|
Post by darrell on Apr 12, 2010 10:17:01 GMT -8
What does your profile coutour represent, Justin - the 405 freeway, the adjacent ridge top, or? On most of the slope down into the Valley I'd envision the tracks could be set into a shelf in the existing cut on the east side of the freeway (on the right of the photo below), rising relative to the freeway. As it nears the Sepulveda underpass it would launch onto a high aerial structure. Despite all of this, I would not be surprised if the straight tunnel option from UCLA to Van Nuys/Ventura turns out to be the most feasible.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Apr 12, 2010 11:41:52 GMT -8
Actually we need both. The 405 corridor misses the Venice area, but the Lincoln corridor misses Culver City. We need BOTH. The 405 corridor would be a seperate line, and the Green Line would continue on Lincoln after LAX to Santa Monica. Well put. As I've brought up for years, as have others, to suggest that the Lincoln and 405/Sepulveda Corridors are identical is to suggest that the Wilshire and I-10/Exposition Corridors are identical. We need both, although the Lincoln Corridor Green Line extension was originally planned to Marina Del Rey and has much, much more definition than the more nebulous (but oh so critical!) 405/Sepulveda Blvd. rail line. The point I've been pushing for has been that the 405 line should hook up with the Green line and head to Norwalk, rather than just terminate at Expo, or even LAX, and that would still work actually with a 405 line and a Lincoln line: Have trains run from Ventura to UCLA then split after the Purple line, one serving Lincoln and one serving Sepulveda, then hook up again around the airport and head along the 105 to the Norwalk metrolink station (fingers crossed on that one). As long as both routes hit Purple and Expo, people from the Valley probably won't care that much. And I still think track sharing with Expo is a bad idea. One possible alternative to that would be to have the Lincoln route cut to Lincoln via Wilshire, picking up where the Purple line leaves off (Light-Rail to the Sea from the Subway Towards the Sea), but that question is a whole other bag of worms. Also, not to be a downer here, but with the state of affairs for transit as they are on the Eastside compared to the Westside, I would say that whichever alignment gets picked for the 405 line, the other one isn't going to see rail for at least 50 years
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 12, 2010 11:43:05 GMT -8
Now I have a possibly naive question. Suppose the straight subway route were chosen, with no stations between UCLA and Van Nuys/Ventura. Since LRT and HRT use the same types of tracks, would it not make sense to engineer the tunnels to allow either trains to run in them? The idea is to allow for flexibility in the future. We may think LRT makes sense now, but 40-50 years from now they might want to switch to HRT service. This would be a lot easier if they could simply replace the pantographs with a third rail and change out the station platforms. Or as something I've considered and suggested many, many, many times before. Instead of the typical 3 car LRV train, we should go with a longer train to maybe 4 or 5 LRV's to a train so that we've increased capacity and gone from the upper limits of Light Rail Capacity to Heavy Rail capacity with very little effort.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 12, 2010 16:48:12 GMT -8
Doesn't the Blue Line sometimes use 4 cars?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 12, 2010 16:53:08 GMT -8
The point I've been pushing for has been that the 405 line should hook up with the Green line and head to Norwalk, rather than just terminate at Expo, or even LAX, and that would still work actually with a 405 line and a Lincoln line: Have trains run from Ventura to UCLA then split after the Purple line, one serving Lincoln and one serving Sepulveda, then hook up again around the airport and head along the 105 to the Norwalk metrolink station (fingers crossed on that one). As long as both routes hit Purple and Expo, people from the Valley probably won't care that much. I'd rather it connect with the Harbor Subdivision to Long Beach. No way. 50 years? Again, they are completely separate corridors. Lincoln serves Santa Monica, Venice, Marina Del Rey, Playa Vista, and LAX; while the 405 serves Westwood, Mar Vista, Culver City, LAX, and hopefully beyond.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 12, 2010 17:30:29 GMT -8
Doesn't the Blue Line sometimes use 4 cars? Joshua: You can go to the Metro Library and look up a lot of your questions or ask via Wikipedia. For the light rail system, LA Metro has 3 car platforms, so the trains can't be longer than the platform.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 12, 2010 17:51:44 GMT -8
Doesn't the Blue Line sometimes use 4 cars? Sacramento does (downtown photo below), but not L.A. due to station platform and block lenth limits, as Bart noted.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Apr 12, 2010 21:21:01 GMT -8
