LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[NSMP]

^3 million passengers in 2016 through Sept seems to back that up.

http://bobhopeairport.com/wp-content...ats-9-2016.pdf

[bzcat]

Here is what I would propose if I was running Metro, in order of priority:

1. Crenshaw line north via Fairfax - splits the difference between La Brea and La Cienega. Easy connection to Purple line at Fairfax. I don't care about the end to end running time because hardly anyone will be riding it from Hollywood to Torrence. It's an irrelevant factor really. What will be the fastest way to reach Ceders/CBS Studios/Grove area from the SFV? (i.e. a fairly typical commute) Driving the 101 or taking the Red line and then transferring to Crenshaw line? So what if the line takes an extra 6 minutes to reach Torrence?

2. Sepulveda Line. I think this is self-explanatory... The entire enchilada from Van Nuys to LAX.

3. Vermont Ave subway. I'm ok with this being lightrail, if it ends up being connected to the Glendale line via Echo Park and Silver Lake. This corridor (#204/754) can support heavy rail but it will be an orphaned line with no possible combined operations with existing heavy rail network due to the geometry of Wilshire/Vermont station. It may be better to build it as part of a lightrail network that extends past the #204/754 corridor e.g. to Glendale.

4. West Santa Ana line. This is important because it opens up a 2nd Downtown LA connector for the lightrail system. Plus the Gateway cities in SE LA County really deserve better.

5. Wilshire line extension to Santa Monica. I don't understand why people have an issue with this. Once the Sepulveda opens, Expo will not be able to handle the E-W load from transfers. Plus the proximity of Expo terminus to Wilshire is again, completely irrelevant factor. Wilshire and Colorado/Expo (Pico) are completely different corridors in a different parts of the city. People don't say why BBB #7 needs to exist when we have 720 bus... so why is this even a question when it comes to rail?

6. SFV-SGV Crosstown. I'm ok with this being a BRT extension of the Orange line but I certainly understand the impulse to want this as a lightrail line. This line will finally bring the entire lightrail lines together as a single system (assuming Orange line is upgraded).

7. Lincoln Blvd lightrail (Green line extension). Someone already offered a very eloquent defense of this line... The opportunity to connect the existing Green line corridor with employment in Santa Monica is a good idea. Lincoln Blvd has good rapid bus ridership as is with Green line being an important ridership generator.

8. Santa Monica/Sunset Blvd can't even support a full time rapid bus through the entire length of the corridor right now... I'm not sure it really deserves that much attention to elevate it past the 7 projects above this one. But I have no issue with it being part of the long term vision. But I would focus on the part that does have the best ridership potential - from Century City to Hollywood.

9. But instead of Santa Monica Blvd, I think we should invest in another crosstown line on Venice Blvd. It already has higher bus ridership than Santa Monica, and has arguably more destinations and residential and employment density. The routing is roughly Venice Blvd from the beach to Mid City/Rimpau, and then jumping over to Pico Blvd to Pico Union and Downtown LA. I would end the line at Alameda/7th where it will meet the West Santa Ana line. And 2nd phase will see the line jump the LA River over to East LA and turn north-south on Soto (another high ridership bus line #251/751) and connect with Expo line.

10. Everything else is gravy (e.g. Red line to BUR, Green line to Norwalk Metrolink/HSR) and for political expediency (e.g. Gold line SGV extensions)

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by bzcat

9. But instead of Santa Monica Blvd, I think we should invest in another crosstown line on Venice Blvd. It already has higher bus ridership than Santa Monica, and has arguably more destinations and residential and employment density. The routing is roughly Venice Blvd from the beach to Mid City/Rimpau, and then jumping over to Pico Blvd to Pico Union and Downtown LA. I would end the line at Alameda/7th where it will meet the West Santa Ana line. And 2nd phase will see the line jump the LA River over to East LA and turn north-south on Soto (another high ridership bus line #251/751) and connect with Expo line.

Funny coincidence! I have a very similar route in my "transit lines that no one is advocating but maybe someone should" spreadsheet. Venice Bl, and crossing to Pico at Rimpau. Mine I have following Pico, turning onto Main to Union Station. From Union Station following the freight tracks to Valley for an underground station at Cal State LA and then emerging on Garvey out to El Monte.

