LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by saybanana

LA Metro and building of rail would not be possible without the taxes county wide. Would the people in the city of LA be able to afford to building the rail system within their own city borders with the sales tax? No. Actually, LA City uses the bulk of that money because it has to build most underground whereas most the out city projects can be done cheaply at grade or above grade, but not really tunnels. Thats why the gold line extension of 12 miles will cost $1.5 billion compared the 2 mile regional connector at $2 billion. or the 4 mile phase 1 of Purple line at 2.8 billion.

Instead of working within the constraints of the system, we should reconfigure the system altogether. It starts with the realization that anything needing the approval of the County Board of Supervisors must include pork.

This is our answer. How many signatures would be required to get it on the ballot?

Originally Posted by numble

Propositions A and C, which give a total of 1% to Metro required simple majorities to pass as they occurred before 1997.

In 1997, California voters passed Proposition 218 to requires local governments to get two-thirds approval to raise any local taxes. Most people thought Proposition 218 meant that any increase in local taxes proposed (from government or private citizens) requires two-thirds approval.

The California Supreme Court just ruled that the two-thirds rule only applies to government entities (Metro is still considered a government entity), and that private citizen initiatives, even involving a tax increase, can be passed by a simple majority:
http://legal-planet.org/2017/08/28/c...n-prop-13-218/

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

I was just coming here to post about this. This is HUGE and very under-reported. This opens up the possibility of someone placing a true urban transit measure on the ballot that doesn't fund any freeways or trains to the exurbs in an effort to get a 2/3rds vote.

It'd be great to see one that focuses exclusively on boosting bus service and building a high-quality BRT network on our major corridors, accelerating the most worthy Measure R/M projects (Vermont HRT, Crenshaw northern extension, Eco-rapid line, and Sepulveda HRT), and extending the Purple Line to Santa Monica. Maybe some money for grade separations thrown in there as well.

Only problem is that many LA county jurisdictions have now reached their maximum sales tax. A new measure would need to a different mechanism (parcel tax? income tax? gas tax??).

[SFBruin]

I feel that the Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase II was a reasonable idea. It requires a relatively small amount of money and persuaded a crucial group of voters in the Eastern SGV to help Measure M pass.

[numble]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Instead of working within the constraints of the system, we should reconfigure the system altogether. It starts with the realization that anything needing the approval of the County Board of Supervisors must include pork.

This is our answer. How many signatures would be required to get it on the ballot?

In terms of how many signatures are needed for a LA city-only ballot measure, Proposition JJJ turned in around 100,000 signatures and Measure S turned in 104,000 signatures to get on to the ballot. I think they turned in more than needed, but that seems to be a standard amount because many signatures may be rejected.

A non-profit group that helped get Measure M passed wants to put a 2020 transportation ballot measure for the SoCal region (LA, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties). Unfortunately, its current draft focuses on different things:
http://www.movela.org/2020_strawman

We propose that a measure be placed on the November 2020 ballot in the 4-county South Coast Air Quality Management District, a district made up of LA, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties (though not including the high desert portions of LA and San Bernardino counties). This measure would require authorization by the legislature and the governor, giving legislative leaders an important role in the measure’s formulation. (Note: We may prefer a "voter initiative" rather than agency-sponsored measure because a recent California Supreme Court decision may mean a voter initiative would require a simple majority instead of a 2/3 vote. Stay tuned.)

[numble]

Metro's initial Sepulveda Transit Corridor concepts are out. Light rail option allows it to continue north onto the East San Fernando Valley line, other options will not.
http://thesource.metro.net/2018/06/0...nsit-corridor/

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Concept 3 via UCLA, please (unless ESFV is built as HRT.)

[Quixote]

Wow, none of the options give UCLA a station. Disappointing.

EDIT: Also, no station at Santa Monica Blvd. Metro is dumb as fuck. I can’t take it anymore.

[northbay]

^ They haven’t decided on station locations yet. “Only stations on existing or planned lines are shown. Intermediate station locations for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor are under consideration.”

[numble]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Wow, none of the options give UCLA a station. Disappointing.

EDIT: Also, no station at Santa Monica Blvd. Metro is dumb as fuck. I can’t take it anymore.

Read the notes:

Only stations on existing and planned Metro lines are shown. Intermediate station locations for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor are under consideration.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Wow, none of the options give UCLA a station. Disappointing.

EDIT: Also, no station at Santa Monica Blvd. Metro is dumb as fuck. I can’t take it anymore.

http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/me...24/Board11.jpg

http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/me...34/Board12.jpg

Not gonna link the picture because it's HUGE.

Read the article my guy.

Excited to see how many options there are that AREN'T LRT. This also look like the first phase is going to go all the way to the Expo Line now, instead of stopping at the Purple Line. A great move.

[Quixote]

Thank goodness! My bad.

I really hope HRT is chosen. Why spend so much only to end up with a shitty LRT? Do they really think 3-4 cars is going to cut it? The only way LRT technology could work is if the Sepulveda stations can accommodate 5-6 car trains—alternating with the 3-car trains continuing farther north to Sylmar. But then the quality of service on the ESFV goes downhill. Why can’t Metro at least consider extending HRT up to the Metrolink station?

[ardecila]

Does Concept 6 mean a further extension of the Purple Line down Wilshire to Santa Monica is officially 100% dead?

Subway to the Sea, my ass...

[numble]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Does Concept 6 mean a further extension of the Purple Line down Wilshire to Santa Monica is officially 100% dead?

Subway to the Sea, my ass...

No, since they are still studying a Vermont subway despite the fact that the current tunnels curve away from the alignment.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Has to be HRT and really, it should extend to LAX and the beaches.

[Illithid Dude]

Gotta say I'm low key excited about the idea of LA getting elevated HRT. Just love the way it looks.

