|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 5, 2009 9:23:21 GMT -8
I was at Metro's station planning meeting for Phase 4 of the Westside Transit Corridor Extension project and the room was packed with enthusiastic people.
Each proposed station had a table with maps to discuss the proposed stops.
The Hollywood/Highland terminus would likely form a "T-station".
The LaBrea/SantaMonica box would be on the westside of LaBrea.
The Fairfax/SantaMonica box would be on the eastside of the intersection and there was a lot of support expressed for a portal on the westside of Fairfax.
The SantaMonica/SanVicente box would actually be between SanVicente and LaCienega so that turn can be made on SanVicente to the BeverlyCenter/CedarSinai station. There would be crossover tracks on the east side of the station. .
The Beverly Center area station is proposed to be on an over/under station on the Westside of San Vicente because of the storm drain there.
At the SantaMonica/SanVicente table one person requested there be bike parking there. The consultant said sincerely, "how much? 15? 20? 100?" (What would be appropriate?) There was talk of redesigning and reconfigurating Metro's bus yard so that there could be development along there and improved street life.
Who knows when this would be built. Phases 4 and 5 are currently Tier 1 unfunded projects in the LRTP. but seeing the maps with drawings of the station boxes, and transit consultants talking about engineering and design issues made this "dream" even more vivid.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Nov 6, 2009 4:45:42 GMT -8
You know, what I have wondered: Why doesn't Metro reverse the split at La Cienega?
If the Pink Line is going to terminate in Hollywood with no hope of a branch at Highland, why not make it a downtown-to-West Hollywood, rather than a Santa Monica to West Hollywood service.
Inner Wilshire will need more train service than outer Wilshire (west of La Cienega). And trains can be run as: Pink Red Purple Red Pink Red
... and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 6, 2009 11:48:44 GMT -8
Metro said they studied it, but chose not to do that because they didn't think they'd have enough trains.
My original choice was Alternative #9 which would have had a direct line from North Hollywood down to the Purple Line via Santa Monica Blvd. There is significant ridership from the Valley to/from the Westside who would appreciate not having to transfer in Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 7, 2009 9:27:12 GMT -8
Metro said they studied it, but chose not to do that because they didn't think they'd have enough trains. My original choice was Alternative #9 which would have had a direct line from North Hollywood down to the Purple Line via Santa Monica Blvd. There is significant ridership from the Valley to/from the Westside who would appreciate not having to transfer in Hollywood. Not having enough trains doesn't seem like a good enough reason to not allow pink line trains to run through Hollywood and Highland. If this is the case they can always stop them there and send them back the other way until which time they have the funding to buy more cars.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Nov 9, 2009 17:58:07 GMT -8
Has anyone considered a southern leg of the Pink Line that goes all the way to Venice Beach instead of terminating at Wilshire?
By going south, it could connect to the Expo and future Green lines (once the Green line is extended up north towards Marina Del Rey).
There's a variation of this on Damien Goodmon's map.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 9, 2009 20:52:53 GMT -8
Has anyone considered a southern leg of the Pink Line that goes all the way to Venice Beach instead of terminating at Wilshire? By going south, it could connect to the Expo and future Green lines (once the Green line is extended up north towards Marina Del Rey). There's a variation of this on Damien Goodmon's map. It wouldn't terminate at Wilshire. From what I heard at the Metro community meeting, it would continue running westward towards Westwood.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Nov 10, 2009 5:02:13 GMT -8
Metro said they studied it, but chose not to do that because they didn't think they'd have enough trains. What, Metro will expand the subway network but run everything with just the 104 cars it has?
|
|
|
Post by erict on Nov 10, 2009 7:31:45 GMT -8
I would think they would add trains for the Purple line once it opens...hmmm.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Nov 10, 2009 10:34:51 GMT -8
They'd definitely need to get more cars...but from who? They aren't too happy w/ Breda right now (though I don't know if MTA has had as much trouble with the Red/Purple line HRVs as they have w/ the LRVs). Also, it was interesting that they started numbering the Breda LRVs at 701 (rather than 401), so they kinda boxed themselves in to getting no more than 96 cars (605-700). Of course, they could always skip around in the numbering sequence, but I thought that they were doing something like 100-499 (or 500) for light rail, and 501-up for heavy rail. But MTA seems to do weird things with fleet numbering. For RTD's entire existence, buses in the 4000s were less than 40 feet long. MTA's first order--40-foot CNG Neoplans, starting at 4500!
