|
Post by exporider on Mar 27, 2017 12:45:21 GMT -8
The junction at the east end of the station and rerouting of the red line as NH-Athens is an intriguing idea, but I wander what is known about current travel patterns. What proportion of the westbound and eastbound red line passengers transfer to/from the Vermont bus at Vermont/Wilshire? A second question: Where are the Wilshire/Vermont platforms? I assume they are northeast of the intersection at an angle - NW to SE. That would affect the practicality of either a junction or new platform someplace under (but west of?) the existing platforms. Regarding the "proportion of the westbound and eastbound red line passengers transfer to/from the Vermont bus at Vermont/Wilshire": - 1.5 percent of Red Line passengers to/from the north (Hollywood) transfer to/from the Vermont bus at Vermont/Wilshire
- 0.9 percent of Red and Purple Line passengers to/from the east (downtown LA) transfer to/from the Vermont bus at Vermont/Wilshire
These shares are derived from the most recent on-board surveys conducted by LA Metro in 2011.
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Mar 27, 2017 20:16:54 GMT -8
The Vermont corridor is one of the more historic rail corridors in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Railway had at least three lines run down Vermont. These lines had there start in the late 1880's with "The Rosecrans Rapid Transit Railway" then the Redondo Railway next the Los Angeles and Redondo Railway last the LARY. The wide surface ROW still is in place as far as Gardena.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Mar 28, 2017 5:30:00 GMT -8
IIRC, the LA&Redondo was a narrow gauge railway, they had a line running from downtown L. A. which used the private ROW near Grand Av, from Jefferson Blvd to Santa Barbara Av (now Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd), then Santa Barbara over to Vermont, then down Vermont all the way down to Gardena. Street running up to Vermont/Gage Av, then in median ROW thereafter. This lasted to 1911, when there was a great shuffling of local railways and the Pacific Electric. At that time, the LA&R went away, Los Angeles Railway took over the Vermont service up to the PE El Segundo line (right near where the 105 Freeway is today), then PE operated south of Vermont, with a spur off the El Segundo line. This lasted until 1940, when PE abandonded the Redondo Beach line, along with some others. This indirectly led to the creation of Torrance Transit and Gardena Municipal Bus Lines, as they started service to replace the Red Car service.
As far as LARy service on Vermont, the V operated from Monroe St (L. A. City College campus) to Vernon and turned east. The U line came onto Vermont after crossing the PE Santa Monica Air Line at Exposition Blvd (ROW now used for the Metro Expo Line) and ran to Vermont/Florence. At this point, the F line came over from Hoover St and ran on Vermont south to the PE tracks. Around 1947, the U line went away, and the F line was rerouted from Hoover St to Vermont between Santa Barbara and Florence. This pattern continued after streetcar abandonment, the F line became the 6 bus, and the V basically became the 95. This lasted into the 80s, when everything was consolidated into the current 204 bus line (later a 354 Limited was added, this eventually became the 754 Rapid).
