|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 4, 2009 15:25:18 GMT -8
I know it's far away in terms of priority, but the idea of a Burbank/Glendale LRT has been included in the tier 1 bracket of the LRTP in 2008 and in the current draft for 2009. Is there a ROW that already exists for this or would it have to be built on existing streets? Here's the info on the old P.E. line from www.erha.org/pe.htm: ROUTE: WFrom the Subway Terminal, LA, this line entered Glendale Boulevard. at Beverly Boulevard. AT Glendale Boulevard. & Park Ave. (MP 2.01) Hollywood and San Fernando Valley cars diverged,. AT Sunset Boulevard. this line entered three-track private way, continuing on same to Effie Street where double track street operation was resumed. At Glendale Boulevard. & Allesandro Street the double tracks entered a spectacular private way cut from the sides of the Ivanhoe Hills, following this to Monte Sano where a long bridge carried the line over the Los Angeles River. Once across the river, the line rejoined Glendale Boulevard. with tracks on private way between twin vehicular roadways. At Richardson (MP 5.64) the line crossed at grade the Southern Pacific's main line to the north. Continuing north, this line reached the heart of Glendale at Broadway(MP 8.39), where a branch line branched to the east to Chevy Chase Boulevard.(MP 8.41). The main line continued north to Arden Junction.(MP 8.39) where it branched; the old main line continued north to a terminus at North Glendale(Mountain Ave., MP 8.92), while the Burbank Line diverged westerly as a single track line on private way between roadways of Glenoaks Boulevard. to the Burbank terminus at Cypress Ave., MP 12.30. From 1925 to 1940, the Burbank Line continued on Glenoaks Boulevard. to Ben Mar Hills(Eton Drive, 1.7 miles) as single track on private way. ------ What would be the best way to bring it back? Would it need grade separation? Would there be too much NIMBY interference to even get it? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 5, 2009 16:20:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 5, 2009 16:23:05 GMT -8
There are some interesting questions here. Is it feasbile to connect Downtown with the Red Line via Sunset using streetcar or LRT? How should the Burbank Airport be connected with the North Hollywood station? How do you connect the North Hollywood station with the Gold Line in Pasadena via Burbank and Glendale, and can that be done in a way that picks up riders from the Burbank Media district? |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 5, 2009 19:43:55 GMT -8
how about beefing up Bob Hope-Burbank-Glendale-LAUS Metrolink service?
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 6, 2009 8:12:57 GMT -8
I think Damien Goodmon's "Gold Line" idea would work, but getting something built on or near Ventura, linking Chatsworth to Pasadena, would be a political and logistical nightmare.
A lot of us have speculated about extending the Red Line or the Orange Line to Bob Hope Airport. Personally, I'm for extending both. Combined with the already existing Metrolink service, transforming the Airport into a true transit hub would help the local economy and surely increase the ridership of both lines.
On the flip side, if we ever see the Orange Line converted to rail, we could see two LRTs stopping at Bob Hope Airport.
And yes, Metrolink service needs to be beefed up as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Nov 6, 2009 18:45:04 GMT -8
So I was thinking about this some more and was wondering - is the Metrolink ROW in Burbank wide enough to accommodate LRT in addition to Metrolink service?
If so, they would just have to lay down the tracks and build the stations. It seems like the line (or at least a Phase 1 to Glendale) would be relatively cheap to build.
Why hasn't there been more work in the form of an EIR/EIS on this??
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 9, 2010 18:54:05 GMT -8
I think this "yellow line" should continue on the Chandler ROW from Lankershim to the Burbank metrolink station, go on the 5, and then 134 freeways, and head down Brand/Glendale to the Regional Connecter.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 10, 2010 10:04:13 GMT -8
jdrcrasher, there won't be enough room on the regional connector for another light rail line thru downtown, unless it is built with more than two tracks. As discussed on the Regional Connector posts, we can only have a train every 2 minutes or so in each direction on the currently planned Regional Connector. Expo and the Blue line will need trains that often during rush hour as soon as the connector is built. Currently, Expo is planned to connect with the Eastside line and the Blue Line with the Pasadena / Foothill part of the Gold line.
