HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4601  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2018, 6:19 AM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
I think ridership will be higher if the line ends in financial district vs 6th/Santa Fe. And transfer at Pershing is going to save time vs at 6th/Santa Fe as it will bypass the 3rd st station in the yard where red/purple will have speed restrictions and the dogleg thru Union Station. I’m guessing someone going from Artesia to Century City is going to save maybe 5 minutes with transfer at Pershing.
There is no 3rd Street station in the yard, therefore travel to Pershing Square will be 5 minutes.

Quote:
Financial district also has further extension possibilities that both Union Station and 6th/santa fe precludes.
Same can be said about the other options. From Union Station, a line can go northwest to Glendale or East towards County USC and CSULA, at 6th Santa Fe, a line can head east down Whittier Blvd that many have talked about as well. Nothing is set in stone about any of them.

Quote:
And lastly, financial district terminal adds that 2nd downtown core link for Blue line that is not shared with Expo that we’ve talked about for years. It allows for more capacity into where most jobs are located in downtown.
Because it is now shared with West Santa Ana Corridor? I don't see how that logic makes any sense
__________________
"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?

Last edited by WrightCONCEPT; Feb 19, 2018 at 12:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4602  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2018, 6:33 AM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 374
Isn’t Metro’s prefer Station for Red/purple locates at 3rd Street? So if WSAB ends at 6th, you still need to somehow extend the heavy rail line south.

And I thought Scott explained the problem with ending WSAB at Union Station in his blog post pretty well... there is no good transfer options between WSAB and gold and red/purple line. And there is a lot of push back from CAHSR and other stakeholders.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4603  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2018, 2:57 PM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 522
Metro has abandoned 3rd Street. They’re only going to build 6th/Santa Fe. But I agree with you that that is likely to be a slow stretch of track.

Jerard, the extensions you list as available from the AD are part of the problem. I’m fine with serving Mission or Whittier, but doing so by way of another giant C-shaped Line that only touches the border of downtown is a real detriment. Serving Chavez to Glendale Bl to get to Glendale means that we’ve made Union Station the most important transfer point in downtown (which I do fee very strongly we shouldn’t do), with no opportunity to change trains for southbound riders from Glendale and Echo Park before then. And of course, no easy connection to the Expo line at all.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4604  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2018, 5:46 PM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
Isn’t Metro’s prefer Station for Red/purple locates at 3rd Street? So if WSAB ends at 6th, you still need to somehow extend the heavy rail line south.
Regarding Division 20 conversations, that is a pretty straight track with some switches near the ends.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
And I thought Scott explained the problem with ending WSAB at Union Station in his blog post pretty well... there is no good transfer options between WSAB and gold and red/purple line. And there is a lot of push back from CAHSR and other stakeholders.
With the "pushback" that is mostly from CAHSR on the Link Union Station run through tracks that they have provided no funding for.

bzcat, you mean Metrolink and Amtrak aren't good transfer options for commuters? Nor with some simple upgrades to improve frequency on Metrolink that this connection won't be needed in the future?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
Jerard, the extensions you list as available from the AD are part of the problem. I’m fine with serving Mission or Whittier, but doing so by way of another giant C-shaped Line that only touches the border of downtown is a real detriment.
Now with the options I mentioned, Did I suggest or imply that WSAB is the route or vehicle to provide those extensions?

(I'll wait for your response and chuckled reaction)

Because from the looks of things, The Red and Purple Line could go down Whittier Blvd from the 6th Street station (as discussed on previous posts within this Transportation thread).

Same thing could happen to reach County USC and CSULA (as also discussed on previous posts within this Transportation thread) because then the network has a better reach because through that one connection point at Union Station there are multiple services or route options that can do the very things we are talking about.



Quote:
...Serving Chavez to Glendale Bl to get to Glendale means that we’ve made Union Station the most important transfer point in downtown (which I do fee very strongly we shouldn’t do), with no opportunity to change trains for southbound riders from Glendale and Echo Park before then. And of course, no easy connection to the Expo line at all.

