|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 30, 2010 15:51:16 GMT -8
One of my big ideas is to connect the 405 Corridor and Harbor Subdivision. These would be the stations: Sylmar Metrolink San Fernando/Brand Laurel Canyon Sepulveda/Brand Devonshire Nordhoff Panorama Mall Van Nuys Metrolink Sherman Way Victory Burbank Ventura Blvd/Van Nuys Blvd Getty Center??? UCLA/Ackerman Loop Wilshire/Westwood Blvd Sepulveda/Santa Monica Blvd Pico/Expo Line National Palms Venice Washington or Culver Jefferson Blvd Culver City/Westfield Mall La Tijera/405 Century Blvd/LAX (Via Crenshaw Corr. & Harbor Sub. ROW) Aviation Mariposa El Segundo Douglas Redondo Beach Manhattan Beach Redondo Beach Regional Transit Center Hawthorne Torrance Regional Transit Center Carson Western/Sepulveda Vermont Avalon Sante Fe Mongolia Long Beach (either via Willow or PCH)
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 30, 2010 23:14:35 GMT -8
I know Metro's studies for the Harbor Subdivision end in Long Beach at the Blue Line. But Long Beach really deserves an east-west light rail line.
Consider that there are over 30 buses per hour on 7th street and on parallel streets within 1/2 mile, from Downtown east to the VA hospital and CSULB. 7th street has local buses every 12 minutes all day long, and limited-stop buses every 10 minutes at peak hours, most of which are packed to the gills at rush hour at least. Anaheim, which is a 10 minute walk north, has buses every 6 to 9 minutes all day long; this is the most frequent regular bus route south of Downtown Los Angeles, I believe. There are also fairly frequent buses on 4th, 1/4 mile south, and Broadway, 1/2 mile south of 7th.
Population density is over 35,000 people per square mile in the area west of Cherry thru Downtown, and employment density in downtown Long Beach and at the VA and CSULB is also quite high.
It would be nice to have a light rail connection between Long Beach and Carson, Torrance and Redondo Beach, but the section thru Long Beach itself would have much higher ridership due to higher population and employment density, and higher current transit ridership.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Oct 1, 2010 0:09:29 GMT -8
Where would the Crenshaw line be routed south of Aviation/Century in this scenario?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 1, 2010 5:50:45 GMT -8
Those are some pretty sparsely-populated areas between Torrance and Long Beach. And as a Long Beach resident, I can tell you there is no street called Mongolia. I do think something is needed. I'd probably go with Metrolink along the Harbor Sub Row, with fewer stops. South of LAX, that would be: - Aviation/Century (LAX)
- Inglewood/Manhattan Beach
- Torrance RTC
- Vermont/I-110
- Downtown Long Beach
(This is pretty much what Metro studied as its "Regional Rail" alternative.) I would however build LRT from LAX down to Torrance RTC with all the stops listed.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 1, 2010 10:28:31 GMT -8
I am crossposting this here from the Green Line South Bay forum. Four public meetings for the South Bay Harbor Sub DEIR have been scheduled between October 20 and October 26. See the project page for details. Anybody interested in the future of this corridor ( jdrcrasher, I'm talking to you ) should plan to attend at least one of these meetings.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 1, 2010 11:56:56 GMT -8
^Thanks for the information. I know Metro's studies for the Harbor Subdivision end in Long Beach at the Blue Line. But Long Beach really deserves an east-west light rail line. You mean it should go further than Long Beach Blvd? Where would the Crenshaw line be routed south of Aviation/Century in this scenario? I would rather have it go on Hawthorne Blvd, Crenshaw Blvd, or even Prarie one day. IMO, once the Harbor Subdivision is built, there really isn't going to be a need for another connection from Downtown to LAX (the first being an Expo-Crenshaw tie-in). Also, the Green Line, once extended to LAX (and eventually Santa Monica) won't really need to go to the South Bay. How many LRT lines can go on the same tracks per hour, BTW? Those are some pretty sparsely-populated areas between Torrance and Long Beach. The only really sparsely populated area (i'm talking no homes at all) along the ROW is between Wilmington and Terminal Island Fwy. Correction: Magnolia I believe Metrolink is only planned to go to LAX. Everything south would be only LRT.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 1, 2010 12:33:30 GMT -8
