|
Post by rayinla on May 20, 2010 20:42:28 GMT -8
No, trains from South Los Angeles would continue north on Vermont to Hollywood and North Hollywood; Trains from Westwood would head east to Downtown. You could also run four different services with the same station configuration: 1. South LA to N Holllywood; 2. Westwood to Downtown; 3. South LA to Westwood; 4. N Hollywood to Downtown. This would provide more one-seat rides, while reducing frequency of each route. However, with cross-platform transfers, you can get the same service as the four routes listed above from only two routes: 1. South LA to North Hollywood and 2. Westwood to Downtown. For the last two trips listed above, you would have a cross-platform transfer, which would only add 10 seconds to the trip, plus the minor inconvenience of walking across the platform and finding a new seat. I'm moving my response here since it was off-topic for the Crenshaw Line. What you are proposing with building a second set of platforms for a cross-platform transfer is much more expensive and complicated than trying to open up the tunnels east of the station and adding switches (if that is even feasible) and having Vermont corridor trains share the existing platforms. If you are adding two additional platforms (upper and lower) to serve the Vermont corridor, you wind up with the following: Lower Platform "A" (existing) - Union Station to North Hollywood; Union Station to Westwood Upper Platform "A" (existing) - North Hollywood to Union Station; Westwood to Union Station Lower Platform "B" - San Pedro (?) to North Hollywood; San Pedro to Westwood Upper Platform "B" - North Hollywood to San Pedro; Westwood to San Pedro In addition to building the new platforms you have to be able to tie into both Purple line tunnels AND both Red Line tunnels west of the station. How do you propose to do that? Engineering for the east tunnels aside, it would be much simpler to keep only two platforms with service like this: Lower Platform "A": Union Station to North Hollywood Union Station to Westwood San Pedro to North Hollywood San Pedro to Westwood Lower Platform "A" North Hollywood to Union Station North Hollywood to San Pedro Westwood to Union Station Westwood to San Pedro
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on May 20, 2010 22:49:34 GMT -8
As an operational note, both of those plans involve doubling the current service on each of the legs, that is, each leg would run with the same frequency with which trains run through downtown. Is that going to be necessary, or just wasted capacity? Seems like the current scheme of splitting headways works quite nicely. Any way to keep that going?
Also, is there a demand for trips from San Pedro to Westwood? Do people do that? Can't say I've heard of it.
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on May 20, 2010 23:34:14 GMT -8
As an operational note, both of those plans involve doubling the current service on each of the legs, that is, each leg would run with the same frequency with which trains run through downtown. Is that going to be necessary, or just wasted capacity? Seems like the current scheme of splitting headways works quite nicely. Any way to keep that going? Also, is there a demand for trips from San Pedro to Westwood? Do people do that? Can't say I've heard of it. There's probably a greater demand for travel from San Pedro to Union Station. While a "one-seat ride" is certainly preferable, its operationally unrealistic in most situations. But as long as the trains are frequent, I don't see a problem with a scenario where trains simply run East/West (Westwood and Union Station) and North/South (North Hollywood and San Pedro) - passengers already make that transfer when traveling between Wilshire/Western and Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 21, 2010 6:40:43 GMT -8
I'm hoping that it becomes an Elevated track after Gage Ave; it'd just seem like a waste not utilizing Vermont Ave's massive median and occasional adjacent streets after that. Heck, there's enough room to add a bicycle lane.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 21, 2010 9:08:48 GMT -8
^^ Yes, Gage is where Vermont gets very wide, and an elevated train would be great there.
The tall fir trees in the median would need to be moved to make way for the elevated line. I would hope they could just relocate these trees to the sides of the elevated structure, because they have been around for years, and the area would be completely tree-starved without them.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 21, 2010 9:11:17 GMT -8
What this line needs is a "Friends of the Vermont Line" group to increase awareness and advocate for it.
|
|
|
Post by erict on May 21, 2010 11:44:36 GMT -8
I think that the Vermont Corridor should not end at Vermont/Wilshire, but should head north to Glendale/Burbank area past Vermont and Sunset (as well as South to the Green line and beyond). The Vermont North would be a separate project and no doubt be in the category of near-fiction.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 21, 2010 13:13:24 GMT -8
^ Current plans I believe have it heading to Hollywood, the Lankershim station, and eventually, Bob Hope Airport.
