HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6041  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2022, 9:56 PM
Easy's Avatar
Easy Easy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Do you have a link to a map? The only 1980s heavy rail plans I've seen were Wilshire to Santa Monica with North Hollywood via Fairfax. I've never seen one where the red line continued into East LA.
I don't know if it was ever planned. I think that it was more of a wish/idea that was promoted by former county supervisor Gloria Molina. It was supposed to go down Whittier instead of 1st/3rd which would have been far superior to todays compromise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6042  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2022, 6:21 AM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Do you have a link to a map? The only 1980s heavy rail plans I've seen were Wilshire to Santa Monica with North Hollywood via Fairfax. I've never seen one where the red line continued into East LA.
Here is a link that shows all the plans at various stages for LA's transit post Red/Yellow Cars. We are basically just now finishing the buildout of this 1970's era plan that began constuction in the 1980's. The Subway extension would have been part of the Santa Ana extension which continued the red line into East LA before turning south. It was never meant to stop at Union Station. Only thing missing now from this map is Crenshaw North to Hollywood
http://scsra.org/library/rapid-transit-history/


Last edited by hughfb3; Nov 27, 2022 at 6:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6043  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2022, 5:43 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughfb3 View Post
The Subway extension would have been part of the Santa Ana extension which continued the red line into East LA before turning south. It was never meant to stop at Union Station.
Interesting. So it appears to me that the line was deflected to Union Station in order to take advantage of the available storage yard space AND to create a connection for the later Gold Line branches. I assume that from the very beginning they knew that there would need to be (at least) two subway lines downtown to both adequately serve the core area and provide the capacity for various outward branches.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6044  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2022, 6:14 PM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Interesting. So it appears to me that the line was deflected to Union Station in order to take advantage of the available storage yard space AND to create a connection for the later Gold Line branches. I assume that from the very beginning they knew that there would need to be (at least) two subway lines downtown to both adequately serve the core area and provide the capacity for various outward branches.
I misspoke…, what I meant to say is that Union Station was never meant to be the Terminus. It was always planned to go into East LA once the westerly extensions were complete. But also, Union Station didn’t come into Rapid Transit planning until the late 80’s and then finalized in 1990 when Metro purchased the rights to use the station from Union Pacific. Before then, it would have just gone direct through the financial district and historic core on its way to East LA. Once Union Station came in the picture, they created the curvature of the current line in the initial operating segment for a “temporary” terminus at Union

Last edited by hughfb3; Nov 28, 2022 at 6:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6045  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2022, 7:01 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughfb3 View Post
Once Union Station came in the picture, they created the curvature of the current line in the initial operating segment for a “temporary” terminus at Union
...well the Red Line could still be made to continue on this originally planned path, extending easterly from the service/maintenance yard to Wittier Ave. We're in the United States so it's not possible but imagine a rezoning of the area between Wittier and the existing Gold Line...that could become a fairly large transit-oriented high density area.

Last edited by jmecklenborg; Nov 28, 2022 at 7:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6046  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2022, 10:40 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,659
This is big. No, it's not the $3.5-billion (or so) windfall we need to construct the last 3.5 miles underneath Wilshire, but it does set things in motion!

Quote:
At their December meeting, the Westside COG will vote to approve spending approximately $100m in discretionary Measure M funds on BRT and bus infrastructure improvements, and about $20m for predevelopment activities for D Line extension to Santa Monica.
https://twitter.com/numble/status/15...CjqfSSmLAsAAAA
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6047  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2022, 11:05 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughfb3 View Post
Angelenos dont want Light Rail. What we want is a fast grade separated easily connected rail system. Metro; up until the the Sepulveda pass, has only given us the choice of "Light" & "Heavy" rail.

Here's hoping we finally get Skytrain technology which is designed to be grade separated at a cheaper cost that the heavy rail systems we've been building and faster than the light rail systems we've been pushing underground when we want a little more speed to make up for the stopping at traffic lights.
Yes.

LA’s in a tough spot. We have the population, congestion, and sprawling geography to necessitate grade-separated rail, but the medium- to medium-high density, wide streets, and longer blocks make at-grade light rail low-hanging fruit.

Elevated and even at-grade alignments can be found along many of the world’s best/busiest rapid transit systems’ lines.

