|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jan 24, 2009 17:41:18 GMT -8
Another step forward as the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment goes into EIR/EIS. Of course, it won't be built until after Wilshire, so I may not ride it until 2050, but hey, it's worth living to be 84 for. Nice, finally, an easy way for me to travel from the Valley to the party scene in WeHo, when I'm 81! |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 24, 2009 20:30:39 GMT -8
Another step forward as the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment goes into EIR/EIS. Of course, it won't be built until after Wilshire, so I may not ride it until 2050, but hey, it's worth living to be 84 for. Nice, finally, an easy way for me to travel from the Valley to the party scene in WeHo, when I'm 81! Hopefully, it won't be that long. The keys now to the success of Measure R and completing the vision are: 1. Getting federal funds in a big way, (the sooner rather the better) or we are going to get suprisingly little built. 2. Creating pedestrial scale and pedestrian oriented development around stations. This means the pedestrian actualy comes in first not last and people actualy feel comfortable walking in LA at least near transit stations. 3. Keeping the operating budget from swallowing vital construction funds by keeping operating costs down and fares reasonably high enough to cover costs. 4. Having an economy where sales are still taking place in high numbers (I feel that the current Measure R income projections are most likely too high). 5. Getting LA to really feel that the rail system is part of the city where middle and upper class folks use the system and establishments give directions via transit as well. |
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Mar 6, 2009 21:45:08 GMT -8
Hmmm
Dont you think the line in the Hollywood Area is a little to close to the Red Line...
Same in Santa Monica, its only a blockaway from the Purple Line extension
Isnt that money we dont need to spend?
The pink line should start at Hollywood and Highland, do the whole thing that Metro wants in its purple line extension plans along Santa Monica Boulevard, then use La Cienga or Fairfax then use Venice Boulevard to go to Venice Beach
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 7, 2009 12:39:47 GMT -8
I'm not sure that you're looking at the map correctly. The pink line will be just the part between Hollywood and the purple line. The rest of the map that shows the line heading to Santa Monica is only the purple line, not two separate lines. It looks like two because it shows different options for where the line may travel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 6, 2009 9:19:08 GMT -8
 The above map was posted by Darrell on another thread. One of the most interesting part of last night's Westside Subway Extension community briefings was how the Crenshaw alignment had been tweaked. It showed an dotted line from Crenshaw/Expo to Crenshaw/Wilshire with the words (bus only). It also showed a dotted line up Crenshaw to San Vincente, then northwest up San Vicente with three possible branches to Wilshire, La Brea, Fairfax and San Vicente. It looks like Metro would like to ideally extend the Crenshaw Line up to Wilshire west of La Brea as those Fairfax and San Vicente "fingers" are new possibilities. While I still prefer Alternative 11 of the Westside Transit Corridor Extension project, I would welcome connecting the Crenshaw Line to Hollywood/Highland via Fairfax, La Cienega or connecting the Pink Line via San Vicente. La Brea isn't considered "westside" and misses important destinations like the Grove and the Beverly Center. The advantage of this alignment is that light rail is cheaper to construct than heavy rail, therefore the numbers would be more advantageous for federal funding. Also, Metro will have already invested millions of dollars studying this corridor, received feedback and comment on station locations and design, and have a whole lot of heartbroken people on their hands. There is also a regional benefit. People in Hollywood, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills and points south will more easily access LAX. Basically, West Hollywood and the Beverly Center area would be trading easier one-seat access to the Westside for easier access to LAX. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Aug 6, 2009 11:49:52 GMT -8
The advantage of this alignment is that light rail is cheaper to construct than heavy rail, therefore the numbers would be more advantageous for federal funding. Also, Metro will have already invested millions of dollars studying this corridor, received feedback and comment on station locations and design, and have a whole lot of heartbroken people on their hands. There is also a regional benefit. People in Hollywood, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills and points south will more easily access LAX. Basically, West Hollywood and the Beverly Center area would be trading easier one-seat access to the Westside for easier access to LAX. I tend to agree that the Pink line could be better as light rail, even though much of it would be underground and not much cheaper than heavy rail. Considering that Hollywood/Highland will require a transfer anyway, the ultimate advantage of light rail would be easy connection to the Crenshaw line, Expo line and LAX (as you said) and the rest of our rail network. I also think this would elevate the importance of the Crenshaw line. You guys are brilliant! |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 6, 2009 12:29:44 GMT -8
