|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 4, 2014 7:06:36 GMT -8
Purple line has to be finished to the sea. It's the signature line for the system. Leaving it at the VA is a colossal failure.
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Apr 4, 2014 9:53:18 GMT -8
Purple line has to be finished to the sea. It's the signature line for the system. Leaving it at the VA is a colossal failure. The *tax measure barley passed and without labeling "Subway to the Sea" it never would have passed; it is a colossal failure already. *2008 tax measure
|
|
|
Post by andert on Oct 18, 2014 14:43:40 GMT -8
So I got to thinking about all the various ways to connect Glendale/Burbank into the system, whether it be by running LRT or BRT from the valley to pasadena, running LRT through glendale, or other ways, and I decided to put together what a long-range plan of that build-out might look like. imgur.com/a/LcT0MSo each image has 2 versions - the service pattern, split between three lines (yellow, lime, and orange, with orange running as an express line in the valley) and the grading. With the grading, green is at-grade, blue is elevated, brown is tunneling. Darker-blue stations are center-column elevated stations, while the desaturated blue stations are street-straddling elevated stations. Darker green stations in the valley are local at-grade stations with bypass tracks for express trains. The rest should be fairly self-explanatory. The idea is to take a closer look at how much of what type of grade separation would be required (perhaps giving a sense of what it might cost) and what a service pattern might look like for an LRT system that sort of has its cake and eats it too, connecting the valley to downtown, pasadena, and the vermont corridor through burbank/glendale. Also to note, I only included grading north of the expo line/blue line. Theoretically, the lime line would continue south to the green line, and the orange line would continue south to santa ana. So here would be the new service patterns: Orange: Warner Center-Santa Ana Yellow: Chatsworth-Citrus Lime: Downtown Glendale-Athens Blue: Pasadena-Long Beach While obviously expensive and far-off, what do you guys think of this as a potential long-term plan, particularly for the service patterns? It seems to me like after crenshaw, the glendale/burbank corridor is one of the biggest gaping holes in the system.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 18, 2014 15:31:12 GMT -8
So I got to thinking about all the various ways to connect Glendale/Burbank into the system, whether it be by running LRT or BRT from the valley to pasadena, running LRT through glendale, or other ways, and I decided to put together what a long-range plan of that build-out might look like. imgur.com/a/LcT0MSo each image has 2 versions - the service pattern, split between three lines (yellow, lime, and orange, with orange running as an express line in the valley) and the grading. With the grading, green is at-grade, blue is elevated, brown is tunneling. Darker-blue stations are center-column elevated stations, while the desaturated blue stations are street-straddling elevated stations. Darker green stations in the valley are local at-grade stations with bypass tracks for express trains. The rest should be fairly self-explanatory. The idea is to take a closer look at how much of what type of grade separation would be required (perhaps giving a sense of what it might cost) and what a service pattern might look like for an LRT system that sort of has its cake and eats it too, connecting the valley to downtown, pasadena, and the vermont corridor through burbank/glendale. Also to note, I only included grading north of the expo line/blue line. Theoretically, the lime line would continue south to the green line, and the orange line would continue south to santa ana. So here would be the new service patterns: Orange: Warner Center-Santa Ana Yellow: Chatsworth-Citrus Lime: Downtown Glendale-Athens Blue: Pasadena-Long Beach While obviously expensive and far-off, what do you guys think of this as a potential long-term plan, particularly for the service patterns? It seems to me like after crenshaw, the glendale/burbank corridor is one of the biggest gaping holes in the system. While it is a good long term goal to get the system to Burbank and Glendale, let's not forget these two areas are already served by Metrolink and Amtrak Surfliner and ultimately High Speed Rail for at least Burbank. I realize these are not the same and it would be great to get the Gold Line West eventually. Also, I am a big supporter of the Red Line to Burbank Airport to integrate Metrolink, Amtrak, and CAHSR. Short of that, to me, the Santa Ana ROW, Crenshaw Line North, 405 Line, South Bay Extension of the Green Line, etc. are better projects IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Oct 19, 2014 11:31:41 GMT -8
Yeah, I just meant as a long term plan - didn't mean to delve into the question of what to build first - that gets discussed often enough already . I was more interested in what people thought of these alignments, grades, and service patterns, and whether there's better solutions.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 20, 2014 10:24:36 GMT -8
