Crenshaw Line Phase 2

[rayinla]

May 20, 2010 1:11:38 GMT -8 jeisenbe said:

The curve of the Purple Line west of Vermont should allow the Vermont subway to be continued south, with cross-platform transfers at Wilsher/Vermont. If both lines came together heading straight east-west it would be hard to go south again.

How would you do a "cross-platform" transfer with the way the station is configured (single track on each level)? Wouldn't it be necessary to open up the tunnels to the east of the station and install switches (assuming that's even possible)? Then you would simply step out onto the train and wait for the train headed the direction you wanted to go (like you transfer between Red and Purple line trains now)?

[rayinla]

May 15, 2010 16:57:07 GMT -8 James Fujita said:

From what I understand, the property outlined on that map is destined to become a Lowe's.
Which is unfortunate, because I can think of few retailers, other than auto-related businesses, that would be less transit-friendly than home improvement stores. People aren't apt to buy cans of paint, lumber or powertools and take it home with them on the bus or on the train.

Looks like the developers are having trouble and are asking the City of Los Angeles for a loan:

www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-developer-loan-20100520,0,5246344.story

[jeisenbe]

May 20, 2010 13:35:51 GMT -8 rayinla said:

Looks like the developers are having trouble and are asking the City of Los Angeles for a loan

Good opportunity to plan for the transit station. Even if the Lowe's is built, it could work out if the west half of the parcel is left as a surface parking lot, which can later be used for the station box.

How would you do a "cross-platform" transfer with the way the station is configured?

See this post for details on adding a second track and branching off, at each level:
transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=eastside&thread=78&page=9#12678

This will be more difficult now that the station area at Wilshire/Vermont has been developed, but basically you dig down next to the existing tracks and platforms, and add another track and platform on each level, which will branch off to the south for the Vermont subway extension.

[rayinla]

May 20, 2010 14:37:47 GMT -8 jeisenbe said:

How would you do a "cross-platform" transfer with the way the station is configured?

See this post for details on adding a second track and branching off, at each level:
transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=eastside&thread=78&page=9#12678

This will be more difficult now that the station area at Wilshire/Vermont has been developed, but basically you dig down next to the existing tracks and platforms, and add another track and platform on each level, which will branch off to the south for the Vermont subway extension.

Meaning the service from South Los Angeles would terminate at Wilshire/Vermont rather than continuing north? Bummer.

[jeisenbe]

No, trains from South Los Angeles would continue north on Vermont to Hollywood and North Hollywood; Trains from Westwood would head east to Downtown.

You could also run four different services with the same station configuration: 1. South LA to N Holllywood; 2. Westwood to Downtown; 3. South LA to Westwood; 4. N Hollywood to Downtown. This would provide more one-seat rides, while reducing frequency of each route. However, with cross-platform transfers, you can get the same service as the four routes listed above from only two routes: 1. South LA to North Hollywood and 2. Westwood to Downtown. For the last two trips listed above, you would have a cross-platform transfer, which would only add 10 seconds to the trip, plus the minor inconvenience of walking across the platform and finding a new seat.

Here is a great blog post about cross-platform transfers in action:
www.humantransit.org/2009/08/vienna-the-network-effect-made-real.html

For a semi-local example, try taking Bart with a cross-platform transfer at MacArthur station or downtown Oakland. This is what it looks like on Google Transit: "0 seconds for transfer"
maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=2160+Shattuck+Avenue,+Berkeley,+CA+94704+(Downtown+Berkeley+BART+Station)&daddr=embarcadero+station,+san+francisco+ca&hl=en&geocode=CUX42lIFQk2MFQLaQQId0VW2-CGED3wNdgwdQimn4BjKnX6FgDGFyMOF0J78SA%3BFRutQAIdxV20-ClbXTTeY4CFgDHJ-kQa5830Eg&mra=pe&mrcr=0&dirflg=r&ttype=dep&date=05%2F20%2F10&time=8:34pm&noexp=0&noal=0&sort=&sll=37.848833,-122.33139&sspn=0.127416,0.219383&ie=UTF8&ll=37.831209,-122.33242&spn=0.127447,0.219383&z=12&start=0
At nights and on weekends, all trips from the Richmond line (which includes Berkeley) or the Fremont line require a cross-platform connection to get to San Francisco, but it works really well. Now, BART also runs direct service to San Francisco during rush hours, but half the trips are still cross-platform transfers, which effectively doubles the frequency of service to SF with the same number of trains.

