German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseDaily Transit Links Roundup
Contributed by Fred Camino on May 8th, 2008 at 10:34 am
- Above ground or underground? Those are the two remaining choice for the Downtown Regional Connector.
- A look at the remaining alternatives for the Westside Extension.
- How does a bill that would hurt the freight railroads hurt passenger rail too? Adron has the scoop.
- Wow, a positive editorial on congestion pricing carpool lanes!
- Travel from San Louis Obispo to San Francisco in style on the new Coast Daylight.
- High gases prices are getting Valley students out of their cars and on the bus.
- A closer look at the innovative advertising now seen on the Red Line.
- City Beat interviews Laura Richardson, a new pro-transit congresswoman and champion of the subway.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
I fully support either Alternative #11 or #16 which includes the Pink Line on Santa Monica/La Cienega.
If the Santa Monica Blvd. portion is included as light rail, it could be eventually be extended south to the Expo Line and potentially to LAX, and eventually be extended east to SilverLake and then to Downtown.
If the Santa Monica Blvd. portion is included as heavy rail, with reconstruction of the Hollywood/Highland and Vermont/Wilshire stations, a worthy “Circle Line” could be formed similar to the Circle Line in London and the “Clockwork Orange” in Glasgow. (this reconstruction of Vermont/Wilshire would also allow trains to run from North Hollywood to Century City in one seat.)
I enthusiastically support either Alternative #11 or #16.
Pink Line. Does any system in the world have an actual pink line? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one, and it sounds so cute. Kinda like it should have fuzzy bunny slippers.
I think the Valley/Westide/LAX Sepulveda Line should be called the “Tan Line” because it is so close to the Ocean.
My favorite color is Expo!
Chicago’s CTA has had a Pink Line for a couple years now. It was the former Blue Line 54/Cermak branch that now gets rerouted through the loop now.
We should be naming these lines with numbers or letters or proper names like the Victoria and Jubilee lines in London.
The green of million dollar bills?
Dan: One thing Metro staff is adamant about is that there will be no “reconstruction” of Hollywood/Highland Station other than to create a crossover between passenger platforms if a Santa Monica/La Cienega line is built.
Heavy rail or light rail, though, I also see the vision of such a line extending farther south to connect with the Expo and Crenshaw lines (the latter connection making it possible to go direct from Hollywood to LAX with one transfer).
Eventually, the color system will need to give way to something else. I’ve heard the idea floated about for letter designations on more than one occasion, to which I usually say “V” for the Red Line, “W” for the Purple Line, “L” for the Blue Line, “P” for the Gold Line, and “A” for the Green Line. (You can guess what each letter stands for rather easily, I should think.)
Kind of like a Beach Cities Loop? Tell ya what. Give me the credit and I’ll let you off the hook for the eleventy bazillion simollians you owe to “Save the Talgo Turtles Foundation.”
Kymberleigh, since Metro opted not to go for the “one-seat” Valley to westside model, what do you think the chances are of moving the Sepulveda LRT up the priority list in the LRTP? I guess we will have to wait until at least the Expo is out there so there is something for it to “hook” into. I’m suprised no one has formed a “Friends” group yet for that project.
I like the way the New York trains are coded. They use numbers and letters, but the trains that run on the same Avenue in Manhattan share the same color. The Eighth Avenue trains (A,C,E) are all blue, the Seventh Avenue trains (1, 2, 3) all use red.
Speaking of the Crenshaw Line, are commuters going to have to transfer from the Expo Line, or will it be designed to enable a one-seat ride between LAX and Downtown?
I’ll put it forward again.
Even if we don’t get any “Pink Line” action, the MTA could still provide a Valley-to-Westside one seat ride by reconstructing the Wilshire/Vermont station. Trains coming from North Hollywood would make a right turn onto Wilshire. Trains coming from the Westside would make a left turn up Vermont.
This would add a small amount of travel time compared with a subway under Santa Monica Blvd., BUT, and this is important: it is much cheaper. So much cheaper that someone might be able to twist the arm of Metro to get it built. (I don’t think they are going to approve the Pink Line alignment.)
