LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Both La Cienega and La Brea should get rail lines; we shouldn't have to choose between the two.

This 100% for crying out loud. And before 2047. Richest.Country.On.Earth. California 6th largest economy and having to wait 30 years for transit that's needed now! Ridiculous.

[saybanana]

There isn't going to be a Santa Monica line or Pink Line. That was a fantasy map. Even that LAX to Union Station fantasy route. That's way these new studies of more western routes are considered and even a Vermont route. It was a way to combine 2 and make it cheaper and doing aerial segments. Who thought that was going to happen? La Brea and Western could get DASH buses or a Circular Dash route. Cuz La Brea sucks. It didnt even make top 20 busiest bus routes in this area in that link.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

I don't see the point of building two lines with the same origin and destination so close together.

Two miles isn't that close. Cities with developed, highly functional rail systems have lines spaced a mile apart (some closer than that even).

As I recall, the proposal in that era was for a line down Santa Monica Blvd from WeHo to Century City. As much as I'd love that though, Beverly Hills spent the better part of a decade suing Metro because a subway passed through a corner of their city. How do you think they're going to react to a subway running straight through the center their town?

Beverly Hills is getting two subway stations, so clearly they don't mind a subway running underneath their city. They only protested tunneling below BHHS, favoring a station at Santa Monica/Constellation instead.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by saybanana

There isn't going to be a Santa Monica line or Pink Line. That was a fantasy map. Even that LAX to Union Station fantasy route. That's way these new studies of more western routes are considered and even a Vermont route. It was a way to combine 2 and make it cheaper and doing aerial segments. Who thought that was going to happen? La Brea and Western could get DASH buses or a Circular Dash route. Cuz La Brea sucks. It didnt even make top 20 busiest bus routes in this area in that link.

The map I posted was released by Metro.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

I don't see the point of building two lines with the same origin and destination so close together. As I recall, the proposal in that era was for a line down Santa Monica Blvd from WeHo to Century City. As much as I'd love that though, Beverly Hills spent the better part of a decade suing Metro because a subway passed through a corner of their city. How do you think they're going to react to a subway running straight through the center their town?

Beverly Hills hasn’t really been responsible for any delays to the purple line so far tbh. They’ve just lit an enormous pile of money on fire.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Seems kinda convoluted to interface the Santa Monica Line with the Crenshaw Line like this. From a network standpoint, i would argue it's better to have the Santa Monica Line actually end at Hollywood/Highland. There's various ways to do this, maybe jog the Santa Monica Line up to Sunset to Hollywood, or maybe have the lines run in tandem or on slightly different paths between Santa Monica/La Brea and Hollywood Highland.

Either way, you'd have a direct transfer from the Red Line to the Santa Monica Line, which opens up two-seat rides from the SFV to Century City, or a two-seat ride WeHo-downtown.

It’s not. The Santa Monica line needs to be a cross-Hollywood Line. There are way more boardings between La Brea and Vermont than west of La Brea.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

They didn’t even support SB827 (unlike BART)

True Metro didn't because they had key board members (Mayor Garcetti and the City Council) who opposed it and these politics will have influence on this route;

With SB 827 it were Hancock Park, Carthay Circle and Mid Wilshire communities along with Leimert Park who were most vocal against this ironically, they are all located along the Crenshaw and Crenshaw North extension corridor. Back in 2017 Measure S campaign that got started in Hancock Park by Jill Stewart close to the La Brea alignment. These political bedfellows will be interesting in how this study moves along.

If I had a personal choice in order of preference for Crenshaw North;

1) Fairfax
2) La Brea
3) San Vicente

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

It’s not. The Santa Monica line needs to be a cross-Hollywood Line. There are way more boardings between La Brea and Vermont than west of La Brea.

Hell I would take this one step further and even say that a Santa Monica Blvd line could be the extra linkage into Downtown LA from Vermont through Echo Park for the Red Line where there are even more boardings east of Vermont.

[WonderlandPark2]

Crenshaw line and maintenance yard on approach to LAX yesterday

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Hell I would take this one step further and even say that a Santa Monica Blvd line could be the extra linkage into Downtown LA from Vermont through Echo Park for the Red Line where there are even more boardings east of Vermont.

It seems like we're in agreement for once.

I say bring back the original HRT "Pink Line" (only have it traverse eastward toward DTLA). The justification for not proceeding forward with that alternative was because Metro thought it wasn't cost-effective enough to qualify for New Starts funding. But with connections to 5+ rail lines, the possibility of interlining with the Purple Line, and it being a ridership-generating corridor in its own right, I can't help but feel good about its chances.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

It seems like we're in agreement for once.

Well they say a broken clock will be right twice a day.

Originally Posted by Quixote

I say bring back the original HRT "Pink Line" (only have it traverse eastward toward DTLA). The justification for not proceeding forward with that alternative was because Metro thought it wasn't cost-effective enough to qualify for New Starts funding. But with connections to 5+ rail lines, the possibility of interlining with the Purple Line, and it being a ridership-generating corridor in its own right, I can't help but feel good about its chances.

And I say this to bring it back to other conversations within this thread regarding the network because it is easy for some of us to say 'oh lets do this because...' without realizing how this effects this 3D jigsaw puzzle of the larger vision of the network.

The more the network is built out and the more quality lines we are adding to the system the better or chances of getting additional grant dollars.

With Santa Monica Blvd/Sunset corridor in some form we will need shape will create another entry to Downtown LA (for the Red Line) if a HRT goes down Vermont Avenue.

Whoop, there it is!

[bzcat]

So Jared, you are assuming Red line will go south on Vermont instead of turning east on Wilshire if (when?) we finally get to build the Vermont subway.

