LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by bzcat

That's true... lots of people walk in LA in their neighborhoods where road designs and built enviornment allow walking. But very few people will walk in suburban areas that has walled subdivision or cul de sac/closed loop roads with single entry/exit point and going to the store involves 2 or 3 mile detour. Once you are south of Imperial/105 freeway (give or take) and North of Sunset, the utility of walking becomes very challenged.

People walk when it is the easiest way to get around. And in a lot of metro area of LA that is true. But that's not true in large swath of SFV, SGV, South LA, and South Bay.

Yes, but that's true for many older cities suburbs too. I'm from the DC area, and outside of a FEW areas near subway stations, NOBODY WALKS, ANYWHERE. Even with subway stops nearby, there's still not a ton of foot traffic for most of those places. They're pretty quiet.

Most of the SGV and SFV are not subdivisions. Either is the South Bay. Compared to many older cities suburbs, there's less of that here actually.

And you're talking about north of Sunset? That huge area that's part of a MOUNTAIN RANGE? Why would it have a ton of pedestrian traffic? That's a weird thing to bring up .

The fact is, LA's full of areas/neighborhoods where people walk around. If you don't notice it, I don't know what to say.
Is it everywhere? No. But that's true for any city sans NYC.

[LineDrive]

It simply blows my mind the ineptness of Metro. In a city like Los Angeles you have a chance to make a mass transit system elite. You have a chance to really define the city. Yet Metro drops the ball time and time again.

First: It still hard for me to understand what Metro is thinking with the ESFV line. It’s a waste of time, effort and most of all a waste of resources. Its not grade separated, it’s planned for way too many stations and most of all it doesn’t connect to any similar mode - essentially making it a forced transfer situation.

To me it’s an absolute no brainer that the ESFV be the same mode as the Sepulveda line. NO BRAINER. To me I think it is a much better idea to use the funds set aside for the ESFV line to simply extend the Sepulveda line. Currently Metro is planning for the Sepulveda line to go (further than initially expected) to the Van Nuys MetroLink station. That’s about 2.5 miles up the aprox 9 mile ESFV corridor. You use the money for the ESFV line (about 1.5B-2B) and use it to extend the Sepulveda line another 2 miles (or 2 stops) and that covers just more than half of the ESFV corridor with a FAST, reliable, modern HRT line that goes even deeper into the Valley, down to the west side and all the way to LAX.

Now I know technically the money set aside for these projects is specifically allocated to certain projects because of the political nature of the ballot measures. But considering it’s the same corridor and serves the same area - I doubt it would be an issue

(I’d be more open to considering the current plans for the ESFV if they had future plans in the works for it to turn east and run where the orange line is now, pass the NOHO Red line stop and eventually turn south to connect with a Northern extension of the WSAB line - then maybe you’re onto something) -
but having it just be a glorified streetcar for that price? Are you kidding me? Street running, not grade separated and 14 stops? What a colossal waste.


————————————————

By the way, another easy call: The alternatives for the Sepulveda line are pretty clear: HRT 1 should be the choice. It connects to the ESFV line TWICE. It doesn’t cause more headaches for Metro by going with the elevated concept. And it’s FASTER. As far as the alignment for the southern part: Centinela seems the best choice because it runs through more dense area.

Question: Why in the would Metro not consider extending this line 2 miles EAST to stop at the new stadium district where you’ll have a state of the art stadium for 2 NFL teams, a performance venue, the Forum, a start of the art arena for the Clippers, and a massive shopping & living district around it. Kind of seems like an obvious place for a subway. Don’t tell me they can’t come up with the money here.

[LineDrive]

Also. I know Los Angeles is going through a transformation of sorts. It’s slowly becoming more of a “dense” and urban environment and less of the sprawl it had been known for. This is for a simple reason: the population continues to grow and they’re running out of room.

If Los Angeles is really going to progress and reach its full potential then it needs to make a serious investment in its mass transit infrastructure. The two ballot measures passed in ‘08 and ‘16 were great starts. They allowed taxpayers of the county to fund different transportation projects spread throughout the county. But here is the thing: because the measures needed 66.6% of the vote to pass (state law) the measures were written so every part of the county got a piece of the pie. Each area got a different project. Because of the money wasn’t set aside based on NEED.

