HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1781  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 7:11 PM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 758
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Crenshaw Line is one of the most complete wastes of money around. It was put in strictly for political purposes and wanders aimlessly through low-rise residential, industrial areas with multi-acre parking lots, and misses LAX to boot. Its northern terminal is at the least dense part of Wilshire, miles from either DT, Century City or the westside.

It is not too far along to change course; their just isn't any political will to do so.
No. The point of the Crenshaw Line is the bigger picture of a North-South rail line for the Westside. The significant value of the Crenshaw Line is when it goes north towards Pico, Olympic, Wilshire, West Hollywood and Hollywood. The rail line has to start somewhere and $1.7 billion will cover the trunk of the line. North of Expo, this Line will most likely be underground the entire way up to Hollywood/Highland via West Hollywood. So it's a real valuable transit line when completed.

Did you know that freeways started in the middle of nowhere and then expanded into urban areas? You get the trunk of the line done first and then you build into the mass. I may not agree with the formula, but that's how its done. You get the demand to build (i.e. SGV now loves the Gold Line, when previously, you had NOBLAG and other groups try to prevent the Gold Line through South Pasadena).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1782  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2012, 10:40 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim View Post
No. The point of the Crenshaw Line is the bigger picture of a North-South rail line for the Westside. The significant value of the Crenshaw Line is when it goes north towards Pico, Olympic, Wilshire, West Hollywood and Hollywood. The rail line has to start somewhere and $1.7 billion will cover the trunk of the line. North of Expo, this Line will most likely be underground the entire way up to Hollywood/Highland via West Hollywood. So it's a real valuable transit line when completed.

Did you know that freeways started in the middle of nowhere and then expanded into urban areas? You get the trunk of the line done first and then you build into the mass. I may not agree with the formula, but that's how its done. You get the demand to build (i.e. SGV now loves the Gold Line, when previously, you had NOBLAG and other groups try to prevent the Gold Line through South Pasadena).
Not picking a fight but this leaves a few questions unexplained. Why would you link South Bay to the only part of central LA that is not a business hub? First you would link to DT or Century City or Beverly Hills, or Beverly Center or Westwood or SM. But instead of building on the 405 or up Vermont, they chose a low-usage, no highrise, no density corridor. Traffic moves easily on Crenshaw even at rush hours and there are buses that are not overly crowded. And as mentioned, it doesn't hit the airport or major employers in the South Bay, except in the sense that employers could get shuttle buses to go to the stops IF there were anyone on the trains that worked there.

I don't think anyone doubts that this was political, just like the Foothill Extension. And, like it or not, boondoggles are used by opponents to beat on proponents of legitimate, valuable projects.

The Gold Line is doing OK (not as well as I and many others had hope), but it is hardly comparable since it actually goes to central Pasadena, which is a significant employer, shopping and entertainment center.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1783  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 12:31 AM
JDRCRASH's Avatar
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,720
Mid-City, WeHo, and Hollywood aren't major job centers?:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1784  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 12:59 AM
Easy's Avatar
Easy Easy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Inglewood, CA
Posts: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Crenshaw Line is one of the most complete wastes of money around. It was put in strictly for political purposes and wanders aimlessly through low-rise residential, industrial areas with multi-acre parking lots, and misses LAX to boot. Its northern terminal is at the least dense part of Wilshire, miles from either DT, Century City or the westside.

It is not too far along to change course; their just isn't any political will to do so.
The Crenshaw line will serve an area that has substantially similar population densities to previously constructed light rail lines. The buses that use Crenshaw are already packed which is what I go by to predict how successful a new light rail line will be with existing riders. Crenshaw Blvd. is a fairly significant destination as well and very significant if you are black. That's why the Vernon stop is important. I'd have liked to have seen the line on Vermont, but Metro is determined to get people to ride the Silver line.

