LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[NSMP]

Le Conte I guess wouldn't be the worst thing in the world... if Westwood Village were turned into an actual mixed use downtown style node. But it probably won't be.

Bzcat mentioned C.E. Young, which might actually a good sweet spot near to Reagan, away from whatever campus resources UCLA might want to protect, and close to the extremely dense student populations west of campus.

[NSMP]

All things being equal though, Ackerman is the best choice. It would make it easy for students living elsewhere in Westwood, in Palms and West LA to get to campus, and you already know that the students living west of Campus walk there every day regardless.

[Quixote]

It probably won't happen, but I'd recommend building two stations to serve the UCLA campus. Or at least leave open the possibility to adding a second station in the future.

[saybanana]

The most likely option for UCLA is where the current transit circle is located in front of the Ticket Office. It would be central to get to Pauley, UCLA campus, UCLA Medical Center.

What I would love is to build 1 station and a long tunnel from LeConte to UCLA transit circle. Then have multiple entrances similar to 7th Metro station with its 4 entrances. Some Seoul South Korea stations have 10 or more entrances.

[NSMP]

There's not IMO enough there to justify a second station. Putting a stop down in Westwood Village is too far south because it's really not an attractor in its own right. Plus it's too close to Wilshire/Westwood. It would probably be comparable for Purple Line passengers to get off at Wilshire and walk, rather than transfer for the one stop.

On the other end, if you have a stop just for north campus, you're still just serving students/campus visitors, as you would be with a more centrally located station.

Basically, adding a second stop between Wilshire and Sherman Oaks can't really get you new riders - or at least not enough to justify the cost of its construction - it could only divide up the riders you already have. If Westwood Village were to be significantly upzoned (as I hoped would happen under the Olympic plan, but they're using dorms), that could change.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

There's not IMO enough there to justify a second station. Putting a stop down in Westwood Village is too far south because it's really not an attractor in its own right. Plus it's too close to Wilshire/Westwood. It would probably be comparable for Purple Line passengers to get off at Wilshire and walk, rather than transfer for the one stop.

On the other end, if you have a stop just for north campus, you're still just serving students/campus visitors, as you would be with a more centrally located station.

Basically, adding a second stop between Wilshire and Sherman Oaks can't really get you new riders - or at least not enough to justify the cost of its construction - it could only divide up the riders you already have. If Westwood Village were to be significantly upzoned (as I hoped would happen under the Olympic plan, but they're using dorms), that could change.

That is a valuable piece of analysis that makes a lot of sense, the added station is really for the UCLA campus bound students to ensure Wilshire/Westwood station doesn't get over crowded and over capacity.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

That is a valuable piece of analysis that makes a lot of sense, the added station is really for the UCLA campus bound students to ensure Wilshire/Westwood station doesn't get over crowded and over capacity.

It could increase ridership from places like Culver City and Santa Monica, though.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

That is a valuable piece of analysis that makes a lot of sense, the added station is really for the UCLA campus bound students to ensure Wilshire/Westwood station doesn't get over crowded and over capacity.

My response was for Quixote, I should have clarified. I think one station on/near UCLA makes sense. More than one would be hard to justify. We already know students will walk from south campus to north campus or vice versa. Definitely agree there's a value to alleviating pressure at Wilshire/Westwood.

[SFBruin]

Are there any security concerns for putting a transit stop in the middle of campus? Or, is there any precedent for putting a transit stop at a high-traffic location on a college campus?

[hughfb3]

The mayor's proposal to put Monorail over the sepulveda pass caught my attention. I never realized that there is a such thing as a "Heavy" Monorail. I've always thought of the small slower version like at Disney. After doing some research I found that there are Heavy rapid transit monorail systems in China and Japan that carry Heavy rail subway type capacity and are COMPLETELY grade separated. Hitachi so far is the most successful company at building Heavy Monorail Rapid Transit. Just looking at these pictures, had I not known, I would have thought this was an elevated Heavy rail rapid transit system and not monorail. Fooled me

The benefits I see are
1. quick construction (beams and pylons can be pre constructed off site; then shipped in for quick assembly, drastically cutting construction time
2. Completely grade separated
3. Same capacity as heavy rail (new technology allowing 8 car train sets)
4. 2/3rd the price of heavy subway
5. Quiet running
6. Smaller pylons would be less visually intrusive than elevated sections of our Expo and gold lines
7. Ability to go through hills and buildings easily
8. Can be completely driverless and computer automated (allowing ability to transfer Metro job to a train conductor merely there to validate payment of fare
9. Proven earthquake experience with Hitachi systems in Seismic prone Japan

Also, since giving up my car and now relying on transit, I see that if our light rail doesn't have signal priority, then it's super slow... since our heavy rail subway is underground, it's dark, dirty and cozy enough for people to sleep in stations and trains (light rail stations are sunlit and exposed=less sleep cozy). Buses have less people sleep camping out because entrance to bus is monitored by driver and payment is more likely... trains, not so much.
The best part about the expo line is the elevated sections between La Brea and Culver City which give beautiful expansive views across the city. All of these would be rectified with a heavy monorail system.

