|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 24, 2012 18:57:51 GMT -8
Tom LaBonge wanted an extension to the Arts District. I just don't see either of these happening. And it can't head to East LA AFTER it hits the Arts District?? seriously that's wrong-headed. Why would you lessen the demand for a Purple Line extension to Whittier with a half-assed Gold Line extension down Washington Blvd? |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Apr 24, 2012 22:17:20 GMT -8
City of Whittier via Garfield Av. to Washington Bl.?!? City of South El Monte via the 60 frwy?!? Say no to bad transit planning! I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only Eastside extension that made any sense (to me anyways) was the one that would have taken the Gold Line north on Atlantic, to east on Garvey, to north on Santa Anita to the El Monte Bus Station and maybe even the El Monte Metrolink Station. It's really too bad that option was killed off.
The Eastside has been shortchanged far too many times and it would only be right that since the Westside is getting both a LRT line and a HRT subway line (cross your fingers!) that the east also get a HRT subway line to match the west. If not, I'd be very content to have Florence Av. developed into a HRT subway line that fed straight into LAX. So what if going east it has to cross the L.A. River, the Rio Hondo River, and the San Gabriel River. We have the technology to safely dig under them or bridge over them.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 25, 2012 5:58:13 GMT -8
I would say Vermont Ave. for HRT, but, since there would need to be a transfer both at the Red line and Green line, I think LRT underground would work just as well. I would still choose HRT if the cost was about the same. For the Eastside, I am not sure if any proposal so far makes much sense, except HRT from Union Station to Whittier. Where else for HRT? A Red line extension to BUR and North county.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 25, 2012 8:39:22 GMT -8
Why would you lessen the demand for a Purple Line extension to Whittier with a half-assed Gold Line extension down Washington Blvd? I wouldn't. But I am speaking about what I imagine to be politically feasible. I just don't see the money for any Red/Purple Line extensions except perhaps all the way to Santa Monica someday. After that, I think Metro is going to focus solely on light-rail and light-rail can be grade separated too. I hope you prove me wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 25, 2012 8:45:11 GMT -8
The Eastside has been shortchanged far too many times and it would only be right that since the Westside is getting both a LRT line and a HRT subway line (cross your fingers!) that the east also get a HRT subway line to match the west. I have a hard time seeing the San Gabriel Valley as "shortchanged" when it is likely to get at least 2 to 3 light-rail extensions and the San Fernando Valley is probably going to get measly busways dumped on it. If you want to make the argument about westside versus eastside, and I am sure Gloria Molina's successor will, then I hope the eastside would accept the same level of density on Whittier Blvd. that exists on Wilshire Blvd. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Apr 25, 2012 9:33:45 GMT -8
Vermont Av. Isn't it one of those tier something or other projects? The station at Wilshire/Vermont was created in a way where it would allow the Vermont Red Line (we may need a new color here) to continue south as a continuous line from North Hlwd to the Green Line. Lakewood/Rosemead is wide enough to handle LRT line, but I think Downey is still trying to make sense of the Green Line.
Atlantic Av. would probably make a good HRT subway line. From Alhambra to Long Beach, it's always packed with cars, it's not particularly wide enough for LRT, and there's always someone at the bus stops looking to go somewhere even late into the night. It would get a little tricky running it north of Huntington Drive, but then again, does it really need to go north of Valley Bl.? To the south, it would just end up in Long Beach. From Valley Bl. to the Long Beach Convention Center, exclusively along Atlantic Av., is 23.4 miles. What would the cost be for this endeavor, out of curiosity?
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 25, 2012 10:11:22 GMT -8
Vermont Av. Isn't it one of those tier something or other projects? The station at Wilshire/Vermont was created in a way where it would allow the Vermont Red Line (we may need a new color here) to continue south as a continuous line from North Hlwd to the Green Line. Lakewood/Rosemead is wide enough to handle LRT line, but I think Downey is still trying to make sense of the Green Line. Atlantic Av. would probably make a good HRT subway line. From Alhambra to Long Beach, it's always packed with cars, it's not particularly wide enough for LRT, and there's always someone at the bus stops looking to go somewhere even late into the night. It would get a little tricky running it north of Huntington Drive, but then again, does it really need to go north of Valley Bl.? To the south, it would just end up in Long Beach. From Valley Bl. to the Long Beach Convention Center, exclusively along Atlantic Av., is 23.4 miles. What would the cost be for this endeavor, out of curiosity? Construction costs completely depend on the local circumstances. If you want a rough estimate of costs per mile, you can get one here: lrt.daxack.ca/blog/?p=26It's for Toronto, so you have to convert from Canadian to US and km to miles, but it should give a rough idea. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 25, 2012 14:10:45 GMT -8
Wilshire/Vermont would not accommodate a seamless extension for a Vermont line as discussed on this board, you would need to transfer. And it could not connect to the Green line without a transfer, unless it is built as light rail (and maybe not even then).