For example, the Gold Line. The foothill extension was an okay project. But Azusa is as far as it needs to go. The 2B phase is a total waste. $2B that could be used elsewhere.

What needs to happen in very short order is this: If the Federal Government won’t make a serious investment then the state needs too. The most recent state budget is approximately $214B. If the state of California would devote $6B a year for the next 10 years ($5B a year for LA, $1B a year for SF projects like a second transbay tunnel and the BART to SJ extension - this is to satisfy the people who will surely whine about LA getting all the attention). That is a mere 3% of what the budget is right now and combined with the two ballot measures and any federal help - would surely be enough to build out the modern, fast, world class transit system needed in LA. That $50B over 10 years would build: Sepulveda HRT from Sylmar to Inglewood stadium; Crenshaw North entirely SUBWAY, Vermont Avenue HRT Red Line extension from Wilshire to El Segundo Blvd (Subway to Gage Ave. & Elevated south of that); East LA Gold Line extension entirely Subway down Washington BLVD or Whittier; Purple Line extension to Santa Monica: Green Line Lincoln Blvd to Santa Monica; Green Line South Bay extension to connect to lower portion of the Blue Line; Orange Line conversion to LRT to eventually connect with a Northern extension of WSAB; Putting the Expo & Blue lines totally grade separated & underground) from the Coliseum to 7th street MetroCenter.

These are the projects LA needs and needs to be done CORRECT. Not half ass. And on top of that Metro needs to work with developers to build high density housing in and around these stations, especially the major transfer stations (Crenshaw/Expo) for instance.

[Quixote]

You’re preaching to the choir regarding the Van Nuys corridor. The streetcar is an absolute waste when it’d be just a slight upgrade over the bus. Just extend the line all the way up to Sylmar with two stops (with infill stations coming in the later future) and provide BRT service.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

Also. I know Los Angeles is going through a transformation of sorts. It’s slowly becoming more of a “dense” and urban environment and less of the sprawl it had been known for. This is for a simple reason: the population continues to grow and they’re running out of room.

If Los Angeles is really going to progress and reach its full potential then it needs to make a serious investment in its mass transit infrastructure. The two ballot measures passed in ‘08 and ‘16 were great starts. They allowed taxpayers of the county to fund different transportation projects spread throughout the county. But here is the thing: because the measures needed 66.6% of the vote to pass (state law) the measures were written so every part of the county got a piece of the pie. Each area got a different project. Because of the money wasn’t set aside based on NEED.

For example, the Gold Line. The foothill extension was an okay project. But Azusa is as far as it needs to go. The 2B phase is a total waste. $2B that could be used elsewhere.

What needs to happen in very short order is this: If the Federal Government won’t make a serious investment then the state needs too. The most recent state budget is approximately $214B. If the state of California would devote $6B a year for the next 10 years ($5B a year for LA, $1B a year for SF projects like a second transbay tunnel and the BART to SJ extension - this is to satisfy the people who will surely whine about LA getting all the attention). That is a mere 3% of what the budget is right now and combined with the two ballot measures and any federal help - would surely be enough to build out the modern, fast, world class transit system needed in LA. That $50B over 10 years would build: Sepulveda HRT from Sylmar to Inglewood stadium; Crenshaw North entirely SUBWAY, Vermont Avenue HRT Red Line extension from Wilshire to El Segundo Blvd (Subway to Gage Ave. & Elevated south of that); East LA Gold Line extension entirely Subway down Washington BLVD or Whittier; Purple Line extension to Santa Monica: Green Line Lincoln Blvd to Santa Monica; Green Line South Bay extension to connect to lower portion of the Blue Line; Orange Line conversion to LRT to eventually connect with a Northern extension of WSAB; Putting the Expo & Blue lines totally grade separated & underground) from the Coliseum to 7th street MetroCenter.

