SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=171029)

Quixote Jul 1, 2009 7:30 AM

LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion
 
Measure R, the half-percent sales tax increase approved by Los Angeles County voters in November 2008, goes into effect today, marking the onset of an ambitious 30-year effort to expand and improve mass transit throughout Los Angeles County. Thus, I felt it appropriate to begin this thread on such a symbolic occasion. This thread will highlight projects beyond the scope of Measure R and will include all modes of public transport.

Quixote Jul 1, 2009 7:32 AM

L.A. Metro Breaks Ground on Metro Orange Line Extension to Chatsworth

First Official Measure R Construction Project Begins

June 24, 2009

Marking the first official project to begin construction under the new voter-approved Measure R transportation sales tax, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) today broke ground on a four-mile extension of the highly successful Metro Orange Line.

The extension of L.A. County’s premier dedicated busway will begin at the line’s current terminus in Canoga Park and extend four miles north to the Chatsworth Metrolink/Amtrak Station. The extension will add new north-south mobility options in the West San Fernando Valley and create a vital connection between Metro Orange Line service and the broader inter-urban rail system spanning all counties of Southern California and beyond.

City and county officials today met with Sully-Miller Contracting Co. at the Chatsworth Station for groundbreaking ceremonies on the first phase of construction – a north parking lot that will replace a south parking lot needed to accommodate current train passengers during construction. Later construction work on the alignment will commence in late 2009/early 2010. The busway extension is projected to open in mid-2012, more than three years ahead of schedule as a result of Measure R’s passage.

“Angelenos want more public transportation options, and we're making that a reality beginning with the extension of the Metro Orange Line,” said Los Angeles Mayor and Metro Board Chair Antonio Villaraigosa. “The voters made their voices heard loud and clear when they overwhelmingly passed Measure R, and now we're able to deliver this project three years ahead of schedule. This is the first of many projects now in the pipeline that will dramatically improve regional mobility, create news jobs and generate new economic opportunities for all Angelenos.”

L.A. County Supervisor and Metro Board Member Zev Zaroslavsky was among the first public officials within Los Angeles to advocate for a local dedicated Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. “The extension to Chatsworth will build on the success that has made the Metro Orange Line one of the most renowned busway projects in the nation,” Yaroslavsky said. “We’ve already proven that you can create a premium rapid bus service that is both affordable and flexible enough to serve the growing needs of today’s transit riders. Now even more commuters stand to benefit from connections with the Valley’s best short-cut.”

In November 2008, Measure R was approved by a two-thirds majority of voters, committing a projected $40 billion to traffic relief and transportation upgrades throughout the county over the next 30 years. The tax goes into effect July 1, 2009. While the project is a Measure R deliverable, it is expected to receive additional State funding that will free up Measure R project funding for later use in transportation improvements within the same subregion.

The tax measure will help fund dozens of critical transit and highway projects, create more than 210,000 new annual full-time equivalent construction jobs and infuse an estimated $32 billion back into the local economy, according to estimates by the nonprofit Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC).

The LAEDC also estimates that the $215.6 million construction phase of the Metro Orange Line Extension project will create 3,000 annual full-time equivalent jobs as well as infuse $461 million in direct and indirect business revenues back into the local economy.

When complete, the Metro Orange Line extension will transform the Metro-owned right-of-way into an attractive landscaped busway similar to the existing Metro Orange Line corridor. Major features will include four station stops at Sherman Way, Roscoe, Nordhoff and Chatsworth, a new 207-space park & ride facility at the Sherman Way Station, landscaping and parallel bicycle and pedestrian paths.

“I have worked for and supported the Metro Orange Line extension from day one," said L.A. City Council Member Greig Smith. “It will dramatically improve the public transit options available to residents and employees in the Northwest San Fernando Valley and Ventura County and offer safe, fast, inexpensive transportation in a few years, not decades.”

The design-build project also will include an elevated bridge at Lassen Street for buses to safely pass over Metrolink and Amtrak train tracks as they enter Chatsworth Station. Metro also will build privacy walls where the busway is built next to residential properties, as well as install new traffic signals and other roadway improvements.

The extension will provide high-capacity transit linkages between major local activity centers, and is expected to help relieve congestion on North-South arterial streets.

“The expansion of the Orange Line is going to benefit the northern part of the San Fernando Valley,” said L.A. City Council Member Dennis P. Zine. “Providing commuters with efficient transit options helps the entire community. The busway is going to move people more effectively between their residences, workplaces, schools, and shopping centers. The Metro Orange Line extension will also reduce negative environmental impacts by removing cars from the crowded roadways and saving fuel.”

Chatsworth Station has the second highest daily boardings on Metrolink’s 70-mile Oxnard to Los Angeles Ventura County Line, with 4,940 average weekday boardings. Only boardings at Metrolink’s Simi Valley Station are higher. Additionally, Amtrak’s San Diego to San Luis Obispo Pacific Surfliner trains logged nearly 54,000 boardings at Chatsworth Station last year. Other transit services at Chatsworth Station include several Metro Local bus lines, LADOT Commuter Express, Simi Valley Transit and Santa Clarita Transit.

“The Metro Orange Line extension is an example of regional cooperation that will create opportunities for Metrolink and Metro riders,” said Richard Katz, Metro Board Member and Metrolink Board Vice Chair. “The Chatsworth Metrolink station is becoming the place to go in the West Valley for all of your transit options.”

The Metro Orange line has exceeded ridership estimates since its first day of operation in October 2005. It carries an average of 22,000 boardings per day. By the year 2030, the extension is expected to generate 9,000 new average weekday boardings.

Quixote Jul 1, 2009 8:00 AM

http://angeles.sierraclub.org/transp...-r-map-960.jpg

Quote:

Measure R: Rail Expansion - The First Five Years


• Open Exposition LRT Phase I

• Begin Exposition LRT Phase 2 Construction

• Complete Orange Line Canoga Extension

• Begin Wilshire BRT Construction

• Begin Crenshaw Corridor Construction

• Begin Green Line to LAX Construction

• Begin San Fernando Valley East North/South Arterials Construction

• Begin Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction

• Begin Regional Connector Construction

• Begin Wilshire Subway Extension Construction


Quixote Jul 1, 2009 8:31 AM

Cool video of the subway portion of the Gold Line Eastside Extension...

