LOS ANGELES | METRO Project Rundown 2.0 (non-downtown) - Page 350

ConstructDTLA · #**6981** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 6:37 PM**

mbb · #**6982** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 9:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

^Speaking of B1 bombers, you see the giant strip mall in the picture with Lowe's, Target, Staples etc.? It use to be a factory for Lockheed where they would make war planes and other vehicles too. Lockheed left in the 90s and it was developed into what it is now called the Empire Center, opening in 2001. I think it was truly a huge mistake and an enormous waste of land. It's about an entire square mile and there is way too much parking. The only time it is ever more than half full is on Black Friday. A wild dream I have is to redevelop it. Route a metro line to it and create an urban village type thing. I'd tear everything down except for the three midrise office buildings. There would be a lot of greenspace. It could consist of a bunch of 5-25 story buildings. The same big box stores already there could be on the bottom floor and hundreds of residential units could be on top. Streetscape would be key and keeping all parking underground and out of sight would be very important.

Two metrolink lines run on either side of this. If metrolink could run proper S-bahn / RER service and add an infill station, that should be sufficient at pretty low cost. Main thing would be to get metrolink to actually run a proper service - maybe let Metro run trains on their track?

King Kill 'em · #**6983** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 10:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbb

Two metrolink lines run on either side of this. If metrolink could run proper S-bahn / RER service and add an infill station, that should be sufficient at pretty low cost. Main thing would be to get metrolink to actually run a proper service - maybe let Metro run trains on their track?

Metrolink service is honestly a joke unless you're commuting to work from far away. Here's what I was thinking. https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...OQ&usp=sharing This is a work in progress.

Jun · #**6984** Posted **Feb 12, 2016, 12:22 AM**

Part of why Metrolink sucks is because it shares the rightaway with freight companies. Which means: A. Service is dicated by the owner of the tracks, B. Draconian safety laws mandate the train cars be built like tanks increasing weight and complexity C. Electrification is out, which would decrease operating costs significantly.

DJM19 · #**6985** Posted **Feb 12, 2016, 1:39 AM**

Metrolink does have some double-tracking projects going on. Long term it would be amazing to see them run a more S-Bahn like serivce...One can dream.

SoCalKid · #**6986** Posted **Feb 12, 2016, 4:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJM19

Metrolink does have some double-tracking projects going on. Long term it would be amazing to see them run a more S-Bahn like serivce...One can dream.

I don't have much experience with Metrolink and zero experience with S-Bahn. Can someone explain what makes Metrolink deficient and what services like S-Bahn do better? Are Metrolink's deficiencies the result of having to share track with freight?

timpdx · #**6987** Posted **Feb 12, 2016, 5:59 AM**

I have taken S-Bahn trains around Munich and Metrolink (plus the Sounder in Seattle-similar systyem) Also have taken commuter trains elsewhere in Europe and Asia (France, Belgium, UK, Malaysia, Tokyo area, Seoul).

Metrolink only runs 6 trains ALL DAY to Riverside, and only 4 to Ventura/Oxnard. As a tourist in Asia or Europe, I could take a commuter train in any of the above countries, at least on the hour, if not the half hour, including non-rush hours, to my destination. Those trains ran on dedicated track, maybe same right of way as freight, but dedicated track for the passenger train, so no stopping delays. Those trips also cost about half or 2/3s of Metrolink.

Go look at the Metrolink schedules online, if you don't work those hours then the system is useless to you. If you need to leave work early or go in late you are boned, same if you are part time. Hey, I am happy to have Metrolink and love riding the rails, but the schedules suck. Its just nowhere nearly as comprehensive as needed. And Munich, Tokyo and KL are rather multi-nodal cities, yet they make commuter rail work decently and people seem to use it.

ChargerCarl · #**6988** Posted **Feb 12, 2016, 8:45 AM**

Good post on metrolink: https://letsgola.wordpress.com/2015/...rolink-part-1/

mbb · #**6989** Posted **Feb 12, 2016, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by timpdx

Metrolink only runs 6 trains ALL DAY to Riverside, and only 4 to Ventura/Oxnard. As a tourist in Asia or Europe, I could take a commuter train in any of the above countries, at least on the hour, if not the half hour, including non-rush hours, to my destination. Those trains ran on dedicated track, maybe same right of way as freight, but dedicated track for the passenger train, so no stopping delays. Those trips also cost about half or 2/3s of Metrolink.