[hughfb3]

Wow... I keep doing research on these relatively new heavy monorails and it keeps blowing my mind on the pros and I wonder why we have yet to adopt it in 'Merica... some stats I just pulled up in comparison

Here's some stats.
LA heavy rail red line
16.4 miles
14 stations
149,000 weekday riders

Chongqing heavy monorail line 2
19 miles
25 stations
234,000 weekday riders
350,000 (peak in 2014)

LA daily total on all Metrorail 362,000. At 350,000, This ONE MONORAIL LINE has hit a peak that is almost the entire daily ridership of all LA Metro light and heavy rail lines COMBINED.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

The mayor's proposal to put Monorail over the sepulveda pass caught my attention. I never realized that there is a such thing as a "Heavy" Monorail. I've always thought of the small slower version like at Disney. After doing some research I found that there are Heavy rapid transit monorail systems in China and Japan that carry Heavy rail subway type capacity and are COMPLETELY grade separated. Hitachi so far is the most successful company at building Heavy Monorail Rapid Transit. Just looking at these pictures, had I not known, I would have thought this was an elevated Heavy rail rapid transit system and not monorail. Fooled me

The benefits I see are
1. quick construction (beams and pylons can be pre constructed off site; then shipped in for quick assembly, drastically cutting construction time
2. Completely grade separated
3. Same capacity as heavy rail (new technology allowing 8 car train sets)
4. 2/3rd the price of heavy subway
5. Quiet running
6. Smaller pylons would be less visually intrusive than elevated sections of our Expo and gold lines
7. Ability to go through hills and buildings easily
8. Can be completely driverless and computer automated (allowing ability to transfer Metro job to a train conductor merely there to validate payment of fare
9. Proven earthquake experience with Hitachi systems in Seismic prone Japan

Most of these benefits would also apply to building our rail network in terms of driverless and automated operation is possible for the Red, Purple and current Green Lines because they are grade separated.

Utilizing smaller pylons and pre-cast construction can be done for building the infrastructure of elevated segments for both light and heavy rail as long as they are done on straight line segments and have consistent design strategy on curves. The reason those weren't done on Expo (which) I believe it should have been was that the community wanted a different look and design for the structure. For the Gold Line the elevated sections were at curves or transitions where you would virtually never do with pre-cast construction because it is a specific design for the loads on curves and turns.

The quiet operation and curves is the combination of rubber tires on a smooth concrete surface, the same combination that other Metro's like Montreal and Paris uses Rubber Tired trains for that same smooth and quiet operation.

The cost principle is true, but that can be said if the Heavy Rail system was elevated instead of boring a tunnel tube 40-60 feet below the surface.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Most of these benefits would also apply to building our rail network in terms of driverless and automated operation is possible for the Red, Purple and current Green Lines because they are grade separated.

Utilizing smaller pylons and pre-cast construction can be done for building the infrastructure of elevated segments for both light and heavy rail as long as they are done on straight line segments and have consistent design strategy on curves. The reason those weren't done on Expo (which) I believe it should have been was that the community wanted a different look and design for the structure. For the Gold Line the elevated sections were at curves or transitions where you would virtually never do with pre-cast construction because it is a specific design for the loads on curves and turns.

The quiet operation and curves is the combination of rubber tires on a smooth concrete surface, the same combination that other Metro's like Montreal and Paris uses Rubber Tired trains for that same smooth and quiet operation.

The cost principle is true, but that can be said if the Heavy Rail system was elevated instead of boring a tunnel tube 40-60 feet below the surface.

I totally get what you are saying and everything you said is exactly the point I was making . I'm sure we can get on automation with the red purple and green lines, and it should be done. The tight corners/hilly operation along with still being able to pre-cast construction is the advantage of monorail along with the rubber tire quietness. Again I think everything you are saying is absolutely true and I feel we should continue to finish building out our current lines. I believe we should still be looking at other modalities that could also help wherever possible and truly be in the question of what modes have strengths and weaknesses and when to apply them



vs.

Like for instance... the gold line to Whittier... DEPLORABLE alignment all the way around. I'm sure we can do it right, but the advantages of light rail are not magnified along this route. Light rail has HUGE advantages and is actually great on routes where it can be AT GRADE and moves quickly through intersections without steep negative affects on the auto traffic. Examples of this would be the blue line along alameda after Washington and before Long Beach and the gold line from Pasadena to BFE (Claremont). Disadvantage of light rail is that if it's elevated to get around blocking car traffic, it's heavy and more expensive, even if you precast your columns.

There are advantages and disadvantages to every system. The sepulveda pass project is unique and unlike many other cities in the WORLD in that we are crossing a MOUNTAIN RANGE with a county rail system and not a hugely expensive high speed rail. I think with the mayors proposed sepulveda pass Monorail, the advantages really shine for Monorail and it should have a place in the alternatives analysis.


