# LOS ANGELES | Public Transport



## ignoramus

StarFish said:


> I love the uniqueness!! Something the Copenhagen Metro doesn't have


Yeah. But the Copenhagen Metro has beautiful sleek looking trains (amongst the best) and futuristic stations to somewhat make up for it...


----------



## soup or man

ignoramus said:


> Great job in having pictures of every single subway and lrt station posted! That's a feat in itself (even though the rail system ain't that large, but its large enough!). The stations certainly have character. No station is identical to another, right...


Right. No 2 subway stations are alike.

Btw..this is the new Orange Line BRT. It's just a bus but still..


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Great set of pics! did you get the Gold line in there?


----------



## Falubaz

i like that system,it is one of my favorits, the stations are really full of 'good ideas', as I say it. there are so many beautiful and well thought details. it's only a pity, that it's nopt so large as it should be for that kind of city.


----------



## soup or man

::Gold Line::


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Do you know what kind of art is planned for the EXPO line?


----------



## micro

Hollywood/Vine station:


----------



## soup or man

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> Do you know what kind of art is planned for the EXPO line?


I'm hoping for a modern/organic theme. Like lots of metal with plants everywhere. Lol..just a dream of mine.


----------



## soup or man

Anywho..here are some actuall pictures of the very popular Orange Line..so popular in fact that FUCKING IDIOTS CAN'T STOP RUNNING RED LIGHTS AND CRASHING INTO THEM!!! WHO THE **** CAN'T SEE A 60 FOOT LONG BUS WITH AN ACCORDIAN IN THE MIDDLE??

....

Sorry..

Pics..

NOHO Orange Line Station with the 15 story, 191 unit NOHO Tower in the background


----------



## Nicux

They could call it a metro if it was a tram... but what's the relation between THE BUS and the name given "ORANGE LINE METRO"


----------



## soup or man

LA's transit company is called Metro. There is the Metro Rapid Bus, Metro Local, and a few others. The Orange Line's route is displayed on metro.net. The Orange Line is a bus yes. But it has it's own personal route that only is made just for the Orange Line uses and even the Red Line Subway has posters of the Orange Line that says, 'It's the bus that acts like a train.' The Orange Line by no means is a train. But it's doing very well.


----------



## samsonyuen

I remember thinking that at the Metro stations I went to (well, not the green line). I can't believe how deep the tunnels are at some of the stations. Why aren't there machines or anything (attendants) to go through? I think the honor system is going to cheat them out of money.


----------



## soup or man

You ride at your own risk. Cops do random ticket checks. If you don't pay $1.35, you are subject to a $350 dollar fine.


----------



## manileño

WANCH said:


> LA's subway stations are impressive! They have character


especially when you go farther south to long beach. LOL

i hate those metro orange buses during rush hour.


----------



## Bertez

Love it!!!


----------



## squeemu

Threehundred said:


> You ride at your own risk. Cops do random ticket checks. If you don't pay $1.35, you are subject to a $350 dollar fine.


Yeah, and I believe they make more money that way. I have been checked three times, and twice I have seen other people get caught.


----------



## DiggerD21

350 dollars is a lot. The fine here in Hamburg is 40 Euros (ca. 47 Dollars), but still I rarely see people getting caught (and I get controlled quite often in the trains and sometimes in the busses too). AFAIK no transit system in Germany has machines to go through.


----------



## Palal

samsonyuen said:


> I remember thinking that at the Metro stations I went to (well, not the green line). I can't believe how deep the tunnels are at some of the stations. Why aren't there machines or anything (attendants) to go through? I think the honor system is going to cheat them out of money.


I've never seen the on the southern part of the blue line or on the green line... maybe they're affraid to do it there (I don't blame them). I've seen them on the Gold Line and the Red Line a number of times, and around 7th/Metro on the Blue Line


----------



## empersouf

Nice stations, but i think la has got to do more to stop the traffic jams, like building more metro lines


----------



## mopc

Beautiful stations!


----------



## soup or man

Los Angeles MetroRail circa 2010. Expo and Gold Line Eastside Connection. Slowly but surely..


----------



## Manila-X

I rather see it like this


----------



## soup or man

We all would. But what we have is good. It isn't the best..however far from the worst.


----------



## Manila-X

*Other LA county buses.*

Besides the MTA, cities around LA's metro area operate their own bus systems.

Here are some 

Culver City





































El Monte



















Gardena



















Glendale



















Long Beach


















Pasadena



















Santa Monica


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

thanks wanch. i love the culver city green bus and the big blue bus. they actually look cool.


----------



## hkskyline

*Los Angeles Introduces New Airport Bus Service*

*Car-choked Los Angeles gets new bus service *

LOS ANGELES, March 15, 2006 (AFP) - Renowned for its limited public transport and car-choked streets, Los Angeles authorities rolled out a new shuttle bus service Wednesday that will run between the train station and the city's LAX airport. 

The public shuttle buses will run between Union Station and LAX, a distance of some 30 kilometers (18.6 miles), every half-an-hour, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told reporters. 

It is the first such service for the wider Los Angeles area which is laced with hundreds of kilometers of freeways and is home to some 17 million people.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

this is the precursor to a direct LAX to Union Station Rail Line that hopefully will be built in the next 10 years.


----------



## Facial

Great news for public transportation. AV is doing a great job.

sportsfan, are there any links to the rail line you mentioned? I would like to find out more.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

not that i know of, but i know that this line has been mentioned and i believe its in the long range plans of the MTA. Try the Transit Coalition webpage for news on this and any other rail line in LA, its a fantastic site.

http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=ExpoLine


----------



## sweek

Once every half hour, on a route between the airport and the station?
It's a very nice start, but I'm still pretty stunned by that.


----------



## BillyBTall

Here's the short range plan of LA Metro taken from their WEB SITE.
They really are looking to get LA up to snuff with public transit. Check out MTA.net for a bunch of information on current and planned improvement projects.


Short Range Transportation Plan
Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The 2003 Short Range Transportation Plan focuses on the phasing of transportation improvements through 2009 that will help put together the pieces of our mobility puzzle. The Plan relies on performance-based modeling to identify the best solution for each mobility challenge. In total, $19.3 billion is needed to fund this Plan’s transportation priorities through 2009. These include the costs of operating the current system and funding new transportation solutions. 

Highlights include:

*Improve Quality of Local Bus Service.* Through the creation of five new service sectors, Metro is improving customer service by providing communities with more input into operations and improving operations by using regional transit resources more efficiently. Local bus providers and Metro work together to provide efficient routing, service coordination, and to introduce new technology that will make travel more convenient, such as smart cards that allow seamless transfers. Metro is also developing a Hub and Spoke system to further improve customer service.

*Expand the Metro Rapid Program.* Twenty-eight new Metro Rapid bus lines will be implemented by 2009 that can reduce travel times for bus riders by 25 percent. This will result in over 400 miles of Rapid, high capacity bus service that will serve 34 cities and 11 unincorporated LA County communities.

*Expand the County’s Light Rail System.* The Pasadena Metro Gold Line was completed in 2003, and the Eastside extension will be ready by 2009. These will form a single operating line extending from East Los Angeles into the San Gabriel Valley. Another rail line, the Exposition line toward Culver City, is under design with completion after 2009 (subject to funding availability). Finally, preliminary design is planned to begin on a Gold Line extension eastward to Claremont.

*Introduce Metro Transitways.* New, cutting-edge bus service using dedicated traffic lanes will be introduced. The centerpiece will be the 14-mile exclusive San Fernando Valley Metro Orange Line, followed by a project along Wilshire Boulevard that proposes exclusive, peak hour access to buses, subject to approval by cities. Transitways in the San Fernando Valley (north/south alignment) and along Crenshaw Boulevard could be implemented as funding becomes available.

*Improve Metrolink Service.* Commuters will benefit from new trains that expand and improve service. To improve efficiency and reduce travel time, track work and signal upgrades will also be completed.

*Expand the Countywide Carpool Lane System.* Metro plans to add 70 lane miles of carpool lanes by 2009, resulting in a 517-mile network throughout the county. If additional funding becomes available, the carpool network could be expanded by another 82 miles. Specific improvements include completing carpool lanes and/or connectors along I-5, I-10, SR-14, SR-60 and I-405.

*Improve Traffic Flow Through System Management.* Information and technology, such as real-time management of our roadway system, will play larger roles in getting the most out of our system. Other programs like the Freeway Service Patrol will expand to bring traffic incident relief to more freeways and support freeway construction projects.

*Encourage Alternatives to Driving Alone.* Providing options to travelers is one way to reduce traffic congestion. Programs that encourage ridesharing, pedestrian travel, and move toward completion of a 406-mile Class I bicycle system will be developed and promoted. Metro will also implement parking policies for its Metro stations and explore a park-and-ride facility study.

*Plan and Implement a Comprehensive Freight Movement Program.* Metro will work with its partners to develop analytical tools and a strategic plan for addressing future goods movement growth. These partnerships will help develop dedicated funding sources that will pay for comprehensive freight related projects without impacting other transportation funding sources.

*Implement Mechanisms to Link Growth with Transportation.* The Mobility-21 Coalition for Los Angeles County will work to form public/private partnerships that can implement programs that provide meaningful incentives to better link land use and transportation planning.

The 2003 Short Range Transportation Plan was approved by Metro's Board on August 28, 2003.


----------



## Urbdude

*LADOT & MTA. What's the difference?*

I noticed that LA has 2 different transit systems, both of which are publicly funded. What is the reason for this? Is the bus network of MTA more limited than LADOT or vice versa? Any info would be appreciated.


----------



## Jayayess1190

MTA is much more exstensive than LAFOT. MTA runs Metrobus (local and express), Metrorail (subway and lightrail), bus rapid transit. LADOT runs free shuttles in downtown L.A.

*MTA Bus map in bigger form: http://www.mta.net/riding_metro/riders_guide/planning_trip-01.htm#TopOfPage*


----------



## Jayayess1190

http://www.ladottransit.com/

*LADOT *LogoThe City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) currently operates the second largest fleet in Los Angeles County next to LACMTA. LADOT's transit fleet consists of nearly 400 vehicles which operate over 800,000 revenue hours and serve approximately 30 million passenger boardings per year.


----------



## redspork02

*Crews finish dig on one Eastside tunnel*
_Giant twin boring machines are being used to carve two passages below ground for the Gold Line extension into Boyle Heights.
By Jean Guccione, Times Staff Writer
November 17, 2006 _
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/los_angeles_metro/la-me-tunnel17nov17,1,2902369.story?track=rss


A giant boring machine, nicknamed Lola, pushed through the dirt beneath Boyle Heights on Thursday, marking the completion of a subway tunnel that will eventually connect downtown to East Los Angeles.

"This is a huge breakthrough, literally and figuratively, for this community," said Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who grew up near the Boyle Heights construction site at 1st and Lorena streets.

The twin 1.7-mile tunnels are part of the $900-million Eastside extension of the Gold Line light-rail route through the Little Tokyo/Arts District, Boyle Heights and East Los Angeles, ending at Atlantic and Pomona boulevards.

A second tunnel — being excavated by a similar boring machine, dubbed Vicki — still has about 1,000 feet to go before being completed within the next few weeks.

"We are moving forward," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, who chairs the MTA board, pledging "to connect all of these communities by public transportation."

The six-mile extension will have eight stops, including two underground in Boyle Heights, and is slated to open in late 2009.

The trip from East Los Angeles to Union Station will take 17 minutes.

When the extension is completed, passengers will be able to travel from East Los Angeles to Pasadena without changing trains.

*Plans are being discussed to eventually extend the rail line through the San Gabriel Valley to Ontario International Airport.*

The Eastside tunnels were built about 60 feet below ground because the streets are too narrow for the light-rail trains.

The boring machines, which weigh more than 2 million pounds each and are 344 feet long and 22 feet in diameter, excavate, then line the tunnel with 1-foot-thick pre-cast concrete walls.

On average, the machines dig 50 feet of tunnel a day. In all, enough dirt has been removed to fill a football field 15 stories high.

The same tunneling technology was used on the Red Line subway and is proposed for connecting the Foothill Freeway in Pasadena with the Long Beach Freeway in Alhambra.

Boyle Heights resident Art Herrera has been working to get a commuter train through East Los Angeles since 1992, when plans to build a subway there were derailed.

Herrera, 70, envisions a light-rail system that not only eases the commute for area residents but also creates a bustling retail center, like the one in Hollywood, that attracts new visitors.

"It's going to bring a new dimension to the community," he said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected]


----------



## OettingerCroat

^^ LA gets money for its metro from the whole state with the twirl of a finger, but when SF needs a new metro, we pay for it ourselves.

may this metro PLEASE be bestowed with inprofitable ridership.


----------



## superchan7

What passenger railway in this country actually GETS a profiting patronage?


----------



## Elsongs

OettingerCroat said:


> ^^ LA gets money for its metro from the whole state with the twirl of a finger, but when SF needs a new metro, we pay for it ourselves.
> 
> may this metro PLEASE be bestowed with inprofitable ridership.


Ummm, you guys already have a rail system in place for decades. We're just starting up. 

And don't you worry, our ridership will be just as "inprofitable" as Frisco's!


----------



## greg_christine

Just in case it wasn't clear from the article, the tunnel is for an extension of the light rail Gold Line. The Gold Line presently runs from Pasadena to Union Station in downtown Los Angeles. The tunnel is on an extension from Union Station to East Los Angeles. An extension of the opposite end of the line is being planned in two phases. The first phase will be from Pasadena to Azusa and the second phase from Azusa to Montclair at the border between Los Angeles and San Bernardino conties. The Montclair terminus would still be several miles short of the Ontario Airport.










More photos can be found at the following link:

http://world.nycsubway.org/us/losangeles/gold.html

For more information on the Gold Line, see the following links:

http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/metro_rail/gold_line.htm

http://www.metrogoldline.org/index2.html


----------



## phubben

What's with the ugly light rails in the US?


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

it will prolly die in the senate transportation comitte, as most transportation bills do.


----------



## zergcerebrates

Elsongs said:


> No rail system in the world has been profitable.




You're mistaken. Hong Kong's metro besides being one of the best in the world also happens to be the most profitable. Metros in Singapore, Korea and Japan are also profitable.


----------



## ignoramus

Yeah. I think Hong Kong's rail infrasturcture (rail, stations) are half subsidised by the govt while the operating costs are paid for by rail revenue, which is derived from ticket sales, advertising, rental of shop space and property development.

Singapore's rail infrastructure is funded by the govt entirely, and operating costs are paid for by rail revenue from ticket sales, rental of shop space and advertising.

Both are profitable. Of course, population density along the lines helped keep ridership at a high level, and the high costs of owning cars and the lack of a need for cars in these relatively small cities.


----------



## volsung

how likely is it that the Orange Line will ever be converted to light rail?


----------



## phattonez

^^It will have to be converted eventually. But I think it's safe to say that it will stay a busway for at least 10 years. Right now, Metro is trying to expand, not improve existing lines.


----------



## greg_christine

phattonez said:


> I think the trains are fine now. We can save smaller tunnels for LRV.
> 
> ...


Why is there any expectation that LRVs could have smaller tunnels? The roof height for LRVs is similar to heavy rail subway trains; however, additional clearance is required for the pantograph and overhead wire. LRVs actually require larger tunnels than heavy rail subway trains:

London-Croydon Light Rail Vehicle (Bombardier) - Roof height excluding pantograph is 3.6 m.









Toronto Subway Car (Bombardier) - Roof height is 3.658 m.


----------



## phattonez

How come I always see police on the trains but they never check to see if I paid a fare?


----------



## dl3000

Why dont they have turnstiles instead of the honor system?


----------



## Elsongs

dl3000 said:


> Why dont they have turnstiles instead of the honor system?


The subway was supposed to have turnstiles, but the light rail line (Blue Line) opened first, and employed an honor-system fare like every light rail system, so when the subway (Red Line) opened nearly 3 years later, they adopted the same fare structure and ticket method, i.e. the honor system...especially since the Red and Blue lines share one common transfer station, and having turnstiles on one and not on the other would be confusing.

Basically, the majority of Los Angeles' rail lines are LRT, and since it's impractical to put turnstiles on LRT (I can't think of any conventional light rail system out there that is totally within turnstiles), they made the subway follow suit.


----------



## Elsongs

LosAngelesMetroBoy said:


> so ive wondered why they dont elevate the red line to sylmar. Build a huge multi-level parking structure by the 210/5/14 interchange and have a dedicated offramp. Seriously, i think that would get more people riding the metro if we showed we want people to.


They should just extend the thing to Santa Clarita while they're at it...


----------



## phattonez

So I was looking at something the other day that makes the Orange Line and Gold Line look very bad. Looking at the ridership on rapid lines, Wilshire ave. gets more than 45,000 per day and Vermont ave. got something around 25,000 per day. Do you need any more evidence than that to see that we need subways on those routes?


----------



## phattonez

Here's an update for everyone. Studies are being started on a Crenshaw route, the downtown connector, and a route for Wilshire Blvd. Metro is investigating HOT lanes, distance based fares, and fare gates. A lot is going on right now, and I didn't even mention that the Gold Line extension is getting closer and Expo Line is getting to a heavy construction phase.


----------



## Westsidelife

What's the proposed Crenshaw route?


----------



## phattonez

Here's a link from Metro about it.
http://www.metro.net/board/Agendas/2007/04_april/20070419SupACom.pdf

And discussion on the line.
http://transittalk.proboards37.com/...rline&action=display&thread=1181230066&page=1


----------



## phattonez

Now the US Senate has lifted the ban against tunneling under Wilshire. Now we just need Bush to approve it.


----------



## Codfish

I hate to put a damper on the optimism here, but it's worth noting that since mass transit funding was totally screwed in the most recent budget to come out of Sacramento, I doubt that many more metro expansions will be approved in Los Angeles in the near future. Furthermore, after the scandal surrounding Mayor Villaraigosa's affair, he doesn't have as much political capital to push the subway.

Still, I think the MTA does have the funding to finish the Gold Line Eastside Expansion and the Expo Line Phase I on schedule, and with the repeal of the ban on federal tunneling funds along Wilshire, maybe things are looking up. No sense being negative, I guess!

Personally, I hope that the Wilshire subway is the next big project, bringing the Purple Line all the way to Santa Monica (my dream: stops at Crenshaw, La Brea, Fairfax/Museum Row, La Cienega or San Vicente, Doheny, Rodeo, Century City, Westwood/Santa Monica, Westwood/Wilshire, Barrington, Bundy, Yale, 20th, 12th, 3rd St. Promenade, Santa Monica Pier). I'll admit to some bias in this, since my family lives in Santa Monica, but having fought Wilshire traffic to get east (and back west) numerous times, I will claim that I think it's probably the most needed stretch of subway. 
Also, I'm confused by all the references to a Sunset Line on this board. Where on Sunset? In Hollywood it seems superfluous given the existing Red Line service (one block away on Hollywood Blvd.) and the DASH buses; in West Hollywood and Beverly Hills, though the Sunset Strip would be a draw, I think it wouldn't be as helpful as a (hypothetical) line along Santa Monica Blvd., and this stretch of Sunset is too short to support a line on its own in any case; and west of Beverly Hills, in Brentwood and the Palisades, Sunset is too windy and narrow to really support any kind of rail. So... huh?


----------



## phattonez

The Sunset Line is a term that I coined a few months ago for the Silver Line that would run through Echo Park and Silver Lake up to Hollywood. I had envisioned it to go under Santa Monica Blvd. and then continue west from there with a spur up Sunset Blvd. to connect to Hollywood Blvd. for those going east. It's kind of hard to explain, but it's mainly my Santa Monica Blvd. idea.


----------



## Robert Stark

The Sunset Line was my idea. the only concern I had was how to have it serve both the Grove and the Sunset Strip.


----------



## phattonez

^^Then why don't I remember you ever posting anything about it?


----------



## Westsidelife

phattonez said:


> Now the US Senate has lifted the ban against tunneling under Wilshire. Now we just need Bush to approve it.


We also need to finish conducting the feasibility study.


----------



## solongfullerton

Wow! This means that the city is having public scoping meetings for 3 different lines now in less than a months time!!! May be I'm getting my hopes up, but this has to mean that the MTA is getting very serious about making progress on our rail system in the near future.


----------



## 2Easy

phattonez said:


> ^^I've been checked once, only once. Metro is considering installing fare gates.


I've seen you say this before and I'm amazed. I ride on average 1-2 times per week and I've been checked maybe a couple dozen times over the last 3 years or so. It's almost entirely on the blue line (my home line) so they must check the blue line much more than the others. But I've been checked on the gold line (Union Station and Memorial) and the red line (7th/metro, and 2 or 3 times on the train).


----------



## phattonez

This thread should have so much more activity, many lines are under construction, under consideration, and are already being studied.

Expo Line
Eastside Extension
Purple Line
Pink Line
Foothill Extension
Crenshaw Line
LAX People Mover (as a part of the Crenshaw Line)
Downtown Connector

I just wish that the Sunset Line had more attention.


----------



## Westsidelife

What's the Pink Line?

Isn't the LAX people mover just part of the new structure directly west of the Tom Bradley International Terminal?

There's also the Canoga Transportation Corridor and the 2003 San Fernando Valley North/South Transit Corridor Study (http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/north_south.htm -- whatever happened to that study?)


----------



## phattonez

The Pink Line is the Line from Hollywood/Highland to the Purple Line. It's a part of the Westside Extension. 

The LAX People Mover does not exist yet. I might be built in connection with the Crenshaw Line if it goes to LAX. 

I haven't heard a thing about that study for a while, I don't know what happened. Let me look at The Transit Coalition discussion board and see what they have.


----------



## Westsidelife

Oh, I thought it was known simply as the extension of the Red Line through the Westside.

The LAX people mover is part of the new structure that's going to be built just west of the Tom Bradley International Terminal. I thought it was just part of that new structure, not part of the proposed Crenshaw Corridor. Speaking of the Crenshaw, isn't it part of the MTA's efforts to extend the Green Line to LAX?


----------



## phattonez

^^Well I don't think that it's the full people mover that everyone wants that connects all of the terminals, but I guess it's a start. 

Nothing is set, of course, for the Westside, so nomenclature doesn't really matter at this point. But transit geeks call that one the Pink Line. 

Crenshaw could be part of the effort to extend it to LAX, but I have to say that there is no alignment set AT ALL and there is a lot of debate over the path south of the Harbor Subdivision (even debate over the northern terminus). I agree that this line should go to LAX, but if you do that you lose an extension to Hawthorne. It's really all up in the air, you should write to Metro about the path that you want. 
http://www.metro.net/crenshaw. Comments can be received up until November 5.


----------



## Westsidelife

*Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Meetings*

*November 8, 10, 14 & 15*

*You are invited*

Metro invites you to an Early Scoping Meeting about the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project. The goal of the proposed project is to improve mobility in the Corridor by connecting with the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension (under construction) to cities further east of Los Angeles. The meeting’s purpose is to obtain public feedback on the project’s purpose and need and potential alternatives including rail and bus options, as part of an Alternatives Analysis (AA). This Analysis will study and narrow down alternatives for possible further environmental review. Light Rail Transit (LRT), currently used in the Metro Gold Line, is being considered. 

We want to hear your thoughts and welcome your participation.

*Meeting Agenda*

*Open House*


Review the proposed study goals and objectives

Speak with project representatives

View study displays and maps

Submit written/verbal comments
*Project Presentation*

Learn about the project in a presentation by Metro staff

*Public Comment Forum*

Put your comments on the record. Verbal comments will be recorded. Written comments may be submitted at the meeting or no later than November 30, 2007 to:

*Kimberly Yu, Project Manager*
Metro
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012
or [email protected] or fax to 213.922.3005

*Project Map*

*Please Join Us*

*6:30 – 8:30 pm, Thursday, November 8*
Palm Park
5703 Palm Av
Whittier, CA 

*9 – 12 noon, Saturday, November 10*
Senior Center at City Park
115 South Taylor Av
Montebello, CA

*6:30 – 8:30 pm, Wednesday, November 14*
Potrero Heights Elementary School
8026 East Hill Dr
Rosemead, CA

*6:30 – 8:30 pm, Thursday, November 15*
North Park Middle School/Cafeteria
4450 Durfee Av
Pico Rivera, CA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority


----------



## Westsidelife

phattonez said:


> I haven't heard a thing about that study for a while, I don't know what happened. Let me look at The Transit Coalition discussion board and see what they have.


Well?


----------



## koolkid

All those potential routes in study would only add more congestion to the gold line. They should reconsider bringing those lines under study straight to downtown instead, I mean, come on, this would mean less transfers and less time!...


----------



## phattonez

Westsidelife said:


> Well?


I've gotten no reply, the forum has been oddly silent the past few days.


----------



## phattonez

koolkid said:


> All those potential routes in study would only add more congestion to the gold line. They should reconsider bringing those lines under study straight to downtown instead, I mean, come on, this would mean less transfers and less time!...


What do you mean? Expo goes downtown. Eastside Extension goes downtown. Purple Line goes downtown. Crenshaw does not even affect the Gold Line I wouldn't think, nor does the Pink Line. Really, we just need the downtown connector already. Is that what you mean?


----------



## koolkid

Westsidelife said:


> *Project Map*


I'm referring to this Project map. The lines under study don't go into downtown, they just connect to the gold line. This would obviously cause saturation on the gold line, not to mention it is light rail not heavy rail...


----------



## phattonez

koolkid said:


> I'm referring to this Project map. The lines under study don't go into downtown, they just connect to the gold line. This would obviously cause saturation on the gold line, not to mention it is light rail not heavy rail...


That's the study for one line, and it won't go downtown until the Downtown Connector is done. And that project is also being studied.


----------



## hkskyline

*Los Angeles subway route through Hollywood considered *
3 November 2007

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Los Angeles' long-talked-about subway to the sea may end up getting there by way of Hollywood. 

County transit officials, who have pushed plans for decades to put a subway line underneath busy Wilshire Boulevard, are now considering moving it farther north. That would send it through Hollywood, West Hollywood and Beverly Hills on its way to the Pacific Ocean. 

Going that route would avoid opposition from the tony Hancock Park neighborhood. At the same time, it would accommodate the large number of young apartment dwellers in the Hollywood area who say they would welcome subway access that connects Santa Monica and Hollywood to existing lines that link downtown and the San Fernando Valley. 

Even if all concerned eventually agree on a route, however, there is still the question of where the $6 billion needed to build the subway line will come from.


----------



## phattonez

Great, the LA Times posted this and now it's getting spread around. 

From now on, can you put posts like this in the thread linked to below? It is more up to date and is about the whole system, not just the stations.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=411314


----------



## Codfish

I assume most of you have already seen this article, but...
*
L.A. subway plans take a radical shift*
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rail3nov03,1,3510131.story?track=rss
By Rong-Gong Lin II, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 3, 2007


After trying for three decades to build a subway down Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles County transit officials are now considering a radically different route that would send the Westside rail line though Hollywood, West Hollywood and the Beverly Center area.

The new proposed alignment for the "Subway to the Sea" would extend west from the Hollywood/Highland Red Line station, roughly following Santa Monica Boulevard through Beverly Hills, a route that backers say should dip south to connect with the Beverly Center mall and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.

The new concept is still in its preliminary stages, and the Wilshire alignment remains on the table. But even though officials don't have funding for the $6-billion project, the new concept has sparked much debate because of how crucial many officials see the subway to easing the Westside's traffic woes.

The new route would bypass the Miracle Mile and Hancock Park, where opposition remains strong to a subway from residents in the upscale residential district.

At the same time, officials and residents in Hollywood and West Hollywood are rolling out the welcome mat, saying the younger, apartment-living residents in that area would be more likely to take the subway.

"We have a tremendous ridership base that would use it," said West Hollywood Councilman Jeffrey Prang.

But the new route perplexes some transit experts, who note that bus ridership is much higher on the Wilshire bus lines than on those along Santa Monica Boulevard.

Buses that run along Wilshire attract 64,300 boardings a day, making it the top bus corridor in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority area, which covers much of Los Angeles County. Santa Monica Boulevard's bus ridership comes in a distant fourth, with 34,900 boardings a day. (Two boardings make up one round trip.)

"The preferred route is where the highest-density corridor is, and that's definitely along the Wilshire area," said Genevieve Giuliano, director of the National Center for Metropolitan Transportation Research at USC.

The MTA's rail planning has come under scrutiny since officials revealed Thursday that the light-rail Exposition Line from downtown to Culver City is expected to cost $145 million, or nearly 23%, more than the original budget called for.

The MTA is examining the pros and cons of each subway route to determine which one deserves further study for an environmental impact report. Officials have not come up with a cost estimate for either alignment.

The last detailed study to explore extending the subway westward was done more than 15 years ago. A subway along Wilshire has long been considered a crucial part of the backbone for a rail system in L.A.

When the idea was raised in the early 1980s, residents and businesses rose up to oppose it, citing concerns about construction delays, the danger from underground methane deposits and a possible increase in crime.

But over the last three decades, some of that opposition has dropped as traffic has worsened.

At a recent public meeting, Miracle Mile resident Diana Eisele, 54, recalled how difficult it was for her relatives from London and Rome to navigate L.A.'s mass transit system.

"It's downright embarrassing trying to get them around the city," said Eisele, who lives two blocks north of Wilshire on Citrus Avenue.

Eisele also said she has suffered her share of the increasing congestion. She teaches fitness programs for senior citizens around the city. Recently, she had to reschedule the start of her class in West Los Angeles from 9 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. because morning traffic is so unpredictable. Still, she says she is often late.

But others along Wilshire remain opposed to a subway there.

"Subways were developed for vertical cities of the last century. This is a horizontal city," said Mike Genewick, president of the Windsor Square Neighborhood Assn., known for its stately historic mansions.

He said he feared that a subway stop at Wilshire and Crenshaw boulevards, and added pressure for development, would "block sunlight and increase crime in single-family residential area."

The subway is getting a much better reception a few miles north.

"Places with larger, more expensive homes tend to be more resistant to anything that impacts their neighborhoods," said West Hollywood's Prang. In his city, "you have a very receptive community that will welcome mass transportation options."

Erik Sanjurjo, a member of the Hollywood United Neighborhood Council board, said the proposed shift to Hollywood and West Hollywood makes demographic sense.

"I think there's a lot of young people who move around that area; that part of the city has a lot of jobs, entertainment, restaurants and theater," he said. "There's a lot of activity; the people of that area want a way to move around."

But in Beverly Hills, some officials seem to favor Wilshire over Santa Monica.

"Wilshire Boulevard gets really clogged in the afternoon; almost at times it becomes like a parking lot," said Mayor Jimmy Delshad. "On Santa Monica Boulevard, we face a lot of homes."

Beverly Hills' mass transit committee has endorsed the Wilshire alignment, which would run through the city's primary commercial district. Nearly 75% of the traffic through Beverly Hills does not involve a stop there but is a result of commuters going to and from downtown L.A. and the Westside, Delshad said.

Even if officials can agree on a route, whether the $6 billion needed to build the subway can be found remains a major question. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's aides say they are studying possible funding scenarios, including "benefit assessment districts" that would levy extra taxes on property owners within half a mile of the subway line. Another idea is to find a private firm that could build and possibly operate the subway.

But some MTA officials say the Subway to the Sea is just too expensive and that the money should be spent on smaller transit projects such as busway and freeway expansions.

MTA officials are reviewing comments they received from public meetings last month on the subway and say they expect to present the board with a route recommendation by summer.

--


I gotta say, though I agree that both the lines along Wilshire and Santa Monica should be built eventually, it doesn't make much sense to me to do the Santa Monica Blvd. route first. Yes, it would be great to have subway access in northern BH and West Hollywood. But the first priority should be making the subway a viable alternative to cars for people on the Westside (and people downtown going west). And where will those people be going? Sure, a few will be going to/coming from Hollywood and West Hollywood. But I assume far more will be going to places like the Rodeo Drive shopping area (off Wilshire), the museums at Wilshire and Fairfax, Koreatown, and, of course, the enormous number of commuters traveling every day from the Westside to downtown, and from downtown (and Long Beach, Pasadena, and East LA) to the Westside. It makes absolutely no sense to make those travelers make a huge and time-consuming detour through Hollywood to get to their destinations. If it's going to take forever to get there, people will probably just drive.

Also, who else wants to smack Mike Genewick of the Windsor Square Neighborhood Association? :tongue4:


----------



## phattonez

Once again, don't believe that article. Wilshire is still the 1st priority option.


----------



## allurban

Nicux said:


> They could call it a metro if it was a tram... but what's the relation between THE BUS and the name given "ORANGE LINE METRO"


psychology...if you call it a "metro" and use the term "line" people will believe it is almost like an LRT...and they will be encouraged to use it...

Same idea with the $1.99 concept...it is just $0.01 less than $2 but somehow it feels like it is less....

BRT Orange Line...feels like an LRT

Cheers, m


----------



## dios tanatos

^^ It's the current trend nowadays. Every mode of public transportation is called "metro", whether it be rail, bus, carrier pigeon, rickshaw, whatever...


----------



## redspork02

http://www.metro-magazine.com/t_featpick.cfm?id=90511156
* 
November/December 2007 *

*Resurrecting L.A.'s Subway to the Sea*
by Joan Shim

Los Angeles has made some headway in the effort to build a “subway to the sea,” which would extend the Metro Red Line from downtown to the Pacific Ocean via Wilshire Blvd. This would provide a vital connection between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica and alleviate traffic in the most congested city in the nation according to Texas Transportation Institute standards.

On Sept. 12, 2007, the Senate approved a bill that repeals an old ban on using federal monies for subway tunneling in the Wilshire Corridor.

“Today’s vote by the Senate brings us one step closer to bringing the long-awaited expansion of the Metro Red Line closer to reality,” Sen. Diane Feinstein, (D-Calif.) said. “It’s time to give the commuters of Los Angeles relief from the severe gridlock they face every day.”

The 1985 ban had been pushed through Congress by Rep. Henry Waxman, (D-Los Angeles), who deemed tunneling dangerous after a methane gas explosion at a local clothing store in the area.

But the issue came back onto the radar a few years ago, and the L.A. City Council passed a motion in 2004 to request a repeal of the ban. Then in 2005, the board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) voted to renew discussions about the Wilshire subway. Later that year, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Waxman convened an APTA peer review panel to reassess the possibility of tunneling in the methane gas area. The panel determined that tunneling in the Wilshire Corridor could be done safely. Convinced, Waxman put language into HR 4653 to lift the ban, and the bill was passed in the House in Sept. 2006.

*Before the bill can be brought to the President for his signature, it must be reconciled with the House in conference and approved by an up-or-down vote by both congressional chambers*.

Villaraigosa, who coined the name “subway to the sea,” said the Wilshire Blvd. corridor is the most-used corridor in Los Angeles for east-west traffic from downtown to the Westside, according to news reports. Villaraigosa believes the subway to the sea would be one of the most well-traveled transit systems in the nation.

Another Westside subway supporter is Denny Zane, former mayor of Santa Monica and executive director of the Subway to the Sea Coalition, a nonprofit group that is building support for the subway’s development and funding.

“*Of all the options, the Wilshire subway will have the greatest impact on congestion on the Westside and downtown, carrying twice the number of passengers as the current Wilshire bus system from downtown to the coast in Santa Monica in half the time,” Zane says*. Along with the traffic relief, Zane says the subway would stimulate economic and housing development along the Wilshire corridor.

*MTA conducting study*
Anticipating a green light from the federal government, MTA is moving forward with a re-evaluation of the public transit needs on the Westside, a requisite step before any decisions are made.
“We had always been prohibited from studying any type of subway configuration out there,” said Rick Jager, senior communications representative for MTA. “We’re beginning the process of studying so that if money were to become available, and the Board as a whole wants to move forward, at least we’ve started that process.”

The Westside Extension Transit Corridor Study is looking at subway, light rail and bus modes as well as different alignments and segment lengths. All modes are equally viable at this point, according to Jager. The agency is considering two main alignments. The 13-mile Wilshire Blvd. route would start at the station on Wilshire and Western Ave. and end in downtown Santa Monica. The other alignment would be further north and roughly follow Santa Monica Blvd.
The study is expected to be completed by June 2008, and then the board will likely decide whether or not this project will be included in the MTA’s long range plan.


*Funding hurdle*
The problem of funding remains the biggest obstacle to getting this subway built. The MTA estimates that it will cost roughly $4 billion. And it will have to compete with all the other transit projects in the works.

“L.A. County has at least $30 billion in responsible transit projects on the list of highest performing options, and only $4 billion identified to pay for it,” Zane says.

To make matters worse, Zev Yaro¬slavksy, ( HIM AGAIN!!hno an L.A. County Board of Supervisors member, spearheaded a measure in 1998 to prohibit the use of local sales tax dollars for subway construction. The measure passed.

The hope is that the federal government will help foot the bill for the subway. “With this language lifted on the federal side, hopefully we would go back to the federal government and see if they would fund a portion of the project,” says Jager. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Project History*

Wilshire Boulevard is one of Los Angeles’ main thoroughfares and a vital artery for east-west traffic through the county. The corridor is densely populated and crosses several major business and cultural centers, including Downtown Los Angeles, Koreatown, Miracle Mile, Beverly Hills, Century City, Westwood and Santa Monica.
The city has considered a Wilshire subway since the 1980s. When voters passed Proposition A in 1980, which set aside a half-cent sales tax to help cover the cost of a regional transit system, a Wilshire subway from downtown to Fairfax Ave. was included in the plan. But other lines took precedence, funds ran short and opposition grew from Westside residents who didn’t want a transit system bringing in unwanted ‘outsiders.’

While the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority continued to build subways in the ‘90s, Rep. Henry Waxman’s legislation blocked the Wilshire subway — the Metro Red Line — at Western Ave. The final segment of the Red Line, which heads north and connects to North Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley, was built in 2000. The Wilshire segment to Western Ave. was renamed the “Purple Line.” 


Write to us.
We want to know what you think, email us and let us know! 

Request More Info about this product/service/company 



JOIN
the Metro Express 
e-newsletter list!


----------



## FM 2258

I never rode the Metro rail when I was in Los Angeles earlier this month but I thought it looked impressive. How do these rail lines stand up to earthquakes? I bet they got some ideas from Japan.


----------



## phattonez

During the Northridge quake (that was the one that did some major damage to the I-10 viaduct downtown and the I-5 CA-14 interchange in the Newhall Pass) the Red Line had no apparent damage. 

But of course, now that we're trying to extend the subway to Santa Monica under Wilshire, we're going to hear the same tired argument about subways in an earthquake prone area.


----------



## Westsidelife

Fare-collecting gates may come to stations in Los Angeles’s transit network, replacing an honor system 
that not all riders honor.

*An End to the Free Ride on Trains in Los Angeles*

By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
December 3, 2007

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 2 — It may be hard to fathom for subway riders in cities like New York, Chicago and Boston, but the transit system in Los Angeles has no turnstiles, gates or other barriers where tickets are collected or checked.

Under a proudly distinct honor system intended to buck East Coast practices and reduce operating costs, riders buy their tickets, get on the train and present them to a sheriff’s deputy or civilian inspector — if any happen to ask.

But after 14 years of trust, Los Angeles is preparing to join those cities where slipping past, under and over transit turnstiles and gates is an art form.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board voted last week to take the first step toward installing 275 ticket gates on the entire 17.4-mile subway and at many light-rail stations.









A report found 5 percent of passengers did not buy tickets.

The move came after a study given to the board in October found that some 5 percent of people who rode the subway, light rail and a new rapid bus line on weekdays did so without paying the fare, $1.25 one way or $5 for a daily pass. As a result, the report said, the authority lost about $5.5 million in revenue annually.

Fare-collecting gates, which could cost $30 million to install and $1 million a year to maintain, would yield an extra $6.77 million in recovered fares and other savings, according to the report. The board voted 11 to 1 on Thursday to have staff members write a plan for installing the gates, with final approval expected in January.

Some saw the move as another sign of the shifting ecology of Los Angeles.

“Unfortunately, as L.A. gets to be more urban, it has these breakdowns of trust that happen in big cities,” said Joel Kotkin, a Los Angeles resident and author of “The City: A Global History.” “It’s the flip side of all the good things.”

At the Wilshire/Vermont station Friday, with a steady stream of people walking past vending machines and under a sign reading “Ticket required beyond this point,” riders who have looked suspiciously at their brethren applauded the move.

“We all should know and respect the law,” said Maria Cervantes, 43, a dressmaker buying a ticket at the station. “I see a lot of people just walk on, and I don’t think it is because they have the day or month pass.”









Jacob Holloway, a rider with a monthly pass shown at the Wilshire/Vermont station, said he wondered if the ticket 
gates would take in more money than they cost to install and operate.

But other riders were skeptical, saying they had watched inspectors walk the trains checking tickets without catching many people.

“I would like to know if the money gained is really more than the money they are going to spend,” said Jacob Holloway, 24, a graphic designer with a monthly pass.

The board member who voted against the proposal, Richard Katz, shared the sentiment.

Mr. Katz, a former member of the California Assembly, said he feared that the turnstiles would impede evacuations in emergencies. He said he also doubted that the struggling agency could afford the cost, which he predicted would escalate and wipe out potential savings. The agency’s $3 billion budget is expected to have a $75 million deficit next year.

“Dollars are very tight,” Mr. Katz said.

But agency planners said that the gates would eventually pay for themselves and that something needed to be done to control scofflaws on the rapidly expanding system. The gates could also improve security and be used for smart cards, passes with computer chips in them that would make it more practical to charge distance-based fares and give riders more options to pay beforehand.

“We have grown substantially,” said Jane Matsumoto, a executive with the transportation authority who is working on the gate proposal. “But trying to enforce the numbers of riders over the large geography is difficult.”

Ms. Matsumoto said it would take about 18 months to phase in the gates.

The train system started in 1990 with a 22-mile light rail line from Long Beach to downtown Los Angeles. It added the Red Line subway in the 1990s, as well as several other light rail lines that now total some 90 miles. About 7.4 million people used the rail lines last month.

The American Public Transportation Association said the Los Angeles subway was the only one in the country that did not have a gated pay system, though other cities with newer and smaller light rail systems relied on the honor system to encourage ridership and to save on the cost of turnstiles and related expenses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: New York Times


----------



## redspork02

*Deadline for L.A.'s subway to the sea is a literal one*


_By Steve Hymon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 
December 24, 2007 _
*Let's begin with the quote of the week, courtesy of Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl: *

"My plan is to be alive when the subway to the sea happens."

It's hard to knock such a plan. It may also be worth noting that Rosendahl is 62, and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics show that his life expectancy is about 81. In other words, subway proponents and Rosendahl should mark the year 2026 on their calendars.

Rosendahl's chances were increased last week when Congress repealed a ban on federal funding of subway tunneling in parts of the city. The repeal is part of a $516-billion appropriations bill that President Bush is expected to sign.

The repeal triggered a City Hall news conference at Union Station, where Rosendahl made his remarks, and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said he's working on a funding plan. 

Attentive readers may recall that the subway-to-the-sea extension from its terminus at Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue to Santa Monica was one of the big promises Villaraigosa made during his 2005 campaign.

*So why doesn't he have a funding plan already -- now that he's been in office more than 900 days?*

I asked the mayor that question at the news conference. Here's his response: 

"You'd rain on any parade, wouldn't you? Let me just say, Stevie -- and you're at your best when you're raining on parades. Let me explain something. . . . Tom Bradley ran for mayor and said he would get a subway in 18 months, and it took 18 years. Yet we all know him as the father of the subway . . . 

"If this was so easy, someone would have done it a long time ago," the mayor added.

This, in fact, is a very fair point for the mayor to make. The ban on tunneling on the Westside was put in place 22 years ago out of safety concerns by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), who later changed his mind after new evidence showed that tunneling would be safe and credited the mayor with creating the momentum to get the ban repealed. 

"I offered to reopen this issue 10 years ago," Waxman said. "But the MTA wasn't interested because they didn't have the money. The mayor said he wanted the option" to pursue the subway project.

And Waxman, added, the mayor was persuasive.

*What's next?*

The subway still is far from being approved by the board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The only thing the MTA has approved so far is an in-progress study of whether a subway is the best option for Westside mass transit. It is also starkly clear that no one has $5 billion sitting around for a subway. At best, the federal government usually kicks in only half the cost of such projects, and a 1998 voters' prohibition on using local sales tax money for subway tunneling remains in place. 

"It has to be repealed," said Councilman Tom LaBonge after the news conference. "No one in Congress is going to give us a dollar if it isn't." 

More bad news. Previous sales tax money for the MTA already is earmarked for other projects. This is the reason LaBonge believes a parcel tax is needed, while his colleague Jack Weiss is pushing for a partnership with private firms to get the subway built.
*
And that's the million-dollar question, so to speak: Will local pols ask voters for any kind of tax increase?*

The mayor won't say, although his office has explored the option in the past. 

It will be interesting to see how this develops. The presidential election in November should offer the kind of high turnout that is needed to get a tax measure for this type of project passed. The thinking in political circles is the higher the turnout, the more mass transit users will vote.

The bet here, too, is that pols would go for a sales tax increase rather than a parcel tax -- which is often a great way to incite opposition from homeowners. That said, a sales tax increase would be controversial because Los Angeles County's sales tax is already among the highest in the state. 

A half-penny sales tax hike also holds the promise of raising in the neighborhood of $500 million a year for transit projects, including the subway. Getting that kind of money would be a big score for politicians who like to talk about mass transit.

Councilwoman Wendy Greuel didn't say whether she would support a tax increase but offered this observation: "The best way to get support for mass transit is to actually build it."


----------



## redspork02

*Metro Purple Line Could Be Extended To Ocean*
_President Bush Expected To Sign Federal Legislation Lifting Tunneling Ban _



*LOS ANGELES --* Local officials Thursday hailed federal legislation expected to be signed by President George W. Bush that would lift tunneling restrictions along Wilshire Boulevard, making it possible to extend the Metro Purple Line west and create a subway to the ocean.
"Twenty-one years ago, Washington derailed the hopes for a Westside subway, and today, we're back on track," said Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. "After more than two decades of waiting and planning, it's now time to take definitive action to ease traffic congestion on the Westside and improve the quality of life throughout L.A. County."

The repeal of the tunneling ban restriction is included in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday. If signed by Bush, it will overturn a ban originally authored in 1985 by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, that prevented the Metro Red Line from being extended past Western Avenue. 

Because of the ban, Metro had the line extend north to North Hollywood, creating a subway that was actually two lines.

Last year, the Metro Board agreed to rename the Metro Red Line between Union Station and Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue the Metro Purple Line.

That is the segment that could extend west thanks to the lifting of the tunneling ban, which was enacted when Waxman argued that possible methane explosions made tunneling in that area too dangerous. In 2005, an independent peer review panel determined the area was safe for tunneling.

That determination helped convince Waxman to author legislation lifting the ban.

"I'm glad that new technological developments have led to a new consensus that tunneling can be done safely," Waxman said. "I'm grateful that Congress has just approved my bill to repeal the 1985 restrictions and to allow Los Angeles to explore new options in meeting our city's traffic problems."

Despite the success in Washington, the "subway to the sea" is still far from a sure thing.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board has yet to decide whether to move forward with plans to extend the subway. Villaraigosa and Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky have both supported the idea, but Supervisor Mike Antonovich has argued it would be too costly to complete.

The project would cost at least $5 billion and take 10 years to build. It would be by far the most expensive Metro line in Los Angeles County.

Villaraigosa has touted the route as a way to relieve traffic in one of the city's most congested areas, and as a way to give inner-city residents an easy way to reach the beach.
Copyright 2007 by KNBC.com and KNBC (NBC4 Los Angeles). All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


----------



## phattonez

10 years? Are they just using the rate of tunneling from the Red Line? I know that it can be done much faster


----------



## icefjord

*Hindsight*

Back in the 40's, LA had some kind of trolly or light-rail system. They could have been expanding that system in 1950, or 1960 dollars.


----------



## trainrover

Westsidelife said:


>


_Nice _to read slavery seemingly making its way back into 'merica, no?

Would a local LA'an please define the pictogram found in the bottom left corner in the photo just above here, please, coz its caption`s been cropped?

Come to think of it, does its (adjacent) neighbour mean to prohibit -- what -- _dancing_?


----------



## ChrisZwolle

No shouting and skating i think.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

no excessive yelling (although most latino women dont know they are yelling) and no skating. Since common curtosy in most major cities isnt that common, signs like this exist. However, its still nothing compared to engrish signs


----------



## koolkid

Chriszwolle said:


> No shouting and skating i think.


Right on. It's common sense people...


----------



## trainrover

LosAngelesMetroBoy said:


> Since common curtosy in most major cities isnt that common


I disagree. I'd say your finding leans toward English-speaking areas, of which N 'merica's share's real bad . . . nothing else at all....





koolkid said:


> It's common sense people...


My sense is far from common -- the shrivelled contents of its mouth induced me into pitying it, actually . . .


----------



## Songoten2554

is it really happening is it going to expand to the ocean soon?


----------



## Homer J. Simpson

Whats the overall ridership on LA's subway?


----------



## phattonez

http://www.metro.net/news_info/ridership_avg.htm

That's for all of Metro, as for the Red Line, boardings seem to have reached an all time peak of 144,841 average weekday boarding for March.


----------



## Homer J. Simpson

^Why so low? A 28 Km subway line should have alot more than that.


----------



## phattonez

There are not as many connections as there could be. That line goes to Hollywood, downtown, and that's about it. There is no subway along along the most important corridor in LA (Wilshire Blvd), and most lines will stay with relatively low numbers until that is done. Also, you have to think that a huge portion of that line is commuters from the SFV to Hollywood and downtown. 

This is still LA remember, and many are addicted to their cars.


----------



## Homer J. Simpson

I find this astonishing. In Toronto the Bloor-Danforth line is 27.5 Km long and attracted 478,790 boardings per week day in 2006.


----------



## Audiomuse

I didn't even know LA had a metro.

I hope it will continue to grow in ridership and the metro expands to other parts of the city.


----------



## redspork02

*LA workers swap cars for subway * 
_By David Willis 
BBC News, Los Angeles _


In Los Angeles, the rising price of petrol is prompting people to travel to work by train rather than by car. According to figures from the city's subway system, the number of passengers increased by more than 14% in the first three months of 2008. 


America's second largest city is a sprawl. Fifty-two suburbs in search of a city, so the old saying goes 

I am going to let you in on a little secret, but promise me please you will not breathe a word, otherwise I may never be able to show my face in certain parts of this town again. 

This week I did something which - in nearly 10 years of living in Los Angeles - I have never, ever done before. 

Cue the drum roll: I travelled to work on the subway. 

I did it because the figures suggest it is the trend. And (hem hem) being the trend-setter that I am, that is the only excuse I need. 


*Labyrinths of freeways*


You see - like most people here - I would rather stick pins in my eyeballs than hop on a bus or a train. 


That is not because I am a snob, but because America's second largest city is a sprawl. Fifty-two suburbs in search of a city, so the old saying goes. 

And the prospect of sitting in grid-locked traffic on one of the labyrinths of freeways, only to pay the equivalent of a small dowry for the right to park, may sound miserable, but given the distances involved, it is still invariably quicker than public transport. 


In the early 1900s, Los Angeles boasted the largest urban rail network of any city in America, more than a thousand miles of track 


Yet certain things have happened here which have prompted some in this car-crazed city to question their betrothal to the internal combustion engine and weigh the possibility of a trial separation. 

Congestion is at times so bad there are fears the place could one day grind to a halt. And on top of that there is the rising cost of running those gas guzzling machines. 

Although motorists in Europe would give their right arm for petrol at nearly $4 (£2) a gallon (assuming of course they steer with the left), here it is nothing short of the end of the world as we know it. 


*Old glamour*


All of which accounts for an unprecedented spike in the number of people taking to public transport, and explains why yours truly found himself in the sepulchral surroundings of Union Station in downtown Los Angeles earlier this week. 



The last of the great train terminals to be built in the United States, Union Station fuses Moorish and art deco architecture to truly spectacular effect. 
_ I noticed the first draw-back of the LA subway system: it didn't go anywhere I wanted to go _


It was here - amid the marble walls and frescoed ceilings - that movie stars of the 40s would arrive in Hollywood flanked by their agents and assistant. 

This was back in the days when train travel was seen as glamorous and genteel, and Union Station epitomised the promise of a glittering future for the railroad. 

Such promise was realised, for a while at least. In the early 1900s Los Angeles boasted the largest urban rail network of any city in America, more than a thousand miles of track. 


*Limited routes*


Yet by the mid-1960s train travel had all but hit the buffers. Only in the last few years has there been a modest revival, prompting hopes that LA's cinderella subway system may be catching on. 


After the sort of false starts that I believe to be entirely consistent with getting used to public transport (buying the wrong ticket, getting on the wrong train), I noticed the first draw-back of the LA subway system: it didn't go anywhere I wanted to go. 



I scoured a map of the entire system for somewhere fun to spend the day - what about shopping in Beverly Hills? Sorry, not on the subway route. Santa Monica beach? Ditto. Burbank, where the big movie studios are based? Uh-huh. Well I could always go to the airport to watch the planes take off? Er, not on the subway I couldn't. 


Being stuck in traffic is, after all, that much easier when the roof is down, the palm trees are swaying gently and the sun is shining brightly in your face 


So I opted instead for a trip to the Kodak Theatre on Hollywood Boulevard, where the annual Oscars ceremony takes place. 

Sitting next to me was accountant Chris Peterson, who said he liked the subway because you could always get a seat. Which didn't come as a surprise to either of us, since, aside from not really going anywhere, the network's other failing seems to be a chronic lack of self promotion. 

Chris said he had only just discovered there was a subway system in LA - and he has lived here for 30 years. 

*Part of the psyche*

As we arrived in Hollywood, I got chatting with Bradley Chapman, who makes those life-sized cardboard cut-outs of movie stars which cinemas use to promote their films. Like Chris, he had recently taken to the subway because he could no longer afford the price of petrol. 


Bradley's new commute is the antithesis of the LA norm. As well as taking the train, another part of his journey actually involves putting one foot in front of the other, a heretical notion that simply will never catch on. 

The man from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the body which runs the LA subway, seemed to agree its route was a little limited. 

He told me there were plans for expansion but admitted it could be 10 years or more before they reach fruition. 

Despite the rise in oil prices, it is my guess there will be seats on the LA subway for some time to come, so much are cars a part of the psyche. 

And, being stuck in traffic is, after all, that much easier when the roof is down, the palm trees are swaying gently and the sun is shining brightly in your face.


----------



## Bori427

Homer J. Simpson said:


> I find this astonishing. In Toronto the Bloor-Danforth line is 27.5 Km long and attracted 478,790 boardings per week day in 2006.


It's very easy,*density*


----------



## redspork02

From SSP


Westsidelife said:


> *Metro Gold Line Almost Completed*
> 
> May 23, 2008
> 
> Today, Metro announced that the Gold Line East Extension is 80% completed. But don't think that means you'll be riding into Little Tokyo and out to East LA by the end of this summer. Metro has always conceded that project will by done by the end of 2009, yet construction is now almost six months ahead of time. That means it could open in the summer of '09 if all goes well with the remaining 20%. Keep your fingers crossed.
> 
> Also, Metro is happy to report something unprecedented in construction safety: after more than 3 million work-hours, there have been no accidents causing construction to stop for a single day or more.
> 
> The Gold Line is a six-mile extension from Union Station to East LA with eight stations, two of which are underground. Currently, the Gold Line goes from downtown to Pasadena. Metro shared some sneak peak photos of what things are looking like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tunnel between Mariachi Plaza station and Soto Station, under First Street.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Mariachi Plaza Station (platform in construction)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Same location from the tracks floor*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Same location: taken from the mezzanine level toward the platform*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atlantic station @ Atlantic and Pomona boulevards, East Los Angeles*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Maravilla station, at Third Street and Ford St.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Left: Catenary system at Third Street, between 710 Freeway and Mednick, East Los Angeles | Right: Maravilla station, at Third Street and Ford St.*


----------



## Homer J. Simpson

Bori427 said:


> It's very easy,*density*


Toronto is not dense by world standards. Neither is LA.


----------



## Daguy

Homer J. Simpson said:


> Toronto is not dense by world standards. Neither is LA.


But Toronto has pockets of density, particularly around its subway lines, which allow for transit orientated development in those areas and decent ridership.


----------



## DENTROBATE54

trainrover said:


> _Nice _to read slavery seemingly making its way back into 'merica, no?
> 
> Would a local LA'an please define the pictogram found in the bottom left corner in the photo just above here, please, coz its caption`s been cropped?
> 
> Come to think of it, does its (adjacent) neighbour mean to prohibit -- what -- _dancing_?


Forget yelling, rollerskating... what kind of police state is LA that you can't eat or drink on the subway? Provided one's not a total slob and litters, it should be reasonable to carry a snack with you on-board. $250 for fare evasion perhaps, but for eating :weird:?!!


----------



## DENTROBATE54

Daguy said:


> But Toronto has pockets of density, particularly around its subway lines, which allow for transit orientated development in those areas and decent ridership.


By Canadian standards we're #1 in terms of population density. The metropolitan area has 2.6 million residents. Another 4 million live in the outlying suburbs. Our metros aren't exactly being built around density at all though. It's more the opposite, we build subways first in suburban hinterlands, then the developers come. 

Large swaths of the downtown core, several college campuses and even the international airport still go without a subway link. Consider yourselves lucky if your cities have that infrastructure already in place and is now just filling in the gaps.


----------



## Lightness

DENTROBATE54 said:


> Forget yelling, rollerskating... what kind of police state is LA that you can't eat or drink on the subway? Provided one's not a total slob and litters, it should be reasonable to carry a snack with you on-board. $250 for fare evasion perhaps, but for eating :weird:?!!


Food and drink is not allowed on the Hong Kong metro either.


----------



## alex3000

Food and drinks aren't allowed on buses either here in LA. You can carry your food and drinks with you, just not eat them while riding the bus.


----------



## phattonez

Homer J. Simpson said:


> Toronto is not dense by world standards. Neither is LA.


By American standards it is and maybe you should look up just how dense it is.


----------



## seawastate

Great pics, congrats to LA for completing construction ahead of schedule! BTW, food is not allowed on the DC Metro either. They handcuffed somebody for eating a fry on the train a couple years back...


----------



## LAmarODom420

*Alternative Alignment Study for Westside Metro*

Here are the different alignment proposals for the Westside subway. Some are just along Wilshire, others have deviations to the Grove and Beverly Center, while others include lines from Hollywood and Highland meeting at the Grove or in Beverly Hills with the main line.

Sorry I do not know how to get images from .pdf files.

http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/2008_0505_presentation.pdf


----------



## Homer J. Simpson

phattonez said:


> By American standards it is and maybe you should look up just how dense it is.


Given the density of that statement I think you should consider removing that post. :lol:

I have lived full time in the former borough of York since 1997.

I can't fathom why you may think you know something about the place that I do not.

Don't feel insulted though, its not like I have it set as my location.


----------



## jchernin

LAmarODom420 said:


> Here are the different alignment proposals for the Westside subway. Some are just along Wilshire, others have deviations to the Grove and Beverly Center, while others include lines from Hollywood and Highland meeting at the Grove or in Beverly Hills with the main line.
> 
> Sorry I do not know how to get images from .pdf files.
> 
> http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/2008_0505_presentation.pdf


thanks for the link, looks like theyre leaning toward a wilshire subway - maybe even *with* the north spur (too good to be true?)


----------



## lightrail

DENTROBATE54 said:


> By Canadian standards we're #1 in terms of population density. The metropolitan area has 2.6 million residents. Another 4 million live in the outlying suburbs. Our metros aren't exactly being built around density at all though. It's more the opposite, we build subways first in suburban hinterlands, then the developers come.
> 
> Large swaths of the downtown core, several college campuses and even the international airport still go without a subway link. Consider yourselves lucky if your cities have that infrastructure already in place and is now just filling in the gaps.


Density over the entire metro, I'd agree with you. But the highest density in Canada is Vancouver (the City). The downtown Peninsula is the highest density population in North America (more than Manhattan Island per square kilometre).


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

Now this is a piece of logic i am a little confused by:

The subway has to follow wilshire? Isnt the whole point to have a subway on the west side. If the subway is on santa monica, do you really think that people who are sick of payin $4 a gallon for gas are going to stick to wilshire to get to work? NO!!!!!!. As long as the city promotes PARKING for those subway stops... then people will divert their commute and take the friggin subway to downtown.

Or maybe that is too logical??


----------



## BoulderGrad

lightrail said:


> Density over the entire metro, I'd agree with you. But the highest density in Canada is Vancouver (the City). The downtown Peninsula is the highest density population in North America (more than Manhattan Island per square kilometre).


Nope....

Manhattan:
70,595/sq mi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan

Vancouver Peninsula:
31339/sq mi (121/hectare)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver#cite_note-59


----------



## Songoten2554

but still though Vancouver is lucky that there getting a brand new subway not many other cities have that oppunity though.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

how about we get back on topic?


The 4th option, with the line under Wilshire and the connector from Hollywood and highland is obviously the overwhelming favorite of Angelenos. imagine the destinations hit by the line. UCLA< Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Melrose Shopping, Miracle mile Museum row, Sunset Strip, and on and on. The greatest part is the future connections, like Expo, green line extension and 405 line at a Santa Monica Union Station, the 405 line from the valley through UCLA and to LAX, Crenshaw and Vermont Lines, Jesus. Its so important to LA its not even funny. These two lines together can push our daily ridership past 1,000,000 easy.


----------



## deasine

^sorry let me just correct him first.



BoulderGrad said:


> Nope....
> 
> Manhattan:
> 70,595/sq mi
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan
> 
> Vancouver Peninsula:
> 31339/sq mi (121/hectare)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver#cite_note-59


i'm not aguing Manhattan's density is higher than Vancouver but you ought to know that you are comparing apples to oranges:

1) 2004 stats to 2007
2) Manhattan's 2007 statistics is an estimate (and you can scroll down to wikipedia page to see)

New Vancouver Downtown density is 40320 ppl/sq mile (as of 2006). It's higher than NY City, not Manhattan though.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Also wanted to say that the "no food allowed on trains" is hardly unique. DC didn't allow food either, and I even once got yelled at for having my feet up on the seat across from me on the Denver light rail (on an empty train). They gotta keep the trains clean somehow.

And lastly; LA used to be one of the public transit Mecas of this country before the 50's. It took 50 years to become the monster it is now, and it will probably take another 50 years to build its mass transit infrastructure back up to its former glory


----------



## Westsidelife

^ More like 30 years.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Booze is fine I assume 'in the land of the free'? It is a infringment on your human rights if you cannot drink and eat on public transport.

You could understand smoking, but what is wrong with food and drink?


----------



## ADCS

BobDaBuilder said:


> Booze is fine I assume 'in the land of the free'? It is a infringment on your human rights if you cannot drink and eat on public transport.
> 
> You could understand smoking, but what is wrong with food and drink?


Rats, mice and cockroaches (among other things) on trains.


----------



## Gil

BobDaBuilder said:


> Booze is fine I assume 'in the land of the free'? It is a infringment on your human rights if you cannot drink and eat on public transport.
> 
> You could understand smoking, but what is wrong with food and drink?


I think the Bay Area's BART has a similar restriction on food and drink. In their case (as I think in most others) it's to cut down on potential messes on their vehicles as they are upholstered making spills more noticeable and harder to clean. I was on a BART train once with someone eating on board and an announcement was made on the PA about no eating. Apparently the guy was caught by the security camera on board.


----------



## Songoten2554

so are the expansions of the network going to happen or is it under construction?


----------



## salaverryo

Andrewville said:


> I didn't even know LA had a metro.


I didn't even know San Antonio was in the USA. I thought it was a Mexican town. :bash:


----------



## geoking66

BobDaBuilder said:


> Booze is fine I assume 'in the land of the free'? It is a infringment on your human rights if you cannot drink and eat on public transport.
> 
> You could understand smoking, but what is wrong with food and drink?


Open container laws prohibit it anyway. Besides, having alcohol on public transport could violate health and safety regulations because binge drinking on trains can pose danger to other passengers.


----------



## phattonez

Homer J. Simpson said:


> Given the density of that statement I think you should consider removing that post. :lol:
> 
> I have lived full time in the former borough of York since 1997.
> 
> I can't fathom why you may think you know something about the place that I do not.
> 
> Don't feel insulted though, its not like I have it set as my location.


Why is it dense? Are you going to tell me that Los Angeles Metro isn't dense? It's just not true.

As for the route, Wilshire all the way with a connection via La Cienega. I really don't know about the diversion to The Grove, I'm not really sure if it's really worth it.


----------



## trainrover

lightrail said:


> But the highest density in Canada is Vancouver (the City). The downtown Peninsula is the highest density population in North America (more than Manhattan Island per square kilometre).


Does your abundant type of a Canadian citizen ever stop to consider your potentially embarassing the remainder of your comarades with stupid _We-have-arrived!_ remarks like that?

The exponential increase of Canadians supposing declarations of some far-out-there claim to fame fair enough to be sharing on the pages here is... ... ...plain stupid. At this rate, it's gonna take the umpteenth generation of Canadians subsequent to my own to become genuinely cool...

Get your life back, coz its right trashy to be littering these pages here with its minimal residue, silly!

Meanwhile, I'd probably consign you to some dreary career in American advertising were it possible...

I beg your pardon, the remainder of you Los-Angeles-metro contributors here -- allow me to try to
rerail your discussion


----------



## Westsidelife

Songoten2554 said:


> so are the expansions of the network going to happen or is it under construction?


The Gold Line Eastside Extension and Expo Line (Phase One) are under construction and will be completed in 2009 and 2010, respectively. They will add an additional 14.6 miles to the Metro Rail system.


----------



## Homer J. Simpson

phattonez said:


> Why is it dense? Are you going to tell me that Los Angeles Metro isn't dense? It's just not true.
> 
> As for the route, Wilshire all the way with a connection via La Cienega. I really don't know about the diversion to The Grove, I'm not really sure if it's really worth it.


I think you missed the point.

My original point in this thread was that the LA metro underperforms in ridership and was looking for some speculation on that point. Instead someone made the claim that one city was denser than LA which is when I pointed out that the difference is not that great and that there must be a better answer than that.

At this point the whole conversation is just LIT.


----------



## phattonez

The difference is that we need more rail lines. The better transfers we have the higher the ridership will be. The numbers in 2010 should be much higher across the board compared to now because of the Eastside Extension and the opening of Expo Phase I.


----------



## jamesinclair

Gil said:


> I think the Bay Area's BART has a similar restriction on food and drink. In their case (as I think in most others) it's to cut down on potential messes on their vehicles as they are upholstered making spills more noticeable and harder to clean. I was on a BART train once with someone eating on board and an announcement was made on the PA about no eating. Apparently the guy was caught by the security camera on board.


In Boston, most major stations have a Dunkin Donuts or other vendor.

Mass transit systems should ALWAYS allow food. You want people out of their cars, and sticking in restrictions such as no food or drinks will turn people away. You can drink coffee in your car while driving to work, why not in the subway?

And Ive never seen food or drink being a problem in Boston. Theres the occasional abandoned Mcdonalds bag, but free newspapers are the more frequent litter.


----------



## Tom 958

If the combined subway alternative is built, how would the trains run? Santa Monica to Union Station, Union Station to North Hollywood and North Hollywood to Santa Monica would be my guess, but that would entail half-as-frequent service at the core of the network, which seems strange to me.


----------



## DENTROBATE54

BoulderGrad said:


> Also wanted to say that the "no food allowed on trains" is hardly unique. DC didn't allow food either, and I even once got yelled at for having my feet up on the seat across from me on the Denver light rail (on an empty train). They gotta keep the trains clean somehow.
> 
> And lastly; LA used to be one of the public transit Mecas of this country before the 50's. It took 50 years to become the monster it is now, and it will probably take another 50 years to build its mass transit infrastructure back up to its former glory


It's impolite for to eat on the trains for sure, but if my life depened on it (i.e. I haven't eaten in nine hours as a _dash-through-the-front-door-without-breakfast_ morning rush permits) I won't be afraid to snack on a granola bar or chips on-board to get me by. These transit police sometimes do go too far though. The sloven pig assholes that deliberately leave food waste on the seats are the minority, most decent people that unwrap food wait til the nearest garbage can to dispose of their trash. 

The putting up legs thing, I do that myself, but only when the train's going through a less dense area. The closer to downtown we head, more peeps so I act accordingly . 

Your sentiments about LA's metro reflects those of mine for Toronto's network. Our's is the largest metro in Canada yet it's difficult in many instances to get where you want to go via a subway. Irregularly scheduled buses and streetcars have to pick up the slack, meaning one's always going to show up late for work or classes no matter how much in advance one starts their commute. It's just terrible. We need like 3 new metro lines (DRL, Queen, Eglinton) and extensions to our present lines before we can say our system is satisfactory (approx. 150kms new ROW).


----------



## salaverryo

jamesinclair said:


> Mass transit systems should ALWAYS allow food. You want people out of their cars, and sticking in restrictions such as no food or drinks will turn people away. You can drink coffee in your car while driving to work, why not in the subway?


Because your car belongs to you, but the subway does not. For the same reason that you can smoke in your house but not in a restaurant.


----------



## Daguy

salaverryo said:


> Because your car belongs to you, but the subway does not. For the same reason that you can smoke in your house but not in a restaurant.


Dude that's a bit of a stretch. The idea behind preventing people from smoking in an enclosed area to for the safety of the non-smoking public's health. Nobody's going to get sick from me eating my lunch, no matter how messy I am.


----------



## quashlo

Daguy said:


> Nobody's going to get sick from me eating my lunch, no matter how messy I am.


Sure, but who wants to sit in your seat if you spill liquid all over it? I sure as hell don't. And who has to clean it up? Well, you don't have to, but nobody gets to sit there until it is, and it makes extra work for maintenance staff. And what about people who accidentally become victims of these messes? Who pays to clean their clothes for them?

Plus, it's not a matter of getting sick, it's a matter of hygiene and being respectful to others. Just think of grabbing a pole and finding out it's greasy because someone was eating a hamburger or something and didn't wipe their hands properly. It's disgusting. Seriously, transit vehicles in other parts of the world wouldn't last more than a week in any major US city before they were scratched up, trashed, and covered in some unidentifiable residue because Americans are slobs and lack a sense of social etiquette (and that's coming from an American).


----------



## DENTROBATE54

^^ Strong post quashlo! This is what I was getting at. While I feel it should be my right and priviledge that the seat I paid for for my travels should be an impromptu place where I can snack on something light, it's the sloven uncaring hoggish people that makes it look bad for the rest of us casual eaters. 

Anyone who's brought a boxed lunch or a McDonald's, is it really necessary to let it all hang out for other passengers to be disturbed by it? Some people may have food allergies whereby the whiff of an odour may send them into shock. Some foods carry a repungant odour too that's offensive (dorian, sauerkraut, curried foods) that you might want to wait til you're out of the transit network to sit down properly and consume.

What I'm for though is being allowed to eat on-the-go foods (granola bars, chips, gum, bite-sized biscuits, candies and chocolates; sealable soda bottles, coffee cups) on the trains. Anything heavier than a sandwich wrap or pizza slice (eaten from within container) should be put off til later. I don't however think it's the transit operator's place to tell its riders something as draconian as "no eating". People who don't have the time to make a proper breakfast before leaving home, probably don't have the time to stop by a coffee shop on the way into work. The time on the train might be the only oppurtunity one has to eat before lunchtime, likely 1 o'clock in the afternoon.

I see all the time people smoking on subway premises without the TTC so much as bat an eyelash, even when I spotted TTC personnel nearby the smoker. We can surely strike a balance between personal hygiene, sanitation and the vital bodily function of ingestion :yes:.


----------



## Daguy

The point I was trying to make was that eating isn't analagous to smoking. I'm not a messy eater, and I eat all the time on the Skytrain without any problems.


----------



## jamesinclair

quashlo said:


> It's disgusting. Seriously, transit vehicles in other parts of the world wouldn't last more than a week in any major US city before they were scratched up, trashed, and covered in some unidentifiable residue because Americans are slobs and lack a sense of social etiquette (and that's coming from an American).


Thats extremely ignorant.

Transit vehicles in europe are usually trashed with garbage graffiti and slashed seats. 

Meanwhile, if a train in Boston is tagged, its pulled from service.


----------



## Svartmetall

jamesinclair said:


> Thats extremely ignorant.
> 
> Transit vehicles in europe are usually trashed with garbage graffiti and slashed seats.
> 
> Meanwhile, if a train in Boston is tagged, its pulled from service.


Since when?


----------



## BoulderGrad

quashlo said:


> Seriously, transit vehicles in other parts of the world wouldn't last more than a week in any major US city before they were scratched up, trashed, and covered in some unidentifiable residue because Americans are slobs and lack a sense of social etiquette (and that's coming from an American).


Berlin: http://youtube.com/watch?v=137u8RoNMJI&feature=related


----------



## quashlo

San Francisco Muni:





I'm not trying to say that all non-American systems are completely spotless or vandalism-free... But if you take an average vehicle from a large non-American transit system and an average vehicle from a comparable US system, I would be shocked if the American vehicle was cleaner (with respect to everything, including trash, food, vandalism). Mass transit is for moving people, not for providing a place to eat. I'll leave it at that, as I've strayed too far off topic already... Sorry to the LA Metro folks.


----------



## LAmarODom420

A good idea of what Los Angeles public transit might look like in 2030:











http://www.sfcityscape.com/


----------



## greg_christine

^^ Having the Long Beach (Blue) Line, the Expo Line, and the Crenshaw Line all use the same tracks through downtown Los Angeles has the potential to create a light rail traffic jam. A second route through downtown might be needed.


----------



## darkkiller145

it looks nice but it seems that they should build more rail lines, not all area of la r covered here.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

there is a prop on the Nov ballot that would increase the sales tax to 8.75% from 8.35% that would raise about 40 billion dollars over 20 years and that would fund all those lines in the map along with a few more that were not included. It would also improve some highways and other infastructure. Really a huge huge deal for the LA area and it could change Los Angeles monumentally. It has a decent chance of passing, but the threshold is 67% of voters must approve and it becomes difficult because the rural areas of LA and the conservative suburbs will be mostly against it. We shall hope and see that this passes and if it does, you will see LA become a lot more like Tokyo and a lot less like other sunbelt cities. 

Also, ridership is up sharply again and i think we are over 350,000 daily boardings.


----------



## juanico

LAmarODom420 said:


> A good idea of what Los Angeles public transit might look like in 2030:


Aren't there more chances of seeing the Crenshaw Line going on his way towards Wilshire rather than Downtown?

On another note, it's a shame that the Green Line doesn't reach Norwalk Metrolink station yet.


----------



## LAmarODom420

juanico said:


> Aren't there more chances of seeing the Crenshaw Line going on his way towards Wilshire rather than Downtown?
> 
> On another note, it's a shame that the Green Line doesn't reach Norwalk Metrolink station yet.


Yes I believe this map hasn't been completely updated for new proposals. The most recent proposals do have the Crenshaw Line going up towards Wilshire. Also I believe it is highly likely by 2030 the Green Line will be extended to the Norwalk Metrolink. It also lacks the Pink Line from Hollywood and Highland to the Purple Line which I imagine will be a high priority.


----------



## jarbury

Why the heck does it need a 2/3rd majority? I mean that's going to always be difficult to attain no matter what the issue is.


----------



## Svartmetall

Why would there be so much light rail in a city the size of LA? I would have thought that an underground metro would be more appropriate. 

Also, as Jarbury states, it seems like a 2/3 majority would be difficult to obtain.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

the 2/3rds majority is a stupid california rule regarding propositions to pass. really is ridiculous and has killed many other worthy propositions in years past as well. it also applies to the California high speed rail as well if i am not mistaken. 

This could be a token year for California's major cities and rail transit. If both these props pass, LA will be a totally changed city and metro in less than 10 years. We would add at least 75 miles of mass transit to the city and then some with CAHSR. i hope to God it passes. The reason for so much LRT is because of the costs.


----------



## Songoten2554

wow man impressive heck yes i hope it happens man i cannot wait for a new LA to rise up.

the age of Rail Transit is coming back to california heck yes.


----------



## Fern~Fern*

LAmarODom420 said:


> A good idea of what Los Angeles public transit might look like in 2030:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.sfcityscape.com/


^^ Isn't the Century Line suppose to be The Green Line? Also how accurate is this map?


----------



## LAmarODom420

Fern~Fern* said:


> ^^ Isn't the Century Line suppose to be The Green Line? Also how accurate is this map?


For whatever reasons, the lines are given geographical names instead of the more common color names. Maybe because the map was made by a San Francisco group. While you can quibble with some of the predictions, the map itself is accurate.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Here's a breakdown of what Measure R will fund for LA. Follow the link for details and breakdowns.

here is the very informative link, http://www.metro.net/measurer/default.asp

The LA County bond is HUGE, HUGE, HUGE. it will increase the sales tax from 8.25 to 8.75 for 30 years and will fund 30 - 40 Billion in rail and highway improvements in Los Angeles County. Also, we will get state and federal match money for this bond, so it will fund other projects as well. 

some projects to be funded include

Rail Expansion

1) Purple line subway extension from its current terminus on mid wilshire to Westwood, hitting Miracle Mile, Beverly Hills, West LA, Westwood, UCLA, and Museum Row. Eventual extension to Santa Monica
2) Downtown Connector Subway, connecting the 4 light rail lines in Downtown as well as Union Station to 7th street metro station with new stations scattered around Downtown LA
3) Expo phase 2, culver city to Santa Monica
4) Green Line extensions to LAX as well as Norwalk Metrolink Station
5) Crenshaw north/south subway, huge link for the system
6) 405 parallel line, most likely a subway linking the valley to LAX with connections to the Purple line at UCLA, Expo line at Santa Monica, Green Line and Crenshaw line at LAX.
7) Numerous Valley busways
8) Metrolink improvements
9) Gold Line Eastside phase 2 extension
10) Gold Line Foothill extensions

Street Improvements

1) Street Synchronization
2) Major Street and pothole repair
3) Bicycle and pedestrian improvements

Highway Improvements

1) Numerous freeway improvements on the 5, 110, 134, 14, 605, 710, 138, 101, 91 freeways
2) Tunnel under South Pasadena finally linking the 710 to the 210 closing a huge gap in the system

Other

1) Millions in bus system improvements
2) no fare increases for years
3) Job Stimulation
4) County wide soundwalls


Clearly, this is a very important decision for the future of LA. this will only cost about 25 dollars a year per person. It should be a no brainer, but we shall see.


----------



## Basincreek

Sounds like a heck of a lot is on the table there in LA.

Out of curiosity why was that law against using tax dollars on subway tunnels even proposed and who supported such a boondoggle of an idea?


----------



## BrizzyChris

quashlo said:


> San Francisco Muni:


Why aren't these kids fined and put in jail?? And why don't other passengers stop them?

That is absolutely disgraceful.


----------



## sarbaze tabarestan

western superior cultur


----------



## Homer J. Simpson

BrizzyChris said:


> Why aren't these kids fined and put in jail?? *And why don't other passengers stop them?*
> 
> That is absolutely disgraceful.


In a society full of guns..... it is usually unwise to confront a shifty character for you never know for certain what is in their waist band.

Some years ago in Chicago my old man and I were on the EL when some little bugger was causing trouble.

My dad decided to speak up for the person the guy was accosting and he pulled a knife on my dad. Thankfully it did not escalate from there.


----------



## phattonez

Homer J. Simpson said:


> In a society full of guns..... it is usually unwise to confront a shifty character for you never know for certain what is in their waist band.
> 
> Some years ago in Chicago my old man and I were on the EL when some little bugger was causing trouble.
> 
> My dad decided to speak up for the person the guy was accosting and he pulled a knife on my dad. Thankfully it did not escalate from there.


This is what happens when only criminals have guns and the laws make it impossible for law-abiding citizens to carry guns around.



> Out of curiosity why was that law against using tax dollars on subway tunnels even proposed and who supported such a boondoggle of an idea?


There were a lot of problems during the Red Line construction. We had a sinkhole in Hollywood, cost overruns, and the tunneling sometimes missed the station. Then there were problems with the tracks and people spewing nonsense about tunnels being unsafe during earthquakes got louder and louder. Eventually it made the Red Line very unpopular so a country politician put up that measure which would bar any future sales tax monies from being spent on any subway in LA County. This effectively killed the Red Line Extension which would have gone into East LA (now being replaced by a light-rail line with a pretty good underground section) and is why we have only again started talking about a subway under Wilshire this year.


----------



## Homer J. Simpson

phattonez said:


> This is what happens when only criminals have guns and the laws make it impossible for law-abiding citizens to carry guns around.


Please tell me that this is a joke.

You must be kidding.

In the US more people (good or bad) have guns than any wealth country. The laws on their use are less strict than any other wealthy developed country as well.

By your logic, the US should be the safest place. Reality though does not match that by a long shot.

More guns and weapons do not make a place safe.


----------



## Basincreek

phattonez said:


> There were a lot of problems during the Red Line construction. We had a sinkhole in Hollywood, cost overruns, and the tunneling sometimes missed the station. Then there were problems with the tracks and people spewing nonsense about tunnels being unsafe during earthquakes got louder and louder. Eventually it made the Red Line very unpopular so a country politician put up that measure which would bar any future sales tax monies from being spent on any subway in LA County. This effectively killed the Red Line Extension which would have gone into East LA (now being replaced by a light-rail line with a pretty good underground section) and is why we have only again started talking about a subway under Wilshire this year.


But cost overruns, sinkholes and misalignment are common problems with subway construction. There must have been something else going on. Were there fears of increased crime or lowered property value?


----------



## dwdwone

If I were that bus driver I probably would have taken a detour to the closest police station. You know, the guys with those horrible guns.


----------



## dl3000

Basincreek said:


> But cost overruns, sinkholes and misalignment are common problems with subway construction. There must have been something else going on. Were there fears of increased crime or lowered property value?


There's a lot of fossil fuel under LA. Just look at the La Brea tar pits. I think there was a time when a pocket of methane was hit or something. Maybe that caused some fears.


----------



## milwaukee-københavn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Red_Line_(LACMTA) : There were a couple of major accidents during Blue Line construction, including a methane explosion that injured 24 at a department store: http://www.laweekly.com/2005-08-18/news/the-subway-mayor/ .


----------



## phattonez

There were no problems that I know of with Blue Line Construction. Plenty with the Red Line. And yes, I did forget to mention the methane gas explosion. That had happened long before the law was passed though. 

There were plenty of NIMBY rumors and yes, fears of declining property values. Eventually the public got fed up and decided that they wanted no more subways. The famous "subways were made for vertical cities of the 20th century" argument. 

Homer J. Simpson, there's plenty of evidence that when you loosen gun control laws that violent crime goes down, way down.


----------



## LtBk

If the citizens of LA doesn't vote for Measure R, than they deserve to be trapped in endless traffic jams.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

Homer J. Simpson said:


> Please tell me that this is a joke.
> 
> You must be kidding.
> 
> In the US more people (good or bad) have guns than any wealth country. The laws on their use are less strict than any other wealthy developed country as well.
> 
> By your logic, the US should be the safest place. Reality though does not match that by a long shot.
> 
> More guns and weapons do not make a place safe.


No, what makes a place unsafe are idiots who can get guns inapropriately and dont know how to use or respect a firearm. Many people carry guns responsibly, however these dumbasses deserve to shoot themselves in the face for what they do. 

However, this is the wrong forum for a gun rights discussion. You can continue to laugh at conservatisim and in the face of gun rights, and conservatives will continue to laugh at you but when the shit hits the fan, its the conservatives who rescue the libs from shit hitting the fan. 

Sorry bout that... there are few things i hate more than people who think they know everything.


----------



## Daguy

^^

I know this will continue to go off topic but I just want to say then you're right, a few bad apples with guns cause the problem. With that in mind, guns are not a good thing for the public to have in general, cause a few bad apples are enough to make them unsafe. No matter what you do you will have individuals who do not know how to deal with owning firearms. It's better off that almost no one has them.


----------



## salaverryo

Homer J. Simpson said:


> Please tell me that this is a joke.
> 
> You must be kidding.
> 
> In the US more people (good or bad) have guns than any wealth country. The laws on their use are less strict than any other wealthy developed country as well.


Gun laws in the US are less strict with regards to owning guns & keeping them at home to protect your property. What you cannot do is carry guns with you at all times. This requires a very special permit. Of course criminals do it, but then if they get caught they go straight to jail, just for gun posession.


----------



## hoosier

LosAngelesMetroBoy said:


> You can continue to laugh at conservatisim and in the face of gun rights, and conservatives will continue to laugh at you but when the shit hits the fan, its the conservatives who rescue the libs from shit hitting the fan.


Conservative governance has ruined the economy and environment but we all have guns so we can kill ourselves when things get bad enough.

When have conservatives saved liberals? That is an absurd statement. It's not as if conservatives and liberals wear uniforms identifying themselves.

Are you one of those conspiracy militia nuts that think a New World Order is nigh upon us and that a shotgun is going to save you from the black helicopters?


----------



## phattonez

Daguy said:


> ^^
> 
> I know this will continue to go off topic but I just want to say then you're right, a few bad apples with guns cause the problem. With that in mind, guns are not a good thing for the public to have in general, cause a few bad apples are enough to make them unsafe. No matter what you do you will have individuals who do not know how to deal with owning firearms. It's better off that almost no one has them.


So then why take away guns from the people who can use them for self-defense? The criminals will always find a way to get their guns.


----------



## jarbury

OMG people, Los Angeles metro please!


----------



## phattonez

jarbury said:


> OMG people, Los Angeles metro please!


Huh?


----------



## jarbury

^^ Back on topic request.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

enough! lets talk about proposals and rail lines! Measure R might be the most important proposition in Los Angeles history.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Measure R needs 2/3rds support to pass. with about 20% reporting, it has a 65 - 35 lead. its close. hopefully the precincts left are from LA City!!


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

hoosier said:


> If we hadn;t invaded Iraq you wouldn't need body armor, which the government didn't even provide to soldiers initially. Families had to hold fucking bake sales to raise enough money to buy armor!!
> 
> Tons of federal money is wasted on useless fancy weapons systems and no bid contracts.
> 
> SOcial secuirty has a separate, dedicated funding source. It's trust fund has been raided by presidents several times to avoid having to raise taxes.
> 
> If you want infrastructure to be a state/local issue, prepare to have your taxes SKYROCKET, because those governments don't have near enough money to maintain it.


Social security and medicare have different dedicated funding sources that HELP to offset the costs. 75% of costs to social security and medicare (the 2 federal programs with dedicated sources of funding) come from the general fund. 

Local taxes should skyrocket because the local people are the people that need the shit. If i live in nebraska, i dont need a subway in Los Angeles. Los Angelenos created their car culture they need to put the investement into their own city. Thats called personal accountablility.


----------



## volsung

There's a federal Department of Transportation. It should not just concentrate on highways but on ALL forms of transportation


----------



## hoosier

LosAngelesMetroBoy said:


> Local taxes should skyrocket because the local people are the people that need the shit. If i live in nebraska, i dont need a subway in Los Angeles. Los Angelenos created their car culture they need to put the investement into their own city. Thats called personal accountablility.


The federal government helped pay for most of those freeways in LA.

But LA contributes FAR more in income taxes than the entire state of Nebraska. So they should be getting a much larger share of federal revenue. California is a donor state, while Nebraska is a welfare state.

And LA County just approved a half cent sales tax increase to pay for infrastructure improvements.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

hoosier said:


> The federal government helped pay for most of those freeways in LA.
> 
> But LA contributes FAR more in income taxes than the entire state of Nebraska. So they should be getting a much larger share of federal revenue. California is a donor state, while Nebraska is a welfare state.
> 
> And LA County just approved a half cent sales tax increase to pay for infrastructure improvements.


Which is why nebraska almost never has budget shortfalls, almost never has problems meeting education requirements and most schools have what they need and omaha has the shortest commute in the nation. Yeah... real welfare state. In fact when it comes to taxes paid/federal recieved california is the #3 state for being in the 'welfare state' category (after Massachusetts and DC). So lets see... 30 million people in a state with income tax and they cant ballance their budget, state with 4 million people without income tax can ballance their budget. WOW!! that dont seem like a tough math assingment.

Local governments (city, county, state) are the ones that are supposed to pay for transportation between cities within their own borders. The feds threw money to LA becuase it made economic sense for the defense industry and we didnt have massive budget shortfalls. Now, we have a record setting shortfall with no expected date to ballance the budget, a massive failing bailout with a ever increasing price tag and you want scant dollars to go to a subway in LA?

thats why LA passed the sales tax increase, so LA can have enough moeny to qualify for FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS which they currently cannot do. thats the WHOLE point of my arguments saying this is what more cities/counties/states should be doing, raising local taxes for capitol improvements instead of asking the feds to do it for them. Its called being proactive not waiting for the government to bail you out. you might try it sometime.


----------



## phattonez

California's state government is inept. There is a saying that goes "where California goes, so goes the rest of the country." It's very worrying to me if the US goes in the direction of California.

Now, about LA's Metro . . .


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

I heard there was a development where they were doing the enviromental impact study for the wilshire extention, any word on that (the news out here is BEYOND SLOW we get cnn 2 days late).


----------



## phattonez

Nothing new about that extension. I don't think they've presented the LPA to the Metro board yet.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

one day yall are going to explain the red tape of that city to me. I grew up outside there for most of my life and i STILL dont understand the red tape of LA county.


----------



## phattonez

Very simplistically, first the Metro board conducts feasibility studies, and then meetings are conducted to determine the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Then the LPA is presented to the Metro board and then they determine whether or not to follow through on the project.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

ok, so what is the status on the purple line. IM assuming there going to use the old feasability study from the late 80's/early 90's and the LPA is the northern route thru weho or am i completly wrong here.


----------



## phattonez

The LPA seems to be a line mostly under Wilshire with a short diversion through Century City, but also a branch that goes up La Cienega to Hollywood/Highland. A new EIR would need to be done.


----------



## LAmarODom420

When will EIRs in urban areas be streamlined per Steinberg's sustainable development bill??


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

Dosent the red line already go up la cieniega to hollywood/highland or am i compeletly off.

and a lil jog thru century city is probally one of the best ideas ever. It can cut under the golf course to get to the beverly center and the wilshire buildup by the 405


----------



## LAmarODom420

LosAngelesMetroBoy said:


> Dosent the red line already go up la cieniega to hollywood/highland or am i compeletly off.
> 
> and a lil jog thru century city is probally one of the best ideas ever. It can cut under the golf course to get to the beverly center and the wilshire buildup by the 405


The Red Line currently goes up Vermont to Hollywood Blvd. You are thinking of the Pink Line, which will likely go down La Cienaga from Hollywood and Highland, thereby connecting the Beverly Center.

The Purple Line extension will follow Wilshire faithfully except for a deviation to Century City.


----------



## hoosier

Nebraska has barely over 1 million people. No one wants to live there. There is no culture, no sights to see, nothing of excitement. It is easy to have a small commute when you live in a low population state.

And no, the interstate highways were not built for the defense industry. That was the justification Eisenhower used to get Congress to sign off on the price tag. They have always been used predominantly as commuter and freight arteries.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

can we get back to the Los Angeles Metro? we have a lot to talk about with Measure R passing, two lines under construction and new lines in planning.


----------



## Substructure

This is what LA used to look like in the 50's :
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AAPMvhD62kA

By that time, America had over 650 light rail networks, and Chicago alone had 683 streetcars on its street in 1948, LA being probably close to that.

Then everything got wiped out to make room for more cars. They thought that "what is good for GM is good for America."


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Big news from the LA Times. Could start construction in 3 years!!

Subway could take another step forward in January
5:48 AM, December 10, 2008

Subwaymap The long-sought subway extension on the Westside could clear a big hurdle next month when local transit officials may vote on moving forward with environmental studies of the project, according to Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials. 

The agency has spent the past year studying whether a subway is needed and what route it could take. The so-called "alternatives analysis" is almost complete and will almost certainly be submitted to the MTA board for consideration in January, said Jody Litvak, a spokesperson for the Westside effort. The findings of the study have been public for months: the subway is needed and it should follow a route mostly down Wilshire Boulevard before swinging south to Century City and then back north to Westwood. The MTA also said that if possible, a second four-mile line should be built between Hollywood and eastern Beverly Hills. (See map above).

--Steve Hymon









Litvak said Tuesday that the study will also recommend that the board go ahead and launch the environmental studies that will probably require three years to complete. The MTA is also looking at consultants it could hire to do the environmental reports, an expense likely to run into the millions of dollars, Litvak said.

Until recently, asking the board to go ahead with the studies might have been a sketchy request, as the subway had no funding source. But things have changed. Voters last month approved Measure R, a half-cent sales tax increase to pay for more transportation projects in Los Angeles County. The most expensive Measure R project is the subway, which is slated to receive $4.1 billion of the tax hike.

So when would ground break on the subway? "If everything goes smoothly and we get the approvals and the federal funding comes through, we’ve got about three years until the shovels are in the ground," Litvak said.

The subway isn't scheduled to start receiving money from Measure R until 2013 at the earliest, although the MTA board could change that. The studies, if begun, will also start answering some of the more specific questions hovering over the project: the exact alignment, location of stations and depth of the rail line.

In the meantime, it appears that subway supporters and foes can ink their calendars for a big vote after the New Year.


----------



## greg_christine

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> Big news from the LA Times. Could start construction in 3 years!!
> 
> Subway could take another step forward in January
> 5:48 AM, December 10, 2008
> 
> Subwaymap The long-sought subway extension on the Westside could clear a big hurdle next month when local transit officials may vote on moving forward with environmental studies of the project, according to Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials.
> 
> The agency has spent the past year studying whether a subway is needed and what route it could take. The so-called "alternatives analysis" is almost complete and will almost certainly be submitted to the MTA board for consideration in January, said Jody Litvak, a spokesperson for the Westside effort. The findings of the study have been public for months: the subway is needed and it should follow a route mostly down Wilshire Boulevard before swinging south to Century City and then back north to Westwood. The MTA also said that if possible, a second four-mile line should be built between Hollywood and eastern Beverly Hills. (See map above).
> 
> --Steve Hymon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Litvak said Tuesday that the study will also recommend that the board go ahead and launch the environmental studies that will probably require three years to complete. The MTA is also looking at consultants it could hire to do the environmental reports, an expense likely to run into the millions of dollars, Litvak said.
> 
> Until recently, asking the board to go ahead with the studies might have been a sketchy request, as the subway had no funding source. But things have changed. Voters last month approved Measure R, a half-cent sales tax increase to pay for more transportation projects in Los Angeles County. The most expensive Measure R project is the subway, which is slated to receive $4.1 billion of the tax hike.
> 
> So when would ground break on the subway? "If everything goes smoothly and we get the approvals and the federal funding comes through, we’ve got about three years until the shovels are in the ground," Litvak said.
> 
> The subway isn't scheduled to start receiving money from Measure R until 2013 at the earliest, although the MTA board could change that. The studies, if begun, will also start answering some of the more specific questions hovering over the project: the exact alignment, location of stations and depth of the rail line.
> 
> In the meantime, it appears that subway supporters and foes can ink their calendars for a big vote after the New Year.


If I understand the map correctly, the Santa Monica terminus points of the "Subway to the Sea" and the light rail Expo/Aqua Line would be only about 1/2 mile apart. Perhaps it would be better to divert the Expo/Aqua Line toward Venice or perhaps Marina Del Rey.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Well, they both serve different areas for the majority of their respective lines. i think the true answer should be a beach cities line linking to both of those and i think Santa Monica should have a Union Station West, with the Purple Line, Expo Line, 405 Line and Beach City Line all going through that station.


----------



## jarbury

Should the lines just join up for now? Means that people could transfer from one to the other.

I would certainly hope that UCLA ends up with a station - university students are pretty strong public transport users the world over. The University of British Columbia in Vancouver pulls a huge number of public transport users along the 99 B-Line BRT route for example.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Well, there will be a station at UCLA, the question is will the station be on Wilshire BLVD (about 1/4 - 1/2 mile from main campus, yet right next to the Village), in the village or in UCLA (unlikely). i would prefer a station in the village, but i think it will end up on Wilshire. There are plenty of buses that run from Wilshire to UCLA and the Village.


----------



## LAmarODom420

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> Well, there will be a station at UCLA, the question is will the station be on Wilshire BLVD (about 1/4 - 1/2 mile from main campus, yet right next to the Village), in the village or in UCLA (unlikely). i would prefer a station in the village, but i think it will end up on Wilshire. There are plenty of buses that run from Wilshire to UCLA and the Village.


In the AA map there are only two stations shown, one on Wilshire and the I think in UCLA. It doesn't appear to show a station in the village? Is it really an option? I agree that would be the best decision, serving both UCLA and the office towers on Wilshire.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

you know what, i didnt even pay attention to that map when i wrote that. I think that station is in the Village. i would hope so.


----------



## LAmarODom420

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> you know what, i didnt even pay attention to that map when i wrote that. I think that station is in the Village. i would hope so.


Looking at the map again, it appears that the stop is on the southern edge of UCLA - I think it is on Le Conte.


----------



## jarbury

I guess as long as it's within easy walking distance. Surely it'd be a monumental error to place the station far enough away that students would have to transfer to buses.


----------



## phattonez

Maybe a student who actually goes to UCLA would know best . . . let me think of one and ask him . . . oh yeah!

There are a ton of buses that go up Westwood Blvd. Getting to Wilshire is not a problem at all; there are plenty of free shuttles that already do that along with many municipal buses.

Now, as the map is showing, there are options for where the station will be placed, in all likelihood you will not get both. I would rather have it at Wilshire/Westwood. Plenty of office buildings and very close to Westwood Village. A ton of students already take buses, so a subway at any location would be greeted. You don't have to worry about us. Build it and we will come. We also want to get the workers in the office towers, so you have to build it at Wilshire/Westwood. There is no doubt in my mind.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

i read today that this aint gonna git done till 2035.... that dont make any sense if construction starts in 2012.......


----------



## phattonez

^^The estimate assumes no federal or state funding. There probably won't be state funding, but we'll probably get federal funding.


----------



## LtBk

I wonder if CA NIMBYs' are doing anything to stop this project?


----------



## LAmarODom420

LtBk said:


> I wonder if CA NIMBYs' are doing anything to stop this project?


Don't bring up He Who Must Not be Named....


----------



## jarbury

Voldemort?


----------



## LAmarODom420

jarbury said:


> Voldemort?


And his Muggle incarnation, Damien Goodman


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

This thread hasnt been updated in a while, so here are a few items to point out.

1) The Gold Line extension (LRT) to East LA should be opening in about a month or two, way ahead of schedule AND under budget! it will be a 6 mile extension, with 2 underground stations.

2) The Expo line extension (LRT) from downtown LA, through USC and Exposition park and Mid City to Culver City is on schedule and should be completed by the end of next year. this is phase one with phase two extending the line from Culver City to Santa Monica.

3) Measure R, the sales tax increase that was voted for during the last election, goes into effect next week, and is expected to raise up to $40 billion dollars for rail and highway improvements in LA. Some of the rail projects getting funding from Measure R include the Subway to the Sea, which is the Purple line extension down Wilshire, the Downtown Connector Subway which ties all the rail lines together and a few more as well.

4) Our BRT is getting a 4 mile extension that broke ground today. following is a short brief from the LA Times.
Orange Line extension to break ground today
8:59 AM | June 24, 2009

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa joins city and county transportation officials this morning in Chatsworth for a groundbreaking ceremony on a project that will extend the Metro Orange Line busway by four miles.

The $215.6-million extension will continue the dedicated bus line from Canoga Park to the Metrolink-Amtrak station in Chatswoth. The project is the first to begin construction under Measure R and is expected to generate about 3,000 jobs.

County voters approved the measure in November, allowing $40 billion to be used for crucial transit and highway projects. The measure goes into effect next month.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

if measure R aint going into effect till next month, why is LA County sales tax now at 9.25 percent?


----------



## Westsidelife

LASF, Expo is facing delay after delay. From what I hear, the opening date of the full Phase I is being pushed back a year. We might be able to get it to Crenshaw by next year, but the rest will definitely not be ready.


----------



## hoosier

The Orange Line Busway should be converted into a light-rail line and Red line metro cars should be able to travel on it.


----------



## dachacon

LosAngelesMetroBoy said:


> if measure R aint going into effect till next month, why is LA County sales tax now at 9.25 percent?


the state raised the sales tax by 1% to solve the budget crises.


----------



## dachacon

hoosier said:


> The Orange Line Busway should be converted into a light-rail line and Red line metro cars should be able to travel on it.


they can't, the voters in the valley banned all rail based transportation after the north hollywood, subway stop was finished. led by Zev Yarslavsky.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

plus the red line is heavy rail.


----------



## davsot

dachacon said:


> they can't, the voters in the valley banned all rail based transportation after the north hollywood, subway stop was finished. led by Zev Yarslavsky.


What?!?!?! People can do that? That's so.. I'm not gonna say it lol.

It's really not cool.

Maybe they should ban cars so everyone has to use their fraggin bikes.


----------



## hoosier

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> plus the red line is heavy rail.


So Red Line cars couldn't travel on a light-rail line? I was thinking of LA-style light rail, like the Gold Line east extension which is more like a light-metro than it is light-rail.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

i think the dimensions of heavy rail cars are different than the light rail lines. the red line wouldn't fit on the gold Line tracks, so any conversion of the busway to rail should be compatible with the red line for no transfer rides from end to end.


----------



## soup or man

The subway portion of the Gold Line Eastside Connection.



Westsidelife said:


> *Gold Line Eastside Extension*
> 
> Mariachi Plaza station...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*





Westsidelife said:


> *Gold Line Eastside Extension*
> 
> Soto station...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _Flickr_, by *bigbend700*


----------



## soup or man

The Gold Line Eastside Connection will open November 14th.









Here are some test videos from this past summer.










And a very well put together safety video.


----------



## hoosier

Woo-hoo!! Congrats LA!!:banana::llama:


----------



## soup or man

Here is a VERY good map of Los Angeles's long term transit plans. Hopefully this will be complete in 2030. Hopefully, a good chunk of it will be done by 2015 (IE the Wilshire Subway).


----------



## JustinB

Those stations look beautiful!


----------



## Petr

LA has similar logo to Warsaw's one:


----------



## soup or man

:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:










In a victory for the mayor, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board today reaffirmed the Westside subway and a rail connection through downtown L.A. as the agency's top priorities for federal funding.

The board took the action despite calls from some in Southern California's congressional delegation that the MTA add other projects to its priority list for New Starts federal money, including light-rail extensions in the San Gabriel Valley, the Southside and the Eastside.

But backers of those projects did get a consolation prize as the MTA approved its long-range transportation plan, which outlines how it will spend an estimated $300 billion over the next 30 years.

The MTA board decided that those projects should be allowed to seek other types of federal funding.

Under the plan, L.A. County could see a significant increase in rail service in the coming decades. The extension of the Gold Line, for example, from Pasadena to the east could be complete by 2013, according to agency planning the line. The MTA agreed to operate the line if it is built before 2017.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has been trying to fast-track the long-delayed Westside subway proposal.

He has been pushing to have the subway completed in 10 years — more than 15 years earlier than under current estimates. At his urging, the MTA board agreed to submit the subway expansion, as well as a plan to build a light-rail through downtown, as the county's two projects to compete for a share of a national pool of federal funding.


----------



## Gil

Is there a reason why the Expo Line and the Purple Line don't meet up at the same location in Santa Monica to create a single transit hub? It'd be far cheaper for the Expo to meet up with the Purple than the other way around.

From past experience flying through LAX, couldn't a light rail line use the set of tracks that run along Aviation from the Green Line stop up to the terminals? I don't know how much freight use that section gets, but all that's needed is a spur into the airport itself. The ROW looks enough to put at least one additional track in if it can't be turned over to transit. Put the by-pass siding (if required) somewhere along West Century/Avion if they can't fit two tracks along the roadway.


----------



## Westsidelife

soup or man said:


> Here is a VERY good map of Los Angeles's long term transit plans. Hopefully this will be complete in 2030. Hopefully, a good chunk of it will be done by 2015 (IE the Wilshire Subway).


Updated version that better reflects Metro's long-term plans... 









From *The Transport Politic*


----------



## Westsidelife

Gil said:


> Is there a reason why the Expo Line and the Purple Line don't meet up at the same location in Santa Monica to create a single transit hub? It'd be far cheaper for the Expo to meet up with the Purple than the other way around.


Because the former is light rail and the latter is heavy rail. They're incompatible with each other. 



> From past experience flying through LAX, couldn't a light rail line use the set of tracks that run along Aviation from the Green Line stop up to the terminals? I don't know how much freight use that section gets, but all that's needed is a spur into the airport itself. The ROW looks enough to put at least one additional track in if it can't be turned over to transit. Put the by-pass siding (if required) somewhere along West Century/Avion if they can't fit two tracks along the roadway.


That's the Harbor Subdivision ROW and it will indeed be used to connect the Green Line with LAX (the map shown above isn't entirely accurate). The layout of the airport actually makes it difficult for a direct connection, so the Green Line will instead connect with a people mover at Century/Aviation. 

A nonstop LAX-Union Station express train, similar to those found in Hong Kong and London, is in the works... 

http://www.metro.net/projects_studi...es/Express Service - Union Station to LAX.pdf


----------



## Gil

Westsidelife said:


> Because the former is light rail and the latter is heavy rail. They're incompatible with each other.


Not a direct link using the same ROW but a transfer station like the 7th St./Metro Ctr. or Union Station which has connections to both HRT and LRT. Wouldn't a single transit hub make some sense rather than two separated by a few blocks?



Westsidelife said:


> That's the Harbor Subdivision ROW and it will indeed be used to connect the Green Line with LAX (the map shown above isn't entirely accurate). The layout of the airport actually makes it difficult for a direct connection, so the Green Line will instead connect with a people mover at Century/Aviation.
> 
> A nonstop LAX-Union Station express train, similar to those found in Hong Kong and London, is in the works...
> 
> http://www.metro.net/projects_studi...es/Express Service - Union Station to LAX.pdf


The people mover doesn't necessarily need to serve all the terminals. A station or two in a central location would suffice. As much of a convenience the free shuttle is from LAX, trying to pick it out from all the other buses that serve the airport is a bit daunting especially if you're not familiar with it. Plus, hopefully it'll reduce the number of people trying to board the shuttle for free from the Aviation station without a valid ticket. It happens more than enough times to slow the trip down. Now all they'd need to do is put machines at the LAX stations to sell tickets and passes.


----------



## Westsidelife

Gil said:


> Not a direct link using the same ROW but a transfer station like the 7th St./Metro Ctr. or Union Station which has connections to both HRT and LRT. Wouldn't a single transit hub make some sense rather than two separated by a few blocks?


Well, that would mean putting Expo's terminus station underground. I'm not sure if that's financially feasible. 



> The people mover doesn't necessarily need to serve all the terminals. A station or two in a central location would suffice. As much of a convenience the free shuttle is from LAX, trying to pick it out from all the other buses that serve the airport is a bit daunting especially if you're not familiar with it. Plus, hopefully it'll reduce the number of people trying to board the shuttle for free from the Aviation station without a valid ticket. It happens more than enough times to slow the trip down. Now all they'd need to do is put machines at the LAX stations to sell tickets and passes.


The people mover will make stops at every terminal as well as a consolidated car rental facility before meeting up with the Green Line at Century/Aviation. The colloquially named LAX Express will have one or two stations located within the Central Terminal Area. We'll have both.


----------



## Gil

Westsidelife said:


> Well, that would mean putting Expo's terminus station underground. I'm not sure if that's financially feasible.


Why was 4th/Wilshire chosen as the terminus for the purple line? Just because it's as far as they can go before actually winding up in the Pacific?! There's not much at that particular locations. The hotels are few blocks down the street. Was this as close as they could get without alienating them?

As for the Expo line why not keep it a street level if tunnelling is a cost concern? Seeing as there really isn't any available land to build a proper surface station (Toronto seems to be able to implement this well) why not have it do a loop along 4th from the terminus at Colorado/Olympic up to Wilshire, down to Ocean back to Colorado/Olympic? That'd bring rail service right to the beach, link the LRT and HRT services and add to the atmosphere that is Santa Monica. Especially if that proposed map with the Green Line reaching Santa Monica, it seems a little short-sighted not to connect the services directly instead of having to switch to a bus between the two terminals.


----------



## Slartibartfas

dachacon said:


> they can't, the voters in the valley banned all rail based transportation after the north hollywood, subway stop was finished. led by Zev Yarslavsky.


:nuts:
Isn't it complete nuts to ban rail based transportation by principle?


----------



## dl3000

Slartibartfas said:


> :nuts:
> Isn't it complete nuts to ban rail based transportation by principle?


Have you been to the valley? It is not conducive to rail by design and I'm not surprised they did something like that.


----------



## Gecko1989

Can someone post pictures of the Compton light rail station?


----------



## LAmarODom420

dl3000 said:


> Have you been to the valley? It is not conducive to *reason* and I'm not surprised they did something like that.


fixed that for you :cheers:


----------



## Slartibartfas

greg_christine said:


> The concern should be capacity as well as safety. Los Angeles is building a network of light rail lines that will very quickly be at their design capacity. The Blue Line is already considered to be at capacity during rush hour. The Expo/Aqua Line is expected to be at capacity the day it reaches Santa Monica. This could also be the case with the Gold Line as it is extended eastward at both ends.


One should be glad about the success of a network. Having that said, your point is of course valid but I think the only logical response to such a thing is new additional lines. These could be if possible built as subways as well.


----------



## dl3000

True, LA is "starting small" as it were on the capacity side. I think they really want to get coverage in first and only do heavy rail service in the busiest areas like Wilshire. Then down the road the light rail lines can be upgraded to grade separated heavy rail service where feasible. That way the initial investment isn't such a shocker. Yes you end up paying more overall, but LA has to warm up to using rail gradually.


----------



## Westsidelife

^ Bingo. The current focus is solely on getting as many lines up and running as soon as possible. Only when capacity becomes an issue will grade-separation be considered. That being said, I'm concerned about the Expo Line reaching its capacity once it's extended all the way to Santa Monica by 2014-2015. The Purple Line won't reach Santa Monica for a long time.


----------



## Kenni

^^ I agree with both of you.

Do you guys think that the Expo line will reach capacity that quick?


----------



## dl3000

Kenni said:


> ^^ I agree with both of you.
> 
> Do you guys think that the Expo line will reach capacity that quick?


When you tap into another college campus, I know that increases ridership significantly. Give them more places to go like the beach, and the numbers go up. Reaching capacity I don't know but I'm not so well informed.


----------



## Westsidelife

Kenni said:


> Do you guys think that the Expo line will reach capacity that quick?


Well, maybe not in its first year of operation, but definitely by 2020 when the Regional Connector and Crenshaw Corridor are up and running. But even then, the Purple Line to Santa Monica will still be a ways off.


----------



## soup or man

Westsidelife said:


> Well, maybe not in its first year of operation, but definitely by 2020 when the Regional Connector and Crenshaw Corridor are up and running. But even then, the Purple Line to Santa Monica will still be a ways off.


I don't know..the Orange Line reached it's 2020 projected capacity estimate in like 2 months. Yeah it's a bus but that's still quite a lot of people.


----------



## Kenni

LA Wad, Flickr

*A Siemens train on the Gold Line departs the Del Mar Station to east Pasadena. The building around the station is the Archstone apartment transit-oriented development. This station also has the restored Santa Fe depot, now a mid-price restaurant. *










So Cal Metro, Flickr

*The METRO Gold Line about to enter Union Station on an elevated rail, while Amtrak deprts.*











*METRO Red Line (Subway)*


*LA is getting the point, and getting out of their cars!*








GarySe7en, Flickr


----------



## dl3000

i remember riding the red line because im a geek and just rode it to ride it since i was in town, train was packed. made me proud of LA.


----------



## tampasteve

I have always liked the simply "M" for the metro symbol. Great to see people riding. I really hope to get out again some time to ride the system.

Steve


----------



## BoulderGrad

^^Since the US is re-focusing on adding bike commuting to go with new transit, perhaps we could try something like bicycle cars? i.e. one side has seats removed and bike racks attached to the walls in their palces?


----------



## Kenni

dl3000 said:


> i remember riding the red line because im a geek and just rode it to ride it since i was in town, train was packed. made me proud of LA.


That makes me a geek too. I drive, but sometimes on my days off I like to go to Downtown on the Metro (Green, Blue, then Red to either Hollywod or Union Station). I walk around, have lunch, maybe meet my friend who's a member of SSC also, then ride back home.

I want to see a Metor light rail hug tha coast tho, like the old Red Cars used to do. That would be incredible.

Some of my pics...

*Hollywood and Vine Station. The actual platform is still another flight down.*









*Red Line Station under Union Station.*









*Westlake/MacArthur Park Station (Red Line)*


----------



## Westsidelife

Kenni said:


> *Hollywood and Vine Station. The actual platform is still another flight down.*


This is Pershing Square.


----------



## soup or man

The Hollywood and Vine station has those 50 million film reels everywhere.


----------



## Kenni

Oops, you guys are right, I labeled it wrong in my Flickr account. 

I have a pic of the REAL Hollywood and Vine Station, 

Bad quality.


----------



## Billpa

Kenni said:


> ^^That is superb. :cheers:


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ It is indeed. I had a look on maps.live, because I am a geek too  I am really impressed how nice middle density developments are being done all around most of the stations and if they integrate the rail that nicely as the one above it makes the neighborhood looking really human sized.


----------



## dl3000

Kenni said:


> That makes me a geek too. I drive, but sometimes on my days off I like to go to Downtown on the Metro (Green, Blue, then Red to either Hollywod or Union Station). I walk around, have lunch, maybe meet my friend who's a member of SSC also, then ride back home.


haha i think it is geekier to ride the metro for a distance, get off, cross the platform, and ride back just to see how the metro is. that is what I did lol.


----------



## Kenni

dl3000 said:


> haha i think it is geekier to ride the metro for a distance, get off, cross the platform, and ride back just to see how the metro is. that is what I did lol.


I did that in New Orleans with their trolley, rode it from Bourbon St. thru the Garden District till the end of the line, got off, and waited till the same one took off back to downtown! lol

We are super geeks!!


----------



## tampasteve

LOL, I think most of us on here have done that type of thing! I rode Nuremberg metro one stop and crossed to the other side of the platform for the return. Riding transit gives you a great feel for a city, even if it is a short ride.

Steve


----------



## dl3000

tampasteve said:


> LOL, I think most of us on here have done that type of thing! I rode Nuremberg metro one stop and crossed to the other side of the platform for the return. Riding transit gives you a great feel for a city, even if it is a short ride.
> 
> Steve


Agreed. I am always fascinated by the flow of passengers and associated bustle. Everyone moves with purpose and such places have a sense of importance. Thats why I like them and got me into studying transportation.


----------



## Kenni

Agreed agreed, people watching in each city is amazing, especially in public transportation, people differ in each city, a different buzz, you know what I mean?


----------



## soup or man

The new entrance to the Hollywood and Vine Red Line station (pics by LosAngelesBeauty)


















2 new T.O.D.'s sit right on top of the Hollywood and Vine station.

W Hotel and Residences

















1600 N. Vine


























**Bonus**

Metro's new map.


----------



## LAmarODom420

*The Expo Line Construction Authority board voted Thursday evening 6 to 0 with one abstention to approve the final environmental document for the second phase of the Expo Line from Culver City to Santa Monica.
*

Los Angeles transportation officials on Thursday took a major step in bringing commuter rail to the Westside, approving a route linking downtown L.A. to Santa Monica.

Officials hope to begin work later this year on phase two of the Expo Line, a nearly seven-mile link from downtown Culver City to the corner of 4th and Colorado in Santa Monica’s main business district. Phase One of Expo Line is already under construction from downtown L.A. to Culver City.

Extending the line to Santa Monica would be an important milestone in L.A.’s ambitious rail-building campaign. It would also mark the farthest west a Metropolitan Transportation Authority line has reached, serving a section of the county notorious for traffic problems.

"Every other part of Los Angeles has been served by mass public transportation," said L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who represents the Westside. "This part of town, this part of the county has waited a long time for this.”

Transportation planners believe they have $1.5 billion in local and state money to build it. And though there is broad support for the extension, some neighborhood residents have concerns about portions of the plan.

Some homeowners claim the route approved Thursday is unsafe, particularly a stretch near homes in Cheviot Hills as well as areas near Sepulveda Boulevard and Overland Avenue.

Those residents insist that at least one portion of the line should be built underground, saying that would make the route safer for both motorists and pedestrians.


----------



## soup or man

Zev has some nerve. He's the ass that banned the subway extending down Wilshire to begin with. Now he acts has though he's some sort of transportation enthusiast.


----------



## greg_christine

It appears the ROW - Colorado route for the Expo Line second phase has prevailed.


----------



## 2Easy

Gecko1989 said:


> Can someone post pictures of the Compton light rail station?


Compton has two light rail stations: Artesia and Compton.

I don't have many of either, but here's one that I took at Compton.











Here's some others:

Union Station gold line









Gold line Breda train interior.


















