Crenshaw Line Phase 2

[numble]

Scoping meetings will occur on April 29, May 6 and May 8 for the Crenshaw North Extension project. Metro also released a 5 minute status update video:

thesource.metro.net/2021/04/15/three-upcoming-virtual-scoping-meetings-for-crenshaw-northern-extension-project/

[bzcat]

Apr 15, 2021 9:37:45 GMT -8 numble said:

Scoping meetings will occur on April 29, May 6 and May 8 for the Crenshaw North Extension project. Metro also released a 5 minute status update video:

thesource.metro.net/2021/04/15/three-upcoming-virtual-scoping-meetings-for-crenshaw-northern-extension-project/

Reminder of what the 3 options on the tables are...

[brady12]

Hoping for Fairfax Subway to the Bowl

[bluelineshawn]

Hopefully I’m not getting too optimistic, but I’m thinking that they may be trying to get this built before the Olympics in 2028. I don't think that this was one of the pillar projects that they were looking to get done by 2028 (Sepulveda Pass, Torrance, gold line, etc) so that would be a huge timeline shift.

[andert]

I feel like if they phase it, an extension to wilshire could be done by 2028 with EIFD funding. I expect it'd be a pretty tall order getting the whole thing done, especially if they go hybrid, which I feel like they probably will (otherwise i bet weho won't support the EIFD).

I'm on record advocating for a La Brea+spur solution, but it's still not being studied. They just added two more options to the Torrance study though so maybe if enough noise is made during the upcoming scoping meetings they'll add it. I'll certainly comment.

[numble]

Apr 16, 2021 9:49:06 GMT -8 andert said:

I feel like if they phase it, an extension to wilshire could be done by 2028 with EIFD funding. I expect it'd be a pretty tall order getting the whole thing done, especially if they go hybrid, which I feel like they probably will (otherwise i bet weho won't support the EIFD).

I'm on record advocating for a La Brea+spur solution, but it's still not being studied. They just added two more options to the Torrance study though so maybe if enough noise is made during the upcoming scoping meetings they'll add it. I'll certainly comment.

They changed the recommended NoHo-Pasadena BRT project even after the draft EIR was released in response to a lot of Eagle Rock proponents, so it probably still isn't too late to try to get them to look at it, though West Hollywood will be very organized to submit comments in favor of their preferred option.

[bluelineshawn]

Apr 16, 2021 9:49:06 GMT -8 andert said:

I feel like if they phase it, an extension to wilshire could be done by 2028 with EIFD funding. I expect it'd be a pretty tall order getting the whole thing done, especially if they go hybrid, which I feel like they probably will (otherwise i bet weho won't support the EIFD).

I'm on record advocating for a La Brea+spur solution, but it's still not being studied. They just added two more options to the Torrance study though so maybe if enough noise is made during the upcoming scoping meetings they'll add it. I'll certainly comment.

I agree that they could get something open to Wilshire and that's probably the most important segment for the Olympics even though Wilshire to Hollywood is ultimately more important to our network.

[bzcat]

Apr 16, 2021 9:49:06 GMT -8 andert said:

I feel like if they phase it, an extension to wilshire could be done by 2028 with EIFD funding. I expect it'd be a pretty tall order getting the whole thing done, especially if they go hybrid, which I feel like they probably will (otherwise i bet weho won't support the EIFD).

I'm on record advocating for a La Brea+spur solution, but it's still not being studied. They just added two more options to the Torrance study though so maybe if enough noise is made during the upcoming scoping meetings they'll add it. I'll certainly comment.

Count me in as supporter for the La Brea+spur option.

But I'm also ok with Fairfax option.

Not a fan of hybrid option... I think most people on this message board agree the detour is not a good compromise for not having an E-W line on Santa Monica Blvd. Much better to have a uncomplicated N-S line and start advocating for a separate E-W line (which the spur will be the first segment)

[andert]

Whatever your views on it are, adding a public comment is as easy as emailing [e-mail]!

[bluelineshawn]

I like all three options for different reasons.

La Brea is the quickest, the cheapest, and has the highest ridership per mile and highest ridership per $, but it also serves the fewest "destinations".

Fairfax really only serves one more major destination that isn't already served by rail and that costs $1 billion more than La Brea.

The hybrid option serves several new destinations, including the major destination that the Fairfax option also serves. It costs $1 billion more than Fairfax, but if WeHo really does kick in $1 billion, then the additional destinations more than make up for the additional travel time.

What I think will happen is that metro will choose La Brea based on cost and equity. It's bad timing for WeHo, but the present climate is not conducive to spending $2 billion more to build rail to serve one of the whiter/wealthier areas of LA. If you listen to board meetings equity is a big thing now at metro.

The good news is that I expect major regeneration for La Brea. Once it is chosen, it will be unrecognizable in 10 years and will have lots of destinations.

[brady12]

Apr 16, 2021 17:34:21 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

I like all three options for different reasons.

La Brea is the quickest, the cheapest, and has the highest ridership per mile and highest ridership per $, but it also serves the fewest "destinations".

