|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 30, 2014 14:03:50 GMT -8
It's kind of a red herring to talk about building this line at surface on La Brea. Regardless of whether La Brea, Fairfax, or La Cienega is chosen, the line will almost be entirely underground. Expo, Blue, Gold, and the under construction portion of Crenshaw line are largely surface running because of existing right of way. There is no righting right of way to accommodate this northern extension, except for a stretch of San Vicente between Pico Blvd and 3rd St - and choosing La Brea would mean it will not use the San Vicente right of way at all. So surface running is only an option if we are talking about Fairfax or La Cienega.
From Expo line to Venice Blvd, the line will be underground.
From Venice to Wilshire, the line will be underground if we go with La Brea. It can be surface running via San Vicente if we choose Fairfar or La Cienega. Although I think it will face strong opposition.
From Wilshire to Hollywood Blvd, the line will be underground regardless of alignment. None offers wide enough right of way and still maintain current vehicle traffic load.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jun 30, 2014 15:43:14 GMT -8
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it will be grade-separated no matter what. I also honestly believe that regardless of what the general opinion is here, La Brea will probably be chosen. I think santa monica/la brea is in weho city limits (correct me if I'm wrong), so they'll be able to say they're giving weho a station, and the route will be by far the cheapest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 30, 2014 16:10:04 GMT -8
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. So I guess when West Hollywood voted overwhelmingly in support of both Measure R and Measure J, all those old folks stayed home?  Seriously though, you make some good points - La Brea has some very obvious advantages. It's also extremely wide - you could potentially elevate the line between Wilshire and Santa Monica, though I doubt it would ever fly given present traffic patterns. I think the toughest obstacle to a La Brea line is (as I mentioned earlier): What are you connecting with it? La Brea boasts few destinations that are on the level of what's offered on Fairfax or La Cienega. It basically turns into a line that's convenient and speedy for locals heading north and south, while ignoring a large chunk of people who might ditch their cars to use it (not to mention tourists). Fortunately, the destinations north (Hollywood, West Hollywood Gateway) and south (LAX, Leimert Park) will still attract a wealth of those riders on their own. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 30, 2014 16:54:26 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. They stood in the way a generation ago when the subway was to go up Fairfax. Times change, but I think there may still be a pretty strong opposition. I tend to agree with those who think La Brea might be the choice. I kind of like Fairfax, but doubt the community would support it. La Cienega is too far West and has the Beverly Hills factor. WeHo would still get a station and I never thought the whole argument that just because they voted strong for Measure R they should get a line. That is silly. Do people measure city of Los Angeles neighborhoods by this factor? Of course not, so we shouldn't for other areas either. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 1, 2014 10:39:56 GMT -8
LaBrea/SantaMonica is not a "West Hollywood" station.
People who say there should be a separate project on LaCienega and LaBrea are ignoring the political realities of getting funding for even one mid-city underground line, let alone two.
There is only going to be one north-south mid-city subway line for decades and I would expect West Hollywood and the surrounding areas to fight for it to be west of LaBrea where the ridership generators are, as it is also their only realistic and viable shot to have Metrorail in the next several decades. For what it is worth, a Fairfax or LaCienega alignment is also the only realistic prospect of getting a stop on or near the Sunset Strip too for those who care about that. LaBrea doesn't even generate the ridership to support a Rapid bus line, but Fairfax and LaCienega do. I suspect that the full SanVicente & Santa Monica alignment will be seen too circuitous and expensive.
