HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4741  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2018, 8:25 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
atomic
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT View Post
The Vermont Corridor Red Line idea, to provide a straight corridor from SFV to South Bay is admirable until we realize that Wilshire/Vermont would be an overloaded forced transfer point for current and future Red Line passengers trying to reach Downtown LA CBD, especially on the Purple Line which will be very highly utilized with the Westwood extension even with short headways.

All we have to do is look at Toronto's Metro at Bloor/Yonge to see how that impacts capacity and demand unless there is another entry into Downtown Toronto. They are looking at a Downtown Relief Line to solve this problem. Yonge Street is Toronto's Wilshire Blvd, the Bloor Street line is like our Red Line in that it connects the inner suburbs into the edge of the CBD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloor%...3Yonge_station

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...bate-1.4129332

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle37813027/

Here in LA I see the same exact scenario, unless another entry point can be built to replace that section of service into our Downtown CBD for the Red Line.
LA isn't Toronto, though. Toronto is like New York or Chicago with a highly centralized CBD and a huge percentage of jobs there. DTLA only has 3% of regional jobs, Toronto's Downtown has 35%.

The forced transfer, such as it is, wouldn't really affect a lot of commuters in absolute terms and it would open up a direct commute for people going to the South LA or the South Bay, and could turn a VERY long 3-seat ride into a manageable 2-seat ride for some of the 97% of Angelenos that don't work in DTLA.

Not only that, but the Wilshire subway east of Vermont is still only two tracks. If there is a huge influx of riders after Purple Line opens to Westwood, Metro will have constrained frequency on both Purple and Red Lines because of the interlining.

The advantage of the grid layout is that there are always two and sometimes several routes between two points in the network. If the Orange Line -> Red Line -> DTLA commute becomes unmanageable because of a forced transfer at Wilshire/Vermont, SFV commuters can switch to a Sepulveda -> Purple Line commute and keep their two-seat ride.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4742  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2018, 10:50 PM
LineDrive LineDrive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT View Post
1) Costs and;
2) The alternatives have already progressed to where they are near selecting a Locally Preferred Alternative. Adding HRT into the mix means they have to restart the Alternatives Analysis and delay 2-3 years worth of work in the SFV in which Elected officals there would be crying foul to Metro. As stupid as this is, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
This will forever blow my mind. I don’t care WHAT the excuses are.

The state budget is what, $183B? How much would it cost to turn the Van Nuys line from LRT to HRT? $3B maybe? The state couldn’t throw in $1B or $2B for the next couple of years for a project that will transform the states flagship city? And that’s just the state, then the county and Metro itself could throw in money. Who knows what they could get in grants. And then what about private partnerships?

LRT from Sylmar to Ventura and then HRT from Ventura to LAX reeks of the kind of disorganized public transit planning that has made LA mass transit a joke. That’s a couple of lines that will be used but woefully under its potential, leading to billions in changes 10-20 years down the road.

Meanwhile a Heavy Rail line from Sylmar to UCLA, Expo, LAX and ending at Inglewood Stadium would be probably one of the most heavily used Subway lines in the world outside of Asia. It would be Efficient. It would be incredible. It would be world class.

(Hell, honestly if costs are so prohibitive - I sincerely think the valley would be better off with a HRT line that extends half of the original plan: Say maybe as far as the MetroLink station? and connects to the Sepulveda line to be one continuous line ... that’s a far better option that a LRT line that goes all the way to Sylmar but forces a transfer to a HRT line at Sepulveda

Get it together Los Angeles. The stubbornness, the narrow mindedness and pure idiocy of Metro is gonna rob LA of what could be a truly world class system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4743  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 3:33 AM
numble numble is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by LineDrive View Post
This will forever blow my mind. I don’t care WHAT the excuses are.

