|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 22, 2018 15:37:21 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. No I think the San Vicente option is superior because it hits stronger jobs centers by staying on SV to SM |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 22, 2018 15:44:20 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. We ho also has to do battle with the SFR stakeholders on San Vicente who will be fighting with all their might to destroy at grade as an option on the routes using San Vicente. They will be showing up demanding tunnels for those at grade ssections. Theoretically, their best strategic bet for success will be to ardently support the la brea option. Secondary strategy would be to discredit the SM BLVD route as being on an earthquake fault line. If they can’t build under Santa Monica they can’t build at grade on San Vicente. We hos best strategy is to try and discredit all the assumptions supporting la bread advantages. So they’ll want to challenge the VMT numbers, the transit dependent numbers, the ridership numbers, the travel time numbers. And they will want to try to actively attack and erode the la brea advantages by demanding extra la brea stations that will increase the la brea cost and slow the line down. Every station we ho adds to the la brea line helps their cause because it slows the line down which narrows the gap and every slowdown will reduce ridership which makes it less attractive and if we ho can succeed in reducing ridership by making the line worse they will also reduce the VMT numbers etc etc. it’s all internconnected, and every additional station we ho can add to make the la brea route worse will make their route look better by comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 22, 2018 16:41:11 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. La Brea looks good on a cost basis, but then it misses most of the jobs and destinations. That’s really what transit should be about. Hopefully West Hollywood kicks in enough to make the options farther west more realistic. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 22, 2018 18:20:39 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. I think by "consistent with the Orange Line" it is the fact that the Orange Line opened in 2005 and the Orange Line grade separation project is intended to enter construction in 2019, which is 14 years later. They have $50 million set aside for Crenshaw "track improvements" to break ground in 2022, as well. I agree the language is kind of vague and could be interpreted to be "consistent with the Orange Line's conversion to light rail" but I think it makes more sense to be "consistent with the Orange Line's grade separation project". Finally, the Crenshaw North project is supposed to only start in 2041 under Measure M, so they were considering improving Crenshaw Phase 1 before entering construction on Crenshaw North. Late dates aren't set in stone, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jul 22, 2018 20:29:25 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. I'd rather do the inverse of this: build the much cheaper (since it doesn't require going underground) San Vicente segment as a shuttle, and build the main route up La Brea. This doesn't help with WeHo<->Hollywood trips, but those are short enough that the speed advantage of being separate from traffic is small. It does provide both Boystown and Beverly Center/Cedars connections to the Purple Line and points south, which may be more important even if it wasn't cheaper. Then you can later extend this line east to downtown along Pico or Venice. Santa Monica Boulevard should really be treated as one segment, instead of awkwardly following it for only a few miles. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 23, 2018 7:24:23 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. La Brea looks good on a cost basis, but then it misses most of the jobs and destinations. That’s really what transit should be about. Hopefully West Hollywood kicks in enough to make the options farther west more realistic. La Cienega has more jobs, but not all that much more. A winding route that La Cienega takes will also turn off longer distance riders, which is why it has basically the same ridership as La Brea. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 23, 2018 8:54:52 GMT -8
La Brea looks good on a cost basis, but then it misses most of the jobs and destinations. That’s really what transit should be about. Hopefully West Hollywood kicks in enough to make the options farther west more realistic. La Cienega has more jobs, but not all that much more. A winding route that La Cienega takes will also turn off longer distance riders, which is why it has basically the same ridership as La Brea. indeed, speed matters. and through the most congested part of the city, speed matters a lot. TWELVE minutes from Highland to Expo! Holy f**king shit, 12,000 riders might be severely underestimating ridership with that phenomenal speed. on a normal light traffic day Expo to Highland takes at least 35 minutes by car. On a bad day like hollywood bowl it takes about an 1;15, and it's about 45 minutes in normal heavy traffic. Jesus Christ that's just an amazing time. I'm guessing they would have to build four car platforms for the crenshaw phase two, then since it's fully grade separated, they would run 2.5 minute headways, alternating with 3 car trains going the full run to norwalk every five minutes and the 4car trains doing short runs from Expo to Highland. That's the only way to do the capacity with Light Rail, and they may need a change order for new cars so that the Crenshaw line can get some open gangway cars to further enhance capacity. On the other end, there could be a norwalk to LAX run spaced between the five minute headways of the Highland to Norwalk trains, for 2.5 minute headways for Lax to Norwalk. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 23, 2018 11:27:35 GMT -8
The proposed aerial station at Wilshire/San Vicente (for the two WeHo alternatives) is a non-starter. Four blocks, plus two elevator rides, from the Purple Line? That means ten minutes to transfer between the two lines!
