LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Quixote]

Travel times from Van Nuys Metrolink to Expo Line (purposely left out Alternatives 1 and 2 because of the ridiculous people mover connection to UCLA):

A3 (monorail): 32 minutes
A4 (automated heavy rail, partially elevated): 20 minutes
A5 (automated heavy rail, mostly underground): 19 minutes
A6 (conventional heavy rail, fully underground): 18 minutes

Projected ridership:

A3: 86,013
A4: 120,546
A5: 121,624
A6: 107,096

[Quixote]

It comes down to A4 and A6:

A4: Higher frequency and ridership, cheaper and quicker to build, sets precedent for elevated HRT; BUT runs the risk of a phase 2 alignment that closely parallels the 405 for roughly 3.5 miles (a waste)

A6: Longer trains, use of existing technology, two stations west of the 405, guarantees a more urban-minded phase 2 alignment down Centinela; BUT less frequency and ridership, not automated, more expensive and more time to build, no elevated HRT precedent

[Quixote]

Subways are ultra-competitive when they follow routes that don't have a direct road/freeway alternative, such as the Beverly Hills – Century City – Westwood part of the D Line extension.

That's why I love A6... UCLA campus to Sawtelle in 4-5 minutes, Mar Vista 10-11 minutes, Playa Vista 14-15 minutes, LAX people mover 18-19 minutes.

[Illithid Dude]

Metro always cooks their ridership predictions to support whatever route they internally prefer, which means it looks like we are going to get automated HRT. Not a bad trade off, though I would much rather the train head down to Playa Vista instead of tunneling beneath the 405.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Metro always cooks their ridership predictions to support whatever route they internally prefer, which means it looks like we are going to get automated HRT. Not a bad trade off, though I would much rather the train head down to Playa Vista instead of tunneling beneath the 405.

Agreed, there's no way that A6 would actually have lower ridership than A4 and A5. There is so much more activity around Sawtelle and Expo/Bundy stations than around the equivalent stations for A4 and A5. Hopefully if they go with A4/A5 they choose a phase II path that veers down to Centinela to hit Mar Vista and Playa Vista, which are the obvious destinations to serve south of the 10.

[Quixote]

^ Straight down Sepulveda is the path of least resistance, so that's very worrisome for an agency that doesn't know shit about urbanism.

[edale]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

Update on Delta Skyway at LAX



Delta opened the post security front entrance to what used to be T2 but is now Concourse 2?? It looks like a Star Trek or something space age, like how airports used to be designed. They still do not know (or have yet to announce) what they will do with the now defunct T2 security area (behind me from where I'm standing in the picture). I say remove the Sea Legs restaurant for much needed seating and add a grand focal point central window at the end of the terminal like in T3, the replaced restaurant can be in the now defunct security area pictured below.

Previous look of T2 entrance (old)


^^The old T2 security area on top of the stairs. The stairs have been removed and just after the old security area is a wall which blocks this space off from the new area shown in the first picture

Thank you for the update! I'm having a hard time understanding where your first photo is. After you get through the new security, you can go left to T3 and right to T2. I know where the former T2 security area is, but where is this new star trek inspired area? You could always access T2 even during the height of construction. Also, can you now go from T3 to the part of TBIT past security? That's huge if so, as TBIT is wayyy nicer than the rest of LAX, and it'd be great to be able to go over there if my flight is delayed or whatever.

I'll be flying Delta out of LAX in a couple weeks, so I guess I'll see the changes for myself soon enough!

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by edale

Thank you for the update! I'm having a hard time understanding where your first photo is. After you get through the new security, you can go left to T3 and right to T2. I know where the former T2 security area is, but where is this new star trek inspired area? You could always access T2 even during the height of construction. Also, can you now go from T3 to the part of TBIT past security? That's huge if so, as TBIT is wayyy nicer than the rest of LAX, and it'd be great to be able to go over there if my flight is delayed or whatever.

I'll be flying Delta out of LAX in a couple weeks, so I guess I'll see the changes for myself soon enough!

