|
Post by bzcat on Feb 10, 2011 11:14:28 GMT -8
I don't see the point in spending 2.0 billion on 5.5 miles of subway down Vermont to save 10 minutes, and not spending 0.5 billion to rebuild Wilshire/Vermont station, for the same time savings and network reliability improvement! The issue people bring up are not technical or financial per se. It's political! The potential service disruption to subway for up to 3 years is going to be politically untenable. It's not going to happen... period. No elected official in this city is going to support a construction project that shuts down the Red and Purple line for 3 years - only a few years after the line opens to Century City and Westwood. It's a pipe dream. If this discussion is going to mean anything, everyone here needs to at least acknowledge that. Given that reality, the best outcome is that we have stacked or shared station at Wilshire/Vermont. I still don't understand entirely why we can't construct a stacked station under the existing station. Just about every station on the Namboku line in Tokyo is constructed this way... deep underground below an existing station.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 10, 2011 11:42:49 GMT -8
I don't see the point in spending 2.0 billion on 5.5 miles of subway down Vermont to save 10 minutes, and not spending 0.5 billion to rebuild Wilshire/Vermont station, for the same time savings and network reliability improvement! Because the fact is that patrons on the Vermont Corridor will transfer regards if this cross-platform transfer will exist or not, they will more than likely transfer to the Wilshire Corridor and the number of patrons who will be making this connection is much smaller than the passengers will head towards Westlake and Downtown to the east or the Wilshire Corridor to the West. In addition trying to tie into the tracks of the existing station reduces the throughput of service heading to Downtown which is essential to the ridership of the North Hollywood-Hollywood Red Line alignment AND the Wilshire Corridor. Its a lot more disruptive than it looks.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 10, 2011 14:38:58 GMT -8
Just look at the new bay bridge. They did the work and spent the money to make sure that the amount of time is had to be closed was minimal. Will it be cheap or easy to build? I highly doubt it. Not a great example to cite. It was not even close to being cheap, or easy, to build. Original estimate was $780 million. Over a decade later, it is still not finished, and is now expected to cost $6.3 billion. As for this junction, the issue here is not just cost, but cost vs. benefit. The financial cost would be phenomenally high because, as others have pointed out, engineering 3-4 levels of tunnels, crossing each other, in gassy, earthquaky soil is no easy task. The other cost is the massive disruption to existing service that this would require. This disruption really could last years, forcing hundreds of thousands of people to transfer to buses during that time. And what is the benefit? Removing a single transfer for Vermont Corridor riders? Keep in mind, only Vermont Corridor riders heading north past Wilshire (and the reverse of this) will see any benefit. Vermont Corridor riders heading to Downtown or the Westside will still have to transfer at Wilshire. This type of forced transfer is commonplace throughout the world. In Paris, for instance, no two lines share track. IOW, you always have to transfer. And it works fine. Even in L.A., people coming from Westwood will have to transfer at Vermont to go to Hollywood. Is that so bad? Is it worth the costs: hundreds of millions of extra dollars, plus shutting the Red Line down for years, and replacing it with a bus-bridge for all that time? I think HRT and LRT each have their benefits, and I could almost go either way on that issue. But to me, the junction makes no sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Feb 10, 2011 19:27:14 GMT -8
I like all your guys ideas. The problem though with jesenbie's is that all the red lines trains originate at Union Station, they split once at Vermont and Wilshire and then would split again at Vermont and Sunset. The result is that you have a quarter of the original frequency along the North Hollywood and Glendale segments.
So if you start with 5 minute headways you end up with trains only coming every 20 minutes along those lines.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Feb 11, 2011 9:39:24 GMT -8
This type of forced transfer is commonplace throughout the world. In Paris, for instance, no two lines share track. IOW, you always have to transfer. And it works fine. Even in L.A., people coming from Westwood will have to transfer at Vermont to go to Hollywood. Is that so bad? Is it worth the costs: hundreds of millions of extra dollars, plus shutting the Red Line down for years, and replacing it with a bus-bridge for all that time? Great point regarding Paris. I think the Purple Line and Red may be extended to Santa Monica and possibly Burbank Airport some day, but I think for political and financial reasons, nearly all other future extensions of Metrorail are likely to be LRT, even if that LRT is grade separated.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 11, 2011 12:43:19 GMT -8
I was just re-reading my "Glendale Spur" topic and now that I think of it, I agree with what trackman and others have said:
Forget about Wilshire/Vermont.
