|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 29, 2009 14:50:31 GMT -8
Several people at one of the early Santa Monica meetings expressed support for the Expo Line and the Purple Line ending together at a grand terminal near the pier like the Coney Island terminal in Brooklyn, where the D, F, N and Q lines all end together. The original maps I think Metro had in mind were "bookend" stations with the Expo terminus near the south of the Promenade and the Purple Line terminus near the north end of the promenade.
However, as this is the end of Phase 5, and there are people who resent the possibility of Santa Monica getting two rail lines, and as this would come AFTER a the Santa Monica Blvd./La Cienega extension, who knows what people would want at that point.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jul 29, 2009 17:07:59 GMT -8
Santa Monica would have two rail lines, doing two different things, serving two very different communities. They're both justified.
Am I right or wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jul 29, 2009 17:56:43 GMT -8
Santa Monica would have two rail lines, doing two different things, serving two very different communities. They're both justified. Am I right or wrong? Well of course you are right. This silly argument about having multiple guideways in a dense corridor is so unthought of. Perhaps following the same logic, we should tear out Sunset, because we have Hollywood and Santa Monica or perhaps we should rip out Pico, because we have Olympic and Santa Monica and there is excess road capacity. We could also deal with this argument by removing parallel bus lines on Wilshire, 6th and 8th St., as there is no need. But tell that to the jammed packed standing loads on each of these streets. Good figure.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 30, 2009 7:26:59 GMT -8
As a person who works in Santa Monica, I would have no problem with two rail lines terminating mere steps from my office. But realistically, I do think that's overkill for downtown Santa Monica, given the other dense areas and congested routes needing the subway.
Specifically, I think that connecting two routes with a well-placed transfer station (mid-route) is far more useful to the system than connecting them with a terminal station.
So yes, if we assume both lines are coming to SM, they should meet in a common terminal. But prior to that, we should consider other configurations that might make for higher ridership or better transfers. We have several lines potentially coming to the Westside in the future (Purple Line, Expo Line, Green Line, 'Sepulveda Line'), and there are many ways these might be connected.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 30, 2009 14:58:31 GMT -8
My understanding is that (reading between the lines) the Purple Line will terminate westerly at about Bundy or Barrington, and that's it.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jul 30, 2009 16:40:02 GMT -8
Way back on page 8, I shared my proposal for the LA HRT system, whereby the Westside Subway Extension project shapes the Red, Purple, and future "Pink" lines into a large "wye" configuration (see diagram below). Courtesy of The Transit Coalition, a report I prepared on the subject is now hosted online on the Coalition's Metro Rail project page. As we move into the next round of subway extension scoping, I'd like to know what others think of the concept. Unifying LA's HRT System- Comments to the Westside Subway Extension DEIR/DEIS (Low-bandwidth users beware; large file!)
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 30, 2009 17:03:48 GMT -8
Justin, your proposal has essentially become Alternative 11 -- the main difference being the continuation of the Pink Line up to North Hollywood. Metro has stated that this is not feasible because it would require massive reconfiguration of Hollywood/Highland and disruption of existing service.
Ideally, we would have wyes at all three junctions (Wilshire/LaCienega, Hollywood/Highland, Wilshire/Vermont). This would allow all kinds of routing options, including a circle/loop line. But I would guess that the cost of this would be enormous.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jul 30, 2009 18:27:53 GMT -8
Metro has stated that this is not feasible because it would require massive reconfiguration of Hollywood/Highland and disruption of existing service. It would be painful to single track Hollywood/Highland or even impose bus bridges, but man, Justin's plan would make an incredible long lasting impact on transit in LA, in my opinion of course.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jul 30, 2009 20:29:37 GMT -8
Justin, your proposal has essentially become Alternative 11 -- the main difference being the continuation of the Pink Line up to North Hollywood. Metro has stated that this is not feasible because it would require massive reconfiguration of Hollywood/Highland and disruption of existing service. Ideally, we would have wyes at all three junctions (Wilshire/LaCienega, Hollywood/Highland, Wilshire/Vermont). This would allow all kinds of routing options, including a circle/loop line. But I would guess that the cost of this would be enormous. Metrocenter, Can you point me to the info where the MTA says that this plan would disrupt Hollywood/Highland service? I have to confess that I have not studied the details as some here have, but you would think that if the MTA went through the expense of putting together the 3 lines that Justin posited, that then running the 3 lines he suggests would not be outrageously expensive. Even running the circular loop as a separate line should just be a matter of scheduling, unless I'm completely missing something, which I very well could be... RT
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 30, 2009 20:43:00 GMT -8
Justin,
Good proposal. I especially like the point about how poorly the SFV, Glendale, Burbank and Hollywood are linked with the Westside via freeway. This is a big point and to me basically the main point as to why the Pink Line would be heavily used.
