|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 21, 2007 11:03:36 GMT -8
I like the idea of extending the Green line up to Sepulveda/Lincoln where it could potentially branch off either way.
It seems a no-brainer to me that after going to S/L, the Green Line should north up to UCLA over/through the Sepulveda Pass, and into the Valley up to Metrolink.
If the East end finally gets extended to Metrolink, we could have Metrolink to Metrolink service via LAX. That would be something to celebrate.
I think some people think Green Line to the airport means "Green Line directly to their gate." I'm comfortable with a LAX transit center that has a Green Line stop, and a huge bus dept, that connects with a people mover to the terminals. Others want the Green Line to go all the way to the terminals itself.
But it might be easier getting support for extending the Green Line via LAX if people knew there could be the potential benefit of someday having an alternative to going from SFV to the Westside than snaking through the Sepulveda Pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Nov 21, 2007 18:01:22 GMT -8
I actually don't want this to be a Green Line extension. It should be heavy-duty elevated heavy rail, compatible with the Red Line. Perhaps it can be designed to interchange with the Purple Line or even the Red Line in the distant future.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 22, 2007 9:00:03 GMT -8
I think that Dan has phrased this all quite well, and I have observed that Metro and LAWA are moving in the direction he describes. I envision a Crenshaw Project that will connect both the Purple/Wilshire and Expo Lines with LAX via a light rail that extends to the Green Line at Aviation/Imperial. There would probably be a subway portion of the Crenshaw Line between Expo and Wilshire/Purple in the same way we see a subway portion of the Eastside LRT. Clearly, the Crenshaw and Downtown Connector projects are critical projects to follow the Expo and Eastside light rail projects.
That said, this means that heavy rail will (no matter how much people on this Board might scream foul) follow the creation of a light rail network--the Metro LRTP will be updated with a priority list that maintains the Crenshaw Line and then prioritizes the Downtown Connector. Politically, the Foothill Gold Line (whether it's to Azusa, Irwindale, Claremont or Ontario remains powerful.
...which means that if we get another $1-2 billion in the system after Expo, it's going NOT to the Wilshire subway line but to the completion of a light rail network! Deal with it, folks!
The only way I could see a heavy rail to LAX is if there was an understanding that a putative 405/Sepulveda Line would be so high capacity that it would require a subway in the same fashion that we've seen Metro virtually conclude is needed on the Wilshire Corridor. In other words, after the Wilshire Corridor Subway (and I do imagine it'll be a heavy rail subway) is completed, at least as far as the 405, I could envision a north-south heavy rail subway between the Valley and LAX--since Sepulveda Blvd. is in several portions too hostile for surface or elevated rail.
It's nice to vision, but a pragmatic guideline of what we'll see is as follows (of course (I could be wrong, but I really doubt it):
1) Finish Expo Phase 1 and Eastside LRT
2) Combined Light Rail Network over the next 5 years to finish Expo, fund/plan a Crenshaw Corridor line, a Downtown Connector, a Green Line/LAX extension, and a Foothill Gold Line extension
3) Fund/plan a Wilshire "subway to the sea" that may not go much west than the 405 freeway
4) Fund/plan a 405/Sepulveda Corridor line subway that connects the SF Valley to LAX
5) Sprinkle in other light rail/DMU/Metrolink efforts along the way such as:
a) South Bay Galleria extension of the Green Line,
b) Glendale/Burbank light rail line to connect the Pasadena Gold Line to Burbank Airport and North Hollywood combined with a Red Line extension to Burbank Airport,
c) Extension of the Eastside LRT to create geographic and political parity within L.A. County
d) DMU/Metrolink service on the Harbor Subdivision ROW
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 22, 2007 16:38:43 GMT -8
I think that is very well expressed, Ken.
As part of #5, I'm still going to be plugging for the Pink Line (Santa Monica Blvd. corridor). Pragmatically, the Purple Line to the sea (Veteran's Center at least), is probably the only "heavy rail" project possibly on offer anytime soon.
Most of L.A.'s rail expansion is going to be light rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 22, 2007 17:50:42 GMT -8
I agree, Dan, and the main reason for that will be $$$. Still, I envision subway portions of light rail lines like we saw for the Eastside LRT Project and future Downtown Connector.
In my comments to Metro about the Wilshire Corridor, I made it clear that a HRT subway connector between Hollywood/Highland and Santa Monica/Wilshire is needed before any HRT Wilshire subway from the 405 to Santa Monica/the beach.
I do believe we'll see a HRT subway for the 405/Sepulveda Corridor, whenever that occurs, but I could equally envision that being a partially-subwayed LRT line as well. Another alternative, although is skips the Westside, is Metrolink/DMU service using current Metrolink lines and the Harbor Subdivision Line to LAX.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 1, 2007 19:30:56 GMT -8
I wonder if the strategy here is to build the separate Valley (Van Nuys Blvd trunk line from Roscoe to Ventura/Sepulveda with platforms expandable to 5 car LRV lengths and grade separations)and West LA(Sepulveda Blvd from UCLA or Wilshire Blvd to Expo/Sepulveda with 4 or 5 car LRV's and grade separations).