Instead, build a new line starting in Glendale that travels south via Brand, Glendale, and Alvarado that eventually connects to Westlake/MacArthur Park. Then, continue the line south to Vermont and Olympic and run it south on Vermont all the way to the Green Line.
This eliminates the issue of rebuilding anything and still achieves the same effect (aside from needing to transfer at Westlake).
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 11, 2011 16:07:54 GMT -8
I was just re-reading my "Glendale Spur" topic and now that I think of it, I agree with what trackman and others have said: Forget about Wilshire/Vermont. Instead, build a new line starting in Glendale that travels south via Brand, Glendale, and Alvarado that eventually connects to Westlake/MacArthur Park. Then, continue the line south to Vermont and Olympic and run it south on Vermont all the way to the Green Line. This eliminates the issue of rebuilding anything and still achieves the same effect (aside from needing to transfer at Westlake). Like the Vermont line on my map? maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=200920330746408617074.000492747cf29fbd56df1&ll=34.046401,-118.261299&spn=0.183769,0.363579&z=12 Glendale line and Vermont line are perfectly balanced for a continuous line. The ridership demand for both ends of the line will probably be about equal; unlike say Blue line in the future with the Long Beach segment will see much heavier demand than the Foothill segment. This means you can run the trains through without too much complication. I think it is the best solution...
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 11, 2011 19:11:31 GMT -8
Will it be cheap or easy to build? I highly doubt it. Does that mean we can't or shouldn't build it? If that were the case then all of western civilization would never have moved past caves and huts (ok that may be a little extreme but hopefully you can see where I am coming from). Has such large-scale construction ever been done before on existing subway stations? I'm sure it has, but I don't know of any. There will be a transfer at Vermont/Wilshire, I do not see a way around it. Of course. It's just a matter of WHO (meaning Vermont Corridor users) has to transfer. The issue people bring up are not technical or financial per se. It's political! The potential service disruption to subway for up to 3 years is going to be politically untenable. It's not going to happen... period. No elected official in this city is going to support a construction project that shuts down the Red and Purple line for 3 years - only a few years after the line opens to Century City and Westwood. It's a pipe dream. If this discussion is going to mean anything, everyone here needs to at least acknowledge that. As long as you provide good enough alternatives while reconstruction is underway, I think subway riders will be willing to wait. Remember, ultimately it's not the subway UNDER ground that commuters are trying to get to, but what's ABOVE ground. As one forumer here mentioned, temporary bus lanes are a good idea. In fact, permanent Wilshire lanes are already being planned, as we all know (although only up to Beverly Hills - but that's a separate issue). That should help cut down the cost. All we need are temporary lanes up Vermont from Wilshire. ' How deep is the existing station? Because the fact is that patrons on the Vermont Corridor will transfer regards if this cross-platform transfer will exist or not, they will more than likely transfer to the Wilshire Corridor and the number of patrons who will be making this connection is much smaller than the passengers will head towards Westlake and Downtown to the east or the Wilshire Corridor to the West. How do we know that? Is there any bus service on Vermont that turns on Wilshire? Vermont Corridor riders heading to Downtown or the Westside will still have to transfer at Wilshire. You can't serve everyone. It's like worrying about the Red Line subway riders that aren't able to transfer at the Sunset station onto Sunset Blvd. Instead, build a new line starting in Glendale that travels south via Brand, Glendale, and Alvarado that eventually connects to Westlake/MacArthur Park. Then, continue the line south to Vermont and Olympic and run it south on Vermont all the way to the Green Line. Why not let the Yellow Line do this? You could not only head to Glendale, but head West to Burbank, and ultimately, the Red Line Lankershim Station to connect with the Orange Line.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 11, 2011 21:59:20 GMT -8