So I got to thinking about all the various ways to connect Glendale/Burbank into the system, whether it be by running LRT or BRT from the valley to pasadena, running LRT through glendale, or other ways, and I decided to put together what a long-range plan of that build-out might look like. imgur.com/a/LcT0MSo each image has 2 versions - the service pattern, split between three lines (yellow, lime, and orange, with orange running as an express line in the valley) and the grading. With the grading, green is at-grade, blue is elevated, brown is tunneling. Darker-blue stations are center-column elevated stations, while the desaturated blue stations are street-straddling elevated stations. Darker green stations in the valley are local at-grade stations with bypass tracks for express trains. The rest should be fairly self-explanatory. The idea is to take a closer look at how much of what type of grade separation would be required (perhaps giving a sense of what it might cost) and what a service pattern might look like for an LRT system that sort of has its cake and eats it too, connecting the valley to downtown, pasadena, and the vermont corridor through burbank/glendale. Also to note, I only included grading north of the expo line/blue line. Theoretically, the lime line would continue south to the green line, and the orange line would continue south to santa ana. So here would be the new service patterns: Orange: Warner Center-Santa Ana Yellow: Chatsworth-Citrus Lime: Downtown Glendale-Athens Blue: Pasadena-Long Beach While obviously expensive and far-off, what do you guys think of this as a potential long-term plan, particularly for the service patterns? It seems to me like after crenshaw, the glendale/burbank corridor is one of the biggest gaping holes in the system. While it is a good long term goal to get the system to Burbank and Glendale, let's not forget these two areas are already served by Metrolink and Amtrak Surfliner and ultimately High Speed Rail for at least Burbank. I realize these are not the same and it would be great to get the Gold Line West eventually. Also, I am a big supporter of the Red Line to Burbank Airport to integrate Metrolink, Amtrak, and CAHSR. Short of that, to me, the Santa Ana ROW, Crenshaw Line North, 405 Line, South Bay Extension of the Green Line, etc. are better projects IMHO. Pretty much agree... In the short to mid term, we would be MUCH better off using the CAHSR upgrade of the track (which will electrify Metrolink Antelope Valley Line) to finally implement a more frequent metro-like schedule on Metrolink between Santa Clarita and Union Station; vs. building a light rail line that will parallel it. If we run a EMU with 4 or 6 cars every 15~20 minutes throughout the day (can be branded as Metro since it will be all in LA County, or continue as Metrolink), I think ridership will be quite good. The emphasis and priority should be to extend the Orange line (either BRT or upgrade to light rail) to Pasadena. If it is build as light rail, we can eventually have a true "cross town" train linking SFV and SGV from Warner Center to Azusa.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 20, 2014 10:29:50 GMT -8
Yeah, I just meant as a long term plan - didn't mean to delve into the question of what to build first - that gets discussed often enough already . I was more interested in what people thought of these alignments, grades, and service patterns, and whether there's better solutions. Yes, it is a good dream to keep alive I'm on board with your route alignment options
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jul 24, 2015 13:14:32 GMT -8
Take the MoveLA Measure R2 survey: Original Tweet
Obviously, I supported more enhanced bus lanes, Crenshaw Line to Hollywood, and Purple Line to Santa Monica the most.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 24, 2015 14:31:12 GMT -8
Done. Hopefully we get a lot of freeway and rail money from the project.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 28, 2015 20:12:25 GMT -8
So if LA gets the Olympics bid, I wonder how that will affects how the ballot measure is designed. I think the only realistic result would be acceleration of the subway to ucla, and maybe kicking the three gold line extensions up the schedule to start right away. Possibly they could get the red line to burbank airport by then. And a red line stop for arts district area Olympic village. And they'd ensure the people mover at lax is finished in time.
I doubt finishing the Crenshaw northern extension and a Sepulveda pass line are do able in the time frame. Eight years from 2008, we have two lines opening, both extensions, I imagine the three gold line extensions and purple accelerations and two red line one stop extensions at each terminus would be doable given the state would do a fast forward type of program I'd imagine.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 28, 2015 22:18:20 GMT -8
Would additional funding come in from somewhere (or additional loans that allow us to expedite construction) if we get the US bid or only if we win the overall bid? I'm hoping the former, because A. It looks likely, B. it seems like we'd need that much time to get started anyway, C. having already started, that would strengthen the overall bid, and D. I worry the overall bid is too competitive to pin our hopes on getting. But yeah, if we get the US bid, then I think the purple line would be expedited at the very least... which it desperately needs to be.
Also, when are they going to make the list of Measure R 2 projects public? I thought that had been scheduled to happen last fall...