Whole thing looks like http://imgur.com/a/6hn3X

I like where your head's at! Isn't a lot of 251/751 duplicative of WSAB though?

[NSMP]

But just to clarify Santa Monica 4/704 has significantly higher ridership than Venice 33/733 even before you factor in the 2. Santa Monica is at just under 29k, Venice just under 23k

[NSMP]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...128-story.html

Hey look, we're bonding $300m from Prop C to pay for a settlement for the 405 freeway widening project. Worth it, totally worth it.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Hello everybody,

I have been working on a plan for building SMB rail, a Crenshaw North extension up La Brea, and rail to the beach. Furthermore, it creates an actual rail grid and stops at all the main destinations. Note that this map only includes lines relevant to this proposal specifically and Measure M, which is why the purple line to Santa Monica, for instance, is not included. Please tell me what you think.



This shows the full 3 phase build out of my proposal. The light green line follows Venice, La Cienega, San Vincente, Santa Monica, and Sunset. I call it the Boulevard Line for short because of all the boulevards it follows.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This image above shows the full build out of my proposed phase one. The Boulevard Line goes from Hollywood/Highland to Wilshire/La Cienega, interlining for the time being with the Crenshaw Line north of Santa Monica/La Brea. The way this works can be seen by this image below:

I propose that each Crenshaw Line train, upon reaching Hollywood/Highland, turn south and become a Boulevard Line train to Wilshire/La Cienega, then turn back north to Hollywood/Highland, and south again along the Crenshaw Line. This allows the Boulevard Line to use the Crenshaw Line's yard for the time being.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Metro does not have the funding to complete this, this shortened version below of the Boulevard Line, combined with Crenshaw North up La Brea, is SHORTER than the proposed Crenshaw North Line up San Vincente and Santa Monica:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, below is my proposed Phase 2 of the project, with the Boulevard line extending from Culver City to Vermont/Santa Monica:

[NSMP]

Pretty nice! I always wonder with proposals to serve only the Hollywood section of Santa Monica Bl where the maintenance yard will go. But interlining it with the Crenshaw line does solve that issue.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Funny coincidence! I have a very similar route in my "transit lines that no one is advocating but maybe someone should" spreadsheet. Venice Bl, and crossing to Pico at Rimpau. Mine I have following Pico, turning onto Main to Union Station. From Union Station following the freight tracks to Valley for an underground station at Cal State LA and then emerging on Garvey out to El Monte.

Whole thing looks like http://imgur.com/a/6hn3X

I like where your head's at! Isn't a lot of 251/751 duplicative of WSAB though?

Yea, check out my version: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9969...0RCbaHaMpVS7fw

Your idea is pretty good too. We both have the right idea... the southern part of SGV should have two LA River crossings to meet demand. It's honestly a much better "bang for the buck" than the endless footholl extension to San Bernandino. I didn't think the line needs to turn to Union Station because we already have a lot of lines going there and it is easy to transfer at either Blue or WASB if you are headed that way.

Soto is not duplicative of WASB because WASB connects Gateway Cities to Downtown. Soto is in East LA.

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by bzcat

3. Vermont Ave subway. I'm ok with this being lightrail, if it ends up being connected to the Glendale line via Echo Park and Silver Lake. This corridor (#204/754) can support heavy rail but it will be an orphaned line with no possible combined operations with existing heavy rail network due to the geometry of Wilshire/Vermont station. It may be better to build it as part of a lightrail network that extends past the #204/754 corridor e.g. to Glendale.

I don't understand a couple things:

First, why does this line/project get overlooked so much? Of all the potential projects Measure M could provide - this NEVER gets anywhere near the top of the list and when it finally is mentioned it's put down as BRT AT BEST (at least in the short term). That just makes no sense. It's one of the most populated bus routes in Los Angeles and is not only the perfect candidate for rail but it's one of the few areas that could justify HEAVY Rail.

Second, can someone please explain to me a) what the whole issue is with the Wiltshire/Vermont station ... b) Why it can't be fixed? .... c) Why can't it turn east and link up with Westlake/MacArthur station?