But wait, wait first the Expo Line isn't important and is a determent in one post and now it goes back to being something badly needed? (And I am not talking your posts Scott, I am looking at others on here) There is a lot of inconsistencies in posts made here about these projects with respect to the network that I wish posters can understand why some for the sake of the network makes no sense.

That is what I am reacting to.

Plus for context sake with the Regional Connector in actual operation; the Blue Line will operate from Long Beach through Downtown CBD to Pasadena, Azusa and Claremont. Expo Line from Santa Monica to East LA and either South El Monte or Whittier. Which makes the Expo Line argument faulty because that can be adjusted through new routing or with one change on the same platform as the Blue Line from South Park to Little Tokyo.

Doesn't require a new $2 Billion route to make that change.

With WSAB sharing track or stations with the Blue Line, my argument is that we have built in redundancy in place already so if a new corridor is going to be built for capacity let's use that capacity to where the system needs it most at that is replacing the current Washington Blvd at-grade operation to run more reliable service through the CBD.

Actually the most important transfer points are 7th Street Metro Center, Imperial Wilmington and Union Station, with Regional Connection in operation Pico/South Park, Little Tokyo will expand its role as a transfer point. As the system expands more transfer points will be made.
__________________
"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?

Last edited by WrightCONCEPT; Feb 16, 2018 at 7:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4605  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2018, 2:43 PM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 522
Ok I see what you’re saying. I’d be fine with a subway down Whittier but really don’t see that idea coming back around. Hopefully I’m wrong.

Speaking of which, it sounds like you don’t think both Eastside Gold Line branches get built? I thought that was a lock at this point, even though it’s the worst idea Metro’s had yet.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4606  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2018, 3:41 PM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
Ok I see what you’re saying. I’d be fine with a subway down Whittier but really don’t see that idea coming back around. Hopefully I’m wrong.

Speaking of which, it sounds like you don’t think both Eastside Gold Line branches get built? I thought that was a lock at this point, even though it’s the worst idea Metro’s had yet.
I don't think so because not only is it bad but from an operations perspective from an political end there is no guarantee they will build the second branch later unless there is a satisfactory compromise in place in which both areas gets something at the exact same time.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #4607  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2018, 4:18 PM
RuFFy's Avatar
RuFFy RuFFy is offline
FlyyyFALiiFe
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
Isn’t Metro’s prefer Station for Red/purple locates at 3rd Street? So if WSAB ends at 6th, you still need to somehow extend the heavy rail line south.

And I thought Scott explained the problem with ending WSAB at Union Station in his blog post pretty well... there is no good transfer options between WSAB and gold and red/purple line. And there is a lot of push back from CAHSR and other stakeholders.
I could be wrong but if I recall correctly the 5th & Flower Station was studied under the Regional connector and when the station was eliminated it was proposed that escape corridors be repurposed to have a portal at 5th and Flower that would be connected under ground to 7th Street Metro center. It wouldn’t be the first time it’s done and there are a few examples of this in New York. But if you’re looking at a Union Station type Terminus and a direct connection to the Red/Purple/Gold/Blue Lines it could be done by pretty much connecting 5th/Flower with 7th/Metro as previously proposed.

As far as a dream line I’d like to see this line curve northwest via Glendale Blvd/Atwater Village/San Fernando Road to Burbank. A second line from downtown Glendale to Santa Monica Blvd via Hyperion and continuing to Century City/Constellation Blvd would be great, but that would require the Crenshaw Line bypass The route everyone wants and continue directly north to Hollywood/Highland, perhaps vía La Brea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4608  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2018, 3:21 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 222
The details of the proposed P3 for the LAX people mover are available here. These details might give hints on how Metro's proposed P3s will be structured:
http://lawa.granicus.com/MetaViewer....&meta_id=32885

The project's capital cost is estimated to be $1.95 billion, but the proposed P3 contract is $4.5 billion over 30 years. It is a design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) contract. The private contractor, LINXS, is actually a group of several companies, split up between design, construction and operation teams. I think there are like 10 total companies listed on their website: http://www.lalinxs.com/team.html

During the 5 years of construction, LAX will pay LINXS $1 billion, while LINXS will pay for the $950 million (or more) additional construction costs.

