An advantage with layering is alternative transit routes. My daughter, who lives in Paris has a choice of two metro lines and the RER to get to work. Although one is more convenient and comfortable for her, she does not need a car for backup in case one line is out of service.
The line will carry ~27,000 pphpd after the platform extensions which is pretty decent. It's certainly not world-beating, but I think it's a pragmatic balance between need and means. Building a mainline rail-style service along the 405 would be amazing, but also incredibly difficult. There is a 10+ mile gap between the harbor sub and the VC line, and building brand-new rights-of-way is incredibly difficult in the US.
Well, given the ridership potential of the line and its regional importance I think 27,000 is just probably low. Part of the reason I think aiming higher is probably pragmatic is that another line like this is probably a *very* long way off.
The line will carry ~27,000 pphpd after the platform extensions which is pretty decent. It's certainly not world-beating, but I think it's a pragmatic balance between need and means. Building a mainline rail-style service along the 405 would be amazing, but also incredibly difficult. There is a 10+ mile gap between the harbor sub and the VC line, and building brand-new rights-of-way is incredibly difficult in the US.
This is a great article, but I disagree with the last sentence about the sepulveda line. It's going to automated heavy metro (if sanity prevails) capable of 90s headways. Sure, the trains are pretty short to start out with, but the plan specifically protects for platform extensions.
An advantage with layering is alternative transit routes. My daughter, who lives in Paris has a choice of two metro lines and the RER to get to work. Although one is more convenient and comfortable for her, she does not need a car for backup in case one line is out of service.
Damn, were I live, I am surprised when I see that there are two or more bus routes going to the same place that is not a transit hub.
The line will carry ~27,000 pphpd after the platform extensions which is pretty decent. It's certainly not world-beating, but I think it's a pragmatic balance between need and means. Building a mainline rail-style service along the 405 would be amazing, but also incredibly difficult. There is a 10+ mile gap between the harbor sub and the VC line, and building brand-new rights-of-way is incredibly difficult in the US.
Well, given the ridership potential of the line and its regional importance I think 27,000 is just probably low. Part of the reason I think aiming higher is probably pragmatic is that another line like this is probably a *very* long way off.
The line will carry ~27,000 pphpd after the platform extensions which is pretty decent. It's certainly not world-beating, but I think it's a pragmatic balance between need and means. Building a mainline rail-style service along the 405 would be amazing, but also incredibly difficult. There is a 10+ mile gap between the harbor sub and the VC line, and building brand-new rights-of-way is incredibly difficult in the US.
This is a great article, but I disagree with the last sentence about the sepulveda line. It's going to automated heavy metro (if sanity prevails) capable of 90s headways. Sure, the trains are pretty short to start out with, but the plan specifically protects for platform extensions.
But to how long? In most cities of this size you'd be looking at 6-8 car trains, and LA is slower than most at getting new subways built.
At the same time regional rail is going to provide a lot more capacity than a subway line!