|
Post by James Fujita on May 31, 2010 15:17:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 1, 2010 14:02:16 GMT -8
Awesome sketch!
But what a poor design. To me, it looks like the most effective solution is for the stations to be widened. Though not surprisingly, this could be the most expensive. But all in all, I think it would be worth it in the long run. IMHO, running it through MacArthur Park just doesn't make much sense and seems like a cheap alternative to a complicated problem.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Aug 6, 2010 11:50:38 GMT -8
So what this basically boils down to is what is more complicated: Re-constructing Wilshire/Vermont & Vermont/Sunset to accommodate a future Vermont subway, or tunneling a new line from scratch?
The benefit of the former: connectivity with the Red/Purple Lines. The drawback of the former: prolonged disruption to existing service.
The benefit of the latter: no disruption to existing service (in theory). The drawback of the latter: tunneling a new line would be redundant and expensive, forces a transfer.
For me, the former rings as the lesser of the two evils.
The only way to do this properly (to me) would be to virtually shut down the Vermont stations on the line for as long as it would take to construct the new junctions for the tunnels. I'm not sure if this is possible (from a fiscal standpoint or a logical one), but that seems to be the situation here.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 9, 2010 4:15:06 GMT -8
Couldn't you provide temporary BRT service to each station?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Aug 10, 2010 4:19:38 GMT -8
Couldn't you provide temporary BRT service to each station? We already have that. Rapids duplicate subway service everywhere but between Hollywood/Highland and North Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 10, 2010 6:26:22 GMT -8
How about extend service to NoHo, then?
And is there rapid service for the Purple Line stations?
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Aug 10, 2010 22:48:55 GMT -8
Is there rapid service for the Purple Line stations? Yes. 720 and 920. Replacing the capacity of the subway with buses would be very expensive. At rush hour, one 6-car trains is like a dozen 40-foot buses, at the cost of $100 per hour to operate, a piece. Off-peak you would only need a couple more buses per trains, but it's still a big expense, and speeds would be slower. One mitigation might be "temporary" bus-only lanes on Vermont. If they could end up becoming permanent that would be a big benefit of construction. But of course the actual construction sites might cause traffic and delays as well; you are not going to get bus service averaging 25 mph like the red line.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Aug 17, 2010 13:53:23 GMT -8
it is certainly outside the box thinking regarding replacing trains with buses during a construction phase; however, imo it is too far outside the box as it is impractical to handle all the riders at commute times, or at anytime thinking that it is acceptable to those now using the system.
Perhaps when LA has a much larger RAIL network with redundancies in this vicinity that can accommodate the riders would it ever be acceptable. For large networks look to London or Paris or New York... Build up the system elsewhere first... Then redo the Vermont corridor.
Ehhhh... Nothing like this (Vermont corridor service) is in the LRTP.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 22, 2010 13:23:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by erict on Aug 22, 2010 15:46:07 GMT -8
I believe it's in the unfunded LRTP.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Aug 22, 2010 20:13:11 GMT -8
Okay... the quoted is an over-statement. Yes, I see it is in the LRTP (as an unfunded project). And, thanks for the link to LA Visions blog post.
I see a Vermont Ave Subway is listed as a Tier 2 idea. And, I have no doubt that a line down Vermont would be successful.
Tier 1 projects, by the way, are labelled as "Currently Under Planning Study/Environmentally Cleared/Route Refinement Study/Previously Studied"
Tier 2 are: "Candidates for Further Project Definition". I'd agree to that... if this idea were to proceed... that it needs to be further defined. In particular, viability of connection should be examined.
Personally, I don't think a connection is viable beyond having the Vermont/Wilshire station as being a transfer connection. And, definately not a place where existing train lines will switch to a new line down Vermont.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 23, 2010 8:35:19 GMT -8
It's only in a wish list in the LRTP, unfunded as mentioned above.
With the Expo Line reaching USC and the Red and Purple Lines reaching Wilshire/Vermont and rapid and local buses running every minute on Vermont and with low ridership south of USC/Exposition Park, Blue and Crenshaw Lines being not too far, Harbor Transitway on I-110, the value of a $5-billion Vermont subway is not so clear. It's something to be considered after all the remaining projects in Measure R are finished.
Lack of a direct connection to the Red Line (Hollywood) would be enough to kill the Vermont Subway because with the transfer at Wilshire/Vermont and the inconvenience of a subway (mile-apart stops, five - ten minutes spent climbing down/up stairs and walking through tunnels), it wouldn't offer a significant time-saving advantage to the bus service if any.
But, otherwise (with no transfer at Wilshire/Vermont), it would be good to extend the Hollywood Red Line (not the Westside Purple Line) to the Harbor Subdivision LRT (Slauson Ave) if possible. This would make it a good line.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 23, 2010 10:42:45 GMT -8
Currently, Metro's top priority projects (LRTP and Measure R) are: Expo Phase 1 and 2, Gold Line Foothill, Orange Line to Chatsworth, Crenshaw Line, Purple Line Westside extension, Regional Connector, Green Line to LAX and to South Bay, Gold Line Eastside extension, West Santa Ana Branch line, and the I-405 Line.
I do hope to see the Vermont Line in my lifetime. As Gokhan says, a Red Line branch continuing down Vermont to Slauson would be great. It could be done with a bypass of Wilshire/Vermont, or with a new station at Vermont with ped connections to the Purple Line, if necessary.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 23, 2010 18:50:48 GMT -8
It's only in a wish list in the LRTP, unfunded as mentioned above. With the Expo Line reaching USC and the Red and Purple Lines reaching Wilshire/Vermont and rapid and local buses running every minute on Vermont and with low ridership south of USC/Exposition Park, Blue and Crenshaw Lines being not too far, Harbor Transitway on I-110, the value of a $5-billion Vermont subway is not so clear. It's something to be considered after all the remaining projects in Measure R are finished. Lack of a direct connection to the Red Line (Hollywood) would be enough to kill the Vermont Subway because with the transfer at Wilshire/Vermont and the inconvenience of a subway (mile-apart stops, five - ten minutes spent climbing down/up stairs and walking through tunnels), it wouldn't offer a significant time-saving advantage to the bus service if any. But, otherwise (with no transfer at Wilshire/Vermont), it would be good to extend the Hollywood Red Line (not the Westside Purple Line) to the Harbor Subdivision LRT (Slauson Ave) if possible. This would make it a good line. Since when would it take anyone 10 minutes to exit a subway station? Even 5 minutes is a stretch. I think that it takes me about 3 or 4 minutes although I've never timed it. I know that it's not 10 minutes for sure though. And my guess is that it's actually as quick or quicker than exiting many of the East LA Gold Line stations where there is often a 1-2 minute wait for a light and then another 1-2 minute wait to cross the next street. Subway exits allow you to cross under the street when there is more than one exit. FTR the blue line is the same distance from Vermont that Expo is from the red line. The fact that the blue line is packed with no room to expand indicates that the area needs more transit, not less. Have you ridden the buses on Vermont south of USC? The ridership seems high to me when I've ridden. Ridership doesn't really drop off until maybe Florence or Manchester. My impression is that the Vermont corridor between the red and green lines would likely have the highest ridership of any rail line that I can think of aside from the purple line extension. As enthusiastic as I am about Expo, my prediction is that Vermont would have many more passengers per mile than Expo.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 23, 2010 20:58:48 GMT -8
Lack of a direct connection to the Red Line (Hollywood) would be enough to kill the Vermont Subway because with the transfer at Wilshire/Vermont and the inconvenience of a subway (mile-apart stops, five - ten minutes spent climbing down/up stairs and walking through tunnels), it wouldn't offer a significant time-saving advantage to the bus service if any. I don't know about the time-savings part, but it would certainly be inconvenient to have Wilshire/Vermont possibly a 3-level station. Agreed. And for those concerned about what would happen to the current connection between Hollywood and Downtown via the Red Line, we should keep it and extend it to the SGV via the El Monte Busway and Garvey Ave, while the Purple Line heads to Whittier. This would maintain a minimum of 2 lines on the same ROW between the Wilshire/Vermont and 7th st Metro stations. I do hope to see the Vermont Line in my lifetime. As Gokhan says, a Red Line branch continuing down Vermont to Slauson would be great. It could be done with a bypass of Wilshire/Vermont, or with a new station at Vermont with ped connections to the Purple Line, if necessary. It's more expensive and difficult, but in the end, rebuilding (widening the station box and re-boring the tunnels) the Wilshire/Vermont station is the best option in the long run. As enthusiastic as I am about Expo, my prediction is that Vermont would have many more passengers per mile than Expo. Well that's not surprising given how many attractions would be on the North end of the route.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 24, 2010 18:22:48 GMT -8
It's only in a wish list in the LRTP, unfunded as mentioned above. With the Expo Line reaching USC and the Red and Purple Lines reaching Wilshire/Vermont and rapid and local buses running every minute on Vermont and with low ridership south of USC/Exposition Park, Blue and Crenshaw Lines being not too far, Harbor Transitway on I-110, the value of a $5-billion Vermont subway is not so clear. It's something to be considered after all the remaining projects in Measure R are finished. Lack of a direct connection to the Red Line (Hollywood) would be enough to kill the Vermont Subway because with the transfer at Wilshire/Vermont and the inconvenience of a subway (mile-apart stops, five - ten minutes spent climbing down/up stairs and walking through tunnels), it wouldn't offer a significant time-saving advantage to the bus service if any. But, otherwise (with no transfer at Wilshire/Vermont), it would be good to extend the Hollywood Red Line (not the Westside Purple Line) to the Harbor Subdivision LRT (Slauson Ave) if possible. This would make it a good line. Since when would it take anyone 10 minutes to exit a subway station? Even 5 minutes is a stretch. I think that it takes me about 3 or 4 minutes although I've never timed it. I know that it's not 10 minutes for sure though. And my guess is that it's actually as quick or quicker than exiting many of the East LA Gold Line stations where there is often a 1-2 minute wait for a light and then another 1-2 minute wait to cross the next street. Subway exits allow you to cross under the street when there is more than one exit. FTR the blue line is the same distance from Vermont that Expo is from the red line. The fact that the blue line is packed with no room to expand indicates that the area needs more transit, not less. Have you ridden the buses on Vermont south of USC? The ridership seems high to me when I've ridden. Ridership doesn't really drop off until maybe Florence or Manchester. My impression is that the Vermont corridor between the red and green lines would likely have the highest ridership of any rail line that I can think of aside from the purple line extension. As enthusiastic as I am about Expo, my prediction is that Vermont would have many more passengers per mile than Expo. I said five to ten minutes including going down plus going up and walk through the tunnels. It's a busy corridor. It could be extended all the way to the southern section of Harbor Subdivision LRT near the harbor, south of Sepulveda. Vermont is a former rail right-of-way south of Gauge and the line can be elevated or at-grade in this section. The line could be either light-rail or rapid transit. Light-rail would be preferred if there has to be a transfer at Wilshire and Vermont.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 24, 2010 21:52:29 GMT -8
It's a busy corridor. It could be extended all the way to the southern section of Harbor Subdivision LRT near the harbor, south of Sepulveda. Vermont is a former rail right-of-way south of Gauge and the line can be elevated or at-grade in this section. The line could be either light-rail or rapid transit. Light-rail would be preferred if there has to be a transfer at Wilshire and Vermont. At-grade simply will never fly. If an at-grade LRT has trouble getting built in low income areas, I can't imagine the criticism and lawsuits an at-grade HRT in even lower-income areas would ignite. And an LRT would be slower and less convenient than an extension of the Red Line.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Aug 25, 2010 4:19:06 GMT -8
Well that's not surprising given how many attractions would be on the North end of the route. Vermont is the second-busiest bus corridor in L.A. County. Lines 204 and 754 carry about 40,000 per weekday.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 25, 2010 7:24:52 GMT -8
Vermont is the second-busiest bus corridor in L.A. County. Lines 204 and 754 carry about 40,000 per weekday. LRT would have plenty of capacity to carry that volume of passengers or even double that. Like the Blue Line. However, Metro should plan ahead for demand expansion, by building all platforms for 4-car trains. And yes, subway at least to Gage. Also, the crossings at Florence and Manchester should definitely be grade-separated. Maybe elevated like Expo's La Brea and La Cienega stations. The cross-traffic on Florence and Manchester is very high.
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Oct 4, 2010 17:41:04 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 As an even more absurd fantasy, I'm holding out for the North Hollywood Line to be extended nortwards as far as SFO, where it can meet the BART line. Los Angeles, home of the peculiar and Just Plain Weird
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 4, 2010 18:36:29 GMT -8
I've always dreamed about the sort of rail transit map where you could get from one city to the next without getting on Amtrak or intercity rail. Metrolink ALMOST connects to the Coaster in San Diego.
From L.A. to San Francisco, the gap is pretty wide: between Ventura County (Metrolink) and Gilroy (Caltrain). I dunno how you bridge that ;D
You can ALMOST do that on the east coast, with VRE, MARC, SEPTA, NJT and PATH. You just have to fill in the holes in northern Maryland and southern New Jersey.
Starting next year, you will be able to take a subway from Toyko to Yokohama on the Fukutoshin and Minatomirai lines.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Oct 5, 2010 8:21:39 GMT -8
If there was a South Vermont HRT in place, what would happen to that Silver Line BRT that goes down the 110 - which is only 2 1/2 blocks east of Vermont? I'd imagine they'd keep since it goes directly downtown whereas South Vermont, you'd need a transfer.
I do like the idea of Wilshire/Vermont station becoming an even bigger transit hub, though. Until I saw the diagonal configuarion of the station, I figured Metro could tunnel underneath the existing Red Line stations on Vermont, but that seems to be out of the question.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 5, 2010 10:41:27 GMT -8
It does seem a little odd to have two transit lines that close together, but that sort of proximity happens elsewhere. Also, they would serve two somewhat different audiences. The Silver Line makes for a nice limited express route from downtown to San Pedro, while a Vermont Subway would be a bit more local. (The fact that the stations would not be freeway-trapped would allow for a bit more development.) There's no real reason for anything to happen to the Silver Line. Welcome to life in the big city.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 5, 2010 10:43:02 GMT -8
You have to decide what service pattern(s) are desired before you can determine where/how to connect a South Vermont corridor into the Red/Purple Lines. I can think of the five main candidates for potential service patterns: - Option 1: South Vermont branch dead-ends at Wilshire/Vermont. Red and Purple do not change.
- Option 2: South Vermont branch merges with Red Line. Downtown only served by the Purple Line.
- Option 3: South Vermont branch merges with Purple Line. Downtown only served by the Red Line.
- Option 4: South Vermont branch splits between Hollywood and Wilshire. Thus each of the four branches is served by two lines.
- Option 5: South Vermont branch serves Downtown in addition to the Red and Purple Lines.
I think Option 1 is the most realistic because it is the simplest. Option 4 would do best in balancing the loads, but would be very complicated to construct. I think Option 5 is unrealistic: it would mean three lines sharing tracks through Downtown L.A.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 5, 2010 11:08:18 GMT -8
You have to decide what service pattern(s) are desired before you can determine where/how to connect a South Vermont corridor into the Red/Purple Lines. I can think of the five main candidates for potential service patterns: - Option 1: South Vermont branch dead-ends at Wilshire/Vermont. Red and Purple do not change.
- Option 2: South Vermont branch merges with Red Line. Downtown only served by the Purple Line.
- Option 3: South Vermont branch merges with Purple Line. Downtown only served by the Red Line.
- Option 4: South Vermont branch splits between Hollywood and Wilshire. Thus each of the four branches is served by two lines.
- Option 5: South Vermont branch serves Downtown in addition to the Red and Purple Lines.
I think Option 1 is the most realistic because it is the simplest. Option 4 would do best in balancing the loads, but would be very complicated to construct. I think Option 5 is unrealistic: it would mean three lines sharing tracks through Downtown L.A. Good analysis. Unfortunately, the way Wilshire/Vermont was constructed I think you are right about Option 1, which I think really hurts the utility of this project. Option 4 or 2 would be great. Also, for Option 2 if the Pink Line is built then you could theoretically have that continue east and go through downtown along with the Purple Line so Downtown would be served by two lines. However, I can't remember if the Hollywood/Highland station configuration would allow that or if the same issue that precludes the Pink Line from going to North Hollywood would factor in here as well.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 5, 2010 13:11:51 GMT -8
Option one would undeniably be the easiest. If a south Vermont subway does get built, that's probably what will happen, with some fun pedestrian tunnels for the transfer. (At least initially, and hopefully they leave room for expansion.)
In a perfect world, I'd really prefer Option Two. Eliminates the shared Red/ Purple trackage downtown and gives continuity to the Vermont corridor.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 5, 2010 14:04:13 GMT -8
It does seem a little odd to have two transit lines that close together, but that sort of proximity happens elsewhere. Also, they would serve two somewhat different audiences. If anything this would be good because it would further encourage development. The Silver Line doesn't go to San Pedro. But the Vermont Corridor should. Yeah, the only major thing I can see happening to that BRT Line is it's SGV leg being converted to HRT as an extension of the Red Line (or another color, depending if the North-South corridor retains classification of "Red"). Although, what happens to the South LA portion if that happens? Perhaps a Metrolink extension via the Expo Line Corridor east of the 110?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 5, 2010 14:04:27 GMT -8
In a perfect world, I'd really prefer Option Two. Eliminates the shared Red/ Purple trackage downtown and gives continuity to the Vermont corridor. I like Option Two as well. However this project is now a "Tier 2" project in the LRTP so there will be LOTS of time to think about how to do this.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 5, 2010 14:12:28 GMT -8
While it'll certainly be more expensive, Option 2 makes sense in the long run. You could run the Red Line as a North-South corridor from Bob Hope Airport (and perhaps even Sun Valley Metrolink), through Hollywood, and down to San Pedro; run the Purple Line as an East-West Corridor from Santa Monica to Downtown (and hopefully one day, Whittier); and you could have a THIRD line from Bob Hope Airport, Hollywood, Downtown, and SGV via the El Monte Busway and Garvey (This would preserve the popular Downtown-Hollywood commute).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 5, 2010 14:20:14 GMT -8
Option 2 would alienate a lot of current Red Line riders from the Valley/Hollywood, who would then have to transfer at Wilshire/Vermont. The Red Line is currently Metro's busiest line.
I think it should be subway only north of Gage, then elevated south of Gage. I would take the Vermont branch down only as far as the Green Line. Maybe they could tie it into the Silver and Green Line station at Figueroa/I-105.
|
|