LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by NSMP

1)If one seat rides are necessary, then abandon the project of fixed guideway transit in LA. It won't work.

I realize that a one-seat ride to everywhere isn't possible, but that's not what I was arguing for in the first place.

But we can optimize ridership appeal/potential by creating as many one-seat rides between important nodal entities as logistically possible. Tell me that there isn't extra value in having LAX, City of Champions, Expo Park, MacArthur Park, Echo Park, and Glendale all served by a single rail line?

2)The spine portion here (Westlake to downtown) is too short to be useful. The branch point comes too soon. BART can have extensive interlining because such a large proportion of the trip generators are covered by the common segment. Not the case here.

Agreed about the spine being too short. BART is also such an extreme example, having four lines share two tracks in the Transbay Tube.

The value in interlining isn't the doubled headways so much as it's the ability to construct a new rail line at a fraction of the cost because basically half the line is already built. One-seat rides and greater spinal frequency are just added benefits.

That being said, I also know that an intricate network of interlined routes greatly increases potential for delays throughout the entire system through a domino effect.

3)splitting the lines allows for more service on the purple line, where it will likely be needed. Even at the service levels required under the FFGA, the purple line will have trains every four minutes during peak hours. That means expected transfer time is two minutes. If after splitting service is eventually bumped up to every 2 minutes, expected wait time would be one minute. Hollywood to DTLA patrons will survive.

As important as the Wilshire corridor is, the Purple Line probably won't generate enough ridership to absolutely necessitate 2-minute headways unlike in, say, Hong Kong. Perhaps additional capacity could be created by switching to longitudinal seating.

I think you're also underestimating the value of Hollywood and the SFV (population 2 million) as major ridership generators by so readily giving Wilshire priority and dismissing the elimination of the current one-seat ride service pattern as "survivable." Can the Purple Line not get by on 4-minute headways?

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I realize that a one-seat ride to everywhere isn't possible, but that's not what I was arguing for in the first place.

But we can optimize ridership appeal/potential by creating as many one-seat rides between important nodal entities as logistically possible. Tell me that there isn't extra value in having LAX, City of Champions, Expo Park, MacArthur Park, Echo Park, and Glendale all served by a single rail line?

It's a fallacy. What is the extra value in serving those destinations via a single line when half of them are served by other rail lines already? For instance, the route that you proposed is 15 miles of new subway. Billions of dollars for a route that, as far as I can tell, does not serve a defined travel pattern. Would it optimize Glendale to LAX travel? Probably yes. Is that worth $8 billion? Probably not, because it probably just isn't a strong corridor to begin with. On the other hand, if you live along this line and you are working in Hollywood, or Downtown, or on the westside, then you would be transferring to the Red or Purple Line at Macarthur Park. Probably the majority of people riding this line would be transferring. Which leads into the next point.

As important as the Wilshire corridor is, the Purple Line probably won't generate enough ridership to absolutely necessitate 2-minute headways unlike in, say, Hong Kong. Perhaps additional capacity could be created by switching to longitudinal seating.

I think you're also underestimating the value of Hollywood and the SFV (population 2 million) as major ridership generators by so readily giving Wilshire priority and dismissing the elimination of the current one-seat ride service pattern as "survivable." Can the Purple Line not get by on 4-minute headways?

This is about future-proofing. If the Red and Purple Line are not decoupled, 4 minutes is the best possible frequency that the line can have without resorting to unbalanced headways on the branches, another operational headache.

You don't need to be Hong Kong to want to maximize service on your strongest route. Use San Francisco as an example again. During peak hours, there is a train coming every minute on Market. The Purple Line has more jobs located along its route than any other conceivable route in Los Angeles, that's why we're going to build so many transfers to it.

I'm not underestimating Hollywood or the San Fernando Valley, but I do think that you're overestimating the strength of the specifically Valley to DTLA travel pattern if you think that it deserves to share capacity with the Wilshire Corridor. There are 2 million people in the valley, but that's not relevant if they're not headed downtown. Lots of people get on the Red Line north of Wilshire (I'm one), they're not all headed downtown though.

We're building the Sepulveda Line and the Crenshaw Line, both of which will allow Valley riders to self-sort according to their destination. So some Valley people will transfer at Van Nuys, and go straight to Westwood, some Valley people will transfer at Highland and go straight to Fairfax, etc. And some will continue to travel into DTLA. But I absolutely think the share of people who would benefit from a one-seat ride from NoHo to DTLA is dwarfed by the number of people who will be utilizing the Purple Line .