Look, this should be a HEAVY Rail line and it should be done by 2030 if LA doesn't get the Olympics and it should be done by 2024 if they DO get the games (I know I know, ZERO chance it's done by 2024) - But this should be a Heavy Rail line. Rebuild Wilshire/Vermont station, end of story - because even though this line is valuable as a light rail line of some sort - a Vermont Heavy Rail subway connected to the Red and Purple line is likely the 6th or 7th heaviest riden lines in America - LA needs to prioritize this more and get it done

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by bzcat

Here is what I would propose if I was running Metro, in order of priority:

1. Crenshaw line north via Fairfax - splits the difference between La Brea and La Cienega. Easy connection to Purple line at Fairfax. I don't care about the end to end running time because hardly anyone will be riding it from Hollywood to Torrence. It's an irrelevant factor really. What will be the fastest way to reach Ceders/CBS Studios/Grove area from the SFV? (i.e. a fairly typical commute) Driving the 101 or taking the Red line and then transferring to Crenshaw line? So what if the line takes an extra 6 minutes to reach Torrence?

2. Sepulveda Line. I think this is self-explanatory... The entire enchilada from Van Nuys to LAX.

3. Vermont Ave subway. I'm ok with this being lightrail, if it ends up being connected to the Glendale line via Echo Park and Silver Lake. This corridor (#204/754) can support heavy rail but it will be an orphaned line with no possible combined operations with existing heavy rail network due to the geometry of Wilshire/Vermont station. It may be better to build it as part of a lightrail network that extends past the #204/754 corridor e.g. to Glendale.

4. West Santa Ana line. This is important because it opens up a 2nd Downtown LA connector for the lightrail system. Plus the Gateway cities in SE LA County really deserve better.

5. Wilshire line extension to Santa Monica. I don't understand why people have an issue with this. Once the Sepulveda opens, Expo will not be able to handle the E-W load from transfers. Plus the proximity of Expo terminus to Wilshire is again, completely irrelevant factor. Wilshire and Colorado/Expo (Pico) are completely different corridors in a different parts of the city. People don't say why BBB #7 needs to exist when we have 720 bus... so why is this even a question when it comes to rail?

6. SFV-SGV Crosstown. I'm ok with this being a BRT extension of the Orange line but I certainly understand the impulse to want this as a lightrail line. This line will finally bring the entire lightrail lines together as a single system (assuming Orange line is upgraded).

7. Lincoln Blvd lightrail (Green line extension). Someone already offered a very eloquent defense of this line... The opportunity to connect the existing Green line corridor with employment in Santa Monica is a good idea. Lincoln Blvd has good rapid bus ridership as is with Green line being an important ridership generator.

8. Santa Monica/Sunset Blvd can't even support a full time rapid bus through the entire length of the corridor right now... I'm not sure it really deserves that much attention to elevate it past the 7 projects above this one. But I have no issue with it being part of the long term vision. But I would focus on the part that does have the best ridership potential - from Century City to Hollywood.

9. But instead of Santa Monica Blvd, I think we should invest in another crosstown line on Venice Blvd. It already has higher bus ridership than Santa Monica, and has arguably more destinations and residential and employment density. The routing is roughly Venice Blvd from the beach to Mid City/Rimpau, and then jumping over to Pico Blvd to Pico Union and Downtown LA. I would end the line at Alameda/7th where it will meet the West Santa Ana line. And 2nd phase will see the line jump the LA River over to East LA and turn north-south on Soto (another high ridership bus line #251/751) and connect with Expo line.

10. Everything else is gravy (e.g. Red line to BUR, Green line to Norwalk Metrolink/HSR) and for political expediency (e.g. Gold line SGV extensions)

These are how the LA probjects should be prioritized


1) Sepulveda HEAVY RAIL - Sylmar to LAX (& maybe even to the NFL stadium)

2) Crenshaw Northern Extention to Hollywood/Highland (all underground)
and that includes rebuilding the above ground expo line station into an underground connection with Crenshaw line

3) Vermont HEAVY RAIL from the green line to connect to Wilshire/Vermont

4) SFV-SGV crosstown light rail line (assuming orange is converted)

5) Purple Line to Santa Monica - vastly underrated

6) Lincoln Light Rail - gets all the beaches covered & connects Expo/Purple in SM

7) West Santa Ana Line

8) East Side extension of Light Rail

9) extend what is currently the green and will be the southern branch of the Crenshaw line - but not just to Torrance but past that and all the way south and down to connect back with the blue line

