LOS ANGELES | METRO Project Rundown 2.0 (non-downtown)

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by pesto

Sodha: your revised route is a definite improvement, although still a little odd. Do you see some demographic connection between WeHo and Inglewood or Slauson that I'm missing? Has the WeHo community been screaming for a connection to Manchester or Vernon, or would they prefer BH, SM, Holywood?

And putting 20 (or is it 30?) miles of LRT winding from south of LAX through the westside to DT and beyond is hard to defend on any theory I can think of.

Is there any demographic connection between Westlake and Hollywood/North Hollywood? How about Pasadena and East LA? And, with the future regional connector, there will be a natural connection between Compton and Pasadena. This is quite common in other cities where lines extend through the city. I've seen many areas in New York and London that really don't seem like a natural connection, but are conveniently located on a somewhat direct line.

I think the overall picture of the Crenshaw Line will be a north-south line for the westside. That's what Metro is looking at in a bigger picture. If we did the Pink Line just from Hollywood/Highland to La Cienega, you'd have 3 train lines starting in Union Station, which would be an operational nightmare. It would have made more sense to go from North Hollywood to Century City via West Hollywood, but it was declared infeasible.

Right now, if you want to go north-south on Metro rail, people have to go to the Blue Line at 7th street. Imagine, having this north-south line on La Brea, Fairfax, or La Cienega, the true westside, this has huge potential. Yes, there are people from the westside that do work in the South Bay, and vice versa, so I do see there will be a huge benefit to the area. And, if people want to go to Santa Monica from WeHo they can take the Crenshaw Line to La Brea or Fairfax stations and transfer to the Purple Line. That makes way more sense then having the Pink Line. Because, if we did build the Pink Line...what would have happened to the Crenshaw Line north of Wilshire? It would have probably dead-ended and then we'd come to the realization.........there is no north-south Westside rail line (which is sorely needed).

[LosAngelesBeauty]

@pesto - that is the silliest argument against transit development I've ever heard. That a line SHOULDN'T be built because it goes through multiple socioeconomic communities?

LAofAnaheim and ThreeHundred bring up a good points. How is that you can have the Red Line go through Westlake/MacArthur Park and still be able to pass through Hollywood and Highland?

Let's look at it this way so perhaps auto-oriented people can grasp the concept a bit better: How can you have a freeway that connects South Pasadena with Lincoln Heights? Or Pasadena with South Gate? It should be impossible!!

[Kingofthehill]

..more ridiculous comments from people who obviously don't ride LA's Metro, nor who are familiar with how the system works, even in its most simple form. should we axe nyc's b train because people in harlem don't care for brighton beach/south brooklyn? or because the c ultimately links washington heights and east new york? afterall, though socioeconomically similar (harlem's leaped ahead of its peers as of late, though), those nabes are very disparate and a "connection" between them is non-existent (be it for work, family or leisure). i tend to support you most of the time, but that one was a bit too bizarre.

[pesto]

Must be a case of hearing what you want to hear. Where do I talk about socio-economic levels?

I am talking about DEMAND. Transit should follow demand, either current or very likely expected. Notice that the most successful MTA lines (Red, Blue) parallel major freeways. Ditto for Expo and Purple, which I expect will do well. Demand. Please also note that no one is demanding a Crenshaw freeway; take a ride on Crenshaw and you'll see why. Half-empty, easily flowing streets with nothing dense that someone from outside the neighborhood would have great cause to visit.

Is there a connection between DT, West Lake, Ktown and Hollywood: yes. I would have thought it was too obvious to state, but these are the guts of LA and will soon become our greater DT. Now they are mostly poor, mostly Hispanic with Asian and young artsy populations moving in; but almost every stop has density, high-rises, medical centers or shopping centers. And the connection between DT-Hollywood-the Valley is a true commuter route. Demand.

A connection between Pasadena and ELA? No demand or at least not enough. This wouldn't have been my priority. But there are really two connections: ELA to DT and Pasadena to DT. I am surprised that the DT to Pasadena segment performs so poorly but ELA is less surprising (no density or destinations). Hope it improves but it seems to be requiring city improvements and subsidies to get anyone interested in building at the stations.

[LAmarODom420]

Any have any idea what this building, on Pico between Genesee and Spaulding is:

Here is the link to the street view

It's been empty for years and doesn't seem to have any identifying signs.

[Kingofthehill]

It has an oil well inside of it.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by pesto

Must be a case of hearing what you want to hear. Where do I talk about socio-economic levels?

I am talking about DEMAND. Transit should follow demand, either current or very likely expected. Notice that the most successful MTA lines (Red, Blue) parallel major freeways. Ditto for Expo and Purple, which I expect will do well. Demand. Please also note that no one is demanding a Crenshaw freeway; take a ride on Crenshaw and you'll see why. Half-empty, easily flowing streets with nothing dense that someone from outside the neighborhood would have great cause to visit.

