|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 25, 2011 13:39:42 GMT -8
If the Expo Line is not grade separated on Vermont, Western, Crensahaw, Overland, Westwood, Lincoln, etc... in West LA, which is congested with no available comparison in the Valley........it's not going to happen. From what i've heard from Westsidelife, all of Measure R's projects are going to be grade-separated........why couldn't this one be?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 25, 2011 14:11:11 GMT -8
If the Expo Line is not grade separated on Vermont, Western, Crensahaw, Overland, Westwood, Lincoln, etc... in West LA, which is congested with no available comparison in the Valley........it's not going to happen. So i've heard from Westsidelife, all of Measure R's projects are going to be grade-separated........why couldn't this one be? It could just all be a giant coincidence. The subway will definitely be grade-separated. The Torrance branch of the Green Line has its own ROW, and the Harbor Sub just happens to be grade-separated until it reaches Torrance Boulevard (which is beyond what they plan to do). The Foothill Line also has a ROW. Regional Connector will be underground. Actually, I'm not certain about the Crenshaw Line. Is it absolutely a given that it will be grade-separated? Because it is also a Measure R project. Anyways, what you're talking about is an absolutely gargantuan project, linking together a couple of unrelated projects, including a couple which aren't on the MTA's radar at the moment (and only peripherally related to LAX). [Santa Monica to LAX isn't on Measure R and Torrance to Long Beach isn't, either.] I can understand the frustration with the way that the MTA does things, but dividing things up into workable chunks is often the only way to do things. And occasionally the MTA does think ahead, consider that "northbound towards LAX" stub just to the west of Aviation Station. That stubby wye will be important to connecting the Green Line with LAX, or even connecting the South Bay Green Line with the Crenshaw Line.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 25, 2011 14:19:56 GMT -8
If the Expo Line is not grade separated on Vermont, Western, Crensahaw, Overland, Westwood, Lincoln, etc... in West LA, which is congested with no available comparison in the Valley........it's not going to happen. So i've heard from Westsidelife, all of Measure R's projects are going to be grade-separated........why couldn't this one be? That is not true. Expo II and Crenshaw are certainly not grade separated for their entirety. There is no requirement in Measure R that the transit projects be grade separated.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 25, 2011 14:46:06 GMT -8
So i've heard from Westsidelife, all of Measure R's projects are going to be grade-separated........why couldn't this one be? That is not true. Expo II and Crenshaw are certainly not grade separated for their entirety. There is no requirement in Measure R that the transit projects be grade separated. I'm just telling you what a knowledgeable SSP forumer told me. Maybe he meant grade separation at intersections, but I don't remember him saying that.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 25, 2011 14:53:20 GMT -8
Sorry, I was wrong. The Harbor Sub is grade-separated through the middle of central Torrance, and it is grade separated near the Galleria. (Those are the sections I'm most familiar with.) However, Redondo Beach hasn't grade separated all of their crossings.
We will probably want to have the Green Line's South Bay extension be elevated as much as possible, but since they clearly no longer plan to automate the line, it would be possible to have grade-level crossings through residential north Redondo.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 25, 2011 15:53:00 GMT -8
I'm just telling you what a knowledgeable SSP forumer told me. Maybe he meant grade separation at intersections, but I don't remember him saying that. Isn't Phase II of the Expo Line funded by Measure R? Also the Foothill Gold Line (which is NOT entirely grade separated). Also the Eastside East Gold Line potential extension, etc... Maybe you should read the Measure R litereature itself than depend on a SSP forumer.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 25, 2011 16:38:36 GMT -8
If the Expo Line is not grade separated on Vermont, Western, Crensahaw, Overland, Westwood, Lincoln, etc... in West LA, which is congested with no available comparison in the Valley........it's not going to happen. From what i've heard from Westsidelife, all of Measure R's projects are going to be grade-separated........why couldn't this one be? LOL, I never said that.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 25, 2011 16:52:40 GMT -8
From what i've heard from Westsidelife, all of Measure R's projects are going to be grade-separated........why couldn't this one be? LOL, I never said that. I don't have time to run through the LA transit threads, but YES, i'm pretty sure you DID say that.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 25, 2011 22:38:38 GMT -8
Uh, no. As someone knowledgeable, I'm pretty sure I never said that.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 25, 2011 23:40:57 GMT -8
Are we going to have to separate you two? At the very least, we really ought to separate this conversation from the one about LAX. (Shove it into the Valley-Westside discussion if you have to.) As far as LAX's planning process is concerned, it doesn't really matter if trains run from Crenshaw to the South Bay or from Norwalk to LAX or both. What matters is whether there is a light rail station at Aviation/ Century or a light rail station at Lot C. For the time being, I think the best solution would be light rail to Aviation/ Century, and peoplemover from there. The Crenshaw Line, the Green Line to LAX and the Green Line to Torrance are part of Measure R. Those are the only rail lines with a chance of being included in LAX's immediate plans, although I certainly hope that a Lincoln/ Sepulveda or some such line can be included in the future. For now, I would recommend another "stub wye" at Aviation at Century to replace the one at Aviation and Imperial, this one facing west towards Lot C and towards Westchester.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Mar 26, 2011 10:26:50 GMT -8
From what I've heard Metro prefers to build the station at Aviation/Century. I think that makes perfect sense for a people mover connection, a Lincoln Bl line could always use Arbor Vitae-Westchester to get to Lincoln.
