LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Metro will now consider HRT for Vermont Corridor!

http://la.curbed.com/2017/3/23/15041...ro-los-angeles

This is some great news!!! Super exciting. I love where LA is at and I can say that although not perfect, I trust that our government in LA County and City are servings us and I trust the direction we are on. Thank you Mayor Garcetti for your stand on this and UrbanizeLA for the piece you did on this project!!!!

Now, Let's create movement to adjust the east side plans and have the red line go down Whittier bl and the gold line stay alongside the 60

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

This is some great news!!! Super exciting. I love where LA is at and I can say that although not perfect, I trust that our government in LA County and City are servings us and I trust the direction we are on. Thank you Mayor Garcetti for your stand on this and UrbanizeLA for the piece you did on this project!!!!

Now, Let's create movement to adjust the east side plans and have the red line go down Whittier bl and the gold line stay alongside the 60

The Red Line along Whittier won't result in enough ridership growth to be a worthwhile investment I think. At least not when there's so many better rail projects we could spend that money on.

[NSMP]

At one point it could've made sense. It likely would still be a better value for money than the two printed LRT extension. However, given that's what's happening, I agree with King.

What can be done though is to extend the purple line through the Arts District to Whittier/Atlantic. That would be a relatively short extension that would serve the densest and most commercial part of Whittier Bl, while providing a direct connection to the Whittier-bound gold line. It would also significantly speed up crosstown travel times for those riders.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

I wonder how much NSMP's posts about it over at UrbanizeLA influenced this decision?

Haha thanks man. If anyone at city hall was moved by my griping, I will consider it a minor miracle. Very happy about the Red Line news to say the least.

[hughfb3]

The Vermont corridor could actually be Metro's first foray into the more massive and possibly cheaper Single bore tunnel with tracks stacked vertically in one tube since they are already in that configuration at Wilshire Vermont. It could be like Barcelona's L9 & L10. Only problem I see is that It would be another gamble with an unproven tech demonstrated in LA post Hollywood blvd red line construction collapse. Metro has found a proven tried and true method in tunneling with twin bore and they have been delivering recently on time and under budget... single bore could be worth the risk though

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by NSMP

At one point it could've made sense. It likely would still be a better value for money than the two printed LRT extension. However, given that's what's happening, I agree with King.

What can be done though is to extend the purple line through the Arts District to Whittier/Atlantic. That would be a relatively short extension that would serve the densest and most commercial part of Whittier Bl, while providing a direct connection to the Whittier-bound gold line. It would also significantly speed up crosstown travel times for those riders.

Crosstown rapid transit travel is the main benefit I see with a red line extension anywhere east. As it is now, there is no speedy way to get from the San Gabriel Valley; or anywhere east or south east, to the dense West side without a transfer from Metrolink to Metrorail. As it is now, We lack true east west travel access through downtown without transfer and Metrolink will not ever make it to the West side of LA.

If Vermont Red line does indeed go south to 125th st... A Heavy rail to Anywhere east; whether on Whittier or another corridor, I feel is the last major corridor to complete a crosstown "X" of heavy rapid rail.

[orulz]

gOnly two ways I can think of to do Wilshire/Vermont that would make sense are:
(1) Keep the existing station exactly as is, and put a new platform for the Vermont/Red line directly below Vermont, with a tunnel walkway connecting it to the existing platforms. This would have to be pretty deep to avoid interfering with the existing station and tunnels. It would allow some Red Line trains to continue downtown via Wilshire, but the transfer would be more inconvenient due to the platforms being separated by some distance.

(2) Use the existing platforms and give each line its own level, probably Vermont/Red on top and Wilshire/Purple on bottom. This would result in better transfers, where you only have to go up or down one level to transfer from one line to the other - quite convenient. However, it would require removing/deactivating some of the existing connections, and would make it impossible for Red Line trains to ever proceed directly downtown via Wilshire.

My preference would be for #2, however, I'm not sure whether this option would even be constructible, given the new development on top of the station.

[transitfan]

I hope this is built. I wonder what the significance of 125th St is. It seems to be just another side street. In the past, it was mentioned it would run to the 105 Freeway to connect with the Green Line. I'm not sure why it would need to travel further south (unless a preview of a line all the way to Harbor City!) The 204 and 754 Rapid buses end at 120th St. If you go to 125th St, why not a few more blocks and end at El Segundo Blvd, then you would pick up transfers from Gardena Line 5. I guess there is some reason for 125th St that we are not privvy to.

[SoCalKid]

Does anyone know why the Gold line extension is planned for Washington instead of Whittier? It seems so obvious that Whittier is the better route. Is it a cost consideration?

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by orulz

gOnly two ways I can think of to do Wilshire/Vermont that would make sense are:
(1) Keep the existing station exactly as is, and put a new platform for the Vermont/Red line directly below Vermont, with a tunnel walkway connecting it to the existing platforms. This would have to be pretty deep to avoid interfering with the existing station and tunnels. It would allow some Red Line trains to continue downtown via Wilshire, but the transfer would be more inconvenient due to the platforms being separated by some distance.

