|
Post by matthewb on Nov 15, 2010 16:39:02 GMT -8
Such a scheme would still have a transfer station at Crenshaw and the Harbor Subdivision (it would really only make sense if the Union Station-LAX service were built as light rail and took over the Harbor Subdivision Crenshaw line stations). People on the Westside would take the same set of rails they would take under the current planned Crenshaw corridor operations, but they would take two different trains.
Crenshaw would run straight north-south, Union Station-LAX would run northeast-southwest, and Crenshaw and 67th is X marks the spot.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 16, 2010 8:07:03 GMT -8
Right now the Westside has NO rail to LAX. Even if they had to transfer once (not including the people mover, of course), that's a MAJOR improvement.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 16, 2010 9:23:55 GMT -8
No matter what happens, somebody's going to have to transfer somewhere. This is the nature of transit systems.
The impact of a transfer really depends on the design of the transfer station. In the last two years I visited Paris and London, and experienced some very bad transfer stations. One station in Paris I walked for nearly ten minutes along passages and up steep stairs to transfer from one line to another. It sucked.
I think the transfer between Crenshaw and Expo will be very easy, as long as the transfer station (at Crenshaw/Expo) is built underground. This station would presumably have entrances on either side of Crenshaw Blvd., giving easy access to both Expo platforms.
An at-grade station, OTOH, would be built on the east side of Crenshaw, so that half of the transferring riders would have to cross Crenshaw to transfer.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 16, 2010 9:36:27 GMT -8
Westside to LAX will eventually happen with the 405 corridor or Lincoln Blvd light rail.... some day.
In the meanwhile, if you are in Santa Monica or Brentwood, the BBB Rapid 3, Culver City Rapid 6, or Westwood FlyAway are still better options. That's not going to change until 405 or Lincoln LRT is done. However, Expo to Crenshaw to LAX will be a pretty decent solution if you are in Century City or Beverly Hills.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 16, 2010 9:56:30 GMT -8
Westside to LAX will eventually happen with the 405 corridor or Lincoln Blvd light rail.... some day. In the meanwhile, if you are in Santa Monica or Brentwood, the BBB Rapid 3, Culver City Rapid 6, or Westwood FlyAway are still better options. That's not going to change until 405 or Lincoln LRT is done. However, Expo to Crenshaw to LAX will be a pretty decent solution if you are in Century City or Beverly Hills. I lived in Santa Monica for several years and I have to agree that the BBB-3 and BBB-R3 are both great.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 16, 2010 10:19:47 GMT -8
BBB-R3 is great but needs increased frequency. Every 15 minutes is not often enough. Those buses are very crowded.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Nov 16, 2010 11:13:55 GMT -8
Sorry to divert the conversation but I'm still pretty interested in the Purple Line connection and how it'll be running along San Vicente.
So, using the San Vicente route, where would it surface and would it be at-or-above grade and also where would go back below-grade (if it does)? This question is more centered around Wilshire since I'm wondering if people would go for an at-grade stop there.
(And this is going on the guess (just from past planning and guessing on my part) that stations along San Vicente would be at Santa Monica, 3rd Street/Beverly Center, Wilshire, Olympic/Fairfax and Pico.)
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 16, 2010 11:37:47 GMT -8
^^ That's the $100 million dollar question: what parts of this line are feasibly done at-grade? Feasibility encompassing not just space, safety and cost issues but political realities.
For instance, San Vicente south of Wilshire is certainly a candidate for at-grade rail. But I've got to imagine there would be great NIMBY resistance in Carthay Circle to replacing the huge tree-lined median with a rail line.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Nov 16, 2010 12:22:58 GMT -8
I'm personally hoping that this route can be done in much the same vein as the Expo line: mostly at-grade with a few grade separations to get past busy intersections, preferably elevated. While there may well be NIMBY opposition, I think that we're seeing events play out now that will give Metro more ground for fighting NIMBY's: "victories" in the Farmdale, Cheviot Hills, and Beverly Hills issues could set a good precedent for Metro, and they do seem to be showing a willingness to advocate for good transit decisions, rather than just bow to community threats.