I'd rather it connect with the Harbor Subdivision to Long Beach. If Crenshaw, the 405, Green to Norwalk and Green to South Bay all intersect at one point, the logical thing to do would be to create two lines which cross, rather than say, one that terminates and one with a spur. And ideally, this intersection would be very close to being a +. If the 405 line goes south to Long Beach, then you'd have either: a) Crenshaw terminating at the Green line and the 405 running to Long Beach and Norwalk. Why do that when you can run it to somewhere without building anything? Somewhere is better than nowhere. b) Crenshaw sharing tracks with the 405 through the South Bay to Long Beach. This would probably be a big problem since the 405 line will probably be running the shortest possible headway already during peak hours. c) Crenshaw running to Norwalk. This would create a small U (sort of like the Gold line makes right now, but much smaller) which would put 4 stations on the same line within 2 miles of Century and Inglewood. The whole idea of the + is to have as close to 180 degrees as possible, so that coverage is split equally between the 4 quadrants, unless there is specific demand for more service in some of them. Having Crenshaw run to Norwalk practically has it doubling back on itself, or at best making a 90 degree turn, when it makes more sense for it to continue straight south to the South Bay, which leaves Norwalk for the 405. Consider: the LRTP provides for one route through this area through Measure R, while the Green line extension north to meet Expo is a Tier 2 Unfunded plan, aka far in the future. And, at the end of Measure R, the Westside will have a massively expanded network of rail, while the Eastside will have...the Gold line. Even if 30/10 goes through, Measure R money will still be tied up in paying back the federal government for the following 20 years, so rail construction may well retreat back to the glacial pace we've been going at so far, unless there's the political will to pass another sales tax increase (which there might be...or maybe not!)
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 13, 2010 20:17:11 GMT -8
^ I'm actually hoping Crenshaw's connection to LAX is temporary. Look at Damien Goodmon's proposal (i don't agree with everything on the map, but when it comes to the Crenshaw, Green, and 405 Lines, I do): Images over 740 pixels wide will be automatically removed. Reduce them before posting. Board members are available to teach you how to keep to the necessary image width.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 28, 2010 20:14:39 GMT -8
It's pretty clear that Metro is looking at Alternative 2 as the likely LPA. There is not much MOS-5 supporters for a Purple Line extension from the V.A. to the beach will be able to do but hope for more money from somewhere. (I wish Federal with a portal on Barrington and a portal for a parking structure had been the western terminus of MOS-3, but alas.) The question then becomes what will supporters of the Santa Monica Blvd. spur (MOS-4) do to keep their dreams of rail alive? In my blog post "One Seat Ride to the Beach or LAX" I outlined the basic three options: 1) Keep lobbying for a heavy-rail subway extension from the Purple Line anyway and hope that somehow the money will come from some unknown source somehow, sometime, somewhere?
2) Begin strongly lobbying for the northern extension of the light-rail Crenshaw Line towards Hollywood to run along San Vicente, then Santa Monica Blvd, still not knowing where the funding will come from and knowing it is not certain that this would be the alignment of this extension, but knowing it will require less funding as a light-rail project than as a heavy-rail subway?
3) Lobby for modern streetcars to run down Santa Monica Blvd. in transit-only lanes, trading ultimate hope of eventual grade separated rail in decades for at-grade rail within years?Who knows how long it would take to get HRT through here as Metro will be focused on the 30/10 plan and paying off Measure R for 3 decades unless new cash comes in? Perhaps (2) or even (3) are better options as far as actually getting "something" constructed. Since the Crenshaw Line is rumored to be named the "Rose Line", it would simply be the color pink as another name if combined with MOS-4. Rail used to run on San Vicente and Santa Monica Blvds for decades. I'm personally leaning toward option (2) allowing for a one seat ride from LAX to/from Hollywood via Crenshaw, San Vicente and Santa Monica Blvds. and building something sooner and less expensive as LRT rather than waiting perhaps 30 years for HRT which may never come -- but the decision is hardly mine alone. How did the Gold Line supporters keep their dream alive after the subway fell through? How did a Red Line HRT extension turn into a Gold Line (perhaps to be Aqua Line) extension? One Metro representative did tell me that as Metro has already spent lots of money studying this corridor, they know it needs "something". There is also good will as West Hollywood was the highest Yes vote percentages for Measure R, making the Westside Subway possible.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 28, 2010 22:05:07 GMT -8
It's pretty clear that Metro is looking at Alternative 2 as the likely LPA. There is not much MOS-5 supporters for a Purple Line extension from the V.A. to the beach will be able to do but hope for more money from somewhere. (I wish Federal with a portal on Barrington and a portal for a parking structure had been the western terminus of MOS-3, but alas.) The question then becomes what will supporters of the Santa Monica Blvd. spur (MOS-4) do to keep their dreams of rail alive? In my blog post "One Seat Ride to the Beach or LAX" I outlined the basic three options: 1) Keep lobbying for a heavy-rail subway extension from the Purple Line anyway and hope that somehow the money will come from some unknown source somehow, sometime, somewhere?