The state budget is what, $183B? How much would it cost to turn the Van Nuys line from LRT to HRT? $3B maybe? The state couldn’t throw in $1B or $2B for the next couple of years for a project that will transform the states flagship city? And that’s just the state, then the county and Metro itself could throw in money. Who knows what they could get in grants. And then what about private partnerships?

LRT from Sylmar to Ventura and then HRT from Ventura to LAX reeks of the kind of disorganized public transit planning that has made LA mass transit a joke. That’s a couple of lines that will be used but woefully under its potential, leading to billions in changes 10-20 years down the road.

Meanwhile a Heavy Rail line from Sylmar to UCLA, Expo, LAX and ending at Inglewood Stadium would be probably one of the most heavily used Subway lines in the world outside of Asia. It would be Efficient. It would be incredible. It would be world class.

(Hell, honestly if costs are so prohibitive - I sincerely think the valley would be better off with a HRT line that extends half of the original plan: Say maybe as far as the MetroLink station? and connects to the Sepulveda line to be one continuous line ... that’s a far better option that a LRT line that goes all the way to Sylmar but forces a transfer to a HRT line at Sepulveda

Get it together Los Angeles. The stubbornness, the narrow mindedness and pure idiocy of Metro is gonna rob LA of what could be a truly world class system.
There is a process for securing state funding, and this year, the East San Fernando Valley corridor project already secured $202.1 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program and roughly $230 million from the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. Metro and the county is limited in how much they can fund outside of the $810.5 million from Measure M and $170.1 million from Measure R, Prop C, and various federal/state funds, as they are building 27 other projects.

Compared to the less than $2 billion for the East San Fernando Valley corridor project, the Sepulveda Transit Corridor has $9.5 billion in funding.

The best hope seems to be either the PPP contractor being interested in combining the projects or delaying the East San Fernando Valley project until there are more funds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4744  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 5:26 AM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
Wow, none of the options give UCLA a station. Disappointing.

EDIT: Also, no station at Santa Monica Blvd. Metro is dumb as fuck. I can’t take it anymore.
Like others have said nothing has been decided, but here's some potential locations"

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4745  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 6:45 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,708
I've always imagined the station going on Santa Monica and Sepulveda, but a station on either Santa Monica and Westwood or Olympic and Sawtelle are intoxicating prospects. Honestly, all three of those locations are equally as valid an area for a potential station, and in a perfect world they would each have one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4746  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 6:56 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,651
A station at Santa Monica / Barrington would be the most transformative, as that neighborhood is already dense (and getting denser). Add in the Purple Line extension to Santa Monica (it will happen, we just don't know when) and everything west of the 405, north of the 10, and south of Montana becomes an area with some of the best rail coverage anywhere in the US. Most people would be within walking distance (0.5 miles, 10 minutes) of a rail station.

But the thing is, I've always envisioned this line serving Palms / Culver City and not freaking Mar Vista!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4747  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 7:01 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
A station at Santa Monica / Barrington would be the most transformative, as that neighborhood is already dense (and getting denser). Add in the Purple Line extension to Santa Monica (it will happen, we just don't know when) and everything west of the 405, north of the 10, and south of Montana becomes an area with some of the best rail coverage anywhere in the US. Most people would be within walking distance (0.5 miles, 10 minutes) of a rail station.
The question becomes, do we want to locate a rail station based on the potential transformative impacts it will have, or because the area is currently the best candidate for rail expansion? My issue with Santa Monica and Barrington is that placing the station there would most likely mean that the Purple Line transfer point will be at the VA, which is a far worse option than Wilshire and Westwood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4748  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 7:01 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
There is a process for securing state funding, and this year, the East San Fernando Valley corridor project already secured $202.1 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program and roughly $230 million from the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. Metro and the county is limited in how much they can fund outside of the $810.5 million from Measure M and $170.1 million from Measure R, Prop C, and various federal/state funds, as they are building 27 other projects.

Compared to the less than $2 billion for the East San Fernando Valley corridor project, the Sepulveda Transit Corridor has $9.5 billion in funding.

