|
|
Post by andert on Jun 16, 2021 19:42:35 GMT -8
I've been putting together a new long-term vision map to talk about in a new video when the new LRTP projects are compiled. Here's an annotated version: imgur.com/e8mEsmKI think a crenshaw line extension takes over olive, which means a noho/pas brt conversion that's an extension of an orange line conversion reverts to chandler - and i think by taking the glenoaks route it keeps a wsab extension from going to burbank, but rather ending at glendale. the issue here is that you now have 2 transfers from downtown to burbank airport... at least on metro. if metrolink service is more frequent, there's a direct express. Great map. If only I'd live that long.  "Lower Westside" and "Washington" along PCH in Carson? Typos? Those are in Long Beach actually, and correspond to the neighborhood names in long beach - specifically around PCH/Santa Fe and PCH/Magnolia, respectively. |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jun 17, 2021 19:02:58 GMT -8
Since the Century City to Silver Line SGV would presumably cover the Crenshaw Spur routing, the only thing missing is Crenshaw North extension from the Hollywood Bowl to Burbank (connecting to both WB & Disney lots and hospital by Disney) Wouldn’t that be overkill considering the Red Line will eventually be extended to Burbank airport? My suggestion is it go from NOHO to Burbank Airport and then to Van Nuys ML station via METROLink r.o.w which technically would be a slightly different direction than Crenshaw to Burbank. But they’d be close enough where it seems like overkill to me. I think the lines should look SOMETHING like this: (A) • Long Beach to Azusa (via DTLA; Via Union, Via Pasadena)(B) • Van Nuys ML to Arts District 6th(via NoHollywood; Via Hollywood, Via Vermont; Via DTLA)(C) • Norwalk to Santa Monica (4th)(via Vermont/Athens; Via LAX, Via Lincoln)(If Industry Line built then start Azusa)(D) • Santa Monica (Wiltshire/4th) to Whittier(via Bundy, Via VA, Via UCLA, Via DTLA, Via Union)(E) • Santa Monica (Col Ave) to East LA(via Expo; Via Flower St, Via 7th, Via Little Tokyo)(F) • Sherman Way to Pioneer(via Van Nuys, Via Glendale, Via Dodgers, Via DTLA)(J) • Vermont/Sunset to 120th (HRT/ Red Line) (via Vermont Ave; Via Vermont/Wilshire)(K) • Long Beach to Hollywood Bowl(via Redondo; Via LAX; Via Wilshire, Via Fairfax)(LaXpress) • LAX to Downtown (via Expo; Via Flower St)(N) • Van Nuys ML to SoFi/Clippers (via OL; Via UCLA; Via Westside; Via LAX)(R) • Van Nuys/San Fernando to Pasadena (MP)(via VN; NOHO; Via Burbank; Glendale via Colorado Blvd)(with Rose Bowl spur) |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 18, 2021 7:49:33 GMT -8
Great map. If only I'd live that long. "Lower Westside" and "Washington" along PCH in Carson? Typos? Those are in Long Beach actually, and correspond to the neighborhood names in long beach - specifically around PCH/Santa Fe and PCH/Magnolia, respectively. Oops. I lived in Long Beach for 10 years and never knew that. The Harbor Sub straddles Carson/Wilmington, but I think that most of it is in Carson. A stop at Avalon is what always made sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jun 18, 2021 8:06:45 GMT -8
Those are in Long Beach actually, and correspond to the neighborhood names in long beach - specifically around PCH/Santa Fe and PCH/Magnolia, respectively. Oops. I lived in Long Beach for 10 years and never knew that. The Harbor Sub straddles Carson/Wilmington, but I think that most of it is in Carson. A stop at Avalon is what always made sense to me. Yeah I think that's where I have it, which is actually right on the border. Could easily call the station Carson/Wilmington. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 18, 2021 11:30:42 GMT -8
SFVCOG’s list of strategic projects. They are mostly the same as the Arroyo Verdugo subregion list, since the COG overlaps with the region. They provide more details on options to expand transit to Burbank Airport, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jun 19, 2021 9:02:10 GMT -8
Chatsworth to ONT is nearly 60 miles as the crow flies. Means you can't have any street-running segments in Burbank/Glendale/Eagle Rock and stay on time. It's probably better to just split the service in 1-2 places where it intersects other lines.