10) A project not talked about, but I think the area where the Blue Line and Expo Line share tracks (is it Flower St?) should be put underground and Pico station should be made into an large UNDERGROUND with connections to LA Live and Staples Center. That area attracts major events and that station is JV League if you ask me - and with the further development that is raking place in the South Park area - it's a no brainer

11) Honestly I think HEAVY RAIL should be extended to arts district in one direction and to the west maybe even latch onto what is currently the silver line BRT. Think about it: the red and purple are the flagships of the line and with a Vermont extension and purple to Santa Monica it will truly be one of the most important lines in the country, the more people you can connect it to the better


If all of these happened you would see an unreal transformation of LA in so many ways

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by bzcat

Yea, check out my version: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9969...0RCbaHaMpVS7fw

Your idea is pretty good too. We both have the right idea... the southern part of SGV should have two LA River crossings to meet demand. It's honestly a much better "bang for the buck" than the endless footholl extension to San Bernandino. I didn't think the line needs to turn to Union Station because we already have a lot of lines going there and it is easy to transfer at either Blue or WASB if you are headed that way.

Soto is not duplicative of WASB because WASB connects Gateway Cities to Downtown. Soto is in East LA.

Ah, I was envisioning the southern part of the bus route. I didn't actually direct the route to Union Station, it happened naturally. On the east side of the river, the grid south of LAUS sweeps southeast toward the already-planned gold line extensions. Soto's a fine choice too, but passing through Union does allow for following the existing freight ROW for a few miles longer, admittedly at the expense of ridership. This is all quite far from reality so I won't get to attached to specifics. Overall, the routes are pretty similar.

[benonlaurel]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Hello everybody,

I have been working on a plan for building SMB rail, a Crenshaw North extension up La Brea, and rail to the beach. Furthermore, it creates an actual rail grid and stops at all the main destinations. Note that this map only includes lines relevant to this proposal specifically and Measure M, which is why the purple line to Santa Monica, for instance, is not included. Please tell me what you think.

Wow, this is great. I had thought of something similar, with the Crenshaw line looping up from Wilshire/La Brea, through Hollywood, and down to the Purple Line again near Robertson. But yours goes a step further and extends a new line to Venice as well as the Eastside. I think this really could be the missing piece that ties together the entire rail system in this part of LA.

You should send this to Metro. They would do well to consider it.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by benonlaurel

Wow, this is great. I had thought of something similar, with the Crenshaw line looping up from Wilshire/La Brea, through Hollywood, and down to the Purple Line again near Robertson. But yours goes a step further and extends a new line to Venice as well as the Eastside. I think this really could be the missing piece that ties together the entire rail system in this part of LA.

You should send this to Metro. They would do well to consider it.

Thanks. I think I'll do just that. Perhaps I'll form a group of people who want this instead of the short sighted San Vincente-Santa Monica extension of the Crenshaw line, but want to serve places in WeHo and Beverly Grove. I would be honored if anybody used my maps to help advocate for this course of action. Write Metro, post it on a website, do whatever.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

10) A project not talked about, but I think the area where the Blue Line and Expo Line share tracks (is it Flower St?) should be put underground and Pico station should be made into an large UNDERGROUND with connections to LA Live and Staples Center. That area attracts major events and that station is JV League if you ask me - and with the further development that is raking place in the South Park area - it's a no brainer

This actually gets talked about a LOT but not on this thread lol on the DTLA thread.

[caligrad]

I updated my "pie in the sky/some of these lines really need to happen" map. I also added in our current and in the works lines (minus the sepulveda). I also added some commentary on some as to why i believe they will work.

Most of the lines just follow the street grid, especially on streets that are wide enough to support LRT (lets be honest, most of our future lines will be this anyway) but i will say that most of my lines north of the 10 i picture being HRT as you will see some will share track with the Red and Purple and etc.

You will also notice i split the crenshaw line into 2 lines, one north/south along crenshaw and one east/west along Florence.

Take a look around. Thoughts? Prayers? Questions ? Answers?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bQ...w0&usp=sharing

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by caligrad

This actually gets talked about a LOT but not on this thread lol on the DTLA thread.

Yes. Personally however, I think it would be foolish to build this tunnel and not have it extend the whole way to exposition boulevard.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Yes. Personally however, I think it would be foolish to build this tunnel and not have it extend the whole way to exposition boulevard.