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 29, 2015 7:06:17 GMT -8
Remember, we vote on R+ in 2016 and don't find out the 2024 city until 2017, so you wouldn't make it explicit about the olympics, but you might design the time line of projects on what is achievable by June 2024.
Even still, purple to ucla is a colossal acceleraration probably not part of the measure rather the measure would further extend purple to 3rd Street.
The limiting factor is ceqa and availability of funds in an annual fashion. If ceqa were reformed so we didn't need a two to four year deir feir process before beginning construction that could expedite construction.
That's why we could get the two gold line east side extensions built by 2024 they are already at the deir part. Same for purple line. It's why we couldn't get Crenshaw north extension done in eight years--four years for eir leaving only four years for construction.
Also, if the legislature passed a California fast forward initiative, it could make the money available in the future available now, letting them construct the purple line with the same or greater speed as the Crenshaw line.
Unfortunately, federal Congress won't do anything to help, though we will probably continue to get support matching funds from existing programs.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 29, 2015 7:33:54 GMT -8
So if LA gets the Olympics bid, I wonder how that will affects how the ballot measure is designed. I think the only realistic result would be acceleration of the subway to ucla, and maybe kicking the three gold line extensions up the schedule to start right away. Possibly they could get the red line to burbank airport by then. And a red line stop for arts district area Olympic village. And they'd ensure the people mover at lax is finished in time. I doubt finishing the Crenshaw northern extension and a Sepulveda pass line are do able in the time frame. Eight years from 2008, we have two lines opening, both extensions, I imagine the three gold line extensions and purple accelerations and two red line one stop extensions at each terminus would be doable given the state would do a fast forward type of program I'd imagine. I doubt the Olympics would have any affect on any rail projects. Remember, the Purple Line has already started construction and will barely be finished to La Cienega by 2024. To get to Westwood or even Century City by 2024 is all but impossible at this point as those are years behind. It is not like you get awarded the Olympics and the next day all of a sudden construction starts on a bunch of projects. While I'd really like to see Burbank Airport included in Measure R+, again there would be no way it would be up and running by 2024. Maybe 2032.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Aug 2, 2015 15:39:37 GMT -8
Done. Hopefully we get a lot of freeway and rail money from the project. I know you love your freeways, but it's pretty obvious that for all the good the carpool lanes along the 405 have done, it was a colossal waste of taxpayer money - $1.1 billion just to add carpool lanes and straighten out a few connecting ramps. Well, at least we got an express bus out of it. What we really need is for the federal government to remove the requirement that HOV/HOT lane projects may not reduce the number of general traffic lanes. As long as that requirement exists to be eligible for funding, every HOV/HOT lane project turns into a freeway widening project. As far as a Measure R sequel goes, the SR-710 freeway tunnel is $5+ billion dollars that could be better spent elsewhere. Considering that Metro could build Wilshire-style BRT along the Atlantic Blvd corridor for $300 million, and that's about what Measure R earmarked in exploratory funds for the project... they would only need pocket change to finally get a real north-south rapid transit line in the SGV. For bonus points, they could extend the BRT line further south to terminate at either the Green Line (with an infill station at Atlantic) or going all the way to Long Beach, for instance at Willow St. Station (which, not coincidentally, would be the transfer point for a future extension of the Blue Line to CSULB). The savings could be put into other worthy projects, such as... - beefing up the rail connections at the port to reduce truck traffic and pollution
- speeding up the Alameda Corridor East project
- getting the PE WSAB ROW corridor built
- extending the Blue Line to CSULB
- extending the Orange Line east to the Gold Line in Pasadena (preferably along Colorado, not the 134)
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 3, 2015 9:23:54 GMT -8
About extending the Blue Line to CSULB, I don't think think it'll be necessary once the Green Line is extended from Torrance to Long Beach.
Green Line could still be extended further to CSULB via the old Electric ROW and Anaheim st (and then running underneath Park Estates to Beach Dr right in the heart of CSULB).
