|
Post by Philip on Dec 19, 2010 20:40:12 GMT -8
I know this used to be in the old Long-Range plans for Los Angeles, but there seems to be very little talk anymore of a spur off the Red Line from Sunset/Vermont that would go north towards Glendale. New stops could be located at Los Feliz Village, Griffith Park, and the Glendale Metrolink station. Then, it could run underneath Brand, terminating perhaps at either Broadway or Glenoaks. This would also allow connections to the future Burbank/Glendale LRT and relieve congestions on the 92, 180/181, and 780 buses.
Though this suffers from the same problem that the Vermont subway does, in the sense that building such a spur would disrupt service, but if Vermont/Sunset is the only station in need of reconstruction for it, couldn't the subway still run and simply pass the station? Not to mention that this would be much less complicated that reconstructing Wilshire/Vermont (since it is not two floors and does not have the Purple Line to deal with).
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 19, 2010 21:48:29 GMT -8
I think it's more likely and sooner that the Yellow Line will be built on Brand instead of a Red Line spur.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 20, 2010 16:16:22 GMT -8
I would love to see such an extension but for all intent and purpose, the Westside purple line extension is likely the only and the last heavy rail project we will see in LA for a long long time. Cost is an issue... but also the fact that our light rail system is close to reaching critical mass - it will be a lot easier from operational standpoint to expand light rail in the future. Plus it gives us more build options, including more surface street running alignments. I think it's more practical to advance some type of light rail project on Vermont corridor and connect it via Westlake and Silver Lake to Glendale; with possible future extension all the way to Burbank. Kind of like this (the black line on the map): maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=200920330746408617074.000492747cf29fbd56df1&ll=34.107256,-118.183365&spn=0.183068,0.363579&z=12
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 20, 2010 17:58:10 GMT -8
I think a Glendale LRT line should start in Downtown, not on Vermont ave.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 26, 2010 13:26:23 GMT -8
I don't know.... we've reached an interesting point in Los Angeles' rail transit development, where we can start to look beyond the downtown core hub. Certainly the Crenshaw Line (LAX to Expo to... Hollywood?) points to that.
L.A. traffic patterns were never monolithic, and there may be room for a bypass or two... the Regional Connector is going to be crowded from day one.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 26, 2010 14:15:00 GMT -8
A 2nd Regional connector (onAlameda, between the Little Tokyo and Washington stations) would relieve congestion on the 1st.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 27, 2010 12:22:36 GMT -8
I'd definitely prefer San Pedro over Alameda. When every new mile of track is going to cost construction time and money, it would be better to pick up additional riders along the way than to have a bypass with no intermediate stations.
Using Vermont for the Glendale line would also have similar benefits.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 27, 2010 15:46:04 GMT -8
I'd definitely prefer San Pedro over Alameda. When every new mile of track is going to cost construction time and money, it would be better to pick up additional riders along the way than to have a bypass with no intermediate stations. Using Vermont for the Glendale line would also have similar benefits. I agree... Vermont > San Pedro > Alameda Vermont + Alvarado to Glendale via Westlake and Silver Lake has far more potential for adding ridership than another Downtown Connector. The San Pedro or Alameda alignment has lots of problems: 1. If the Glendale spur enters Downtown from the North, it will have to cram into Union Station first and will share Gold/Expo line tracks until it splits off on San Pedro or Alameda (the "2nd connector"). We have to deal with the complexity of more lines sharing the track from south of Dodger Stadium to either San Pedro or Alameda... This will create a major bottleneck issue south of Union Station with Expo, Gold, and Glendale lines will all fight for the same track space. 2. While San Pedro or Alameda will bring rail access to Fashion and Toy districts it probably won't significantly add more transit users to the entire rail system, as these Downtown areas lack dense residential population (mostly light industry and wholesale). 3. The north alignment to Glendale will largely duplicate both Metrolink and CAHSR... The "bang-for-the-buck" payoff for Glendale line entering Downtown via Union Station is not that great in my opinion. However, if the Glendale spur enters Downtown from the West side via Alvarado St (and connects with the proposed Vermont line), it opens up Silver Lake and Westlake, both dense residential areas, to our existing rail network. The Glendale commuters can still access Financial district with a transfer at the Westlake / McArthur Park station, which is not any different than the San Pedro alignment (which requires a transfer at either Union Station or Little Tokyo to reach Financial district)
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 27, 2010 16:10:41 GMT -8
Agreed with bzcat. Adding to that, I think we ought to be careful to avoid the compulsion to want to eliminate transfers.
