|
Post by antonio on Mar 10, 2008 14:25:55 GMT -8
dantheman, I'm not sure anybody here is going to argue with you. First of all, we can't tunnel under Crenshaw north of Pico because of sulfur gas that is much worse than the methane that killed the original Red Line under Wilshire and Fairfax. Secondly, density on Crenshaw north of Venice is weak at best (trust me I live near there). Swinging over to Venice/San Vicente and up La Brea is what all of us, from Damien to Jerard to Dr. Alpern to myself, have proposed. Obviously the natural ending point for this line is H/H but lets try to get it to Wilshire/LaBrea first.
The one-seat ride is a myth. Sure its possible track wise but realistically there is no room for interlining on the street-running segment of Expo, just ask Damien.
Edit: you coulndn't do it at peak hours or even midday (because of heavy volumes of cross traffic on Expo) but you could get by with it late night early morning when headways are way longer. Peak is a non starter. That's a train every 1.6 minutes PER DIRECTION on Flower (Blue/Expo/Crenshaw at five minute headways) and a train every 2.5 PER DIRECTION on Expo to Crenshaw. That is mathematically impossible because you wouldn't be able to get a cycle in at any street crossing Flower or any of the major ones crossing Expo not to mention a turn on Crenshaw. Remember it is barely feasible to get combined 5 minute peak headways on both Blue and Expo. MTA has told us its going to be an operations headache at 7th/Metro. Sure the DTC is going to relieve some of this pressure but that doesn't mean we should ram another line in with the breathing room it will give us.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 10, 2008 15:08:11 GMT -8
That's a train every 1.6 minutes PER DIRECTION on Flower (Blue/Expo/Crenshaw at five minute headways) and a train every 2.5 PER DIRECTION on Expo to Crenshaw. That is mathematically impossible because you wouldn't be able to get a cycle in at any street crossing Flower or any of the major ones crossing Expo not to mention a turn on Crenshaw. I haven't timed Flower's signals, but Washington & San Pedro has a 90-second cycle (3/6 10:47 post). I could imagine one train every 90 seconds in each direction (one per cycle), but delays at many signals waiting for a green. But not recommended.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 10, 2008 16:50:43 GMT -8
I don't know if it's feasible because I don't know what the riding patterns will be, but the way that I envisioned the one seat ride was something like this:
Assume that Crenshaw operates at 7.5 minute headways. Half the trains from the airport would head downtown and the other half would head to Santa Monica.
Expo would operate at five minute headways. 1 out of 3 trains from downtown would head to LAX and the same ratio for the trains from Santa Monica.
We can play around with the ratios or the headways, but something like that I think.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Mar 10, 2008 16:54:06 GMT -8
Just do the math.
Conservative: -Expo = 24 trains per hour (5 min) -Blue = 24 trains per hour (5 min) -Crenshaw = 12 trains per hour (10 min)
TOTAL: 60 trains per hour
Realistic: -Expo = 30 trains per hour (4 min) -Blue = 30 trains per hour (4 min) -Crenshaw = 15-18 trains per hour (6-8 min)
TOTAL: 75-78 trains per hour
So conservatively we're talking 60 trains per hour, more realistically 75-78 trains per hour.
My hair catches on fire just thinking about it.
I mean you can ignore the complicated crossings at Adams/Flower and 28th/Flower (where trains can be caught in a delay as long as 135 secs) on Expo, and just consider Washington/Flower - even WITH a DTC. And it is still INSANE.
You can solve the Flower Street problem (parallel tunnel and stations for Expo/Crenshaw while Blue Line keeps the at-grade track) but there's still the problem at Crenshaw/Exposition and Arlington/Exposition: -At Arlington/Exposition: a longer pre-emption than usual is needed at Arlington (where there are crossing gates), due to the need to clear the street down to Rodeo (an additional 10-15 seconds). Simply, 40 second pre-emption becomes 50-55 seconds
-At Crenshaw/Exposition: Crenshaw is one of a few intersections where the cross traffic is significantly greater than the traffic running parallel to the LRT. Therefore altering the timing there will make traffic at the intersection worse (traffic that just 0.2 miles north at Jefferson/Exposition is at LOS F - TODAY).
How is this even on the drawing board at Metro?!