Unfortunately, right now much of our system competes with freeways directly. The Green Line competes directly with the 105, the Red Line with the 101, the Gold Line with the 110, and Expo with the 10 as these lines practically go right along the path of these freeways.
The real beauty of mass transit is where we can connect areas that are not connected by freeways such as Hollywood and the Westside (also a lot of the Purple Line is quite a ways from the freeway). When people think that driving will take them 40 minutes but they can take rail in 30 then you have some serious ridership. Right now, our system is largely missing these opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 31, 2009 8:50:06 GMT -8
Metrocenter, Can you point me to the info where the MTA says that this plan would disrupt Hollywood/Highland service? I have to confess that I have not studied the details as some here have, but you would think that if the MTA went through the expense of putting together the 3 lines that Justin posited, that then running the 3 lines he suggests would not be outrageously expensive. Hi rubbertoe, The documentation on Metro's website is pretty limited. All I can find online is in the Scoping Meetings presentation, page 8. This page simply shows a map of Alternative 11. The connection at Hollywood/Highland is labeled "Transfer Required". At the scoping meetings in April, Metro staff explained that it was not feasible to have a direct connection due to the disruption to existing service and cost. I will admit I have not seen any diagram of the Hollywood/Highland station. They are going to have to build platforms for the new track anyway, so I don't see why they couldn't connect the track as well. Or at least set things up to allow these connections in the future. Even running the circular loop as a separate line should just be a matter of scheduling, unless I'm completely missing something, which I very well could be... Running the circle route would require junctions at all three stations (Wilshire/Vermont, Wilshire/LaCienega, and Hollywood/Highland), and these junctions would have to allow turning with the circle. Currently, Hollywood/Highland is not a junction at all, and Wilshire/Vermont does not have track connecting SB Vermont to WB Wilshire. So at the very least, both Wilshire/Vermont and Hollywood/Highland would need new tunnels, track and platforms. Plus, Wilshire/LaCienega would need to be designed as a wye.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 31, 2009 9:30:36 GMT -8
Well written proposal and I like the logic used in if we're cutting open the area why not do it here instead of there. Three things that will need clarity or at least a mention.
1) On the track diagram (Page 11 or 12) it shows a R=1000' what is that velocity of the trains making that curve?
2) The assumption that 12 minute service will be maintained is false because at Hollywood/Vine the crossovers are to the EAST of the station rather than to the west of it requiring boarding/alighting of passengers at the station. That absolute best that will be maintained for through service to North Hollywood is a 20 minute headway. (This is not a flaw but information that needs to be shown) One alteration could be made to minimize this impact is have to have every other train from Downtown end at Hollywood/Vine so that at least the current headway is maintained.
