|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 30, 2011 13:18:06 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 I was thinking about heading down Brand to the Regional Connector. Actually, this is really a combination of the Burbank/Glendale line and the Yellow Line: Regional Connector-Echo Park-Glendale-Burbank-Orange Line
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jun 30, 2011 13:31:08 GMT -8
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. The "Burbank/Glendale LRT from LA Union Station to Burbank Metrolink Station" project is listed in the Tier 1 category because Metro completed an EIR for the project in 1994. A Red Line Extension to Burbank Airport is still considered to be a Tier 2 project (i.e. projects needing further definition) because the only consideration given to it thus far was in a feasibility study conducted in 1992-1993.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 30, 2011 13:35:24 GMT -8
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 I was thinking about heading down Brand to the Regional Connector. Actually, this is really a combination of the Burbank/Glendale line and the Yellow Line: Regional Connector-Echo Park-Glendale-Burbank-Orange Line I get what you are saying but I'm picturing your line as two separate services from an operational stand point. East-west (aka "Northern line"): across SFV to SGV North-south (aka "Glendale spur"): Downtown LA to Burbank via Glendale The two services will share tracks from Glendale to Burbank.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 30, 2011 14:00:05 GMT -8
^ Oh okay, i was a little confused thats all.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 30, 2011 14:07:00 GMT -8
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. The "Burbank/Glendale LRT from LA Union Station to Burbank Metrolink Station" project is listed in the Tier 1 category because Metro completed an EIR for the project in 1994. A Red Line Extension to Burbank Airport is still considered to be a Tier 2 project (i.e. projects needing further definition) because the only consideration given to it thus far was in a feasibility study conducted in 1992-1993. Interesting. Thx. I still like the Red Line extension up there. A main benefit is anyone transferring from Metrolink now has direct access to Universal City, North Hollywood, Hollywood and Koreatown, without having to go all the way downtown and then backtracking or transferring to a bus at the Burbank Metrolink station to try to complete their trip that way. If the Crenshaw Line were ever extended to Hollywood/Highland, you would have a pretty direct connection between LAX and Burbank, albeit with one transfer. Either way, connecting Hollywood with Burbank Airport directly seems pretty important, especially since Hollywood is so far from LAX and it is a major tourist and hotel destination. Another future extension off of this could take it to the Sun Valley Metrolink station on the Antelope Valley Line, but that would be another 2.5 miles or so. Jerard mentioned some of the 3 miles could be above ground (how much I am not sure), and by not having to build new maintenance facilities for a light rail line, it may not be as expensive as people think.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 30, 2011 15:07:02 GMT -8
Another option (though it would be a long way off) would be to continue the Burbank/Glendale line east on Sherman Way all the way to Northridge or Chatsworth.
Sherman Way is plenty wide and would be a good candidate for at-grade or elevated rail.
Also, while I would not mind seeing the Red Line go to Burbank Airport, I don't think doing so would take advantage of the true ridership potential that exists in the valley.
I would prefer (as others have suggested) that the Red Line be extended to Sylmar (via Lankershim or Laurel Canyon and the Antelope Metrolink ROW). There's huge ridership potential there, which the Airport, though important, would not have.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 30, 2011 15:30:26 GMT -8
Another option (though it would be a long way off) would be to continue the Burbank/Glendale line east on Sherman Way all the way to Northridge or Chatsworth. Sherman Way is plenty wide and would be a good candidate for at-grade or elevated rail. Also, while I would not mind seeing the Red Line go to Burbank Airport, I don't think doing so would take advantage of the true ridership potential that exists in the valley. I would prefer (as others have suggested) that the Red Line be extended to Sylmar (via Lankershim or Laurel Canyon and the Antelope Metrolink ROW). There's huge ridership potential there, which the Airport, though important, would not have. Problem is from No. Hollywood to Sylmar Metrolink is something like 10.5 miles. That is longer than the entire Westside Subway Extension and even if some of it could be above ground, it would be a much bigger chunk of change than we would ever have... I think linking to Sylmar Metrolink would be great, but would be better accomplished through an expanded 405 light rail line along Van Nuys if possible as the Transit Coalition has pushed for in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 30, 2011 15:43:35 GMT -8
