|
Post by jejozwik on Sept 11, 2008 8:31:59 GMT -8
please... someone go
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Dec 9, 2008 15:38:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Dec 9, 2008 16:29:13 GMT -8
^^Looks very nice. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Dec 9, 2008 18:43:00 GMT -8
In that document it shows the Crenshaw line turning onto the expo line, I thought it was going to cross it without turning and continue up crenshaw?
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Dec 9, 2008 20:31:04 GMT -8
In that document it shows the Crenshaw line turning onto the expo line, I thought it was going to cross it without turning and continue up crenshaw? I think because the initial Crenshaw Line will only go up to Expo. Future phases will continue northwards
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Dec 9, 2008 21:59:12 GMT -8
Oh, but wouldn't it make more sense for the Crenshaw line to have its own station if they're going to do it in phases? My hope is that they'd grade seperate it.
I can see why they'd want to share a station to save costs initially, but I can't see this working well during operation and also you'd have to make another station eventually anyway. So why not just do it right the first time and avoid the headaches?
Are they going to do anything to aviation station to accommodate the crenshaw line? Because if they share stations on each end of the line they're going to need switch drivers quickly to avoid delays on the green & expo line. At the very least I hope they add a parking structure, because there isn't any parking now that's for sure.
Either way I'm really excited to see this line get started, it'll only be the 2nd north/south rail line we have and even better it'll finally get people to/from LAX (with people mover).
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 10, 2008 11:56:41 GMT -8
A number of things could occur with this.
The Crenshaw Corridor could become a direct extension of the Green Line so that the only thing that maybe needed in the future are platform extensions and some of the stations.
As for the Crenshaw/Expo station a number of things can be done to allow trains to switch quickly by adding a third track after the station that will enable the Expo trains to run through and have the ending Crenshaw train turnback on that extra track. Having it's own separate station would be ideal but it would be cost prohibitive. The separate grade separated station would be better utilized for extending the corridor north towards Wilshire to meet with the Purple Line.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Dec 10, 2008 12:22:35 GMT -8
they make no mention of a grade separated station. perhaps you should hit up one of the next round of upcoming meetings and bring that up.
i was really disappointed to hear that no one on this forum actually went to a crenshaw corridor meeting
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 27, 2008 10:58:25 GMT -8
I missed the earlier link and finally looked at the September presentation last night. There seem to be a lot of changes from what was being discussed a year ago and now most of the line is proposed to be grade separated where I didn't get that impression earlier with so much of the focus on street widths that would allow street running.
I like it although the grade separation figure does make it look like a roller coaster. I also like the plan to combine service with Expo although I'd much rather that it be extended to meet the purple line and perhaps beyond.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 27, 2008 14:39:20 GMT -8
The more I think about this project, I have to conclude that this Crenshaw Line is as courageous and paradigm-altering as the original Blue Line.
It is my solid conclusion that--as with the Blue Line and the Downtown Connector, there WILL be a Crenshaw Line that connects not only to the Expo Line but to the Wilshire Subway.
It should be remembered that the Wilshire Subway is 5-10 years away, but the Expo Line is 1-2 years away...so the short-term focus of the Crenshaw Line has to be on Expo, not Wilshire. Still, the creation of a Wilshire Subway will make the Crenshaw/Wilshire gap as glaring as the current Downtown Connector Gap.
This Crenshaw/Wilshire connection idea is already on the books with Metro, and I have no doubt that it is likely to be fast-tracked once both the Crenshaw and Wilshire projects are underway. The problem isn't going away...and neither are we!
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 1, 2009 10:05:23 GMT -8
Happy New Year fellow transitistas!
Keep in mind that the current study is limited to south of Expo. There is no presumed route northward: the straight shot up Crenshaw to Wilshire is only one option. Another option, as Jerard has suggested, is to branch west to La Brea before crossing Expo. I'm sure Metro will include both of these alternatives in the Crenshaw Phase II meetings, but such a decision is out of scope for Phase I.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 1, 2009 14:09:55 GMT -8
it's probably just as well that the first half of the Crenshaw corridor is limited to the area south of Expo. it will be hard enough to come up with the right route and stations for that segment without having to worry about connecting with the Purple Line at Wilshire.
and the south end will apparently connect with LAX, which has its own history of rail transit complications.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 2, 2009 6:39:06 GMT -8
Agreed--fixing the Green Line to LAX, and the Expo Line to LAX, connection is what's in our past and immediately present list of problems to fix.
