|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 31, 2011 21:07:48 GMT -8
Can't wait to read the full report on the Big Blue Bus 10 tomorrow. First reaction though.........looks like Metro is planning for a future northern spur of the Crenshaw Line and they will be going UNDERGROUND North of 48th street all the way to Expo/Crenshaw. Meaning........it looks like this will be the First Phase of the Crenshaw Line (officially?) by Metro with 2 extensions to Wilshire and then to West Hollywood/Hollywood?
Anyways, I like the long-term planning and this makes complete sense to be below grade north of 48th for the future Crenshaw Line/West Hollywood(?) Line north?
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 1, 2011 6:45:39 GMT -8
I found it interesting that they plan on all the underground segments to be constructed using cut and cover. This is from page 59, part 6 of 6, chapter 4:
Although cut-and-cover construction methods are assumed for all below grade segments of the proposed project in order to evaluate the worst-case scenario, the use of a TBM for below grade segments that are deep enough to allow use of a TBM may be considered by proposing contractors.
So the contractor has the option of proposing the use of a TBM. The Northern underground segment, from 48th to Exposition is 1.6 total miles. You would think that if they were really serious about going North of Exposition at some point in the future, that they would use a TBM for that underground segment, running it from South to North. Have the TBM tunnel just North of Exposition, then leave it mothballed underground. When you decide to extend the Crenshaw line North, the TBM is already in place, underground, just waiting to be fired up to continue.
I would hope that they would at least ask the contractor to provide a cost estimate for this, versus say doing cut and cover for the entire 1.6 mile underground segment. If you really plan on going North of Exposition, it would be worthwhile to use the TBM now and save yourself the headache of later trying to figure out where to stage the TBM.
I also see they plan on operating the Green Line with half the Westbound trains going to North to the Century/Aviation station (LAX), and the other half going South to the current Redondo terminus. They would also use 2 car trains from the start of service to be compatible with the current Green Line operation.
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 1, 2011 8:28:20 GMT -8
Just went up yesterday afternoon. I'm just reading it now. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 1, 2011 8:46:31 GMT -8
Project Alignment (from Executive Summary, page 17) The southern terminus of the alignment would begin at the existing Metro Green Line Aviation Station which is in an aerial configuration, and transition northerly to a below-grade trench configuration, south of 111th Street, as it passes adjacent to the LAX south runways. The baseline configuration of the project near LAX Runway 25L and 25R ends is a cut-and-cover trench that is covered with a reinforced concrete roof. This is based on comments received from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) on the DEIS/DEIR. There is also an interim option for a depressed partially-covered trench. After clearing the south runways north of 104th Street, the alignment would transition to an aerial configuration across Century Boulevard.
At Century Boulevard, the LRT alignment would be located on a new bridge constructed west of, and adjacent to, the existing railroad bridge. The alignment would transition to an at-grade configuration north of the Wally Park structure and operate at-grade across Arbor Vitae Street and would transition to an aerial structure across Manchester Avenue. The alignment would transition back to grade level for at-grade crossings at Isis and Hindry Avenues. The LRT alignment would transition to an aerial configuration across La Cienega Boulevard and the I-405 and would return to grade before Oak Street.
The alignment would continue at grade to the east with at-grade crossings at Oak Street, Cedar Street, Ivy Street, and Eucalyptus Avenue. The alignment would descend to a below-grade trench configuration under La Brea Avenue with an open cut station to the east of La Brea Avenue. The alignment would transition back to grade east of La Brea Avenue until Victoria Avenue. At-grade crossings would occur at Centinela Avenue, West Boulevard and Brynhurst Avenue and an at-grade station would be located to the west of West Boulevard.
West of Victoria Avenue, the alignment would transition to a below-grade tunnel and continue along the Harbor Subdivision until Crenshaw Boulevard where it would continue north under Crenshaw Boulevard until north of 59th Place where it would transition to grade level in through a portal in the middle of the Crenshaw Boulevard median. The alignment is required to be below grade under this segment of Crenshaw Boulevard because the street right-of-way width is 100 feet, which would be insufficient to accommodate an at-grade LRT without reducing roadway lane capacity.
