|
Post by masonite on May 1, 2019 9:29:06 GMT -8
Anyway, call me naive but for some silly reason I believe they’ll find a way to get the Vermont line done. Its total fairytale and it would take a miracle like a major funding from the federal government to get it done by the 2028 games BUT... I think 2034 might be a reasonable goal. The two feasible possibilities for accelerating this are (1) funds from the City of Los Angeles; or (2) investment from a public-private partnership. It is ridiculous that busy Vermont Avenue is given lower priority than some projects in far-flung parts of the county. It's borderline discriminatory. At the same time, central Los Angeles has some major projects being built now, including Crenshaw, Regional Connector, and the Wilshire Subway (and several more over the next decade). Neither of those are feasible. City of Los Angeles is flat broke and certainly doesn't have $5B laying around. Public-Private partnership only works if the private party gets paid back plus a profit. Public transit operates at a loss, which is why you don't see it very much except in limited circumstances. Sure, you could charge $7-8 a ride and make it work, but that isn't realistic in South Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 1, 2019 18:39:22 GMT -8
The two feasible possibilities for accelerating this are (1) funds from the City of Los Angeles; or (2) investment from a public-private partnership. It is ridiculous that busy Vermont Avenue is given lower priority than some projects in far-flung parts of the county. It's borderline discriminatory. At the same time, central Los Angeles has some major projects being built now, including Crenshaw, Regional Connector, and the Wilshire Subway (and several more over the next decade). Neither of those are feasible. City of Los Angeles is flat broke and certainly doesn't have $5B laying around. Public-Private partnership only works if the private party gets paid back plus a profit. Public transit operates at a loss, which is why you don't see it very much except in limited circumstances. Sure, you could charge $7-8 a ride and make it work, but that isn't realistic in South Los Angeles. As to the City of Los Angeles, they get a portion of 5 sales tax measures that are dedicated for transportation. According to the most recent proposed budget, they want to put $123 million of it next year to a reserve fund for “future transit service”. I am not sure how often they do this, but it is possible they have significant reserves dedicated for transportation. If they implement congestion pricing, it will probably create a new source of revenue. Even a limited congestion pricing plan will probably involve some expansion of the existing 110 ExpressLanes, which could benefit the Vermont corridor that it parallels. The P3s for transit that are popular these days don’t involve charging passengers extra, but the private partners operating and maintaining the line in return for yearly payments. They may also profit from being the rolling stock provider. It costs Metro about $100-$200 million a year to operate and maintain a line, and the P3 would mean the private operator receiving these payments for 25-30 years and trying to make a profit from those payments. As a fully-grade separated line, Vermont can be attractive because, for example, they can use automated trains instead of drivers that require six-figure salaries. Metro staff is supposed to provide the board with a P3 business case in July, so we will see what they say about how a P3 could work.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 15, 2019 3:58:50 GMT -8
Latest update on a potential P3 for Vermont—a lot of work needs to be done before they get there:
|
|
|
Post by numble on Mar 8, 2021 16:56:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Mar 14, 2021 17:37:35 GMT -8
This is a no brainers no brainer.
For the love of god. Spend what you have to spend. Even the year or so of disruptions it’s worth it and then some.
Vermont HRT is the second most necessary project after Sepulveda.
Vermont HRT (intertwining with the Red Line) in combo with Crenshaw North, Sepulveda HRT and once the purple line is finished - I think the ridership on LA METRO will rise DRAMATICALLY to be far and away the second biggest in the nation
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 16, 2021 22:18:37 GMT -8
Numble tweeted an update on Vermont corridor but he didn't post it here... so let me take credit for reposting I totally forgot about the delay in EIR on Vermont because the Metro board asked to include the future rail options in the same study just in case they can get some funding. I hope the EIR will come back and say Metro should build both - subway for express service and BRT for local service. There are demand for both on this corridor. We now have much better map for the Vermont/Wilshire tunnel and station geometry. The maps that Metro used a few years ago turned out to be really wrong (if you scroll back to this thread in 2019, I used the bad Metro maps to guess where the stations could be build) Based on this map, building a station on Vermont just north of the Wilshire intersection doesn't seem that complicated. There will be a long walk to transfer to D line but it is the best we can do. Also, doesn't seem like construction will slow down or stop existing B or D line except for a short period when contractor has to tie in the tracks at the tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on May 24, 2021 3:33:30 GMT -8
Numble tweeted an update on Vermont corridor but he didn't post it here... so let me take credit for reposting I totally forgot about the delay in EIR on Vermont because the Metro board asked to include the future rail options in the same study just in case they can get some funding. I hope the EIR will come back and say Metro should build both - subway for express service and BRT for local service. There are demand for both on this corridor. We now have much better map for the Vermont/Wilshire tunnel and station geometry. The maps that Metro used a few years ago turned out to be really wrong (if you scroll back to this thread in 2019, I used the bad Metro maps to guess where the stations could be build) Based on this map, building a station on Vermont just north of the Wilshire intersection doesn't seem that complicated. There will be a long walk to transfer to D line but it is the best we can do. Also, doesn't seem like construction will slow down or stop existing B or D line except for a short period when contractor has to tie in the tracks at the tunnel. That is FANTASTIC news. And that news should vault Vermont to the top of the list of needed projects. Do Sepulveda right, Grade separate Flower/Washington, Add downtown stations via WSAB branch, Do Crenshaw North right with seamless transfers and BUILD Vermont. And at that point I think you’ll see the moving patterns of Angelinos change considerably. A reasonable cost of this line is around $6.5B and for a project that IMO could end up being the second most used line in the