7th/metro




















Red line interior


















Blue line Slauson station









Blue line yesterday


----------



## Gil

Here's the finalized routing along both sections with alternate ROWs:










Phase One is expected to be completed at some point this year. Is there a tentative date for opening barring any unforseen work stoppages? Now that Phase Two's routing has been nailed down, how soon after completing Phase One could they start working on Phase Two?


----------



## 2Easy

Some part of Phase 1 will be completed this year. Likely only to Crenshaw. The second part of phase 1 will be completed next year. Either way Metro intends to break ground on Phase 2 before the end of this year.


----------



## Kenni

*Aqua Line (Expo Line) under construction...
*
*Downtown to Santa Monica*











*Extension and re-alignment of the Flower Street bridge over the 110 Harbor Freeway to make room for rail.*

(In this pic, it's finished) 



















































































*Construction in front of USC (University of Southern California), and the Rose Garden.*










*This is where it goes underground coming from Downtown, it turns right and surfaces on the southern side of USC.*


----------



## Kenni

*AQUA LINE (EXPO LINE)*

*PHASE I DETAILED MAP*

http://www.buildexpo.org/images/expo_alignment_map.pdf

*BROADER OVERVIEW *

http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/exposition/images/expo_map.pdf


----------



## Gil

Kenni said:


> *Aqua Line (Expo Line) under construction...
> *
> *Downtown to Santa Monica*


How serious are they about through routing the Gold line with the Aqua and Blue lines? I think the possibilty was having the Aqua Line continue east through Union Station to East LA, while the Blue would continue north to Pasadena. I suppose they could keep the Gold Line going as through service along its original routing. Perhaps to keep frequencies up similar to the Red and Purple common routing.


----------



## Kenni

Gil said:


> How serious are they about through routing the Gold line with the Aqua and Blue lines? I think the possibilty was having the Aqua Line continue east through Union Station to East LA, while the Blue would continue north to Pasadena. I suppose they could keep the Gold Line going as through service along its original routing. Perhaps to keep frequencies up similar to the Red and Purple common routing.


^^ That's how I believe they've planned it, here's a pretty fair idea of what's in mind ............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LACMTA_Regional_Connector


----------



## Kenni

*This is "THE DREAM"*


----------



## dl3000

^^ So beautiful.


----------



## goldbough

dl3000 said:


> haha i think it is geekier to ride the metro for a distance, get off, cross the platform, and ride back just to see how the metro is. that is what I did lol.


I just happened upon your post while looking through the subway threads. You've just described entire trips I take. I will go to a city and ride the metro for several days nonstop and do nothing else. I haven't been to LA yet though. I had planned a metro trip, but never bought a plane ticket because it was too much at the time.


----------



## goldbough

That aqua line would be sweet because I had planned a trip last year (didn't go though) where I would have taken a bus to the hostel. But the metro is quicker and more convenient.


----------



## Kenni

goldbough said:


> That aqua line would be sweet because I had planned a trip last year (didn't go though) where I would have taken a bus to the hostel. But the metro is quicker and more convenient.


Where were you thingking of staying? 

The Aqua Line wont be finished for another few years, only phase I is under way (Downtown to Culver City) Second Phase Culver City to Santa Monica.


From LAX there's a free shuttle to the Green Line, from there you can go to Downtown (Green to Blue) on to Hollywood (Green - Blue then Red) or Pasadena (Green - Blue - Red - Gold) etc.


----------



## goldbough

There's a hostel near the intersection of CA 1 and terminus of I-10.


----------



## dl3000

goldbough said:


> I just happened upon your post while looking through the subway threads. You've just described entire trips I take. I will go to a city and ride the metro for several days nonstop and do nothing else. I haven't been to LA yet though. I had planned a metro trip, but never bought a plane ticket because it was too much at the time.


Haha COOL!


----------



## Kenni

^^^^Those wonderful pictures are not mine, but they are not that old.



soup or man said:


> ^ Erm..that last one is the Blue Line leaving 1st Street and approaching the Long Beach Transit Mall.


My bad, on a second glance you're right. (loved the pic so much and I had GOLD in my mind)


----------



## 2Easy

Also for the sake of accuracy it is the green line that goes to Aviation for the free shuttle to LAX, not the blue line. Also that pic is of El Segundo/Nash not Aviation and there's no free shuttle there. FWIW the pic after that is the blue line at Del Amo.


----------



## Kenni

geesh, was I drunk that day? And I know them so well.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

hey kenni it happens to everyone


----------



## manrush

Would LA ever think of purchasing dual-mode light rail vehicles that could draw power from both third rails and overhead lines?

Something similar to the Amsterdam Metro/Sneltram vehicles.









Third-rail operations.









The same type of train, running on overhead lines.


----------



## tampasteve

Maybe, but there would really be limited benefit to convert to this type of system. The lines that are currently third rail powered (red and purple) are completely separate from the catenary powered lines. The trains are interchangeable between the catenary powered lines as it is, which is the vast majority of the system. 

Steve


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

ok i got a question, can anyone else read the adds in the red line tunnel and unviersal city and hollywood highland?

i have tried a few times but its never worked


----------



## soup or man

LosAngelesMetroBoy said:


> ok i got a question, can anyone else read the adds in the red line tunnel and unviersal city and hollywood highland?
> 
> i have tried a few times but its never worked


You mean that super duper light show? Lol..no. I've never been able to.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

yeah its just lights for a quick second. interesting technology when it works. it just doesnt in that tunnel


----------



## soup or man

*$690 million OKd for Gold Line extension to Azusa*

The MTA board's approval of the funding means the project is on track to break ground in June and begin service in 2014.

By My-Thuan Tran
LA Times
March 26, 2010

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gold-line26-2010mar26,0,6507584.story

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board on Thursday approved $690 million in funding for the extension of the Gold Line in the San Gabriel Valley, marking a significant step forward for the project.

The money would go toward extending the light rail line 11.3 miles from its current terminus at Sierra Madre Villa Avenue in Pasadena to Azusa. The board's approval means the project is on track to break ground in June and begin service in 2014.









_Javier Solorzano, 18, left, chats with his brother Daniel, 11, as they ride the Gold Line along the 210 Freeway in Pasadena. The money allocated to the extension project comes from the half-cent-on-the-dollar sales tax hike that voters approved in 2008. (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times / March 25, 2010)_

The extension is one of several major rail projects being planned for L.A. County in the next few years, including an extension of the Expo Line into Santa Monica, a new line down Crenshaw Boulevard into the South Bay and an extension of the Eastside portion of the Gold Line.

There has been much debate about which projects should get funding, and county Supervisor Mike Antonovich said it's important that a line outside the city of Los Angeles received money.









"We need to have a regional transportation network and not one that just favors one city," he said. "Los Angeles has cannibalized the funds, and this is the first time we have been able to bring 'regional' to the front of the plate instead of the back of the bus."

Antonovich said the extension -- with stops in Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale and Azusa -- would move the area toward a "truly regional transit system."

Cities are looking at creating a high-tech corridor and building housing and multi-use commercial projects along the line, which parallels the 210 Freeway.

Planners would like to eventually extend the Gold Line all the way to LA/Ontario International Airport in San Bernardino County.

With the Thursday vote, $690 million in revenue from Measure R will be transferred to the Gold Line Construction Authority. County voters approved the measure in 2008 to increase the sales tax by half a cent on the dollar for 30 years to raise $40 billion to construct specific mass transit projects.

The Gold Line funding effectively moves the scheduled opening of the Azusa extension to 2014 from 2017, Antonovich said, because it allows for the construction authority to seek bids for faster construction in a private-public partnership.

Building the extension would generate 6,900 jobs, a third of them construction-related, during the three-year project, according to the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.

The second phase of the project would add stations in Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont and Montclair and is estimated to cost about $600 million to $700 million.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was in Washington earlier this month lobbying Congress to support the region's rail projects. He has made a priority of extending the subway to the Westside.


----------



## LAmarODom420

Transit-wise, it's pointless. Politically, it's necessary. After this is done we can focus on the CORE of the city -- Downtown to the Pacific.


----------



## onetwothree

it seems sort of long for a light rail line, but the more extensions the better I suppose


----------



## soup or man

LAmarODom420 said:


> Transit-wise, it's pointless. Politically, it's necessary. After this is done we can focus on the CORE of the city -- Downtown to the Pacific.


Well the SGV (as well as the IE) will need more connections to Los Angeles in the near future. While I don't think that someone from Montclair will ever ride to Gold Line all the way to Union Station, it will open the change for other cities to create city centers of sorts.


----------



## dl3000

Also, most traffic in LA is suburb to suburb. I think the system can really use a circle line along the lines of 605 to like Manhattan Beach. That would bypass having to go through the hub.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

a few ring lines will be needed and i think one of the first steps should be the crenshaw line connecting the expo and eventually the purple line to the green line


----------



## Kenni

^^ Yes, I was thinking the same thing.

Besides the Blue line, the whole basin is not conected north-south, the Crenshaw corridor line will have very high ridership.


And the "ulitmate dream", the "subway to the sea"!





 This video was made to campaign mostly to the residents of the west side to have them get on board. Done!


----------



## Kenni

LosAngelesMetroBoy said:


> ok i got a question, can anyone else read the adds in the red line tunnel and unviersal city and hollywood highland?
> 
> i have tried a few times but its never worked


These?

I think they're awesome, what ever they say,...instead of staring into blank darkness 

This one looks like a Movie preview


----------



## city_thing

Kenni said:


> ^^ Yes, I was thinking the same thing.
> 
> Besides the Blue line, the whole basin is not conected north-south, the Crenshaw corridor line will have very high ridership.
> 
> 
> And the "ulitmate dream", the "subway to the sea"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This video was made to campaign mostly to the residents of the west side to have them get on board. Done!


Great video, but the host is a douche.

_"I got the part!"_


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

Kenni said:


> These?
> 
> I think they're awesome, what ever they say,...instead of staring into blank darkness
> 
> This one looks like a Movie preview


Holy crap, so thats what they look like when they work.



city_thing said:


> Great video, but the host is a douche.
> 
> _"I got the part!"_


Im convinced everyone attached to Mayor V is a douche. Hes got good ideas, but needs to stop sleeping with every reporter that writes a good story about him and idk BALANCE THE CITIES FREAKING BUDGET WITHOUT RAISING CITY BUSINESS LICENSE FEES BEFORE I MOVE MY SHIT OUTTA LA


----------



## Kenni

*Expo Line Updates*


*Between USC and Exposition Park*









*Building the Vermont Station*









*Platform work at Crenshaw Station*









*Western Station*









*Expo Park/USC*


















*Near La Cienega*









*
Pilars for Venice/Robertson aerial structure.*









*Ballona*









*La Brea *


----------



## Suburbanist

Basincreek said:


> You have something against janitors? Or are you a fan of indentured servitude?


I guess I understand our colleague's point. Janitors don't make US$ 12/hour + benefits + pension + health care + paid sick leave + paid "school" days on private enterprises. Therefore, they are reaping a far higher salary there, which wouldn't be a problem if this pattern of overcompensations didn't hamper the ability of the transit authority to operate more efficiently in terms of its finances.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

or if the work done justified the compensation, which anyone who has taken a ride on the LA metro knows is not the case. For 12 bucks an hour plus everything else i would expect those trains to be sparkling and the floors to be spotless, every light working and every escalator sparkling. instead brand new stations already look old and worn.


----------



## Davodavo

Hello, could you please tell me the estimate travel time from Hawthorne to the city centre?
In the webpage it says 90-120 minutes (I think), could someone specify more?
Thank you in advance.


----------



## Spookvlieger

**Bonus**

Metro's new map.








[/QUOTE]

Thats a map a 1-2 million European city would have, real poor for a 17 million...
Glad their working on more lines for LA though...


----------



## soup or man

LA doesn't have 17 million people. LA has 4 million people.


----------



## dumbfword

soup or man said:


> LA doesn't have 17 million people. LA has 4 million people.


Think it's for the Los Angeles metropolitan area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metropolitan_Area


----------



## soup or man

dumbfword said:


> Think it's for the Los Angeles metropolitan area
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metropolitan_Area


Even then people like to paint the picture that Los Angeles has ZERO public transportation. LA has numerous options. One think that people don't realize is that Metrolink serves 6 counties in Southern California (LA, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura).










People have options getting around LA. Just not enough and too many people.

Orange County is getting into the act and proposed a streetcar.





Even dirty San Bernardino is nearing construction of sbX.





Not to mention the California High Speed Rail.


----------



## hoosier

LosAngelesMetroBoy said:


> or if the work done justified the compensation, which anyone who has taken a ride on the LA metro knows is not the case. For 12 bucks an hour plus everything else i would expect those trains to be sparkling and the floors to be spotless, every light working and every escalator sparkling. instead brand new stations already look old and worn.


$12/hr is SHIT money. Try living on that in LA.


----------



## Spookvlieger

soup or man said:


> Even then people like to paint the picture that Los Angeles has ZERO public transportation. LA has numerous options. One think that people don't realize is that Metrolink serves 6 counties in Southern California (LA, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura).


These maps you show are in even a bigger area then the 17 million metro of LA? So I guess that really shows how poor the area is on public transport... But that's where the famous LA highways take over I guess 

I live in a very small country: Belgium
It's smaller than the area you showed here and 10.5 million people live there. 
It's around the same size as LA county and Kern county together...(31.000sqkm or 11966 sqmi)
Still there is much more transportation than you would expect:
I know it doesn't belongs here... So as soon if you've seen it delete it...
*Belgian rail map:*


----------



## soup or man

I like it when people try to tell you about how messed up their city is. In LA's case, it's lack of a comprehensive transportation system. Like we don't already know it. 

:no:


----------



## onetwothree

Sure LA doesn't have the (rail based) public transportation it needs, but it's working damn hard to get it as fast as possible. I'd be grateful if my city was even half as ambitious.


----------



## Nexis

joshsam said:


> These maps you show are in even a bigger area then the 17 million metro of LA? So I guess that really shows how poor the area is on public transport... But that's where the famous LA highways take over I guess
> 
> I live in a very small country: Belgium
> It's smaller than the area you showed here and 10.5 million people live there.
> It's around the same size as LA county and Kern county together...(31.000sqkm or 11966 sqmi)
> Still there is much more transportation than you would expect:
> I know it doesn't belongs here... So as soon if you've seen it delete it...
> *Belgian rail map:*


Your system may be big , but form i hear its terrible always breaking down. Old trains , never on time...


----------



## FM 2258

hoosier said:


> $12/hr is SHIT money. Try living on that in LA.


I agree with this. Try paying your California bills, rent, fuel...etc with that wage. 

I'm surprised unless I missed it that there is no direct link to the airport for the metro. No station inside the airport. I think all airports in major cities should have efficient public transport to and from the airport.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

hoosier said:


> $12/hr is SHIT money. Try living on that in LA.


Id kill for 12 bucks an hour to have such shoddy work done.


----------



## manrush

Since the Green Line is completely grade-separated, would it ever be up for a conversion to heavy rail (while still being powered by overhead wiring)?


----------



## FDW

manrush said:


> Since the Green Line is completely grade-separated, would it ever be up for a conversion to heavy rail (while still being powered by overhead wiring)?


What you would see on LA's LRT system as a whole (Not just the Green Line, but the Blue, Gold, Expo, and Crenshaw Lines as well.) would be something like that of Tokyo's Suburban Railroads, a gradual process of increasing platform length, (The Blue Line would be first in line for this, given how crowded it is.) Grade separations, and increasing frequencies to the point where the average Joe-Blow won't care about the difference. (This is, in general, how I think most modern American LRT systems will evolve in the decades to come, with some exceptions such as Houston.)


----------



## greg_christine

FDW said:


> What you would see on LA's LRT system as a whole (Not just the Green Line, but the Blue, Gold, Expo, and Crenshaw Lines as well.) would be something like that of Tokyo's Suburban Railroads, a gradual process of increasing platform length, (The Blue Line would be first in line for this, given how crowded it is.) Grade separations, and increasing frequencies to the point where the average Joe-Blow won't care about the difference. (This is, in general, how I think most modern American LRT systems will evolve in the decades to come, with some exceptions such as Houston.)


Among the LRT systems built in the United States since the 1980s, I cannot think of a single case where a line has been upgraded to be grade-separated through a downtown area. When money is available, it is spent on new lines, not providing grade separation for existing lines. The Blue Line in Los Angeles was upgraded to increase platform lengths to accommodate 3-car trains, but there weren't any changes to the street median sections of the route in Long Beach and downtown Los Angeles. Dallas is presently confronting a capacity problem where several lines converge in the downtown area. The chosen solution is to build a second non-grade-separated route through downtown.

If Los Angeles did choose to upgrade some light rail lines to full metro standards, it would have a good head start. All the light rail lines in Los Angeles have high-floor cars serving high-platform stations. If you disregard the pantographs, the Green Line pretty much is a metro.


----------



## FDW

greg_christine said:


> Among the LRT systems built in the United States since the 1980s, I cannot think of a single case where a line has been upgraded to be grade-separated through a downtown area. When money is available, it is spent on new lines, not providing grade separation for existing lines. The Blue Line in Los Angeles was upgraded to increase platform lengths to accommodate 3-car trains, but there weren't any changes to the street median sections of the route in Long Beach and downtown Los Angeles. Dallas is presently confronting a capacity problem where several lines converge in the downtown area. The chosen solution is to build a second non-grade-separated route through downtown.
> 
> If Los Angeles did choose to upgrade some light rail lines to full metro standards, it would have a good head start. All the light rail lines in Los Angeles have high-floor cars serving high-platform stations. If you disregard the pantographs, the Green Line pretty much is a metro.


While these theoretical upgrades haven't happened yet, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that they could happen in the next few decades as ridership rises on these systems. In a way it's already happening, with many planned lines, including recently opened ones being built to far more rigorous standards than some of the Original LRT lines built 1980's. (point case: Sacramento's LRT system when it was originally built was 60% single track, Seattle's system was constructed to be mostly grade separated (with some exceptions) and was built to accommodate 4-car trains.)


----------



## Skyrobot

And I thought commuting in LA is just via cars on freeways! Someone said LA is so spread out that it is not feasible for subway systems.


----------



## Dan78

Skyrobot said:


> And I thought commuting in LA is just via cars on freeways! Someone said LA is so spread out that it is not feasible for subway systems.


That's simply untrue. Subway is very successful in L.A., and has high ridership per mile. It's a very limited network at this point, which is why its numbers appear low.

It looks as if the Westside extension may be built, along with several other corridors, if the 30/10 plan proposed by the mayor is approved.


----------



## Nexis

geoking66 said:


> Maybe because most Northeastern cities already have their systems in place and have had them for around a century or so. The T in Boston is quite extensive, especially since the city itself is relatively small. Comparing a system being built essentially from scratch to one that's served vital areas for decades is simply unfair.


Its still lacking , and they have plans there not being fast tracked , Philly has the worst system. Boston needs to bridge the gaps , NYC has gaps in Queens and Brookyln , SI has only one 1 and is slow with the rest of the plans. Baltimore has a terrible system , NJ , SE PA , MA , NH and MD need to restore aton of lines. The plans are all set , just no $$$.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

Has anyone noticed metro seems to be scrubbing all the brake dust thats accumulated over the last decade out of the Hollywood/Highland station overhangs? And does anyone know why the Universal City station is covered in scaffolding inside? It looks like they are just replacing all the lights (what i always thought was a flaw with their design) but that shouldn't take as long as the scaffolding has been there.


----------



## IanCleverly

Hello Everyone - First post (although I've been a 'lurker' for a few days now)


----------



## Davodavo

We've got projects, we've got ideas, but we need more than that.

LA deserves a much better public transportation network.

:cheers:


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

LA is definitely working on it. A new line opened last year. Another opens next year. There are two rail lines under construction now, another starts next year, a BRT extension is under construction now and with measure R, you will see about 8 more lines be built in the near future. Not to mention the California High Speed rail project.


----------



## deasine

IanCleverly said:


> Hello Everyone - First post (although I've been a 'lurker' for a few days now)


Great post. Welcome aboard.


----------



## Kenni

I'm very excited about the Aqua Line (aka Expo Line) opening soon. They're testing the new trains these days.












milquetoast said:


>


----------



## TheKorean

Nexis said:


> Its still lacking , and they have plans there not being fast tracked , Philly has the worst system. Boston needs to bridge the gaps , NYC has gaps in Queens and Brookyln , SI has only one 1 and is slow with the rest of the plans. Baltimore has a terrible system , NJ , SE PA , MA , NH and MD need to restore aton of lines. The plans are all set , just no $$$.


We cant have rapid transit serve every parts of the city. Thats why we have buses.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Expo Phase two (the extension from Culver City to Santa Monica) has been approved and construction will start within the year! 

Gold Line Foothill Extension is also under construction.

Were headed the right way!


----------



## IanCleverly

Los Angeles Metro Website said:


> Metro tonight will become the new owner of Union Station, 38 acres of land around the station and the development rights associated with that land in the $75-million deal. The next step will be developing a master plan for the station.
> 
> Metro’s $75 million real estate purchase from ProLogis Logistics Services Incorporated closes today, marking a new milestone in the station’s 72-year history and paving the way for future improvements to bring Southern California’s largest public transportation hub into the 21st century......<continues>


Taken from the LA Metro's Website


----------



## soup or man

The Expo Line station markers are being installed.



































And a refresher on the Expo Line route.


----------



## FDW

soup or man said:


> snip


So it will be called the Aqua Line then.


----------



## Falubaz

^^ would be good to name the lines with numbers or letters, coz with each new line all it will be harder to name them with the main colors

And btw. it's pity that the line wasnt built indipendend from road traffic, in a trench or something similar - not fully underground if that's so expensive. All those level crossings make it to a tram-lrt and not a real metro unfortunately.


----------



## FDW

Falubaz said:


> ^^ would be good to name the lines with numbers or letters, coz with each new line all it will be harder to name them with the main colors


I was thinking of this as well. My idea would be to assign a color to each mode of transportation (So Heavy Rail (Subway) would get one, Light Rail (Rapid Tram) another, Commuter Rail (Suburban Rail) a third and the BRT/Rapid Bus lines a fourth), and then each route would be numbered depending upon it's age, so the oldest services would be numbered lowest.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Well, im pretty sure once the regional connector subway is completed (it ties together 4 different light rail lines in downtown LA and should start construction in the next couple years), then the MTA will shift to numbers and letters. We are already running out of base colors and with a bunch of new lines planned, its only a matter of time.


----------



## TheKorean

Why not get rid of silver line, the BRT route and rename it to BRT line 1 and 2 and so on...


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Can't you guys come up with more "Colorful" names beside numbers and/or the alphabet?:lol:

I believe you guys can do better then us Japanese. How about placing naming rights on sales?
I bet a lot of corporations that have significant connection to a certain line would be interested like a company that has their headquarters in front of those lines.


----------



## Falubaz

^^ Long names are hard to remeber and it takes years to speak them up. With numbers ist easy and can be used by anybody, tourists and locals, and there is no need to learn anything. With many lines i.e. Tokyo and tons of names it doesnt say anything to me Tohoku, tozai, Asakusa line. Plus there is a name for every private local railway line, which means dozens and dozens of words - almost a proper language!

If yu have to remeber: take 4 then change for 8 - all yu need to remember is 4 and 8. When yu have to use full names it's much harder. Its just making complicated things that are simple.


----------



## BoulderGrad

SamuraiBlue said:


> Can't you guys come up with more "Colorful" names beside numbers and/or the alphabet?:lol:
> 
> I believe you guys can do better then us Japanese. How about placing naming rights on sales?
> I bet a lot of corporations that have significant connection to a certain line would be interested like a company that has their headquarters in front of those lines.


Dunno what LA's plans are, but Seattle lets local businesses sponsor stops:
http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/map/

On blog criticized Amazon.com for not sponsoring the Terry and Mercer stop thats right in the middle of their new campus.


----------



## soup or man

BoulderGrad said:


> Dunno what LA's plans are, but Seattle lets local businesses sponsor stops:
> http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/map/
> 
> On blog criticized Amazon.com for not sponsoring the Terry and Mercer stop thats right in the middle of their new campus.


Well...you guys (in Seattle) shouldn't complain too much because you have the S.L.U.T. (South Lake Union Trolley). I want to go there and buy one of those shirts that say 'I've ridden the S.L.U.T.'). Lol.

But what LA should do in the near future is give names to their lines. I would name them like this:

Red Line = Hollywood Line
Purple Line = Wilshire Line
Blue Line = Long Beach Line
Green Line = Century Line since it mostly runs inside of the Century (105) Freeway
Gold Line = Pasadena Line

Then tie in with the eventual Crenshaw Line and Santa Ana Line.


----------



## greg_christine

The following is a screen shot of an LACMTA slide describing a series of rail transit plans brought to the voters during the 1960s and 1970s. If any of the plans had been approved, Los Angeles would have had a metro system similar to BART or the Washington Metro.


----------



## hoosier

Larmey said:


> It's shockingly depressing that LA, a massive city in one of the world's richest countries, has a poorer public transportation system than Mexico City, a massive city in a developing country.
> 
> When will LA, which admittedly grew up after the car, follow the example of it's older sisters named Chicago and New York?
> 
> hno:


That is a terrible comparison. First off, Mexico City is more comparable in size to New York City. Do you want to compare those two transit systems?

Second, Los Angeles is in the midst of a large expansion of its rail transit network. In 25 years, the city has built a respectable network of subway and light rails to go along with a large commuter rail network. All Mexico City really has is the subway. It just recently opened its first commuter rail line.

And outside of Mexico City, rail transit is terrible in Mexico, which is not the case in the United States outside of New York City.


----------



## trainrover

hoosier said:


> outside of Mexico City, rail transit is terrible in Mexico, which is not the case in the United States outside of New York City.


Thus NYC rail service deplorable?


I think the trick is to weigh how much rail service be rush hours only, e.g., only 40% of Montreal's rail service --somewhat about to become just 33% will be-- is daily.

Anyhow, by the LA timetables, it seems possible to catch a train home once the bars shut.


----------



## soup or man

In a ideal world, the Green Line would connect with the Blue Line in Long Beach and go east a bit. Therefore, making the Green Line useful.


----------



## State of the Union

I'm still failing to see how you guys compare NYC to a city that's far more spread out and far less dense. I think there was a reason why LA had Pacific Eletric instead of the Los Angeles "L". Think about this. Even IF LA had kept it's rail system, wouldn't we have been Light Rail based anyway? I would say we actually came out better because now atleast we SOME form of HRT, the Red Line and the soon to be Purple Line. This is what I don't get about people complaining about our system being light rail based. Considering the ridership, noone seems to care about SFO's or boston's light rail systems that get far more demand than even the Blue Line does. People act like LA is the only the city with a combined HRT and LRT.


----------



## trainrover

^^ True. Ultimately, it was just a tram that USA boasts as its first ever metro.


----------



## LtBk

greg_christine said:


> The following is a screen shot of an LACMTA slide describing a series of rail transit plans brought to the voters during the 1960s and 1970s. If any of the plans had been approved, Los Angeles would have had a metro system similar to BART or the Washington Metro.


Such a shame that LA voters reject mass transit plans 3 times. I bet they feel stupid after all those years.


----------



## State of the Union

LtBk said:


> Such a shame that LA voters reject mass transit plans 3 times. I bet they feel stupid after all those years.


If LA wanted Mass transit in 1968, they wouldn't have dismantled the street car system less than a decade before. Just say'in.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

State of the Union said:


> I'm still failing to see how you guys compare NYC to a city that's far more spread out and far less dense. I think there was a reason why LA had Pacific Eletric instead of the Los Angeles "L". Think about this. Even IF LA had kept it's rail system, wouldn't we have been Light Rail based anyway?


That is not necessarily a fact since once ridership goes beyond peak it ensures that line can generate enough cash flow to justify transition from light rail to heavy rail to provide larger capacity.
It happened here in Tokyo when the city decided to move from street trolleys system to a full fledged subway system in the '60s.


----------



## State of the Union

SamuraiBlue said:


> That is not necessarily a fact since once ridership goes beyond peak it ensures that line can generate enough cash flow to justify transition from light rail to heavy rail to provide larger capacity.
> It happened here in Tokyo when the city decided to move from street trolleys system to a full fledged subway system in the '60s.


Ok, first, you can't use the Rail capital of World as an example. Japan is heavily Dependant on Rail. I mean, it's not like they had a choice but to upgrade. Second, why wasn't Boston's green line upgraded HRT before it had a huge deficit? The green line has been around for decades, the high ridership it has didn't just appear and was certainly around before MBTA tanked.

Seriously, how dare you use Tokyo as an example. Using Japan as a comparison for anything involving is rail is just as low as it gets.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

State of the Union said:


> Ok, first, you can't use the Rail capital of World as an example. Japan is heavily Dependant on Rail. I mean, it's not like they had a choice but to upgrade. Second, why wasn't Boston's green line upgraded HRT before it had a huge deficit? The green line has been around for decades, the high ridership it has didn't just appear and was certainly around before MBTA tanked.
> 
> Seriously, how dare you use Tokyo as an example. Using Japan as a comparison for anything involving is rail is just as low as it gets.


I believe you are not fully aware of cause and effect that made Tokyo's transition. What you call rail capital of the world only became so for the '70s on as Tokyo gradually constructed subway lines after demolishing all street trolley lines to make more room on the streets.
The street cars were running all over Tokyo and there were only 2 subway lines in Tokyo in the early '60s.
The Hibiya line the third in the system did not go into full operation until the mid '60s.


----------



## greg_christine

State of the Union said:


> I'm still failing to see how you guys compare NYC to a city that's far more spread out and far less dense. I think there was a reason why LA had Pacific Eletric instead of the Los Angeles "L". Think about this. Even IF LA had kept it's rail system, wouldn't we have been Light Rail based anyway? I would say we actually came out better because now atleast we SOME form of HRT, the Red Line and the soon to be Purple Line. This is what I don't get about people complaining about our system being light rail based. Considering the ridership, noone seems to care about SFO's or boston's light rail systems that get far more demand than even the Blue Line does. People act like LA is the only the city with a combined HRT and LRT.


1. Both Boston and San Francisco have populations much smaller than Los Angeles.

2. Both Boston and San Francisco have heavy rail metro networks that are far more extensive than Los Angeles.

3. The light rail lines in both Boston and San Francisco converge into tunnels that run through the central part of the city. In Los Angeles, the Blue Line and future Expo/Aqua Line meander on city streets before entering the tunnel for the Metro Center Station. The grade-separated segments of the Blue Line and Expo/Aqua Line are in areas that are less-densely populated.

San Francisco is a particularly good example of how a light rail system can complement a metro system. The BART network provides high speed/high frequency transit between the cities of the region. The Muni light rail system provides transit within the city of San Francisco. An extension of BART to San Jose has now been funded. San Jose has its own light rail network.

With the completion of the downtown connector and the planned extensions of the Gold Line, Los Angeles may have light rail trains running from Claremont to Long Beach. This is similar to the distance from San Francisco to San Jose. It will be as though the main trunk of BART were built as light rail!


----------



## manrush

State of the Union said:


> Ok, first, you can't use the Rail capital of World as an example. Japan is heavily Dependant on Rail. I mean, it's not like they had a choice but to upgrade. *Second, why wasn't Boston's green line upgraded HRT before it had a huge deficit? The green line has been around for decades, the high ridership it has didn't just appear and was certainly around before MBTA tanked.*
> 
> Seriously, how dare you use Tokyo as an example. Using Japan as a comparison for anything involving is rail is just as low as it gets.


The bolded question is an easy one to answer: the MBTA is run by stupid people.


----------



## greg_christine

I wish to make it clear that I am not trying to pick on soup or man, State of the Union, and other defenders of the Los Angeles light rail network. I am sure they would have preferred heavy rail. It is a credit to transit supporters that Los Angeles has come to the realization that the freeway solution for transportation has reached its limit. I fully concur that the fundamental issue in Los Angeles is money. Light rail will allow the fullest possible coverage of the region, even though it is not the ideal solution.


----------



## State of the Union

SamuraiBlue said:


> I believe you are not fully aware of cause and effect that made Tokyo's transition. What you call rail capital of the world only became so for the '70s on as Tokyo gradually constructed subway lines after demolishing all street trolley lines to make more room on the streets.
> The street cars were running all over Tokyo and there were only 2 subway lines in Tokyo in the early '60s.
> The Hibiya line the third in the system did not go into full operation until the mid '60s.


Yes but again, using a country where getting funding for rail gets little if any opposition to a country where we can barely enough funds for a mere 8 miles of subway as a comparison is simply unfair.

greg_cristine: The Red Line alone gets nearly half of BART's total ridership. Even *IF* there was money for an HRT line to Claremont, does it's ridership really justify the cost? And I think Heavy Rail is fine only dense populated areas. The Gold Line Pasadena segment gets just over an absymal 20,000 daily ridership. You think it should be HRT? The far flung areas that BART covers should either be Commuter Rail or LRT, honestly. I don't think HRT is right for every corridor. Frankly the only reason why some cities even have HRT in far flung areas is to keep consistency with the rest of the system.(This, of course, was easy when construction costs were far less. Now with modern ridiculously high construction costs, consistency matters so much less now than it did back then) It doesn't mean that LRT couldn't have easily served that same corridor.


----------



## Larmey

hoosier said:


> That is a terrible comparison. First off, Mexico City is more comparable in size to New York City. Do you want to compare those two transit systems?


The metropolitan areas, which can only exist when there is effective urban transit, of all three cities are roughly comparable in size. ~20 million. So it's a perfect comparison. 



> Second, Los Angeles is in the midst of a large expansion of its rail transit network. In 25 years, the city has built a respectable network of subway and light rails to go along with a large commuter rail network. All Mexico City really has is the subway. It just recently opened its first commuter rail line.


*All* it has is the subway? :lol: 

If a subway is such an easy thing to build, why does LA have a public transit network comparable to a European city 1/1000th the size of LA? The LA network is in no way, shape, or form respectable. It's a a total, utter, and complete disgrace for a mega-city in a country as wealthy as ours. 



> And outside of Mexico City, rail transit is terrible in Mexico, which is not the case in the United States outside of New York City.


:crazy: x 1000

Outside the Northeast, with New York City as the hub, rail transit is terrible in the US.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

State of the Union said:


> Yes but again, using a country where getting funding for rail gets little if any opposition to a country where we can barely enough funds for a mere 8 miles of subway as a comparison is simply unfair.


If you are talking about construction subsidiaries I believe most European cities as well as US Cities receive them if you are talking about operational subsidiaries most all line runs a profit now.
One more point is that some of the subsidiaries were provided as government loans in which a lot had been paid back already.
The biggest reason why Tokyo relies on public transit is because in the '60s the then governor adopted a building code that prohibits large parking areas within any new construction within Tokyo proper forcing the people to use public transit to commute.


----------



## greg_christine

State of the Union said:


> ...
> greg_cristine: The Red Line alone gets nearly half of BART's total ridership. Even *IF* there was money for an HRT line to Claremont, does it's ridership really justify the cost? And I think Heavy Rail is fine only dense populated areas. The Gold Line Pasadena segment gets just over an absymal 20,000 daily ridership. You think it should be HRT? The far flung areas that BART covers should either be Commuter Rail or LRT, honestly. I don't think HRT is right for every corridor. Frankly the only reason why some cities even have HRT in far flung areas is to keep consistency with the rest of the system.(This, of course, was easy when construction costs were far less. Now with modern ridiculously high construction costs, consistency matters so much less now than it did back then) It doesn't mean that LRT couldn't have easily served that same corridor.


Certainly the ridership on the Blue Line could have justified heavy rail. The same is true for the expected ridership on the Expo/Aqua Line.

The Gold Line has been under-performing in terms of ridership. Much of the problem is attributed to the dreadfully slow segment south of Pasadena, where it runs on surface streets. If you look at the number of cars traveling I-10 and I-210 through Claremont, you could certainly build the case for heavy rail. A slow light rail line might not be competitive in terms of travel time even with a congested freeway. A heavy rail line would do better.

If you look at BART, you might have been able to build the case that light rail would have sufficed for some of the branches when they first opened. As the population has grown and traffic congestion has increased, heavy rail has to be seen as the wise choice.


----------



## State of the Union

SamuraiBlue said:


> If you are talking about construction subsidiaries I believe most European cities as well as US Cities receive them if you are talking about operational subsidiaries most all line runs a profit now.
> One more point is that some of the subsidiaries were provided as government loans in which a lot had been paid back already.
> The biggest reason why Tokyo relies on public transit is because in the '60s the then governor adopted a building code that prohibits large parking areas within any new construction within Tokyo proper forcing the people to use public transit to commute.


You continue to miss the point. It's not about how Tokyo got there, it's about what it is today. The fact is, building a new rail line doesn't get much second thought in Japan. In the US, politicians and wealthy folks are constantly trying to kill any rail expansion. Honestly, you can't use Japan as a comparison when a rail line has it's own super model, and a baseball team ad advertising a new train, or a famous musician who loves trains and does a commercial for the line. Come on, I've seen this in Japan Thread. Totally different outlook on rail.


----------



## diegohdm

hi.. i have a question here

i'm from Brazil, and next month i'm going to LA (to stay 40 days) 

so.. which maps i need from public transport? (BRT and metro) ?


----------



## Slartibartfas

Suburbanist said:


> The old streetcars run mostly in the middle of the freaking boulevards without any physical segregation. Their stops were merely small bays, or nothing whatsoever.


There is no rule forbidding investment in a system in order to update it. Obviously they could do so in Vienna with the tram system here and many stops in the middle of the street as well. 



> Had Los Angeles kept their streetcar lines, the system would look like one of Milan: annoyingly slow, old tracks, 3.449 conflicts with vehicular and pedestrian traffic, lack of modern safety measures like fences and ramps at stops, or light-rail specific traffic signs coordinated by an operational center that gives them priority etc. etc. etc. In other words: to have something like the Golden Line, they'd have to spend money anyway, even if older tracks were in place. And the result would likely been a lower-performing system because they wouldn't be able to close a working line to reconstruct it for 3 years.


OMG. People should grow up. Not everything needs to be 100% idiot proof in order to be safe. People freak out about accidents with trams or light rails, while at the same time cars are at least as much of a safety risk if not a larger one in city traffic. I regularly cycle on tram tracks or get taken over by a tram with maybe a meter distance between me and the tram. So what. 

That is the one side, the other is that you can very well update an existing system. trams are idealy suited for mid capacity feeder lines and mid distance journey. LA could have gone the same way as Vienna. Adding real subways and S-Bahn like rail as backbones to the existing system. If it had done so instead of tearing everything down, it would have nowadays a much much bigger and still more efficient system than it has today, for the same buck.


@ those who are from LA
I am following the recent activities with interest and think it is great how they are trying to raise a rapid transit system out of the ashes again. Even though progress seem to happen at a painstakingly small pace it still progresses and LA has some really nice projects going on. The larger the network grows and the more of the important places it connects well, the more people will also want to use it.

It is funny how I came to read about your system. It was this terribly bad movie "2012" where they showed the earth cracking up in LA and a subway train fell into a big gaping nothing. And I did not think how ridiculous that scene looked like but merely: "They have subways in LA?"


----------



## Darloeye

Well thats one thing good about that movie. I knew about LA Metro from a interview Ewan McGregor did with the times a few months ago. He was saying how weird is not using a subway system and how he was missing the tube and how easy it was to get around


----------



## State of the Union

Shit, even people who live within a 100 mile radius of LA don't even know about the Red Line, and they've been to Downtown AND Hollywood. I guess you don't see metro stations unless you are actually looking for it. 

However, I think the fact that LA is known for it's freeways and car culture means it overshadows the subway. People think we could never have a full HRT Subway, so they never see it, or never 'want' to see it.


----------



## Suburbanist

The boom an activity construction is due to the 10/30 (or 30/10?) plan, which implies building infrastructure meant to be built over 30 years in just 10 by issuing more bonds to be served and paid by an increase in sales tax. That is a clever public finance strategy.

Now, what is to see is whether, stuck with the bill for another 20 years, there will be appetite for more borrowing and more taxes to avoid falling into a stall until the costs of "accelerated construction" are paid. I don't think they will wait 20 years, but maybe cool down for 5-8 after they end the current projects of the 10/30 initiative (which includes bus, subway, light-rail and freeway improvements, it's not only a transit program).


----------



## Illithid Dude

I thought this was relevant. These are all of the projects planned by Metro. Not just in the next ten years, but beyond that as well.


----------



## manrush

^^
Very much akin to the rapid transit network in Mexico City. Good to see LA _not_ going for the traditional hub-and-spokes scheme.


----------



## Suburbanist

manrush said:


> ^^
> Very much akin to the rapid transit network in Mexico City. Good to see LA _not_ going for the traditional hub-and-spokes scheme.


LA is a multi-centric city.


----------



## redspork02

Rain Didn't Wreck the Expo Line, But Still No Firm Opening Date
Friday, October 21, 2011, by Neal Broverman

The Expo Line light rail was supposed to maybe going to open to La Cienega before the end of the year--well, with just over two months left to go, things aren't looking so great. Rumors popped up recently that the intense rainstorm a few weeks ago short-circuited the train's electrical system and threw out any chance of a 2011 opening. Not true (at least on the opening), says Gabriela Collins of the Expo Construction Authority: "The rain caused some minor issues with the track circuits at the crossings. Some minor adjustments were made and the track circuits at the crossings are fully functional. No major complications," Collins tells us. "Train testing is now underway... from downtown Los Angeles to La Cienega. Once testing is completed, which is anticipated in the next several weeks, the system will be turned over to Metro for pre-revenue operations. Once Metro determines that the system is safe to operate, the line will open to the public. Opening to La Cienega is still scheduled for later this year or early next year depending on how much time Metro needs for operator training and if any items need to be adjusted based on pre-revenue operations."

· Expo Line Trains Entering Exciting Testing Phase [Curbed LA]


----------



## starrwulfe

Glad to finally see those Exposition Rd tracks going into service. I grew up in Inglewood, not too far from Centinela and LaBrea, and remember riding the Blue Line on opening day. It'd be wonderful to be able to take my kid to L.A. one day and say "I remember when there were NO trains here..."


----------



## redspork02

*President Obama Shows the Crenshaw Line Some Love, Speeds It Up*

President Obama moved to shorten the permitting and environmental review process for 14 national infrastructure projects yesterday, including the planned Crenshaw Line light rail and three other California projects, reports the LA Times. The move will "shorten the approval time for this project by several months," according to a release from the Federal Transit Administration. The Crenshaw Line, which will run from the Expo Line at Exposition and Crenshaw to a station near LAX (and hopefully a People Mover to the terminals, as well as to some Green Line stops, and possibly, one day, extensions north to Wilshire and West Hollywood), just certified its final environmental impact report. LA County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas says in the Times that yesterday's news makes it more likely that an extra station can be built in the middle of Leimert Park Village--the idea is that moving the construction process along will save millions that can be used elsewhere. That may not be good enough for some community activists, who want the $1.75 billion project to include both a Leimert Park stop and undergrounding of the line in Park Mesa Heights.

The effort to underground the line is being headed up by transit gadfly Damien Goodmon and his group the Crenshaw Subway Coalition. Goodmon fought for the Expo Line to be undergrounded near Dorsey High School; eventually a compromise was reached in which a station was built at Farmdale Avenue, requiring trains to make full stops before crossing the street. Goodmon has said before that he plans to bring litigation if the Crenshaw Line is not put underground in Park Mesa Heights. However, a new California law shortens the amount of time that litigation can delay big projects like the Crenshaw Line.

Perhaps as a way to mollify community activists like Goodmon--and to get some local input--Metro has started a "Community Leadership Council" consisting of neighborhood organizations, business groups, schools, and churches. The groups share ideas/concerns on construction, economic development, and safety, The Source reports.

Early construction on the 8.5-mile long Crenshaw Line is supposed to start next year and wrap sometime between 2016 and 2018.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

starrwulfe said:


> Glad to finally see those Exposition Rd tracks going into service. I grew up in Inglewood, not too far from Centinela and LaBrea, and remember riding the Blue Line on opening day. It'd be wonderful to be able to take my kid to L.A. one day and say "I remember when there were NO trains here..."


Yes, indeed. It seems the LA area is getting more done than the Bay Area in terms of developing rail transit in recent history (though granted the Bay Area had a head start). Couldn't have imagined it back in the 80's. 
*btw I grew up in the airport area (El Segundo), my high school played in the same league as Inglewood Morningside HS...nice to reminisce with a fellow former resident of the Southland.


----------



## soup or man

The latest on the downtown LA Streetcar.












> Updated: 8:20 a.m.: The next community meeting for the rapidly-progressing Downtown Streetcar--not the Regional Connector Downtown subway, that's something different--will be held a week from Thursday and yesterday Metro released a "briefing package" on the current alternatives being studied, reports The Source. Metro is down to seven possible routes, all traveling from South Park up north to Bunker Hill (or vice versa), with two hitting Union Station (none of the routes cross the tracks for the Blue and Expo lines now--Metro has to be careful so that all its new trains don't crash into each other). Metro has already calculated ridership and cost figures for each route and, according to their findings, one appears to rise to the top. Route #7--traveling from Staples Center up Figueroa, turning right on Seventh, moving north on Hill, taking an eastern turn on First, quickly moving south on Broadway all the way to Eleventh, and taking a right to head back to LA Live--has the highest boardings relatively high boardings per mile, the smallest construction cost of all options ($106.7 million), low operating costs, relatively easy design, and minimal environmental impacts.
> 
> The one criteria that didn't play out great for #7 was redevelopment possibilities, as alternatives running on Pico have more "economic development potential" than those running on Eleventh, at least according to Metro. They seem right about this one as parts of Eleventh have already been developed (e.g. the South Group-developed buildings), with only a couple empty lots available along the route. The stretch of Pico, meanwhile, is a mostly-barren no man's land.
> 
> The options that run to Union Station would get more riders than #7 since they're longer routes, but #7 would actually have more boardings per mile. Getting to Union Station would also cost more (about $134 million) and there will be a transferless underground connection from South Park to Union Station when the Regional Connector opens around 2018 anyway.
> 
> The community meeting takes place a week from Thursday at Caltrans headquarters at 5:30 pm. A final route will be chosen in winter according to Metro.


la.curbed.com


----------



## Feryuc

theres been some talk that the red line may extend northward to sylmar via lankershim and laurel cyn...


----------



## Illithid Dude

Feryuc said:


> theres been some talk that the red line may extend northward to sylmar via lankershim and laurel cyn...


From where? I know there are official, long range plans to extend it to the Bob Hope airport, but that is all I know.


----------



## State of the Union

Delete


----------



## Feryuc

Illithid Dude said:


> From where? I know there are official, long range plans to extend it to the Bob Hope airport, but that is all I know.


from its current northern terminus, north hollywood.


----------



## Illithid Dude

Feryuc said:


> from its current northern terminus, north hollywood.


No, I mean, where are you hearing these rumors?


----------



## Feryuc

Illithid Dude said:


> No, I mean, where are you hearing these rumors?


i remember mayor villaraigosa talking about it a while back, when he supported measure r. this was one of his proposoals, but i guess metro scrapped it or something...
if i find an article, ill post it up.


----------



## redspork02

Subway Facts & History: Metro responds to errors in Beverly Hills Courier and allegations by Beverly Hills school district
Written by Steve Hymon in Projects on November 3, 2011 

On Oct. 21 and 28, the Beverly Hills Courier published six news and analysis articles about the two reports Metro released last month on seismic and tunneling issues affecting the Westside Subway Extension project in the Beverly Hills, Century City and Westwood areas (Oct. 21 edition and Oct. 28 edition; both are pdf files and an email address is required to open).

The Courier articles included significant errors, misleading statements and omissions.

In addition, Beverly Hills Unified School District President Lisa Korbatov earlier this week posted online a letter to community members that contained incorrect information, as well as untruthful allegations about Metro.

In order to correct the record for residents and policymakers alike, here are responses from Metro about information in the reports:

*COURIER:* The Courier wrote that “The major fallacy of the Report is its conclusion that a subway station on Santa Monica Blvd would be “unsafe” but a station barely 150 feet away would be “safe.”

*Metro’s response:* The Constellation station site is more than 1,100 feet from the proposed Santa Monica Boulevard station. No evidence of fault rupture was found at or close to the Constellation site.

The purpose of the study was to locate areas of potential ground surface rupture and deformation, which is usually limited to the area immediately near active fault zones.

Earthquakes on the Santa Monica or Newport Inglewood fault zones could result in ground rupture — called “fault displacements” — at ground level or just below. Subway stations are two-story structures up to 1,000 feet in length and designing such a station to withstand ground ruptures without significant damage and loss of life is both impractical and without precedent.

The level of damage could require a complete rebuilding of the station and nearby tunnels — which could take several years. No subway stations in North America have been designed to tolerate active fault zones and their associated potential ground displacements.

This differs from ground shaking that occurs over a wide area during an earthquake. The subway stations and tunnels will be designed to withstand shaking, and there are special construction techniques available to reinforce the tunnels in the short distances where they must cross active fault zones.

*COURIER: *The Courier wrote that the new report may doom new construction along Santa Monica Boulevard and that the report calls into question any construction between Beverly Hills and the ocean, as well as high-rise development along Santa Monica Boulevard.

*Metro’s response:* The report provides technical data on the location and nature of the fault zones in the study area only and does not comment on the results of the findings – other than with respect to Metro’s subway project.

Based on the new information, the State of California will determine if the area qualifies as an Alquist-Priolo zone that would require local building departments to limit some types of development.

It is important to stress that both reports were prepared for purposes of planning the Westside Subway Extension and will be used in the preparation of the final environmental impact document for the project. All government agencies and private property owners can access and review the content with appropriate professional staff and/or consultants and decide if the information is needed for their own purposes.

Neither Metro or the Courier is in a position to advise other agencies or property owners on how to apply the information in these reports.


*COURIER:* The Courier wrote that Metro’s report “admits tunnel noise violates state levels” under Beverly Hills High School.

*Metro’s response: *There are no state regulations pertaining to noise and vibration from the subway. The agency used the applicable criteria from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to evaluate and predict noise and vibration levels from Metro trains operating under the school.

Based on ground testing, ground-borne vibration under classrooms is predicted to be 63 decibels — well under the FTA threshold of 75. Ground-borne noise under classrooms is predicted to be 33 decibels; the FTA threshold for schools is 40 decibels.

It is important to note that noise and vibration are measured independently and adding the decibels from noise and vibration together — as the Courier did — does not provide an accurate prediction of either noise or vibration.

California state standards do not include noise level limits for classrooms.

However, the 2009 Edition of the California Criteria for High Performance Schools Best Practice Manual has recommendations for maximum noise levels in classrooms from things such as heating and air conditioning systems and outside noise. The manual recommends that classrooms have no more than 45 decibels of noise from those sources and says a more ideal level is 35 decibels.

Again, the ground-borne noise from the Westside Subway is projected by Metro to be 33 decibels.

It’s also worth mentioning that Metro has not received any complaints to date about noise or vibration from trains using existing Red/Purple Line subway tunnels or the Gold Line tunnel under Boyle Heights.

*SCHOOL DISTRICT:* In her letter to the community, BHUSD President Lisa Korbatov wrote that Metro went to court to withhold information from the school district and that Metro “continues to withhold geotechnical data and test results that formed the basis of the Metro reports. This will force the Beverly Hills Unified School District to waste money and time replicating work already done by Metro.”

*Metro’s response:* In maintaining its commitment to full disclosure of final documents, Metro released the final reports to the public after the data had been fully analyzed, the reports edited and everything had been checked and reviewed by outside engineers and scientists. All raw data associated with the reports is available on-line to those who want to review it — and the school district has been informed of that.

Earlier this year, the school district had filed a petition in Los Angeles Superior Court in an attempt under the California Public Records Act to force Metro to release data collected for the seismic and tunneling reports before the reports were complete.

In September, a Superior Court judge ruled that Metro did not violate the California Public Records Act. The judge wrote: “A review of the verified Petition, however, fails to identify which items on Petitioner’s series of requests remain outstanding. Therefore, it is virtually impossible for Metro to counter the allegations. And, even worse, it makes it impossible for the Court to determine whether Petitioner’s claims of non-production are, in fact, correct.”

*COURIER: *The Courier said that Metro’s reports are tainted and that “no engineers reviewed or commented to the study.”

*Metro’s response:* In addition to Metro’s engineers and consulting engineers at Parsons Brinckerhoff and AMEC, a number of pre-eminent engineers were involved in preparation and/or review of the report’s findings. These engineers included Dr. Harvey Parker, Dr. Ed Cording, Dr. Paul Jennings, Dr. Tom O’Rourke and Dr. Geoff Martin. Biographies of these experts were posted on Metro’s web site on October 19th.

*COURIER:* The Courier wrote that Metro’s reports did not discuss the area along Santa Monica Boulevard between Century Park East and Avenue of the Stars.

*Metro’s response:* Two major fault systems, the Santa Monica Fault and the West Beverly Hills Lineament, converge in this geologically complex area. Fault rupture and deformation in this zone can’t be precluded. In addition, the area is not long enough to build a station.

*COURIER: *The Courier writes that a new fault could slice through the Constellation station.

*Metro’s response: *Metro has investigated active fault zones that are hundreds of feet wide and that have occurred over time scales of hundreds of thousands of years. No faulting was found to have occurred in the area where the Constellation station would be located.

Furthermore, experience has shown that new faults are not likely to suddenly appear away from existing fault zones. Thus, structures in earthquake country are designed to avoid areas where there have been past ruptures in active fault zones.

*COURIER:* The Courier wrote that the Metro seismic report “purports to locate a series of unmapped faults along the Santa Monica Fault and West Beverly Hills Lineament on the proposed subway route.”

*Metro’s response:* The fault zones located in Metro’s investigation were not previously unmapped and are not new. They have been shown for some time on California Geologic Survey maps but had not been investigated in this area.

However, the Metro studies used underground testing to identify new information about those fault zones in this area. Detailed information about earthquake fault zones is difficult to obtain since much of the evidence is underground. It’s even more difficult in an area that has been paved over and developed.

http://thesource.metro.net/2011/11/...legations-from-beverly-hills-school-district/


----------



## redspork02

BREAKING NEWS: CPUC Approves All Expo Phase II Crossings
by Damien Newton on November 10, 2011

Earlier today, the California Public Utilities Commission gave the green light to proceed with construction of Phase II of the Expo Line. CPUC was widely expected to delay their decision on whether or not the rail/road crossings for Phase II were safe enough and that they wouldn’t cause excess pollution by creating traffic delay. In a surprise move, CPUC unanimously approved the crossings after Commissioner Timothy Alan Simon removed a “hold” he had placed on the crossing vote.
Even though CPUC is supposed to look at projects on their merit and not consider politics, both opponents and supporters of the Expo Line were lobbying the Commissioners. The Transit Coalition published a draft letter urging Commissioners to ignore letters by opponents. At the same time, the Expo Construction Authority itself sponsored a letter writing campaign urging the commission to approve the crossings.

A coalition of community leaders calling themselves Neighbors for Smart Rail were urging the Commission to hold off on an approval vote until they’re appeal of the Expo Phase II environmental documents could be heard. Their lobbying effort fell short.

Commissioner Simon was one of the Commissioners who had supported forcing a newly designed rail crossing and rail station for Phase I of the Expo Line and explained his change of heart to CPUC staff. ”You forgot one thing. I was an assigned commissioner for Phase 1. I was a much younger man back then.” The Commission had twice delayed votes on Phase I of the Expo Line and when they did rule ordered an overhead pedestrian bridge for the Farmdale Crossing which later turned into the station built at the intersection of Exposition Boulevard and Farmdale Avenue.

Unless and appeals court overturns a previous ruling supporting the Expo Phase II rail environmental documents, there are no further obstacles preventing construction from beginning. Phase II of the Expo Line will connect to the soon-to-be-opened Phase I which runs from Downtown Los Angeles to Culver City. Phase II will complete the first rail line between Downtown Los Angeles and Downtown Santa Monica.


----------



## redspork02

Beverly Hills bids to halt subway tunnel at school

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD, Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) — It's as hard to travel under the ground in Southern California as it is on top of it.
Here in the city the car built, the latest attempt to bore a subway line beneath some of the most congested roads in America is recalling civic brawls of a generation ago, when fear over where tunnels could be constructed safely left the region with a subway system so stunted it gets as much ridicule as ridership.
This time, *transit planners hoping to run a 9-mile subterranean line into the city's densely packed Westside have hit resistance within a cluster of stately, red-roofed buildings surrounded by manicured hedges and lush, rolling lawn — Beverly Hills High School.* Tentative plans call for drilling a tunnel 70 feet beneath the campus, where Angelina Jolie and Nicholas Cage once roamed the hallways.
Local *officials say ambitious plans for new classrooms and parking would be threatened*, and they worry the French Normandy-style buildings could be damaged by construction or train vibration. They want the line to run on an alternate route a few blocks north, along busy Santa Monica Boulevard, though regional transit consultants say that would take the train into the path of unstable earthquake faults.
The *consultants are confident tunneling would not endanger the 2,200-student school,* but some envision the worst: a tunnel collapse directly below campus, with students inside the buildings.
"It's terrible, I dislike it intensely," Theresa Pinassi said with a grimace, as she waited outside the school for her 16-year-old grandson. "It would be dangerous to have it under the school — God forbid, if we had an earthquake."
It's all deja vu to Mark Fabiani, who served as deputy mayor and chief of staff to former Mayor Tom Bradley, who in his era envisioned a subway that would link downtown Los Angeles with the Pacific coast, a line befitting one of the world's great metropolitan areas.
It never happened.
A local congressman pushed through a tunneling ban in 1986 because of fears that construction could cause an explosion of naturally occurring methane gas, a move some viewed as a thinly disguised maneuver to safeguard tony Westside neighborhoods from outsiders. The city ended up with a subway that's invisible to many of its 4 million residents — it's about 20 miles overall in a city covering 468 square miles, petering out just west of downtown's skyscrapers.
To Fabiani, Bradley's dream would have helped avert Los Angeles' traffic nightmare.
"When you have no culture of mass transit in your area, it's harder to visualize what the benefits might be down the road," he said.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, chaired by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, isn't expected to endorse a route until early next year, and it's not clear how much of the $5.4 billion line will be built, or when. The most optimistic schedule calls for construction to begin next year, with trains rolling in 2022.
Local voters boosted sales taxes to bankroll transit projects, but money is scarce in gridlocked Washington. The ban on using federal funds for tunneling was lifted in 2007, but current plans stop well short of reaching the beaches in Santa Monica. Meanwhile, Beverly Hills has enlisted its own consultants for a fight that might end in the courtroom.
The transit agency long envisioned the line running along Santa Monica Boulevard through that area, but in 2010 it floated a plan that would move the route slightly south, under the school. The *MTA's experts recently concluded the route under the school would be safer* than along Santa Monica Boulevard, where faults could pose a threat.
But district officials suspect that developers with ties to City Hall are influencing the decision-making.
The disputed route would take the line under the school and to a station in the nearby Century City neighborhood that's virtually at the doorstep of a planned 37-story tower proposed by JMB Realty Corp., a major landlord that owns other buildings in the area. JMB executives have invested heavily in Villaraigosa's political ventures, government records show. One company affiliate gave a committee linked to the mayor $100,000 in 2006.
"We do believe politics has driven this alignment, not transit rules or standards," said Lisa Korbatov, who heads the local school board. She calls the MTA's data "very heavy in assumption."
A statement from *Villaraigosa's office said only that he is confident in the MTA's experts and the conclusions of its technical studies.* A local coalition supporting the route that would cut under the high school asserts the plan is safer, given the *MTA's findings, and would place a station within easy walking distance for nearly 30,000 workers in Century City*.
JMB senior vice president Patrick Meara disputed that there was any connection between donations to the mayor and decisions on the subway. When asked who drafted the route that would build a station near his company's properties, which would almost certainly boost their value, he said, "I honestly don't know."
Among students, there appears to be little anxiety about a train line that wouldn't begin moving people until years after they graduate.
Justin Blaylock, a 17-year-old senior, said he supports expanding public transit and would welcome the chance to avoid the city's dirty, crowded buses. "It makes me just want to walk," he said.
In a way, the MTA is trying to rebuild the past.
Los Angeles once boasted one of the finest public transit systems in the nation, the Pacific Electric Red Cars, which trundled along 1,000 miles of track that crisscrossed the region. The last one was gone by 1961, dismantled with no small push from auto and oil interests as the car culture took hold in Southern California.
Freeways replaced trolley tracks, and huffing buses took over for electric rail. In time, a booming population led to sclerotic traffic and the blankets of smog that came with it.
Today, rush hour knows few limits on heavily used stretches of freeway around downtown, in the San Fernando Valley and on the Westside. Nearly 6 million cars are registered in Los Angeles County, and one 10-mile stretch of Interstate 405 sees 500,000 vehicles on a typical day. An eight-lane ribbon of highway linking downtown and Hollywood — the infamous 101 — is often ranked among the most strangled roads in the U.S.
With a push from Villaraigosa, a transit boomlet is under way, including development of an above-ground light-rail line to Los Angeles International Airport. A light-rail line is pushing east from Pasadena, and another 6-mile spur running out of downtown opened in 2009.
But it's unlikely to do much to open a pathway for cars.
There are just too many vehicles attempting to navigate the city's sprawling geography — only a fraction of the region's jobs are located downtown, meaning drivers are crisscrossing the region in a tangled web of commuting patterns.
Even if the Westside subway extension is built, "the congestion is so terrible, it will just be sucked up," says Genevieve Giuliano, a University of Southern California professor who specializes in transportation policy. "Traffic might improve a little bit, not a lot."
*A study by a team of experts conducted for MTA concluded that the Westside project "is not expected to pose new threats" to students, faculty or the community, but hasn't eased anxiety in Beverly Hills.*
*City and school officials don't object to transit development — just the route below the school. Beverly Hills Mayor Barry Brucker dismisses any suggestion that the city is protesting because it fears the subway would import crime from scruffier neighborhoods.*
"Any association with, 'Don't come into our city,' may have been an issue for some people a decade or two ago, but it's never been a discussion" with the latest plan, Brucker says.
There's more at stake than easing traffic.
In a region with double-digit unemployment, business leaders see subways and light rail as the fast track to Los Angeles' future, and they predict that housing and other development will flourish around stations and lines.
"Local resistance has been a part of this project for a long time and actually killed it for a long time," says Gary Toebben, president of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.
"We believe we should put emotions aside," Toebben added. "We have a lot of people who think in their minds they would never ride a subway."
_Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved._


----------



## desertpunk

*TransportPolitic*



> Los Angeles’ Streetcar Plans: Too Duplicative of Existing Services?
> November 16th, 2011
> 
> *Los Angeles submitted an application for U.S. TIGER funds with the intention of building a downtown streetcar line. But the alignments proposed are very similar to those offered by existing rail and bus services — and each would operate in a one-way loop, a failed transit concept.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Los Angeles has big hopes for its downtown, and, like most of the country’s major cities, it has seen significant population growth in the inner core over the past ten years. Now, to extend this renaissance, the city — also like many others — is planning a streetcar line that would traverse the district from north to south. Last month, it applied for $37.5 million in U.S. Department of Transportation TIGER grant dollars, which it hopes to supplement with local and private funds to complete an initial route of between 3 and 5 one-way track miles at a cost of between $106 and $138 million.
> 
> Despite the fact that planning for the L.A. streetcar goes back for more than a decade thanks to the work of a public-private local advocacy group, the city will have plenty of competition in its effort to win federal funds. Requests for the third round of TIGER funding outnumbered actual funding available by 27 to 1. With so many projects up for consideration, anything funded by Washington ought to be valuable. But L.A.’s project could benefit from significant improvement.
> 
> The fundamental problem with the proposed streetcar is that its service pattern would overlap that of other transit lines either funded or in service today. Though there are several corridors under consideration (a final route alignment will be selected in February 2012), each would run within the general north-south corridor between Broadway to the east and Figueroa to the west and Pico to the south and Union Station to the north.
> 
> This broad corridor, it turns out, will be mostly duplicated by light rail once the Regional Connector — a more than $1 billion project — links the Blue and Expo lines south of downtown with the Gold Line north of it by 2020. The Silver Line, a bus rapid transit route that connects El Monte to South L.A., runs a very similar alignment. And literally dozens of local and rapid bus lines running with headways of 15 minutes or less throughout the day (shown in yellow on the map below) run similar routes. All of these lines are within half a mile or less of all of the proposed streetcar routes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [...]


----------



## FDW

desertpunk said:


> snip


They really ought to change that route, it just looks fucking ridiculous. I mean, if they can't change the route, they should at least make it a two way loop with streetcars going in both directions.


----------



## Falubaz

^^ U r right, one way loops are pretty stupid.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ It will be singe-track, to minimize intrusion on traffic lanes.


----------



## IanCleverly




----------



## Slartibartfas

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ It will be singe-track, to minimize intrusion on traffic lanes.


It does not only minimize intrusion on traffic lanes but also usability. A single loop is totally impracticable. 
Just think about a possible scenario: You arrive at the major hub 7th/Metro Center and want to get to 11th/Olive. How would the tram get you there? By going three times further than necessary, probably taking longer than simply walking to the place. 


They should either go for a real solution or just scrap the whole thing.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ I agree that single-track loops are bad, unless they are small to allow a circulator-esque operation on the terminus area.

Most American streetcar (as trams are mostly called there) projects suffer from the same design flaws: they are thought more like an "urban enhancement" to spur real state development than as transportation. Austin recently unveiled a similarly flawed streetcar project.


----------



## saybanana

I agree that the streetcar should be bi-directional. It should go down Broadway and up Grand Street but go all the way down to Pico ( and as far north as Caesar Chavez. There is a lot of potential to build south of 7th Downtown because of the many parking lots. A street car could increase the desirability of living there.


----------



## Slartibartfas

If downtown wants a tourist toy, the streetcar is fine as single loop, if it should be used as serious last mile connector for the subway/lightrail (which is not a bad idea at all), it has to be a double loop or a linear double track.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Slartibartfas said:


> If downtown wants a tourist toy, the streetcar is fine as single loop, if it should be used as serious last mile connector for the subway/lightrail (which is not a bad idea at all), it has to be a double loop or a linear double track.


The last mile connector is a different project that will be a subway and will tie Union Station with the 7th street metro station. It should break ground in 2013.


----------



## dachacon

So the Expo Line is in final testing phases, Should open by the end of January is my guess.

Expo Handed Over to Metro, Now In Final Pre-Opening Stage


Per the Expo Line's Facebook page, and now The Source too, the light rail's construction authority has handed the line over to Metro to begin pre-revenue operations, the last stage before you can ride the darn thing. This last step simulates regular service, but without picking up passengers. Posters on the Transit Coalition boards believe Sunday will be the first official day of pre-revenue, which would mean the line could open around mid-January as the last step takes about a month to complete. However, The Source stresses that no official dates have been set for either pre-revenue testing or a grand opening.

An interesting note on The Source's post indicates that it's not yet clear whether the line will initially open to La Cienega or go all the way to Culver City--the latter station is not yet finished, as it's waiting on a commuter parking lot and bike amenities.

As for the potential speed of a trip from Culver City to Seventh/Metro in Downtown, it's estimated to be about 25 minutes--The Source bloggers took the train for a test ride last week and Steve Hymon wrote that there were some amazingly fast portions, especially between Western and Crenshaw, and a sloooow section near Farmdale, where locals fought for a tunnel but got an at-grade station with several safety precautions. 

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/11/expo_handed_over_to_metro_now_in_final_preopening_stage.php


----------



## Slartibartfas

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> The last mile connector is a different project that will be a subway and will tie Union Station with the 7th street metro station. It should break ground in 2013.


Maybe I should clarify that. I was not speaking about that specific subway project but about a general type of project, aimed at connecting on the last mile. Usually that is medium capacity and rather slow with many stops. 

In this regard the subway connector project is not quite a classic last mile project but rather a closure of a current gap in the high priority network.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

exactly. its the most important project in LA County after the purple line extension. The ease and improvement will be a massive boom to ridership and usage of the entire system.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Darloeye

Is the Metro Gold line named after the studio company Metro Goldwyn Mayer ?


----------



## soup or man

No. It's named after the color Gold.


----------



## Darloeye

No well,Was just asking


----------



## Nexis




----------



## greg_christine

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/25/local/la-me-expo-problems-20111225

Technical problems delay Expo Line's debut
Metro says issues with circuitry and ventilation must be fixed before it can finish testing the Expo Line and training operators.

December 25, 2011|By Ari Bloomekatz, Los Angeles Times

The opening date for the long-awaited Expo Line has been postponed several times, and a test ride last week showed how a spot of bad circuitry and a debate over six-letter words — "subway," "tunnel" and "trench" — continue to delay the system's operation.

While examining a 0.6-mile stretch of railway that dips below ground level near USC, transportation officials on Thursday argued over nomenclature.

"I think it's a subway, it's not a trench. There's special ventilation requirements on a subway," said Art Leahy, head of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Rick Thorpe, head of the Exposition Construction Authority, insisted the feature was a trench.

"You say po-TAY-to, I say po-TAH-to," Leahy said. "When I look up and I see a roof and I'm on a train, I'm in a subway."

"But you can also look up and see the sky," Thorpe said.

"In certain places, that ... would be a trench," Leahy said.

Ventilation in the trench — or tunnel — is one of a handful of technical issues that officials with Metro, the agency responsible for funding and operating the line, say need to be fixed before they can finish "pre-revenue operations": training operators and testing the line.

Officials with the Exposition Construction Authority, who announced Nov. 28 that they had turned the system over to Metro for those pre-revenue operations, are complying despite saying that some of the requested changes — like fans in the trench or tunnel — are unnecessary.

County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who sits on the Metro board of directors, described the tension between Leahy and Thorpe as "sibling rivalry."

"The older child is giving the younger child a hard time," he said.

The two agencies do agree on some of the requested changes. One is to fix the line's primary technical problem at the junction where the Expo Line shares tracks with the Blue Line, which runs between Long Beach and downtown L.A.

Thorpe explained that rail operators receive signals from the track ensuring that the train is going the right speed, and in one area those signals were not going through.

Leahy said the junction is already tricky because trains will run frequently — minutes apart — in both directions, but the problems with the circuitry make full testing impossible.

"We can simulate service south of 23rd [Street]. We cannot simulate service north of 23rd because of the junction," Leahy said. "We can't get the trains through there fast enough. We've got to work out some signal system issues with the junction," he said.

"I think optimistically we're a few days away in solving it," Thorpe said Thursday.

Metro officials said they were working with the city Fire Department and are pushing for certain changes because the line can't open before the California Public Utilities Commission certifies it as safe. The first part of the line to open will go 7.9 miles, between the downtown 7th Street/Metro Center station and La Cienega Boulevard.

Leahy said that soon after problems at the junction are fixed, he'll be able to begin pre-revenue operations — which can take up to three months — and set an opening date shortly after.

Predictions for when the Expo line would begin service have repeatedly proved inaccurate. On Thursday, Leahy and Thorpe declined to specify a date.

The technical issues are the latest kink in a project that has faced numerous delays and cost increases, most often because of design enhancements, safety concerns and increases in construction prices.

Some officials said the problems occurred because of an initial bewilderment about funding sources and a disjointed process of construction, design and other contracts.

The first phase of the line originally carried a price tag of $640 million and was considered a cheap way to get rail into the Westside, but the cost grew to exceed $930 million.

When complete, the first phase will take commuters 8.6 miles between downtown Los Angeles and downtown Culver City at speeds of up to 55 mph.

But the 0.7-mile stretch into Culver City will not be ready for several months. Officials decided to first open the line as far as La Cienega, just east of Culver City.

The second phase of the project is budgeted at $1.5 billion. When fully built, the Expo Line will transport riders from downtown L.A. to Santa Monica in 46 minutes with 19 stops. It will be the first light rail line into the Westside since the days of the Red Car trolleys and is expected to become one of the most heavily used in the country.

Most of the line's first phase is complete. Each rail station will feature original artwork based on local history, including an interpretation of when the Baldwin Hills Reservoir dam burst in 1963.

At the above-ground La Cienega station, commuters will enjoy a 360-degree view of the region including the Hollywood sign, West L.A. and the Federal Building, Baldwin Hills and downtown L.A.

[email protected]


----------



## State of the Union

greg_christine said:


> I'm not such a fan of the Blue Line. On a southbound train, I was panhandled once. On the northbound return trip, I was panhandled twice more. I've been panhandled near transit stations in other cities, but not on the trains.


This is simply part of the experience of riding the Ghetto Blue. I'm sorry but you haven't experienced the whole Blue Line experience unless you've been panhandled a few times, someone try to sell you something, loud discussions about awkward topics, have a dude blast some rap music, or have a girl try to get some guy to leave her alone.


----------



## Woonsocket54

oh yeah the Blue Line. I guess that's a good idea if you need to score coke in Compton. I remember Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx had quite an adventure on it in "Collateral."


----------



## krnboy1009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GemKqzILV4w&ob=av2n

I believe this is in LA?


----------



## State of the Union

Woonsocket54 said:


> oh yeah the Blue Line. I guess that's a good idea if you need to score coke in Compton. I remember Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx had quite an adventure on it in "Collateral."


Actually, this looks like Harbor Freeway Station on the Green Line, but they used the Blue Line Nippon Cars.


----------



## CCs77

State of the Union said:


> Actually, this looks like Harbor Freeway Station on the Green Line, but they used the Blue Line Nippon Cars.


He he, I saw that movie recently. It was supossed to be the blue line, don't know if it was actually the blue line, but it was supossed to be it. They take the train at 7th street, from an entrance that was aparently direct from an skyscraper lobby, does that entrance exist? Then they fight and shoot in an empty train for a few stations until they get to this station where the movie ends.

I think they show the name of the station where that scene is supossed to happen but I don't remember.


----------



## Professor L Gee

greg_christine said:


> I'm not such a fan of the Blue Line. On a southbound train, I was panhandled once. On the northbound return trip, I was panhandled twice more. I've been panhandled near transit stations in other cities, but not on the trains.


The second time I visited NYC, there was a lady who panhandled entire subway cars. Said her little spiel, insulted us for being selfish when no one gave her anything, moved on to the next car.

It happens.


----------



## Woonsocket54

krnboy1009 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GemKqzILV4w&ob=av2n
> 
> I believe this is in LA?


Yeah, that looks like Blue Line at Metro Center, the situs of "Collateral" and "The Italian Job."






Here are a few other music videos that have scenes in the country's most beautiful subway (note that the Pussycat Dolls board a Brooklyn-bound L train at North Hollywood)


----------



## Kenni

CCs77 said:


> He he, I saw that movie recently. It was supossed to be the blue line, don't know if it was actually the blue line, but it was supossed to be it. They take the train at 7th street, from an entrance that was aparently direct from an skyscraper lobby, does that entrance exist? Then they fight and shoot in an empty train for a few stations until they get to this station where the movie ends.
> 
> I think they show the name of the station where that scene is supossed to happen but I don't remember.


This is one of the entrances to the 7th street Metro Center.











7th Street/Metro by Ultra Shine Blind, on Flickr


----------



## Kenni

greg_christine said:


> The video illustrates the congestion that will exist at Metro Center with both the Blue Line and the Expo Line reversing there. A Blue Line train can be seen ahead of the Expo Line train at Pico. The Expo Line train ends up waiting in the tunnel because both platforms at Metro Center are already occupied.
> 
> I had expected the trains to have traffic signal priority on the western end of the Expo Line, or at least for the traffic lights to be synchronized with the trains. The video seems to show the trains waiting at most intersections.


In the future that shouldn't be a problem with the extension of the Blue Line to the Gold Line (Regional Connector).


----------



## greg_christine

^^ On my recent excursion from Pasadena to Redondo Beach, the potential light rail traffic jam at the merge point for the Blue and Aqua/Expo Lines was already evident. On both the southbound and northbound legs of my excursion, there was an Aqua/Expo Line train waiting as my Blue Line train passed. The Aqua/Expo Line will open next weekend, and the line will be completed to Santa Monica in 2015, but the downtown connector won't be completed until 2018 or 2020, so the situation will get worse before it gets better.


----------



## State of the Union

CCs77 said:


> He he, I saw that movie recently. It was supossed to be the blue line, don't know if it was actually the blue line, but it was supossed to be it. They take the train at 7th street, from an entrance that was aparently direct from an skyscraper lobby, does that entrance exist? Then they fight and shoot in an empty train for a few stations until they get to this station where the movie ends.
> 
> I think they show the name of the station where that scene is supossed to happen but I don't remember.


It's definitely Harbor Freeway Station. You can see the freeway connectors in the back ground, and I've stood next to that support to the left of the picture, which supports an HOV Direct-Connector Ramp.


----------



## State of the Union

Woonsocket54 said:


> oh yeah the Blue Line. I guess that's a good idea if you need to score coke in Compton. I remember Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx had quite an adventure on it in "Collateral."


Yep, definitely green line Harbor Freeway. Took this today:


----------



## soup or man

EXPO LINE PHASE I IS OPEN!!!


----------



## soup or man




----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Quite a misleading map to throw some bus lines in the same map as subway/light-rail lines without any major graphic distinction to reflect the inferiority of buses in relate to rail.

Ditto for not distinguishing full metro from light-rail with grade crossings.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Quite a misleading map to throw some bus lines in the same map as subway/light-rail lines without any major graphic distinction to reflect the inferiority of buses in relate to rail.
> 
> Ditto for not distinguishing full metro from light-rail with grade crossings.



They have a legend for that.

But perhaps some were just born to complain.


----------



## State of the Union

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Quite a misleading map to throw some bus lines in the same map as subway/light-rail lines without any major graphic distinction to reflect the inferiority of buses in relate to rail.
> 
> Ditto for not distinguishing full metro from light-rail with grade crossings.


1) It isn't even an official Metro Map, so you fail.
2) The system is called "Metro Rail" Light Rail and HRT Metro are both rail so thus you fail again.
3) The average user doesn't care about the difference. Stating HRT and LRT as different on maps just makes it confusing for people and really it's just rail-fan/Transit-geek nitpicking. I know allot of people that think the Gold Line and Red Line use the same kind of trains. Especially since the Gold Line to East LA has a 2 mile subway segment that acts just like the Red Line. 

Official Map:
http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/rail_map.gif
As you can see, BRT has boxes and are shown as such on all stations and maps.


----------



## soup or man

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Quite a misleading map to throw some bus lines in the same map as subway/light-rail lines without any major graphic distinction to reflect the inferiority of buses in relate to rail.
> 
> Ditto for not distinguishing full metro from light-rail with grade crossings.


Yeah because the key clearly doesn't say that the Orange and Silverlines are busways.

Good attempt though.


----------



## soup or man




----------



## ssiguy2

Congrats L.A.!


----------



## Woonsocket54

The Orange Line extension to Chatsworth hasn't opened yet, has it?


----------



## State of the Union

Woonsocket54 said:


> The Orange Line extension to Chatsworth hasn't opened yet, has it?


It's going to open in a couple months along with the Culver City and Farmdale Expo stations. The opening of the orange line extension is so close that it would be a waste of resources to reprint every map in the entire the system just to add 4 stations on the map when it will open soon anyway.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Getting Kenneth Hanh's name off the map at 103rd St and replacing it with Watts Towers - when did that happen?

Also, they didn't bother to clutter the Blue Line station names with Rosa Parks, Julian Dixon, Chick Hearn etc on this map. I like that.


----------



## soup or man

It was a while ago. Rarely did anyone call those stations Julian Dixon and such anyway.


----------



## Woonsocket54

For those of you who are fans of "Modern Family," the episode being shown on May 2 2012 takes place partially on the LA Metro. Previews show Cameron, Mitch and Lily at the North Hollywood station.


----------



## trainrover

^^ Is the programme supposed to resemble the 1960s?


----------



## 2Easy

Woonsocket54 said:


> Getting Kenneth Hanh's name off the map at 103rd St and replacing it with Watts Towers - when did that happen?
> 
> Also, they didn't bother to clutter the Blue Line station names with Rosa Parks, Julian Dixon, Chick Hearn etc on this map. I like that.


It'd be better though if the map matched the signs in the stations and the recorded announcements but the new names do not. Especially "Willowbrook". None of the signs nor any of the announcements use that as the name for that station. At least for 103rd, the signs and announcements still have the "103rd" part even if they use "Kenneth Hahn" instead of "Watts Tower".


----------



## Woonsocket54

2Easy said:


> It'd be better though if the map matched the signs in the stations and the recorded announcements but the new names do not. Especially "Willowbrook". None of the signs nor any of the announcements use that as the name for that station. At least for 103rd, the signs and announcements still have the "103rd" part even if they use "Kenneth Hahn" instead of "Watts Tower".


I hope I am not the only one reminded of the words of one Charles Pearson, the stalwart promoter of the Metropolitan Railway (precursor of the London Undeground) who was rather sorely opposed to the use of station names. He was known to say, "Surely there is no need to expense sums on such puffery."


----------



## Woonsocket54

extension of Orange Line to Chatsworth (porn production district):

The Source
http://thesource.metro.net/2012/05/07/metro-orange-line-extension-testing-continues/



> *Metro Orange Line Extension testing continues*
> Posted on May 7, 2012 by Dave Sotero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Traffic control officers were deployed to ensure vehicular safety during the busway testing._
> 
> Metro Orange Line Extension testing is now in its third week. Buses continue to run intermittently on their very own dedicated right-of-way between Canoga Station and the Chatsworth Metrolink/Amtrak Station.
> 
> Metro reminds motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists to watch out for buses as they pass intersections to ensure a safe operation. The extension is still on track for a June 2012 opening. Here are a few photos from the testing now in progress:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Metro Liner arrives at the Southbound Roscoe Station._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Metro Liner descends from the Lassen Street Bridge at the Chatsworth Station._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Metro Liner arrives at the Chatsworth Station._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Metro Liner heading southbound on the Lassen Street Bridge._


----------



## Kenni

it's been days, but here's another vid.

LA's newst line. Expo (Aqua) Line.


----------



## Kenni

Double.


----------



## Woonsocket54

More Orange Line Chatsworth pre-opening photos
source: Los Angeles streetsblog flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157629640245962/with/7160263302/)


----------



## jeromeee

I think it's great how LA extends it's public transportation. 
But what I don't get is, why the Orange Line is part of the Metro network. From what I can see it's just a bus with less stations...


----------



## Suburbanist

jeromeee said:


> But what I don't get is, why the Orange Line is part of the Metro network. From what I can see it's just a bus with less stations...


They "cheat" like Berlin, putting some improved bus route as if it were light-rail just because the buses look modern and have an own ROW with fancy paints on pavement.

But it is good old crap bus, relying on the driver human reactions instead of signaling and electronics to drive the vehicle.


----------



## Svartmetall

Suburbanist said:


> They "cheat" like Berlin, putting some improved bus route as if it were light-rail just because the buses look modern and have an own ROW with fancy paints on pavement.
> 
> But it is good old crap bus, relying on the driver human reactions instead of signaling and electronics to drive the vehicle.


Question though: you're in favour of people driving cars which relies on human reactions, but you're not in favour of buses? You must have a consistent stance on this...


----------



## Suburbanist

Svartmetall said:


> Question though: you're in favour of people driving cars which relies on human reactions, but you're not in favour of buses? You must have a consistent stance on this...


Well, for a starter car passengers and drivers are supposed to wear seatbelt all the times, and don't carry standing passengers, and have (modern cars) all sort of gimmicks like lateral airbags or survival cell-design concept. A bus with loose passengers is potentially much more dangerous in case of collisions. NO road vehicle should EVER carry unrestrained passengers. In any decent country, hauling passengers without seatbelts is heavily fined, and hauling passenger in, say, the back of a pickup SUV totally prohibited!

Then, a bus weighs much more than a car.

Finally, I'm all in favor of a next technological leap that takes the human input as the centerpiece of driving an "individual mobility vehicle". I like cars not for the driving as for the kind of mobility (point to point, private, in a vehicle that allows you to buy more comfort with money, with ample routing) they provide. But I'm all too excited for UGVs to take off. Computers are much more reliable than humans to drive, including myself.

But buses are dangerous, filthy and, if the produce extreme dicomfort for people travelling in its un-ergonomic seats or, worse, standing!


----------



## soup or man

I've ridden the Orange Line quite a few times. The buses are clean, smooth, and quite fast (60 mph on the Orange Line is the norm which is about the same speed as the subway). When the Orange Line first opened, there was almost an accident a week but it's now it's pretty reliable.

And subways are just the same as buses when it comes to extreme discomfort (ever have a subway train break down inbetween stations in the summer), sudden acceleration, and filth everywhere.

Oh and PS: The Orange Line does have signal priority.


----------



## Silly_Walks

soup or man said:


> And subways are just the same as buses when it comes to extreme discomfort (ever have a subway train break down inbetween stations in the summer), sudden acceleration, and filth everywhere.



I can read on trains and metros, but not on buses. This is because trains and metros run smoothly on tracks, whereas buses are too inconsistent and my equilibrium gets all messed up when focussing my eyes on a non-moving piece of paper, while the bus around me is moving back and forth.

I have only tested this in regular buses, but i'm assuming it's the same in BRT since i also have this problem on consistent speed highway trips in car and coaches.

Conclusion: subways and buses are not the same when it comes to "extreme discomfort".


----------



## 2Easy

soup or man said:


> I've ridden the Orange Line quite a few times. The buses are clean, smooth, and quite fast (*60 mph on the Orange Line is the norm* which is about the same speed as the subway).


I could be wrong, but I really don't think that they go over 50. When you're going 60 mph on a city bus - like on the silver line - it's very noticeable. If the bus has to decelerate quickly because of traffic, people standing can actually fall down. To me a fast bus is not only less comfortable than a train, it's not entirely safe. 

Anyway I think that the real reason that they are on the Metro map is for political reasons. It placates government officials that advocated for BRT instead of rail and SFV residents that have been left out of the ongoing rail expansion (their own fault anyway).


----------



## State of the Union

Suburbanist said:


> Well, for a starter car passengers and drivers are supposed to wear seatbelt all the times, and don't carry standing passengers, and have (modern cars) all sort of gimmicks like lateral airbags or survival cell-design concept. A bus with loose passengers is potentially much more dangerous in case of collisions. NO road vehicle should EVER carry unrestrained passengers. In any decent country, hauling passengers without seatbelts is heavily fined, and hauling passenger in, say, the back of a pickup SUV totally prohibited!
> 
> *Then, a bus weighs much more than a car.*
> 
> Finally, I'm all in favor of a next technological leap that takes the human input as the centerpiece of driving an "individual mobility vehicle". I like cars not for the driving as for the kind of mobility (point to point, private, in a vehicle that allows you to buy more comfort with money, with ample routing) they provide. But I'm all too excited for UGVs to take off. Computers are much more reliable than humans to drive, including myself.
> 
> But buses are dangerous, filthy and, if the produce extreme dicomfort for people travelling in its un-ergonomic seats or, worse, standing!


You don't know shit about physics, do you?

M(Delta V) = M(Delta V) in a collision. So, the bus having a much higher mass would have a much lower change in the velocity. Because of conservation of momentum, they must be equal, so if the bus has a higher mass and lower change in velocity, the car must have a lower mass but higher change in velocity. Because you have a much lower change in velocity of the bus, passengers won't go flying through the windshield thus there is no need a for seat belts. There is a reason all those cars need safety gimmicks. A car can't withstand shit.

The bolded part of your post, the very thing you use to argue your point against the safety of a bus, is actually the reason why a bus is safer.









This is like basic high school physics, so you are only making yourself look like a dumbass.


----------



## trainrover

Which of the two modes might you reckon'd get creamed colliding below speed at an LRT grade crossing, eh?


----------



## k.k.jetcar

*Problem junction: Expo Line*



> *Expo Line junction design flaw prompts inspection order*
> The junction has presented significant safety issues and requires a special inspection program because of subsequent 'non-standard' repairs, the state regulator says.
> 
> By Dan Weikel, Los Angeles Times
> 
> May 20, 2012, 9:00 p.m.
> State safety regulators have ordered stringent inspections of a downtown Los Angeles rail junction for the newly opened Expo Line because of a serious design flaw that poses an increased risk of train derailments.
> 
> Officials of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority insist the intersection of the region's newest light rail service and the older Long Beach Blue Line at Washington Boulevard and Flower Street is safe for now because of small modifications to the tracks.
> 
> But the junction — several blocks south of the multilevel underground Metro Center station at 7th and Figueroa — has presented significant safety issues and requires a special inspection program because of "non-standard" repairs made in an effort correct the problem, said Michelle Cooke, who oversees the California Public Utilities Commission's rail safety unit.


complete story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-expo-safety-20120518,0,2938720.story


----------



## LAmarODom420

*Metro Board of Directors approves route for Westside Subway Extension’s second and third phase, including Century City station on Constellation*










http://thesource.metro.net/2012/05/...ury-city-station-on-constellation/#more-42653

The final route and station locations of the second and third phase of the Westside Subway Extension were approved by the Metro Board of Directors on Thursday by a vote of seven to two. Board Members Mike Antonovich and John Fasana voted against the route.

The approval includes, most notably, a station location in Century City at the intersection of Constellation Boulevard and the Avenue of Stars to avoid building a station and tunnel in active earthquake fault zones under Santa Monica Boulevard. Metro’s experts testified that building a station or tunnels under Santa Monica Boulevard would be unsafe.

The Constellation station will require tunneling under part of the Beverly Hills High School campus. That is opposed by the city of Beverly Hills and the Beverly Hills Unified School District.

In testimony to the Metro Board, Beverly Hills city and school officials on Thursday both asked the Board to delay making a decision on tunneling under the school and school officials again threatened state and federal litigation.

Officials from Beverly Hills also alleged that the earthquake faults are not active. “You will not succeed and we will stop you at every turn,” said Beverly Hills Unified School District Board Member Lisa Korbatov.

Metro staff and other experts remain unswayed by Beverly Hills’ arguments. “The Santa Monica Fault is an active fault and there’s no extra evidence that is going to come in that is going to change that,” said Lucy Jones, a seismologist with the U.S. Geological Survey who reviewed the project. She was not paid by Metro.

In response to a hearing last week requested by the city of Beverly Hills, the Metro Board in a separate action voted to adopt the findings regarding the reasonableness of the Constellation station and the related subway tunnels beneath Beverly Hills High School.


The findings, posted here, reaffirmed Metro’s previous position that tunneling can be done safely under the high school, among other things. The vote was 8 to 2, with the no votes from Directors Antonovich and Fasana. A motion by Antonovich for an additional study on the Santa Monica Fault failed on an 8 to 2 vote, with only Antonovich and Fasana voting for it.

In the past two years, Beverly Hills officials have alleged: that the subway tunnels would trigger underground gas explosions beneath the school; Metro moved the station to Constellation to benefit a politically-connected developer in Century City, and; subway tunnels would interfere with school operations and would hinder the possible future development of an underground parking garage at the school.

Metro staff, experts and consultants strongly disagree, saying: there are lower gas levels under the school than in other parts of Los Angeles, including downtown L.A., where there are existing subway tunnels; that ridership would be higher at the Constellation station than a station along Santa Monica Boulevard, and; that noise and vibrations under the school would be within legal limits, have no adverse impacts and that the tunnels, which would be at least 50 feet under the school, would still allow for a three- to four-story underground garage or other structure.

Beverly Hills also submitted three alternative routes to a Constellation station last week that bypassed tunneling under the high school.

Metro staff said they reviewed the three routes and determined they would require much deeper tunnels to avoid buildings and would greatly increase the cost of the project and impact residential properties west of Century City. Staff also said that the routes proposed by Beverly Hills has tighter turns that would require slower train speeds.

Supervisor and Board Vice Chair Antonovich likened Metro’s seismic experts Dr. James Dolan and Lucy Jones to “trained seals,” saying their background in seismology precluded them from drawing conclusions on the geology of the area and the engineering of the project.

Metro CEO Art Leahy disagreed and stood by the agency’s conclusions. Dr. Jones testified that she was not being paid by Metro and reviewed the project under her role as a seismologist with the federal U.S. Geological Survey. Dr. Dolan, a professor of earth sciences at USC, testified that even after he began his role as a consultant with Metro, Beverly Hills city and school district officials contacted him about possibly working for them.

The Westwood/UCLA station will be located at the intersection of Wilshire and Westwood boulevards. The Westwood/VA station will be on the south side of Wilshire Boulevard, with an entrance just east of Bonsall Avenue, allowing for a very short walk from the station to the entrance of the VA Hospital.

The Metro Board in April had voted to certify the Final Environmental Impact/Statement Report for the project, which will extend the current Purple Line subway from Western Avenue for nine miles to Westwood. The first segment between Western and La Cienega Boulevard is scheduled to be completed in 2020.

The Board in April delayed selecting a route for the second and third phases of the project to accommodate a request for a hearing about the Century City station location by the city of Beverly Hills.


----------



## Kenni

I'm not buying Beverly Hill's concerns, and I like the Century City station.


----------



## Xoser_barcelona

State of the Union said:


> You don't know shit about physics, do you?
> 
> This is like basic high school physics, so you are only making yourself look like a dumbass.


No need for these parts of your explanation; the teacher should never educate with 'mala educación'. And not all of us are good at maths or sciences; that's where you come in.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Kenni said:


> I'm not buying Beverly Hill's concerns, and I like the Century City station.


I would be interesting to know the percentage of anglophile Angelenos that are aware of the existence of the Los Angeles Metro.


----------



## Slartibartfas

> subway tunnels would interfere with school operations and would hinder the possible future development of an underground parking garage at the school.


That must be the most hilarious argument I have ever heard. A subway must not be built where it makes most sense because then one of the buildings above can't build an underground car garage anymore?

So not to prevent a potential underground car garage, the subway should be built at an active fault line instead. 

Are they real? What is this Beverly Hills High School? Is it some elite school or where comes that arrogance from?


----------



## Woonsocket54

Beverly Hills used to be nice and progressive, but recently it has been settled by stuck-up racist Persians. They're just as obnoxious in the US as they are in Iran. What really peeves me is that they're going to be pursuing a lawsuit against Metro, a lawsuit that they will surely lose, but one that will delay this long-delayed project even more.



Slartibartfas said:


> Are they real? What is this Beverly Hills High School? Is it some elite school or where comes that arrogance from?


Yes, it's the most elite public school in the Western U.S.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Slartibartfas said:


> That must be the most hilarious argument I have ever heard. A subway must not be built where it makes most sense because then one of the buildings above can't build an underground car garage anymore?
> 
> So not to prevent a potential underground car garage, the subway should be built at an active fault line instead.
> 
> Are they real? What is this Beverly Hills High School? Is it some elite school or where comes that arrogance from?


and actually, it wont stop them from building the underground garage because the tunnel will be 80 feet underground while the garage will not be more than 50 feet deep. they are grasping at straws.

it should be mentioned that most of beverly hills and even the merchants on Rodeo are FOR the subway, the only idiots against it are a few NIMBY cronies


----------



## Woonsocket54

January 1994 epicenter was too far north, if you ask me!


----------



## desertpunk




----------



## Suburbanist

A video of the NIMBYs


----------



## State of the Union

Xoser_barcelona said:


> No need for these parts of your explanation; the teacher should never educate with 'mala educación'. And not all of us are good at maths or sciences; that's where you come in.


I understand that some people are better at different subjects, I suck at literature.(though for most part I think it's just the fact that I hate it)

Normally I would cut some slack, but when you bring yourself into a conversation and argue points, you need to know what you are talking about. I especially grilled Suburbanist because in another thread he states "it's all about physics" yet seems to know nothing of the sort. 

I suck at Lit, so I keep myself out of those conversations. If you are going to make point about physics and act like you know what you are talking about to someone who knows physics, don't expect them to give you a free pass.


----------



## Silly_Walks

Why so much trouble trying to stop it? Why not "ok, we will agree easily and without any bad words, but if something goes wrong, you are paying for ALL the damages", and make them sign a contract.


----------



## Slartibartfas

If that school is such an elite thing, why are they really trying to stop that subway below their building? They can hardly be stupid enough to believe their own arguments. So what are the real arguments? And what makes a school so much more sensitive than lets say a big office building that hosts even more people?

PS:
The funny video claims that the subway could be faster more direct at the alternative route. They obviously don't care for the fact that not those metro networks are the most successful that run the fastest to nowhere but those that connect the destinations that people really want to go to in the best fashion.


----------



## Woonsocket54

The two unopened stations on Expo Line Phase 1.... (Farmdale and Culver City).

Big Blue Bus (Santa Monica municipal bus company) is adjusting its schedules to serve the Culver City station on *June 17, 2012*, so perhaps that is an opening date for that station.
http://www.bigbluebus.com/home/index.asp?noticeid=1

There is also speculation that the stations might open as late as *June 20, 2012*:
http://transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=expoline&thread=1136&page=5#28565


----------



## Woonsocket54

Los Angeles Times
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...ge-line-busway-extension-to-open-in-june.html


> *Metro's Orange Line busway extension to open in June*
> May 29, 2012 | 3:03 pm
> 
> A 4-mile extension to the Orange Line busway will open at the end of June, officials announced Tuesday, allowing commuters a one-seat ride from Chatsworth to the Red Line subway station in North Hollywood.
> 
> The Orange Line now runs 14 miles west from the North Hollywood station past Reseda Boulevard to Canoga Avenue. The extension goes north from there, mostly along Canoga Avenue, to the Chatsworth station and connections to Metrolink and Amtrak trains.
> 
> “With the Orange Line Extension -– the first Measure R project to be completed –- we are continuing to build out a new 21st century mass transit system for the people of Los Angeles and for future generations,” said Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who also heads the board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Measure R is the half-cent transportation sales tax -- raising a projected $40 billion -- that voters passed in 2008.
> 
> The authority announced that the busway extension would open *June 30*, with free rides and community events from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.[/B]
> -Ari Bloomekatz


----------



## Woonsocket54

Los Angeles-Santa Ana metro proposal









Source: http://southla.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/metro-to-santa-ana-via-south-county-gateway-cities/


----------



## sweet-d

That has got to be the dumbest video I've seen in my god damned life. WTF!


----------



## Kenni

Suburbanist said:


> A video of the NIMBYs


"OOOHHHH" Nice try Beverly Hills.


----------



## Sunfuns

Is there really a way to make LA public transport friendly without spending half of California's budget on it?


----------



## Suburbanist

Sunfuns said:


> Is there really a way to make LA public transport friendly without spending half of California's budget on it?


Los Angeles is one of the densest metropolitan areas in US, even denser (as a metropolis) than New York and Chicago.

Most of its suburbs are made of small lot, grid-arranged houses.

Actually, there is a large shortage or greenery within the city itself.

The problem is their piecemeal approach: build a line here, a crappy "enhanced busway" there and so on.


----------



## State of the Union

Suburbanist said:


> Los Angeles is one of the densest metropolitan areas in US, even denser (as a metropolis) than New York and Chicago.
> 
> Most of its suburbs are made of small lot, grid-arranged houses.
> 
> Actually, there is a large shortage or greenery within the city itself.
> 
> The problem is their piecemeal approach: build a line here, a crappy "enhanced busway" there and so on.


As much as I hate the Orange Line, I have to remind myself that Metro had no other choice with that ban on the ROW in place. Even still, it's much faster than the 750 and is probably overall not *that* much slower than rail. It's only real issue is the capacity problems.

As for the "Piecemeal" approach, I disagree. There are overall plans, it's just each segment takes lots of time and money to build. For example, once the Regional Connector is built, the Blue, Gold, and Expo in particular won''t seem like random segmented lines. The East LA Gold Line was never meant to be permanently part of the gold line. The Pasadena segment was originally suppose to be part of the Blue Line in the first place. The Crenshaw Line will also seem like a random fragment of a line until it's extended North past Expo.

Also, it's difficult to cover such a large county full of suburbs when we are building our system from scratch in modern times where just laying some track cost hundreds of millions of dollars.


----------



## LAmarODom420

http://thesource.metro.net/2012/06/05/expo-line-to-open-to-farmdale-station-and-culver-city-on-june-20/

*Expo Line to open to Farmdale station and Culver City on June 20
*Posted Jun 5, 2012 by Steve Hymon in Projects	










The Culver City station and adjacent parking lot, as seen this morning. Photo by Anna Chen/Metro.

Here is the news release from Metro:

Los Angeles Mayor and Metro Board Chair Antonio Villaraigosa announced today that Metro will officially open to the public both the Culver City Station and the Farmdale Station along the recently opened Metro Expo Line on Wednesday, June 20 at 12 noon.

​In addition, it was announced that patrons boarding trains at both the Farmdale and Culver City Station will receive free passes to use the Expo Line on June 20.

​“The opening of the Culver City and Farmdale stations completes the first phase of the Expo line, connecting Angelenos from the Westside to Downtown and beyond,” said Mayor Villaraigosa. “We are answering the call from voters to provide more transit options and creating career opportunities for Angelenos in the process.”

​The public opening of the Culver City Station coincides with Downtown Culver City’s Third Wednesday “Summer Solstice” Happy Hour which features special offers and free goodies from over 25 participating businesses throughout the downtown area, as well as outdoor entertainment and activities. The event takes place every third Wednesday of the month from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. in beautiful downtown Culver City.

The public is encouraged to take advantage of the opening of the Culver City Station and take the Metro Expo Line, in a short walking distance to the event, to sample artisanal cuisine and cocktails, shop at unique boutiques, view art, and enjoy a variety of live music and entertainment. For a complete list of freebies, offers, discounts and entertainment, visit www.downtownculvercity.com.

“The opening of the Culver City station is a tremendous milestone in the construction of the Expo Line from downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica,” said Culver City Mayor Andy Weissman. “We look forward to the Expo Line bringing much needed congestion relief to our region and providing an efficient new mode of public transportation to help commuters get from home to work, recreation and to school. We welcome the opportunity to bring more visitors to shop and to dine and to create a dynamic transit oriented hub at Washington/National as this exciting, eagerly awaited project comes on line to Culver City.”

Poised to open both stations along the Metro Expo Line, Metro over the next few weeks will continue to run test trains into the new Culver City Station located at Washington and National to ensure all systems are operating properly.​

​The segment of the Metro Expo Line operating from downtown Los Angeles to the La Cienega/Jefferson Station opened to the public on April 28. Trains have been bypassing the Farmdale Station adjacent to Dorsey High School going only as far as the station at La Cienega and Jefferson. With the opening of the Farmdale Station, students attending Dorsey High School will have an additional transportation alternative by using the new Metro Expo Line.

​Phase I of the Metro Expo Line is a new $932 million, 8.6-mile light rail line from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City. It has 12 stations with two stations shared with the Metro Blue Line. The new light rail line serves USC, Exposition Park, The Mid-City communities, the Crenshaw District and Culver City.

​Phase II of the Metro Expo Line, a $1.5 billion 6.6-mile extension from Culver City to Santa Monica, is funded under the Measure R half-cent sale tax initiative approved by the voters in 2008. Phase II will have seven stations serving West Los Angeles/Santa Monica and is expected to be completed in 2016.

​Both Phase I and II of the Metro Expo Line are being built by the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority. Once completed, they are turned over to Metro to operate. For more information about the new Metro Expo Line, visit metro.net/expo or buildexpo.org.


----------



## Woonsocket54

The opening of the two new Expo Line stations is welcome news for the Westside. Unfortunately for the Valley, the extension of Orange Line to Chstaworth will likely not open this month as anticipated. According to Metro's latest bus-related press release, "Service on the new Metro Orange Line Extension is expected to start this summer. Check metro.net for an opening date announcement" (Source: http://thesource.metro.net/2012/06/...ne-17-with-improved-connections-to-expo-line/).

On the other hand, they will open the CSU Northridge transit center on June 17, 2012. This will serve buses 167 and 741.


----------



## State of the Union

Woonsocket54 said:


> The opening of the two new Expo Line stations is welcome news for the Westside. Unfortunately for the Valley, the extension of Orange Line to Chstaworth will likely not open this month as anticipated. According to Metro's latest bus-related press release, "Service on the new Metro Orange Line Extension is expected to start this summer. Check metro.net for an opening date announcement" (Source: http://thesource.metro.net/2012/06/...ne-17-with-improved-connections-to-expo-line/).
> 
> On the other hand, they will open the CSU Northridge transit center on June 17, 2012. This will serve buses 167 and 741.


The Orange Line Extension opens June 30:
http://www.metro.net/projects/orangeline/


----------



## Woonsocket54

So June 30 it is then. But Metro needs to harmonize its PR campaign. The site linked above also says "Forecast to open summer 2012." 

On the day the extension opens, there will be free rides to the porn industry district of Chatsworth.


----------



## Pucelano77

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> L.A. in 5 years



Is this finished and working? Then, can i go from Redondo Beach to the Downtown, Hollywood Reservoir or toluca lake using underground? How does it works? It's really expensive?

PD: I'm an European tourist.

PD2: Where can i found a map with the directions of all the metro stations?


----------



## Woonsocket54

They've opened the Expo to Culver City. Hooray.

But Metro to Century City is still centuries away because of local opposition from the botox mafia of Beverly Hills. Those shahs of Sunset should all be sent back to Iran where they came from and stop preventing LA from moving forward with its transit plans.


----------



## ParadiseLost

That difference map from 5 years ago isn't really impressive. So basically two new branches in 5 years. Not terrible, not great either.
Thank god for plan R.

Anyway that Beverly Hills vid is so [email protected](%!^& stupid


----------



## LAmarODom420

ParadiseLost said:


> That difference map from 5 years ago isn't really impressive. So basically two new branches in 5 years. Not terrible, not great either.
> Thank god for plan R.
> 
> Anyway that Beverly Hills vid is so [email protected](%!^& stupid


These lines are opening in the next 5 years:

Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2a 2015
Expo Line Phase 2 to Santa Monica 2016
Crenshaw Line 2016

Here is a timetable if the Measure R Extension is passed:


----------



## ParadiseLost

How fast are all these light rail routes going to be? Metro LA is big so speed would be important no?


----------



## Sunfuns

How much more construction would be needed to achieve the same public transport density, frequency and reliability as NYC? The last time I was in LA (10 years ago) renting a car was the only sane option for any reasonably well-off visitor. On the other hand renting a car is the last option I would consider in New York...


----------



## Cesar Vieira

*questions*

questions:
There are plans to extend the Orange Line to Burbank and then to Grendale?

The purple line will be extended to UCLA in the future?


----------



## nandert

I thought I'd play the map game and try my hand at what the Metro system might look like in 30 or so years if the various attempts to accelerate transportation projects all work out (and Beverly Hills doesn't litigate against all of them).

In addition to the imminently planned projects, I've drawn the theorized East LA - Silverlake and Glendale - Vermont lines, an extended Pink Line to Venice, and a Burbank - Pasadena orange line extension.

One particular thing of note I wanted to address was using Neighborhood names as station names - but still keeping intersections on the map as, in LA, they're generally more helpful for navigation than neighborhood names.

A good portion of the basic layout is based on the 30/10 Transport Politic map that's floating around.

Anyway, here you go:


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Beautifully done! If we had that system, LA would be a completely different city. I feel as though if the people in charge pushed this map out to the masses as a way of getting the citizens excited, we could pass any tax to build it. 

I think the only gap that would need filling in that map would be another line in the Hollywood area that hits Melrose.


----------



## nandert

Thank you! Also, for fun, here's the current Metro Map:
http://i.imgur.com/DNEEA.jpg
and the Metro Map with all the projects currently fully approved or under construction:
http://i.imgur.com/zEqkQ.jpg
all in the same style. Long way to go.


----------



## LAmarODom420

Nandert, that is incredible. This will be useful in passing Measure R+. Lots of people need to see this.


----------



## Pucelano77

nandert said:


> Thank you! Also, for fun, here's the current Metro Map:
> http://i.imgur.com/DNEEA.jpg
> and the Metro Map with all the projects currently fully approved or under construction:
> http://i.imgur.com/zEqkQ.jpg
> all in the same style. Long way to go.


Thank you very mcuh, this was what i was looking for!


----------



## LAmarODom420

nandert said:


> Thank you! Also, for fun, here's the current Metro Map:
> http://i.imgur.com/DNEEA.jpg
> and the Metro Map with all the projects currently fully approved or under construction:
> http://i.imgur.com/zEqkQ.jpg
> all in the same style. Long way to go.


Nandert, you are famous


----------



## Swede

Woonsocket54 said:


> San Fernando Valley commuters on the Expo Line
> 
> http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_21081380/san-fernando-valley-commuters-flock-new-expo-line


This is what happends as you build a network, people find routes the planners didn't think of. Which is why good transfer-stations are important, as are new crossing lines once enough lines go to the central hub.


----------



## LAmarODom420

http://la.streetsblog.org/wp-content/pdf/MeasureRProgressionMaps20120713.pdf


Measure R build outs by decade. As you will see, we need to pass Measure R+ to borrow against future tax revenue to accelerate construction or we will wait a very long time for the Purple Line Westside Extension and Sepulveda Pass Line.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## webeagle12

trainrover said:


> _...flock to the..._
> 
> ​:sly:


I see what you did there


----------



## KingNick

SSC members on that pic?


----------



## nandert

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/co...train-ceiling-straight-out-harry-potter/2710/
Just saw this article - specifically about London, but could apply to subway trains anywhere. How great would this be on the red and purple lines? The novelty of it could help bring in some first-time transit riders, I'm sure...


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Very cool. i think thats a great idea


----------



## trainrover

:yawn:


----------



## Darloeye

Yeah that would be good. I'll post it on the Underground thread.


----------



## nandert

http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=7119


> *Mag-lev cars for WeHo?*
> 8/8/2012
> How would you like to scoot across West Hollywood in under two minutes in an enclosed mag-lev car, bypassing traffic congestion while utilizing the greenest transportation tech available?
> That was the question posed when Nick Garzilli, Sustainable Transportation Executive for Evacuated Tube Transportation Technologies (ET3), presented the West Hollywood City Council Monday with an out of this world, futuristic transportation plan that would act as a pilot project demonstrating his company’s product.
> He claims that the ET3 system “is faster than jets, yet can accomplish 50 times more transportation per kilowatt hour than electric cars or trains at 1/10th the cost.”
> Mr. Garzilli, a West Hollywood resident, said that “ET3's vision is to put car sized capsules accelerated by electric power coast on maglev in an automated tube network without air friction that would zip people across West Hollywood in under two minutes.
> “We want to build this… personal rapid transit j-pod with solar panels on top that go 30-40 miles per hour, as a starter project in the City of West Hollywood,” he said.
> He encouraged the council to take his company’s plan under consideration, “If you want to be forward thinking, let’s begin right here,” he said.
> “We want to build this with private funds; we want to share the revenues with the rights of way holders…”
> Adding that the system would open the door to stopping the subsidizing of inefficient modes of transportation, “we could do it all on a solar budget.”
> He asked for a letter of interest to allow his firm to develop a plan for the city that would allow ET3 to “connect to the Red Line and, when the subway is eventually built down there on Wilshire… to that.”
> He promised that, if the city were to provide permission and right of way, “we could build it fast and build it inside of a year.”
> So what do you think, WeHo?
> Forward into the future with a pilot mag-lev or sit still with present day traffic?


Well, there's an idea for the pink line...


----------



## philip

nandert said:


> http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=7119
> 
> 
> Well, there's an idea for the pink line...


^^:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## geometarkv

I dont know if this video was posted before but i just found it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFvnhM2A2Ok


----------



## LAmarODom420

*Los Angeles Asks Its Voters to Extend Transit Tax Far Into the Future
*

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/09/03/los-angeles-asks-its-voters-to-extend-transit-tax-far-into-the-future/

» Lacking the federal support to advance its transportation projects forward as quickly as the leadership — and perhaps the public — desires, L.A. County residents will vote on whether to extend a 1/2-cent sales tax for thirty more years.

Residents of Los Angeles may already pay more in sales taxes for the upkeep and expansion of their transportation system than people in any other county in the U.S. Referenda have been approved by voters in 1980, 1990, and 2008, each of which distributes a half-cent tax on every dollar in sales to the county’s transportation system, Metro. Of the total $1.8 billion per year in revenues,* about 40% are spent on expansions to the transit system, with the rest distributed to maintenance and operations of the county’s roads and transit systems.

This very public endorsement of the need to invest in transportation (Measure R, passed in 2008, required a 2/3-vote to be approved, pursuant to California law) has allowed for the planning of the nation’s most extensive rail and fixed-guideway bus expansion program. Earlier this year, the first segment of the Expo Line opened to Culver City; two other light rail expansions are under construction, and several other bus and rail lines are funded. Most importantly, a subway rail extension running under Wilshire Boulevard through West the Westside of L.A., to Westwood and U.C.L.A., is practically ready to begin construction.

But Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has been the staunchest political advocate of improved transit in L.A., has been clear that the program is not advancing quickly enough. Because of the lack of strong federal support, the full extent of the Westside Subway will not be completed until 2036; important improvements for other parts of the county will not be done until later. That’s more than thirty more years with little significant alternative to the traffic-clogged arteries so infamous in the city. Thus the county approved, the state legislature accepted, and the governor signed late last month the bill offering to the public in the form of a referendum Measure J, which will extend the Measure R tax 30 years past its original expiration date, which was supposed to be 2039.

What is to be voted on is not a new tax. Rather, if approved on November 6, it will continue assessing the 1/2-cent sales tax between 2039 and 2069. The outcome may well determine the degree to which L.A. is able to produce a truly appealing alternative to automobile travel within a reasonable amount of time.

Why pass a tax extension now, when the revenues will not begin to be collected for another 27 years? To build more quickly.

Effectively, the mayor wants to be able to “bond against” future revenues — in other words, to take out loans from the investment market that will not be paid back until beginning in 2039, in order to pay for transportation projects now. The tax extension does not appear likely to add to the list of transit projects that will be completed — it will just allow them to be completed more quickly.

Though the measure is practically sure to win a simple majority of voters, whether it will win a two-thirds majority remains to be seen. Measure R passed with only 67.2% of the vote, just enough to succeed, and that proposal actually provided funds for new projects. This referendum, on the other hand, states that it will “accelerat[e] construction of light rail/subway/airport connections within five years not twenty,” as well as improve safety on roads and keep senior, student, and disabled fares low. Will that be enough to convince voters on this matter, especially when certain local officials make the reasonable point that the proposal would “bind our hands until 2069“?

By 2040, will the county’s citizens be content with the transit system they have constructed? If so, perhaps they will be happy to continue paying taxes. If not, will they assent to essentially continue to pay off the debt on an unwanted infrastructure for another thirty years?

The referendum would extend the tax “for another 30 years or until voters decide to end it.” What if disenchanted voters decide to cut off the tax midway through its life? The county will have to find other funds to pay back the loans that were supposed to be financed through the tax revenues (and which have the county’s credit behind them), cutting down on the county’s ability to fund other priorities or requiring a separate tax increase. These uncertainties may limit investor interest in buying the county’s revenue bonds or increase the interest the county is forced to pay to take out those loans.

Moreover, the measure does not specifically guarantee that the projects promised back in 2008 will actually be delivered. Though L.A. has moved forward on a number of its recent expansion projects relatively on time and on budget, several American cities have promised far too much. Miami’s transportation referendum, passed in 2002 and supposed to fund dozens of miles of rail expansions, has produced just 2.4 miles, a major embarrassment and an affront to the voters’ original intent. The referenda results will say a lot about the public perception of Metro’s ability to produce what it has promised.

In other words, it is hardly obvious that a large majority of L.A. voters will agree to Measure J’s passage. Significant public information campaigns will be required if it is to be approved.

Yet the truth is that if L.A. wants an expanded transportation network now, rather than 30 years in the future, it has few options. It can adopt this approach, which has several demerits, as shown above. It could increase its taxes once again, but the sales tax burden is already quite high. Or it could rely on low-interest federal loans to advance projects more quickly. The latter was the solution Mayor Villaraigosa initially proposed in 2010 as “30/10″ — 30 years of projects in 10 years. His proposal, which he renamed “America Fast Forward,” was politically popular enough to make it in a certain form (through an expansion of TIFIA to $1 billion) into the federal transportation bill earlier this summer, but that aid will not be adequate to fund all the projects L.A. wants — even if the U.S. DOT prioritizes the county over the rest of the country.

L.A.’s voters, then, have a choice: Take a risk by assuming that people of the future will want the investments being made today and therefore be happy to pay for them, or slow down the rate of transit expansion tremendously.

* Thanks to the recession, revenues per referendum have declined significantly since the peak in 2007, when each tax produced more than $686 million, compared to around $602 million in 2011.


----------



## LAmarODom420

*Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study Update
*September 2012

http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2012/09_September/20120912OtherSectorWESItem5.pdf

Metro has added rail from Sylmar to LAX as an option (Concept 5). Funding for Alternatives Analysis Study should be issued this month.










Congrats to the Transit Coalition for its advocacy. We need to keep up the good work. Like the Sepulveda Pass Subway page: 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sepulveda-Pass-Subway/242362322532852


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Other than the purple line and the Crenshaw north (previously pink line) this is the most important of all rail lines in LA. once we have that, our rail system will take a HUGE step forward. 

i sincerely hope the HRT with a tunnel between the valley and west LA is chosen. that 20 minute trip will be a game changer for LA transit.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

28 miles? Anywhere else in the world, that would be heavy rail territory, with 6 car trains, at least. If you follow _world best practices_, you would make it a RER/S-Bahn/Tokyo Metro type arrangement, with interchange/runthrough on Metrolink tracks in the Valley. But I won't keep my hopes up.


