|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 2, 2010 13:03:47 GMT -8
London is still a lot more monocentric than Los Angeles. And it's more tightly packed. The distance from say, Islington to Croydon is only about 14 miles or so.
Part of the problem with defining Los Angeles is that the city is evolving. A lot of downtown landmarks — Staples Center, Disney Hall, the cathedral, etc. — are relatively new buildings which are maybe a decade or so old.
(Of the three I mentioned, Staples Center is the oldest with a 1999 opening).
Downtown Los Angeles has also seen many other less flashy, but still important changes, such as the new apartments and condos in Little Tokyo. (Our relatively-new downtown-centric rail system has helped as well.)
This means that Los Angeles is less of a donut than it used to be, but there's still plenty of commuters who don't head for downtown. They spend their time on the 405 between Sherman Oaks and Santa Monica or the 91 between the South Bay and Orange County.
Our hub-and-spoke system will have to have rims as well as spokes.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 2, 2010 14:23:12 GMT -8
^ The 405 and Rosemead/Lakewood corridors are examples of our network's possible "rim" lines if built, would allow for MUCH higher growth, due to the fact that fewer people would need to go to Downtown to go in a different direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 2, 2010 14:24:31 GMT -8
In terms of priority, there is no doubt we are tackling the highest one right now:
1. Wilshire line
2. Downtown connector
The Foothill extension and Crenshaw lines by themselves are really low priority but are accelerated for "regional balance".
That's not to suggest that these lines are no good... just that their full utility won't be realized until the other parts of the network is completed (i.e. Intra-SGV rail line for the Foothill extension; WeHo extension for the Crenshaw line).
The final build-out of our rail system is really going to resemble a web as oppose to traditional hub-and spoke. There will be several major nodes (roughly in order of importance):
1. Metro Center (Purple, Red, Blue, Gold, Downtown Streetcar)
2. Union Station (Purple, Red, Blue, Santa Ana Branch, Metrolink, Amtrak, CAHSR)
3. Century/Aviation (Crenshaw, Green, 405 corridor, LAX express)
4. UCLA/Westwood (Purple, 405 corridor)
5. Hollywood/Highland (Red, Crenshaw)
6. North Hollywood (Red, Orange, Burbank LRT)
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 2, 2010 14:40:05 GMT -8
In terms of priority, there is no doubt we are tackling the highest one right now: 1. Wilshire line 2. Downtown connector The Foothill extension and Crenshaw lines by themselves are really low priority but are accelerated for "regional balance". That's not to suggest that these lines are no good... just that their full utility won't be realized until the other parts of the network is completed (i.e. Intra-SGV rail line for the Foothill extension; WeHo extension for the Crenshaw line). The final build-out of our rail system is really going to resemble a web as oppose to traditional hub-and spoke. There will be several major nodes (roughly in order of importance): 1. Metro Center (Purple, Red, Blue, Gold, Downtown Streetcar) 2. Union Station (Purple, Red, Blue, Santa Ana Branch, Metrolink, Amtrak, CAHSR) 3. Century/Aviation (Crenshaw, Green, 405 corridor, LAX express) 4. UCLA/Westwood (Purple, 405 corridor) 5. Hollywood/Highland (Red, Crenshaw) 6. North Hollywood (Red, Orange, Burbank LRT) Is Burbank LRT even on the drawing boards? I think we should exclude for now..it's like saying the Vermont subway for Wilshire/Vermont. Plans that are still unfunded. I didn't think the downtown streetcar connected with 7th street/Metro Center station. Options 1 and 2 connect with Pershing Square and Civic Center station. (http://www.lastreetcar.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/LASI_2010-04-23_rev.006.pdf) Eventhough this portion is unfunded; which I will exclude for now, but I heavily believe that the Norwalk Metrolink station will become an important transit center once the Green Line connects here. It will be the Green Line South Bay connection for OC residents. I think this will be # 6 or # 7 above. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 2, 2010 14:54:34 GMT -8