Fairfax really only serves one more major destination that isn't already served by rail and that costs $1 billion more than La Brea.

The hybrid option serves several new destinations, including the major destination that the Fairfax option also serves. It costs $1 billion more than Fairfax, but if WeHo really does kick in $1 billion, then the additional destinations more than make up for the additional travel time.

What I think will happen is that metro will choose La Brea based on cost and equity. It's bad timing for WeHo, but the present climate is not conducive to spending $2 billion more to build rail to serve one of the whiter/wealthier areas of LA. If you listen to board meetings equity is a big thing now at metro.

The good news is that I expect major regeneration for La Brea. Once it is chosen, it will be unrecognizable in 10 years and will have lots of destinations.

Ugh and we still don’t understand that saving pennies today will cost more in the long run. Doing these projects CORRECTLY will more than pay for itself in the end.

I’d settle for La Brea if it was all underground. Projects in these parts of the city should be mostly underground. Especially if TOD is to be anticipated. It’s notable that the cost of La Brea fully underground is still cheaper than any other alternatives baseline cost.

And I haven’t read the report in depth enough but it’s CRITICAL these transfers are direct. That means you step off the train and walk directly through a tunnel to the other line. Anything more than a 90 second walk is unacceptable. ESPECIALLY at Wilshire. The Expo/Crenshaw transfer is repulsive

[andert]

Apr 17, 2021 13:58:04 GMT -8 brady12 said:

Apr 16, 2021 17:34:21 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

I like all three options for different reasons.

La Brea is the quickest, the cheapest, and has the highest ridership per mile and highest ridership per $, but it also serves the fewest "destinations".

Fairfax really only serves one more major destination that isn't already served by rail and that costs $1 billion more than La Brea.

The hybrid option serves several new destinations, including the major destination that the Fairfax option also serves. It costs $1 billion more than Fairfax, but if WeHo really does kick in $1 billion, then the additional destinations more than make up for the additional travel time.

What I think will happen is that metro will choose La Brea based on cost and equity. It's bad timing for WeHo, but the present climate is not conducive to spending $2 billion more to build rail to serve one of the whiter/wealthier areas of LA. If you listen to board meetings equity is a big thing now at metro.

The good news is that I expect major regeneration for La Brea. Once it is chosen, it will be unrecognizable in 10 years and will have lots of destinations.

Ugh and we still don’t understand that saving pennies today will cost more in the long run. Doing these projects CORRECTLY will more than pay for itself in the end.

I’d settle for La Brea if it was all underground. Projects in these parts of the city should be mostly underground. Especially if TOD is to be anticipated. It’s notable that the cost of La Brea fully underground is still cheaper than any other alternatives baseline cost.

And I haven’t read the report in depth enough but it’s CRITICAL these transfers are direct. That means you step off the train and walk directly through a tunnel to the other line. Anything more than a 90 second walk is unacceptable. ESPECIALLY at Wilshire. The Expo/Crenshaw transfer is repulsive

I believe last year they did refine the study options to make La Brea fully underground.

[bluelineshawn]

Apr 17, 2021 13:58:04 GMT -8 brady12 said:

Apr 16, 2021 17:34:21 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

I like all three options for different reasons.

La Brea is the quickest, the cheapest, and has the highest ridership per mile and highest ridership per $, but it also serves the fewest "destinations".

Fairfax really only serves one more major destination that isn't already served by rail and that costs $1 billion more than La Brea.

The hybrid option serves several new destinations, including the major destination that the Fairfax option also serves. It costs $1 billion more than Fairfax, but if WeHo really does kick in $1 billion, then the additional destinations more than make up for the additional travel time.

What I think will happen is that metro will choose La Brea based on cost and equity. It's bad timing for WeHo, but the present climate is not conducive to spending $2 billion more to build rail to serve one of the whiter/wealthier areas of LA. If you listen to board meetings equity is a big thing now at metro.

The good news is that I expect major regeneration for La Brea. Once it is chosen, it will be unrecognizable in 10 years and will have lots of destinations.

Ugh and we still don’t understand that saving pennies today will cost more in the long run. Doing these projects CORRECTLY will more than pay for itself in the end.

I’d settle for La Brea if it was all underground. Projects in these parts of the city should be mostly underground. Especially if TOD is to be anticipated. It’s notable that the cost of La Brea fully underground is still cheaper than any other alternatives baseline cost.

And I haven’t read the report in depth enough but it’s CRITICAL these transfers are direct. That means you step off the train and walk directly through a tunnel to the other line. Anything more than a 90 second walk is unacceptable. ESPECIALLY at Wilshire. The Expo/Crenshaw transfer is repulsive

All of the options are now fully underground after Wilshire. Maybe knowing that discounts the remainder of your post, but if not, I don't think that La Brea is just the value options. There are really good reasons why it's the best option. The other options are more expensive, but don't attract more riders, just somewhat different riders.