These are the projects LA needs and needs to be done CORRECT. Not half ass. And on top of that Metro needs to work with developers to build high density housing in and around these stations, especially the major transfer stations (Crenshaw/Expo) for instance.

I completely disagree about the Gold Line Extension. In fact Metro is essentially, after the extension into SB county is complete, turning over the any future eastern expansion into SB county's hands. It will be a great low cost option to travel to San Bernardino on top of commuter rail with higher frequencies. The southern portion of the Gold Line serves cities that are begging for additional transit options and deserve it as their population pays into the tax as well. The 210 needs to be widened in the same manner that the LBJ in Dallas was.

I completely agree with everything else you mentioned and it's a joke Metro is proposing the Van Nuys line in the way they are. What reason is there to take it if it will move slower than a car-- it is insanity. The silver line should be extended to San Pedro and converted to light-rail. The blue line should be converted to elevated heavy rail. Expo line should remove all grade separations. Purple line goes to Ocean Ave or even better makes a curve underneath PCH and has a stop at the Santa Monica Pier area or adjacent for easy beach access heading south towards Venice along Ocean. These things could be done for less than 30 billion and if California would stop spending so much on welfare(cue the predictable responses to this) the surplus could take care of this or be broken down.

Elevated express lanes(3-4 in each direction) spanning from DTLA to Topanga HGWY also connecting to the 10 express lane terminus and onto Union Station would easily be some of the most profitable toll lanes in the world. This could fund free BRT service all along the express lanes and make the Silver line(even with my proposal for LRT converstion) service free.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

The silver line should be extended to San Pedro and converted to light-rail.

I've never understood why this isn't even included in the long range plan. It would fill a gap in the Metro network.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I've never understood why this isn't even included in the long range plan. It would fill a gap in the Metro network.

I think extending the BRT to San Pedro is a good idea. But I think converting it to light rail is a terrible one.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

And on top of that Metro needs to work with developers to build high density housing in and around these stations, especially the major transfer stations (Crenshaw/Expo) for instance.

This sounds a little Tokyo-esque, and I totally agree.

[Quixote]

Do you guys really think the inclusion of all those highway projects was needed in order to pass Measure M? It was the Metro Board of Directors that ultimately decided whether or not to put those initiatives on the ballot. And 97% of the people who voted probably didn't even know the specifics (e.g. projects) included in the ordinance. Dedicating 20% to highway projects is absurd, and if that apportionment was just 15%, you'd have enough capital to finish the Subway to the Sea and extend the Red Line down to Expo. Eliminate the highway portion, and it's an extra $24 billion for rail projects. Think about how much we could build with that capital.

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Do you guys really think the inclusion of all those highway projects was needed in order to pass Measure M? It was the Metro Board of Directors that ultimately decided whether or not to put those initiatives on the ballot. And 97% of the people who voted probably didn't even know the specifics (e.g. projects) included in the ordinance. Dedicating 20% to highway projects is absurd, and if that apportionment was just 15%, you'd have enough capital to finish the Subway to the Sea and extend the Red Line down to Expo. Eliminate the highway portion, and it's an extra $24 billion for rail projects. Think about how much we could build with that capital.

That’s nauseating just to think about.

Maybe Metro puts a ballot measure on to reduce the Highway portion to 15%?

You might not get as much pushback on such a measure

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Do you guys really think the inclusion of all those highway projects was needed in order to pass Measure M? It was the Metro Board of Directors that ultimately decided whether or not to put those initiatives on the ballot. And 97% of the people who voted probably didn't even know the specifics (e.g. projects) included in the ordinance. Dedicating 20% to highway projects is absurd, and if that apportionment was just 15%, you'd have enough capital to finish the Subway to the Sea and extend the Red Line down to Expo. Eliminate the highway portion, and it's an extra $24 billion for rail projects. Think about how much we could build with that capital.

Well how many people voted for measure M thinking the mass transit component would reduce traffic as claimed?

https://transfersmagazine.org/does-l...educe-traffic/

Has anyone else noticed traffic improvements on Venice? Surely not me. Especially not on the 10 where I remember seeing billboards claiming the Expo line was under construction and traffic relief is on the way.