3) Because the proposal looks at the SFV, Burbank and Glendale areas as it's rider target for this idea and the impacts of current users of the 101 and 134 corridors as a means to access the Westside, how does that impact the park-ride facilities and their needed traffic mitigations at the North Hollywood and Universal City stations? How does that affect the Joint use developments being proposed at these station locations, because of these parking requirements? However as I said before there an additional solution to this it's by adding another line linking the SF Valley to the Westside through a line parallel to the Sepulveda Pass, this could be a northern continuation of the Purple Line from Westwood to reduce transfers. This corridor would shift the riders who are travelling from the Valley to reach the Westside, a lot more efficiently while providing a high consistent service frequency throughout the area and will disperse the amount of park-ride users and their needed parking structures to the San Fernando Valley area, a key point to mitigate those damn NIMBY's.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jul 31, 2009 16:53:46 GMT -8
1) On the track diagram (Page 11 or 12) it shows a R=1000' what is that velocity of the trains making that curve? Red/Purple Line trains currently have speed limits of 45 MPH on all existing 1000' curves. The exact alignment between the Hollywood/Highland junction and the Santa Monica/La Brea area would have to be optimized for trip time, but it would be roughly NE/SW. 2) The assumption that 12 minute service will be maintained is false because at Hollywood/Vine the crossovers are to the EAST of the station rather than to the west of it requiring boarding/alighting of passengers at the station. That absolute best that will be maintained for through service to North Hollywood is a 20 minute headway. (This is not a flaw but information that needs to be shown) One alteration could be made to minimize this impact is have to have every other train from Downtown end at Hollywood/Vine so that at least the current headway is maintained. You're absolutely right about that. A 12-minute headway was a little optimistic on my part, given the station stops at Hollywood/Vine and the time for the southbound trains to clear through the crossover (at 10 MPH) would add several minutes to achievable headways. If only a certain politician hadn't cut the planned crossovers north of Hollywood/Highland! 3) Because the proposal looks at the SFV, Burbank and Glendale areas as it's rider target for this idea and the impacts of current users of the 101 and 134 corridors as a means to access the Westside, how does that impact the park-ride facilities and their needed traffic mitigations at the North Hollywood and Universal City stations? How does that affect the Joint use developments being proposed at these station locations, because of these parking requirements? Parking at North Hollywood and Universal City is certainly currently a precious commodity. I would hope that the joint developments at each location would plan a large increase for their own purposes. The marginal cost of additional parking for a Pink Line project would thankfully be diminished if coordinated with existing joint development projects. An important benefit to bringing the Pink Line to North Hollywood would also be that "double-service," allowing for future branching of the Pink and Red Lines, say down Ventura Blvd., to Van Nuys, or to Burbank Airport. Short headways would preserved if the Pink Line reaches NH. Future extensions would therefore provide even more parking options. However as I said before there an additional solution to this it's by adding another line linking the SF Valley to the Westside through a line parallel to the Sepulveda Pass, this could be a northern continuation of the Purple Line from Westwood to reduce transfers. This corridor would shift the riders who are travelling from the Valley to reach the Westside, a lot more efficiently while providing a high consistent service frequency throughout the area and will disperse the amount of park-ride users and their needed parking structures to the San Fernando Valley area, a key point to mitigate those damn NIMBY's. And as we have agreed before, this project cannot be a substitute for a Sepulveda Pass rail project. But the fact remains that the Westside Subway project has about a 20-year head-start on a Sepulveda Pass rail project. So in the mean time, while we're digging on this project, it makes sense to make useful connections rather than deliberately leave them broken. Thanks for helping me form these ideas together better!
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Jul 31, 2009 18:06:29 GMT -8
If they can't do JW's plan and HH ends up being the end of the line for the Pink Line, I say make the Pink Line the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line.
If they do Pink Line as HRT and the Crenshaw Line as a separate LRT, we start to have dead ends all over the system -- NH, Union Station, Crenshaw Line and Wilshire intersection, Pink Line and Red Line intersection.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Aug 1, 2009 18:17:08 GMT -8
For Valley residents that needs to travel to the Westside, it's better we build a new subway along the I-405 corridor (a project in the distant future considered in Metro's LRTP) and utilize either the Sepulveda or Van Nuys Orange Line station's underutilized park and ride lots. The North Hollywood P&R lot is already filled to capacity for patrons bound for Hollywood/DTLA to get potential riders for the proposed Pink Line (which I believe would not go to NoHo anyways).
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 1, 2009 21:13:22 GMT -8
Hence the reason why, despite the discussion of the Pink Line being much more of a reality than ever before, there will probably NEVER be any true Subway to the Sea. Barrington and Bundy is as far west as it really needs to go.
