HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2401  
Old Posted May 29, 2013, 6:35 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
I'm not sure LRT ridership capacity would be as big of a deal as some might make it out to be for this line.

Given the proposed stations would all be completely new couldn't you probably design it to accommodate 4-5 car length trains, and/or perhaps increase headways comparable to that of HRT lines?
Metro, given how incapable they are of thinking outside the box, probably isn't envisaging the LRT subway platforms as such. Same capacity and same length means same cost, more or less.

I also laugh at the notion of at-grade LRT down steep Overland and congested Sepulveda as a legitimate option. Those stations will also have to be below-grade, dummies. What a bunch of morons.
__________________
"I'm an LA guy, can't help it." -- Tiger Woods

"The power of imagination makes us infinite." -- John Muir
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2402  
Old Posted May 29, 2013, 4:03 PM
Munchitup Munchitup is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
Metro, given how incapable they are of thinking outside the box, probably isn't envisaging the LRT subway platforms as such. Same capacity and same length means same cost, more or less.

I also laugh at the notion of at-grade LRT down steep Overland and congested Sepulveda as a legitimate option. Those stations will also have to be below-grade, dummies. What a bunch of morons.
Is the Van Nuys / Sepulveda Corridor jobs-dense enough to warrant HRT? It certainly has some pockets of very high density and a large transit-dependent population. However there are not many major employment destinations along the route, with the exception of Sherman Oaks. Additionally, HRT is not one of the options for the ESFVC line.

Therefore, if you built HRT (which I agree is the proper mode for the congested Westside) there will be a required transfer at Sherman Oaks, ala the North Hollywood transfer from the Red to Orange Lines.

So the question is, what is more important? A slower one-seat ride on LRT from Sylmar to LAX or a (most-likely) quicker LRT-to-HRT ride that requires a transfer at Sherman Oaks?

I think I know what your answer would be, and I think I agree. If the headways are short enough for both lines, you will be able to limit time wasted waiting for your transfer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2403  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2013, 6:10 PM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 760
Why are we assuming LRT will be at-grade for a Sepulveda pass project? Do you recall the initial proposals of the Crenshaw Line were initially at-grade (I'm referring to the segment north of the Leimart Park station), and now will be fully underground? Metro has built underground segments and stations for their LRT system, as needed. The Regional Connector will be fully underground and so was the Expo Line section between Jefferson and Expo Park. Also, Metro has said that to go north of Expo/Crenshaw on the Crenshaw Line northern extension, the line would have to be fully underground on its way to Hollywood.

Based on traffic assessments, at-grade will not park for the Sepulveda Pass project. The study does state "grade separate where necessary". Based on the crossings of the Expo Line, you should forsee that grade seperation is necessary at nearly all cross streets on Sepulveda.

Last edited by LAofAnaheim; Jun 2, 2013 at 10:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2404  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2013, 10:16 PM
StethJeff's Avatar
StethJeff StethJeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,040
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim View Post
Why are we assuming LRT will be at-grade for a Sepulveda pass project? Do you recall the initial proposals of the Crenshaw Line were initially at-grade (I'm referring to the segment north of the Leimart Park station), and now will be fully underground? Metro has built underground segments and stations for their LRT system, as needed. The Regional Connector will be fully underground and so was the Expo Line section between Jefferson and Expo Park. Also, Metro has said that to go north of Expo/Crenshaw on the Crenshaw Line northern extension, the line would have to be fully underground on its way to Hollywood.

Based on traffic assessments, at-grade will not park for the Sepulveda Pass project. The study does state "grade separate where necessary". Based on the crossings of the Expo Line, you should forsee that grade seperation is necessary at nearly all cross streets on Sepulveda.
Has there ever been any sort discussion about which route the Crenshaw line will likely take once it continues North? Larchmont? Vine? Highland? Hybrid? Something completely different? So much potential there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2405  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2013, 12:42 AM
blackcat23's Avatar
blackcat23 blackcat23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by StethJeff View Post
Has there ever been any sort discussion about which route the Crenshaw line will likely take once it continues North? Larchmont? Vine? Highland? Hybrid? Something completely different? So much potential there.
Not sure if this is official or not, but it was posted on the Transit Coalition forum.



