LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

Those who really know about what’s going on, what do you think Metro decides?

Im beginning to feel like they go with LRT. It just makes no sense to go HRT unless they change their mind on ESFV. These two projects have to be together, end of sentence.

Remember, this is just the concept stage, not the actual EIR.

So I know exactly what Metro is going to do. They are going to narrow it down to 1 LRT, 1 HRT, 1 LOL monorail options and move on to EIR which will also include 1 no build and 1 TSM options. So total of 5 options in the EIR.

Which HRT concept will emerge and move on to EIR? My money is on Concept 6, extending the purple line North. This will give Metro cover on not extending purple line to Santa Monica for another generation.

The LRT concept that will emerge and move on is probably concept 4, a continues line from ESFV plus a western spur on Orange line ROW. This will obviously produce the highest ridership estimates so easier to attract Federal funding (but will doom those dreaming of a continuous E-W valley rail line).

[Illithid Dude]

Part of the reason I am confident that HRT will be ultimately chosen is that the community overwhelmingly wants HRT, and HRT was overwhelmingly chosen as the preferred option in the questionnaire Metro sent out. Even Metro brass has discussed how high trafficked this line will be. This is clearly being set up to be the marquee line for the system, and Metro is gonna spend money to make that so.

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by bzcat

Remember, this is just the concept stage, not the actual EIR.

So I know exactly what Metro is going to do. They are going to narrow it down to 1 LRT, 1 HRT, 1 LOL monorail options and move on to EIR which will also include 1 no build and 1 TSM options. So total of 5 options in the EIR.

Which HRT concept will emerge and move on to EIR? My money is on Concept 6, extending the purple line North. This will give Metro cover on not extending purple line to Santa Monica for another generation.

The LRT concept that will emerge and move on is probably concept 4, a continues line from ESFV plus a western spur on Orange line ROW. This will obviously produce the highest ridership estimates so easier to attract Federal funding (but will doom those dreaming of a continuous E-W valley rail line).

LOL. That purple line north option is a joke. That ruins the
whole corridor the same way having two different modes in ESFV does.
Then what happens when it’s time to go south? The whole thing would be a disorganized mess, not a well thought out network like NY, London, Paris, Tokyo, Beijing.

IMO you have two options and two options only:

LRT subway that connects with ESFV LRT, when it gets to phase 2 to LAX/Stadium you’ll get LTR from Sylmar to Inglewood stadium.

Option two which hasn’t been mentioned is if they would somehow
change their minds on allowing HRT for ESFV, thus making the choice
for Sepulveda obvious and that’s HRT.

[Quixote]

I know this is just a preliminary stage, but I really expected more and better quality alternatives given how important this project is. Why the hell are they even considering introducing a third modal technology? I know it’s likely to be dropped eventually, but it just seems like it isn’t worth studying to begin with.

And yes, although unlikely, I hope they reconsider HRT for ESFV even if it means delaying the project; ‘28 by 28’ shouldn’t influence the process. ESFV won’t even be important as far as moving Olympic athletes and visitors.

[jmecklenborg]

I think the danger in doing this line as LRT is that it gives the planners the excuse to do slower in-street running operation in order to build a longer line with currently available funds. We can assume that the prevailing speed of HRT and LRT will be just about the same in a tunnel or elevated section, but that simply can't be the case with street-running LRT. So we can safely assume that the speed under the mountains will be the same, but who-knows what happens north or south of that tunnel.

An LRT compromise could be creation of an express track between the metrolink station and the mountains. So there would be a 3 or 4-track subway under Van Nuys with express tracks that would skip 5~ stations.

The speculator above is correct in seeing this as really being the premier line in the system. But I think even a fully grade-separated HRT line between Sylmar and LAX will have too many stations to truly shatter competitiveness with cars. The six-mile run with no stations under the mountains will be great but getting another express run in there will shave a lot of time and motivate the sort of ridership that will really change things in LA.

A 6-mile express section between the Expo Line and LAX would be pretty amazing. Combined with an express run between Ventura Blvd and the metrolink section would mean you could get to that point to LAX in about 28 minutes.

[Quixote]

On top of at-grade rail being slower, it's also inherently less reliable. All it takes is one careless driver or suicidal person to delay the commute of thousands of people. This is adding to the fact that Metro's LRT lines are already subject to constant delays due to maintenance repair of the overhead lines. In order for rail to be competitive with the car, it has to be fast, frequent, and reliable (e.g. grade-separated).

