LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by electricron

What do you mean by a more circuitous route?
Isn't IH 405 fairly straight?

Monorails can have the same capacity as subways, it's just a matter of how many cars there are on the train.
LA's subway trains have a seating capacity of 183 passengers (6 car train). That averages to around 30 seats per car. Disneyland's monorails have a seating capacity of 132 passengers (5 car train). That averages to around 26 per car.
Most of the capacity of these trains during rush hour depends upon how many passengers they can accommodate standing, and upon the headways between trains.

People don't live or work on the 405.

Subway can tunnel under the mountain and UCLA to have stations located where people want to go/live/work. If you build something elevated over 405, you still have to snake it through some other surface street to get to station locations that can generate riderships.

There is ZERO chance that Metro will get community support in Sherman Oaks, Westwood, West LA, to support an elevated viaduct for a monorail over existing streets-cape. And by the time you detour your way off the 405 to places where people actually want to go, there likely won't be any cost advantages over a tunnel. Nevermind the fact that we will be introducing yet another incompatible rail system.

The whole idea is silly and nonsensical.

There is only one feasible solution to solve the Spulveda Pass transit and it is a rail tunnel.

[NSMP]

^100% agree

[hughfb3]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...arket-in-china

A link to an article about why Warren Buffett just invested in BYD; the Chinese company pitching to build our sepulveda pass project, and how China is about to build a network worth $450 BILLION in monorails to serve its cities.

It's no coincidence that BYD chose Downtown Los Angeles to be the headquarters of their north American operations.

As someone who chose to give up their car 2 months ago and living the life of a Metro/Lyft/Bike/Car share rider, I can say that I would love to have an automated driverless train/Metro/monorail in LA. I would love to take the train driver out of the Equation and replace them with train conductors who would be on EVERY train where their only job is to validate fares and make sure people have a clean, safe, enjoyable environment. LA County Metro sheriff is supposed to do this but are understaffed.

[K 22]

Originally Posted by bzcat

People don't live or work on the 405.

Subway can tunnel under the mountain and UCLA to have stations located where people want to go/live/work. If you build something elevated over 405, you still have to snake it through some other surface street to get to station locations that can generate riderships.

There is ZERO chance that Metro will get community support in Sherman Oaks, Westwood, West LA, to support an elevated viaduct for a monorail over existing streets-cape. And by the time you detour your way off the 405 to places where people actually want to go, there likely won't be any cost advantages over a tunnel. Nevermind the fact that we will be introducing yet another incompatible rail system.

The whole idea is silly and nonsensical.

There is only one feasible solution to solve the Spulveda Pass transit and it is a rail tunnel.

Where on the UCLA campus would you put the entrance to the station?
On Le Conte, I'm assuming...?

[SoCalKid]

https://la.curbed.com/2013/2/15/1027...s-to-add-speed

"Metro is working with City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) to look at the potential for increasing speed on the MGLEE and Expo Lines. This will include possible adjustments to traffic signal timing at key intersections. A simulation of full signal pre-emption was conducted on the Metro EXPO Line. Part of the analysis included identification of minor intersections where full signal pre-emption would be useful in increasing speeds. The list of intersections has been provided to LADOT and follow-up meeting is scheduled on January 10th.

But back to the Gold Line--Metro is looking at Indiana/First Street, Mission/First Street, Alameda/First Street, and other intersections for possible traffic light pre-emption. "Indiana/First appears to be the primary challenge in the afternoon, with a 5-phase signal cycle with 30-seconds attributed to each phase. The time variance travelling through this intersection can result in up to a 2 minute difference in arrival at Union Station. A simulation test on the MGLEE will be completed by January 25 to identify specific signal phasing improvements. Upon completion of the testing, we will meet with LADOT and/or Los Angeles County Public Works Department to review findings and determine actions going forward."

Did anything ever come of this? Did Metro/LADOT just give up? It really seems like Metro and LADOT just don't care about travel times.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by K 22

Where on the UCLA campus would you put the entrance to the station?
On Le Conte, I'm assuming...?

Further north, by Ackerman.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by K 22

Where on the UCLA campus would you put the entrance to the station?
On Le Conte, I'm assuming...?

No way. In the center of campus, between Westwood Plaza and Bruin Walk.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by K 22

Where on the UCLA campus would you put the entrance to the station?
On Le Conte, I'm assuming...?

Ideally, North of Charles E Young Drive, by Ackerman, or somewhere between Ackerman and the medical center. And another station at Wilshire.

But if we can only afford one station, then has to be Wilshire... for transfer to Purple line.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

No way. In the center of campus, between Westwood Plaza and Bruin Walk.