(Via PCH through "Circle Area" would make sense if it weren't for that fugly substation and half-dozen car dealerships and gas stations at Los Alamitos Park)
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Aug 4, 2015 9:08:43 GMT -8
About extending the Blue Line to CSULB, I don't think think it'll be necessary once the Green Line is extended from Torrance to Long Beach. Green Line could still be extended further to CSULB via the old Electric ROW and Anaheim st (and then running underneath Park Estates to Beach Dr right in the heart of CSULB). (Via PCH through "Circle Area" would make sense if it weren't for that fugly substation and half-dozen car dealerships and gas stations at Los Alamitos Park) If, or when, the Green Line gets extended to Long Beach along the Harbor ROW, I'd expect to see Metro break that section off into a separate line. It makes no sense at all to have a Norwalk-Long Beach line via Redondo. What I'd really like to see is a "Coast Line" from Long Beach to Santa Monica. If it runs all the way to CSULB, that's fine. When I talked about extending the Blue Line, I didn't mean in the sense of having the Blue Line make a left turn at Ocean Blvd. Rather, the Blue Line already runs a short-train service to either Del Amo or Willow that alternates with the downtown LB train. If a spur line was added from Willow Station along the old PE ROW that runs diagonal through Alamitos to CSULB, all Metro would need to do is extend the Del Amo/Willow train route to CSULB, and you'd have Blue Line service alternating between downtown LB and CSULB/Alamitos Bay.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 4, 2015 20:56:00 GMT -8
Agreed about the Green Line. The current route made sense back when the Aerospace industry dominated the South Bay economy, but obviously that is no longer the case. The new better route would probably be Norwalk-Santa Monica.
Meanwhile the Lincoln extension segment of the above-mentioned Green Line (as well as the "GEM" Line concept, hopefully) could be connected to the South Bay portion of the Subdivision ROW so trains can be run to Long Beach and create the "Coast Line" you speak of.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 5, 2015 8:42:26 GMT -8
Agreed about the Green Line. The current route made sense back when the Aerospace industry dominated the South Bay economy, but obviously that is no longer the case. The new better route would probably be Norwalk-Santa Monica. Meanwhile the Lincoln extension segment of the above-mentioned Green Line (as well as the "GEM" Line concept, hopefully) could be connected to the South Bay portion of the Subdivision ROW so trains can be run to Long Beach and create the "Coast Line" you speak of. I still think Metro is going to rethink the Green/Crenshaw Line setup and just have the Crenshaw Line be the North-South Line from the South Bay to its Northern Terminus and the Green Line just run as a East West Line. Much easier operations and no confusing split lines. If the Green Line were connected to the Metrolink/Amtrak station in Norwalk it would be a pretty high ridership line IMHO with LAX as a destination.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 11, 2015 20:03:45 GMT -8
Per the la times:
Los Angeles County residents may end up paying a higher sales tax some day under legislation sent by lawmakers to Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday.
The Senate sent the governor a bill that would allow the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to seek approval from voters for a half-cent increase in the sales tax to continue projects aimed at reducing the region's traffic gridlock.
Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) introduced the measure to help the county that already has three half-cent tax increases in place, approved by voters in 1981, 1991 and 2008. The last one, Measure R, passed with 67% of the vote.
“It's about choice,” De León told his colleagues, adding that the bill will help reduce traffic congestion and pollution.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 11, 2016 13:42:11 GMT -8
Per the LATimes: www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-transit-projects-20160311-story.htmlTLDR: Vermont subway (Heavy rail?) between Expo and Red line Sepulveda tunnel (rail and freeway toll tunnel) between Expo and Orange Van Nuys line Orange to Sylmar (rail or bus) 9.2 miles West Santa Ana line (rail or bus) 20 miles gold line valley extension to Montclair gold line east side extension(s) Green Line to Torrance 8.5 miles orange line grade separations and signal priority partial orange line to rail funding Lincoln blvd bus lanes Purple line acceleration Large LAX station capable of supporting multiple train lines and the people mover. Crenshaw to Hollywood (via mid city) is on the bubble and may not be included no red line to burbank airport no red line to arts district
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Mar 11, 2016 14:45:30 GMT -8
It's a shame that everyone's going full speed ahead on the split Eastside Gold Line when there's an even better (and presumably far cheaper) northern alternative that's already mostly grade-separated and could be hooked up to extend the Purple Line into the SGV. It would require re-routing Metrolink and Amtrak through the ACE corridor however.
I'm also guessing that there's very little chance of interlining a Vermont subway with the Red/Purple lines due to timing constraints, which means more transfers like the future Expo/Crenshaw station. Would building a trench in the huge center median of Vermont be more or less expensive than two tunnels? (They could probably even put three tracks in, to allow for future express service... imagine nonstop service from the Green Line to Wilshire/Vermont.)
