LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[saybanana]

Originally Posted by bzcat

Ridership is a function of destinations served and speed.

La Cienega or Fairfax have destination but goes on a detour to serve those destinations. So it is a slow ride from end to end. That means it will lose a number of people trying to get from WeHo to Mid City or LAX to other means of travel.

La Brea has speed but doesn't get to that many jobs center or destinations along the way. So while it will attract people riding end to end, it miss out on ridership generated by destinations on La Cienega and Fairfax.

So it's always a balance.

It makes zero sense. It is like saying Lets extend the purple line from Koreatown to the VA but lets not stop at Century City cuz it is a weird long detour. Thus more people will ride because it is faster for people in Koreatown to get to the VA. Lets not even stop at a few of them so it can go much faster.

[Muji]

To reiterate bzcat's point, it's about balance - the tradeoffs between how many riders would be lost/gained by a particular choice depend a lot on the specific destinations involved and their placement within the route network.

Even beyond the huge capital costs per mile required for rail projects, there are significant operational benefits to having a grid-like network of straight routes, even if riders have to transfer. I've always like this explanation by Jarrett Walker: http://humantransit.org/2009/04/why-...your-city.html

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by saybanana

It makes zero sense. It is like saying Lets extend the purple line from Koreatown to the VA but lets not stop at Century City cuz it is a weird long detour. Thus more people will ride because it is faster for people in Koreatown to get to the VA. Lets not even stop at a few of them so it can go much faster.

Purple Line to Century City isn't really a "long detour," much less a "weird" one (there's no other logical alternative). La Cienega and San Vicente, on the other, represent a 2-mile directional shift over less than a mile.

Also, rail lines aren't only useful insofar as what's situated directly on the route itself. Think more in terms of a network.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

I know I've suggested this before, but I thought I'd bring it up again in the context of the Crenshaw Line Northern Extension having Metro-produced alternatives. I believe running the line up La Brea is crucial to having an optimal long-term metro network, as ultimately, and east-west line must also be built on Santa Monica, and the other alternatives would interface weirdly with that while taking a much longer time to get from South LA to Hollywood. Therefore, I decided to see how much of a Santa Monica line could be built with the 1.7 billion dollar difference in price between the La Brea and Fairfax lines.

As it turns out, a line crossing the La Brea line from the east and continuing west, underground, via Santa Monica/Fairfax to Santa Monica/La Cienega could be built, as well as a connecting track from this line to the northbound stretch of the La Brea line would cost exactly 1.7 billion dollars. This would allow trains to operate from LAX to Hollywood/Highland via La Brea, turn back along the track to a lower level of Santa Monica/La Brea and west to Santa Monica/La Cienega. The train would then turn back to Hollywood/Highland and then head south back towards LAX. Eventually, the West Hollywood Branch could be extended southwest to Beverly Grove and Culver City, and east to Los Feliz and Downtown. This would create an ideal gridded system of lines between DTLA and Santa Monica, thus serving the most area and keeping journey times short. While this branch would not quite reach the Beverly Grove and West Hollywood Park areas in its initial iteration (each would be about a 10 minute walk from Wilshire/La Cienega and Santa Monica/La Cienega, respectively), the main east-west corridor of West Hollywood would be served, and a metro station would be within walking distance of the Sunset Strip.

Moreover, ridership numbers would be higher than any alternative Metro is currently studying. I estimate the La Brea alternative plus the West Hollywood branch would have a daily ridership around 120,000 people, 29,200 more than the San Vicente/La Cienega alternatives, and 32,800 more than the La Brea alternative. This works out to a cost per rider of $39,167 (compared to $52,988 for Fairfax; $48,458 for La Cienega, $47,357 for San Vicente, $46,332 for Vermont, and $34,404 for La Brea). Assuming Metro can pay the extra 1.7 billion, I think it's worth it. It is also worth noting that to underground the La Brea line the whole way would cost exactly 1 billion more, and might also be a good use of the money, as it would make the corridor nicer and cut about 3 minutes off the 12.4 minute travel time by straightening the sections in Mid-City. However, this would only be warranted with denser development. Come to think of it, Metro could upzone the La Brea corridor and implement enough value-capture to finance this extra 1 billion.


Below is a map of my proposal:

[bzcat]

The "two lines in mid city" plan always made more sense... one on La Brea and one on La Cienega. But since we only have enough for 1 line, I think La Brea gets the nod here as it preserves the grid for future expansion of the system.

But building a spur line on Santa Monica is interesting idea. It will result in a Hollywood/Highland to Santa Monica/La Cienega short line... basically a shuttle service in WeHo. I think that is a compromise that WeHo can accept with the understanding that eventually the line will be extended further east and west on Santa Monica, or south on La Cienega.

[NSMP]

Metro can’t upzone La Brea, and they haven’t shown any desire to push cities to do so

[NSMP]

They didn’t even support SB827 (unlike BART)

[SoCalKid]

I love this La Brea line + Santa Monica spur line idea. But wouldn't Metro need to study it in its EIR for it to realistically be a possibility? There would need to be some serious advocacy right about now for this to become a reality.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

I love this La Brea line + Santa Monica spur line idea. But wouldn't Metro need to study it in its EIR for it to realistically be a possibility? There would need to be some serious advocacy right about now for this to become a reality.