Fixing a Purple Line connection to LAX, whatwith the Purple Line's extension itself being so nebulous and unanswered for so many questions, is and must remain in our future.
It'll happen, though.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 15, 2009 9:34:57 GMT -8
I really think there needs to eventually be a "one-seat" ride from Downtown to LAX. That would benefit the entire region economically.
The question I have about the junction of Crenshaw and Expo is whether or not this may be constructed to allow a one seat ride between Downtown and LAX that would not preclude the Crenshaw Line also heading north of Expo, and vice-versa?
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jan 15, 2009 10:07:35 GMT -8
Do we need a one-seat ride from downtown to LAX on BOTH the Harbor Subdivision and through our LRT system via Crenshaw? I'm inclined to say no.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 15, 2009 10:10:29 GMT -8
I'm inclined to agree with Justin--I envision the Crenshaw Corridor as a north-south light rail line to connect the Green, Expo and Wilshire Lines, and the Harbor Subdivision as a LAX-Downtown effort.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 15, 2009 10:50:07 GMT -8
it took me a minute to figure out what the basic disagreement here was. there seem to be two junctions that we are talking about:
1) the junction of the Crenshaw line and the Harbor Sub near the airport
2) the junction of the Crenshaw and Expo lines
sever the one connection, and you would effectively render the Harbor Subdivision useless, because you would be unable to get all the way from downtown to LAX.
sever the other connection (Crenshaw/ Expo ), and you would inconvenience some riders (from USC to LAX, perhaps), but the basic purpose of the Crenshaw Line would not be affected.
obviously, we ought to find a way to connect the Harbor Sub and the Crenshaw line, but the Expo connection is not vital.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jan 15, 2009 15:36:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jan 15, 2009 16:00:10 GMT -8
As the map shows, the Crenshaw corridor line and the Harbor Sub would have to coexist as parallel and separate tracks within the ROW between LAX and Crenshaw Blvd. There would have to be two LRT tracks and one or two commuter rail tracks depending on the particular need for sidings.
The big question here, however, is whether the Crenshaw line trains should run on the Expo Line into downtown or north along Crenshaw Blvd. up to Wilshire.
Capacity constraints on the Downtown Connector and the demand for access from the LAX-area to the Wilshire subway indicate to me that Crenshaw should go up to Wilshire. The Harbor Subdivision would already provide quick travel from downtown LA to LAX.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 15, 2009 16:08:03 GMT -8
...sever the one connection, and you would effectively render the Harbor Subdivision useless, because you would be unable to get all the way from downtown to LAX. sever the other connection (Crenshaw/ Expo ), and you would inconvenience some riders (from USC to LAX, perhaps), but the basic purpose of the Crenshaw Line would not be affected. obviously, we ought to find a way to connect the Harbor Sub and the Crenshaw line, but the Expo connection is not vital. Exactly. The Downtown-LAX connection is also provided via Flyaway service and that has been a major success in it's first two years. That plus the opportunity to have rail access to Mid-City and have residents in South LA access to Wilshire Corridor without having to first go to Downtown.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 15, 2009 16:13:51 GMT -8
I wasn't aware that the Harbor Subdivision project was anywhere on the horizon.
Will the construction of the Crenshaw Line as proposed eliminate a Harbor Subdivision one-seat ride from Downtown to LAX? Are parallel tracks realistic?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 15, 2009 16:32:52 GMT -8
I posed the same question a while back. If the Crenshaw line uses the Harbor Subdivision ROW then I would guess that the Harbor subdivision line is dead unless it is light rail. And I doubt that it will be light rail unless it is largely grade separated through Torrance.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 15, 2009 17:08:30 GMT -8
(1) Exposition/Crenshaw was left at-grade partly because a wye could be added there for the Crenshaw Line.
(2) Grade separation makes wyes very difficult. I don't know if they could make a wye at Aviation/I-105 between the Crenshaw/Harbor Subdvision and Green Lines.
