After The Expo and Red Line down Wilshire get completed, I would like to see a Sunset Subway from Union Station, Echo Park, Silver Lake, Hollywood, Sunset Strip, WestHollywood/Pac.DesignCentre., Beverly Centre. Another Line Connecting Hollywood to LAX. A Monorail along The 405 from The Sylmar Metro Link to LAX, and a Subway connecting Hollywood, Melrose, Fairfax District, The Grove, The Beverly Centre., Robertson and 3rd, Beverly Hills, and beyound.

What about a new Brown Line that would take you from Downtown to South Bay Galleria. But this would run in between the bus lane (Carpool) on the 110 San Pedro FWY. Then it would jump on the 91 West FWY, until it reaches Hawthorne Bl. This would be so cool, oh yea by the way at the moment they have a new Blue MTA Express bus on this route!

I want a subway line going east to Montclair. Metrolink's schedule stinks.

i would like to see a web of stops, this would be completly imposible due to cost but it would help everyone be able to have a subway alternative

I would like to see a Gold Line extention to Dodger Stadium.

I would like to see a Gold Line extention to Dodger Stadium.

No dude, the Silver Line is going to cruise by Dodger Stadium!!!!

No dude, the Silver Line is going to cruise by Dodger Stadium!!!!
Thats more like it!

Does anyone the status on the Yellow Line???

Downtown LA to Santa Monica by Wilshire.

^^ It would be a waste because the red line is nearby. I didn't know the Silver Line will go to Dodger Stadium. Great news for me.

what would be a waste? the red line is needed as is Expo/ they serve different corridors and both would have rediculous ridership. The expo line, once to Santa Monica, will challenge the Blue line as the busiest Light rail line in the country. The red line extension will also add hundreds of thousands to the count.

:cheers: :bash:

The Red Line to the beach via Wilshire/Santa Monica (Once the Red Line gets to Century City, it would branch off into two lines. One line would end in Westwood while the other would go to the beach)

The West Line traveling up and down Western Ave.

The OC Express from Union Station to Anaheim with limited stops.

The Platnium Line from Fullerton to Costa Mesa

The Golden Empire Connection from Montclair to Ontario

Are there any plans to connect the Beverly Centre to the Red line. I know it is out of the way, but it would be a major stop with Cedar Sinai medical centre, and I would also like to see that area turned into a sort of Time Square of the west with highrises and electronic billaboards. Maybe a Purple line conecting it to hollywood via Weho and The Strip.

:runaway:

:runaway:
:runaway: :wtf:

:runaway:
Okay...yeah...

what would be a waste? the red line is needed as is Expo/ they serve different corridors and both would have rediculous ridership. The expo line, once to Santa Monica, will challenge the Blue line as the busiest Light rail line in the country. The red line extension will also add hundreds of thousands to the count.

Yeah "sportsfan" it's going to be very interesting when Expo opens, even it CC it is going to be busy. But once to SM, all bets are off! The weekend ridership alone will be staggering! Also making it possible for East LA to get to the beach without much of hassle. Now the SM and Venice area on Sunday afternoons will be even more interesting. With all the kids coming from E. LA and Long Beach, Compton, Artesia and Willowbrook converging on Venice and SM, it's going to be fun! Along with folks from the Valley and Pasadena and everyone else, this is going to be big! Parking is atrocious, so why would anyone want to drive to the beach anymore if they didn't have to.

Let's all go and buy a Metro Boarding Pass.!!!!!!

Makes sense! Metro card:$14 Gas:$2.50 a gallon Walking:Priceless

Makes sense! Metro card:$14 Gas:$2.50 a gallon Walking:Priceless

The monthly metro card is only $14 bucks?

Makes sense! Metro card:$14 Gas:$2.50 a gallon Walking:Priceless

Dude, that's a classic for the record!!!!!! :righton:

After The Expo and Red Line down Wilshire get completed, I would like to see a Sunset Subway from Union Station, Echo Park, Silver Lake, Hollywood, Sunset Strip, WestHollywood/Pac.DesignCentre., Beverly Centre. Another Line Connecting Hollywood to LAX. A Monorail along The 405 from The Sylmar Metro Link to LAX, and a Subway connecting Hollywood, Melrose, Fairfax District, The Grove, The Beverly Centre., Robertson and 3rd, Beverly Hills, and beyound.
:dance:

I want a Monorail that takes me from LAX/Westchester to Downtown. I would call it the Airport line.

It'll be cool if a subway line was built going along the 405 freeway going from the valley all the way to LAX. if it was ever built, subway ridership in L.A. will increase at least 35%.

How about one running down the old Railroad route, it goes right through Orange County, it would connect us to LA, and its better than metrolink cause it goes to places where metrolink doesnt, I would certainly ride it

I don't think the solution is to run subways all the way out everywhere, its more important to start moving people to the subways. Places like westlake and pico-union have so much undeveloped/underdeveloped space, you would get just as many riders if you ran a short extension there as would an extention all the way out to Century City. Whatever, though, its not going to happen. LA has a serious retarded streak to it; for example, theyre starting to convert in use office buildings to condos...I can imagine a day when they announce that a conversion the library tower or the AON center...oh wait theyre already doing that. They could also promote subway use by tightening parking requirements around subway stations, but thats not going to happen either.

we just need more residental and that would not happen

It would be a shame if the wilshire red line skiped the grove, beverly centre, & Weho.

It would be a shame if the wilshire red line skiped the grove, beverly centre, & Weho.

Why? None of those places are on Wilshire

I know that but those areas need to be linked to the subway system as well. maybe by a seperate extension.

The Blue Line To LAX is Very Important!,
Downtown Disney To Downtown L.A.,
A Line Through the 405 should Be top Priorities

The Blue Line To LAX is Very Important!,
Downtown Disney To Downtown L.A.,
A Line Through the 405 should Be top Priorities

other completely pointless comment

Isn't interesting that the 2nd Ave subway line extension in NYC will cost an estimated $4.9 billion with no panic attacks. While in LA a very much needed (shall I say essential) piece of the pub trans package(the red line ext.) will cost about the same and the Daily News writes daily about what a boondoggle and how costly it will be.