I believe Metrolink is only planned to go to LAX. Everything south would be only LRT. OK, so we're talking about the South Bay Extension project currently being studied by Metro. Well so far, Metro has been focused on narrowing alternatives. And for the current project, every alternative has been eliminated except for two alternatives, both involving light rail, going no farther east than Torrance RTC. Or putting it another way, all alternatives connecting LAX to Long Beach -- whether using Metrolink or LRT -- have been eliminated. Now if we're just speculating about purely long-range hypotheticals (which I thought was the topic of this thread/forum), then I would run Metrolink between LAX and Long Beach, rather than light rail. I gave my reason for this: projected ridership is insufficient to justify the cost.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 1, 2010 13:24:19 GMT -8
I looked closer at the south bay report here: www.metro.net/projects_studies/harbor_subdivision/images/Board-Report-December-2009.pdf...and I found this: Priorities II and III, respectively, could be considered when additional funding is available and infrastructure improvements as part of other projects (such as the California High Speed Train and the Caltrans "Run Through Tracks") are put in place."So it hasn't been eliminated, it's been put off. That's fine. Now if we're just speculating about purely long-range hypotheticals (which I thought was the topic of this thread/forum), then I would run Metrolink between LAX and Long Beach, rather than light rail. I gave my reason for this: projected ridership is insufficient to justify the cost. Or, you could have those limited stops for LRT.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 1, 2010 14:04:30 GMT -8
So it hasn't been eliminated, it's been put off. That's fine. Again, I will ask if you are talking about the current Metro project, or hypothetical long-term plans. - If you are talking about the current Metro project, then yes all alternatives to Long Beach have been eliminated.
- If you are talking about some long-term possible future plans, then neither Metrolink nor LRT has been eliminated.
I was responding to your original statement that: I believe Metrolink is only planned to go to LAX. Everything south would be only LRT. You're saying it can't be Metrolink to Long Beach because it's not being "planned" that way. Well I will respond: there are no "plans" until the Metro Board says there are plans. And so far, no "plans" at all have been made yet by the Metro Board, except to keep studying the two LRT options going no further east than the Torrance RTC. LRT to Long Beach is no more possible than Metrolink to Long Beach, in the future hypothetical project that only exists in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 1, 2010 15:24:25 GMT -8
Okay, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 1, 2010 15:38:52 GMT -8
Well there is no wrong answer. All projects are hypothetical until they're not. (Wow, that was deep.)
If you feel strongly about LRT to Long Beach, go to the project meetings this month and tell them.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 1, 2010 15:49:49 GMT -8
For the record, Mongolia would be an awesome street name.
Of course this is all hypothetical. I can think of a dozen rail projects which would take priority over Torrance-Long Beach and I even grew up in that area, so I would have a vested interest in it.
Still, it's not all bad. Long Beach is a fairly large town in its own right, and Wilmington isn't that sparse. It's not Norco or something. The classic 1980 Prop. A map even included South Bay-to-Long Beach on its admittedly vague map of projects, so there is some precedent for discussion.
Metrolink would be better (cost wise, especially) if the railroad tracks ran that direction. As things currently stand, it would require some clever routing, and the tracks don't go through the populated areas. It's all aimed at getting south to the harbor/ Terminal Island.
LRT's big advantage is you could have street running on PCH or Anaheim, which isn't perfect because street running is slow. But it would get you into the heart of Wilmington.
Alternatively, San Pedro's Red Car plans still include a trolley from the San Pedro waterfront over to Banning's Landing. Again, it's not perfect, but I mention it as a possibility.