The best hope seems to be either the PPP contractor being interested in combining the projects or delaying the East San Fernando Valley project until there are more funds.
They could use some of the Sepulveda money and transfer it to the ESFV, although not officially since they have to follow the expenditure plan as voted on. The Sepulveda study area actually extends up to the Metrolink ROW, and as we see in Concept 2, they're willing to overlap.

I thought you said that since they're pursuing a PPP, Sepulveda would have to be separate from ESFV?

Last edited by Quixote; Jun 11, 2018 at 7:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4749  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 7:09 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
The question becomes, do we want to locate a rail station based on the potential transformative impacts it will have, or because the area is currently the best candidate for rail expansion? My issue with Santa Monica and Barrington is that placing the station there would most likely mean that the Purple Line transfer point will be at the VA, which is a far worse option than Wilshire and Westwood.
This is the catch-22 with building rail in LA. We're trying to reorient the city around the rail system, but we're building said rail based on the here and now. It pretty much describes why the Purple Line can't reach Santa Monica.

I agree with you though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4750  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 7:20 AM
numble numble is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
They could use some of the Sepulveda money and transfer it to the ESFV, although not officially since they have to follow the expenditure plan as voted on. The Sepulveda study area actually extends up to the Metrolink ROW, and as we see in Concept 2, they're willing to overlap.

I thought you said that since they're pursuing a PPP, Sepulveda would have to be separate from ESFV?
I probably made a comment either here or somewhere else saying that the PPP contractor for the Sepulveda line probably wants their project to be a distinct line that does not interline with anything. That would mean not having a second project by a different contractor interline with it (like the ESFV) because they may want to a) have as part of the contract the sale and maintenance of vehicles (and maybe they don't want to maintain trains that run on another line they have no control over) or b) charge an extra fare (and its hard to charge an extra fare if it is interlined with another line they have no control over). But I guess if it was the other way around, a hypothetical Sepulveda line PPP contractor may be happy with combining the projects and doing both themselves. I think there haven't been any PPP proposals for the ESFV project though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4751  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 11:08 PM
Car(e)-Free LA Car(e)-Free LA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 205
I think the stops should be:
UCLA
Wilshire/Westwood
Santa Monica/Westwood
New Expo transfer around Overland/National
Overland/Palms
Overland/Venice
Overland/Culver
Jefferson/ West LA College
<transition to elevated>
Playa Street/Westfield Culver City
Howard Hughes
Westchester Village
LAX
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4752  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2018, 12:57 AM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
LA isn't Toronto, though. Toronto is like New York or Chicago with a highly centralized CBD and a huge percentage of jobs there. DTLA only has 3% of regional jobs, Toronto's Downtown has 35%.

The forced transfer, such as it is, wouldn't really affect a lot of commuters in absolute terms and it would open up a direct commute for people going to the South LA or the South Bay, and could turn a VERY long 3-seat ride into a manageable 2-seat ride for some of the 97% of Angelenos that don't work in DTLA.

Not only that, but the Wilshire subway east of Vermont is still only two tracks. If there is a huge influx of riders after Purple Line opens to Westwood, Metro will have constrained frequency on both Purple and Red Lines because of the interlining.

The advantage of the grid layout is that there are always two and sometimes several routes between two points in the network. If the Orange Line -> Red Line -> DTLA commute becomes unmanageable because of a forced transfer at Wilshire/Vermont, SFV commuters can switch to a Sepulveda -> Purple Line commute and keep their two-seat ride.
Because of this interlining that will mean riders in the Hollywood/SFV portion of the line has destinations to where? Yes Downtown LA, which is the core of what I am articulating.

The job destinations isn't as much of a factor compared to other cities when Downtown LA serves as a transportation hub to many other destinations within the system that commuters are connecting to, a grid within a grid.

