LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[bzcat]

Metro released an update on the Vermont BRT/rail feasibility study: http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/me...esentation.pdf

The BRT options has been reduced to two:
1. Complete side running
2. Mixed center/side running north/south of Gage

The rail options has been expended to six:
1. Light rail center running
2. Light rail side running
3. Street car side running
4. Heavy rail interline with purple line
5. Heavy rail interline with red line
6. Heavy rail terminates at Wilshire/Vermont

The two-stage approach is still on - BRT by 2028-2030 and conversion to rail by 2067.

Check out page 17 and 18 for more accurate locations and geometry of existing red and purple line tunnel and tracks at Wilshire/Vermont which has a stacked station.

[Illithid Dude]

The slides on the study specifically mention that the HRT option will be underground until 120th St. The fact that Metro isn’t studying an elevated HRT option on what is possibly the wisest street in LA County is absolutely ridiculous and points to Metro intentionally driving up the projected cost of the HRT rail option in order to have a greater reason to shoot that option down.

[numble]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

The slides on the study specifically mention that the HRT option will be underground until 120th St. The fact that Metro isn’t studying an elevated HRT option on what is possibly the wisest street in LA County is absolutely ridiculous and points to Metro intentionally driving up the projected cost of the HRT rail option in order to have a greater reason to shoot that option down.

I don't think the community would support elevated, especially not in 2067. There will be plenty of time to study the rail conversion alternatives between now and 2067. They won't be making a decision on the rail conversion alternative anytime soon.

[Illithid Dude]

https://www.wehoville.com/2018/05/08...ros-expansion/

West Hollywood pitching in an extra $70 million to ensure the Crenshaw Northern Extension will be done in time for the Olympics. Considering all the great developments that have sprung up in WeHo, this might just be my new favorite LA County City.

[DJM19]

Well, 70 million won't do much but I think Metro owes it to find any conceivable way to get this on a faster track. Metro has already demonstrated it an secure hundreds of millions in state and federal money. Do that for projects with ridiculously distant timelines.

[NSMP]

Cool, now WeHo can make up the extra $1b that central city voters put toward this project compared to the Westside COG. Then we can put our money toward the Vermont subway and they can have their at-grade streetcar

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by nsmp

cool, now weho can make up the extra $1b that central city voters put toward this project compared to the westside cog. Then we can put our money toward the vermont subway and they can have their at-grade streetcar

+1

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

The slides on the study specifically mention that the HRT option will be underground until 120th St. The fact that Metro isn’t studying an elevated HRT option on what is possibly the wisest street in LA County is absolutely ridiculous and points to Metro intentionally driving up the projected cost of the HRT rail option in order to have a greater reason to shoot that option down.

I think the one benefit of rail being such a distant reality is that it gives time for Metro to build up its ridership base. By the time funding becomes available, this corridor will probably warrant nothing but the highest-capacity option. As of today, the BRT is already estimated to carry 75,000 daily riders.

[NSMP]

Metro budget amendment provides for early start to EIR for Crenshaw North

https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/...tory-for-weho/

[Quixote]

I really admire WeHo’s fervor for rail. They supported Measure R to the tune of 86% and are purportedly willing to put their money where their mouth is. Having said that, Crenshaw North along San Vicente is a dumb idea—too circuitous. You might as well bring back the HRT option, considering that everything north of Wilshire would have to be subway.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I really admire WeHo’s fervor for rail. They supported Measure R to the tune of 86% and are purportedly willing to put their money where their mouth is. Having said that, Crenshaw North along San Vicente is a dumb idea—too circuitous. You might as well bring back the HRT option, considering that everything north of Wilshire would have to be subway.

No matter what option is chosen, anything north of Wilshire would have to be subway. You really wanna put at grade light rail up La Brea or Fairfax?

[bzcat]

Doesn't matter which route, most (all?) of it will likely be underground.

My personal preference is Fairfax but I can see San Vicente/La Cienega scoring pretty big on ridership despite it being longer due to it serving more destinations. End to end run time is only important to train scheduler... most people on riding Crenshaw north will probably not ride it all the way to Norwalk or Torrance.

A full EIR should have a fairly good ridership projection for us to chew over.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by bzcat

Doesn't matter which route, most (all?) of it will likely be underground.

My personal preference is Fairfax but I can see San Vicente/La Cienega scoring pretty big on ridership despite it being longer due to it serving more destinations. End to end run time is only important to train scheduler... most people on riding Crenshaw north will probably not ride it all the way to Norwalk or Torrance.

A full EIR should have a fairly good ridership projection for us to chew over.

The time to the airport is not end-to-end but it’s close, and that will matter to a bunch of people.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by NSMP

The time to the airport is not end-to-end but it’s close, and that will matter to a bunch of people.

Not only that, it will make a big difference for anyone going from Hollywood to Expo.

[Quixote]

Thoughts on this, Scott?

https://la.streetsblog.org/2018/05/1...e-line-subway/

Is this Metro purposefully not doing its due diligence (using subway HRT construction costs to estimate the cost of a mostly surface alignment) just so that it wouldn’t have to begin a new environmental study?

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Thoughts on this, Scott?

https://la.streetsblog.org/2018/05/1...e-line-subway/

Is this Metro purposefully not doing its due diligence (using subway HRT construction costs to estimate the cost of a mostly surface alignment) just so that it wouldn’t have to begin a new environmental study?

Yes. There’s no other way to account for $12 billion in difference between light and heavy rail. Joe is absolutely right.

[Illithid Dude]

Los Angeles deserves a better transportation organization.

[Quixote]

^ Right? And who's holding them accountable? Very few. Even the stakeholders (the civic leaders and residents of SE LA County) likely don't care, as they just want their slice of the pie ASAP.

I think HRT is an alternative worth studying for several reasons:

1) It might actually cost less than any of the LRT alternatives, each of which has 2-3 planned subway stations
2) Higher capacity
3) Creates a true cross-county rail line
4) Cuts through the meat of SE LA County
5) Sets a local precedent for non-subway HRT

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Los Angeles deserves a better transportation organization.

Yerp. Never forget they killed decent nighttime service/frequencies to save 4 million dollars! 4 million! That's nothing

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by NSMP

The time to the airport is not end-to-end but it’s close, and that will matter to a bunch of people.

Scott, I respect your take on all things transit in SoCal so not trying to start an argument... just an open discussion.

Let say Hollywood to LAX is X min via Fairfax and San Vicente adds 5 minutes (I'm spit-balling here...) - does that really mean a bunch of people will now drive in traffic instead to reach LAX? I'm not convinced of that line of reasoning.

If the choice is a consistent X+5 min travel time vs. a variable time of the day dice roll via 101/110/105 or going via surface street/La Cienega Blvd to reach LAX, I think X min and X+5 min doesn't make that much difference in ridership projection to/from 96th St station.

Remember the trade off is potentially more destinations (which also drives ridership).

That being said... I'm actually in favor of Fairfax alignment...

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Not only that, it will make a big difference for anyone going from Hollywood to Expo.

Same X vs X+5 thought exercise...

Will people riding to/from West LA to Hollywood really choose to not transfer via Crenshaw line at San Vicente because it may potentially take a few more minute to/from Hollywood/Highland vs. Crenshaw line at Fairfax? Because the alternative is to take the 212 or 217 bus (or I guess they can take the 704 and really roll the dice!)

And again, for the record, I favor Fairfax generally. I'm just saying that people shouldn't close their mind to San Vicente until Metro has completed an EIR.

If they dump San Vicente during the alternative analysis phase, we will never find out if the time delay is worth the ridership trade off.