If someone doesn't think it matters that West Hollywood and its environs voted the highest rate for Measure R and J in the county with Measure R's very narrow margin of victory and Measure J's very narrow loss, that rate of support can be changed downward in future referendums if West Hollywood doesn't feel it have the likely possibility of a future Metrorail stop -- and LaBrea/SantaMonica won't be seen as it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 1, 2014 11:01:00 GMT -8
it seems like none of you guys live in the Area. I live right in the area and use transit in the area so I realize from experience that LaBrea's ridership doesn't even support a Rapid bus. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it will be grade-separated no matter what. I also honestly believe that regardless of what the general opinion is here, La Brea will probably be chosen. I think santa monica/la brea is in weho city limits (correct me if I'm wrong), so they'll be able to say they're giving weho a station, and the route will be by far the cheapest. LaBrea is the city limit. On the westside you are in West Hollyood at the end of it, on the eastside you are not. I wouldn't consider it an "inside West Hollywood" station and I don't think anyone in West Hollywood will see it that way, nor anyone else should see it as one either. That said, banking on Metro to go with the cheapest route is never a sucker's bet. Some interests will only care about the speed of getting north/south and access arguments don't seem to mean much to them. Since there is only going to be one north-south line in mid-city for decades, if we can even get that, it is apparent there will be a big fight for the alignment, with speed versus access as the fault line. The first segment of the northern extension of Crenshaw will likely be from Expo to Wilshire. If it goes up to LaBrea/Wilshire, that will be the alignment. If it goes up to Fairfax/Wilshire, that will be the alignment. If it goes up to SanVicente/Wilshire, then LaCienega will be the alignment. So essentially, Metro needs to plan the northern extension to Hollywood/Highland from the beginning even if it starts in construction/operation with simply an extension up to Wilshire, but that Wilshire stop will determine the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 1, 2014 14:00:58 GMT -8
I think any phase 2 of Crenshaw will be a mega $ project that will go all the way to Hollywood Highland. La Brea will be the only one that fits within the 4-5 billion they'll allocate for it. I don't think they'll do a 2 phase crenshaw extension.
Another consideration on the Santa Monica route is earthquake fault lines, iirc, the LATimes had a tool showing that there are active faults under most of Santa Monica Blvd, that may actually be the reason that will kill the La Cienege option.
It's a shame we can't have a pink line from Hollywood Highland to Century City and complete the network.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 1, 2014 14:45:32 GMT -8
I think any phase 2 of Crenshaw will be a mega $ project that will go all the way to Hollywood Highland. La Brea will be the only one that fits within the 4-5 billion they'll allocate for it. I don't think they'll do a 2 phase crenshaw extension. Another consideration on the Santa Monica route is earthquake fault lines, iirc, the LATimes had a tool showing that there are active faults under most of Santa Monica Blvd, that may actually be the reason that will kill the La Cienege option. It's a shame we can't have a pink line from Hollywood Highland to Century City and complete the network.That is why there will be so much political/economic pressure on the northern extension of Crenshaw to go west of LaBrea. It's the only viable shot West Hollywood, Beverly Center, The Grove, Sunset Strip, etc. that these areas have to get Metrorail within decades. It all comes back to Fairfax then, doesn't it, as the political compromise, between speed and access? It isn't that much more expensive to run up Fairfax then LaBrea when you are committing these sums of money, and it won't take but a few minutes longer to run up Fairfax than LaBrea, and you hit more high ridership points, get a stop actually inside West Hollywood, and serve better access to the Sunset strip, The Grove and the Beverly Center than a LaBrea alignment. And with the possibility of a one seat ride to the LAX station, expect the fight to be big. It will be the opposite of the Beverly Hills High School issue, with all of these neighborhoods and interests saying, "build here, build here, build here!" |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 1, 2014 15:42:52 GMT -8
I am perfectly okay with Fairfax, it is better for me, I just feel like it will be a massive lift to get it through the community opposition. Luckily, using San Vicente misses the single family residential stretch of Fairfax, and misses little Ethiopia as well (and missing little Ethiopia probably means the line won't arouse the Goodman-goblin to cry wolf on transit racism).
I feel like a Pink Line from Hollywood Highland to Century City via Santa Monica Blvd would be a viable option in the future if La Brea were chosen, so long as there aren't active faults on SMB.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 1, 2014 16:54:00 GMT -8
We are all just guessing of course but I think Dan is probably right that Fairfax will generate more ridership than La Brea so it will be easier to get Federal funding.