See attached (I hope this isn't too big for the screen)  These small pieces can be funded locally and then through state/federal fund a tunnel connection would be built because it would essentially add additional lanes to the Sepulveda Pass corridor without costly property acquistions and achieve a consistent fast running time end to end. A 70mph train traversing the between Ventura/Sepulveda to Westwood in 8 minutes. Then this would be the consensus needed politically to get it all the way to LAX and even through to the South Bay. Before I get any rumblings the difference between HRT and LRT is all in grade separations. In fact, based on a former thread at our old discussion board, a 5 car LRV train has the same capacity as our 6 car HRV used for the Red/Purple Lines. We could use LRV's in fully grade separated corridors but instead of catenary wire install overhead third rails like they have in Madrid and Barcelona's Metro Systems or a dual voltage LRV and catenary that in certain corridors utilize 1500V and then switches to the 750V on other light rail corridors for moving trains between yards or through running of regional services without transfers. |
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Dec 1, 2007 19:36:11 GMT -8
As useful as it might sound, I don't think such a short segment would be effective unless it connects to Orangeline, Expoline or Purple Line extension, in a way that is both efficient and cost effective.
I think right now, a dedicated or partially dedicated busway might be the quick fix .... for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 1, 2007 20:07:47 GMT -8
Part of the issue is creating a carrot or in this a good problem so that the politicos have the motivation in place to do something about it.
With a small spur of Expo to Westwood (LA's Second CBD and the busiest traffic intersections in the city purhaps even the country) may put Expo over capacity, Good!!! That means they'll have to build the Purple Line subway. Once Purple Line is built, added there's growing push to extend that small spur north to the Valley.
The Orange Line already near max. capacity and 80' buses will be a 6 month stop gap at best. So rail will have to be looked at in the Valley, might as well add an added corridor so that they feel they are getting their fair share.
I'm looking at this from a strategic point because when such an overall 25 mile corridor is looked at the first thing they'll define is a MOS (Minimum Operating Segment) and chances are that will be it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 9, 2008 10:28:14 GMT -8
I'm just putting this out here for argument's sake.
Would the monorail people be smart pushing the LAX to SFV Sepulveda line as monorail instead of trying to send monorail downtown? There's been a willingless by Metro to "try" anything?
Would this get this corridor built faster since it will be mostly above ground?
An northern extension from the the Green/Crenshaw lines is probably the way to go, but since no one is out there advocating this project, is this a way to move this forward?
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 9, 2008 11:59:15 GMT -8
I don't think that monorail or MagLev has any future whatsoever in Metro's plans, although at-grade elevated LRT and subway HRT has a rather bright future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 9, 2008 12:21:52 GMT -8
A monorail through the Sepulveda Pass? That seems unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 9, 2008 12:34:17 GMT -8
I'm just putting this out here for argument's sake. OK, I am ready to argue. Where is Peter Gordon when you need him? Who are the "Monorail People"? Brian Brooks, a member of this board, has said nothing, but remember, he is pushing to build along flood control channels. Next is Robert Rosebrock, the fellow who wants car carrying Monorails to be installed right down Wilshire Blvd. Besides showing up every so often and claiming that his idea is "faster, cheaper and better," he has no identifiable skill set and I believe even the Monorail Society disowned his proposal. And the final key Monorail advocate is Ray Bradbury, who is very general in his thoughts, but really has no followers. To compare, Transit Coalition has real meetings with real people every month, plus an active executive board. Additionally, TTC goes to Sacramento, DC and LA City Hall to educate elected officials on what "the transit community" needs. Our PowerPoints are well respected. In some areas, positive public opinion is starting to tip our way. There is lots of work to be done in other areas. Really, the basic corridors that will make the grade are those in the Long Range Plan. I don't even think the 405 Busway idea is in the funded part of the plan. Building anything revolves around an identified funding source and real public support. Transit Coalition does NOT advocate for any transit on the 405 corridor. We favor a North-South Line starting in Sylmar running elevated along Van Nuys Blvd., which enters a tunnel at Van Nuys / Ventura Blvds. and goes south under the Santa Monica Mountains to UCLA / Westwood, the Expo Line and to LAX. You build transit along pedestrian corridors, not concrete jungles (and transit disasters) such as the 110 Harbor Transitway, where connectivity is dangerous and literally impossible. Forget building transit along the 405, and think Van Nuys Blvd., UCLA, Westwood Blvd., Sepulveda Blvd. and related streets where you can get off and walk to either a school, job, shopping or medical site or a direct connecting bus route. Any idea dealing with the 405 makes any transit ride a 3 step process. Dan, we have been advocating the Green Line extension since 2001 under the Transit Coalition and Friends of the Green Line banner. Off the record, I've put together meetings (May 2008) with Metro, World Airports and Councilmember Rosendahl's office, but there is much behind the scenes work to be done before this effort is going to be made public. By the