LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Besides after Purple Line to Westwood/VA there are plenty of projects that Metro will be working on in the Measure M funding pipeline including;

• West Santa Ana Corridor to Downtown LA
• Sepulveda Pass from SFV, Westwood and LAX
• Foothill Gold Line to Claremont
• Eastside Gold Line to Whittier
• Green Line to Torrance
• Union Station Run-Through tracks
  
• Rail conversion of the Orange Line
• Vermont Corridor Red Line
• Burbank Airport Red Line extension
• Green Line to Norwalk Metrolink
• Extending the West Santa Ana Corridor to Glendale/Burbank

There's still plenty of projects to work on.

And this is what I mean by mention of what's next for metro. Most of the stuff on this list are just cosmetic extensions by metro to pretend they are doing their job when in fact they are not. "2030, Metro plans on extending the gold line to palmsprings" is not something I want to hear. "2045 Metro plans on extending the WSAB to Camarillo" is not exciting for me. They are taking the easy way out by endlessly extending lines we already have instead of getting their boots dirty and looking at new lines.

I've always been the one on here to be blah with the WSAB. I just feel it will have a similar fate as the green line but I may be wrong.

The Sepulveda line at this point seems to be more of a gimmick than realistic. Will it be a monorail ? Subway? LRT? or Maglev?" who knows, its a surprise haha.

All of the extensions . The only one that deserves some kind of a mention is the red to Burbank airport but seeing how the Burbank airport barely even sees 5% of the air traffic as LAX, is it worth it ? and if the Crenshaw line doesn't see heavy traffic, this extension will surely be dead before the first shovel hits the ground.

Vermont corridor is in limbo, will it be a LRT ? Subway? or Bus route ? last I heard, bus route and still decades away.

The orange turning into rail is decades away.

And even the WSAB is some years out if we're lucky.

My problem with metro is that there should be a continuous flow of construction projects and not just extensions and "downtime" where we wait 10 years for the next project to break ground. Just imagine if Metro had 10 new lines on the drawing board that were viable and shovel ready. California just had its biggest budget surplus at over 75 Billion. Instead of being handed 5-10 billion for shovel ready rail projects, LA is only getting 1 billion for projects that have been under construction for 5 years already.

[Busy Bee]

Even with the current projects underway, LA seems to suffer from the same "resting-on-our-laurels-lack-of-urgency" as the rest of the country in terms of public transit/rail infrastructure. Any agency that puts out planning projections for 2060 needs to be raked over the coals. Realistically what is needed is no planning goals projected to be implemented no longer than 15 years. Anything past that is just pathetic. I don't even remember much about my life before I joined this forum 15 years ago LOL.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by caligrad

They are taking the easy way out by endlessly extending lines we already have instead of getting their boots dirty and looking at new lines.

Oh man, I totally agree.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by caligrad

And this is what I mean by mention of what's next for metro. Most of the stuff on this list are just cosmetic extensions by metro to pretend they are doing their job when in fact they are not. "2030, Metro plans on extending the gold line to palmsprings" is not something I want to hear. "2045 Metro plans on extending the WSAB to Camarillo" is not exciting for me. They are taking the easy way out by endlessly extending lines we already have instead of getting their boots dirty and looking at new lines.

I've always been the one on here to be blah with the WSAB. I just feel it will have a similar fate as the green line but I may be wrong.

The Sepulveda line at this point seems to be more of a gimmick than realistic. Will it be a monorail ? Subway? LRT? or Maglev?" who knows, its a surprise haha.

All of the extensions . The only one that deserves some kind of a mention is the red to Burbank airport but seeing how the Burbank airport barely even sees 5% of the air traffic as LAX, is it worth it ? and if the Crenshaw line doesn't see heavy traffic, this extension will surely be dead before the first shovel hits the ground.

Vermont corridor is in limbo, will it be a LRT ? Subway? or Bus route ? last I heard, bus route and still decades away.

The orange turning into rail is decades away.

And even the WSAB is some years out if we're lucky.

(Clears throat)

Scroll down below of a repost a fellow forum member posted about these opportunities back in March. The clock is ticking...Metro is actively asking for the very things some of you posters are asking for but just haven't connected the dots yet.

