Since the level of detail in my recent maps kind of overwhelms the basic concepts, I've created this new abstracted schematic map reflecting where my ideas are now. Over time, I've realized the importance of maximizing the existing and proposed infrastructure. I'd really like to create a concept that crosses from just being pie-in-the-sky to actually being an achievable plan. But in the meantime, I think maps like these are helpful in illustrating important concepts like connectivity and the importance of creating a transit network as opposed to a set of disconnected lines like the Foothill Extension. [Had to work a dig somewhere into this post]
There are a couple features I'd like to point out.
1) I believe the Crenshaw/Prairie line should be heavy rail subway and run between North Hollywood and LAX via the existing Cahuenga/Hollywood/Vermont/Wilshire subway tunnels. This could alleviate pressure through the Sepulveda pass in both directions. Southbound Valley traffic would be connected to Downtown, Hollywood, and LAX by a single transfer ride and to Westwood and Santa Monica by 2 transfers. Similarly, passengers arriving at LAX could reach anywhere in the San Fernando Valley via a single transfer ride. Finally, any rapid rail transit through the Crenshaw corridor really needs to be a subway. Running a surface rail line would be destructive and short-sighted in the extreme.
2) I've changed the alignment of the Pink line. Instead of continuing south to Culver City, it would instead follow the Wilshire tunnel west to Westwood as currently proposed. This eliminates a transfer for passengers traveling from the San Fernando Valley to the Westside.
3) The Sepulveda Spur would connect the Expo corridor to Westwood. The spur could run either at or above grade along Sepulveda, turn east and enter a tunnel somewhere north of Westwood Park, connect with the Purple and Pink Lines, and terminate at UCLA.
4) The Sepulveda Spur would carry two lines: one connecting Westwood to Santa Monica and another connecting Westwood to a South LA crosstown line running along Slauson Avenue.
5) The two north-south lines serving the eastern San Gabriel Valley would be streetcars rather than light rail. As
Several morning panelists referred to streetcars as "development oriented transit" as opposed to the more common term of "transit oriented development". Streetcars are as much about place making and they are about people moving.Streetcars would be ideal for the eastern San Gabriel Valley, which currently holds several promising but still non-matured pedestrian environments. Streetcars could strengthen the traditional pedestrian-oriented segments of Azusa, Citrus, and Glendora Avenues while spurring more transit and pedestrian oriented development along thos avenues' more auto-oriented stretches. Streetcar could spur similar development around the Plaza and the Eastland Center transit hubs in West Covina.
Anyway, feedback is appreciated as usual.
7 comments:
it's a bit too downtown-centric. not everyone in the san gabriel valley is trying to go west.
For example, that line to temple city ought to continue east, and either connect with west covina or azusa. having interconnected lines is more useful than a lot of spurs.
Still not sure why you wouldn't support the purple line all the way to Santa Monica. But I agree with you that the Downtown-LAX line need to be heavy rail subway. I've made clear my views about your SGV proposals here before and I think Tim has a valid point. The connectivity between Eastern SGV and Western SGV in your plan is lacking. There really needs to be a good alternative to driving for those commuting from Arcadia or San Gabriel to jobs at City of Industry.
I like the schematic look a lot better. It makes it much easier for me to get a grip on your maps.
One potential problem I notice is that because the system relies on so many different types of transportation (light rail, streetcar, subway), you don't get those simple clean lines that something like the BART system has. It's harder to make one-seat rides from one edge of the city to the other with a few clear transfer points.
Still, I like the look of your dream map. The one thing missing from my Valley-guy perspective is some sort of 405 line. I'm sure there's a good reason for that, but I know it's the sort of thing that a lot of people on this side of the hill would be absolutely attracted to and I think if linked with the west side lines, would completely change the Valley-West Side commute.
Great stuff, John.
I am interested in why a Sepulveda line from LAX to the Valley is not on your list. It is something many people would find popular. I'm curious about your reasoning.
Overall, there is some great stuff here.
I love reading your posts on your different visions and as flattered as I am that you pulled a streetsblog quote, I have to give full credit where it's due. That post was written by Ron Milam, LACBC co-founder and smart growth consutant.
Very good. Thank you. why does your plan ignore most of the south bay?
First off, great blog. And I agree with a lot of what you say, esp. about the politics behind designing a system for density.
You have a line heading east-west along Slauson/Randolph, running through Huntington Park and Commerce. I would propose an alteration of this.
On other blogs, I called it the Tangerine Line. This route would follow Randolph west from the Blue Line through the heart of Huntington Park, then head south-east along the existing ROWs parallel to Salt Lake and then Firestone.
This line would serve Huntington Park, Cudahy, South Gate, Downey, and terminate at the Norwalk Green Line. Traffic through this area has gotten horrible, and here we have a diagonal route that could serve the heavily congested and transit-prone SouthEast area.
Post a Comment