LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Most LA Metro Riders Could Ride For Free Starting Next Year Under New Pilot Plan

https://laist.com/2021/02/26/los_ang...nsit_pilot.php

I think moving transit over to a free service would be a horrific mistake. Any free fares should only be targeted toward K to 12 and the disabled and that's it. Across the board free fares is asking for trouble.

Yes, ridership will rise short-term but then as the buses/trains become more crowded the city has no way to increase the funding to expand service. The transit agency cannot keep going back to the City every year asking ever bigger chunk of the budget as this automatically means other services have to take cutbacks.

Due to being able to meet service needs as ridership increases, the system has to start to make small cuts in everyday expenses due to the increased ridership creating no new revenue. This means maintenance, station cleanliness, security, fleet renewal, wages and the like start to decline................death by a thousand cuts. People's attitudes towards a free fare system starts to take a hit as the overall transit experience begins to decay. It also reinforces the belief many Americans have about transit being unsafe and let's face it free transit often results in them becoming mobile drug delivery system and especially in the inner cities. As people begin to see the system as unsafe they start to turn away.

Much cheaper fares and targeted free fares certainly but not across the board free fares. I agree with broadly much cheaper fares to increase the accessibility of the service to lower income people but never free. It's a downward spiral and one that is almost impossible to recover from.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

That's based on Metro's study, and as bzcat said, it wouldn't be out of character for them to fix the numbers. The Centinela alignment has one more station, one of which directly serves the office complexes in Playa Vista, and the travel time isn't that much longer than Sepulveda. HRT3 has one more station than HRT1 and a longer travel time, yet it also is projected to yield higher ridership.

Right but another component is that Sepulveda Blvd in the Valley is an established and solid transit corridor with local and rapid bus service where the extra station isn't a bad thing (as I described in the last post). Also having the line elevated down Sepulveda Blvd made it more cost effective to add a station compared to deep large bore tunneling.

BTW, Where is that rapid bus service on Bundy-Centinela? No need to answer. The question was purely rhetorical.

Ultimately what also killed HRT 1 & 2 alternatives are the construction risks the P3 has to go through to tunnel underneath Van Nuys Blvd with an LRT corridor being built or newly operated by the time they start construction with the larger bore TBMs.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I think moving transit over to a free service would be a horrific mistake. Any free fares should only be targeted toward K to 12 and the disabled and that's it. Across the board free fares is asking for trouble.

Yes, ridership will rise short-term but then as the buses/trains become more crowded the city has no way to increase the funding to expand service. The transit agency cannot keep going back to the City every year asking ever bigger chunk of the budget as this automatically means other services have to take cutbacks.

Due to being able to meet service needs as ridership increases, the system has to start to make small cuts in everyday expenses due to the increased ridership creating no new revenue. This means maintenance, station cleanliness, security, fleet renewal, wages and the like start to decline................death by a thousand cuts. People's attitudes towards a free fare system starts to take a hit as the overall transit experience begins to decay. It also reinforces the belief many Americans have about transit being unsafe and let's face it free transit often results in them becoming mobile drug delivery system and especially in the inner cities. As people begin to see the system as unsafe they start to turn away.

Much cheaper fares and targeted free fares certainly but across the board free fares. I agree with broadly much cheaper fares to increase the accessibility of the service to lower income people but never free. It's a downward spiral and one that is almost impossible to recover from.

100% agreed, free fares just means poor service longer term that hurts the performance of the network.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Right but another component is that Sepulveda Blvd in the Valley is an established and solid transit corridor with local and rapid bus service where the extra station isn't a bad thing (as I described in the last post). Also having the line elevated down Sepulveda Blvd made it more cost effective to add a station compared to deep large bore tunneling.

BTW, Where is that rapid bus service on Bundy-Centinela? No need to answer the question was purely rhetorical.

Ultimately what also killed HRT 1 & 2 alternatives are the construction risks the P3 has to go through to tunnel underneath Van Nuys Blvd with an LRT corridor being built or newly operated by the time they start construction with the larger bore TBMs.

If you try and rationalize something hard enough, it becomes true in your mind. You're the only person on this board and the TTC that thinks Sepulveda is the best option and doesn't harbor any suspicion regarding the numbers. The answer is that Sepulveda is, as bzcat put it, "the path of least resistance," as they would much rather tunnel under city streets than residential neighborhoods.

Rail lines in freeway medians are a waste, so a rail line (a subway at that) running parallel a block away isn't that much better. Things like walkability and TOD opportunities (e.g. urban potential) should be part of the calculus, but they are less easy to quantify.

