|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 14, 2014 13:57:50 GMT -8
If you only knew how hard the poor people of Westchester had to fight against MRT to get their Hindry station, which was held hostage against the gold-clad underground Leimert Park Station. They almost didn't build it. If Leimert Park wasn't built, they wouldn't build Hindry either.
So, they are unfortunately more than glad to get the very hard-fought-for Hindry Station, let alone even think about an aerial Manchester Station.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 14, 2014 13:59:27 GMT -8
I think it could have been done if they tried hard but they claimed that the right-of-way was too curvy for an aerial station there. I think it could fit though. They probably went with the at-grade station because of lower cost. MRT really negatively impacted this project with too many underground sections. Leimert Park Station could have easily been built at-grade instead of underground and some of the underground sections could have been aerial. I think we'll appreciate a much faster underground route north of Leimart up to Expo/Crenshaw. I'm getting tired of L.A. gutting itself into Flower street situations for the next 100 years. Building it underground has foresight for the future extension north of Expo.
|
|
outthere15
New Member
Take back the rails
Posts: 33
|
Post by outthere15 on Feb 16, 2014 9:11:46 GMT -8
Work has started. This week I drove along Florence and there was activity stretching over miles. West of the 405, near Manchester and Florence, they were performing geo-tech work and along Florence close to the Inglewood Cemetery, they were removing the all tracks and sleepers. The entire length has survey markings, prepping for utility relocations. This pic is of them removing the tracks and ties. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 16, 2014 15:14:48 GMT -8
I think it could have been done if they tried hard but they claimed that the right-of-way was too curvy for an aerial station there. I think it could fit though. They probably went with the at-grade station because of lower cost. MRT really negatively impacted this project with too many underground sections. Leimert Park Station could have easily been built at-grade instead of underground and some of the underground sections could have been aerial. I think we'll appreciate a much faster underground route north of Leimart up to Expo/Crenshaw. I'm getting tired of L.A. gutting itself into Flower street situations for the next 100 years. Building it underground has foresight for the future extension north of Expo. Right, an underground section is probably a far better decision in the long run than another Flower Street disaster. That horrid section probably reduces Expo's ridership by thousands every month.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Feb 17, 2014 10:42:51 GMT -8
I think we'll appreciate a much faster underground route north of Leimart up to Expo/Crenshaw. I'm getting tired of L.A. gutting itself into Flower street situations for the next 100 years. Building it underground has foresight for the future extension north of Expo. Right, an underground section is probably a far better decision in the long run than another Flower Street disaster. That horrid section probably reduces Expo's ridership by thousands every month. As much as I detest MRT and everything he stands for, whatever yields grade-separation is a good thing, regardless of its origins or intents. There is no reason to believe LA population won't grow substantially over the next century, and it is selfish and short-sighted of us to build a system that doesn't have capacity or speed for that eventuality. We need to get cross-town speeds that substantially beat buses, factoring in the extra mileage, forced transfers / route-truncation, and discounting congestion.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 17, 2014 13:36:54 GMT -8
I'm going a little round-about, so bare with me... I know there's topics that hit on changing the route of the Blue Line so that instead of running west on Washington Bl., it would continue north along Long Beach Av. past Washington Bl. into a cut-cover trench and then west on Olympic Bl./9th St. If this were ever to come to fruition, this could provide the opportunity to [cut-cover] trench Flower St. south from 11th St. to 18th St. It would just require TEMPORARILY running the Expo Line trains east on the former Washington Bl. Blue Line tracks to the new Blue Line alignment. Yes, it would be a lengthy round-about detour, but at least there would be no service interruptions. The other solution would be to just trench along side the current at-grade tracks. Regardless, the city of Los Angeles will have to address the short-comings of the original system. The best analogy I can come up with is to think of it as losing milk teach in order to accommodate adult teeth.
