|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 17, 2008 9:42:51 GMT -8
Rather than choose BRT would it make sense to wait a few years until Expo opens? If Expo ridership is as high as many of us are predicting they would have to bump the Crenshaw estimates up as well. I'm not totally against BRT, but I am against building something inferior that 5 years later everyone will be wondering what Metro was thinking, like with the Orange line.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 17, 2008 10:00:53 GMT -8
^ Exactly. Not only when Expo opens but the discussion of the Wilshire Subway corridor studies adds another opportunity to extend the parameters of the study.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 17, 2008 13:16:36 GMT -8
At this time, I doubt that Crenshaw will be anything but a LRT. I could always be wrong, but there's nothing out there to make me think this will be a BRT.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 17, 2008 16:51:38 GMT -8
What's the projected ridership for Crenshaw as LRT vs. BRT; and to Expo vs. to Wilshire?
BRT looks a lot cheaper if much of the route is on existing boulevards, unless ridership is too great.
Damien may be right that three LRT branches would overload the trunk. Simulation software would be a good way to try out different train frequencies. I'd note that grade separation from Vermont to Crenshaw wouldn't change constraints on both sections of Flower.
Although: suppose Crenshaw LRT stops at Expo and passengers transfer to Expo, east and westbound. The necessary passenger capacity on Expo is the same as if Crenshaw trains ran through. So why not alternate trains in all directions?
|
|
|
Post by antonio on May 17, 2008 21:02:35 GMT -8
Seriously though, Damien is more than right about capacity. I'm surprised it took Metro this long to drop the idea. 7th/Metro is going to be hell as it is after Expo opens and theres no need to kill expo ridership just to have a one-seat Crenshaw Line from DTLA to LAX. Let's focus on getting Crenshaw to Wilshire instead.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 17, 2008 21:09:23 GMT -8
Damien may be right that three LRT branches would overload the trunk. Simulation software would be a good way to try out different train frequencies. I'd note that grade separation from Vermont to Crenshaw wouldn't change constraints on both sections of Flower. It's called long-term regional planning Darrell. Grade separating Vermont to Crenshaw takes care of the problem in that portion. The downtown problem is solved by building Crenshaw in tandem with DTC (bringing DTC up in the queue and increasing the competitiveness of Crenshaw), and a grade separated track built parallel to the Flower Street tracks (1 mile cut-and-cover tunnel) a lot of problems with the system are solved. I think Jerard has mentioned knock out walls that exist in the current Blue Line tunnel at Olympic, so crossover to the existing Blue Line tracks would simply occur around there. With that the only LRT street-running portion down Flower would be the Blue, with Expo and the spur able to use the below grade tracks that could (my preference) continue down to the Figueroa trench, or simply integrate into the Expo Line tracks south of Washington. And the only reason Blue wouldn't be able to use the new track is because I really can't think of a way it can use such tunnel as well as turn onto the Washington Blvd section without shutting down the Blue Line system into downtown for months.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 17, 2008 21:09:43 GMT -8
Rather than choose BRT would it make sense to wait a few years until Expo opens? If Expo ridership is as high as many of us are predicting they would have to bump the Crenshaw estimates up as well. I'm not totally against BRT, but I am against building something inferior that 5 years later everyone will be wondering what Metro was thinking, like with the Orange line. Good point. I have been in favor of this as well. Crenshaw should be light rail, especially with the Harbor Subdivision Row. However, this line requires outside events happening for it to be a succesful line. Without a people mover, the LAX connection is very weak. A connection to the Purple Line won't happen with this line, at least not in any first phase. The connection with Expo is critical for this line. However, Expo may be at or near capacity with no DTC, so it could be more of a mess than anything else. With these issues why are people insisting that we build this before anything else? Seems like these issues need to be addressed first before building this line or we are just compounding the mistakes of the past. I have problems with TTC, because they insist on projects like this being at the top of the list, even though they know there are serious problems. Seems to me that TTC should be promoting the DTC first and foremost, because any transit expert knows this means the most for the system and will result in the highest ridership and also needs a champion, because it has no natural community to fight for it given that it is downtown. It is critical that we build as much of a working system now that will have high ridership and won't have capacity issues. We continue to build more or less in the opposite direction, which imperils the entire buildout of the system. At some point, people will say no to tax increases and the rail system will never be able to expand. We may be very near that point. W/O the sales tax increase in Nov., the system may largely be done.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 17, 2008 21:28:33 GMT -8