It will definitely help if Santa Monica/Sunset E-W rail line is already up and running by that time to absorb the transfer to Downtown. We can even start building that line as a western extension of WASB to form another E-W line that pass thru Downtown (this is why it is very important for Metro to get the Downtown section of WASB right!)

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by bzcat

So Jared, you are assuming Red line will go south on Vermont instead of turning east on Wilshire if (when?) we finally get to build the Vermont subway.

It will definitely help if Santa Monica/Sunset E-W rail line is already up and running by that time to absorb the transfer to Downtown. We can even start building that line as a western extension of WASB to form another E-W line that pass thru Downtown (this is why it is very important for Metro to get the Downtown section of WASB right!)

What I am saying is that in order to have a Vermont HRT subway line, the North Hollywood-Hollywood segment of the Red Line needs a new entry into Downtown LA CBD because Wilshire will be well utilized with the extension to Westwood and even beyond towards Santa Monica and even east down to CSULA or Whittier Blvd as some have mentioned on here. That would make a solid grid of corridors because the goal of reaching the CBD is not for the jobs in the CBD but to continue trips on the eastern part of the region.

As far as making that a branch of WSAB, I wouldn't go that far because the politics of that line has it destined to Glendale and Burbank- however that is one approach. Another approach is just make that east-west line a direct tie-into the Red Line which could continue east towards CSULA or East LA/Whittier Blvd.

[NSMP]

I’ve said this before but another entry into downtown is definitely *not* a prerequisite for extending the Red Line on Vermont.

[hughfb3]

Went to the West Santa Ana Branch Meeting last night. Based on citizen demand, all alignments into Downtown are now underground and the project is projected to be $5 Billion. That’s $1,000,000,000.00 over budget. When did it become okay to select light rail for a line that is 3/4 grade separated? Light rail’s advantage is being at grade and we only have this for 1/4 of the project. This may have well been a Heavy rail since most of it is grade separated andyway. We need to start over with this line’s analysis and select a different rail modality.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

Went to the West Santa Ana Branch Meeting last night. Based on citizen demand, all alignments into Downtown are now underground and the project is projected to be $5 Billion. That’s $1,000,000,000.00 over budget. When did it become okay to select light rail for a line that is 3/4 grade separated? Light rail’s advantage is being at grade and we only have this for 1/4 of the project. This may have well been a Heavy rail since most of it is grade separated andyway. We need to start over with this line’s analysis and select a different rail modality.

Just make it an HRT purple line extension. It would save money, add capacity, be faster, and serve the arts district, Union Station, DTLA, and the Westside on one direct line.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Just make it an HRT purple line extension. It would save money, add capacity, be faster, and serve the arts district, Union Station, DTLA, and the Westside on one direct line.

So...at first glance light rail seems to be the logical choice for this line because of the interlining near Union Station and with the Blue Line. So there would be a transfer either to the regional connector just south of Union Station or to the red/purple at Union Station...not a terrible situation but not fantastic, either. Maybe okay for a second-tier city in the Midwest but not for the second-biggest city in the United States.

Agreed -- extending the heavy rail red/purple makes way more sense, even if that means the line can't be extended as far. Seems like the tunnel could be extended south from Union Station to the Blue Line at Washington, then simply skip those two interlined stations, and instead tunnel in a straight line 2~ miles to Huntington Park. So just an Arts District and a single blue line interchange station between Union Station and Huntington Park. That would give this line a big time advantage for downtown trips over existing bus trips, plus subway stations are outrageously expensive to build.

[hughfb3]

Hey all You transitphiles. We are slowly launching the movement “HyRail for Housing!” The way for Metro to save $6 Billion on transit, access affordable housing, and build lines not currently funded. We just put up the website and the social media and are just beginning our educating the public and officials on this plan. We will be having a launch party in the coming 2 months with activists in the community, officials, and celebrities; which will follow with major social media presence.

Since this forum has been an inspiration for us, we wanted you all to be among the first to check it out. Send us your comments, concerns, question, and or join in. We would love to hear what you have to say before bringing this thing all the way out. Share with friends and or people you think might be interested. We have meetings scheduled with elected officials later this month and are just beginning the push. Thanks SSP forumers, the work we do here is magical and forwarding for us all

Www.thehyrail.org
@TheHyRail

[orulz]

Originally Posted by numble

OK so I'm way late to this party but I just wanted to point out that there is a clear demand gap between the Van Nuys corridor and the Sepulveda Pass corridor. Van Nuys is a good corridor but it doesn't match up with the nearly 300,000 AADT for Sepulveda Pass. You could potentially fill a long train every 2 minutes at rush hour with demand like that, whereas a train every 5 minutes or so would probably be enough on Van Nuys for the next 100 years.

Concepts 1, 2, 5, and 6 acknowledge the difference in demand by using a different technology (HRT or Monorail) and terminating it at the Orange Line, where it is fed by other lines using different technology (LRT up Van Nuys and BRT along the Orange Line.)

Concept 3 does create one-seat rides on the Van Nuys corridor but it just addresses the demand gap by short turning every other train at the Orange Line.

Concept 4 (my preference) seems to be laying the groundwork for eventual LRT conversion of the Orange Line (west of Van Nuys anyway) into a future branch of the Sepulveda Pass line. It also makes the at-grade line along Van Nuys make more sense - this is the beginning of a subway-surface network for the Valley.

[bzcat]

Many of us have already voiced our support for Concept 4. The branch design will allow Van Nuys to stay at 5 min head way and provide thru-service to transit users on the Van Nuys corridor. The 2nd branch heading west on Orange line ROW will connect West SFV to the Sepulveda Pass line and double up freuency from Orange line to purple line where the demand is highest. Win-win for the the whole SFV.