|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 6, 2007 16:19:15 GMT -8
This was mentioned a couple of times on the old board and I wonder with the upcoming alternative analysis study on the Wilshire corridor if this can be included in the discussion. ============================================== www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2007/may/29/letters_editor/Possible L.A. subway needs more linesIn regards to "Possible L.A. subway system in the works," (News, May 23) it is great to hear of the developments on the Purple Line extension, but one transit line does not make a system. We need perpendicular north-south corridors connecting this line. One such line can start right in your backyards by planning and building a short 2-mile elevated branch from the future Expo Line Light Rail down the old Sepulveda Railroad right to UCLA Lot 36 at Wilshire Boulevard and Gayley Avenue. That lot can be then turned into the campus transit center with a park-ride and that space can be preserved as a station portal for a future Purple Line subway. This would serve students and faculty at UCLA who use the off-campus housing in the Palms and Culver City area and workers in Westwood who use the Expo Line. Most importantly, it would provide the beginnings of a north-south route that can continue north up through the Sepulveda Pass to the San Fernando Valley on Van Nuys Boulevard and south toward Los Angeles Airport, then feeding this future Purple Line. That would be a network that would encourage more people to use mass transit. Jerard Wright, Los Angeles
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 6, 2007 22:36:36 GMT -8
I would like a trolley down Venice Blvd to the beach boardwalk.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 7, 2007 7:11:20 GMT -8
That would be cool, just a straight forward at-grade LRT down Venice from the beach till even as far as Western Avenue would be a highly used line. We could emulate Calgary C-Train surface LRT system that uses wide boulevards and parkways to build there system on and landscape it or the medians to provide safe pedestrian crossing on those streets. Or have that line go as far as Pico/San Vicente and then have it go north up to Hollywood with the Crenshaw Corridor.
But the main part of a spur/branch to UCLA/Westwood is that it would provde service to a very job rich location while dangling a carrot to extend the Subway to at least Westwood because it would miss Century City, Beverly Triange and Mid-Wilshire. Along the same lines an extension of the Crenshaw Corridor to Wilshire/La Brea would make it possible to get the subway to at least Wilshire/Fairfax.
In addition to this with a complimentary LRT down a very wide Van Nuys Blvd this could link it to the San Fernando Valley through the pass would create a natural transfer point for these two services which will be needed once the Subway is extended westward.
And walla we'd have a decent little network that folks would actually consider not using their cars for.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 7, 2007 20:10:12 GMT -8
;If I remember this right, the line that used to go down Santa Monica blvd and it connected to the Expo-line and went all the way out to Century City and West Hollywood. There was a proposal back in the 80's that a Japanese contractor want to build a rail-line to service Century City. But this like the Monorail back in the 1960's was rejected by Transit officials. The next time somebody steps up and wants to build a privately financed transit system, Let them build it and sign an agreement to pay them back at a low interest rates-(which cannot be changed) Maybe AARRNNOOLLDD sees something in privately financed and funded rail systems!! Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 8, 2007 7:32:18 GMT -8
Unfortunately with that Santa Monica Parkway project and the various elements in Beverly Hills and West hollywood took the Right-of-Way that could have been used for such a line.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 8, 2007 10:21:48 GMT -8
odd, I don't remember hearing about any Japanese proposal to build a rail line to Century City; I would love to hear more about that.
Japan is one of the few countries where private companies are successful in operating passenger rail, so they would have the experience to make it work.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 8, 2007 22:56:20 GMT -8
Yes, an excellent idea, we should sell Metro, shiny headquarters and all, to a Japanese Corporation like Nippon Sharyo, or even All Nippon Airlines. That would be the solution to all our problems and bureaucratic inefficiency domo arigato Japan !!