The advantage of this alignment is that light rail is cheaper to construct than heavy rail, therefore the numbers would be more advantageous for federal funding. Also, Metro will have already invested millions of dollars studying this corridor, received feedback and comment on station locations and design, and have a whole lot of heartbroken people on their hands. There is also a regional benefit. People in Hollywood, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills and points south will more easily access LAX. Basically, West Hollywood and the Beverly Center area would be trading easier one-seat access to the Westside for easier access to LAX. I tend to agree that the Pink line could be better as light rail, even though much of it would be underground and not much cheaper than heavy rail. Considering that Hollywood/Highland will require a transfer anyway, the ultimate advantage of light rail would be easy connection to the Crenshaw line, Expo line and LAX (as you said) and the rest of our rail network. I also think this would elevate the importance of the Crenshaw line. You guys are brilliant! I don't necessarily disagree, but that map rubs me the wrong way. Sending a line west and then back east as both the north-south light rail routes here do is pretty inefficient. Say someone from the South Bay wants to go to Westwood or Century City (which more than a few do). On this system they are going to have to go in an almost circular non-direct route to go there. They'll probably just drive instead. Same for someone going from Hollywood to LAX. The Crenshaw line would go west to Weho and then back east to Crenshaw and then back west to LAX. I'm just more of a fan of a simple approach that uses lines that are direct and fast with few unconnected branches (like our current Purple Line). Also, I tend to fight for having only stations that are necessary. I am neither a fan of the Crenshaw or VA Hospital stations on the Purple Line proposal, because there isn't much ridership there today and you can't really build any development at either location for the future and both are basically walking distances to nearby stations. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 6, 2009 12:42:37 GMT -8
There are lots of heavy and light rail around the world which are not straight lines but are very popular. The New York Lines weave in and out of each other.
If it is still quicker, they will ride it. That rail trip from Hollywood to LAX would still be MUCH quicker by this alignment than driving it, especially during rush hour.
In your South Bay scenario, I think it is more likely they'd take the Crenshaw Line to Wilshire and then directly transfer to the Purple Line (or take an eventual Sepulveda Line up to the Purple Line and head east.)
The good news to me at least is that Metro is no longer just considering a straight line up La Brea to Hollywood/Highland, which would miss a lot of ridership opportunities west of La Brea. LaBrea just doesn't have the same destinations as Fairfax, La Cienega and San Vicente does.
If they end up splitting the difference with these "fingers" and go straight up Fairfax, that would be ironic, because Fairfax was supposed to be the original Red Line route up to Hollywood from Wilshire before Waxman did the bidding of NIMBYs and it became Vermont.
The VA Hospital station isn't really walking distance to either Barrington or Wilshire since Federal has now been ruled out (according to last night's presentation). The VA Station decision sounds like was justified by a parking-based/transfer-based ridership rather than a destination-based ridership.
Crenshaw/Wilshire is still optional probably for the reasons you mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 6, 2009 13:44:55 GMT -8
The above map was posted by Darrell on another thread. One of the most interesting part of last night's Westside Subway Extension community briefings was how the Crenshaw alignment had been tweaked. It showed an dotted line from Crenshaw/Expo to Crenshaw/Wilshire with the words (bus only). It also showed a dotted line up Crenshaw to San Vincente, then northwest up San Vicente with three possible branches to Wilshire, La Brea, Fairfax and San Vicente. It looks like Metro would like to ideally extend the Crenshaw Line up to Wilshire west of La Brea as those Fairfax and San Vicente "fingers" are new possibilities. While I still prefer Alternative 11 of the Westside Transit Corridor Extension project, I would welcome connecting the Crenshaw Line to Hollywood/Highland via Fairfax, La Cienega or connecting the Pink Line via San Vicente. La Brea isn't considered "westside" and misses important destinations like the Grove and the Beverly Center. The advantage of this alignment is that light rail is cheaper to construct than heavy rail, therefore the numbers would be more advantageous for federal funding. Also, Metro will have already invested millions of dollars studying this corridor, received feedback and comment on station locations and design, and have a whole lot of heartbroken people on their hands. There is also a regional benefit. People in Hollywood, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills and points south will more easily access LAX. Basically, West Hollywood and the Beverly Center area would be trading easier one-seat access to the Westside for easier access to LAX. Thanks for the update, Dan. That also shows Metro planners are listening to our suggestions. I'd emphasized in my Scoping comments the importance of looking ahead to how future north-south lines would interface with the Purple Line, illustrated with this map and the other one of heavy rail possibilities. I'm really glad they're pursuing alternatives there! |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 6, 2009 13:52:21 GMT -8
I agree the VA station would probably make sense if it had a large park and ride facility. Not sure what you mean by transfer station, because no busses really go through the VA except the ones down Wilshire like the 720 and BBB#2.
