|
Post by tobias087 on Jul 30, 2010 23:28:57 GMT -8
On the issue of the station location, my understanding is that the Wilshire/Westwood location is preferable from an engineering standpoint to build a transfer station for the Sepulveda Pass line.
Also, once the Orange to Purple segment is built, I'm in favor of routing along Westwood blvd. to reach the Expo/Westwood station.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 31, 2010 10:57:01 GMT -8
A transfer station at Westwood/Expo? There goes the neighborhood!!! LOL
I think the Sepulveda Pass line should terminate/junction with Expo at Sepulveda/Expo. I also think it should have a stop at UCLA and connect to the Purple Line at Wilshire/Westwood. Not sure if all that is possible, but I do think Westwood/Expo would be a terrible place for a transfer station.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jul 31, 2010 13:25:08 GMT -8
Why would Westwood/Expo be a terrible transfer station? It will be busy at first mainly because of connections to bus lines which serve Westwood Village and UCLA. What is the big difference if those bus connections are replaced by rail connections?
Sepulveda / Expo would also be a good transfer point and that routing may be easier to build, but I don't see a big difference for the neighborhoods or riders with either connection.
Also, I don't agree with terminating the line at Expo; many people will want to continue further south, and if we can get the money to build a rail line, it will be better to have it go all the way to a major anchor (Like LAX or a South Bay transit center), rather than having an extra tranfer to buses for everyone going south of Santa Monica or Culver city.
Since the Green Line tracks will be extended to Torrance, it makes sense to continue the 405/Sepulveda tracks to hook up with the Crenshaw line north of LAX, and route trains thru. Otherwise, someone coming from the Valley might have a trip consisting of: #1 bus to Sepulveda line #2 train to Expo / Sepulveda #3 Bus to LAX #4 Train to South Bay #5 Bus to destination With tracks all the way to LAX, you could eliminate 2 of those transfers, likely saving 10 to 20 minutes per trip, even if #3 is an express bus.
This is why Metro needs to do a big planning session for the whole future transit system. With professionals working on it 40 hours a week, and full access to Metro's ridership data, they could model how all the buses and trains will interact. Planning one rail line or one BRT route at a time is wasteful and leads to short-sighted decisions.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jul 31, 2010 15:54:30 GMT -8
The Sepulveda Pass line seems like a logical next step after the Wilshire Subway gets to Westwood. In my proposal years ago on the old boards, the line would go from Ventura/Van Nuys straight to a new UCLA station and then Wilshire/Westwood. This minimal line could be extended north to the Orange Line and Van Nuys Metrolink station, and south to Santa Monica Blvd and Expo, with the potential to extend it further north into the Valley and further south to LAX as needed. But that's still way out in the future, and we really need to get the Purple Line extension first. It'll be interesting to see how transit and traffic in Westwood and Santa Monica adapts to this major addition to the rail network.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jul 31, 2010 17:33:30 GMT -8
The volume of Sepulveda Pass traffic strongly suggests that a tunneled rail link to the Valley with no stops between UCLA and the Orange/Purple line would have high ridership. Heck there's no way to get to the Valley from the Westside other than the 406 or winding roadways like Beverly Glen. An alternative, even at $1B+ would demonstrate significant value in a short time.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 31, 2010 22:01:58 GMT -8
Why would Westwood/Expo be a terrible transfer station? It's bad urban planning to place a major station so off he beaten path. And it's bad public policy to completely destroy the character of an existing neighborhood. I'm no fan of the NIMBYs who want to stop Expo from passing through Rancho Park. But a transfer station, with all the parking and massive amounts of people, belongs at the intersection of major boulevards (like Sepulveda and Pico), not in a neighborhood of single-family houses. From a more practical standpoint: where would this line go as it travels down Westwood? Elevated? At-grade? Not likely. But it can't go underground: there's a big sewer line down there.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jul 31, 2010 22:22:02 GMT -8
I agree ...like Wilshire and Sepulveda, anchoring a N/S line along the 405 with a stop at UCLA and then Ventura to the north.
Today, Westwood and Wilshire seems somewhat disconnected from UCLA.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jul 31, 2010 23:00:44 GMT -8
It's bad urban planning to place a major station so off he beaten path. And it's bad public policy to completely destroy the character of an existing neighborhood. I'm no fan of the NIMBYs who want to stop Expo from passing through Rancho Park. But a transfer station, with all the parking and massive amounts of people, belongs at the intersection of major boulevards (like Sepulveda and Pico), not in a neighborhood of single-family houses. Transfer stations don't need any parking, and they will mainly have people walking from one platform to the other, not leaving to enter the neighborhood, so it would not have to alter the character. That's a good point. Sepulveda does make much more sense if we want the rails to continue south, and it has more destinations within walking distance. It could also be a great transfer point to a limited-stop or express Metrolink line down the middle of I-10 (One of my ideas which would require taking away several lanes from cars...)
