LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Illithid Dude]

While I love the technology behind Bechtel and think it would be fantastic to see Metro pushed in a more innovative direction, the routing of the traditional HRT proposal is by far the best. If only we could combine the two.

[jmecklenborg]

Is any provision being made in the u/c purple line station for this future line?

Ideally, trains interchange in a cross pattern, with the platforms centered over one-another, so that people tend to move from the center of one train to the center of another.

The worst-case scenario is an "L", where people must walk from the end of one platform, then up or down steps to the end of the other line's platform. That incentivizes people to board the first train at the end advantageous to the transfer, leading to overcrowding.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

While I love the technology behind Bechtel and think it would be fantastic to see Metro pushed in a more innovative direction, the routing of the traditional HRT proposal is by far the best. If only we could combine the two.

The way Bechtel is proposing to construct the station boxes and platforms is really innovative, allowing for (in theory) significantly longer train sets to meet increased demand.

I will say that I am concerned that 288-foot, 4-car trains might not be sufficient... even with 2-minute headways. Can it meet demand? Sure. But the ideal scenario is not to have trains packed like sardine cans.

UCLA/Westwood is a city unto itself, with probably 75,000 students and employees. Then factor in ease of accessibility from any point along the D Line, including Santa Monica (D and/or E), LAX, and potentially points beyond. Longer and wider trains at 4-minute headways is still pretty good, and the wider rolling stock is more accommodating of riders with luggage.

[Illithid Dude]

I too worry about the four car trains, but hopefully that can be remedied through the feedback process.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Is any provision being made in the u/c purple line station for this future line?

Ideally, trains interchange in a cross pattern, with the platforms centered over one-another, so that people tend to move from the center of one train to the center of another.

The worst-case scenario is an "L", where people must walk from the end of one platform, then up or down steps to the end of the other line's platform. That incentivizes people to board the first train at the end advantageous to the transfer, leading to overcrowding.

The Bechtel proposal has the Sepulveda Line station box under Gayley Ave just north of Wilshire. It would likely be very deep to cross under the Purple Line box. The effective configuration is a "T" but it will not be a single station hall like Metro Center in LA (or Metro Center in DC).

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvFle-JU...jpg&name=large

The short trains/short platforms in the Bechtel proposal do minimize the lateral walking for a transfer connection, but an elevator or several escalators might be involved.

Originally Posted by Quixote

The way Bechtel is proposing to construct the station boxes and platforms is really innovative, allowing for (in theory) significantly longer train sets to meet increased demand.

I will say that I am concerned that 288-foot, 4-car trains might not be sufficient... even with 2-minute headways. Can it meet demand? Sure. But the ideal scenario is not to have trains packed like sardine cans.

UCLA/Westwood is a city unto itself, with probably 75,000 students and employees. Then factor in ease of accessibility from any point along the D Line, including Santa Monica (D and/or E), LAX, and potentially points beyond. Longer and wider trains at 4-minute headways is still pretty good, and the wider rolling stock is more accommodating of riders with luggage.

I wouldn't be that worried. This technology/train size works fine in Vancouver, and Van's CBD is significantly larger than UCLA. Students are also less peaky than 9-5 commuters, so the loads will be spread out more evenly over the day. If/when the line is extended to LAX, that load is also very spread out over the day.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I wouldn't be that worried. This technology/train size works fine in Vancouver, and Van's CBD is significantly larger than UCLA. Students are also less peaky than 9-5 commuters, so the loads will be spread out more evenly over the day. If/when the line is extended to LAX, that load is also very spread out over the day.

What if this line gets extended along Century and there's an event at SoFi, Intuit Dome, and the Forum?

In this scenario, more people have to wait for the next train, which is not appealing or ideal.

[Quixote]

A5 is a waste. If you're going to build 100% underground, you might as well go with A6. A5 has one extra station and the severe turn toward the Van Nuys Metrolink terminus would add to the end-to-end time as well.

Half of the appeal of the Bechtel proposal, for me at least, is the aerial alignment because it sets a precedent for elevated heavy rail, which we will need if we want to build a fast, reliable, high-capacity rapid transit system across the county.

[craigs]

Scoping out progress on Metro's Foothill Gold Line Extension

Construction is 2/3 finished, Construction Authority announces

Steven Sharp
Urbanize LA
January 3, 2023

At the close of 2022, the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority announced that work is now two-thirds complete on the L Line's 9.1-mile, four-station extension to Pomona.

Slated to open by 2025, the project adds four new stations to the L Line in Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, as well as a future eastern terminus next to the Pomona North Metrolink station. Additionally, the Kiewit-Parsons joint venture team building the project has been tasked with the construction of multiple new bridges, the reconstruction of at-grade crossings, and the relocation of a freight rail line which shares the same right-of-way.