Right now my biggest fear is that Metro will severely underestimate ridership demand along this corridor and believe that 3-4-car trains are sufficient. In their presentation boards, they state that LRT trains consist of 3-4 cars. So, something's gotta give.

[NSMP]

I think standalone heavy rail is likely the favorite, for similar reasons to numble’s comments on the PPP funder

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Quixote

s that Metro will severely underestimate ridership demand along this corridor and believe that 3-4-car trains are sufficient. In their presentation boards, they state that LRT trains consist of 3-4 cars. So, something's gotta give.

I believe that Seattle's light rail system has 400-foot platforms, which is the largest in the United States. There is no reason why 600-foot light rail platforms can't be built for trains similar in length to the DC Metro or other HRT systems, but the rail cars usually aren't as wide and so don't have the same crush capacity. Plus, any system that needs 600-foot trains should probably be fully grade-separated for the reliability and speed reasons. As for speed -- the faster a train's average speed, the higher the line's capacity. So speed is very much an enabler of capacity.

I have never lived in LA but I can't forget the first time I drove there, which was from LAX to a backpacking trip in the Sierra Nevadas via the 405. Miraculously we didn't even touch the brakes anywhere and sped out of town at a steady 65mph. We looked at each other and agreed out-loud that LA traffic was overrated. Well that's the last time I ever experienced anything like that and in subsequent visits have nearly gone nuts averaging 3mph on Santa Monica, Sunset, etc.

But I suspect that people in the San Fernando Valley still occasionally experience a miraculous drive to LAX and will still favor their cars if there is any reputation for a rail service having reliability issues.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I believe that Seattle's light rail system has 400-foot platforms, which is the largest in the United States. There is no reason why 600-foot light rail platforms can't be built for trains similar in length to the DC Metro or other HRT systems, but the rail cars usually aren't as wide and so don't have the same crush capacity. Plus, any system that needs 600-foot trains should probably be fully grade-separated for the reliability and speed reasons. As for speed -- the faster a train's average speed, the higher the line's capacity. So speed is very much an enabler of capacity.

I have never lived in LA but I can't forget the first time I drove there, which was from LAX to a backpacking trip in the Sierra Nevadas via the 405. Miraculously we didn't even touch the brakes anywhere and sped out of town at a steady 65mph. We looked at each other and agreed out-loud that LA traffic was overrated. Well that's the last time I ever experienced anything like that and in subsequent visits have nearly gone nuts averaging 3mph on Santa Monica, Sunset, etc.

But I suspect that people in the San Fernando Valley still occasionally experience a miraculous drive to LAX and will still favor their cars if there is any reputation for a rail service having reliability issues.

This may be true but if it's a one seat ride to LAX and you're going to be gone for a few days/weeks, I'd rather take the train than having to deal with parking at the airport. That could easily save you a couple hundred bucks depending on where you park and/or how long your vacation is. I think a lot of Valley people would feel the same way.

I use to live in Pasadena and would drive to LAX for flights (had more direct flights than Burbank). The Gold Line was three blocks away from my place back then. If I had just a two-seat ride to LAX, I'd have used that more often rather than park there. Now that I'm on the west side, I never park at the airport and just Lyft or get a friend. My point is that if you're able to take reliable transit to the airport, I think many would do it since it saves money even if it takes slightly longer than a car at a particular time.

[Will O' Wisp]

I suspect that the decisive factor in what metro ends up choosing won't be capacity, speed, or even strictly cost but rather transfer times/opportunities. When running below grade (as the corridor will most of the time) LRT/HRT travel at virtually the same speed. The number of transfers will be the single biggest influence on the total travel time for most riders, don't underestimate just how much a one seat ride can drive ridership, or requiring 2-3 transfers can discourage it. So when we have to factor in the network as a whole, including a ESFV LRT line, the potential expansion to LAX, and a possible station at UCLA, plus a theoretical purple line expansion to Santa Monica there are really 5 options:

Purple line extension north + LRT/HRT line south
Pros: one seat ride from DTLA/westside to Van Nuys
Cons: three seat ride from ESFV to LAX, preempts purple line to Santa Monica, UCLA station likely unfeasible due to routing

Standalone HRT/monorail line from Van Nuys to LAX
Pros: UCLA station feasible, allows for extension of Purple line to Santa Monica
Cons: three seat ride from ESFV to LAX, two seat ride from DTLA/westside to LAX (has the most forced transfers of any option)

