LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[plutonicpanda]

Hyperion Bridge near Atwater Village is getting a major overhaul with 'protected' bike lanes and a new parallel pedestrian bridge.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by caligrad

And what the hell is option 2 ????? just for Shi** and Giggles ? I know it says " exact alignment to be determined" but it will be stupid to tunnel anything diagonally (yes I know that's not the option) but with metros current leadership, I wouldn't be shocked if it were. Instead....I rather they start tunneling some east/west routes downtown for future extensions, I would imagine cut and cover would be easy to do east of the historic core, how about a new east/west 6th street/3rd street line?

Option 2 is about being creative and thinking about the options carefully, I think of option 2 as an opportunity to build improvements into the Blue Line and tie it into the Flower Street tunnel to reach the CBD.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by caligrad

I thought the Green option would plop the end point in front of Union Station? avoiding sharing track with the Gold line ?

But why?

That's the worst of both worlds... limiting further extension options AND giving people a horrible transfer back south towards where they want to go.

If you end the line there in front of Union Station, you limit the options to extend the line to Westside. You also force a lot of riders to backtrack to Civic Center and Financial District via a horrible walk to Gold (future Blue) and Red/Purple lines platforms. There is not a lot of benefit from having the line end in front of Union Station but lots of downside and problems.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Beverly isn’t a little denser. It’s much much denser. And density doesn’t drop off until Larchmont.

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

You could take the WSAB to DTLA, then to Vermont via Beverly, and then tunnel diagonally to Santa Monica Bl and Western

So something like this...

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9746...XVsYHXquaouD6H

[numble]

East San Fernando Valley Transit project recommended to receive $202.1 million in state STIP funds:
http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/stip...mmendation.pdf

[NSMP]

Is that all just in one year...? That’s incredible if so.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by bzcat

But why?

That's the worst of both worlds... limiting further extension options AND giving people a horrible transfer back south towards where they want to go.

If you end the line there in front of Union Station, you limit the options to extend the line to Westside. You also force a lot of riders to backtrack to Civic Center and Financial District via a horrible walk to Gold (future Blue) and Red/Purple lines platforms. There is not a lot of benefit from having the line end in front of Union Station but lots of downside and problems.

Agreed the only reason you want to reach Union Station is to connect to the existing Gold Line tracks, without that utility to improve route options in the network, its not useful.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by bzcat

But why?

That's the worst of both worlds... limiting further extension options AND giving people a horrible transfer back south towards where they want to go.

If you end the line there in front of Union Station, you limit the options to extend the line to Westside. You also force a lot of riders to backtrack to Civic Center and Financial District via a horrible walk to Gold (future Blue) and Red/Purple lines platforms. There is not a lot of benefit from having the line end in front of Union Station but lots of downside and problems.

Don't ask me, ask metro lol their map shows it ending in front of Union Station and the line description also plops it in front of Union Station.

.Union Station via Alameda: The WSAB would travel north along Alameda Street towards Union Station, with stops at 7th Street and Little Tokyo and at terminus adjacent to Olvera Street.

But how exactly would it limit extension options ?

If anything, it creates waaaaay more.

1. Sunset to Santa Monica, hitting Weho and Century city (which is my personal favorite)

2. Sunset to Hollywood

4. Sunset to Melrose

(Any west side line south of Melrose needs to just continue on to downtown where people can transfer and those lines can continue on to the east side)

5. Sunset to downtown Glendale where it ends where that future proposal a few years back was for that light rail down the center of the 134.

http://laist.com/2016/03/08/hide_the_traffic.php

6. Sunset to Glendale where it makes a sharp left down Glenoaks and continues on to downtown Burbank and ends at the Burbank Airport.

7. (the least dense route) Sunset to the LA Zoo, the Old Zoo and the movie studios in the Valley before continuing on into the Valley

(This Option gives the valley many different routes)

8. Once in front of Union Station, it follows the main street/Valley Blvd route where it passes LAC/USC Medical center, Cal State LA, Alhambra, Rosemead, El Monte, Baldwin Park and West Covina.

Metros is trying to make Union Station somethings its not.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Beverly isn’t a little denser. It’s much much denser. And density doesn’t drop off until Larchmont.

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

You could take the WSAB to DTLA, then to Vermont via Beverly, and then tunnel diagonally to Santa Monica Bl and Western

I can get on board with the WSAB making a left onto 1st where it then goes onto Beverly, but I wouldn't want to merge it with Santa Monica, there's no point.