For the next 25 years, LINXS will operate the people mover, and LAX will pay LINXS a fee per year to cover the current operation, maintenance and past construction/financing costs. The first year will be a $97 million payment (will increase in later years based on a schedule and with inflation).

Quote:
The LINXS Team's proposed costs for Design and Construction are $1.95 billion, which is approximately 4% below staff's estimate.
...
The LINXS Team will be responsible for the operations and maintenance (O&M) of the APM System for a period of 25 years. This includes:
The APM Operating System (i.e. trains, controls systems, etc.)
The Fixed Facilities (i.e. guideway, stations; including elevators, escalators, etc.)
The O&M requirements include refurbishment and replacement schedules for portions of the system.
At the end of the 25 year O&M period the LINXS Team is required to hand the APM System back with a minimum of five-years remaining life. The condition at handback will be determined by an independent engineer.
...
The DBFOM Agreement that will be the primary contractual agreement between the LINXS Team and LAWA includes the total costs for design and construction, operations and maintenance (O&M), and the finance costs associated with the developer portion of the capital costs of construction. Over the 30-year term of the DBFOM Agreement these costs will total approximately $4.5 billion. These costs are consistent with the costs LAWA would incur for the independent elements of the DBFOM Agreement (cost of construction, 25-years of O&M, finance costs).

During the construction period, LAWA will pay the developer a total of $1 billion in milestone payments, spread out in equal installments. Following the completion of the project, LAWA will pay the developer annual availability payments (in equal monthly installments) to compensate the developer for principal, interest and financing costs of the project as well as annual operating and maintenance costs over the 25 year operating life of the contract. The initial annual availability payment is estimated at approximately $97 million, and will increase annually, based on structured increases and adjustment inflation indexes. The initial payment is subject to adjustment based on the actual financing cost incurred by the developer at financial close.
The Regional Connector EIR could be a point of comparison for the operating and maintenance costs. The EIR listed operating and maintenance costs for the 1.9 mile subway in 2008 dollars on page 5 of this link (probably the closest comparison we have for the 2.25 mile people mover): http://media.metro.net/projects_stud...t_11_of_14.pdf

Heavy rail cost $116.11 million per year in 2008 dollars to operate and maintain. Over 25 years that is $2.9 billion in operating and maintenance costs.
Light rail cost $264.20 million per year in 2008 dollars to operate and maintain. Over 25 years that is $6.6 billion in operating and maintenance costs.

The people mover probably can cost a bit less to operate since it is automated and you do not need to pay drivers, and maybe what workers that are used are not employed by LAX and are cheaper.

Perhaps the Sepulveda Line can be automated to save costs for a P3, but I don’t know if you can do that for the West Santa Ana Branch, which is expected to have at-grade elements.

Last edited by numble; Feb 19, 2018 at 5:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4609  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2018, 1:15 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by RuFFy View Post
I could be wrong but if I recall correctly the 5th & Flower Station was studied under the Regional connector and when the station was eliminated it was proposed that escape corridors be repurposed to have a portal at 5th and Flower that would be connected under ground to 7th Street Metro center. It wouldn’t be the first time it’s done and there are a few examples of this in New York. But if you’re looking at a Union Station type Terminus and a direct connection to the Red/Purple/Gold/Blue Lines it could be done by pretty much connecting 5th/Flower with 7th/Metro as previously proposed.

As far as a dream line I’d like to see this line curve northwest via Glendale Blvd/Atwater Village/San Fernando Road to Burbank. A second line from downtown Glendale to Santa Monica Blvd via Hyperion and continuing to Century City/Constellation Blvd would be great, but that would require the Crenshaw Line bypass The route everyone wants and continue directly north to Hollywood/Highland, perhaps vía La Brea.
MY ultimate fantasy is for the hulking ped-activity-killing behemoth known as the Bonaventure Hotel to go bankrupt, get torn down, and have Metro reconnect and retrofit the Belmont Tunnel. Then have them connect the WSAB to the old Terminal Building next to Park Fifth, continuing via the tunnel as a realization of the "Yellow Line" concept, eventually linking with the Orange Line.

