|
|
Post by numble on Jan 18, 2022 9:45:33 GMT -8
Some of these items are long overdue, like extending the Expo line trench and accept credit cards and congestion pricing at LAX. Also interesting solution combining USC and Vermont station into a single multi-platform underground (trenched) station. Makes plenty of sense given that Coliseum is the main venue so Metro will want to stage empty trains at the USC/Vermont station for peak capacity demand. Plus trenching the station now and building it bigger will enable it to handle future transfers from Vermont subway all via underground access. The current Expo station at Vermont and the street crossing will get easily overwhelmed if the subway train dumps 100 people at the intersection every 2 minutes. However, extending D line to Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica... surely that cannot be done before 2028? The EIR is done but will probably need to be updated so that takes conservatively a year with no lawsuits (yea right..). And let say the tunnel machine from phase 2 goes over and start phase 4 tunnel in 2025, and we do 3 underground stations construction concurrently in Santa Monica/Brentwood 24/7 with 150 truck loads per day with no NIMBY complaints (ha!). I still don't see how that could get done in 30 months. As mentioned by Nick/andert, the huge chart has some columns that hint at some projects that will be removed when they narrow down the list. They definitively say NO to some projects that can't be completed by 2028. It sounds like there might be some potential Olympic funding from the Olympic organizers, as well as the federal government and state government, but it sounds like they think the requirement for Olympic funding will be that the project must be completed by the Olympics. |
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Mar 9, 2022 19:29:49 GMT -8
With Gasoline prices at a all time here in Los Angeles CA. Has ridership om Metro and Metrolink started to increase yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Mar 9, 2022 22:20:40 GMT -8
There usually is like 1-2 months time lag before they report ridership for a month, so we won't see for awhile. It will probably be hard to tell what is responsible for any change in ridership, as the time period also corresponds to a big service cut and resuming fare collection.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 11, 2022 16:27:50 GMT -8
With Gasoline prices at a all time here in Los Angeles CA. Has ridership om Metro and Metrolink started to increase yet. There is an article in the LA Times today, which states Metrolink has seen an 8% jump in ridership week over week. Metro just posted their ridership numbers for Feb. 2022 and it is 748k, which is higher than Jan., but still well below Nov., which was 845k. Of course, buses were free in Nov., which artificially props up that number. Just taking the rail numbers, then Nov. and Feb. are the same at 179k weekday riders, which is about half of what it used to be a decade or so ago. They were theoretically charging fares for rail in both periods so that is more apples to apples. The same LA Times article goes on about the crime problems on Metro and how it has turned off long time riders. I can vouch for that myself. I've seen open hardcore drug use more and more on MetroRail. The trains are filthy, there are more fights and someone got stabbed at an Expo station recently. The last two times I used Expo I had to wait over 35 minutes at night to get my return train. Headways are 20 minutes late at night, so obviously they are cancelling runs or having other issues. The driver shortage is getting worse, not better as more and more are leaving and it is often due to them feeling unsafe themselves. This is the worst I have seen Metro in my 40+ years of using the system in some capacity. I am going to use the system less going forward until things are fixed. I am already pretty much done ever using Metro busses again (only BBB for me the last few years and going forward). |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 12, 2022 6:36:35 GMT -8
