LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Easy]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The light rail mode allows transit agencies to pick up "easy wins". They can build 5X as much surface light rail as heavy rail subway but rarely are able to create a transformative project. The United States is now peppered with dozens of somewhat-useful light rail lines but has few TOD's to show for it.

LA has certainly had some easy wins with light rail but the K wasn't one of them. Three underground stations plus a massive $900 million infill station push the final cost to about $375 million per mile.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by Easy

LA has certainly had some easy wins with light rail but the K wasn't one of them. Three underground stations plus a massive $900 million infill station push the final cost to about $375 million per mile.

The K line and the Eastside E, both current East LA and the future phases into Whittier and Hollywood are way too grade separated to utilize the benefits of Light Rail... The Blue Line, Expo, and Gold line were pretty much easy targets for LRT as they had an abandoned railroad right of way to work with. The green line could have been any technology as LRT is a moot point on a completely freeway grade separated line with a fully elevated west end.

So happy for the new option the Sepulveda pass could bring us with an elevated rail technology, so LA can finally choose if we want at grade localized (LRT), below grade rapid (HRT) or elevated high frequency (SKYtrain) on future brand new lines.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by TowerDude

So when will the Purple Line extend to Lincoln in Santa Monica?

Who knows, but I know Metro, or maybe the Westside Coalition just earmarked 20 million to further study the route. I'm sure momentum for the extension will pick up when the current Purple Line construction wraps up.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Easy

LA has certainly had some easy wins with light rail but the K wasn't one of them. Three underground stations plus a massive $900 million infill station push the final cost to about $375 million per mile.

The Crenshaw line partly used an abandoned railroad right-of-way. That's how they ended up with mediocre-at-best station locations like this:


A "downtown" station of any kind needs to be solidly in the downtown, not on the edge of it.

[Swede]

And am I seeing this right:
The station has no exist to the NW side of the station? Only to the 5 lane road to the SE?

Some seriously bad planning if you want people to actually use the station.

[Busy Bee]

^I suspect the thinking is the immediate area around the station will eventually be totally rebuilt into TOD.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^I suspect the thinking is the immediate area around the station will eventually be totally rebuilt into TOD.

I think you're right. Once that station is directly connected to LAX, adjacent land values will likely rise enough to justify the redevelopment of parcels such as the directly adjacent Don Lee Farms food processing plant.

[craigs]

Double post

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The light rail mode allows transit agencies to pick up "easy wins". They can build 5X as much surface light rail as heavy rail subway but rarely are able to create a transformative project. The United States is now peppered with dozens of somewhat-useful light rail lines but has few TOD's to show for it.

There are some parts of the LA region where a Light Rail line isn’t so bad as long as it’s done CORRECTLY. But it is not done correctly. Not half ass. Correctly means easy and quick transfers. Fully grade separated (No traffic crossings etc), closer to Heavy Rail frequency etc…

Further expanding on that - the transfer between E line and K line is horrific from what I’ve read. It’s supposed to be seamless - you go upstairs or downstairs and jump aboard the other line. Not supposed to be a go upstairs, out of the gates, cross the street, enter into fare gates again so on and so forth type of thing.

The lack of grade separation in some areas - like the A/E lines on Washington for instance - is second grade and a detriment to the overall system.

Also the planning for the ESFV line - stations every block it seems like are going to make the thing crawl - and on a line that goes to nowhere …it seems to be a waste.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

There are some parts of the LA region where a Light Rail line isn’t so bad as long as it’s done CORRECTLY. But it is not done correctly. Not half ass. Correctly means easy and quick transfers. Fully grade separated (No traffic crossings etc), closer to Heavy Rail frequency etc…

The Blue line was designed very well as a light rail, which is why it was built quickly, within budget and has been the top performing single line in the country. San Diego pioneered the first modern LRT system which was built primarily at grade, relating with auto traffic when necessary and being separate only when a right of way was available. Its success catalyzed the building spree of LRT across the country. Before the 1980’s debut of the San Diego trolley, every system being built in the country was a fully grade separated heavy rail. The strength and allure of light rail is in its design’s flexibility to lower cost… overhead catenary power supply put out of reach from people/cars, and heavier auto collision resistant trains allows them the ability to interact with cars and surface elements while protecting passengers. These and other things contribute to LRT having a top speed of 55-60 mph.