This would also require relocating the Belmont Apartments, though :/
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4610  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2018, 1:37 AM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 522
Also the Cal Plaza foundation makes the tunnel unusable I am pretty sure.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4611  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2018, 8:27 PM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 522
Buried under a lot of other stuff during this month’s board meetings is this: City of LA is taking the lead on funding the Arts District subway extension and the Flower Street rail improvements.

https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/...rail-projects/
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4612  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2018, 4:46 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
Buried under a lot of other stuff during this month’s board meetings is this: City of LA is taking the lead on funding the Arts District subway extension and the Flower Street rail improvements.

https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/...rail-projects/
Interesting--where did you find the grant application, by the way? I'm interested in looking at it...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4613  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2018, 5:15 PM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
Interesting--where did you find the grant application, by the way? I'm interested in looking at it...
I requested it from Metro. Twice actually.

https://records.metro.net/requests/18-179
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4614  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2018, 4:57 AM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,736
Lightbulb I pick Green

Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
ULA has helpful graphics... I'm going to link to the actual article too.

http://urbanize.la/post/metro-consid...nta-ana-branch


How about the Green option ? That way my fantasy Sunset/Santa Monica line can come into discussion.

With a station in front of union Station, it goes west down Sunset, then makes a left down Santa Monica and goes alllllllllll the way to the beach. Hits many spots including Dodger Stadium, Silverlake, Weho, Beverly Hills (which I'm sure will resist any station) then Century city and so on. I know people will quickly say " Well the purple line will already hit century city and Beverly Hills" because apparently having more than one line serving an area is blasphemy in regards to LA transit but the norm for other transit heavy cities.

Please do not make it share track with the gold line. SOOOOOO dumb. So you'll have 2-3 lines sharing one track/station. Blue/Expo/Gold/Santa Ana??? overkill. Yeah I know the Regional Connector will condense, in a sense, 4 lines into just 2 but then adding the Santa Ana will make it 3 again and in true metro fashion, they'll figure out a way to cram 2 future lines down the same track.



And what the hell is option 2 ????? just for Shi** and Giggles ? I know it says " exact alignment to be determined" but it will be stupid to tunnel anything diagonally (yes I know that's not the option) but with metros current leadership, I wouldn't be shocked if it were. Instead....I rather they start tunneling some east/west routes downtown for future extensions, I would imagine cut and cover would be easy to do east of the historic core, how about a new east/west 6th street/3rd street line? it travels down Whittier, then 6th, then swerves onto 3rd either in the Financial district or on the other side of the 110 where it travels down 3rd where it either ends at The Beverly Center our pops out in the center of Burton way, which is ridiculously wide, and ends at Rexford before entering Beverly Hills where the pitchforks will be ready. It wouldn't be a major line but would be a great feeder line because I know hits some lowish density between the grove and downtown but so do most of our lines.

Last edited by caligrad; Feb 27, 2018 at 5:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4615  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2018, 11:13 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by caligrad View Post
How about the Green option ? That way my fantasy Sunset/Santa Monica line can come into discussion.

With a station in front of union Station, it goes west down Sunset, then makes a left down Santa Monica and goes alllllllllll the way to the beach. Hits many spots including Dodger Stadium, Silverlake, Weho, Beverly Hills (which I'm sure will resist any station) then Century city and so on. I know people will quickly say " Well the purple line will already hit century city and Beverly Hills" because apparently having more than one line serving an area is blasphemy in regards to LA transit but the norm for other transit heavy cities.
You can still do Sunset and Santa Monica without taking the line to Union Station. There is no point having the line at Union Station if the intention is to extend it further.
  • Most people riding SWAB from SE LA County to DTLA will probably go near the garment/flower/jewelry district and the financial district.
  • Most people riding SWAB from SE LA County thru DTLA will probably go on to the West side.
No reason to force both sets of riders to ride up to Union Station.

