|
Post by bzcat on Sept 24, 2010 10:50:20 GMT -8
Of course, whenever this topic comes up, I always have to make the obligatory push for the Sepulveda route instead of/in addition to/as a priority over the Lincoln route. To reiterate, while the Lincoln route will be quite nice for the local residents, it will not be as beneficial as the Sepulveda route will be for the region: the Sepulveda route will be able to hit Expo, the Purple Line, and connect to the 405 corridor LRT and head into the Valley, hitting the Orange Line and maybe even continuing further north up Van Nuys. The Lincoln route, though it will do great things for the local community, would have a much more difficult time hitting the (currently funded segment of the) Purple Line, and heading to the valley. While it could be done, it would have to swing pretty far out of the way. The maps that have the Lincoln line sharing tracks with Expo just really don't make sense to me. By the way, that's a very nice map, Metrocenter. Did you make it? I would rather see the Sepulveda line to LAX be part of the 405 corridor study. It makes more sense to have that line go from SFV to Westwood via 405 and then down to LAX via Spulveda. The Lincoln line should terminate at the Santa Monica Expo terminal.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Dec 11, 2011 12:27:06 GMT -8
Relevant map from LADOT's recent meetings regarding their Westside Mobility Plan presentations: You can see LADOT has identified preliminary corridors for possible consideration for rail transit in the Westside. Some key constraints are identified. Like another map, this map screams out for integration with the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor... See also the Rail Brainstorming presentation board this map is pulled from. More on the study here.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 11, 2011 16:00:05 GMT -8
When I look at this map, I see two corridors; the one completing the Green Line from LAX north to Santa Monica on Lincoln and the other one reaching up from LAX to Culver City to Westwood and continuing up into the Valley. (That is, in addition to the Expo Line to Santa Monica, the Purple Line to Westwood and the tiny sliver of the Crenshaw Line on the map...)
The only real question is which one gets built first, given limited funding. They're both worthy corridors.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 11, 2011 17:53:51 GMT -8
This is great, though one thing I would change on this map is the Green Line stopping at 4th/Colorado with the Expo Line. Instead, I think it would make more sense for it to go further and stop at the Purple Line. The density is there for it, and would not be much more expensive. When I look at this map, I see two corridors; the one completing the Green Line from LAX north to Santa Monica on Lincoln and the other one reaching up from LAX to Culver City to Westwood and continuing up into the Valley. (That is, in addition to the Expo Line to Santa Monica, the Purple Line to Westwood and the tiny sliver of the Crenshaw Line on the map...) Agreed. Trying to combining these corridors (like on Justin Walker's map) simply does not serve either corridors adequately. I think my bet will be on the 405/San Fernando Valley Corridor. It has taken a HUGE leap forward since it's conception here on the transit board early this year. Plus, there is already funds available for both the 405 Sepulveda Pass and Sepulveda/Van Nuys corridors. All we really have to do is HEAVILY lobby Metro to combine them, and with a little more funding we might just be able to build it within the Measure R (or possibly even the 30/10) timeframe. As for the Green Line extension to Santa Monica via Lincoln, I think it will take a little more than lobbying from Tom LaBonge, IMO, for it to come to fruition. It is indeed in Metro's plans, but not among it's top priorities and currently has no funding.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 11, 2011 18:30:51 GMT -8
Here's a repost of my version from a couple of years ago. I imagined the SFV line sharing the Expo Line track from the 405 to 4th Street, then crossing the 10 freeway and going down Lincoln. The meeting I attended included pieces to play with what would fit within the 100 foot Lincoln right-of-way in Venice and Ocean Park, including at-grade and aerial light rail. I question the visual impact of an aerial guideway. And don't forget, the part of Sepulveda from Venice to Expo was studied in detail in the Expo Phase 2 Final EIR. A substantial part was aerial, and a row of property on the east side of Sepulveda north of the 10 would have been taken.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 11, 2011 18:31:02 GMT -8
I think it is obvious that the 405 adjacent line would be the one we'd go with. The Lincoln is pure fantasy (at least for my lifetime). The 405 line is critical to link up with the South Bay and the Valley and is the missing link between the two.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 11, 2011 20:28:35 GMT -8
Yeah Darrell I know it's reaallly tempting the ROW exists for a connection between the Expo Line and a 405/San Fernando Valley corridor, and that it could be tied to the Lincoln Line. But... it would miss Fox Hills and the high-density Palms area.
