|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 9, 2009 12:09:41 GMT -8
The way it becomes meaningful is that we build corridors that connect to destinations. Going for a goal of X number of riders is nice, however I think with the Regional Connector tying our LRT lines through and getting the Wilshire Subway to at least Westwood and getting a north-south line from the Airport to at least Wilshire because that very framework to really move forward on, to where now there's competion to want to build MORE transit projects in our region. I use ridership numbers just as an easy way to quantify the use of the system, but I agree once you build those items that will not only bring an explosion in ridership, but a stronger desire to build even more. This is why it is so important to build high ridership successful lines at first. There really has been a paradigm shift over the last 10 years. Back then people argued rail vs. car or rail vs. bus or just that rail wasn't really worth the expense. Now the discussion is really about what type of rail to build and where to build it with communities fighting to get it. On the downside, we need to do a lot more to fix and expand use of Metrolink and we are really stalled in that regard for now. Also, pedestrian and bicycle improvements are moving at a snail's pace at best and these go hand in hand with an improved public transit system and an overall healthy vibrant city. My fear is that we won't get as much out of lines like Expo and the Gold Line if we don't provide a better pedestrian experience, especially since it isn't that great in to begin with in many areas that these rails travel. My hope is that the City of Los Angeles dedicates a lot of its Measure R money to this cause, and I believe they have a key vote on this on November 18th. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 19, 2010 17:31:24 GMT -8
From the Source:
•Denny Zane, the executive director of Move LA, said that he would like to see a national loan program created to help regions build mass transit — and that money saved by building projects more quickly could be used to shore up shaky operations funding. “We had a meeting with the mayor [Villaraigosa] and we’ll figure out a way to leverage the [Measure R] money,” LaHood said.[/b]
Potentially fantastic news! If the Measure R money is leveraged in the way that Move LA has been advocating that gets the LRTP projects completed in about half the time!
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 11, 2017 9:33:21 GMT -8
Since Metro's working on the new LRTP, I thought I'd resurrect this very old thread to get some discussion going about what we think will / should be included. I made my own proposal (that I admittedly did more as a design challenge to see how clean I could make a totally-filled-out map look) here: i.imgur.com/oxQFn5A.jpgIn addition to Measure M-funded projects, this LRTP adds: - Conversion of Measure M's NoHo to Pasadena BRT to LRT, creating a line with service from Warner Center to Montclair. - Conversion of Canoga Park to Chatsworth BRT to LRT, which then interlines with the aforementioned line until it hits Brand, which it: - turns down as a new LRT line, hitting the Glendale rail station and following the ML/Amtrak right-of-way to the Blue line, where it interlines through Chinatown and connects at Union to the WSAB line as the northern arm of it. - Southern end of this WSAB line goes through Orange County to Santa Ana (would need to be funded by them) - Crenshaw North extension to downtown Burbank rail station - Crenshaw South extension to CSU Long Beach - Green South extension to San Pedro - Purple line to the sea (unlikely to happen in the near term due to the politics of Santa Monica, sadly) - Conversion of Lincoln BRT to LRT as northern extension of the 'L' arm of the green line. - Red Line northern extension to Burbank Airport - Red Line southern extension to the Green Line (in Measure M as BRT, this provides for full HRT) - BRT on Slauson - LAX APM eastward extension to Inglewood sports district - LAX express Metrolink line (again, this is politically difficult, especially as the Harbor Subdivision is being turned into a bike path, but the political considerations can be kicked down the road since it's a long-range plan) - and the biggest change, the 'silver line' LRT concept (seen here as pink), from Venice Beach to Culver City, up to and through WeHo, along Santa Monica through Hollywood, down sunset through Silver Lake and Echo Park, and along the existing right-of-way in the SGV through Alhambra and San Gabriel to El Monte Notably absent here are more BRT lines (so many options, I wasn't sure where to put them... Rosemead/Lakewood, perhaps? Something mirroring the route of the defunct 710 connector project?), a yellow line concept that moves through Silver Lake to Glendale (I thought the two added lines mirrored most of that service in a better pattern), any new service on Ventura, and any east-west project in the north SFV (where should it go? BRT or LRT? I wasn't sure about any of that). |
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Aug 11, 2017 17:09:24 GMT -8
What about Metrolink using the ex PE line to El Segundo then the Harbor subdivision to LAX century Blvd.
|
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Aug 11, 2017 17:55:38 GMT -8
I started to nit-pick your additions before realizing its your wishlist map, you can put what ya want on it!  |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 12, 2017 10:00:30 GMT -8
What about Metrolink using the ex PE line to El Segundo then the Harbor subdivision to LAX century Blvd. That's interesting. I've never really heard anyone suggest using that line before. |
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Aug 13, 2017 10:02:12 GMT -8
Yes Union Pacific upgraded this line about ten years ago with relaid ribbon rail. No signals on this line plus PTC would need to installed. There are signals on the Wilmington line already.
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Aug 13, 2017 10:18:40 GMT -8
What about Metrolink using the ex PE line to El Segundo then the Harbor subdivision to LAX century Blvd. That's interesting. I've never really heard anyone suggest using that line before. I've thought of this, but I see problems with it: - Turning around to head back north on the Harbor Sub would be quite tight, forcing it to slow a lot (which matters a lot for diesel), and they tore out all the legacy track as part of Crenshaw line construction. I'm not sure the ROW east of the runways is wide enough to add another track
- It makes 4-tracking the Blue Line really complicated if you have to preserve a mainline rail track (assuming UP is willing to abandon it; they do seem to use it for storage at least)
- It merges briefly with one of the Alameda Corridor tracks at the north end before turning north along the river. I don't know how easily the tracks could be shifted south to give it a dedicated track there.
As for andert's list, I think BRT->LRT conversions are a waste, especially when they're street-running. LRT has advantages other than capacity if substantial parts of the route are in private ROW/elevated/subway, since it can switch to those seamlessly. NoHo-Pasadena doesn't have that characteristic. I also don't think demand will be high enough on the existing Orange Line to actually interline two other LRT lines. I expect demand to drop on the eastern end once people can take Van Nuys->Purple to get downtown instead of 744->Orange->Red. It's also a really big list. The timescale for the LRTP is about the same as for Measure M, and all that money is already spoken for. Though I guess the Tier 1/2 Unfunded lists can get pretty large... I do like the Glendale route (I'm assuming it does along Brand and Glenoaks), but I think the NoHo-Pasadena route should hop on the 5 at Colorado, then take the 134 to serve the Burbank Media District since in my world it stays as BRT and can just do that. Vermont south to the 105 is also super important. Other things I'd like to see are continuing a line on Randolph Street past Salt Lake Ave to hit Maywood/Bell/Bell Gardens/Pico Rivera/Whittier instead of the slow and expensive Washington Blvd route; 4-tracking the Blue Line north of Willowbrook (WSAB/Randolph get a flying junction to they can go to either set of tracks) to allow express service; and at-grade/elevated lines along Venice and San Vicente that merge at Rimpau to form a subway under Pico. I'm iffy on how to handle these through downtown, but my current thinking is the local tracks split and go up the existing Washington route and Alameda, while the express tracks continue north under the 10, then curve under Pico to meet up with that line. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 14, 2017 17:01:59 GMT -8
If we are talking about lines not in the current LRP, I have a few suggestions:
1. WSAB extension from Union Station to Century City via Sunset Blvd and Santa Monica Blvd passing thru Chinatown, Echo Park, Silver Lake, Hollywood, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills.So at the end, it is a full line from Artesia to Century City.
2. "Beach to Valley" line from Venice Beach to SGV via Venice Blvd to Mid City, then Pico Blvd to DTLA, then 6th street crossing LA River to Whittier Blvd, then turn north on Soto St in Boyle Height to Valley Blvd, then follow Valley Blvd to El Monte Station.
3. Time to revisit getting the Purple line across the LA River to East LA (full extension to Whittier appears hopeless given SGV and Gateway councils are both fixated with the flawed Gold line extensions)
4. Vermont Ave from Carson to Pico Blvd, then Alvarado St to West Lake, Echo Park, Silver Lake, then Glendale Blvd to Atwater Village and Downtown Glendale.
5. Reconstruct Expo/Blue junction as underground flat junction.
6. Purple line to the sea.
Of the existing or current LRP BRT lines, I would only consider changing Lincoln Blvd BRT to LRT so it can continue from the existing Green line, mainly because it hasn't been build yet.
Orange line and the SFV-SGV crosstown line should get some grade separation and signal preemption but I would probably keep them as BRT.
And full BRT on these streets (some in addition to trains underground):
E-W
Wilshire
Santa Monica
Pico
Ventura
Valley
N-S
Sepulveda
Westwood
La Cienega
Hawthorne
Western
Vermont
Atlantic
|
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Aug 17, 2017 10:15:36 GMT -8
This game is fun! My thoughts:
1) Get rid of most of the duplicated lines, such as those that you've marked on the existing Orange Line and Green Line.
a) for your "Chatsworth-Santa Ana Line": run it east-west through the northern half of the SF Valley to serve CS-Northridge.
b) get rid of the Green Line: everything it does duplicates service on other routes, except the spur through Palos Verdes, not exactly transit rich environment.
2) I like how you reconfigured the Red and Purple Lines to cross at Wilshire/Vermont, but expect there would be massive revolt from Valley commuters who are forced to make a transfer.
3) I suggested the "LAX APM eastward extension to Inglewood sports district" in an earlier post, but have subsequently discovered that this won't be feasible because it would violate FAA regulations by using air passenger funds to serve non-airport related trips.