As for legitimate complaints, Metro is usually very reasonable, and I'm sure that people living near the rail line can certainly expect mitigations like landscaping, fencing, soundwalls where possible, and the like. If my experience on the Orange Line is any example, things that make the community nicer, like the lush foliage along the ROW, also make the ride more enjoyable, and the city more livable, and can be a win-win.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 16, 2010 12:54:13 GMT -8
Sorry to divert the conversation but I'm still pretty interested in the Purple Line connection and how it'll be running along San Vicente. So, using the San Vicente route, where would it surface and would it be at-or-above grade and also where would go back below-grade (if it does)? This question is more centered around Wilshire since I'm wondering if people would go for an at-grade stop there. (And this is going on the guess (just from past planning and guessing on my part) that stations along San Vicente would be at Santa Monica, 3rd Street/Beverly Center, Wilshire, Olympic/Fairfax and Pico.) I don't think that's a diversion at all. The extension from Torrance to Long Beach will be pretty much at grade. The Metro report with the Westside subway extension indicated a light-rail subway possibility for West Hollywood. (I'd give up the traffic lanes and parking for an above ground option if necessary personally if that means the project actually happens.) At some point the line would have to go underground. It's perfect not-diversionary to discuss where that would be. I'm curious at how the Crenshaw-Expo station will be built. Please send comments to Metro stating you wish it to be built in a manner that allows this line to be extended northward.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 16, 2010 12:58:52 GMT -8
I'm personally hoping that this route can be done in much the same vein as the Expo line: mostly at-grade with a few grade separations to get past busy intersections, preferably elevated. While there may well be NIMBY opposition, I think that we're seeing events play out now that will give Metro more ground for fighting NIMBY's: "victories" in the Farmdale, Cheviot Hills, and Beverly Hills issues could set a good precedent for Metro, and they do seem to be showing a willingness to advocate for good transit decisions, rather than just bow to community threats. As for legitimate complaints, Metro is usually very reasonable, and I'm sure that people living near the rail line can certainly expect mitigations like landscaping, fencing, soundwalls where possible, and the like. If my experience on the Orange Line is any example, things that make the community nicer, like the lush foliage along the ROW, also make the ride more enjoyable, and the city more livable, and can be a win-win. They should stay underground until hit the wide median of San Vicente, then at-grade is fine. However, it should go under just south of Wilshire as there will be no way Metro can negotiate signal priority on that major median. And, sitting on a train for like a minute at a stoplight just sucks. I'm on the freakin' train! There's no room for elevated structures north of Wilshire. This was even denoted in the 2009 Crenshaw north study, that significant land parcels would be required. The most cost effective method was underground as there is no space and no widely spaced aerials available. Looks like the westside will get a a north-south subway in the Crenshaw corridor (north of Wilshire to Hollywood/Highland). The density does justify it as there is significant development potential in this corridor.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 16, 2010 16:06:09 GMT -8
There's no room for elevated structures north of Wilshire. This was even denoted in the 2009 Crenshaw north study, that significant land parcels would be required. The most cost effective method was underground as there is no space and no widely spaced aerials available. Looks like the westside will get a a north-south subway in the Crenshaw corridor (north of Wilshire to Hollywood/Highland). The density does justify it as there is significant development potential in this corridor. Did this study include all possible route alternatives, including going on San Vincente? I find it hard to believe that there's not enough room for elevated structures on MOST of San Vincente..... Besides, at-grade will NEVER fly.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 16, 2010 16:56:17 GMT -8
Sorry to divert the conversation but I'm still pretty interested in the Purple Line connection and how it'll be running along San Vicente. So, using the San Vicente route, where would it surface and would it be at-or-above grade and also where would go back below-grade (if it does)? This question is more centered around Wilshire since I'm wondering if people would go for an at-grade stop there. (And this is going on the guess (just from past planning and guessing on my part) that stations along San Vicente would be at Santa Monica, 3rd Street/Beverly Center, Wilshire, Olympic/Fairfax and Pico.) The line should go underground at Crenshaw/Expo and surface on Venice which is wide enough for street running to near Rimpau terminal where Pico, Venice, and San Vicente meets. At that point it will probably need an aerial crossing from Venice to Rimpau (elevated station) and then acorss Pico and onto San Vicente. From there on, it should run on the surface medium with aerial crossing at Olympic. I would prefer an underground station at Wilshire to connect with the Purple line La Cienega station so that means the line will snake underground halfway between Olympic and Wilshire. From this point on, it should be all underground to Hollywood/Highland. The stations I would like to see: Crenshaw/Expo (underground, transfer to Expo line) Crenshaw/Adams (underground) Venice/San Vicente/Pico Rimpau Terminal (elevated due to grade separated crossing for Venice and Pico, with surface bus terminal, similar to Green Line Aviation station setup) San Vicente/Fairfax/Olympic (elevated due to grade separated crossing) San Vicente/Wilshire (underground, transfer to Wilshire line La Cienega station) San Vicente/3rd (underground, Beverly Center) San Vicente/Santa Monica (underground) Santa Monica/La Cienega (underground) Santa Monica/Fairfax (underground) Santa Monica/La Brea (underground) Highland/Hollywood (underground, transfer to Red line) None of my proposed station is at surface... very expensive $$$
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Nov 17, 2010 6:16:36 GMT -8
Ridership should be very high on thus line. I see it like a mini Regional Connector, but for the Westside. Perhaps it may qualify for Federal New Starts funding?