I would keep a Sunset/Santa Monica line by itself. Dodger Stadium, LA City College (Where there is a potential transfer point with the red line), tons of shops, stores and I feel its dense enough.

I think after seeing how the blue line and expo line have operated thus far. Any argument about density should be muted.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

I favor the Union Station option. That way, the regional connector can be expo-eastside only, which will decongest the route, encourage only one Eastside extension, and somewhat fix the Grand Wye. Blue can go to Pasadena, and WSAB can cut across Venice or Pico to South Park, with a potential extension to Century City or Venice Beach.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by caligrad

I think after seeing how the blue line and expo line have operated thus far. Any argument about density should be muted.

Can you elaborate on this a bit?

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by caligrad

Don't ask me, ask metro lol their map shows it ending in front of Union Station and the line description also plops it in front of Union Station.

.Union Station via Alameda: The WSAB would travel north along Alameda Street towards Union Station, with stops at 7th Street and Little Tokyo and at terminus adjacent to Olvera Street.

But how exactly would it limit extension options ?

If anything, it creates waaaaay more.

1. Sunset to Santa Monica, hitting Weho and Century city (which is my personal favorite)

2. Sunset to Hollywood

4. Sunset to Melrose

(Any west side line south of Melrose needs to just continue on to downtown where people can transfer and those lines can continue on to the east side)

5. Sunset to downtown Glendale where it ends where that future proposal a few years back was for that light rail down the center of the 134.

http://laist.com/2016/03/08/hide_the_traffic.php

6. Sunset to Glendale where it makes a sharp left down Glenoaks and continues on to downtown Burbank and ends at the Burbank Airport.

7. (the least dense route) Sunset to the LA Zoo, the Old Zoo and the movie studios in the Valley before continuing on into the Valley

(This Option gives the valley many different routes)

8. Once in front of Union Station, it follows the main street/Valley Blvd route where it passes LAC/USC Medical center, Cal State LA, Alhambra, Rosemead, El Monte, Baldwin Park and West Covina.

Metros is trying to make Union Station somethings its not.

I'm asking you because you are advocating for it

It limits extension options because Union Station is already overcrowded with rail lines. None of the 8 lines you mentioned can be build and still offer user friendly transfers to existing Metro rail system.

In contrast, building WASB to Financial District pretty much preserves all those western options you mentioned, plus we also have much more east side options for further extensions. It also goes to where the ridership wants to go, and have better connections with existing and future Metro rail network (assuming get a red/purple line transfer station at Pershing)

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by bzcat

So something like this...

I’ll have more on this very soon actually.

[numble]

West Santa Ana Branch: Metro shared further details on thinking for the DTC options at community meetings:
http://transittalk.proboards.com/post/39475/thread

Originally Posted by fissure

I went to the afternoon meeting in Little Tokyo on Monday. The "transit core" routes they showed were more fleshed-out and showed a stop on Alameda south of 7th, a curve onto 7th and over to 8th (diagonal, under buildings), a stop at 8th/Los Angeles, and then a split to either Broadway/4th to connect to Pershing Square or 8th/Flower to connect to Metro Center. I'm generally in favor of straighter routes, so I suggested using 9th instead. This skips the Arts District station, but 9th/Central is only about half a mile from the station location they had and it would be a lot faster.

[numble]

The WSAB northern options have been further refined:
https://twitter.com/safrazie/status/974108718324314113

[NSMP]

Note the prominent misplacement of the Red Line Civic Center station

[Quixote]

What was the rationale behind abandoning the 4th Street alternative in favor of one along 8th Street? This route seems really forced.

[plutonicpanda]

I like H which would connect to an extended Red/Purple line. The purple line could also be broken off to become its own line going through downtown and then south to San Pedro.

[numble]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

I like H which would connect to an extended Red/Purple line. The purple line could also be broken off to become its own line going through downtown and then south to San Pedro.

H means stopping there and waiting a few years for a potential Red/Purple Line connection to be built. By dead-ending into one another I think it would decrease the likelihood of a future extension of either line, since it likely would disrupt service at the transfer station.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by Quixote

What was the rationale behind abandoning the 4th Street alternative in favor of one along 8th Street? This route seems really forced.

Metro will tell you it wasn’t abandoned, the route just wasn’t defined yet. If it was abandoned, cost was probably the determining factor.