Post by Philip on Apr 9, 2016 20:41:40 GMT -8
The new Metro ballot has gotten me thinking a lot recently about a Valley Plaza extension of the Red Line. This has been proposed before (most recently by Tom LaBonge a few years back) and it still makes a lot of sense to me.
As I would see it, the line would move west underground and emerge elevated on the eastern shoulder of the 170 freeway, ending with the new station between Oxnard Ave. and Erwin St. on Laurel Canyon. Here are some reasons why I think this would be a great addition:
1) Low Cost: Since only one elevated station is necessary and only about 0.6 mi of tunneling, it would be significantly less expensive than many of the other current Metro projects.
2) Ridership: By connecting the Red Line to another major N/S corridor (Laurel Canyon) and serving neighborhoods that rely greatly on public transit, the station would see significant usage.
3) Development: There would be room for a large park-and-ride at Laurel Canyon/Oxnard, which would relieve much of the overcrowding happening at North Hollywood station. Given the amount of space, TOD in the form of retail and/or affordable housing would be possible as well.
4) Potential: Future extensions would see the line running further up Laurel Canyon, connecting the Red Line to both the Ventura and Antelope Valley Metrolink lines and serving several transit-dependent areas, not to mention all the shopping destinations LC has to offer.
Now Burbank Airport is often ballyhooed as where the Red Line should go next, but I think this would be problematic for a few reasons as well:
1) Low Ridership: Burbank has one of the smallest commercially used runways in the United States. In 2015, the airport had 3,943,629 passengers. LAX, by comparison, had 74,936,256(!) in 2015. Since there are no other major destinations nearby, many of the regular riders would likely be employees of (and around) the airport.
Now, I don't know how many people work in/around Burbank Airport or use public transit to get there, but I doubt the extension's usage would justify the high cost of a subway. Speaking of which...
2) High Cost: The extension would likely require two underground stations (there would be at least one needed between NoHo and the airport) and a fully underground alignment, further driving up the cost.
3) Low Priority: Burbank Airport will soon be served by two Metrolink lines, California High-Speed Rail (later), and has plenty of bus/shuttle service from nearby transit hubs and neighborhoods. Given the airport's size and already-existing connections, a subway extension isn't a priority.
4) Terminal: If built, Burbank Airport would likely be the end of the Red Line for good. There's hardly anything directly north aside from the Antelope Valley Line and extending the line east or west would be costly and illogical.
Thoughts?
As I would see it, the line would move west underground and emerge elevated on the eastern shoulder of the 170 freeway, ending with the new station between Oxnard Ave. and Erwin St. on Laurel Canyon. Here are some reasons why I think this would be a great addition:
1) Low Cost: Since only one elevated station is necessary and only about 0.6 mi of tunneling, it would be significantly less expensive than many of the other current Metro projects.
2) Ridership: By connecting the Red Line to another major N/S corridor (Laurel Canyon) and serving neighborhoods that rely greatly on public transit, the station would see significant usage.
3) Development: There would be room for a large park-and-ride at Laurel Canyon/Oxnard, which would relieve much of the overcrowding happening at North Hollywood station. Given the amount of space, TOD in the form of retail and/or affordable housing would be possible as well.
4) Potential: Future extensions would see the line running further up Laurel Canyon, connecting the Red Line to both the Ventura and Antelope Valley Metrolink lines and serving several transit-dependent areas, not to mention all the shopping destinations LC has to offer.
Now Burbank Airport is often ballyhooed as where the Red Line should go next, but I think this would be problematic for a few reasons as well:
1) Low Ridership: Burbank has one of the smallest commercially used runways in the United States. In 2015, the airport had 3,943,629 passengers. LAX, by comparison, had 74,936,256(!) in 2015. Since there are no other major destinations nearby, many of the regular riders would likely be employees of (and around) the airport.
Now, I don't know how many people work in/around Burbank Airport or use public transit to get there, but I doubt the extension's usage would justify the high cost of a subway. Speaking of which...
2) High Cost: The extension would likely require two underground stations (there would be at least one needed between NoHo and the airport) and a fully underground alignment, further driving up the cost.
3) Low Priority: Burbank Airport will soon be served by two Metrolink lines, California High-Speed Rail (later), and has plenty of bus/shuttle service from nearby transit hubs and neighborhoods. Given the airport's size and already-existing connections, a subway extension isn't a priority.
4) Terminal: If built, Burbank Airport would likely be the end of the Red Line for good. There's hardly anything directly north aside from the Antelope Valley Line and extending the line east or west would be costly and illogical.
Thoughts?
