The public comment I’ll be submitting for the K Line Northern Extension: Hello, I’m a resident of the Fairfax District, and am writing in fervent support of the K Line Northern extension, and in support of accelerating it to begin construction as quickly as possible. Whichever alignment is chosen, I will be making heavy use of the extension, and believe it will be a massive boon for the area. I especially urge LA city and LA county to join WeHo in forming an EIFD to provide the necessary funding for the project as early as possible, as it is far too crucial of a link to hold off building until the 2040s. I do have a specific concern about the project, however. In comparison to similar light rail projects around the world, and indeed even similar LA Metro light rail projects, this extension seems wildly over-engineered, contributing to its massive cost. Every single station has been designed with a long, high-speed crossover except for Santa Monica/La Brea, which is wildly out of step with design standards worldwide. With underground station boxes being by far the biggest driver of construction costs and lengthy timelines for metro projects, to design this extension in such a way seems self-sabotaging. I would urge Metro staff and the Metro board to consider reducing the number of crossovers to one every third station, siting one at the terminus of each phase, and reducing the length of the crossovers to be more in line with other Metro light rail lines (the crossovers as designed are lengthier than the B and D line heavy rail crossovers, and a full 33% longer than Metro’s most recently constructed underground light rail crossover at Historic Broadway). This would reduce station box excavation needs drastically, and likely allow the project to be delivered for billions less, and years sooner. This DEIR is suggesting digging two lines’ worth of station boxes instead of one, and it would be in the best service to the needs of the community to eliminate the over-engineered crossovers and deliver the project sooner and more affordably. As a guaranteed future rider, I will gladly settle for longer headways when a track needs to be closed to be able to ride the line sooner. And if Metro feels that these long and frequent crossovers are somehow necessary, the public deserves a robust explanation as to why. Finally, I have some comments on specific stations. For the Fairfax/3rd station, if the hybrid alignment is chosen and the crossover is eliminated, I support siting the platform north of 3rd street instead of south, where the crossover is currently sited. This would allow the main entrance to be adjacent to the farmer’s market (where the optional 2nd entrance is now), eliminating the need for another entrance, as this is a much better location than the southeast corner of the intersection. And if the Fairfax alignment is chosen, I would strongly prefer this station be sited at Beverly/Fairfax instead of 3rd/Fairfax, for two reasons. First, it allows for better station spacing and increases the line’s total catchment area, and second, it would much better facilitate a future connection to an east-west line on Beverly, which is the likely route a future east-west line would need to take if the Fairfax alignment is chosen, since it would preclude a Santa Monica Blvd east-west line. Television City provides a strong ridership driver, and the station could be sited on the south side of the intersection, allowing a second entrance to be built closer to the Grove and Farmers Market. For the Santa Monica/Fairfax station, I am in favor of the 2nd entrance option, to avoid needing to tear down the grocery store on the site of option 1. For Santa Monica/La Brea, I am in favor of adding a pedestrian tunnel that would connect to the lower level of West Hollywood Gateway, which will be a great ridership driver. While understanding that the economics of the station may not work out due to the geologic conditions making excavation particularly expensive, I am at least conceptually in favor of a station at the Hollywood Bowl, and would utilize it quite often. It would also help to massively reduce the traffic bottleneck that occurs there constantly on summer evenings, and encourage a larger swath of the general public to familiarize themselves with the Metro and become comfortable using it. Whether the station is built as a part of this extension or not, I feel that a future extension to Burbank should ultimately be built, and the Hollywood Bowl station be constructed then if it is not feasible now. If the bowl station is built, entrance option 1 would be far more convenient for concertgoers. And finally, should the hybrid alignment be chosen, I urge to Metro to at least consider adding two junction boxes, one to the east of Santa Monica/La Brea station, and one under the intersection of Santa Monica/Holloway (under publicly-owned land), to facilitate interlining with a future Santa Monica Blvd line that could join the East San Fernando Valley line to the north and the Southeast Gateway Line to the south. While junction boxes would not be cheap, and their value would not be realized until many years into the future, future-proofing our system for the next generation feels like the responsible thing to do… and they’re at least cheaper than five or six unnecessary massive crossovers. I sincerely look forward to riding this line often, and as soon as possible. Thank you! Sincerely, Nick Andert Resident, Fairfax District
I definitely agree with your point about the overuse of crossovers and how they are going to drive up the cost exponentially due to them... One HSR for every 3 normal ones seems OK and the total amount probably should be cut in half overall.. Here in Edmonton, I think for the mile-long subway the LRT uses under the CBD, there are 3 crossovers NONE high speed and they are use so infrequently that most people forget about them... And we have 5-car, 125M/410' LRT trains using that need 150m long platforms so it's not like we cut corners with large station boxes...
Great comment! Out of curiosity, do you have any links that could be included to show examples of what the design standard is for crossovers? Would love to throw some of those in my comment. Thanks!
That area needs a loop (Hollywood to WeHo) or a partial loop it can interface with the future Santa Monica-Southgate line and possibly loop at Western or connect/parallel the North Hollywood line. Going up Fairfax would be the better choice for ridership and possibly Hollywood bowl extension. I hope they do more feasibility studies for East to West possible connections for Beverly.
Hey Nandert. Great video. We appreciate your support and smart questions about this project. About the crossovers: K Line Northern Extension will have transfers to both the B and D Line subway, which historically has been our rail line with the most ridership. As the subway is extended and runs more frequently, we think that ridership will increase. We want the K Line extension to have as much capacity as possible. These crossovers would allow us to maintain 10-minute frequencies even if there’s maintenance or a service issue. We will be looking at cost and value engineering as we get deeper into design. We thought it best to begin with a project that provides the absolute best rider experience. At this point, we’re only 15 percent into the design of the three routes under study. We’ll learn more as the designs evolve and we can make decisions later that impact cost. Thanks again for the vid. Keep it up.
@@nandertcoming from the guy that schedules all the maintenence and single tracking systemwide, unless you like 20 minute headways, removing crossovers from this alignment is a very shortsighted decision...
I was a youngster of 24 when construction on the Metro began. 44 years a marriage, divorce, two kids, 3 grandkids and a retirement from a career I started around the same time in the mid 80's later.......they STILL don't have the purple line finished. So I'm not hold my breath on these new proposals (actually if they do come to fruition by the time it happens I WILL be holding my breath; permanently).
Lol you also were around during peak Reagan administration so you already KNOW the purple line was going NOWHERE. Hopefully these new kids can get it together. My grandma used to talk about a future 2nd ave subway in the 1940s, and her mother before her in the 30s. Progress report anyone lol??
@@TheLIRRFrenchie... Apparently, Hochul's shenanigans with congestion pricing led to SAS Phase 2 work being halted. We'll see what happens, but I'm not holding my breath for her to do the right thing.
As a frequent Metro rider, an extra 5 minutes is well worth the deviation up Santa Monica Blvd. and getting swift access to all the great locations there. It will still be faster than riding north-south on the existing LaBrea Ave. bus (Route 212).
@@LGVRhin-Rhone But you would need express tracks to make express trains work, other than the infamous impromptu express trains the MBTA in Boston is known for when subway trains bunch up like busses on a street: "This train will express to Harvard! This train will express to Harvard!"
@@EdwardM-t8p why would you need express tracks unless you're running more than 15+ express services per hour? IDK how bad American transport companies are at scheduling but at least over here in Japan, two tracks and timed overtakes/ transfers are enough to sustain up to 25 or so trains per hour with different tiers of express service during off-peak times.
@@LGVRhin-RhoneBut many of the railways in Japan (Tokyu and Keikyu for example) have bypass points that only require 3-4 tracks at specific stations. Metro has never, ever considered such designs in LA. To them, anything more than 2 tracks is abysmal apparently and just expensive. Also, Zoning laws and at grade crossings will pretty much slow Express trains to a haul in areas like Downtown LA and Santa Monica where trains have to share the right of way with cars. Don’t really see any of the railways in Tokyo and Yokohama with this issue. Only Enoden in Fujisawa has a similar that the light rail trains do in LA (single track sections and small section of sharing RoW with cars). Also, judging by the way people would backlash on Rapid buses having stop spacing every 3-4 miles on certain routes, I can immediately see how people would whine a complain about how their stop lacks an express train stop. I love Japanese railways so much but I ain’t holding my breath of LA of all places to ever have such a functional railway as Japan does.
As a Los Angeles native that is old enough to have ridden on the original Red car from North Hollywood to Hollywood as a baby I should add my only concern is that there should be less discussion and more tunnelling. I guess the flying cars are probably not going to happen. In the late 60’s after graduating High School I had a temporary job which consisted of riding all the bus lines in greater LA and collecting data for a proposed subway for Los Angeles. The voters in their wisdom voted it down as they were told it would increase their taxes. Imagine if we had started tunnelling in the 60’s. We wouldn’t be having these conversations.😅
Your coverage of transit is easily the best in SoCal. I’d be curious if you’d ever consider a video on transit possibilities in San Diego, especially since we have a Measure M-esque initiative on the ballet this November
I was in LA a few days ago, and I sure could have used the hybrid route! It goes right next to the hotel I stayed at. Side-note: As a New Yorker, I was pleasantly surprised by the LA Metro system. It’s still very far from perfect, but I found it easy enough and not *too* impractical to use. Definitely regard LA a lot higher than I used to.
@@CancelRUclips026That's because almost everything in LA was built after the ACA passed and almost everything in NYC was built before it. The ACA is one of the reasons transit costs are out if control because of this.
@@CancelRUclips026oh I definitely noticed that. You’ve never really experienced the NYC subway until you take it to the airport with all your bags, or taken it with a stroller, or being in a wheelchair. I’m originally from DC, whose metro system is also, despite occasional breakdowns, fully accessible. My mom always remarked to me that traveling with a stroller is extraordinarily easier there than in NY.