Both options here send it north on Crenshaw until heading west on Venice and then San Vicente.

Option one has turns north on La Brea until reaching a terminus at Hollywood and Highland.

Options two keeps going on San Vicente until reaching Santa Monica Blvd. It would then turn east on SaMo Blvd and continue until La Brea, at which point it turns north and terminates at Hollywood and Highland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2406  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2013, 6:35 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,531
^ I like that map a lot, because it illustrates the true value of the Crenshaw Corridor and that's the northern extension that will follow. The initial Expo-Green segment won't generate good ridership figures, but it's an important missing link in our rail system and it's a necessary precursor to a greater north-south corridor that will serve new areas. It's important for the critics not to lose sight of the bigger picture.
__________________
"I'm an LA guy, can't help it." -- Tiger Woods

"The power of imagination makes us infinite." -- John Muir
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2407  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2013, 7:02 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim View Post
Why are we assuming LRT will be at-grade for a Sepulveda pass project? Do you recall the initial proposals of the Crenshaw Line were initially at-grade (I'm referring to the segment north of the Leimart Park station), and now will be fully underground? Metro has built underground segments and stations for their LRT system, as needed. The Regional Connector will be fully underground and so was the Expo Line section between Jefferson and Expo Park. Also, Metro has said that to go north of Expo/Crenshaw on the Crenshaw Line northern extension, the line would have to be fully underground on its way to Hollywood.

Based on traffic assessments, at-grade will not park for the Sepulveda Pass project. The study does state "grade separate where necessary". Based on the crossings of the Expo Line, you should forsee that grade seperation is necessary at nearly all cross streets on Sepulveda.
I'm just going off what I see from the link JDRCRASH posted (page 7).

Metro has at-grade LRT planned starting immediately south of Century City and continuing all the way down to LAX. Hence the $7.4 billion price tag.

If what you're saying is true, it's not really "half the price" of HRT as JDRCRASH has claimed.
__________________
"I'm an LA guy, can't help it." -- Tiger Woods

"The power of imagination makes us infinite." -- John Muir
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2408  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2013, 9:14 AM
StethJeff's Avatar
StethJeff StethJeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
^ I like that map a lot, because it illustrates the true value of the Crenshaw Corridor and that's the northern extension that will follow. The initial Expo-Green segment won't generate good ridership figures, but it's an important missing link in our rail system and it's a necessary precursor to a greater north-south corridor that will serve new areas. It's important for the critics not to lose sight of the bigger picture.
My only problem with that above map is that it appears that the Crenshaw line is attempting to do too much. The first option, for example, cuts West on San Vicente then cuts sharply East onto SaMo before cutting again to go North on Highland. Wtf? The westside can easily use 2 and justifiably maybe 3 N-S lines (La Brea, Fairfax, La Cienega, Robertson, etc) yet its someone's bright idea at Metro that the Crenshaw line is just gonna serpentine slowly up the middle and cover as many bases as possible?

They can obviously build more lines in the future and do some realignment but that concept makes no sense to me. It also seems to suggest that the Pink Line is no where near ever happening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2409  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2013, 2:02 PM
AusTex's Avatar
AusTex AusTex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 253
[QUOTE=blackcat23;6150573]Not sure if this is official or not, but it was posted on the Transit Coalition forum.

