LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

The BART is of a different design than virtually all other American metro systems, based on the German S-Bahn. The concept is that cars on the same line can act like commuter rail in the suburbs and HRT in the center city by varying the distance between stations. Outside of SF proper it's better to compare it to Metrolink than the Red Line.

It's comparable to DC and Atlanta, which were built around the same time. The DC Metro is what BART should've been, but instead it's more like MARTA with a single trunk passing through the urban core and the lines dispersing in various directions out in the suburbs.

I also think the HRT system LA's building is unique among North American rapid transit systems in that it's being built as a series of high-capacity connectors serving the busiest corridors, as opposed to a more traditional design where all HRT lines pass through the CBD. I guess Beijing would be the closest comparison.

[tdawg]

^ To be fair MARTA has two lines passing and intersecting through the city's core but I see your point.

[Quixote]

^ A "trunk" implies multiple lines. BART has four lines running through its Transbay Tube.

[Quixote]

New touch screens at Blue Line stations. Stations on other rail lines will get these too in the next few years. The UX/UI design is pretty decent as well.

• Video Link

[LAsam]

^ First of all, those are going to be vandalized within 30 days of the stations reopening. Second of all, they better offer hand sanitizer because those are going to be nasty, really quickly. Just put screens up, that rotate through the information, and are out of people reach... it's like our MTA hasn't visited any train systems in other cities.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

The BART is of a different design than virtually all other American metro systems, based on the German S-Bahn. The concept is that cars on the same line can act like commuter rail in the suburbs and HRT in the center city by varying the distance between stations. Outside of SF proper it's better to compare it to Metrolink than the Red Line.

I don't like this concept. I feel like the end result is a subway line that is too fast and a commuter system that is too slow.

I feel that BART is very effective for getting between suburbs, however, and see it as similar to the Purple Line, where you cannot walk from one station to another, but where the area around each station is walkable.

[Quixote]

Different places call for different types of systems. The stadtbahn model works as long as it doesn't warrant a lot of half-mile station spacing, as that would be terrible for suburban commuters. The system LA has and is building suits it well--rail line serving the busiest corridors (Wilshire, Vermont, 405) with strategically placed stations every mile.

And I hope this isn't a grand revelation, but traveling across town in any major city/metro almost always takes 25-30 minutes. The possibility of getting from Harbor City to Koreatown in 30-34 minutes is actually really impressive.

[Tiorted9]

Metro receives new allocation of $100 million from the Federal Transit Administration for section three of Purple Line Extension

https://thesource.metro.net/2019/07/...ine-extension/

[jmecklenborg]

^Has anyone seen a detailed plan for the line's terminus at the VA? Will it have tail tracks that continue westward under Wilshire or will there be a turnaround loop? Will there be extra storage for rush hour staging, or will all of that be handled out of the main yard east of Union Station?

It seems to me that the big VA lawn would enable a place where the above features could be built at relatively low cost and still work if a Phase 4 extends revenue track three miles westward to the Santa Monica oceanfront.

However, it might be the case that the Purple Line is limited to the VA because of future plans to make the red line continue straight down Vermont (eliminate interlining) and do 2-3 minute headways on the Purple Line. You need a turnaround loop or multiple tail tracks to do that.

A big reason why the Second Ave. subway costs got out-of-hand in NYC was because of the pair of 1,200-ft tail tracks built north of the terminal station that enables the storage of four trains for rush hour service. Wilshire in Santa Monica isn't Manhattan but it will be a very expensive place to build, and there will be motivation to minimize non-revenue track.

[Quixote]

A turn-back facility will be constructed beyond Union Station at the rail yard adjacent to the Arts District, allowing for 4-minute headways (2 minutes along the interlined portion). Because this is necessary for the sake of logistics, there has been talk of placing an above-ground station at 6th Street.

[Swede]

Nice to see more funding secured for the subway extension.

So, to clarify: currently there is no turn-around facilities beyond the platforms at Union Station?
That would indeed need fixing to get proper frequent services running. And if you can add a station beyond Union Station as part of that, that sounds pretty great.

Same for the VA, extending the tracks beyond that so there's space to store a couple of trains plus do the turn-arounds beyond the station would be good for future extensions. I know there's a three-track section beyond the station I get off at to get to work (in Stockholm) specifically created to be able to have trains stationed there & to stop services short if needed without causing follow-on delays. Such tracks are real nice to have at times.

So, extending the Red line down Vermont is at least being discussed now? sweet. Ending the interlining makes for a more reliable system as it expands and gets more frequent services. But how will the station be altered? A cross plattform interchange would be ideal, but would it cost way too much to build? Also, how far down Vermont are the officials talking about? To the Expo line of to the Green line? or all the way to the Sea?

[numble]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

^Has anyone seen a detailed plan for the line's terminus at the VA? Will it have tail tracks that continue westward under Wilshire or will there be a turnaround loop? Will there be extra storage for rush hour staging, or will all of that be handled out of the main yard east of Union Station?

It seems to me that the big VA lawn would enable a place where the above features could be built at relatively low cost and still work if a Phase 4 extends revenue track three miles westward to the Santa Monica oceanfront.