Seriously though, Damien is more than right about capacity. I'm surprised it took Metro this long to drop the idea. Planning (the people who draw the pretty maps) and Operations (the people who actually have to operate the system) don't work anywhere near as well as they're supposed to. The problem regarding Expo at-grade limitations as a whole is that it's not just Crenshaw that's being impacted, it's other viable spurs: -UCLA and/or into SFV via 405/Sepulveda corridor -Venice Beach via Venice -Vermont I think it's so much easier to bring these long-term projects to reality if they start off as spur lines of Expo, and then become their stand-alone projects. Building the spur to UCLA or SFV is the start of the 405/Sepulveda line. Building the Vermont spur is the start of the Vermont line. If Expo ridership is as high as many of us are predicting they would have to bump the Crenshaw estimates up as well. It's one thing to have transfers to Expo, AND pick up new riders in Mid-City and the Miracle Mile district, while providing connections to the Wilshire corridor and bringing passengers much closer to Hollywood, which is what a Crenshaw line that stops a Wilshire/La Brea would do. It's another to JUST provide transfer to Expo, which is what dead-ending Crenshaw at Crenshaw/Expo does. Under the latter scenario the best I can think of is to have Crenshaw operate as a northern spur (the main spur) of the Green Line until it's extended north and can stand alone. Either a transfer at LAX platform to a one-car "El Segundo branch line" would be required, which as long as it's well timed (which is much easier to do when tracks are grade separated) hopefully not too many passengers would be lost. Or simply add some trains to the Green Line and have trains with Jefferson Park and El Segundo destinations. That said, if Metro can now start saying Wilshire becomes more competitive with a West Hollywood "Pink Line," I don't see why Crenshaw can't be talked about in the same context: Crenshaw becomes more competitive when extended to Wilshire/La Brea and Wilshire comes online quicker with a connection to Crenshaw at Wilshire/La Brea.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 17, 2008 22:06:59 GMT -8
Without a people mover, the LAX connection is very weak. Totally agree. And I'll extend that to say both a people mover and the implementation of the LAX master plan. There are ways of drastically reducing the cost of extending Crenshaw north to Wilshire/La Brea, but it requires: a) going beyond the conventional planning box that currently exist right now at Metro literally and figuratively-speaking b) a whole lot of coordination and planning along the corridor for the next 10 years that needs to be done by politicians that likely won't even be in the same offices 10 years from now. (Don't get me started on how bad term-limits are for politics). I think the best strategy, from a political standpoint, is to try and latch on other worthy projects that either have political champions, and/or great operational benefits to Crenshaw. Despite all appearances that I'm a crash the gate type of person, I think really with just a few slight changes, it's possible to work within the system that exists right now and still produce very good product. Incremental but sustained change eventually becomes drastic change. Advocacy has to become more substantive than just "building more rail helps build a rail network that LA needs," and needs to go to a higher level. That requires time, resources, really smart students and good professors at the local universities, and friendly ears in Sac-town and City Hall though. Stated simply, it's no where near as easy as it sounds. As long as there is a contractor and developer that works in Los Angeles, and campaign contributions are legal, the rail system will continue to expand.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 18, 2008 8:17:41 GMT -8
The problem regarding Expo at-grade limitations as a whole is that it's not just Crenshaw that's being impacted, it's other viable spurs: -UCLA and/or into SFV via 405/Sepulveda corridor -Venice Beach via Venice -Vermont I think it's so much easier to bring these long-term projects to reality if they start off as spur lines of Expo, and then become their stand-alone projects. Building the spur to UCLA or SFV is the start of the 405/Sepulveda line. Building the Vermont spur is the start of the Vermont line. An interesting way to grow a system, and perhaps that could have been a plan. But LA's planning began around the Wilshire subway as the spine. Which unfortunately is mostly missing so far, even as branches have been built. Wilshire will probably yet fulfill that role. Its corridor is acknowledged by most as having the trip density to justify full grade-separation. It would be built before the 405 and Vermont. Whatever happens on Crenshaw should reach Wilshire (or Hollywood, I've suggested).