For now, speaking as a South Bay/ San Pedro sort of guy, I would concentrate on 1) Crenshaw Line/ LAX 2) getting the Green Line to the Galleria, 3) getting the Green Line further into the South Bay (Torrance!), 4) getting Metrolink onto the Harbor Sub, 5) getting San Pedro linked into Metro Rail or at least more buses or something.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 5, 2010 15:55:52 GMT -8
One of my big ideas is to connect the 405 Corridor and Harbor Subdivision. These would be the stations: Sylmar Metrolink San Fernando/Brand Laurel Canyon Sepulveda/Brand Devonshire Nordhoff Panorama Mall Van Nuys Metrolink Sherman Way Victory Burbank Ventura Blvd/Van Nuys Blvd Getty Center??? UCLA/Ackerman Loop Wilshire/Westwood Blvd Sepulveda/Santa Monica Blvd Pico/Expo Line National Palms Venice Washington or Culver Jefferson Blvd Culver City/Westfield Mall La Tijera/405 Century Blvd/LAX (Via Crenshaw Corr. & Harbor Sub. ROW) Aviation Mariposa El Segundo Douglas Redondo Beach Manhattan Beach Redondo Beach Regional Transit Center Hawthorne Torrance Regional Transit Center Carson Western/Sepulveda Vermont Avalon Sante Fe Mongolia Long Beach (either via Willow or PCH) First, you have WAY too many stations planned (especially in the Valley). The train will be stopping every other block. Second, instead of going south of LAX, I would turn the train east and go to Downtown LA. Let the Crenshaw line service the South Bay using Harbor Subdivision beyond LAX. Location [station name] Sylmar Metrolink [Sylmar Metrolink] Van Nuys Metrolink [Van Nuys Metrolink] Van Nuys/Victory [Van Nuys] Van Nuys/Orange line [Van Nuys Orange Line] Sepulveda/Burbank [Sherman Oaks] Sepulveda/Ventura [Sherman Oaks Galleria] Getty Center??? (I think this station is not necessary but nice to have) Sunset/Veteran (Maybe on Sunset, or maybe actually on campus) [UCLA North] Wilshire/Westwood Blvd [Westwood Village] Sepulveda/Santa Monica Blvd [West LA] Sepulveda/Pico Expo Line [West LA Expo Line] Sepulveda/Palms [Palms] Sepulveda/Venice [Mar Vista] Sepulveda/Jefferson [Culver City Westfield Mall, Fox Hills Transit Center] Sepulveda/Howard Hughes Parkway [Howard Hughes Center] Sepulveda/Manchester [Westchester] (Via Crenshaw Corr. & Harbor Sub. ROW) - the next 4 stations are shared with Crenshaw line by necessity Century/Aviation [LAX] Florence/La Cienega [Randy's Donut station... just kidding - Inglewood West] Florence/La Brea [Inglewood] Florence/Crenshaw [Crenshaw Line] (the line then separates with Crenshaw and continues on Harbor Subdivision and goes "express" to Downtown LA via Vernon) Future optional station: Slauson/Vermont if Vermont subway becomes reality Downtown LA [Union Station] ~~~ So basically, the train will run express between Union Station and Inglewood, and follow the Sepulveda corridor all the way deep into the Valley. maps.google.com/maps/ms?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=34.156704,-118.383179&spn=0.365922,0.727158&z=11&msid=109982261189696647553.000491e8933d8118cdde4
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 6, 2010 21:51:08 GMT -8
HRT isn't happening along the Harbor Subdivision...unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 7, 2010 11:42:59 GMT -8
HRT isn't happening along the Harbor Subdivision...unfortunately.
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Oct 9, 2010 20:36:29 GMT -8
A "no brainer" idea is to have the Getty Center fund its own station.
There should be no station unless the Getty funds it....
Part of the Getty's mission is to enhance public access to its collection, so this should be within the scope of the Getty's mission and endowment.
Does the Getty wish to fulfill its mission to enhance its accessibility to the general public? Then funding in full a station on the 405 line would be the best way to fulfill its mission....
Otherwise, no station....