[adamv]

An new development on that large empty lot at Pico & Ssan Vincente. . .

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Councilmember Wesson <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:15 PM
Subject: Midtown Crossing Is Coming
To: Councilmember Wesson <[e-mail]>


Dear CD 10 Stakeholders:

It is with pleasure that I share with you that the City Council last
Friday approved the financing for the 2nd Phase of Midtown Crossings,
the major retail project at Pico and San Vicente. Construction began on
Friday following the Council’s approval.

This represents a huge victory for the residents of our community, and
I am deeply grateful for your continued support throughout this lengthy
process.

As you know, the project is located where the old Sears/Builders
Emporium building was situated. An unsightly 9-acre hole in the ground
has been what we have had to endure for far too many years.

Unfair stereotypes about the economic viability of our community, and
the current economic environment have made attracting new retailers and
new developments very difficult. However, through working together, we
have been able to achieve something truly remarkable. This project will
become a major catalyst for the revitalization of the surrounding
neighborhoods.

Phase 2 of the development at Midtown Crossings will consist of 310,000
square feet of retail space, including a 144,000 square foot Lowe’s
Home Improvement store. Together with other retail and full-service
restaurants, the project is expected to generate over 800 new jobs, and
$2.3 million dollars a year in sales tax revenue.

Our residents expect and deserve quality retail options in their
community, like other nearby communities. Thank you for your support in
paving the way to finally realizing that important goal.



Herb

[jdrcrasher]

May 20, 2010 14:37:47 GMT -8 jeisenbe said:

See this post for details on adding a second track and branching off, at each level:
transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=eastside&thread=78&page=9#12678

This will be more difficult now that the station area at Wilshire/Vermont has been developed, but basically you dig down next to the existing tracks and platforms, and add another track and platform on each level, which will branch off to the south for the Vermont subway extension.

This has to happen!!!

[tobias087]

This was the map created by Justin Walker and presented at the Transit Coalition meeting earlier tonight. It includes many of the 30/10 projects, as well as a few that would be post-Measure R. It is also posted in the 30/10 thread.

This map shows the Crenshaw line meeting the Westside subway at La Brea, but the choice of routing is an important discussion topic. As I'm sure many of you are aware, the Metro study on this identified La Brea, Fairfax, and routes through West Hollywood, including the one being studied as the Pink line, as possible options.




A larger size can be seen here:
www.flickr.com/photos/48314275@N06/4724851423/sizes/l/

[Dan Wentzel]

Jun 23, 2010 1:28:21 GMT -8 tobias087 said:

This was the map created by Justin Walker and presented at the Transit Coalition meeting earlier tonight. It includes many of the 30/10 projects, as well as a few that would be post-Measure R. It is also posted in the 30/10 thread.

This map shows the Crenshaw line meeting the Westside subway at La Brea, but the choice of routing is an important discussion topic. As I'm sure many of you are aware, the Metro study on this identified La Brea, Fairfax, and routes through West Hollywood, including the one being studied as the Pink line, as possible options.

After a Metro planning meeting I was discussing this with a Metro staffer who told me that if Metro doesn't go forward with the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment for federal funding at this time, that Metro has already invested significant time and money studying this corridor and knows that it needs "something" -- plus West Hollywood voted 83% for Measure R which was more than any other city.

I expect that the new maps we are seeing with the Crenshaw Line intersecting with Wilshire at Fairfax, La Cienega and San Vicente are a recognition that if the Santa Monica Blvd. line doesn't go through as part of the Westside subway extension, that we won't see Crenshaw as a straight shot up LaBrea, leaving the high ridership areas near the Grove and Beverly Center and West Hollywood completely out of the rail system.

