|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 11, 2007 22:33:47 GMT -8
Basically, to convert this to rail. If this would connect to downtown directly and more station were added, this could be a great addition to the current rail system. How much would it cost?
Also, as a side note, does anyone have pictures of the Harbor Freeway before the busway was put in?
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 11, 2007 23:34:33 GMT -8
Whatever it would cost, it would not be worth converting it to rail to polish this turd.
The structure cost about as much as the Blue Line, yet it's still somewhere in the range of 3,000 boardings. Mind you, the buses had always run on the freeway, so there was no net gain in ridership.
So, figuring about $800 million to $1 billion, it would cost that much more to add a rail line, and considering that Metro has tried all it could to mine this corridor, converting it to rail would be throwing good money after bad.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 12, 2007 4:54:30 GMT -8
Hard to say, wad. At this immediate time, I entirely agree with you, but after the Expo Line is created, it is possible that this could be established as a major feeder bus line to Downtown.
With a Downtown Connector and a Green Line/LAX connection, I could easily see this line being much more utilized than it currently is.
That's a whole lotta if's, though...and a whole lotta years before this question could reasonably be approached. Cost-effectively, promotion and coordination with the future Expo Line is the least the region could do to justify the waste of money that went into this poorly-located and non-connected (yet potentially valuable) project.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 12, 2007 7:25:43 GMT -8
From what I've heard, the problem was with poor station placement and the fact that it was never completed. If anything, it's a microcosm of our whole freeway system. We never finished what was planned. So what would the cost of taking this downtown cost and would it be worth it?
Personally, I don't really like BRT, so I'd really like to see the ones we currently have as rail lines, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 13, 2007 23:36:10 GMT -8
Ken, you just gave me an idea.
I may have an idea to actually salvage the Harbor Transitway and maybe even nudge it up to 5-digit ridership. And it's something that can be done "zero-growth" (requiring no additional inputs of added bus service).
First, run the Harbor Transitway similar to the Orange Line. This means, do not treat the freeway as an express bus corridor. The definition, set by RTD, of an express bus is a freeway-running service with at least 4 miles of non-stop service. Busways have stops, and therefore they are local. (El Monte is local for travel between Cal State L.A. and Union Station; going east of the university is when the zone step-ups occur). Treat the Harbor Transitway as a limited (Rapid) bus, not an express bus.
Call it the Bronze Line, and have the same amenities as the Orange Line (ticket machines, fare inspectors and countdown displays).
This would replace all the various 440s using the busway. It would run to San Pedro.
The 440s would be converted to local service, where applicable.
Line 745, if still resilient, would become a limited-stop feeder between USC and the Green Line only. This Rapid carries more riders than the Transitway, and it's because of the local fare (as well as the stops in between the Transitway stations). If riders wish to go downtown, they'll have to choose between the Transitway or a local. (Line 740 would still operate on Broadway north of Martin Luther King Jr. Bl.)
And here's why the Transitway, under no circumstances, should be converted to rail. Besides the proven failure as a transit corridor, the Transitway is one of the most successful HOV lanes in the country. People may not be riding the bus, but the carpooling numbers are very good. We can't displace the carpoolers.
Second, by avoiding the conversion of this corridor to rail, the money can be dedicated to other more productive corridors. For instance, instead of using rail construction funds to make the Transitway right, extending the subway south on Vermont Av. would see the ridership required for a rail line. Vermont has a proven need for rail. Or, it can go to other deserving projects.
The Transitway would still be useful as a busway, along with providing point-to-point express bus service. The local express ridership stinks, but the commuter lines are quite productive (450X and the two LADOT Commuter Express lines using the 110, 438 to the Beach Cities and 448 to the Palos Verdes Peninsula).
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 14, 2007 4:30:40 GMT -8
You've raised a lot of ideas, wad, all of which will be highlighted in years to come with access of the Harbor Transitway/Bronze Line to the future Expo Line.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 14, 2007 15:26:06 GMT -8
You can convert this to rail and still have room for carpool lanes. It's just, is it really worth it?
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on May 14, 2007 15:37:47 GMT -8
It's worth it if it can take us to San Pedro and the Cruise Lines terminal. It's not worth it if it can't do this, nobody wants to get on a train only to get off in the middle of a freeway.
Let's take this thing to the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 15, 2007 10:23:18 GMT -8
there's two separate questions here.
one is, is San Pedro worthy of a light rail line? I would say yes, with the realization that a lot of people will understandably fight like rabid dogs against the idea, when sexier Santa Monica doesn't have a rail line yet. however, there is a lot of residential and commercial development going on in the harbor area, and while a San Pedro line probably won't generate Expo Line numbers, it might have Gold Line to Arcadia/Montclair possibilities.
the second question is, is the Harbor Transitway the best route for a rail line? it would certainly be cheaper, because you have a right of way and there's no reason why you couldn't have a carpool lane and a rail line. however, other routes, such as Vermont for example, might be better suited, because you would have a better potential of serving transit-dependent bus riders in Harbor City or Carson or Wilmington, depending on the streets chosen.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 15, 2007 14:08:22 GMT -8
If we build a line on Vermont, then what do we do with the Transitway?