Within this current network grid in order to have a straight Vermont Corridor another line will need to be built from Vermont to Downtown LA to expand upon this grid concept, one could exist from existing Red Line at LA City College through Sunset Junction, Silver Lake, Echo Park, Elysian Park and Chinatown probably via Sunste Blvd to DTLA and beyond.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4753  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2018, 1:02 AM
LineDrive LineDrive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA View Post
I think the stops should be:
UCLA
Wilshire/Westwood
Santa Monica/Westwood
New Expo transfer around Overland/National
Overland/Palms
Overland/Venice
Overland/Culver
Jefferson/ West LA College
<transition to elevated>
Playa Street/Westfield Culver City
Howard Hughes
Westchester Village
LAX
Agree with most of those stations.

The transition to elevated is fine in Culver City but I think once you get back to LAX/96th station you have to go back underground for a few reasons: One there isn’t going to be a lot of above ground room with two light rail lines elevated, plus a People mover & you can’t go at grade because it’s third rail HRT.

Another thing, I think if the Expo to LAX phase of the line is built within the next decade you’re likely to see it terminate at the Inglewood stadium site. You’re going to have a MEGA residential & retail development with one of the biggest & best stadiums in the world, two premier entertainment venues (Forum & the 6k theater at the stadium) and potentially a world class arena for the clippers across the street. With all that...Metro would be beyond stupid (even for them) to not build an underground mega station there.....(I guess unless they built a SECOND people mover from the LAX/96th line station or extended the airport one which might be a better option)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4754  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2018, 1:52 AM
saybanana saybanana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 95
thats a lot of stops for 10 miles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4755  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2018, 3:18 PM
LineDrive LineDrive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by saybanana View Post
thats a lot of stops for 10 miles
Not sure what I was thinking ageeeong with those locations. Some of them actually are too close together: This is the ideal scenario. Really the perfect scenario, The scenario that gives LA most of what it needs to have a world class transportation system on par with any American system other than NY. IF this scenario was realized, I think the Crenshaw north extension would be the only missing link.

The scenario is as following:

A Sepulveda/ESFV line

•San Fernando / Van Nuys (Build new METROLink stop here, whole station above ground - it’s a little ways before the original terminus at Sylmar ML, saves some money)
•Arleta / Van Nuys
•Van Nuys Metrolink station
•Vanowen / Van Nuys
•Van Nuys / Orange Line (Orange LRT)
•Westwood/UCLA (Purple)
•Westwood/Santa Monica
•Expo/Sepulveda (Expo LRT)
Don’t know much about the area between Expo/Sepulveda & LAX - locals would be better to list areas best suited for stations but in this part of the project I think 1.5 miles between stations is appropriate and it could come above ground after Expo/Sepulveda and then return underground at LAX station (96th & Century)
•LAX at 96th & Century (Green LRT, Crenshaw LRT, LAX PM)
•City of Champions
•Century & S. Vermont (Red HRT) (Perfect ‘Park & Ride’ terminus location, here it should connect to the the Red Line extension)

This gives Los Angeles 3 major HRT lines. Purple from Arts to VA (& eventually SM), Red from North Hollywood to Vermont/Athens and Sepulveda from San Fernando to Vermont/Century.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4756  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2018, 9:28 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 287
I'm opposed to branching the purple line as shown in Concept 6. That 3-way junction is going to be a nightmare. There should be just a simple transfer at VA (or Westwood) station to/from the N-S and E-W line.

Concept 4 is most ideal if it was HRT but that boat sailed a while ago when Metro decided to study the two corridors separately (even though it is really one continuous corridor).

Concept 1 & 2 as a separate HRT is a good choice if we are confident that Metro will continue to extend the line to LAX.

Also in Concept 4, it looks like Metro is thinking about branching the line in the Valley side with one end connecting to ESV line and one end continuing on the Orange line ROW. I think branching in the Valley is in general a good idea because this will maximize the frequency and capacity thru the Sepulveda Pass. But if I live in the Valley, I'm not so sure I want to give up the possibility of converting the entire Orange line to rail. If Metro end up extending Concept 4 to Orange line west of Sepulveda, that will basically doom the section east of Sepulveda to bus way forever.