[Quixote]

The people who argue that this should use LRT technology to allow interlining with the ESFV are also the same people who think that the Vermont Corridor should be LRT—creating a forced transfer as opposed to a continuous north-south route from the SFV all the way to the South Bay.

I don’t mean to be divisive.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Thank goodness! My bad.

I really hope HRT is chosen. Why spend so much only to end up with a shitty LRT? Do they really think 3-4 cars is going to cut it? The only way LRT technology could work is if the Sepulveda stations can accommodate 5-6 car trains—alternating with the 3-car trains continuing farther north to Sylmar.

If you have full grade separation and long platforms you have heavy rail capacity because you have high frequency of service. Where it comes out of the ground to operate at-grade or elevated can be determined.



An example, the Canada Line in Vancouver with 150' long platforms is considered heavy rail because it is automated, runs at high frequencies and is completely grade separated despite shorter train lengths

But then the quality of service on the ESFV goes downhill. Why can’t Metro at least consider extending HRT up to the Metrolink station?

1) Costs and;
2) The alternatives have already progressed to where they are near selecting a Locally Preferred Alternative. Adding HRT into the mix means they have to restart the Alternatives Analysis and delay 2-3 years worth of work in the SFV in which Elected officals there would be crying foul to Metro. As stupid as this is, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

The people who argue that this should use LRT technology to allow interlining with the ESFV are also the same people who think that the Vermont Corridor should be LRT—creating a forced transfer as opposed to a continuous north-south route from the SFV all the way to the South Bay.

The Vermont Corridor Red Line idea, to provide a straight corridor from SFV to South Bay is admirable until we realize that Wilshire/Vermont would be an overloaded forced transfer point for current and future Red Line passengers trying to reach Downtown LA CBD, especially on the Purple Line which will be very highly utilized with the Westwood extension even with short headways.

All we have to do is look at Toronto's Metro at Bloor/Yonge to see how that impacts capacity and demand unless there is another entry into Downtown Toronto. They are looking at a Downtown Relief Line to solve this problem. Yonge Street is Toronto's Wilshire Blvd, the Bloor Street line is like our Red Line in that it connects the inner suburbs into the edge of the CBD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloor%...3Yonge_station

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...bate-1.4129332

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle37813027/

Here in LA I see the same exact scenario, unless another entry point can be built to replace that section of service into our Downtown CBD for the Red Line.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

The Vermont Corridor Red Line idea, to provide a straight corridor from SFV to South Bay is admirable until we realize that Wilshire/Vermont would be an overloaded forced transfer point for current and future Red Line passengers trying to reach Downtown LA CBD, especially on the Purple Line which will be very highly utilized with the Westwood extension even with short headways.

All we have to do is look at Toronto's Metro at Bloor/Yonge to see how that impacts capacity and demand unless there is another entry into Downtown Toronto. They are looking at a Downtown Relief Line to solve this problem. Yonge Street is Toronto's Wilshire Blvd, the Bloor Street line is like our Red Line in that it connects the inner suburbs into the edge of the CBD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloor%...3Yonge_station

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...bate-1.4129332

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle37813027/

Here in LA I see the same exact scenario, unless another entry point can be built to replace that section of service into our Downtown CBD for the Red Line.

That's a big case for a Sunset/Santa Monica line. That way, you'd split people going to the northern and southern parts of downtown with transfers at Vermont/Santa Monica and Wilshire/Vermont, respectively. Furthermore,, I think a lot of Downtown travellers from the West SFV will take the Sepulveda line and transfer to purple in Westwood.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

The Vermont Corridor Red Line idea, to provide a straight corridor from SFV to South Bay is admirable until we realize that Wilshire/Vermont would be an overloaded forced transfer point for current and future Red Line passengers trying to reach Downtown LA CBD, especially on the Purple Line which will be very highly utilized with the Westwood extension even with short headways.

All we have to do is look at Toronto's Metro at Bloor/Yonge to see how that impacts capacity and demand unless there is another entry into Downtown Toronto. They are looking at a Downtown Relief Line to solve this problem. Yonge Street is Toronto's Wilshire Blvd, the Bloor Street line is like our Red Line in that it connects the inner suburbs into the edge of the CBD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloor%...3Yonge_station

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...bate-1.4129332

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle37813027/

Here in LA I see the same exact scenario, unless another entry point can be built to replace that section of service into our Downtown CBD for the Red Line.

This is really not a pressing concern. Bloor-Yonge is maxing out at 31,000 passengers per hour in the southbound direction. Red/Purple handle a tenth of that flow - together - into the CBD.

[numble]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

The Vermont Corridor Red Line idea, to provide a straight corridor from SFV to South Bay is admirable until we realize that Wilshire/Vermont would be an overloaded forced transfer point for current and future Red Line passengers trying to reach Downtown LA CBD, especially on the Purple Line which will be very highly utilized with the Westwood extension even with short headways.

All we have to do is look at Toronto's Metro at Bloor/Yonge to see how that impacts capacity and demand unless there is another entry into Downtown Toronto. They are looking at a Downtown Relief Line to solve this problem. Yonge Street is Toronto's Wilshire Blvd, the Bloor Street line is like our Red Line in that it connects the inner suburbs into the edge of the CBD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloor%...3Yonge_station

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...bate-1.4129332

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle37813027/

Here in LA I see the same exact scenario, unless another entry point can be built to replace that section of service into our Downtown CBD for the Red Line.

Of the 3 heavy rail concepts released by Metro for the Vermont corridor, 1 concept involves a branching of the Red Line (no forced transfer to the CBD if you're on the right train) and 2 concepts involving a forced transfer for Red Line riders intending to go south (no forced transfer to the CBD).