@@mrxman581I can’t wait to go back honestly. The food and cultural diversity is incredible, and transit-wise I’m super excited to ride the full D line extension. That’s gonna be a game-changer!
Canada just set up a national transit infrastructure fund to finance large projects like this sooner. I don't see why the USA couldn't and shouldn't do the same... And yes this should all be done as one go ASAP...
Canada is tiny in population when compared to the United States with only three multi-million population metropolitan centers. I would support a state-based mass transit infrastructure fund especially in California. I think it's more realistic for us in the U.S.
The US does have a similar program for matching federal funding, but it's inconsistent, and it pits projects against each other for the limited funds. It should be structured more like the defense budget. Which is what it seems Canada has done.
As a civil engineer, @Nandert, I agree that the crossovers are too long and too numerous. Removing most of them will save enough money to improve feasibility of the entire project. The only way to justify them is if LA Metro wants to upgrade the K to full Metro someday. Adding more LRT lines through the area -- like a Santa Monica line, makes more sense.
@@deric8 - Nandert's point, and I agree, is that the increase in operational flexibility is minimal, not justified. and merely drives up the budget. In addition, the "emergency crossovers" should be much shorter, but traversable at slow speed during emergencies.. The crossovers in the DEIR are suitable for full-speed operation and do not make sense. Moreover, most planned maintenance occurs during non-peak hours.
@@pacificostudios But you are missing the bigger strategic point of this DEIR Phase. It is better to plan them in now at this phase and then modify later than to not include them and instead of realizing later, oh crap we got to add this, which drives up the cost. The D Line Phase 1 had a modification turn into a $400M change order. Also depending on which alignment they go with they can make the modification which ultimately reduces costs. We don't know which alignment they will go with either La Brea, Fairfax or Hybrid. Flexibility and forward thinking of the phasing is what will make the most sense. The Expo Line Phase 2 took this exact same approach (mind you there were no tunnels) during it is DEIR, a group of us were strong advocates of it but they had planned enough design/engineering options early which ultimately mixed and matched the appropriate operations strategy which they kept that project on time and on budget. The fact that you and nadert are arguing this plays right into what I believe the designers/engineers are thinking the public will do, which ultimately leaves to a better project.
Here in DC, not even every at-grade station has a crossover, where there isn’t much extra cost. Many locations underground are one crossover every two or three stations.
@@ZO6Buccaneer - A major reason is to avoid the cost of maintaining all the extra switches, especially frogs. Full size railroads space crossovers by 10-20 miles and will do almost anything to avoid the four frogs of a crossing. They even choose to use gauntlet track on bridges rather than maintain extra switch points.
I like both the Fairfax and Hybrid routes, but what's most important is to get phase 1 built ASAP since it would serve either the hybrid or Fairfax route and would create a new transfer station with the D line that would become one of the busiest very quickly after opening. It would facilitate a connection to LAX from UCLA and the surrounding Westside neighborhoods. The same would be true from the Mid City/Koreatown neighborhoods. It would be another game-changing transfer hub. It could get built within 10 years.
It would also help reduce congestion on the expo line since people trying to get downtown from LAX will have a faster trip. Also Pico/Rimpau is a major transit transfer hub too. Would love to see that turn into phase 1 and maybe come sooner.
I'm not sure why you predict a Fairfax line precludes a Santa Monica line that goes down La Cienaga, but if that's the case, that is such a shame, because both of those lines together would serve so much of the city.
I think the two station interchange on the Fairfax is perfect. It sets up a double cross-platform interchange w/ the Santa Monica line like used in Singapore.
It really will not preclude it because Santa Monica Blvd does have the justification of its own subway corridor given the ridership and population density on the line. They could build a tunnel underneath the existing one and have that Santa Monica Blvd route only stop at lets say San Vicente and La Brea stations skipping Fairfax as the other line will stop there. This is no different to the Lexington Avenue Subway in NYC where the Express trains are a level or two lower than the local trains. Metro is looking at a similar style arrangement albeit with an Alternative on the Sepulveda Pass corridor. Where one line is the local surface running LRT and the Sepulveda Pass line is under Van Nuys Blvd only making major stops at the Orange Line and Metrolink stations.
For the reasons you stated, I think the hybrid makes the most sense. It's easier to get support for it now and build the la brea connection later, than to build la brea and risk not getting any support from that community. I also think that trying to hedge by building the compromise line is definitely a lose-lose, because no one really gets what they want, and the fight to bring all sides together isn't worth it.
I think the Hybrid option is the best. Even though it is the most costliest , having the most ridership of the other three options would justify the cost. Also having a rail station near Cedars Sinai is super important and maybe the Beverly Center can either get some love or demolished.
Stop hating on the Beverly Center! It is the best mall in LA and has the most options and the most central! Parking is inexpensive, and it handles all needs! The Bev Center is the most underrated mall ever, and needs to be appreciated! Other than that love the content! ❤️❤️
Great video! To address the issues regarding the potential precluding of a Santa Monica line with the Fairfax and Hybrid alignments, perhaps building stacked stations with enough room for tracks on the other side along Santa Monica would help ease these concerns. This is similar to what NYC did when building the 63rd St line to plan for SAS. Additionally, building stacked also allows for potential cross platform transfers, which are super convenient and should be built more. It’s a real shame they aren’t constructed as frequently these days.
@@adianchowdhury9016 And the fact that LA Metro isn't even entertaining junction boxes, let alone stacking the stations on Santa Monica to accomodate a potential raili line along Santa Monica is a real shame. It seems to continue a pattern of neglecting long term planning, which may ultimately bite LA Metro in the butt if they do end up getting around to building a rail line Santa Monica, which is quite sad. I acknowledge and appreciate that the costs of building junction boxes and stacked stations are not cheap, but maybe they could've swapped out a couple of the crossovers for junction boxes instead lol. Oh, and reduced the size of the station boxes. It's pretty atrocious how big they are. If anything, this video lays bare the planning issues present in LA Metro and underscores the need to fix these fundamental issues.
@aaronposternack5896 The bigger issue about what gets built or not is the funding scheme. If they do as you suggest, it means less funding for another project or possibly multiple projects. That's the difficulty in deciding and designing these various projects. It's not a lack of foresight of future expansions. And the funding scheme also requires, by law, to spread out the transit projects across not just the city, but the county. These projects are funded in part by a countywide sales tax increase with the understanding that rail transit access would be available to residents throughout the LA county.
I don't care if it even doubles the cost of the project, BUILD THE BOWL STATION. I live a block from Hollywood/Highland and I am not kidding that it can take me up to 2 hours to get to my damn house from US-101 in the Cahuenga Pass because once Highland backs up....every single street in the entire district backs up in all directions. True gridlock. It is miserable.................
Sorry for your inconvenience. I use to live in Whitley Heights. The part that is off Cahuenga and across the Fwy from the Bowl. There should be only bus or shuttle service to the Bowl from remote parking perhaps at Hollywood and Highland or Universal. Until there is an extended line to the Valley it is too expensive for what it delivers.
Yes, La Brea may be the most direct and least expensive alignment, but I’m in full support of the hybrid alignment. I’m a Glendalian who’d be taking the K Line from Hollywood/Highland to Santa Monica/San Vicente. I’d be happy with a Santa Monica spur on a more direct route, but Metro already rejected that.
An alternative to the hybrid would be extending the grove streetcar to nearby metro stations and building a metro line going along Venice, La Cienega, Beverley Center, and Santa Monica Blvd
I just love the hybrid design since that gives the partiest section of the city a station to funnel drunk revelers out during pride month Plus the station design would be fabulous, just a whole ass nightclub underground if we’re lucky
Good catch with the crossover issue and those massive station boxes! Definitely gonna comment about those. Also, while it’s the least direct and most expensive option, I think we sort of owe it to West Hollywood to give them the hybrid alignment. If it weren’t for them we probably wouldn’t have this extension done until the 2060s lol. And sadly I don’t think the Hollywood Bowl station is worth it 😢. Maybe they can put in some BRT in as compensation.
Why do we owe HEHo 4 LRT stations but only a BRT line for transit-heavy Vermont Corridor that was promised a LRT/HST decades ago? Nothing equitable about that and and I'm sure the FTA would & should ding the Hybrid option for that.
About the crossover, I actually think the stations should be longer, not to have the crossovers but to accommodate for longer (ie 5 or longer trains. This is something RMTransit has talked about in his video on the Regional Connector. (especially if the K Line gets conversed to full subway, which isn’t too unrealistic, just close a few crossings on the south).
All the light rail lines are built for 3 car trains. That won't change for many reasons. In fact, 4 currently C line stations will be extended to accept 3 cars. Currently, those stations only accept 2 car trains. The K line will be reconfigured in the near future and take over those 4 stations to the south of the 105 fwy. The C line, in turn, will be reconfigured to go north to connect to the under construction LAX Metro Transit Center. The K line will NEVER be converted into a heavy rail line. However, the two heavy rail subway lines on LA Metro can accommodate 4 and 6 car trains on all their stations. I'm also confident that LA Metro will chose a heavy rail alternative for the proposed Sepulveda Pass line that should also accommodate 4 and 6 car trains at the stations.
It would be sick if you made a video on Metro’s Olympic plans. What they’re trying to complete, where the events are, what they did in ‘84, and what will actually happen during the games.
One option not mentioned in your video would be to build the Hybrid option now, and the LaBrea option later. You could then repurpose the tracks from the Hybrid option for any of the new metro lines you proposed that would cross the LaBrea line. You would also get the benefit of having connecting tracks between the two lines for fleet movements and for diverting traffic during serious disruptions.
That's what my wishful thinking is as well... I think the La Brea line is worth building but WeHo is absolutely worth building sooner but it's such a tough call because I want all the rail now lol.
