K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Sept 29, 2010 7:55:38 GMT -8
Hi, new guy here from NYC - but I've visited LA several times and I've been following LA's transit expansion for years.
Firstly, I think the VA Hospital station is a good idea in theory but NOT as a (interim) terminal. I think when you're expanding rail transit - you want to network it as much as you can. So, I was wondering if it would it make sense to have the Purple Line go to Wilshire/Bundy (obviously) and then turn south on Bundy to a terminal at Expo.
This is for two reasons:
(1) I think the Expo/"Future Gold" Line could potentially get pretty crush loaded and having the Purple Line connect here could give it some relief.
(2) I don't think Santa Monica is dense enough to have an HRT and an LRT running virtually parallel to each other all the way to the ocean. In addition to Expo terminating at 4th/Colorado - have the Green Line also go to 4th/Colorado from LAX via Lincoln Blvd instead.
Just a thought from 3K miles away.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 29, 2010 8:22:02 GMT -8
This is not a new suggestion.
Unfortunately, Measure R said "Westwood". Too bad it didn't say "West Los Angeles", so any extension west of the V.A. is problematic, though most of us would support an extension to West Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 29, 2010 13:47:40 GMT -8
Hi, new guy here from NYC - but I've visited LA several times and I've been following LA's transit expansion for years. Firstly, I think the VA Hospital station is a good idea in theory but NOT as a (interim) terminal. I think when you're expanding rail transit - you want to network it as much as you can. So, I was wondering if it would it make sense to have the Purple Line go to Wilshire/Bundy (obviously) and then turn south on Bundy to a terminal at Expo. This is for two reasons: (1) I think the Expo/"Future Gold" Line could potentially get pretty crush loaded and having the Purple Line connect here could give it some relief. (2) I don't think Santa Monica is dense enough to have an HRT and an LRT running virtually parallel to each other all the way to the ocean. In addition to Expo terminating at 4th/Colorado - have the Green Line also go to 4th/Colorado from LAX via Lincoln Blvd instead. Just a thought from 3K miles away. Since you are not from here, you don't understand the traffic pattern. There is definitely enough demand in Santa Monica to support two parallel rail line. Density is not really the issue as Santa Monica is a major job destination (and in fact, very dense residential as well). Expo and Wilshire are two different corridor and they serve different regions of the city. People will be riding them to Santa Monica from very different places. There is no reason to force the two lines together at Bundy. For one thing, Bundy/Olympic is not a major destination. And secondly, forcing the purple line to turn south will complicate the future construction and operation when the line needs to terminate at Downtown Santa Monica, which is a major destination. Basically, the interim terminal HAS to be the VA hospital... there is no other way. The Green line going up Lincoln to Downtown Santa Monica is also something people have been talking about... and I believe it will be constructed one day... just not the highest priority.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 29, 2010 13:52:55 GMT -8
I agree with Bzcat. There's more than enough demand in Santa Monica for two lines. And as stated, a green line extension from LAX to Santa Monica (being pushed by Tom LaBonge, in fact) would do the trick.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 29, 2010 14:37:32 GMT -8
As someone who worked in Santa Monica and Westwood for a total of five years, and who fought that horrible traffic more often than not, I think K22's concept should be considered. (And BTW I think it's a good idea to listen to the ideas of outsiders once in awhile, to get a fresh perspective.)
Personally, I think too much emphasis is being put on serving Santa Monica. Yes the region needs both corridors (Wilshire and Expo). But Santa Monica itself doesn't need two corridors. It's a big city, but it's not that big. Despite the number of cars on the road, I'm not convinced that enough of those people are ready to get out of their cars and create enough demand for two rail lines.
(And BTW, from what I've seen, the traffic on the east-west streets seems to be generated by West L.A. offices and the two freeways, not by Santa Monica.)
Would this plan force Santa Monica riders have to transfer? Yes, if they need to travel Wilshire. That's the nature of a rail network.
On the other hand, if the subway goes straight to Santa Monica, UCLA riders will have to go all the way to Santa Monica to transfer to Expo to get to anywhere on the Expo Line.