Video Link

JDRCRASH Jul 1, 2009 4:23 PM

I've never heard of the west Santa Ana Branch corridor before, so I have a few questions:

Is it going to be AG Light Rail?

Also, it's ever extended into Orange County, will it stop at the Santa Ana Metrolink station nearby?

DJM19 Jul 1, 2009 6:52 PM

Is it at all on the table that the orange line might eventually become rail?

Quixote Jul 1, 2009 9:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH (Post 4335651)
Is it going to be AG Light Rail?

It is currently being studied as a potential grade-separated maglev corridor, but that is not the best option IMO because of the greater stop spacing it would require.

Quote:

Also, it's ever extended into Orange County, will it stop at the Santa Ana Metrolink station nearby?
Yes.

Quixote Jul 1, 2009 9:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJM19 (Post 4335891)
Is it at all on the table that the orange line might eventually become rail?

Yes, but that won't be for a while. The Valley already has Metrolink service, so BRT will feed into it. Would I say it's an effective transit solution, probably not. It'll do for now, though.

Quixote Jul 1, 2009 11:12 PM

JULY 1, 2009 | Expo Line
 
From The Transit Coalition:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Here is an exhilarating Expo development. These pictures are taken at Normandie Ave looking west this morning. They are laying subballast (fine gravel), which is the first phase of track installation. The next will be putting ties and rail and pouring ballast (coarse gravel) on top of it.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/o...1/IMG_0816.jpg

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/o...1/IMG_0811.jpg

Also in the pictures notice the right-of-way curbs as well as the ballast-retaining curbs. Between the right-of-way curbs and ballast-retaining curbs will be landscaping.

I've also noticed work going on La Brea bridge west abutment and east bridge forms. They have cast the curbs for the Ballona Creek street bridge. Also, power lines at La Cienega seem to have been gone, except for some low-hanging lines east of the street, which seem to be fiber-optic lines, hence they are not dangerous to work near with and probably will not be removed as a result.

A lot of utility work is still taking place near Vermont Ave, which probably won't be completed for another two moths at the least. Phase 1 utility work has been extensive, probably because the line is adjacent to the East Central Interceptor Sewer.


JDRCRASH Jul 2, 2009 12:57 AM

^ I thought the gravel comes before the track layout?

JDRCRASH Jul 2, 2009 1:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife (Post 4336243)
Yes, but that won't be for a while. The Valley already has Metrolink service, so BRT will feed into it. Would I say it's an effective transit solution, probably not. It'll do for now, though.

And if turned into a AG Light Rail, won't it be connected to the Gold Line?

Quixote Jul 2, 2009 1:11 AM

^ No, it would connect with the Red Line in NoHo.

Kingofthehill Jul 2, 2009 6:50 AM

I wish Metro would implement more BRT's in the basin; Venice, Slauson, La Brea, etc, would all benefit from a BRT. Bus transit on those routes (well, anything west of Western, really), is a real pain, and something like an Orange Line on any one of the main streets over there would make using transit infinitely times easier.

Oh, and what is ever going to be done with Vermont? Severely overcrowded buses running at ridiculous frequencies (3-4 minutes during rush hour). If Metro really cared about poor folks, they'd be tunneling something down Vermont, instead of pursuing an LRT down the relatively affluent Crenshaw Blvd (especially seeing how the Crenshaw Rapid doesn't even have 15,000 riders; Vermont has 50,000+, not counting subway transfers from the several stations along its route).

Quixote Jul 2, 2009 9:29 AM

^ LA could use a streetcar system similar to the one in Toronto. Perhaps a resurrection of the Red Car system?

As for Vermont, the ultimate transit solution is an HRT extension of the Red Line. It would definitely be much more cost-effective than Crenshaw, but I certainly wouldn't underestimate the potential ridership with all the connections. Here's what it could ultimately end up becoming:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3611/...74f25980_o.jpg
By Wright Concept

Quixote Jul 2, 2009 9:49 AM

BTW, this is the MTA's Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), though it is slightly dated:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/...ff61df99_b.jpg

Wright Concept Jul 2, 2009 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife (Post 4337139)
^ LA could use a streetcar system similar to the one in Toronto. Perhaps a resurrection of the Red Car system?

Or at the very least Trolleybuses and more dedicated Bus Only Lanes.

CRENSHAW CORRIDOR

As for Crenshaw Corridor as currently truncated doesn't work. However when extended even coupled with the West Hollywood Santa Monica Blvd subway option for the Westside Corridor study that could provide a needed North-South Corridor.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2qcoykg.jpg


VERMONT CORRIDOR

http://i39.tinypic.com/14v4il1.gif
Not from Metro's plans but a personal fantasy map.

I definitely agree with the merits of a Vermont Corridor given that there are sections that do not need to be underground due to the wider street widths. A good study needs to be done to show how this can be better utilized as a Regional transit corridor. Either by using a piece of a railroad right-of-way at the south end of the line as Crenshaw Corridor has the advantage of using a railroad right of way to reach LAX and tie into the existing rail transit infrastructure with relative ease via the Green Line and possibly Expo.

LosAngelesSportsFan Jul 2, 2009 11:09 PM

On that map, the Pink Line that you have needs to connect to the other three lines to the south of it, no? it would be a great way to tie the southern portion of the system together.

Quixote Jul 2, 2009 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wright Concept (Post 4338238)
CRENSHAW CORRIDOR

As for Crenshaw Corridor as currently truncated doesn't work. However when extended even coupled with the West Hollywood Santa Monica Blvd subway option for the Westside Corridor study that could provide a needed North-South Corridor.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2qcoykg.jpg

What's with the dashed green line branching off from Crenshaw? I thought that option was already eliminated from further consideration?

Quote:

VERMONT CORRIDOR

http://i39.tinypic.com/14v4il1.gif
Not from Metro's plans but a personal fantasy map.

