LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[caligrad]

^^^ Yeah, driving next to the Blue line in Long Beach is like looking at a glass can of sardines.

Its a shame that LA cant adopt the "Cut and Cover" method of subway construction. WAY cheaper. When i was a kid I used to think that metro didn't do it this way because of earthquakes. But I heard that community opposition to this method is high. Even in cities with well established subway lines.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by caligrad

^^^ Yeah, driving next to the Blue line in Long Beach is like looking at a glass can of sardines.

Its a shame that LA cant adopt the "Cut and Cover" method of subway construction. WAY cheaper. When i was a kid I used to think that metro didn't do it this way because of earthquakes. But I heard that community opposition to this method is high. Even in cities with well established subway lines.

"Cut and Cover" subway construction can be devastating to businesses located on the route during the construction period. This can be particularly difficult if subway construction lasts a couple of years, which is quite typical.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

"Cut and Cover" subway construction can be devastating to businesses located on the route during the construction period. This can be particularly difficult if subway construction lasts a couple of years, which is quite typical.

But I assure you that the money lost by businesses when cut and cover is used is nowhere nearly as much as the Billions in extra costs when it's NOT used. Subway construction these days is just incredibly short sighted which is why so little gets built. Decisions are being made based on what will inconvenience people for a year or two and not what will benefit the community for the next 100 years thereafter.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

But I assure you that the money lost by businesses when cut and cover is used is nowhere nearly as much as the Billions in extra costs when it's NOT used. Subway construction these days is just incredibly short sighted which is why so little gets built. Decisions are being made based on what will inconvenience people for a year or two and not what will benefit the community for the next 100 years thereafter.

Planners can take the long term view, but congressmen, legislators, and council members normally can't, it seems they are always running for re-election every two years. Even governors and presidents are re-elected every four years. So most politicians take a short term view.

The key factor of any local community economy - yes even a smaller footprint than cities - is the health of the local businesses. If businesses are hurting, so is the economy of the local community, the taxes collected from local businesses drops, and the tax revenues of the local cities drops as well, all of which effects the local cities budgets in a huge way. The streets chosen for subway lines are the most dense, where most of the profitable and tax contributing businesses sit. With businesses hurting badly, there's more local people seeking government services at the very time local tax revenues are dropping. That really impacts city budgets. That's just one of many reasons why so many cities have avoided building subways.

Golly, local businesses are hurt badly with at grade light rail lines, most will fail completely near a cut and cover subway line. Cut and cover construction has both positive and negative outcomes that every city and politician must weigh. Maybe cut and cover will be approved for a few blocks, but I doubt we'll see a few miles long corridor built with cut and cover into the future.

[bzcat]

SCAG is studying the transit corridor options linking LA and SB County: http://www.scag.ca.gov/programs/Page...ansitRail.aspx

I'm going to fast forward to summer 2017 and predict the recommendation will be:

1. Extend I-10 Express Lane (and BRT) to Ontario.
2. Connect Gold Line to ONT.
3. F@@k Metrolink.

[ChargerCarl]

Cut and cover vs tunneling is a bit of a red herring. Other countries are able to build subways at less than half the cost that we can without using cut and cover. We just suck at efficiently building infrastructure.

[caligrad]

^^^and that too.

Originally Posted by electricron

Planners can take the long term view, but congressmen, legislators, and council members normally can't, it seems they are always running for re-election every two years. Even governors and presidents are re-elected every four years. So most politicians take a short term view.

The key factor of any local community economy - yes even a smaller footprint than cities - is the health of the local businesses. If businesses are hurting, so is the economy of the local community, the taxes collected from local businesses drops, and the tax revenues of the local cities drops as well, all of which effects the local cities budgets in a huge way. The streets chosen for subway lines are the most dense, where most of the profitable and tax contributing businesses sit. With businesses hurting badly, there's more local people seeking government services at the very time local tax revenues are dropping. That really impacts city budgets. That's just one of many reasons why so many cities have avoided building subways.

Golly, local businesses are hurt badly with at grade light rail lines, most will fail completely near a cut and cover subway line. Cut and cover construction has both positive and negative outcomes that every city and politician must weigh. Maybe cut and cover will be approved for a few blocks, but I doubt we'll see a few miles long corridor built with cut and cover into the future.

But here's the difference in LAs case. most of our busiest "most subway worthy" streets/avenues are 6-8 lanes wide. Dig down in the median and leave a lane or 2 on the outside. Wilshire at its widest is 10 lanes wide if I'm not mistaken but averages about 6-8 lanes wide.

It can be done, there was a documentary about the construction of subway systems in the world that I watched and the issue of cut and cover was discussed. The new method pretty much causes the least amount of problems compared to the previous method. Literally no more than a week of delays and the street is back open to full capacity while work crews work under the traffic with the help of a temporary steel road deck.

Our purple line extension down Wilshire is using a form of this method to create the subway stations only but using the tunnel bore machines for everything else.