Isn't interesting that the 2nd Ave subway line extension in NYC will cost an estimated $4.9 billion with no panic attacks. While in LA a very much needed (shall I say essential) piece of the pub trans package(the red line ext.) will cost about the same and the Daily News writes daily about what a boondoggle and how costly it will be.

Well, they're probably thinking not only about the cost, but about how many people will actually end up using it...the further west you the more auto oriented the city gets. Something like "park and rides" on the expo line would be usefull for the westside, but subway seems a bit overkill. New York is already set up in a way for new subways to be popular

The Blue Line To LAX is Very Important!,
Downtown Disney To Downtown L.A.,
A Line Through the 405 should Be top Priorities

Blue line route is Downtown~Long Beach.

A line from Downtown Disney to Downtown, not in a million years!!!!

A route on the 405, that's a possibility.

A line down the 405 is not a bad idea.

Quick question:

Has anyone got a speeding ticket or knows of someone who has on the 405. This is between LAX and the 101 in the valley????

other completely pointless comment
and u quoting me and making that remark is not dumber than mine please!
ur an inconsiderate Asshole!

Yeah he has been a hothead lately.

and u quoting me and making that remark is not dumber than mine please!
ur an inconsiderate Asshole!

Excuse me? You just did make pointless comment, not make sense.

Yeah he has been a hothead lately.

Who?

look, those things i wrote was my opinion on three possible routes for subways or a metro line
*one connecting the blue to LAX.
*Downtown to Disneyland and
* one down the 405.
last time i read this post, the title was hypothetical subway routes.
done, over with.

It would make more sense to extend the green line SE to Disneyland.

A line down the 405 is not a bad idea. No more traffic on the 405 if that happens.

'Tard

'Tard I meant if there was line through 405 wouldn't that help reduce traffic because more would want to take the subway instead of driving. it was more of a question, you asshole.

'Tard

He have an point that 405 will have less bad traffic if line is built:hilarious

Fuck you asshole, its my opinion and i'll say whatever the fuck I want, bitch.

The moon landings were faked, if you didn't realize that...

The moon landings were faked, if you didn't realize that...
So your going to call me a retard just because I give an opinion about something you don't agree with?

So your going to call me a retard just because I give an opinion about something you don't agree with?

No, because it wasn't an oppinion, it was a worthless statement. There would be no traffic on the 405 if there was light rail along it? Just like there isn't any traffic on wilshire because of the subway, just like there isn't any traffic on the 110 because of the blue line. You posted something without putting any thought into it, and I called you on it.

http://www.cannedrevolution.com/lies/images/moon-janitor.jpg

Mhmm, ok? Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, sherlock. http://forumimages.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-goatse.gif

Hey fellows, everyone just chill. How did we get from "Hypothetical future subways routes" to a WWF match. Can we just respect each others opinions!!!!! :grouphug:

http://www.cannedrevolution.com/lies/images/moon-janitor.jpg

Mhmm, ok? Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, sherlock. http://forumimages.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-goatse.gif

Wow, that where we learned in 8th grade. :shocked:

Well, they're probably thinking not only about the cost, but about how many people will actually end up using it...the further west you the more auto oriented the city gets. Something like "park and rides" on the expo line would be usefull for the westside, but subway seems a bit overkill. New York is already set up in a way for new subways to be popular

And that was the argument 50 years ago. The city could have been that much more pedestrian friendly if they'd already started these essential projects back then. Just as we see quite a number of TOD's and revitalizations going on in Hollywood and Downtown, not to mention Koreatown and N. Hollywood even, think how much farther we would be along. LA cannot become apprehensive now about building essential infrastructure. It's amazing that the same arguments that killed rail transit in the past are rearing their ugly heads again. Too expensive. No one will ride it.[/I[I]](Code language: No white people or middle class and above will ride it.)
The truth is, it would have been less expensive if it was built decades ago. And if you don't complete the system and only broken unlogical routes exist, you are right, no one would ride it.

LA must shed the tendancy towards backwards-ass, xenophobic, "hick" type thinking that is clearly represented in the Daily News, that notably is a Valley newspaper. Yep! It's the Valley again! "More at-grade busways", they say. Then they'll be complaining about their trailer parks having to be moved to make way for the damned thing! Circles. Circles. Circles.

BTW, loved the pic of the "moon-man" and the PA in the background.

http://www.blamonet.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Retard_Win.jpg


Anyways....Here's what I would build:

Wilshire subway w/ two brances, one to Westwood the other to Century City and continuing on to SM via SM Blvd.
Expo Line to Venice.
Vermont subway to Green Line
Crenshaw subway from Crenshaw/Wilshire to Green Line
Downtown Connector Light Rail
Turn Harbor Busway into Light Rail and link it to Green Line like blue, expo, and gold will be linked via the DT connector.
Sepulveda from the Valley to LAX subway
Sunset subway from Union Station to Doheny Drive (can share Hollywood stops already built)
Heavy Rail from Union Station to LAX through South Central.

We need to stop building rail to the outlying areas on focus on the core! Ie, no subways to Downtown Disney, sheesh.

The Sunset Subway should turn Southward to Weho and the BC before connecting to the RL. The grove should also be serviced by a line.

I want a Monorail that takes me from LAX/Westchester to Downtown. I would call it the Airport line.

How about the "sky line".
http://www.geocities.com/bennyp81/Sky2.jpg

How about the "sky line".
http://www.geocities.com/bennyp81/Sky2.jpg


That's what I'm talking about, Kitsch!!!! :rock:

The Sunset Subway should turn Southward to Weho and the BC before connecting to the RL. The grove should also be serviced by a line.

Why should it go to the Beverly Center or the Grove? Can you give any reason other than those are places you like to go? It doesn't mean they warrant transit or will have high ridership. If you have a stop at Wilshire/Fairfax and another stop on a sunset line at fairfax then all you need is quality bus service between the two. Especially if the sunset line veered down SM instead of going through Sunset at the end of the line.

As I said before, subways aren't going to be all that useful on their own. Even if more lines are built, the're isn't the incentive to get people out of their cars. If they want the lines to be better utilized the city should do more to get people out of their cars, like seriously restricting parking in developments along major transit and rail lines (its not going to happen though). Maybe infill stations along vermont, or in westlake (not going to happen). I also would like to point out that the subway would be used more if it goes somewhere more people need to go...the city not only needs to encourage buisnesses to move downtown, but needs to stop office buildings (ones that are in use) from being converted to housing.