Plus, if we're to have a station in the heart of UCLA (Ackerman Loop - major BBB & Metro stop), this would mean almost certainly having to make a sharp reverse S-shape turn between Santa Santa Monica/Sepulveda and Wilshire/Westwood - something I once REALLY liked but am rethinking.
Besides, if the 405 Corridor is chosen, Metro would then also theoretically have the option of starting a SFV-SM line, anyway - I don't think going south to Venice or LAX would be needed for such a route.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 11, 2011 20:57:41 GMT -8
I would agree with JDR Crasher. My worry about Darrell's Lincoln route is that it is a zig-zag and much longer than a straight route from Westwood to LAX would be much faster and more centrally located.
For example, is someone from the South Bay going to want to veer all the way Northwest to Santa Monica and then follow the Expo Line East and then North to Westwood. This route is good for those living in Santa Monica and not much else. Of course, the Westwood to LAX direct route may be difficult to construct, but I imagine the Lincoln route is too.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Dec 12, 2011 8:47:30 GMT -8
While the Lincoln line is a wonderful idea, I really think a Sepulveda Line that does from the SFV to LAX should be built first as it would benefit more people regionally.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Dec 12, 2011 15:15:27 GMT -8
I certainly think that both should be built, but it does create some problems at LAX (which I like to refer to as the "Westside Connector" to mimic the "Downtown Connector" ;D) area, which comes from there being an uneven number of branches: Lincoln, Sepulveda, Crenshaw, Green line to South Bay, Green line to Norwalk. 5 branches total. Operating would be significantly easier if there were an even number, so rail lines wouldn't have to share as much track. I personally favor connections thus: one line going from the current South Bay green line to Crenshaw, one line that goes from the Valley and Sepulveda to Norwalk, and one line that runs on Lincoln to another route traveling south near the coast (this would be the 6th branch. I believe such a rail line is identified in the Transit Coalition future map...). All 3 lines would meet at LAX, so you would pretty much be able to get from the airport to anywhere in the county. (There would be only one transfer necessary to get to the Orange Line, Purple Line, Red line, Expo Line, and Blue line, assuming full build-out) It's a fairly grand vision...one of those "someday" things.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 12, 2011 15:44:34 GMT -8
I certainly think that both should be built, but it does create some problems at LAX (which I like to refer to as the "Westside Connector" to mimic the "Downtown Connector" ;D) area, which comes from there being an uneven number of branches: Lincoln, Sepulveda, Crenshaw, Green line to South Bay, Green line to Norwalk. 5 branches total. Operating would be significantly easier if there were an even number, so rail lines wouldn't have to share as much track. I personally favor connections thus: one line going from the current South Bay green line to Crenshaw, one line that goes from the Valley and Sepulveda to Norwalk, and one line that runs on Lincoln to another route traveling south near the coast (this would be the 6th branch. I believe such a rail line is identified in the Transit Coalition future map...). All 3 lines would meet at LAX, so you would pretty much be able to get from the airport to anywhere in the county. (There would be only one transfer necessary to get to the Orange Line, Purple Line, Red line, Expo Line, and Blue line, assuming full build-out) It's a fairly grand vision...one of those "someday" things. There will be little need for the Green Line to go to South Bay anymore. And I doubt freeway commuters from Norwalk are headed to the Westside. Besides, give 405 freeway drivers alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Dec 12, 2011 16:24:23 GMT -8
My two cents: I see no reason for the Green Line to be extended into the valley. I feel the same way about this as I did when it was being purported that the Purple Line would swing north past Westwood and go up to the valley; it just makes more sense for that area to have its own line. It also makes more sense to keep the Green Line as a key east-west line. In other words: 1) extend it eastward to the Norwalk Metrolink, and 2) extend it west up Lincoln to the Purple and Expo Lines in Santa Monica.
The valley will be served by the 405 Line, which will eventually connect all of these lines (Purple, Green, Crenshaw, Expo) along its route.
Once this happens, I also agree with jdrcrasher that southbound service on the Green Line will shift over to the Crenshaw Line (maybe even sooner, depending on ridership patterns).
As for LAX, if the Century/Aviation station is still being built with three tracks (as was reported at a community meeting many months ago), then it should be able to handle the capacity of three lines (Green, Crenshaw, and 405). Eliminating south bound Green Line service helps this also.
