LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by caligrad

In my opinion, and I may get a lot of slack for this, I really never considered the entire Vermont corridor necessarily needing heavy rail. Vermont gets really wide south of gage, so wide to the point that metro could slap LRT down the median and call it a day... Maybe even wide enough beginning at Slauson. But that tricky little section between the 10 and Slauson I foresee getting killed politically just on the basis that the Vermont corridor is far from being one of the denser corridors in the county that could actually use the heavy construction for HRT. I know we all wish that our rails were either grad separated or buried but truth be told, density to warrant the construction costs falls off quickly once you're south of the 10. In the minds of politicians, They can care less if the stop lights/traffic cause our trips to be an extra 15-20 mins a trip, especially if it means doing it the LRT way means they save billions but at the same time get the job done.

And in all honesty this can be BRT, Streetcar, LRT or HRT depending on what demands we place on the corridor. If it is streetcar, doesn't matter, if it is BRT then that will be a fight on the priorities of the street and if bike advocates come in a say this has to have a bike lane on it, that all but kills a dedicated Bus Lane for one of the most transit dependent and usable corridors in LA County.

Personally it will require a dedicated right-of-way or corridor in the densest and narrowest cross-section of the line from 3rd Street down to 66th (just south of Gage) the line will need to be underground.

In addition the section south of 66th down to close to Gardena can be a combination of street running median LRT or elevated running on the median where the we can get heavier rail capacity by just running longer trains.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Doing that would probably cut end-to-end travel time on expo to 40 minutes (it's 33 mins to exp/usc, and fully underground for the rest of the route would be around 7 minutes if you compare to the Purple Line). Throw in preemption from Crenshaw to that tunnel and you probably save another ~5 minutes. Total travel time of 35 minutes would be pretty competitive with driving even during non-peak periods.

But it would also cost a ton, likely well over a billion. This would be a 2.6 mile tunnel with 3 underground stations and a re-built interchange at Washington. Compare that with the 1.9 mile regional connector with 3 underground stations, which will cost around $1.6 billion when complete. The flower route could likely make use of more cut-and-cover, but given the longer route, I'm guessing it would end up costing a similar amount.

I think the most cost-effective and safest approach is to simply move the "My Figueroa" Pedestrian and Transit Improvements to Flower Street and give Figueroa back to cars. The only adjustment is to eliminate the 18th Street 10 Freeway east on ramp.

By making Flower Street all Transit and Pedestrians the bulk of the safety conflicts of cars turning into trains on Flower and the dedicated left turn signals that exist are eliminated and it enables a more reliable flow of trains and buses as they are no longer fighting with other vehicles that also translates to better ability of the operators to run faster on a green wave

Combine this effort with extending the 110 Harbor Freeway express lanes over Adams Blvd which would eliminate the biggest traffic signalling headache and traffic bottleneck to the system and enables faster running times on the Expo Line and gives the flexibility of the signals to better catch the green waves from Pico down to Jefferson Blvd.

Now if this has to be converted to a tunnel, we might as well start investigating realigning the Washington Blvd surface portion of the Blue Line corridor to an alignment taking advantage of the eastern section of the Air Line right of way from Flower Street to the Blue Line. This way the tunnel's capabilities are maximized for the cost to implement.

This way the Blue Line can be re-routed to serve USC providing more frequency and a newer alignment on a right of way can be made with a couple of grade separations relatively cheap and speed up travel along the Blue Line.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Thanks. I think I'll do just that. Perhaps I'll form a group of people who want this instead of the short sighted San Vincente-Santa Monica extension of the Crenshaw line, but want to serve places in WeHo and Beverly Grove. I would be honored if anybody used my maps to help advocate for this course of action. Write Metro, post it on a website, do whatever.

Here's the question, where is the additional money to do both corridors is going to come from?

If together (La Brea & La Cienega) neither of them are cost-effective to obtain important Federal New Starts grants why should the agency stick it's neck out for two corridors that won't work and you end up pissing off an electoral base that supported Measure M close to its center of influence in West Hollywood.