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by NSMP

It's a fallacy. What is the extra value in serving those destinations via a single line when half of them are served by other rail lines already? For instance, the route that you proposed is 15 miles of new subway. Billions of dollars for a route that, as far as I can tell, does not serve a defined travel pattern. Would it optimize Glendale to LAX travel? Probably yes. Is that worth $8 billion? Probably not, because it probably just isn't a strong corridor to begin with. On the other hand, if you live along this line and you are working in Hollywood, or Downtown, or on the westside, then you would be transferring to the Red or Purple Line at Macarthur Park. Probably the majority of people riding this line would be transferring. Which leads into the next point.

The spur up Alvarado/Brand is useful. For starters, there's nothing currently planned for Glendale that would render this route dispensable. The only thing on the table is paltry BRT connecting the Orange and Gold Lines. On top of bringing quality rail service to an established commercial node, you'd also be constructing four high-ridership-generating stations in dense, walkable neighborhoods that actually need this type of service.

It's not like this is some novel idea that I created out of thin air. Your Urbanize LA editorial shows that it was proposed way back in 1980. The Century Blvd. alignment, on the other hand, was all me. Truthfully, I was only using it to illustrate a point.

[NSMP]

I see where you're looking. That corridor is actually the Figueroa corridor down to USC, essentially phase 1 of Expo.

The point I'm trying to make is that most of the point to point demand in LA is weak. Generally speaking, it's difficult to find a route that can justify its expense on the basis of the trips generated along the corridor. This is the reason for structuring the network as a grid with fast, frequent connections and allowing people to transfer as needed.

Glendale has proposed a branch route serving Los Feliz Bl and Brand after branching off from the Red Line at Vermont/Sunset. It has some issues (I'm really not a fan of interlining, as you can tell), but it's several miles shorter. Would require Red and Purple Lines to be separated also, though.

[NSMP]

I guess in general I think the basic requirements for branching should be:

1) Highest demand segment forms trunk
2) Demand across branches about equal
3) Operational length of branches also equal-ish


Maybe this is clearer than how I posed it last night. And these are really in order of importance.

If we were talking about building branches off the Purple Line, in fairness to Quixote's point, that could allow for more rail coverage at less expense than building a new line. But if it means Westwood, Beverly Hills and Century City are on a branch, that's extremely difficult (I would say impossible) to balance with any other demand. If the trunk is conceived of as being Union Station to Wilshire/Westwood, it would be much easier to create branches on the east or west end of that trunk that were well-balanced. Perhaps on the westside, one branch could go to downtown Santa Monica and the other could go to Bundy/Venice in Mar Vista via the Santa Monica airport? Maybe on the eastside, one branch goes through the arts district and terminates at Whittier/Atlantic, and the other goes to CSULA via Valley. To be honest, I haven't really looked at those routes much, but branches just work better if they're relatively short and aren't relied upon to connect the highest demand destinations.

One last point on the subject that didn't occur to me yesterday. Vermont is actually wide enough I think to be comfortably 3-tracked south of Gage. Which does nothing for branches on the northern end, but could allow for more branching on the southern end where demand is more diffuse. I don't really think that will happen, but it's a thought anyway. Could have branches to Torrance, Harbor City and Wilmington, e.g. Still a lot of money just because the distances between centers are pretty huge that far south.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by mrsmartman

Interlined routing is a tradition of American rapid transit systems.

And that is a really really really big problem that needs to be changed. Interlining is HORRIBLE for the NYC subway, for instance, and it really needs to be changed from this:

To this:

Interlining messes with on time service, a coherent system, and makes waits for a one seat TRAIN so long that it would have been faster to take a frequent train to andother frequent train with a transfer.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by Quixote

The spur up Alvarado/Brand is useful. For starters, there's nothing currently planned for Glendale that would render this route dispensable. The only thing on the table is paltry BRT connecting the Orange and Gold Lines. On top of bringing quality rail service to an established commercial node, you'd also be constructing four high-ridership-generating stations in dense, walkable neighborhoods that actually need this type of service.

I agree, but a Vermont subway branch isn't the way to do it. Perhaps a Western-Los Feliz-Brand or Eagle Rock line could work, or else redirecting the blue line, and sending the WSAB line to Pasadena. Branching is a solution we will regret in the future.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Hello everybody,

I have been working on a plan for building SMB rail, a Crenshaw North extension up La Brea, and rail to the beach. Furthermore, it creates an actual rail grid and stops at all the main destinations. Note that this map only includes lines relevant to this proposal specifically and Measure M, which is why the purple line to Santa Monica, for instance, is not included. Please tell me what you think.



