LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion - Page 18

bmfarley · #**341** Posted **Nov 3, 2009, 5:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by orulz

How about extending the Vermont subway up through Glendale. Run it up Brand and put in about 5 or 6 stops between Vermont/Sunset and Brand/Glenoaks.

Can't really say how high this should/would rank on the list given all the other priorities out there though.

Yes, if you look on a map... it just screams out at you that such a line makes a lot of sense; Vermont subway to Glendal. Additionally, continue it south down Vermont until it nolonger makes sense. USC/Exposition?

But, how do you tie-in the lines? I don't think the Red Line could fit an additional line into it... It seems like it would need to be a separate line.

Quixote · #**342** Posted **Nov 3, 2009, 5:30 AM**

Orulz and bmfarley, that map is horribly drawn. The Vermont Corridor Subway would be an extension of the Red Line straight down Vermont Avenue. Our best bet at Glendale train service is the Yellow Line (speaking of which, I just realized that it isn't on the map!) and the Route 134 Corridor (if it's upgraded to LRT).

LosAngelesBeauty · #**343** Posted **Nov 3, 2009, 5:52 AM**

What is this line to Santa Ana that the Mayor wants to fast track? It's the first time I've heard of this proposed line...

Bootstrap Bill · #**344** Posted **Nov 3, 2009, 6:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

What is this line to Santa Ana that the Mayor wants to fast track? It's the first time I've heard of this proposed line...

Yes, why would the Mayor of L.A. be interested in an Orange County transit project?

JDRCRASH · #**345** Posted **Nov 3, 2009, 5:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Our best bet at Glendale train service is the Yellow Line (speaking of which, I just realized that it isn't on the map!) and the Route 134 Corridor (if it's upgraded to LRT).

It needs to continue along Glendale Blvd and Brand to Glenoaks, hit the Burbank Metrolink station, and then use ROW nearby to connect with Lankershim.

dl3000 · #**346** Posted **Nov 3, 2009, 8:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill

Yes, why would the Mayor of L.A. be interested in an Orange County transit project?

Because I'm sure it leads to traffic within his own jurisdiction ie LA city limits. Solving transportation problems cannot be limited to political boundaries, it should be limited to where people go and where they come from on a daily basis, so you have to look at it from a metropolitan frame of reference. Besides, SCAG is the MPO for all of them and controls much of the transportation funding. Villaraigosa is just one of the players but he's the highest profile so its good that he's using his voice.

bmfarley · #**347** Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 5:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Orulz and bmfarley, that map is horribly drawn. The Vermont Corridor Subway would be an extension of the Red Line straight down Vermont Avenue. Our best bet at Glendale train service is the Yellow Line (speaking of which, I just realized that it isn't on the map!) and the Route 134 Corridor (if it's upgraded to LRT).

I do not know what you're referring to. I use Google Maps... and Google Earth. In fact, I wrote, "if you look at a map...."

The idea is to have a branch off the Red Line to the north, curve right through Los Feliz and go straight north to Glendale. Additionally, a branch south going straight down Vermont to at least Exposition/USC.

However, I think the bigger issue is constructibility. Is something like this even realistic? The Red Line is already constructed. It's not like the necessary infrastructure is already in place to branch those lines wherever necessary.. and is it possible to come back later and do so? Doubtful! Certainly not without affecting the current heavily used line. Additionally #2... just because there are rails there does not mean more trains can run on them.

Wright Concept · #**348** Posted **Nov 4, 2009, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmfarley

I do not know what you're referring to. I use Google Maps... and Google Earth. In fact, I wrote, "if you look at a map...."

He's talking about this map:

Quote:

The idea is to have a branch off the Red Line to the north, curve right through Los Feliz and go straight north to Glendale. Additionally, a branch south going straight down Vermont to at least Exposition/USC.

However, I think the bigger issue is constructibility. Is something like this even realistic? The Red Line is already constructed. It's not like the necessary infrastructure is already in place to branch those lines wherever necessary.. and is it possible to come back later and do so? Doubtful! Certainly not without affecting the current heavily used line. Additionally #2... just because there are rails there does not mean more trains can run on them.

Plus you don't want to branch too much or too often and then you'll have irregular headways that messes up operating the line.