The focus needs to shift from interlining to:
a) simultaneous construction of Crenshaw and Wilshire (as Jerard suggest)
b) using the same tunnel boring machine (if possible) for both Crenshaw and Wilshire
c) identifying the resources to build the stations through alternative funding
d) possibly (I'm almost afraid to type it), combined contracts and uniform station design (economy of scale)
RESOURCES 1) There's no reason (even if you want Crenshaw/Expo at-grade), that we shouldn't be working to build this station TODAY as part of Expo Phase 1.
2) Pico/San Vicente is in the middle of a major redevelopment area. Have the next project built their simply have the station box included within it. Have any idea how much that land will increase in value the second it's identified as a station location?!
3) Wilshire/La Brea could be financed a variety of ways: BID, BAD, TOD, density bonus, and (I think) Wilshire Bus-Only Lane money
SIMULTANEOUS CONSTRUCTION If we give up a Crenshaw/Wilshire station (and put that 10-20 mil from selling the land toward the Wilshire/La Brea station), just point the darn TBM east once the Crenshaw Line reaches Wilshire, and extend the Purple line by 2 miles without even breaking a sweat.
That would just leaves Adams/Crenshaw station where the total cost would be bore by Crenshaw LRT, literally making the Crenshaw project north of Exposition a $300-500 million project, saving the county at least a billion when considering the phased implementation/stand alone cost for Wilshire and Crenshaw.
And god how many more riders would we see? We'd take Crenshaw from a 40-45K line to what 80? Add some 25K riders (low ball number) to the Purple Line by just spending a hundred million or so?
As is the point with G.L.A.M.: it's the economy of scale, stupid!
Put another way the savings can only occur with SYSTEMWIDE thinking and large construction contracts.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 10, 2008 17:03:35 GMT -8
It doesn't have to be additive. The Crenshaw trains could replace some of the Expo trains as in the example that I gave.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Mar 10, 2008 17:30:35 GMT -8
It doesn't have to be additive. The Crenshaw trains could replace some of the Expo trains as in the example that I gave. If Expo is a dud and is too slow to attract the ridership, there will be the capacity to only slightly exacerbate an already bad situation. But I'm going to assume that not to be the case, especially not when thinking in 30-50 year terms. I mean lets just be realistic here - 40 trains per intersection per hour at-grade is INSANE, even on a one-way street like Flower. And I'm not going to even talking about about what would occur to the rail network and 7th Street Metro with an accident in that shared portion. UPDATE: Granted I hope in 30-50 years we will have fixed the Flower Street problem, and extended the Crenshaw line north. I'm more or less referring to interlining in general on Expo.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Mar 10, 2008 18:16:09 GMT -8
That's what I was looking to hear Damien. I had the ideas but not the numbers. Also, my anti-interlining spiel will hopefully be solved by grade separated Flower and Washington (or 12th Street instead) segments in hopefully 20-30 years but by then Crenshaw should be at HH
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 10, 2008 18:16:55 GMT -8
Here's a weird, kooky idea:
Perhaps we'll need the Expo Construction Authority around, either to fund/fix the Downtown portion of the parallel Blue/Expo Line segment if the Expo Line is a winner (and I very much believe it will be) and/or to deal with the Expo branches at Crenshaw and elsewhere that inevitably will keep planners and contractors busy for years to come.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 10, 2008 18:30:19 GMT -8
It doesn't have to be additive. The Crenshaw trains could replace some of the Expo trains as in the example that I gave. I wonder, what will be the peak directional service of Expo Line? This little riddle may solve the problem of which trains and when and how often. Cause I can see every other train during the peak rush hour direction to be a Crenshaw Corridor train to Downtown in the Morning and from Downtown in the evening, matching what is on the 442 and 740. This can balance the Expo Line trips which will probably one of the closest to a 50/50 ridership distribution meaning they can get away doing more with less, 3 car trains at 5 minute headways to Santa Monica in the Morning and From Santa Monica in the Evening. Every other time Crenshaw/Expo becomes a timed transfer point during peak hours between Crenshaw Corridor and Expo. But even if that fails- this is me talking in possible run-on sentances after being up for 36 hours straight-why not shift the attention from the 3.5 mile Expo grade separation to extending the Crenshaw Corridor underground to meet with Wilshire.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Mar 10, 2008 18:50:53 GMT -8
