|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 19, 2016 8:44:54 GMT -8
I think engineering and geography will kill both Fairfax and the weho route. The active fault on or parallel to Santa monica Blvd makes its use probably impossible, and soil conditions at Wilshire Fairfax will probably not support a station box below the purple line given the adjacent tarpits.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 19, 2016 10:54:22 GMT -8
I like La Brea route, which is the fastest (and likely cheapest).
I like La Cienega route, which serves more destinations and employment centers, but likely most expensive and slow.
So I think a Fairfax compromise will be reached, which is not terrible.
BTW, welcome back Dan!
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 19, 2016 14:42:56 GMT -8
I wonder if they broke this project out into two phases would it be more plausible to get this principally subway light rail built sooner?
While LaBrea has improved a lot in recent years from a dead zone to a quite vibrant commercial and nightlife scene, I find that LaCienega has more jobs and destinations and taking the longer jog up LaCienega could be offset by a breakout into two phases and building the San Vicente portion at-grade south of Wilshire Blvd with bridges over complex intersections will introduce extra cost savings. Phase 1 could connect Expo Line to the heart of WeHo (LaCienega/Santa Monica) while Phase 2 could connect WeHo to Hollywood/Highland. Just a thought...
|
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Feb 19, 2016 15:58:20 GMT -8
I wonder if they broke this project out into two phases would it be more plausible to get this principally subway light rail built sooner? While LaBrea has improved a lot in recent years from a dead zone to a quite vibrant commercial and nightlife scene, I find that LaCienega has more jobs and destinations and taking the longer jog up LaCienega could be offset by a breakout into two phases and building the San Vicente portion at-grade south of Wilshire Blvd with bridges over complex intersections will introduce extra cost savings. Phase 1 could connect Expo Line to the heart of WeHo (LaCienega/Santa Monica) while Phase 2 could connect WeHo to Hollywood/Highland. Just a thought... Pretty much the entire appeal of the San Vicente alignment is that it served as the old PE viaduct, with all the major intersections grade-separated. Here's how the San Vicente - La Brea intersection looked in 1936.Now, if they can't place Wilshire/Fairfax underground due to soil engineering, can they go elevated over the intersection and then go underground on Fairfax? |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 19, 2016 20:46:30 GMT -8
I wonder if they broke this project out into two phases would it be more plausible to get this principally subway light rail built sooner? While LaBrea has improved a lot in recent years from a dead zone to a quite vibrant commercial and nightlife scene, I find that LaCienega has more jobs and destinations and taking the longer jog up LaCienega could be offset by a breakout into two phases and building the San Vicente portion at-grade south of Wilshire Blvd with bridges over complex intersections will introduce extra cost savings. Phase 1 could connect Expo Line to the heart of WeHo (LaCienega/Santa Monica) while Phase 2 could connect WeHo to Hollywood/Highland. Just a thought... Pretty much the entire appeal of the San Vicente alignment is that it served as the old PE viaduct, with all the major intersections grade-separated. Here's how the San Vicente - La Brea intersection looked in 1936.Now, if they can't place Wilshire/Fairfax underground due to soil engineering, can they go elevated over the intersection and then go underground on Fairfax? That is such a cool photo! Aerial is likely impossible given the stakeholders of lacma, the academy museum, petersen, and the residential areas will all oppose it. On the other hand, the upcoming lacma redesign has a phallus shaped aerial structure limpidly spanning Wilshire, so perhaps aestheticly, stake holders won't mind another aerial structure if they don't mind the much more offensive one already proposed? Fairfax is pretty narrow, wider at wilshire, but 6th carries large volumes of traffic for its size at the intersection of fairfax because the only southern entry to the park la Brea apartment megaplex us a few block s from Fairfax on sixth and curson. Fairfax narrows at sixth, and there probably is not enough road width to get the aerial station subterranean without seriously impeding sixth street access or Fairfax traffic capacity. Both are non starters. Also, my comment about soil conditions is an educated guess based on how tricky the geography constraints on construction already is right there for the purple line |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 20, 2016 0:42:01 GMT -8
Love the graphics and the site! Great news for West Hollywood.