----------



## Neb81

k.k.jetcar said:


> 28 miles? Anywhere else in the world, that would be heavy rail territory, with 6 car trains, at least. If you follow _world best practices_, you would make it a RER/S-Bahn/Tokyo Metro type arrangement, with interchange/runthrough on Metrolink tracks in the Valley. But I won't keep my hopes up.


I've noticed this with the LA system. Given the distances and population figures involved, a lot of the lines constructed as trams (I'd hesitate to use the term LRT, since in most cases they are not fully seperated from road traffic) really would be MRT or RER systems. I'm guessing it's an attempt to reduce costs, given the lack of federal supported mentioned in LAmarODom's post. Nonetheless, the very long headways on most lines outside of rush hour (15mins mid-day and 20min evenings) makes the system undeireable to may potential users, restricting ridership and meaning a lot of the potential of the infrastructure developed - and the huge capital costs sunk into it - is wasted due to a lack of will to make the relatively small subsidies neccessary to ensure decent frequency. Trams have their place, but not on the main trunk lines of a transit system that serves a metropolitan region of 12+ million.

I think it is great that the county government is trying to take the bull by the horns and undo decades of damage with the freeway culture in LA, but I think the way they are going about it is a bit blinkered. They really should have stopped to take a better look at how other cities have dealt with these issues, paticularly cities like Madrid, which has undergone a huge metro revival abou the same time as LA got serious about Metro, and after similar experiments with freeway fever.


----------



## Silly_Walks

^^

I think in the case of LA, this was the only way to go. If the LRT/tram works, becomes popular and becomes overcrowded, that will be a clear signal even to nay-sayers that it should be upgraded.


----------



## Tom 958

Silly_Walks said:


> ^^
> 
> I think in the case of LA, this was the only way to go. If the LRT/tram works, becomes popular and becomes overcrowded, that will be a clear signal even to nay-sayers that it should be upgraded.


Upgraded? How, pray tell, without disrupting service?


----------



## Silly_Walks

Tom 958 said:


> Upgraded? How, pray tell, without disrupting service?


I never said without disrupting service... that's the disadvantage with not going for full metro straight away.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

In addition, Metrolink accepts Amtrak monthly passes and vice versa to serve even more destinations in Southern California, which I find it very cool, especially for travelers and workers heading in and out from Los Angeles to areas as Ventura County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Diego County, and San Bernardino County, as well as the northern fringes of Los Angeles County.


----------



## Woonsocket54

I was there in 2008 during the holidays, so maybe that's what it was. I remember passenger load was light and all of the announcements and signs being in Spanish.


----------



## soup or man

Woonsocket54 said:


> I have taken the 720 during rush hour and it was full but not overcrowded, and I don't think more than one or two people had to stand.
> 
> I would be surprised to hear that any LA Metro buses are standing-room only, except possibly the Orange Line.


When I lived in Culver City, the Venice Bus (733) was almost always standing room only no matter what time of the day. I'm sure it's not as congested since the Expo Line opened.


----------



## soup or man

Suburbanist said:


> I think Metrolink is the black sheep of LA metro transit services: unreliable, subject to frequent delays and with some run-down stations.


Absolutely not. I've ridden it many many times all over SoCal and aside from maybe one or two 30 minute delays, more often than not, I would arrive ahead of schedule.

My only complaint about Metrolink is that it needs to market itself. Aside from Union Station, I don't recall ever seeing any sort of advertisement for Metrolink.

Anyway, here is a couple renderings of the proposed streetcar in downtown (remember that?).


























And the route.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Measure J, the extension of the LA County transit tax, failed at the polls on Tuesday. It was 64.7% for, 35.3% against. The referendum needed a two-thirds majority to pass. Many bus riders were opposed to this ballot initiative because they thought it would expand rail service at their expense.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/11/measure-j-la-county-transit-tax-extension-fails.html


----------



## Falubaz

This small loop with trams only in one direction is rather pathetic. Who would use it? Unless it's supposed to be a city toy


----------



## Woonsocket54

Falubaz said:


> Unless it's supposed to be a city toy


It doesn't even go to the Toy District


----------



## blackcat23

Measure J's failure is disappointing, but hopefully a bill with a similar effect can be pushed through in one of the next election cycles.

Thanks for the streetcar renderings, Soup. If it passes, I'm sure they'll wind up opting for a different color scheme. I'd love to see an homage to Pacific Electric.



> This small loop with trams only in one direction is rather pathetic. Who would use it? Unless it's supposed to be a city toy


I'm being extremely optimistic here, but I'd like to think of this as a starter route for a larger streetcar system years down the line.


----------



## soup or man

Falubaz said:


> This small loop with trams only in one direction is rather pathetic. Who would use it? Unless it's supposed to be a city toy


Actually, that small loop is quite large.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Looking at the proposed tram map, it looks like it will only cover around 30 city blocks... But if put into perspective, I think it might cover as much as 70 blocks (given that your boundaries include First Street to the north, Eleventh Street to the south, Broadway to the east, and Figueroa Street to the west. But if I look at it operations-wise, it looks like it covers a small area, similar to a DASH service. Can that tram line be extended even further south to serve USC or the Toy District? Plus, where would the depot be for the tram service?


----------



## soup or man

The Expo Line has 3 stations at USC so there is no need to extend the streetcar that far south. And as far as where the tram depot will be: that's a good question. I have no idea where it will be.

One thing that also needs to be factored in is the Regional Connector which will add 3 new stations in downtown.


----------



## CCs77

Measure J results by city. (still some ballots to be counted, but unlikely to change the results)
Not surprisingly the farthest and most suburban areas of the county was where the initiative had the less support.

The city of Los Angeles passed it with 69,4% it also got a high percentage in cities like Santa Monica and Culver City with 73,5% and 71,7%
West Holywood was the most supportive city with 81,4% ahead of Cudahy with 80,8% the only two cities where it got more than 80%

There are very few places were it got less than 50%

http://thesource.metro.net/2012/11/08/measure-j-results-by-map-and-by-spreadsheet/


----------



## aquaticko

^^I'm confused. Everywhere I've read has been saying that Measure J failed to pass. Is it passed region by region and therefore passes within certain places and not others, or did they recount and the whole thing passed?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ I will explain it in a most concise manner possible:

Measure J is a Los Angeles Countywide measure that is aimed to increase funding for more transportation projects in Los Angeles County (which includes more than just the City of Los Angeles itself). And for that measure to pass, it should have a 2/3 of the electorate (called a supermajority vote) who vote "Yes" on it (66.67%). _As a comparison, most of the voting we know only needs a simple majority (50% + 1) to pass or be approved._ However, as mentioned in an earlier post, the "Yes" vote only received 64.7% of the vote, making it short of around 2% for the measure to pass. So while it didn't pass in this year's election cycle, it may be more than likely to pass in the next cycle, with rewording and reorganizing priorities to make the measure more acceptable to more residents in Los Angeles County.


----------



## aquaticko

I knew it needed a supermajority, I just wasn't sure if that was overall or city by city. It's a shame that they didn't weight the results according to the population of each electorate. Not only would it likely have passed in that case, but it also makes sense if the idea is essentially to de-auto-centralize the region by easing access into the hub, i.e. LA.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ It is a countywide vote, so it does not only involve the City of Los Angeles. The ones that voted "no" on it would be those far from Downtown Los Angeles where limited public transportation options exist, and those are the same people that contribute to a lot of the congestion in the County, especially along the notorious Interstates 5, 10, 105, 405, 605, and 710, as well as Highways 55, 60, and 91.


----------



## Sunfuns

With voting rules like this no wonder nothing usefull is being passed...

As for LA public tranport in general, right now it's difficult to give a positive answer to the question "Should I stick with public transport if I have my own car or plent of money to rent one (for visitors)?"


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ Also add in the factor that most, if not all, measures and propositions made in the State of California, be it at the local, county, or state level, nearly always require a supermajority (66.67%) vote to pass, which is one thing I do not completely understand: it's like you will need to spend tons of advertising time, from TV and radio, to bus stop ads and newspapers, to get the message out. And by the way, it also factors in the fast-growing numbers of minorities in the state (in fact, California, in itself, is becoming a minority-majority state, with more Latinos, Asians, and Pacific Islanders than Whites) that can constitute to the supermajority voting.


----------



## aquaticko

That's what I mean though; the city of Los Angeles itself is the most heavily affected by congestion, both by residents and commuters, so shouldn't the say of voters in the city count more?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

aquaticko said:


> That's what I mean though; the city of Los Angeles itself is the most heavily affected by congestion, both by residents and commuters, so shouldn't the say of voters in the city count more?


Sure. The issue though is that it is a Countywide vote, making the rest of the communities in the outlying suburbs involved too in the voting. And it seems like the suburbs swayed the vote to stop implementing it.


----------



## twentyfivetacos

Watched a documentary on Los Angeles a few weeks ago. Apparently LA buses are the most overcrowded in the US yet in the past 25 years LA has spent all its money on rail lines which only serve rich white areas and hasn’t spent a cent improving bus services which are mainly used by blacks and Mexicans.


----------



## blackcat23

twentyfivetacos said:


> Watched a documentary on Los Angeles a few weeks ago. Apparently LA buses are the most overcrowded in the US yet in the past 25 years LA has spent all its money on rail lines which only serve rich white areas and hasn’t spent a cent improving bus services which are mainly used by blacks and Mexicans.


Typical Bus Riders Union propaganda: illogical and inaccurate. Crying "racism," and distorting facts in order to manipulate public sympathy is disgraceful.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

blackcat23 said:


> No, the streetcar would not tie in with the Blue/Expo Lines; since they shortened the route a few months back, they don't even cross tracks at grade.


The next question: where will the maintenance yard be if the streetcar and the Blue Line tracks do not cross each other? It seems like the streetcar will just run in a loop without a side track that will run to its storage yard for nightly maintenance.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

blackcat23 said:


> Typical Bus Riders Union propaganda: illogical and inaccurate. Crying "racism," and distorting facts in order to manipulate public sympathy is disgraceful.


Really? Probably it's time to change those stereotypes because I have a very different vision as a bus rider. For me, buses are of great public service to everyone, in which people can ride them to get to many great places in a city, and it is an accessible form of transportation that people can enjoy. It is an alternative to driving -- sometimes even cheaper -- and it is environmentally-friendly.


----------



## blackcat23

> The next question: where will the maintenance yard be if the streetcar and the Blue Line tracks do not cross each other? It seems like the streetcar will just run in a loop without a side track that will run to its storage yard for nightly maintenance.


That's a question that the Streetcar organization hasn't been able to answer yet. Obviously they have to build some form of maintenance facility, but they have yet to clarify when or where. I'm sure it's something that will be answered before they start lobbying the Feds for funding.



fieldsofdreams said:


> Really? Probably it's time to change those stereotypes because I have a very different vision as a bus rider. For me, buses are of great public service to everyone, in which people can ride them to get to many great places in a city, and it is an accessible form of transportation that people can enjoy. It is an alternative to driving -- sometimes even cheaper -- and it is environmentally-friendly.


Bus transit is a very good thing: it's more efficient and environmentally friendly than the personal automobile. The political advocacy group known as the Bus Riders Union, on the other hand, is a problem.

This is a group with a tenuous grasp on basic facts. For example (from the list of demands from their website): the BRU want Metro's bus fleet doubled...but they want a 66% reduction in fares. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

They advocate for a bus-only system, an idea which ignores the reality that a bus-only system is woefully inadequate for a metropolitan region of nearly 13,000,000 people.

The BRU claims that Metro's rail lines are being built to serve only affluent white communities. Of course, if anyone has ever set foot on a Metro train, it's clear that the vast majority of passengers are neither affluent nor white. If anyone has looked at a map, you know that most of the communities these lines go through aren't wealthy.

As I said earlier, if one thing disgusts me about the BRU above all else, it's their liberal use of the word "racism." Loaded language is an easy way to manipulate political/public will when your ideas suck. 

Metro proposed a fare hike? RACISM! Los Angeles wants to hire more police officers? RACISM! Tax proposal to finish transit projects 20 years ahead of schedule? RACISM! Metro starts building a subway down Wilshire? RACISM!

If they could offer a well stated, factually based counter-argument to these things, the BRU would actually have some worth. Instead, they just sling accusations of racism against any and everything that displeases them. Basically, the BRU dishonors people who have actually fought and suffered real discrimination in their misguided cause to oppose rail transit in Los Angeles.


----------



## bmfarley

Love LA!


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

twentyfivetacos said:


> Watched a documentary on Los Angeles a few weeks ago. Apparently LA buses are the most overcrowded in the US yet in the past 25 years LA has spent all its money on rail lines which only serve rich white areas and hasn’t spent a cent improving bus services which are mainly used by blacks and Mexicans.


do you work for the BRU? cause thats a plate of fucking bullshit right there.


----------



## Suburbanist

The BRU is just hideous and racist. Apparently, it is not satisfied that more than 60% of the ridership on trains are non-Caucasian White. Too much withes riding those damn trains.

BRU argument is like those complaining against police intervention on a gang-infested housing project, not because of "police violence" or else, but because getting rid of crime increase the value of properties and then promotes "gentrification". It actively advocates the use and expansion of a lower standard and less efficient solution (buses) just so that it keeps not appealing to middle classes and more affluent constituencies that would "leave their neighborhoods alone"..

If the BRU existed in 1870, it would be advocating against sanitation and running clean water in favor of water hoses and outhouses.


----------



## blackcat23

Suburbanist said:


> The BRU is just hideous and racist. Apparently, it is not satisfied that more than 60% of the ridership on trains are non-Caucasian White. Too much withes riding those damn trains.
> 
> BRU argument is like those complaining against police intervention on a gang-infested housing project, not because of "police violence" or else, but because getting rid of crime increase the value of properties and then promotes "gentrification". It actively advocates the use and expansion of a lower standard and less efficient solution (buses) just so that it keeps not appealing to middle classes and more affluent constituencies that would "leave their neighborhoods alone"..
> 
> If the BRU existed in 1870, it would be advocating against sanitation and running clean water in favor of water hoses and outhouses.


Well said. The BRU's platform is built on reverse discrimination (i.e. public transportation should not serve anyone but working class minorities).


----------



## sweet-d

twentyfivetacos said:


> Watched a documentary on Los Angeles a few weeks ago. Apparently LA buses are the most overcrowded in the US yet in the past 25 years LA has spent all its money on rail lines which only serve rich white areas and hasn’t spent a cent improving bus services which are mainly used by blacks and Mexicans.


Yeah that's what almost every city in the US is like that when it comes to public transportation. People can get in and out of the city with public transport not from point a to b within the inner city.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Gil said:


> The southern end of the loop runs on one-way streets, probably necessitates the larger size. As for the northern end, even though both streets are two-way, I think they were trying to avoid having to eat up half of a street with the ROW. It would also require another one-way loop to turn around if a looping facility wasn't carved out somewhere.


There are several streetcar lines in Vienna running two ways on the important one way ring road. (Actually the ring loop line there was done away with completely a few years ago, except for a single tourist tram, because its not what people want) They connect to a multitude of subways and buses but if they were one way only they would be utterly useless. At least if your aim is to create a serious means of transportation, not a toy. 

Yes, you might have to sacrifice additional space of car transportation if you want to have the real deal, but is it better to use half the space for some half hearted solution that does not work or double the space for a solution that could function well as a real means or transportation?



> If the streetcar does take off, perhaps it'll lay the groundwork for further growth. Unless they plan on making parts of the entire loop double-track perhpas they should build a connecting track on 7th between Hill and Broadway so that you can loop with either the northern or southern segments.


Isn't it self defeating to create a dysfunctional track and than make its functioning a precondition for its upgrade to a functional state?


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> Isn't it self defeating to create a dysfunctional track and than make its functioning a precondition for its upgrade to a functional state?


Yes, it is strange, but this is the USA, where infrastructure gets short shrift and/or is hyper-politicized- by building something, anything, it creates political momentum for more funding in the future, that is if the political winds are blowing the right way at that moment.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

k.k.jetcar said:


> Yes, it is strange, but this is the USA, where infrastructure gets short shrift and/or is hyper-politicized- by building something, anything, it creates political momentum for more funding in the future, that is if the political winds are blowing the right way at that moment.


I believe that mentality should change over time. Imagine Japan advancing in rail technology by leaps and bounds, even to the point that trains are interconnected and interoperable with other rail lines outside of their respective jurisdictions... I wonder when Los Angeles can operate its Metro subway trains to the Metrolink network (assuming that the rail gauges for both systems are the same)?


----------



## blackcat23

k.k.jetcar said:


> Yes, it is strange, but this is the USA, where infrastructure gets short shrift and/or is hyper-politicized- by building something, anything, it creates political momentum for more funding in the future, that is if the political winds are blowing the right way at that moment.


The political will is really the issue here. President Obama is pushing for a mere $50 billion in infrastructure spending with the budget talks (mind you a tiny fraction of what is really needed). Look at what a frosty reception that's received from the republican side of the aisle.

You know the state of US politics is sad when something so logical as road repair becomes a partisan issue.


----------



## Slartibartfas

I am well aware that you can't create a dense, high quality, high capacity PT network over night (unless you are China, go figure US) but you can very well start with a stem line that works for its limited length and creates useful relations. After all, it connects to some major already existing (or soon existing) lines. But if its one way, it is simply totally impractical. You usually don't go one way. And if there is no equal offer the way back few will use what actually is a bad service.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

blackcat23 said:


> The political will is really the issue here. President Obama is pushing for a mere $50 billion in infrastructure spending with the budget talks (mind you a tiny fraction of what is really needed). Look at what a frosty reception that's received from the republican side of the aisle.
> 
> You know the state of US politics is sad when something so logical as road repair becomes a partisan issue.


...a major reason: whenever the people win in terms of getting things done, it becomes worse for the Republicans because they live in a "bubble" where they circulate facts within each other, in which most of them are fabricated lies and scare tactics aimed at the low-educated people living in many states. And those same Republicans are the ones who want to block everything Obama wants to pass... And they were the people who initiated such ideas to begin with, from stimulus to healthcare reform. It is what is called "hypocrisy" in a grand scale.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

*House Transportation chief to LA: Build light rail to LAX... or else*



> Angelenos aren’t the only ones griping about how difficult it is to get to and from L.A. International Airport on public transportation. On Thursday, the outgoing chairman of the powerful House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee made it clear that he’s not happy either.
> 
> At a hearing on high speed rail, Republican Congressman John Mica of Florida wanted to get something off his chest about a slower version of rail. He asked El Segundo Democrat Janice Hahn to deliver a message to L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: get light rail all the way to the airport – or else.
> 
> Hahn agreed, saying "the thought that people stop a mile short, try to get on a shuttle and get to the airport is the reason people aren’t taking public transportation."


http://www.scpr.org/blogs/politics/...transportation-chief-tells-la-build-light-ra/


----------



## diablo234

Considering how close the Green Line runs to LAX I always thought it was pretty stupid to not connect the rail system to the terminals either directly or through a people mover system similar to Newark/JFK Airports in NYC.


----------



## JustinB

The original intent of the Green Line was to service the aircraft manufacturing industry, which has since shrunk considerably by the time the line opened. 
I also hear the taxi lobby in LA is quite powerful, and did not want any competition from a rail spur.


----------



## Woonsocket54

JustinB said:


> I also hear the taxi lobby in LA is quite powerful, and did not want any competition from a rail spur.


The LA taxi lobby has nothing on the LA bus riders' lobby


----------



## Woonsocket54

Turnstiles at North Hollywood station (Red Line terminus)









http://northhollywood.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/thou-shalt-not-passwithout-a-tap-card


----------



## Spam King

I wonder why they didn't go with paddle gates. Those turnstile gates are so hard for people with luggage or carry shopping bags.


----------



## Silly_Walks

^^

Agreed.


----------



## Suburbanist

It is nice to see Los Angeles installing fare gates :cheers:


----------



## Slartibartfas

Do you have some sort of turnstile fetish? I mean one could possibly make a point that they are necessary (a view I do not share either though) but you are probably the only person who'd think they are a nice thing compared to no turnstiles.


----------



## Suburbanist

Slartibartfas said:


> Do you have some sort of turnstile fetish? I mean one could possibly make a point that they are necessary (a view I do not share either though) but you are probably the only person who'd think they are a nice thing compared to no turnstiles.


Apparently,LA Metro had a lot of troubles enforcing proof-of-payment fare collection. Not enough manpower, sporadic controls with high fines (creating a high-stakes game for evaders). There had been cases of fare checking incidents that became violent underground. 

I like the idea of having areas where only passengers can go and to which all passengers are counted precisely. This allows plenty of data collection to help planing the system, and also makes it safer.

On another level, I think transportation system must not be seen just as some extension of the street, but as as separate system focused on moving people between its multiple origin/destination stations. Having some sort of physical barrier that opens upon swapping a card or phone or else is a great way to create such ambiance.


----------



## Slartibartfas

There is nothing wrong with a fine based system and sporadic controls, if it is done properly and general safety in a city allows such a system. I also challenge the claim that its necessarily economically inferior in terms of costs vs fare evasion prevention. 

Of course you can make great passanger movement statistics, big brother style, with fare gates. I give you that. It gets easier to optimize the system. But at what cost? And I am not talking necessarily about money here. 

Regarding creating barriers, they are always a bad thing, but sometimes its necessary. Barriers as a puprose in themselves is something I oppose (disabled persons or people with baggies surely love barriers btw). It is one of the great things of trams that there is basically zero barrier. You just step in on the street and leave somewhere else, continuing your way on foot. Of course, a metro includes height differences, so there is more of a barrier there, but without turnstiles one can minimize that and people can move in and out faster and more efficiently.


----------



## Silly_Walks

Fare evasion in the Rotterdam and Amsterdam metros fell from around 16-20% to around 4% after gates were put up (might not have the numbers 100% correct, but it was somewhere in that region).


----------



## Sunfuns

There are few major systems left with no barriers and for a good reason. The only one I can think off is Munich U-Bahn. There is just too much fare evasion particularly during rush hour when spot checks are unfeasible.


----------



## Woonsocket54

^^ every system in Germany, not just Munich


----------



## blackcat23

http://la.streetsblog.org/2013/08/05/breaking-in-split-decision-california-supreme-court-gives-expo-the-o-k/

The final nail in the coffin for the opposition to the Expo Line. California Supreme Court sides with Metro and the Expo Construction Authority. Construction (which never stopped anyway) will continue, with completion hopefully coming in 2015/16.


----------



## bighomey3000

blackcat23 said:


> http://la.streetsblog.org/2013/08/05/breaking-in-split-decision-california-supreme-court-gives-expo-the-o-k/
> 
> The final nail in the coffin for the opposition to the Expo Line. California Supreme Court sides with Metro and the Expo Construction Authority. Construction (which never stopped anyway) will continue, with completion hopefully coming in 2015/16.


:cheers::banana:

Another article: http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/08/cheviot_hills_nimbys_lose_state_supreme_court_battle_against_the_expo_line_extension.php

Let's get that late 2015 / early 2016 opening! Full speed ahead to Santa Monica


----------



## Slartibartfas

Woonsocket54 said:


> ^^ every system in Germany, not just Munich


add Vienna to the list. I think there are no statistics about fare evasion but the Wiener Linien say that installing fare gates would cost more than they could possibly bring in. It is not only the huge installation costs (with remodelling of stations necessary in some cases) but also the more than substantial running costs of fare gates. Not to forget the reduced passanger comfort and station efficiency. Things get even worse when you inlcude busses and trams to checked entry systems. There you severly reduce line efficiency due to vastly increased passanger exchange times. 

If you use all the people you'd need for controlling all the fare gates for ticket controls on the go, you can run a fairly efficient gate free system. 

You see it at ticket controls in Vienna. Only few people are caught without a valid tickets. And those who are pay about 100 € for it. (an annual pass for the entire city costs 365 €, getting caught four times a year means you are paying more than that and that is a likely thing to happen if you never have a ticket)

PS: Spot checks in Vienna can occur at any time, also during rush hour. Then they are carried out with the necessary manpower. Checks are always rare but you are never safe at any time at any line, on the subway, tram or bus. On vehicle or at station exits. And in most cases they are done undercover. They reveal themselves only once doors are closed.


----------



## KingNick

Aren't these turnstiles installed for years already?


----------



## Slartibartfas

I fail to remember, but I think if they were in place 2 years ago already, they were not active at least. Or does my memory fool me?


----------



## KingNick

I got the very same image in mind.


----------



## Woonsocket54

blackcat23 said:


> http://la.streetsblog.org/2013/08/05/breaking-in-split-decision-california-supreme-court-gives-expo-the-o-k/
> 
> The final nail in the coffin for the opposition to the Expo Line. California Supreme Court sides with Metro and the Expo Construction Authority. Construction (which never stopped anyway) will continue, with completion hopefully coming in 2015/16.


What about the Beverly Hills High School PTO lawsuit?


----------



## bighomey3000

Woonsocket54 said:


> What about the Beverly Hills High School PTO lawsuit?


Any Beverly Hills legal actions are related to the Purple Line extension. Expo Phase 2 has nothing to do with Beverly Hills. Those NIMBYs will lose as well, but today we celebrate for Expo :cheers:


----------



## Slartibartfas

But how can that be? Do wealthy and powerful NIMBYs have no special rights and privileges? Whats the point of having a residence in Beverly Hills if you can not even prevent amenities and infrastructure that benefit the majority just because you say so? [/sarcasm]

Good news for LA
Things are clearly heading the right way there, even if the speed of progress could be faster.


----------



## redspork02

I was checked on the EXPO line last month. Two officers with Iphone type devices scan your TAP card. Fairly simple. Only took 10 secs for them to check my card. They kicked off about six teens on the next stop and made sure they exited the train and started writting tickets as the train pulled away.


----------



## Kenni

PeFe said:


> I am an Australian tourist currently on holiday in Los Angeles and I could not agree more that LAX needs a direct (and let me emphasize that - DIRECT) rail connection to downtown Los Angeles. I made the journey from LAX to Hollywood via the Green, Blue and Red lines....now that's a journey I won't forget....90 minutes.....many, many kilometres travelled that were not necessary.
> 
> On a positive note I find the LA light rail system much better than anticipated....the trains are classified as trams by the nay-sayers, well I say call them trains...I think the term "light metro" is the most appropriate.
> The train carriages are much wider than what I consider "trams" plus 3 car sets are not uncommon...again not tram like....the stations are spaced widely apart (not tram like at all) enabling the trains to reach speeds of 80kmh(?) and grade separation has been employed at busy intersections to speed up the journey.
> The stations are well designed....would just like some more information about next trains.
> 
> Keep up the good work LACTMA......someone has to fight the fight in this car -plagued metropolis!


Well, you have to consider the long distances here in LA too, but yes, maybe once the Crenshaw corridor is completed it should cut some time down from LAX-Downtown.

Missing form this video are the Purple and Green lines.


----------



## PeFe

Kenni wrote


> Well, you have to consider the long distances here in LA too, but yes, maybe once the Crenshaw corridor is completed it should cut some time down from LAX-Downtown.


No, not good enough, Los Angeles must be the largest city in the western world that does not have a direct rail connection to the city centre. People who arrive at airports do not have cars, even other Americans must find this a bit inadequate!


----------



## Sunfuns

PeFe said:


> Kenni wrote
> 
> 
> No, not good enough, Los Angeles must be the largest city in the western world that does not have a direct rail connection to the city centre. People who arrive at airports do not have cars, even other Americans must find this a bit inadequate!


Every sensible passenger arriving at LA airport either rents a car or has someone pick them up. Maybe in the future it will be different, but right now it is what it is...


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Which is a shame for one of the leading cities of a big and extremely wealthy country.


----------



## Falubaz

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Which is a shame for one of the leading cities of a big and extremely wealthy country.


It is shame, 
it is one of the leading cities, 
it is a big country,
but with the


> ...extremely wealthy country


 u must have done a joke, right? Unless 'extremely wealthy' means that 60% of the population has no social insurance or a decent access to the health care.


----------



## starrwulfe

Hard to believe those original Sumitomo-Kinki Sharyo sets are over 20 years old now. I still have opening day on the blue line fresh in my mind. Ahh the memories. Guess they'll be retiring them soon...


----------



## trainrover

Sunfuns said:


> Every sensible passenger arriving at LA airport


----------



## zaphod

DFW is the airport ive used the most, and its more like LAX in that it is long and narrow terminals around the perimeter of a big road and parking knot, rather than a tree with branches like DEN.

It was designed in the same era, before airport security or major hub traffic and was beyond horrible to use until they built the people mover, which is inside security.

I think LAX needs two people mover loops, like MIA. One would be airside and link terminals, the other would go to a ground transport center. In the long run Metro would go to the ground transport center, which would be somewhere away from the airport.


----------



## diablo234

Actually it's pretty funny that you brought up DFW in the first place, since their DART light rail system is expected to reach the airport by next year. Anyways hopefully LAX will finally be connected to the train system as it is pretty ridiculous that the country's second largest city isn't connected by rail to it's airport which is also one of the busiest airports in the world and one of the largest gateways into the US.


----------



## Falubaz

^^ You are right, it is a shame, but no wonder in a car-country like States where public transport was neglected for decades.


----------



## JimmyHD

Falubaz said:


> but with the u must have done a joke, right? Unless 'extremely wealthy' means that 60% of the population has no social insurance or a decent access to the health care.


They can pay for it if they want to! They have a right to choice in which directions their money is going through.

Let me get this straight, United States are the most richest country in the world's history and there's no doubt about that!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Lists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ...zed_disposable_household_income_.28PPP.29_.24

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_markets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_per_capita_personal_income

Now lets get back on the topic - for the most powerful country in the world, such as USA, it's really a shame that infrastructure is lagging so much behind the rest of the world! If someone takes a tour at airports and subways /_u-bahns_/ in Germany, everything in America will look like a bronze age equipment thereafter! 

Less wars + more infrastructure = stronger economy and happier people!


----------



## Falubaz

JimmyHD said:


> ... United States are the most richest country in the world's history and there's no doubt about that!


Well exactly we have our doubts because of all the debts US have.
It is also the country with most debts in the worlds history. 
So not sure about its 'richness' 



> Now lets get back on the topic - for the most powerful country in the world, such as USA, it's really a shame that infrastructure is lagging so much behind the rest of the world! If someone takes a tour at airports and subways /_u-bahns_/ in Germany, everything in America will look like a bronze age equipment thereafter!


^^Agree about that



> Less wars + more infrastructure = stronger economy and happier people!


^^Agree, agree, agree - more than 1 time!


----------



## JimmyHD

> Well exactly we have our doubts because of all the debts US have.
> It is also the country with most debts in the worlds history.
> So not sure about its 'richness'


Well, that's not really true. 

United States have less debt than 99% of European countries.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

Debt is calculated as percentage of the size of the economy that you create. 

Now, debt that United States have is mostly owned by their own central bank, just 8% of it is in foreign hands, hence that's not real debt! Basically, U.S. has debt of only 8% to their GDP ratio! 

Also, you have forgotten that Americans are only nation in the world which has advantage to issue their own credits, unlike other countries, which means they're only ones who have ability to own their own debt in national currency /U.S. dollar per se/. It's kind of their exclusive right!

You should not forget than U.S. dollar is currency that world needs as part of their financial system, so U.S. is practically forced to have a higher debt and deficit than one they usually would have. But that's not an issue for american economy. The real problem is where that money goes... And that's another topic.

In Europe however, debts are owned by foreign creditors in foreign currency (U.S. dollars) and United States are only country in the world with right to print international currency, which is used as worlds paramount reserve currency, currency for international settlements and currency for international credit-lending between states.

I've lived in Germany until my 19, then I moved to U.S. 3 years ago and hell yeah, there's no comparasion when in comes to $$$. The standard of living is completely another world! Sure, U.S. has their own problems, infrastructure is busted, streets are getting every day more and more like those in Africa, people are still satisfied with something that world has abandoned few decades ago, such as classic windows instead of PVCs, electrical and infrastracture cables in general haven't yet been installed underground, but still hanging up in the air /like Spidermans web/, rails are from 19th or 20th century at best, you know, there's a lot problems going on in U.S. these days /or even decades/.

However, if you want to make a lot of money, there's no better and wealthier place in the world than US to achieve that goal. 

American cities are generally a lot more bigger than Europeans, hence it's much more difficult to implement every major change, still there's a lot of stuffs where U.S. overcomes Europe and what impresses me most is the fact that there's so little things missing to make U.S. even more superior to Europe in every term I've mentioned. 

In '80s U.S. has had similar problems comparing its infrastructure to Japan, but they rebounded in 90s with no problems. This country is something amazing and has so much potential even as world most advanced country, there's so many rooms for improvements, which is incredible. I would never come back to Germany! As a tourist, yeah, I'm all for it, I love Germany, my old, good Frankfurt and all my family and friends there, but for living - no way. I'm in Europe right now and let's get serious, U.S. with all its disadvantages is still best place for living and making good cache of course. 

Finally, like I said, U.S. economy is the biggest economy in the world and largest economy in the world's history. Show me which country has bigger or even had a similar one in absolute numbers? Come on! U.S. consumer market is largest one in the world, topping next 5 on the list combined, as well as being country with biggest disposable household income both in per capita and purchasing power parity term.

America has the biggest military spending, more than almost whole world combined /which is not a good thing if you ask me/, therefore there's no doubt about their abilty to stay the top dog as richest country that world has ever known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._.E2.80.93_World.27s_top_15_military_spenders

We can continue like this 'till morning with no problems. 75% of the most powerful brands are coming from United States and 8 of 10 in top 10 are from U.S. /with ZERO from Europe and just two from Asia/

http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/2012/Best-Global-Brands-2012-Brand-View.aspx

You name it. 

Although, with fasistic presdients in last two decades, it's getting really hard to mantain top spot.


----------



## flierfy

^^ Not to forget that the USA have also the biggest density of boasters in the worlds history who gloat over pointless statistics to show the unrestrained superiority of the USA which are indeed 'more bigger' than the rest of world combined.


----------



## SAS 16

^^and that average north american consumes 2 to 3 times more resoruces and energy than a wealthy european....


----------



## JimmyHD

> *pointless statistic*s to show the unrestrained superiority of the USA which are indeed 'more bigger' than the rest of world combined.


Well, at least for me as an economist, it's very important. 

I earn $$$ from that "pointless" statistics. Companies are operating with that "pointless" statistics. Geopolitical influence is based on that "pointless" statistics. 

Anyway, I didn't started that subject at all. Just responded! 

My opinion - my right - you know - it's a free world. 




> Not to forget that the USA have also the biggest density of boasters in the worlds history


This is very Nazi stereotyping dude. :bash:

Take it relax, compañero! :cheers:



> and that average north american consumes 2 to 3 times more resoruces and energy than a wealthy european....


Yeap!


----------



## trainrover

No longer doctored,


flierfy said:


> pointless statistics


are nursed and have been for quite some time


----------



## dan72

Are there any grass sections of the light rail in LA or is it all concrete track?


----------



## Slartibartfas

del


----------



## JimmyHD

> within the Eurozone are considered "foreign" if national borders are crossed, while in the US "foreign" really means from another currency and economic area. True, "foreign" in the Eurozone is not the same as "domestic" but its not the same as your "foreign" either. I am not an expert in public finances, but I was puzzled about your remark of bonds owned by foreign creditors. I thought the regular currency of eg German bonds is the Euro.


Noup, euro is paired to U.S. dollar, so basically every debt is located in American currency as guarantee of payment back! They sure use euro bonds, but the same amount is placed in treasuries in U.S. dollar bonds as well. That's the reason why in every international trade for example you've 200% instead of 100%. U.S. dollar is present in every single transaction and credit loan within eurozone or outside her!











/although, Bank of International Settlements published newest data which has showed euros fall from 39% (2010) to 31% (2013) historic low, while U.S. dollar rose to 86% (2013) from 84% (2010). /

With respect of U.S. debt, if you measure "foreign" in that kind of way, U.S. doesn't have debt in that case at all! *Every single per cent of U.S. debt is located in their own currency and only in their own currency*, which means they're only nation in the world who can pay any debt with their own money! In other words, Americans can always print money to pay ANYTHING, while European's just can't.

It's kind of unfair game, I'd agree, but well, that's the life. Natural selection. Only alfa lion makes a good f*ck.  Paraphrase, but good one.

PS. You should ask yourself if eurozone if busted, to who Germany owes such a tremendous debt? To Greece? :lol: Or Spain, Portugal? :lol: Cyprus? :cheers: If eurozone is _de facto_ insolvent, that means Germany is in debt to FOREIGN creditors, 'cause she's the only solvent country within eurozone! And German *external* debt is rising at fastest pace in 3 decades! To who? 

So, if Germany needs debt to pay its own obligations (not to mention the hidden debts for basic social expenditures /http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...n-euros-of-hidden-debt-handelsblatt-says.html/), that means the country isn't capable to make loans to any country by herself, hence, every single cent within eurozones debt is practically debt to foreign creditors outside of eurozone!

FOREIGN CREDITORS -> IMF/WORLD BANK -> ECB -> GERMANY -> INDEBTED COUNTRIES

/even though Germany is indebted as well, just size of her economy compared to other European countries makes her look healthier to investors/

U.S. debt in other hand is debt in U.S. treasuries denominations, which means anything U.S. owes to someone else apart from their own FED, it's still domestic debt 'cause again that debt is being issued by their own central bank. U.S. dollar is only worldwide currency and only un-paired currency for cross-international payments.

Europe is _de jure_ most indebted continent in the world, same as continent with worst demographics and biggest unemployment rate. I'l tell you as someone who has grown up on this continent /right now I'm in Europe on business for few weeks/, Europe is going from bad to worst and I'm glad I've escaped from that mass.

If you take a look for instance at fertility rate, the minimum for sustain the nation(s) is 2.0. Everything bellow that benchmark makes a nation(s) disappearing. There's no economic model which can repair that sorth of damage. Europe is getting older and there's not enough children to replace nor the working age population neither for further births. Thereby, we'll have less people paying taxes and more people on social pensions. System will destroy itself few decades from now.




































Now, if you look at data, whole Europe has fertility rate at only 1.5, with muslim injection included. Without injection, fertility is even lower. Asia has 2.18, U.S 2.06, Africa 4.5 and so on. There's no escape from that gap. Europe will loose people at fastest pace EVER! What is far more important there'll not be enough people who will be able to pay all this debts. It's demographic collapse never seen before. And you know, we should be aware of this, 'cause that issue will affect us all. Demographics are crucial for every economy.

Economic numbers are not zero-sum game!

Finally, when it comes to infrastructure - like I said - it just sucks in U.S., I hate it, they throw so many $$$ on *really* stupid things /not to mention wars and weapons/, and 20% of it would boost infrastructure to the moon  Hope that irrational policy will change soon! But skyscrapers are sucking in Europe for instance and highways are so tiny in Europe compared to American ones, so we're at same when it comes to _duckmetry_.  Every part of swamp has its good and bad sides as well, but for me is fascinating how little U.S. needs to become even more superior to Europe, which impresses me first as an economist and secondly as someone who adores $$$. Infrastructure is the smallest problem. Mentality for changing infrastructure is another thing. 

U.S. is U.S. then like 5 places and we come to Europe and Asia. That's my experience so far. But I do oppose their religious obsessiones. Europe hands down when it comes to secularism!



> But anyway, what does that have to do with PT in Los Angeles?


Nothing at all. 

I've given an answer to false claims that U.S. isn't the wealthiest country of the world, I hope we can move now from that topic!


----------



## XAN_

Sunfuns said:


> Los Angeles is vastly bigger and richer than any of those midsize cities. St Petersburg (or even Moscow) would be a more proper counterpart for LA in Russia. On would think that a heavy metro (5-7 lines minimum) would be a more suitable solution for your city.


Yes... And no.
Moscow have like 80% modal share of pub. transit, unlike LA, which have much more saturated highway network (Moscow have none, except ring road) and are way less denser (3 000/km2 -vs- 10 000/km2).
So when a small line of subway is built in Moscow, it has lots of people working and living around it, and because there are pre-existing lines of rapid transit, ridership aren't limited to people living along the line, passengers from integrated lines will also come, which is called "network effect". But this is not the case for LA, where pre-existing services back in the late 90s and early 00s were rather limited and covered only small part of population.
So comparing LA to those cities makes sense - not directly through, in case of LA its competition -vs- private cars, in medium-sized USSR cities - it was -vs- surface transit (which is isolated from subway due to last being owned by State Railway, thus having totally separate fare system), but the mechanics the same - people _en masse_ don't ride isolated lines, they use network.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ I understand the arguments in favour of building more light rail than less but faster and high capacity subway. The question is, why LA isn't building light rail much faster. The network is still very incomplete. 

The city should also have expansion scenarios in mind. That means, building the light rail network in a way that lines could either be upgraded to higher speeds and/or capacity, or that future subway lines would make sense as parallel lines. 

That said, LA is doing what few would have expected at a speed that even less had considered possible. Compared to what eg Chinese cities are capable of however ...


----------



## XAN_

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ I understand the arguments in favour of building more light rail than less but faster and high capacity subway. The question is, why LA isn't building light rail much faster. The network is still very incomplete.


Well the city still have enormous highway network (and no, I'm not arguing if it good or bad), which need to be maintained, (AFAIK, there were several really impressive overhauls of highway segments during last 5 years), and also city have other needs, except transportation...



Slartibartfas said:


> That said, LA is doing what few would have expected at a speed that even less had considered possible. Compared to what eg Chinese cities are capable of however ...


[sarcasm] But that mean increasing authority spending and participating in economy, and that's communism, and everyone knows that communism is eviiiiiil!!11111[/sarcasm]


----------



## Suburbanist

XAN_ said:


> Well the city still have enormous highway network (and no, I'm not arguing if it good or bad), which need to be maintained, (AFAIK, there were several really impressive overhauls of highway segments during last 5 years), and also city have other needs, except transportation...


Maitenance for most highways in Greater Los Angeles area is paid for by a different pot of money than local transit investment. Caltrans (a state agency that is partially funded by gas tax) take care of most highway maintenance and improvements whereas MTA relies on local sales taxes.


----------



## LtBk

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ I understand the arguments in favour of building more light rail than less but faster and high capacity subway. The question is, why LA isn't building light rail much faster. The network is still very incomplete.
> 
> The city should also have expansion scenarios in mind. That means, building the light rail network in a way that lines could either be upgraded to higher speeds and/or capacity, or that future subway lines would make sense as parallel lines.
> 
> That said, LA is doing what few would have expected at a speed that even less had considered possible. Compared to what eg Chinese cities are capable of however ...


I'm guessing high construction costs, NIMBYism, lack of dedicated funding until few years ago, politics, earthquake requirements etc.


----------



## XAN_

Suburbanist said:


> Maitenance for most highways in Greater Los Angeles area is paid for by a different pot of money than local transit investment. Caltrans (a state agency that is partially funded by gas tax) take care of most highway maintenance and improvements whereas MTA relies on local sales taxes.


Do they also pay for highway maintenance within LA administrative boundaries?


----------



## Suburbanist

XAN_ said:


> Do they also pay for highway maintenance within LA administrative boundaries?


caltrans? yes.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ I understand the arguments in favour of building more light rail than less but faster and high capacity subway. The question is, why LA isn't building light rail much faster. The network is still very incomplete.
> 
> The city should also have expansion scenarios in mind. That means, building the light rail network in a way that lines could either be upgraded to higher speeds and/or capacity, or that future subway lines would make sense as parallel lines.
> 
> That said, LA is doing what few would have expected at a speed that even less had considered possible. Compared to what eg Chinese cities are capable of however ...


Well, LA Metro is a large transportation agency that relies, not just on local sales tax dollars for funding, but also state and federal funds and grants that allow such construction projects to go through. Yes, the construction of several light rail lines is indeed good news, but, funding for such projects remain reliant on the larger grants from Sacramento and Washington DC... and it also manages the region's vast freeway and toll road network too (at least within Los Angeles County and surroundings), as well as funding Metrolink (the commuter rail service), FasTrak (for the High Occupancy Toll lanes), and multiple smaller transit agencies. It's all a matter of priorities on which projects and agencies get funded more or less...

And by the way, The Source, LA Metro's blog, posted last week that the Feds approved nearly $830,000,000 in grant and loan for the Regional Connector light rail project. The total budget for the project is slated at $1.37 billion, in which around 2/3 of it comes from the Federal Transit Agency (FTA) and Washington DC, and it means that the 1.9-mile tunneling through Downtown LA will push through, with an estimated completion year of 2020. With it, the Gold, Blue, and Expo Lines will share tracks between 7th St/Metro Center and Little Tokyo stations, allowing passengers to travel through Downtown without changing to another line.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ ISn't LA Metro just a contractor for Caltrans regarding highway projects like I-405 widening?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

LtBk said:


> I'm guessing high construction costs, NIMBYism, lack of dedicated funding until few years ago, politics, earthquake requirements etc.


That's about right, but also consider the amount of time needed to tear up existing roads, detouring bus lines, environmental impacts, and how much business may be temporarily inconvenienced by the projects too. I mean, I like the light rail concept a lot, but I believe it should be coordinated with frequent bus service (e.g. Metro has quite a lot of Rapid bus services) that allow riders to use transit all the way through.


----------



## nr23Derek

fieldsofdreams said:


> That's about right, but also consider the amount of time needed to tear up existing roads, detouring bus lines, environmental impacts, and how much business may be temporarily inconvenienced by the projects too. I mean, I like the light rail concept a lot, but I believe it should be coordinated with frequent bus service (e.g. Metro has quite a lot of Rapid bus services) that allow riders to use transit all the way through.


These considerations didn't stop the rapid freeway construction though. LA can do it if it really wants to.

Derek


----------



## fieldsofdreams

nr23Derek said:


> These considerations didn't stop the rapid freeway construction though. LA can do it if it really wants to.
> 
> Derek


Well, freeway construction and development may be part of the discussion, but I treat that separately since it is mostly car-centric than mass transit. LA can do it, sure, but remember the funding issues the county, state, and federal governments face... it is something that needs to be looked at and balanced upon by the LACMTA.


----------



## nr23Derek

fieldsofdreams said:


> Well, freeway construction and development may be part of the discussion, but I treat that separately since it is mostly car-centric than mass transit. LA can do it, sure, but remember the funding issues the county, state, and federal governments face... it is something that needs to be looked at and balanced upon by the LACMTA.


But freeways are a major infrastructure development and presumably are authorised by the same local authority that plans mass transit? Or is there a different set of criteria for them? Why is the process for freeway construction seemingly far less inhibited than that for light rail?

Derek


----------



## fieldsofdreams

nr23Derek said:


> But freeways are a major infrastructure development and presumably are authorised by the same local authority that plans mass transit? Or is there a different set of criteria for them? Why is the process for freeway construction seemingly far less inhibited than that for light rail?
> 
> Derek


Correct. But, freeways around LA are mostly under the jurisdiction of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in which it is then managed partly by the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), especially the Interstates (5, 10, 15, US-101, 110, 210, 215, 710, 405, etc). There is a different set of criteria to be met in terms of managing and expanding freeways, in which those go through Caltrans, FHA, and USDOT, and that it seems that for several decades, the government has been in favor of building more highways than investing in mass transit.

And by the way, funding for mass transit projects from the federal and state governments have been slashed significantly for various reasons...


----------



## nr23Derek

fieldsofdreams said:


> There is a different set of criteria to be met in terms of managing and expanding freeways, in which those go through Caltrans, FHA, and USDOT, and that it seems that for several decades, the government has been in favor of building more highways than investing in mass transit.
> 
> And by the way, funding for mass transit projects from the federal and state governments have been slashed significantly for various reasons...


Yeah, thought so. That's your problem.

Why is there a different set of criteria out of interest?

Derek


----------



## fieldsofdreams

nr23Derek said:


> Yeah, thought so. That's your problem.
> 
> Why is there a different set of criteria out of interest?
> 
> Derek


It has been a historical issue. You need to consider what the original intent of the highway system: moving military goods quickly and efficiently throughout the country. It has then evolved to carry millions of tons of economic goods and products across state lines, and, in the State of California, the highway system is crucial in linking the state with Mexico and the rest of North America. Los Angeles, for all due respect, has prioritized building an extensive highway network because the city and county governments sought immense opportunities to build itself up as a freeway city, especially that it is connected to the glitz and glamor of Hollywood, and driving around gives an impression that American lifestyles can become better if each family owned an automobile, which is part of the reason why multi-laned highways exist in Greater Los Angeles. There was a Freeway Revolt, though, in the 1970s that stopped further expansion of its freeway network, but, it seemed that for a large city, freeways were needed to move people around quickly and efficiently. Over time, the county of Los Angeles contributed in maintaining the freeway system, but, it also had the opportunity to redevelop its mass transit network... if only mass transit was developed along with the freeways, it would've had a better transit network than where it is today.


----------



## XAN_

Do I understand correctly, that back in 1989 there was 0 km of urban/suburban rail transit in LA?


----------



## particlez

^you got it.

metro rail, metrolink started in the early 90s.

then there was the mythical caltrain in the early-mid 80s.


----------



## Suburbanist

particlez said:


> then there was the mythical *caltrain* in the early-mid 80s.


Isn't that something created in the Bay Area between Gilroy and San Francisco?


----------



## particlez

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalTrain

California fiscal conservatives and property rights fundamentalists were happy circa 1983.

Way before my time, but it provided some good essay material later on. Undercapitalized and subject to financial demands of the SP railroad.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Svartmetall said:


> Hm, no that's not fair. I've been on a number of monorails and I thought the Chiba and Tama monorails were fine in terms of ride quality. I'd say they're no less bumpy than a rubber-tyred metro.


I don't think rubber tyred metro's are such a great ride either. But the point is what does monorail so much better to justify introducing yet another system to LA? The only reason I could come up with would be a Connector Monorail for LAX.


----------



## greg_christine

^^ One more time, the reason monorail would be rejected as an option in Los Angeles, and just about any other US city, is that it is considered a proprietary technology. This situation will remain until the major monorail manufacturers, agree to produce trains to a common standard, so that trains built by Hitachi, Scomi, Bombardier, and any other monorail manufacturer can operate on the same guideway.

When the monorail is mentioned in discussion forums, there are a standard set of objections that are voiced. One standard objection is that monorail has poor ride quality, yet the ride quaility generally isn't any worse than most rubber-tired metros, and some monorail trains actually offer very good ride quality, especially the Hitachi trains. Another standard objection is that there are problems with monorail track switches, yet there are plenty of examples of monorail track switches that operate quickly and efficiently. 

The standard objection that keeps recurring in this thread is that monorail would introduce an additional transit mode in Los Angeles, yet this wasn't an objection when Los Angeles decided to build a north-south trunk line (Blue Line) as light rail at the same time it was building an east-west trunk line (Red Line) as a metro. The interoperability issue also doesn't seem to be a concern with the present push to downtown streetcar loop. This situation is actually very common. The following is a snapshot of the interoperability situation in a few US and Canadian cities.

Boston - The Blue Line subway trains must be equipped to receive power from both third rail and overhead wire. The Red Line and Orange Line subways both use third rail but can't share equipment because platform clearances are different. The various branches of the Green Line light rail system do share trains with each other, but not with the Mattapan High-Speed Line, which requires lighter weight vehicles.

New York - The former IRT lines (lines denoted with numbers) and PATH lines use trains built to a different standard than the former BMT and IND lines (lines denoted with letters). Adding to the mix is the recent JFK Airtrain line, which uses automated trains powered by linear induction motors (LIM), which is totally incompatible with the other lines. There are periodic proposals to build streetcars in various areas of Manhattan and Brooklyn, and there are also proposals to build light rail on Staten Island. Again, interoperability isn't a concern.

Philadelphia - The Market-Frankford subway line features a narrower track gauge than the Broad Street Line and PATCO Line. The subway trains of the Broad Street Line and PATCO Line might be able to interoperate, though I understand that their signaling systems are different. Interoperation between the two lines wouldn't happen anyway as they are operated by different agencies. The Norristown High-Speed Line features high-level platforms and third rail power like a subway; however, it is operated with single-car trains that are considered light rail. There are two streetcar networks. The Subway-Surface Lines use single-ended cars. The Red Arrow Lines require double-ended cars because there are no turn-around loops at the ends of the line.

Baltimore - There is an east-west line that is a metro, and a north south line that is light rail. The light rail line is operated with high-floor trains. A second light rail line is in the planning stages. It will be operated with low-floor trains and will not share equipment with the existing light rail line. 

Chicago - All the lines of the "L" now can operate the same equipment. The Yellow Line (Skokie Swift) prior to 2004 required trains equipped to receive power from both third rail and overhead wire. The line has now been converted to third rail along its entire length despite the existence of some grade crossings, which are accommodated with a gap in the third rail. There has been at least one lawsuit involving a drunk who was electrocuted when he wandered onto the right of way and urinated on the third rail.

San Francisco - All BART trains are interoperable, but they are not standard gauge. The Muni Metro light rail trains have a folding step system that allows them to serve both high-level and low-level platforms. The light rail trains cannot operate on the Market Street Railway F-Line because their pantographs would foul the two-wire power supply used for trolley buses. The historic trolleys used on the F-Line would not be able to serve the high-level platforms in the downtown transit tunnel that is used by the light rail lines. Also, many of the historic trolleys are single-ended, which would be a problem at some of the light rail terminus stations. The light rail trains used in San Jose are too large to operate on the light rail lines in San Francisco, plus they are designed to serve only low-level platforms.

Los Angeles - As noted above, the light rail Blue Line was the first of the new transit lines to be built in the city. Next was the Red/Purple metro line(s), which use third-rail powered subway cars. Next after that was the light rail Green Line, which is grade-separated and was built with a signaling system for automated operation. Then came the Gold Line, which is light rail but uses a third type of signaling system. At least the platform heights and clearances are the same for the three light rail lines. Los Angeles is fixing the problem of having different signaling systems on each of the three light rail lines with new light rail vehicles that are equipped with all three signaling systems. Now there is a push for a downtown streetcar loop, which would not share equipment with any other line.

St. Louis - There is an existing light rail system that uses high-floor vehicles serving stations with high-floor platforms. When funding becomes available, there is a plan to build a new light rail line that will use low-floor vehicles.

Portland - Despite the existence of the light rail system, transit planners chose to build a streetcar system that requires lighter-weight vehicles. The lines actually cross but do not share equipment.

Seattle - The ultimate plan is for the Link light rail system under construction in Seattle to meet the Tacoma Link streetcar line in Seattle; however, the Link light rail trains require different platform clearances and a different voltage than the streetcars used for Tacoma Link. The South Lake Union Streetcar uses the same vehicles as Tacoma Link and again will not interoperate with the Link light rail system. An additional streetcar line is being built to serve the First Hill neighborhood. It was once hoped that the First Hill Line would connect to the Waterfront Streetcar that was closed when its maintenance shed was bulldozed to make way for a sculpture garden; however, the Waterfront streetcar line used heritage streetcars from Melbourne and would have had to be rebuilt to the standards of the new First Hill line.

Vancouver - The existing Skytrain system is LIM powered. The new RAV/Canada is conventionally powered. The two could not share equipment anyway due to differences in platform clearances. There was a plan to build the future Coquitlam/Evergreen line as light rail, which would have introduced a third standard, but the plan was changed and the line is now being built as an extension of Skytrain.

Toronto - Most subway lines use the same equipment except for the Scarborough RT, which uses LIM powered trains. The streetcar system obviously does not share equipment with either. There are plans to rebuild the Scarborough RT as part of a new light rail network that would use modern low-floor LRVs. As far as I can tell, the new light rail network would be separate from the existing streetcar system and would not share equipment.


----------



## sotonsi

Svartmetall said:


> Hm, no that's not fair. I've been on a number of monorails and I thought the Chiba and Tama monorails were fine in terms of ride quality. I'd say they're no less bumpy than a rubber-tyred metro.


Main Street's still all cracked and broken...


----------



## Nouvellecosse

greg_christine said:


> Monorail would offer higher capacity than light rail at less cost than a metro...


So what would the actual advantage be in real numbers? How much less expensive are we talking relative to the capacity?

If we were to compare an elevated metro system or monorail system with an equal capacity of say, 30,000 pphpd, how much would monorail save?


----------



## greg_christine

^^ Real world data is extremely rare for monorail and conventional rail planned for the same city along similar corridors during the same time period. The one case that I know of for which cost information is publicly available is Seattle, for which the aborted Green Line monorail was bid at the same time construction was getting under way for the initial segment of the Central Link light rail system. The initial segment of Central Link featured a mix of tunnels, at-grade, and elevated sections. Except for an at-grade segment in the Rainier Valley, Central Link probably could have been built as a metro. Both the Green Line monorail and the Central Link initial segment were planned for a ridership on the order of 50,000 boardings per day. The projected ridership numbers vary depending on the source. The following is a summary of the cost numbers for the two projects:

Green Line Monorail - 2005 Contract Price Design-Build Cost
$1.615 billion / 14 miles = $115 million/mile

Central Link Light Rail - Initial Segment
$2.44 billion / 13.9 miles = $176 million/mile

Light rail advocates will object to the above comparison by noting that the Central Link initial segment featured two tunnels and the station platforms and electrical infrastructure were sized to provide additional capacity for future extensions of the line. Light rail advocates will also note that the Green Line monorail bid featured just a single beam guideway at either end. Monorail advocates will counter that one of Central Link's tunnels (the downtown transit tunnel) already existed prior to the construction of the line, and that the monorail featured two water crossings while the initial segment of Central Link featured none. Monorail advocates will further note that the Hitachi trains were really over-size for the monorail line, and that an aborted bid by a consortium with Bombardier as the train bidder was claimed to be substantially cheaper at approximately $1.3 billion. The Bombardier bid was aborted following a dispute over legal liability requirements. Ultimately, the Hitachi bid was judged unaffordable based on the tax revenue stream available to it and the monorail project was killed.

The Green Line monorail was the result of a grassroots effort to get a transit line built in the city. This was partly in response to the delays and false starts by the local transit agency (Sound Transit) in the construction of Central Link. Had Sound Transit planned the Green Line, monorail probably would never have been seriously considered due to the proprietary technology issue.


----------



## naimabep

Monorail cost less, faster to build and space efficient. Look at Sao Paulo monorail, 7 cars and driverless. Now that's cool!


----------



## Nouvellecosse

greg_christine said:


> ^^ Real world data is extremely rare for monorail and conventional rail planned for the same city along similar corridors during the same time period. The one case that I know of for which cost information is publicly available is Seattle, for which the aborted Green Line monorail was bid at the same time construction was getting under way for the initial segment of the Central Link light rail system. The initial segment of Central Link featured a mix of tunnels, at-grade, and elevated sections. Except for an at-grade segment in the Rainier Valley, Central Link probably could have been built as a metro. Both the Green Line monorail and the Central Link initial segment were planned for a ridership on the order of 50,000 boardings per day. The projected ridership numbers vary depending on the source. The following is a summary of the cost numbers for the two projects:
> 
> Green Line Monorail - 2005 Contract Price Design-Build Cost
> $1.615 billion / 14 miles = $115 million/mile
> 
> Central Link Light Rail - Initial Segment
> $2.44 billion / 13.9 miles = $176 million/mile
> 
> Light rail advocates will object to the above comparison by noting that the Central Link initial segment featured two tunnels and the station platforms and electrical infrastructure were sized to provide additional capacity for future extensions of the line. Light rail advocates will also note that the Green Line monorail bid featured just a single beam guideway at either end. Monorail advocates will counter that one of Central Link's tunnels (the downtown transit tunnel) already existed prior to the construction of the line, and that the monorail featured two water crossings while the initial segment of Central Link featured none. Monorail advocates will further note that the Hitachi trains were really over-size for the monorail line, and that an aborted bid by a consortium with Bombardier as the train bidder was claimed to be substantially cheaper at approximately $1.3 billion. The Bombardier bid was aborted following a dispute over legal liability requirements. Ultimately, the Hitachi bid was judged unaffordable based on the tax revenue stream available to it and the monorail project was killed.
> 
> The Green Line monorail was the result of a grassroots effort to get a transit line built in the city. This was partly in response to the delays and false starts by the local transit agency (Sound Transit) in the construction of Central Link. Had Sound Transit planned the Green Line, monorail probably would never have been seriously considered due to the proprietary technology issue.


I agree it will be very difficult to find examples of equivalent real world systems to compare and contrast, but then the question remains what exactly is driving monorail advocates to believe that monorail is going to be significantly less expensive. If there have been so few systems built for us to get a good sense of the real world construction costs, then how do we actually know it will be cheaper? 

Bids can give some indication, but of course bids are projected costs provided by prospective suppliers with the intent to win contracts and don't actually demonstrate the manufacturer's ability to deliver at the projected cost.

I would assume there is some very compelling and enticing information out there in order for monorail advocates to be so adamant.


----------



## greg_christine

^^ Look in the SAO PAULO Public Transport thread. Look in the MUMBAI Monorail thread.


----------



## Svartmetall

I'm not an advocate of new monorails, however, Moscow and Beijing are building and/or utilising them now too if you are looking for case studies. Unlike Greg, I also like light rail transport, but do believe monorails can serve as part of a transport network having actually used the things.


----------



## greg_christine

^^ Don't put words in my mouth. I never stated that I didn't like light rail. I only stated that I did't think light rail offered the capacity needed for the Blue Line and Expo Line in Los Angeles.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Monorails in Los Angeles for public transportation could work, but it can come at the expense of accessibility... to me, the LA Metro could allocate funding for a test run of the monorail (and it needs so much money for specialized trains, dedicated tracks, and brand new yards, as well as determining fares, transfer policies, and promoting the line), yet we need to determine what the economic effects of it would be in the long run. We need to especially consider fleet management and maintenance, rail maintenance, station layout and community designs over time, and addressing environmental concerns, especially earthquakes. It could model after what's being done in Japan, yet, the Metro bus network should be enhanced further to serve the monorail lines if it is ever going to materialize.


----------



## Slartibartfas

greg_christine said:


> One standard objection is that monorail has poor ride quality, yet the ride quaility generally isn't any worse than most rubber-tired metros


I do not really prefer riding a rubber-tired metro either. 

But I agree with you that the strongest argument is indeed the proprietary nature of the systems. And I think this is a really significant argument in fact. Is there anything going to happen in this regard? If not, I don't see a bright monorail future happening. 

Switches might work quickly and efficiently but I think it is hard to deny that they are a disadvantage of the system compared to rail based modes. 



> The standard objection that keeps recurring in this thread is that monorail would introduce an additional transit mode in Los Angeles, yet this wasn't an objection when Los Angeles decided to build a north-south trunk line (Blue Line) as light rail at the same time it was building an east-west trunk line (Red Line) as a metro.


Light rail as a second system makes sense as it is perfect for mid-capacity secondary routes. In Los Angeles of course one could have argued that insted of light rail one should have built the Blue Line also as Metro line. Light rail was chosen for cost reasons I guess. I doubt monorail can keep up with light rail on a full life cycle basis (incl. maintenance) with not completely grade separated light rail. Of course it might serve high speeds but LA apparently did not want to afford that. Now that there are several light rail lines already established, and a metro, and a BRT. I don't think one should add monorail to the list just for the sake of it.


----------



## greg_christine

^^ When was the last time you changed terminals at a large airport and the vehicle that you rode was a streetcar or light rail vehicle?

The specification for an an airport people mover system calls for high frequency service that is fully automated. The system capacity is often comparable to a public transit line. Vendor proposals are evaluated based on both the initial construction cost and the operations and maintenance cost. That the technology might be proprietary is not a concern. Sometimes if the route is short and simple the selected technology is a cable-pulled system. Often the selected technology is a rubber-tired people mover. New York JFK has a steel-wheeled LIM-powered system. Tampa and Newark have monorails. I don't know of any airports that use streetcars or light rail vehicles. It wouldn't be cost effective to have a system that requires onboard staff.

The following are the websites of some people mover vendors. Bombardier groups monorail and LIM with its people mover systems under the Innovia trade name.

https://www.swe.siemens.com/france/web/en/sts/about/business_val_neoval/Pages/Default.aspx

http://www.doppelmayr.com/en/products/cable-liner/

http://www.intaminworldwide.com/transportation/Home/news/tabid/128/language/de-DE/Default.aspx

http://www.mitsubishitoday.com/peoplemover/ht/d/sp/i/2295/pid/2295

http://www.bombardier.com/en/transp...ortation-systems/automated-people-movers.html

http://www.bombardier.com/en/transp...ansportation-systems/automated-monorails.html

http://www.bombardier.com/en/transp.../transportation-systems/automated-metros.html


----------



## Slartibartfas

greg_christine said:


> ^^ When was the last time you changed terminals at a large airport and the vehicle that you rode was a streetcar or light rail vehicle?


I have to admit I relatively rarely change terminals at large airports. But the last times I did I think it was by airport bus. Tbh, I'd prefer monorail or other automated people mover over that though. 

I'm aware of the popularity for people mover systems in airports. I have no idea if all of them can be classified as monorail. IMHO, LAX would be therefore also the only place were a monorail would make sense, as connector of the terminals and the light rail station. 

I would be interested to know however why automated rail based systems aren't used in those cases were a grade separated automated people mover are used. I doubt full life cycle costs are so much higher.

Integrating the terminals into an extended light rail line would also make sense, even if it means having a driver. Some airports have metro lines stopping at more than one terminal for example as well.


----------



## greg_christine

^^ Why would you believe that life cycle costs aren't higher for steel-rail systems?

For a rubber-tired system, the structure provides the running surface directly. For steel-wheel systems, the rail system has to be added on top of the structure. It is true that rubber-tires have a limited life, but they are relatively cheap to replace, and steel wheels and rails also require maintenance.


----------



## XAN_

Svartmetall said:


> I'm not an advocate of new monorails, however, Moscow and Beijing are building and/or utilising them now too if you are looking for case studies. Unlike Greg, I also like light rail transport, but do believe monorails can serve as part of a transport network having actually used the things.


Moscow monrail is a kind of disaster, though it has nothing to do with monorail as concept, but rather with bad choice of monorail system and rolling stock.


----------



## billfranklin

greg_christine said:


> ^^ Don't put words in my mouth. I never stated that I didn't like light rail. I only stated that I did't think light rail offered the capacity needed for the Blue Line and Expo Line in Los Angeles.


Part of the problem is that people too often use the term "light rail" as having to infer no same direction train passing capabilities. Steel wheeled vehicles that have at least 3, but preferably 4 tracks at some stations, can move far more people per hour at higher average speeds than do 2 tracks stations on 2 track main lines. In addition, too often people expect light rail to also have street running, which encourages tight radius turns, and, low platforms. If "light rail" has dedicated right-of-way and does not have parallel running with freight, the difference between light and commuter rail becomes hazy.

If "light rail" is to cover a mix of street and dedicated right of way running, then, high platform stations should be encouraged on streets (see Calgary for a good example) which would permit platform to platform transfer in 3 or more tracked stations on dedicated right of way. 

Ideally, two track street level high platform stations have off-set platforms and trains meet head to head, with gently sloping ramps accessing each platform.

I think too many US transit planners do not see beyond semantics.


----------



## Slartibartfas

greg_christine said:


> ^^ Why would you believe that life cycle costs aren't higher for steel-rail systems?
> 
> For a rubber-tired system, the structure provides the running surface directly. For steel-wheel systems, the rail system has to be added on top of the structure. It is true that rubber-tires have a limited life, but they are relatively cheap to replace, and steel wheels and rails also require maintenance.


I had the impression that maintenance of road infrastructure is more expensive than maintenance of rail infrastructure (at least if you want to evade a very bumpy ride). Of course this is somewhat theoretical for mixed use surfaces but still. It is the busses that wear of the roads most, more than the much lighter cars. In Vienna, all new roads with bus service are part concrete, in all places where frequent acceleration/deceleration is expected. That probably reduces the maintenance demand but of probably means higher initial costs.

I am not an expert on it, but calculations that don't include these factors are not giving a true picture of costs and they might be significant, thats why I talked about the full life cycle costs.


----------



## billfranklin

XAN_ said:


> Moscow monrail is a kind of disaster, though it has nothing to do with monorail as concept, but rather with bad choice of monorail system and rolling stock.


I think that part of this particular problem relates to how little urban transit planners know about monorail (and all other forms of public transportation to a greater or lesser extent). 

Perhaps eager transit planners might only look at monorails two dimensionally as if looking from above down on a map, that is, as a means to stay above roads and the street level, rather than as an integrated transportation system with various drive systems, monorail designs, etc. Consequently, they, like most of us, tend to fall for advertisements that are provided by manufacturers*, rather than even bothering to understand the "nuts and bolts" of it.

Give me a great automobile mechanic who can use diagnostic equipment, and, I'll have more real mechanical awareness that most public transit planning departments- and it is this awareness that understands what the various mechanical systems mean.

Obviously, there are good and bad monorail transportation systems. 

As a side note: almost every nation and city has steel rail transportation, so it is easier to get local hands on expertise. Regrettably, most such 'experts' are never sought after. 

*and related offers for engineering and site templates.


----------



## XAN_

Well, you are right, monorail was part of Moscow claim for hosting World EXPO, so somehow they ended up with system of rather limited capacity, designed rather for moving people inside theme park (though a really big one), than a proper . No big surprise, that after initial demo-period with segregated fare, when integrated fare were introduced, it failed to comply with demand.
The result for monorail reputation was really bad, several other projects was never started. And the fact, that area already had a vivid light-rail network (though dated), so anyone with a grain of common sense understood that refubrishing and extending that system, instead of vasting lot of money on monorail - it didn't help improving public perception of monorail either.


----------



## dimlys1994

News from LA:



> http://thesource.metro.net/2014/04/...for-union-station-regional-rail-improvements/
> 
> *Metro Board approves contract for Union Station regional rail improvements*
> April 24, 2014
> 
> As part of the consent calendar, the Metro Board of Directors unanimously approved Item 21, a $31-million contract for engineering work to extend regional rail tracks south from Union Station — so that trains don’t all have to enter and exit the station from the north.
> 
> Here’s the news release from Metro:
> 
> "To prepare Los Angeles Union Station for expected growth in Amtrak and Metrolink passenger rail service, and to accommodate the future California High-Speed Rail system, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Board of Directors awarded a contract today to HDR Engineering, Inc. for environmental work and engineering of the Southern California Regional Interconnector Project (SCRIP).
> 
> SCRIP will change the configuration of some of Union Station’s “stub end” tracks to “run through” the station, allowing operational flexibility. Currently, all commuter and intercity regional rail trains enter and exit through the five track throat at the north end of Union Station. SCRIP will extend several of the tracks to exit the south end of the station, cross over the 101 freeway and join the railroad right-of-way along the west bank of the Los Angeles River. The preliminary cost estimate for the project is $350 million.
> 
> “SCRIP will allow Union Station to increase track capacity 40 to 50 percent and provide greater flexibility in scheduling as well as an increase in passenger loading with longer trains,” said Metro Board Chair Diane DuBois. “The “run through” tracks will allow one-seat rides between the various destinations in the Metrolink service area and greatly improve operations.”
> 
> The current “stub end” configuration requires an average turn-around time of 15 minutes per train, resulting in more than 40 cumulative hours of train idling at Union Station each day. SCRIP can potentially shorten dwell time for more than 50 percent of the passenger trains using the station to 2 minutes for passenger loading and unloading, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions of idling locomotives by an estimated 44 percent.
> 
> “This project is needed for the longer term rail needs of our region,” said Metro CEO Art Leahy. “Metrolink and Amtrak operations will be growing in the coming years and SCRIP is part of a statewide integrated passenger rail system designed to meet that growth,” Leahy said.
> 
> The California High Speed Rail Authority, which is a partner with Metro on the project, plans to connect high-speed train service directly to Union Station, thereby providing additional ridership for other rail providers and increasing the need for additional capacity.
> 
> The preliminary schedule calls for the completion of environmental and engineering work in late 2016 with construction to be complete in late 2019.
> 
> SCRIP is consistent with the long-term vision for Union Station, which is to provide regional connections to local destinations through a variety of transit modes including bus, high speed rail, regional, intercity and commuter light rail expansions."


----------



## bighomey3000

Metro Board approves $927-million contract for construction of Regional Connector project

http://thesource.metro.net/2014/04/24/metro-board-approves-927-million-contract-for-construction-of-regional-connector-project/


----------



## fieldsofdreams

^^ So let me get this straight...

- The *Expo Line* (currently terminating at 7th Street/MetroCenter) will be interlined with the *Gold Line* to continue on to Little Tokyo/Arts District
- The *Blue Line* (also currently terminating at 7th Street/MetroCenter) will be interlined also with the *Gold Line* to continue on to Pasadena and Sierra Madre Vista
- The existing *Gold Line* will keep the current alignment between Indiana in East Los Angeles and Sierra Madre Vista, and with the interlining of the Blue Line between the new connector, Little Tokyo, and Pasadena, it would then bolster service on the northern part of the line

Will then...

- the *Expo Line* keep the same name, or will it have a spliced name (like Expo-Gold Line)
- the *Blue Line* have a line extension to become the Long Beach-Pasadena service via Downtown Los Angeles
- the *Gold Line* have a "branch" line serving Downtown LA aside from its current configuration serving Union Station?


----------



## walky88

fieldsofdreams said:


> Will then...
> 
> - the *Expo Line* keep the same name, or will it have a spliced name (like Expo-Gold Line)
> - the *Blue Line* have a line extension to become the Long Beach-Pasadena service via Downtown Los Angeles
> - the *Gold Line* have a "branch" line serving Downtown LA aside from its current configuration serving Union Station?


The Gold Line will no longer serve Union Station or Pasadena. It will run east-west from East LA through the Regional Connector to Santa Monica.

The Blue Line will run north/south from Pasadena through Union Station and the Regional Connector on to its current route to Long Beach.

The Expo Line will no longer exist.

There will no longer be service between Pasadena and East LA.


----------



## sotonsi

^^ and all of that is obvious from the words on the diagram, so I don't know how fieldsofdreams got what he did off it.


----------



## diablo234

I am curious as to see why transportation planners did not route the Blue Line from say Long Beach to East Los Angeles and the Gold Line from Pasadena to Santa Monica instead.


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ I wondered the same thing. I'm sure there was a study that pointed to those being the most efficient alignments in terms of who commutes where, although I bet at least a sliver of the reasoning has to do with the simplicity of "Gold = East/West" and "Blue = North/South."

As much as I'd love to ride continuously from the westside to Pasadena for games at the Rose Bowl, it's such a long distance that I'm hardly gonna complain about a single transfer.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

sotonsi said:


> ^^ and all of that is obvious from the words on the diagram, so I don't know how fieldsofdreams got what he did off it.


My impression was that since some lines could have higher ridership than others, perhaps additional services from those lines could be made to allow even more direct services for passengers traveling around Downtown LA and beyond, especially that its rail (light and heavy) network is expanding quickly to accommodate for future population and job growth, hence my questions. It's like, I want to see how the Regional Connector could end up simplifying and expanding LA Metro's light rail network over time, and I was thinking if additional capacity will be made as a result of such construction (like more service on the Gold, Blue, and Expo Lines through interconnections)...


----------



## Lemanic

Wouldn't it be cool if the line passing by Disneyland have a TRON theme going on, as well as the line to Magic Mountain having an Iron Giant theme?


----------



## Woonsocket54

Is that going to be a one-seat ride from Long Beach to Asuza? That has to be close to 48-49 miles, outside the scope of many commuter rail lines, not to mention light rail. The MAX Blue Line, which crosses the entirety of the Portland-area urban habitat from west to east, is ridiculously long at only 32.7 miles.


----------



## dimlys1994

From The Source:



> http://thesource.metro.net/2014/05/...tros-proposed-5-5-billion-budget-for-fy-2015/
> 
> *Public hearing set for May 14 to comment on Metro’s proposed $5.5-billion budget for FY 2015*
> May 1, 2014
> 
> Here is the news release from Metro and the proposed budget is above:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A public hearing is set for 1 p.m. on May 14, 2014 to hear comment on Metro’s proposed balanced $5.508 billion Fiscal Year 2015 (FY15) budget, set to begin July 1, 2014. The proposed budget includes continued commitment to the largest highway and rail building program in America, bus headway improvements and $283.4 million in maintenance expenditures to keep the system in top form.
> 
> The public hearing will take place during the regularly scheduled meeting of the Metro Board Finance Committee at the Metro Board Room, 1 Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles. The public can view copies of the balanced budget proposal at www.metro.net/fy15proposed or request a copy from the Metro Records Management Center at [email protected].
> 
> The draft FY15 budget enhances many services while keeping fares at low levels, however, a decision on a proposed fare increase to eliminate a projected $36.8 million operating budget deficit by Fiscal Year 2017 is pending the May 22 Metro Board meeting.
> 
> As part of the $283.4 million targeted at maintenance, Metro will spend $192.7 million on bus service including the purchase of 550 new clean-burning CNG buses and about $50 million for rail improvements on the Blue Line and the Red Line subway in the next fiscal year.
> 
> Safety is critical to Metro passengers and the FY15 budget contains $48.7 million to keep the system as safe as possible. Enhancements include improvements to cameras and video monitoring, security kiosks are various rail stations, signal system rehabilitation on the Metro Blue and Green lines and pedestrian safety improvements on the Metro Red Line with an underpass and overpass bridge planned for Universal City and North Hollywood stations.
> 
> Metro continues construction on the most comprehensive public works program in America with Measure R and other funding sources. In FY15, Metro will have five major rail projects either under construction or prepared to begin including the Metro Gold Line extension to Azusa, the Metro Expo Line extension to Santa Monica, the Crenshaw/LAX Line and the Regional Connector. The Metro Purple Line extension to Westwood has cleared major legal hurdles and is expected to receive a federal full funding grant agreement by mid-May.
> 
> In terms of highway projects, the mammoth undertaking of modernizing and expanding capacity of the I-405 will be completed in FY15 and other projects are moving forward including I-5 widening from Orange County to the I-605, the I-710 South Corridor, the North SR-710 study and a variety of other improvements including continuation of countywide sound wall construction and the Freeway Beautification Pilot Project designed maintain landscape and remove graffiti and debris.
> 
> The Metro ExpressLanes Project continues to provide travel options on the I-10 and I-110 freeways with future expansion of ExpressLanes to be studied. The Kenneth Hahn Countywide Callbox System continues operation along with development of the Motorist Aid and Travel Information System (MATIS).
> 
> Metro will continue to contribute both operations and capital funding to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority with FY15 capital projects including the Bob Hope Airport/Hollywood Way station, Van Nuys Second Platform, Vincent Grade/Acton and Lancaster Stations, Doran Street Crossing design, Raymer to Bernson Double Track and Southern California Regional Interconnectivity Program (SCRIP), which will increase Union Station Capacity
Click to expand...

And some points of new budget:


----------



## redspork02

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/...ermined_to_get_in_on_all_this_rail_action.php

*West Hollywood Determined to Get In On All This Rail Action*Friday, May 2, 2014, by Neal Broverman 

While Beverly Hills throws up almost every obstacle they can to prevent rail from reaching their borders, West Hollywood is ready to plunk down money to do just the opposite. Two councilmembers want the city to hire a lobbyist to convince Metro to place rail through WeHo higher on their list of priorities, WeHoville reports, especially with a future ballot initiative possibly opening up billions more for projects. _When planning the Purple Line extension (currently in pre-construction) a spur was floated that would reach WeHo through San Vicente or La Cienega boulevards, but was cut because of the crazy price tag_. The next most logical option for rail to WeHo is a northern extension of the* Crenshaw Line*, that would connect it first to the Purple Line on Wilshire and then up to the *Hollywood/Highland Red Line *stop via WeHo. Metro actually already did preliminary studies on just that (see map).


----------



## redspork02

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/..._a_fight_against_the_purple_line_subway_1.php

*Bev Hills Has Used $3 Million in School Repair Funds to Lose a Fight Against the Purple Line Subway*
Friday, May 9, 2014, by Bianca Barragan 

For at least two years, _the Beverly Hills Unified School District has been using Measure E funds intended for school renovations and improvements to fund parts of what's proven to be a losing battle against Metro's Purple Line subway extension_, which will run under Beverly Hills High School. Now the LA Register reveals that _they've spent at least $3 million of government cheese on their fight against what everyone but them can see is inevitable (not to mention freaking necessary)_. BHUSD is only supposed to spend those funds on specific projects on an approved list, which surprisingly enough did not include waging a war against the subway. Previously, school officials had maintained that the fight against Metro was a school improvement issue, but they never formally made it one by putting it on a "specific master list" that might explain how in the hell their legal drama is related to school repairs.

"I think all of us on the board would agree that we've spent too much money on this," says the Board of Education president, whose big fear now is that Metro will somehow wield ultimate power over the school and any future improvements. "It will be best if we just stay clear of each other." This begrudging concession echoes the BH City Council's recent cave-in; around the same time two of the city and school district's four lawsuits were dismissed, the council finally handed over permits to start work on the line (which they'd been taking their sweet time on). Meanwhile, the district and city do still have those two federal lawsuits to fall back on, but it seems like you're wearin' 'em down, Metro!

As reality slowly sets in that the Purple Line is going to be built and it's going to run under the high school no matter what, perhaps the school district can focus on, you know, actual improvements to the school. A recent audit showed, as of June 2013, only one major project (an auditorium renovation) had been completed in the five years since the measure passed.


----------



## dimlys1994

From LA Metro, video about Union Station reconstruction, which includes new throgh tracks:






But one thing in this video is not true - Union Gold Line station is not underground, does anybody knows what station is shown in video?


----------



## Geo_Lee_2001

LA's transit efforts deserve a C- grade.


----------



## billfranklin

*Flexible scheduling*



k.k.jetcar said:


> If you're aiming for timed overtakes, that implies an operation that has passenger volumes that warrant a "heavy rail" metro type configuration. In order for timed overtakes to occur, you need schedule discipline that will be hampered by any street running that seems the norm in N. America light rail applications (timed overtakes are rare enough in North America anyway).


I apologize for quoting so far back in the time stream, but, I have been thinking about the issue of scheduling and systems with passing tracks as well as street running.

IMO, real time schedule flexibility still has not evolved to where the available technology actually is. 

Rigid scheduling in systems with street running primarily relates to having to look at modeling possible waiting time averages, picking some type of statistical compromise, and, then taking this figure and plugging into the entire system. Trains might have to wait at dedicated right of way station X for train B to arrive from on street running.

Historically, this has been the case as computer models using rigid blocks of time per identified train are easier to develop and follow, simpler to post on screens at stations, and, simpler for the rider to use. Today, however, riders are far more interface savvy, and, computer systems far more adaptable to real time changes.

Imagine trains are scheduled in probability brackets that might be 5 or 10 minutes long. While each actual train is a line segment, the computer scheduling system would have the option to move the actual line segment anywhere in a given probability bracket. In addition, probability brackets could overlap, as long as the actual time distance between two trains was greater than an established value. Whether train A was ahead of train B or behind is irrelevant, only the time distance is of concern.

The information could be communicated easily via display screens at stations, where a +/- column indicating minutes ahead or behind schedule would be added to the display. For example, 2240 Metro North, +5, or 0845 West Pine, -5.

Trains then, at stations with the capability, could pass one another going in the same direction playing with this 10 minute window, as long as time distances exceeded agreed upon minimums.

In high capacity systems this could be +/- 2 or 3 minutes with riders understanding that trains could arrive any time within a 5 (or whatever) minute window.

If wait times for feeder lines would be greater than the agreed time, then the waited for trains would fall back in time to the next probability interval, etc.

This would (largely) limit delays to those right-of-ways which due to street running or anomalous slow orders can not be scheduled within tighter confidence intervals, yet still permit same direction passing in stations with that track capability on the same system.

(Time deviations likely would more likely always be negative, with the scheduled time at the best available time, so riders would not miss a train. This scheduled time would be posted, and, perhaps color coded based on negative values. This is all due to the basic rule that a bus, train, or plane CANNOT leave early, but can always arrive a tolerable number of minutes late.)


----------



## blackcat23

dimlys1994 said:


> From LA Metro, video about Union Station reconstruction, which includes new throgh tracks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But one thing in this video is not true - Union Gold Line station is not underground, does anybody knows what station is shown in video?


That video is a nice find. Union Station's run through tracks are long overdue.

The subway station shown in that video is the Eastside Gold Line's Soto Station. Arguably the best looking Metro station in Los Angeles.


----------



## dimlys1994

blackcat23 said:


> That video is a nice find. Union Station's run through tracks are long overdue


And four new through tracks will be mostly used by Amtrak services, isn't it?


----------



## DCUrbanist

dimlys1994 said:


> And four new through tracks will be mostly used by Amtrak services, isn't it?


Amtrak as well as Metrolink. The new tracks will allow Metrolink to do some through-running and treat Union Station as any other regular stop.


----------



## fskobic

Check out the whole thing. It's an interesting read. 


*L.A. looking to spend billions to improve traffic*
BY JORDAN GRAHAM May 12, 2014 Updated May 13, 2014 12:33 p.m.










The way in which people travel to, from and around the San Fernando Valley will significantly transform over the next three decades.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and other agencies are set to pour billions of dollars into beefing up bus and rail lines, freeways and bikeways. The result will better link Valley residents to each other and connect L.A.’s northernmost regions with the rest of the city.


----------



## bighomey3000

It needs to be a subway through the pass, and it needs to be connected to the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor to eventually extend from Sylmar to LAX. Measure R2 can accelerate the timeline assuming passage in 2016. Measure J 'failed' with 66.11% of the vote; even better would be if the state legislature can reduce the threshold of passage to 55%. Nonetheless, the openings of the Exposition Line and Gold Line Extension, as well as progress on the Crenshaw Line, Regional Connector, and Purple Line Extension should provide deliverables that boost public support.

Join us at Sepulveda Pass Subway:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sepulveda-Pass-Subway/242362322532852



fskobic said:


> Check out the whole thing. It's an interesting read.
> 
> 
> *L.A. looking to spend billions to improve traffic*
> BY JORDAN GRAHAM May 12, 2014 Updated May 13, 2014 12:33 p.m.
> 
> 
> 
> The way in which people travel to, from and around the San Fernando Valley will significantly transform over the next three decades.
> 
> The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and other agencies are set to pour billions of dollars into beefing up bus and rail lines, freeways and bikeways. The result will better link Valley residents to each other and connect L.A.’s northernmost regions with the rest of the city.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Projected opening year for the tunnel: 2039 :crazy:


----------



## redspork02

*Los Angeles subway getting $2.1B federal promise.*
By JUSTIN PRITCHARD 
05/20/2014

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Los Angeles' growing public transit network is receiving another big dose of cash from the federal government.

The office of _Sen. Barbara Boxer says that on Wednesday, federal and local transportation officials will sign a $1.25 billion grant for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to extend a subway line into Beverly Hills_. The project also will receive a $856 million federal loan.

The money will help build four miles of new track, which is projected to be completed in nine years.

After that, Metro wants the Purple Line to go under Beverly Hills and end on the west side of Los Angeles.

Opponents of the extension have sued, saying the tracks should not go under Beverly Hills High School.

http://news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-s...-194139542.html;_ylt=AwrTWfxiwntTID4A8NvQtDMD


----------



## blackcat23

At long last:

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-union-station-tracks-20140528-story.html

*Union Station to get $350 million in track upgrades *












> Reviving a decades-old idea, Los Angeles transportation officials are planning *$350 million in track improvements at Union Station* that could dramatically reduce travel times for many trains and accommodate future growth of the famous terminal.
> 
> The Southern California Regional Interconnector Project is designed to benefit travelers by installing four sections of track that will enable Amtrak and Metrolink trains to run straight through the terminal, *eliminating the 15 to 20 minutes it now takes to enter and exit the station* at its lone north entrance. All tracks now dead-end in the terminal area.
> 
> The interconnector will significantly reduce turnaround times by extending several tracks out the south end of the station. They will cross over the 101 Freeway, turn to the left and connect with existing tracks heading north, south and east.
> 
> With the new layout, many trains would stop for just a few minutes or not at all if they were expresses. *Planners say that would increase Union Station's capacity 40% to 50%*....
> 
> Sepulveda said about 30% of the project's planning has now been completed and the Metro board has hired a consultant to finish the earlier environmental review. *Construction is scheduled to begin in 2017 and be completed in late 2019 or early 2020*.
> 
> The project is being funded by state and federal grants as well as revenue from Measure R, the county's sales tax to raise money for transportation projects.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

i wonder why it wasnt built this way from the beginning. Funding issues? It doesnt makes sense to leave it the way it is now. 

The fact that this will increase capacity by 40 - 50% is amazing. Union Station will be a very busy place once all the new lines are completed and all these improvements are very welcomed


----------



## dimlys1994

An interesting discovery in Los Angeles:


----------



## Manitopiaaa

^^ Hopefully that doesn't stop work on the line. I recall that a similar discovery in Miami led to a big legal fight between the developer and some preservation groups.


----------



## blackcat23

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> i wonder why it wasnt built this way from the beginning. Funding issues? It doesnt makes sense to leave it the way it is now.
> 
> The fact that this will increase capacity by 40 - 50% is amazing. Union Station will be a very busy place once all the new lines are completed and all these improvements are very welcomed


A side benefit to the project is that since SCRIP requires raising the track bed above, it may allow for Metro to open up additional concourse space below. One step closer to this:


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Oh great, didnt realize they have to raise the track bed


----------



## fskobic

*Behold Union Station's Huge Plans: Underground Concourse, New Terminal, Fred Harvey Revived*










Metro is teasing their huge master plan for the 75-year-old Union Station and it's looking pretty blockbuster. Starting with the short term, according to The Source: First, the agency plans a $350-million track redesign that will cut down on transfers and wait time for Amtrak and Metrolink commuter trains. Next, Metro will ditch that ugly surface parking lot in front of the grand old station and replace it with a civic plaza that could include outdoor dining and an esplanade facing Alameda Street. The lovely old ticket room and Fred Harvey restaurant, now empty, could finally house new restaurants soon. Next up, Metro wants to move the Patsouras Transit Plaza—where numerous buses, including the Dodger Express, take off—from the rear of Union Station to the east side of Union Station, but that will require that Metro acquire the nearby Mozaic apartments and tear them down.

Much of the impetus for the new plans is an expected increase in patronage; today's 70,000 daily riders could explode to 140,000 by 2040, assuming the high-speed rail line ever gets built. Should that happen, Metro will build a separate terminal for HSR behind Union Station, connecting it to the rest of the station with elevated pedestrian and bike bridges that will rise over the railyard.

A new grand concourse will take the opposite tack: it will be underground, below the platforms where people board and exit Amtrak, Metrolink, and Gold Line trains (though by then, thanks to the Regional Connector, the Gold Line will likely be called the Blue Line and will travel from Long Beach to Azusa). The new subterranean concourse will be 30 feet wide, seven feet wider than the current one, and lined with shops and amenities. The entrance to the Red and Purple Lines will remain the same.



















Metro also hopes to develop much of the fallow and underused land that surrounds Union Station. The rendering with the skyscrapers is just conceptual, but the agency hopes to develop about 3.25 million square feet of hotels, office space, and retail (no residential?) around the station.


----------



## dimlys1994

From The Source:



> http://thesource.metro.net/2014/06/...street-to-connect-to-future-lax-people-mover/
> 
> *Metro staff recommends new light rail station at Aviation/96th Street to connect to future LAX people mover*
> June 16, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the ongoing projects that we’ve been following closely is the Airport Metro Connector, which seeks to connect the terminals at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) with the growing Metro Rail network. This is obviously a project of great interest given that LAX is the third busiest airport in the United States and many other airports in the U.S. and abroad are connected to local rail systems.
> 
> A new Metro staff report released today (above) recommends that one alternative for the project be studied more intensively: building a new rail station near Aviation Boulevard and 96th Street to serve trains along the Crenshaw/LAX and Green Lines. The station would also be the “gateway” transfer point to an Automated People Mover that would take people to the airport terminals. The people mover would be built by LAX.
> 
> Metro will evaluate the light rail part of this alternative — i.e., the new rail station — in the project’s upcoming environmental clearance document. The planners at LAX would study the Automated People Mover.
> 
> The new Metro Rail station would be about .4 miles north of the future Aviation/Century station that will also serve both the Crenshaw/LAX and Green Lines. The idea, according to the Metro staff report, is that the 96th Street Station would be the gateway for passengers headed to LAX while the Aviation/Century station would connect riders to the many businesses along the Century Boulevard corridor.
> 
> A new analysis by Metro staff also found that this alternative would deliver about the same number of riders to LAX as running a light rail line directly to the airport terminals. The analysis also found that the recommended alternative would get people to the terminals in about the same amount of time, cost far less to build and could be built sooner, with a completion date perhaps as early as 2022, depending on when LAWA builds the people mover.
> 
> The preferred alternative was developed in close cooperation with planners and officials at Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), the city of Los Angeles agency that oversees the airport.
> 
> Over the past several years, LAWA has been finalizing details on its current modernization plan, which includes the people mover, a new ground transportation hub (known as the Intermodal Transportation Facility or ITF) and a consolidated rental car facility. LAWA’s current plans are to build the people mover just north of 96th Street en route to the Crenshaw/LAX corridor. Here is the link to the latest LAWA presentation on their ground transportation program.
> 
> The people mover would also include a station at the ITF to be built by LAWA on the northwest corner of 98th Street and Airport Boulevard. That facility would serve as a pick-up and drop-off point for airport passengers and, according to LAX, would allow passengers to check in for flights and check their baggage. LAX is studying whether to build two or four people mover stations to serve the airport terminals.
> 
> 
> The public policy question hovering over the Airport Metro project over the past few years has been how to best connect the existing Green Line and future Crenshaw/LAX Line to the airport?
> 
> Other cities have also wrestled with trying to determine whether it’s best to build a rail line directly into airports or instead build a special airport train that connects airport terminals with the local transit system. The latter approach is the one used at Phoenix Sky Harbor, Miami International, JFK in New York and Oakland International Airport.
> 
> LAX poses particular challenges with seven terminals spread out along a horseshoe shaped road with runways and tarmacs on all sides of the horseshoe. That means that running light rail into the airport requires lengthy and expensive train tunnels as well as a limited number of stations and longer trips for riders not bound for the airport. The Metro Board of Directors formally eliminated those options from further consideration in January.
> 
> Some other interesting factoids from the new Metro staff report:
> 
> 
> A Metro Rail-people mover connection resulted in about the same ridership as having a light rail line run directly into the airport terminals, according to Metro’s ridership forecasts. In the future, it’s expected that about 57 percent of airport bound passengers would arrive by private car, 33 percent by shuttles, taxis and limos, eight percent by the Flyaway bus and one to two percent via transit buses and trains. Keep in mind that about 66.6 million passengers used LAX in 2013, meaning even small percentages can add up to a lot of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building rail into the terminal area could be three times as expensive with a cost of $4.9 billion to $5.2 billion compared to connecting the people mover to light rail at 96th and Aviation (alternative A2).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chart below shows the average walk times involved in using Metro Rail and the people mover to reach airport terminals — assuming LAX builds two people mover stations to serve the terminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here’s the operating plan for the Crenshaw/LAX Line and the Green Line with a station at 96th/Aviation along with the future Aviation/Century station that is being built as part of the Crenshaw/LAX Line project:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building a light-rail spur line from the Crenshaw/LAX Line and Green Line into the airport could have had serious operational impacts for Metro Rail. The big problem: it would have involved longer and less frequent trips for many Metro Rail passengers not headed to airport or near-airport destinations.
> 
> In order to reach the furthest airport terminal, Metro staff estimates that it would take 32.2 minutes from the Crenshaw/Expo station on the Crenshaw/LAX Line, 31.4 minutes from the Green Line’s Redondo Beach station and 50.7 minutes from the Green Line’s Norwalk station.
> 
> As the report says, if LAWA decides not to support Metro’s staff recommended alternative, Metro then would work with LAWA staff on a transfer to the people mover at the Aviation/Century station.
> 
> Also from the study and worth noting: Metro and LAWA have yet to discuss “funding assignments” for the project between the two agencies. LAWA still must make final decisions on the airport’s Ground Transportation Program, which includes the people mover.
> 
> The Metro Board is scheduled to consider the Metro staff recommendation at their Planning Committee meeting at 2:30 p.m. on June 18 and Construction Committee meeting at 10:15 a.m. on June 19. Both meetings will be held in the Board Room at Metro Headquarters adjacent to Union Station and, as always, are open to the public. The full Board of Directors are scheduled to take up the issue at their meeting at 9:30 a.m. on June 26 at Metro HQ.


----------



## EMArg

The Hollywood/Vine Station in Los Angeles, 2 weeks ago:


----------



## Suburbanist

Gold Line extension


Check pics here, they are too big to paste


----------



## Suburbanist

double


----------



## dimlys1994

Press conference of 57-hour old railway bridge demolition, which is in front of one of LAX main entrance and spanning Century Boulevard. The bridge is rebuild for new Crenshaw/LAX LRT:


----------



## EMArg

Video of the highways and freeways in Los Angeles:


----------



## MrAronymous

This is the 'public transport' thread. Not the highway thread.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

New train station at 96th and Aviation approved that will connect to the LAX people mover!










Artist sketch

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-metro-train-to-lax-20140626-story.html

"should include check-in counters, flight information boards, vendors and currency exchange locations. The board also asked transit officials to review baggage check facilities at similar airport transportation centers in other cities and determine whether that service could be added."


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ Check-in counters at the station would be clutch. But it's hard to imagine they could pack in counters for every airline at LAX, so I'd bet it will strictly be those electronic self-service kiosks.


----------



## MrAronymous

What is the main reason they didn't just put the people mover to Aviation/Century?


----------



## sdery

> What is the main reason they didn't just put the people mover to Aviation/Century?


They are building/planning to build a consolidated rental car facility and check in facility just north of Century Blvd. and want to integrate the LRT stop into the facility. I don't think there is adequate space around Century Blvd to build those facilities or re-align the roadways.


----------



## bighomey3000

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> New train station at 96th and Aviation approved that will connect to the LAX people mover!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artist sketch
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-metro-train-to-lax-20140626-story.html
> 
> "should include check-in counters, flight information boards, vendors and currency exchange locations. The board also asked transit officials to review baggage check facilities at similar airport transportation centers in other cities and determine whether that service could be added."


What is the point of building a people mover if it doesn't stop at each terminal?


----------



## JustinB

bighomey3000 said:


> What is the point of building a people mover if it doesn't stop at each terminal?


The people mover will connect to the new LRT station and connect to every terminal.


----------



## zaphod

So will there be separate landside and airside people mover loops?

Or will you have to leave security?


----------



## Tom 958

zaphod said:


> So will there be separate landside and airside people mover loops?
> 
> Or will you have to leave security?


I found a report that detailed separate landside and airside people movers. But it was from 2003. 

And I found this in the comments at http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/05/all_the_details_on_laxs_potential_people_mover_system.php :



> And let's not get started on how this is probably the only airport anyone's ever heard of where you cannot transfer from one terminal to another on a connection without being forced to go through security again. Ever seen what those lines can be like? Go to Dallas, where there are two count them people mover systems; one on the street side of security, the other within the "sterile" zone. They're still clueless about this at LAX.


I hope someone who knows about this will enlighten us! :banana:


----------



## zaphod

> And let's not get started on how this is probably the only airport anyone's ever heard of where you cannot transfer from one terminal to another on a connection without being forced to go through security again. Ever seen what those lines can be like? Go to Dallas, where there are two count them people mover systems; one on the street side of security, the other within the "sterile" zone. They're still clueless about this at LAX.


The people mover on the street side of security at DFW is closed now. It was the original one before skytrain. Author may be thinking of Houston where are two distinct people mover systems for either side of secuirty.

But yeah, DFW really sucked when the people mover was outside of security. Skytrain fixed DFW.

I don't know enough about airports or hang out in the airport forum enough, but I wonder if the design of "narrow concourses on the periphery of a road/parking maze" is horribly outmoded as an airport design. More modern ones seem to have a central concourse with a lot of room for security queues, baggage claim, etc, and then a spine with terminals off that. Like Atlanta.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...onnector-lrt-contract-signed.html?channel=542
> 
> *LA Regional Connector LRT contract signed*
> Tuesday, July 08, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOS ANGELES County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) has signed a $US 918m design-build contract with a joint venture of Skanska and Traylor Brothers for the 3km Regional Connector light rail link in Los Angeles city centre.
> 
> The underground line will link the Gold Line in Little Tokyo with the Expo and Blue lines, which currently terminate at Flower and 7th Street. The connector will have three new stations: 1st Street and Central Avenue, 2nd Street and Broadway, and 2nd and Hope streets. LACTMA forecasts initial weekday ridership of around 60,000.
> 
> The project will reconfigure the three existing LRT lines into two lines, one running north-south and the other east-west, and for many passengers it will eliminate the need to make more than one change between light rail and the metro Red and Purple lines.
> 
> Construction work will start immediately and the link is due to be completed in October 2020


Nice portal at Little Tokyo


----------



## redspork02

Metro_considering_rail_link_from_valley_to_bob_hope_to_pass










http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/..._link_from_valley_to_bob_hope_to_pas.php#more

Earlier this month, Governor Brown lifted a ban on at-grade rail in parts of the San Fernando Valley (it had been illegal!), and ever since Metro's been moving fast to explore major transit improvements along the wildly popular Orange Line busway and in the Valley in general. It's now considering some very big-deal projects: a conversion of the Orange Line to light rail, and then a connection from the Orange Line to Bob Hope Airport in Burbank and on to the Gold Line to Pasadena (and eventually Azusa, and maybe Montclair), as well as a Red Line connection to Bob Hope. Daaaaaamn! Next week, the Metro board will consider a committee motion to explore all these options and to possibly add them to Metro's Long Range Transit Plan, The Source reports. If the proposals move to the LRTP, they could get a little closer to reality should voters pass an extension of 2008's Measure R transit/freeway tax, or an entirely new transportation tax, in 2016 (neither of which have been formally proposed yet).

The studies for improvements to the Orange Line will look at:
· adding more articulated buses
· converting the line to light rail
· signal prioritization 
· grade-separating part of the line
· adding these options to the LRTP

Metro may also establish the San Fernando/San Gabriel Valley High Capacity Transit Corridor, which could include:
· connecting the Gold Line to Bob Hope Airport's Regional Intermodal Transportation Center, then to the North Hollywood Orange Line terminus, allowing trains to travel all the way from Azusa (or Montclair) to Warner Center if the Orange Line is converted to rail
· connecting the Red Line to Burbank Airport
· building a busway from the Orange Line to the Gold Line
· adding whatever is chosen to the LRTP

Metro is going to take a deeper look at all projects considered for the LRTP, The Source reports, and work to better prioritize the ones that will help the most people, not just serve as prizes to politicians and voting blocs.
· Motion asks for study of upgrading Orange Line and possibly connecting to Pasadena [The Source]
· It's Now Legal to Build Light Rail in the San Fernando Valley [Curbed LA]


----------



## redspork02

I like the new map! ^^^ it shows the updated Expo Line going from Santa Monica to East Los, and the blue line headed to Pasadena thru the RC in DT...cool!


----------



## redspork02

*The Missing Link: Exploring the Regional Connector Transit Corridor*

http://www.kcet.org/socal/departure...-the-regional-connector-transit-corridor.html










By Eric Brightwell | July 31, 2014

There are five Metro rail projects currently under construction in Los Angeles: the Crenshaw Line, the Expo Line, the Gold Line, the Purple Line, and the Regional Connector. At just 1.9 miles long, the Regional Connector is the shortest in length but its consequences will be among the most far-reaching. That's because when it's completed it will connect Long Beach to Azusa with a single line, and Santa Monica to East Los Angeles with another.

Right now, if one needs to connect from 7th Street/Metro Center to Union Station, one must close the gap by taking either the Red or Purple Line subways, the Silver Line (or some other bus), a roughly fifteen minute bike ride or half hour walk across downtown, or some other means. The Regional Connector will fix this shortcoming by connecting what are currently known as the Expo and Blue Lines with what's currently the Gold Line. When this is done, the lines will be reconfigured so that the Expo Line will continue along the southern route of the Gold Line to East Los Angeles and, further down the line, either South El Monte or Whittier, depending on what route is chosen. The Blue Line will connect with the northern route of the Gold Line, pass through Union Station on its way to Azusa and in the future, to Montclair. From Union Station, riders can connect to a variety of transit options including the LAX Flyaway, Metrolink, Amtrak, and some day, California High Speed Rail. (The Regional Connector should not be confused the Downtown L.A. Streetcar, which is something more akin to a novelty/tourist trolley and which, if built, will follow a small looping around Downtown.)

The Regional Connector will pass through or near the Downtown neighborhoods of the Arts District, the Broadway Theater District, Bunker Hill, Chinatown, the Civic Center, El Pueblo, the Financial District, Gallery Row, Little Tokyo, the Old Bank District, and the Toy District, as well as the nearby neighborhoods of Temple-Beaudry and Westlake. Three new stops will be built along the way: First Street/Central Avenue, Second Street/Broadway, and Second Place/Hope Street.

*First Street/Central Avenue Station*
The site of the future First Street/Central Avenue Station is located catercorner to the existing Gold Line Little Tokyo/Arts District Station (which it will replace) near the border of Little Tokyo and the Arts District. The site is currently home to some 19th century (old by Los Angeles standards) red brick buildings that were home of beloved institutions like Atomic Cafe, Troy Café, Señor Fish, the Spice Table, Weiland Brewery, and other businesses over their century-long existences. They were obtained by Metro through eminent domain, and will be demolished soon. 

Aside from these modest buildings, not much of historic Little Tokyo remains aside from a row of buildings on the north side of First Street and, behind them, a nearly century-old tree. The majestic 20 meter tall Moreton Bay Fig tree known as the Aoyoma Tree was planted around 1920 by Reverend Shutai Aoyama of the Koyasan Buddhist Temple. The temple relocated to its current location in 1940, and today the orphaned fig casts its shade over a quiet corner of a parking lot. In 2008 it was designated Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument No. 920.

In the vicinity of the First Street/Central Station there are many attractions, including East West Players, Aratani/Japan America Theatre, several churches and temples, Honda Plaza, the Japanese American National Museum (home to both the National Center for the Preservation of Democracy and the Little Tokyo yakuza offices, if Takeshi Kitano's film "Brother" is to be taken as fact), Japanese Village Plaza Mall (with the iconic David Hyun-designed Yagura Fire Tower), The Geffen Contemporary at MOCA, the Go For Broke Monument, Little Tokyo Galleria, Weller Court, and many bakeries, cafés, izakaya, markets, and more. Nearby in the Arts District are Art Share L.A., Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc), several art galleries, restaurants, and Angel City Brewery.









Site of First Street/Central Avenue Station









Almost a century-old Aoyama Tree, a city Historic Cultural Monument









Japanese American National Museum









First Street in Little Tokyo -- old shops on the right









Japanese Village Plaza

*Second Street/Broadway Station*
Second Street/Broadway Station will be built on Second Street between Broadway and Spring Street in Civic Center. Civic Center is known to most Angelenos for its collection of government buildings, including the city's iconic City Hall and before long, a new federal courthouse. Civic Center has the second largest concentration of government employees in the United States outside of Washington, D.C.

Civic Center is also home to more combined acreage of downtown park space than any neighborhood besides Dogtown, which is home to the Los Angeles State Historic Park (aka "the Cornfields"). Civic Center is home to Grand Park, the smaller City Hall Park around City Hall, and soon First and Broadway Civic Center Park -- currently under construction on a site previously known primarily for its urban ruins, graffiti, and subterranean populations of feral cats and homeless people.

The area around the future station is also home to the Angles Flight, the Downtown Independent Cinema, Grand Central Market, the Los Angeles Times Building, the Los Angeles County Law Library, the Los Angeles Police Department headquarters, and numerous popular bars and highly-regarded restaurants. Nearby, within easy walking distance, are the Historic Core neighborhoods of the Old Bank District (the city's old Financial District), Gallery Row, and the Broadway Theater District, home to the largest concentration of picture palaces in the world, the beloved Bradbury Building, and many high and low-end shops.









View from the site of Second Street/Broadway Station









Broadway Theater District









Angels Flight -- not working









New federal courthouse (under construction)









First and Broadway Civic Center Park (under construction)


*Second Place/Hope Street Station*
The site of future Second Place/Hope Street Station is near Grand Park, one end of which is located at Grand Avenue. Atop Bunker Hill Grand Avenue hosts a hub of cultural institutions, including California Plaza (home of MOCA, the Colburn School of Performing Arts, and Grand Performances) and the Music Center (which includes the Ahmanson Theater, the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, the Mark Taper Forum, and Walt Disney Concert Hall -- itself home of the Los Angeles Philharmonic, L.A. Master Chorale, and REDCAT).

The station will also serve the well-populated residential colonies of Angelus Plaza, Bunker Hill Towers, Promenade Towers, and Promenade West. Though little-loved by most architecture fans (at the time of their construction, Promenade Towers were the largest residential colony in the city; now second largest, their main claim to fame is still being the ugliest), they are home to a huge population of downtown residents, most of whom lived in Downtown in the period before the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, when most narratives claim that Downtown was lifeless and dead. The residents of these older structures, along with those of Geoff Palmer's freeway-hugging Faux-talian fortresses, will be among those who will benefit from the Regional Connector's additional transit option.

The area around the future station is also home to the beautiful John Ferraro Building (formerly the LADWP Building), the frequently-filmed Second Street Tunnel (as well as the almost never filmed Third Street Tunnel), the gleaming, generic skyscrapers of the Financial District (with their restaurants, plop art, and landscaped plazas), the World Trade Center, the Stuart M. Ketchum Downtown YMCA (with its Morgan Adams Jr. Sculpture Garden), the Calvin S. Hamilton Pedway, and the Eli and Edythe Broad Art Museum (currently under construction). 

From there the train will connect with the existing 7th Street Metro Center, and in doing so end that station's place as a train terminus. However, located on the bustling edge of the Financial District and (New) South Park, and connecting to several train lines -- as well as many DASH, Metro, Torrance Transit, Big Blue Bus, California Shuttle Bus, Foothill Transit, and OCTA bus lines -- it will likely remain one of the city's busiest stations. The new stations and Regional Connector are forecast to begin service in 2020.









Site of Second Plact/Hope Street Station









Dorothy Chandler Pavillion









Grand Park and Jacques Lipchitz's Peace on Earth









Third Street Tunnel









John Ferraro Building


----------



## Sunfuns

Has there been any attitude change about public transport in LA during the last years? 10 years ago it was: Public transport? Are you crazy? It's for poor people, I have a perfectly good car to get anywhere I want.


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ There's been a dramatic shift in favor of transit-, bike- and pedestrian-friendly urban planning, especially among young people. I'm in my late 20s, been here about ten years, and (especially in the last 2-3 years) everyone I know is taking the existing and upcoming rail lines, the rapid bus, bike routes, and the walkability of their neighborhoods into consideration when they're choosing a place to live. There's a lot of optimism and excitement about LA's current transit boom amongst my peers, which Metro and the Mayor are doing a fine job of stoking.


----------



## Sunfuns

That's good to hear. If LA can change then so can any other city on this planet.


----------



## MrAronymous

Now let's hope all new rail projects are high speed and frequent. The less at-grade crossings the better. I think LA should think about subways in stead of light rail (be it above/underground or at-grade) in stead of light rail. It's time to think about the future when frequencies and capacity might need to be increased. Any time spent sitting in a train that's stopped in front crossing with a car accident is time wasted. Of course the building costs are probably higher, but you would run into less problems achieve and better service in the long run.


----------



## city_thing

I really liked the Red Line when I was in LA. Certainly the most modern of the systems in the USA I've been on. It didn't seem like too many tourists knew about it though, and I think I was the only white person on it as well.

Anyway, it was quick, modern stations, cheap. Good ride.


----------



## mopc

Axel Foley is in town! :lol:


----------



## Suburbanist

I read that there are some plans to convert the El Monte Busway to light rail. But it seems far-fetched.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Suburbanist said:


> I read that there are some plans to convert the El Monte Busway to light rail. But it seems far-fetched.


That might be a difficult proposition because, if it was to be converted to light rail, it would mean diverting the so many buses that use the El Monte Busway to the already-jammed I-10 (San Bernardino Freeway), and it could cause so many headaches to riders who already use the roadway often (especially for Foothill Transit and LA Metro Silver Line commuters). Should that be converted into a light rail service, however, it will take some time as it will involve adding rail tracks, moving the carpool lanes around, and addressing congestion issues, especially near CSULA and El Monte Transit Center.

And by the way, the El Monte Busway is used by Foothill Transit a lot, especially that the Silver Streak (Downtown LA-Montclair via El Monte) runs 24 hours a day, everyday.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ But many buses could be withdrawn, passengers would transfer to light rail.


----------



## Silly_Walks

fieldsofdreams said:


> That might be a difficult proposition because, if it was to be converted to light rail, it would mean diverting the so many buses that use the El Monte Busway to the already-jammed I-10


BRT and LRT can share lanes. Might not be ideal, but it can be done if the alternative (moving buses to a saturated road) is worse.


----------



## Sunfuns

How certain are you they'll be empty? I'm not saying this is a particularly worthwhile project, but in a huge metropolis like this you only need a very tiny portion of population plus tourists to fill them.


----------



## BriedisUnIzlietne

If the project isn't good enough they might reach only bus-like ridership which would be a reason why not to build streetcars in the future.


----------



## Kenni

nr23Derek said:


> Eek - don't get carried away there folks hno:
> 
> 3.8-miles, seriously, why bother?
> 
> Derek





MrAronymous said:


> A loop sharing lanes with cars. Why bother.





Woonsocket54 said:


> Streetcars? Really?
> 
> Is there no end to this sick fetish?



Folks, first lets understand a few things. LA had the largest public rail system in the world, far past New York, Chicago, Paris, London, Tokyo etc. So there's a sentimental factor in bringing back the street car, as I recall it, they will probably look like the old Red Cars.

Number 2. If you live in LA, you will know that LA's city blocks are larger then usual. They are not the dinky European (and Latin American) type, or the usual east coast size. We have large blocks here.

Number 3. Downtown will absolutely benefit from a grade touristy-street car. Businesses are all on board....have you tried walking all over Downtown?

This "loop" would only be the first of a well-connected at-grade "touristy" street car, reminiscent of the old days. No they weren't a Disney imagination, they actually emulate the old Pacific Electric Red Cars of Los Angeles.

Echo Park










Hollywood Blvd.










Santa Monica Blvd.










Disney emulates them....................


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ As long as Metro doesn't think that this kind of thing can replace actual, proper subways along busy commuter corridors, and at least grade-separated light rail running between them, then I'm cool with it.

Speaking of loops though, I had a crazy thought -- what would you folks think of a London-style subway loop in Los Angeles, say extending the Red Line from NoHo to Burbank Airport, DT Burbank, Glendale and back to DTLA? Do loops confuse people? It seems like such a thing would do bonkers amounts of business...


----------



## Kenni

I may e wrong, I'm going on memory here, but I remember the street car being a separate initiative, of course Metro will be involved, but it's mostly a separate thing.

Broadway


----------



## Woonsocket54

Kenni said:


> Folks, first lets understand a few things. LA had the largest public rail system in the world, far past New York, Chicago, Paris, London, Tokyo etc. So there's a sentimental factor in bringing back the street car, as I recall it, they will probably look like the old Red Cars.
> 
> Number 2. If you live in LA, you will know that LA's city blocks are larger then usual. They are not the dinky European (and Latin American) type, or the usual east coast size. We have large blocks here.


But back in the days of the old Red Cars, there was relatively little automobile traffic, so streetcars sharing lanes with cars was not an issue. These days, it's a recipe for failure. If the blocks are that big, can't they put in room for a streetcar-dedicated lane?


----------



## towerpower123

dimlys1994 said:


> From Los Angeles Daily News:


It is a short line, but it will be heavily used and could be the start of a larger system. It appears that wit will connect to several Red Line subway stations and will connect a significant number of downtown points. This will be a great way to reconnect those points, which are outside of walking distance from the subway stations. Unlike the standalone starter lines in a few other cities, this will be packed as it will be part of a far larger network in a very large city with a popular downtown. Even if it is empty in the beginning, it will be a huge catalyst for future development, at far less cost than a LRT line in a dedicated underground right of way. If there are bus lanes already, the streetcar can use them or new ones.


----------



## Kenni

Woonsocket54 said:


> But back in the days of the old Red Cars, there was relatively little automobile traffic, so streetcars sharing lanes with cars was not an issue. These days, it's a recipe for failure. If the blocks are that big, can't they put in room for a streetcar-dedicated lane?


I understand that the street car shares the lane with general traffic, but we have to understand the type of traffic that circulates in Downtown, it's not the commuter type. Traffic in Downtown is specific, either business or pleasure, not "rush through". 

BTW, they have modified the lanes on Broadway as of late. Potted plants on corner lanes, bike lanes.

Here's some of that construction.


