LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[CCs77]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Why the increased ridership? Because it is the only line currently in L.A. area (besides the Blue Line) to link inland areas with the Pacific. Plus it brings inland residents to the job rich Westside. Santa Monica is a nice place to be on a 90 degree day inland--usually a 65 degrees or cooler. L.A.'s San Francisco microclimate. If they ever complete the Sepulveda line to the valley, expect massive numbers of riders.

Yeah, I understand that, it is obvious that by the time they reach that area, there is an increased ridership. But my question was, besides the obvious increase right after they opened the extension, why there was another surge of ridership, as big as the one in may, but six months after it opened.

Anyway, bzcat explained that it was mostly because an increased capacity by including longer trains.

[NSMP]

That was because Metro started running trainsevery six minutes (vs every 12) in October

[saybanana]

Here are possible answers.
Increase of student use in fall semester/quarter of the Expo line from those going to Trade Tech, USC and Santa Monica college and those maybe going to UCLA via a bus transfer point.
People attending weekday Hockey, Basketball, USC Football (thats mostly Saturdays so not applicable) or those USC sports. Usually in the fall/winter sports.

But I think the increase in frequency and train cars do help bump it up a lot.

Something that puzzles me is that Blue and Expo share 2 stations. 7th street/Pico. How does Metro calculate people going to those stations? Many people ride from 7th street to Pico to get to LA/Live, Convention Center and Staples center and back. Just one stop and take either Blue or Expo Line. Does metro just consider them Expo Riders? I was looking at the ridership states for Blue and Expo month by month. Seems like Expo increases 1000 riders per month while Blue decreases 1000 per month. Coincidence? Or just placing riders on those stations on Expo ridership stats. I could just be all wrong.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by NSMP

The other cheaper and more politically achievable alternative would be to break the Gold Line's 2 pronged extension into its component parts:
1) LRT extension of the Gold Line along the 60 to S El Monte
2) A new LRT line from DTLA following Whittier Bl to Atlantic, and then taking over the existing southern prong planned by Metro
3) A N-S line following Atlantic, that would connect the two

This plan obviously has flaws. I haven't fixed the Washington Bl or the SR-60 routes, I actually haven't touched them at all. But there's a reason for that.

The garbage dump route is the most accessible extension of the gold line, it has political support, and, relatively speaking, it's cheap. I could live with the 60 as a giveaway *if* we were getting something halfway decent in return for it.

On the other side, the Washington Boulevard alignment beginning at Whittier/Atlantic is actually not completely terrible in isolation. The worst things about it are the branching and the connection to the flawed first phase of the Gold Line. If we eliminate both of those, we have a pretty fast (projected at 28 mph for the segment overall) light rail line that has below-grade stops beneath the Citadel and the center of the East LA commercial district. That should be more than enough to work with. How can we improve it? By making it a standalone light rail line following Whittier Boulevard below grade into DTLA. This section of Whittier Bl (in East LA and Boyle Heights) is the dense, commercially active part. Build a transfer to the Red Line at 6th/Santa Fe and then tunnel under 4th St. The terminus could go under Pershing Square, or if Metro is feeling like doing it right, under Flower where there are pocket tracks for an infill station on the Regional Connector.

The Atlantic Line probably seems like it's out of left field, but it actually could connect some existing proposals as well. Solis is having staff look for a route to connect the Gold Line extensions to the WSAB, meanwhile there is still the 710 gap to fill. Atlantic is in a prime position to do both. So, although in a vacuum this probably wouldn't be a high priority line to build, it could gain some traction that way.

My proposal would be to use the existing money to build the 2 east-west lines and to use the 710 gap money as a seed on the north-south line, while redefining it as a separate project.

