LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[TrackMan]

There are so many places this conversation could go.

With some focus on connecting tracks to the existing system, one must consider that location, constructibility, duration of work, and impact to the system and patronage during construction.

After observing that such a location is underground, involves stacked bored tunnels on horizontal and vertical curves... it's probably not possible from an engineering perspective.

Even so, if it were, the duration of the construction impact to current services would be very high and very long. Possibly over two years? If patronage were nominal, that would be one thing. If high, which they will be in the future, the disruption seems too great to swallow.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by TrackMan

There are so many places this conversation could go.

With some focus on connecting tracks to the existing system, one must consider that location, constructibility, duration of work, and impact to the system and patronage during construction.

After observing that such a location is underground, involves stacked bored tunnels on horizontal and vertical curves... it's probably not possible from an engineering perspective.

Even so, if it were, the duration of the construction impact to current services would be very high and very long. Possibly over two years? If patronage were nominal, that would be one thing. If high, which they will be in the future, the disruption seems too great to swallow.

If money is no object, Metro could build a brand new Metro Center style station under the intersection of Wilshire and Vermont, then connect the station in with the 6 tunnels on nights and weekends, completely abandoning the old station.

[LA21st]

On the topic of the Vermont subway, I don't get it. That would give south central 3 different light rail/subway lines. Plus the silver line. It's one of LA' least dense areas and lacks job centers.

LA needs transit on Sunset and Santa Monica boulevards and Sepulveda. It's insane to me they can't redirect these transportation funds to areas that aren't served at all that would benefit tourists, residents, and job centers.

What is the city thinking?

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by LA21st

On the topic of the Vermont subway, I don't get it. That would give south central 3 different light rail/subway lines. Plus the silver line. It's one of LA' least dense areas and lacks job centers.

LA needs transit on Sunset and Santa Monica boulevards and Sepulveda. It's insane to me they can't redirect these transportation funds to areas that aren't served at all that would benefit tourists, residents, and job centers.

What is the city thinking?

Huh? What are you talking about?

Vermont has the 2nd highest bus ridership in LA after Wilshire. And nearby Western is the 4th highest. Sunset and Santa Monica doesn't even have the ridership to support fulltime rapid bus service. Your comment is so far off the mark, I'm wondering if you have actually been to LA because there is no way someone living here will have this kind of misunderstanding of basic geography and demographic imprint of the city.

South LA is not "low density". If South LA is low density than Sunset is positively rural. South LA is low income, not low density. Those little houses have lots of people living in them. And they commute to their jobs all over the city, hence Vermont has high transit ridership. Plus Vermont is also a destination. There is no job center the size of USC anywhere on Santa Monica. And Pico Union is a shopping destination.

Sepulveda Pass is in dire need of transit investment but that doesn't mean Vermont gets the short end of the stick.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by bzcat

Huh? What are you talking about?

Vermont has the 2nd highest bus ridership in LA after Wilshire. And nearby Western is the 4th highest. Sunset and Santa Monica doesn't even have the ridership to support fulltime rapid bus service. Your comment is so far off the mark, I'm wondering if you have actually been to LA because there is no way someone living here will have this kind of misunderstanding of basic geography and demographic imprint of the city.

South LA is not "low density". If South LA is low density than Sunset is positively rural. South LA is low income, not low density. Those little houses have lots of people living in them. And they commute to their jobs all over the city, hence Vermont has high transit ridership. Plus Vermont is also a destination. There is no job center the size of USC anywhere on Santa Monica. And Pico Union is a shopping destination.

Sepulveda Pass is in dire need of transit investment but that doesn't mean Vermont gets the short end of the stick.

Dude, that;'s alot of rail lines in one part of the city. I do live here. The blue and Crenshaw lines aren't that far away. And you have the Silver Line.

Why does this one part of the city have all these options and not the rest of the city? It makes no sense.

[LA21st]

Heres a better question. Why build the Vermont Subway before you would build the pink line between Hollywood and the expo line?

There won't be any train service in that part of the city, which would serve job centers and tourists.

[DJM19]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Heres a better question. Why build the Vermont Subway before you would build the pink line between Hollywood and the expo line?

There won't be any train service in that part of the city, which would serve job centers and tourists.

I am assuming Vermont subway would have much higher ridership.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by DJM19

I am assuming Vermont subway would have much higher ridership.

But why not connect the job centers though? How many job centers or attractions are between USC and the green line? There's not even the potetnial]
of building large TODS or employment centers there. So what will it do? Serve part of the city that's gonna be served by 2 other lines?

I just dont see any other city building transit this way. This part of the city will be full of train service. It's not a bad thing, I just don't think it's necesary when some employment areas aren't connected at all.

I'm not even sure the pink line ridership will be lower anyway. All the Orange Line Commuters from the Valley can connect at Hollywood and Highland and go to the west side.

