LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

I'm not sure LRT ridership capacity would be as big of a deal as some might make it out to be for this line.

Given the proposed stations would all be completely new couldn't you probably design it to accommodate 4-5 car length trains, and/or perhaps increase headways comparable to that of HRT lines?

Metro, given how incapable they are of thinking outside the box, probably isn't envisaging the LRT subway platforms as such. Same capacity and same length means same cost, more or less.

I also laugh at the notion of at-grade LRT down steep Overland and congested Sepulveda as a legitimate option. Those stations will also have to be below-grade, dummies. What a bunch of morons.

[Munchitup]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Metro, given how incapable they are of thinking outside the box, probably isn't envisaging the LRT subway platforms as such. Same capacity and same length means same cost, more or less.

I also laugh at the notion of at-grade LRT down steep Overland and congested Sepulveda as a legitimate option. Those stations will also have to be below-grade, dummies. What a bunch of morons.

Is the Van Nuys / Sepulveda Corridor jobs-dense enough to warrant HRT? It certainly has some pockets of very high density and a large transit-dependent population. However there are not many major employment destinations along the route, with the exception of Sherman Oaks. Additionally, HRT is not one of the options for the ESFVC line.

Therefore, if you built HRT (which I agree is the proper mode for the congested Westside) there will be a required transfer at Sherman Oaks, ala the North Hollywood transfer from the Red to Orange Lines.

So the question is, what is more important? A slower one-seat ride on LRT from Sylmar to LAX or a (most-likely) quicker LRT-to-HRT ride that requires a transfer at Sherman Oaks?

I think I know what your answer would be, and I think I agree. If the headways are short enough for both lines, you will be able to limit time wasted waiting for your transfer.

[LAofAnaheim]

Why are we assuming LRT will be at-grade for a Sepulveda pass project? Do you recall the initial proposals of the Crenshaw Line were initially at-grade (I'm referring to the segment north of the Leimart Park station), and now will be fully underground? Metro has built underground segments and stations for their LRT system, as needed. The Regional Connector will be fully underground and so was the Expo Line section between Jefferson and Expo Park. Also, Metro has said that to go north of Expo/Crenshaw on the Crenshaw Line northern extension, the line would have to be fully underground on its way to Hollywood.

Based on traffic assessments, at-grade will not park for the Sepulveda Pass project. The study does state "grade separate where necessary". Based on the crossings of the Expo Line, you should forsee that grade seperation is necessary at nearly all cross streets on Sepulveda.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Why are we assuming LRT will be at-grade for a Sepulveda pass project? Do you recall the initial proposals of the Crenshaw Line were initially at-grade (I'm referring to the segment north of the Leimart Park station), and now will be fully underground? Metro has built underground segments and stations for their LRT system, as needed. The Regional Connector will be fully underground and so was the Expo Line section between Jefferson and Expo Park. Also, Metro has said that to go north of Expo/Crenshaw on the Crenshaw Line northern extension, the line would have to be fully underground on its way to Hollywood.

Based on traffic assessments, at-grade will not park for the Sepulveda Pass project. The study does state "grade separate where necessary". Based on the crossings of the Expo Line, you should forsee that grade seperation is necessary at nearly all cross streets on Sepulveda.

Has there ever been any sort discussion about which route the Crenshaw line will likely take once it continues North? Larchmont? Vine? Highland? Hybrid? Something completely different? So much potential there.

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

Has there ever been any sort discussion about which route the Crenshaw line will likely take once it continues North? Larchmont? Vine? Highland? Hybrid? Something completely different? So much potential there.

Not sure if this is official or not, but it was posted on the Transit Coalition forum.



Both options here send it north on Crenshaw until heading west on Venice and then San Vicente.

Option one has turns north on La Brea until reaching a terminus at Hollywood and Highland.

Options two keeps going on San Vicente until reaching Santa Monica Blvd. It would then turn east on SaMo Blvd and continue until La Brea, at which point it turns north and terminates at Hollywood and Highland.

[Quixote]

^ I like that map a lot, because it illustrates the true value of the Crenshaw Corridor and that's the northern extension that will follow. The initial Expo-Green segment won't generate good ridership figures, but it's an important missing link in our rail system and it's a necessary precursor to a greater north-south corridor that will serve new areas. It's important for the critics not to lose sight of the bigger picture.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Why are we assuming LRT will be at-grade for a Sepulveda pass project? Do you recall the initial proposals of the Crenshaw Line were initially at-grade (I'm referring to the segment north of the Leimart Park station), and now will be fully underground? Metro has built underground segments and stations for their LRT system, as needed. The Regional Connector will be fully underground and so was the Expo Line section between Jefferson and Expo Park. Also, Metro has said that to go north of Expo/Crenshaw on the Crenshaw Line northern extension, the line would have to be fully underground on its way to Hollywood.

