daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 8th, 2016, 10:18 AM   #2441
dimlys1994
Moderator
 
dimlys1994's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dniepropetrovsk
Posts: 16,355
Likes (Received): 26179

__________________
Для Вас:
Страница в ВК:

For you:
Facebook & Flickr pages
dimlys1994 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 8th, 2016, 10:14 PM   #2442
Kenni
Admin
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,325

So fascinating.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2016, 06:09 PM   #2443
etooley1985
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 319

Latest roundup of Crenshaw/LAX Line construction

Latest roundup of Crenshaw/LAX Line construction, from The Source


Tunneling welding of the TBM mid shield tail shield joint at northbound tunnel portal.


Work at street level above the norhtern underground segment. Crew continue with sequential constructio at underground guideway.



Work on the northbound tunnel. Tunneling installation of northbound tunnel seal at portal eye in expo station south headwall at Crenshaw/Exposition.


Removal of formwork for previously placed interior-wall at Crenshaw/Exposition.


Exposition/Crenshaw station installation of shoring components for concourse slab falsework.


Demolition of street curbs and gutter between 48th and-50th street in Park-Mesa Heights.


Crews finished stripping the station formwork platform stem walls at the La Brea at grade station in downtown Inglewood.


Crews continued to dril and bond the emergency walkway cs ductbank at the La Brea bridge.


Bridge superstructure falsework erection 90 complete at the 405 FW bridge.


Setting and anchoring the galvanized reinforcement straps North of Manchester Blvd.


Crews continued with sequential construction of the ICC MSE wall erecting precast panels North of Manchester Blvd.


Manchester bridge southern backwall at MSE.


Crews continued with rebar and formwork installations for the northbound station platform at the Westchester/Veterans station.


Bridge rebar modifications for the upper hinge lip at the Aviation/Century bridge.


Ballast retainer wall construction ongoing at the 96th Street station.


Green line underpass frame deck concrete placement.


Green line underpass frame overhang formwork removed.
__________________
etooley1985 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2016, 10:56 PM   #2444
etooley1985
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 319

New pics: Below traffic on Wilshire, a subway station is being excavated

from The Source


The area where the partial skull of a mammoth or mastodon was found recently at the Wilshire/La Brea Station site.


Work at Wilshire/La Brea.


The excavation under under the Wilshire decking at Wilshire/La Brea.

Three pretty good new pics of the working taking place under Wilshire to excavate the future Wilshire/La Brea Station for the Purple Line Extension. The first segment of the project is under construction and will stretch the Purple Line subway from its current terminus at Wilshire/Western for 3.9 miles with new stations at Wilshire/La Brea, Wilshire/Fairfax and Wilshire/La Cienega.
__________________
etooley1985 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2016, 08:02 AM   #2445
ssiguy2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 5,404
Likes (Received): 859

Toronto's GO commuter system had the same problem with freight so in order to introduce RER they have been buying up the lines. In 1998 GO only owned 6% of it's track and now, even though the system has expanded greatly, it owns 81% of the GO commuter track and nearly 100% of the RER system which will basically serve all districts within about 40 km of downtown. This will allow massive increases in frequency, more stations, and complete electrification. In 2000 there were about 500 GO rail trips a week and this has increased to about 2,000 and when complete by 2024 all lines will have 2 way, 7 day/week, all-day, max 15 minute frequencies, with a minimum of 6000 train trips a week. By 2030 with the addition of the Milton line we are probably looking at 8,000 trains a week.
__________________

Swede, fskobic, Slartibartfas liked this post
ssiguy2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2016, 02:05 AM   #2446
redspork02
Registered User
 
redspork02's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,209
Likes (Received): 818




Analysis

Breaking Down Our Options for a Crenshaw Line Extension

A look at the merits of three alternative routes.

Analysis by Scott Frazier on December 13, 2016, 10:30AM

http://urbanize.la/post/breaking-dow...line-extension

Metro’s Measure M program for transit infrastructure marks a turning point in the development of the city’s rail network. Critics of Metro rail have lamented the system’s focus on Downtown Los Angeles as being at odds with the realities of travel in polycentric Southern California. However, with that basic hub-and-spoke system firmly established, many of the new lines that Metro plans to build will skirt Downtown altogether. Because there is travel demand in all directions in the county, Los Angeles can support a grid of rail lines and confer benefits in the form of time-savings to transit riders. One such line is the extension of the Crenshaw Line.