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 1, 2010 8:52:16 GMT -8
Transfer stations don't need any parking, and they will mainly have people walking from one platform to the other, not leaving to enter the neighborhood, so it would not have to alter the character. So the station would exist only for transfers? With no parking and no reason for exiting? I've seen a lot of train stations, across the U.S. and around the world, and I've never seen a station like that before.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Aug 1, 2010 10:56:11 GMT -8
[ So the station would exist only for transfers? With no parking and no reason for exiting? I've seen a lot of train stations, across the U.S. and around the world, and I've never seen a station like that before. Secaucus Transfer is exactly like that, in the middle of a swamp. But in this case, it wouldn't be much harder to build the transfer station at Sepulveda and Expo and have it be useful as a destination as well.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Aug 1, 2010 22:34:34 GMT -8
So the station would exist only for transfers? With no parking and no reason for exiting? I've seen a lot of train stations, across the U.S. and around the world, and I've never seen a station like that before. The Rosa Park station at the Blue Line and Green Line intersection is pretty much like that. Perhaps there is some parking under the freeway. The Harbor Transitway and Green Line transfer station is even more inaccessible, being in the middle of TWO freeways. But yeah, I agree that Sepulveda and Expo would be a much better location for the intersection of the two rail lines. No reason to waste a station (as done on the Green Line, twice) unless absolutely necessary.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 2, 2010 7:00:54 GMT -8
Also, I don't agree with terminating the line at Expo; many people will want to continue further south, and if we can get the money to build a rail line, it will be better to have it go all the way to a major anchor (Like LAX or a South Bay transit center), rather than having an extra tranfer to buses for everyone going south of Santa Monica or Culver city. It has to go at least as to LAX. Yeah, this makes the most sense. I definitely agree. We need to look at this from a regional perspective and not just focus on the Westside.
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Aug 2, 2010 10:29:27 GMT -8
So the station would exist only for transfers? With no parking and no reason for exiting? I've seen a lot of train stations, across the U.S. and around the world, and I've never seen a station like that before. The Rosa Park station at the Blue Line and Green Line intersection is pretty much like that. Perhaps there is some parking under the freeway. The Harbor Transitway and Green Line transfer station is even more inaccessible, being in the middle of TWO freeways. But yeah, I agree that Sepulveda and Expo would be a much better location for the intersection of the two rail lines. No reason to waste a station (as done on the Green Line, twice) unless absolutely necessary. The only reason Westwood/Expo might be better than Sepulveda/Expo is that the continuation of the line makes more sense proceeding down Overland rather than Sepulveda (all underground, ideally). There isn't much of interest on Sepulveda; the Overland route could stop between Venice and Washington, close to Sony and closer to downtown Culver City than Sepulveda. The next stop could be south of Jefferson, close to West LA college. It could loop back to Sepulveda via Westfield Culver City transit mall, then stop at the Howard Hughes center before hooking up the the Crenshaw ROW. There could be a transfer station at Sepulveda/Expo instead, but the line should then proceed under the Expo line ROW to Overland then south under Overland as suggested above.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Aug 2, 2010 17:01:21 GMT -8
The idea of putting a line down Overland makes me recall the ruckus raised Overland residents when widening the street was under consideration. ...Whew, a train; I can't even imagine how much more they'll protest; perhaps NFSR will have something to contribute as well.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 2, 2010 19:50:13 GMT -8
Also, I don't agree with terminating the line at Expo; many people will want to continue further south, and if we can get the money to build a rail line, it will be better to have it go all the way to a major anchor (Like LAX or a South Bay transit center), rather than having an extra tranfer to buses for everyone going south of Santa Monica or Culver city. It has to go at least as to LAX. Yeah, this makes the most sense. I definitely agree. We need to look at this from a regional perspective and not just focus on the Westside. While I certainly agree that we need to plan ahead and that there needs to be a line connecting LAX, the South Bay, Westwood, and the Valley, the sad fact remains that the only lines going anywhere in the next 10 years and probably the next 30 are those funded by Measure R. This is why I don't like the Crenshaw Line much as it does little as a regional line. I much prefer building a Vermont extension and this line. Instead we are getting Crenshaw in the middle and won't have nearly as many riders as either of the other two.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 2, 2010 20:39:20 GMT -8
Let me ask you, Masonite: 20 years ago, when the Blue Line was born, do you think we could even have imagined something on such a large scale as Measure R could have happened, much less than possibly seeing its projects built in 10 years instead of 30? Personally, I believe we are in the beginning of the largest transformation of a major American city in generations. I also believe LA's movement toward mass transit will accelerate, especially once the economy turns around and even more funding is available from local, state, federal and private sources. And if your in doubt, read this article: articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/09/opinion/la-oe-0609-rutten-20100609/2More, specifically, read this portion within it:
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 3, 2010 8:28:52 GMT -8
Let me ask you, Masonite: 20 years ago, when the Blue Line was born, do you think we could even have imagined something on such a large scale as Measure R could have happened, much less than possibly seeing its projects built in 10 years instead of 30? Personally, I believe we are in the beginning of the largest transformation of a major American city in generations. I also believe LA's movement toward mass transit will accelerate, especially once the economy turns around and even more funding is available from local, state, federal and private sources. And if your in doubt, read this article: articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/09/opinion/la-oe-0609-rutten-20100609/2More, specifically, read this portion within it: I would be wary of setting yourself up for some disappointment. Not trying to be negative, but realistic. Yes, 20 years ago when the Blue Line opened we did expect to have a Green Line to LAX, a Pasadena Blue Line and a subway to Westwood by now. Measure R largely is delivering on something like the Westwood subway that we already thought we'd have by now. If you look at the Blue Line celebrations they talk of a 150 mile system coming. Even with Measure R, we'll barely get there (or fall a little short). On the federal level, Congress cannot pass a transport bill even with a Dem. majority and Dem. President. Even if they can, there is not enough money to pay for our current system and an increased gas tax is difficult if not impossible to get through. Given this and that most congressmen are from districts with little rail transit, it is hard to imagine any real increase in funding for public transit, although we can certainly hope. I just wouldn't count on much from here. Also, both the State and Feds are broke. On Measure R, it is also important to remember that tax receipts are below projections as well. Right now, there can be a discount in construction and that will likely last for at least a few years although it may decline from what it is now. However, it is also important to remember that many projects have changed their scope and are going to be more expensive than originally planned. For example, the Crenshaw Line's alternatives, especially the ones calling for grade separation and some underground stations are much more than there is Measure R money allocated to it. You can add the Downtown Connector to that as well with the Little Tokyo situation. There goes some if not all of the difference right there. Even after this if there are extra funds available, it is likely that any money would go to projects already on the board such as the Subway to the Sea or the Foothill Extension to Montclair. It is good to plan these post Measure R lines, but realize it may be a long long time before we ever see them. There are some great lines like this one and the Norwalk Extension of the Green Line and the Vermont Extension that have been left out in the cold. There just isn't money for them and won't be for quite a while.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Aug 3, 2010 15:06:50 GMT -8
It is good to plan these post Measure R lines, but realize it may be a long long time before we ever see them. There are some great lines like this one and the Norwalk Extension of the Green Line and the Vermont Extension that have been left out in the cold. There just isn't money for them and won't be for quite a while. True, but I think it is extremely important that we consider these sooner rather than later. When we think on a project-by-project basis instead of looking with the long view towards a *complete* system, we open up all sorts of doors for problems involving our failure to look ahead. Issues just like the Little Tokyo situation, where the brand new station needs to be completely torn out, are completely avoidable if we look to the bigger picture, even if we know we won't be seeing it in real life for quite a while. Another good example of this is the Crenshaw extension north. The feasibility study indicated that the connection at Expo/Crenshaw must be below grade in order to proceed north, and if the connection is at-grade, to tear it up and put it below grade. Why is at-grade still even on the table there if that's the case? And I'm sure you can find other situations like that too. There is simply not enough loooking ahead going on at the design end of many of our projects.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 11, 2010 5:52:10 GMT -8
Per the LA Times article this morning, a large new real estate development looks to be proposed for the old Century Plaza: www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-century-plaza-20100811,0,5350941.story They mention that there will be a subway stop incorporated into the complex, which I guess means that the Phase 2 route and station selection would now be essentially determined? They don't specifically say that in the article, but I'm guessing that the city and/or MTA must have agreed to this. The station would be Constellation and the chosen route would be the direct connection. Per the recent meeting presentation it looks like that location was the preferred one in any case, with the shortest running distance too: RT
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 11, 2010 9:15:10 GMT -8
The developers would love to have a subway station under their property. Not only does this represent easy subway access for tenants, but also emphasizes that block as the focal point of Century City.
