Crenshaw Line Phase 2

[Dan Wentzel]

It's probably premature to begin discussing phase II, when phase I is still in discussion, but I've seen wide support for extending the Crenshaw line north via La Brea or Fairfax and south into the heart of Inglewood.

San Vicente offers the opportunity of crossing over to La Brea, Fairfax or even La Cienega or all the way up San Vicente itself.

Any preferences or thoughts? How about a southern leg not directly to LAX?

[adamv]

I have nothing to offer but idle speculation. . .

But, while San Vincente is a dream ROW for a rail line in terms of location and route, something makes me think that it wouldn't get much further than La Brea heading West. Carthay Square's home owners have issues, I'm imagining.

Heading south, though, I'd love to see it continue southeast to relink with the Blue line.

[Tony Fernandez]

Going by Hollywood Park and Century Boulevard would have been ideal, but I guess that plan is out the window just because of the cost.

[kenalpern]

This has (wisely, I believe) morphed into the second half of a LAX/rail connection, or might prove to be both halves should the current Green Line/LAX connection effort fail.

In other words, this is a LAX to Expo to Downtown rail project now, and any talk of the race track or other regional locations being a prime rail destination should be put on the waaaaay back burner. Still, having a Downtown Inglewood rail/transit/bus hub as a way to connect to these regional destinations is a very good idea, and it's my hope that we'll see this occur after the Crenshaw Line is built.

[losangeles2319]

I hope I'm doing this right (its my first post)
I've read cost is an issue but i think the line should deviate at Inglewood Civic Center and continue south along Hawthorne Blvd. Go until Lawndale station of the future Green Line Extension. It could continue with the green line until 190th/Hawthorne and then continue south to the Del Amo Fashion Center. Maybe even to Pacific Coast Highway. As far as a northward extension, up to Lafayette Square turn Northwest to La Brea/Wilshire and continue north until Hollywood/Highland Station.

[kenalpern]

I just got this, and I think we ought to stay focused on this project:
Ken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Community Member,

Please forward the following information to your neighbors and colleagues. We welcome your participation in the upcoming Crenshaw Working Group meetings. Thank you.

Dave Monks
Constituent Program Manager, Metro Regional Communications
213-922-7456

Crenshaw Transit Corridor Working Groups
Will Reconvene in March.
Please Save the Dates!
You will receive more information as the meetings approach.

Mid-Corridor Working Group
Monday, March 16, 2009
6:30-8:30pm
Transfiguration Church
2515 W. Martin Luther King Jr. Bl
Los Angeles, CA 90008

South Corridor Working Group
Thursday, March 19, 2009
6:30-8:30pm
Rogers Park
400 W. Beach Av
Inglewood, CA 90302

The Mid-Corridor Working Group will focus on the area along Crenshaw Bl between Exposition Bl and Florence Av. The South Corridor Group will focus on the area that includes Inglewood and LAX.

Content presented at these meetings will be identical, so make sure to attend at the time and location more convenient for you.--For more information about this project, visit metro.net/Crenshaw or call
213.922.2736.

[Dan Wentzel]

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. Previous maps only had one finger at La Brea.

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.

I love how these new Fairfax, La Cienega and San Vicente "fingers" were just sort of snuck onto the map for a Westside Subway extension meeting.

[kenalpern]

If they're new, they're also overdue. The Crenshaw Project has been discussing the ultimate northern terminus at Wilshire/La Brea or thereabouts for quite some time.

Perhaps a smarter option than the Alternative 11 is to do what you implied--create a Crenshaw Project Phase 1 to the Expo Line, then create a Phase 2 of the Crenshaw line underground all the way to Hollywood/Highland. This might allow for a faster and pedestrian destination-including line than Alternative 11.

[stuckintraffic]

They pink line should be the northern extension of the crenshaw line. With the san Vicente leg of the pink line chosen and those new "fingers" drawn for the crenshaw line, the two lines basically intersect. How could they NOT plan this as one line? Say you wanted to get from LAX to Hollywood/Highland-- you'd take crenshaw north to wilshire, then purple line for 1 or 2 stops, then pink. And then if you wanted to go to the valley you'd have to transfer a 4th time. That's ridiculous. Too many disjoints in this system already!

[metrocenter]

I'd rather see the Crenshaw Line continue up La Brea to Hollywood/Highland. In my mind, this is distinct from the Pink Line, which approaches Hollywood/Highland from the east/southeast along La Cienega.