way, we call the Crenshaw Line, the Rose Line, so make sure your Pink Line project is not too "Rosey" in color! In 2002, Friends of the Red Line met monthly, to discuss possible future steps. I didn't see a special focus group in this case really going anywhere. Later Councilmember Tom LaBonge put up the City of LA funds to do the subway tunneling study that eventually led to Henry Waxman changing the federal funding anti-subway provisions. Just keep in mind that funding is really the only key issue, not ideas on routes, not segments to be built, but funding sources. If we could charge $5 per ride (we are getting towards that tipping point) and you could get a Return on Investment to pay off construction costs and system maintenance and operations, you could get private investment to fund this, ahead of government grants. Just a few thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 9, 2008 13:11:18 GMT -8
Thanks. That were very intelligent answer to my questions.  Well, if alignment 11 was chosen, it looks like you could to straight down San Vicente and the Pink Line would be the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line. People who want a straight extension of the Crenshaw Line up LaBrea wouldn't like it, nor would those of us who'd like to see the Pink Line headed further down La Cienega, but it is interesting to see the natural connection via San Vicente.  Sort of like the zig zaggy "G Line" from LAX to Crenshaw to LaCienega/SantaMonica to Hollywood/Highland. |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 9, 2008 16:09:25 GMT -8
It really IS rather interesting--I noticed this last night--how a La Cienega/Santa Monica connection to the Purple Line would connect the Crenshaw Line to the Red Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 10, 2008 3:20:22 GMT -8
I'm just putting this out here for argument's sake. Would the monorail people be smart pushing the LAX to SFV Sepulveda line as monorail instead of trying to send monorail downtown? There's been a willingless by Metro to "try" anything? The monorail people can push anything their hearts desire. They just need to have the paste taken awaqy before they eat it all. |
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on May 10, 2008 14:30:18 GMT -8
Thanks. That were very intelligent answer to my questions. Well, if alignment 11 was chosen, it looks like you could to straight down San Vicente and the Pink Line would be the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line. People who want a straight extension of the Crenshaw Line up LaBrea wouldn't like it, nor would those of us who'd like to see the Pink Line headed further down La Cienega, but it is interesting to see the natural connection via San Vicente. It's a great idea for a North/South line - only problem is that the homeowners on San Vincente would stop you cold before you got to La Cienega. Carthay Circle would make the Expo Line look like a cake walk. |
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on May 14, 2008 17:49:32 GMT -8
Transit Coalition does NOT advocate for any transit on the 405 corridor. We favor a North-South Line starting in Sylmar running elevated along Van Nuys Blvd., which enters a tunnel at Van Nuys / Ventura Blvds. and goes south under the Santa Monica Mountains to UCLA / Westwood, the Expo Line and to LAX. Would this be a light rail line tied into Crenshaw/Green Line or heavy rail transit? Any tangible support from Valley commuters for a swift connection to Westwood and the Purple Line? I imagine with Metrolink/Orange Line/Rapid Bus connections in the Valley the potential numbers would be tremendous even if it only made it as far as Wilshire. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 15, 2008 18:05:32 GMT -8
Transit Coalition does NOT advocate for any transit on the 405 corridor. We favor a North-South Line starting in Sylmar running elevated along Van Nuys Blvd., which enters a tunnel at Van Nuys / Ventura Blvds. and goes south under the Santa Monica Mountains to UCLA / Westwood, the Expo Line and to LAX. Would this be a light rail line tied into Crenshaw/Green Line or heavy rail transit? Any tangible support from Valley commuters for a swift connection to Westwood and the Purple Line? I imagine with Metrolink/Orange Line/Rapid Bus connections in the Valley the potential numbers would be tremendous even if it only made it as far as Wilshire. Just to expand upon some things here and to spark some discussion. I see this "Heavy Rail" Corridor as one that would use our existing LRV's to run along the corridor, but the only difference is that the trains are longer. Instead of a 3 car unit they run as a 5 or 6 car train that can would obtain the exact same capacity as our 6 car Subway cars on the Red and Purple Lines. Something to think about. Also that will enable this to link our existing LRT infrastructure and incramentally build this corridor out. Even lead to the incramental upgrading of the Orange Line to LRT. There will be some technical differences in power but the physical infrastructure (bridges and tunnels) will cost the same whether we use LRV's or HRT's. |
|
|
|
Post by gibiscus on Nov 24, 2008 21:56:34 GMT -8
I think that the one advantage to a Valley-Westside line would be to connect to the Van Nuys and Sylmar Metrolink stations. The Van Nuys station is also used by the Surfliner and Coast Starlight and the Sylmar station will be used by the High Speed Rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 25, 2008 10:26:43 GMT -8
where does it say that the sepulveda pass would extend to sylmar. that is quite an extension
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 25, 2008 15:27:27 GMT -8
It doesn't on the Measure R map it is just to the Orange Line Sepulveda Station, maybe to Van Nuys Metrolink Station with a little political pull.  |
|
|
|
Post by gibiscus on Nov 25, 2008 21:34:36 GMT -8
I wasn't saying it was included on the map, but it would be a long-term goal since the HSR would stop there.