Given all the different variables, I would argue that this makes a stronger case for a Northern Extension of Crenshaw to go via Fairfax as this hits more destinations along the way from Expo up to the Red Line in Hollywood and if someone needs to transfer to Santa Monica Blvd/Sunset Strip attractions they are a shorter distance away walking or even shuttling it via Uber/Lyft from possible station and serve more of West Hollywood in the process.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Here's the question, where is the additional money to do both corridors is going to come from?

If together neither of them are cost-effective to obtain important Federal New Starts grants why should the agency stick it's neck out for two corridors that won't work and you end up pissing off an electoral base that supported Measure M close to its center of influence in West Hollywood.

This would be considered one project, and if it couldn't get new starts funding, then no Crenshaw north extension could. The problem with Fairfax is that there is no good way to add metro lines to the area after it is built without innefficiencies, and more lines are inevitably necessary.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

In addition the section south of 66th down to close to Gardena can be a combination of street running median LRT or elevated running on the median where the we can get heavier rail capacity by just running longer trains.

Street running LRT has been a disaster and must be avoided. In general, I would prefer less transit that happens to be grade seperated over more transit that runs at street level.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Street running LRT has been a disaster and must be avoided. In general, I would prefer less transit that happens to be grade seperated over more transit that runs at street level.

True. Transit lines in car traffic are slow and accident prone. Often some knucklehead in a car or truck trying to outrace the crossing gates. Grade separations & dedicated rights of way, or underground should be preferred. I like the idea of extending the Crenshaw line north into W. Hollywood & Hollywood (very dense neighborhoods), but it should be built underground if costs aren't outrageous. Furthermore, since it would extend & link to the heavy rail Redline station at Highland/Hollywood Blvd (via transfer), this would link the Valley with the westside, perhaps reducing the immediate need for a very expensive Sepulveda/405 rail line & tunnel to the west. A Valley person could ride the Orange Line to the Redline station on Lankershim, and take the Redline to Hollywood, and transfer to the WeHo/Crenshaw Line & ride it to the airport.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

This would be considered one project, and if it couldn't get new starts funding, then no Crenshaw north extension could. The problem with Fairfax is that there is no good way to add metro lines to the area after it is built without inefficiencies, and more lines are inevitably necessary.

There are many areas in LA County where more lines will be needed to connect to other corridors, that will be a given, but you jump that bridge once you have the larger and wider system gaps filled first. As for Fairfax and let's say there is a second corridor running down Santa Monica Blvd, that could just as easily build two subway tubes deeper than that, this is also what a maturing transit system does when there's more lines growing to an existing network, Paris, London, New York, Tokyo has all taken this approach and the only difference is that consideration on the transfer circulation is made and even there if it is combined with private investment to make the transfer connection a series of shopping/commercial opportunities than the transfer time doesn't really matter.

With New Starts funding the key point here is that in order to stretch out more of the network we will need an immediate infusion of additional Federal dollars to build more with the Measure M dollars. There's Prop A and C. This is as much a network financing question as it is a conceptual line drawing exercise.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Street running LRT has been a disaster and must be avoided. In general, I would prefer less transit that happens to be grade seperated over more transit that runs at street level.

Street Running is only a disaster when it is not executed properly. When it is done right like it is done in many larger German Cities and even Calgary's C Train system runs at grade in dedicated malls, arterial medians and corridors swiftly and reliably.

And this preference of more separation sounds like some discussions I had many years ago (with a particular gadfly with something called Get LA Moving map) about this in terms of expanding the Metro system to serve more destinations it's a difference of network coverage versus higher quality but more costly design when the main financing of the system comes for sales tax dollars generated throughout a large and vast LA County region.

BTW after that La Cienega corridor turns to go down Venice Blvd. How do you see that Venice Blvd corridor operating as? Light Rail in the wide street median? Elevated? Subway?

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

The point of Zev's prop A was to end subway construction in Los Angeles. He said as much. The passage of measure R with billions for the purple line and Sepulveda tunnel repudiated that in 2008. Why would we not want to take advantage of all the resources we can to build them, then?

Zev's point wasn't to end subway construction but to end the spendthrift ways of the Metro Board when it came to expanding the system.