As I said before, subways aren't going to be all that useful on their own. Even if more lines are built, the're isn't the incentive to get people out of their cars. If they want the lines to be better utilized the city should do more to get people out of their cars, like seriously restricting parking in developments along major transit and rail lines (its not going to happen though). Maybe infill stations along vermont, or in westlake (not going to happen). I also would like to point out that the subway would be used more if it goes somewhere more people need to go...the city not only needs to encourage buisnesses to move downtown, but needs to stop office buildings (ones that are in use) from being converted to housing.

I totally disagree with assessment that LA needs to put a halt to downtown offices being converted into housing. First off, let's get one thing straight: the vast majority of the office conversions are in VACANT buildings. The Old Bank district lofts and lofts in South Park had no tenants. Even 1100 Wilshire had no one in it. On the other hand, demand for class A office space is relatively high. You are not going to see class A buildings such as Library tower or 777 Fig turned into residences. What will hopefully happen is this: the surge of new residents and the businesses that spring up to service them will create a vibrant core in which it is more desirable for people to work. Plus you're totally trying to turn LA into something it isn't and hopefully won't be. I don't want LA to become some core-centric city where everyone commutes downtown to work. Mass transit can work just fine in a multi-nodal LA. Why haven't you considered the fact that many of the people moving downtown are in fact commuting to the Westside for work? Don't you think they would take advantage of a subway?

I totally disagree with assessment that LA needs to put a halt to downtown offices being converted into housing. First off, let's get one thing straight: the vast majority of the office conversions are in VACANT buildings. The Old Bank district lofts and lofts in South Park had no tenants. Even 1100 Wilshire had no one in it. On the other hand, demand for class A office space is relatively high. You are not going to see class A buildings such as Library tower or 777 Fig turned into residences. What will hopefully happen is this: the surge of new residents and the businesses that spring up to service them will create a vibrant core in which it is more desirable for people to work. Plus you're totally trying to turn LA into something it isn't and hopefully won't be. I don't want LA to become some core-centric city where everyone commutes downtown to work. Mass transit can work just fine in a multi-nodal LA. Why haven't you considered the fact that many of the people moving downtown are in fact commuting to the Westside for work? Don't you think they would take advantage of a subway?

Sorry, my point was that office buildings that are IN USE as office buildings shouldn't be converted to housing...I remember that the AON building was planning on converting some offices to housing...as well as the Roosevelt and other office buildings in that area. I think its important to have some areas without residents though, as these residents would by NIMBYites, and may be opposed to certain developments (nightclubs, concert venues and such). And by encouraging buisnesses to move downtown, I also mean discouraging them from locating in other places that aren't connected to the transportation system.

Downtown residents wouldnt need a subway, if they also worked downtown. I'm certainly not opposed to a subway to century city (as that would link almost all major employment centers), but when employment is concentrated in these areas you wouldn't need a subway criss crossing town like some here would want.

^ Yeah but you WOULD have something we ought to really be striving for: a WALKING city.

Purple Line/Sunset Line:
1.Union Station
2.Echo Park/Sunset
3.Silver Lake/Sunset
4.Combined with Red Line
a.Sunset/Vermont
b.Hollywood/Western
c.Hollywood/Vine
d.Hollywood/Highland
5.Sunset/LaBrea
6.Sunset/Crecent Heights/Virgin Megastore
7.Sunset/LaCienega/Sunset Plaza
8.Santa Monica/LaCienega/Weho.Pac Design Centre
9.Beverly Centre/Red Line connection

Do you think this hypothetical line would be viable?

I think the way things are going with traffic and gas prices we will see a Purple Line being built in the next 10 years, for sure. Both are already on the MTA's long term plan.
I wish the Silver Line was already up streaking down Sunset because my hood(Silver Lake) even in the year that I've lived here has become so pedestrian and transit friendlier that it really does remind me of Brooklyn. And instead of creating an inside outside mall like thingy/fake urban, their are true mom and pops, facing the streetscape, with only on street parking and tons of people milling about from one shop to the other.

That was just hypothetical, but is the route I posted viable for consideration? would it be a purple line or silver line?

That was just hypothetical, but is the route I posted viable for consideration? would it be a purple line or silver line?

Youre line seems viable except that I think the line will have to meet up with the Wilshire line at Wilshire in Beverly Hills. I honestly can't imagine the Wilshire subway ever veering from under Wilshire except maybe to get to Century City since the parellel portion of Wilshire is going through the country club. By the time all these lines are built, gas will probably be so expensive that short bus connections to the Farmer's Market or Beverly Center will probably not be considered such inconviences.

But as someone has said before some of these lines need to be built simultaneously to really get the city moving. Hopefully a Red Line at least to Fairfax and an Expo extension to SM can be built at the same time.

Let me drop some science on our future subway plans.

I've been reading about this stuff and going to meetings for over five years now, so I think I have a handle on this.

1) 50 Years ago, we DID have a mass transit system. It was called The Pacific Electric Railway and the Los Angeles Railway. In fact, Los Angeles is as spread out as it is, not because of our freeways, which didn't even EXIST until 50 years ago, but because of the land use patterns put into effect by the routing of the Pacific Electric Railway.

2) Unfortunately, instead of improving that system, we ripped all of it out, the largest mass transit system IN THE WORLD, in favor of building freeways, which we thought would be the answer to everything. They were, for about 10 years, before they turned into giant parking lots.

3) So, after a while, we realized our mistake, but we had to start from scratch in building a new mass transit system. As it happens, we had to do it in piecemeal fashion, due to political factors. We have some light rail, and some subway construction.

4) I'd love to build subways everwhere, like in New York or Washington. But it's not going to happen. Due to cost savings, we've built some of our system on unused former railroad lines, like the Gold LIne and the Expo Line.

5) The political will and the money exists only for subways in the most densely populated areas of the city: that would be along Wilshire Boulevard. An extension to West Hollywood wouldn't pencil out, though I believe a detour to Century City is possible.

6) The Expo line is where it is because that's a former Pacific Electric rail line. Both the Expo Line and the subway are important as they serve different corridors.