As for direct transfers, that's not always possible when such transfers weren't initially anticipated, but I completely agree about Expo/Crenshaw. Metro did that very cheaply! Hopefully they have potential to correct it at some time in the future. I guess that it fits with the general "cheapness" of Expo which has no escalators at any of the elevated stations which are the only elevated stations in the system with that distinction.

[brady12]

Apr 17, 2021 18:29:38 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

Apr 17, 2021 13:58:04 GMT -8 brady12 said:

Ugh and we still don’t understand that saving pennies today will cost more in the long run. Doing these projects CORRECTLY will more than pay for itself in the end.

I’d settle for La Brea if it was all underground. Projects in these parts of the city should be mostly underground. Especially if TOD is to be anticipated. It’s notable that the cost of La Brea fully underground is still cheaper than any other alternatives baseline cost.

And I haven’t read the report in depth enough but it’s CRITICAL these transfers are direct. That means you step off the train and walk directly through a tunnel to the other line. Anything more than a 90 second walk is unacceptable. ESPECIALLY at Wilshire. The Expo/Crenshaw transfer is repulsive

All of the options are now fully underground after Wilshire. Maybe knowing that discounts the remainder of your post, but if not, I don't think that La Brea is just the value options. There are really good reasons why it's the best option. The other options are more expensive, but don't attract more riders, just somewhat different riders.

As for direct transfers, that's not always possible when such transfers weren't initially anticipated, but I completely agree about Expo/Crenshaw. Metro did that very cheaply! Hopefully they have potential to correct it at some time in the future. I guess that it fits with the general "cheapness" of Expo which has no escalators at any of the elevated stations which are the only elevated stations in the system with that distinction.

That makes a big difference to me. In that case I would be okay with the LaBrea route.

However I’m hesitant to endorse slighting WHo - they are far and away the most enthusiastic about rail and have put their money where their mouth is. However I guess it is what it is. Maybe their advocacy results in a Hail Mary for something like the pink line? (Yeah right)

Anyway.... the prospects of a reinvigorated LaBrea and the fact that ridership on this alternative is only slightly smaller than the others AND the quick travel time all make this route probably the smarter choice now that it’ll be underground and not a community eye sore but a community asset.

[andert]

Apr 18, 2021 4:37:48 GMT -8 brady12 said:

Apr 17, 2021 18:29:38 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

All of the options are now fully underground after Wilshire. Maybe knowing that discounts the remainder of your post, but if not, I don't think that La Brea is just the value options. There are really good reasons why it's the best option. The other options are more expensive, but don't attract more riders, just somewhat different riders.

As for direct transfers, that's not always possible when such transfers weren't initially anticipated, but I completely agree about Expo/Crenshaw. Metro did that very cheaply! Hopefully they have potential to correct it at some time in the future. I guess that it fits with the general "cheapness" of Expo which has no escalators at any of the elevated stations which are the only elevated stations in the system with that distinction.

That makes a big difference to me. In that case I would be okay with the LaBrea route.

However I’m hesitant to endorse slighting WHo - they are far and away the most enthusiastic about rail and have put their money where their mouth is. However I guess it is what it is. Maybe their advocacy results in a Hail Mary for something like the pink line? (Yeah right)

Anyway.... the prospects of a reinvigorated LaBrea and the fact that ridership on this alternative is only slightly smaller than the others AND the quick travel time all make this route probably the smarter choice now that it’ll be underground and not a community eye sore but a community asset.

I actually think WeHo has a good chance of getting the hybrid because of the EIFD money they'd bring to the table that they wouldn't with a La Brea route, and because of how incredibly noisy they've been about wanting it.

I do genuinely wonder why the spur option hasn't been seriously considered yet, considering it could be less total miles of track and fewer stations than the hybrid, and they were willing to add that. For awhile I assumed that a separate line, even with shared tracks along part of it, was considered out-of-scope. But more and more I feel like Metro just doesn't want to contend with the engineering headaches that would be the santa monica/la brea station, and the junction after that. That's all wild speculation though.

It would definitely require a lot more property acquisitions than any other option, and while a lot of property in that area is derelict industrial stuff, some of it is already being redeveloped or has been purchased for redevelopment. This project stands on property I imagine Metro would want for a station or would dig under for a station approach, this is rising on a possible junction box location, and I feel the like public storage at santa monica/highland is one of the only good junction box possibilities that won't piss people off. (Of course they could cut costs more and build a single platform station without a junction box and not leave the possibility for the line to get extended east, but god that would be a terrible misstep.) And since I highly doubt Metro would spend to quadruple-track the shared section north of here, they'd have to deal with the headache of slotting the spur trains in between the crenshaw ones on the same schedule as C line trains on the south end of the line to not impact service (but if they could do that elegantly they could avoid halving service, since Crenshaw will already share tracks on a different portion of the line). (Here's the image I posted earlier in the thread that avoids that hotel and uses the storage as a junction box. I suppose though you could also make a 2-level station totally under Santa Monica in the shared section between Highland and La Brea though, which gives the added benefit of being able to put station entrances close to each for bus connections.)