In the mid 1990's there were sinkholes both literally down Hollywood Blvd and fiscally with no fiduciary prudence in place for rail projects - that started out of as good strong modest and cost effective extensions suddenly balloon out of control and all became subways- and there was no rhyme or reason to justify the added expense in one part of the County when the rest of LA County still sees no improvements. It was commented at the time that agency had Champagne and Caviar dreams but only had the budget of beer and peanuts.

Had that not occurred I really don't believe we'd have the support for Measure R, 10 years later because taxpayers saw that Metro was fiscally responsible and can deliver on the projects (Gold Line to Pasadena, Orange Line Busway, East LA and Expo to Culver City were under construction) that they set out to build.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

There are many areas in LA County where more lines will be needed to connect to other corridors, that will be a given, but you jump that bridge once you have the larger and wider system gaps filled first.

It is better to plan for a perfect system later (Crenshaw up La Brea with future lines on La Cienega) rather than settle for a mediocre one now (Crenshaw up Fairfax)

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Street Running is only a disaster when it is not executed properly. When it is done right like it is done in many larger German Cities and even Calgary's C Train system runs at grade in dedicated malls, arterial medians and corridors swiftly and reliably.

But the problem is that street-running rail *isn't* nearly as reliable as grade-separated rail. It's clearly slower (even with signal prioritization, which is another debacle), has limited capacity, and is prone to more accidents involving both vehicles and pedestrians.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

It is better to plan for a perfect system later (Crenshaw up La Brea with future lines on La Cienega) rather than settle for a mediocre one now (Crenshaw up Fairfax)

I agree. It's better to build a system with longevity, as opposed to half-assing it now and having to deal with it again in the future (i.e. Blue Line). The latter approach is actually more expensive in the long-term.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Zev's point wasn't to end subway construction but to end the spendthrift ways of the Metro Board when it came to expanding the system.

In the mid 1990's there were sinkholes both literally down Hollywood Blvd and fiscally with no fiduciary prudence in place for rail projects - that started out of as good strong modest and cost effective extensions suddenly balloon out of control and all became subways- and there was no rhyme or reason to justify the added expense in one part of the County when the rest of LA County still sees no improvements. It was commented at the time that agency had Champagne and Caviar dreams but only had the budget of beer and peanuts.

Had that not occurred I really don't believe we'd have the support for Measure R, 10 years later because taxpayers saw that Metro was fiscally responsible and can deliver on the projects (Gold Line to Pasadena, Orange Line Busway, East LA and Expo to Culver City were under construction) that they set out to build.

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/nov/04/news/mn-39290

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who sponsored the ballot initiative, said the victory should "liberate the MTA" from its preoccupation with the subway.

"The people have sent an unmistakably clear signal to the MTA board and the political powers of Los Angeles to change course," Yaroslavsky said. "They don't want continued pursuit of a $300-million-a-mile subway."

So now we're building the purple line at $700-million-a-mile, naturally. Much more fiscally prudent.

[ChargerCarl]

Why have unit construction costs more than doubled in 20 years?

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Why have unit construction costs more than doubled in 20 years?

They haven't. Yaroslavsky's $300 million/mile is more like $450 million/mile in today's dollars. Purple Line work is somewhat more expensive due to being constructed in phases, and also because it is traveling through downtown-style intense land uses the entire way through expensive real estate.

Nonetheless, $450 million/mile is not now and was not then an unforgivably-high figure. LA's transit agencies made mistakes for sure, but barring them from using existing money on below-grade construction was a significantly more impactful mistake than anything they did.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

It is better to plan for a perfect system later (Crenshaw up La Brea with future lines on La Cienega) rather than settle for a mediocre one now (Crenshaw up Fairfax)

What is to say that by going up Fairfax will limit the system's network, this simplistic argument is a fallacy.

BTW who's definition of system perfection is this based on? Is it academia? Is it through professional planning? Is it personal?

That is to say there is no such thing as a perfect system because in the eyes of someone else there maybe imperfections. So it is not about the number of lines it is about where you place these lines and what they will serve that will improve the impact and growth of the system.

