|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 9, 2009 2:00:59 GMT -8
In case you haven't seen it, here is Metro's newest map for Alternative 11 of the Westside Subway Extension, including the three new "fingers" to Wilshire of the Crenshaw project.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 9, 2009 11:31:19 GMT -8
Thank you, Dan--am I the only knucklehead that is wondering why the HELL the Crenshaw Project "Phase 2" isn't being considered as a subway not only to the Purple Line but the Red Line as an Alternative to Alternative 11?
Not only is the above Red-Purple Line Subway Connector so far away with respect to funding and construction that we're getting ahead of ourselves, but we're missing an opportunity to enhance local, regional, state and federal support for a Crenshaw Line, which probably should be 100% grade-separated, that can be a Westside/Mid-City/LAX/South Bay Connection able to handle over 100,000 riders a day! This could be the next big north-south LRT that would certainly be the busiest in the nation!
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 9, 2009 11:31:58 GMT -8
To say nothing of being able to serve the Bev Center and the Grove...
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 9, 2009 12:17:59 GMT -8
This is the 1925 rapid-transit (that is grade-separated, short-headway, long-train, multitrack transit) plan: Did L.A. have a big enough population to justify this plan back in 1925? Why wasn't it approved? This was years before the GM/Good Year/Standard Oil conspiracy, so who was behind the defeat? Well, back then standards to justify public transportation were quite different than now, as public transportation was the primary means of transportation, as opposed to secondary as today. Remember there were no freeways until the 50s and 60s. Also, when it was planned, future population increase was taken into account. As for the 1925 plan: "Strong opposition by the business community to planned sections of elevated rail, and voter reluctance to tax themselves for the benefit the privately held Pacific Electric Railway and Los Angeles Railway effectively shelved the plan."This link details all the past (mostly unrealized) transportation plans.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 10, 2009 7:52:46 GMT -8
Two miles from Beverly Center to Wilshire/Beverly is too far, IMO. So for me, the station at Robertson is a must. My solution: build stations at Wilshire/Robertson and Wilshire/San Vicente. Along with Beverly Center, these three stations provide plenty of opportunities for bus transfers. They also provide good spacing. Plus, the station at San V would better serve the business district west of La Brea. Finally, if all this is designed to allow it, it would be feasible to add a wye in the future, connecting Beverly Center to Wilshire/San Vicente. The only downside: the cost of one more station.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 10, 2009 8:04:49 GMT -8
Well, I'm down with that Metrocenter, but when this was brought up at last week's public briefing, Jody Litvak stated Beverly Hills really wants the stop on LaCienega and not Robertson.
She also said that if you don't have it at La Cienega you miss important bus transfers. All important stuff to be worked out.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 10, 2009 9:31:40 GMT -8
^ Good to know. Well then I will be sure and state my support for the Robertson station at tomorrow night's meeting in Beverly Hills. So far as I can see, the Robertson option is still on the table.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 10, 2009 10:31:43 GMT -8
Here is the same proposal with the Crenshaw Line added in:
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 10, 2009 13:41:05 GMT -8
Question: If transfer would be required at Hollywood/Highland, is there a good reason to build the Santa Monica spur as heavy rail? Why not extend the Crenshaw/LAX/South Bay LRT at-grade on San Vicente Blvd all the way to Santa Monica Blvd and then take it underground from there to Hollywood/Highland? This way we would have a nice north - south connection without double transfer.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 10, 2009 14:34:33 GMT -8
Question: If transfer would be required at Hollywood/Highland, is there a good reason to build the Santa Monica spur as heavy rail? Why not extend the Crenshaw/LAX/South Bay LRT at-grade on San Vicente Blvd all the way to Santa Monica Blvd and then take it underground from there to Hollywood/Highland? This way we would have a nice north - south connection without double transfer. I think the purpose of building the "Santa Monica spur" as HRT is that it creates a route from Hollywood and WeHo to Beverly Hills, Century City, and Westwood. On the other hand, LRT would connect Hollywood and WeHo to the Crenshaw District and LAX. Which is better? I guess that's subject to debate. If we go with HRT, Crenshaw and LAX riders have to transfer. If we go with LRT, UCLA students and Century City workers have to transfer. Is there any demand or support for this "extended Crenshaw" line? How would ridership on this line compare to that of the Pink Line?
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Aug 11, 2009 14:29:15 GMT -8
SM Pink could be LRT and thus connect with Crenshaw. Then build the Wilshire extension as a hybrid with both 3rd rail and overhead catenary. That way EMUs - like they have in Boston - can operate on all 3 lines.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Aug 12, 2009 6:57:10 GMT -8
SM Pink could be LRT and thus connect with Crenshaw. Then build the Wilshire extension as a hybrid with both 3rd rail and overhead catenary. That way EMUs - like they have in Boston - can operate on all 3 lines. That would violate Metro's 2nd Commandment: Thou shall not look into the future or plan system-wide.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 12, 2009 7:51:05 GMT -8
Now that the Purple Line and Pink Line are moving forward, we are now facing a new problem: an HRT system that is greatly expanded but more and more isolated from the LRT system. As of now, all LRT-HRT connections current or planned are in Downtown L.A. Crenshaw, as the only "uptown" line currently being planned, definitely has to be tied into these new HRT lines somehow. There are several possibilities. - Option 1: Make the Pink Line LRT and continue it down Crenshaw.
- Option 2: Connect Crenshaw, Purple and Pink on San Vicente, as in my diagram above.
- Option 3: Connect Crenshaw, Purple, Pink and Red by extending Crenshaw up Fairfax, Melrose and Highland.
- Option 4: Connect Crenshaw, Purple, Pink and Red by extending Crenshaw up La Brea and Highland.
(Obviously there are many more options than this. These are just the ones I could think of.) Option 3 is great because it hits the Farmer's Market and the Grove, as well as Melrose Avenue. However, it is longer with more stations, and thus more expensive. I'm leaning toward the Option 4 primarily because it is very direct and connects Crenshaw to all three HRT lines. I envision this with maybe three stations between the Purple and Red Lines: at Wilshire/La Brea, Melrose/La Brea, and Hollywood/Highland. It would be relatively inexpensive because it would be short (2.5 miles) and would only require three stations. Here is a map showing Option 3 (brown+orange) and Option 4 (green+orange):
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 12, 2009 8:40:18 GMT -8
Well, it all depends on what happens with Phase 4 of the Westside Subway Extension. If Phase 4 goes forward into the LPA, then Option 4 makes sense. If it doesn't, you will probably see people leaning toward Option 1. The LPA approval is still 18-24 months away. There probably will not be a study of Crewnshaw Phase 2 until after that occurs.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 12, 2009 8:41:04 GMT -8
SM Pink could be LRT and thus connect with Crenshaw. Then build the Wilshire extension as a hybrid with both 3rd rail and overhead catenary. That way EMUs - like they have in Boston - can operate on all 3 lines. That would violate Metro's 2nd Commandment: Thou shall not look into the future or plan system-wide.What is Metro's 1st Commandment?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 12, 2009 9:05:04 GMT -8
Agreed, all of this assumes that the Pink Line is being built. If it does not get built, everything changes.
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Aug 12, 2009 19:14:06 GMT -8
Is anyone else extremely frustrated that the pink line can't be built as run through tracks at HH? It seems like something that coul have been planned for so easily given that the redline was only finished 10 years ago. Now we have all this theorizing about ways to integrate the system when the most logical option is off the table due to lack of foresight and what I presume is a bureaucratically conceived threshold for federal new starts funding (the reason run through tracks are out).
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 12, 2009 21:32:14 GMT -8
I'd actually rather have run through tracks that would allow the Pink line to directly go to the Valley, so that there could be a one seat ride between North Hollywood and West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Century City, Westwood, West L.A., and Santa Monica. This would have provided a one-seat alternative to driving the 101-405 combo, or snaking through the various passes and canyons in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 12, 2009 22:41:41 GMT -8
I'd actually rather have run through tracks that would allow the Pink line to directly go to the Valley, so that there could be a one seat ride between North Hollywood and West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Century City, Westwood, West L.A., and Santa Monica. This would have provided a one-seat alternative to driving the 101-405 combo, or snaking through the various passes and canyons in the morning. But we will also have a 405 Line at around the same time as the Pink Line, perhaps a decade later...
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 12, 2009 22:43:58 GMT -8
SM Pink could be LRT and thus connect with Crenshaw. Then build the Wilshire extension as a hybrid with both 3rd rail and overhead catenary. That way EMUs - like they have in Boston - can operate on all 3 lines. That would violate Metro's 2nd Commandment: Thou shall not look into the future or plan system-wide.I guess we all agree on this. Something has been preventing MTA from working on a systemwide plan -- probably the fact that MTA is run by local politicians and they all prefer a line in their district instead of a system.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Aug 13, 2009 3:34:55 GMT -8
I guess we all agree on this. Something has been preventing MTA from working on a systemwide plan -- probably the fact that MTA is run by local politicians and they all prefer a line in their district instead of a system. There's something beyond Metro's control, too. It can't write checks it won't be able to cash. Metro needs to front part of the construction tab with money it has on hand. This is why it cannot build a whole network all at once.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 13, 2009 7:23:45 GMT -8
Until recently, Metro's claim was that it could not plan ahead because it could only plan what it had money for. I never bought that: I figure it had more to do with the length of politician's terms than anything else.