[ardecila]

I always thought Toronto's method (historically) was interesting. Cut and cover, but instead of doing it under the main street where all the shops and underground utilities are, they bought up a strip of residential property parallel to the main street and dug there. Much less disruption, and the stations are only a 100' walk away from the main street.

Of course, this displaces a lot of people from their homes. But has little impact on local businesses. Plus, once the subway is "covered", the land on the surface can be turned into "parkettes", a bike trail, or even new housing. Definitely an interesting possibility for grid cities like LA or Vancouver that are considering new subway lines.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/To...831843!5m1!1e2

[caligrad]

^^^ That's interesting. But here in LA, the residents would literally go crazy with that idea. I don't even think metro would even consider that, just to avoid any backlash from the community.

[SoCalKid]

I just saw this posted by Steve Hymon at The Source in response to a question about signal preemption:

"1) Signal preemption — i.e. the installation of gates and other equipment — that would always give trains the right to first pass through an intersection is ultimately Metro’s responsibility and both LADOT and Metro officials have said full preemption would carry impacts to traffic, especially in DTLA, and; 2) the degree of traffic signal priority is ultimately LADOT’s decision — i.e. how long a signal remains green to allow trains to pass. Metro works with LADOT to provide information on train schedules."

It's pretty insane to me that Metro wouldn't support signal preemption. Everyone should be emailing and calling their County Supervisors about this and anyone living in LA should be doing the same to the Mayor's office. Let's make it clear that this matters to us.

[DJM19]

Metro cannot fix that sort of investing in total grade separation. LADOT is in charge of this.

I am a big rail fan and bemoan the dominance of cars. But I do agree with LADOT here, it would make car travel impossible on that stretch of road. So some grander solution has to be proposed ALONG with crossing gates.

[caligrad]

And that's why all rail that is in the Downtown loop needs to be underground/below grade.

That being said. Driving alongside the expo line through the west side. Traffic is already a mess. Giving trains signal priority would actually create traffic breaks (similar to what CHP does towards the end of rush hour) and might actually help the flow of traffic.

What I'm really hearing from metro is "we are scared of messing with car traffic".

[202_Cyclist]

The NYT has an article with some good photos of the Expo line extension to Santa Monica.

Los Angeles’ ‘Subway to the Sea’ Is Less About Play and More About Work
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/us...ta-monica.html

[caligrad]

^^^ Probably the most poorly written article I've read about LAs transportation network.

Since when did we dub the expo line the "subway to the sea", Last I checked, we're still waiting on the purple line to accomplish that job. The writer even felt the need to acknowledge that the Expo line isn't a subway at all and doesn't reach the ocean....But last I checked, it was never dubbed a subway nor was it hailed as going to reach the ocean, even though its only 2 blocks away.

I wonder where he/she got their facts from because almost all of the information is wrong.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by caligrad

^^^ Probably the most poorly written article I've read about LAs transportation network.

Since when did we dub the expo line the "subway to the sea", Last I checked, we're still waiting on the purple line to accomplish that job. The writer even felt the need to acknowledge that the Expo line isn't a subway at all and doesn't reach the ocean....But last I checked, it was never dubbed a subway nor was it hailed as going to reach the ocean, even though its only 2 blocks away.

I wonder where he/she got their facts from because almost all of the information is wrong.

I'll agree, for what it's worth I recommend reading the NYT for stories about NYC and reading the LAT for stories about LA. Neither Times newspaper seems to get the stories right when reporting about the wrong city.

[SoCalKid]

I'm really having an internal struggle deciding if I'm going to vote for Metro's ballot measure. Obviously I'm more than willing to vote for more taxes to pay for transit, but this plan feels so empty to me. I just realized that the Vermont BRT project will only receive $25 million under this plan, pretty much only enough to do the studies. Meanwhile $1 billion will be spent essentially right away to extend the Gold Line all the way to Claremont (which already has Metrolink)?!? The only urban transit lines included in this plan are the Purple Line Extension (which would probably receive federal money anyway), the Vermont BRT (which won't actually get built under the plan), the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line (won't happen for 31 years), the Santa Anna line (about 1/3rd of the cost will be provided 25 years from now), and the Sepulveda Pass corridor (only a portion will be funded 15 years from now).

So in reality, the only urban project we would get out of this in the next 20 years is something that will likely happen on a similar timeline anyway (Purple Line), and the Sepulveda Corridor, which is still a big question mark. I'm not saying the subburbs don't deserve rail as well, but the plan would need to have at least a substantial portion of urban spending to get me excited.

I'm leaning towards "no" with the hope that this fails and a better plan is proposed in 4 or 8 years. It seems better to not lock in funding with no end date to such a backward plan. What do you guys think?

[ardecila]

^ That's the price of a county-wide tax hike.