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Nov 17, 2010 9:23:52 GMT -8
Hopefully there's enough foresight from Metro in developing the potential San Vicente/La Cienega station complex as it is going to be another pretty important hub. Another thing is that it would probably be better to have the Purple Line be the lower level station and the Crenshaw Line be the upper level station.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 17, 2010 12:25:07 GMT -8
I hope Metro thinks about this when they are doing the final design on Purple line La Cienega station... leave some portal/knockout panel for hallways that will connect to the Crenshaw line San Vicente station.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 17, 2010 13:35:11 GMT -8
I hope Metro thinks about this when they are doing the final design on Purple line La Cienega station... leave some portal/knockout panel for hallways that will connect to the Crenshaw line San Vicente station. Let Metro know that would be a good idea. westsideextension@metro.net
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Apr 21, 2011 21:52:44 GMT -8
^^ That's the $100 million dollar question: what parts of this line are feasibly done at-grade? Feasibility encompassing not just space, safety and cost issues but political realities. For instance, San Vicente south of Wilshire is certainly a candidate for at-grade rail. But I've got to imagine there would be great NIMBY resistance in Carthay Circle to replacing the huge tree-lined median with a rail line. They're way ahead of you. parklabreanewsbeverlypress.com/news/2011/04/medians-will-provide-green-oasis-in-urban-setting/
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 22, 2011 20:09:12 GMT -8
You beat me to it. And why am I not surprised that THREE Neighborhood Councils helped plan it? This reminds me of that median park plan for Vermont Blvd, south of Gage. Hopefully Metro will take notice of that as well as this, and get their behinds moving. I'm sure you can build Above-Grade rail structures first, and THEN build the park, no?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 23, 2011 21:48:59 GMT -8
There are three neighborhood councils just in San Pedro alone, so it's no surprise that three would be involved in this project.
To be perfectly blunt, Metro's already got its hands full with Crenshaw to LAX to Torrance and with the Regional Connector, AND with getting Expo Rail finished. They'd have to get their butts in gear yesterday to get ahead of this.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 23, 2011 22:05:00 GMT -8
Okay, but they gotta get moving on Vermont Ave though. That's just too big an opportunity to pass up.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 24, 2011 19:59:32 GMT -8
^^ That's the $100 million dollar question: what parts of this line are feasibly done at-grade? Feasibility encompassing not just space, safety and cost issues but political realities. For instance, San Vicente south of Wilshire is certainly a candidate for at-grade rail. But I've got to imagine there would be great NIMBY resistance in Carthay Circle to replacing the huge tree-lined median with a rail line. I don't think this point gets made enough -- and it would actually be NIMFY. The resistance in Carthay Circle is going to be unequivocal. If there's a sliver of hope, it's that San Vicente is three lanes in each direction plus parking lanes, so you might be able to put trains down the middle and then redesign the parks alongside the tracks and go down to two lanes in each direction. Just my guess though. As for the alignment, I think the best option will be to go underground and make the turn north at Fairfax, so you can have a transfer to the Purple Line at Wilshire.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 24, 2011 22:44:52 GMT -8
As for the alignment, I think the best option will be to go underground and make the turn north at Fairfax, so you can have a transfer to the Purple Line at Wilshire. Due to WeHo's loss of the Pink Line.....my assumption is that Metro will instead go north on San Vicente --> La Cienega (La Cienega/Santa Monica is more central to WeHo than Fairfax/Santa Monica) and then go east on Santa Monica boulevard to either Vermont/Santa Monica or Hollywood/Highland station. I prefer Vermont/Santa Monica because then we may have a train that goes through Silver Lake, Los Feliz and eventually go to Glendale.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 25, 2011 0:01:46 GMT -8
San Vincente doesn't need 3 lanes each way. Actually, no surface street needs 3 lanes each way plus parking. There is plenty of room to put light rail down the middle, either by taking out a car lane on each side or by using the very wide median.