system (on par with Purple, below Sepulveda) it’s MORE than worth it and it’s worth it to accelerate it if AT ALL possible. Of course the no brained alignment is subway to gage and then elevated it from gage to Vermont/Athena GL station. Only question is would North Hollywood to Vermont/Athens be the one single route. Or would it be a second route and the North Hollywood to Union Station route be kept (another words you’d see two lines running into Downtown and you’d see 3 lines at the Wiltshire/Vermont station). Common sense says just keep the purple line as is and the red line becomes NH to Athens.... but then you think about how many people would be transferring at Wilshire/Vermont and I think there’s a chance they make the red line to have 2 routes Back to transfers - they are something Metro overlooks but if they start getting it right it’ll make a massive difference. When you say a long walk - what are you talking? I think if someone gets off a Red line train and has to walk down a flight of stairs and then walk 3 minutes in a pedestrian tunne then that’s not so bad. It’s the “going above ground and going outside the fair gates, crossing the street and walking a block & a half that’s an issue and is unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 24, 2021 8:36:06 GMT -8
That is FANTASTIC news. And that news should vault Vermont to the top of the list of needed projects. Do Sepulveda right, Grade separate Flower/Washington, Add downtown stations via WSAB branch, Do Crenshaw North right with seamless transfers and BUILD Vermont. And at that point I think you’ll see the moving patterns of Angelinos change considerably. A reasonable cost of this line is around $6.5B and for a project that IMO could end up being the second most used line in the system (on par with Purple, below Sepulveda) it’s MORE than worth it and it’s worth it to accelerate it if AT ALL possible. Of course the no brained alignment is subway to gage and then elevated it from gage to Vermont/Athena GL station. Only question is would North Hollywood to Vermont/Athens be the one single route. Or would it be a second route and the North Hollywood to Union Station route be kept (another words you’d see two lines running into Downtown and you’d see 3 lines at the Wiltshire/Vermont station). Common sense says just keep the purple line as is and the red line becomes NH to Athens.... but then you think about how many people would be transferring at Wilshire/Vermont and I think there’s a chance they make the red line to have 2 routes Back to transfers - they are something Metro overlooks but if they start getting it right it’ll make a massive difference. When you say a long walk - what are you talking? I think if someone gets off a Red line train and has to walk down a flight of stairs and then walk 3 minutes in a pedestrian tunne then that’s not so bad. It’s the “going above ground and going outside the fair gates, crossing the street and walking a block & a half that’s an issue and is unacceptable. I think that this has a much greater chance of being rail than it would have just a few years ago with the increased focus on equity. I put the odds at better than 50/50 and if so, it's a matter of when. Regarding the mode, it will depend on the projected ridership and whether it interlines with the B line. Keep in mind that the B line is currently limited to 12-15 trains per hour through the mountains unless additional ventilation is built and I haven't heard anything about metro planning to do that. Also, I don't think that the B is predicted to need that extra capacity. It's the D that will be constrained. Metro is currently planning on 12-15 tph max on both the B and D. That's likely good enough for the B, but probably not enough for the D. My guess is that they don't interline and that means that light rail is potentially viable. Edit to add that this item was withdrawn from the board agenda.
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 24, 2021 10:12:04 GMT -8
That is FANTASTIC news. And that news should vault Vermont to the top of the list of needed projects. Do Sepulveda right, Grade separate Flower/Washington, Add downtown stations via WSAB branch, Do Crenshaw North right with seamless transfers and BUILD Vermont. And at that point I think you’ll see the moving patterns of Angelinos change considerably. A reasonable cost of this line is around $6.5B and for a project that IMO could end up being the second most used line in the system (on par with Purple, below Sepulveda) it’s MORE than worth it and it’s worth it to accelerate it if AT ALL possible. Of course the no brained alignment is subway to gage and then elevated it from gage to Vermont/Athena GL station. Only question is would North Hollywood to Vermont/Athens be the one single route. Or would it be a second route and the North Hollywood to Union Station route be kept (another words you’d see two lines running into Downtown and you’d see 3 lines at the Wiltshire/Vermont station). Common sense says just keep the purple line as is and the red line becomes NH to Athens.... but then you think about how many people would be transferring at Wilshire/Vermont and I think there’s a chance they make the red line to have 2 routes Back to transfers - they are something Metro overlooks but if they start getting it right it’ll make a massive difference. When you say a long walk - what are you talking? I think if someone gets off a Red line train and has to walk down a flight of stairs and then walk 3 minutes in a pedestrian tunne then that’s not so bad. It’s the “going above ground and going outside the fair gates, crossing the street and walking a block & a half that’s an issue and is unacceptable. I think that this has a much greater chance of being rail than it would have just a few years ago with the increased focus on equity. I put the odds at better than 50/50 and if so, it's a matter of when. Regarding the mode, it will depend on the projected ridership and whether it interlines with the B line. Keep in mind that the B line is currently limited to 12-15 trains per hour through the mountains unless additional ventilation is built and I haven't heard anything about metro planning to do that. Also, I don't think that the B is predicted to need that extra capacity. It's the D that will be constrained. Metro is currently planning on 12-15 tph max on both the B and D. That's likely good enough for the B, but probably not enough for the D. My guess is that they don't interline and that means that light rail is potentially viable. Edit to add that this item was withdrawn from the board agenda. Yes, it was withdrawn from both the board committee and the board agenda without any explanation put out. I originally thought maybe they'd skip the committee and just put it on the main board meeting (that happens sometimes), but its been removed from both. If it is not on the agendas in the next month or two, that might mean they are retooling the project, perhaps splitting out BRT (which doesn't require an EIR anymore). But that's just speculation...