This shows the full 3 phase build out of my proposal. The light green line follows Venice, La Cienega, San Vincente, Santa Monica, and Sunset. I call it the Boulevard Line for short because of all the boulevards it follows.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This image above shows the full build out of my proposed phase one. The Boulevard Line goes from Hollywood/Highland to Wilshire/La Cienega, interlining for the time being with the Crenshaw Line north of Santa Monica/La Brea. The way this works can be seen by this image below:

I propose that each Crenshaw Line train, upon reaching Hollywood/Highland, turn south and become a Boulevard Line train to Wilshire/La Cienega, then turn back north to Hollywood/Highland, and south again along the Crenshaw Line. This allows the Boulevard Line to use the Crenshaw Line's yard for the time being.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Metro does not have the funding to complete this, this shortened version below of the Boulevard Line, combined with Crenshaw North up La Brea, is SHORTER than the proposed Crenshaw North Line up San Vincente and Santa Monica:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, below is my proposed Phase 2 of the project, with the Boulevard line extending from Culver City to Vermont/Santa Monica:

I just wanted to bring up this plan of mine again. I have started a group called Metro Done Right to help advocate for it, and if you agree with the plan, please check out http://metrodoneright.sitey.me/. Also, if I could guest post it on any blog, I would love to do so.

[Quixote]

I must say how great it is that we're able to have this conversation and it not be completely rooted in fantasy. The decision to give Vermont BRT as an appetizer absolutely baffled me, especially when existing ridership demand already warranted something much more efficient. I'm especially pleased that only HRT, and not LRT, was added to the AA study. Much of the value in this project lies in creating a seamless north-south corridor along Vermont and preserving the possibility of one day having a true cross-county route stretching from Sylmar to San Pedro. The notion of downgrading to LRT simply out of a desire to not have to rebuild the Wilshire/Vermont station is an absolute crock, as long-term gain always supersedes short-term pain.

[NSMP]

Agreed completely on that count

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

I guess in general I think the basic requirements for branching should be:

1) Highest demand segment forms trunk
2) Demand across branches about equal
3) Operational length of branches also equal-ish...


One last point on the subject that didn't occur to me yesterday. Vermont is actually wide enough I think to be comfortably 3-tracked south of Gage. Which does nothing for branches on the northern end, but could allow for more branching on the southern end where demand is more diffuse. I don't really think that will happen, but it's a thought anyway. Could have branches to Torrance, Harbor City and Wilmington, e.g. Still a lot of money just because the distances between centers are pretty huge that far south.

You bring one of my core points that could make this corridor utilize Light Rail vehicles that run in a heavy rail style grade separated service from Wilshire to around Gardena (where most of the demand will come from) then branch off in two directions one towards Torrance the other towards San Pedro which would be far more cost effective and provide added utility in developing the system network.

In addition, I would wager that even if you make this straight Valley via Vermont line as classic HRT, you're going to run into a problem that plagues the Toronto and DC Metro subway systems and that is an overloaded transfer point away from the CBD limiting your core capacity in our case at Wilshire/Vermont to head towards Downtown or points on Wilshire.

A NEW SET OF PLATFORMS

I would rather put the money invested in a set of new platform(s) with pedestrian tunnel tie ins and make the transfer then building the track junction at Wilshire/Shatto which seems counter intuitive but it makes sense because you already have this transfer regardless making seamless is an option but not really worth the benefit as passengers are transferring anyway.

Plus the more important junction that this line needs to connect to are the tunnels around 3rd/Vermont. Which is easier to build because the tunnels are in the street right of way rather than around buildings which you'll have to demolish.

Another factor that will make the case for building a new set of platforms with an new entrance replacing the gas station/Denny's and City Parking lot on Vermont from 6th to Wilshire, Where is the mezzanine of the current Wilshire/Vermont station? The mezzanine/fare control are at street level. The design above will require a mezzanine and complete rebuild of the vertical circulation so where will this new mezzanine be built?

This is the classic cost vs benefit decision that will be weighing in the minds of planners and leaders. And as some folks here have been suggesting repealing Prop A & C and bad design mishap here will jeopardize the future funding efforts, repeating the same mistakes of the past.

Besides we gain more choice riders by having the network reliably and safely serve the destinations they need to go even in some cases even when one or two transfers are made.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I must say how great it is that we're able to have this conversation and it not be completely rooted in fantasy. The decision to give Vermont BRT as an appetizer absolutely baffled me, especially when existing ridership demand already warranted something much more efficient. I'm especially pleased that only HRT, and not LRT, was added to the AA study. Much of the value in this project lies in creating a seamless north-south corridor along Vermont and preserving the possibility of one day having a true cross-county route stretching from Sylmar to San Pedro. The notion of downgrading to LRT simply out of a desire to not have to rebuild the Wilshire/Vermont station is an absolute crock, as long-term gain always supersedes short-term pain.

Don't get your hopes up.

An LRT could easily be added at anytime during the AA section. That is how the EIR process works.

Besides the rebuild arguments are not a crock they are quite justifiable considering the core reason for the station is to build more capacity but the realization will occur during the study process that this design will limit your capacity.

Why spend so much $$$ for a rebuild design that doesn't give you the achievable benefits?