There will be several major nodes (roughly in order of importance): 1. Metro Center (Purple, Red, Blue, Gold, Downtown Streetcar) 2. Union Station (Purple, Red, Blue, Santa Ana Branch, Metrolink, Amtrak, CAHSR) 3. Century/Aviation (Crenshaw, Green, 405 corridor, LAX express) 4. UCLA/Westwood (Purple, 405 corridor) 5. Hollywood/Highland (Red, Crenshaw) 6. North Hollywood (Red, Orange, Burbank LRT) Even if it's on the bottom, you've got to include on that list Imperial/Wilmington (Rosa Parks). That station has been one of the busiest in the system for many years, due to the Green-Blue transfers. People use that station to transfer in three directions: LAX area, Downtown L.A., and Long Beach. (Sorry to be cheeky, but nobody really has Norwalk as a destination.) That station will be even busier once the Green Line actually serves LAX (at Century/Aviation). I also think Wilshire/Vermont will become a pretty important transfer point once the Westside Subway is finished. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 2, 2010 15:04:00 GMT -8
Even if it's on the bottom, you've got to include on that list Imperial/Wilmington (Rosa Parks). That station has been one of the busiest in the system for many years, due to the Green-Blue transfers. People use that station to transfer in three directions: LAX area, Downtown L.A., and Long Beach. (Sorry to be cheeky, but nobody really has Norwalk as a destination.) Not many people have Imperial/Wilmington as a destination either. It's a transfer point. Same logic with Norwalk metrolink station when that connects with the Green Line. There's thousands of OC people who commute to LA, especially to the South Bay or westside for work. Metrolink doesn't work for them (until the Westside subway is built). But for those people who work in El Segundo, which is a heavy business area, the Green Line connection will be huge. I can see Imperial/Wilmington being cannibalized by the new Crenshaw Line. A lot of people coming from downtown wanting to go to South Bay (not many eastbound travelers to Norwalk from dtla), use Blue to the Green. More frequncies and better reliability than the Silver Line and Green Line transfer. Once Expo to Crenshaw is built; people will see time savings from going west on Expo Line and transferring southbound to Crenshaw Line (and vice versa). I think we need to really define what a "mega-transfer" station will be for LA. Right now, it's undeniably Union Station and 7th street/Metro Center. Thousands of people do tranfers at those stations. Imperial/Wilmington is a distant 3rd. London, Paris, New York, et al, have lot of transfer stations, but nothing as busy as Charing Cross (London), Euston (London), Penn Station (New York), Grand Central Terminal (New York). Union Station and 7th street are our "mega-transfer stations". Only Westwood and again, Norwalk, will be our other two I believe. Not every transfer station that we have should be considered in the same league with Union Station and 7th street. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 2, 2010 16:36:13 GMT -8
Is Burbank LRT even on the drawing boards? I think we should exclude for now..it's like saying the Vermont subway for Wilshire/Vermont. Plans that are still unfunded. Burbank/Glendale corridor is in Metro's long term plan. It's unfunded but it is in there. Vermont subway is not in Metro's long term plan and only exists in our imagination. This is why I didn't include Wilshire/Vermont in the "major node" list. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 2, 2010 16:41:28 GMT -8
Little Tokyo will be a significant transfer point as well. Even though southbound riders will be able to transfer at a number of stations, most will probably choose the first opportunity so that they make sure that they get a seat.
It's too bad that there's not an Expo station at Grand as that could be a good transfer point as well for existing bus riders near the blue line that may want to switch to rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 2, 2010 16:46:08 GMT -8
Even if it's on the bottom, you've got to include on that list Imperial/Wilmington (Rosa Parks). That station has been one of the busiest in the system for many years, due to the Green-Blue transfers. People use that station to transfer in three directions: LAX area, Downtown L.A., and Long Beach. (Sorry to be cheeky, but nobody really has Norwalk as a destination.) Not many people have Imperial/Wilmington as a destination either. It's a transfer point. Same logic with Norwalk metrolink station when that connects with the Green Line. There's thousands of OC people who commute to LA, especially to the South Bay or westside for work. Metrolink doesn't work for them (until the Westside subway is built). But for those people who work in El Segundo, which is a heavy business area, the Green Line connection will be huge. I can see Imperial/Wilmington being cannibalized by the new Crenshaw Line. A lot of people coming from downtown wanting to go to South Bay (not many eastbound travelers to Norwalk from dtla), use Blue to the Green. More frequncies and better reliability than the Silver Line and Green Line transfer. Once Expo to Crenshaw is built; people will see time savings from going west on Expo Line