|
Post by darrell on May 2, 2009 23:01:10 GMT -8
The following discussion map came from thinking about north-south connections to the Purple Line and creating a larger grid of lines on the Westside. It went something like this: 1. If the Purple Line MOS-3 goes to Bundy (one stop west of the 405), suppose it turns south one more station to end at the Expo Line station at Bergamot Station / Olympic / 26th, rather than continues west along Wilshire to downtown Santa Monica. 2. Suppose the future line to the Valley uses LA's heavy rail mode. It could then share this section of Purple Line to get a head start toward LAX. It would share the Westwood Village station and could have a second one on the north part of the UCLA campus. (That's a lot longer tunnel under the Santa Monica Mountains than the Red Line's!) 3. If you had to pick one corridor between Lincoln and I-405, there's a lot more along Lincoln. There's no reasonable surface right-of-way along either one. So continue this subway south along the Lincoln corridor. Potential stations are: * Ocean Park / Lincoln (Santa Monica plans to rezone for a transit village at the Albertson's site on the SE corner already) * Venice / Lincoln (connection with Venice buses) * Marina del Rey * Playa Vista / Loyola Marymount * If you're in subway anyway, how about a station within the LAX terminal loop? 4. Similarly, suppose you combine the West Hollywood subway branch with the Crenshaw line to create a continuous north-south line. Rather than turning west at La Cienega it would share Wilshire's stations at Fairfax and La Brea, then turn south where, again, there's no surface right-of-way. Potential stations are: * Pico / San Vicente / Venice aka Mid-City aka Vinyard. * Crenshaw / Expo * Crenshaw / MLK / Leimert Park * Crenshaw / Slauson * Manchester / La Brea / downtown Inglewood (feasible if in subway) * Hollywood Park redevelopment * Century / Aviation / Green Line Yes, it would be really expensive. Although I heard the statistic that for the Red Line the cost of the finished tunnels was 15% of the total cost, while the finished station boxes were 50% of the total. Use as few stations as possible, which is also good for speed on longer trips. As a rider I'd like it to become aerial occasionally, perhaps south of Marina del Rey. What do you think of the overall concept, the route, and the station locations?
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on May 11, 2009 10:03:44 GMT -8
Hmmmm, the boards seem to have been very quiet recently.
Definitely a thought-provoking map. Some of my thoughts:
*The notion of running a rail line through the LAX terminal area is very appealing. This would both provide direct access from train to terminals (without an extra transfer to a people mover) and avoid an operational nightmare as at the SFO dead-end. This would definitely necessitate a deep bore tunnel under the north runways, which may or may not be feasible, depending on existing utilities.
*Direct rail service from the San Fernando Valley to LAX shown here is a necessity.
*The Purple Line, IMO, should reach Santa Monica along the Wilshire corridor. Funneling all SM-bound traffic onto the Expo Line would not be convenient or allow for the greatest ridership.
*I've always personally liked the notion of both the Crenshaw corridor and Lincoln corridor services tying directly into the existing Green Line. I don't imagine too many riding from Crenshaw corridor stops to Lincoln corridor stops, so through-service between the two wouldn't be necessary. Assuming that, it would make sense to run the following services: -South Bay-Crenshaw Corridor-Hollywood -Norwalk-LAX-Lincoln Corridor-San Fernando Valley
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 11, 2009 14:03:54 GMT -8
I like the idea of it. A couple little quirks to fine tune. 1) Purple Line will need to go to Santa Monica Pier eventually. 2) The 405 corridor needs to meet with Expo sooner rather than near the end 3) The San Vicente/Crenshaw routing could hit the areas that the straight line Wilshire Purple Line would miss by continuing north on La Brea or Fairfax to 3rd Street going straight under 3rd or Beverly(Farmer's Market/Grove, CBS, Cedars Sinai) essentially becoming both a main line and feeder to Wilshire. For example a question or an idea that seems to reappear, what is the difference in capacity between a 450' LRV (light rail vehicle) train in a tunnel or a 450' HRV (heavy rail vehicle) in a tunnel or any grade separation for that matter? Plus or minus 30-50 passengers. The route suggestion Justin is making highlights another idea of why not just create the ability to run a longer LRV train in grade separated sections. I would take this idea a step further with running these trains together with the HRV's in the same tunnels like it is done in Amsterdam. However the problem here is that the HRV's platform height is about a foot taller than the LRV's which means unless they have separate tracks for platforms, they can't share stations and the HRV's are a foot wider than the LRV's. (So much for that old pissing match between the former RTD and LACTC)
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 11, 2009 22:14:16 GMT -8
LRV/HRV incompatibility brings to mind Cleveland, where the former Shaker Heights Rapid Transit trains share two or three stations with the Rapid Transit line. It can be done, but probably not with LA's equipment. In Philadelphia they have a four-track subway--two for streetcars and two for "heavy rail" going toward the western suburbs. The streetcars come out to street level, the rapid transit trains go elevated (or as they say in BART country, "aerial").
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 11, 2009 22:22:43 GMT -8
I just looked more closely at the map--The Magenta Line will go through Marina del Rey, right past Brennan's Pub, where my favorite band plays from time to time. Unfortunately, the way things progress in the LA area, light rail service to Brennan's is in the "I should live so long" category.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on May 12, 2009 2:40:24 GMT -8
Purple Line should go to Santa Monica (pier/3rd street)
405 Corridor line should go from the San Fernando Valley to the Purple then down Lincoln to LAX, not so sure it would really need to go to Santa Monica Pier though. Mode could be either LRT or HRT, but it'd really have to be mostly underground or above ground due to the lack of space.