Sure, if you've flown Delta during the construction times up until about a month ago, T2 was accessible from the new security area, turning right then entering the gate area through what used to be the access to T2 baggage claim for people arriving which I've labeled "old hallway." It went just past security to lead to escalators down. This old hallway is behind the left side of the Star Trek wall and is now closed off for construction to either expand for gate area seating for Gate 22 or adding another amenity.

Some really bad art. For now, Apple Maps still has the old terminal layout that we can use for reference


^^^The highlighted old "Security Checkpoint" is the new Star Trek looking space. You can see the temporary entrance from the new security, but the new pathways are highlighted with the green arrows. The green arrows show the new pathways of walking into T2 and T1 from the new T3 complex security.

**BELOW** The old picture that it no longer looks like
If you look at the center top of the second picture of the old layout, there is a column embedded into the wall..., this I believe where the new false wall that blocks the Star Trek area from the stairs and old ticketing area is. Where the green arrow points to is a wall that is now gone and is now the new pathway to the T1.5 head house.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Agreed, there's no way that A6 would actually have lower ridership than A4 and A5. There is so much more activity around Sawtelle and Expo/Bundy stations than around the equivalent stations for A4 and A5. Hopefully if they go with A4/A5 they choose a phase II path that veers down to Centinela to hit Mar Vista and Playa Vista, which are the obvious destinations to serve south of the 10.

A6 could very well have a lower projected ridership than A4/A5 as both of those have 4 stations in the valley vs A6's 3 stations and those valley stations are along Sepulveda bl. which may have some different numbers. That extra station alone adds about 6,500+ riders. Also A6 has 2 stations congruent with the Van Nuys LRT stations that do a lot for Van Nuys bl but may also be "redundant" with the Van Nuys Light Rail project, thereby lowering its numbers on those trips that people may be doing exclusively in the Valley and not going across the hill.



Regarding the southern endpoint and phase 2 continuation... Ultimately, it boils down to the purpose of this line, and that's where the choices are being made from. If the purpose is to give people a quick option to facilitate a reduction in congestion along the 405 from the Valley to the South Bay, then the option of least resistance would be for phase two to stay along the 405 or Sepulveda south to LAX as the Overland alignment could be prohibitively expensive while those people west of the 405 will have other options with the nearby expo line, future red line to Santa Monica, and the Lincoln Rd LRT or BRT. If the purpose of this line was to create an option for the westside resident to get around the westside easier, then the Overland option would be best, but this is not the case for this corridor. As the cost estimates get refined, A4/A5 will continue to be the most bang for the buck options for both phases as they align with the purpose of this line and it will just boil down to politics of who will win in the valley politics of either the wealthy minority not wanting to see the train infrastructure and putting it underground or the mass appeal of having a brand new line for a few billion $$ less with elevated rail. We could get the best of all world's with the following North/South and East/West local and regional alignments.

-Sepulveda dominant rail line N/S fast regional transit
-Lincoln Rd LRT N/S localized slow west side transit
-Overland BRT N/S localized slow westside transit
-Van Nuys LRT N/S localized slow valley transit

-Expo line E/W localized/regional hybrid slow transit
-Red line Santa Monica extension E/W fast regional transit

Slow transit is great for building local communities and fast transit is great for connecting the region. Ideally we could have both slow and fast transit all across SoCal.

[craigs]

Honestly, I'm good with any option but A3.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

If the purpose is to give people a quick option to facilitate a reduction in congestion along the 405 from the Valley to the South Bay, then the option of least resistance would be for phase two to stay along the 405 or Sepulveda south to LAX as the Overland alignment could be prohibitively expensive while those people west of the 405 will have other options with the nearby expo line, future red line to Santa Monica, and the Lincoln Rd LRT or BRT.


...

Slow transit is great for building local communities and fast transit is great for connecting the region. Ideally we could have both slow and fast transit all across SoCal.

Rail lines running parallel to freeways don't relieve traffic congestion. Please don't peddle that fallacy. It does no favors.

And this line is both local and regional based on station spacing and where the stops are located.