A Burbank/Glendale LRT would be able to get to Union Station and could share the current Pasadena Gold line track there and at Chinatown, but the line will end at Union Station unless a new route thru Downtown Los Angeles is built. One other alternative would be to continue east on the current Gold Line Eastside extension route, but few people will want to go from Glendale or Burbank to East LA or vis-a-versa.
I believe this is why Damien Goodmon and others planned for a "yellow line" to go east-west from the SF valley to SG valley; passengers to downtown would transfer. However, I think a LRT line that ended at Union Station would be a good start; passengers could transfer to the Blue or Red line to get to downtown LA. The Red/Purple line subway can greatly increase capacity, if needed, to provide for connections from Metrolink and light rail, at least for the time being.
Long-term, a third downtown subway is likely to be needed; consider that most older cities (Washington, NY, Boston, Phili, Chicago, any European or East Asian city) have multiple rail line crossing downtown, while we only have 1 that goes all the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 10, 2010 11:55:37 GMT -8
Long-term, a third downtown subway is likely to be needed; consider that most older cities (Washington, NY, Boston, Phili, Chicago, any European or East Asian city) have multiple rail line crossing downtown, while we only have 1 that goes all the way. Correction: We have 2 subway lines that go through downtown (Red AND Purple) |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 10, 2010 12:22:53 GMT -8
Hmm, maybe build a 2nd Downtown Connector? This one connecting the Little Tokyo and Washington Stations?
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 10, 2010 16:02:11 GMT -8
LAofAnaheim, there is only one track and one platform each way on the Purple/Red line thru downtown, so as far as capacity is concerned, I think of it as one rail line. If you are going to Union Station to Metrocenter or Westlake, you don't care if the train says "purple line" or "red line". But point taken.
jdrcrasher, I am a big fan of that idea. It will need another route south to follow, besides the Blue Line, but could hook up with a fully-built Santa Ana Branch corridor or a Randolph right-of-way line. The Blue Line should still go to Metrocenter and the Regional Connector, but the lines could cross at Washington for a cross-platform transfer. Center City East needs better transportation if we want to see it rebuilt as a liveable neighborhood, someday.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 10, 2010 16:08:28 GMT -8
LAofAnaheim, there is only one track and one platform each way on the Purple/Red line thru downtown, so as far as capacity is concerned, I think of it as one rail line. If you are going to Union Station to Metrocenter or Westlake, you don't care if the train says "purple line" or "red line". But point taken. The same could be said for BART through San Francisco then....it's really only one line with one platform under Market Street......just saying. I think Angelenos just don't acknowledge the existence of the Purple Line and it truly is our 2nd subway. Understandably, this will be more evident once it goes miles west (heck, even when it reaches Fairfax, it will become it's own identity). |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 10, 2010 16:15:16 GMT -8
On the north end, a future "Silver Line" along Sunset and the Glendale / Burbank line could converge at onto this third Downtown line. You would have a triangle of rail lines around Downtown, with three big connection stations at Metrocenter, Union Station, and a new southeastern station. There was a train station at Alameda and 6th/7th street before WWII, I believe (I thought this was the Santa Fe station, but that was at 2nd and Santa Fe).
This new station could also serve any new Metrolink lines to Long Beach, San Pedro, the South Bay and the Westside, providing a quick transfer to a new Purple Line subway along 7th to Metrocenter. But again, this is a solution to a long-term capacity problem. For now this neighborhood and our rail system are not ready.
|
|
|
|
Post by saltire08 on Aug 4, 2010 0:35:08 GMT -8
Going along with this topic, if you were to do Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena, how would you do it?
I've looked around there and outside of the PE ROW on Glenoaks Blvd, where else could you put the LRT at-grade between these three cities?
If you were to start at Memorial Park and go underground and somehow get to the area about the 134, you could possibly run it on the hill above the freeway between the 210 and the 2, possibly?
