|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 20, 2018 13:10:55 GMT -8
pedestrianobservations.com/2018/12/15/difficult-urban-geography-part-1-narrow-streets/Narrow streets are one of the biggest problems for the Fairfax route, and the major reason it is so much more expensive per mile than any other option. Alon Levy in the above link says you need building to building width of 24 meters for station boxes. So apply to fairfax, the akimbo intersection of fairfax wilshire has only 20 meters available for station boxes. The station box can’t be cruciform, to the other so it needs to be either north or south of wilshire, south is more or less impossible given turning radii from San Vicente and the length of a station box, but it is wider, north is significantly narrower, though is suppose Johnny’s historic status could be removed and the building moved elsewhere and the academy would be happy to have some takings from their new retro museum in order to provide the requisite width. What might work would be cut and cover from San Vicente to sixth street, going Over the purple line rather than under it, but stakeholders will hate that and fight it tooth and nail. It just seems that the risk factor of this route over the others is much higher from almost any consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 28, 2019 9:04:02 GMT -8
Some tiny morsels of information in Metro’s solicitation of contractors to prepare the environment impact report for the Crenshaw Northern extension.
They are considering opening in phases, and they have given some initial thoughts on potential segments, such as building up to Purple Line first, or building down from Red Line to build in West Hollywood first.
They are considering a Hollywood Bowl station.
There is acknowledgment of public proposals regarding a further extension to the north, as well as opening 2 lines.
There is opposition to aerial on La Brea.
They have provided estimates for 100% underground alignments and have highlighted that there is probably enough money to do a La Brea alignment if they do not go underground in Hollywood.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 28, 2019 9:53:26 GMT -8
When they say combination of fairfax/san vincente what does that mean exactly? Split northern routes that come back together, sort of like the Northern Line in London, or 1 north-south route, and 1 east-west santa monica route that would act as a different line?
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 28, 2019 10:12:01 GMT -8
When they say combination of fairfax/san vincente what does that mean exactly? Split northern routes that come back together, sort of like the Northern Line in London, or 1 north-south route, and 1 east-west santa monica route that would act as a different line? It’s hard to know without having been at that meeting since the presentation is so vague. Hopefully it refers to something like these ideas: As I said before, of the options put forth by Metro, I prefer the WeHo options. But IMO, these options have two flaws: (1) they meander through lower-density neighborhoods along San Vicente, and (2) they do not connect well to the Purple Line subway (aerial to subway transfer with a 10-minute walk).
I think a much better option would be to build two smaller, connected lines:
- La Brea Avenue from Crenshaw to Hollywood; and
- Santa Monica Blvd from WeHo to Hollywood.
This solution would satisfy the desire for a fast shot up to Hollywood, while simultaneously serving WeHo and the dense Santa Monica Blvd corridor.
The total ridership would be very high, but so would the price tag. But I would even be willing to support this if it didn't hit Hollywood/Highland (and just made a simple L-shape).
It would be great if Metro staff could consider an alternative like this. Politically, this would only work if it were built as a single project. WeHo could raise funds toward its part, and the City of LA could do a tax increment for its part.
I think someone earlier in the thread proposed building an E-W spur in WeHo on Santa Monica Blvd which can be extended in the future. This may provide enough political cover for Metro to go all-in on La Brea N-S. I do like the idea of a line that starts in Venice Beach on Venice then goes north on La Cienega to Santa Monica, then east to Silver Lake. It can then link up with WASB to create a high ridership line from Venice Beach all the way to Artesia. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 28, 2019 10:23:06 GMT -8
Gotcha. Yeah I was one of the ones suggesting a spur. Seems to future-proof the line. The issue, of course, is money. But if they're at least considering it that's good news.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 28, 2019 10:39:28 GMT -8
Here's one thought I had about how to handle the junction and phasing. This may be more expensive of a design than is necessary, though, I'm not sure. imgur.com/a/DFwZJbM |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 28, 2019 14:18:24 GMT -8
Here's one thought I had about how to handle the junction and phasing. This may be more expensive of a design than is necessary, though, I'm not sure. imgur.com/a/DFwZJbMThat's pretty good way to future proof the eastern extension... give the Santa Monica Blvd spur its own platform and station box. |
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Aug 30, 2019 17:13:15 GMT -8
imgur.com/PpjgHPSIn which all 3 renditions of the northern extension come to fruition.