With Gasoline prices at a all time here in Los Angeles CA. Has ridership om Metro and Metrolink started to increase yet. There is an article in the LA Times today, which states Metrolink has seen an 8% jump in ridership week over week. Metro just posted their ridership numbers for Feb. 2022 and it is 748k, which is higher than Jan., but still well below Nov., which was 845k. Of course, buses were free in Nov., which artificially props up that number. Just taking the rail numbers, then Nov. and Feb. are the same at 179k weekday riders, which is about half of what it used to be a decade or so ago. They were theoretically charging fares for rail in both periods so that is more apples to apples. The same LA Times article goes on about the crime problems on Metro and how it has turned off long time riders. I can vouch for that myself. I've seen open hardcore drug use more and more on MetroRail. The trains are filthy, there are more fights and someone got stabbed at an Expo station recently. The last two times I used Expo I had to wait over 35 minutes at night to get my return train. Headways are 20 minutes late at night, so obviously they are cancelling runs or having other issues. The driver shortage is getting worse, not better as more and more are leaving and it is often due to them feeling unsafe themselves. This is the worst I have seen Metro in my 40+ years of using the system in some capacity. I am going to use the system less going forward until things are fixed. I am already pretty much done ever using Metro busses again (only BBB for me the last few years and going forward). Agree 100%. I relied on metro for my daily commute for years but stopped during the pandemic and haven't restarted due to it being unbelievably bad the few times that I did ride. Metro has been getting progressively worse (there's a pun in there) and losing ridership for years. Many of the choice riders (people with alternatives) that I know abandoned metro a year or two before the pandemic due to safety concerns or actual incidents and my anecdotal experience was reflected in declining ridership trends. Most people with alternatives have left and many will never come back. I've said before and I really believe that the current metro board has no interest in operating a great or even good system. I think that they see metro's primary role as a safety net for people that can't afford cars. They get excited about making it free, making it more equitable, but no one ever suggests making it better. They know that the poor will always have to ride regardless of quality, so they don't see a need to make it better. Just good enough. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 5, 2022 18:36:05 GMT -8
It looks like Metro has hired Sharon Gookin as its Deputy CEO. She was in charge of the design and construction of the LAX People Mover at the P3 consortium that is building and will be operating the People Mover.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 13, 2022 11:31:38 GMT -8
That's a good hire I think. The APM project has stayed on schedule and budget... unlike the unmitigated disaster Crenshaw line.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 14, 2022 12:08:54 GMT -8
I've been reading through the reports linked from numble's tweet on Metro's BRT study (below) trying to get some clarity on if they intend *all* of these BRT lines to be branded as Busways with line indicators on the rail map.
And I gotta say I'm still really confused. They make a distinction between full BRT and BRT-lite, but they seem to say, as far as I can tell, that *both* would be branded on maps with their own letter and color.
However, I also remember when the Wilshire bus lanes project was referred to as the 'Wilshire BRT', even though metro never refers to it as such now. Is that because it doesn't meet the other standards of BRT laid out here, and these new bus-lane-running-lines would?
And if all these new bus-lane BRT lines are displayed on the map, would stations be shown, like with the entire G line and the J line portions in the freeway HOV lanes, or would they be entirely 'street-service' dashed lines like the J line in downtown and San Pedro? Because some of these street stops ARE on dedicated bus lanes... but is it more that the stops themselves don't meet the full 'station' BRT requirement?
If you can't tell, I'm losing my mind trying to figure out to display all the BRT plans on the map for my next video... trying to replicate what metro will do, whatever that is. Because after measure J and other current plans, you gotta add NoHo/Pas BRT, Vermont BRT (including a portion that will run above B line service), Lincoln BRT, apparently NOT North Valley BRT (as they are downgrading plans), the 'strategic BRT' corridors of Sunset, Atlantic, Venice, Broadway, and La Cienega, and the results of the 710 money BRT (valley blvd) and the SR60 gold line money BRT (prob also valley boulevard and I'm assuming rosemead). We're nearly going to run out of letters!