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 24, 2021 11:38:52 GMT -8
I'm generally in favor of high frequency transfers over interline so I hope Metro will conclude it is more efficient to run B line from North Hollywood to South LA.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on May 24, 2021 11:43:14 GMT -8
That is FANTASTIC news. And that news should vault Vermont to the top of the list of needed projects. Do Sepulveda right, Grade separate Flower/Washington, Add downtown stations via WSAB branch, Do Crenshaw North right with seamless transfers and BUILD Vermont. And at that point I think you’ll see the moving patterns of Angelinos change considerably. A reasonable cost of this line is around $6.5B and for a project that IMO could end up being the second most used line in the system (on par with Purple, below Sepulveda) it’s MORE than worth it and it’s worth it to accelerate it if AT ALL possible. Of course the no brained alignment is subway to gage and then elevated it from gage to Vermont/Athena GL station. Only question is would North Hollywood to Vermont/Athens be the one single route. Or would it be a second route and the North Hollywood to Union Station route be kept (another words you’d see two lines running into Downtown and you’d see 3 lines at the Wiltshire/Vermont station). Common sense says just keep the purple line as is and the red line becomes NH to Athens.... but then you think about how many people would be transferring at Wilshire/Vermont and I think there’s a chance they make the red line to have 2 routes Back to transfers - they are something Metro overlooks but if they start getting it right it’ll make a massive difference. When you say a long walk - what are you talking? I think if someone gets off a Red line train and has to walk down a flight of stairs and then walk 3 minutes in a pedestrian tunne then that’s not so bad. It’s the “going above ground and going outside the fair gates, crossing the street and walking a block & a half that’s an issue and is unacceptable. I think that this has a much greater chance of being rail than it would have just a few years ago with the increased focus on equity. I put the odds at better than 50/50 and if so, it's a matter of when. Regarding the mode, it will depend on the projected ridership and whether it interlines with the B line. Keep in mind that the B line is currently limited to 12-15 trains per hour through the mountains unless additional ventilation is built and I haven't heard anything about metro planning to do that. Also, I don't think that the B is predicted to need that extra capacity. It's the D that will be constrained. Metro is currently planning on 12-15 tph max on both the B and D. That's likely good enough for the B, but probably not enough for the D. My guess is that they don't interline and that means that light rail is potentially viable. Edit to add that this item was withdrawn from the board agenda. It would be NEXT level incompetent if - after finding out interlining would be far less complicated than anticipated - they decided to go with a LRT line on what is the second busiest bus corridor in LA. I thought the ESFV being at-grade / non-separated, with stations every half mile and not integrated with the Sepulveda line was inept decision making that would have decades of awful consequences .... but if they didn’t make Vermont HRT. Woof that would be bad. I think that this has a much greater chance of being rail than it would have just a few years ago with the increased focus on equity. I put the odds at better than 50/50 and if so, it's a matter of when. Regarding the mode, it will depend on the projected ridership and whether it interlines with the B line. Keep in mind that the B line is currently limited to 12-15 trains per hour through the mountains unless additional ventilation is built and I haven't heard anything about metro planning to do that. Also, I don't think that the B is predicted to need that extra capacity. It's the D that will be constrained. Metro is currently planning on 12-15 tph max on both the B and D. That's likely good enough for the B, but probably not enough for the D. My guess is that they don't interline and that means that light rail is potentially viable. Edit to add that this item was withdrawn from the board agenda. Yes, it was withdrawn from both the board committee and the board agenda without any explanation put out. I originally thought maybe they'd skip the committee and just put it on the main board meeting (that happens sometimes), but its been removed from both. If it is not on the agendas in the next month or two, that might mean they are retooling the project, perhaps splitting out BRT (which doesn't require an EIR anymore). But that's just speculation... So is this a bad thing or a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on May 24, 2021 12:00:04 GMT -8
I'm generally in favor of high frequency transfers over interline so I hope Metro will conclude it is more efficient to run B line from North Hollywood to South LA. Agreed, there options are probably something like this... B Line • N.Hollywood to Athens D Line • Westwood/VA to Arts District Or B Line • N.Hollywood to Union Station D Line • Westwood/VA to Arts District M Line • Vermont/Sunset to Vermont/Athens