(2) Use the existing platforms and give each line its own level, probably Vermont/Red on top and Wilshire/Purple on bottom. This would result in better transfers, where you only have to go up or down one level to transfer from one line to the other - quite convenient. However, it would require removing/deactivating some of the existing connections, and would make it impossible for Red Line trains to ever proceed directly downtown via Wilshire.

My preference would be for #2, however, I'm not sure whether this option would even be constructible, given the new development on top of the station.

I agree that #2 is best. It probably would require demolition, but I think that's OK, particularly if it is replaced with 40 story skyscrapers instead. I don't think the red line should continue downtown--operational simplicity is always best.

[NSMP]

^ yep, separating the Red and Purple Lines is key. 2 minute frequencies on the Purple Line!

[mrsmartman]

Standard metro rail is the way to go! Light rail is for mid-size cities.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by transitfan

I hope this is built. I wonder what the significance of 125th St is. It seems to be just another side street. In the past, it was mentioned it would run to the 105 Freeway to connect with the Green Line. I'm not sure why it would need to travel further south (unless a preview of a line all the way to Harbor City!) The 204 and 754 Rapid buses end at 120th St. If you go to 125th St, why not a few more blocks and end at El Segundo Blvd, then you would pick up transfers from Gardena Line 5. I guess there is some reason for 125th St that we are not privvy to.

The Curbed LA article references both 120th and 125th Streets; the latter may have been a typo.

I think the plan would be to have the extension terminate at the Green Line, the tunnels/viaducts extending farther south for operational reasons and potentially future extensions.

[Swede]

Originally Posted by orulz

(2) Use the existing platforms and give each line its own level, probably Vermont/Red on top and Wilshire/Purple on bottom. This would result in better transfers, where you only have to go up or down one level to transfer from one line to the other - quite convenient. However, it would require removing/deactivating some of the existing connections, and would make it impossible for Red Line trains to ever proceed directly downtown via Wilshire.

I would suggest (2b) As above but have the southbound Vermont track share a level with the eastbound Wilshire, and route the northbound Vermont track to the same level as the westbound Wilshire track. Why? To make transferring from one line to the other more convenient. It does help. Up here in Stockholm that's how the Green & Red subway lines do at the three stations they share.


Also: if ou have a Vermont-Valley line and a Whilsire-Whittier line, name them the V and the W

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by Quixote

The Curbed LA article references both 120th and 125th Streets; the latter may have been a typo.

I think the plan would be to have the extension terminate at the Green Line, the tunnels/viaducts extending farther south for operational reasons and potentially future extensions.

Nope, it really is 125th st. No clue what the significance is to that. It's as though Garcetti wanted it to get as close as possible to Gardena without actually being in the city. Maybe Gardena pols were consulted and said they would not support aerial rail through the city. They were part of the No on M coalition after all. That doesn't seem terribly likely to me, but it doesn't make much sense to me otherwise.

Going 1 stop past the Green line makes sense, because it mitigates the repelling effect of the 105.

[Swede]

How would passeger numbers on the Green line be changed by a Vermont subway (and an extension to the Norwalk Metrolink)?

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Nope, it really is 125th st. No clue what the significance is to that. It's as though Garcetti wanted it to get as close as possible to Gardena without actually being in the city. Maybe Gardena pols were consulted and said they would not support aerial rail through the city. They were part of the No on M coalition after all. That doesn't seem terribly likely to me, but it doesn't make much sense to me otherwise.

Going 1 stop past the Green line makes sense, because it mitigates the repelling effect of the 105.

Well Vermont does get small again, albeit briefly.

Maybe they could do a cut and cover with an underground station at Gardena Blvd before reemerging as an L. Yeah it'd probably irritate the hell out of business owners but hey they can't have it both ways.

[NSMP]

Not worth it. Take a look at what the intersection of Gardena & El Segundo looks like. Only worth doing on the basis of it being so cheap. They get elevated, or they get nothing.

The tactic does strike me as odd though because it's not like this thing is going to get built in the next several years, so why not include it in the study and hope support builds for it over time?

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by Swede

How would passeger numbers on the Green line be changed by a Vermont subway (and an extension to the Norwalk Metrolink)?

They'd probably go up, but not by a lot, since Crenshaw and Crenshaw North will both be completed before Vermont HRT to the Green Line, and a second north south line that connects to the Wilshire subway and Hollywood won't add that much. Perhaps there will be a few more commuters going to Koreatown or USC or something.

Also, I imagine the 125th station would be just for serving a big park and ride or something.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by Swede

How would passeger numbers on the Green line be changed by a Vermont subway (and an extension to the Norwalk Metrolink)?

The green line would certainly be improved. By the Crenshaw line too. I have a longer post on this on the back burner but the main problem with the Green Line is that the freeway has little within walking distance of it, the station environments are abrasive, and it just generally serves to repel passengers.

The Crenshaw line and the Norwalk extension both would be outside of the 105 ROW so they will be more effective origin/destination points, but the future of the main stretch of the green line will be as a transfer line between frequent rapid transit services. The easier the transfer in that environment (and the less time you have to spend waiting to transfer), the better.