and transferring southbound to Crenshaw Line (and vice versa). I think we need to really define what a "mega-transfer" station will be for LA. Right now, it's undeniably Union Station and 7th street/Metro Center. Thousands of people do tranfers at those stations. Imperial/Wilmington is a distant 3rd. London, Paris, New York, et al, have lot of transfer stations, but nothing as busy as Charing Cross (London), Euston (London), Penn Station (New York), Grand Central Terminal (New York). Union Station and 7th street are our "mega-transfer stations". Only Westwood and again, Norwalk, will be our other two I believe. Not every transfer station that we have should be considered in the same league with Union Station and 7th street. I agree with you that Imperial/Wilmington, while important connection for Blue/Green, isn't in the same league as the other major "node". A mega station or node is both important transfer point and a destination in itself. Metro Center, Union Station, Westwood, Century/Aviation, Hollywood Highland, and North Hollywood are all what I would considered major nodes because they fit both requirements. Norwalk is debatable. Norwalk is not a major destination and the only large employer is LA County. And in terms of transfers, I don't know how many people commute from OC to South Bay but it's probably not as much as SFV to Westside, SGV to Downtown, or South Bay to Westside/Downtown. In any case, like the Vermont subway, the Green line extension to Norwalk Metrolink is not in Metro's long term plan so we can't count on it ever being build. And without that last mile, Norwalk Metrolink is never going to be a major transfer station. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 2, 2010 16:50:51 GMT -8
Sorry to be cheeky, but nobody really has Norwalk as a destination. I couldn't find green line ridership by station. Is that branch really much lower, or do they pick up a reasonable number of park and riders? |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 2, 2010 19:14:37 GMT -8
I think we need to really define what a "mega-transfer" station will be for LA. Right now, it's undeniably Union Station and 7th street/Metro Center. Thousands of people do tranfers at those stations. Imperial/Wilmington is a distant 3rd. London, Paris, New York, et al, have lot of transfer stations, but nothing as busy as Charing Cross (London), Euston (London), Penn Station (New York), Grand Central Terminal (New York). Union Station and 7th street are our "mega-transfer stations". Only Westwood and again, Norwalk, will be our other two I believe. Not every transfer station that we have should be considered in the same league with Union Station and 7th street. All of those London and New York stations you mentioned are commuter train stations as well as subway stations. The biggest and busiest of the Tokyo stations are subway and commuter train stations as well. It would seem that "Metro to Metrolink" connections may not be a requirement for mega-transfer status, but it would certainly help. Unfortunately, Metrolink's route map would preclude very many subway-to-commuter transfers, unless a) the Norwalk extension gets built b) the Gold Line reaches Claremont or c) one of the San Fernando Valley stations got Metro Rail. A very developed subway system, such as London, Tokyo, Paris, New York, should potentially have dozens of transfer points. Obviously, our definition would have to include "things to do beyond the train station" — museums, ballpark, L.A. Live, shopping, etc. or even "lots of people live/ work/ play here" |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 2, 2010 19:59:08 GMT -8
Is Burbank LRT even on the drawing boards? I think we should exclude for now..it's like saying the Vermont subway for Wilshire/Vermont. Plans that are still unfunded. Burbank/Glendale corridor is in Metro's long term plan. It's unfunded but it is in there. Vermont subway is not in Metro's long term plan and only exists in our imagination. This is why I didn't include Wilshire/Vermont in the "major node" list. Not true. The "Vermont Corridor Subway" is indeed in the 2009 LRTP. It is listed as Tier 2 project (i.e. projects needing further definition). A "Burbank/Glendale LRT from LA Union Station to Burbank Metrolink Station" project is really only listed in the Tier 1 category because Metro completed an EIR for the project in 1994. |
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Nov 3, 2010 5:45:29 GMT -8
Being in the LRTP is a big step. It gives Metro a hunting license to go after Federal funding. Although, until funding is allocated, it really is not yet a project. It needs funding. In the end, it also needs a champion. Either an elected official or Metro.
Is anyone championing either project. Is a drum beat being heard?