Here's a weird, kooky idea: Perhaps we'll need the Expo Construction Authority around, either to fund/fix the Downtown portion of the parallel Blue/Expo Line segment if the Expo Line is a winner (and I very much believe it will be) and/or to deal with the Expo branches at Crenshaw and elsewhere that inevitably will keep planners and contractors busy for years to come. The reality is the DTC and a parallel grade separated Flower Street track should have been part of Expo Phase 1. It should be a part of/should be before Expo Phase 2. Nonetheless, I'm going to love being around to see the politics take place to explain how this operations nightmare is less important than extending the Expo Line to Santa Monica, beginning the Crenshaw LRT or building SFV busway extension (No, I will not recognize it by a color - it's not a rail line). Put a table together. I can't visualize what your saying. Every time I think split peak hour distribution, I'm reminded that the same number of trains are needed going the opposite direction, as are needed going the peak hour direction.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 10, 2008 19:12:52 GMT -8
I wonder, what will be the peak directional service of Expo Line? This little riddle may solve the problem of which trains and when and how often. Cause I can see every other train during the peak rush hour direction to be a Crenshaw Corridor train to Downtown in the Morning and from Downtown in the evening, matching what is on the 442 and 740. This can balance the Expo Line trips which will probably one of the closest to a 50/50 ridership distribution meaning they can get away doing more with less, 3 car trains at 5 minute headways to Santa Monica in the Morning and From Santa Monica in the Evening. Every other time Crenshaw/Expo becomes a timed transfer point during peak hours between Crenshaw Corridor and Expo. But even if that fails- this is me talking in possible run-on sentances after being up for 36 hours straight-why not shift the attention from the 3.5 mile Expo grade separation to extending the Crenshaw Corridor underground to meet with Wilshire. Good point, Jerard, about how Expo and Crenshaw may best operate. Another synergy of a connection along Crenshaw / La Brea between Expo and Wilshire is: Suppose I wanted to go from Santa Monica to Wilshire and Normandie. With Expo finished, but Wilshire not past Westwood (likely), I'd still have to go out of the way via downtown. It could be more convenient to go east to Crenshaw and jog north to Wilshire there (depending on headways and transfer delays).
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 10, 2008 20:14:15 GMT -8
I wonder, what will be the peak directional service of Expo Line? This little riddle may solve the problem of which trains and when and how often. Yup. Expo won't be as decisively a downtown commuter train as the blue line is. Or as much as Crenshaw will be. Crenshaw will be predominantly towards expo in the am and the reverse in the pm. That's partly why I'm having a hard time understanding the position that the trains should stop there and not run on the expo tracks.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 11, 2008 4:33:03 GMT -8
Lots of questions to answer, aren't there? Hence my long-time pleading to hoooooooooold off on that Wilshire Subway to Westwood until we get these operational issues dealt with on our light rail network (and that doesn't mean I'm anti-Subway!).
The big problem, folks, is that none of us can know for sure where the DTC is going to actually go, and how it's going to be done. By not having the DTC as part of the Pasadena Gold Line effort (no money, lots of excuses that are valid, I know, I know), the Expo Line just couldn't be allowed to deal with the big picture as part of its construction for a tentative line that hadn't been planned or built.
...and, of course, the political push to get the Pasadena and Expo Lines built were coming mainly from the SGV and Westside, so that these central planning issues couldn't get the highlighted attention they needed. The SGV and Westside politicians already do and increasingly will recognize the importance of the DTC, but their main focus is on the constituents who are salivating over a Pasadena-focused line to Azusa and beyond as well as a line that gets all the way to the sea.
One nice thing about all these planning efforts for Crenshaw and DTC and Wilshire is that if/when we get those plans out there we can actually ask for funding that includes these other plans in the mix. The Green Line Interagency Task Force, for example, is focusing on a Green Line that extends from Aviation/Imperial to Century/Aviation and then westward to Lincoln/Sepulveda in large part BECAUSE the Crenshaw Line was in the Constrained Portion of the Metro LRTP.
Legally, we just can't plan a project based on another project that hasn't been planned, vetted and finalized with the Metro Board!!!!