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 11, 2016 15:11:26 GMT -8
It's a shame that everyone's going full speed ahead on the split Eastside Gold Line when there's an even better (and presumably far cheaper) northern alternative that's already mostly grade-separated and could be hooked up to extend the Purple Line into the SGV. It would require re-routing Metrolink and Amtrak through the ACE corridor however. I'm also guessing that there's very little chance of interlining a Vermont subway with the Red/Purple lines due to timing constraints, which means more transfers like the future Expo/Crenshaw station. Would building a trench in the huge center median of Vermont be more or less expensive than two tunnels? (They could probably even put three tracks in, to allow for future express service... imagine nonstop service from the Green Line to Wilshire/Vermont.) I imagine this Vermont spur is to take pressure off the Blue/Expo line junction as well as 7th Street/Metro Center and the Expo line will be split at Vermont with half the trains going on the current route and the other half going to Vermont/Wilshire. Even with a transfer it might be just as quick to go this route to get to 7th Street and it would def be quicker to go to Pershing Square or Civic Center or Union Station because you would have to transfer to the Red/Purple anyway to go to those stations. Because the Eastside Gold Line doesn't have much ridership this could be a way to provide more even train capacity and more efficient operations. We could then have BRT south on Vermont to the Green Line station. BRT north of Expo on Vermont would be really tough as there doesn't seem to be room here for it. Anyway, I could be all wrong about that, but that is my take on what the planners are thinking. First I ever heard of it though and this is not what Move LA had on their listing. I can't believe they won't at least have the Crenshaw Line to Wilshire. That has to ultimately make it in. On the Arts District, I wouldn't expect to see it here. They really only need to add an above ground station and that could be funded from existing Prop A. or C money most likely as it won't be that much.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Mar 11, 2016 15:36:45 GMT -8
I imagine this Vermont spur is to take pressure off the Blue/Expo line junction as well as 7th Street/Metro Center and the Expo line will be split at Vermont with half the trains going on the current route and the other half going to Vermont/Wilshire. Even with a transfer it might be just as quick to go this route to get to 7th Street and it would def be quicker to go to Pershing Square or Civic Center or Union Station because you would have to transfer to the Red/Purple anyway to go to those stations. Because the Eastside Gold Line doesn't have much ridership this could be a way to provide more even train capacity and more efficient operations. We could then have BRT south on Vermont to the Green Line station. BRT north of Expo on Vermont would be really tough as there doesn't seem to be room here for it. Anyway, I could be all wrong about that, but that is my take on what the planners are thinking. First I ever heard of it though and this is not what Move LA had on their listing. Vermont really isn't wide enough for at-grade (or trenched) rail until you go south of Gage. Whatever is built in the northern section will have to be tunneled. I can't see Expo splitting like you describe, and Vermont's existing bus ridership already means there's built-in demand for a north-south trunk line. If we just had a fast, reliable trunk line (perhaps with express service stops at Wilshire/Western, Expo/Vermont and Vermont/105, if not Harbor Gateway) I could that line being a major hit with South Bay riders and Expo transfers alike. Second, how much of the Blue Line's ridership is just taking that to get to the Green Line? I would imagine that could seriously cut down on Blue Line congestion at 7th/Metro as well.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 11, 2016 15:47:31 GMT -8
I imagine this Vermont spur is to take pressure off the Blue/Expo line junction as well as 7th Street/Metro Center and the Expo line will be split at Vermont with half the trains going on the current route and the other half going to Vermont/Wilshire. Even with a transfer it might be just as quick to go this route to get to 7th Street and it would def be quicker to go to Pershing Square or Civic Center or Union Station because you would have to transfer to the Red/Purple anyway to go to those stations. Because the Eastside Gold Line doesn't have much ridership this could be a way to provide more even train capacity and more efficient operations. We could then have BRT south on Vermont to the Green Line station. BRT north of Expo on Vermont would be really tough as there doesn't seem to be room here for it. Anyway, I could be all wrong about that, but that is my take on what the planners are thinking. First I ever heard of it though and this is not what Move LA had on their listing. Vermont really isn't wide enough for at-grade (or trenched) rail until you go south of Gage. Whatever is built in the northern section will have to be tunneled. I can't see Expo splitting like you describe, and Vermont's existing bus ridership already means there's built-in demand for a north-south trunk line. If we just had a fast, reliable trunk line (perhaps with express service stops at Wilshire/Western, Expo/Vermont and Vermont/105, if not Harbor Gateway) I could that line being a major hit with South Bay riders and Expo transfers alike. Second, how much of the Blue Line's ridership is just taking that to get to the Green Line? I would imagine that could seriously cut down on Blue Line congestion at 7th/Metro as well. LA Times describes the Vermont project as 3 miles between Expo and Wilshire either underground or along Vermont.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 11, 2016 15:54:17 GMT -8
I'm guessing the Crenshaw extension is being scrapped in favor of the Vermont line, which I think may be heavy rail instead and thus use red line maintenence facilities. Because otherwise Crenshaw north is duplicative of the Vermont line only a couple miles apart. Future measures could extend both lines, but if crenshaw line were completed before Vermont line began, Vermont would never be built.