QUOTE]

Can you give us a link? Their site has a lot of options and I am not finding this section/map. Thanks
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2410  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2013, 3:38 PM
blackcat23's Avatar
blackcat23 blackcat23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,362
[QUOTE=AusTex;6151045]
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackcat23 View Post
Can you give us a link? Their site has a lot of options and I am not finding this section/map. Thanks
http://transittalk.proboards.com/thread/971#

Quote:
My only problem with that above map is that it appears that the Crenshaw line is attempting to do too much. The first option, for example, cuts West on San Vicente then cuts sharply East onto SaMo before cutting again to go North on Highland. Wtf? The westside can easily use 2 and justifiably maybe 3 N-S lines (La Brea, Fairfax, La Cienega, Robertson, etc) yet its someone's bright idea at Metro that the Crenshaw line is just gonna serpentine slowly up the middle and cover as many bases as possible?

They can obviously build more lines in the future and do some realignment but that concept makes no sense to me. It also seems to suggest that the Pink Line is no where near ever happening.
The Pink Line died when it wasn't included as part of the Westside Subway extension.

The westside could definitely use multiple N/S rail corridors, but that's never going to happen unless drastic changes occur for transportation funding. As it stands, a northern extension of the Crenshaw line is probably WeHo's only realistic shot at getting rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2411  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2013, 5:15 PM
Munchitup Munchitup is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 140
[QUOTE=blackcat23;6151179]
Quote:
Originally Posted by AusTex View Post

http://transittalk.proboards.com/thread/971#



The Pink Line died when it wasn't included as part of the Westside Subway extension.

The westside could definitely use multiple N/S rail corridors, but that's never going to happen unless drastic changes occur for transportation funding. As it stands, a northern extension of the Crenshaw line is probably WeHo's only realistic shot at getting rail.
I'd prefer it do neither of those two options and go up Fairfax. It would hit more landmarks taking that route vs. La Brea and is a bit more "straight" than the San Vincente option.

What would be best of all is building all three! La Brea, Fairfax and San Vincente Branches of the Crenshaw Line, ala the Green Line in Boston (but all terminating at Hollywood/Highland).

The extension north of Wilshire is so far off, it doesn't hurt to (pipe)dream big for the next generation of transit projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2412  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2013, 1:03 AM
mdiederi's Avatar
mdiederi mdiederi is offline
4
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: JT
Posts: 4,827
Caruso Wants to Extend Grove Trolley to Bev Center and LACMA
Monday, June 3, 2013, by Eve Bachrach
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/0..._and_lacma.php

Quote:
he wants to extend the trolley line that runs through The Grove into a two-mile loop down Third Street to the Beverly Center, and down Fairfax to LACMA and the Miracle Mile, at a cost of $80 to 90 million.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2413  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2013, 7:09 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,531
^ Yes please. We probably won't see a subway under Beverly in our lifetimes; a streetcar is the next best thing.

But it will probably end up being a trolley bus, if anything at all.
__________________
"I'm an LA guy, can't help it." -- Tiger Woods

"The power of imagination makes us infinite." -- John Muir
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2414  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2013, 8:02 AM
bobbyv bobbyv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
^ Yes please. We probably won't see a subway under Beverly in our lifetimes; a streetcar is the next best thing.

But it will probably end up being a trolley bus, if anything at all.
What makes you say that? Seems like so far the courts are siding with LACMTA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2415  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2013, 12:08 PM
StethJeff's Avatar
StethJeff StethJeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,040
[QUOTE=Munchitup;6151309]
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackcat23 View Post

