|
Post by gerard on Jun 8, 2005 20:38:42 GMT -8
The problem that I have with the proposals for a Lincoln Line is that it completely misses Venice Beach. I would solve this (coming north) by turning west on Venice Blvd, stopping at Abbot Kinney, turning northwest on Grand Blvd, stopping at Windward Circle (2 blocks from the busiest part of Venice Beach), then continuing up Main St or Nielson/Ocean Ave to the Expo Line terminus with possible stops at Rose, Ocean Park and Pico.
On the southern end, I'd have a branch off before the Douglas Rosecrans station following the ROW through Manhattan Beach all the way to King Harbor. I'd also continue the main line on the ROW through Torrance, going south on Hawthorne or Western, then following PCH to the Blue Line and following it to the end. This could also be extended to eastern Long Beach. There'd be a Santa Monica-Redondo Beach line and a Santa Monica-Long Beach line.
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Mar 16, 2007 12:49:09 GMT -8
Very true, although north of Windward is much more narrow than Lincoln.
An Expo spur down Venice to the beach (a la Expo Phase 2 Alt 2) should be done that way, while the Green can remain on Lincoln, since its such a beautiful street anyway
|
|
|
Post by gibiscus on Jun 18, 2007 13:01:42 GMT -8
Pacific/Nielsen is so congested between SM and Venice that there needs to be an alternative. Perhaps the Purple Line can turn south to Venice instead of ending in Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Mar 18, 2009 13:10:48 GMT -8
I think the Santa Monica Blvd Purple line branch should just pass Wilshire (after making a stop at The Grove and Wilshire/Fairfax) and continue south on Fairfax until Venice then deviate south-east. At that point it could either continue below grade or go at/above grade (thanks to the center median). Once in Venice though, it might have to go below grade again.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 25, 2009 20:49:15 GMT -8
LADOT released an RFP today, initiated by Councilman Bill Rosendahl, seeking proposals to do a four-phase Westside transportation study. Here are some excerpts of this 30-page PDF related to what corridors and modes are to be studied. This will be very interesting going forward!
----------------------------
March 25, 2009
WESTSIDE TRANSPORTATION STUDY REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
I. SUMMARY
The City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) is soliciting proposals for the Westside Transportation Study. …
Section One: Westside Transportation Model Development Section Two: Westside Mobility and Rail Connectivity Study Section Three: Westside Parking Study Section Four: Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan Update
Budget: $2,400,000
VII. PROJECTED TIMELINE (Subject to Change)
Date Time RFP Release - March 25, 2009 Proposals Due Date - May 12, 2009 4:00 p.m. Final Selection - June 10, 2009 Contract Execution/Notice to Proceed - September 2009 (estimated)
SCOPE OF WORK WESTSIDE TRANSPORTATION STUDY …
The study area for Sections One. Two and Three is generally bounded by La Cienega Boulevard on the east, Sunset Boulevard on the north, the Pacific Ocean on the west, and Imperial Highway on the south.
Within the area identified above, the study sub-area for Section Four is generally bounded by the City of Santa Monica on the north, Imperial Highway on the south, the 1-405 Freeway on the east, and the Pacific Ocean on the west. At least 100 study intersections within the CTCSP area are expected to be required for evaluation in the traffic analysis.
SECTION TWO: WESTSIDE MOBILITY AND RAIL CONNECTIVITY STUDY
Budget: The budget for Section Two is approximately $700,000. …
Task 12 Develop Preliminary Alternatives …
For Lincoln Boulevard prepare alternatives which include the following elements:
1. Preliminary engineered street cross sections that include a) Light Rail (aerial and at-grade); or b) Modern Streetcar (at grade); or c) Bus Rapid Transit. 2. Elimination of on-street parking (which is then moved to parking lots/structures) 3. Add public parking lots 4. Restrict driveways and turn lanes 5. Add streetscape improvements 6. Appropriate bicycle and pedestrian access improvements 7. Plan for new grade separated interchanges of SR-90 & Lincoln Blvd. and Culver and Lincoln Blvd.
This would be a "Phase 2" continuation of the Lincoln Blvd. Task Force study of 2001-2004. Includes working with Los Angeles Planning Dept. on land use issues.