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 9, 2007 17:26:34 GMT -8
heh. well, as much as I would love to see some company build our subways and light rail for us, it wouldn't be quite that simple.
as my college professor pointed out, Japan isn't a capitalist society but a mercantilist one; meaning that private industry and government often work together to the point of being sometimes indistinguishable. it isn't fascist or socialist because government doesn't directly own private companies (which is how the Volkswagen was invented), it isn't exactly privatization, because privatization in America has translated into "allowing private companies to do things that would normally get them arrested" (for example, the Enron "ricochet" scheme). it's more like Japan is a giant ant colony ^_^;;;
unlike American train companies (oh, like for example Union Pacific), Japanese train companies have a vested interest in working in the public interest. just as Henry Huntington wasn't in the railroad business but in the real estate business, a lot of Japanese train companies started out as department store chains that built train lines to bring shoppers to their stores. after WWII, post-war upwardly-mobile America abandonned trains, Japan needed its train lines- nobody could afford to drive.
anyhoo, that's a lot of long and boring social science, but basically you would need a company willing not to make a profit (because we don't have the sort of "transit culture" that would make almost any train line an instant success), a government willing to subsidize a private company through gas taxes and other sources, enough regulations to ensure that the company doesn't pull a Union Pacific (wait for the freight to pass... wait.... wait.... wait...).
|
|
|
Post by gibiscus on Jun 18, 2007 13:08:26 GMT -8
The N-S line through Westwood should go all the way from LAX to Van Nuys (Amtrak/Metrolink) and perhaps even San Fernando/Sylmar Metrolink.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 22, 2007 14:58:32 GMT -8
That is the intent here.
At least in my mind there should be two maybe three starter lines. 1) In the Westside from Expo to UCLA 2) In the SF Valley down Van Nuys Blvd from Ventura Blvd to at least Roscoe 3) In the LAX/South Bay which is the Green Line to the LAX.
This would realistically make pieces easier to swallow for funding than one long 30 mile line. Because politically each region in the beginning gets their main trunk piece with the eventual realization that SF Valley and the Westside should work together on their connecting piece and Westside and South Bay would be working together on theirs. thereby increasing the likelihood of outside state/federal funding sources.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 22, 2007 18:18:43 GMT -8
Possible L.A. subway needs more lines[/url] In regards to "Possible L.A. subway system in the works," (News, May 23) it is great to hear of the developments on the Purple Line extension, but one transit line does not make a system. An extension of the Expo line to UCLA? I like your idea and it sounds good, Now for a question...can this line be run up along side of the 405 and the Veterans cemetery? I thinking of all those NIMBY's out there and if the rail line is tucked out of sight, who knows what kind of support the extension would get!
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 25, 2007 10:19:57 GMT -8
It could run up the 405 or even over the 405 or it can go straight into a bored tunnel parallel to the Pass. Personally I prefer the tunnel because it's an easier alignment to build since elevating over an existing busy roadway will cause more headaches than it's worth compared to straight forward tunnel bore and precast lined tunnel. One machine preferably one that could hold both tracks inside with a Concrete wall in the middle to avoid direct headlight glare and reduce some noise
|
|
|
Post by chrisk on Jul 6, 2007 20:40:07 GMT -8
I notice I'm a little late in the game, but here's some of my thoughts:
Is there a specific reason for having the UCLA/Westwood branch/spur go up the Sepulveda Blvd rather than taking Westwood Blvd?
I made some quick measurements off of Google Earth and appears that Westwood Blvd is actually a bit wider (50-70 ft) than Sepulveda Blvd (30-50 ft) as it heads up toward Westwood. If an elevated line can be built above Sepulveda, is there a reason it can't be above Westwood?
This also leads me to think that a Expo/Westwood station wouldn't be needed if a UCLA/Westwood spur is built and a station is located on Pico Blvd in front of the Westside Pavilion.
I just thought that the numbers of businesses along Westwood Blvd would be a good for ridership of such a line. Stations at Pico, Santa Monica and Westwood would probably bring in a great number of passengers.
