LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Trae

It's a mystery. In an ideal world, the Expo Line would be in a subway from 7th/Metro to the Western Station, then elevated to Santa Monica. With this, you'd eliminate the Expo Park station, which is so close to the Vermont station anyway. It's still a mystery how transit riders will connect to the Crenshaw Line too. Metro half-assing the system is going to bite all of us in the ass in ten years.

Why? Few metro (subway) trains in the world a longer than 4 married-pairs long light rail trains, or carry more passengers per train. The limitations factors are train headways (frequency) and station platform lengths, and it’s far easier and cheaper to build longer platforms at stations at grade and above than below grade.

In an ideal world, every transit line would be built completely grade separated from other traffic. Even large metro systems with many subway lines have mass transit lines that run at grade, that’s including New York City, London, Paris, and Tokyo. Not even them can afford the ideal everywhere, why should LA?

[NSMP]

At grade operations have a higher minimum headway than grade separated operations

[Trae]

Originally Posted by electricron

Why? Few metro (subway) trains in the world a longer than 4 married-pairs long light rail trains, or carry more passengers per train. The limitations factors are train headways (frequency) and station platform lengths, and it’s far easier and cheaper to build longer platforms at stations at grade and above than below grade.

In an ideal world, every transit line would be built completely grade separated from other traffic. Even large metro systems with many subway lines have mass transit lines that run at grade, that’s including New York City, London, Paris, and Tokyo. Not even them can afford the ideal everywhere, why should LA?

You're missing most of my point. Have you ridden the Expo Line from Downtown to the beach? The section between 7th/Metro and Western is very slow. That section should have been sunken. Once the line gets into it's own ROW near Crenshaw it gets much better as there are elevated sections and then signal priority in SM. Just because it's cheaper to build at-grade doesn't mean it should be used in every scenario. The Expo Line is one where it should not have been. Perhaps Metro was banking on extending the Purple Line to the beach and using that as the more "express" route for the west side. Or perhaps they just built it cheaply to save a few dollars (or $200 million).

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by Trae

You're missing most of my point. Have you ridden the Expo Line from Downtown to the beach? The section between 7th/Metro and Western is very slow. That section should have been sunken. Once it the line gets into it's own ROW near Crenshaw it gets much better as there are elevated sections and then signal priority in SM. Just because it's cheaper to build at-grade doesn't mean it should be used in every scenario. The Expo Line is one where it should not have been. Perhaps Metro was banking on extending the Purple Line to the beach and using that as the more "express" route for the west side. Or perhaps they just built it cheaply to save a few dollars (or $200 million).

That's the key point here. Within a dedicated ROW (which allows for Metro to install crossing gates and full signal preemption), at-grade operations are fine. But in the absence of a ROW, it becomes nothing more than an upgraded streetcar.

Scott, any commentary on the transferring of $200mm from the expo account to the purple? Any idea why this wasn't kept for grade separation and other upgrades?

[bzcat]

Vermont and Western should be gated. It's crazy that they are not right now.

The slow crawl from Pico to Jefferson is the real problem. The only solution in the long run is to put it underground.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by bzcat

Vermont and Western should be gated. It's crazy that they are not right now.

The slow crawl from Pico to Jefferson is the real problem. The only solution in the long run is to put it underground.

If only there had been $200 million in excess money to jump-start that process...

[llamaorama]

Assuming money wasn't an issue, how feasible would it be to dig a turnout between 7th/Metro Center and the ramp up to the surface without disrupting normal service? There's still a few parking lots on Flower so maybe there would be room to excavate a TBM launch pit from there.

If the logistics could be worked out, then all that surface mess on the Blue and Expo lines could be put into subways.

[numble]

The Crenshaw North Feasibility/Alternatives Analysis Study Report is on the board agenda for Thursday:





https://metro.legistar.com/Legislati...BD1&FullText=1

[Quixote]

La Brea for sure... biggest bang for the buck. Fairfax is also a good option, but probably too expensive.

[Illithid Dude]

I prefer La Brea because it allows for a future, entirely separate Santa Monica Blvd line to be built, but I see two issues with the study. The first, and more minor, is that there is not a station at Melrose, which seems to me to be a major oversight.

The second is that both La Brea and La Cienega are studied as elevated. La Brea and La Cienega isn't the Expo Line path, and do not cut across the street grid in a historic right of way. La Brea and La Cienega are not Vermont either, being so wide as to contain essentially three separate streets. These are low slung retail corridors. La Brea especially has developed wonderfully over the years, and has a promising and vibrant future ahead. Elevated rail would overwhelm these streets. Moreover, regardless of how I personally feel about such a proposal, the community will never accept elevated rail. There will inevitably be push back, and Metro will have to refine the EIR. I just hope the compromise doesn't involve running at grade until Santa Monica.