This map I find highly significant:

[trackman]

In my opinion, I feel the extension options that were once looked at... the ones sending the Crenshaw line far to the west - to La Cienega - is too too far. If we zoomed out, we'd see a Crenshaw line that zig zagged all over the place. Sure, it provides access, but at a cost to trip time.

Going up La Brea is ideal. I feel if a line from West Hollwood were to remain in some form, perhaps it should go elsewhere... such as southwesterly out Venice as an option.

Below is for fun; however is consistent with this line of thought. It shows the West Hollywood line continuing along Santa Monica Blvd to some point in the east. Please forgive the station location ideas right now, the intent is to show alignment.

[Dan Wentzel]

Jun 23, 2010 20:40:14 GMT -8 @trackman said:

In my opinion, I feel the extension options that were once looked at... the ones sending the Crenshaw line far to the west - to La Cienega - is too too far. If we zoomed out, we'd see a Crenshaw line that zig zagged all over the place. Sure, it provides access, but at a cost to trip time.

Going up La Brea is ideal.

How and why is a straight shot up LaBrea "ideal"?

There is nothing wrong with a "zig zag". Have you seen the alignments in southern Manhattan, downtown Brooklyn and the crosstown G-Line in Brooklyn/Queens?

Most rail alignments are not "straight lines" even if they are drawn that way on a map such as on the famous London map.



As a whole this line wouldn't be all that "zig-zaggy" by those standards anyway.

It's all a trade off and I do not believe the few minutes of time saving as extra "speed" of going straight up La Brea is worth the reduced access and ridership by bypassing the other areas.

An extra few minutes to travel from Hollywood/Highland to LAX exchange for greater access to WeHo and the BeverlyCenter or Grove areas is the real "ideal", in my opinion.

This will all be argued out at the public forums, and I think that if WeHo is cut out of the Westside Subway extension, after all the time and money Metro has spent studying the Santa Monica Blvd. corridor, and that 83% of West Hollywood voted for Measure R -- more than any other city, I think politically the argument of "access" over "speed" from LAX to Hollywood will win out. Certainly, that is the argument the people who live in the work in the area will attempt to make over the people who simply want to travel through the area quickly.

With the western swing to WeHo and either the Grove or Beverly Center, the trip between Hollywood and LAX will still be quicker than any current public transit alternatives and still be a quality alternative to driving.

No one can explain to me why La Brea is "ideal" on its own except for people who want the quickest path to LAX from the San Fernando Valley (which still requires transfers in North Hollywood and Hollywood), regardless of whether that reduces access to the system for people living, working and playing between those two areas.

And in the case of traveling between LAX and the San Fernando Valley, connecting the Sepulveda Pass project with LAX seems like a quicker alternative anyway for people traveling to/from the San Fernando Valley and LAX.

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

While I will argue for the SanVicente/SantaMonica Blvd. alignment if the West Hollywood spur is dropped from the Westside subway extension, it is possible that Metro may just decide that sending the Crenshaw extension north up Fairfax is the compromise between those who want "access" and those who want "speed". It wouldn't be a zig zag, would have higher ridership potential, would still be quick, and would be a fitting rising from the ashes of the transit corridor that was originally supposed to be the northern branch from Wilshire of the Red Line.

Originally, the Red Line was supposed to go up Fairfax, not Vermont, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was sentimentality from Metro about the opportunity to have a Fairfax alignment again.

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

I feel if a line from West Hollwood were to remain in some form, perhaps it should go elsewhere... such as southwesterly out Venice as an option.

Below is for fun; however is consistent with this line of thought. It shows the West Hollywood line continuing along Santa Monica Blvd to some point in the east. Please forgive the station location ideas right now, the intent is to show alignment.

Note: In my blog, I proposed a modern streetcar alignment involving Sunset/Santa Monica Blvd., using the unused ROW in the back end of Beverly Hills, which could easily be extended instead down La Cienega to Venice to the beach.

There is probably no chance of digging this underground in the next 50 years because of all of the projects ahead of it. But if these areas got behind a streetcar, they could probably put one together within a decade as I believe once the Broadway streetcar goes online, demand for them will spread throughout the area.