Edit: didn't notice it had spilled onto a second page before replying. Was directed at andert.
|
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jun 21, 2021 3:26:15 GMT -8
Chatsworth to ONT is nearly 60 miles as the crow flies. Means you can't have any street-running segments in Burbank/Glendale/Eagle Rock and stay on time. It's probably better to just split the service in 1-2 places where it intersects other lines. Edit: didn't notice it had spilled onto a second page before replying. Was directed at andert. While I agree, I think it’s better to have a handful of really long lines all over the place. That makes for less transfers and more “one seat rides”. Making the system easier to use. If the transfers were made as easy as they should be (off train, up/down stairs and boom step onto the next train) that would also help. Transfers like Crenshaw/Expo have to be addressed and overhauled completely. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 25, 2021 9:03:53 GMT -8
Early data from Metro's congestion pricing study says the concepts focused on Downtown LA would reduce the most traffic and most solo driving. This project seems like it will be politically difficult to implement...
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 25, 2021 9:07:49 GMT -8
Metro will pursue a "quick-build" approach to implementing a BRT on Broadway, which would aim to deliver a BRT project in 1 year instead of the normal 5 year process. I think by "delivery in 1 year" in means focusing on some improvements first and then gradually implementing other elements. They have shown on other streets like Flower that they can implement bus-only lanes pretty quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 29, 2021 11:49:05 GMT -8
Chris Holden secure $1 million in the California state budget to study a Gold Line extension to the Burbank Airport.
|
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jun 29, 2021 17:50:13 GMT -8
Chris Holden secure $1 million in the California state budget to study a Gold Line extension to the Burbank Airport. The better study would be an Orange line to SGV connection. The Red Line should go directly north and connect to the Burbank Airport and then follow METROLink ROW to VanNuys. Back to the topic at hand I think it would be a worthwhile project with *decent* but not great ridership. Enough to justify LRT though. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 7, 2021 9:41:59 GMT -8
According to a public records request I made, the following subregions did not submit their strategic project lists to Metro yet, and Metro extended the deadline for them: Central City Area Subregion (City of LA) Gateway Cities Subregion (Gateway Cities COG) Las Virgenes-Malibu Subregion (Las Virgenes-Malibu COG) North County Subregion (North Los Angeles County Transportation Coalition JPA) lametro.nextrequest.com/requests/21-842 |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 12, 2021 13:19:40 GMT -8
Metro will be doing a "rail integration study" looking at improving regional connectivity and express services on HOV/ExpressLanes, with a focus on improving connections at Metrolink stations in Burbank, Van Nuys and Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 12, 2021 13:20:36 GMT -8
July 2021 overall project status for projects in the planning phase and under construction:
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 13, 2021 9:41:59 GMT -8
Updates on improvements for Antelope Valley Line and potential high-speed rail between Palmdale and Victorville:
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 16, 2021 10:02:16 GMT -8
Some details on LA Metro's just-launched rail integration study, from the contractor's proposal documents. Shows the distance between proposed transfer stations and the study will provide recommendations for improving transfers.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 11, 2021 10:17:39 GMT -8
Has there been an update on when Metro will put out its final list of the collected strategic unfunded projects?
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 11, 2021 10:33:22 GMT -8
Has there been an update on when Metro will put out its final list of the collected strategic unfunded projects? There hasn’t been any update—they aren’t working on any specific schedule, so who knows when it comes out… |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 15, 2021 22:18:52 GMT -8
Unfortunately, I think Metro has a serious long-term problem. Ridership has been falling for quite a few years now even pre-Covid and it is not bouncing back hardly at all. Traffic has mostly come back, but transit ridership still is in the dumps. The Blue Line has less than a 1/3 of its former ridership in its heyday. They didn't even bother to issue the bus ridership numbers for July and I hope that is not from being too embarrassed about the paltry figures.
With the office workday probably never coming back to what it used to be and increased homeless and mentally ill on the busses and trains and related stops and the sidewalks needed to get to those stops, it seems hardly anyone wants to go near transit now. A whole generation has grown up with Uber and not using transit much. I don't see them starting anytime soon. People just don't feel safe on the system or that it is worth it anymore. Some people on my side of town think Expo has brought crime and homelessness in and even though I don't agree with them it is undeniable that homelessness is up remarkably since the train opened and the stations often have homeless encampments right around them.
