|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 24, 2014 12:29:06 GMT -8
I'd largely agree with that. I think the Gateway Cities would want a full Santa Ana Corridor much more than a Green Line Extension to Metrolink. No one down there seems to care much for the Green Line Extension, even though it is a great regional project. Also, the South Bay is going to need something. Probably a Green Line (to me this should really be the Crenshaw Line though) Extension further into the region. Measure R has $272M allocated for a southern extension of the Green/Crenshaw Lines to Torrance. The Green Line and Crenshaw Line will share all stations south of Mariposa station.
|
|
|
Post by skater on Jan 24, 2014 13:15:22 GMT -8
I agree the South Bay needs something, but the problem is the only viable projects are extensions to either Long Beach or San Pedro, both of which I think would be way too expensive. Santa Ana is covered under Measure R, though perhaps a Phase 2 could be incorporated, if the entire corridor isn't covered. That said, South L.A. would already be covered with the Green and Crenshaw extensions. And while I understand the appeal of Burbank Airport as an extension of the Red Line, I still can't quite get behind it - namely since it's rather poor location for a terminus and will be difficult to extend elsewhere from that area. The Valley Plaza route, on the other hand, has potential to connect to two Metrolink lines (a future northward extension would reach the Antelope Valley Line), serves a very transit-dependent area, and will be less expensive since you could build almost all of it above ground (elevated over Laurel Canyon). yeah I agree with you here. Extending the red line to burbank airport gets too much importance. I don't think the ridership is there for HRT. The money would be better spent on an arts district station or extending the line towards the eastside under Whittier. Could it be possible to have a city of LA only tax? because there are a lot of people saying "metro is LA centric" the truth is that the metro rail system should obviously be LA centric, but it isn't fair to have all of the projects in LA on a countywide tax, so maybe a tax only in LA and maybe excluding the SFV would be an idea.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 24, 2014 13:19:10 GMT -8
I'd largely agree with that. I think the Gateway Cities would want a full Santa Ana Corridor much more than a Green Line Extension to Metrolink. No one down there seems to care much for the Green Line Extension, even though it is a great regional project. Also, the South Bay is going to need something. Probably a Green Line (to me this should really be the Crenshaw Line though) Extension further into the region. Measure R has $272M allocated for a southern extension of the Green/Crenshaw Lines to Torrance. The Green Line and Crenshaw Line will share all stations south of Mariposa station. True, but what I was saying is that they would want a further extension in 2016 Measure (maybe to the 110/Silver Line). The South Bay or any region would make a fuss if every region has a project on the list except theirs.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 24, 2014 13:32:29 GMT -8
I agree the South Bay needs something, but the problem is the only viable projects are extensions to either Long Beach or San Pedro, both of which I think would be way too expensive. Santa Ana is covered under Measure R, though perhaps a Phase 2 could be incorporated, if the entire corridor isn't covered. That said, South L.A. would already be covered with the Green and Crenshaw extensions. And while I understand the appeal of Burbank Airport as an extension of the Red Line, I still can't quite get behind it - namely since it's rather poor location for a terminus and will be difficult to extend elsewhere from that area. The Valley Plaza route, on the other hand, has potential to connect to two Metrolink lines (a future northward extension would reach the Antelope Valley Line), serves a very transit-dependent area, and will be less expensive since you could build almost all of it above ground (elevated over Laurel Canyon). yeah I agree with you here. Extending the red line to burbank airport gets too much importance. I don't think the ridership is there for HRT. The money would be better spent on an arts district station or extending the line towards the eastside under Whittier. Could it be possible to have a city of LA only tax? because there are a lot of people saying "metro is LA centric" the truth is that the metro rail system should obviously be LA centric, but it isn't fair to have all of the projects in LA on a countywide tax, so maybe a tax only in LA and maybe excluding the SFV would be an idea. I am