I definitely agree with the merits of a Vermont Corridor given that there are sections that do not need to be underground due to the wider street widths. A good study needs to be done to show how this can be better utilized as a Regional transit corridor. Either by using a piece of a railroad right-of-way at the south end of the line as Crenshaw Corridor has the advantage of using a railroad right of way to reach LAX and tie into the existing rail transit infrastructure with relative ease via the Green Line and possibly Expo.
Why isn't this project being studied right now? Is it because of the high cost and the prioritization of the Westside Extension? BTW, what is the cost of subway vs. elevated?

Quixote Jul 3, 2009 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan (Post 4338280)
On that map, the Pink Line that you have needs to connect to the other three lines to the south of it, no? it would be a great way to tie the southern portion of the system together.

Wright's map doesn't accurately depict the MTA's plans. For instance, the Crenshaw Corridor would terminate at the Green Line rather than continue on to the South Bay. It's the Green Line itself that is to be extended farther south.*

The corridor you are referring to is part of the Harbor Subdivision study and it would terminate in either San Pedro or Long Beach.**


*Wright, don't you fault that idea? Don't lines with branches screw with the headways?

**Wright, which one would you say makes more sense?

Wright Concept Jul 3, 2009 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife (Post 4338335)
What's with the dashed green line branching off from Crenshaw? I thought that option was already eliminated from further consideration?

It is, I sketched this out about 3 years ago before the recent changes. I forgot to place a caveat note under the image.



Quote:

Why isn't this project being studied right now... Is it because of the high cost and the prioritization of the Westside Extension? BTW, what is the cost of subway vs. elevated?
Yes. The problem with Vermont corridor right now compared to Wilshire is that it has the transit dependency and ridership on its own to justify it as maybe a streetcar or even LRT but it's dependent on a Downtown and Wilshire corridor connection to make it work because Wilshire Corridor contains the jobs that would stimulate the ridership for a Subway. The Vermont corridor minus USC/Coliseum or extending it much further south into the South Bay (current Metro idea is Vermont corridor from Wilshire to the Green line)

I don't have exact costs but it works out to something like At-grade rail as the base value, elevated rail is about 2.5-3 times the cost of the base, subway is 5-6 times the cost of the base and twice as much as elevated.

Wright Concept Jul 3, 2009 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife (Post 4338353)
*Wright, don't you fault that idea? Don't lines with branches screw with the headways?

I fault it under two conditions;
1) When the corridor under question doesn't justify the need for the extra trunk service.
Exceptions to that rule are;
* Running a trunk subway with one or two branches feeding Wilshire Corridor from Westwood to Downtown
* Downtown Regional Connector,
* The 405 corridor between Van Nuys and Westwood
* A small section serving LAX-El Segundo

These would work because the trunk serves the key corridor, destination, job center and or has a very high residential density (i'm talking Hong Kong/Paris/Tokyo like density) in question, however that is not true for a corridor let's say down Florence Avenue with branches all over the place.

2) There will be capacity limits to having too many branches along one corridor and with only two tracks. It's more to do with the operation side of things because the more switches and branches along the line the slower it will operate even if it's fully grade separated. And it just adds more confusion when you wait for the service.

What the map doesn't show is at the LAX section would have more than two tracks at the station (I'm assuming the section that you're refering to, or it could be the Crenshaw Map, that is a diagram of the various northern route options that it could take, not 4 or 5 lines sharing trunk on Crenshaw.) In addition El Segundo is one of the major job centers in the South Bay area so it makes sense to have a few lines with an already built grade separated corridor that serves a large job center.

Quote:

**Wright, which one would you say makes more sense?

That is a trick question. I'm very serious about that because it is dependant upon what style of service is discussed.

If it's local they're both equal however I would place a little more weight towards Long Beach because of the Wilmington connection (however how they connect into Long Beach will still be a major question). However San Pedro isn't a bad destination, of course having both terminals would be preferable.

If it's regional they are almost on equal footing because they will both link LAX and the South Bay, where at San Pedro is the World Cruise Center a place where a number of travelers from LAX will go to set off on their cruises around the Pacific. Long Beach could work as a Regional Terminal given it's current anchor as a regional job center to the South Bay.

Quixote Jul 3, 2009 3:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wright Concept (Post 4338405)
I fault it under two conditions;
1) When the corridor under question doesn't justify the need for the extra trunk service.
Exceptions to that rule are;
* Running a trunk subway with one or two branches feeding Wilshire Corridor from Westwood to Downtown
* Downtown Regional Connector,
* The 405 corridor between Van Nuys and Westwood
* A small section serving LAX-El Segundo

These would work because the trunk serves the key corridor, destination, job center and or has a very high residential density (i'm talking Hong Kong/Paris/Tokyo like density) in question, however that is not true for a corridor let's say down Florence Avenue with branches all over the place.

So, basically, you're saying that branches are okay when they feed into major residential and commercial corridors? Is that what you're saying?

Quote:

2) There will be capacity limits to having too many branches along one corridor and with only two tracks. It's more to do with the operation side of things because the more switches and branches along the line the slower it will operate even if it's fully grade separated. And it just adds more confusion when you wait for the service.

What the map doesn't show is at the LAX section would have more than two tracks at the station (I'm assuming the section that you're refering to, or it could be the Crenshaw Map, that is a diagram of the various northern route options that it could take, not 4 or 5 lines sharing trunk on Crenshaw.) In addition El Segundo is one of the major job centers in the South Bay area so it makes sense to have a few lines with an already built grade separated corridor that serves a large job center.
I know that the Crenshaw map you posted only shows various routing options. I'm talking about the Green Line having Lincoln and South Bay branches and wonder if that would mess with the headways.

Wright Concept Jul 3, 2009 3:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife (Post 4338609)
So, basically, you're saying that branches are okay when they feed into major residential and commercial corridors? Is that what you're saying?

In so many words yes. With more emphasis on the serving the commercial corridors than the residential. Once the main commercial corridors are served by the rail then the residential corridors can follow. But there is still a limit you don't want to have too many branches coming in from every where to serve the line. One, two, maybe three branches ok, any more we'll be talking about four track corridors.