Based on traffic assessments, at-grade will not park for the Sepulveda Pass project. The study does state "grade separate where necessary". Based on the crossings of the Expo Line, you should forsee that grade seperation is necessary at nearly all cross streets on Sepulveda.

I'm just going off what I see from the link JDRCRASH posted (page 7).

Metro has at-grade LRT planned starting immediately south of Century City and continuing all the way down to LAX. Hence the $7.4 billion price tag.

If what you're saying is true, it's not really "half the price" of HRT as JDRCRASH has claimed.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

^ I like that map a lot, because it illustrates the true value of the Crenshaw Corridor and that's the northern extension that will follow. The initial Expo-Green segment won't generate good ridership figures, but it's an important missing link in our rail system and it's a necessary precursor to a greater north-south corridor that will serve new areas. It's important for the critics not to lose sight of the bigger picture.

My only problem with that above map is that it appears that the Crenshaw line is attempting to do too much. The first option, for example, cuts West on San Vicente then cuts sharply East onto SaMo before cutting again to go North on Highland. Wtf? The westside can easily use 2 and justifiably maybe 3 N-S lines (La Brea, Fairfax, La Cienega, Robertson, etc) yet its someone's bright idea at Metro that the Crenshaw line is just gonna serpentine slowly up the middle and cover as many bases as possible?

They can obviously build more lines in the future and do some realignment but that concept makes no sense to me. It also seems to suggest that the Pink Line is no where near ever happening.

[AusTex]

[QUOTE=blackcat23;6150573]Not sure if this is official or not, but it was posted on the Transit Coalition forum.

QUOTE]

Can you give us a link? Their site has a lot of options and I am not finding this section/map. Thanks

[blackcat23]

[QUOTE=AusTex;6151045]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Can you give us a link? Their site has a lot of options and I am not finding this section/map. Thanks

http://transittalk.proboards.com/thread/971#

My only problem with that above map is that it appears that the Crenshaw line is attempting to do too much. The first option, for example, cuts West on San Vicente then cuts sharply East onto SaMo before cutting again to go North on Highland. Wtf? The westside can easily use 2 and justifiably maybe 3 N-S lines (La Brea, Fairfax, La Cienega, Robertson, etc) yet its someone's bright idea at Metro that the Crenshaw line is just gonna serpentine slowly up the middle and cover as many bases as possible?

They can obviously build more lines in the future and do some realignment but that concept makes no sense to me. It also seems to suggest that the Pink Line is no where near ever happening.

The Pink Line died when it wasn't included as part of the Westside Subway extension.

The westside could definitely use multiple N/S rail corridors, but that's never going to happen unless drastic changes occur for transportation funding. As it stands, a northern extension of the Crenshaw line is probably WeHo's only realistic shot at getting rail.

[Munchitup]

[QUOTE=blackcat23;6151179]

Originally Posted by AusTex

http://transittalk.proboards.com/thread/971#



The Pink Line died when it wasn't included as part of the Westside Subway extension.

The westside could definitely use multiple N/S rail corridors, but that's never going to happen unless drastic changes occur for transportation funding. As it stands, a northern extension of the Crenshaw line is probably WeHo's only realistic shot at getting rail.

I'd prefer it do neither of those two options and go up Fairfax. It would hit more landmarks taking that route vs. La Brea and is a bit more "straight" than the San Vincente option.

What would be best of all is building all three! La Brea, Fairfax and San Vincente Branches of the Crenshaw Line, ala the Green Line in Boston (but all terminating at Hollywood/Highland).

The extension north of Wilshire is so far off, it doesn't hurt to (pipe)dream big for the next generation of transit projects.

[mdiederi]

Caruso Wants to Extend Grove Trolley to Bev Center and LACMA
Monday, June 3, 2013, by Eve Bachrach
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/0..._and_lacma.php

he wants to extend the trolley line that runs through The Grove into a two-mile loop down Third Street to the Beverly Center, and down Fairfax to LACMA and the Miracle Mile, at a cost of $80 to 90 million.