LRT line from ESFV to LAX
Pros: one seat ride from ESFV to LAX, UCLA station feasible, allows for extension of Purple line to Santa Monica
Cons: two seat ride from DTLA/westside to LAX (prioritizes ESFV over DTLA/westside despite the latter's greater population)

Purple line extension south + HRT/monorail line to Van Nuys
Pros: one seat ride from DTLA/westside to LAX, UCLA station feasible
Cons: three seat ride from ESFV to LAX, preempts purple line to Santa Monica

Purple line extension south + LRT line from ESFV to Westwood
Pros: one seat ride from DTLA/westside to LAX, UCLA station feasible
Cons: two seat ride from ESFV to LAX, preempts purple line to Santa Monica

While the full metro study will need to stat this out a purple line extension south + an expansion of the ESFV line from the Van Nuys terminus to Westwood (with a stop at UCLA) gives the fewest forced transfers, and thus the shortest travel times for the the greatest number of users (assuming LAX is a bigger ridership generator than Santa Monica, otherwise an LRT line from ESFV to LAX + a purple line extension to Santa Monica wins out). Either way, LRT would fit in better through the corridor itself.

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

I suspect that the decisive factor in what metro ends up choosing won't be capacity, speed, or even strictly cost but rather transfer times/opportunities. When running below grade (as the corridor will most of the time) LRT/HRT travel at virtually the same speed. The number of transfers will be the single biggest influence on the total travel time for most riders, don't underestimate just how much a one seat ride can drive ridership, or requiring 2-3 transfers can discourage it. So when we have to factor in the network as a whole, including a ESFV LRT line, the potential expansion to LAX, and a possible station at UCLA, plus a theoretical purple line expansion to Santa Monica there are really 5 options:

Purple line extension north + LRT/HRT line south
Pros: one seat ride from DTLA/westside to Van Nuys
Cons: three seat ride from ESFV to LAX, preempts purple line to Santa Monica, UCLA station likely unfeasible due to routing

Standalone HRT/monorail line from Van Nuys to LAX
Pros: UCLA station feasible, allows for extension of Purple line to Santa Monica
Cons: three seat ride from ESFV to LAX, two seat ride from DTLA/westside to LAX (has the most forced transfers of any option)

LRT line from ESFV to LAX
Pros: one seat ride from ESFV to LAX, UCLA station feasible, allows for extension of Purple line to Santa Monica
Cons: two seat ride from DTLA/westside to LAX (prioritizes ESFV over DTLA/westside despite the latter's greater population)

Purple line extension south + HRT/monorail line to Van Nuys
Pros: one seat ride from DTLA/westside to LAX, UCLA station feasible
Cons: three seat ride from ESFV to LAX, preempts purple line to Santa Monica

Purple line extension south + LRT line from ESFV to Westwood
Pros: one seat ride from DTLA/westside to LAX, UCLA station feasible
Cons: two seat ride from ESFV to LAX, preempts purple line to Santa Monica

While the full metro study will need to stat this out a purple line extension south + an expansion of the ESFV line from the Van Nuys terminus to Westwood (with a stop at UCLA) gives the fewest forced transfers, and thus the shortest travel times for the the greatest number of users (assuming LAX is a bigger ridership generator than Santa Monica, otherwise an LRT line from ESFV to LAX + a purple line extension to Santa Monica wins out). Either way, LRT would fit in better through the corridor itself.

Are you including the people mover as a seat? Because you have things listed as one more seat then they are, like your option 2 is just two seats from the valley (ESFV and then Sepulveda lines)

Simply put Metro is ruining its system for generations if they don’t change their mind and find a way to put HRT on Van Nuys (ESFV). As I said before, if you have to shorten the distance & amount of stations of the ESFV transit corridor in order to financially make HRT work, then do so. For instance take two scenarios: Hypothetical A: An ESFV line that is a three station HRT from the Panorama mall area then traveling south down Van Nuys and then becoming the Sepulveda line (so no transfers) or Hypothetical B: a 8 or 9 station LRT line from Sylmar down Van Nuys and ending at the orange line (requiring a transfer to continue south to the west side) - I’m pretty sure people would prefer A.

Back to your post though, I really think there is just two options. That’s it. Both consist of ESFV & Sepulveda essentially being one line. The two options are: LRT from Sylmar to Inglewood stadium. HRT from Sylmar to Inglewood. The system will be a heinous display of urban planning if a rider has to make multiple transfers.