Possible stations for Fairfax alignment
1. West Adams (Crenshaw/Adams)
2. Mid City/Rimpau Terminal (Venice/San Vicente/Pico)
3. Museum Row/Miracle Mile (Fairfax/Wilshire)
4. The Grove/CBS (Fairfax/Beverly)
5. West Hollywood (Fairfax/Santa Monica)
6. Sunset Strip (Fairfax/Sunset)
7. Hollywood/Highland
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 1, 2014 17:26:31 GMT -8
Don't forget 2.1 and 2.2
2.1 San Vicente/La Brea
2.2 Little Ethiopia - San Vicente/Fairfax/Olympic
They'll have to trench under that San Vicente/Fairfax/Olympic traffic triangle of doom. never go near that place in a car at any time nearing rush hour, utter misery.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 1, 2014 23:29:24 GMT -8
LaBrea/SantaMonica is not a "West Hollywood" station. People who say there should be a separate project on LaCienega and LaBrea are ignoring the political realities of getting funding for even one mid-city underground line, let alone two. There is only going to be one north-south mid-city subway line for decades and I would expect West Hollywood and the surrounding areas to fight for it to be west of LaBrea where the ridership generators are, as it is also their only realistic and viable shot to have Metrorail in the next several decades. For what it is worth, a Fairfax or LaCienega alignment is also the only realistic prospect of getting a stop on or near the Sunset Strip too for those who care about that. LaBrea doesn't even generate the ridership to support a Rapid bus line, but Fairfax and LaCienega do. I suspect that the full SanVicente & Santa Monica alignment will be seen too circuitous and expensive. If someone doesn't think it matters that West Hollywood and its environs voted the highest rate for Measure R and J in the county with Measure R's very narrow margin of victory and Measure J's very narrow loss, that rate of support can be changed downward in future referendums if West Hollywood doesn't feel it have the likely possibility of a future Metrorail stop -- and LaBrea/SantaMonica won't be seen as it. WeHo doesn't even have 35k people. Let's put that in perspective. A single LA City Council District has more than 250k people in it or well more than 6 times the WeHo population. So if we are talking about WeHo's support for Measure R, we should be talking about certain precincts within certain LA City Council Districts in the same way right? They are equally members of LA County. Yet, I don't see anyone saying Precinct 12 in Council District 11 really supported Measure R, so they should really get a rail line and we should make sure it is in the center of the precinct and not in the edge, but somehow we do for West Hollywood? That makes no sense. I personally would root for Fairfax, but with all the community opposition and the fact that La Brea is cheaper and faster with more ability to build more denser development, it makes the choice one sided. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 2, 2014 8:07:45 GMT -8
I see no evidence of any community opposition for Fairfax. If anything, you will see overwhelming community support. Any old curmudgeon is going be vastly outnumbered.
But I don't disagree that one can usually expect Metro to go with the cheapest option.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 2, 2014 8:38:23 GMT -8
I see no evidence of any community opposition for Fairfax. If anything, you will see overwhelming community support. Any old curmudgeon is going be vastly outnumbered. But I don't disagree that one can usually expect Metro to go with the cheapest option. There was a lot of opposition a generation ago. Hopefully, this is gone, but I have my doubts. The Fairfax community is very opposed to development and that would go hand in hand with an underground rail line here. The only way to know for sure is to study this. My guess is that this would not happen until after a 2016 Measure R+, if successful. The other big determinate is whether Fairfax or La Brea is more cost effective. Fairfax may have more ridership, but it would be more expensive too, so it would need to have signficantly more ridership to overcome that. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 2, 2014 9:36:48 GMT -8
Don't forget 2.1 and 2.2 2.1 San Vicente/La Brea 2.2 Little Ethiopia - San Vicente/Fairfax/Olympic They'll have to trench under that San Vicente/Fairfax/Olympic traffic triangle of doom. never go near that place in a car at any time nearing rush hour, utter misery. San Vicente/La Brea is not even 500ft away from Rimpau Terminal... I can support argument for a 5th Street station in Downtown LA or a 96th St station by LAX but I don't think anyone can reasonably argue you need 2 stations less than 500ft apart in Mid Town on the same line (i.e. no transfers)  Little Ethiopia is worthy of consideration but the area around the San Vicente/Fairfax/Olympic triangle is mostly low density residential with little hope for redevelopment due to zoning. It will probably have marginal ridership. If you had to eliminate a station to control costs, this would be the one to eliminate (like the Hancock Park/Crenshaw Blvd station on the Purple line). |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 2, 2014 9:49:27 GMT -8