Broadway Streetscape Plan, Road Diet by STERLINGDAVISPHOTO, on Flickr

And plus, isn't the idea to make these streets more pedestrian friendly? The street car is on goal. 

Back in the day....


----------



## Woonsocket54

towerpower123 said:


> This will be a great way to reconnect those points, which are outside of walking distance from the subway stations.


What is "walking distance"?


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ In my experience, most of South Park, Fashion and the Historic Core are not feasibly walkable from the subway. Gigantic blocks full of nothing stand in between.


----------



## Kenni

"gigantic blocks", just my point.


----------



## bighomey3000

MarshallKnight said:


> ^^ In my experience, most of South Park, Fashion and the Historic Core are not feasibly walkable from the subway. Gigantic blocks full of nothing stand in between.


Maybe you don't walk very much.

South Park has an Expo and Blue Line stop on Flower and Pico literally one block from LA Live and the Convention center.

The Pershing Square Red and Purple Line stop is literally one block West of Broadway.

You are correct in saying the Fashion District is not walking distance to rail though.


----------



## MarshallKnight

I guess my main tribulations with walking across downtown from Metro stops have been to the Ace Hotel, the Edison and Cole's/The Varnish... they may not actually be that far from the stations but the walk at night (especially to the Ace from the Blue/Expo) feels interminable with all the empty parking lots and shuttered storefronts.


----------



## Kenni

You see where the Blue, Red, Purple and Expo lines pass, the street car will connect them to the rest of DT very nicely.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

nr23Derek said:


> Trams are so much better than buses, the ride is just so much more enjoyable and because it's always the same on every journey it becomes a very familiar way to travel. I', a storng supporter of trams and a pathological hater of buses.
> 
> A tram ROW can be shared with a bus route though, so the existence of a bus line on a road doesn't preclude trams as well.
> 
> But seriously, a short loop like this is just stupid. All it will do is prove financially nonviable and prove no-one wants to use the service. LA should build a proper route running from somewhere significant to downtown and out the other side to somewhere else significant. If you can't do that, don't bother.
> 
> * Sorry, "tram"=Streetcar" as I'm sure you know. I'm English
> 
> Derek


its important to note that there are numerous other options in the area. There are several metro stations that are served by the Red and Purple Line subways as well as the Gold, Blue and Expo lines that all serve the purpose of getting people in and out of downtown LA. Additionally, there is another subway under construction that will connect Union Station and the 7th street metro Station (the two busiest stations in the system and both in Downtown )that will have 3 new stations and serve as a circulator in Downtown. On top of that, there are dozens of bus lines and the Dash Service, which is a downtown specific bus line.

This Tram is being built to provide access to the main points of interest in DT in a easy way. Also, fixed rail lines bring in much more economic development than do bus lines and are easier for tourists to use. As a resident that will have this tram right in front of my apartment, i cant wait.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Woonsocket54 said:


> The useless streetcar will doom transit projects for a generation. In a region of the country where transportation funding is subject to the whims of the electorate, why would anyone support a vanity project to put empty streetcars on roads that are shared with drivers/voters?
> 
> I hope at the very least that if they go through with this, they allocate enough money to tint the tram windows so the emptiness cannot be glimpsed at from the outside.


huh??? Have you ever been to Downtown LA? in addition to the 60k residents (and quickly growing) there are 400,000 - 500,000 workers and thousands of tourists. It will be anything but empty


----------



## nr23Derek

But it's only 3.8 miles long, given the big square bit in the south from the top to the bottom of that loop can't be much more than a mile. Seriously, would you wait 10 mins or so for a tram ride of less than a mile?

Kenni wrote



> This "loop" would only be the first of a well-connected at-grade "touristy" street car, reminiscent of the old days. No they weren't a Disney imagination, they actually emulate the old Pacific Electric Red Cars of Los Angeles.


You see, that worries me. The old style streetcars LA used to have were no doubt romantic and of the time, but a modern tram is a very different animal. Think sleek, quiet, hi-tech item of transport infrastructure.

Derek


----------



## Kenni

nr23Derek said:


> But it's only 3.8 miles long, given the big square bit in the south from the top to the bottom of that loop can't be much more than a mile. Seriously, would you wait 10 mins or so for a tram ride of less than a mile?
> 
> Kenni wrote
> 
> 
> 
> You see, that worries me. The old style streetcars LA used to have were no doubt romantic and of the time, but a modern tram is a very different animal. Think sleek, quiet, hi-tech item of transport infrastructure.
> 
> Derek


That is the force behind it, and some people (like I) would love to see the tram cars emulating the old red ones...why not? 

Tho, it's not a shoe-in. 

It could be this...




























But, it loses a lot in my opinion, that could be Portland for all we know. Because of cost, eventually we will end up with something like that. Unfortunately. They would never do that in San Francisco. LA has an ingrained history with its street cars, why not revive and milk it.

I might even go for something like this.


----------



## Kenni

START VIDEO AT 1:20

LA's last remaining working Pacific Electric Red Car in the Port of Los Angeles.

(beautiful)


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

ya, i hope they go with the older style as well, but i remember reading somewhere that because of ADA requirements, it could be cost prohibitive


----------



## Blindfold

The new modern 'redcar' is a fantastic looking tribute to it's predecessor. Bring it on!


----------



## Woonsocket54

Well, it does appear that "walking distance" in Los Angeles is a much shorter unit of measurement than it is in the rest of the country.


----------



## turtlebay

Curiously, "walking distance" in Los Angeles is quite similar to East Millinocket, Maine.


----------



## Kenni

Woonsocket54 said:


> Well, it does appear that "walking distance" in Los Angeles is a much shorter unit of measurement than it is in the rest of the country.


Didn't you read? city blocks are larger.

You know fellas, every time a friend or family visits LA for the first time, I always take them to DT on Metro. We get off at Union Station, do Olvera St., walk to City Hall, up to the Cathedral, then to Disney Concert Hall, next to Bunker Hill, Grand Central Market, etc. etc. then for lunch...Clifton's. (hope they're open again)

If you're a regular _persona_, and not a world sprinter, it takes it out of you. 

But if you just get out of the Red Line and go to one place, walking distance, then fine. I don't do just one thing in a day. I don't think the regular public transportation user does too.


----------



## sotonsi

Kenni said:


> If you're a regular _persona_, and not a world sprinter, it takes it out of you.


Under 2 miles with several breaks? :nuts:

I know (from experience) that LA is hot during the summer, but you've got breaks from that heat.

And it's not like there's not buses you can use if you can't walk that distance.

Not to mention hiking in the (hotter) mountains, people thinking nothing of walking those sorts of distances at Magic Mountain, Universal Studios or Disneyland.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Kenni said:


> You know fellas, every time a fiend or family visits LA


If I had a fiend visit Los Angeles, I am not sure I would want to spend time with him/her.


----------



## BriedisUnIzlietne

Kenni said:


> START VIDEO AT 1:20
> 
> LA's last remaining working Pacific Electric Red Car in the Port of Los Angeles.
> 
> (beautiful)


It looks fantastic! 

But I would want to live near one - I just couldn't bear listening to that loud foghorn over and over and over again every 5-10 minutes :lol: I hope that they would use a bell if any new Red Cars are built. And shouldn't need to ring it every time for a couple of times it crosses any intersection.


----------



## Kenni

I'm not sure that fog horn is original. I do believe the originals had bells. Let me look. Meanwhile...here's another great video.








Woonsocket54 said:


> If I had a fiend visit Los Angeles, I am not sure I would want to spend time with him/her.


Typo. I multitask and sometimes I miss some. But you understand, I think. :|


----------



## Slartibartfas

I asked it already in the Atlanta thread, but I still don't get it what this US love affair with one-way streetcar loops is all about. Is it really merely about sacrificing usability for supposed coverage maximation? 

Is it really so hard to produce two-way streetcar options? Or is it simply unwanted?


----------



## [atomic]

^^city blocks in the cbd are often times not very wide,
So they would have to:
-block general purpose lanes
-have just a 1 way street 
-make a block pedestrian-only like martin place in Sydney (just with a tram) but that would be unthinkable.
also it makes the network larger on a map, which could increase property prices in a larger area


----------



## Slartibartfas

Sorry, I don't buy those above reasons, except the latter. There are numerous new streetcar systems in Europe, especially in France and they are basically almost all devoid of meaningful loops and one way stations. Given how the streetscape and the dimensions are definitely a lot more challenging there, than in LA, it makes you wonder how they manage to evade these loops while in the US they seem to be almost the norm. 

The last argument is also an example of fooling people and not a true advantage. What matters for network coverage is a two way connectivity. Therefore the true network coverage area is only where the distance to stops in both directions are available. With this loop design, this proper network coverage area is actually a lot smaller than with a double track corridor. 

For tourist systems, such one way loops might be indeed a working option. But then it is just that, a tourist attraction, not a serious means of transit. I think this question needs to be clarified. Is it supposed to be some tourist/real estate gimmick only? Or should it be more?


----------



## Yak79

Slartibartfas said:


> ... these loops while in the US they seem to be almost the norm.
> ...


This isn't actually true: if you consider only existing and u/c regular transit streetcar lines, you'll find that Charlotte, Detroit, New Orleans (Loyola Ave. and soon to be Rampart St./Saint Claude Ave.) Kansas City (except one stop), Salt Lake City and Washington have only double track routes, as well as San Francisco MUNI and Philly's SEPTA (but these are from previous streetcar generations) 
Tucson presents only a short stretch with opposite direction running in parallel streets, while in Dallas, Seattle and Portland there's a mixed situation - in the first two cities the existing line uses separate corridors, while the new line will have a double track route; in Portland the map show a 60/40 majority for separate ways.

The only proper (or perhaps I should say *improper :lol:*) loops are in Atlanta and Cincinnati, and maybe in Los Angeles in the future.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ 
I don't know all the systems indeed. So maybe its not the norm and I stand corrected, but there are at least a number of examples for what I was talking about. 

Those totally open loops are probably what you refer here and that is really an extreme form. Slim loop arrangements where the two one way tracks are kept no more than one block apart from each other are much more functional. But I think also such a setting reduces the functionality of the system, compared to a single corridor double track design. 

If such a loop is just the core of a longer corridor I guess this can be an acceptable issue but if this is supposed to be merely a last mile connector what use should it be, if it doesn't connect you, or only in one direction while in the other direction you'd be faster by merely walking it all alone?

PS:
The Tucson system looks like it is indeed a nice and functional system. The loop part is kept to an acceptable minimum. Why can't the LA streetcar look more like that?


----------



## Yak79

I totally agree with your criticism; in my previous post I only pointed out that this kind of arrangement is far from be the norm, on the contrary is kind of rare even in USA, at least for urban streetcars.
In the end, I think the true reason behind separate track choice is both maximizing the coverage area (from a real estate oriented perspective) and minimizing the impact on traffic flow (from a car oriented perspective), but it's a matter of context that those projects don't look extravagant to US people:

one way street pattern is very common in city cores;
streetcar lines are largely perceived as unrelated to mass transit;
short central section in which inbound track is a single block away from the outbound one is relatively present in LRT/Metro system (where are however at the same more justifiable and less detrimental);
so called "downtown circulators" - short one-way bus routes that cover few block with high headway in central districts - are widespread throughout the country (so this scheme does have some real usefulness, after all).


----------



## Woonsocket54

Slartibartfas said:


> Is it supposed to be some tourist/real estate gimmick only?


Yes. Which is why I don't understand why the "rail fans" are on board. This tourist trolley is a whole separate type of fetish. 

Now we can all put on our conductor hats and go back to playing with our model railroads. Choo choo!


----------



## Slartibartfas

Yak79 said:


> In the end, I think the true reason behind separate track choice is both maximizing the coverage area (from a real estate oriented perspective) and minimizing the impact on traffic flow (from a car oriented perspective), but it's a matter of context that those projects don't look extravagant to US people: ...


These look like some good points indeed but I think you also listed the key problem. If people don't consider it part of real transit, then, why spend transit money on it? (or where does the money come from?)

In the end I think LA is wasting a great chance of establishing a mid capacity mode of transit for short to middle distances. Streetcars could connect Downtown and the surrounding most central neighbourhoods with each other. The distances between stops should be somewhere between those of light rail and busses. streetcars would do a great service as connector to high priority transit with the very locations people want to go to + those locations with each other. Of course this would have to be both ways not just monodirectional. And it should be also clear that this will have some impact on road traffic. If you don't dare to touch the car traffic arrangements, you can't build a meaningful streetcar system.


----------



## Kenni

Slartibartfas said:


> Sorry, I don't buy those above reasons, except the latter. There are numerous new streetcar systems in Europe, especially in France and they are basically almost all devoid of meaningful loops and one way stations. Given how the streetscape and the dimensions are definitely a lot more challenging there, than in LA, it makes you wonder how they manage to evade these loops while in the US they seem to be almost the norm.
> 
> The last argument is also an example of fooling people and not a true advantage. What matters for network coverage is a two way connectivity. Therefore the true network coverage area is only where the distance to stops in both directions are available. With this loop design, this proper network coverage area is actually a lot smaller than with a double track corridor.
> 
> For tourist systems, such one way loops might be indeed a working option. But then it is just that, a tourist attraction, not a serious means of transit. I think this question needs to be clarified. Is it supposed to be some tourist/real estate gimmick only? Or should it be more?


I don't see them as a serious means of transport (here). Since they announced it, the LA project to me has always seemed to be for the tourists. LA gets 45-50 Million tourists a year.


----------



## pesto

The LA case is unfortunately a huge waste of money. It extends about two miles and basically connects three visitor areas (Staples Center, Broadway, Music Center) that are frequented by tourists and within walking distance of each other. There are already several subway lines in the area, which are quite good.

Unfortunately, the design is very plain with nothing to attract tourists, contrasted to the SF cable cars or "old fashioned" trolleys found in some private shopping and entertainment developments. These can be part of the entertainment for families at conventions or tourist activities.

Moreover, downtown is a very dense and crowded area where new transit should go underground. The jam of buses on the main streets downtown is already very bad and very noisy. There is a reason that very large cities (NY, London, Paris, etc.) took out at-grade rail transit a century ago.


----------



## 00Zy99

I'll admit that there may be a need to more closely examine the routing in downtown LA. However, this is supposed to be the core of a larger network. I suspect that they may be trying to start too many routes at once.

That said, the base route does closely resemble numerous bus and streetcar routes in Philadelphia and Manhattan. One way loops like this DO exist, and have existed on stable routes for decades in these cities, carrying quite respectable loads. While there may be some need for tweaking, the basic concept is quite sound.


----------



## redspork02

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/expo-line/

Pix of the Expo Line under construction dated 01/07/2015.

Lots of cool pix, updates by Alan weeks.


----------



## Tom 958

Two train paths on the Green Line but only one on the Crenshaw Line? Fail.


----------



## Nexis

Tom 958 said:


> Two train paths on the Green Line but only one on the Crenshaw Line? Fail.


Crenshaw should connect to Downtown and offer direct Airport service.


----------



## dimlys1994

Ahead of opening of Wilshire Bus Rapid Transit Phase 2, Metro had press confrence:


----------



## DCUrbanist

Nexis said:


> Crenshaw should connect to Downtown and offer direct Airport service.


It looks like there would be an intersection at the Expo/Crenshaw Station. In fact, the Crenshaw Line will be underground, and Expo will be at grade. The connection between the two would be cost-prohibitive.

Furthermore, the downtown Regional Connector will be at capacity serving its two existing lines (the future service pattern once the Expo/Blue and Gold Lines connect). Adding a third service (Downtown to Crenshaw/LAX) through that tunnel would mean removing service elsewhere. It raises the very interesting question of whether it's better to have less frequent, direct service or very frequent service with connections. You can read more about that here:
http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

The TL;DR is that by creating a service relying on connections, you can actually _reduce_ total travel time.


----------



## sotonsi

If there was a physical connection to the Expo, there ought to be the capacity for Crenshaw line services to Downtown, unless you need to double the current peak frequency (same as the off peak one, rather than double like on the Blue and Gold lines) all the way from Downtown to the Sea.

Though I agree that it's better as an interchange, especially if you extend it northwards to the Purple and Red lines.

I'm not sure that 20tph would be the capacity of the Regional Connector - the capacity issue lies elsewhere as a modern light rail line using trams on a new build segregated alignment ought to easily do 30tph (and Manchester will soon have 40tph with plans for another 5tph and alleged capacity for 86tph on its busiest bit).


----------



## MarshallKnight

My guess for why they aren't connecting the Crenshaw Line downtown (aside from the cost): 

The section of the Expo between Crenshaw and Pico is already abysmally slow. Adding a second service through that section would only make it slower. Once the Crenshaw Line is extended north to Hollywood/Highland, I'd wager that transferring to the Purple Line at Wilshire would actually get you downtown more quickly than a direct line that shares with the current Expo/future Gold.



Tom 958 said:


> Two train paths on the Green Line but only one on the Crenshaw Line? Fail.


Also, totally agree with this. I suspect that the "K" and "L" lines will both run up Crenshaw eventually, terminating at Hollywood/Highland. My hope is that eventually the Santa Ana West Corridor will be connected to this segment as well.


----------



## Kenni

Testing continues on the Expo line to Santa Monica. 









LA Weekly


----------



## Woonsocket54

*opening 2016.04 - Bob Hope Airport/Hollywood Way station*

construction on the new airport station on the Antelope Valley Line (Metrolink commuter rail) is scheduled to start in July 2015, with revenue service projected to begin in April 2016.










source: http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/rr/factsheet_bobhopeairport_2015-0402.pdf


----------



## sotonsi

MarshallKnight said:


> Also, totally agree with this. I suspect that the "K" and "L" lines will both run up Crenshaw eventually, terminating at Hollywood/Highland. My hope is that eventually the Santa Ana West Corridor will be connected to this segment as well.


I think Crenshaw with have 5/6 minute headways, whereas the two Green line ones would have 10/12 minute ones.

I think that the LAX bound Green line would extend NW to Santa Monica or Sepulveda.


----------



## Kenni

A short history of Angel's Flight.


Angels Flight Pre Construction by Metro Transportation Library and Archive, on Flickr


Angels Flight 1910 by Metro Transportation Library and Archive, on Flickr


Angels Flight 1956 by Metro Transportation Library and Archive, on Flickr


Angels Flight - Bunker Hill by Metro Transportation Library and Archive, on Flickr


Angels Flight - Night View by Metro Transportation Library and Archive, on Flickr

NOW


angels_flight_1868 by indigoMood, on Flickr


angels_flight-5 by jchengj, on Flickr


Angels Flight, the depot by impalergeneral, on Flickr


----------



## Kenni




----------



## Nexis

*Report: Converting Metro's Orange Line to rail could cost $1.7 billion*

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-orange-line-rail-20150410-story.html


----------



## Suburbanist

Sounds relatively affordable.


----------



## Kenni

I support that conversion, it makes sense.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ That history post of the Angel's Flight is extremely depressing to look at. When you consider what they made out of a wonderful urban fabric. I especially love that beauty of a car garage which rapes the whole view.


----------



## CNB30

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ That history post of the Angel's Flight is extremely depressing to look at. When you consider what they made out of a wonderful urban fabric. I especially love that beauty of a car garage which rapes the whole view.


They Should've just stuck with the Queen Annes


----------



## sizzpurp

How come they haven't expanded the green line to Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink station? So lame


----------



## sotonsi

^^ Because I-105 doesn't reach I-5.

There's no easy right of way for the Green line to use for that last little bit.


----------



## sizzpurp

sotonsi said:


> ^^ Because I-105 doesn't reach I-5.
> 
> There's no easy right of way for the Green line to use for that last little bit.


What about an elevated bridge through Imperial Hwy? It's just 3 miles from one station to another.


----------



## sotonsi

sizzpurp said:


> What about an elevated bridge through Imperial Hwy? It's just 3 miles from one station to another.


Sure, it will happen at some point in the medium term as it is proposed. However they have to work out how they are going to travel those 3 miles as 'in the median of I-105' isn't an option. That is why it doesn't already exist.


----------



## redspork02

Great Progress. Train Testing underway, Metro maps being installed. Photo credit to Edgar Burcksen: LInK
http://www.ipernity.com/doc/expo-line/38086398

*DTSM platform 2 looking West *









*DTSM looking West*


----------



## skyfann

Is the TOP speed from the metro really 1112 kmh?


----------



## CNB30

skyfann said:


> Is the TOP speed from the metro really 1112 kmh?


I dont think anything on Rails goes that fast


----------



## Woonsocket54

CNB30 said:


> I dont think anything on Rails goes that fast


Railguns can fire at 8,600 km/h.


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ Comment of the week.


----------



## 00Zy99

Rocket sleds: Holloman Air Force Base can get them past 10,000 kph.


----------



## mrsmartman




----------



## MarshallKnight

So I've been tinkering for a while with a version of a future Metro map that incorporates the best ideas from Nick Andert's 2040 Metro map and Yuquiao Zhao's recent proposal (previous page), while adding in a couple thoughts of my own to bind them together -- swapping Orange and Blue, HRT to Glendale and the Artesia/605 LRT among them.

Thicker lines indicate HRT, while thinner lines indicate LRT. You'll notice that some of the lines go very far -- the idea is, a bit like BART, to make the HRT lines do the heavy lifting over long distances, and several of them would run alongside Metrolink commuter rail lines (for instance, out to Ontario or down to Santa Ana.)

I haven't put in the finishing touches, such as the Metrolink lines and connections, but I think it's more or less complete.

Would love your thoughts.










EDIT: Adjusted the area around the Alvarado alignment a bit, and added Adams, Glendale Blvd and Grand/Cesar Chavez stations.


----------



## Lemanic

Post it on subreddit MapPorn! Now!


----------



## Tower Dude

Very Good job Marshal, Huge fan of your work. Quick question, are the rail lines differentiated between light and heavy rail by line thickness


----------



## mrsmartman

^^ Yes, but not number of tracks.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Tower Dude said:


> Very Good job Marshal, Huge fan of your work. Quick question, are the rail lines differentiated between light and heavy rail by line thickness


Thanks, man! Yes, the HRT is thicker than LRT. There are 7 HRT lines and 8 LRT lines. I am realizing now as I look at it, that double-tracked LRT lines are almost the exact thickness of HRT, which is confusing. Here's the breakdown, in case it's not totally clear:

*HRT

*Black: Sylmar - Westwood - LAX
Red: Burbank - Hollywood - DTLA - Santa Ana
Purple: Santa Monica - DTLA - Whittier - Brea
Pink: Santa Monica - WeHo - DTLA - El Monte - Pomona
Light Blue: Venice - Culver - WeHo - DTLA - Monterrey Park - Pomona
Lime Green: Venice - Culver - Mid-Wilshire - Echo Park - Glendale
Brown: San Pedro - Pico-Union - Echo Park - Glendale

*LRT*

Blue: Chatsworth - Burbank - DTLA - Long Beach
Yellow: Warner Center - Burbank - Glendale - Pasadena - Claremont
Orange: Redondo Beach - LAX - South Park - DTLA - Pasadena - Claremont
Gold (FKA Expo): Santa Monica - Expo Park - DTLA - Whittier
Light Pink: Santa Monica - LAX - Anaheim - Santa Ana
Light Purple (FKA Crenshaw): Hollywood - LAX - Torrance - Long Beach - Seal Beach
Green: Torrance - El Segundo - Anaheim - Santa Ana
Tan: Hermosa Beach - Cerritos - Whittier - Industry - Duarte


Other details worth noting: 

The Orange between LAX and DTLA is the "LAX express" -- I would've made it HRT except that the obvious alignment follows the Crenshaw Line, which is and LRT already under construction. But I figure if it's completely grade-separated and with few stops, even an LRT line should be able to make that run very quickly.

Nick Andert's Metro 2040 Map had a line running from the SFV to DTLA and then double back along the "LAX Express" corridor, but as part of my effort to make ever line cross every other line at least once, I opted to swap the upper half of that line with the upper half of the Blue (in the current plan, the Blue goes Northeast to Pasadena/Azusa instead of Northwest to Burbank and Chatsworth). I think I managed to pull off the "crosses every other line" trick for every line except for the Yellow, Lime Green, Light Pink and Green lines.

I'm also not sure what the reality would be for the Lime Green as it winds between the Grove, LACMA and La Cienega. My guess is that it would realistically have to skip one or the other of the Purple Line stops, but I'm not an engineer, so maybe it could be done as pictured.

I've also gotten some grief before (not on this forum) for previous map sketches, about West Side bias. I hope this alleviates some of that issue. Obviously the East Side, Gateway Cities and South Bay lines are a little sparser, but I'm trying to stand by the fairly well-established tenets of what constitutes the "center" of LA, and putting the highest density of lines there. Obviously a huge proportion of people live in the Eastern, Southeastern and Southern parts of the city, but the concentration of jobs are largely in the area between DTLA and Century City, bounded on the South by Wilshire Blvd, and on the North by Santa Monica Blvd, Hollywood Blvd and Sunset Blvd. For the purposes of designing my map, that is LA's "Manhattan," and I tried to treat it accordingly.

Hopefully further alleviating any smacking of bias is the Tan Line (which is pretty fun to say.) It's the last thing I added and entirely my own invention, although it wouldn't surprise me if many others had had the idea independently. Basically it runs along Artesia, the 91 and 605 freeways. Obviously nobody likes riding in the center of a freeway, but without a "ring road" type line binding the East and South extremities of the map together, almost all trips between those outer regions would require traveling first in the direction of DTLA and then back out again in another direction. Because it would by necessity be completely grade-separated, I thought this Artesia/605 LRT alignment would be the cheapest and simplest way to build a line shuttling between the "outer boroughs," much like the proposed Bronx/Queens/Brookyln X Line would in New York.


----------



## Svartmetall

I can never see HRT without thinking about Hormone Replacement Therapy. But that said, I really like the map. If LA had a system like that it would be awesome!


----------



## Lemanic

Can you apply that map to Google Maps?


----------



## MarshallKnight

Lemanic said:


> Can you apply that map to Google Maps?


Heh, I have it sketched out in pencil on my corkboard, but I haven't figured out how to make a base Google Map image that's both large enough and detailed enough -- as you zoom out, the streets start to vanish, and drawing on a giant map without any detail kind of defeats the purpose. If you've got a good idea how to get a high-detail, high-res Google Map of the entire LA metro area, I'd happily get to work drawing this up.


----------



## fskobic

MarshallKnight said:


> Heh, I have it sketched out in pencil on my corkboard, but I haven't figured out how to make a base Google Map image that's both large enough and detailed enough -- as you zoom out, the streets start to vanish, and drawing on a giant map without any detail kind of defeats the purpose. If you've got a good idea how to get a high-detail, high-res Google Map of the entire LA metro area, I'd happily get to work drawing this up.


Maybe we could make a Maps layer with it (.kml file) and add it to the Google Maps Gallery. I was thinking about doing it on my own, but it's way too much work. If anyone's interested, we could make a collaboration


----------



## dimlys1994

From Global Rail News:



> http://www.globalrailnews.com/2015/05/27/foothill-gold-line-light-rail-maintenance-centre-completed/
> 
> *Foothill Gold Line light rail maintenance centre completed*
> 27 MAY, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A $265 million light rail maintenance and operations centre for the Foothill Gold Line has opened in California.
> 
> The new facility, which can house up to 84 light rail vehicles, has been built as part of the 18.5-kilometre Foothill Gold Line light rail project which will connect Pasadena to Azusa
> 
> ...


----------



## bagus70

mrsmartman said:


> *LA Union Station*


I have just realized that there is a long gap between the station's headhouse and the platforms.


----------



## phoenixboi08

bagus70 said:


> I have just realized that there is a long gap between the station's headhouse and the platforms.


Good point. May turn out to be a blessing in disguise, quite honestly.
I imagine it will streamline their efforts to expand the station for HSR, over the next several years.


----------



## redspork02

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/expo-line/38415574

Great Update on Expo Line. Photos by Edgar Burcksen. 

DTSM station street curbs, floor tile work began last week. 
Street Intersection improvements are complete on most stations. 
All OCS wiring is completed except for the last two western stations. 
Maintenance yard still needs work. 

for photos visit Mr. Burcksen's photos. He does great work. :banana:


----------



## fieldsofdreams

MarshallKnight said:


> So I've been tinkering for a while with a version of a future Metro map that incorporates the best ideas from Nick Andert's 2040 Metro map and Yuquiao Zhao's recent proposal (previous page), while adding in a couple thoughts of my own to bind them together -- swapping Orange and Blue, HRT to Glendale and the Artesia/605 LRT among them.
> 
> Thicker lines indicate HRT, while thinner lines indicate LRT. You'll notice that some of the lines go very far -- the idea is, a bit like BART, to make the HRT lines do the heavy lifting over long distances, and several of them would run alongside Metrolink commuter rail lines (for instance, out to Ontario or down to Santa Ana.)
> 
> I haven't put in the finishing touches, such as the Metrolink lines and connections, but I think it's more or less complete.
> 
> Would love your thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: Adjusted the area around the Alvarado alignment a bit, and added Adams, Glendale Blvd and Grand/Cesar Chavez stations.


Excellent work! Makes me want to save that image for my own analysis! :applause:

And by the way, have you considered developing a stronger BRT map to augment your LRT and HRT map? I would love to see more of your ideas to help LA become more transit friendly.


----------



## MarshallKnight

fieldsofdreams said:


> Excellent work! Makes me want to save that image for my own analysis! :applause:
> 
> And by the way, have you considered developing a stronger BRT map to augment your LRT and HRT map? I would love to see more of your ideas to help LA become more transit friendly.


Thanks! Totally understand the impulse, I've got it stuck up on my corkboard and am always wondering about this fix or that revision... It's enough to make you crazy, but a fun pastime when it's quiet at the office.

I've thought about BRT, and I think the next phase will be to incorporate the Metrolink and Amtrak lines, as well as adding in some BRT to stitch things together. But I'm not entirely sure where to put all of them.

The Artesia/605 "Tan Line" would actually be a good candidate to make BRT instead of LRT, since it's shuttling between the outer reaches of the county.

One possibility I'm a little in love with is a BRT running along the 118, 210, 710 and Seaside Freeways from Moorpark or Chatsworth to Pasadena, through whatever tunnel/connector we wind up with to close "the gap," and all the way down to Long Beach and San Pedro.

And there are a number of possibilities for more East/West lines in the middle or northern portion of the SFV (maybe Roscoe?), and in South LA (Manchester, Rosecrans, Del Amo, etc.)...

But I'm not married to anything, and honestly know less about the functioning of BRT or any of Metro's plans for it, so let me know what you're thinking!


----------



## dimlys1994

Purple Line extension Section 2 video:


----------



## mrsmartman

^^ Things are getting expensive nowadays. Looks like for another business district in the city.


----------



## redspork02

A little "Diddy" about Stan and his LA Commute......

*Fear of Longer Commutes puts Pressure on US Cities*

June 29th, 2015 by Associated Press

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...nger-commutes-puts-pressure-us-cities/311997/

At 4:35 a.m. each weekday, Stan Paul drives out of his Southern California suburb with 10 passengers in a van, headed to his job as an undergraduate counselor at the University of California, Los Angeles. Some 80 miles and 90 minutes later, the van-poolers finally arrive to start their workday.

On the return trip, Los Angeles' infamously snarled traffic often stretches their afternoon commute to three hours. Since Paul joined in 2001, he has spent roughly 1 1/2 years aboard the van pool and traveled far enough to complete a round trip to the moon.

"These supercommuters, they don't just give you a day's work," he said. "They give you their lives."

Transportation experts say Paul's long journey offers a warning for the future, when traffic rivaling a major holiday might someday be the norm for many more Americans.

"If we don't change, in 2045, the transportation system that powered our rise as a nation will instead slow us down," the U.S. Department of Transportation said in report earlier this year titled "Beyond Traffic."

"Transit systems will be so backed up that riders will wonder not just when they will get to work, but if they will get there at all," the report said. "At the airports, and on the highway, every day will be like Thanksgiving is today."

That prediction has opened a growing divide between cities such as L.A. that have been making huge investments in new transit options and other regions that have been unable or unwilling to get ahead of the crisis, including the fast-growing South and Southwest.

The issue extends beyond big cities. Americans living in more sparsely populated areas are affected every time they head to cities for ball games, business, shopping or air travel.

To avoid this slow-motion catastrophe, the nation would have to act decisively — and soon.

Avoiding past mistakes

In many fast-growing metro areas, transportation officials are trying to avoid becoming the next L.A., Houston or Atlanta — places struggling to undo previous decisions that led to mind-numbing, time-wasting, fuel-burning traffic jams.

Faced with traffic congestion so notorious that it has become a cultural touchstone in movies and comedy repertoires, L.A. has embarked on a transportation building binge funded largely by a sales tax voters passed in 2008.

New rail lines are extending to Beverly Hills, the airport and other places that haven't had such service in decades. Regional officials call the $14 billion being spent on transit and new freeway lanes the nation's largest public-works project.

In some ways, the building boom harkens back to the region's past. Until the rise of the automobile, the city offered an extensive network of streetcars. The current rail renaissance is possible because planners preserved old rights of way, allowing them to build new lines where old tracks had been ripped out or buried under concrete decades ago.

Similar challenges loom over the Atlanta metro region, where population growth by 2040 is expected to result in a daily average congestion speed of 18.8 mph — about 10 mph slower than today.

Some cities have turned to bus rapid-transit systems, which give buses the right of way, permission to operate at faster speeds and sometimes their own lanes. Those systems are already in place in Boston, Cleveland, Miami, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and Seattle.

Seeking consensus

Elected officials and transportation professionals generally agree on the nation's intensifying traffic congestion but are divided about how to address it.

The Obama administration leans heavily toward getting people out of their vehicles, a solution preferred by many urban planners. New highway lanes aren't enough, the theory goes, because they will simply attract drivers who had been taking other routes and encourage more sprawl. Soon congestion will be as bad as ever.

One alternative is to encourage people to trade suburban amenities for more densely developed neighborhoods where they can easily take transit, walk or bike to jobs, stores and entertainment.

"As the population surges, we're going to have more bottlenecks, so giving people another option is really important," Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in an interview. Rail transit can be a release valve for highway congestion, he said, taking enough vehicles off the road to help traffic move more smoothly.

Although ridership for trains and buses is at a 50-year peak, it remains only a tiny fraction of all trips nationally.

Conservative lawmakers in Washington and many state capitals tend to advocate road building, which better serves their primarily suburban and rural constituents. They question the effectiveness of enlarging big-city rail systems, which typically carry people from suburbs to jobs in the urban core, when so much commuting today is from suburb to suburb.

More drivers, more cars

Nearly all the growth in commuting traffic can be attributed to the growth in commutes by private vehicle. Census data on commuting show that between 1980 and 2013, the proportion of workers driving alone to work increased from 64 percent to 77 percent. Carpooling dropped from 20 percent of trips to 10 percent, and public transit declined slightly from 6 percent of trips to 5 percent.

Some drivers lament that they don't have any other options. But for most Americans, expanding transit systems is not a priority, even though more than 80 percent of the population lives in urban areas of 150,000 people or more, a share that is expected to keep growing as fewer people settle in rural areas.

A majority of Americans, 53 percent, think the government should increase spending on roads and highways, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll conducted in April. The same proportion would rather live in a single-family suburban or rural house with more land, even if it means longer commutes.

A smaller share, about 4 in 10, says transit spending should be increased. And 44 percent would choose an apartment or smaller house in a walkable urban area with access to public transportation or a short drive to work.

Money and technology

One of the tallest obstacles to ambitious transportation improvements is the lack of reliable funding. The 18.4-cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax hasn't been increased since 1993, and the revenue it brings in isn't enough to cover current highway and transit spending, let alone increase it.

Raising the gas tax is unpopular with voters, as are other user-fee proposals such as putting more tolls on highways or taxing motorists by the number of miles they drive.

Unable to find a politically acceptable solution, Congress has kept highway and transit programs teetering on the edge of insolvency for much of the past six years. States count on federal money for a share of their transportation spending, ranging from about a third in New Jersey to 93 percent in Alaska.

Whatever plans are adopted, technology is sure to play a big role in helping traffic and commerce flow. In coming decades, cars and trucks might wirelessly "talk" to each other and to traffic lights and other infrastructure, directing drivers to routes that avoid congestion. They may be able to follow each other in close formation on highways, packing more vehicles into what is now empty space. Automakers are testing the technology on Detroit-area roads.

No relief in sight

For now, the distant plans for more trains and better highways don't offer much to millions of Americans who endure long commutes year after year.

Stan Paul, who begins his morning ride to UCLA in Riverside, experimented a few times with public transit, but an hour-plus ride on a commuter train ends near downtown Los Angeles, and to get from there to his office would take at least another hour by subway, bus and foot.

Eventually, a subway extension will connect the city's Union Station to UCLA, so Paul could transfer from the train. The only catch: By the extension's expected 2036 completion date, he'll be retired.

"Right now," he said, "I don't know what I'd do without the van pool."


----------



## redspork02

Looks like the Expo Line Pylons are black? 

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/expo-line/38737726


----------



## redspork02

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/expo-line/38790420


----------



## Nexis

*Los Angeles Metro Rail 25th Anniversary*


----------



## Nexis

> *Santa Ana-to-Garden Grove streetcar project rolls forward*
> 
> By Nicole Knight
> Orange Co. Register
> July 13, 2015
> 
> "The prospect of a light-rail streetcar traversing a segment of the county’s urban core took another step forward Monday when the county transportation board approved a framework agreement with the city of Santa Ana.
> 
> Under the agreement, the Orange County Transportation Authority will bear responsibility for the construction, maintenance and operation of the estimated $250 million Santa Ana-to-Garden-Grove rail line.
> 
> The four-mile, hop-on, hop-off service would carry commuters, shoppers and tourists on a dozen stops to the county seat, jobs and entertainment. It’s expected to open in 2019..."


http://www.ocregister.com/articles/santa-671550-rail-county.html


----------



## LondonerMiles

Why did they build the Gold and Blue lines as 30 mile long tram lines? Doesn't it take forever to get from downtown LA to Long Beach on the blue?


----------



## phoenixboi08

LondonerMiles said:


> Why did they build the Gold and Blue lines as 30 mile long tram lines? Doesn't it take forever to get from downtown LA to Long Beach on the blue?


They're light rail lines, not streetcars...


----------



## MrAronymous

The word 'tram' can encompass anything from streetcar to light rail. But the answer to his question: Money and politics. And I heard it was about 45mins from Santa Monica to Downtown.


----------



## phoenixboi08

MrAronymous said:


> The word 'tram' can encompass anything from streetcar to light rail. But the answer to his question: Money and politics. And I heard it was about 45mins from Santa Monica to Downtown.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯ tram definitely connotes something with the LOS and technical specifications/characteristics of a streetcar... 

People use them interchangeably, but they're not the same.


----------



## MrAronymous

Wikipedia.org said:


> A tram (also known as tramcar; and in North America known as streetcar, trolley or trolley car), is a rail vehicle which runs on tracks along public urban streets (called street running), and also sometimes on separate rights of way.[1]
> ...
> Tram lines may also run between cities and/or towns (for example, interurbans, tram-train), and/or partially grade-separated even in the cities (light rail). Very occasionally, trams also carry freight. Tram vehicles are usually lighter and shorter than conventional trains and rapid transit trains, but the size of trams (particularly light rail vehicles) is rapidly increasing. Some trams (for instance tram-trains) may also run on ordinary railway tracks, a tramway may be upgraded to a light rail or a rapid transit line, two urban tramways may be connected to an interurban, etc.
> 
> For all these reasons, the differences between the various modes of rail transportation are often indistinct.


Voilà.


----------



## ssiguy2

Not written in stone but as a general rule.............

LRT vehicles can usually be coupled together unlike Streetcars/trams. 
LRT vehicle can be boarded from both sides of the train where st/tr are usually only boarded on one side.
LRT routes almost always have ROW as opposed to st/tr where it varies. 
LRT have bigger distances between stations much like subway spacing. 
LRT tends to be for more medium/long urban trips where st/tr tend to be for more localized travel.


----------



## LondonerMiles

phoenixboi08 said:


> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ tram definitely connotes something with the LOS and technical specifications/characteristics of a streetcar...
> 
> People use them interchangeably, but they're not the same.


I'm using the word "tram" in British English, which translates to a streetcar in US English. 
In the UK, the term "light rail" means tram/streetcar or the Docklands Light Railway-small automatic metro type services. I just thought it might have been better to build an elevated heavy rail metro like the red line along the blue line corridor.


----------



## phoenixboi08

LondonerMiles said:


> I'm using the word "tram" in British English, which translates to a streetcar in US English.
> In the UK, the term "light rail" means tram/streetcar or the Docklands Light Railway-small automatic metro type services. I just thought it might have been better to build an elevated heavy rail metro like the red line along the blue line corridor.


I understand, and I simply am of the opinion that that translation is an error/confusion, and doesn't make sense when you actually examine LOS and other technical aspects: light rail is distinct from streetcars & trams. There _are_ light rail lines that operate, essentially, as streetcars/trams (the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail is one such example). However, it is totally incorrect to refer to these lines as "light rail." Though, I understand I'm in the minority.

The blue line was the first light rail line built in LA, in the late 80s or so, along the old Pacific Electric streetcar ROW. This was done for expedience.

The councilman who shepherded the project through wanted to reactivate this particular ROW, and was not on-board with the idea of subways in LA; he felt light-rail would suffice (cheaper, easier to build, more suitable for the city's land-use, etc). 

For what it's worth, this blue line apparently did quite well after revenue service began, exceeding ridership estimates quite early on...


----------



## sotonsi

LondonerMiles said:


> I'm using the word "tram" in British English, which translates to a streetcar in US English.
> In the UK, the term "light rail" means tram/streetcar or the Docklands Light Railway-small automatic metro type services.


I'd say that the segregation (Tyne & Wear Metro is also Light Rail (though shares with heavy rail at times) - the automatic nature of the DLR isn't what makes it light rail) is a total red herring and a flaw in the (otherwise superior) UK English.

The key distinction with trams is surely whether it functions like:
1) trains that can run on street: longer vehicles, less frequent stops, faster running speeds. 'Light Rail'
or
2) buses that run on rails: shorter vehicles, higher stop density, slower running speeds. 'Streetcars'

Both, in UK English, would simply be called 'trams' unless fully segregated from the road, which sucks. The success of linking some run-down rail lines in Manchester and South London with on-street sections led people to think that type-2 trams would be a good idea (West London Tram and Cross River Tram being the biggest wastes of time as ideas).

Obviously there's blurs within systems - Manchester Metrolink tram network's Eccles, Ashton and Airport lines tend towards type-2, but the Bury, Altrincham, Rochdale and East Didsbury lines tend towards type-1 (being converted railways).

The near-entirely segregated Midland Metro tries to be a type-2 (having butchered an intercity railway to do it - it would be much better as a type-1) - segregation isn't the be-all-and-end-all as you can still muck up in the execution!

LA's Light Rail routes mostly tend towards type-1.

The advantages of a type-1 system over heavy rail is that they can run on-street and give excellent penetration of an important area (cf the massive increase in ridership levels on the Oldham-Rochdale line of Manchester Metrolink when they relocated the route through Oldham town centre off of the old heavy-rail alignment skirting it) - in the Blue line's case, that's in Long Beach.

LA Metro has used the advantages of having trams, rather than heavy rail, on it's Blue, Gold and Expo lines (the Green could have been either, but Light Rail means easier extensions and integration with the rest of the network), but still used the advantages of having segregated corridors for large parts of the route (ie not Midland Metroed it). Light Rail was the right choice.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

LondonerMiles said:


> Why did they build the Gold and Blue lines as 30 mile long tram lines? Doesn't it take forever to get from downtown LA to Long Beach on the blue?


If im not mistaken, i think the run time from Downtown LA to Long Beach is 58 minutes, and the distance is about 25 miles.

The Expo line from Santa Monica to Downtown LA will take about 40 - 45 min


----------



## Nouvellecosse

ssiguy2 said:


> Not written in stone but as a general rule.............
> 
> LRT vehicles can usually be coupled together unlike Streetcars/trams.
> LRT vehicle can be boarded from both sides of the train where st/tr are usually only boarded on one side.
> LRT routes almost always have ROW as opposed to st/tr where it varies.
> LRT have bigger distances between stations much like subway spacing.
> LRT tends to be for more medium/long urban trips where st/tr tend to be for more localized travel.


In North America those do tend to be the major trends. Someone outside of NA would basically laugh lol.


----------



## 2Easy

starrwulfe said:


> So are they turning the Forum into a football stadium?
> 
> (I lived near Centinela Park in Inglewood as a teenager)


No. The new football stadium would be built just south of the Forum between Pincay and Century.


----------



## 2Easy

00Zy99 said:


> Don't be rude. It's likely that quite a few people will use mass transit to get to the Super Bowl.


I'd say that given the distance to the closest station (well over a mile, maybe closer to two miles) relatively few will take the train unless they have a shuttle like they do for dodger games.


----------



## pesto

Woonsocket54 said:


> I imagine the same number of people will take the Metro rail to the Inglewood Super Bowl as the number of people that took the Metro rail to the 1984 Olympics.


Clueless.


----------



## pesto

2Easy said:


> I'd say that given the distance to the closest station (well over a mile, maybe closer to two miles) relatively few will take the train unless they have a shuttle like they do for dodger games.


First of all, Mayor Butts is on the board of MTA and has already raised the idea of a rail spur with turnaround from the La Brea stop to the front door of the stadium and related Super Bowl functions. Useful for the Forum and other huge events at Inglewood as well.

Second, there are two stations a mile or less (using side streets). This is easily walkable (49er fans pay $20 to walk further than that and free parking is further and draws many carrying gear and all).

In any event, shuttles will obviously be provided.


----------



## 2Easy

pesto said:


> First of all, Mayor Butts is on the board of MTA and has already raised the idea of a rail spur with turnaround from the La Brea stop to the front door of the stadium and related Super Bowl functions. Useful for the Forum and other huge events at Inglewood as well.


As I'm sure you realize, the gap between an idea being raised and a spur being built is tremendous. Where would this even be built? Down Prairie? Might as well put it underground since we're just spitballing. 



> Second, the distance is well under a mile, maybe 3/4 mile, which is easily walkable (49er fans pay $20 to walk twice that distance and free is further and draws many carrying gear and all).


I live in Inglewood and that's false. The stadium will be south of the forum. I'm not quite sure how far south because the roads haven't even been built yet, but with parking lots surrounding both stadiums I suspect that it's at least 1/2 mile. Google walking directions from Market/Florence to the Forum show 1.1 miles. Add 1/2 mile and you're at 1.6 miles each way. 



> In any event, shuttles will obviously be provided.


Obvious to who? I've been to a meeting regarding the stadium (I live very close) and the people building the stadium and the Inglewood council person were perplexed by the question when I asked. But that was regarding regular games. Maybe the Super Bowl would be different.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Has Mayor Butts discussed who will pay for this rail spur that is meant to connect to the stadium? (Probably the same taxpayers as the ones who will pay to build the stadium). LOL.

I can't imagine people in LA getting off their butts (no pun intended) and walking a mile from the metro to the stadium. They don't do it at Dodgers Stadium, and they won't do it in Inglewood.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Maybe it is off topic as it is the example of a "stadium station" from elsewhere but this is how a serious stadium station ist designed: 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-Bah...2_Stadion_AG_süd_Veranstaltungseingang_02.jpg
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-Bahn-Station_Stadion#/media/File:U2_Stadion6.JPG
http://www.zodl.co.at/typo3temp/pics/0d7d28c05a.jpg

The station has platforms with not two exits but half a dozen exists (every few meters). The extra exits are used one-way before and after stadium events. On top of that there are not two but three tracks, allowing for parallel unloading/loading of two trains in the same direction (the direction can be changed). And even more, there is a direct connector track right after the station to the subway depot which enables direct insertion or exit of trains.

I could not find numbers for its capacity. But it is safe to say that a very large share of stadium visitors arrive there by subway, in a stadium with 50,000 seats. This is somewhat smaller than the proposed Inglewood stadium if I got it right (80,000 seats) but still comparable.

We won't see something like that in LA for multiple reasons of course. To start with because a light rail could not support such a station with its capacity elsewhere and along the track and of course because it will be hard to attract enough people and get them out of their car.


----------



## Kenni

Here's the anticipated restructuring of Metro lines.


----------



## raxa

^ sad theres no subway to the sea. This city has its priorities all wrong.


----------



## phoenixboi08

raxa said:


> ^ sad theres no subway to the sea. This city has its priorities all wrong.


It's being extended, currently, 9 miles further down Wilshire, into Westwood. 

Eventually, the next phase will take it the full length to Santa Monica, but I think the expedited time frame was predicated upon a county bond measure that, just barely,failed to pass, recently.

That would have sped up a lot of projects...
In any case, it sounds like they're going to introduce another measure, soon.

edit: or were you specifically talking about the actual time-frame of the extension?


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ In the meantime, at least there is a light rail to the sea opening in a few months!

Since the Expo/Gold services roughly the same terminus as a Purple Line SM extension, I have to think that the "subway to the sea" is a low priority for Metro compared to a number or other rail projects. The Sepulveda/LAX corridor, Crenshaw Line to West Hollywood and Red Line Extension to Burbank Airport would all take precedence. You could even argue the Gold Line extension to Whitter/El Monte or a Sunset/SMB line are more important than Wilshire Blvd through Brentwood.

I have high hopes for the coming year, in terms of pushing the timelines ahead. The opening of the Expo through wealthy and influential westside neighborhoods should help give Metro a bunch of political capital (which is why they want this thing to get off without a hitch.) Meanwhile, if LA accepts the USOC 2024 Olympic bid, it'll give the city more incentive to jumpstart and accelerate numerous projects. 

Which brings us to Measure R2, which is expected to get on the ballot in 2016, and could raise $120 Billion for Metro projects. The goodwill of a successful Expo Westside extension + the pressure to get the city prepped for a competitive Olympic bid should hopefully make up the difference between 66.5% and the 67% needed for the Measure to pass.


----------



## Slartibartfas

True, the light rail to the sea is something I would have loved to take already during my last visit a a few years ago. Certainly for locals as well, but for a tourist a light rail is so much nicer to take than a highway. 

Nonetheless the corridor via Beverly Hills is a gaping hole in the PT network of Los Angeles. And it is such an important, central, and relatively densely populated corridor. Not having that covered by some high priority system substantially reduces the usefulness of the entire network.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Woonsocket54 said:


> I imagine the same number of people will take the Metro rail to the Inglewood Super Bowl as the number of people that took the Metro rail to the 1984 Olympics.


well, about 8000 - 10,000 people take the train to every USC game so i dont think youre right at all, but it was a good try


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Woonsocket54 said:


> Has Mayor Butts discussed who will pay for this rail spur that is meant to connect to the stadium? (Probably the same taxpayers as the ones who will pay to build the stadium). LOL.
> 
> I can't imagine people in LA getting off their butts (no pun intended) and walking a mile from the metro to the stadium. They don't do it at Dodgers Stadium, and they won't do it in Inglewood.


You do realize that dodger stadium is up on a hill right? the elevation gain from the chinatown station to the stadium must be at least 500 - 1000 feet. 

The Dodger stadium express bus from union station to the stadium draws 4000 - 6000 fans every game. Thousands of fans use rail to get to Kings, Lakers and Clippers games at Staples. Im not sure why you think LA fans are any different than other cities when it comes to rail.


----------



## Nexis

*Metro: Transforming LA*


----------



## Brystar27

I am currently in Los Angeles for vacations and i really like the Public transit network yall have here its brilliant but yeah i kinda wish the Expo line to santa monica opened sooner because the last time i was here last year i had to take the expo line to culver city then take the bus to the beach.

I hope they jumpstart alot of the projects they want to do, i am currently staying in a motel in inglewood and i saw the century aviation station being built on Century Blvd

Do the people in Los Angeles likes the LA Metro here? or they don't like it?


----------



## starrwulfe

00z99y said:


> You were sticking out your tounge mocking me.


Sorry... I meant it to mean "LOL, I can see his point" at the joke and nothing more. 

When I'm being rude on purpose, mere emoji wouldn't be enough. 😉

Besides, I'm on your side of the argument here; I think more Angelinos will figure out a transit solution to get to the Inglewood Stadium. I lived in the area when the Lakers played at The Forum and Prairie, Manchester and Florence was a nightmare during game days. I know how bad it can get!


----------



## phoenixboi08

Slartibartfas said:


> ...Nonetheless the corridor via Beverly Hills is a gaping hole in the PT network of Los Angeles. And it is such an important, central, and relatively densely populated corridor. Not having that covered by some high priority system substantially reduces the usefulness of the entire network.


Exactly! For me, this is the most important part of the system, as it could have quite an effect on the travel patterns for the thousands of people who live/work along that corridor.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Brystar27 said:


> Do the people in Los Angeles likes the LA Metro here? or they don't like it?


Most of them don't even know about it :lol::lol:


----------



## Slartibartfas

There is clearly an ethnic devide isn't there? I have never seen such a stigmatization of public transport as in LA. Well, the rail based modes ared not as bad but as soon as it has rubber tires its like a Grey Hound. Only poor minorities and European tourists seem to be riding it ...

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some people out there living in LA and being surprised that there is somthing like a Metro network ...


----------



## Nexis

Why does the Purple line extension not go to Downtown Santa Monica?


----------



## MarshallKnight

Nexis said:


> Why does the Purple line extension not go to Downtown Santa Monica?


Currently it's just the lack of funding; there's plenty of support for it and it's in Metro's long range plan. If SR2 passes next year, there's a good chance that it will get added to the current planned phases.


----------



## Nexis

MarshallKnight said:


> Currently it's just the lack of funding; there's plenty of support for it and it's in Metro's long range plan. If SR2 passes next year, there's a good chance that it will get added to the current planned phases.


No , I meant the routing...wouldn't it be better to send it to Downtown Santa Monica instead of just north of it?


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ Ohhhh. Yeah, I think it's just a matter of cost and complexity. Constructing a line under a large boulevard is relatively simple and inexpensive, compared to routing "off-grid." The drama with BHHS has shown what you can get yourself into if you tunnel under occupied property. Then there's the question of crossing the 10 freeway, which I can only assume would be particularly complex if you wanted to run the Purple Line down, say, Lincoln or Main.

I think Metro's reasoning is that the Big Blue Bus can easily ferry "first mile/last mile" riders to Downtown SM from both the Expo (4th and Colorado) and the Purple Line (3rd and Wilshire) at a fraction of the cost of routing a subway there. There's certainly the possibility that those alternatives could be explored though once funding is in place and the final leg of the extension is a sure thing.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Marshall, your idea for a new subway line is ideal. If only i had 5 billion to donate to the MTA.


----------



## 2Easy

Nexis said:


> Pink Line was proposed by a candidate running for city council it was never a serious proposal and it was Heavy Rail along with the planned Purple line extension. The various Streetcar proposals in the LA metro will use low floor LRVs....but the Heavier used lines under Metro use high level.
> 
> http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/02/council_candidate_calls_for_sunset_rail_line_riverside_streetcar.php#512fdbbef92ea11727010bc0


Well that's not completely accurate. I guess he did revive some version of the Pink line but the original was several years earlier. Before the first Measure R vote so around 2006 or 2007 maybe. By Dan somebody. Can't recall. And others later had their own fantasy versions. Metro studied their own version and a summary can be found here. See figure 1-3. 
http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/scoping-report/images/scoping-report-2009-0722.pdf


----------



## 2Easy

MarshallKnight said:


> Currently it's just the lack of funding; there's plenty of support for it and it's in Metro's long range plan. If SR2 passes next year, there's a good chance that it will get added to the current planned phases.


Where have you heard that there's plenty of support? It's not really even on anyone's radar yet. I think that there are tons of projects ahead of it including:

East side extension
South Bay green line extension
405/sepulveda pass line
Crenshaw line north extension
Santa Ana corridor
Slauson line from LAX to downtown

Some others that I can't think of. Maybe others like a Vermont line. It'll be hard to argue that Santa Monica deserves two lines ending less than a mile apart when so many areas of the county have no rail at all.


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ I should've clarified, I meant local (e.g. Santa Monica) support, not necessarily county-wide. However, as I mentioned, it is part of the long-range plan, which means there's at least enough support within Metro that the SM extension has already been at least partially studied. I don't have access to the most current edition, but you'll find it in the 2009 edition under "Strategic Unfunded Plan -- Tier 1" (on pg. 31) 

As you'll see in that same document, there are several other projects already under recommendation (as you say, higher on the priority list than the Purple SM extension) with at least partial funding. Those include the West Santa Ana Branch, Gold Line Eastside Extension, Green Line South Bay and LAX extensions and the 405/LAX corridor and several others. Vermont, sadly, is well down the priority list in Tier 2 Unfunded projects meriting further definition.

Anyway, this is a helpful list to be aware of what Metro has in mind for the next 20-30 years. If money were no object, I'm sure they'd build out all of it and soon. As things stand, Measure R2 (or whatever they wind up calling it) will be the best and quickest way to get the majority of these priority projects underway.


----------



## fskobic

Nexis said:


> No , I meant the routing...wouldn't it be better to send it to Downtown Santa Monica instead of just north of it?





MarshallKnight said:


> ^^ Ohhhh. Yeah, I think it's just a matter of cost and complexity. Constructing a line under a large boulevard is relatively simple and inexpensive, compared to routing "off-grid." The drama with BHHS has shown what you can get yourself into if you tunnel under occupied property. Then there's the question of crossing the 10 freeway, which I can only assume would be particularly complex if you wanted to run the Purple Line down, say, Lincoln or Main.
> 
> I think Metro's reasoning is that the Big Blue Bus can easily ferry "first mile/last mile" riders to Downtown SM from both the Expo (4th and Colorado) and the Purple Line (3rd and Wilshire) at a fraction of the cost of routing a subway there. There's certainly the possibility that those alternatives could be explored though once funding is in place and the final leg of the extension is a sure thing.


I completely agree with the idea that it should go to Downtown SM station. Even though it means higher costs. The psychology of the rider is important here, and the idea that someone who wants to transfer from the Purple line to the Expo line has to take a bus first (which, at least in people's minds, isn't as reliable, and has more confusing stops/directions) would discourage many people from using the metro in the first place. Metro lines are far more easy to understand (partially due to the usually small number of them), especially for tourists.

I think the costs of building a bad solution and saving some money is is far greater than investing a bit more in a far better solution.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Nexis said:


> No , I meant the routing...wouldn't it be better to send it to Downtown Santa Monica instead of just north of it?


^^


MarshallKnight said:


> Ohhhh. Yeah, I think it's just a matter of cost and complexity. Constructing a line under a large boulevard is relatively simple and inexpensive, compared to routing "off-grid." The drama with BHHS has shown what you can get yourself into if you tunnel under occupied property. Then there's the question of crossing the 10 freeway, which I can only assume would be particularly complex if you wanted to run the Purple Line down, say, Lincoln or Main.
> 
> I think Metro's reasoning is that the Big Blue Bus can easily ferry "first mile/last mile" riders to Downtown SM from both the Expo (4th and Colorado) and the Purple Line (3rd and Wilshire) at a fraction of the cost of routing a subway there. There's certainly the possibility that those alternatives could be explored though once funding is in place and the final leg of the extension is a sure thing.


^^


fskobic said:


> I completely agree with the idea that it should go to Downtown SM station. Even though it means higher costs. The psychology of the rider is important here, and the idea that someone who wants to transfer from the Purple line to the Expo line has to take a bus first (which, at least in people's minds, isn't as reliable, and has more confusing stops/directions) would discourage many people from using the metro in the first place. Metro lines are far more easy to understand (partially due to the usually small number of them), especially for tourists.
> 
> I think the costs of building a bad solution and saving some money is is far greater than investing a bit more in a far better solution.


For those of you familiar with the area, how difficult would it be to simply turn and then route it under Ocean/Nielson? 

Just from my scant knowledge of the area and with the aid of a map, it seems like it'd be a tight fit.

I would agree with the idea that having both lines serving the same station is ideal.


----------



## MarshallKnight

fskobic said:


> I completely agree with the idea that it should go to Downtown SM station. Even though it means higher costs. The psychology of the rider is important here, and the idea that someone who wants to transfer from the Purple line to the Expo line has to take a bus first (which, at least in people's minds, isn't as reliable, and has more confusing stops/directions) would discourage many people from using the metro in the first place. Metro lines are far more easy to understand (partially due to the usually small number of them), especially for tourists.
> 
> I think the costs of building a bad solution and saving some money is is far greater than investing a bit more in a far better solution.





phoenixboi08 said:


> ^^
> 
> 
> ^^
> 
> 
> For those of you familiar with the area, how difficult would it be to simply turn and then route it under Ocean/Nielson?
> 
> Just from my scant knowledge of the area and with the aid of a map, it seems like it'd be a tight fit.
> 
> I would agree with the idea that having both lines serving the same station is ideal.


So this is twice that I realized I misunderstood the question -- I took "Downtown Santa Monica" to mean a different part of town altogether (Main St. south of Pico), not the Expo terminus station. _That_ does seem doable, although it is certainly not without cost and complication. Judging roughly by how much room the Red Line needs to turn up Vermont from Wilshire, I think you could put a station at 7th/Wilshire and have it curve under those blocks to 4th St. to meet the Expo station. The big engineering question has to do with the suitability of the soil there for tunneling -- that coastal cliff area tends to be erosive and less stable in earthquakes than areas further inland that are buttressed by miles of land. But that's something I know next-to-nothing about; maybe we can get an engineer to weigh in.

In any case I agree that it's ideal, and I don't think studies have gotten into much detail so far about where the Purple terminus would go. My only thought as to why it wouldn't be deemed worthwhile is the relative rarity with which people transfer between two end-of-the-line stations.


----------



## Nexis

First Quarter 2015 Daily Ridership numbers for Greater LA Region

Source : http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2015-q1-ridership-APTA.pdf

*Heavy Rail*
Los Angeles / Purple & Red lines - 147,800 (2015)

*Light Rail*
Los Angeles / Metro-LRT - 193,600 (2015)

*Suburban/Regional/Commuter Rail*
Los Angeles Suburbs / MetroLink - 40,900 (2015)

*Bus Ridership*
Los Angeles / MTA Bus - 1.083 Million (2015)
Orange County / OC Bus - 152,400 (2015)
Long Beach / Long Beach transit - 92,800 (2015)
Santa Monica / Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus - 79,300 (2015)
San Bernardino / OMNITRANS - 45,800 (2015)
Riverside / Riverside Transit Agency - 31,500 (2015)
Santa Barbara / Santa Barbara MTD - 26,500 (2015)
Culver City / Culver CityBus - 16,000 (2015)
Torrance / Torrance Transit System - 13,800 (2015)
Oxnard / Gold Coast Transit - 12,500 (2015)
Santa Clarita / Santa Clarita Transit - 11,900 (2015)
Ventura / Ventura County Transp Comm - 2,800 (2015)


----------



## LA County Metro

I work for Metro and would like to clear up somethings. 

1. the purple line extension will extend to Wilshire and la cienega first and will be completed sometime in 2023. Then extended to centry city by 2026 and to Westwood by 2035. Metro is looking to accelerate the construction should funding become available to do so. As of right now there will be no subway to the sea (purple line all the way to santa monica).

2. The Pink line will be apart of the Crenshaw line extension north later on. The exact route is currently not determined and it will not connect directly to the purple line.

3. The 96th street station of the LAX/Crenshaw line will be built at a later date once the construction of the LAX people mover begins. the construction will start in 2017 and be completed by 2024.


----------



## Slartibartfas

del


----------



## Tower Dude

LA County Metro said:


> 1. the purple line extension will extend to Wilshire and la cienega first and will be completed sometime in 2023. Then extended to centry city by 2026 and to Westwood by 2035. Metro is looking to accelerate the construction should funding become available to do so. As of right now there will be no subway to the sea (purple line all the way to santa monica).



So this does not preclude the possibility of a future purple line extension, it is more a matter of LA Metro not including it in their current extension plans?


----------



## Kenni

Chinatown *Gold Line* Station.


Chinatown Station - Los Angeles by Andreas Adelmann, on Flickr

*Red Line* Station


Metro Retro by Neil Kremer, on Flickr


Los Angeles metro station by Marianne Williams, on Flickr


----------



## Amexpat

LA County Metro said:


> I work for Metro and would like to clear up somethings.
> 2. The Pink line will be apart of the Crenshaw line extension north later on. The exact route is currently not determined and it will not connect directly to the purple line.


Any particular reason for that? It seems that it would make sense to connect a Crenshaw line extension with the purple line.


----------



## jchernin

Amexpat said:


> Any particular reason for that? It seems that it would make sense to connect a Crenshaw line extension with the purple line.


Different technologies maybe? The Crenshaw line is light rail and the purple heavy rail.


----------



## humdoodee

jchernin said:


> Different technologies maybe? The Crenshaw line is light rail and the purple heavy rail.


But the 7th street station handles two heavy and two light rail lines just fine. If the Crenshaw line can underpass/overpass a Purple line station, I don't see why they can't link up a LRT platform with a HRT station.


----------



## 2Easy

humdoodee said:


> But the 7th street station handles two heavy and two light rail lines just fine. If the Crenshaw line can underpass/overpass a Purple line station, I don't see why they can't link up a LRT platform with a HRT station.


I think you're discussing two different things. The Crenshaw line cannot interline with the purple line due to the differences in technology but there's no technological reason that they couldn't share a station and "connect". 

It's almost impossible to believe that they wouldn't connect at some point and I don't believe what LA County Metro posted or maybe he/she meant that they won't interline. The map posted from LA Metro shows connections to the purple line. Metro isn't the most competent agency but they aren't completely incompetent either.


----------



## 00Zy99

This is supposed to be the first leg of a corridor going down to Santa Ana and beyond. I'm sure that there's more traffic to be taken in further down.


----------



## Swede

00Zy99 said:


> This is supposed to be the first leg of a corridor going down to Santa Ana and beyond. I'm sure that there's more traffic to be taken in further down.


Going all the way to the Santa Ana Metrolink station would make lots of sense network-wise. but what about extending it at the other end? I.e. past Union Station. Having the line continue to Dodger stadium, then via, say, Sunset towards East Hollywood and connecting to the Red line?


----------



## Tower Dude

That is possible but because it's a $40 billion/40 year deal they can only do so much with the money they have capital construction is a HUGE PIA because the upfront costs don't play well with voters son financing them is a pain. So what you are talking about may happen but not anytime soon.


----------



## redspork02

Disneyland?


----------



## Woonsocket54

Azusa stations to be inaugurated this weekend; still no revenue train service (March 2016 at the earliest)










https://www.facebook.com/iwillride


----------



## JimmyHD

Why Glendale is always out of the game when it comes to the subway development or the rail modernization?

It's such a waste for the city itself.


----------



## Kenni

Going to work yesterday traffic on the 105 was horrible, so I exited an exit before which is Aviation. Columns are up for the connecting portion of the Green line to the Crenshaw line.


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ I'm curious what the service pattern will ultimately be once the two lines are linked up and sharing that stretch along Aviation. It would obviously be awesome to have three lines:


The extant Green Line from Norwalk to Redondo
Crenshaw Line running from Crenshaw/Expo to Redondo
A third "L"-shaped line running from Norwalk to LAX then up to Crenshaw/Expo
But do the current corridors have the capacity to interline that way?


----------



## bighomey3000

pesto said:


> Just what is needed: 34 miles of wandering low-speed light-rail through low density areas that takes you to a node where you can switch to another train to take you somewhere you might actually want to go.
> 
> And at the same time you want the feds be give you money to build what is actually needed (Purple, 405, WeHo, etc.) but you don't feel like budgeting for for 30 years.


Maywood is one of the densest cities in America, as are many of its neighbor quite dense and transit dependent. I agree a 405 parallel is far more important but this line is much more important than, say, a Gold Line extension


----------



## Dan78

What's the status of the Crenshaw Purple Line station? I've heard that it's cancelled now. Seems like a dumb decision.

If it's off the books for now what's the possibility that a station shell could be constructed for future station provisions there?


----------



## LA County Metro

Dan78 said:


> What's the status of the Crenshaw Purple Line station? I've heard that it's cancelled now. Seems like a dumb decision.
> 
> If it's off the books for now what's the possibility that a station shell could be constructed for future station provisions there?


yes the Crenshaw station was eliminated


----------



## humdoodee

^will there at least be a Crenshaw station within semi walking distance from a Purple line station (like the North Hollywood station)? I can't see why they can't have that on the table until funds for a single station are secured.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...sion-ready-for-commissioning.html?channel=526
> 
> *LA Gold Line extension ready for commissioning*
> Thursday, September 24, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _CONSTRUCTION of the 18.5km light rail extension to Los Angeles' Gold Line from Sierra Madre Villa in Pasadena to Azusa has been completed and handed over to Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) for commissioning_
> 
> The extension was built by Foothill Transit Constructors, a joint venture of Kiewit and Parsons, and the project was managed by Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority (FGLCA)
> 
> ...


----------



## Kenni

Kenni said:


> Going to work yesterday traffic on the 105 was horrible, so I exited an exit before which is Aviation. Columns are up for the connecting portion of the Green line to the Crenshaw line.


This is where I saw the columns up...as you can see, when they built the infrastructure for the Green Line back in the mid 90's, they left those edges to shoot-off to the north in the future. :cheers:


4d491cn by Dennis Sosa-Julé, on Flickr


----------



## LA County Metro

humdoodee said:


> ^will there at least be a Crenshaw station within semi walking distance from a Purple line station (like the North Hollywood station)? I can't see why they can't have that on the table until funds for a single station are secured.


No. People will just have to get off at Western and the catch a bus to Crenshaw.


----------



## Dan78

LA County Metro said:


> No. People will just have to get off at Western and the catch a bus to Crenshaw.


I have to say I'm disappointed that Crenshaw didn't want the station. I'd thought that attitudes about the subway had changed since the 80s but it seems not. Their loss. In two or three decades future residents will probably wonder why the subway doesn't stop there.


----------



## 2Easy

Dan78 said:


> I have to say I'm disappointed that Crenshaw didn't want the station. I'd thought that attitudes about the subway had changed since the 80s but it seems not. Their loss. In two or three decades future residents will probably wonder why the subway doesn't stop there.


Im pretty sure that Crenshaw residents wanted a station. Hancock Park probably didn't but it wasn't opposition that killed the station. It was metro that decided that it wasn't a significant trip generator.


----------



## pesto

2Easy said:


> Im pretty sure that Crenshaw residents wanted a station. Hancock Park probably didn't but it wasn't opposition that killed the station. It was metro that decided that it wasn't a significant trip generator.


Very low density, virtually no retail, office or public buildings and it's not that far between Western and La Brea in any event. Nor is there reason that they will ever need one since its nice sfh's on both sides of Wilshire in that area.

And additional stop would have just slowed down the train for everyone.


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ You can see why on Google Earth: it gets awfully single-family-residential between Wilton and Highland.










Good news is, eventually Metro will extend the Crenshaw Line north from its current terminus to join the Purple Line... it will just, ironically enough, get there via anything but Crenshaw Blvd. (Although it might well be known as "The K" by then, at which point even the irony will go away)


----------



## greg_christine

http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20150926/san-pedro-waterfront-red-car-to-shut-down











By Donna Littlejohn, San Bernardino County Sun
POSTED: 09/26/15, 9:34 PM PDT

Tears are sure to flow Sunday when the final blast of the Red Car’s E-flat horn sounds off on its final historic runs along the San Pedro waterfront.

A last-minute appeal by county officials and the area’s congresswoman to save at least part of the Harbor Boulevard line was made late this week, bringing a glimmer of hope that a reprieve yet could be in the works.

But it’s only a glimmer.

The Port of Los Angeles is suspending the 1.5-mile line that has run along Harbor Boulevard on weekends for 12 years to make way for future waterfront improvements.

Even if an electric trolley line returns in the future, the boxy, high-riding vintage Red Cars probably won’t be used due to numerous safety and regulatory restrictions and costs associated with running them.

...


----------



## humdoodee

Move LA Straw Man (final recommendations to Metro) includes Vermont BRT: Straw Man #50


----------



## Kenni

*GOLD LINE FOOTHILL EXTENSION *

Photos: Metro



















*New Metro Rail Yard in Monrovia.*



















*Irwindale Station.*










*Azusa Station.*










*Arcadia Station.*


----------



## 00Zy99

Oh, yeah.

This is a thing. 

I completely forgot about it.


----------



## Nexis

I like the stylized concrete freeway pillars... Whats the projected ridership of this extension?


----------



## jchernin

13,500 per day next year


----------



## Nexis

Abit low for 11 miles in Urbanized LA? I don't think you could squeeze out anymore ridership if you extend eastward.


----------



## Falubaz

There is too little stations on that line.


----------



## Amexpat

Nexis said:


> Abit low for 11 miles in Urbanized LA? I don't think you could squeeze out anymore ridership if you extend eastward.


There's been some plans to extend towards Ontario airport. But there are funding and jurisdictional issues.


----------



## [atomic]

Amexpat said:


> There's been some plans to extend towards Ontario airport. But there are funding and jurisdictional issues.


the line is about 40 km as it is right now. extending it would add another 30.
70 km is quite a lot for what is essentially a tram. But it would beat that one Line in Belgium and make it the worlds longest:lol:


----------



## Kenni

*METRO Gold Line Foothill Extension*

When this portion becomes the Blue Line, this will be a VERY long line. :lol:


----------



## Kenni

*Appeals court upholds Final Environmental Impact Report for subway extension*

ARTICLE


----------



## sdery

I count 24 stops from Union Station to Montclair, that's not counting a few more intermediary stations until you reach ONT airport...that would be a long ride from downtown to the airport.


----------



## Nexis

How long a journey would that be? 2-3hrs?


----------



## Dan78

Nexis said:


> How long a journey would that be? 2-3hrs?


I have to wonder about the wisdom of some of these mode choices that LA is making. Some of these distances would be better suited to commuter rail (or something like France's RER or Germany's S-Bahn) than light rail. I don't see the practicality of one single train running the entire length of the line in the future from Montclair to Long Beach. For one thing, it will likely shatter the record for the longest light rail line in the world—and create major operational challenge to keep the train on time.


----------



## aquaticko

The only thing I could possibly see that doing is enabling flights into the Ontario airport instead of LAX, but if it really took 2-3 hours to travel end to end, there'd have to be a big price difference, ticket-wise, to incentivize people to do so.

Seems like a long-shot. A commuter rail would make a lot more sense, for sure.


----------



## Nexis

> *How Safety Rules and Enviro Regs Work to the Detriment of American Rail*
> Friday, October 16, 2015
> by Angie Schmitt
> 
> Not only do we have safety rules that are no good for safety, we also have environmental rules that are no good for the environment. In a post at Itinerant Urbanist, Sandy Johnston looks at a passenger rail project in southern California, linking San Bernardino to Redlands, as a case study in the unintended consequences of these regulations
> 
> [.....]
> 
> The project isn’t in and of itself a particularly bad one; it’s pretty low-key, in an existing right-of-way with few obstacles, and serves an area that could generate OK ridership. Though the new line will connect to Metrolink service at San Bernardino, planners are currently leaning towards running it with Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) trains, such as those used by NICTD’s Sprinter service between Oceanside and Escondido. That’s probably the right choice; planned frequencies (30 minutes at peak) don’t justify electrification, and a pure extension of Metrolink service couldn’t offer the desired level of service.


Read the Full Article here


----------



## Amexpat

aquaticko said:


> The only thing I could possibly see that doing is enabling flights into the Ontario airport instead of LAX, but if it really took 2-3 hours to travel end to end, there'd have to be a big price difference, ticket-wise, to incentivize people to do so.Seems like a long-shot. A commuter rail would make a lot more sense, for sure.


Regular rail would make more sense to LAX as well. The light rail being built has about 18 stations from Union station to LAX and people will have to switch lines and take a people mover to get to their terminal.

Light rail may make sense as a commute for the many people working at the airport or for those living reasonably close by, but trains are needed for those living further afield.

About Ontario airport, it would make a good alternative to LAX, especially for flights heading east. But I think LAX has some sort of control over what's being done at Ontario and they have no interest in competition.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Amexpat said:


> Regular rail would make more sense to LAX as well. The light rail being built has about 18 stations from Union station to LAX and people will have to switch lines and take a people mover to get to their terminal.
> 
> Light rail may make sense as a commute for the many people working at the airport or for those living reasonably close by, but trains are needed for those living further afield.


I'm curious, when you say regular rail, do you mean a commuter trail or HRT? 

I see a couple issues with a commuter train: primarily the limited number of services. When you've got people coming in a constant stream from a busy airport, it seems to me you'd rather have frequent services that can cary a moderate number of passengers vs. less frequent services carrying many more.

HRT is an intriguing middle ground, but the main arguments against it are 1) the natural ROW between LAX and DTLA (the tracks along Florence and Slauson) are already partially occupied by the Crenshaw Line, so an incompatible HRT line would mean building a redundant second guideway, and 2) there are only a couple potential stops along that route (a transfer to Crenshaw, maybe Western, Vermont/110, Blue Line) which is good if all you want is an express train, but an HRT running that distance will be very expensive, so I'm not sure it's the best cost-benefit. I'd be curious to see the studies though.

I think our best option is LRT along the Slauson ROW, sharing the Inglewood-LAX leg with the Crenshaw Line, but with an express service skipping most of the Crenshaw stops. That gives some added service flexibility. And if it's completely grade separated, an LRT should be able to do 60-65 mph, which I believe is plenty fast (especially along Slauson, which is a much more direct route than Crenshaw/Expo) given the cost savings.


----------



## 2Easy

jchernin said:


> Well, isn't Wilshire getting *both* BRT and subway? Could Vermont do the same?


I'd really like for Vermont to get a subway, but the reality is that's not likely at this point. The primary stumbling block is that federal funds for transit projects, which are essential for projects of this size, are based not on ridership but rather on how many people it would get out of their cars and onto transit. Since the people on Vermont already ride transit,the bus, these numbers won't be as high as lines projected with lower ridership but that hit more destinations and employment centers. 

Plus LACMTA is a county agency. If lines were built where they were most needed most of the county would be left out. They have to spread the love around.


----------



## Sunfuns

Suburban rail doesn't have to be low frequency. I know quite a few places with service every 15 min. Whether that would be possible from LAX is of course an entirely different question.


----------



## Nexis

Probably more demand for Santa Monica then Long Beach...


----------



## pesto

DCUrbanist said:


> Maybe not, but there will be plenty of demand to go from *Watts to Pasadena, or Azusa to Bunker Hill, or Long Beach to Union Station*. Rail transit lines aren't just meant to benefit their endpoints, but rather connect all of the areas _between_ them. Take a look at the most successful transit systems, and you probably won't be finding as many people taking lines from end-to-end as those taking trips somehow involving the middle or transfers.
> 
> Was the inclusion of the Gold Line extension a largely political everyone-gets-a-piece project to save the rest? Sure, that's how politics works whether we like it or not. But rail lines do far more than just connect their endpoints.


lol.


----------



## DCUrbanist

Nexis said:


> Probably more demand for Santa Monica then Long Beach...


Oh I completely agree. Finishing the Purple Line should be on the top of regional priorities in a perfect world. It's one of the only places in the country that even qualifies for heavy rail money from the Feds. That says quite a lot right there.


----------



## sotonsi

Presumably Nexis was talking about pairing the line to Azusa with the Expo line, rather than the Blue line?


----------



## DCUrbanist

sotonsi said:


> Presumably Nexis was talking about pairing the line to Azusa with the Expo line, rather than the Blue line?


Oh right, that too. My bad!

If they made the pairings Azusa-Santa Monica and East LA-Long Beach, it would break with their objective of having a lot of mostly straight lines creating a grid through the city. I'd imagine their numbers would have to predict a major major difference in ridership estimates for them to break the paradigm of both the bus network and the Measure R plans.


----------



## MarshallKnight

DCUrbanist said:


> Oh right, that too. My bad!
> 
> If they made the pairings Azusa-Santa Monica and East LA-Long Beach, it would break with their objective of having a lot of mostly straight lines creating a grid through the city. I'd imagine their numbers would have to predict a major major difference in ridership estimates for them to break the paradigm of both the bus network and the Measure R plans.


I've talked with a few people at Metro recently, and someone brought up the possibility that Metro might run limited Santa Monica-Pasadena service -- possibly on game/event days at the Rose Bowl. There are no standing plans to do so, but it's good to know that the Regional Connector can accommodate that kind of service change, should it be deemed necessary.


----------



## pesto

aquaticko said:


> The only thing I could possibly see that doing is enabling flights into the Ontario airport instead of LAX, but if it really took 2-3 hours to travel end to end, there'd have to be a big price difference, ticket-wise, to incentivize people to do so.
> 
> Seems like a long-shot. A commuter rail would make a lot more sense, for sure.


No one is going to use Ontario if they are going to LA proper; it's strictly for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties and the east end of LA County. If you want to avoid LAX, there are Burbank, Long Beach and OC airports, which are closer to all the other major areas of LA.

The short answer is that these lines to nowhere had no value except to the local builders and unions.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

DCUrbanist said:


> Maybe not, but there will be plenty of demand to go from Watts to Pasadena, or Azusa to Bunker Hill, or Long Beach to Union Station. Rail transit lines aren't just meant to benefit their endpoints, but rather connect all of the areas _between_ them. Take a look at the most successful transit systems, and you probably won't be finding as many people taking lines from end-to-end as those taking trips somehow involving the middle or transfers.
> 
> Was the inclusion of the Gold Line extension a largely political everyone-gets-a-piece project to save the rest? Sure, that's how politics works whether we like it or not. But rail lines do far more than just connect their endpoints.


I agree, thats what i was saying earlier. This line will mostly benefit San Gabriel valley residents who would like to go to Pasadena


----------



## PeFe

Just wondering whether there are any sort of increased residential density plans along the future extension of the light rail line to Azusa?
As a tourist I found the stations at places like Sierra Madre quite off putting....a train station in the middle of a 12 lane freeway where all you are aware of is the sound of thousands of cars rushing by...
When the new section of the line departs the freeway are there opportunities to build some quality transit developments?
I was quite surprised by how little development there was along the Los Angeles rail lines ( and I rode the Expo, Blue, Gold and red lines)


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

PeFe said:


> Just wondering whether there are any sort of increased residential density plans along the future extension of the light rail line to Azusa?
> As a tourist I found the stations at places like Sierra Madre quite off putting....a train station in the middle of a 12 lane freeway where all you are aware of is the sound of thousands of cars rushing by...
> When the new section of the line departs the freeway are there opportunities to build some quality transit developments?
> I was quite surprised by how little development there was along the Los Angeles rail lines ( and I rode the Expo, Blue, Gold and red lines)


Thats exactly what they did with this line extension. Most of the stations have TOD's if not multiple ones being built around them.

Also, we are seeing a lot of new TOD along Expo, Gold, Red and Purple lines now, especially in East Hollywood, Hollywood, Downtown, Koreatown and Culver city / Santa Monica.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Funny timing, after our recent discussion of the LAX-DTLA line, but Metro's blog The Source is reporting that Metro has secured a $15 Million TIGER grant to convert the Harbor Subdivision between the Crenshaw Line and Blue Line to a pedestrian and bike trail, that will eventually connect to the river.










Which would seem to rule out rail along the HS ROW, at least in the short term, but I've been reassured by a number of people that this does not preclude Metro from making the conversion later, when funding is cleared.

I was disappointed to hear turning this into the "LAX Express" wasn't at the very top of Metro's docket, but I've heard some compelling reasons they need to do some work if that's ever going to happen: namely how to avoid railroading (I know, I know) the lower-income locals -- for whom park space is much more important than a new rail line, whose neighborhoods could essentially be bifurcated by the line, and who won't get any use out of it at all if local stops aren't included -- in favor of wealthier business travelers.

I think the best solution would be to do the bike trail AND the rail line, much like they did with the Expo to great effect. The problem is, this ROW is only 10-15 feet wide most of the way, and any line would have to be double-tracked. So in order to do that, you'd have to give Slauson Ave a significant road diet, which creates its own political obstacles.

But people are slooowly learning the benefits of road diets... if the bike/ped trail is a success in the community, then narrowing Slauson in order to add Metro Rail might be more palatable in a couple years. And if they include some local stops (Western, Vermont, San Pedro and Central all seem like candidates), I have to think a politically viable balance could be struck, especially if you were to alternate Express and Local trains.


----------



## Nexis

*A look at the future of LA Union Station -- UPDATED*


----------



## bighomey3000

MarshallKnight said:


> Funny timing, after our recent discussion of the LAX-DTLA line, but Metro's blog The Source is reporting that Metro has secured a $15 Million TIGER grant to convert the Harbor Subdivision between the Crenshaw Line and Blue Line to a pedestrian and bike trail, that will eventually connect to the river.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which would seem to rule out rail along the HS ROW, at least in the short term, but I've been reassured by a number of people that this does not preclude Metro from making the conversion later, when funding is cleared.
> 
> I was disappointed to hear turning this into the "LAX Express" wasn't at the very top of Metro's docket, but I've heard some compelling reasons they need to do some work if that's ever going to happen: namely how to avoid railroading (I know, I know) the lower-income locals -- for whom park space is much more important than a new rail line, whose neighborhoods could essentially be bifurcated by the line, and who won't get any use out of it at all if local stops aren't included -- in favor of wealthier business travelers.
> 
> I think the best solution would be to do the bike trail AND the rail line, much like they did with the Expo to great effect. The problem is, this ROW is only 10-15 feet wide most of the way, and any line would have to be double-tracked. So in order to do that, you'd have to give Slauson Ave a significant road diet, which creates its own political obstacles.
> 
> But people are slooowly learning the benefits of road diets... if the bike/ped trail is a success in the community, then narrowing Slauson in order to add Metro Rail might be more palatable in a couple years. And if they include some local stops (Western, Vermont, San Pedro and Central all seem like candidates), I have to think a politically viable balance could be struck, especially if you were to alternate Express and Local trains.


The narrative needs to be reframed--it should not be pitched as an LAX-Downtown Express, but rather a desperately needed light rail serving a dense, low-income, transit-dependent population allowing interchanges between multiple lines with significant beneficial network effects.

tl:dr Not building the line is racist.


----------



## MrAronymous

They couldn't have fit in 2 extra stations?


----------



## Nexis

*Second Quarter 2015 Daily Ridership numbers for Greater LA Region*

*Heavy Rail*
Los Angeles / Purple & Red lines - 140,000 (2015) : -4.05%

*Light Rail*
Los Angeles / Metro-LRT - 188,700 (2015) : -5.94%

*Suburban/Regional/Commuter Rail*
Los Angeles Suburbs / MetroLink - 42,000 (2015) : 0.26% + 

*Bus Ridership*
Los Angeles / MTA Bus - 1,062.3 Million (2015) : -5.41%
Orange County / OC Bus - 144,900 (2015) : -5.94%
Long Beach / Long Beach transit - 88,000 (2015) : -1.12%
Santa Monica / Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus - 65,600 (2015) : -13.15%
San Bernardino / OMNITRANS - 42,900 (2015) : -12.42%
Montebello / Montebello Bus Lines - 28,300 (2015) : -9.11%
Riverside / Riverside Transit Agency - 24,600 (2015) : -0.85%
Santa Barbara / Santa Barbara MTD - 24,000 (2015) : -5.84%
Culver City / Culver CityBus - 16,000 (2015) : 0.00%
Torrance / Torrance Transit System - 13,700 (2015) : 0.07% + 
Oxnard / Gold Coast Transit - 12,100 (2015) : 1.72% + 
Santa Clarita / Santa Clarita Transit - 10,500 (2015) : -7.95%
Norwalk / Norwalk Transit System - 5,200 (2015) : -9.10%

Weird regional ridership decrease , did the fares go up in Q2?


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Statistical artifact, seasonal fluctuations, increased fares, or is something seriously wrong?


----------



## Suburbanist

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Statistical artifact, seasonal fluctuations, increased fares, or is something seriously wrong?


The economic recovery and even more the steep drop on gas prices, now less tha nhalf what they were in 2008 on average, is bringing down ridership in several US transit systems.


----------



## Tower Dude

And trends will follow in that manner unless the US enacts a higher gas tax, also cities should have gas taxing authority


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> The economic recovery and even more the steep drop on gas prices, now less tha nhalf what they were in 2008 on average, is bringing down ridership in several US transit systems.


I think its just lower gas prices...most jobs are moving into cities...and near transit and into Anti-car cities...


----------



## zaphod

U.S. gains 271,000 jobs in October; unemployment 5%


Worker pay rising at fastest rate since 2009


Yeah I think that is the best explanation. I think in the coming months/years there will be a drop in transit ridership everywhere as all they lose all those non-choice riders who were gained during the extended recession/gas price double whammy that forced a lot of people to take transit whether they wanted to or not.

However I hope this doesn't dampen interest in transit or reverse the political support and funding for it. Because the core is still there. Cities have been transformed.


----------



## 00Zy99

dimlys1994 said:


>


What reconstruction are they doing there? I can't find it listed on the Metrolink site. 

What was the old configuration and what will be the new one?


----------



## dimlys1994

00Zy99 said:


> What reconstruction are they doing there? I can't find it listed on the Metrolink site.
> 
> What was the old configuration and what will be the new one?


According to video describsion:



> DOWNTOWN SAN BERNARDINO PASSENGER RAIL PROJECT:
> 
> Extends Metrolink service one-mile from the Santa Fe Depot to the multi-modal San Bernardino Transit Center


I did a little more research and I found this PDF document on San Bernardino Associated Governments website:
http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/redlands-sb-rail/FINALSANBAGTransitRailHandout22114b.pdf

So as far as I understood, San Bernardino County will have new station, close to transit center, which was opened in September this year. And it's also Phase 1 of Redlands Passenger Rail project


----------



## Tom 958

Kenni said:


> BTW folks, I read yesterday that construction of the Purple Line sub to SM started officially.


No. According to https://www.metro.net/projects/westside/ , what's under construction is the first phase, to Wilshire/La Cienega. Next, "Metro is already working with the federal government to obtain matching funds for the second section, while also pursuing opportunities to accelerate funding through the America Fast Forward Initiative that could allow the entire project to be completed sooner." The second phase reaches to the VA hospital at Wilshire and the 405. Beyond there is literally not even a line on the map. Sorry.


----------



## Tower Dude

If federal funding and the new tax measures are passed sooner rather than later would it be possible to resurrect the plan to reach Santa Monica?


----------



## Nexis

*Metrolink Perris Line Dedication Ceremony on 12/11/15*


----------



## sdery

> If federal funding and the new tax measures are passed sooner rather than later would it be possible to resurrect the plan to reach Santa Monica?


I'm sure the full route to Santa Monica, along with the West Hollywood connector) is still in some longer range plans. I think it will probably have a lower priority at this point as SM will be served soon by the Expo line and there are other projects that are more critical, ie the 405/Sepulveda line.


----------



## Tower Dude

Ya though I do feel LA is cutting off its nose to spite it's face by not planning for more HRT


----------



## mrsmartman

blackcat23 said:


> Los Angeles is currently working on two projects which will enable through routing in Downtown.
> 
> http://www.metro.net/projects/regionalrail/scrip/"]http://www.metro.net/projects/regionalrail/scrip/[/URL]
> 
> SCRIP, which is scheduled for completion in 2019, will add run-through tracks to the south end of Union Station. This will allow Metrolink and Amtrak trains to pass through the station, rather than being forced to enter and exit through the same five-track throat at the north end.
> 
> It will cut travel times approximately 15-20 minutes and increase Union Station's capacity up to 50%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-union-station-tracks-20140528-story.html
> 
> http://www.metro.net/projects/connector/
> 
> The Regional Connector, which is already under construction, will create a new subway between the busy 7th Street/Metro Center Station and Little Tokyo. It will merge the Blue, Gold and Expo Lines into a north-south route between Long Beach and the San Gabriel Valley and an east-west route between Santa Monica and East Los Angeles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/metro-board-approves-million-regional-connector-contract/article_a234b1cc-cc12-11e3-8a9a-0019bb2963f4.html


http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=219129


----------



## dimlys1994

From Global Rail News:



> http://www.globalrailnews.com/2016/01/05/ansaldo-sts-to-signal-la-purple-line-extension/
> 
> *Ansaldo STS to signal LA Purple Line extension*
> 5 JAN, 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ansaldo STS has been appointed to provide the signalling and train control system for an extension of Los Angeles’ Purple Line.
> 
> The 6.3-kilometre line will see the existing underground route extended from Wilshire/Western line terminus to Wilshire/La Cinega in Beverly Hills.
> 
> Three new stations will be built as part of the project
> 
> ...


----------



## Woonsocket54

*ANAHEIM | Intercity Bus Service*

Orange County Register
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/artic-698567-city-anaheim.html



> *New bus service revved up to roll into ARTIC*
> Jan. 5, 2016 Updated 10:50 a.m.
> 
> By ART MARROQUIN / STAFF WRITER
> 
> A bus operator that largely caters to Spanish-speaking travelers will offer eight low-cost daily trips to Tijuana and one to Guadalajara, Mexico, from the ARTIC transportation hub beginning later this month.
> 
> While an exact launch date isn’t set, the arrival of Tres Estrellas de Oro is expected to bring an additional 400 daily mass transit users to Anaheim’s new bus and train station, which has seen lower-than-anticipated ridership since opening in December 2014.
> 
> ...
> 
> Spanish-speaking drivers and customer service agents assist passengers who use the service, which sells tickets from Anaheim to Tijuana’s bus station for $22 one way, while rides to the border city’s airport go for $32. One-way tickets to Guadalajara cost $180.
> 
> ...
> 
> The move is expected to help boost ARTIC’s commuter count, which remains significantly below the city’s opening-day expectation of 10,000 daily riders. On average, 2,406 riders either boarded or departed mass transit daily from ARTIC in July, according to city-commissioned study.
> 
> “If we’re able to get one person who hasn’t been to ARTIC, but comes here to use Tres Estrellas, then there’s a good chance they might come back here,” said Tom Morton, Anaheim’s executive director of conventions, sports and entertainment, who took control of ARTIC’s operations in July. “Familiarity is a wonderful thing.”
> 
> Contact the writer: 714-704-3769 or [email protected]


----------



## Nexis

3rd Quarter 2015 Daily Ridership numbers for Greater LA Region

*Heavy Rail*
Los Angeles / Purple & Red lines - 142,900 (2015) : 4.73%

*Light Rail*
Los Angeles / Metro-LRT - 189,300 (2015) : 6.49%

*Suburban/Regional/Commuter Rail*
Los Angeles Suburbs / MetroLink - 40,800 (2015) : 0.70% + 

*Bus Ridership*
Los Angeles / MTA Bus - 1,039.0 Million (2015) : -4.24%
Orange County / OC Bus - 144,300 (2015) : -6.18%
Long Beach / Long Beach transit - 77,800 (2015) : -9.60%
Santa Monica / Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus - 65,900 (2015) : 1.45%
San Bernardino / OMNITRANS - 47,500 (2015) : 13.27%
Montebello / Montebello Bus Lines - 28,600 (2015) : 5.57%
Riverside / Riverside Transit Agency - 29,000 (2015) : 2.19%
Santa Barbara / Santa Barbara MTD - 21,900 (2015) : -5.83%
Culver City / Culver CityBus - 16,200 (2015) : 3.31%
Torrance / Torrance Transit System - 13,400 (2015) : -3.94% 
Oxnard / Gold Coast Transit - 12,200 (2015) : 0.18% + 
Santa Clarita / Santa Clarita Transit - 10,600 (2015) : 0.60%
Norwalk / Norwalk Transit System - 5,000 (2015) : -12.03%


----------



## redspork02

Metro Green Line Could Finally Be Connected to Metrolink in Southeast Los Angeles
Monday, January 11, 2016, by Jeff Wattenhofer 

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2016/01/metro_green_link_metrolink_gap_norwalk_southeast_la.php

When Metro's Green Line opened in 1994, it sent trains from Redondo Beach all the way out to the 605 Freeway in Norwalk, linking the city of Los Angeles to the eastern reaches of the county. It stopped short, however, of reaching the Metrolink system just a few miles down the road, which means it missed the chance to link LA's Metro rail system to trains going to Orange County and beyond. Attempts were made in the 1990s to link the Metro and Metrolink stations in Norwalk, but fell short due to neighborhood opposition and lack of funding. *Now, according to the LA Times, officials are again trying to get the ball rolling on closing the 2.8 mile gap that separates the Norwalk station at the end of Metro's Green Line from the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink station*.








_Just 2.8 miles separates the Metro Green Line and Metrolink stations in Norwalk, but it can take commuters up to an hour to travel between the two by bus._

.............etc.


----------



## redspork02

*The Expo Line To Santa Monica Is One Step Closer To Opening*
by Matt Tinoco in News	on Jan 16, 2016 1:15 pm 

http://laist.com/2016/01/16/expo_line_update.php









_An Expo Line test train rolls down Colorado Avenue in Santa Monica in November. (Steve Hymon/Metro)_

Friday brought some significant proof of the Expo Line’s march of progress towards completion, as the Expo Construction Authority officially handed control of the Phase II Track to L.A. County Metro.

This means Metro is now able to start what’s called “*pre-revenue service*,” essentially running trains on a regular schedule looking for any potential problems in the train’s sequencing. 

Santa Monica City Councilmember Pam O'Connor explained her delight to Santa Monica Next following the announcement: 


_Today is a major milestone and another step closer to the day when Expo Light Rail will begin its job of providing reliable rail service between Santa Monica and downtown Los Angeles and to the region’s growing rail network._

Metro doesn’t have full control over everything the Construction Authority built yet, however. *The agency is waiting for the builders to hand over control of a maintenance facility* on the Westside that will be used to keep the trains in good working order. At present, all the Expo Line’s trains are maintained at the same facility as the Blue Line's trains in Long Beach.

Once that second handover occurs, Metro promises to deliver a firm opening date for the train. When the rail line is running, Angelenos can expect consistent service between Downtown Santa Monica and Downtown Los Angeles in just 46 minutes, even during rush hour. 

While we still* aren’t officially sure when the train line will open*, Metro has pretty consistently been saying Angelenos can expect their newest rail line to begin service in late-spring, sometime probably in May. 

Of course, adding more track means Metro has to add more trains to their fleet to make-up for the line’s extra space. Unfortunately Metro expects there will be a shortage of rail stock right when the line opens. For a while, Metro wasn’t sure whether or not they would delay the opening the line until the shortage was bridged.

*But it appears now the agency plans to open the line as soon as possible, with longer gaps of time between trains*. Metro says Expo trains will service the Downtown to Santa Monica route every *12-minutes *during rush hour, and every 20 minutes during day/evening hours.

As more rail-cars become available—they’re being built as you read this at a facility in Palmdale—service will eventually increase to every 6 minutes during rush hour, and every 10-20 minutes during the day/evening hours.

:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

THE AWESOME TEAM AT "EXPO LINE FAN" has updated pictures from January 15th, 2016. With pics of the line and DTSM station. SO COOL! 

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/expo-line/40891244


----------



## mrsmartman

*The 1933 Light Rail Rapid Transit Plan for Los Angeles*

Copyright © 1999 Tom Wetzel



> The next diagram on the left shows a cross-section of the downtown 4-track subway at a station mezzanine. Note the full height turnstiles and gates. The gates would be the kind that could be opened at night when there would be no station agent on duty. The diagram on the right shows a two-track subway at a station. It is interesting that the subway is so shallow there is no mezzanine. The assumption seems to be that fares would be collected on the trains.


http://www.uncanny.net/~wetzel/bakerplan.htm


----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...view/view/first-metrolink-f125-completed.html
> 
> *First Metrolink F125 completed*
> 21 Jan 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USA: The first F125 Spirit diesel locomotive for Los Angeles commuter rail operator Metrolink is nearing completion at the Electro-Motive Diesel plant in Muncie, Indiana, the operator announced on January 20.
> 
> Designed for operation at up to 200 km/h, the F125 Spirit is EMD’s first passenger diesel locomotive design for more than 20 years. The streamlined monocoque bodyshells incorporating crash energy management collision protection are being manufactured in Spain by Vossloh Rail Vehicles (now part of Stadler Rail), and fitted out in Muncie
> 
> ...


----------



## Slartibartfas

How could this shortage happen? Serious delays in the production/delivery of the trains, too few orders due to serious funding problems, or general incompetence?

The second thing which is surprising me is an off peak service frequency of 10 to 20 (!) min. This is a fairly central line to the system and it has a frequency which is more modest than some peripheral bus lines in some other cities. 

Great news nonetheless. The light rail to the sea was seriously overdue. I am sure also tourists will be happy to use this new offer. One more destination to downtown/hollywood visitors where you don't have to rely on a car.


PS: Is the F125 Spirit designed to those "tank on tracks" standards? But maybe it looks so massive because of the quite impressive 200 km/h max speed. Such locomotives are rare in Europe if I am not mistaken. I am skeptical about the economics though. Doesn't it make more sense to go for electrification of a track where you plan to reach speeds at 160 km/h or above?


----------



## 00Zy99

Both. The F125 has all of the most stringent crash systems, and is more fuel-efficient. 

Electrification is dependent more on frequency of trains and length of line. The British have been running 200 kph diesels since the 1970s.


----------



## jchernin

And not just more fuel efficient, but far less polluting!


----------



## Tower Dude

jchernin said:


> And not just more fuel efficient, but far less polluting!


Hooray for Teir 4 emissions standards!!


----------



## Swede

200 km/h for a commuter rail loco? how much of the tracks have that speed limit? And are the stations far enough apart for the trains to reach those speeds?


----------



## Nexis

Its frustrating that they don't publish a larger map...


----------



## jay stew

bighomey3000 said:


> Can't find a higher-res one. Maybe you can. www.movela.org


----------



## Nexis

Does anyone have a map of the Orange County plan?


----------



## jchernin

^ That's existing Metrolink


----------



## Nexis

Yes , about what about the various proposals in Orange county?


----------



## FDW

MrAronymous said:


> Red is to be constructed, black is new plan.


All of the black lines save for Vermont have been planned out to an extent already, they're whats going to get funded if this passes.



Nexis said:


> Yes , about what about the various proposals in Orange county?


Santa Ana and Anaheim are pushing streetcar projects, Santa Anas is the more promising of the two.


----------



## redspork02

The current MAP with the three under construction expansions, EXPO II, REGIONAL CONNECTOR AND PURPLE LINE Extension. 










*My Favorite FANTASY MAP. *

"_who doesn't love a little fantasy every now and then? Here with a little bit of whimsy is a dream map of the Los Angeles rail system of 2040, from Jake Berman of Studio Complutense (via LACMTA Tumblr). Berman, a lawyer by trade, has a backlog of fantasy maps drawn up on his Tumblr, but the one of LA is truly wild. He writes that it "Includes all of *LA Metro’s currently unfunded projects*," meaning subways, light rail, elevated lines, and rapid buses too. What does that even look like?"_

http://la.curbed.com/2016/2/22/11095232/los-angeles-all-metro-projects-rail-map-2040









Not all funded of course.


----------



## Woonsocket54

redspork02 said:


> Not all funded of course.


The legal fees involved in fighting the NIMBYs over a subway extension to the west-of-405 will likely be about US$25m.


----------



## MarshallKnight

All the excitement over Metro's Measure R2 plan encouraged me to revisit my fantasy map and I figured I'd share the updated version with you guys.


Master Metro 031216 by Marshall Knight, on Flickr
(Click for full size)

Obviously it's much much more elaborate than what's currently politically/fiscally feasible at this point, so it's best to treat it as a thought exercise: what type of system would best serve the region for the next century if the money and political willpower were not the giant obstacles they are?

I've included versions of nearly every project on Metro's current long-range plan, with some editorializing, plus many that I've either heard discussed or just personally pined for. 

Some Metro personnel recently explained that that the pre-Blue Line plans in the 70s and 80s (before the advent of cheaper LRT) were much closer to BART than the system we have now. The network was intended to have a backbone of grade-separated HRT lines extending out to satellite cities, ferrying commuters into the urban core, where the stop frequencies increase as lines transition without transfer from "commuter rail-esque" into a proper metro. So that's what I based this on, with the addition of numerous LRTs (the skinnier lines) along paths of least resistance, such as freeway medians and existing ROWs. The Green Line has proven that as long as you don't have any grade crossings, even very long LRT lines can be efficient as HRT, and in my plan serve largely as circulators, as with the 91/605 "outer crescent" line.

Much of this is obviously incredibly fanciful -- service to the Rose Bowl and Hollywood Bowls, a PCH line in the Beach Cities, and four east/west subways through Mid-City won't happen in a million years. Other moves were made to rectify past missteps -- LRT on Ventura Blvd, HRT down Vermont/the 110, and HRT to the Eastside. Some of it may even seem a little counter-intuitive, such as diverting a line up Alvarado to Silverlake and Glendale, instead of all the way up Vermont. But other moves -- like diverting the Purple line along the coast of Santa Monica and Silicon Beach to connect all major Westside hubs via a single line -- seem honestly like no brainers.

But everything is up for debate and that's sort of the point. Hope you enjoy.


----------



## bighomey3000

http://thesource.metro.net/2016/03/18/metros-bold-plan-to-transform-transportation/


----------



## Nexis

redspork02 said:


> The current MAP with the three under construction expansions, EXPO II, REGIONAL CONNECTOR AND PURPLE LINE Extension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *My Favorite FANTASY MAP. *
> 
> "_who doesn't love a little fantasy every now and then? Here with a little bit of whimsy is a dream map of the Los Angeles rail system of 2040, from Jake Berman of Studio Complutense (via LACMTA Tumblr). Berman, a lawyer by trade, has a backlog of fantasy maps drawn up on his Tumblr, but the one of LA is truly wild. He writes that it "Includes all of *LA Metro’s currently unfunded projects*," meaning subways, light rail, elevated lines, and rapid buses too. What does that even look like?"_
> 
> http://la.curbed.com/2016/2/22/11095232/los-angeles-all-metro-projects-rail-map-2040
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all funded of course.


If the pink line is a heavy rail line it should continue onto Union Station via Dodgers Stadium..


----------



## Nexis

*Metro Unveils $120B Plan To Repair Roads, LA Infrastructure*


----------



## Tower Dude

I am probably not the only one who is disappointed that there is not a Red line extension to Bob Hope Airport in this expansion plan, right?


----------



## FDW

Tower Dude said:


> I am probably not the only one who is disappointed that there is not a Red line extension to Bob Hope Airport in this expansion plan, right?


SFV is already getting Orange Line upgrades and the Sepvuleda/Van Nuys Corridor, and Vermont needs the Red Line extension much more.


----------



## TruthSeeker

Nexis said:


> *Metro Unveils $120B Plan To Repair Roads, LA Infrastructure*


$120B, really? Seems to much to repair LA infrastructure. I feel as though this is overvalued.


----------



## jchernin

The Gold Line Extension is exceeding early ridership projections! 
http://la.curbed.com/2016/4/11/11411796/gold-line-foothill-extension-ridership


----------



## Nexis

*4th Quarter 2015 Daily Ridership numbers for Greater LA Region*

*Heavy Rail*
Los Angeles / Purple & Red lines - 144,800 (2015) : -5.25%

*Light Rail*
Los Angeles / Metro-LRT - 189,700 (2015) : -7.06%

*Bus Ridership*
Los Angeles / MTA Bus - 1,017.8 Million (2015) : -5.90%
Orange County / OC Bus - 140,700 (2015) : -6.93%
Long Beach / Long Beach transit - 84,700 (2015) : -7.70%
Santa Monica / Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus - 63,100 (2015) : -15.68%
San Bernardino / OMNITRANS - 42,100 (2015) : -11.57%
Montebello / Montebello Bus Lines - 28,700 (2015) : -6.78%
Riverside / Riverside Transit Agency - 31,000 (2015) : -1.45%
Santa Barbara / Santa Barbara MTD - 23,800 (2015) : -9.95%
Culver City / Culver CityBus - 14,700 (2015) : -9.71%
Torrance / Torrance Transit System - 12,700 (2015) : -2.57%
Oxnard / Gold Coast Transit - 11,700 (2015) : -1.78% 
Santa Clarita / Santa Clarita Transit - 10,400 (2015) : -7.21%
Norwalk / Norwalk Transit System - 5,000 (2015) : -5.94%


----------



## bighomey3000

Nexis said:


> *4th Quarter 2015 Daily Ridership numbers for Greater LA Region*
> 
> *Heavy Rail*
> Los Angeles / Purple & Red lines - 144,800 (2015) : -5.25%
> 
> *Light Rail*
> Los Angeles / Metro-LRT - 189,700 (2015) : -7.06%
> 
> *Bus Ridership*
> Los Angeles / MTA Bus - 1,017.8 Million (2015) : -5.90%
> Orange County / OC Bus - 140,700 (2015) : -6.93%
> Long Beach / Long Beach transit - 84,700 (2015) : -7.70%
> Santa Monica / Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus - 63,100 (2015) : -15.68%
> San Bernardino / OMNITRANS - 42,100 (2015) : -11.57%
> Montebello / Montebello Bus Lines - 28,700 (2015) : -6.78%
> Riverside / Riverside Transit Agency - 31,000 (2015) : -1.45%
> Santa Barbara / Santa Barbara MTD - 23,800 (2015) : -9.95%
> Culver City / Culver CityBus - 14,700 (2015) : -9.71%
> Torrance / Torrance Transit System - 12,700 (2015) : -2.57%
> Oxnard / Gold Coast Transit - 11,700 (2015) : -1.78%
> Santa Clarita / Santa Clarita Transit - 10,400 (2015) : -7.21%
> Norwalk / Norwalk Transit System - 5,000 (2015) : -5.94%


Wow these numbers are dismal...


----------



## aquamaroon

bighomey3000 said:


> Wow these numbers are dismal...


Cheap gas! And besides the Gold Line extension has just gone online and will start to add to the ridership numbers.

And let's not forget the big game changer coming up soon: the finished expo line. I feel like metro is HUGELY underestimating the ridership on this line. Connecting santa monica and the beach directly with downtown is a seismic disrupter for the public transportation situation in LA county as a whole.


----------



## towerpower123

The plans are enormous and visionary and I hope that at least part of that actually happens. LA can use the mass transit investments!


----------



## sotonsi

aquamaroon said:


> a seismic disrupter


Perhaps not the best choice of words to refer to something in LA! 

While getting light rail to the Sea (well, that part of the coast) will make things better wrt ridership, I'd argue that the Regional Connector will be the thing that provides the step change needed. Rather than Light Rail ending (or heading back away from Downtown) at the edge of Downtown it will distribute traffic in, and take traffic through downtown to other centres - total game changer.


----------



## Slartibartfas

I am not an expert but I would expect so as well. The regional connector looks like a game changer to me as well and is probably worth the high costs. 

That said, the west of LA seems to be ridiculously underserved or even unserved by mass transit. I do understand the reasons for it but this needs to change and the light rail to the sea is one step to do something about it. The extension of the subway at least to Rodeo Drive is another thing but is going to take ages ...


----------



## aquamaroon

sotonsi said:


> Perhaps not the best choice of words to refer to something in LA!
> 
> While getting light rail to the Sea (well, that part of the coast) will make things better wrt ridership, I'd argue that the Regional Connector will be the thing that provides the step change needed. Rather than Light Rail ending (or heading back away from Downtown) at the edge of Downtown it will distribute traffic in, and take traffic through downtown to other centres - total game changer.


Haha, agree with both of your points, especially the first :lol:. And I think you're right, providing the heart of downtown with a true, comprehensive rail solution will be the thing that most accelerates ridership as a whole. 
I know it's somewhat frowned upon here, but I feel that the much maligned downtown streetcar will be a critical support for downtown rail. Once that's in place, a rider like me could go from the westside to pretty much everywhere I'd want to go in downtown with just my tap card :cheers:


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ That makes me wonder: Did the authorities ever create a truly integrated fare system for the entire metropolitan region? In my memories the system looked rather complicated to me with tons of different companies operating, different fares, extra transfer conditions or additional fees etc. Is this still the case, or did I merely not get it when I was there a while ago?

Can you handle all the public transport services with tapping by card while entering vehicles or are things more complicated? Maybe it is just me, but I think complex fare systems, limited coverage, a mix of operators that make a difference regarding fares etc are keeping a lot of people away from PT in general.


----------



## MrAronymous

A regional transport agency would make sense (so a great expansion of LA Metro). But who needs sense anyway. There's too many cities in the conjoined urban area who all want their say in things.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Slartibartfas said:


> Can you handle all the public transport services with tapping by card while entering vehicles or are things more complicated?


Most of the bus agencies use the Tap card, but interagency transfers are a byzantine ritual. Basically, you need to ask the bus driver to load an interagency transfer onto your card. Frankly, I don't understand why this extra step is necessary. A better approach would be for the transfer to be activated when you board the connecting bus. 

Source: go here: https://www.taptogo.net/TAPFAQ, then click on "How do I transfer from a Metro bus to another municipal line?"

List of participating agencies:

https://www.taptogo.net/articles/en_US/Website_content/where-to-ride

What's more, the bus agencies hate each other. For example, for reasons that are probably of a petty nature, the Santa Monica Big Blue Bus does not accept transfer from the overlapping Culver City Bus.

https://bigbluebus.com/Rider-Info/Transferring.aspx


----------



## fskobic

Slartibartfas said:


> I think complex fare systems, limited coverage, a mix of operators that make a difference regarding fares etc are keeping a lot of people away from PT in general.





Woonsocket54 said:


> Most of the bus agencies use the Tap card, but interagency transfers are a byzantine ritual. Basically, you need to ask the bus driver to load an interagency transfer onto your card. Frankly, I don't understand why this extra step is necessary. A better approach would be for the transfer to be activated when you board the connecting bus.
> 
> What's more, the bus agencies hate each other. For example, for reasons that are probably of a petty nature, the Santa Monica Big Blue Bus does not accept transfer from the overlapping Culver City Bus.


I've been living in the Netherlands for the past two years and they have a great system. You get one card (called OV-chipkaart), and you use it for all public transport in the country - trains (national railway and smaller, private companies), metro systems, tram systems, city & regional bus systems, and ferries (the ones that are not free, at least). You can even rent bikes with it - the ones provided by the national railway company at basically every railway station in the country and other locations in the cities.

It's super simple to use, and you don't have to think twice about using another service. Usually when I travel to other countries, I tend to avoid using their buses and trams because I don't feel like figuring out how it works, how much it costs etc. But in the Netherlands, wherever I go, I just hop on a tram or bus without thinking much. Simple as that. 

Not to mention that, size wise and population wise, the Netherlands and the LA metropolitan area are pretty similar.


----------



## Slartibartfas

OMG. That sounds worse than I thought. 

I am convinced that this is a major reason why a certain share of the population is shunning PT. And it is terrible to see how the bus agencies are damaging their own business due to incredible short sightedness. This issue should be a very high priority and needs to be resolved if PT should become a true form of _mass _transit. PT isn't a business where competition in the classical sense works. You don't want to take a certain companie's bus because you like that company, but you take the bus that goes where you need to go. Period (exceptions are maybe express airport connections, inter city bus lines etc). Bus companies in an integrated network could very well maintain much of their independence, it would be enough if they all use the same fare platform, like most mobile phone companies also use standard plugs (yeah, I know that fruit company is different ...). 


A good system would be a region wide one. And within that region you should need only one single card. For complex situations like in the LA area, a card with tapping pads in every vehicle (and tapping turntiles in metro/light rail stations) would be the best option I suppose. People would load money on the card for example, or have a monthly or annual ticket, and tap at every change (no matter where to where or if you change from one agency to another as long as you are within greater LA). What happens then does not have to concern you if you don't care.

With this technology one would not even have to change the current fare system that much but people would not be bothered with the complexities anymore. Even better of course would be an integration of the fare syste as far as possible, for example into a zone based network. Where you can get full network or specific zone passes for a week/month or a whole year. And if you are outside of that zone, you can simply use money loaded on the tap card by simply tapping the card as always and everywhere. 



Of course, there would be also the Viennese model. Within the core zone (city proper) you just need to physically have a ticket / pass. No turntiles, tapping or anything on any PT line (Infriquently there'll be controls in any of the vehicles or stations.) Outside of the city proper you have a simple zone based system, and still no turntiles, tapping or anything. But I suppose that would be something rather utopian in LA. Maybe they show something like that in a future sequel to the movie "Her"


----------



## mrsmartman

https://karmatrendz.wordpress.com/2...rtal-and-plaza-by-rios-clementi-hale-studios/


----------



## mrsmartman

(KCET Departures / Flickr)

http://archpaper.com/2015/08/gehry-wades-la-river-master-plan-stirring-ripples-praise-dissent/

*Your Common Source of Photographs from California*


----------



## starrwulfe

Woonsocket54 said:


> Most of the bus agencies use the Tap card, but interagency transfers are a byzantine ritual. Basically, you need to ask the bus driver to load an interagency transfer onto your card. Frankly, I don't understand why this extra step is necessary. A better approach would be for the transfer to be activated when you board the connecting bus.
> 
> Source: go here: https://www.taptogo.net/TAPFAQ, then click on "How do I transfer from a Metro bus to another municipal line?"
> 
> List of participating agencies:
> 
> https://www.taptogo.net/articles/en_US/Website_content/where-to-ride
> 
> What's more, the bus agencies hate each other. For example, for reasons that are probably of a petty nature, the Santa Monica Big Blue Bus does not accept transfer from the overlapping Culver City Bus.
> 
> https://bigbluebus.com/Rider-Info/Transferring.aspx


This is the most idiotic thing I've ever seen mass transit in LA do. When I was kid in Inglewood, I would have to transfer from RTD (today's Metro) to CulverCityBus or Gardena Bus all the time and the interagency transfer thing always messed me up. Even NYC doesn't have this issue because virtually every agency there takes a MetroCard!

