|
Post by stuckintraffic on Apr 6, 2009 20:22:57 GMT -8
I instead propose the following: Just wanted to quote this wonderful image again. How grand it would be. Is anyone thinking about proposing this at the meetings? Forcing a transfer at Hollywood and Highland seems like a bad idea to me. Closing down Hollywood and Highland to do construction would be painful, but after it's done this subway would be a glorious system. ^ I think this idea is sublime. I want to know why they came to the conlusion the only option was closing down H and H station (and presumably everything to the north) to make this happen. It seems like they could just use the existing station and connect the lines between Hollywood/Highland and Hollywood/Vine. Single track the trains Between Hollywood/Highland and Hollywood/Vine; connect the tunnel and tracks to whatever track is not being used; once that direction is done, transfer service to the the track with the completed connection and then connect tracks/tunnel for the other side. So it looks like we could get stuck with an uncessary transfer because of poor planning. I posted something on the Expo thread about the lack of foresight in planning L.A.'s system. It kinda makes me angry to think that, when they were designing/building this stretch of the Red Line (which was only roughly 15 years ago), no one thought "hey maybe we should think about how this could integrate this into the next leg of the system." All it would have taken would have been a short stump of track to nowhere according to whatever a commissioned AA study dictated. Now we're faced with a second-best option (a transfer) that will only create yet another disjoint in our already disjointed system. I'm pretty new to all this transit stuff -- I have only become acquainted with the ins and outs of L.A. transportation system since the Expo line announcements drew mean. But this is a real head-scratcher for me. Does anyone who is a transit planner or engineer familiar with this know why they can't make this happen?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 6, 2009 22:11:46 GMT -8
I didn't say that LA's riders are poor, jejozwik implied that I said that. I said that they don't have much disposable income and that's what the past surveys have indicated.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 6, 2009 22:33:43 GMT -8
Just wanted to quote this wonderful image again. How grand it would be. Is anyone thinking about proposing this at the meetings? Forcing a transfer at Hollywood and Highland seems like a bad idea to me. Closing down Hollywood and Highland to do construction would be painful, but after it's done this subway would be a glorious system. ^ I think this idea is sublime. I want to know why they came to the conlusion the only option was closing down H and H station (and presumably everything to the north) to make this happen. It seems like they could just use the existing station and connect the lines between Hollywood/Highland and Hollywood/Vine. Single track the trains Between Hollywood/Highland and Hollywood/Vine; connect the tunnel and tracks to whatever track is not being used; once that direction is done, transfer service to the the track with the completed connection and then connect tracks/tunnel for the other side. So it looks like we could get stuck with an uncessary transfer because of poor planning. I posted something on the Expo thread about the lack of foresight in planning L.A.'s system. It kinda makes me angry to think that, when they were designing/building this stretch of the Red Line (which was only roughly 15 years ago), no one thought "hey maybe we should think about how this could integrate this into the next leg of the system." All it would have taken would have been a short stump of track to nowhere according to whatever a commissioned AA study dictated. Now we're faced with a second-best option (a transfer) that will only create yet another disjoint in our already disjointed system. I'm pretty new to all this transit stuff -- I have only become acquainted with the ins and outs of L.A. transportation system since the Expo line announcements drew mean. But this is a real head-scratcher for me. Does anyone who is a transit planner or engineer familiar with this know why they can't make this happen? Personally, I would settle for a combined Pink and Purple line, but I agree that this is another unfortunate disjoint of the system. However, it is not along the lines of a lack of DTC problem, which affects anyone trying to get through DTLA on light rail. It will affect two stations and only for people going west on the Pink Line portion of the system (no affect for those going on the Red Line). I'd like to see it fixed, and wonder on the cost, but doubt this will be part of the plan if the Pink Line does ever get greenlighted for construction.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 6, 2009 23:08:37 GMT -8
I guess it depends on how many people commute from the San Fernando Valley to West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Westwood or Santa Monica.