Doing that would probably cut end-to-end travel time on expo to 40 minutes (it's 33 mins to exp/usc, and fully underground for the rest of the route would be around 7 minutes if you compare to the Purple Line). Throw in preemption from Crenshaw to that tunnel and you probably save another ~5 minutes. Total travel time of 35 minutes would be pretty competitive with driving even during non-peak periods.

But it would also cost a ton, likely well over a billion. This would be a 2.6 mile tunnel with 3 underground stations and a re-built interchange at Washington. Compare that with the 1.9 mile regional connector with 3 underground stations, which will cost around $1.6 billion when complete. The flower route could likely make use of more cut-and-cover, but given the longer route, I'm guessing it would end up costing a similar amount.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

I don't understand a couple things:

First, why does this line/project get overlooked so much? Of all the potential projects Measure M could provide - this NEVER gets anywhere near the top of the list and when it finally is mentioned it's put down as BRT AT BEST (at least in the short term). That just makes no sense. It's one of the most populated bus routes in Los Angeles and is not only the perfect candidate for rail but it's one of the few areas that could justify HEAVY Rail.

Second, can someone please explain to me a) what the whole issue is with the Wiltshire/Vermont station ... b) Why it can't be fixed? .... c) Why can't it turn east and link up with Westlake/MacArthur station?

Look, this should be a HEAVY Rail line and it should be done by 2030 if LA doesn't get the Olympics and it should be done by 2024 if they DO get the games (I know I know, ZERO chance it's done by 2024) - But this should be a Heavy Rail line. Rebuild Wilshire/Vermont station, end of story - because even though this line is valuable as a light rail line of some sort - a Vermont Heavy Rail subway connected to the Red and Purple line is likely the 6th or 7th heaviest riden lines in America - LA needs to prioritize this more and get it done

Vermont corridor doesn't have a strong political base to argue for priority. It is divided into several different city council districts and county supervisors, AND it is ethnically fragmented. The northern part is Korean and Latino, the middle part is Latino and USC, and the southern part is mostly Black. They don't all share the same transit pattern and experiences so these groups aren't on the same page with each other as the SGV elected officials are on Gold line extensions.

The issue with the Wilshire/Vermont station is that is is a split level stacked station. So in order to interline with Red line (which is geometrically ideal), you would have to basically tear down the entire station and shut down the Red and Purple line for years. There is also a TOD on top the station so I'm not sure it is even feasible to reconstruct the station. If you want to terminate the line here, you can build a new station just south of the intersection and link the two with some sort of walkway tunnel but that sacrifices the operational flexibility of being able to interline with Red line. and it preclude the ability to extend the line further north towards Echo Park, Silver Lake, and Glendale.

The solution of course is to route the Vermont subway line to Westlake/MacArthur station where it is possible to build a new station below the existing station to enable transfer between the two lines. However, this creates its own issues... most of the travel on Vermont corridor is going north past Pico Blvd so if the line turns East towards Westlake/MacArthur, you are forcing an extra transfer. Now transfer is not necessarily a bad thing but you can see on my map that it turns a relative straightforward shot down Vermont into an awkward detour for people going from South LA towards K-Town.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0547...0RCbaHaMpVS7fw

A third option that I think is possible is to route the Vermont line north towards Wilshire/Vermont but go east of the intersection. We can probably build a parallel station and link the two with some sort of walkway but this will require Metro to acquire some existing (potentially expensive) properties.

So as one can see... it is a complicated problem with no easy solution. I wish Metro had thought about it 30 years ago and build a "normal" station box at Wilshire/Vermont.

[ChargerCarl]

Is it worth biting the bullet and rebuild the wilshire/vermont station then?

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Is it worth biting the bullet and rebuild the wilshire/vermont station then?

My opinion is no. Rebuilding the station is probably the most expensive option that will involve major service disruption and Metro will have to buy back the TOD on top of the station and raze most of it.

My preference, if we go with heavy rail, is the mid-block option (east of the Wilshire/Vemont intersection, with station box around Wilshire/Virgil Ave) and then tunnel back towards the west to join with Red line before reaching Vermont/Beverly station. I don't know how feasible this is but it's probably the less problematic solution.

My preference, if we go with light rail, is to route it to Westlake station, and continue north towards Glendale via Alvarado St.