|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 21, 2010 22:06:38 GMT -8
I was sent the following notice by e-mail today:
It sounds like MRT and Zev are working together to preserve the West Hollywood corridor and get a second Crenshaw extension southward.
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Oct 22, 2010 8:19:21 GMT -8
Since this line would be my theoretical train to work everyday... I find this very exciting (if I'm even alive when it opens)
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 22, 2010 10:35:01 GMT -8
The full length Pink line is going to be pretty awesome deal if it happens maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=109982261189696647553.000492747cf29fbd56df1&ll=34.035875,-118.312798&spn=0.183223,0.363579&z=12 Closing the gap between Carson and Long Beach probably wouldn't add that many ridership on the northern portion but should enhance the utility of the line in the South Bay. Torrance or Redondo to Long Beach will be a much easier commute than the 405 (or otherwise inadequate bus service which lacks east-west routes in the South Bay)
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 23, 2010 10:08:16 GMT -8
Interesting. So they are going to report next month whether a feasibility study would be feasible? They already have a study for the southern part from the Harbor Subdivision study. They already have one for the middle part from Expo to Wilshire. Would this be a study of a completely new study?
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 24, 2010 9:02:36 GMT -8
Interesting. So they are going to report next month whether a feasibility study would be feasible? They already have a study for the southern part from the Harbor Subdivision study. They already have one for the middle part from Expo to Wilshire. Would this be a study of a completely new study? Yeah, the wording looks confusing to me too. If that reporting is accurate, someone appears to not really know what they want. As for the information known to date, there is a link on another page for the old Metro study, which is about a year old. It looks like the Crenshaw to Wilshire study had a focus on an alignment to La Brea. If the MLT motion passes, who knows. But, as of today, information looks lacking for the other alternatives discussed around here (up Fairfax or San Vicente to La Cienega). Also, from either of those locations to go to Hollywood-Highland. The old study did not look at that. Did it?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 24, 2010 18:38:01 GMT -8
No study to date have looked at connecting Crenshaw to Hollywood. I assume Zev and MRT are trying to make peace preemptively with City of West Hollywood knowing that it will be a messy fight if Metro doesn't have any rail planned for the city that voted most heavily for Measure R.
I think Zev and MRT have the right idea... Metro needs to look at these light rail studies as a system and not piecemeal "corridor" studies. Crenshaw and "Green Line" South Bay should have been one study from the beginning. And if there is going to be rail to West Hollywood one day, there needs to be a comprehensive understanding that new lines should be constructed for accommodate these future extensions (e.g. underground station at Crenshaw/Expo).
We need to push Metro to adopt this kind of long term evaluation based on final system build-out as opposed to piecemeal "corridor" studies. We need to avoid any more problem/wastes like the new Gold Line Little Tokyo station (which will be demolished for Regional Connector). I can already see a big problem brewing with Century/Aviation... If Metro design and construct this station to only accommodate Crenshaw, we may have a problem when the 405 line reaches LAX.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Oct 24, 2010 19:49:48 GMT -8
It looks like the Crenshaw to Wilshire study had a focus on an alignment to La Brea. If the MLT motion passes, who knows. But, as of today, information looks lacking for the other alternatives discussed around here (up Fairfax or San Vicente to La Cienega). Also, from either of those locations to go to Hollywood-Highland. The old study did not look at that. Did it? Quoting the Crenshaw Corridor Wilshire/La Brea Light Rail Transit Extension Study (2009) itself, it provided "a summary of the results of the study of the potential future LRT extension to Wilshire Boulevard and La Brea Avenue or other connections to the west. While this discussion focuses on a connection toward Wilshire / La Brea, this discussion is intended to apply more broadly to other potential connections with the Wilshire corridor, including potential connections toward the west at Wilshire/Fairfax, Wilshire/La Cienega, and Wilshire/San Vicente. These potential future connections and the extensions associated with them could benefit from and be advanced by the infrastructure explored within this report." The only studies for a corridor north from Mid-Wilshire that I am aware of are the recent Westside Subway Pink Line studies and the original 1980's Metro Red Line studies, which studied north-south alignments including Fairfax and La Brea.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 24, 2010 19:54:25 GMT -8
No study to date have looked at connecting Crenshaw to Hollywood. I assume Zev and MRT are trying to make peace preemptively with City of West Hollywood knowing that it will be a messy fight if Metro doesn't have any rail planned for the city that voted most heavily for Measure R. I think Zev and MRT have the right idea... Metro needs to look at these light rail studies as a system and not piecemeal "corridor" studies. Crenshaw and "Green Line" South Bay should have been one study from the beginning. And if there is going to be rail to West Hollywood one day, there needs to be a comprehensive understanding that new lines should be constructed for accommodate these future extensions (e.g. underground station at Crenshaw/Expo). We need to push Metro to adopt this kind of long term evaluation based on final system build-out as opposed to piecemeal "corridor" studies. We need to avoid any more problem/wastes like the new Gold Line Little Tokyo station (which will be demolished for Regional Connector). I can already see a big problem brewing with Century/Aviation... If Metro design and construct this station to only accommodate Crenshaw, we may have a problem when the 405 line reaches LAX. I whole-heartedly agree. In fact, I think the whole westside needs to be considered for similar reasons. Why stop with only considering a Crenshaw exension? Why not have a 50 or 100-year rapid transit vision and consideration to how things might work together? As boundaries, I'd look at everything from the Blue Line on the east, the mountains to the north, ocean to the west, and the Green Line to the south.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Oct 24, 2010 23:12:37 GMT -8
The only studies for a corridor north from Mid-Wilshire that I am aware of are the recent Westside Subway Pink Line studies and the original 1980's Metro Red Line studies, which studied north-south alignments including Fairfax and La Brea. Not to get too far sidetracked here, but I'm noticing that the original Red Line plan has a Wilshire/Crenshaw station in it, while the staff planning the current Purple Line route just recommended to nix it. Is there any justification for that in the original planning documents?