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 25, 2012 19:10:00 GMT -8
If not, I'd be very content to have Florence Av. developed into a HRT subway line that fed straight into LAX. So what if going east it has to cross the L.A. River, the Rio Hondo River, and the San Gabriel River. We have the technology to safely dig under them or bridge over them. Good point. Or you could save even more money and build OVER the LA river. Actually, that gives me an idea. Going back to a Purple Line extension to Whittier... if it weren't too far along in the process, you could try integrating it with the future 6th Street Bridge replacement bridge, possibly by making it a double-deck, with the HRT trains occupying the lower level. Are there any examples of such bridges in New York or Chicago? Wilshire/Vermont would not accommodate a seamless extension for a Vermont line as discussed on this board, you would need to transfer. And it could not connect to the Green line without a transfer, unless it is built as light rail (and maybe not even then). Yes, but you could still build a separate platform, like what is proposed on wilshirevermont.com. I really don't see why that can't be done. I mean, sure i'm no expert, but wouldn't all you have to do is build a platform between Wilshire and 7th, and have the Vermont tunnels dive under the EXISTING station and connect to the Red Line tunnels? And please, don't tell me it would be disruptive to existing DTLA-NoHo services. We were perfectly fine with tying in the Expo Line with the Blue Line (which is the second busiest line in system and has more than half as much ridership as the Red Line). As a matter of fact, logically, the latter is worse than what the former could be, because with the Red Line you could link one tunnel at a time and have trains from the tunnel being linked temporarily sharing tracks with the other and then vice versa..... whereas with the Blue-Expo tie in, you had to build the whole junction AT ONCE... ABOVE GROUND... WITH CAR TRAFFIC. Actually, building another platform to the south could also open up opportunities for portals (and future development) on some of the parking lots on 7th and New Hampshire. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Apr 25, 2012 23:16:14 GMT -8
Dan, Dan, when I write "Eastside" I'm referring to East Los Angele. To my knowledge East Los Angeles is not a part of the SGV, it's just unincorporated Los Angeles, east. So when I wrote that the Eastside has been short changed, I'm writing "Thanks for throwing East L.A. a bone with the Gold Line. How about throwing the area a steak in the form of the subway that was hyped so much but never materialized!"
So because Whittier Bl. in East L.A. is not full of high rise office buildings or mass numbers of planned unit developments or condos, that makes it less dense? Do you even know what's behind all those failing mom and pop shops on Whittier Bl.? Houses with 2, 3, and sometimes even 4 generations all cohabitating in the same dwelling. And that's not density? I just looked at a density map and East L.A. is pretty densely packed.
jdcrasher: I had no idea the 6th St. bridge was going to be replaced. Reconstructing it in a way that would allow for future rail transit expansion is a capital idea...four (4) tracks if you please LOL!
