|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 11, 2010 12:18:49 GMT -8
Not the way trackman spelled and used it LOL. I maintain that this is not constructable and am quite frankly besmirked it is still an item.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 11, 2010 12:27:22 GMT -8
Arguments for interlining: increased usage of a set of tracks, able to avoid certain transfers.
Arguments against interlining: cost of junction/station rebuild, increased operational complexity, reduced maximum throughput.
Interlining is no silver bullet. In the case of joining the Vermont Corridor to the Red Line, it would provide no net benefit operationally and cost a fortune to construct.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 11, 2010 18:19:51 GMT -8
Bear in mind that ANYTHING involving underground construction is going to be disruptive and expensive. This is one of the arguments for "light rail"--it can run underground but doesn't have to. And sometime I wonder about the extensive elevated railways in Chicago--can you imagine the uproar if CTA decided to build something like that from scratch today? As I recall, most, if not all of the recent additions to the "L" network run in expressway medians or follow ground-level railroad lines. And an addition on New York: not sure if it's still there, but I think there's a location in Brooklyn where passengers can transfer from an elevated station to a subway without paying an additional fare.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 12, 2010 5:30:47 GMT -8
Besmirked, besmirched.... ehhhh, it sounded right at the time.
Two things in this posting:
One, a Vermont light-rail line from the Green line, how that works AT the Green Line has yet to be discussed, and in some respects, has similar complexities as if it were heavy rail at Wilshire-Vermont.
Two, the region would benefit if it had a very long range STRATEGIC RAIL PLAN. 50 years. This would be something that provides the guidance for elected officials.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 6:07:16 GMT -8
One, a Vermont light-rail line from the Green line, how that works AT the Green Line has yet to be discussed, and in some respects, has similar complexities as if it were heavy rail at Wilshire-Vermont. That's a good point. Adding a junction to the middle of a freeway would likely require taking some lanes of traffic, which would be politically difficult. Technically, things are even more difficult. Those freeways don't look easy to drill into. Plus, I would think the route would have to temporarily become four tracks, with two of the tracks then dropping down below the level of the freeway.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 12, 2010 6:39:05 GMT -8
Another thing to consider is if LRT would use the Green Line Vermont station BEFORE veering on Vermont Ave..
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 12, 2010 10:56:47 GMT -8
Seems like needless tedium to force the Vermont line to share a station with the Green line. If Vermont LRT runs at surface south of Gage (as we've discussed), then the train will cross the 105 above the freeway, on the same surface level as the overpass. All you need is an elevator/stairs to allow people to transfer. And guess what... there are already elevators and stairs here...
And if Metro ever implement distance based fare or free transfers, you will just have to figure out a way for people to TAP in/out here. Or better yet, make the entire Green line platform a sterile zone so you have to enter both the Green line and Vermont line station from the surface station on Vermont Blvd (e.g. the "gates" will be located at 115th and 116th)
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 11:10:21 GMT -8
Seems like needless tedium to force the Vermont line to share a station with the Green line. Well the line has to connect either to the HRT system at Wilshire/Vermont, or the LRT system somewhere. Otherwise, there will be no way to get the vehicles to maintenance, service and storage facilities.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 12, 2010 11:42:01 GMT -8
Ok, that's a valid point...
But if it is going to be a light rail line, why couldn't it go east on say... Sepulveda and meet up with the Blue line?
Or go beyond Sepulveda and meet up with Harbor subdivision?
Both of these ideas are better than trying to force the tracks onto a freeway.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 12, 2010 16:36:18 GMT -8
Both opportunities and challenges are plentiful with a Vermont Line.
My preference would try to look to the future and anticipate a north-south line from Long Beach or San Pedro,straight up Vermont, and then somehow get through the mountains to serve Glendale on Brand Ave.
Transfer stations could be with the Green Line at Vermont, Red + Purple at Wilshire-Vermont (or Westlake) , and possibly with a so-called Yellow Line in Glendale.
Not to be forgotten, but a new maintenance facility in the south. Jobs
Entertaining stuff!