Thankfully for the Sepulveda alignment, the only "loser" station is the one on Venice. Expo/Sepulveda serves the Google campus as the revamped Westside Pavilion, and both it and the Slauson station have TOD potential. Slauson also serves the Ladera Heights community, which the Crenshaw line sort of misses.

Whether it's Sepulveda, Centinela, or Overland, or Bechtel or BYD, they're all game-changers and have their advantages. I just want this thing built sooner rather than later.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by k1052

They still make ART systems, now called Innovia Metro.

Right. They cite JFK AirTrain, Vancouver SkyTrain, Rapid KL, Singapore MRT (Downtown Line), Sydney Metro, and Montreal's REM as examples of the type of system they're basing their proposal on. All of them use Bombardier or Alstom Metropolis. The drawings look similar to the rolling stock of Rapid KL. It's likely we end up with Bombardier Innovia since they have a tight hold on the ART market.

• Video Link

I agree with an earlier comment about LA's subway's being boring... I like elevated rail and the views (not to mention the cheaper cost) that come with it. It's too early to be thinking about the Westside-LAX extension, but I hope they can find a way to make a portion of it elevated.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Ultimately what also killed HRT 1 & 2 alternatives are the construction risks the P3 has to go through to tunnel underneath Van Nuys Blvd with an LRT corridor being built or newly operated by the time they start construction with the larger bore TBMs.

Siiiigh...I get the logic here, but... nevermind.

This is where I think people like to insert the word "vision" & "long-term", but oh well...

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

If you try and rationalize something hard enough, it becomes true in your mind. You're the only person on this board and the TTC that thinks Sepulveda is the best option and doesn't harbor any suspicion regarding the numbers. The answer is that Sepulveda is, as bzcat put it, "the path of least resistance," as they would much rather tunnel under city streets than residential neighborhoods.

I doubt I am the only one however I don't harbor the suspicions because I predicted this nearly two years ago how this would play out.

Not surprised by the numbers.
Not surprised by the logic the report spells out.
Not surprised that in my experience in construction management the first rule of thumb are calculating risks and P3s are about risk aversion.
Not surprised in working with Friends for Expo how I learned how Metro and FTA will be calculating the ridership numbers to justify the stations and ridership projections.

Sepulveda is the path of least resistance, shorter and has the most current bus ridership and future ridership to justify the expense.

Every single time I point out one of the reasons why this will play out this way with cited proof, I get an equivalent of shouting "Fake News, Fake News" that Joe Biden is the 46th President.

Originally Posted by Quixote

...Things like walkability and TOD opportunities (e.g. urban potential) should be part of the calculus, but they are less easy to quantify.

I could say the same thing about Centinela. I understand the visioning a lot of members hold to this. Personally I would rather use Lincoln Blvd to justify the transformation but I don't want to start another storm.

How in the world a route with no limited stop or Rapid bus service, barely two or three story apartments scarcely scattered along the corridor with some low scale commercial is going to magically transform the street into an urbanists paradise when it doesn't even have the bones to justify a rapid bus or BRT AND we are trying to leverage our sales tax resources to get Federal New Starts money to pay for 50% of this.

These are the very questions the Feds are going to use on how to quantify ridership for a subway corridor that DC will be writing a check for 50% of the costs for. This is where the disconnect is coming from.

Originally Posted by Quixote

Whether it's Sepulveda, Centinela, or Overland, or Bechtel or BYD, they're all game-changers and have their advantages. I just want this thing built sooner rather than later.

Agreed!

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Siiiigh...I get the logic here, but... nevermind.

This is where I think people like to insert the word "vision" & "long-term", but oh well...

And this is where we forget the phrase executing the vision to meet long term goals and think that the vision is all we need. But c'est la vie.

[jmecklenborg]

The main problem I foresee with an aerial structure above Sepulveda is that residents might complain about the noise of the trains and a) require them to reduce their speed from 60mph to 40mph or slower and b) fight late night and 24-hour service. There are also 2-3 mild curves where the trains will have to slow from 60mph to 35mph~. A tunnel could be built on a significantly wider radius and so higher speeds could be maintained.

The TOD potential on Sepulveda might actually be greater than the other two alternatives because any building site has excellent visibility and car access from the 405.

[numble]

The LA SkyRail team updated their website to discuss UCLA connectivity:
http://laskyrailexpress.com/ucla-connectivity/

One thing you can say is that they seem very motivated in their public outreach.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

What is that atrocious font they are using on the website lol. Hard to read to say the least. Good to see that they are proactive with things but i still think the HSR option is VASTLY superior. This is the most important rail corridor in So Cal and we cant mess this us

[Quixote]

Sorry, but an aerial station at Lot 36 is a deal-breaker. Connectivity to the Purple Line Wilshire/Westwood station is extremely critical and must provide an easy transfer for those wanting to access the UCLA campus or LAX.