not as big of an airport/transit connection supporter as many people, but connecting Burbank Airport would be a pretty big deal IMHO. Granted it is a small airport, but not insignificant. It is one of the very few real destinations in the SFV that is compact and could even be served by transit. Also, it would be the first place possible to link up with the two Metrolink lines here, although I realize they are on different sides of the airport so that will be a little tricky. I don't see the Red Line ever being expanded beyond this anyway. The "Subway to Sylmar" is not the same as Subway to the Sea and doesn't make any sense. I don't know how a Burbank/Glendale LRT made Tier 1 in the LRTP. Is there even a ROW that is not the Metrolink line? A 3.5 mile extension of the Red Line to Burbank would be cheaper than a whole new light rail line, although I suppose this line could then be sent West and ultimately onto the Chandler ROW as the Orange Line is converted to light rail.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 25, 2014 20:36:39 GMT -8
What on earth is the Yellow line LRT between North Hollywood and the regional connector? I think it's supposed to be a line from Noho station to the Bunker Hill station. To me, though, unless a 2nd Regional Connector (via Alameda) is built to relieve congestion on the 1st, it's better for this "Yellow Line" to be separate line altogether and run under 4th street to Pershing Square/Angels Knoll.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 27, 2014 11:39:39 GMT -8
It's worth remembering that we're going to get DEIR for the Gold line Eastside Extension phase two and the DEIR for the Green Line Torrance extension in the next few months. I think it's telling that the Crenshaw blvd corridor is currently undefined, but is also under planning study rather than just looking for further project definition; that suggests to me that they're going to look at a lot of options. They'll study going just to the Purple line and they'll study going to the Red Line as well. I really think they'll wind up with an almost pure north route, going all the way to Hollywood Highland via La Brea rather than the west hollywood wobble route. Also note, that in the Tier One projects there are only the subway to the sea and the crenshaw extension that serve the highly served areas, the other FIVE tier one projects serve the rest of the county. And setting aside the streetcars, there is only the Vermont Subway in the Tier 2 projects (and Vermont will almost certainly be set as the lowest priority of those seven projects due to the expense, so it's probably the least likely), which again suggests that the Red Line and Crenshaw are Metro's top priorities. Reading between the lines, I really think that means they're already planning on putting all resources into the Subway to the Sea rather than trying to fund other projects and suffer the political firestorm of a Subway to Nowhere (Bundy). Poor west hollywood, no pink line for another six decades. What on earth is the Yellow line LRT between North Hollywood and the regional connector? Anyone also want to hazard what the route of the Burbank/Glendale to Union Station LRT would be? That is the only Tier One project that is not an Extension. And I do think it's important to note how many extensions Metro is studying in comparison to totally new lines. They want to build out the existing lines, it seems like, and as I said, it really makes the whole Measure an R+, the Plus stands for extension. Yeah, I certainly don't see them going up La Cienaga. Have to deal with Beverly Hills again and no one wants that. I could see Fairfax, but in the 80s the Jewish community here was fanatical about not allowing the subway to go up this very street. It has been 30 years, but I'm not sure the feeling has completely gone away. Therefore, I think La Brea is more likely. A subway for West Hollywood would be great, but I'm not sure it is necessary. Lets face it, WeHo is a tiny speck of dust in relation to the population of LA County. It has the population of less than 1/7th of a LA City Council District and there are 15 of those.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 27, 2014 16:22:54 GMT -8
I really feel bad for West Hollywood; they're the most vocally supportive of public transit expansion and yet, politics and lack of funding have pretty much bumped them near the bottom of the list of areas to receive rapid transit.
The Pink Line is no longer an option and any extension of the Crenshaw Line won't reach the area for probably 30 years or more at the present rate of funding, assuming they even decide to extend it through West Hollywood at all (they may just decide to go with the fastest and cheapest option - La Brea).