I see no evidence of any community opposition for Fairfax. If anything, you will see overwhelming community support. Any old curmudgeon is going be vastly outnumbered. But I don't disagree that one can usually expect Metro to go with the cheapest option. There was a lot of opposition a generation ago. Hopefully, this is gone, but I have my doubts. The Fairfax community is very opposed to development and that would go hand in hand with an underground rail line here. The only way to know for sure is to study this. My guess is that this would not happen until after a 2016 Measure R+, if successful. The other big determinate is whether Fairfax or La Brea is more cost effective. Fairfax may have more ridership, but it would be more expensive too, so it would need to have signficantly more ridership to overcome that. There wasn't any meaningful opposition to the Purple line extension or the Fairfax station at LACMA this time around so I think there won't be much of any resistance to Crenshaw line, especially the fact that Purple line will be in service in this area by the time EIR is locked in on Crenshaw phase 2. I think anyone trying to block Crenshaw will draw the community's ire rather than support. On the subject of ridership, we have empirical evidence. Bus ridership is much higher on Fairfax than La Brea. We also know day-time density is higher on Fairfax due to proximity to some major employers and destinations. The likely construction costs difference will not be that big because either La Brea or Fairfax will likely have the same number of stations (stations is the biggest cost factor). Tunneling costs on an extra mile or so of detour is likely very marginal compare to the total cost of the project. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 2, 2014 10:23:02 GMT -8
There was a lot of opposition a generation ago. Hopefully, this is gone, but I have my doubts. The Fairfax community is very opposed to development and that would go hand in hand with an underground rail line here. The only way to know for sure is to study this. My guess is that this would not happen until after a 2016 Measure R+, if successful. The other big determinate is whether Fairfax or La Brea is more cost effective. Fairfax may have more ridership, but it would be more expensive too, so it would need to have signficantly more ridership to overcome that. There wasn't any meaningful opposition to the Purple line extension or the Fairfax station at LACMA this time around so I think there won't be much of any resistance to Crenshaw line, especially the fact that Purple line will be in service in this area by the time EIR is locked in on Crenshaw phase 2. I think anyone trying to block Crenshaw will draw the community's ire rather than support. On the subject of ridership, we have empirical evidence. Bus ridership is much higher on Fairfax than La Brea. We also know day-time density is higher on Fairfax due to proximity to some major employers and destinations. The likely construction costs difference will not be that big because either La Brea or Fairfax will likely have the same number of stations (stations is the biggest cost factor). Tunneling costs on an extra mile or so of detour is likely very marginal compare to the total cost of the project. I'd like to see where the proof is that Fairfax has much higher ridership than La Brea. Do you have specifics on riderships on these two streets north of the 10 freeway? Comparing bus ridership for lines that go well beyond these corridors isn't really useful. I assume Flyaway put their stop on La Brea for a reason. Wilshire is different than Fairfax, especially north of Wilshire where the Jewish community is fanatical about retaining the feel of their neighborhood, although we'll see what kind of opposition they come up with. A Fairfax route would be over 2 miles longer since Fairfax is over a mile west of La Brea. That is a significant cost even if there are no more stations. Also, I doubt that you'd want to build a 8 mile route with 6 stations when you'd build a 6 mile route with 6 stations. There will be a lot of pressure to add stations, otherwise you are going to have long stretches with no stations. I imagine because Fairfax is narrower that it will be more expensive to stage as well. So even if you add just one station for the Fairfax route (which will still leave certain neighborhoods furious that they have to put up with all the tunneling but get stiffed on a station), you are looking at another $1B for the Fairfax route. Hardly insignificant. Also, overall ridership would be hurt on the Fairfax route with all things being equal, because you are taking an extra two miles and many more turns to get to Hollywood/Highland. Overall, we need the planning to go on for this to really figure out the answers, but I think a 405 type line that connects the South Bay to the North End of the Valley would have much more regional appeal and thus support. If it comes down to having to pick between these two projects (which it may given the huge costs), I expect the 405 Line to win out with maybe the Crenshaw Line getting to Wilshire at best. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 2, 2014 10:45:45 GMT -8
D'oh on the LA Brea station. I was just at Loews last weekend and thinking how close LA Brea was to that nexus.
