Crenshaw Line Phase 2

[bzcat]

Apr 20, 2021 13:26:50 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

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.

You are right of course

Realistically, we'll have to move the northern timeline back by 3 to 5 years. It was my most optimistic projection.

[andert]

If you get the line to Union you could stick an MSF across the river, but yeah you'd almost certainly need one before then and that's a huge issue. The only space I see that even approaches being viable is you have what I think is a large power substation 2 blocks southwest of Santa Monica/La Brea (bounded by willoughby, romaine, poinsetta, and formosa), and if you could take that space and eminent domain parts of the block to the east (without getting rid of what sits on la brea), you could *maybe* squeeze an MSF into there? Still seems too small though.

[culvercitylocke]

Extend the tunnels all the way to burbank metrolink right of way and site the MSF in that vicinity.

What's 6 mile tail tracks between friends?

More realistically, it would be a gigantic inefficient pain, but between the Crenshaw MSF and the greenline MSF, you could probably juggle some of the train capacity.

are there any tracks to connect Blue to Green? if so, there's another cumbersome possibility to juggle.

Where's Expo's and the Gold line's MSF, if you can connect Crenshaw north to green, to blue, to expo to the RC to Gold then...

(I'm laughing at myself, y'll)

[culvercitylocke]

ah the latimes has stories up about the hollywood fault, including helpful image



www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-04-21/the-hollywood-fault-is-an-invisible-earthquake-danger-running-under-the-heart-of-l-a

so SMB especially if it turns south on San Vicente to terminate at the D line looks good.

[culvercitylocke]

Apr 20, 2021 13:26:50 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

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.

counterpoint. the greenline extension costs an extra half a billion to relocate freight tracks along the right of way, and local pushback is encouraging them to abandon the existing right of way which will probably cost two billion dollars.

My guess is it will go to no build if they can't use the right of way.

[culvercitylocke]

Apr 20, 2021 13:16:33 GMT -8 bzcat said:

The Transit Coalition Forum Crowdsourcing Concept ^TM

Let's speed things up and go simultaneous with money from the infrastructure bill. :-p

Phase 1 Environmental Reviews - 2022-2025
Phase 2 Environmental Reviews - 2023-2026
Phase 3 Environmental Reviews - 2024-2027
Phase 4 Environmental Reviews - 2025-2028
Phase 5 Environmental Reviews - 2026-2029

Phase 0 segments (currently in progress)
- Green line South expansion to Torrance
- Green line East expansion to Norwalk metrolink

Phase 1 segments ~2026 groundbreaking 2031 revenue service
- North full expansion --- Crenshaw/Expo to Purple line Wilshire/La Brea
- North tunnel(s) & utility relocations contracts --- Wilshire to Hollywood Bowl

Phase 2 segments ~2027 groundbreaking 2034 revenue service
- North full expansion --- Wilshire to Hollywood Bowl
- West tunnel(s) (and East Tail Tracks) & utility relocations contracts SMB/La Brea to Purple line La Cienega station

Phase 3 segments ~2028 groundbreaking 2036 revenue service
- West full expansion SMB/La Brea to Purple line La Cienega station
- East tunnel(s) & utility relocations contracts SMB/La Brea to Downtown LA

Phase 4 segments ~2030 groundbreaking 2040 revenue service
- East full expansion SMB/La Brea to Downtown LA 
- North tunnel(s) & utility relocations contracts  Hollywood Bowl-to-Burbank metrolink (Olive/Alameda) 

Phase 5 segments ~2034 groundbreaking 2045 revenue service
- North full expansionHollywood Bowl-to-Burbank metrolink (Olive/Alameda) 

[bzcat]

Well, I think Phase 1 and 2 EIR is the Crenshaw northern extension EIR which is why we want the spur to be studied. So if Metro does look at the spur as an option (instead of the hybrid), then you can shave ~2 years off the Phase 2 revenue service timeline. It would just be part of the Crenshaw North construction plan with phased opening.

And if we are serious, phase 3-4 Pink line and phase 4-5 Northern extension to Burbank are going to be two separate projects for EIR purpose but of course the Pink line can't happen unless Metro does the spur as part of the EIR for Crenshaw northern extension (phase 1-2 of the crowdsource plan) so that's the focus. How do we get Metro to study the spur when it is not presently an option in the final proposal for inclusion.