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 18, 2008 21:05:07 GMT -8
There are so many different holes in the system that it's hard to know where to start. I'll probably end up crossing swords with others on this Board to suggest it would be nice to have direct LAX to Downtown trains but I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep if folks had to transfer from Crenshaw to Expo.
I think that a double-pronged approach of Crenshaw LRT and Downtown Connector LRT being done at the same time, as well as the first branch of the Wilshire Subway and Crenshaw Subway tunnelled LRT to the Purple Line being done at the same time, would be the right way to build a network.
..and I envision that support for such projects are growing, economy and taxes and all.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 19, 2008 6:49:28 GMT -8
Seriously though, Damien is more than right about capacity. I'm surprised it took Metro this long to drop the idea. Planning (the people who draw the pretty maps) and Operations (the people who actually have to operate the system) don't work anywhere near as well as they're supposed to. Mr. D. When I drove for the metro I drove the 105 line and i would pick up metro operators and take them to their connections and a bunch of the lived near the Expo=line corridor! The problem regarding Expo at-grade limitations as a whole is that it's not just Crenshaw that's being impacted, it's other viable spurs: -UCLA and/or into SFV via 405/Sepulveda corridor -Venice Beach via Venice -Vermont I think it's so much easier to bring these long-term projects to reality if they start off as spur lines of Expo, and then become their stand-alone projects. Building the spur to UCLA or SFV is the start of the 405/Sepulveda line. Building the Vermont spur is the start of the Vermont line. And your stand on the "must have trench" makes it easier to have "spur Lines?" Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 19, 2008 6:57:48 GMT -8
Seriously though, Damien is more than right about capacity. I'm surprised it took Metro this long to drop the idea. 7th/Metro is going to be hell as it is after Expo opens and theres no need to kill expo ridership just to have a one-seat Crenshaw Line from DTLA to LAX. Let's focus on getting Crenshaw to Wilshire instead. ;D Mr. Antonio: What I have been advocating is that the DTC go up Alameda Ave. to the East side extension. Half of the N/B Blueline trains go up to the East side extension and the other half go to 7th and Flower St. (this version concerns Blueline trains only) This will put a halt to projected mess at 7th. and Flower St. When Expo and Blueline trains connect. But my idea is like the trench that Mr. Goodman is advocating. Fruitless! Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 19, 2008 7:49:07 GMT -8
;D Mr. Antonio: What I have been advocating is that the DTC go up Alameda Ave. to the East side extension. Half of the N/B Blueline trains go up to the East side extension and the other half go to 7th and Flower St. (this version concerns Blueline trains only) This will put a halt to projected mess at 7th. and Flower St. When Expo and Blueline trains connect. But my idea is like the trench that Mr. Goodman is advocating. Fruitless! Sincerely The Roadtrainer Now what happens to trains going to Pasadena? The major issue with that alignment is that is still doesn't solve the problem of turnback issues at 7th Street Metro AND you're putting twice as many people on half as many trains on the Blue Line. If there is a "Phase One" of the Regional Connector it would be to extend the tunnel by at least 500-600' and build a three track section for the turnback of the trains. This would improve outputs by 100% because now we're adding at least two new berths to the existing two that we are currently using for our LRV's to rest and switch. Then when the Regional Connector is at full build out these three tracks now serve a double duty as a spot to store damaged or broken equipment during the heart of rush hour while minimally impacting headways and reducing potential delays.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 19, 2008 8:39:32 GMT -8
There is a profound difference of opinions as to what an appropriate Downtown Connector project is, and perhaps the biggest problem is that it does not get the political support and popular "love" as much as does the Subway and western portion of the Expo Line and eastern portion of the Foothill Gold Line.
My understanding, after some high-level TTC discussions with Metro officials, is that the DTC as currently defined, is not meant to solve all problems with our converging light rail projects Downtown. Although I would personally favor the extension of the tunnel as Jerard describes above to be included in this project (it REALLY should be done!), it would be perceived by many political leaders and staffmembers as a feature creep that might hurt federal support for funding the project.