I drove through the triangle of doom last night and it is close to Wilshire but think of the racismfarmdale outcry if Lil Ethiopia doesn't get a station.
All typ0s courtesy of Samsung.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 2, 2014 13:41:55 GMT -8
I will research that information. Here is a short answer until then. No part of LaBrea runs 24 hours nor supports a Rapid bus line, whereas Fairfax has graveyard service and ridership for rapid buses. That sounds like a clue about higher ridership.
You won't get an argument out of me for that. I think that is the missing north-south spine in planning for our regional rail system. Of course that would be the most popular. I would agree that a Sylmar to SouthBay line, if we could get past NIMYBs and BRT activists to have it built as rail should among the highest priorities along with finishing the Purple Line and downtown connector. Goodness knows how many Gold Line extensions are going to have to be added to for the SGV to go along.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 2, 2014 15:32:28 GMT -8
I'd like to see where the proof is that Fairfax has much higher ridership than La Brea. Do you have specifics on ridership on these two streets north of the 10 freeway? Comparing bus ridership for lines that go well beyond these corridors isn't really useful. I assume Flyaway put their stop on La Brea for a reason. With Flyaway, La Brea is an easier location to have a bus turnaround, load passengers to use the Flyaway service and not get caught in Ladera Heights congestion once La Cienega Blvd ends it's "expressway" segment at La Tijera and Centinela to achieve consistent running times. Also La Cienega/Jefferson, the bus would have to wait a while at the light to make a left turn which will eat up travel times. For the specific bus ridership information north of the 10 freeway I can ask Metro staff for that and break down the numbers, given my past role on the Service Councils, from rides I've been both corridors and Fairfax is more heavily utilized north of the 10 Freeway and since the opening of the Expo Line, this demand for Fairfax corridor has increased. Good point there, mapping it via Google Maps I get a 1.6 mile increase. Given that there is no competing freeway here, the whole perception of speed vs time changes when transit doesn't have to compete with a freeway in it's ridership findings. Generally what wins in those cases are corridors in which you have a speedy trip that connects and moves the most people effectively. One of the bigger questions will be since Wilshire Blvd is a key transit corridor, Where is the best location to place that transfer station? If this is where the line will end as a first phase and continue on for a second phase towards Hollywood; For either line the question will come which corridor will move the most passengers effectively? My initial view about La Brea is that most of the potential passengers have destinations north of Wilshire along Fairfax and just west of Fairfax and will need to transfer to local bus lines to make the final connection. Also the very close proximity from Hancock Park has a lower overall population density which effect who will use it. Fairfax may win out despite the additional length because it will connect more potential users to the system to destinations the fastest and can provide the better connections to both Red and Purple Lines at their respective stations (Wilshire Blvd and Hollywood/Highland). But I could be wrong. That is what having the study is all about. Agreed, the whole need to push for the Northward extension study to figure some of this out. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 2, 2014 17:16:43 GMT -8
Fairfax is connected to the soul crushing west LA transit nexus under the 10 freeway. I used to have to take Fairfax because that was the transfer hinge.
Do we know that the Fairfax ridership is because of Fairfax destinations or because of the wla transit center forces the use of Fairfax?