Quote:

I know that the Crenshaw map you posted only shows various routing options. I'm talking about the Green Line having Lincoln and South Bay branches and wonder if that would mess with the headways.
No, I don't think it would mess with it because the headways would be split if an extension of the Green Line were to run to LAX all the Lincoln corridor would do is extend that. By the time Crenshaw Corridor comes online, there maybe a plan to just have the Crenshaw Corridor trains follow the El Segundo/South Bay leg (per the ridership analysis in the Crenshaw Corridor study) and the Green Line would simply run as a LAX/105 freeway/Lincoln Corridor route.

LosAngelesSportsFan Jul 3, 2009 6:27 AM

in his swearing in speech for his second term, Villaragoisa mentioned that one of his goals is to accelerate the time line for the first 12 projects in measure R. i hope he finds a way to make this true. The problem with a lot of grand plans here in LA are the extremely long time lines that make them unrealistic.

Quixote Jul 3, 2009 6:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wright Concept (Post 4338636)
In so many words yes. With more emphasis on the commercial corridors than residential. Once the main commercial corridors are served by the rail then the residential corridors can follow. But there is still a limit you don't want to have too many branches coming in from every where to serve the line. One,two, maybe three branches ok, any more we'll be talking about
four track corridors.

I'm still not exactly sure what you're saying, but I think I have an idea. Let's use the Red/Purple Lines as an example, which serve a major commercial and residential corridor by the name of Wilshire Blvd. Is the segment between Union Station and Wilshire/Vermont the so-called trunk? If so, then I understand how branches can increase headways. But, what I'm talking about is the wait at Wilshire/Vermont for trains to Wilshire/Western and North Hollywood and how the trains come every ten minutes.

Quote:

No, I don't think it would mess with it because the headways would be split if an extension of the Green Line were to run to LAX all the Lincoln corridor would do is extend that. ...
I don't get what you're saying. Would you care to clarify?

Quote:

... By the time Crenshaw Corridor comes online, there maybe a plan to just have the Crenshaw Corridor trains follow the El Segundo/South Bay leg (per the ridership analysis in the Crenshaw Corridor study) and the Green Line would simply run as a LAX/105 freeway/Lincoln Corridor route.
Yes, that's what I would love to see. It seems rather inefficient and inconvenient to have to make that transfer onto the Green Line to continue farther south.

Quixote Jul 3, 2009 6:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan (Post 4338850)
in his swearing in speech for his second term, Villaragoisa mentioned that one of his goals is to accelerate the time line for the first 12 projects in measure R. i hope he finds a way to make this true. The problem with a lot of grand plans here in LA are the extremely long time lines that make them unrealistic.

I don't think we can expect any sort of timeline acceleration without significant changes in Sacramento and DC. LA is doing its part, but the other two are not. That's the sad part.

Wright Concept Jul 3, 2009 7:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife (Post 4338871)
I'm still not exactly sure what you're saying, but I think I have an idea. Let's use the Red/Purple Lines as an example, which serve a major commercial and residential corridor by the name of Wilshire Blvd.

Quote:

Is the segment between Union Station and Wilshire/Vermont the so-called trunk?
That is correct.

Quote:

If so, then I understand how branches can increase headways. But, what I'm talking about is the wait at Wilshire/Vermont for trains to Wilshire/Western and North Hollywood and how the trains come every ten minutes.
Huh, what are you asking in the underlined statement?



Quote:

I don't get what you're saying. Would you care to clarify?
If the Green Line to the Airport was built while it still had the El Segundo/South Bay leg there would be two branches; (LAX and El Segundo) sharing a trunk section (105 Freeway). If the Green line were to be extended to Lincoln Corridor all it would be is an extension of the LAX branch. This is similiar in concept with extending the Purple Line to Westwood, that is essentially the extension of the Wilshire/Western Branch of our main trunk subway. Hopefully that could clarify it.



Quote:

Yes, that's what I would love to see. It seems rather inefficient and inconvenient to have to make that transfer onto the Green Line to continue farther south.
Exactly considering that the biggest transfer will happen at the Airport/Century Blvd station.

Quixote Jul 4, 2009 4:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wright Concept (Post 4338919)
Huh, what are you asking in the underlined statement?

Trains on the Wilshire/Western and North Hollywood branches themselves, NOT the actual trunk, have 10-minute headways. Therefore, don't branches only benefit the trunk?

StethJeff Jul 4, 2009 6:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan (Post 4338280)
On that map, the Pink Line that you have needs to connect to the other three lines to the south of it, no? it would be a great way to tie the southern portion of the system together.

I'd suggest that it's even more important to extend that Pink line north. In general, the Westside is the biggest cluster**** in the entire metro area. It's getting to the point where Metro needs to take a serious look at gridding-up the DTLA/WestLA core with lines on:

Grand
Broadway
La Cienega
La Brea
Fairfax
Vermont
Western
Venice
Wilshire
3rd
SaMo
Melrose
Sunset
Hollywood
Olympic
Pico . . .

StethJeff Jul 4, 2009 6:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan (Post 4338850)
in his swearing in speech for his second term, Villaragoisa mentioned that one of his goals is to accelerate the time line for the first 12 projects in measure R. i hope he finds a way to make this true. The problem with a lot of grand plans here in LA are the extremely long time lines that make them unrealistic.

Well, he might as well do something to salvage his fading political career. At least end things on a good note. :shrug:

Quixote Jul 4, 2009 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StethJeff (Post 4340708)
I'd suggest that it's even more important to extend that Pink line north. In general, the Westside is the biggest cluster**** in the entire metro area. It's getting to the point where Metro needs to take a serious look at gridding-up the DTLA/WestLA core with lines on:

I agree. Instead of focusing so much on a county-wide system, we should channel our efforts into bringing rail lines to places where the people would actually use them. This is why I think we could use a municipal transit agency to develop rail lines in LA's core area. I'd like to reference my Santa Monica and Beverly Line proposals, which are based on the premise of needing a denser network in the core urban area:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=137422

Quote:

Grand
Not necessary. It's only two blocks east of Flower Street, where the Blue Line runs.

Quote:

Broadway
See Broadway streetcar project.

Quote:

La Cienega
See Westside Extension.

Quote:

La Brea
This could be a northern extension of the Crenshaw Corridor.

Quote:

Fairfax
This could also be a northern extension of the Crenshaw Corridor.