[culvercitylocke]

Apr 21, 2021 15:07:53 GMT -8 bzcat said:

Well, I think Phase 1 and 2 EIR is the Crenshaw northern extension EIR which is why we want the spur to be studied. So if Metro does look at the spur as an option (instead of the hybrid), then you can shave ~2 years off the Phase 2 revenue service timeline. It would just be part of the Crenshaw North construction plan with phased opening.

And if we are serious, phase 3-4 Pink line and phase 4-5 Northern extension to Burbank are going to be two separate projects for EIR purpose but of course the Pink line can't happen unless Metro does the spur as part of the EIR for Crenshaw northern extension (phase 1-2 of the crowdsource plan) so that's the focus. How do we get Metro to study the spur when it is not presently an option in the final proposal for inclusion.

Precisely, and that reminds me to submit a comment. what was the link again?

[andert]

Email a public comment here: [e-mail]
And/or participate in virtual scoping meetings, links here: thesource.metro.net/2021/04/15/three-upcoming-virtual-scoping-meetings-for-crenshaw-northern-extension-project/

I'm also going to be doing a three-part update series of videos for this year (first a general one, which will also mention crenshaw north, then one about sepulveda, then one about the infrastructure bill). I'm going to encourage people to submit public comments in the first one. Last two videos got 50k and 100k views, so hopefully enough people will see them and comment to make metro take notice. I'm racing to try to get the first done before I leave for San Francisco for a week on mon, but I doubt i'll manage it. I should have it done by ~May 5th though, and that still leaves about 23 days left of the public comment period, and is right before the latter 2 scoping meetings.

[bluelineshawn]

Apr 21, 2021 16:20:24 GMT -8 andert said:

Email a public comment here: [e-mail]
And/or participate in virtual scoping meetings, links here: thesource.metro.net/2021/04/15/three-upcoming-virtual-scoping-meetings-for-crenshaw-northern-extension-project/

I'm also going to be doing a three-part update series of videos for this year (first a general one, which will also mention crenshaw north, then one about sepulveda, then one about the infrastructure bill). I'm going to encourage people to submit public comments in the first one. Last two videos got 50k and 100k views, so hopefully enough people will see them and comment to make metro take notice. I'm racing to try to get the first done before I leave for San Francisco for a week on mon, but I doubt i'll manage it. I should have it done by ~May 5th though, and that still leaves about 23 days left of the public comment period, and is right before the latter 2 scoping meetings.

Looking forward to them. You don't post videos often enough for my tastes.

[andert]

Apr 21, 2021 19:43:35 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

Apr 21, 2021 16:20:24 GMT -8 andert said:

Email a public comment here: [e-mail]
And/or participate in virtual scoping meetings, links here: thesource.metro.net/2021/04/15/three-upcoming-virtual-scoping-meetings-for-crenshaw-northern-extension-project/

I'm also going to be doing a three-part update series of videos for this year (first a general one, which will also mention crenshaw north, then one about sepulveda, then one about the infrastructure bill). I'm going to encourage people to submit public comments in the first one. Last two videos got 50k and 100k views, so hopefully enough people will see them and comment to make metro take notice. I'm racing to try to get the first done before I leave for San Francisco for a week on mon, but I doubt i'll manage it. I should have it done by ~May 5th though, and that still leaves about 23 days left of the public comment period, and is right before the latter 2 scoping meetings.

Looking forward to them. You don't post videos often enough for my tastes.

Thanks! Wish I could do them more often but time has been hard to come by. After these three I'll prob do another update later in the summer though when the new strategic unfunded list is released.

[culvercitylocke]

the full Burbank to Torrance line is about 28 miles. I drew it onto a map just by itself and it looks really cool

the full Cedars Sinai/Dline to union station pink line is about 11 miles.

[usmc1401]

The line from Torrance to Burbank seems similar to the old Los Angeles Railway line 5 in length and general route. Well the end points and some midpoints.

[JerardWright]

Apr 21, 2021 11:27:35 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

Apr 20, 2021 13:26:50 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

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.

counterpoint. the greenline extension costs an extra half a billion to relocate freight tracks along the right of way, and local pushback is encouraging them to abandon the existing right of way which will probably cost two billion dollars.

My guess is it will go to no build if they can't use the right of way.