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Feb 17, 2014 21:12:49 GMT -8
Forty years ago the San Francisco Muni managed to maintain almost uninterrupted streetcar service on Market Street while the BART/Muni subway was being built directly underneath. This could be done on Flower Street. Of course, it would have been much easier to put the tracks underground in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 19, 2014 15:54:11 GMT -8
Last year when Bruce Shelbourne, the director of Metro's Rail Operations, when asked about Flower Street in 2013 said that Flower Street at Washington Boulevard junction could be grade-separated by having the two streets use bridges to cross it. I think the Flower Street section is slow largely due to congestion which will get better with the Regional Connector rather than traffic light synchronization which is supposedly already being or has been worked on, the difference being riding during peak and off-peak times. Flower Street isn't that bad on weekends or nightly. Back to the Crenshaw Line, have you seen this fantasy map published by KPCC here? Crenshaw Line from Hollywood to Mid City/Crenshaw to LAX to Torrance to Long Beach to CSULB! Bruce would be proud
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 19, 2014 16:33:28 GMT -8
Back to the Crenshaw Line, have you seen this fantasy map published by KPCC here? Crenshaw Line from Hollywood to Mid City/Crenshaw to LAX to Torrance to Long Beach to CSULB! Bruce would be proud He borrowed liberally from ideas generated from this forum, including all the names. All the lines on his map had been subjects of discussion here.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 19, 2014 17:27:26 GMT -8
I am absolutely bemused and confused by it; like getting tickled and then sucker punched in the gut. But moving right along.... The 2009 LRTP Supplement #1 does make mention of a CSULB extension, at the behest of the City of Long Beach, along with a "Glendale Line," an Ontario Airport extension of the Gold Line, a Green Line extension from Torrance to the LAC/OC border and the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink Station, a northern extension of the Crenshaw Line to Hollywood, etc. None of us will probably be around to see any of it, but it'll be nice that our adult grand children will get to ride it with their grand children!
It's a beautiful map. But I'll be the first to admit to dismantling the entire map and re-conceptualizing/re-aligning it...and it was fun too LOL!
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 19, 2014 17:36:05 GMT -8
Ha, yeah, that's me actually. I made that about 8 months ago, but Wired ran it recently and then it got picked up by the Washington Post, KPCC, and Business Insider. I actually just threw together this far more realistic version because of all the attention it's getting: i.imgur.com/aIEHmRf.jpg
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 20, 2014 8:48:17 GMT -8
This is an older map by Justin Walker that shows a bit more mature system than what we have now. This should clearly be the priority for fleshing out a highly useful network backbone. I think the following map by Justin Walker is a great goal that incorporates just a few logical improvements beyond Measure R It might be viewed as having too many projects on the Westside, but this would really give a nice, efficient grid network with great interconnectivity.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 21, 2014 19:16:37 GMT -8
My only problem with that map by Justin is that it's so less ambitious than Andert's.
Just because it's cheaper in the short term (20 years) doesn't mean it's the best in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 21, 2014 19:55:21 GMT -8
My only problem with that map by Justin is that it's so less ambitious than Andert's. Just because it's cheaper in the short term (20 years) doesn't mean it's the best in the long run. I think Justin's map is a realistic plan for the next 20 years, although I think getting the Crenshaw Line to Hollywood is unrealistic. Maybe to the Purple Line if we are very lucky. Also, I would sub something on the Santa Ana Row, which is funded, for a Green Line Extension to Norwalk's Metrolink Station, which isn't funded. Finally, the 405 Line could happen, but only with a PPP and that will require a premium fare. Maybe $4 to go through the Sepulveda Pass. No way Crenshaw gets built to Hollywood before the Gold Line to Claremont. The SGV would secede before that happens.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 22, 2014 10:07:29 GMT -8
I don't know that we have to put an exact time frame on any of this, just to say that the network will be built piece by piece, and that some priority combination of pieces will start to have a real payoff. I favor prioritizing those pieces that give a skeleton grid structure, which is more or less reflected in Justin's map. That would enable a huge number of highly useful trips with zero or one transfer. Clearly, there's room to expand and provide an even more useful useful network after that is built.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 22, 2014 13:35:57 GMT -8
I'll readily confess that mine is only realistic in the sense that there is a far outside chance that it's very technically possible that multiple ballot measure transit taxes could be enacted in the next decade if public support for the system skyrockets. I think expo opening to Santa Monica will really help a lot, but who knows.