Go look at the Metrolink schedules online, if you don't work those hours then the system is useless to you. If you need to leave work early or go in late you are boned, same if you are part time. Hey, I am happy to have Metrolink and love riding the rails, but the schedules suck. Its just nowhere nearly as comprehensive as needed. And Munich, Tokyo and KL are rather multi-nodal cities, yet they make commuter rail work decently and people seem to use it.

RER (Paris) and S-bahn (Germany) typically have headways of at most 15 minutes. Many RER lines in Paris run every 5 minutes or so (special case, I know). If you have 30 min headways, you can go to and from work every day, and not really miss a car if you get an emergency call that you need to go back home for something mid-day. 15 minute headways, and it's not the end of the world if you just show up to the station any time without knowing the schedule. 5 minute headways and it's not even worth bothering to look at a schedule.

I really think that Metro and Metrolink should work together on getting some kind of frequent service within LA county, possibly with Metro running their own trains. Metrolink as an organization is so boned with having to share track (though this varies from line to line) and having to agree on finances with all the participating counties, including ones that are notoriously poor on transit funding. This would be a win-win, as Metrolink would get additional service, possibly with some kind of track fees for accounting purposes (track maintenance costs), and Metro would get to expand its network and ridership without the massive capital costs of new construction.

ConstructDTLA · #**6990** Posted **Feb 13, 2016, 12:41 AM**

Wilshire Boulevard by Hunter, on Flickr

3033 Wilshire by Hunter, on Flickr

NYC2ATX · #**6991** Posted **Feb 13, 2016, 7:28 PM**

Hunter, every time I see your photos, I fall in love with Los Angeles all over again, and I've not yet even been there.

NSMP · #**6992** Posted **Feb 13, 2016, 9:47 PM**

Hey all, I am going to be starting a blog on transit issues in LA called Red Line Reader. I won't be posting links on here much unless they are explicitly related to construction and/or planning issues, but I'll leave the link in my signature for anyone happens to be interested in my take on this stuff

. The first post is up now and relates to some new proposed north-south alignments for the Washington Blvd branch of the Gold Line Extension. Metro is set to receive the update in committee this week, and the release of the full technical study for the Eastside extension phase 2 is expected later this year.

https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/

Quixote · #**6993** Posted **Feb 13, 2016, 10:45 PM**

^ Bookmarked!

King Kill 'em · #**6994** Posted **Feb 14, 2016, 2:28 AM**

http://fakeisthenewreal.org/everylot/

pretty neat

blackcat23 · #**6995** Posted **Feb 15, 2016, 8:28 PM**

http://urbanize.la/post/another-oran...e-tod-revealed

Five-story development to break ground next to Orange Line busway in mid-2016. 70 apartments and 1,750 square feet of ground-level retail space, designed by GMPA Architects.

timpdx · #**6996** Posted **Feb 15, 2016, 9:30 PM**

Wilshire/Virgil from today:

King Kill 'em · #**6997** Posted **Feb 16, 2016, 1:42 AM**

Plan from the 60s to make Santa Monica Boulevard a freeway and turn the Beverly Hills Triangle into a parking lot. Thank god it didn't happen.

IMG_4172 2 by Oscar Gake, on Flickr

ConstructDTLA · #**6998** Posted **Feb 16, 2016, 5:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

Hunter, every time I see your photos, I fall in love with Los Angeles all over again, and I've not yet even been there.

Thanks I appreciate it

Come visit soon.

blackcat23 · #**6999** Posted **Feb 16, 2016, 8:30 PM**

http://urbanize.la/post/new-hotel-makes-progress-vine

Near the intersection of Santa Monica and Vine: six stories, 112 hotel rooms and a small ground-level cafe.

caligrad · #**7000** Posted **Feb 16, 2016, 9:04 PM**

^^^Glad to see that stretch of Santa Monica receiving some sort of action. I hate getting of the 101 and seeing it lined with industrial buildings, strip malls and some abandoned buildings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

Plan from the 60s to make Santa Monica Boulevard a freeway and turn the Beverly Hills Triangle into a parking lot. Thank god it didn't happen.

Makes you wonder what exactly were they thinking back then. I mean obviously there is no way to predict the future but I'm sure somebody with a shred of common sense knew adding freeways and millions fo cars would be a horrible idea for the long run, especially since they allowed the dismantling of all the mass transit we had .

I watched a youtube vid the other day about the LA freeways, it was a documentary about the construction of the freeways and was filmed during the construction. Its funny because the narrator even stated "The freeways we have completed are already chocked with traffic, we need the remaining freeways to finish construction". My first thought was.....wasn't that a sign that maybe building the freeways were a bad idea? haha.