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 28, 2011 8:32:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 28, 2011 9:04:11 GMT -8
^Wow, that's great! I remember the old plans for the mall. My thought was, although a mall wasn't ideal for that location, at least it was something. But this is much nicer! Here is the image: Of course anything's better than the empty lot that's sitting there now, and the trashy low-rise buildings that formerly occupied the lot.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 28, 2011 9:14:18 GMT -8
The only thing I would change for this project would be the new driveway on Wilshire. The driveway should be moved to the back or to Vermont Avenue. Those apartment driveways looks like the ones in Condo Canyon...and we all know how Condo Canyon is receptive to mass transit opportunities....
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jan 28, 2011 21:22:39 GMT -8
Does the sidewalk even connect through along that side of the street? It looks like it ends at the awning. This is way beyond a curb cut. It's theft of public space for no good reason.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 6, 2011 17:19:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 6, 2011 20:40:14 GMT -8
I still like this line, but it loses a little bit for me by not having through service to N. Hollywood (i.e the forced transfer). With that, you would probably go with light rail in this corridor. Also, there was talk of making the median on Vermont into a park, which eliminates the aerial section and would kill this line. Overall, we need to start talking about lines that carry the most riders and not lines based on political non-sense and building in a certain area just for some equality reason.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 6, 2011 20:56:49 GMT -8
I still like this line, but it loses a little bit for me by not having through service to N. Hollywood (i.e the forced transfer). If the Wilshire/Vermont station is rebuilt, why not have special articulated buses run between each subway station on the Purple and Red lines, and avoid all other regular bus stops along the routes? Or do we already have that? If so, have the buses run much more frequently. This way, we can keep most subway riders during the 2-3 years of construction. Come on, it can't be THAT hard to compensate for the temporary disruption. That would look so freakin ugly on a map. And in the long-run, Heavy Rail is better anyway. Not necessarily. I'm sure it's possible to build an elevated track above a park. And so I understand, the park is relying on redevelopment funds.....
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 6, 2011 22:07:56 GMT -8
With that, you would probably go with light rail in this corridor. That would look so freakin ugly on a map. And in the long-run, Heavy Rail is better anyway. Um, this isn't SimCity, how it looks on a map is hardly important. What's most important is usability, not shapes on a map. And how is heavy rail "better" than light rail? Metro has proven that so-called light rail has plenty of capacity: the downtown connector will be able to transport up to 200,000 passengers per day through Downtown L.A. when it opens. Plus, light rail is much more flexible than heavy rail in that it can run at-grade where necessary. In the case of Vermont Avenue, the choice of light rail vs. heavy rail completely depends on whether or not a direct junction with the Red Line is feasible. If the funds don't exist for that kind of project, or if the impact on the Red Line is too great, then they have to go with light-rail. This is because without a junction to the Red Line, the heavy rail Vermont trains would not be able to get to a heavy rail service facility.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 6, 2011 23:31:10 GMT -8
The link that jdrcrasher posted (http://wilshirevermont.com/2011/02/02/feasibility-of-a-south-vermont-subway-line/) actually has an interesting solution. It suggests a new station directly under Vermont and Wilshire (The current station is north-east of the intersection) and a connection to the north, with the existing Red Line for thru-routing trains. But it also provides a new maintenance/train storage facility along the I-105 at Vermont, so it could theoretically be built without the (very useful) connection to the Red Line.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Feb 7, 2011 6:08:01 GMT -8
The link that jdrcrasher posted (http://wilshirevermont.com/2011/02/02/feasibility-of-a-south-vermont-subway-line/) actually has an interesting solution. It suggests a new station directly under Vermont and Wilshire (The current station is north-east of the intersection) and a connection to the north, with the existing Red Line for thru-routing trains. But it also provides a new maintenance/train storage facility along the I-105 at Vermont, so it could theoretically be built without the (very useful) connection to the Red Line. As I read it, yes, it includes a connection. That would be a new "flying junction" north of the current station where the tunnels are already "stacked".
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Feb 7, 2011 6:33:16 GMT -8
I wonder where the rail yard would be alongside the 105. Looking at Google Earth, the only open land I see is the campus of Southwest College.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 7, 2011 8:23:48 GMT -8
That article describes a really well thought out solution that does a good job balancing the costs and benefits of the line. I hope this gets built one day.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 7, 2011 11:55:15 GMT -8
The stacked solution for the station box is probably the only way to do this. You see stacked station boxes in places like Tokyo and Paris a lot where they have some really old stations and some really new subway lines. The old stations cannot accommodate new lines so they just build one below it and add access points.