Quote:

Vermont
Already a subway down Vermont north of Wilshire. An extension farther south is planned.

Quote:

Western
Necessary, IMO, but Wright would argue that it's too close to Vermont.

Quote:

Venice
I agree. Instead of this being a branch of Crenshaw, extend it east along Pico to DTLA where it would then run along Broadway or Main to serve South Park, Fashion District, Historic Core, Toy District, and Civic Center.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2495/...01bfeb19_o.jpg
By Wright Concept

Quote:

Wilshire
Um, yeah.

Quote:

3rd
Too close to Wilshire. Maybe a BRT?

Quote:

SaMo
See Westside Extension. Also, the Silver Line proposal could be extended down Santa Monica and connect with the Westside Extension.

Quote:

Melrose
Too close to Santa Monica.

Quote:

Sunset
Only the Sunset Strip. I'm having a hard time seeing how it could work. Maybe a line up San Vicente and then up Sunset?

Quote:

Hollywood
Already served.

Quote:

Olympic
Too close to Wilshire.

Quote:

Pico . . .
See the Pico/Venice route I was talking about.

Wright Concept Jul 5, 2009 3:10 AM

HAPPY 4th of JULY
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife (Post 4340240)
Trains on the Wilshire/Western and North Hollywood branches themselves, NOT the actual trunk, have 10-minute headways. Therefore, don't branches only benefit the trunk?

Simple answer, Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife (Post 4341010)
I agree. Instead of focusing so much on a county-wide system, we should channel our efforts into bringing rail lines to places where the people would actually use them. This is why I think we could use a municipal transit agency to develop rail lines in LA's core area. I'd like to reference my Santa Monica and Beverly Line proposals, which are based on the premise of needing a denser network in the core urban area:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=137422

You're not alone in that endevour.

I made these posts close to three years ago when Get LA Moving was on the radar to explain this precise dichotomy.
Part 1: 11/28/2006
Part 2: 12/1/2006
Part 3: 12/3/2006
Part 4: 1/25/2007

I think back to what certain County Supervisor (Antonovich) says about funding the Wilshire Subway or any other subway in Los Angeles. "If it's (their) the city's will let them do it"

The more I think about it the more it makes sense.

If the City of LA were to float a bond let's say $ 2.5 Billion dollars (folks they tried to push originally $2 billion in bonds this past election, but only prop H got to the ballot) and they were to only build within the city limits of LA, lets say the Wilshire Corridor until Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center. Maybe one down the Vermont Corridor from Wilshire until King Blvd or Slauson to serve the transit dependant and the BRU zealots would have no leg to stand on, since it would allow the current 58,000+ bus riders better service. Or even on the Whittier Corridor from Lorena to Downtown. Extentions that are just enough to make a dent and gain a lot of riders, but not deep enough that it requires them to purchase more trains cause now they'll be directly dealing with MTA. This also serves a dual function to help with LA re-zoning efforts to make transit oriented development and strengthening neighborhood fabrics...


Quote:

See Westside Extension...

This could be a northern extension of the Crenshaw Corridor...

This could also be a northern extension of the Crenshaw Corridor...

Already a subway down Vermont north of Wilshire. An extension farther south is planned...

Necessary, IMO, but Wright would argue that it's too close to Vermont.
And you'd be right. Western is not only too close to Vermont, it's too close to possible North extension of Crenshaw Corridor at this moment. However with many of these busy lines I do see the immediate need of instituting a network of bus only lanes. On the really busy bus lines string up some trolley wire and run trolleybuses along those routes on those special bus only lanes. With Western much like Pico-Venice east of Mid City I'd go for these corridors when the two parallel corridors adjacent to them go over capacity;
* Western would make a wonderful subway corridor once Crenshaw and or Vermont goes over capacity.
* Pico-Venice once Expo and or Wilshire corridor goes over capacity.


Quote:

I agree. Instead of this being a branch of Crenshaw, extend it east along Pico to DTLA where it would then run along Broadway or Main to serve South Park, Fashion District, Historic Core, Toy District, and Civic Center.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2495/...01bfeb19_o.jpg
By Wright Concept

That sketch was more of a quick iteration to one I did previously in High School (c.1998) as an idea of what is the absolute bare minimum of infrastructure network needed to serve mostly the heart of the Westside without too much subway construction.

I was thinking of the Muni Metro and this was during the Zev's law fury where we had the Expo Right of way and thought originally why not have these branches (Santa Monica, Westwood, Venice and LAX/South LA) feed a main trunk along the existing right-of-way.

http://i40.tinypic.com/33pavzl.gif
Original hypothesis with updated info. Grey areas are not built due to funding that would've been taken away to build the Expo four track corridor.

Problems with that is Expo right-of-way would need to be 4 tracks to make this work and then the costs would balloon out of control because that would require an additional tunnel and alignment in Downtown or a rebuilding of the existing Blue Line tunnel for Four tracks. The cost of that would have meant a very short Wilshire subway extension miss out on key destinations of Century City and Beverly Hills and the Mid-City and Larchmont areas would be left out completely.

As I grew in age, information about Federal Funding Grants and historical information like the proposed Vineyard Subway that would have linked the Pacific Electric Venice Line to through a subway to Mid-Wilshire and Downtown, it came to my attention that the Venice and Crenshaw corridors are dependent on Mid-City stations for successful ridership levels as rail. And linking this up to Hollywood would create a well-utilized transit corridor with no parallel freeway to compete with so why not put two and two together.

However I said all of that to say going East on Pico-Venice isn't entirely ruled out.

The trick with extending the Pico-Venice line east is where to place the stations, the current bus ridership on Pico is heavily utilized for short travel distances, so maybe a shorter stop spacing between stations will be needed? That was the busiest and heavily utilized boarding per passenger mile streetcar corridor when it was the old LA Yellow Cars, I wouldn't be surprised if reinstitued it would be a successful streetcar line again, to start.

Quote:

Too close to Wilshire. Maybe a BRT?
Third Street from Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center to Downtown would make an excellent trolleybus corridor or streetcar line.

Quixote Jul 5, 2009 7:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wright Concept (Post 4341161)
Simple answer, Yes.