Of course, if the Crenshaw line ends up underground even in the very wide median in Park Mesa Heights, there will be no hope for a sensible outcome along San Vincente.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 25, 2011 13:10:47 GMT -8
San Vincente doesn't need 3 lanes each way. Actually, no surface street needs 3 lanes each way plus parking. There is plenty of room to put light rail down the middle, either by taking out a car lane on each side or by using the very wide median. Of course, if the Crenshaw line ends up underground even in the very wide median in Park Mesa Heights, there will be no hope for a sensible outcome along San Vincente. Wow. I didn't quite realize that in that section of Crenshaw there are 6 through traffic lanes, a median, and then two local access streets with three lanes each. maps.google.com/maps?q=park+mesa+heights&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=33.993633,-118.330715&spn=0.009269,0.01929&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.993918,-118.330713&panoid=kGNCI6UXCEP5fkYbg_a7EQ&cbp=12,335.22,,0,12.1
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 25, 2011 18:27:21 GMT -8
Even if Crenshaw Corridor ran on San Vincente Blvd, which I believe it will and should given the state of the Pink Line, it doesn't Fairfax will be unable to get rail. Why not have Rick Caruso extend the Grove streetcar down 3rd Street to the Beverly Center Crenshaw Station and/or extend it south down Fairfax to the Purple Line station (this would offer service to Park La Brea residents)? Due to WeHo's loss of the Pink Line.....my assumption is that Metro will instead go north on San Vicente --> La Cienega (La Cienega/Santa Monica is more central to WeHo than Fairfax/Santa Monica) and then go east on Santa Monica boulevard to either Vermont/Santa Monica or Hollywood/Highland station. I prefer Vermont/Santa Monica because then we may have a train that goes through Silver Lake, Los Feliz and eventually go to Glendale. I like Hollywood/Highland because there's more ridership potential there, and creates more of a north-south commute.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 25, 2011 20:28:23 GMT -8
Even if Crenshaw Corridor ran on San Vincente Blvd, which I believe it will and should given the state of the Pink Line, it doesn't Fairfax will be unable to get rail. Why not have Rick Caruso extend the Grove streetcar down 3rd Street to the Beverly Center Crenshaw Station and/or extend it south down Fairfax to the Purple Line station (this would offer service to Park La Brea residents)? A 5 - 10 mph streetcar would be the worst thing that can happen as a substitute for true mass transit. And an utter embarassment to Los Angeles. Streetcars are worthless, unless they are downtown circulors. Why not "go for the gold" and stop settling for 2nd best? I know people here are upset that Metro may be spending more money on Crenshaw Corridor than expected with MRT's motion, but I think its a good thing. Imagine if we get a full subway in Crenshaw, it will only help the perception that Metro rail is fast. I read an article today about how VTA (San Jose) is actually doing better transit b/c sales tax is up...but yet, the perception of speed downtown has to always be brought up. Even when I discuss with regular people the Blue Line, they always complain about slowness. What if that $200 million that MRT gets throws that out the door? You know Metro will get the money, just like how Expo Line is racking up the paychecks, but still making its way out west. We need fast rail so we have to stop defending Metro. We don't have to go out of the way and explain the benefits of the Red Line.......it speaks for itself. Imagine if the Blue Line didn't have the negative perception of speed. So, let's stop thinking of 2nd or 3rd class rail fantasties (i.e. streetcars) as it's just a forced transfer and goes painfully slow...actually. Sit on the SF streetcar, it's boring as heck (unless you are a tourist).