[Quixote]

^ Yes please. We probably won't see a subway under Beverly in our lifetimes; a streetcar is the next best thing.

But it will probably end up being a trolley bus, if anything at all.

[bobbyv]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

^ Yes please. We probably won't see a subway under Beverly in our lifetimes; a streetcar is the next best thing.

But it will probably end up being a trolley bus, if anything at all.

What makes you say that? Seems like so far the courts are siding with LACMTA

[StethJeff]

[QUOTE=Munchitup;6151309]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

I'd prefer it do neither of those two options and go up Fairfax. It would hit more landmarks taking that route vs. La Brea and is a bit more "straight" than the San Vincente option.

Exactly.

[OhioGuy]

From an outsiders perspective (not being from LA), a rail line is useful when when goes to the places people want to visit. If it doesn't connect as close as possible to the key areas, you're unlikely to achieve full potential of the line. Yes, people could transfer to some other transit option for the last leg of the trip (such as a streetcar or trolley bus), but transfers are almost always an added annoyance (I'm stuck transferring every day at Gallery Place here in DC which I hate). And yes, speed is important, but what good is speed if it's not getting people to where they're mostly likely wanting to go? So for me, the routing below reflects a better option (though going up La Cienega rather than slightly further west on San Vicente wouldn't be too bad). It connects Crenshaw station on the Expo line & the Fairfax station on the Wilshire subway to Hollywood & Highland on the red line subway via The Grove, Beverly Center and the heart of West Hollywood. If you only go up Fairfax, you're only hitting The Grove. But then I also think this line needs to run as as a light rail subway, at least from Wilshire to Hollywood & Highland, which in turn presumably makes it massively expensive.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

From an outsiders perspective (not being from LA), a rail line is useful when when goes to the places people want to visit. If it doesn't connect as close as possible to the key areas, you're unlikely to achieve full potential of the line. Yes, people could transfer to some other transit option for the last leg of the trip (such as a streetcar or trolley bus), but transfers are almost always an added annoyance (I'm stuck transferring every day at Gallery Place here in DC which I hate). And yes, speed is important, but what good is speed if it's not getting people to where they're mostly likely wanting to go? So for me, the routing below reflects a better option (though going up La Cienega rather than slightly further west on San Vicente wouldn't be too bad). It connects Crenshaw station on the Expo line & the Fairfax station on the Wilshire subway to Hollywood & Highland on the red line subway via The Grove, Beverly Center and the heart of West Hollywood. If you only go up Fairfax, you're only hitting The Grove. But then I also think this line needs to run as as a light rail subway, at least from Wilshire to Hollywood & Highland, which in turn presumably makes it massively expensive.

I LOVE this route! West Hollywood be 100x better with a subway. I don't think these twists and turns would delay the trip all that much anyway...as you said, it's more important that key areas are covered.

What are the chances of this happening? I still can't comprehend how WeHo has been completely neglected from subway expansion plans for the most part.

[Munchitup]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

I LOVE this route! West Hollywood be 100x better with a subway. I don't think these twists and turns would delay the trip all that much anyway...as you said, it's more important that key areas are covered.

What are the chances of this happening? I still can't comprehend how WeHo has been completely neglected from subway expansion plans for the most part.

One thing to keep in mind is that this most likely would be a subway line, so it wouldn't need to directly follow the street-grid. So it may not be as twisty and turn-y as it looks on OhioGuy's map. I too like that routing, it hits a lot of major destinations.

This would be a post-Measure R project. My (as of yet unborn) children will probably be my age by the time this would get built, barring some new and creative funding.

BobbyV - the Courts are siding with LACMTA on the Wilshire subway. A subway under Beverly is a whole 'nother animal. I've never heard it mentioned before, though it would be right in between the Wilshire Subway and the Red Line on Hollywood Blvd.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by Munchitup

One thing to keep in mind is that this most likely would be a subway line, so it wouldn't need to directly follow the street-grid. So it may not be as twisty and turn-y as it looks on OhioGuy's map. I too like that routing, it hits a lot of major destinations.

This would be a post-Measure R project. My (as of yet unborn) children will probably be my age by the time this would get built, barring some new and creative funding.

BobbyV - the Courts are siding with LACMTA on the Wilshire subway. A subway under Beverly is a whole 'nother animal. I've never heard it mentioned before, though it would be right in between the Wilshire Subway and the Red Line on Hollywood Blvd.

Why does transit take so long so build in the US? So frustrating.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

I wonder if Metro will even consider building this at-grade.