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 24, 2021 12:49:38 GMT -8
I feel like the competing considerations will be headways on the purple line vs the number of valley riders headed downtown. Since extending the red line will be an expensive proposition, combined with the huge amount of disruption it will cause to riders, I could see them arguing that more valley riders are headed downtown (if that's the case) and it preserves travel patterns - and saves money and disruption to boot - to just make a new line starting at wilshire vermont headed south. But if long term purple lines headways are an issue (and I feel like they will be), and/or more riders from the valley are NOT headed downtown, maybe they'll bite the bullet and extend the red line. I'd prefer that, but I feel like metro tends to move toward the path of least resistance pretty often, which in this case seems to be a new line. I live in hollywood and often use the red line to go downtown, and an in-station transfer wouldn't be a big deal I don't think.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 24, 2021 15:55:26 GMT -8
That is FANTASTIC news. And that news should vault Vermont to the top of the list of needed projects. Do Sepulveda right, Grade separate Flower/Washington, Add downtown stations via WSAB branch, Do Crenshaw North right with seamless transfers and BUILD Vermont. And at that point I think you’ll see the moving patterns of Angelinos change considerably. A reasonable cost of this line is around $6.5B and for a project that IMO could end up being the second most used line in the system (on par with Purple, below Sepulveda) it’s MORE than worth it and it’s worth it to accelerate it if AT ALL possible. Of course the no brained alignment is subway to gage and then elevated it from gage to Vermont/Athena GL station. Only question is would North Hollywood to Vermont/Athens be the one single route. Or would it be a second route and the North Hollywood to Union Station route be kept (another words you’d see two lines running into Downtown and you’d see 3 lines at the Wiltshire/Vermont station). Common sense says just keep the purple line as is and the red line becomes NH to Athens.... but then you think about how many people would be transferring at Wilshire/Vermont and I think there’s a chance they make the red line to have 2 routes Back to transfers - they are something Metro overlooks but if they start getting it right it’ll make a massive difference. When you say a long walk - what are you talking? I think if someone gets off a Red line train and has to walk down a flight of stairs and then walk 3 minutes in a pedestrian tunne then that’s not so bad. It’s the “going above ground and going outside the fair gates, crossing the street and walking a block & a half that’s an issue and is unacceptable. I think that this has a much greater chance of being rail than it would have just a few years ago with the increased focus on equity. I put the odds at better than 50/50 and if so, it's a matter of when. Regarding the mode, it will depend on the projected ridership and whether it interlines with the B line. Keep in mind that the B line is currently limited to 12-15 trains per hour through the mountains unless additional ventilation is built and I haven't heard anything about metro planning to do that. Also, I don't think that the B is predicted to need that extra capacity. It's the D that will be constrained. Metro is currently planning on 12-15 tph max on both the B and D. That's likely good enough for the B, but probably not enough for the D. My guess is that they don't interline and that means that light rail is potentially viable. Edit to add that this item was withdrawn from the board agenda. The key factor of this project is, where will a train yard and maintenance shop be located? This is the key reason they are considering going as far south as PCH to even see if such as site is available per reports a year or so ago. I think this is viable as a Red Line extension but only fthey also extend the Red Line north from North Hollywood to Burbank Airport because there is a large industrial zone near the airport that could fit for a site for a train yard and maintenance shop. The further south it goes as heavy rail subway the lower the cost effectiveness. Whereas 120th Street or even Southwest College would make a good end point of the line. Which goes back to that monies for a Vermont rail corridor are in the 2050-60's and we are accelerating a number of projects already that have gone over their respective funding revenues, cashflow is an issue moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on May 24, 2021 19:17:26 GMT -8
I just can’t imagine (even for Metro) them making this a dead end LRT line. And I can’t imagine them making this HRT but not connecting to the existing HRT lines. Neither of those options make ANY sense. As I’m typing this it’s dawned on me; the real best solution:
Vermont South is as common sense would lead you to: an extension of the Red Line.