2) Begin strongly lobbying for the northern extension of the light-rail Crenshaw Line towards Hollywood to run along San Vicente, then Santa Monica Blvd, still not knowing where the funding will come from and knowing it is not certain that this would be the alignment of this extension, but knowing it will require less funding as a light-rail project than as a heavy-rail subway?
3) Lobby for modern streetcars to run down Santa Monica Blvd. in transit-only lanes, trading ultimate hope of eventual grade separated rail in decades for at-grade rail within years?Who knows how long it would take to get HRT through here as Metro will be focused on the 30/10 plan and paying off Measure R for 3 decades unless new cash comes in? Perhaps (2) or even (3) are better options as far as actually getting "something" constructed. Since the Crenshaw Line is rumored to be named the "Rose Line", it would simply be the color pink as another name if combined with MOS-4. Rail used to run on San Vicente and Santa Monica Blvds for decades. I'm personally leaning toward option (2) allowing for a one seat ride from LAX to/from Hollywood via Crenshaw, San Vicente and Santa Monica Blvds. and building something sooner and less expensive as LRT rather than waiting perhaps 30 years for HRT which may never come -- but the decision is hardly mine alone. How did the Gold Line supporters keep their dream alive after the subway fell through? How did a Red Line HRT extension turn into a Gold Line (perhaps to be Aqua Line) extension? One Metro representative did tell me that as Metro has already spent lots of money studying this corridor, they know it needs "something". There is also good will as West Hollywood was the highest Yes vote percentages for Measure R, making the Westside Subway possible. I would take exception with a couple of items here. One, there is strong support for the subway to go West of Westwood on the Westside. If you go to the Santa Monica meeting, you will see that support. There are also a lot of workers in Santa Monica and West LA who live elsewhere in the County who will be out of luck. Remember it can take 45 minutes to go from Santa Monica to Westwood and the Wilshire bus lane will end at the Santa Monica border so that is not a solution. I personally think Bundy would be a good intermediate solution, but the way the MTA does things that seems unlikely. I do find it interesting that the Westwood to Santa Monica section seems to perform quite a bit better than the Pink Line from a cost/benefit standpoint. It may be tough to get the Pink Line ahead of West LA/Santa Monica portion with this being the case despite West Hollywood's support. It may depend on how crowded Expo is in its first few years. If Expo is near capacity, there will be much more support and need for the last western segment of the subway. Also, you assume a light rail line will be much less expensive than heavy rail, but even though I am no engineer, I do believe that if you are building deep bore tunnels and stations there will not be much of a discount if it is light rail vs heavy rail (someone who knows more can prove me wrong). We don't really know the cost to bring the Crenshaw Line from Expo to Hollywood and Highland. My guess is that it is actually higher than the Pink Line.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 29, 2010 10:41:53 GMT -8
I never stated that there wasn't strong support in Santa Monica and West Los Angeles for the full Purple Line extension. There certainly is and I lived in Santa Monica for several years. Denny Zane isn't working hard because he believes the Purple Line should stop at the V.A.
However, I've heard at Metro community meetings from a Metro representative state that the reason the Santa Monica (city) extension was moved back to MOS-5 was basically for political reasons, as it isn't perceived as fair for Santa Monica to get two rail lines when there are so many other places that have yet to see any other rail.
Personally, I wish Measure R had specified West L.A. which always seems to be the step child in this matters. It would be nice if the Western terminus of MOS-3 were still there, but there you have it.