If the Fairfax route is chosen, it will likely be all underground, apart from possibly the San Vicente segment. The street is simply too narrow, except for between Melrose and Santa Monica.
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Feb 20, 2016 14:21:27 GMT -8
One additional argument for Fairfax is that La Brea and La Cienega are already slated for bus-only lanes in the Mobility Plan, but Fairfax isn't. This would split up the transit improvements more evenly.
The tar pits proper are east of LACMA. If it's safe to build a station box under Wilshire there, why not under Fairfax too? Didn't LACMA build a giant underground parking garage a while back?
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 20, 2016 15:27:47 GMT -8
Fairfax also isn't perpendicular at wilshire, each segment approaches from a different angle, given the Petersen museum on the southeast corner and the skyscraper on the southwest corner and the horrible ugly historic and protected building on the northwest corner may make station box placement tricky, since the street geometry and building footings may preclude typical box placement.
***
The San vicente, olympic, Fairfax interchange is interesting from a traffic standpoint, it already can't handle the throughput of all three streets, Fairfax usually backs up to airdrome or Saturn at rush hour on the north bound side, because of this interchange. I wonder if even absent a light rail San Vicente really ought to be grade separated, and if they are going to run an elevated crossing along San vicente, they really ought to elevate the rest of the street along with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Feb 20, 2016 19:47:18 GMT -8
I still vote for La Brea for Crenshaw pt. 2 - because it's cheaper and shorter and could make it all of the way to the Red line. Also, there's a lot of room for development in a basically industrial part of the city on La Brea. It's already close to impossible to build anything new in central West Hollywood, so I would just hit the edge of the city and wait for another segment later on, like the pink line idea. If you want to go to Fairfax or La Cienega, take the Purple line.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 20, 2016 21:43:34 GMT -8
Yeah if WeHo doesn't want any new housing, they probably don't want new rail either. Of course this also true of Hollywood.
|
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Feb 21, 2016 10:14:13 GMT -8
Fairfax also isn't perpendicular at wilshire, each segment approaches from a different angle, given the Petersen museum on the southeast corner and the skyscraper on the southwest corner and the horrible ugly historic and protected building on the northwest corner may make station box placement tricky, since the street geometry and building footings may preclude typical box placement. *** The San vicente, olympic, Fairfax interchange is interesting from a traffic standpoint, it already can't handle the throughput of all three streets, Fairfax usually backs up to airdrome or Saturn at rush hour on the north bound side, because of this interchange. I wonder if even absent a light rail San Vicente really ought to be grade separated, and if they are going to run an elevated crossing along San vicente, they really ought to elevate the rest of the street along with it. They're going to have to do some major reconfiguration of San Vicente approaching the Olympic triangle, because the train needs enough time to both dive underground and bend north to follow Fairfax if that's the selected route. Can't really do an aerial structure going along Fairfax because of Shalhevet School, so underground is the only choice. The cost of building two bridges over Fairfax/Olympic for San Vicente might be too prohibitive for City of LA, however. I guess we'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 23, 2016 14:29:02 GMT -8
One additional argument for Fairfax is that La Brea and La Cienega are already slated for bus-only lanes in the Mobility Plan, but Fairfax isn't. This would split up the transit improvements more evenly. The tar pits proper are east of LACMA. If it's safe to build a station box under Wilshire there, why not under Fairfax too? Didn't LACMA build a giant underground parking garage a while back? This is a very good point and reason for Fairfax, even though its not the most residentially dense it still is one of LA's most important cultural and commercial districts, Fairfax/Wilshire and Fairfax/3rd respectively—and we shouldn't wait around on Rick Caruso's pipe dream for a privately financed streetcar to connect the two. Also, there is room to densify as this area is principally single use / one-story commercial structures. I think a lot of people would support a subway under Fairfax on the Crenshaw Line, possibly even more so if real BRT were introduced to the transit/pedestrian hostile