|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 5, 2014 13:28:42 GMT -8
Haven't thought about this one in a while, huh? All the talk about the Sepulveda Pass Corridor being a privately built and operated premium service (with premium fares) got me thinking about the possibility of the LAX Express rail link being built as such. Let's face it, this project will never have the cost-effectiveness rating to qualify for federal funding, nor would it be beneficial enough to the local community to warrant the use of local funding sources. And because the Harbor Subdivision can only handle so much trackage, this LAX Express could and should operate in a separate trench configuration. The premium fares should cover the cost of the expensive grade-separated trench alignment over a few decades. And because you're only building two stations (Union Station and LAX), this shouldn't be outrageously expensive.  |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 5, 2014 13:52:10 GMT -8
Logistically speaking, it would probably be best for a Metrolink line to end at Century/Aviation rather than heading further west and make LAX even more of a crowded mess than it already is.
From Century/Aviation, travelers could just take the APM to the terminals.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 5, 2014 14:54:03 GMT -8
Politically, using this ROW for express service will be difficult.
Nonetheless, it is actually the most logical use of the ROW.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 5, 2014 15:58:37 GMT -8
Politically, using this ROW for express service will be difficult. Nonetheless, it is actually the most logical use of the ROW. I'm looking at this as a cut-and-cover project. You can still have local LRT service and even Metrolink on top. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 5, 2014 17:11:45 GMT -8
Politically, using this ROW for express service will be difficult. Nonetheless, it is actually the most logical use of the ROW. What if there were only three stations in between? Say... in Inglewood, at Vermont/Future Red Line, and Long Beach Ave/Blue Line? |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 6, 2014 3:09:17 GMT -8
What about interlining with the Crenshaw line and building new stations only at Vermont, Blue line, and Union Station? Minimizes the number of stations, and the amount of track to be built. Complicates operations, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 6, 2014 13:09:08 GMT -8
What about interlining with the Crenshaw line and building new stations only at Vermont, Blue line, and Union Station? Minimizes the number of stations, and the amount of track to be built. Complicates operations, though. The Blue line connection won't change ridership very much because there is a faster transfer to/from Blue line - it's call the Green line. The Vermont stop will be busy and heavily used. I think politically, the South LA community will only support using this ROW if it is a local service. But we already studied local rail service in this corridor twice (Crenshaw line EIR and South Bay Extension EIR) and neither time, the ridership penned out. The main problem is the ROW goes to Vernon and the low density industrial areas by the LA River on approach to Union station. This last part absolutely kills any ridership and cost/benefit analysis. So here is what I think is a better solution... don't fixate on the Harbor subdivision ROW. Use it until it doesn't make sense to follow it... Definitely follow it to Vermont and the Silver Line. But I suggest the line should leave the ROW and turn north on Avalon Blvd and then San Pedro St into Downtown LA. This segment can be street running all the way to Little Tokyo and it will be local service to boost ridership. Follow along on the map: mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zR9RKhcm8Y9U.klMiLONWoBKw |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 28, 2014 9:21:52 GMT -8
The Blue line connection won't change ridership very much because there is a faster transfer to/from Blue line - it's call the Green line. The Vermont stop will be busy and heavily used. I think politically, the South LA community will only support using this ROW if it is a local service. But we already studied local rail service in this corridor twice (Crenshaw line EIR and South Bay Extension EIR) and neither time, the ridership penned out. The main problem is the ROW goes to Vernon and the low density industrial areas by the LA River on approach to Union station. This last part absolutely kills any ridership and cost/benefit analysis. So here is what I think is a better solution... don't fixate on the Harbor subdivision ROW. Use it until it doesn't make sense to follow it... Definitely follow it to Vermont and the Silver Line. But I suggest the line should leave the ROW and turn north on Avalon Blvd and then San Pedro St into Downtown LA. This segment can be street running all the way to Little Tokyo and it will be local service to boost ridership. Follow along on the map: mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zR9RKhcm8Y9U.klMiLONWoBKwFrom what I see, it would cost a *lot* more to follow Avalon all the way up. There would be a lot of new track on a street without a Metro owned ROW, and it would closely parallel other lines, especially around Little Tokyo. Assuming the West Santa Ana branch gets built as you've outlined it on your map, perhaps a good option would be to follow the Harbor Sub a bit further to the West Santa Ana branch line, and then interline up to Union Station. Under this scenario, the only new track for a direct Union Station - LAX line would be along the Harbor Subdivision from Inglewood to Huntington Park. Throw in a handful of new stops, and perhaps it could be built on the cheap even with local service. It complicates operations to interline twice, but you get direct Downtown/LAUS-LAX service at a comparatively low cost. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 9, 2014 16:39:21 GMT -8
When I saw "P3" my first thought was of a type of all-electric PCC streetcar bought by LA Transit Lines in 1948. Then I realized that it must be an abbreviation for "Public-Private Partnership".
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 15, 2015 14:13:55 GMT -8
I would be very opposed to using public money for an express train that did not benefit the communities that it ran through.
|
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Mar 16, 2015 15:56:05 GMT -8
I would be very opposed to using public money for an express train that did not benefit the communities that it ran through. If LAWA can float the bonds and use PFC's then go for it, just like the PANYNJ and Airtrain JFK. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 17, 2015 20:49:52 GMT -8
Obviously there would have to be a station somewhere in Inglewood, but then maybe also at Vermont?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 17, 2015 22:43:36 GMT -8
Wasn't the BNSF subdivision terminated during the final EIR of Crenshaw Line to make the construction cheaper by eliminating the freight track?
