't feel like they were tossed a milk bone, even though they were.

My understanding is that light rail lines typically use somewhat heavier rail that requires somewhat deeper concrete bases, so there can be more utilities to relocate as opposed to a streetcar system.

[Busy Bee]

^ I'm not sure the depth makes much of a difference in regard to utilities. Besides a shallow storm drain here or there I cant think of what utility would be above 20" or so. I think its true just in general thay an LRT system is going to be built to a more robust standard closer to heavy rail/metro.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^ I'm not sure the depth makes much of a difference in regard to utilities. Besides a shallow storm drain here or there I cant think of what utility would be above 20" or so. I think its true just in general thay an LRT system is going to be built to a more robust standard closer to heavy rail/metro.

The San Fernando Valley is all relatively modern, so there might not be many issues there, but where modern streetcars have been built through old downtowns, the sheer quantity and expense of utility relocation for something that requires maybe 20" of excavation is often shocking - like $10 million per mile just for utility issues.

I know that the expense of the tiny Cincinnati Streetcar went through the roof when the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the streetcar project had to pay for all utility relocations at full face value rather than depreciated value - even utilities that were 100+ years old and in the cue to be replaced by the waterworks, power and gas companies, etc.

That project also had a buy-in-the-USA percentage required by the Obama-era TIGER grants it received, and so the streetcar project ended up with more robust light rail track because no U.S. steel mill was configured to build light gauge streetcar track.

Compare and contrast the contemporaneous KC and Cincinnati streetcars, which both operate the CAF Urbos 3.

The KC streetcar has streetcar-specific track:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0913...7i16384!8i8192

The Cincinnati streetcar has light rail track:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1115...7i16384!8i8192

[citywatch]

I watch the following & I become even more POed at how ppl in LA contribute to clogged fwys & roads not because LA's population is as large as that of cities like NYC or because LA has fewer fwys than other cities do.

https://youtu.be/1fYvVt3ckfc

Lower density, limited transit, more ppl in their cars instead of being out & about (er, uh, what's the weather like?), bigger support for driving everywhere & anywhere are why LA has more clogged fwys & roads than other cities do. I always think of that when I find myself stuck in traffic wondering how many ppl around me way too easily choose their lifestyle....they choose to live in a location not for cost reasons but for other reasons. however, I don't expect ppl to want to live in slums or overpriced dives. But if their criteria is owning or renting a house/apt with x amt of living space, x number of bedrooms & a backyard with a picket fence out front, they're one major part of the problem.

But I don't hold it against ppl in LA if they don't want to use certainly clunky buses or limited rail. But that excuse becomes less & less valid as the MTA builds up its system.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

Do you work in public relations ?

Awe shucks, thanks for the compliment. No I dont, but I keep getting prophetic words from people on this forum of the career paths I could take. I just enjoy acknowledging people for what they do, even if I do not agree with everything. I was one of the citizens that advocated for the J.E.M. line concept, which is one of the original (2000’s) idea of a Van Nuys/Sepulveda pass/westside together-ship line came from. There comes a point where I know certain things are just going to happen and I can either be mad at it all or actually see from someone else’s point of view what they were trying to achieve and who for.

Originally Posted by LineDrive

Fact is this line is a waste. It’s half assed and serves little purpose

Im really curious as to why we think this line is a waste though?

The Van Nuys Corridor alone has the 2nd highest bus boardings in the entire SF Valley with 24,800 daily riders, less than 1K the entire Orange Line... and these people are boarding and departing at the Van Nuys Civic Center, Panorama City Mall, and the Orange Line..., not going to the Westside. That's 14% of all Metro Rail line numbers combined (in 2021). The valley in its own right has 1.8 million people.

Why is the Sepulveda Line that is just a few blocks west not good enough to support the Van Nuys Corridor together with the Sepulveda Pass?? They will be covering all of the red and most of the blue dots on this map as the Sepulveda line is in the same corridor study area and both serve the densest part of what could be a top 10 US city. Im really curious as to why we think this is a waste and why people (on this forum) are downing it





Regional Connector Updates

[craigs]

It's nice to see the Regional Connector subway stations so far along. Can't wait to use them.