LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Study Explores How Metro Could Convert the Proposed Vermont BRT Line to Rail

As a follow up to this, the Metro Board voted 9-1 in favor of a motion to study rail concepts alongside BRT... as well as extending the project scope area all the way south to PCH at their April 25th meeting! How did I miss the second part? Imagine a single, grade-separated HRT line stretching from the north SFV all the way down to San Pedro. This is the type of scale and ambition we need to have if we're actually going to change the transportation culture here. Anyway, they're exploring the possibility of a P3 and we should get more information this month. At least they're thinking ahead, and that's a start. The problem is obviously lack of funding:

LRT: $4.4-5.2 billion, 91,000 riders
HRT standalone: $5.9-6.9 billion, 103,000-131,000 riders
HRT Red Line extension: $7.1-8.4 billion, 116,000-144,000 riders

All expensive options, but most of the R/M projects should be done by 2028 (if all goes according to plan).

[saybanana]

LA only has like a 10% share mode of public transit, yet you hear from people complain as if there is 90% share. People often say things like I stopped using public transit 5 yeras 10 years 20 years ago. People hate buses and people prefer rail. People dont like homeless on their streets, near their homes, in their neighborhoods and definitely not on public transit. People dont like poor ghetto people on the trains either.

I feel optimistic for the future of LA and LA public transportation.
Building more rails to connect people across great distances in a shorter amount of time. People are generally happy that a new route is proposed towards their direction. Buses are hit and miss. Buses are stuck in traffic and bus only lanes gets lot of local opposition due to a lane closure.

I think people are more favorable towards living near a Metro station as opposed to living in an area with poor PT options. Or maybe that so much of new construction is around Metro stations these days. It helps that many areas are catering towards a wakable/livable neighborhood with shops/restaurants/amenities nearby the stations, bike paths, more trees, quieter traffic calming streets. If these areas continue to grow with more housing more amenities, I can see people living using public transit a lot more than driving versus maybe someone living over 2 miles from a station.

I also think LA, SoCal is really taking a firm approach dealing with the homeless crisis. LA and other communities are building shelters, getting people help. Over the next 5 years, more and more people are going to get off the streets and into shelters. But I dont see homelessness completely disappearing, but at least some of the homeless dont have to sleep at night using public transit as their shelter. And the smelly ones will have access to shower and laundry facilities.

The next 10 years will be very interesting as there will be a new Metro segment opening every 1-2 years. Crenshaw line, then Regional Connector, then Purple Phase 1, then later 2, and 3. LAX people mover. Some BRT lanes like Vermont or the Valley. Maybe the gold line extension to claremont, the East SFV Van Nuys rail.

I think a "shrinking "or a more centralization of LA could have a positive affect on LA and PT. If Downtown continues to grow, double the population in 10 years, added 100,000+ jobs in restaurants, shopping, I can see people taking public transit into Downtown versus driving there and dealing with all that traffic. Same with Koreatown and Hollywood which are all getting taller and dense.

Maybe I just look at so many of the new, future development all over LA and think things are getting better and PT fits into that getting better.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by saybanana

LA only has like a 10% share mode of public transit, yet you hear from people complain as if there is 90% share. People often say things like I stopped using public transit 5 yeras 10 years 20 years ago. People hate buses and people prefer rail. People dont like homeless on their streets, near their homes, in their neighborhoods and definitely not on public transit. People dont like poor ghetto people on the trains either.

I feel optimistic for the future of LA and LA public transportation.
Building more rails to connect people across great distances in a shorter amount of time. People are generally happy that a new route is proposed towards their direction. Buses are hit and miss. Buses are stuck in traffic and bus only lanes gets lot of local opposition due to a lane closure.

I think people are more favorable towards living near a Metro station as opposed to living in an area with poor PT options. Or maybe that so much of new construction is around Metro stations these days. It helps that many areas are catering towards a wakable/livable neighborhood with shops/restaurants/amenities nearby the stations, bike paths, more trees, quieter traffic calming streets. If these areas continue to grow with more housing more amenities, I can see people living using public transit a lot more than driving versus maybe someone living over 2 miles from a station.