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Oct 10, 2010 11:54:17 GMT -8
The Getty center is great, but it's not clear yet if it actually warrants its own station. It's already connected by bus, and the 405 line will greatly improve access even if that requires a bus transfer from Westwood. An additional stop will slow down tens of thousands of commuters by a few minutes every day. The Getty Center averaged just over 3000 visitors per day in 2009, most of whom arrived by car, and limits the number of visitors on any given day to avoid crowding. It seems we might expect daily ridership of less than 1000 people, which would put it well below the current average ridership of a gold line station, but that's just a guess. It attracts visitors from all over Southern California, and for many people it's just not feasible to take public transportation that far. The Getty Center really has a fantastic location in terms of providing a scenic overview of the Los Angeles basin and Pacific ocean, but there's no other attraction, employment center, or high density housing within walking distance. They might best fulfill their mission to enhance accessibility to the general public by donating a large proportion of their collection to LACMA or a downtown museum
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 10, 2010 15:12:56 GMT -8
The Getty center is great, but it's not clear yet if it actually warrants its own station. It's already connected by bus, and the 405 line will greatly improve access even if that requires a bus transfer from Westwood. An additional stop will slow down tens of thousands of commuters by a few minutes every day. The Getty Center averaged just over 3000 visitors per day in 2009, most of whom arrived by car, and limits the number of visitors on any given day to avoid crowding. It seems we might expect daily ridership of less than 1000 people, which would put it well below the current average ridership of a gold line station, but that's just a guess. It attracts visitors from all over Southern California, and for many people it's just not feasible to take public transportation that far. The Getty Center really has a fantastic location in terms of providing a scenic overview of the Los Angeles basin and Pacific ocean, but there's no other attraction, employment center, or high density housing within walking distance. They might best fulfill their mission to enhance accessibility to the general public by donating a large proportion of their collection to LACMA or a downtown museum I agree wholeheartedly. The Getty Center is just not worthy of a station. I am hoping for a tunnel connection for this line from the Orange Line to Wilshire/Westwood (Expo would be great but don't think we have funds to get that far). This would be with new underground stations at UCLA and Ventura Blvd. Unfortunately, I think this will cost more than $1B, but might be worthy of New Starts Funds. It would be nice if we could get a portion of that $3B in federal money that New Jersey just passed up.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Oct 10, 2010 22:18:35 GMT -8
If you look at the map of the area, it's more or less a straight south shot from Ventura/Van Nuys to Wilshire/Westwood, which goes nowhere near the Getty Center, and we've seen on these boards that elevated rail along the freeway is just not feasible. Getty Center is out.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 11, 2010 6:03:27 GMT -8
Agreed...a station at Getty puts too many constraints on the rest of the project. But I can already here the pundits howl when this project gets approved, about how the train will once again miss a key destination, the Getty.
Of course, if the train diverted to Getty with a special station, the pundits would howl about the "sweetheart deal" being given to them. Ha ha, you're not going to win with them anyway!
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 11, 2010 11:01:43 GMT -8
I disagree with extending the Purple Line up into the Valley. That would make it unlikely we would see a north-south line extending from Sylmar to LAX, which I think is a more important long-term goal.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 11, 2010 15:55:36 GMT -8
If you look at the map of the area, it's more or less a straight south shot from Ventura/Van Nuys to Wilshire/Westwood, which goes nowhere near the Getty Center, and we've seen on these boards that elevated rail along the freeway is just not feasible. Getty Center is out. Why is elevated rail along the freeway not feasible? Having rail station in the middle of the freeway is not desirable... and having rail line run on the freeway instead of a populated corridor is bad idea due to lost opportunity for transit oriented development. However, if the choice is between tunneling through wilderness or building an elevated line over an existing freeway, I vote elevated freeway every time. The "405" line is going to runs express (no Getty station!) from Sherman Oaks Galleria (Ventura/Sepulveda) to UCLA North (Sunset/Veteran) without stopping so the elevate design is probably ok because we won't be putting train stations in the middle of the 405... just an express track. It's probably also better from the cost/ease of construction perspective. I don't think underground tunnel is really necessary until the line gets to UCLA North, from which the line will need to snake under Veteran or cut through UCLA campus to reach Wilshire/Westwood station on the purple line.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Oct 11, 2010 16:17:09 GMT -8
The short version is, the elevated alternative would be considerably longer, and be quite expensive due to the constraints of the freeway: the freeway runs with a slope steeper than is allowable for light-rail, and so an all elevated configuration would end up being extremely tall, as it would not descend as fast as the freeway does into the valley. I seem to recall the number being something like 100 feet tall supports columns would be necessary. Here is some more detail: transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=818&page=3#14764
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 11, 2010 16:47:14 GMT -8
The short version is, the elevated alternative would be considerably longer, and be quite expensive due to the constraints of the freeway: the freeway runs with a slope steeper than is allowable for light-rail, and so an all elevated configuration would end up being extremely tall, as it would not descend as fast as the freeway does into the valley. I seem to recall the number being something like 100 feet tall supports columns would be necessary. Here is some more detail: transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=818&page=3#14764From the freeway expansion work in which the hillsides along the 405 are being cut into by massive amounts, I just don't see where you could easily put in the large supports necessary for an elevated light rail line without having to cut into the hills even more, which may be all but impossible given the amount they going into them now. I would think such activity would be extremely expensive. Also, if it is not an underground tunnel, how do you get from the 405 to UCLA? A tunnel seems the obvious preliminary choice here given the constraints and the tunnel would be so much faster and more direct.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 11, 2010 17:33:14 GMT -8
I put the Getty Center there because many 30/10 maps show a possible station, presumably near the beginning of the people-mover that takes you there.