Frankly, I could make an argument that the Crenshaw Line, even if it's "only" a light rail line, is a better fit to go up to the Hollywood/Highland station (it won't be able to directly connect, anyhow), and to focus on a Westside/Valley Line that's a subway once the Purple Line extends as far west as Westwood.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 1, 2009 23:25:12 GMT -8
Hence the reason why, despite the discussion of the Pink Line being much more of a reality than ever before, there will probably NEVER be any true Subway to the Sea. Barrington and Bundy is as far west as it really needs to go. Frankly, I could make an argument that the Crenshaw Line, even if it's "only" a light rail line, is a better fit to go up to the Hollywood/Highland station (it won't be able to directly connect, anyhow), and to focus on a Westside/Valley Line that's a subway once the Purple Line extends as far west as Westwood. I personally think the main missing link in the long range plan is the connection between the current Orange Line and the Green Line (the Orange Line to Purple Line, which is important is in there but not for another 30 years). I realize a line somewhere near or along the 405 corridor from the Orange Line to LAX that would connect the South Bay to the Valley and be able to feed into the Purple, Pink, Expo, and Green Lines would be to say the least a boon to the system. Instead for some reason we are focusing on the narrow Crenshaw Line which doesn't serve much regional purpose and may never even connect to the Purple Line. I realize there is no natural path for a line between LAX and Westwood, but I'd rather focus on a line that will benefit the entire county despite its expense than a less expensive line that is mostly for political purposes that has little regional benefit. Like I said before, I think Crenshaw has its place and should be built, but it is more of secondary feeder line and not a main part of the system, which is what we should be focusing in on. We need lines that will have ridership at the 100k+ level not the 10-20k level.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Aug 2, 2009 15:19:44 GMT -8
At the scoping meetings in April, Metro staff explained that it was not feasible to have a direct connection due to the disruption to existing service and cost. I think this is another example of where everyone has their own definition of "feasible." For some more technical exploration of a Hollywood/Highland junction, I look north to a BART proposal to add an infill station at 30th St. & Mission. The project has many of its own issues, including how build a station (which can have a maximum slope of 1%) on a line with 3.12% slope. Back to the issue at hand, they reduced the study to 2 basic alternatives: 1) Building the new station around the existing subway tunnels. 2) Building off-line parallel "siding tunnels," where stations would then be built. In my report, I illustrated a junction that could be built as a cut-and-cover structure (similar to the existing Metro Red Line pocket tracks at North Hollywood and MacArthur park.) Here is a BART diagram showing the similar construction of cut-and-cover box around operational subway tunnels for their on-line station alternative: The off-line BART station alternative, however would require four points where the new subway tunnel would join with the existing subway tunnel. Here are two BART illustrations of the construction of the tie-in points. This shows that the construction of a new junction at Hollywood/Highland can be done either with a cut-and-cover box (my original suggestion) or even be bored entirely underground. The BART report also states that existing service could be maintained throughout the day and half-service could be maintained through single-tracking during night construction. They also recommended Jerard's approach of turning back half of the trains before the single-tracking segment. While incorporating a junction is obviously a big project, I still maintain that it avoids the cost and difficulty of building a new station box on Highland Blvd. and is at least worth studying in the EIR/EIS process.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 2, 2009 21:13:06 GMT -8
If connecting the line at Hollywood/Highland is even remotely feasible, I'd say they should study it. Now's the time to do it.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Aug 6, 2009 22:50:59 GMT -8
Went to the meeting in Santa Monica tonight. They talked about the location for stations at Santa Monica/La Cienega/San Vicente. La Cienega is no longer an option. Next at Century City, the options are either Santa Monica or Constellation at Ave. of the Stars. Next at Westwood/UCLA, the options are on Wilshire or in a parking lot in that location. Next in the vicinity west of the 405, Barrington or the VA. Bundy would probably be part of the Santa Monica segment. Next at Wilshire/La Cienega, they are looking at making that a transfer station for the West Hollywood segment for people that want to head east. Someone asked about putting a Wye there and it was shot down because of the frequency of the trains coming from downtown. Hollywood/Highland is a transfer station because of the FTA cost effectiveness to directly connect would be to high and could eliminate federal new starts funding. Crenshaw is still an option as a station. On their map they showed the different routes that the Crenshaw line might take. They also went over what the construction process might entail. There were people there who talked about the environmental injustice done on the expo line with grade crossings and how metro could not grade separate the expo line due to funding but has 4.1 billion dollars for this project. They also stated that due to the environmental injustice, metro would not be eligible for new starts funding. There was also the question about one large TBM instead of two smaller ones. The answer was answered with a question. Why experiment with technology not familiar with metro when what we have proves that it can be used safely and get the job done as it has been done on the eastside goldline? They also said that you are removing more drt with the one hole which raises the construction costs.