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Apr 26, 2012 6:50:44 GMT -8
Actually, that gives me an idea. Going back to a Purple Line extension to Whittier... if it weren't too far along in the process, you could try integrating it with the future 6th Street Bridge replacement bridge, possibly by making it a double-deck, with the HRT trains occupying the lower level. Are there any examples of such bridges in New York or Chicago? Sounds like the Manhattan Bridge. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 26, 2012 8:39:34 GMT -8
Dan, Dan, when I write "Eastside" I'm referring to East Los Angele. To my knowledge East Los Angeles is not a part of the SGV, it's just unincorporated Los Angeles, east. So when I wrote that the Eastside has been short changed, I'm writing "Thanks for throwing East L.A. a bone with the Gold Line. How about throwing the area a steak in the form of the subway that was hyped so much but never materialized!" So because Whittier Bl. in East L.A. is not full of high rise office buildings or mass numbers of planned unit developments or condos, that makes it less dense? Do you even know what's behind all those failing mom and pop shops on Whittier Bl.? Houses with 2, 3, and sometimes even 4 generations all cohabitating in the same dwelling. And that's not density? I just looked at a density map and East L.A. is pretty densely packed. Thank you for clarifying what you meant by "Eastside". Different people mean different things. "Westside" also differs depending on to what is being refered. If you can get the Red and/or Purple Line extended to Whittier Blvd more power to you. If the studies indicate the ridership is there for a Whittier Blvd. extension, great. However, if the Red/Purple Line is extended, I would expect that several of those failing "mom and pop" stores would be eventually replaced by other types of development. ----------------- Since we are talking about HRT as a technology on this thread. We also need to clarify that HRT and "subway" are not necessarily the same thing. The Regional Connector will be a LRT subway. The Crenshaw/LAX Line will run grade separated in places. In New York and London the HRT rail runs above ground outside of downtown/midtown Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn. A thread about where there should be underground rail is not necessarily the same thread as where there should be HRT rail. They will mostly overlap, but they are not exactly the same. ---------- And if the Red/Purple HRT Lines are to extended on Whittier, how should that effect the Gold Line eastside extension? It would be great if Metro said, because our long-range transportation plan includes extending the Red/Purple Lines east via Whittier Blvd., we believe the Gold Line extension should be ___________. ----------- If a seemless ride on the Red/Purple Line south on Vermont isn't feasible, I could see the Vermont project as a LRT subway coming above ground at some point as it extends south. |
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Apr 26, 2012 9:58:26 GMT -8
HRT from CAL STATE Domingues Hills under ground to the artesia transit center have pop up above ground along Vermont where its wide enough then underground where the wide part ends then go diagnally from washington Vermont to Alvarado up to silver lake en end in glendale at the Galleria
if not HRT LRT then
we need to connect all the universities to transit
CSUDH is also the home to the Home Deopt center which would generate trips on game days
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on May 17, 2012 1:14:08 GMT -8
I would say the 405 corridor between the Valley and the Westside, and the 5 Freeway Corridor from Downtown to Norwalk or OC (this was part of the original 1990 vision for heavy rail). These lines would be more like BART, being mostly at-grade or elevated.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 19, 2012 8:43:50 GMT -8
Western Av. would also make a great HRT line. It could be started at the Red Line Western Station south, slight left onto Anaheim St., then south again onto Gaffey St., left onto 6th St. Accounting for a terminus on 6th St./Harbor Bl., the distance is 26.2 miles.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 19, 2012 17:02:49 GMT -8
I see Vermont more than Western, although oth are great. I would not use heavy rail, and would connect Wilshire/Vermont with the Green line. Western as HRT wold be nice as well, although the two are so close.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 20, 2012 13:57:07 GMT -8
I just read in the L.A. Times today that the L.A. City Council voted 13-0 in favor of increasing density in Hollywood around Red Line stations and Sunset Bl. around Vine St. Residents of the Hollywood Hills are up in arms!
Anyways, is anyone in favor of the former Pink Line concept running along Sunset Bl./Av. César Chávez into DTLA now instead of routing it onto the Red Line to share tracks (I think Metro has learned not to do this again since the Expo Line opened) or having a dead end terminus on Highland/Hollywood Bl.? It's true that the lines would be ½ a mile apart from each other in the Hollywood vicinity, but they'd only be duplicating service between Highland Av. and Vermont Av. The Sunset Bl./Pink Line seems a little more organic than the Red Lines routing.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 20, 2012 19:16:22 GMT -8
I don't think it would be shard tracks at highland for a Pink line, it would be a transfer. I'm all for Sunset to DTLA, But I doubt it will happen, or at least not for a long time. The original Silver Line interests me more, DTLA along C.C./Sunset to Vermont/Santa Monica win a transfer.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 20, 2012 22:14:42 GMT -8
I was all for the old Silver Line concept. The only thing I didn't like was it stopping at Vermont Av. I always thought and continue to believe there is a lot of potential for ridership on Santa Monica Bl. west of Vermont Av. to at least West Ho.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jun 22, 2012 17:25:08 GMT -8
I personally think it's easier and more feasible to extend heavy rail out to the outlying areas via at-grade/elevated/surface below grade alignments.
I know CA HSR is still up in the air right now, but assuming it does get built, you would have a duplication of Metrolink service from Union Station to Lancaster.