I expect so, unless the 28 by 28 thing falls through and this is deferred to 2050 (which would obviously be bad.) Are there any established institutions that would take this up and have genuine clout. Perhaps working with the evil neighborhood groups of Carthay Circle and so on?

[numble]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

I expect so, unless the 28 by 28 thing falls through and this is deferred to 2050 (which would obviously be bad.) Are there any established institutions that would take this up and have genuine clout. Perhaps working with the evil neighborhood groups of Carthay Circle and so on?

The Crenshaw North extension is not on the 28 by 28 plan.
https://thesource.metro.net/2017/11/...d-paralympics/

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by numble

The Crenshaw North extension is not on the 28 by 28 plan.
https://thesource.metro.net/2017/11/...d-paralympics/

But it is being accelerated, right?

[numble]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

But it is being accelerated, right?

I think Metro is willing to entertain proposals to accelerate any project, but I don't think they have any adopted policy goal to accelerate the Crenshaw Line extension (yet). I think their current primary acceleration goal is to accelerate the 28 by 28 projects.

West Hollywood is trying to accelerate it by somehow raising taxes, implementing an EIFD, bonding against local return funds and/or seeking a private partner, and it will remain to be seen if they can get anything done. They support phased implementation on the condition that any phased implementation has a first phase that reaches Santa Monica Blvd in West Hollywood (so they would not support a phase one to Rimpau or Wilshire):
https://culver-city.legistar.com/Vie...2-6177A67318FB

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by numble

I think Metro is willing to entertain proposals to accelerate any project, but I don't think they have any adopted policy goal to accelerate the Crenshaw Line extension (yet). I think their current primary acceleration goal is to accelerate the 28 by 28 projects.

West Hollywood is trying to accelerate it by somehow raising taxes, implementing an EIFD, bonding against local return funds and/or seeking a private partner, and it will remain to be seen if they can get anything done. They support phased implementation on the condition that any phased implementation has a first phase that reaches Santa Monica Blvd in West Hollywood (so they would not support a phase one to Rimpau or Wilshire):
https://culver-city.legistar.com/Vie...2-6177A67318FB

I stand corrected. I just assumed it was being moved up with such an early study of the route, and so on.

[numble]

The full 132-page Feasibility/Alternatives Analysis Study is here:
https://media.metro.net/projects_stu...shaw_north.pdf

It has more details on potential station location placement and ridership estimates.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by numble

The full 132-page Feasibility/Alternatives Analysis Study is here:
https://media.metro.net/projects_stu...shaw_north.pdf

It has more details on potential station location placement and ridership estimates.

Politics will eventually determine the preferred route, weighing cost (the main negative) vs ridership (the main positive).

Page ES13 was very interesting for me, with the curb to curb width of the street determining whether at grade, above grade, or below grade rail corridor fits with miminal impacts to existing traffic.
Over 80 feet > At grade and aerial should fit.
60 to 75 feet > Aerial should fit.
Less than 60 feet > Subway is better because the others may not fit.
Of course, things will change if you’re willing to accept major impacts to existing traffic.

I believe these effects with curb to curb street widths should be the same nationally.

[Quixote]

The La Brea alternative is 100% grade-separated with six brand new stations, yet is projected to cost only $3 billion ($476 million per mile). Amazing. We need to set a precedent for elevated rail in LA (in an area that is majority white, no less) to demonstrate its cost-effectiveness.

[saybanana]

Reading that, La Cienega and San Vicente are clearly the best routes. Then Fairfax. La Brea is the worst.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Below is a map of my proposal:

Seems kinda convoluted to interface the Santa Monica Line with the Crenshaw Line like this. From a network standpoint, i would argue it's better to have the Santa Monica Line actually end at Hollywood/Highland. There's various ways to do this, maybe jog the Santa Monica Line up to Sunset to Hollywood, or maybe have the lines run in tandem or on slightly different paths between Santa Monica/La Brea and Hollywood Highland.

Either way, you'd have a direct transfer from the Red Line to the Santa Monica Line, which opens up two-seat rides from the SFV to Century City, or a two-seat ride WeHo-downtown.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by saybanana

Reading that, La Cienega and San Vicente are clearly the best routes. Then Fairfax. La Brea is the worst.

This was the plan from about 10 years ago. Both La Cienega and La Brea should get rail lines; we shouldn't have to choose between the two.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by Quixote

This was the plan from about 10 years ago. Both La Cienega and La Brea should get rail lines; we shouldn't have to choose between the two.

I don't see the point of building two lines with the same origin and destination so close together. As I recall, the proposal in that era was for a line down Santa Monica Blvd from WeHo to Century City. As much as I'd love that though, Beverly Hills spent the better part of a decade suing Metro because a subway passed through a corner of their city. How do you think they're going to react to a subway running straight through the center their town?