I definitely want HRT, but if they don’t budge on the HRT in ESFV, then go with LRT, It’ll be Subway most of the way anyway (3 of the 8 ESFV stations will be underground, all the stations from Orange line to the Expo line will be underground, the LAX station would probably be underground as well) so if they HAVE to go that route it isn’t the worst thing in the world. I guess.

BTW I know this is probably fairy tale land stuff but if Metro is toward thinking, the line should be ending at Vermont/Century. Meaning the last 3 stops would be 96th & Century (LAX), Inglewood Stadium, Vermont & Century (merge with RED)

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

Are you including the people mover as a seat? Because you have things listed as one more seat then they are, like your option 2 is just two seats from the valley (ESFV and then Sepulveda lines)

Simply put Metro is ruining its system for generations if they don’t change their mind and find a way to put HRT on Van Nuys (ESFV). As I said before, if you have to shorten the distance & amount of stations of the ESFV transit corridor in order to financially make HRT work, then do so. For instance take two scenarios: Hypothetical A: An ESFV line that is a three station HRT from the Panorama mall area then traveling south down Van Nuys and then becoming the Sepulveda line (so no transfers) or Hypothetical B: a 8 or 9 station LRT line from Sylmar down Van Nuys and ending at the orange line (requiring a transfer to continue south to the west side) - I’m pretty sure people would prefer A.

Back to your post though, I really think there is just two options. That’s it. Both consist of ESFV & Sepulveda essentially being one line. The two options are: LRT from Sylmar to Inglewood stadium. HRT from Sylmar to Inglewood. The system will be a heinous display of urban planning if a rider has to make multiple transfers.

I definitely want HRT, but if they don’t budge on the HRT in ESFV, then go with LRT, It’ll be Subway most of the way anyway (3 of the 8 ESFV stations will be underground, all the stations from Orange line to the Expo line will be underground, the LAX station would probably be underground as well) so if they HAVE to go that route it isn’t the worst thing in the world. I guess.

BTW I know this is probably fairy tale land stuff but if Metro is toward thinking, the line should be ending at Vermont/Century. Meaning the last 3 stops would be 96th & Century (LAX), Inglewood Stadium, Vermont & Century (merge with RED)

I didn't include the peoplemover in those figures because Metro hasn't decided if whichever option they choose is going to stop at the terminals, 96th st, or somewhere on the north end of LAX (and all three options are apparently being floated atm). But you're right, if metro chooses to share the 96th st station then you can add on another seat to everything. So with a standalone HRT line ESFV riders would have a four seat ride (and any poor souls trying to make it from the eastside, which would also be true for any of the LRT options).

As for HRT in the ESFV, here's all Metro had to say before excluding it from their alternatives analysis back in 2012:

Additional modes such as heavy rail were excluded from initial consideration because they are unlikely to serve the Corridor in an efficient and cost effective manner. Heavy rail lines are generally located along the very busiest transit corridors. The Metro Red and Purple Lines serve some of Los Angeles’ densest areas including downtown Los Angeles, the Wilshire Corridor, and the Hollywood area. Although Van Nuys Boulevard has the seventh highest bus boardings in the Metro system, the land use density along the 11-mile study corridor is not sufficient to warrant a heavy rail investment. The Sepulveda Boulevard Corridor has appreciably less boardings than the Van Nuys Corridor and similar land use characteristics. Projected ridership for either corridor would not justify the extremely high cost to build heavy rail and was not carried forward for further analysis.

Source: https://media.metro.net/projects_stu...s_Analysis.pdf

That was six years ago, at this point its pretty unlikely Metro could perform a proper AA and still have the full line open by 2028. I'm pretty convinced all the HRT options for Sepulveda Corridor are just a dog and pony show and the real decision has already been made, it's going to be an LRT line from Sylmar to Westwood (and possibly to LAX). The choice to whether to extend this new line or the purple line to LAX is still up in the air, however.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

Are you including the people mover as a seat? Because you have things listed as one more seat then they are, like your option 2 is just two seats from the valley (ESFV and then Sepulveda lines)

Simply put Metro is ruining its system for generations if they don’t change their mind and find a way to put HRT on Van Nuys (ESFV). As I said before, if you have to shorten the distance & amount of stations of the ESFV transit corridor in order to financially make HRT work, then do so. For instance take two scenarios: Hypothetical A: An ESFV line that is a three station HRT from the Panorama mall area then traveling south down Van Nuys and then becoming the Sepulveda line (so no transfers) or Hypothetical B: a 8 or 9 station LRT line from Sylmar down Van Nuys and ending at the orange line (requiring a transfer to continue south to the west side) - I’m pretty sure people would prefer A.