(3) It seems easier to make a wye at the Douglas/Rosecrans Station between the Harbor Subdvision/Crenshaw and Green Lines.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 15, 2009 17:47:34 GMT -8
(1) Exposition/Crenshaw was left at-grade partly because a wye could be added there for the Crenshaw Line. (2) Grade separation makes wyes very difficult. I don't know if they could make a wye at Aviation/I-105 between the Crenshaw/Harbor Subdvision and Green Lines... They are difficult only if they're underground due to visability, and those wyes would have to be built on two underground levels like it is in BART in Oakland. From nycsubway.org I posed the same question a while back. If the Crenshaw line uses the Harbor Subdivision ROW then I would guess that the Harbor subdivision line is dead unless it is light rail. And I doubt that it will be light rail unless it is largely grade separated through Torrance. The only areas of Torrance that will need grade separation are South and East of Crenshaw and it's very likely that they will be because of much heavier volumes, also the right-of-way is already grade separated at Hawthorne, 190th, Madrona and Crenshaw.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 15, 2009 18:47:43 GMT -8
^^ Ah, they left small extensions there on the Green Line elevated structure for a future Y into the northward Harbor Subdvision/Crenshaw Line. That's good.
The reason it's harder to make Y's with elevated structures is simply more geometry restrictions, such as change between grades, ramps interfering with streets, etc. The ramps are about 4% for grade changes and that requires 25/0.04 = 625 ft or more for a 25-ft grade change.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jan 15, 2009 22:31:01 GMT -8
The reason it's harder to make Y's with elevated structures is simply more geometry restrictions, such as change between grades, ramps interfering with streets, etc. The ramps are about 4% for grade changes and that requires 25/0.04 = 625 ft or more for a 25-ft grade change. It looks like each branch would only have ~350 ft to clear under the I-105 and go north. Thankfully, the freeway is elevated higher than the Aviation station, so it looks doable.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 20, 2009 1:13:59 GMT -8
I can't say I am disappointed that the Crenshaw Line is now being shown with a much later completion date (who knows if this will be the case ultimately).
I'm not saying it should never be built, but it was simply a wrong decision to have this line rushed to the front of the line a few years back. It is now in line where it originally was back in the 80's and 90's.
Since we have a Democratic Congress and President, we need to get projects that are cost effective on the table now, so federal funds can be secured (i.e. Purple Line and DTC). Also, shouldn't we be building projects that have the highest bang for the buck anyway?
The Crenshaw Line does not serve any major job centers or relieve any major traffic bottlenecks in and of itself. For it to be effective it needs to rely on transfers from the Expo Line, the Purple Line, and a People Mover into LAX. For Expo to really be a good feeder, it needs the DTC (even then it may only be a few minutes faster going this way than through the Blue and Green Lines to LAX from Downtown.)
The argument that this part of town has been treated unfairly compared to others is almost laughable. South LA already has the Blue Line and soon Expo. Other parts of the County have virtually nothing.
I'm sorry this line is at best complimentary, but even then it needs some parts in place that just aren't there yet.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 20, 2009 7:26:44 GMT -8
It really doesn't make any sense to build all of our rail lines east/west and leave the blue line as the only north/south route. I think that rail riders will need more mobility built into the system.
And I know that the green line to LAX is popular here, but extending the green line just to connect to an airport circulator that may not be built anytime soon also seems like misplaced priorities.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jan 20, 2009 7:44:22 GMT -8
I completely agree, it's insane that we only have one north/south line. I think the Crenshaw line would really help people going from the south bay to the westside and take some pressure off the 405, I know that's what I'll be using it for.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 20, 2009 11:18:21 GMT -8
It really doesn't make any sense to build all of our rail lines east/west and leave the blue line as the only north/south route. I think that rail riders will need more mobility built into the system. And I know that the green line to LAX is popular here, but extending the green line just to connect to an airport circulator that may not be built anytime soon also seems like misplaced priorities. I hear you on the North/South routes, and like I said before this is a line that should eventually be built. Keep in mind that the Red Line is really just as much as a North/South route as it is East/West and the Gold Line to Pasadena is really North/South as well. As for extending the Green Line to LAX without an airport circulator I couldn't agree more, but the same would apply to the Crenshaw Line as well wouldn't you say. I actually like that this line does not follow a freeway and therefore compete with a freeway (much as that is a big selling point of the Pink Line). However, given that, there is no reason to believe that this will have much effect on 405 traffic as this line is really too far east and does not provide any connection to the Valley.
|
|