7) Here's what's coming up, in order:
2009- East Side Gold Line Extenstion to East L.A.
2010- Expo LIne To Culver City
2010- Gold Line Extension to Irwindale, then Montclair
2015- (probably) Green Line Extension to LAX
2015- Expo Line To Santa Monica
2020- "Subway To Sea" along Wilshire Boulevard
2025- Green Line Extension to Metrolink station in Norwalk (probably subway)
2025- Red Line Extension in San Fernando Valley

These are the most optimistic estimates. Then, maybe, all these other ideas like the Silver Line, The Yellow Line, a line to Orange County, etc. can be built. We're talking 30-40 years from now. We'll all be drawing retirement checks by then.

The only way this schedule is going to change and SPEED UP is if we tax ourselves to build more subways. Unfortunately, Zev Yaroslavsky put forward a Propostion in 1998 that no local tax money could be used to fund any additional subway construction! So now we're stuck with that! Thanks a lot, Zev. :ohno:

But with the rapid infill, increasing gridlock, high gas prices, growing ridership, anti-long commute sentiments things can change and change rapidly. I hear what you're saying about Zev and all of that, but that's not taking into account life. Perhaps I'm looking at the glass half full. I think transit advocates have alot of ammunition on their side right now. It's all about educating the public on how a comprehensive system would increase their quality of life. It just seems that we should be the visionaries here. I've converted 2 people to transit in the last year or so. Those are now 2 more people who can help fight for a better transit system. This is not impossible.

But with the rapid infill, increasing gridlock, high gas prices, growing ridership, anti-long commute sentiments things can change and change rapidly. I hear what you're saying about Zev and all of that, but that's not taking into account life. Perhaps I'm looking at the glass half full. I think transit advocates have alot of ammunition on their side right now. It's all about educating the public on how a comprehensive system would increase their quality of life. It just seems that we should be the visionaries here. I've converted 2 people to transit in the last year or so. Those are now 2 more people who can help fight for a better transit system. This is not impossible.


i agree. i think we are going to see more funding fairly soon as the public is tired of the gridlock and the area cannot continue like this. I think the Bond proposition is a good start, maybe getting a few of the projects done sooner, and hopefully we can have more federal funding with a democratic president and congress in 2008. Lastly, dont forget the Downtown Connector, probably the single most important project after the Purple Line, and i hope that funding for it gets included in Expo Phase 2, which might get done by 2012 becuase of the bond.

"Ya so take your bitch ass and get a clue."-LosangelesSportsfan June 4,06

Ahh......the passion "Sportsfan"! Def quote of the month!

If you don't mind I would like to direct everyone to your rant in SSP under the thread "NFL In LA".

well done LASF

thank you thank you! sports and LA are my passions, and that guy hit on both.

Whaqt is the purple line, other than the one I created hypothetically? Are there actual plans?

the purple line is the red line extension down Wilshrie, it will be called the purple line to distinguish from the red as a separate line.

i agree. i think we are going to see more funding fairly soon as the public is tired of the gridlock and the area cannot continue like this. I think the Bond proposition is a good start, maybe getting a few of the projects done sooner, and hopefully we can have more federal funding with a democratic president and congress in 2008. Lastly, dont forget the Downtown Connector, probably the single most important project after the Purple Line, and i hope that funding for it gets included in Expo Phase 2, which might get done by 2012 becuase of the bond.

Yeah, I forgot about the Downtown Connector. I think it is very important. I heard some rumblings that it would be partly above ground, which is a BAD IDEA. It should be 100% subway. It is a rather short segment, about one mile, connecting 7th/Metro to Union Station directly, so that the Blue Line can go to Union Station directly without people being forced to transfer.

I would also advocate a connection to the former Subway Terminal Building on Hill Street, where the former subway terminal sits, rotting away. This would be the only practical way to use that facility, since the subway tunnel to the west of Flower Street is blocked off by the foundation of the Bonaventure Hotel. This station could be used for special event service, or merely as an underground storage yard for unused trains, the thing does have five tracks.

Even easier would be an underground connection going up Alameda Street, so that the Blue Line could go directly to Union Station along that route, using the end of the Gold Line extension to enter Union Station.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong. I hope the people do rise up and agree to be taxed so that further subway construction can happen, and sooner rather than later. I don't think I'm being pessimistic, just realistic. I will work to that goal. I hope it can be met. :cheers:

Hello,

Please dont insult me for saying this. Last I heard was that you can only connect upto 4 cars to a light rail. That being said, If Los Angeles is growing or expected to grow isnt it a waste of money to creat light rails. Wouldnt it be more common sense to build subways? Its like all that money is being wasted for a temporary transit system. Why not built subways. Call me dumb but the light rails can only hold so much, which means if L.A. grows enough they will need to come up with an alternate method of transit. If im wrong please let me know.

Purple Line/Sunset Line:
1.Union Station
2.Echo Park/Sunset
3.Silver Lake/Sunset
4.Combined with Red Line
a.Sunset/Vermont
b.Hollywood/Western
c.Hollywood/Vine
d.Hollywood/Highland
5.Sunset/LaBrea
6.Sunset/Crecent Heights/Virgin Megastore
7.Sunset/LaCienega/Sunset Plaza
8.Santa Monica/LaCienega/Weho.Pac Design Centre
9.Beverly Centre/Red Line connection

Do you think this hypothetical line would be viable?
When do you think this Hypothetical system would be built? 2020?

Hello,

Please dont insult me for saying this. Last I heard was that you can only connect upto 4 cars to a light rail. That being said, If Los Angeles is growing or expected to grow isnt it a waste of money to creat light rails. Wouldnt it be more common sense to build subways? Its like all that money is being wasted for a temporary transit system. Why not built subways. Call me dumb but the light rails can only hold so much, which means if L.A. grows enough they will need to come up with an alternate method of transit. If im wrong please let me know.

Well their are a few things that could happen. You could increase headways so that instead of every 5 minutes, trains come at every 2-3. The Blue Line, the busiest light rail line(doing close to heavy rail #'s) is serving up 3 car trains as the max now, so 4 car trains are still an option. Also their are ways to convert our very popular light rail lines to heavy rail in the future if need be. So no, my assumption is not that LA is wasting money. Would I rather see heavy rail than light, well yes. But the light rail system that has been put in place has begun a momentum that just wasn't present in LA before and I believe can easily in the future and if need be roll some lines into heavy rail lines.