Besides most of the projects listed now used to be on this Strategic Unfunded list just for these purposes like Sepulveda Pass, Vermont Corridor, West Santa Ana, then a funding opportunity arose in the form of Measures R & M and they have moved up the timeline. Extensions are good to keep the ball rolling and give room to find more gaps in the rail network that we need to serve.

Draw out the maps and submit it to the Westside Cities COG and City of LA for a Santa Monica Blvd- East Sunset Blvd Corridor submit it to the COG ASAP! Considering all the work being thought about with the Spur within the Crenshaw Northern Extension.

Personally I am submitting a strategy for a Flower Street Subway to bury the Blue and Expo Lines underground from LA Live/Staples Center to USC and then utilize the Expo East ROW or run elevated next to the 10 Freeway to connect the Blue Line and replace the Washington Blvd street running section to improve core capacity of the existing system. (Something else many posters on this board commented on)

In addition to that I am suggesting ideas for Express corridors using Metrolink operation like the one for the Blue Line and one serving the South Bay region using existing right of way to operate service on.

There's still plenty of projects to work on.

But instead of posting on here, starting drafting and submitting these ideas.

Originally Posted by numble

Here's everyone's chance to submit their ideas for capital projects--Metro is developing a list of strategic capital projects that are currently unfunded.

https://twitter.com/numble/status/13...049240577?s=20

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by caligrad

My problem with metro is that there should be a continuous flow of construction projects and not just extensions and "downtime" where we wait 10 years for the next project to break ground. Just imagine if Metro had 10 new lines on the drawing board that were viable and shovel ready. California just had its biggest budget surplus at over 75 Billion. Instead of being handed 5-10 billion for shovel ready rail projects, LA is only getting 1 billion for projects that have been under construction for 5 years already.

The funding issue you are bringing up is a State issue not a local one, if you have an issue complain to Governor Newsom about that. Considering in that surplus not much of it is going to CA High Speed Rail and Newsom is trying to thwart off a recall he's playing the politically expedient route for all of the State.

However giving money to existing under construction projects is still a good thing because it enables more future money under Measure M that can be used to accelerate other projects to pushing up timelines. This helps the cashflow and gives political certainty that the current projects will get done to have room to plan and fund that planning for future projects.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

(Clears throat)

Scroll down below of a repost a fellow forum member posted about these opportunities back in March. The clock is ticking...Metro is actively asking for the very things some of you posters are asking for but just haven't connected the dots yet.

Besides most of the projects listed now used to be on this Strategic Unfunded list just for these purposes like Sepulveda Pass, Vermont Corridor, West Santa Ana, then a funding opportunity arose in the form of Measures R & M and they have moved up the timeline. Extensions are good to keep the ball rolling and give room to find more gaps in the rail network that we need to serve.

Draw out the maps and submit it to the Westside Cities COG and City of LA for a Santa Monica Blvd- East Sunset Blvd Corridor submit it to the COG ASAP! Considering all the work being thought about with the Spur within the Crenshaw Northern Extension.

Personally I am submitting a strategy for a Flower Street Subway to bury the Blue and Expo Lines underground from LA Live/Staples Center to USC and then utilize the Expo East ROW or run elevated next to the 10 Freeway to connect the Blue Line and replace the Washington Blvd street running section to improve core capacity of the existing system. (Something else many posters on this board commented on)

In addition to that I am suggesting ideas for Express corridors using Metrolink operation like the one for the Blue Line and one serving the South Bay region using existing right of way to operate service on.

There's still plenty of projects to work on.

But instead of posting on here, starting drafting and submitting these ideas.

So do we just look up the COG our project is in and submit a comment on their website? I looked up the Westside Cities COG for example, and the email listed was for Estolano Advisors, rather that someone at the COG. But there was a contact form as well which wasn't through email.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

So do we just look up the COG our project is in and submit a comment on their website? I looked up the Westside Cities COG for example, and the email listed was for Estolano Advisors, rather that someone at the COG. But there was a contact form as well which wasn't through email.

Yes,for the Westside COG, Estolano Advisors are the consultant who runs that COG so that would be the way to go.

[Stratosphere]

Midfield Concourse at LAX is set for grand opening on May 24, 2021.



https://twitter.com/flyLAXairport/st...742400513?s=20

[Stratosphere]

.