You know what... that is much better than the Metro proposal

- Eliminates the branching/headway problem
- 60 freeway and Washington Blvd are clearly different travel corridors so no reason to shutgun marry them together
- Address the SGV vs. Gateway council funding issue
- Atlantic line (the rose color line on the map - rose line to the Rose Bowl!) is actually useful vs. the idiotic "C" line that goes from El Monte to Whittier
- The "Whittier/Washington" Line (the dark green line on the map below) terminates in Downtown LA but potentially can be extended further beyond to Mid City via Pico or Venice Blvd in the future
- The "Atlantic" and "Whittier/Washington" line share tracks on Atlantic between Whittle and UP right of way near Citadel, so in theory they can share one train yard, no need for additional service tracks to other light rail lines
- Still leave room for future extension of Red (Whittier Blvd?) and Purple (Valley Blvd?) lines across the LA River

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by bzcat

You know what... that is much better than the Metro proposal

- Eliminates the branching/headway problem
- 60 freeway and Washington Blvd are clearly different travel corridors so no reason to shutgun marry them together
- Address the SGV vs. Gateway council funding issue
- Atlantic line (the rose color line on the map - rose line to the Rose Bowl!) is actually useful vs. the idiotic "C" line that goes from El Monte to Whittier
- The "Whittier/Washington" Line (the dark green line on the map below) terminates in Downtown LA but potentially can be extended further beyond to Mid City via Pico or Venice Blvd in the future
- The "Atlantic" and "Whittier/Washington" line share tracks on Atlantic between Whittle and UP right of way near Citadel, so in theory they can share one train yard, no need for additional service tracks to other light rail lines
- Still leave room for future extension of Red (Whittier Blvd?) and Purple (Valley Blvd?) lines across the LA River

Once again NSMP drops some serious logic (if you follow his twitter or read his op-eds, he's probably the best voice on transit in all of the County). NSMP do you think it's actually possible to get Metro to consider your alternative?

[NSMP]

Thanks to you both! The post for Urbanize covering extension options should be done tomorrow.

As far as likelihood, I am feeling extremely pessimistic about GLEE II. I was hoping that there would be more discussion on the alternatives when it was presented to the board, but there really was none. Hahn does not really seem like she takes a proactive interest in transit matters, and Solis, as she said in the Planning Committee, just wants to do whatever there's community support for. No one else on the board has much stake in the project, and they're going to push the combined alternative as fast as possible.

Now, I'm not sure how fast that actually will be. If Metro builds the garbage dump extension first, theoretically there could be time to convince Metro to do a hybrid Whittier-Washington line instead of the combined alternative. As I said, I left the board meeting feeling pessimistic.

[Air055]

Any chance we could get a link to your full map buildout bzcat? It looks pretty interesting.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by Air055

Any chance we could get a link to your full map buildout bzcat? It looks pretty interesting.

Sure...

This is the first one - extending subway across LA river to Boyle Heights and East LA: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0295...0RCbaHaMpVS7fw

This is the second one - NSMP's Whittier/Atlantic line: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0260...YJgl8ZJtRnKM9o

[Car(e)-Free LA]

@NSMP

While I like your ideas, I think they aren't what they could be, so I'll propose this instead:

It simply doesn't make sense to have two lines along marginal corridors (SR 60 and Washington.) These areas are better served by a single high-quality line along Beverly, with several subway segments bringing the line off 3rd and close to Downtown Whittier. This eastern half of the line could easily be funded with Washington alignment money, because the more expensive construction is balanced out by the shorter route. The 60 alignment money can fund a fast extension west to South Park.

To appease the SGV COG, the 710-tunnel money can fund a marginal spur of the gold line up Atlantic to Alhambra. While this is not initially super useful, extensions to Pasadena and Paramount can turn it into a wonderful circumferential line, and the gold line can be cut back to Indiana Station, turning it into a local service for Boyle Heights.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Thanks to you both! The post for Urbanize covering extension options should be done tomorrow.

As far as likelihood, I am feeling extremely pessimistic about GLEE II. I was hoping that there would be more discussion on the alternatives when it was presented to the board, but there really was none. Hahn does not really seem like she takes a proactive interest in transit matters, and Solis, as she said in the Planning Committee, just wants to do whatever there's community support for. No one else on the board has much stake in the project, and they're going to push the combined alternative as fast as possible.

