LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[TowerDude]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

American transit agencies sure love to markings on the floor. Whether it's pointless striping like we see here, arrows at every single freaking door like the NY subway or "wheelchair parking" or "little old ladies here" they never miss an opportunity.

Love the look at that clean contrasting band floor in the Singapore train.

The US floors are fine.

[SoCalKid]

Can any regular riders report on how smooth (or not) the operations have been on the E and A lines now that they have had some time to adjust to the regional connector opening? Has there been much bunching/delays? Are the trains having any more success avoiding red lights with the signal timing changes?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Can any regular riders report on how smooth (or not) the operations have been on the E and A lines now that they have had some time to adjust to the regional connector opening? Has there been much bunching/delays? Are the trains having any more success avoiding red lights with the signal timing changes?

Yeah I'd like to see some ridership stats as well. A google search didn't come up with anything.

Obviously, some users of the new stations walked to previous stations, so precise new ridership is impossible to determine, but there ought to be some overall improvement.

[craigs]

Q4 2022 A Line average daily ridership: 32,512
Q4 2023 A Line average daily ridership: 59,329

Q4 2022 E Line average daily ridership: 28,266
Q4 2023 E Line average daily ridership: 40,006

Q4 2022 All rail lines average daily ridership: 174,488
Q4 2023 All rail lines average daily ridership: 184,765

source

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by craigs

Q4 2022 A Line average daily ridership: 32,512
Q4 2023 A Line average daily ridership: 59,329

Q4 2022 E Line average daily ridership: 28,266
Q4 2023 E Line average daily ridership: 40,006

Q4 2022 All rail lines average daily ridership: 174,488
Q4 2023 All rail lines average daily ridership: 184,765

source

I don't think the E and A line comparisons are apples to apples as they now include the former L line right?

I'm interested not just in ridership though, but also in how the operations are going in terms of bunching, delays at redlines, and on time arrival/performance.

[homebucket]

As SoCalKid and jmecklenborg alluded to, the L Line is now incorporated into the A and E Lines, and looking at the B Line, ridership has decreased as a result, which isn't too surprising since there's no longer a need to transfer to get between 7th St/Metro and Union Station. Of note, there is no data available for the D Line. But overall, I think it's safe to say there is a high degree of interface between these lines, so looking solely at single line ridership data makes it difficult to make any hard conclusions.

Q4 2022 B Line average daily ridership: 76,897
Q4 2023 B Line average daily ridership: 64,534

From a ridership perspective, it looks like overall there is increased ridership which is a positive sign.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

I don't think the E and A line comparisons are apples to apples as they now include the former L line right?

Right. The Q4 2023 average daily ridership captures the reconfigured lines.

I'm interested not just in ridership though, but also in how the operations are going in terms of bunching, delays at redlines, and on time arrival/performance.

Cool. Please post whatever data you find.

[edale]

It's also hard to attribute ridership gains to the regional connector when ridership is still in post-pandemic recovery mode. Personally, I don't think the regional connector would generate much new ridership, since the new stations are all pretty close to previously existing stations. The real benefit to the RC is user experience related-- eliminating transfers, shortening trip times, etc. Of course, an enhanced user experience could drive greater ridership, but it's a bit more of a complicated equation than introducing new subway stops to areas that previously were not served by rail. The Purple Line extension should really generate some good ridership gains, I think.

[craigs]

From LA Reddit, the view from one D Line train to another (through a telephoto lens):

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by craigs

From LA Reddit, the view from one D Line train to another (through a telephoto lens):

Cool view, thanks for posting that! I think this line could really change LA in a way that no other rail line to date has. I don't think most Angelenos can even comprehend the convenience of a frequent, reliable ~25 minute ride from Westwood to DTLA...

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by edale

I don't think the regional connector would generate much new ridership, since the new stations are all pretty close to previously existing stations. The real benefit to the RC is user experience related-- eliminating transfers, shortening trip times, etc. Of course, an enhanced user experience could drive greater ridership

It's sort-of like trying to estimate how many riders are gained by building a second entrance to a deep subway station. One of the advantages of a cut-and-cover tunnel is the ease with which multiple entrances (or at least multiple exits) can be built.

I watched a documentary on the Moscow subway that illustrated that problem with a deep system - many of their stations only have one entrance, despite it having far higher daily ridership than NYC (which usually has multiple station entrances). They have people managing the crowds on the escalators full-time.

[sopas ej]

Ambitious! There are even plans to close Wilshire Boulevard through MacArthur Park, which is how that park was originally!

And there'll be funding for that Hollywood Freeway Cap Park!