In that scenario, eliminate the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line (or have Metrolink own HSR equipment to run on the line) and use the rest of the ROW from Burbank to Santa Clarita for the Red Line on a surface alignment. Of course that would involve extending the Red Line from North Hollywood to Burbank Airport first.
One corridor I'd like to see get heavy rail that isn't mentioned yet is San Gabriel Valley. The SGV is growing with a lot of businesses, especially restaurants, and it's getting densified with more multistory residential developments. In 50 years it's going to look a lot different. Both the Foothill and Eastside light rail projects totally miss this part of the SGV, perhaps it should have a heavy rail line that's part-subway, part-elevated running through the SGV.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 22, 2012 21:45:53 GMT -8
One corridor I'd like to see get heavy rail that isn't mentioned yet is San Gabriel Valley. The SGV is growing with a lot of businesses, especially restaurants, and it's getting densified with more multistory residential developments. In 50 years it's going to look a lot different. Both the Foothill and Eastside light rail projects totally miss this part of the SGV, perhaps it should have a heavy rail line that's part-subway, part-elevated running through the SGV. How about Garvey or Valley? |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 22, 2012 21:57:20 GMT -8
One corridor I'd like to see get heavy rail that isn't mentioned yet is San Gabriel Valley. The SGV is growing with a lot of businesses, especially restaurants, and it's getting densified with more multistory residential developments. In 50 years it's going to look a lot different. Both the Foothill and Eastside light rail projects totally miss this part of the SGV, perhaps it should have a heavy rail line that's part-subway, part-elevated running through the SGV. How about Garvey or Valley? Don't forget Huntington Drive, Huntington Dr./Main St./Las Tunas Dr., and Huntington Dr./Fair Oaks Av., although the Gold Line does currently cover Pasadena after Glenarm St. I'm not a fan at all of Mission Drive or the trench it parallels so I just mention it in passing. |
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jun 23, 2012 1:06:22 GMT -8
How about Garvey or Valley? Don't forget Huntington Drive, Huntington Dr./Main St./Las Tunas Dr., and Huntington Dr./Fair Oaks Av., although the Gold Line does currently cover Pasadena after Glenarm St. I'm not a fan at all of Mission Drive or the trench it parallels so I just mention it in passing. Huntington will never be a heavy rail corridor, and even unlikely as a light rail corridor. You're not gonna see much ridership here. It's nearly all residential, save for a few spots. I know the PE used to run through here, hence the median, but you're gonna have a loud (rich) NIMBY contingent who will fight anything built here tooth and nail. But unlike the Beverly Hills situation, this is not going to be countered with a great need or high ridership. Heck, I would probably agree with the NIMBYs in this case! |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 25, 2012 14:49:06 GMT -8
Huntington Drive, from South Pasadena and on, had its day. It accomplished its goal which was to get people out there to see and purchase property.
I think a modern Alhambra-San Gabriel Line along Huntington Dr./Main St./Las Tunas Dr. has some potential. This is where I'm going to sound like a broken record, but Alhambra did pour a lot of money into making Main St. as trendy as it's becoming. The next big commercial build-out isn't until Rosemead Bl. So I guess the question is, would you build this line for a station on Eastern Av. (to serve El Sereno along the way), Atlantic Av., and Rosemead Bl.? Probably not. Then there's always the question of Garvey Av., but as an extension off the East L.A. Gold Line, it's already been killed off. That leaves Valley Bl. Is it resistance on Metro's part or resistance from the cities along Valley Bl. that have kept it from being considered? For all I know, it may be an idea that was already presented and shot down.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 25, 2012 16:58:15 GMT -8
Then there's always the question of Garvey Av., but as an extension off the East L.A. Gold Line, it's already been killed off. The reason why is not because of opposition in Monterey Park (quite the opposite), but because of heavy lobbying in Whittier. With the East LA Gold Line, you would really have had to go out of your way to serve the south SGV. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 25, 2012 17:00:43 GMT -8
I am for an Atlantic Blvd. route from the Gold line to the Green line, or something like that. This is a corridor that cannot be overlooked. But I wold not commit to HRT or LRT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 26, 2012 8:03:31 GMT -8
I am currently not in favor of using HRT for anything other than in extensions and spurs of the existing Red and Purple Lines, because of the higher cost when we have so many higher-density parts of the county without Metrorail at all.
That said, that is a totally different discussion than where one would include a light-rail subway or above ground passage. Grade separation is not the same thing necessarily as HRT v. LRT.