Since reaching the 50 percent completion mark in June 2022, the Kiewit-Parsons joint venture team tasked with building the project has completed the relocation of freight tracks within the shared right-of-way, as well as the construction and reconstruction of nearly all at-grade crossings and bridges. Additionally, work has been completed on a majority of the traction power substations which will allow trains to run.

The L Line extension, the Measure M-funded light rail project to break ground, and is also being financed with state money and leftover Measure R funds from the Pasadena-to-Azusa extension.

Although the under-construction extension pushes the L Line's Foothill branch more than nine miles east, a lack of available funding has reduced the project from its original scope, which called for an additional three miles of track and two stops in Claremont and Montclair.

As additional funding to complete construction was not secured by an October 2021 deadline, Metro and the Construction Authority are now seeking additional funds from the California State Transportation Agency to build the Pomona-to-Montclair segment of the project, which would allow the L Line to serve San Bernardino County.

“I want to thank our state legislators, county supervisors, Construction Authority and Metro board members, and San Gabriel Valley cities and organizations for supporting this funding application,” said Construction Authority chief executive officer Habib F. Balian in a news release. “The Pomona to Montclair segment is the final segment of a 25-station system that has been underway since the early 1990s. It is shovel-ready and can be completed across county lines into San Bernardino County in five years once funding is secured.”

That total 25-station segment would span nearly 38 miles, a distance which by itself would exceed the total length of most U.S. light rail systems. And that distance is set to grow yet again. After the completion of Metro's 1.9 Regional Connector subway, when the Foothill extension is to be merged into a single service with the A Line, passengers could ride roughly 60 miles to reach Long Beach.

[craigs]

And the photos:


Relocated freight track (left) alongside two new light rail tracks (right) in La Verne


Sound walls in La Verne


Rail delivery train dropping off rail sticks for project


New light rail bridge over Lone Hill Ave in Glendora under construction


Completed light rail bridge over Route 66 in Glendora


Completed light rail bridge over Bonita Ave & Cataract Ave intersection in San Dimas


Completed light rail bridge over Foothill Blvd & Grand Ave intersection in Glendora


Reconstructed grade crossing at Foothill Blvd & Grand Ave intersection in Glendora


Crews constructing walkway ramps for future Glendora station


Completed platform deck for future La Verne station


Crews constructing platform deck for future San Dimas station

[ChrisLA]

Too bad this wasn’t around when I lived in Azusa, when the regional connector opens this would have allowed me to commute entirely by train to my job in El Segundo. Back in the day I would have to drive to Norwalk and hop on the Green Line. It was one of the reasons I moved to Long Beach to have better options and that saved me a lot of money (gas and maintenance). If this was around back in the late 90’s for sure I wouldn’t have moved, I really liked the San Gabriel Valley.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

While I love the technology behind Bechtel and think it would be fantastic to see Metro pushed in a more innovative direction, the routing of the traditional HRT proposal is by far the best. If only we could combine the two.

Can someone with better knowledge of the EIR process for transit projects tell us if it would be possible for metro to pick the alternative 6 alignment but then offer Betchel the contract to design & build it? That way we would get the best alignment along with the best approach/technology.

[hughfb3]

The $900 Million Metro/LAX connection









Thanks for those links on the Sepulveda pass project Quixote. I love going through those documents

Originally Posted by Quixote

A5 is a waste. If you're going to build 100% underground, you might as well go with A6. A5 has one extra station and the severe turn toward the Van Nuys Metrolink terminus would add to the end-to-end time as well.

Half of the appeal of the Bechtel proposal, for me at least, is the aerial alignment because it sets a precedent for elevated heavy rail, which we will need if we want to build a fast, reliable, high-capacity rapid transit system across the county.

I align with these points, although, the A6 alignment terminus going down Centinela I'm not so sure of. Lincoln bl has some of the worst traffic I have ever seen on a surface boulevard and there is no other major road that runs parallel to it that services the "Silicon Beach" corridor as the Marina cuts out a chunk of the grid. The county has to distribute money all over the county of 10 million people and almost 5,000 square miles. If the Sepulveda line eventually goes down Centinela (west of the 405), that might politically prevent the Lincoln bl rail line from going through in the future as that would be 4 lines west of the 405 in a relatively small, but job rich area. I think Sepulveda Pass staying east of the 405 along Sepulveda or 405 will keep Lincoln rail in political play.

On the north side, the curve to the Metro station on A4 could be turned into a Wye junction and continue along Sepulveda bl and the line could also continue east to Burbank Airport. Which is why I think A4 is the best one of all of them.

Speaking of other parts of the county... my favorite designed Metro line in LA is the foothill gold line. Would love for them to finish the line to Montclair sooner rather than later, and while we are at it, extend to the Brightline West station in Rancho.

[llamaorama]

San Dimas!

something is strange is afoot at the circle k

[citywatch]

File this under 'as much as things change, some things never change'.