Single-seat rides may be comfortable, and transfers can be a pain (although so far, most of our rail transfers have been relatively benign) but I think we have to accept the fact that the transfer is a vital part of a well-designed and functional rail transit system. If we design a system with avoiding transfers, we run the risk of too many trains in one area, and perhaps not enough in others.
I actually am supportive of the idea of a "second connector" (although I think at some point we have to stop calling them connectors... there's nothing weird or unusual about a train which starts in south Los Angeles and ends in Glendale or wherever, it's just an odd quirk of our transit history that we ended up with two unlinked segments downtown!) However, I do think "second" Connectors should wait until we get more other lines in place... and even "connectors" should not be total bypasses...
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 28, 2010 11:36:01 GMT -8
To clarify, I also support the concept of "2nd connector" (probably via San Pedro) sometime down the road. This will be needed when we have more lines coming into Downtown areas from the south. For example, if LAX Express via Harbor Subdivision happens, or if the West Santa Ana Branch is extended all the way to Downtown via South Gate and Bell.
There is plenty of options to connect these lines to Union Station from the south. This is not so for lines coming into Downtown from the north. The options are limited from the north so either we go with an ultra expensive tunnel under Dodger Stadium, or any light rail to the north will have to share Gold line track. And on top of that, you have to save room for CAHSR right of way.
This is why, for the Glendale line discussion, I think we really need to look at options that enters Downtown from the west, as oppose to the north. The west approach will put the line through Silver Lake and Westlake and add lots of new riders. The north approach will put the line on San Fernando Road, next to the river. It will open up Mt Washington to Metro rail but we have the bottleneck issue with Union Station north approach.
On the priority scale, I would put having rail in Silver Lake and Westlake above a subway tunnel under San Pedro. But it would be nice to have them all!
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 29, 2010 17:30:09 GMT -8
^ Sending it to the Santa Ana ROW seems like the most logical choice. I used to think Alameda would make such a great second connector. But after getting a chance to rove around the area, I think a connector on San Pedro would be so much better because it would serve the heart of the Garment District. I think expanding the future streetcar system could serve the Garment District better than sending the 2nd Connector down San Pedro. At most, I would have 2 stations. One at Olympic and one at 4th street.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Dec 30, 2010 23:30:53 GMT -8
The time to get these ideas in the books and preserved for future consideration/implementation is when a project is in the early stages of design and in the environmental review phase. Metro also has a lot of community meetings, so those meetings could be where such ideas are introduced from the public.
What needs to happen is that those ideas, should they have merit in the eyes of Metro, that they be adequately studied and the ability preserved in the design/construction of a project. This is most critical when there are physical limitations and constraints. Being in a subway is the same.
If an opportunity is missed, well, there is likely never an opportunity to revisit. Why? Look to high school physics and a college public administration 101 course material for an answer.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Dec 31, 2010 6:10:52 GMT -8
It's really a shame the MTA didn't hold on to the land/ROW where the Toluca tunnel is. What a game changer it would have been to have incorporated the old tunnel as a spur to SlvLk/Glnd from the Connector. The only thing would be deciding what to do with the incoming Glendale trains: return trip to Glendale or possibly even run them through to Long Beach/West Santa Ana ROW/Whittier ROW or Culver City/Santa Monica. I thought that for modern light rail they probably would have needed to rebuild the tunnel anyway since it was so old and narrow, and damaged.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Dec 31, 2010 19:38:40 GMT -8
^ I know I read somewhere, possibly in the old forums, how the new LRV are not as big as the old Red Cars. I don't remember seeing measurements, but if it's true, then maybe patching up the tunnel would have sufficed. However, in our modern age of building codes/disclosure/approval, it probably wouldn't meet current standards for safety. If I remember correctly, there wouldn't be room to add emergency walk ways on the sides of the tunnel and still accommodate the LRVs. The only way around would have been for the tunnels to have stayed in active use through today and just be "grand-fathered" in through a variance. To put an idea into reality, it requires political will, public desire and financial support. The old subway tunnel had none of these. Plus, buildings pierced the tunnel corridor and blocked the exit. So, coulda, woulda, shoulda isn't operative for this segment. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 31, 2010 22:00:26 GMT -8
To put an idea into reality, it requires political will, public desire and financial support. The old subway tunnel had none of these. Plus, buildings pierced the tunnel corridor and blocked the exit. So, coulda, woulda, shoulda isn't operative for this segment. Sorry. Yeah but i'm sure the foundation of the Bonaventure could've been built to accommodate the tunnel.....oh but, I forgot.....thinking ahead doesn't happen in LA.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 1, 2011 12:36:12 GMT -8
it's a moot point since Toluca Yard is blocked off.