There's also the fact that a spur would have to use the Crenshaw MSF and getting to it by double back from the junction would be a pretty lengthy trip. A spur opens a whole can of worms for Metro if they were to pursue it.

But I still think that can of worms is worth it. You get the all the benefits of the hybrid and la brea (at least, once the spur gets extended down to the purple, because it may not be at first), with the exception of a grove station. But honestly, Wilshire/Fairfax is not that far of a walk from the grove, and Caruso can just spend some money to make the grove trolley into something useful and extend it down fairfax to to wilshire.

[culvercitylocke]

Again you all are so brilliant. I love the stub idea. if I'm reading the stubs right:

primary via la Brea to the Hollywood Bowl

a stub from Santa Monica/La Brea to the PDC then veering south to end at Cedars Sinai with tail tracks directed down San Vicente. With tail tracks east of Santa monica/highland for future eastward expansion.

The most brilliant part of this is that it avoids entirely Beverly Hills jurisdiction.

And while there's a fair amount of oil well risk in the Cedars Sinai area, because of the hospital and super-mall, I imagine a lot has been identified and remediated (or not, because of course not) but it may be much better mapped than the Crescent Heights / Wilshire issues they ran into.

This would also isolate the overall crenshaw north project from the immense risk that Santa Monica Blvd may be built on top of a fault line, which is why it was so geologically suitable for a roadway in the first place (but they had not idea there was a fault under it).

Pushing forward with the Weho route could easily endanger the entire project, and if it routes to Wilshire/Fairfax and then has to stop forever because of additional risks and impossibilities inherent in that routing it'd be a tragic waste. La Brea is a spur minimizes the risks while maximizing the connectivity and expandability of the system.

[bzcat]

The spur idea is just a reflection of the reality that Santa Monica Blvd in E-W direction and La Brea (or Fairfax) in N-S direction are two different corridors.

The fact that the hybrid solution have them combined is less than ideal but we can salvage that with a better spur idea. Spur on Santa Monica will also allow future extensions in both directions. The hybrid alignment will largely prevent future extension.

Phase 1 segment ~2026
- Redondo Beach to D line Wilshire/La Brea

Phase 2 segments ~2030
- Redondo Beach to B line Hollywood/Highland
- B line Hollywood/Highland to Santa Monica/Fairfax

Phase 3 segments ~2035
- Torrance to Hollywood Bowl
- Santa Monica/Western to Pacifica Design Center (Santa Monica/Robertson)

Phase 4 segments ~2040
- Torrance to Hollywood Bowl
- B line Santa Monica/Vermont to Century City

Phase 5 segments ~2045
- Torrance to Hollywood Bowl
- Downtown LA transit core (alignment TBD) to Century City

[culvercitylocke]

Apr 20, 2021 9:22:26 GMT -8 bzcat said:

The spur idea is just a reflection of the reality that Santa Monica Blvd in E-W direction and La Brea (or Fairfax) in N-S direction are two different corridors.

The fact that the hybrid solution have them combined is less than ideal but we can salvage that with a better spur idea. Spur on Santa Monica will also allow future extensions in both directions. The hybrid alignment will largely prevent future extension.

Phase 1 segment ~2026
- Redondo Beach to D line Wilshire/La Brea

Phase 2 segments ~2030
- Redondo Beach to B line Hollywood/Highland
- B line Hollywood/Highland to Santa Monica/Fairfax

Phase 3 segments ~2035
- Torrance to Hollywood Bowl
- Santa Monica/Western to Pacifica Design Center (Santa Monica/Robertson)

Phase 4 segments ~2040
- Torrance to Hollywood Bowl
- B line Santa Monica/Vermont to Century City

Phase 5 segments ~2045
- Torrance to Hollywood Bowl
- Downtown LA transit core (alignment TBD) to Century City

This is great, but I think they want to use the Hollywood Bowl station as a launch box, tunnel support center and tunnel spoils excavation center for the Purple-to-Bowl part of the project. It being right on the freeway exit on ramps saves a TON of time and labor on delivery of the tunnel segment rings and removal of the tunnel spoils.

and how about

Phase 6, Hollywood Bowl to Warner Bros to Disney.

a 3 mile extension, four stations, would hit the truly massive employment nexis along the 101 here, three studios, a half dozen skyscrapers and a hospital. The ridership projections would be staggering.

first stop on Olive at WB gate 3 (roughly just north of Barham/Forest Lawn),
second stop on Olive at Hollywood Way (the skyscraper village)
Third stop at Olive and Alameda
Fourth stop at Alameda and Buena Vista (Disney and hospital)

Phase 7, Disney to Burbank via Olive (this would be low performing but the stop spacing could be pretty wide. And giving Burbank residents rail access to their 101 employment center would probably do pretty well, all things considered.

less than six miles total.

[bzcat]

Apr 20, 2021 10:14:24 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

This is great, but I think they want to use the Hollywood Bowl station as a launch box, tunnel support center and tunnel spoils excavation center for the Purple-to-Bowl part of the project. It being right on the freeway exit on ramps saves a TON of time and labor on delivery of the tunnel segment rings and removal of the tunnel spoils.

and how about

Phase 6, Hollywood Bowl to Warner Bros to Disney.