On the other hand, West Hollywood still has several bus lines that run 24 hours (with varying frequencies), which is more than can be said for other areas of Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 27, 2014 17:50:03 GMT -8
I really feel bad for West Hollywood; they're the most vocally supportive of public transit expansion and yet, politics and lack of funding have pretty much bumped them near the bottom of the list of areas to receive rapid transit. The Pink Line is no longer an option and any extension of the Crenshaw Line won't reach the area for probably 30 years or more at the present rate of funding, assuming they even decide to extend it through West Hollywood at all (they may just decide to go with the fastest and cheapest option - La Brea). On the other hand, West Hollywood still has several bus lines that run 24 hours (with varying frequencies), which is more than can be said for other areas of Los Angeles. I do too, but there were a lot of areas of Los Angeles that voted for Measure R and J and they don't have a subway either. One note of clarification, if the Crenshaw Line goes up La Brea, West Hollywood could still get a station as La Brea/Santa Monica is within the W. Hollywood city limits.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 28, 2014 9:20:05 GMT -8
One note of clarification, if the Crenshaw Line goes up La Brea, West Hollywood could still get a station as La Brea/Santa Monica is within the W. Hollywood city limits. True, but barely. Plus, it completely misses the major destinations in West Hollywood, like the nightclubs near San Vicente and the higher density apartments near La Cienega. Fairfax, though not ideal, is still a better compromise if the line cannot be built any further west.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 28, 2014 9:57:04 GMT -8
A Santa Monica blvd line that connects Hollywood Highland to Century City would be a really important to making the rail system more network oriented.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 28, 2014 18:18:04 GMT -8
I agree the South Bay needs something, but the problem is the only viable projects are extensions to either Long Beach or San Pedro, both of which I think would be way too expensive. Per Metro Board documents the total cost for a full South Bay extension from the Redondo Beach terminal to Long Beach will be under $2B, because it is on existing right-of-way that is mostly grade separated already. It only has $240 M under Measure R and it is a needed North-South capacity reliever of the Blue Line. One note of clarification, if the Crenshaw Line goes up La Brea, West Hollywood could still get a station as La Brea/Santa Monica is within the W. Hollywood city limits. True, but barely. Plus, it completely misses the major destinations in West Hollywood, like the nightclubs near San Vicente and the higher density apartments near La Cienega. Fairfax, though not ideal, is still a better compromise if the line cannot be built any further west. Then the answer to that is run the northern Crenshaw Corridor via San Vicente in a combination of surface and grade separated from Expo to West Hollywood and then from West Hollywood to Hollywood/Highland. This could tie in WeHo, Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center and Mid City together.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 29, 2014 13:26:42 GMT -8
Then the answer to that is run the northern Crenshaw Corridor via San Vicente in a combination of surface and grade separated from Expo to West Hollywood and then from West Hollywood to Hollywood/Highland. This could tie in WeHo, Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center and Mid City together. I think it's a terrible Idea to wobble over to WeHo rather than go straight up La Brea to Hollywood Highland. Also the San Vicente Route would mean that the Crenshaw Line doesn't connect to the Purple Line since Wilshire San Vicente is a decentish hike from Wilshire La Cienega. Building it at grade would be somewhat possible, but probably add years to the pre construction time dealing with the opposition and lawsuits.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 29, 2014 17:19:11 GMT -8
Then the answer to that is run the northern Crenshaw Corridor via San Vicente in a combination of surface and grade separated from Expo to West Hollywood and then from West Hollywood to Hollywood/Highland. This could tie in WeHo, Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center and Mid City together. I think it's a terrible Idea to wobble over to WeHo rather than go straight up La Brea to Hollywood Highland. Also the San Vicente Route would mean that the Crenshaw Line doesn't connect to the Purple Line since Wilshire San Vicente is a decentish hike from Wilshire La Cienega. Building it at grade would be somewhat possible, but probably add years to the pre construction time dealing with the opposition and lawsuits. One of the beauties in WeHo Mid-City area is that there is no freeway to compete with so going straight down La Brea would be faster but not garner much ridership. Fairfax would be better despite the slight dog-leg. San Vicente would be better because it is very close to Wilshire/La Cienega and all that is needed there is an additional subway portal that straddles the Subway station box which could be located between La Cienega and San Vicente as a crossover will be needed. The length of those subway boxes are approx 800-900' in length. And this line would serve a dual purpose as a feeder to the main Red-Purple Lines while having it's own ridership base.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 29, 2014 18:03:24 GMT -8
Fairfax from the 10 to Olympic is only two lanes and single family residential. I'm not sure how that would boost ridership. You also have to deal with the microscopic sized lanes in Little Ethiopia. If you thought Goodman did damage with his nonsense protests and finally forcing us all to suffer by inflicting a Farmville station on us, imagine the transit racism cries that will be raised if we take away the parking lanes of the two blocks of little Ethiopia, shrink the already tiny sidewalks of little ethiopia a few feet and then squeeze equally tiny traffic lanes right next to the sidewalk to try and fit the train through there. Or we can knock down half of Little Ethiopia to widen fairfax through those two blocks to accomadate the train. I imagine that would be insanely unpopular.