Heavy rail has a higher top speed of 70-80 mph with quicker acceleration attributed to efficiencies like the trains being lighter than “light rail” because they don’t need to be auto crash rated and are usually designed with 3rd rail power which must be protected from the public. It’s interesting how we in the States call Light Rail “Light Rail” when the trains are many times heavier per square foot than a “Heavy Rail” for safety reasons

What you describe above as a completely grade separated system could be done with our higher speed/higher capacity heavy rail trains if it’s on its own right of way… even if it’s on the surface. Over grade separating Light rail defeats its inherent benefits and we end up with a costlier system that is both slower and lower capacity when it could have been heavy rail rapid transit from the get go if it was going to be fully grade separated

[citywatch]

• Video Link

[bzcat]

For those of you that live on the Westside, here is your chance to provide some feedback on BBB's service plan as they prepare for D line extension.

The website is here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories...f90d5b28ecf7e2

You can download the PDF and read it before taking the survey. At the end of the survey, they have a free form suggestion box. I made two suggestions:
1. Reroute Rapid 7 terminus to Wilshire/La Cienega station instead of Wilshire/Western
2. Extend Route 5 from Century City to Wilshire/Rodeo instead of going south on Motor Ave to Palms Station on the Expo line.

Some notable BBB service change proposals:
1. Route 14 terminus change to Culver City Transit Center instead of K line Westchester Station. This probably make much more sense given that people living on the Centinela corridor and Playa Vista are far more likely to to go Culver City mall than try to catch the K line from Westchester. And once K line opens all the way to LAX station, makes more sense to transfer to BBB Route 3 (Lincoln Blvd) or Culver City 6 (Sepulveda) from the LAX station anyway.

2. Elimination of Rapid 3 and Rapid 7. This seems to be a significant rethink for BBB on how best to service the two most heavily travelled corridor in its service area. The trade off is supposedly more frequent service on Route 3 and 7. I have to say that if there are bus lanes on both of these road, you wouldn't need Rapid service... perhaps BBB knows something we don't about when LADOT plans to implement the bus lanes. I recommended keeping Rapid 7 for rush hour but with service to La Cienega station instead.

3. Route 3 serves LAX station instead of Aviation.

4. Route 5 becomes a shuttle service between Century City station and SMC. As noted, I recommend an extension to Rodeo station so it can double as local circulator on South Beverly Drive between Wilshire and Olympic which has no bus service.

5. All UCLA services terminates at an off campus parking garage instead of Hilgard Terminal or Akerman. I have no words for this... ultimate triumph for a single elderly NIMBY who has waged a 20 year battle against UCLA and BBB to stop the buses from passing her house.

6. Route 14 (Bundy), 15 (Barrington), 16 (Walgrove) all terminate at VA Hospital station instead of randomly at an intersection in Brentwood.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^I suspect the thinking is the immediate area around the station will eventually be totally rebuilt into TOD.

Yeah, Inglewood has already rezoned to incentivize TOD. The people mover will end there as well, so this will be a significant transfer station.

Originally Posted by Swede

And am I seeing this right:
The station has no exist to the NW side of the station? Only to the 5 lane road to the SE?

Some seriously bad planning if you want people to actually use the station.

In my experience most riders using this station transfer to and from the buses that stop here. This area will likely look very different in a decade. Imo rail transit shouldn't necessarily be built strictly according to existing conditions but to planned conditions as rail will help shape the future.

[Quixote]

In addition to building rail to where people want to go (including station placement and facilitating easy transfers), the operations and maintenance are also critical. All the LRT lines have lousy headways that just don't encourage high ridership. Metro in turn justifies said lousy headways based on limited ridership demand. Current headways:

LRT:

8 minutes peak (A/E only)
10 minutes throughout the day
20 minutes starting around 8 p.m.

HRT:

12 minutes throughout the day
20 minutes starting around 9 p.m.


A very useable system:

2 minutes (or less) peak
4 minutes off peak all the way until midnight
8-10 minutes from midnight to 2 a.m.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ I did always find it odd that the subway is so infrequent. Even 5 minutes daytime and 10 minutes evenings and early morning would be fine. But 12-20 min for a metro line.... no