If a 4-car LRT train as a subway or above-grade passage can cover the corridor with connecting to at-grade LRT, that should also be considered.
But am always open to learning something new that will change my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 29, 2012 13:25:01 GMT -8
I am currently not in favor of using HRT for anything other than in extensions and spurs of the existing Red and Purple Lines, because of the higher cost when we have so many higher-density parts of the county without Metrorail at . Something about this isn't resonating with me. You're saying there's a need so let's not use the more expensive technology except to go beyond the current dead ends or to make short extensions off what is currently there or will be there. The only qualifying corridors would be Whittier Bl. and Vermont Av. Supposing there is also a great need on Atlantic Av. Do you wait for the Purple Line extension into East L.A. and then make a spur south under Atlantic Av. into Southgate to meet up with the Santa Ana Branch off of Firestone Bl.? If that spur is successful, do you then build a second spur north under Atlantic Av. to Valley Bl.? From the way Metro likes to build, these two spurs will never join to make a through running Alhambra-Southgate Line under Atlantic Av. To prove it, look at Vermont Station of the Purple/Red Lines. Will the Vermont corridor south ever truly be integrated to created a through-running line (Green Line to North Hollywood Stn.)? |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 29, 2012 13:55:27 GMT -8
I am currently not in favor of using HRT for anything other than in extensions and spurs of the existing Red and Purple Lines, because of the higher cost when we have so many higher-density parts of the county without Metrorail at . Something about this isn't resonating with me. You're saying there's a need so let's not use the more expensive technology except to go beyond the current dead ends or to make short extensions off what is currently there or will be there. The only qualifying corridors would be Whittier Bl. and Vermont Av. This isn’t true. As I noted in the very first post, there are other areas that could benefit from HRT, including Glendale (via Vermont, Los Feliz, and Brand), Sylmar (via Lankershim or Laurel Canyon and San Fernando), El Monte (via the El Monte Busway). Another could also be La Puente (via Alhambra trench, if this leg of the Silver Line were to never happen). However, all these examples fall under what Dan said in the first place – they are all branches of the existing HRT lines. Almost every other area of Los Angeles is planned to have or already has LRT. The only exception would be the 405 line, but since it will likely interline with some kind of LRT in the future (be it the Green Line or the Crenshaw Line), it makes no sense to build it as HRT. L.A. had its shot with HRT and to some degree, whiffed; the Purple Line was stopped dead in its tracks (no pun intended) and the Red Line, despite being finished on time and under budget, was the last time any HRT was attempted. L.A. chose to go cheaper with light-rail for the majority of its system. That’s fine, but it’s often not as fast or attractive as HRT is and creates additional problems with speed, efficiency, and safety (as we’ve seen with the Gold, Blue, and Expo Lines). The exception to this would be the Green Line, but only because it’s fully grade-separated. In fact, not to get off-topic, does anyone know why light-rail was chosen for the Blue and Green lines over HRT? Was it purely just because of cost? |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 2, 2012 13:25:20 GMT -8
OK, whatever Metro intends to pursue, I hope they don't botch it! They've botched it enough with the SFV Orange Line, Zev Yaroslavsky alluded to conversion to rail line if it sustains its success. Then there's the East L.A. Gold Line, a poor substitute for a HRT subway that never materialized (fingers crossed that the connector will make the Gold Line the backbone of transit in East L.A.)
I fear for our burgeoning rail transit system when corridors like Vermont should logically continue south from Wilshire Bl. as HRT. but then ideas about making that part of the corridor LRT, connected to a rogue tunnel that pops up in Glassell Park to get Glendale, abound. Where does that leave the integrity of the one seat ride along Vermont Av.? On a bus with the Bus Riders Union! I'm glad to have the rail transit system we have, but Metro is still in its rail transit infancy after it choked off the PE/LARy lines. Not everything can be built as HRT, but the same thing can be said of LRT. We can thank the MTA board from the early 80's for the Blue Line being LRT. The board felt the line was destined to fail, so rather than invest in HRT, they went with the cheaper LRT so that when the line had to be scrapped, they wouldn't have wasted resources and money. In fact, it was a success, despite the fact that Willow Station was the temporary terminus until the Long Beach Bl. portion and loop were completed. Metro needs to get it right the first time because on top of do-overs being death sentences for rail transit, L.A. is starkly unforgiving and very capricious.
|
|