Back to your post though, I really think there is just two options. That’s it. Both consist of ESFV & Sepulveda essentially being one line. The two options are: LRT from Sylmar to Inglewood stadium. HRT from Sylmar to Inglewood. The system will be a heinous display of urban planning if a rider has to make multiple transfers.

I definitely want HRT, but if they don’t budge on the HRT in ESFV, then go with LRT, It’ll be Subway most of the way anyway (3 of the 8 ESFV stations will be underground, all the stations from Orange line to the Expo line will be underground, the LAX station would probably be underground as well) so if they HAVE to go that route it isn’t the worst thing in the world. I guess.

BTW I know this is probably fairy tale land stuff but if Metro is toward thinking, the line should be ending at Vermont/Century. Meaning the last 3 stops would be 96th & Century (LAX), Inglewood Stadium, Vermont & Century (merge with RED)

With your last point, if Metro goes that far, you might as well have the ESFV/Sepulveda line loop back north to Hollywood/Highland or North Hollywood via the extended Red Line down Vermont. This would give NoHo and Universal direct access to LAX on one-seat. It's similar to the Red Line in DC. I like this fairy-tale land idea is a smart one. Tell Metro.

[numble]

Metro staff is recommending at-grade LRT (subway portions removed due to cost) be adopted as the locally preferred alternative for the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor at this month’s board meetings:
https://metro.legistar.com/Legislati...6FB&FullText=1

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by numble

Metro staff is recommending at-grade LRT (subway portions removed due to cost) be adopted as the locally preferred alternative for the East San Fernando Valley Teansit Corridor at this month’s board meetings:
https://metro.legistar.com/Legislati...6FB&FullText=1

Are you kidding? LOL.

LA is cheating itself out of a world class transit system all in the name of penny pinching. That whole alternative is AWFUL. Ditching the Subway portion is a huge mistake because the roads will be cluttered like hell with the trains and second... 14 stations?!?!?! That area needs MAYBE 7 stations. If that.

It’s going to be extremely slow, meaning good luck getting car-centric LA on board with this. Metro is blowing it BIG time.

[Fvn]

Tutor Perini Receives Notice of Intent to Award a $410 Million Contract for the Purple Line Extension Section 3 Tunnels Project

Tutor Perini Corporation (NYSE: TPC), a leading civil, building and specialty construction company, today announced that the Frontier-Kemper/Tutor Perini Joint Venture has received a notice of intent to award a contract from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the Purple Line Extension Section 3 Tunnels Project. The contract value is anticipated to be approximately $410 million.

Contract award for the Purple Line Section 3 Tunnels Project is expected in the next 30 to 60 days, with notice to proceed anticipated soon thereafter. Substantial completion is anticipated in the summer of 2022.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...tent-Award-410

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

Are you kidding? LOL.

LA is cheating itself out of a world class transit system all in the name of penny pinching. That whole alternative is AWFUL. Ditching the Subway portion is a huge mistake because the roads will be cluttered like hell with the trains and second... 14 stations?!?!?! That area needs MAYBE 7 stations. If that.

It’s going to be extremely slow, meaning good luck getting car-centric LA on board with this. Metro is blowing it BIG time.

What did you expect? But I see nothing about them ditching the subway portion. I still except them to incorporate it.

[numble]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

What did you expect? But I see nothing about them ditching the subway portion. I still except them to incorporate it.

It says a lot about them ditching the subway portion.

However, the analysis found that a short subway segment would cost an additional $1.4 billion, doubling the Project cost, but only reduce passenger travel time by approximately two minutes. For this reason, the recommended LPA is deemed “modified” because it does not include the subway segment.

However, by changing the subway portion of the alignment to at-grade, the projected total cost would be within range of the Measure M estimate.

Although the community was supportive of the 2.5-mile subway, most stated that they’d prefer to have an at-grade LRT system now, rather than wait for additional funds to be identified for a subway. In addition, some voiced concern over the construction impacts (including additional ROW acquisitions) that would occur if a subway were built.