|
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 25, 2008 21:56:43 GMT -8
I wasn't saying it was included on the map, but it would be a long-term goal since the HSR would stop there. how would you envision it getting there? 405? sepulveda? the latter does get nice and wide after parthenia st |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 7, 2009 8:54:13 GMT -8
At the Westside Subway Extension Meeting, there was a revelation of a possible VA station and a Barrington Station, but no longer a Federal Station as part of Phase 3.
Would the Sepulveda project indicated in Measure R connect with a VA station or with the Westwood station, and which would be better in terms of extending the line further south to the Expo Line, Green Line and LAX?
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 7, 2009 9:02:29 GMT -8
I think Westwood makes most sense for a transfer station. With a transfer at Westwood, the light rail line could continue north to serve UCLA, and then head up into the Valley.
Connecting with VA would miss UCLA, which is a huge potential destination for students, teachers, and visitors. Surely the VA site would generate ridership, but I can't imagine this would be comparable to UCLA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 7, 2009 9:05:30 GMT -8
I prefer it being Westwood, because then a transfer station could also be made for the Expo Line at Westwood.
However, construction might be easier at a Park & Ride at the VA. I think it all depends on how seriously they take the idea of a Sepulveda Line from LAX to the Valley.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 7, 2009 11:25:29 GMT -8
I prefer it being Westwood, because then a transfer station could also be made for the Expo Line at Westwood. However, construction might be easier at a Park & Ride at the VA. I think it all depends on how seriously they take the idea of a Sepulveda Line from LAX to the Valley. Westwood is definately preferable from a ridership perspective and it would then be much easier to have a true UCLA station. People riding the north south line from the Valley or from points South would much rather go straight into Westwood without having to transfer at the VA. Also, I agree it would be easier for this line to match up with the Expo line from Westwood rather than the VA. I am still scratching my head at this VA station. I wasn't able to attend any of the Westside Extension meetings this go around, but do we really need 3 stations in a distance of 1.1 miles (VA, Barrington, and Bundy)? I live right here and am glad that West LA is in MOS 3, but I think that 3 stations here is overboard. The subway is going to be more like a slow trolley with this lineup. Even if there is a park and ride at the VA, this could be tied in with a Federal station. Barrington is so close to Federal, this could actually be one station as Jerad pointed out. If anyone knows the reasoning of switching from a Federal and Bundy station lineup to a VA, Barrington, and Bundy one I'd like to hear. Otherwise I'll wait for the next group of meetings and ask the MTA myself as I know there has to be some reason - even if I don't see if myself. |
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Aug 7, 2009 12:30:07 GMT -8
They are only choosing one station. Either Barrington or the VA. Not both.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 7, 2009 17:26:08 GMT -8
I think Westwood makes most sense for a transfer station. With a transfer at Westwood, the light rail line could continue north to serve UCLA, and then head up into the Valley. Connecting with VA would miss UCLA, which is a huge potential destination for students, teachers, and visitors. Surely the VA site would generate ridership, but I can't imagine this would be comparable to UCLA. It is becoming clearer why VA hospital site could be an option for the Purple Line extension and the Sepulveda Pass line and why this has shown up on the proposals. If they can build the transit corridor through the UCLA campus (in a tunnel) with a station inside the UCLA campus, then it will definitely be the Westwood Station as the transfer location. If they can't go under the homes directly to the North and West of the UCLA campus much like they know they'll be in for a fight if they tunnel through the Cemetary then it will sound like an elevated by the 405 meeting at a VA Hospital station. Personally, I don't like it because now there will be a sure bottleneck between those two stations in terms of passenger use and activity that will require the eventual meeting of everything in Westwood. Wouldn't this be an wonderful opportunity to begin an initial Major Investment Study for the Sepulveda Pass rail corridor so that we can the routing of this line through the Westside. I prefer it being Westwood, because then a transfer station could also be made for the Expo Line at Westwood. That transfer could occur with Expo Line at Sepulveda as well. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 14, 2010 16:15:44 GMT -8
As mentioned before, we need both a Lincoln and 405 corridor. Green Line should use lincoln, and 405 should be a completely separate line.
|
|