As for cost, light rail trains are shorter and the stations do not need to be at large, so at least an underground light rail station is cheaper to build than an underground heavy rail station.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 29, 2010 21:01:34 GMT -8
Remember it can take 45 minutes to go from Santa Monica to Westwood and the Wilshire bus lane will end at the Santa Monica border so that is not a solution. The current study has bus lanes along Wilshire only in the City of Los Angeles, but bus-only lanes could be added in Beverly Hills and Santa Monica for the cost of paint (and eventually new signals and better bus stops). I expect Santa Monica to approve transit/bike lanes along Wilshire. I'm not saying the subway should stop at Westwood or even Brentwood; a direct ride to Santa Monica would be very beneficial, from a regional standpoint, and would greatly simplify bus operations. But BRT on Wilshire can and should be done NOW, by upgrading the 720 buses to real BRT standards, with better signal priority, better stations and bus lanes from the ocean all the way to downtown LA; even with Measure R and a fully-funded 30/10 plan the subway won't be getting to Santa Monica for over a decade at best.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 29, 2010 21:15:08 GMT -8
Remember it can take 45 minutes to go from Santa Monica to Westwood and the Wilshire bus lane will end at the Santa Monica border so that is not a solution. The current study has bus lanes along Wilshire only in the City of Los Angeles, but bus-only lanes could be added in Beverly Hills and Santa Monica for the cost of paint (and eventually new signals and better bus stops). I expect Santa Monica to approve transit/bike lanes along Wilshire. I'm not saying the subway should stop at Westwood or even Brentwood; a direct ride to Santa Monica would be very beneficial, from a regional standpoint, and would greatly simplify bus operations. But BRT on Wilshire can and should be done NOW, by upgrading the 720 buses to real BRT standards, with better signal priority, better stations and bus lanes from the ocean all the way to downtown LA; even with Measure R and a fully-funded 30/10 plan the subway won't be getting to Santa Monica for over a decade at best. The bus lanes in West LA along Wilshire were controversial even though I certainly supported them. Businesses complained that they took away vital parking and of course people complained that the lanes should be open to cars to "alleviate" traffic, the latter being a silly argument. There are a lot of people lined up against the current proposal. Wilshire is even narrower in Santa Monica and to my knowledge that city has always opposed them due to there not being enough space for a proper bus lane. Don't count on ever seeing the lanes there.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 29, 2010 22:01:45 GMT -8
Wilshire is even narrower in Santa Monica and to my knowledge that city has always opposed them due to there not being enough space for a proper bus lane. Don't count on ever seeing the lanes there. Wilshire is 7 lanes wide in Santa Monica (2 parking lanes, a median and 4 travel lanes, in most areas), the same as in West LA. I'm not sure if the total width is exactly the same (it may vary by a few feet), but it's close. The only place wider, that I know if, is in Westwood, where it's 9 lanes. In Beverly Hills, Miracle Mile, Park Mile and Koreatown the street is also 7 lanes wide, usually 2 for parking, 4 for cars, and 1 median or turn lane. It narrows to 5 lanes in Westlake, which unfortunately is not planned to have bus-only lanes at this time. London has bus-only lanes on tiny, narrow streets. Its all about priorities. I hope Santa Monica will realize the benefit of faster and more reliable bus service on Wilshire, which will give many of the benefits of the subway, right now, at the cost of a losing a few hundred parking spaces.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 30, 2010 7:20:32 GMT -8
London has bus-only lanes on tiny, narrow streets. Its all about priorities. Well thankfully our traffic is nothing like London's traffic. Not even close. I'm for bus-only lanes in certain applications, they certainly would help the buses move faster. But the negative impacts can also be huge and should not be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 30, 2010 7:59:30 GMT -8
Well thankfully our traffic is nothing like London's traffic. Not even close. I'm for bus-only lanes in certain applications, they certainly would help the buses move faster. But the negative impacts can also be huge and should not be ignored. What's the negative impact of bus only lanes? Is there any negatives with the bus only lanes on Main, Spring, or Figueroa currently?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 30, 2010 8:19:12 GMT -8
Well thankfully our traffic is nothing like London's traffic. Not even close. I'm for bus-only lanes in certain applications, they certainly would help the buses move faster. But the negative impacts can also be huge and should not be ignored. What's the negative impact of bus only lanes? Is there any negatives with the bus only lanes on Main, Spring, or Figueroa currently? Ha ha, that's a loaded question from a fellow transit advocate! Clearly, those people who drive are impacted by the loss of a lane in each direction. And businesses who depend on non-transit-riders are impacted, because people cannot park in front of their businesses. (Ever try to visit the Old Bank District on a weekday afternoon in a car?) Now one's values may lead some people to say "who cares, people should take transit and should leave their cars at home." As a person who must drive but uses public transportation whenever feasible, I am going to do my best to avoid getting drawn into that debate. But I will repeat, the negative impacts (as perceived by the public at-large, not just transit advocates) should not be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 30, 2010 8:25:29 GMT -8
I would love for LA to have London traffic, if it means an extensive network of underground lines, bus service, commuter rail, and a dense urban core full of walkable streets, great nightlife, and a mind boggling array of cultural attractions. It really sucks if you have a car, but the point is most people don't ever need one. If you want to get to the countryside for the weekend, you can either rent a car or take the train. It's much cheaper than owning a car.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 30, 2010 23:01:53 GMT -8
Santa Monica has thousands of off-street parking spaces; most of the newer buildings along Wilshire have garages. This is also the case long Wilshire thru the city of Los Angeles (west of Vermont), which is why it makes sense to take away street parking spaces and reuse them to greatly improve transit service.