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 10, 2009 11:25:06 GMT -8
They'd definitely need to get more cars...but from who? They aren't too happy w/ Breda right now (though I don't know if MTA has had as much trouble with the Red/Purple line HRVs as they have w/ the LRVs). Also, it was interesting that they started numbering the Breda LRVs at 701 (rather than 401), so they kinda boxed themselves in to getting no more than 96 cars (605-700). Of course, they could always skip around in the numbering sequence, but I thought that they were doing something like 100-499 (or 500) for light rail, and 501-up for heavy rail. But MTA seems to do weird things with fleet numbering. For RTD's entire existence, buses in the 4000s were less than 40 feet long. MTA's first order--40-foot CNG Neoplans, starting at 4500! Actually, there are excess heavy rail cars in the system. The original purchase orders from Breda were to cover a more comprehensive system including the Eastside heavy rail extension and a Mid-City Extension. Right now they rotate in the excess cars. One of the great things about expanding heavy rail now is that we have a rail yard capable of handling it as well as excess cars unlike the situation with light rail where we have to find new maintenance yards and additional cars. I'm not sure at what point we would reach those limits, but we're talking quite a while before we get to that point.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Nov 10, 2009 13:45:59 GMT -8
Here's another idea - how about getting cars that are actually the color of the line they represent?
Someone from Japan posted about this somewhere on the board and about how ridiculous it is that we haven't done this yet. It's a simple thing, but would go a long ways in giving the trains a neat, polished look for the masses.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 10, 2009 13:52:36 GMT -8
Here's another idea - how about getting cars that are actually the color of the line they represent? Someone from Japan posted about this somewhere on the board and about how ridiculous it is that we haven't done this yet. It's a simple thing, but would go a long ways in giving the trains a neat, polished look for the masses. I thought that too at one point. However, from an operational standpoint that would handcuff the MTA as the cars are interchangeable between lines for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Nov 10, 2009 14:33:37 GMT -8
Actually, there are excess heavy rail cars in the system. The original purchase orders from Breda were to cover a more comprehensive system including the Eastside heavy rail extension and a Mid-City Extension. Right now they rotate in the excess cars. One of the great things about expanding heavy rail now is that we have a rail yard capable of handling it as well as excess cars unlike the situation with light rail where we have to find new maintenance yards and additional cars. I'm not sure at what point we would reach those limits, but we're talking quite a while before we get to that point. It is great to hear that the MTA was forward thinking in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 10, 2009 15:17:22 GMT -8
We'll see how forward thinking they are in a decade. Remember that they sold two different parts of their yard in the last few years. One parcel was to a bordering industrial business and the other parcel was to a developer (One Santa Fe). They appear to want to build an additional yard for the purple line extension although IIRC they said that they have capacity in the existing yard for the purple line. Maybe not capacity for purple and pink...it's hard to say.
I envision that as ridership increases they will have to reduce headways by 25%. They will also have to run 6-car purple line trains at ruch and midday instead of 4-car. And they will probably need to run three more trains per hour just for the first MOS.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 10, 2009 17:02:02 GMT -8
The signage for the Purple and Red Line cars is just horrendous. There is only a hard to read digital sign.
Why cannot we have large, bold, easy to read signs on the inside and outside of the car windows like they do in NYC?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 10, 2009 18:00:58 GMT -8
The signage for the Purple and Red Line cars is just horrendous. There is only a hard to read digital sign. Why cannot we have large, bold, easy to read signs on the inside and outside of the car windows like they do in NYC? I wish New York subways had the massive monitors in the station showing Train Approaching (i.e. "Attention riders: Train to Union Station"). Many times, I've had to figure out am I on the north, south, east, or west platform of my respective line in the New York subway. LA got it right in this regard....
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 10, 2009 21:13:22 GMT -8
Huh? You don't need a flat screen monitor to tell people what side of the platform to stand on.
And NYCT has been installing those as well. On the L line. And they are using real information signs that only announce that a train is approaching when a train is actually approaching. Our monitors announce the scheduled service and if there is a problem they continue to show that trains are approaching when they're not.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 10, 2009 21:56:26 GMT -8
It's funny how LA keeps getting flack for every little thing it does. Remember the days before the big flat screen monitor? And now that we have it, we complain about the electronic signs on the train?
Yes, the LA "big screen" shows the scheduled time and not the estimated arrival time, however the warning sign that "Train is approaching" is NOT scheduled...that's actual. Tell me if it's ever come on when a train is not approaching.
I can name multiple things on other rail systems as well. And yes, I was in Boston last year and I couldn't figure out which stairwell to go down to take the Red Line into downtown Boston. At least the LA tracks are in the center of the platform and the "To Union Station" and "To Wilshire/Western" signs in the portal are very helpful.
|
|
|
Post by nicksantangelo on Nov 10, 2009 22:51:10 GMT -8
And I thought I was the only one confused by the Boston system! Flew into Logan, took a shuttle to one of the stations and ended up at the right station, wrong track (or so I thought). I think I was at Andrew Station on the Red Line.