The problem though with jesenbie's is that all the red lines trains originate at Union Station, they split once at Vermont and Wilshire and then would split again at Vermont and Sunset. The result is that you have a quarter of the original frequency along the North Hollywood and Glendale segments. What? No, that's not the idea at all. There will be 4 tracks at the Wilshire/Vermont station, 2 on each level (2 westbound/northbound tracks above, and 2 eastbound/soutbound tracks below). Metro could run trains east-west ("Purple") and north-south ("red")every 2 minutes, on just two lines, but because of the cross-platform transfer people could get from North Hollywood to Downtown just as fast (but they would have to get up and walk across to the Purple line. Or Metro could run 4 lines, with each train every 4 minutes at rush hour: North Hollywood - Downtown (Existing Red), South LA - West LA (new), Downtown - West LA (Existing Purple), and South LA - North Hollywood (New). This would be a little more complicated, and would result in exactly the same trip times for everyone, but would provide more one-seat-trip options, if that is important. There is no splitting at Sunset, unless you are proposing a new subway to Glendale? (I don't think there is enough demand for that trip; light rail along the LA river, then north to Glendale, would be better)
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 11, 2011 22:03:50 GMT -8
The issue people bring up are not technical or financial per se. It's political! The potential service disruption to subway for up to 3 years is going to be politically untenable. It's not going to happen... period. No elected official in this city is going to support a construction project that shuts down the Red and Purple line for 3 years - only a few years after the line opens to Century City and Westwood. It's a pipe dream. If this discussion is going to mean anything, everyone here needs to at least acknowledge that. Given that reality, the best outcome is that we have stacked or shared station at Wilshire/Vermont. I still don't understand entirely why we can't construct a stacked station under the existing station. Just about every station on the Namboku line in Tokyo is constructed this way... deep underground below an existing station. The Wilshire/Vermont station is already really deep. Those escalators to the lower platform are huge! I agree that shutting down the Red Line or Purple Line for years is impossible. But Expo and the Blue Line are being connected right now, and all it takes is shutting down the Blue Line at Washington on weekends for a few months. With good construction management, it may be possible to run the existing subway during weekdays throughout construction. Honestly, I don't know exactly how to do it, but are any of us on this board civil engineers with this sort of experience? Tearing down existing buildings will be the unavoidable problem. Well, if it really is impossible to make a good connection, I say let's forget about rail on Vermont, and instead improve the Silver Line busway with an eye to turning to to rail (it is already grade-separated and is close to Vermont, and just needs a good connection with the subway and light rail in Downtown), while putting bus-only lanes on Vermont, and perhaps at-grade light rail in the future.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 11, 2011 22:17:14 GMT -8
Because the fact is that patrons on the Vermont Corridor will transfer regards if this cross-platform transfer will exist or not, they will more than likely transfer to the Wilshire Corridor and the number of patrons who will be making this connection is much smaller than the passengers will head towards Westlake and Downtown to the east or the Wilshire Corridor to the West. Yes, I imagine 1/3 will continue north, 1/3 will want to go west, and 1/3 east (let's imagine) With a separate subway station, the 1/3 going north will waste 10 to 15 minutes with the transfer. Likewise, those transferring to the Purple line will waste 10 to 15 minutes (mid-day and evening) to transfer. With the cross-platform transfer station, there would be 4 tracks (2 at each level) and 2 center platforms (with access to both tracks) so passengers could walk across from one train to the next. This will take 0 minutes for the 1/3 going north, 0 minutes for the 1/3 going west, and about 5 minutes for those going east (due to the need to walk upstairs to the other platform and catch the next train). So 2/3rds will save 10 to 15 minutes, and 1/3 will save 5 to 10 minutes, for an average time savings of 10 minutes. That's a big deal, as big an improvement as 5 miles of subway! If you mean it reduces throughput during construction, well I agree that it would disrupt service on nights and weekends. But once the two new tracks and center platforms are built, capacity on the two existing routes will be exactly the same. Right now, the red and purple lines share 1 track each way in Downtown, so the best realistic service is a train every 4 minutes for each route. With the 2 new tracks and platforms at the station, as detailed above, the existing service could continue, while 2 new routes (South LA - North Hollywood, and South LA - West LA) could be added. Or you could simplify service to just "Purple line" (West LA - Downtown), "Red Line" (North Hollywood - South LA), with a train every 2 minutes on each line, meeting AT THE SAME TIME, at Wilshire/Vermont. People wanting to go from Hollywood to Downtown would get up and walk across the platform to the other train, which takes 20 seconds. I would prefer this solution due to simplicity, but the 4-line option is just as good for mobility, if a little more confusing (that is, just as confusing as the current system!)