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

You bring one of my core points that could make this corridor utilize Light Rail vehicles that run in a heavy rail style grade separated service from Wilshire to around Gardena (where most of the demand will come from) then branch off in two directions one towards Torrance the other towards San Pedro which would be far more cost effective and provide added utility in developing the system network.

So then are you assuming the branches would run primarily at-grade? And out of curiosity, where would you have the Torrance branch terminate?

In addition, I would wager that even if you make this straight Valley via Vermont line as classic HRT, you're going to run into a problem that plagues the Toronto and DC Metro subway systems and that is an overloaded transfer point away from the CBD limiting your core capacity in our case at Wilshire/Vermont to head towards Downtown or points on Wilshire.

This is a good point, but I disagree that it will limit capacity on Wilshire. Our system will have more effective redundancy. Crenshaw and Sepulveda will both offer alternative transfer points along the Purple Line.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

So then are you assuming the branches would run primarily at-grade? And out of curiosity, where would you have the Torrance branch terminate?

They could theoretically as there are existing rights of way available in Torrance. As for terminiating, I'd like for it to go to Del Amo Mall or even hook up with the Harbor Subdivision to go up to South Bay Galleria. Realistically ending in Old Town Torrance is enough as that becomes a new transit and development hub with the Green Line.

This is a good point, but I disagree that it will limit capacity on Wilshire. Our system will have more effective redundancy. Crenshaw and Sepulveda will both offer alternative transfer points along the Purple Line.

But those would provide the redundancy without ever having to build the Vermont line.

So I would argue at its core, the Wilshire Corridor's capacity which effects the grid like redundancy of the other two lines would be limited through such as design. Especially as it is needed as the line heads east towards Downtown and even towards any eastern legs to CSULA/El Monte or Whittier Blvd or for the Western Extension towards Santa Monica as been suggested on these boards.

[NSMP]

Well, sure, but my point was that the redundancy allows for the Vermont subway to be built as a Red Line extension without sacrificing capacity.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Well, sure, but my point was that the redundancy allows for the Vermont subway to be built as a Red Line extension without sacrificing capacity.

Agreed it is a good argument but to emphasis the strongest reason why to LA County taxpayers in outlying areas who want extensions, redundancy is not the strongest because a bean counter or anyone fiscally conservative will come back and ask why are we spending so much to get this redundancy when we can do it cheaply with BRT?

Mind you yes I'm quibbling over semantics but this is an important detail as you're make the same case just messaging it better.

The strength is representing the future and the current operational constraints that limits our future.

I can give an example wearing another hat with presenting the reasons about 12 years ago for the need of the Regional Connector. The argument that won it over wasn't building a second subway through Downtown (in fact that was the worst reason because you're playing to political fears that City of LA is getting all the money again) but to relieve a capacity constraint that you need to take care of build the Wilshire Subway to Westwood and help connect outlying extensions like the Foothill Gold Line with service to the line.


Because of that joining the Metro Board agreed to pursue both projects for Federal Funding and the FTA agreed to pay for 50% matching grant on both projects.

[NSMP]

Yeah agreed. It's going to be a difficult needle to thread. Personally I think that if the subway extension is going to proceed as such, it will rely on the availability of federal funding and an assist from LA city. I'm not necessarily feeling sanguine about either prospect, but I'll keep my fingers crossed.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Yeah agreed. It's going to be a difficult needle to thread. Personally I think that if the subway extension is going to proceed as such, it will rely on the availability of federal funding and an assist from LA city. I'm not necessarily feeling sanguine about either prospect, but I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Me neither as Mayor Garcetti is about to bite off more than he can chew on spending $$$ to study stuff (Pico Station underground, etc) (much like it was done in the 90's and we ran out of money)

The Downtown Streetcar and Bike/Ped projects will suck up whatever money tht will come from the City of LA out of Measure R and M. So yeah it will be a hard climb

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

They could theoretically as there are existing rights of way available in Torrance. As for terminiating, I'd like for it to go to Del Amo Mall or even hook up with the Harbor Subdivision to go up to South Bay Galleria. Realistically ending in Old Town Torrance is enough as that becomes a new transit and development hub with the Green Line. {...}

What about a routing to downtown Hermosa/Manhattan/Redondo beaches, like this:


Also, regarding your map, what are your (and by your, I mean everybody's) thoughts on a Sepulveda Line extension past CSULB to Disneyland and ARTIC?

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Me neither as Mayor Garcetti is about to bite off more than he can chew on spending $$$ to study stuff (Pico Station underground, etc) (much like it was done in the 90's and we ran out of money)

The Downtown Streetcar and Bike/Ped projects will suck up whatever money tht will come from the City of LA out of Measure R and M. So yeah it will be a hard climb

Here is hoping for the cancellation of the Downtown Streetcar (redirect to underground Blue/Expo), and Measure M2 in 2020/2024.