Also, rather than terminating at Lot 32, (which would require a nice 90 degree turn off of Sepulveda or Westwood Blvd) if the line is coming up Westwood Blvd, it would be better if the branch can be extended to the new UCLA Medical Center on Westwood Blvd past Le Conte Ave. Although this may involve an extra party (University of California) in negotiating the construction, it would greatly benefit the UCLA students, faculty and staff, along with patients and doctors at the Medical Center.
|
|
|
Post by kingsfan on Jul 8, 2007 12:38:26 GMT -8
I think people talk about Sepulveda because it is a former rail ROW, which I hope MTA still owns.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 8, 2007 16:43:40 GMT -8
I notice I'm a little late in the game, but here's some of my thoughts: Is there a specific reason for having the UCLA/Westwood branch/spur go up the Sepulveda Blvd rather than taking Westwood Blvd? I made some quick measurements off of Google Earth and appears that Westwood Blvd is actually a bit wider (50-70 ft) than Sepulveda Blvd (30-50 ft) as it heads up toward Westwood. If an elevated line can be built above Sepulveda, is there a reason it can't be above Westwood? This also leads me to think that a Expo/Westwood station wouldn't be needed if a UCLA/Westwood spur is built and a station is located on Pico Blvd in front of the Westside Pavilion. I just thought that the numbers of businesses along Westwood Blvd would be a good for ridership of such a line. Stations at Pico, Santa Monica and Westwood would probably bring in a great number of passengers. Also, rather than terminating at Lot 32, (which would require a nice 90 degree turn off of Sepulveda or Westwood Blvd) if the line is coming up Westwood Blvd, it would be better if the branch can be extended to the new UCLA Medical Center on Westwood Blvd past Le Conte Ave. Although this may involve an extra party (University of California) in negotiating the construction, it would greatly benefit the UCLA students, faculty and staff, along with patients and doctors at the Medical Center. That is true what can be looked at is that it's a former right of way and it can link up to high density job pointsalong the line and be easier to build because directly behind Sepulveda Blvd is zoned light industrial which makes it easier to build an elevated to tie into the proposed elevated running of Expo Phase 2 in that area. With the UCLA entrance, I'm thinking of ending it there in case UCLA adminstrators/president doesn't want the trains into Campus this would provide an alternate.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jul 8, 2007 19:00:33 GMT -8
I agree, a Northern Expo Spur line is a good affordable alternative to a $5 Billion Westwood Subway. Although a subway will have to be revisited if traffic on the 10 and 405 continue to worsen.
A downside to that might be the limited headways the line can carry as they share with Expo and Blue Line coming out of 7th / metro station.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 10, 2007 14:07:44 GMT -8
I agree, a Northern Expo Spur line is a good affordable alternative to a $5 Billion Westwood Subway. Although a subway will have to be revisited if traffic on the 10 and 405 continue to worsen. A downside to that might be the limited headways the line can carry as they share with Expo and Blue Line coming out of 7th / metro station. That is true, one thing that may have to be looked at in addition to grade separations are going from 3 to 4 car trains. Of course that would require modification of the 7th St Metro Center and platform extensions of 110', but it would be something that all of the busier LRT lines (Expo, Blue, ELA) will have to consider and will use. That could even be coupled with a Downtown Connector project. The other advantage is that it becomes possible to continue that short line south towards LAX or North to the Valley.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 10, 2008 23:01:04 GMT -8
I agree, a Northern Expo Spur line is a good affordable alternative to a $5 Billion Westwood Subway. Although a subway will have to be revisited if traffic on the 10 and 405 continue to worsen. I disagree an Expo spur is not an affordable alternative to a east west subway. It would serve an entirely different constituency as it is physically a different corridor with different population densities and different destination locations. Apples and Oranges That's not to say it would be a bad idea to connect the two. The more connectivity the better.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Sept 11, 2008 12:40:19 GMT -8
Japan is one of the few countries where private companies are successful in operating passenger rail, so they would have the experience to make it work. Metro should hire that cat that saved a Japanese rail company.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 11, 2008 13:35:23 GMT -8
The Expo and Wilshire corridors are two diffferent corridors. The Expo - Purple spur by Sepulveda would connect Westwood and UCLA to USC, Mid-City, and Culver City, as well as the Pico - Olympic corridor. When Phase 1 opens, we will see a lot of affordable housing built in Mid-City for the UCLA and USC students. The Purple Line doesn't go there and that's why the spur is needed, regardless of the Purple Line extension.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 11, 2008 23:00:53 GMT -8
Gokhan, Maybe there will be affordable housing built in Mid City but their target market will not be UCLA USC students. Mid City is ten miles from UCLA and about five from USC. I will concede housing projects targeted for these studendts as far as West Adams for USC and Palms/Marvista for UCLA.