Another option (though it would be a long way off) would be to continue the Burbank/Glendale line east on Sherman Way all the way to Northridge or Chatsworth. Sherman Way is plenty wide and would be a good candidate for at-grade or elevated rail. Also, while I would not mind seeing the Red Line go to Burbank Airport, I don't think doing so would take advantage of the true ridership potential that exists in the valley. I would prefer (as others have suggested) that the Red Line be extended to Sylmar (via Lankershim or Laurel Canyon and the Antelope Metrolink ROW). There's huge ridership potential there, which the Airport, though important, would not have. Problem is from No. Hollywood to Sylmar Metrolink is something like 10.5 miles. That is longer than the entire Westside Subway Extension and even if some of it could be above ground, it would be a much bigger chunk of change than we would ever have... I think linking to Sylmar Metrolink would be great, but would be better accomplished through an expanded 405 light rail line along Van Nuys if possible as the Transit Coalition has pushed for in the past. True, but a Sylmar Red Line extension would only require half the amount of stations and most of it could be done above-ground or even at-grade (along the Metrolink ROW). It would be expensive, absolutely, but nothing near the cost of the Purple Line to Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 30, 2011 16:25:45 GMT -8
I would much rather see a subway down Whittier or Vermont first, though.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Jul 1, 2011 7:50:01 GMT -8
I haven't particularly thought out the specifics, since I don't know these areas as well as I should, but what I always imagined for Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena was a sort of triangle arrangement with Burbank/Glendale as one corner, Pasadena as another, and Downtown LA as the last.
- The Gold line already runs from Los Angeles to Pasadena - A new rail line can split past Chinatown and head north-west to Glendale, then through Burbank, and down Chandler to the North Hollywood station. - A third rail line could start at North Hollywood, head east along Chandler (using the same tracks), then parallel to the 134 to Pasadena. It could meet the Gold line, and stop at the Pasadena stations, although probably turn back before the Foothill extension.
In this way, the busiest areas, Downtowns LA, Burbank/Glendale, and Pasadena, have the service of 2 rail lines. (Burbank would have LA and Pasadena bound trains, Pasadena would have Burbank and LA bound trains, and LA would have Burbank and Pasadena bound trains)
The less dense areas in between, ie Glassell Park, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, etc, would only have one rail line going through.
Of course, I have no idea what specific routings could be, or if any of that is technically possible...
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jul 5, 2011 15:48:25 GMT -8
A rapid transit line from LA to Burbank airport, along the current rail right-of-way, would be most efficient if it could use some of the existing tracks. There is already a fairly large amount of freight train traffic on this route, and some Metrolink trains, but it should be possible to run enough service with 3 tracks on most of the route and a 4th track in some places. Currently there are 3 tracks thru parts of Glendale, and in the section south of Cypress park / Elysian Valley, so we definitely need 1 to 2 more tracks in the other sections.
If we can install a modern train control system and get an FRA waiver to use light-weight, "non-compliant" trains, you could have DMUs (diesel multiple units with light rail operating specs) stopping every 1 mile with service every 10 to 15 minutes, like light rail, on 2 of the tracks. Metrolink trains and freight trains would use a third track most of the time, but could share one of the other two at times. And we would probably need a 4th track at certain sections to allow Metrolink trains and freight trains to pass. We would end up building 1 new track on average, on most of the route, with 2 tracks for a couple of miles.
This would be much cheaper than building 2 new tracks with electrification right away, and it would also help make Metrolink service more reliable, by providing more tracks to use to get around freight trains or problems. And since the Regional Connector is going to be at capacity almost from day 1, with Expo and the Blue Line having trains every 5 or 6 minutes, this new route would probably have to stop at Union Station, so there would not be much loss of options by using diesels. Perhaps Metrolink could actually run the service, as the local-stop alternative to the current limited-stop and express trains.
The problem is the FRA regulations. But many legacy commuter railroads in the northeast run service that is pretty much like this sort of "light rail" with stops every 1 mile or so.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jul 5, 2011 17:29:19 GMT -8
A rapid transit line from LA to Burbank airport, along the current rail right-of-way, would be most efficient if it could use some of the existing tracks. There is already a fairly large amount of freight train traffic on this route, and some Metrolink trains, but it should be possible to run enough service with 3 tracks on most of the route and a 4th track in some places. Currently there are 3 tracks thru parts of Glendale, and in the section south of Cypress park / Elysian Valley, so we definitely need 1 to 2 more tracks in the other sections. If we can install a modern train control system and get an FRA waiver to use light-weight, "non-compliant" trains, you could have DMUs (diesel multiple units with light rail operating specs) stopping every 1 mile with service every 10 to 15 minutes, like light rail, on 2 of the tracks. Metro has studied operating DMU service on Metrolink lines several times over the years. Most recently, in 2009, Metro concluded that operating DMU's would not be feasible due to large capital start-up costs, primarily from creating a new maintenance facility. Further, no manufacturer currently produces FRA-compliant DMU's. Simply expanding Metrolink service is the easiest and most efficient way to enhance these corridors.
