Crenshaw Line Phase 2

[metrocenter]

Alternatively, they could use Sunset instead of Melrose for the east-west tunnel.

Keep in mind that there is really no cost savings for duplicating any of the HRT Pink Line route, since (so far as I know) LRT and HRT cannot share tracks and tunnels. Thus, it is better to use Melrose or Sunset, rather than Santa Monica again.

[Dan Wentzel]

Does anyone know if Crewnshaw Line advocates have adopted a "color" yet? Since this line does and will do more than simply run on Crewnshaw, should it get a "color"?

It would be fun if we did it like London and used names. Granted that is a broohaha in waiting, but we could have the Chavez Line running in East Los Angeles. We could have the Hahn Line, Warren Line, Sherman Line, Muir Line, Bradley Line, Brown Line, Reagan Line, Johnson Line, Wilshire Line, Mulholland Line, etc. Yeah, I realize it will never happen.

However, we're running out of primary colors. I think the Sepulveda Line should be called the "Tan Line" because it runs closest to the beach.

[tobias087]

Well, I was pushing for the Pink line and Crenshaw Line transfer to be at the same stop, but I actually like the map above by Metrocenter much more.

[erict]

I don't think a mega destination like The Grove can be ignored, but neither can LACMA. Maybe Caruso an fund a trolley line from the museum to the Grove?

[tonyw79sfv]

Rick Caruso only seemed interested in building his empires (The Grove and Americana at Brand) away from Metro Rail; although, ironically, both are connected by Metro Rapid 780.

[trackman]

[metrocenter]

Nice diagram trackman. It'll be interesting to see all the alternatives for Crenshaw 2 from Metro's staff. I suspect that by that time (many years from now) a lot of the Purple Line variables (exact route and stations, for instance) will have been settled.

Your stations between Expo and Wilshire are:

1) Washington/Crenshaw
2) Venice/West
3) San Vicente/Redondo
4) San Vicente/Olympic/Fairfax

2 and 3 seem odd to me. I'd probably consolidate them into just San Vicente/La Brea.

From there I'd like to see the Crenshaw Line shoot straight up Fairfax. It would be great to have a station at 3rd/Fairfax or Beverly/Fairfax, and possibly at Melrose/Fairfax.

[tobias087]

Thank you!!! There need to be more maps that have the Pink Line as light-rail. The HRT fixation on that corridor has got to go.

[erict]

Even if the Pink rail/Crenshaw Phase 2 is light rail, which seems fine to me, it will probably have to be 100% grade separated in aerial or underground. The cost for this portion of the rail line will not be that much less than heavy rail subway(IHMO). But light rail has the advantage of connecting to a larger system than heavy rail. Even so, transfers are required for both heavy and light rail at Highland Ave. But if the pink were to connect to the Crenshaw line, an additional transfer could be avoided at that junction. But if it is heavy rail then a transfer is avoided at the Purple line. This could go either way I think, if the line ever happens at all.

[tobias087]

I think that there should be a transfer at the Purple line, as there isn't a particularly obvious direction that the majority of travelers are going to go, some will be going to downtown and others to Century City.

Also interlining the Pink line with the Purple line creates operational problems: Purple line headways are determined by the shared Purple/Red portion downtown, and the Pink line would have to coordinate with that, regardless of what the demand is for trips on that route. At one of the latest Westside subway meetings, the presenters seemed to think that the plan might be to run 1 Pink line train for every 2 Purple line trains, although they weren't two sure.

And if they did that, with 5 minutes through Downtown at peak hours like we have now, two Purple line trains would take 20 minutes, and if they slipped the Pink line train in between train 2 and train 3, you would be looking at 25 minutes between Pink line trains. If they started running downtown trains and 2.5 minutes, we'd still be looking at 12.5 minutes for every Pink line train.

We need heavy rail for that? Make it light-rail, and it can hook up with Crenshaw, and run with whatever headways the demand requires.

[metrocenter]

Would the Crenshaw Line really need to be a subway along San Vicente between Washington/Crenshaw and Wilshire/Fairfax? The boulevard is very wide with a generous median that was formerly a trolley ROW. Traffic isn't so bad on that street, and neither is cross-traffic. So it should be able to handle it.

I'm sure the residents on San V would not want to tear out the trees from the median. But per the grade-separation criteria, that's no reason to grade separate.

[bluelineshawn]

The primary reason for heading up San Vincente is so that it can be built at grade.

As far as the Pink line being light or heavy rail I agree that it will obviously require grade separation. Normally that would favor higher capacity heavy rail, but given the short length I'd opt for the connectivity provided by light rail.