Even here in Japan where I live now, all the disparate transit agencies *nationwide* agreed on a standard. Even though the card may have a different logo and name depending on where it was purchased, it works on subways in Tokyo, buses in Osaka and vending machines and stores all over. From start to finish it took 2½ years to implement.

So with all the money, research and time spent, why can't LACMTA and the munis fix this already?!


----------



## mrsmartman

http://www.rentcafe.com/blog/cities/fancy-emailing-city-slickers/


----------



## [atomic]

any news on the planned/proposed(?) arts district station?


----------



## Ervin703

[atomic] said:


> any news on the planned/proposed(?) arts district station?


Inquiring minds wanna know


----------



## lkstrknb

I finally had the chance to ride and film the Getty Center tram. It's one of just a few systems like this in the world that uses a cusion of air to lift the vehicle instead of wheels, similar to air hockey or a hovercraft. I wish there was a more efficient way to propel the vehicle instead of cables.


----------



## dimlys1994

Expo line extension to Santa Monica is now opened. Updated map on urbanrail.net:
http://www.urbanrail.net/am/lsan/los-angeles.htm


----------



## TM_Germany

Very nice! I sure will ride it if I ever get to go to L.A.!

Concerning the map: what's the difference between light metro and light rail?


----------



## Dan78

TM_Germany said:


> Very nice! I sure will ride it if I ever get to go to L.A.!
> 
> Concerning the map: what's the difference between light metro and light rail?


I think Robert Schwandl who made that map considers the difference to be that "Light Metro" is totally grade-separated and does not have level crossings with auto traffic whereas "Light Rail" may run in its own right-of-way (aerial, at-grade, underground) but may also run mixed with street traffic (either in the street median or just in the lane itself) and have level street crossings, but he doesn't always consistently apply this distinction in his maps.

The LA Green Line is totally elevated (aerial) and does not mix with street traffic. The new Crenshaw line will be a mix of at-grade sections, underground sections and aerial sections.

I know a while back Schwandl was insistent that "Metro" could only refer to a totally separated system (or track), though he admitted there were some outlier cases like Chicago and Newcastle (UK), which are Metro systems that actually have some grade-level auto crossings.


----------



## TM_Germany

Dan78 said:


> I think Robert Schwandl who made that map considers the difference to be that "Light Metro" is totally grade-separated and does not have level crossings with auto traffic whereas "Light Rail" may run in its own right-of-way (aerial, at-grade, underground) but may also run mixed with street traffic (either in the street median or just in the lane itself) and have level street crossings, but he doesn't always consistently apply this distinction in his maps.
> 
> The LA Green Line is totally elevated (aerial) and does not mix with street traffic. The new Crenshaw line will be a mix of at-grade sections, underground sections and aerial sections.
> 
> I know a while back Schwandl was insistent that "Metro" could only refer to a totally separated system (or track), though he admitted there were some outlier cases like Chicago and Newcastle (UK), which are Metro systems that actually have some grade-level auto crossings.


Thanks for the answer, though what I don't understand is the difference between a fully grade-seperated light-rail line and a regular heavy-metro. Is it only the rolling stock, electrification and maybe signalling?

Aside from that, what will the travel time be between Metro Center and Downtown Santa Monica? Is it competetive with car travel?


----------



## KingNick

50 minutes.

Here's an article about the whole issue and why LA should have gone with heavy rail instead: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-expo-line-speed-snap-story.html


----------



## dimlys1994

Regional Connector update:


----------



## 00Zy99

mrsmartman said:


> ^^ This appears to be light rail on steroid. :cheers:


Its certainly video resolution on steroids.


----------



## Kenni

*7TH STREET METRO CENTER*

Junction of the *RED*, *PURPLE*, *BLUE* and *EXPO* LINES.


7th Street - Metro Center Station Los Angeles by Louie Baur, on Flickr










*The grand station is under this wonderful building, the main entrance is at the corner...btw the opposing corner is where the Wilshire Grand is being built.
*


IMG_0416 by Myles, on Flickr

*The old Fire Station on the left is very old, beautiful building.*


P1160166 by jkozik, on Flickr

*The ceiling murals in the main entrance are wonderful, as they depict the sky as if you were outdoors.*


7th Street/Metro by RCW, on Flickr








[/url]
7th Street Metro Center, Los Angeles by SPUR, on Flickr[/IMG]


7th Street - Metro Center Station Los Angeles Escalator by Louie Baur, on Flickr


7th Street - Metro Center Station Los Angeles staircase by Louie Baur, on Flickr


Untitled by Jeffrey Grenfell, on Flickr


Los Angeles Metro Expo Line Opening Day by Craig Dietrich, on Flickr


7th St 01102 by Omar Bárcena, on Flickr


7th Street Concourse by Malcolm K., on Flickr


----------



## Kenni




----------



## mrsmartman

Kenni said:


> *7TH STREET METRO CENTER*
> 
> Junction of the *RED*, *PURPLE*, *BLUE* and *EXPO* LINES.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/url]
> 7th Street Metro Center, Los Angeles by SPUR, on Flickr[/IMG]


It is like the real GTA. :lol:


----------



## Tower Dude

I mentioned here like a week ago that there was going to be a Vermont subway I'm sorry I was mistaken it is going to be a brt corridor


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^
^^

7th street / Metro center ... where LA looks like the big metropolis which it is.  
(At least outside on street level. The crowd in the station seems rather manageable for such a big city)


----------



## snot

^^

But pics may be taken yesterday (sunday)


----------



## Kenni

Hey guys, I'm glad you enjoyed them.  Ah, and yes, rush our work days it's crazy, but it's nice to see and feel that vibe. Weekends are usually light.


----------



## Nexis

Some Recent Photos from Peter Ehrlich 


LOS ANGELES--154 at Expo/Bundy Station IB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--Pacific Electric Artwork in Station Platform by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--1027 appr Santa Monica Downtown by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--Pacific Electric artwork in Expo Line platform by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--250 at Expo/Bundy Station OB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--100 appr Downtown Santa Monica OB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--100 appr Expo/Bundy Station OB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--131 arr Expo/Bundy Station OB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--148 at Santa Monica Yard by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--151 arr Westwood/Rancho Park Station OB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--158 at Downtown Santa Monica by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--166 at Downtown Santa Monica by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--242 lv Westwood/Rancho Park Station IB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--250 arr Westwood/Rancho Park Station IB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--1021 at Santa Monica Yard by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--1021, etc., at Santa Monica Yard by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--1025 at Santa Monica Yard by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--1026 arr Downtown Santa Monica Station by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--1030 arr Westwood/Rancho Park Station IB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--1030 at Westwood/Rancho Park Station IB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--Artwork at Downtown Santa Monica Station by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--Artwork at Expo/Bundy Station by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--Banners at Westwood/Rancho Park Station by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--Next Stop Display on 1003 by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


LOS ANGELES--Zebra Crossing at Colorado/4th Street, Santa Monica by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

Some recent Big Blue Bus photos from Peter Ehrlich 


BIG BLUE BUS--Garage by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


BIG BLUE BUS--2913 at 4th Street/Colorado Avenue by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


BIG BLUE BUS--1560 at Main/Alameda, downtown by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


BIG BLUE BUS--1304 at Cesar Chavez/Alameda IB, downtown LA by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


BIG BLUE BUS--4075 at Alameda/Cesar Chavez IB, downtown L.A. by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


BIG BLUE BUS--5313 at Los Angeles St./Alameda IB, downtown L.A. by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


BIG BLUE BUS--5313 at Main/Alameda, downtown L.A. by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


BIG BLUE BUS--5318 at Alameda/Cesar Chavez OB, downtown L.A. by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


----------



## Swede

Now that the Expo to Santa Monica has been open for a week... any passenger numbers out yet?


----------



## 00Zy99

Give them a few days to collect and publish the data.


----------



## IvanovB

LA will never be public transportion friendly...car is still the best way to move around


----------



## 00Zy99

IvanovB said:


> LA will never be public transportion friendly...car is still the best way to move around


It was before and it will be again.

The system just doesn't get enough publicity.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

IvanovB said:


> LA will never be public transportion friendly...car is still the best way to move around


Thanks for your fascinating input


----------



## Nexis

IvanovB said:


> LA will never be public transportion friendly...car is still the best way to move around


Sitting in gridlock for hours each day isn't productive...so people are slowly switching over to Mass Transit and Alt ways of commuting... 20yrs from Now the train might be the better way of getting around..


----------



## Kenni

The Gold Line runs from the San Gabriel Valley to East LA. The change in urban setting and communities is amazing.

East LA is almost 100% Hispanic, and historically the Mexican and Mexican American enclave. A bi of history...East LA is right across the river from Downtown, and as things were in the pas during segregation, tho California wasn't fully segregated, as long as Latinos stayed across the river they were fine. hno:

These are some of the East LA Gold Line Stations.

*MARIACHI PLAZA* *GOLD LINE*


Los Angeles, CA: Gold Line Mariachi Plaza Station - Turnstiles on the mezzanine level by nabobswims, on Flickr


Los Angeles, CA: Gold Line Mariachi Plaza Station: Escalator access to the station by nabobswims, on Flickr


Mariachi Plaza Station by jogym137, on Flickr


Mariachi Plaza Station by Donna Mills, on Flickr


8-31-09 044 by bigbend700, on Flickr


----------



## Kenni

*SOTO STATION* *GOLD LINE*


Los Angeles, CA: Gold Line Soto Station - Art constructed into the station and not imported by nabobswims, on Flickr 


Los Angeles, CA: Gold Line Soto Station - Escalator access to the station by nabobswims, on Flickr


Soto Gold Line station by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr


Soto Station by jogym137, on Flickr


----------



## Kenni

*INDIANA STATION* *GOLD LINE*


Indiana station, East Los Angeles by jim61773, on Flickr



*MARAVILLA STATION* *GOLD LINE*


Maravilla Station by jogym137, on Flickr



*EAST LA CIVIC CENTER* *GOLD LINE*


Gold Line East LA Civic Center Station by nabobswims, on Flickr


feb10 1878 by Paul Bailey, on Flickr


*ATLANTIC STATION * *GOLD LINE*


Atlantic Station 3 by JR Salazar, on Flickr


Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension by L.A. Urban Soul, on Flickr


Atlantic station by jim61773, on Flickr


----------



## Slartibartfas

> Agreed, it's not much more than a tourist gimmick to create the illusion of a multi-modal streetscape. Serious transit improvements downtown are going to come via subway construction, as with the Regional Connector.


I agree with the first part but somewhat disagree with the 2nd part.

Subway most definitely but also light rail serves a different purpose as a proper tram line. Tram lines are means of short to mid-range travel of downtown to inner suburbs areas (or possibly also centred around other urban cores and their direct dense urban environment). Their advantage over bus lines is the easy possibility of upgrade capacity to somewhat higher levels than regular bus lines easily can. Another big advantage is that unlike bus lines their corridor is very visible and hard to change. 

Loops are a bad way of designing such tram lines. In Vienna there was an inner city loop but it was of course two-directional. It was abolished some years ago because even though it served the ring road which creates the perfect setup for a ring tram, that is not how people want to use the system. The lines had been reconfigured that the ring is still served but the lines continue out to the inner urban neighbourhoods around the ring road. And that is how it should be IMHO. To compensate for the loss of the ring line, one created a dedicated tourist tram which continues to do the ring trip every 30 min (with audio guide) and at a steeper price of course (€ 9.00 instead of € 2.40). Oh and that tourist tram is now only one directional ... it could be almost a US style tram like they plan in LA


----------



## phoenixboi08

Slartibartfas said:


> I agree with the first part but somewhat disagree with the 2nd part.
> 
> Subway most definitely but also light rail serves a different purpose as a proper tram line. Tram lines are means of short to mid-range travel of downtown to inner suburbs areas (or possibly also centred around other urban cores and their direct dense urban environment). Their advantage over bus lines is the easy possibility of upgrade capacity to somewhat higher levels than regular bus lines easily can. Another big advantage is that unlike bus lines their corridor is very visible and hard to change.
> 
> Loops are a bad way of designing such tram lines. In Vienna there was an inner city loop but it was of course two-directional. It was abolished some years ago because even though it served the ring road which creates the perfect setup for a ring tram, that is not how people want to use the system. The lines had been reconfigured that the ring is still served but the lines continue out to the inner urban neighbourhoods around the ring road. And that is how it should be IMHO. To compensate for the loss of the ring line, one created a dedicated tourist tram which continues to do the ring trip every 30 min (with audio guide) and at a steeper price of course (€ 9.00 instead of € 2.40). Oh and that tourist tram is now only one directional ... it could be almost a US style tram like they plan in LA


....I don't think the intention is to leave it as one, uni-directional loop, to begin with.


----------



## Woonsocket54

update on construction of new pedestrian tunnel between Red and Orange lines in North Hollywood.

http://la.streetsblog.org/2016/07/1...od-station-underpass-tunnel-nears-completion/


----------



## JTCA

To think where LA was 20 years ago with mass transit. This is actually quite a leap forward.


----------



## dixiadetie

redspork02 said:


> That's Harriet the Tunnel Boring Machine digging just under the streets of L.A. for the Crenshaw/LAX line. When the line is done riders will be able to take public transit to and from the airport for the first time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FACEBOOK POST BY MAYOR ERIC GARCETTI
> https://www.facebook.com/garcetti/?fref=ts


Currently , are there any bus line going to the airport ?


----------



## subbotazh

From http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/LA-Streetcar-Past-and-Present-386697841.html


----------



## sotonsi

dixiadetie said:


> Currently , are there any bus line going to the airport ?


Ah, but as you know, buses are for plebs and so we can ignore them as public transit </reporter snob>


----------



## MarshallKnight

Slartibartfas said:


> I agree with the first part but somewhat disagree with the 2nd part.
> 
> Subway most definitely but also light rail serves a different purpose as a proper tram line. Tram lines are means of short to mid-range travel of downtown to inner suburbs areas (or possibly also centred around other urban cores and their direct dense urban environment). Their advantage over bus lines is the easy possibility of upgrade capacity to somewhat higher levels than regular bus lines easily can. Another big advantage is that unlike bus lines their corridor is very visible and hard to change.


I don't disagree that a properly executed tram line would be a boon to mobility downtown. But the problem is that many streets in DTLA are so narrow and congested that creating a segregated right-of-way for a tram is a near impossibility. 

_I _would welcome reclaiming a lane for this purpose -- in fact, I'd favor turning some combination of Broadway/Spring/Main into pedestrian-and-transit-only streets, thereby giving a tram its own ROW, plus protected bike lanes and wider sidewalks -- but then I'm not a regular DTLA car commuter. It's hard for me to see the people who rely on the few packed, narrow lanes they already have being willing to sacrifice more.

So assuming that reclaiming lanes for a ROW is out of the question, you're stuck with a tram operating in mixed traffic, making it slow and unreliable -- it's already the case that when things are jammed on Broadway, you're better off just walking than sitting in your car, so if the tram is stuck in that same traffic, why would anyone hop aboard?



dixiadetie said:


> Currently , are there any bus line going to the airport ?


Yes, tons. The bus center at the C Lot has connections to Los Angeles Metro, Culver City Bus, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus and Torrance Transit. I've taken them a few times, and even the rapid service is miserably slow and anxiety inducing in rush-hour traffic. It's a good way to give yourself a panic attack if you've got a flight to catch after work. The best current option are the Flyaway buses, which travel point-to-point between LAX and locations in Downtown, Westwood, the Valley and handful of other spots for a flat rate.


----------



## MrAronymous

"are so narrow and congested that creating a segregated right-of-way for a tram is a near impossibility." 

This is so false I would almost call it a lie.

"It's hard for me to see the people who rely on the few packed, narrow lanes they already have being willing to sacrifice more."

Poor Los Angeles car drivers. They've had to suffer so much. Oh please.


----------



## MarshallKnight

MrAronymous said:


> This is so false I would almost call it a lie.


Maybe I should've specified that I'm talking specifically about Broadway, Hill, Spring and Main. Many of the East-West numbered streets are much wider, as are Fig, Flower and Grand, but if you want a tram to service the heart of the "DTLA Revitalization," you've got to service that corridor.

And I don't have traffic data in front of me, so I'm of course speaking anecdotally -- all I know is from my experience during weekday rush hour, or on a busy weekend afternoon, the three lanes of traffic on Broadway and its parallels have been at a virtual standstill.



MrAronymous said:


> Poor Los Angeles car drivers. They've had to suffer so much. Oh please.


Also, not really sure where this attitude is coming from. Maybe my use of the word "sacrifice?" By that I mean the literal "giving up a thing they had." Are drivers in LA entitled? Sure! Would a multi-modal DTLA that elevates alternative forms of transport above the car be ideal? Of course! Does that mean we can pretend there aren't entrenched interests that make those changes a political nightmare to implement? You'd be crazy to!


----------



## 00Zy99

Three lanes of traffic? Some "broad way".


----------



## Slartibartfas

MarshallKnight said:


> I don't disagree that a properly executed tram line would be a boon to mobility downtown. But the problem is that many streets in DTLA are so narrow and congested that creating a segregated right-of-way for a tram is a near impossibility.


Not a problem at all. Do you think Vienna consists of broad boulevards only? Trams can share lanes with cars in general. If those lanes are prone to congestion however, simply make them tram and bus only. If two car lanes fit into the street so do two tram/bus lanes. 

We are talking here about a single street, there a countless others left for cars. Given how a proper tram line can easily transport the number of people that could use the same lane via car before, there is no loss in overall mobility either. If done well, it is actually a gain, even if certain lanes are closed for car traffic. 

As you suggest yourself. This is not an actual unsolvable traffic problem it is only made unsolvable because car traffic is considered holy and PT as something inferior. 



> So assuming that reclaiming lanes for a ROW is out of the question, you're stuck with a tram operating in mixed traffic, making it slow and unreliable -- it's already the case that when things are jammed on Broadway, you're better off just walking than sitting in your car, so if the tram is stuck in that same traffic, why would anyone hop aboard?


You are aware that this is just another argument for actually closing car lanes, are you? If cars are even slower than pedestrians, but trams on their lanes are actually operating normally, this would mean that car drivers could see a benefit on changing somewhere outside of downtown to PT. More people could get better to where they want to go than currently.


----------



## Tågälskaren

*The Capital of Car Culture, Los Angeles Warms to Mass Transit
*
LOS ANGELES — When the extension of the Expo rail line opened here in May, it was almost as if the city had stepped into another century[...]









Source: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/07/21/us/21TRANSIT/21TRANSIT-master768.jpg


----------



## Kenni

Tramwayman said:


> And again, Americans do not know anything how to build a modern tramway network, why they keep building it in the mixed traffic like some bus?
> 
> Is there any reason to that? Have not they seen how the modern tramway systems look elsewhere?
> 
> Who needs three section short streetcar vehicles? Capacity is equivalent to a bendy bus.
> 
> If they want something ecological then a trolleybus system with bendy trolleybuses. But if they want exactly tramway then it should use long vehicles, at least 30-32 meters song and run on its right of way, that's the only reason you would build a tram, only reason when it is cost effective.
> 
> If it is gonna run in mixed traffic and use short vehicles, what is the point of having it? Bendy trolleybus system would easily replace this thing and be a lot cheaper.


:lol: Like a member said, this is more of a Downtown Development project, not a mass public transportation line.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ I never quite understood how a tram could be an actual "downtown development project" without serving any proper purpose in public transportation.


----------



## Klausenburg

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ I never quite understood how a tram could be an actual "downtown development project" without serving any proper purpose in public transportation.


Simply: Advertising a project as "close to the streetcar station" brings way more value then "close to the bus station" or "close to the motorway exit" especially for liberal minded folks who have more money then mind, don't actually check how that streetcar works before buying the property...


----------



## sotonsi

Klausenburg said:


> Simply: Advertising a project as "close to the streetcar station" brings way more value then "close to the bus station" or "close to the motorway exit" especially for liberal minded folks who have more money then mind, don't actually check how that streetcar works before buying the property...


You are quite right that it's idiot bait, but then Mr Lyle Langley selling LA the idea was also in the idiot bait business, so the city is buying expensive white elephant idiot bait.

It would be better to spend the money on something useful. Oh, and not to bait idiots to come to your city - they lack the business acumen for a redevelopment to last, and you'll just be redoing the process all again in the medium term.


----------



## 00Zy99

Alright, lets be serious here. 

Looking at a map with everything else overlaid, it does seem to be something of a feeder to the Downtown Connector. That's actually quite useful for LA, and it could be a good start to a larger system.


----------



## phoenixboi08

00Zy99 said:


> ...it could be a good start to a larger system.


That's the aim, as I have come to understand it. 
It would appear obvious; then again, some people are deliberately obtuse...


----------



## Slartibartfas

Klausenburg said:


> Simply: Advertising a project as "close to the streetcar station" brings way more value then "close to the bus station" or "close to the motorway exit" especially for liberal minded folks who have more money then mind, don't actually check how that streetcar works before buying the property...


Only if developors are susceptical to BS or practices which are dangerously close to fraud. Maybe they are, but would you, as a city, base your fate on smeary methods like this? This sounds like a model example of building a bubble and bubbles usually don't end well. What happens is that if enough of these useless streetcar systems are getting built that the whole technology will become devalued in public opinion and rather sooner than later it will be seen as something worth less than "close to a bus stop".

I don't quite get it, because for the money that is being spent on these show streetcar lines, one could actually built a serious streetcar line as well. One would merely have to have the balls to build double track lines, even if that should mean cutting back car infrastructure on that road. The second aspect would be that numerous efficient transfers to other modes of transportation are essential. A tram route designed like the route of a hop on hop off tourist bus which ticks off all the sights in some loop is pretty much the opposite of that. 

All of that doesn't necessarily cost more if the city has the guts to get a useful system and does proper planning. But I don't see this being done and that is why I think it is a waste of money.

And before people add here that the plan is to enlarge the sytem. That is nice and everything but it won't change the fact that the big loop at the south end will remain pretty useless even then.


----------



## Klausenburg

phoenixboi08 said:


> some people are deliberately obtuse...


Do you genuinely belive that there will be much support for expanding a system that is seen as completly useless and a huge waste of money ? Look at Atlanta. They have built the loop, allegedly extending the system at later stage. But will the people in Atlanta agree to spend money on "transport" that almost nobody use even it was free ? IMO, this useless loops are the best way to turn in time again the public opinion against investments in public transport...


----------



## phoenixboi08

The Atlanta project though was always presented as being a keystone in future BeltLine developments (see Executive Sumary, pg 2 [E-2]...

Portland - and other cities - have done demonstrable things with these types of loops. 

One can argue the approach, but dismissing the goal, wholesale, is self-serving and, quite frankly, rather annoying.

There's no indication that this streetcar project in LA is viewed - or ever has been - as the end-all-be-all...

People just want to hyperventilate about it because they love to whinge about streetcars for some reason. Or else, they believe it's wholly plausible to build out entire transit systems in one go.


----------



## 00Zy99

Getting worked up and insulting does no good at all. Please stop and take a chill pill before coming back to talking about the LA Streetcar. Or better yet, talk about something else.


----------



## Slartibartfas

phoenixboi08 said:


> Portland - and other cities - have done demonstrable things with these types of loops.


This layout in Portland does look like it would make a lot more sense though. You surely must see that as well. Yes, it also shares this annoying design feature of splitting the tracks to two adjacent streets, but it integrates much better to the other modes of PT and even more importantly if you look at it on a map, it looks like there would be plenty of possible ways where taking the streetcar would make very much sense, compared to just walking. And already its starter corridor appeared more useful in many ways. 

Same can not be said about the Los Angeles streetcar. 




> There's no indication that this streetcar project in LA is viewed - or ever has been - as the end-all-be-all...


No one claimed that but how far will it get if the start is already botched? 

To make it more useful the starter line should feature more efficient transfers to both, the regional connector and the subway. On top of that the souther part would need to be completely redesigned. Such a big open, one way, loop serves no one who wants to use it as serious means of transportation.

PS: I am not an opponent of streetcars, the very contrary is true. But that is exactly why I criticize the LA streetcar layout, because I think its one of the projects which will discredit a useful means of transportation in the US, in the long run. That would be a pity.


----------



## sotonsi

phoenixboi08 said:


> One can argue the approach, but dismissing the goal, wholesale, is self-serving and, quite frankly, rather annoying.


Where's anyone dismissed the goal - what's being dismissed is spending the money on a boondoogle that:
1) makes no use of the benefits of streetcars over buses - segregated tracks, longer vehicles, etc.
2) spends most of its time duplicating other routes and could be a better route even as a one-way small downtown loop of the same length.


> There's no indication that this streetcar project in LA is viewed - or ever has been - as the end-all-be-all...


No, but a useless loop will not be the success that spurs on further extensions.


> People just want to hyperventilate about it because they love to whinge


The only one hyperventilating and whinging here is you.

Unable to provide a reasoned justification for this boondoggle, you just go for the ad hominem rant.


> about streetcars for some reason.


Streetcars that are merely fancy buses are a total waste of money. This is one of those occasions. Streetcars can be great, but what people are objecting to about this scheme is that this is not one of the times when it is great - this is one of those times when it sucks. What's wrong with fancy electric buses (maybe even trolleybuses which use overhead wires, not batteries) running in a loop to fancy stops? That will have as much effect on regeneration, and provide the same quality of travel (if not better) far cheaper.

Do a San Fran line F and run heritage trams on it if you must have a small downtown loop - turn it into a tourist attraction as well as the low-speed, low-capacity distributor that is being proposed. At least that way ridership won't be as pitiful! It would be something like London's cable car then - still a waste of money to have built and not that useful for travel, but still worth running, now its there, as a tourist attraction.

But you have drunk the KoolAid and joined the cult of the streetcar and so anyone who says anything negative about any streetcar scheme must be a frothy mouthed streetcar hater.


> Or else, they believe it's wholly plausible to build out entire transit systems in one go.


No one is saying that - what people are saying that the inevitable lack of success and the high cost of this project will kill streetcars in LA dead and this will be what you get.


----------



## phoenixboi08

I never even said that I like the alignment; I don't.

I also _don't _ like KoolAid...


----------



## sdery

If money was not an issue for the street car...  I would like to see it grade separated in the downtown area then street running in some of the nearby suburbs, i.e. similar to Muni Metro in SF or the Green Line in Boston. Not sure how well street running in going to work in DTLA given the traffic congestion, and ideally you would want the street car to move faster than the gridlocked traffic (not be stuck in it). That said, I understand there are financial limitations and that this is probably more of an urban renewal project.


----------



## 00Zy99

sotonsi said:


> (snip)


By using over-dramatic adjectives like "boondoggle" and "idiot bait" you are the one who is hyperventilating instead of acting rational. If you didn't use such extreme words, then you would be more likely to attract a logical debate. 

Furthermore, you have done the worst ad hominem attacks here with statements like "drinking the KoolAid", which I find frankly offensive as someone who has a connection to Jonestown. 

Yes, phoenixboi08 could probably be a bit more polite, but I would argue that the group shouting detractions started the name-calling. Once somebody starts using melodramatic or impolite language, things start to become fair game and the matter can escalate.

In an attempt to put this matter to rest, I will be contacting the agency responsible for the LA Streetcar. Hopefully, they can respond on this thread and address people's concerns, or even take constructive criticism into account. Please contact them as well if you feel so passionately on this issue.


----------



## redspork02

http://www.lamag.com/driver/metros-real-expansion-plans-mapped-perusal/

Here’s What the Future of Metro Could Look Like With a Half-Cent Sales Tax Increase

If voters pass a ballot initiative in November, this could all be yours

Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and legal weed won’t be the only things fighting for your attention on November 8. Metro’s ambitious ballot initiative would pay for dozens of transit and freeway projects should voters agree to a new half-cent tax increase and a continuation of the 2008 half-cent tax increase for perpetuity (or until voters go back and rescind it). For this proposal to pass, over two-thirds of L.A. County voters must agree to it—that’s nearly 67 percent.

Metro is hoping to mollify as many voters across the county, especially those in the suburbs that care more about freeway upkeep than new light rail lines (there’s plenty of freeway/road projects included in the initiative). The L.A. Times‘ Laura Nelson just got a peek at the ballot language:










While Metro’s proposal is far from a sure thing—2008’s Measure R squeaked by, while a similar initiative narrowly failed in 2012—many are hotly anticipating its passage. Steve Boland, a transportation planner and part-time cartographer known as CalUrbanist, designed a map that shows all the future projects laid out. Styled after Central European transit maps, Boland’s design shows lines stretching from San Bernardino County to WeHo to Sylmar.










It will take a while to build out all these projects, with the last ones opening for service in the 2050s (better eat that kale!). Don’t worry, plenty of projects will start work much sooner. Such as:

• 96th Street station on the under-construction Crenshaw Line (the station will directly connect to a forthcoming LAX people mover). Groundbreaking: 2018. Opening: 2021.

• Purple Line extension, Phase III, from Century City to Westwood VA Hospital. Groundbreaking: 2018. Opening: 2024.

• Green Line extension to South Bay Galleria, Torrance. Groundbreaking: 2024. Opening: 2030.

• Sepulveda Pass light rail or subway, connecting Westwood to the Valley. Groundbreaking: 2024. Opening: 2033.

There is no shortage of exciting transit/freeway/biking/walking projects this initiative (it doesn’t yet have a catchy name like Measure R or Measure R2). See a full list below, via The Source.









*Proposed freeway, biking, and miscellaneous projects*^^









*Proposed transit projects*^^


----------



## Slartibartfas

2/3 majority sounds a bit insane over something as modest as that proposal. The UK could blow up its entire EU membership with massive implications on almost everything with a mere 52% majority.

Is there any chance that there could be 2/3 majority in favour?


----------



## redspork02

Slartibartfas said:


> 2/3 majority sounds a bit insane over something as modest as that proposal. The UK could blow up its entire EU membership with massive implications on almost everything with a mere 52% majority.
> 
> Is there any chance that there could be 2/3 majority in favour?


The sad part is that the previous transportation bill, measure J in 2012 failed after reaching 64% of the vote. Shy of the 66% needed. THAT SUCKED!!! hno: 
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/11/measure-j-la-county-transit-tax-extension-fails.html

So, Majority wants it and it is possible. I don't know anyone in my circles that opposes the new Measure. So its very possible in November! Crossing fingers!


----------



## etooley1985

66.11% is absurd, but that's what we need to pass Measure M. Measure R passed with _barely_ over 2/3 majority in 2008, while R2 (Measure J) failed in 2012 with 64.72% of people voting for it. hno:



Slartibartfas said:


> 2/3 majority sounds a bit insane over something as modest as that proposal. The UK could blow up its entire EU membership with massive implications on almost everything with a mere 52% majority.
> 
> Is there any chance that there could be 2/3 majority in favour?


----------



## pesto

Slartibartfas said:


> 2/3 majority sounds a bit insane over something as modest as that proposal. The UK could blow up its entire EU membership with massive implications on almost everything with a mere 52% majority.
> 
> Is there any chance that there could be 2/3 majority in favour?


Very different processes. The problem with ballot initiatives is that they are typically funded by very wealthy and powerful interests who stand to benefit greatly form them (MTA, insurance companies, realtors, health providers, etc.). And there is no organized opposition, because the victims (typically the taxpayers or consumers) are not well organized and don't have enough personal stake to take time off to fight the battle. For this reason, 2/3 or other super-majorities are often mandated so that there aren't a dozen taxpayer rip-offs passed every year in the guise of fixing some nonexistent problem.

Brexit was a much more balanced issue, with substantial players on either side and plenty of money available to sponsor ads, etc.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

pesto said:


> Very different processes. The problem with ballot initiatives is that they are typically funded by very wealthy and powerful interests who stand to benefit greatly form them (MTA, insurance companies, realtors, health providers, etc.). And there is no organized opposition, because the victims (typically the taxpayers or consumers) are not well organized and don't have enough personal stake to take time off to fight the battle. For this reason, 2/3 or other super-majorities are often mandated so that there aren't a dozen taxpayer rip-offs passed every year in the guise of fixing some nonexistent problem.
> 
> Brexit was a much more balanced issue, with substantial players on either side and plenty of money available to sponsor ads, etc.


"victims".... :bash::bash::bash::bash::bash::bash:


----------



## Slartibartfas

Sorry, but if that argument had any merit one basically is saying that voters can't be trusted to make an informed vote without being told by campaigns what to do, in which case it would really better not to let voters decide on anything directly. 

In Switzerland they commonly have referenda where one side is much more heavily engaged in campaigning. That is btw not guarantee for them to win a majority over. 

Balanced campaigning or not, for Briton this was vote of epic implications and a thin majority was going to decide it. If anythign such a severe decision would deserve a 2/3 majority, not some random sales tax for something to finance basic municipal infrastructure.


----------



## etooley1985

Exactly, avoiding rip-offs, although my hope is that M will pass this time. Voter participation is generally better during a Presidential election, and this one is kind of epic. I think it will just squeak by.



pesto said:


> 2/3 or other super-majorities are often mandated so that there aren't a dozen taxpayer rip-offs passed every year


----------



## Slartibartfas

Well, yeah, avoiding rip-offs would be even more effective if 90% votes in favour were needed. 2/3 majorities in referenda are extremely difficult to pull off even if general sentiment is pretty positive on one thing. Why do you think it is so rare that 2/3 majorities are the criterion there? It is bascially only used when those who made the rules didn't want referenda to succeed at all or merely in very exceptional cases.


----------



## etooley1985

*Projects under construction in Los Angeles- even without measure M*

Even if Measure M does not pass this November, Los Angeles currently will have 3 projects under construction and more in the works. Things will just happen at a _glacial_ pace.

Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project (mostly grade separated light rail)

Regional Connector Transit Project - connecting the Blue, Gold & Expo line through downtown - (underground light rail)

Purple Line Extension - Phase I (underground heavy rail)

Under study/waiting on approval:

Purple Line Extension Phase II (approved, waiting on Federal funding)

Purple Line Extension Phase III

Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Station

Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase III

Gold Line Eastside Phase II

East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor

West Santa Ana Transit Corridor

South Bay Metro Green Line Extension


----------



## subbotazh

*OC’s streetcar project gets $28M grant*


Orange County’s planned streetcar project has received a $28 million state grant, officials said Tuesday.

The grant will cover a “mobile ticketing” project that is aimed at making it easier for riders to pay fares.

“I appreciate that the state recognizes the importance of the OC Streetcar and this funding moves the project one step closer to fruition,” said Orange County Transportation Authority Chair Lori Donchak.

The streetcar will carry riders along a 4.1-mile track from the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center to a multimodal transit hub at Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue in Garden Grove.

OCTA has taken the lead in development of the $297.9-million project, which has also received funding from OCTA and the federal government.

President Barack Obama included $125 million in his proposed budget in February for the project, which has received additional funding in House and Senate spending bills.

Officials hope to begin construction in 2018 with the streetcars rolling along the tracks by 2020.

http://mynewsla.com/orange-county/2016/08/16/ocs-streetcar-project-gets-28m-grant/


----------



## etooley1985

*California transport grants announced*

USA: California State Transportation Agency announced on August 16 that it had selected 14 projects out of 41 applications to receive grants this year from its Transit & Intercity Capital Program. Totalling $390m, the grants are to be funded through eight auctions of greenhouse gas emission credits in the 2016-17 and 2017-18 financial years.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is to receive two grants. $69·2m is going towards the $162m project to increase capacity of the metro station Union Station to 30 trains/h per direction, reducing headways on the *Red* and *Purple* lines from 10 min to 4 min by 2023. Another $40m will support the construction of an interchange between the Los Angeles International Airport peoplemover and the light rail network.


----------



## jchernin

^ Can you link to the article please?


----------



## 00Zy99

You can't post links or pictures until you have made 10 posts. He only has 5 as of this writing.


----------



## jchernin

Really? Can't you still post the address as text? It just won't be hyperlinked. I would like to read the entire article but it's not the end of the world or anything.


----------



## 00Zy99

Not sure-as you can see, I haven't had to worry about that for a while.


----------



## subbotazh

jchernin said:


> Really? Can't you still post the address as text? It just won't be hyperlinked. I would like to read the entire article but it's not the end of the world or anything.


http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ew/california-transport-grants-announced.html


----------



## etooley1985

Thanks, only 3 posts until I can have a link .


----------



## etooley1985

*Measure M*

From LAist website - Measure M:

Today, the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Office has officially named the measure as "Measure M" for the November 8, 2016 ballot. It was formerly known as Measure R2, which maybe came off as a bit wonky. And that "2" perhaps implied that it was a lesser, secondary initiative. "Measure M," on the other hand, is authoritative, and impeccably cool. Think: Judi Dench as the unflappable M in the Bond movies. Or: Dial M for Murder.
Anyway, Measure M is what you'll be looking for on the November ballot if you want to give a big boost to public transit. If passed, it will increase the county-wide sales tax by a half-cent, and Metro will use the funds to back a $120-billion plan to increase mobility in the Southland.

"Measure M addresses many of the critical transportation needs caused by our aging infrastructure and expected population growth," Metro Board Chair John Fasana said in a release.


----------



## Tågälskaren

*Public Gets Chance to Vet Santa Ana Streetcar Plans*

After nearly six years of designing, planning and securing funding for Orange County's first streetcar line, which will run through Santa Ana and into Garden Grove, county transportation officials are now embarking on a push for public input[...]


----------



## etooley1985

I hope it connects to the West Santa Ana Transit Corridor - under study now,at least someday. We can't build a connection South of LA County though, it's up to Orange County.

West Santa Ana Transit Corridor 



Tågälskaren said:


> *
> 
> After nearly six years of designing, planning and securing funding for Orange County's first streetcar line, which will run through Santa Ana and into Garden Grove, county transportation officials are now embarking on a push for public input[...]*


----------



## skyfann

Will LA build a ful Metrolinie in the future?

I think the City is too big for tramtraffic only


----------



## 00Zy99

They already have.


----------



## skyfann

The red and purple line

I know but i would Mike to know if there will be more metroextensions


----------



## dimlys1994

skyfann said:


> The red and purple line
> 
> I know but i would Mike to know if there will be more metroextensions


It's wishful thinking, but because of gases and oil field, you can't build many more of new metro lines in near future. Furthermore, in 1998 there was referendum, which imposed subway tunneling ban.

There's very good video about accident during LA Metro construction in 1995, which is also releated to your question:


----------



## 00Zy99

The Purple Line is (very) gradually being extended to the sea, but that's about it.


----------



## skyfann

But you coudn't build only surface stationären in a big City la.


----------



## 00Zy99

There are many existing Rights of Way that can be used, and the city isn't that dense aside from the immediate downtown.


----------



## etooley1985

Not true, the Regional Connector is an all underground line being built downtown currently - although tunneling has not started yet. And the Crenshaw Line has a tunnel boring machine at work now for 2 of the stations, 3 being underground:
Regional Connector
Crenshaw Line

Also there are plans for a few other all or underground or totally grade-separated lines _if_ Mesure M pases info here:

Sepulveda Pass Corridor (Rail) 
The Crenshaw Line North 

[/URL]


00Zy99 said:


> The Purple Line is (very) gradually being extended to the sea, but that's about it.


----------



## MarshallKnight

00Zy99 said:


> ...and the city isn't that dense aside from the immediate downtown.


That's really not true. Not to be that guy who quotes himself, but we had a discussion about this on the Wilshire Grand thread a couple months ago:



MarshallKnight said:


> This is a pretty common misconception, since LA sprawls so far, and is predominantly lowrise, and due to the inclusion of relatively empty lands in density equations (the city is bisected by a huge mountain range with very little population). For example, Central LA, as defined by the LA Times Mapping LA project, has a density of 14,458 per square mile. But if you remove Griffith Park, the land around Dodger Stadium and the Hollywood Hills, *you get a figure in the ballpark of ~17,450, which is denser than San Francisco.*
> 
> Additionally, individual neighborhoods can get _very_ dense -- according to Mapping LA, *Koreatown is the densest neighborhood at 44,611 people per square mile, which is denser than all but 3 cities in America*.


It's not particularly high-rise, but central LA is very dense indeed. At-grade rail north of the 10 Freeway is basically a non-starter, which is why both the aforementioned Sepulveda and Crenshaw North lines are planned to be underground. Outside of Central LA, there are certainly many old ROWs that can be utilized for at-or-above-grade rail though, like they're planning with the West Santa Ana corridor.


----------



## Dan78

skyfann said:


> The red and purple line
> 
> I know but i would Mike to know if there will be more metroextensions


*Planned:*

1). Regional connector (light rail metro) in downtown LA will link Blue and Expo lines to Gold Lines. This will probably mean new service patterns on the existing Gold Line. There will be three new underground stations.
2). Purple Line (heavy rail metro) will eventually be extended to Santa Monica (all underground), but first only to Westwood. There will probably be 10 new underground stations.
3). Crenshaw Line (light rail metro) will be extended underground first to existing (above ground) Expo Line, and the later to intersect with future Purple Line, and eventually probably further north to meet up with current Red Line. Probably about another 10 new underground stations assuming that it reaches the Red Line.

*Potentially:*

4). Red and/or Purple Lines (heavy rail metro) extended East or South from Union Station on existing Rights-of-Way.
5). "Sepulveda Line" (light or heavy rail metro) from San Fernando valley through Westwood to LAX.

Map courtesy of Wikipedia.


----------



## etooley1985

*Beverly Hills Lawsuit to stop the Purple Line*

This is what we have to deal with in Los Angeles, endless litigation. Phase I of the Purple Line is currently under construction with 3 stations. Phase II would tunnel under Beverly Hills High School and reach Century City with 2 stations. Phase III extending 2 stations to Westwood and the 405 fwy at the VA Hospital.

Chris Campbell: Beverly Hills must stop fighting expansion of Purple Line to Westside.


----------



## Kenni

dimlys1994 said:


> It's wishful thinking, but because of gases and oil field, you can't build many more of new metro lines in near future. Furthermore, in 1998 there was referendum, which imposed subway tunneling ban.
> 
> There's very good video about accident during LA Metro construction in 1995, which is also releated to your question:


But this accident has nothing to do with gasses or oil fields. It was an engineering blunder...man made accident. 

Plus, a judge just threw out the court cases by West LA and Beverly Hills folks on that premise, that it is unsafe to tunnel. Technology and methods are so advanced, that methane, gas, oil blunders would be impossible, judge said. 

LA has been given the green light.


----------



## dimlys1994




----------



## etooley1985

More pictures of the MLK station tunneling from the Source:

































Attentive Source readers know that Harriet the tunnel boring machine has been working her way south under Crenshaw Boulevard, digging the first of twin rail tunnels for the Crenshaw/LAX Line. Today was a good day: the machine broke through into the station box for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Station. Pics above. Please feel free to save and share!

Next stop: Harriet will continue digging toward the future Leimert Park Station.










Question: how do I reduce the size of images in posts? Thank you.



dimlys1994 said:


>


----------



## skyfann

How mutch underground stations will the Tunnel habe?


----------



## dimlys1994

skyfann said:


> How mutch underground stations will the Tunnel habe?


3 underground stations


----------



## redspork02

skyfann said:


> How mutch underground stations will the Tunnel habe?


The project will include eight new Metro stations (with a potential ninth infill station currently in the planning stages):

1) Expo/Crenshaw- (underground) – connection to Expo Line
2) Martin Luther King Jr- (underground)
3) Leimert Park- (underground)
4) Hyde Park- (at-grade)
5) Fairview Heights (at-grade)
6) Downtown Inglewood (aerial)
7) Westchester/Veterans (at-grade)
8) Aviation/96th Street (at-grade) – Planned future connection to LAX people mover (aerial).
9) Aviation/Century (aerial)


----------



## redspork02

http://thesource.metro.net/2016/07/...bway-station-begins-third-phase-this-weekend/

Decking for Wilshire/La Brea subway 





































The early work on construction of the new Purple Line subway station at the Wilshire and La Brea is moving along at a nice clip — see the recent pics posted above. The third phase of the decking work at the intersection begins this weekend. Here’s what you need to know:

•Work on the third phase is scheduled to take place for the next 10 weekends with the exception of the Labor Day holiday weekend, Sept. 2 through 5. The original schedule was for 16 weeks.

•The decking work involves replacing the street with concrete decks so that the subway station can be excavated below while car traffic continues to use Wilshire Boulevard. The station when built will be 1,000 feet long, 70 feet wide and 60 feet below street level.

•Wilshire will be reduced to one lane in each direction at 10 a.m. on every Friday during Phase 3 work. Full closure of Wilshire between La Brea and Highland begins each Friday at 8 p.m. and will continue until each Monday at 6 a.m.

•Work will be 24/7 with Metro taking measures to reduce noise as much as possible.

•Below are detours and temporary bus stop locations for the Metro 20 and 720 buses that use Wilshire Boulevard. The gist of it: the 20 and 720 will be using Olympic Boulevard between La Brea and Crenshaw.

•The Purple Line Extension is extending the Purple Line for nine miles to Westwood in three phases. The first phase will extend the line to Beverly Hills with stations located at Wilshire/La Brea, Wilshire/Fairfax and Wilshire/La Cienega. The second phase will add stations in downtown Beverly Hills and Century City and the third phase will add stations at Wilshire/Westwood and Wilshire/VA Hospital. The target completion date for the first phase to Wilshire/La Cienega is late 2023. The project is funded by the Measure R half-cent sales tax increase approved by L.A. County voters in 2008, as well as a federal grant.


http://larchmontchronicle.com/metro-decking-purple-line-extends-wilshire/









Wilshire Blvd. excavation and street decking work between La Brea Ave. and Detroit St. on the first of 22 weekends.

*
Wilshire / Fairfax *

Metro’s contractor is beginning the piling installation phase of the Wilshire / Fairfax station construction in August. Wilshire Blvd. between Ogden Dr. and Orange Grove Ave. has been reduced to two lanes in each direction. This lane reduction will last until next year. In the Ogden staging yard for the Wilshire / Fairfax station, sound walls are being installed. They are 24 feet high facing the residential side of the property and 20 feet high facing the commercial side. To ensure that the work is as quiet as possible, loud equipment like generators is being covered by sound blankets.

*Wilshire / La Cienega *

The Wilshire / La Cienega station area will see more work underway in September. Demolitions there were scheduled for earlier; however, officials said *they are delayed due to bird nesting season*. 

Purple Line Extension project update meetings are held every other month and are open to the public.

The next meeting is Sep. 15 at Cathedral Chapel School. For more information visit: metro.net/projects/Westside.


----------



## skyfann

Amazing.

To save Money in the future, LA could build Lightmetrosystems.

Like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium-capacity_rail_transport_system


----------



## Dan78

skyfann said:


> Amazing.
> 
> To save Money in the future, LA could build Lightmetrosystems.
> 
> Like this:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium-capacity_rail_transport_system


Hmmm... I think this would be a bad idea mainly because L.A. already uses two types of non-interoperable trains (light and heavy rail) for its Metro system. I don't really see the benefit of introducing a third type. Nothing wrong with multiple modes per se, but it does mean higher maintenance costs as separate facilities have to be maintained for each set of rolling stock (not to mention maintenance staff have to be trained to work on more types of equipment).

IMHO, L.A. really needs to concentrate more on using grade-separated heavy rail/light rail and should stay away from so much street-running (with level crossings) light rail as even when the trains are given signaling priority they tend to be limited in capacity and slow (viz., the Blue Line from Long Beach versus the totally grade-separated Green Line).

In an example from another city Seattle "cheaped out" by building a large section of its main trunk light-rail line as street-running with level crossings (Rainier Valley) and now faces the problem of limited headways and limited capacity eve though the vast majority of the line is either elevated or else in a tunnel.


----------



## etooley1985

I agree with that, light rail grade separated can be as effective as medium-capacity rail - if it's totally grade separated (like the Green line is currently). Since we're running out of ROWs, there is no choice but to go under or above ground anyway.

Also, there are quite a few corridors where heavy rail can be used in the future: the Sepulveda Valley line, Vermont Ave. line to the Green line, a Red line extension North to Burbank, and East of Downtown to the Arts District and beyond.


Dan78 said:


> IMHO, L.A. really needs to concentrate more on using grade-separated heavy rail/light rail and should stay away from so much street-running (with level crossings) light rail as even when the trains are given signaling priority they tend to be limited in capacity and slow (viz., the Blue Line from Long Beach versus the totally grade-separated Green Line).


----------



## saiho

etooley1985 said:


> I agree with that, light rail grade separated can be as effective as medium-capacity rail - if it's totally grade separated (like the Green line is currently). Since we're running out of ROWs, there is no choice but to go under or above ground anyway.
> 
> Also, there are quite a few corridors where heavy rail can be used in the future: the Sepulveda Valley line, Vermont Ave. line to the Green line, a Red line extension North to Burbank, and East of Downtown to the Arts District and beyond.


Technically the Green Line is a medium-capacity rail line being completely grade separated like a subway but using LRV rolling stock. Similar to the Dockland Light Railway which originally used German light rail trains.


----------



## Slartibartfas

skyfann said:


> Amazing.
> 
> To save Money in the future, LA could build Lightmetrosystems.
> 
> Like this:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium-capacity_rail_transport_system


There is a reason why light metro systems are relatively rare, they combine the disadvantages of both worlds. That is the case at least if you try to build it fully below or above grade, where you'd need expensive tracks and stations which are not that much cheaper than for a full metro but have a substantially lower capacity. It can make sense though to create light rail systems with "light metro" parts in the center, which is exactly what is being done with the regional connector.

So I would suggest to go for largely grade seperated light-rail or if that does not suffice, straight for proper metro. LA could also consider upgrading commuter rail to some S-Bahn or RER like system for longer distance connections.


----------



## etooley1985

Metrolink, which is very vast, should electrify the busiest lines, this is part of the CA high speed rail "blended" plan, or/and the Metrolink Max idea.


Slartibartfas said:


> So I would suggest to go for largely grade seperated light-rail or if that does not suffice, straight for proper metro. LA could also consider upgrading commuter rail to some S-Bahn or RER like system for longer distance connections.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Those MetroLink lines, are they having their own infrastructure or do they have to share tracks with freight rail? And if so, to what extend? 

And would there be a potential for speeding up service? More than 1 and a half hour from Union Station to the about 55 miles distant Riverside seems like there could be potential, given the few stops in between. 

Having the backbone of Metro Link electrified, with at a good and regular frequency and fastened up a bit would be awesome and I suppose compared to any other measures would bring back a lot of PT potential for relatively little money, compared to building expensive stuff like a metro line. And for the long distances on the eastern side of the urban area, this urban heavy rail system would be perfect to begin with.


----------



## etooley1985

*Video: train running under Crenshaw Boulevard*

Video: train running under Crenshaw Boulevard, but just removing soil:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7884GZjalc


----------



## redspork02

Ive been wondered? say the Crenshaw Line LRT heads north and thru La Cienega. WeHO and Santa Monica Blvd.........this is a high density area. I would assume they prefer (want) HRT. 

and how would they make it work at the Hollywood/Highland Station?


----------



## etooley1985

I think they are planning on light rail underground, with a transfer at the Purple and Red lines. I think that the route will follow LaBrea, but some say San Vicente - not sure which one. It would be a continuation of the Crenshaw line, no transfer from that line. It's in Measure M (#27 I think).



redspork02 said:


> Ive been wondered? say the Crenshaw Line LRT heads north and thru La Cienega. WeHO and Santa Monica Blvd.........this is a high density area. I would assume they prefer (want) HRT.
> 
> and how would they make it work at the Hollywood/Highland Station?


----------



## mrsmartman

Light rail should be operated on narrow-gauge ROW.

Otherwise, it doesn't seem like light rail...


----------



## SSMEX

etooley1985 said:


> Metrolink, which is very vast, should electrify the busiest lines, this is part of the CA high speed rail "blended" plan, or/and the Metrolink Max idea.


Considering the cost and difficulty for electrifying the Caltrain corridor, I just don't see Metrolink electrifying soon. Caltrain has dramatically higher ridership that's quickly growing (60k average daily, compared to 11k for the busiest Metrolink line) and even then, electrification isn't remotely possible without HSR funding.

IMO, if/when HSR goes to Anaheim is the best shot for Metrolink to start electrification. As an aside, does Metrolink own any of the track it operates on? The only way Caltrain can electrify its main corridor is because it actually owns the ROW.


----------



## MrAronymous

mrsmartman said:


> Light rail should be operated on narrow-gauge ROW.
> 
> Otherwise, it doesn't seem like light rail...


"We should limit the functionality and practicality by adhering to the self-imposed limits and list of characteristics we put on the ambiguous label."

This exact thinking is why many Americans rarely think outside of the box nowadays. "Light rail" with too wide a tunnel? "Streetcars" on their own right of way? Impossible! .. eventhough it used to be done all the time, and the rest of the world still does. Who cares if something falls in between two self-invented categories? As long as it is fit for the job. 

To be honest, in a region like LA's you should be happy the light rail system has some aspects of a metro, considering the size and importance of the region.


----------



## Slartibartfas

SSMEX said:


> IMO, if/when HSR goes to Anaheim is the best shot for Metrolink to start electrification. As an aside, does Metrolink own any of the track it operates on? The only way Caltrain can electrify its main corridor is because it actually owns the ROW.


I have asked the same before. Who is owning those tracks?
But even if Metrolink doesn't own them. If there were a will, there'd be a way. After all, why would freight rail mind if a track is electrified or not? It doesn't impede diesel freight trains in any way.


----------



## 00Zy99

CSX has issues with SEPTA. The overhead wires create clearance problems, especially around bridges. The live wires are also something that work crews have to deal with and represent an extra system that everybody has to keep an eye on.


----------



## etooley1985

Metrolink owns 125 miles of track, although the line has to be 100% free of freight traffic to convert to electric. Here is a discussion board on that topic:
http://transittalk.proboards.com/thread/1145/metrolink-electrification



Slartibartfas said:


> I have asked the same before. Who is owning those tracks?
> But even if Metrolink doesn't own them. If there were a will, there'd be a way. After all, why would freight rail mind if a track is electrified or not? It doesn't impede diesel freight trains in any way.


----------



## Slartibartfas

00Zy99 said:


> CSX has issues with SEPTA. The overhead wires create clearance problems, especially around bridges. The live wires are also something that work crews have to deal with and represent an extra system that everybody has to keep an eye on.


This sounds very bewildering to me. Don't you have clearance profiles in the US? How can wiring be a problem to any trains if there are proper common standards or are there no generally used common standards?


----------



## 00Zy99

Naturally there are a series of clearance profiles.

The particular issue in the case of CSX and SEPTA is that the lines in question were originally electrified in the 1930s. The arrival of double-stack trains requires a greater height clearance. While the trains do fit, they impinge on the safety envelopes. This is combined with a desire to have separate tracks for the two entities as much as possible in order to avoid the hassle of coordinating dispatchers. 

The double-stack system of containers has made American railroads much more capable of surviving. However, the height of these cars is greater than what was common before, especially on the older lines in the East. Millions of dollars are currently being spent to improve clearances to allow double-stack operation. In some cases this includes daylighting tunnels and turning them into cuts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Avenue_Tunnel


----------



## mrsmartman

Wikipedia said:


> In the early 1990s, Conrail (with money from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) enlarged the Allegheny and New Portage Tunnels to accommodate double-stack container on flatcar (COFC) trains. The New Portage Tunnel was opened for eastbound COFC traffic in 1993. The Allegheny Tunnel was enlarged from its original 1854 cross-section to contain two tracks for that could be used for double-stack traffic in either direction. The work was completed in September 1995, and the Gallitzin Tunnel (which was not enlarged) was taken out of service.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallitzin_Tunnel


----------



## Nexis

00Zy99 said:


> CSX has issues with SEPTA. The overhead wires create clearance problems, especially around bridges. The live wires are also something that work crews have to deal with and represent an extra system that everybody has to keep an eye on.


The only wires that cause issue are the Trolley wires that are low...the West Trenton wires are high enough that they can fit double stacks without issue..


----------



## Slartibartfas

00Zy99 said:


> Naturally there are a series of clearance profiles.
> 
> The particular issue in the case of CSX and SEPTA is that the lines in question were originally electrified in the 1930s. The arrival of double-stack trains requires a greater height clearance. While the trains do fit, they impinge on the safety envelopes. This is combined with a desire to have separate tracks for the two entities as much as possible in order to avoid the hassle of coordinating dispatchers.


That is an incompatibility issue of a pre-existing electrified track on the other side of the country. In how far is it an issue for Los Angeles at a future electrification plan, where these things would certainly be addressed right from the start?

But I agree that sepearting freight from urban passanger rail would be advisable where possible.


----------



## 00Zy99

Nexis said:


> The only wires that cause issue are the Trolley wires that are low...the West Trenton wires are high enough that they can fit double stacks without issue..


Yes, the trains fit, but CSX has made complaints about the wires. They don't think that there is enough of a margin.



Slartibartfas said:


> That is an incompatibility issue of a pre-existing electrified track on the other side of the country. In how far is it an issue for Los Angeles at a future electrification plan, where these things would certainly be addressed right from the start?
> 
> But I agree that sepearting freight from urban passanger rail would be advisable where possible.


The freight railroads seem to be opposed to overhead wires on principle at this point. To have a "proper" overhead wire route, you would need a LOT of clearance. And a fair number of bridges would probably need work.


----------



## Slartibartfas

"On principle" is a pretty bad argument, bridge clearance is already a bit better. But no harm could be done if someone had a closer look what it would take to install overhead wires and what it could achieve. Of course, such a change would have to be paid for by passanger rail agencies, as freight rail certainl has limited interest in partial overhead wires and there is obviously no way they'd gof for electric rail themselves


----------



## 00Zy99

Slartibartfas said:


> "On principle" is a pretty bad argument, bridge clearance is already a bit better.


Maybe I wasn't quite clear. Its the bridge clearance issue that is the source of principle. That and the disruption of construction means that they don't want to deal with the hassle.



> But no harm could be done if someone had a closer look what it would take to install overhead wires and what it could achieve. Of course, such a change would have to be paid for by passanger rail agencies, as freight rail certainl has limited interest in partial overhead wires and there is obviously no way they'd gof for electric rail themselves


People certainly are looking at things:

http://www.solutionaryrail.org/


----------



## Slartibartfas

00Zy99 said:


> Maybe I wasn't quite clear. Its the bridge clearance issue that is the source of principle. That and the disruption of construction means that they don't want to deal with the hassle.


None of these things sound uncircumventable but they do add to the costs of course. If electrification of existing tracks is not any option, one should think about new tracks, possibly largely or entirely along existing corridors. The current MetroLink is a pure commuter rail to date. It could really make a huge difference if it were not merely that but a full blown regional or urban rail with continuous service at least every 30-60 min. Sure, electrified tracks are no precondition for that, but at such a frequency tracks on its own might be necessary anyway. 

I think one should be just as serious about this as about Metro projects. 



> http://www.solutionaryrail.org/


Good initiative, but it doesn't have much to do with California, at least for now, does it?


----------



## 00Zy99

Slartibartfas said:


> None of these things sound uncircumventable but they do add to the costs of course. If electrification of existing tracks is not any option, one should think about new tracks, possibly largely or entirely along existing corridors. The current MetroLink is a pure commuter rail to date. It could really make a huge difference if it were not merely that but a full blown regional or urban rail with continuous service at least every 30-60 min. Sure, electrified tracks are no precondition for that, but at such a frequency tracks on its own might be necessary anyway.
> 
> I think one should be just as serious about this as about Metro projects.


Some of the lines have as many as four tracks, and could probably run at least 30 minute schedules all day.



> Good initiative, but it doesn't have much to do with California, at least for now, does it?


LA is in phase 2. (SW Transcon)


----------



## Kenni

If measure "M" passes this November.


----------



## Nexis

Ive never heard of the "P" line , when did they add that?


----------



## Tower Dude

Long term I think that will be the Vermont avenue subway


----------



## sdery

Is the Red Line extension to Burbank Airport not part of Measure M? No Purple Line extension from the VA Hospital to downtown Santa Monica?


----------



## MarshallKnight

Tower Dude said:


> Long term I think that will be the Vermont avenue subway


It's currently planned as a BRT line, but the language of Measure M preserves the possibility of converting it to rail if ridership outgrows bus capacity (same with the Lincoln BRT and Orange Line + extension).

Personally, whether the Vermont project is Rail or BRT, I think running the northern section along the existing Vermont Red Line is redundant. I'd prefer it to veer up Alvarado through Pico-Union, Westlake (where you can make the same transfer to the Red and Purple lines as you would at Vermont/Wilshire), Echo Park ... and if we're really dreaming, through Silverlake, Atwater and on to Glendale.

If they're considering adding HRT capacity anywhere on the Red Line, why not use that to create a Sunset Line that interlines through Hollywood? Doing that, extending it through West Hollywood and merging with the Purple Line seems like what a proper metro system should do. But since they studied and recommended against HRT through the WeHo corridor some years ago, I'm just beating a dead horse. The meandering LRT Crenshaw extension will have to do.



sdery said:


> Is the Red Line extension to Burbank Airport not part of Measure M? No Purple Line extension from the VA Hospital to downtown Santa Monica?


Neither, sadly. More evidence that the system is broken when the Gold Line extension to Claremont is prioritized over those two projects. The fact that Metro's plan has to satisfy the entire county (the nation's largest!) instead of focusing on the urban core drives me absolutely bonkers.


----------



## Kenni

How do you think the San Fernando Valley feels? :lol: Which by the way holds the bulk of the City of Los Angeles (territory).


mapLACountyLarge by Dennis Sosa-Julé, on Flickr


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ Yeah the Valley has gotten pretty screwed historically (although Valley voters were complicit in that rail ban that only just got lifted). Look no further than the alignment of the Orange Line BRT, when ultra-busy Ventura Blvd is barely a mile to the south. But at least Measure M includes a number of critical, if long-overdue improvements to Valley transit.


----------



## 00Zy99

Tågälskaren said:


> *Investing in light rail can reduce how much people drive – but only for those close to stations.
> *
> Despite the pervasiveness of cars and driving in the US, some cities are pushing public transit projects. But what are the benefits of such projects[...]


Sniffing around that site, I smell political bias. I'm not sure what, but there's something afoot. I don't really trust that too much.


----------



## BoulderGrad

00Zy99 said:


> Sniffing around that site, I smell political bias. I'm not sure what, but there's something afoot. I don't really trust that too much.


Most likely, yes. That's very common anti-transit talking point, and its pretty meaningless. 

Of course it only serves people who live near the stations. That's why stations are generally put in places lots of people go. The train is not meant to substitute for a whole road system. Its meant to be a high capacity means of conveyance through a particular corridor. 

Its better to think of it like a freeway through a particular area. And systems generally have a throughput capacity on the order of a large freeway. But instead of this freeway being over 100-120ft wide, a constant source of noise and emissions, and thus causing a general blight on any area nearby, train tracks are typically only about 25 feet wide, only have a noisy pass thru every 5-10min (and modern systems are a lot quieter than older subways), and generally don't have any emissions associated with them. Plus development tends to flock to train stations rather than retreating from them. 

For a city with nowhere else to expand out, the train is the only transportation option that allows the city to fill in.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Tågälskaren said:


> *Investing in light rail can reduce how much people drive – but only for those close to stations.
> *
> Despite the pervasiveness of cars and driving in the US, some cities are pushing public transit projects. But what are the benefits of such projects[...]


So people are using PT for long distance travel, but not really for shorter trips. That implies that the local structure is still rather suburban with little incentives of walking to stores in reasonable distance or taking a frequently running bus to a sub centre. 

If anything it just shows that here is still a long way to go and urban design as such still has to change. If light rail stops were small sub centers themselves instead of merely being parking lots with a rail platform, with bus lines connecting mid density residential neighbourhoods to them, the mobility pattern would change significantly, but so would the look and the feel of the city. Establishing the long distance network is certainly a start where the rest can build upon though.



> This underlines the importance of dense transit-oriented development in conjunction with transit infrastructure investment.


Indeed it does.


----------



## skyfann

I've got an idea

What is with Free WIFI?


----------



## Tågälskaren

*Anaheim to finish streetcar study
*
Despite overwhelming obstacles and opposition from outside agencies, a City Council majority last week voted to keep alive a vision for a streetcar rumbling 3.2 miles along Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard[...]


----------



## etooley1985

*Measure M Website*

Measure M website link, with highway and transit expansion plans:
http://theplan.metro.net/


----------



## Tågälskaren

*New Video Released about the Foothill Gold Line Light Rail Extension from Glendora to Montclair 
*
MONROVIA, Calif., Sept. 14, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority today released a new and informative video, entitled: "Connections: Foothill Gold Line from Glendora to Montclair - Where Will It Take You?"[...]
*
NEW VIDEO!*


----------



## Kenni

Drove to Union Station yesterday, parked and took the Red Line to the Expo Line to Santa Monica.

I read it takes like 45 minutes, but it felt less.

*Santa Monica Station*










I love what they did from the station down to the pier, and it was a good thing. Business is booming in that sector thanks to Metro and the Expo Line. 




























God! you gotta love LA, the weather, the setting, and....Metro!


----------



## skyfann

Great.

Wonderful beach.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Excellent news... About 21,000 of the 91,000 to attend the Rams home opener at the Coliseum used the Expo line to get to the game. I personally know at least a handful of first time metro users and they loved it
http://thesource.metro.net/2016/09/18/a-big-big-mob-of-fans-rides-expo-to-see-rams-smother-seahawks/


----------



## Kenni

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> Excellent news... About 21,000 of the 91,000 to attend the Rams home opener at the Coliseum used the Expo line to get to the game. I personally know at least a handful of first time metro users and they loved it
> http://thesource.metro.net/2016/09/18/a-big-big-mob-of-fans-rides-expo-to-see-rams-smother-seahawks/







































Fotos: Metro


----------



## etooley1985

*Metro Moves Up Date for Possible Northern Extension of Crenshaw/LAX Line*

From http://www.wehoville.com/2016/09/17/60432/

The campaign to secure an extension of the Metro rail line through West Hollywood got a major boost yesterday with Metro agreeing to take the steps necessary to start working on plans that would allow work on a northern extension of the Crenshaw/LAX line as early as 2020.

In a letter to City Councilmember Lindsey Horvath, Phil Washington, CEO of the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, outlined several steps Metro is taking to make the Crenshaw/LAX northern extension “shovel ready” should county voters approve Measure M. Measure M is a proposition on the November ballot that would permanently increase the countywide sales tax from 9% to 9.5%. It is projected to raise $860 million a year, with $1.9 billion spent on regional rail and $29.9 billion spent on bus and rail operations. Horvath and Councilmember John Heilman are on a Council subcommittee working on the Metro project.

The steps Washington mentioned include completing a feasibility study that is currently underway by June 2017, proceeding with a study of alternative routes for the northern extension in 2017 and developing an environmental impact report on the preferred route in 2018. The extension would connect the Crenshaw/LAX line with the Hollywood/Highland Red Line station in Hollywood.

The northern extension has been part of Metro’s plan for use of proceeds from the Measure M tax increase. However construction of that project had been forecast to begin some time from 2041 to 2047, with other Westside projects such as a tunnel through the Sepulveda Pass and completion of the Purple Line subway to the VA West Los Angeles Medical Center projected to begin earlier.

“Investment in bringing Metro rail to West Hollywood is exactly what our community deserves,” Horvath said in an email to WEHOville. “I am grateful to everyone who made the commitment from Metro possible. This is great news for anyone who’s ever wanted to get out of traffic congestion and avoid dealing with parking. Not only is West Hollywood the most walkable city in California, we are also on track to providing yet another transportation alternative for our community.”

In a message to City Council members, senior city planner Joanna Hankamer said that completion of technical studies by 2020 would leave the northern extension of the Crenshaw/LAX Line “well-positioned to receive additional funding for construction. Phil Washington has previously identified the types of additional funding opportunities that would expedite construction, such as a local tax measure, state and federal grants and financing, and/or public/private partnerships…”

It is not certain that Metro ultimately will agree to route the northern extension through West Hollywood. Metro’s original budget for the extension assumed it would run from San Vicente and then along La Brea Avenue on WeHo’s eastern border to the Hollywood/Highland Red Line station, for a total of six miles. But Fehr & Peers, a consultant hired by the city, presented data to argue that running the extension from San Vicente to Santa Monica Boulevard for nine miles will better benefit West Hollywood and Metro by increasing ridership by more than 300%. Other options considered by Metro are running the extension from San Vicente to Fairfax Avenue and on to the Hollywood/Highland Red Line station and ending the extension at the Wilshire/Vermont Red Line station.

However, Horvath said she believes West Hollywood will have an impact on Metro’s ultimate decision. “West Hollywood will have a strong voice in determining the preferred alignment, along with the All on Board Coalition and other community stakeholders, during the county process which is now slated to begin mid-2017,” she said, referring to a coalition backed by the city that is lobbying for the extension through West Hollywood.









City of West Hollywood flyer promoting Crenshaw Line Extension.


----------



## subbotazh

*Light rail extension to West Hollywood might happen much sooner than planned*
....










....

http://la.curbed.com/2016/9/20/12990534/west-hollywood-public-transit-crenshaw-line-extension-


----------



## Tågälskaren

*Anaheim City Council Won’t Bury Streetcar Plan*

Ignoring the wishes of Mayor Tom Tait, the Anaheim City Council voted last week to pursue its study of a streetcar line connecting the California city’s transit center with the resort area around Disneyland to its conclusion[...]


----------



## MarshallKnight

Hey guys -- this is turning into a semi-annual tradition I guess, but I've done some further tinkering with my LA Metro "dream map," refining it to incorporate some Measure M projects that were previously left out... but as before I've taken plenty of liberties as well.

This is obviously not a representation of what LA is building, although I think it's a fair representation of what a truly ambitious LA _should_ be, or maybe more precisely_ could have been _building by now if 1) the original rail system hadn't been wholly dismantled in the middle of the last Century, and 2) Metro were organized in such a way that it could put the urban core of the Metro first.

Worth noting that the urban core (that is, the area between DTLA and Westwood, bounded roughly by the Hollywood Hills to the North, and 10 Freeway to the South) has been magnified, while outlying areas have been shrunk fairly significantly. Assume everything within the urban core will be underground or otherwise grade-separated. Most of the outlying lines follow existing ROWs that could be easily separated, or are highway/freeway-running.

Also, the letter/numbering system doesn't quite match up with what's currently being proposed, but I think it works to keep track of what's here: numbers for the 7 HRT lines and letters for the 14 LRT lines. Also, many of the lines are super long and could easily be broken up, but for the purposes of this visualization I left them very long... if you're curious, the longest line appears to be close to 70 miles.

MasterMetro 4 by Marshall Knight, on Flickr


----------



## etooley1985

Great map! I love it.


MarshallKnight said:


> Hey guys -- this is turning into a semi-annual tradition I guess, but I've done some further tinkering with my LA Metro "dream map," refining it to incorporate some Measure M projects that were previously left out... but as before I've taken plenty of liberties as well.
> 
> This is obviously not a representation of what LA is building, although I think it's a fair representation of what a truly ambitious LA _should_ be, or maybe more precisely_ could have been _building by now if 1) the original rail system hadn't been wholly dismantled in the middle of the last Century, and 2) Metro were organized in such a way that it could put the urban core of the Metro first.
> 
> Worth noting that the urban core (that is, the area between DTLA and Westwood, bounded roughly by the Hollywood Hills to the North, and 10 Freeway to the South) has been magnified, while outlying areas have been shrunk fairly significantly. Assume everything within the urban core will be underground or otherwise grade-separated. Most of the outlying lines follow existing ROWs that could be easily separated, or are highway/freeway-running.
> 
> Also, the letter/numbering system doesn't quite match up with what's currently being proposed, but I think it works to keep track of what's here: numbers for the 7 HRT lines and letters for the 14 LRT lines. Also, many of the lines are super long and could easily be broken up, but for the purposes of this visualization I left them very long... if you're curious, the longest line appears to be close to 70 miles.
> 
> MasterMetro 4 by Marshall Knight, on Flickr


----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...algo-to-refurbish-la-metro-rolling-stock.html
> 
> *Talgo to refurbish LA Metro rolling stock*
> 27 Sep 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USA: Meeting on September 22, the board of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority agreed to award Spanish rolling stock manufacturer Talgo a contract to refurbish up to 74 rail vehicles for $73m.
> 
> Awarded to the company’s US subsidiary Patentes Talgo Inc, the contract contains a firm order for 38 cars at a cost of $55m, plus an option for a further 36 units for $18m. Contract signature is expected within the next few weeks
> 
> ...


----------



## Lemanic

MarshallKnight said:


> MasterMetro 4 by Marshall Knight, on Flickr


Have you posted it on various sub-reddits for more feedback?


----------



## okcnaline

Blegh... They went with a European company again. And the orders to European companies within 20 years always had some problems. Siemens came late, AnsaldoBreda overweight and REALLY late. I wonder, why is it never Kawasaki? They make great EMUs like the SP1900 and E231.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Metro Will Add More Trains To Expo Line To Cut Down On Overcrowding

http://laist.com/2016/09/28/more_trains_for_expo.php


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^

This quote from the article is more than just strange: 



> There's also a possibility that the two-car trains will become three-car trains. But experts have warned that adding more capacity doesn't always cut down on overcrowding; it may simply lead more people taking the train, which defeats the original purpose of adding more room.


No it does NOT defeat the purpose of adding more room which is to increase capacity of the trains. If that additional capacity is actually needed that does not defeat the purpose it supports it. Those "experts" must be thinking in car traffic dimensions as they are basically saying, "Add more trains and the people are going to rush to use them to their max." 

A light rail has substantial expansion potential, road crossings can be fully optimized so that trains never have to wait, frequency can be improved substantially and if even the 3-car trains are not enough, a more substantial upgrade of the line to 4-car trains should be seriously considered. I hope they built the line so that such a scenario can be realized without too great obstacles. 

And if all of that still does not satisfy the demand, speed up construction of parallel lines.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...-for-la-light-rail-extension.html?channel=535
> 
> *Conceptual design completed for LA light rail extension*
> Friday, September 30, 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _THE extension of the Los Angeles light rail network to Montclair moved a step closer to construction on September 28, when the board of the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority approved draft advanced conceptual engineering documents for the 19.8km line from Azusa_
> 
> Work began on this phase of the project in autumn 2014 and has taken 35,000 hours to complete at a cost of $US 15m. Draft documents will now be distributed to local councils along the route as well as Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (LACMTA), Metrolink, and San Bernardino Associated Governments for a 60-day consultation
> 
> ...


----------



## Nouvellecosse

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^
> 
> This quote from the article is more than just strange:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does NOT defeat the purpose of adding more room which is to increase capacity of the trains. If that additional capacity is actually needed that does not defeat the purpose it supports it. Those "experts" must be thinking in car traffic dimensions as they are basically saying, "Add more trains and the people are going to rush to use them to their max."
> 
> A light rail has substantial expansion potential, road crossings can be fully optimized so that trains never have to wait, frequency can be improved substantially and if even the 3-car trains are not enough, a more substantial upgrade of the line to 4-car trains should be seriously considered. I hope they built the line so that such a scenario can be realized without too great obstacles.
> 
> And if all of that still does not satisfy the demand, speed up construction of parallel lines.


Yes they probably were thinking in terms of cars, because with car traffic the equivalent of overcrowding is congestion, which means everything slows down. So if the intention is to keep things moving efficiently, simply adding roadspace won't accomplish this for long. But of course with a rail system, crowding doesn't tend to slow things down that much, if at all (maybe require a few extra seconds dwell time at some stops?) 

People might find crowded trains less comfortable, but obviously they still must consider it tolerable. "Nobody takes the train anymore because i's too crowded!" lol


----------



## SpiderBHZ

When I visite LA last year I not only rented a car but used the public transpor as well. Very efficient by the way. The problem with the city is the huge size of the metropolitan area. The distance covered by the 460 Metro, for instance, is insane. 2 hours from Disneyland to the downtown area is something for the braves! hahaha


----------



## Slartibartfas

Disneyland to Union Station can be done in 70 min with merely one transfer, according to Google maps (compared to 30-40 min car drive off peak and up to an hour during peak traffic). And the bus connections to Fullerton or Anaheim station are not so bad after all, from a first glance. If only commuter rail were a proper urban rail, S-Bahn or RER style. Those 70 min could be offered as frequently as every 15 min. That would be a competitive offer IMHO. 

But it isn't and therefore this is only an option if you time your travels carefully. I'd say one could compare it to regional train frequency in Europe on rural main corridors.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Lemanic said:


> Have you posted it on various sub-reddits for more feedback?


Hey I actually did query the "Imaginary Maps" sub and got some good feedback; here is the updated version. The biggest revisions are: 


Connecting several of lines at the West Corona Metrolink station, effectively closing a loop around the Chino Hills


Pretending that Beach City NIMBYs don't exist, and routing a line along Valley and the PCH through Manhattan, Hermosa and Redondo


Making some big assumptions about inter-county cooperation, an extending several lines deep into Orange County along the PCH, 405, 55 and Harbor
 

MasterMetro 4 by Marshall Knight, on Flickr


----------



## etooley1985

Thank you for stops in Silverlake, my hood on the LAX line.


----------



## 00Zy99

Still rather confusing.

When labeling a line in the legend, put the name of the station it ends at, otherwise people will be looking for something they can't find. Case in point- is the (A Long Beach-Chino). Where is the Chino station? Put West Corona instead.


----------



## oscaldd

^^^^^^:nuts:


----------



## etooley1985

*Crenshaw line construction photos: Leimert Park*

Crenshaw line construction photos: Leimert Park station:



















from the Crenshaw/LAX line Facebook page


----------



## etooley1985

*Division 20 from the roof of One Gateway Plaza*

Division 20 from the roof of One Gateway Plaza:








from Alex Heschong of‎ Fans of Los Angeles Metro Rail


----------



## Dan78

MarshallKnight said:


> Hey I actually did query the "Imaginary Maps" sub and got some good feedback; here is the updated version. The biggest revisions are:
> 
> 
> Connecting several of lines at the West Corona Metrolink station, effectively closing a loop around the Chino Hills
> 
> 
> Pretending that Beach City NIMBYs don't exist, and routing a line along Valley and the PCH through Manhattan, Hermosa and Redondo
> 
> 
> Making some big assumptions about inter-county cooperation, an extending several lines deep into Orange County along the PCH, 405, 55 and Harbor


Some things I like: 
1). One-seat LAX to Downtown LA rail service. kay:
2). "Airport to Airport" Heavy-Rail Service (Your lines 3, 6 and 7). :cheers:
3). Heavy-Rail Extension to Arts District instead of current termination at Union Station.
4). Downtown Core of LA east of the current Red/Purple line stations not totally ignored as in many LA plans (your new service at Fashion District and Broadway Theaters).
5). Special-events service for Hollywood Bowl and Rose Bowl.
6). Rail Service between the San Fernando Valley and Pasadena.
7). Direct Heavy-Rail Service between Downtown LA and the San Gabriel Valley communities.
8). One-seat Heavy Rail service between Glendale and Downtown LA.
9). Sepulveda Line (desperately needed).

What I might have done differently:
1). Had lines 2 and 7 under Bel Air make intermediate stops at Getty Center and Mulholland (closer to the 405).
2). Run the Red/Purple line from the Arts District to Commerce (the Current Metrolink Station) and convert this section from Metrolink only to hybrid Metrolink/Metro.
3). Run your line 5 from its terminus at Cruise Center to Ports O' Call in lieu of your M and Q lines (terminate these at Cruise Center instead).


----------



## Lemanic

MarshallKnight said:


> Hey I actually did query the "Imaginary Maps" sub and got some good feedback; here is the updated version. The biggest revisions are:
> 
> 
> Connecting several of lines at the West Corona Metrolink station, effectively closing a loop around the Chino Hills
> 
> 
> Pretending that Beach City NIMBYs don't exist, and routing a line along Valley and the PCH through Manhattan, Hermosa and Redondo
> 
> 
> Making some big assumptions about inter-county cooperation, an extending several lines deep into Orange County along the PCH, 405, 55 and Harbor


As an outsider, tourist, yada yada, here's some suggestions regarding some lines.

- Make a line that connects Disneyland/Anaheim Convention Centre to LAX, Hollywood, Burbank Studio City, CalArts and Six Flags Magic Mountain. Every animation fan and student would love that.

- OC to Santa Monica alongside the sea asap!


----------



## Brystar27

When I was in Los Angeles in August 2015 for vacations, i used the Metro to get around while it took a bit longer to get to places i say to me i actually liked it. I didn't rented a car at all, and to me it was for the better.

I am so happy that the Santa Monica Line opened as well its sad i wasn't there when it was operating but i am glad to see its being well received along with the foothill extension as well.

I been to Universal Studios Hollywood using the Red line of the metro, i have yet to go on Metrolink but the next time i go to Los Angeles i want to ride on all the lines eventually and go to many different places in Los Angeles and its surrounding counties.


----------



## redspork02

Decking at future *Wilshire/La Brea *subway station finished six weeks ahead of schedule

http://thesource.metro.net/2016/10/...station-finished-six-weeks-ahead-of-schedule/









_The decking that is now covering Wilshire Boulevard with other equipment.._










_Construction equipment atop the decking._


_by Dave Sotero , October 17, 2016 _

Weekend street closures at Wilshire Boulevard and La Brea Avenue for construction of the Purple Line subway extension have been completed six weeks earlier than scheduled, Metro and its contractor Skanska, Traylor, Shea, A Joint Venture (STS) announced today.

The decking operation included excavating a portion of Wilshire Boulevard and replacing it with concrete deck panels that will act as a temporary street surface while underground station excavation continues below.









_The construction yard at the future Wilshire/Fairfax Station._

•Deck panel installation was originally scheduled to occur over 22 consecutive weekends starting June 10. However, Metro and STS were able to expedite work through a combination of strategies, including early lane reductions on Fridays and close coordination with elected officials, community stakeholders and city departments.

•Future construction work at *Wilshire/La Brea *will include station excavation, deck openings for deliveries and street restoration. Utility work will continue behind concrete barriers on Wilshire Boulevard and may require occasional short-term directional closures on upcoming weekends. 

•Progress is also being made at *Wilshire/Fairfax*, the second planned subway station for the project’s first section. STS has begun piling operations, which will require some lane reductions for the next several weekends. The decking operation is scheduled to take place over 18 weekends and will follow a format similar to *Wilshire/La Brea*. The decking is expected to begin as early as January.

•Work also continues at the third and final *Wilshire/La Cienega *station site that is part of the project’s first construction phase. STS is finalizing utility relocation work and demolishing buildings needed to create two construction staging yards for that station. 

The 3.9-mile first phase of the Purple Line Extension will extend the subway from its current terminus at *Wilshire/Western *to *Wilshire/La Cienega *with stations at *Wilshire/La Brea *and *Wilshire/Fairfax*. The section is fiscal year 2023-25. Two additional construction phases are also planned that will ultimately continue the subway extension nine miles to *Westwood/VA *Hospital in the coming years. The Purple Line Extension is funded by Measure R and a federal grant.









_Metro Board Chair John Fasana at this morning’s press event. Photos by Gary Leonard for Metro._


----------



## redspork02

"lowering ceremony" was held today. The new TBM named "Angeli" was introduced to the public for the regional connector in Little Tokyo.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Metro has announced that beginning 2016.10.24, Expo Line trains will have peak headways throughout the day. That is, from 6 am to 8 pm on weekdays, trains will run every six minutes.

http://thesource.metro.net/2016/10/19/expo-line-6-min-service/

For some reason, they even published a very detailed timetable showing these 6-minute frequencies, meaning the timetable shows when the trains will call at each Expo Line station along the route. Timetable should have been limited to times outside the 6 am-8 pm weekday hours. I mean, who is going to use a timetable when it runs every six minutes? Just show up at the station and a train will come pick you up after a few minutes. To their credit, they shortened the timetable somewhat by not including the detailed timings between 11 am and 3 pm and placing a note stating "TRIPS SCHEDULED EVERY 6 MINUTES" in the gap.

Detailed timetable is here:

https://media.metro.net/riding_metro/bus_overview/images/806-EXPO_10-23-16.pdf

Horrible design. Evening timings are very far down compared to the corresponding station names in the headers - very user-friendly.

What's more, there's a notice at the bottom of the schedule:

"ALL TRIPS ARE SUBJECT TO OPERATE 2 MINUTES EARLY/LATE OF PRINTED SCHEDULE TIMES."

So "every six minutes give or take four minutes" is the actual headway.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Woonsocket54 said:


> So "every six minutes give or take four two minutes" is the actual headway.


It can't be late if it's early (vice versa)


----------



## Woonsocket54

phoenixboi08 said:


> It can't be late if it's early (vice versa)


No, you could still have trains in intervals between 2 and 10 minutes.

Suppose trains are scheduled to come at 12:30 and 12:36, but they can be two minutes late or two minutes early, per schedule.

So if the 12:30 arrives at 12:28 (2 minutes early) and the 12:36 arrives at 12:38 (2 minutes late), then it's a 10-minute headway (12:28-12:38).

But if the 12:30 arrives at 12:32 (2 minutes late) and the 12:36 arrives at 12:34 (2 minutes early), then it's a 2-minute headway (12:32-12:34).

That's what I meant by "every six minutes give or take four minutes."


----------



## blackcat23

Metro study could lead to new train stations in Glendale and Northeast L.A.

Also, increased frequency along the Metrolink corridor between Union Station and Burbank Airport, but not necessarily operated by Metrolink trains.


----------



## etooley1985

*Leimert Park Tunnel one completed*

Harriet, the tunnel boring machine drilling the future Crenshaw/LAX train line completed the first of two journeys through Leimert Park today, and Metro photographer Steve Hymon was there to capture the moment.

Metro CEO Phil Washington used the first tunnel’s completion as an opportunity to announce that the contractor working on the Crenshaw/LAX line has agreed to undertake the construction of a possible additional stop at Aviation and 96th Street that would allow passengers to connect to the future people mover shuttle planned for LAX. The environmental review for that potential station has yet to be concluded.

Construction on the Crenshaw/LAX Line is now more than halfway complete and Metro hopes the project will be complete by 2019.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Metro receives 50th new light rail vehicle from Kinkisharyo*"

http://thesource.metro.net/2016/10/24/metro-receives-50th-new-light-rail-vehicle-from-kinkisharyo/


















Los Angeles mayor


----------



## MarshallKnight

etooley1985 said:


> Thank you for stops in Silverlake, my hood on the LAX line.





00Zy99 said:


> When labeling a line in the legend, put the name of the station it ends at, otherwise people will be looking for something they can't find. Case in point- is the (A Long Beach-Chino). Where is the Chino station? Put West Corona instead.





Dan78 said:


> Some things I like:
> 1). One-seat LAX to Downtown LA rail service. kay:
> 2). "Airport to Airport" Heavy-Rail Service (Your lines 3, 6 and 7). :cheers:
> 3). Heavy-Rail Extension to Arts District instead of current termination at Union Station.
> 4). Downtown Core of LA east of the current Red/Purple line stations not totally ignored as in many LA plans (your new service at Fashion District and Broadway Theaters).
> 5). Special-events service for Hollywood Bowl and Rose Bowl.
> 6). Rail Service between the San Fernando Valley and Pasadena.
> 7). Direct Heavy-Rail Service between Downtown LA and the San Gabriel Valley communities.
> 8). One-seat Heavy Rail service between Glendale and Downtown LA.
> 9). Sepulveda Line (desperately needed).
> 
> What I might have done differently:
> 1). Had lines 2 and 7 under Bel Air make intermediate stops at Getty Center and Mulholland (closer to the 405).
> 2). Run the Red/Purple line from the Arts District to Commerce (the Current Metrolink Station) and convert this section from Metrolink only to hybrid Metrolink/Metro.
> 3). Run your line 5 from its terminus at Cruise Center to Ports O' Call in lieu of your M and Q lines (terminate these at Cruise Center instead).





Lemanic said:


> As an outsider, tourist, yada yada, here's some suggestions regarding some lines.
> 
> - Make a line that connects Disneyland/Anaheim Convention Centre to LAX, Hollywood, Burbank Studio City, CalArts and Six Flags Magic Mountain. Every animation fan and student would love that.
> 
> - OC to Santa Monica alongside the sea asap!


Hey guys, thanks for all the great feedback on this admittedly fairly silly time-sink of a project. I've done an update that I think incorporates many of the best ideas I've gotten here and on Reddit. 

I'll just post the Reddit link here instead of re-posting a huge image and further derailing (yes, I said it) this thread about _real_ Metro developments.

...speaking of which, the new 6-minute Expo headways are effing amazing.


----------



## JHPart

Hello, your imaginary rail transport map for Los Angeles is looking interesting. It would be nice, if they could build a lot of your lines. One question. There are actual some bus rapid transit lines. They have the same kind of colors and names than the actual Metro Rail Lines. You replace them by light rail or they will still exist aside?

Maybe I can give you some more inspiration. As artist, I draw since a long time imaginary city and public transport maps. It is often very imaginary and not based on a real city. I ad often ideas of the organisation of good public transport systems in my maps. If you like to see my maps, you can look for my website www.jeroenhollander.eu.


----------



## Tågälskaren

*Final say on proposed light rail station connecting LAX people mover*

Starting Wednesday, residents will have a final chance to have their say on the proposed light rail station connecting Los Angeles International Airport’s planned people mover with the Crenshaw/LAX and Green lines[...]


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Metro installs new safety measures at Blue Line Stations in Long Beach, Compton*"

http://www.presstelegram.com/genera...s-at-blue-line-stations-in-long-beach-compton









Metro is improving safety at 27 intersections through the cities of Los Angeles, Compton and Long Beach at a cost of $30 million. The most visible upgrades are pedestrian gates, and swing gates shown here, to slow pedestrians before they walk across the tracks. (Photo by Brittany Murray, Press Telegram/SCNG)

more photos here: http://thesource.metro.net/2016/11/...e-pedestrian-and-vehicle-safety-improvements/


----------



## Woonsocket54

An underground connection is being constructed between the Bloc outdoor shopping center and the 7th/Metro Center metro station.

http://thesource.metro.net/2016/11/...-panel-between-the-bloc-and-7thmetro-station/

Update on efforts to expand cell-phone services to underground metro sections

http://thesource.metro.net/2016/11/...mers-now-available-in-dtla-on-redpurple-line/


----------



## bighomey3000

Measure M has passed with 69.82% saying yes and 100% of votes counted! 

www.lavote.net/election-results#year=2016&election=3496


----------



## Swede

Great! And with time the GOP control of the federal government might go away and there might actually be federal funds coming to help speed things up.


----------



## redspork02

YES! Congratulations! SO COOL! SO PROUD! 

Now we have to keep Metro accountable, on time and on budget! Lets get shovels going! 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://la.curbed.com/2016/11/9/13573924/measure-m-los-angeles-public-transit-results

*Measure M: Angelenos vote to tax themselves for better public transit*









_Riders board the Red Line _

A large majority of Los Angeles voters approved a permanent sales tax increase to fund a major expansion of the county’s public transit system. 

Measure M required two-thirds of voters to approve it, and handily achieved this goal, with almost 70 percent voting yes. 

*By adding a countywide half-cent increase to the sales tax*—which will increase to one-cent when the existing Measure R tax expires in 2039—*Measure M will bring in $860 million annually for decades*. This money will fund transportation projects which *will dramatically transform the region, including a rail line to LAX, a subway under the Sepulveda Pass, and a Purple Line extension to Westwood.*
Additionally, Measure M will pay for much-needed sidewalk improvements, pothole repairs, cycling infrastructure, bike share expansion, and a network of greenways. 

To envision how much of a change that Angelenos will see on their streets, Investing in Place notes that up to 8 percent of Measure M’s funds will go towards walking and biking investments, compared to the 1 percent allocated to walking and biking in LA’s current transportation spending.

Although Measure M had a large coalition of support, South Bay leaders opposed it because it did not bring enough investment to their region.

Over the last few weeks, Mayor Eric Garcetti campaigned heavily for the measure, and positioned its passage as key to the city’s future. As he told the Los Angeles Times last night: “There is nothing to be depressed about in Los Angeles when we wake up tomorrow.”


----------



## etooley1985

Mesmerizing gif shows how much LA’s transit network will grow under Measure M











From CurbedLA


----------



## Slartibartfas

So there was something positive coming out of the election day. Congratulations. These are great news for Los Angeles, at least in the mid-term ultralong-term.


----------



## towerpower123

The expanded Transit Map of Los Angeles Metro looks like a fantasy map, rather than something that is now actually possible, in Los Angeles no less!!!!


----------



## Nexis

If only the East Coast cities had something like Measure M....I wish more states and regions would become self-sustaining in terms of funding...then we wouldn't worry who was in the White House...


----------



## aquamaroon

So, yes, Measure M passed!! I had an emoji party planned for this moment if it won. Given the rest of last night's results (as a liberal) I didn't have the heart to post it or think of much of anything. But now...

:dance:
:banana: :banana:


----------



## aquamaroon

I posted this in the 2024 games thread but I think it may be of interest here. Here is a quick map I whipped up showing the main clusters/locations of the 2024 games in relation to the mass transit made possible by measure M:










Two sites off of these clusters that are worth mentioning are the Rose Bowl, slightly off the "A" line in Pasadena, and the Honda Center in Orange County which will be used for Volleyball, and which is near the Anaheim ARTIC rail station. There also Dodger stadium by its lonesome off sunset blvd., but that's a topic for another time . Anyways hope you enjoy!


----------



## pesto

Glad that we are getting transit. But remember this also hurts retail spending and people's ability to buy homes, invest, start businesses, etc. The net positive effect of M is microscopic compared to the benefits of, say, Trump's education reform proposals (among several others). 

LA in particular has schools so bad and teachers' unions so powerful and regressive that it makes getting out of LAUSD or close to private schools a priority in looking for housing. A nationally renowned education prof has called it "the most regressive educational institution in the world" even including the Middle East.

So, for sure, stay happy; but keep your eye on what makes the country richer, since that is the ultimate driver or everything else.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Oh, please. 

This is a public transport infrastructure thread, so maybe that explains why so little attention is given to the education system here ...
And what does Trump have to do with Public transportation in LA, other that the city can probably forget about federal money for light rail or subway expansion?


----------



## JHPart

The plans for better public transport are looking interesting.

Today, it is very expensive to invest in more road ´s and highways in big cities. There is often no place and tunnels and bridges are expensive. So it is also for economic reasons better to invest in a good public transport.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Swede said:


> Great! And with time the GOP control of the federal government might go away and there might actually be federal funds coming to help speed things up.


Interestingly enough, Trump is a big proponent of infrastructure building... now, does that mean highways and freeways? with the republicans in charge, no doubt. Fortunately, Metro got plenty of proposals for PPP's to accelerate and build several of the lines, most importantly the Sepulveda line


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

pesto said:


> Glad that we are getting transit. But remember this also hurts retail spending and people's ability to buy homes, invest, start businesses, etc. The net positive effect of M is microscopic compared to the benefits of, say, Trump's education reform proposals (among several others).
> 
> LA in particular has schools so bad and teachers' unions so powerful and regressive that it makes getting out of LAUSD or close to private schools a priority in looking for housing. A nationally renowned education prof has called it "the most regressive educational institution in the world" even including the Middle East.
> 
> So, for sure, stay happy; but keep your eye on what makes the country richer, since that is the ultimate driver or everything else.


this is the biggest pile of shit ive read here in a long long time. "Hurts" retail spending...ya that 30 dollar average increase is REALLY gonna hurt. How about the increased mobility? how about the reduction in car payments and discretionary income that will now go to retail?


----------



## jay stew

I said this before and I'll say it again, I'm glad to see a U.S. city (L.A. nonetheless) finally getting its shit together on public transportation.


----------



## Natorious

I hope they'll spend the money aswell upgrading the traffic lights, so that the trains get priority a lot more. There are plenty of crossings where trains need to wait a couple of seconds up to a minute.

Besides, I just love the fact that finally LA is getting a dense network of mass-transportation. That will increase ridership all across existing lines as well.


----------



## CCs77

So, Measure M passed.
It is supposed to bring new projects AND accelerate existing ones, isn't it?

Can someone enumerate what are the specific new projects Measure M will bring? (meaning which projects would not be build if measure M have not passed)
And which previous projects is expected to accelerate.


----------



## MarshallKnight

CCs77 said:


> So, Measure M passed.
> It is supposed to bring new projects AND accelerate existing ones, isn't it?
> 
> Can someone enumerate what are the specific new projects Measure M will bring? (meaning which projects would not be build if measure M have not passed)
> And which previous projects is expected to accelerate.


It's a little complicated to answer, but the best thing to do is look at Metro's Long Range Plan (pdf) from 2009. They include a laundry list of projects both funded (by Measure R and other grants) and unfunded at that time.



















So basically, you can cross-reference the projects in that map above with those two charts to see what was already planned/at least partially funded through Measure R, and what's been added with Measure M. (It's basically the "Tier 1" category in the unfunded section)


----------



## Woonsocket54

There is also a list here:

http://thesource.metro.net/2016/11/08/measure-m-project-descriptions/


----------



## aquamaroon

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> Interestingly enough, Trump is a big proponent of infrastructure building... now, does that mean highways and freeways? with the republicans in charge, no doubt. Fortunately, Metro got plenty of proposals for PPP's to accelerate and build several of the lines, most importantly the Sepulveda line


For sure any infrastructure bills coming out of this congress will be focused on highways and not on subways and light rail. This would still be a good thing for the LA metro though. Ideally, the highway improvements that are part of Measure M could be funded by federal sources, and the Measure M funds that were earmarked for the highway projects can instead be redirected to accelerate the completion of the rail projects. Sadly I think the most likely outcome is that LA is on its own and can't look to the feds for any significant infrastructure improvement money. As you say though, with PPP programs, that alone can speed things up quite a bit (hopefully people won't mind paying tolls at the Sepulveda tunnel though!)


----------



## JHPart

But I think, it is also for economic reasons better to invest in good public transport. It is very expensive to build new highwaýs and freewaýs in the large urban areas. If you like to decrease trafic jams, you need public transport.


----------



## etooley1985

*Crenshaw/LAX Line construction*

One of the tunnels under Crenshaw Boulevard taking shape.









Removing the formwork at the Crenshaw/Expo Station.









Beginning excavation for a side structure at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Station, which will be underground.









Work on a column at the Leimert Park underground station.









Installing rebar for a column at Leimert Park Station.









Work on the walls of the segment between Leimert Park Station and the portal to the tunnel.









Work on Crenshaw Boulevard north of 54th Street in Park Mesa Heights.









The placement of deck beams and deck panels south of 63rd Street for a section of the line that will be below street level.









Excavation and lagging work between 60th and 63rd on the cut-and-cover section.









Work on the station platform for the Fairview Heights Station.









Work on one of the earthen walls leading to the bridge over La Brea Avenue.









Work on the La Brea Bridge.









Another view of the La Brea Bridge.









Falsework for the rail bridge that will span the 405.









More work on the 405 bridge superstructure.









Westchester Station.









A look at the alignment north of Manchester Boulevard.









Work on anchoring the galvanized reinforcement straps for a section of the alignment north of Manchester.









Work on the bridge that will span Manchester Boulevard.









Some preliminary work on the 96th Street Station, which will be built as a separate project. The station will serve as the transfer point to the future LAX people mover serving the passenger terminals.









Work on the bridge that will span Century Boulevard adjacent to Aviation Boulevard.









Another view of the Aviation/Century Bridge.

















The cut-and-cover segment east of the south runway at LAX.









Concrete cure for the cut-cover segment next to LAX.









Working on the exterior of the bridge structure at 111th Street.









Work on the structure that will carry the tracks toward the Green Line.









The ramp that will carry the new tracks toward a junction with the Green Line tracks.









From The Source


----------



## Kenni

It's impressive, we've taxed ourselves...what? twice with this one? For mass transit. Commendable Los Angeles, absolutely commendable. (Of course I voted "YES")


----------



## etooley1985

*Financing*

This is tax #4 for Los Angeles County, although when R expires, M will be raised to make up the percent lost by R. https://www.metro.net/about/financebudget/taxes/

A and C have restrictions that they not be spent on "subway" construction.



Kenni said:


> It's impressive, we've taxed ourselves...what? twice with this one? For mass transit. Commendable Los Angeles, absolutely commendable. (Of course I voted "YES")


----------



## starrwulfe

I lived just down the road from where La Brea/Downtown Inglewood station is. Used to follow those railroad tracks from Centinela to Market to get to school. Finally the promises have been fulfilled


----------



## Slartibartfas

A recent editorial about PT expansion and gentrification. I think it contains some valid points. 

This is not an argument against PT expansion, not even against a moderate form of gentrification but one against excessive developments, which arise from a lack of regulation (I know, that is a dirty word in the US) or planning. That Metro requires from developpers to develop 35% of their flats for low income people is exactly the right thing to do. A good balance between gentrification and not pushing out all low income inhabitants, which are also those who need PT the most. Without municipal action however, this affects only a small share of PT near property. 

Measure M projects are still somewhat away, it is time to plan the complimentary tools already now. 


*Los Angeles Times - Will Measure M lead to gentrification and displacement across L.A. County?*


----------



## Tower Dude

The whole Rail to Rail/River Active Transportation Corridor Project confuses me are they going to make it something like the Orange line with a bike path or is it going solely a bike and pedestrian path. I looked it up on Metro's information Page but it was fairly vague about what it defined as "Transportation". Just wanted to see if any one has more knowledge or input about this matter.


----------



## MarshallKnight

It's essentially just a biking/walking path -- "active transportation" is one of those buzzwords for health-focused urban planning. But since Metro will retain ownership of the ROW there's hope it could later be upgraded with bus or rail service. If there's ever going to be directly LAX-DTLA service it will almost definitely have to go that way.


----------



## Kenni

[ARTICLE]

L.A. Is Finally Getting a Transit System to Rival New York’s

Los Angeles Magazine


----------



## etooley1985

*A look at some of the ongoing work on the Purple Line Extension’s future Wilshire/La Brea Station*

Installation of tie backs.









Workers unloading lagging.









Wiring for a water treatment system at the Wilshire/La Brea yard.









Excavating, lagging, muck shaft - looking East.









Excavating a muck shaft.









from The Source


----------



## krnboy1009

Kenni said:


> [ARTICLE]
> 
> L.A. Is Finally Getting a Transit System to Rival New York’s
> 
> Los Angeles Magazine


Good for LA but not even close.

We would never tolerate having trains follow traffic light and move 5 MPH in some parts.

LA needs more rapid transit.


----------



## Arnorian

Will the Purple line be extended to the ocean eventually?


----------



## Kenni

krnboy1009 said:


> Good for LA but not even close.
> 
> We would never tolerate having trains follow traffic light and move 5 MPH in some parts.
> 
> LA needs more rapid transit.


Right. But remember LA's distances, and in everything that is constructed here the earthquake factor is always part of construction. So, be it buildings, tunnels, etc. it is a bit more expensive to build here. So, New York, Chicago get more bang for their buck.

But you have to admit. In the 60's LA dismantled the largest public transportation system in the country, in the 80's LA started all over again from scratch (opening with one line in the early 90's). 26 years alter, LA is rivaling cities that have been at it for way longer. 











They're at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean now.


----------



## dimlys1994




----------



## Kenni

So fascinating.


----------



## etooley1985

*Latest roundup of Crenshaw/LAX Line construction*

Latest roundup of Crenshaw/LAX Line construction, from The Source









Tunneling welding of the TBM mid shield tail shield joint at northbound tunnel portal.









Work at street level above the norhtern underground segment. Crew continue with sequential constructio at underground guideway.










Work on the northbound tunnel. Tunneling installation of northbound tunnel seal at portal eye in expo station south headwall at Crenshaw/Exposition. 









Removal of formwork for previously placed interior-wall at Crenshaw/Exposition. 









Exposition/Crenshaw station installation of shoring components for concourse slab falsework.









Demolition of street curbs and gutter between 48th and-50th street in Park-Mesa Heights.









Crews finished stripping the station formwork platform stem walls at the La Brea at grade station in downtown Inglewood.









Crews continued to dril and bond the emergency walkway cs ductbank at the La Brea bridge.









Bridge superstructure falsework erection 90 complete at the 405 FW bridge.









Setting and anchoring the galvanized reinforcement straps North of Manchester Blvd.









Crews continued with sequential construction of the ICC MSE wall erecting precast panels North of Manchester Blvd.









Manchester bridge southern backwall at MSE.









Crews continued with rebar and formwork installations for the northbound station platform at the Westchester/Veterans station.









Bridge rebar modifications for the upper hinge lip at the Aviation/Century bridge.









Ballast retainer wall construction ongoing at the 96th Street station.









Green line underpass frame deck concrete placement.









Green line underpass frame overhang formwork removed.


----------



## etooley1985

*New pics: Below traffic on Wilshire, a subway station is being excavated*

from The Source









The area where the partial skull of a mammoth or mastodon was found recently at the Wilshire/La Brea Station site.









Work at Wilshire/La Brea.









The excavation under under the Wilshire decking at Wilshire/La Brea.

Three pretty good new pics of the working taking place under Wilshire to excavate the future Wilshire/La Brea Station for the Purple Line Extension. The first segment of the project is under construction and will stretch the Purple Line subway from its current terminus at Wilshire/Western for 3.9 miles with new stations at Wilshire/La Brea, Wilshire/Fairfax and Wilshire/La Cienega.


----------



## ssiguy2

Toronto's GO commuter system had the same problem with freight so in order to introduce RER they have been buying up the lines. In 1998 GO only owned 6% of it's track and now, even though the system has expanded greatly, it owns 81% of the GO commuter track and nearly 100% of the RER system which will basically serve all districts within about 40 km of downtown. This will allow massive increases in frequency, more stations, and complete electrification. In 2000 there were about 500 GO rail trips a week and this has increased to about 2,000 and when complete by 2024 all lines will have 2 way, 7 day/week, all-day, max 15 minute frequencies, with a minimum of 6000 train trips a week. By 2030 with the addition of the Milton line we are probably looking at 8,000 trains a week.


----------



## redspork02

*Analysis*

*Breaking Down Our Options for a Crenshaw Line Extension*

*A look at the merits of three alternative routes.*

Analysis by Scott Frazier on December 13, 2016, 10:30AM

http://urbanize.la/post/breaking-down-our-options-crenshaw-line-extension

Metro’s Measure M program for transit infrastructure marks a turning point in the development of the city’s rail network. Critics of Metro rail have lamented the system’s focus on Downtown Los Angeles as being at odds with the realities of travel in polycentric Southern California. However, with that basic hub-and-spoke system firmly established, many of the new lines that Metro plans to build will skirt Downtown altogether. Because there is travel demand in all directions in the county, Los Angeles can support a grid of rail lines and confer benefits in the form of time-savings to transit riders. One such line is the extension of the *Crenshaw Line*.

As discussed previously, Metro is considering routes for the Crenshaw Line extension that would follow *La Brea, Fairfax, or San Vicente *up to a terminus in Hollywood. San Vicente is favored by West Hollywood because that route would curve back onto Santa Monica Boulevard in order to connect at the Hollywood/Highland Red Line Station. Although proponents argue that San Vicente has the most destinations, and would attract the highest ridership, it is also the least direct alternative. We'll look at the options in a second, but first some perspective.

Metro's *FEIR* assumed the Crenshaw Line would have relatively low ridership numbers, averaging below 13,000 per weekday. This was based in part on its failure to connect with the Purple Line extension. Measure R projects were selected based on corridors identified by Metro and the Councils of Government. The political will favored building rail along Crenshaw, but with tax revenue uncertain during the recession, there was insufficient funding to build all the way to Wilshire. Parsons Brinckerhoff noted the opportunity to provide rail service further north by directing the Crenshaw Line toward Wilshire/La Brea instead of to the optional Wilshire/Crenshaw station, which was ultimately deleted from the Purple Line extension in 2010. The feasibility study projected that a 3.5-mile extension from Exposition to Wilshire/La Brea would increase ridership to 31,000 daily riders by 2030. It is worth noting that this calculation did not factor in the Regional Connector, the Expo Line to Santa Monica, or the Purple Line extension. Put another way, the Crenshaw Line would more than double its current ridership projection acting as a feeder line to a bus. This is the lens through which we should view the Crenshaw extension. In order to compare our options, it would help to first get some perspective on the position and purpose of the Crenshaw Line within Metro’s rail network.

East-west travel demand between DTLA and the Westside is strong, so it makes sense that providing a direct link to the fastest, highest-capacity transit link between those two centers would yield major connectivity benefits. The more grid-like the connection, the more cost-effective the extension will be. This is especially true if Crenshaw Line riders are primarily connecting to or from the Purple Line, or using the line to bypass Downtown on their way to or from, Hollywood, the Valley, and other regions. A major ridership generator that could be served by diverting the route merits consideration, but grade-separated rail is expensive and the magnitude of such a ridership generator would have to grow with the magnitude of the diversion. Alon Levy uses for an example the decision to divert the Purple Line directly under Constellation in Century City, shown below. 










To give a sense of scale, this deviation increases route length by less than half a mile, and nearly doubles the number of jobs within ¼ mile of the station.










With that, let’s look at our options for the Crenshaw extension. As mentioned above, we should view our most direct connection as the baseline for reasons of cost and efficiency, and here that route is La Brea.


It’s rare in the history of Los Angeles’s light rail system that the baseline route for a transit project is also the fastest, the cheapest, and the most grade-separated option. That is, however, the case here. The feasibility study noted that Fairfax and La Brea have constrained rights-of-way (by L.A. standards) that would essentially rule out the possibility of running any portion of the extension at-grade along either route. If you’re a transit rider, breathe a deep sigh of relief. The La Brea route, running at Red Line speeds, would connect the Red Line and Expo Line in 13 minutes, about half the time it would take by car even in light traffic. 









An alignment along La Brea connecting the Red and Expo Lines


In Los Angeles, car ownership is commonplace, distances are vast and travel demand is pent up in all directions. There is, therefore, probably no better indicator of successful transit here than speeds that beat auto speeds at their best. One of the key issues for the Expo Line is that its end-to-end travel times are competitive only when car traffic is heaviest, which even in L.A. is not all the time. Autos represent the status quo here, and getting people to change their behaviors requires giving them a reason to prefer the change. There are many sticks that can be used, but we can also work wonders with the carrot of faster travel times.









*As far as benefits to transit riders, here are my estimates of travel times between Hollywood/Highland, Expo/Crenshaw and Wilshire/La Brea, assuming the existence of the Purple Line extension*.
Criticisms of La Brea are that it travels through the least dense neighborhoods of the three alternatives, being bordered on the east by Hancock Park, whose residents have twice successfully fought to keep a rail station from being placed at Wilshire/Crenshaw. La Brea itself contains commercial pockets, but, like all of these routes, the densest residential is at the ends. The key benefit for La Brea is its impressive time savings for riders.










*If an alternative has enough ridership potential to make us pass up La Brea, it could be Fairfax.* Proponents of a Fairfax alignment point out CBS studios and the Grove as major centers on that route, and note that the street has an appealing mix of high-density residential and commercial uses. On a per-mile basis, Fehr and Peers finds that Fairfax (4,518) projects for higher ridership than either San Vicente (4,433) or La Brea (4,287), but the differences are not major. The fact that Fairfax generates more of its ridership locally could potentially offset a longer end-to-end time. But those ridership gains would come with an increased project cost, due to the extra 1.5 miles of below-grade rail this alternative would require. There is a definite appeal to locating the transfer between the Purple and Crenshaw Lines at Wilshire/Fairfax. The intersection boasts a concentration of destinations, including the Grove, which is within walking distance from the Purple Line. It’s also possible that Fairfax will continue to densify faster than La Brea, but that is speculative at this point.









An alignment along Fairfax connecting the Red and Expo Lines


*Finally, there is the alternative following San Vicente*. It should be no surprise that much of the push for the San Vicente route has focused on the strength of the destinations in West Hollywood, because the San Vicente route basically relies on a redefinition of the purpose of the Crenshaw Line. Whereas the two previous routes focused primarily on north-south travel through Central Los Angeles, the San Vicente alternative looks fundamentally different. It really is two lines in one: A north-south line between Expo and Hollywood, and an East-West Line between West Hollywood and Hollywood.

WHAM has argued that Cedars-Sinai, the Beverly Center, and the Pacific Design Center along with a host of nightlife options are strong enough ridership generators to justify the inclusion of Santa Monica Boulevard in the route. The Fehr and Peers study found that San Vicente excelled in most of the categories that it analyzed, but it did not provide per-route-mile analysis. The data presented also use employment and population figures for the entire LAX-Hollywood alignment, making it difficult to assess the value of the extensions on their own.









An alignment along San Vicente connecting the Red and Expo Lines


While West Hollywood is a tourist destination, and Cedars-Sinai is a major employer, there is nothing comparable to Century City along this route. Within the city of West Hollywood, this route would provide a heretofore-unknown ease of movement along Santa Monica Boulevard. If, though, as seems likely, the majority of the riders are not traveling to or within West Hollywood, then, in the zoomed-out view, this alternative would be providing a lesser transit value to a greater number of riders than the other two routes.










Fehr and Peers estimates that adding 2.5 miles of rail along Santa Monica would net 14,000 additional boardings per day. We should note that this is a small portion of the east-west travel demand in the Santa Monica corridor, as West Hollywood is neither the primary source nor primary destination of transit riders on Santa Monica.Buses on Santa Monica have 28,000 boardings each day. Densities on Santa Monica are highest in Hollywood and East Hollywood, and travel is bidirectional, to the Red Line or DTLA in the east, and to Beverly Hills, Century City or Westwood in the west. The West Hollywood subway does not truly address either of those travel patterns. Bus riders are unlikely to transfer to the Crenshaw Line at Santa Monica/La Brea just to transfer back to the 704 at Santa Monica/San Vicente. Any time-savings they might realize on the train would be eaten up by the two transfers and waiting time. They might end up having to wait for the bus they transferred off of to catch up with them.

Fact is, Santa Monica is a perfect corridor for rail on its own. If we include bus routes on Sunset and Melrose as representative of general travel demand for the Santa Monica corridor, the number of boardings doubles to 57,588 each day. Since buses on Santa Monica Boulevard crawl, with the Rapid averaging under 10 mph, the demand is obviously potent. It should merit consideration for a fully-grade separated line of its own, connecting, at a minimum, the Red Line and Century City, or preferably, connecting with the Purple and Sepulveda Lines in Westwood. This would provide a transit connection for West Hollywood that would also fulfill one of Jerrett Walker’s primary tenets by Being On the Way.

Given the recent history of rail transit development in Los Angeles, it seems plausible that building the San Vicente segment of the Crenshaw Line – 3-3.5 miles – at street level will be suggested at some point. Anyone thinking that at-grade rail on San Vicente will not seriously deteriorate the quality of service provided by the rail line should ride the Expo Line between Western and 7th/Metro. An at-grade segment on this line through some of the worst car traffic in the city would cause travel times to balloon and become unreliable. It would eliminate any time-savings to be had by the extension.

One last point worth making regarding this extension relates to the COGs. Metro’s process allowed Councils of Government, as various subregions of the county, to sponsor projects for inclusion in Measure M out of the pots of tax revenue they were expected to generate as a share of Metro’s total. The Central Los Angeles subregion threw its weight behind the Crenshaw extension. Of the $2.2 billion dollars Measure M allots to the project, the Central City subregion (the central, south, and east neighborhoods of the city of Los Angeles) is contributing nearly $1.7 billion. The Westside Cities COG, a map of which appears below, is contributing the remaining 23% of Metro’s funding. While the La Brea route runs the border between the Central City and Westside Cities subregion, the Fairfax and San Vicente alternatives veer significantly into the Westside subregion. Travel in L.A. doesn’t take arbitrary COG boundaries into account, of course, but we should be cognizant of the regional benefits of the individual alternatives. Central City voters should make it clear that any route aside from La Brea should, at a minimum, not significantly impair the utility of the extension for riders in places like Hollywood, Mid-City, and Crenshaw who sponsored this line for funding instead of many other worthwhile projects within their subregion.

With that in mind, it seems that La Brea has a lot going for it. Neither of the other two routes provide an overwhelming case for being selected over the simplest, straightest, most direct route. West Hollywood is correct that rail should be established within its borders (and a La Brea route will give them one station for a start). But such a project can only be successful if it addresses the travel patterns of Santa Monica Boulevard in a more complete manner than the Crenshaw Line could hope to. Santa Monica has its own complications, which we can address later, but it is perhaps as clear a transit corridor as can be found in the County. Metro’s Long Range Transportation Plan update is around the corner, and this is a project that transit advocates advocate be included.