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 3, 2010 7:51:17 GMT -8
Being in the LRTP is a big step. It gives Metro a hunting license to go after Federal funding. Although, until funding is allocated, it really is not yet a project. In general, federal funding requires local funding. Now over the next three decades, anything can happen. However, Measure R has already raised the sales tax to fund other projects, and short of another sales tax increase, I'm not sure where local funding for the Burbank/Glendale Line would come from. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 3, 2010 12:51:10 GMT -8
I'm a big fan of tax increment financing, or some other kind of value capture. The benefits to real estate values in Glendale alone should finance a metro line, but it doesn't seem we've worked out the best model for making that value capture efficient. If we were to do so, imagine how that could accelerate infrastructure investments in general, including metro and local streetcar systems.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Nov 3, 2010 15:57:07 GMT -8
Tax assessment districts seem like a good idea, but not for small businesses, even if it will ultimately benefit them. The MTA attempted to do this to my area when it built the Red line, but because of the Sinkhole at Barnsdale Park just up the street, Metro decided to not tax the area it just caused so much harm to (although Kaiser must have paid something for the portal). Anyway, if there are only big box retail, then it might just work. Glendale would benefit enormously. However, in my opinion, there should be an exemption for small businesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 4, 2010 10:24:41 GMT -8
Yes, I don't think we have the right model yet. Maybe there could be some financing that could be captured immediately from big businesses, while small businesses and property owners would be affected by tax assessments after the line gets built. Presumably this future income could be used to guarantee a bond to finance construction. Anyway, I'm not a financial or governmental expert, so I'm sure these naive ideas would be fraught with unforeseen complications. Nevertheless, this kind of financing is as close as I can think of to a line paying for its own construction as much as possible. Ultimately, that's what's needed if we are going to be able to scale development to a full system buildout in LA.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 12, 2013 16:24:09 GMT -8
I just read through this thread. Is there any new information not two and a half years old? much of the thread was about whether or not the Westside Subway extension would include the Pink line? I'm assuming they didn't include the Pink Line or a junction point for a future Pink Line? the last post about the issue seemed to be indicating that the Pink Line would probably be dropped. It would be ideal if they built the Pink Line and a phase two Crenshaw line and had the Pink Line connecting Hollywood and West Hollywood and Cedars Sinai to the Purple Line and the Crenshaw line taking La brea and connecting to the purple line and red line.
How on earth would they do the expansion of the Hollywood station? Would they build an unconnected (by rail line) station at Hollywood/LaBrea and have a below ground corridor for people to walk from one station to the next?
Regarding the Pink Line extending down La Cienega and then Venice (to the Beach), I wonder how possible this is now. iirc, it's tough to do light rail at or above grade from the Expo Line to Sepulveda (lots of ups and downs because of traffic, at least that's what I remember of the plans from when Venice was a possible alignment studied and discarded for the Expo line phase two). and you'd have to go below grade to go under the 405 and then return to grade but probably require grade separations at Lincoln or Centinela. I also thought there were major utilities under the Venice Median, which might make tunneling under Venice for a venice subway pretty difficult, or rather deep. Also the new mid-street bents chosen for the Expo Line phase two might make tunneling under Venice completely impossible, at the very least doing a cut and cover station installment would be pretty difficult to envisage now, and you'd probably want a stop at the expo line to facilitate transfers.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 13, 2013 11:02:26 GMT -8
1. There has been no discussion because Crenshaw 2 is so far off the map at this point. If Crenshaw 2 happens, the consensus is of course that it needs to connect with both Purple and Red line. The Hollywood Highland station will not be able to handle another rail line so you will have to physically construct another station and connect the two. This is not difficult as it is done all the time around the world when a new rail line is build. You just build the new station below or next to the existing one and connect it with pedestrian corridors and elevators.
2. If there is light rail on Venice west of Mid City, there will be no need for tunnel under 405. The street is wide enough to handle the train running at grade and there is plenty of clearance for light rail train to pass under the existing overpass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 4, 2014 23:46:38 GMT -8
In an ideal world, the northern extension would continue farther north to the Sunset Strip and then continue east to Hollywood/Highland. Then we'd build an HRT line from Downtown to West Hollywood that would eventually link up with the Purple Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 26, 2014 17:35:39 GMT -8
Since it is not an ideal world, and since funding is scarce and fiercely fought over, there is only likely to be one mid-city north-south Metrorail line between Crenshaw/Expo and Hollywood/Highland, the fairest way to balance "speed" and local "access" to ridership generators is running the line up Fairfax.
That puts one stop within West Hollywood at Santa Monica Blvd. / Fairfax making the city happy, and one stop on Sunset at LaBrea, improving access to the Strip. The transfer station involving LACMA at Wilshire/Fairfax will be fabulous.