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 15, 2022 22:59:01 GMT -8
I've been reading through the reports linked from numble's tweet on Metro's BRT study (below) trying to get some clarity on if they intend *all* of these BRT lines to be branded as Busways with line indicators on the rail map. And I gotta say I'm still really confused. They make a distinction between full BRT and BRT-lite, but they seem to say, as far as I can tell, that *both* would be branded on maps with their own letter and color. However, I also remember when the Wilshire bus lanes project was referred to as the 'Wilshire BRT', even though metro never refers to it as such now. Is that because it doesn't meet the other standards of BRT laid out here, and these new bus-lane-running-lines would? And if all these new bus-lane BRT lines are displayed on the map, would stations be shown, like with the entire G line and the J line portions in the freeway HOV lanes, or would they be entirely 'street-service' dashed lines like the J line in downtown and San Pedro? Because some of these street stops ARE on dedicated bus lanes... but is it more that the stops themselves don't meet the full 'station' BRT requirement? If you can't tell, I'm losing my mind trying to figure out to display all the BRT plans on the map for my next video... trying to replicate what metro will do, whatever that is. Because after measure J and other current plans, you gotta add NoHo/Pas BRT, Vermont BRT (including a portion that will run above B line service), Lincoln BRT, apparently NOT North Valley BRT (as they are downgrading plans), the 'strategic BRT' corridors of Sunset, Atlantic, Venice, Broadway, and La Cienega, and the results of the 710 money BRT (valley blvd) and the SR60 gold line money BRT (prob also valley boulevard and I'm assuming rosemead). We're nearly going to run out of letters! I think you've captured most of what is going on. One thing is that with what is going on for the North SFV, and from questions currently being asked about Vermont BRT, there always is a possibility that some of these corridors will be like what happened to Wilshire, getting some improvements like better shelters and bus lanes, but not really getting a full BRT. One issue with their bus driver shortage is whether they can staff with enough drivers to provide sufficient headways expected for BRT service. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 17, 2022 15:05:16 GMT -8
I *think* (because who knows what Metro is planning) the distinction between lettered BRT and "upgraded" busway like Wilshire Blvd within City of LA border or Lincoln Blvd within Santa Monica border is going to be stop distances, road use supremacy, and service modes. At least that makes sense to me.
Stop distance is obvious... Wilshire and Lincoln have normal bus stop on basically every block for local service and every major intersection for "Rapid" service. BRT presumably will do away with local stop on each block and sticks with "Rapid" like stop spacing, or even longer gaps between stations.
Road use supremacy is always problematic because the city owns the road but Metro operates the service. Wilshire and Lincoln are not true BRT because the bus lane disappears when it enters certain jurisdiction and when the clock strikes some random hour. True BRT runs substantially the entire length in dedicated lane and should maintain that regardless of time or days of the week.
Service mode is probably another thing Metro is grabbling with. BRT should have consistent service mode in the corridor - both for operational efficiency (bunching) and passenger clarity. Mixed local, rapid, and express service on the same BRT trunk may seem like a good idea but it actually detracts from the quality of the BRT service. If passengers have to guess whether the next bus will stop at certain station on the BRT route, it is more like what we have on Wilshire and less like what we have on the G line. True BRT overseas usually see consistent service modes on the BRT trunk and may branch off or become "Rapid" or local service once it leaves the BRT trunk.
So if you considered all 3 factors and how Metro plans to operate in certain corridors, you may be able to draw some fairly good guess at why and how Metro may decide NoHo/Pas line is BRT but the North Valley one is just upgraded bus lane.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 28, 2022 11:17:13 GMT -8
In my opinion what makes a route a "busway" is a combination of the infrastructure and the service. Even then it's somewhat arbitrary. Like why are only services that travel the entirety of the 10 fwy busway and Harbor freeway busway labeled as a busway service on the map despite the fact that they are really two different busways separated by 20 minutes of surface streets? Would a service that used the 10 fwy busway and Atlantic be branded as a separate "line". It can get very arbitrary.