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 11, 2011 22:30:44 GMT -8
You could runs trains from South LA to West LA, actually. But even if you didn't, passengers could get to West LA with a 0 minute, "free" transfer (well, except you might lose your comfy seat), instead of a 10 to 15 minute hike/wait as happens currently at Metro Center. It is true that South LA to Downtown would still require going up (or down) one level in the station, but if the trains were properly timed this would take less than 5 minutes even with trains only every 10 minutes midday (pairs of trains, on each level, would be staggered 5 minutes apart, giving plenty of time to get up/downstairs, but only wasting 5 minutes total). Without the good connection, trains will have to terminate at Wilshire/Western, and these will probably be light rail trains that just traveled 3.5 miles or more thru grade crossings before entering the subway section, and will not be scheduled reliably enough to make for consistent transfers to the subway in ANY direction. Is this whole cross-platform connection thing too confusing? Would a map help? I need an animated video to show how the trains meet... Has anyone ridden BART from Berkeley or Richmond to SF? You have this kind of timed, cross-platform transfer at a couple of stations, and it works perfectly. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-platform_interchange
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 12, 2011 15:58:17 GMT -8
I was just re-reading my "Glendale Spur" topic and now that I think of it, I agree with what trackman and others have said: Forget about Wilshire/Vermont. Instead, build a new line starting in Glendale that travels south via Brand, Glendale, and Alvarado that eventually connects to Westlake/MacArthur Park. Then, continue the line south to Vermont and Olympic and run it south on Vermont all the way to the Green Line. This eliminates the issue of rebuilding anything and still achieves the same effect (aside from needing to transfer at Westlake). Like the Vermont line on my map? maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=200920330746408617074.000492747cf29fbd56df1&ll=34.046401,-118.261299&spn=0.183769,0.363579&z=12 Glendale line and Vermont line are perfectly balanced for a continuous line. The ridership demand for both ends of the line will probably be about equal; unlike say Blue line in the future with the Long Beach segment will see much heavier demand than the Foothill segment. This means you can run the trains through without too much complication. I think it is the best solution... Agreed. Yesterday at 3:43pm, Philip wrote:Instead, build a new line starting in Glendale that travels south via Brand, Glendale, and Alvarado that eventually connects to Westlake/MacArthur Park. Then, continue the line south to Vermont and Olympic and run it south on Vermont all the way to the Green Line. Why not let the Yellow Line do this? You could not only head to Glendale, but head West to Burbank, and ultimately, the Red Line Lankershim Station to connect with the Orange Line. Because the Yellow Line has its own purpose in linking Burbank/Glendale not just to the Red Line, but to the Gold Line in Chinatown, Union Station, and ultimately (and this is just my hope) connecting to the the Santa Ana line, providing a complete light-rail alternative to the congested 5 freeway. It would also relieve congestion on the 92, 94, and 794 buses. True, the Red Line basically provides this service to downtown and Union Station, but only for the western part of the San Fernando Valley. Most people living in Glendale, Eagle Rock, and Atwater Village are not going to drive all the way to NoHo or Universal City to ride rail downtown. The Yellow Line is the solution.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 15, 2011 17:00:57 GMT -8
You could runs trains from South LA to West LA, actually. But even if you didn't, passengers could get to West LA with a 0 minute, "free" transfer (well, except you might lose your comfy seat), instead of a 10 to 15 minute hike/wait as happens currently at Metro Center. It is true that South LA to Downtown would still require going up (or down) one level in the station, but if the trains were properly timed this would take less than 5 minutes even with trains only every 10 minutes midday (pairs of trains, on each level, would be staggered 5 minutes apart, giving plenty of time to get up/downstairs, but only wasting 5 minutes total). Without the good connection, trains will have to terminate at Wilshire/Vermont, and these will probably be light rail trains that just traveled 3.5 miles or more thru grade crossings before entering the subway section, and will not