However, any more than that would really be pushing it.
This creates a serious problem for any kind of future Downtown L.A./Union Station to LAX service (which would have to share tracks with the Crenshaw Line on the Harbor Subdivision right-of-way AND eventually share tracks with the 405 and Green Lines at Century/Aviation, assuming a separate LAX station is not built).
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 12, 2011 18:07:43 GMT -8
However, any more than that would really be pushing it. This creates a serious problem for any kind of future Downtown L.A./Union Station to LAX service (which would have to share tracks with the Crenshaw Line on the Harbor Subdivision right-of-way AND eventually share tracks with the 405 and Green Lines at Century/Aviation, assuming a separate LAX station is not built). The ROW appears to be big enough through this VERY short one mile stretch of Aviation (between 96th and 105/Aviation station). Also you could elevate 2 tracks above Aviation if needed. And as mentioned here a while back, once highly adequate service to LAX is formed, the Crenshaw line could eventually be diverted onto Prarie and head to the Forum and the Hollywood Park Redevelopment project. I don't think Hollywood NEEDS a direct connection to the Airport. One transfer would be okay, I think. NOTE: Are there any rail lines in the world with double-decker LRT rail lines?
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Dec 12, 2011 19:24:00 GMT -8
Underground, New York has subways built on top of subways all over. Of course, that's underground and heavy-rail, so it's not exactly the same thing. Nevertheless, having at-grade and elevated rail on Aviation (i.e. separate lines using completely different tracks) is a possibility and might be necessary for what will become this very busy transit hub.
Looking at the LADOT map, I'm really happy with the stations outlined for the proposed Lincoln Line; I agree with every single one of them.
I agree with all the stations on the Sepulveda branch also, but I think those stops should be a part of the 405 Line rather than a branch of the Green Line that shares tracks with Expo and goes to Santa Monica.
Lincoln Blvd. is just too wide and ripe for rapid transit to be ignored. If only one of those gets chosen to be built in the near future, I think it should be the Lincoln Line (since it's the one they have pegged right in my opinion).
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 13, 2011 15:18:58 GMT -8
I certainly think that both should be built, but it does create some problems at LAX (which I like to refer to as the "Westside Connector" to mimic the "Downtown Connector" ;D) area, which comes from there being an uneven number of branches: Lincoln, Sepulveda, Crenshaw, Green line to South Bay, Green line to Norwalk. 5 branches total. Operating would be significantly easier if there were an even number, so rail lines wouldn't have to share as much track. I personally favor connections thus: one line going from the current South Bay green line to Crenshaw, one line that goes from the Valley and Sepulveda to Norwalk, and one line that runs on Lincoln to another route traveling south near the coast (this would be the 6th branch. I believe such a rail line is identified in the Transit Coalition future map...). All 3 lines would meet at LAX, so you would pretty much be able to get from the airport to anywhere in the county. (There would be only one transfer necessary to get to the Orange Line, Purple Line, Red line, Expo Line, and Blue line, assuming full build-out) It's a fairly grand vision...one of those "someday" things. I can solve your uneven line problem. 1. "Green" line - Santa Monica to Norwalk (call it branch A and B) 2. "Pink" line - North Hollywood to LAX spur (pretend for a moment that we can find money to actually bury the line underground to the central terminal area - call it branch C and D) 3. "Valley" line - SF Valley to Long Beach via Van Nuy, Sepulveda, and Harbor Subdivision (call it branch E and F) That's 6 branches converging at Century/Aviation.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 13, 2011 16:00:39 GMT -8
^6 Branches? That includes both directions of each line, right?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 14, 2011 11:22:21 GMT -8
^6 Branches? That includes both directions of each line, right? Yes... Tobias wrote about having uneven branches at Century/Aviation station. Some of the branches will be routed thru as a complete line. I solved his problem by having the Pink line extend into LAX central terminal area, creating a 6th branch. It's all fantasy stuff of course... for the foreseeable future, there will only be 3 branches here: Norwalk, South Bay, and Crenshaw. And in all likelihood, we will only see either the 405 or Lincoln branch build in our lifetime... not both. So at most, we'll have 4 branches to worry about. 4 branches will make an easy "X" at Century/Avaition with 2 thru-running lines.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 14, 2011 17:50:25 GMT -8
^ I wouldn't say that. The movement toward alternative transportation is accelerating. And believe me, when people ride the Expo Line to Santa Monica in a few years, rail popularity will EXPLODE.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Dec 15, 2011 6:12:51 GMT -8
^ I wouldn't say that. The movement toward alternative transportation is accelerating. And believe me, when people ride the Expo Line to Santa Monica in a few years, rail popularity will EXPLODE. I would love to see an additional designated funding source for another wave of rail expansion, but I'm not so sure it will be so straightforward. One concern is that extra money will lead to a fixed number of projects costing more, rather than an increase in the number of lines being built. Another is that it will take decades for measure R to be paid out, and there's only so much sales tax that will be going towards transit. In my mind, there are some good potential solutions, though: - Value capture. This has the advantage of scaling arbitrarily. No more fighting over a line here or there, it pays for itself, and one project doesn't have to compete with another. Business improvement districts, property tax, etc. can fund part of a new line.