But to my point about infrastructure, it appears to me that a "busway" would need to have infrastructure significant enough that it won't go away. It would be similar to rail lines in that it's "permanent". The bus stations on the freeway stations, the dedicated bus lane and stations on the G line imply longevity. There will always be buses there (unless they are converted to rail, which is even better). Adding bus-only lanes on a surface street doesn't meet this standard imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jun 15, 2022 11:10:45 GMT -8
Potentially even more olympics money opening up, this time federal:
Worth noting what Metro has admitted it cannot open by 28 now, meaning it is ineligible for all this fed and state money: WSAB, Eastside, Sepulveda, Crenshaw north, vermont rail, plus a bunch of other non-measure M obvious ones like B to burbank airport or D to ocean ave.
What they've stated CAN be open by then with proper funding, besides the stuff already planned to open by then anyway, is basically all the BRTs (Vermont, Lincoln, Broadway, Atlantic, La Cienega, Venice, Sunset), Foothill 2B (montclair), C to torrance (currently still planned for 2031), arts district, washington/flower rebuild, LinkUS phase A, Metrolink Score phase 1, Metrolink River Park infill. And presumably Inglewood APM (already supposed to open by 2027 but still cobbling funding).
I think the obvious thing to get funded first is Inglewood APM, then maybe washington/flower. I think a LOT of projects already scheduled to open anyway will get funding infusions to protect against budget shortfalls to ensure they remain on track (like ESFV, the most in danger of falling behind), and MAYBE C to torrance gets funded to accelerate it 3 years to have another 28x28 project. I think foothill 2B will already get funded out of state surplus and arts already has Measure M funding identified and is also looking into a downtown EIFD (also to apply to washington/flower and phase 2 of WSAB, though not phase 1 because the gateway cities don't want an EIFD). I feel like if lucky maybe one our two BRTs could get funding. Broadway is supposed to be first, so maybe that, along with either Lincoln or Venice? whichever would have most relevance to the olympics. Could see LinkUS and Metrolink Score getting some funds as well.
HUGE bummer sepulveda can't take any of this money. If we were 2-3 years ahead on planning it would be the obvious shoo-in for all this extra money.
What do you all think?
EDIT: actually taking a closer look, Broadway then Vermont score highest among BRT, and then for rail basically everything scores high except for foothill 2B and arts, so c torrance is probably first in line after inglewood APM. Wash/Flower, Link US, and SCORE score highly as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 15, 2022 21:01:16 GMT -8
Potentially even more olympics money opening up, this time federal: Worth noting what Metro has admitted it cannot open by 28 now, meaning it is ineligible for all this fed and state money: WSAB, Eastside, Sepulveda, Crenshaw north, vermont rail, plus a bunch of other non-measure M obvious ones like B to burbank airport or D to ocean ave. What they've stated CAN be open by then with proper funding, besides the stuff already planned to open by then anyway, is basically all the BRTs (Vermont, Lincoln, Broadway, Atlantic, La Cienega, Venice, Sunset), Foothill 2B (montclair), C to torrance (currently still planned for 2031), arts district, washington/flower rebuild, LinkUS phase A, Metrolink Score phase 1, Metrolink River Park infill. And presumably Inglewood APM (already supposed to open by 2027 but still cobbling funding). I think the obvious thing to get funded first is Inglewood APM, then maybe washington/flower. I think a LOT of projects already scheduled to open anyway will get funding infusions to protect against budget shortfalls to ensure they remain on track (like ESFV, the most in danger of falling behind), and MAYBE C to torrance gets funded to accelerate it 3 years to have another 28x28 project. I think foothill 2B will already get funded out of state surplus and arts already has Measure M funding identified and is also looking into a downtown EIFD (also to apply to washington/flower and phase 2 of WSAB, though not phase 1 because the gateway cities don't want an EIFD). I feel like if lucky maybe one our two BRTs could get funding. Broadway is supposed to be first, so maybe that, along with either Lincoln or Venice? whichever would have most relevance to the olympics. Could see LinkUS and Metrolink Score getting some funds as well. HUGE bummer sepulveda can't take any of this money. If we were 2-3 years ahead on planning it would be the obvious shoo-in for all this extra money. What do you all think? EDIT: actually taking a closer look, Broadway then Vermont score highest among BRT, and then for rail basically everything scores high except for foothill 2B and arts, so c torrance is probably first in line after inglewood APM. Wash/Flower, Link US, and SCORE score highly as well. I guess my reaction to it is 1) that its hard to predict what gets passed in Congress these days and 2) this isn't actually extra money (and it would be harder to pass if it was extra money), it's just saying the DOT can prioritize projects that serve the Olympics. Metro usually does well anyway when competing for federal transit grants since it has a lot of sales tax money and it is in the second largest city. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jun 15, 2022 23:07:27 GMT -8
Ah. Well, that makes sense. And yeah, probably not good to get too optimistic about anything passing congress.