Once my train passed by (going the wrong way), I climbed stairs to get to other side of the track. Then, much to my chagrin, I saw the right train arriving on the track I just left, only this time it was heading in the OTHER direction...?! I asked a guy at the station to explain it and he looked at me like I was nuts. I told him that, in Los Angeles the trains don't jump direction on the SAME TRACK. Tired and ticked off, I just picked a track to wait on and, sure enough, the right train finally arrived. I guess Bostonians are alot more flexible.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 27, 2010 3:07:28 GMT -8
I still don't see the necessity of having both the Pink and Purple lines together from Wilshire and Beverly all the way to possibly Santa Monica.
I'm not opposed to the idea; I just don't think it's necessary right away when there are other more rail-challenged areas (south Culver City below the Expo line, Mar Vista, Venice Beach, etc.) that could benefit from having a subway as well.
Plus, if the Pink line continues south and terminates in Venice Beach, it can connect with the Expo line at Venice/Robertson while going through Culver City, as well as the future 405 line at possibly Sepulveda and Venice.
So we're talking one variation of a Pink/Purple/Expo/405 connection vs. another Pink/Purple/Expo/405 connection. Yes, technically the Purple/Pink lines will connect with Expo in Santa Monica, but that's still leaving out the other locations that the Pink line could take care of, if it veered off on its own.
Now years down the line, if they want to build another leg of the Pink line that follows the Purple line, I'm all for it. But if the goal right now is to make L.A. more transit accessible, having the Pink line follow the Purple line seems redundant.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 27, 2010 5:14:10 GMT -8
Here's another idea - how about getting cars that are actually the color of the line they represent? Metro does that for the two busways. Unfortunately, it got the bus colors transposed.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 27, 2010 9:18:14 GMT -8
Well there's a huge difference between building track connections and building an entirely new subway line. Connecting the tracks is most likely cheaper than not connecting them since they wouldn't have to build a terminal station. Building new lines cost billions of dollars. However I do agree with the sentiment!
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 3, 2010 14:41:47 GMT -8
Very true, bluelineshawn.
While we're on the subject of the terminus, will there be any attempt made to actually connect the Expo and Purple lines, perhaps by an underground walkway? I know it's a difference of only four blocks, but it seems silly to have them terminate so close without a direct connection.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Feb 3, 2010 16:32:42 GMT -8
If the Red line does not plan to go to Santa Monica (which I doubt will happen, but who knows), then it should connect with the Expo line somewhere around Westwood. I doubt there are any plans for such a thing. Maybe the SM Blue bus, or DOT shuttle can have a link at Westwood Blvd.?
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Apr 1, 2010 22:55:25 GMT -8
I'll probably trashed for considering this, but I had a thought today that maybe the HRT Pink line might not be the best thing for the system as a whole, and that instead an extension of the LRT Crenshaw line might be better.
If there is heavy demand to make it from West Hollywood to Santa Monica, then Pink line trains running on the Wilshire tracks west of La Cienega is clearly the way to go, but if not, maybe the focus should lie in creating a better N/S corridor. The worst maps I have seen for this make Hollywood/Highland a transfer station, and then have the Pink/Purple link separate from the Purple/Crenshaw link, so that riders coming from the valley, headed to, say, the Green line, would have to transfer Red to Pink, Pink to Purple, Purple to Crenshaw, Crenshaw to Green (unless they wanted to go through Downtown, which would be much longer).
The best maps I've seen towards this end have the Pink line trains running through the existing Hollywood/Highland station and into the Valley (and to the someday Sylmar Metrolink Station Red line extension?) with either the Pink/Purple switch at the same location as the Purple/Crenshaw switch, or with a further extension of Crenshaw Phase II to meet Pink at its first station north of Wilshire. This would make only one transfer necessary for a long N/S trip.
It seems to me though, that by cutting the Pink line entirely and running the LRT past Wilshire to Hollywood and Highland, even along the same chosen Pink alignment if you like, we could put the necessary transfer in a more logical location (right before crossing the hill), avoid the headway issues caused by running Pink line trains on Red or Purple tracks, create one line that connected the Red, Purple, Expo, and Green lines, and maybe even save some money.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 2, 2010 5:17:04 GMT -8
Considering how I've written a CityWatch Los Angeles article to this end, I entirely agree with you. How the Crenshaw and Pink Lines would interface and/or would they coexist are questions that are excellent but remain entirely unanswered.
I think that (in this instance) having insufficent funds to do much beyond get the Wilshire Subway to Westwood is a good thing, because no one knows how the world will be like in the year 2015 or 2020 when the Crenshaw and Wilshire projects will be more of a reality than a concept.
Similarly, I envision a serious problem when the Westside and West Hollywood/Beverly Hills cadres square off as to whether Phase 4 or Phase 5 should go first, considering that Phase 5 (the "Santa Monica" portion) need not go any farther than Wilshire/Bundy--thereby suggesting that the westward push of the Wilshire Line should be completed before the Pink Line is even started.
Lots of questions, debate and conjecture, but very little true consensus and answers.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 2, 2010 8:37:57 GMT -8
considering that Phase 5 need not go any farther than Wilshire/Bundy-- That sure isn't what Denny Zane and the City of Santa Monica thinks.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 2, 2010 8:42:52 GMT -8
It seems to me though, that by cutting the Pink line entirely and running the LRT past Wilshire to Hollywood and Highland, even along the same chosen Pink alignment if you like, we could put the necessary transfer in a more logical location (right before crossing the hill), avoid the headway issues caused by running Pink line trains on Red or Purple tracks, create one line that connected the Red, Purple, Expo, and Green lines, and maybe even save some money. Thoughts? If that were done, the Pink Line and Crenshaw Lines could be hooked together by San Vicente, with a transfer tunnel between a San Vicente station for this line and the La Cienega Purple Line station. That more recent maps of the Crenshaw Line have shown the northern extension going farther west of LaBrea/Wilshire to Fairfax/Wilshire or SanVicente/Wilshire tells you that Metro may be quietly looking at this possibility. Of course, the biggest win for everyone would be to have the Pink Line AND the Crenshaw Line extended to Hollywood/Highland.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 2, 2010 10:33:01 GMT -8
considering that Phase 5 need not go any farther than Wilshire/Bundy-- That sure isn't what Denny Zane and the City of Santa Monica thinks. I think most everyone is on board that the Pink Line would be before any extension into Santa Monica. Even the MTA is pretty unenthusiastic about the Phase 5 portion. The subway meetings in SM have a very subdued quality to them. I personally think that the only way Phase 5 gets built is if Expo is over capacity. However, as I have stated before I think the appropriate solution is for a Phase IIIA that will take the line from Westwood to either Barrington or Bundy, which would be a good natural endpoint for the line and would allow the dense neighborhoods and business districts to the West of the 405/VA mess access to the system. Expo could be connected to the Purple Line by frequent bus service on Bundy, which is about a little more than a mile to the South here Phase IV or the Pink Line woud then follow this. Phase V, if necessary, would be after all of that
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 2, 2010 10:47:32 GMT -8
I'll probably trashed for considering this, but I had a thought today that maybe the HRT Pink line might not be the best thing for the system as a whole, and that instead an extension of the LRT Crenshaw line might be better. If there is heavy demand to make it from West Hollywood to Santa Monica, then Pink line trains running on the Wilshire tracks west of La Cienega is clearly the way to go, but if not, maybe the focus should lie in creating a better N/S corridor. The worst maps I have seen for this make Hollywood/Highland a transfer station, and then have the Pink/Purple link separate from the Purple/Crenshaw link, so that riders coming from the valley, headed to, say, the Green line, would have to transfer Red to Pink, Pink to Purple, Purple to Crenshaw, Crenshaw to Green (unless they wanted to go through Downtown, which would be much longer). The best maps I've seen towards this end have the Pink line trains running through the existing Hollywood/Highland station and into the Valley (and to the someday Sylmar Metrolink Station Red line extension?) with either the Pink/Purple switch at the same location as the Purple/Crenshaw switch, or with a further extension of Crenshaw Phase II to meet Pink at its first station north of Wilshire. This would make only one transfer necessary for a long N/S trip. It seems to me though, that by cutting the Pink line entirely and running the LRT past Wilshire to Hollywood and Highland, even along the same chosen Pink alignment if you like, we could put the necessary transfer in a more logical location (right before crossing the hill), avoid the headway issues caused by running Pink line trains on Red or Purple tracks, create one line that connected the Red, Purple, Expo, and Green lines, and maybe even save some money. Thoughts? You point out a major flaw in the overall plan, which is a proper and comprehensive North-South line that will feed and complement our rail lines. I personally think the Pink Line is the way to go and this will be successful spur or line in our system, because there is huge travel demand in this area and the road system is overwhelmed here. Remember the Beverly Hills Freeway was supposed to address this, but was never built. The Pink Line would essentially replace this but 50 years later. It is one part of the system where freeways cannot compete at all since there is none, which means the transit times are likely to be very favorable to the car, which means ridership will likely soar. In addition to the Pink Line and the 405 line, which may get accelerated through the 30-10 plan, the missing link is between Expo and the Green Line. This is the missing link to a Valley to South Bay Line that serves Westwood and UCLA and would feed into the Purple, Expo, Green and Orange lines wonderfully. Even if Crenshaw were somehow taken from Expo to Highland, it will still never be a true Valley to South Bay Line as a transfer would be necessary. Also, the real question is what are the real differences in cost and difficulty in building the missing link on the 405 line to Century Aviation versus the Crenshaw Line from Expo to Highland. Both would be very expensive no doubt.
|
|