- Real estate development. This is how Hong Kong pays for its transit system. The agency owns lots of land and earns commercial rates for it once it is well connected by metro to the economic centers of the city. Given that Metro doesn't own so much land, why not let property owners pay for variances for increased density that are tied to the development of a nearby rail line. Metro makes a list of rail lines they would like to build (they already have one), and any property owner within walking distance of a proposed station can indicate whether they would be willing to pay for increased density. Once a complete financing plan is worked out, money goes into an escrow account.
- Redirect some of the CalTrans budget to rail. This one makes a lot of sense. In terms of the outcomes that CalTrans is designed to deliver - mobility - it can do that a lot more cost effectively in many cases by building and maintaining rail instead of roads.
- Take a portion of (increased) car registration fees and devote that to transit development. I think this is what they do in Seattle.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Dec 15, 2011 10:04:34 GMT -8
Couldn't Lincoln be a streetcar running in a transit-only lane rather than full fledged light-rail?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 15, 2011 10:43:53 GMT -8
^ I wouldn't say that. The movement toward alternative transportation is accelerating. And believe me, when people ride the Expo Line to Santa Monica in a few years, rail popularity will EXPLODE. I would love to see an additional designated funding source for another wave of rail expansion, but I'm not so sure it will be so straightforward. One concern is that extra money will lead to a fixed number of projects costing more, rather than an increase in the number of lines being built. Another is that it will take decades for measure R to be paid out, and there's only so much sales tax that will be going towards transit. In my mind, there are some good potential solutions, though: - Value capture. This has the advantage of scaling arbitrarily. No more fighting over a line here or there, it pays for itself, and one project doesn't have to compete with another. Business improvement districts, property tax, etc. can fund part of a new line.
- Real estate development. This is how Hong Kong pays for its transit system. The agency owns lots of land and earns commercial rates for it once it is well connected by metro to the economic centers of the city. Given that Metro doesn't own so much land, why not let property owners pay for variances for increased density that are tied to the development of a nearby rail line. Metro makes a list of rail lines they would like to build (they already have one), and any property owner within walking distance of a proposed station can indicate whether they would be willing to pay for increased density. Once a complete financing plan is worked out, money goes into an escrow account.
- Redirect some of the CalTrans budget to rail. This one makes a lot of sense. In terms of the outcomes that CalTrans is designed to deliver - mobility - it can do that a lot more cost effectively in many cases by building and maintaining rail instead of roads.
- Take a portion of (increased) car registration fees and devote that to transit development. I think this is what they do in Seattle.