I think you go ahead and make the hybrid line and connect it to the Hollywood bowl. Use the money from weho and the intangible of integrating more people into the system. Once people become acustomed to taking the metro, they are more likely to use it in the future. There's just so much intangible of people getting on their feet and taking public transport: walking more, potentially spending more money in route, getting comfortable transporting in large groups etc. And return to the fact of money! It just seems better to connect more sooner under the most support possible. Maybe next time we will design cities with integrated public transit...
I remember going to the LA fair in Pomona in the 90s and seeing a map of possible lines and dates. My family lived a block from Crenshaw. It’s been decades and my dad never lived to see rail return to the area.
This whole debacle over the K line to WeHo could've been avoided if Metro had just decided to build the junction box on the D line to begin with. This is why long-term planning is so important!
I’ve seen the perks for the Hybrid option since it was proposed. The WeHo horseshoe won’t add too much extra time for through riders (5 minutes) and the ridership massively increases. WeHo has been rallying for this for years now, and there’s intense local interest for it. La Cienega/Beverly and Fairfax/3rd I think would be driven heavily by tourist traffic, a lot of daily commuters working in the immediate area, and of course Cedars. There could always be the possibility of public transit development reform in the near future as well, which could make a lot of issues disappear (especially if VP Harris gets elected).
Agreed that the Bowl station doesn't make sense but what about adding another Dodger Stadium-like aerial tramway? Station at Hollywood and Highland complex and have it run overhead over Highland. Hell, you could run it as a tourist attraction when there are no shows.
There's a shuttle bus that directly serves the Bowl from Hollywood/Highland. There's a shuttle bus from Union Station to Dodger Stadium so that gondola project is useless too.
In my fantasy for a future line under Santa Monica, the K hybrid is rerouted to Sunset instead of Santa Monica (creating a station for the Sunset Strip) ending at the Hollywood Bowl, and the future Sepulveda line gets a wye under UCLA to connect to Century City, WeHo, East Hollywood, Silver Lake, Echo Park, Dodger Stadium and Union Station under the length of Santa Monica Blvd and the Eastern bit of Sunset Blvd
Doesn't West Hollywood Gateway have an underground parking garage that goes all the way up to the La Brea/Santa Monica intersection? Seems like that would preclude any interfacing with Metro.
The Hybrid Alignment has a better catchment area overall, specifically because its capturing all the residential we slammed onto the Arterial in Santa Monica
B line takes over the G in the valley! That’s my pitch for the future planning video! Elevated or cut and cover in metro right of way! Connect the B line to Sepulveda!! Make a heavy rail loop!
The G line was originally proposed as an extension of the then Red line, but was blocked by NIMBYs. A light rail was also considered and abandoned due to community input. The result is the current BRT.
A critical benefit of extra crossovers: easy 24/7 service without shortening overnight maintenance windows. The Washington Metro’s dearth of crossovers is among the biggest reasons for its poor track conditions and challenges with running late/early/24-hour services regularly. More crossovers means more capacity for single-track operations during evening track and electrical inspection times. So from a long-game perspective, they’re probably worth including now so that 24/7 service to LAX will be feasible without creating a maintenance nightmare after opening. Fair point that the crossovers could be made shorter, but perhaps more cut & cover/trench construction would help with prices as well?
Yeah I'm with you on the alignment, Fairfax would be my preferred option, but WeHo is all-in on the hybrid and seeing how pro-rail this city is warms my heart. So I guess Hybrid is ok with me
WeHo is not pro-rail, they're anti-bus. The city is wealthy enough to get a bus system that will solve the transit problems of its residents now (or, within a couple of years). Instead it chooses to wait decades for a rail system that is supposed to be a long-distance, regional transit option, not a glorified city trolley line.
@@boris256bMore buses is not a long term solution as long as they share the ROW with other vehicles. The only way they make sense would be for WEHO to build gold level BRTs crisscrossing the city. That means fewer lanes for vehicles. That's the real fight.
Is there any possibility of building *both* the Fairfax and Hybrid options? May as well just spend the extra money now and have more extensive coverage in return.
I know that the Hollywood Bowl station has really low daily ridership between 300-400 daily, non-Bowl event, ridership estimates. However, I think that it's important to point out that this is the same or higher than current average boardings at Douglas, Downtown Inglewood, East LA Civic Center, El Segundo, Fairview Heights, Heritage Square, Irwindale, Hyde Park, Leimert Park, Mariachi Plaza, Maravilla, MLK Jr, Southwest Museum, 1st Street, and 5th Street stations.
Transportation videos are great. It make me feel like we are playing SimCity or City Skylines, but real. One suggestion, define some terms. I'm a geek and some of this stuff is over my head. You throw a lot of info pretty quickly. Links or brief definitions are appreciated. VMT? Also, all malls are dead. What an awesome graph. @11:12
Also a question to consider. Im quite bullish about self-driving vehicles(basically Waymo). I think that most people won't own cars and we will subscribe to a car service with varying level of comfort and privacy/exclusivity. If I'm right, won't all of this public transportation(rail) be useless and underutilized? I feel like you are the right person to answer/talk about this subject.
Mannn, why do people gotta hate on Beverly Center so much 😭 Yes, it's pretty dead most days, but it's still a vibe lol Nice place to walk around, and great city views of the surrounding streets.
I doubt it very much. You would have to expand the platform stations along all the K line. That doesn't make any practical sense. And some stations might be incapable of being expanded if they are too close to an intersection.
There's a lot to discuss about this extension, but i work at the Hollywood Bowl so that's what i focused on in my public comment. I mentioned that the station entrance should be in Lot B not Lot C. Lot C is only accessible via the Hollywood Bowl pedestrian tunnel which sucks and it's inaccessible for any patrons with disabilities that require mobility devices
I agree that the hybrid alternative seems like the path of least resistance to approval, whilst simultaneously serving the most important locations. Really want the Bowl stop too and, even though the forecast average daily ridership does not justify the cost right now, the potential to “introduce” more people to using Metro during Bowl events and convert them to long term fans and riders should not be discounted.
I know this might be a huge stretch but Metro should at least consider building Phase 1 of the K Line North early in order to drive more passengers for the '28 Olympics. In other words outside of the Olympics, I still have hopes for the Hollywood Bowl station. I too feel like this'll massively drive more passengers into seriously taking the Metro to up there for the concerts and such, including with the residents who live in few/several blocks of the Bowl would certainly take this station for granted, especially how they're still being bottleneck'd by the freeway interchanges.
If they started construction today on the quickest, simplest version (La Brea), it would still be 2034 or so before it opens. Basically, as a practical matter, nothing not currently under primary construction already could possibly open by the Olympics. So this is out, the Inglewood People Mover is out (and may now never get built due to Maxine Waters' inexplicable sudden opposition to the project), the Dodger Stadium gondola is out (and may never get built due to NIMBY opposition). So, basically, the K Line to LAX only, LAX People Mover, A Line to Pomona only, the OC Streetcar, all stages of the D Line extension, and maaayyybbee Brightline High Speed Rail to Vegas...and that's about it before 2028. Maybe some weaksauce BRT-lite.
Hi, @nandert! Although I am not an Angeleno I would like leave the following comment that you might want to include in your public comment to the Metro Transit Authority board. My concern is about the length of platforms. Each platform appears to be one block long, which fits two LRV articulated trolleys. Doesn't the regional connector tunnel have platforms that accommodate trainsets of 3 trolleys for the A and E trains? Likewise the platforms on the K line extension should be the same length. This would be a more economically beneficial use for the enormous amount of money and effort to be spent to build the long station boxes than the extra-long crossovers are. Thank you. Edward M. New Orleans, LA.
Once the K Line gets to Hollywood I expect Wilshire/Fairfax to be busier than Union Station. So many bus riders will take the D and K Lines and they'll be time competitive with driving too.
As a Koreatown resident that's off the Purple-D line, I'm excited! If I'm still living in koreatown when it's done, is another question. That said, there is population density that off the Purple-D line and this opens routes.
I am not familiar with the local landscape - but does grade separation make the most sense - particularly *underground grade separation* (the most expensive option) make sense in this context? Grade separation is great, for speed and convenience. But drives up cost of course. Light rail can be more versatile to heavy rail (I.e. subways) as it can be used in a mixed - partly grade separated / partly non-grade separated fashion depending on the conditions, although it usually carries about half the capacity, or less (varies system by system depending on frequency, speed, grade separation, etc…).
Most of the light rail lines on LA Metro are built as you describe including the current operating section of the K line. I'm not sure why LA Metro decided from the start to put this northern extension completely underground. It probably has to do with inadequate street capacity for at grade or aerial sections or stations. I think only La Cienega is wide enough to do something like that.
Would you consider covering the San Diego purple line? There’s not much coverage I can find about the project, it hasn’t gone through environmental study as far as I know and is possible more than 20 years away
I believe the best option to go for here is the Fairfax alignment, with a junction box added at Fairfax / Santa Monica and La Brea /Santa Monica. It gives WeHo more Service than the LaBrea alignment, while not making the line go too much out of the way. And it also future proofs the Line for a Future Line down Santa Monica, that would ideally go towards the area only served by the Hybrid alternative. (My thinking is, that it could continue on Santa Monica until Century city to meet the D Line then Switch to Olympic and then continue to meet the E Line at Expo/Bundy and then Terminate with the E Line, on the other end this cold probably continue into the WSAB) The money for the junction boxes should come from reducing crossovers on the line.
It would be nice if that whole area had a loop or future Hollywood to Weho loop. That area is so vast I usually avoid it because I use to go to Fairfax High of which I mainly used La Brea, Santa Monica and Fairfax and I grew up in K-Town using Sunset, Olympic and Wilshire.
Agreed on the Beverly Center - a lot can be explained by the fact that it's really a cover for an oil derrick. That's why it's still this weird mall and why it has such an odd shape (and also why it can't be residential - literally on top of an active oil drilling site).