Like it or not, the federal government needs some REALLY compelling needs to fund these sorts of projects, and we'll probably have to show serious problems (like the ones we see now) affecting ridership in order to get this tunnel extension fast-tracked.
Suffice it to say that, once we get the first Downtown Connector on its way towards construction, TTC will be first and foremost in planning, advocating and fighting for the second Downtown Connector that will likely include a Blue Line upgrade to enhance ridership for another 50-100,000 daily riders countywide.
It's pretty horrible, folks, but the best way to show we need this tunnel extension NOW is to have operation/ridership problems occur when the Eastside and Expo Lines open in 2009-10. Only then can we have a $200 million "betterment" to deal with the Blue/Expo line connection to be included with this first Downtown Connector.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 19, 2008 11:47:16 GMT -8
That said, if Metro can now start saying Wilshire becomes more competitive with a West Hollywood "Pink Line," I don't see why Crenshaw can't be talked about in the same context: Crenshaw becomes more competitive when extended to Wilshire/La Brea and Wilshire comes online quicker with a connection to Crenshaw at Wilshire/La Brea. Good point.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 2, 2008 9:57:39 GMT -8
from email:
|
|
|
Post by erict on Aug 2, 2008 16:33:43 GMT -8
It is good to see that the Purple line connector to Crenshaw has not been eliminated. Without the Purple line connection or the DTC, this line will not be a as useful to the Metro system (IMHO).
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 4, 2008 5:15:52 GMT -8
My own response, and I'm bummed that I can't attend either session, that I sent out to those conducting these working groups and to the Friends of the Green Line e-mail list:
I regret that I will be unable to attend the August 11th or 13th working groups because I will be on vacation that week, but I want to offer any input that might (I hope) be of some value as talking points for those two meetings:
1) I favor much favor the LRT over the BRT alternative for this project, which will be as vital a north-south light rail project to serve the Westside and South Bay as the Exposition light rail line will be a vital east-west light rail project, and this project needs to be built to meet as many needs of Westside and South Bay commuters as possible.
2) Inasmuch as I support a separate technical feasibility study for a northern LRT connection to a future Purple Line along Wilshire Blvd., I also support a separate technical feasibility study for a LRT connection to both the proposed Green Line to LAX (Parking Lot C) that is already congruent with the southernmost aspect of this project, and the proposed Green Line to the South Bay Galleria Mall transit hub. Both the aforementioned Purple and Green Line extensions have been recognized by Metro Planners as high-ranking transit projects for Metro to pursue, and any Crenshaw Project connections should be addressed and studied as soon as possible to best serve the Westside and South Bay.
3) I favor a Crenshaw Corridor Project route which follows Crenshaw Blvd. and the Harbor Subdivision Rail Right of Way for a LRT project, and I favor any necessary grade separations and community mitigations to minimize interference with surface automobile traffic and to maximize neighborhood preservation and mitigation.
Ken Alpern Co-Chair, Friends of the Green Line (www.fogl.us) President, The Transit Coalition (www.transitcoalition.org)
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 4, 2008 11:00:47 GMT -8
I'm wondering about how the new line would connect to the Green Line at Aviation. I suppose there are three scenarios.
1) Terminate at Aviation This scenario would be the simplest and cheapest, but would make the least use of the potential Green Line connection. I can't imagine this would get chosen.
2) Continue East Toward Norwalk. In this scenario, the Crenshaw Line essentially becomes a northern extension of the east-west Green Line.
3) Continue South Toward Redondo Beach This could be done in one of the following ways:
3a) skip Aviation station 3b) have a new platform near the existing one, or 3c) wrap around the existing platform to the east using a huge S-curve.
I think the best option would be 2 along with one of the options 3a-3c, to allow the train to continue south.
