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

[colemonkee]

Very nice!

[SimonLA]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Very nice!

Indeed. It took forever to reopen the sidewalks, but thankfully it was worth it. Now, SM needs to demolish that one-story NMS-owned retail building (there's a parking lot adjacent to it) and build another five-story mixed-user. This area is near enough--and far enough from the insanity of the beach/promenade--to be quite desirable.

[NSMP]

^No kidding. Opening at 45% occupancy with the kind of rents that they're asking indicates (surprise surprise) a much suppressed demand

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

I wouldn't want to see the crenshaw exstension go down san veciente and let me tell you why. It would be too much of an inconvience for people trying to get from the airport to hollywood or even the valley. Tourists especially go to Hollywood and how great would it be for them to have a line at the airport take them straight there so they could be immedeatly dissapointed that it's nothing like how they imagined it.

As for WeHo, I firmly believe a line going down Santa Monica and Sunset would be better because it would allow the people there to get downtown without switching lines.

Well, you should never design a rail line for tourists... that's totally backwards thinking. You build a rail line for residents and the line with the most destinations makes the most sense. San Vicente (or Fairfax) serves more destinations than going straight up La Brea.

Besides, the preliminary study on the northern extension said the running time difference from Mid City to Hollywood via San Vicente or La Brea was likely not that significant as both will have a fair amount of grade separation.

And perhaps 5% of Crenshaw line passengers will want to go directly from LAX to Hollywood. They will put up with a detour if it is still the path of least resistance (which it will be).

[Munchitup]

.

[retina]

Originally Posted by NSMP

If the San Vicente route ends up getting selected for the crenshaw north extension (and I would put it as the odds-on favorite due to its at-grade potential), that probably kills any direct WeHo to DTLA line for all practical purposes. I think this decision, though it's a ways off, will be very telling as to whether LA has finally gotten serious about transit.

Metro has maintained any northern extension of Crenshaw line will be below grade hence Expo/Crenshaw station in underground.

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by retina

Metro has maintained any northern extension of Crenshaw line will be below grade hence Expo/Crenshaw station in underground.

If the whole thing is underground, a La Brea route would be cheapest.

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by bzcat

Well, you should never design a rail line for tourists... that's totally backwards thinking. You build a rail line for residents and the line with the most destinations makes the most sense. San Vicente (or Fairfax) serves more destinations than going dirty up La Brea.

Besides, the preliminary study on the northern extension said the running time difference from Mid City to Hollywood via San Vicente or La Brea was likely not that significant as both will have a fair amount of grade separation.

And perhaps 5% of Crenshaw line passengers will want to go directly from LAX to Hollywood. They will put up with a detour if it is still the path of least resistance (which it will be).

If a SV route is chosen it would be a very short sighted decision. It would be great at first but I think the denser that part of town gets, the more people will ride the train leading to it being slower, and leading to it being a pain to get from the valley and hollywood to the airport.

What could be an option which I included on my fantasy map would be a median running line going down san vicente from WeHo to Pico station in downtown. I think it would be fairly cheap to construct such a line or at least cheaper than other projects since those streets are already so wide.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by bzcat

Well, you should never design a rail line for tourists... that's totally backwards thinking. You build a rail line for residents and the line with the most destinations makes the most sense. San Vicente (or Fairfax) serves more destinations than going straight up La Brea.

Besides, the preliminary study on the northern extension said the running time difference from Mid City to Hollywood via San Vicente or La Brea was likely not that significant as both will have a fair amount of grade separation.

And perhaps 5% of Crenshaw line passengers will want to go directly from LAX to Hollywood. They will put up with a detour if it is still the path of least resistance (which it will be).

Yeah, we're getting a bit far from reality here. Best case scenarios put transit ridership to/from the airport at ~2%, or, for LAX, around 4,000 passengers daily. That's not an insignificant number, but neither is it enough to justify altering the course of a multibillion dollar investment. Especially when you consider the fact that those 4,000 passengers would then be subdivided by destinations, with many headed to downtown, or the westside or what-have-you.

That being said, I believe that the San Vicente Route is necessarily trying to satisfy two distinct travel patterns and is going to be worse off for it. SMB/Sunset to DTLA and a line up Fairfax would really say to me that we had gotten serious as a city about LRT because those lines would serve dense and growing corridors and provide travel times competitive with the fastest automobile times, rather than the slowest automobile times (like the Expo line does).

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by retina

Metro has maintained any northern extension of Crenshaw line will be below grade hence Expo/Crenshaw station in underground.

Metro maintained that Crenshaw was too narrow north of Expo to accommodate at-grade rail. LA requested that the station be placed below grade so that it wouldn't have to be relocated underground later. The only reason that San Vicente is under consideration is that it could be primarily at grade. The grade separated sections would likely be from Crenshaw to Venice and from SMB east of La Cienega. The San Vicente option is 3 miles longer than the La Brea option and 1.5 longer than Fairfax. There is no way that we would grade separate that the entire distance.

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

If a SV route is chosen it would be a very short sighted decision. It would be great at first but I think the denser that part of town gets, the more people will ride the train leading to it being slower, and leading to it being a pain to get from the valley and hollywood to the airport.