Okay. My question to you now is if we can increase service on the branches to 5-minute headways and on the trunk to 2-3 minute headways?

Quote:

... Part 1: 11/28/2006
So, what's stopping us? Why aren't we doing this?

Quote:

Part 2: 12/1/2006 ...
Regarding the last sentence, how can we afford 4-track corridors?

Quote:

And you'd be right. Western is not only too close to Vermont, it's too close to possible North extension of Crenshaw Corridor at this moment. However with many of these busy lines I do see the immediate need of instituting a network of bus only lanes. On the really busy bus lines string up some trolley wire and run trolleybuses along those routes on those special bus only lanes. ...
Any rail line down Western would have to be a subway because the street is too narrow. So, it is definitely not financially feasible now and won't be anytime soon. I think bus-only lanes would work fine, but I'm not sure how effective they'd be.

Quote:

... With Western much like Pico-Venice east of Mid City I'd go for these corridors when the two parallel corridors adjacent to them go over capacity;
* Western would make a wonderful subway corridor once Crenshaw and or Vermont goes over capacity. ...
Wow, you're talking about maybe 30 years from now!

Quote:

... * Pico-Venice once Expo and or Wilshire corridor goes over capacity.
In the meantime, how about the Venice branch? I think it should feed into a La Brea, rather than Crenshaw, trunk because Venice would probably be served by the Green Line by then.

Quote:

... The trick with extending the Pico-Venice line east is where to place the stations, the current bus ridership on Pico is heavily utilized for short travel distances, so maybe a shorter stop spacing between stations will be needed? ...
Yes, yes, and more yes! I was worried that if such a line were to happen, then the standard 1-mile stop spacing would be used, to which I would've argued that the area was built on a more pedestrian scale and that 1/2-mile stop spacing would be more appropriate.

Also, doesn't this bring in the possibility of a San Vicente branch to feed into the Pico trunk?

Quote:

... That was the busiest and heavily utilized boarding per passenger mile streetcar corridor when it was the old LA Yellow Cars, I wouldn't be surprised if reinstitued it would be a successful streetcar line again, to start.
Wouldn't it have to be a subway until Crenshaw, where it would then run either at-grade or elevated?

Quote:

Third Street from Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center to Downtown would make an excellent trolleybus corridor or streetcar line.
I think such ideas would make great short-term solutions. At least do something.


All this talk shows just how little the federal government is doing in the name of funding. If the pool of funds were greater, proposals like these would be taken more seriously.

Wright Concept Jul 5, 2009 4:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife (Post 4341392)
Okay. My question to you now is if we can increase service on the branches to 5-minute headways and on the trunk to 2-3 minute headways?

Simple answer: Build the Purple Line to at least Century City!

By that point both lines willl need 6 car trains and operate on the same short headway. Right now if we were to do that, the Wilshire branch trains would look very empty while the North Hollywood trains would be fine.

Another variable in this transit equation is understanding the role the Regional Connector (RC) will play in all of this because if we build RC and nothing else capacity will be freed up on the Downtown trunk portion of the line because another alternative have been introduced.

That is why it's so important to think of the building of our transit network as being a shark. When a shark keeps getting stalled, it stops moving. When it stops moving it dies, so would our transit network if we don't plan ahead and keep building and funding the network.

So its silly to get caught up in the details or dilemmas of at-grade, elevated, subways, light rail, heavy rail, BRT, because in a developing network that stalls the shark, it stalls the building of our much needed network.

Quote:

So, what's stopping us? Why aren't we doing this?
What else the political will to do it. CRA helps connect some of the City Councilmembers with potential campaign donors through projects. So doing what i'm proposing would essentially cut some of the Councilmembers from their power source.

Quote:

Regarding the last sentence, how can we afford 4-track corridors?
We'd have to use a larger TBM (40-45' in diameter) to go very deep under that street and have the four track corridor be in essence 2 two-track corridors stacked on top of each other. I was making that statement as more of a coulda, shoulda, woulda. With stop spacing every mile apart underground and dedicated bus only lanes or LRT with signal preemption on the ground that is the best way to create the Local-Express transit network that is needed for our corridors.

Quote:

Any rail line down Western would have to be a subway because the street is too narrow. So, it is definitely not financially feasible now and won't be anytime soon. I think bus-only lanes would work fine, but I'm not sure how effective they'd be.
The biggest improvement to Western with Bus Only Lanes isn't capacity but operational efficency. They can get by with better schedule reliability moving the same number of passengers on fewer buses. The trolley buses would be a means of moving large numbers of people for a lot less fuel consumption.

Quote:

Wow, you're talking about maybe 30 years from now!
At least.

Quote:

In the meantime, how about the Venice branch? I think it should feed into a La Brea, rather than Crenshaw, trunk because Venice would probably be served by the Green Line by then.
My intention for the North La Brea Subway sketch is to have both Crenshaw and Venice branches run together between Hollywood and Mid-City to connect with the Red and Purple Lines. Think of the Regional Connector in concept. Venice branch wouldn't have ran through to the Crenshaw branch.

Quote:

Yes, yes, and more yes! I was worried that if such a line were to happen, then the standard 1-mile stop spacing would be used, to which I would've argued that the area was built on a more pedestrian scale and that 1/2-mile stop spacing would be more appropriate.

Also, doesn't this bring in the possibility of a San Vicente branch to feed into the Pico trunk?

Wouldn't it have to be a subway until Crenshaw, where it would then run either at-grade or elevated?
These are entirely possible, in this hypothetical stage.

Quote:

All this talk shows just how little the federal government is doing in the name of funding. If the pool of funds were greater, proposals like these would be taken more seriously.
BINGO!!!

JDRCRASH Jul 5, 2009 7:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife (Post 4336611)
^ No, it would connect with the Red Line in NoHo.

The Orange Line already connects with the Red Line. I'm talking about using the, 134 and 210 to connect with the Gold Line in Pasadena...