Counterpoint to the counterpoint, the South Bay COG has wanted this project for the last 30+ years and they'll find a way come hell or high water to get this extension done. They will get the right-of-way south of 190th Street to complete it. BTW Local pushback is only occurring around the Lawndale/South Bay Galleria area where it can be justified to not use the ROW and run elevated on Hawthorne Blvd to reach more of the South Bay Galleria auxiliary shopping areas and show that elevated rail can be useful in other areas and other projects.

[andert]

Got the video done before leaving after all. You can find it here: youtu.be/CUrFswVO4Ms
Encourages people to submit public comments for Crenshaw North. Hopefully we get a good amount.

[bzcat]

I typed up a form letter. Just copy and paste into your email and hit send... Or modify however you want but just make sure the first section is the same... we want Metro to add a fourth option that is La Break plus Santa Monica spur.

To: [e-mail]

Re: Comments for Crenshaw northern extension

After reviewing the three existing options, La Brea, Fairfax, and hybrid, I strongly urge Metro to add a fourth option: La Brea plus Santa Monica spur.

The hybrid option is fundamentally flawed because it mixed the east-west travel corridor on Santa Monica Blvd with the general north-south direction of the Crenshaw line. This will result in long travel time and will not best serve either the east-west nor the north-south travelers. In light of City of West Hollywood's strong commitment to the line, I believe it is in the best interest of all parties to acknowledge that hybrid option is a poor compromise to the forced marriage of two different travel corridors. 

The La Brea plus Santa Monica spur concept acknowledges the reality that these are two separate travel corridors. Instead of continuing the flawed hybrid compromise, there should be a vision for what the rail network could look like in the future. A spur line on Santa Monica Blvd traveling from Hollywood /Highland to Santa Monica/Robertson will satisfy the City of West Hollywood's desire for Metro service within its borders. The spur can operate in conjunction with the La Brea train and not unnecessarily impact the service quality of the Crenshaw line via La Brea. There are further benefits to this concept as the line can be extended in the future south/west to purple line station at La Cienega or Century City; and east towards Downtown LA via Santa Monica blvd. And as proposed, the La Brea plus Santa Monica spur concept has roughly the same amount of track mileage as the hybrid option but offers significantly faster travel time between Hollywood/Highland and LAX and beyond. 


Thanks for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Name

[andert]

Thanks for typing that up! I clicked through from the email notification to boost the comment on youtube and weirdly can't see it on the video, not sure what happened.

[andert]

Seems to have done it again. I did some googling and I'm guessing that it's getting picked up by YT's shitty spam-detection bot. It's not even putting it in the 'held for review' on my end so it won't let me do anything about it. From google it seems like it may need to be reworded to avoid getting pegged as spam, though I'm not sure what's causing it to be pegged as that in the first place.

[bzcat]

I think YouTube flagged it as spam? Maybe I violated some YT policy by asking people to do something. Let me try again...

Edit: can't get past YT censors. I think putting the crenshawnorth email address in the comment is probably against terms of use policy. Not sure...

[numble]

Apr 26, 2021 12:08:41 GMT -8 bzcat said:

I think YouTube flagged it as spam? Maybe I violated some YT policy by asking people to do something. Let me try again...

Edit: can't get past YT censors. I think putting the crenshawnorth email address in the comment is probably against terms of use policy. Not sure...

Maybe if Nick (the video creator) posts it as a comment, it won't be considered spam? Maybe the spam detection bot ignores comments by the video creator.

[andert]

Good idea, I posted it and as far as I can tell on my phone it seems to have gone through properly. Super annoying that that’s how their spam filter works.

[culvercitylocke]

LOVE the video, you have serious skills with the animation, all Adobe?

submitted my comment as well. Let's go spur!

[bzcat]

Apr 26, 2021 15:16:26 GMT -8 andert said:

Good idea, I posted it and as far as I can tell on my phone it seems to have gone through properly. Super annoying that that’s how their spam filter works.

Your comment shows up but none of my comments did

Either way, let send the comments in and hopefully make a difference.

[numble]

Dan Wentzel, who is on the West Hollywood Transportation Commission, does not think spur idea is realistic:

[andert]

I've noticed he's been posting on practically every single public thread advocating hard for fairfax or hybrid and highlighting the downsides of la brea. I think his first two points are assuming that the spur would be out-of-scope for the project as funded by Measure M, which I personally don't feel is very clear. If the spur shared tracks to highland/bowl with la brea and resides entirely within the study area, I think it's definitely within scope and I don't think it needs to wait on other measure M projects to finish first, nor would need some sort of voter approval. It will of course need the metro board approval, but that's a whole other beast.