Well their are a few things that could happen. You could increase headways so that instead of every 5 minutes, trains come at every 2-3. The Blue Line, the busiest light rail line(doing close to heavy rail #'s) is serving up 3 car trains as the max now, so 4 car trains are still an option. Also their are ways to convert our very popular light rail lines to heavy rail in the future if need be. So no, my assumption is not that LA is wasting money. Would I rather see heavy rail than light, well yes. But the light rail system that has been put in place has begun a momentum that just wasn't present in LA before and I believe can easily in the future and if need be roll some lines into heavy rail lines.


Question, But i also heard that a heavy rail cant make sharp turns like the light rail. So I'm a bit confused. Not only that but to have a heavy rail at street level, that seems to be dangerous. They are much longer and which makes them harder to stop. I dont know if i would want to be driving through downtown or Long Beach and a Heavy rail passes me up. Thats scarry. But if i am not understanding what you say please let me know.

Oh and i am not trying to be difficult or hard headed :bash:

Their are advantages to heavy as well as to light rail. Here is a link to the Transit Coalition's website where they are discussing exactly what we are talking about here. Alot of it gets very technical, I swear these guys must either work for the MTA or have built rail themselves. This link is "heavy vs light rail" http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=ExpoLine&boardid=dream&thread=55&spec=5899582

and this one is discussing light to heavy conversion http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=ExpoLine&boardid=blue&thread=29&spec=5988589

Engage in the discussion and tell me what you think.

I was just going over the Transit Coalition's thread again and if anyone wants to know more about transit and all of its technical splendor that site is for you. Dual Usage power supplies, retractable pantographs, ROW's and dwell time. These cats get down. Also some of them seem to pretty old and so they talk first hand about riding the Red cars back in the day. I've learned so much from this site to the point that once I met an MTA executive at a bar and we began to speak about transit in LA and he was floored that I knew so much about the subject. I credited all to reading the Transit Coalition's site, these guys should think about teaching classes on the subject.

Here's an excerpt of a discussion about running more than 3 cars on an LRT line:
The capacity is not just the capacity of the trains but the capacity of the system as a whole. Just running longer trains isn't good enough, at some point you need to provide grade separation from cars and pedestrians. Oh, and running five car trains may not be feasible with the current electrification system. What matters for the size of a substation, as well as the wire, is the peak load, which, for electric traction is at the moment the train starts, and continues through the initial stage of acceleration. Having two trains start accelerating is, statistically, a fairly rare occurence, and the substation and wire can handle the occasional overload. But when you have a five car train, all five cars will be using peak current at the exact same time, in pretty much the exact same place. Using a back of the envelope calculation, going from 3 to 5 car trains would increase the peak current in the overhead wire from 2700 to 4500 amps (for comparison, the typical house has a 200 amp circuit breaker, and that's for 110 volts instead of 750). Also keep in mind that transmission loss is proportional to the square of the current. Ever wonder why subways use third rail? And pretty much all subways that use overhead power use 1500 volts, rather than 750.
Jerard User ID: 1397584 May 23rd 8:39 AM
^ I understand those complexities of adding additional trains, Calgary and Edmonton are doing that right now with their systems but they are still using 750V of overhead power and run 4-5 car LRV's. Also Madrid uses overhead power 750V for its long subway trains. I'm not disagreeing with you just showing some examples outside of gthe box.

I'm using a simple notion of capacity (the lengthing of trains) being the fundamental difference between Heavy Rail and Light Rail you see it with all the grade separations that's fine. But one thing you can't dispute is that in order to look at all those other things you mention, the first fundamental concept is to lengthen the train.

On that note, Would you consider the Green Line heavy rail or light rail?.
crzwdjk User ID: 7246143 May 23rd 2:09 PM
Capacity is more than just how long the train are. You can length the Blue Line trains to five cars, and continue to run them every five minutes. You can keep them at 3 cars, and run them every 3 minutes. You can shorten them to 2 cars and run them every two minutes. In all three cases, the actual capacity is the same.

^ ive actually read that on the board. I learned almost everything about transit from them, and the first time i found that site, a few years back, i spent the whole day learning, much like SSP and SSC. those guys are the smartest people in LA.

Well their are a few things that could happen. You could increase headways so that instead of every 5 minutes, trains come at every 2-3. The Blue Line, the busiest light rail line(doing close to heavy rail #'s) is serving up 3 car trains as the max now, so 4 car trains are still an option. Also their are ways to convert our very popular light rail lines to heavy rail in the future if need be. So no, my assumption is not that LA is wasting money. Would I rather see heavy rail than light, well yes. But the light rail system that has been put in place has begun a momentum that just wasn't present in LA before and I believe can easily in the future and if need be roll some lines into heavy rail lines.

I believe that due to practical considerations, the platforms on the Blue Line cannot be lengthened to handle more than three car trains. By the way, on the Blue Line, each "car" is actually two cars that are connected, so a three car train is really a six car train. Just count the cars on the next Blue Line train you see if you doubt me. Going to a "four car train" would make an eight car train, which probably couldn't be done.

While on the Red Line (subway, heavy rail) each "car" is only one car. They are a little longer and wider, (wider tracks) and the passenger capacity for each car is somewhat bigger, but not much. The two are roughly comparable. The maximum length of a subway train is six cars, and that can't be increased due to the size of stations. All they can do is run more frequent trains. However, this is kind of tough to do, seeing as in the downtown area, we actually have two lines running into one, the Wilshire/Western line (to be renamed Purple Line sometime soon) and the Red Line that goes to North Hollywood.

Maybe start the Purple Line at Vermont/Wilshire and just have that one as a shuttle going back and forth? A lot of people already get out to transfer at that station anyway, why not force everybody going to Wilshire/Western to do it?

My point is that both Red and Blue Lines are pretty much running at capacity right now. It's really hard to go with headways more frequent than five minutes due to various complications (possible train breakdowns, power supply, etc.). MAYBE they could go to three minutes, but two minutes wouldn't be possible. :)

Well, I do know that in DC, they ran 6 car trains (heavy rail) up to once every 90 seconds. Downtown some two lines share one track and practically wait in the tunnel for the train in front of them to leave before pulling in. This was much higher than 5 minutes, but for the red line, where two lines share one track downtown, each line prolly wouldn't be able to cut down to less than 4 minutes just because of the fact that where the two lines merge the frequency is closer to 2 minutes or less. That would be about the same frequency of NYC trains at rush hour in Manhattan. Some tracks serve 3 or 4 lines there.