The alignment would travel at grade in a new median of Crenshaw Boulevard south of 59th Street to 48th Street. The frontage roads along Crenshaw Boulevard would be eliminated where the alignment is operating at grade. There would be an at-grade station in the median of Crenshaw Boulevard, south of Slauson Avenue. The alignment would transition to a below-grade configuration north of 48th Street through a portal in the median of Crenshaw Boulevard. The alignment would be below grade for the remainder of the alignment either to the terminus associated with an MOS at King or at Exposition Boulevard (the terminus for the LPA), with the incorporation of Design Option 6. The below-grade alignment could be built as either a bored or cut and cover tunnel. The choice of tunneling methodology will be based on an analysis of the length and depth of the tunnel section. Below-grade stations would be located in the median of Crenshaw Boulevard at King and Exposition Boulevards with portal entrances on properties adjacent to Crenshaw Boulevard.
MOS-Century would follow the same alignment described above, but beginning at the Crenshaw/Exposition Station with the incorporation of Design Option 6 and terminating at the Century Station. Items of interest (to me anyway): - La Brea station will be a
below-grade "open cut" station. This was long planned to be an aerial station. This looks like it will be similar to the USC/Expo Park station: mostly at-grade, adjacent to the trench underpass.
- The trench underpass below Centinela has been eliminated.
- The below grade segment under Crenshaw now stretches from Expo in the north to 48th Street (just north of Crenshaw) in the south.
- Slauson station will remain at-grade, and will be located fully south of the intersection.
- The trench near LAX may be "partially covered" if they can get it approved by the FAA.
- Minimal operating segment may exclude connection to Green Line or tunnel up to Expo.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 1, 2011 10:58:34 GMT -8
I also see they plan on operating the Green Line with half the Westbound trains going to North to the Century/Aviation station (LAX), and the other half going South to the current Redondo terminus. They would also use 2 car trains from the start of service to be compatible with the current Green Line operation. RT The operating plan is on page 2-40 for those interested. It's interesting that the preliminary plan calls for branching of Green line. The previous discussion we had here, the consensus was that branching would result in too much service in the South Bay sector. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 1, 2011 15:11:29 GMT -8
Well, we have to keep in mind that the current El Segundo stub isn't going to be a stub forever. The plan is to extend that further south in Redondo Beach and Torrance. Sending more trains to the south may be better justified in the future when the extensions are added.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 1, 2011 16:18:35 GMT -8
[/li][li]The trench underpass below Centinela has been eliminated.[/quote] Thanks for the summary, Joel. I'm really glad that the Centinela section will be at-grade. Something has been rectified in a project in which quite a few things were done in the wrong way. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 1, 2011 17:52:55 GMT -8
The operating plan is on page 2-40 for those interested. It's interesting that the preliminary plan calls for branching of Green line. The previous discussion we had here, the consensus was that branching would result in too much service in the South Bay sector. The number of riders from Redondo to Norwalk will probably drop quite a bit because many of those riders transfer to northbound buses at Aviation/Imperial anyway, and many of them will probably switch to the Crenshaw Line. Once this happens, it will be easy for Metro to justify cutting direct service from the South Bay to Norwalk. Having said that, the operating plan has for a long time included a split Green Line: note this image I made for wikipedia last year.  |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 5, 2011 17:38:15 GMT -8
The Metro Board will be certifying this FEIR on September 22? Isn't there supposed to be a public comment period lasting 30 or 45 days? This would stretch until around mid-October, by my calculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 5, 2011 23:47:31 GMT -8
The Metro Board will be certifying this FEIR on September 22? Isn't there supposed to be a public comment period lasting 30 or 45 days? This would stretch until around mid-October, by my calculation. According to CEQA, if there is no major change from the DEIR, which would require new mitigations, FEIR is not required to be circulated. |
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Sept 6, 2011 7:20:24 GMT -8
I know it's still too early to ask but - Crenshaw North is still a toss-up between San Vicente, Fairfax and La Brea?
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 6, 2011 7:42:28 GMT -8
The Metro Board will be certifying this FEIR on September 22? Isn't there supposed to be a public comment period lasting 30 or 45 days? This would stretch until around mid-October, by my calculation. According to CEQA, if there is no major change from the DEIR, which would require new mitigations, FEIR is not required to be circulated. Thanks for clearing that up Gokhan! |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 6, 2011 10:12:25 GMT -8
I know it's still too early to ask but - Crenshaw North is still a toss-up between San Vicente, Fairfax and La Brea? Yes, it too way early, but I am certainly rooting for San Vicente or Fairfax. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 6, 2011 10:31:13 GMT -8
I know it's still too early to ask but - Crenshaw North is still a toss-up between San Vicente, Fairfax and La Brea? Yes, it too way early, but I am certainly rooting for San Vicente or Fairfax. My vote is for San Vicente. I think we should also have a network of street cars running in their own lanes following the grid on: La Cienega, Fairfax, La Brea, Western, Normandie Sunset, Santa Monica, Melrose, Beverly, 3rd, Olympic, Pico More streets in Hollywood, further west, and downtown. This would really enable more dense residential development, and car free access to major employment centers. These are the streets that will give Los Angeles a dense core, concentrating development and employment where it can be reached on a cohesive transit network. A major part of making such a scheme scale is to capture some of the value added to new developments. Whether that be an assessment on new development (coupled with upzoning and the elimination of parking minimums, which ensures that projects will remain at least as viable as they are now), or on existing businesses, I don't really care so long as some kind of equitable system would be worked out. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Sept 6, 2011 11:34:58 GMT -8
Considering San Vicente has a center median that stretches from downtown to the beach (using Santa Monica Blvd and Veteran's Hospital sections for a portion) it seems like a no brainer.