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 18, 2015 10:25:45 GMT -8
Wasn't the BNSF subdivision terminated during the final EIR of Crenshaw Line to make the construction cheaper by eliminating the freight track? Part of it will be removed. The section from Crenshaw to 96th street will not be preserved, and the section on Aviation south of Century will be trenched so the freight tracks will be removed. And of course the bridge over Century is already gone. South of El Segundo, the tracks will be left in place, but I suspect when the Green Line South Bay extension EIR is finalized, it will recommend removing freight tracks there too. Additionally, Metro is currently studying turning the eastern portion of the right of way (from Crenshaw to LA River) into a park. thesource.metro.net/2014/01/27/how-metro-is-studying-the-rail-to-river-proposal/So basically, the entire BNSF harbor subdivision will eventually be repurposed, except for the southern portion in Long Beach. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 18, 2015 13:05:05 GMT -8
Wasn't the BNSF subdivision terminated during the final EIR of Crenshaw Line to make the construction cheaper by eliminating the freight track? Part of it will be removed. The section from Crenshaw to 96th street will not be preserved, and the section on Aviation south of Century will be trenched so the freight tracks will be removed. And of course the bridge over Century is already gone. South of El Segundo, the tracks will be left in place, but I suspect when the Green Line South Bay extension EIR is finalized, it will recommend removing freight tracks there too. Additionally, Metro is currently studying turning the eastern portion of the right of way (from Crenshaw to LA River) into a park. thesource.metro.net/2014/01/27/how-metro-is-studying-the-rail-to-river-proposal/So basically, the entire BNSF harbor subdivision will eventually be repurposed, except for the southern portion in Long Beach. Yeah, I think this is gone. There was never going to be a LAX Express though. The communities in the area would never allow that and I can't really blame them at all. LAWA would certainly never fund a 13 mile rail line across the City. The APM is all we'll ever get from LAWA, which makes sense. I think what should have been done is that a light rail line should have been built up the Harbor SUB to Vermont and then underground there to Vermont/Wilshire. So instead of continuing along Crenshaw it would have skipped turning at Crenshaw and gone up to Vermont. A future extension could have taken a branch south along Vermont to the Green Line and some of this could have been above ground or at grade. Of course, this would work well with a Sylmar- LAX line as another north south branch. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 18, 2015 14:46:26 GMT -8
So if I'm reading this correctly, then a single-tracked Metrolink line on this corridor is dead? Isn't the ROW wide enough to support both LRT and DMU?
Or, if Metrolink isn't possible, couldn't a future LRT line be built that could interline with the Crenshaw Line upon reaching it?
I know the area has low ridership projections and it's unlikely we'll see anything built on it in our lifetimes, but I hate to see it become virtually impossible for something to be done with it someday.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 18, 2015 15:17:03 GMT -8
So if I'm reading this correctly, then a single-tracked Metrolink line on this corridor is dead? Isn't the ROW wide enough to support both LRT and DMU? Or, if Metrolink isn't possible, couldn't a future LRT line be built that could interline with the Crenshaw Line upon reaching it? I know the area has low ridership projections and it's unlikely we'll see anything built on it in our lifetimes, but I hate to see it become virtually impossible for something to be done with it someday. Theoretically, building a park would not preclude this from ever becoming a rail line, but it would be pretty close. South LA has a dearth of parks and I'd expect this to become pretty popular so taking it away will be all but impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Mar 18, 2015 19:24:18 GMT -8
Theoretically, building a park would not preclude this from ever becoming a rail line, but it would be pretty close. South LA has a dearth of parks and I'd expect this to become pretty popular so taking it away will be all but impossible. Could always tunnel under it, but that would defeat the cost-effectiveness. It would, however, allow some more flexibility in routing - which might not be bad, considering that industrial areas don't exactly build ridership. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 19, 2015 15:30:10 GMT -8
So if I'm reading this correctly, then a single-tracked Metrolink line on this corridor is dead? Isn't the ROW wide enough to support both LRT and DMU? Or, if Metrolink isn't possible, couldn't a future LRT line be built that could interline with the Crenshaw Line upon reaching it? I know the area has low ridership projections and it's unlikely we'll see anything built on it in our lifetimes, but I hate to see it become virtually impossible for something to be done with it someday. Don't fixate on this... very few people go from Downtown LA to LAX so LAX Express was always kind of a pointless project that only rail nerds fancy. From a practical standpoint, getting Crenshaw to connect with Purple Line is much more important project and will result in higher ridership to and from LAX. Crenshaw connection to Purple line means 2 transfer ride (1st transfer from Purple to Crenshaw, 2nd transfer from Crenshaw to APM) to LAX from Westwood, Century City, Beverly Hills, Mid City, Koreatown, Financial District, City Hall, and potentially, Arts District. That will put access to LAX via rail on par with most European and Asian cities (e.g. two transfer ride to LHR from most of London, 2 transfer ride to CDG from most of Paris, 2 transfer ride to HKG from Hong Kong Island, 2 transfer ride to NRT from most of Tokyo). Crenshaw line connection to the Red Line is even better... it will mean 2 transfer ride to LAX from North Hollywood, Universal, Hollywood. Not too bad at all. BTW, drove by Aviation today and trenching is underway on Aviation so all the tracks have been removed from Imperial to at least 96th Street. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 30, 2015 10:57:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Sept 30, 2016 14:05:36 GMT -8
Has Metro ever participated in and completed a project using a Public-Private Partnership? The website only lists future projects, this is not encouraging high hopes. Seems like if any bureaucracy has experience with PPPs it would LAWA/LAX as it is the organization's operating model. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 1, 2016 12:12:17 GMT -8
If they were to shrink Florence Ave down in the sections where it runs adjacent to the Light-Rail, I wonder if the ROW could be widened enough to accommodate a single track for DMUs?
|
|