[Dan Wentzel]

Well, I'd love to have both the Pink Line AND a northern extension of the Crenshaw Line to H/H, of course. If there is only going to be one, and i hope there won't, I imagine the public will ask it to be west of LaBrea. But hey, I'm all for both.

[Dan Wentzel]

Here's my dream for the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line. It includes completion of the Purple and "Pink" and Expo Lines, plus a Sepulveda Line (since it is closest to the beach, we could call it the "Tan" Line.

In the looking at the three proposed "fingers" of a northern light-rail extension of the Crenshaw Line, I ruled out the SanVicente "finger" because there is no Purple Line stop there and I am sure Metro will want Crenshaw Line riders to be able to transfer to the Purple Line. I ruled out LaBrea because even though it would be cheapest and more direct for the Crenshaw Line to head straight up LaBrea, it would leave out numerous ridership opportunities such as the Grove and a stop on the Sunset strip. Since I see the Pink Line already serving the Beverly Center, therefore I opted for Fairfax/Wilshire for a transfer station with the Crenshaw Line. This would allow service at the Grove, West Hollywood, and it includes a Sunset Strip stop around Sunset/Gardener. I think the added ridership of the Fairfax alignment justifies it over the less expensive cost of the LaBrea alignment of the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line. If Metro decides it cannot go forward with Santa Monica Blvd. subway alignment (Phase 4) because of funding, then heading to Fairfax/Wilshire instead of LaBrea/Wilshire becomes even more imperative.

What is so delicious about a Fairfax alignment is that Fairfax was originally the planned northern route of the Red Line from Wilshire towards Hollywood before NIMBYs and anti-rail idiots sabotaged the building of the Red Line. (Just think. If it wasn't for the NIMBYs and misguided organizations like the so-called Bus Riders "Union" we might already be riding a completed Purple Line.) It would be beautiful karma to see a Fairfax alignment rise from the ashes.

[kenalpern]

Good job, Dan--I am going to write a CityWatch Article titled something like "the left hand knows not what the right hand is doing" because both the Crenshaw/Red/Purple Line intersection and the Crenshaw/Green Line to LAX intersection seems to be both competititive and redundant. I will probably use this map to both illustrate this point and to start a few conversations going.

I agree with you that the Fairfax routing for a "Crenshaw Line Phase 2" might be better than any other routing, but what I don't know is if that swerving Pink Line makes any sense with respect to transportation (I'm really not interested in political happiness in this situation as much as I am pleasing the cities and their commuters).

What if we had the Crenshaw Line as you described, and then a Pink Line that makes a straight shot to the Grove and the Beverly Center and to Wilshire Blvd. (stops only at Santa Monica/La Brea, the Grove and the Beverly Center)? It might hurt a few egos in West Hollywood, but wouldn't it serve all commuters--including residents of West Hollywood a whole lot better?

[Dan Wentzel]

Well, we are sort of flying in the dark.

According to Metro, we'll know for sure about them committing to Phase 4 (the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment) of the Westside Subway extension at least in the long-run in about 18-24 months.

If we get Alternative 11 with Phase 4, the gap to fill is smaller.

If Metro abandons Phase 4 of the Westside subway extension, I would personallly organize and fight any proposal for an northern extension of the Crenshaw Line that did not include either Fairfax or LaCienega and Santa Monica Blvd.

This isn't about egos even though West Hollywood would feel humiliation and disappointment of not getting Phase 4 after voting 83% for measure R (more than any other city) in hopes it would. If Phase 4 is dropped, then Weho advocates will argue it's 83% is worth at least one stop in its heart, Fairfax/SantaMonica or LaCienega/SantaMonica, not half a stop on its periphery.

But it unlikely any Phase 2 study will take place prior to the next two years, so waiting to see what happens is probably a good idea, though of course we won't.

[kenalpern]

Based on my experiences with Metro staff, I think that they're floating these maps and plans to get grassroots folks like us on board. Westside Subway Phase 4 and Crenshaw Line Phase 2 are fortunately far enough away for them to get everyone talking and thinking.

Of course the Crenshaw Line must have Fairfax/La Cienega and Santa Monica, with the Grove included! The questions that must be answered are whether we need both a Pink Line and a Crenshaw Line, and where they need to go. These are questions that we'll have the luxury of addressing while we deal with the here and now.

