HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #901  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2010, 10:54 PM
mwadswor's Avatar
mwadswor mwadswor is offline
The Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Expo in Santa Monica: OK, now SM has agreed to stations for Expo. I will be more impressed when I see the actual approval of dense projects in the surrounding 1/2 mile areas. This will show whether SM is really interested in the Purple Line extension.
How close will the expo and purple line (eventually) get to the beach? Obviously the slogan is "subway to the sea" and there are benefits of getting one or the other to the beach, but increased density may be pretty difficult to achieve if they get into territory governed by the California Coastal Commission, regardless of Santa Monica's wishes or plans. The Coastal Commission doesn't exactly have a strong track record of being friendly to density or height.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #902  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2010, 11:18 PM
JDRCRASH's Avatar
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,716
I believe 4th st will be the terminus of both. But I remember hearing somewhere that the the Expo could end up connecting to the Purple via transfer station.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #903  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2010, 11:32 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
I am not expert on this, so I would love to hear from someone more knowledgeable, especially regarding high-rises or mid-rises along Wilshire or anything over about 4 stories anywhere else. You can see quite a difference as you cross from LA into SM along Wilshire.

They definitely want the Purple Line underground but show no willingness to substantially expand density along Wilshire or pretty much anywhere so as to help justify it. Remember that they are not included in 30/10.

They are now claiming to allow greater density around Expo stations but I would like to see how the actual permitting process works since the city council and most residents are opposed to development, even the removal of trailer parks or dilapidated sfh's.

For sure, nothing tall is going to get built at the 4th St. termini, even though this is "downtown". I am concerned about the more inland stations having much beyond SFV density.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #904  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 12:04 AM
Bootstrap Bill Bootstrap Bill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
I believe 4th st will be the terminus of both. But I remember hearing somewhere that the the Expo could end up connecting to the Purple via transfer station.
Why do both lines terminate in Santa Monica? LAX is only a couple miles away. Wouldn't it be worth the extra money to provide service to the airport?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #905  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 1:08 AM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 6,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill View Post
Why do both lines terminate in Santa Monica? LAX is only a couple miles away. Wouldn't it be worth the extra money to provide service to the airport?
Service to the airport is supposed to be provided, either through connection with the Green line, or possibly the Crenshaw line.

(from SFCityScape.com detailing expansions covered by Measure R, which was passed by voters in November 2008)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #906  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 2:17 AM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,196
^Beautiful map-- I can never get tired of looking at this.

One question I was thinking about is why is there the rigid adherence that the most intense development around the stations must be concentrated to a 1/2 mile radius (10 minute walk) around the stations? This same standard is reflexively used whether the transit line is in sweltering DC, snowy Cleveland, or LA with temperate weather and an active/fit population that exercises more than people in other parts of the country. Perhaps 2/3 or 3/4 mile radius should be used instead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #907  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 3:35 AM
Bootstrap Bill Bootstrap Bill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGuy View Post
Service to the airport is supposed to be provided, either through connection with the Green line, or possibly the Crenshaw line.
It's only a couple miles from the terminus at Santa Monica to LAX. This would give us two additional rail lines to LAX. Isn't that worth the extra cost?

We could have a major rail terminal at LAX - a west coast version of NY's Penn Station with four lines - the Green Line, Purple Line, Expo Line (does anyone know if Expo has a color yet?) and the proposed LAX Express. There's also the possibility of future lines directly linking Long Beach, Pasadena and the east side, without the need for transfers.

LAX is a more important destination than the beach. I think this is worth considering.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #908  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 3:57 AM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 6,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill View Post
It's only a couple miles from the terminus at Santa Monica to LAX. This would give us two additional rail lines to LAX. Isn't that worth the extra cost?

We could have a major rail terminal at LAX - a west coast version of NY's Penn Station with four lines - the Green Line, Purple Line, Expo Line (does anyone know if Expo has a color yet?) and the proposed LAX Express. There's also the possibility of future lines directly linking Long Beach, Pasadena and the east side, without the need for transfers.

LAX is a more important destination than the beach. I think this is worth considering.
A light rail line from Santa Monica to Venice Beach to Marina Del Rey to LAX and continuing south down the coast through Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrence would certainly be nice in the future in order to connect all of the great beach locations. And if they did this, hopefully it would be close to the coast as opposed to further inland like the green line runs in Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #909  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 4:01 AM
Bootstrap Bill Bootstrap Bill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGuy View Post
A light rail line from Santa Monica to Venice Beach to Marina Del Rey to LAX and continuing south down the coast through Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrence would certainly be nice in the future in order to connect all of the great beach locations. And if they did this, hopefully it would be close to the coast as opposed to further inland like the green line runs in Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach.
That would be nice, but a two mile extension of the Purple Line and Expo Line from Santa Monica could do so much for relatively little money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #910  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 5:59 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
A couple of comments:

From Wilshire in SM to LAX is more like 8 miles. A subway connection to LAX would be great but very expensive. In any event, along the Sepulveda corridor would be the best place since this would hit much more commercial development than a route along Lincoln would. This could be done regardless of whether the Purple is even extended beyond Westwood/VA.