[Quixote]

I could see A6 being the preferred alternative if the NIMBYs are successful in their campaign for a non-aerial alignment. Since A5 is essentially the fully underground version of A4, the cost advantage is lost and A5 might be closer to A6. Why can't Metro explore a single-bore, automated option for A6 and consider ventilation shafts for greater frequency?

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Rail lines running parallel to freeways don't relieve traffic congestion. Please don't peddle that fallacy. It does no favors.

Relax Quixote! We all care about LA enough to be on a forum in our free time. Metro uses the terms "congestion reduction" in their descriptions and I was simply playing with their talking points. Using inflammatory language like "peddling fallacy" is uncalled for on a discussion forum when people are simply adding discussion points, especially when you have the viewpoint confused. I know transit rarely reduces congestion whether it's next to a freeway or not. I was referring to the 405 or Sepulveda alignment phase 2 being the path of least resistance to getting the line done as fast as possible to LAX with the least cost and least amount of interference with possible residential or business complaints and lawsuits from NIMBYS like phase 1 in the Valley. It can still go down Centinela with whichever alt they choose in phase 1.

I can get a sense of how much you care about LA by how much you post and you add tremendous value to this space, but please be wise about posting short, ill-thought-out replies as it kills the discussion aspect of a FORUM.



Speaking of which, some reports I’ve read about rail and congestion about Los Angeles from the National Bureau of Economic Research

https://www.nber.org/system/files/wo...757/w18757.pdf

[SoCalKid]

A Centinela route would be just as quick as a Sepulveda route and would actually take people to where they want to go. A quick ride isn't helpful if it drops you off next to a freeway without meaningful designations. With the Sepulveda route, the only useful station in phase II would be the airport, which is not worth the $10+ billion it would cost to build. If we're going to be spending huge amounts of money on generational rail, I think it's really important we build rail that actually takes people to where they want to go/where they live rather than just following the path of least resistance.

Regarding the ridership of A4/A5 vs A6, hugh you make a good point about stations in the valley, but the fact that Metro is showing higher ridership at Expo/Sepulveda than Expo/Bundy demonstrates that they had their finger on the scale here.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

Centinela is the no-brainer here. One extra station and a more meandering route means a higher cost and a slightly longer travel time, but ridership should be considerably higher. You have stations placed at the very heart of Mar Vista, Del Rey, and commercial Playa Vista. And for sheer equity purposes, having stations farther away from the Expo Line and west of the 405 makes political sense.

[craigs]

They traveled on Metro for a week and loved it. Can two dozen German journalists be wrong?

Erik Kirschbaum
Los Angeles Times
November 3, 2023


Metro travel required planning but had these advantages: low impact on wallets, nerves and the environment. (Liz Moughon / Los Angeles Times)

I just spent a week riding Los Angeles buses and trains, along with 25 broadcast journalists from Germany, all of us in L.A. for a mid-career fellowship program. When I told my local contacts we planned to take public transit to dozens of meetings and events — three to four a day, from the Westside to downtown and beyond — they seemed shocked and offered dire warnings along the lines of “are you out of your mind?”

But their fears of lurking danger, little reliability and less comfort turned out to be wrong, albeit well intentioned.

We rode a big selection of Metro’s 120 bus and six train lines. With surprising ease. Safely. Happily. And on time, despite Southern California’s legendary urban sprawl. Our public transit journeys required a bit of advance planning and lead time but they were a fraction of the cost, to our wallets, to our nerves and above all to the environment, compared with the alternative a few of us sometimes used — Uber.

I’ve lived for decades in Berlin, where public transit is a widely admired given, so I’m used to traveling day in and out without a car, and I can now confidently say Metro doesn’t deserve its bad rap.

It’s certainly true that New York and Washington, other cities where I lead fellowships, make it easier to get from A to B on public transit than L.A. But don’t underrate Metro.

We got from a meeting in Beverly Hills to the next meeting on Skid Row in an hour on just one bus line — the 720 — that picked us up a few blocks from Rodeo Drive and dropped us off outside the Union Mission on San Pedro Street. Even some L.A. natives were astonished to learn that the same bus line connects those two different worlds just 10 miles — 16 bus stops — apart.