Actually, I want to change my suggestion a bit to account for line curvature north of Wilshire/Westwood, minimal disruption to the UCLA campus, and access to dense residential areas east of UCLA. I propose the station be built like this, with a portal at Bruin Walk and a portal just northwest of the Medical Center. All that would need to be demolished would be a few minor walkways and a big parking garage. Added bonus: the parking garage's users could take Metro instead, and once the station is built, the land can be developed into something else.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by car(e)-free la

while i love hrt, i'd only support it if the sylmar-van buys lrt route were built as hrt instead. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense.

bingo

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by bzcat

Ideally, North of Charles E Young Drive, by Ackerman, or somewhere between Ackerman and the medical center. And another station at Wilshire.

But if we can only afford one station, then has to be Wilshire... for transfer to Purple line.

And that is IF UCLA will allow Metro the tunneling easements to actually construct a station ON it's campus.

[ChargerCarl]

Any reason why they wouldn't?

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Any reason why they wouldn't?

Mostly security, access of property and construction.

You have a physical Metro structure on UCLA grounds that is not owned by the entity UCLA. You have questions and during construction the impacts that will occur ON and TO the campus to the surrounding buildings as the station box is built. How do you get concrete pouring done late night let's say during quarterly finals weeks or during UCLA basketball games at Pauley Pavilion?

Now most of you will say, oh they build new campus buildings around it from time to time, why should this be any different? Because this is one that UCLA has no full control over and they want to have that control.

You know pesky property rights and liability details like that.

[CastleScott]

Heres something thats rather interesting:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/...tml?channel=62

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Mostly security, access of property and construction.

You have a physical Metro structure on UCLA grounds that is not owned by the entity UCLA. You have questions and during construction the impacts that will occur ON and TO the campus to the surrounding buildings as the station box is built. How do you get concrete pouring done late night let's say during quarterly finals weeks or during UCLA basketball games at Pauley Pavilion?

Now most of you will say, oh they build new campus buildings around it from time to time, why should this be any different? Because this is one that UCLA has no full control over and they want to have that control.

You know pesky property rights and liability details like that.

Security's a valid concern, albeit not in my mind a sufficient reason to forego building a station. Could be mitigated operationally, i.e. by having transit police on site. The rest of what you listed would surely be covered by whatever MOU is eventually signed prior to start of construction.

There will be tremendous pressure on UCLA to locate a station somewhere on campus, not just from Metro, but also from students and from residents of the 3 Bs who undoubtedly would enjoy seeing some students off the road. Students don't always get their way, of course, and UC isn't beholden to local officials, but wealthy westside residents do have sway at the state level. Unless you know something specific, I can imagine why UCLA would opt to use its negotiating position to impact the details of station construction, but not to preclude it entirely.

[bzcat]

I think UCLA administration will catch massive blowback if they somehow try to obstruct the planning and building of metro station on or just off campus.

The DEIR will assuredly suggest tunneling through campus in a direct line from Van Nuys Blvd@Ventura to Wilshire@Westwood as the most efficient and likely the most cost effective way to construct the rail portion of the project.

The monkey wrench in the way is if Metro defers to a combined rail and auto tunnel to attract PPP money. A rail/auto combo tunnel will likely follow Sepulveda Blvd or I405 and terminates near the VA hospital grounds and potentially bypass UCLA completely.

[SFBruin]

I would personally prefer a rail tunnel over a rail/auto tunnel, though I understand if the latter were necessary for a PPP.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I would personally prefer a rail tunnel over a rail/auto tunnel, though I understand if the latter were necessary for a PPP.

Tolling the 405 is preferable to adding even more freeway capacity IMO. Tbh, I have no idea what the rate of return on something like that would be though.

[SFBruin]

Yeah, I would agree. Though I think that a rail line should be built first, so that people have an alternative to paying the toll.

EDIT: This may be idealistic thinking though.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Security's a valid concern, albeit not in my mind a sufficient reason to forego building a station. Could be mitigated operationally, i.e. by having transit police on site. The rest of what you listed would surely be covered by whatever MOU is eventually signed prior to start of construction.

True but then also lies the problem with the Transit Police on site, who monitors who. Not saying it can't be done, just realize what you have to do.

There will be tremendous pressure on UCLA to locate a station somewhere on campus, not just from Metro, but also from students and from residents of the 3 Bs who undoubtedly would enjoy seeing some students off the road. Students don't always get their way, of course, and UC isn't beholden to local officials, but wealthy westside residents do have sway at the state level. Unless you know something specific, I can imagine why UCLA would opt to use its negotiating position to impact the details of station construction, but not to preclude it entirely.

And I think it is because of those wealthy westside residents as to why some of these construction impacts will be trickier on the UCLA campus then let's say closer to the village on LeConte