I see this affecting future funding nationally and locally. I don't think Measure M would have any chance of passing now. Maybe others see things differently, but it doesn't look good for future rail transit IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 17, 2021 14:50:55 GMT -8
Unfortunately, I think Metro has a serious long-term problem. A whole generation has grown up with Uber and not using transit much. I don't see them starting anytime soon. People just don't feel safe on the system or that it is worth it anymore. Some people on my side of town think Expo has brought crime and homelessness in and even though I don't agree with them it is undeniable that homelessness is up remarkably since the train opened and the stations often have homeless encampments right around them. I see this affecting future funding nationally and locally. I don't think Measure M would have any chance of passing now. Maybe others see things differently, but it doesn't look good for future rail transit IMHO. I think they have a problem as well because the folks who run the board don't use the service and are focused on their ribbon cuttings rather than actual measurable benefits. Case in point the Blue Line was shut down for almost a year so that they can install the monitors and do a few infrastructure upgrades. Well after a year most of these monitors on the platforms have been damaged or not even used now and this was before COVID when there were fears of touching things. Yet after all this investment in these screens, they are damaged and don't work. In addition the basic cleanliness of the stations and bus stops are lacking. I am looking for garbage cans not overflowing with trash and stop surfaces looking like they are cleaned once a week rather than once a month. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 18, 2021 12:08:47 GMT -8
The LA City Council Transportation Committee agreed to allocate $235 million in Measure M funding to fully fund the Arts District/6th Street subway extension and spend any leftover funds on the Vermont Transit Corridor and Crenshaw Northern Extension:
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 18, 2021 18:08:21 GMT -8
Unfortunately, I think Metro has a serious long-term problem. A whole generation has grown up with Uber and not using transit much. I don't see them starting anytime soon. People just don't feel safe on the system or that it is worth it anymore. Some people on my side of town think Expo has brought crime and homelessness in and even though I don't agree with them it is undeniable that homelessness is up remarkably since the train opened and the stations often have homeless encampments right around them. I see this affecting future funding nationally and locally. I don't think Measure M would have any chance of passing now. Maybe others see things differently, but it doesn't look good for future rail transit IMHO. I think they have a problem as well because the folks who run the board don't use the service and are focused on their ribbon cuttings rather than actual measurable benefits. Case in point the Blue Line was shut down for almost a year so that they can install the monitors and do a few infrastructure upgrades. Well after a year most of these monitors on the platforms have been damaged or not even used now and this was before COVID when there were fears of touching things. Yet after all this investment in these screens, they are damaged and don't work. In addition the basic cleanliness of the stations and bus stops are lacking. I am looking for garbage cans not overflowing with trash and stop surfaces looking like they are cleaned once a week rather than once a month. I watch many, if not most of the board meetings and I agree with you. The decisions made by this board and their planned path forward will relegate LA metro ridership to only those with no choice and even most of those riders will be looking for alternatives. I still ride metro and plan to do so when I return to the office full time, but I can no longer in good conscience recommend it to anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Aug 19, 2021 3:05:35 GMT -8
Unfortunately, I think Metro has a serious long-term problem. Ridership has been falling for quite a few years now even pre-Covid and it is not bouncing back hardly at all. Traffic has mostly come back, but transit ridership still is in the dumps. The Blue Line has less than a 1/3 of its former ridership in its heyday. They didn't even bother to issue the bus ridership numbers for July and I hope that is not from being too embarrassed about the paltry figures. With the office workday probably never coming back to what it used to be and increased homeless and mentally ill on the busses and trains and related stops and the sidewalks needed to get to those stops, it seems hardly anyone wants to go near transit now. A whole generation has grown up with Uber and not using transit much. I don't see them starting anytime soon. People just don't feel safe on the system or that it is worth it anymore. Some people on my side of town think Expo has brought crime and homelessness in and even though I don't agree with them it is undeniable that homelessness is up remarkably since the train opened and the stations often have homeless encampments right around them. I see this affecting future funding nationally and locally. I don't think Measure M would have any chance of passing now. Maybe others see things differently, but it doesn't look good for future rail transit IMHO. IF THEY DO THESE PROJECTS THE RIGHT WAY ridership will come. A fast, efficient, clean Sepulveda Subway making stops at all the right locations will attract riders. Build Vermont Subway, Crenshaw North, put Flower St underground, put the Purple Line to the beach and add a fifth downtown line with the WSAB. If the system is built out with enough stops in the right spots people will inevitably use it |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Aug 19, 2021 3:06:27 GMT -8
The LA City Council Transportation Committee agreed to allocate $235 million in Measure M funding to fully fund the Arts District/6th Street subway extension and spend any leftover funds on the Vermont Transit Corridor and Crenshaw Northern Extension: So does this mean the station is officially a Go? |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 19, 2021 9:14:20 GMT -8