The one problem with this I heard was someone stating "what about the annual Gay Pride Parade in June and Sunset Junction street festival"? My feeling is that just like in San Francisco when the F-Line isn't available, substitute buses can run on those two days.

I think modern streetcars should run in transit only lanes anyway. I have no problem taking away a lane of traffic in each direction on Sunset, Santa Monica, La Cienega and Venice, but I suspect motorists might complain.

[tobias087]

A Crenshaw line that used the West Hollywood routing would run about 18 miles from Hollywood/Highland to the LAX area. (A La Brea route would run about 3 miles shorter, or about 6 minutes less using the Blue line segment between Washington and Florence as a guide) + and additional 9 minutes for the Red line from the Orange line, and an average wait time of 2.5 minutes, with 5 minute headways.

Meanwhile, the Sepulveda corridor line would run about 9 miles from the Purple line to LAX, and about 17.5 miles from the Orange line.

In my opinion, regardless of which way the Crenshaw is routed, Sepulveda will still be the primary route from the Valley to the airport, and it would be much better to route Crenshaw to pick up the most destinations. I personally favor the West Hollywood route, if only because the time already spent studying it could help expedite the construction process.

Also, if we put a rail corridor on Fairfax, it would be difficult to justify later adding La Brea or La Cienega in the near-term. Having parallel rail lines 1 mile apart is tough to sell to the parts of the county where the rail density will be one every 5 miles. Building on La Cienega first, it would be easier to later push for rail 2 miles away on La Brea.

[trackman]

I started typing, but my browser failed... just when I was about to hit "Post Reply". Fortunately, I did a screen capture before it was too late.

Begin below:

[Dan Wentzel]

With Metro's Planning and Programming Committee recommending the LPA for the Westside Subway Extension not have a West Hollywood spur nor even a transfer structure at La Cienega...

This structure is not recommended for inclusion in the LPA. The cost of $135 million is not within the available funding reserved through the LRTP for the project. Additionally, the heavy rail option for the West Hollywood Line did not perform as well as anticipated when evaluated against FTA New Starts criteria in the DEIS/DEIR. As such, the high cost of the connection structure is not justified when there may be alternative, less costly, solutions to serve the route through West Hollywood. While the DEIS/DEIR identifies that the West Hollywood line has very high potential as a transit corridor, further study is needed to determine if a more cost-effective transit alternative such as light rail subway may provide a project that would be more competitive under federal funding criteria. If such an alternative were selected in the future, there would not be the need for a heavy rail connection structure.

It is interesting that their recommendations make reference to a light-rail subway for West Hollywood and its high potential as a transit corridor.

So I expect many advocates of the "Pink Line" will seek to have it be part of the northern extension of the "Rose Line".

[jdrcrasher]

Dan, this is not concrete, nor should it be.

[matthewb]

Jun 24, 2010 20:40:24 GMT -8 @trackman said:

I started typing, but my browser failed... just when I was about to hit "Post Reply". Fortunately, I did a screen capture before it was too late.

Begin below:

The line along Santa Monica Blvd through Hollywood could continue northeast to Downtown Glendale and Burbank along Hyperion, Glendale, Brand, and Glenoaks.

[Dan Wentzel]

Oct 12, 2010 15:08:25 GMT -8 jdrcrasher said:

Dan, this is not concrete, nor should it be.

Of course not. Nothing is concrete until you actually ride it. But that won't stop people from lobbying for it.

[trackman]

Mmm... the Metro recommendation has me wondering if the boardmembers will ask staff to formally study an LRT line for WeHo.

If that happens, the logical assumption is to connect the Pink Line alignment to Crenshaw; however, might other alignments be considered too?

Venice?

That would be my hope.

[Dan Wentzel]

Theoretically, you could have both. A light rail line between Hollywood/Highland and San Vicente/Beverly Center which has one branch joining with the Crenshaw Line via San Vicente and another one which heads down La Cienega to Venice and then to LAX and/or Venice beach. The light rail line could extend from LaBrea/Santa Monica to Sunset Junction then down Sunset to downtown or go north from Hollywood to the Burbank media district and ultimately the Airport and/or HSR station.

