|
Post by andert on Aug 31, 2021 8:03:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Aug 31, 2021 15:29:31 GMT -8
All that reverse branching is no bueno (especially because using LRT trains for it means Venice will get value-engineered into running on the street), and I'm not sold on Venice-La Cienega-Santa Monica, but as fantasy maps go I've seen far worse. Definitely agree north-south LRT in the SGV can't be justified.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 31, 2021 16:49:43 GMT -8
That's fair. I know the interlining is generally a bad idea but I can't help myself lol.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 1, 2021 11:19:41 GMT -8
A pretty amazing video. thanks for all the effort. I'd have some quibbles here or there but every decision makes sense.
One huge issue with burbank airport stuff is the CA HSR will do a dog leg for it's burbank airport station. it leaves the AV metrolink alignment to head south on Hollywood way for a multibillion dollar mega cavern vanity station, then it rejoins the VENTURA line metrolink alignment to head south east. And then the ventura line alignment merges back onto the AV line alignment HSR just left.
this is probably a 10 billion dollar dogleg for HSR in yesterday's money, likely to be 30 billion by the time it opens, and obviously will have a massive impact on all the rail and people move options.
Hilariously the dogleg is necessary because the CURRENT terminal is far away from the AV line. and HSR refuses to acknowledge the terminal is being moved closer to them and insists on building the dogleg. Probably because spending 30 billion and 30 years building this dogleg is just too necessary a thing to happen to do any planning or thinking about the dogleg (or even recognize the airport is reorienting itself).
path dependency is a bitch, innit?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 1, 2021 13:59:01 GMT -8
Your 4-line beast is going to be difficult to operate due to all the interlined segments.
I think the Venice-La Cienega-Santa Monica (VLS) line should stay on Santa Monica Blvd and not go to Glendale. This eliminates one of the interlined segment - just have a good transfer station Silverlake to the WASB-Glendale line.
I don't think there is a need to extend the ESFV line to West LA using light rail to interline with VLS line on Santa Monica... that's not the best use our money and Metro has already (rightly) dismissed the light rail tunnel thru Sepulveda Pass idea. Just funnel SFV-Westside riders thru the heavy rail and they can transfer at Westwood. That eliminates the 2nd interlined segment.
The final interline segment... is actually fine. The VLS and the Venice-Pico-DTLA (VPD) line are natural direction of travel on the lower Westside (Palms, Mar Vista, Playa Vista, Culver City, Venice Beach, MDR). A good portion of the commute is north towards Century City/WEHO/Beverly Hill which VLS line serves quite well. And also a large portion of commute is to/from Mid City/DTLA which VPD line is optimized to serve. The interlined portion on the Westside also has lots of travel within the zone. So I would leave this part of interline as you designed.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 1, 2021 14:11:52 GMT -8
Some other comments
A-line/Orange line continuation on Foothill segment:I'm indifferent to whether the Foothill Goldline should continue West to SFV or south to Long Beach. I think the current travel pattern shows Foothill line riders are going South but that's only because there is no reliable rail options connecting SGV and SFV. Based on freeway traffice, we know plenty of people are driving from upper SGV to Burbank and Warner Center everyday. I would like to see some good ridership projection on the Orange line extension before I make up my mind on how the A-line should operate.
A-line extension to CSULB: Great idea. The DTLB loop is kind of useless artifact as you said. We would never design it like that now.
B-line realignment to Vermont: I'm generally supportive but the long disruption of service to both B and D line during construction HAS to be considered.
Crenshaw line going to Burbank: I like the idea but it is another light rail tunnel and that just seem like a waste.
SGV as BRT central: Sounds about right unless all those cities there want to upzone the major roads to allow high density housing. Seems unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Sept 1, 2021 14:30:53 GMT -8
All good points. I feel like the biggest reason I want a rail link between hollywood and atwater/glendale is that it would very much benefit me personally haha. Or at least would've in the past, as I'm moving this month to a different part of town anyway.
Didn't realize that about the Burbank HSR station. That's nuts.
I do still think crenshaw should take over the Olive route though. It's barely more than 2mi between the bowl and warner, not a crazy length, and it I think a direct route from burbank to hollywood without having to deviate a long way around, along with keeping Noho/Pas from being too zig-zaggy, is more than worth it.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 3, 2021 13:03:01 GMT -8
I really think that the strongest argument to want the vermont line to connect to the Red line is how aesthetically pleasing it looks on a map.
When you think about ridership, adding a forced transfer for all valley to downtown commuters would probably cut ridership 30% (they'd almost all opt for cars).
There isn't a lot of ridership for south LA to the valley/hollywood as a one seat ride (and that's a LONG ride) or vice versa so it doesn't match travel patterns well. That means a transfer for this small piece of vermont corridor ridership is a better option for the overall system than a transfer for the heaviest rail commuting pattern in the county.
there is probably decent ridership from the valley to USC and vice versa, but probably not enough new ridership to offset the losses to the red line ridership.
Additionally permanent ridership loss will happen by cutting service from the valley to downtown for two-four years of construction. this is probably at least 30% (the vast majority will go to cars), and temporary ridership loss during the construction years will probably be 70% (30% will use the bus alternatives). And because when riders do try to return, since they'll now have a forced transfer, you'll have much higher attrition rates of those returning riders because service quality for the primary commute will have declined massively.
My first three years in LA i rode the vermont rapid almost every day and depended on it 100%, it's an incredibly important corridor, and so is the Red line valley to downtown. iirc, it is (or was) the largest service line by passengers moved in all of LA, don't kill the golden goose.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 3, 2021 13:19:07 GMT -8
Now rather than thinking about how spectacularly awesome on a map a red/vermont line combination is (and it looks so incredibly satisfying) let's instead think about what new options are in front of us.
Bechtal is proposing 90 second headways made possible by a fully automated HRT operation. This can only be implemented on new lines.
if we do not interline Vermont and red, this approach can be applied to vermont. This makes the forced transfer a non issue, because the frequency of the vermont line would be so high, the transfer penalty proportionally drops.
if engineered from the start to have maximally beneficial transfers from platform to platform (think Bechtal's Wilshire Westwood solution) the transfer penalty could further drop.
If the focus is on how to make this (one of) the best transfer in the city, we can have a much better outcome for all users.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 3, 2021 13:40:41 GMT -8
Platform to platform transfer at Vermont is not possible due to the way the existing station was constructed. The only way to accomplish that is the blow up the existing station and build a new one. But if you are going to do that, you should just thru-route the trains with new 4-way junction.
That's obviously not going to happen and it is all because the lack of foresight and planning as andert pointed out in his video. When the Red line was being designed, Metro didn't envision one day it will need to extend the Red line south beyond Wilshire. Anyone with an ounce of transit experience probably would have stopped that stupidity but the entire LA Metro system seemed to have been designed by people who have never rode a train before. This is why all the transfer stations with exception of Metro Center are terrible.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Sept 4, 2021 9:41:09 GMT -8
The strongest argument for through-running Vermont is to allow 2-minute headways along Wilshire and to simplify operations. Painting that as "because it looks good on a map" is disingenuous. How many of those currently taking Red to get downtown will instead use Sepulveda to Purple once that's an option? The direct route becomes less important as the network grows and Metrolink runs enough service to become a viable alternative.
|
|
|
Post by Tomthumb on Nov 24, 2021 13:34:14 GMT -8
The strongest argument for through-running Vermont is to allow 2-minute headways along Wilshire and to simplify operations. Painting that as "because it looks good on a map" is disingenuous. How many of those currently taking Red to get downtown will instead use Sepulveda to Purple once that's an option? The direct route becomes less important as the network grows and Metrolink runs enough service to become a viable alternative. The strongest argument against Vermont through-running is that the junction from the current red line to the new line would be more trouble than it's worth. The most affordable and least disruptive way of building it, I think, would be a junction somewhere between Beverly and 3rd, from the existing tubes to a new cut-and-cover subway which would be as close to the surface as possible, so the new line could just pass over the existing subway infrastructure at Wilshire. Is there any aspect of this plan that makes it impossible to even consider? If not, future studies on the Vermont corridor really should study that in depth.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Dec 1, 2021 14:11:59 GMT -8
Going over may be difficult because Vermont runs down a substantial slope south of Wilshire.
|
|