But I agree, an all tunnel corridor straight from UCLA/Ackerman Loop to Van Nuys/Sepulveda definitely seems the best option.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 11, 2010 19:18:53 GMT -8
Given this amount of cutting, my guess would be that there will be left over space remaining to build such a structure due to the need of having the cranes, trucks, materials to be stored and utilized, Would there be enough to do such a structure? Maybe? Maybe not?
Playing Devil's advocate here.
I think a lot of people are the boards are getting emotionally attached to going through the heart of the UCLA campus to get up to the valley, but we haven't even heard from anyone from UCLA that would WANT the tunnel through and a station IN the heart of the campus. So maybe begin selling it there more than anywhere else.
If UCLA administration have a strange libertarian streak in them and say "No" to a station or a tunnel through the campus. Does this mean this corridor is not feasibly dead now?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 11, 2010 20:19:25 GMT -8
Jerard is absolutely right, any campaign for a UCLA station has to include by the people at UCLA. It would be great to see a pro-transit group form on the UCLA campus to advocate for this.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 11, 2010 20:44:11 GMT -8
Jerard is absolutely right, any campaign for a UCLA station has to include by the people at UCLA. It would be great to see a pro-transit group form on the UCLA campus to advocate for this. Many people have spoken at the Westside meetings in favor of a UCLA station in Westwood instead on or very near Wilshire Blvd. and there was great disappointment when it was explained that the line could not go under the VA cemetary and a UCLA station was not possible near campus. I personally am fine with a Wilshire/Westwood station as it would be central to the Village and large office population. However, I certainly agree a UCLA station whether it is on campus or very near campus is necessary and would be a massive lost opportunity if not included with this line. UCLA currently suffers from a massive parking shortage, is under pressure from the city and community groups to reduce its large traffic impact on local streets and neighborhoods and also has a large population that does not have access to automobiles. There will be great pressure to include a station to serve this area one way or another and I would be shocked if UCLA didn't try to accomodate some sort of station on or near campus. There will be a huge backlash if they just say they don't want a station anywhere near campus. Of course, this line has not been sufficiently studied to even begin to determine what UCLA thinks of a station or where it might be. On the same point, this goes for whether the line might be an aerial line or a tunnel or nothing. This will no doubt be an interesting study when the MTA gets into it. Lets hope 30/10 becomes a reality and some studies can begin.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 11, 2010 20:50:38 GMT -8
The reason they have to cut into the hills so much is that this is a fairly rugged mountain pass and when you cut into bottom of a side of a hill for extra space for a traffic lane, the top can then become unstable and you risk a mud slide or the hill just plain collapsing, so then they have to cut up into the higher elevations of the hill as well in order to stabilize it and avoid it becoming top heavy. I doubt there will be any extra room for a light rail line without cutting much more and doing some massive grading and stabilizing.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 12, 2010 11:24:16 GMT -8
Thanks for the education on the tunnel vs. elevated issue on the 405. So tunnel it is then!
I mentioned the UCLA station based on the assumption that it will happen but obviously UCLA has the final say so. Personally, I think UCLA will be against having a station on campus. The best alternative is to have a station just North of campus (on Sunset/Veteran) and one station just South of campus (in the Village somewhere). The North campus station will be used by students and employees commuting from the Valley. The South campus station will be used by commuters transferring to Purple line to Century City and Downtown LA.
|
|