If I forgot anything please let me know.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 6, 2009 23:39:54 GMT -8
Went to the meeting in Santa Monica tonight. They talked about the location for stations at Santa Monica/La Cienega/San Vicente. La Cienega is no longer an option. La Cienega is no longer a station? I hope they make a station at San Vicente then, b/c something is needed between Fairfax and Robertson for fast connections to the Beverly Center. Next at Century City, the options are either Santa Monica or Constellation at Ave. of the Stars. Since they eliminated the Avenue of the Stars station, the Constellation blvd option makes the most sense and would be more central to Century City than Santa Monica blvd. There were people there who talked about the environmental injustice done on the expo line with grade crossings and how metro could not grade separate the expo line due to funding but has 4.1 billion dollars for this project. They also stated that due to the environmental injustice, metro would not be eligible for new starts funding. What?! So, did FixExpo succeed and create 'doomsday' for LA transit development? LA is no longer eligible for federal funding?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 7, 2009 8:53:18 GMT -8
Went to the meeting in Santa Monica tonight. They talked about the location for stations at Santa Monica/La Cienega/San Vicente. La Cienega is no longer an option. La Cienega is no longer a station? I hope they make a station at San Vicente then, b/c something is needed between Fairfax and Robertson for fast connections to the Beverly Center. There were two stations being considered for La Cienega: one in West Hollywood, and one near the Beverly Center. I think Joshua was referring to the West Hollywood station, not to the Bev Center station. (Joshua, correct me if I'm wrong.) If the WeHo station at La Cienega is not built, then the San Vicente one would be built. But I don't think the Beverly Center station is gone. There were people there who talked about the environmental injustice done on the expo line with grade crossings and how metro could not grade separate the expo line due to funding but has 4.1 billion dollars for this project. They also stated that due to the environmental injustice, metro would not be eligible for new starts funding. What?! So, did FixExpo succeed and create 'doomsday' for LA transit development? LA is no longer eligible for federal funding? Joshua didn't said that: he just said that FixExpo has made this claim. FixExpo believes that the subway is ineligible for fed funds because Expo was not grade-separated. I wouldn't worry about it: FixExpo makes lots of indefensible claims.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 7, 2009 9:03:05 GMT -8
Went to the meeting in Santa Monica tonight. They talked about the location for stations at Santa Monica/La Cienega/San Vicente. La Cienega is no longer an option. There were two stations being considered for La Cienega: one in West Hollywood, and one near the Beverly Center. I think Joshua was referring to the West Hollywood station, not to the Bev Center station. (Joshua, correct me if I'm wrong.) If the WeHo station at La Cienega is not built, then the San Vicente one would be built. But I don't think the Beverly Center station is gone. Actually, there were two alignments being studied for the West Hollywood line between Santa Monica/La Cienega and Beverly Center. The La Cienega alignment was ruled out because of that hard right turn that would be required at Santa Monica and La Cienega. The alignment would run on Santa Monica then down San Vicente to the Beverly Center, and the station would be located on Santa Monica between LaCienega and San Vicente. There would still be a Beverly Center stop as well. There was discussion then about where to locate the La Cienega/Wilshire station to allow transfers between the Purple and "Pink" lines. Structuring the station to allow for both subway and bus transfers is challenging, otherwise the subway transfer would have to occur at the Beverly Dr./Wilshire station.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Aug 7, 2009 9:28:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Aug 7, 2009 12:47:47 GMT -8
One comment made by metro stated that the purple line would only go further in to Santa Monica from where it stops in west LA if the expo line ridership exceeds all expiations due to the funding issues. Funding is also a factor for the west hollywood segment.
|
|
Adrian Auer-Hudson
Junior Member
Supporter of "Expo Light Rail - Enabler for the Digital Coast".