As discussed previously, Metro is considering routes for the Crenshaw Line extension that would follow La Brea, Fairfax, or San Vicente up to a terminus in Hollywood. San Vicente is favored by West Hollywood because that route would curve back onto Santa Monica Boulevard in order to connect at the Hollywood/Highland Red Line Station. Although proponents argue that San Vicente has the most destinations, and would attract the highest ridership, it is also the least direct alternative. We'll look at the options in a second, but first some perspective.

Metro's FEIR assumed the Crenshaw Line would have relatively low ridership numbers, averaging below 13,000 per weekday. This was based in part on its failure to connect with the Purple Line extension. Measure R projects were selected based on corridors identified by Metro and the Councils of Government. The political will favored building rail along Crenshaw, but with tax revenue uncertain during the recession, there was insufficient funding to build all the way to Wilshire. Parsons Brinckerhoff noted the opportunity to provide rail service further north by directing the Crenshaw Line toward Wilshire/La Brea instead of to the optional Wilshire/Crenshaw station, which was ultimately deleted from the Purple Line extension in 2010. The feasibility study projected that a 3.5-mile extension from Exposition to Wilshire/La Brea would increase ridership to 31,000 daily riders by 2030. It is worth noting that this calculation did not factor in the Regional Connector, the Expo Line to Santa Monica, or the Purple Line extension. Put another way, the Crenshaw Line would more than double its current ridership projection acting as a feeder line to a bus. This is the lens through which we should view the Crenshaw extension. In order to compare our options, it would help to first get some perspective on the position and purpose of the Crenshaw Line within Metro’s rail network.

East-west travel demand between DTLA and the Westside is strong, so it makes sense that providing a direct link to the fastest, highest-capacity transit link between those two centers would yield major connectivity benefits. The more grid-like the connection, the more cost-effective the extension will be. This is especially true if Crenshaw Line riders are primarily connecting to or from the Purple Line, or using the line to bypass Downtown on their way to or from, Hollywood, the Valley, and other regions. A major ridership generator that could be served by diverting the route merits consideration, but grade-separated rail is expensive and the magnitude of such a ridership generator would have to grow with the magnitude of the diversion. Alon Levy uses for an example the decision to divert the Purple Line directly under Constellation in Century City, shown below.



To give a sense of scale, this deviation increases route length by less than half a mile, and nearly doubles the number of jobs within ¼ mile of the station.



With that, let’s look at our options for the Crenshaw extension. As mentioned above, we should view our most direct connection as the baseline for reasons of cost and efficiency, and here that route is La Brea.


It’s rare in the history of Los Angeles’s light rail system that the baseline route for a transit project is also the fastest, the cheapest, and the most grade-separated option. That is, however, the case here. The feasibility study noted that Fairfax and La Brea have constrained rights-of-way (by L.A. standards) that would essentially rule out the possibility of running any portion of the extension at-grade along either route. If you’re a transit rider, breathe a deep sigh of relief. The La Brea route, running at Red Line speeds, would connect the Red Line and Expo Line in 13 minutes, about half the time it would take by car even in light traffic.


An alignment along La Brea connecting the Red and Expo Lines


In Los Angeles, car ownership is commonplace, distances are vast and travel demand is pent up in all directions. There is, therefore, probably no better indicator of successful transit here than speeds that beat auto speeds at their best. One of the key issues for the Expo Line is that its end-to-end travel times are competitive only when car traffic is heaviest, which even in L.A. is not all the time. Autos represent the status quo here, and getting people to change their behaviors requires giving them a reason to prefer the change. There are many sticks that can be used, but we can also work wonders with the carrot of faster travel times.


As far as benefits to transit riders, here are my estimates of travel times between Hollywood/Highland, Expo/Crenshaw and Wilshire/La Brea, assuming the existence of the Purple Line extension.
Criticisms of La Brea are that it travels through the least dense neighborhoods of the three alternatives, being bordered on the east by Hancock Park, whose residents have twice successfully fought to keep a rail station from being placed at Wilshire/Crenshaw. La Brea itself contains commercial pockets, but, like all of these routes, the densest residential is at the ends. The key benefit for La Brea is its impressive time savings for riders.



If an alternative has enough ridership potential to make us pass up La Brea, it could be Fairfax. Proponents of a Fairfax alignment point out CBS studios and the Grove as major centers on that route, and note that the street has an appealing mix of high-density residential and commercial uses. On a per-mile basis, Fehr and Peers finds that Fairfax (4,518) projects for higher ridership than either San Vicente (4,433) or La Brea (4,287), but the differences are not major. The fact that Fairfax generates more of its ridership locally could potentially offset a longer end-to-end time. But those ridership gains would come with an increased project cost, due to the extra 1.5 miles of below-grade rail this alternative would require. There is a definite appeal to locating the transfer between the Purple and Crenshaw Lines at Wilshire/Fairfax. The intersection boasts a concentration of destinations, including the Grove, which is within walking distance from the Purple Line. It’s also possible that Fairfax will continue to densify faster than La Brea, but that is speculative at this point.