I would also think that the utility of this line as proposed by this website will increase significantly if they extend it to Westlake and Silver Lake.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 7, 2011 11:56:04 GMT -8
Also... I think this website belongs to someone that posts here regularly... Who wants to fess up?
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Feb 7, 2011 17:22:47 GMT -8
That article describes a really well thought out solution that does a good job balancing the costs and benefits of the line. I hope this gets built one day. . I saw nothing about the constructibility of the junctions, or practicality of such.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 7, 2011 17:52:32 GMT -8
That article describes a really well thought out solution that does a good job balancing the costs and benefits of the line. I hope this gets built one day. . I saw nothing about the constructibility of the junctions, or practicality of such. Yeah, I would worry about the vertical alignment north of Wilshire. How would the new north-south tunnel get under or over the tunnels coming from the west? If it could be done the purple line could still run on nights when the tunnel junction was being built, at least, but I'm not sure how it would fit together. That's why I still prefer the solution of building the new part of the station parallel to the existing station. It will involve tearing down the current development on that land most likely, but the junction would just be at the south-east end of the station, and would be a mirror of the split on the north-west side: maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=209582850025375035802.00048751c9b2b61cf6e5e&ll=34.062019,-118.290256&spn=0.007004,0.009645&z=17 (Track map).
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 7, 2011 18:04:35 GMT -8
That article describes a really well thought out solution that does a good job balancing the costs and benefits of the line. I hope this gets built one day. . I saw nothing about the constructibility of the junctions, or practicality of such. Any site that just blanketly claims Vermont corridor has 100,000 bus boardings..I cannot trust. Sorry, but I can believe that Wilshire is 80,000 - 100,000 a weekday (what I've heard from Metro), but I don't see that amount on Vermont. Vermont is busy, fine, but it's not exceeding ridership on the biggest commercial corridor in Los Angeles. Does Vermont have standing-only Rapids at 11 pm at night?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 7, 2011 19:51:08 GMT -8
Sometimes I have trouble accepting the opinions of others, so if it seems like I am, i'm sorry. Plus, light rail is much more flexible than heavy rail in that it can run at-grade where necessary. I highly doubt this line is gonna be at-grade. Let's be honest, there just won't be enough community support to outweight the "what about the children?" crowd. Besides, as mentioned, there's a planned park somewhere along the elevated section. If that happens Below-grade or Above-grade will be the only option. Do you WANT it to be Light Rail? Because if your a transit advocate, I would think you're first choice would be Heavy Rail. I wonder where the rail yard would be alongside the 105. Looking at Google Earth, the only open land I see is the campus of Southwest College. It appears it would be located on top of the baseball/softball fields.
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Feb 7, 2011 23:46:06 GMT -8
. I saw nothing about the constructibility of the junctions, or practicality of such. Yeah, I would worry about the vertical alignment north of Wilshire. How would the new north-south tunnel get under or over the tunnels coming from the west? If it could be done the purple line could still run on nights when the tunnel junction was being built, at least, but I'm not sure how it would fit together. That's why I still prefer the solution of building the new part of the station parallel to the existing station. It will involve tearing down the current development on that land most likely, but the junction would just be at the south-east end of the station, and would be a mirror of the split on the north-west side: maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=209582850025375035802.00048751c9b2b61cf6e5e&ll=34.062019,-118.290256&spn=0.007004,0.009645&z=17 (Track map). It seems to me there are only two practical solutions: a) a South Vermont line that terminates at Wilshire/Vermont with a pedestrian connection to the existing platforms, or b) a tie-in to the upper and lower tracks southeast of the current platforms (mirroring the split headed north to Hollywood and west to Western on the northwest side of the platforms) allowing for through service from south Vermont west to Western or north to Hollywood. What street level structures would have to be demolished under either scenario?
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Feb 8, 2011 6:18:07 GMT -8
I don't know if anything involving a change to the rail network at this location is, from a practical perspective, is constructible. It comes down to the implications to existing services DURING construction. That is something that would be 2-3 years long.
A line that dead ended at Wilshire-Vermont from the south at platforms adjacent to the current lines, or elsewhere with a ped tunnel, might work.
|
|