Beyond Olympic Fairfax's density picks up a teensy bit but it also connects to LACMA, the Grove and CBS, so yes, there's more destinations than on La Brea. However La Brea is six lanes the entire routewith no single family residential on La Brea, it seems like a much better option. Also, I think there'd be a lot more opportunity for Transit Oriented development on La Brea, even if there isn't the tourist destinations on the route. In terms of use for LA residents, I think a direct route would be much preferred over a route that tours los angeles. After the Grove, Fairfax and La Brea are pretty much indistinguishable, as it's all mostly low slung run-down commercial districts and a interspersed with two-three story apartment buildings. Fairfax has a vast plethora of Old Folks homes as well, so I'm sure that will be delightful to negotiate a train.
I just have a hard time seeing Fairfax as a feasible route.
I can see San Vicente being more feasible, but I think a two hour tour at grade through Los Angeles does a lot to make Rail more ineffective when it comes to residents trying to use it to get around. I can see a lot of residents finding a direct route from hollywood highland to LAX extremely important. Or a direct route from Hollywood Highland to the Purple line. Likewise a Pink Line direct from Hollywood Highland to Century City would facilitate a much more well functioning network than attempting to have the Crenshaw Line do both Hollywood Highland and West Hollywood.
It'd be nice to have a polycentric rail system, with multiple lines connecting to LAX, Union Station, 7th & Metro, and Hollywood Highland. That facilitates so much more usefulness and make for a much more healthy system.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 29, 2014 20:27:09 GMT -8
Fairfax from the 10 to Olympic is only two lanes and single family residential. I'm not sure how that would boost ridership. You also have to deal with the microscopic sized lanes in Little Ethiopia. If you thought Goodman did damage with his nonsense protests and finally forcing us all to suffer by inflicting a Farmville station on us, imagine the transit racism cries that will be raised if we take away the parking lanes of the two blocks of little Ethiopia, shrink the already tiny sidewalks of little ethiopia a few feet and then squeeze equally tiny traffic lanes right next to the sidewalk to try and fit the train through there. Or we can knock down half of Little Ethiopia to widen fairfax through those two blocks to accomadate the train. I imagine that would be insanely unpopular. Beyond Olympic Fairfax's density picks up a teensy bit but it also connects to LACMA, the Grove and CBS, so yes, there's more destinations than on La Brea. However La Brea is six lanes the entire routewith no single family residential on La Brea, it seems like a much better option. Also, I think there'd be a lot more opportunity for Transit Oriented development on La Brea, even if there isn't the tourist destinations on the route. In terms of use for LA residents, I think a direct route would be much preferred over a route that tours los angeles. After the Grove, Fairfax and La Brea are pretty much indistinguishable, as it's all mostly low slung run-down commercial districts and a interspersed with two-three story apartment buildings. Fairfax has a vast plethora of Old Folks homes as well, so I'm sure that will be delightful to negotiate a train. I just have a hard time seeing Fairfax as a feasible route. I can see San Vicente being more feasible, but I think a two hour tour at grade through Los Angeles does a lot to make Rail more ineffective when it comes to residents trying to use it to get around. I can see a lot of residents finding a direct route from hollywood highland to LAX extremely important. Or a direct route from Hollywood Highland to the Purple line. Likewise a Pink Line direct from Hollywood Highland to Century City would facilitate a much more well functioning network than attempting to have the Crenshaw Line do both Hollywood Highland and West Hollywood. It'd be nice to have a polycentric rail system, with multiple lines connecting to LAX, Union Station, 7th & Metro, and Hollywood Highland. That facilitates so much more usefulness and make for a much more healthy system. Oh ok, I think part of the gap is based on how we're envisioning the line operating. From Crenshaw/Expo to Pico/San Vicente the route will stay below under Crenshaw. From Pico/San Vicente, there's options on where to go, La Brea or Fairfax will need to stay underground because traffic congestion is so high there. San Vicente gives some potential flexibility between operating on the surface or underground and serve important destinations which will not take two hours to navigate. While La Brea is the more direct route that will have a lot of bus transfer connections to be successful. Fairfax directly serves the destinations and activity centers where (I anticipate) those passengers who will be transferring off La Brea will go, which would boost the ridership. Anecdotally, between current bus ridership between the two corridors in the Mid-City section, there's more demand on Fairfax. The nice part about this conversation is that it needs study to determine the best usage.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 30, 2014 11:46:55 GMT -8
