LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[numble]

Here's everyone's chance to submit their ideas for capital projects--Metro is developing a list of strategic capital projects that are currently unfunded.

https://twitter.com/numble/status/13...049240577?s=20

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

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.

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.

I know exactly why the trains are that size, hell that may be a benefit of the Bechtel Proposal because the automated trains could be the same dimensions as our LRVs just automated in a fully grade separated corridor.

My point that you are alluding to in the middle of your post. The funds there should have been utilized to actually grade separate that portion and solve both issues in one master stroke. However because I know that would have required Metro to delay the EIR process of the East SFV LRT project and the Metro board didn't want to take the political risk.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by 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.

There has never been anything formally proposed by any agency. I know when I was a Sierra Club Transportation Committee member we discussed something like that was doable before Measure M during the Mobility Matrix phase to consider the Sepulveda Pass as a fully grade separated light metro (utilizing LRVs) and have it stretch from Van Nuys down to LAX and then tie into the Green Line branch to Torrance.

[IMG][/IMG]

[JDRCRASH]

^ I like how that concept utilizes some freight corridors and turning them into Metrolink lines.

[badrunner]

We should note that map is pure fantasy (it's titled SC Transit Dream Map_2014) in case anyone gets the wrong idea here. Though I do like the idea of a Metrolink line to San Pedro using existing freight tracks. I don't know how practical that would be, but as a railfan I would like nothing more than to take a diesel train on a night ride through the industrial heartland of the region.

[Quixote]

One thing that this Sepulveda project has made clear to me recently is that we must, must use it as an opportunity to set a precedent for elevated rail in LA -- not just for busy intersections that require the grade-separation, but for long stretches of geography. It's the only way that game-changing rail lines along Vermont, Pico/Venice, etc. Vermont in particular is wide as hell, particularly south of 135th, so I can't for the life of me understand why Metro insists on a 100% underground alignment for HRT. If anything, an aerial structure would improve aesthetics by injecting some life into what is a really sparse-looking streetscape.

I can't think of any major city with an extensive, heavily-used rapid transit system that is entirely subway... there's a reason for that.

[Busy Bee]

^^ But the tunneling technology keeps evolving and, who knows, may get to a point where its more cost competitive than one might imagine, especially if station costs could be brought down through better engineering.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I can't think of any major city with an extensive, heavily-used rapid transit system that is entirely subway... there's a reason for that.

Yeah but that could mean a lot of open cuts or earthen embankments, not necessarily the concrete viaduct aesthetic that you seem to be suggesting is the only reasonable alternative. Personally I'd like to see more trenching in the middle of thoroughfares that can accommodate them (like a Vermont), using techniques that keep the cost as low as possible (i.e. skewed driven "architectural" sheet piling, maybe made of cor-ten steel or designed to accept vertical landscaping or even Gabion wall, anything besides an Alameda style of trench requiring bracing, anchoring and enormous amounts of concrete to hold it together). Of course, when we are talking about cuts, the open cut only is possible if a thoroughfare has a wide median, otherwise we can talk about cut and cover construction that may be cheaper than tunneling but whether the difference is enough to justify the disruption is another issue entirely.

[Quixote]

^ The trenches and embankments that characterize other systems were built several generations ago. In the US, it appears that trenching at intersections ended after the WMATA/BART/MARTA era; now it's more common to go the aerial route. Embankments aren't a viable option for LA unless you're talking about a wide ROW like Vermont. But even then, I'd rather they use the real estate for an extra track.

[Quixote]

Decided to have a little fun. Concept for an automated elevated rail line similar to the Bechtel proposal. Connections with three rail lines (Crenshaw, Expo, Sepulveda), density, and destinations should make it cost-competitive for FTA New Starts. Subway stations are denoted in blue; you could eliminate either the Hauser or La Brea station.

At 9 miles and about $500 million per mile, that's a capital cost of $4.5 billion. FTA can finance $2.25 billion (they're granting over $4 billion for the Westside Subway extension of comparable length). This can also be built and operated as a P3.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ The trenches and embankments that characterize other systems were built several generations ago. In the US, it appears that trenching at intersections ended after the WMATA/BART/MARTA era; now it's more common to go the aerial route. Embankments aren't a viable option for LA unless you're talking about a wide ROW like Vermont. But even then, I'd rather they use the real estate for an extra track.

That may be only because it coincides with when the 1970s FTA investments into heavy rail ended and a new era of light-rail-is-the-solution-even-if-heavy-rail-is-justified era began.

When I say embankment I mean retained fill embankment not sloped.

[Quixote]

^ Still, where in LA would you build that? I'm not partial to elevated viaducts because of the aesthetics... far from it. It's all about the grade-separation, plain and simple. How that's achieved doesn't matter to me.

[Quixote]

Total pie-in-the-sky, but I'd love to see a 2.5-mile underground people mover connecting the D (Purple) Line's VA station at Wilshire/Bonsall to the Getty Center, with an elevator shaft taking you straight up to the Arrival Plaza and the elevator box resembling NYC's Apple store on Fifth Avenue.