B • North Hollywood to Athens D • Westwood to Arts District
B Downtown EXpress 1. No.Hollywood to Civic Center (5-10am) 2. Civic Center to North Hollywood (3:30-7pm)
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 24, 2021 19:24:41 GMT -8
I think that this has a much greater chance of being rail than it would have just a few years ago with the increased focus on equity. I put the odds at better than 50/50 and if so, it's a matter of when. Regarding the mode, it will depend on the projected ridership and whether it interlines with the B line. Keep in mind that the B line is currently limited to 12-15 trains per hour through the mountains unless additional ventilation is built and I haven't heard anything about metro planning to do that. Also, I don't think that the B is predicted to need that extra capacity. It's the D that will be constrained. Metro is currently planning on 12-15 tph max on both the B and D. That's likely good enough for the B, but probably not enough for the D. My guess is that they don't interline and that means that light rail is potentially viable. Edit to add that this item was withdrawn from the board agenda. The key factor of this project is, where will a train yard and maintenance shop be located? This is the key reason they are considering going as far south as PCH to even see if such as site is available per reports a year or so ago. I think this is viable as a Red Line extension but only fthey also extend the Red Line north from North Hollywood to Burbank Airport because there is a large industrial zone near the airport that could fit for a site for a train yard and maintenance shop. The further south it goes as heavy rail subway the lower the cost effectiveness. Whereas 120th Street or even Southwest College would make a good end point of the line. Which goes back to that monies for a Vermont rail corridor are in the 2050-60's and we are accelerating a number of projects already that have gone over their respective funding revenues, cashflow is an issue moving forward. If you take it down to Redondo Beach Blvd there's a giant empty concrete lot there on google maps, could be big enough maybe. And if you go further to Artesia/the 91 there's a massive used car dealer you could eminent domain that almost certainly has enough space. I've been leery of a burbank airport extension lately since they're planning to knock down current the terminal and build a new one closer to the other burbank airport metrolink station. I think if burbank airport gets served by metro, it should be by a crenshaw line extension in the distant future that goes from the hollywood bowl up olive, to the burbank metrolink station, and then along those tracks to the newer burbank airport station adjacent to what will be the new terminal. Extending the red line to the ventura metrolink line burbank airport station will still be far from the actual terminal in the not too distant future. Though I wouldn't be surprised if they rebuild a new second terminal in that area at some point, just set back from where the current one is since they're extending the tarmac. But a pricey red line extension to an area that won't even be terminal-adjacent soon feels like a bad idea to me.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on May 25, 2021 4:39:11 GMT -8
I just can’t imagine (even for Metro) them making this a dead end LRT line. And I can’t imagine them making this HRT but not connecting to the existing HRT lines. Neither of those options make ANY sense. As I’m typing this it’s dawned on me; the real best solution: Vermont South is as common sense would lead you to: an extension of the Red Line. B • North Hollywood to Athens D • Westwood to Arts District B Downtown EXpress 1. No.Hollywood to Civic Center (5-10am) 2. Civic Center to North Hollywood (3:30-7pm) Great plan, but I would have the "BX" go to Union Station at least
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 25, 2021 7:51:09 GMT -8
I just can’t imagine (even for Metro) them making this a dead end LRT line. And I can’t imagine them making this HRT but not connecting to the existing HRT lines. Neither of those options make ANY sense. As I’m typing this it’s dawned on me; the real best solution: Vermont South is as common sense would lead you to: an extension of the Red Line. B • North Hollywood to Athens D • Westwood to Arts District B Downtown EXpress 1. No.Hollywood to Civic Center (5-10am) 2. Civic Center to North Hollywood (3:30-7pm) I'm not sure that I understand. Does the B run at all times so that in rush hour you have both the B and BX running or just the BX? It looks like the BX is a one way service, so where do BX trains go after terminating at Civic Center if not back to NoHo? How frequent are the different services? I think that I like the idea for B service, but it still has the issue of D line capacity maxing at 12-15 tph.
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 25, 2021 8:08:39 GMT -8
Another thing metro can and may do is kick the can down the road and build the standalone heavy rail option, and just figure that once headways on the purple line become enough of an issue, they can spend the money to bridge the gap between the tail tracks and the red line. Who knows, in the future there may potentially be a less disruptive method to make a junction there that doesn't involve shutting the line down for as long. On the other hand, if there's not, you're waiting until even *more* people rely on the line to shut it down for awhile.
If this is teaching metro one thing, I hope it is that they should build juntion boxes that may be needed in the future into their rail lines NOW.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 25, 2021 8:12:08 GMT -8
The key factor of this project is, where will a train yard and maintenance shop be located? This is the key reason they are considering going as far south as PCH to even see if such as site is available per reports a year or so ago. I think this is viable as a Red Line extension but only if they also extend the Red Line north from North Hollywood to Burbank Airport because there is a large industrial zone near the airport that could fit for a site for a train yard and maintenance shop. The further south it goes as heavy rail subway the lower the cost effectiveness. Whereas 120th Street or even Southwest College would make a good end point of the line. Which goes back to that monies for a Vermont rail corridor are in the 2050-60's and we are accelerating a number of projects already that have gone over their respective funding revenues, cashflow is an issue moving forward. If you take it down to Redondo Beach Blvd there's a giant empty concrete lot there on google maps, could be big enough maybe. And if you go further to Artesia/the 91 there's a massive used car dealer you could eminent domain that almost certainly has enough space. I've been leery of a burbank airport extension lately since they're planning to knock down current the terminal and build a new one closer to the other burbank airport metrolink station. I think if burbank airport gets served by metro, it should be by a crenshaw line extension in the distant future that goes from the hollywood bowl up olive, to the burbank metrolink station, and then along those tracks to the newer burbank airport station adjacent to what will be the new terminal. Extending the red