[Stratosphere]

.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Even with the current projects underway, LA seems to suffer from the same "resting-on-our-laurels-lack-of-urgency" as the rest of the country in terms of public transit/rail infrastructure. Any agency that puts out planning projections for 2060 needs to be raked over the coals. Realistically what is needed is no planning goals projected to be implemented no longer than 15 years. Anything past that is just pathetic. I don't even remember much about my life before I joined this forum 15 years ago LOL.

Here's the difference, those projections are based on actual cashflow needs from the four voter approved dedicated sales taxes for transportation (1980, 1990, 2008 and 2016) where as other regions have lesser levels of certainty beyond these dates because of the lack of funding sources.

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Here's the difference, those projections are based on actual cashflow needs from the four voter approved dedicated sales taxes for transportation (1980, 1990, 2008 and 2016) where as other regions have lesser levels of certainty beyond these dates because of the lack of funding sources.

Credit to LA for the tax measures that have been passed. However so many of these projects have been bungled in major ways

• Not making ESFV and Sepulveda one line
• Not extending Purple to Santa Monica
• Having Flower St and Washington St not grade separated
• Not building Crenshaw TOTALLY grade separated and having to close down the line before it even opens to build bridges.

And spreading out the money by part of the region was a terrible mistake. A few core lines need to be done and done right and if that happens ridership will spike, density around these lines will rise and the commuting habits of Angelinos will change in a transformative ways

• Sepulveda from VN ML to SoFi
• Purple all the way to the beach
• Vermont Red Extension
• Crenshaw North Subway
• Blue/Expo after Washington put underground

Of course the first will happen but not in the best manner possible, the second will happen eventually but not any time soon, the third has seen progress but no funding available, the fourth will likely happen, and no clue on the last.

But credit to LA for at least passing tax measures to start the ball rolling

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

Credit to LA for the tax measures that have been passed. However so many of these projects have been bungled in major ways

• Not making ESFV and Sepulveda one line
• Not extending Purple to Santa Monica
• Having Flower St and Washington St not grade separated
• Not building Crenshaw TOTALLY grade separated and having to close down the line before it even opens to build bridges.

And spreading out the money by part of the region was a terrible mistake. A few core lines need to be done and done right and if that happens ridership will spike, density around these lines will rise and the commuting habits of Angelinos will change in a transformative ways

The subregional allocations were the key reason it got leaders in each major area to support the last sales tax measure and it passed with 71.6% of voters. Historically when they did the original core Red Line Subway it had so many fiscal and construction mishaps that it killed the approach of building in the core first because other subregions felt like the central LA core is getting all the funds and they are not getting any projects in their area to show for it.

Agree on a portion of this with Crenshaw/LAX corridor the Metro Board should have told the SoFi stadium folks to pay for the grade separation for putting a stadium in without an EIR this is where the problem lies. This project was well underway and under construction when this stadium nonsense happened when it didn't need the separation. The LAX section is another problem. I feel at this point its better to just hold off on operating the line until the entire project is done which will be another year or two.

Flower and Washington separation will happen in some form but the approaches they initially sketched out in 2017 didn't look at the corridor more comprehensively like it should.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

[*]Not extending Purple to Santa Monica

The argument we hear for the purple line terminating at the VA is that the Expo line already serves DT Santa Monica and that the Downtown Connector will improve the utility of the line. Santa Monica already has a well-developed independent bus system that will feed the u/c VA Station.

But let's not kid ourselves - there is no comparison to the high-speed, fully grade-separated ride that a future purple line extension will create to many high-activity areas between UCLA and DTLA and allow Santa Monica to discontinue some of their bus routes. Plus, if they had sequenced the Santa Monica extension as Phase 4 then there would have been significant cost-savings.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The argument we hear for the purple line terminating at the VA is that the Expo line already serves DT Santa Monica and that the Downtown Connector will improve the utility of the line. Santa Monica already has a well-developed independent bus system that will feed the u/c VA Station.

But let's not kid ourselves - there is no comparison to the high-speed, fully grade-separated ride that a future purple line extension will create to many high-activity areas between UCLA and DTLA and allow Santa Monica to discontinue some of their bus routes. Plus, if they had sequenced the Santa Monica extension as Phase 4 then there would have been significant cost-savings.

