A number of comments have suggested Metro build transit on Los Angeles County freeways. The advantages of doing so also come with deep concerns.
Los Angeles does, of course, have several examples of transit lines using freeways. The Metro Green Line operates in the median of the I-105 Freeway, the Metro Gold Line operates in a segment of the I-210 Foothill Freeway, Metrolink commuter trains operate in the I-10 San Bernardino Freeway and Metro buses operate along the I-10 and I-110 Freeways in the El Monte Busway and the Harbor Transitway.
The difficulty in building rail lines on existing freeways is similar and perhaps more complex than adding carpool lanes to existing freeways. A California Department of Transportation practice does not allow the conversion of mixed flow freeway lanes to carpool lanes (and/or transit) without the addition of new lanes to replace any lost automobile capacity. And widening freeways for transit use is tremendously expensive because of the high cost to acquire freeway adjacent real estate, the cost to reconstruct freeway bridges, over crossings, ramps and other facilities.If transit was constructed on freeways without the requirement to replace lost traffic lanes, the transit stations on freeways would still be perceived by many to be less safe and more difficult to use than stations built in more populated areas. Because of their surroundings, freeway transit stations include high noise levels from adjoining high-speed vehicles, as well as airborne dirt and pollution. Due to the need to construct pedestrian overpasses, bridges, stairways and elevators/escalators from remote parking lots and bus stops, these stations can be challenging to access. Freeway stations are generally not located close enough to major job centers or other destinations to be walk able and, therefore, multiple transfers from trains to buses are usually required.
So although Metro weighs the use of freeway transit projects in locations where it is feasible to do so, freeway transit projects are often more expensive and less desirable than other choices.
22 comments:
The problem with those that promote using freeways obviously don't use public transit.
Wait at any of the stations on I-105, I-210 and inhale the fumes and be-sure to bring ear-plugs, because the sound level is louder than what OSHA allows in the work place. The Freeway is no place for transit stations.
Metrolink Cal-State station is buffered from the freeway noise, but the rest of the line on I-10 does not have stations.
How about we allocate the financial resources we do have the proper way and build under the major highways currently in place?
I'd like to see a line run under the 405 as opposed to headed towards Norwalk.
Not to mention, let's spend some time instead of money to negotiate with the airport to get the Green Line into the actual terminal area. We love FlyAway, but that's because don't have anything better.
nrusdmx
The high cost of taking property to widen a freeway is the point here. LA is dense enough in most areas that subways make more sense then above ground lines such as along freeways that woulld require taking property.
Yes, subways are expensive, but they make sense along certain dense corridors. Too bad there is not much talk of a subway line along Ventura Blvd. which is a very dense corridor.
Agreed! The best value and most efficient use for light-rail/subway lines is for them to follow where people/jobs/entertainment are, just as they are in other cities. These lines should be grade-separated and run through populated areas, such as downtown LA west to Santa Monica, with a network of lines and stops (i.e. more than just the subway to the sea).
Put this on the ballot and let the citizens of LA decide whether this "hinderance" should be repealed at least for LA County.
We overcame this with the methane problem that prevented westward expansion of the purple line. Now let us repeal these bureaucratic red tape that gets us nowhere.
The Gold Line needs to be the top priority. Gridlock on the 210 since the extension to the 15 is destroying this freeway. There is huge community support in the San Gabriel Valley for the Gold Line while all the other projects have opposition. This project is the best way to quickly improve overall LA quality of lie.
This is a really cool blog.
As a former LA County Transportation Commission budget analyst, many years ago I was indirectly involved in the purchase of the railroad ROW that has now resulted in the Gold Line to Pasadena, and now could be used for partial extension of the Gold Line toward Montclair. It is utterly insane to me that this extension has moved to the middle of the "Strategic Unfunded" list when the ROW was purchased for this very purpose, and there is not only no opposition, but overwhelming strong public support for this line. Most of you will not remember that the reason that there is a "Metro Orange Line" is that public outcry killed the possibility of a Red Line subway extension from North Hollywood to Warner Center in 1990. One can only wonder about the special interests that will raise their heads over the purple line. SO...since most of the potential route is figured out, a good bit of the ROW is already in hand, and the public is clamoring for it, please return Foothill its primacy in funding strategy.