I think more realistically we'll pass the 2016 ballot measure that will hopefully provide the remaining funds to measure r projects along with speeding them up (maybe by extending measure R a la measure J in addition to adding a new tax), and then add on two or three new projects, like crenshaw to hollywood, purple to SaMo, and extending santa ana line up to connect with a converted orange line.
As for the sepulveda, I feel pretty good about it's chances of getting fully built as a P3 considering how positive metro has seemed about it in all their statements (i mean, it's not like they're going to be negative, but still). It'll be a premium fare, probably, but that balances with the fact that we're lucky enough to have some of the cheapest fares in the country on the rest of our system.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 22, 2014 21:39:29 GMT -8
I'll readily confess that mine is only realistic in the sense that there is a far outside chance that it's very technically possible that multiple ballot measure transit taxes could be enacted in the next decade if public support for the system skyrockets. I think expo opening to Santa Monica will really help a lot, but who knows. I think more realistically we'll pass the 2016 ballot measure that will hopefully provide the remaining funds to measure r projects along with speeding them up (maybe by extending measure R a la measure J in addition to adding a new tax), and then add on two or three new projects, like crenshaw to hollywood, purple to SaMo, and extending santa ana line up to connect with a converted orange line. As for the sepulveda, I feel pretty good about it's chances of getting fully built as a P3 considering how positive metro has seemed about it in all their statements (i mean, it's not like they're going to be negative, but still). It'll be a premium fare, probably, but that balances with the fact that we're lucky enough to have some of the cheapest fares in the country on the rest of our system. I dunno about the chances of a new tax, but I do favor an extension of Measure R, especially if it doesn't have the highway component. One other source of funds might be the CA Cap and Trade Funds in the meantime. Spread across the state though it probably wouldn't amount to all that much. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 24, 2014 15:38:09 GMT -8
The old Earlz Grille and Yum Donuts buildings are now no more.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 26, 2014 9:51:07 GMT -8
^ Technically, yes that's possible. However, very unlikely. We are several steps past the EIR process now, including the project having received approval of funding from several sources, including the Feds. Any return to the EIR process would (I think) kill the line, because the delays would increase the project cost even higher than the current exorbitant cost.
This line ain't perfect: none of Metro's rail lines are. But "perfect" is subjective, it depends on the eye of the beholder. And this is the line that's been settled on, through compromise and haggling, so this is the one we're going to get.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Feb 27, 2014 7:27:16 GMT -8
I think it could have been done if they tried hard but they claimed that the right-of-way was too curvy for an aerial station there. I think it could fit though. They probably went with the at-grade station because of lower cost. MRT really negatively impacted this project with too many underground sections. Leimert Park Station could have easily been built at-grade instead of underground and some of the underground sections could have been aerial. Nope. The Mariachi Plaza Station is a nice subway station, little tokyo gets a brand new subway station, Chinatown has a nice elevated station, Koreatown has a nice HRT subway. Sorry but Liemert Park deserves a nice subway station.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Feb 27, 2014 7:27:27 GMT -8
I think it could have been done if they tried hard but they claimed that the right-of-way was too curvy for an aerial station there. I think it could fit though. They probably went with the at-grade station because of lower cost. MRT really negatively impacted this project with too many underground sections. Leimert Park Station could have easily been built at-grade instead of underground and some of the underground sections could have been aerial. Nope. The Mariachi Plaza Station is a nice subway station, little tokyo gets a brand new subway station, Chinatown has a nice elevated station, Koreatown has a nice HRT subway. Sorry but Liemert Park deserves a nice subway station.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 7, 2014 12:35:44 GMT -8
No photos but Crenshaw Line Survey Crew was working this morning at Century/Aviation.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 21, 2014 7:41:37 GMT -8
I realize it's a bit too late to think of this. But it would be nice if, as part of the Crenshaw Line construction, they would build a new eastbound Expo platform on the east side of Crenshaw Blvd. This would replace the "split platform" setup, so that both Expo platforms would be on the same side of the street as the Expo Line station entrance.