The Purple Line is the trunk line of the Metro System! How could they even consider missing that critical connection?
My new chant is: "If it goes to WeHo, it must go *BELOW*!" (Below ground, that is.)
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 23, 2018 11:36:55 GMT -8
A lot to chew on after reading the entire document.
I agree Fairfax is dead on arrival. Too expensive and doesn't get significant ridership bonus.
And also agree that this will be a show down between La Cienega and La Brea. Weho obviously will be controlling the PR on La Cienega... I wonder who will speak for La Brea?
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 23, 2018 11:43:34 GMT -8
Ok, what would it take to get Metro to study the option of doing La Brea in 2 phases (the current La Brea option), plus a third phase that's a stub line along Santa Monica that could route up to Hollywood/Highland for now but eventually go east under Santa Monica? If it shared track to Hollywood/Highland it can be considered part of the crenshaw north project, I believe, and thus be viable for Measure M money. And while all three phases collectively would be more expensive than any of the five current options, the phasing would give Metro time to raise more money for the WeHo phase, and allow WeHo to try to drum up some money on their own. Concept pictured here with red=subway yellow=aerial: i.imgur.com/kOm3oMP.jpgIt just seems like this is the best of both worlds, and doing anything less locks us into an imperfect system in the future. WeHo would probably still fret that their phase would still be built quite a ways down the road, but if it leads to a full Santa Monica line in the end, won't it have been worth it? |
|
expo
Junior Member
Posts: 71 
|
Post by expo on Jul 23, 2018 12:19:21 GMT -8
^ I have no idea how realistic that is, but I love it
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 23, 2018 13:21:17 GMT -8
The proposed aerial station at Wilshire/San Vicente (for the two WeHo alternatives) is a non-starter. Four blocks, plus two elevator rides, from the Purple Line? That means ten minutes to transfer between the two lines! The Purple Line is the trunk line of the Metro System! How could they even consider missing that critical connection? My new chant is: "If it goes to WeHo, it must go *BELOW*!" (Below ground, that is.) It has to go below the purple line tunnels which are at least 60 feet deep. It takes at least five years to build a station as deep as the purple line station, it probably takes seven years to build a station to depth of 90 feet (thus below the purple line). Plus three years of utility relocation. Given the increased excavation and increased timeline, a subway station under purple will probably cost a minimum of 850 million for just that station. In all likelihood, it will cost over a billion. And it will take a lot longer than anything else on the line. And regardless, if they’re both subterranean, you’re still looking at a 1500 ft walkway to the purple station. It’s hardly a penalty free transfer no matter what mode is chosen. I would much rather have aerial at La Brea or San Vicente which can be built for 150 million or so. Spending money on a subway transfer station at the purple line is wasting money. My slogan is “Elevate La Brea! Railway to the Stars!” “Fly High to Hollywood! Elevate La Brea!” “RISE UP L.A.! Elevate La Brea!” I can see the billboards now (paid for by Beverly Hills donors and carthay square neighborhood groups) put them all up and down La Brea, with Disneyland esque artwork and fonts. |
|
expo
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by expo on Jul 23, 2018 16:11:32 GMT -8
Does anyone have a good comp of what elevated light rail would look like on a street of La Brea's width?