The border of the Westside Cities COG, from the COG's website, follows La Brea and Highland


----------



## Kenni




----------



## etooley1985

I agree on La Brea being the best option for the Crenshaw North line, although many disagree with me. IMHO it's what will happen anyway. Santa Monica Blvd. is important, however Vermont Ave. And Sepulveda should come before S.M.B. 

"Santa Monica Boulevard in a more complete manner than the Crenshaw Line could hope to. Santa Monica has its own complications, which we can address later, but it is perhaps as clear a transit corridor as can be found in the County"


----------



## pesto

etooley1985 said:


> I agree on La Brea being the best option for the Crenshaw North line, although many disagree with me. IMHO it's what will happen anyway. Santa Monica Blvd. is important, however Vermont Ave. And Sepulveda should come before S.M.B.
> 
> "Santa Monica Boulevard in a more complete manner than the Crenshaw Line could hope to. Santa Monica has its own complications, which we can address later, but it is perhaps as clear a transit corridor as can be found in the County"


La Brea seems ridiculous. There is pretty much nothing en route, Hollywood is not a big employer of rush-hour commuters and there is no demand for getting from South Bay to the East Valley so it doesn't matter how much time you save on that route.

Any combination that includes Fairfax or San Vicente is miles ahead in terms of locations and institutions served. 

I hope this isn't the city of LA trying to grab more lines to the detriment of the system. Reminds me of their complaining about using Inglewood Stadium in the Olympics. Pettiness not worthy of a world class city.


----------



## redspork02

pesto said:


> I hope this isn't the city of LA trying to grab more lines to the detriment of the system. Reminds me of their complaining about using Inglewood Stadium in the Olympics. Pettiness not worthy of a world class city.


No one is complaining (yet). relax sir.

THe decision needs to be done soon as to put in knock out panels at one of the three new stations. 

IMO, id prefer La Cienega but realistically it should be Fairfax. I need a station to the Troubadour!


----------



## pesto

redspork02 said:


> No one is complaining (yet). relax sir.
> 
> THe decision needs to be done soon as to put in knock out panels at one of the three new stations.
> 
> IMO, id prefer La Cienega but realistically it should be Fairfax. I need a station to the Troubadour!


Thanks, I needed that.

I can see the value of Fairfax, but it's still number 2. The San Vicente route is the only choice that a rational city would choose. Denser population and nightlife and major institutions. Adds WeHo and densely used areas of La Cienega, 3rd, Robertson, Melrose and SM Blvd. to the list of streets served by rail transit. Beverly Center is effectively a downtown area, with MAJOR shopping, hospital, nightlife, civic center (WeHo), hotels and residential.


----------



## Slartibartfas

With my superficial knowledge of the area I would tend to agree. Speed alone, especially if it is merely a few minutes doesn't make a good PT network, quite the contrary. It is transfer times, waiting times etc that really add substantially to door to door travel times. Comparing travel times without transfer times is therefore meaningless.


----------



## orulz

The thing is, you can build rail on La Brea PLUS three or four miles of rail on SMB for a the same cost as the San Vicente option. San Vicente is such a hideous detour that you can basically get TWO rail lines for the price of one if you ditch the detour.


----------



## etooley1985

I like La Brea still- there's a ton of new development in the area, and has high ridership numbers so there are jobs in the area. Fairfax also is appealing with many more established destinations and job centers. San Vicente is too far out in my opinion, and too expensive, it needs a separate line or something else. I would be happy with any of them, really. We will see what happens.




orulz said:


> The thing is, you can build rail on La Brea PLUS three or four miles of rail on SMB for a the same cost as the San Vicente option. San Vicente is such a hideous detour that you can basically get TWO rail lines for the price of one if you ditch the detour.


----------



## MarshallKnight

^^ Honestly I think the ideal solution is two lines. A Crenshaw extension up La Brea, and a separate line down Santa Monica, San Vicente, La Cienega and Venice Bl out to Venice Beach.


----------



## sdery

> Honestly I think the ideal solution is two lines. A Crenshaw extension up La Brea, and a separate line down Santa Monica, San Vicente, La Cienega and Venice Bl out to Venice Beach.


Perhaps they will revive the West Hollywood Connector (with the extension to Venice Beach) as a separate project not linked to the Purple line.


----------



## pesto

1. Of course two is better than one; but that's not going to happen. The old "Pink Line" would have been perfect, but that's just history now.

2. La Brea is better than nothing, but still a loser; there is no real argument for it unless you think of the East Valley or Hollywood rush hour employment from the South Bay as key needs to be addressed. Either one is ridiculous. There legitimately is some nice hipster retail but those are no huge draw from the South Bay. Most of the rest of the area is Orthodox Jews, who for religious reasons mostly live within blocks of everything important to them.

3. San Vicente not only connects South Bay to Hollywood and the E. Valley (although not as quickly as La Brea does) but ALSO connects South Bay to Beverly Center, WeHo (from Boys Town to Target) and beyond into Hollywood. 

4. Plus it gives mutual access among the major entertainment areas (WeHo, the Strip, Beverly Center, Hollywood). And it makes Weho, Beverly Center, etc, accessible from the Eastside (Sliver Lake, Echo Park) via the Sunset/Vermont station.


----------



## Woonsocket54

South Gate, a working-class suburb in the Harbor Gateway area, is planning transit-oriented development around its future light-rail station.










http://urbanize.la/post/south-gate-plans-transit-oriented-district-around-future-metro-station


----------



## MarshallKnight

Yeah, if we're stuck with a single line, I'm in favor of hitting as many job centers, shopping districts and nightlife areas as possible, even if it winds up looking pretty circuitous... but that scheme really only works if it's completely grade separated/underground. A subway can go a long way towards making up the time lost from a squiggly route, but if it's going to wind up surface-running for even a portion of the route, then it might as well just be straight. I guess that's all to say, as Metro should've learned by now, do it right or don't bother doing it at all.


----------



## pesto

MarshallKnight said:


> Yeah, if we're stuck with a single line, I'm in favor of hitting as many job centers, shopping districts and nightlife areas as possible, even if it winds up looking pretty circuitous... but that scheme really only works if it's completely grade separated/underground. A subway can go a long way towards making up the time lost from a squiggly route, but if it's going to wind up surface-running for even a portion of the route, then it might as well just be straight. I guess that's all to say, as Metro should've learned by now, do it right or don't bother doing it at all.


100 percent correct. Nothing EVER above ground in the LA core area (north of Expo, LA river to the ocean). 

And if you are desperate to spend hours getting to Hollywood or the E. Valley from Torrance, take the Blue and Red.


----------



## DCUrbanist

Suburbanist said:


> At the end of the day, transit can never work properly in a big metro if it is conceived as a welfare of last resort, to be used mostly by those who cannot by any means get a car.


100% with you on the impact of restrictive zoning and the objective value in maintaining usable systems. It's no wonder buses have such an apparently poor reputation with "choice" riders in America when most cities have little more to work with than a system of last resort, which inevitably looks like buses. So many other systems (and even in Los Angeles -- look at the Orange Line!) have been given far greater conditions to succeed. With luck the new system in the coming decades will have more of a chance to do well than in years past!


----------



## phoenixboi08

Suburbanist said:


> I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of very low income households, not oblivious to their challenges (which are certainly greater than mine), yet I think that leaving parts of a city in purposeful bad shape to create artificial housing is a perverse form of public policy.
> 
> Some years ago, I read how the "Bus Riders Union" was threatening to sue LA METRO to prevent it from reorganizing several bus lines around a then-new rail line (I forgot exactly which). They were even trying to get court orders to oblige LA METRO to keep specific bus routes in place, even if they took longer than a combination of bus+rail, under a racially charged argument (that the county was cutting back on routes with 90%+ Hispanic patronage). They framed bus-rail transfers as some form of discrimination even. On their website, they asked for a "rail moratorium", and then talk about some bus utopia with far fewer cars and hundreds of "direct bus routes" heavily subsidized.
> 
> At the end of the day, transit can never work properly in a big metro if it is conceived as a welfare of last resort, to be used mostly by those who cannot by any means get a car.


I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to...that sounds shady.

However, I do know that Metro had some social equity/justice issues from its spending on some of the early metro lines. Essentially, it boiled down to the the perception that Metro was raising fares on bus riders, cutting back service, and building heavy rail to/from the [wealthier] suburbs, even as the lion's share of ridership was via bus in minority and low income neighborhoods.

In short, the BRU sued claiming Metro was shortchanging them, and they were pretty much right. The courts intervened and the ensuing injunction forced Metro to make long-term changes to ensure bus riders were not ignored. That injunction ended, recently, however, which may be where your above anecdote comes from.

However, it was really more nuanced than the Union presented: a good share of funding from Prop. A (and possibly C, but I can't recall) included large amounts of funding to freeze bus fares and improve service. To say nothing of the fact that these bond measures - and the spending they would support - were voted on by voters, county-wide. Also, the Blue Line was wildly successful and served the very communities who were later painted to be dissolved by Metro's new rail projects.

Nonetheless the basic result, from the 80s to the early 90s was that a large share of capital expenditure was going towards rail which had a much smaller, wealthier ridership, overall, than buses.

I'm sure you might already be familiar with this, but what DCUrbanist hit at and what I'm also pointing out, is that the idea implicit is that bus service needs to be prioritized at least as much as rail, if not more. I feel you also said as much in your earlier post: it shouldn't be the mode of 'last resort,' but it will always be if it's treated as less important than - as opposed to equal with - rail.

This may not necessarily be true, anymore, and of course Metro made the correct priority, but it did come at the expense of bus service.

The public's feelings about rail being tied with gentrification are analogous to those same fears being tied to high rise/dense development: they're attacking a symptom rather than the root cause.


----------



## zaphod

In a city like Los Angeles I don't know if their arguments are very valid. Los Angeles is such a big city there is a genuine need for rail. And not every bus route that serves low density suburban destinations can be economically viable, sometimes the needs of many outweigh that of the few.

Houston succeeded in rationalizing its bus system recently, while there was pushback it has been a success. A blog I read made a good argument that most of the issues with reducing the number of local bus routes could be resolved by investing in sidewalks and incentivizing apartment complex and shopping center owners to move entryways and gates to make walking more convenient. People can walk a bit longer distances if it is safe and direct, running a circuitous bus route is expensive.

Of course one city where a similar debate took place and that side won was in San Antonio in 2000 when there was a referendum for light rail. San Antonio is a sprawling, low density city not particularly urban outside of downtown and it is unlikely a light rail system would ever be used to its full capacity and would require a huge subsidy to operate. On the other hand, San Antonio has an extensive bus system and is a very working class city with a lot of neighborhoods that need the mobility buses provide. Buses were the right fit for the city because they provide the low-moderate capacity that was needed.


----------



## Woonsocket54

zaphod said:


> Houston succeeded in rationalizing its bus system recently, while there was pushback it has been a success.


Is that true?

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...n-reverse-nearly-two-years-after-10801459.php


----------



## Sunfuns

Suburbanist said:


> At the end of the day, transit can never work properly in a big metro if it is conceived as a welfare of last resort, to be used mostly by those who cannot by any means get a car.


Can I agree with this 10x?


----------



## Slartibartfas

Woonsocket54 said:


> There were both tribalist (Iranians vs Mexicans/blacks) as well as safety (underground methane explosions) concerns related to the late 20th-century bans on underground subway construction in the Westside/Beverly.


If safety was the concern, singling out subway alone makes no sense at all, and so doesn't an outright ban instead of increased safety measures.


----------



## dimlys1994




----------



## phoenixboi08

zaphod said:


> In a city like Los Angeles I don't know if their arguments are very valid. Los Angeles is such a big city there is a genuine need for rail. And not every bus route that serves low density suburban destinations can be economically viable, sometimes the needs of many outweigh that of the few.


Again...the point was that they were cutting back on bus service because of budgetary issues even as they were spending on rail projects. 

That was the crux of their problem. Despite including a good deal of funds in Prop. A, I don't think they maintained that balance well, or communicated what the eventual network would look like.

Obviously, the rail system emerging now, looks quite different than in the 80s/early 90s.


----------



## Tågälskaren

*Take a flyover tour of the Crenshaw/LAX light rail*

_Construction on the Crenshaw/LAX Line is underway right now, tunneling under parts of Los Angeles to create a new 8.5-mile long rail line that will bring eight new Metro stations to South LA and Inglewood and an eventual link to Los Angeles International Airport[...]_


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Metro Clarifies the Future of an Arts District Subway Extension*"

_Rumors of the proposed 6th Street Station's demise have been greatly exaggerated._

http://urbanize.la/post/metro-clarifies-future-arts-district-subway-extension


----------



## bighomey3000

*2016: two rail openings, bike share, a ballot measure and a very busy year for Metro
*

http://thesource.metro.net/2016/12/27/2016-an-extremely-busy-year-for-metro/


----------



## redspork02

*$1.6 billion in federal funding secured for Purple Line Extension’s second phase*

BY DAVE SOTERO , JANUARY 4, 2017

http://thesource.metro.net/2017/01/...ured-for-purple-line-extensions-second-phase/

A federal grant and loan totaling nearly $1.6 billion to help build the second phase of the Metro Purple Line Extension to downtown Beverly Hills and Century City was announced today by the U.S. Department of Transportation and Metro.

The details:

•The money is for the *2.6-mile second phase* of the Purple Line Extension that will run between Wilshire/La Cienega Station and Century City. Two stations are included in the second section: *Wilshire/Rodeo in downtown Beverly Hills and Century City at the corner of Avenue of the Stars and Constellation Boulevard*.

•The first section of the Purple Line Extension is under construction and will run for 3.9 miles between Wilshire/Western Station and Wilshire/La Cienga with stations at Wilshire/La Brea, Wilshire/Fairfax and Wilshire/La Cienega. It’s expected to take about 11 minutes for the subway to travel from its current terminus at Wilshire/Western to Century City Station.

•The $1.187-billion federal grant for section two is from the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts program, which helps local transit agencies build big capital projects.

•The $307-million loan is from the U.S. DOT’s TIFIA program that provides low-interest loans to help build infrastructure projects.

•The subway project is also receiving $169 million through the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program.

•Funding for the second phase includes $747 million from the Measure R half-cent sales tax approved by L.A. County voters in 2008. Section two is expected to cost about $2.4 billion to build. Bottom line: without the Measure R funds, Metro would almost certainly not have received the federal funding.

•Metro is now in the process of selecting a contractor to build the subway extension’s second phase. *The agency plans to recommend a contractor to the Metro Board later this month*.

•P*re-construction activities *— including utility work relocation — for the second phase a*re already underway*. Major construction is planned to begin in 2018.

•Completion of the second subway section is anticipated no later than 2026 per the agreement Metro has in place with the FTA. But Metro is aiming to finish the project by 2024 before a potential Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, said Metro CEO Phil Washington at the event Wednesday.

•A third and final section will extend the subway to the Westwood/VA Hospital. Construction on this section — with funding from the recently approved Measure M sales tax — is planned to begin as early as 2019.

•Construction of the Purple Line Extension will support over 25,000 jobs in the Southern California area during its construction, according to the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.

•The Purple Line Extension to the Westwood/VA Hospital station is forecast to generate about 49,300 daily weekday boardings at the seven new stations. There will be about 78,000 new daily trips on the full Metro Rail System as a result of opening this line.

•A total of $3.1 billion in federal New Starts funding has now been secured for recent Metro transportation projects, including $1.25 billion for the first section of the subway and $670 million for the Regional Connector. These grants would not have been possible without Metro also having local funding from the Measure R sales tax. 

•Trains are expected to run every four minutes during peak hours on the Purple Line Extension and every 10 minutes during off-peak times. The Metro Board last month approved a contract for new subway vehicles to help support the line and the agency is also working on a project that will allow subway trains to turn around more quickly at Union Station, thereby increasing capacity on the line.

•Over 300,000 people travel into the Westside every day for work from throughout the region. More than 100,000 trips also leave the area for outside destinations. The Purple Line extension will offer improved connectivity to the entire Metro Bus and Rail network, as well as transfers to municipal bus lines and other regional transportation services.



Saiholmes said:


> http://thesource.metro.net/2017/01/...ured-for-purple-line-extensions-second-phase/
> http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-wilshire-subway-funding-20170104-story.html


----------



## jay stew

*L.A. Metro map designed in the style of the 1970s New York Subway map*










http://transitmap.net/post/155397287475/la-metro-mccormick


----------



## Suburbanist

Is there any chance of MTA acquiring transit jurisdiction over Orange, San Bernardino and Ventura counties and expanding rail/subway service there? In other others, making the MTA the sole transit agency of the entire Los Angeles metroplex area?


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Suburbanist said:


> Is there any chance of MTA acquiring transit jurisdiction over Orange, San Bernardino and Ventura counties and expanding rail/subway service there? In other others, making the MTA the sole transit agency of the entire Los Angeles metroplex area?


Better chance of you winning the lottery twice in a row while being struck by lightning.


----------



## Arnorian

Are there concrete plans to take the Purple line all the way to the ocean?


----------



## 00Zy99

I'm pretty sure there were at one point. What happened, I'm not sure.


----------



## Amexpat

Arnorian said:


> Are there concrete plans to take the Purple line all the way to the ocean?


As of now the only concrete plans are to Westwood/VA. I think the original vision was to have a metro line to the sea, but perhaps the Expo Line has now put that on a back burner.


----------



## etooley1985

^^^^
The Purple line was planned to go only to the area around the VA Hospital, not beyond, as far as I have seen. It was the subway "towards" the sea. It makes sense to eventually go all the way the the Pacific, someday. Also, the original Red line was to travel East into East Los Angeles - but was canceled. The Red line stops in downtown. The Gold line now replaces the East LA service.


----------



## Kenni

Yeah, these were the plans fo the _Subway to the Sea_. It got messy with cities like Beverly Hills opposing it and costs skyrocketed. It will eventually get there...slowly.


----------



## Kenni

With the recent Federal funds coming our way, it'll go to the VA.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Update on efforts to connect the Green Line with Metrolink in Norwalk.

http://urbanize.la/post/scag-starts-rail-gap-study-open-house-norwalk


----------



## [atomic]

they should close the I-105 - I-5 at the same time IMO


----------



## 00Zy99

Umm, this isn't quite the thread for that.

And you are going to have a LOT more opposition to a freeway, which takes up much more room in a residential neighborhood. Besides, drivers can already use I-605 as a possible path.


----------



## [atomic]

well both would be in a tunnel. And the road tunnel would only be about 1 Mile long


----------



## 00Zy99

The current LRT proposal is examining an elevated or surface alignment as well.

Its a lot more complex than simply saying "bore an extra tunnel". A highway tunnel would require a much greater diameter tube and would be much more expensive. It would also be much more disruptive, since it would require enormous ventilation plants along the route that LRT wouldn't. Put this together, and you have something that looks very unattractive to planners when there is an alternate route available.


----------



## MarshallKnight

It's a real enough need that I'd be surprised not to see a multi-modal tunnel included in the EIR alternatives. Such a plan is apparently favored in the Sepulveda corridor (LRT or HRT with a toll road bypass for the 405). But I agree with the above that for numerous reasons it will/would be ruled out in the end.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Metro Report

http://www.metro-report.com/news/ne...-extension-section-2-contractor-selected.html

*Los Angeles Purple Line Extension Section 2 contractor selected*
17 Jan 2017










USA: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is to recommend to the board the award of a contract to build the Section 2 of the Purple Line extension. A joint venture of Tutor Perini and O&G has been selected to build the second phase of the metro extension to Century City/Constellation.

This follows the Department of Transportation’s announcement at the start of January that it will provide $1·6bn in federal grants and loans towards the $2·5bn project

...


----------



## redspork02

In L.A. march, Grand Park performs well with huge crowds; Metro and Pershing Square, not so much 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...s-angeles-pershing-square-20170121-story.html


By Christopher Hawthorne
Architecture Critic

January 21, 2017, 7:50 PM 



Any big political march is both a test of a city’s spatial limitations and an exercise in seeing and using that city in a new way. This is especially true in Los Angeles, a city still trying to shake off an outdated reputation as a place without a significant pedestrian culture or vibrant public realm.

The Los Angeles edition of Saturday’s women’s march was in that sense another sign of the city’s continuing effort to redefine, or at least recalibrate, its public-ness. The Los Angeles Police Department called it the largest gathering downtown since the giant immigration rights protest of 2006.


----------



## redspork02

Jan. 21, 2017, 10:23 a.m. 

Jubilant protesters crowd into downtown L.A.-bound Metro trains

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...ueeze-into-downtown-1485022993-htmlstory.html
Jan. 21, 2017, 10:23 a.m. 

Metro trains were *jammed to capacity *Saturday morning as tens of thousands descended on Pershing Square in downtown L.A. for the women’s march. 

Erica Zeitlin said she caught the Expo Line in Santa Monica but it took nearly an hour before there was a train available with enough space to accommodate passengers. 

“Metro could have put on 10 times as many trains and they’d be busy,” she said. “The platforms are packed.” 

They were so packed that some Culver City passengers said they had to travel west to Santa Monica before they were able to board a downtown-bound train. 

Passenger Angela Duffy said the Culver City station was so packed she decided to walk to the Palms Station. But that station was also crowded, so her group headed to the Santa Monica station. 

“It is worth doing it to stand with my fellow women in solidarity,” Duffy said. “Change needs to happen … if I just sat at home because I didn’t want to get into the crowds, I would not be standing up for what I believe in.” 

“Ready, happy, thrilled!” yelled the jubilant crowd.

Huge crowds swarm Metro trains and buses for Women’s March

Trains were jam-packed for most of the day

http://la.curbed.com/2017/1/22/14351354/womens-march-crowds-lines-metro-trains-riders-numbers

Much of Metro’s transit network was pushed to its absolute limit Saturday as marchers descended upon Downtown LA yesterday to take part in a Women’s March corresponding with Donald Trump’s first full day in office. The transit agency has not released ridership numbers yet, but trains and buses heading in and out of Downtown were packed full for much of the day.

It’s also not clear exactly how many people turned up to the event itself. March organizers estimate the number to be around *750,000*. LAPD stopped counting. 

Lines for TAP Cards were dozens of people deep at many subway stations, while trains were full enough that some riders began boarding on the opposite side of the track—simply to ensure a spot when the train turned around at its last stop. 

Crowds were large enough that it may be hard for the agency to get an accurate count. Complicating things: a rumor began circulating on social media in the morning that Metro was offering free rides. The Agency quickly dispelled that notion, but this Curbed writer noticed bus and train operators waiving fares as vehicles became more crowded and lines of people waiting to board grew longer.










After boosting normal weekend service in advance of the event, Metro began adding cars along the Red, Blue, and Gold Lines as the day went on. Blue Line riders heading out of Downtown after the march were then asked to board on the opposite side of the platform—presumably to space out the enormous crowds at the 7th Street/Metro Center station. 

It seems likely that Metro, local law enforcement, and even the organizers of the march were caught off guard by the attendance numbers. The march was, in fact, so large, that the planned route could not contain all of the participants. Throngs of people began pouring onto streets around Pershing Square and City Hall, turning the march into something of an impromptu open streets event.










We’ll have to wait for Metro’s official ridership numbers, but the event certainly drew some of the largest crowds any of the system’s Downtown-serving trains and buses have likely seen. In Washington DC, where a crowd of at least 500,000 gathered on the National Mall, the city’s train system had its second-busiest day ever, serving more than 1 million riders.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Can it be that Metro doesn't really know how to do expected major rallies or events? Do they lack the back up vehicles and/or did not adapt their maintenance schedule to get max number of vehicles operational during that time?

A well handled special event has special event schedules with maximized frequencies on all affected lines. If possible, also asymmetric services makes sense (for events that cause very high one directional demand during a relatively short time) 

I am aware that not every metro service can have special high performance stations like "U2 Stadion" in Vienna for example, but there is a lot a metro company can do to handle special demand in a satisfactory way.


----------



## redspork02

Maybe this article can help. News released today regarding transit riders on Sat. I don't think they were prepared fro 750,000... give or take....sounds like there plan was for 75,000.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://thesource.metro.net/2017/01/...aturday-womens-march-in-downtown-los-angeles/

*592,000 *boardings on Metro Rail on Saturday

by Kim Upton , January 24, 2017 

As thousands converged on downtown Los Angeles for the Saturday Women’s March, Metro Rail carried a total of 592,000 boarding passengers – 360,000 more riders than on a typical Saturday. Los Angeles Police Department estimates placed the crowd at 100,000 and event organizers pegged that number at more than 750,000.

On some Metro lines, rail cars were crowded – many to capacity – and most stations in downtown L.A. also were filled. And yet passengers remained cheerful and positive.

“This was an amazing experience for our region, as well as for Metro,” said Metro Board Chair John Fasana. “Whatever your political thoughts, it was exciting to see so many people exercising their right to demonstrate peacefully. And it spoke to the crowds that there was no violence and that despite crowding, at the end of the day our patrons were safe.”

To gear up for the march, *Metro added service and security to accommodate what organizers at first estimated would be 75,000 participants*. As attendance projections grew, more rail cars and more frequent service were scheduled. When trains began to crowd on Saturday, additional service was added. To accommodate the massive crowds, extra rail cars were added to service. The result was a 60 percent increase in car capacity, compared with a typical Saturday. Staff also was on hand to help new customers buy TAP cards at ticket machines and yet the lines were long in a handful of stations.

“Hundreds of thousands of Angelenos peacefully took to the streets Saturday to stand up for their values — and Metro played a big part in bringing people together by serving 592,000 boarding passengers on a historic day,” said Los Angeles Mayor and Metro First Vice Chair Eric Garcetti. “Seatmates became friends, fellow passengers marched side by side. The incredible level of ridership shows that L.A. shows up when it counts, and we can get there safely and conveniently. And now with the passage of Measure M, we are building a transportation future that will give us all new opportunities to connect to one another. 

Among the busiest rail stations in downtown Los Angeles were the 7th Street/Metro Center Station, which serves the Red, Purple, Blue and Expo lines; Pershing Square and Civic Center stations, which carry Red and Purple line passengers, and Union Station, which serves the Red, Purple and Gold lines, as well as Metrolink. Beyond downtown, the North Hollywood and Universal/Studio City stations for the Red Line were among the busiest.

“I applaud our operations team for their outstanding efforts to provide this critical service to Los Angeles,” said Metro CEO Phillip A. Washington. “As much planning as we did, the heavy ridership still required the good spirit and patience of our patrons, and we appreciate that. We are very pleased overall that Metro was able to serve so many people on Saturday.”

Ridership began to spike at 7 a.m., dipped between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. and then peaked again at about 5 p.m. The event was scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. and continue until 4 p.m. More than 40,000 new TAP fare cards were sold within a short period of time on Saturday. TAP cards are the method of payment for Metro trains and buses.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Richard (Rick) Neill (@rantg1) 
January 24, 2017 at 12:02 pm

_Is this estimate adjusted to allow for the many who thought the Metro would be free for the march? The rumor Metro would be free was going around twitter for a while._


*Hi Richard — the answer is yes, Metro did try to adjust for that. *

Steve Hymon
Editor, The Source


ixchelmala (@ixchelmala) 

January 24, 2017 at 3:17 pm

_So was the free fare a rumor or not?
We were waved past the tap machines at the universal station where the gates were open.
It should be that going through the gates is as easy as using Apple Pay or refilling ones tap card is as easy as refilling a Starbucks card. If this was the case, my friend wouldn’t have had to take uber to the event because of the crazy long line of manual Tap card sales._


January 24, 2017 at 3:40 pm 


*Absolutely, some riders at some stations were given free rides as a means of crowd control. The problem was that on social media that turned into ‘rides are free across the entire system.’ Which they were not, even though some folks got free rides. *

Steve Hymon
Editor, The Source


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Second Phase of Foothill Gold Line Extension Scheduled for October Groundbreaking*"










http://urbanize.la/post/october-groundbreaking-scheduled-gold-line-extension-montclair


----------



## redspork02

PinPeat said:


> Regional Connector by HunterKerhart.com, on Flickr


2nd Street/Flower Street Subway Station under Construction across from THE BROAD MUSEUM and the DISNEY CONCERT HALL.


----------



## MarshallKnight

redspork02 said:


> 2nd Street/Flower Street Subway Station under Construction across from THE BROAD MUSEUM and the DISNEY CONCERT HALL.



This station is going to get a hell of a lot of use.


----------



## etooley1985

*Second Phase of Foothill Gold Line Extension Scheduled for October Groundbreaking*

http://urbanize.la/post/october-groundbreaking-scheduled-gold-line-extension-montclair

*Second Phase of Foothill Gold Line Extension Scheduled for October Groundbreaking*

by STEVEN SHARP on January 26, 2017, 9:42AM

The Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority has announced an updated plan to extend light rail service to Montclair.

Yesterday, the Construction Authority's Board of Directors approved a schedule which assumes a groundbreaking in October 2017 and completion in late 2025 or early 2026. This new timeline represents a two-year delay from the previously announced opening date of 2023, and reflects an increase in the scope of work for the Construction Authority, which has agreed to additional work at grade crossings, as well as the relocation of existing track and a Metrolink station.

The estimated cost for the project now stands at approximately $1.37 billion, an increase of $118 million from the budget approved in 2015. The additional cost is the result of prevailing and minimum wage increases that will take effect during the course of construction.

The majority of funding for the project will come from Los Angeles County's Measure M sales tax, which goes into effect on July 1, 2017.

Ridership on the phase two extension is expected to exceed 18,300 weekday passengers by 2035, with six new stations in Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont and Montclair.

However, it should be noted that any track past Claremont would pass out of Los Angeles County. Any extension past that boundary would require independent funding from San Bernadino County.

The extension to Montclair represents the third phase of Gold Line's Foothill branch, which currently shuttles passengers between Azusa and Los Angeles Union Station. An initial segment opened to Pasadena in 2003, and the extension to Azusa followed in March 2016.

Following the completion of the new Regional Connector subway through Downtown Los Angeles, the current Gold Line will offer direct service to Long Beach.

Foothill Gold Line Board Approves New Project Schedule (PRNewswire)


----------



## tenderforever

i think the purple line is probably my favorite subway project in the entire world right now. not only because i'll actually be able to use it, but also because it'll just be so useful. the extension to wilshire and fairfax is a dream come true, but to imagine zipping from DTLA or koreatown all the way to beverly hills, century city or UCLA village, it makes the heart palpitate in anticipation. add the huge population center at park la brea and the connections at wilshire and la cienega, and it's clear why this must be metro's number 1 priority. the VA extension will be useful for jobs but clearly exists because of the future connection to the 405 line.

next, metro must prioritize extending the crenshaw line up to wilshire.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Ok, that may be a bit of a stretch. What you describe is the beauty of proper subways. You can enjoy this in many cities across the world. For LA however it is something rather more special with only one proper subway line so far. The Purple Line extension matters so much also because the connected area is so important and at the same time currently so horrendously underserved by the existing network. This will be an incredibly boost to Metro coverage of central neighbourhoods, maybe even a game changer. For me the tourist perspective is of course the most important one and there, LA is heading towards a a reasonable coverage of tourist destinations. A few years ago Santa Monica and now Miracle Mile and Beverly Hills, as well as the airport. The regional connector will also be a game changer because it will make crossing Downtown so much more convenient and efficient and also connect important places directly to the Metro network.


----------



## Tower Dude

Not to mention as the lines become more interconnected it will make more sense for people to uses them


----------



## aquamaroon

Really good writeup today in urbanize.la about a possible completion of the Purple Line to Santa Monica (Wilshire/4th street):












> Ever since the Wilshire subway was revived in the mid-2000s, there has been a question as to whether the Subway to the Sea needed to actually reach the sea. The Expo Line, after all, also takes riders to the Santa Monica shoreline, and its route within the beachside city parallels Wilshire at a distance of about a half-mile. To some, that makes the final grade-separated segment of the Purple Line a luxury, not a necessity. This debate featured in the planning process for Measure M as well. The Santa Monica extension of the Purple Line appeared on the initial wishlist for the Westside Cities COG and in several versions of MoveLA’s “strawman” expenditure plans. Ultimately, though, Metro’s directors decided to accelerate the project’s Westwood segment without providing additional funding to push further west.
> 
> In spite of its omission from the latest round of transit funding, it remains a good time to consider the Purple Line’s Santa Monica extension. As we were reminded a few weeks ago when the FTA issued their Full Funding Grant Agreement for the Purple Line’s second phase, the subway has been extremely successful in attracting federal funding. Metro has now secured nearly $3.8 billion in federal funds for the first two phases of construction, including $2.4 billion in grants.
> 
> Additionally, Metro will be drafting a new iteration of its Long Range Transportation Plan throughout the course of this year, and any projects that the agency wants to receive federal dollars will need to be on that document first. Eventually a source of local funding would need to be identified, but the LRTP is an important step in getting the project built in the next one to two decades.
> 
> The Santa Monica extension, which was included in the Purple Line’s environmental studies until the Westwood/VA alternative was chosen in 2010, consists of 4 stops over approximately 3.5 miles. From the Phase 3 terminus at Wilshire/Bonsall, the line would continue to a station at Bundy in Brentwood, making two stops in mid-city Santa Monica before ending up at 4th Street in downtown Santa Monica.
> 
> Much like the West Hollywood “Pink Line” (Alternatives 4 & 5, below), Metro wasn’t disinclined to build the Santa Monica extension of the Purple Line. It simply didn’t have the money on hand. The Draft EIR identified a shortfall of approximately $1.8 billion. In a bittersweet twist, Metro’s better-than-expected performance at corralling D.C.’s check-writers means that the agency has already made about half of the shortfall that planners projected in 2010, with the project’s most cost-effective segment still to come. And, unlike the Pink Line, which scored worse on the FTA’s cost-effectiveness matrix, Alternative 3, out to Wilshire/4th, had a score roughly on par with Alternative 1 (Wilshire/Westwood terminus), and only slightly below the VA Hospital alternative that was selected. Even though Metro estimated a marginal increase of only 9,000 riders between the VA Hospital and the beach, we might therefore expect that local governments would not be expected to foot the bill on their own.


http://urbanize.la/post/does-la-need-santa-monica-purple-line-extension (rest of the article there, highly recommended to check it out!)

After reading the article I think it makes some very strong arguments:
- The last bit of the Purple Line to the Sea would be cheaper than the rest of the line.
- The ridership numbers are not as great as Santa Monica is kind of sleepy compared to downtown/k-town/century city.
- However, traffic from west of the 405 can be horrific (as someone who used to commute east on Olympic from Santa Monica, I can personally vouch for this) and a subway will be a desirable option for commuters
- To really make use of a subway, SM has to agree to upzoning the wilshire corridor
- Once the sepulveda line is built and connected to the Expo line, valley passengers will probably overwhelm the expo LRT and will need another option west

After reading, my personal opinion is: a one stop extension to Wilshire/Bundy is a no brainer, and the other three stops can probably wait until Santa Monica allows greater density along wilshire (though if they build it now, it'll be cheaper before the density comes)


----------



## redspork02

aquamaroon said:


> After reading, my personal opinion is: a one stop extension to Wilshire/Bundy is a no brainer, and the other three stops can probably wait until Santa Monica allows greater density along wilshire (though if they build it now, it'll be cheaper before the density comes)


I agree with your personal opinion. 
The writer asked "Does this area need the subway, the answer is YES.
Does it need it right now???? *ummmm Not so fast*. I think Metros resources should focus on the "pink line" and the Vermont Line before starting this last purple line segment. Good Article. Good Read. It should get metro thinking.. (I hope).


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ Yep! I agree with both lines you mentioned. It's more important for Metro to do the Vermont line right (below grade, LRT at least but hopefully HRT) and definitely the "pink line" (which should be two lines, a spur off Crenshaw that goes up San Vicente through WeHo and another that goes straight up La Brea) before finishing off the purple line. The Purple Line does need to be finished at some point in the future though, and I think once the line has been opened to the VA for a few years (so around 2026 or so), public support will be there to finally push it to the sea.


----------



## Alex MacKinnon

So, being a Vancouverite I have some odd ball questions about LA transportation if anyone wants to take a crack at answering I'd greatly appreciate it.

Why on earth isn't the MTA down there proposing a linear-induction motor based system for the Sepulveda Corridor? I'm a tunnelling engineer, but looking at this route it makes little sense to tunnel if you don't need to. 

The 405 highway grade is a fairly steady shallow angle. 5 or 6 percent grade. A LIM based system could do that with a reasonable margin. Vancouver's new tunnels are of that approximate grade because that's the useful limit of our Bombardier rolling stock. 

Couldn't that route just be done on an elevated guideway and save a few billion in tunnelling costs? It's not like adding in a guideway into the freeway median would be worse than any of the freeway infrastructure there now.

This has been bugging me for a while.


----------



## 00Zy99

LA does not want to have a singular, proprietary-technology, shuttle. The Sepulveda Pass line is to be integrated into the larger metropolitan network. That means that it needs to be compatible with existing systems.


----------



## Tower Dude

Also does anyone have a clue whether the LA Metro will continue with light rail or actually build a new HRT Line?


----------



## aquamaroon

As far as I know, the only areas where new HRT is being considered are the new Vermont Ave. line, and the Sepulveda corridor tunneled alongside the 405 (neither one though is guaranteed HRT). The LRT routes north of Wilshire are planned as below grade though, so while not HRT they will be a "subway".


----------



## aquamaroon

Cool video previewing the new 7th street station entrance under the Bloc, the shopping mall across the street from the station:






Looking good so far, no more crossing the street to get to the subway! :cheers: And hopefully this'll drive foot traffic and spur some faster development at the Bloc, which has has had kind've slow, moribund opening so far. (a Starbucks in the storefront right at the Metro entrance would be a good start!)


----------



## Alex MacKinnon

00Zy99 said:


> LA does not want to have a singular, proprietary-technology, shuttle. The Sepulveda Pass line is to be integrated into the larger metropolitan network. That means that it needs to be compatible with existing systems.


At the cost of what would probably be a whole additional line though of capital costs? Some times it makes sense to have multiple rolling stock classes. You guys already have 2 completely separate systems. 

LIMs aren't proprietary btw, both Bombardier and Kawasaki have made trains with them. Almost all the newer major lines in Japan use it, although there its mostly because it makes the train fit in smaller tunnels. If you wanted to interline the trains it could work, you'd just need to add a reaction rail to allow the LIM rolling stock to run.


----------



## 00Zy99

Alex MacKinnon said:


> At the cost of what would probably be a whole additional line though of capital costs? Some times it makes sense to have multiple rolling stock classes. You guys already have 2 completely separate systems.


If there are already two separate systems, do you want to spend MORE money for a third?

Also, the Sepulveda Pass line is supposed to be a direct, non-stop, express crossing the pass as fast as possible in order to create the biggest differential against the current highway jam. Taking the line over the top would make it curvier and slower, not to mention much harder to construct given the tight spaces around a VERY busy highway.



> LIMs aren't proprietary btw, both Bombardier and Kawasaki have made trains with them.


Nope! The Bombardier and Kawasaki systems are both proprietary and are non-compatible.



> Almost all the newer major lines in Japan use it, although there its mostly because it makes the train fit in smaller tunnels. If you wanted to interline the trains it could work, you'd just need to add a reaction rail to allow the LIM rolling stock to run.


Adding a reaction rail to dozens of miles of lines would be very expensive.


----------



## etooley1985

*Construction photos Crenshaw LAX line and Wilshire Purple line*

Some construction photos of the Crenshaw LAX line and Wilshire Purple line, from the Source:











Mayor Eric Garcetti’s office gave area photographers were a tour of the Crenshaw/LAX Line yesterday. This photo was taken in one of the twin rail tunnels between the future MLK Station and Leimert Park Station. Photo by Steve Hymon/Metro.










Work beneath Wilshire Boulevard on the future Wilshire/La Brea Station for the Purple Line Extension project. Photo: Metro.


----------



## etooley1985

*Regional Connector Construction Photos*

from the Regional Connector Facebook page










The tieback drill rig drills horizontally into the earth so that steel rods can be installed.










A view of the southwest end of the station box. From here, the future railway will turn south onto Flower St, eventually reaching 7th St/Metro Center Station.



















Heavy-duty equipment for a heavy-duty task.










Excavation at 2nd/Hope started in 2016. On the northeast end of the station (under Hope St), five levels of struts form the support structure for what will be the project's deepest station.










The TBM will arrive at the 2nd/Hope Station through this wall later in the year.










Crews continue installing tiebacks, another form of excavation support. Tiebacks reinforce retaining walls, acting like anchors drilled into the ground.


----------



## etooley1985

*Crenshaw LAX Construction Photos*

from the Crenshaw Facebook page










Installation of electrical conduits in the southbound tunnel










Installation of waterproofing and formwork










Aviation Century Bridge - Floor surfacing (deck framework)










UG4 Installation of rebar










Preparing southbound tunnel for concrete slab flooring










Staging struts at 60th St.










La Brea Bridge - drilling










Green Line Underpass - Framing removal










GREENLINE UNDERPASS - Frame 1. Deck concrete cure completed










La Brea Bridge – Crews placing the asphalt cap










Removing muck from TBM



















I-405 Bridge










Aviation Century Bridge - Concrete placement




























Westchester/Veterans Station – Concrete placement for the northbound platform










Westchester/Veterans Station – Concrete placement for the northbound platform



















I-405 Bridge – Bent cap reinforcement










View inside of the southbound tunnel.










Entrance to the northbound tunnel. View from the Expo/Crenshaw station.










Southbound tunnel



















Leimert Park station box










MLK station deck beams.










Looking into the MLK station box










Leimert Park station southbound view.










Station box










MLK station decking.



















MLK station box.










Martin Luther King southbound view of tunnel entrances.


----------



## CCs77

Here is the ridership chart for the Expo Line during 2016.

As expected, there is a huge increase in ridership in the months of may and july, beacause of the opening of the Santa Monica expansion.

But it draw my attention that after that, it remains flat, even with a slight decrease, but then at the end of the year, during November and December, there is again a huge increase in ridership, almost as high as with the opening of the extension. Why would be that increase towards the end of the year?

By the way, during december, Expo line became the second most ridden line, surpassing Gold by almost 3000 on weekdays.


http://isotp.metro.net/MetroRidership/IndexRail.aspx


----------



## Swede

That's the Red line graph!
EDIT: thanx for fixing it


----------



## etooley1985

*Angeli and Metro Connector*









Angeli and Metro Connector
#RegionalTBM #LittleTokyo #DTLA pic.twitter.com/h1It9SHWiO


----------



## CCs77

Swede said:


> That's the Red line graph!


I just copied the link as an mage and it seems it goes changing from day to day.

Here it is the graphic directly uploaded to photobucket, so it won't change.


----------



## 00Zy99

Note that Saturday ridership is now above previous weekday ridership.


----------



## sotonsi

And that's before it crosses Downtown and reaches East LA and gets a huge boost for that...


----------



## aquamaroon

AND for that matter the new TOD's that are being built specifically with the Expo line in mind, such as the ones in Culver City and La Cienega/Jefferson (although that one is facing some stiff local opposition) and the debut of the "K" line from LAX's connection at Expo/Crenshaw. I don't know what a good ridership projection for the whole "E" line (i.e. the Expo + Eastside Gold line) would be once all Measure M projects are completed, but I have to imagine it'll be a pretty significant percentage of what the red line is now (~140,000/weekday).


----------



## Arnorian




----------



## 00Zy99

What's that from?


----------



## Kenni

Yea, I'm wondering the same thing.


----------



## Kenni

Here's a nice aerial of work on the regional connector behind The Broad Museum next to the Walt Disney Concert Hall in DTLA.

*You can see one of the old remaining traffic tunnels in downtown. As a side note, downtown used to have many hills that with time have been razed, but I think 2 tunnels survive. 


Regional Connector by HunterKerhart.com, on Flickr


----------



## Arnorian

00Zy99 said:


> What's that from?


The Colony


----------



## Arizoner

LA still need more transit


----------



## etooley1985

*Crenshaw/LAX Line construction pictures*

Crenshaw/LAX Line construction pictures from The Source:









Placement of lower wall at Martin Luther King, Jr. Station.









More work in the southbound tunnel.









Components of the concourse level beams at Expo/Crenshaw Station.









The southbound tunnel under Crenshaw Boulevard.









Formwork at Martin Luther King, Jr. Station.









Formwork at Leimert Park Station.









Installation of waterproofing and other materials at the portal to the tunnel in Leimert Park.









Rebar installation in the portal.









Sidewalk work near 52nd Street.










Concrete repair at Aviation/Century Bridge.









Installation of formwork at Leimert Park Station.









Installation of a fire line at Expo/Crenshaw Station.









Staging struts at 60th Street.










The new rail bridge over the 405 freeway.









Work on the underground segment between Hyde Park Station and 67th Street.









Green Line underpass.









Work on the trench by LAX.









Invert drilling in the trench by LAX.









Work at Westchester Station.









Another view of work near Westchester Station.









Near LAX.









Looking toward LAX.









Near Westchester Station.









Aviation/Century Station bridge.









Aviation/Century Bridge deck.





























La Brea Bridge.









Deck drilling on the bridge over La Brea.









Removal of falsework on the Green Line underpass.









Removing muck as Harriet the tunnel boring machine advances on the second tunnel.


----------



## etooley1985

*Regional Connector’s 2nd/Hope Station Construction Photos*

Regional Connector’s 2nd/Hope Station construction photos from The Source:


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Glendale Receives $200,000 Grant to Plan Streetcar Line*"

http://urbanize.la/post/glendale-receives-200000-grant-plan-streetcar-line


----------



## redspork02

https://www.facebook.com/purplelineext/videos/10154315505026778/

FAIRFAX Station Decking.


----------



## redspork02

_This is a shot of Fairfax Decking so far from the roof of the Petersen Automotive Museum. See how the concrete decks contrasts with the black asphalt?_

https://www.facebook.com/purplelineext/

FROM FACEBOOK.


----------



## Kenni

Is that for the Crenshaw line?


----------



## SamuraiBlue

etooley1985 said:


> Regional Connector’s 2nd/Hope Station construction photos from The Source:


Viewing the photos I believe it would have been much more easier and far less invasive if they used a borring machine instead of the cut and cover method.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Kenni said:


> Is that for the Crenshaw line?


The Purple Line 



SamuraiBlue said:


> Viewing the photos I believe it would have been much more easier and far less invasive if they used a borring machine instead of the cut and cover method.


They aren't? If i remember correctly, they are in fact using a TBM. Those photos should be the station box, I thought.


----------



## BoulderGrad

SamuraiBlue said:


> Viewing the photos I believe it would have been much more easier and far less invasive if they used a borring machine instead of the cut and cover method.


That is a pit for a station box which has a lot more involved with it than just the tube and is almost always cut and cover. The tubes connecting stations will definitely be mined by a TBM.


----------



## Woonsocket54

http://urbanize.la/post/angels-flight-reopen-labor-day

"*Angel's Flight to Reopen by Labor Day*"


----------



## SamuraiBlue

BoulderGrad said:


> That is a pit for a station box which has a lot more involved with it than just the tube and is almost always cut and cover. The tubes connecting stations will definitely be mined by a TBM.


Don't buy it. I haven't seen many subway stations being constructed but if you dig a hole like that in the middle of Tokyo then City hall will be coming crashing down on you !! 
Neither Shibuya or any of the Oedo line subway station made such a mess. Not even the Shinagawa station for Chuo Shinkansen they are constructing right now is anywhere near that kind of condition.


----------



## Tower Dude

Two theories of urban design, Mega density versus the sprawl poster child. Also there is matter of deep bore stations in The US are expensive. ESA and SAS for example.


----------



## sotonsi

London has adopted the station box model wherever it can build a station by building a big box - for a start, it helps provide space for all the passengers expected. And when they can't (eg some of the Crossrail stations) they basically do two smaller boxes that are still pretty big and then mine/bore out the station from the big access shaft (which is later used to access the station). The boxes are typically designed to be developed over.


----------



## redspork02

AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS APPROVE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR LAX LANDSIDE ACCESS MODERNIZATION PROGRAM

http://lawa.org/newsLAWA.aspx




(Los Angeles, California – March 2, 2017) The Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners (BOAC) today certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for Los Angeles World Airports’ (LAWA’s) proposed Landside Access Modernization Program (LAMP) at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and recommended that the Los Angeles City Council concur and approve the LAMP Project. 

“The Final EIR represents the culmination of years of planning by LAWA staff and extensive outreach with our neighbors, the airport community and the general public to develop a comprehensive program that will modernize LAX,” said BOAC President Sean Burton. “We’re proud of everyone’s collective efforts, and we’re excited to enter the next phases of the LAMP Project.” 

“The Landside Access Modernization Program would provide certainty, and bring LAX into the modern era for the modern traveler - to ensure that LA is a global gateway,” said LAWA Chief Executive Officer Deborah Flint. “The board’s approval of the final LAMP EIR marks an important milestone and is affirmation that a program designed to improve access to LAX and connect to public transit, would change how our guests and neighbors interact with the airport in many positive ways.” 

Today’s meeting included a public hearing, which drew a large crowd in support of the LAMP project. "Today the airport experience is more critical and impactful for business and vacation travel than ever before," said Joseph Czyzyk, chairman and chief executive officer of Mercury Air Group, a LAX tenant. "From passenger experience improvements to connecting mass transit into our airport, and thereby making our roadways better - there is much to applaud with LAMP." 

"Loyola Marymount University supports LAX's proposed Landside Access Modernization Program," said Andrew O'Reilly, director of community relations, Loyola Marymount University. "As an LAX neighbor, we are impacted by and aware of airport operations, and we are confident that the proposed updates and improvements are critical to the value of the airport and surrounding areas." 

"The project will strengthen the region's economic standing and promote business growth throughout Southern California," said Sarah Golden with the Valley Industry and Commerce Association. "Our local businesses rely on LAX to provide a connection to domestic and foreign markets around the world - VICA is proud to support the Landside Access Modernization Program." 

LAMP would reduce vehicle emissions and improve air quality for communities adjacent to LAX and would transform LAX into a modern, state-of-the-art airport servicing passengers, employees and neighbors. 

LAMP consists of several primary components: an Automated People Mover (APM) system with six stations that would transport passengers between the CTA and the other main project components located east of the CTA. These other components include a Consolidated Rent-A-Car Facility (ConRAC) and two new Intermodal Transportation Facilities, which include public parking and passenger drop-off and pick-up areas. To provide access to the Metro regional rail system, the APM system would include a station at the Intermodal Transit Facility where it interfaces with Metro’s Airport Metro Connector station at 96th Street/Aviation Boulevard. In addition to the major components listed, LAMP would also include planned roadway improvements throughout the LAX area. 

LAWA prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for LAMP in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which was released on September 15, 2016. The official comment period for the Draft EIR ran from September 15 through November 15, 2016. Two public meetings were held in October 2016 that allowed the public to learn about LAMP and its components, with attendees able to submit comments following presentations from LAWA staff and consultants. 

For more information about the proposed LAX Landside Access Modernization Program, visit www.connectinglax.com and www.facebook.com/connectinglax.



Kenni said:


> laxishappening.com


----------



## etooley1985

*The Metro Regional Connector project reached a milestone this week*









The Metro Regional Connector project reached a milestone this week by installing the last deck panel at 2nd St and Spring St in Downtown LA. Check out this aerial photo from a few weeks back when the temporary decking structure was still coming together. #TBT #DTLA Photo credit: Gary Leonard, 2017.


----------



## 00Zy99

HSR?

I think you mean LRT.


----------



## Kenni

I think he meant heavy rail. Subway.


----------



## 00Zy99

Then its HRT.

HSR means High Speed Rail-bullet trains.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

sometimes my fingers work faster than my brain.. i meant HRT, not HSR


----------



## Kenni

I am open to a lesser cost, faster option for the Sepulveda pass, an HRT would be nice, but very expensive and would take a very long time. 

Monorail technology has advanced, and it's a fraction of the cost. What does the Getty tram use to climb that hill?


----------



## sotonsi

Monorail doesn't integrate with anything else. It's useful for shuttles, but as a part of a wider network, it makes sense to use something compatible with other stuff and be easily extendable to other locations - ie HRT, or (more so) LRT.


----------



## pesto

Then the logic seems to be to use monorail from Pacoima to LAX, with transfers at NoHo, Wilshire and LAX (and perhaps other places) onto other rail modalities.

Or wait 30 years and spend 20-30B (Pacoima to LAX).


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

pesto said:


> Then the logic seems to be to use monorail from Pacoima to LAX, with transfers at NoHo, Wilshire and LAX (and perhaps other places) onto other rail modalities.
> 
> Or wait 30 years and spend 20-30B (Pacoima to LAX).


With PPP and Measure M, we can get a HRT built in a much quicker timeline. Also, an HRT line through, not around the pass, will allow for stations where there are actually people and jobs, such as Westwood village, UCLA, and so on. In my opinion, this line must be an HRT all the way from Pacoima to LAX and possibly beyond


----------



## etooley1985

*HRT not Monorail*

I prefer HRT too, over Monorail. The Sepulveda pass is really not a destination, other than the amazing Getty Center. And it's a steep mountain, why not tunnel under it? The valley and the Westside are what need connecting via light or heavy rail. If this was a dense part of the city, a Monorail might make sense. The mayor's nuts. :nuts:



LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> With PPP and Measure M, we can get a HRT built in a much quicker timeline. Also, an HRT line through, not around the pass, will allow for stations where there are actually people and jobs, such as Westwood village, UCLA, and so on. In my opinion, this line must be an HRT all the way from Pacoima to LAX and possibly beyond


----------



## Kenni

I guess what the Mayor and....I am thinking the same way; and yes, because the pass is not a destination, we just need something to connect point A to B, not necessarily to integrate with the system.

Just like what the APM (Automated People Mover) will do at LAX connecting (not integrating) with the Crenshaw Line. It could be on the 405, from the VA to the Orange Line, or even from LAX to the Orange Line.

Monorail track switch - Osaka, Japan


----------



## 00Zy99

You don't want a point-to-point system as much as you do an integrated one. That way you have fewer transfers, which makes the service more attractive.


----------



## Kenni

No way around it then, HRT it is then. I was trying to give it a feasible chance.


----------



## pesto

As I said, those are fine ideas. Now show me the 30B and the 30 years. And the flying monkeys. 

Really, is there going to be a lot of steam behind spending that much? And the next 11 years are focused on building for the Olympics, Inglewood Stadium, LAX and Purple to the VA, so it's going to be 30 years easy.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Minimizing number of necessary transfers is absolutely crucial for a succesfull PT network. What you are suggesting is the complete opposite of that, inflating the number of transfers without a need for it. 

Monorail is a bad choice and it gets worse if only built as a short in between in the network.


----------



## pesto

Slartibartfas said:


> Minimizing number of necessary transfers is absolutely crucial for a succesfull PT network. What you are suggesting is the complete opposite of that, inflating the number of transfers without a need for it.
> 
> Monorail is a bad choice and it gets worse if only built as a short in between in the network.


First, I don't post as an advocate for monorail, which I know is a bête noire for rail buffs. I am just pointing out choices. 

To clarify a potential misunderstanding: a Pacoima to LAX monorail would not add to the number of transfers. If you wanted to go to, say, DT, Century City, Hollywood, Ktown, Beverly Hills, WeHo, etc., you have to change trains in any event; perhaps twice. Of course, monorail is a change of modality but that is not so unusual; it happens at Grand Central and Penn St. every day to say nothing of LA Union Station.


----------



## pesto

Suburbanist said:


> Ideally, the purple line would be extended all the way to the Pacific Palisades and Getty Villa. Pacific Palisades would then be upzoned for high-rises.


LOL. First, density in Santa Monica is too low for the feds to even consider granting funds to build there. Second SaMo is happy with that and vigorously opposes greater density. Third, you are talking about quiet residential neighborhoods in some areas that even the most insane developer wouldn't try to develop. And finally, the views there are gorgeous and nobody wants it to look like Miami or some other hideous resort.

You might as well say that central Amsterdam needs to be torn up for high rises and draining the canals. It's just childish.


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> Just to chime in with my 2¢, I agree that Pacific Palisades will probably always be a quiet beach community. The best bet for high density on the coast is along Wilshire in Santa Monica, following a (finally!) completed Purple Line that stops at Wilshire/4th; and a (please grade separated) light rail line the runs down Lincoln Blvd. through SM, Venice, Playa Vista, and LAX, and then ideally continues down the coast to the Beach Cities.


Not unless someone changes attitudes dramatically. SaMo is dead set against further density or increases of existing height limits on Wilshire and the feds won't fund at that density (last I heard). Purple past the VA is a dead letter until SaMo turns in favor of high density, which I would assume is not in our lifetimes.


----------



## Yak79

There's a very huge misconception about monorails that lump together both lovers and loather of them: “monorail” isn't *a transit mode*, but rather *a technology* related to two very important features (guidance and support) of transit modes. Therefore a monorail line can play different roles in a transit network depending on how it's conceived and built: some of them (like Chongqing and São Paulo ones) meet all the requirements for a full-fledged HRT but, of course, the use of “steel wheels on steel rails”; however, also rubber-tired metros and maglev metros lack of these, and nevertheless are undoubtedly classified as “heavy rail” (e.g. Montreal metro within APTA ridership report).

Unfortunately misconceptions are _like cherries_, one leads to another: since monorail technology occupied for decades a specific niche in transportation world - systems with exclusive, segregated row (like a metro) but way lower capacity and a less wide serviced area - the related image of monorail infrastructure being inexpensive and slender has become common sense. But despite being highly widespread, this is a mere prejudice: extent of civil work and structural size of a monorail line, and accordingly construction costs and visual obstructiveness, varies greatly depending on designed capacity, hence if you want a monorail that can carry as many passengers as a conventional HRT, you'll end up with something more or less as bulky and costly as a conventional elevated HRT.

A technically correct and neutral approach would be: first and foremost, to identify the needed capacity of a line/system and then to choose a technology through an analysis of alternatives, with monorail among them (where appropriate). Conversely, I become suddenly wary, whenever a monorail proposal pops up in the same way as this one, the whole idea not being based on a solid engineering/socioeconomic ground but on fanciness & bias that somewhat goes with the “monorail image” itself.


----------



## pesto

Yak79 said:


> There's a very huge misconception about monorails that lump together both lovers and loather of them: “monorail” isn't *a transit mode*, but rather *a technology* related to two very important features (guidance and support) of transit modes. Therefore a monorail line can play different roles in a transit network depending on how it's conceived and built: some of them (like Chongqing and São Paulo ones) meet all the requirements for a full-fledged HRT but, of course, the use of “steel wheels on steel rails”; however, also rubber-tired metros and maglev metros lack of these, and nevertheless are undoubtedly classified as “heavy rail” (e.g. Montreal metro within APTA ridership report).
> 
> Unfortunately misconceptions are _like cherries_, one leads to another: since monorail technology occupied for decades a specific niche in transportation world - systems with exclusive, segregated row (like a metro) but way lower capacity and a less wide serviced area - the related image of monorail infrastructure being inexpensive and slender has become common sense. But despite being highly widespread, this is a mere prejudice: extent of civil work and structural size of a monorail line, and accordingly construction costs and visual obstructiveness, varies greatly depending on designed capacity, hence if you want a monorail that can carry as many passengers as a conventional HRT, you'll end up with something more or less as bulky and costly as a conventional elevated HRT.
> 
> A technically correct and neutral approach would be: first and foremost, to identify the needed capacity of a line/system and then to choose a technology through an analysis of alternatives, with monorail among them (where appropriate). Conversely, I become suddenly wary, whenever a monorail proposal pops up in the same way as this one, the whole idea not being based on a solid engineering/socioeconomic ground but on fanciness & bias that somewhat goes with the “monorail image” itself.


A nice discussion but you may have over-estimated the ignorance in this thread. 

Monorail is being looked at because there is a specific issue that makes surface or center of freeway rail transit difficult, namely the steepness of the terrain. Therefore tunneling or monorail are possible alternatives. Of course, the amount of traffic has to be considered as well; but here the assumption is that it is very high.

Some are rejecting monorail out of hand; but I believe that some of the arguments used against it (passenger change of line or modality) apply more or less equally to a change from a line going down the center of a freeway to a surface line or underground line.


----------



## Kenni

Yak79 said:


> There's a very huge misconception about monorails that lump together both lovers and loather of them: “monorail” isn't *a transit mode*, but rather *a technology* related to two very important features (guidance and support) of transit modes. Therefore a monorail line can play different roles in a transit network depending on how it's conceived and built: some of them (like Chongqing and São Paulo ones) meet all the requirements for a full-fledged HRT but, of course, the use of “steel wheels on steel rails”; however, also rubber-tired metros and maglev metros lack of these, and nevertheless are undoubtedly classified as “heavy rail” (e.g. Montreal metro within APTA ridership report).
> 
> Unfortunately misconceptions are _like cherries_, one leads to another: since monorail technology occupied for decades a specific niche in transportation world - systems with exclusive, segregated row (like a metro) but way lower capacity and a less wide serviced area - the related image of monorail infrastructure being inexpensive and slender has become common sense. But despite being highly widespread, this is a mere prejudice: extent of civil work and structural size of a monorail line, and accordingly construction costs and visual obstructiveness, varies greatly depending on designed capacity, hence if you want a monorail that can carry as many passengers as a conventional HRT, *you'll end up with something more or less as bulky and costly as a conventional elevated HRT.*
> 
> A technically correct and neutral approach would be: first and foremost, to identify the needed capacity of a line/system and then to choose a technology through an analysis of alternatives, with monorail among them (where appropriate). Conversely, I become suddenly wary, whenever a monorail proposal pops up in the same way as this one, the whole idea not being based on a solid engineering/socioeconomic ground but on fanciness & bias that somewhat goes with the “monorail image” itself.


I doubt it would be an elevated HRT, which would also be costlier than the alternative. What most are advocating for is tunneling under the mountains, which would be extremely expensive, just the soil and geological studies would cost a pretty penny.


----------



## etooley1985

*Historic Angels Flight Reopens After Four Years And $5 Million Overhaul*

Historic Angels Flight Reopens After Four Years And $5 Million Overhaul
from LAist

On Thursday morning, Los Angeles' iconic Angels Flight railway reopened to the public after an almost four-year hiatus. The 298-foot funicular has ferried Angelenos up and down the steep incline of Bunker Hill for more than 115 years, albeit with a few interruptions.

Save for a short cameo in La La Land, Angels Flight's two orange rail cars have been out of service since 2013, following a derailment. The iconic railway first opened in 1901, back when Bunker Hill still housed Victorian mansions and the city's elite. Billed as "the world's shortest railway" at just shy of 300 feet, more than a hundred million trips have been made on Angels Flight since 1901, according to CBS News.

The railway was dismantled and put in storage in 1969, and didn't make its return to downtown Los Angeles for almost three decades, reopening in 1996.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Who is btw responsible for this crime against good taste, crushing the whole neighborhood with this car park concrete monstrosity? At least it offers a great hill view for the parked cars. Maybe the architect was "inspired" by the name Bunker Hill? In any case the whole block is overdue for demolition.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Slartibartfas said:


> In any case the whole block is overdue for demolition.


Working on it.


----------



## etooley1985

*L.A.'s Angels Flight reopens after setbacks*


----------



## pesto

Slartibartfas said:


> Who is btw responsible for this crime against good taste, crushing the whole neighborhood with this car park concrete monstrosity? At least it offers a great hill view for the parked cars. Maybe the architect was "inspired" by the name Bunker Hill? In any case the whole block is overdue for demolition.


What exactly are you referring to?


----------



## etooley1985

*Crenshaw/LAX Line’s tunnel boring machine officially retired (and other pics from project!)*

From The Source:

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) today celebrated the end of tunnel excavation for the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project. Harriet, the tunnel boring machine (TBM), completed digging the second of the twin tunnels for the light rail line on April 6.

Harriet began excavating the first of the two rail tunnels under Crenshaw Boulevard on April 26, 2016. The TBM arrived at Leimert Park Station on October 20. Excavation of the second tunnel began on November 29 and was completed April 6.

The 950-ton, 400-foot-long TBM advanced an average of 60 feet a day through soil and rock under Crenshaw Boulevard. Installation of rail tracks has begun in the southbound tunnel.

The one-mile tunnels connect the project’s three underground stations: Expo/Crenshaw, Martin Luther King Jr. and Leimert Park. The $2.058-billion Crenshaw/LAX Line include eight new stations: Crenshaw/Expo, Martin Luther King Jr., Leimert Park, Hyde Park, Fairview Heights, Downtown Inglewood, Westchester/Veterans and Aviation/Century.

The TBM was named after Harriet Tubman, the famous African-American abolitionist and humanitarian who helped slaves escape the South using a network of safe houses known as the Underground Railroad.

A ninth station — to be built separate from this project — will be located at Aviation Boulevard and 96th Street and will be the transfer point between Metro Rail and an automated people mover that will serve the LAX terminals. Los Angeles World Airports is building the people mover and has targeted a 2023 completion date.









Installation of intersection crossing panels at the intersection of Florence and Centinela. Photos by J. Isaí Rosa/Metro.









Installation of protection formwork and lower walls at the tunnel portal along Crenshaw Boulevard south of Slauson Avenue.









Core drilling and probe drilling for the creation of cross Passages. Cross passages are emergency exits that connect the two separated tunnels.









The structure that will carry tracks up to the junction of the Green Line.


----------



## Slartibartfas

pesto said:


> What exactly are you referring to?


That concrete monstrosity here:









https://cmsplatypus.gothamist.com/g...-angels-flight-reopening-8130-jpg-mobile.jpeg

Bascially everything north-east of the Angels Flight (right of it when you look up). I think Marshall Knights response was towards the other side of the Angels Flight which is basically just empty green land. While a development of that underused piece of land (its not really a park either) is a good thing I was talking about the other side.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Slartibartfas said:


> Bascially everything north-east of the Angels Flight (right of it when you look up). I think Marshall Knights response was towards the other side of the Angels Flight which is basically just empty green land. While a development of that underused piece of land (its not really a park either) is a good thing I was talking about the other side.



Yeah, I had the wrong idea about the boundaries of the Angels Landing site; after checking back through Urbanize I realized it doesn't include that (admittedly horrible) parking garage.


----------



## pesto

Slartibartfas said:


> That concrete monstrosity here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://cmsplatypus.gothamist.com/g...-angels-flight-reopening-8130-jpg-mobile.jpeg
> 
> Bascially everything north-east of the Angels Flight (right of it when you look up). I think Marshall Knights response was towards the other side of the Angels Flight which is basically just empty green land. While a development of that underused piece of land (its not really a park either) is a good thing I was talking about the other side.


On the DT grid, north east is mostly off the frame and behind. I will assume you mean the area that includes the parking structure and what is behind it, an area called Bunker Hill. This is the largest cultural center in a 3 block area in the world. It is also a center for architectural masterpieces, office towers, outdoor dining and pathways, hotels, etc.

The vast majority of the parking and delivery facilities are underground, accessed by a lower level of Grand Ave. This makes the area mostly free of the maintenance and delivery vehicles that congest other densely built areas.

So one side of a parking structure that is underground on the other sides may not be quite that monstrous.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Buncker Hill is a bigger area. I was talking about the block enclosed by S Olive Street / Hill Street and Angels Flight/4th Street. 

This is obviously a hill side location so the other side won't show any exposed garages. But that helps little if this prominent side looks absolutely ugly, brutal and hostile. It does not appear to me that this block is used in a cultural capacity. 

The California Plaza, which I did not mean above is not a beauty either, seen from below, but at least its painted and not raw concrete. Also judging from streetview it is also not very dominant from below, unlike that concrete monstrosity I was talking about. 


But it is not only the looks which are terrible, the adjacent Hill Street is on this side basically a completely dead street hardly deserving the label "urban". There is nothing on that side, except for a meadow with trees barely conceiling the concrete monster behind. I know that Downtown LA had a rough time with the gold car age and such but it seems clear to me that this corner needs some major improvment in the long run. It is maybe not the most pressing thing, given how there is still so much to do in Downtown as a whole but its certainly on the To Do list.


----------



## pesto

Slartibartfas said:


> Buncker Hill is a bigger area. I was talking about the block enclosed by S Olive Street / Hill Street and Angels Flight/4th Street.
> 
> This is obviously a hill side location so the other side won't show any exposed garages. But that helps little if this prominent side looks absolutely ugly, brutal and hostile. It does not appear to me that this block is used in a cultural capacity.
> 
> The California Plaza, which I did not mean above is not a beauty either, seen from below, but at least its painted and not raw concrete. Also judging from streetview it is also not very dominant from below, unlike that concrete monstrosity I was talking about.
> 
> 
> But it is not only the looks which are terrible, the adjacent Hill Street is on this side basically a completely dead street hardly deserving the label "urban". There is nothing on that side, except for a meadow with trees barely conceiling the concrete monster behind. I know that Downtown LA had a rough time with the gold car age and such but it seems clear to me that this corner needs some major improvment in the long run. It is maybe not the most pressing thing, given how there is still so much to do in Downtown as a whole but its certainly on the To Do list.


"Absolutely ugly, brutal and hostile. Terrible. Completely dead street. Monstrous." Please. It's a 3-story concrete wall with holes in it. I wouldn't be surprised to hear Le Corbusier or the Brutalists call it a masterpiece.

In any event, it is dwarfed by the towers above it, the colorful Angel's Flight signage and the trees and shrubs on the hillside. In a list of problems that Spring, Broadway, Hill, 4th and adjacent streets have this is way down the list. I have taken Angel's Flight or eaten at GCM or gone to performances at the outdoor theater immediately above probably 100 times and never even noticed it.


----------



## Slartibartfas

pesto said:


> "Absolutely ugly, brutal and hostile. Terrible. Completely dead street. Monstrous." Please. It's a 3-story concrete wall with holes in it. I wouldn't be surprised to hear Le Corbusier or the Brutalists call it a masterpiece.


Which just confirms my statement as those people were fans of "absolutely ugly brutal and hostile" architecture, not fit for human use. 



> In any event, it is dwarfed by the towers above it, the colorful Angel's Flight signage and the trees and shrubs on the hillside. In a list of problems that Spring, Broadway, Hill, 4th and adjacent streets have this is way down the list. I have taken Angel's Flight or eaten at GCM or gone to performances at the outdoor theater immediately above probably 100 times and never even noticed it.


Then maybe the real impression differs somewhat from those pictures, or you are not very sensitive towards highly exposed brutalist concrete eye sores. In any case, to me the Angels Flight looks like a lovely attraction where you should not look outside the vehicle and beyond the track though as there is really nothing nice to see. I think that is a pity but I can see how Downtown certainly has more important issues than that one.

With the California Plaza on the upper end there is however certainly an interesting destination to go to (not necessarily for the looks but for its function).


----------



## pesto

Slartibartfas said:


> Which just confirms my statement as those people were fans of "absolutely ugly brutal and hostile" architecture, not fit for human use.
> 
> Then maybe the real impression differs somewhat from those pictures, or you are not very sensitive towards highly exposed brutalist concrete eye sores. In any case, to me the Angels Flight looks like a lovely attraction where you should not look outside the vehicle and beyond the track though as there is really nothing nice to see. I think that is a pity but I can see how Downtown certainly has more important issues than that one.
> 
> With the California Plaza on the upper end there is however certainly an interesting destination to go to (not necessarily for the looks but for its function).


Well, you seem to be softening a bit but I am still baffled by your vigor and venom. Have you ever actually been there? 

The building is polished concrete and not unattractive and has trees and bougainvillea (if I recall correctly) in front of it. Angels' Flight goes right by it and then over Olive up to Grand so this is only a minor part of its trip. Much of the trip (and much of Bunker Hill) is concrete and much of it is stone and other materials. I would not refer to them as brutalist; just concrete.


----------



## Slartibartfas

To be honest, I am not entirely sure anymore if I saw that splendid view in person. I can't really remember having seen the Angel's Flight in person, I certainly did not ride it, which is a pity. Back when I was in LA they still had the Grand Park under construction though, I saw that  I also made sure to make extensive use of the light rail and subway in the little time I had at my disposal there. Sadly again, the Expo line wasn't there yet either. 

Downtown LA has great potential I think but at the same time it is still somewhat devastated by a few very destructive decades of car oriented anti-urban planning but that is another story. 

If local residents think like you, then its fine, it is you who live there, not me. But in my opinion this block is in many aspects the opposite of what I consider a human scale, attractive urban development. However, as long as there are so many gaping holes in the urban fabric of downtown and other parts with very low density use it is certainly not the biggest issue that needs to be addressed.


----------



## pesto

Slartibartfas said:


> To be honest, I am not entirely sure anymore if I saw that splendid view in person. I can't really remember having seen the Angel's Flight in person, I certainly did not ride it, which is a pity. Back when I was in LA they still had the Grand Park under construction though, I saw that  I also made sure to make extensive use of the light rail and subway in the little time I had at my disposal there. Sadly again, the Expo line wasn't there yet either.
> 
> Downtown LA has great potential I think but at the same time it is still somewhat devastated by a few very destructive decades of car oriented anti-urban planning but that is another story.
> 
> If local residents think like you, then its fine, it is you who live there, not me. But in my opinion this block is in many aspects the opposite of what I consider a human scale, attractive urban development. However, as long as there are so many gaping holes in the urban fabric of downtown and other parts with very low density use it is certainly not the biggest issue that needs to be addressed.


This is really confusing. First, this block is wonderfully to human scale. Angels' Flight, GCM and everything along Hill is moderate in size or mediated by bushes and medium sized trees. Olive is effectively underground in this area so the really tall buildings are two blocks away. And they are very nicely mediated as well by sculpture, water features and shorter buildings built around the towers. The new Gehry (Related) project likewise will use offset massing to create human sized spaces (as the Broad, Disney and other buildings have already done).

Second, much of LA is car-oriented but DT LA is about as un-devastated by cars as anywhere in the US. Certainly far less so than, say Manhattan, which has huge avenues with lights timed to allow traffic to move quickly. DT LA has relatively narrow streets with considerable traffic calming, bike lanes, oversized crosswalks, lights set to favor pedestrians, etc. Buses and shuttles are commonplace. The presence of huge numbers of homeless testifies to the extent and safety of sidewalks and the slow speed or absence of traffic. They can live on the sidewalks and stumble across the streets with relative safety.


----------



## IsaanUSA

What's with the Amish guys?


----------



## pesto

IsaanUSA said:


> What's with the Amish guys?


Saving a quarter each? That makes a dollar.

Or could it be a refusal to ride on power driven vehicles?

Or is it just a barbershop quartet leaving California Plaza? :lol:


----------



## Slartibartfas

pesto said:


> Second, much of LA is car-oriented but DT LA is about as un-devastated by cars as anywhere in the US. Certainly far less so than, say Manhattan, which has huge avenues with lights timed to allow traffic to move quickly.
> 
> DT LA has relatively narrow streets with considerable traffic calming, bike lanes, oversized crosswalks, lights set to favor pedestrians, etc. Buses and shuttles are commonplace. The presence of huge numbers of homeless testifies to the extent and safety of sidewalks and the slow speed or absence of traffic. They can live on the sidewalks and stumble across the streets with relative safety.


Downtown LA playing on the same level as Manhattan or even above? Have you been taken me on a ride all along? Or are you indeed seriously? 

In any case, I think I have thrown too much off topic stuff into this forum already, let's get back to public transportation.


----------



## pesto

Slartibartfas said:


> Downtown LA playing on the same level as Manhattan or even above? Have you been taken me on a ride all along? Or are you indeed seriously?
> 
> In any case, I think I have thrown too much off topic stuff into this forum already, let's get back to public transportation.


Remember what YOU said and what I said: you said DT LA was destroyed by the car; I said it wasn't AT ALL destroyed by the car but Manhattan has had some damage from cars (enormous, broad avenues carrying multiple lanes of traffic at high speed (when not jammed up). DT LA has none of these. It is not Manhattan by any means but it is quite free of damage from cars.

As for focusing on LA transit, I'm happy to discuss any of the six major rail lines going through DT (Purple, Red, Blue, Expo, Gold north and south) or other transit modalities.


----------



## Kenni

IsaanUSA said:


> What's with the Amish guys?


Funny you ask. You know, lately we have been getting a lot of Amish visits here in LA. I've seen them in 2 occasions on Hollywood Blvd handing out a music cd out to passers by. And in downtown _touristing_. I don't know why all of a sudden...they're here.


----------



## redspork02

For those of you who travel from the Valley to the LA westside....
LA Metro wants to hear from you. 

THey want us to take a survey. 
SEPULVEDA TRANSIT CORRIDOR Feasibility Study

---------------------

They also released a timeline of the Study. THey hope to have ot completed by Fall of 2019.

METRO Press Release on SEPULVEDA Pass Rail












> The Sepulveda Transit Corridor project launched a feasibility study last December to evaluate a number of rail transit alternatives with potential connections to the Orange Line, East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor (bus rapid transit or light rail between Van Nuys and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station), Purple Line Extension, Expo Line and other transit connections near LAX. Local funding for the project comes from Measures R and M — with Measure M supplying nearly $10 billion for the project. Metro is also pursuing the possibility of a public-private partnership to deliver the project sooner.





> The feasibility study is scheduled to be complete in Fall 2019. The study’s findings will be the basis for further planning activities, including state and federal environmental studies that will refine the project.


----------



## Anday

*From Mayor Eric Garcetti on Twitter:*



> Here’s the first look at renderings of the proposed gondola that could take fans from Union Station straight to @Dodgers Stadium.


----------



## redspork02

IDK...............I need more time to think about this.............lol


----------



## redspork02

*Introducing Draft Metro’s Vision 2028 Plan; comment period begins today*


> We encourage you to give the Metro Vision 2028 plan a read. There is more in there, we promise – above are a few highlights. The plan also tackles housing, safety and security, fares, agency finances and creating more jobs across the region. Ultimately, we hope you’ll join us as we build a better transportation future for L.A. County.


----------



## redspork02

L.A. Mayor Garcetti Helps Unveil Tunnel Boring Machines










Twin Boring Machines 
1) Elsie - named for *Elsie Eavers*, the first woman elected as a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, according to Metro.
2) Soyeon - named for female astronaut and mechanical engineer *Yi Soyeon*, whose name means “bright” and “beautiful.”

Tunneling to begin on Purple Line extension under LA's Miracle Mile



> Tunneling for the first phase of Metro's Purple Line Extension project will begin later this summer under the Miracle Mile


LA Metro Unveils Purple Line Extension Boring Machines



> The machines, each weighing about 1,000 tons, will be fully assembled at Wilshire and La Brea Avenue, and they will dig twin tunnels toward the east to the Wilshire/Western Station, where the Purple Line currently ends. The machines will then be moved back to La Brea, and they will dig west toward Beverly Hills.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Lots of new funding for local projects thanks to the state gas tax... This is just from 1 year of collections. Imagine all the good that can be done in the next decade with this kind of dedicated funding. 

http://urbanize.la/post/state-funds-awarded-los-angeles-area-transportation-projects


----------



## etooley1985

*Gas Tax*

Make sure you vote against the ballet measure that will most likely appear on the midterm elections to invalidate the new gas tax. The State Republicans will do anything they can to take that new funding away. I hope they don’t succeed (again) this time.

Updated: They have the needed signatures for the ballot measure. Please vote against this.
https://www.scpr.org/news/2018/04/30/82646/anti-gas-tax-critics-turn-in-signatures-for-califo/

*An effort by California conservatives to repeal a recent increase in gas taxes and vehicle registration fees ramped up Monday as the supporters turned in more than 940,000 signatures to put the question before voters in November.*

The signatures were submitted days after California transportation officials pre-emptively fought back, announcing billions of dollars in mass transit improvements funded in part by the tax hikes. It sets up an election showdown over the condition of California's roads and its high gas prices.

The initiative is a key part of the 2018 election strategy for Republicans, who face the prospect of having no candidates for governor or U.S. Senate at the top of the ticket and Democrats highly motivated by opposition to President Donald Trump. Much of the funding for the initiative has come from the California Republican Party and members of the congressional delegation.

About two dozen people held bright red and white signs that read "Stop The Car Tax" and "Stop The Gas Tax" in front of the San Diego Registrar of Voters building on a cool cloudy day.

Carl DeMaio, a conservative San Diego radio host who led the repeal drive, warned the gas tax will cost Democrats seats in the Legislature. The large number of signatures gathered should be "a wake-up call," he said.

Lawmakers last year approved SB1, which raised gas taxes by $0.12 per gallon and diesel taxes by $0.20 starting last November. Drivers renewing their vehicle registration this year are paying a new fee between $25 and $175 depending on the value of the vehicle. And in 2020, zero-emission vehicle owners will be charged a $100 fee with their vehicle registration since they do not contribute to road maintenance through gas taxes.

The initiative would repeal SB1 and require voter approval for any future gas taxes or vehicle registration fees.

"This ballot measure would jeopardize public safety by eliminating funding for vital highway, road and bridge safety improvements across California. It's dangerous and must be defeated," said Doug Villars, president of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, part of a coalition of labor unions, construction contractors and local governments opposing the initiative.

Gov. Jerry Brown's administration last week awarded $2.6 billion in funding for transit and intercity rail projects in Southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area and the Central Valley. Brown was the driving force behind SB1 and his administration has aggressively promoted the roadway and transit improvements that it will fund. The various tax hikes are projected to raise about $5 billion per year.

A Public Policy Institute of California poll in January found that voters were deeply divided, with 47 percent supporting repeal and 48 percent opposed.

Most of the 940,000 signatures were collected in Southern California. At least 585,407 of the signatures must be valid for the initiative to qualify for the ballot.

Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox denied it is a strategy to spur voters in the left-leaning state to come out in November but said at a press conference that California spends more than other state to build a mile of road.

"We're going to send the message that that corruption and that waste has got to end and it will be ending in November when we elect a new governor who will use the resources wisely in this state," he said.

Whether Republicans can successfully use the initiative to juice turnout is "very much an open question," said Jack Pitney, a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College.

"The question is whether the sentiment is strong enough to motivate turnout by people who might not otherwise vote," Pitney said.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*New Silver Line Platform Makes Progress at Union Station*"

http://urbanize.la/post/new-silver-line-platform-makes-progress-union-station


----------



## zaphod

12 cents a gallon in a car that has a 13 gallon tank is a $1.56 in taxes. That's not very much. I don't know what these people are whining about.


----------



## ssiguy2

In Vancouver we are currently paying $1.61/litre, which is about $7/gallon


----------



## CB31

zaphod said:


> 12 cents a gallon in a car that has a 13 gallon tank is a $1.56 in taxes. That's not very much. I don't know what these people are whining about.


Besides the have to understand that if they are damaging and polluting the health of everybody at least they have to pay for that if not stop ideally.



ssiguy2 said:


> In Vancouver we are currently paying $1.61/litre, which is about $7/gallon


I assume it is due to taxes, right? And if it is the case do you know for what are being used those funds? Because I'm not really seing any huge transport projects in Vancouver.


----------



## Stuu

The US is quite unusual in having local variations in sales taxes (as far as I'm aware anyway...) to pay for specific projects. So in Canada (and in Europe) sales tax just goes into the government and is then used for any spending rather than specifically for new highways or subways


----------



## Kenni

EDIT


----------



## redspork02

LA TIMES - CA now 5th Largest Economy - Passing UK

This might help. 
Hopefully the politicians don't F that up.


----------



## Nouvellecosse

CB31 said:


> I assume it is due to taxes, right? And if it is the case do you know for what are being used those funds? Because I'm not really seing any huge transport projects in Vancouver.


Do you not consider a brand new 19.5 km long automated metro line, an 11km metro extension and two cable-stayed road bridges - one which was longest in NA at its opening - all within the last decade to be huge for that size of city? Or the light rail and metro extension projects currently pending?


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

zaphod said:


> 12 cents a gallon in a car that has a 13 gallon tank is a $1.56 in taxes. That's not very much. I don't know what these people are whining about.


This nonsense repeal bill was only brought as a way to rile up the republican base to get them out to vote because they need a rallying point to try to save some congressional seats.

I hope this repeal dies a violent death as its probably the best tax we have in the state. Its already paying off in a huge way.


----------



## GojiMet86

*BYD: Buses that are duds, political corruption,...*

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-electric-buses-20180520-story.html




> *Stalls, stops and breakdowns: Problems plague push for electric buses*
> 
> By PAIGE ST. JOHN MAY 20﻿, 2018 | 6:00 AM﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Chinese battery maker BYD Ltd. approached Southern California officials in 2008 touting ambitious plans to build electric cars, local politicians jumped at the promise of thousands of jobs and cleaner air.
> 
> In the nine years since, agencies have awarded BYD grants, subsidies and public contracts worth more than $330 million for its battery-powered buses, forklifts and trucks. The company is positioned to be a prime supplier of electric buses to the nation's second-largest system, as Los Angeles' Metro sets a 12-year deadline to abandon fossil fuels.
> 
> But largely unbeknownst to the public, BYD's electric buses are contending with a record of poor perfo﻿rmance and mechanical problems.﻿﻿
> 
> A Times investigation found its buses stalled on hills, required service calls much more frequently than older buses and had unpredictable driving ranges below advertised distances, which were impaired by the heat, the cold or the way drivers braked.﻿
> 
> A federal testing center and transit agencies across the country logged driving ranges that were dozens of miles short of company claims, limiting the routes they can handle and requiring passengers to shuffle onto replacement buses when the batteries go low.
> 
> The first five buses BYD sent to Los Angeles Metro were pulled off the road after less than five months of service. Internal emails and other agency records show that agency staff called them "unsuitable," poorly made and unreliable for more than 100 miles. Despite strong concerns from its own staff about the quality and reliability of the company's vehicles, the transit agency awarded BYD tens of millions of dollars more in public contracts...........


----------



## aquaticko

Electric heavy vehicles seem very premature to me. Barring unique setups--like the wireless charging electric buses used in Seoul around Namsan, they still carry far too much weight per unit energy, and even though regenerative braking will put some energy back in, batteries remain temperamental things which like to operate within certain ranges and not outside those ranges. Why gasoline hybrid or CNG hybrid buses aren't chosen first and foremost is a little befuddling to me, PR value of "emissions-free" buses aside.


----------



## phoenixboi08

aquaticko said:


> Why gasoline hybrid or CNG hybrid buses aren't chosen first and foremost is a little befuddling to me, PR value of "emissions-free" buses aside.


Weren't those notoriously heavy...?
NJ Transit ordered a few, and I believe this has been an issue.

In any case, isn't the real takeaway that these BYD buses are clearly poorly made...? From the looks of it, beyond all the actual necessary systems and functions that sound problematic, do we even know if the battery packs they're using are of the necessary quality? 

I'm shocked the Times didn't bother to visit the factory and compare the products to what is produced elsewhere (eg. SZH) to dig more into that last question. The patronage [of local jobs] isn't the main story here, really.

But I think the increasing number of these types of developments should put a bit of cold water on all the breathless cheerleading of Chinese firms.


----------



## aquaticko

Pure electric vehicles are almost always heavier than internal combustion engine vehicles because batteries are far less energy-dense than fossil fuels, and so more batteries must be carried to provide comparable performance.

I do second your motion though. Greater investigation into a significant, significantly flawed investment is always warranted.


----------



## redspork02

http://www.whamrail.com/

Video released by the West Hollywood Advocates for Metro Rail. 



> *THANK YOU METRO. LET’S #FINISHTHELINE !*
> Thank you all for asking Metro to help us Finish the Line! Last month Metro’s CEO Phil Washington promised to accelerate studies for the Northern Extension of the Crenshaw Line. Thank you, Metro for helping get us shovel ready by 2020!
> 
> MOVE LA – “LIFE HAPPENS OUTSIDE YOUR CAR”


WEHO ON THE GO: 2028 OLYMPICS


----------



## dysharmonica

I mean, I am excited that there is a coalition advocating for transit, but hate to think that in a city with so many needs we'd prioritize projects based on lobbying and not actual data. Seems like lousy proposal, also - good transit is not for occasional destinations (like stadiums or airports), but for everyday destinations.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Airports aren't "occasional" destinations. While the number of commuters might be somewhat modest (when thinking in metro dimensions), airports are a key mobility hub of a city and create fairly continious two way traffic, that makes them not only pretty well suited for frequent heavy rail access (of whatever sort) but also a key destination for any PT network, tremendously raising its overalll quality and network coverage. 

As a matter of fact, airports are not only important for municipal transportation but it makes a lot of sense to connect them to intercity or high speed railway, if possible. 

Stadiums on the other side are indeed occasional destinations. Connecting them can solve a lot of traffic problems though for a city, at a certain cost. If you can integrate stadiums in a new line which has ample other destinations justifying the line, it makes perfect sense. 

Vienna might have one of the most sophisticated stadium stations actually. It is a 3 track station with two platforms and a feeder single track connecting directly to the depot. Additionally each platform have 4 additional staircases which are opened during events and vastly increase the station capacity. In the main direction of traffic during events, two tracks can be used simultanously. Overall, I think if the special facilities are used, 50 000 people can be transported within one hour to or from the stadium, by subway. What was the daily ridership of LA metro again? 

The third track, used only for special events which can be used for either direction:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...pg/1024px-Stadion_(Vienna_U-bahn_Station).jpg

And here are the special entrances leading to the 4 additional staircases:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-Bah...2_Stadion_AG_süd_Veranstaltungseingang_02.jpg


----------



## Kenni

dysharmonica said:


> I mean, I am excited that there is a coalition advocating for transit, but hate to think that in a city with so many needs we'd prioritize projects based on lobbying and not actual data. Seems like lousy proposal, also - good transit is not for occasional destinations (like stadiums or airports), but for everyday destinations.


Wait....you're talking about pitching LAX? Which is the 5th largest in the world by passenger, 80 million plus passengers per year? Plus all the employees, and those who work in El Segundo.

Plus, I mentioned this in another thread, the Crenshaw Line, which is the one in question here....is so paramount to this section of the metro area, which furthermore its extension north to the Red Line would probably make it...in passenger numbers, comparable to the Blue Line.


----------



## Amexpat

dysharmonica;149427649... good transit is not for occasional destinations (like stadiums or airports) said:


> Airports may be occasional destinations for passengers, but close to 60,000 people work at or near LAX.
> 
> It's a major plus to have a well functioning airport for a city's economy. LAX is also the main regional airport for Southern Cal and there should be good regional mass transportation options to and from LAX. A good start would be to connect the Green Line to the Norwalk metro.


----------



## Woonsocket54

The vast majority of folks in the US using transit to reach airports are airport employees. I believe the same is not the case in Europe and Asia.


----------



## Amexpat

Woonsocket54 said:


> The vast majority of folks in the US using transit to reach airports are airport employees. I believe the same is not the case in Europe and Asia.


True. Here in Oslo about 50% of passengers take the train and 15% take the bus


----------



## LAYiddo

dysharmonica said:


> I mean, I am excited that there is a coalition advocating for transit, but hate to think that in a city with so many needs we'd prioritize projects based on lobbying and not actual data. Seems like lousy proposal, also - good transit is not for occasional destinations (like stadiums or airports), but for everyday destinations.


Having lived in Los Angeles for 12 years I always thought it was an absolutely disgrace that the train didn't go to LAX, lobbying by the taxi drivers union back in the day stopped it when the train went out to El Segundo. 

An airport may be an occasional destination for many of the residents of Los Angeles but the sheer number of tourists that come through LAX and the vast number of people that use it often (as I used to do) would greatly benefit from a rail link into the airport. Even if I had to drive to a station and park my car and head in from there it would be a better option than driving up/down the 405, fighting through the traffic on Century to get to the airport or to that god awful Parking Lot C. Getting those people off the road can only be a good thing. Having left L.A. for Houston 4 years ago I wish we had the option of public transport to the airports here. Public transport is worse here than Los Angeles!


----------



## redspork02

LOS ANGELES MAG ARTICLE ABOUT WEST HOLLYWOOD EXTENTION

*Where Should WeHo’s Rail Line Go?*



> It’s early in the process, but a route preference for the Crenshaw Northern Extension is solidifying





> An extension of the Crenshaw Line to West Hollywood is moving out of the pipe-dream phase and into the maybe-an-eventual-reality phase. At its May meeting, Metro’s board approved a $500,000 budget to begin environmental studies on the Crenshaw Northern Extension rail project. The big question that remains is what route the Crenshaw extension will take, especially considering there are so many points of interest within WeHo’s 1.9 square miles.





> According to Horvath, community outreach conducted by the city and Metro has determined that *Santa Monica/Fairfax*, *Santa Monica/La Cienega*, and *Santa Monica/San Vicente *are currently the most popular alignments for the rail line. Metro research has indicated that of those three options, the San Vicente alignment would serve the most riders.


----------



## sotonsi

60,000 employees, 230 days a year, 2 trips per day is 27,600,000. Thus workers make a quarter of visitors to LAX. Given that a sizeable proportion (more than a quarter, though I can't find actual figures) travel both to and from the airport via plane (transfer passengers), the proportion of potential market for transit to the airport from workers is a significant minority. And can easily make a majority of actual passengers, even with decent transit ridership of airport customers.


----------



## snot

dysharmonica said:


> I mean, I am excited that there is a coalition advocating for transit, but hate to think that in a city with so many needs we'd prioritize projects based on lobbying and not actual data. Seems like lousy proposal, also - good transit is not for occasional destinations (like stadiums or airports), but for everyday destinations.


Wtf? Only in third world countries airports have crappy or non existing mass transit. 
Airports should be the first place to have good connections for travellers, tourists and bussinesmen with the city.


----------



## Kenni

Metro recommends an LTR between the Orange Line and Sylmar in the Valley.










Source


----------



## Amexpat

Kenni said:


> Metro recommends an LTR between the Orange Line and Sylmar in the Valley.


Seems inefficient to have a LTR that doesn't connect to the other LRT routes. You'd need a separate maintenance and storage facility and you lose the flexibility to move the trains from one line to another if needed.


----------



## Amexpat

sotonsi said:


> 60,000 employees, 230 days a year, 2 trips per day is 27,600,000. Thus workers make a quarter of visitors to LAX. Given that a sizeable proportion (more than a quarter, though I can't find actual figures) travel both to and from the airport via plane (transfer passengers), the proportion of potential market for transit to the airport from workers is a significant minority. And can easily make a majority of actual passengers, even with decent transit ridership of airport customers.


There are two main types of passengers, business and leisure. Speed is the essential component to get business travelers to take mass transit as they can write off the cost of a taxi. Airports that have fast direct links to downtown will get a good chunk of the business travelers in cities with a lot of traffic.

Budget leisure travelers will often take mass transit even if it takes longer if they can save a few bucks. Upscale leisure travelers will prefer convenience and they don't want the hassle of taking their valuable luggage on transit with the masses. They will drive or by driven to the airport.


----------



## Slartibartfas

I see many business travelers taking the express premium train service from VIE and honestly, why wouldn't they? No one is carrying your luggage while being in the airport either (usually at least) and the way to the taxis is just as long as to the train station. The Premium service has its own platform and very spacious carriages with lots of special room for luggage. 

I agree however that with complicated service like having to change lines in the middle once or even twice, before even getting to Downtown, that this isn't very attractive for business travelers. 

I think Denver did a proper job of connecting a very busy airport, which serves as the crucial mobility anchor of the city, to its downtown, with direct rail services. Ok, it is not high speed and not premium but travel time of 37 min still feels ok and service times and frequencies are fine. It would be interesting how transit in Denver and soon also LA compare in their ability of attracting business travelers.


----------



## sotonsi

Amexpat said:


> There are two main types of passengers, business and leisure. Speed is the essential component to get business travelers to take mass transit as they can write off the cost of a taxi. Airports that have fast direct links to downtown will get a good chunk of the business travelers in cities with a lot of traffic.
> 
> Budget leisure travelers will often take mass transit even if it takes longer if they can save a few bucks. Upscale leisure travelers will prefer convenience and they don't want the hassle of taking their valuable luggage on transit with the masses. They will drive or by driven to the airport.


Indeed, the Heathrow Express competes with taxis used by business and upscale leisure travellers, not with the Piccadilly line. Despite doing well enough, the express airport service is pretty empty leaving the airport compared to the local tube line.

The initial priority for airport transit surely needs to be aimed at workers, which would also help leisure travellers. You transport more people that way.


----------



## Kenni

Amexpat said:


> Seems inefficient to have a LTR that doesn't connect to the other LRT routes. You'd need a separate maintenance and storage facility and you lose the flexibility to move the trains from one line to another if needed.


True. I don't know what's going on. The the Orange Line has always been intended to be converted into an LTR....tho there are many legal hurdles and prohibitions. I believe legally it can only be a subway (some stupid restriction).


----------



## MrAronymous

On the Van Nuys corridor some studies have showed low-floor lrt as a serious option.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Kenni said:


> True. I don't know what' going on. The the Orange Line has always been intended to be converted into an LTR....tho there are many legal hurdles and prohibitions. I believe legally it can only be a subway (some stupid restriction).


So the SFVTC _isn't_ conceptually a starting segment of the Sepulveda Corridor?
That seems...short-sighted?





I really wish they would just extend a HRT from Santa Clarita along the existing MetroLink corridor to the airport, repurpose the northern portion of the Harbor Subdivision to get to LAUS, and get provisional service for Amtrak/HSR that way -- until they get around to building those tunnels under the Tehachapis/San Gabriels...


----------



## Kenni

Nope, it's just the Sepulveda Pass.


----------



## Amexpat

Kenni said:


> True. I don't know what's going on. The the Orange Line has always been intended to be converted into an LTR....tho there are many legal hurdles and prohibitions. I believe legally it can only be a subway (some stupid restriction).


Making the Orange line LRT wouldn't solve the problem of connectability with the rest of the LRT system. 

The idea would make sense if they chose one of the LRT concepts for the Sepulveda Transit corridor and connected with the Expo Line. But then they should start on the Expo Line side and go north to get the initial benefit of connecting to Expo Line to the Purple Line before the long tunnel north to the Valley. 

I think heavy rail makes more sense for the Sepulveda Transit corridor because of the number of passengers, but if they chose the LRT option from Sylmar to the Expo Line, then I think they should try to extend the Red Line to Van Nuys to get some of the traffic from the Symar LRT.


----------



## Kenni

I don't think an LTR works for the Sepulveda Pass, that has been discussed before. It is very steep. 

The options are subway or.....and I was ridiculed when I proposed it, but Metro is now seriously thinking about it......monorail.


----------



## Amexpat

Kenni said:


> I don't think an LTR works for the Sepulveda Pass, that has been discussed before. It is very steep...
> monorail.


I read that discussion here. Tunneling is an option, but I don't know how the costs would compare.

Getting back to the idea of an LRT from the Sylmar station to Van Nuys Orange line. Metro has had a "stranded" LRT with the Gold Line for years, although that is much longer than this proposed LRT and it will soon be connected to the rest of the LRT system.

If they did choose a LRT in North SF Valley would it not make sense to consider expanding the Red Line to the Van Nuys Sation? That way there would be just one transfer to get from North SF Valley to DTLA. That would also transfer some of the traffic on the Orange lLne to a quicker and more environmentally friendly HRT.


----------



## Stuu

Kenni said:


> I don't think an LTR works for the Sepulveda Pass, that has been discussed before. It is very steep. [/URL].


How steep is it? LRT can usually deal with grades up to 7-8%. Google says the limit on Interstates is 7% so if the rail doesn't need to be steeper than the highway then there's no problem


----------



## MarshallKnight

The LRT options that Metro is considering for Sepulveda would be tunneled; a subway in every sense except not a third-rail HRT system. 

The only options that follow the grade over the hill are a “rubber-tire train” or a monorail.


----------



## dysharmonica

MarshallKnight said:


> The LRT options that Metro is considering for Sepulveda would be tunneled; a subway in every sense except not a third-rail HRT system.
> 
> The only options that follow the grade over the hill are a “rubber-tire train” or a monorail.


We learned from Seattle that the grade-advantage of rubber tired rail/monorail is basically only theoretical. The Seattle monorail had the same maximum grade as LRT


----------



## MrAronymous

If the Sepulveda pass is so important, expensive and a long time coming, why not make it a metro? It should only be slightly more expensive in theory.


----------



## MarshallKnight

MrAronymous said:


> If the Sepulveda pass is so important, expensive and a long time coming, why not make it a metro? It should only be slightly more expensive in theory.



They’re strongly considering heavy rail, including one variation that would extend a branch of the Purple Line, making for one-seat rides between Van Nuys-DTLA in addition to the westside and eventually LAX (although as I understand it, such a route would preclude a UCLA campus stop which doesn’t seem worth the trade-off). 

But LRT could be just as, if not more, effective for the system as a whole, because it would allow for interlining with the Green, Crenshaw and/or Gold/Expo lines, gives Metro several options for one-seat rides through the region. The key would be grade separation and frequency.

If I had my druthers, I’d move for LRT that branches down all three — making for single-rides from Van Nuys to DTLA/East LA via the Expo/Gold, to Norwalk via the Green and to Torrance via the Green/Crenshaw — with 2-minute headways during rush hour on the Sepulveda trunk.


----------



## sotonsi

It does interact with the Purple line, so HRT stock can get there without a new depot. But it also interacts with the Expo line, so LRT stock can get there without a new depot It can be either (especially if it has its own depot), but LRT would be (slightly) cheaper to build, with more flexibility for extension and better integration with the rest of the network. If you build it HRT, then its much harder to extend in the Valley or south of LAX.

While LA can run more than 12tph (max frequency where Red and Purple both run) on it's HRT Metro, it doesn't. It runs up-to-20tph on its LRT (where Blue and Expo share track) and can probably run a little more. LA also runs triples (as well as singles and doubles) on LRT, giving 260ft vehicles vs 450ft vehicles on HRT, and so a bit over half the capacity per train (and there's nothing stopping quadruples or quints on Sepulveda if they have long enough platforms, though I'd imagine it wouldn't be allowed on-street as it would create problems)

Segregated LRT can run seriously high frequencies if necessary, and as such, Sepulveda can, as LRT, offer at least one-and-a-half times current supply of capacity that the Red/Purple shared section currently does (ie 36tph of triples) without slowing down service or 4-track stations at each end of the pass (dwell times become a limiting factor). Even quasi-on-street bits like the Blue-Expo shared bit can do 30+tph with 190ft vehicles in Manchester.


----------



## Illithid Dude

I could also imagine an LRT option being subject to constant delays, since it will interface with the street-running northern San Fernando valley line.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Maybe Chongqing is a good place to look at. They started with two monorail systems (proper ones in every aspect, not the toys they use to be so far in the US), yet, since then they have switched entirely to proper metro lines, even though the geography of the city hasn't changed in the middle of the way. 


That Sepulveda Pass looks like a terrible missed opportunity even already now where still so little is known. One of the key aspects of an efficient high priority network is that you keep necessary transfers to an absolute minimum. Making a lot of not strictly necessary transfers along the axis of one and the same corridor adds a lot of travel time and reduces attractiveness of the entire network substantially. 

What would be the needed gradients for non-tunnel variants of the Sepulveda pass? The tram in Gmunden for example has a maximum gradient of 9.6%. The Pöstlingbergbahn in Linz, which is run as a light rail, has an _average _gradient of 8.8% on a length of approximately 3 km. Ok, those are extreme examples but rail based systems can take more than some are giving credit.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Metro has released the proposed operating plan after Crenshaw Line opens next year.









http://thesource.metro.net/2018/06/...ng-plan-for-crenshaw-lax-line-and-green-line/

Preferred plan is now on the left. There will be two lines.

There will be a train between Redondo Beach and Century/Aviation, using existing tracks from Redondo Beach and then switching to the Crenshaw Line just west of the existing Green Line Aviation station. This line will only have five stops, but it will run every six minutes during peak hours. In 2023 it will be extended north to Aviation/96th for transfer to the airport people mover.

The other line will run from Norwalk to Expo/Crenshaw. It will have 18 stops (19 stops after opening of Aviation/96th). 

There will be timed transfers at Century/Aviation. All trains use the same platform at Century/Aviation, so no one will need to walk up or down to make the transfer. The "G" shuttle bus to airport terminals will move to Century/Aviation station (which will be served by both lines) from the current Aviation/LAX station (which in the future will be served only by the Norwalk-Crenshaw line).

The big drawback is for folks who commute from the Norwalk/Lakewood/Long Beach/Watts areas to Redondo Beach, as their one-seat ride will now be longer due to a required changeover at Aviation/Century. 

In other news, Metro has announced that all-door boarding will begin 2018.06.24 on bus 754 (the express bus on Vermont Avenue between Los Feliz and Athens. On 2018.10.14 it will be expanded to bus 720 (the east-west express bus on Wilshire Blvd and Whittier Blvd and one of the busiest buses in Los Angeles). But folks will still be allowed to load cash on their TAP cards at the front of the bus, so this will not eliminate boarding delays entirely.

http://thesource.metro.net/2018/06/14/all-door-boarding-to-start-on-metro-rapid-754-on-june-24/


----------



## zaphod

Slartibartfas said:


> Maybe Chongqing is a good place to look at. They started with two monorail systems (proper ones in every aspect, not the toys they use to be so far in the US), yet, since then they have switched entirely to proper metro lines, even though the geography of the city hasn't changed in the middle of the way.
> 
> 
> That Sepulveda Pass looks like a terrible missed opportunity even already now where still so little is known. One of the key aspects of an efficient high priority network is that you keep necessary transfers to an absolute minimum. Making a lot of not strictly necessary transfers along the axis of one and the same corridor adds a lot of travel time and reduces attractiveness of the entire network substantially.
> 
> What would be the needed gradients for non-tunnel variants of the Sepulveda pass? The tram in Gmunden for example has a maximum gradient of 9.6%. The Pöstlingbergbahn in Linz, which is run as a light rail, has an _average _gradient of 8.8% on a length of approximately 3 km. Ok, those are extreme examples but rail based systems can take more than some are giving credit.




But how fast are those steeply graded rail lines? In addition to grades you have curves and other issues.

This is a line across a mountain pass with no intermediate stations. A tunnel would be really fast and with speed you can achieve better service and more frequency.

I like the flexibility of an LRT tunnel option. Routing can change in the future.


----------



## Kenni

Woonsocket54 said:


> Metro has released the proposed operating plan after Crenshaw Line opens next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://thesource.metro.net/2018/06/...ng-plan-for-crenshaw-lax-line-and-green-line/
> 
> Preferred plan is now on the left. There will be two lines.
> 
> There will be a train between Redondo Beach and Century/Aviation, using existing tracks from Redondo Beach and then switching to the Crenshaw Line just west of the existing Green Line Aviation station. This line will only have five stops, but it will run every six minutes during peak hours. In 2023 it will be extended north to Aviation/96th for transfer to the airport people mover.
> 
> The other line will run from Norwalk to Expo/Crenshaw. It will have 18 stops (19 stops after opening of Aviation/96th).
> 
> There will be timed transfers at Century/Aviation. All trains use the same platform at Century/Aviation, so no one will need to walk up or down to make the transfer. The "G" shuttle bus to airport terminals will move to Century/Aviation station (which will be served by both lines) from the current Aviation/LAX station (which in the future will be served only by the Norwalk-Crenshaw line).
> 
> The big drawback is for folks who commute from the Norwalk/Lakewood/Long Beach/Watts areas to Redondo Beach, as their one-seat ride will now be longer due to a required changeover at Aviation/Century.
> 
> In other news, Metro has announced that all-door boarding will begin 2018.06.24 on bus 754 (the express bus on Vermont Avenue between Los Feliz and Athens. On 2018.10.14 it will be expanded to bus 720 (the east-west express bus on Wilshire Blvd and Whittier Blvd and one of the busiest buses in Los Angeles). But folks will still be allowed to load cash on their TAP cards at the front of the bus, so this will not eliminate boarding delays entirely.
> 
> http://thesource.metro.net/2018/06/14/all-door-boarding-to-start-on-metro-rapid-754-on-june-24/


Alt. 2 makes more sense to me. :hmm:


----------



## Kenni

From Mayor Eric Garcetti's FB page.

*Rail concepts released for Sepulveda Transit Corridor project*

The Sepulveda Transit Corridor (So I guess it is bigger than what I supposed)


























































































SOURCE


----------



## sotonsi

Kenni said:


> Alt. 2 makes more sense to me. :hmm:


Alt 1 seems set up for Brown* line through to the Valley! I'd imagine that's why they are making one long line and one short (which will become long), as in the future that will become two long lines, rather than a medium one and a very long one.

*I presume it's Brown, as the diagram has the Green line in orange, and brown tends to be what they use for Crenshaw.


Illithid Dude said:


> I could also imagine an LRT option being subject to constant delays, since it will interface with the street-running northern San Fernando valley line.


Not necessarily - street-running is slow, but in the quasi-segregated form Metro typically uses, it doesn't tend to cause delays.

You also have half the service turning round at the Orange line (either Sepulveda or Van Nuys stations). This will provide some resilience for the service southwards.


----------



## Slartibartfas

zaphod said:


> But how fast are those steeply graded rail lines? In addition to grades you have curves and other issues.
> 
> This is a line across a mountain pass with no intermediate stations. A tunnel would be really fast and with speed you can achieve better service and more frequency.
> 
> I like the flexibility of an LRT tunnel option. Routing can change in the future.


True. The Tram in Gmunden isn't exactly high-speed: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dboFzrsHHy0

Interestingly enough, the steep parts seem to be faster than the rest.


An LRT tunnel seems intresting indeed. Possibly the best thing would be to build heavy rail compatible tunnels, operated by large light rail vehicles, extend further north through the valley, but metro like at the pass.


----------



## sotonsi

81m / 267' three-unit sets that are 2.7m / 8'8" wide are plenty big enough - all of Paris' steel-wheeled metro stock is shorter and narrower (though they use rubber-wheeled vehicles on busier lines).

Especially as they are talking 12tph / 5minute headways, rather than the 6tph / 10min figures it would be if HRT.

The main problem with an LRT proposal is that people hear 'LRT', and instead of thinking of something like








thinks of something like this







.

LA Metro's LRT isn't quite DLR-quality, but it's much nearer that than something like the Dallas Streetcar.

HRT would be good for Sepulveda, but LRT definitely isn't a bad thing, and might even be better due to the added flexibility at either end.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Seeing Metro's materials up there makes the Monorail option even look even more stupid than before. So it is slower, and according to their own information, of lower capacity than large scale LRT. In other words, it will be a bad solution, making a proper PT axis impossible for generations to come. 

LRT seems interesting to me. It could be still upgraded to quasi metro in the future if need be. In Europe there are full metro lines which are technically actually LRT but capacitywise, speed wise etc they are very similar to regular metro. Monorail on the other side is something you are stuck with. 

On a corridor with few stops in the middle, monorail is an especially bad choice.


----------



## Stuu

Slartibartfas said:


> Seeing Metro's materials up there makes the Monorail option even look even more stupid than before. So it is slower, and according to their own information, of lower capacity than large scale LRT. In other words, it will be a bad solution, making a proper PT axis impossible for generations to come.


They may well have only put it there to show that they are considering it and are open-minded about new technology, but actually it isn't such a great idea for the reasons given. Quite common in consultations like this


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Let's hope so, that it is merely filler material no one seriously considers. But aren't various LRT vs HRT options variety enough? I am even open minded about the "rubber tired" transit option, which looks more like french style rubber tire metro.


----------



## Stuu

The photo is from Lausanne, which uses identical trains to a couple of Paris Métro lines. Not sure why they feel the need to add another technology but again it's probably to show open-mindedness in the consultation before choosing the option they wanted in the first place!


----------



## dysharmonica

^^ I do suspect so .. also because it's a hilly terrain ... someone WILL come out of the woodworks and talk about rubber tired metro and monorail ... guaranteed ... These are super-initial studies .. likely no more than ~$10k was spent adding these into the consideration .. which is a good investment to A) know that all options were considered B) silence left-field critics.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Effective Sunday, Metro will discontinue Orange Line designation between Canoga and Warner Center in the San Fernando Valley. This will be replaced by a dedicated shuttle.



















https://thesource.metro.net/2018/06/12/new-warner-center-shuttle-begins-running-june-24/


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ That's the difference between Metro, LRT on one side and BRt on the other. The latter is much easier to downgrade. Having tracks is much more of a commitment to lasting high quality PT connections.


----------



## MrAronymous

Oh don't worry. Plenty of US cities all across the continent manage to put in rails and still provide shitty service.


----------



## Kenni

Stuu said:


> They may well have only put it there to show that they are considering it and are open-minded about new technology, but actually it isn't such a great idea for the reasons given. Quite common in consultations like this


I suspect this is the case, Metro has always been pretty open on decision making. Cost is another thing, but here in LA we have voted twice to tax ourselves just for Metro projects, for a car crazy culture city, that was impressive, very impressive.


----------



## aquamaroon

Metro Chair (and LA Mayor) Eric Garcetti with the 2018 "Metro State of the Agency":


----------



## redspork02

It has to be HRT but its gonna be LRT. 
LOL - grrrrr.


----------



## BoulderGrad

redspork02 said:


> It has to be HRT but its gonna be LRT.
> LOL - grrrrr.


You could say that for just about every line in LA


----------



## Kenni

aquamaroon said:


> Metro Chair (and LA Mayor) Eric Garcetti with the 2018 "Metro State of the Agency":


I'm such a nerd about these subjects that I always watch these things...thanks aqua. :cheers: Awesome that they held this at Union Station.


----------



## dysharmonica

Van Nyus Blvd Line approved 




















http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-van-nuys-rail-20180628-story.html


----------



## aquamaroon

From the "L.A. Stadium" thread over in stadiums, user code231 with a great find! Inglewood is beginning to lay the groundwork for serious planning on connecting the burgeoning Inglewood Entertainment District to LA Metro :cheers:



code231 said:


> So I was skimming through some Inglewood council meetings and found some info about about the transportation plan. They had a presentation about it here https://youtu.be/pB-bgzpj04k?t=11m9s .
> 
> Of course this is all in the early stages but there are 4 alternative routes based on a prior metro study. The route that is preferred is Alternative A: Market-Manchester Alignment which is as it looks goes down Market ST., to Manchester Blvd and finally down Prairie Ave ending at the proposed Clipper Arena. The mode of transportation would be an above grade APM/Mono Rail and have an estimated cost of $614.4 M
> 
> You can watch the presentation for more info or go to the website http://envisioninglewood.org/transportation-solutions/inglewood-transit-connector/


plenty more info at the website, along with an initial study, ridership projections and the preferred route :cheers:


----------



## aquamaroon

dysharmonica said:


> Van Nyus Blvd Line approved
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-van-nuys-rail-20180628-story.html




Very excited for this! :cheers: I know that there is some consternation about making the Sepulveda line HRT and cut off from this, but I don't think it's huge issue. Specifically, I was curious what you all may have thought of this idea: when the Orange line is converted to light rail, make the Van Nuys ESFV LRT another stub of the Orange line! So you'd have two lines that start at the Red Line in North Hollywood: one from NoHo to Chatsworth, and one from NoHo to Sylmar via Van Nuys. And the Sepulveda wouldn't feel as much of a "stub." What do you guys think?


----------



## zaphod

aquamaroon said:


> Very excited for this! :cheers: I know that there is some consternation about making the Sepulveda line HRT and cut off from this, but I don't think it's huge issue. Specifically, I was curious what you all may have thought of this idea: when the Orange line is converted to light rail, make the Van Nuys ESFV LRT another stub of the Orange line! So you'd have two lines that start at the Red Line in North Hollywood: one from NoHo to Chatsworth, and one from NoHo to Sylmar via Van Nuys. And the Sepulveda wouldn't feel as much of a "stub." What do you guys think?


Sounds cool.

This could be reality now if it were BRT instead of LRT. Another thought is to let both buses and trains drive on the same right of way. I see no reason why the tracks can't be laid in pavement(they probably are, regardless) and having multi-height platforms with a stub on the end for buses.


----------



## Amexpat

aquamaroon said:


> From the "L.A. Stadium" thread over in stadiums, user code231 with a great find! Inglewood is beginning to lay the groundwork for serious planning on connecting the burgeoning Inglewood Entertainment District to LA Metro :cheers:


Interesting, but should they not have decided this before building the Crenshaw line so that the necessary connecting construction would be done for any future LRT to the Inglewood Ent. District? Now if they choose LRT, they will have stop service on the Crenshaw line when they are ready to connect.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Amexpat said:


> Interesting, but should they not have decided this before building the Crenshaw line so that the necessary connecting construction would be done for any future LRT to the Inglewood Ent. District? Now if they choose LRT, they will have stop service on the Crenshaw line when they are ready to connect.



Ideally, of course. But the Crenshaw/LAX Line was already in the works long before Kroenke won the right to move the Rams to LA and build the stadium in Inglewood. Were it not for that project and the subsequent development it helped kickstart, there would’ve been no reason to plan for Metro service to the defunct Hollywood Park area.