Anyway, as someone said, there is no money for a subway past Westwood. So this discussion is purely academic. We'll see what sentiment looks like in the future, when money does become available.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 29, 2010 14:59:48 GMT -8
Personally, I think too much emphasis is being put on serving Santa Monica. Yes the region needs both corridors (Wilshire and Expo). But Santa Monica itself doesn't need two corridors. It's a big city, but it's not that big. Despite the number of cars on the road, I'm not convinced that enough of those people are ready to get out of their cars and create enough demand for two rail lines. Rail should not be about "getting people out of their cars". Rail is about providing an alternative method of transportation. Getting people out of their cars has never proven true...because for x amount of people that "get out"...will be replaced by x amount of drivers who can now fulfill that empty space. The 2 corridors are needed and more density can sprout along Santa Monica Blvd/Wilshire Blvd (Purple Line) and along Pico/Olympic (Expo Line). We can have more housing and offices located along the rail lines. Look at what happened to Hollywood and Koreatown with the expansion of rail....or downtown Long Beach....each corridor will see tremendous opportunities of development. Let's not stop at Bundy and just rely on the Expo Line for Santa Monica. Imagine how inconvenient it will be take the Purple Line from Century City or Westwood into 3rd street promenade; a major destination in Santa Monica. Having the Purple Line turn south and then transfer to Expo at Olympic/Bundy. It's been said here before (sorry don't know the resource), but you lose up to 50% of potential ridership by having a transfer. More people would take the 704 (Century City) or the 720 to get to Santa Monica than take Purple Line to an Expo Line transfer.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 29, 2010 15:02:10 GMT -8
Actually, metrocenter, UCLA riders will take the bus down Westwood Blvd to the Expo line, which is how they will largely access the rail network until the purple line is built to Westwood and Wilshire.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Sept 29, 2010 16:49:31 GMT -8
Since you are not from here, you don't understand the traffic pattern. There is definitely enough demand in Santa Monica to support two parallel rail line. Density is not really the issue as Santa Monica is a major job destination (and in fact, very dense residential as well). Expo and Wilshire are two different corridor and they serve different regions of the city. People will be riding them to Santa Monica from very different places. There is no reason to force the two lines together at Bundy. For one thing, Bundy/Olympic is not a major destination. And secondly, forcing the purple line to turn south will complicate the future construction and operation when the line needs to terminate at Downtown Santa Monica, which is a major destination. Basically, the interim terminal HAS to be the VA hospital... there is no other way. The Green line going up Lincoln to Downtown Santa Monica is also something people have been talking about... and I believe it will be constructed one day... just not the highest priority. OK, I see. I wasn't sure how much density was along Wilshire in Santa Monica. Here's a similar case to that which is happening here in NY. In the Central Bronx, there are two HRT lines that run in parallel as little as a single block apart and are heavily used during rush hours. At the end of the day, it is all about having options. Nice to hear about the Lincoln extension being on the table. I'm surprised it's not getting more of a push.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 29, 2010 20:25:55 GMT -8
Since you are not from here, you don't understand the traffic pattern. There is definitely enough demand in Santa Monica to support two parallel rail line. Density is not really the issue as Santa Monica is a major job destination (and in fact, very dense residential as well). Expo and Wilshire are two different corridor and they serve different regions of the city. People will be riding them to Santa Monica from very different places. There is no reason to force the two lines together at Bundy. For one thing, Bundy/Olympic is not a major destination. And secondly, forcing the purple line to turn south will complicate the future construction and operation when the line needs to terminate at Downtown Santa Monica, which is a major destination. Basically, the interim terminal HAS to be the VA hospital... there is no other way. The Green line going up Lincoln to Downtown Santa Monica is also something people have been talking about... and I believe it will be constructed one day... just not the highest priority. OK, I see. I wasn't sure how much density was along Wilshire in Santa Monica. Here's a similar case to that which is happening here in NY. In the Central Bronx, there are two HRT lines that run in parallel as little as a single block apart and are heavily used during rush hours. At the end of the day, it is all about having options. Nice to hear about the Lincoln extension being on the table. I'm surprised it's not getting more of a push. It is nice to see people from across the country that are not even from LA on the board. Either a Lincoln Line or a line more along Sepulveda seems to be a missing link to connect the so called 405 line and LAX (along with Expo and the Purple Line) is one of the most talked about items among this board and others. However, because no such funds are in Measure R it has been deemed to be way down the line for now.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 30, 2010 13:31:37 GMT -8