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jul 24, 2018 9:22:13 GMT -8
There should be plenty of space to build an undercrossing at Wilshire/San Vicente and still be above the tunnels. The "can't go over" rule only applies to TBM tunnels (which have a minimum depth), whereas this would just be a trench with Wilshire bridged over it, like by USC. Extending the mezzanine east to provide easy transfers might be more troublesome, but maybe they can design the ceiling of where the crossover track is to be usable as the floor of a walkway.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 24, 2018 13:13:14 GMT -8
There should be plenty of space to build an undercrossing at Wilshire/San Vicente and still be above the tunnels. The "can't go over" rule only applies to TBM tunnels (which have a minimum depth), whereas this would just be a trench with Wilshire bridged over it, like by USC. Extending the mezzanine east to provide easy transfers might be more troublesome, but maybe they can design the ceiling of where the crossover track is to be usable as the floor of a walkway. For the benefit of those who don't know: the Purple Line station at La Cienega will be two blocks long, from La Cienega to Gale Drive, and a crossover will stretch east for two more blocks, from Gale Drive to San Vicente Blvd. If the Crenshaw Line has to be aerial at Wilshire, I would favor a hybrid of the La Cienega and San Vicente options. This would cross Wilshire at La Cienega heading north, and then turn before Beverly Center onto San Vicente toward SaMo/San Vicente. At least this way, the transfer between Crenshaw and Purple could be done via a single elevator, which would be a reasonable transfer. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 24, 2018 13:18:37 GMT -8
There should be plenty of space to build an undercrossing at Wilshire/San Vicente and still be above the tunnels. The "can't go over" rule only applies to TBM tunnels (which have a minimum depth), whereas this would just be a trench with Wilshire bridged over it, like by USC. Extending the mezzanine east to provide easy transfers might be more troublesome, but maybe they can design the ceiling of where the crossover track is to be usable as the floor of a walkway. For the benefit of those who don't know: the Purple Line station at La Cienega will be two blocks long, from La Cienega to Gale Drive, and a crossover will stretch east for two more blocks, from Gale Drive to San Vicente Blvd. If the Crenshaw Line has to be aerial at Wilshire, I would favor a hybrid of the La Cienega and San Vicente options. This would cross Wilshire at La Cienega heading north, and then turn before Beverly Center onto San Vicente toward SaMo/San Vicente. At least this way, the transfer between Crenshaw and Purple could be done via a single elevator, which would be a reasonable transfer. Where are you going to put the piles for the aerial segment and station above Wilshire? There is a station box right below you. It might be a reasonable transfer but the curve onto Wilshire and the tight 90 degree curve onto La Cienega seriously impedes the speed and performance of the entire line, braking to five mph to approach the station would stink. The line should stay on San Vicente to cross Wilshire with the station on the north side of Wilshire |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 24, 2018 13:50:05 GMT -8
Where are you going to put the piles for the aerial segment and station above Wilshire? There is a station box right below you. It might be a reasonable transfer but the curve onto Wilshire and the tight 90 degree curve onto La Cienega seriously impedes the speed and performance of the entire line, braking to five mph to approach the station would stink. The line should stay on San Vicente to cross Wilshire with the station on the north side of Wilshire I actually don't support aerial at all. I actually support underground. If you tunnel, you have a lot more flexibility. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 24, 2018 13:52:17 GMT -8
How you judge the options depends on your priorities: - Vermont wins on overall speed, if your destination is Koreatown or Downtown LA.
- La Brea wins on overall speed, if your destination is Hollywood and the SFValley.
- La Cienega and San Vicente win on overall speed, if your destination is the Westside.
- La Cienega and San Vicente win on serving the largest area.
- Fairfax and San Vicente win on serving the most destinations.
(It's amazing how different all of our priorities are!) Here are my opinions: - If people want to get to Downtown from Crenshaw, they can take the Expo Line. We don't need to send the Crenshaw Line east to Vermont just to shave off a couple of minutes for them.
- I really like the idea of a Santa Monica Blvd subway, which the San Vicente, La Cienega and (to a lesser extent) Fairfax options would create. SaMo Blvd. is quite dense and traffic impacted.
- I am big into destinations, and IMHO there are no destinations worth visiting along La Brea. (Pinks? LOL)
- I like the San Vicente and La Cienega options because they would connect to Purple Line farther west, providing faster access to UCLA, Century City, etc.
IMO the Vermont option is DOA, and the La Brea option is almost as DOA as Vermont. Hancock Park will never allow an aerial line to pass by their neighborhood. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 24, 2018 15:21:03 GMT -8
How you judge the options depends on your priorities: - Vermont wins on overall speed, if your destination is Koreatown or Downtown LA.
- La Brea wins on overall speed, if your destination is Hollywood and the SFValley.
- La Cienega and San Vicente win on overall speed, if your destination is the Westside.
- La Cienega and San Vicente win on serving the largest area.
- Fairfax and San Vicente win on serving the most destinations.
(It's amazing how different all of our priorities are!) Here are my opinions: - If people want to get to Downtown from Crenshaw, they can take the Expo Line. We don't need to send the Crenshaw Line east to Vermont just to shave off a couple of minutes for them.
- I really like the idea of a Santa Monica Blvd subway, which the San Vicente, La Cienega and (to a lesser extent) Fairfax options would create. SaMo Blvd. is quite dense and traffic impacted.
- I am big into destinations, and IMHO there are no destinations worth visiting along La Brea. (Pinks? LOL)
- I like the San Vicente and La Cienega options because they would connect to Purple Line farther west, providing faster access to UCLA, Century City, etc.