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Sept 3, 2019 8:59:18 GMT -8
I'm a proponent of La Brea because it's the most direct and we actually have the funding for it secured. I would expect that it will be cost-effective enough the feds would be willing to chip in a bunch, though. But that just means we get to build other projects earlier...
San Vicente and Santa Monica would be well-served with a loop line that follows Pico and Sunset into downtown, then connects via Broadway or another alignment further east to hit LAUS. Then you could extend westward above-grade along Venice (all the way to the beach) and Santa Monica (to Sepulveda, where the road narrows). This gives double service in the expensive-to-build subway part, making that more cost-effective. This would even give us the long-wanted Dodger Stadium station since it's on the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 2, 2019 10:27:08 GMT -8
New updates. No more aerial option for La Brea. West Hollywood’s most optimistic scenario is that they can contribute $1.13 billion in funding, but it would require a lot of work, raising sales taxes, establishing EIFDs (infrastructure financing districts), etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 2, 2019 13:51:40 GMT -8
Metro is also looking at a new “hybrid” alignment that combines San Vincente and Fairfax alignments.
|
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Oct 3, 2019 5:07:45 GMT -8
What?? Who asked for this? The alternatives analysis is the most opaque and infuriating part of the Metro design process. And, if it took them 3 weeks to hear the throngs yelling at them on twitter to put more trains on the Expo line, the cries for La Brea with a West Hollywood spur will fall on deaf ears.
Eliminating a Beverly station is not an option either. Its in the middle of LA surrounded by apartments and townhouses, not to mention the media district. Metro does not seem to understand the implications of differing geography, you can't have such a large gap there when you have a half-mile stop spacing on the Expo and Crenshaw lines near the Baldwin hills.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 3, 2019 10:55:53 GMT -8
That hybrid option is stupid in how bonkers it is
Where does it say they eliminated aerial la brea, all I saw was that aerial drew negative comments at the meeting
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 3, 2019 11:30:20 GMT -8
That hybrid option is stupid in how bonkers it is Where does it say they eliminated aerial la brea, all I saw was that aerial drew negative comments at the meeting Here is the excerpt from the West Hollywood City Council report:  |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 3, 2019 14:00:30 GMT -8
Ah
Save a couple billion dollars and eliminate all street parking on that segment of la brea then put in 6 ft protected bike lanes on the curbs
Improves traffic flow and reduces emissions by eliminating all ingress / egress from street parking spaces (and also from eliminating parking spot hunting and ride share drop offs pick ups) and doesn’t remove any lanes of traffic
And there’s still room for turning lanes and the center road pylons for the aerial
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Oct 7, 2019 10:47:37 GMT -8
Some more details on acceleration: urbanize.la/post/west-hollywood-pushes-accelerate-crenshaw-line-extensionWeHo's targeting a 2028 olympics delivery for this too. Wondering if we'll end up with a spur option in the alternatives analysis by the end, since they seem to keep revising it. But with WeHo going this hard on it, it's really feeling like the scales are tipping toward San Vincente. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 7, 2019 14:27:02 GMT -8
Some more details on acceleration: urbanize.la/post/west-hollywood-pushes-accelerate-crenshaw-line-extensionWeHo's targeting a 2028 olympics delivery for this too. Wondering if we'll end up with a spur option in the alternatives analysis by the end, since they seem to keep revising it. But with WeHo going this hard on it, it's really feeling like the scales are tipping toward San Vincente. 2028 would be great. However, it just doesn't seem possible in that they don't even know what route they want to take. The Purple Line to Westwood is slated to be finished in 2027 and who knows if that might be delayed and they are years ahead of this. I'm warming up to the Fairfax option. That was the original Red Line route from the 80's. However, with the Ross methane explosion, it killed it and Vermont was chosen. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 7, 2019 18:42:03 GMT -8
The station at wilshire fairfax will cost nearly a billion dollars, literally anywhere else is superior to cross.