I think the best way to remedy the overcapacity in LA would be to build more grade-separated lines to lessen the congestion at these central points. I think the Vermont line could help create more fluidity for both the blue and red lines. It could also share the track with the North Hollywood branch of the red line from Wilshire/Vermont to Hollywood/Highland, then extend past the Sunset Strip, Santa Monica Blvd., Beverly Center, and reach Century City. I don't get why CC doesn't have heavy rail access yet.

. I don't get why CC doesn't have heavy rail access yet.


^ It's really simple....... it's called Cheviot Hills!!!

Purple Line/Sunset Line:
1.Union Station
2.Echo Park/Sunset
3.Silver Lake/Sunset
4.Combined with Red Line
a.Sunset/Vermont
b.Hollywood/Western
c.Hollywood/Vine
d.Hollywood/Highland
5.Sunset/LaBrea
6.Sunset/Crecent Heights/Virgin Megastore
7.Sunset/LaCienega/Sunset Plaza
8.Santa Monica/LaCienega/Weho.Pac Design Centre
9.Beverly Centre/Red Line connection

Do you think this hypothetical line would be viable?
What about making this route an extension of the blue line?
Also will the silver line cover some of this wrote?

Blue Line Extension:
1.7th street metro
2.Near Disney Hall
3.Beverly/Hyperion
4.Echo Park
or maybe an extension to Dodger Stadium?

Blue Line Extension:
1.7th street metro
2.Near Disney Hall
3.Beverly/Hyperion
4.Echo Park
or maybe an extension to Dodger Stadium?

Well, the blue line is already at 7th street metro, and the Downtown Connector will have a stop by Disney Hall. The other two might be a future line, such as the Silver line or Yellow line, i forgot which one had those stops.

go silver line go!!!

go silver line go!!!


^ There's a better chance of building the Yellow Line since it cover more density.

{Example Route}
No Ho Red line Station, Burbank, Glendale and portions of Silverlake and of course North Downtown LA.

booo yellow line... booo

http://www.metrosilverline.com
http://www.yellowline.org

Both the Silver and yellow lines would cover some of the territory of my hypothetical purple line, or blue line extension. However I still think there needs to be a sunset subway, that conects the union station, to dodger stadiaum, to the yellow line at echo park, share route with red line in hollywood, than through the sunset strip, Weho, and the Bev Centre.

^^ i dont care about your purple line! i just want to be a trainy and walk down to san gabriel blvd and go places!!!! that would be hot!

What about exending the Red Line at its end a t Union Station? The gold line extension will already serve east LA, so possibly an extension back down into the core of DTWN, or SE toward Vernon.

i dont know why they did not do that to begin with...

So does anyone know what are the chances of getting the LAX Express Line of the drawing board and into become a reality????

Blue Line Extension:
1.7th street metro
2.Near Disney Hall
3.Beverly/Hyperion
4.Echo Park
or maybe an extension to Dodger Stadium?

THe Silver line and and blue line extension could merge with the red line in hollywood creating a massive transit hub, then countinue down sunset, and meet with the rest of the red kine at the bev centre, which could also be a major transit hub, and the "time square" of the west, which could accomedate highrises in that area.

Damien made this:

http://sfcityscape.com/forum/transit_maps/LA/damien/web.gif

Build it now.

um thats not what the mta says....
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a22/godblessbotox/Untitled-1-1.jpg

your silver line is the gold line and your aqua line is the silverline... plus the stops are not correct

He redid the color/naming schemes. Thats a pretty cool map Damien. One question: does anyone know why they dont have any short-term plan to extend the Green Line to LAX? Seems like it owuld be a short extension that would go a long way towards increasing the ridership of the system and easing transport in the region.

there are plans to extend the green line to LAX, and in fact, it will be included int he LAX modernization, as will a people mover.

a people mover ala detroit!?!?!?

damnit i hope your not serious

It makes sense, it would probably go from terminal to terminal in the airport, so it would probably be in high use, unlike the Detroit one which is just a downtown loop rarely used. Some kind of AirTrain (like at JFK) or monorail type thing would work as well.

um thats not what the mta says....

your silver line is the gold line and your aqua line is the silverline... plus the stops are not correct

My map is conceptual. It is what I advocate the MTA build. All of the stations that currently exist are accurate, and I propose moving a couple (e.g. Grand to Washington/Flower; Glendale Metrolink to Atwater Village) to better integrate with the rail and bus network.

And much of what you see on that MTA's draft unconstrained plan map, which you posted, is conceptual as well. For example, the alignment in question, Roberto's Silver Line (http://www.metrosilverline.com), is just now going to be officially studied by the MTA. No MIS or EIR has been performed for the corridor. In that process the importance of the corridor will be assessed and alternative routing will be proposed. If and when the line is built MTA planners will decide how to best integrate it into the rail network. I, and almost everyone else sees the eastern spur of Roberto's Silver Line as an extension of the Aqua line. It's simple really, both the proposed line and the currently under construction Aqua line serve the same I-10 corridor.

Additionally, on the MTA's map there are alignments and lines that will never get built (Yellow line), but for a variety of reasons are included in the unconstrained plan.

My current goal is to advocate for extensions and alterations of the draft unconstrained map.


Re: Green line

LAX spur is currently proposed and being officially studied. It is strongly advocated by the area's councilman (Rosenthal) and mayor. LA World Airports, which runs LAX isn't exactly supportive last I heard.

And every master plan for LAX proposes a master plan.

Why isnt LAX supportive of it? Thats weird :-/

Why isnt LAX supportive of it? Thats weird :-/

It would take away from the money they get from their parking lots.

The taxi and limo lobby is very much against this as well.

At the most recent MTA Board Meeting, they approved funding to prepare in-depth studies of almost 20 different rail projects. Not sure if these are EIRs or just internal feasability studies.

This includes the "LAX Express," the "Subway to the Sea," the Gold Line Extension, the Aqua Line to Santa Monica, an extension of the Gold Line in East L.A. (which isn't even done yet), the LAX Green Line Extenstion, the Norwalk Green Line Extension, and a bunch of other stuff I can't even recall. :eek2:

I will have to see if I can dig up the agenda notes. All this stuff sort of slid under the radar, and I didn't even see any coverage on this in the media. But the money was approved, and it is happening. They are hiring about 10 permanent staff people to run these studies, each one of which will cost OVER one million dollars and take about a year.