We have a few problems in this regard. Measure R revenues are coming in below expectations and will likely be billions below the expectations built into the Measure R schedule. Not sure how this will play out. Will we get a 30/10 plan and so forth? I think our best bet is for a 30/10 plan and then in the 2020's when this is built out, we might have strong support for more rail as the current rail system would be established and hopefully would have a positive view of it. Also, we can't afford many more Expo Phase 1 projects (projects over budget and well behind schedule) as this will ruin any attempt for more funds. Considering that Expo should have been relatively easy compared to projects like Regional Connector, Westside Subway, Valley-405 Line, and Crenshaw Line, this is a massive concern. All the lawsuits are going to hurt here. People don't care why a line is behind budget even if it isn't the MTA's fault because of a lawsuit - they are just more likely to dismiss the whole process. On a few of your ideas, I think they may be non-starters. For example, transferring Caltrans dollars to public transit. The road system/maintenance is going to be underfunded by several hundred billion dollars in the next decade. There simply isn't excess money to be transferred. For car registration fees, these go to the general fund, which is in deficit. Also, car reg. fees are only a fraction of what they traditionally were - .065% now vs. 2%. Again, probably politically impossible. Even if we were able to get the fees back to 2%, the general fund needs those revenues and there wouldn't be excess for transit. Real estate development and value added property tax financing could provide a little bit of money, but the MTA does not own a whole lot of real estate next to transit stations and value added property taxes can only fund small projects like the Downtown Streetcar. Try sending a tax bill to a homeowner near a proposed subway station for a few thousand dollars and we'd have riots on our hands. For the Valley-405 line, I like the idea of tolls on the 405 being used to pay for the line, but this is all but impossible too as you can't toll the whole freeway. The best that we could hope for is a HOT lane like the 10 and 110, but this would only generate about $10-$15M a year, not enough to make much difference in anything. Overall, I think the most realistic solution is a post Measure R sales tax. Hopefully, this one could be directed almost 100% to transit instead of a split with roads. I just don't see another sales tax on top of Measure R in the meantime as we already have two others.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 15, 2011 10:52:50 GMT -8
Couldn't Lincoln be a streetcar running in a transit-only lane rather than full fledged light-rail? It could but honestly, if that is the best we could get, I rather that be a BRT corridor. An upgraded BBB Rapid 3 in exclusive lane will be much better use of transit funding than streetcar in this corridor. Santa Monica to LAX is a bit too long of distance and wide spread geographic area for streetcar in my opinion. Streetcar works best in a compact area with high pedestrian traffic (e.g. Downtown LA). I do think that Santa Monica to Venice streetcar via Main St and/or Abbott Kinney is an ideal streetcar corridor.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Dec 15, 2011 15:19:51 GMT -8
As I have stated in the Venice Blvd. Line topic in the Dream forum: A streetcar is a good idea, but not practical for the length of such a busy corridor combined with the speed (or lack thereof) of the streetcars.
Streetcars work best either as circulator lines in busy areas (where they only have to travel short distances, so the chances of long delays are minimal, if at all), or on their own private ROW for longer distances (Philadelphia is a perfect example of both in action). A streetcar on Lincoln between LAX and Santa Monica just isn’t practical in this sense.
You also have to consider the area. Lincoln, for example, gets pretty narrow once you get up to the Venice/Santa Monica area. How would a streetcar fit there to connect to the Expo and (eventually) Purple Lines? Even if you could build it there, it would be at-grade and mixed with cars. You would have a traffic (not to mention safety) nightmare on your hands.
Sure, you can tunnel for a streetcar (again, see Philadelphia), but if you are going to do all that work anyway, you might as well build a full-on rail line that can handle the capacity and distance of the area.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 15, 2011 16:15:57 GMT -8
I agree with the previous comments. If there is to be a rail line on Lincoln, it ought to be of the LRT variety, with a dedicated ROW, maybe even underground for some segments. We shouldn't be confused about what we're trying to accomplish. Philadelphia's SEPTA streetcar routes, like San Francisco's Muni Metro, are survivors from an era when there wasn't a noticeable difference between a streetcar and light rail (the term light rail not coming into existence until after the great transit wipeout of the 1950s and 1960s). However, when you compare Portland's MAX with the Portland Streetcar, there is a very definite difference in how these systems operate. There is no reason for LAX-to-Santa Monica, as a completely new line, to be a streetcar. A "beach streetcar" would be awesome in Venice/ Santa Monica. I've been reading about the "Enoden" lately, which isn't exactly what we're talking about, but is certainly close enough. Of course, I'm not entirely sure who builds or pays for such a thing. The Expo Line's arrival in Santa Monica may be the catalyst for more rail development, so who knows?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 15, 2011 16:57:56 GMT -8