IMO the Vermont option is DOA, and the La Brea option is almost as DOA as Vermont. Hancock Park will never allow an aerial line to pass by their neighborhood. If were ever going to get elevated rail in LA besides el segundo, la brea is where it has to start, you’re never going to get them to do a first elevated line in the valley or on Vermont. Starting it near but not in a neighborhood like Hancock park is a good option. It would open up the rest of la to a lot more affordable rail options. La brea is the winner by ridership and reduction in vehicle miles traveled. Destinations? Are we tourists? I’ve had a lot of jobs that would have been served by la brea, and when I was transit dependent, a rail line on la brea would have been a godsend for me. But a booze train to we ho? Would have been way less useful to me and the other transit dependents stuck on the train. unless I was going to Highland, it would not have been very helpful for me getting to where I needed to go around the city. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 24, 2018 15:24:17 GMT -8
Where are you going to put the piles for the aerial segment and station above Wilshire? There is a station box right below you. It might be a reasonable transfer but the curve onto Wilshire and the tight 90 degree curve onto La Cienega seriously impedes the speed and performance of the entire line, braking to five mph to approach the station would stink. The line should stay on San Vicente to cross Wilshire with the station on the north side of Wilshire I actually don't support aerial at all. I actually support underground. If you tunnel, you have a lot more flexibility. Ahh so you are suggesting cut and cover shallow depth stations for the connection points? Interesting. The station palaces for the purple line would have to have their roofs dropped and be redesigned to allow for that, I think. Not to mention probably a lot of engineering to make sure the weight of the second station box is well supported, which the current boxes aren’t designed for. Maybe such a thing would not be the 850 million plus that going under the purple line would entail, but I would think you’re still looking at an eight year schedule to construct such a box and probably at least 500 million (which is a lot for a light rail station.) |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 24, 2018 17:05:29 GMT -8
That’s not really fair. Destinations include hospitals, museums, shopping, restaurants, job centers, parks, etc. Places that I go and probably most of us. So while La Brea may have been a godsend for you, places with more destinations would benefit more of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 24, 2018 19:13:38 GMT -8
Destinations? Are we tourists? I’ve had a lot of jobs that would have been served by la brea, and when I was transit dependent, a rail line on la brea would have been a godsend for me. But a booze train to we ho? Would have been way less useful to me and the other transit dependents stuck on the train. unless I was going to Highland, it would not have been very helpful for me getting to where I needed to go around the city. Cedars Sinai, Beverly Center, Restaurant Row, Pacific Design Center. Just these places represent thousands of jobs. There are lots of destinations that are not bars along the WeHo options. Its all about your priorities. If youre trying to get to Hollywood fastest, or you happen to work on La Brea, then La Brea is the best. Thats not how I measure it. |
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jul 24, 2018 20:21:29 GMT -8
Does anyone have a good comp of what elevated light rail would look like on a street of La Brea's width? There's this short segment in Seattle (though it is on a curve/transition to at-grade): goo.gl/maps/Bx5aLoyBnCvThey both seem to be about 100' between property lines, though La Brea (just north of Wilshire) has wider sidewalks. |
|
expo
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by expo on Jul 25, 2018 15:43:06 GMT -8
Does anyone have a good comp of what elevated light rail would look like on a street of La Brea's width? There's this short segment in Seattle (though it is on a curve/transition to at-grade): goo.gl/maps/Bx5aLoyBnCvThey both seem to be about 100' between property lines, though La Brea (just north of Wilshire) has wider sidewalks. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 27, 2018 2:42:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 27, 2018 2:56:55 GMT -8
There should be plenty of space to build an undercrossing at Wilshire/San Vicente and still be above the tunnels. The "can't go over" rule only applies to TBM tunnels (which have a minimum depth), whereas this would just be a trench with Wilshire bridged over it, like by USC. Extending the mezzanine east to provide easy transfers might be more troublesome, but maybe they can design the ceiling of where the crossover track is to be usable as the floor of a walkway. Based on the full report, crossing Wilshire under the La Cienega/San Vincente alternatives will go over the TBM tunnels. The Purple Line station starts a bit to the west of La Cienega, while this station will be on San Vincente. The report says it will be 475 feet away from the station box. For the Fairfax alternative, even though I think the alignment does passes over the Wilshire station, it says that the station needs to be under the station box and tunnels. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 27, 2018 7:02:47 GMT -8
La Brea looks good on a cost basis, but then it misses most of the jobs and destinations. That’s really what transit should be about. Hopefully West Hollywood kicks in enough to make the options farther west more realistic. La Cienega has more jobs, but not all that much more. A winding route that La Cienega takes will also turn off longer distance riders, which is why it has basically the same ridership as La Brea. According to the report there are twice as many jobs on the LaCienega route compared to La Brea. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 27, 2018 7:04:17 GMT -8
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. No I think the San Vicente option is superior because it hits stronger jobs centers by staying on SV to SM What I meant was that there is a La Cienega/Santa Monica station on the La Cienega option. You stated that there wasn’t such a station “on the alignment” and it wasn’t clear which alignment you meant. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 27, 2018 9:55:25 GMT -8
Just going to summarize some of the numbers from the report:
La Brea is 49% underground, 51% aerial, never at grade:
SV is 55% underground, 30% aerial, 15% at grade
LC is 56% underground, 29% aerial, 15% at grade
Fairfax is 79% underground, 9% aerial, 12% at grade
Population per square mile in the study area is 19,800, which is 1,200 more than San Francisco and more than Boston and Chicago, but significantly less than NYCs 28,000 ppl/sqmi
In 2040, the study area is projected to have 400,000 persons, which makes it 27,000 ppl/sqmi, nearly the same as NYC
there are 184,000 jobs in the area. 64,000 round trips within and 200,000-260,000 round trips in and out.
