LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[BrownTown]

It's not like driving on LA's constantly congested freeways is any faster most of the time.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by NSMP

^word. For all its faults, expo is the reason I went out to Santa Monica yesterday.

So you go to SM on a whim regularly?

My point is it's already only barely useful in bringing distances into orbit for daily activities for those living right on top of the line (remember, 1 hour btw DTSM and LA if you are lucky enough to live *right on top*), nevermind functional utility for those who need to connect to it via a shitty bus transfer or three (the average person in real life).

Metro is building a "network" in theory. It's not really one in practice. LA feels just as disjunct with or without our painfully slow metro "system". And so LA continues to be a collection of regional bubbles rather than a functional unit.

Re: freeways being just as slow. Exactly. So why leave the comfort/privacy/cleanliness of my car if it's about the same speed? Plus there comes a point (really quickly) where if your destination is a single transfer or more off the line (like 96% of all destinations) the car easily beats Expo (or any other line for that matter).

Anyway, I'm one of the vast overwhelming majority of Angeleno's who always rooted for rail, and yet rarely finds it impacting my daily life once it's built. Which begs the next question:

What's the defines walkability? It's defined by how I get around in my daily life. Unfortunately, vanity paper-checklists of rail lines don't make my commute any quicker. Only usability does.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

Anyway, I'm one of the vast overwhelming majority of Angeleno's who always rooted for rail, and yet rarely finds it impacting my daily life once it's built. Unfortunately, vanity paper-checklists of rail lines don't make my commute any quicker. Only usability does.

The solution is to build more rail. New York City has 26 rail routes. Los Angeles has 6. If Los Angeles builds 20 more rail routes, it will almost certainly be faster to use rail in the vast majority of circumstances, like it is in New York. The expo line might not be the greatest thing for you now, but what about when the Crenshaw line opens? What about when the Sepulveda and Lincoln lines open? As each new line opens, it increases the utility of every other line in the system. Other than the green line, LA has no crosstown lines, but that will soon change.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

The solution is to build more rail. New York City has 26 rail routes. Los Angeles has 6. If Los Angeles builds 20 more rail routes, it will almost certainly be faster to use rail in the vast majority of circumstances, like it is in New York. The expo line might not be the greatest thing for you now, but what about when the Crenshaw line opens? What about when the Sepulveda and Lincoln lines open? As each new line opens, it increases the utility of every other line in the system. Other than the green line, LA has no crosstown lines, but that will soon change.

It's not sufficient to just build rail. It needs to be planned for the future and built right, with grade separation, signal prioritization, pass-through tracking, relevance, served by frequent and reliable connectors, and most importantly, it needs to be dense. Metro is severely challenged with all of the above. Purple line is a big one, but the others are up to a half century from fruition.

All I'm saying is celebrations are extremely premature. Using LA's metro system is fun for big-city make-believe on a random Sunday off. Just like the strategic density shots of downtown above street-level. Crop the depressing reality out of frame, squint your eyes, and you have a make-believe real city! I used to play dress-up as a child too. Just make sure not to pan the camera or you will be disappointed LOL.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

All I'm saying is celebrations are extremely premature. Using LA's metro system is fun for big-city make-believe on a random Sunday off. Just like the strategic density shots of downtown above street-level. Crop the depressing reality out of frame, squint your eyes, and you have a make-believe real city! I used to play dress-up as a child too. Just make sure not to pan the camera or you will be disappointed LOL.

You have a nice day too.

[Phil O.]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

It's not sufficient to just build rail. It needs to be planned for the future and built right, with grade separation, signal prioritization, pass-through tracking, relevance, served by frequent and reliable connectors, and most importantly, it needs to be dense. Metro is severely challenged with all of the above. Purple line is a big one, but the others are up to a half century from fruition.

All I'm saying is celebrations are extremely premature. Using LA's metro system is fun for big-city make-believe on a random Sunday off. Just like the strategic density shots of downtown above street-level. Crop the depressing reality out of frame, squint your eyes, and you have a make-believe real city! I used to play dress-up as a child too. Just make sure not to pan the camera or you will be disappointed LOL.

Great. Condescension, much?

Despite the validity of your points (some of which are questionable), there are reasons to celebrate the Expo Line. You may not find use for it regularly, but there are thousands who do every day. Plus, the numbers will continue to climb as more connections are built into it (specifically the Crenshaw and Regional Connector projects in the short term - the Sepulveda and Eastside projects in the long term).

So look down your nose at the Expo Line (or Metro in general) all you want - there's a lot of work to be done, but things will continue to improve, whether you choose to ride or not.

[Busy Bee]

[ChargerCarl]

I've actually never used the expo line to get to DTLA, but I found it very useful for getting to different points within West LA.

[SoCalKid]

While I disagree with his delivery, Bikemike makes some good points. The good news is that Metro is considering grade separating the expo/blue shared portion; that, combined with the regional connector, would seriously improve performance and usability. Preemption from Western to Vermont, which should be relatively cheap and very doable, is a no-brainer that would also significantly improve service. So the problems Bikemike is bringing up may very well be solved in the near to medium future.