Phase 7, Disney to Burbank

less than six miles total.

Yes, I forgot Hollywood Bowl is the launch point/tail track for Phase 2.

Phase 1 segment ~2026
- Redondo Beach to D line Wilshire/La Brea

Phase 2 segments ~2030
- Redondo Beach to Hollywood Bowl
- B line Hollywood/Highland to Santa Monica/Fairfax

Phase 3 segments ~2035
- Torrance to Hollywood Bowl
- Santa Monica/Western to Pacifica Design Center (Santa Monica/Robertson)

Phase 4 segments ~2040
- Torrance to Burbank Media Center (Alameda/Olive)
- B line Santa Monica/Vermont to Century City

Phase 5 segments ~2045
- Torrance to Burbank Metrolink/Orange line
- Downtown LA transit core (alignment TBD) to Century City

[culvercitylocke]

Realistically, I do not think they would send rail down Santa Monica Blvd through beverly hills.

I think they'd want to use metro owned property to turn south from Santa Monica Blvd via San Vicente, to head to Cedars Sinai. This allows them to stay out of beverly hills jurisdiction and possibly then connect to the D line which would provide the Century City connection with a transfer.

[culvercitylocke]

Also I would say Phase one must have two parts for a stub to politically succeed

Phase 1
Expo to Purple line full build out.
Hollywood Bowl to Cedars Sinai stub full tunneling contract.

Phase 2
Hollywood Bowl to Purple line full build out
Hollywood Bowl to Cedars Sinai full build out


Why does this work? we can build the tunnels now without doing stations. Building the WeHo tunnels as part of phase one gives them a guarantee and reason to support it.

Because it's just the tunneling contract, there doesn't need to be an MSF to support WeHo which would otherwise be an orphaned line (like Van Nuys)

rolling stock for both lines can be open gangway to increase capacity and reduce maintenance and MSF footprint (like the Sepulveda line).

The build out for both lines would then be simultaneous in phase 2, taking advantage of economies of scale and being able to use the same MSF.

[andert]

That's interesting, I never thought about doing tunneling in phase one without stations. If it were single bore would it be possible to build the stations in the single bore tunnel? I know there was some talk of that awhile ago, but I also know over on one of the other threads there was some talk of why single bore in an area like this wouldn't be ideal -- you'd want the tunnels to be more shallow.

And I agree I think with southwest extension of the line wants to hit cedars and the D Line La Cienega station. I actually think from there it makes the most sense to go down La Cienega in a tunnel, connect with the Culver expo line station, and then go down Venice elevated all the way to the pier.
Eastward, I think once you hit vermont/santa monica, you either take it to Union via sunset (and maybe even the silver line concept after that in the SGV), or you send it up hyperion to Atwater and then glendale. the benefit of the latter is that the general trajectory of the line remains straight (not that that really matters), and it provides a rapid connection between hollywood and atwater/glendale that doesn't rely on Los Feliz Blvd - which, as someone who lives in Hollywood and goes to atwater and glendale constantly, I can say would be a giant relief.

In my insane dream scenario that will never happen, the Santa Monica tunnel through hollywood would be quadruple-tracked to support 2 lines - One starting in El Monte, taking the silver line route to union, going up sunset to hollywood, sharing tracks through santa monica, and then going northwest under the mountains from the sunset strip to ventura/van nuys, and continuing along ventura until it can turn up reseda to CSUN. The other would run from venice beach to glendale along the route previously described. One lines goes northeast to southwest, the other southeast to northwest. But this is some 2075 fantasy, and there's no way they're quadruple-tracking santa monica tracks.

I do completely agree that it makes a ton of sense to plan for a future K line extension to the burbank studios, ending at the Metrolink station in downtown burbank. I've had that one on my long-term fantasy map for awhile.

Imagine if we had 4 transit tunnels under the santa monica mountains? Hollywood-Universal City, Hollywood-Burbank, Sherman Oaks-Westwood, and Sherman Oaks-Sunset Strip. That's one way to get cars off the road.

[jdrcrasher]

Apr 20, 2021 10:14:24 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

Apr 20, 2021 9:22:26 GMT -8 bzcat said:

The spur idea is just a reflection of the reality that Santa Monica Blvd in E-W direction and La Brea (or Fairfax) in N-S direction are two different corridors.

The fact that the hybrid solution have them combined is less than ideal but we can salvage that with a better spur idea. Spur on Santa Monica will also allow future extensions in both directions. The hybrid alignment will largely prevent future extension.