That mall was very popular in the 80s and 90s. They should renovate it again, but add some residential housing on top. It can be done. It's a great location for condos or apartments. A lot of stuff within walking distance, too.
Did LA Metro ever consider one of the two straighter options and then a spur to where the hybrid one goes? That seems like it would be the best of both words: fast connections between lines and still serving hot spots. Because 7 minute slower travel time is insane!
I personally think what we really need right now is for L.A. metro to extend the red line towards Burbank with a stop at Burbank airport before terminating in Burbank downtown, probably under the Burbank mall. don't get me wrong the K line extension is great, but we need more frequent service on the B and D lines, or red and purple, as well as the red line to be extended into downtown Burbank with a few stops in-between, including Burbank airport. we also need to add a stop in-between NoHo and universal, we also need them so solve the crime and homeless problem in the system, Especially on the red line, its obviously a project, but it could be a necessary one.
Hi! I have immigrated to LA from Moscow. Can you please explain me why LA metro system is developing so slow? In Moscow they open 10 staitiom in a year! This time estimates just for several stations are so scary! I would love to get rid of the car and use public transportation.
I want to chime in by saying that the “crossovers” are known by us 🚊 operators as “Interlockings.” With that being said, _THAT’S A LOT OF INTERLOCKINGS!!!!_ Holy cow!!!!
Im trying to figure out what is stopping them from a future santa monica line interlining or even adding new tracks (next to or under/over) the hybrid configuration. I'm pretty sure transit cities around the world do this and it could be a possibility if LA has a transit renaissance in the future.
Between Lucid Stew on CAHSR and this… I support mass transit but you’re not kidding on gross over-engineering. Can’t wait for your new long term plan video, would love to see what a La Brea straight shot + Santa Monica line might look like
Hey, great video, I don't really know anything about this project but can someone tell me why they arent doing full heavy rail metro here? seems like a fully tunnelled light rail is the worst of both options in being both very expensive, time consuming but also not all that high capacity or high speed as a metro could be? thanks
@nandert I would really love your thoughts. I have already submitted my comments, but I wanted to ask you about a suggestion I have had for year now that was not studied. That would be the hybrid option, but with the Wilshire station being at La Brea and not Fairfax. Reasoning: (1.) It, I believe cuts down the over length (so money.) (2.) The housing density at La Brea/Wilshire is far greater (and extra useful with the pleasant idea of an entrance at 6th, as well.) (3.) If you are from/going from the airport or anywhere on the K-Line currently, it is faster to K-town with 1 less station in travel times from K to D. (4.) Another speed reason, if you are trying to go up La Brea, idk what the bus situation at Mid-Town Crossing will be, but regardless of if it has a fast connection (minimal walking) to get to the 212 La Brea Bus, this would speed up travel to businesses and apartments on La Brea north of Wilshire before Santa Monica, as well as, faster connection even with bus transfer to Beverly's 14 Bus if going east or west, rather than getting on it way over at the beverly center which it doesn't even go west on beverly from there. (5.) You get that shorter direct angled line going up 3rd Street for tunneling, still giving you the farmer's market + intersection connection and perhaps further east that connection to the grove via the southside of the complex (which fuck Curuso, but it's closer to the Pan Pacific Park that is much loved.) (6.) With that 3rd Street tunneling, you could get a better duel entrance at La Cienega AND the south east area of the Cedar Sinai. (Which could bring much better future changes to those horrible intersections. (7.) You could still go up San Vicente or Robertson if it is a wider curve needed. This is truly I think, the most cost effective and best of all worlds. You get the best multi-use entrances. Most density of living and bus connection. Best hybrid options to travel north/south and some streets east/west. (I am not an engineer, idk if there is issues with the oil drill sites, tar in some area, but I'm sure like with D-Line we are bound to run into some anyways. P.S. No Hollywood Bowl connection until there is a full line planned and built with it going North towards Warner Bros. I mean you gonna rent different equipment for just that with the biggest box and 2 cross overs even longer because it has to curve. WTF! If they really need something put up a shitty Gondola from that Arch in the Ovation Center up the street to the Bowl, plus it would be faster even if it would be low capacity. EDIT: I was wrong, thought id rough draw lengths on google earth my hybrid and the original are about the same, assuming curve shapes.
Like Dodger stadium there is a shuttle bus that runs frequently and easily connects to mass transit. It's called the Ovation shuttle and it's a short walk to the Hollywood/Highland Station.
Is the ridership only considering the travels in a walking distance? Because if the planners adds a brt that services some stations could add ridership to the cheaper option.
Urban Planner: "We need to address urban food deserts!" Metro Executive: "We agree, and we'll assist by providing critically needed transit! The first thing we'll need to do is tear down this Ralphs, obviously..."
Hey Nick, once again nice analysis! A thought on the number of crossovers, separately from their design: in a scenario where it's ambiguous where a future extension might connect to the planned alignment, it's a *really* good idea to place crossovers frequently, so as to minimize the total distance a train has to travel along any given single-track segment, because that's ultimately what determines the operating headway during single-track operations. Case in point: Phoenix's Valley Metro Light Rail. When Tempe built its streetcar, the chosen alignment involved building new crossings in three different places: Ash, Rural, & Dorsey. The existing line only has one crossover in the vicinity, at Dorsey itself, which meant that during the construction phase in 2019, the light rail had to single-track for fully 5 miles, from the O&M facility entrance west of Priest all the way to Dorsey, and later again from Dorsey to Price/101, with resulting headways of 25 minutes. At one point they even had to run a supplemental bus bridge with turnback operations to prevent the service elsewhere along the line from getting too crowded. Needless to say, that sucked! So when the Downtown Hub & South Central Line construction began shortly thereafter, Valley Metro planners deliberately modified the plan to include building additional crossovers immediately before & after the construction zone, specifically to minimize the need for such long headways, and the result has been much less disruptive. It seems reasonable, then, that even if LA Metro could be persuaded to use smaller crossovers, it might still be sensible to build them more frequently, if there's any possibility that a future expansion might require constructing a branch off of the K Line, and a station box isn't pre-built at the exact spot where the new line would diverge. Given this project has such a long time horizon, who knows where future development might drive demand for additional connections along this corridor? At any rate, IIJA reauthorization is happening next year, so assuming we can elect a transit-supporting majority to the House in November, it'll be worth considering what the ask would be for a new injection of Federal funding to help accelerate this and other projects around the country.
@@adianchowdhury9016fair, but like, I dunno, maybe an excessively large station box could end up being used as a junction box later? It definitely seems like in some of these stations the complete box includes a fair bit of excavation beyond the *opposite* end of the platform from the crossover, which to me, seems like the sort of thing you'd only do if you're deliberately over engineering for any possible future expansion but without any specific plans being defined. If I was being asked to design the best possible version of the Hybrid alignment at any rate, I'd want to be sure there's futureproofing in case LA Metro ever decided they didn't like how circuitous the service pattern is, after it had already gotten built.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
The public comment I’ll be submitting for the K Line Northern Extension:
Hello,
I’m a resident of the Fairfax District, and am writing in fervent support of the K Line Northern extension, and in support of accelerating it to begin construction as quickly as possible. Whichever alignment is chosen, I will be making heavy use of the extension, and believe it will be a massive boon for the area. I especially urge LA city and LA county to join WeHo in forming an EIFD to provide the necessary funding for the project as early as possible, as it is far too crucial of a link to hold off building until the 2040s.
I do have a specific concern about the project, however. In comparison to similar light rail projects around the world, and indeed even similar LA Metro light rail projects, this extension seems wildly over-engineered, contributing to its massive cost. Every single station has been designed with a long, high-speed crossover except for Santa Monica/La Brea, which is wildly out of step with design standards worldwide. With underground station boxes being by far the biggest driver of construction costs and lengthy timelines for metro projects, to design this extension in such a way seems self-sabotaging.
I would urge Metro staff and the Metro board to consider reducing the number of crossovers to one every third station, siting one at the terminus of each phase, and reducing the length of the crossovers to be more in line with other Metro light rail lines (the crossovers as designed are lengthier than the B and D line heavy rail crossovers, and a full 33% longer than Metro’s most recently constructed underground light rail crossover at Historic Broadway). This would reduce station box excavation needs drastically, and likely allow the project to be delivered for billions less, and years sooner. This DEIR is suggesting digging two lines’ worth of station boxes instead of one, and it would be in the best service to the needs of the community to eliminate the over-engineered crossovers and deliver the project sooner and more affordably. As a guaranteed future rider, I will gladly settle for longer headways when a track needs to be closed to be able to ride the line sooner. And if Metro feels that these long and frequent crossovers are somehow necessary, the public deserves a robust explanation as to why.
Finally, I have some comments on specific stations. For the Fairfax/3rd station, if the hybrid alignment is chosen and the crossover is eliminated, I support siting the platform north of 3rd street instead of south, where the crossover is currently sited. This would allow the main entrance to be adjacent to the farmer’s market (where the optional 2nd entrance is now), eliminating the need for another entrance, as this is a much better location than the southeast corner of the intersection.
And if the Fairfax alignment is chosen, I would strongly prefer this station be sited at Beverly/Fairfax instead of 3rd/Fairfax, for two reasons. First, it allows for better station spacing and increases the line’s total catchment area, and second, it would much better facilitate a future connection to an east-west line on Beverly, which is the likely route a future east-west line would need to take if the Fairfax alignment is chosen, since it would preclude a Santa Monica Blvd east-west line. Television City provides a strong ridership driver, and the station could be sited on the south side of the intersection, allowing a second entrance to be built closer to the Grove and Farmers Market.
For the Santa Monica/Fairfax station, I am in favor of the 2nd entrance option, to avoid needing to tear down the grocery store on the site of option 1.
For Santa Monica/La Brea, I am in favor of adding a pedestrian tunnel that would connect to the lower level of West Hollywood Gateway, which will be a great ridership driver.