[Prahaboheme]

I live on Montana in SM and now take the Expo line downtown / Arts District at least 2-3 times a month. Given the distance, I really don't think 45 mins is terrible. I lived in Boston on the Green Line for 14 years, so perhaps my tolerability is higher than some for at-grade crossings, but I just don't understand the angst here.

If you live within a half mile of the Expo line and think it doesn't suite your personal interests and life, and you are seriously interested in an urban lifestyle, then you need to make adjustments in your own life that allow for it. It's really that simple.

[lrt's friend]

Just curious? I have read a lot about the Red Cars and why they were all abandoned (it seemed that the whole network was cost unsustainable). Are there any available abandoned Pacific Electric corridors not already re-used, that could eventually support modern LRT?

[ChargerCarl]

What are you guys' thoughts on the plans for a new gold line extension to Whittier? My gut reaction is that it seems more like a decision thats being made more for political reasons than on providing high quality transit. On some level I agree with bike mike that metro would be better off investing in a tighter network of more grade separated lines in it's core (DTLA, Westside, South LA) rather than continue to broaden the service scope outwards into more suburban communities.

The gold line is already a poor performer, I'm not sure doubling down on its extensions is a wise investment.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

The good news is that Metro is considering grade separating the expo/blue shared portion; that, combined with the regional connector, would seriously improve performance and usability. Preemption from Western to Vermont, which should be relatively cheap and very doable, is a no-brainer that would also significantly improve service.

One thing to keep in mind if grade separation extends beyond the blue/expo wye, is that a significant distance can be saved by arcing the line to Expo/Vermont, under USC. This would mean a new station in the USC Campus somewhere, and cut the number of USC-area stations from three down to two.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

What are you guys' thoughts on the plans for a new gold line extension to Whittier? My gut reaction is that it seems more like a decision thats being made more for political reasons than on providing high quality transit.

My suggestion has always been to scrap the two alternatives (or at least the Washington Blvd. alignment) and extend heavy rail eastward like originally planned. It's clear that that's still the long-term vision, as there's no other logical explanation as to why the most important corridor (Whitter Blvd.) is being completely avoided.

Why can't Metro just take the plunge and go all in? It's the same nonsense with the Vermont BRT.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

What are you guys' thoughts on the plans for a new gold line extension to Whittier?

I think it is the best option if the three.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

One thing to keep in mind if grade separation extends beyond the blue/expo wye, is that a significant distance can be saved by arcing the line to Expo/Vermont, under USC. This would mean a new station in the USC Campus somewhere, and cut the number of USC-area stations from three down to two.

Provided USC allows Metro to tunnel through the campus

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

What are you guys' thoughts on the plans for a new gold line extension to Whittier? My gut reaction is that it seems more like a decision thats being made more for political reasons than on providing high quality transit. On some level I agree with bike mike that metro would be better off investing in a tighter network of more grade separated lines in it's core (DTLA, Westside, South LA) rather than continue to broaden the service scope outwards into more suburban communities.

The gold line is already a poor performer, I'm not sure doubling down on its extensions is a wise investment.

But until we have another funding source that is not all in with sales taxes then these are some of the challenges of the funding stream to build the network. Personally if they were going to build the Eastside LRT extension I'd go one of two routes; Do a short one to Montebello Town Center and make that a city with in a city hub or extend the line to existing Metrolink Riverside Line corridor ROW to hit up the Citadel, Montebello, Whittier Blvd/Rosemead, Rio Hondo College and Downtown Whittier via the Greenway.

This way we don't not prematurely eliminate ever having a Whittier Blvd corridor in the mix

This is the strength of LRT when you have a rail right of way close by with destinations like that

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Provided USC allows Metro to tunnel through the campus

Why wouldn't they?

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

But until we have another funding source that is not all in with sales taxes then these are some of the challenges of the funding stream to build the network. Personally if they were going to build the Eastside LRT extension I'd go one of two routes; Do a short one to Montebello Town Center and make that a city with in a city hub or extend the line to existing Metrolink Riverside Line corridor ROW to hit up the Citadel, Montebello, Whittier Blvd/Rosemead, Rio Hondo College and Downtown Whittier via the Greenway.

This way we don't not prematurely eliminate ever having a Whittier Blvd corridor in the mix

This is the strength of LRT when you have a rail right of way close by with destinations like that

Speaking of the Riverside line, I've been thinking that the South El Monte Metro line may cannibalize Metrolink's ridership at Industry. The Riverside line currently runs on a heavily trafficked freight line west of Ontario, but east of there, the line has little freight traffic and could be bought by Metrolink. That means that a short connection track could be built between East Ontario station and Rancho Cucamonga, via Ontario Airport, routing all Riverside line trains onto the San Bernardino Line west of Ontario. With a little bit of double tracking, and potentially electrification, this would mean that Metrolink could run trains every 20 minutes to Riverside (via Ontario Airport) and every 20 minutes to San Bernardino (and every 10 minutes west of Rancho Cucamonga. The only stations that would lose service would be Downtown Pomona (insignificant), and Industry (replaced by the South El Monte metro line.)

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Why wouldn't they?

Because of the construction concerns of building below on their campus and safety and security if there is a station ON the campus. If there are easements for a tunnel, that would be lovely but that is something that will be negociated.

Let's pay attention to the issues and legal BS Metro went through with Beverly Hills HS as a guide.