We also got to events in good shape in Hollywood, Universal City, Santa Monica, Century City, Culver City, Glendale, Malibu and Pacific Palisades. Some of the especially hearty public transit riders among us arrived at a few of the more-difficult-to-reach appointments before those who resorted to Uber. Traffic!

On the buses, I met some chatty and friendly fellow travelers, and yes, I also encountered a few pretty messed-up riders, chatting gibberish and lost in their own distant worlds. I rode immaculately clean trains and buses and a few that looked and smelled scuzzy. Most rides were somewhere in between.

We’d been warned about violent crime, and as is true for big city transit systems everywhere, I have no doubt it’s a legitimate concern. But we encountered none, although on a late-night ride from downtown to Santa Monica, on a very clean but mostly empty E line train, there were some worrisome moments.

One passenger was clearly passed out, slouched over in his seat. Another shouted something unintelligible from time to time. Making such situations feel a little safer, there were often security guards or police at train stops and on buses; security cameras were ubiquitous.

Our most precarious moments came when we had to walk from buses or trains to our final destinations. It seems pedestrians are not something some Los Angeles drivers are accustomed to. I actually had to jump out of the way a few times as motorists got too close to sidewalks or bike lanes.

Even during rush hour, we found ourselves, surprisingly, in half-empty buses as we zipped down express bus lanes past long lines of bumper-to-bumper traffic. I had to wonder why, in the face of climate change, were so many drivers still in cars? Why, in a city where people think out of the box more than in other places, is there so much angst about public transportation?

My German fellow travelers were as amazed as I was at the relatively good bus connections, the relatively high frequency along some of the main routes that crisscross the city, and the incredibly inexpensive price for it all — I got everywhere I needed to be on public transit and spent $18 for unlimited travel for the entire week.

We were using public transit so often that groups of us bumped into each other all over town, heading to fellowship and free-time destinations. It was usually easy to spot us because the buses were so empty. A few participants in the program even opted to take No. 4 bus to Santa Monica and then the Culver City Rapid 6 bus to LAX for their flights home.

In all, I took nearly 30 different bus rides and six train rides unscathed during the car-less week. I saw parts of L.A. I’d never seen before. I managed to get work and reading done on the hours I spent on buses. After the fellowship ended, I wrote this article while riding first on the E line from downtown and then on a bus to Venice.

Take it from me and two dozen other visitors from Germany: Los Angeles has an eminently usable mass transportation system, and from the construction we saw, it’s only going to get better. May it also become more popular with the locals.

[Nouvellecosse]

If you can impress Germans with transit you can impress just about anybody. Well, assuming that part of it wasn't just dismally low expectations lol.

[Easy]

Metro recently started enforcing fares and kicking out people openly doing drugs and having no destination and it's made a huge difference in the atmosphere. I'm glad that they were able to experience metro now and not a few months ago.

[craigs]

Metro says subway will move people between Valley and Westside faster than monorail

New data shows a subway under Sepulveda Pass will be quick, offer a UCLA stop and carry more riders

Steve Scauzillo
Los Angeles Daily News
November 6, 2023

Traveling from Van Nuys to UCLA on an underground subway would take about 12 minutes, compared to a ride on an aerial monorail that would take more than twice as long, according to new data released by LA Metro regarding its proposed Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project.

The data also showed that of six options, the underground subway — outlined as alternatives 4 to 6 — would carry a maximum of about 120,000 weekday boardings, much more than the monorail alternatives numbered 1 to 3.

An underground rail would carry nearly twice as many riders as two of the monorail options, mostly because two of the three monorail options would not include stations at UCLA, a prime destination that is projected to be the busiest station. Instead, the first two monorail alternatives require transfers to get to UCLA, one to a shuttle bus and the other to an automated people mover, adding travel time and reducing ridership, Metro reported.

The data was released last week in presentations focused on the six alternatives under consideration for the first rail transit to connect the San Fernando Valley with the Westside, to be built either over or under the Santa Monica Mountains as an alternative to the busy 405 Freeway.