For Sepulveda Boulevard (LAX to Wilshire Corridor) prepare alternatives that include the following elements:
1. Preliminary engineered street cross sections that include a) Light Rail (aerial, at grade, subterranean); or b) Modern Streetcar (at grade); or c) Bus Rapid Transit, 2. Elimination of on-street parking (which is then moved to parking lots/structures) 3. Add public parking lots 4. Restrict driveways and turn lanes 5. Add streetscape improvements 6. Appropriate bicycle and pedestrian access improvements
This would be similar to (but more detailed) than the Lincoln Blvd. Task Force study of 2001-2004. Includes working with Culver City staff. …
Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning: Prepare detailed plans for bicycle and pedestrian improvements along the major Westside corridors, connecting neighborhoods, schools, parks and business districts, augmenting the broad-brush Citywide bike and pedestrian master plans. Specifically prepare preliminary design and engineering for a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over Ballona Creek, east of Lincoln Blvd, to connect Playa Vista and Loyola Marymount University to the Ballona Creek bicycle path. Goal should be to develop a project ready to submit to funding agencies.
North-South Rail Connection: Prepare a major analysis (including preliminary design, engineering and environmental), of the potential routes, methods, constraints and opportunities, by which the Green Line (at LAX) can be extended to connect to the east-west rail lines (i.e. existing and proposed Purple Line and Expo Line). The analysis will include, but may not be limited to:
1. Traffic modeling; ridership modeling; cost/benefit analysis; proposed station locations; joint development alternatives; bus-transit connections; parking facilities; construction issues and cost estimates; and funding alternatives, 2. Preparation of appropriate maps and renderings. 3. Evaluation and recommendation of the best alternative(s) for further engineering and design work. 4. Includes working with Metro staff, and possibly either Santa Monica or Culver City staff. 5. Goal is to identify and elevate candidate project(s) for the next round of rail project funding and construction.
Westside Rail Transit Study: Prepare a master plan for rail transit on the Westside. This major analysis of future rail lines would include the "backbone" north-south rail alignment (described above), but would also explore other possible rail alignments (such as Culver and Venice Boulevards) and technologies, such as a Portland-style Modern Streetcar system. The goal of the master plan is to create an integrated rail expansion plan that would link Venice, Culver City, Playa Vista, and Santa Monica. The study will include, but not be limited to, the following elements:
1. Prepare constraints and opportunities analysis; traffic and ridership modeling; proposed station and joint-development locations; cost/benefit analysis; bus-transit and parking analysis. 2. Identify and measure need for increased rail transit capacity; consider population and employment densities, projected area growth, existing and future expected rail transit usage, linkages to existing transit systems, and community benefits. 3. Preliminary planning for type of rail (i.e., light, heavy, streetcar, etc.) 4. Service configuration (e.g., dedicated median-running, aerial, trench, mixed-flow, and combination) 5. The recommendations should take into consideration the importance of convenient access to rail stations, and the necessity of feeder systems supporting the rail infrastructure. 6. Evaluation of potential environmental impacts such as traffic flow disruption, acquisition of property, noise and aesthetics. 7. Summary of technical results for each alternative such as overall capital costs, expected daily boarding, number of stations and possible environmental mitigation measures. 8. Prepare appropriate maps and renderings and develop GIS layers for NavigateLA. 9. Funding alternatives (incl. Private/public partnership) 10. Evaluate alternatives and recommend the strongest candidates for future design and engineering work 11. Includes working with Metro staff, and possibly either Santa Monica or Culver City staff 12. Goal is to prepare candidate project(s) for the next round of rail project funding and construction. 13. Monitor, coordinate and extract appropriate strategies and recommendations to help improve the "First and Last Mile" experience of transit riders from the SCAG funded Maximizing Mobility Study currently managed by LADCP and LADOT. …
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 26, 2009 5:00:15 GMT -8
Amazing, and long overdue--thanks to Grieg Asher, Bill Rosendahl and the CD11 team who made this happen!
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Mar 26, 2009 7:56:58 GMT -8
"North-South Rail Connection: Prepare a major analysis (including preliminary design, engineering and environmental), of the potential routes, methods, constraints and opportunities, by which the Green Line (at LAX) can be extended to connect to the east-west rail lines (i.e. existing and proposed Purple Line and Expo Line). The analysis will include, but may not be limited to:"
This is great news! I really hope I get to enjoy it during my lifetime.
Fellas, under a "best" probable scenario, what is your time estimate for this to lead to a Lincoln Line? After this study is complete, is the next step selection of locally preferred alternative and EIR process or does this encompass the actual EIR process?