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Oct 25, 2010 0:50:58 GMT -8
The only studies for a corridor north from Mid-Wilshire that I am aware of are the recent Westside Subway Pink Line studies and the original 1980's Metro Red Line studies, which studied north-south alignments including Fairfax and La Brea. Not to get too far sidetracked here, but I'm noticing that the original Red Line plan has a Wilshire/Crenshaw station in it, while the staff planning the current Purple Line route just recommended to nix it. Is there any justification for that in the original planning documents? When the RTD released the Draft EIS for the Metro Rail project in 1983, both the Wilshire/Crenshaw and Hollywood Bowl stations were designated as optional stations. By the time the Final EIS was released later that year, the RTD board adopted an LPA including both stations. Here is a passage from the Final EIR regarding the adoption of the Wilshire/Crenshaw station: The SCRTD Board adopted the Wilshire/Crenshaw station upon the recommendation of the Los Angeles City Council. The City Council's recommendation stemmed from lengthy deliberations by a specially convened Citizens Advisory Committee which made recommendations to the City's Director of Planning.
It is quite costly to add stations after initial construction is completed. There was never any question of the Wilshire/Crenshaw Station's viabilty as a Metro Rail transportation investment; it made no sense, therefore, to postpone its construction if there was intent to build it eventually. Also, a 1984 Metro Rail promotional video offers the following description of the then-proposed Wilshire/Crenshaw station: "It should be noted that the Crenshaw facility will be a residential station, similar to this Metro station in Washington, DC [perhaps the Potomac Ave. station??]. It will be designed and zoned to preserve the existing low-density residential character of the adjacent community."
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Oct 25, 2010 4:02:30 GMT -8
It's been noted before that there is a tradeoff between paying for potential future connections and actually building a current plan. While little Tokyo is a bit extreme in that it will likely be torn down within a decade of being built, other future extensions are less certain, and we don't necessarily always need to pay a hundred million here and there if there's a potential alternative solution that would work around the recently built infrastructure. However, I think it would be nice to adopt something along the lines of Justin's potential map for the westside, and start at least doing back of the envelope calculations so that Century/Aviation, Expo/Crenshaw, and the Expo/405 line transfer station are built in a halfway reasonable way that allows for future expansion.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 25, 2010 8:10:46 GMT -8
It seems the alliance being made is for MRT and other southbay leaders to support the West Hollywood alignment in exchange for Zev and other westside leaders to support an extension of the Crenshaw Line all the way to Long Beach.
Fair enough. Let's make it happen.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Oct 25, 2010 11:35:21 GMT -8
Let's say this does happen - where's the transfer to the Purple Line?
I assume it'll be at La Cienega b/c they won't put a station at San Vicente after the line is already built and the fact that it's too close to La Cienega anyway. Going on the assumption that the line is below grade at Wilshire - this is going to be one DEEP light-rail station since it would have to go underneath the Purple Line tracks (would there be space to have it go over?)