The best strategy I can recommend for the DTC is to:
1) Prioritize it on the Metro LRTP right after Crenshaw in the LRTP update this year, and to fight like hell to make sure it's a 3/4 track underground effort (no half-assed project this time around that'll burn us in years to come
2) Have the next big Metro Board-approved project be a Wilshire Subway west that includes a Crenshaw Line connection (so that by the time the Crenshaw Line is being constructed we know where it's gonna go, such as at Wilshire/La Brea), whether it's to La Cienega or Century City or whatever. I'm sure the latter would be more politically viable for the Westside, but a La Cienega plan that included the Crenshaw Line underground connection is more urgent
3) Then the battle royale would occur as to extending the Wilshire Subway west of La Cienega or Century City, vs. extending the Downtown Connector to include the Blue/Expo Lines underground because by then we'd see headway/traffic issues that force us to deal with that problem
Hence my kooky (or is it not-so-kooky) idea of keeping the Expo Construction Authority around after it reaches the ocean. I've heard the arguments about not needing more than one building authority when we've got Metro and I don't buy them for a second when one considers that these Authorities have the ability to get private (i.e., developer) and local money to fund these projects.
A Green Line Construction Authority is the only legal way to get LAWA funds to construct the Green Line extension to LAX (and which could be redefined to build either the Crenshaw Line or a Green Line extension to the South Bay Galleria), and an Expo Line Construction Authority that's redefined to include the Downtown Connector (and what I like to call the Downtown Connector Phase 2 which includes an underground portion of the Blue/Expo Lines) are the best way to make sure these projects are getting the attention they need while Metro focuses on the Wilshire Subway.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 13, 2008 9:44:05 GMT -8
Put a table together. I can't visualize what your saying. Every time I think split peak hour distribution, I'm reminded that the same number of trains are needed going the opposite direction, as are needed going the peak hour direction. That's true, but do they all have to come from the same corridor? No they don't. A perfect example of this are on the El Monte Busway routes. During the rush hour they operate as the extra peak services going from El Monte to Downtown in the opposite direction they change route perform only the required local segment until the afternoon where they return for the peak direction operation from Downtown to El Monte. It's a very clever use of coordination and tailoring and tuning service levels based on demand to minimize dead-heading and space for mid-storage. Here's the scenario: On the AM trains will start from South Bay run up Crenshaw Corridor to Expo. Every other train will continue down Expo to Downtown. At Downtown trains will switch from Crenshaw Corridor to Expo for the trip west to Santa Monica. In Santa Monica that trip will continue as an Expo run BUT only to Expo/Crenshaw. At Expo/Crenshaw that run reverses and continues as a Crenshaw Corridor train and returns to the yard as a revenue service. Since these are extra trip runs for both lines they could operate together. We'd have a base headway for Expo Corridor and a base headway for Crenshaw. One or two surplus 3 car trains can be kept in Santa Monica or along the Expo corridor to be stored for the first PM rush hour, much like it's done at 7th Street Metro for the Blue Line. For the PM rush Hour they start from Santa Monica and continue to Downtown and then switch at 7th Street or Chinatown if the Downtown Connector is built to reverse and become the peak Crenshaw Corridor train to South Bay. In fact this could be a key reason for the Downtown Connector is that those extra Blue Line runs can be stored at the current Gold Line yard, once the Gold Line is extended to Azusa/Citrus College and a additional rail yard can be built. Having that near Downtown rail facility significantly reduces track mileage on the vehicles expanding their lifespan and reduces maintenance costs.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Mar 13, 2008 15:54:43 GMT -8
I completely understand the concept. I just haven't figured out a scenario/schedule (in the case without a DTC) that doesn't drastically reduce DLA to Santa Monica trip headways (down to 8 mins where 4 are assumed to be needed), or isn't way too tight to be reliable on Flower Street, in the shared Expo Blvd section, and at 7th Street Metro. And again, this is to say nothing of the vehicular traffic impacts.
And with the DTC, as I've alluded to before, it would seem to result in an increase in regional trips on Expo beyond Crenshaw Blvd (East LA to Century City/Santa Monica).