[adamv]

May 10, 2010 17:37:28 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

The primary reason for heading up San Vincente is so that it can be built at grade.

I think it's weird that this is usually the only topic that I pop in and comment on. I read these boards almost daily, just for updates, but I rarely comment.

But posters here are being a tad unrealistic if they think that they'll just slap an at-grade light rail line on San Vincente in the middle of Carthay Circle/Square and call it a day.

1) You're getting into Bevery Hills-like real estate - at least the residents think so.
Sound walls aren't going to cut it. I think we're talking in the million-dollar range homes that will suddenly be looking at a light rail line.
(Please don't mistake me for arguing that they shouldn't build because of this - that's not my point. I'm just saying the reaction will make Hancock Park's reaction to the Crenshaw purple line station look like nothing).

2) I'm not sure of this at all, but what's the incline limit on light rails? There's a pretty steep hill just west of La Brea that might require a lot of mitigation anyway.

I think the most realistic option is to take the line up to San Vicente, take San Vicente past the in-development shopping center and transit center on Pico/San Vicente, then head up la brea to the Purple Line stop.

[jdrcrasher]

I'm afraid Adam might be right. If we try using an at-grade LRT via San Vincente, we'll hear the usual complaints: wasteful spending, deficit, hobos, construction traffic, blacks and mexicans, etc.....

[Justin Walker]

May 10, 2010 20:36:23 GMT -8 adamv said:

2) I'm not sure of this at all, but what's the incline limit on light rails? There's a pretty steep hill just west of La Brea that might require a lot of mitigation anyway.

The Transportation Research Board describes the following in its Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit:

As a guideline, the following profile grade limitations are recommended for general use in LRT design:

Maximum Sustained Grade, unlimited length: 4.0%
Maximum Sustained Grade, up to 2500 feet long: 6.0%
Maximum Sustained Grade, up to 500 feet long: 7.0%

[jeisenbe]

It is a shame that the current Purple Line extension planning is not integrating the future Crenshaw line extension.

If the "Crenshaw" line goes up San Vincente, it could either cross the purple line a 90 degree angle, requiring two levels of subway, or an elevated station. But it could also "cross" the subway after running parallel to the station. With two island platforms and two tracks in each direction, you would have cross-platform transfers, and a 1-level station with many fewer elevators and stairs. Transfers in one direction would only require walking out of one train, across the platform and into the train waiting on the other side. BART does this at several places in the system; it is wonderful. Some riders would have to change platforms, if going the "opposite" way on the other train, but would only have to deal with one set of stairs or elevators, not two.

Unfortunately, unless we plan for this connection now, before the Westside Subway is built, it will be hard to build right in the future.

[metrocenter]

May 10, 2010 20:36:23 GMT -8 adamv said:

But posters here are being a tad unrealistic if they think that they'll just slap an at-grade light rail line on San Vincente in the middle of Carthay Circle/Square and call it a day.

This is what I was thinking about when I originally posed the question. By Metro's grade-crossing policy, the San V part of the line should be at-grade. But the residents along San V are not going to like replacing the green median with trains. And my guess is, they will fight it with everything they have. I think it's better to think about this now, rather than later.

[transitfan]

May 10, 2010 22:26:17 GMT -8 jeisenbe said:

It is a shame that the current Purple Line extension planning is not integrating the future Crenshaw line extension.

If the "Crenshaw" line goes up San Vincente, it could either cross the purple line a 90 degree angle, requiring two levels of subway, or an elevated station. But it could also "cross" the subway after running parallel to the station. With two island platforms and two tracks in each direction, you would have cross-platform transfers, and a 1-level station with many fewer elevators and stairs. Transfers in one direction would only require walking out of one train, across the platform and into the train waiting on the other side. BART does this at several places in the system; it is wonderful. Some riders would have to change platforms, if going the "opposite" way on the other train, but would only have to deal with one set of stairs or elevators, not two.

Unfortunately, unless we plan for this connection now, before the Westside Subway is built, it will be hard to build right in the future.

That would be cool, if only to see light rail and heavy rail trains together in the same station. Shades of Cleveland in the downtown area (although, IINM, the light rail (Blue/Green lines) and heavy rail (Red) trains share the tracks, and the stations have split high-floor (Red) and low-floor (Blue/Green) platforms). They can do this b/c the Red Line also uses overhead wire. Obviously, that would not be the case in L. A., so the 4-track, 2-platform idea would be necessary.

[jeisenbe]

"They can do this b/c the Red Line also uses overhead wire. Obviously, that would not be the case in L. A., so the 4-track, 2-platform idea would be necessary."