More people riding the train would not make it slower per se. And again, although metro has branded the Crenshaw line based on its connectivity to LAX, we should not be buying overly into that hype. LAX service is not the primary benefit to this line.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Yeah, we're getting a bit far from reality here. Best case scenarios put transit ridership to/from the airport at ~2%, or, for LAX, around 4,000 passengers daily. That's not an insignificant number, but neither is it enough to justify altering the course of a multibillion dollar investment. Especially when you consider the fact that those 4,000 passengers would then be subdivided by destinations, with many headed to downtown, or the westside or what-have-you.

That being said, I believe that the San Vicente Route is necessarily trying to satisfy two distinct travel patterns and is going to be worse off for it. SMB/Sunset to DTLA and a line up Fairfax would really say to me that we had gotten serious as a city about LRT because those lines would serve dense and growing corridors and provide travel times competitive with the fastest automobile times, rather than the slowest automobile times (like the Expo line does).

I happen to agree with you 100%

I prefer the N-S Fairfax routing for the Northern extension of Crenshaw Line, but that one is also probably the most expensive requiring nearly all underground construction. And we should push for a E-W SMB line in the long run.

But if the Northern Crenshaw extension is a choice is between La Brea and San Vicente (with the assumption that Fairfax is out due to cost and we will not get another mid city N-S line for 30 or more years), I think I would choose San Vicente. The detour doesn't add that much more running time and has bigger ridership potential.

[King Kill 'em]

I'd be fine with a Fairfax route but not a SV route.

[Illithid Dude]

I would imagine, if there was ever a mid city subway, it would run down La Cienega so that it could hit Ceder Sinai, which is one of the biggest employment centers in Los Angeles. Don't forget, this line did exist at one point as the Pink Line before being nixed when the Purple Line was finalized, and Metro had it running down Santa Monica Blvd. and through the Beverly Center area. Regardless, it seems silly to me to get so heated about these potential lines when they are literally decades away.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I would imagine, if there was ever a mid city subway, it would run down La Cienega so that it could hit Ceder Sinai, which is one of the biggest employment centers in Los Angeles. Don't forget, this line did exist at one point as the Pink Line before being nixed when the Purple Line was finalized, and Metro had it running down Santa Monica Blvd. and through the Beverly Center area. Regardless, it seems silly to me to get so heated about these potential lines when they are literally decades away.

Decades away and proposed on similar fantasy maps decades ago.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I would imagine, if there was ever a mid city subway, it would run down La Cienega so that it could hit Ceder Sinai, which is one of the biggest employment centers in Los Angeles. Don't forget, this line did exist at one point as the Pink Line before being nixed when the Purple Line was finalized, and Metro had it running down Santa Monica Blvd. and through the Beverly Center area. Regardless, it seems silly to me to get so heated about these potential lines when they are literally decades away.

SV hits all the same ridership draws as La Cienega and even some extra ones, and it's less than a half mile longer. La Cienega is probably the least likely route. Point taken about the pink line, but as a HRT branch of the Subway to the Sea, that had a different set of constraints. And ultimately all of these plans are decades away until they get a dedicated funding stream and then before you know it they're under construction.

[blackcat23]

http://urbanize.la/post/new-east-hol...pment-revealed

First renderings for the SunWest project, a mixed-use development planned by Reliable Properties at the northwest corner of Sunset Blvd and Western Ave. This is directly across the street from the unifinished Target.

Six stories, 293 residential units, nearly 34,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space. Architect is Withee Malcolm.

[NSMP]

It takes some chutzpah to fight for a max height increase across the street from that Target. A 75 foot max on sunset is so absurd, though.

[King Kill 'em]

Max heights most places are absurd.

[San Frangelino]

West Hollywood Gateway Updates:

The Domain
Santa Monica btwn Detroit and Formosa


Old Movietown Plaza
Santa Monica btwn Poinsettia and Fuller


La Brea and Willoughby

[Eightball]

Excellent update san frangelino!

on another note, the USC Hospital Campus is a bee-hive of activity! I went there today for the few time in 3 weeks and the change was dramatic. I posted pics of this woodframe (appears to be on a concrete base) a few weeks ago. It's added a floors or two since then. Note that the adjacent parking garage is nearly finished as well.

USC Hospital Campus expansion by robb, on Flickr

USC Hospital Campus expansion by robb, on Flickr

USC Hospital Campus expansion by robb, on Flickr
USC Hospital Campus expansion by robb, on Flickr

there has also been more construction on this neighboring structure. It's unclear to me if that is some sort of covered walkway/transit overhang or a building

USC Hospital Campus expansion by robb, on Flickr

perhaps more importantly this steel framed building has sprung up extremely quickly. i'm taking a guess that they are using that new technology we've heard about (from a bay area company) that lets them frame it out more quickly. or something similar. they framed out a quarter of a floor while i was in the waiting room for 30 mins

USC Hospital Campus expansion by robb, on Flickr
USC Hospital Campus expansion by robb, on Flickr
USC Hospital Campus expansion by robb, on Flickr

same building from other areas

USC Hospital Campus expansion by robb, on Flickr

USC Hospital Campus expansion by robb, on Flickr

USC Hospital Campus expansion by robb, on Flickr

for those who haven't been on the hospital campus for a while, this is some of the other parts look. they could improve the pedestrian aspects in several ways but overall pretty nice

USC Hospital Campus, #la by robb, on Flickr
USC Hospital Campus, #la by robb, on Flickr

USC Hospital Campus, #la by robb, on Flickr