LaBrea and LaCienega where these wide streets have room for "MyFigueroa" style improvements. Fairfax also isn't perpendicular at wilshire, each segment approaches from a different angle, given the Petersen museum on the southeast corner and the skyscraper on the southwest corner and the horrible ugly historic and protected building on the northwest corner may make station box placement tricky, since the street geometry and building footings may preclude typical box placement. *** The San vicente, olympic, Fairfax interchange is interesting from a traffic standpoint, it already can't handle the throughput of all three streets, Fairfax usually backs up to airdrome or Saturn at rush hour on the north bound side, because of this interchange. I wonder if even absent a light rail San Vicente really ought to be grade separated, and if they are going to run an elevated crossing along San vicente, they really ought to elevate the rest of the street along with it. They're going to have to do some major reconfiguration of San Vicente approaching the Olympic triangle, because the train needs enough time to both dive underground and bend north to follow Fairfax if that's the selected route. Can't really do an aerial structure going along Fairfax because of Shalhevet School, so underground is the only choice. The cost of building two bridges over Fairfax/Olympic for San Vicente might be too prohibitive for City of LA, however. I guess we'll see. My point is to get the Crenshaw Line to Hollywood we want (a prohibitively expensive one from the sound of it) it's probably going to have to broken in into two phases to keep the project from getting bogged down from getting to Wilshire Blvd, the most uncontroversial part of the line, and meet the Purple Line. |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 25, 2016 13:49:47 GMT -8
West Hollywood Refusing to Let Metro Rail Pass It By [Curbed LA] "WHAM wants Metro to expand the upcoming Crenshaw Line (already under construction) northward to West Hollywood, connecting the neighborhood not only to Metro's system, but also directly to LAX. A feasibility study is needed to determine the exact route a train line would take to WeHo, but WHAM is hoping for a route that spans from San Vincente to Santa Monica Boulevard. The train would run completely underground, making it's way through West Hollywood before connecting with the Red Line at Hollywood and Highland. On the fiscal side of things, the city council is still grappling with how to cover the immense cost of this potential project—expanding the Crenshaw Line to West Hollywood comes with a pricetag of at least $4.5 billion. WeHo officials are currently mulling the idea of a tax increase to raise revenue for the project." Ignores the huge, historic railway median on San Vicente and they definitely wants the longest option with the most stations that gets at the heart of West Hollywood from Boystown to the Gateway.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Sept 21, 2016 19:02:37 GMT -8
Crenshaw Line Phase 2 to Hollywood just got a big boost by City of West Hollywood's lobbying effort. The TL;DR version: Metro CEO says if Measure M passes in November, the light rail route from Expo/Crenshaw to Hollywood/Highland will be studied by 2017, EIR by 2018, and construction started as soon as 2020. [ WeHoville] |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 14, 2016 16:36:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 14, 2016 21:23:30 GMT -8
Outstanding article, squares with what I think. La brea is the likely route, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 21, 2018 1:56:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 21, 2018 6:28:34 GMT -8
The other documentation is even more enlightening. Fairfax is dead there’s virtually no ridership improvement but it costs almost 150 million more per mile. Vermont was included but is likewise going to be rejected early. This is going to come down to la cienega vs la brea and on almost every single metric la brea wins. But the slam dunk will be the enormous reduction in vehicle mile traveled la brea has over la cienega. And the fact that la brea projects to ridership of 12000 per mile 20% more than the purple extension La cienegas big argument will be that they have the most trips within the line, thus the higher ridership, la brea has a lot more end to end travelers. This is going to be a massive fight And there’s obviously a missing station at melrose that will be included win all is said and done, on the la brea route. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 21, 2018 8:06:29 GMT -8
I think it'll ultimately be La Brea... but I still wonder if there's any chance of them considering a stub line along Santa Monica as part of this project that could later be built into a full Santa Monica line. (here's a mockup I made awhile ago: i.imgur.com/NlfM4y7.jpg ) That wouldn't work exactly as pictured, but some version of it. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 21, 2018 8:43:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 21, 2018 9:15:18 GMT -8