Transitfan, the main problem is that the light rail cars are not as wide. You could use gauntlet tracks or movable platform edges to solve that problem. The overhead wires and 3rd rail could possibly be compatible, if the electrical return thru the tracks isn't a problem.

However, I would still recommend 4 tracks. 2 tracks would limit the maximum frequency of trains for both lines, especially if the Crenshaw line has any at-grade portions that might reduce reliability. Also, with 4 tracks and 2 island platforms, you can do timed, cross-platform transfers. On BART this means they have two trains heading south pull up across from each other at the platform; passengers going to SF from Richmond or Berkeley walk from one train, across the platform, and into the other. It takes no more time for the riders than a direct train to San Francisco (though you do have to get up out of your seat). If Crenshaw is grade-separated, or has crossing gates and signal preemption at all grade crossings, it would be possible to do this here.

A Vermont Subway extension south of Wilshire could also use this principle. The current Wilshire/Vermont station is built in two levels, with one track on each level. An expensive station rebuild would be possible, with a second track on each level added where the wall is behind each platform. Trains from Hollywood could continue south of Vermont, but riders would only need to walk across the platform to a Purple Line train. This would allow both Purple (Wilshire) and Red (Vermont) lines to operate at 2 minute frequency during rush hour, if needed, because no tracks would be shared.

Riders coming North on Vermont would have a cross-platform transfer if they wanted to head west on Wilshire. To get to Downtown they would need to walk upstairs to the other platform, but half of the trips would be a timed, cross-platform connection. With all the destinations along the Westside subway, I imagine riders coming from the south will want to go in either direction about equally.

Rebuilding the Wilshire/Vermont station will be an expensive part of the Vermont subway, but at least it was designed for this from the beginning. As we see with Hollywood/Highland and the Pink Line, if it were a one-level station this extension down Vermont would be very difficult.

In the same way, if the westside Purple Line extension is not planned with cross-platform transfers in mind, it will be nearly impossible to rebuild the station for it in the future, without shutting down the Purple Line for years. (The desired Crenshaw or Pink connection with the Red Line and Hollywood/Highland has this problem)

[metrocenter]

May 10, 2010 22:26:17 GMT -8 jeisenbe said:

If the "Crenshaw" line goes up San Vincente, it could either cross the purple line a 90 degree angle, requiring two levels of subway, or an elevated station. But it could also "cross" the subway after running parallel to the station. With two island platforms and two tracks in each direction, you would have cross-platform transfers, and a 1-level station with many fewer elevators and stairs. Transfers in one direction would only require walking out of one train, across the platform and into the train waiting on the other side. BART does this at several places in the system; it is wonderful. Some riders would have to change platforms, if going the "opposite" way on the other train, but would only have to deal with one set of stairs or elevators, not two.

I agree that it would be more convenient for transfers if the platforms were at the same level, in parallel. However, in this scenario, the tracks would need to cross each other. This would reduce maximum headways on both lines. IMO, if two routes are going to cross each other, it's better to keep them on separate levels if possible.

[tobias087]

If the 4 tracks are paralelle to each other but the routes are 90 degrees, then you would potentially be looking at very very sharp curves, which would slow down the junction, and the overall lines even more.

Also, if there are two island platforms, doesn't that still require stairs and elevators and such? You can't cross the heavy rail tracks, so if you need to go from the Purple line tracks to the Crenshaw tracks, you'd have to go upstairs then back downstairs to the other island.

At this point, I'm in favor of a 2-level station, 7th street/metrocenter style.

[metrocenter]

^ A third platform would allow some people to transfer (from NB Crenshaw to EB Purple and vice versa). But the other transfers would still need to use stairs.

LOL...If they want to get real creative, they could have the two lines cross in the station, at the same level. This would require four corner platforms. For that to make sense, all trains would have to stop in the middle of the junction every time, to provide access to two adjacent platforms for the other train. This would impact every train's headway.

[tobias087]

LOL now that I would pay to see. Does that happen anywhere else in the world?

[metrocenter]

Metro should do it, just to be unique. I'd love to see the signage required to explain which platforms go where.

[bluelineshawn]

May 10, 2010 23:38:32 GMT -8 metrocenter said:

May 10, 2010 20:36:23 GMT -8 adamv said:

But posters here are being a tad unrealistic if they think that they'll just slap an at-grade light rail line on San Vincente in the middle of Carthay Circle/Square and call it a day.