However, it might be the case that the Purple Line is limited to the VA because of future plans to make the red line continue straight down Vermont (eliminate interlining) and do 2-3 minute headways on the Purple Line. You need a turnaround loop or multiple tail tracks to do that.

A big reason why the Second Ave. subway costs got out-of-hand in NYC was because of the pair of 1,200-ft tail tracks built north of the terminal station that enables the storage of four trains for rush hour service. Wilshire in Santa Monica isn't Manhattan but it will be a very expensive place to build, and there will be motivation to minimize non-revenue track.

Tail tracks will go across the lawn (underground). See page 25 of this PDF: https://media.metro.net/projects_stu..._2019-0620.pdf

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by numble

Tail tracks will go across the lawn (underground). See page 25 of this PDF: https://media.metro.net/projects_stu..._2019-0620.pdf

Thanks for that link. That answers my question. I'm at work so I can't screw around posting that image here, but it clearly indicates that there will be a pair of 600-foot tail tracks beyond a crossover west of the station platforms. The tunnel will continue for a very short distance (20-30 feet) beyond the tail tracks as a stub for a future extension.

It looks like they're going to keep the launch pit intact after removing the TBM so that it can be re-used for a Stage 4 extension to Santa Monica. That makes a ton of sense since the delivery of construction materials will be right there at the 405.

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by Swede

Nice to see more funding secured for the subway extension.

So, to clarify: currently there is no turn-around facilities beyond the platforms at Union Station?
That would indeed need fixing to get proper frequent services running. And if you can add a station beyond Union Station as part of that, that sounds pretty great.

Same for the VA, extending the tracks beyond that so there's space to store a couple of trains plus do the turn-arounds beyond the station would be good for future extensions. I know there's a three-track section beyond the station I get off at to get to work (in Stockholm) specifically created to be able to have trains stationed there & to stop services short if needed without causing follow-on delays. Such tracks are real nice to have at times.

So, extending the Red line down Vermont is at least being discussed now? sweet. Ending the interlining makes for a more reliable system as it expands and gets more frequent services. But how will the station be altered? A cross plattform interchange would be ideal, but would it cost way too much to build? Also, how far down Vermont are the officials talking about? To the Expo line of to the Green line? or all the way to the Sea?

You'd have to think they planned for extra space at the VA station for the reasons you mentioned above... but never safe to assume anything when it comes to public transit in the US.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by LAsam

You'd have to think they planned for extra space at the VA station for the reasons you mentioned above... but never safe to assume anything when it comes to public transit in the US.

The combined Wilshire and Hollywood lines will be pretty big-time when it's all running...certainly on par with 2 lines from the Washington Metro, and arguably a notch higher because both lines will be completely underground.

We are seeing though that it will be difficult to expand the heavy rail system beyond what will soon be completed. The service yard south of Union Station will near capacity, so adding another line or even just the contemplated southward Vermont Ave. extension will require a very expensive reconstruction of both lines at and near Vermont & Wilshire. Perhaps the chatter re: San Pedro is a way for them to get to an area where they can build another service yard, but no obvious location stands out. Meanwhile, a northward extension to Burbank would get them to the vast rental car and long-term parking lots surrounding the airport, and that's the obvious place where a second yard could be built.

[Quixote]

^ Based on what's been presented thus far, it doesn't appear that Metro would pursue a full rebuild of the Wilshire/Vermont station and instead opt for a new station box with a connecting tunnel. If this is indeed the case, then it's a good thing the station platform is to the west of the track. And it also makes all the more sense to eliminate the interlining and just make both lines fully automated with 2-minute peak headways and 21-22 hours of daily service like the new Sydney Metro. That's how you maximize ridership and fiscal revenue, which in turn has a domino effect on the rest of the system. It's a no-brainer.

http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/me...esentation.pdf

[Quixote]

Any other cab ride video geeks out there? These also make for great background noise/ASMR.

• Video Link

• Video Link

[Swede]

One thing I note when looking at dream maps of Metro is a lack of lines running NE-SW from Glendale (and beyond) to Hollywood, Culver City (and beyond). Wouldn't a cross-town line like that help create a functioning, integrated network? or is the need to far in the future?

Originally Posted by LAsam

You'd have to think they planned for extra space at the VA station for the reasons you mentioned above... but never safe to assume anything when it comes to public transit in the US.

Don't ever think this is a problem unique to the US. It happens all over the place. Stockholm's currently planned metro expansions have quite a few "wtf are they thinking?!?" parts IMO. Maybe mostly such parts

[Quixote]

^ Ridership demand doesn't dictate where we build rail; politics does. Unfortunately. We're all held hostage to what local politicians think will help "ease traffic," even though we elect them into office to represent our interests. That's why we got Measure M.

LA proper needs its own rail-financing mechanism, as it needs a half-dozen or so heavy rail lines/extensions to really affect the way people commute/travel. That isn't happening if the other 87 municipalities also have a stake in the matter.

[badrunner]

Isn't Gold -> Expo basically a NE-SW line? It would be nice to have a Burbank - Glendale spur off the Gold line though, even though both are already served by Metrolink.