|
|
|
|
Post by sfvtransitnerd on Jun 21, 2022 16:42:44 GMT -8
This is especially the case if the Rs win back Congress in November. Remember that your ABCs in Congress stand for "anywhere but California".
|
|
expo
Junior Member
Posts: 71 
|
Post by expo on Aug 11, 2022 9:33:09 GMT -8
I'm reading that state courts have now established that the 2/3rds referendum requirement does not apply to "citizen initiatives", which now only need 50%+1. Given that, it seems like a no brainer that a civic group (maybe Move LA?) should put forward a referendum to fund a truly urban rail system, rather than a geographically distributed one that is aimed at getting suburban and exurban support in an effort to cross the 2/3rds threshold. Does anyone know if there is anyone organizing for this? It would likely need to be on the 2024 ballot, both in terms of timing and for chances of passing.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Aug 12, 2022 12:04:58 GMT -8
I'm reading that state courts have now established that the 2/3rds referendum requirement does not apply to "citizen initiatives", which now only need 50%+1. Given that, it seems like a no brainer that a civic group (maybe Move LA?) should put forward a referendum to fund a truly urban rail system, rather than a geographically distributed one that is aimed at getting suburban and exurban support in an effort to cross the 2/3rds threshold. Does anyone know if there is anyone organizing for this? It would likely need to be on the 2024 ballot, both in terms of timing and for chances of passing. Be careful what you wish for. Remember MoveLA is being currently funded by BYD and led by Denny Zane, who has recently advocated for the monorail over the Sepulveda pass, could put a measure on the Ballot reflecting that view. If it passed, we’d be stuck with a monorail |
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Aug 13, 2022 17:05:13 GMT -8
I'm reading that state courts have now established that the 2/3rds referendum requirement does not apply to "citizen initiatives", which now only need 50%+1. Given that, it seems like a no brainer that a civic group (maybe Move LA?) should put forward a referendum to fund a truly urban rail system, rather than a geographically distributed one that is aimed at getting suburban and exurban support in an effort to cross the 2/3rds threshold. Does anyone know if there is anyone organizing for this? It would likely need to be on the 2024 ballot, both in terms of timing and for chances of passing. I think LA county is already at the maximum allowable sales tax of 10.25%. So even if they could pass another one. I don't they would be allowed to collect under state law. |
|
expo
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by expo on Aug 22, 2022 11:58:48 GMT -8
Good point on Move LA - I hadn't been following what they're up to. We definitely don't want a dumb monorail system being proposed!