While understanding that the economics of the station may not work out due to the geologic conditions making excavation particularly expensive, I am at least conceptually in favor of a station at the Hollywood Bowl, and would utilize it quite often. It would also help to massively reduce the traffic bottleneck that occurs there constantly on summer evenings, and encourage a larger swath of the general public to familiarize themselves with the Metro and become comfortable using it. Whether the station is built as a part of this extension or not, I feel that a future extension to Burbank should ultimately be built, and the Hollywood Bowl station be constructed then if it is not feasible now. If the bowl station is built, entrance option 1 would be far more convenient for concertgoers.
And finally, should the hybrid alignment be chosen, I urge to Metro to at least consider adding two junction boxes, one to the east of Santa Monica/La Brea station, and one under the intersection of Santa Monica/Holloway (under publicly-owned land), to facilitate interlining with a future Santa Monica Blvd line that could join the East San Fernando Valley line to the north and the Southeast Gateway Line to the south. While junction boxes would not be cheap, and their value would not be realized until many years into the future, future-proofing our system for the next generation feels like the responsible thing to do… and they’re at least cheaper than five or six unnecessary massive crossovers.
I sincerely look forward to riding this line often, and as soon as possible. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Nick Andert
Resident, Fairfax District
I definitely agree with your point about the overuse of crossovers and how they are going to drive up the cost exponentially due to them... One HSR for every 3 normal ones seems OK and the total amount probably should be cut in half overall.. Here in Edmonton, I think for the mile-long subway the LRT uses under the CBD, there are 3 crossovers NONE high speed and they are use so infrequently that most people forget about them... And we have 5-car, 125M/410' LRT trains using that need 150m long platforms so it's not like we cut corners with large station boxes...
REMEMBER TI MENTION A IT'S a Replacement for The Red Trolly.. They might Laugh.. I WOULD
Wow now that is a clear and concise comment.
Great comment! Out of curiosity, do you have any links that could be included to show examples of what the design standard is for crossovers? Would love to throw some of those in my comment. Thanks!
That area needs a loop (Hollywood to WeHo) or a partial loop it can interface with the future Santa Monica-Southgate line and possibly loop at Western or connect/parallel the North Hollywood line. Going up Fairfax would be the better choice for ridership and possibly Hollywood bowl extension. I hope they do more feasibility studies for East to West possible connections for Beverly.
Hey Nandert. Great video. We appreciate your support and smart questions about this project.
About the crossovers: K Line Northern Extension will have transfers to both the B and D Line subway, which historically has been our rail line with the most ridership.
As the subway is extended and runs more frequently, we think that ridership will increase. We want the K Line extension to have as much capacity as possible. These crossovers would allow us to maintain 10-minute frequencies even if there’s maintenance or a service issue.
We will be looking at cost and value engineering as we get deeper into design. We thought it best to begin with a project that provides the absolute best rider experience. At this point, we’re only 15 percent into the design of the three routes under study. We’ll learn more as the designs evolve and we can make decisions later that impact cost.
Thanks again for the vid. Keep it up.
Thanks for chiming in!
now that's some community engagement!
@@nandertcoming from the guy that schedules all the maintenence and single tracking systemwide, unless you like 20 minute headways, removing crossovers from this alignment is a very shortsighted decision...
@@andresdizitti2017he said it himself in the video, he's a liberal arts major. guy knows nothing
@@andresdizitti2017 Exactly, for a line that is projected to have high ridership.
I was a youngster of 24 when construction on the Metro began. 44 years a marriage, divorce, two kids, 3 grandkids and a retirement from a career I started around the same time in the mid 80's later.......they STILL don't have the purple line finished. So I'm not hold my breath on these new proposals (actually if they do come to fruition by the time it happens I WILL be holding my breath; permanently).
True, but this time, we don't have Zev and Waxman to get in the way and stop subway construction funding for 20 freaking years!!!
Lol you also were around during peak Reagan administration so you already KNOW the purple line was going NOWHERE. Hopefully these new kids can get it together. My grandma used to talk about a future 2nd ave subway in the 1940s, and her mother before her in the 30s. Progress report anyone lol??
@@TheLIRRFrenchie... Apparently, Hochul's shenanigans with congestion pricing led to SAS Phase 2 work being halted. We'll see what happens, but I'm not holding my breath for her to do the right thing.
@@sonicboy678 she just announced 50+ million dollars for it today ironically... but that's only a drop in the bucket.
Something about this is an existential nightmare. This city moves at the pace of the glaciers its car emissions melt.
Guys Wake up from cryogenic freezing, Nandert Uploaded!!!
Oh, Cryogenic freezing...the only way you get to see LA Metro in full accomplishment.
Guys fly home from that Interstellar planet where 10 minutes is 20 earth years, Nandert posted
@@CancelRUclips026😂
Is totally worth the wait
Hey baby wake up from you’re asleep. We have arrived onto the future and the whole world is electronic supersonic supersonic electronic
As a frequent Metro rider, an extra 5 minutes is well worth the deviation up Santa Monica Blvd. and getting swift access to all the great locations there. It will still be faster than riding north-south on the existing LaBrea Ave. bus (Route 212).
Plus it'd be great if they implemented express service (2~3 trains per hour, timed takeovers at stations) to speed up travel times as well
@@LGVRhin-Rhone But you would need express tracks to make express trains work, other than the infamous impromptu express trains the MBTA in Boston is known for when subway trains bunch up like busses on a street: "This train will express to Harvard! This train will express to Harvard!"
@@EdwardM-t8p why would you need express tracks unless you're running more than 15+ express services per hour? IDK how bad American transport companies are at scheduling but at least over here in Japan, two tracks and timed overtakes/ transfers are enough to sustain up to 25 or so trains per hour with different tiers of express service during off-peak times.
@@LGVRhin-RhoneBut many of the railways in Japan (Tokyu and Keikyu for example) have bypass points that only require 3-4 tracks at specific stations. Metro has never, ever considered such designs in LA. To them, anything more than 2 tracks is abysmal apparently and just expensive. Also, Zoning laws and at grade crossings will pretty much slow Express trains to a haul in areas like Downtown LA and Santa Monica where trains have to share the right of way with cars. Don’t really see any of the railways in Tokyo and Yokohama with this issue.
Only Enoden in Fujisawa has a similar that the light rail trains do in LA (single track sections and small section of sharing RoW with cars).
Also, judging by the way people would backlash on Rapid buses having stop spacing every 3-4 miles on certain routes, I can immediately see how people would whine a complain about how their stop lacks an express train stop.
I love Japanese railways so much but I ain’t holding my breath of LA of all places to ever have such a functional railway as Japan does.
As a Los Angeles native that is old enough to have ridden on the original Red car from North Hollywood to Hollywood as a baby I should add my only concern is that there should be less discussion and more tunnelling. I guess the flying cars are probably not going to happen.
In the late 60’s after graduating High School I had a temporary job which consisted of riding all the bus lines in greater LA and collecting data for a proposed subway for Los Angeles. The voters in their wisdom voted it down as they were told it would increase their taxes. Imagine if we had started tunnelling in the 60’s. We wouldn’t be having these conversations.😅
As usual, the Boomers and Silent Generation screwed over future generations...
Thanks for making these videos, you make VERY DRY subject matter incredibly engaging and digestible.
Your coverage of transit is easily the best in SoCal. I’d be curious if you’d ever consider a video on transit possibilities in San Diego, especially since we have a Measure M-esque initiative on the ballet this November
I was in LA a few days ago, and I sure could have used the hybrid route! It goes right next to the hotel I stayed at.
Side-note: As a New Yorker, I was pleasantly surprised by the LA Metro system. It’s still very far from perfect, but I found it easy enough and not *too* impractical to use. Definitely regard LA a lot higher than I used to.
We get elevators which NY doesn't have.
Indeed. Next year, it will expand further and be even more useful and efficient.
@@CancelRUclips026That's because almost everything in LA was built after the ACA passed and almost everything in NYC was built before it. The ACA is one of the reasons transit costs are out if control because of this.
@@CancelRUclips026oh I definitely noticed that. You’ve never really experienced the NYC subway until you take it to the airport with all your bags, or taken it with a stroller, or being in a wheelchair. I’m originally from DC, whose metro system is also, despite occasional breakdowns, fully accessible. My mom always remarked to me that traveling with a stroller is extraordinarily easier there than in NY.
@@mrxman581I can’t wait to go back honestly. The food and cultural diversity is incredible, and transit-wise I’m super excited to ride the full D line extension. That’s gonna be a game-changer!
Liking and commenting in the first hour after upload to boost video engagement metrics for the algorithm.
Babe wake up, new video from nandert dropped
Canada just set up a national transit infrastructure fund to finance large projects like this sooner. I don't see why the USA couldn't and shouldn't do the same... And yes this should all be done as one go ASAP...
Just remember to vote because it definitely won’t happen unless we do that
A good project for a Harris administration. National infrastructure streamlining, cost cutting and cracking down on corruption, paired with funding.
Canada is tiny in population when compared to the United States with only three multi-million population metropolitan centers. I would support a state-based mass transit infrastructure fund especially in California. I think it's more realistic for us in the U.S.
The US does have a similar program for matching federal funding, but it's inconsistent, and it pits projects against each other for the limited funds. It should be structured more like the defense budget. Which is what it seems Canada has done.
There's a link to another video on his channel he provides at 6:02 and 22:38 that talks about this very issue
I wanted to make RUclips videos about LA Metro for almost 5 years now and nandert is just doing it for me. I love it!
As a civil engineer, @Nandert, I agree that the crossovers are too long and too numerous. Removing most of them will save enough money to improve feasibility of the entire project. The only way to justify them is if LA Metro wants to upgrade the K to full Metro someday. Adding more LRT lines through the area -- like a Santa Monica line, makes more sense.
But I think these will get value engineered out closer to phasing and its better to have them in flexibility.