On the table at presentations held in Westwood and online by LA Metro were six configurations, with Alternatives 1 to 3 mostly monorail, and Alternatives 4 to 6 heavy rail. The six alternatives are:

Alternative 1: (15.3 miles) Monorail with aerial alignment on 405 corridor and electric bus connection to UCLA.

Alternative 2: (15.8 miles) Monorail with aerial alignment on 405 corridor and aerial automated people mover connection to UCLA.

Alternative 3: (16.2 miles) Monorail with aerial alignment on 405 corridor and underground alignment between Getty Center and Wilshire Boulevard. This would allow for an underground station at UCLA.

Alternative 4: (14 miles) Heavy rail with underground alignment south of Ventura Boulevard and aerial alignment generally along Sepulveda Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley, with four aerial stations.

Alternative 5: (14 miles) Heavy rail with underground alignment including along Sepulveda Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley.

Alternative 6: (12.6 miles) Heavy rail with underground alignment including along Van Nuys Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley and a southern terminus station on Bundy Drive.

Travel time and boarding projections are part of environmental impact reports which are scheduled for completion sometime in 2025. Ultimately, the LA Metro Board will determine the preferred alternative, route, station alignments — and updated cost estimates. Completion is estimated between 2033-2035, according to Metro.

With new data in hand, Metro emphasized the importance of travel time in getting people to switch from driving to public transit. “A successful transit system attracts high ridership because it moves people faster and more reliably so they can go about their lives with greater opportunities and more time to do so,” read the Metro staff presentation.

All six options would move people from the Van Nuys Metrolink Station to UCLA Gateway Plaza in 12 to 39 minutes and 31 to 48 minutes from Van Nuys to the E (Expo) Line in Santa Monica. Travel time when starting from the G (Orange) Line in Reseda to UCLA would take 23 to 46 minutes.

No matter which alternative is chosen, their times compare favorably to driving times, which range from 40 to 90 minutes when driving from Van Nuys to UCLA, and 45 to 100 minutes when driving from Van Nuys to Santa Monica during peak morning hours, Metro reported.

Shorter travel times are underscored by reliability, meaning that commuters, students or people going to medical appointments who must arrive on time won’t have to worry about traffic, car crashes and Sig Alerts if they take Metro, said Dave Karwaski, director of mobility planning and traffic systems at UCLA on Friday, Nov. 3.

“Driving is challenging and stressful. All things can happen,” he said. “But with alternatives 4, 5, and 6 (subway rail) having travel times under 20 minutes — some at 12 and 15 minutes — it’s a benefit that isn’t obvious.” Travel times on the monorail from Van Nuys to UCLA range from 24 to 39 minutes, Metro reported.

He wasn’t surprised that the subway alternatives would be faster, since they would be built directly between the Valley and the Westside, while the monorail option would follow the arc of the 405 Freeway. And the monorail proposal includes transfers to UCLA, adding to the trip times, he said.

In agreements signed with LA Metro, the monorail concept planned by LA SkyRail Express, with an aerial line built on the 405 Freeway median and most stations located on the freeway’s shoulder, was projected to cost $6.1 billion. Proponents say it can be built faster and cheaper than the subway.

Bob Anderson, a member and board chair of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association (SOHA) transportation committee, said Metro could build the monorail using the $7.5 billion put aside by Metro for the project. He estimated that the other option, an underground subway rail, would really cost upward of $25 billion and that Metro would not have the money to complete it. Metro has not released new cost figures.

“You shouldn’t be building something you can’t afford,” he said on Thursday, Nov. 2. The SOHA and the Bel-Air Association are opposed to the underground subway, saying tunneling could damage homes. Instead, these two groups prefer the monorail option.

Anderson also criticized the ridership and travel time estimates put out by Metro. “To me these numbers are more Metro deceit,” Anderson said.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Partners, including Bechtel Development Company, Meridiam Infrastructure and American Triple I Partners, put the cost of their subway project at $10.8 billion. STCP says its project, either alternatives 4 and 5, would provide the fastest and greenest option, easing congestion on the 405 Freeway and reducing pollution.