At any rate these freeway projects seem to be getting butchered anyways. 710 south project scaled back. 710 tunnel canceled. 405 fast track lanes surely scaled back seemingly initially proposed as a tunnel though misinterpretation might have been afoot there. The HDC placed on the back burner. Metro is becoming more and more anti-freeway by the minute. They seem to operate how they feel fit so you should worry not. It seems most money will be funneled into transit project first anyways though I'd love to be wrong on that one! I would prefer more highway projects have been included. Starting with the 101/405 interchange.

[Quixote]

The best highway improvements (what is there to improve besides pavement?) come in the form of less people using them, which means more people using rail. If 67% of the funds ($80 billion) we’re allocated for transit capital and used to build rail mostly north of the 105, east of the LA River, and south of the 118 (in the north SFV), that would actually yield a true usable system with ridership around 1.5-2 million each weekday. That’s your traffic congestion relief right there.

Most people don’t seem to understand that just because a rail line doesn’t directly serve a particular region or community doesn’t mean that said region or community can’t or doesn’t benefit from the rail line being built. This idea of a rail line relieving congestion along a freeway it runs parallel to is precisely the type of fallacy that continues to hold back progress.

Metro’s a really conservative agency that just doesn’t know how to skillfully maneuver about. Washington’s decision to reduce rail service frequency past 8:00 just to save a few million dollars was absolutely egregious. And then Metro had the audacity to even wonder why ridership is down before asking the public for input on what they want. Metro gets a solid “C” grade, although it could easily be a “B+” if it would just develop some self-awareness and learn to get the hell out of its own way.

[SFBruin]

delete

[SFBruin]

delete

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Quixote

The best highway improvements (what is there to improve besides pavement?) come in the form of less people using them, which means more people using rail. If 67% of the funds ($80 billion) we’re allocated for transit capital and used to build rail mostly north of the 105, east of the LA River, and south of the 118 (in the north SFV), that would actually yield a true usable system with ridership around 1.5-2 million each weekday. That’s your traffic congestion relief right there.

Most people don’t seem to understand that just because a rail line doesn’t directly serve a particular region or community doesn’t mean that said region or community can’t or doesn’t benefit from the rail line being built. This idea of a rail line relieving congestion along a freeway it runs parallel to is precisely the type of fallacy that continues to hold back progress.

Metro’s a really conservative agency that just doesn’t know how to skillfully maneuver about. Washington’s decision to reduce rail service frequency past 8:00 just to save a few million dollars was absolutely egregious. And then Metro had the audacity to even wonder why ridership is down before asking the public for input on what they want. Metro gets a solid “C” grade, although it could easily be a “B+” if it would just develop some self-awareness and learn to get the hell out of its own way.

couldnt agree more. They are great at getting in their way. You want more usage? Add more service and much shorter headways. Clear out the bums as well. Instead, they cut headways and are exploring adding bathrooms for the bums. Ridiculous

[SFBruin]

I'm not sure that this is the right time, but this is my idea for an LRT line down Florence (dark pink).

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I'm not sure that this is the right time, but this is my idea for an LRT line down Florence (dark pink).

That looks great but even in a “best case scenario” probably a use of resources that could be better spent elsewhere. I think ideally - and if you could make a map showing this I’d love to see it:

1. Vermont Red Line Extension to W. El Segundo Blvd
2. Sepulveda HRT: San Fernando Rd/Van Nuys to Inglewood Stadium Maybe even extending to connect with RL at Century & Vermont)
3. Purple Line Extension to Santa Monica
4. Crenshaw North Extension (Fairfax) Entirely Subway
5. East side LRT Extension Whittier BLVD Subway
6. Orange Line conversion to LRT; Via Pierce College to NoHo to DT Burbank to San Fernando/Grand View to Atwater Village to Echo Park to Angelina Hts to Dodger Stadium to Bunker Hill to Little Tokyo to WSAB
7. Lincoln BLVD Green Line Extension to Santa Monica
8. South Bay LRT Extension from Redondo Beach Station to PCH Long Beach