[NSMP]

Yes, they should put stations at Melrose and 3rd if they choose La Brea

[saybanana]

La Cienega is probably the best route of all of them. It connects popular destinations like Hollywood to the nightlife areas of West Hollywood, the shopping on Melrose (from West Hollywood, Bev Grove, and Fairfax), the Shopping of the Beverly Center, Robertson Blvd, Cedars Hospital. Not far from stops are Grove and LACMA/Miracle Mile but the Fairfax route would be closer to that but greater distance to the other routes. A lot of the northern half of LA Cienega is already developed with higher density (apartments) housing

La Brea is probably the worst. While the shortest and cheapest, it doesnt go to places people want but relies on having to transfer on subway or bus to get to other locations. Also most of the corridor is single family homes or low rise outside the primary street.

The Vermont Route is stupid, too. I get they want to create a hub like 7th Street Station or Union Station where multiple lines would meet

[Quixote]

The La Cienega and San Vicente routes are too forced and circuitous. They’re also already prohibitively expensive even before the inevitable complaints of aerial instead of subway alignments.

[Illithid Dude]

I could really see Fairfax being chosen. I feel like part of the reason both La Brea and La Cienega are elevated is to push people in the direction of the all-subway Fairfax.

This is a case where all three streets are equally valid choices. In an ideal world, we would be building three subway lines, not one, as well as a rapid transit line down Santa Monica. Whatever is ultimately chosen will be a compromise in some way, shape, or form. Considering this, Fairfax, being midway between La Cienega and La Brea, strikes me as the ideal compromise.

The craziest thing about the report released by AECOM is that this is going to be the highest performing rapid transit line in terms of ridership per mile, even higher than the Red and Purple Lines. This is what happens when lines are planned because of an actual need for transit, rather than petty political reasons. I hope Metro takes note, and remembers this when studying future transportation corridors.

[numble]

La Cienega and San Vincente can’t be ruled out since West Hollywood wants the San Vincente option (or presumably any option that runs for a longer length through West Hollywood) and they have committed to potentially funding 8%-28% of the cost (usually local cities only pay 3%):
http://weho.granicus.com/MetaViewer....meta_id=148535

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by aquablue

L.A needs some kind of rapid transit suburban rail. The area is very large for light rail. Why don't they do something like London has, with Overground or RER in Paris or Sydney. Aren't there any old tracks to use in the area?

Metrolink?

[bzcat]

The deck is stacked against Fairfax (my preferred route)... too expensive and not enough of a ridership bonus over La Brea or La Cienega.

La Cienega is interesting but note that with all the extra job destinations, the ridership bump over La Brea is rather disappointing. I think the ridership model may need to be revisited during EIR. I guess the end to end ridership suffers on La Cienega because of the detour thru WeHo.

Also, the La Brea alignment is missing a few stations which should boost ridership by another 10~15%... which will make is really tough to beat. Unless of course WeHo brings on the PR machine to tar and feather it.

[destroycreate]

How realistic do you guys see this line actually coming to fruition and what year? (the one that would run near or through WeHo).

[saybanana]

I dont understand the ridership figures. I cant understand why ridership numbers are so high compared to other Metro lines and near equal to proposed routes. Wouldn't places that have high density housing, which is most of West Hollywood north and south of Santa Monica Blvd, plus the jobs rich areas of Beverly Grove and West Hollywood and the places of interests like shopping and nightlife, mean that a Fairfax or La Cienega /Vicente, be significantly higher than a La Brea route which lacks on all those points.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by saybanana

I dont understand the ridership figures. I cant understand why ridership numbers are so high compared to other Metro lines and near equal to proposed routes. Wouldn't places that have high density housing, which is most of West Hollywood north and south of Santa Monica Blvd, plus the jobs rich areas of Beverly Grove and West Hollywood and the places of interests like shopping and nightlife, mean that a Fairfax or La Cienega /Vicente, be significantly higher than a La Brea route which lacks on all those points.

Ridership is a function of destinations served and speed.

La Cienega or Fairfax have destination but goes on a detour to serve those destinations. So it is a slow ride from end to end. That means it will lose a number of people trying to get from WeHo to Mid City or LAX to other means of travel.

La Brea has speed but doesn't get to that many jobs center or destinations along the way. So while it will attract people riding end to end, it miss out on ridership generated by destinations on La Cienega and Fairfax.

So it's always a balance.