That said, the subway connecting the Purple line to USC/Expo Line makes sense. Those are core neighborhoods. But a subway all the way to the green line? Why?
No.

[DJM19]

Originally Posted by LA21st

But why not connect the job centers though? How many job centers or attractions are between USC and the green line? There's not even the potetnial]
of building large TODS or employment centers there. So what will it do? Serve part of the city that's gonna be served by 2 other lines?

I just dont see any other city building transit this way. This part of the city will be full of train service. It's not a bad thing, I just don't think it's necesary when some employment areas aren't connected at all.

I'm not even sure the pink line ridership will be lower anyway. All the Orange Line Commuters from the Valley can connect at Hollywood and Highland and go to the west side.

That said, the subway connecting the Purple line to USC/Expo Line makes sense. Those are core neighborhoods. But a subway all the way to the green line? Why?
No.

I think the studies suggested that Pink Line was not a big ridership driver. Also I do not think that the Vermont Line is the enemy of the Pink line. And Orange Line commuters can transfer at Sepulveda/Van Nuys and go to the west side on the Sepulveda pass line.

The conceit of the article is that regardless of what you think about the service being too close to other service, its already a proven corridor more than any other corridor you can name. The demand is there already and that is already with the blue and silver line well into their establishment within the community. The fact is people do desire to travel on Vermont regardless of those options. And it may even draw people away from other nearby busy bus corridors because they also would desire such a service on Vermont given the choice.

Why waste time making it a BRT when its the most proven line we know after the Purple line. Someone could make the case that the pink line is more suited as a bus line. Or any number of other west side corridors as bus lines. Certainly it makes more sense on a ridership per mile basis or per dollar investment.

If you ask me we need more rail on the pink and vermont corridors and less on the gold line extensions.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by LA21st

On the topic of the Vermont subway, I don't get it. That would give south central 3 different light rail/subway lines. Plus the silver line. It's one of LA' least dense areas and lacks job centers.

LA needs transit on Sunset and Santa Monica boulevards and Sepulveda. It's insane to me they can't redirect these transportation funds to areas that aren't served at all that would benefit tourists, residents, and job centers.

What is the city thinking?

Originally Posted by LA21st

But why not connect the job centers though? How many job centers or attractions are between USC and the green line? There's not even the potetnial]
of building large TODS or employment centers there. So what will it do? Serve part of the city that's gonna be served by 2 other lines?

I just dont see any other city building transit this way. This part of the city will be full of train service. It's not a bad thing, I just don't think it's necesary when some employment areas aren't connected at all.

I'm not even sure the pink line ridership will be lower anyway. All the Orange Line Commuters from the Valley can connect at Hollywood and Highland and go to the west side.

That said, the subway connecting the Purple line to USC/Expo Line makes sense. Those are core neighborhoods. But a subway all the way to the green line? Why?
No.

Well...

[Illithid Dude]

Tbh it would make sense to me to have to separate tracks going north up Vermont from Wilshire until Hollywood, then having this proposed Vermont HRT line end at Vermont and Hollywood. Having two lines share that stretch of the Red Line after the Red Line capacity is already hampered by the Red / Purple section between Vermont and Union Station would severely hamper headways. If I remember correctly, this is the reason that the original HRT spur for the Pink Line was voted down - because it would be impossible to have high headways with the Purple Line sharing track with the Pink Line.

[numble]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Tbh it would make sense to me to have to separate tracks going north up Vermont from Wilshire until Hollywood, then having this proposed Vermont HRT line end at Vermont and Hollywood. Having two lines share that stretch of the Red Line after the Red Line capacity is already hampered by the Red / Purple section between Vermont and Union Station would severely hamper headways. If I remember correctly, this is the reason that the original HRT spur for the Pink Line was voted down - because it would be impossible to have high headways with the Purple Line sharing track with the Pink Line.

The Pink Line was just eliminated because it was not considered financially feasible within Metro's funding expectations, not because of headways. It actually scored higher on all the goals except affordability:
http://media.metro.net/projects_stud...nd%20Costs.pdf

Alternative 1 stopped at Westwood, Alternative 2 stopped at VA Hospital, Alternative 3 was going all the way to Santa Monica, Alternative 4 and 5 were to also include the Pink Line:

All of the Build Alternatives are far more effective than the TSM Alternative in terms of enhancing mobility, serving development opportunities, and addressing other aspects of Purpose and Need. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are more effective than Alternatives 1 and 2.
...
Alternatives 1 and 2 are expected to be most competitive for New Starts funds and can be built with available Measure R and other identified funds. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are not financially feasible without a new source of revenues.
...
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are significantly more cost effective than Alternatives 4 and 5. In other words, while Alternatives 4 and 5 tend to have more benefits than Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, they achieve these additional benefits at a higher incremental cost.
...