Also, just clarify my response to whitmanlam: North South routes are great but they are not alternatives to East West routes. They are different animals
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 12, 2008 7:40:55 GMT -8
Gokhan, Maybe there will be affordable housing built in Mid City but their target market will not be UCLA USC students. Mid City is ten miles from UCLA and about five from USC. I will concede housing projects targeted for these studendts as far as West Adams for USC and Palms/Marvista for UCLA. In my opinion the students would live further if there is fast, cheap transit like the Expo Line. But, in any case, both Palms and West Adams are also on the Expo Line route.
|
|
gregd
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by gregd on Jan 29, 2009 0:24:48 GMT -8
I haven't seen any signs of ROI on Sepulveda. Would that be on the west side where the old Victoria Station Restaurant once sat?
A line up westwood blvd would be great, but I was also thinking that the Sepulveda Station could have a spur that went straight up either the East or West Side of the Frwy. Both sides have quite a bit of open space. If they could take that all the way to Wilshire, that may be a great option and open the door to further expansion. Even a T style spur could be beneficial, catching both UCLA and surrounding hi-rises, then backing up to the VA before returning south.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 29, 2009 12:37:39 GMT -8
Here's a photo map of the Expo right-of-way (turquoise) and the old wye to the tracks up the west side of Sepulveda Blvd (magenta). We had a lengthy discussion about this here last year.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jan 29, 2009 14:43:29 GMT -8
^^ thats awesome. its amazing how many hidden ROWs exist in this city!
im guessing the MTA does not own that ROW though
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jan 29, 2009 14:52:05 GMT -8
Ugh if that ever happens it better be grade-seperated...
Driving in that area during rush hour is bad enough! I highly doubt that an expo extension like this would even make a dent in traffic, because the traffic going north/south in this area is clearly overflow from 405. Most of those people are obviously trying to go somewhere between the San Fernando Valley and Long Beach via the 405 which there is currently no mass transit solution for, until this happens there will be no relief in this region. If you don't believe me just use google maps traffic during X-time feature.
|
|
gregd
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by gregd on Jan 29, 2009 18:23:25 GMT -8
Great Picture. I think some of that may still be owned because I know all the bldgs on Sepulveda are set back with a parking area in front.
If you look at the east side of the 405 it shows that unused land along the freeway. I don't know if there are problems with using land along the frwy, but it seems like that strip East of the 405 would be the cheapest route north. Is that considered federal land?
Somehow I hope it can be utilized, because linking west la to the San Fernando valley would be the next logical step. There are a lot of commuters going to the VA, UCLA, and surrounding offices in a pretty small geographic area.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 29, 2009 18:25:20 GMT -8
Some of the east side of the 405 will be used for the freeway widening project about to start construction. I don't know how much will be left over. I expect it to be similar to what's been finished on the west side.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 29, 2009 18:36:06 GMT -8
Whatever left on Sepulveda is basically only the arches and the short spur shown in the Google map as railroad tracks. Although further north when Sepulveda is adjacent to the freeway/park, there is quite a bit right-of-way there.
No doubt, it would have to be grade-separated, either as an elevated line or a subway. At one point they will start this line because it's part of Measure R, and at that very particular point we need to put pressure so that whatever that is built connects to the Expo Line. Therefore, I'm supporting (mostly grade-separated) light-rail for this Valley - UCLA - Expo - ? line.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 30, 2009 8:08:25 GMT -8
Sorry to be argumentative, but a few years ago I had an epiphany that this Valley-Westside line would probably have to be a subway of some sort to get quickly through the Sepulveda pass. I've not yet changed my opinion.
|
|