I admit though, it'd be sort of sad for me to see LAX City Bus Center go -- but at the same time I'll be happy because that is a terrible place to wait for a bus at night, nothing blocks the wind so it's seriously windy & cold at times. Aviation/Century will have structures around it to block the wind! And then there's Aviation Station itself, I suspect it'll turn into a ghost town like the other western Green Line stations after Aviation/Century opens.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 26, 2011 11:42:05 GMT -8
Depending on how they route LAX/ Crenshaw/ Torrance/ Norwalk-bound trains, Aviation Station could still end up serving an important role as a transfer station. Metro may or may not want trains going in all directions. I'm willing to wait and see on that decision. However, I agree that without the transfer, there's not much at Aviation/ Imperial to attract much attention. El Segundo has done plenty to retool their business districts after the Cold War aerospace bust, so it's ironic that they haven't made better use of the stations they have. I do hope that Aviation/ Century becomes a major station, along the lines of a 7th/ Metro or even a Union Station (although not as monumental as that). At the very least, they should be able to do better than the bus center
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 26, 2011 11:54:41 GMT -8
From what I've heard Metro prefers to build the station at Aviation/Century. I think that makes perfect sense for a people mover connection, a Lincoln Bl line could always use Arbor Vitae-Westchester to get to Lincoln. I admit though, it'd be sort of sad for me to see LAX City Bus Center go -- but at the same time I'll be happy because that is a terrible place to wait for a bus at night, nothing blocks the wind so it's seriously windy & cold at times. Aviation/Century will have structures around it to block the wind! And then there's Aviation Station itself, I suspect it'll turn into a ghost town like the other western Green Line stations after Aviation/Century opens. Just like how Metro is going to be re-deploying the buses from Washington/Fairfax terminal to either Expo/La Cienega or Venice/Robertson stations once Expo Line is built, there's no need for bus transfer stations that have no rail connection. I'd say the same thing for Pico/Rimpau once the Crenshaw Line goes north of Expo.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 6, 2011 14:02:19 GMT -8
I don't post like I used to, but Aviation/Imperial will always be more freeway-adjacent than Century/Aviation, and will always have some future as an intersection to the 405, 105 and two rail lines once this project is finished.
That said, Century/Aviation will be a major jobs center.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 6, 2011 14:35:15 GMT -8
^ Welcome back Ken! You make a good point: a lot of regional buses do currently stop at Imperial/Aviation, due to the proximity of the freeways.
However, Century/Aviation isn't too far of a relocation. And by relocating the buses to Century/Aviation, bus riders can transfer directly to/from the Green Line, Crenshaw Line and LAX PeopleMover (as opposed to just the Green Line).
