|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 2, 2010 7:32:33 GMT -8
In the end, below-grade is simply a more attractive option when it comes to development in the Arts District along the river. It's very costly, but in the long run, it will be worth it. I am a huge advocate of subways, and I love the idea of a Red Line extension down to the Arts District. But I can't imagine spending on the order of $100 million to put that underground (below-grade). The route (just east of Santa Fe) crosses no roads or pedestrian paths, so why not leave it at-grade? If anything, I might elevate it for a short distance next to the Division 20 yard, to ensure that road access into the yard remains. (Metro Staff mentioned that as a concern in their report.) |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 2, 2010 7:33:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 2, 2010 13:58:14 GMT -8
From Mr. Tom La Bonge, who should be our next mayor: www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_15968000Tom LaBonge: Expanding Red Line is key to solving traffic problemsIN my job as city councilman, I hear more complaints about traffic than any other single big-city problem. I often do instant-polling at public meetings. First, I ask how many people have been affected by crime in the past 24 months. Fortunately, because of great work by the Los Angeles Police Department and demographic changes throughout the county, only a few people raise their hands. When I ask how many were the victim of traffic in the past 24 hours, every hand in the room goes up. We must address this problem on a regional basis. The most obvious path is expanding the transit system. Ten years after the MTA Red Line subway opened, it is clear that the current system is a fraction of what our growing city needs. We need more, and I want to be sure that we go the extra mile on planning so that we don't find 10 years down the line that we've shortchanged ourselves. As a member of the Los Angeles City Council's Transportation Committee, a former Metropolitan Transportation Authority board member and a lifelong rail advocate, I recommend that MTA expand the Red Line by connecting the neighborhoods where people live to the regional centers of commerce, culture and education. There are several routes that I feel strongly that MTA should add to its plans. Specifically, MTA should expand the Red, Purple and Green lines in the most cost-effective way possible, by using existing rights of way throughout the city. If we take advantage of freeway and former Red Car rights of way, we can dramatically reduce the cost of subway expansion. We can also go above grade in some areas, which would also save money. In the San Fernando Valley, the Red Line should expand to communities in the North Valley that have grown dramatically over the past 20 years. Specifically, it should continue north underground from the North Hollywood station terminus to Valley Plaza at Victory and Laurel Canyon boulevards. From there, it should go northwest to the 170 Freeway and come above ground. Then, it should follow the center of Highway 170, using the existing public right of way, to Interstate 5 and continue north to Santa Clarita. Another line that should take advantage of the freeway right of way is the Gold Line. We should add a westbound spur from Pasadena along Highway 134 through Glendale, a stop for Griffith Park and the Los Angeles Zoo to an intermodal facility at the Bob Hope Airport in Burbank. Besides the much-anticipated "subway to the sea," let's build a "subway to USC" by creating an extension from the Wilshire/Vermont Station south to the university, Exposition Park, the county museum complex and the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. We should also extend the Red and Purple subway lines to the Downtown Arts District using an existing rail spur to the Red Line maintenance yard in the neighborhood. I proposed this during a temporary, one-day appointment to the MTA Board of Directors this year and downtown residents supported it immediately. When we expand the current system, it is important to go back and fix the mistakes we made on the first go-round. The Green Line must connect directly under LAX, like subways at London's Heathrow and other great world airports. In my district, we should also run a short-hop monorail from Hollywood and Highland to the Hollywood Bowl. The most important recommendation here is that we extend subway service deeper into the Valley to improve access to thousands of residents. It's time to improve a great system by expanding our safe, well-used subway system to more Angelenos throughout the county. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 2, 2010 14:23:25 GMT -8
I like LaBonge's enthusiasm for rail transit too, he makes a good cheerleader for transit. But I wonder if he'd have the ability to lead the cause, as mayor. One thing I like about Villaraigosa: he didn't just talk about the value of new rail lines, he took concrete steps toward that reality.
Many of those lines he talks about would be great. But definitely some more than others. For instance, look at his ideas for extending the Red Line north. Burbank Airport: yes. Sylmar: sure. But Santa Clarita? How much would that cost? I'm not sure that it's worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Sept 2, 2010 14:24:54 GMT -8
From Mr. Tom La Bonge, who should be our next mayor: You wouldn't think that if you had him as your Councilman. |
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Sept 2, 2010 16:30:23 GMT -8
I read the article earlier today too. Agreed largely with the thinking, except for Santa Clarita. Operationally, the fork off the Gold Line to Glendale and to Burbank is questionable. Those destinations have merit, but more so when directly connected with lines at a downtown location. Imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 2, 2010 17:42:22 GMT -8
The "Glendale gap" is a huge hole in the Metro Rail system. I'd like to see a connection to DTLA if possible. Maybe connecting to the Gold Line south of Mt Washington (Lincoln/Cypress) or north of it (above Southwest Museum).
|
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Sept 2, 2010 20:31:27 GMT -8
How about post-Regional Connector?
If there were a Glendale branch off the Gold Line, where will those trains come from and what will it do to the Pasadena branch? If the Blue line is to run every 5 minutes and through to the north, will trains then run every 10 minutes to Glendale and 10 minutes to Pasadena? Is that enough? Pasadena trains now run every 7 or 8 minutes.