Also, it probably indicates the political difficulty of routing the Crenshaw north line. West Hollywood desperately wants a 5 billion extension to travel atop the Santa Monica Blvd fault line, Fairfax is viciously and historically opposed to rail (and the Fairfax bus ridership is artificially boosted by access to the WLA transit center), no rail advocates seem to want the booming and densely populated La Brea Blvd route, so taking the extension away entirely might be a way to prevent west Hollywood from opposing the measure if the LA Brea route were taken, and God knows Vermont has far superior demand than any of the further west north south arterials.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 11, 2016 16:16:13 GMT -8
I'm guessing the Crenshaw extension is being scrapped in favor of the Vermont line, which I think may be heavy rail instead and thus use red line maintenence facilities. Because otherwise Crenshaw north is duplicative of the Vermont line only a couple miles apart. Future measures could extend both lines, but if crenshaw line were completed before Vermont line began, Vermont would never be built. Also, it probably indicates the political difficulty of routing the Crenshaw north line. West Hollywood desperately wants a 5 billion extension to travel atop the Santa Monica Blvd fault line, Fairfax is viciously and historically opposed to rail (and the Fairfax bus ridership is artificially boosted by access to the WLA transit center), no rail advocates seem to want the booming and densely populated La Brea Blvd route, so taking the extension away entirely might be a way to prevent west Hollywood from opposing the measure if the LA Brea route were taken, and God knows Vermont has far superior demand than any of the further west north south arterials. BTW, when I read the LA Times article, I interpret it that the Crenshaw extension is included in at least some form.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 11, 2016 19:34:36 GMT -8
Vermont, to me, is a no brainier - there's already rail on it, why not extend it - even with a double transfer... Well, I hope it's not a double transfer. Remember when the Red line was supposed to go up Fairfax from Pico? I do. The Westsiders made a mistake by opposing the Red line at that time, so it was switched to Vermont Ave. Vermont is a busier region anyway, so this line makes more sense in the long run. Crenshaw North should be on LaBrea, at least in my opinion. The cheapest option will win out.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 12, 2016 8:48:06 GMT -8
Is Vermont and wilshire a double level station or single level?
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 12, 2016 9:09:49 GMT -8
Ah, according to La weekly, metro was supposed to release the plan yesterday, hence the leaks to the media, but delayed it one week because of an internal squabble on sequencing the projects. www.laweekly.com/news/what-will-the-future-of-la-transit-look-like-6697441Metro also released a statement that they will announce the entire ballot measure next week. I wonder how the sequencing will go, I imagine it will be four projects that get immediate funds: 1. Sepulveda tunnel 1. Purple acceleration 1. Orange grade separations and signal priority 1. Lax station The sepulveda tunnel is first because it's the keystone of this project and it will need to get environmental reviews going immediately to try to get construction started by 2020, which I bet will be their goal.mthe other three projects are about releasing funding, more or less and are relatively small scale. Then I imagine the first rail lines to get funding will be: 2. East side extensions 3. Torrance green line extension Because both are fairly far along in the EIR process, and metro is holding the DEIR of the green line until they have more funding than measure R probably because ridership projections would mean minimal federal contributions for it, so they need more money before unveiling it. 4. Gold line to Montclair, because there is so much enthusiastic support along the line I imagine it is being bumped up the schedule. 5. Van nuys line, fairly far along in the study process, getting more funding, will want to open before or shortly after the sepulveda tunnel. If they can break ground before 2020, that would be a big victory. 6. West Santa Ana branch. The big fight will be over rail or an orange Line busway. 7. Vermont subway, not in the first fifteen years 8. Crenshaw north, not in the first fifteen years.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Mar 12, 2016 12:08:19 GMT -8
I'll be a little disappointed if Crenshaw north is held off until the end, but can't have everything, I suppose.
|
|