• Video Link

some of the comments under the youtube vid are interesting....about smog, lack of turn signals, the unsafe design of LA's fwys in the 1950s, what cars back then would be worth today. The first segment shows the 101 west of dtla. Not sure if knowing that fwys in LA were clogged over 60 yrs ago makes the clogged fwys of today an even worse reality or a matter of history repeating itself....& business as usual.

[Busy Bee]

Spectacular!


___

[hughfb3]

That video is gorgeous. Wow, one would think they would have gotten it back then that freeways would be a mess and to not tear out all the red and yellow cars

Some things I found interesting while reading the Transit Partners (Bechtel) report... thanks for the link Quixote.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0v3cta4y6f...acted.pdf?dl=0

The mass of "Light Rail" vehicles is quite a lot more than anything else. I assume because these vehicles interact with cars that they have to be designed to protect riders in the event of a crash. Having lighter trains like what TP3 is proposing will be cheaper to construct and less visually intrusive.

Also, looking at capacity of trains. The HRT Medium capacity has a bit smaller capacity, but the automation which allows headways to be cut in half will add up to roughly the same; if not more, capacity per hour as "Light Rail" and almost par for HRT High Capacity driver led (not automated).



Something that surprised me in the bullet points below are that they are looking at Open Gangway trains between cars and auto-coupling to allow for increase and decrease in capacity. I love an open gangway, I first experienced this in Munich, Germany years ago and was blown away by the concept. Also with auto-everything, Metro can add more trains to a route at a moments notice without much increase in operating costs or dealing with operator scheduling.



With the HRT Medium capacity, they will reduce tunnel diameter from 27' to 20' which is a significant cut back in costs



1. They are open to putting Ventura Station underground on the elevated alignment to satisfy Sherman Oaks HOA, then elevate past that station. I think this is a good compromise and hopefully this will calm their concerns

What's still not clear for me is timeline on how long and when construction is.

Also, with all the automation, would love if they could come up with a way to have an express service to LAX from the Valley with an elevated service experience, charge more money for the service and have it be a revenue generator $$$. Maybe with check in luggage facilities in the Valley at the Metrolink transfer station and a special luggage car with a concierge service that will take the bags to your terminal for you. It will be the quickest way to get to LAX without a doubt from the valley and could be a premium service. More money for Metro, more money for expansions. Not sure, but maybe a computer driven system could schedule in track switches and work around stations.

This could help to show proof of concept of another major revenue generator... express elevated service from LAX to DTLA via harbor subdivision. I hope someone is listening...

[LAsam]

Wow, that video is incredible! I can't imagine that was originally filmed in color, right? Probably had color added at a later date. Like looking through the lens of a time machine.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by LAsam

Wow, that video is incredible! I can't imagine that was originally filmed in color, right? Probably had color added at a later date. Like looking through the lens of a time machine.

Yeah, color and sound added.

Those who took to cars lived in a different era. They mostly lived through the Great Depression and World War II and often came from a dirt poor farm. Car ownership was a sign of success and gave them freedom that they did not know in their childhood and youth.

They were only learning the down side but it would take a few generations before it really sunk in that there are better choices. Unfortunately, some of those choices were already disposed of. We still have a long way to go.

[202_Cyclist]

When I went to the LA Times website this morning, there was a fancy new ad and video for the proposed gondola.

Hurdles loom for gondola proposal

By Rachel Uranga
Jan. 10, 2023
Los Angeles Times

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...r-the-olympics

"With sweeping views of the Los Angeles skyline, a 1.2-mile gondola ride could be whisking tourists from Union Station to Dodger Stadium -- reducing game-time traffic -- by the 2028 Olympics, according to its promoters.

But the seven-minute lift that they promise would ferry up to 5,000 people an hour is facing legal challenges, and just lost one of its biggest backers: former Mayor Eric Garcetti, who championed the project on the board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Mayor Karen Bass, who replaces him on the board, has yet to take a position on the the electric-powered gondola..."

[edale]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

When I went to the LA Times website this morning, there was a fancy new ad and video for the proposed gondola.

Hurdles loom for gondola proposal

By Rachel Uranga
Jan. 10, 2023
Los Angeles Times

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...r-the-olympics

"With sweeping views of the Los Angeles skyline, a 1.2-mile gondola ride could be whisking tourists from Union Station to Dodger Stadium -- reducing game-time traffic -- by the 2028 Olympics, according to its promoters.

But the seven-minute lift that they promise would ferry up to 5,000 people an hour is facing legal challenges, and just lost one of its biggest backers: former Mayor Eric Garcetti, who championed the project on the board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Mayor Karen Bass, who replaces him on the board, has yet to take a position on the the electric-powered gondola..."

I hope the gondola to Dodger Stadium gets built. I think it would be a pretty cool attraction for tourists and locals alike. The current setup for getting to and from Dodger Stadium frankly sucks. Huge street into a massive sea of parking lots. Providing an alternative would be great, especially one that connects to Union Station. But, knowing LA, it will get held up in legal challenges for years, and probably will not end up getting built.