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 3, 2017 12:16:27 GMT -8
The junction at the east end of the station and rerouting of the red line as NH-Athens is an intriguing idea, but I wander what is known about current travel patterns. What proportion of the westbound and eastbound red line passengers transfer to/from the Vermont bus at Vermont/Wilshire? A second question: Where are the Wilshire/Vermont platforms? I assume they are northeast of the intersection at an angle - NW to SE. That would affect the practicality of either a junction or new platform someplace under (but west of?) the existing platforms. You are correct as to the orientation of the Wilshire/Vermont platforms. Here is a Google Maps image of the area, the Red/Purple line tracks are indicated by the dashed line: Wilshire/VermontI think the platforms are completely with in the block border by Vermont Av/Wilshire Blvd/Shatto Pl/6th St, maybe jutting out into either/or Vermont Av or Wilshire Blvd. If you put the junction just past the southeast end of the platforms, it would probably be necessary to cut/cover Wilshire Blvd. This isn't a problem, you would maybe have a couple evenings/weekends with Wilshire shut down between Vermont and another street east where you'd make the cut, then install the planking and reopen the street, perhaps with reduced lanes. Nothing new, this was done downtown with the initial segment of the Red Line. The problem comes if you have to extend past the street line of Wilshire, then you run into issues with whatever buildings are standing there. I think the old Bullock's Wilshire building, which now houses the Southwestern School of Law is in that area. Here is the street view from the BW building: Bullock's Wilshire/SouthwesternRight now, the Red/Purple Lines pass underneath in a tube, so no surface disruption was required during construction. With the switches, this could be a different story. I first mentioned building the junction to the east by Westmoreland Ave in a different thread a few months ago... but the more I look at it, the more I think it may be easier to go west... The west side of Vermont just north of Wilshire is a bunch of parking lots and low rise buildings. It's a good place to site a second station that could be connected via a short tunnel to the existing station across the street. Much closer than Westmoreland. The only thing I'm not sure about is the exiting tunnel geometry under 6th St that may preclude building the station between Vermont and New Hampshire, roughly where Denny's is located.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 6, 2017 11:04:01 GMT -8
So more thoughts on the adjacent station. I'm approaching this problem from the standpoint of what is the easiest way to make it work while keeping cost reasonable. And the conclusions I drew after thinking about this for a few weeks is that we have two options, both involve building a 2nd station - Option A - Eastern approach: Build new Red line junction at 4th street and veer east towards Westmoreland Ave with new station between Shatto Place and Westmoreland Ave. Option B - Western approach: Build new Red line junction at 4th street and veer west towards New Hampshire Ave with new station between Vermont Ave and New Hampshire Ave. The Eastern approach has a longer detour but the new station location is on a Metro own property (bus layover yard). But the parcel is right on top of the path of the existing train tunnels so it is very challenging job. The Western approach is more direct but will require Metro to acquire Denny's and maybe one other parcel. And if Metro's map is accurate, the proposed station site is south of the existing train tunnels so it won't be as difficult of a job.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 6, 2017 12:27:25 GMT -8
How does the new track tie into the old track and how do they cut into the tunnel to do it?
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Apr 7, 2017 5:39:13 GMT -8
Seems to me that whatever option they choose, there still has to be access to downtown, if only to access the Red/Purple Line yard (Division 20). I don't think there is any room to build a new yard in Athens (or Gardena) if the Red Line were to operate North Hollywood-Athens and be physically severed from the Purple Line (Westside-Union Station)
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 7, 2017 10:16:38 GMT -8
Seems to me that whatever option they choose, there still has to be access to downtown, if only to access the Red/Purple Line yard (Division 20). I don't think there is any room to build a new yard in Athens (or Gardena) if the Red Line were to operate North Hollywood-Athens and be physically severed from the Purple Line (Westside-Union Station) By definition, it would be connected because any train north of Wilshire on Vermont would be able to go Downtown and to the Yard at the end of the day.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 7, 2017 11:46:46 GMT -8
How does the new track tie into the old track and how do they cut into the tunnel to do it? I'm no expert in this but I know it can be done. New subway tunnels are tied to existing tunnels all the time to form new junctions - see NYC 2nd Ave line for example which is tied to existing tunnel on the north end. So at some point, the existing tunnel walls were knocked down to open it up to the new tunnel. Seems to me that whatever option they choose, there still has to be access to downtown, if only to access the Red/Purple Line yard (Division 20). I don't think there is any room to build a new yard in Athens (or Gardena) if the Red Line were to operate North Hollywood-Athens and be physically severed from the Purple Line (Westside-Union Station) Yes, the existing tracks/tunnels will remain under my proposal so you can move trains from Red to Purple lines.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 6, 2018 8:26:18 GMT -8
I think I actually prefer the idea of a Vermont-Alvarado Line, which would serve some of the most densely-populated neighborhoods in LA (including Pico-Union). (BTW I've seen this concept somewhere else, it's not my idea.) A minimal segment would run from USC to Echo Park. Stations would be at: - Vermont/Expo (xfer to Expo)
- Vermont/Adams
- Alvarado/Union
- Alvarado/7th (xfer to Red/Purple)
- Alvarado/Beverly
- Alvarado/Sunset
Either end of this segment could be extended in several directions. - The southern end could either head south on Vermont, or turn and connect to either the Blue Line or the Crenshaw Line.