All typ0s courtesy of Samsung.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 2, 2014 17:23:55 GMT -8
Fairfax is connected to the soul crushing west LA transit nexus under the 10 freeway. I used to have to take Fairfax because that was the transfer hinge. Do we know that the Fairfax ridership is because of Fairfax destinations or because of the wla transit center forces the use of Fairfax? All typ0s courtesy of Samsung. It's mostly due to destinations on or at very close proximity to Fairfax Avenue. The ridership -from my past rides- is heaviest from Pico Blvd until at least Santa Monica Blvd during the daytime; at night it shifts northward to Sunset Blvd. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 2, 2014 17:24:37 GMT -8
Fairfax is connected to the soul crushing west LA transit nexus under the 10 freeway. I used to have to take Fairfax because that was the transfer hinge. Do we know that the Fairfax ridership is because of Fairfax destinations or because of the wla transit center forces the use of Fairfax? All typ0s courtesy of Samsung. Good point. I think a full fledged ridership model as part of the Study of this corridor is the only way to answer these questions appropriately. Again, I would love Fairfax, but I think La Brea has a head start here, but maybe that Fairfax ridership really is a lot more. I do think people often overweight certain landmarks and discount smaller concentrated retail and work establishments. Not sure that is the case here, but we will see. |
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Jul 3, 2014 2:28:23 GMT -8
A map showing population density and transit-likely destinations might be helpful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 3, 2014 15:54:04 GMT -8
A map showing population density and transit-likely destinations might be helpful. I agree, but it shouldn't just be a residential population. We need to see one with employment population too -- one for day and one for night. For example, the Westside is increasingly a job center in its own right. Santa Monica has three times as many people there at 3:00 p.m. than at 3:00 a.m. We need both sets of density, not just bedroom density, although that is certainly informative. While most bus lines are has lots of room after 11:00 if they are still running, I've been on eastbound #4 buses that were stuffed like sardines from Sepulveda all the way to Vermont at midnight. Travel in this area can be atypical. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 8, 2014 11:06:10 GMT -8
Given that there is no competing freeway here, the whole perception of speed vs time changes when transit doesn't have to compete with a freeway in it's ridership findings. Generally what wins in those cases are corridors in which you have a speedy trip that connects and moves the most people effectively. One of the bigger questions will be since Wilshire Blvd is a key transit corridor, Where is the best location to place that transfer station? If this is where the line will end as a first phase and continue on for a second phase towards Hollywood; For either line the question will come which corridor will move the most passengers effectively? I think this is important about the lack of freeway. Our current corridors compete with freeways. The Gold Line with the 110 and 210. Expo with the 10. The Blue Line with the 710. The Red Line with the 101. The Purple Line serves some areas of Mid-Wilshire that are kind of far from the freeway (like Beverly Hills, Century City, and the Miracle Mile). That is going to help drive ridership, because people can't hop on the freeway to beat the transit service, which is the case most of the time except certain rush hours on the other lines. The Purple Line will have better two way and non rush hour usage because of this. I was a big supporter of the Pink Line because of this. The Pink Line essentially would have been the replacement for the Beverly Hills Freeway, which was never built. I still think they underestimated ridership in their model, not taking this into full account. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 8, 2014 12:45:45 GMT -8
I think this is important about the lack of freeway. Our current corridors compete with freeways. The Gold Line with the 110 and 210. Expo with the 10. The Blue Line with the 710. The Red Line with the 101. The Purple Line serves some areas of Mid-Wilshire that are kind of far from the freeway (like Beverly Hills, Century City, and the Miracle Mile). That is going to help drive ridership, because people can't hop on the freeway to beat the transit service, which is the case most of the time except certain rush hours on the other lines. The Purple Line will have better two way and non rush hour usage because of this. I was a big supporter of the Pink Line because of this. The Pink Line essentially would have been the replacement for the Beverly Hills Freeway, which was never built. I still think they underestimated ridership in their model, not taking this into full account. Which is why connecting and serving at key destinations will be critical for the success of whichever corridor for this Northern extension is selected. For example if the funding for the Northern extension is limited to only serving the Purple Line and not proceed northward for a while, then that will effect how the second phase of the line toward Hollywood and the Red Line will look. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Feb 18, 2016 11:49:01 GMT -8
West Hollywood is getting serious about advocating for routing the northern extension of the Crenshaw/LAX Line through it. I an organization entitled West Hollywood Advocates for Metro rail(WHAM) has been established. Here are some images that have started making the rounds:    |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Feb 18, 2016 19:41:53 GMT -8
Good for West Hollywood, they should be demanding of Metro. Although, I think that the La Brea route is most likely to be built. Still, although its an unfounded idea now (with so many other unfounded ideas to compete with) it's worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 18, 2016 22:31:36 GMT -8
Good for them, way to go!!! I still maintain West Ho would be better served on a route that ran from DTLA along Sunset Bl. then Santa Monica Bl. to the future 405 corridor. I admit that a more direct route to LAX--and who wouldn't like a one-seat ride to the airport--would be better appreciated. But that's where the 405 corridor would make up for that. Regardless of my bad idea or anything else, I sincerely hope their endeavors pay off. This is one of those rare moneyed communities that is actually welcoming transit. So it may set a good example.
|
|