Extend it to the Whitnall ROW. Go down the ROW as Below grade (avoiding the demolition of overhead Powerlines, Parks, and most importantly, homes) to Alameda and Olive with an Underground Station (lots of infill potential there), and then use the 134/210 all the way to Pasadena at the Gold Line Holly Station

Quixote Jul 6, 2009 3:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wright Concept (Post 4341577)
We'd have to use a larger TBM (40-45' in diameter) to go very deep under that street and have the four track corridor be in essence 2 two-track corridors stacked on top of each other. I was making that statement as more of a coulda, shoulda, woulda. With stop spacing every mile apart underground and dedicated bus only lanes or LRT with signal preemption on the ground that is the best way to create the Local-Express transit network that is needed for our corridors.

So, local-express subway corridors are out of the question? Would they be significantly more expensive?

Quote:

My intention for the North La Brea Subway sketch is to have both Crenshaw and Venice branches run together between Hollywood and Mid-City to connect with the Red and Purple Lines. Think of the Regional Connector in concept. Venice branch wouldn't have ran through to the Crenshaw branch.
So, you agree with me about the Venice branch feeding into a La Brea trunk?

Quixote Jul 6, 2009 3:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH (Post 4341776)
The Orange Line already connects with the Red Line. I'm talking about using the, 134 and 210 to connect with the Gold Line in Pasadena...

No, it would simply be a replacement of the current BRT alignment.

JDRCRASH Jul 6, 2009 7:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife (Post 4341392)
I think it should feed into a La Brea, rather than Crenshaw, trunk because Venice would probably be served by the Green Line by then.

Huh?

Wright Concept Jul 6, 2009 8:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife (Post 4342317)
So, local-express subway corridors are out of the question? Would they be significantly more expensive?

For our region, yes they would be. Because the cost of maintaining the infrastructure and because the stop spacing is farther apart then other Metro's (at apporx every 0.8 to 1.0 mile apart compared to every 0.4 to 0.5 mile apart)

Quote:

So, you agree with me about the Venice branch feeding into a La Brea trunk?
Yes.

LosAngelesSportsFan Jul 6, 2009 8:55 PM

heres some news regarding Google and LA Transit.

From CurbedLA
Google Transit for Metro is Here (in Beta)

Monday, July 6, 2009, by Adrian Glick Kudler

googletransit.jpg

Google launched a public beta version of Google Transit for the Los Angeles metro area this weekend, after a long, hard wait. The partnership will be officially announced soon, following an initial testing period. In March, an anonymous source told LAist that Metro had a beta version ready to go and only needed to sign off on a public launch, which it was hesitant to do. In June, Metro released transit data sets for developers, setting off speculation that Google Transit for LA Metro would go live within the month. Et voila! There are still some kinks to be worked out, as reported by Militant Angeleno, who broke the story this morning, but here we are, catching up with Flagstaff and Fresno.

Quixote Jul 6, 2009 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wright Concept (Post 4343374)
... the stop spacing is farther apart then other Metro's (at apporx every 0.8 to 1.0 mile apart compared to every 0.4 to 0.5 mile apart)

Could you clarify?

Quixote Jul 6, 2009 11:33 PM

New Rail Corridor between L.A. and Las Vegas Could Doom Maglev Project

Corridor along I-15 draws support from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who says he will try to move funds from the maglev project to a new, European-style train system.

By Ashley Powers and Dan Weikel
July 3, 2009

Reporting from Los Angeles and Las Vegas -- A potential corridor for passenger trains between Las Vegas and the Los Angeles area has become part of a federal initiative to modernize the nation's rail networks and develop high-speed service between cities.

Thursday's announcement, however, might doom a 30-year-old proposal to build a high-tech magnetic levitation, or "maglev," train from Anaheim to Las Vegas if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gets his way.

Reid, who no longer supports the maglev project, said during an event to publicize the rail corridor that he would try to scuttle $45 million in federal funds earmarked for the proposal. The maglev project and a conventional rail line proposed by a private venture are trying to develop separate high speed passenger trains that would parallel oft-congested Interstate 15. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced Thursday that a swath of land along much of I-15 has been declared a federal high-speed rail corridor -- one of 11 such zones in the U.S. Projects proposed in those corridors are eligible for federal assistance, grants and loans.

Federal officials say the development of a successful high speed rail system between Southern California and Nevada would dramatically reduce delays and traffic accidents on I-15.

"For transportation, it's the most important thing that's happened to Nevada since Interstate 15," said Reid, who likened the federal high speed rail program to President Eisenhower's effort in the 1950s to develop the interstate highway system.

Last month, the Nevada senator withdrew his support for the maglev project in favor of a plan by DesertXPress Enterprises to build a European-style high speed train that relies on conventional technology. The 150 mph system would run about 200 miles from Victorville to Las Vegas and cost about $3.5-$4 billion to build.

The maglev project would extend 270 miles and cost an estimated $12 billion. Maglev technology relies on electricity and magnetic force to propel trains on a cushion of air at speeds up to 300 mph.

"I've studied maglev enough," said Reid, who added that the DesertXPress is closer to breaking ground. "We're past the planning stage. We've got to move on and start construction."

Proponents of the maglev proposal said it was unlikely that Reid would be able to persuade Congress to reverse its decision to provide funding.

"We are relying on the law and how it reads. We believe that nothing will change," said Neil Cummings, president of the American Magline Group, a consortium of private companies involved in the project.

Quixote Jul 7, 2009 1:39 AM

Video Link

Wright Concept Jul 7, 2009 3:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife (Post 4343612)
Could you clarify?

Most other World metro systems have stop spacing on average of every 0.4-0.5 miles apart built mostly for moving large numbers of people in a dense local environment. Some of these Metro's operate an "express" train component that averages every 1.0 mile apart to speed up the service and cater to those travelling regionally (serving longer distance) riders.

Our Metro is built to meet the standard that is more Regional in nature and is utilizing the "express" track metro system standard both for speed, cost-effectiveness and capacity.

To create an express component to that stop spacing that is already close to 1.0 mile apart -though trip time improvements will occur however it doesn't offset the poor cost effectiveness at the start- will require stop spacing about every 3-5 miles to make any dent, by then if you need something like this it has got to connect to very dense activity centers at the "Regional Express" and or our system is at full network build out with two or three of the lines in close proximity (1/2 mile apart) are over capacity to warrant service of this magnitude.