Also, if this line is to be built, I think it makes sense to have it make multiple stops in downtown Glendale (Americana, etc.) by possibly coming in from the east somewhere, going up Brand Blvd (although expensive, underground would probably be the best bet due to the narrowness of Brand now and the amount of traffic on it), then out Glenoaks just like the old PE ROW.
Then if you want it to hit the whole SF Valley, take it out Chandler to the NoHo Red Line stop.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 5, 2010 15:17:09 GMT -8
Going along with this topic, if you were to do Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena, how would you do it? I've looked around there and outside of the PE ROW on Glenoaks Blvd, where else could you put the LRT at-grade between these three cities? If you were to start at Memorial Park and go underground and somehow get to the area about the 134, you could possibly run it on the hill above the freeway between the 210 and the 2, possibly? Also, if this line is to be built, I think it makes sense to have it make multiple stops in downtown Glendale (Americana, etc.) by possibly coming in from the east somewhere, going up Brand Blvd (although expensive, underground would probably be the best bet due to the narrowness of Brand now and the amount of traffic on it), then out Glenoaks just like the old PE ROW. Then if you want it to hit the whole SF Valley, take it out Chandler to the NoHo Red Line stop. Thoughts? How about something like this? maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=115659391565603628794.00048b31bc2d26d0d937f&t=h&ll=34.114931,-118.242416&spn=0.207212,0.444603&z=12 |
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Aug 5, 2010 15:27:24 GMT -8
Going along with this topic, if you were to do Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena, how would you do it? I've looked around there and outside of the PE ROW on Glenoaks Blvd, where else could you put the LRT at-grade between these three cities? If you were to start at Memorial Park and go underground and somehow get to the area about the 134, you could possibly run it on the hill above the freeway between the 210 and the 2, possibly? Also, if this line is to be built, I think it makes sense to have it make multiple stops in downtown Glendale (Americana, etc.) by possibly coming in from the east somewhere, going up Brand Blvd (although expensive, underground would probably be the best bet due to the narrowness of Brand now and the amount of traffic on it), then out Glenoaks just like the old PE ROW. Then if you want it to hit the whole SF Valley, take it out Chandler to the NoHo Red Line stop. Thoughts? How about something like this? maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=115659391565603628794.00048b31bc2d26d0d937f&t=h&ll=34.114931,-118.242416&spn=0.207212,0.444603&z=12 Doesn't get you from Burbank to Glendale to PASADENA (which was his point). |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 5, 2010 20:55:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by saltire08 on Aug 7, 2010 1:01:38 GMT -8
Hmmm...interesting. I hadn't thought about taking the freeways for most of it. How many lanes would have to be taken to do it? Here's what I was thinking: maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&t=h&msa=0&ll=34.144168,-118.172164&spn=0.018469,0.038581&z=15&msid=116474837835285009433.00048cfb7d0a8f9039143 Blue place marks are potential stops. I forgot to put one by the Eagle Rock Plaza...probably would be a good place for one. Notes: -from Brand/Glenoaks south & east to 2 would be underground (I know expensive, but I can't think of any feasible way to have a LRT stop in downtown Glendale at grade because the streets are too narrow (for the most part). -leaving Memorial Park, the LRT goes below grade until Pasadena Ave. You'd probably have to redo that bridge because it'd take a lot of space to have it come out of a trench along Colorado there. -I went radical and nixed the entrance to the 134 West from Orange Grove/Colorado. even though I do use it and see a lot of other people use it. My rationale is that it provides a natural fly-over of the freeway and allows you to get to the ROW north of the 134. I'm not sure how much retrofitting would be needed on the flyover...anyone know? As per JDRCrashers post... I thought a *lot* about running it along Colorado through Eagle Rock but then I came to a conundrum: Colorado Blvd narrows significantly between the 134 on-ramp (w. of Figueroa) and Figueroa. It widens again as it goes up the hill, but then narrows along Colorado all the way to the Colorado Street Bridge. Would it have to be put underground here? Also, Having it run above the 134 knocks out stops in Eagle Rock which sucks, but I figures this would allow for very fast service between Pasadena and Glendale. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Aug 7, 2010 23:09:29 GMT -8
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena service would have relatively low ridership, compared to other planned routes.