If we take this approach for the sake of argument; What about a line down Pico Boulevard that's missing from the map? How about Western Avenue? That's surely pretty dense and many transit riders already use the corridor. What's the justification of not including those on the map? Don't answer it, the statement is purely rhetorical.

With Fairfax (for the sake of argument of course) a branch is built south down Fairfax to Venice Blvd through Little Ethiopia in that narrow traffic congested-high transit user section and have that same Venice corridor -when funded eventually- turn west down to the Beach as you show so Fairfax corridor is a higher capacity trunk line that has two distinct destinations (Venice Beach and LAX/South Bay). Or better still if we don't build the second north-south corridor so close in that section of the Westside and use those funds to build that true Santa Monica Blvd east-west corridor from Century City or Beverly Hills linking with the Purple Line and continue past the Red Line in Central LA to actually serve Silver Lake, Sunset Junction, Echo Park, Dodger Stadium and Downtown LA which will have many more riders then either segment of La Brea or La Cienega. In the case of La Cienega that is dependant on that line continuing to Venice Beach via Venice Blvd for it's ridership with no formal plan in place. It is the formal planning that this needs to be incorporated in.

That system surely doesn't look mediocre now does it?

The beauty in a lot of this is there are many factors at play in determining the best approach of expanding the network it's just we have to think strategically in our planning to make it work.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/nov/04/news/mn-39290

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who sponsored the ballot initiative, said the victory should "liberate the MTA" from its preoccupation with the subway.

"The people have sent an unmistakably clear signal to the MTA board and the political powers of Los Angeles to change course," Yaroslavsky said. "They don't want continued pursuit of a $300-million-a-mile subway."

So now we're building the purple line at $700-million-a-mile, naturally. Much more fiscally prudent.

However, the context of what he is saying is still relevant.

At the time it wasn't only the Red Line project but the Pasadena Gold Line (at the time Pasadena Blue Line) from Union Station to Sierra Madre was projected to cost over $1 Billion dollars in 1996 dollars. If you go to the Metro Library and look at the construction drawings it was the same design (even with the surface 20 mph section of Marmion Way) that project eventually had to be postponed which led to the Pasadena Gold Line construction authority to build the line on time and under budget.

The core context of what Zev was trying to do was keep an eye on the expenses of the capital construction and build a regional system as these links highlight that trend of what was happening at Metro a full 2 years before the 1998 prohibition. At this time 20 years ago Metro was getting stockings of coal from the general public.

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-06-...south-pasadena

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-06-...4_1_metro-rail

http://www.moderntransit.org/moving/96nov/fdmer.html

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

But the problem is that street-running rail *isn't* nearly as reliable as grade-separated rail. It's clearly slower (even with signal prioritization, which is another debacle), has limited capacity, and is prone to more accidents involving both vehicles and pedestrians.

I agree, that's is why I am emphasizing the execution of the operation of how it operates at-grade.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

However, the context of what he is saying is still relevant, at the time it wasn't only the Red Line project but the Pasadena Gold Line (at the time Pasadena Blue Line) from Union Station to Sierra Madre was projected to cost at one time over $1 Billion dollars in 1996 dollars if you go to the Metro Library and look at the construction drawings it was the same design (even with the surface 20 mph section of Marmion Way) that project eventually had to be postponed which led to the Pasadena Gold Line construction authority to build the line on time and under budget.

The core context of what Zev was trying to do was keep an eye on the expenses of the capital construction and building a regional system as these links highlight that trend of what was happening at Metro a full 2 years before the 1998 prohibition. At this time 20 years ago Metro was getting stockings of coal from the general public.

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-06-...south-pasadena

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-06-...4_1_metro-rail

http://www.moderntransit.org/moving/96nov/fdmer.html

Prohibition is too blunt a tool. Case in point, the problems you are referring to have been solved and we still can't use A/C funds to even fund *plans* for below grade rail

[ChargerCarl]

NSMP, I'm confused by your post where you say Metro is building the purple line at 700m/mi. I thought costs were considerably lower than that, which is why I asked why construction costs have nearly doubled from ~400m/mi.

I was under the impression that our costs were in the 400-500 range, which is damn good for American HRT.