An alignment along Fairfax connecting the Red and Expo Lines


Finally, there is the alternative following San Vicente. It should be no surprise that much of the push for the San Vicente route has focused on the strength of the destinations in West Hollywood, because the San Vicente route basically relies on a redefinition of the purpose of the Crenshaw Line. Whereas the two previous routes focused primarily on north-south travel through Central Los Angeles, the San Vicente alternative looks fundamentally different. It really is two lines in one: A north-south line between Expo and Hollywood, and an East-West Line between West Hollywood and Hollywood.

WHAM has argued that Cedars-Sinai, the Beverly Center, and the Pacific Design Center along with a host of nightlife options are strong enough ridership generators to justify the inclusion of Santa Monica Boulevard in the route. The Fehr and Peers study found that San Vicente excelled in most of the categories that it analyzed, but it did not provide per-route-mile analysis. The data presented also use employment and population figures for the entire LAX-Hollywood alignment, making it difficult to assess the value of the extensions on their own.


An alignment along San Vicente connecting the Red and Expo Lines


While West Hollywood is a tourist destination, and Cedars-Sinai is a major employer, there is nothing comparable to Century City along this route. Within the city of West Hollywood, this route would provide a heretofore-unknown ease of movement along Santa Monica Boulevard. If, though, as seems likely, the majority of the riders are not traveling to or within West Hollywood, then, in the zoomed-out view, this alternative would be providing a lesser transit value to a greater number of riders than the other two routes.



Fehr and Peers estimates that adding 2.5 miles of rail along Santa Monica would net 14,000 additional boardings per day. We should note that this is a small portion of the east-west travel demand in the Santa Monica corridor, as West Hollywood is neither the primary source nor primary destination of transit riders on Santa Monica.Buses on Santa Monica have 28,000 boardings each day. Densities on Santa Monica are highest in Hollywood and East Hollywood, and travel is bidirectional, to the Red Line or DTLA in the east, and to Beverly Hills, Century City or Westwood in the west. The West Hollywood subway does not truly address either of those travel patterns. Bus riders are unlikely to transfer to the Crenshaw Line at Santa Monica/La Brea just to transfer back to the 704 at Santa Monica/San Vicente. Any time-savings they might realize on the train would be eaten up by the two transfers and waiting time. They might end up having to wait for the bus they transferred off of to catch up with them.

Fact is, Santa Monica is a perfect corridor for rail on its own. If we include bus routes on Sunset and Melrose as representative of general travel demand for the Santa Monica corridor, the number of boardings doubles to 57,588 each day. Since buses on Santa Monica Boulevard crawl, with the Rapid averaging under 10 mph, the demand is obviously potent. It should merit consideration for a fully-grade separated line of its own, connecting, at a minimum, the Red Line and Century City, or preferably, connecting with the Purple and Sepulveda Lines in Westwood. This would provide a transit connection for West Hollywood that would also fulfill one of Jerrett Walker’s primary tenets by Being On the Way.

Given the recent history of rail transit development in Los Angeles, it seems plausible that building the San Vicente segment of the Crenshaw Line – 3-3.5 miles – at street level will be suggested at some point. Anyone thinking that at-grade rail on San Vicente will not seriously deteriorate the quality of service provided by the rail line should ride the Expo Line between Western and 7th/Metro. An at-grade segment on this line through some of the worst car traffic in the city would cause travel times to balloon and become unreliable. It would eliminate any time-savings to be had by the extension.

One last point worth making regarding this extension relates to the COGs. Metro’s process allowed Councils of Government, as various subregions of the county, to sponsor projects for inclusion in Measure M out of the pots of tax revenue they were expected to generate as a share of Metro’s total. The Central Los Angeles subregion threw its weight behind the Crenshaw extension. Of the $2.2 billion dollars Measure M allots to the project, the Central City subregion (the central, south, and east neighborhoods of the city of Los Angeles) is contributing nearly $1.7 billion. The Westside Cities COG, a map of which appears below, is contributing the remaining 23% of Metro’s funding. While the La Brea route runs the border between the Central City and Westside Cities subregion, the Fairfax and San Vicente alternatives veer significantly into the Westside subregion. Travel in L.A. doesn’t take arbitrary COG boundaries into account, of course, but we should be cognizant of the regional benefits of the individual alternatives. Central City voters should make it clear that any route aside from La Brea should, at a minimum, not significantly impair the utility of the extension for riders in places like Hollywood, Mid-City, and Crenshaw who sponsored this line for funding instead of many other worthwhile projects within their subregion.