On the Park and Ride facility, I wonder if this is really possible. This is federal land that is solely to be used for Veteran services. Not sure how you can legally build a park and ride facility for a regional rail line given that. If there is no park and ride, I'd built a portal entrance to the Barrington station farther west (could go to almost Federal), which is right up against the VA property.
Gokhan, on the Expo construction, I wouldn't make too many assumptions about opening as to whether the completion goes up 3 or 4% in any one month. We still don't know when the Gold Line will open even with construction done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 6, 2009 14:06:22 GMT -8
Great map, Darrell.
Slightly off topic, but I don't see that Lincoln Blvd. LRT connecting with a Sepulveda LRT like that. I think it is more likely that the Sepulveda LRT will go down Sepulveda to LAX. (I hope it goes north so Sylmar and connects with both Metrolink Trains eventually). But that's for another thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 6, 2009 15:01:36 GMT -8
I agree the VA station would probably make sense if it had a large park and ride facility. Not sure what you mean by transfer station, because no busses really go through the VA except the ones down Wilshire like the 720 and BBB#2. On the Park and Ride facility, I wonder if this is really possible. This is federal land that is solely to be used for Veteran services. Not sure how you can legally build a park and ride facility for a regional rail line given that. They could legally if a joint development such as a new Adminstrative wing of the VA facility were to be built at the location of this "VA park-ride/transit center". However the distance between Federal and Barrington is a little over 600 ft +/- 50', which is enough for a station box and a multiple entrance station; one at Barrington the other facing Federal Avenue on the VA property, while still adding a Park-ride on lot. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 6, 2009 15:18:25 GMT -8
I agree the VA station would probably make sense if it had a large park and ride facility. Not sure what you mean by transfer station, because no busses really go through the VA except the ones down Wilshire like the 720 and BBB#2. By transfer station, I mean to a Sepulveda LRT project. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 6, 2009 15:52:49 GMT -8
I agree the VA station would probably make sense if it had a large park and ride facility. Not sure what you mean by transfer station, because no busses really go through the VA except the ones down Wilshire like the 720 and BBB#2. On the Park and Ride facility, I wonder if this is really possible. This is federal land that is solely to be used for Veteran services. Not sure how you can legally build a park and ride facility for a regional rail line given that. They could legally if a joint development such as a new Adminstrative wing of the VA facility were to be built at the location of this "VA park-ride/transit center". However the distance between Federal and Barrington is a little over 600 ft +/- 50', which is enough for a station box and a multiple entrance station; one at Barrington the other facing Federal Avenue on the VA property, while still adding a Park-ride on lot. Good point. It is also important to note that it is basically the same walking distance to the hospital from Wilshire in front of the VA as it is from Federal assuming a straight path. Also, the parcel of the VA right at Federal and Wilshire (SE corner) does not have the same deed restrictions as the rest of the VA. At one point a couple of years ago, it was potentially going up for sale and could have included non-VA development. Again, this makes it more and more to me to seem that a separate VA station is unnecessary and wasteful. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 9, 2009 1:52:33 GMT -8
 Here's my Westisde Mass Transit Dream It includes the completed Expo, Purple and "Pink Lines", a Crenshaw Line extension to Hollywood/Highland via Fairfax, and a Sepulveda Line connect the San Fernando Valley with the Westside and LAX. |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 9, 2009 12:06:01 GMT -8
I've already commented in the other thread about the need to implement the Crenshaw Line routing as you've described it, but also the need to straighten up the Pink Line to make a straight shot to the Grove and the Beverly Center.