Crenshaw line should be its own line and also stay as LRT. I also don't find too much wrong with the alignments that are being thought of by metro. Ultimately I see this as a one seat ride from Santa Monica (via Expo) to Long Beach (via Harbor Sub).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 12, 2009 9:29:05 GMT -8
I don't see the justification for the Purple Line to go to DT Santa Monica. Expo's got that area covered.
I'd rather see Purple turn north or south, parallel to the 405 or along Lincoln. I like the Purple and Pink Lines on the map above, the way they converge in Westwood and head south.
I don't know about that loop though. I could see Vermont being HRT before Crenshaw.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on May 12, 2009 10:40:52 GMT -8
metrocenter: rail lines don't serve destinations. They serve trips. As an example, the Red Line has the "downtown" area covered, yet they're building another subway there to connect the light rail lines and allow for through trips. If the demand in Santa Monica is high enough, it would be very inconvenient for everyone to force a transfer to the Expo Line just to go those last two miles. Whether that's a real issue or not, I don't know, as I'm not a Metro planner and don't have the data. The other main flaw in your plan is that it appears to require lots of tunneling under lots of people's houses, an expensive and politically difficult proposition.
As to the difference between a 450 foot light rail and heavy rail train, I think there's a substantial difference in capacity. The heavy rail cars are a foot and a half wider, and they don't waste space in the cabs and in the articulation, plus they have wider doors with much more standing room. Plus there's the issue of power supply: I'm not sure an overhead wire at 750 volts will be enough to power such a train, though an overhead third rail is certainly possible in tunnel sections.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 12, 2009 11:38:23 GMT -8
The previous map was Red Line heavy rail to take advantage of shared sections of the new Purple Line subway, but at quite a high cost. Here's an opposite version, using light rail at-grade as much as possible to minimize cost while serving the same corridors. I see the 405 line mostly cut into a shelf above the freeway, on the east side north of the Getty Center entrance, then below the Getty (with a station to serve it). South of Sunset it would be aerial on the west side, turning east to loop around the Federal Building for its Westwood station. If capacity along Colorado is an issue, one line could end at Bergamot rather than downtown Santa Monica. A relatively small portion of Expo's ridership will be on that last section. Crenshaw & Expo to Mid City and Hollywood to West Hollywood would be tunnels. As much as possible of the rest would be at-grade in boulevard medians, consistent with a push to rapidly expand L.A.'s rail network combined with less driving in the future. Next steps: Cost and travel time estimates for both the subway and light rail versions. *I've always personally liked the notion of both the Crenshaw corridor and Lincoln corridor services tying directly into the existing Green Line. I don't imagine too many riding from Crenshaw corridor stops to Lincoln corridor stops, so through-service between the two wouldn't be necessary. Assuming that, it would make sense to run the following services: -South Bay-Crenshaw Corridor-Hollywood -Norwalk-LAX-Lincoln Corridor-San Fernando Valley I agree, that's a benefit of this version. Although I'm not taking a position on whether it should be South Bay-Hollywood or South Bay-Valley yet. 2) The 405 corridor needs to meet with Expo sooner rather than near the end 3) The San Vicente/Crenshaw routing could hit the areas that the straight line Wilshire Purple Line would miss by continuing north on La Brea or Fairfax to 3rd Street going straight under 3rd or Beverly(Farmer's Market/Grove, CBS, Cedars Sinai) essentially becoming both a main line and feeder to Wilshire. This is more conventional along the 405 north of Expo, rather than my Purple Line curving south to Bergamot. Is it more like your point #2? I drew this thinking that it could be surface light rail in the median of San Vicente Blvd. from Venice Blvd. to Burton Way. (We need to know more about the storm drain under San Vicente, that was featured in the movie Volcano.) Your #3 could be an alternative. I just looked more closely at the map--The Magenta Line will go through Marina del Rey, right past Brennan's Pub, where my favorite band plays from time to time. Unfortunately, the way things progress in the LA area, light rail service to Brennan's is in the "I should live so long" category. Maybe it could be built sooner as LRT? Brennan's would be walking distance north from a Marina del Rey station around where the 91 ends at Lincoln. 405 Corridor line should go from the San Fernando Valley to the Purple then down Lincoln to LAX, not so sure it would really need to go to Santa Monica Pier though. Mode could be either LRT or HRT, but it'd really have to be mostly underground or above ground due to the lack of space. Crenshaw line should be its own line and also stay as LRT. I also don't find too much wrong with the alignments that are being thought of by metro. Much of the attractiveness of this mostly-at-grade LRT approach is faster completion at lower cost than underground or aerial. We'll see if it is ultimately used along Lincoln. I'm agreeing here on Crenshaw.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 12, 2009 13:36:12 GMT -8
My plan (map coming soon) would have four lines:
Line 1: Arts District to North Hollywood via Union Station/Hill/Wilshire/Vermont/Hollywood. Line 2: East Los Angeles to Sherman Oaks via Whittier/Wilshire/Sepulveda. Line 3: LAX to Hollywood via HarborSub/Vermont/Hollywood. Line 4: LAX to Hollywood via SMBlvd/Wilshire/Lincoln.
Overlaps would include: Lines 1 and 2: from Metro Center to Wilshire/Vermont. Lines 1 and 3: from Wilshire/Vermont to Hollywood/Highland. Lines 2 and 4: from Century City to Westwood.
Significant differences in my concept from the original map (above): * Purple Line turns north toward Sherman Oaks, rather than continuing southwest. * Lincoln Line is continuation of the Santa Monica Blvd. Line, rather than of the Purple Line. * South Line goes up Vermont, rather than Crenshaw, and then shares Red Line tube.
|
|