The one advantage of the light rail option is that it increases the options of expanding in other directions.

[bzcat]

Oct 13, 2010 8:36:30 GMT -8 Dan Wentzel said:

Theoretically, you could have both. A light rail line between Hollywood/Highland and San Vicente/Beverly Center which has one branch joining with the Crenshaw Line via San Vicente and another one which heads down La Cienega to Venice and then to LAX and/or Venice beach. The light rail line could extend from LaBrea/Santa Monica to Sunset Junction then down Sunset to downtown or go north from Hollywood to the Burbank media district and ultimately the Airport and/or HSR station.

The one advantage of the light rail option is that it increases the options of expanding in other directions.

Sort of like this?

maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=109982261189696647553.000492747cf29fbd56df1&ll=34.085649,-118.378372&spn=0.36623,0.727158&z=11

[bobdavis]

I would add a line starting in East Pasadena, at the present Gold Line terminal, running down Rosemead/Lakewood Blvd (a.k.a. State Highway 19) to PCH or turning westward to serve the Long Beach Airport and connecting with the Blue Line. Granted, this is in the "I should live so long" category, but cyber-dreaming is cheap. Rosemead Blvd is currently undergoing street improvements, and whenever I see the construction activity I think "Wouldn't It Be Nice" (as the Beach Boys would say) if they were doing utility relocations in preparation for the "19 Line". Maybe it could connect with a restoration of the Pacific Electric railway to Huntington Beach and Balboa, which of course would be the "Tan Line". (I know transit is serious business, but when one reaches my age, a good chuckle is not to be missed)

[bzcat]

The Rosemead/"19 line" corridor is pretty low density once it goes south of El Monte so while I like the routing you suggested, it maybe something of a rapid bus route... Certainly in turns of priority, a rail or full blown BRT on this corridor will have to come after the City of Industry/SGV east-west rail line.

[jdrcrasher]

A Rosemead line may overall go through lower density but there are good reasons why it could be built.

But the real good thing that would come out of it is that if someone wants to get from, say, El Monte to Long Beach (via rail), they won't have to take the Silver Line to Downtown LA, and THEN get on the Blue Line.

This is why I consider this sort of line the 405 Corridor's "other half".


BTW, instead of creating a "spider-like" system that only focuses on the MAIN CENTER, a "web-like" network focuses on that as well as the SMALLER CENTERS . This method would greatly encourage density. Our freeway system already uses this design, and with good reason. Let's face it, LA is polycentric, and while Downtown may explode with growth, this town will NEVER be monocentric like New York or Chicago.

Oct 13, 2010 21:22:35 GMT -8 bobdavis said:

Maybe it could connect with a restoration of the Pacific Electric railway to Huntington Beach and Balboa, which of course would be the "Tan Line". (I know transit is serious business, but when one reaches my age, a good chuckle is not to be missed)

Are you talking about the ROW that branches off from the Blue Line at the Willow Station?

[bobdavis]

Yes, the PE ancestor of the "Tan Line" used to branch off at Willow, run diagonally through Long Beach, run along the still-visible right of way through Seal Beach and Sunset Beach, and follow the coast and then run down the Balboa Peninsula. A special service was the "Commodore", an extra-fare train usually featuring PE Officers' Car 1299. According to some reports, this train ran because O. A. Smith, the president of PE had a house at Balboa, and figured as long as the car was running for him, he might as well carry some passengers and make a little money for the company. The car is preserved at Orange Empire, and as it did after most of PE was de-electrified, gets around with the help of a diesel locomotive (at least until some electric work is completed.
Regarding the "19" Line (Rosemead-Lakewood): Back in the 1980's, I followed a blues band that sometimes played at Panama Joe's in the Belmont Shore area of Long Beach. Checking the appropriate "Interurbans Special" I found that one of the PE local lines went right by the joint. I then figured out that, even if the cars ran all night, taking the local to downtown Long Beach, the Long Beach Line to 6th & Main, and the Monrovia-Glendora Line to Duarte (where I lived at the time), would have been the "long way around the barn". One of the big flaws in the PE system was its lack of "cross-town" connecting lines such as the one I'm envisioning here.