I also think LA, SoCal is really taking a firm approach dealing with the homeless crisis. LA and other communities are building shelters, getting people help. Over the next 5 years, more and more people are going to get off the streets and into shelters. But I dont see homelessness completely disappearing, but at least some of the homeless dont have to sleep at night using public transit as their shelter. And the smelly ones will have access to shower and laundry facilities.

The next 10 years will be very interesting as there will be a new Metro segment opening every 1-2 years. Crenshaw line, then Regional Connector, then Purple Phase 1, then later 2, and 3. LAX people mover. Some BRT lanes like Vermont or the Valley. Maybe the gold line extension to claremont, the East SFV Van Nuys rail.

I think a "shrinking "or a more centralization of LA could have a positive affect on LA and PT. If Downtown continues to grow, double the population in 10 years, added 100,000+ jobs in restaurants, shopping, I can see people taking public transit into Downtown versus driving there and dealing with all that traffic. Same with Koreatown and Hollywood which are all getting taller and dense.

Maybe I just look at so many of the new, future development all over LA and think things are getting better and PT fits into that getting better.

Buses do not need to be hit or miss if service is frequent. Buses will always play a major role in a comprehensive public transit network.

The aim for homeless people, is to find permanent residences for them, not more shelters. Shelters should be used only as a very temporary stepping stone towards a more stable life. People in shelters are usually roaming around aimlessly in the neighbourhood where they are located, often being a nuisance. Part of getting them help is finding stable housing.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Buses do not need to be hit or miss if service is frequent. Buses will always play a major role in a comprehensive public transit network.

I fully agree. I would ride the bus more often if they ran more frequently where I live. Many lines only run every half hour, and some only come by only once an hour.

And regarding declining ridership on public transportation, many people like to blame ridesharing services and supposedly cheaper gasoline, and somehow more people being able to afford cars. I thought to myself, 'Why isn't anyone bringing up the possibility of low-income riders leaving the city because they can't afford to live in LA anymore?'

And sure enough, I happened upon this article, from May: Is Metro ridership down because low-income passengers are leaving LA?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Buses do not need to be hit or miss if service is frequent. Buses will always play a major role in a comprehensive public transit network.

The aim for homeless people, is to find permanent residences for them, not more shelters. Shelters should be used only as a very temporary stepping stone towards a more stable life. People in shelters are usually roaming around aimlessly in the neighbourhood where they are located, often being a nuisance. Part of getting them help is finding stable housing.

Many homeless people do not want an apartment or a shelter. They want chaos. They just want to be out there doing drugs.

I have a relative who is homeless by choice. Her brothers put her up in apartments for decades but she always flips out at some point and moves out into car and lives in grocery store parking lots for a few months. She has been in and out of women's homes countless times but has been kicked out of several of them.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I fully agree. I would ride the bus more often if they ran more frequently where I live. Many lines only run every half hour, and some only come by only once an hour.

And sure enough, I happened upon this article, from May: Is Metro ridership down because low-income passengers are leaving LA?

Most mid-sized U.S. cities have experienced significant cuts to headways on their busiest routes in addition to elimination of some routes and reductions or elimination of weekend service.

I bought a house 50 feet from a stop that had three lines on it for decades and 10-minute frequencies during work hours. Then in 2012 they cut two of the lines and there is only one bus every 35-45 minutes during peak hours.
So from 5-6 buses per hour to 1.5 per hour, and longer than 1 hour headways on Sundays and holidays.

Most of America would kill for the headways LA people are complaining about.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I thought to myself, 'Why isn't anyone bringing up the possibility of low-income riders leaving the city because they can't afford to live in LA anymore?'

And sure enough, I happened upon this article, from May: Is Metro ridership down because low-income passengers are leaving LA?

Well is it is brought up from time to time, as it's a phenomenon all around the country. Yuppies with no kids are moving into transit-rich areas. That lowers the overall population (the childless yuppies often live in units that once had kids in them) and they can afford to take cabs everywhere.