- The northern end could either head north to Glendale, or turn northwest up Sunset, to Silverlake and Los Feliz.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 6, 2018 11:51:23 GMT -8
I think I actually prefer the idea of a Vermont-Alvarado Line, which would serve some of the most densely-populated neighborhoods in LA (including Pico-Union). (BTW I've seen this concept somewhere else, it's not my idea.) A minimal segment would run from USC to Echo Park. Stations would be at: - Vermont/Expo (xfer to Expo)
- Vermont/Adams
- Alvarado/Union
- Alvarado/7th (xfer to Red/Purple)
- Alvarado/Beverly
- Alvarado/Sunset
Either end of this segment could be extended in several directions. - The southern end could either head south on Vermont, or turn and connect to either the Blue Line or the Crenshaw Line.
- The northern end could either head north to Glendale, or turn northwest up Sunset, to Silverlake and Los Feliz.
That was my original proposal which was to link the Vermont Ave line with the Glendale line via Alvadado St. This network design move the transfer station to Westlake Station which has a conventional layout instead of the stacked and angled layout at Vermont. It is going to be much easier to construct and easier to use for people transferring to/from Purple line. However the problem with the Alvarado St solution is that while it is better for people transferring to/from Purple line, it is not that great for people intending to go north/south on Vermont Ave. A good portion of Vermont Ave ridership probably is headed north/south on Vermont, not necessarily to Glendale. We know this from bus ridership so there is not much to dispute so we are forcing a transfer for someone that wants to go from South LA to Koreatown, Vermont/Beverly, Sunset or Hollywood area, and vice versa. Not to mention we completely missed the opportunity to serve Vermont between Pico and Wilshire, which probably deserve a subway stop (at Olympic for example). Comparatively, there is probably relatively fewer people trying to go from South LA to Glendale and vice versa. So the Alvarado St alignment is probably not as good as straight up and down Vermont from a ridership perspective.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 6, 2018 14:57:15 GMT -8
^ That makes sense!
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 2, 2018 16:40:12 GMT -8
Metro released an update on the Vermont BRT/rail feasibility study: s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/media.thesource.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/02103219/VermontMay2018Presentation.pdfThe BRT option has been reduced to two: 1. Complete side running 2. Mixed center/side running north/south of Gage The rail options has been expended to six: 1. Light rail center running 2. Light rail side running 3. Street car side running 4. Heavy rail interline with purple line 5. Heavy rail interline with red line 6. Heavy rail terminates at Wilshire/Vermont The two-stage approach is still on - BRT by 2028-2030 and conversion to rail by 2067. Check out page 17 and 18 for more accurate locations and geometry of existing red and purple line tunnel and tracks.