be scheduled reliably enough to make for consistent transfers to the subway in ANY direction. Its not confusing just impractical to build and infesible due to the level of complexity that is entailed in this design. If the developments(Condos and School) on the Wilshire/Vermont Station were not open. I'd say be my guest and go for it. But alas they are there and we'll have to deal with them in some form to create this connection that can be composed of a transfer tunnel between the station areas. Besides on the last points about on-time reliability there moments when the Red Line's on time reliability drops below 95% compared to the Gold and Blue Lines reliability of 98-99% however if the headways are short between the lines, by the time you make the transfer in whatever form is designed, the next train will be arriving much like at Union Station between the Gold and Red Lines.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 23, 2014 16:06:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Oct 23, 2014 19:44:43 GMT -8
Oh, what a cop out...BOOOOOO! In retrospect, I guess something is better than nothing. Well, they'll have no reason to not take this thing into the heart of San Pedro.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 24, 2014 5:50:33 GMT -8
Even with a BRT, the subway on Vermont will happen someday, maybe not for a few decades...
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 24, 2014 11:29:14 GMT -8
BRT done right will be a huge improvement on Vermont corridor. I don't want this to be a bus vs. rail debate but it's long pass any logical reasoning why we don't have bus only lane (not even asking for full BRT) on all our major roads.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 24, 2014 11:48:58 GMT -8
BRT done right will be a huge improvement on Vermont corridor. I don't want this to be a bus vs. rail debate but it's long pass any logical reasoning why we don't have bus only lane (not even asking for full BRT) on all our major roads. Unfortunately, pretty sure they won't be able to have full BRT on Vermont at least on some sections and i believe this has been discussed before. There isn't room in much of the most dense corridors of Vermont. This would be the same in many major thoroughfares.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 25, 2014 5:37:23 GMT -8
I agree that a BRT is a good start. Vermont and Western have some of the worst traffic in the city, so I don't see much in time improvement from BRT, but maybe limited stops will help out. It seems to me that half of the traffic comes from the busses themselves.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 25, 2014 10:37:14 GMT -8
I agree that a BRT is a good start. Vermont and Western have some of the worst traffic in the city, so I don't see much in time improvement from BRT, but maybe limited stops will help out. It seems to me that half of the traffic comes from the busses themselves. Exactly. I think this should basically function as a testing ground for a Red Line extension, stopping only at stops where the highest ridership is, and where future HRT stations would most likely be located. It would give us a pretty good idea on the ridership potential of extending the Red Line, albeit on a smaller scale.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Oct 26, 2014 8:22:27 GMT -8
This actually worries me. I noticed that also want to study a North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT, meaning they want to extend that horrid Orange Line to the Gold Line, making the vital North Hollywood-Glendale-Pasadena link demoted to crappy busway. Metro clearly has no intention on converting the busway. Such an extension would further entrench the busway. Off topic in this thread, I know, but the longer that Orange Line busway exists, the more BRT spreads like a virus. This vital cross town link needs to be Light Rail.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 26, 2014 10:04:50 GMT -8
No linking orange to gold provides infrastructure support that would enable an orange conversion. If they extend orange east to gold they can then do the conversion east to west. The rail line would be supported by the new foothill maintenance yard. To do something as dumb and wasteful as converting the orange line now would require the expense of a new maintenance yard.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 3, 2017 16:49:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 23, 2017 17:40:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 23, 2017 22:48:44 GMT -8
Excellent! I presume phase one (outlined in the article as reaching the expo line) would be a four stop affair: Olympic, Venice, Adams, and Exposition.