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 15, 2007 18:21:08 GMT -8
It's time to adjust your thinking. If we built a street called Vermont, what would happen to Normandy? Should we rip Normandy out? Look at the old Yellow Car System map. There was a street car on virtually every inner core street.
For transit, why would the Harbor Transitway affect Vermont or the Blue Line or Atlantic? To have a pedestrian livable community, you need bus routes and rail routes every 1/2 mile or every mile.
We get the same silly notion with Expo versus Wilshire. And, the one key reason that one way streets won't work on Olympic and Pico is that they are too far apart and the non peak direction street couplet will probably only use about 65% of it's capacity during the peak hour, which will waste valuable asphalt.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 7, 2007 8:28:48 GMT -8
If we build a line on Vermont, then what do we do with the Transitway? Sell it to the BRU as a down payment for an MIS/EIR for a Rail Line down Vermont from at least Wilshire to Artesia. This should be subway from Wilshire to at least Gage/69th Street. From there with it's wide boulevard (180' in width) avenue this would make a high speed AND safe LRT capable of running longer trains (to 4 car lengths) with 45-50 mph running or an elevated heavy Rail in the median while preserving those beautiful street trees and wide sidewalks. The safe LRT can come from keeping the landscaped medians to create a 'safe zone' for pedestrian crossings even safer would be grade separating it altogether.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 14, 2007 19:12:59 GMT -8
This is what Vermont Corridor could look like schematically. This is the southern end of the line in Gardena, Artesia Transit Center and utilizing a railroad ROW to hit the Toyota Offices and Harbor UCLA Medical Center.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 24, 2007 10:11:05 GMT -8
Am I the only one that thinks the transit on freeways is a terrible idea? It's just so incredibly loud that it's a terrible place to have to stand and wait 15 minutes for transportation. I'd hate to have our rail system built around freeways. To me it's one of those ideas that sounds better than it actually is. We design our stations on a grand scale and incorporate artwork because we realize that these spaces are designed for human occupancy and as such need to be at least somewhat aesthetically pleasing. We need to incorporate that same thinking into our design of rail lines and avoid having people stand in the middle of freeways waiting for transportation.
From what I've seen the freeway buses do pretty well at rush hour, but dismal during the rest of the day.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 24, 2007 10:51:57 GMT -8
when it comes to mass transit, freeways are a mixed blessing. you're never going to get a Transit-Oriented Development built next to a freeway and as Shawn pointed out, they are loud- and full of car exhaust, besides.
however, I wouldn't rule out freeway right-of-ways completely. for example, if you're building a light rail line from Sherman Oaks to Westwood, you'd want to use Sepulveda Pass, unless you were willing to spend the money on another subway tunnel. and unless I'm mistaken, it is further from the Valley to the Westside than it is from Hollywood to Universal City, so that tunnel would have to be longer and more expensive than the Red Line's tunnel.
or, if you were building a rail line from Pasadena to Glendale, the freeway there would be a reasonable option. as long as you didn't have any stations planned, the freeway would provide a wide right of way, a quick and speedy route and you wouldn't have to do any eminent domain (unless you widened the freeway at the same time as you built the light rail line)
oh, and regarding the map of the proposed light rail line through Gardena; Nissan's moving to Tennessee and will be gone by the time this gets built. Toyota is south of the 405 at 190th and Western and Honda's gargantuan HQ is on Torrance Boulevard, between Western and Van Ness.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 24, 2007 12:10:58 GMT -8
Well if there are no stations I wouldn't really object. I can also see where rail through the Sepulveda Pass or down the 210 would be logical. I'm speaking in more general terms about those that advocate a rail system built around our freeway lines. We should only use freeways when there is no other practical alternative.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 24, 2007 13:22:16 GMT -8
It's $1 billion dollars to create a couple of freeway lanes on the 405 for 10 miles (about a $100 million a mile). The equivalent of an at-grade light rail line along the 405 would be more because you'd have to install all the system trackworks associated with a light rail line. And its likely an even greater engineering obstacle because of the steep grade. It's much easier to just bore the tunnel, where the grades can be better controlled and it would be cheaper unless there's really difficult geological conditions that can't be averted/mitigated.
And by the way the Cahuenga Pass tunnel was about $160 million for 4 miles.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 24, 2007 13:37:31 GMT -8
When the time comes to build a rail near/alongside the 405 freeway, things will be much, much easier to break out of the tight freeway surface corridor, steep grade and all, and build a tunnel that will allow FAST access under that tight Sepulveda Pass.
|
|
|
Post by gibiscus on Jun 24, 2007 21:24:59 GMT -8
How about going to the Home Depot Center?