Of course, even nicer would be a Crenshaw Line entrance on the west side of Crenshaw @ Expo. Transfer stations are hubs and inherently need more entrances.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 21, 2014 10:03:02 GMT -8
Ideally, there should be elevator/stairs entrance from the surface level Expo line platforms (both of them) down to the underground Crenshaw line station. But we already know that's not going to happen according to Crenshaw EIR. It's really a shame.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 22, 2014 18:45:03 GMT -8
Expo Line Crenshaw Blvd crossing was designed for near-side stop. The trains come to a full stop before they enter the crossing. It wouldn't work if they moved the platforms to the same side. It would probably also be dangerous given the amount of traffic on Crenshaw Blvd. This is not even to mention new LADOT and CPUC approvals.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 27, 2014 12:29:31 GMT -8
^ I know how it was designed...I was suggesting a redesign. Yes, the crossing would require new approvals. And yes, it would result in one far-side stop, just like at Expo/Western and several other crossings.
I would argue that forcing people to cross the street to change trains is dangerous as well. As I said before, the best solution would be an additional entrance on the west side of the Crenshaw.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 27, 2014 13:23:44 GMT -8
^ I know how it was designed...I was suggesting a redesign. Yes, the crossing would require new approvals. And yes, it would result in one far-side stop, just like at Expo/Western and several other crossings. I would argue that forcing people to cross the street to change trains is dangerous as well. As I said before, the best solution would be an additional entrance on the west side of the Crenshaw. Given how busy Crenshaw is, a far-side stop like at Vermont or Western wouldn't be very safe. If they want to change the configuration, it would have to be grade-separated or gated. On top of that, there is very little desire to modify existing lines substantially, especially for minor benefits. Crossing Crenshaw for pedestrians is no biggy. So far, there have been no pedestrian-related safety issues there. Venice/Robertson is far more difficult to cross.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 27, 2014 22:53:18 GMT -8
it still boggles my mind Expo got away with grade crossings at Crenshaw and Vermont, Not to mention the inanity of the downtown at grade flower section. Didn't the nutjobs--who apparently never experience nor measure the traffic they make assessments on--also want initially to have La Brea be at grade, with only La Cienega elevated? The mind boggles.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 28, 2014 8:33:42 GMT -8
Not sure about La Brea or La Cienega, but the Expo grade crossing recommendations for Phase 1 included: Washington, Jefferson, and National all at-grade.
Then, sometime between that and the creation of the Final DEIR, suddenly Culver City was grade-separated.
I don't really know much about Metro's grade crossing policy, but the fact that the streets mentioned by Locke got away with it is awfully questionable. YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 28, 2014 9:15:48 GMT -8
Not sure about La Brea or La Cienega, but the Expo grade crossing recommendations for Phase 1 included: Washington, Jefferson, and National all at-grade. Then, sometime between that and the creation of the Final DEIR, suddenly Culver City was grade-separated. I don't really know much about Metro's grade crossing policy, but the fact that the streets mentioned by Locke got away with it is awfully questionable. YMMV. Culver City station was originally designed to be a surface level terminal station for Phase 1 so National would be at grade crossing. The reason being the the possibility there was not going to be a Phase 2 was pretty significant. The elevated station at Venice/Robertson was originally part of Phase 2 design but the idiocy of building a temporary surface station and crossing only to be torn out and replaced by an elevated station and crossing was evident to everyone once Phase 2 EIR progressed so the elevated crossing and station was added to Phase 1. The extra cost of this change accounted for the majority of cost overrun for Phase 1. Crenshaw and Vermont both didn't pass the Metro policy for grade separation so that's that... To be clear, neither did Overland and Sepulveda but at least the City found money to grade separate Sepulveda. The real problem I see with Crenshaw and Vermont is that they are not gated. But I guess that had to do with the fact that those streets have near side stations so trains would come to a complete stop anyway.
|
|