line to the ventura metrolink line burbank airport station will still be far from the actual terminal in the not too distant future. Though I wouldn't be surprised if they rebuild a new second terminal in that area at some point, just set back from where the current one is since they're extending the tarmac. But a pricey red line extension to an area that won't even be terminal-adjacent soon feels like a bad idea to me. If I recall there will be a HSR station at the Burbank Airport so having a multi-modal station connecting a busy subway line and intercity rail link to the airport would be helpful longer term. There are resources available for this outside of the Measure M pot. Don't forget there could be a station in between that serves a fairly dense neighborhood north of the North Hollywood area on route to the Airport. By the time we are seriously looking at funding this Vermont rail project most of the Burbank Airport terminal improvements would have been completed making this extension far less complicated as it sounds. Last week the FAA released the final decision on the project and it has been approved and can move forward to be completed by possibly 2028. www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=97506bobhopeairporteis.com/about/faq/
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 25, 2021 8:15:05 GMT -8
Another thing metro can and may do is kick the can down the road and build the standalone heavy rail option, and just figure that once headways on the purple line become enough of an issue, they can spend the money to bridge the gap between the tail tracks and the red line. Who knows, in the future there may potentially be a less disruptive method to make a junction there that doesn't involve shutting the line down for as long. On the other hand, if there's not, you're waiting until even *more* people rely on the line to shut it down for awhile. If this is teaching metro one thing, I hope it is that they should build juntion boxes that may be needed in the future into their rail lines NOW. There's another point to that if junction boxes are considered to start planning work on the future corridors they will serve ASAP and put them in the LRTP so that its not wasted infrastructure.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 25, 2021 8:30:41 GMT -8
I feel like the competing considerations will be headways on the purple line vs the number of valley riders headed downtown. Since extending the red line will be an expensive proposition, combined with the huge amount of disruption it will cause to riders, I could see them arguing that more valley riders are headed downtown (if that's the case) and it preserves travel patterns - and saves money and disruption to boot - to just make a new line starting at wilshire vermont headed south. But if long term purple lines headways are an issue (and I feel like they will be), and/or more riders from the valley are NOT headed downtown, maybe they'll bite the bullet and extend the red line. I'd prefer that, but I feel like metro tends to move toward the path of least resistance pretty often, which in this case seems to be a new line. I live in hollywood and often use the red line to go downtown, and an in-station transfer wouldn't be a big deal I don't think. I agree. Also, I think that the biggest hurdle with extending the B line to Athens is that it doesn't serve what the ridership patters will likely be. Other than USC, which is a major employment center, the overwhelming majority of riders south of Wilshire will want to go east or west along wilshire. Same for riders coming from the north. It will be a line where everyone wants to get off in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 25, 2021 8:34:35 GMT -8
I feel like the competing considerations will be headways on the purple line vs the number of valley riders headed downtown. Since extending the red line will be an expensive proposition, combined with the huge amount of disruption it will cause to riders, I could see them arguing that more valley riders are headed downtown (if that's the case) and it preserves travel patterns - and saves money and disruption to boot - to just make a new line starting at wilshire vermont headed south. But if long term purple lines headways are an issue (and I feel like they will be), and/or more riders from the valley are NOT headed downtown, maybe they'll bite the bullet and extend the red line. I'd prefer that, but I feel like metro tends to move toward the path of least resistance pretty often, which in this case seems to be a new line. I live in hollywood and often use the red line to go downtown, and an in-station transfer wouldn't be a big deal I don't think. I agree. Also, I think that the biggest hurdle is that extending the B line to Athens is that it doesn't serve what the ridership patters will likely be. Other than USC, which is a major employment center, the overwhelming majority of riders south of Wilshire will want to go east or west along wilshire. Same for riders coming from the north. It will be a line where everyone wants to get off in the middle. And a big reason why on top of these factors the Wilshire/Vermont station will need significant upgrades (transfer tunnels, an actual mezzanine, multiple entrances) for all the transfers that are going to occur between the two lines. However one consideration that could help this Vermont Corridor are riders on the A (Blue) Line transfer to the Red Line at 7th Street come from stations like Vernon, Slauson, Florence, Firestone. They could simply shift their rides to the local bus direct to Vermont and have an easier trip. The question is how much of a shift of riders will that be?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 25, 2021 9:05:41 GMT -8
If you take it down to Redondo Beach Blvd there's a giant empty concrete lot there on google maps, could be big enough maybe. And if you go further to Artesia/the 91 there's a massive used car dealer you could eminent domain that almost certainly has enough space. I've been leery of a burbank airport extension lately since they're planning to knock down current the terminal and build a new one closer to the other burbank airport metrolink station. I think if burbank airport gets served by metro, it should be by a crenshaw line extension in the distant future that goes from the hollywood bowl up olive, to the burbank metrolink station, and then along those tracks to the newer burbank airport station adjacent to what will be the new terminal. Extending the red line to the ventura metrolink line burbank airport station will still be far from the actual terminal in the not too distant future. Though I wouldn't be surprised if they rebuild a new second terminal in that area at some point, just set back from where the current one is since they're extending the tarmac. But a pricey red line extension to an area that won't even be terminal-adjacent soon feels like a bad idea to me. If I recall there will be a HSR station at the Burbank Airport so having a multi-modal station connecting a busy subway line and intercity rail link to the airport would be helpful longer term. Don't forget there could be a station in between that serves a fairly dense neighborhood north of the North Hollywood area on route to the Airport. By the time we are seriously looking at funding this Vermont rail project most of the Burbank Airport terminal improvements would have been completed making this extension far less complicated as it sounds. Last week the FAA released the final decision on the project and it has been approved and can move forward to be completed by possibly 2028. www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=97506bobhopeairporteis.com/about/faq/What about the land that the Crenshaw Christian Center owns? I don't mean by eminent domain, but by finding a price that works for both parties. That appears to be large enough and whatever they want to be paid has to be far less than extending the line to Burbank or even Gardena. The main problem for them would be finding somewhere appropriate to relocate, but metro could help out with that.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on May 25, 2021 9:06:27 GMT -8