The Bechtel proposal is just much more thought-out and readily understood.

[Quixote]

Look at the opening of BYD's white paper on "Proven, Reliable Technology." The opening sentence reads, "If transit “experts” say SkyRail is not a “proven” urban transit technology fully capable of meeting day-t- day high capacity operation, they simply must not be aware of the facts."

Typo and defensive tone. The document also looks like it was put together by a high schooler.

https://en.byd.com/wp-content/upload...technology.pdf

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Look at the opening of BYD's white paper on "Proven, Reliable Technology." The opening sentence reads, "If transit “experts” say SkyRail is not a “proven” urban transit technology fully capable of meeting day-t- day high capacity operation, they simply must not be aware of the facts."

Typo and defensive tone. The document also looks like it was put together by a high schooler.

https://en.byd.com/wp-content/upload...technology.pdf

lol wow

Given BYD's history of overpromising and under delivering I'm a real solid pass on their monorail proposal. Like literally anything but this.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

I doubt I am the only one however I don't harbor the suspicions because I predicted this nearly two years ago how this would play out.

Not surprised by the numbers.
Not surprised by the logic the report spells out.
Not surprised that in my experience in construction management the first rule of thumb are calculating risks and P3s are about risk aversion.
Not surprised in working with Friends for Expo how I learned how Metro and FTA will be calculating the ridership numbers to justify the stations and ridership projections.

Sepulveda is the path of least resistance, shorter and has the most current bus ridership and future ridership to justify the expense.

Every single time I point out one of the reasons why this will play out this way with cited proof, I get an equivalent of shouting "Fake News, Fake News" that Joe Biden is the 46th President.



I could say the same thing about Centinela. I understand the visioning a lot of members hold to this. Personally I would rather use Lincoln Blvd to justify the transformation but I don't want to start another storm.

How in the world a route with no limited stop or Rapid bus service, barely two or three story apartments scarcely scattered along the corridor with some low scale commercial is going to magically transform the street into an urbanists paradise when it doesn't even have the bones to justify a rapid bus or BRT AND we are trying to leverage our sales tax resources to get Federal New Starts money to pay for 50% of this.

These are the very questions the Feds are going to use on how to quantify ridership for a subway corridor that DC will be writing a check for 50% of the costs for. This is where the disconnect is coming from.



Agreed!

I respect your opinion and would never call you "fake new"

Totally understand the risk mitigation which is why I characterized Sepulveda as the path of least resistance solution. But path of least resistance is why we end up with Expo line running at street level in Downtown LA and Green line missing LAX and so on. When we have an opportunity to advocate for something better, we should do it.


There are also two separate topics here. one has to do with mode (heavy rail vs. monorail) and one with alignment (Sepulveda vs. Centinela). I think some people have already noted previously that Skyrail have done a sleight of hand here. If you don't know what I mean, I will explain.

I think there are practical problem with Skyrail's proposal. I drove thru Sepulveda yesterday on my way home. And between Pico and National, the are 4 existing overpasses:

1. Expo line
2. I-10 main deck
3. I-10 West to I-405 South flyover
4. I-405 North to I-10 East flyover

If Skyrail is elevated thru this section, it will have to go above the I-10 West to I-405 flyover. This means a very high and expensive structure towering over and above the freeways. This is why Skyrail propose building their train right next to and in some places, over I-405, not actually on Sepulveda.

Streetview here: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0307...7i16384!8i8192

We were arguing whether Centinela or Sepulveda subway has better merit but Skyrail is actually proposing building the thing on the freeway... so let's not gloss over that fact. The monorail stations will be located over the freeway all throughout the Westside. It's not ideal.

And it doesn't matter if heavy rail or monorail is the chosen mode. Like I mentioned, if it is elevated, it will require a 100 ft in the sky crossing at Sepulveda and I-10 so the train will be underground in West LA between UCLA and at least Sepulveda and National - that I have no doubts about. Unless of course the train doesn't actually go on Sepulveda at all, which is what Skyrail is proposing. The fine prints really matter in this case.

The bottom line is this: We haven't done the comprehensive ridership analysis that an EIR requires on either Sepulveda or Centinela. So it's premature to exclude one at this point. And let's not forget that Skyrail actually propose neither. They want to build the train over the 405.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by bzcat

I respect your opinion and would never call you

Totally understand the risk mitigation which is why I characterized Sepulveda as the path of least resistance solution. But path of least resistance is why we end up with Expo line running at street level in Downtown LA and Green line missing LAX and so on. When we have an opportunity to advocate for something better, we should do it.