My brother and his girlfriend lived for a year at the corner of Hollywood & Argyle but never rode the subway once, even though the station was just feet from their building. She claimed that she didn't like getting heckled on the train. Fact is her parents send her money so taking cabs everywhere is no problem.

[Quixote]

Buses in LA will never be fast enough... unless they're rigged with a bus and aren't allowed to travel under 50 mph.

Seriously though, they're a non-option (regardless of headways) unless they're first/last-mile connectors and have a dedicated lane and signal priority. That's the only way I can envision the bus being an effective option. And they'll need to be, since LA's rail stations are spaced about a mile apart, as opposed to a half-mile, many people won't be within walking distance (10 minutes or less) of a rail station.

[bzcat]

Ridership is falling primarily because it is taking longer to get to places on Metro (and municipal buses too). The average speed of buses are in the single digits and the train frequency are falling so transfer times are now significant portion of total trip time.

I used to take transit to work 2 or 3 times a week but now I almost always drive. The trip takes two rapid buses and about 7 miles each way... if buses are on schedule. I used to be able to do it in about 45 minutes vs. driving which takes about 35 minutes. Not bad right? Now days, buses are never on schedule because they get stuck in traffic and the trip takes about 1 hour; and longer if I miss that transfer. Buses that get stuck in traffic means I rather be in stuck in traffic in my car. If the buses ran in their own lane, I estimate the trip will take no more than 30 minutes. That's really the point... you have to make taking transit a time efficient proposition.

Reversing the trend will take political will and leadership... something in very short supply in local politics. Eliminating car lane and curb parking are EASY to do... you just re-stripe the road and cities all over the way do it everyday to prioritize transit. Here in LA, that's basically impossible.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Most of America would kill for the headways LA people are complaining about.

The issue with buses in LA is not really headways, but reliability. Because of traffic congestion, you cann't count on buses to deliver you to your destination consistently on time. So people with the means to bypass this uncertainty will do so as soon as they can afford a car.

I don't need a bus every 10 minutes if that bus just get stuck in traffic with all the other cars. I might as well be in one of those cars.

I will gladly trade a 10 minute headway "Rapid" for a 15 minute "Local" that runs in an exclusive lane.

[Quixote]

People are against replacing traffic lanes with bus lanes because there isn’t yet a developed network of rail lines with fast, reliable service. I would imagine most people in LA have cross-town commutes, which (rightfully) renders the bus an ineffective option based purely on time. And that’s not taking into account quality of service (reliability, “characters” aboard the bus, safety at night, etc.). Personally, I’d be open to taking the bus for only 1-2 miles to get to/from the nearest rail station. Any farther than that, and it’s diminishing returns at that point.

[OhioGuy]

I had an unexpected experience riding the Big Blue Bus today from UCLA to Santa Monica. I opted for the #8 bus. It made 3 timed stops along the way where we just sat for approx 6 minutes, 4 minutes, and 3 minutes so as not to get ahead of schedule. I haven’t experienced that in my hometown of Chicago or when I lived in DC. Buses just continue on, rather than sticking to a specific schedule. The timed stops cost me approximately 13 minutes. While the bus ride was pleasant enough, I doubt the speed is particularly enticing to potential transit riders.

(FWIW, I took the Metro Rapid 720 bus along Wilshire from Santa Monica to Westwood earlier, but opted for the Big Blue Bus #8 for the return because I’m staying in the Ocean Park neighborhood and didn’t feel like walking 15-20 minutes from dowtown Santa Monica to get back to my Airbnb, hence opting for the #8 which dropped me off 2 blocks away.)