...and, of course, West Hollywood can and should deserve the right to determine whether they get one or two lines. I'm sure they'd like both, but perhaps money and timing will temper short-and long-term planning. This is a dilemma we'd be lucky to have!

[Dan Wentzel]

It's actually miraculous we've even gotten this far. If Measure R hand't passed this discussion would be so far down the road it wouldn't even be funny.

I don't know the culture of Metro well enough to know if the people working on the Westside Subway Extension and the people working on the Crenshaw project talk about these things.

I guess we need to just take it one day at a time, though it is certainly much more fun to look at the potential options as opposed to a 30 year period of no new funding.

The real issue with Crenshaw 2 is how you get from the Purple Line transfer station at Fairfax or LaBrea, since San Vicente won't be in the running because there is no Purple Line station there and Crenshaw/Wilshire has been judged "bus only".

The new "fingers" tells me Metro strongly thinking about going to Faifax over LaBrea. Fairfax/Wilshire in whatever route it gets to Hollywood/Highland will generate more ridership than a direct line from LaBrea to Hollywood/Highland.

But it's almost jaw dropping that this discussion may become more than academic in our lifetimes, knock on wood for all of us.

[JerardWright]

The distance between San Vicente and La Cienega on Wilshire, I think is within reach to build a subway station with two portal entrances.

One between La Cienega and Hamilton Dr (NE corner of Wilshire/La Cienega) the other between San Vicente and Tower (SW corner of Wilshire/San Vicente at the Strip mall) the actual platform could be between the two parcels.

Considering at the latest meetings they have suggested having the Wilshire/La Cienega station somewhere between La Cienega and Robertson to facilitate possible transfers between the Wilshire and West Hollywood corridors.

[metrocenter]

The following map shows a proposed transfer configuration for the Purple Line, the Pink Line, and the Crenshaw Line.

[damiengoodmon]

The fingers mean the West Hollywood spur is not cost-effective enough to include as part of the Westside subway extension New Starts project. Staff is trying to find someway of keeping WeHo pacified.

[Dan Wentzel]

While I still support Alternative 11 for the Westside Subway extension, and as Metro and Beverly Hills both want the subway stop at La Cienega, and there is unlikely to be a station at San Vicente/Wilshire, I would make the following tweak to Darrell's map, which would allow transfers at Fairfax/Wilshire, still serve the Grove, and West Hollywood and end at Hollywood/Highland.

[rayinla]

Why is everyone so obsessed with a stop at the freakin' Grove? Its four blocks from Wilshire/Fairfax and it takes 10 minutes to walk there.

I'm also amused that the San Vicente/Third Street stop is identified as the "Beverly Center" stop. A heck of a lot more people travel DAILY to Cedars across the street. How often do people go to the mall?

[losangeles2319]

Well The Grove/Farmers Market is a tourist attraction and major shopping venue. Having a stop right at The Grove would have good ridership numbers. I would think the same goes for Beverly Center. Its a Mall that's (from what i've read) not doing too well. If we name the stop "Beverly Center" it would bring give the mall some more recognition. Would you really want to name a stop after a Hospital when a Mall is right across the street?

[erict]

I would think that the train stop would be named after the cross streets, like Sunset/Vermont which happens to have a stop in the Kaiser hospital. Beverly/San Vicente would have lots of destinations for workers in the area: the Mall, Ceders, all the Hotels.

Then again, the Grove does have an enormous work base and so many people live at Park La Brea, it seems it would be nice to have a stop there rather than a shuttle. Still, it is only 4 blocks away. Maybe they can build an underground or above ground walkway like they have in Hong Kong?

The dreams of the future are made today.

[Dan Wentzel]

Keeping in mind that Los Angelenos drive their cars from one end of the mini-mall to other to avoid walking 500 feet. Being asked to walk 10-15 minutes to a station would not be considered unduly onerous in New York, London, Paris or other city with comprehensive rail. But in Los Angeles, I could easily see Wilshire and 3rd Street as being seen as "too far to walk" by many. I've made this walk many times myself.

----------------

For those of you who hate curves and spurs, and want this to focus on being a North/South route only, this line could just simply go up Fairfax and stop at Fairfax/Wilshire, Fairfax/Beverly, Fairfax/SantaMonica, Sunset/Gardener-ish, Hollywood/Highland, which would allow for access to the Grove/Farmer's Market Beverly and Melrose shopping, West Hollywood and even a stop on the Sunset Strip. I'd much rather be in the position of advocating for a line that did that and hit all those ridership targets than one that simply went up LaBrea because it was cheaper.