From Random Length News:

Major Boost for Los Angeles: Nearly $900 Million Funding Injection to Enhance Infrastructure and Metro System Ahead of 2028 Games

By Reporters Desk - March 12, 2024

LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles region has secured nearly $900 million in funding to strengthen infrastructure, expand the Metro Rail system and reconnect communities ahead of the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games through a spending package signed into law by President Biden over the weekend and new grant funding from the Biden-Harris Administration.

LA Metro will receive $709.9 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Fiscal Year 2024 transportation spending law, which will go toward the East San Fernando Valley light rail transit project and sections two and three of the D Line (Purple) subway extension project. The Los Angeles region will also receive $160 million in new federal grant funding for street and transit infrastructure, traffic safety and to improve connections between neighborhoods. This includes $139 million that will directly improve transportation mobility access during the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games and create lasting enhancements for communities.

[...]

Read the rest by clicking the link: https://www.randomlengthsnews.com/ar...oogle_vignette

[TowerDude]

Some of that infrastructure money should be used to buy the houses that will be over the tunnels for needed subway and heavy rail lines in the region. Then when the train lines are built the authority can sell the houses on the open market again.

[craigs]

From LA Reddit, the new subway cars:

[Quixote]

Just got back from a 3-week trip to East Asia — began in Hong Kong and ended in Tokyo. It’s absolutely mind-blowing how much more advanced that part of the world is compared to the US. It really underscored that quality of service (safety, reliable, cleanliness) is as important as the hard infrastructure itself.

I really lament the fact that LACMTA tabled plans for the “LAXpress” along the Harbor Subdivision. Through eminent domain, you could build a 6-8-track corridor supporting different types of rail modes. Specifically with respect to the LAXpress, there only need be two or three stations. Most of the cost would come from trenching. You can justify the investment politically (and financially) by highlighting the macro-regional benefits (i.e., through-running Metrolink, Metrolink electrification, CAHSR, ability to fund heavy rail in South LA and South Bay, etc.). LAX to Union Station in 15-17 minutes is competitive no matter the level of traffic. And although DT isn’t the final destination for those leaving LAX, US being the hub of the regional network, along with the multi-modal functionality of the Harbor Subdivision, make the “LAXpress” the best option until subsequent rail developments yield direct and single-transfer routes.

[hughfb3]

The US and Angelenos in particular (In my opinion) need to get over fear of elevated rail. Every other developed country with high quality transit has huge elevated sections of 4-6 tracks of rail through their cities serving suburban, interurban, metro, regional and high speed rail along the same corridors.

In other news, the LAX people mover and connection to Metro K/C lines has been delayed to fall 2025. No news yet on whether Metro will open the finished K line to the South Bay before LAX finishes their people mover

[craigs]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

The US and Angelenos in particular (In my opinion) need to get over fear of elevated rail.

Agreed. I don't want to set up a city v. city thing, but I rode BART for decades and there are significant stretches of elevated rail on that system. The Bay Area gets earthquakes (as does Tokyo), so that's not the reason we don't really have elevated tracks except on the C/Green Line.

[FromSD]

Originally Posted by craigs

Agreed. I don't want to set up a city v. city thing, but I rode BART for decades and there are significant stretches of elevated rail on that system. The Bay Area gets earthquakes (as does Tokyo), so that's not the reason we don't really have elevated tracks except on the C/Green Line.

Most of LA's light rail system is at grade. I assume that's because at grade is the cheapest way to build, and elevating more of the light rail system would have been very costly. Elevated is cheaper than subway presumably. I don't know how much cheaper--25%? 50%? Should portions of the Red and Purple Lines (B and D) have gone elevated instead of underground to save money? That would probably be inappropriate in Downtown LA, and I'm not even sure it would be appropriate on iconic Wilshire and Hollywood Blvds.

But I definitely think the street running portion of the A line along Washington south of DTLA would benefit from being elevated, as would the E line from USC to Crenshaw. And Metro really needs to do something to grade separate the junction of the A and E lines south of downtown. That is a real bottleneck.

[craigs]

Yes, constructing elevated rail is generally cheaper than digging subway tunnels. How much cheaper, I don't know. I do know that the cost savings is why so much of BART is elevated in the East Bay rather than underground.

[ssiguy]

Elevated is always cheaper than underground but, equally important, is that they are MUCH faster to build.

As for elevated rail, most systems that have elevation merge into a tunnel in the downtown core. This is due to lack of available space for elevated guideways and noise/visual pollution in the heart of the city and this is especially true at large interchanges stations. Vancouver SkyTrain, SF BART, LA Metro LRT, Edmonton LRT, and Seattle Link LRT are all examples of this. Chicago' "L" is obviously the main exception but the system is much older than the others. I believe Miami's subway is elevated but it doesn't really go right downtown but sort of runs close by with the Metromover really serving the core of the city. I believe the primary reasons they went elevated was also due to Miami's high water table and getting regular floods during hurricane season.