I still think it's a great map and I stared at it for a few minutes just now dreaming of what might be.
|
|
|
Post by soundguise on Apr 7, 2009 4:39:06 GMT -8
The only real positive I see for this is the already stated staging aspect of the project. It seems extremely unlikely that the purple extension and a the pink line would be constructed simultaneously (although that would be pretty cool if they were). With that in mind there may be a chance to keep lobbying for the single seat ride as we get closer to design phase. The issue of Federal money adds complexity but as this is already a huge multi-billion dollar project the pressure should be even greater to "build it right" the first time.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 7, 2009 8:59:36 GMT -8
...Now we're faced with a second-best option (a transfer) that will only create yet another disjoint in our already disjointed system. I'm pretty new to all this transit stuff -- I have only become acquainted with the ins and outs of L.A. transportation system since the Expo line announcements drew mean. But this is a real head-scratcher for me. Does anyone who is a transit planner or engineer familiar with this know why they can't make this happen? Personally, I would settle for a combined Pink and Purple line, but I agree that this is another unfortunate disjoint of the system. However, it is not along the lines of a lack of DTC problem, which affects anyone trying to get through DTLA on light rail. It will affect two stations and only for people going west on the Pink Line portion of the system (no affect for those going on the Red Line). I'd like to see it fixed, and wonder on the cost, but doubt this will be part of the plan if the Pink Line does ever get greenlighted for construction. It's a very expensive proposition simply because of how it screws up the existing service and you'd have to cut open the street again to install that in. However all is not totally lost because a number of things can occur to still have this line serve the San Fernando Valley, there's another pass between the Westside and Valley named Sepulveda that is parallel to the 405 that we could also use to tie this line into the area or continue the subway east down Santa Monica Blvd to start a big grid in the Central LA area.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 7, 2009 9:00:58 GMT -8
I guess it depends on how many people commute from the San Fernando Valley to West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Westwood or Santa Monica. I still think it's a great map and I stared at it for a few minutes just now dreaming of what might be. I agree it is a great map and this is what our public transportation really should be. If we had this along with some of the projects like a DTC, an airport connection and expanded Metrolink, we would really have a system instead of a few rail lines. I'd really like to see the focus move back to heavy rail. We have gone too far in the direction of light rail. Over the last 10 years everyone has touted how light rail is so much cheaper than heavy rail, which has ignored the benefit of heavy rail. We are now saddled with light rail lines with low ridership and controversial grade crossings. The lines don't connect downtown and some are near capacity and result in constant accidents (Blue Line). We need to ensure that the DTC, and the Purple and Pink lines get their proper due and funding soon with federal funding so we can really create a highly used modern public transport system that can grow well into the 21st century.
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Apr 7, 2009 10:37:36 GMT -8
^ IMO the pink-red connection should be done without a transfer. If it can't, then just make the pink the northern extension of the Crenshaw line up San Vicente. At least then you'd have one less disjoint (as it as planned I think the Crenshaw line would just stop at Wilshire... meaning if you wanted to get from LAX to Hollywood using it, you'd have to take Crenshaw to Purple, transfer to Purple, then take Purple to the Pink line and transfer to the pink... ridiculous amount of transfers)
I also find it unbelievable that they can't make any other option besides a transfer work. Up north they're building a whole new Bay Bridge in which they shift traffic to a temporary bridge and then shift traffic back to the real thing when it's done. When all is said and done, the bridge will be closed for three days, according to to the SF Gate:
The entire bridge will be closed for three days while crews slice through the steel of a 300-foot stretch of the existing span near Yerba Buena Island. That piece of bridge will be rolled to the north on a special set of rails. Then the connecting piece of the bypass will be lifted into the air, set atop rails and rolled into place.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 7, 2009 11:59:05 GMT -8
I mean, when you say, "There should not be a forced transfer at Hollywood/Highland." And then someone else says, "Well, then you'd have to cut open the streets, you'd have to close the station for a bit, you'd have to do one-way operation for a while, and you'd have to do this, this and this." I say, "Okay, do that."
For this piece of transit infrastructure that will last centuries, it makes sense to do it right.
But then you have to worry about the Expo Line and the East LA line and the Blue Line, and with every light rail line being built on the cheap, it's hard to advocate for the best possible subway system.
But then again, when you grade separate everything, people complain that the grade separation is too ugly. So who knows.