This is what I was thinking about when I originally posed the question. By Metro's grade-crossing policy, the San V part of the line should be at-grade. But the residents along San V are not going to like replacing the green median with trains. And my guess is, they will fight it with everything they have. I think it's better to think about this now, rather than later.

My mistake on the alignment grade. I thought that I had read that they chose San Vincente because Crenshaw was too narrow, but looking at the Crenshaw Feasibility Study that's not correct. They never decided on a grade alignment for San Vincente.

[darrell]

May 10, 2010 22:26:17 GMT -8 jeisenbe said:

It is a shame that the current Purple Line extension planning is not integrating the future Crenshaw line extension.
...

Unfortunately, unless we plan for this connection now, before the Westside Subway is built, it will be hard to build right in the future.

My sense is that Metro's Purple Line planning process is focused first on completing that environmental study, but is aware of the need to be compatible with a potential Crenshaw extension to Hollywood. Don't forget that Metro board member Mark Ridley-Thomas is promoting that, including in a video from last year:



I envision a tunnel from Expo to Mid-City; then largely at-grade in the median of San Vicente to Beverly, with grade separations at major boulevards like La Brea*, Fairfax-Olympic, and Wilshire; and finally grade-separated the rest of the way along San Vicente and Santa Monica where the median is narrow (unless the City of West Hollywood reconfigures the Santa Monica median).

* La Brea had a bridge back in PE days, leaving the embankments still there.

[jdrcrasher]

If the Pink Line is built, I definitely think La Brea is the best option to the Highland station (and perhaps the Hollywood Bowl), instead of using Santa Monica Blvd and San Vincente Ave.

Actually, I think we should build a bikeway down Santa Monica Blvd instead, starting somewhere in Hollywood and ending in Santa Monica.

[jeisenbe]

"I think we should build a bikeway down Santa Monica Blvd instead, starting somewhere in Hollywood and ending in Santa Monica"
There is enough room for both a bikeway and at-grade light rail, if we don't insist on keeping all the current space devoted to cars.

[jeisenbe]

Metrocenter,
It is true that a two-level transfer station arrangement, like Wilshire/Vermont (or Downtown Oakland, on BART) has advantages. If the segments before and after the station are bored tunnels, two levels may be easier to construct (TBMs would not need to cross). And it is true that tranfers between platforms (in the "opposite" direction) would be easier, requiring only one level changed, rather than up then down.

However, a two-level cut-and-cover station ends up very deep, so half of the passengers have a long climb up from the bottom. This also makes construction more expensive.

Capacity and headways are not a big problem; a properly designed crossover should not limit train thru-put, if the scheduling is good.

But I would be happy with a two-level station, if the cost is reasonable. Either way, we would need to plan the La Brea, or Fairfax stations right now with this connection in mind, otherwise we will be stuck with a slower transfer, and perhaps a very expensive station reconstruction (Central Subway in San Francisco, anyone?)

[trackman]

May 11, 2010 20:16:23 GMT -8 jeisenbe said:

Metrocenter,
It is true that a two-level transfer station arrangement, like Wilshire/Vermont (or Downtown Oakland, on BART) has advantages. If the segments before and after the station are bored tunnels, two levels may be easier to construct (TBMs would not need to cross). And it is true that tranfers between platforms (in the "opposite" direction) would be easier, requiring only one level changed, rather than up then down.

However, a two-level cut-and-cover station ends up very deep, so half of the passengers have a long climb up from the bottom. This also makes construction more expensive.

Capacity and headways are not a big problem; a properly designed crossover should not limit train thru-put, if the scheduling is good.

But I would be happy with a two-level station, if the cost is reasonable. Either way, we would need to plan the La Brea, or Fairfax stations right now with this connection in mind, otherwise we will be stuck with a slower transfer, and perhaps a very expensive station reconstruction (Central Subway in San Francisco, anyone?)

With that in mind it's time to upload something I created earlier today, which was to id possible alignments from Crenshaw at Exposition to Hollywood at Highland.

However, before beginning I spent some time reviewing the Metro Westide project site. What caught my attention was the station locations and alternatives, which some seemed offset from the major intersecting street. La Cienega and Fairfax were examples. Also, but of a minor consequence to this, was that a transition from Wilshire to Century City was NOT from Santa Monica Boulevard and was mostly a direct path. Good for them.

Most importantly, the La Cienega station alterantives are each on the west side of San Vicente intersection and do not seem to be AT the intersection where an attractive looking LRT alignment would lay. This makes a connection with the Purple Line a bit difficult at this location. Thus, other ideas...

First, the Westside map: www.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/map_Corridor_Westside_alt2.pdf