[NSMP]

Which makes sense. The max branch headway for red/Purple is 4 minutes as long as they share track. The pink line would not affect purple line headways, it would’ve actually increased service on phases 2 and 3

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Dude, that;'s alot of rail lines in one part of the city. I do live here. The blue and Crenshaw lines aren't that far away. And you have the Silver Line.

Why does this one part of the city have all these options and not the rest of the city? It makes no sense.

Proximity of rail line to each other reflects ridership potential. Duh.

Do people ask why Manhattan has 4 N-S subway lines within a couple of blocks of each other in Midtown?

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by LA21st

But why not connect the job centers though? How many job centers or attractions are between USC and the green line? There's not even the potetnial]
of building large TODS or employment centers there. So what will it do? Serve part of the city that's gonna be served by 2 other lines?

You are asking nonsensical questions. Your assumption is no one will ride a train on Vermont between USC and Green line. That's demonstrably untrue. Vermont bus ridership says otherwise. Hence why BRT is already on the table.

I just dont see any other city building transit this way. This part of the city will be full of train service. It's not a bad thing, I just don't think it's necesary when some employment areas aren't connected at all.

Again huh? It's how MOST cities build transit... they build it where the ridership are. Vermont has demonstrated transit demand that is already beyond what frequent bus lines can service effectively.

I'm not even sure the pink line ridership will be lower anyway. All the Orange Line Commuters from the Valley can connect at Hollywood and Highland and go to the west side.

This isn't a question of which corridor is more deserving. You build rail where it makes sense and Vermont definitely makes sense (as does Pink line). Your wholesale dismissal of Vermont is frankly a very uninformed opinion.

That said, the subway connecting the Purple line to USC/Expo Line makes sense. Those are core neighborhoods. But a subway all the way to the green line? Why?
No.

No one said subway all the way to Green line. South of Gage, the line will be elevated because it is wide enough.

But more fundamentally, you have an incompletely understanding of how ridership is generated. If you don't build the line to South LA, where the people live, the ridership will suffer in the "core" section you described.

[Pedestrian]

Bill could add millions of new homes next to California's public transit stations
By Roland Li – Reporter, San Francisco Business Times
3 hours ago

California State Senator Scott Wiener proposed a trio of new housing bills on Thursday, including one that would make it easier to build taller projects near public transit.

Wiener (D-San Francisco)'s SB 827 calls for the statewide removal of single-family home and parking requirements for projects within a half-mile of transit hubs like BART, Muni and Caltrain stations.

The bill would mandate height limits of at least 45 feet to 85 feet for new projects, depending on how close they are to transit. Cities would be able to raise height limits beyond those minimums, and developers could also build smaller projects within the areas if they chose . . . .

Most of San Francisco would be included under the proposed law, since Muni buses are present in every neighborhood. Land along BART stations and Caltrain stations throughout the East Bay, on the Peninsula and in SIlicon Valley would also qualify, according to a previous map by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission . . . .

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...473&j=79452471

[ardecila]

LOL, if that bill includes every corner with a bus stop, that’s totally crazy. I mean, I’m as YIMBY as they come, but there’s no planning doctrine that says once-an-hour bus service is enough to support a corridor of midrises.

Unless the writer made a mistake, and he was instead referring to Muni Metro rail stops?

Anyway, this is only half the puzzle, California transit systems will choke on these new riders without vast sums of upgrades and investment. Would be great if there was a value capture associated with this bill also.

[Busy Bee]

Build it and they will come works both ways.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by ardecila

LOL, if that bill includes every corner with a bus stop, that’s totally crazy. I mean, I’m as YIMBY as they come, but there’s no planning doctrine that says once-an-hour bus service is enough to support a corridor of midrises.

Unless the writer made a mistake, and he was instead referring to Muni Metro rail stops?

Anyway, this is only half the puzzle, California transit systems will choke on these new riders without vast sums of upgrades and investment. Would be great if there was a value capture associated with this bill also.

There is zero chance such a bill could ever make it to law. San Francisco's uber-NIMBYs would never support that sort of development.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by ardecila

LOL, if that bill includes every corner with a bus stop, that’s totally crazy. I mean, I’m as YIMBY as they come, but there’s no planning doctrine that says once-an-hour bus service is enough to support a corridor of midrises.

Unless the writer made a mistake, and he was instead referring to Muni Metro rail stops?

Anyway, this is only half the puzzle, California transit systems will choke on these new riders without vast sums of upgrades and investment. Would be great if there was a value capture associated with this bill also.

It’s unlikely to pass but it’s bus corridors with minimum 15 minute service, not hourly. Still that’s pretty much every major street in LA. It would cover half the city and nearly all of SF.