Let me just put my two cents in that a streetcar from the Expo terminus in Santa Monica to Venice would be awesome for a variety of reasons (tourism, linking Venice to the MetroRail system, etc...). Not sure of its overall viability, but I've always noticed the abandoned ROW behind Abbot Kinney.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Dec 16, 2011 12:20:02 GMT -8
Couldn't Lincoln be a streetcar running in a transit-only lane rather than full fledged light-rail? It could but honestly, if that is the best we could get, I rather that be a BRT corridor. An upgraded BBB Rapid 3 in exclusive lane will be much better use of transit funding than streetcar in this corridor. According to former fearless leader Negriff, you already have BRT. And according to you, it works. You won't get a bus lane. Santa Monica couldn't even deliver one mile of peak-hour lane. Rosendahl only removes bus lanes, despite talking out of both sides of his mouth. The Lincoln task force could only agree to do nothing (Bravo!); the Westchesterians managed to kill off a Sepulveda lane despite spending $10 Million on improvements; Santa Monica Boulevard yielded one mile of bus lane in the one place where it wasn't needed after five years of devastating construction. Ain't gonna happen. Lets do it right, for the next five generations, and build LRT, mostly elevated, with the potential to interline with Expo.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 16, 2011 13:32:40 GMT -8
According to former fearless leader Negriff, you already have BRT. And according to you, it works. You won't get a bus lane. Santa Monica couldn't even deliver one mile of peak-hour lane. Rosendahl only removes bus lanes, despite talking out of both sides of his mouth. The Lincoln task force could only agree to do nothing (Bravo!); the Westchesterians managed to kill off a Sepulveda lane despite spending $10 Million on improvements; Santa Monica Boulevard yielded one mile of bus lane in the one place where it wasn't needed after five years of devastating construction. Ain't gonna happen. Lets do it right, for the next five generations, and build LRT, mostly elevated, with the potential to interline with Expo. Hmmm.........isn't Santa Monica trying to take over Lincoln blvd from Caltrans so they can put in calming measures and bikes lanes? Shouldn't you blame Caltrans (a state owned highway) and not Rosenthal's problem? santamonica.patch.com/articles/reimagineing-lincoln-blvd
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Dec 16, 2011 16:36:43 GMT -8
Santa Monica couldn't even deliver one mile of peak-hour lane. Rosendahl only removes bus lanes, despite talking out of both sides of his mouth. Ain't gonna happen.Hmmm.........isn't Santa Monica trying to take over Lincoln blvd from Caltrans so they can put in calming measures and bikes lanes? Shouldn't you blame Caltrans (a state owned highway) and not Rosenthal's problem? No, it was Santa Monica who declared Rapid 3 as BRT over six years ago and told us there would be a bus lane. They knew then it was a State Highway. Update: Who knew? Apparently after 15 years, Caltrans and Santa Monica *did* reach agreement on Lincoln, in August. Yours truly might have to give kudos in a year or two. www.smmirror.com/#mode=single&view=32693It is Rosendahl's (with a "d") problem from Rose to Washington - and presumably from Washington to Aviation, though Lincoln and Manchester and Sepulveda are both more accommodating through those portions; for proponents, its probably best to postpone the issue on those segments.
|
|
|
Post by gibiscus on Jan 7, 2012 17:55:47 GMT -8
I was looking at a map of Torrance and I noticed what appeared to be an old branch ROW going through Old Torrance. It starts at Crenshaw next to the Harbor Subdivision, going east on Dominguez Way/Street to Sartori Avenue. There are actual tracks from Sartori & Dominguez to Torrance & Cabrillo in the heart of Old Torrance, an ideal station site! There appears to have been an old branch ROW from Cabrillo to Border Avenue to Plaza Del Amo. Plaza Del Amo continues with a ROW in the median until turning south into Normandie. I think this would make a great route and serve Old Torrance much better than staying on the Harbor Subdivision!
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Jan 9, 2012 8:31:39 GMT -8
I was looking at a map of Torrance and I noticed what appeared to be an old branch ROW going through Old Torrance. It starts at Crenshaw next to the Harbor Subdivision, going east on Dominguez Way/Street to Sartori Avenue. There are actual tracks from Sartori & Dominguez to Torrance & Cabrillo in the heart of Old Torrance, an ideal station site! There appears to have been an old branch ROW from Cabrillo to Border Avenue to Plaza Del Amo. Plaza Del Amo continues with a ROW in the median until turning south into Normandie. I think this would make a great route and serve Old Torrance much better than staying on the Harbor Subdivision! That appears to be old Pacific Electric ROW. The part on Dominguez (I believe) was non-revenue track leading to the Torrance Shops, the rest may have been part of the San Pedro via Torrance route, which PE abandoned in 1940 (along with the Redondo Beach via Gardena route). Those abandonments caused the creation of current day Gardena Municipal Bus Lines and Torrance Transit.
|
|