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 24, 2007 23:20:50 GMT -8
Perhaps a Blue Line Spur to Home Depot Center ??
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 25, 2007 12:09:11 GMT -8
heh. okay, so I stand corrected on the Sepulveda Pass idea. you can't win 'em all.
I was trying to think of examples where using the freeway route would be better than a street route and that one popped into my head for some reason.
and of course, generally speaking, tunnels do tend to be more expensive, or else why bother to build street level rail transit? but I guess different rules apply to mountain passes
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 25, 2007 16:30:56 GMT -8
Tunnels are almost always more expensive, especially with utility relocation...but in the case of this mountain pass the tunnel will likely win out as the cheaper option.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 25, 2007 22:36:34 GMT -8
Might we add a subway station for the Getty Museum ? I never get a chance to visit that place. It is quite remote.
We can't compare tunneling costs today, the inflated price of the Redline going to North Hollywood.
Even if you work in the inflation over the years. The Tunnel Boring technology has become more efficient and cost effective. It's land acquisitions that have skyrocketed prices.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 26, 2007 5:45:18 GMT -8
The Getty Center question is one heck of a good one, Whitman, and it's probably one of the issues that will come up as the endless debate between a surface rail utilizing the pass and the tunnel concept (which is a healthy one to have) continues.
If the Getty Center threw money for some kind of access to Metro if/when it built a rail project, then perhaps it would influence this debate, but the huge question as to whether Getty Center and Bel-Air constitute key station sites must someday be answered.
In all sincerity, I do not believe that ANY of us can know that answer at this immediate time. After the Expo Line reaches Santa Monica, and as the Purple Line proceeds westward, the concept of approachable/accessible rapid transit to the Westside will become a reality, and it will change people's outlook (as will, I imagine, worsening traffic).
As much as those living adjacent to the 405 freeway in Bel-Air scream about needing mass transit, I also remember those living adjacent to the 101 freeway screaming about more mass transit as well...but were they really serious about it or did they just want to avoid losing their homes? Would a tunnel bored between the Valley and UCLA get good pedestrian usage if a station with a big parking lot and elevators be placed in the vicinity of Getty Center to serve Bel-Air and the Center?
Or is it best to keep Bel-Air remote at the behest of those living there, and have trains zoom below the surface to serve the majority of those who wish to have nonstop service through the pass altogether?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 26, 2007 7:12:20 GMT -8
It's really tough to say, as you so accurately described. The Getty Center would really benefit from a station, but does it need a parking structure? How many residents of Bel-Air would use it? The only middle ground that I can think of is to build the station with very little parking but with more space purchased for parking. If the residents need the extra space, then give it to them. If not, then sell that extra land after (MTA might even make a few extra dollars if the property value goes up).
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Jun 26, 2007 11:22:59 GMT -8
and similarly a little bit up north there's Skirball at Mulholland. Probably would be even less ridership, and its at a higher elevation, but as stated time will ultimately tell once other corridors are completed.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 26, 2007 14:09:03 GMT -8
In my view, The Getty Museum was not meant to be accessible to the public audience, in the first place. Just like the Getty Villa in Malibu.
An exclusive place that holds numerous priceless antiques and art. Built on the grounds of selfless philanthropy. But really is a private collection for the wealthy neighborhoods to enjoy.
I doubt a subway station would sit well with the locals. This is not the Guggenheim, Smithsonian, or Louvre. It is not for the enrichment of people in general.
You want to visit a real public museum go to MOCA (Museum of Contemporary Art) Downtown. They really want you to visit.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 27, 2007 10:16:01 GMT -8
I'm inclined to agree with Whitman; when the Getty Center was built, there were many who complained of its hilltop castle design and inaccessability.
Los Angeles is a city of many treasures, and many of our museums are near existing or planning rail stations. LACMA will eventually get the Purple Line at its doorstop, and the Exposition Park museums will get, naturally, the Expo Line.
the Getty is a great place and they do add to the community, but they choose a location that's not likely to be high on any rail transit priorities list.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jun 28, 2007 0:46:17 GMT -8
I'm inclined to agree with Whitman; when the Getty Center was built, there were many who complained of its hilltop castle design and inaccessability. Los Angeles is a city of many treasures, and many of our museums are near existing or planning rail stations. LACMA will eventually get the Purple Line at its doorstop, and the Exposition Park museums will get, naturally, the Expo Line. the Getty is a great place and they do add to the community, but they choose a location that's not likely to be high on any rail transit priorities list. Who knows...they can always extend their tram system to reach a station down on the Pass...
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 28, 2007 4:38:20 GMT -8
I think that by the time we get such a project built, the question of a tunnel that would have an overhead station to include the Getty/Skirball/Bel-Air region would require addressing. It might be chosen or not chosen, but it would have to be addressed.
Still, that will likely be 10-20 years or more from now at the rate we're going, but one never knows. A $3-4 billion effort to get the Purple Line to the 405 freeway would have to be accomplished first.
|
|