[masonite]

Aug 11, 2009 12:00:44 GMT -8 Dan Wentzel said:

Keeping in mind that Los Angelenos drive their cars from one end of the mini-mall to other to avoid walking 500 feet. Being asked to walk 10-15 minutes to a station would not be considered unduly onerous in New York, London, Paris or other city with comprehensive rail. But in Los Angeles, I could easily see Wilshire and 3rd Street as being seen as "too far to walk" by many. I've made this walk many times myself.

----------------

For those of you who hate curves and spurs, and want this to focus on being a North/South route only, this line could just simply go up Fairfax and stop at Fairfax/Wilshire, Fairfax/Beverly, Fairfax/SantaMonica, Sunset/Gardener-ish, Hollywood/Highland, which would allow for access to the Grove/Farmer's Market Beverly and Melrose shopping, West Hollywood and even a stop on the Sunset Strip. I'd much rather be in the position of advocating for a line that did that and hit all those ridership targets than one that simply went up LaBrea because it was cheaper.

If we build a great system that is realiable, fast, and destination oriented like those cities then people will walk 10-12 minutes to a station assuming we improve our pedestrian experience (i.e. wider sidewalks, less car intrusion on the sidewalks, etc...).

Also, I agree with the comment that too much is focused on shopping malls as destinations for stations. People don't understand that if they go to a mall a few times a year mostly on the weekends that that is somehow comparable to people living and working next to a station using the system hundreds of times a year during peak traffic periods. Besides people can always shop pretty close to their homes and in many cases aren't going to be making a subway trip to a mall if any serious time is involved. If you listen to some people it is as if we will just have the Century City station so people can go to the Mall instead of the 1,000's who work in CC.

I wouldn't mind if the Beverly Center and the Grove had stations near them, I just wouldn't design a system just for this purpose. I bet their ridership contributions to the system are minimal.

Finally, your proposal for going up Fairfax is a good compromise if the Pink Line does not happen. However, if we can't secure the funds for the shorter Pink Line how are we going to have them for the much longer tunnel portion of the Crenshaw Line? Crenshaw only has funding to Expo and even then it is likely short of funds. I still think the Pink Line has a better chance of Federal Funding than does the Crenshaw Line (both south of Expo and north)

[Dan Wentzel]

"However, if we can't secure the funds for the shorter Pink Line how are we going to have them for the much longer tunnel portion of the Crenshaw Line? "

-----------------

That's a whole other kettle of fish. If I knew how to guarantee transportation funds to flow to some worthy projects over other worthy projects, I'd open a consulting business and make a mint in commissions.

[kenalpern]

I currently favor the Crenshaw Line up Fairfax, and I remind everyone that any stop near the Grove also means the adjacent Farmer's Market. While I think that much of the ridership would be those who worked there (despite many who must transport their goods via truck or car), I believe that a tourist destination par excellence would benefit from a transit stop.

It would indeed be nice to some day have tourists going all over L.A. to what would be first-rate malls. Furthermore, the commercial development that would develop next to those stations would be amazing.

[losangeles2319]

If the shorter Pink line does get approved, when funding does come around for a Crenshaw Line extension north, hopefully we will still see a possibility of the line going all the way up Fairfax. A Sunset Strip Stop would be awesome.

[damiengoodmon]

Aug 11, 2009 10:33:16 GMT -8 rayinla said:

Why is everyone so obsessed with a stop at the freakin' Grove? Its four blocks from Wilshire/Fairfax and it takes 10 minutes to walk there.

Because:
1) 1/4-mile is about the furthest you can rely on an overwhelming percentage of people to walk.
2) even in the most transit-friendly cities, a 0.6-mile walk is beyond what anyone considers the catch-area for a station.
3) with the high-density residential development across from The Grove and north of Beverly, CBS Studios, and very popular Pan-Pacific Park this area actually has more destinations than even Wilshire/Fairfax (although Wilshire/Fairfax likely has more job density).

[metrocenter]

Here is a map of two options for Crenshaw Phase II: one up Fairfax, Melrose and Highland (brown + orange), and one up La Brea and Highland (green + orange).