To finance and operate this, the Getty could hike up their parking fees, start charging admission (once they strengthen their permanent collection more), and work with Metro to create a special "Getty Center" pass. By that time, Metro should be developed enough to justify charging higher fares rather than making their services free to the public.

[JDRCRASH]

^Ta-da! Getty Center now has rail access so need to send a monorail to it

Originally Posted by badrunner

We should note that map is pure fantasy (it's titled SC Transit Dream Map_2014) in case anyone gets the wrong idea here. Though I do like the idea of a Metrolink line to San Pedro using existing freight tracks. I don't know how practical that would be, but as a railfan I would like nothing more than to take a diesel train on a night ride through the industrial heartland of the region.

That's cool, i'd actually prefer it continue on to the Signal Hill/LGB area so we can have some form of Metrolink access to the Long Beach area.

[Quixote]

Anyone else agree with me that an automated, stand-alone line elevated along Venice as part of a P3 is the way to go? Venice, while wide, is too busy for an at-grade LRT alignment and the reduction in traffic lanes would make it an even tougher sell. An elevated viaduct, with its singular columns, avoids this delicate issue and preserves the center median (which can still be landscaped).

Venice is lined with mostly small businesses (even through Mar Vista), the owners of which would more than welcome the idea of trains because it would increase property values and make their businesses more readily accessible to hundreds of thousands of more people on any given day.

Automation affords more frequent, reliable service, which in turn yields higher ridership systemwide, thereby offsetting the greater capital expenditures in the long-run.

An eastward extension into DT crosses paths with the Vermont Red Line extension and the Blue/Expo Lines at Pico station, not to mention serves high-density DT itself and the additional hundreds of thousands of residents that will be living there when this scenario is possible.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Quixote

An eastward extension into DT crosses paths with the Vermont Red Line extension and the Blue/Expo Lines at Pico station, not to mention serves high-density DT itself and the additional hundreds of thousands of residents that will be living there when this scenario is possible.

If it’s LRT maybe you could even extend it through the Fashion District to link with WSAB?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Total pie-in-the-sky, but I'd love to see a 2.5-mile underground people mover connecting the D (Purple) Line's VA station at Wilshire/Bonsall to the Getty Center, with an elevator shaft taking you straight up to the Arrival Plaza and the elevator box resembling NYC's Apple store on Fifth Avenue.

Earlier in this thread I talked about riding the bus from Wilshire to the Getty Center a few years ago. The service you describe already exists, but it's fairly undignified as the Getty Center bus stop is in a pretty random location and the buses are often snarled in 405/UCLA traffic.

The Getty Center is great but by no means does its draw demand a transit stop. In Portland they have a light rail subway station 300 feet below the Portland Zoo. It's a very nice thing to have but it was criticized at the time for taking money away from what could have been a longer line and for causing every single train to stop in the middle of a 3-mile tunnel right next to downtown where they could have otherwise zipped along at 65mph.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

If it’s LRT maybe you could even extend it through the Fashion District to link with WSAB?

DT needs a subway line that swings up either Los Angeles or San Pedro Street. I think the WSAB is being developed as a P3 anyway, so no interlining. I also think the next generation of Metro projects needs to be more rapid transit than LRT. LRT only works if it's in an exclusive ROW like much of the Gold Line or the Orange Line... which I think HRT should be considered to provide a high-capacity for the SFV, with most of it running at-grade.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Earlier in this thread I talked about riding the bus from Wilshire to the Getty Center a few years ago. The service you describe already exists, but it's fairly undignified as the Getty Center bus stop is in a pretty random location and the buses are often snarled in 405/UCLA traffic.

The Getty Center is great but by no means does its draw demand a transit stop. In Portland they have a light rail subway station 300 feet below the Portland Zoo. It's a very nice thing to have but it was criticized at the time for taking money away from what could have been a longer line and for causing every single train to stop in the middle of a 3-mile tunnel right next to downtown where they could have otherwise zipped along at 65mph.

Of course it doesn't warrant its own underground people mover, but a visit to the Getty Center is the #1 thing to do in LA according to Tripadvisor. The beauty is that the alignment is a straight line under mostly public property, and could theoretically be extended to take on the form of the Bundy/Centinela option for the Sepulveda corridor. Again, connections to multiple rail lines -- Purple, Expo, and my proposed Venice line would make financing something like this more viable because of the premium service afforded by automation. And also because LA is, you know, a large cosmopolitan city that is trying to move away from total car-dependence.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

One thing that this Sepulveda project has made clear to me recently is that we must, must use it as an opportunity to set a precedent for elevated rail in LA -- not just for busy intersections that require the grade-separation, but for long stretches of geography. It's the only way that game-changing rail lines along Vermont, Pico/Venice, etc. Vermont in particular is wide as hell, particularly south of 135th, so I can't for the life of me understand why Metro insists on a 100% underground alignment for HRT. If anything, an aerial structure would improve aesthetics by injecting some life into what is a really sparse-looking streetscape.

I can't think of any major city with an extensive, heavily-used rapid transit system that is entirely subway... there's a reason for that.

100% agreement, that is why I am partial to how Becthel's approach to Heavy Rail capacity because a corridor like Vermont, Fairfax or even Whittier Blvd in the future can utilize the strategies there to rethink how to build HRT in LA.