As for the tax cap, I'm wondering if there's another tax that could be proposed. A parcel tax would be ideal, although that may run afoul of Prop 13.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 28, 2022 7:58:37 GMT -8
As presented to the Metro Operations & Safety Committee earlier this month, there was a homicide at 7th/metro on 8/16/22 and another homicide at Westlake Station on 7/27/22. Had anyone heard about these? I hadn't, nor do I see that either were mentioned in any local news sources. Property crime, violent crime, operator assaults,...are all up, but the Safety Committee can't be bothered with such things and expressed no concern nor had any questions or comments about any of these.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 28, 2022 19:31:51 GMT -8
As presented to the Metro Operations & Safety Committee earlier this month, there was a homicide at 7th/metro on 8/16/22 and another homicide at Westlake Station on 7/27/22. Had anyone heard about these? I hadn't, nor do I see that either were mentioned in any local news sources. Property crime, violent crime, operator assaults,...are all up, but the Safety Committee can't be bothered with such things and expressed no concern nor had any questions or comments about any of these. I had seen on twitter that dead bodies were found on train platforms on both 8/15 and 8/16. One was a 23 year old. Other guy was older. Didn’t say cause of death. I searched for news on this as I was curious what happened but found nothing. The fact that this doesn’t make any news or mention by Metro is quite disturbing. It seems the Board and Metro is trying to keep this quiet or are we so desensitized to murder on Metro that it is considered no big deal. Crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 29, 2022 11:13:36 GMT -8
As presented to the Metro Operations & Safety Committee earlier this month, there was a homicide at 7th/metro on 8/16/22 and another homicide at Westlake Station on 7/27/22. Had anyone heard about these? I hadn't, nor do I see that either were mentioned in any local news sources. Property crime, violent crime, operator assaults,...are all up, but the Safety Committee can't be bothered with such things and expressed no concern nor had any questions or comments about any of these. I had seen on twitter that dead bodies were found on train platforms on both 8/15 and 8/16. One was a 23 year old. Other guy was older. Didn’t say cause of death. I searched for news on this as I was curious what happened but found nothing. The fact that this doesn’t make any news or mention by Metro is quite disturbing. It seems the Board and Metro is trying to keep this quiet or are we so desensitized to murder on Metro that it is considered no big deal. Crazy. It's not often that homicides don't get at least a mention in the news. This was two homicides at metro stations which I've never heard of similar incidents not making the news. The second was on the heels of the accident at La Brea and Slauson, so maybe that took all of the room on the LA Times Internet? |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 29, 2022 13:53:18 GMT -8
I had seen on twitter that dead bodies were found on train platforms on both 8/15 and 8/16. One was a 23 year old. Other guy was older. Didn’t say cause of death. I searched for news on this as I was curious what happened but found nothing. The fact that this doesn’t make any news or mention by Metro is quite disturbing. It seems the Board and Metro is trying to keep this quiet or are we so desensitized to murder on Metro that it is considered no big deal. Crazy. It's not often that homicides don't get at least a mention in the news. This was two homicides at metro stations which I've never heard of similar incidents not making the news. The second was on the heels of the accident at La Brea and Slauson, so maybe that took all of the room on the LA Times Internet? How many murders is that on LA Metro (either on the trains/busses or stations) in the last year? I believe it is at least 7. However, maybe I don't even know about others now. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 30, 2022 11:01:02 GMT -8
There have been 3 homicides this year and 5 last year.
The homicides this year were one in January, one in July and one in august.
I don’t know the breakdown for last year but I think that most were in the second half of the year. That means that metro has had maybe 6 or 7 homicides in the last year. That doesn’t include attempted murders where people that were shot and stabbed survived.
The ambassador program starts soon, so maybe that will help.
|
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Sept 14, 2022 7:38:47 GMT -8
Metro search warrants served today 09/14/2022. Pay to play former head of metro Washington. KTTV 11 has coverage.
|
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Feb 22, 2024 12:39:20 GMT -8
Today 02/22/2024 the LAMTA board is voting on the Dodger Stadium gondola. Seems to be another boon dogele.
|
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Feb 26, 2024 16:03:28 GMT -8
The Metro board did approve the Dodger Gondola concept last week. Still unknown if it will be built. Hope not. Los Angeles has a lot more important needs for transit money.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 28, 2024 12:51:10 GMT -8
The Metro board did approve the Dodger Gondola concept last week. Still unknown if it will be built. Hope not. Los Angeles has a lot more important needs for transit money. It is privately funded so it has no effect on Metro’s finances or any other projects. |
|