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 6, 2011 17:55:16 GMT -8
From what I've heard Metro prefers to build the station at Aviation/Century. I think that makes perfect sense for a people mover connection, a Lincoln Bl line could always use Arbor Vitae-Westchester to get to Lincoln. I admit though, it'd be sort of sad for me to see LAX City Bus Center go -- but at the same time I'll be happy because that is a terrible place to wait for a bus at night, nothing blocks the wind so it's seriously windy & cold at times. Aviation/Century will have structures around it to block the wind! And then there's Aviation Station itself, I suspect it'll turn into a ghost town like the other western Green Line stations after Aviation/Century opens. Just like how Metro is going to be re-deploying the buses from Washington/Fairfax terminal to either Expo/La Cienega or Venice/Robertson stations once Expo Line is built, there's no need for bus transfer stations that have no rail connection. I'd say the same thing for Pico/Rimpau once the Crenshaw Line goes north of Expo. Pico/Rimpau's days are numbered anyways, given that BBB wants to route the 7 and Rapid 7 to the Wilshire/Western Purple Line stop. /tangent
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Apr 6, 2011 21:07:46 GMT -8
Just like how Metro is going to be re-deploying the buses from Washington/Fairfax terminal to either Expo/La Cienega or Venice/Robertson stations once Expo Line is built, there's no need for bus transfer stations that have no rail connection. I'd say the same thing for Pico/Rimpau once the Crenshaw Line goes north of Expo. Pico/Rimpau's days are numbered anyways, given that BBB wants to route the 7 and Rapid 7 to the Wilshire/Western Purple Line stop. /tangent Only the rapid 7 would be routed to Wilshire/Western using the new articulated buses. But you are right about the days probably being numbered: Line 5 is going to be rerouted down Robinson to serve the Venice/Robinson station Line 13 is going to be canceled Line 7 is all that will be left from BBB
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 7, 2011 5:34:52 GMT -8
^ Robinson Robertson.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Apr 7, 2011 7:24:54 GMT -8
Yep, just the MTA 30 and 730 and SM 7 ending at Rimpau. It would make sense one day to have one line on Pico from downtown L. A., but I don't see it happening. MTA is in contraction mode, rather than expansion, so I don't see the 30 going all the way to Santa Monica (only selected trips, as some will be going to W. Hollywood via San Vicente). That would be too long a trip from East L. A. anyway, and I don't see MTA splitting the route (i.e. 30 Santa Monica-->Union Station/Term 31, then a line 69? East 1st-Broadway/Venice (Terminal 28). OTOH, I don't know if Santa Monica wants to run local all the way to downtown L. A. So it will be probably be the status quo for the forseeable future.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Apr 7, 2011 12:18:07 GMT -8
Yep, just the MTA 30 and 730 and SM 7 ending at Rimpau. It would make sense one day to have one line on Pico from downtown L. A., but I don't see it happening. MTA is in contraction mode, rather than expansion, so I don't see the 30 going all the way to Santa Monica (only selected trips, as some will be going to W. Hollywood via San Vicente). That would be too long a trip from East L. A. anyway, and I don't see MTA splitting the route (i.e. 30 Santa Monica-->Union Station/Term 31, then a line 69? East 1st-Broadway/Venice (Terminal 28). OTOH, I don't know if Santa Monica wants to run local all the way to downtown L. A. So it will be probably be the status quo for the forseeable future. Didn't metro propose canceling the 730 as part of the service changes for June?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 7, 2011 13:43:38 GMT -8
Metro 30 and 330 will continue to use Rimpau but some of those buses will also continue to West Hollywood via San Vicente. We have a entire thread devoted to Expo line bus changes so if anyone feels like furthering this discussion please post in the right thread.