Is there a connection between DT, West Lake, Ktown and Hollywood: yes. I would have thought it was too obvious to state, but these are the guts of LA and will soon become our greater DT. Now they are mostly poor, mostly Hispanic with Asian and young artsy populations moving in; but almost every stop has density, high-rises, medical centers or shopping centers. And the connection between DT-Hollywood-the Valley is a true commuter route. Demand.

A connection between Pasadena and ELA? No demand or at least not enough. This wouldn't have been my priority. But there are really two connections: ELA to DT and Pasadena to DT. I am surprised that the DT to Pasadena segment performs so poorly but ELA is less surprising (no density or destinations). Hope it improves but it seems to be requiring city improvements and subsidies to get anyone interested in building at the stations.

the mta has to spread out its investments over a greater area since everyone voted to tax themselves so everyone (not just downtown la) wants to benefit. its just a matter of being fair to everyone.

there may or may not be greater ridership on other corridors, but my understanding is their primary goal is to create a regional system that more or less blankets the entire area (minus the oc). the one exception is the downtown connector - but that one is a no brainer.

great news about the crenshaw line. is anyone know if there's a timetable for the lax people-mover that will connect to it?

[Sodha]

Originally Posted by pesto

Must be a case of hearing what you want to hear. Where do I talk about socio-economic levels?

Re-read your previous comment...it surely did sound like it...

Originally Posted by pesto

Then why have public transportation at all if they don't connect neighborhoods despite income levels?

[Sodha]

Originally Posted by northbay

there may or may not be greater ridership on other corridors, but my understanding is their primary goal is to create a regional system that more or less blankets the entire area (minus the oc). the one exception is the downtown connector - but that one is a no brainer.

OC is not paying for Measure R.....

OC has Measure M, their "roadmap to relief", which 75% dedicated to roadways, 25% to public transit. And that 25% to public transit has basically been adding new parking garages at Metrolink stations. What a crock!

[LAmarODom420]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

It has an oil well inside of it.

Thanks for solving that mystery.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by Sodha

OC is not paying for Measure R.....

OC has Measure M, their "roadmap to relief", which 75% dedicated to roadways, 25% to public transit. And that 25% to public transit has basically been adding new parking garages at Metrolink stations. What a crock!

i know, but thank you for the general clarification. c'mon, this is the oc we're talking about, would you expect anything else? i heard people ARE their cars there.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

HAHA I bought this T-Shirt from Kitson recently:

[pesto]

Northbay: you hit the point that no one else is willing to say. There is no justification for Crenshaw other than political. Again, if anyone would like to drive the route with me let me know and we can look for signs of density, new building projects, jammed traffic, crowded buses, etc.

Sodha: that second quote isn't mine. My response to it is that it is not the job of transit to connect or not connect neighborhoods based on income levels. It should ignore this and focus on demand.

"Demographic" means cultural, economic, educational, age, race, ethnicity, income level, work, commute, religion, industry, shopping, in short, any human trait. It is not equivalent to socio economic. My point: it is not clear to me what work, commute, educational, shopping (or ethnic) demand exists that would require the upgrading of bus service to LRT along Crenshaw.

[BrandonJXN]

Tear up the Blue Line then. There is no reason why anyone should go to South LA.

[pesto]

300: first of all, reality trumps all theories and Blue is successful. But in any event, I have no issues with Blue Line except that I prefer subways. The existence of a dramatically overcrowded 110 was proof of demand. I don't know and don't really care if the riders are mostly locals or people passing through. On the same theory, I don't need to discuss Purple Line and feel pretty good about Expo, which clearly go across a variety of neighborhoods. The traffic on the 10, Venice, Washington, Rodeo, Exposition, Pico, Olympic, Wilshire, etc., tell me everything I need to know.

Going off on a tangent, "South Central" is pretty much dead as a reality. It used to be code for "the scary black parts of town" and still conjures up that image for some. But in reality, it is a very mixed area and parts are basically middle class. It's as much connected to East LA County, South Bay, the LAX area, DT and the industrial areas near DT as anyone else is.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by Sodha

Eventhough La Brea is a nice straight shot up north to Hollywood/Highland (with a 1 block east diversion to Hollywood/Highland at Hollywood blvd), the thing is there is no real destination on La Brea outside of Pinks (which is not really a trip generator) or Santa Monica/La Brea. This line needs to go on Fairfax. There, we will hit Museum Row (LACMA, BCAM and Peterson's), The Grove, CBS Studios, Farmers Market, and serve the center of West Hollywood. La Brea is a cheap diversion to where the line should really serve...and that's Fairfax. If anything, I would put La Cienega second to Fairfax; but definitely not La Brea.