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 3, 2018 6:46:47 GMT -8
The two-stage approach is still on - BRT by 2028-2030 and conversion to rail by 2067. 80-year-old me will love this rail line. I suspect they'll narrow the HRT options down to the Red Line continuation. It seems to make the most sense with the geometry of the overall system. I wonder how difficult and disruptive it would be to add that junction under 3rd, though. Probably will require a bus shuttle running between Vermont/Beverly and Wilshire/Vermont for a long while, I imagine. Though I guess the BRT will already fulfill that role.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Mar 18, 2019 9:28:08 GMT -8
Here's the potential rail options: urbanize.la/post/study-explores-how-metro-could-convert-proposed-vermont-brt-line-railThey've narrowed it down to stand-alone LRT from Wilshire/Vermont to the south terminus, stand-alone HRT on the same alignment, or a continuation of the red line south that will interline with the current red line, but with current red line service remaining. Interestingly, they did not study ending current red line service and sending all the trains south, requiring a transfer at Wilshire/Vermont to get downtown if you're coming from NoHo. The study makes it seem pretty likely that standalone HRT will be the choice. It's actually not much pricier than standalone LRT, and the red line continuation will have a lot of negative impacts during construction and result in fairly messy service with all the complicated interlining. The catch for all three options is the requirement of a new maintenance yard, which may require extending phase one all the way down to Slauson, or simply constructing it in one phase.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Mar 22, 2019 6:03:17 GMT -8
This might be the most maddening mismanagement by Metro of all the bad choices they’ve made. The second busiest bus corridor in the nation to me is criminal neglect for a transit agency to not install rail in such a corridor and they say the cost would be about 9 billion. This should be a NO BRAINER.
Whether the funds come partly from Washington (fat chance till Jan 2021) or other Metro funds or maybe a package can be put together in Sacramento and Newsom can be convinced that there needs to be a financial package funded by the state for a handful of infrastructure projects that Los Angeles needs and would be pivotal to putting on LAs best face for the 2028 Olympics. I don’t know I’m brainstorming out loud here but it’s beyond comprehension that the second busiest bus corridor in the nation, in the second biggest city in the richest nation in the world is going to take 47 years to find the ability to install the adequate form of transportation.
Another thing I don’t get is why the Light rail or separate HRT lines are even options. I get they have to look over all options but this seems again like a no brainer.
Get it right: Heavy Rail, extension of the Red Line that goes just one stop past the Green line (maybe to 120th), the extension should be an underground Subway to gage street and from Gage to 120th an elevated line should be considered. If parts are elevated that 9 billion cost goes down. Ideally you’d extend the Sepulveda line from the LAX super station three stops (Inglewood stadium, Century/Western and Century/Vermont) which then provides quick transit from Downtown or the Valley to both LAX, Inglewood stadium and Clippers arena).
Some may find that redundant (I dont) but the Vermont extension should be fast tracked and then some. And this has the added benefit of separating the red and purple lines.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 22, 2019 6:55:57 GMT -8
Amen!
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 22, 2019 10:33:46 GMT -8
I don't see how you could send the red line down Vermont instead of having it go to the CBD, a forced transfer to the purple line at Wilshire Vermont for 100,000+ daily riders going from NoHo<--->CBD? seems like it would never fly
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 22, 2019 15:06:03 GMT -8
The problem is that Metro has been only building two-track corridors. Operationally, it's tough to juggle multiple services sharing a corridor.