I don't think something like this would be new in the transit world - as I believe the Boston Green line has something similar going on. But, is it good for LA and Pasadena in this concept?
The introduction of a wye in that place, or another, would allow trains to additionally run from Pasadena to Glendale?
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 2, 2010 21:46:36 GMT -8
I was thinking primarily of a Glendale-Los Angeles train, although the junction could certainly be designed to allow other routes.
It is 5 miles from Downtown Glendale to either Cypress Station or Avenue 50. The line wouldn't need many stops, so I think it could be done fairly cheaply. Especially if there's space available for it in the ROW next to San Fernando Road.
Off the top of my head: the five minute Blue Line service (12 trains per hour) could split among the Glendale and Pasadena branches. Either 10 minute service each (6 trains per hour each), or 15 minute service to Glendale (4 trains per hour) and 7-1/2 minute service to Pasadena (8 trains per hour).
Of course with the Regional Connector all kinds of other options are possible. The Expo branch could include a few trains per hour to Glendale, for instance.
BTW the idea of a Burbank line is not new: the Yellow Line was a concept of a Burbank line, although a bit different. As for having branching routes, lots of cities do that successfully.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 4, 2010 20:08:26 GMT -8
I am a huge advocate of subways, and I love the idea of a Red Line extension down to the Arts District. But I can't imagine spending on the order of $100 million to put that underground (below-grade). The route (just east of Santa Fe) crosses no roads or pedestrian paths, so why not leave it at-grade? If anything, I might elevate it for a short distance next to the Division 20 yard, to ensure that road access into the yard remains. (Metro Staff mentioned that as a concern in their report.) But how would that look next to a "greened" river? |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 4, 2010 21:16:01 GMT -8
But how would that look next to a "greened" river? Well if the goal is *no* tracks at-grade next to the river, then we're talking billions. There are tons of tracks along both banks of the river, and they're not all controlled by Metro. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 5, 2010 13:56:16 GMT -8
Well if the goal is *no* tracks at-grade next to the river, then we're talking billions. There are tons of tracks along both banks of the river, and they're not all controlled by Metro. I know. But I believe one of the main goals of the LA River Project is to either completely remove or grade-seperate tracks along BOTH banks of the river, regardless of their purpose. And since Metro at least uses the large yards and shops by Sci-Arc, it can do it's part. |
|
|
|
Post by saltire08 on Sept 7, 2010 17:53:06 GMT -8
Well if the goal is *no* tracks at-grade next to the river, then we're talking billions. There are tons of tracks along both banks of the river, and they're not all controlled by Metro. I know. But I believe one of the main goals of the LA River Project is to either completely remove or grade-seperate tracks along BOTH banks of the river, regardless of their purpose. And since Metro at least uses the large yards and shops by Sci-Arc, it can do it's part. You make good points. The reality is that getting all the tracks by the river gone is next to impossible. But, I think we need to be more creative about it. If the river is going to be redeveloped and lots of green space put in (as well as removing some of the rail lines), a rail line along the river or next to the river would be huge. It would facilitate redevelopment and make the river as a destination. This all comes down to the concept of putting stops at a "destination" (i.e. Hollywood/Highland). Both of these causes (river redevelopment and LRT) would do well to use each other and work together. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 8, 2010 16:30:25 GMT -8
If the river is going to be redeveloped and lots of green space put in (as well as removing some of the rail lines), a rail line along the river or next to the river would be huge. It would facilitate redevelopment and make the river as a destination. This all comes down to the concept of putting stops at a "destination" (i.e. Hollywood/Highland). Both of these causes (river redevelopment and LRT) would do well to use each other and work together. I do agree. If your going to keep ANY rail lines along the river at-grade, make it so with LRT. But if we're gonna make the riverfront attractive for development, we simply can't have huge, noisy Commuter Rail and Freight lines at-grade anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 8, 2010 23:44:20 GMT -8
we're gonna make the riverfront attractive for development, we simply can't have huge, noisy Commuter Rail and Freight lines at-grade anymore. The only alternative route in this area is the I-5 corridor, and I think this is too narrow and winding for freight and intercity rail (like High Speed Rail), even if all cars were removed from the freeway and the whole right-of-way used for rail. Would you tunnel next to the river or trench the tracks? That seems expensive and risky. Deck over the tracks? Tunnel or trench under Alameda or Soto? There are at least 2 mainline tracks on each side of the river, and many more sidings and yard tracks. It would take a ton of digging to move all of that away from the river. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 9, 2010 22:03:30 GMT -8
Would you tunnel next to the river or trench the tracks? Depends. My first choice would be trenching, but, IMO, that should be on the east side of the river, where there is less development happening. Actually, most of the sidings on the east side between the 10 and 101 have either been paved over, built over, or simply not used anymore. Or are you talking about sections like between 1st and 7th on the east side where there's more tracking space to reduce congestion (at least I think that's what it's used for)? |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 21, 2010 10:06:37 GMT -8