|
|
dane
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by dane on Jul 6, 2011 10:40:37 GMT -8
Further, no manufacturer currently produces FRA-compliant DMU's. That's a crock! How would Metro explain this then. It says that US Railcar is FRA compliant.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 7, 2011 14:47:41 GMT -8
Using US Railcar seems a bit dicey to me. No operator currently uses US Railcar and they have no manufacturing facilities. Also, their FRA-compliant DMUs look ugly to me ;D Count me among those who consider the existing FRA regulations to be hopelessly outdated. It would be better to try to get a waiver than to build FRA-compliant tanks. If you're going to be FRA compliant, might as well go with the existing equipment. I do like the idea of beefing up the existing Metrolink service, and extra tracks are always a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 8, 2011 8:29:58 GMT -8
I've come to the conclusion that the only heavy rail extensions we will possibly see is extending the Purple Line further west to the beach, or at least to Bundy and possible extending it to the Burbank Airport and/or High-Speed Rail station, and that's it.
The rest will be light-rail, possibly grade separated, but light-rail.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 8, 2011 9:07:23 GMT -8
I've come to the conclusion that the only heavy rail extensions we will possibly see is extending the Purple Line further west to the beach, or at least to Bundy and possible extending it to the Burbank Airport and/or High-Speed Rail station, and that's it. The rest will be light-rail, possibly grade separated, but light-rail. You are probably right. I would say the Arts District station could be added to this, but that is a minor addition. Crenshaw north of Expo and 405 tunnel will be bored tunnels most likely for at least part of their length, but will be light rail. I doubt we'll ever see a Whittier Blvd. Eastside extension of the subway, but you never know. Even Burbank and Bundy, which are worth extensions face long odds right now. Take a look at the new federal transport bill that Congress has outlaid (not yet law). Urban transit is going to take a beating.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 8, 2011 9:20:38 GMT -8
You are probably right. I would say the Arts District station could be added to this, but that is a minor addition. Crenshaw north of Expo and 405 tunnel will be bored tunnels most likely for at least part of their length, but will be light rail. I doubt we'll ever see a Whittier Blvd. Eastside extension of the subway, but you never know. Even Burbank and Bundy, which are worth extensions face long odds right now. Take a look at the new federal transport bill that Congress has outlaid (not yet law). Urban transit is going to take a beating. Prior to 2005...there was little to no chance of a subway moving west of Western avenue due to Prop C (banned local sales tax funding for tunneling) and a federal ban on subway construction funding in LA. In 2011, we are months away from a westside subway extension groundbreaking. A lot of this credit is due to our visionary mayor - Antonio Villaraigosa. Like him or not, but the first thing he did was commission the methane gas study in order to prove to Henry Waxman that drilling was safe in West LA for a subway extension. It proved to Waxman that drilling was fine and in 2007, Henry Waxman overturned the federal ban. The 2nd thing Antonio did was push for Measure R. He got behind it and pushed it through to the ballot.....and it passed. If it wasn't for Antonio's vision, we wouldn't be in this position. If you saw another city doing what it was doing by overturning a federal ban and funding a sales tax primarily for transit, you would respect that city's mayor just like we should for what Antonio gave us. All we need is a visionary that people can get behind. These last 6 years with Antonio have been good (economic problems is a world-wide problem..and you cannot blame the mayor for that..when every democrat, republican or independent suffered the same), and luckily, we have 2 more years left. I just hope the next mayor will also be that visionary and continue the Measure R success (and recent biking directives he's put together). It all starts from the top. If we get another visionary like Antonio, maybe we'll get Measure R2 which will fund more transit programs, more bike lanes, etc... So don't call it quits yet Dan. Things can change. Just imagine the runt we were in back in 2004....and compare that to today.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jul 8, 2011 9:41:45 GMT -8
Prior to 2005...there was little to no chance of a subway moving west of Western avenue due to Prop C (banned local sales tax funding for tunneling) and a federal ban on subway construction funding in LA. Amen to the need for leadership. Minor note, though: Yaroslavsky's 1998 subway sales tax ban was Proposition A.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 8, 2011 14:35:05 GMT -8
No doubt we have come a long way in a few short years. Back in 05 and 06, we were looking at maybe getting Expo to the beach and possibly the Downtown Connector done in the next 20 years and that was about it. It is exciting to see what is happening now.