Take a look at the map... it may help orient the discussion: goo.gl/maps/WuzjfI agree with Jerard... there is no reason to go up La Brea on the assumption that the line will need to run at surface thru mid city. The time saving is not that important - relatively few riders will utilize this line for the entire length from South Bay to West Hollywood. We have to get out of the mindset of pure speed and think about the transit corridor a line like this will/should/might serve. Shooting straight up La Brea will help someone get from Hollywood to LAX faster but at what cost? The majority of the riders in mid city wants to go to destinations off Fairfax and La Cienega. Crenshaw line will be underground when it approaches Expo so we don't need to follow the street grid to get it past I-10 towards Venice Blvd. Once past Venice Blvd, I think there is a good argument for the line to be at surface via San Vicente because it is certainly wide enough. The transfer to Purple line La Cienega station is not an issue either because the Purple line station is slated to be build east of La Cienega (see page 9 of FEIR Appendix B: media.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/final_eir-eis/Appendix%20B%20Station%20Site%20Plan%20Report.pdf ). The station box itself occupied almost entirely the section of Wilshire between La Cienega and San Vicente from end to end. To connect the La Cienega station to Crenshaw line station at Wilshire/San Vicente will require a walkway connection maybe 100ft long from the end of the La Cienega station box. This design change can be made before we actually start construction on La Cienega station, and it won't cost very much because no new tunneling is required.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 30, 2014 13:52:00 GMT -8
Would the San Vicente line Trench to go under the San Vicente Fairfax Olympic Triangle or use a Bridge? Likewise, I assume it would have to trench to transition to La Cienega and then be 100% underground for the La Cienega, Santa Monica and Hollywood blvd routes?
I imagine if the line went straight south from Hollywood Highland to LAX tons of people would find it useful. I doubt anyone wants to go to the south bay from the valley though. I just feel like wobbling over to WeHo to force one line into pretending to be two lines seems like a mistake that will ultimately make the entire system weaker and depress ridership, ala the disastrous Expo Line segment from Downtown to USC. That travesty is a terrific example of the stupidity of grade in heavily trafficed corridors, but making the trip take twice as long by train as driving I guess made sense if the pro rail expo people think that time-saving is not that important. Guess I ought to stop supporting rail, self driving cars can't get here soon enough (and once they're here we can stop needing to invest in new public transportation infrastructure like rail).
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 30, 2014 14:48:30 GMT -8
The entire segment on San Vicente up to Wilshire, ideally, would include the following three stations:
--Pico/Venice/Rimpau/San Vicente --Olympic/San Vicente/Fairfax --Wilshire/San Vicente
Though you could build the first two above ground, I think they would have to run elevated given the high amount of traffic in these areas. Cheaper than tunnelling, but still expensive.
Add in the underground station at Adams, and you're looking at a $1 billion+ project right there.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 30, 2014 15:21:54 GMT -8
maybe the construction would do something to change traffic patterns. Because right now, everyday bastards who won't wait a light cycle on San Vicente block all northbound and southbound traffic through Fairfax by sitting in the intersection. Change that pattern and then maybe Fairfax wouldn't be as horrifically congested as it usually is. Nah, the construction would probably make that worse. But the point is moot, since an At Grade San Vicente route will never be politically feasible. The entire segment on San Vicente up to Wilshire, ideally, would include the following three stations: --Pico/Venice/Rimpau/San Vicente --Olympic/San Vicente/Fairfax --Wilshire/San Vicente Though you could build the first two above ground, I think they would have to run elevated given the high amount of traffic in these areas. Cheaper than tunnelling, but still expensive. Add in the underground station at Adams, and you're looking at a $1 billion+ project right there. Oh that's a good point, there's no way the San Vicente Wilshire intersection can be at grade. It probably can't be subterranean because of the purple line, I imagine, so it would have to be elevated, I imagine, so to transfer from the Crenshaw line to the purple line you'd have to go down from an elevated station to a subterranean walkway to the subway station, delightful. So even though the Crenshaw line San Vicente route is nominally at grade, it's not possible that any of the four stations between Expo and Purple would be at grade.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 30, 2014 15:37:11 GMT -8