I was on the "use the Hollywood Subway" bandwagon for a long time until I realized how many obstacles there were to using it.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 2, 2011 13:49:10 GMT -8
Vermont + Alvarado to Glendale via Westlake and Silver Lake has far more potential for adding ridership than another Downtown Connector. ... However, if the Glendale spur enters Downtown from the West side via Alvarado St (and connects with the proposed Vermont line), it opens up Silver Lake and Westlake, both dense residential areas, to our existing rail network. The Glendale commuters can still access Financial district with a transfer at the Westlake / McArthur Park station, which is not any different than the San Pedro alignment (which requires a transfer at either Union Station or Little Tokyo to reach Financial district) I think this is a great idea (although it would hit Echo Park, not Silver Lake). It could even stop at Dodger Stadium on its way up to San Fernando Road (as shown in the following image):
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 2, 2011 14:02:43 GMT -8
Vermont + Alvarado to Glendale via Westlake and Silver Lake has far more potential for adding ridership than another Downtown Connector. ... However, if the Glendale spur enters Downtown from the West side via Alvarado St (and connects with the proposed Vermont line), it opens up Silver Lake and Westlake, both dense residential areas, to our existing rail network. The Glendale commuters can still access Financial district with a transfer at the Westlake / McArthur Park station, which is not any different than the San Pedro alignment (which requires a transfer at either Union Station or Little Tokyo to reach Financial district) I think this is a great idea (although it would hit Echo Park, not Silver Lake). It could even stop at Dodger Stadium on its way up to San Fernando Road (as shown in the following image): What about having the Glendale line meet up with the future Crenshaw-WeHo line via Santa Monica boulevard? The Crenshaw Line north of Wilshire may end up on Santa Monica boulevard and instead of diverting north on La Brea to Hollywood/Highland station, I reckon it should continue on Santa Monica boulevard and meet up with this Glendale spur via Sunset boulevard in Silver Lake and north on Silver Lake boulevard into Glendale. It can connect with the Red Line at Santa Monica/Vermont station. I don't see Vermont being any better of a connection. Most people traveling between Glendale and west of downtown LA are trying to go further west. Why just go to Vermont or Westlake boulevard?