I would hope that a standalone line, with transfer at Wilshire/Vermont, could (in the distant future) be extended above Wilshire, either north or east, along its own corridor.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Mar 22, 2019 21:46:06 GMT -8
It seems like they would branch the alignments rather than separate them with a forced transfer. It does seem like disrupting a 20-30 year travel pattern/alignment might create issues with the community. I do like the idea of a new alignment going north or east, but that would be very far out. This might be the most maddening mismanagement by Metro of all the bad choices they’ve made. The second busiest bus corridor in the nation to me is criminal neglect for a transit agency to not install rail in such a corridor and they say the cost would be about 9 billion. This should be a NO BRAINER. Whether the funds come partly from Washington (fat chance till Jan 2021) or other Metro funds or maybe a package can be put together in Sacramento and Newsom can be convinced that there needs to be a financial package funded by the state for a handful of infrastructure projects that Los Angeles needs and would be pivotal to putting on LAs best face for the 2028 Olympics. I don’t know I’m brainstorming out loud here but it’s beyond comprehension that the second busiest bus corridor in the nation, in the second biggest city in the richest nation in the world is going to take 47 years to find the ability to install the adequate form of transportation. Another thing I don’t get is why the Light rail or separate HRT lines are even options. I get they have to look over all options but this seems again like a no brainer. Get it right: Heavy Rail, extension of the Red Line that goes just one stop past the Green line (maybe to 120th), the extension should be an underground Subway to gage street and from Gage to 120th an elevated line should be considered. If parts are elevated that 9 billion cost goes down. Ideally you’d extend the Sepulveda line from the LAX super station three stops (Inglewood stadium, Century/Western and Century/Vermont) which then provides quick transit from Downtown or the Valley to both LAX, Inglewood stadium and Clippers arena). Some may find that redundant (I dont) but the Vermont extension should be fast tracked and then some. And this has the added benefit of separating the red and purple lines. Because of the failure of Measure J and the need to get 2/3 of the county to vote for it, the Measure M process was basically handed to the local governments and the Metro planners took more of a hands-off approach. This is why we have the projects we have on Measure M. For this region, they prioritized getting funding for the West Santa Ana Branch downtown portion, the LA river bikepath, the downtown streetcar project, and the Crenshaw Northern Extension. One reason there are standalone options (besides the need to always look at different options) is that a private partner might be more willing to do a P3 if the project is a standalone project. So if a private party says they are willing to finance $2 billion for a standalone alignment, it may be hard to refuse (the P3 consortium is contributing something like $1.7 billion for the LAX people mover). They don’t like non-standalone alignments for P3s because it can prevent them from using new technology like automated trains. I do agree they need to find a way to accelerate the project. Maybe if they can actually implement congestion pricing and raise a lot of revenue.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Mar 23, 2019 1:07:28 GMT -8
It seems like they would branch the alignments rather than separate them with a forced transfer. It does seem like disrupting a 20-30 year travel pattern/alignment might create issues with the community. I do like the idea of a new alignment going north or east, but that would be very far out. This might be the most maddening mismanagement by Metro of all the bad choices they’ve made. The second busiest bus corridor in the nation to me is criminal neglect for a transit agency to not install rail in such a corridor and they say the cost would be about 9 billion. This should be a NO BRAINER. Whether the funds come partly from Washington (fat chance till Jan 2021) or other Metro funds or maybe a package can be put together in Sacramento and Newsom can be convinced that there needs to be a financial package funded by the state for a handful of infrastructure projects that Los Angeles needs and would be pivotal to putting on LAs best face for the 2028 Olympics. I don’t know I’m brainstorming out loud here but it’s beyond comprehension that the second busiest bus corridor in the nation, in the second biggest city in the richest nation in the world is going to take 47 years to find the ability to install the adequate form of transportation. Another thing I don’t get is why the Light rail or separate HRT lines are even options. I get they have to look over all options but this seems again like a no brainer. Get it right: Heavy Rail, extension of the Red Line that goes just one stop past the Green line (maybe to 120th), the extension should be an underground Subway to gage street and from Gage to 120th an elevated line should be considered. If parts are elevated that 9 billion cost goes down. Ideally you’d extend the Sepulveda line from the LAX super station three stops (Inglewood stadium, Century/Western and Century/Vermont) which then provides quick transit from Downtown or the Valley to both LAX, Inglewood stadium and Clippers arena). Some may find that redundant (I dont) but the Vermont extension should be fast tracked and then some. And this has the added benefit of separating the red and purple lines. Because of the failure of Measure J and the need to get 2/3 of the county to vote for it, the Measure M process was basically handed to the local governments and the Metro planners took more of a hands-off approach. This is why we have the projects we have on Measure M. For this region, they prioritized getting funding for the West Santa Ana Branch downtown portion, the LA river bikepath, the downtown streetcar project, and the Crenshaw Northern Extension. One reason there are standalone options (besides the need to always look at different options) is that a private partner might be more willing to do a P3 if the project is a standalone project. So if a private party says they are willing to finance $2 billion for a standalone alignment, it may be hard to refuse (the P3 consortium is contributing something like $1.7 billion for the LAX people mover). They don’t like non-standalone alignments for P3s because it can prevent them from using new technology like automated trains. I do agree they need to find a way to accelerate the project. Maybe if they can actually implement congestion pricing and raise a lot of revenue. Great post, as usual. I just don’t get how in a city run by Democrats, in a stste dominated by Democrats. In a state that has thrown endless billions at HSR, that the core projects of LA transit can’t be funded by some other means: (The core projects being: Rail Van Nuys ML to LAX subway, Crenshaw North subway, Vermont Red Line Extension)
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 25, 2019 15:13:48 GMT -8
The City of LA can try to find funding for this line itself. No reason to wait for Metro or the County to fund it.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 28, 2019 6:58:54 GMT -8
Where is everyone getting this info? According to the person I spoke with at Metro the four priority rail projects in 28 by 28 are: WSAB, Sepulveda pass, Green Line South Bay extension, and gold line east LA extension. The streetcar is not a priority for Metro afaik. It's a priority for the local council person who is currently under investigation.