It takes only two minutes longer to run up Fairfax than running up LaBrea which doesn't even support a rapid bus, and gives many more riders and locals easier access to their pickups and destinations.
No one gets everything, but everybody gets something.
Compromise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 27, 2014 8:42:05 GMT -8
Why have a stop at Sunset/La Brea over Sunset/Fairfax? The latter provides far better access to the strip.
Plus, Sunset/La Brea is borderline walking distance from Hollywood/Highland.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 27, 2014 10:37:22 GMT -8
Why have a stop at Sunset/La Brea over Sunset/Fairfax? The latter provides far better access to the strip. Plus, Sunset/La Brea is borderline walking distance from Hollywood/Highland. Sunset/Fairfax is way too close to Santa Monica/Fairfax. It is just up the hill. I'd suggest having the Sunset stop half-way between Fairfax and LaBrea at Gardener then. Stop location(s) between Santa Monica/Fairfax/WestHollywood and Hollywood/Highland could get worked out later. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jun 27, 2014 11:32:16 GMT -8
My thoughts on this have always been mixed. On one hand, I feel like given the fickle history of Metro construction in this city we should take what we can get right away since god knows when we'll have a chance to expand the system again later. On the other hand, building a subpar line that precludes an ideal system build later seems short-sighted... but that's probably because I tend to be too optimistic about future sources of funding. The problem with the Fairfax and San Vincente routes is that they basically ensure that that's the last line built in that area (there would be room for one down santa monica blvd through BH still perhaps, but let's not kid ourselves... even I'm not THAT optimistic). That leaves us with a wilshire/labrea route for the northern crenshaw extension, and probably 2 options for a further expansion of the system -- either an LRT silver line concept that runs along SMB and down san vincente, or the pink line HRT concept. I've made an imgur album here: imgur.com/a/QOdbJoutlining the problems that these lines could/should try to solve and the pros and cons of each final build-out solution. I think easily the most ideal and optimistic solution is to build LaBrea now and pray that we find some way to build a pink line HRT connection later -- but one of the many issues with this is that we'd have to come to that conclusion before construction on the purple line phase 1 extension finishes so that they add back in the connection structure. My model also requires 2 connection structures in hollywood -- i admit, not being an engineer, i have no concept of their actual feasibility. But I think that doubling the red/purple capacity on the westside and in central hollywood, along with making hollywood/highland a unified transfer station between 3 lines, would make for a wildly efficient, ideal system. Again, of course, we're looking at a massive cost and a system that won't be complete until far, far down the road... but I feel that the 2 most important goals of this whole build-out are to provide service to the dense area of WeHo proper and to create a good western north-south connection for the system, and I don't think any of the crenshaw-only solutions does both, so we'll have to choose one... and choosing a san vincente alignment means we'll never get a more ideal north-south route, while choosing a fairfax alignment probably means we'll never get an ideal WeHo route. But maybe it is better to do what we can now instead of risking nothing at all getting done later. I dunno. If that's the case, I think I'd take the san vincente alignment, because a meandering north-south alignment seems less of a sacrifice than not serving WeHo proper at all. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 27, 2014 12:09:14 GMT -8
I don't think the pink line HRT via Santa Monica Blvd is ever going to come back so absent that, Fairfax is really the best option for northern extension of Crenshaw line.
If pink line had managed to survive the purple line Wilshire EIR, then La Brea would be more ideal for northern extension of Crenshaw line... a faster more direct line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 27, 2014 14:14:45 GMT -8
I do agree that the Fairfax/La Cienega/San Vicnete options limit the number of lines we can have in this area.
However, we have to consider our options and weigh short-term benefits vs. long-term benefits. A second line passing through West Hollywood, at the present rate of funding, is probably 50 years away, maybe a little less if enough people rallied for it. A La Brea line would be fast and cheap, but at the expense of missing a lot of destinations, in a town that (arguably) has supported public transit the most in the polls.
I personally still prefer the La Cienega route. I wish the San Vicente route could be done, but it's realistically way too much. La Cienega gets close to a major retail spot (Beverly Center), close enough to the heart of West Hollywood, and still manages to make relevant connections east (Fairfax, La Brea).
Fairfax is a decent compromise - connects another major retail spot (Farmer's Market/The Grove), serves Museum Row, and still makes solid connections in West Hollywood (though at an unfortunate distance from the nightclubs at San Vicente and higher density apartment complexes near La Cienega).