Would the San Vicente line Trench to go under the San Vicente Fairfax Olympic Triangle or use a Bridge? Likewise, I assume it would have to trench to transition to La Cienega and then be 100% underground for the La Cienega, Santa Monica and Hollywood blvd routes? I imagine if the line went straight south from Hollywood Highland to LAX tons of people would find it useful. I doubt anyone wants to go to the south bay from the valley though. I just feel like wobbling over to WeHo to force one line into pretending to be two lines seems like a mistake that will ultimately make the entire system weaker and depress ridership, ala the disastrous Expo Line segment from Downtown to USC. That travesty is a terrific example of the stupidity of grade in heavily trafficed corridors, but making the trip take twice as long by train as driving I guess made sense if the pro rail expo people think that time-saving is not that important. Guess I ought to stop supporting rail, self driving cars can't get here soon enough (and once they're here we can stop needing to invest in new public transportation infrastructure like rail). But that fix is a simple push for signal priority for trains along Flower Street from 12th to USC/Expo Park and problem solved, 3-4 minutes saved and this can be achievable in a few months. However, one important thing to note, that even if the segment in question was completely underground the line would shave 2 minutes tops over what simple dedicated signal priority would provide at a fraction of the cost. More of which can be used to new corridors or improvements throughout the system. The argument about WeHo is kind of silly because we can look to our own Red Line as an example that despite wobbling over to Mid Wilshire and up Vermont to get to Hollywood connecting more people to destinations along a route is an important aspect of a transportation corridor an important aspect of a transportation system that connects people to important destinations. As it relates to the Red Line, Why not just go from Downtown to Hollywood via 101? Since that is a straight line and there are folks who live along the way?
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 30, 2014 15:44:52 GMT -8
It probably can't be subterranean because of the purple line, I imagine, so it would have to be elevated, I imagine, so to transfer from the Crenshaw line to the purple line you'd have to go down from an elevated station to a subterranean walkway to the subway station, delightful. Why couldn't it be underground? The Purple Line's existence wouldn't preclude another subway. Perfect example being the Regional Connector - they're running it underneath the existing Red/Purple line tunnels.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 30, 2014 16:13:20 GMT -8
Would the San Vicente line Trench to go under the San Vicente Fairfax Olympic Triangle or use a Bridge? Likewise, I assume it would have to trench to transition to La Cienega and then be 100% underground for the La Cienega, Santa Monica and Hollywood blvd routes? I imagine if the line went straight south from Hollywood Highland to LAX tons of people would find it useful. Yes, but not as many people will find it useful if it went down Fairfax or La Cienega. You are drawing the wrong conclusion from Expo. Expo is slow because there is no signal priority and preemption, it's not the routing that cause it to be slow. And that can be fixed if LADOT will play ball. Despite the slowness, it still drawing 27,000 boardings because it serves important destinations. That tells you something - you should build a rail line to serve locations/corridors that people want to travel, not a straight line with no curves. If we build Expo the way you want to extend Crenshaw, it would have bypassed USC and South LA and Culver City and just went straight down I-10 to Santa Monica. It will be a faster ride but how many people will ride it? Building urban rail is not about the ultimate speed between terminals... that's the kind of car-centric freeway mindset planning that ruins good rail transit. If Crenshaw line bypass all the important destinations in Mid City that people want to go to (Cedars, La Cienega restaurant row, museums, Grove area, 3rd Street, Melrose, WeHo/Santa Monica Blvd etc), what exactly have you accomplished? Do all the people boarding the line at LAX all want to go to Hollywood/Highland? No... a good portion of them probably wants to go other places. And not to mention the people that will ride the line within West Hollywood and Mid City and not go to LAX on a daily basis.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 30, 2014 16:29:37 GMT -8
