LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[numble]

The 28 projects they want to complete by 2028:
https://metro.legistar.com/View.ashx...9-E17BCAF3831F

As I suspected, many of the projects here already were scheduled to be completed by 2028 (such as the Regional Connector and Crenshaw Line), so they are padding out the list a bit. They also include highway projects. WSAB, Sepulveda Line, Gold Line East Extension (1 of the 2 Gold Line East Extensions) and the Green Line South Extension are in this list.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by numble

The 28 projects they want to complete by 2028:
https://metro.legistar.com/View.ashx...9-E17BCAF3831F

As I suspected, many of the projects here already were scheduled to be completed by 2028 (such as the Regional Connector and Crenshaw Line), so they are padding out the list a bit. They also include highway projects. WSAB, Sepulveda Line, Gold Line East Extension (1 of the 2 Gold Line East Extensions) and the Green Line South Extension are in this list.

I think it's a huge mistake not to accelerate Crenshaw Northern Extension. Hopefully they will still try to accelerate it, but haven't included it on the list due to lack of confidence in getting in done that early.

I'm excited to see the Washington/Flower junction included on the list though!

[Illithid Dude]

The biggest issue is the lack of interface between the Purple Line and the Expo Line. If someone at Fairfax wants to go to the beach, they would need to go all the way to downtown and back again, doubling their transit time. If someone in the valley wants to go to Culver City, they would have to do the same. The obvious thing to me would be to extend the Sepulveda Line that extra mile or so to Exposition. This would be way cheaper than the Northern Crenshaw Extension, and is so obvious I am shocked (not that shocked) that Metro isn't considering it for 28/28. It's these little things that a Metro needs to become a usable system, and it's these little things that Metro consistently fails to achieve.

[numble]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

The biggest issue is the lack of interface between the Purple Line and the Expo Line. If someone at Fairfax wants to go to the beach, they would need to go all the way to downtown and back again, doubling their transit time. If someone in the valley wants to go to Culver City, they would have to do the same. The obvious thing to me would be to extend the Sepulveda Line that extra mile or so to Exposition. This would be way cheaper than the Northern Crenshaw Extension, and is so obvious I am shocked (not that shocked) that Metro isn't considering it for 28/28. It's these little things that a Metro needs to become a usable system, and it's these little things that Metro consistently fails to achieve.

It is already extremely ambitious for them to want to build out the Sepulveda Line to Westwood by 2028. It is approximately the same length as the Purple Line Extension, which started construction in 2013 and will finish in 2026 (13 years) and that extra mile would be in a more urban environment, which can be more complicated to tunnel in. The Regional Connector is taking 6 years for less than 2 miles.

The plan is for it to go to LAX anyway, and the P3 seems like it will be building it as 1 project, and the project is very likely to be opened decades before the Measure M opening date of 2057-2060. But if it is scheduled to be built and accelerated, I don’t see how this is a failure of Metro. They are doing much more than theb you would expect with the funds they have.

If someone wants to go to the beach from the valley, they can get off at Wilshire and take the bus the rest of the way there, etc. Nobody should be riding from Westwood to Downtown to get to a beach that isn’t long.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by numble

It is already extremely ambitious for them to want to build out the Sepulveda Line to Westwood by 2028. It is approximately the same length as the Purple Line Extension, which started construction in 2013 and will finish in 2026 (13 years) and that extra mile would be in a more urban environment, which can be more complicated to tunnel in. The Regional Connector is taking 6 years for less than 2 miles.

The plan is for it to go to LAX anyway, and the P3 seems like it will be building it as 1 project, and the project is very likely to be opened decades before the Measure M opening date of 2057-2060. But if it is scheduled to be built and accelerated, I don’t see how this is a failure of Metro. They are doing much more than theb you would expect with the funds they have.

If someone wants to go to the beach from the valley, they can get off at Wilshire and take the bus the rest of the way there, etc. Nobody should be riding from Westwood to Downtown to get to a beach that isn’t long.