Our mass transit isn't solely made for tourist destinations. LA Brea would be a critical way to connect the red and purple lines and service a north south root in much the way the red line services Vermont. There is a lot of high density residential on either side of La Brea especially north of Santa Monica Blvd and on Santa Monica Blvd and La Brea there is the West Hollywood shopping complex. West Hollywood is going to start 2 rather large mixed use developments on La Brea too at Fountain and Santa Monica Blvd. I guarantee the line will be well served and at capacity immediately.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by dktshb

Our mass transit isn't solely made for tourist destinations. LA Brea would be a critical way to connect the red and purple lines and service a north south root in much the way the red line services Vermont. There is a lot of high density residential on either side of La Brea especially north of Santa Monica Blvd and on Santa Monica Blvd and La Brea there is the West Hollywood shopping complex. West Hollywood is going to start 2 rather large mixed use developments on La Brea too at Fountain and Santa Monica Blvd. I guarantee the line will be well served and at capacity immediately.

Fairfax is not just a destination for tourism....but also for locals. There are more points of interest on Fairfax than La Brea..that's a fact. Let's not jeopardize destinations just because La Brea is a "straight shot". The Grove, Farmers Market, CBS Studios, West Hollywood (Santa Monica/La Brea is just the tip of West Hollywood) and West Hollywood's main center is Santa Monica/La Cienega. Metro knows this too and issued a feasability study in March '09 that noted La Brea was superior to Western, however if the train were to go further west and north to Hollywood (i.e. via Fairfax or La Cienega), ridership would significantly increase. Read the feasibilty study: http://www.metro.net/projects_studie...-%20Report.pdf

By the way...no matter what route is chosen (i.e. La Cienega, Fairfax, or La Brea), the segment between Santa Monica blvd to Hollywood will most likely be La Brea. It won't be Fairfax or La Cienega, so don't worry about that.

Vermont was ONLY chosen because the Red Line couldn't proceed west of Western avenue. And since Vermont was the 2nd heaviest bus corridor, it was picked by default in order to get the Red Line to Hollywood/Highland. The stations between Vermont/Beverly to Hollywood/Vine were not part of the original plans. The Ross dress for less in Mid-Wilshire screwed up plans to continue the subway west. Inititally, the city wanted the subway to go north on Fairfax to connect with Hollywood/Highland. But because drilling past Western was out of the option; Vermont was chosen. By the way, notice how busy (i.e. not sarcasm) those stations are between Wilshire/Vermont to Hollywood/Western. That's why we shouldn't go up La Brea...it has to be either Fairfax or La Cienega; there's more destinations for locals and tourists.

[LAofAnaheim]

By the way..here is the original routing of the Red Line (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4066/...24d773d_b.jpg). And, like I said, Vermont was only chosen because the Red Line could not travel further west than Western Avenue in the Wilshire district, so Metro was stuck with Vermont. Again, look at how busy those stations are....pretty quiet for subway stations. We need to focus on a major corridor, which is either Fairfax or La Cienega. Sodha/LAofAnaheim did not say anything that Fairfax is being built "for tourists"....it's just why spend all the money as possibly West Hollywood's only light rail subway and NOT even get into West Hollywood which is Santa Monica boulevard between Fairfax and Robertson. La Brea would be a "cop-out" for WeHo, and could receive tremendous backlash from the community that voted 86% yes for Measure R.

[pesto]

Either La Brea or Fairfax could use transit since, as mentioned, Fairfax has institutions and La Brea is gaining in density. But the real winner is the Pink Line, basically along SM-San Vicente-La Cienega. It not only connects density to density (Hollywood to BH and west) but goes through density and connects Red to Purple.

It also goes underground. Surface LRT on La Brea or Fairfax just means worse traffic there. Very short sighted for the central part of LA.

[Sodha]

Originally Posted by pesto

Either La Brea or Fairfax could use transit since, as mentioned, Fairfax has institutions and La Brea is gaining in density. But the real winner is the Pink Line, basically along SM-San Vicente-La Cienega. It not only connects density to density (Hollywood to BH and west) but goes through density and connects Red to Purple.

It also goes underground. Surface LRT on La Brea or Fairfax just means worse traffic there. Very short sighted for the central part of LA.

If you read the preliminary analysis I posted for the Crenshaw - Wilshire LRT plan, you'd notice that Metro is already planning to go underground north of Exposition on the Crenshaw Line. The only place where at-grade could work north of Exposition is the San Vicente Pico blvd to Wilshire blvd segment. Also, Metro noted that West Hollywood deserves "underground light rail transit". Metro did not say they are going on surface.

If Metro were to go north on Fairfax or La Brea (which I seriously doubt, I think the San Vicente - La Cienega route will be the winner), it would be fully underground. Otherwise, with San Vicente - La Cienega expect it to be underground starting south of Wilshire blvd all the way to Hollywood/Highland.