We should assign a new system: letters for services (trains), colors for routes (tracks). As soon as the Downtown Connector is built, (the current extensions under construction will be long finished by then) we could have the following services:
Long Beach to Pasadena
Long Beach to East L.A. (or Whittier!)
Long Beach to Santa Monica (turnback at 7th/Metro)
East L.A. to Pasadena (or Montclair!)
East L.A. to Santa Monica
Pasadena to Santa Monica
This is not including “short line” services that could be implemented, such as Union Station to East L.A., Pasadena to Culver City, Union Station to Willow, etc. If we build a Wye junction at Washington and Flower, we could also get a Long Beach to Santa Monica service that bypasses 7th Metro and Downtown entirely.
There are potentially at least 10 different services. Clearly, we’re running out of colors. Letters are needed.
But that won’t stop us from trying. And trying again. And keep trying. Bringing rail to Santa Monica and La Cienega Blvds is an effort that has just begun.
While I think they should reconfigure the Vermont/Wilshire station to allow that service and eliminate the need for a transfer, I have a hard time to imagine they will do that if they aren’t willing to reconfigure Hollywood/Highland. They could first construct a by-pass I suppose without reconfiguring the station that would go from Normandie/Wilshire to Beverly/Vermont without stopping at Vermont/Wilshire.
This I do agree.
If they are not going to reconstruct this line at Hollywood/Highland for a connection, What makes you think that this location will be magically cheaper and easier to do when they are building right on the properties you need to do said work?
This is a back-assward way of getting Valley riders to the Westside. They’d go east toward downtown, and then swing west? Illogical.
I put in for a 405 corridor MIS. I said MIS, because a Harbor Transitway style busway would work just as well as a rail line. That’s a more logical and direct way than a boomerang through Hollywood and Koreatown.
Even with the Pink Line, going to the Westside would be just as “back-assward”, specifically for the West SFV and Ventura County residents. They’d have to take the Orange Line all the way to North Hollywood to connect to the Red Line and then to the proposed Pink Line to get to Westwood.
A Harbor Transitway type busway for the Sepulveda Pass would definitely work and be more succussful (than the Harbor Transitway) since there is no other alternative through the pass in the first place, but there is a constraint that currently limits construction of the northbound 405 carpool lanes since land has to be taken. Not to mention that constructing an elevated viaduct would make the project very expensive for a busway. Only a subway from Sherman Oaks to Westwood would be feasible for travel through the pass; this is no different than the current Red Line paralleling the Cahuenga Pass and 101.
Yes, all of your critiques are correct. It is an imperfect solution and a compromise. It is “going backwards to go forward.”
Yes, of course, we need a subway line roughly going under the 405 Freeway, serving LAX, West L.A., Westwood, UCLA, Bel Air, Sherman Oaks, Van Nuys, Panorama City and Sylmar. (I guess the alignment I am proposing would go under Van Nuys Blvd. in the valley, which has pretty high bus ridership.) If not a subway, then a light rail going up the middle of the 405.
But I don’t see the money coming for that anytime soon. I do forsee the money to build a connection at Vermont/Wilshire as possible, since it is a much smaller amount. It would provide one minimal benefit that the Pink Line would provide.
Let’s get one thing out of the way, now and for future discussions.
There will be no reconstruction of existing stations or branches off of existing lines. Metro does not have the resources (other than diverting them from other worthy projects, such as the subway extension itself) and you cannot do that kind of work without disrupting the existing service.
Comments along those lines will simply be filed under “miscellaneous” in the Alternatives Analysis study. Don’t waste your time.
We all have our pet projects. Let’s not forget that until a short time ago, the Subway to the Sea itself was a “non-starter.” There’s no reason why it couldn’t happen.
Building a new connection at the Wilshire-Vermont station could easily be done while the current service goes on just as it has for about 10 years now.
With all due respect, Scott, your continued statement about being able to reconfigure Wilshire/Vermont without disrupting service is contrary to what I have been told by every planner and engineer that I have asked about this.
Could you enlighten us as to what you appear to know that they apparently do not?