The northern terminal for now is Expo. Where it will be eventually is anyone's guess. I'm really hoping West Hollywood, if for nothing else because West Hollywood was screwed by Measure R. They voted for Measure R in higher numbers than anywhere else, only to see the purple line head for Beverly Hills, which is apparently having buyers remorse.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1785  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 1:04 AM
Easy's Avatar
Easy Easy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Inglewood, CA
Posts: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Not picking a fight but this leaves a few questions unexplained. Why would you link South Bay to the only part of central LA that is not a business hub? First you would link to DT or Century City or Beverly Hills, or Beverly Center or Westwood or SM. But instead of building on the 405 or up Vermont, they chose a low-usage, no highrise, no density corridor. Traffic moves easily on Crenshaw even at rush hours and there are buses that are not overly crowded. And as mentioned, it doesn't hit the airport or major employers in the South Bay, except in the sense that employers could get shuttle buses to go to the stops IF there were anyone on the trains that worked there.

I don't think anyone doubts that this was political, just like the Foothill Extension. And, like it or not, boondoggles are used by opponents to beat on proponents of legitimate, valuable projects.

The Gold Line is doing OK (not as well as I and many others had hope), but it is hardly comparable since it actually goes to central Pasadena, which is a significant employer, shopping and entertainment center.
The other side of that coin is why build rail for people that don't currently even use the transit that they have? Why not build it where transit usage is already high if you want the line to be successful? I think that lines to the west will be well used, if for no other reason that people from the south and east will be using them. I also think that people from the west will use them, but that's a little harder to prove because they don't use transit much right now.

And I think that you underestimate Crenshaw both as a destination and as a destination among people that use transit. I have every confidence that Crenshaw will have better ridership than Metro's current rider/mile average for light rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1786  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 9:57 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy View Post
The Crenshaw line will serve an area that has substantially similar population densities to previously constructed light rail lines. The buses that use Crenshaw are already packed which is what I go by to predict how successful a new light rail line will be with existing riders. Crenshaw Blvd. is a fairly significant destination as well and very significant if you are black. That's why the Vernon stop is important. I'd have liked to have seen the line on Vermont, but Metro is determined to get people to ride the Silver line.

The northern terminal for now is Expo. Where it will be eventually is anyone's guess. I'm really hoping West Hollywood, if for nothing else because West Hollywood was screwed by Measure R. They voted for Measure R in higher numbers than anywhere else, only to see the purple line head for Beverly Hills, which is apparently having buyers remorse.
The Crenshaw Line won't serve anybody because buses already move easily along this route. Buses make perfect sense for short shopping trips both because of their cost and flexibility. Railroad makes sense for longer trips: but in the case of Crenshaw there is no destination at either end.

In spite of your remark, the areas covered are hispanic, Asian and white as well as black; but none of this is relevant. It's just not dense and not an employment center.

You are really agreeing with my analsysis without wanting to say so. You make arguments for completing Purple and/or Pink (to WeHo) so as to give SOME purpose to Crenshaw. Why not build them FIRST, since they are obviously needed? Instead, they are not even on the schedule while the outer burbs are connected (Leimert Park to Lawndale, more or less). This is my whole point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1787  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2012, 11:12 PM
JDRCRASH's Avatar
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,720
^ Because:

1. The Purple Line will already serve that area of Wilshire, and if 30/10 happens it will probably reach San Vincente (the furthest west the Crenshaw North alignment will intersect) in around 5 years...
2. The Pink Line (HRT spur) can't be built anyway now, since Metro removed the "connection structure" near the La Cienaga station from the Purple Line extension studies over a year ago...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1788  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2012, 5:35 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
^ Because:

1. The Purple Line will already serve that area of Wilshire, and if 30/10 happens it will probably reach San Vincente (the furthest west the Crenshaw North alignment will intersect) in around 5 years...
2. The Pink Line (HRT spur) can't be built anyway now, since Metro removed the "connection structure" near the La Cienaga station from the Purple Line extension studies over a year ago...
1- A metro may serve a certain area, but if it doesn't connect to a larger network, then it is pointless. People on Fairfax want to get to Hollywood without having to go downtown to do it. And besides, the whole Ceder Sainai/West Ho area won't be covered by the Purple Line, and those are huge areas.

