LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

I guess, though that stretch averages about 25mph, which isn't terrible (is the whole line was that fast, it would take 30 min from DTLA to DTSM.) Also, do you really think Farmdale should be removed?

Farmdale was never intended to be a station. This was initially being debated as either being a closed grade area fenced off where no cars or pedestrians cross, or being a train priority Intersection where the train has the automatic right of way. Someone; who's name I will not speak on this forum, created a movement that almost killed the entire line with the argument that it's unsafe for a train to be next to a school. The compromise was Metro adding a station at this intersection and mandating that the trains stop here for "safety." Ridership wise... this station is pointless and is a few blocks from La Brea station

[NSMP]

Yes, Farmdale should be removed for reasons Hugh gave. Like Goodmon's tactics or not, grade separation was what he was after.

The segment is a bit slower and the line is a bit longer than you suggest. Western to La Brea is on the table westbound at 8 minutes, which is 20 mph, about average for Expo. In order to get Expo down to 30 minutes DTLA to DTSM, it needs to average 30 mph.

You're right that there are slower segments than this, but on the other hand Vermont to Crenshaw suffers from poor reliability, probably second only to Flower St. This doesn't show up on the timetable, but going east especially it is very problematic.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

After this discussion, I split the expo line into eight segments and analyzed which ones grade separating would have the biggest positive impact upon. I found that three segments in particular stood out.

The first is the ever-complained about route from the Washington/Flower wye into Metro Center. Grade separating this segment like this would only officially cut 2 minutes off the schedule, but would CONSIDERABLY reduce delays. It would cost about 300 million dollars. Furthermore, it would place stations in more useful locations.


The second section is the one immediately adjacent to the first, stretching from the wye to Vermont. Tunneling under and around USC like this would cut 4 minutes off the schedule, and cost about 400 million dollars.


The third section is the one from Western to La Brea. Elevating it like this would cost around 200 million, and cut 3 minutes off the schedule (part of this comes from removing Farmdale).


If all of these projects were completed, for a cost of 900 million, the new official travel time of the expo line would be 35-40 minutes and reliability would increase to the point where actual travel times match that.

Edit: where it says Line 1 on the map, it should read Tunnel.

[BrownTown]

Are you sure about those prices? Maybe I'm just jaded from living too close to NYC, but if those projects WERE in NYC they would cost $5 Billion, not $900 million.

[NSMP]

I think the Flower Street subway would be $1 billion minimum. Probably closer to 2 by the time we actually get around to building it.

It's not too much shorter than the regional connector, which is nearly $2 billion as is. Plus it would be extremely disruptive. All this and still worth it.

[Quixote]

^ Do you think that Prop A/C funds will continue to be used/wasted on accelerating the pork barrel projects? If so, then could the Measure M funds that would've been used for said projects be spent in a discretionary manner for a project such as a Flower Street subway?

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Are you sure about those prices? Maybe I'm just jaded from living too close to NYC, but if those projects WERE in NYC they would cost $5 Billion, not $900 million.

I'm basing it off light rail construction costs in Seattle.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by NSMP

I think the Flower Street subway would be $1 billion minimum. Probably closer to 2 by the time we actually get around to building it.

It's not too much shorter than the regional connector, which is nearly $2 billion as is. Plus it would be extremely disruptive. All this and still worth it.

It's about 1 mile in length, with fewer (and far less deep) stations than the regional connector.

[NSMP]

It's 1.25 miles from 7MC to Flower/Washington. Add 1400 feet (1/4 mile) in transitional length on both Expo side and Blue side, and that gives you 1.75 miles, not 1 mile. The Regional Connector is 1.9 miles long.

The Regional Connector does have the deepest station in the network, but that's because 2nd/Hope is under Bunker Hill. None of the other stations are deep. But nonetheless, the RC is (somewhat) more complicated of a project, with 3 new stations, compared with 2 for the Flower Street Subway. So there is the potential for some cost savings, which I was trying to account for by saying Flower Street would cost $1 billion minimum, rather than just saying it's a cost equivalent to the RC.

In LA, below grade costs $700-900 million per mile. I'm skeptical that Seattle builds for $300 million per mile, but have not looked at their system so I can't say.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by NSMP

It's 1.25 miles from 7MC to Flower/Washington. Add 1400 feet (1/4 mile) in transitional length on both Expo side and Blue side, and that gives you 1.75 miles, not 1 mile. The Regional Connector is 1.9 miles long.

There is already a subway from 7MC to Pico. I have my Flower Street subway tying in at Olympic, not 7MC.

[NSMP]

Still 1.5 miles. Point remains that that project is at least $1 billion, probably more. No point in telling people otherwise. Also we should get a prelim cost estimate soon. Possibly this month actually.

[hughfb3]

LAstreetdblog posted new renderings of the Rail to River bike and pedestrian path will replace the Harbor subdivision railroad track from the Crenshaw line to the LA River. This same corridor is under future consideration for a local rail or Union station-LAX express service. During early scoping meetings, the community demanded that this be a local service line but the business leaders want this to be an express service bypassing the community to reach the endpoint destinations. Wouldn't it be cool if this were to combine both needs and in fact be a completely grade separated elevated line with 3 tracks to serve both local needs and have express service. Also, wouldn't it be awesome if there were a spur that went from LaX to Prairie to meet up with the new Stadium, forum, and clippers arena. Wouldn't it also be awesome if this transit option not only went to Union Station with express, but also a stop in the financial district at 7th/Metro making a one seat ride to downtown business from LaX. Wouldn't it be great if this were a 3 track completely elevated and grade separated from traffic; High capacity Monorail, with both express and local service. Wouldn't it be great if we were also able to keep the bike and pedestrian path in tact below the elevated monorail. I think so, and I think we could get a PPP on this with the sheer appeal for business in the area.