[bluelineshawn]

I like the spur for the same reasons as everyone else, but I would agree that it's likely not politically feasible. Metro is a county agency and building what will be essentially be seen as two lines in central LA/WeHo will be a tough sell to the rest of the county.

[Tomthumb]

Apr 30, 2021 20:20:27 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

I like the spur for the same reasons as everyone else, but I would agree that it's likely not politically feasible. Metro is a county agency and building what will be essentially be seen as two lines in central LA/WeHo will be a tough sell to the rest of the county.

However, the material reality is that the spur option may be shorter in mileage and cheaper than the hybrid alternative, and a line is imaginary; this won’t take a lot of convincing. All it would only take actually listing it as alternative and evaluating it to confirm or deny this, and I can’t think of a good reason that can’t happen. Even cheaper would be only building the spur to la cienaga or San vicente, which would still be superior to current alternatives.

[fissure]

Posted this in the wrong thread because I'm dumb:

I may take the blame for them adding the Hollywood Bowl station option, as I mentioned it at one of the meetings. Launching TBMs and building crossovers for turning trains would certainly be easier under a parking lot than Highland, and I was wondering what the cost differential of that was vs tunneling the extra mile.

[bzcat]

Apr 30, 2021 10:05:59 GMT -8 numble said:

Dan Wentzel, who is on the West Hollywood Transportation Commission, does not think spur idea is realistic:

Dan's objection is based on conjecture but I understand his point of view. WEHO has been fully invested in making the idea that Santa Monica Blvd is part of the N-S mid city corridor for so long they've fully bought into the hybrid concept. They deserve credit for getting Santa Monica Blvd included in the study area which is even why we are talking about the spur.

Because the spur is in the study area so:
(1) it's not out of scope
(2) is a spur not a seperate line so falls under the same funding as Crenshaw (just like the SGV eastside spur along the 60 freeway, which was later abandoned due to Caltrans objection)
(3) it wouldn't be at the back of the Measure M queue
(4) there is a reasonable chance that it will cost same or less as the hybrid option (especially if the spur only goes to La Cienega instead of Robertson)
(5) ridership is unknown but this is why we should include it in the EIR

However, I fully concede that by including the spur idea, it could potentially make hybrid seem less attractive and of course if spur makes sense, then so would La Brea on its own. And WEHO and its advocates are all on record opposing or not supportive of La Brea. In their risk calculation, a bird in the hand (hybrid) is better than two in the bush (La Brea + SMB spur).

[JerardWright]

May 3, 2021 9:11:50 GMT -8 bzcat said:

Apr 30, 2021 10:05:59 GMT -8 numble said:

Dan Wentzel, who is on the West Hollywood Transportation Commission, does not think spur idea is realistic:

Dan's objection is based on conjecture but I understand his point of view. WEHO has been fully invested in making the idea that Santa Monica Blvd is part of the N-S mid city corridor for so long they've fully bought into the hybrid concept. They deserve credit for getting Santa Monica Blvd included in the study area which is even why we are talking about the spur.

Because the spur is in the study area so:
(1) it's not out of scope
(2) is a spur not a seperate line so falls under the same funding as Crenshaw (just like the SGV eastside spur along the 60 freeway, which was later abandoned due to Caltrans objection)
(3) it wouldn't be at the back of the Measure M queue
(4) there is a reasonable chance that it will cost same or less as the hybrid option (especially if the spur only goes to La Cienega instead of Robertson)
(5) ridership is unknown but this is why we should include it in the EIR

However, I fully concede that by including the spur idea, it could potentially make hybrid seem less attractive and of course if spur makes sense, then so would La Brea on its own. And WEHO and its advocates are all on record opposing or not supportive of La Brea. In their risk calculation, a bird in the hand (hybrid) is better than two in the bush (La Brea + SMB spur).

The "spur" is under a separate option as the Hybrid. If there was funds to do both corridors (La Brea and Hybrid) in the Westside Subregion under Measure M then that wouldn't be the case. However there is another north-south corridor on another thread with conversations between a BYD alt vs Bechtel alt that will need the Westside subregion funding to complete its share of the project so this spur addition will mean you will delay completion of the Sepulveda Pass Corridor from Westside to LAX if this were to move forward.