Phase 1 segment ~2026
- Redondo Beach to D line Wilshire/La Brea

Phase 2 segments ~2030
- Redondo Beach to B line Hollywood/Highland
- B line Hollywood/Highland to Santa Monica/Fairfax

Phase 3 segments ~2035
- Torrance to Hollywood Bowl
- Santa Monica/Western to Pacifica Design Center (Santa Monica/Robertson)

Phase 4 segments ~2040
- Torrance to Hollywood Bowl
- B line Santa Monica/Vermont to Century City

Phase 5 segments ~2045
- Torrance to Hollywood Bowl
- Downtown LA transit core (alignment TBD) to Century City

This is great, but I think they want to use the Hollywood Bowl station as a launch box, tunnel support center and tunnel spoils excavation center for the Purple-to-Bowl part of the project. It being right on the freeway exit on ramps saves a TON of time and labor on delivery of the tunnel segment rings and removal of the tunnel spoils.

and how about

Phase 6, Hollywood Bowl to Warner Bros to Disney.

a 3 mile extension, four stations, would hit the truly massive employment nexis along the 101 here, three studios, a half dozen skyscrapers and a hospital. The ridership projections would be staggering.

first stop on Olive at WB gate 3 (roughly just north of Barham/Forest Lawn),
second stop on Olive at Hollywood Way (the skyscraper village)
Third stop at Olive and Alameda
Fourth stop at Alameda and Buena Vista (Disney and hospital)

Phase 7, Disney to Burbank via Olive (this would be low performing but the stop spacing could be pretty wide. And giving Burbank residents rail access to their 101 employment center would probably do pretty well, all things considered.

less than six miles total.

That would be sick! Whether it's this or any future rail down Ventura Blvd (originating on Reseda at CSUN) runs under Universal (with a transfer to Red) and then takes Olive to DTB, this area could sure use the rail service.

Heck maybe even ensure said rail mode is LRT to connect to this line via a Y junction?

[numble]

Apr 20, 2021 11:18:09 GMT -8 andert said:

That's interesting, I never thought about doing tunneling in phase one without stations. If it were single bore would it be possible to build the stations in the single bore tunnel? I know there was some talk of that awhile ago, but I also know over on one of the other threads there was some talk of why single bore in an area like this wouldn't be ideal -- you'd want the tunnels to be more shallow.

And I agree I think with southwest extension of the line wants to hit cedars and the D Line La Cienega station. I actually think from there it makes the most sense to go down La Cienega in a tunnel, connect with the Culver expo line station, and then go down Venice elevated all the way to the pier.
Eastward, I think once you hit vermont/santa monica, you either take it to Union via sunset (and maybe even the silver line concept after that in the SGV), or you send it up hyperion to Atwater and then glendale. the benefit of the latter is that the general trajectory of the line remains straight (not that that really matters), and it provides a rapid connection between hollywood and atwater/glendale that doesn't rely on Los Feliz Blvd - which, as someone who lives in Hollywood and goes to atwater and glendale constantly, I can say would be a giant relief.

In my insane dream scenario that will never happen, the Santa Monica tunnel through hollywood would be quadruple-tracked to support 2 lines - One starting in El Monte, taking the silver line route to union, going up sunset to hollywood, sharing tracks through santa monica, and then going northwest under the mountains from the sunset strip to ventura/van nuys, and continuing along ventura until it can turn up reseda to CSUN. The other would run from venice beach to glendale along the route previously described. One lines goes northeast to southwest, the other southeast to northwest. But this is some 2075 fantasy, and there's no way they're quadruple-tracking santa monica tracks.

I do completely agree that it makes a ton of sense to plan for a future K line extension to the burbank studios, ending at the Metrolink station in downtown burbank. I've had that one on my long-term fantasy map for awhile.

Imagine if we had 4 transit tunnels under the santa monica mountains? Hollywood-Universal City, Hollywood-Burbank, Sherman Oaks-Westwood, and Sherman Oaks-Sunset Strip. That's one way to get cars off the road.

Once upon a time staff talked about the idea of doing the tunneling for Vermont first and putting BRT in there before they raise money for the systems/stations, so it is a thought that has been out there before.

[bzcat]

Apr 20, 2021 10:38:41 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

Also I would say Phase one must have two parts for a stub to politically succeed

Phase 1
Expo to Purple line full build out.
Hollywood Bowl to Cedars Sinai stub full tunneling contract.

Phase 2
Hollywood Bowl to Purple line full build out
Hollywood Bowl to Cedars Sinai full build out


Why does this work? we can build the tunnels now without doing stations. Building the WeHo tunnels as part of phase one gives them a guarantee and reason to support it.

Because it's just the tunneling contract, there doesn't need to be an MSF to support WeHo which would otherwise be an orphaned line (like Van Nuys)

rolling stock for both lines can be open gangway to increase capacity and reduce maintenance and MSF footprint (like the Sepulveda line).

The build out for both lines would then be simultaneous in phase 2, taking advantage of economies of scale and being able to use the same MSF.

I'm on board too with phase 1 tunnel from Hollywood to ensure WEHO support but money is a problem, which is why Metro was leaning towards building phase 1 from Expo to Wilshire. But who knows what Biden's infrastructure bill will bring...

But as far as rolling stock is concern, I think we can rule out open gangway and different platform design because this is an extension of the Crenshaw line which has to interline with Green line; so it will have the same design parameter as existing Green line and Crenshaw line.