The entire segment on San Vicente up to Wilshire, ideally, would include the following three stations: --Pico/Venice/Rimpau/San Vicente --Olympic/San Vicente/Fairfax --Wilshire/San Vicente Though you could build the first two above ground, I think they would have to run elevated given the high amount of traffic in these areas. Cheaper than tunnelling, but still expensive. Add in the underground station at Adams, and you're looking at a $1 billion+ project right there. $1 billion to Wilshire and another $2 billion to Hollywood is my guess. If the line goes up La Cienega (which I think will generate the most ridership), I see the following stations: -Crenshaw/Expo -Adams -Mid City (Rimpau terminal Pico/Venice/San Vicente triangle) -San Vicente/Olympic/Fairfax triangle -San Vicente/Wilshire/La Cienega triangle -Beverly Center/Cedar-Sinai Medical Center -La Cienega/Melrose -La Cienega/Santa Monica -Santa Monica/Fairfax -Santa Monica/Highland -Highland/Hollywood
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 30, 2014 16:57:51 GMT -8
$1 billion to Wilshire and another $2 billion to Hollywood is my guess. If the line goes up La Cienega (which I think will generate the most ridership), I see the following stations: -Crenshaw/Expo -Adams -Mid City (Rimpau terminal Pico/Venice/San Vicente triangle) -San Vicente/Olympic/Fairfax triangle -San Vicente/Wilshire/La Cienega triangle -Beverly Center/Cedar-Sinai Medical Center -La Cienega/Melrose -La Cienega/Santa Monica -Santa Monica/Fairfax -Santa Monica/Highland -Highland/Hollywood More like $1.5 Billion to Wilshire, $2.5 B from Wilshire to Hollywood
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 30, 2014 19:43:39 GMT -8
We're basically looking at West Hollywood's own version of the Purple Line - almost just as many stations and roughly the same cost (give or take).
It's a shame (and a little surprising) no one from the West Hollywood community, save for perhaps Dan Wentzel, is championing this project. With their demand and enthusiasm for rapid transit, West Hollywood could probably do for this line exactly what the communities surrounding the Foothill Gold Line are doing for that extension. Perhaps the formation of a "West Hollywood Rail Authority" or some such thing is in order.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 30, 2014 20:20:56 GMT -8
We're basically looking at West Hollywood's own version of the Purple Line - almost just as many stations and roughly the same cost (give or take). It's a shame (and a little surprising) no one from the West Hollywood community, save for perhaps Dan Wentzel, is championing this project. With their demand and enthusiasm for rapid transit, West Hollywood could probably do for this line exactly what the communities surrounding the Foothill Gold Line are doing for that extension. Perhaps the formation of a "West Hollywood Rail Authority" or some such thing is in order. That is right. It is a $4.5B project or thereabouts. That is awfully tough to finance, especially with few major destinations along the line. It is not like there is a Century City or Westwood along this line. Unfortunately the Pink Line scored pretty poorly for ridership in Metro's studies, although some people take issue with Metro's calculations. I also question the huge expense of tunneling for so long for a limited capacity light rail. I'd like to see the project, but it has a lot of problems.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 31, 2014 13:17:03 GMT -8
I'd love to see the Pink line be an HRT stub off of Century City up to Hollywood Highland via Santa Monica Blvd (with a slight diversion to Cedars Sinai/Bev center) I don't think they'd be able to connect it to the hollywood highland tracks, but they could definitely build it into the Century City station, or even into the Rodeo station, and service the line via existing red/purple maintenance. The Pink line portion of the Crenshaw line would only be 10% or less at grade as LRT.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 2, 2014 15:17:13 GMT -8
Thinking about the yellow line -- in my mind, from DTLA, up glendale blvd, brand, and glenoaks to burbank -- and the union/glendale/burbank line -- possibly a continuation of the west santa ana branch following the metrolink right-of-way until it reaches glendale and then joins with the yellow line -- it opens up an interesting idea for operational patterns.
Imagine the orange line does get converted to LRT. Now, we've got a line with two branches on each end and a long central trunk section where both are interlined -- yellow service from warner center, along the current orange line ROW, up chandler to burbank, and then down glenoaks and so on. We also have an orange line service from canoga through to union. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the current orange line ROW is wide enough that, in converting it to LRT we could actually fit four tracks, or at the very least, bypass tracks at the stations (presumably that would be much cheaper anyway). This allows us to have yellow be an express service through the valley and maybe even through burbank and glendale. Considering the distances involved, I imagine that would be a huge timesaver. Do you think that's possible? It seems like their plans are to have yellow and what i'm calling orange (burbank/glendale/union) run together from glendale onward anyway, so why not make one express?
|
|
|
Post by andert on Mar 28, 2014 19:08:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 3, 2014 18:42:08 GMT -8
|
|