You're wrong that the Purple Line would get funding anyway, though. Federal grants require local matching funds, and the more local funds you put up, the more competitive you are to receive the grant. IIRC, MEasure R funds only support the Purple Line up to La Cienega or Century City and the further extension to Westwood is conditional on the new measure. (Extension to Santa Monica is apparently a very low priority now that Expo is open).

[Eagle rock]

I think a no vote is bad if you care about transit and mobility in the region.
There are a lot of “urban” projects in the plan you did not mention:

-East San Fernando Valley Corridor, which will go through some of the densest neighborhoods in the San Fernando Valley within the City of LA

-Orange line extension to Pasadena which will connect major nodes in Glendale and Burbank, and the Burbank media district.

It will also fund a bunch of first/last mile connections.

The purple line extension is also a major one. I would never bet on getting federal funds.

The Vermont BRT probably only gets that much because the city of LA has its own plan for BRT in the Mobility Plan. They could use their local return money to fund it.

Its important to remember that it’s a county wide sales tax and in order to get the 2/3ed threshold you need buy in from everyone in the county. That’s why any sales tax will have to spread the wealth around the county and not be focused on LA.

The gold line might not be the top priority but you have to hand it to the SGV for lobbying for their project and getting it in there. The gold line extension has also proven to be successful so I do not think it’s a total waste at all.

[caligrad]

In response to SoCalKid

we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Put it this way, Yeah this next measure R (part 3-4?, or is this 2?) is a bit lackluster when compared to the previous. BUT. If we vote No in November, this will be Metros way of saying

"See, Angelenos don't really want transit and wont support it"

Now before people jump on me and rant saying that im wrong for thinking that way, I'm just giving a hypothetical scenario of what COULD happen. We already know how slow metro is. We cant give them a reason to move any slower or halt all future plans for future rail. BUT. The opposite may occur and Metro might go back to the drawing boards to think of something better.

The Problem with our transit is the fact that the we jumped on the metro rail expansion band wagon way too late. The feds really don't want to help build anything anymore. The Feds have pretty much thrown all responsibility back onto the states and local govs. What we need is for the next Pres/Congress/Senate to realize that LA has a SEROIOUS congestion problem and they need to earmark a lot of dough our way to get this city moving again. You know its bad when we even have traffic on Weekends now.

But. We may get our wish. Seems like Congress AND the Senate has unanimously backed LA for getting the 2024 Olympics. If LA in facts win the chance to host again. The Feds will pump BILLIONS into LA to "make it look pretty and for it to flow nicely". Seeing how France is high on the terrorist list for attacks and the rest of Europe is highly unstable at the moment. I'm willing to bet that LA wins simply by default.

The way the gov needs to look at it is the fact that its a one time expense. Meaning. Once the infrastructure is finally in place, toss back the running costs onto the state govs to take over.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by caligrad

In response to SoCalKid

we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Put it this way, Yeah this next measure R (part 3-4?, or is this 2?) is a bit lackluster when compared to the previous. BUT. If we vote No in November, this will be Metros way of saying

"See, Angelenos don't really want transit and wont support it"

Now before people jump on me and rant saying that im wrong for thinking that way, I'm just giving a hypothetical scenario of what COULD happen. We already know how slow metro is. We cant give them a reason to move any slower or halt all future plans for future rail. BUT. The opposite may occur and Metro might go back to the drawing boards to think of something better.

The Problem with our transit is the fact that the we jumped on the metro rail expansion band wagon way too late. The feds really don't want to help build anything anymore. The Feds have pretty much thrown all responsibility back onto the states and local govs. What we need is for the next Pres/Congress/Senate to realize that LA has a SEROIOUS congestion problem and they need to earmark a lot of dough our way to get this city moving again. You know its bad when we even have traffic on Weekends now.

But. We may get our wish. Seems like Congress AND the Senate has unanimously backed LA for getting the 2024 Olympics. If LA in facts win the chance to host again. The Feds will pump BILLIONS into LA to "make it look pretty and for it to flow nicely". Seeing how France is high on the terrorist list for attacks and the rest of Europe is highly unstable at the moment. I'm willing to bet that LA wins simply by default.

The way the gov needs to look at it is the fact that its a one time expense. Meaning. Once the infrastructure is finally in place, toss back the running costs onto the state govs to take over.

I think you're probably right. A "no" vote would be high risk proposition. It could mean we end up with a more motivated Metro (as much as I like public transit, the organization itself is subpar in my opinion) and a better ballot measure. OR it could be no more efforts to expand in the foreseeable future.

On your point of the Olympics, if we are indeed selected, I think it would be much easier to make the argument that the Federal government should be directing serious money to LA transit if we demonstrate both local support and local funding through this measure.

As dissatisfied as I am with this measure and Metro's lack of desire for preemption, I have decided I'll definitely reluctantly vote "yes" while crossing my fingers that we get the Olympics and score a jackpot with accelerated projects and maybe even an extension of the Purple Line into Santa Monica (maybe not realistic, but one can hope).