Taking Expo (Aqua) to the Crenshaw Line and then (perhaps) a further connection to LAX would be inefficient (if and when these lines actually get built). Much better to take a bus along Lincoln or Sepulveda.

More importantly, SM has shown no interest in the kind of high density that would support spending the money needed for subways. I am hopeful that they will do so now, but I haven’t seen much action on the ground that points toward anything but resistance to development.

Cyclist: Not everyone is young, fit and healthy. In any event, in SM the issue isn’t development for ½ mile; I would settle for ½ block. Again, compare the Rodeo, CC and Westwood stops of the Purple with the 4th, 16th or 26th stops in SM. The SM development is currently low to moderate and not zoned for much more.

Maybe a trolley from the Purple (4th St.) along 4th or Ocean, past the Promenade, SM Place, Civic Center, Main St. and onto Abbot Kinney would be good for tourism and local shoppers. Light-rail for 20-25 miles to Torrance is a bad idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #911  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 6:07 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,196
Pesto--

Quote:
From Wilshire in SM to LAX is more like 8 miles. A subway connection to LAX would be great but very expensive. In any event, along the Sepulveda corridor would be the best place since this would hit much more commercial development than a route along Lincoln would. This could be done regardless of whether the Purple is even extended beyond Westwood/VA.

Taking Expo (Aqua) to the Crenshaw Line and then (perhaps) a further connection to LAX would be inefficient (if and when these lines actually get built). Much better to take a bus along Lincoln or Sepulveda.
The 3-line bus (http://www.bigbluebus.com/busroutes/) is very convenient from LAX to Santa Monica. We took it a couple of years ago and, at that time, it cost only 75 cents and the trip took not more than 30 min (admittedly on a Saturday).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #912  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 6:08 PM
mwadswor's Avatar
mwadswor mwadswor is offline
The Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Taking Expo (Aqua) to the Crenshaw Line and then (perhaps) a further connection to LAX would be inefficient (if and when these lines actually get built). Much better to take a bus along Lincoln or Sepulveda.
A connection would be a pain, but a direct LAX express from Union Station along the Expo the Crenshaw tracks would work pretty well. IMO, a huge opportunity will be missed if the Crenshaw tracks don't include a connection to the Expo line to allow 1 seat rides from LAX to Union Station and Santa Monica. There doesn't have to be an actual train using that connection right away, but the tracks should be built to at least make it possible. It can't cost hardly anything (in comparison to the scope of the rest of the project), and it would greatly expand routing options.

An example would be to have trains alternate leaving Union Station along the Expo tracks: half go to Santa Monica, and half go to LAX. Then, half the trains leaving LAX would go back to Union Station, and half would go to Santa Monica. An effective transit system provides as many 1 seat rides as possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #913  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 6:26 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Not a bad idea. I would be interested in seeing how the estimates came out on that. Without the "one seat" advantage, you could just use Blue and Green to go from DT to LAX. Are there any statistics on how many people do this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #914  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 8:36 PM
mwadswor's Avatar
mwadswor mwadswor is offline
The Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Not a bad idea. I would be interested in seeing how the estimates came out on that. Without the "one seat" advantage, you could just use Blue and Green to go from DT to LAX. Are there any statistics on how many people do this?
Not many, since the blue to green line connection is such a pain, and the flyaway bus is so convenient. There's no conceivable way that Expo - Crenshaw won't be significantly easier than the blue - green connection even if a single seat ride isn't set up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #915  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 9:10 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Switching sides for the moment: with any kind of lane priority, Flyaway is going to beat MTA to LAX by plenty. And I don't picture the Crenshaw corridor as a great source for additonal LAX travellers.

btw, colors need to be adjusted on that map to make the north half of the Gold Line gold and the Expo Line aqua.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #916  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 9:27 PM
JDRCRASH's Avatar
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill View Post
Why do both lines terminate in Santa Monica? LAX is only a couple miles away. Wouldn't it be worth the extra money to provide service to the airport?
Because demand, transit-dependancy, and density permits it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill View Post
It's only a couple miles from the terminus at Santa Monica to LAX. This would give us two additional rail lines to LAX. Isn't that worth the extra cost?
Only if it was the Expo Line, but even then, it would be easier to just extend the Green Line.

Quote:
We could have a major rail terminal at LAX - a west coast version of NY's Penn Station with four lines - the Green Line, Purple Line, Expo Line (does anyone know if Expo has a color yet?) and the proposed LAX Express. There's also the possibility of future lines directly linking Long Beach, Pasadena and the east side, without the need for transfers.
We shouldn't try to have too many lines intersecting at LAX because that interferes with scheduling.