@@deric8 - Nandert's point, and I agree, is that the increase in operational flexibility is minimal, not justified. and merely drives up the budget. In addition, the "emergency crossovers" should be much shorter, but traversable at slow speed during emergencies.. The crossovers in the DEIR are suitable for full-speed operation and do not make sense. Moreover, most planned maintenance occurs during non-peak hours.
@@pacificostudios But you are missing the bigger strategic point of this DEIR Phase.
It is better to plan them in now at this phase and then modify later than to not include them and instead of realizing later, oh crap we got to add this, which drives up the cost. The D Line Phase 1 had a modification turn into a $400M change order. Also depending on which alignment they go with they can make the modification which ultimately reduces costs. We don't know which alignment they will go with either La Brea, Fairfax or Hybrid. Flexibility and forward thinking of the phasing is what will make the most sense.
The Expo Line Phase 2 took this exact same approach (mind you there were no tunnels) during it is DEIR, a group of us were strong advocates of it but they had planned enough design/engineering options early which ultimately mixed and matched the appropriate operations strategy which they kept that project on time and on budget.
The fact that you and nadert are arguing this plays right into what I believe the designers/engineers are thinking the public will do, which ultimately leaves to a better project.
Here in DC, not even every at-grade station has a crossover, where there isn’t much extra cost. Many locations underground are one crossover every two or three stations.
@@ZO6Buccaneer - A major reason is to avoid the cost of maintaining all the extra switches, especially frogs. Full size railroads space crossovers by 10-20 miles and will do almost anything to avoid the four frogs of a crossing. They even choose to use gauntlet track on bridges rather than maintain extra switch points.
I like both the Fairfax and Hybrid routes, but what's most important is to get phase 1 built ASAP since it would serve either the hybrid or Fairfax route and would create a new transfer station with the D line that would become one of the busiest very quickly after opening. It would facilitate a connection to LAX from UCLA and the surrounding Westside neighborhoods. The same would be true from the Mid City/Koreatown neighborhoods. It would be another game-changing transfer hub. It could get built within 10 years.
It would also help reduce congestion on the expo line since people trying to get downtown from LAX will have a faster trip.
Also Pico/Rimpau is a major transit transfer hub too. Would love to see that turn into phase 1 and maybe come sooner.
What a pathetic time line. 10 years. We can do better.
I'm not sure why you predict a Fairfax line precludes a Santa Monica line that goes down La Cienaga, but if that's the case, that is such a shame, because both of those lines together would serve so much of the city.
When are y'all making the collab?!?
I think the two station interchange on the Fairfax is perfect. It sets up a double cross-platform interchange w/ the Santa Monica line like used in Singapore.
It really will not preclude it because Santa Monica Blvd does have the justification of its own subway corridor given the ridership and population density on the line. They could build a tunnel underneath the existing one and have that Santa Monica Blvd route only stop at lets say San Vicente and La Brea stations skipping Fairfax as the other line will stop there.
This is no different to the Lexington Avenue Subway in NYC where the Express trains are a level or two lower than the local trains. Metro is looking at a similar style arrangement albeit with an Alternative on the Sepulveda Pass corridor. Where one line is the local surface running LRT and the Sepulveda Pass line is under Van Nuys Blvd only making major stops at the Orange Line and Metrolink stations.
For the reasons you stated, I think the hybrid makes the most sense. It's easier to get support for it now and build the la brea connection later, than to build la brea and risk not getting any support from that community. I also think that trying to hedge by building the compromise line is definitely a lose-lose, because no one really gets what they want, and the fight to bring all sides together isn't worth it.
Lets go Nandert uploaded
I think the Hybrid option is the best. Even though it is the most costliest , having the most ridership of the other three options would justify the cost. Also having a rail station near Cedars Sinai is super important and maybe the Beverly Center can either get some love or demolished.
Or instead we could have a different light rail line serve the hybrid area as well as Venice Blvd and SM Blvd and the K line follows LB
Stop hating on the Beverly Center! It is the best mall in LA and has the most options and the most central! Parking is inexpensive, and it handles all needs! The Bev Center is the most underrated mall ever, and needs to be appreciated! Other than that love the content! ❤️❤️
So many videos this year. I’m feeling spoiled
Great video! To address the issues regarding the potential precluding of a Santa Monica line with the Fairfax and Hybrid alignments, perhaps building stacked stations with enough room for tracks on the other side along Santa Monica would help ease these concerns. This is similar to what NYC did when building the 63rd St line to plan for SAS. Additionally, building stacked also allows for potential cross platform transfers, which are super convenient and should be built more. It’s a real shame they aren’t constructed as frequently these days.
They aren't entertaining the idea of placing junction boxes, no way will they design the line in a way to be double stacked on Santa Monica Blvd.
@@adianchowdhury9016 And the fact that LA Metro isn't even entertaining junction boxes, let alone stacking the stations on Santa Monica to accomodate a potential raili line along Santa Monica is a real shame. It seems to continue a pattern of neglecting long term planning, which may ultimately bite LA Metro in the butt if they do end up getting around to building a rail line Santa Monica, which is quite sad.
I acknowledge and appreciate that the costs of building junction boxes and stacked stations are not cheap, but maybe they could've swapped out a couple of the crossovers for junction boxes instead lol. Oh, and reduced the size of the station boxes. It's pretty atrocious how big they are.
If anything, this video lays bare the planning issues present in LA Metro and underscores the need to fix these fundamental issues.
@aaronposternack5896 The bigger issue about what gets built or not is the funding scheme. If they do as you suggest, it means less funding for another project or possibly multiple projects. That's the difficulty in deciding and designing these various projects. It's not a lack of foresight of future expansions.
And the funding scheme also requires, by law, to spread out the transit projects across not just the city, but the county. These projects are funded in part by a countywide sales tax increase with the understanding that rail transit access would be available to residents throughout the LA county.
This is an amazing video - the projected overlay onto satellite imaging; the history; the cost/design analysis. Subscribed!
I don't care if it even doubles the cost of the project, BUILD THE BOWL STATION. I live a block from Hollywood/Highland and I am not kidding that it can take me up to 2 hours to get to my damn house from US-101 in the Cahuenga Pass because once Highland backs up....every single street in the entire district backs up in all directions. True gridlock. It is miserable.................
Sorry for your inconvenience. I use to live in Whitley Heights. The part that is off Cahuenga and across the Fwy from the Bowl. There should be only bus or shuttle service to the Bowl from remote parking perhaps at Hollywood and Highland or Universal. Until there is an extended line to the Valley it is too expensive for what it delivers.
Yes, La Brea may be the most direct and least expensive alignment, but I’m in full support of the hybrid alignment.
I’m a Glendalian who’d be taking the K Line from Hollywood/Highland to Santa Monica/San Vicente.
I’d be happy with a Santa Monica spur on a more direct route, but Metro already rejected that.
An alternative to the hybrid would be extending the grove streetcar to nearby metro stations and building a metro line going along Venice, La Cienega, Beverley Center, and Santa Monica Blvd
I just love the hybrid design since that gives the partiest section of the city a station to funnel drunk revelers out during pride month
Plus the station design would be fabulous, just a whole ass nightclub underground if we’re lucky
Good catch with the crossover issue and those massive station boxes! Definitely gonna comment about those. Also, while it’s the least direct and most expensive option, I think we sort of owe it to West Hollywood to give them the hybrid alignment. If it weren’t for them we probably wouldn’t have this extension done until the 2060s lol. And sadly I don’t think the Hollywood Bowl station is worth it 😢. Maybe they can put in some BRT in as compensation.
Why do we owe HEHo 4 LRT stations but only a BRT line for transit-heavy Vermont Corridor that was promised a LRT/HST decades ago? Nothing equitable about that and and I'm sure the FTA would & should ding the Hybrid option for that.
About the crossover, I actually think the stations should be longer, not to have the crossovers but to accommodate for longer (ie 5 or longer trains. This is something RMTransit has talked about in his video on the Regional Connector.
(especially if the K Line gets conversed to full subway, which isn’t too unrealistic, just close a few crossings on the south).
All the light rail lines are built for 3 car trains. That won't change for many reasons. In fact, 4 currently C line stations will be extended to accept 3 cars. Currently, those stations only accept 2 car trains. The K line will be reconfigured in the near future and take over those 4 stations to the south of the 105 fwy. The C line, in turn, will be reconfigured to go north to connect to the under construction LAX Metro Transit Center. The K line will NEVER be converted into a heavy rail line.
However, the two heavy rail subway lines on LA Metro can accommodate 4 and 6 car trains on all their stations. I'm also confident that LA Metro will chose a heavy rail alternative for the proposed Sepulveda Pass line that should also accommodate 4 and 6 car trains at the stations.
It would be sick if you made a video on Metro’s Olympic plans. What they’re trying to complete, where the events are, what they did in ‘84, and what will actually happen during the games.
One option not mentioned in your video would be to build the Hybrid option now, and the LaBrea option later. You could then repurpose the tracks from the Hybrid option for any of the new metro lines you proposed that would cross the LaBrea line. You would also get the benefit of having connecting tracks between the two lines for fleet movements and for diverting traffic during serious disruptions.
That's what my wishful thinking is as well... I think the La Brea line is worth building but WeHo is absolutely worth building sooner but it's such a tough call because I want all the rail now lol.
It comes down to the available funding at any given time. These projects are funded through increased sales taxes year in, year out.
I think you go ahead and make the hybrid line and connect it to the Hollywood bowl. Use the money from weho and the intangible of integrating more people into the system. Once people become acustomed to taking the metro, they are more likely to use it in the future. There's just so much intangible of people getting on their feet and taking public transport: walking more, potentially spending more money in route, getting comfortable transporting in large groups etc. And return to the fact of money! It just seems better to connect more sooner under the most support possible.
Maybe next time we will design cities with integrated public transit...