Alternative 4 (unmodified): At-Grade and Subway - This alternative without the proposed modification to eliminate the subway segment is double the project cost estimate in Measure M, has greater property impacts, and would substantially delay the timeline for delivery of the project; it is therefore not recommended.

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

What did you expect? But I see nothing about them ditching the subway portion. I still except them to incorporate it.

I expected them to get it right. This is a time period where LA is reinventing itself. It’s becoming a lot more dense & urban in nature (as opposed to the sprawl), it’s building upward, it’s building projects years in the making (LA river) and building a transit system that could change the living habits and opportunities for those who work in areas like DT, CC ... for those who visit areas like SM, Hollywood.... then they have the Olympics - a chance to show off the “new LA” to the world.

They have one hand go get this system right. Prioritize the most important projects - widening/improving the major interstates/routes, building rail in WEHO, Sepulveda, Vermont, Downtown, East side ... and if getting those projects right means not paying for so many bike lanes or not extending the slow-as-hell foothill light rail to nowhere - then so be it.

Los Angeles can either half ass this and regret it for decades (like they regret not continuing building Subways after the methane explosion, like they regret the ban on rail construction that led to the orange line being a woefully underserved glorified bus) or they can be the envy of the world. Doing this RIGHT means a few MUSTS for Metro (in order of priority)

• First and foremost: the ESFV and Sepulveda lines must be the same. Either both LRT or both HRT. They must form one continous line. If it’s LRT then it must be speedy and efficient meaning when in the Valley: limit the number of stations to 6 or 7, go underground subway as much as possible but at least do so in the middle of Van Nuys so as to avoid at grade crossings that slow down the system. And if it’s going to be LRT then it can not have a single at grade crossing south of the orange line: make it ALL grade separates from Orange line south. However IDEALLY, to knock this line out of the park and make it into signature success of the system: make the line HRT (even if it means only going half way up Van Nuys and not all the way to Sylmar due to price). Also this line must stop at LAX one stop underground at a major terminal and another stop underground at 96 & Century and finally it must must must stop at the Inglewood stadium.

• Crenshaw North must be built, entirely underground and the route that takes it past destinations that would provide highest ridership. Also, at Expo/Crenshaw that area must be redone so the two lines are connected (it’s my understanding you have to come upstairs out of the subway and cross the street and then pay a second fare to use Expo?!?!?

• A woefully under talked about and for some reason underprioritized project: BUILD THE VERMONT RED LINE EXTENSION! Build it as Subway to Gauge and then when Vermont widens you go elevated to Vermont/Athens (GL). Also, build a station at Vermont & Century so down the road it can be linked up with the Sepulveda line extending past Inglewood stadium.

• Put the Blue and Expo underground in the Flower St area, that Pico station should be a major underground subway station that is intergrated with Staples Center and LA Live and the convention center as well as all the South Park development.

• build the damn purple line to SM.

• When building the West Santa Ana branch - go with the alternative that brings the line into the Downtown transit core. Another station in that booming South Park area and the potential for future extensions is everywhere.

• Connect the damn Green to Norwalk MetroLink station. Common sense!

• eliminate the busiest at grade crossings for the expo and blue lines
to the best of their ability.

• at least explore the possibility of extending the Purple a little ways down Whittier.

• Convert Orange to light rail, grade separates. Build LRT from Pierce College to Glendale and meeting up with the Long Beach/Foothill line. Making one long LRT line that connects the SF Valley over to the foothill area, instead of making people go into downtown first.

• These three. are down the list but to really truly make this world class: Run the current Green line UP to meet with the Purple line in SM and run the current green line from redondo beach to meet up with the blue line down in the Long Beach area. Also extend the Red to Bob Hope airport and meet up with the Metro Link station there.

[LineDrive]

Granted that list seems like tens of billions of dollars but remember there is already billions set aside for most of those projects due to the two Measures as well as other grants, propositions and so forth - for the most part you are just talking about upgrading these projects. Apply for more federal money, divert other Metro money and work with the state government on more funding (shouldn’t be hard when controlled by all Dems)

As I’ve said before, the state budget of California is $180B. How much (ADDITIONAL) money (that isn’t already allocated from measures,propositions and grants) do you think all those projects upgrades & build outs would cost? Say $40B at absolute most. You mean to tell me the state couldn’t spend $4B a year for the next 10 years to totally upgrade its flagship city? There’s no telling what kind of development that kind of truly world class mass transit could bring to LA county. So much untapped potential.

PS: That’s not even bringing into account the private public partnerships.