Quixote · #**349** Posted **Nov 5, 2009, 1:27 AM**

It's been one year since we voted in favor of Measure R. One year ago today, we decided to vote for CHANGE. We decided that we wanted a higher quality of life and that an extra $25 a year was well worth it. With Measure R's passage, we are guaranteed construction of miles upon miles of transit projects. We now have a local funding source that allows us to pursue federal matching funds for projects like the Westside Subway and Regional Connector (which cannot be built through Prop A & C money) and entitles us to greater leverage. That opens up a world of possibilities. With momentum now in our favor, it's just a chain reaction from here on out. On November 4, 2008, the future of Los Angeles was secured.

DJasmin · #**350** Posted **Nov 5, 2009, 1:42 AM**

Who is responsible for creating that map?

Bootstrap Bill · #**351** Posted **Nov 5, 2009, 4:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dl3000

Because I'm sure it leads to traffic within his own jurisdiction ie LA city limits. Solving transportation problems cannot be limited to political boundaries, it should be limited to where people go and where they come from on a daily basis, so you have to look at it from a metropolitan frame of reference. Besides, SCAG is the MPO for all of them and controls much of the transportation funding. Villaraigosa is just one of the players but he's the highest profile so its good that he's using his voice.

Wouldn't the ARTIC be a better destination? I can't imagine many people wanting to go from L.A. to Santa Ana.

dl3000 · #**352** Posted **Nov 5, 2009, 9:19 PM**

ARTIC should be along the line. Maybe they can turn it down Katella and then have it join the existing rail right of way to go into Santa Ana.

Bootstrap Bill · #**353** Posted **Nov 5, 2009, 9:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dl3000

ARTIC should be along the line. Maybe they can turn it down Katella and then have it join the existing rail right of way to go into Santa Ana.

Why is Santa Ana the final destination? It may be the county seat, but most of the points of interest in OC are in other cities.

LosAngelesBeauty · #**354** Posted **Nov 6, 2009, 8:45 AM**

^ Yeah but downtown Santa Ana is the most, if not the only, subtantial walkable portion of OC.

Bootstrap Bill · #**355** Posted **Nov 6, 2009, 8:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

^ Yeah but downtown Santa Ana is the most, if not the only, subtantial walkable portion of OC.

I agree, but that doesn't make it a destination.

What does Santa Ana have to offer someone in LA? Most people in Downtown LA are probably more interested in OC's beaches or theme parkes. Even been to the zoo in Santa Ana? It sucks!

I think Anaheim's platinum triangle area will end up being OC's "downtown" in a few years. That should be the final destination of any OC bound light rail line.

LosAngelesBeauty · #**356** Posted **Nov 6, 2009, 8:17 PM**

^ I agree, but Santa Ana could also go through a major revival if a line from LA goes through there. Personally, there's very little in OC that I'm interested in seeing besides a few beaches and occasionally South Coast Plaza.

JDRCRASH · #**357** Posted **Nov 8, 2009, 8:46 AM**

If the Santa Ana Corridor is grade-seperated, maybe it will be more cost effective.

CityKid · #**358** Posted **Nov 8, 2009, 8:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill

1. The Blue Line will turn 20 next year. It's almost at capacity. Plus, each trip takes nearly an hour. I think it's time to consider replacing the Blue Line with a subway. If possible, divert the line so that it serves Long Beach Airport/Boeing/Long Beach City College and the Lakewood Center mall.

Sorry to join the discussion so late! The ROW between Washington and Wardlow, if I'm not mistaken, is wide enough to build passing tracks and have express trains alla Caltrain's Baby Bullet between San Jose and SF. I think it would be just as effective and more cost effective to do that rather than build a subway in that section of the Blue line. North of Washington and south of Willow, I would agree that it would benefit from having a subway portion.

As to whether or not they should build a subway to the airport, I'd want to see the route before I made any decisions. As someone else pointed, out there are a lot of jobs in that area, and with the potential Tesla Plant or new Long Beach Studios possibly being built in a nearby location, it may not be such a bad idea.

JDRCRASH · #**359** Posted **Nov 8, 2009, 8:34 PM**

^ If your talking about the ROW that I think your talking about, the northern half of that is being used for the Santa Ana Corridor proposal.

However, in the distant future, as density grows, and demand for such a line permits, it could probably be built.

bmfarley · #**360** Posted **Nov 10, 2009, 5:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

^ If your talking about the ROW that I think your talking about, the northern half of that is being used for the Santa Ana Corridor proposal.

However, in the distant future, as density grows, and demand for such a line permits, it could probably be built.

As bootstrap pointed out, the line is near capacity. I interpretted that as line capacity. Whether or not additional trips are run in the segment you're envisioning... there would need to be sufficient capacity where the lines came back together.