The Yellow Line should ditch the Metrolink ROW (not enough room) and head on Brand to Glendale/Burbank instead.
|
|
|
Post by erict on May 21, 2010 15:41:41 GMT -8
As a totally absurd fantasy, we could extend the Vermont line ultra South to San Pedro and then under the ocean to Catalina
|
|
|
Post by trackman on May 21, 2010 20:39:53 GMT -8
I agree about a connection of the subway system at Wilshire/Western with other lines, it's not constructable.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 22, 2010 10:50:46 GMT -8
So theoretically San Vincente gets an underground Crenshaw extension yet Vermont would get an elevated line? I think that I see what's going on here.
And San Pedro?!? Joking? It also shouldn't go any farther south than the green line and even that's a stretch given what's there now. But things change and a connection to the green line makes sense for many reasons.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 22, 2010 13:14:08 GMT -8
So theoretically San Vincente gets an underground Crenshaw extension yet Vermont would get an elevated line? I think that I see what's going on here. If you're thinking what i think your thinking, then no, you don't understand. If the Crenshaw extension goes to the Highland station via San Vincente and La Brea (which is most likely), you have less than 1500 ft of a street with a wide enough median for an elevated line. Why would it be sensible (or even feasible) to transfer to an EL track, then only a quarter mile later go back to a subway? Not to mention there would be no elevated stations in such a short section. Vermont Ave on the other hand is wide enough to accomodate an elevated track for almost 7 miles (basically between Gage and Gardena). Keep in mind, these won't be your typical run-down steel beam elevated tracks. I remember reading somewhere that the federal government banned them, hence the Douglas Branch concrete-based extension in Chicago. Yes, San Pedro. Despite that you live close by, you act like you don't know this area much. You've got the 405 freeway-adjacent businesses, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, the Harbor Subdivsion and PCH. And we aren't planning for today, were planning for tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 22, 2010 14:59:33 GMT -8
"I remember reading somewhere that the federal government banned them, hence the Douglas Branch concrete-based extension in Chicago." Not sure about that. Concrete is much cheaper to build than steel, now days; there is no need to mandate it. I'm hoping that it becomes an Elevated track after Gage Ave; it'd just seem like a waste not utilizing Vermont Ave's massive median and occasional adjacent streets after that. Heck, there's enough room to add a bicycle lane. Yeah, the Vermont Southside "subway" would be elevated south of Gage. Most likely it would be built in phases, like the Westside subway. 1) Subway, Wilshire to Exposition, including the expensive rebuild of the Wilshire/Vermont station, or at least a tie-in to the existing tunnels; 2) Exposition to Florence, transitioning to elevated at Gage; 3) Florence to the Green Line. This is the most that is warranted by existing development and plans. However, if zoning and development increase density further south, and transit ridership increases as oil runs out and electric cars prove too expensive, there could be two more phases: 4) Green line to Artesia Blvd 5) Artesia Transit Center to Harbor Subdivision or PCH 6) HSD or PCH to San Pedro: But remember that population density is high from Wilshire to Slauson, moderate from Slauson to the Green Line, and quite low everywhere south of there, except for a square mile in San Pedro and another in Wilmington: maps.google.com/maps/ms?cd=2&ie=UTF8&hl=en&oe=UTF8&start=0&num=200&msa=0&msid=102764232639575421873.00047bbd63b18dd455fce&ll=33.996319,-118.227997&spn=0.160537,0.308647&z=12 Besides Harbor/UCLA hospital and north Gardena (and perhaps downtown San Pedro in the future), there are no major job centers south of the Green Line either: maps.google.com/maps/ms?cd=2&ie=UTF8&hl=en&oe=UTF8&start=0&num=200&msa=0&msid=102764232639575421873.00047c505152307d33fac&ll=33.942221,-118.24791&spn=0.321278,0.617294&z=11 That's why the need for heavy rail transit is from USC north, with the area north of the Green Line as a reasonable opportunity for development and expansion. Note that the Metro Rapid buses almost all end at the Green Line, including the ones along Vermont, and the Harbor Transitway is lightly used south of Artesia, despite having stations built in the freeway down to PCH: www.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/12_min_map.pdfThe muni operators run a few buses in that area, but not at high frequency, and the route is broken up: www.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/System_Map.pdfSan Pedro really needs an electrified Metrolink-style extension, with more widely spaced stations and higher max speeds, perhaps using the bus stations and lanes on 110 (with two "all-purpose" lanes converted to carpool use instead), or as a branch from express, higher-speed service along the Blue Line right-of-way.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 22, 2010 15:19:38 GMT -8
I'm moving my response here since it was off-topic for the Crenshaw Line. Thanks What you are proposing with building a second set of platforms for a cross-platform transfer is much more expensive and complicated than trying to open up the tunnels east of the station and adding switches (if that is even feasible) and having Vermont corridor trains share the existing platforms. .... it would be much simpler to keep only two platforms... Yes, it would be more expensive to build new platforms. However, if we just tie-in the new tracks to the two exisiting tunnels and platforms, the whole heavy rail system will be limited by this one choke-point. Right now, the max capacity is 30 trains per hour on the shared downtown heavy rail subway, or 15 tph for each line; that's a train every 4 minutes. With 800 people per 6-car train (60 seated, 80 standing per car - very crowded), you can have 12,000 people get downtown in one hour on each line. With 150,000 rides per day (right now), it's not a problem; we could run full-length trains twice as frequently as we do now. However, when the subway is extended to Westwood or Santa Monica, and also south to USC or the Green Line, you can either have 4 different services, with each train coming every 8 minutes at most, or two different services with trains every 4 minutes. But the capacity would be just as limited as today, despite the doubling the length of the heavy rail system. Both subways would be limited by the shared station platform and shared tracks at this one point in the system. If two new platforms are buit, sure, it might cost 500 million dollars to tie in to the old tunnels. But the Westside subway to Westwood will be 4 billion (2 billion more to Santa Monica), and the subway down Vermont to the Green Line would be another 4 billion, for a 10 billion + project (perhaps more after inflation). By adding only 5% or so to the cost, even at 1/2 billion to fix Wilshire/Western, we will have double the capacity for both the north-south and east-west lines. This would make it possible to run trains on all 4 potential routes every 4 minutes at rush-hour, or every 2 minutes on two routes, but with easy, cross-platform connections at Wilshire/Vermont. I would vote for just doing two routes, if the cross-platform transfers are possible, as it would make the system less complicated, more reliable, and cheaper to operate in off-peak hours. But either way, having two platforms in each direction allows twice as many trains to get thru this potential choke-point, greatly improving the system for a small fraction of the total cost of the subway projects.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 22, 2010 15:30:59 GMT -8
As an operational note, both of those plans involve doubling the current service on each of the legs, that is, each leg would run with the same frequency with which trains run through downtown. Is that going to be necessary, or just wasted capacity? Seems like the current scheme of splitting headways works quite nicely. Any way to keep that going? I don't think of it as "wasted capacity"; as a transit rider I see high frequencies as "good service", and "capacity" mainly matters as far as I am able to get a seat, or at least a place to stand comfortably. With Westside and Southside extensions of the subway down Wilshire and Vermont respectively, the demand will be somewhat balanced on the east-west axis, due to the number of jobs and destinations in West LA, Westwood, Century City and Beverly Hills to the west, balanced by Downtown LA to the east. Most of the demand will be North from South LA and South from Hollywood in the morning (reversed in the afternoon), but that works out to pretty balanced demand from a transit operations persepective; the trains will just empty out some after crossing Wilshire in each direction in the morning. If there is too much demand in one direction, it would be possible to save some money by running extra services at rush hour (South LA to Westwood and North Hollywood to Downtown), while only running two services (South LA to N Hollywood, Westwood to Downtown) during the rest of the day. But this would be much easier if there is not a constraint on frequency at Wilshire/Western caused by sending 4 tracks onto only 2 platforms. Also, is there a demand for trips from San Pedro to Westwood? Do people do that? Can't say I've heard of it. Not much. But there is plenty of demand from South LA to Westwood and Century city, that's why the Rapid buses along Vermont and Crenshaw are busy in South LA. I agree that the San Pedro market is in less need of heavy rail, or even light rail. Regional rail service or express buses to Union Station would be more useful, unless the Vermont corridor between the Green line and San Pedro changes greatly.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 23, 2010 10:10:30 GMT -8
Yes, it would be more expensive to build new platforms. However, if we just tie-in the new tracks to the two exisiting tunnels and platforms, the whole heavy rail system will be limited by this one choke-point. Well if we're concerned about choke points... - Divert the Red Line from North Hollywood at Hollywood/Highland, to head southeast via the Pink Line route.
- Send trains coming up Vermont from South L.A. up past Wilshire into Hollywood, terminating at Hollywood/Highland.
- This leaves the Wilshire and Downtown tracks for the Purple Line only.
In this scenario, the system has no choke points: each track is used for only one line. (BTW, I'm not really serious.)
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 23, 2010 10:21:43 GMT -8
What I'm thinking is that a few years ago Metro discounted running the Crenshaw line on Crenshaw north of San Vincente because the street is too narrow to run the trains at grade which is how Metro wanted the majority of the line to be constructed. IIRC too many homes would be displaced is what they said.
Now instead there is at least some interest in running the trains on San Vincente. While the street is wide enough to accommodate trains at grade (according to Metro) that seems to be discounted here purportedly because of the wealth of the residents in the area. The Vermont alignment is thought of in different terms. That's all.
Personally I have no objection to San Vincente being underground since I prefer grade separation, but I'd rather Vermont stay underground as well. I can't think of a compelling reason that it wouldn't and I can think of many reasons why a subway would be preferred by the community as opposed to elevated. Just as it would be in any LA community.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 23, 2010 10:24:33 GMT -8
Yeah, the Vermont Southside "subway" would be elevated south of Gage. When did that get decided? Or are you speculating/stating a preference?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 23, 2010 10:36:31 GMT -8
Right now, the max capacity is 30 trains per hour on the shared downtown heavy rail subway, or 15 tph for each line; Do you have a source for that? I'm pretty sure that Moscow already operates many lines at 90 second headways and they are limited by not having automatic train operation (ATO) and having to turn that many trains ate the same terminus. I would think that with the red/purple lines having ATO and several termini, that they could get at least a combined 90 second headway. Maybe a little quicker. Not that I can see us needing that barring $300/barrel oil.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 23, 2010 13:57:00 GMT -8
I'm gonna try and find something to verify my knowledge that steel beam elevated tracks have been banned. Regional rail service or express buses to Union Station would be more useful, unless the Vermont corridor between the Green line and San Pedro changes greatly. Keep in mind, we also need to plan for future growth, as well as zone for higher density to create brand new corridors presenting new opportunities and options for people to live and/or work. Now instead there is at least some interest in running the trains on San Vincente. While the street is wide enough to accommodate trains at grade (according to Metro) that seems to be discounted here purportedly because of the wealth of the residents in the area. The Vermont alignment is thought of in different terms. I definitely think that it should be below grade instead of at grade. In the past year i've greatly warmed up to the idea of grade-separation on any new rail projects, primarily those that don't use their own ROW and follow streets. Apologies. I was just worried that you might have gotten the wrong idea of why I think San Vincente should be under ground and Vermont above ground. Well, again, it likely has to do with aesthetics. Of course nobody wants a cranky old rickety "EL" in their neighborhood. Not to mention they're probably less safe than concrete pillars during earthquakes. As a matter of fact, one of the old proposals for an elevated Subway to the Sea called for the track and stations to be supported by columns made of concrete. Also, keep in mind, portions of the Expo Line will be elevated, and that has done wonders for those concerned about safety. And someone very knowledgeable on transit told me on SSP (Skyscraperpage Forum) that none of Measure R's funded projects will be at grade, so hopefully that will draw more support.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 23, 2010 15:14:44 GMT -8
Right now, the max capacity is 30 trains per hour on the shared downtown heavy rail subway, or 15 tph for each line; Do you have a source for that? I'm pretty sure that Moscow already operates many lines at 90 second headways and they are limited by not having automatic train operation (ATO) and having to turn that many trains ate the same terminus. I would think that with the red/purple lines having ATO and several termini, that they could get at least a combined 90 second headway. Maybe a little quicker. Not that I can see us needing that barring $300/barrel oil. Moscow does operate almost 60 trains per hour on some lines, however, there are no branches, and no automatic train control, as you mentioned. Most modern systems are limited to a train every 2 minutes on the same track, due to higher safety margins. Having 2 lines share the same track also leads to a slightly HIGHER headway, since you need to be able to match the two lines headways. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeadwayBook chapter about headways: books.google.com/books?id=NbYqQSQcE2MC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=minimum+headway+heavy+rail&source=bl&ots=m9kG1oDoY5&sig=2dHyOdgbY7zi_60TWLu0fuHAsIk&hl=en&ei=d7X5S7zBBIKGNIjnpIQI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=minimum%20headway%20heavy%20rail&f=false[The sources suggest that 1 minute headways are about the best achievable for a fast heavy rail metro with no branches and special signaling systems, or human operation. Most metro's use 2 minute headways at best, due to block signaling]
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 23, 2010 17:52:13 GMT -8
Thanks. Those don't specifically discuss LACMTA, but close enough I guess.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on May 23, 2010 20:14:33 GMT -8
The points forwarded by jeisenbe seem right on track concerning headways and so forth.
What I believe is not constructable is the addition of junctions on one side of Wilshire/Vermont or the other - too great an impact on the existing line(s).
Further, in the hypothetical scenario having a Vermont Line and branches at Wilshire going north AND west, on each level plane with the tunnels there would be conflicts with existing tunnels. Take for example the LOWER LEVEL at Wilshire/Vermont and additional track and platform - like the illustration previously provided. Here, a northbound Vermont Line, after stopping at station would curve right... on the same plane as the Purple Wilshire line curves left. Granted, some elevation change may remove the conflict, however, there's already 2 tunnels there for Purple East & West line, and then there is a southbound Red Line tunnel to dodge and a new southbound Vermont tunnel, all before that northbound Vermont needs to join back with a northbound Red Line tunnel at a new junction. The UPPER LEVEL has similar challenges.
Wheww!!!! Get some cut-up rubber hose out and figure that one out!
|
|
|
Post by trackman on May 23, 2010 20:25:48 GMT -8
I think it may practical to look at an entirely different line, and, to try and make some lemonade out of the lemons at Wilshire/Vermont with a new line run by the MacArthur Station instead. That idea is below, and not only did I align it back to Vermont and down to the Green Line, but extended to Glendale to make some good lemonade (?). I believe it's consistent with what someone else raised here in the recent past. Glendale was mentioned and it was already grabbing my attention. And, something similar may have been considered in the MTA Long Range Plan ( I scan it from time to time); however, I don't know any details of that line, other than Glendale was mentioned some place. I imagine predominantly below grade given the street grid. Although I agree that Vermont is crazy wide at some point, so at-grade may be viable there (below Gage?). See below for the idea. Ignore the Santa Monica line for now... that is carried over from some interest I had with something else... see Crenshaw thread. And btw, I do this for interest and passing time and not getting caught-up in specific alignment or station locations. I'll leave it to others to do that for now, although an additional station at Jefferson or Adams may make sense. Of course, a location for a maintenance yard would be necessary - darn those things.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 23, 2010 22:21:40 GMT -8
I think it may practical to look at an entirely different line, and, to try and make some lemonade out of the lemons at Wilshire/Vermont with a new line run by the MacArthur Station instead. That idea is below, and not only did I align it back to Vermont and down to the Green Line, but extended to Glendale to make some good lemonade. (Image above) Trackman, nice work. However, your sketch shows the importance of doing the transfer at Wilshire right, if this subway is to be built at all. Most riders from Glendale or South LA will want to get to Downtown LA or the Westside, and therefore would transfer at MacArthur Station. But this would require walking up a flight of stairs and waiting for the next train, which adds a few minutes to the trip. Riders from South LA might be better served by taking the bus on Vermont or Western to the Purple Line to go west, or transfering to the Expo line to go to Downtown. And from Glendale, a transfer to Metrolink at would be faster than the detour thru Silverlake on this route. To get to the Westside, the bus thru Los Feliz to the Red Line might be faster. Without a connection to the existing heavy rail system at Wilshire / Vermont, the value of this project goes down significantly. A better solution, which still gets Glendale on the system, would branch the Red Line at Los Feliz, then follow your route thru Glendale. This will save several miles of subway construction, while providing equally good service to Glendale. In fact, the service to Downtown would be better, because you would have the possibility of thru-routing trains, or having a cross-platform transfer, to get to Downtown. (This map is a piece of Damien Goodmon's plan; these are not my original ideas. See the whole map here maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=102764232639575421873.0004725e2d1e162da6d46&z=9 based on the original diagrams here: glam.fminus.com/)Continuing your Santa Monica Blvd line (Crenshaw north?) to Glendale would also work well. In both these alternatives, Silverlake and Westlake don't get a new cross-town line, but most of the demand there is for east-west service. I actually thing Glendale could be served best by a surface light-rail line from Union Station along the river, up thru Glendale (as you diagramed) and then west to Burbank, meeting back up with the high speed train and Metrolink station there, but that's another thread.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 23, 2010 23:38:45 GMT -8
... Further, in the hypothetical scenario having a Vermont Line and branches at Wilshire going north AND west, on each level plane with the tunnels there would be conflicts with existing tunnels. ... Wheww!!!! Get some cut-up rubber hose out and figure that one out! The three-dimensional track orientation is certainly difficult to visualize. This is the existing map of the routing: Inbound (toward downtown) and Outbound trains are on separate levels, with one track and one platform at the station, and there is a "Y" north-west of the station, on both levels. East of the station the two tunnels and tracks make a 1/4 twist to come side by side in time for the MacArthur Park / Westlake station. This diagram from The Transport Politic shows a cross-platform connection station (imagined for Fulton Street in New York). In this drawing the four tracks are all on one level; try to imagine the bottom two tracks as being under the top two, and mentally erase the central platform, for an image of what the station at Wilshire/Vermont would look like: Because the current Wilshire/Vermont station is oriented Northwest to Southeast and is on two levels, it would be possible to add another track and platform south-east of the existing tracks, though the whole station would probably have to be rebuild. The junctions with the existing lines could be on the same level, like what is planned for Little Tokyo, or at Washington and Flower. As with Expo and the Blue Line, building the junctions would cause several weekends of interrupted service: This is what it would look like on a map when completed: Here is a close-up showing the track layout and cross-overs near the station. The four tracks at the station will be right on top of each other but at different levels; hard to show on a map: Close-up: each gray line is a platform; the platforms would actually be one above the other. Imagine we are looking down thru the ground at an angle: Here's a link to the Google Map's page: maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1429+E+Florida+St+%23302,+Long+Beach,+Los+Angeles,+California+90802&msa=0&msid=102764232639575421873.00048751c9b2b61cf6e5e&ll=34.06265,-118.290519&spn=0.001969,0.004136&z=18
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 24, 2010 16:06:58 GMT -8
I think a North South line using the Red Line and Vermont Corridor should be the primary focus, not on whether using other different combinations at the Wilshire/Vermont station.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 24, 2010 18:03:02 GMT -8
Trackman, great map and I think that I agree with jeisenbe. Nearly everyone from either direction will end their trip at Wilshire and at a location that in and of itself is not a destination. But I can't really see what else there is to do, so that'll do for now I guess. I don't know much about the neighborhoods on the northern end of the line, but on the south la portion I think that there should be more than one station every mile. To your map I'd add a station on the north side of Jefferson and then I'd squeeze another station in around Gage.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 24, 2010 18:11:24 GMT -8
Great illustrations jeisenbe!
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 24, 2010 21:57:28 GMT -8
Hmm, how about stations at:
Wilshire/Vermont Olympic Pico or Venice Washington Adams Jefferson Exposition MLK Jr. Vernon Slauson Florence Manchester Century Imperial/Green Line El Segundo Redondo Beach Gardena Artesia 190th Del Amo or Torrance Carson/Harbor UCLA Medical Center 223rd Sepulveda Harbor Sub.
Not sure what the route to San Pedro could be beyond the Harbor Line, so i'm not exactly sure on the stations. I know the terminus would HAVE to be Harbor/6th.
|
|