The LA City Council Transportation Committee agreed to allocate $235 million in Measure M funding to fully fund the Arts District/6th Street subway extension and spend any leftover funds on the Vermont Transit Corridor and Crenshaw Northern Extension: So does this mean the station is officially a Go? I think most of the time when it reaches the point where Metro does an EIR (as opposed to just a feasibility study or an alternatives analysis), those projects are very likely to happen. Though projects are never formally officially approved until the Metro Board approves a final EIR with a proposed project. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 19, 2021 20:20:35 GMT -8
Unfortunately, I think Metro has a serious long-term problem. Ridership has been falling for quite a few years now even pre-Covid and it is not bouncing back hardly at all. Traffic has mostly come back, but transit ridership still is in the dumps. The Blue Line has less than a 1/3 of its former ridership in its heyday. They didn't even bother to issue the bus ridership numbers for July and I hope that is not from being too embarrassed about the paltry figures. With the office workday probably never coming back to what it used to be and increased homeless and mentally ill on the busses and trains and related stops and the sidewalks needed to get to those stops, it seems hardly anyone wants to go near transit now. A whole generation has grown up with Uber and not using transit much. I don't see them starting anytime soon. People just don't feel safe on the system or that it is worth it anymore. Some people on my side of town think Expo has brought crime and homelessness in and even though I don't agree with them it is undeniable that homelessness is up remarkably since the train opened and the stations often have homeless encampments right around them. I see this affecting future funding nationally and locally. I don't think Measure M would have any chance of passing now. Maybe others see things differently, but it doesn't look good for future rail transit IMHO. IF THEY DO THESE PROJECTS THE RIGHT WAY ridership will come. A fast, efficient, clean Sepulveda Subway making stops at all the right locations will attract riders. Build Vermont Subway, Crenshaw North, put Flower St underground, put the Purple Line to the beach and add a fifth downtown line with the WSAB. If the system is built out with enough stops in the right spots people will inevitably use it Well, you certainly could have said that before we started building our rail system. However, 35 years ago Metro had higher ridership with no rail whatsoever so there are certainly other factors in play. The trends are not good at all no matter what Metro builds. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 19, 2021 20:46:50 GMT -8
Well, you certainly could have said that before we started building our rail system. However, 35 years ago Metro had higher ridership with no rail whatsoever so there are certainly other factors in play. The trends are not good at all no matter what Metro builds. Did LA Metro even exist 35 years ago? I think that was RTD and Metro bus service doesn't cover as much as RTD did because Metro gave up many of the prime intercity routes to the munis. If you look at total bus and train ridership for Metro and the munis now, I can't imagine that it's lower than 35 years ago, but I could be wrong. By "now" I mean pre-covid. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 19, 2021 23:53:06 GMT -8
Well, you certainly could have said that before we started building our rail system. However, 35 years ago Metro had higher ridership with no rail whatsoever so there are certainly other factors in play. The trends are not good at all no matter what Metro builds. Did LA Metro even exist 35 years ago? I think that was RTD and Metro bus service doesn't cover as much as RTD did because Metro gave up many of the prime intercity routes to the munis. If you look at total bus and train ridership for Metro and the munis now, I can't imagine that it's lower than 35 years ago, but I could be wrong. By "now" I mean pre-covid. RTD had 1.6M weekday riders in 1985. Metro had about 1.2M riders just before COVID. You can say they lost some routes but I don’t think they gave up too many prime routes to the Munis except Foothill. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 20, 2021 20:23:49 GMT -8
Did LA Metro even exist 35 years ago? I think that was RTD and Metro bus service doesn't cover as much as RTD did because Metro gave up many of the prime intercity routes to the munis. If you look at total bus and train ridership for Metro and the munis now, I can't imagine that it's lower than 35 years ago, but I could be wrong. By "now" I mean pre-covid. RTD had 1.6M weekday riders in 1985. Metro had about 1.2M riders just before COVID. You can say they lost some routes but I don’t think they gave up too many prime routes to the Munis except Foothill. Thanks. Adding Foothill Transit, lots of Long Beach and other munis wouldn't add enough to match 1.6 million, so I stand corrected. Some of it imo is a leadership problem, but it's also a national problem. Metro isn't unique in losing riders. Many agencies peaked at the same time as metro, like NYC and DC. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 30, 2021 7:55:41 GMT -8
Metro left large section of SGV and South Bay which accounts for some of the ridership decrease. But I think more to the point, the biggest driver in Metro's ridership decline is the suburbs to Downtown commute pattern has changed significantly so the rail and bus network didn't really evolve to meet this change. Too many buses still run to/thru DTLA and no rail serving the Westside and SFV-SGV and SFV-Westside commutes that have grown significantly since the 1980s.
30 years ago, there were much less job density in West LA for example. Century City was just starting to emerge, and Westwood and Santa Monica were considered bedroom communities. I-10 between Santa Monica and DTLA had only one-direction peak traffic. I remember driving from USC to Santa Monica during the morning rush hour in 20 minutes (the reverse was a lot longer obviously even back then). That doesn't happen today.
|
|