The heavy rail alternative is supported by the UCLA Undergraduate Student Association Council and Graduate Student Association, which represent over 45,000 students. “We firmly believe heavy rail is the only alternative that works for UCLA’s students, faculty and the greater Los Angeles community,” wrote Evan Curran, a USAC facilities commissioner, in an emailed response.

Streets For All, Sierra Club, Climate Resolve, LA Forward and other nonprofit groups support the heavy rail option and oppose the monorail.

UCLA is fourth-largest employer in Los Angeles County, with about 80,000 people on campus every day, Karwaski said.

“This rail line should not be built cheap. It will be the most important investment in Los Angeles for over 200 years,” said Bart Reed, executive director of The Transit Coalition.

[craigs]

Could Dedicated Bus Lanes Turn Los Angeles Into a Transit Town?

Ben Abramson
Strong Towns
November 3, 2023

Los Angeles is often held up as the case study for car-centric development run amok, with sprawling detached-dwelling neighborhoods bisected by traffic-strewn freeways. But in recent years, the city has been pursuing a completely different path: public transit champion.

The local transit agency, Metro, and the city of Los Angeles have committed to add 100 miles of priority bus lanes before the area hosts the 2028 Summer Olympics. The campaign has hit high gear in 2023, with 30 miles of existing lanes converted to only allow bus traffic during peak travel times.

As a result, transit times are down as much as 30% on busy corridors, with dedicated lanes such as La Brea Avenue and Venice Boulevard (watch a bus glide through gridlock in this X, formerly known as Twitter, video). As a bonus, many of these reconfigurations have also incorporated bike lanes and reconfigured intersections for pedestrian safety.

The city is also celebrating a milestone in its light rail and subway system. In June 2023, it opened the Regional Connector, a tunnel project that provides easier access to regional rail service and includes three new downtown stops.

In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times praises the progress: “The best advertisement for public transportation is seeing a bus whoosh past lines of cars stuck in traffic. When transit is convenient, comfortable, affordable and faster than driving, the service practically sells itself. That’s why a recent bus-lane boom in Los Angeles is so welcome.”

The Times editorial also notes that, in some cases, approval for new bus lanes has happened in less than a year, which it calls “warp speed for transportation infrastructure.”

Easing the path to implementation is the fact that many of the new lanes are designated bus only during the busiest rush-hour transit times, and can be used by private vehicles or as parking lanes the rest of the time. This substantially reduces costs and helps minimize resistance, or “bus-lane NIMBYism,” as the Times calls it.

All these changes did not come easily. Writing for MoveLA, a local transit advocacy organization, Eli Lipmen details how supporters and allies faced years of resistance and bureaucratic challenges before getting broad level buy-in to enhance transit service in Los Angeles. “This monumental progress on bus lanes in LA has been years in the making and can be traced to a coordinated advocacy effort that aggressively pushed for both funding and policies that led to better service, infrastructure that speeds up buses and makes routes more reliable, and amenities that benefited current riders.”

A big part of those efforts were ballot initiatives in 2008 and 2016 in which voters agreed to half-cent increases in the city sales tax to benefit public transit. According to MoveLA, those two changes account for an additional $2.4 billion in transit funding in 2023.

All is not perfect in this transition. Bus lanes near retail are often blocked by drivers parking or standing illegally, increasing travel times. But because the transit agency lacks the authority to ticket offenders, it is deploying automated plate readers that will refer violators to the city to issue citations. Many advocates also hope the success of dedicating the lanes to buses during rush hour will ultimately lead to making those closures permanent.

Looking ahead, the city and Metro have committed to a NextGen bus policy, which seeks several improvements in transit service and infrastructure. Among many rider-friendly goals, they’re promising to provide 80% of riders with buses every 10 minutes, and for 99% of riders to have a quarter mile or less walk to a bus stop. Predictability of service is one of the most important factors for converting drivers to transit riders.

If you’re in a similar battle in your community, Lipmen has words of encouragement: “For other advocates hoping to push their cities and agencies to dramatically increase bus lane production, we hope our story can offer lessons and spark ideas.”