|
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Oct 9, 2019 1:19:07 GMT -8
The station at wilshire fairfax will cost nearly a billion dollars, literally anywhere else is superior to cross. Speaking of stations at Wilshire: Question; Metro along with many other things - has totally botched the transfer stations. Expo/Crenshaw has to be the worst. These stations should make it a seamless transition for rides from one to the next - that Crenshaw Expo station should be “Get off the train, walk up stairs, walk onto the platform and get on the Expo train” - instead (unless I’m missing something) it requires you to leave Metro property and cross the street before re-entering Metro property. So my long winded question is this: Will the transfers on Crenshaw North at Hollywood/Highland and Wilshire be what they’re supposed to be? A seamless transition where the rider remains underground and in the fare zone? |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Oct 9, 2019 5:53:03 GMT -8
Some more details on acceleration: urbanize.la/post/west-hollywood-pushes-accelerate-crenshaw-line-extensionWeHo's targeting a 2028 olympics delivery for this too. Wondering if we'll end up with a spur option in the alternatives analysis by the end, since they seem to keep revising it. But with WeHo going this hard on it, it's really feeling like the scales are tipping toward San Vincente. 2028 would be FANTASTIC. Beyond fantastic really. Did I read correctly that Metro has changed course and the whole thing is going to be underground now? That would be awesome. Faster trips, looks better and no need for future improvements for the line like blue/expo on pico |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 9, 2019 14:31:48 GMT -8
It’s street parking versus underground. If you take away six hundred street parking spaces you can do beautiful full aerial for the route which improves traffic flow and doesn’t remove any travel lanes from vehicles
Or you can spend five or six billion more and do underground—which makes no sense for a LRT three car train set
Not to mention that it will be carrying a lot of two car trains from the green line since those train sets will be limited by the two car platforms on the green line
So to manage to carry 90,000 p with two car trains they’ll probably have to have a complex short line route from expo to Hollywood with longer trains
And although the green line is 100% grade separated and Crenshaw phase two is 100% grade separated, the entire interlinked green+Crenshaw routing is limited by the traffic light constrained at grade sections in Crenshaw.
Since LA traffic lights are on even numbered cycles, you can’t run more frequent trains than every six minutes on the entire corridor. If they propose to run every four or two minutes they will probably be stopped with transit racism lawsuits.
So spending ten billion dollars extra for an all underground Crenshaw phase two is deeply stupid since it is already constrained in frequency by the at grade sections of phase one and constrained in trainset length by the short platforms of the green line.
And 90,000 passenger per day in two car trains is going to be a profoundly miserable experience from opening day until forever, it’s all a clusterf**k disaster of insufficient capacity.
|
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Oct 9, 2019 14:58:19 GMT -8
It’s street parking versus underground. If you take away six hundred street parking spaces you can do beautiful full aerial for the route which improves traffic flow and doesn’t remove any travel lanes from vehicles Or you can spend five or six billion more and do underground—which makes no sense for a LRT three car train set Not to mention that it will be carrying a lot of two car trains from the green line since those train sets will be limited by the two car platforms on the green line So to manage to carry 90,000 p with two car trains they’ll probably have to have a complex short line route from expo to Hollywood with longer trains And although the green line is 100% grade separated and Crenshaw phase two is 100% grade separated, the entire interlinked green+Crenshaw routing is limited by the traffic light constrained at grade sections in Crenshaw. Since LA traffic lights are on even numbered cycles, you can’t run more frequent trains than every six minutes on the entire corridor. If they propose to run every four or two minutes they will probably be stopped with transit racism lawsuits. So spending ten billion dollars extra for an all underground Crenshaw phase two is deeply stupid since it is already constrained in frequency by the at grade sections of phase one and constrained in trainset length by the short platforms of the green line. And 90,000 passenger per day in two car trains is going to be a profoundly miserable experience from opening day until forever, it’s all a clusterf**k disaster of insufficient capacity. So did they decide on all underground or no? I’m confused lol And I think north of Wilshire is a dense enough area where a subway is worth it |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 10, 2019 1:16:04 GMT -8
Supposedly all the options are now all underground
A subway for LRT three car train sets is not worth it, it can carry 1/3 of the passengers of what the red line carries
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 10, 2019 6:50:08 GMT -8
I still think La Brea is what will be built, in the end. It's shorter and cheaper - and has good ridership. Fairfax would be nice too, but none of the others are going to happen IHMO. Anyway, any version would be fine with me, as long as it "actually" gets built. Some more details on acceleration: urbanize.la/post/west-hollywood-pushes-accelerate-crenshaw-line-extensionWeHo's targeting a 2028 olympics delivery for this too. Wondering if we'll end up with a spur option in the alternatives analysis by the end, since they seem to keep revising it. But with WeHo going this hard on it, it's really feeling like the scales are tipping toward San Vincente. 2028 would be FANTASTIC. Beyond fantastic really. Did I read correctly that Metro has changed course and the whole thing is going to be underground now? That would be awesome. Faster trips, looks better and no need for future improvements for the line like blue/expo on pico |
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Oct 10, 2019 14:15:36 GMT -8
We need to be pushing this spur option hard. It would fit especially well in a scheme where West Hollywood had to raise their own funds- they could just pay for the spur. If they raise enough in time, Metro could go in for the cost of the junction.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 10, 2019 15:37:33 GMT -8
^ It's great that WeHo is willing to throw in $1 billion. Unfortunately, the WeHo options are in the range of $6 billion, the way Metro is estimating it. So, WeHo's financial commitment doesn't really accelerate the project, so much as pay for some of the expense of the longer routing.