Obviously not but he viability of San Vicente as a route isn’t dependent on their extra funding but in convincing residential stakeholders on San Vicente to allow the long at grade and aerial sections that make it affordable. Every deviation from the baseline to accomadate stakeholders is going to seriously impact the cost of San Vicente. So we ho has three battles. They have to fight the people in the SFR at grade sections and they have to fight the VMT numbers and they have to fight the transit dependent ridership on la brea that will be advocating for their route This means we ho is going to be actively challenging every assumption, like the idea that it only generates 3000 more trips. Etc etc It’s going to be a very big fight. Not only is la brea reducing more VMT by a large margin but it also serves more transit dependent riders and serves more residential areas with zero car ownership and the entirety of the route is contained within a pretty dense corridor versus the extra miles through SFR that San Vicente requires. But! La brea is also dependent on being aerial most of the route, any shift to subterranean makes it incredibly expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 21, 2018 10:11:55 GMT -8
The other documentation is even more enlightening. Fairfax is dead there’s virtually no ridership improvement but it costs almost 150 million more per mile. Vermont was included but is likewise going to be rejected early. This is going to come down to la cienega vs la brea and on almost every single metric la brea wins. But the slam dunk will be the enormous reduction in vehicle mile traveled la brea has over la cienega. And the fact that la brea projects to ridership of 12000 per mile 20% more than the purple extension La cienegas big argument will be that they have the most trips within the line, thus the higher ridership, la brea has a lot more end to end travelers. This is going to be a massive fight And there’s obviously a missing station at melrose that will be included win all is said and done, on the la brea route. Agree with you. Looking at the graphic La Brea looked like a no brainer, but reading the report this will come down to either La Cienega or La Brea. Fairfax is dead. La Brea is the most cost effective but misses most of the jobs and destinations. La Cienega is better for the long term and assuming West Hollywood kicks in some money, the additional cost is moot. And 12,000 per mile for light rail is insane! I don’t know of any heavy rail lines in the US outside the NYC metro reach that level. As busy as expo is, it will peak at less than half that. The purple line will probably get there, but just. To reach 12k per mile on light rail would require what? 20 trains per hour at rush hour? That’s if there are lots of short trips with many getting on and off. |
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Jul 21, 2018 14:13:02 GMT -8
And 12,000 per mile for light rail is insane! I don’t know of any heavy rail lines in the US outside the NYC metro reach that level. As busy as expo is, it will peak at less than half that. The purple line will probably get there, but just. To reach 12k per mile on light rail would require what? 20 trains per hour at rush hour? That’s if there are lots of short trips with many getting on and off. Holy smokies you're right. Just about 2/3 of Red/Purple ridership, but on 3 car light rail? It's going to be a squeeze. I think the WeHo contribution will tip the decision towards the options that go down the length of WeHo - San Vicente or La Cienega. If they don't come up with the goods, then La Brea. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 21, 2018 17:43:36 GMT -8
The other documentation is even more enlightening. Fairfax is dead there’s virtually no ridership improvement but it costs almost 150 million more per mile. Vermont was included but is likewise going to be rejected early. This is going to come down to la cienega vs la brea and on almost every single metric la brea wins. But the slam dunk will be the enormous reduction in vehicle mile traveled la brea has over la cienega. And the fact that la brea projects to ridership of 12000 per mile 20% more than the purple extension La cienegas big argument will be that they have the most trips within the line, thus the higher ridership, la brea has a lot more end to end travelers. This is going to be a massive fight And there’s obviously a missing station at melrose that will be included win all is said and done, on the la brea route. Agree with you. Looking at the graphic La Brea looked like a no brainer, but reading the report this will come down to either La Cienega