As for Century/Aviation, it is much better location for bus terminal than either 96th Street or Imperial. 96th Street will be redundant once Century/Aviation is open; and Imperial has always been out of the way for most buses. I can see BBB and Century City Bus eliminating the Imperial stop once trains start running to Century/Aviation. This will shave off 25 minutes (about 12 minutes each way) of total run time for BBB3 or CC6 that is highly unproductive running between Century and Imperial because no one ever boards between Imperial and Century.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Aug 25, 2011 8:00:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Aug 25, 2011 10:51:30 GMT -8
Is anyone else attending the public meeting at Metro HQ today?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 26, 2011 14:36:21 GMT -8
It will be interesting to see what comes out of this. I think a direct light rail station within LAX needs to be studied for costs in the AA phase along with a people mover. Some benefits of a direct linkage would be one less transfer, no additional maintenance of people mover vehicles and system, and of course faster mostly due to the lack of a transfer. The main con is cost and the fact that LAWA will probably want Metro to pay for most if not all of the cost. Also, a direct connection would require moving sidewalks to get to the terminals (although the airport is actually pretty small and the terminals are really close together so this is not impossible). Also, it would create some complexity in that an airport station is not on the way to the South Bay so Green and Crenshaw Lines may have to split or the Crenshaw passengers would have to transfer at Century/Aviation. This is further compounded if there is ever a 405 corridor line. Ditto for a Harbor Sub Line. All in all, the way our Metro system is laid out and the way the city is laid out, I don't think we'll have the greatest airport connection like Chicago or other cities. Nevertheless, it will be a good connection for airport employees - many of whom live along the Green and Crenshaw Lines. The airport is a major employer so this shouldn't be discounted. Unfortunately, the average Joe doesn't care about this and only sees it through the one or two times they go to the airport each year. I do notice that some of these airport connections around the country only have marginal ridership. BART's SFO extension doesn't seem to really push their numbers much even though people seem to like that connection. I am going to wait until the AA to determine what I'd support. Thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Aug 26, 2011 18:40:55 GMT -8
Some benefits of a direct linkage would be one less transfer, no additional maintenance of people mover vehicles and system, and of course faster mostly due to the lack of a transfer. Well, it would be faster only for those people traveling to the airport. Metro/LAWA will have to crunch the numbers what the aggregate time saved would be. Because I'm wary of a direct connection, because of the detours and complexity it would add to the system.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Aug 26, 2011 19:03:41 GMT -8
I would rather have the transfer to a people mover.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 26, 2011 20:35:32 GMT -8
I would rather have the transfer to a people mover. That sounds to be the preferred method from the reports of the meeting. People will have their opinions, but most likely, the People Mover looks to have the best chance of winning support.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Aug 26, 2011 21:57:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Aug 27, 2011 1:03:26 GMT -8
I think a people mover makes the most sense, but I worry it will be the same situation as the AirTrain at JFK where they charge $5 just to get to the metro station, followed by another fare to get where you want to go in the city. That's still worlds better than no transit connection at all, though.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 27, 2011 6:36:17 GMT -8
I think the people mover starting at the Aviation/Century light rail station is the way to go. This presumes that both the Green and Crenshaw lines stop at that station, which I believe is the plan. The problem with having a light rail stop directly at LAX is that because the terminals are so spread out, anyone getting off at an LAX stop would still need to transfer to the A bus to get to their terminal of choice, either that or have a nice long walk. Anyone not going to LAX has to put up with the extra time to divert to LAX. If the light rail also stops at say a parking lot, then the delay is even longer. The beauty of a correctly designed people mover, is that it is a seamless transfer from the light rail at Century/Aviation. The people mover would be automated, so could be timed to meet all arriving light rail trains to allow for a very easy transfer. The other benefit of the people mover is that it can hit multiple locations in and outside the airport, to provide maximum benefit. Having it stop at several terminals, remote parking lots, and even Century hotels would be the ideal scenario. Per the plan, the same light rail and people mover stop at Century/Aviation would be the location of the rental car facility. This would basically remove all the rental car buses from the terminal area. The design also needs to choose a route that would allow for easy future expansion, not assuming that the planned system once built will remain forever fixed. This is so that should future condition warrant an expansion, it could be done at minimal cost. Say a hotel wants to have a stop added. They could be given the option of paying for the short bypass to their property. A direct link from the airport to your hotel is a very big selling point. LAWA and Metro should be looking into private participation from the very beginning. While a people mover spur doesn't come cheap, you have to wonder what it costs those nice hotels to have a fleet of vehicles and drivers running to LAX picking up and dropping off passengers, let alone the gas costs. The other benefit of a properly designed "modern automated system" is that the individual vehicles wouldn't necessarily need to stop at every station. It would almost be a PRT system. If there is no one on a particular train going to the Marriott hotel, and no one at the Marriott hotel needs to be picked up, that spur track is bypassed by that one train. It could be semi-PRT, since many if not most of the stops would always have the vehicles stop, like at the airport terminal stations which wouldn't be on spur tracks but be single tracked. The Curbed article says there would be "3 or 5" people mover stops within the airport. Lets hope that they end up with the 5 instead of the 3. I look forward to seeing the future plans. The danger here, as always, is that they get it "almost right". That being, they decide to build the people mover, but to save $0.05 they only put in 3 LAX stops, no Century hotel stops, and no Lot C stop. The "lesson learned" from that will be that again they didn't do it right, and that even though we finally have our long awaited "transit link to LAX", we find that again it doesn't go where it needs to really go (i.e. terminals, parking, hotels). Please just do it right for once RT
|
|