I very much like the inclusion of the Sepulveda Blvd. Valley/Westside/LAX line, although I suspect the routing for that north-south line south of the Expo Line would be better served as a continued subway under Sepulveda all the way to LAX, or at least south of where the 405 freeway intersects with Sepulveda Blvd.
|
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Aug 29, 2009 8:58:55 GMT -8
I don't necessarily disagree, but that map rubs me the wrong way. Sending a line west and then back east as both the north-south light rail routes here do is pretty inefficient. Say someone from the South Bay wants to go to Westwood or Century City (which more than a few do). On this system they are going to have to go in an almost circular non-direct route to go there. They'll probably just drive instead. Two things to understand: 1) Travel time is more important than "straight-routing." 2) The success of a line greatly depends on the number of and proximity to destinations. As Dan pointed out, few heavy rail systems around the world follow a straight line. This is especially true in European cities where the street grid just didn't exist when these cities were built centuries/millennium ago. In those cities, just as in ours what is important are the destination being served and how fast people can get there, especially in comparison to a bus/car. Think of it this way: Benefit of improved access vs. the cost of slower travel times Consider the issue of adding a Sunset Strip station to the Pink Line. The station would be placed around Sunset/La Cienega between the San Vicente/Santa Monica and Fairfax/Santa Monica stations. It would alter the current routing from the pink line to the bronze line: The route would add 1/3-mile to the subway route and an additional station. The increased travel time is somewhere between 60-90 seconds. Go to the question above and plug it in: Is the increased access to Sunset Strip (from the diversion) worth the loss of a little over a minute to the overall travel time? In this case I tend to think yes, given that the Sunset is far removed (topographically) from Santa Monica Blvd, and thereby a significant number of destinations, both entertainment and office buildings that would not otherwise be adequately served by the Pink line would be. Ultimately if a line loses 0.25% of ridership with a loss in travel time, but gains 2% in ridership with the improved routing/added station its worth it. If it's the other way around it's probably not. (And I say "worth it" from a transit service perspective not in the context of the ever changing/moving target definition of "cost-efficient.") In that scenario above the question is rather easy. Where it gets more difficult is when the choice is a straight route up Fairfax (black line) for a Crenshaw Line coming from the south or the crescent of the Pink Line above (bronze or pink). Here the overall travel time differential is much greater. Between the Grove/CBS/Farmers Market station and Hollywood/Highland station, the baseline/quickest route would be the black line, which is 3 stations at 3.2 miles. The pink line would be is 4 stations at 5.15 miles. Bronze is 5 stations at 5.4 miles. The difference between black and pink is around 3 minutes, and the difference between black and bronze is around 4-4.5 minutes. Those are huge differences, especially for a line deriving from deep in the South Bay. But so is a system/line that serves the destinations of Beverly Center/Cedars Sinai, San Vicente/Santa Monica and Sunset Strip, vs. a line that doesn't and instead serves Fairfax/Melrose. In that scenario the issue isn't as clear. Undeniably a lot of the Crenshaw Line's riders would be people who would originate their trip from Inglewood or the South Bay Galleria who are looking to get to Hollywood. The additional 3-4.5 minutes is going to cause some of them to drive instead. The question is: How many? But the other side of the coin is that some of those people in Inglewood and the South Bay are looking to go to the destinations being served. Again: How many? Again the decision is which number is greater, and it's not too easy to find out, because it's a question not just limited to the single line, but rather the entire system, e.g. there are North Hollywood residents (Red Line) who would like to go to the Sunset Strip and USC students (Expo) who want to go to Hollywood. I will say this however, it becomes easier to add destinations without harming overall ridership, when talking about a grade separated route, because the travel times differentials are less severe. |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 29, 2009 11:16:30 GMT -8
Clearly, grade separation and SPEED will help riders out everywhere, but it becomes that much more mandatory for a key north-south line that the Crenshaw Line has the potential to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 30, 2009 12:23:33 GMT -8
Damien, I think we are on the same page on this as I look at this similar to how you have outlaid this.
I personally think people don't place enough emphasis on the travel time aspect and too much on perceived benefit of certain destinations.
On the Purple Line for instance I think the Century City diversion is of course a worthy detour, but I didn't much like the idea of a Grove detour and felt people were falsely believing this to be too important of a destination and not taking into account the damage of the lost time due to the detour. Same with Phase II of Expo and the Venice Blvd/Sepulveda detour.
|
|