or La Brea. Fairfax is dead. La Brea is the most cost effective but misses most of the jobs and destinations. La Cienega is better for the long term and assuming West Hollywood kicks in some money, the additional cost is moot. And 12,000 per mile for light rail is insane! I don’t know of any heavy rail lines in the US outside the NYC metro reach that level. As busy as expo is, it will peak at less than half that. The purple line will probably get there, but just. To reach 12k per mile on light rail would require what? 20 trains per hour at rush hour? That’s if there are lots of short trips with many getting on and off. I hate to say it, but 12,000 per mile makes Damien Goodman sound correct, phase one Crenshaw should have been fully subterranean. That means phase two is constrained by the street running segments on Crenshaw that are maxed out at 5 minute headways. At grade Crenshaw phase 1 also constrains the fully grade separated connection with green line. If it’s Hollywood to Norwalk it stinks the whole line is limited by at grade Crenshaw |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 21, 2018 20:59:08 GMT -8
Agree with you. Looking at the graphic La Brea looked like a no brainer, but reading the report this will come down to either La Cienega or La Brea. Fairfax is dead. La Brea is the most cost effective but misses most of the jobs and destinations. La Cienega is better for the long term and assuming West Hollywood kicks in some money, the additional cost is moot. And 12,000 per mile for light rail is insane! I don’t know of any heavy rail lines in the US outside the NYC metro reach that level. As busy as expo is, it will peak at less than half that. The purple line will probably get there, but just. To reach 12k per mile on light rail would require what? 20 trains per hour at rush hour? That’s if there are lots of short trips with many getting on and off. I hate to say it, but 12,000 per mile makes Damien Goodman sound correct, phase one Crenshaw should have been fully subterranean. That means phase two is constrained by the street running segments on Crenshaw that are maxed out at 5 minute headways. At grade Crenshaw phase 1 also constrains the fully grade separated connection with green line. If it’s Hollywood to Norwalk it stinks the whole line is limited by at grade Crenshaw The Measure M Ordinance does consider grade-separating the Crenshaw Line after 2035: theplan.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/measurem_ordinance_16-01.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 22, 2018 8:04:16 GMT -8
Interesting that they’ll consider grade separation, although note that they “consider” it in 2034 or earlier. Actual construction would be decades later if it’s indeed “consistent with the Orange line”. So this may not be useful for 30+ years after the Crenshaw line is extended north.
If they really do expect 12,000 people per mile, then light rail may not be the way to go. It might make sense to make it heavy rail. I don’t know that grade separated light rail is all that much cheaper than grade separated heavy rail. There would be the extra transfer required at expo, but if the alternative is that half the people can’t ride that want to, then it’s worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 22, 2018 11:51:26 GMT -8
I just noticed there is no la cienega/santa Monica station on the alignment
Would we ho really be okay with a line with the only we ho station being fairfax Santa Monica?
Note that given the geography a SM/LC station would be deep and expensive, probably 750 million to build it.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 22, 2018 12:03:49 GMT -8
Regarding the highland terminus there are four options
East west at grade down Hollywood from la brea to highland station at grade in the middle of Hollywood.
Cut and cover station north south on highland with an aerial s approach on sunset
Aerial station at north south on highland Hollywood with an s approach down sunset
Cut and cover station north south on highland with a Tbm s approach
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 22, 2018 13:14:59 GMT -8
I just noticed there is no la cienega/santa Monica station on the alignment Would we ho really be okay with a line with the only we ho station being fairfax Santa Monica? Note that given the geography a SM/LC station would be deep and expensive, probably 750 million to build it. To be clear you mean that there is no La Cienega station on the San Vicente alternative. There is one on the La Cienega option which appears to me to be the much better option of the two. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 22, 2018 13:54:50 GMT -8
If WeHo wants to bring $1B or more, which is more than $25k per every man, woman, and child then maybe. Otherwise, it is La Brea in a landslide. Not even close and WeHo still gets a station. |
|