Expo Line was not only the path of least resistance, it was the only path you can legitimately fund - remember Prop A and C funds couldn't be used for subways - within the parameters. Huge difference.

Originally Posted by bzcat

I think there are practical problem with Skyrail's proposal. I drove thru Sepulveda yesterday on my way home. And between Pico and National, the are 4 existing overpasses:

1. Expo line
2. I-10 main deck
3. I-10 West to I-405 South flyover
4. I-405 North to I-10 East flyover

If Skyrail is elevated thru this section, it will have to go above the I-10 West to I-405 flyover.

No one has glossed over it. The points you are making about Skyrail there are absolutely valid.

The advocacy should be placed towards an alignment and how do you make up the extra capital costs needed between the BYD and SCTP proposals and find some additional resources in a timely fashion for a P3. There is the Federal New Starts which can help achieve a 50% grant and maybe the states Cap and Trade $$$.

I personally give a slight advantage to the SCTP proposal because the information here can be useful for constructing future transit corridors like Crenshaw North Extension or Vermont on how to utilize large bore TBM's and construction and station strategies in a dense environment to reduces risk and excessive mitigation which can jeopardize future projects.

=====================

As an aside I personally chuckle with both strategies because the very justification early on by Metro as to why a fully Grade Separated LRT south of the Orange Line to Expo as a southern extension of the East SFV LRT- was not a good alternative was justified on not meeting capacity needs even though it had the highest ridership.

Originally Posted by UrbanizeLA post 1/29/19

"Notably absent from these options is any mention of light rail. According to Metro staff, the shorter trains and smaller cars of light rail would not offer sufficient capacity for the demand anticipated along the corridor - in fact, ridership would exceed capacity on the southern part of the light rail line."

Now both proposals assume operating trains in multiple units that about the same length and width as our LRVs (some cases smaller than a train of 3 LRVs @ 270') at a higher frequency (every 1.5 to 3 minute) in a fully grade separated automated corridor.

[hughfb3]

My only gripe with freeway median running trains is the noise and dust from the freeway that blasts people while they wait for the trains. Maybe platform screen doors at each station with glass-encased moving walkways to the street could make it ideal.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

My only gripe with freeway median running trains is the noise and dust from the freeway that blasts people while they wait for the trains. Maybe platform screen doors at each station with glass-encased moving walkways to the street could make it ideal.

I never had an issue with that in Chicago and the station I was at 4x a week was in the middle of a construction zone too.

It's funny, when you are in a car and you're looking at the train station in a median you can't help but feel its lacking so much. However, I never felt that way as a passenger waiting for a train. It could be that the station was 100% covered (or near) and it was constantly packed, but I don't know.

[ardecila]

^ It depends, when the station is elevated above ground level AND in a expressway median, it can get pretty unpleasant. The winds just tear through and they pick up any dust or spray from the expressway. Fortunately Chicago has only two stations like this (Irving Park and Rosemont).

In LA weather though it should be fine.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

As an aside I personally chuckle with both strategies because the very justification early on by Metro as to why a fully Grade Separated LRT south of the Orange Line to Expo as a southern extension of the East SFV LRT- was not a good alternative was justified on not meeting capacity needs even though it had the highest ridership.

The issue lies north of the Orange Line with the at-grade operations. It only takes one negligent driver or suicidal person to disrupt the service and delay the commutes of hundreds of thousands of people.

The SCTP and BYD proposals already stretch as far north as the Metrolink ROW. The $1.3 billion should've been spent on an extension to San Fernando/Sylmar, with perhaps one station in between.

Now both proposals assume operating trains in multiple units that about the same length and width as our LRVs (some cases smaller than a train of 3 LRVs @ 270') at a higher frequency (every 1.5 to 3 minute) in a fully grade separated automated corridor.

The only reason why the trains are that short is because of the ability to operate them fully automated at such frequency, something that otherwise wouldn't be possible with an at-grade portion north of the Orange Line.

[jmecklenborg]

Has there ever been any conversation regarding the use of the green line's 4-mile elevated viaduct for the Sepulveda line? The current plan would allow people traveling to/from Redondo Beach to transfer to the planned N/S Sepulveda HRT at Aviation/96th. But running HRT on the existing viaduct - assuming that it is capable of doing so - would allow a 1-seat ride from the San Fernando Valley to well south of LAX, plus the planned extension southward to Torrence.