I want to see an Interstate Highway Act for mass transit in this country. Maybe if we convince people we can transport military equipment on the Purple Line we'll get funding.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 7, 2009 12:11:11 GMT -8
I mean, when you say, "There should not be a forced transfer at Hollywood/Highland." And then someone else says, "Well, then you'd have to cut open the streets, you'd have to close the station for a bit, you'd have to do one-way operation for a while, and you'd have to do this, this and this." I say, "Okay, do that." For this piece of transit infrastructure that will last centuries, it makes sense to do it right. On many transportation networks, transfers exist, that is a part of life in those cities with rail networks, the most important thing is to make sure the transfer isn't too cumbersome (wayfinding signage, next train signs, message boards listing connections). 7th Street Metro Center Station is a model transfer station that works and allows easy and swift transfers between the two lines. This can be another ask in relation to this, that if they transfer is made like with other transit systems it is easy to use and operate. Also if both Red and Pink services operate on high frequencies like every 5 minutes, the wait time is minor at worst. Do I wish, they added an extended pocket tunnel during the original Red Line construction? Of course! Does it mean that this idea is that much poorer? I don't think so. So we're comparing a tunnel underneath an existing transit network to a bridge in open water.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 7, 2009 12:16:22 GMT -8
Maybe if we convince people we can transport military equipment on the Purple Line we'll get funding. Call them nuclear fallout bomb shelters and then you might get somewhere
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Apr 7, 2009 12:56:00 GMT -8
So we're comparing a tunnel underneath an existing transit network to a bridge in open water. No. The point is that it took some creative thinking to determine how to get the bridge done with a minimal amount of inconvenience (only three days closure!) to users of the piece of infrastructure. The end result is that the project was completed as it was intended. They could have just said "oh it'll be too inconvenient to make the bridge, so we just won't do it." But they didn't. They devised a way to do what was called for with minimal road closures. Rather than looking at all the reasons why we can't do something, why don't we look at how we can get it accomplished? The builders of this bridge did just that. Surely the folks behind the subway construction can do a little of the same
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 7, 2009 13:30:05 GMT -8
So we're comparing a tunnel underneath an existing transit network to a bridge in open water. No. The point is that it took some creative thinking to determine how to get the bridge done with a minimal amount of inconvenience (only three days closure!) to users of the piece of infrastructure. The end result is that the project was completed as it was intended. They could have just said "oh it'll be too inconvenient to make the bridge, so we just won't do it." But they didn't. They devised a way to do what was called for with minimal road closures. Rather than looking at all the reasons why we can't do something, why don't we look at how we can get it accomplished? The builders of this bridge did just that. Surely the folks behind the subway construction can do a little of the same You missed the point of the statement. You're comparing a bridge in open water with simple connections where it is a lot easier to come-up with the solution then something that takes a lot of break-up to the existing service 70' underground in a bustling environment. I remember living in Chicago where they fixed old Balbo S curve, where two sharp 90 degree curves over a street and replaced it with a new smoother bank curved bridge, the work on ithe actual bridge took about a year but the connection was done over Memorial Day weekend in with all the service on the Loop redirected so this can take place. I wish concrete took a small amount of time to cure so that it's structurally safe once all that earth compressed above it keeps the tunnel in place. Whatever solution this piece comes in has to be included in the cost for Federal New Starts if the subway is going for Federal funding, that factors into whether we get the grant for building this project. If the cost is too high, no federal help will occur which will slow the momentum further impede the expansion of the network. There's never a shortage of clever engineers and designers who have to come up with solutions to problems like this, but as with most problems there is a factor attached to it that gets value engineered to death by the Feds or get lampooned politically by some groups with gripes (some are legit others may not be). Then the next battle is selling that locally within the county with each section wanting it's own project with only so much money around.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 7, 2009 13:31:49 GMT -8
First you look at can you do it. Then you look at how many it would benefit. Then roughly how much it would cost and finally what are the downsides. Once all of those are taken into account there's probably no good reason to have that one seat ride from the valley to west LA. Having lines share tracks can be difficult on operations so where that's done should be limited to really high ridership areas. We really only have one of those and that's downtown LA. And as Jerard pointed out transfers don't have to be difficult.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 7, 2009 13:32:43 GMT -8
Do mass transit projects have a higher bar to clear when it comes to cost effectiveness than highway projects do?
Looking at the documents on the Metro Westside Extension web site, alternative 1 is obviously closer to the FTA target for cost effectiveness than alternative 11. There might not even be a West Hollywood spur anyway.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 7, 2009 13:40:50 GMT -8
Couldn't a pink line from North Hollywood to Santa Monica via West Hollywood make for a good north-south alternative for the 405?
I'm looking at Google Maps and starting in North Hollywood and ending in Westwood or Santa Monica, it's telling me to take the 101 to the 405. Up to 45 minutes in traffic. Let's hit that subway man and get there in as much time but not have to be driving.
North Hollywood to Santa Monica is about an hour in traffic.
An Orange Line-Pink Line transfer might not even be that bad.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 7, 2009 13:42:11 GMT -8
Do mass transit projects have a higher bar to clear when it comes to cost effectiveness than highway projects do? Looking at the documents on the Metro Westside Extension web site, alternative 1 is obviously closer to the FTA target for cost effectiveness than alternative 11. There might not even be a West Hollywood spur anyway. ^ Of course they do, The Feds want to give out their support rather than the money.