Quote:
Please do not make it share track with the gold line. SOOOOOO dumb. So you'll have 2-3 lines sharing one track/station. Blue/Expo/Gold/Santa Ana??? overkill. Yeah I know the Regional Connector will condense, in a sense, 4 lines into just 2 but then adding the Santa Ana will make it 3 again and in true metro fashion, they'll figure out a way to cram 2 future lines down the same track.
You just made a compelling reason NOT to route the line to Union Station



Quote:
And what the hell is option 2 ????? just for Shi** and Giggles ? I know it says " exact alignment to be determined" but it will be stupid to tunnel anything diagonally (yes I know that's not the option) but with metros current leadership, I wouldn't be shocked if it were. Instead....I rather they start tunneling some east/west routes downtown for future extensions, I would imagine cut and cover would be easy to do east of the historic core, how about a new east/west 6th street/3rd street line? it travels down Whittier, then 6th, then swerves onto 3rd either in the Financial district or on the other side of the 110 where it travels down 3rd where it either ends at The Beverly Center our pops out in the center of Burton way, which is ridiculously wide, and ends at Rexford before entering Beverly Hills where the pitchforks will be ready. It wouldn't be a major line but would be a great feeder line because I know hits some lowish density between the grove and downtown but so do most of our lines.
Option 2 is just Metro giving itself some wiggle room. I wouldn't pay too much attention to it.

Option 1 will give you the "starter" line for the E-W line thru Downtown LA. However, I don't think 3rd/Beverly has the ridership to support such a line. More like Pico/Venice or Sunset/Santa Monica. Or BOTH... like this:

1. Venice Beach to Artesia via 6th street in DTLA (Venice Blvd --> Mid City/Rimpau --> Pico Blvd to Pico Union --> City West via 5th St --> DTLA via 6th St --> Alameda St --> Gateway Cities --> WASB to Artesia)
2. Century City to Whitter via 6th street in DTLA (Century City --> Santa Monica Blvd to WEHO and Hollywood --> Sunset Blvd to Silver Lake and Echo Park --> Glendale Blvd to City West via 4th or 5th St --> DTLA via 6th St --> Whittier Blvd to Boyle Heights/East LA --> Whittier)

Last edited by bzcat; Feb 27, 2018 at 11:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4616  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2018, 12:11 AM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,736
^^^ See, my original option was 6th street BUT, to contradict myself with this statement, it would be dead before it even reached a vote because of how close it is to Wilshire. Aka its proximity to the Red/Purple line extension. Literally only a block away. I'm all for half mile/mile gaps in parallel rail lines. But.... a block is even too close for me.

3rd street is actually pretty dense, denser than the blue, expo and gold. Lots of multi family apartments and etc but it hits a very low density patch between La Brea and Norton, a mile and a half long stretch of single family homes. But the center point of that stretch is Marlborough High school where there can be a station there are that 1.5 mile stretch can be a section where the line accelerates a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post

You just made a compelling reason NOT to route the line to Union Station
I thought the Green option would plop the end point in front of Union Station? avoiding sharing track with the Gold line ?

Last edited by caligrad; Feb 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4617  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2018, 3:02 AM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 522
Bzcat, Beverly is wayyy denser than Sunset from DTLA to the Red Line.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4618  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2018, 10:18 PM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,736
^^^....But Sunset and Beverly are far enough from each other to warrant having their own lines. Beverly may be a little denser...To an extent.. Since density drops off quickly after Vermont where single family homes come back into play. But in the same stretch of both, from downtown to Vermont, where Sunset lacks in density, it makes up for it with Dodger Stadium. A stadium that host more than just baseball games which seems to be the dumbest argument, in LA atleast, against rail lines skirting pass stadiums.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4619  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2018, 11:49 PM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 522
Beverly isn’t a little denser. It’s much much denser. And density doesn’t drop off until Larchmont.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQFkSkXUEAEqshH.jpg

You could take the WSAB to DTLA, then to Vermont via Beverly, and then tunnel diagonally to Santa Monica Bl and Western
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles

Last edited by NSMP; Mar 1, 2018 at 12:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4620  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2018, 11:56 PM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 522
I don’t necessarily disagree about having lines on both but Beverly gets you more bang for your buck, and yields benefits faster
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
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 10:51 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.