[edale]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

couldnt agree more. They are great at getting in their way. You want more usage? Add more service and much shorter headways. Clear out the bums as well. Instead, they cut headways and are exploring adding bathrooms for the bums. Ridiculous

This. It's great that we are building more rail lines throughout the city and county, but the experience for the actual current transit riders continues to be maddening. I take public transit from my apartment in Los Feliz to downtown, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to justify doing so over driving. I take a DASH bus to the Vermont/Sunset station, and it's incredibly unreliable and doesn't stick to the schedule at all in the mornings. They actually just eliminated the Los Feliz Dash this week! Now, we have the Observatory bus, but it no longer serves the eastern part of Los Feliz, unless you want to go all the way up to the Observatory and come back down. They eliminated the service and changed the Observatory route without so much as telling riders a change was being considered. Just woke up on Monday and the bus route had been eliminated. Even when it was around, it stopped running at 7PM and had no weekend service.

When I do finally get to the station, morning headways during rush hour are 12 minutes!!! When I tell people this from out of town they honestly can't believe it. Off peak is what, 22 minutes? Who does that work for? No one who has to be places. On top of that, there are constantly outbursts and bad behavior on the trains and at the stations. I've seen people pissing right on the platform, fights, guys rolling blunts and throwing the tobacco onto the floor of the train, really aggressive pan handling, some of the worst smells I've ever encountered... I routinely ask myself why I still use transit here.

We're building more and more of a network, but paying less than zero attention to current riders. There's a reason ridership continues to fall and fall.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

They are great at getting in their way. You want more usage? Add more service and much shorter headways. Clear out the bums as well. Instead, they cut headways and are exploring adding bathrooms for the bums. Ridiculous

This is where the attention to detail of getting in front of the Metro Board and highlighting this is key. The 13 members who lead the board most of whom are elected officials need to pay close attention to the current riders and treat them like they are gold instead of coal. With the LADOT example that is clearly on Mayor Garcetti's watch that he needs to deliver on. What is also funny is that the County Board of Supervisors just approved a Sustainability Plan and no where in that plan talks about improving bus stop cleanliness where some of the key safety and reliability issues lie.

Originally Posted by edale

This. It's great that we are building more rail lines throughout the city and county, but the experience for the actual current transit riders continues to be maddening. I take public transit from my apartment in Los Feliz to downtown, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to justify doing so over driving. I take a DASH bus to the Vermont/Sunset station, and it's incredibly unreliable and doesn't stick to the schedule at all in the mornings. They actually just eliminated the Los Feliz Dash this week! Now, we have the Observatory bus, but it no longer serves the eastern part of Los Feliz, unless you want to go all the way up to the Observatory and come back down. They eliminated the service and changed the Observatory route without so much as telling riders a change was being considered. Just woke up on Monday and the bus route had been eliminated. Even when it was around, it stopped running at 7PM and had no weekend service.

When I do finally get to the station, morning headways during rush hour are 12 minutes!!! When I tell people this from out of town they honestly can't believe it. Off peak is what, 22 minutes? Who does that work for? No one who has to be places. On top of that, there are constantly outbursts and bad behavior on the trains and at the stations. I've seen people pissing right on the platform, fights, guys rolling blunts and throwing the tobacco onto the floor of the train, really aggressive pan handling, some of the worst smells I've ever encountered... I routinely ask myself why I still use transit here.

We're building more and more of a network, but paying less than zero attention to current riders. There's a reason ridership continues to fall and fall.

I feel that our expansion needs to look at our new potential riders but also the current riders who rely on the system. The same goes to some of our highway improvement projects. Short changing some of these projects (710 South and ExpressLanes expansion) can have detrimental affects to moving the goods from the ports and to stores and shops that we all go to which then impacts the sales tax dollars which funds our transit expansion (Props A & C, Measures R & M) and operations that we are trying to expand upon.

[numble]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

That’s nauseating just to think about.

Maybe Metro puts a ballot measure on to reduce the Highway portion to 15%?

You might not get as much pushback on such a measure

The highway portion is actually 17%. Reducing it to 15% will net you an extra $2.39 billion.