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Apr 7, 2009 14:39:17 GMT -8
Someone talked about the pink line as part of the northward extension of the Crenshaw line. if that did happen would it be to much to ask for a station at Fairfax/3rd?
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 7, 2009 15:55:42 GMT -8
Hey guys! I'm glad my map has at least provoked conversation on the issue. My basic reasoning is this: transfers should only be imposed where necessary and in a way that makes sense from a regional scope. LA has crafted a fairly "sticky" rail system with most dead-ending at other lines and forcing transfers along a linear corridor (as currently exists with LRT lines downtown and the Orange-Red transfer which should have been built with a through-line, but I digress.) Other systems, like say BART, have a much more "fluid" and integrated system, with formulated interlining and connectivity accommodating virtually all trip pairs with a maximum of one transfer. Running through-trains on a NoHo-Westside corridor also accommodates travel along a corridor that is incredibly poorly served by both transit and freeway (i.e. there is no transit or freeway). (Do you know an easy way to get from Glendale/Burbank/East Valley to Hollywood and the Westside?) I see wasted capacity on the Hollywood/Highland-North Hollywood segment in the future. Wilshire/Vermont-Union Station and Wilshire/La Cienega-Santa Monica will both be carrying trains up to every 5 minutes. Yet, the third leg of the system from Hollywood to North Hollywood will only have trains every 10 minutes, despite great demand. Trying to carry two lines of passenger traffic on line will make this a weak link in the HRT system that we would have to live with for quite some time. Further, running two lines into the Valley allows for future expansion. Conceivably, the Red Line could down Ventura Blvd and the Pink Line could go to Burbank Airport or Van Nuys. This simply wouldn't be possible with just the Red Line to North Hollywood. With frequency up to North Hollywood provided with only 10-minute service, lines down Ventura Blvd. and to Burbank Airport would MAX OUT at 20-minute service. And as far as the digging, a street will get torn up either way. We just have to pick whether it will be Hollywood Blvd. or Highland Blvd.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 8, 2009 20:27:47 GMT -8
Interesting concept, however the key thing that will happen is that you're running the least amount of service in the core portion of the route.
The box - bounded by Hollywood Blvd in the North, Wilshire in the south, La Cienega in the West and Vermont in the east - is the area in which you need a higher level of service frequency to take those trips to the outer ends (North Holywood, Downtown and Westside Job centers of Westwood, Century City and Beverly Hills.) while serving other job and activity centers (Mid Wilshire, Koreatown, Los Feliz, LA City College, Beverly Center/Cedars, West Hollywood)
However there is another solution to this it's by adding another line linking the SF Valley to the Westside through a line parallel to the Sepulveda Pass, this could be a northern continuation of the Purple Line from Westwood to reduce transfers. This corridor would shift the riders who are traveling from the Valley to reach the Westside, a lot more efficiently while providing a high consistent service frequency throughout the area.
You're preserving it by increasing the headways on that core section instead of a consistent 5 minute headway on all the lines every where, there will be a 5 minute headway on the outer ends while the inner area operate on 10 minute frequency which will not work, because you will have overcrowding in that core portion. It will require a consistent high level of service frequency.
Couldn't that same branching off in North Hollywood be better served with a single line from Van Nuys to Burbank Airport that can continue east towards Glendale and Pasadena that a rider can easily transfer at North Hollywood? (Such as making the Orange Line or similiar parallel corridor rail and continuing all the way to Burbank/Glendale) in other words continuing to expand the network.