So it makes sense for them to incorporate it into the design. If Metro selects that location for the subway station, great for them. And if it doesn't, they simply remove it from their plans.
Additionally, this move will add pressure on Metro to do the right thing and choose Constellation instead of Santa Monica Blvd.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 11, 2010 9:17:16 GMT -8
BTW, I am cross-posting this advertisement for Friday's rally on several threads: RALLY FOR 30/10 Los Angeles City Hall Friday August 13 at noon"Join us on August 13th as we rally to tell the federal government to support LA County's 30/10 Plan with New Start Grants, low-interest federal loans and interest rate subsidies. This will enable LA Metro to build the 12 Measure R public transit projects in 10 years rather than 30! Invite everyone you know!" See the Facebook page for more information.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 11, 2010 9:21:50 GMT -8
Do the direct connection! This is the only way it should be built. The Beverly Nimbyllies should be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Aug 11, 2010 13:19:24 GMT -8
Interesting, I had never noticed before that not only does the direct connection to the Constellation station have highest ridership, but it is also the cheapest, and therefore the most cost-effective. It's really the only logical choice.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 12, 2010 12:39:35 GMT -8
Hopefully after ten or more years, they will start planning light-rail on Santa Monica Boulevard in addition to the Purple Line subway. It could go all the way to Silverlake.
Since there would have to be a transfer at the Hollywood/Highland Station, I think light-rail for Santa Monica Blvd would be a better choice. Parts of it where Santa Monica Blvd is narrow could be built below ground like the Crenshaw Line.
When these lines are kept being built, people will only realize that we need more lines!
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 12, 2010 14:16:42 GMT -8
^ I thought a bike lane would be better for SM Blvd, but whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 12, 2010 14:26:29 GMT -8
^ I thought a bike lane would be better for SM Blvd, but whatever. A bike lane? You think Santa Monica Blvd. wants a bike lane instead of rail service? (We should have both.)
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 12, 2010 14:33:43 GMT -8
^ I agree, but that would be very difficult.
Getting this subway built is one thing, but building another rail line that's even closer to Beverly Hills' doorstep almost seems like asking for trouble.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 12, 2010 15:21:46 GMT -8
^ I thought a bike lane would be better for SM Blvd, but whatever. A bike lane? You think Santa Monica Blvd. wants a bike lane instead of rail service? (We should have both.) A bus-only lane would do wonders for that stretch on Santa Monica blvd between Wilshire and West Hollywood. There's a huge plot of empty land (possibly former PE?) that's barren. Let's use it to help speed up the 704, 4, 316, and 16 buses. It would do wonders for public transit. But...................this is LA. Most likely it will be new occupancy for the single passenger automobile!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 12, 2010 15:54:23 GMT -8
405 LRT coming down south and following Sepulveda and then going east on Santa Monica Blvd all the way to San Vicente and then south on San Vicente to Crenshaw LRT would work. Most of it would be at-grade with a few LRT bridges.
The line could also continue east of San Vicente in a tunnel under Santa Monica Blvd to Silverlake.
Nice thing about LRT is that you are above ground and get a scenic view, as if you are driving on city streets, whereas a subway is more like freeway driving, with minimal view.
PS: Santa Monica Blvd west of San Vicente Blvd and east of Sepulveda Blvd, San Vicente Blvd itself, and Burton Way are former PE rights-of-way.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 12, 2010 19:23:24 GMT -8
405 LRT coming down south and following Sepulveda and then going east on Santa Monica Blvd all the way to San Vicente and then south on San Vicente to Crenshaw LRT would work. Most of it would be at-grade with a few LRT bridges. The line could also continue east of San Vicente in a tunnel under Santa Monica Blvd to Silverlake. Nice thing about LRT is that you are above ground and get a scenic view, as if you are driving on city streets, whereas a subway is more like freeway driving, with minimal view. PS: Santa Monica Blvd west of San Vicente Blvd and east of Sepulveda Blvd, San Vicente Blvd itself, and Burton Way are former PE rights-of-way. Gokhan...love your little "hints" about how awesome at-grade rail is. But, for every "awesomeness", there's always a downfall. People value speed a lot more than scenery. Otherwise, why wouldn't people drive the streets or take the buses? That's why the preferential mode of travel is the subway. I'd rather take the Red Line to Hollywood than take the 704 Rapid (or any light rail that would develop on the corridor).
|
|