There is currently no funding for Vermont but metro recognizes the need, that's why they left rail as an option and are hoping for private funding. But rail isn't as easy as it sounds. If it ties into the existing line at Vermont, there will be significant interruptions in service for a couple of years. If it doesn't tie in then it's an orphan line with no place for a rail yard until south of Gage.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 28, 2019 18:54:16 GMT -8
Where is everyone getting this info? According to the person I spoke with at Metro the four priority rail projects in 28 by 28 are: WSAB, Sepulveda pass, Green Line South Bay extension, and gold line east LA extension. The streetcar is not a priority for Metro afaik. It's a priority for the local council person who is currently under investigation. There is currently no funding for Vermont but metro recognizes the need, that's why they left rail as an option and are hoping for private funding. But rail isn't as easy as it sounds. If it ties into the existing line at Vermont, there will be significant interruptions in service for a couple of years. If it doesn't tie in then it's an orphan line with no place for a rail yard until south of Gage. I just meant the funding allocated in Measure M. They divided up funding by geography, and the Vermont Corridor is in the “Central City” region. If you look at the Measure M funding plan, the “Central City” transit funding is divided between the Downtown Streetcar ($200 million), LA River ($365 million), Crenshaw North ($1.19 billion), West Santa Ana Branch LA portion ($400 million), LA Dash ($250 million), Transit Repair ($402 million) and Vermont ($25 million). That is a lot of projects, which meant Vermont gets less money. For the other regions, the Measure M transit funding focused on fewer projects. theplan.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/measurem_ordinance_16-01.pdf
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 29, 2019 9:55:28 GMT -8
Personally, I think they should build the initial operating segment from 120th Street up to USC, with the line elevated until Gage (where it would then go underground). This initial segment could include a maintenance yard at its southern end. Later, when the money becomes available, they can continue the line north to Wilshire.
Even though it would stop short of Pico-Union and Koreatown, it would still have a very large ridership, covering an already-busy corridor from Expo down to the Green Line.
My two cents.
|
|
|
Post by joquitter on Apr 29, 2019 13:14:18 GMT -8
Personally, I think they should build the initial operating segment from 120th Street up to USC, with the line elevated until Gage (where it would then go underground). This initial segment could include a maintenance yard at its southern end. Later, when the money becomes available, they can continue the line north to Wilshire. Even though it would stop short of Pico-Union and Koreatown, it would still have a very large ridership, covering an already-busy corridor from Expo down to the Green Line. My two cents. That's a good idea that I hadn't thought of before!