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 25, 2010 13:00:03 GMT -8
It's probably worth a repost of this map from an MRT video around September last year:
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 25, 2010 13:12:42 GMT -8
Let's say this does happen - where's the transfer to the Purple Line? I assume it'll be at La Cienega b/c they won't put a station at San Vicente after the line is already built and the fact that it's too close to La Cienega anyway. Going on the assumption that the line is below grade at Wilshire - this is going to be one DEEP light-rail station since it would have to go underneath the Purple Line tracks (would there be space to have it go over?) The recommended location of the Purple Line station is on the east side of La Cienega. One of my reasons for advocating for that placement is to allow an eastern entrance that would be close (about one block away) to light rail on San Vicente. See the Draft EIS, Appendix A, Part 2, page 9, for the detailed plan and profile of La Cienega-San Vicente. There's a big 18' x 18' storm drain (plus a smaller 12' x 8.5' one) under San Vicente, where the top subway tunnel would be nearly 50 feet below ground. Perhaps light rail would bridge over Wilshire? And see the 1997 movie Volcano for subway tunneling below San Vicente saved from lava by that storm drain.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 25, 2010 14:13:22 GMT -8
Let's say this does happen - where's the transfer to the Purple Line? I assume it'll be at La Cienega b/c they won't put a station at San Vicente after the line is already built and the fact that it's too close to La Cienega anyway. Going on the assumption that the line is below grade at Wilshire - this is going to be one DEEP light-rail station since it would have to go underneath the Purple Line tracks (would there be space to have it go over?) The recommended location of the Purple Line station is on the east side of La Cienega. One of my reasons for advocating for that placement is to allow an eastern entrance that would be close (about one block away) to light rail on San Vicente. See the Draft EIS, Appendix A, Part 2, page 9, for the detailed plan and profile of La Cienega-San Vicente. There's a big 18' x 18' storm drain (plus a smaller 12' x 8.5' one) under San Vicente, where the top subway tunnel would be nearly 50 feet below ground. Perhaps light rail would bridge over Wilshire? And see the 1997 movie Volcano for subway tunneling below San Vicente saved from lava by that storm drain. San Vicente is wide enough to have surface level LRT so I don't think we will need a super deep bored tunnel at this crossing point. If the Pink line is running at surface level, we just need a bridge to elevate it across Wilshire. The location of Purple line station as you mentioned, is mid-block between La Cienega and San Vicente (roughly where BH Porshe dealership is located right now). We can easily add a tunnel connecting it to the surface level Pink line station on San Vicente. That would be my solution. maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=109982261189696647553.000492747cf29fbd56df1&ll=34.065219,-118.370798&spn=0.005724,0.011362&z=17
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 25, 2010 14:15:07 GMT -8
It's probably worth a repost of this map from an MRT video around September last year: Times change. Events change. Politics change. Look for a revised map soon.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 11, 2010 14:01:26 GMT -8
That was quick. Here's a map Metro has made: Some interesting paragraphs from this new Report on the issues, options and costs to conduct an Initial Review of a possible HollywoodNVest Hollywood Transit Corridor that would connect the Metro Red Line Hollywood/Highland Station to the Exposition/Crenshaw Station----------------------------------------- RECOMMENDATION[ Receive and file this report on the issues, options and costs to conduct an Initial Review of a possible Hollywood/West Hollywood Transit Corridor that would connect the Metro Red Line Hollywood/Highland Station to the Exposition/Crenshaw Station (currently under construction). Such a corridor would have the potential to provide a north/south transit connection with the CrenshawJLAX Transit Corridor, the South Bay Metro Green Line Extension and future potential extensions that could ultimately extend as far south as Long Beach and/or San Pedro. Attachment A shows the potential future study corridor.-------------------- Previous studies have been conducted as part of the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor for a future extension of that project north from Exposition Boulevard to Wilshire Boulevard (Attachment C). The CrenshawILAX Transit Corridor WilshireILaBrea Light Rail Extension Study (June 2009) identified possible connection points to the Westside Subway at La Brea, Fairfax, La Cienega or San Vicente with future extensions farther north to West Hollywood and Hollywood. Such an extension could operate along the same route as the heavy rail subway alternatives that were considered in the Westside Subway Draft EISIEIR.---------------- Costs to complete an Initial Review of a Hollywood/West Hollywood Transit Corridor connection to the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor could be undertaken for approximately $1.5 million and would take approximately 12 months to complete following notice to proceed. Such a study would evaluate conceptual alignments, station locations, connection points with existing and planned transit lines and potential ridership and costs. Since this corridor is currently included in the unfunded, strategic element of the adopted Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), no funding currentlyexists for the completion of this study or the implementation of this project. The South Bay Metro Green Line Extension to Long Beach and/or San Pedro is also included in the Strategic element of the adopted LRTP. Staffing is not available to complete this work. Additional staff would need to be hired to prepare a Statement of Work, procure consultant services and to conduct the Initial Review.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 11, 2010 14:22:02 GMT -8