Just look at how orgasmic this is. I'm getting so turned on looking at it

[NSMP]

As to capacity, that's just untrue. BYD's own press release says their monorail has a max cap of 10-30k per direction per hour, which is nowhere near where heavy rail maxes out.

Chongqing, looking at videos on YouTube, is also particularly suited to the technology, because it is very hilly and because those hills are integrated into the urban environment. As a result, the monorail's climbing ability comes in handy, but also its physical structure can be contoured against the hills, disguisng its visual impact without sacrificing accessibility. Not so here. A monorail might be better suited for the pass than LRT, but the above grade option for Sepulveda is at least 3 miles longer than the tunneled option. On either side of the pass, there are no topographical features whatsoever that would mask the impact of the structure.

Speed is also an issue. Chongqing's monorail, according to Google, averages about 20mph with similar stop spacing to LA Metro. The Red Line avgs 30-35 mph, and in long segments with no stations, like Hollywood/Highland to Universal City, it averages about 60 mph. BYD's monorail, again according to them, has a technical max speed of 50 mph, which it isn't hitting while ascending or descending a 6% grade for several miles. Here's where the out-of-the-wayness becomes an issue. If a Sepulveda Pass HRT can travel from Wilshire/Westwood to Ventura/Van Nuys in 6 minutes, it might take the monorail 20 minutes for the same segment.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by NSMP

As to capacity, that's just untrue. BYD's own press release says their monorail has a max cap of 10-30k per direction per hour, which is nowhere near where heavy rail maxes out.

Chongqing, looking at videos on YouTube, is also particularly suited to the technology, because it is very hilly and because those hills are integrated into the urban environment. As a result, the monorail's climbing ability comes in handy, but also its physical structure can be contoured against the hills, disguisng its visual impact without sacrificing accessibility. Not so here. A monorail might be better suited for the pass than LRT, but the above grade option for Sepulveda is at least 3 miles longer than the tunneled option. On either side of the pass, there are no topographical features whatsoever that would mask the impact of the structure.

Speed is also an issue. Chongqing's monorail, according to Google, averages about 20mph with similar stop spacing to LA Metro. The Red Line avgs 30-35 mph, and in long segments with no stations, like Hollywood/Highland to Universal City, it averages about 60 mph. BYD's monorail, again according to them, has a technical max speed of 50 mph, which it isn't hitting while ascending or descending a 6% grade for several miles. Here's where the out-of-the-wayness becomes an issue. If a Sepulveda Pass HRT can travel from Wilshire/Westwood to Ventura/Van Nuys in 6 minutes, it might take the monorail 20 minutes for the same segment.

All good points and all I would like is for Metro to study this option along with the others we are looking at. As of now, Monorail isn't even on the table and I think it's worth having a seat. Doesn't mean it's the only one that should be built. I hope we study Japan's Hitachi company's line of train cars rather than BYD. Look up the Tama Toshi Monorail Line in Japan. It has an AVERAGE SPEED of 40mph and is the Large capacity Monorail but can go faster. I would love a heavy rail tunnel through the pass... it would be my first choice, but it wouldn't hurt for Metro to include Monorail into the feasibility study.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

I still don't get how a monorail would get from UCLA to an alignment over the 405.

[Quixote]

Measure M is now in full effect. Two percent of our county sales tax now dedicated to transportation for the foreseeable future.

[a very long weekend]

It's sort of under the radar, but behind the big story about the LAPD is taking charge of security and fare evasion for Metro in LA (basically because the Sheriff's department was doing a poor job) is a broader plan to improve how metro operates. That is, to bring down costs, increase security (and thus ridership) and improve farebox recovery.

Metro dumping deputies in favor of local police

The Sheriff’s Department, the sole agency policing the Metro transit system since 2003, has “poor system-wide visibility” and struggles to schedule enough deputies to meet required staffing levels, staff wrote.

Hiring Long Beach and Los Angeles police in their own cities would “vastly improve performance” and visibility on the system, Metro staff wrote, and would be nearly $100 million cheaper than hiring more sheriff’s deputies.

In the past, auditors have faulted Metro for failing to develop a formal plan or hire any employees to ensure that the terms of policing contract were met.

Two years ago, Metro’s inspector general found that the Sheriff’s Department had failed to meet its goals to reduce violent crime on the bus and rail network and had not adequately tracked emergency response times.

The audit also found that Metro and law enforcement officials had not reliably measured fare evasion. Metro had asked deputies to reduce the rate of fare-jumping to 2%, but agency studies and other reviews suggest the number is much higher.

After those findings, Metro’s directors voted to strengthen oversight, including requiring audits of the transit police every two years.

The new contract would shift responsibilities for fare-checking and monitoring security camera footage to Metro staff. The agency would also continue to employ private security guards.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...010-story.html

[NSMP]

Expo Line officially (i.e. according to Metro's estimates) reached 64,000 daily riders in June, reaching its 2030 horizon year projection 13 years early.

[ChargerCarl]

Should have been heavy rail