That was not the reason Metro decided to exclude Santa Monica from Purple line. The EIR showed ridership decrease after Westwood and in order to boost the ridership estimates Metro will have to include 3 stations: Brentwood, Midtown SM, and Downtown SM. That drove up costs and dragged down the Federal funding scores. Same problem the Pink line spur had. So Metro excluded both Santa Monica and West Hollywood extensions to make sure Federal funding for the Western to Westwood portion of the Purple was not jeopardized.

However, unlike the Pink line, the extension to Santa Monica is fully protected due to tail tracks planned after VA. Plus there won't be an operational problem with branching so I fully expect Purple line will be extended to Santa Monica eventually. The only bummer is having located a mostly useless station at the VA parking lot, the Brentwood station is probably not going to happen.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by bzcat

The only bummer is having located a mostly useless station at the VA parking lot, the Brentwood station is probably not going to happen.

Yeah that's where tons of Santa Monica buses and various express buses using the 405 will offload their passengers. It'll no doubt be one of the biggest bus-subway transfers anywhere in the United States. It was also relatively inexpensive to build because of the open land and a cooperative owner.

That said, when/if the line is extended westward to DT Santa Monica, much of the bus transfer business will disappear because it will occur further west or people will walk directly to new rapid transit stations and forgo the bus entirely. But transfers will dwindle even more if the Sepulveda Corridor rapid transit line is built.

So in 20 years this station could become a low-use anomaly like the Arlington Cemetery stop in Northern Virginia unless the VA allows some high-density development to occur immediately around it.

[ardecila]

The next station west would probably be at Bundy, so the VA station would be closer for the easternmost blocks of Brentwood. If the VA opens up their campus a little bit so pedestrians can walk along Eisenhower Ave instead of Wilshire, it could still see some decent neighborhood use. Obviously better if there is TOD on top of the station, but not as bad as Arlington Cemetery.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The next station west would probably be at Bundy, so the VA station would be closer for the easternmost blocks of Brentwood. If the VA opens up their campus a little bit so pedestrians can walk along Eisenhower Ave instead of Wilshire, it could still see some decent neighborhood use. Obviously better if there is TOD on top of the station, but not as bad as Arlington Cemetery.

Or a step further to enable an pedestrian pathway from the Wilshire/San Vicente/Federal through the VA Campus to the station that would open up access.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The next station west would probably be at Bundy, so the VA station would be closer for the easternmost blocks of Brentwood. If the VA opens up their campus a little bit so pedestrians can walk along Eisenhower Ave instead of Wilshire, it could still see some decent neighborhood use. Obviously better if there is TOD on top of the station, but not as bad as Arlington Cemetery.

Bundy is in Los Angeles and there are a few hi-rises clustered near the intersection. For the Santa Monica extension to happen, Santa Monica would need to relax its zoning restrictions and permit at least some higher-density construction within a 1,000-foot radius of each station.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Bundy is in Los Angeles obviously there are a few hi-rises clustered near the intersection. For the Santa Monica extension to happen, Santa Monica would need to relax its zoning restrictions and permit at least some higher-density construction within a 1,000-foot radius of each station.

I've never really understood this position. Santa Monica is pretty damn dense by LA standards at ~10,000/sq mile, similar to most of the neighborhoods along the Purple Line and far more dense than Beverly Hills (6,000/sq mile), which has 2 stations. The neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown Santa Monica station are considerably more dense, I couldn't find the data but I'm guessing 15,000-20,0000/sq mile, which is easily in the top quartile of LA density. Then Downtown Santa Monica is also one of the most visited areas in all of Socal and is fairly jobs dense both in terms of office workers and retail/hospitality/service workers. On top of that, Downtown has ~1,500 more units entitled, which will be delivered in the next 5 years or so. The Downtown Specific Plan also allows for good mid-rise density. is It's very clear to me that it deserves a station.

Now the midtown Santa Monica station area is far less dense and definitely should be upzoned, but it's already decently dense (no single family in the area), and as is there are two hospitals that would be served.

So I guess my thought is, should the extension be used to pressure Santa Monica to upzone? Sure, but that's not going to be nearly as affective as things like the RHNA allocation. Should the extension be held if upzoning isn't happening fast enough? No way.