There won't be any mass transit in twenty five years. As of 1990 there weren't any profitable mass transit systems.
The oil and natural gas will have been depleted to the point by the year 2030 that gasoline, deisel, and natural gas will not be feasable.
Horses and wagons, feet and bicycles, will be in use.
Of course only a crazy person would say these things. Or a person who has read "The Long Emergency." By the way, we're already in it.
I think the idea here is that public transport be as or more efficient than driving along major transit routes, like freeways. Constructing an underground subway a few blocks north or south of freeways (or on streets like Colorado/Foothill/Huntington and others) seems like a sane solution. Something has to be done. We are already driving much MUCH more than we should, and more people in the area, or more buses on the road, will only make it worse.
Maybe you guys should let the voters decide where they want a metro line.
Put in three ballot measures for this November for the following:
Shall the City of Los Angeles build a rail system along the I-405, I-110, I-101?
You might be surprised at the results. With today's gas prices, people would rather go on rail than build more carpool lanes or highways - AND NOT ALL PEOPLE WORK IN DOWNTOWN L.A.!!
Obviously something LA commuters need is a Purple Line Expansion, west to Santa Monica, it would reduce traffic dramatically, esp. along the surface streets so many resort to to avoid the over crowded freeways.
The Orange Line becoming a subway line (or elevated Light Rail) would reduce the time it takes to go from North Hollywood to Warner Center, and would increase the flow of traffic.
I don't know the history of transit here in LA or what voters, communities, and special interests have done to affect the current rail options a commuter has.
I have live in other big cities and LA is by far the worst when it comes to public transit, its somewhat sad that a city as big as ours would be so behind in developing effective transit systems.
I think there should be express rail in addition to the current and future lines. Especially along the Blue Line, during rush hour time trains should leave 7th/Metro Center and proceed non stop to Rosa Parks Station, and from there continue non-stop to Transit Mall, they should run every 20 minutes during rush hour and regular service would continue unchanged.
There should be better options late at night and more 24hour lines, and I think the # 60 should be eliminated and the Blue Line and Red Line should be 24hours.
The congestion is not just on the freeways, its on the bus where 20 or more people are forces to stand for the majority of their commute, on the trains where people have to push to catch the train so they're not late. If you're going to encourage drivers to "Go Metro" we should make doing so less aggravating.
It would nice to double-buses along Hollywood Blvd, on routes 217, 180, 212, 312.
In general for a rail system that could be serving a much bigger spectrum of commuters it falls extremely short. In general there should Rail in the Valley, from Koreatown to Santa Monica (Purple Line Extension), Rail from the Valley that would connect to the Purple Line [extension] and the Green Line.
I'm a little long winded on the subject of improving Rail in LA, but the reality is that these changes will never happen. There will never be the funding and community support, eventually the economy will get better gas prices will go down, and less and less people will be interested in supporting a system for the working class.
In 50 years we still won't have the Purple Line extension and The Orange Line will have been eliminated all together. There will be more cars on the road than ever before and Tax payer's money will go into building wider freeways and expanding carpool lanes.
God, I miss San Francisco
This is a response to the May 5th post by Metro (Los Angeles) regarding building transit along freeway segments.
"If transit was constructed on freeways without the requirement to replace lost traffic lanes, the transit stations on freeways would still be perceived by many to be less safe and more difficult to use than stations built in more populated areas."
Is there any support for this statement? As far as I am concerned, the Green Line is just as safe as any other rail line, and frankly, my _perception_ is that it is much safer than the Blue Line which has the distinction of being the "busiest and deadliest light-rail line in the nation" according to LA Weekly. I find it hard to believe that your riders feel that dedicated rail lines along a freeway are any less safe than light rail running along crowded city streets (especially with the Metrolink trial recently covered in the news). Nor can I imagine people finding freeway stations any more difficult to use.
"A California Department of Transportation practice does not allow the conversion of mixed flow freeway lanes to carpool lanes (and/or transit) without the addition of new lanes to replace any lost automobile capacity."