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Apr 29, 2019 20:47:25 GMT -8
Personally, I think they should build the initial operating segment from 120th Street up to USC, with the line elevated until Gage (where it would then go underground). This initial segment could include a maintenance yard at its southern end. Later, when the money becomes available, they can continue the line north to Wilshire. Even though it would stop short of Pico-Union and Koreatown, it would still have a very large ridership, covering an already-busy corridor from Expo down to the Green Line. My two cents. That's a good idea that I hadn't thought of before! Furthermore, the Vermont line could join with the Expo line into downtown. Once the WSAB downtown tunnel is built, the Blue line could abandon Washington Bl and use that too, so Vermont and Expo trains could use Flower without congestion. It would make rebuilding or retrofitting the Flower line easier. In the future, the area between USC and Koreatown could be served by a branch off Crenshaw.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Apr 30, 2019 6:26:56 GMT -8
That's a good idea that I hadn't thought of before! Furthermore, the Vermont line could join with the Expo line into downtown. Once the WSAB downtown tunnel is built, the Blue line could abandon Washington Bl and use that too, so Vermont and Expo trains could use Flower without congestion. It would make rebuilding or retrofitting the Flower line easier. In the future, the area between USC and Koreatown could be served by a branch off Crenshaw. That would only work if the Vermont line is light rail.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on May 1, 2019 6:04:23 GMT -8
urbanize.la/post/metro-board-advances-study-vermont-avenue-rail-lineConsider me shocked that Metro is at least THINKING forward with what to me is the most underrated and perhaps second most important local transit corridor. I’ve heard the same old speech over and over again about the reason why Vermont wasn’t given the finances it needed, the adequate plan it needed or the time frame it needed “blah blah, to pass the measure you need to spread it out to all parts of the county” blah blah It’s asinine. There are a few key projects that need to be done and done correctly and done within a decade or so if LA is ever going to convert to the kind of city that uses mass transit in a MAJOR way like NY, Chicago, Boston and DC do. First is a ONE seat ride from Van Nuys ML to LAX + Inglewood Stadium/Arena. Second is to FINISH the Purple Line to Santa Monica on the west side and to Arts district on the East. Third is Crenshaw North, all grade separates rise to Hollywood/Highland. And fourth... is Vermont HRT down to the Green Line. I get it could cost between $4.5-$8.5B but compared to some other lines that’s not a terrible amount. It’s do-able. I personally think they are under doing the amount of ridership a red line from NOHO to Vermont/Athens would get. I literally think even as HRT it would be PACKED on practically every week day. I think it’s a travesty of urban planning policy that this line wasn’t built ALREADY. I think this line just shows how messed up our whole system is as far as infrastructure nationwide and policy to funding both in LA, in a California and nationwide. These rail transit projects need to be built where there is NEED, not where it can get votes. For instance the Gold Line extension (soon to be Northern Blue Line) should not even be a project. It’s fine stopping at Azusa, and the line should run two services - a regular light rail rapid transit to Pasadena and and a LRT rapid transit / Commuter rail hybrid to Azusa. Building an extension even further east is a waste of money. It’s a shame that those in Sacramento can’t fund these major projects needed in the LA area and that pet projects like the SGV extension need to be done just to get votes, it’s so messed up. Anyway, call me naive but for some silly reason I believe they’ll find a way to get the Vermont line done. Its total fairytale and it would take a miracle like a major funding from the federal government to get it done by the 2028 games BUT... I think 2034 might be a reasonable goal.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 1, 2019 7:52:54 GMT -8
Anyway, call me naive but for some silly reason I believe they’ll find a way to get the Vermont line done. Its total fairytale and it would take a miracle like a major funding from the federal government to get it done by the 2028 games BUT... I think 2034 might be a reasonable goal. The two feasible possibilities for accelerating this are (1) funds from the City of Los Angeles; or (2) investment from a public-private partnership. It is ridiculous that busy Vermont Avenue is given lower priority than some projects in far-flung parts of the county. It's borderline discriminatory. At the same time, central Los Angeles has some major projects being built now, including Crenshaw, Regional Connector, and the Wilshire Subway (and several more over the next decade).
|
|