The issue is wealthier people, people who don't already rely on the bus, will never ride a bus like that. It just isn't going to happen. There's a reason why bus ridership is dropping and rail ridership growing.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

The issue is wealthier people, people who don't already rely on the bus, will never ride a bus like that. It just isn't going to happen. There's a reason why bus ridership is dropping and rail ridership growing.

Unless Wilshire gets center running classy looking busses on it's whole length that are 50% faster than driving just like this: http://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/l...plan-wilshire/
Which could happen with the political will.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Unless Wilshire gets center running classy looking busses on it's whole length that are 50% faster than driving just like this: http://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/l...plan-wilshire/
Which could happen with the political will.

Perhaps, but I'm talking about North/South connections between the Expo Line and the Purple Line. Building a hub-and-spoke system for Los Angeles is antithetical to the structure of the city. LA is multi nodal, and any mass transit system needs to respect and adhere to that.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

The issue is wealthier people, people who don't already rely on the bus, will never ride a bus like that. It just isn't going to happen. There's a reason why bus ridership is dropping and rail ridership growing.

Yes, there is a reason. That reason is that degrading bus speed and reliability coupled with economic growth equates to bus riders switching to cars and (less frequently) to trains. Not because of the wealthy. Also, it’s a common misconception that rail ridership is “growing.” From 2014, the period of the oft-cited bus dropoff, rail ridership is flat. Growth on Expo and Gold has been canceled out by ridership losses on Blue, Green and Red/Purple.

The Expo to Purple connection is very important but arguing for it on the grounds of what the wealthy might or might not do is kind of not a sound basis for transit planning.

[numble]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

The issue is wealthier people, people who don't already rely on the bus, will never ride a bus like that. It just isn't going to happen. There's a reason why bus ridership is dropping and rail ridership growing.

Ridership on the Wilshire bus lines exceed that of the Expo Line. So people do ride the bus. It seems very unlikely that someone would actually take the Sepulveda Line to Wilshire, putting them 3.5 miles away from Downtown Santa Monica, but decide to take a 25 mile route to Downtown LA and back just to avoid a bus.

The connection is in the plans, but to call Metro a failure for not trying to build the extra 1.8 miles (it is more than a mile) by 2028 is silly. It is already extremely ambitious for them to target 2028 for the 10 mile first phase as it is, especially since the studies are unlikely to be complete until 2018 at the earliest, meaning construction not starting until 2019-2020.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by numble

Ridership on the Wilshire bus lines exceed that of the Expo Line. So people do ride the bus. It seems very unlikely that someone would actually take the Sepulveda Line to Wilshire, putting them 3.5 miles away from Downtown Santa Monica, but decide to take a 25 mile route to Downtown LA and back just to avoid a bus.

The connection is in the plans, but to call Metro a failure for not trying to build the extra 1.8 miles (it is more than a mile) by 2028 is silly. It is already extremely ambitious for them to target 2028 for the 10 mile first phase as it is, especially since the studies are unlikely to be complete until 2018 at the earliest, meaning construction not starting until 2019-2020.

Planning and Programming Committee just approved a 20 month contract for the Sepulveda feasibility study. So the EIR and construction are quite a ways off.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Perhaps, but I'm talking about North/South connections between the Expo Line and the Purple Line. Building a hub-and-spoke system for Los Angeles is antithetical to the structure of the city. LA is multi nodal, and any mass transit system needs to respect and adhere to that.

In that case I strongly agree. I was simply referring to the getting to the beach scenario. If you had to choose, would you have the Sylmar-LAX line extended to Westwood/Rancho Park first or Crenshaw extended to Wilshire/La Brea first?

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

In that case I strongly agree. I was simply referring to the getting to the beach scenario. If you had to choose, would you have the Sylmar-LAX line extended to Westwood/Rancho Park first or Crenshaw extended to Wilshire/La Brea first?

Obviously I would prefer the Crenshaw Northern Extension, but in terms of bang for your buck, if there's no political willpower to extend the Crenshaw Line north in the next ten years extending the Sepulveda Line south seems like a more feasible option.