Gloria Molina was not pleased, but she was outvoted 12-1.

Damien made this:

http://sfcityscape.com/forum/transit_maps/LA/damien/web.gif



One thing I never see on conceptual maps like this is INTERLINING. This is a very important concept and must be done on a system as big as the one you're proposing. To explain, you would have more than one "route" running on the same "line." For example, one that could be done once the Aqua (Expo) Line is built in three years: a line from Long Beach that just goes straight on to Culver City without making the turn up Flower to terminate at 7th/Metro. Suddenly, just by adding one extra switch, you've got a double-length line from Culver City to Long Beach.

Using interlining, if done right, would lower the time people would have to wait for transfers and could mean that people could traverse longer distances in a shorter time. This is done on the larger systems like New York, Tokyo or London.

One thing I never see on conceptual maps like this is INTERLINING. This is a very important concept and must be done on a system as big as the one you're proposing. To explain, you would have more than one "route" running on the same "line." For example, one that could be done once the Aqua (Expo) Line is built in three years: a line from Long Beach that just goes straight on to Culver City without making the turn up Flower to terminate at 7th/Metro. Suddenly, just by adding one extra switch, you've got a double-length line from Culver City to Long Beach.

Using interlining, if done right, would lower the time people would have to wait for transfers and could mean that people could traverse longer distances in a shorter time. This is done on the larger systems like New York, Tokyo or London.

Firstly, I do have two interlining routes (Red and Gold), and another sorta kinda with the Aqua. Also, I did consider others, like a Red line spur east down the Purple line tracks into Downtown L.A. Then I realized three things:

1) I don't want to confuse people. The map is intended to spark debate and discussion primarily among MTA transit planners and politicians, but it is also meant to generate public support from stakeholders and voters who have never stepped foot on a bus in their life or never seen a transit map.

2) I'm not a transit planner and I don't intend to predict which routes would be popular a decade or plus from now. My goal is to get the track laid and stations built and let the big money planners figure out how best to connect it all. Based on my semi-formal education of transit, my routing makes the most sense. I welcome criticism and suggestions.

3) Successful interlining will require short headways, which requires more $$$$ that can only be justified with high passenger volume. If, as in Tokyo, demand requires that trains come every 90 seconds to two minutes, interlining makes more sense, because passengers don't have to wait long for their particular train. But if train frequency at peak-hour is only once every 4 or 5 minutes, interlining isn't as popular. People would have longer waits. The impact on off-peak hour travel is even greater. So the only solution is to increase frequency, which would require the purchase of even more trains and the hire of more conductors (greater operating cost), among other things. And the irony is if we do increase frequency that makes transfers less inconvenient.

Additionally, I don't know about London, but definitely in New York and Tokyo major lines operate on more than two tracks. I'm proposing two-track lines with one or two pass-through tracks at most local stations. This is a lot cheaper than boring an additional tunnel or laying a third/fourth track.

This is a great issue to discuss. You should bring it up on the Transit Coalition forums (http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=ExpoLine). I don't think it's been covered there yet.

i like the old planing of the sliver/aqua line. it would run parallel to the UPRR rather then closer to valley blvd. there is way to much of a population center along the whole length of mission not to have it run that route. plus im bias.

but seriously the area between the yellow line and 1o freeway could use a more direct way to go anywere

but all you "la proper" people will say oh the basin needs transit first. sure, go ahead.

Damien, do you have any idea how many stations their would be in total and the track mileage (km or m), thanx.

Ehhhh...now you're just being difficult! :-)

I have a station total somewhere around, but they're all there on the maps so you can count them if you want. The track mileage is a little bit more difficult to calculate. My other laptop has the specific route alignments and my girlfriend's roommate who is supposed to have fixed that laptop over 2 weeks ago (after a friend who was supposed to have fixed it 2 weeks before that fell through) appears to be taking their time. When the laptop is functional (hopefully before the end of the century) I can answer the mileage question. I just don't have the time and energy to do those estimates again.

I was just wondering if it would be larger than the NYC system or London's. Just the sheer feat of trying to cover the entire county would make it one of the largest systems in the world.

Damien made this:

http://sfcityscape.com/forum/transit_maps/LA/damien/web.gif

Build it now.

So I guess the grey line is my hypothetical subway. I had it go as far as the Bev Centre but it would be great for it to go all the way to Venice Beach. You made the grove directly S. on the same line as the Bev Centre but its actually quite a detour to the east.

That subway map is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen! Who came up with this concept? I would like to shake your hand!

This map needs more routes in downtown to create a "hub", it dosen't make sense for all these routes to go all across the city and not actually connect anywhere. It would make going anywhere a total nightmare with all the changing of routes.

That subway map is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen! Who came up with this concept? I would like to shake your hand!


i dont want to answer for him, but i think Damien, the poster of the pic, came up with it along with help from posters on SSP, SSC and on the transit coalition page.

This map needs more routes in downtown to create a "hub", it dosen't make sense for all these routes to go all across the city and not actually connect anywhere. It would make going anywhere a total nightmare with all the changing of routes.

It sounds like you're proposing a radial rail system and there are a lot of reasons that it would be a bad idea in Los Angeles, but primary among them are that we have several major commercial centers, unlike other major American cities, and we have the largest urbanized area in the country. Or to put it more simply: we have a lot of people living throughout the basin going to several spread-out job centers. Where as most rail systems only need to connect mostly residential areas to their downtown, a successful Los Angeles Country rail system has to connect several major commercial centers as well, AND serve several dense residential areas. Pasadena has to be connected to Downtown LA, Burbank and the Westside. The Westside has to be connected to the Valley, South Bay and East LA.

A radial system would only make it more difficult to travel in the city. For example, a radial system would have a line from Downtown LA to San Fernando Valley and a line from Downtown LA to LAX, but nothing connecting the Valley to LAX. This would require people who live in the Valley and work near LAX to go through Downtown LA.

Additionally, transfers are a part of any extensive rail system. With frequent service (trains every 3-5 minutes during peak hours) it will not be a problem, and even with less frequent service (7-10 minutes) it will be far from the nightmare that compares to current and future traffic in Los Angeles.