Now, I'm not sure how fast that actually will be. If Metro builds the garbage dump extension first, theoretically there could be time to convince Metro to do a hybrid Whittier-Washington line instead of the combined alternative. As I said, I left the board meeting feeling pessimistic.

And here are NSMP's suggested alternatives to GLEE in his own words (and maps!)

https://urbanize.la/post/how-could-m...xtension-plans

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

@NSMP

While I like your ideas, I think they aren't what they could be...

To appease the SGV COG, the 710-tunnel money can fund a marginal spur of the gold line up Atlantic to Alhambra. While this is not initially super useful, extensions to Pasadena and Paramount can turn it into a wonderful circumferential line, and the gold line can be cut back to Indiana Station, turning it into a local service for Boyle Heights.

Another all subway solution to a problem when other critical corridors haven't even been completed will send us down the road of unease during the 1990's.

If Metro is going to spend more money to solve a problem let's actually solve the problem in front of us rather than cause a brand new headache and have to cancel other Measure M projects to pay for this. Minus using the existing UP ROW and Whittier Greenway which is where I'd go altogether, I would go a number of ways with this;

1) Hybrid LRT to Whittier & SR-60 Express Lanes/BRT approach (Silver Lines). Build the LRT via the proposed Citadel/ Washington Blvd to Whittier corridor and BRT service that mimics the Silver Line BRT on the I-10, in the original study BRT was studied but not as an Express Lanes approach.

BRT can operate with strategic stations at Atlantic, The Shops at Montebello, Peck Road even around Puente Hills Mall that can be linked to the I-10 Express Lanes via the 710 at CSULA. This will be a better bang for the buck and can serve more of the San Gabriel Valley region and connect directly into Downtown LA and East Los Angeles.

Revenues from the toll lanes can upgrade the BRT and station infrastructure and maintain SR-60 for critical Goods Movement and keep operation costs in line with service demands for mostly a commuter style corridor. This can even link with an Atlantic Corridor BRT/Arterial Streetscape improvements for both mobility and economic development.

2) Build both destinations on one corridor (Dashed Blue Line); Build the SR-60 alignment as designed with an elimination of the Peck Road station with a replacement station serving Rio Hondo College and continue via railroad ROW parallel to the 605 to Washington or Whittier Boulevards where it then continues to Whittier terminus.

The strength here is that every one is served within existing dollars & as an operational advantage that there are no branches it is one solid corridor that will link new destinations on the alignment and utilizes a portion of an existing grade separated Railroad ROW to save on costs and solve an actual problem, you combine this was an added stations with Metrolink at the Citadel and Rio Hondo and destinations can be served throughout the region most cost effectively.

In addition, the Randolph UP ROW (a portion of which is utilized for the West Santa Ana Corridor) would be ideal as another link to Downtown LA that would be far more cost effective to implement and tie into the system and preserves ideas for a Whittier HRT subway whenever that gets going.

In the mean time lets work with this.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by bzcat

And here are NSMP's suggested alternatives to GLEE in his own words (and maps!)

https://urbanize.la/post/how-could-m...xtension-plans

I think this would be great... especially if we can get the 60 alignment as light rail first and the Whittier alignment done as a purple line heavy rail extension through a PPP. I feel if the soil test is good in this area, this can be done as a large diameter single bore subway system on the relative cheap, like the Barcelona L9 and L10 subway.

Imagine the aptly named Whittier/Wilshire/Westwood "WWW," "Dub Dub Dub," or "W3" corridor. People can live in the San Gabriel Valley or Gateway cities and get to the west side and century city in 45-60 min in peak commute times. It could also be the Whittier/Westwood Express... "WWE". A huge park and ride could be built at the 605 and Washington And another huge park and ride at the 5 and Atlantic near the citadel outlets. Metrolink, light rail, BRT the 5 and the 605 could all funnel people into the new purple line... thereby creating a speedy alternative to commute in place of driving through DTLA to get to other destinations west and north. !Calling on a Chinese company to come in and PPP this in a single phase swoop!