Posts: 65
|
Post by Adrian Auer-Hudson on Aug 7, 2009 13:41:48 GMT -8
WOW, thank you for posting. This is so groovy. The project is starting to take shape and form. I love the idea of a station under San Vicente. We are slowly seeing the return of the "PE", only much better this time. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 7, 2009 15:51:32 GMT -8
One comment made by metro stated that the purple line would only go further in to Santa Monica from where it stops in west LA if the expo line ridership exceeds all expiations due to the funding issues. Funding is also a factor for the west hollywood segment. Interesting comment by MTA. I think it's not important to extend the line past Bundy, or even Sepulveda, in the near future. But it's absolutely crucial to build the Hollywood alignment simultaneously with the Wilshire alignment. Nobody is arguing against that Wilshire line will have a somewhat more ridership than the Hollywood line but the mentality now has to shift toward the need for a system, rather than just a line. And we need to build this system as soon as possible.And, yes, if you want to go the beach, just take the Expo Line for now (now being 2014).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 7, 2009 16:11:22 GMT -8
WOW, thank you for posting. This is so groovy. The project is starting to take shape and form. I love the idea of a station under San Vicente. We are slowly seeing the return of the "PE", only much better this time. :-) Thanks for the posting indeed. Actually this is not the rebirth of Pacific Electric, which was light-rail, but the partial realization of the 1925 rapid-transit plan. We are already having the rebirth of the Pacific Electric through the many light-rail lines we are building. This is the 1925 rapid-transit (that is grade-separated, short-headway, long-train, multitrack transit) plan:(Click here or on the image to enlarge it.) The red lines represent the planned rapid-transit lines and the solid brown lines existing LRT (Pacific Electric Railway) and dashed brown lines existing streetcar (Los Angeles Railway) lines. Then planned rapid-transit (all grade-separated like freeways, that is by trenching and/or embanking) lines included: 3rd St - Santa Monica Blvd to the sea, Hollywood Blvd, San Vicente Blvd, Venice Blvd to the sea, Culver Blvd to the sea, King - Crenshaw - Hawthorne Blvds to the sea (Redondo Beach), Figureoa - Normandie to the sea (Long Beach), grade-separated Blue Line to Long Beach, San Pedro, and Artesia, several SFV lines, several SGV lines, and several Eastside lines. Also note the numbers next to the lines, which represent the number of tracks. 3-track and 4-track are common configurations, as opposed to our 2-track subway now.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 8, 2009 8:04:27 GMT -8
Some comments about the La Cienega area stations: - The station "Santa Monica/San Vicente" has made it into the plan. This is actually between La Cienega and San Vicente, because of the left-hand curve from Santa Monica to San Vicente, which actually would miss the intersection of those two streets.
- The station "Santa Monica/La Cienega" has been eliminated from the plan. This was actually between La Cienega and Sweetzer, because of the left-hand curve along Santa Monica.
- The station "Beverly Center Area" has made it into the plan. This is actually shown as being exactly at the Beverly Center, possibly between that and Cedars/Sinai. Hopefully they could come to agreement with the mall to call the station simply "Beverly Center" Station.
- One option for the station "Wilshire/La Cienega" would be directly at this intersection. In this option, the Pink Line would miss the station, because the curve of the route from La Cienega to Wilshire would prevent it from hitting that corner. Thus transfers would have to be done at the next station to the west, which is "Wilshire/Beverly".
- The other option for the station "Wilshire/La Cienega" would be farther west at Robertson. This would serve as the transfer point between the Purple Line and the Pink Line.
As stated before, Metro is looking at four MOSs: - MOS-1: Purple, to Fairfax.
- MOS-2: Purple, to Century City.
- MOS-3: Purple, to West L.A.
- MOS-4: Pink, connecting Hollywood to Purple.
|
|
|
Post by billcousert on Aug 8, 2009 20:02:04 GMT -8
This is the 1925 rapid-transit (that is grade-separated, short-headway, long-train, multitrack transit) plan: Did L.A. have a big enough population to justify this plan back in 1925? Why wasn't it approved? This was years before the GM/Good Year/Standard Oil conspiracy, so who was behind the defeat?
|
|