I just can’t imagine (even for Metro) them making this a dead end LRT line. And I can’t imagine them making this HRT but not connecting to the existing HRT lines. Neither of those options make ANY sense. As I’m typing this it’s dawned on me; the real best solution: Vermont South is as common sense would lead you to: an extension of the Red Line. B • North Hollywood to Athens D • Westwood to Arts District B Downtown EXpress 1. No.Hollywood to Civic Center (5-10am) 2. Civic Center to North Hollywood (3:30-7pm) I'm not sure that I understand. Does the B run at all times so that in rush hour you have both the B and BX running or just the BX? It looks like the BX is a one way service, so where do BX trains go after terminating at Civic Center if not back to NoHo? How frequent are the different services? I think that I like the idea for B service, but it still has the issue of D line capacity maxing at 12-15 tph. Appreciate the feedback. My thinking is this: The downtown express runs only during rush hour on work days. And during that time period the B line still operates with slightly reduced headways. So during Morning Commute: let’s say (These aren’t exact numbers just throwing out numbers) ... Half the trains departing North Hollywood are [B] to Vermont/Athens and half are BeX to Downtown or Civic or Union Station. Now that ratio can fluctuate as ridership traffic dictates. For the Afternoon commute: half the trains running from Vermont/Athens can terminate at Wilshire/Vermont and half can continue to North Hollywood (as half the capacity from Wilshire points North will be taken up by BeX going to North Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 25, 2021 9:09:17 GMT -8
If I recall there will be a HSR station at the Burbank Airport so having a multi-modal station connecting a busy subway line and intercity rail link to the airport would be helpful longer term. Don't forget there could be a station in between that serves a fairly dense neighborhood north of the North Hollywood area on route to the Airport. By the time we are seriously looking at funding this Vermont rail project most of the Burbank Airport terminal improvements would have been completed making this extension far less complicated as it sounds. Last week the FAA released the final decision on the project and it has been approved and can move forward to be completed by possibly 2028. www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=97506bobhopeairporteis.com/about/faq/What about the land that the Crenshaw Christian Center owns? I don't mean by eminent domain, but by finding a price that works for both parties. That appears to be large enough and whatever they want to be paid has to be far less than extending the line to Burbank or even Gardena. The main problem for them would be finding somewhere appropriate to relocate, but metro could help out with that. A nice idea, however that's going to be politically sensitive especially when equity is thrown into the mix for a well known and connected house of worship even with an agreement like that because now folks coming out the woodwork about Environmental justice, etc. Also from a zoning perspective this is considered light commerical along Vermont and R1.5 residential towards Normandie. Compared to a site that is zoned industrial in the valley and it looks like the site on the NE corner of Vermont/Redondo Beach is zoned light industrial. So it could work for a storage yard. Heavier maintenance it may require an upgrade to the zoning to a heavier industrial site. There's also a large yard site near the Harbor Gateway Transit Center on Vermont/182nd that is zoned for heavy industrial.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 25, 2021 10:17:22 GMT -8
I'm not sure that I understand. Does the B run at all times so that in rush hour you have both the B and BX running or just the BX? It looks like the BX is a one way service, so where do BX trains go after terminating at Civic Center if not back to NoHo? How frequent are the different services? I think that I like the idea for B service, but it still has the issue of D line capacity maxing at 12-15 tph. Appreciate the feedback. My thinking is this: The downtown express runs only during rush hour on work days. And during that time period the B line still operates with slightly reduced headways. So during Morning Commute: let’s say (These aren’t exact numbers just throwing out numbers) ... Half the trains departing North Hollywood are [B] to Vermont/Athens and half are BeX to Downtown or Civic or Union Station. Now that ratio can fluctuate as ridership traffic dictates. For the Afternoon commute: half the trains running from Vermont/Athens can terminate at Wilshire/Vermont and half can continue to North Hollywood (as half the capacity from Wilshire points North will be taken up by BeX going to North Hollywood. Good idea but it doesn't solve the headway limitation on D line but instead add to the problem. The reason we may want to separate B line from D line is because future ridership projection after D line extension and Sepulveda line opens show D will have more riders than B. Operating BX as you proposed takes away capacity on D exactly the time we need it the most (rush hour). BX & D sharing the tracks between Vermont and Art District limits the capacity for D line between Vermont and Brentwood (B is already limited by number of trains per hour between Highland and North Hollywood). If we want to preserve the SFV to DTLA one-seat ride (i.e. maintaining status quo on the existing B line in any form), then we need to solve the lack of capacity on D line between Vermont to Westwood. The solution will necessarily mean some or all of the Vermont line has to turn west and interline with D instead of continuing north. So basically: BX: North Hollywood to Art District B: North Hollywood to AthensD: Brentwood to Art District DX: Brentwood to AthensB & D are the default running pattern. BX and DX are the rush hour service. But this illustrates the basic problem... you have to build another junction just to run rush hour service. It's much simpler and cheaper to just run B & D at max frequency and have everyone that needs to change direction transfer at Vermont. High frequency ALWAYS trumps complicated interline/branch service unless you are towards the end of the line, in which case interline/branch makes sense. Wilshire/Vermont is in the middle of two high frequency lines - smart route and operation planning says you should not interline branch here.