[jeisenbe]

Bobdavis,

Your trip from Duarte to Long Beach would be long even with a "more direct" light rail route.

With a "Hwy 19" line on Lakewood and Rosemead, the route would be about 37 miles long, starting at the future Gold Line Duarte station, transfering to the Rosemead Light rail, and then taking a bus from Lakewood & PCH in Long Beach to Belmont shore.

The route thru Downtown on the future Blue Line and regional connector will be only a few miles longer, 48 miles to be exact, and would only have one transfer (to a LB Transit bus) at the end.

If we want to speed up trips from the San Gabriel Vally to Long Beach, express "Metrolink" trains from Union Station to Willow station (along the wide right-of-way) would save up 15 minutes or more, equal to the time savings of this entirely new rail line on the Hwy 19 route.

That's why hub-and-spoke systems, with everything headed to the center of the city, work so well; many trips are only a little longer than they would be with a direct route, and you build much less track.

Now, I would support BRT on Lakewood and Rosemead, and I would love to see rail service someday (either at-grade light rail, or Metrolink style trails along the 605 route), but there are higher priorities.

[metrocenter]

^^ Please fix!

Fix What? Some details might help.

Edit: the url tags were messed up, leading to a garbled mess. It has been cleaned up by the user.

[bobdavis]

Replying to the the comment from jeisenbe: The "19" line is mostly a fantasy projection, and if there were such a line, it would be of more use to for shorter trips. From time to time, I've used the Metro 266 bus and have either planned well or been lucky making connections with the Foothill 187 to reach locations that will someday be served by the Gold Line Foothill Extension. The bad thing about the 266 is that it runs on a 30 to 40 min. headway except during rush hours. This is the sort of service interval that make people with cars shun public transit.
(I think I'm getting way off topic, so I have any other ideas for this area, they'll be posted in the "far future" section.)

[jdrcrasher]

Yes a Rosemead/Lakewood LRT would be a ways off. But it should eventually be included in the LRTP.

Oct 16, 2010 23:08:39 GMT -8 jeisenbe said:

That's why hub-and-spoke systems, with everything headed to the center of the city, work so well; many trips are only a little longer than they would be with a direct route, and you build much less track.

But that's mainly when a city is monocentric, which LA is not...

[LAofAnaheim]

Nov 1, 2010 14:32:36 GMT -8 jdrcrasher said:

Yes a Rosemead/Lakewood LRT would be a ways off. But it should eventually be included in the LRTP.

Oct 16, 2010 23:08:39 GMT -8 jeisenbe said:

That's why hub-and-spoke systems, with everything headed to the center of the city, work so well; many trips are only a little longer than they would be with a direct route, and you build much less track.

But that's mainly when a city is monocentric, which LA is not...

I agree with jeisenbe; we are moving toward a hub-and-spoke system which works well for the city of LA. We are a "centers of centers" city; not confined to one central district. That's why having lines intersect in downtown LA, westside, Westwood, and South LA make absolute sense.

And, in regards to LA not being a monocentric city; that is both true-false. LA definitely has many activity centers. The amount of jobs located on the Wilshire corridor and Century City rival downtown LA by itself. However, in the end, downtown LA is still the center of the city, with walkable neighborhoods like the Old Bank District, Chinatown, Little Tokyo, Financial District, South Park, Arts District, etc.. all confined within a 3 mile radius. Whereas, the westside districts can be miles large. Also, downtown LA is central with Staples Center, the Cathedral of our Lady of Angels, the Walt Disney Concert Hall, and Union Station. So, it makes absolute sense to have the prime center of transit in downtown LA where areas are more dense and walkable. In the westside or anywhere else, you have to walk miles to go from Koreatown to Little Ethiopia to Hollywood to Bicycle Kitchen, etc... in downtown LA.....it's reduced to blocks.

[Dan Wentzel]

Los Angeles is more like London, a sprawling Metropolis which although has a central business district, has many hubs including several "Union Stations" carrying commuters in every direction.