Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall Planning, Architecture, Engineering v ~/.- ~HIUIP J. O NIEl., ... ' .... "'''T",U'' £ HN. ".I,A, DAN/El, MANN, JOHNSON, 8 MENDENHALL S.MCNNtTM JOHNSON,A.',"', '''''A'' F. MCHOU'HALL,C.C. SU,.LCT" "01:."'.'.". ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS A5S 0';,. res "lFRCD W, O...T,A,', ..... 3325 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD' LOS ANGELES 5,CALIFORNIA· OUNKIR"" 1-3663 J"C' C .......DLET ...."VIN J, KUO..OFF. C.t. T,M ••UTAY.... ' ..... SHUJI ....Gor..,c.t. " ..TON ". ",UUS£K V'NCCNT A ....:GN.., ... £. OAV'O .....'LL£..,C.£. w.....Tt,,, .. "OOT. C.C. ROBCRT J. Sue". February 2, 1960 "0"eR1 C Wt;ST£RFCLO.M,C. Mr. C. M. GUllSB Exec~tive Director Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority 1060 South BroadWOO' Loe Angeles 15, California BE: Rapid Transit Progt"Bm Progress Report - Technical r Supporting Material Dea,r Mr. Gillies: Transmitted herewith are ten (10) copies each of a report in two • volumes which comprises the technical supporting material to accompany our Progress Report .. This report conta1ns a more detailed resUIlE of the work we have been able to accomplish during this Initial. Phase of the Rapid Transit Program and, in addition, we have included in the second volume the reports we have ~ceived from our consultants on spec­ ialized aspects of the program.. · I Respectful..ly submitted, I DANlEL, MANfl, JOlmSON, & MENDENHALL Architects & Engineers David, R. Miller Project Manager - PLANNING· ARCHITECTURE· ENGINEERING LOS AI'IGJtt.i5 MI!:l'ROPOLITAI'I TRAliSlT AImlORITY PROGIUflS REPORT RELATING TO INlTIAL CONSIDERATION OF SYS'I'OO AND ROUTEIl...... FOR A I • I4AS8 RAFID TRAliSlT PROGF.A!~ - I February 2, 1960 I DAlIIEL, MANN, JOHNSON, Ie MENDENHALL • ARCIIITEC'lB & ElIGlJ\&lilOj PROGRESS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS .Page No. Letter of Tra,nsmittal Table of Contents i Table of Illustrations Hi Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority v Officers and Members The Project Team vi ... SECTION I Introduction and Summary I-l thru 1-19 I SECTION I! Transit Planning and Criteria. 1 thru 2.0 ~ SECTION II! Transit Systems 21 thru 72 SECTION IV Transit Facilities 73 thru 92 APPENDIX Contained in VOLUME I! - TECHNICAL 93 DATA I I L LXST OJ! m.US!l!lATIllllS SIOO'tlOH Jr.: Page 9 CBD Ott-Bide Ma1Dl1De - SeCOD4ary D18-trlbutor Co""ept. Pace 10 ClIl CeD-trel S-tBUon CoII<lept Pace II CBD Inner Loop CoII<lop1: hi' 12 CllD Ou1;.r Loop Concop-t P_14 Al-temau RiIlh-t8-ot-Way Wi1;ll1n Cor­ ridera. SIlCTIOll m RAPID -.srr BnlTl!Hl Po6. 37 Pisuro mol General Merton ".Aero-Train" Budd ColIlpeny Rapid Tr""8U cera ot Recent Des1sn Pa.. 39 Pigur. m-2 Paris Metro Car NQrton Aerial Transit Tabl. I Existing Monorail SysteBIB Pisuro. m-3 Clas8ical Monorail - Suspended AR,ym­ I lIle-trlceJ. Wupper-teJ. Sye-tem Classical Monorail - Suspended Asya­ • metrical Dallas Monorail pag. 52 Tokyo Mo~rail '- Car Tokyo Monorail - S-truc-ture Pisuro m-5 SUspended Monore11 Spl1-t Rail ­ S.A.'.A.G.I.. Suspended Monorail Split Ra1l ­ I Nor-thrup Lockheed Pag. 59 Fill\lTe m-6 Supported Monorail - Overriding ­ I .lLlIEG 11i - Supported Monorail - Overriding ­ Disneyland Page 61 Figure III-7 Supported Monorail - Overriding ­ Lockheed Los Angeles Design Page 62 Figure III-8 Monorail S'witch - S.A.F.A.G.E. Monorail Switch - ALWEG Page 63 Figure III-9 Conventional Rail Truck SUBpe.nded Monorail - S.A.F.A.G.E. Truck Supported ~orail ~ ALWEG Truck Page 68 Figure III-10 Dreamliner Bus Page 69 Figure III_ll Suspended Monorail Split Rail SoR.V. Secondary Distribution System Carveyor Ground Effect - Id~~onl~s Corp. SECTION TI Following Figure TI-1 Suspended Monorail Concept Page 92 " Figure TI-2 Supported Monorail Concept I " Figure TI-3 Conventional. Ratl Concept • " Figure TI.4 Bus Concept " Figure IV-5 Typical CBD Station Concept " Figure TI-6 Typical CBD Station C.oncept " Figure TI-7 Typical Outlying Station Concept • iv • LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AU'lliORITY Executive Director C. M. GUliss General Manager C. T. Bass secretary Virginia L. Rees MDIBERS Carl P. Miller Chairman Fred S. Dean Vice-Chairman Don Belding A. J. Eyraud Hayden F. Jones Russell A. Quisenberry Arthur J. Will I -v- TIlE PROJECT TEAM DANIEL, MANN, JOHNSON & MENDENHALL Architects &Engineers and Program Consultant MASON & HANGER-SJLAS MASON CO., INC. Associate Engineers and Consultants for Underground Construction GIBBS & Hll.L mc. Consultant - Electrical Equipment VICTOR GRUEN & ASSOCIATES CODf:iultant - Community Planning CGLONEL S. H. BmGHAM Consultant - Transit System Operations HAROLD OTIS Consultant - 'l'ransit Equipment, LLOYD ALDRICH Consultant - Civil En~1neering IlENRY A. BABCOCK Consultant - Rights-Of-Way LE ROY CRANDALL & ASSOCIATES Consultant - Fcrundatlons and Geology I -vi- I INrRODUCfION I I .SEorrON I • • INTRODUCTION •. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS • • As directed by the Contract, the "scope of work during this initial phase of the Rapid Transit Program has emphasized the screening of transit system proposals presented by manufacturers and inventors of transit systems and equipment and.the initia~ consideration of condi­ I tions existing within the· four transit corridors that would affect • ,the selection of the type of system. The purpose of this screening • of systems and initial consideration of routes, was the development of a limited number of transit systems having sufficient merit to • warrant a detailed comparative analysis. This detailed analysis, in the next phase of the program, wouldprovlde the basis for the selec­ tion of the system most adaptable to the Los Angeles Transit requirements. • • An important part of this initial phase also has been the accumulation of basic ~ta and the planning work necessary for the establishment of a master plan of ultimate transit development in order to insure the I orderly consideration of the transit system and that initial efforts w1ll be compatible with the requirements of the future. In addition, I work has begun on the collection of data.and certain of the engineering • efforts which should carry forward in the next phase, and which will • provide the basis for many of the decisions which must be made in the I next phase. - • • The team which has been assigned to this effort has been made up of in- d!viduals f:rom the various IK1M technical staf't" groups together with our Associate ED.glneer, Mason & Hanger-Sllaa Mason CompanyJ Inc. and the othl..~r consultants in the following specialities: Gibb6 & Hill Equiprrent - Elecilrical Engineering Victor Gruen Associates Community Plana1ng Colonel S. H. Bingham Transit System Operations Harold Otis Transit Equipment Lloyd A1dricb Routes • Henry Babcock Land and Rights-Of-Way Evaluation leRoy Cranda] ] & Associates Foundation Engineering and Geology These specialists have met frequently 'With the project staff for discuss­ ions on various aspects of the work. Several of the consultants have been asked to report on special problems and these reparts have been included in the appendix of the technical supporting materiaL The program has been d1vided into three general tasks with a project task group assigned to each. These task groups have operated under the direct­ ion and coordination of the Partner-In-Charge and of the Project Manager. For convenience, the reporting herein wil.l generally be done using the • same divisional framework as these tasks which are: Transit Planning and Criteria • Transit Systems Transit Facilities The following paragraphs will discuss the progress and findings of each of the groups with recommendations for further "WOrk required during suc­ • ceeding phases provided further on. - I " • • • TRANSIT PLANNING AND CRITERIA - The first task assigned to this group was that of criteria research and the development of transit system criteria. This is necessary to set the pattern for the consideration and evaluation of the various transit sys­ tems. Recommendations for criteria to be satisfied by transit systems to be considered for application to Los Angeles take the form of desirable minimums, and are set forth in later paragraphs. DE\IELOPMENr OF REQUIREMENTS FOR ULTIMATE TRANSIT SERVICE • Much progress has been made in the planning work necessary for the develop­ ment of requirements for ultimate transit service. This work 1s being carried out in connection with representatives of Coverdale & Co~pitts and using the data previously developed by them. Frequent conferences have been held with officials from City and Regional Planning agencies in order to ascertain their progress toward the develop­ ment of the Master Plan for the metropolitan area and to obtain their pro­ • jections of future growth. • The corridor layouts and traffic projections previously submitted to the Authority by Coverdale & Colpitts have been considered along with informa­ • tion from various planning agencies on future land use patterns. The possi­ • ble effects of transit service on land use patterns have been explored. This • is leading to the development of the definition of the place of rapid transit • within the over-all transportation plan and the requirements that transit • must serve within the community. • 1-3 • • I • • Our findings, to date, have led to the autlin.ing of three bI'.Qad concepts of .tr$llSitservice that may be c'onsidered as ~s of providing different level.sof service. These transit system concepts 'are: . 1. Full coverage systems which would provide means .af se.rving • the majority of origins and destinations within the Community ~th rapid transit service as adv.Qcated by George Ro~ and otherS. • 2 .• Flexible systems utilizing bus equipIIle~t to provide .for feeder • distribution ~d trunk service with a single vehicle. 3· Trunk line rapid transit ~ystems served by feeder .and distri-· bution syste.ms using buses or other eq:u.ipment. The Authority directed .our initial effort toward the t:runk line concept which was the result of the corridor recommendations of Coverdale and Colpitts. The relationship .of these transit concepts to the ultimate transit requirements will be .studied further with inf'ormation from Coverdale'and Colpitts to determine the levels of service needed now.and in the future.