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Apr 25, 2011 20:46:07 GMT -8
You beat me to it. And why am I not surprised that THREE Neighborhood Councils helped plan it? This reminds me of that median park plan for Vermont Blvd, south of Gage. Hopefully Metro will take notice of that as well as this, and get their behinds moving. I'm sure you can build Above-Grade rail structures first, and THEN build the park, no? The NC folk learned from Santa Monica. If you have a median with trees, you can claim to want to save them (along with protecting some elite private school kids), and prevent rail. (And for those keeping track, another one of those trees was felled this week. Seems they are a bit long in the tooth, and destined to fall down and kill someone.)
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 26, 2011 8:25:56 GMT -8
Even if Crenshaw Corridor ran on San Vincente Blvd, which I believe it will and should given the state of the Pink Line, it doesn't Fairfax will be unable to get rail. Why not have Rick Caruso extend the Grove streetcar down 3rd Street to the Beverly Center Crenshaw Station and/or extend it south down Fairfax to the Purple Line station (this would offer service to Park La Brea residents)? I know people here are upset that Metro may be spending more money on Crenshaw Corridor than expected with MRT's motion, but I think its a good thing. Imagine if we get a full subway in Crenshaw, it will only help the perception that Metro rail is fast. We'd be spending the money on perception then, because putting it underground here won't really save any real time. There is already a wide right of way here for the train and there aren't enough at-grade intersections being missed here that would make much difference. The Fix Expo people don't even really argue for this. Their basic argument is that other parts of the city have subways and they should too regardless of right of way. You can't blame them for trying I suppose. I do find it annoying though that the rationale for putting the line on Crenshaw was to take advantage of the old PE right of way and build light rail. Once that argument was won, it was we should have a subway like Wilshire. If the discussion was we should have a subway to begin with, we'd probably be talking about this line going up the Harbor Sub farther to Western or Vermont and then underground up those streets. There would be much higher ridership if that were the case. If a subway goes here, you can pretty much forget about at-grade rail in LA going forward, except in a few cases. Everyone will clamor for subway in just about any situation. People say the Crenshaw Line will be a success once it gets to Wilshire, but there are no funds to get to Wilshire and the cost will likely be in the billions. We are looking at many decades into the future. In the meantime, it should be an okay line. We have worse (Gold Line extensions on both ends).
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 26, 2011 9:44:30 GMT -8
I know people here are upset that Metro may be spending more money on Crenshaw Corridor than expected with MRT's motion, but I think its a good thing. Imagine if we get a full subway in Crenshaw, it will only help the perception that Metro rail is fast. We'd be spending the money on perception then, because putting it underground here won't really save any real time. There is already a wide right of way here for the train and there aren't enough at-grade intersections being missed here that would make much difference. The Fix Expo people don't even really argue for this. Their basic argument is that other parts of the city have subways and they should too regardless of right of way... If a subway goes here, you can pretty much forget about at-grade rail in LA going forward, except in a few cases. Everyone will clamor for subway in just about any situation. My thoughts exactly. I for one not only believe but it's shown in an Initial Feasibilty Study that was included in the DEIR that extending the line with stops extending from Expo/Crenshaw at; Crenshaw/Adams, Pico/SanVicente and Wilshire/La Brea to meet with Wilshire subway to Westwood would improve ridership to close 31,000 riders because of patrons transfering to connect with Westside job centers like Century City, Westwood and Beverly Hills. In addition, when discussing a technology specific option, heavy rail will always win out but not on every corridor. If someone were to suggest a Heavy Rail project to replace Foothill Gold Line or one that will run between Chatsworth and Warner Center you'd be hard pressed to find any advocate on this forum or any other to positively advocate for that. So whatever the technology it will require advocates to support the mode. Some corridors make perfect sense with the right technology, Other corridors will need help selling the support. A subway on Wilshire has been studied to death for over 50-60 years so it makes sense. Other corridors will not be as easy to sell, short of Vermont Avenue or a heavier rail option through the Sepulveda Pass. Try and advocate for a heavy rail line down let's say Rosemead Blvd, lets see how far that advocacy and support will go.
|
|