[caligrad]

That moment when even everyday people are giving Metro excuses on why things cant get done.

We've begin bickering over some of the most lackluster rail proposals/projects in the pipeline. We've been pushed into believing that common sense lines aren't "Feasible" or don't "Make any sense on paper" yet somehow a green line extension to a failing mall seems like a bright idea and an endless extension of the gold line foothill portion into suburbia is brilliant?

Yet..... A northern Crenshaw line extension doesn't make any sense? we're still salivating over a purple line to the sea? oh but the Expo line was supposed to keep us quiet about that? a Santa Monica/sunset line wont see high ridership ?? a Lincon blvd line between Santa Monica and LAX gets a meh? Rail in the valley doesn't exist ? and the south bay is completely cut off??

Its just ridiculous , you know its bad when metro is doing Studies of studies and studies of those studies and dusting off studies from the 90s and redoing those. These pointless studies with no end results waste 100s of millions with no product and leaves us with a redline extension in the valley that is getting tossed in every direction "Maybe bob hope airport ? maybe warner center? maybe some fictional new CBD that we plan on pre planning ?? (yes, that's actually being considered)

Don't even get me started on the BOGUS "LA doesn't have the density to support multiple rail lines in close-ish proximity" excuse because I have TONS of counter arguments that say otherwise.

Anyone care to think that maybe the reason why Rail ridership in LA is shaky is because maybe there isn't enough of it? and It lacks transfer points? not to mention it misses most of the population. The Current Expo line doesn't connect with ANY other lines until it gets downtown. Same with the Red and purple. The Gold line doesn't connect with anything else until it skirts through union Station. The only 2 lines that literally can be considered "transferable" are the Blue and Green. But. Seeing how the green line doesn't really go anywhere and seems to be continuing in the "No where" direction, why bother?

[NSMP]

I don’t think anyone here is saying the things you think they are.

[numble]

During the CEO’s report, it was mentioned that they received a P3 proposal from AECOM-Jones Lang Lasalle (second one is a guess, I couldn’t hear the audio well enough) to accelerate construction of a Vermont BRT.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by numble

During the CEO’s report, it was mentioned that they received a P3 proposal from AECOM-Jones Lang Lasalle (second one is a guess, I couldn’t hear the audio well enough) to accelerate construction of a Vermont BRT.

That’s... interesting. I’m dying to see the mechanisms behind some of these proposals. Construction funds are supposed to be available for Vermont by 2024 with completion in 2028. With a breakneck pre-construction and construction schedule maybe it could be done by 2023. But in exchange for what?

[NSMP]

The story of Measure M so far is that Metro is all in on P3s and the public still has no idea what trade-offs are taking place.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by NSMP

I don’t think anyone here is saying the things you think they are.

The last 10 pages of this thread say otherwise lol

[caligrad]

SOOOO What's going on with the Vermont BRT? Because isn't metro also looking into extending the Redline down Vermont to the green line ?

Soooooo will Metro build the BRT and THEN later down the road consider extending the Redline? or are both on the table at the same time ? because if its the later, we already know how that's going to go.

We'll get a BRT down Vermont, everyone here will applaud and metro will say "oh....they seem to be happy with that, squash any idea of a redline extension down Vermont until further notice"

Kill the BRT and give me the Redline extension. GET IT DONE RIGHT THE FIRST TIME, not decades later when the cost triples.

Metro seems to be the only one excited about a BRT. Even the mayor is saying it might not be the best option.

Also, is metro against having its HRT above ground ? similar to that of the BART in the bay and EL in Chicago ? because I would assume that taking the red line extension out of the ground once its at Gage, where Vermont doubles in width, and elevate it to cut costs? I would assume an elevated line would be cheaper than tunneling.

[NSMP]

Metro is studying the HRT alternative, which will be included in the EIR. Measure M lists it as a project for post-2067. No reason to think metro is opposed to above grade HRT; they have proposed it for multiple projects in the past.