It's just so clear to me 4-car platforms (or 3-car platforms that are easily expandable to 4-cars) and grade separation in the shared portions are essential.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 18, 2008 17:00:13 GMT -8
Another possiblity to operate this what they use to do on the San Francisco Muni Metro for the K-L and M routes and in some Swiss rail systems. This set-up is called drop and catch. Where the full 3 car train starts Downtown with the first 2 cars being Expo or the last car is Crenshaw Corridor run. They run as a train until Crenshaw/Expo where the last car breaks off the 2 car Expo run proceeds West and the single car Crenshaw run continues on it's route. A second car to the Crenshaw train can be added to handle the loading. The one downside are the loading areas would be confusing.
The next smaller step from this concept is adopting a timed transfer point at Expo/Crenshaw where the Crenshaw line ends at Expo and then within one traffic light or 60 seconds the Expo train follows directly behind it to make the connection and minimize transfer wait times.
To answer the time question understand what the midday frequency will be. Are we thinking a 12 minute headway or 8 minute headway? That number is our base, and then the added service we need to provide the peak direction service will come from these direct trains and lines.
So if we need a 4 minute peak direction for Expo eastbound but only need an 8 minute peak direction westbound then the extra train would come directly from Crenshaw which would augment and provide the service gap and then switch to provide the additional service in Expo's peak direction.
Another thing are the timed transfers that you're more likely to get as service increases to the point that you don't need to have all the Crenshaw trains during rush hour even go into to Downtown every rail system in the world performs this service during rush hour wheter it's grade separated or not. Trains would come into Crenshaw station discharge passengers switch track and layover while at the next light cycle the connecting eastbound Expo train arrives for Downtown.
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Mar 19, 2008 14:20:53 GMT -8
Another possiblity to operate this what they use to do on the San Francisco Muni Metro for the K-L and M routes and in some Swiss rail systems. This set-up is called drop and catch. Where the full 3 car train starts Downtown with the first 2 cars being Expo or the last car is Crenshaw Corridor run. They run as a train until Crenshaw/Expo where the last car breaks off the 2 car Expo run proceeds West and the single car Crenshaw run continues on it's route. A second car to the Crenshaw train can be added to handle the loading. The one downside are the loading areas would be confusing. All of that traffic goes through the West Portal station, though, which completely dominates the landscape it sits in. Very little car traffic crosses in front of West Portal, and the rail lines & bus stops fill quite a bit of space. It's a real transit hub for the southern part of SF. I'm going to guess that the current plans for the Expo Line Crenshaw station won't fit that description. I mean, this could be an extremely busy station (by MTA standards), and the image they've got on buildexpo.com doesn't seem like it would hold up. What are the chances that the MTA will make its riders hoof it from the Expo stop across the street to the Crenshaw line - all at-grade?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 20, 2008 17:14:57 GMT -8
From my understanding at a design meeting from a year ago that they've moved the Eastbound platform to the Eastside of Crenshaw Blvd to the same area as the Westbound Platform so there's less chance of that happening, plus there would be no room to have a separate at-grade platform on Crenshaw/Expo.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 30, 2008 22:11:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 30, 2008 22:43:08 GMT -8
Good work!
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 2, 2008 21:31:18 GMT -8
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 9, 2008 19:52:23 GMT -8
Does anyone know if the Crenshaw Corridor is going to be a one-seat line between downtown and LAX or are people going to have to transfer at the Expo Line?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 9, 2008 22:20:33 GMT -8
We won't know for sure until we know for sure. It could still end up being BRT. It could also end up connecting to the purple line. But if I had to guess I think that it will be a one seat ride to both downtown and Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 11, 2008 14:35:52 GMT -8
There's no capacity for any spur on Expo, even with the DTC.