Now that there is some prospect of money for projects, they are under some pressure to think ahead. A little bit. And when I say forced, I mean how Metro was forced by certain legislators to include an enforceable priority list with Measure R.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 13, 2009 8:54:51 GMT -8
Good conversation at the end of last night's Westwood subway meeting on north-south network connectivity options. I wondered how ridership compares between the proposed Pink Line heavy rail route (Hollywood to Westwood and west), with transfers to the Crenshaw Line south of Wilshire, vs. a light rail Hollywood-West Hollywood-Crenshaw north-south line, with transfers at Wilshire. The answer is that both the Westside subway and Crenshaw need first to finish their EIRs as currently underway. But La Cienega could have both options (wye and crossing) defined, and weak ridership projections of the Pink Line could bring a subsequent re-analysis of a light rail alternative there. Another interesting thought (thanks, Jerard!), is to take advantage of the 600+ foot length of station boxes to serve adjacent heavy cross-streets, such as: * Barrington-Federal * Veteran-Westwood * La Cienega-San Vicente And here's Jody Litvak in her safety vest and hard hat at the meeting:
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 13, 2009 9:14:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 13, 2009 9:49:31 GMT -8
I guess we all agree on this. Something has been preventing MTA from working on a systemwide plan -- probably the fact that MTA is run by local politicians and they all prefer a line in their district instead of a system. There's something beyond Metro's control, too. It can't write checks it won't be able to cash. Metro needs to front part of the construction tab with money it has on hand. This is why it cannot build a whole network all at once. We are not saying that they should build the system at once -- they should plan it at once. Until recently, Metro's claim was that it could not plan ahead because it could only plan what it had money for. I never bought that: I figure it had more to do with the length of politician's terms than anything else. Actually this is indeed a misrepresentation of the facts and not true. What is true is that Metro cannot ask for federal money for projects it won't be able to operate once they are built and therefore it cannot include them in the long-range-plan build list. But there is no law against planning. In fact the long-range plan also has a strategic plan exactly for this purpose. But unfortunately this strategic plan is not much more than names of a few exotic-sounding lines as a wish list.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 13, 2009 10:02:30 GMT -8
Until recently, Metro's claim was that it could not plan ahead because it could only plan what it had money for. I never bought that: I figure it had more to do with the length of politician's terms than anything else. Actually this is indeed a misrepresentation of the facts and not true. What is true is that Metro cannot ask for federal money for projects it won't be able to operate once they are built and therefore it cannot include them in the long-range-plan build list. But there is no law against planning. In fact the long-range plan also has a strategic plan exactly for this purpose. But unfortunately this strategic plan is not much more than names of a few exotic-sounding lines as a wish list. Not only that, they can not model ridership based on projects that haven't even been built. For example, The ridership on the Wilshire subway is based on the current Metro Rail/Transitway network plus these two lines that are under construction: East LA Gold Line Expo Phase 1 Once more pieces to the system are under construction or built this will affect the ridership modeling, which will the FTA requires to be factored in. As we see with the Long -delayed- Range Transit Plan (thanks Darrell for that term) and the politics behind that, once the politics are out of the way, planning can actually happen based on ridership and demand and once FTA adjusts their parameters to allow more of these long term planning pieces to not be value engineered to death by bean counters to meet cost-effectiveness.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 13, 2009 10:18:04 GMT -8
^^ Again this is the confusion between what is being planned for construction and what is being planned strategically. The modeling for the strategic plan can be refined as more lines are built and as more data is available. The strategic plan would be dynamic, as any long-range plan.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 13, 2009 10:44:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 14, 2009 7:24:37 GMT -8
Until recently, Metro's claim was that it could not plan ahead because it could only plan what it had money for. I never bought that: I figure it had more to do with the length of politician's terms than anything else. Actually this is indeed a misrepresentation of the facts and not true. What is true is that Metro cannot ask for federal money for projects it won't be able to operate once they are built and therefore it cannot include them in the long-range-plan build list. But there is no law against planning. In fact the long-range plan also has a strategic plan exactly for this purpose. But unfortunately this strategic plan is not much more than names of a few exotic-sounding lines as a wish list. My first sentence is about Metro's claim, not mine. Remember, all of these studies originate from directions from the Metro Board. Metro staff does what they are asked. If the Metro Board had asked staff for a single scoping study that includes Purple, Pink and Crenshaw together, Metro staff could have done that. These lines may have separate EIRs or combined EIRs, but there is no reason they couldn't have been studied together.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 14, 2009 17:44:50 GMT -8
Is anyone else extremely frustrated that the pink line can't be built as run through tracks at HH? It seems like something that coul have been planned for so easily given that the redline was only finished 10 years ago. Now we have all this theorizing about ways to integrate the system when the most logical option is off the table due to lack of foresight and what I presume is a bureaucratically conceived threshold for federal new starts funding (the reason run through tracks are out). The problem is that 10-15 years ago, a Westside subway was completely out of the question, much less one for a Pink Line as now conceived. I agree it is a problem especially since most people from the Valley go west instead of towards downtown. However, this can be mostly alleviated if the 405 line is built. It is likely that the Pink Line would not precede this 405 Line by much.
|
|