My impression is that Expo started getting tread in the eighties so it took that project about twenty plus years but I wouldn't put Expo in the 'best probable scenario' category. It seemed to speed up and slow down A LOT.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 26, 2009 9:32:08 GMT -8
Fellas, under a "best" probable scenario, what is your time estimate for this to lead to a Lincoln Line? After this study is complete, is the next step selection of locally preferred alternative and EIR process or does this encompass the actual EIR process? This appears to include the early part of the EIR process, but unfortunately funding for construction of any of these is probably after the Measure R projects.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 26, 2009 9:59:29 GMT -8
Overall, I'd say that mass transit throughout the county and country is all speeding up...but for a Lincoln Line I'd say 20-30 years because of so many other projects in front of it.
Get some private/public partnership, however, and that could all totally change.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Mar 31, 2009 12:12:19 GMT -8
LADOT released an RFP today, initiated by Councilman Bill Rosendahl, seeking proposals to do a four-phase Westside transportation study. Here are some excerpts of this 30-page PDF related to what corridors and modes are to be studied. This will be very interesting going forward! Wow, this is amazing. No doubt Sepulveda will get priority over Lincoln as that could potentially connect with a project in Measure R.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Mar 31, 2009 13:22:43 GMT -8
Get some private/public partnership, however, and that could all totally change. i hear this quite often. so what is holding us back from having them?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 31, 2009 13:59:48 GMT -8
Any push for rail on Pacific/Nielsen is a bad idea. The residents will take nothing less than a subway. The residential density is not there. The job density is not there.
All that street has is traffic, but that alone is not enough to warrant a train. (There is traffic on Vista Del Mar as well, but you wouldn't put a subway there.) Traffic on Pacific/Nielsen is caused by people using it as an alternate to Lincoln.
Lincoln has the residential density, job density, commercial density, and traffic that requires a rail line. Sepulveda is less even in density than Lincoln. However, it becomes very dense through Westwood, hits UCLA, and has the advantage of a pass through the mountains into the Valley.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 6, 2010 4:13:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 7, 2010 12:48:47 GMT -8
I believe this is the newest, latest version of the Harbor Subdivision Study--whether it will accommodate more than one rail technology is uncertain, but it'll definitely include the Green Line as an extension to the South Bay Galleria and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Feb 8, 2010 21:00:49 GMT -8
I believe this is the newest, latest version of the Harbor Subdivision Study--whether it will accommodate more than one rail technology is uncertain, but it'll definitely include the Green Line as an extension to the South Bay Galleria and beyond. But now I have to wonder what they are hoping to achieve by preparing an EIR/EIS right now... The recently-adopted LRTP doesn't provide for a "Metro Green Line LRT Extension: Redondo Beach to South Bay Corridor" to open until 2035.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Feb 8, 2010 23:29:39 GMT -8
I would say that for those of us who remember the Pacific Electric Northern District, the "Lincoln Line" is in the "I should live so long" category. And just about the only time I travel on Lincoln is to visit Brennan's Pub when my favorite band is playing there. One of the shortcomings of rail service in Southern California (and most places that aren't New York City) is that the trains are all in their yards by the time the band is finishing it's last set. Oh well, the process has to start somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 1, 2010 10:05:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 1, 2010 11:35:59 GMT -8
I was wondering if they will continue the green line fully grade separated to Torrance or start running it at street level, that is in the year 2030 when it has a groundbreaking ? I used to ride the green line to work in El Segundo and was amazed by how fast it is (even if the stations suck in the middle of a freeway). Eventually it should connect to the Blue line and the Silverline Harbor Transitway.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Mar 1, 2010 13:45:32 GMT -8
I was wondering if they will continue the green line fully grade separated to Torrance or start running it at street level, that is in the year 2030 when it has a groundbreaking Metro seems to make two statements about whether or not to have the Green Line extension be fully grade-separated 1) In the "Project Definition" chapter of the Harbor Sub AA Report, they say the following: Operations Issues – Green Line / Crenshaw Corridor Extension The Local South Alternative is intended to act as a Green Line extension south from the current terminus at Marine/Redondo Beach. If LRT is the preferred alternative for the Crenshaw Corridor, it will likely also be extended south. Such operations appear to be operationally feasible, although several issues will need to be addressed. One is that the Green Line currently operates on a completely grade-separated alignment, and any extension will need to accommodate this capability. The issue is currently being investigated as part of the Crenshaw Corridor project (which is not completely grade separated and will interline with the Green Line if LRT is selected as the preferred alternative), and it is expected that the Harbor Subdivision project will utilize a similar design strategy. So, if the Crenshaw Corridor is in effect a Green Line extension and it won't be fully grade-separated, it logically follows that the South Bay Green Line Extension wouldn't have to be fully grade-separated either. 2) The Harbor Sub AA Report conceptual engineering drawings depict that a South Bay Green Line extension would run as an elevated line until just south of the Manhattan Beach station. The line would then be at-grade all the way to the Torrance station. (Of course the conceptual engineering plans are just that, conceptual.)