Now we just need to get Metro to listen to us...

[culvercitylocke]

Apr 20, 2021 11:18:09 GMT -8 andert said:

In my insane dream scenario that will never happen, the Santa Monica tunnel through hollywood would be quadruple-tracked to support 2 lines - One starting in El Monte, taking the silver line route to union, going up sunset to hollywood, sharing tracks through santa monica, and then going northwest under the mountains from the sunset strip to ventura/van nuys, and continuing along ventura until it can turn up reseda to CSUN. The other would run from venice beach to glendale along the route previously described. One lines goes northeast to southwest, the other southeast to northwest. But this is some 2075 fantasy, and there's no way they're quadruple-tracking santa monica tracks.

I do completely agree that it makes a ton of sense to plan for a future K line extension to the burbank studios, ending at the Metrolink station in downtown burbank. I've had that one on my long-term fantasy map for awhile.

Imagine if we had 4 transit tunnels under the santa monica mountains? Hollywood-Universal City, Hollywood-Burbank, Sherman Oaks-Westwood, and Sherman Oaks-Sunset Strip. That's one way to get cars off the road.

I think if you're looking at the SMB spur line, It should terminate at the D line. no future extension south or west is ever going to spec out acceptable ridership.

directing the SMB spur line towards Downtown's CBD is also crucial to building a sustainable ridership model.

In theory it could connect to the 7th metro west santa ana branch connection. But it may be far more feasible to route it to union station.

Routing to Glendale via all the great neighborhoods on that route would be very cool but may result in it underperforming relative to anchoring it to the CBD

[culvercitylocke]

Apr 20, 2021 12:30:36 GMT -8 bzcat said:

Apr 20, 2021 10:38:41 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

Also I would say Phase one must have two parts for a stub to politically succeed

Phase 1
Expo to Purple line full build out.
Hollywood Bowl to Cedars Sinai stub full tunneling contract.

Phase 2
Hollywood Bowl to Purple line full build out
Hollywood Bowl to Cedars Sinai full build out


Why does this work? we can build the tunnels now without doing stations. Building the WeHo tunnels as part of phase one gives them a guarantee and reason to support it.

Because it's just the tunneling contract, there doesn't need to be an MSF to support WeHo which would otherwise be an orphaned line (like Van Nuys)

rolling stock for both lines can be open gangway to increase capacity and reduce maintenance and MSF footprint (like the Sepulveda line).

The build out for both lines would then be simultaneous in phase 2, taking advantage of economies of scale and being able to use the same MSF.

I'm on board too with phase 1 tunnel from Hollywood to ensure WEHO support but money is a problem, which is why Metro was leaning towards building phase 1 from Expo to Wilshire. But who knows what Biden's infrastructure bill will bring...

But as far as rolling stock is concern, I think we can rule out open gangway and different platform design because this is an extension of the Crenshaw line which has to interline with Green line; so it will have the same design parameter as existing Green line and Crenshaw line.

Now we just need to get Metro to listen to us...

Metro will replace all its LRT vehicles to open gangway design at some point in the future. Since Janis Hahn is on the board currently, they can only run two car consists on the K line because of her decision to force Crenshaw to use a low ridership option limited to two car consists. So any new rolling stock orders for Crenshaw north should understand politicans are forcing them into worst case capacity scenarios and should start purchasing cars with seat layouts that add capacity to try and ameliorate the problem.

I don't think a different seat layout would make them have different platform heights, nor would prevent them coupling with existing car seat layouts.

[bluelineshawn]

Apr 20, 2021 12:42:33 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

Apr 20, 2021 12:30:36 GMT -8 bzcat said:

I'm on board too with phase 1 tunnel from Hollywood to ensure WEHO support but money is a problem, which is why Metro was leaning towards building phase 1 from Expo to Wilshire. But who knows what Biden's infrastructure bill will bring...

But as far as rolling stock is concern, I think we can rule out open gangway and different platform design because this is an extension of the Crenshaw line which has to interline with Green line; so it will have the same design parameter as existing Green line and Crenshaw line.

Now we just need to get Metro to listen to us...

Metro will replace all its LRT vehicles to open gangway design at some point in the future. Since Janis Hahn is on the board currently, they can only run two car consists on the K line because of her decision to force Crenshaw to use a low ridership option limited to two car consists. So any new rolling stock orders for Crenshaw north should understand politicans are forcing them into worst case capacity scenarios and should start purchasing cars with seat layouts that add capacity to try and ameliorate the problem.

I don't think a different seat layout would make them have different platform heights, nor would prevent them coupling with existing car seat layouts.

I hope that metro goes to an open gangway design, but that does limit to them operating permanently in a 3-car consist so if one car has a problem, all three are out of service.

Regarding the bolded, metro made that same incorrect claim. The truth is that until Aviation is extended all options would limit Crenshaw to 2-car operation.