With that in mind, it seems that La Brea has a lot going for it. Neither of the other two routes provide an overwhelming case for being selected over the simplest, straightest, most direct route. West Hollywood is correct that rail should be established within its borders (and a La Brea route will give them one station for a start). But such a project can only be successful if it addresses the travel patterns of Santa Monica Boulevard in a more complete manner than the Crenshaw Line could hope to. Santa Monica has its own complications, which we can address later, but it is perhaps as clear a transit corridor as can be found in the County. Metro’s Long Range Transportation Plan update is around the corner, and this is a project that transit advocates advocate be included.


The border of the Westside Cities COG, from the COG's website, follows La Brea and Highland
__________________
L O S A N G E L E S - - - 2028 - "FOLLOW THE SUN"

IT'S TIME FOR DODGER BASEBALL!!

Last edited by redspork02; December 16th, 2016 at 05:31 PM.
redspork02 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2016, 04:10 AM   #2447
Kenni
Admin
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,325



__________________

dimlys1994, redspork02 liked this post
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2016, 06:08 AM   #2448
etooley1985
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 319

I agree on La Brea being the best option for the Crenshaw North line, although many disagree with me. IMHO it's what will happen anyway. Santa Monica Blvd. is important, however Vermont Ave. And Sepulveda should come before S.M.B.

"Santa Monica Boulevard in a more complete manner than the Crenshaw Line could hope to. Santa Monica has its own complications, which we can address later, but it is perhaps as clear a transit corridor as can be found in the County"
etooley1985 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2016, 06:51 AM   #2449
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,617
Likes (Received): 3099

Quote:
Originally Posted by etooley1985 View Post
I agree on La Brea being the best option for the Crenshaw North line, although many disagree with me. IMHO it's what will happen anyway. Santa Monica Blvd. is important, however Vermont Ave. And Sepulveda should come before S.M.B.

"Santa Monica Boulevard in a more complete manner than the Crenshaw Line could hope to. Santa Monica has its own complications, which we can address later, but it is perhaps as clear a transit corridor as can be found in the County"
La Brea seems ridiculous. There is pretty much nothing en route, Hollywood is not a big employer of rush-hour commuters and there is no demand for getting from South Bay to the East Valley so it doesn't matter how much time you save on that route.

Any combination that includes Fairfax or San Vicente is miles ahead in terms of locations and institutions served.

I hope this isn't the city of LA trying to grab more lines to the detriment of the system. Reminds me of their complaining about using Inglewood Stadium in the Olympics. Pettiness not worthy of a world class city.
__________________

etooley1985 liked this post
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2016, 05:13 PM   #2450
redspork02
Registered User
 
redspork02's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,209
Likes (Received): 818

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
I hope this isn't the city of LA trying to grab more lines to the detriment of the system. Reminds me of their complaining about using Inglewood Stadium in the Olympics. Pettiness not worthy of a world class city.
No one is complaining (yet). relax sir.

THe decision needs to be done soon as to put in knock out panels at one of the three new stations.

IMO, id prefer La Cienega but realistically it should be Fairfax. I need a station to the Troubadour!
__________________
L O S A N G E L E S - - - 2028 - "FOLLOW THE SUN"

IT'S TIME FOR DODGER BASEBALL!!

LosAngelesSportsFan liked this post
redspork02 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2016, 06:23 PM   #2451
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,617
Likes (Received): 3099

Quote:
Originally Posted by redspork02 View Post
No one is complaining (yet). relax sir.

THe decision needs to be done soon as to put in knock out panels at one of the three new stations.

IMO, id prefer La Cienega but realistically it should be Fairfax. I need a station to the Troubadour!
Thanks, I needed that.

I can see the value of Fairfax, but it's still number 2. The San Vicente route is the only choice that a rational city would choose. Denser population and nightlife and major institutions. Adds WeHo and densely used areas of La Cienega, 3rd, Robertson, Melrose and SM Blvd. to the list of streets served by rail transit. Beverly Center is effectively a downtown area, with MAJOR shopping, hospital, nightlife, civic center (WeHo), hotels and residential.
__________________

Slartibartfas, redspork02 liked this post
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2016, 11:24 PM   #2452
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,609
Likes (Received): 5972

With my superficial knowledge of the area I would tend to agree. Speed alone, especially if it is merely a few minutes doesn't make a good PT network, quite the contrary. It is transfer times, waiting times etc that really add substantially to door to door travel times. Comparing travel times without transfer times is therefore meaningless.
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK

Last edited by Slartibartfas; December 14th, 2016 at 11:30 PM.
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2016, 11:38 PM   #2453
orulz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 314
Likes (Received): 47

The thing is, you can build rail on La Brea PLUS three or four miles of rail on SMB for a the same cost as the San Vicente option. San Vicente is such a hideous detour that you can basically get TWO rail lines for the price of one if you ditch the detour.
orulz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2016, 04:33 AM   #2454
etooley1985
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 319

I like La Brea still- there's a ton of new development in the area, and has high ridership numbers so there are jobs in the area. Fairfax also is appealing with many more established destinations and job centers. San Vicente is too far out in my opinion, and too expensive, it needs a separate line or something else. I would be happy with any of them, really. We will see what happens.


Quote:
Originally Posted by orulz View Post
The thing is, you can build rail on La Brea PLUS three or four miles of rail on SMB for a the same cost as the San Vicente option. San Vicente is such a hideous detour that you can basically get TWO rail lines for the price of one if you ditch the detour.
etooley1985 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2016, 05:04 AM   #2455
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,350
Likes (Received): 3597

Honestly I think the ideal solution is two lines. A Crenshaw extension up La Brea, and a separate line down Santa Monica, San Vicente, La Cienega and Venice Bl out to Venice Beach.
__________________

etooley1985, Swede liked this post
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2016, 05:32 AM   #2456
sdery
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 127
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Honestly I think the ideal solution is two lines. A Crenshaw extension up La Brea, and a separate line down Santa Monica, San Vicente, La Cienega and Venice Bl out to Venice Beach.
Perhaps they will revive the West Hollywood Connector (with the extension to Venice Beach) as a separate project not linked to the Purple line.
__________________

etooley1985, Swede liked this post
sdery no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2016, 08:00 PM   #2457
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,617
Likes (Received): 3099

1. Of course two is better than one; but that's not going to happen. The old "Pink Line" would have been perfect, but that's just history now.

2. La Brea is better than nothing, but still a loser; there is no real argument for it unless you think of the East Valley or Hollywood rush hour employment from the South Bay as key needs to be addressed. Either one is ridiculous. There legitimately is some nice hipster retail but those are no huge draw from the South Bay. Most of the rest of the area is Orthodox Jews, who for religious reasons mostly live within blocks of everything important to them.

3. San Vicente not only connects South Bay to Hollywood and the E. Valley (although not as quickly as La Brea does) but ALSO connects South Bay to Beverly Center, WeHo (from Boys Town to Target) and beyond into Hollywood.

4. Plus it gives mutual access among the major entertainment areas (WeHo, the Strip, Beverly Center, Hollywood). And it makes Weho, Beverly Center, etc, accessible from the Eastside (Sliver Lake, Echo Park) via the Sunset/Vermont station.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2016, 10:03 PM   #2458
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,660
Likes (Received): 5780

South Gate, a working-class suburb in the Harbor Gateway area, is planning transit-oriented development around its future light-rail station.



http://urbanize.la/post/south-gate-p...-metro-station
__________________

dimlys1994, Kenni, Swede liked this post
Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2016, 11:55 PM   #2459
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,350
Likes (Received): 3597

Yeah, if we're stuck with a single line, I'm in favor of hitting as many job centers, shopping districts and nightlife areas as possible, even if it winds up looking pretty circuitous... but that scheme really only works if it's completely grade separated/underground. A subway can go a long way towards making up the time lost from a squiggly route, but if it's going to wind up surface-running for even a portion of the route, then it might as well just be straight. I guess that's all to say, as Metro should've learned by now, do it right or don't bother doing it at all.
__________________

etooley1985 liked this post
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 16th, 2016, 06:52 PM   #2460
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,617
Likes (Received): 3099

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
Yeah, if we're stuck with a single line, I'm in favor of hitting as many job centers, shopping districts and nightlife areas as possible, even if it winds up looking pretty circuitous... but that scheme really only works if it's completely grade separated/underground. A subway can go a long way towards making up the time lost from a squiggly route, but if it's going to wind up surface-running for even a portion of the route, then it might as well just be straight. I guess that's all to say, as Metro should've learned by now, do it right or don't bother doing it at all.
100 percent correct. Nothing EVER above ground in the LA core area (north of Expo, LA river to the ocean).

And if you are desperate to spend hours getting to Hollywood or the E. Valley from Torrance, take the Blue and Red.
__________________

redspork02, etooley1985 liked this post
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
los angeles

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium