|
Post by fissure on Aug 22, 2021 9:49:39 GMT -8
Vermont is super wide south of Gage (about 180 feet between property lines, the same as Crenshaw through Park Mesa Heights). Building elevated there makes perfect sense. The structure would be further away from the buildings than the width of a standard local street with no setbacks.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Aug 23, 2021 7:49:46 GMT -8
I actually think an elevated viaduct would improve aesthetics and inject some life along that streetscape.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 23, 2021 16:30:15 GMT -8
Anyone else notice in that June presentation the indication of HRT being able to operate below and ABOVE ground? I don’t think they are speaking about HRT alignments in general, but are specifically referring to this project and how that particular modal technology could be implemented along this corridor because they mention average station spacing of 1.5 miles and a top speed of 70 mph. I don't recall seeing that, but Sepulveda will likely be both above and below ground with relatively long distances between stations. You sure that's not what they meant?
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Aug 24, 2021 2:52:15 GMT -8
Vermont is super wide south of Gage (about 180 feet between property lines, the same as Crenshaw through Park Mesa Heights). Building elevated there makes perfect sense. The structure would be further away from the buildings than the width of a standard local street with no setbacks. Totally agree. I’m for the most part against above ground rail because it’s faster below ground and doesn’t have negative impacts on the surrounding area. But Vermont Extension should be Subway to just say gage and then above ground to the green line. If it goes further south it should go back underground.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 11, 2021 11:18:59 GMT -8
Update on Vermont Corridor South Bay Extension study:
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Jan 17, 2022 16:06:41 GMT -8
I don't understand why Metro won't even consider elevated HRT, but will for LRT. But their recommendation for grade-separated LRT is subway. Oh wait, but they built Crenshaw's La Brea station as an elevated... and the ROW is nowhere near as wide as Vermont. Why is Metro so incompetent (to put it mildly)?
Unless they settle on BRT, the LPA will obviously depend on the rail technology chosen for Vermont North. I don't think Metro can get away with building at-grade stations at Florence, Manchester, and Century given how busy those intersections are and seeing what happened with the Crenshaw Line (elevated station at La Brea, calls for making the Parker Mesa Heights portion subway). Not to mention social equity... the Westside and SFV get heavy rail, but what about South LA and the South Bay? At that point, LRT is the same cost as HRT. The opportunity here isn't just serving a high-demand corridor; it's about building a useable rail system writ large. Red Line extension is the only option. It may not be the cheapest, but it will be the most cost-effective in the long-run.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 26, 2022 9:04:47 GMT -8
Some updates on the Vermont Corridor study and also its South Bay Extension study.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 27, 2022 16:56:36 GMT -8
|
|