How would they rework the Wilshire Vermont station to accomadate a new direction of travel?
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Mar 24, 2017 6:41:34 GMT -8
Excellent! I presume phase one (outlined in the article as reaching the expo line) would be a four stop affair: Olympic, Venice, Adams, and Exposition. How would they rework the Wilshire Vermont station to accomadate a new direction of travel? I wonder if a junction could be built just south (east?) of Vermont Station, similar to the one they have at the north end to separate the Red and Purple Lines. Since Vermont station is on an angle, oriented northwest to southeast, the tracks for the Athens line could then curve around back to Vermont. There should be enough room for them to be back under Vermont by Olympic (you have 7th, 8th and 9th Sts in between). While I assume the main routings would be North Hollywood-Athens (Red or "B" Line) and Wilshire West*-Union Station (Purple or "C" Line), this would also give the option of keeping the current North Hollywood-Union Station routing (maybe rush hours only) or Wilshire-Athens (though I don't know how much of a need there is for this, when an easy, same-platform transfer could be made at Vermont). I'm not an engineer, so I don't know if this is physically possible, but if so, it is better than building a whole new platform under the existing ones. *-I wrote "Wilshire West" to signify wherever the Purple Line has been extended to by the time the Athens line would be built. I presume by that time, it would have at least been extended to La Cienega, but the Athens line may get pushed back so far, they may be at Century City (is that where the next phase ends?) or even out to the VA.
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Mar 24, 2017 7:42:27 GMT -8
The junction at the east end of the station and rerouting of the red line as NH-Athens is an intriguing idea, but I wander what is known about current travel patterns. What proportion of the westbound and eastbound red line passengers transfer to/from the Vermont bus at Vermont/Wilshire? A second question: Where are the Wilshire/Vermont platforms? I assume they are northeast of the intersection at an angle - NW to SE. That would affect the practicality of either a junction or new platform someplace under (but west of?) the existing platforms.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 24, 2017 10:17:01 GMT -8
When I rode the Vermont bus north (mostly the always packed rapid) a great deal of riders disembarked at Wilshire and many went straight to the subway entrance or the Wilshire bus stop. On the reverse trip, south bound buses were not crowded until the Wilshire stop when the bus filled up. Riding the local totally sucked because there were more stops than intersections, iirc often two stops per block, which is insane. And a maddening experience for a rider.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Mar 27, 2017 7:25:38 GMT -8
The junction at the east end of the station and rerouting of the red line as NH-Athens is an intriguing idea, but I wander what is known about current travel patterns. What proportion of the westbound and eastbound red line passengers transfer to/from the Vermont bus at Vermont/Wilshire? A second question: Where are the Wilshire/Vermont platforms? I assume they are northeast of the intersection at an angle - NW to SE. That would affect the practicality of either a junction or new platform someplace under (but west of?) the existing platforms. You are correct as to the orientation of the Wilshire/Vermont platforms. Here is a Google Maps image of the area, the Red/Purple line tracks are indicated by the dashed line: Wilshire/VermontI think the platforms are completely with in the block border by Vermont Av/Wilshire Blvd/Shatto Pl/6th St, maybe jutting out into either/or Vermont Av or Wilshire Blvd. If you put the junction just past the southeast end of the platforms, it would probably be necessary to cut/cover Wilshire Blvd. This isn't a problem, you would maybe have a couple evenings/weekends with Wilshire shut down between Vermont and another street east where you'd make the cut, then install the planking and reopen the street, perhaps with reduced lanes. Nothing new, this was done downtown with the initial segment of the Red Line. The problem comes if you have to extend past the street line of Wilshire, then you run into issues with whatever buildings are standing there. I think the old Bullock's Wilshire building, which now houses the Southwestern School of Law is in that area. Here is the street view from the BW building: Bullock's Wilshire/SouthwesternRight now, the Red/Purple Lines pass underneath in a tube, so no surface disruption was required during construction. With the switches, this could be a different story.
|
|