So to improve Concept 1 or 2 (or 4 if we are stuck with LRT) Metro should look at branching the line underground via Ventura Blvd instead of using Orange line ROW.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4757  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2018, 11:55 PM
LineDrive LineDrive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 14
Those who really know about what’s going on, what do you think Metro decides?

Im beginning to feel like they go with LRT. It just makes no sense to go HRT unless they change their mind on ESFV. These two projects have to be together, end of sentence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4758  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2018, 9:37 AM
saybanana saybanana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 95
I feel the San Fernando Valley needs a "Union Station of the Valley"
A major transit hub I think at the Van Nuys Amtrak/Metrolink Station. A terminus where many buses, light rail or streetcars will connect the San Fernando Valley, long distance trains, and the Sepulveda pass line will connect it to the westside and LAX. A station simlar to ARTIC in Anaheim.

Im not sure if HRT or LRT will be picked. I dont know what is the projected ridership nor the costs.
I think HRT should get picked because other than Red Line terminus at North Hollywood, this will be the only other major transit line that will ever get built connecting the 2 million valley population to the other side of the hill. Right now I dont think there are a lot of users but in a few decades, when the overall system is built out and a much bigger population in both the valley and the basin, I think this line will be critical moving large amounts of people. I can imagine when it is done, during a summer heatwave,100,000 people will jump on the train and head to Santa monica beach.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4759  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2018, 2:22 PM
transitfan transitfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by LineDrive View Post
Not sure what I was thinking ageeeong with those locations. Some of them actually are too close together: This is the ideal scenario. Really the perfect scenario, The scenario that gives LA most of what it needs to have a world class transportation system on par with any American system other than NY. IF this scenario was realized, I think the Crenshaw north extension would be the only missing link.

The scenario is as following:

A Sepulveda/ESFV line

•San Fernando / Van Nuys (Build new METROLink stop here, whole station above ground - it’s a little ways before the original terminus at Sylmar ML, saves some money)
•Arleta / Van Nuys
•Van Nuys Metrolink station
•Vanowen / Van Nuys
•Van Nuys / Orange Line (Orange LRT)
•Westwood/UCLA (Purple)
•Westwood/Santa Monica
•Expo/Sepulveda (Expo LRT)
Don’t know much about the area between Expo/Sepulveda & LAX - locals would be better to list areas best suited for stations but in this part of the project I think 1.5 miles between stations is appropriate and it could come above ground after Expo/Sepulveda and then return underground at LAX station (96th & Century)
•LAX at 96th & Century (Green LRT, Crenshaw LRT, LAX PM)
•City of Champions
•Century & S. Vermont (Red HRT) (Perfect ‘Park & Ride’ terminus location, here it should connect to the the Red Line extension)

This gives Los Angeles 3 major HRT lines. Purple from Arts to VA (& eventually SM), Red from North Hollywood to Vermont/Athens and Sepulveda from San Fernando to Vermont/Century.
I lived on the westside and South Bay for much of the 20+ years I was in L.A., so I'll take a shot at stations between Expo/Sepulveda and LAX

-- Sepulveda/Venice
-- Sepulveda/Culver (Washington might be better, but it's too close to Venice, IMO)
-- Fox Hills Mall
-- Sepulveda/Manchester
-- LAX
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4760  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2018, 7:12 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by transitfan View Post
I lived on the westside and South Bay for much of the 20+ years I was in L.A., so I'll take a shot at stations between Expo/Sepulveda and LAX

-- Sepulveda/Venice
-- Sepulveda/Culver (Washington might be better, but it's too close to Venice, IMO)
-- Fox Hills Mall
-- Sepulveda/Manchester
-- LAX
Yes I agree these are the missing station from his list.

Also he is missing a couple of station on the Valley side, most notably, Ventura Blvd.
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 5:03 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.