Now I did read somewhere that the City of L.A. is considering joining the tax increment near the line. If that happens, it's a whole new ballgame. Doing that, they could raise a whole helluva lot more than $1 billion, and build a much nicer line.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 10, 2019 23:42:38 GMT -8
West Hollywood is going to do everything they can to steer the project towards an alignment that serves San Vicente.
In the longer video, the city staff seems to say the earliest date they could hope for acceleration completion is 2030.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 17, 2020 15:09:43 GMT -8
The san vicente options got axed and only the wild spaghetti routing is left! thesource.metro.net/2020/08/17/three-routes-recommended-for-further-study-on-crenshaw-northern-extension-project/This is putting the thumb on the scales HARD for the La Brea routing. The Fairfax/Wilshire station is incredibly hard and insanely expensive engineering. By forcing the other two options through the Fairfax/Wilshire route, Metro is probably going to cause La Brea to look comparatively massively more affordable/reasonable. resulting in its choice. (they may keep alive a spur notion though, lol). |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 17, 2020 16:36:25 GMT -8
The san vicente options got axed and only the wild spaghetti routing is left! thesource.metro.net/2020/08/17/three-routes-recommended-for-further-study-on-crenshaw-northern-extension-project/This is putting the thumb on the scales HARD for the La Brea routing. The Fairfax/Wilshire station is incredibly hard and insanely expensive engineering. By forcing the other two options through the Fairfax/Wilshire route, Metro is probably going to cause La Brea to look comparatively massively more affordable/reasonable. resulting in its choice. (they may keep alive a spur notion though, lol). I'm all about the spur, but if they're not looking at it as part of the study and can't include it as part of this phase of the crenshaw line, forcing it to come way later, I'm worried that WeHo is going to throw a fit if they choose La Brea and delay this somehow, or not participate in an EIFD. I feel like there's got to be a creative way to argue that the spur is in-scope, even if the only way it'll get built is with a federal funding injection. (And it's sounding like a bunch of contractors are expecting a federal funding injection to come if dems get a trifecta). |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 27, 2020 12:30:03 GMT -8
The san vicente options got axed and only the wild spaghetti routing is left! thesource.metro.net/2020/08/17/three-routes-recommended-for-further-study-on-crenshaw-northern-extension-project/This is putting the thumb on the scales HARD for the La Brea routing. The Fairfax/Wilshire station is incredibly hard and insanely expensive engineering. By forcing the other two options through the Fairfax/Wilshire route, Metro is probably going to cause La Brea to look comparatively massively more affordable/reasonable. resulting in its choice. (they may keep alive a spur notion though, lol). Don't count on it, if this expensive engineering is such a make or break how come this has not been exposed yet in this part of the analysis like it was done for Wilshire/San Vicente?
This would have eliminated Fairfax a lot sooner. So stop this Trumpian fear mongering BS about the Fairfax alignment without any evidence. I think because of the WeHo $$$ contribution Fairfax will be the compromise alternative. |
|