On the other hand, I appreciate the value of street parking. If a fare price is charged, street parking is more valuable than a space in a garage (because of easy access and visibility). I would be happy to see the transit lanes moved to the median of the street on Wilshire, with center-platform "stations", and have 1 parking lane and 1 car lane on each side. This would prioritize local travel, parking access and transit, rather than focusing on using the street as a highway to move cars long distances. It would also make it much easier to convert the median-running bus lanes to light rail. But for too long cars have been given all 80 feet of an 80 foot wide street. It's time to take back 1/4 of that space for moving people via bus and bike.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 12, 2010 9:28:59 GMT -8
Good thoughts Tobias. With Metro's recommendations for the LPA not recommending Heavy Rail for Santa Monica Blvd. or even a transfer structure at La Cienega, the focus for the "Pink Line" will no doubt switch to being a northern extension of the Rose Line. It's already showing up on Metro maps. And the mention of a "light-rail" subway in the recommendations is interesting. That 86% of West Hollywood voted for Measure R has provided some good will from Metro. Let's see if that continues.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 12, 2010 10:28:49 GMT -8
That may be the best deal WeHo can get... But look at it from another angle... if the Santa Monica Blvd line is light rail, WeHo gets an easy 1-seat ride to LAX... something the Westside will never see (in my lifetime).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 10:35:48 GMT -8
Yes, the West Hollywood line is certainly not dead (although it is for this project). Metro staff's wording was very careful on this subject. What was eliminated was the specific possibility of building the line as a branch of the heavy-rail Wilshire Subway (Purple Line).
The concept of the line is now as a crosstown line, rather than a branch line.
I had always favored Fairfax, due to all of the destinations on that boulevard. But now I realize that this would miss West Hollywood and its destinations. So La Cienega might be the best option. I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 12, 2010 10:49:38 GMT -8
I suspect the Crenshaw extension will become a choice between San Vicente/Santa Monica and Fairfax. With money already having been spent studying the Santa Monica Blvd. option, I hope it gives the San Vicente/Santa Monica Blvd. alignment the edge.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Oct 12, 2010 14:40:36 GMT -8
First post, but a long time lurker. Many of you already know me from SSP and I already know many of you from the various blogs (Curbed, Streetsblog, Transport Politic, etc.).
I am very, very disappointed at Metro's recommendation to not pursue a West Hollywood connection. My frustration is only exacerbated when I think of the hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent on a futile VA station that could otherwise be used to build the connection structure. And, AND this is all without a Crenshaw station. Simply ridiculous!
I also do not see how an LRT subway in the form of a northern Crenshaw extension would save any money when there are: 1) many more stations to be built, and, 2) approximately 3 more miles of tunnel to be bored.
Other cons:
1) This is a case of either/or. We need two north-south corridors. 2) The routing is terrible. A straight extension up La Brea would provide a quicker, more direct connection to Hollywood, which is a much bigger tourist magnet than WeHo. Additionally, an LRT subway eliminates a one-seat ride from Hollywood to Santa Monica, which would be popular among both locals and tourists alike. 3) Incompatibility. It forces transfers, therefore reducing ridership.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 12, 2010 14:44:06 GMT -8
Tourists also go to Beverly Hills and West Hollywood. I see them on the bus every day. However, the locals certainly go to the Beverly Center area and the line would still go to Hollywood to/from LAX.
We shouldn't build any line with tourists as our primary consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Oct 12, 2010 14:48:39 GMT -8
Hollywood/West Hollywood/Beverly Center/Beverly Hills/Century City/Westwood/Brentwood/Santa Monica all along one route. Enough said.
Tell me, where exactly is the money going to come from to build this presumably cheaper northern Crenshaw extension? What would be its timeline? Would it be built in phases? Tell me.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Oct 12, 2010 14:52:46 GMT -8
BTW, Metro's wording doesn't suggest that HRT is off the books indefinitely. It just says that more in-depth study needs to be done to determine whether or not there are other, more cost-effective alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Oct 12, 2010 15:00:32 GMT -8
Also, it is an insult to the city of West Hollywood -- the residents of which supported Measure R more than any other municipality -- to "downgrade" them from HRT to LRT.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 12, 2010 15:04:09 GMT -8
Hey, Westsidelife. Didn't know you were already on this website.
Yeah, just because Metro means it needs more studying doesn't make it less likely to happen.
|
|