[bzcat]

Apr 20, 2021 12:37:52 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

Apr 20, 2021 11:18:09 GMT -8 andert said:

In my insane dream scenario that will never happen, the Santa Monica tunnel through hollywood would be quadruple-tracked to support 2 lines - One starting in El Monte, taking the silver line route to union, going up sunset to hollywood, sharing tracks through santa monica, and then going northwest under the mountains from the sunset strip to ventura/van nuys, and continuing along ventura until it can turn up reseda to CSUN. The other would run from venice beach to glendale along the route previously described. One lines goes northeast to southwest, the other southeast to northwest. But this is some 2075 fantasy, and there's no way they're quadruple-tracking santa monica tracks.

I do completely agree that it makes a ton of sense to plan for a future K line extension to the burbank studios, ending at the Metrolink station in downtown burbank. I've had that one on my long-term fantasy map for awhile.

Imagine if we had 4 transit tunnels under the santa monica mountains? Hollywood-Universal City, Hollywood-Burbank, Sherman Oaks-Westwood, and Sherman Oaks-Sunset Strip. That's one way to get cars off the road.

I think if you're looking at the SMB spur line, It should terminate at the D line. no future extension south or west is ever going to spec out acceptable ridership.

directing the SMB spur line towards Downtown's CBD is also crucial to building a sustainable ridership model.

In theory it could connect to the 7th metro west santa ana branch connection. But it may be far more feasible to route it to union station.

Routing to Glendale via all the great neighborhoods on that route would be very cool but may result in it underperforming relative to anchoring it to the CBD

At the risk of sounding like an echo chamber, I also agree with most of this. The SMB spur replicates the original heavy rail spur that was eliminated after DEIR of the purple line extension. So we pretty much have a good idea that there is fairly high existing travel demand in this corridor if we end the line at D line station at either La Cienega or Century City. The Century City approach will have to contend with the fault line under SMB unless it runs at surface, which means wrangling with Beverly Hills. So La Cienega is looking better now that I think about it. But once we get to La Cienega/Wilshire, I think the argument to go further to Expo line at Culver City is worth considering, especially if it can be build as partially elevated/surface running extension.

And the eastern end has to be in DTLA to generate enough trips throughout the entire line. Possible potential thru routing to WASB or another future line to SGV.

I will remain open minded on the rolling stock. One thing we haven't talk about is the yard for SMB line. The initial phase 1 and 2 where this line is operating as a spur is easy... it will use the Crenshaw line yard with Crenshaw trains turning back at Hollywood Bowl or Hollywood/Highland as SMB trains and vice versa. But in phase 3 when the line extends both east and west, it will probably need a new yard and there is no suitable place for it. It's kind of a the elephant in the room for this concept.

The Transit Coalition Forum Crowdsourcing Concept ^TM

Phase 1 segments ~2026
- Redondo Beach to D line Wilshire/La Brea
- Hollywood Bowl to Santa Monica/La Brea

Phase 2 segments ~2030
- Redondo Beach to Hollywood Bowl (closing the Wilshire Blvd to SMB gap)
- B line Hollywood/Highland to Santa Monica/Fairfax

Phase 3 segments ~2035
- Torrance to Hollywood Bowl
- Santa Monica/Western to Pacifica Design Center (Santa Monica/Robertson)

Phase 4 segments ~2040
- Torrance to Burbank Media Center (Alameda/Olive)
- B line Santa Monica/Vermont to D line Century City (via SMB) or D line La Cienega/Wilshire (via Cedar/Beverly Center)

Phase 5 segments ~2045
- Torrance to Burbank Metrolink/Orange line
- Downtown LA transit core (alignment TBD) to E line Culver City (via La Cienega and Venice Blvd)
(potential to interline with WASB or another line to SGV from DTLA)

[bluelineshawn]

Apr 20, 2021 10:25:16 GMT -8 bzcat said:

Apr 20, 2021 10:14:24 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

This is great, but I think they want to use the Hollywood Bowl station as a launch box, tunnel support center and tunnel spoils excavation center for the Purple-to-Bowl part of the project. It being right on the freeway exit on ramps saves a TON of time and labor on delivery of the tunnel segment rings and removal of the tunnel spoils.

and how about

Phase 6, Hollywood Bowl to Warner Bros to Disney.

Phase 7, Disney to Burbank

less than six miles total.

Yes, I forgot Hollywood Bowl is the launch point/tail track for Phase 2.

Phase 1 segment ~2026
- Redondo Beach to D line Wilshire/La Brea

Phase 2 segments ~2030
- Redondo Beach to Hollywood Bowl
- B line Hollywood/Highland to Santa Monica/Fairfax

Phase 3 segments ~2035
- Torrance to Hollywood Bowl
- Santa Monica/Western to Pacifica Design Center (Santa Monica/Robertson)

Phase 4 segments ~2040
- Torrance to Burbank Media Center (Alameda/Olive)
- B line Santa Monica/Vermont to Century City

Phase 5 segments ~2045
- Torrance to Burbank Metrolink/Orange line
- Downtown LA transit core (alignment TBD) to Century City

The green line extension to Torrance is a "pillar project" that metro wants to have done by 2028. I don't see the K line going north before that happens.