If you want to improve transit service in this area, limited-stop buses or BRT would be faster to implement and probably just as cheap from an operations standpoint, considering the low to moderate ridership. If you are planning to use the freeway, giving a couple lanes to HOV/Transit would be reasonable, and would allow express buses to use that route, as well as limited-stop or a BRT system like the Orange Line or Silver Line.
I'm all for light rail, including the Burbank - Glendale - Los Angeles route, but Glendale to Pasadena is way down the list. Perhaps when oil has run out completely, and steel rails are cheaper than asphalt...
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 11, 2010 4:37:54 GMT -8
Hmmm...interesting. I hadn't thought about taking the freeways for most of it. How many lanes would have to be taken to do it? Here's what I was thinking: maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&t=h&msa=0&ll=34.144168,-118.172164&spn=0.018469,0.038581&z=15&msid=116474837835285009433.00048cfb7d0a8f9039143 Blue place marks are potential stops. I forgot to put one by the Eagle Rock Plaza...probably would be a good place for one. Notes: -from Brand/Glenoaks south & east to 2 would be underground (I know expensive, but I can't think of any feasible way to have a LRT stop in downtown Glendale at grade because the streets are too narrow (for the most part). -leaving Memorial Park, the LRT goes below grade until Pasadena Ave. You'd probably have to redo that bridge because it'd take a lot of space to have it come out of a trench along Colorado there. -I went radical and nixed the entrance to the 134 West from Orange Grove/Colorado. even though I do use it and see a lot of other people use it. My rationale is that it provides a natural fly-over of the freeway and allows you to get to the ROW north of the 134. I'm not sure how much retrofitting would be needed on the flyover...anyone know? As per JDRCrashers post... I thought a *lot* about running it along Colorado through Eagle Rock but then I came to a conundrum: Colorado Blvd narrows significantly between the 134 on-ramp (w. of Figueroa) and Figueroa. It widens again as it goes up the hill, but then narrows along Colorado all the way to the Colorado Street Bridge. Would it have to be put underground here? Also, Having it run above the 134 knocks out stops in Eagle Rock which sucks, but I figures this would allow for very fast service between Pasadena and Glendale. My thoughts on this (well-designed) map: --Rather than a stop at Magnolia/San Fernando, you should have the line continue along the ROW and connect to the Metrolink Station. It's simply too close by to ignore a direct connection. Since the line will have to go underground anyway to reach Glenoaks, it should do so from here rather than continuing up Magnolia. A new pedestrian connection to Downtown Burbank could be built in the form of a new pedestrian bridge over the I-5 freeway. --Running the line along the 134 and ignoring Eagle Rock would be a huge mistake, IMHO. Yes, it would be expensive to build and abandoning it would mean faster service, but there's a lot of employment and destinations that really shouldn't be ignored. The 134 should instead be reserved as an extension of the Orange Line, which would be much less complicated to run on the freeway corridor. Jeisenbe is correct however, that cross-valley service is sadly not the highest priority for the system as a whole. It's frustrating, but the employment and destinations just cannot compete with other parts of L.A. that are in need of mass transit (Wilshire, Expo, etc.). A temporary fix for this should be a rapid bus that provides cross-valley service from North Hollywood to Memorial Park in Pasadena. A line from NoHo to Downtown L.A. through Burbank/Glendale, however, would provide great connectivity with the rest of the system and if possible, should be connected to the Santa Ana Line for a continuous light-rail alternative to the I-5. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 11, 2010 13:33:22 GMT -8
We have been talking about the differential in expected demand between the Blue Line to Long Beach and the Gold Line to Pasadena, after the Regional Connector is finished. Instead of turning trains around at Union Station, they could continue on a new light rail route to Glendale and eventually Burbank
One of the problems with the idea of converting the Orange Line to Light Rail has been a lack of connections with the existing light rail system; you would need a new, full-service yard for light rail, somewhere along the Orange Line right-of-way.