Most of the round trips in and out of the study area are NORTH SOUTH round trips, 80,000 come from the south, 110,000 come from the valley. (in other words, transfers from the redline are paramount!)
HOWEVER, bus ridership in the area is predominantly East West, and North South bus service is nowhere comparable, basically west of western it falls off enormously.
The surface streets are extremely congested, average bus speed is 10mph
16% of the commuting trips in and out of the study area, currently use transit, more than the double the 7% average of the county
50% of the study area is multi family housing, 21% of the study area is SFR, 19% is commercial.
WeHo is 69% multi family housing, 1% SFR and 25% commercial (but is only 36,000ppl overall out of the 323,000 ppl in the study area)
San Vicente and La Cienega routes provide access to 70,000 jobs, within a half mile of stations,
La Brea provides access to 16,500 jobs within a half mile of stations
Fairfax has 40,000 jobs within a half mile of stations
San Vicente and La Cienega reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled by 342,000
Fairfax reduces VMT by 358,000
LA Brea reduces VMT by 384,000
SV/LC have the most equal balance of trips.
41% ridership within the line, 40% ridership transferring on and off, 16% ridership going end to end
La Brea has more Transfers and thru riders:
30% ridership within the line 47% ridership transferring on and off, 21% ridership going end to end
Fairfax is almost the same as La Brea
COSTS PER MILE
Vermont: 712,000,000 per mile to build (probably because of a multibillion dollar purple line transfer)
Fairfax: 575,000,000 per mile to build (a transfer station beneath the purple station will cost at least a billion dollars)
LC/SV: 477,000,000 per mile to build (but note they only have the same cost per mile because the SV option is sneaky and doesn't include a station at La Cienega, that station would be subway and cost approximately 400,000,000 to build, but it is impossible to imagine west hollywood agreeing to no station there on the SV alignment)
La Brea: 481,000,000 per mile to build.
at 477M/mile, the additional 0.3 miles of the SV route should cost 143M over the LC route, that means that the Santa Monica La Cienega station costs 143M more than the Santa Monica/San Vicente Station. The purple line stations cost 500,000,000 each to build, but they are twice the size of a four platform LRT station. If we figure a baseline four platform station costs 250M, plus 143M, the SM/LC subway station must cost about 400,000,000
Therefore, an SV alignment with an added station at Santa Monica/La Cienega costs 4.8B and is 9.5 miles long for a total:
San Vicente: (with LC station added): 505,000,000 per mile to build.
***
In terms of potential phasing, phase one would potentially be to just the Purple line, Vermont is unable to complete a phase one to the purple line within the Measure M budget.
La Brea costs 1.8B to build to the purple line
LC/SV cost 1.9B to build to the purple line.
But because most of the ridership is in Weho, La Brea out-performs LC/SV in phase one, getting ridership of 50,000 compared to 47,000 for LC/SV
fully 84% of those 50,000 phase one riders on La Brea would be "end-to-end" riders. holy shit.
that means Crenshaw just from the south is expected to feed about 42,000 riders per day to the purple line.
70% of LC/SV riders would be through riders, or feeding 33,000 riders per day to the purple line.
by the way regarding Vermont on page 33:
Vermont is officially dead, that means.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 27, 2018 10:00:24 GMT -8
Regarding the Midtown crossing at Pico / Venice:
A longer bored tunnel down Crenshaw will result in an Aerial station at midtown crossing.
A straight as an arrow bored tunnel to midtown crossing REQUIRES an underground station at midtown crossing
as a result, although there is a shorter tunneling distance, an underground station more than wipes out the savings, thus the longer tunneling route + the aerial station is cheaper to build. Hence going down Crenshaw, rather than tunneling directly.
|
|