UrbanizeLA also did a piece on electrifying Metrolink and adding infill stations and creating 10-15 min headways. I love this idea. SoCal actually has tons of rail lines between Metro and Metrolink. If we were to upgrade Metrolink, this could be one huge rapid transit system across the Southland

[SFBruin]

I'm sure that this has been discussed before, but I'm concerned that the Alameda alignment of the WSAB may be too dog-legged and be better split into two separate lines (perhaps one serving the Alameda portion of the proposed line and leading somewhere else and one connecting the WSAB portion directly to Union Station along the LA River alignment). Does anyone else share this sentiment?

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I'm sure that this has been discussed before, but I'm concerned that the Alameda alignment of the WSAB may be too dog-legged and be better split into two separate lines (perhaps one serving the Alameda portion of the proposed line and leading somewhere else and one connecting the WSAB portion directly to Union Station along the LA River alignment). Does anyone else share this sentiment?

I believe that the WSAB line north of the green line should be a Purple Line Extension, which would be much faster. I think the blue line should be rerouted up Alameda, and the regional connecter be used only for the expo line. However, is only works with another east-west line across from the Eastside to South Park/the Financial District, which actually fits in very well with our previous discussion.

[NSMP]

According to Metro staff, the Alameda alignment would travel 19 miles in 33 minutes, average of ~35 mph. As fast as the subway. So speed isn't an issue, and IMO the connectivity benefits of the transfer to the Blue Line clearly outweigh getting to Little Tokyo a few minutes faster.

[hughfb3]

The mayor of LA is talking about putting a monorail along the 405. Apparently it is 2/3 cheaper than any subterranean line. If this gains traction, I would like to add that this line be extended all the way down to Inglewood and go along Prairie to hit the forum, the rams/chargers stadium, the clippers arena, and all the new developments. This could be our easiest way of building transportation for this area. I don't think Metro would really build a full light rail cut through off Crenshaw line just for Prairie which is a short segment and could be a logistical headache. This could be our automated version of Vancouver's lauded skytrain. What do we think?

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

The mayor of LA is talking about putting a monorail along the 405. Apparently it is 2/3 cheaper than any subterranean line. If this gains traction, I would like to add that this line be extended all the way down to Inglewood and go along Prairie to hit the forum, the rams/chargers stadium, the clippers arena, and all the new developments. This could be our easiest way of building transportation for this area. I don't think Metro would really build a full light rail cut through off Crenshaw line just for Prairie which is a short segment and could be a logistical headache. This could be our automated version of Vancouver's lauded skytrain. What do we think?

Monorails have very low capacity, which is the opposite of what we need for the 405 corridor, plus they'd require a more circuitous route from UCLA to Sherman Oaks than a subway. I think the best way to serve the Inglewood Stadium area is a LAX APM extension from Aviation/96th.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Monorails have very low capacity, which is the opposite of what we need for the 405 corridor, plus they'd require a more circuitous route from UCLA to Sherman Oaks than a subway. I think the best way to serve the Inglewood Stadium area is a LAX APM extension from Aviation/96th.

What do you mean by a more circuitous route?
Isn't IH 405 fairly straight?

Monorails can have the same capacity as subways, it's just a matter of how many cars there are on the train.
LA's subway trains have a seating capacity of 183 passengers (6 car train). That averages to around 30 seats per car. Disneyland's monorails have a seating capacity of 132 passengers (5 car train). That averages to around 26 per car.
Most of the capacity of these trains during rush hour depends upon how many passengers they can accommodate standing, and upon the headways between trains.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

We dont need yet another mode of transportation for our rail system. Build the damn HRT from Van Nuys, through the mountains with a stop at UCLA, the the Village / Wilshire, Expo Line, Culver City, Inglewood, LAX station then to Manhattan Beach / Hermosa

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

We dont need yet another mode of transportation for our rail system. Build the damn HRT from Van Nuys, through the mountains with a stop at UCLA, the the Village / Wilshire, Expo Line, Culver City, Inglewood, LAX station then to Manhattan Beach / Hermosa

While I love HRT, I'd only support it if the Sylmar-Van Buys LRT route were built as HRT instead. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense.