|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 26, 2011 20:15:53 GMT -8
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. But you serve more people by doing this. Both the Beverly Center Crenshaw Corridor station and the Fairfax Purple Line station would be roughly 1 mile from The Grove. And how would building a streetcar be an embarrassment to Los Angeles? Are you degrading San Francisco's streetcar system? I could say the same thing for projects like the Vermont Corridor, and the inane idea of making it LRT instead of HRT..... As well as the idea of having the Sepulveda/405 corridor as a BRT line..... And extending the Gold Line East LA branch down Washington Blvd, instead of waiting a little longer and extending the Purple Line down Whittier Blvd..... And so on, and so forth..... At the end of the day, someone is gonna have to transfer. Since West Hollywood probably isn't getting the Pink Line, it only seems fair that they get the Crenshaw Corridor on San Vincente.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 26, 2011 22:05:38 GMT -8
But you serve more people by doing this. Both the Beverly Center Crenshaw Corridor station and the Fairfax Purple Line station would be roughly 1 mile from The Grove. And how would building a streetcar be an embarrassment to Los Angeles? Are you degrading San Francisco's streetcar system? As somebody who worked in San Francisco...as a local, people value speed above all else. The trolley was so slow. It was primarily for tourists. BART and Muni was the way to go. Yes, people complain (and some people on the board) about Mariom Way with its 15 mph restriction and the Blue Line. Why create an even slower streetcar? Streetcars are GREAT for downtown circulors.......they are NOT for areas outside of downtown. SF has it in the center of the city where there are more destinations within footsteps for tourists. The LA downtown streetcar project is perfect..........but not in West LA when destinations are few and far between. At the end of the day, someone is gonna have to transfer. Since West Hollywood probably isn't getting the Pink Line, it only seems fair that they get the Crenshaw Corridor on San Vincente. You think WeHo would accept a 5 - 10 mph streetcar as an acceptable solution to a heavy rail? Metro is already studying a northern extension of the Crenshaw Corridor into Hollywood via La Brea, Fairfax or La Cienega. Who's to say it won't happen? A streetcar is NOT a viable solution for West LA. Nobody wants to jump off of a 30 mph Light rail train and then get on a 5 - 10 mph streetcar. We have to be reasonable here when building a rail system. Let's stop look at cheap alternatives, but practicality. Here's Metro's feasibility study:
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 27, 2011 8:16:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 27, 2011 8:49:00 GMT -8
The report shows why I think this line is so important, the connections it may someday (hopefully) have north with the Purple and Red lines.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 27, 2011 20:04:30 GMT -8
You think WeHo would accept a 5 - 10 mph streetcar as an acceptable solution to a heavy rail? What are you talking about? Read my comment again. The HRT Pink Line (via San Vincente) is probably not gonna happen, right? As an alternative, I suggested extending the Crenshaw Corridor down San Vincente into WeHo, not the streetcar. I mentioned the latter for 3rd street and/or Fairfax to connect the Grove to the Crenshaw Corridor Beverly Center Station and/or the Purple Line Fairfax station.
|
|
|
Post by gibiscus on Jan 1, 2012 21:16:03 GMT -8
I looked on Google Maps and from San Vicente/Pico to Hollywood/Highland is 4.3 miles via La Brea, 6.0 miles via Fairfax, and 7.3 miles via San Vicente/Santa Monica. I feel like this zig-zag would add too much time and La Brea is the best northern route for the Crenshaw Line. The "Pink Line" to West Hollywood should instead connect down La Cienega to Venice all the way to Venice Beach (turning on Grand to Windward Circle). A streetcar can be built on Fairfax from Little Ethiopia to Sunset/Crescent Heights, possibly continuing further west down the Sunset Strip and east on San Vicente to Mid-City.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 3, 2012 9:29:14 GMT -8
I looked on Google Maps and from San Vicente/Pico to Hollywood/Highland is 4.3 miles via La Brea, 6.0 miles via Fairfax, and 7.3 miles via San Vicente/Santa Monica. I feel like this zig-zag would add too much time and La Brea is the best northern route for the Crenshaw Line. The "Pink Line" to West Hollywood should instead connect down La Cienega to Venice all the way to Venice Beach (turning on Grand to Windward Circle). A streetcar can be built on Fairfax from Little Ethiopia to Sunset/Crescent Heights, possibly continuing further west down the Sunset Strip and east on San Vicente to Mid-City. If you do the La Brea route over San Vicente/La Cienega..what destinations are you connecting? Isn't it another train that misses key destinations? We need to connect the Beverly Center, Cedars Sinai, West Hollywood (arguably the center is either Santa Monica/Robertson or Santa Monica/La Cienega), but a La Brea route would be considered cheap skating the project. It's like if the Blue Line was built straight on Alameda instead of turning east on Washington and going up Flower into the heart of the Financial District and now footsteps from LA Live/Staples Center. Hit the destinations and you'll get ridership. Bypass destinations and your ridership suffers. We need to focus on connecting neighborhoods/destinations. If you look at the real routing of the London Underground, which is a good example, outside of the Circle/District lines, everything else is in a zig zag. But everybody feels connected.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 4, 2012 10:45:43 GMT -8
I feel like this zig-zag would add too much time and La Brea is the best northern route for the Crenshaw Line. Too much time for whom? This alignment isn't just about connecting people from LAX and Crenshaw to Hollywood. It also needs to serve the multitudes heading to destinations between those two points. If the alignment doesn't go to big ridership destinations between these two points, then you are adding the time of taking a connecting bus from those LaBrea stations, which would be MUCH longer for most riders than simply riding a longer rail alignment underground. The San Vicente / Santa Monica alignment or the Fairfax alignment would mostly be underground and a 7.3 or 6.0 mile line will still be quicker for direct travelers between Crenshaw and Hollywood than taking the bus through traffic. Realistically, with the cost of building rail there is only going to be ONE mid-city line in the next few decades, if that. And if it is only one line, because of the lower overall ridership and the increased time of transferring to LaBrea to catch a bus to the major destinations, LaBrea is a weak choice for ONE line, in my opinion. For what it is worth, a Venice LRT could still connect into a Fairfax alignment as Fairfax and LaCienega merge close to Venice.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 5, 2012 11:13:23 GMT -8
When Metro finally studies this corridor they will have to consider the needs of all the stakeholders. There will be those who want the quickest and most direct route between Crenshaw/Expo and Hollywood/Highland and they will want La Brea as the alignment obviously. Then there will be people who live and/or want to travel to/from high ridership destinations in between these two points, especially West Hollywood and surrounding destinations, who were disappointed in not being part of the Westside subway extension and whom voted most heavily in favor of Measure R. There will be those who argue for two different alignments, and they make a good point were this a time of infinite financial resources for Metrorail projects. Realistically, this area will be lucky indeed if resources are found for even ONE alignment through this area as most of it will likely be underground. Metro will need to balance the cost of building a longer alignment and the desire of those who want speed through this area with the need to create an alignment that serve the most people with the maximum ridership. ALL three of these alignments would still be quicker than riding a bus through traffic. Here are the three likely potential alignments that will be studied as shown in this Metro map: Here are the potential stops and ridership destinations, along with the length of these three alignments connecting Crenshaw/LAX at the Expo Line station with Hollywood/Highland: All three alignments would have stations at - Crenshaw/Expo junction - Crenshaw/Adams - San Vicente/Pico & Venice LA BREA ALIGNMENT (4.2 miles total)- Wilshire/LaBrea (needs to junction with LaBrea/Wilshire Purple Line station) - Beverly/LaBrea - SantaMonica/LaBrea - Hollywood/Highland FAIRFAX ALIGNMENT (6.0 miles total)- Wilshire/Fairfax (LACMA/Museum Row - needs to be combined with Fairfax/Wilshire Purple Line station - Beverly/Fairfax (Grove/Farmer's Market/CBS) - Santa Monica Blvd/Fairfax (West Hollywood east) - Sunset/Gardner (Sunset Strip access) - Hollywood/Highland (As this was the original northern alignment of the Red Line before the NIMBYs thwarted the Purple Line extension through Hancock Park, there would be sweet justice of it being eventually built.) SAN VICENTE/SANTA MONICA BLVD. ALIGNMENT (7.3 miles total)- Wilshire/SanVicente (transfer junction with LaCienega/Wilshire Purple Line station) - SanVicente/Beverly (Beverly Center / Cedar Sinai) - SantaMonica/SanVicente (heart of West Hollywood) - Santa Monica/Fairfax (West Hollywood east) - Santa Monica/LaBrea - Hollywood/Highland (Not just because it is geographically in the middle between the other two alignments and in the middle with distance, I think Metro may end up deciding that Fairfax is the best compromise alignment between ridership destinations and speed through the area.)
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 5, 2012 12:15:14 GMT -8
When Metro finally studies this corridor they will have to consider the needs of all the stakeholders. There will be those who want the quickest and most direct route between Crenshaw/Expo and Hollywood/Highland and they will want La Brea as the alignment obviously. Then there will be people who live and/or want to travel to/from high ridership destinations in between these two points, especially West Hollywood and surrounding destinations, who were disappointed in not being part of the Westside subway extension and whom voted most heavily in favor of Measure R. There will be those who argue for two different alignments, and they make a good point were this a time of infinite financial resources for Metrorail projects. Realistically, this area will be lucky indeed if resources are found for even ONE alignment through this area as most of it will likely be underground. Metro will need to balance the cost of building a longer alignment and the desire of those who want speed through this area with the need to create an alignment that serve the most people with the maximum ridership. ALL three of these alignments would still be quicker than riding a bus through traffic. Here are the three likely potential alignments that will be studied as shown in this Metro map: Here are the potential stops and ridership destinations, along with the length of these three alignments connecting Crenshaw/LAX at the Expo Line station with Hollywood/Highland: All three alignments would have stations at - Crenshaw/Expo junction - Crenshaw/Adams - San Vicente/Pico & Venice LA BREA ALIGNMENT (4.2 miles total)- Wilshire/LaBrea (needs to junction with LaBrea/Wilshire Purple Line station) - Beverly/LaBrea - SantaMonica/LaBrea - Hollywood/Highland FAIRFAX ALIGNMENT (6.0 miles total)- Wilshire/Fairfax (LACMA/Museum Row - needs to be combined with Fairfax/Wilshire Purple Line station - Beverly/Fairfax (Grove/Farmer's Market/CBS) - Santa Monica Blvd/Fairfax (West Hollywood east) - Sunset/Gardner (Sunset Strip access) - Hollywood/Highland (As this was the original northern alignment of the Red Line before the NIMBYs thwarted the Purple Line extension through Hancock Park, there would be sweet justice of it being eventually built.) SAN VICENTE/SANTA MONICA BLVD. ALIGNMENT (7.3 miles total)- Wilshire/SanVicente (transfer junction with LaCienega/Wilshire Purple Line station) - SanVicente/Beverly (Beverly Center / Cedar Sinai) - SantaMonica/SanVicente (heart of West Hollywood) - Santa Monica/Fairfax (West Hollywood east) - Santa Monica/LaBrea - Hollywood/Highland (Not just because it is geographically in the middle between the other two alignments and in the middle with distance, I think Metro may end up deciding that Fairfax is the best compromise alignment between ridership destinations and speed through the area.) I think the Fairfax route would be a good solution. La Cienaga just adds too much mileage from the straight route, but Fairfax is a good compromise. It looks like Mike Feurer is getting the ball rolling for a post-Measure R extension that would allow for 30/10 to take place without Congress. It will be interesting to see what is included in the post-measure R projects if they choose to do it that way. Also, I am not sure now is the right time to get this going with the Expo disappointment, but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jan 5, 2012 12:49:39 GMT -8
When Metro finally studies this corridor they will have to consider the needs of all the stakeholders. There will be those who want the quickest and most direct route between Crenshaw/Expo and Hollywood/Highland and they will want La Brea as the alignment obviously. .... This whole comment was very well said, Dan. (I snipped the quote for readability).
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Jan 5, 2012 13:41:06 GMT -8
An east-west LRT along Santa Monica Boulevard would have the highest ridership catchment area, at-grade from Vermont through West Hollywood, Century City and Westwood to the 405 Freeway. The Crenshaw Line could go up Fairfax, thus serving Little Ethiopia, The Grove, and Hollywood This combination would mimic the routes with the greatest congestion in the area and provide a simple grid that's easy to navigate. If we don't ask for it, we won't get it.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 5, 2012 14:52:51 GMT -8
An east-west LRT along Santa Monica Boulevard would have the highest ridership catchment area, at-grade from Vermont through West Hollywood, Century City and Westwood to the 405 Freeway. The Crenshaw Line could go up Fairfax, thus serving Little Ethiopia, The Grove, and Hollywood This combination would mimic the routes with the greatest congestion in the area and provide a simple grid that's easy to navigate. If we don't ask for it, we won't get it. At-grade on Santa Monica boulevard? It would ONLY work in Beverly Hills and SLIGHTLY Century City, but at-grade will not work elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 5, 2012 16:36:40 GMT -8
Does there always have to be compromise without achieving the best outcome? Don't you think WeHo residents already compromised (without consent) by having the Pink Line HRT plan scrapped?
Can't Fairfax just get a streetcar with a short route to the nearest Metro stations? Seriously, they would be short mile-long routes, and would help revitalize the area.
Plus, building on Santa Monica Blvd (as part of the San Vincente Corridor) allows for better connectivity to the future Silver Line LRT.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 5, 2012 17:04:12 GMT -8
Does there always have to be compromise without achieving the best outcome? Don't you think WeHo residents already compromised (without consent) by having the Pink Line HRT plan scrapped? Can't Fairfax just get a streetcar with a short route to the nearest Metro stations? Seriously, they would be short mile-long routes, and would help revitalize the area. Plus, building on Santa Monica Blvd (as part of the San Vincente Corridor) allows for better connectivity to the future Silver Line LRT. Sadly, politics does seem to be the art of the possible. It is said that the platypus is an animal designed by committee.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 5, 2012 17:22:56 GMT -8
Does there always have to be compromise without achieving the best outcome? Don't you think WeHo residents already compromised (without consent) by having the Pink Line HRT plan scrapped? Can't Fairfax just get a streetcar with a short route to the nearest Metro stations? Seriously, they would be short mile-long routes, and would help revitalize the area. Plus, building on Santa Monica Blvd (as part of the San Vincente Corridor) allows for better connectivity to the future Silver Line LRT. Sadly, politics does seem to be the art of the possible. It is said that the platypus is an animal designed by committee. Not sure La Cienaga is really any better from a number of factors. For people going to Hollywood, it takes them on a longer more round about route. Not sure the Beverly Center/Cedars crowd would really be better than a Farmer's Market Grove destination. Finally, we are not playing with monopoly money. If you have to cut $500-750M from another project for La Cienaga, I would rather go with Fairfax. La Cienaga at 7.3 miles is nearly as long as the entire Westside Extension. That is going to be tough to get support from the San Gabriel Valley and other places not in the city, especially when you could directly connect the destinations at 4 miles. Personally, I'd rather see that money go to help making the 405 line from Sylmar to Aviation.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jan 5, 2012 17:29:12 GMT -8
I agree with Fairfax being the best route- La Cienega is only a short walk or ride away from Fairfax, and Fairfax is a more important destination than San Vicente - well at least it will be in the future IMHO. It is a major road, so I am not sure how the line will be implemented - underground is best for this area.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 6, 2012 15:40:21 GMT -8
I'm just looking forward to the day when Rimpau (San Vicente/Pico) will once again be a train station
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 6, 2012 17:32:51 GMT -8
If Fairfax is the chosen route, it will have to be underground all the way.
I can’t see an el fitting there, save for maybe north of Melrose, but then the line would have to go underground again at Santa Monica. The streets just are not wide enough. It would also be difficult taking lanes away from cars to do this, given the high amount of traffic.
San Vicente, on the other hand, could be done at-grade or elevated, at least up to around Wilshire or so, where the line would need to be underground again.
I would prefer the San Vicente route (hits the most destinations, no matter how roundabout), but the Fairfax route would be a fine consolation.
Also, and I mean no disrespect, but what is the obsession with putting streetcars on Fairfax and Santa Monica in West Hollywood? Not only would they be slower than buses, but they would probably backup a lot of traffic as well. Sure, they look prettier than buses, but these areas are just too congested for streetcar service.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 7, 2012 5:45:44 GMT -8
I'm just looking forward to the day when Rimpau (San Vicente/Pico) will once again be a train station I'm looking forward to a day where there would be a single downtown L.A.-to-Santa Monica vehicle, preferably a blue one, without having to change buses in Crackton.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jan 8, 2012 15:20:54 GMT -8
I'm just looking forward to the day when Rimpau (San Vicente/Pico) will once again be a train station I'm looking forward to a day where there would be a single downtown L.A.-to-Santa Monica vehicle, preferably a blue one, without having to change buses in Crackton. It is called Line 10. It uses the 10 freeway.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 9, 2012 16:48:15 GMT -8
I'm just looking forward to the day when Rimpau (San Vicente/Pico) will once again be a train station I'm looking forward to a day where there would be a single downtown L.A.-to-Santa Monica vehicle, preferably a blue one, without having to change buses in Crackton. Hey, we can always dream big ;D
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 9, 2012 17:28:22 GMT -8
I'm looking forward to a day where there would be a single downtown L.A.-to-Santa Monica vehicle, preferably a blue one, without having to change buses in Crackton. Hey, we can always dream big ;D Hmmm.......aren't you describing the Big Blue Bus Line 10? This already exists.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 10, 2012 3:35:57 GMT -8
Hmmm.......aren't you describing the Big Blue Bus Line 10? This already exists. No, it's a dig at the pointlessness of Pico/Rimpau. There's no operationally necessary reason why people must change from one Pico bus to another Pico bus. Line 30 and local 7 are more or less compatible.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Jan 10, 2012 7:40:59 GMT -8
Hmmm.......aren't you describing the Big Blue Bus Line 10? This already exists. No, it's a dig at the pointlessness of Pico/Rimpau. There's no operationally necessary reason why people must change from one Pico bus to another Pico bus. Line 30 and local 7 are more or less compatible. True. Pico/Rimpau became obsolete once the old "P" car line ended almost 50 years ago. Seems in that time, some sort of through arrangment could've been made. One problem is that LAMTA/SCRTD/LACMTA and Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines/Big Blue Bus like to engage in pissing contests.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 10, 2012 7:43:03 GMT -8
No, it's a dig at the pointlessness of Pico/Rimpau. There's no operationally necessary reason why people must change from one Pico bus to another Pico bus. Line 30 and local 7 are more or less compatible. Or you can take Purple Line to Wilshire/Western and now connect to Rapid 7. But, I agree, Pico/Rimpau transit center is no longer relevant and all resources should be moved to either Expo/La Cienega or Culver City stations. A transit center needs to connect with rail transit to be effective, not be bus only (sorry, El Monte transit center SHOULD be connected to Metrolink, not as a stand-alone bus station).
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 10, 2012 11:46:17 GMT -8
Rimpau will have new relevance if Crenshaw line stops there But I'm with Wad on the underlying premise that it is useless right now (and has been for a long time)
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Jan 10, 2012 11:48:59 GMT -8
Rimpau will have new relevance if Crenshaw line stops there But I'm with Wad on the underlying premise that it is useless right now (and has been for a long time) That reminds me - how would it get here to/from Adams (which I presume is the next stop southbound)? Do you do a straight shot and go under some properties or do you go all the way up Crenshaw to Venice and turn on Venice to get here (which is a much longer route, of course)?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 10, 2012 18:58:30 GMT -8
That reminds me - how would it get here to/from Adams (which I presume is the next stop southbound)? Do you do a straight shot and go under some properties or do you go all the way up Crenshaw to Venice and turn on Venice to get here (which is a much longer route, of course)? You bring up an interesting point that I think we rarely talk about. I think this all depends on where the Mid-city station is located, because continuing on Crenshaw all the way to Venice I don't think would be THAT inconvenient. However, if it was closer to Pico/San Vincente (instead of Venice/West), I think the time savings could be worth it to continue straight underground and avoid running on Venice.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Jan 11, 2012 9:45:24 GMT -8
No, it's a dig at the pointlessness of Pico/Rimpau. There's no operationally necessary reason why people must change from one Pico bus to another Pico bus. Line 30 and local 7 are more or less compatible. Or you can take Purple Line to Wilshire/Western and now connect to Rapid 7. But, I agree, Pico/Rimpau transit center is no longer relevant and all resources should be moved to either Expo/La Cienega or Culver City stations. A transit center needs to connect with rail transit to be effective, not be bus only (sorry, El Monte transit center SHOULD be connected to Metrolink, not as a stand-alone bus station). When I first arrived in L. A., many years ago, and did not yet know the history of L. A. transit (i.e., PE, LARy, etc.), I always wondered why the then-26 ended at Rimpau Blvd. Why not go to the next big street (La Brea)? Of course, now I know. I guess the bigger question is, why did LARy end the P line in Rimpau waaayy back in the day. Was La Brea not yet built? Or did they want to be reasonably close to PE's (may have still been Los Angeles Pacific back then) Vineyard Junction
|
|