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Mar 1, 2010 14:53:59 GMT -8
Everything besides Inglewood ave/Manhattan Beach Blvd and some small streets between there hawthorne blvd are already grade separated. They'll likely have to separate Inglewood/Manhattan Beach because of the 405 entrance, otherwise though the project is pretty solid.
I've seen some plans already for the Redondo and Torrance RTC's and they look quite interesting.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Mar 1, 2010 22:23:18 GMT -8
It is a shame that the Green Line is not an automatic system, like the Vancouver Skytrain. We could have much more frequent trains at night and on weekends for a minimal cost, without the expense of hiring drivers for overtime shifts. Since it is all grade-separated, the capability should be used, whenever we buy new trains in 10 or 20 years.
Perhaps the grade-separated Green Line could turn northwest along Lincoln, if that line is going to be a subway anyway, and operate as a frequent, automatic light metro, while Crenshaw and the South Bay lines would be more conventional light rail, with drivers needed for the street-level portions.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 2, 2010 7:45:28 GMT -8
I read somewhere that the Green line is fully automated, but people wanted a driver so one sits there and does nothing much but get paid. It seems like a waste. However, I have been on it many times when the cars just stopped for no apparent reason on the tracks, and the driver at least gave us information as to what was going on.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Mar 3, 2010 8:17:39 GMT -8
I read somewhere that the Green line is fully automated, but people wanted a driver so one sits there and does nothing much but get paid. It seems like a waste. However, I have been on it many times when the cars just stopped for no apparent reason on the tracks, and the driver at least gave us information as to what was going on. That's not entirely accurate. The signaling system on the Green Line can support full automation, but it was decided early on to have regular LRVs driven by an operator. (this is why LRVs running on the Green Line can't run on the Blue or Gold (and in the future, Expo) lines without their signaling hardware being swapped out). The Green Line automation was the brainchild of Tom Bradley, at the time the L. A. mayor and a member of the MTA board, but after he retired in 1993, the plan kinda went away (there were probably other technical constraints as well).
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 30, 2010 18:58:08 GMT -8
This CityWatch article references the once and future Green Line up Lincoln Blvd., as well as land use issues that plague the Westside. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank You, Mr. Rosendahl, For Your Stand … ALPERN’S ALLEY By Ken Alpern …on Playa Vista. I am sure it was anything but easy, considering the enormous pressure that has been exerted on two previous Westside Councilmembers as well as the rest of the City Council (who apparently succumb easily to such pressure). Perhaps the Council forgot the myriad reasons they voted down the Las Lomas project at the northern limits of the City of the Angels, but with the exception of Paul Koretz (whose Westside district is also affected by Playa Vista) the rest of the Council had no problem shafting the Westside and letting Playa Vista walk all over the City. Of course, it’s no secret that the rest of the City has been using the Westside and the San Fernando Valley as its personal ATM’s for years now (making one wonder if secession, or the creation of quasi-independent boroughs, will ever be revisited if this keeps up). In particular, it’s amazing that Greig Smith and his Valley Councilmember colleagues would vote in favor of Playa Vista Phase II when the completion and traffic impacts of Phase I are anything but completed. Hmmm…maybe we should revisit Las Lomas just to thank Councilmember Smith for acting like an ungrateful (fill in your favorite expletive)? Nah, it’s behind us and there’s no room for acting small like Smith and the other Valley Councilmembers at the expense of their constituents, who deserve better. Las Lomas was and will always be a turkey of a project. And, frankly, Playa Vista is (despite its problems) decidedly NOT a turkey of a project. I’m not thrilled that we just lost one of the last hunks of open space the Westside had, and the issues relating to the environment and the Native American burial sites are serious ones. Still, just as I give Councilmen Rosendahl and Koretz props for their courage and morals, I also give props to the Playa Vista developers for coming up with mitigations for these issues that were both costly and sincere, and in ways we just don’t see with other developers. (Although the bullying and warping of neighborhood council rules that Playa Vista did in thwarting the will of local Westchester and Playa Del Rey residents was and always will be “Exhibit A” as to how NOT to allow outside entities the ability to unduly influence local neighborhood council politics and elections. For that one, Playa Vista, SHAME...ON...YOU!!!) I’ll be happy to go on record as saying that it would have been best if the public had bought out this empty space/land about 20 years ago…but it’s too late for that. I’ll also be happy to go on record as saying that had the Westside and much of the City had FIRST been developed like Playa Vista, we might have endured less of the infrastructure and traffic problems we now have. Furthermore, I’ll also be happy to go on record as saying that Playa Vista might just prove to be one of the best retirement communities that the Westside will ever encounter, with blue-haired old ladies and early bird specials and all, which is something that this part of the country is frightfully lacking. If ever there is a Lincoln Blvd. light rail line extension from the Green Line (didja know the Green Line was originally supposed to all the way up to Marina Del Rey?), I’m pretty sure that the Playa Vista developers will sincerely build a station at the intersection of Lincoln and Jefferson for it. Unfortunately, it’s being built AFTER a Westside development boom that has neither had reasonable planning nor logic to it, and with a traffic plan that presumes cut-through traffic will occur through neighboring residential neighborhoods in Del Rey and Mar Vista—and perhaps the blame should NOT go to private developers trying to make a buck as much as an enabling political system and L.A. City Planning and LADOT that could have always said, “No, dammit, NO!!!” to a project of this size in that location. So…shame on you, Ruth Galanter and Cindy Miscikowski, for promoting Playa Vista as an affordable housing project (your mouths should be washed out with soap, as far as most Westsiders are concerned), when in fact it’s just another case of overdevelopment. After all, there are plenty of affordable housing projects being built next door in Del Rey and throughout the Westside. And that’s why I have to give Bill Rosendahl credit for the courage to vote against this project because of its myriad of unanswered traffic/infrastructure impacts and questions, unlike the shafting of Westside constituents that we saw with his predecessors Galanter and Miscikowski…because Bill Rosendahl is a powerful and outspoken advocate for affordable housing. The offer of 200 affordable housing slots for Phase II of Playa Vista is one that Bill Rosendahl has and always will appreciate. After all, if there’s going to be a large commercial portion to be included in Phase II (which I personally support as a way to offer a local alternative to regional traffic trips to stores and employment venues by those living there) then we’ve got to find a place for lower-salaried employees to live without forcing them to commute from far away.
Anyway, the City Council, in their own creepy way, has passed the second phase of Playa Vista and it’s now up for all to see if a satisfactory mitigation plan can be established for the region. Frankly, with so many Level of Service (LOS) intersections that are ranked “F” in that two or more traffic light cycles are needed to pass through it, methinks that the Westside has been screwed again by developers. I still think that revisitation of the Green Line Northern Coastal extension to Marina Del Rey can and should be revisited, and a transit stop at Jefferson/Lincoln to accommodate that future train can and should be established (and which can also accommodate current bus lines to Culver City, LAX and the Westside. I’m also hoping that L.A. City residents can be encouraged to work locally (as is the intention of the commercial portion of the second phase of Playa Vista, which is arguably the only beneficial part of that phase). It’s up to Bill Rosendahl to show the balance, thoughtfulness and moral fortitude he showed on this issue when it comes to other projects such as the Bundy Village and Casden projects, which have each have raised a lot of eyebrows in both his district and in the district of his ally and neighbor Paul Koretz. I don’t envy either Councilmen Rosendahl or Koretz the job of trying to encourage appropriate land use, create more affordable housing and employment opportunities in West L.A., and to improve our environment and quality of life, but at this time they appear to be the best people for that painfully tough job. …and as someone who saw a decade of conflict, political armtwisting and endless debate on this Playa Vista Phase II project, I will forever be grateful for a man who saw the big picture and kept it simple by voting his conscience. Thank you, Bill Rosendahl! (Ken Alpern is a Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) and is both co-chair of the MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee and past co-chair of the MVCC Planning Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and also chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at Alpern@MarVista.org. This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)
CityWatch Vol 8 Issue 25 Pub: Mar 30, 2010
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 23, 2010 15:21:52 GMT -8