The street cars on San Vicente were pulled in the early 1940's, but the tree filled median remains. While the trees are pretty, they are all nearing their life expectancy near La Brea and have started to deteriorate in storms. Again, seems like a no brainer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 6, 2011 11:38:45 GMT -8
I wold love all of that, Matthew.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 6, 2011 11:47:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 6, 2011 13:32:54 GMT -8
A Metro Staffer did mention to me off the record that Metro knows that corridor needs "something" and he acknowledged that Metro already invested a lot of money studying that corridor. Moving the La Cienega station to the east side of the intersection sort of makes it an easy transfer to construct to a new San Vicente station. The Fairfax and LaBrea stations would need to be redesigned for a extension from the Crenshaw/LAX Line. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Sept 6, 2011 19:02:28 GMT -8
Considering San Vicente has a center median that stretches from downtown to the beach (using Santa Monica Blvd and Veteran's Hospital sections for a portion) it seems like a no brainer. The street cars on San Vicente were pulled in the early 1940's, but the tree filled median remains. While the trees are pretty, they are all nearing their life expectancy near La Brea and have started to deteriorate in storms. Again, seems like a no brainer. Well, San Vicente has a five mile gap between the eastern and western segments, and then it stops 4 miles short of downtown. So it would be more correct to say that it covers half the distance between DTLA and the coast. And then I can't even begin to comprehend the community opposition to tearing up those medians and running trains down them. Maybe on the eastern segments where there are already 6 travel lanes. You could put trains down the middle and then take a car lane for an additional planted median. Considering how much of Crenshaw "Phase 1" (let's call it) ended up underground, I'd expect communities to the north to expect and lobby for the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Sept 6, 2011 20:56:20 GMT -8
Considering San Vicente has a center median that stretches from downtown to the beach (using Santa Monica Blvd and Veteran's Hospital sections for a portion) it seems like a no brainer. The street cars on San Vicente were pulled in the early 1940's, but the tree filled median remains. While the trees are pretty, they are all nearing their life expectancy near La Brea and have started to deteriorate in storms. Again, seems like a no brainer. Well, San Vicente has a five mile gap between the eastern and western segments, and then it stops 4 miles short of downtown. So it would be more correct to say that it covers half the distance between DTLA and the coast. And then I can't even begin to comprehend the community opposition to tearing up those medians and running trains down them. Maybe on the eastern segments where there are already 6 travel lanes. You could put trains down the middle and then take a car lane for an additional planted median. Considering how much of Crenshaw "Phase 1" (let's call it) ended up underground, I'd expect communities to the north to expect and lobby for the same. There is no gap. Not immediately obvious, but the ROW/median is complete - from the first San Vicente it continues uninterrupted up Burton way, then along Santa Monica Blvd, through the Veteran's Hospital property and back onto San Vicente (West). Once you trace it the first time, it's like a lightbulb - a huge, separate ROW median straight through the upper West side to the ocean. Unfortunately it goes through Beverly Hills which isn't exactly transit friendly, and would require the removal of mature coral trees which for whatever reason are more important than anything (diverted the Expo line in Santa Monica for example). However, the ROW remains and using portions of it for Crenshaw (and other things - streetcars, etc.) makes sense. If they want to do cut and cover, it's easy - or even above ground - easier still. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 6, 2011 22:05:31 GMT -8
Folks - this Crenshaw North train is going no further north than Santa Monica boulevard. There is no reason for this train to go into Beverly Hills, and in the least, Brentwood. It will turn east on Santa Monica and FINALLY give West Hollywood (the city that voted 86% Yes on Measure R) a rail transit line. Going into Beverly Hills/Brentwood via the San Vicente route....is worthless.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 7, 2011 8:48:38 GMT -8
Phase 2 is not a part of the current FEIR (the topic of this thread). The northern extension of the Crenshaw Line is not discussed in the current FEIR, except for the underground transfer station at Crenshaw/Expo. Phase 2 has no route, no funding, and was not being studied in this project report. So please continue this conversation in another thread. Like this one. Or some where in here. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Sept 7, 2011 18:21:07 GMT -8