----------



## Kenni

This is fantastic, tho I'm disappointed it doesn't go further south to connect to the Green Line....which is not that far away. Now that would be amazing for this project's ridership numbers even when there are no events at this concert/sport centers. And it'll bring folks from the South Bay, Gateway Cities and the OC. 





aquamaroon said:


> From the "L.A. Stadium" thread over in stadiums, user code231 with a great find! Inglewood is beginning to lay the groundwork for serious planning on connecting the burgeoning Inglewood Entertainment District to LA Metro :cheers:
> 
> 
> 
> plenty more info at the website, along with an initial study, ridership projections and the preferred route :cheers:






code231 said:


> So I was skimming through some Inglewood council meetings and found some info about about the transportation plan. They had a presentation about it here https://youtu.be/pB-bgzpj04k?t=11m9s .
> 
> Of course this is all in the early stages but there are 4 alternative routes based on a prior metro study. The route that is preferred is Alternative A: Market-Manchester Alignment which is as it looks goes down Market ST., to Manchester Blvd and finally down Prairie Ave ending at the proposed Clipper Arena. The mode of transportation would be an above grade APM/Mono Rail and have an estimated cost of $614.4 M
> 
> You can watch the presentation for more info or go to the website http://envisioninglewood.org/transportation-solutions/inglewood-transit-connector/


----------



## Slartibartfas

zaphod said:


> Sounds cool.
> 
> This could be reality now if it were BRT instead of LRT. Another thought is to let both buses and trains drive on the same right of way. I see no reason why the tracks can't be laid in pavement(they probably are, regardless) and having multi-height platforms with a stub on the end for buses.


Indeed. It is absolutely doable to have a LRT corridor which is operated at the same time by buses. 

If the LRT is not extend southwards it really should be extend to the metro terminus. Either that or the metro should be extend to this new LRT/BRT crossing (not going to happen of course). 

This forced extra transfer makes the whole network so much less useful and effective. A transfer costs at least 5 mins time extra and many people will want to use the LRT to head towards the center so they'll have to go LRT, change to BRT, change to the red line... and then they have merely made it to the centre and will possibly have to change one ore two times more. Transfer alone would eat up easily half an hour. That's awful.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Slartibartfas said:


> This forced extra transfer makes the whole network so much less useful and effective. A transfer costs at least 5 mins time extra and many people will want to use the LRT to head towards the center so they'll have to go LRT, change to BRT, change to the red line... and then they have merely made it to the centre and will possibly have to change one ore two times more. Transfer alone would eat up easily half an hour. That's awful.


Yeah it would be crazy not to plan for interoperation between this transit spur the rest of the nearby Metro lines. Given the image that's starting to form about the Sepulveda corridor alternatives and the recommendation of LRT on the Van Nuys Blvd line to Sylmar, I would love to see something like this...


LA Metro LAX:Inglewood Variation by Marshall Knight, on Flickr


----------



## Woonsocket54

*Crenshaw line update*






aerial photos available here: 

http://thesource.metro.net/2018/06/...-on-crenshaw-boulevard-for-crenshaw-lax-line/


----------



## 2Easy

Kenni said:


> This is fantastic, tho I'm disappointed it doesn't go further south to connect to the Green Line....which is not that far away. Now that would be amazing for this project's ridership numbers even when there are no events at this concert/sport centers. And it'll bring folks from the South Bay, Gateway Cities and the OC.


Agreed. While I think that an APM or monorail is too much, it’d be nice if it went to the green line. Hopefully metro enhances the bus service at least as it would be a big circle for green line riders to get to the stadium if they stick with trains.


----------



## Kenni

Well, if connected to the Green Line then it wont be too much because ridership will be higher. Regardless, what ever they build, it makes sense to connect it to the GL. 










I mean, for pete's sake from where they plan the thing to end, just look how close the Green Line is to the south.....

I selected the closest Green Line Station, and marked the path with a purple line.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Metro construction at Wilshire/Fairfax










Metro construction at Wilshire/La Brea










http://thesource.metro.net/2018/07/...ire-and-fairfax-on-the-purple-line-extension/


----------



## redspork02

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-hollywood-sign-sky-tram-20180710-story.html#

*Warner Bros. Studio wants to Build a $100 Million Aerial Tramway to the Hollywood Sign*


----------



## zaphod

redspork02 said:


> http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-hollywood-sign-sky-tram-20180710-story.html#
> 
> *Warner Bros. Studio wants to Build a $100 Million Aerial Tramway to the Hollywood Sign*


I wouldn't really call that "transit" but it sounds awesome for the sightseeing opportunities. Its also good for the continued maintenance and existence of the Hollywood sign as a landmark. The view from up there must be incredible.


----------



## redspork02

zaphod said:


> I wouldn't really call that "transit" but it sounds awesome for the sightseeing opportunities. Its also good for the continued maintenance and existence of the Hollywood sign as a landmark. The view from up there must be incredible.



Its pretty nice. 









http://www.ryanselewicz.com/2013/10/04/hike-hollywood-sign/

Warner Bros Studios is in between Disney Studios and Universal Studios (w/ Metro Station) along the LA River behind the Hollywood sign (Mt Lee).
They are tourist attractions in LA attracting millions yearly for tours and the theme park.
If they could create a tram/train/gondola system for the three studios and including the sign up above them,
then this is a big deal! The city needs to push for this private endeavor. 
Gets people off the streets in Beechwood Canyon neighborhood for sure!


----------



## Slartibartfas

zaphod said:


> I wouldn't really call that "transit" but it sounds awesome for the sightseeing opportunities. Its also good for the continued maintenance and existence of the Hollywood sign as a landmark. The view from up there must be incredible.


Are there any chances LA Times and other news outlets from that publisher are going to get their GDPR act together eventually, like everyone else? Having to use VPN all the time is boring.


----------



## Kenni




----------



## sotonsi

Slartibartfas said:


> Are there any chances LA Times and other news outlets from that publisher are going to get their GDPR act together eventually, like everyone else? Having to use VPN all the time is boring.


Perhaps they don't want to - what's in it for them to have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get a couple of occasional reads from the EU?


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Maybe so but it is honestly embarrassing for a serious newspaper if basically every other competitor seems to have no problem with it. If they don't care about reputation though I suppose they are perfectly fine with that. But then maybe they should state so clearly on their page and not lie about being currently in the process of finding a solution (which everyone else has already found). 

As an US reader I would certainly ask myself what they are doing differently from all the other competitors that they can't manage to become GDPR compliant.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Electric Double-Decker Buses Are Coming to L.A.*"

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/07/electric-double-decker-buses-are-coming-to-la/565016/


----------



## zaphod

Those are cool looking buses.


----------



## sotonsi

Some interior shots would be great.

Guessing standard modern layout - a set of stairs near the front with luggage space underneath, wheelchair/pushchair/standing space near the middle doors, a few seats downstairs (possibly reserved for passengers less able to go up the stairs), upstairs lots of seats and nothing else.

Also, having experience bendy-backlash in Southampton (trial failed and they went and bought modern double-deckers instead) and London (massive campaign against them - more politically motivated than the anti-bendy-bus people would suggest, more practically motivated than the anti-Boris people would suggest) in England, it's interesting to see that even LA finds that bendy-buses can be problematic.


----------



## subbotazh

Woonsocket54 said:


> "*Electric Double-Decker Buses Are Coming to L.A.*"
> 
> https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/07/electric-double-decker-buses-are-coming-to-la/565016/


----------



## aquamaroon

> *Inglewood Considers People Mover to Connect Crenshaw Line with NFL Stadium
> Proposed 1.8-mile system would be fully elevated.*
> 
> by STEVEN SHARP on July 17, 2018, 1:00PM
> The City of Inglewood is considering plans to construct an elevated transit system to connect a new NFL stadium with the under-construction Crenshaw/LAX light rail line.
> 
> The project, as detailed in a study first spotted by the Daily Breeze, is proposed as an approximately 1.8-mile automated people mover system - similar to that which will link the Crenshaw Line with Los Angeles International Airport. A map of the preferred alternative shows a meandering route starting at the upcoming Downtown Inglewood rail station, proceeding south down Market Street before turning east onto Manchester, then turning south onto Prairie Avenue. Current plans call for five total stations, which would be located at or near:
> 
> - Market Street and Florence Avenue
> - Market Street and Manchester Avenue
> - The Forum
> - The Los Angeles Stadium and Entertainment District
> - The proposed Inglewood Basketball and Entertainment Center
> 
> Other alignments running along Arbor Vitae Street, Century Boulevard, and Prairie Avenue were also studied, but not recommended, as the Market-Manchester route would connect a larger number of activity centers, minimize the need for utility relocation, and provides the greatest opportunity for economic development.
> 
> Alternative technologies such as rubber-tired trains, monorail, and steel-wheeled trains were also studied.
> 
> The study estimates that average weekday ridership for the Market-Manchester alignment would be nearly 5,000 passengers, amounting to approximately 2.6 million annual trips. An estimated 1.02 million annual trips would also be taken by attendees of events at the NFL Stadium and other venues, which is not accounted for in the previous figure.
> 
> A proposed fleet of 32 vehicles would operate at maximum speeds of 50 miles per hour, with an estimated round trip time of just under 13 minutes. Trains would operate in maximum four-car sets, with normal frequencies of approximately six minutes. Special event days would see frequencies between 1.5 and 3.5 minutes.


https://urbanize.la/post/inglewood-considers-people-mover-connect-crenshaw-line-nfl-stadium

So the "Inglewood Line" story continues! And they've settled on a mode! APM, similar to the system used on the LAX ground transportation project. The first rendering is of the APM's connection the LA Metro system at the Downtown Inglewood stop of the Crenshaw/LAX line. Here's a rendering of the proposed Forum station, with LA Stadium in the background:










and a map of the whole APM line:










According to the article linked above, the whole system has a proposed cost of $614.4 million. Honestly that seems like a more than worthwhile investment, especially considering the number of investments coming to town and the amount of business looking to relocate to the Inglewood Area. Hopefully they manage to get state and local funding, and even better they get some help from the Billionaire owners whose stadiums this would service! :cheers:


----------



## Kenni

Ah, I got happy with the double decker buses thinking it was Metro that is integrating them, but if I understand it correctly, it's only Foothill Transit. (I skimmed through the article, I may be wrong)

And again, I love the People Mover plan for Inglewood, but I still can't understand why it only connects north to the Crenshaw Line, at least the connection should be where the future hub for the Crenshaw Line and the LAX People Mover will be, or simply go all the way south to Hawthorne Station (Green Line)


----------



## aquamaroon

Kenni said:


> And again, I love the People Mover plan for Inglewood, but I still can't understand why it only connects north to the Crenshaw Line, at least the connection should be where the future hub for the Crenshaw Line and the LAX People Mover will be, *or simply go all the way south to Hawthorne Station (Green Line)*



Good point Kenni! I agree, it's weird that this APM ends as a "stub" without going all the way to the Green Line. However I think I understand the method behind their madness: user Woonsocket54 shared this map in post #2852 of Metro's preferred alignment for the Green Line and Crenshaw/LAX line once both are operational:










And, as Woonsocket pointed out in their post, Alt 1 is the preferred one. In that case, the current Green Line would become part of the Crenshaw Line once both are operational, and the Green Line would only serve the South Bay. So that being the case, if in the future the APM went down to the current Green Line, *it would still only connect to the LA Metro at one line, with two stops both on the Crenshaw (K) Line.* Now, would it still be advantageous to Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs travelers to get the APM at Crenshaw? Sure! But they could still just get on the APM at the "Downtown Inglewood" station all the same. Given the cost constraints, I believe this is why the Inglewood APM has no intention of connecting with the current Green Line.


----------



## aquamaroon

> *Metro
> ‏@metrolosangeles*
> 
> Almost ready to launch: tunnel boring machine shield being lowered Sunday into future Wilshire/La Brea Station for Purple Line Extension. Boom.


https://twitter.com/metrolosangeles/status/1019004629227409408


----------



## Kenni

aquamaroon said:


> Good point Kenni! I agree, it's weird that this APM ends as a "stub" without going all the way to the Green Line. However I think I understand the method behind their madness: user Woonsocket54 shared this map in post #2852 of Metro's preferred alignment for the Green Line and Crenshaw/LAX line once both are operational:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, as Woonsocket pointed out in their post, Alt 1 is the preferred one. In that case, the current Green Line would become part of the Crenshaw Line once both are operational, and the Green Line would only serve the South Bay. So that being the case, if in the future the APM went down to the current Green Line, *it would still only connect to the LA Metro at one line, with two stops both on the Crenshaw (K) Line.* Now, would it still be advantageous to Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs travelers to get the APM at Crenshaw? Sure! But they could still just get on the APM at the "Downtown Inglewood" station all the same. Given the cost constraints, I believe this is why the Inglewood APM has no intention of connecting with the current Green Line.


Ok,  that settles my issue then. I recently read on this topic, that the South Bay cities are absolutely against Option A, ato the point the Mayor Garcetti is ordering Metro to find a solution that addresses that. We'll see what happens.


----------



## dysharmonica

From Streetfilms / Transit Center and Stretsblog LA:

https://la.streetsblog.org/2018/07/17/the-problem-with-the-metro-blueexpo-light-rail-is-cars/


----------



## Kenni

What timing :lol: I just got home from work, and on the Metro (Green Line) there was a European couple heading to DT. They were asking how to get there and everyone told them to take the Silver Line to DT because the Blue Line takes linger for those exact reasons....and because it crosses the sketchiest parts of LA.


----------



## etooley1985

*Crenshaw Line Updates*

Some new photos of work along the new Crenshaw line in Los Angeles - from The Source:










Installation of Glass Canopy at the Hyde Park Station.










Installation of plinth rebar for track placement in the southbound tunnel of the underground section.










Installation of track in the northbound tunnel.










Installation of rebar for barrier walls near Crenshaw and 48th St.










Installation of escalators at the Aviation/Century Station pavilion.










Installation of lights on Overhead Catenary System west of Centinela Ave.


----------



## aquamaroon

Big news on the planning front! Metro is beginning its initial study plans for the Northern Extension of the Crenshaw Line into Hollywood:





















> *Feasibility study looks at possible routes for Crenshaw North Extension
> 
> BY STEVE HYMON , JULY 22, 2018*
> 
> As Source readers already know, one of many eagerly sought Measure M transit projects is a northern extension of the Crenshaw/LAX Line.
> 
> Metro has released a staff report and Feasibility Study/Alternatives Analysis for the project that looks at five potential light rail routes: four would extend the Crenshaw/LAX Line north to the Purple Line and then through West Hollywood to the Red Line in Hollywood and one to the Red/Purple Line at Vermont Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard.
> 
> The Crenshaw/LAX Line is an 8.5-mile light rail line that is currently under construction between the Green Line and the Expo Line. A northern extension of the Crenshaw Line was looked at as part of the planning studies for the Crenshaw/LAX Line but the funding wasn’t available at that time. Under the Measure M spending plan, the northern extension has a targeted groundbreaking date of fiscal year 2041 with an opening in 2047 unless the project is accelerated.
> 
> From the staff report:
> 
> _There has been a long-standing interest among West Hollywood local elected officials and stakeholders to accelerate the delivery of the Crenshaw Northern Extension.Within the provisions allowed under Measure M, Metro staff has committed to exploring a viable path forward to accelerate the project, consistent with adopted Board policy: Early Project Delivery Strategy.
> 
> A significant finding emerging out of the Feasibility/Alternatives Analysis Study done to date is the fact that the cost of all five alternatives exceed Measure M funding allocations, some by approximately double. Any potential acceleration strategy at this juncture would have to address that factor, either through mitigating cost, securing new revenue, or a hybrid of both.To better target project delivery options and a funding strategy, there is a need to conduct broad public outreach and potential further technical study to prepare for a next stage of environmental review.
> 
> Staff will consult with the cities of Los Angeles and West Hollywood to develop a strategy of next steps and attendant schedules for the next stage analyses. Metro staff is targeting to return to the Board in September, contingent on the city consultative process._


https://thesource.metro.net/2018/07...possible-routes-for-crenshaw-north-extension/ (full pdf available at the link!)

So this will be QUITE the process, considering the fact that you have a town in WeHo which has been a huge supporter of rail and is begging for a line; and on the other hand you have the "obvious" route which takes La Brea all the way to the Red Line (you can probably toss out the "vermont" option; it's expensive AND has poor ridership projections.) This is basically the result of LA Metro attempting to solve two issues with one. Really, their should be TWO northern extensions; one serving WeHo and one serving La Brea. However, given the fact that that isn't currently feasible; my personal choice would be to take the option that runs under San Vicente and serves Cedars-Sinai Hospital and WeHo; it has the highest ridership and will serve the most number of riders/jobs in the area. Just my two cents, looking forward to this progressing!


----------



## Kenni

I'm sure the city of West Hollywood, who is a HUGE fan of Metro, wants the San Vicente proposal. I think I like the La Cienega proposal (which one do you guys like?), and I think it's fantastic that it will end at Hollywood and Highland. (very exciting)


----------



## redspork02

Kenni said:


> I'm sure the city of West Hollywood, who is a HUGE fan of Metro, wants the San Vicente proposal. I think I like the La Cienega proposal (which one do you guys like?), and I think it's fantastic that it will end at Hollywood and Highland. (very exciting)


I like the La Cienega or Fairfax Routes. 

1) La Cienega = Great access to WH, Cedar Sinai Hospital has many employees. Beverly Center mall as well. Needs to be underground though, its says it being studied as Aerial. 
2) Fairfax = more access for future development along the route and access to The grove and Television City and still great access to WH. Love that its underground from before Wilshire to HH Station.

All other routes......Nah!


----------



## Stuu

Wouldn't it have been more sensible to decide on this alignment before starting work on the Purple line extension - so that the station can be integrated?


----------



## ReclusiveBlack

I like the Fairfax alignment...if nothing else, it's a happy medium between La Brea and La Cienega, plus the alignment would not only service the Wilshire museums and the Grove/Farmers' Market/Television City area, but also Fairfax High School, and to lesser extent, Hollywood High School. Also, there's multiple east-west bus connections along the Fairfax alignment between Santa Monica Blvd. and the split at Venice/Crenshaw, including three Rapid bus lines (SaMo, Wilshire, Venice).

The Vermont alignment is intriguing only because the northern terminus would be at the Wilshire/Vermont subway station; too bad, though, the different technologies won't allow the Vermont alignment to share tracks with the Red Line from Wilshire on north (essentially making it run from North Hollywood to LAX, without having to transfer). They're still trying to decide where the real southern terminus of the Crenshaw Line will be--to Redondo Beach (and eventually Torrance) or to Norwalk. It was also a major mistake on Metro's part on not rebuilding the Aviation Green Line station, at least on the other side of Aviation Blvd., where you could have the Crenshaw/Green Line split coming into the station from the east (Green) or north (Crenshaw).


----------



## CB31

Must streetcars in North America suck due to the same lack of priority at street level compare to cars.

I don't see the interest of investing massive amount of public money if they won't give them priority over cars. 



dysharmonica said:


> From Streetfilms / Transit Center and Stretsblog LA:
> 
> https://la.streetsblog.org/2018/07/17/the-problem-with-the-metro-blueexpo-light-rail-is-cars/


----------



## redspork02

LA DTLA NEWS ARTICLE

*Downtown Streetcar Would Have 23 Stops, Cost Up to $306 Million *
_Environmental Assessment Reveals New Details; Plans for Opening in 2021 _
By Jon Regardie

A good many details....


----------



## redspork02

> • The streetcar would have 23 stops, with nine on Broadway, one each on the block between Second and Third streets, Third and Fourth streets, and so on. The pace of one stop every block continues for much of the route.





> The $290.7 million price tag is an increase from a $266 million estimate in November 2016. According to the new assessment, construction would cost $117.7 million, while $44 million would be spent on land acquisition and another $43 million would go to purchase vehicles. The price includes about $25 million in contingency fees.


Interesting.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Yes, it is utterly absurd. Millions or even Billions are thrown at PT in Los Angeles but the system is castrated completely by the dogmatic priority to cars.

It should be common sense that if not streetcars than at least light rail should have automatic priority on any street crossings, unless there are very special circumstances and extremely compelling reasons why not. In which case a grade separated crossing for light rail would be necessary. 

If you calculate how many people are kept waiting by PT priority and how many by car priority, this whole thing would be a non-brainer.


----------



## redspork02

*Fresh pics: tunneling machine being lowered into Wilshire/La Brea Station for Purple Line Extension*

BLOG _ LA METRO SOURCE

_Part of the tunneling machine’s shaft being lowered into Wilshire/La Brea Station. Photos: LA Metro._









_View of the tunneling machine sitting on the car cradle looking north.
_









_Aligning the tail shield and middle shield.
_












> The first of the project’s two tunnel boring machine (TBMs in construction-speak) arrived at the construction site earlier this month and is now being lowered into the Wilshire/La Brea Station. Once both TBMs are lowered into the station and fully assembled, they’ll start to dig later this year with both TBMs headed east toward Wilshire/Western.


----------



## Kenni

redspork02 said:


> LA DTLA NEWS ARTICLE
> 
> *Downtown Streetcar Would Have 23 Stops, Cost Up to $306 Million *
> _Environmental Assessment Reveals New Details; Plans for Opening in 2021 _
> By Jon Regardie
> 
> A good many details....


VERY HAPPY that the streetcar for DT isn't dead. But I want the original idea of street cars that looked like our old Pacific Electric Red Cars.

That would be FANTASTIC!...and nostalgic. But it looks like it would be more expensive, and they'll settle for some type of modern cars. hno:











:drool:


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Metro Board Approves Orange Line Upgrades*"

Bus-only viaducts will be built over busy Sepulveda Blvd and Van Nuys Blvd.

https://urbanize.la/post/metro-board-approves-orange-line-upgrades


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Are those viaducts constructd in a way that is compatible with a potential light-rail (or possibly even heavy rail) upgrade? Or would they have to be torn down and replaced by something entirely new in case of such an upgrade?


----------



## zaphod

Bus crossing gates!


----------



## Sky Harbor

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Are those viaducts constructd in a way that is compatible with a potential light-rail (or possibly even heavy rail) upgrade? Or would they have to be torn down and replaced by something entirely new in case of such an upgrade?


As far as what I've read, Metro is supposed to build the new infrastructure with LRT conversion in mind. Orange Line conversion is still a couple of decades away but Metro at least sees the sense of building the infrastructure now so that it will be ready when the time comes to convert it to LRT.


----------



## P2O5

Kenni said:


> VERY HAPPY that the streetcar for DT isn't dead. But I want the original idea of street cars that looked like our old Pacific Electric Red Cars.
> 
> That would be FANTASTIC!...and nostalgic. But it looks like it would be more expensive, and they'll settle for some type of modern cars. hno:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :drool:


Despite best intentions modern reproduction trams are often a bit naff looking. Take New Orleans's newer trams for example, they're just... strange looking. I agree its good to have transport be identifiable to the place it serves though as it makes citizens feel ownership of a system and support it more, will something of the old livery be used in the design?


----------



## Suburbanist

There should be federal guidelines against any sort of 'revival' of old-model transit vehicles that don't fully comply with efficiency, accessibility and safety that modern trams are subject to.


----------



## 00Zy99

Suburbanist said:


> There should be federal guidelines against any sort of 'revival' of old-model transit vehicles that don't fully comply with efficiency, accessibility and safety that modern trams are subject to.


There are.

Unless you are restoring something built before a certain year (I think its 1954), all rebuilds/recreations used for any form of public transportation must be handicapped accessible.


----------



## Kenni

P2O5 said:


> Despite best intentions modern reproduction trams are often a bit naff looking. Take New Orleans's newer trams for example, they're just... strange looking. I agree its good to have transport be identifiable to the place it serves though as it makes citizens feel ownership of a system and support it more, will something of the old livery be used in the design?


Oh, :lol: you mean something like this?















*OF* Funny how Disney has imitated LA's architecture for their parks since 1955. Simple everyday LA landmarks and venues were Disney's inspiration.


----------



## P2O5

Ha! I guess that fits well with their golden era of film vibe. 

But for LA I mean something much more simple, like buying sleek modern trams but ensuring that they're all crimson in a nod to the past. A throwaway comment truly!


----------



## Kenni




----------



## redspork02

Mr. Musk is at it again.........................

Boring Comapny . com projects 

*Dugout Loop (“The Dugout”)*
The Boring Company is proposing to build Dugout Loop, a zero-emissions, high-speed, underground public transportation system from the Los Feliz, East Hollywood, or Rampart Village neighborhoods ("western terminus") to Dodger Stadium in the City of Los Angeles.

The purpose of Dugout Loop is to help reduce traffic in Los Angeles by providing a clean and efficient public transportation option to Dodger Stadium. Dugout Loop will complement existing public transportation systems and provide an all-electric and affordable option that will transport baseball fans and concertgoers directly to the Dodger Stadium... in less than 4 minutes!


----------



## Kenni

^^^^ It might just be me, but I don't get it why connect it that far and not to Union Station. 

I also kinda like the gondola idea but it wont deal with the numbers....Dodger Stadium is the largest in capacity in the majors.

I still think that a Gold Line deviation loop is the answer. 



In other news....does anyone know what this project has to do with the HSR?


----------



## Kenni

A bit old, but a good one....


----------



## Slartibartfas

redspork02 said:


> Mr. Musk is at it again.........................
> 
> Boring Comapny . com projects
> 
> *Dugout Loop (“The Dugout”)*
> The Boring Company is proposing to build Dugout Loop, a zero-emissions, high-speed, underground public transportation system from the Los Feliz, East Hollywood, or Rampart Village neighborhoods ("western terminus") to Dodger Stadium in the City of Los Angeles.
> 
> The purpose of Dugout Loop is to help reduce traffic in Los Angeles by providing a clean and efficient public transportation option to Dodger Stadium. Dugout Loop will complement existing public transportation systems and provide an all-electric and affordable option that will transport baseball fans and concertgoers directly to the Dodger Stadium... in less than 4 minutes!


OK, I was curious about the peak capacity of the system. So on their homepage they estimate it at 1400 people per event. I don't know if that is one way or there and back and per hour capacity might be even lower. They say a doubling of the capacity is possible "based on City and community feedback" whatever that means. Just as reference, contrary to Tusk's toy line, the subway station at the Happel stadion in Vienna has a peak capacity of 50 000 people per hour and therefore the ability of single handedly filling and emptying it (100% instead of 2.5%). 

Given the low capacity nature of the Loop concept I think it is fairly stupid to make one of the early lines a connector to a highly demanding extreme peak capacity destination instead of being a connector to a destination with a lower but more constant stream of travellers. 

I am increasingly getting the impressiont hat the Boring Company is actually detrimental to bringing a complete and dense integrated PT network to LA. This novelty nonsense is just making it unnecessarily patchworky while making it harder to impossible to realize integrated and meaningful lines in the same area as there is already "something" there, even if it forces yet another preventable transfer and is probably horrendously inadequate for the immense peak capacities a stadium connections needs to serve. 

And then there is the suggested corridor. Am I the only one who doesn't get how on earth they came to the conclusion that it makes any sense? If you can connect in the same distance to a station wher 2 subway lines stop, rather connect to some obscure station where you connect to only one? I suppose it has something to do with the corridor which might be easier to handle for those less useful routes. 

Another comment to the "zero emission" BS bingo. Guess what light rail or metro is.

Last but not least, I am wondering about the economics. Even if they invented super cheap tunnel boring, how can a completely underground system with extensive access point constructions work out at essentially the capacity of a single regular well frequented bus line?


----------



## Kenni

Gold Line, Memorial Park Station (Pasadena)


----------



## Kenni

Dupe


----------



## pesto

Slartibartfas said:


> OK, I was curious about the peak capacity of the system. So on their homepage they estimate it at 1400 people per event. I don't know if that is one way or there and back and per hour capacity might be even lower. They say a doubling of the capacity is possible "based on City and community feedback" whatever that means. Just as reference, contrary to Tusk's toy line, the subway station at the Happel stadion in Vienna has a peak capacity of 50 000 people per hour and therefore the ability of single handedly filling and emptying it (100% instead of 2.5%).
> 
> Given the low capacity nature of the Loop concept I think it is fairly stupid to make one of the early lines a connector to a highly demanding extreme peak capacity destination instead of being a connector to a destination with a lower but more constant stream of travellers.
> 
> I am increasingly getting the impressiont hat the Boring Company is actually detrimental to bringing a complete and dense integrated PT network to LA. This novelty nonsense is just making it unnecessarily patchworky while making it harder to impossible to realize integrated and meaningful lines in the same area as there is already "something" there, even if it forces yet another preventable transfer and is probably horrendously inadequate for the immense peak capacities a stadium connections needs to serve.
> 
> And then there is the suggested corridor. Am I the only one who doesn't get how on earth they came to the conclusion that it makes any sense? If you can connect in the same distance to a station wher 2 subway lines stop, rather connect to some obscure station where you connect to only one? I suppose it has something to do with the corridor which might be easier to handle for those less useful routes.
> 
> Another comment to the "zero emission" BS bingo. Guess what light rail or metro is.
> 
> Last but not least, I am wondering about the economics. Even if they invented super cheap tunnel boring, how can a completely underground system with extensive access point constructions work out at essentially the capacity of a single regular well frequented bus line?


This is really just setting up a nonsense strawman. The point is that Metro is not even considering any kind of line to DS even out several decades; and the urbanists are proposing a silly gondola for miles across the LA River, a walking path and a bicycle path from Chinatown station (going very steeply up-hill).

And your proposal is to take away the roads so as to dedicate lanes to empty buses cutting for miles through dense parts of the city where virtually no one is going to the game but just doing ordinary things around Silver Lake, E. Hollywood and Echo Park? 

In any event, let's get a full proposal on the table before jumping all over Musk.


----------



## Slartibartfas

This is not a straw man because that line, as inadequate as it may be, will definitely make development of a proper connection (which does not necessarily have to be a subway line but could also be a light rail line and also does not have to reach a coverage of 100% but 2.5% is clearly a joke) much harder, even or especially if none is planned for the foreseeable future. 

I am not a supporter of such a gondola either but I fail to see how that walking path could do any wrong. I know that US Americans are incapable of walking uphill but maybe they should try it once. It is not killing you, especially in the evening when the sun is not grilling you anymore. As I think making the entire city walking friendly or at least accessible, there is clearly room for improvement of the pedestrian connection to the stadium. Some stairs directly connecting the stadium grounds to the pedestrian highway crossing clearly wouldn't cost the world and make that connection so much more attractive, and it would bring a considerable benefit for China town as it would certainly increase the numbers passing by. 1.5-2 km distance to the station is on the borderline but I would personally very much consider taking that option. 



> And your proposal is to take away the roads so as to dedicate lanes to empty buses cutting for miles through dense parts of the city where virtually no one is going to the game but just doing ordinary things around Silver Lake, E. Hollywood and Echo Park?


Uhm, no. Did I propose anything of that sort anywhere? No. I merely stated that this Loop system according to their own homepage will have the capacity of a single well frequented bus line, at max. It's spacial impact at the two terminal stops will be much larger however. Somewhere all those ultra low capacity vehicles have to wait after all and there have to be tons of them to replace even merely a well frequented bus line. 

But while you are at it. Yes, even an improved bus line to the stadion would be a better proposal. There it would certainly make sense to make special use bus lines, possibly with lanes at neuralgic parts that are dedicated to PT, but only when needed for the service. Buses will be empty in one direction true but conterdirectional empty traffic is not such a big deal when peak traffic goes primarely one way. 

It would be of course much better if a rail based corridor could be made to pass by the stadium somehow.


----------



## DCUrbanist

pesto said:


> This is really just setting up a nonsense strawman. The point is that Metro is not even considering any kind of line to DS even out several decades; and the urbanists are proposing a silly gondola for miles across the LA River, a walking path and a bicycle path from Chinatown station (going very steeply up-hill).


I thought it was the Dodgers owner who suggested it. Don't put that one on urbanists. They have the sense to know that a location with such peaky demand (stadiums with thousands needing to leave immediately) are possibly the worst candidates for gondolas which are good for even, consistent demand, given their steady but not enormous capacity.



pesto said:


> And your proposal is to take away the roads so as to dedicate lanes to empty buses cutting for miles through dense parts of the city where virtually no one is going to the game but just doing ordinary things around Silver Lake, E. Hollywood and Echo Park?


Who said that those dedicated lanes couldn't also include frequent bus lines serving local destinations throughout the day? Sounds like a win-win to me –– heaven knows Silver Lake, East Hollywood and Echo Park don't have good transit connections, and then there's still capacity to move tons of people in the moments of greatest need.



pesto said:


> In any event, let's get a full proposal on the table before jumping all over Musk.


Spending hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to accommodate about the same number of people as a single highway lane (1800ppl/hr) and charging users $1 for it is, to put it mildly, poor economics. In fact, one of the gondola's greatest and most valid critiques is *precisely* how few people it carries, and even gondolas can carry over twice that number (5,000ppl/hr). Don't get me wrong, I think the gondola is a poor choice in this circumstance too, and the public shouldn't pay anything for either proposal, but at least they're far less costly.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Both the Gondola and the Boring Tunnel are privately financed. Individually, the capacities are low, but if we can 2800 people to take the tunnel, 5000 to take the gondola and another 5000 - 6000 to continue taking the union station express bus, then that adds up to a substantial number. Is it ideal? no, of course not. In a perfect world we would have subway lines coming from union station and from hollywood directly to the stadium


----------



## Slartibartfas

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> Both the Gondola and the Boring Tunnel are privately financed. Individually, the capacities are low, but if we can 2800 people to take the tunnel, 5000 to take the gondola and another 5000 - 6000 to continue taking the union station express bus, then that adds up to a substantial number. Is it ideal? no, of course not. In a perfect world we would have subway lines coming from union station and from hollywood directly to the stadium


Well, that is a possible way of seeing it. But both systems seem even less suited than a bus system for demand that is coming all at once and then ebbing entirely. Think about crowd control in this regard. If no more systematic solution is realistic, then even just adding 2 new express bus connection to games, connecting to other parts of the metro network than Union Station (and/or reinforcing the Union Station connection) would make more sense IMHO. 

But as long as those toy lines really do not negatively effect the chances for proper PT in the area, they should go ahead if they really want to. The gondola system should be evaluated for its visual impact however as well, if that is not a problem, than one would still need to check from a safety perspective. Regarding the Loop system. I don't believe it for a second that the 1 USD ticket could be even remotely cost covering, not even with substantial subsidies added on top.


----------



## LastGammal

If Elon wanna pay for it with private money why not let him?

It's weird how so many people on the internet thinks that no one involved has thought of all the issues they can think of.

The idea here seems to be that instead of building one just for testing purposes why not build one for testing as well as getting quite a few people to actually have a use for it. To get users is also the one way he will be able to change a lot of armchair opinions that this won't work.

It will also be ideal for testing in that it can be used to test full capacity fairly often but also has lots of less busy times when they can do adjustments etc.

If it turns out it works well and the demand is there they can also easily just build another one going from one of the concept stations not chosen at first.

And they don't need to build for 50.000 to make an impact. Many will use a car no matter what, and many will come from other directions. Actually maybe even only 10.000 lives anywhere it would make any sense to get on the red line anyway. If so 2.800 out of 10.000 would be a significant share.


----------



## Slartibartfas

I do get that this is planned to be a commercially used test track. But it leaves me puzzled why one would choose a connection that consists of short extreme demand with no demand in between. Why not another test line where you face much more benign and continuous demand? I mean I also view it from Elon's own perspective. If you use a test case which is ill-suited for the concept of the system, you risk creating negative first experience, and that way completely killing the technology because of that. If Elon insists however, so be it. Let's see what it is worth. I remain sceptical of the very idea itself for a number of reasons but wouldn't mind being wrong in the end.

You seem to see the basic necessity for a succesful PT network. In the end you need fairly complete coverage, efficient transfers and appropriate capacities and speeds of the individual lines. Last but not least everything needs to be fully integrated ticket wise. Maybe you can see why this project doesn't really fit into that very well. One special case may not ruin the system, but then if they keep adding up you'll end up with an incredible patchwork, ticket wise, transfer wise and otherwise, leading to your conclusion that it would not make sense for most people to use the system.


----------



## zaphod

In Europe many cities have funiculars and other unusual forms of transportation. They are of interest to tourists and visitors and useful for people in certain neighborhoods. They do not at all detract from the usefulness of the transit network as a whole.

The same concept applies here. Universal Studios and Elon Musk are entirely free to spend their money building these things if they want. If the projects fail then it won't have any effect on the Metro network. If they succeed, they synergize together and everyone gains something.


----------



## Woonsocket54

zaphod said:


> If the projects fail then it won't have any effect on the Metro network.


That's somewhat optimistic. These projects are proposed to be built in a country that is known for corporate bailouts and corporate welfare. Elon Musk might indeed be one of those "too big to fail" types (and even "too big to jail" when the time comes).


----------



## phoenixboi08

> *Metrolink Awarded $6.5-Million Grant to Begin Study of Capital Improvements Program*
> _$10 billion in upgrades could greatly enhance regional rail in Southern California._
> STEVEN SHARP on August 17, 2018, 1:00PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The California Transportation Commission has awarded a $6.5-million grant to Metrolink to begin design work and environmental review for an ambitious plan to modernize the expansive, but underutilized commuter rail system.
> 
> The money, billed as a "down payment" on a $856-million grant through the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, *will allow Metrolink to begin planning for the Southern California Optimized Rail Expansion Program - or SCORE - a $10-billion capital improvement project that looks to enhance regional rail service in advance of the 2028 Summer Olympics.*


I hadn't heard about SCORE, before.
I'm assuming this also includes some LOSSAN improvements?

Everyone I hear talking about this seems skeptical that Ventura and a few other counties (San Bernadino?) will vote to approve the measure, but my question is do they really need to? I thought the 2/3 requirement no longer applies?

Anyways, it will be very interesting to read what is in the 2018 State Rail Plan...I'm becoming more curious, as time goes on.


----------



## Amexpat

An extension of the Green Line to Norwalk would make sense if they upgrade the Metrolink. That would make taking rail from a good chunk of So. Cal to LAX a realistic option.


----------



## ReclusiveBlack

Amexpat said:


> An extension of the Green Line to Norwalk would make sense if they upgrade the Metrolink. That would make taking rail from a good chunk of So. Cal to LAX a realistic option.


It's suppose to be in the plans, but it may not happen for a good while. The local government (particularly L.A. mayor and Metro board member Eric Garcetti) wants to fast-track some of these upcoming projects in time for the 2028 Summer Olympics.

To extend the Green Line eastward to the Norwalk Metrolink station, they would have to figure out which way they want to extend it. The distance between the two station is roughly three miles, particularly if you head east on Imperial Highway; however, since the rail tracks (and station platform) at the Norwalk Green Line station are below street level, and is already extended eastward past the platform, it might make sense logistically to make that extension underground all the way to the Metrolink station.

Knowing Metro, they'll would likely choose building a rail extension along Imperial instead (on the street level), because it'll be a little cheaper.


----------



## redspork02

LA TIMES Article - Opinion Piece

Want the 'subway to the sea' running by the 2028 Olympics? The feds need to show us the money



> However, the work cannot begin until the Federal Transit Administration sends a letter verifying that if Metro spends its own $492 million to expedite the work, the federal government will reimburse the money under a future grant, which Metro is widely expected to receive.





> But the clock is ticking. The construction bid expires Oct. 3. If Metro doesn’t get the funding commitment by then, the agency will have to rebid the contract. That could delay the project by nearly two years and increase the cost by $200 million, Metro officials say.


----------



## redspork02

Street-Level or Aerial Metro Railway Lines Face Opposition from WeHo Residents and City Council Members WeHoVille Article 



> City Councilmember John D’Amico said that the Council should tell Metro it won’t support an elevated or on-grade line along San Vicente or La Cienega. D’Amico called out what he described as insensitive decisions by Metro in demanding that West Hollywood make clear its opposition without waiting for Metro to finish its analysis of the five options. One thing he called out was Metro’s elimination of an extension to the Sunset Strip as an option.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Preparation work for escalator at Crenshaw/Expo underground station on the Crenshaw/LAX Line









http://thesource.metro.net/2018/09/...scooter-explosion-rail-yard-video-hwr-sept-5/


----------



## Lemanic




----------



## etooley1985

*fixed:


----------



## Kenni

FROM METRO:

Those following our expansion efforts know that one of the more intriguing challenges ahead for Metro is figuring out what to call its rail and bus rapid transit lines. A new presentation and staff report explains the issues and shows some alternatives, namely using letters or numbers to identify bus and rail lines.

Going forward, one thing is certain: the Metro system is growing and something will have to change with the current names. Why? Metro has two projects under construction that are joining tracks from different lines. The Crenshaw/LAX Line includes a junction with the Green Line, while the Regional Connector is tying together the Blue, Expo and Gold Lines.

There are other issues with the current naming system:

•It's inconsistent. Most names are based on colors (Blue, Red, Gold, Purple, etc.) with one exception - the Expo Line, which is shown on signage/maps as a lighter shade of blue.

•The current map is tough for those who are color blind.

•As the Metro system grows, continuing with color names will mean selecting colors (i.e. Lime, Rose, Aqua, Olive, Lavender, etc.) that will sometimes be difficult to decipher on maps and signage.

Metro staff have already done a fair amount of research. With approval from the Metro Board of Directors this month, staff would like to continue their work this fall and then return to the Board with a renaming proposal that is clear, concise and befitting of a system that will be serving residents and visitors alike in the coming years (including those coming to town for the 2028 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, among other big events).

What do you think readers? Any preference?

Finally, a couple caveats on the map in the presentation -- because we know some of you will ask!

•The East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor will be a light rail line between the Orange Line and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station. Planning continues on the Sepulveda Transit Corridor with several types of transit under consideration, including heavy rail, light rail, monorail and rubber-wheel trains.

•On the West Santa Ana Branch Corridor project, two routes in downtown L.A. are under study. One would go to Union Station, the other to the DTLA core.


----------



## Kenni

What concept do ya fellas like best?


----------



## Tower Dude

Also what the deal with Sepulveda have the really chosen light rail


----------



## FDW

Kenni said:


> What concept do ya fellas like best?


I think the numbered system works best, given the kind of expansion that is still to come.


----------



## Stuu

Either works but if you are going to rename them, why leave all the gaps? 

Numbers are probably better, and given the size of the LA region it is entirely possible that one day 26 lines are in service.

Maybe number light rail consecutively 1-8, then busways start from 30 or something?


----------



## MrAronymous

The gaps are for planned lines and some letters that can't be used (like H for Hospital or I for Information). Numbers seems to be the most straight forward.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Kenni said:


> FROM METRO:
> 
> Those following our expansion efforts know that one of the more intriguing challenges ahead for Metro is figuring out what to call its rail and bus rapid transit lines. A new presentation and staff report explains the issues and shows some alternatives, namely using letters or numbers to identify bus and rail lines.
> 
> Going forward, one thing is certain: the Metro system is growing and something will have to change with the current names. Why? Metro has two projects under construction that are joining tracks from different lines. The Crenshaw/LAX Line includes a junction with the Green Line, while the Regional Connector is tying together the Blue, Expo and Gold Lines.
> 
> There are other issues with the current naming system:
> 
> •It's inconsistent. Most names are based on colors (Blue, Red, Gold, Purple, etc.) with one exception - the Expo Line, which is shown on signage/maps as a lighter shade of blue.
> 
> •The current map is tough for those who are color blind.
> 
> •As the Metro system grows, continuing with color names will mean selecting colors (i.e. Lime, Rose, Aqua, Olive, Lavender, etc.) that will sometimes be difficult to decipher on maps and signage.
> 
> Metro staff have already done a fair amount of research. With approval from the Metro Board of Directors this month, staff would like to continue their work this fall and then return to the Board with a renaming proposal that is clear, concise and befitting of a system that will be serving residents and visitors alike in the coming years (including those coming to town for the 2028 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, among other big events).
> 
> What do you think readers? Any preference?
> 
> Finally, a couple caveats on the map in the presentation -- because we know some of you will ask!
> 
> •The East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor will be a light rail line between the Orange Line and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station. Planning continues on the Sepulveda Transit Corridor with several types of transit under consideration, including heavy rail, light rail, monorail and rubber-wheel trains.
> 
> •On the West Santa Ana Branch Corridor project, two routes in downtown L.A. are under study. One would go to Union Station, the other to the DTLA core.


I'd do a consistent numbering and lettering scheme. Something like this:

Subway: Letters (A, B, C...)
Light Rail: Numbers (1, 2, 3...)

That way, it will avoid confusion for travelers who will want to go overground on light rail or underground on the subway by distinguishing which line is which. BART up here is already bad enough that we list lines by terminals (Dublin/Pleasanton - Daly City, for example), so a simplified alphanumeric scheme would be best.

Also, perhaps make the line thicknesses for the subway thicker than the light rail and the Orange and Silver Lines.


Nexis said:


> Needs MOAR lines...too light for 2028...and what about Metrolinks?


Metrolink trains are an entirely different matter. Those are commuter trains that require multiple negotiations with Amtrak, UP, BNSF, and other railway operators as it has to share tracks with them. Launching weekend services was tough enough that Metrolink can only do limited services... not to mention LA Union Station is up for a total makeover in preparation for CA HSR.


----------



## FDW

fieldsofdreams said:


> I'd do a consistent numbering and lettering scheme. Something like this:
> 
> Subway: Letters (A, B, C...)
> Light Rail: Numbers (1, 2, 3...)
> 
> That way, it will avoid confusion for travelers who will want to go overground on light rail or underground on the subway by distinguishing which line is which. BART up here is already bad enough that we list lines by terminals (Dublin/Pleasanton - Daly City, for example), so a simplified alphanumeric scheme would be best.
> 
> Also, perhaps make the line thicknesses for the subway thicker than the light rail and the Orange and Silver Lines.


I don't think letters are needed at all. The Heavy Rail and Light Rail lines are both Rapid Transit, so they should be marked in the same way. Whether they're underground or overground makes no difference, because the Light Rail already has significant underground segments, and future Heavy Rail expansion (Vermont/Arts District/etc) will feature some overground rail. That they have different specs is also of no matter, Tokyo's system has different specs on damn near every line, but it still presents itself as a single system, New York, London, Paris, and Berlin are also similar in this matter of having different specs across various lines, but presenting themselves as a unified system regardless. I think it would actually confuse the riders more.

Now, you might have more of point in regards to the Busways. I think that the Busways that are built to the standard of the Light rail lines (having their own ROW and some grade separation and signal priority) should be marked along with the Heavy and Light Rail lines. But the BRT stuff that isn't up to that standard, and operates more like an Open Busway, should be marked alongside the Rapid Routes. I see the current Orange Line as an example of the Former, and the current Silver Line and Wilshire BRT as an example of the latter. Pretty much every future BRT line being proposed also falls into the latter category. 



> Metrolink trains are an entirely different matter. Those are commuter trains that require multiple negotiations with Amtrak, UP, BNSF, and other railway operators as it has to share tracks with them. Launching weekend services was tough enough that Metrolink can only do limited services... not to mention LA Union Station is up for a total makeover in preparation for CA HSR.


But they're not going to be commuter trains for much longer. Metrolink has finally left the delusion behind and is going to upgrade the system to first world standards like Caltrain is, and Capitol Corridor is planning. It makes total sense to give the Regional lines numbers alongside the Heavy Rail, Light Rail, and Closed Busway lines. Especially with through-running becoming a thing.


----------



## etooley1985

*Map and Crenshaw Update:Leimert Park Restoration Video*

I like letters better than numbers. Nice map.

*Leimert Park Restoration Work Time Lapse 2018*


----------



## FDW

FDW said:


> I don't think letters are needed at all. The Heavy Rail and Light Rail lines are both Rapid Transit, so they should be marked in the same way. Whether they're underground or overground makes no difference, because the Light Rail already has significant underground segments, and future Heavy Rail expansion (Vermont/Arts District/etc) will feature some overground rail. That they have different specs is also of no matter, Tokyo's system has different specs on damn near every line, but it still presents itself as a single system, New York, London, Paris, and Berlin are also similar in this matter of having different specs across various lines, but presenting themselves as a unified system regardless. I think it would actually confuse the riders more.
> 
> Now, you might have more of point in regards to the Busways. I think that the Busways that are built to the standard of the Light rail lines (having their own ROW and some grade separation and signal priority) should be marked along with the Heavy and Light Rail lines. But the BRT stuff that isn't up to that standard, and operates more like an Open Busway, should be marked alongside the Rapid Routes. I see the current Orange Line as an example of the Former, and the current Silver Line and Wilshire BRT as an example of the latter. Pretty much every future BRT line being proposed also falls into the latter category.
> 
> 
> 
> But they're not going to be commuter trains for much longer. Metrolink has finally left the delusion behind and is going to upgrade the system to first world standards like Caltrain is, and Capitol Corridor is planning. It makes total sense to give the Regional lines numbers alongside the Heavy Rail, Light Rail, and Closed Busway lines. Especially with through-running becoming a thing.


BTW, I would number the lines like this:

1: Blue Line (Pasadena to Long Beach)
2: Purple Line (Arts District to Santa Monica)
3: Green Line (LAX to Norwalk)
4: Red Line (Arts District to North Hollywood)
5: Gold Line (San Bernardino to Whitter)
6: Orange Line (Chatsworth to Pasadena)
7: Expo Line (El Monte to Santa Monica)
8: Crenshaw Line (W. Hollywood to Torrance)
9: Sepulveda Line (San Fernando to LAX)
10: Artesia Line (Pershing Sq to Artesia)

I would have the Vermont and Northridge BRT services use numbers in the 7xx and 9xx, just like Metro's existing Rapids, while I would number the Metrolink services in the 8xx series. I would do the following renumbering as well: All LACMTA routes in the 0-99 series are renumbered in the 3xx series, all remaining 3xx routes are renumbered in the 7xx and 9xx series as appropriate. All non LACMTA routes with numbers below 30 are renumbered above 30, so that numbers 11-30 are available for future Rapid Transit lines in the LA region.


----------



## ReclusiveBlack

A lot of people don't realize that the Metro rail lines are actually numbered (as in 8xx), but they only emphasize them in their schedules.

Here's how Metro designates their current rail lines by number (the line number also corresponds to the chronological order in which each line opened):

801-Blue
802-Red
803-Green
804-Gold
805-Purple
806-Expo

If Metro sticks to the current numbering system with the opening of the Crenshaw/LAX line, then it'll designated as line 807. When the Regional Connector opens a year or two after, then there's where things get a little funky, because it's now the Expo Line will be no more because each end of its route will merge with either the Blue or Gold Lines.


----------



## Kenni

Interesting feedback, I'm surprised most of ya like the number system, I like the lettering system. Maybe because regular bus routes here are numbered, and I think rail should be distinctive.


----------



## FDW

Kenni said:


> Interesting feedback, I'm surprised most of ya like the number system, I like the lettering system. Maybe because regular bus routes here are numbered, and I think rail should be distinctive.


That wouldn't be as much of problem in a smaller metropolitan area. But the 2028 list is already using half the letters, and It's not unreasonable to think that the rest of them could be used by 2050, leading to another rebranding of lines. A numeral system doesn't have that problem.

And secondly, I think that Rail shouldn't be distinctive in that way. I think that it would be better to have as few ambiguities as possible in terms of naming.


----------



## phoenixboi08

FDW said:


> That wouldn't be as much of problem in a smaller metropolitan area. But the 2028 list is already using half the letters, and It's not unreasonable to think that the rest of them could be used by 2050, leading to another rebranding of lines. A numeral system doesn't have that problem.
> 
> And secondly, I think that Rail shouldn't be distinctive in that way. I think that it would be better to have as few ambiguities as possible in terms of naming.


That's of course a concern; However, it's also likely that many lines would simply be "re-configured" (eg. Gold/Expo, Blue/Gold) into longer lines, as well.

So LA could very well end up with "_less_" lines in the future.


----------



## Amexpat

I think it's worthwhile to differentiate between Metro, Light rail and buses. So, perhaps keep colors for the Metro, letters for light rail and numbers for buses.


----------



## Arnorian

Which year is the map from?


----------



## FDW

phoenixboi08 said:


> That's of course a concern; However, it's also likely that many lines would simply be "re-configured" (eg. Gold/Expo, Blue/Gold) into longer lines, as well.
> 
> So LA could very well end up with "_less_" lines in the future.


Quite frankly, I don't think the Blue/North Gold set up is going to last, given how long that line is going to be. And there's still a TON of expansion that needs to happen (as Los Angelist, as much as I disagree with his ideas about it, points out, and as Alon Levy and other LA fantasy mappers have also noted), so LA could easily end up with more rail services than letters if things keep up.



Amexpat said:


> I think it's worthwhile to differentiate between Metro, Light rail and buses. So, perhaps keep colors for the Metro, letters for light rail and numbers for buses.


The fact that LA has Light Rail and Metro is an artifact of the fact that two competing agencies that went for two incompatible specs. London doesn't advertise the difference between the Subsurface lines and the Deep Tube lines, Paris doesn't advertise which lines have Rubber tyres, and which lines don't, Tokyo doesn't mark the difference in each lines Gauge and Electrification (of which there are at least three different gauges and electrification systems, and even more depending on where you draw the line). And most of Tokyo's lines interline to suburban segments that have tons of grade crossings (and used to have a ton more).


----------



## Kenni

phoenixboi08 said:


> That's of course a concern; However, it's also likely that many lines would simply be "re-configured" (eg. Gold/Expo, Blue/Gold) into longer lines, as well.
> 
> So LA could very well end up with "_less_" lines in the future.


Very good point, the sheer distances here and to keep the system practical warrants exactly what you say. kay:



Amexpat said:


> I think it's worthwhile to differentiate between Metro, Light rail and buses. So, perhaps keep colors for the Metro, letters for light rail and numbers for buses.


Metro is keeping a color scheme along with adding the new branding.


----------



## Kenni

FDW said:


> That wouldn't be as much of problem in a smaller metropolitan area. But the 2028 list is already using half the letters, and It's not unreasonable to think that the rest of them could be used by 2050, leading to another rebranding of lines. A numeral system doesn't have that problem.
> 
> And secondly, I think that Rail shouldn't be distinctive in that way. I think that it would be better to have as few ambiguities as possible in terms of naming.


This is where we are now.....(When the Crenshaw Line opens, it will be integrated to the Green Line, most likely from Norwalk to the Expo Line)










Projects possible after the passage of Measure M. We can already see what *phoenixboi08* said, they will be re-branded again. The extension of the Green Line to Santa Monica intrigues me, it will also connect LAX through LAX's APM (People Mover).









(static map)










2040. As we can see, the letter system is absolutely feasible. And it absolutely needs to be distinguished from the bus routes, LA is so vast and is serviced by not only Metro, but Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, Culver City Bus, etc. All numbered.


----------



## Kenni

Arnorian said:


> Which year is the map from?


Good Lord! it must be very old, 1995-1996????


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ Well the Green Line opened in 1995 I believe, so about then. I hope Captain Marvel doesn't run into Keanu and Sandra on the freeway!











:lol:


----------



## Woonsocket54

aquamaroon said:


> ^^ Well the Green Line opened in 1995 I believe, so about then. I hope Captain Marvel doesn't run into Keanu and Sandra on the freeway!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol:


No chance of that. By the time Sandra, Keanu and Dennis were riding the rails in 1993, the metro had seemingly expanded to Hollywood.


----------



## aquamaroon

Woonsocket54 said:


> No chance of that. By the time Sandra, Keanu and Dennis were riding the rails in 1993, the metro had seemingly expanded to Hollywood.


Woah great find!! Thank you for that one :cheers:. I have to say... I am HIGHLY tempted to bring up the Tommy Lee Jones mid-90's film "Volcano" and do a whole rant about how that film is just one giant NIMBY F.U. from Beverly Hills to the rest of L.A. re: Public Transit, but don't wanna derail the conversation. (_pun intended!_)


Anyways, wanted to give my personal take on the new naming proposals!











My two cents? I would like to see a hybrid of the letter/number convention: I would label the Rail lines with letters and the BRT lines with numbers. So the current Blue Line would be "A" and the Purple Line would be "C", while the Silver Line would be "1" the Orange Line "2" and so on. I think it's important to differentiate between Rail and BRT; Metro treats them the same but I don't think they are, ESPECIALLY something like the Silver Line which in Downtown doesn't have a dedicated Bus Lane. It's a fair criticism that numbers would be confusing with the Bus System, but we're only talking like 4/5 lines and it'd be easy not to have overlap with the bus system. (also, would highlight that these lines are BRT and use buses as opposed to rail cars.)

However, the big news I think is in the Sepulveda line on that map... it's one broken line all the way from Sylmar to LAX. Does that mean no HRT for Sepulveda and we're doing LRT all the way from Van Nuys Blvd. to LAX?? Guess we'll see!


----------



## Arnorian

Kenni said:


> Good Lord! it must be very old, 1995-1996????


Wilshire/Vermont station was opened in 1996, so it must be before then.

Where was the metro scene from Predator 2 filmed? The movie came out in 1990, but the Red line was opened in 1993.


----------



## kramertron

Arnorian said:


> Wilshire/Vermont station was opened in 1996, so it must be before then.
> 
> Where was the metro scene from Predator 2 filmed? The movie came out in 1990, but the Red line was opened in 1993.


Hah, I watched this the other day too. That's filmed on the BART in the San Francisco Bay area. Identifiable by the distinctive front of the train car. Predator 2 came out in 1990, the year the LA Metro opened, so it probably wasn't ready for film production.


----------



## FDW

Kenni said:


> This is where we are now.....(When the Crenshaw Line opens, it will be integrated to the Green Line, most likely from Norwalk to the Expo Line)
> 
> 
> 
> Projects possible after the passage of Measure M. We can already see what *phoenixboi08*, they will be re-branded again. The extension of the Green Line to Santa Monica intrigues me, it will also connect LAXthrough LAX's APM (People Mover).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2040. As we can see, the letter system is absolutely feasible. And it absolutely needs to be distinguished from the bus routes, LA is so vast that and is serviced by not only Metro, but Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, Culver City Bus, etc. All numbered.


Before I offer my critiques, I just want to say that the version of the Vermont subway on your third map is just wrong to me. (Why would not do the goddamn obvious?)

And quite frankly, LACMTA's official plans still leave vast areas underserved. There are more ambitious proposals out like this, this, this, and this.

Credits to Los Angelist, Alexander Friedman, Alon Levy, and commenter Joseph from Pedestrian Observations. The former two maps, crazy as they are (largely for different reasons), do show that people have been capable of coming up with concepts that have more services than letters.

And I think there should be a single set of numbers for the LA region.


----------



## jay stew

Arnorian said:


> Wilshire/Vermont station was opened in 1996, so it must be before then.
> 
> Where was the metro scene from Predator 2 filmed? The movie came out in 1990, but the Red line was opened in 1993.


_Predator 2_ was set in 1997, so they needed an already built system to film in, presumably.


----------



## phoenixboi08

FDW said:


> ...show that people have been capable of coming up with concepts that have more services than letters.
> 
> And I think there should be a single set of numbers for the LA region.


Well, if that ever does become a major issue, you can add letter identifieers ("S" for subway, "T" for tram, etc). I think Paris does the latter for tram routes?


----------



## Slartibartfas

There are many ways how you can efficiently differentiate various modes. In Vienna there are countless lines of all sorts of modes and one can easily identify them by just looking at the identifier: 

S-Bahn: "S" + Number
U-Bahn (subway): "U" + Number
Tram: Number (except for the lines "O" and "D")
Bus: Number + "A" or "B"


I doubt letters will be too limiting for LAs metro lines though in the forseeable future and if it should one can easily adopt to it in time. Tons of metro lines do not appear out of nowhere overnight after all.


----------



## Kenni

I've thought it over, and I think I agree with *aquamaroon*. Letters for Metro rail and numbers for BRT. 

*FROM* THE SOURCE

*Green Line Extension to Torrance: two routes recommended for further study*


----------



## Kenni

One last thing....I want to give Metro props for their Spanish language page "El Pasajero" (The Passenger). It is as resourceful as the English site, usually cities have a watered down, very limited Spanish language page.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Construction on Metro’s Crenshaw/LAX Line months behind schedule*"

https://la.curbed.com/2018/9/20/17883420/crenshaw-lax-line-construction-delay-opening


----------



## redspork02

STREETSBLOG LA ARTICLE

*Metro Receives Key Federal Approval for Westside Purple Line Extension Section 3*



> The federal letter of no prejudice covers an initial $491 million, nearly all for tunnel construction. The LONP guarantees that the feds will reimburse the local expenditures under a forthcoming full-funding grant agreement (FFGA).


---------------------------------------

Better late than never!


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*OCTA awards $220.5 million contract to build OC Streetcar; construction expected to start this year*"

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/09/...car-construction-expected-to-start-this-year/

Construction on Santa Ana-Garden Grove streetcar to start by end of year


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ I know it may be premature, but are there any plans of extending that line north-westwards? After all, that is an almost completely intact corridor all the way to Los Angeles.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ I know it may be premature, but are there any plans of extending that line north-westwards? After all, that is an almost completely intact corridor all the way to Los Angeles.


I only know of the vision of extending it by the major destinations in Anaheim and then to ARTIC.

Which corridor are you referring to? I haven't seen any good maps of this streetcar's planned route, tbh.


----------



## FDW

phoenixboi08 said:


> I only know of the vision of extending it by the major destinations in Anaheim and then to ARTIC.
> 
> Which corridor are you referring to? I haven't seen any good maps of this streetcar's planned route, tbh.


This streetcar line (really a short LRT line) occupies the southernmost part of the PE W. Santa Ana Branch. Slartibartfas is asking if there are plans to extend the line northwest on the RoW to connect with the LACMTA WSAB LRT in Artesia. The answer is not really. Orange County has been extremely reluctant to embrace LRT to begin with, and already have the bad taste of the failure of the Center Line and Anaheim Streetcar. And I don't think plans will advance until the both the Santa Ana Streetcar and Artesia LRT are closer to being a reality.


----------



## phoenixboi08

FDW said:


> Slartibartfas is asking if there are plans to extend the line northwest on the RoW to connect with the LACMTA WSAB LRT in Artesia.


Essentially, this corridor then? 

I didn't know this, so was also asking for my own purposes 

Judging from the materials I've been seeing about OC's plans, it seems they're positioning this to connect to Metrolink, right?

What exactly makes cooperating with LCMTA so unattractive for the city/county?


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Yes that's exactly the corridor I was thinking about. I did not know that this was actually a Measure R project. But nothing became of it, right?

It may very well be that a more local line to Anaheim and Artic might make more sense for the streetcar as it is a more local mode of transportation by nature and could connect many more interesting locations in the larger area, like Disneyland and Anaheim station. On a second look at the map I am wondering what they aren't building all of that straight away. There is so much stuff all along that way from the terminal stop of the current plan all the way to Disneyland and Anaheim station.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Slartibartfas said:


> On a second look at the map I am wondering what they aren't building all of that straight away. There is so much stuff all along that way from the terminal stop of the current plan all the way to Disneyland and Anaheim station.


Well, I believe as FDW mentions that that was a separate project which got scrapped?

I remember it being proposed, but didn't know it wasn't a serious plan any longer -- I'd always thought this streetcar was proposed to connect to ARTIC from the outset. But then, I haven't followed this particular project closely.


----------



## FDW

phoenixboi08 said:


> Essentially, this corridor then?
> 
> I didn't know this, so was also asking for my own purposes
> 
> Judging from the materials I've been seeing about OC's plans, it seems they're positioning this to connect to Metrolink, right?


Yeah. The first phase hooks some of the densest parts of Orange county to Metrolink, while the extensions up Harbor Blvd are meant to enhance service on one of Orange County's busiest bus services, the 43. While the ARTIC streetcar is dead for now, the Harbor LRT up to Fullerton Metrolink (and potentially CSU Fullerton) isn't. This corridor was part of the CenterLine LRT proposal back in the 90's. It was a good idea then, and even more so now. 



> What exactly makes cooperating with LCMTA so unattractive for the city/county?


Because Orange County devolves much of it's decision making to the cities. The original CenterLine LRT shrunk from a line connecting CSU Fullerton to UC Irvine to a line almost entirely within the city of Santa Ana before it was cancelled because most of those cities didn't want the project, but Santa Ana did. Santa Ana's continued desire for rail led to the OC Streetcar getting approved, and Anaheim's continuing reluctance led to it's Streetcar project going under. But that may be changing in the next few years, for Anaheim and the other Orange County cities. 



Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Yes that's exactly the corridor I was thinking about. I did not know that this was actually a Measure R project. But nothing became of it, right?


It didn't really get much funding in Measure R, nor did the Federal help come that would've allowed LA to accelerate things. On the hand, Measure M (passed back in 2016) did provide that funding, and it's being brought forward for the 2028 olympics (Well, it's inner segment is being brought forward, the outer segment already had a 2028 opening date). The line is projected to have ridership similar to the Blue Line, and that's made LAMTA consider building a new downtown Subway for it.



> It may very well be that a more local line to Anaheim and Artic might make more sense for the streetcar as it is a more local mode of transportation by nature and could connect many more interesting locations in the larger area, like Disneyland and Anaheim station. On a second look at the map I am wondering what they aren't building all of that straight away. There is so much stuff all along that way from the terminal stop of the current plan all the way to Disneyland and Anaheim station.


The Katella streetcar was a bad idea on it's own IMO. It only really made sense as a segment of a bigger system (like the CenterLine LRT that it came from). I think going up along Harbor Blvd to CSU Fullerton is the way to go right now.


----------



## Slartibartfas

> I think going up along Harbor Blvd to CSU Fullerton is the way to go right now


That is quite some corridor, not short at all but seems useful.


----------



## FDW

Slartibartfas said:


> That is quite some corridor, not short at all but seems useful.


It is. You're passing by Disneyland, Downtown Anaheim, and Fullerton Metrolink on the way there. It's the obvious, and OCTA seems to think it's a good idea, now the ball is in the cities on whether or not they should do it.

And I wouldn't say that this corridor is particularly large by LA standards. It's only half the length of the Blue Line (from Harbor/Westminister to CSU Fullerton).


----------



## Slartibartfas

Indeed. Now if only they could upgrade Metrolink to a proper "S-Bahn" style system with proper systematic frequencies every so and so minutes and service at least till close to midnight.


----------



## FDW

Slartibartfas said:


> Indeed. Now if only they could upgrade Metrolink to a proper "S-Bahn" style system with proper systematic frequencies every so and so minutes and service at least till close to midnight.


Well, there's good news on that front too. Metrolink finally committed to electrifying and modernizing the system to those standards last year, and there's a ballot measure coming in 2020 that will help pay for it. Unlike past ballot measures, this isn't going to be exclusive to LA, but will also have Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties voting for it too. I like it, I find to commitment to frequent off-peak service on major corridors (Something that Caltrain in the Bay Area won't commit to with their electrification project) promising, if still short of where I think it should be.

And after the the N. Harbor LRT and S WSAB LRT, the other corridors that regard as being good for LRT in are OC are the following: S. Bristol (The CenterLine, Disneyland-Bristol-South Coast Mall-John Wayne-UC Irvine), Westminster (OCTA 60-560, DTLB-CSULB-I-405-Westminister Blvd-DTSA-Tustin), and some kind of connection to Costa Mesa (Either a S. Harbor LRT, a branch off the Bristol corridor at Hwy 55, a Beach LRT, a Stanton Branch LRT, or some of combination of the above).


----------



## phoenixboi08

Well, can we start including more stuff from Orange Co. in these updates, here?
I've not come across a lot of this info. It would be good to know.
(Or else it already is here, and I just missed it lol)


----------



## Kenni

New Blue. 






Also, I had never noticed something on the Green Line which I did recently in my daily commute to work. Some of you probably have. 

There is no station between Long Beach Station and Lakewood Station of course, but I notice that when they built the Green Line they left the space for a future station on the intersection of the 105 and 710 freeways. The possibility of an LTR on that freeway is interesting. 

I started noticing how the tracks separate there and there's a "station" sized gap between them.


----------



## BoulderGrad

^^Ooof, in Bouldergrad-topia, that would be an underground full heavy rail line. Currently, its basically a glorified tram line (so many grade crossings!) and sees 75k daily ridership. A line like the Purple or Red line could easily top 100k ppl/day with plenty of capacity to grow and much improved speed and reliability. 

At the very least, would hope to see some grade separations on a number of the bigger crossings and mergings with other lines.


----------



## FDW

BoulderGrad said:


> ^^Ooof, in Bouldergrad-topia, that would be an underground full heavy rail line. Currently, its basically a glorified tram line (so many grade crossings!) and sees 75k daily ridership. A line like the Purple or Red line could easily top 100k ppl/day with plenty of capacity to grow and much improved speed and reliability.
> 
> At the very least, would hope to see some grade separations on a number of the bigger crossings and mergings with other lines.


100K? Please, if the Blue Line was grade separated and had it's own tracks the entire way, it'd be getting at least 250K ridership, even more if express tracks were built and the line had first world frequency (potentially on the order of 1M per day). I think that upgrading the Blue Line to this standard should be a key part of the next major transit vote, if it happens. (Along with the ever popular Vermont Subway and the OBLITERATION of the El Monte Busway so the San Bernardino Line can be 4-tracked and turned into Rapid Transit.)


----------



## FDW

FDW said:


> 100K? Please, if the Blue Line was grade separated and had it's own tracks the entire way, it'd be getting at least 250K ridership, even more if express tracks were built and the line had first world frequency (potentially on the order of 1M per day). I think that upgrading the Blue Line to this standard should be a key part of the next major transit vote, if it happens. (Along with the ever popular Vermont Subway and the OBLITERATION of the El Monte Busway so the San Bernardino Line can be 4-tracked and turned into Rapid Transit.)


And keep in mind, Express tracks for the Blue Line wouldn't be all that difficult to pull off, given that there's already another set parallel to the RoW that are barely used IIRC.


----------



## ReclusiveBlack

Kenni said:


> New Blue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I had never noticed something on the Green Line which I did recently in my daily commute to work. Some of you probably have.
> 
> There is no station between Long Beach Station and Lakewood Station of course, but I notice that when they built the Green Line they left the space for a future station on the intersection of the 105 and 710 freeways. The possibility of an LTR on that freeway is interesting.
> 
> I started noticing how the tracks separate there and there's a "station" sized gap between them.


Part of the plan for the West Santa Ana rail line (if and when it gets built), is to build a station somewhere between Garfield Avenue and Paramount Boulevard, connecting it to the Green Line. With that big gap between Long Beach and Lakewood, you could add an additional station (preferably Atlantic Avenue).


----------



## Kenni

ReclusiveBlack said:


> Part of the plan for the West Santa Ana rail line (if and when it gets built), is to build a station somewhere between Garfield Avenue and Paramount Boulevard, connecting it to the Green Line. With that big gap between Long Beach and Lakewood, you could add an additional station (preferably Atlantic Avenue).


I see, so that route, West Santa Ana, would run by there, I was under the impression that it would run further east.

Regardless, they left the space there over the 710 for a station.


----------



## saiho

FDW said:


> 100K? Please, if the Blue Line was grade separated and had it's own tracks the entire way, it'd be getting at least 250K ridership, even more if express tracks were built and the line had first world frequency (potentially on the order of 1M per day). I think that upgrading the Blue Line to this standard should be a key part of the next major transit vote, if it happens. (Along with the ever popular Vermont Subway and the OBLITERATION of the El Monte Busway so the San Bernardino Line can be 4-tracked and turned into Rapid Transit.)


How could the Blue Line reach 1 million passengers a day when it mostly runs through areas with a third of the density of the Bronx? RER A in Paris carries about 1 million people and it's 108.5 km long and punches through the densest parts of Paris. That's like me saying if the entire Minneapolis LRT network of two lines was built as a 4 track subway it will carry 1 million people. Chicago's or Washington's entire subway doesn't even carry that much. Just because you build it doesn't mean they will come.


----------



## Kenni

Oh, and by the way......this will crack you up.

Beverly Hills High School has had al OIL DERRICK on their campus which the city leases to a third party for YEARS. It's on the southwest corner of their campus by Heath Ave and Olympic Blvd. 

*No health concerns there huh??*










It's camouflaged, as many around LA are....so many pass detection. Some local LA law that passed many decades ago about camouflaging unsightly derricks around LA....in Long Beach they even created islands around some and made everything look like a quasi-resort from far away. 










Long Beach. Yes, it even has a fountain. 










Los Angeles


----------



## FDW

Kenni said:


> We all know it's not underground gas pockets, nor safety concerns......they fear regular angelenos coming to their hood....and yes, foot traffic of us poor people and they sure fear homeless people at the stations. Burglary, home invasions etc.
> 
> BUT! This Monday, yesterday, boring commenced finally! The Source has a great article on it.
> 
> *It's been planned since the 60's!*


Wrong! The Subway proposal from the mid 1920's had a line in the area. In fact, a lot of what's been built, and what is currently planned dates back to that plan.


----------



## Kenni

FDW said:


> Wrong! The Subway proposal from the mid 1920's had a line in the area. In fact, a lot of what's been built, and what is currently planned dates back to that plan.


Well, the map and render is from The Source, which is from the 60's. You may be right that the idea is older. kay:


----------



## sdery

There used to be link on the Metro.net website which showed the history of mass rapid transit in maps for LA...not sure what happened to it


----------



## FDW

Kenni said:


> Well, the map and render is from The Source, which is from the 60's. You may be right that the idea is older. kay:





sdery said:


> There used to be link on the Metro.net website which showed the history of mass rapid transit in maps for LA...not sure what happened to it


I was talking about this map here:


----------



## MarshallKnight

FDW said:


> I was talking about this map here:




That's the alternate reality I want to live in, with subways and el trains from Venice to Long Beach to Whittier to Glendora to San Fernando, _in addition_ to the interurban electric lines running as far as Redlands and Santa Ana. Good God did our forebears screw up...


----------



## FDW

MarshallKnight said:


> That's the alternate reality I want to live in, with subways and el trains from Venice to Long Beach to Whittier to Glendora to San Fernando, _in addition_ to the interurban electric lines running as far as Redlands and Santa Ana. Good God did our forebears screw up...


Transitporn, one of the sites that did an article about the project (here), also had some maps showing the system in terms of operations:










And how it might've developed:










The hideous layout of the latter map has made want to puke. Someday soon, I'm going to develop a fantasy map based off this proposal that does one better, hell more than better than what Transit porn did. And I'll share it with everyone here.


----------



## etooley1985

*Airport Metro Connector Video*

Airport Metro Connector Video:


----------



## MrAronymous

Ah, it's Grimshaw. That explains a lot.

@FWD please use 

[IMAGE] [/resize ] next time.


----------



## Kenni

etooley1985 said:


> Airport Metro Connector Video:


Fantastic! world class! Turned out better than I anticipated. :cheers:


----------



## losangelino

jay stew said:


> The Beverly Hills Unified School District should just build a high school elsewhere if they really think the subway is such a threat to their livelihood.


...


----------



## redspork02

LA TIMES - Opinion PIECE

"*Seriously, Beverly Hills? Cut your Purple Line hysteria, already*"

-----------------

Great Article, I'm sure most of you have read it. but I liked the heading.......


----------



## redspork02

Stantec leads project construction management support of LA metros purple line extension as boring machines begin work



> Stantec is working with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority on the high-priority Purple Line Extension project, which celebrated a major milestone on October 16, as tunnel boring machines (TBMs) — named Elsie and Soyeon — began work for the Purple Line Extension Transit Project Section 1. Elsie and Soveon will bore concurrently for approximately two years, starting at the Wilshire/La Brea Station. Stantec is leading the Westside Extension Support Team (WEST) joint venture, which serves as Metro’s construction management support services consultant on Section 1 of the three-phase Purple Line Extension, set to significantly improve mobility between downtown Los Angeles and many of its busiest suburbs.


----------



## redspork02

etooley1985 said:


> Airport Metro Connector Video:


Not one single NEW palm tree in the video.....


----------



## etooley1985

*Metro Regional Connector Photos*

Metro Regional Connector Photos (from Facebook):











Looking west at the 1st St portal which will connect the future Little Tokyo/Arts District Station to the Gold Line towards East L.A. — at Downtown LA.













Workers continue excavation under 1st St and Alameda St. — at Downtown LA.












A view of the tunnel eye as a worker begins excavating. Regional Connector Constructors tested out the tunnel boring machine by building test segments of the tunnel.



> Photo by Ken Karagozian, 2018. — at Downtown LA.













An excavator prepares to use a high-powered hammer to chip away at concrete from installed piles.



> Photo by Ken Karagozian, 2018. — at Downtown LA.













Looking east at the station floor under 1st St and Alameda St. 



> Photo by Ken Karagozian, 2018. — at Downtown LA.













Excavation is ongoing at the 1st St portal, just east of the 1st and Alameda St intersection.



> Photo by Ken Karagozian, 2018. — at Downtown LA.














A worker pauses from removing tunnel segments to pose for a portrait.



> Photo by Ken Karagozian, 2018. — at Downtown LA.













Looking west at the future Little Tokyo/Arts District Station.



> Photo by Ken Karagozian, 2018. — at Downtown LA.


----------



## etooley1985

*Metro Purple Line Extension Photos*

Metro Purple Line Extension Photos (from 
Facebook):











One by one, another TBM piece gets lowered down.












The Purple Line Extension TBMs are about 21.5 feet in diameter or about 4 of these guys in the picture stacked on top of each other!













If you look close enough you can see the different levels inside the tunnel boring machine 🔍












Teamwork makes the dream work. Here's the team setting the tunnel boring machine into the precise location to launch!














"The Race is On for the Purple Line Extension Tunnel Boring Machines!" and more in the September Newsletter! Read all about it: http://bit.ly/2MPB9Al













The TBMs under Wilshire/La Brea side by side as far as the eye can see.












Inside the belly of the beast! The tunnel boring machines are expected to launch this next month! (already launched)













Behind the fences at Wilshire/Western. This is the first destination for the tunnel boring machines!


----------



## etooley1985

*Metro Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project Photos*

Metro Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project Photos (from Facebook):












Some snap shots of underground station progress! 












Check out our maintenance yard progress and Crenshaw Bl restoration time lapse video!


----------



## aquamaroon

Nice video from Metro, hopeful for a multi-modal future for Los Angeles :cheers::






And _en espanol_:


----------



## etooley1985

*Crenshaw Line pt. 3- West Hollywood Video*

West Hollywood wants the northern extension of the Crenshaw line, which is being studied, to follow San Vicente Blvd., although I think Fairfax or La Brea are what Metro will choose in the end. They made this nice promotional video - and are helping to fund up to $500 million to accelerate the project:






From Weho.org/finish-the-line


----------



## FM 2258

FDW said:


> Transitporn, one of the sites that did an article about the project (here), also had some maps showing the system in terms of operations:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how it might've developed:
> 
> https://transitporn.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/la-subway.png
> 
> The hideous layout of the latter map has made want to puke. Someday soon, I'm going to develop a fantasy map based off this proposal that does one better, hell more than better than what Transit porn did. And I'll share it with everyone here.


Looking at this map it looks like Los Angeles could benefit by implementing a couple of loop lines. After visiting Europe and Asia I wish cities in the US were more walkable.


----------



## MrAronymous

That's what he meant.

The Santa Monica-LAX line is a very interesting proposal.


----------



## TM_Germany

I think FDW refers to one directional loop lines like there are getting built a couple of times in US cities nowadays (e.g. that system in Detroit and I think even Downtown LA is supposed to get a one directional streetcar). FM was almost certainly referring to loop (or circle) lines where you can travel in both directions.


----------



## Jim856796

FDW said:


> *Loop lines are generally a stupid idea for rapid transit*, LA's better off building muliple connecting circumferential lines (like it's already planning on doing).


Oh yeah? Then why does Beijing have two loop lines (2 and 10)? And in the distant future, Moscow will have a loop Metro line as well, in addition to its new Central Circle railway.


----------



## Fabouninou

Jim856796 said:


> FDW said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Loop lines are generally a stupid idea for rapid transit*, LA's better off building muliple connecting circumferential lines (like it's already planning on doing).
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah? Then why does Beijing have two loop lines (2 and 10)? And in the distant future, Moscow will have a loop Metro line as well, in addition to its new Central Circle railway.
Click to expand...

And Grand Paris Express' Line 15 under construction


----------



## MarshallKnight

Not to mention London’s Circle Line (which is not a true continuous loop, but is inarguably useful for navigating the central city)


----------



## Kenni

etooley1985 said:


> West Hollywood wants the northern extension of the Crenshaw line, which is being studied, to follow San Vicente Blvd., although I think Fairfax or La Brea are what Metro will choose in the end. They made this nice promotional video - and are helping to fund up to $500 million to accelerate the project:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Weho.org/finish-the-line


Way to go West Hollywood!


----------



## Kenni

*RE-BRANDING*

From MTA (Metro)

Metro staff are recommending changing the names of Metro Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Lines to colors with letters to accommodate a growing system and make our rail and bus rapid transit network easier to understand. Here is the new staff report.

There are several reasons why the names should change. Among them: being customer friendly and making the system easy to navigate; there are only so many distinguishable colors to go around, and; some rail lines are being joined together by new projects such as the Crenshaw/LAX Line and Regional Connector — another reason that now is a good time.

As part of the process, a team of employees at Metro evaluated four options:

•Colors with letters, which are commonly used by transit agencies around the world.

•Colors with numbers, which are also commonly used.

•Colors only.

•Some colors and some names based on areas.

The process included getting feedback from the public in the form of focus groups and an online survey. The public made it clear the naming convention needs to be consistent and simple.

The research also found that the public -- including current riders and potential riders and tourists -- perceived two naming options to be easier to use: Colors & Letters and Colors & Numbers. Both help with navigation and are consistent and simple.

Why letters over numbers?

Letters are different from and minimize confusion with bus numbers and platform numbers.

Metro staff recommends a phased approach that would help save money and begin making the change as new rail lines debut. Under this plan, the renaming would begin with the Blue Line once it fully reopens after next year's closures followed by most other lines when the Crenshaw/LAX Line opens.

The staff recommendation will go to the Metro Board of Directors' Executive Management Committee this Thursday (Nov. 15 ) at 11:30 a.m. with the full Board scheduled to consider the item at their Dec. 6 meeting. All Board meetings are livestreamed.


----------



## Kenni

A big issues arises with the completion of the Crenshaw Line, which most likely will be re-branded as the C Green Line, and that is that the South Bay will be disconnected as a a 2 seat ride. 

Metro is studying that problem, looking for a cost effective solution. What do you guys think? If the current track is split into 2 lines from Norwalk... C to the E and J to the South Bay, that still leaves out South Bay to the E, making the ride to LAX from the South Bay...which is so close, to a 2 seat ride.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Circular lines are usually not useful because they are circles but because they are offering tangential connections. A raster of lines can do that just as well.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Can anyone explain to me why they can’t just operate 2-car trains from Redondo to Crenshaw/Expo or Norwalk?


----------



## Kenni

MarshallKnight said:


> Can anyone explain to me why they can’t just operate 2-car trains from Redondo to Crenshaw/Expo or Norwalk?


It's complicated:

*NORWALK---LAX--->EXPO (C LINE)
NORWALK--->REDONDO (J LINE)* 

South Bay gets cut-off of LAX by a 2 seat route. Folks would have to transfer at Aviation and pay a second fair for just one more stop to LAX.

*REDONDO--->LAX--->EXPO (J LINE)
NORWALK--->LAX--->EXPO (C LINE)*

Norwalk to Redondo is cut into a 2 seat ride transferring at Aviation. For many El Segundo employees that's just 1 or 2 stops.

A 3 way line is too costly for Metro...that would be something like this:

*REDONDO--->LAX--->EXPO (J LINE)
NORWALK--->LAX--->EXPO (C LINE)
NORWALK--->REDONDO (X LINE) *


What do you guys think?


----------



## Stuu

Kenni said:


> A big issues arises with the completion of the Crenshaw Line, which most likely will be re-branded as the C Green Line, and that is that the South Bay will be disconnected as a a 2 seat ride.
> 
> Metro is studying that problem, looking for a cost effective solution. What do you guys think? If the current track is split into 2 lines from Norwalk... C to the E and J to the South Bay, that still leaves out South Bay to the E, making the ride to LAX from the South Bay...which is so close, to a 2 seat ride.


So is the map in the post above wrong then? As that shows direct trains to Aviation/96 from Redondo...


----------



## MarshallKnight

Kenni said:


> It's complicated:





Stuu said:


> So is the map in the post above wrong then? As that shows direct trains to Aviation/96 from Redondo...


No, the above map _is_ accurate: Metro's current, preferred operating plan would run Green Line/Crenshaw "C" trains from Norwalk to Expo/Crenshaw (and eventually Hollywood) via LAX, with a stub line from Redondo Beach to the 96th Street LAX people mover station. South Bay trains wont' require a transfer to get to LAX... but for whatever reason, they're going to turn back at 96th. Basically a South Bay to LAX shuttle.

What I'm asking is: is there any operational reason why those South Bay trains can't just run all the way along the Crenshaw corridor to Expo/Crenshaw, like this?


Olive and Green lines by Marshall Knight, on Flickr

I know that the South Bay stations (Redondo, Douglas, El Segundo and Mariposa) can only accommodate 2-car trains, so the 3-car sets that will be running on the "C" line can't go to the South Bay, but why can't the "J" line just run 2-car sets all the way to Exposition?


----------



## Kenni

^^^^ This is just my assumption, but Redondo doesn't have all that demand, looks like LAX is the center piece. So I understand what Metro did there with current infrastructure. 

I still prefer something like a 3 way line, but Metro is studying it. 



Stuu said:


> So is the map in the post above wrong then? As that shows direct trains to Aviation/96 from Redondo...


The bigger picture. In the map the South Bay on one seat can only go to LAX. Right now they can go all the way to Norwalk...and vice versa.


----------



## Kenni

I never understood why this space of Union Station was not used for anything since the 60's. They did film there, just about anything...but now......


----------



## Stuu

I don't know LA very well at all so shouldn't really be offering an opinion... but looking at the satellite images most of the Redondo line is surrounded by hotels and industry, lots of which seems to relate to the airport, so it makes sense to link directly there rather than towards Norwalk. Would that be right?


----------



## Kenni

But it will be extended to the heart of the South Bay.


----------



## MarshallKnight

FYI -- I got some answers from the guys on the Fans of Los Angeles Metro Facebook group, including this Metro presentation (PDF) explaining the recommendation. The main reasons for the recommendation are:


the Crenshaw Line has a maximum capacity of 12 trains per hour (6 min headways) due in part to the street-running segments. So operating branches to both Norwalk and Redondo from Expo/Crenshaw would cause each of the stand-alone segments to have long headways (~12 minutes), worsening service on a line that currently has greater frequency than that during rush hour
branching would also result in an uneven headway -- every other train would be 5 minutes and 7 minutes -- which don't match the Blue and Expo line headways, resulting in inconsistent scheduling
the three-way branch, in addition to the irregular frequencies described above, would cost about $15 million / year more to operate than either of the LAX-turnback options -- which is probably too expensive a cost hike just to ensure single-seat rides between all three termini


----------



## Stuu

MarshallKnight said:


> FYI -- I got some answers from the guys on the Fans of Los Angeles Metro Facebook group, including this Metro presentation (PDF) explaining the recommendation. The main reasons for the recommendation are:
> 
> 
> the Crenshaw Line has a maximum capacity of 12 trains per hour (6 min headways) due in part to the street-running segments. So operating branches to both Norwalk and Redondo from Expo/Crenshaw would cause each of the stand-alone segments to have long headways (~12 minutes), worsening service on a line that currently has greater frequency than that during rush hour
> branching would also result in an uneven headway -- every other train would be 5 minutes and 7 minutes -- which don't match the Blue and Expo line headways, resulting in inconsistent scheduling
> the three-way branch, in addition to the irregular frequencies described above, would cost about $15 million / year more to operate than either of the LAX-turnback options -- which is probably too expensive a cost hike just to ensure single-seat rides between all three termini


So a new line, costing $billions, including lots of grade separation and tunnels cannot operate more than every 5 mins? How is that possible?


----------



## Aaraldi

MarshallKnight said:


> the Crenshaw Line has a maximum capacity of 12 trains per hour (6 min headways) due in part to the street-running segments.



Mhhh in other countries street running actually allows for minimized headways as vehicles are allowed to operate 'on sight' where as on separated ROW most signalling systems only allow a minimum headway of 2 minutes.


In Karlsruhe f.e. they have headways on a street running segments of just 80 seconds.


----------



## Stuu

Kenni said:


> *THE LATEST*
> 
> These are some of the results from the Metro board's last meeting of the year. LOTS OF STUFF!
> 
> Read about it *HERE*.
> 
> Among them......................
> 
> •On a 7 to 4 vote with two abstentions, the Board approved a motion approving the C-3 operating plan for the Crenshaw/LAX Line and Green Line to be put in place after the Crenshaw/LAX Line opens, which is forecast for mid-2020. The operating plan would be a one-year test program. Staff report and Source post.


So they voted for the plan that was worse on every single measure? :nuts:


----------



## Slartibartfas

Suburbanist said:


> The "Bus Rider Union" classifies that policy as being racist and discriminatory (because it disfavors very poor people unable to save for a pass and favors low-middle-class and above for whom the cost of the pass up-front is not a big deal). Not saying I agree with it, they are very backward and outdated, for instance, demanding more one-seat bus rides under the pretense that people with poor English skills or barely literate immigrants have a tough time navigating a system with transfers, complex underground stations etc.


Yearly tickets can also be based on monthly payments. Now don't tell me that having to pay 40 USD per month up front for transportation is discriminatory. Are rents for a place to live considered discriminatory as well?

If people can't even afford that there must be widespread massive poverty in LA. Are we talking here about the 3rd world or the US?

In any case, one can offer financial assistance for unemployed people or people who are demonstratively really that poor. Now tell me what the real reasons are why they oppose a simple integrated ticket system. This is utterly absurd, if they think people are too stupid to make a transfer, they are expected to be clever enought to understand the unneccesarily complex ticket system with various different operators, zones and whatnot?


----------



## Kenni

Stuu said:


> So they voted for the plan that was worse on every single measure? :nuts:


There has to be a reason tho....I'm trying to figure it out. 

Both will connect to the Blue Line, which brings a lot of transfer passengers to El Segundo and LAX from DTLA and Long Beach, so that weighs in more than giving the South Bay direct connection to LAX. Think about it.


----------



## CB31

290826859


----------



## FDW

Right now I'm working on the 10th and 11th maps in my "Los Angeles Red Car" series. These maps mark the halfway point chronologically, yet I've already mapped out so much that I probably won't get to 30 lines. Still got a lot ahead of me though, especially considering I'm doing the Yellow Car too.


----------



## redspork02

FDW said:


> Right now I'm working on the 10th and 11th maps in my "Los Angeles Red Car" series. These maps mark the halfway point chronologically, yet I've already mapped out so much that I probably won't get to 30 lines. Still got a lot ahead of me though, especially considering I'm doing the Yellow Car too.


Please explain further:

1) "Los Angeles Red Car" series
2) halfway point
3) 30 lines
4) I'm doing


----------



## redspork02

Cool vid. Its true, cars still get the priority in the city and the high ridership urban core projects ( Santa Monica Blvd HRT; Vermont HRT) lose funding to less essential projects in the far reaches of the county. Sad reality.


----------



## FDW

redspork02 said:


> Please explain further:
> 
> 1) "Los Angeles Red Car" series
> 2) halfway point
> 3) 30 lines
> 4) I'm doing


Earlier in this thread I mentioned that I'm doing a fantasy map of LA based upon the historical 1925 plan for Modernizing the Pacific Electric into a Rapid Transit system. The official name of the series of maps that I'm making is "Los Angeles Red Car". It's a series because I want to show how the system develops in an organic fashion. Its at the " halfway point" because the first section of Subway opens in 1924, and the last slice of map that I'll be showing will be 2027. I'm current doing a rough draft on paper. When I get everything hashed out, I'm going to digitize it via Google My Maps and share it with everyone. If you want to see an example of what I'm intending, I have a fantasy map of Cincinnati, based of the 1914 plan over on the fantasy maps thread. The Cincinnati Reddit absolutely loved it. As for lines, it goes like this: Lines 1-6 are based directly off the 1925 plan, with some modifications (namely additional branches), and a couple bits dropped. Those bits eventually show up as segments of Lines 7, 9, 10, and 13, with the rest not being rooted in the plan, but as "natural development" of the system. With the 1973 map, I'm already at over 800 miles in system length, and the 1978 map will have 22 lines. I'm hitting a point where I'm running out of space to slot in more lines (because some corridors will be getting Yellow Cars instead), though there are still tons of extensions of existing Lines that I haven't scouted out. Its going to be a doozy once it lands.


----------



## redspork02

FDW said:


> Earlier in this thread I mentioned that I'm doing a fantasy map of LA based upon the historical 1925 plan for Modernizing the Pacific Electric into a Rapid Transit system.


I do remember the mention. Awesome man.....Look forward to seeing it.


----------



## 2Easy

Kenni said:


> There has to be a reason tho....I'm trying to figure it out.
> 
> Both will connect to the Blue Line, which brings a lot of transfer passengers to El Segundo and LAX from DTLA and Long Beach, so that weighs in more than giving the South Bay direct connection to LAX. Think about it.


The reason is pretty simple. South Bay politicians wanted to keep existing riders and the companies that they work for happy. They don’t understand the commute patterns of the people that live in the South Bay. Or they don’t care because the people that live in the South Bay don’t ride the trains and politicians don’t understand that they would be more likely to do so if it went where they have to go, which is north not east. 

But metro was very misleading in their arguments. I hate to say it, but they were outright lying. They stated that the operating plan selected would limit service on the Crenshaw line from day 1 because they would no longer have sufficient power to run 3-car Crenshaw trains. The problem is that one station - Aviation - can only platform two cars so they couldn’t run 3-car trains anyway. Not until that’s extended and there have been no plans to do so. So that “day 1” stuff was complete BS.


----------



## benjaminh

Hello community,

A few thoughts about the Expo line after using it for the first time a few days ago (all the way from downtown to Santa Monica) and a comparison with the light rail lines 1-3/8 in my hometown of Frankfurt which I think are somewhat similar in terms of partial grade separation.
- The Expo line does not appear to get signal priority in most places, resulting in long waits at many intersections. Are there any plans for changing this?
- Trains seem to run at relatively low speeds in grade separated sections, between intersections etc. while the Frankfurt lines operate at 50-60 km/h on most surface sections. Is this due to regulations?
- The ride took about 50 minutes which isn't too bad. But it could be much faster.


----------



## phoenixboi08

benjaminh said:


> Hello community,
> 
> A few thoughts about the Expo line after using it for the first time a few days ago (all the way from downtown to Santa Monica) and a comparison with the light rail lines 1-3/8 in my hometown of Frankfurt which I think are somewhat similar in terms of partial grade separation.
> - The Expo line does not appear to get signal priority in most places, resulting in long waits at many intersections. Are there any plans for changing this?
> - Trains seem to run at relatively low speeds in grade separated sections, between intersections etc. while the Frankfurt lines operate at 50-60 km/h on most surface sections. Is this due to regulations?
> - The ride took about 50 minutes which isn't too bad. But it could be much faster.


Essentially, unintended consequences from environmental laws that measure impacts based upon LOS (and, namely, flow) of cars. 

I presume the maximum operating speed is capped because the train is actually observing signals at intersections as well (ie. the operator needs to be ready to stop, and it's not timed, but rather dependent on when the train happens to arrive at that intersection?)

In any case, it's a known issue, and most of the requisite changes to procedures/laws have changed (or are in the process of being implemented). Just should have happened sooner. 

But despite the constant positioning that it's an abject failure, I don't believe it's the end of the world; it's relatively easy thing to fix -- eliminate some crossings, time other signals, use better gates with priority for trains, etc. The obstacle was always Caltrans/LADOT I'd presume, as they were following an outdated (and honestly questionable) reading of CEQA laws.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Things obviously move in the right direction but this is miles away from the only proper solution and that is right of way for light rail, wherever they cross, at least at such lines that are the regional backbone of public transportation.
I mean the current situation is as if you put an at grade road crossing across a highway and then legislate that cars on the highway have to wait as the crossing cars have priority.

Still, better the Expo line as it is than no Expo line altogether.


----------



## benjaminh

Many thanks for the explanations.


----------



## jamesinclair

phoenixboi08 said:


> Essentially, unintended consequences from environmental laws that measure impacts based upon LOS (and, namely, flow) of cars.
> 
> I presume the maximum operating speed is capped because the train is actually observing signals at intersections as well (ie. the operator needs to be ready to stop, and it's not timed, but rather dependent on when the train happens to arrive at that intersection?)
> 
> In any case, it's a known issue, and most of the requisite changes to procedures/laws have changed (or are in the process of being implemented). Just should have happened sooner.
> 
> But despite the constant positioning that it's an abject failure, I don't believe it's the end of the world; it's relatively easy thing to fix -- eliminate some crossings, time other signals, use better gates with priority for trains, etc. The obstacle was always Caltrans/LADOT I'd presume, as they were following an outdated (and honestly questionable) reading of CEQA laws.



Theres good news....

Car delay will no longer be used as a way to assess environmental impacts of development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act. New rules, developed by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research with much public input and certified by the Natural Resources Agency, rewrote the CEQA transportation section.

The rules say that vehicle miles traveled–the amount in distance of automobile travel produced by a project–is a more appropriate measure of transportation impacts than vehicle delay. Specifically, the new rule states that “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” In addition, development projects within a half-mile of high quality transit are presumed not to have a significant environmental impact.

https://cal.streetsblog.org/2019/01...lay-is-sometimes-not-an-environmental-impact/


----------



## redspork02

Here are the four new refined concepts for Sepulveda Transit Corridor










Metros new alternatives for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor. 



> Four refined concepts (above) have been released for the Metro project that will build a fast, high-capacity transit line between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside through the Sepulveda Pass. Three of the four are heavy rail — i.e. the type of trains used on Metro’s Red/Purple Line subway — and the other concept is a monorail.


Metro is no longer considering LRT, unfortunately eliminating a single ride from Sylmar on the planned EAST SAN FERNANDO VALLEY corridor to LAX. 



> Metro staff determined that light rail doesn’t offer as much future capacity for the Sepulveda Line as heavy rail or monorail. Why? Light rail has shorter trains and smaller rail cars. Therefore, staff are proposing to eliminate that concept from further study.


Northern terminus is Metrolinks Van Nuys Station.



> Ridership, in fact, would exceed capacity on the southern part of that light rail line, the reason that the remaining four concepts for the Sepulveda project go to the Van Nuys Metrolink Station. The idea is to intercept the ridership demand on the Van Nuys line before light rail trains get too crowded.


Phase one Southern Terminus is either the Expo/Bundy Station or Expo/Sepulveda. 



> Metro is still working on whether the first segment of the Sepulveda Project would terminate at the Expo Line’s Bundy or Sepulveda stations. There would be no station on the Sepulveda Line between the Purple Line and Expo Line because modeling showed low ridership potential.


----------



## redspork02

HRT 2 is my best bet with he terminus at Expo/Bundy. ^^^


----------



## Slartibartfas

Can they just let that Monorail nonsense die please? This will be an expensive project, do it properly for once.

Heavy rail implementations keep a high flexibility for future adaptations and connections with existing rail corridors. Monorail is an insular system, increasing the number of different systems that need to be maintained and run, with a very limited number of companies offering infrastructure and vehicles.


----------



## Amexpat

Slartibartfas said:


> Can they just let that Monorail nonsense die please?


Disneyland has a working monorail. Perhaps they could connect it to the one they have at Fantasyland? That would also provide public transportation from LA to Anaheim. 

Disneyland could run it and partially sponsor it for the free publicity and access that LA tourists and local population would have to Disneyland. You could also have cheesy commentary along the route describing all the wonderful sights being seen. Disney costumed characters could make sporadic appearances to cheer up gloomy commuters on the long ride.


----------



## redspork02

Amexpat said:


> Disneyland has a working monorail. Perhaps they could connect it to the one they have at Fantasyland? That would also provide public transportation from LA to Anaheim.
> 
> Disneyland could run it and partially sponsor it for the free publicity and access that LA tourists and local population would have to Disneyland. You could also have cheesy commentary along the route describing all the wonderful sights being seen. Disney costumed characters could make sporadic appearances to cheer up gloomy commuters on the long ride.



I don't know if you're being facetious or not. Ima say you are. 

But the closest thing Metro has to connecting with Orange county is the proposed and under EIR status; the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor. 

Check it out. Could connect with Anaheim in the diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiistant future.


----------



## Kenni

HRT has a higher projected occupancy, and it's underground and aerial.


----------



## Amexpat

redspork02 said:


> I don't know if you're being facetious or not. Ima say you are.


Yes, I was being facetious. A monorail as a serious solution to LA transit needs belongs in Fantasyland .

About public transit to Disneyland, the OC streetcar could expand there in the future. I'm surprised that Disneyland didn't support the Anaheim street car when that was being considered. With a connection to the Anaheim Metrolink station people in LA could get to Disneyland by public transportation.


----------



## redspork02

Amexpat said:


> Yes, I was being facetious. A monorail as a serious solution to LA transit needs belongs in Fantasyland .
> 
> About public transit to Disneyland, the OC streetcar could expand there in the future. I'm surprised that Disneyland didn't support the Anaheim street car when that was being considered. With a connection to the Anaheim Metrolink station people in LA could get to Disneyland by public transportation.


Im with you on that, So Cal As. of Gov. needs to promote the idea of a LA to OC modern transportation ride that is not a highway.

Theres always Metrolink though......:nuts:


----------



## redspork02

Apple Pay coming to Los Angeles Metro system in late 2019



> The Los Angeles Metro's existing Transit Access Pass system is being overhauled including the addition of Apple Pay and an iOS app, with the improvements expected to arrive in the fall.


Love this idea.....Lets get on it.

TAP machine made me buy a new tap card on Monday and all I wanted was to add fare. 

At least I got a new Valentines day TAP card. Its cute. lol


----------



## urbanflight

*Metro Board Approves Study of Congestion Pricing and Fees on Rideshare Services*



> The Board also tackled project acceleration through the "Twenty-Eight by '28" initiative.
> 
> At a packed meeting Thursday, Metro's Board of Directors authorized the study of new strategies to ease Los Angeles' notorious traffic - including congestion pricing and fees on rideshare services such as Uber and Lyft.
> 
> Congestion pricing, which regulates traffic congestion in high-demand areas by charging drivers a fee, can take a variety of forms. Metro staff has put forth three potential ways that it could be implemented in Los Angele County, including:
> 
> 
> VMT pricing, where a fee is charged per mile driven by a vehicle;
> Cordon pricing, in which a fee is charged for entering a certain area; and
> Corridor pricing, where fees are charged for access to heavily-trafficked roads or highways.
> 
> Metro staff have estimated that *congestion pricing could generate anywhere between $9.6 billion and $83 billion over a period of 10 years*, money that could be put toward improved transit service - and potentially, capital projects.
> 
> A modest form of congestion pricing is already available in Los Angeles County in the form of the ExpressLanes which run within the I-10 and I-110 Freeways. Drivers are charged a per-mile toll to access the lanes, with the revenue returned to the corridor in the form of increased frequencies on the Silver Line rapid bus line between El Monte and Harbor Gateway via Downtown.
> 
> The Metro Board proved more receptive toward the idea of studying congestion pricing than some had previously anticipated, though some - including County Supervisor Janice Hahn - expressed lingering doubts about the project. Multiple Board Members noted that County residents had already voted twice since 2008 to raise their own taxes in order to fund transportation projects - after campaigns which billed the measures as "traffic relief" - and were reluctant to make yet another ask of the electorate.
> 
> Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti noted that congestion pricing has been successful in cities such as London, but cautioned that some governments have become "addicted to the money [while forgetting] about the congestion relief."
> 
> Nonetheless, congestion pricing also had staunch advocates amongst Board Members, most notably Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Krekorian.
> 
> "A hugely disproportionate number o the people who use our system are transit-dependent, and they are disproportionately impacted by congestion slowing down buses," said Krekorian during the meeting. "We build really expensive streets that people use for free, and that is nothing but a subsidy to the automobile industry and people who use cars."
> 
> Imposing taxes on trips on transportation network companies - including Uber and Lyft - also raised questions among board members.
> 
> Inglewood Mayor James T. Butts expressed concern that giving Metro authority to assess taxes on rideshare companies could have implications for the ability of individual cities within Los Angeles County to regulate the industry and impose fees of their own.
> 
> Krekorian, in contrast, welcomed new fees on the transportation network companies, arguing that they increase congestion while siphoning riders away from transit systems.
> 
> Duarte Mayor John Fasana agreed with that assessment, but suggested a variable fee for the different products offered by the ridesharing companies. Private riders could be taxed at one rate, while truly shared rides, such as those in an Uber Pool, could be charged less - or even not at all.
> 
> A fee structure has not been fleshed out at this point in time, though Metro has previously estimated that a 20-cent fee per trip could yield $401 million over ten years, and a higher $2.75 fee could raise $5.5 billion over the same time period.
> 
> (...)


----------



## redspork02

Metro Board approves $3.2B budget for last leg of the Purple Line LA CURBED



> The agency’s Board of Directors unanimously approved a new budget for the third and final leg of the Purple Line extension Thursday, bringing the total cost of the 2.6-mile rail segment to $3.2 billion.
> 
> The Purple Line is the latest project affected by swiftly escalating construction costs, which have inflated the prices of some of Metro’s signature projects.
> 
> Metro had previously budgeted slightly less than $1.4 billion for tunneling on the last leg of the project. A contract approved Thursday covers stations, testing, and track work on this final phase.


----------



## redspork02

Officials touted 2.25-mile LAX Automated People Mover at groundbreaking - LA DAILY NEWS



> Local leaders Thursday celebrated the beginning of construction on a people-mover system at Los Angeles International Airport that for the first time will allow the region’s flyers to get their terminals entirely on public transportation.
> 
> The $4.9 billion, 2.25-mile shuttle system — dubbed the Automated People Mover — will take about four years to complete.





> Officials said each train will carry up to 200 people at a time, for free. They said the system in total is expected to carry about 85 million passengers per year.


LAX Automated People Mover 6 train stops


----------



## Slartibartfas

What will be the travelling time from Aviation/96th Street to the 3 terminal stops? And what will be the frequency?


----------



## redspork02

Slartibartfas said:


> What will be the travelling time from Aviation/96th Street to the 3 terminal stops? And what will be the frequency?


Los Angeles World Airports Website



> The APM will have nine trains, each with four cars. Each car will carry up to 50 passengers and their luggage, with a total of 200 per train. Train speed will top out at 47 mph. Trains will be available at each station *every two minutes with a total of 10 minutes travel time end-to-end*. For easy access, the APM trains will have large, wide doors and each car will have 12 seats designated for travelers in need. The APM will be FREE for all users and operate at all times. Anticipated use will be 30 million passengers per year.











People mover train above the terminal loop (Pictured Center CTA and West CTA looking West. )









Olympic Hall at West Station (looking East)

*STATIONS:*
- Consolidated Rental Car Facility (CONRCF)

- Aviation/96th St Station on LAX/Crenshaw Line and local bus

- Intermodal Transport Facility EAST (will provide hotel guests a connected and convenient location outside of the terminals, where passengers, “well-wishers,” and airport employees can either be dropped off, picked up, or park and then ride the APM into the airport)

- Intermodal Transport Facility WEST (will provide a connected and convenient location outside of the terminals, where passengers, “well-wishers,” and airport employees can either be dropped off, picked up, or park and then ride the APM into the airport. The ITF West includes an above grade 2.8 million square foot, four to five level parking structure that will support approximately 7,700 public parking spaces, concessions, and other passenger amenities)

1) EAST CTA (Terminals 1, 7, 8)
2) CENTER CTA (Terminals 2, 5, 6)
3) WEST CTA (Tom Bradly International Terminals, 3, and 4)


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Oh, sorry. I should read the stuff more carefully. I must have missed that line. 

It is not exactly high speed, but I suppose one could not ask for more. 2 min frequency sounds perfectly fine, if capacities are sufficient. The decentralized nature of the airport probably means that a multi-stop people mover isn't a disadvantage speed wise over a single stop direct light rail access, on average.


----------



## MarshallKnight

The more I think about it, the more it's apparent all the ways the landside access project will be a game-changer for congestion LAX. Consolidating the rental car facilities will remove hundreds of buses from circulation in the turnaround, and private drivers will have little reason to enter the turnaround, when they have the option to drop off/pick up at one of the intermodal stations east of Sepulveda. Plus once the project is done, LAWA will have the option to restrict rideshare services from doing pick-ups/drop-offs in the turnaround, since the surge in Ubers and Lyfts has been a huge source of congestion since LAX allowed them to start operating there in 2015.


----------



## aquamaroon

Some quick odds and ends:

Metro has come out with a series of videos on their big capital projects, three in particular: The Crenshaw/LAX line, the Regional Connector and the Purple Line extension. Here are the first two (the Purple line video should come out soon):













Also, Metro just held a grand opening for the Maintenance Facility for the Crenshaw/LAX line! Here are some pics (sorry about the size!) and a link to the Source article about the opening:
































https://thesource.metro.net/2019/04...that-will-serve-crenshaw-lax-and-green-lines/


----------



## MrAronymous

Please resize your pics.


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ Gotcha! found smaller versions of them :cheers:


----------



## aquamaroon

Metro has released the third part of their three part video series detailing some of their major capital projects, this time on the Purple Line extension:






If you are just interested in subway construction in general, some interesting things in there about TBMs! :cheers:


----------



## aquamaroon

Metro has released its April 2019 progress report on their major capital projects:

https://metro.legistar1.com/metro/attachments/4cc6feb8-17b3-4600-94cf-151dc1cd594e.pdf

Major bullet points for the transit projects:


*BLUE LINE IMPROVEMENTS*

"New Blue": 50% complete. On time and On budget; revenue service Fall 2019

"Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station": On time and On budget; substantial completion Summer 2020


*REGIONAL CONNECTOR*

56% complete. On time and On budget; revenue service Spring/Summer 2022


*WESTSIDE PURPLE LINE EXTENSION - PHASE 1*

46% complete. On time and On budget; revenue service Fall 2023


*WESTSIDE PURPLE LINE EXTENSION - PHASE 2*

15% complete; Final Design Process 91% complete. On time and On budget; revenue service Summer 2025


*WESTSIDE PURPLE LINE EXTENSION - PHASE 3*

preconstruction work including utility relocations. On time and On budget; projected revenue service 2027


*CRENSHAW/LAX TRANSIT PROJECT*

91% complete. Major issues with budget and schedule; original revenue service date of Fall 2019 now Spring/Summer 2020


*PATSAORUS BUS PLAZA*

65% complete. Major issues with budget and schedule; original substantial completion date of Winter 2018 now Spring 2020


More info in the pdf linked, including explanations for the delays as well as progress reports on their highway projects, if you are interested in checking that out :cheers:


----------



## urbanflight

*Goldstein Investigates: Metro Proposes Plans To Spend $200K On Saunas And Steam Rooms*

&

Philip Washington
CEO of Metro Los Angeles made $425,016 in 2017

:nuts:


----------



## redspork02

https://thesource.metro.net




























METRO REGIONAL CONNECTOR


----------



## redspork02

L.A. Metro’s downtown subway project may not open until mid-2022 - LA TIMES









The Regional Connector, a 1.9-mile set of twin tunnels beneath downtown Los Angeles, will run from Little Tokyo to the financial district to link three rail lines, allowing for longer trips without changing trains. (Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)



> Now, it appears riders may wait longer still. As the contractor grapples with labor shortages, progress has slowed, pushing the completion date to mid-March 2022, Metro said. Rail service is scheduled to begin about five months after that.





> The estimated construction completion date has slipped about four months since December. But the contractor, a joint venture of Skanska USA and Traylor Bros., is still on track to finish before the new deadline that Metro established two years ago, officials said.





> “There’s a lot of strain on the construction industry in general — large businesses, small businesses, even Metro — in attracting qualified staff,” Clarke told Metro’s directors last month. “We’re seeing more and more bottlenecks coming up.”


----------



## aquamaroon

Latest video from Metro, this time on the Blue Line improvement project:


----------



## redspork02

LAWA NEWS RELEASE - LAX WEBSITE
For Immediate Release
July 11, 2019

Contact:
Stephanie Sampson 
(424) 646-5260

LAX Breaks Ground on Intermodal Transportation Facility - West, A Key Component of the Landside Access Modernization Program



> (Los Angeles, CA) Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti joined Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) leadership and elected officials for a ceremonial groundbreaking for the Intermodal Transportation Facility – West (ITF-West), a key component of Los Angeles International Airport’s (LAX) Landside Access Modernization Program (LAMP). Located between Westchester Parkway and 96th Street, the ITF-West, a parking structure and mobility hub, will be the first component of LAX’s modernization projects to be completed, opening in 2021. Two new roadways – Jetway Boulevard and 93rd Street – will provide direct access to the facility.












The Drop-off/On gigantic parking structure stop go the People mover. The first stop outside the terminal area.



> The four-story structure will provide much-needed parking for the fourth-busiest airport in the world, adding approximately 4,500 stalls – more than half of the parking stalls located in the Central Terminal Area (CTA) structures today. Featuring short and long-term parking options, the facility also will boast a Meet and Greet area, valet parking, electrical vehicle charging stations, and potential space for concessions. A shuttle will transport travelers and employees from the ITF-West to and from the CTA until completion of the Automated People Mover (APM) project in 2023. The ITF-West will feature an APM station, providing direct access to the new train system, and time-guaranteed access to the CTA once the APM is completed.
> 
> “In Los Angeles, parking is at a premium, especially at the airport,” said Sean Burton, President, Board of Airport Commissioners. “As a Board, we are focused on offering options and adapting to the ever-changing patterns of transportation. The Intermodal Transportation Facility – West will provide new parking and mobility options for our guests and will be ready to adapt to future airport needs.”
> 
> The ITF-West also will house the 26,000 square foot LAWA Security & Badging Office (SBO), which will benefit the more than 55,000 badged employees at LAWA and the environment. Currently, the SBO is located on the far west side of the airport off Pershing Avenue and World Way. With the APM system connecting to the ITF-West and Airport Metro Connector Station in 2023, employees will be able to utilize public transportation and the APM to take care of their badging needs, helping to take vehicles off the roadways and lower emissions.
> 
> “One year ago today, our Board of Airport Commissioners approved the contract for Swinerton Builders to design and construct the Intermodal Transportation Facility – West, and as we now start to construct this facility, it’s a symbolic step towards reliable and functional access to LAX ” said Deborah Flint, Chief Executive Officer, LAWA. “By providing new options for our guests and employees with the latest parking technology, and multi-modality we are preparing LAX for the future of mobility.”





> he experienced team of Swinerton Builders, featuring Watry and Gensler, is designing and building the project. The Swinerton team is fresh off of building the San Diego Airport Terminal 2 Parking Plaza and specializes in the construction of large parking structures.
> 
> The ITF-West is a major component of LAX’s $5.5 billion Landside Access Modernization Program (LAMP). LAMP also features the APM, a 2.25 mile elevated train guideway featuring six stations, which will connect the terminals to new off-site parking facilities, new pick-up/drop-off locations, a Consolidated Rent-A-Car Facility and will provide the long-awaited connection to the regional light rail system.
> 
> To learn more about LAX’s modernization projects and sign-up for email updates, visit FlyLAX.com/ConnectingLAX.


----------



## redspork02

Construction begins for rail connecting Redlands to San Bernardino

 LOCAL REDLANDS NEWSPAPER - RDF



> The last major step in bringing rail service back to Redlands has arrived, and more than 150 people gathered Friday, July 19, under the bright sun in a dusty lot near the train tracks to celebrate.
> 
> Once mainline construction of the $355.4 million dollar Redlands Passenger Rail Project is complete equipment will be tested before operations get underway. The launch date is now projected to be in early 2022.





> The line will connects at the San Bernardino Transit Center which already has more than 1.5 million boardings per year connecting riders to Los Angeles Union Station, LAX, Orange County, beaches and more.


----------



## Slartibartfas

LtBk said:


> Do opponents of LA rail transit call it loot rail?


I wouldn't be surprised. They surely sound stupid enough to think any criminal with an intact brain cell would take the best surveilled infrastructure as escape route. I don't want to break it to them but criminals can afford cars.


----------



## ssiguy2

I don't understand this SB commuter line. It says it is zero emissions but then says it's going to run DMU???


----------



## Khaul

^^ Expected daily ridership is 1600-1800 in both directions (!?). A simple bus could do that. Make it electric and ta-da, zero emissions. A bus could run every 5 or 10min in peak making it more convenient than a train running every 30min. Horses for courses.


----------



## Swede

So, at the end of the current commuter rail there will be a new 5 station line going even further? Doesn't sound like the most efficient use of funding. I guess if it's local funding it makes some sense? At least if the idea is to then extend that line. And if it leads to real dense walkable TODs around the stations it'll make sense in the long run, I guess?


----------



## redspork02

ssiguy2 said:


> I don't understand this SB commuter line. It says it is zero emissions but then says it's going to run DMU???


One of the four trains will be a zero Emission train. the other three are DMU. State funds were received to convert the fourth train. Will all switch in the future to Zero Emission. 







Swede said:


> So, at the end of the current commuter rail there will be a new 5 station line going even further? Doesn't sound like the most efficient use of funding. I guess if it's local funding it makes some sense? At least if the idea is to then extend that line. And if it leads to real dense walkable TODs around the stations it'll make sense in the long run, I guess?