La Brea connects to...well, Pink's, the New Beverly theater, Golden Apple Comics, and Target. Not exactly big draws for riders or even tourists (with the arguable exception of Pink's).
I really wouldn't mind seeing any of these built, but the La Brea route is clearly the weakest of the three.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 27, 2014 15:42:13 GMT -8
Hmm? I had always pictured serving this area by means of a Santa Monica Bl. line as an extension off the old Silver Line concept. Of course, the trick then becomes getting Beverly Hills on board. If that didn't pan out then West Ho would be the terminus.
Anyway, I'm in agreement with the "Let's take what we can get and roll with it." model. In L.A.'s piece-meal, let's-not-coordinate-these-projects-with-one-another mentality, it's the only thing left.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 27, 2014 16:03:58 GMT -8
I do agree that the Fairfax/La Cienega/San Vicnete options limit the number of lines we can have in this area. However, we have to consider our options and weigh short-term benefits vs. long-term benefits. A second line passing through West Hollywood, at the present rate of funding, is probably 50 years away, maybe a little less if enough people rallied for it. A La Brea line would be fast and cheap, but at the expense of missing a lot of destinations, in a town that (arguably) has supported public transit the most in the polls. I personally still prefer the La Cienega route. I wish the San Vicente route could be done, but it's realistically way too much. La Cienega gets close to a major retail spot (Beverly Center), close enough to the heart of West Hollywood, and still manages to make relevant connections east (Fairfax, La Brea). Fairfax is a decent compromise - connects another major retail spot (Farmer's Market/The Grove), serves Museum Row, and still makes solid connections in West Hollywood (though at an unfortunate distance from the nightclubs at San Vicente and higher density apartment complexes near La Cienega). La Brea connects to...well, Pink's, the New Beverly theater, Golden Apple Comics, and Target. Not exactly big draws for riders or even tourists (with the arguable exception of Pink's). I really wouldn't mind seeing any of these built, but the La Brea route is clearly the weakest of the three. I probably concur on the Fairfax route. Another big negative for La Cienega is that tunnleing would be required in Beverly Hills. I think Metro will want to avoid dealing with that and just avoid them. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 30, 2014 13:37:24 GMT -8
it seems like none of you guys live in the Area. I live between LA Cienega and Fairfax and would selfishly prefer one of those options myself but La Brea is clearly the best.
The big disadvantage of the westside wobble route on San Vicente is that building that means there is utterly no future rail expansion, effectively the hugely dense swath of exploding in popularity areas of los angeles between La Cienega and Vermont will be cut off from further rail development in order to get people to the Bev Center.
The big disadvantage to Fairfax is that it is a narrow street (meaning 100% grade separation) and is a developmental deadzone for much of the route being advocated. Using San Vicente allows the line to miss Little Ethiopa and the single family residential sections of Fairfax, which is good, but LACMA is not a big enough destination to need two rail lines, it will be just as well served by transfers from Crenshaw to Purple. The Grove/CBS could benefit from rail but it is Park La Brea access that is enticing, as it is one of the densest areas of the city. On the other hand, Fairfax is home to twenty or thirty old folks homes on Fairfax or a block off fairfax. They hate rail and have nothing better to do than attend every meeting. they also have control over all the voting booths in the area since all the voting booths are in old folks homes, so with no barrier to voting and 100% accessibility they can be counted on to turn out in insurmountable force to vote against something they do not want. And rail on Fairfax will be something these elderly folks will not want.
La Brea is one of the fastest exploding areas of the city with tons of development and dense construction. and it is already fairly dense. The office towers on Wilshire between La Brea and Fairfax are closer to La Brea than Fairfax and would be missed by using Fairfax. It's already a major street corridor and has the width to accommodate grade in places. It makes for easier way finding system wide. It also leaves future rail options on the table rather than eliminating the possibility. And there's going to be very little resistance to using La Brea.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 30, 2014 13:59:51 GMT -8
I was under the assumption that the Crenshaw 2 rail (pink line?) would be 100% grade separated no matter what. Maybe I'm confused, but the area is very dense, and I see little chance of at grade rail happening. So it's just a matter of where to put the station (La Cienega, Fairfax or La Brea). I doubt old people are going to stand in the way to much, it's not Beverly Hills.
|
|