Well, San Vicente has a five mile gap between the eastern and western segments, and then it stops 4 miles short of downtown. So it would be more correct to say that it covers half the distance between DTLA and the coast. And then I can't even begin to comprehend the community opposition to tearing up those medians and running trains down them. Maybe on the eastern segments where there are already 6 travel lanes. You could put trains down the middle and then take a car lane for an additional planted median. Considering how much of Crenshaw "Phase 1" (let's call it) ended up underground, I'd expect communities to the north to expect and lobby for the same. There is no gap. Not immediately obvious, but the ROW/median is complete - from the first San Vicente it continues uninterrupted up Burton way, then along Santa Monica Blvd, through the Veteran's Hospital property and back onto San Vicente (West). Once you trace it the first time, it's like a lightbulb - a huge, separate ROW median straight through the upper West side to the ocean. Unfortunately it goes through Beverly Hills which isn't exactly transit friendly, and would require the removal of mature coral trees which for whatever reason are more important than anything (diverted the Expo line in Santa Monica for example). However, the ROW remains and using portions of it for Crenshaw (and other things - streetcars, etc.) makes sense. If they want to do cut and cover, it's easy - or even above ground - easier still. I'm just not seeing the ROW between Burton Way and Western San Vicente. Beverly Hills built a series of parking lots on their portion and Caltrans totally redesigned Santa Monica Blvd from Century City to the 405 a few years ago, so that ROW is completely gone. But as Metrocenter notes, I digress from the topic. |
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Sept 8, 2011 6:33:08 GMT -8
There is no gap. Not immediately obvious, but the ROW/median is complete - from the first San Vicente it continues uninterrupted up Burton way, then along Santa Monica Blvd, through the Veteran's Hospital property and back onto San Vicente (West). Once you trace it the first time, it's like a lightbulb - a huge, separate ROW median straight through the upper West side to the ocean. Unfortunately it goes through Beverly Hills which isn't exactly transit friendly, and would require the removal of mature coral trees which for whatever reason are more important than anything (diverted the Expo line in Santa Monica for example). And how many of those precious trees have already been felled this year? They will all be gone long before 30/10. At least the Santa Monica City Forester understands liability, unlike those who diverted Expo. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 19, 2011 6:50:32 GMT -8
The final vote on the project is this Thursday, September board meeting. Proposed project definition is listed here, item 13. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 19, 2011 17:20:41 GMT -8
The final vote on the project is this Thursday, September board meeting. Proposed project definition is listed here, item 13. Hey metrocenter, do you realize that they've eliminated the Westchester Station (Manchester Ave)? This is one of the most transit-dependent areas in LA. They are eliminating stations so that they can build more underground sections. This project has been completely messed up. This is an outrage! So, what do we do? Are we going to let Fix Expo, MRT, and Bernard Parks ruin it for everyone with their unneeded underground sections? |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 20, 2011 8:07:21 GMT -8
I'm not quite so negative on this outcome. Yes, it is a very expensive project. But on the other hand, it will be very fast, 20 minutes from Expo to the Green Line.
Both Manchester and Vernon (Leimert Park) were optional stations, and unfortunately at this point there's no money for either one. Vernon station is only conditionally-approved: in the end, I don't think there will be any money for it, and it will get dropped.
Yes, fewer stations means less access. But it also means an overall faster line. Also, extending the tunnel up to Expo will make it easier in the long run to extend the line north.
As long as Metro is able to get this project within it's generous budget (so that it doesn't interfere with other projects), I'm ok with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 20, 2011 8:45:56 GMT -8
This is not Amtrak or Metrolink, metrocenter. We need stations where we need them. Otherwise, there is not much point of building these light-rail and subway lines.
While the Vernon Station is a very inexpensive one ($200 million) and it's very close to the King Station, there is no excuse to skip a $10 million station on an existing aerial structure, especially when the distance is not that close and the area has a lot of transit-dependent people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 20, 2011 14:24:08 GMT -8
Could the King station be built as infill later?
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 22, 2011 10:41:03 GMT -8
|
|