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Jan 2, 2011 15:10:49 GMT -8
What about having the Glendale line meet up with the future Crenshaw-WeHo line via Santa Monica boulevard? The Crenshaw Line north of Wilshire may end up on Santa Monica boulevard and instead of diverting north on La Brea to Hollywood/Highland station, I reckon it should continue on Santa Monica boulevard and meet up with this Glendale spur via Sunset boulevard in Silver Lake and north on Silver Lake boulevard into Glendale. It can connect with the Red Line at Santa Monica/Vermont station. I don't see Vermont being any better of a connection. Most people traveling between Glendale and west of downtown LA are trying to go further west. Why just go to Vermont or Westlake boulevard? Although, diverting the WeHo line away from Hollywood/Highland to a different Red line station could add a significant amount of delay for people going in between the Valley and WeHo or points south. The extra Red line time alone adds 7 or 8 minutes, then factor in the extra WeHo line time. probably similar, and transfer time, and you could be looking at as much as 20 minutes of delay, compared to having the transfer at Hollywood/Highland.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 2, 2011 21:34:45 GMT -8
I think the Silver line LRT would connect with the Crenshaw-WeHo line.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Jan 2, 2011 22:04:50 GMT -8
I did some fun doodling a few months ago and came up with this; a network with Crenshaw line extended north to Hollywood-Highland, a Venice-Santa Monica Line, and a Vermont line to Glendale. The two diagrams were done because it is a big area and I wanted to respect the 800 pixel width. I am not certain if there is a hiegth criteria. Again, these were for fun. Stations are shown, but could be anywhere and their lcation is not really the point. I am more interested in a network and rail connectivity. Going West to east, the west side first: The east side of this idea; Vermont to Glendale. Next, I have not developed this idea digitally on a map, but I think a Venice-Santa Monica line could go further east along Sunset, generally, hit the Dodger Stadium and Chinatown and then end around Union Station.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Jan 3, 2011 1:12:13 GMT -8
That's a bit better for Valley people heading over the hill then west. Definitely better if they want to get to Santa Monica via Red line-Crenshaw-Purple, although it makes it difficult to get to WeHo or Venice, since they'd have to do 2 transfers, one at Hollywood/Highland and one at what looks to be Santa Monica/La Brea.
Here's an idea, although I haven't given it too much thought. Maybe instead of terminating the Crenshaw line at Hollywood/Highland, terminate it at Santa Monica/La Brea, then actually spur the Red Line from Hollywood/Highland to Santa Monica/La Brea and run a short-line from the valley to there. Then there would be three lines coming together there, and riders from the valley would only have to transfer once to get on either line. Would that help?
Would that even be possible?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 3, 2011 15:13:44 GMT -8
I'm glad that you included the station "dots" even if they aren't set in stone (and how could they be?).
The "dots" give a decent idea of "where can this rail line take me," and also a vague idea of the speed of the thing.
Looks to me like a pretty good north-south downtown bypass with also a nice reference to the much-needed Vermont Line.
It's a shame that the Glendale Amtrak/ Metrolink station is positioned where it is, instead of directly adjacent to Los Feliz or Glendale Blvd. Don't know how you fix that without rebuilding the train station. (Looks close on the map, but it's not really that convenient for Atwater Village.)
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 3, 2011 16:44:15 GMT -8
I think rebuilding the Vermont/Wilshire station and connecting the Vermont Corridor with the Red Line is better in the long run because it serves the bus ridership on line 204.
Meanwhile have the Yellow Line (Regional Connector-Glendale-Burbank-Orange Line) use Brand instead of the Metrolink ROW. With Metrolink, freight, and the CHSR all soon planned to share it, there simply will be no room for an LRT line.
And instead of connecting with the Crenshaw Line, I think Venice Blvd should have it's own corridor: down Venice Blvd, Hoover, and Washington all the way to Whittier.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 29, 2011 15:34:52 GMT -8
Move LA was talking about the need for another Measure R. I don't think this can be done anytime soon and may only be possible when the current Measure R runs out.
One of the things I noticed in the 2009 LRTP was that a light rail line from Union Station through Glendale and ending at the Burbank Airport was listed as a Tier 1 project, but extending the Red Line from NoHo to Burbank Airport is a Tier 2 project.
I am not a Valley person and have flown out of Burbank a grand total of one time in my life, but it seems to me that a Red Line extension to the airport would be a great addition in that it would directly serve a pretty heavily used airport (about the same as Ontario where to me a light rail connection will have less of an effect) as well as providing a key gateway to Metrorail from Metrolink, which is often overlooked in our region where politicians can't always see big picture connectivity and view everything in terms of their district.