Any thoughts on which of these options is preferable and/or likely?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 4, 2008 11:37:40 GMT -8
My guess is the more likely scenarios would be #2 and # 3, since Aviation station will probably no longer be the connection to the Airport Shuttles. That connection would be moved north to Century Blvd at the site of that landmark attraction Girls, Girls, Girls strip club.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 4, 2008 11:59:40 GMT -8
I'm wondering about how the new line would connect to the Green Line at Aviation. I suppose there are three scenarios. 1) Terminate at AviationThis scenario would be the simplest and cheapest, but would make the least use of the potential Green Line connection. I can't imagine this would get chosen. 2) Continue East Toward Norwalk.In this scenario, the Crenshaw Line essentially becomes a northern extension of the east-west Green Line. 3) Continue South Toward Redondo BeachThis could be done in one of the following ways: 3a) skip Aviation station3b) have a new platform near the existing one, or 3c) wrap around the existing platform to the east using a huge S-curve. I think the best option would be 2 along with one of the options 3a-3c, to allow the train to continue south. Any thoughts on which of these options is preferable and/or likely? couldn't you add another option, connection to both east and west. with provisions for the future extension of the green line to lax built into the structure, much like the existing situation just east of aviation station?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 4, 2008 12:13:17 GMT -8
In the project status report dated 19 March, latest update, the LRT alignment is described as follows: "The alignment ... follows the ROW west and south toward LAX and a connection to the existing Metro Green Line near the Aviation Station. This connection would enable continuing service toward the Redondo Beach Station." (page 3) In other words, it would head south. But there is no mention of heading east. So maybe the Crenshaw line would skip Aviation when heading south. Then the Green Line would continue up to Century, which would be the transfer station. The only negative in this scenario is that Crenshaw riders would have to transfer if they need to connect to the many municipal buses that use Aviation, such as the BBB Rapid 3.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 4, 2008 12:16:48 GMT -8
That connection would be moved north to Century Blvd at the site of that landmark attraction Girls, Girls, Girls strip club. I envision a public/private partnership between Metro and the strip joint!
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 4, 2008 12:22:27 GMT -8
The only negative in this scenario is that Crenshaw riders would have to transfer if they need to connect to the many municipal buses that use Aviation, such as the BBB Rapid 3. could the buses simply be re routed to the new station? That connection would be moved north to Century Blvd at the site of that landmark attraction Girls, Girls, Girls strip club. I envision a public/private partnership between Metro and the strip joint! perhaps a themed station as well?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 4, 2008 12:49:24 GMT -8
The only negative in this scenario is that Crenshaw riders would have to transfer if they need to connect to the many municipal buses that use Aviation, such as the BBB Rapid 3. could the buses simply be re routed to the new station? That is what usually happens under a condition like this. I can picture it now,The Metro entrance post will have this flashing neon sign say "Come ride with us" or "LAXXX" with the three X's flashing off and on in a pattern. The columns of the station are these thin chromed poles with an abstract stick figure dancers in various positions. The station roof and ceiling are multicolored acrylic roof with different lighting conditions with changing seasons and lively upbeat music playing through the station platform. The station flooring done in skin toned shades of concentric circles with varying sizes of center circles. The ticket vending machines are designed to mimic old nickelodeon booths so that the user will have to look in order to purchase a ticket. Even the soft drink vending machines will have watered down drinks.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 4, 2008 13:56:49 GMT -8
...and to think of what the ridership could be, especially during nighttime hours! ) Anyway, those of us who've explored this for years suspect it'll be "X" marks the spot, with a gigantic "X" (nothing related to the Girls, Girls, Girls, though!) of a Crenshaw Line that goes to Redondo Beach, and a Green Line from Norwalk to Parking Lot C (Sepulveda/Lincoln). These two lines would share a station (perhaps separate platforms) at Aviation/Imperial and Century/Aviation, and I imagine they'd both be pretty exciting potential transit centers.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 6, 2008 6:53:18 GMT -8
Well if it turns out that the primary routes are Crenshaw-Redondo and Norwalk-Westchester, then I think it would make sense to replace the existing platform at Aviation with a new shared platform just north of the wye junction at Aviation/Imperial.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 21, 2008 5:53:13 GMT -8
Does anyone have an update of the Crenshaw Corridor EIR Hearings? Did anyone go?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 21, 2008 12:48:36 GMT -8
no one here went?!?
|
|