2-And he was talking about extending the Crenshaw Line up to Hollywood, possibly through La Cienega.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1789  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2012, 12:24 AM
K 22 K 22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 59
Metro released the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Wilshire Subway extension.

http://thesource.metro.net/2012/03/1...way-extension/

Metro picked Constellation for Century City. This might get ugly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1790  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2012, 5:09 AM
JDRCRASH's Avatar
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,720
Good. Shove it down their throats.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1791  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2012, 5:32 AM
waltlantz waltlantz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 128
2020 to La Cienga huh? Well something is better than nothing.

What is this "increased federal funding" the article talks about? The 30/10 plan?

Cause honestly that plan sounds cool but unless we have a RADICAL change in attitudes towards grand public projects in this country, it's Disney level fantasy.

Also a noob here, why is it gonna get ugly?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1792  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2012, 2:44 PM
K 22 K 22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltlantz View Post
2020 to La Cienga huh? Well something is better than nothing.

What is this "increased federal funding" the article talks about? The 30/10 plan?

Cause honestly that plan sounds cool but unless we have a RADICAL change in attitudes towards grand public projects in this country, it's Disney level fantasy.

Also a noob here, why is it gonna get ugly?
In a nutshell: Century City station being at Constellation means Metro would have to tunnel under the property of the Beverly Hills high school. The Beverly Hills school district and a number of their politicans are very much against them doing so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1793  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2012, 10:27 PM
waltlantz waltlantz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 128
Well that's understandable as it's uncharted territory.

Then again I DOUBT the Metro would be so negligent as to build the thing to such a low standard that it would seriously undermine the safety of the school and subway.

Or am I missing something?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1794  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2012, 12:44 AM
all of the trash all of the trash is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Koreatown
Posts: 181
pesto remarks that Crenshaw line is through a low-destiny, destinationless, low employment swath of LA and thus should not be built. Yet those same descriptors could be applied to an overwhelming segment of the blue line which is easily LA's highest light rail ridership (not that there's competition from other lines). Blue line is a vital service to working class people who cannot afford to own cars, and the Crenshaw line will provide similar service. I would also disagree it is a line to nowhere, as there is bit more of an employment center for the south bay, and the northern end will make it a feeder line for the purple line extension. And the idea that bus is for short trips, and rail is for long trips...is there anyone in Los Angeles that isn't having to go across town for whatever reason? Whose life in Los Angeles is strictly short trips in their immediate neighborhoods? Should pink line/purple line extension be built 'first'? Absolutely but for what money is available now it is important to rush out service on the lines that can be completed faster to build rider interest and political will for an agency, that despite its growth, is still struggling for funding/public awareness.

I agree the gold line, at least for the foothill/eastside extensions, were a waste of money. People will ride the Crenshaw line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1795  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2012, 8:05 PM
K 22 K 22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 59
http://thesource.metro.net/2012/03/2...rday-april-28/

Expo opens April 28 to La Cienega. This summer to Venice/Robertson.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1796  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2012, 8:46 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
#GoDodgers
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,679
Fi. nal. ly.
__________________
"I'm an LA guy, can't help it." -- Tiger Woods
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1797  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2012, 1:16 AM
all of the trash all of the trash is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Koreatown
Posts: 181
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1798  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2012, 4:29 PM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 758
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltlantz View Post
Well that's understandable as it's uncharted territory.

Then again I DOUBT the Metro would be so negligent as to build the thing to such a low standard that it would seriously undermine the safety of the school and subway.

Or am I missing something?
Well, uncharted for LA, but not the USA so Beverly Hills has absolutely no case against Metro because it would set a precedent that would affect all other subway systems so a federal, state or county judge wouldn't be able to side with a "no tunneling under high school" decision. It would severely limit subway construction in America as all local governments would challenge transportation authorities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1799  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2012, 5:55 PM
waltlantz waltlantz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 128
Are there other examples that can be pointed to? Cause the "ram it down their throats" is almost a sure fire way to kill any cooperation you'd get such from such loaded areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1800  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2012, 6:47 PM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,367
It isn't even uncharted for LA...We already have a subway under a dense downtown and hollywood. Where has there been a problem?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:51 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.