JDRCRASH Jul 7, 2009 4:00 PM

^
^^

Maybe having the head of Transportation will attract more funds here...

electricron Jul 7, 2009 8:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH (Post 4344799)
Maybe having the head of Transportation will attract more funds here...

Considering LaHood has been and is going everywhere, I highly doubt that.

JDRCRASH Jul 8, 2009 9:39 PM

This is discouraging...
 
From Curbed LA,

Quote:

How Much LA Traffic Costs You


http://la.curbed.com/uploads/2009.07.trafficcosts.jpg


Wednesday, July 8, 2009, by Dakota


A report on nationwide traffic from the Texas Transportation Institute notes that Los Angeles has the worst traffic in the nation and that Angelenos wasted 70 hours sitting in traffic last year, a figure that's down from the 72 hours from 2006. The study, which looked in traffic patterns in 439 U.S. urban areas from 1982 through 2007, notes that nationwide, congestion dropped for the first time in 2007, a move which can partially be attributed to rising fuel reports, according to the Wall Street Journal . You can see all the data for Western cities via this link; Los Angeles was lumped in with Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana. In terms of more specific information, people in the LA-area wasted 336 million gallons of fuel in 2007 because of traffic delays. Looking at individual costs, each driver wasted a total of $1,480 because of traffic delays, according to Bernie Fette, research specialist at the Texas Transportation Institute. (Compare that cost to the tax hike of Measure R, which is estimated to cost Los Angeles County residents $25 a year). Sadly, the study didn't look at whether all that muscle-atrophying traffic was killing our sex drive, which some unhappy readers have claimed.

sopas ej Jul 8, 2009 9:56 PM

:previous:
Interesting; and I say that only because in the last 5 years, I've never had to commute more than 6 miles from my home to my job; I never even had to take the freeway. Although that may change later this year...

Quixote Jul 9, 2009 6:23 AM

LA Council Orders LAX to Study Green Line Extension

By Art Marroquin, Staff Writer
July 8, 2009

The Metro Green Line might finally wind its way down to the terminals at Los Angeles International Airport, thanks to the recent purchase of an adjacent 20-acre parking lot that's ripe for use.

The Los Angeles City Council's Trade, Commerce and Tourism Committee on Wednesday directed airport officials to spend the next six months studying whether it's possible to bring the light rail line directly to LAX by building a stop on the site of the Park 'N Ride at Park One lot, located just east of Terminal One.

The Board of Airport Commissioners agreed last month to buy the parking lot for $126.5 million. The full City Council is expected to sign off on the expenditure by Friday.

"It's a no-brainer that every major airport has a rail line going into it," said Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, whose district includes LAX.

The Green Line's estimated $200 million, two-mile extension would likely be funded by Measure R. Los Angeles County voters approved the half-cent county sales tax measure, which went into effect last week and is expected to generate $40 billion for local transportation projects over the next 30 years.

As part of their research, airport officials will dust off and update a report completed more than a decade ago, examining whether to bring the Green Line to LAX.

"We really want this to be the premier study to say yes, this is feasible and here's how it's going to happen," said Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who chairs the council committee that oversees LAX.

"If we don't make it accessible, people won't use it," Hahn said. "It's time to right that wrong for the public."

The Green Line, running 20 miles from Norwalk to Redondo Beach, opened in 1995 at a cost of $700 million.

For now, the Green Line's stop at Aviation Boulevard drops passengers two miles away from LAX, forcing travelers to board a bus to complete a trip to the airport.

The rail line's missing link should connect "deep into the heart of the airport," Councilman Tom LaBonge said.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's current plan calls for extending the Green Line to nearby Manchester Square, allowing travelers to board a proposed people mover to gain access to airport terminals.

The MTA had initially called for extending the Green Line to LAX by 2015, but officials announced last year that the project won't likely be completed until 2018 at the earliest.

But MTA officials on Wednesday said they would welcome input from airport and city officials who want to use the airport-adjacent parking lot as a new Green Line stop.

"We're working with the airport in creating a better link to the terminals, but this is a new proposal to us," said Roderick Diaz of the MTA's South Bay planning department.

"We'd have to examine various possibilities to bring the line to the terminals," Diaz said. "But this is an interesting alternative to pursue."

Airport Commission President Alan Rothenberg said the Park One property will continue to operate as a parking lot as officials study all potential uses, including a new consolidated car rental office.

"You have a privately owned piece of property within the footprint of LAX and it's a shame we didn't acquire it the last time it was on the market," Rothenberg said. "It's clear that it should be part of LAX."

Quixote Jul 9, 2009 7:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wright Concept (Post 4344771)
Most other World metro systems have stop spacing on average of every 0.4-0.5 miles apart built mostly for moving large numbers of people in a dense local environment. Some of these Metro's operate an "express" train component that averages every 1.0 mile apart to speed up the service and cater to those travelling regionally (serving longer distance) riders.

Oh, I understand that. Your wording just had me confused.

So, would you say that 1-mile stop spacing is just right for LA's oddly configured medium-density, suburban-like land use? Or do you think it's more of an inconvenience?

One more question: How does Chicago implement express service when it only has two tracks (or am I not seeing additional ones?)?

Quote:

Our Metro is built to meet the standard that is more Regional in nature and is utilizing the "express" track metro system standard both for speed, cost-effectiveness and capacity.
I don't know about you, but I tend to think of it as a hybrid between local and express service, if that makes any sense.

Quote:

To create an express component to that stop spacing that is already close to 1.0 mile apart -though trip time improvements will occur however it doesn't offset the poor cost effectiveness at the start- will require stop spacing about every 3-5 miles to make any dent, by then if you need something like this it has got to connect to very dense activity centers at the "Regional Express" and or our system is at full network build out with two or three of the lines in close proximity (1/2 mile apart) are over capacity to warrant service of this magnitude.
I was hinting more at creating express service so that we could have more infill stations, giving us that conventional 1/2-mile stop spacing. I realize, though, that this is not feasible. I don't think, however, that that should necessarily stop us from adding an infill station here and there. I don't agree with strictly following the 1-mile stop spacing. I believe we need to make special exceptions for, say, stations at Wilshire/Robertson and La Cienega/Melrose to serve two popular high-end shopping destinations.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.