I remember going to the LA fair in Pomona in the 90s and seeing a map of possible lines and dates. My family lived a block from Crenshaw. It’s been decades and my dad never lived to see rail return to the area.
This whole debacle over the K line to WeHo could've been avoided if Metro had just decided to build the junction box on the D line to begin with. This is why long-term planning is so important!
The La Cienega/Beverly station should be called Beverly Grove/Cedars Sinai station due to its proximity. They did it for City of Hope.
Wake up babe, my favorite soap opera has a new episode
I’ve seen the perks for the Hybrid option since it was proposed. The WeHo horseshoe won’t add too much extra time for through riders (5 minutes) and the ridership massively increases. WeHo has been rallying for this for years now, and there’s intense local interest for it. La Cienega/Beverly and Fairfax/3rd I think would be driven heavily by tourist traffic, a lot of daily commuters working in the immediate area, and of course Cedars. There could always be the possibility of public transit development reform in the near future as well, which could make a lot of issues disappear (especially if VP Harris gets elected).
Agreed that the Bowl station doesn't make sense but what about adding another Dodger Stadium-like aerial tramway? Station at Hollywood and Highland complex and have it run overhead over Highland. Hell, you could run it as a tourist attraction when there are no shows.
There's a shuttle bus that directly serves the Bowl from Hollywood/Highland. There's a shuttle bus from Union Station to Dodger Stadium so that gondola project is useless too.
In my fantasy for a future line under Santa Monica, the K hybrid is rerouted to Sunset instead of Santa Monica (creating a station for the Sunset Strip) ending at the Hollywood Bowl, and the future Sepulveda line gets a wye under UCLA to connect to Century City, WeHo, East Hollywood, Silver Lake, Echo Park, Dodger Stadium and Union Station under the length of Santa Monica Blvd and the Eastern bit of Sunset Blvd
Doesn't West Hollywood Gateway have an underground parking garage that goes all the way up to the La Brea/Santa Monica intersection? Seems like that would preclude any interfacing with Metro.
The Hybrid Alignment has a better catchment area overall, specifically because its capturing all the residential we slammed onto the Arterial in Santa Monica
B line takes over the G in the valley! That’s my pitch for the future planning video! Elevated or cut and cover in metro right of way! Connect the B line to Sepulveda!! Make a heavy rail loop!
The G line was originally proposed as an extension of the then Red line, but was blocked by NIMBYs. A light rail was also considered and abandoned due to community input. The result is the current BRT.
videos like this are so informative and helpful, hope you keep making them!
A critical benefit of extra crossovers: easy 24/7 service without shortening overnight maintenance windows. The Washington Metro’s dearth of crossovers is among the biggest reasons for its poor track conditions and challenges with running late/early/24-hour services regularly. More crossovers means more capacity for single-track operations during evening track and electrical inspection times. So from a long-game perspective, they’re probably worth including now so that 24/7 service to LAX will be feasible without creating a maintenance nightmare after opening. Fair point that the crossovers could be made shorter, but perhaps more cut & cover/trench construction would help with prices as well?
Nick, your videos are amazing. thank you for taking the time and attention to make them.
Yeah I'm with you on the alignment, Fairfax would be my preferred option, but WeHo is all-in on the hybrid and seeing how pro-rail this city is warms my heart. So I guess Hybrid is ok with me
WeHo is not pro-rail, they're anti-bus. The city is wealthy enough to get a bus system that will solve the transit problems of its residents now (or, within a couple of years). Instead it chooses to wait decades for a rail system that is supposed to be a long-distance, regional transit option, not a glorified city trolley line.
@@boris256bMore buses is not a long term solution as long as they share the ROW with other vehicles. The only way they make sense would be for WEHO to build gold level BRTs crisscrossing the city. That means fewer lanes for vehicles. That's the real fight.
Is there any possibility of building *both* the Fairfax and Hybrid options? May as well just spend the extra money now and have more extensive coverage in return.
I know that the Hollywood Bowl station has really low daily ridership between 300-400 daily, non-Bowl event, ridership estimates. However, I think that it's important to point out that this is the same or higher than current average boardings at Douglas, Downtown Inglewood, East LA Civic Center, El Segundo, Fairview Heights, Heritage Square, Irwindale, Hyde Park, Leimert Park, Mariachi Plaza, Maravilla, MLK Jr, Southwest Museum, 1st Street, and 5th Street stations.
That’s why this line gotta extend into the valley
Transportation videos are great. It make me feel like we are playing SimCity or City Skylines, but real.
One suggestion, define some terms. I'm a geek and some of this stuff is over my head. You throw a lot of info pretty quickly. Links or brief definitions are appreciated. VMT?
Also, all malls are dead.
What an awesome graph. @11:12
Also a question to consider. Im quite bullish about self-driving vehicles(basically Waymo). I think that most people won't own cars and we will subscribe to a car service with varying level of comfort and privacy/exclusivity. If I'm right, won't all of this public transportation(rail) be useless and underutilized? I feel like you are the right person to answer/talk about this subject.
Beverly Center needs the roof to be turned into a big green park
Mannn, why do people gotta hate on Beverly Center so much 😭 Yes, it's pretty dead most days, but it's still a vibe lol Nice place to walk around, and great city views of the surrounding streets.
I disagree about Beverly Center being the emptiest mall... have you even been to Howard Hughes Center lately?
Are the crossovers longer for potential future station expansion? Three car trains seem short to begin with.
I doubt it very much. You would have to expand the platform stations along all the K line. That doesn't make any practical sense. And some stations might be incapable of being expanded if they are too close to an intersection.
How often are crossovers in use by existing Metro lines to do maintenance?
There's a lot to discuss about this extension, but i work at the Hollywood Bowl so that's what i focused on in my public comment. I mentioned that the station entrance should be in Lot B not Lot C. Lot C is only accessible via the Hollywood Bowl pedestrian tunnel which sucks and it's inaccessible for any patrons with disabilities that require mobility devices
makes me sad the costs for the bowl because I am close enough that the traffic kills me on some days. It's just such a nightmare to live near.
Not sure if that train would fix it though. There's already a lot of buses so it could be worse. Look at traffic after a playoff Dodger game.
Fantastic good news, nice presentation.
I was literally wondering yesterday when Nandert would upload again!
I agree that the hybrid alternative seems like the path of least resistance to approval, whilst simultaneously serving the most important locations. Really want the Bowl stop too and, even though the forecast average daily ridership does not justify the cost right now, the potential to “introduce” more people to using Metro during Bowl events and convert them to long term fans and riders should not be discounted.
This is great analysis - thank you!
I know this might be a huge stretch but Metro should at least consider building Phase 1 of the K Line North early in order to drive more passengers for the '28 Olympics.
In other words outside of the Olympics, I still have hopes for the Hollywood Bowl station. I too feel like this'll massively drive more passengers into seriously taking the Metro to up there for the concerts and such, including with the residents who live in few/several blocks of the Bowl would certainly take this station for granted, especially how they're still being bottleneck'd by the freeway interchanges.
If they started construction today on the quickest, simplest version (La Brea), it would still be 2034 or so before it opens.
Basically, as a practical matter, nothing not currently under primary construction already could possibly open by the Olympics. So this is out, the Inglewood People Mover is out (and may now never get built due to Maxine Waters' inexplicable sudden opposition to the project), the Dodger Stadium gondola is out (and may never get built due to NIMBY opposition).
So, basically, the K Line to LAX only, LAX People Mover, A Line to Pomona only, the OC Streetcar, all stages of the D Line extension, and maaayyybbee Brightline High Speed Rail to Vegas...and that's about it before 2028. Maybe some weaksauce BRT-lite.
Thanks for your work Nandert! Hope Metro sees this and reconsiders the crossovers.
Hi, @nandert!
Although I am not an Angeleno I would like leave the following comment that you might want to include in your public comment to the Metro Transit Authority board.
My concern is about the length of platforms. Each platform appears to be one block long, which fits two LRV articulated trolleys. Doesn't the regional connector tunnel have platforms that accommodate trainsets of 3 trolleys for the A and E trains? Likewise the platforms on the K line extension should be the same length. This would be a more economically beneficial use for the enormous amount of money and effort to be spent to build the long station boxes than the extra-long crossovers are.
Thank you.
Edward M.
New Orleans, LA.
Cut the crossovers from the La Brea option, and use the savings to build the spur to WeHo
Fairfax/Beverly is honestly where Union Station SHOULD be if we are placing it in the center of the densest core of LA.
Once the K Line gets to Hollywood I expect Wilshire/Fairfax to be busier than Union Station. So many bus riders will take the D and K Lines and they'll be time competitive with driving too.
Great to see that progress is being made!
Metro dropping crossovers everywhere like they're not gonna just run 30 minute maintenance headways anyway like they do on all other lines
As an outsider, the La Brea option seems best due to the travel times and better cost and construction timelines.
Yeah, and the Beverly Center and LC should be served on a different route, and extend the grove trolley streetcar to the nearby metro stations
As a Koreatown resident that's off the Purple-D line, I'm excited! If I'm still living in koreatown when it's done, is another question. That said, there is population density that off the Purple-D line and this opens routes.
I am not familiar with the local landscape - but does grade separation make the most sense - particularly *underground grade separation* (the most expensive option) make sense in this context?
Grade separation is great, for speed and convenience. But drives up cost of course.
Light rail can be more versatile to heavy rail (I.e. subways) as it can be used in a mixed - partly grade separated / partly non-grade separated fashion depending on the conditions, although it usually carries about half the capacity, or less (varies system by system depending on frequency, speed, grade separation, etc…).
Most of the light rail lines on LA Metro are built as you describe including the current operating section of the K line.
I'm not sure why LA Metro decided from the start to put this northern extension completely underground. It probably has to do with inadequate street capacity for at grade or aerial sections or stations. I think only La Cienega is wide enough to do something like that.