LADOT released an RFP today, initiated by Councilman Bill Rosendahl, seeking proposals to do a four-phase Westside transportation study. Here are some excerpts of this 30-page PDF related to what corridors and modes are to be studied. This will be very interesting going forward! … What happened to this study? Also, has there been any movement on the "other" Green line extension study (the one to LAX, not the South Bay one). I know the Lincoln extension is one that transit advocates have been talking about for years but is there actually any serious thought from Metro about using the LAX extension (which has Measure R funding) as a launching point for a broader Lincoln line study?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 23, 2010 15:39:10 GMT -8
LADOT released an RFP today, initiated by Councilman Bill Rosendahl, seeking proposals to do a four-phase Westside transportation study. Here are some excerpts of this 30-page PDF related to what corridors and modes are to be studied. This will be very interesting going forward! … What happened to this study? Also, has there been any movement on the "other" Green line extension study (the one to LAX, not the South Bay one). I know the Lincoln extension is one that transit advocates have been talking about for years but is there actually any serious thought from Metro about using the LAX extension (which has Measure R funding) as a launching point for a broader Lincoln line study? I can't speak to that specific study. I can say that a Lincoln Line into the Westside is currently a low priority for Metro, compared to all the other projects it has prioritized. As you know, the only Green Line extensions currently on the LRTP with Measure R funding are (1) Green Line to LAX and (2) Green Line to the South Bay (Torrance RTC). The South Bay Extension is in the DEIR process. There are public meetings scheduled in the second half of October. The extension to LAX/Westchester is prioritized, but not much is happening on it. LAWA needs to get their act together on their plans for the people mover and other LAX improvements. However, the first part of this is incorporated in the Crenshaw Corridor. That project will connect the current Green Line to Aviation/LAX. When that project is completed, Metro plans to run a northern branch of the Green Line that will serve Aviation/Century. As others have pointed out, anything can happen. However, unless some serious advocacy takes place, I personally wouldn't hold my breath for a Lincoln Line in the near future. The following map shows how the Green Lines (plural) and the Crenshaw Line are expected to interoperate near LAX:
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Sept 23, 2010 19:07:27 GMT -8
Of course, whenever this topic comes up, I always have to make the obligatory push for the Sepulveda route instead of/in addition to/as a priority over the Lincoln route. To reiterate, while the Lincoln route will be quite nice for the local residents, it will not be as beneficial as the Sepulveda route will be for the region: the Sepulveda route will be able to hit Expo, the Purple Line, and connect to the 405 corridor LRT and head into the Valley, hitting the Orange Line and maybe even continuing further north up Van Nuys. The Lincoln route, though it will do great things for the local community, would have a much more difficult time hitting the (currently funded segment of the) Purple Line, and heading to the valley. While it could be done, it would have to swing pretty far out of the way. The maps that have the Lincoln line sharing tracks with Expo just really don't make sense to me. By the way, that's a very nice map, Metrocenter. Did you make it?
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Sept 23, 2010 19:20:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 23, 2010 20:26:56 GMT -8
Of course, whenever this topic comes up, I always have to make the obligatory push for the Sepulveda route instead of/in addition to/as a priority over the Lincoln route. To reiterate, while the Lincoln route will be quite nice for the local residents, it will not be as beneficial as the Sepulveda route will be for the region: the Sepulveda route will be able to hit Expo, the Purple Line, and connect to the 405 corridor LRT and head into the Valley, hitting the Orange Line and maybe even continuing further north up Van Nuys. Actually this is one reason why I want a 405 Corridor as LRT instead of HRT. Along with extending it north on Van Nuys-Parthenia-Sepulveda (an old PE ROW, I believe) to the Sylmar Metrolink, an extension south to LAX would be cheaper than HRT, and would open the possibility of extending it even further to South Bay, and perhaps one day, Long Beach.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 23, 2010 21:33:24 GMT -8
Metro accepted the money from the Feds for that transit center, even though the transit center is primarily an LAX project. Why, you ask? Because LAWA was so slow on acting on the grant, that the Feds were about to take their money back. Metro stepped in and accepted the money to avoid losing it. LAWA is currently focused on redoing the international terminal. The People Mover is on the backburner for them right now.
|
|