Would this plan force Santa Monica riders have to transfer? Yes, if they need to travel Wilshire. That's the nature of a rail network. But the spur from VA to Olympic is otherwise useless. This is not the way to create a "network". They can take the bus from Westwood/Expo. And of course in the long run, there will be at least 1, possibily 2 north-south rail lines (405 Sepulveda and Lincoln) that will accomplish the network and enable transfer. But that doesn't mean we should plan for the future when there will be money to build the Santa Monica spur and north-south line(s). Forcing purple line to turn south to Olympic doesn't make any sense in the long run. It may allow easy transfer in the short run but it will be a waste of money in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 30, 2010 14:51:54 GMT -8
bzcat has the right ideology. We need to stop thinking short-term solutions and think long-term, like extending the 405 Corridor to LAX, and possibly beyond.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 30, 2010 15:24:58 GMT -8
I think the following map by Justin Walker is a great goal that incorporates just a few logical improvements beyond Measure R It might be viewed as having too many projects on the Westside, but this would really give a nice, efficient grid network with great interconnectivity.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 30, 2010 15:33:27 GMT -8
The Green Line should be extended along Lincoln, though. And the 405 should follow the Crenshaw Corridor to Long Beach.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 30, 2010 15:39:38 GMT -8
I think the following map by Justin Walker is a great goal that incorporates just a few logical improvements beyond Measure R It might be viewed as having too many projects on the Westside, but this would really give a nice, efficient grid network with great interconnectivity. Are you forgetting the Santa Ana Branch corridor and/or the Eastside Gold Line Extension Phase II; which are also part of Measure R?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 30, 2010 15:51:51 GMT -8
matthewb, thanks for posting Justin's excellent map. However, I wonder why the Expo and Purple Lines are pushed so far apart. I know the map is not to scale, but it seems like those two lines have been spread out on purpose.
And yes, let us not forget the clumsily-named but very important "West Santa Ana Branch" Line.
I like the combined Green Line/Sepulveda/405 line, BTW. I doubt there is enough demand to connect Torrance to Long Beach.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Sept 30, 2010 16:32:47 GMT -8
Three things (and sorry if this is veering off-topic):
(1) It looks like once the connector is built and they do route the Blue Line through Pasadena - wouldn't that make the Blue Line the longest light rail line in the nation?
(2) Isn't Expo/Westwood in a mostly residential area? I think Sepulveda would be the better location for a transfer to the 405 line.
(3) Is LRT going to be enough to accomodate the 405 Line? Seems like just judging by the use of the 405 and the Orange Line Busway that it should be HRT.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 30, 2010 16:36:04 GMT -8
Yes, this is not my map, and I didn't make the exact design choices. I think there's something of a consensus, though, that the 405 line from the Valley to Westwood should continue south, probably to LAX, and that the Crenshaw corridor should be extended further north, at least to Wilshire, and preferably to the red line. There are a couple other details of this map that aren't consistent with Measure R, such as that Justin took the liberty of "finishing" the green line on the east side and connected it to Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs (great idea, especially when the green line gets extended to LAX). The next phase of the gold line foothill extension is there, but the 60 or Whittier branch isn't included, nor is the West Santa Ana Branch Line (TM). The point, though, is that the above draft shows how a network can provide well spaced transfer points connecting major activity nodes. If the system were as interconnected as this map, anyone on any line would have access to nearly any point in the city with at most one transfer. I think it's fantastic. My biggest bone of contention would be with the 405 line. I think a transfer with the Expo line at Sepulveda would be better than the very suburban residential area at Expo/Westwood, but as an overall vision for connectivity on the westside, I think we'd be lucky to end up with something that looks a lot like that map.
And, metrocenter, I think this map is very downtown and westside centric, which is why distances in these areas are exaggerated while other areas are condensed. It's fairly customary for subway/metro maps to magnify areas with high employment density, such as midtown and lower Manhattan, even while compressing areas with much higher residential density.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 30, 2010 20:19:19 GMT -8
Transit maps don't show downtown areas because they're more important: those areas are expanded because stops in downtown are generally closer together and the map is designed to show stops at roughly the same distance.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Sept 30, 2010 20:42:48 GMT -8
I think the following map by Justin Walker is a great goal that incorporates just a few logical improvements beyond Measure R It might be viewed as having too many projects on the Westside, but this would really give a nice, efficient grid network with great interconnectivity. Are you forgetting the Santa Ana Branch corridor and/or the Eastside Gold Line Extension Phase II; which are also part of Measure R? No, I agree very much much with the map, with the same minor exception that jdcrasher cited. But, there is no forgetting the Santa Ana Branch or any other line... this map should be considered a very good phase 1. Or whatever phase. Additional phases to come forward.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Sept 30, 2010 20:53:47 GMT -8
I'm glad my map has proven useful.
My basic assertion that I made when I made this map was that the network should dictate the form of individual transit projects and not the other way around.