I have been on a bit of a transit adventure so far on this trip. On the 4th I took Metrolink from Newhall (where my aunt & uncle live) to Union Station, then switched to the Silver line to USC (37th St) where I transferred to the Expo line to Santa Monica. It will be nice when the downtown connector opens in a couple years! (though I don’t think the Expo line is slated to pass through Union Station, so a transfer will still be necessary)

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by Quixote

As a follow up to this, the Metro Board voted 9-1 in favor of a motion to study rail concepts alongside BRT... as well as extending the project scope area all the way south to PCH at their April 25th meeting! How did I miss the second part? Imagine a single, grade-separated HRT line stretching from the north SFV all the way down to San Pedro. This is the type of scale and ambition we need to have if we're actually going to change the transportation culture here. Anyway, they're exploring the possibility of a P3 and we should get more information this month. At least they're thinking ahead, and that's a start. The problem is obviously lack of funding:

LRT: $4.4-5.2 billion, 91,000 riders
HRT standalone: $5.9-6.9 billion, 103,000-131,000 riders
HRT Red Line extension: $7.1-8.4 billion, 116,000-144,000 riders

All expensive options, but most of the R/M projects should be done by 2028 (if all goes according to plan).

Curious Question:

If HRT is considered for the Vermont Corridor, has there been any thought to either A) having the Red be extended down Vermont leaving the Purple as the east-west axis or B) Building a new connection towards Downtown. My fear is if you tie in Red, Purple, and the Vermont Corridor into one HRT route into Downtown you're going to get a similar capacity problem the DC metro is currently facing after opening their Silver Line.

Headways are everything. I already think the Purple should be it's own route with the Red being given a new route into Downtown, and the Vermont line should be given the same treatment. I always thought maybe a two-level tunnel along 3rd St with the Red and Vermont Lines running into Downtown then turn up Spring st towards Union Station.

[Tcmetro]

From what I understand, one of the rail options for the Vermont corridor would do just that, reroute the Red Line along Vermont, with the Purple Line being the sole downtown route. It does seem that the effort is likely going to be BRT, at least for the shorter-term.

I think even longer term, rerouting the Red Line from North Hollywood along Sunset to downtown LA would be nice, with the Vermont Line extended through Los Feliz to Glendale.

[Quixote]

There hasn't been any formal chatter about separating the Red and Purple Lines because not much has been discussed about rail along the Vermont Corridor hitherto; whether it'd be an extension of the Red Line or a standalone alignment must be determined first.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the prospect of rail being built much sooner than initially planned for several reasons. First, the decision to extend the corridor farther south demonstrates a level of bold, inspired ambition that exudes a certain quality of determination. Second, the long length of the corridor means that it can be built in segments, which is included in the approved motion. Third, there's a steady revenue stream in the form of ExpressLanes along the 110 (and eventually Measure M), which in theory already makes a P3 viable. And lastly, the corridor itself as a single, continuous rail line would create a direct route from the SFV to the South Bay--something that doesn't exist for car travelers.

[jmecklenborg]

Most HRT lines around the world radiate about 10-12 miles from a downtown. This one would be more than 25 from San Pedro to DTLA.

Express tracks are obviously very rare but this distance is so far that I question the merit of the project if there isn't some way for trains to skip-stop or have at least one express run of some significance.

[Quixote]

^ Those systems have half-mile station spacing; this would have (by my estimation) 14-16 new stations over a 19-mile route. Between Wilshire and the 105, stations would be spaced a mile apart, representing 18 minutes of travel based on the current Red/Purple Line schedule. South of the 105 doesn't require stations every mile, so the total trip time would be anywhere from 30-34 minutes.

Metro's already forecasting potential ridership of 116,000 for a Red Line extension, which is more than the 10,000 riders per mile threshold that I personally think is required to warrant HRT. And given Metro's recent history of underestimated ridership predictions, the corridor's existing 45,000 bus ridership base, and the benefits/advantages of the alignment itself, there's hardly any reason to question whether or not the investment is worthwhile.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Most HRT lines around the world radiate about 10-12 miles from a downtown. This one would be more than 25 from San Pedro to DTLA.

I would posit BART (in San Francisco) as a notable exception to this.

Though, even on BART, the journey can become a bit of a slog when you have to go more than 10 stations or so.

[Quixote]

^ Right. Even with its station spacing (on average 2.5 miles) and full grade-separation, a one-seat ride from Fremont to Oakland still takes 40 minutes.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I would posit BART (in San Francisco) as a notable exception to this.

Though, even on BART, the journey can become a bit of a slog when you have to go more than 10 stations or so.

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.