It sounds like this Caltrans 'practice' is at odds with their stated goal of "improving mobility across California". Based on the transportation studies that I've seen on the internet, it appears that a single freeway lane supports ~2,000 people per hour whereas light rail is able to support any where from 8,000 to 18,000 people per hour. Replacing a single freeway lane with rail can increase capacity by ~15,000 people per hour. On most freeways, you would more than double the total freeway capacity without having to expand the freeway. How can an organization whose goal is to "improve mobility across California" argue against such numbers? Make a case to the press, inform the public, and they will have to cave. Let's imagine real changes.
"And widening freeways for transit use is tremendously expensive because of the high cost to acquire freeway adjacent real estate, the cost to reconstruct freeway bridges, over crossings, ramps and other facilities."
Based on the figures above, there is no reason to widen the freeways or acquire additional real estate. Simply segregate the existing 'fast lanes' and keep most of the facilities rather minimal -- keep the focus on adding more rail -- the station upgrades can come later.
The carpool lanes on the 110 freeway, for example, could be converted at relatively low cost now. What is wrong with the existing bus service along that route? Plenty. Foremost, the buses do not run frequently enough. On a few occasions I have waited over twenty minutes for a bus to arrive only to find that the bike rack was full or broken. Now, instead of waiting for a bus, on most days I simply ride my bike the remaining 6 miles of my commute.
"Freeway stations are generally not located close enough to major job centers or other destinations to be walk able and, therefore, multiple transfers from trains to buses are usually required."
Huh? Are there not dozens of large job and retail centers near any freeway (UCLA, USC, the harbor, downtown, etc)? How are people going to get to work if you don't build some of the stations in residential areas? And there is no guarantee that the job centers of today are going to be the job centers of tomorrow -- we learned this lesson with the Green Line, right?
Los Angeles desperately needs more rail. A large subway system with stops at most of the large job or retail centers would be nice, but it isn't realistic. Subways are expensive, require oodles of time to build, and as was learned with the Red Line, the risks and uncertainty are high. Light rail on freeways reduces both the uncertainty and the time to build.
Preposterous. I grew up in Chicago and the HEAVILY traveled Blue Line is on the 90 freeway for a big stretch of it's run and it is BY FAR the most useful route out there. Freeways are built where they are built for a reason: they are by EVERYTHING!
A rail line up and down the 405 including one that, god forbid, actually stops at LAX would cut traffic IMMENSELY.
The cost of land can be negotiated and if you need more money, here is another novel thought again from Chicago, charge people who own cars $100/year for a city sticker. No sticker=$500 fine. Also the state and CalTrans MUST see the benefit to the environment of fewer cars.
Oh and the red line, how about a 24 hour rail line? This stopping at 12:30 am stuff is just plain stupid. I would take the red line to go barhopping in Hollywood if it ran late enough. As it is now it's 'pile in a car with someone you hope wasn't lying about not drinking that night'
Seriously, NY and Chicago have several 24 hour rail lines, it's bush league for LA to have ZERO.
I really don't believe that using freeways is such a bad idea when it comes to mass transit, but we do need to fix a few problems.
First of all, I believe we should construct an efficient subway/rail line along the 101. There are many fascinating shops, clubs, etc. along the freeway and driving through there is a pain, especially during rush hour.
Another thing is we need to add more stations to the Green Line. I constantly find myself shopping or visiting relatives on streets such as Central Ave. or Western Ave. & having to take multiple buses to transfer is not only a pain, but a waste of the people's time and money.
One thing that needs DESPERATE IMPROVEMENT is the I-110 Harbor Transitway. First of all, same issue as the Green Line, WE NEED MORE STATIONS!!!! (Especially past the Artesia Transit Center) Also we have to fix the horrible bus schedules for the buses running along the transitway. Buses pass aprx. every 35 minutes to an hour, which makes it difficult for people on the go! Also, most of the lines stop running between 8 & 9 PM, which makes it frustrating due to the fact that you have to find & and board several connecting street buses late at night to go were you need to go. Wouldn't it be easier to get rid of the transitway and build some sort of subway/rail line (Sort of like the Expo Line) on the I-110 from San Pedro to Downtown LA?