BTW, the color for the Expo is Aqua, if i'm correct.

Quote:
LAX is a more important destination than the beach. I think this is worth considering.
That may be, but a Green Line extension via Lincoln Blvd from LAX to Santa Monica is easier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGuy View Post
A light rail line from Santa Monica to Venice Beach to Marina Del Rey to LAX and continuing south down the coast through Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrence would certainly be nice in the future in order to connect all of the great beach locations. And if they did this, hopefully it would be close to the coast as opposed to further inland like the green line runs in Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach.
If you're thinking about using the Greenbelt ROW, that proposal would get struck down with ease. Sepulveda would be better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill View Post
That would be nice, but a two mile extension of the Purple Line and Expo Line from Santa Monica could do so much for relatively little money.
Well.....a subway costs $2 Billion per mile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Taking Expo (Aqua) to the Crenshaw Line and then (perhaps) a further connection to LAX would be inefficient (if and when these lines actually get built). Much better to take a bus along Lincoln or Sepulveda.
I doubt this is gonna happen, and even if it does, it'll be temporary until the Harbor Subdivision is built.

Quote:
More importantly, SM has shown no interest in the kind of high density that would support spending the money needed for subways. I am hopeful that they will do so now, but I haven’t seen much action on the ground that points toward anything but resistance to development.
I believe this will really change once the Expo Line is built. This region hasn't seen rail access to Downtown LA in decades.

Quote:
Cyclist: Not everyone is young, fit and healthy. In any event, in SM the issue isn’t development for ½ mile; I would settle for ½ block. Again, compare the Rodeo, CC and Westwood stops of the Purple with the 4th, 16th or 26th stops in SM. The SM development is currently low to moderate and not zoned for much more.
According to Metro's LRTP 2030 map, Santa Monica's density will be high in both population and employment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mwadswor View Post
A connection would be a pain, but a direct LAX express from Union Station along the Expo the Crenshaw tracks would work pretty well. IMO, a huge opportunity will be missed if the Crenshaw tracks don't include a connection to the Expo line to allow 1 seat rides from LAX to Union Station and Santa Monica. There doesn't have to be an actual train using that connection right away, but the tracks should be built to at least make it possible. It can't cost hardly anything (in comparison to the scope of the rest of the project), and it would greatly expand routing options.
Again, this should only be temporary, because future plans have a direct connection from Union Station to LAX. And a Green Line extension is simply better because it makes things less complicated on the Crenshaw Line. That's why on my vision map, there are many many lines because not only does it give more opportunities for growth, but allows allows more flexibility in scheduling.

Quote:
An example would be to have trains alternate leaving Union Station along the Expo tracks: half go to Santa Monica, and half go to LAX. Then, half the trains leaving LAX would go back to Union Station, and half would go to Santa Monica. An effective transit system provides as many 1 seat rides as possible.
I agree, but it needs to be done without compromising scheduling on other trains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Not a bad idea. I would be interested in seeing how the estimates came out on that. Without the "one seat" advantage, you could just use Blue and Green to go from DT to LAX. Are there any statistics on how many people do this?
Adding to mwadswor's comment, after you take the Green Line, it's shuttle time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #917  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 10:28 PM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 6,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
btw, colors need to be adjusted on that map to make the north half of the Gold Line gold and the Expo Line aqua.
The map is a projection of how the lines will operate in the future. The northern half of the current gold line is proposed to become part of the blue line once the downtown connector is created. Meanwhile the Expo line isn't aqua in this map because it's proposed to become part of the newly opened southern gold line due to the downtown connector plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #918  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 10:36 PM
JDRCRASH's Avatar
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,716
Why do they assume that the Washington alignment for the GLEE Phase II is gonna happen? Just because it goes to Whittier doesn't mean it's gonna (or should) happen. It's a terrible route to Whittier, and I would much rather see the SR-60 alignment happen, which is more likely.

Instead, have the Purple Line extended from the 7th st Metro Station to Whittier via Whittier Blvd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #919  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2010, 11:03 PM
RAlossi RAlossi is offline
Rico!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,573
JDR, even with inflation, subway construction is not $2 billion per mile. More like $300 million.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #920  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2010, 12:15 AM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
JDR: SM is not particularly dense for the westside (1/3 the density of WeHo; lower density than Van Nuys in the SFV). You get the idea when you cross in from LA along Wilshire and the commercial buildings suddenly shrink from 15 stories to 1 or 2 stories. Check Google maps starting just west of Bundy.

Under the new plan, the Bergamot Transit Village will be allowed 81 ft, but this is basically only if higher than normal ceilings are included on the ground and upper floors for community purposes. Pretty much everywhere else will top out at 4-5 stories or less. I don’t know how common relaxation of the rules are, but given the aggressive anti-growth sentiment, I wouldn’t be optimistic. But hopefully, some attractive development at Bergamot will encourage other development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:36 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.