The emphasis of the map is therefore on connections between lines rather than on the exact routing of any of the lines themselves. I accordingly leave key routing decisions undecided. I also didn't include an Gold Line Eastside Extension or the West Santa Ana Branch projects because they are both ill-defined at this point. Further, they both merely extend existing route termini and therefore have no impact on network connectivity.
(I also created this map to illustrate that from a regional perspective, it makes the most sense to build the Sepulveda Pass Transit project as an extension of an emerging Green Line corridor in the Westside. Similarly, a Crenshaw Corridor extension north of Wilshire makes more sense than a Pink Line project. Following this methodology, you maximize connectivity with the rest of the network.)
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Oct 1, 2010 0:20:02 GMT -8
(2) Isn't Expo/Westwood in a mostly residential area? I think Sepulveda would be the better location for a transfer to the 405 line. Although that is true, I asked Justin to make Expo/Westwood the transfer when he was making this map because of the Westfield Mall at Pico. While it may seem like a minimal concern, the fact of the matter is that putting the transfer a station west on the Expo line makes the mall significantly more difficult to reach, and it seems like a no-brainer to connect a line that will go directly under a major university directly to a large nearby mall. Westwood, it seems to me, has significantly more ridership draws than Sepulveda. Also, the ROW is much wider here than at other parts because Expo ends east of Westwood for a block. That at the very least could be used for staging, if not for the transfer station.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 1, 2010 5:40:03 GMT -8
(2) Isn't Expo/Westwood in a mostly residential area? I think Sepulveda would be the better location for a transfer to the 405 line. Although that is true, I asked Justin to make Expo/Westwood the transfer when he was making this map because of the Westfield Mall at Pico. While it may seem like a minimal concern, the fact of the matter is that putting the transfer a station west on the Expo line makes the mall significantly more difficult to reach, and it seems like a no-brainer to connect a line that will go directly under a major university directly to a large nearby mall. Westwood, it seems to me, has significantly more ridership draws than Sepulveda. Also, the ROW is much wider here than at other parts because Expo ends east of Westwood for a block. That at the very least could be used for staging, if not for the transfer station. As I've said before, Westwood as a transfer station will never happen. Would it be at-grade? Elevated? Subway? Where would the route be? There are important practical issues here. For instance, Westwood/Expo is after all in the middle of a neighborhood of single-family homes. Never mind the political feasibility of building a major transfer station at Westwood/Expo: is it appropriate use of land? Or is the plan to rezone Westwood Blvd south of Pico as dense commercial? And secondly, the Westside Pavillion isn't that big of a destination, do we really need to design transit systems around it. To me, Sepulveda/Expo makes the most sense. It can travel elevated down Cotner, and thus bother no residents. There is plenty of room for it down the middle of that street. And 30+ years from now when this gets built, Sepulveda may be a major destination, rivaling or exceeding the Westside Pavillion. If there is anything like a compromise, maybe (maybe) the line could come down Westwood, with a station at Pico, then turn west on Pico to Sepulveda to the transfer station. But even that I can see problems with.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Oct 1, 2010 6:19:54 GMT -8
As I've said before, Westwood as a transfer station will never happen. Would it be at-grade? Elevated? Subway? Where would the route be? There are important practical issues here. For instance, Westwood/Expo is after all in the middle of a neighborhood of single-family homes. Never mind the political feasibility of building a major transfer station at Westwood/Expo: is it appropriate use of land? Or is the plan to rezone Westwood Blvd south of Pico as dense commercial? And secondly, the Westside Pavillion isn't that big of a destination, do we really need to design transit systems around it. To me, Sepulveda/Expo makes the most sense. It can travel elevated down Cotner, and thus bother no residents. There is plenty of room for it down the middle of that street. And 30+ years from now when this gets built, Sepulveda may be a major destination, rivaling or exceeding the Westside Pavillion. If there is anything like a compromise, maybe (maybe) the line could come down Westwood, with a station at Pico, then turn west on Pico to Sepulveda to the transfer station. But even that I can see problems with.Yeah, I proposed that scenario in this Valley-LAX HRT Line thread with stations at Wilshire, Santa Monica and Pico. I'm guessing it would be less of a hassle that, if this line did travel down Westwood and had to make a 90 degree turn, to do it on Santa Monica which is much wider than Pico.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 1, 2010 6:44:46 GMT -8