Surprisingly, this development is still alive. It would be located on the east side of Santa Fe near 3rd Street, next to the existing yards. Obviously this would impact the feasibility of an Arts District station, as well as the High Speed Rail route. Here is an old image of the project (from June 2007):  |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 21, 2010 14:32:59 GMT -8
Surprisingly, this development is still alive. It would be located on the east side of Santa Fe near 3rd Street, next to the existing yards. Obviously this would impact the feasibility of an Arts District station, as well as the High Speed Rail route. Here is an old image of the project (from June 2007): There's a Gold Line train depicted on the bridge to the left. So it would obviously be between 1st and 3rd. I have to admit it looks nice in the illustrations, but EVERYTHING looks nice in illustrations. Combination of retail and apartments is always a plus. However, it would undoubtedly have a huge effect on high speed rail and even a subway or light rail line to the area. Los Angeles has a horrible habit of putting carts before horses, and here's another fine example. I'm sure our current economy put this project into a dormant state, although there's no telling for how long. It would be nice if either HSR or a subway line or the park project got underway first. Otherwise, you would have quite the collision... I note with a smirk that Curbed in 2007 said one of the investors was a division of Goldman "evil Wall Street giant" Sachs. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Sept 25, 2010 1:21:03 GMT -8
I have an idea.... Why stop at the Arts District? Why not continue it south to the Green Line with stations on 6th/Mateo, Olympic/Santa Fe, Slauson/Pacific, Florence/Pacific, Firestone/Long Beach, Century/Long Beach, and a terminus at the Green Line. The Ridership is there.
OK, now that everyone is laughing hysterically: I think this branch was intended for extension into the SGV, not East L.A. and not along the L.A. River for a boutique route.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Sept 29, 2010 13:06:39 GMT -8
I wrote the previous comment flippantly. But after getting some time to think about it: why not? It doesn't have to cross the L.A. River a bridge wouldn't be an issue. Additionally, it could be built double, maybe triple tracked in a cut n cover trench to the Green Line along Pacific Bl./Long Beach Bl. through Vernon, Huntington Park, Walnut Park, Southgate, and Lynwood. I don't know for a fact, but I think this extension's value would be that it could be used as a litmus test for development of the Vermont Corridor south. Of course, most patrons from the area will probably use Olympic/Santa Fe Station to take the bus to the Garment District, but isn't that what most people have to do from the Blue Line anyways at San Pedro Station?
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 29, 2010 15:30:02 GMT -8
The route you've proposed looks something like the northern part of the dotted line drawn on the Go Metro 30/10 map for the future West Santa Ana Branch corridor, which is planned to interface with the green line at Century/Long Beach. Everything is still in the very early planning stages, and my impression was that they were focusing primarily on southeast LA county going into Orange county, so we'll see if there's money and political will to make any stops between the green line and Union Station. In terms of a "litmus test" for development, I'm not so sure that's needed. The route parallels the blue line reasonably closely. The blue line has great ridership, but not so great development. Let's see, though. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 30, 2010 14:47:45 GMT -8
The route parallels the blue line reasonably closely. Um, does that matter? |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 30, 2010 15:04:21 GMT -8
It's fine to parallel the blue line. My point was that we already have an indication of whether a rail line through that part of the city is likely to spur a lot of development (related directly to the previous comment).
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Oct 1, 2010 18:21:09 GMT -8
The development that is on Vermont Av. I'm sure is partly due to the U(?) & F(?) Lines that last ran on it decades ago as the development on Pacific Bl. is in part due to the J Line that ran there, with part of that credit going to the PE Whittier Line. I'm probably missing a key piece of information in the case of Pacific Bl. Were the J Line and PE Whittier Line providing service to the general area, simultaneously, at any point in time?
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jan 10, 2012 14:38:30 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 11, 2012 11:06:45 GMT -8
I think that is wishful thinking on the part of developer... not that it is a bad idea but I don't think Metro really has any plans to extend the red line.
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jan 11, 2012 17:14:50 GMT -8
I think that is wishful thinking on the part of developer... not that it is a bad idea but I don't think Metro really has any plans to extend the red line. I wouldn't call it wishful thinking, per se. There idea was floated a couple years back, because the service tracks already run down there. All that would be required is to build a station platform at ground level and have a footbridge of some kind to connect it into the Arts District. The wishful part is that there's no funding identified for it yet; but the developer is not exactly pulling things out of thin air. Here's a post from Curbed on it from 2010: laist.com/2010/02/26/should_metro_extend_the_redpurple_l.phpHere's the feasibility report Metro produced: www.metro.net/board/Items/2010/06_june/20100616P&PItem9.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 11, 2012 18:16:50 GMT -8
With the price tag at less than $100 Million, I don't think it will be that difficult to find funding.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jan 11, 2012 18:49:59 GMT -8
And if the subway is ever extended East down Whittier Blvd, this Arts District station would be the logical first stop.
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jan 11, 2012 19:14:27 GMT -8
And if the subway is ever extended East down Whittier Blvd, this Arts District station would be the logical first stop. RT Pretty sure that whole concept has been precluded by the GLEE. |
|