I'd prefer it do neither of those two options and go up Fairfax. It would hit more landmarks taking that route vs. La Brea and is a bit more "straight" than the San Vincente option.
Exactly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2416  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2013, 3:34 PM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 6,995
From an outsiders perspective (not being from LA), a rail line is useful when when goes to the places people want to visit. If it doesn't connect as close as possible to the key areas, you're unlikely to achieve full potential of the line. Yes, people could transfer to some other transit option for the last leg of the trip (such as a streetcar or trolley bus), but transfers are almost always an added annoyance (I'm stuck transferring every day at Gallery Place here in DC which I hate). And yes, speed is important, but what good is speed if it's not getting people to where they're mostly likely wanting to go? So for me, the routing below reflects a better option (though going up La Cienega rather than slightly further west on San Vicente wouldn't be too bad). It connects Crenshaw station on the Expo line & the Fairfax station on the Wilshire subway to Hollywood & Highland on the red line subway via The Grove, Beverly Center and the heart of West Hollywood. If you only go up Fairfax, you're only hitting The Grove. But then I also think this line needs to run as as a light rail subway, at least from Wilshire to Hollywood & Highland, which in turn presumably makes it massively expensive.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2417  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2013, 6:53 PM
destroycreate's Avatar
destroycreate destroycreate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGuy View Post
From an outsiders perspective (not being from LA), a rail line is useful when when goes to the places people want to visit. If it doesn't connect as close as possible to the key areas, you're unlikely to achieve full potential of the line. Yes, people could transfer to some other transit option for the last leg of the trip (such as a streetcar or trolley bus), but transfers are almost always an added annoyance (I'm stuck transferring every day at Gallery Place here in DC which I hate). And yes, speed is important, but what good is speed if it's not getting people to where they're mostly likely wanting to go? So for me, the routing below reflects a better option (though going up La Cienega rather than slightly further west on San Vicente wouldn't be too bad). It connects Crenshaw station on the Expo line & the Fairfax station on the Wilshire subway to Hollywood & Highland on the red line subway via The Grove, Beverly Center and the heart of West Hollywood. If you only go up Fairfax, you're only hitting The Grove. But then I also think this line needs to run as as a light rail subway, at least from Wilshire to Hollywood & Highland, which in turn presumably makes it massively expensive.

I LOVE this route! West Hollywood be 100x better with a subway. I don't think these twists and turns would delay the trip all that much anyway...as you said, it's more important that key areas are covered.

What are the chances of this happening? I still can't comprehend how WeHo has been completely neglected from subway expansion plans for the most part.
__________________
**16 years on SSP!**
Previously known as LaJollaCA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2418  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2013, 8:06 PM
Munchitup Munchitup is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by destroycreate View Post
I LOVE this route! West Hollywood be 100x better with a subway. I don't think these twists and turns would delay the trip all that much anyway...as you said, it's more important that key areas are covered.

What are the chances of this happening? I still can't comprehend how WeHo has been completely neglected from subway expansion plans for the most part.
One thing to keep in mind is that this most likely would be a subway line, so it wouldn't need to directly follow the street-grid. So it may not be as twisty and turn-y as it looks on OhioGuy's map. I too like that routing, it hits a lot of major destinations.

This would be a post-Measure R project. My (as of yet unborn) children will probably be my age by the time this would get built, barring some new and creative funding.

BobbyV - the Courts are siding with LACMTA on the Wilshire subway. A subway under Beverly is a whole 'nother animal. I've never heard it mentioned before, though it would be right in between the Wilshire Subway and the Red Line on Hollywood Blvd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2419  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2013, 9:40 PM
destroycreate's Avatar
destroycreate destroycreate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchitup View Post
One thing to keep in mind is that this most likely would be a subway line, so it wouldn't need to directly follow the street-grid. So it may not be as twisty and turn-y as it looks on OhioGuy's map. I too like that routing, it hits a lot of major destinations.

This would be a post-Measure R project. My (as of yet unborn) children will probably be my age by the time this would get built, barring some new and creative funding.

BobbyV - the Courts are siding with LACMTA on the Wilshire subway. A subway under Beverly is a whole 'nother animal. I've never heard it mentioned before, though it would be right in between the Wilshire Subway and the Red Line on Hollywood Blvd.
Why does transit take so long so build in the US? So frustrating.
__________________
**16 years on SSP!**
Previously known as LaJollaCA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2420  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2013, 11:15 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGuy View Post
I wonder if Metro will even consider building this at-grade.
__________________
"I'm an LA guy, can't help it." -- Tiger Woods

"The power of imagination makes us infinite." -- John Muir
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 7:24 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.