I like the combined Green Line/Sepulveda/405 line, BTW. I doubt there is enough demand to connect Torrance to Long Beach. Then why is this extension an official project? AKA: harbor subdivision. Doesn't matter the Tier it's in, it's an official project.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 1, 2010 7:30:45 GMT -8
I like the combined Green Line/Sepulveda/405 line, BTW. I doubt there is enough demand to connect Torrance to Long Beach. Then why is this extension an official project? AKA: harbor subdivision. Doesn't matter the Tier it's in, it's an official project. Projects in the LRTP are there to be studied. But Metro isn't obligated to build it if there isn't enough ridership. The Alternatives Analysis for the South Bay Extension was completed last year. The Harbor Subdivision was studied as the "Local South Alternative". The study divided the route into segments. Here are what the segments rated (on a scale of 1-5): - Green Line terminus to Redondo RTC: 4/5
- Redondo RTC to Torrance RTC: 5/5
- Torrance RTC to Normandie: 3/5
- Normandie to Blue Line (via Sepulveda/Willow): 3/5
- Normandie to Blue Line (via PCH): 2/5
In fact, both of the options between Normandie and the Blue Line only rated 2/5 for cost-effectiveness. The Sepulveda/Willow route scored not as bad as the PCH route only because it has a slightly higher environmental benefits score. Only the alignment to Torrance was moved forward into the DEIR phase.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 1, 2010 13:00:03 GMT -8
Maybe PCH scored lower because it would impact traffic during construction more than Willow.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Oct 2, 2010 19:50:59 GMT -8
An at-grade extension of the Blue Line, east down 7th street, to the VA Hospital and CSULB, would be very cost-effective, I'd wager.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 5, 2010 14:55:30 GMT -8
I think the following map by Justin Walker is a great goal that incorporates just a few logical improvements beyond Measure R It might be viewed as having too many projects on the Westside, but this would really give a nice, efficient grid network with great interconnectivity. The only thing I would change is Green line extension goes up Lincoln instead of Sepulveda and terminates at Downtown Santa Monica with Expo. The 405 Corridor line should be a heavy rail line following Sepulveda (with slight detour to Westwood Village for transfer with Purple line) to LAX where it will join the Harbor Subdivision.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Oct 5, 2010 18:38:55 GMT -8
The only thing I would change is Green line extension goes up Lincoln instead of Sepulveda and terminates at Downtown Santa Monica with Expo. The 405 Corridor line should be a heavy rail line following Sepulveda (with slight detour to Westwood Village for transfer with Purple line) to LAX where it will join the Harbor Subdivision. Although I know the ridership on the Sepulveda Pass line will probably quite large, with a lot people transferring to the Purple Line, I don't personally believe it will be so large that it will overwhelm our Light-Rail infrastructure. The fact of the matter is that LA is building a Light-rail network, like it or not. In a city that's as sprawled out as ours is, HRT is the exception, not the rule, and the added flexibility of running trains at-grade is a real bonus in our city of wide streets. That being said, if capacity is really an issue on a Sepulveda line, then we can simply run a few more trains (remember that even through our downtown our heavy rail trains only run 1 every 5 minutes, and that's 2 lines). 3 minute headways would probably resolve the issue, and if not, then building the stations to acommodate 4 car trains is probably the smart thing to do. In the map above, either the Green line stations in the freeway can be lengthened, or the 4-car trains can turn back at LAX and the 3 car trains can continue on. Of course since there are no studies for this line yet, it's pretty tough to imagine what the ridership might be like numerically. Either way, the "2nd Regional Connector" from Aviation/Century to Aviation/LAX will probably be a very busy place. The other point I always feel compelled to make in the debate of Sepulveda vs. Lincoln is that, while both will be good local lines, the Sepulveda option will be better regionally, and should therefore take priority. A Lincoln line terminating in Santa Monica loses the connection to the Purple Line, the Orange Line, and possibly even the Van Nuys train station that the Sepulveda route shows on the map above. I'm not saying don't build a line down Lincoln. I'm just saying it may have to wait its turn.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Oct 5, 2010 19:00:21 GMT -8
Also, this is from the Project page for the Sepulveda Pass line on the Metro website:
"Planned along the 4-mile section of the I-405 Freeway that connects the San Fernando Valley with West Los Angeles, this project’s alternatives include light rail option along the corridor; providing bus-only on- and off-ramps for bus rapid transit service on the I-405 carpool lanes; and implementing peak-hour bus rapid transit lanes on the freeway’s shoulders."
Heavy rail does not even seem to be on the table, which I don't quite understand, but either way, it will be our job as transit advocates to bring our voices to meetings (and hopefully bring some residents from the valley too) and let it be known that this project should not be lost to a busway. This project should be rail.
|
|