Would you consider covering the San Diego purple line? There’s not much coverage I can find about the project, it hasn’t gone through environmental study as far as I know and is possible more than 20 years away
So in part of the video it mentions funding from property value. If the property values drop mid construction then does that funding drop?
I believe the best option to go for here is the Fairfax alignment, with a junction box added at Fairfax / Santa Monica and La Brea /Santa Monica.
It gives WeHo more Service than the LaBrea alignment, while not making the line go too much out of the way. And it also future proofs the Line for a Future Line down Santa Monica, that would ideally go towards the area only served by the Hybrid alternative. (My thinking is, that it could continue on Santa Monica until Century city to meet the D Line then Switch to Olympic and then continue to meet the E Line at Expo/Bundy and then Terminate with the E Line, on the other end this cold probably continue into the WSAB)
The money for the junction boxes should come from reducing crossovers on the line.
Perhaps all the crossovers hint at an express service that bypasses certain stations to minimize travel time to LAX??
Nice video!👍
10:25 *if fitting within large bores like Barcelona's metro L9 does, are huge station boxes still necessary?*
How many events does the Hollywood Bowl host?
It would be nice if that whole area had a loop or future Hollywood to Weho loop. That area is so vast I usually avoid it because I use to go to Fairfax High of which I mainly used La Brea, Santa Monica and Fairfax and I grew up in K-Town using Sunset, Olympic and Wilshire.
They should just do LB and serve the Beverly Center and LC on a different route, and extend the grove trolley streetcar to the nearby metro stations
I'm already too old for this to complete. I'll still be on the bus...👴🏻
Love the video, but what did Rick Caruso do to you?
Agreed on the Beverly Center - a lot can be explained by the fact that it's really a cover for an oil derrick. That's why it's still this weird mall and why it has such an odd shape (and also why it can't be residential - literally on top of an active oil drilling site).
That mall was very popular in the 80s and 90s. They should renovate it again, but add some residential housing on top. It can be done. It's a great location for condos or apartments. A lot of stuff within walking distance, too.
Simple solution. Get rid of the oil well.
Beverley center should be served by the Venice and Santa Monica Blvd line while the K line goes under La Brea
There is absolutely no reason it should take that long. 10 years for all three max is reasonable. Other countries do it, why can't we??????
Did LA Metro ever consider one of the two straighter options and then a spur to where the hybrid one goes? That seems like it would be the best of both words: fast connections between lines and still serving hot spots. Because 7 minute slower travel time is insane!
I guess yes. I should’ve watched the full video before commenting. 17:20
I personally think what we really need right now is for L.A. metro to extend the red line towards Burbank with a stop at Burbank airport before terminating in Burbank downtown, probably under the Burbank mall. don't get me wrong the K line extension is great, but we need more frequent service on the B and D lines, or red and purple, as well as the red line to be extended into downtown Burbank with a few stops in-between, including Burbank airport. we also need to add a stop in-between NoHo and universal, we also need them so solve the crime and homeless problem in the system, Especially on the red line, its obviously a project, but it could be a necessary one.
I know LA Metro rail is far from perfect, but the air of feasibility in your speculative future rail alignments has me drooling.
Hi! I have immigrated to LA from Moscow. Can you please explain me why LA metro system is developing so slow? In Moscow they open 10 staitiom in a year! This time estimates just for several stations are so scary! I would love to get rid of the car and use public transportation.
red tape, bureaucracy, corruption, high-cost estimates, NIMBY'S,....
US is just not serious about public transportation, unfortunately.
I want to chime in by saying that the “crossovers” are known by us 🚊 operators as “Interlockings.” With that being said, _THAT’S A LOT OF INTERLOCKINGS!!!!_ Holy cow!!!!
Let's goooo, new nandert vid!
Autonomous Flying Cars will be here before this rail line will ever be finished.
I like the La Brea much better, but I accept the compromise with the hybrid in order to get metro through West Hollywood faster.
Bro they need to just plan two separate alignments where it diverges and rejoins along La Brea, like the Northern line in London.
Im trying to figure out what is stopping them from a future santa monica line interlining or even adding new tracks (next to or under/over) the hybrid configuration. I'm pretty sure transit cities around the world do this and it could be a possibility if LA has a transit renaissance in the future.
Between Lucid Stew on CAHSR and this… I support mass transit but you’re not kidding on gross over-engineering.
Can’t wait for your new long term plan video, would love to see what a La Brea straight shot + Santa Monica line might look like
Hey, great video, I don't really know anything about this project but can someone tell me why they arent doing full heavy rail metro here? seems like a fully tunnelled light rail is the worst of both options in being both very expensive, time consuming but also not all that high capacity or high speed as a metro could be? thanks
@nandert I would really love your thoughts. I have already submitted my comments, but I wanted to ask you about a suggestion I have had for year now that was not studied. That would be the hybrid option, but with the Wilshire station being at La Brea and not Fairfax.
Reasoning:
(1.) It, I believe cuts down the over length (so money.)
(2.) The housing density at La Brea/Wilshire is far greater (and extra useful with the pleasant idea of an entrance at 6th, as well.)
(3.) If you are from/going from the airport or anywhere on the K-Line currently, it is faster to K-town with 1 less station in travel times from K to D.
(4.) Another speed reason, if you are trying to go up La Brea, idk what the bus situation at Mid-Town Crossing will be, but regardless of if it has a fast connection (minimal walking) to get to the 212 La Brea Bus, this would speed up travel to businesses and apartments on La Brea north of Wilshire before Santa Monica, as well as, faster connection even with bus transfer to Beverly's 14 Bus if going east or west, rather than getting on it way over at the beverly center which it doesn't even go west on beverly from there.
(5.) You get that shorter direct angled line going up 3rd Street for tunneling, still giving you the farmer's market + intersection connection and perhaps further east that connection to the grove via the southside of the complex (which fuck Curuso, but it's closer to the Pan Pacific Park that is much loved.)
(6.) With that 3rd Street tunneling, you could get a better duel entrance at La Cienega AND the south east area of the Cedar Sinai. (Which could bring much better future changes to those horrible intersections.
(7.) You could still go up San Vicente or Robertson if it is a wider curve needed.
This is truly I think, the most cost effective and best of all worlds. You get the best multi-use entrances. Most density of living and bus connection. Best hybrid options to travel north/south and some streets east/west. (I am not an engineer, idk if there is issues with the oil drill sites, tar in some area, but I'm sure like with D-Line we are bound to run into some anyways.
P.S. No Hollywood Bowl connection until there is a full line planned and built with it going North towards Warner Bros. I mean you gonna rent different equipment for just that with the biggest box and 2 cross overs even longer because it has to curve. WTF! If they really need something put up a shitty Gondola from that Arch in the Ovation Center up the street to the Bowl, plus it would be faster even if it would be low capacity.
EDIT: I was wrong, thought id rough draw lengths on google earth my hybrid and the original are about the same, assuming curve shapes.
Like Dodger stadium there is a shuttle bus that runs frequently and easily connects to mass transit. It's called the Ovation shuttle and it's a short walk to the Hollywood/Highland Station.
Is the ridership only considering the travels in a walking distance? Because if the planners adds a brt that services some stations could add ridership to the cheaper option.
I like the La Brea option with the East West Santa Monica option
Interesting you didn't do a video like this when the SW Gateway EIR came out ...
Maybe one day we’ll get rail in Burbank :(
Urban Planner: "We need to address urban food deserts!"
Metro Executive: "We agree, and we'll assist by providing critically needed transit! The first thing we'll need to do is tear down this Ralphs, obviously..."
Hey Nick, once again nice analysis!
A thought on the number of crossovers, separately from their design: in a scenario where it's ambiguous where a future extension might connect to the planned alignment, it's a *really* good idea to place crossovers frequently, so as to minimize the total distance a train has to travel along any given single-track segment, because that's ultimately what determines the operating headway during single-track operations.
Case in point: Phoenix's Valley Metro Light Rail. When Tempe built its streetcar, the chosen alignment involved building new crossings in three different places: Ash, Rural, & Dorsey. The existing line only has one crossover in the vicinity, at Dorsey itself, which meant that during the construction phase in 2019, the light rail had to single-track for fully 5 miles, from the O&M facility entrance west of Priest all the way to Dorsey, and later again from Dorsey to Price/101, with resulting headways of 25 minutes. At one point they even had to run a supplemental bus bridge with turnback operations to prevent the service elsewhere along the line from getting too crowded. Needless to say, that sucked! So when the Downtown Hub & South Central Line construction began shortly thereafter, Valley Metro planners deliberately modified the plan to include building additional crossovers immediately before & after the construction zone, specifically to minimize the need for such long headways, and the result has been much less disruptive.
It seems reasonable, then, that even if LA Metro could be persuaded to use smaller crossovers, it might still be sensible to build them more frequently, if there's any possibility that a future expansion might require constructing a branch off of the K Line, and a station box isn't pre-built at the exact spot where the new line would diverge. Given this project has such a long time horizon, who knows where future development might drive demand for additional connections along this corridor?
At any rate, IIJA reauthorization is happening next year, so assuming we can elect a transit-supporting majority to the House in November, it'll be worth considering what the ask would be for a new injection of Federal funding to help accelerate this and other projects around the country.
Except they aren't planning on placing _any_ junction boxes, which means they aren't considering any branches, spurs, or service pattern changes.
@@adianchowdhury9016fair, but like, I dunno, maybe an excessively large station box could end up being used as a junction box later? It definitely seems like in some of these stations the complete box includes a fair bit of excavation beyond the *opposite* end of the platform from the crossover, which to me, seems like the sort of thing you'd only do if you're deliberately over engineering for any possible future expansion but without any specific plans being defined. If I was being asked to design the best possible version of the Hybrid alignment at any rate, I'd want to be sure there's futureproofing in case LA Metro ever decided they didn't like how circuitous the service pattern is, after it had already gotten built.