If light rail was eventual extended to Burbank from Downtown, along one of these routes, it could turn west to connect with the existing Busway, which could be converted to rail operation in stages. Although the Orange Line has high ridership for a busway, it can probably be served well with 1/2 of the peak capacity of the Blue Line.
You might need to build a new yard in the Valley anyway, but having a connection to Downtown first would make the system more flexible, and the demand from Glendale and Burbank is really for Downtown-oriented service first.
Increased Metrolink frequency of service and a couple new stations could also help serve part of Glendale and the center of Burbank, but Glendale's center is quite a ways from the existing rail corridor, and needs a new route down Brand Ave (which is really an old Pacific Electric route)
I would certainly support extending the Orange Line BRT east to Burbank, to connect with Metrolink at least, but the peak capacity issues on the existing Orange Line could be made worse, and politically it would be easier to sell new rail service.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 11, 2010 13:42:48 GMT -8
The easiest way to connect North Hollywood, Glendale and Pasadena would be to improve service on the 780 Rapid. In researching my recently posted Metrolink Rapid Frequent Network map (http://transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=metrorapid&action=display&thread=935&page=1), I noticed the 780 has pretty good service, but with 20 minute headways mid-day is too infrequent to be used without a timetable.
If LADOT and Glendale would give the buses exclusive lanes, at least at peak hours, along Los Feliz, thru Glendale and Eagle Rock, this bus could be easily upgraded to real BRT standards. I'm sure light rail would get even better ridership, but perhaps this improved service would prove the demand for better transit between these secondary centers.
The SF Valley to Burbank connection is poor right now; there is no frequent service or rapid service on that corridor. In a way, this suggests that there may not be enough demand for transit trips connecting to Orange Line to Glendale or Pasadena, but starting a new Rapid route, with service every 15 minutes all day, would be a great way to see if there is demand for rapid transit on this route. For example, the 750 (Ventura) could be continued north-east along the route of the 155, which serves the job centers at Warner Bros and Disney studios, and the Downtown Burbank Metrolink station, on Olive.
Later, the Orange Line could be extended along the right-of-way to Burbank to connect there as well, and the 750 could be extended along the route of the 92, east on Glenoaks and south on Brand, to the Glendale Metrolink. Passengers could transfer to frequent service on the 780 in Glendale, if they need to continue to Pasadena.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 11, 2010 18:14:00 GMT -8
I'd like to see a Gold Line branch to Glendale as a first step. I said it the other day on another forum. It could split off the Gold Line around Lincoln/Cypress, travel along San Fernando Road parallel to the Metrolink tracks, and split off around Brand Blvd to serve Downtown Glendale.
That corridor could be mostly at-grade, on mostly an existing ROW, so it could be quite cost-effective. It is only five miles long, but it would be a great first step toward get a train to Burbank. (It could possibly even head southwest from the airport and connect to the Red Line in North Hollywood.)
We don't really need another Downtown Connector through downtown for this line. In fact, this line would be operationally useful, because it would help reduce the big imbalance that we're going to see on the planned Regional Connector.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 11, 2010 21:40:06 GMT -8
I'd like to see a Gold Line branch to Glendale as a first step. I said it the other day on another forum. I agree that this is a good idea, if the light rail to Pasadena continues to have 1/2 the demand of the Blue Line at rush hour. However, are there any problems with splitting the frequency twice? If the Eastside Gold Line is also split in two pieces, as suggested by others, we would have 4 light rail lines feeding into one track. BART runs 4 different grade-separated rail lines onto 1 track, with headways of only 2 minutes on the shared tracks under the bay and thru San Francisco, but these light rail branches would have street-median running portions. Would the trains along Brand be too unreliable to meet up with the trains from Pasadena at a consistent headway? If it works operationally, this would be a very cost-effective use of the Regional Connector subway, and a big benefit for Glendale, which has some of the highest residential density outside of Los Angeles, yet indirect connections to Downtown. |
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Sept 12, 2010 11:40:24 GMT -8
One idea I've had is to build 2 connections to the gold line, one as the proposed split mentioned above, which splits off just north of the Downtown Connector, and another that joins it from the 134 route (coming from downtown Glendale) at the Pasadena stations.