Also we need extended subway service in Downtown LA, to accomadate the people working or shopping in the warehouse district, financial district, toy district, etc. and in the small narrow streets in Downtown and to serve the Greyhound bus terminal. Less buses in the small streets in Downtown & an effective subway system would significantly reduce congestion & pollution.
Look, we can talk about improvements for a long time, but it's time to take action, and we need to fix our transit system now! We need to find an effective, but low cost solution to our mediocre-at-best transit system, and freeways rail lines, more subway lines, and improved bus service is the solution.
Building rail along freeways is a terrible idea. Rail aught to be built in walkable areas, and should be accessible and pleasant to use.
Every freeway should have a train station. And as for the noise? Try working downtown, living in at Hollywood and Highland or living with a teenager.
The only problem with rail on the freeways is how to get to them. That's where the MTA has always fallen down. Buses don't run frequently enough, are slow and are too crowded. Personally, I won't touch a bus except the Orange line. There must be places for people to park cars, or better yet, encourage motorcycles and scooters with special parking for bikes.
Also, the MTA needs to look at where people actually go and go there using the routes people go. Stick a subway under those streets and businesses will flourish. I remember Hollywood before the subway and Hollywood now. Big change. Gone are the depressed stores and the drug dealers.
And don't take property from land owners, take the car pool lanes on both sides.
I live in North Hollywood, close to North Hollywood station. I have many friends in Glendale, but I always avoid to go there , because there is only one bus which goes to Glendale , #183, and that bus works every 1 hour and takes forever to get to Glendale. I think you should think about this. Sometime I go to hollywood in order to go to Glendale because of this problem
I don't buy this post. BART runs along freeways. And here's a thought, we don't have to have stations actually on the freeway itself. As for sound and the workplace, come to any neighborhood on the Eastside of Los Angeles on a weekend in the summer and you have the same issue with boom cars. So... noise pollution is a moot issue. Simple solution, ear plugs (home depot, cheap.)
I'm far more interested in the comment posted by the ex-transit employee about the blocking of ROW, etc. Pay attention folks, this is how the lobbies and your transit bureaucrazy work.
Before talking about any new freeway transit "projects", MTA should focus on improving their existing rail lines & bus service. In my opinion, the MTA's #1 priority should be the completion of the purple line!!! Until now, I haven't had much problem using the bus to get to Santa Monica & Westwood/UCLA from the Wilsher/Western station but, expanding the purple line to accomadate these locations & more (without the need to transfer from rail to bus & having to wait for the bus) would make so many peoples' lives (not to mention my own) so much easier. Not to mention, ease traffic along Wilshire Blvd!
After that MTA should turn it's attention to expanding the Gold Line towards Montclair. If the comment about MTA already having the necessary rail to complete the extension is true, what is the MTA waiting for??? I have a suspicion that the MTA is delaying these projects to convince people to vote yes on measure R. I will vote yes on it, but I am curious to see what MTA accomplishes if the measure passes. Also, what is the deal with the MTA having new trains available for use, yet they don't run them?? If they do, they only use 1 of them in both directions on one given line all day!!!
Next, the planned Expo line should be expanded from it's terminal in Culver City & should run down Sepulveda Blvd. all the way to the LAX terminals. There, it should meet with the expanded Green Line, offering quick access between Downtown LA, LAX, & the South Bay.
I believe - and Metro doesn't want to admit, of course - that many of the residents who attended the highly contentious meetings regarding the new 405 carpool lane that is going through the Sepulveda Pass actually begged that their homes be sacrified for something more important than a measely carpool lane, specifically siting a rail/subway.
Also, I don't know who you guys have been asking about the relative distance of jobs and homes to freeways. But I've had six jobs since moving to LA. Four out of those six were right next to either the 10, 170 or 134. I've also lived in four different areas. Three out of those four were within a mile of a freeway.
If you aren't considering putting mass transit ON a freeway, at least consider them when deciding on mass transit arteries.
THANK YOU.
Post a Comment