It's simple math.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 11, 2008 17:42:08 GMT -8
Some of the trains can run on Crenshaw from Expo without having to add any capacity depending on the headways and riding patterns anticipated for each line.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 12, 2008 10:20:35 GMT -8
There's no capacity for any spur on Expo, even with the DTC. It's simple math. Mr.D. there isný any room for a spur? How do they connect to the Crenshaw line, and the possible Century City and UCLA line? Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 12, 2008 11:36:07 GMT -8
I can't speak for Damien, but to my understanding, the REAL northern terminus is supposed to be at the Purple Line. If this is the case, I'm not certain it makes much sense to have one-seat rides to Downtown at the expense of full north-south service, provided that there are frequent trains on both the Expo and Crenshaw Lines.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 12, 2008 14:42:20 GMT -8
the REAL northern terminus is supposed to be at the Purple Line. If this is the case, I'm not certain it makes much sense to have one-seat rides to Downtown at the expense of full north-south service, provided that there are frequent trains on both the Expo and Crenshaw Lines. I wonder if thinking of Crenshaw as an Expo Line branch makes it more likely to be LRT, while if the corridor is seen as up to Wilshire (or even farther north) it's more likely to be BRT? Rail on Crenshaw north of Expo is expensive, obviously the reason that part was deferred. South of Expo it's largely possible as boulevard median and private right-of-way, with some necessary grade-separations. There may be disinclination to commit to a rail project with a necessary subway second phase. If there's a heavy transfer from Crenshaw to Expo you might as well have Crenshaw trains run through. Conversely, what special trackwork would you need if Crenshaw ended at the Crenshaw Expo station and trains turned back? An added tail track? A third platform track? There's no capacity for any spur on Expo, even with the DTC. It's simple math. Let's do some math. As I previously illustrated, downtown Denver, Portland, and San Francisco schedule 16-17 at-grade a.m. peak trains/hour/direction. Presuming the Regional Connector is a subway, it should have no problem. The San Francisco Muni Metro under Market Street appears to have 32 a.m. peak trains/hour/direction (omitting same-minute scheduled trains), and the Boston Green Line subway trunk 43. Flower Street crossing Venice and Pico will be the most challenging, but can work with a train every one or two signal cycles. Suppose Expo-Santa Monica and Crenshaw each have 7.5 minute peak headways (= current Pasadena Gold Line). That's 16 peak trains per hour between Crenshaw and Washington, heavy but comparable to the other downtowns. Average headway of 3.75 minutes would result in one train every 2-3 green signals at 90-second cycles. I like Jerard's suggestion, with clearer trip information to plan how many trains on each branch; they needn't be equal. For example, 2 Crenshaw trains per 3 Santa Monica trains.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 12, 2008 15:17:07 GMT -8
...Rail on Crenshaw north of Expo is expensive, obviously the reason that part was deferred. South of Expo it's largely possible as boulevard median and private right-of-way, with some necessary grade-separations. There may be disinclination to commit to a rail project with a necessary subway second phase. That is why it is important to get that northern extension to a destination linking that to feed the Purple Line even slightly beyond Wilshire depending on the alignment (La Brea or Fairfax) will make the project feasible and cost-effective on its own. A third track east of the station like the Willow Blue Line stop would suffice.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 17, 2008 8:10:24 GMT -8
Mr.D. there isný any room for a spur? How do they connect to the Crenshaw line, and the possible Century City and UCLA line? Sincerely The Roadtrainer They can't. Simply, lines on the map do not a system make. The colors on the paper have to be able to operate and serve passengers. A spur line would require too many trains on just two tracks that operate at-grade. First, there's the downtown Flower St. section, where three lines would be operating (Blue, Expo and whatever spur) which is simply impossible. A very very very conservative estimate is 49 trains per hour during rush hour (24 for Blue, 15 for Expo, 10 for spur). I say very very very conservative, because Metro anticipates needing 27-30 trains per hour during rush hour for Expo and there will be likely increase on Blue from the additional passengers due to the addition of Expo to the rail transit system. Then there's the shared portion track with the Expo, between Washington/Flower and Crenshaw/Expo and the challenges of turning at Crenshaw/Expo intersection. And I'm not even talking about the 7th Street Metro problem, which will show itself day one Expo begins testing. Metro came to the Crenshaw Chamber of Commerce meeting last week and stated that they're no longer continuing consideration of operating Crenshaw as a spur of Expo. The inability to start off Crenshaw as a spur of Expo, coupled with a Exposition Blvd transfer/terminus of Crenshaw is what is dooming this project to BRT, because the ridership numbers will be very difficult to prove...even for Metro. The best, and perhaps the only way to bring Crenshaw rail to reality is to: a) extend it north b) make revisions to Expo NOW to allow for future capacity for spur lines c) package it with other projects (Green Line; Wilshire extension with Crenshaw; etc.) d) some combination of the above e) pay for it completely with local funding I've been saying as much for a year, to the politicians who want Crenshaw, now maybe folk will start listening.
|
|