In this case, the densest parts of the regions (Downtown Glendale, Downtown Pasadena, and Downtown LA) would each have service from two of these brances. Pasadena would have service from LA and Glendale, Glendale would have service from Pasadena and LA, and LA would have service from Glendale and Pasadena.
Meanwhile, the low density areas in between the city hubs, roughly along the 110, 5 and 134, would have only half that service.
Also, if necessary, trains from Glendale to Pasadena could run only every 3rd train instead of every other train if necessary to meet demand, the same way that the Westside Subway has currently planned for the Pink Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 12, 2010 16:35:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by saltire08 on Sept 12, 2010 22:15:17 GMT -8
Regarding the 780, Metro plans to cancel 780 service on the weekends and replace it with more frequent 180 trips: www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/metro-hold-five-public-hearings-i-august-regarding/Also, great maps! And the point about missing Eagle Rock is very true. Does anyone know how many people commute to Burbank's studios/media industry places daily? If we could somehow get a stop there along a line that makes sense it would do wonders. I asked my friend who works for Warner Brothers why he doesn't take the Metrolink from Santa Clarita to work. He mentioned a few things I thought could be major reasons why many people don't use public transit: -His bosses expect him to work however long is needed to complete projects. Metrolink service doesn't run late enough and his bosses (like many) aren't a big fan of the "I've got to catch my train so I can't do this by the deadline". -His drive from Santa Clarita to Burbank is about 30 minutes. In order to take the train/public transit, he'd have to drive to the Santa Clarita Metrolink, take Metrolink to Burbank, and then a bus to Warner Brothers which takes over an hour at least. Now, of course, he is only one person. But he is a young working professional who just bought his house in Santa Clarita because it's affordable (unlike many things that are closer). Unless we somehow fix the pattern of urban sprawl in SoCal, people are going to keep living further and further away. This ties into the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena line because I bet there are many people who commute from the 210 communities west into Glendale, Burbank, and the SFV. Putting a line down Eagle Rock would help for local stops, but the slower speeds would inhibit commuters from taking it (like many of the Metro Lines). Therefore, is there any way possible to develop a local/express system on this line or others in LA? Although more expensive to build, I feel like it would increase ridership. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 13, 2010 2:39:05 GMT -8
Neat maps. Two suggestions - 1) Re: the 134 Corridor - You'll need at least one (perhaps even two) stop in between Downtown Burbank and Downtown Glendale. That's a two-mile stretch where I could see potential stations being needed, perhaps at Sonora Ave. and/or the L.A. Zoo/Griffith Park (the latter of which is in desperate need of an alternative to the 96 bus). 2) Re: the Yellow Line - Instead of running the northern portion along the 134, why not run it in the median of Glenoaks Blvd.? It's very wide (it's where the former P.E. Burbank line ran) up until Providenica Ave. in Burbank, where it could then go underground briefly to get to the Metrolink station. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 13, 2010 21:08:01 GMT -8
Neat maps. Two suggestions - 1) Re: the 134 Corridor - You'll need at least one (perhaps even two) stop in between Downtown Burbank and Downtown Glendale. That's a two-mile stretch where I could see potential stations being needed, perhaps at Sonora Ave. and/or the L.A. Zoo/Griffith Park (the latter of which is in desperate need of an alternative to the 96 bus). Obviously a shuttle from a nearby station to L.A. Zoo/Griffith Park would help a lot. I hope this happens, but it would have to go through a swath of residential neighborhood, and I don't know for sure how residents of Glenwood and Pelanconi feel about a rail on Glenoaks Blvd, even if it has a wide median. But, if possible, Glenoaks Blvd is probably the better choice. |
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Dec 8, 2011 10:57:10 GMT -8
|
|