The next phase will see these Measure R projects actually get into construction. A lot of projects will be under construction in the next 18 months, especially considering things like Wilshire busway. Already, it is nice to see something besides Expo Phase I under construction with Expo Phase II and the Foothill Line starting to get some prelim work underway. By 2013, we'll really have a lot to track and who knows Expo Phase I might even be up and runnning ;D
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jul 8, 2011 16:44:23 GMT -8
You are probably right. I would say the Arts District station could be added to this, but that is a minor addition. Crenshaw north of Expo and 405 tunnel will be bored tunnels most likely for at least part of their length, but will be light rail. I doubt we'll ever see a Whittier Blvd. Eastside extension of the subway, but you never know. No way should we be giving up on a Whittier Blvd subway. The pieces are already starting to move into place, with plans to extend the Purple Line to the Arts District. Same with the Vermont Corridor. I still firmly believe such a line should connect with the Red Line north to Hollywood, whether by rebuilding Wilshire/Vermont or (as that one blog suggests) by building a separate platform nearby for north-south trains. Also, interestingly enough, with the Red Line diverted into a north-south alignment, a third line could replace the old slot, heading from Union Station to Hollywood with the Red Line in the west, while using the El Monte Busway and Garvey Ave to the east. This line, assuming Metro keeps its color names, could be called the "Copper Line". The benefit with this route (El Monte-Monterey Park-Union Station-Hollywood-NOHO-Burbank Airport) is that it preserves the ridership on the current Red Line alignment. Things might change until the final draft of the Transportation bill is signed into law. And I just can't imagine those changes being worse... that is, unless Obama is a weenie. Nevertheless, Republicans are indeed wasting the American people's time proposing asinine policies that, once again, heavily favor automobiles. I mean, I almost want to beat my head into a wall because I can't take it anymore...
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jul 9, 2011 1:02:58 GMT -8
No way should we be giving up on a Whittier Blvd subway. The pieces are already starting to move into place, with plans to extend the Purple Line to the Arts District. Wasn't that proposal just to make use of the maintenance tracks that are already there and build a station? It seems the tracks would still go just as far towards Whittier Blvd as they do now, but maybe a station and service to the Arts District would be a psychological advantage in people thinking about how it could be extended.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jul 9, 2011 15:27:36 GMT -8
Wasn't that proposal just to make use of the maintenance tracks that are already there and build a station? It seems the tracks would still go just as far towards Whittier Blvd as they do now, but maybe a station and service to the Arts District would be a psychological advantage in people thinking about how it could be extended. Correct. All they really need to do is to build an island platform and a pedestrian bridge connecting to the proposed One Sante Fe development. In fact, if i'm correct, the price tag would cost less than $100 Million. From here it can continue, with a portal before 4th street. Then it could tunnel under the LA River before jumping onto Whittier Blvd.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 10, 2011 12:02:02 GMT -8
I certainly wouldn't have any objections to extending the Red Line to the Arts District. Especially if they get something like this put together. Really, One Santa Fe and the new subway station ought to be built together, literally. And of course, any extension can lead to more extensions, so getting the Red Line to One Santa Fe may be the first step to Whittier. Getting back to the whole light rail vs. heavy rail issue, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the majority of Los Angeles' rail system being light rail, either. The Regional Connector will be light rail, just underground light rail, with lovely new light rail subway stations. And the same will be true of some of our new light rail extensions. It's really not all that different than Tokyo Metro being majority overhead-wire power. Nobody makes a distinction between the 3rd-rail powered Ginza Line and the overhead-wire-in-the-tunnel Hanzomon. The only real difference is the Ginza Line doesn't have the lengthy suburban commuter rail extensions. Los Angeles' situation is somewhat unique because a lot of places will want and deserve rail, but as we've seen with Crenshaw, the biggest debate will be underground vs. at-grade.
|
|