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 25, 2021 10:21:51 GMT -8
I think that this has a much greater chance of being rail than it would have just a few years ago with the increased focus on equity. I put the odds at better than 50/50 and if so, it's a matter of when. Regarding the mode, it will depend on the projected ridership and whether it interlines with the B line. Keep in mind that the B line is currently limited to 12-15 trains per hour through the mountains unless additional ventilation is built and I haven't heard anything about metro planning to do that. Also, I don't think that the B is predicted to need that extra capacity. It's the D that will be constrained. Metro is currently planning on 12-15 tph max on both the B and D. That's likely good enough for the B, but probably not enough for the D. My guess is that they don't interline and that means that light rail is potentially viable. Edit to add that this item was withdrawn from the board agenda. It would be NEXT level incompetent if - after finding out interlining would be far less complicated than anticipated - they decided to go with a LRT line on what is the second busiest bus corridor in LA. I thought the ESFV being at-grade / non-separated, with stations every half mile and not integrated with the Sepulveda line was inept decision making that would have decades of awful consequences .... but if they didn’t make Vermont HRT. Woof that would be bad. Yes, it was withdrawn from both the board committee and the board agenda without any explanation put out. I originally thought maybe they'd skip the committee and just put it on the main board meeting (that happens sometimes), but its been removed from both. If it is not on the agendas in the next month or two, that might mean they are retooling the project, perhaps splitting out BRT (which doesn't require an EIR anymore). But that's just speculation... So is this a bad thing or a good thing? According to this document, the EIR contract award will be in June, so it looks like it was just a one-month delay: metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9430689&GUID=31A117A6-EE69-4C5F-BFA4-EFAEB691F0D2
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 25, 2021 11:50:56 GMT -8
Appreciate the feedback. My thinking is this: The downtown express runs only during rush hour on work days. And during that time period the B line still operates with slightly reduced headways. So during Morning Commute: let’s say (These aren’t exact numbers just throwing out numbers) ... Half the trains departing North Hollywood are [B] to Vermont/Athens and half are BeX to Downtown or Civic or Union Station. Now that ratio can fluctuate as ridership traffic dictates. For the Afternoon commute: half the trains running from Vermont/Athens can terminate at Wilshire/Vermont and half can continue to North Hollywood (as half the capacity from Wilshire points North will be taken up by BeX going to North Hollywood. Good idea but it doesn't solve the headway limitation on D line but instead add to the problem. The reason we may want to separate B line from D line is because future ridership projection after D line extension and Sepulveda line opens show D will have more riders than B. Operating BX as you proposed takes away capacity on D exactly the time we need it the most (rush hour). BX & D sharing the tracks between Vermont and Art District limits the capacity for D line between Vermont and Brentwood (B is already limited by number of trains per hour between Highland and North Hollywood). If we want to preserve the SFV to DTLA one-seat ride (i.e. maintaining status quo on the existing B line in any form), then we need to solve the lack of capacity on D line between Vermont to Westwood. The solution will necessarily mean some or all of the Vermont line has to turn west and interline with D instead of continuing north. So basically: BX: North Hollywood to Art District B: North Hollywood to AthensD: Brentwood to Art District DX: Brentwood to AthensB & D are the default running pattern. BX and DX are the rush hour service. But this illustrates the basic problem... you have to build another junction just to run rush hour service. It's much simpler and cheaper to just run B & D at max frequency and have everyone that needs to change direction transfer at Vermont. High frequency ALWAYS trumps complicated interline service unless you are towards the end of the line, in which case interline makes sense. Wilshire/Vermont is in the middle of two high frequency lines - smart route and operation planning says you should not interline here. And if this is really a long-term project, wouldn't it make sense to factor in other possible long-term projects in the vicinity as well? Like the Silver Line from Venice-WeHo-Hollywood-Silver Lake-Union Station (via Venice, La Cienaga and/or San Vincente, SaMo Blvd and Sunset Blvd) that would help keep Hollywood-DT one-seat ride alive?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 25, 2021 13:48:22 GMT -8
And if this is really a long-term project, wouldn't it make sense to factor in other possible long-term projects in the vicinity as well? Like the Silver Line from Venice-WeHo-Hollywood-Silver Lake-Union Station (via Venice, La Cienaga and/or San Vincente, SaMo Blvd and Sunset Blvd) that would help keep Hollywood-DT one-seat ride alive? Sure, we can always consider more E-W lines in the future and all of them will in theory reduce the load on Wilshire (and Expo). But as long as current B and D modes are preserved after D line is extended, we are still talking about branching a line in the middle of the segment where the demand is the thickest, and favoring B line North riders over D line and B line South riders. It just doesn't make any sense in my mind to try to justify preserving this legacy pattern when the other directional travel patterns at Wilshire/Vermont will be more dominant. But this is why we have an EIR process to suss this out.
|
|