The branching of the lines in one or two places is ok, having them branch all over gets into some operational problems unless we have a significant investment in 4 track corridors or realize that we operate straight lines with frequent service, quick and simple transfer stations like at 7th Street Metro Center, in which all that is needed is a short walk one level up or down to the next platform.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 8, 2009 21:47:50 GMT -8
You're preserving it by increasing the headways on that core section instead of a consistent 5 minute headway on all the lines every where, there will be a 5 minute headway on the outer ends while the inner area operate on 10 minute frequency which will not work, because you will have overcrowding in that core portion. It will require a consistent high level of service frequency. The fundamental limit to headways in the core segments stems not from my proposals but from the existing arrangement of our HRT system. As we are all aware, because of a split at Wilshire/Vermont, the following headways are currently necessary, for any base headway X: TERMINAL LEGS | "CORE" LEGS | Union Station-Wilshire-Vermont: X | Wilshire/Vermont-North Hollywood: 2X
| | Wilshire/Vermont-Wilshire/Western: 2X |
Under the Metro-proposed Westside Subway project, the following headways would be necessitated: TERMINAL LEGS | CORE LEGS | Union Station-Wilshire/Vermont: X | Wilshire/Vermont-North Hollywood: 2X | Wilshire/La Cienega-Wilshire/4th: X | Wilshire/Vermont-Wilshire/La Cienega: 2X | | Wilshire/La Cienega-Hollywood/Highland: 2X |
My proposal does nothing to increase headways on the core segments. What my proposal would do is to improve service on the one neglected terminal leg north of Hollywood/Highland, which would be forced to accommodate two lines of traffic with half the headway of the other two terminal legs. Also note that transfers at Hollywood/Highland, no matter how well the station is designed, will involve transfers between two half-service lines. This means off-peak waits of up to 20 minutes in both transfer directions. My proposal would take the above table and make the following critical improvement: TERMINAL LEGS | CORE LEGS | Union Station-Wilshire/Vermont: X | Wilshire/Vermont-Hollywood/Highland: 2X | Wilshire/La Cienega-Wilshire/4th: X | Wilshire/Vermont-Wilshire/La Cienega: 2X | Hollywood/Highland-North Hollywood: X IMPROVEMENT BEYOND METRO PROPOSAL | Wilshire/La Cienega-Hollywood/Highland: 2X |
I'm all for Sepulveda Pass rail, but while we're digging in Hollywood again, this "tweak," and I use the term loosely, is an essential component to maximize the performance of the rest of the HRT system.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 8, 2009 21:58:31 GMT -8
Your tweak is needed, but the lack of rail altogether for the West Valley will likely have the Sepulveda/405 Rail Corridor see construction first.
See what happens when we blow off all these projects for a few decades?
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Apr 8, 2009 23:11:45 GMT -8
Couldn't we just run a short line if this becomes a problem?
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Apr 9, 2009 7:44:02 GMT -8
The Wilshire/Vermont-Union Station segment already has trains every 5 minutes during rush hour (12 trains per hour). I think with enough signal upgrades, you could get at least 24 trains per hour, probably 30, maybe as high as 36 in the core section. But to keep that kind of tight timetable, you really need as simple a network as possible, ideally just a single line with no branches, but a 1:1 split is also okay.
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Apr 10, 2009 10:35:56 GMT -8
Going back to the part about the unwillingness to shut down service to make it better in the future -- here's a little info on Seattle's light rail, which is using an existing bus tunnel (via Wikipedia):
The tunnel was closed on September 24, 2005 for modification to accommodate both buses and Sound Transit's Central Link light rail trains on a shared alignment. Prior to closure, around two dozen bus routes ran through the tunnel. The buses were dual-powered, using electricity in the tunnel from an above wire connection and diesel on city streets. It reopened on Monday, September 24, 2007.[2] The two-year closure included retrofits for light rail as well as other operating system upgrades. Also, a stub tunnel, branching from the main tunnel, was constructed under Pine Street between 7th and Boren Avenues to allow light rail trains to stop and reverse direction and for future extension of Central Link.[3]
I recognize that this is not entirely comparing apples to apples, but this is an example of a willingness to grit and bear inconveniences in exchange for a better future
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 16, 2009 17:06:23 GMT -8
There really needed to be a map like this, to put all of Metro's (and Expo's) Westside projects together. So I combined the current Wilshire and Crenshaw maps, added missing station locations, and updated the Expo Line route. Here is a larger 1600-pixel-wide version.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 16, 2009 20:34:05 GMT -8
Awesome map, Darrell!
It'll please you and everyone else (well, most everyone else) that the tentative plan described at tonight's Beverly Hills Metro meeting is to have three MOS's to Fairfax, then Century City, then to just west of the 405 (either Bundy or Barrington), and then to have a MOS 4 to include the Santa Monica segment.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 17, 2009 9:58:09 GMT -8
IMO, splitting the project into MOS's is good *only* if it means it will get the project moving sooner and/or faster.
I would guess the MOS plan would be less efficient in terms of money. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.) I would hope the MOS's would have some significant overlap, so that, for instance, the boring machine could operate somewhat continuously westward throughout the project.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 17, 2009 11:26:45 GMT -8
Thanks Darrell, that is spectacular. Put a Sepulveda project on their and I'll weep with you.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 17, 2009 14:21:42 GMT -8
Awesome map, Darrell! It'll please you and everyone else (well, most everyone else) that the tentative plan described at tonight's Beverly Hills Metro meeting is to have three MOS's to Fairfax, then Century City, then to just west of the 405 (either Bundy or Barrington), and then to have a MOS 4 to include the Santa Monica segment. what the hay is a MOS?
|
|