4) It would be interesting to see how this system looks on a scale map to see how far apart these corridor are, specifically the Purple Line and Expo in Santa Monica.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 17, 2017 10:53:14 GMT -8
3) I suggested the "LAX APM eastward extension to Inglewood sports district" in an earlier post, but have subsequently discovered that this won't be feasible because it would violate FAA regulations by using air passenger funds to serve non-airport related trips. If we presume tunneling to the 96th station by the sepulveda line there has to be a reasonable extraction / launch pit that stays a bit away from the airport. Kill two birds with one stone, turn the line east south of 96th and tunnel to the stadium area for the line terminus and extraction/ launch pit |
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Aug 17, 2017 12:34:33 GMT -8
CCL: Are you suggesting that instead of extending the APM, they extend the Sepulveda Line? I suppose that's feasible, but 20-30 years too late for the 2028 Olympics, which was my original purpose for the APM extension to Inglewood sports district. Maybe it will be in place the next time we host the Games, in 2072.
|
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Aug 17, 2017 12:48:32 GMT -8
One other thing I notice is missing from andert's dream map: there aren't any north-south transit routes east of DTLA. We should be able to provide some sort of transit alternative to connect the Gateway Cities to the San Gabriel Valley, now that the 710 tunnel is dead. This route could be interlined with the NoHo-Pasadena Line to avoid redundant service to Montclair.
|
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Aug 18, 2017 20:51:12 GMT -8
One other thing I notice is missing from andert's dream map: there aren't any north-south transit routes east of DTLA. We should be able to provide some sort of transit alternative to connect the Gateway Cities to the San Gabriel Valley, now that the 710 tunnel is dead. This route could be interlined with the NoHo-Pasadena Line to avoid redundant service to Montclair. Somebody in another thread suggested that, instead of the odd C-shaped route that would run from South El Monte to Whittier, the section from Atlantic to Whittier could become the southern end of a new N-S line running up Atlantic into Pasadena. That neatly avoids the interlined mess that the current Gold Line dual-branch proposal creates while fixing one of Metro's biggest glaring omissions. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 18, 2017 21:55:25 GMT -8
One other thing I notice is missing from andert's dream map: there aren't any north-south transit routes east of DTLA. We should be able to provide some sort of transit alternative to connect the Gateway Cities to the San Gabriel Valley, now that the 710 tunnel is dead. This route could be interlined with the NoHo-Pasadena Line to avoid redundant service to Montclair. Somebody in another thread suggested that, instead of the odd C-shaped route that would run from South El Monte to Whittier, the section from Atlantic to Whittier could become the southern end of a new N-S line running up Atlantic into Pasadena. That neatly avoids the interlined mess that the current Gold Line dual-branch proposal creates while fixing one of Metro's biggest glaring omissions. That was me |
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Aug 19, 2017 15:34:52 GMT -8
Has a construction start date been mentioned on the LAX APM. Los Angeles International Airport Automated People Mover.
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Aug 20, 2017 10:56:42 GMT -8
One other thing I notice is missing from andert's dream map: there aren't any north-south transit routes east of DTLA. We should be able to provide some sort of transit alternative to connect the Gateway Cities to the San Gabriel Valley, now that the 710 tunnel is dead. This route could be interlined with the NoHo-Pasadena Line to avoid redundant service to Montclair. Somebody in another thread suggested that, instead of the odd C-shaped route that would run from South El Monte to Whittier, the section from Atlantic to Whittier could become the southern end of a new N-S line running up Atlantic into Pasadena. That neatly avoids the interlined mess that the current Gold Line dual-branch proposal creates while fixing one of Metro's biggest glaring omissions. Splitting the Atlantic corridor isn't a great solution either, though. I don't know of a way to get ridership per segment on the 260/762, but I suspect it's at least as busy south of the 60 as it is north of it given the relative density and income levels. You'd want to keep it as one corridor. Hitting WSAB, Green (with an infill station), and Blue (if the route turns west to Artesia as the existing lines do) as well as both ends of the existing Gold would make this line pretty useful. I still think Randolph St (which is how the PE got to Whittier originally) needs a closer look. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Oct 19, 2017 18:44:06 GMT -8
I've made a KLM Google map with all the current and under construction lines, plus the Measure M plan, and the other Tier 2 lines from the 2009 Metro LRTP (Long Range Transportation Plan). It also has the current and definitely planned stations (though most of the planned lines do not have detailed aligments or station locations yet). Feel free to use and share publically: Metro 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan Map plus Measure MI would recommend everyone sign up for the new Long Range Plan updates. It should be ready in 2019, about 10 years after the last plan. Here's a sample from the map:  |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Oct 19, 2017 18:57:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 21, 2017 2:26:53 GMT -8
Awesome map!
|
|