I have a strong feeling that this was rushed to appease West Hollywood as everybody knows they were the biggest proponents of Measure R by any city in the county. I could care less....it's a nice study.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 11, 2010 14:36:05 GMT -8
I have a strong feeling that this was rushed to appease West Hollywood as everybody knows they were the biggest proponents of Measure R by any city in the county. I could care less....it's a nice study. This is not a study: it is just a report on what it would take to start a study. One of the requirements: $1.5 million (which doesn't currently exist). IMO, the release of this report is good for one reason: it will help keep the WeHo project alive in the imagination/vision of staff, Metro committees, the Metro Board, and the public.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 11, 2010 17:29:10 GMT -8
Seems like they are going to resurrect the old La Brea study that was initially part of the Crenshaw line evaluation. Which is a great start! Also, the map that Metro released today shows a continuous line from Hollywood/Highland to Long Beach Willow Station. Kind of similar to our discussion on this a while ago. If this alignment does eventually get adopted, we should push for it to go all the way to Long Beach Airport. maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=109982261189696647553.00049388ebc1fd973fd89&z=12
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 12, 2010 10:30:39 GMT -8
Seems like they are going to resurrect the old La Brea study that was initially part of the Crenshaw line evaluation. Which is a great start! Yep. Only this time the findings will have the line intersect with Wilshire further west at either San Vicente or Fairfax.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 12, 2010 10:54:26 GMT -8
Seems like they are going to resurrect the old La Brea study that was initially part of the Crenshaw line evaluation. Which is a great start! I'm going to repost both links, for convenience:
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 12, 2010 11:08:56 GMT -8
This looks to be the second case of "filling in the gaps" in the system. The DC connector being the first such case. It's kind of interesting when looking at the bigger picture, how now that there are more lines either built or fully planned (Expo 1&2), how further construction will consist more of connecting them than building entirely new lines.
RT
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 15, 2010 1:06:52 GMT -8
If a connection between Union Station-LAX is established via the Harbor Subdivision, I see little reason for Crenshaw continuing to LAX. Instead it should serve underserved areas on either Prarie, Crenshaw, or Hawthorne.
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Nov 15, 2010 9:20:46 GMT -8
If a connection between Union Station-LAX is established via the Harbor Subdivision, I see little reason for Crenshaw continuing to LAX. Instead it should serve underserved areas on either Prarie, Crenshaw, or Hawthorne. Really? So there shouldn't be a link between the Westside (and not that far west, mind you) and LAX? And besides, what's the timeline on that Subdivision? My understanding was that the Crenshaw line was more or less "next" in line for construction.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 15, 2010 9:50:18 GMT -8
If a connection between Union Station-LAX is established via the Harbor Subdivision, I see little reason for Crenshaw continuing to LAX. Instead it should serve underserved areas on either Prarie, Crenshaw, or Hawthorne. Really? So there shouldn't be a link between the Westside (and not that far west, mind you) and LAX? And besides, what's the timeline on that Subdivision? My understanding was that the Crenshaw line was more or less "next" in line for construction. JDR, AdamV is right. There is no timeline at all for the Harbor Subdivision through South LA. That project is not happening for the foreseeable future. The Crenshaw Corridor, on the other hand, is well on its way toward approval, with the FEIR nearing completion and the route well-established.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 15, 2010 11:39:44 GMT -8
My interpretation was he meant re-routing after the Union Station-LAX via Harbor Subdivision line was built. In that case, it's entirely possible to build a new set of tracks going straight south on Crenshaw, for example. The Crenshaw corridor would be built as planned, but the track that will be built on the Harbor Subdivision would be used for the Union Station-LAX route, while Crenshaw trains could continue on another yet-to-be-built segment.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree. That's just my interpretation of what he meant.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 15, 2010 15:49:47 GMT -8
My interpretation was he meant re-routing after the Union Station-LAX via Harbor Subdivision line was built. In that case, it's entirely possible to build a new set of tracks going straight south on Crenshaw, for example. The Crenshaw corridor would be built as planned, but the track that will be built on the Harbor Subdivision would be used for the Union Station-LAX route, while Crenshaw trains could continue on another yet-to-be-built segment. I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree. That's just my interpretation of what he meant. Yeah, that's exactly what i'm trying to say. Thanks. There's a large swath of high density that the Crenshaw Corridor bypasses south of Florence: farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/3357514809_45ff61df99_b.jpgOne major reason why Crenshaw is vitally needed right now is because of the tie-in with Expo. That way people from downtown will be able to get to LAX. But if the Harbor Subdivsion route is one day built, such a commute would be even faster.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 15, 2010 15:58:42 GMT -8
One major reason why Crenshaw is vitally needed right now is because of the tie-in with Expo. That way people from downtown will be able to get to LAX. But if the Harbor Subdivsion route is one day built, such a commute would be even faster. What about the people from the westside? The Westside has an equal employment in downtown LA and has a much higher residential population. It would be inefficient for them to go downtown to go back to LAX.
|
|