There should be elevated lines along portions of Venice, Santa Monica, and Vermont. Because the streets are so wide, the viaducts would actually improve aesthetics IMO, with Ivy covering the pylons to soften the structure (and prevent graffiti).

These are the only drawbacks to elevated rail that I can think of:

1) Inevitable NIMBYism right off the bat
2) Like at-grade rail, you have much less flexibility with alignments — meaning they run along streets. A direct route from the heart of Century City to the heart of Westwood (i.e. phase 2 of the D Line extension) is only possible with subway.
3) On excessively hot days, trains would have to operate at slower speeds.
4) No matter the speed, there will be some level of noise… but the same is true for at-grade as well.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6048  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2022, 11:10 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughfb3 View Post
You have to look up the plans before Metro was Metro, when it was the Southern California RTD.

http://scsra.org/library/rapid-transit-history/
I believe at one point there one or two proposals in the early- to mid-20th century that called for building a heavy rail system larger than the NYC Subway (it’s two painful for me to look up). But that was when car culture and suburbanization took off, and LA was a conservative city back then.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6049  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2022, 11:23 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,659
In other cities, the Harbor Subdivision and the dedicated ROWs used by the A Line and Metrolink would be 6-8 tracks and not be shared with freight. I really wish Metro would’ve built the Blue Line (now A) for EMU trains compatible with the heavy rail lines. To negotiate the sharper turns and steeper slopes, they could’ve used vehicles similar to the Chicago L. No foresight.

I wish we had a system like Melbourne’s where you have HRVs running at-grade; that’s what Metrolink should’ve (and can still be) been.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6050  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2022, 11:28 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
...well the Red Line could still be made to continue on this originally planned path, extending easterly from the service/maintenance yard to Wittier Ave. We're in the United States so it's not possible but imagine a rezoning of the area between Wittier and the existing Gold Line...that could become a fairly large transit-oriented high density area.
The only logical explanation as to why they chose this nonsensical route is because they want to save Whittier for heavy rail. When you consider that this would be an extension of the D/B Lines, the project could probably be cost-effective enough to compete for 50% matching federal funds.

Same thing with the stupid ESFV glorified BRT. We need to think holistically.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6051  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2022, 4:30 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
The only logical explanation as to why they chose this nonsensical route is because they want to save Whittier for heavy rail. When you consider that this would be an extension of the D/B Lines, the project could probably be cost-effective enough to compete for 50% matching federal funds.
Interesting. In a perfect world they could bundle this project with the Purple Line extension from the VA to DT Santa Monica. They aren't physically adjacent, of course, but there could still be some benefit in planning/building the two projects simultaneously with a 2~ year offset in order to keep specialized staff continuously employed.

There also might be a clever way to have either the red or purple line turn back at Union Station (or more likely the proposed Arts station), then have a second train on the Wittier line deflect as it approaches DTLA and head straight across to the existing 7th St. station (in a new station box) and then serve some area west, north, or south of that point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6052  
Old Posted Yesterday, 1:15 AM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 704


Urbanize posted a story from The Source about there being a groundbreaking ceremony where new renderings were revealed for the Van Nuys Light Rail project. This is Light Rail done as light rail is designed... At-Grade through a dense area. Not trying to be a subway or elevated rapid transit. This community clearly wants the modality they chose. The renderings look beautiful

I totally get that this line could tie in with Sepulveda pass as one line, but the people who live around here obviously want something more local with more stops and less of a regional line with stations further apart. It's 6.7 Miles long with 11 stations. There are loads of small businesses along this corridor and they are actually getting the best of both worlds because they will still have access to the big rapid regional Sepulveda line just two boulevards to the west. This is everything. And in future the big regional Sepulveda line could still travel north along Sepulveda to Sylmar/San Fernando. So the east/central Valley will have both a real rapid transit line and a fully functioning local line

Metro really listened to many varied needs/wants and discovered a way to give this area everything and I applaud them. This is how I envision future neighborhoods in LA, rapid lines fully grade separated whisk people in from afar and in close proximity are the local at grade trains slowing down the pace, thereby providing visual access to the neighborhood shops and residents. And… the locals were smart in that; this way, Van Nuys is now THE destination to get to and not just something to pass through

Last edited by hughfb3; Yesterday at 5:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:58 AM.

     

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