And I have to point out that you're pretty wrong when you say my proposal doesn’t connect anywhere. There are few places on this map that aren't served by rail. Is it going to take everyone to the doorstep of every destination they desire? No. But no system can.

Light and heavy rail is supposed to be the skeleton of a city’s transportation system. The bus and shuttle system are supposed to provide direct service to and from the stations to the neighboring community, and the city is going to need to add bike lanes, widen sidewalks, require future projects to have street-facing storefronts and do several other things to make biking and walking more attractive to residents. That said, these stations are strategically located either along existing rights-of-way and/or at/near major intersections or near major commercial/retail/entertainment centers.

That subway map is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen! Who came up with this concept? I would like to shake your hand!

Thank you. :bowtie: It's a pleasure to meet you.

Ask any Los Angeles rail transit geek to draw a map of their ideal transportation system and you'll find that 80% of the lines on the map would be the same. Mine is no exception. I think there are only a couple of what I would call "truely original" concepts on the map. One is the Florence/Jefferson portion of the Orange Line. The other is the Los Feliz Blvd portion of the Red Line. Most others are tweaks or extensions of existing lines and proposals or the actual proposals themselves. And some of the routing is original.

Nonetheless, I didn't create the map to take credit for anything. I created it to give people a vision of what we should be striving to build in Los Angeles County. And I wanted to develop a detailed concept, that was extensive enough to garner the widespread county support necessary to get the thing built.

One of my questions Damien had to do with the lack of "doubled" lines. I'm sure that's not the correct terminology but why doesn't the Pink line turn when meeting the Silver Line and go with it all the way to Union Station? That way you could have a one seat ride from somewhere on La Brea all the way downtown. I was looking at the NYC subway map and many lines do this http://de.geocities.com/nyc_rail/nyc-map.htm, for instance the 2 and the 5 run together and then split and then run back together again as well as the F and E. Is this not a good thing for our area? I really would like to know.

The term is interlining and I addressed it in Post #114 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=9285603&postcount=114)

Just to elaborate on one of the things I said in that post, for the purpose of establishing line identity and generating public support to simply lay the track, interlining is not necessary, in fact it just creates more headaches and confusion. Please keep the former point in mind. The goal is to get the lines built. Again, after the track is laid, MTA planners can and will decide how and if interlining can be implemented.

With respect to NYC many segments of their subway system have 4 sets of underground tracks, and several of their lines have both local and express service that are illustrated on the map in different colors. Again, for economic and logical reasons (why lay four tracks on one line when you can lay four tracks on two lines) I suggest two-track lines. Some interlining can and should be done with 2 track lines, but for it to be justified...again, just refer to my previous post.

Well, I still can't see how the Red and Gold lines are interlined on the map? They don't seem to be running together at the same points. Am I reading it wrong? Did you mean the Red Line and the Silver Line? Sorry if it's my idiocy.

Anyway, speaking in an abstract sense, I would be able to live without interlining if a hypothetical passenger could go from one end of the system to the other with only one transfer wherever practicable. In other words, keeping the amount of transfers to a minimum. This can be done by making the lines as long as possible, which you seem to have.

In general, it's a great map.

I love the map it's great. I wonder if anyone could tell me which of the lines would be Light Rail, Heavy Rail, or Subway. I doubt any will be subway unless that law against tax funds being used for subway building gets reversed.

Hopefully that in something like 20 to 25 years we will see a lot of these built or under some form of solid funding/planning/construction. For now, I'd like to see the Expo and Red Line down Whilshire get completed and have Metro look into the possibility of making the exsisting lines all have 4 tracks, IMO this was a major fault of the original construction that has limited express service and will create problems once Blue and Expo start sharing track Downtown.

I love the map it's great. I wonder if anyone could tell me which of the lines would be Light Rail, Heavy Rail, or Subway. I doubt any will be subway unless that law against tax funds being used for subway building gets reversed.

Which portions are subway, elevated and at-grade gets a bit complicated, but the only heavy rail lines I see are Purple, Red and Bronze. The rest are light-rail.

Again, it's all specified, but it's on my broken laptop, which I hope to get fixed while I'm in L.A. this week.

um thats not what the mta says....
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a22/godblessbotox/Untitled-1-1.jpg

your silver line is the gold line and your aqua line is the silverline... plus the stops are not correct

Instead of the silver line there needs to be a Sunset line connecting with the red line at union station, echo park, silver lake, connecting with the red line in hollywood, the sunset strip, Weho, the Grove, the Bev Center, and connecting again with the red line in Bev Hills. or maybe it could be part of the silver line. that is one of the denses coridors in the city yet there are no proposed lines.

"Phat" got his Silver Line.

^^Que?

"Phat" got his Silver Line.


Don't let Botox find out about the Silver Line (SGV) he might burst of joy*

now now... i wont burst until they bring out the dump trucks

Yeah, so I still don't get this about the silver line.

...nevermind ^^

Go to the LRTP and the Silver Line is there, stretching from the SGV all the way to Santa Monica station on the Red Line.

Is the new one out already?

Back to the 2030 map, did anyone else notice that phase II of the Expo is uses the diverted route on Venice/Sepulveda? I hope that doesn't mean that this has already been decided.

Also, i think its unfortunate that WeHo was not factored into this map. WeHo is the densest city on the west coast and is very progressive. I hope the powers that be in boy town are able to fight for rail through their city.

thats a old map. also, its very likely that Expo will go in the row, it just doesn't make sense not to. 10 households will not affect everyone else who is in favor of it.

Back to the 2030 map, did anyone else notice that phase II of the Expo is uses the diverted route on Venice/Sepulveda? I hope that doesn't mean that this has already been decided.

Also, i think its unfortunate that WeHo was not factored into this map. WeHo is the densest city on the west coast and is very progressive. I hope the powers that be in boy town are able to fight for rail through their city.

Metro Pink Line? Metro Rainbow Line?

Metro Rainbow Line would be best.

^^ Oh brother....:doh:

Beverly line and SM line

^Those are my proposals, not the MTA's.

the beverly center and west hollywood need to be connected.

What about The Grove as well?

You think it's possible to build one into the hills and stop at the LA Zoo and Griffith Park and Observatory?