Anyone have any thoughts on the proposed light rail line through Glendale. I've heard nothing about it. The Red Line extension is only 3 miles and seems to be a more appropriate project. Anyway, I think this project should get more love, especially with the Valley having relatively few rail lines.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 29, 2011 15:40:15 GMT -8
Move LA was talking about the need for another Measure R. I don't think this can be done anytime soon and may only be possible when the current Measure R runs out. One of the things I noticed in the 2009 LRTP was that a light rail line from Union Station through Glendale and ending at the Burbank Airport was listed as a Tier 1 project, but extending the Red Line from NoHo to Burbank Airport is a Tier 2 project. I am not a Valley person and have flown out of Burbank a grand total of one time in my life, but it seems to me that a Red Line extension to the airport would be a great addition in that it would directly serve a pretty heavily used airport (about the same as Ontario where to me a light rail connection will have less of an effect) as well as providing a key gateway to Metrorail from Metrolink, which is often overlooked in our region where politicians can't always see big picture connectivity and view everything in terms of their district. Anyone have any thoughts on the proposed light rail line through Glendale. I've heard nothing about it. The Red Line extension is only 3 miles and seems to be a more appropriate project. Anyway, I think this project should get more love, especially with the Valley having relatively few rail lines. What was discussed at the Move LA conference last week was making the next steps to form another Measure R2 and one of the core suggestions is to begin planning the next porjects such as a Burbank-Glendale LRT, a Vermont Corridor eseentially corridors that are under Metro's LRTP Strategic UnFunded plan as a framework to begin the planning studies in a year or two as Measure R projects are under construction. Personally I'm with you on an extension to Burbank Airport because it can be done realitively inexpensively since it doesn't have to be all subway it can even have a section of elevated or grade level with no crossings along the Amtrak-Metrolink right of way.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 30, 2011 9:06:09 GMT -8
There seems to be two lines in LRTP that aim to handle these areas of the valley: the Burbank/Glendale line and the Yellow Line. Here are my thoughts on both:
From my perspective (and what the LRTP suggests), the Burbank/Glendale Line begins at the Burbank Metrolink Station and essentially runs along the Amtrak/Metrolink ROW (making more stops of course) up until around the L.A. river area, where it would join the Gold Line in Chinatown and run right into Union Station. It could also potentially connect here to the future Santa Ana Line, creating almost a complete light-rail alternative to the 5 freeway (as well as light-rail alternatives to the downtown-bound 94, 96, and 794 buses).
The Yellow Line, while similar, is different. The Yellow Line begins at North Hollywood Station and travels across the valley (along either Chandler or perhaps Burbank Blvd.) until it reaches the Burbank Metrolink. From here, it would share tracks with the Burbank/Glendale Line until probably around Broadway or so, where it would turn and find itself on Brand. It would then go down Brand and Glendale Blvd. until connecting with the Regional Connector downtown (essentially re-creating much of the Burbank/Glendale Red Car line and creating a light-rail alternative to the 92 bus).
Here’s what I don’t get: why not extend the Burbank/Glendale line to Burbank Airport? It already goes to the downtown Metrolink station, so why not? Add a station in between to serve the Empire Center (somewhere on Empire Ave.) and it’s a slam dunk. Not to mention the fact that it would be far less expensive than a Red Line extension.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 30, 2011 12:27:52 GMT -8
extending the Burbank/ Glendale Line to the airport might make sense; it depends on what your goals are.
If you're trying to make it easier for business travelers to get from Burbank Airport to downtown Los Angeles, might as well beef up the existing Metrolink service with more trains, more often (and fewer, not more, stops). Of course, there are undoubtedly also plenty of airport/ airline employee daily commuters trying to get to the airport as well. So their transit needs will be different.
There's also the question of how much do you want this rail line to parallel the existing tracks, since it skirts downtown Burbank but really is on the wrong side of I-5.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 30, 2011 12:58:04 GMT -8
I would try and tie the Yellow Line to the Orange Line (once it's eventually upgraded to LRT) via the Chandler ROW.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 30, 2011 13:09:33 GMT -8
I would try and tie the Yellow Line to the Orange Line (once it's eventually upgraded to LRT) via the Chandler ROW. This could LA's "northern line". Upgrade existing Orange line to LRT (highly unlikely but stay with me...), continue to BUR and then Downtown Glendale, then via Colorado Blvd to Eaglerock and Old Town Pasadena, transfer to Gold (Blue) line at Memorial Park station, terminates in a loop at Cal Tech/PCC
|
|