Yes, local funds. Local funds pay for three new stations. ESRI, a local company suggested a new stop near their Headquarters and agreed to pay for it. and Yes, The Redlands DT area is primed for TODs. Last stop is the University, They hope to have students commute from DT TODs/Bars/ restaurants in DTR to the University and ESRI. One train per day to LA and back from this station using the San Bernardino line. Otherwise its only from the University and DT San Bernardino.

But local "tea party advocates" with their conspiracy theories are race baiting dissent. 
for example: this....







They think SANBAG (San Bernardino Associating of Gov) is a secret gov society running full control of cities and money. etc. Agenda 21 conspiracist. by un-elected officials.


----------



## urbanflight

A new rail line announced for LA.


----------



## redspork02

Brian Haas. Just drop the monorail option....Thanks. ^^^
Get the Bob Anderson off your back.


Heres the announcement. 
METRO - THE SOURCE - Article announcement

*More refined concepts and early cost estimates are released for Sepulveda Transit Corridor*



> We have news involving routes, station locations, cost estimates and potential rail yard locations (here is an online presentation). There is also an upcoming round of community meetings (dates and times are the bottom of the post) in which the public is invited to comment on any aspect of the project.


----------



## Slartibartfas

When are we going to know if they choose a proper plan or the monorail nonsense?

I mean this is just crazy even by METROs own numbers. The Monorail option is not significantly cheaper, it may be even slightly more expensive under circumstances than some of the proper alternatives. It is much slower and has lower projected ridership. Yes, it is supposedly cheaper to operate but one has to consider the network wide negative effects of 35-60% longer travel time. Honestly I am very sceptical of those lower cost estimates. Monorail is most likely a proprietary system where you are severly limited in your supply options. This creates substantial cost risks in operation and especially when renewal of vehicles or tracks is needed.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Make your voices heard via the online comment form here, or by going to one of the public outreach meetings. I had been planning on attending the Culver City meeting at Veterans Hall this Saturday @ 10am, but something came up, so I submitted my thoughts online instead. 

For the curious, here's what I wrote:



> Thank you for posting your presentation on the Sepulveda Corridor proposals and for putting this comment system online. I had intended on coming to the Culver City meeting on 7/27 but won't be able to make it.
> 
> A little background on me: I’m 31, non-married, white. I live in the Fairfax neighborhood, although I spend roughly half my time at my girlfriend’s apartment in Culver City. I currently work in West LA next to the Expo/Bundy station and try to commute by transit whenever feasible, most frequently via the Expo from Culver City (which I also use for outings in DTLA). I do not, however, take transit from Fairfax to the West LA office; the bus-to-Expo commute is simply too time consuming and unreliable compared to driving.
> 
> For most trips, I can only tolerate one transfer; anything more than that and my travel times become too unreliable – so number of transfers is a big factor in my thinking about this project.
> 
> I would be a regular user of the Sepulveda Corridor line if it’s executed well. Of the proposed stations, I would most commonly travel to Expo/Bundy, Venice/Overland, Santa Monica Blvd, the UCLA campus station, and LAX. It would also increase my likelihood of taking the Amtrak/ Metrolink to Ventura and Santa Barbara because it would avoid a time-consuming detour to Union Station.
> 
> Many of the proposed alternatives have a lot of merit although I have a number of questions and concerns:
> 
> • In my estimation, the selected variation must include at least one station west of the 405. The traffic crossing the 405 into and out of West LA is an absolute nightmare and priority should be given to alternatives that provide ways to get through that bottleneck without a car and with a minimum of transfers.
> 
> 
> • Freeway-median stations – as anyone who has ridden the green or gold lines will tell you, these are miserable, not just to wait at but to get to and from. I believe Metro should rule out the 405 running Westside options.
> 
> 
> • Stations adjacent to the freeway are almost as bad as those in the median; they’re noisy, and hard to reach. For example, the Sepulveda/Expo station is extremely unpleasant to reach from the West because of the crossing under the 405. And because freeway-adjacent areas are blighted, these stations are less likely to spur redevelopment. I believe Metro should favor alternatives that place stations away from the freeways (i.e. Santa Monica/Barrington over Santa Monica/Sepulveda, Ventura/ Van Nuys over Ventura and Sepulveda, etc.)
> 
> 
> • Regarding the Centinela alignment alternatives – Has any consideration been given to a variation that includes stations in both Playa Vista and Fox Hills (Slauson/Jefferson)? Of all the Overland/Sepulveda alignment stations, Fox Hills is the one I would miss the most, and it seems at least feasible to add a kink in the alignment that reaches the businesses and the mall east of the 405 before turning South towards LAX.
> 
> 
> • Regarding the Overland alignment alternative – Has any consideration been put towards running this route beneath Westwood Blvd. instead of Sepulveda? A station at Westwood/Santa Monica in particular might provide a better opportunity for pedestrian/transit-oriented redevelopment than a station at Sepulveda, directly next to the 405. And there might be considerable costs saved by not tunneling under residential neighborhoods to bridge the gap between Sepulveda and Overland.
> 
> 
> • Regarding the Purple Line extension alternative – This is extremely promising. “Closing the loop” between the Purple Line and the Expo line while avoiding a forced transfer via the Sepulveda Line seems ideal. But I also have many questions about this concept:
> 
> Would this alternative preclude an extension of the Purple Line to Downtown Santa Monica? Why isn’t a Wilshire/Bundy station included, seeing as that's the commercial heart of Brentwood?
> 
> What might future plans for the line terminating at the Expo Line entail? Could that line eventually be extended further, perhaps along the Overland route?
> 
> Has Metro considered an alternative in which the Purple Line terminates at Expo/Bundy instead, with the Sepulveda Line continuing southward to LAX?
> 
> Would it be possible to combine the Purple Line extension variation with the Centinela variation, creating two interlined services -- one running between LAX-DTLA, and the other between LAX-The Valley?
> 
> 
> • Regarding LAX connections – Has any consideration been given to connecting to the Crenshaw Line at Century/Aviation, and to the LAX People Mover at the expected Terminal 9 infill station, instead of connecting to both at the 96th Street Intermodal Facility? This could spread out transit passengers between multiple stations instead of piling them all at 96th street, as well as servicing the heart of the LAX area (Century between Sepulveda and Aviation) instead of dropping passengers at the outskirts.
> 
> 
> • Regarding further future plans – Has any consideration been given to extending service beyond LAX to Inglewood, in particular to the former Hollywood Park complex with the Rams/Chargers Stadium and future Clippers arena? Would any of the above alternatives preclude such an extension? If so, that information should be included in these presentations.
> 
> 
> In conclusion, I’m not sure Metro has struck upon the most ideal alternative yet. The Purple Line Extension, Centinela and Overland alternatives are all strong, but the best alternative might involve combining elements from all of the above. Metro should remain open to further possibilities as the refinement process moves forward.
> 
> Please contact me if you can provide answers to any of the above questions, or if you'd like me to clarify anything in the above.
> 
> Thanks for your efforts and your patience


----------



## ssiguy2

That Redlands line seems like an waste of precious transit funds. Who is going to wait an hour to go just 9 miles? 30 minutes in peak times is equally horrid for such a short distance. How on Earth is this any better than a decent bus route?


----------



## redspork02

ssiguy2 said:


> That Redlands line seems like an waste of precious transit funds. Who is going to wait an hour to go just 9 miles? 30 minutes in peak times is equally horrid for such a short distance. How on Earth is this any better than a decent bus route?





> Measure I
> 
> The 2004 extension of Measure I, which identified the RedlandsPassenger Rail Project in the expenditure plan, was approved bymore than 80% of the voters across the County of San Bernardino, including City of Redlands.


https://www.cityofredlands.org/post/sanbag-redlands-passenger-rail-project

Surprised it passed in Redlands......Many NYMBYs. Very similar to Beverly Hills residents "concerns". ^^

Maybe so, but its *just another option* for Redlands/San Bernardino residents. The I-10 thru this area is a daily bottleneck westbound in the AM and eastbound in the afternoon. Thousands of new homes in the Banning Pass, Yucaipa, Redlands area adding to the commute time.

I hope they keep pushing it east. I have friends in Coachella Valley who have stated to me; they would love a commuter line to the IE and then LA.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Contract awarded to build first segment of Gold Line extension to Pomona with option for extension to Claremont and Montclair*"

https://thesource.metro.net/2019/08...ion-for-extension-to-claremont-and-montclair/


----------



## Arnorian

How long will a ride from Montclair to Downtown take?


----------



## zaphod

San Dimas, lol. We are....Wyld Stallyns!

I didn’t know it was a real place.


----------



## BoulderGrad

zaphod said:


> San Dimas, lol. We are....Wyld Stallyns!
> 
> I didn’t know it was a real place.


Real place, but the movie was filmed in Phoenix/Tempe/Scottsdale.


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Woonsocket54 said:


> "*Contract awarded to build first segment of Gold Line extension to Pomona with option for extension to Claremont and Montclair*"
> 
> https://thesource.metro.net/2019/08...ion-for-extension-to-claremont-and-montclair/


One of those stations should be shared with Metrolink to provide an alternative to the heavy rail service, especially when the Gold Line runs that far into San Bernardino County. And perhaps the stations east of Azusa should be developed as new hubs for Foothill Transit (if not also LA Metro), especially Pomona and Montclair...


----------



## MarshallKnight

fieldsofdreams said:


> One of those stations should be shared with Metrolink to provide an alternative to the heavy rail service, especially when the Gold Line runs that far into San Bernardino County. And perhaps the stations east of Azusa should be developed as new hubs for Foothill Transit (if not also LA Metro), especially Pomona and Montclair...



I’m pretty sure “not shared” just means that they literally do not share tracks, but the Metro and Metrolink stations will be directly adjacent to each other (afaik they share the ROW) so they’re effectively transfer stations.


----------



## redspork02

*Crenshaw/LAX line Updates for August 2019*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1164900244892598272

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1164734070628241409

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1164598346193002496

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162533433022799877

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1159528631657488385

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1158459848905961472


----------



## redspork02

*Purple Line: 9 more miles and 7 new stations to the Wilshire Corridor.*

Heading east, the twin boring machines finished tunneling 2.1 miles from Wilshire/La Brea Station to Wilshire/Western station in August. They were delivered back to Wilshire/La Brea station and will now head West to Wilshire/Fairfax station (1.2 miles) and to Wilshire/La Cienega Station (0.7 miles) to complete phase one. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163865879903445000

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163579825866588166

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1158844747848572928

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163580738987528194

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1158844256951394305


----------



## redspork02

They also want you to help name the new station...……...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163863776279576576
I voted to just leave them the same. as named. IMO


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165307856213676032


----------



## redspork02

FACEBOOK - UPDATE
 OF Purple Line Wilshire/La Brea Station.



> Installing rebar inside Wilshire/La Brea Station. Currently, working on the exterior walls!






























An ARch rebar ceiling.


----------



## redspork02

FACEbook Update


PHASE 1








_Wilshire/La Brea Station_



> September Newsletter: Soyeon and Elise are anticipated to relaunch in October 2019 and more! http://bit.ly/2UspoQO





> Crews continue to reassemble the twin tunnel boring machines, Elise and Soyeon, in the North La Brea Yard to prepare them for their next task: boring tunnels west to the Wilshire/Fairfax Station.





> Soyeon and Elise are anticipated to relaunch in October 2019. They will be excavating *shorter tunnels *this time because the distance between the Wilshire/La Brea and Wilshire/Fairfax stations totals *only .8 miles or 4,224 feet*, less than half the length of the Wilshire/La Brea to Wilshire/Western tunnels.





> Meanwhile, station construction continues at Wilshire/Farifax with concrete pours. Excavation will be nearly completed at Wilshire/La Cienega this month, which will signal the start of building the station below ground. In September, the contractor will begin receiving material and concrete deliveries into the station box, some of which will require lifting the deck panels along Wilshire Bl.


PHASE 2


> Work on key construction milestones starts this month for the Wilshire/Rodeo Station. …………………...
> Later during the month, stakeholders will see the start of pile installation on the north side of Wilshire Bl between Beverly Dr and Crescent Dr. The piles will support the perimeter of the Wilshire/Rodeo Station box.











_Current excavation progress for the Tunnel Boring Machine Launch Box in *Century City*. _

PHASE 3


> Purple Line Section 3 continues pre-construction activities with advanced utility relocation, subsurface investigations, and surveys. Metro contractors are preparing for construction in the Caltrans yard and on U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Campus











_As seen below, workers continue subsurface investigation in Section 3 to better understand soil conditions before tunneling begins._


----------



## redspork02

FACEbook Update












> Hyde Park Station (at Crenshaw Bl and Slauson Av) will be getting a curb and gutter soon.
> 
> Learn more about the project, upcoming construction activities, and upcoming meetings at metro.net/crenshaw


----------



## MarshallKnight

I didn’t get a chance to take a picture, but the newly reopened Pico Station downtown has new signage incorporating the letter system: a dark blue “A” and light blue “E” — no wordmarks indicating Blue Line or Expo Line. 

On the one hand, it’s exciting, but the timing is a little strange. Metro is just going to have to change the signs again when the Regional Connector opens to flip the “E” to gold, and change the destinations to East LA and Azusa. Why not wait until then to change the whole system at once? Isn’t this going to confuse more people than necessary?


----------



## redspork02

FACEbook Update - Regional Connector 












> Going up! Construction at the Grand Av Arts/Bunker Hill station has reached level three and approaching the surface. The utility bridge (pictured) shows where the street used to be.
> 
> Photo by Ken Karagozian for LA Metro.


----------



## redspork02

LAX - CONRAC PRESS RELEASE



> LOS ANGELES — Mayor Eric Garcetti broke ground today on the Consolidated Rent-A-Car (ConRAC) facility at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), which will centralize rental car operations into one convenient location and offer a direct connection to the upcoming Automated People Mover (APM) train. The Mayor was joined at the ceremony by Councilmembers Mike Bonin and Joe Buscaino, Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Board of Airport Commissioners (BOAC) President Sean Burton, and Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) CEO Deborah Flint, as well as community and labor leaders.





> The 5.3 million square foot ConRAC facility will feature 18,000 parking stalls with 6,600 ready/return spaces, 10,000 idle vehicle storage spaces, and 1,100 rental car employee spaces as well as visitor parking. A Quick-Turn Around facility will also be on-site, allowing for fueling, washing, and light maintenance of rental car vehicles.





> As the second largest rental car market among domestic airports, the ConRAC will improve and streamline the car rental process at LAX.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1172214242851733504


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1172186387900035072
A station on the LAX People Mover.


----------



## redspork02

This president, who controls the Dept. of Transportation funds. Just mentioned LA Metros funds.

He mentioned the feds pay LA for the subways in comparison/regards to the homelessness issue??

was this a threat. hno: ?? IDK but his speech pattern is a jumbled mess. Homlessness, Subway, storm drains into oceans?

Anyway, our state that pays more into the Fed gov then it receives...………………politics. ugh!


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174387398282661888


----------



## redspork02

Long-awaited Wilshire/Rodeo Station construction to begin in late September


----------



## redspork02

Metro staff studies building Initial Operating Segments on West Santa Ana Branch project












> An update is going to the Metro Board of Directors on the West Santa Ana light rail project. As part of the project’s environmental studies, staff is studying two Interim Operating Segments (IOS) in addition to the entire project between Artesia and downtown Los Angeles. The two segments are:
> •IOS 1 – I-105/Green Line Station to Pioneer Station
> •IOS 2 – Slauson Station to Pioneer Station


----------



## urbanflight

A city of 13 million people shouldn't be building light rail lines...

I try to get excited about transit projects in LA, but its projects are so disappointing.


----------



## pesto

urbanflight said:


> A city of 13 million people shouldn't be building light rail lines...
> 
> I try to get excited about transit projects in LA, but its projects are so disappointing.


If you want real projects look at the central city core (downtown to the ocean; Ventura Blvd to Exposition) not the outer suburbs.

The real solution is not to build this crap at all. Heavy rail would be ludicrous.


----------



## pesto

redspork02 said:


> Long-awaited Wilshire/Rodeo Station construction to begin in late September


About time for this and Fairfax, and Purple in general.

But aren't there any progress reports on the 10th year of planning and building the Azusa/Cucamonga Line, especially the San Dimas metro area which will now be well served? :lol:


----------



## jay stew

urbanflight said:


> A city of 13 million people shouldn't be building light rail lines...
> 
> I try to get excited about transit projects in LA, but its projects are so disappointing.


Blame the residents who turned down the subway system that could've been 100 years ago.


----------



## IsaanUSA

urbanflight said:


> A city of 13 million people shouldn't be building light rail lines...





pesto said:


> The real solution is not to build this crap at all. Heavy rail would be ludicrous.


What do you two mean by your comments? I don't understand.


----------



## MrAronymous

What they mean is that a city with this big importance and population shouldn't be building expensive train lines with limited capacity and at-grade crossings. It should either build proper subways (higher capacity, more future proof, more reliable, no at-grade crossings) in areas that are closer to the economic and urban centers and have the potential to become more dense and walkable, rather than focusing on equally expensive train lines connecting low density suburban areas.


----------



## redspork02

Test trains on southern end of LAX/Crenshaw Line. 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176567009921908736

Subway entrance at northern termini of LAX/Crenshaw Line. 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176237536265588740


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*FOUNDATION WORK BEGINS ON LAX PEOPLE MOVER STATION SERVICING TOM BRADLEY INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL*"

https://www.lawa.org/en/news-releases/2020/news-release-015


----------



## MarshallKnight

I can’t tell you how much I’m looking forward to never driving into that stupid loop ever again.


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233122381285220354


> Jan 2020 status report for *@crenshawrail.* 94.9% complete as of 1/31/20, which is +0.1% since 12/31/19. No updates to forecast as contractor has not submitted schedule updates. Contractor has to rework a lot of items, which is likely cause of delays.


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232805040328409093


> Jan 2020 status report for *@PurpleLineExt Section 3* . 7% complete as of 1/31/20; +1% compared to 12/31/19. Little construction activity or progress while in design stage. Tunnel design is 92% complete (+6%) and station design is 30% complete (+5%).


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232804999979245568


> Jan 2020 status report for *@PurpleLineExt Section 2*. 25.5% as of 1/31/20, +0.4% since 12/31/19; 9.7% ahead of schedule. Tunnel shaft on hold (estimated 2 month delay) and magnetic anomalies added to lists of risks. Potential surface construction at BHHS.


Tunneling commencement delayed two months. Most likely start in April 2020.
https://www.metro.net/projects/notices/notice_purpleline2_103118/


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232711056050528256


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232804963870486529


> Jan 2020 status report for *@PurpleLineExt Section 1*. 57.4% as of 1/31/20; +1.4% since 12/31/19; 6.4% ahead of schedule. Contractor estimates 9/15/23 completion (+18 days delay since last update). Current tunneling is 18 days slower than expected.


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232804929561079808


> Jan 2020 status report for *@MetroConnector.* 63% as of 1/31/20; +0.8% since 12/31/19. Metro forecast completion date is now 5/26/22, 28 days later compared to Dec forecast. Construction behind schedule and there may be more delays due to procurement issues.


----------



## Zaz965

a nice train








https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=280910&page=91


----------



## ajw373

Looks like something out of the 60’s.


----------



## linum

So the LA Metro - only the purple and red lines are rapid transit - all other are light rail, yes?


----------



## Arnorian

The Green line is completely segregated, so it can be counted as rapid transit.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Arnorian said:


> The Green line is completely segregated, so it can be counted as rapid transit.



Yes but not for long; the extant Green Line is going to be folded into the under construction Crenshaw Line to form the complete “C” Line from Norwalk to Expo/Crenshaw, including several at-grade sections. 

The South Bay branch, whatever that line is called (“K” I think?), will still be grade separated but it will interline with the “C.” So if the “C” suffers from bunching or other service issues because it’s running at-grade along Crenshaw Blvd, that will likely affect service on the “K”. Not sure either of them could be considered true rapid transit at that point.

But hey at least we’ve got the all-subway Sepulveda Line to look forward to.


----------



## krnboy1009

MarshallKnight said:


> Yes but not for long; the extant Green Line is going to be folded into the under construction Crenshaw Line to form the complete “C” Line from Norwalk to Expo/Crenshaw, including several at-grade sections.
> 
> The South Bay branch, whatever that line is called (“K” I think?), will still be grade separated but it will interline with the “C.” So if the “C” suffers from bunching or other service issues because it’s running at-grade along Crenshaw Blvd, that will likely affect service on the “K”. Not sure either of them could be considered true rapid transit at that point.
> 
> But hey at least we’ve got the all-subway Sepulveda Line to look forward to.


Not necessarily. I believe Cleveland's red line is rapid transit but they share tracks at some sections with green and blue lines, which are light rail.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Metro Could Ramp Up Purple Line Construction During Coronavirus Slowdown


With Angelenos confining themselves to their homes during the COVID-19 outbreak, the empty streets of Los Angeles may present an opportunity for Metro's Purple Line extension.




urbanize.la


----------



## Sky Harbor

Woonsocket54 said:


> Metro Could Ramp Up Purple Line Construction During Coronavirus Slowdown
> 
> 
> With Angelenos confining themselves to their homes during the COVID-19 outbreak, the empty streets of Los Angeles may present an opportunity for Metro's Purple Line extension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> urbanize.la


This has just been confirmed!

Hopefully they're able to use the entire three months. With LA effectively locked down throughout April, and likely through late May, Metro should maximize the time they have. At least they started closing Wilshire!


----------



## zaphod

Have these renderings of the new subway cars been shared? This is a different, more detailed look than what we had seen years ago.

The link below has a lot more information and more pictures about the new trains?

Metro thesource blog: First look at new HR4000 subway rail cars

Photo credit: From the source linked above.


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1252440063801094151


> HAPPENING NOW! The @*WeHoCity* Council is hearing an update on the Northern Extension of the @*metrolosangeles* @*crenshawrail* line and a survey of #*Weho* residents on the project and related transportation issues! subway





> The survey confirmed that #*Weho* residents would prefer the extension run underground even if it increases project costs and that they support the City partnering with @*metrolosangeles* and contributing funds so the project is completed sooner.


----------



## Slartibartfas

US designs of PT vehicles seem generally very conservative but I have to say I like design of those new subway trains. The sides still look very retro to a European like me but the front looks cautiously updated.


----------



## redspork02

Sky Harbor said:


> This has just been confirmed!
> 
> Hopefully they're able to use the entire three months. With LA effectively locked down throughout April, and likely through late May, Metro should maximize the time they have. At least they started closing Wilshire!











Metro statement on Purple Line Extension construction in Beverly Hills


Metro is pleased by the Beverly Hills City Council’s decision on Tuesday to support its closure request of Wilshire Boulevard to help speed up construction of the Wilshire/Rodeo Station for the Pur…




thesource.metro.net







> Metro is pleased by the Beverly Hills City Council’s decision on Tuesday to support its closure request of Wilshire Boulevard to help speed up construction of the Wilshire/Rodeo Station for the Purple Line Extension of the subway.
> The closure will allow Metro’s contractors to complete decking for the Wilshire/Rodeo station sooner than expected and will help us minimize future construction impacts to local businesses as they struggle to overcome the impacts of the COVID-19 health crisis.


----------



## Neb81

Slartibartfas said:


> US designs of PT vehicles seem generally very conservative but I have to say I like design of those new subway trains. The sides still look very retro to a European like me but the front looks cautiously updated.


Thinking the same here. It looks semi-contemporary from the front, only to immediately look very retro (or just...old) from the side. It reminds me of the slightly weird hybrid looks that the (very) old ex-TransPerth DMUs in Auckland got when MAXX-that-was had a go at refurbishing them. 

I think one issue is to the "buy USA" rules on procurement for public sector infrastructure, which greatly limits the choice available, and creates a captive market, meaning manufacturers don't have to compete or work to improve their designs. Combine it with a ton of other non-tariff barriers and weirdly retro (or just plain obsolete) designs ensue. 

Despite that though, the sheer amount of work LA has put into expanding it's public transport is remarkable and impressive compared to pretty much anywhere else in the US. I'm really impressed, especially when you consider the really bad position they had to start from.


----------



## Neb81

Urban. Freeways. Do. Not. Work.

Can't believe they are considering this. I can't think of one city anywhere that has built it way out of congestion and improved it's living envrionment by blasting highways through it's urban fabric.


----------



## redspork02

Metro Purple Line Extension Section 1 Difficult Tunneling Resulting In Cost Overrun


Near the La Brea Tar Pits, Westside Purple Line tunneling has been hitting methane pockets which force evacuation of workers




la.streetsblog.org


----------



## dimlys1994

From Metro Report:









Foothill Gold Line extension construction begins


USA: Major construction work on the 14·6 km Foothill Gold Line extension of Los Angeles' L Line light rail route was launched on July 10. The extension from APU/Citrus College to Pomona is scheduled for completion in 2025, adding four stops in Glendora, San Dimas, La ...




www.railwaygazette.com


----------



## redspork02

So whats first? 
Cleanup of trail/rail?
Grade dirt?


----------



## redspork02

Another step forward for the embattles line.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1281265308431458307

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1282793200319684609


----------



## redspork02

The D Line is moving along nicely. Faster pace.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1278386072888672256

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1278735351817830401Rodeo Station future entrance. ⬆⬆⬆⬆
Nice cover on Wilshire Blvd. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1280909560744640515

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1282721507958050817


----------



## redspork02




----------



## redspork02

Extension of the Metrolink San Bernardino commueter Line east of San Bernardino, CA. in the IE.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1283835687125479424


----------



## redspork02

pesto said:


> Fresh pics: Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project train testing moves north
> 
> Some pics of the Crenshaw Line in Inglewood, which will supposedly be ready in early 2021. The La Brea stop will be the best for DT Inglewood, and for SoFi, the Forum, etc. via shuttles and the Inglewood People Mover, if and when built.
> 
> The station connecting to the LAX People Mover (Aviation/96th) will not be done until the early 2020’s which is presumably when the People Mover itself comes on line.











Fresh pics: Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project train testing moves north


Early train testing expanded to the north for the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project in the last week to the stretch of track through Inglewood to Crenshaw Boulevard, just east of the Fairview Heights St…




thesource.metro.net





GReat pictures of testing along Crenshaw Line.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1282793200319684609

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1281265308431458307


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1286770156044079104
Metro will narrow the alternatives from 5 down to 3 Under-Ground ALTERNATIVES.
3 ROUTES will be recommended to the Metro board:
1) A2 hybrid + A1 La Cienega OR A2 hybrid + A San Vicente,
2) B (up Fairfax) and
3) C ( up La Brea) to SM Blvd.

Environmental Review recommendation in 08/2020. Metro will recommend the Hollywood Bowl station.
Per WHAM.

Of those three, I prefer Hybrid up La Cienega.


----------



## MarshallKnight

redspork02 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1286770156044079104
> Metro will narrow the alternatives from 5 down to 3 Under-Ground ALTERNATIVES.
> 3 ROUTES will be recommended to the Metro board:
> 1) A2 hybrid + A1 La Cienega OR A2 hybrid + A San Vicente,
> 2) B (up Fairfax) and
> 3) C ( up La Brea) to SM Blvd.
> 
> Environmental Review recommendation in 08/2020. Metro will recommend the Hollywood Bowl station.
> Per WHAM.
> 
> Of those three, I prefer Hybrid up La Cienega.


I definitely want to see one of the hybrid options, with a preference for San Vicente. 

San Vicente/Santa Monica Blvd is the dead center of Boystown, plus you have the Pacific Design Center and WeHo Park. 

Santa Monica/La Cienega isn’t a snooze, and it is an easier walk to Sunset, but I think the critical mass of activity around San Vicente makes it the better location for the westernmost station.

I also suspect that the two alignments will significantly affect the location of the Beverly Center/Cedars Sinai station. The San Vicente alignment will allow the station box to be closer to Cedars Sinai (ideally, it could be on the block between La Cienega and San Vicente, which would allow an entrance inside the Beverly Center or at the intersection between the mall and Cedars):










In the La Cienega alignment, the box would have to be either under Beverly East of La Cienega, or La Cienega North of Beverly, meaning riders going to Cedars will have to cross an additional major intersection on foot:


----------



## redspork02

Looks like Tutor/Perini is getting ready to bid for LAs next big tunnel project. Sepulveda Pass. (PS..Give this guy a follow, he loves to read Metro docs. for fun).


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288661871407505408

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288670514139918341


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288151618152574976


----------



## aquamaroon

redspork02 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1286770156044079104
> Metro will narrow the alternatives from 5 down to 3 Under-Ground ALTERNATIVES.
> 3 ROUTES will be recommended to the Metro board:
> 1) A2 hybrid + A1 La Cienega OR A2 hybrid + A San Vicente,
> 2) B (up Fairfax) and
> 3) C ( up La Brea) to SM Blvd.
> 
> Environmental Review recommendation in 08/2020. Metro will recommend the Hollywood Bowl station.
> Per WHAM.



Great work as always posting this info redspork . My two cents, the A2 option is the ideal choice as it hits EVERYTHING: Art Museums on Wilshire - The Grove/CBS Studios - Cedars-Sinai hospital - the three most important intersections in WeHo (_San Vicente, Fairfax and La Brea... La Cienega is a major street and close to the Sunset Strip but it's not super pedestrian friendly._) That said I'm sure the cost will be prohibitive and if, in order to save this alignment from the budgetary ax, it ends up cutting San Vicente and going up La Cienega, and missing out on WeHo City Hall, the Library and the Pacific Design Center, well that's a decent price to pay to get all these other major points into the transit system. Rail transit to Cedars-Sinai alone would be a massive massive game changer for the whole system, to say nothing of The Grove and all of WeHo.

And they are going to recommend a station at the Bowl? Wow that's awesome! A more than welcome transit option and leaves open in the far distant future my long held hope that the Crenshaw line would one day push into Burbank under the 101 and hit the Media District along Olive St.

One day perhaps, if you're a fan of the LA Phil, you'll be able to take the subway from Walt Disney Concert Hall to the Hollywood Bowl... how cool is that!


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1293279197234892801
Cool Photo by METRO.
Wilshire/Fairfax Station looking west.


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1293578922593001484


----------



## redspork02

*PER NUMBLE: Section 1 is 63.7% complete (9% ahead of schedule).


 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1293279197234892801*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1298368152846311424












*PER NUMBLE: SECTION 2 is 35%.*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1298368207393234944











*PER NUMBLE: Section 3; 13.5% Complete.*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1298368233704062976












__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1296182719098036227
https://twitter.com/metrolosangeles/status/1295806323813052417


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1298368125532954624
METRO CONNECTOR (REGIONAL CONNECTOR) Still Slugging thru DTLA.


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1298070018962255872
Great News on the Sales tax front: 
(still sucks but not as bad as predicted.


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1298369533040762883
CRENSHAW/LAX LINE seems to be stuck!


----------



## redspork02

Purple Line stations having an arched Roof.....Love that design. See how it turns out.


----------



## luacstjh98

This was in one of the replies to one of the tweets:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1286354978685071360
When they say "abandoned" do they mean the whole TBM gets abandoned in situ, or just some components like the TBM shield?


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1299057810689290240
YES!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1299048252793389062
Balance the budget. oh.


----------



## Amexpat

Don't think free fares are the way to go. Fare revenue should help to pay for more services and new projects. Better to give a heavily discounted monthly pass to low income residents and students who can't afford the regular fares.

I also noticed a problem with homeless on the Red line when I explored LA's mass transit system two years ago. Twice I saw a homeless man sleeping, taking up a couple of seats. Once security walked pass and did nothing. Homeless people should be helped by society, but the solution is not to allow them to use public transit as a place to sleep. That will deter many from using mass transit. If there are no fares, then how can you stop people from using mass transit as a place to stay during the day?


----------



## redspork02

GONDOLAS

*Details Emerge for Proposed Griffith Park Aerial Tram*
*The City of LA is studying four routes to provide access to the Hollywood Sign*

*https://urbanize.la/post/details-emerge-proposed-griffith-park-aerial-tram*

lll take option 3 please!
Or or or...........How about to public transit. The Universal City station or Universal Studios. 
I do like the idea of a platform underneath te sign. DO IT! lol


----------



## MarshallKnight

redspork02 said:


> Or or or...........How about to public transit. The Universal City station or Universal Studios.


I seem to recall that a Universal option was under consideration, but that it would require traversing the residential neighborhoods along Barham, which made it basically a non-starter. But I think there's a more realistic possibility of linking to the NoHo-Pasadena BRT / Orange Line extension:










Depending on which alignment is chosen, I could see the gondola being extended to a number of stations in Burbank or Glendale:









The most realistic is probably extending Route 4 over / alongside WB Studios to either the Riverside/Hollywood Way or Olive/Alameda stations in the Burbank Media District, but I think extending Route 2 along either the 134 or Verdugo Wash to one of the Glendale stations also has promise.


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1298727045321519104


----------



## hkskyline

Why Los Angeles Might Make Transit Free


As ridership falls during the pandemic, L.A.’s Metro is considering eliminating bus and train fares. But critics fear the budget and service cuts that might also be en route.




www.bloomberg.com


----------



## redspork02

Foothill Extension is %15 complete.



https://foothillgoldline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2020-09-09-Board-meeting-packet.pdf




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1301970371508224000
Its moving quick......


----------



## redspork02

ALSO:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1301600510475145223
Get it will its hot.

Dang, who puts $66 dollars in there TAP card. lol


----------



## MarshallKnight

redspork02 said:


> ALSO:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1301600510475145223
> Get it will its hot.
> 
> Dang, who puts $66 dollars in there TAP card. lol


Set mine up today. Looking forward to trying it out. The old TAP website system was unreliable at best.


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1303439349887897601


----------



## redcode

Historic Broadway Station, Oct 03

2020-10-03 at 12-45-11 by Jeff Farr, trên Flickr


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1314314879860269056


----------



## Sky Harbor

redspork02 said:


> ALSO:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1301600510475145223
> Get it will its hot.
> 
> Dang, who puts $66 dollars in there TAP card. lol


I lost an old TAP card of mine but didn't deactivate it, so I decided to transfer it to my phone and it works like a charm. I've effectively put away my other plastic card (which I can now keep for guests) since I started using the Apple Pay integration and I love how convenient it is.

Now I hope Metro will consider introducing customizations for cards: I'd transfer a Pride TAP card that I lost to my phone if I have the option to choose a design other than the standard one!


----------



## urbanflight

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1329124767643955201


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1333939029797072896


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1339278679520628736


----------



## urbanflight

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1349057373072216065


----------



## indianrailfan

By the time phase 2 opens, the purple line extension will easily have 100,000 riders/day. It will also push ridership of the red, blue and gold line up by quite a bit. With Phase 3, Crenshaw and LAX APM open, by 2028, LA Metro rail will probably move 600,000 riders/day.


----------



## prageethSL

*Monorail or heavy rail? Metro narrows its focus in the Sepulveda Pass *


























> Metro's search for a private sector team to build a monorail or heavy rail line through the Sepulveda Pass has narrowed to two candidates, the transportation agency announced last week.
> In March, Metro staff will recommend that the agency's Board of Directors vote to approve a $63.6-million contract with LA SkyRail Express and a $69.8-million contract with Sepulveda Transit Corridor Partners - Bechtel for pre-development work for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor project, which would connect the San Fernando Valley and the Westside.
> 
> LA SkyRail Express, which proposes the construction of a monorail running in the median of the I-405 Freeway, consists of:
> 
> John Laing Investments Limited;
> BYD Transit Solutions, LLC;
> HDR Engineering;
> Sepulveda Transit Corridor Partners - Bechtel, which proposes a heavy-rail system similar to the Metro's A and D Lines, includes:
> 
> Bechtel Development Company, Inc.;
> Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation; and
> Meridiam Sepulveda, LLC.
> Per a staff report scheduled to be presented at the February 18 meeting of the Metro Board's Executive Management Committee, the SkyRail express proposal calls for a fully aerial alignment with automated vehicles. The total cost of their project, estimated at $6.1 billion, would provide a one-way trip from the Valley to the Westside in approximately 24 minutes.
> Likewise, the Bechtel proposal also calls for automated operations - but using traditional heavy rail technology. Trains would run on aerial structures and within a single-bore tunnel between the Valley and the Westside, with an end-to-end trip of 19.7 minutes. The total cost of the heavy rail alternative, which would run below grade for 62 percent of its route, is estimated at $10.8 billion.


----------



## GojiMet86

My personal preference would be the more traditional metro. The last thing Los Angeles, and California, needs is to maintain a unique fleet of monorail trains that require specific parts.

Also, kudos to the graphic designer who used the New York City subway R160 in the renderings; always fun to see something a little different:



prageethSL said:


>


----------



## MarshallKnight

The monorail is a joke — this must be HRT. I am hopeful Metro will recognize that, of all their capital projects, the Sepulveda Corridor has the greatest potential to make or break the system for the next hundred years, and make the smart investment for once. 

As for specific route alternatives, I think HRT 1 makes the most sense. I’d love to see a hybrid of HRT 1/2, with a first station at Sepulveda & Ventura (the highest office ridership station based on the EIR) before veering to connect to the Orange Line at Van Nuys (the highest residential demand station).


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362219422274908163
Its official..............WE"RE GOING PINK! oh "k"!!!


----------



## onetwothree

It's honestly wild that they're even considering monorail.

As for something different, I remember those plans about major upgrades to Union Station and turning it into a through station by extending the tracks across the freeway. Is that still happening?


----------



## Slartibartfas

So it's either proper or a complete joke? How is it even possible monorail is still in the race while everything other, heavy rail aside, has been already thrown out?


----------



## MarshallKnight

Slartibartfas said:


> So it's either proper or a complete joke? How is it even possible monorail is still in the race while everything other, heavy rail aside, has been already thrown out?


Exactly. How is a monorail any better than, for instance, an extension of the ESFV LRT to the Westside? The LRT would be worse than HRT because of lower speed and capacity, but at least it has some positives such as interoperability and a once-seat ride from Sylmar into the basin. The monorail is somehow the worst of all worlds.


----------



## aquaticko

Pretty sure it's because there are still a few too many people who view the Jetsons as a probably near future, and a monorail says "future" to them. What on Earth they're doing pitching proposals to a metropolitan transportation operator, or why they're involved in picking which proposal to build, I do not know.


----------



## aquamaroon

Speaking of Heavy Rail, just got an email from LA Metro... good news!! Metro is FINALLY getting serious about Red/B and Purple/D line stations in the Arts District, and Sixth Street Viaduct:








[_Photo source_]









Arts District / 6th Street Station - LA Metro


The Arts District/6th St Station is a proposed new Metro B Line (Red) and/or D Line (Purple) station near 6th Street that would provide regional and local transit connections to and from Arts District, Boyle Heights, Little Tokyo, and surrounding communities.




www.metro.net





"The environmental review process and community engagement per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will start in Spring 2021. Metro anticipates completing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in late 2022." From the metro site about the project.


This has been the most sensible extension in the whole system for a long time, exciting to see real work beginning on it!


----------



## MarshallKnight

aquamaroon said:


> Speaking of Heavy Rail, just got an email from LA Metro... good news!! Metro is FINALLY getting serious about Red/B and Purple/D line stations in the Arts District, and Sixth Street Viaduct:


This is fantastic news. The Arts District has been arguably the hottest of LA's development hotspots. I really hope that Metro seriously considers that 1st Street station, as pictured in that Streetsblog graphic, ideally with a transfer to an infill station on the E/Gold line. They would also be wise to coordinate this project with the West Santa Ana Branch alignment. If there's a way to connect this end of the B/D to the WSAB, it would effectively "close the loop" of DTLA and simplify a ton of trips that currently require going up to 7th/Metro Center and then back out to your destination.


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1362546920447610883


----------



## redspork02

aquaticko said:


> Pretty sure it's because there are still a few too many people who view the Jetsons as a probably near future, and a monorail says "future" to them. What on Earth they're doing pitching proposals to a metropolitan transportation operator, or why they're involved in picking which proposal to build, I do not know.


Read mayor Butts is advocating Monorail.


----------



## JohnDee

LA is too big for subways alone.. Needs suburban rapid transit rail too.


----------



## MrAronymous

It has Metrolink but it that's very Union Station focused and probably doesn't have that good frequency.


----------



## zaphod

If there's no realistic chance of extension anyways and it is cheaper maybe the monorail isn't the worst thing in the world even if everyone scoffs at it. The Honolulu heavy rail project hasn't been going that great either, there's no reason to assume a traditional metro would actually be less risky.


----------



## LtBk

MrAronymous said:


> It has Metrolink but it that's very Union Station focused and probably doesn't have that good frequency.
> View attachment 1114829


You are correct that Metrolink doesn't have good frequencies. Suburban rail in most US cities have the same problem. Not to mention it's not electrified. A hybird urban-suburban system similar to those found in Europe and elsewhere (S-train - Wikipedia) would be beneficial for Los Angeles area.


----------



## redspork02

Central Los Angeles has a very High density ratio, Subways are warranted. Suburbia can have its LRTs. 
The sepulevada pass gets almost 400,000 cars per day.
Heavy rail is needed.
Angelenos here usually advocate HRT as it will use the same system as D line and could easily be integrated with other Metro rail lines.
Aerial Monorail doesn't do that.


----------



## Slartibartfas

zaphod said:


> If there's no realistic chance of extension anyways and it is cheaper maybe the monorail isn't the worst thing in the world even if everyone scoffs at it. The Honolulu heavy rail project hasn't been going that great either, there's no reason to assume a traditional metro would actually be less risky.


A monorail has massive downsides no matter the project, simply because it is usually a closed system. Those can be a disaster even if everything works fine the first few decades. This is the reason why they are so rare as serious PT infrastructure. There are after all good reasons for that. 

A heavy rail line can also with realitively reasonable effort be transformed into a metro line and the other way round, so on top of being an open system, it also offers massively more future proof flexibility.

If authorities think monorail is the cheaper option, I fear they ignore some less obvious life cycle costs.


----------



## TM_Germany

Isn't Metrorail also getting upgraded quite a bit though? I seem to have something about raising top speeds in the back of my head.


----------



## JohnKay75

Lots of work going on at the Westchester station of the LAX Crenshaw Line.


----------



## MrAronymous

I think a gondola on this specific route makes quite a bit of sense on all fronts.


----------



## Slartibartfas

MrAronymous said:


> I think a gondola on this specific route makes quite a bit of sense on all fronts.


Except that it lacks the peak capacities needed, which I would say is a major problem, wouldn't you too?


----------



## MrAronymous

Not really. Designing to fully accomodate peak demand is stupid and wasteful. It's why we don't have 24 lane freeways and 16 car long double decker metros.


----------



## Slartibartfas

MrAronymous said:


> Not really. Designing to fully accomodate peak demand is stupid and wasteful. It's why we don't have 24 lane freeways and 16 car long double decker metros.


It's the whole point of a primarily stadium serving connector though.

To clarify that a bit further. That connector doesn't need more capacity than the means it connects to of course but to have a mid capacity mode (in the best case and if they totally mess it up only low capacity) as last mile connector to one of the prim PT hubs of the city, this introduces a massive bottle neck for a location that is almost only about peak transportation.

Gondolas are also completely inflexible, you can't ramp up service or anything, one of the key reasons they are an exceptionally bad choice for peak demand focused services. With both, tram and heavy rail, you can substantially increase capacities also on standard infrastructure, just for those short time spans were you actually need it. For a few extra bucks you can built an upgraded station that can handle crowds more efficiently and with an extra platform one could even double peak capacity at a reasonable extra cost.


----------



## Shenkey

Slartibartfas said:


> That is not completely correct. They can, in very special circumstances, be the best choice for public transportation and offer that even in at least medium capacity, like a tram. But if you are not a city with extreme location in the Anden, chances are gondolas are more of a toy. An especially terrible idea is to plan gondalas as extreme peak mode of transportation connecting a heavy rail hub with a giant stadium. There are only two options, either the planners don't take PT as event mobility solution seriously or they are crazy.
> 
> In Vienna they built a proper subway station right next to the stadium and not only that, it is a 3 platform station, with direct single track link to the depot and half a dozen staircases per platform which can be opened for peak events, which means it has insane peak capacities with trains arriving on two platforms non-stop in the key direction (the third platform can be operated in both directions). A crowd direction system also enables the operators to just let as many people on the platform as fit into the next train.
> 
> In LA they build for an even larger stadium a gondola. I suppose it is still better than the status quo though.


I know, but LA is mostly flat.
Like you said, gondola can make sense if the terrain is very hilly, or there are a lot of rivers blocking construction.

Most of them are memes. There is a meme one in NYC too.

This gondola will barely have enough capacity for tourists who want a view from "up in the sky".


----------



## Amexpat

A gondola that is only 1 mile long makes little sense unless there is a steep hill. Wouldn't the money be better used to build an amble pedestrian walkway over rt110 to connect downtown LA and dodger Stadium? Most people can walk a mile and you can use escalators or moving sidewalks to help the impaired. If you did that there wouldn't be a capacity problem. I don't know the terrain, but looking at a map it looks like the Chinatown LRT station is only about a half mile to the Stadium.


----------



## BJC450Chicago

MarshallKnight said:


> Following up on that video, anybody who has strong feelings about the Crenshaw North Extension should take this moment to submit their thoughts to [email protected] before May 28th.
> 
> I'm writing in to advocate for a two-line alternative. The La Brea alternative is an acceptable starting point if and only if Metro can guarantee that West Hollywood and Cedars Sinai will get a line as well. If Metro can't make that guarantee, then they must choose the Fairfax-San Vicente Hybrid alternative, even though it's a messy Frankenstein's monster of a compromise.
> 
> Edit: Which is to say, let's not settle for picking between one of these...
> 
> View attachment 1423071
> 
> 
> ...and instead press Metro for something like this...
> 
> View attachment 1423073
> 
> 
> ...so that we might ultimately wind up with something like this:
> 
> View attachment 1423074


I have to agree with you on this because the hybrid option does a disservice in several ways:
1) The original Purple Line extension plans included both the Wilshire extension and a branch of the Purple Line heading north to West Hollywood to Highland (see picture) as the final options. The Wilshire only extension won due to lack of funds for both, but both were viable options
2) A Purple Line branch alignment (heavy rail) would better serve West Hollywood and Hollywood with a direct one seat ride to West LA, this is a higher demand corridor than towards Crenshaw, additionally if the Sepulveda is built to LAX, it would provide a shorter and faster connection from Hollywood/ West Hollywood to LAX, Van Nuys and the West Valley
3) As a Purple Line branch, it could be later extended, as you indicated, along Santa Monica east to Glendale and Pasadena providing direct access from the San Gabriel Valley to Hollywood and the Westside
3) A Purple Line branch alignment would also benefit Red Line riders from the East side of the Valley with a one transfer to the Westside at Highland, the WeHo deviation of the Crenshaw branch would require two transfers, Highland and Wilshire (ridership goes down for every transfer required)
View attachment 1541999
View attachment 1542000

5) According to Metro's ridership analysis on the Crenshaw alignments, the Weho deviation only garners +2,000 addl riders over the LaBrea alignment at twice the cost (+$3 Billion) and+33% travel time
6) because the ridership difference between LaBrea and San Vicente is only +2,000, it seems to me that the benefit for South LA customers doesn't change much deviating to West Hollywood
7) For the same $3-4 Billion, the Purple Line branch adds +17,000 riders with the current extension or +38,000 if the Purple Line gets to Santa Monica, this seems like much for bang for the buck for ridership and greater regional connectivity options

This is my major problem with Metro. They have the studies, I just don't know if anyone thinks "big picture" enough to put them all together. This whole extension is being presented only as an extension of the Crenshaw Line when they also considered almost the same routing north of Wilshire as an extension of the Purple Line yet that isn't part of the discussion anymore. It seems like the people managing the Crenshaw project are totally unaware of what the Purple Line team already studied and deemed viable, with greater ridership and connectivity.


----------



## redspork02

Final leg of Purple Line extension breaks ground in Westwood


It may not quite be the subway to the sea that was once promised, but the final leg of the Purple (D) Line extension is finally under construction.




urbanize.city






__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1396952916536266760

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1396941794709950467
Metro finally had a groundbreaking ceremony for section/phase 3 of D (purple) line.
Even though its 22% complete.


----------



## redspork02

Union Station - Coachella Valley rail project moves forward


Slowly but surely, a proposal to launch rail service between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley is moving forward.




urbanize.city





This is needed. The 10 thru the banning pass is getting congested. Another option thru here would be great.


----------



## aquamaroon

Man, taking a train to Coachella and avoiding the traffic the festival causes would be so sweet lol


----------



## 2Easy

Amexpat said:


> A gondola that is only 1 mile long makes little sense unless there is a steep hill. Wouldn't the money be better used to build an amble pedestrian walkway over rt110 to connect downtown LA and dodger Stadium? Most people can walk a mile and you can use escalators or moving sidewalks to help the impaired. If you did that there wouldn't be a capacity problem. I don't know the terrain, but looking at a map it looks like the Chinatown LRT station is only about a half mile to the Stadium.


The stadium is at the top of a hill. Steep is relative, but it's about a 300 foot elevation change from Union Station and 250 feet from Chinatown station. There's a YouTube video somewhere that shows the walk and it didn't look pleasant. IIRC it took about 30 min at a pretty decent clip.


----------



## 2Easy

Regarding the Dodger Stadium gondola, I think that it probably shouldn't be in this forum as it's not intended to be public transportation. It's a private project that is intended to make money. Regarding the capacity constraints, it will likely be priced at a point that it gets full, but not overly so. In other words, it won't be cheap. Parking is $20-25 and this will be competitive with that. Exiting Dodger stadium after a game is very difficult if driving. It can take an hour just to get out, so this will be an improvement over the fan experience that many will pay for. 

Dodger stadium is in an unusual situation. The previous owner hit hard financial times and was forced by Major League Baseball to sell the team, which he did for a lot of money. But he retained ownership of the parking lots. The gondola is being proposed by him, his son, and other private investors, not the team owners. It's a way for them to make more money from the land that they own.


----------



## Amexpat

2Easy said:


> The stadium is at the top of a hill. Steep is relative, but it's about a 300 foot elevation change from Union Station and 250 feet from Chinatown station. There's a YouTube video somewhere that shows the walk and it didn't look pleasant. IIRC it took about 30 min at a pretty decent clip.


Wouldn't a series of escalators make this walk doable for most people? I've used them in Hong Kong, they're outside and are fun to use. And the big crush would come after the game and the walk would be downhill, so many would not need to use an escalator. I think most go do it faster than waiting in line to take the Gondola, then embarking and disembarking.


----------



## 2Easy

Amexpat said:


> Wouldn't a series of escalators make this walk doable for most people? I've used them in Hong Kong, they're outside and are fun to use. And the big crush would come after the game and the walk would be downhill, so many would not need to use an escalator. I think most go do it faster than waiting in line to take the Gondola, then embarking and disembarking.


As I mentioned, the parking lots surrounding the stadium are privately owned and not by the Dodgers ownership. I don't see how the private owners could make money building a series of presumably free escalators nor do I see why the city would pay to build and maintain escalators on private property for the public to access private events at the stadium.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Just shows the limitations of laissez faire capitalism, rather than anything else. If those "free" escalators can make such a gondola system redundant, they'd be a better investment, so it would be in the interest of Metro to have such a system, capable of very high peak capacity, yet relatively affordable to some of the equally high capacity alternatives.


----------



## 2Easy

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Just shows the limitations of laissez faire capitalism, rather than anything else. If those "free" escalators can make such a gondola system redundant, they'd be a better investment, so it would be in the interest of Metro to have such a system, capable of very high peak capacity, yet relatively affordable to some of the equally high capacity alternatives.


I don't see why you imagine that it is in the "interest of metro" to provide public transportation for the benefit of a private business. What a precedent that would set. Universal Studios is also at the top of a steep hill. Maybe metro could build escalators for them on their private property next?


----------



## Slartibartfas

2Easy said:


> I don't see why you imagine that it is in the "interest of metro" to provide public transportation for the benefit of a private business. What a precedent that would set. Universal Studios is also at the top of a steep hill. Maybe metro could build escalators for them on their private property next?


This thing would be connecting a major mobility demand generator with one of the largest PT hubs of LA. Do I really have to explain why such a connection would be in the interest of Metro?
Of course, not at any price but that's the question that would need to be clarified, if it is more cost effective and efficient than alternative approaches.

It doesn't matter whose property it is built on. There would need to be proper contracts of course (including the possibility of selling needed property for the project) and the infrastructure would be owned and operated by Metro, just like a public bus line connecting the Stadium (don't tell me those do not exist in LA, I mean I wouldn't be shocked but surprised nontheless). Also, as good PT connection is in the interest of the Stadium one should explore the possibility of a PPP project.

Regarding Universal Studios, apparently a little bus service suffices there for the demand. As long as that is the case there is no justification for a high capacity escalator link.

I guess the American mindset shown above is the reason why PT connections to a lot of things are often so bad, including (high quality) access to stadiums and airports.


----------



## Amexpat

2Easy said:


> As I mentioned, the parking lots surrounding the stadium are privately owned and not by the Dodgers ownership. I don't see how the private owners could make money building a series of presumably free escalators nor do I see why the city would pay to build and maintain escalators on private property for the public to access private events at the stadium.


There's no reason why there couldn't be a fee to take an escalator/moving sidewalk on private property to generate some revenue. That's has been done with funiculars in many cities.

Also, the city could use eminent domain to get the aerial rights over the parking lot. They might have to do that with a gondola as well.


----------



## 2Easy

Slartibartfas said:


> This thing would be connecting a major mobility demand generator with one of the largest PT hubs of LA. Do I really have to explain why such a connection would be in the interest of Metro?
> Of course, not at any price but that's the question that would need to be clarified, if it is more cost effective and efficient than alternative approaches.
> 
> It doesn't matter whose property it is built on. There would need to be proper contracts of course (including the possibility of selling needed property for the project) and the infrastructure would be owned and operated by Metro, just like a public bus line connecting the Stadium (don't tell me those do not exist in LA, I mean I wouldn't be shocked but surprised nontheless).


I don't think that you get it. The property owner doesn't own the team, but makes money in parking. He is not going to allow escalators to be built that would cut into his parking revenue. 

The way that I see it the only way for this to work would be for the citizens of LA to pay the parking lot/hill landowner $100's of million for his land, or whatever it's worth and then build escalators up a hill that given LA's issues with mudslides and wildfires will undoubtedly be more expensive to build and maintain than any of us can imagine. That would certainly make the stadium more accessible, which would allow the team owners to raise ticket prices to make even more money. Billionaires need our help! 😂 

Or we could say f-that and put the onus on the billionaire team owners to spend their own money and build a new stadium where transit already exists instead of the top of a hill with no other destination than the stadium. 

And yes buses do exist. They run express from locations around the county to the stadium on game days and one of those locations is Union Station. I think that the Dodgers pay for that.


----------



## 2Easy

Amexpat said:


> There's no reason why there couldn't be a fee to take an escalator/moving sidewalk on private property to generate some revenue. That's has been done with funiculars in many cities.
> 
> Also, the city could use eminent domain to get the aerial rights over the parking lot. They might have to do that with a gondola as well.


The gondola is not being built by the city. It's privately funded, largely by the same people that own the parking lot.


----------



## Slartibartfas

2Easy said:


> I don't think that you get it. The property owner doesn't own the team, but makes money in parking. He is not going to allow escalators to be built that would cut into his parking revenue.


Ok, no PPP then but just another example why capitalism without intervention or proper regulation is an obstacle for improvements rather than a catalyser.



> The way that I see it the only way for this to work would be for the citizens of LA to pay the parking lot/hill landowner $100's of million for his land, or whatever it's worth and then build escalators up a hill that given LA's issues with mudslides and wildfires will undoubtedly be more expensive to build and maintain than any of us can imagine. That would certainly make the stadium more accessible, which would allow the team owners to raise ticket prices to make even more money. Billionaires need our help! 😂


If the market were not dysfunctional, that means a proper and good connection to PT would be very much in the interest of the team owners and I would think that the property owners have some reliance on the team owners being happy. But I disgress. I think what you fail to see is that for the success of PT, the network has to be complete, and having a 2nd rate or worse connection to one or even many major event locations means the PT network has huge holes.

In Vienna the largest stadium is state owned (I know I said the dirty word). So that means no perverse incentives against petter connectivity but a subway station in perfect distance, built for peak capacity high throughput (multiple staircases and easily deployable efficient and safe crowd guidance systems).



> Or we could say f-that and put the onus on the billionaire team owners to spend their own money and build a new stadium where transit already exists instead of the top of a hill with no other destination than the stadium.


How about making legislation that demands that and for stadiums which fail after a certain time increasing taxation which could be used for building the lacking connections. If you wait for the billionaires in a system where the invisible hand is broken, you might wait for very long.


> And yes buses do exist. They run express from locations around the county to the stadium on game days and one of those locations is Union Station. I think that the Dodgers pay for that.


Well, better than nothing, but high capacity bus links even on a short distance suck, at least if PT is not considered a toy but the backbone of event transit. I am aware that this may not be the case in LA though.


----------



## Shenkey

Capitalism works when you have competition.


----------



## Wouter999

In what way competition is possible for building escalators from a PT station to a new stadium? Except in asking sky high land prices for a parking lot.


----------



## 2Easy

Wouter999 said:


> In what way competition is possible for building escalators from a PT station to a new stadium? Except in asking sky high land prices for a parking lot.


This isn't an issue of capitalism. That's a red herring that was brought up due to some misunderstanding the gondola as a metro project instead of a private project. 

An equivalent in Europe would be some rich owner of a football team taking advantage of cheap land prices in the countryside far from transit to build a new stadium and then local governments paying for rail transit to his new stadium with no other destinations en route. Spending private money to enrich the rich. That's evidently what many in this thread advocate.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Shenkey said:


> Capitalism works when you have competition.


Not always and not in all fields, especially when the necessity for competition is actually making a system much less efficient or is even crippling it altogether.
Also if the market is not flexible it simply doesn't work all that well. Let's take PT, unless you offer redundant connections (which is only possible on main corridors), people don't choose the company they like most but the bus that connects their the two points they want to move between. Even if you manage redundant connections those do actually make the overall offer worse than if you have an integrated system where you can take any bus that is arriving.

Of course, one can try to combine things, present a completely integrated system to the consumer, while having different companies competing for lines behind the curtains. That doesn't solve the other big issue however, and that is that shareholder value shortermism is ruining the quality and long term feasibility of PT. All it needs to destroy a functioning PT network is a new CEO which is getting great financial numbers by destroying the substance of the network (which might become only visible when that CEO has already moved on to another company with big bonuses).

The invisible hand can work well, but contrary to popular believe, it can work terribly as well, and in some areas, the invisible hand commonly or even always performs terrible. That is the case when it creates incentives which are detrimental to customers and society as a whole. That is possible in certain cases.

(A privatised prison system would be another great example where the invisible hand is performing against the interests of almost everyone except for the shareholders)


----------



## Woonsocket54

Torrance Transit bus 13 begins service 2021.06.27



Line 13 | City of Torrance


----------



## GojiMet86

The "expansion" (more like contraction) of the Los Angeles Metro. Pretty sad to see how extensive rail transport was in the 1930s compared to today.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Come off it mate... The 1920's map was all streetcars running in mixed traffic. They were generally much slower and had much lower capacity than LA's current light rail and metro system. It might as well have been a fixed route bus network. Not that what they have now is good... but it's not like they had they had the NYC subway running everywhere and decided to get rid of it.


----------



## GojiMet86

BoulderGrad said:


> Come off it mate... The 1920's map was all streetcars running in mixed traffic. They were generally much slower and had much lower capacity than LA's current light rail and metro system. It might as well have been a fixed route bus network. Not that what they have now is good... but it's not like they had they had the NYC subway running everywhere and decided to get rid of it.


Never said anything about the quality of it. Obviously having space for trains is better than having them mix with car traffic, but that shouldn't be an impediment. There are a multitude of other systems that have mixed traffic today.


----------



## Tcmetro

The Red Cars largely had dedicated right of ways. Several Metro Rail lines follow old streetcar paths. The Yellow Cars were mostly mixed traffic city lines. 

The Red Cars also had a downtown subway and median running on the Hollywood Freeway, before Chicago built it's expressway L lines. I believe they also ran multiple unit trains, which would have similar capacity to a modern Metro Rail train.


----------



## Cygnus-X1

Why are trams called 'street cars' in USA? Don't all other automobiles run on streets as well?
And why are railway systems called 'rail road'? Road, by convention are tarred roads for automobiles.
Strange nomenclature, defies logic!


----------



## Nouvellecosse

Cygnus-X1 said:


> Why are trams called 'street cars' in USA? Don't all other automobiles run on streets as well?
> And why are railway systems called 'rail road'? Road, by convention are tarred roads for automobiles.
> Strange nomenclature, defies logic!


Railcars have been around longer than automobiles, and the term "car" is still used for the individual segments of trains even today. For instance, someone may ask how many cars a train has, meaning how many individual segments are joined together to make up the train, and someone may answer that the train is 6 cars long, a common length for a passenger train. So it makes perfect sense that a rail car running on the street would be called a street car since they pre-dated automobiles too. The confusion only arose after people started calling automobiles cars. However, the word car, which has the same origin as the word cart, originally just meant a wheeled vehicle used to transport things.


----------



## ajw373

Cygnus-X1 said:


> Why are trams called 'street cars' in USA? Don't all other automobiles run on streets as well?
> And why are railway systems called 'rail road'? Road, by convention are tarred roads for automobiles.
> Strange nomenclature, defies logic!


I cannot answer the street car question but would suspect there is some historical and good reason for that terminology in the USA. 

However your description of a road is misplaced. Depending on the dictionary you refer to a road is a defined pathway between two places. It doesn’t define what the actual road surface is made of. It could be dirt, tar, concrete or rails. So by adding the word rail to become railroad it makes it clear it is a road for railway vehicles.

Just like in other places the term used is railway. Way has a similar meaning to road.


----------



## Stuu

Cygnus-X1 said:


> Why are trams called 'street cars' in USA? Don't all other automobiles run on streets as well?
> And why are railway systems called 'rail road'? Road, by convention are tarred roads for automobiles.
> Strange nomenclature, defies logic!


They were called rail roads a long time before the invention of either automobiles or tarred roads. Rail road and tram road were both used in England for early lines, before railway became the dominant name. I would assume the name crossed the Atlantic at that point


----------



## Woonsocket54

Los Angeles Metro bus changes and rail service increases (effective 2021.06.27)









New schedules start June 27: expect additional bus and rail trips


Metro updates service every June and December. Riders will see big changes on June 27, 2021 because we’re implementing Phase 2 of the NextGen Bus Plan to offer more frequent service on many of our …




thesource.metro.net


----------



## LTA1992

BoulderGrad said:


> Come off it mate... The 1920's map was all streetcars running in mixed traffic. They were generally much slower and had much lower capacity than LA's current light rail and metro system. It might as well have been a fixed route bus network. Not that what they have now is good... but it's not like they had they had the NYC subway running everywhere and decided to get rid of it.


They did, however, pass up the opportunity for a proper rapid transit system in the 1920s iirc which is arguably worse.


----------



## ReclusiveBlack

Metro's current transit plans (like most everything they've done in recent years) is a byproduct of decisions made by people who've never rode public transit in their lives. NIMBYs and politicians, **** them all.


----------



## Woonsocket54

June-July 2021 service changes on Long Beach Transit buses












http://54.241.20.6/items/changes/JUN21_memo.pdf


----------



## JohnDee

LA is too big for light rail. Should invest in Paris loop or London overground style. Connect more people, faster. Also increase density around rail nodes.


----------



## GojiMet86

JohnDee said:


> LA is too big for light rail. Should invest in Paris loop or London overground style. Connect more people, faster. Also increase density around rail nodes.


It's too spread out for even a subway. Unfortunately it would take decades and decades for Los Angeles to be as built up as NY or Paris.


----------



## JohnDee

a rail network, such as European regional rapid transit rail, would reshape development patterns and turn l.a into an interconnected city of dense nodes.


----------



## GojiMet86

JohnDee said:


> a rail network, such as European regional rapid transit rail, would reshape development patterns and turn l.a into an interconnected city of dense nodes.


Cool.

But Los Angeles, and the United States except NYC, is light years away from coming up with a semblence of such a rail or development plan.


----------



## Stuu

If Metrolink could run at decent frequencies, every 15 minutes at least, how much would that improve the transit situation?


----------



## NCT

To put not too fine a point on it, the greater Los Angeles built-up area is simply built wrong. The current level of suburban density makes heavy rail too difficult to plan on a big scale - to achieve sensible journey times over great distances most people would have to rail head (drive to the nearest station) encouraging people to simply drive all the way. Urban metros work best when you can maximise foot passengers - people from high density neighbourhoods within walking distance.

Without a European transit network LA would struggle to de-suburbanise and reurbanise, and that's before considering cultural and political factors.

LA is fooked (again, to put not too fine a point on it).


----------



## TM_Germany

Stuu said:


> If Metrolink could run at decent frequencies, every 15 minutes at least, how much would that improve the transit situation?


It could help the inland empire and eastern LA, however most of the LA basin wouldn't really notice. I don't know how much metrolink would need in terms of station imrpovements etc to be more attractive as well. I feel like there should at least be a metrolink like down to Long Beach utilizing the exitsting rail line as well.


NCT said:


> To put not too fine a point on it, the greater Los Angeles built-up area is simply built wrong. The current level of suburban density makes heavy rail too difficult to plan on a big scale - to achieve sensible journey times over great distances most people would have to rail head (drive to the nearest station) encouraging people to simply drive all the way. Urban metros work best when you can maximise foot passengers - people from high density neighbourhoods within walking distance.
> 
> Without a European transit network LA would struggle to de-suburbanise and reurbanise, and that's before considering cultural and political factors.
> 
> LA is fooked (again, to put not too fine a point on it).


I agree sort of, however I think in this case they simply have to build the rail infrastructure first and then add all those users later in form of new developement. Considering the long distances in LA, they should also think of having express services right from the start.


----------



## NCT

TM_Germany said:


> I agree sort of, however I think in this case they simply have to build the rail infrastructure first and then add all those users later in form of new developement. Considering the long distances in LA, they should also think of having express services right from the start.


"Build it and they will come" is about as unAmerican as you can get, as least when it comes to mass transit.

In LA's case new developments won't be easy. There is only so much derelict land you can infill - to create the proper critical mass needed you literally need to demolish whole neighbourhoods of detached houses, build flats on one third of the land and re-wild the rest. You'd struggle to do such things even in China let alone America.


----------



## TM_Germany

It's not that difficult. Just rezone for denser developement, enough poeple are going to be willing to sell their house or redevelop it themselves as an investment. No need to raze entire neighbourhoods, just allow people to replace their single story detached home with three story townhomes for example and densification will happen gradually.
There's also lots of development potential on all those commercial avenues with tons of parking and large lot sizes.


----------



## NCT

TM_Germany said:


> It's not that difficult. Just rezone for denser developement, enough poeple are going to be willing to sell their house or redevelop it themselves as an investment. No need to raze entire neighbourhoods, just allow people to replace their single story detached home with three story townhomes for example and densification will happen gradually.
> There's also lots of development potential on all those commercial avenues with tons of parking and large lot sizes.


It could happen naturally as you say if we have evidence of there being a large chunk of grudging suburbanites who would really prefer to live in non-car-dependent high density urban environments, and that they would gravitate towards those new developments naturally. I think such demographics exist in large pockets of Europe, but my impression is most in LA are comfortable and content in their suburbs and a lot would fight to protect their way of life. I'd love to be wrong.


----------



## TM_Germany

I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't propose holding suburbanites at gunpoint and forcing them into apartments. I propose that suburbanites that either want to invest into their own proporty or want to sell it, are allowed to develop denser housing on their lots. This doesn't necesserily have to be big apartment blocks. Rowhomes, duplexes or detached apartment buildings all still look decidedly suburban but still archieve significantly higher densities. Here is a video showing how suburban "dense" walkable neighborhoods can look:





If you ask me, this is essentially the no-compromise solution. I'm sure there is also a market for even more "urban" living in LA (especially since that form of living could be much cheaper than suburban houses in LA now) however this is a solution where the suburban lifestyle is still kept intact.

I also think that this redevelopement potential is a great way to re-finance infrastructure construction. This could be done in the form of a PPP where a private company builds and operates a subway and gets a share of property tax or some other revenue for a number of years. This isn't an ideal solution but it also gets rid of the start of cost for the public sector and thus makes it potentially more viable for the U.S.


----------



## NCT

If you have suburban lifestyle kept intact then you won't be reducing the urban footprint of the LA urban area. You won't be creating transit densities and you won't address the big problem of most people being further than walking distance from transit stops.

What you propose in terms of densifying suburbs might achieve a handful of stations achieving 3m entries and exits a year, that's not going to be enough. You need a string of 10m-entries-and-exits-a-year stations to justify a new good coverage transit network, and that requires substantially depopulating the suburbs.


----------



## TM_Germany

The urban footpring of LA will never, ever shrink. Nothing like that has ever happened unless a major collapse of civilisation happened. We just have to densify what is already there instead of sprawling even further (which is largely impossible in LA anyway). 
Just with rowhomes, detached apartments and then truly dense multistory apartments along commercial axis, you're going to be able to reach densities of 15,000 people/sqkm, which is more than enough for good transit. The clou is of course to only densify those areas where there already is transit or where it is planned, so that all of that growth only happens where you're within walking distance from a stop.
This is the best realistic outcome and it is also enough for good transit coverage. Once you're gonna have dense enough corridors built around train lines, the remaining suburbs around those corridors will at least be within biking distance from a stop, which is huge step up from the exisitng situation.


----------



## NCT

If you can achieve a continuous environment of townhouses + 3-6-storey apartment blocks then yes you could quite easily triple density and that would be OK transit density (you don't need Asian densities).

Even if you use planning incentives as soft measures to encourage people to sell up and redevelop without mandating, you are still turning vast areas of suburbs into predominantly urban areas. You may be able to achieve this even with half of homeowners choosing to stay put, but you still end up with the following problems

Those homeowners would still object to legislation changes that change the character of their area
Some homeowners would want to sell up but they are in prime development areas (3km away from planned transit hubs either side)
Other homeowners would fear their areas losing value and object on that basis
Any such policy would be dead in the water in Democrat/Republican marginal districts/counties.

To create transit densities you are talking about tripling densities over a very large area. The natural question is where do all these people come from? If it's to come from migration from outside of LA that'd be an awful lot of migration. Otherwise the numbers would have to come from existing suburbanites, and that means planning for and managing substantial suburban depopulation and abandonment.


----------



## TM_Germany

You didn't even watch the video, did you?
You can significantly increase densities without changing the suburban character of exisitng neighbourhoods. A lot of people that would oppose this might think so, but they're wrong. Just present a picture of a neighbourhood like this: Google Maps and ask them why that should be illegal.
The people coming into those new places would both be new residents (which are sorely needed as LA's ridiculous housing situation has caused a negative migration balance) and people kids of families living in suburbs moving out. Those suburbs will unlikely ever be given up considering the housing shortage, however that doesn't mean people aren't looking to move out from there.


----------



## NCT

TM_Germany said:


> You didn't even watch the video, did you?
> You can significantly increase densities without changing the suburban character of exisitng neighbourhoods. A lot of people that would oppose this might think so, but they're wrong. Just present a picture of a neighbourhood like this: Google Maps and ask them why that should be illegal.
> The people coming into those new places would both be new residents (which are sorely needed as LA's ridiculous housing situation has caused a negative migration balance) and people kids of families living in suburbs moving out. Those suburbs will unlikely ever be given up considering the housing shortage, however that doesn't mean people aren't looking to move out from there.


With respect, those places still suck, only marginally better than the typical LA suburb. They create an appearance of walkability and yet the number of people truly within a walking distance of a transit hub or high street is still too small. Most people can be within a 20-minute walk of a substantial centre but the temptation to drive, or indeed to drive 'the other way' to an out-of-town retail park is still much too high.

And also, it's not me you'd need to convince, but the very 'a lot of people that would oppose this might think so, but they're wrong' kind of people.


----------



## TM_Germany

It's not Paris, where no-one drives, but it's a place where people at least don't drive to go to a restaurant and where students don't have to be driven to school and where everyone that doesn't feel like sitting in a jam doesn't drive. It's a huge improvement on the current situation and it is realistically archievable, so I'd be pretty happy about that.

I'm aware you're pro-urbanization, yet it stilI seems like I do need to convince you, as you seem to be totally opposed to everything. Your solution seems to be to tear down most suburbs and build very urban housing instead, which according to yourself is completely impossible. The alternative is to just not do anything and that is the farthest you can get from a solution.


----------



## NCT

TM_Germany said:


> It's not Paris, where no-one drives, but it's a place where people at least don't drive to go to a restaurant and where students don't have to be driven to school and where everyone that doesn't feel like sitting in a jam doesn't drive. It's a huge improvement on the current situation and it is realistically archievable, so I'd be pretty happy about that.
> 
> I'm aware you're pro-urbanization, yet it stilI seems like I do need to convince you, as you seem to be totally opposed to everything. Your solution seems to be to tear down most suburbs and build very urban housing instead, which according to yourself is completely impossible. The alternative is to just not do anything and that is the farthest you can get from a solution.


You are describing the typical UK suburb, where people do very much drive to restaurants and people talk about school runs all the time. It's a worse version of Ile-de-France. Realistically achievable perhaps, but really a drop-in-the-ocean difference when it comes to LA.

The real question is whether this is transit supporting density, and the answer is it isn't. LA's large footprint and multi-centric nature means any transit that would seriously dent car trips would need to be fast and have relatively few intermediate stops. You need to create 10-million-a-year stations with the majority being foot/bike passengers or bus interchangers.

Put it this way, when you have inner London (zones 1-3) density 'carrying' outer London (zones 4-6) density you can support major transit investments. Slightly better suburb 'carrying' LA suburb doesn't stand a chance of justifying that kind of transit. To become a proper transit-oriented city LA needs to become a series of compact settlements with space in between. Anything less than that is just business-as-usual tinkering around the edges.

I was simply describing what would need to happen, and I already said it's unlikely to happen in a million years.

I think your compromise solution will still face substantial knee-jerk opposition and ultimately doesn't do very much.


----------



## TM_Germany

I think you'de ultimately wrong to say that UK suburbs are just as bad as LA. Compared to LA, the UK is a transit paradise. Once you're at that point, it becomes more of a shift of mindsets compared to a sheer impossibility to stop driving. 
Densifying the suburbs the way I described helps to ease the housing burden and will help broaden the appeal of transit, as it isn't just going to be attractive to a few people living in dedicated TOD apartments. In additiont ot creating corridors of dense urban environments along commercial areas, Downtown LA as well as other sub- centres like Long Beach, Venice Beach, Pasadena, Glendale,... also have to densify as well as enlargen their footprint to "carry" the transit lines as you put it. 
It all has to be part of a more comprehensive solution, wher not just one type of housing or development is the correct answer. To have attractive transit you don't need to tear down suburbs to make space in between stops, you can just adopt express services. It's a solution that can definitely work, and much preferrable over simple defeatism.


----------



## NCT

I'm saying what you are describing as your compromise solution is still as bad as the worse parts of the UK.

Adopting express services has one problem. Where in a European context you need a 15-km two-track transit, in LA you'd need a 30-km four-track railway to serve the same number people. Your project is 4 times as expensive. You need to at least make it only twice as expensive.

Put it this way, even if LA achieves what you advocate, I still put it on the 'fooked' pile.


----------



## TM_Germany

Imo the goal should be to just increase transit however possible, not to immediately give up when you can't transform all of LA into transit heaven. With what I'm describing all affected areas will certainly be better than most of the UK, just the remaining bits will be worse.
For express services you don't need a continuous 4 track railway (and even then it wouldn't be twice as expensive, let alone 4 times), you'd just need some passings and passing stations.
With what I'm describing, LA would maybe be about as "fooked" as Vancouver and not as "fooked" as maybe Pheonix, which would be pretty great if you ask me.


----------



## NCT

With only passing loops you'd achieve 4tph stopping plus 4tph semi-fast at best, which for any LA corridor means rail stays resolutely a minority mode.

You are describing the kind of density lower than inner London, which is still semi-fooked but much more easily rescuable. Your transformed areas will remain a minority of all of LA and the existing sprawling suburbs will still dominate.

As 'fooked' as Vancouver, still very fooked then.


----------



## redspork02




----------



## Woonsocket54

Long Beach Transit (bus) resumes fare collection on 2021.09.19.






Fares | ridelbt.com Long Beach Transit







ridelbt.com


----------



## redspork02




----------



## aquamaroon

Nandert is such an incredible resource. He makes these fantastic videos that are entertaining as well as informative and he honestly puts Metro to shame. We L.A. public transit enthusiasts are very lucky to have him


----------



## redspork02

Forward all his videos to all LA county and LA city elected officials. 
I have. 






City Council | City of Los Angeles







www.lacity.org













Contact







lacounty.gov





Help & Contacts - LA Metro


----------



## aquamaroon

Some nice shots of the Grand Ave/Arts District Station under construction behind the Broad Museum, scheduled to open next year. Photos from September 7:


Regional Connector Transit Project by STERLINGDAVISPHOTO, on Flickr

Regional Connector Transit Project by STERLINGDAVISPHOTO, on Flickr

Regional Connector Transit Project by STERLINGDAVISPHOTO, on Flickr

Regional Connector Transit Project by STERLINGDAVISPHOTO, on Flickr


As an aside I hope that grassy park on the back of the Broad comes to fruition, would hate for a barren parking lot to be museum goers introduction to the Broad.


EDIT: Here is what the previous renders of the back of the Broad have looked like when finished (source)


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1437491297653305354

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1437853815764668418


----------



## Suburbanist

The Expo line is relatively new.

Why does it need to be closed for 10 months for repair works?


----------



## ReclusiveBlack

Suburbanist said:


> The Expo line is relatively new.
> 
> Why does it need to be closed for 10 months for repair works?


The current northern/eastern terminus of the Expo (and Blue) Line is the 7th Street/Metro Center station (between Flower and Hope Streets), and they still have to tunnel to there in order to finish the Regional Connector. Also, the closure of the station will be for ten weekends, starting back on July 30th and going until October 31st; there was no work Labor Day weekend (September 3-5) or this past weekend (10th-12th). In the meantime, Metro are running temporary bus lines to Metro Center, with one branch for the Expo originating from 7th-MC to the Trade Tech/Ortho Institute (23rd and Flower Streets) station, and another one covering the Blue Line stops, from 7th-MC to the Washington Blvd./Long Beach Ave. station in the southeastern portion of Downtown L.A.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Long Beach Transit will start serving Carson bus routes later this month. Carson has about 95,000 people and is west of Long Beach.














Carson Service | ridelbt.com Long Beach Transit







ridelbt.com





Carson used to have its own bus network. There are all these relatively small municipalities in Los Angeles County, and many of them have their own balkanized bus networks (sometimes called "munis"). These networks often consist of roundabout shuttles or circulators that don't really connect anywhere and that very few people use. 

This is what the Carson bus system used to look like:

















CITY OF CARSON - File #: 2019-900


Title: CONSIDER ENTERING INTO DISCUSSIONS WITH LONG BEACH TRANSIT FOR FIXED-ROUTE BUS SERVICES (CITY COUNCIL)



carson.legistar.com


----------



## redspork02

LAX PEOPLE MOVER UPDATE BY MR> J>K>


----------



## Stuu

Woonsocket54 said:


> Long Beach Transit will start serving Carson bus routes later this month. Carson has about 95,000 people and is west of Long Beach.
> 
> View attachment 2060208
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carson Service | ridelbt.com Long Beach Transit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ridelbt.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carson used to have its own bus network. There are all these relatively small municipalities in Los Angeles County, and many of them have their own balkanized bus networks (sometimes called "munis"). These networks often consist of roundabout shuttles or circulators that don't really connect anywhere and that very few people use.
> 
> This is what the Carson bus system used to look like:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2060214
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CITY OF CARSON - File #: 2019-900
> 
> 
> Title: CONSIDER ENTERING INTO DISCUSSIONS WITH LONG BEACH TRANSIT FOR FIXED-ROUTE BUS SERVICES (CITY COUNCIL)
> 
> 
> 
> carson.legistar.com


A bus every 40 minutes? Firstly why bother? Secondly, why not just run them hourly, then at least they will be the same time all the time


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1439474197772656642
Spelling errors galore! New BUS/service routes map.

"San Benadino"
"Eeagle Rock"
"City of Terrace"
"Paramont"
"McArthur Par K"

LOL


----------



## Woonsocket54

That was an old map from half a year ago that was posted to Dropbox and for some reason linked at the official Metro site. They've now removed it.


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1441475964442054664


----------



## redspork02

Woonsocket54 said:


> That was an old map from half a year ago that was posted to Dropbox and for some reason linked at the official Metro site. They've now removed it.


As I understand it was a new service map (start date) that was released.
So many errors, it was removed.

LA Podcast on Twitter: "We asked @metrolosangeles for an explanation as to how and why a transit system map with so many catastrophically bad errors was published, apparently without any proofreading whatsoever. We received the following response this afternoon: https://t.co/XzXzQDOBiY" / Twitter










Maybe it was a "draft", released by "mistake" but one is scheduled (SEPTEMBER 2021) for release this month. New bus schedules and routes. We are still waiting for it, then...................................


----------



## BJC450Chicago

redspork02 said:


> As I understand it was a new service map (start date) that was released.
> So many errors, it was removed.
> 
> LA Podcast on Twitter: "We asked @metrolosangeles for an explanation as to how and why a transit system map with so many catastrophically bad errors was published, apparently without any proofreading whatsoever. We received the following response this afternoon: https://t.co/XzXzQDOBiY" / Twitter
> 
> View attachment 2118872
> 
> 
> Maybe it was a "draft", released by "mistake" but one is scheduled (SEPTEMBER 2021) for release this month. New bus schedules and routes. We are still waiting for it, then...................................


This is the kind of amateur screw up that reveals a lot more of how that agency is run. They are terrible and planning projects (like the Crenshaw Line), long term planning (there is none), and they can't even put out a map. They could learn a lot from tightly run transit agencies like the Chicago Transit Authority or those of Paris, Madrid, and London.


----------



## Arnorian

BJC450Chicago said:


> This is the kind of amateur screw up that reveals a lot more of how that agency is run. They are terrible and planning projects (like the Crenshaw Line), long term planning (there is none), and they can't even put out a map. They could learn a lot from tightly run transit agencies like the Chicago Transit Authority or those of Paris, Madrid, and London.


A microcosmos of US infrastructure as a whole. There is no point learning from others when the internal political system is the cause.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Who even uses a regional bus map to plan travel? Everyone these days uses Google Maps or an app. 

Yes, they posted an outdated map in early September, and then later in the month they posted a map that had all sorts of spelling mistakes. It's embarrassing, but in the end not a big deal and not something that anyone would notice with the exception of a few transit fans.


----------



## aquamaroon




----------



## Shenkey

Insane.

Opponents should bring up one fact.
BYD = China


----------



## BJC450Chicago

aquamaroon said:


> For those wondering why the ridiculous Monorail option (_now with a people mover attached?!?!?!_) is being pushed, the answer seems to be what essentially seems like naked corruption on the LA City Council. For those interested I highly recommend this excellent video by the indispensable YouTuber nandert that goes into exquisite detail as to the politics and crony capitalism behind the Monorail PPP option:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My personal plea, PLEASE get this right LA Metro and don't succumb to flashy renders and slick talking outsiders looking to grease palms for their project. If you get the Sepulveda Pass line wrong, and make no mistake you WILL be getting it wrong if you pick the Monorail option, you will cripple the entire Metro for decades if not forever and turn the entire system, yes the entire system, into nothing but a pale shadow of what it could have been if you had done this line right.


The fact that BYD is a Chinese company should have eliminated them out of hand. The Chinese are running concentration camps for God's sake and that's just the beginning of a hellish country known for unscrupulous business dealings, dangerously cutting corners, and an astonishing lack of accountability. Their proposal shows an ignorant approach to basic transit planning that would be a disservice to every Angeleno. That our elected officials are being bought by the Chinese should worry all of us and they could end up crippling LA's metro system for the rest of our lives. 
And where will the yard be for vehicles that can't be stored or serviced with standard Metro operations? There is a lot of missing information. 
If the Chinese do get the contract, I propose that the media and people name it the Garcetti Line so that when it fails to live up to expectations, Garcetti's name and legacy will be stuck to it like a wart.


----------



## Slartibartfas

The question this boils down to is if LA is going to order its most crucial priorty corridor PT line from Wish or is it buiding a proper one done by specialists with real thought being given to efficient interconnectivity.

No seriously, I am shocked how utterly dysfunctional and criminally useless that Monorail proposal is. And for once I have to defend monorail, one could build a much less dysfunctional monorail line. But it wouldn't be cheaper than the heavy rail option as it would also need considerable tunnel parts. Being cheaper however seems to be the only selling point for that monorail.


----------



## MarshallKnight

For those interested in making comment on the Sepulveda Corridor EIR, the scoping period is open until February 11th. You can email [email protected] or submit online comments here. Here are the comments I sent in today:



> In light of recent scandals, transparency is critical to public trust in this project. *The EIR should include conflict-of-interest disclosures* from the Metro Board and Staff, County Board of Supervisors, and any officials who can affect the outcome.
> 
> 
> An on-campus station at UCLA is a must. Transferring to an additional mode to get to the campus and hospital puts an unacceptable burden on transit riders.* Alternatives 1 & 2 should be eliminated.
> *
> The EIR study should *heavily favor *alternatives with:
> The shortest possible travel times.
> Stress-free, accessible transfers to other transit lines.
> Station locations conducive to transit-oriented development and car-free living.
> The highest possible ridership capacity.
> The ability to integrate with other Long Range Plan projects.
> 
> 
> The EIR study should *give a low score *to alternatives with:
> Stations on or adjacent to freeways.
> Stations requiring long transfers.
> Excessively circuitous routes and/or low-ridership stations.
> 
> 
> It is more important to get this critical infrastructure right than to get it built quickly. The EIR should *underweight each alternative’s cost and time of construction* compared to other factors.


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1467988869945741314
This is moving at a great pace. Or time is just flying past me.


----------



## hkskyline

*28% of L.A. County Metro employees haven’t reported COVID-19 vaccination*
Los Angeles Times _Excerpt_
Dec 6, 2021

More than a quarter of L.A. County Metro employees have yet to show proof that they are vaccinated against COVID-19, despite the transportation authority imposing a recent deadline for workers to get the shots or face possible termination.

The latest figures from Metro indicate that 72% of its employees have shown they were vaccinated. Those numbers, which do not include workers out on leave, are lower among some categories of employees — most notably operators and schedule checkers, who reported only a 58% vaccination rate.

The vaccination numbers raise questions about how Metro will balance its goals of protecting transit riders and maintaining crucial services if high numbers of workers remain out of compliance with its COVID-19 vaccination rules.

More : 28% of L.A. County Metro employees haven't reported COVID-19 vaccination


----------



## redspork02




----------



## redspork02

Do your part Angelinos. 
No to Monorail and yes to HRT.
LA deserves a World Class system. 
This is a big deal.


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1478875915128119301


----------



## MarshallKnight

The Dropbox link in that tweet has some more interesting material that I haven't seen published yet. Most interesting to me is this presentation on the preliminary study of the South Bay Vermont corridor. We all know about the northern portion of the corridor (from Sunset to 120th just south of the C Line) but Metro is apparently simultaneously studying the section of Vermont from 120th down to the PCH J Line station.

As with the northern portion, they're considering center-running and side-running BRT, LRT and HRT alternatives, with at least one alternative branching towards Normandie instead of the 110. Presumably the study will look into the best way to service San Pedro as well: with a transfer to the J Line (which seems to be the default), running the buses/trains on the existing 110 busway from PCH into San Pedro, or along Normandie.

(Apologies to those using the app for the images appearing twice. Something to do with the way they're attached to the post.)















































































































































































It's early days but this is definitely one to keep an eye on. I'd say that only the Sepulveda line will have a larger impact on building out a "complete" Metro system. I'll be rooting for HRT providing a 1-seat ride from San Pedro to North Hollywood.


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1480612537171595264


----------



## Antje

A corridor like that needs Heavy Rail Transit for a non-political reason. I have good reason that it will instantly become a very popular shortcut like the East London Line on the London Overground.


----------



## redspork02

NEXT UP< ESFVT Construction soon, costs blew up.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483713503542198275
Cost of EAST SAN FERNANDO VALLEY TRANSIT LINE has gone up.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483599439122075648

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483596779056775168


----------



## redspork02

D LINE UPDATES BY NUMBLE!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482218170572177409



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483598405951791104

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483598858814992385


----------



## redspork02

REGIONAL CONNECTOR AT 2022 START..........


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1483597875284262918


----------



## redspork02

OLYMPICS AND METRO


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482218200712376321

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482439355184521216

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482217917747924992


----------



## redspork02

WSAB


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482179523583954945

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482169556122492928


----------



## redspork02

K LINE (CRENSHAW/LAX)


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482094514453975042


----------



## boss-ton

Man its freaking awesome to see a US city actually HEAVILY investing in transit for the future! This is going to set LA up great for future growth and sustainability. Houston and Dallas which are both top 10 population wise in the US and dont have a single subway constructed or even planned need to take note. In Boston were expanding the green line and are in the planning stage of connecting red to blue, but we still need to be doing more. Hopefully LA sets the example for others to follow.


----------



## redspork02

Yes, it is great but they are so slow and sometimes Metro is misguided on the type of transport that is needed in specific corridors. They need loud transit citizens to voice support as apposed to NiMBY(S) in the area.

Luckily the majority is behind the expansions.


----------



## aquamaroon

shots from early May of the Grand Ave Arts/Bunker Hill station of the Regional Connector

2nd Pl/Hope Metro Station, Regional Connector by STERLINGDAVISPHOTO, on Flickr


2nd Pl/Hope Metro Station, Regional Connector by STERLINGDAVISPHOTO, on Flickr


2nd Pl/Hope Metro Station, Regional Connector by STERLINGDAVISPHOTO, on Flickr


2nd Pl/Hope Metro Station, Regional Connector by STERLINGDAVISPHOTO, on Flickr


2nd Pl/Hope Metro Station, Regional Connector by STERLINGDAVISPHOTO, on Flickr

More photos on the photographer's Flickr!


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529912470726291456


----------



## redspork02




----------



## lechevallierpatrick

Any news about the Los Angeles downtown streetcar project?


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541519272698159105


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Forgive my ignorance. So they "dedicated" a station, but the line isn't yet operating and as a consequnce the station isn't either, right?
Well, I hope it is not for long anymore.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Forgive my ignorance. So they "dedicated" a station, but the line isn't yet operating and as a consequnce the station isn't either, right?
> Well, I hope it is not for long anymore.


Yeah, it's purely ceremonial. The contractors have handed over most of the Crenshaw Line to Metro for testing, and we're theoretically on track for an opening before the end of 2022... but everything about this project has been mismanaged, so I wouldn't be surprised if they miss that. Even when they do open, it won't be the full line, due to the ongoing construction at the LAX transfer station, and the Centinela grade separation project.

Still. It's exciting to see that Pink "K Line" bullet and Kinkisharyos rolling into a slick new underground station. Leimert Park station is already driving tons of development in the area, with rows of higher density apartments starting to go in along Crenshaw Blvd, like this (covered by Urbanize last year):


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1545600865691545600


----------



## ArnauC37

Love this YouTube channel


----------



## Slartibartfas

I had to laugh here but tell me, isn't such a proposal blasphemy punishable by death in the US?


----------



## ReclusiveBlack

Nandert's videos about L.A.'s transit network are very informative and pretty entertaining as well.

I'm 42 and grew up in and around South (Central) Los Angeles nearly my entire life, and been using public transportation in some way or another since high school. Like many who use Metro and/or the other transit agencies serving Los Angeles County, I've grown frustrated with their way of doing business (well Metro, anyway)...it seems like for every one smart (or semi-intelligent) decision they make, they follow it with five or six more dumbass, bonehead decisions. 

God-willing, I hope that I'm still here on this Earth whenever the northern extension of the K Line, the West Santa Ana and Sepulveda lines, and other projects get built. The only three projects that should be for sure done by 2028 are the Foothill extension to Pomona, the Westside Purple/D Line extension, and the Regional Connector; the way they mismanaged the K Line project pretty much from the start, I actually would be surprised if the Florence/Centinela intersection rebuild was done in time for the 2028 Summer Olympics.


----------



## redspork02

Just SAY NO to MRT!


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Making fun of Nimbys or being a petrol head?


----------



## redspork02

redspork02 said:


> Just SAY NO to MRT!





Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Making fun of Nimbys or being a petrol head?


Oh no, I was being serious. Im with Nandert, his videos. He says no to MRT on the Sepulveda Pass project and I agree. 
Yes to HRT thru the pass. 
Sorry.


----------



## BoulderGrad

redspork02 said:


> Oh no, I was being serious. Im with Nandert, his videos. He says no to MRT on the Sepulveda Pass project and I agree.
> Yes to HRT thru the pass.
> Sorry.


Ah, yes. MRT is commonly used as an acronym for "Mass Rapid Transit" or something similar (Singapore, Bangkok, and Manilla all use "MRT" to refer to their transit systems).


----------



## Slartibartfas

Argh, acronyms ... 
You were talking about monorail... monorail .... MONORAIL!
Weren't you? Yes, of course, no to the "so cheap that you go broke" monorail which is going to ruin the quality of the transit network in the west of LA for generations to come as it has absolutely terrible connections. How any proper transit agency could go for such an obviously terribly bad proposal is beyond me, unless the explanation is corruption.


----------



## redspork02

One thing that caught my attention is the San Bernardino County Transportation Board was looking into the Boring Company to get from Montclair to Ontario Airport..............

I didn't know and looked it up. Yup. What a backwards idea.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Didn't they even actually choose it instead of a functioning PT system, rather than merely looking into it? Or is there still hope?


----------



## redspork02

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Didn't they even actually choose it instead of a functioning PT system, rather than merely looking into it? Or is there still hope?


an unsolicited proposal. Such nonsense by SBCTA.



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1552009824237490176








Elon Musk might not build tunnel to Ontario Airport after all


The tech billionaire is no longer interested in tunnel he proposed, columnist David Allen writes. Also: Plans to develop Filippi Winery in Rancho Cucamonga are on hold.




www.dailybulletin.com







https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/the-boring-company-abandons-plans-for-ontario-airport-loop-in-california/


----------



## MarshallKnight

redspork02 said:


> an unsolicited proposal. Such nonsense by SBCTA.
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1552009824237490176
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elon Musk might not build tunnel to Ontario Airport after all
> 
> 
> The tech billionaire is no longer interested in tunnel he proposed, columnist David Allen writes. Also: Plans to develop Filippi Winery in Rancho Cucamonga are on hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailybulletin.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/the-boring-company-abandons-plans-for-ontario-airport-loop-in-california/


Thrilled that the Boring Co has pulled out — hopefully this gives SBCTA an opportunity to give this a comprehensive rethink. If Brightline HSR is going to serve the Cajon Pass, it makes 1000x more sense to instead build a tunnel extending the train to Ontario Airport, where it could interline with the (very far-off, I know) CAHSR between DTLA and San Diego.


----------



## BJC450Chicago

MarshallKnight said:


> Thrilled that the Boring Co has pulled out — hopefully this gives SBCTA an opportunity to give this a comprehensive rethink. If Brightline HSR is going to serve the Cajon Pass, it makes 1000x more sense to instead build a tunnel extending the train to Ontario Airport, where it could interline with the (very far-off, I know) CAHSR between DTLA and San Diego.


Great news! Hopefully people will stop listening to Elon Musk. The people of San Bernardino County should be embarrassed that their transportation authority is comprised of a bunch of gullible slack jawed yahoos who have no business managing transportation.

Airport stations are a risky prospect at best, especially in the US. European airports have connections to a wide variety of high frequency national and metro rail networks reaching out to many destinations across the region. US airports do not.

LA Metro estimates about 2000 rider/day at LAX for the Crenshaw Line. While Heathrow Underground and National Rail stations gets about 30,000 riders a day, Chicago O'Hare gets about 11,000, SFO BART gets about 5000, and Oakland BART about 1000 (all pre-Covid). So I imagine that Ontario Airport station wouldn't get more riders/day than an average bus stop. Ramping up their bus connection system is all Ontario needs. San Bernardino County has more pressing transit needs.


----------



## MarshallKnight

BJC450Chicago said:


> Great news! Hopefully people will stop listening to Elon Musk. The people of San Bernardino County should be embarrassed that their transportation authority is comprised of a bunch of gullible slack jawed yahoos who have no business managing transportation.
> 
> Airport stations are a risky prospect at best, especially in the US. European airports have connections to a wide variety of high frequency national and metro rail networks reaching out to many destinations across the region. US airports do not.
> 
> LA Metro estimates about 2000 rider/day at LAX for the Crenshaw Line. While Heathrow Underground and National Rail stations gets about 30,000 riders a day, Chicago O'Hare gets about 11,000, SFO BART gets about 5000, and Oakland BART about 1000 (all pre-Covid). So I imagine that Ontario Airport station wouldn't get more riders/day than an average bus stop. Ramping up their bus connection system is all Ontario needs. San Bernardino County has more pressing transit needs.


I know what you're saying about airport rail stations, but I wasn't really talking about the utility of building one at ONT. That's already going to happen -- all of the alternatives for the LA to San Diego CAHSR route include a station there:










What I'm saying is that if Brightline is actually going to bring their HSR route to Rancho Cucamonga, which is a mere 2 miles from the eventual ONT CAHSR station, it would be crazy not to close the gap between the two systems so that Brightline trains can run nonstop to LA Union or San Diego along the planned CAHSR route. Under the current plans, we'd have a Brightline terminus at Rancho Cucamonga that requires a bus/metro/loop transfer to the ONT CAHSR station, or an hour+ ride to DTLA on Metrolink, to get anywhere riders are likely to want to go.

So _this_:










Instead of _this:








_


----------



## Stuu

BJC450Chicago said:


> LA Metro estimates about 2000 rider/day at LAX for the Crenshaw Line.


2000 a day for an airport which serves a million people a week? Is that it?


----------



## BJC450Chicago

MarshallKnight said:


> I know what you're saying about airport rail stations, but I wasn't really talking about the utility of building one at ONT. That's already going to happen -- all of the alternatives for the LA to San Diego CAHSR route include a station there:
> 
> View attachment 3571861
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is that if Brightline is actually going to bring their HSR route to Rancho Cucamonga, which is a mere 2 miles from the eventual ONT CAHSR station, it would be crazy not to close the gap between the two systems so that Brightline trains can run nonstop to LA Union or San Diego along the planned CAHSR route. Under the current plans, we'd have a Brightline terminus at Rancho Cucamonga that requires a bus/metro/loop transfer to the ONT CAHSR station, or an hour+ ride to DTLA on Metrolink, to get anywhere riders are likely to want to go.
> 
> So _this_:
> 
> View attachment 3571923
> 
> 
> Instead of _this:
> 
> View attachment 3571925
> _


It does make sense for both HSR systems to share the same station and interline because at least that makes Ontario Airport a more viable choice by providing access to many more people. The Elon Musk idea was idiotic.


----------



## BJC450Chicago

Stuu said:


> 2000 a day for an airport which serves a million people a week? Is that it?


Yeah, if you think about it LAX will be served by the Crenshaw and Green Lines which only provides access to a very thin slice of LA. People w luggage don't want to make many transfers and most people would need to make several transfers to get to LAX.

Heathrow gets 30,000 transit users a day because several train lines go right into the terminals and people can get to/from all over the London region on a train and even all over England and then easily transfer to a train to Heathrow.

LAX doesn't have that and won't anytime soon. LAX will be lucky if gets 2000 riders a day.


----------



## Amexpat

BJC450Chicago said:


> Yeah, if you think about it LAX will be served by the Crenshaw and Green Lines which only provides access to a very thin slice of LA. People w luggage don't want to make many transfers and most people would need to make several transfers to get to LAX.
> Heathrow gets 30,000 transit users a day because several train lines go right into the terminals and people can get to/from all over the London region on a train and even all over England and then easily transfer to a train to Heathrow.
> LAX doesn't have that and won't anytime soon. LAX will be lucky if gets 2000 riders a day.


It's not just passengers who need transportation to LAX, it's also the thousands of workers there and at associated facilities that need to commute to LAX daily. In contrast to a lot of European airport trains, the Crenshaw line will be low cost and low income workers will transfer to get there to save costs.


----------



## DCUrbanist

BJC450Chicago said:


> Yeah, if you think about it LAX will be served by the Crenshaw and Green Lines which only provides access to a very thin slice of LA. People w luggage don't want to make many transfers and most people would need to make several transfers to get to LAX.
> 
> Heathrow gets 30,000 transit users a day because several train lines go right into the terminals and people can get to/from all over the London region on a train and even all over England and then easily transfer to a train to Heathrow.
> 
> LAX doesn't have that and won't anytime soon. LAX will be lucky if gets 2000 riders a day.


Jarrett Walker talks about the focus on express airport transit as something of "elite projection," in that it's how many people can (only) see themselves using transit the few times a year they go to the airport. As such, there's always this "well, there has to be a train from downtown to the airport!" fixation that misses the fact that airports are also massive service-sector employment centers, and those jobs generate a far bigger portion of trips to/from the airport than most city politicians realize/care. But that only makes up a very small number of total trips a year, and the ridership numbers reflect that: airport express trains have pretty much all been really poorly used for the cost/subsidy they require (see: Stockholm, Toronto, London-Heathrow, Lyon, etc.). Systems useful for both employees and travelers always have higher transit usage, especially if it's "on the way" to something else (see: Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Washington-National, etc.).

Granted, the line won't be as useful to airport transit until the connection to the APM is completed, but I think it'll still be useful to more trips than you expect.


----------



## MarshallKnight

Amexpat said:


> It's not just passengers who need transportation to LAX, it's also the thousands of workers there and at associated facilities that need to commute to LAX daily. In contrast to a lot of European airport trains, the Crenshaw line will be low cost and low income workers will transfer to get there to save costs.





DCUrbanist said:


> Jarrett Walker talks about the focus on express airport transit as something of "elite projection," in that it's how many people can (only) see themselves using transit the few times a year they go to the airport. As such, there's always this "well, there has to be a train from downtown to the airport!" fixation that misses the fact that airports are also massive service-sector employment centers, and those jobs generate a far bigger portion of trips to/from the airport than most city politicians realize/care. But that only makes up a very small number of total trips a year, and the ridership numbers reflect that: airport express trains have pretty much all been really poorly used for the cost/subsidy they require (see: Stockholm, Toronto, London-Heathrow, Lyon, etc.). Systems useful for both employees and travelers always have higher transit usage, especially if it's "on the way" to something else (see: Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Washington-National, etc.).
> 
> Granted, the line won't be as useful to airport transit until the connection to the APM is completed, but I think it'll still be useful to more trips than you expect.


Exactly. LAX is one of the county's largest employers, not to mention the dozens of hotels, rental car facilities and other support facilities in the immediate area, which all employ many blue collar workers/likely transit riders. Add to that the fact that the C and K Lines will both provide one-seat rides to some of LA's most affordable neighborhoods, and it's easy to see how the two LAX stations could have quite high daily ridership before you even factor air travelers into the equation.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Por que no los dos? Yes, a lot of workers live in lower rent neighborhoods. They need access to the airport to. But there are still a lot of travelers at the airport too. A lot of business travelers want to get downtown. Why not serve both? 

This is from the arse of a mildly informed amateur, but couldn't they extend the K line to share trackage with the C line, then it switches over to sharing trackage with the E line to take it downtown to Union Station via the regional connector?


----------



## MarshallKnight

BoulderGrad said:


> Por que no los dos? Yes, a lot of workers live in lower rent neighborhoods. They need access to the airport to. But there are still a lot of travelers at the airport too. A lot of business travelers want to get downtown. Why not serve both?
> 
> This is from the arse of a mildly informed amateur, but couldn't they extend the K line to share trackage with the C line, then it switches over to sharing trackage with the E line to take it downtown to Union Station via the regional connector?


Well you have to remember that Downtown LA isn't like the CBD in most cities. There's as much demand to get from LAX to the Westside, or to Hollywood, or to the Valleys, as there is to DTLA. But assuming there was robust enough demand, the path (I think) you're proposing isn't workable because there's no interchange between the E and K. The K passes below the E at Crenshaw and Exposition and there's no way to move trains from one ROW to the other. And even if there was some way to do it, there's no way Metro adds a third interlined service to the already bottlenecked A/E corridor downtown.

Most LAX-DTLA proposals envision activating the Harbor Subdivision freight ROW along Slauson, essentially as a branch of the K Line that would travel East past the A Line and then north into Union. As of now, that corridor is being transformed into an active transport corridor including bikeways and walking paths, so adding rail there is complicated -- it might have to be a subway, which would probably be prohibitively expensive considering the relatively low ROI.

Another possibility I haven't seen explored is building a C-to-A Line connector on the the freight ROW that passes underneath the C Line at Willowbrook/Rosa Parks and connects directly to the A Line in Watts. Something like this:










It's a wide ROW that currently only has a single freight track. Such a service could conceivably interline with the C Line from LAX along the 105, then interline with the A Line into DTLA (and then with the WSAB up Alameda to Union to avoid the aforementioned triple-interlining on the Regional Connector.)

But Metro has done the modeling and has clearly determined that an LAX-DTLA one-seat ride is simply not a priority compared to the dozens of other projects on their long list. Once the Sepulveda Line and K Line to Hollywood are complete, it'll be possible to get from LAX to virtually anywhere in the Metro network with one transfer. Maybe it's not the dream scenario, but I'd say that's good enough.


----------



## BJC450Chicago

Amexpat said:


> It's not just passengers who need transportation to LAX, it's also the thousands of workers there and at associated facilities that need to commute to LAX daily. In contrast to a lot of European airport trains, the Crenshaw line will be low cost and low income workers will transfer to get there to save costs.


I'm pretty sure Metro took into account where LAX employees live and how many of them use Metro buses today to make their projections. Because the Crenshaw Line will serve only the Crenshaw District, Inglewood, and El Segundo areas and doesn't provide all that much efficient regional connectivity, I think 2000 daily riders is about right, especially when compared to other, and much better, US rapid transit system airport stations. BART SFO Station and DC Metro Raegan Airport Station both get about 5000 riders, BART Oakland Airport about 1000, Chicago O'Hare Airport Station about 11,000, and all of these transit systems provide far more regional connectivity than the Crenshaw Line will.


----------



## BJC450Chicago

DCUrbanist said:


> Jarrett Walker talks about the focus on express airport transit as something of "elite projection," in that it's how many people can (only) see themselves using transit the few times a year they go to the airport. As such, there's always this "well, there has to be a train from downtown to the airport!" fixation that misses the fact that airports are also massive service-sector employment centers, and those jobs generate a far bigger portion of trips to/from the airport than most city politicians realize/care. But that only makes up a very small number of total trips a year, and the ridership numbers reflect that: airport express trains have pretty much all been really poorly used for the cost/subsidy they require (see: Stockholm, Toronto, London-Heathrow, Lyon, etc.). Systems useful for both employees and travelers always have higher transit usage, especially if it's "on the way" to something else (see: Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Washington-National, etc.).
> 
> Granted, the line won't be as useful to airport transit until the connection to the APM is completed, but I think it'll still be useful to more trips than you expect.


My point is that European systems provide far more regional connectivity than most other US airport rapid transit connections provide. But the US airports w rapid transit connections provide far more regional connectivity than the Crenshaw Line will. So, if O'Hare gets 11,000 riders, BART SFO about 5000, considering the reach of those rapid transit systems, I don't see the Crenshaw Line as comparable. So, I think Metro's ridership estimate of 2000 is in line, especially when compared with other US airports with superior rapid transit connections.


----------



## BJC450Chicago

MarshallKnight said:


> Exactly. LAX is one of the county's largest employers, not to mention the dozens of hotels, rental car facilities and other support facilities in the immediate area, which all employ many blue collar workers/likely transit riders. Add to that the fact that the C and K Lines will both provide one-seat rides to some of LA's most affordable neighborhoods, and it's easy to see how the two LAX stations could have quite high daily ridership before you even factor air travelers into the equation.


The C and K lines are good but also are quite limiting in their reach, especially if you're talking about one-seat rides. How many airport area employees live within the reach of the C or K Lines? And of those, how many will take the train? They reach a few affordable neighborhoods but if you map out the LA area's affordable neighborhoods you'll see that the C and K lines probably aren't anywhere near most of them. If you have to transfer from say the Gold or Blue Lines, or take 1 or 2 buses to get to the C or K line, you're adding a lot of extra time and probably a circuitous route as well.

Large airports and their supporting businesses are one of the largest employers in any county they are in so it makes sense to look at ridership in other US cities with airport connections, compare the reach of those systems, and then compare estimates. I'm pretty sure LA Metro knows how many LAX airport workers use transit today and where they live when they made their estimates. As for travelers, few of them will live near the C and K lines. They come from all over. Also, tourists generally want to be in or near Hollywood, or Universal, or Anaheim, or and it will take a long, long time to get there on Metro rail. The vast majority of tourists will not take transit because most don't want to drag their luggage on transit, especially if it doesn't take them straight to where they want to go, and neither the C or K lines will do that. Uber and Airport Shuttles will still get more passengers than transit will, as they do in every other US city.

I brought up the Heathrow systems as a comparison because even with all the regional reach, the multiple lines, and the many national connections they have, they still only get less than 3x more riders (30,000) than Chicago O'Hare (11,000) and Chicago O'Hare has far superior rapid transit service (more connections and trains go right into the terminal) and connectivity than LAX will.

I'm probably repeating myself by now so, apologies for that. I know everyone is excited about the LAX rail lines but, you have to base assumptions on quantifiable realities.


----------



## Slartibartfas

BJC450Chicago said:


> Yeah, if you think about it LAX will be served by the Crenshaw and Green Lines which only provides access to a very thin slice of LA. People w luggage don't want to make many transfers and most people would need to make several transfers to get to LAX.
> 
> Heathrow gets 30,000 transit users a day because several train lines go right into the terminals and people can get to/from all over the London region on a train and even all over England and then easily transfer to a train to Heathrow.
> 
> LAX doesn't have that and won't anytime soon. LAX will be lucky if gets 2000 riders a day.


Yes, I don't now what Metro was thinking there, probably they would have wanted but couldn't. If they Crenshaw line offered a direct continuation towards downtown LA one way or another, it would be an entirely different game. The people mover is adding to the complexity but then, LAX is built in a way that one almost needs such a system anyway and if you are already on it, its not such a big issue if you stay for a few stops more before the transfer.


----------



## redspork02

Here's another great vid by Jon. Thanks Jon.


----------



## 437.001

BJC450Chicago said:


> Yeah, if you think about it LAX will be served by the Crenshaw and Green Lines which only provides access to a very thin slice of LA. People w luggage don't want to make many transfers and most people would need to make several transfers to get to LAX.
> Heathrow gets 30,000 transit users a day because several train lines go right into the terminals and people can get to/from all over the London region on a train and even all over England and then easily transfer to a train to Heathrow.
> LAX doesn't have that and won't anytime soon. LAX will be lucky if gets 2000 riders a day.


There are (or more exactly, soon will be) exactly the same amount of lines in Heathrow airport in London (the Tube's Piccadilly Line, and commuter rail Elizabeth Line) as in LAX (Crenshaw Line, Green Line).
The main difference is the length of each pair of lines.

That said, both in London and in Los Angeles, one can change from one line to the other and go quite far, although obviously one gets to more destinations in London than in Los Angeles due to the different length of their networks, of both the metro and heavy rail (Amtrak, Caltrain, CAHSR, Brightline to Nevada, etc, as opposed to the whole variety of the UK's railways).


----------



## prageethSL




----------



## MarshallKnight

Hell yeah. Love to see that they preemptively left a gap for “D” station, for the eventual stop at Terminal 9/Sepulveda.


----------



## jamesfluker

prageethSL said:


>


I love the quote "We can't wait to welcome you to the airport of the future!". You mean the airport you needed twenty to thirty years ago? lmao


----------



## glksc

It's still very disappointing that they didn't build a direct subway/commuter link to the airport.


----------



## JHPart

If every city and country is working on climate change, we could change something.

Aside the climate problems, a good working public transport system is good for people who don't have a car or are even not allowed to use it by them self. There are also other kind of public transport systems like tramway, light rail and suburban railway that could be developped. A subway system with many tunnel sections is very expensive to build. For the cost of 1 subway line, you could build a lot of tram lines.


----------



## MarshallKnight

JHPart said:


> For the cost of 1 subway line, you could build a lot of tram lines.


And for the cost of a tram line, you could build several dedicated busways and lanes, and increase service on the extensive existing bus network, which goes everywhere but travels too slowly and arrives too irregularly to be competitive with driving.

Trams and light rail are poorly suited to traversing the long distances of LA, which is why it’s so baffling to see Metro continuing to expand those networks into the far reaches of the county. We’d be better served with a more reliable commuter rail network, feeding a small but dense network of a couple underground metro lines in the urban core (ie the LA basin between DTLA and the inner Westside), plus a more robust, efficient bus system for local circulation.

I would reserve trams/light rail for traveling throughout the denser outlying areas of county. A San Pedro/Long Beach LRT network or Santa Monica/Venice/Marina Del Rey LRT network would make a ton of sense (although again, there’s very little that LRT can do that BRT can’t do more cheaply). But taking LRT from those outlying areas all the way to downtown is awful… and yet for reasons this thread has discussed ad nauseam in the past, Metro has decided this worst-of-all-worlds paradigm is what they want to invest in.


----------



## redspork02

Ribbon Cut for New Arrow Train Service from Redlands to San Bernardino


Metrolink will operate the new 9-mile Arrow line, which connects to other Metrolink lines and sbX BRT in downtown San Bernardino




la.streetsblog.org





Technically, its an addition of one LA regional METROLINK station. The Redlands-Downtown Station.










The other stations will be served by a separate light rail train (Metrolink-ARROW) that only goes from San Bernardino Downtown station to Redlands-University. It will stop at all 5 stations. A free transfer will be required if needed.


----------



## redspork02

*Groundbreaking held for advance utility work on East San Fernando Valley light rail project









Groundbreaking held for advance utility work on East San Fernando Valley light rail project


Metro and local officials today celebrated the groundbreaking for advanced utility work on the first segment of the estimated $1.6 to $2 billion East San Fernando Valley light rail project, the fir…




thesource.metro.net





*


> Metro has issued a $9-million contract to W.A. Rasic Construction Company, Inc. of Long Beach to begin relocating existing Los Angeles Department of Water & Power vaults and associated conduit infrastructure along Van Nuys Boulevard in advance of major construction. Metro anticipates awarding its main construction contract early next year. The first rail segment between Van Nuys and Pacoima is scheduled to open between 2028 and 2030.
> 
> The start of advanced utility work marks a significant new milestone in Metro’s goal to bring street-running, local stop rail service back to the San Fernando Valley after 70 years. The last Pacific Electric Red Cars discontinued service along Van Nuys Boulevard in 1952.


----------



## redspork02

Metro to Fully Restore Transit Service December 11


Metro is currently operating 6.7 million annualized revenue service hours. Starting December 12, this increases to 7 million RSH, which is what Metro provided prior to COVID.




la.streetsblog.org


----------



## redspork02

METROLINK ARROW TRAIN REDLANDS CA.


----------



## redspork02

Metro Board approves route for Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 light rail project


The Metro Board approved the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project, which will extend the Metro L (Gold) Line in phases from East Los Angeles …




thesource.metro.net


----------



## redspork02

Construction ramps up for LAX/Metro Transit Center station


After eight months of heavy construction, progress is becoming apparently at the intersection of Aviation Boulevard and 96th Street in Westchester, where Metro is building a $900-million transit hub which will provide a long-awaited rail link to LAX.




la.urbanize.city





This station is starting to take shape. Looking massive. (far left)











__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1603125779243491329

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1603125788303249408

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1603125804992319488


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1605125921442107393


----------



## redspork02

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600630862634430464
This is interesting. Most people support faster route options and are less concerned on how that happens. Which means HRT is preferred.
NO thanks to Bel Air and Sherman Oaks neighborhood NIMBY's.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Is the monorail madness still alive? Public opinion seems to be pretty clear as well specifically on heavy rail vs nonorail.

In the end the biggest deal is efficient and compact transition stations to as many of the other (future and existing) lines as possible. The monorail proposal is absolutely terrible in this regard, actually not terribly but catastrophically incompetent. Let's hope reason and not corruption succeeds and LA gets HR with good with a cohesive set of good transfer options.


----------



## redspork02

Seems like BYD has been meeting with UCLA and the two homeowners associations this past summer breaking their contract rules. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1608704938980544517


----------



## Slartibartfas

Makes sense that the BYD is illegally lobbying against good public transportation in Western LA.


----------



## MarshallKnight

It’s disgusting. Angelenos, be sure to voice your opposition to BYD’s tampering, support real transit on this corridor (ie HRT), and demand transparency in this process by writing to newly elected mayor Karen Bass, county supervisor Lindsey Horvath, and your city council representative.


----------