(Disclaimer: I love light rail when it makes sense for the corridor, like the gold line from Pasadena to Azusa or the expo line through Rancho park/Westwood. It runs at grade and has right of way through all intersections and is fast and is placed in a light enough density area that auto traffic patterns aren't affected that much by a light rail having priority.) I think we should continue to expand our light and heavy rail systems. For this particular corridor; even more so that the sepulveda pass, I think that a High Capacity monorail would really be Great and would shine and get tons of ridership and would help our downtown business explode. With LAX being the only airport in America with hubs for both American and Delta (2 of the big 3 Domestic carriers) and a possible new hub constructed of United's T9 (making slam dunk possible with 3of3), and a greatly expanding new International terminal, we could have the trifecta of worldwide travel and be a new big business city with easy quick access to our downtown

http://la.streetsblog.org/2017/07/07...ound-mid-2018/

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Still 1.5 miles. Point remains that that project is at least $1 billion, probably more. No point in telling people otherwise. Also we should get a prelim cost estimate soon. Possibly this month actually.

Then the prices are being ridiculously inflated. Read this: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2...ruction-costs/

[NSMP]

I've read it. That doesn't change that that's what it costs though, and thankfully our costs are considerably less elevated than those in NYC and SF.

[NSMP]

Hugh, how do you propose getting that express line to the financial district?

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Hugh, do you think that a monorail is really the best solution for the corridor? If it were electrolink, it could eventually run through service to somewhere like Claremont.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Hugh, do you think that a monorail is really the best solution for the corridor? If it were electrolink, it could eventually run through service to somewhere like Claremont.

Thank you for the great question. I actually think an electrified Metrolink would be great and would bring all the communities of SoCal into quick comfortable rail access to LAX. I originally wanted this to be Metrolink until Metro chose to use part of the corridor for light rail... and now the only way to get Metrolink through this path would be with a single bi-directional track, which would severely limit service frequency.

The problem I see then becomes space and how to deal with that. We already have the Crenshaw line on the corridor, how would we fit another two (or 3 with express) tracks there without completely taking over the roadway. This is also a super dense corridor with lots of transit dependent people and lacking nice green outdoor spaces. Then I thought, what about extending the light rail along the corridor with 3 tracks allowing express as well, but then we run into the problem of 3 rails many times at grade and crossing hundreds of intersections.

How do we serve these communities well without bypassing them also realizing that this corridor is our best opportunity for LAX direct to downtown service? If we could somehow have local AND express service on the same route that's ideal. Also, they are about to build bike and pedestrian paths along the corridor complimented with greenery and eco bio-swales. I would love to keep these in tact for the community and have a minimally invasive rail above that allows all to exist and has sunlight still hit the ground beneath. This is why I think a 3 track elevated Monorail would be great.

Also a BIG PLUS..., riding a monorail gives the perception that you've never left the airport and are riding an airport train into Downtown. This could be a huge advantage in having people perceive our city as being super accessible to LAX creating more worldwide business and convention activity downtown. This would be like the Monorail in Japan linking Tokyo Haneda International Airport with central Tokyo. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Monorail

Metrolink along this corridor would demolish the new bike and pedestrian path taking away much needed greenery in the community and would take lanes away from cars. My best friend lives off of slauson and Main st down here and when I visit, I ride my bike from the red line to the silver line and get off. I bike Slauson over to Main Street and I see the abandoned tracks and know how much this community needs both green and transit. For reasons like this is why the orange line bus or light rail conversion will never extend along chandler into Burbank because they love their rail converted to park and bike path. I would love for this community to be treated the same. All of this is why I am for Monorail. Please. I welcome your thoughts.

Harbor subdivision today


Could be something like this with one more rail for express service added to the other side of the column and parkway/roadway underneath

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Hugh, how do you propose getting that express line to the financial district?

Good question. If it's 3 tracks we could have the monorail follow the corridor up alameda to either 7th Street or Olympic; then have a split where one track veers west along either Street into Fidi or South Park near convention center. The other 2 or 3 tracks stay forward to Union station. With driverless automated computers controlling the time algorithms, we could have tightly timed service with multiple destination end points.

And with Inglewood... 5-10 years ago when planning the Crenshaw line, we could have never foresaw what was to become of the race track and now we are in quick need of rail servic to get to the entertainment district. We could have the 3 tracks either follow above the Crenshaw line through Inglewood from LAX or have 1 track go from LAX down Century turning up Prairie and meeting with the Harbor Subdivision to continue allowing The Forum, The LA Stadium, and Clippers arena to be served. Or we could do the inverse and have a single bi-directional express track follow the Crenshaw line from LAX through to downtown and have the 2 track local lines go from LaX down Century to Prairie and meet up with the express Monorail at Prairie and Florence then creating the 3 track system from there to downtown. Again, with driverless automated computer driven algorithms, we can have a rigorous time schedule with many differing service types. What do you think?

[NSMP]

It's an interesting thought anyway. But in order for the airport express idea to work, one peak hour track would be insufficient. You would need four tracks the whole way essentially?

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by NSMP

It's an interesting thought anyway. But in order for the airport express idea to work, one peak hour track would be insufficient. You would need four tracks the whole way essentially?

You generally need to 4 track the whole thing once you hit 4-6 tph. (which would mean express and local service only every 20-30 minutes.)