Spur Concept System Map with Potential Extensions The need for a spur option. Currently, there are two competing groups that Metro is trying to capture with this line: distance and destination riders. Metro wants a regional rail line that allows for efficient north/south travel for the group of riders traveling long distances, whether that be from Hollywood to Crenshaw or NoHo all the way to LAX. It’s clear that the La Brea option serves this demographic well as it is the most direct of the three routes and rapidly connects the two sides of the study corridor for an efficient price. However, Metro also wants to capture local riders who want to stop at many of the destinations in the corridor’s survey area like the Grove, Beverly Center, WeHo, and many more. It’s clear that in this respect the Hybrid option is best as it hits the largest number of destinations within walking distance. Both options are great for their desired groups, however, with the choices currently being presented we are forced to choose one group at the expense of the other in a false dichotomy. The fact is we CAN have our cake and eat it too, all for the same price. This is what makes the Spur option optimal. The Spur serves the distance rider by creating the La Brea option, allowing for speedy north/south travel, while also serving the destination rider by creating a spur that goes straight down Santa Monica to San Vicente then La Cienega, hitting WeHo, the Pacific Design Center, Cedars, the Beverly Center, and, with a four block walk, the Melrose Trading Post. Ridership & Pricing To get straight to the meat of the argument, the benefits of a Spur option are numerous when it comes to a cost/benefit ratio. To start, looking at the ridership statistics provided by Metro, the estimated per day usage of the La Brea option is 88,400 while for the Hybrid option it's 90,800. However, looking at the provided cost estimates for each respective option, the La Brea option is $4.3 Billion in a full underground alignment while the Hybrid is expected to cost $6.5 Billion for full underground, coming to an extra $916,667 thousand PER rider for the Hybrid option.1 From an objective standpoint, this should disqualify the Hybrid option as, for a third of the price, with La Brea you can have near the exact same number of riders, getting the best bang for your buck. However, portions of the Hybrid option still do have significant merit. The way that Metro calculates rider statistics is flawed. Using Census data, Metro determines the number of people that would switch to transit/use transit between different Census tracts. Therefore, any inter-census tract travel is unaccounted for and, as can be seen by the severe under-prediction of the E (Expo) Line’s ridership in the EIRs compared to the number of people it serves today, is subject to severe issues. Additionally, this strategy places a strong emphasis on commuter trips rather than leisure, nighttime, local, midday, and shopping, which the Hybrid option would specialize in. Therefore, it could be predicted that due to the density of destinations and neighborhoods the Hybrid option serves, the ridership calculations are lower than reality. Everyone agrees the bulk of the Hybrid’s ridership comes from the area north of Wilshire, as that’s where the destinations and dense neighborhoods are. The portion from Midtown Crossing to Wilshire is predominantly single-family and, other than operating as a means to connect Crenshaw to Wilshire to serve distance riders, does not itself contain any merit to having a high-capacity transit line. The same can be said of the Hybrid’s Wilshire to Grove and Grove to the Beverly Center sections as they too are primarily single-family zoned areas, except for the 1 I calculated the costs looking at the 100% underground options as, realistically, if chosen we know the Hybrid option will end up being underground in the San Vicente segment. Similar to how Metro originally planned for the Leimert Park section of the Crenshaw Line to be above ground, Carthay Circle will use its influential citizens to put pressure on the electeds, resulting in Metro being forced to place the segment underground due to community opposition. destination of the Grove in between. Therefore, other than the Grove and Wilshire itself, this entire section of the project is only intended as a travel-through area to take distance riders from Crenshaw to the Beverly Center and beyond. So in effect, to serve destination riders it is a good idea to operate in the area north of Wilshire, however connecting it to Crenshaw via San Vicente is not necessary. For the distance riders, La Brea does a significantly better job of connecting people from Crenshaw to areas north of Wilshire, whether that be Hollywood or West Hollywood, for a price comparable to the entire Midtown Crossing to Beverly Grove section. So seeing that all the ridership from the Hybrid option comes from reaching the destinations and ridership on La Brea comes from the direct north/south connection, having the branch would be the best of both worlds since you get the direct north/south distance ridership and destination ridership on the two respective branches. Clearly, this makes a Spur the best option from a practicality of serving the highest number of riders. But, understandably, cost is always the chief barrier to any transit project. Looking at the Spur concept however, it's hard to see how it would be comparably any more expensive than the Hybrid option. In total, the Hybrid option is 9.9 miles long. The Spur option–which includes the 6.5 mile long La Brea segment and additional 3.9 mile Spur traveling from Santa Monica/La Brea to Wilshire/La Cienega via Santa Monica, San Vicente, and La Cienega–is 10.4 miles total. Although it is 0.5 miles longer, the Spur option would contain one fewer station than the Hybrid alternative. Considering each station box can run anywhere between $150 million to over $300 million–for example, the new Purple Line Extension Wilshire/Westwood station is costing Metro approximately $380 million–while tunneling is comparably cheap–for example, Section 3 of the Purple Line Extension is costing approximately $156 million per mile to dig–this station reduction should result in the costs between the Hybrid and Spur options being be nearly identical. Obviously, each project has its own unique challenges that result in varying costs, however from a layman's ballpark estimate it seems reasonable to conclude a Spur and Hybrid option aren’t too different cost-wise. The only significant costs in the Spur option that aren’t present in the other alternatives come from the three junction boxes near the La Brea/Santa Monica station where the Spur connects to the central La Brea trunk of the line. This junction is necessary to interline the branch to the north and connect the spur to the Maintenance-Storage Facility (MSF) in the south. If I am wrong about my assessment at the very least we can, instead of spending $6.5 billion on Hybrid, spend the $4.3 billion on La Brea plus the difference of $2.2 billion on a dedicated branch line as far into WeHo as you can get it from Hollywood/Highland. Then when the funds are available, extend that branch down La Cienega to the Purple Line. Funding and, Politically, How This Must Be Accomplished Metro and other advocacy organizations are leaning towards Hybrid as currently it’s the only option that gives WeHo the Metro line they deserve. But this misplaced enthusiasm means that we may miss out on the undiscussed option that fits the most people’s needs, the Spur. To make this alignment politically practical, the Spur needs to be studied and built in tandem with the La Brea alignment, not as its own separate project for a later date. Metro is well aware it has been promising WeHo rail investment for decades now, most recent being Alternative 11 from the 2009 Purple Line Extension Alternate Screening Study. Seeing as WeHo is enthusiastic about this project, even going so far as to help Metro pay for studies, it's clear Metro owes WeHo a rail line. So if Metro, yet again, builds the La Brea option and promises that ‘down the line’ the city will get a dedicated rail just for them–even after WeHo footed part of the study’s bill–Metro may very well ruin one of the only positive relationships they have with a municipality in the LA region. Alternative 11 from the 2009 Purple Line Extension Alternate Screening Study. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, the only way this project will be completed before the year 2050 is with West Hollywood’s financial help, and if the La Brea option was chosen WeHo would rightfully refuse to help fund the project. Therefore, politically, it is necessary for a portion of the rail line to travel through West Hollywood. Since the Spur follows the exact same route as the Hybrid option through WeHo, it shouldn’t make too large of a difference to the city connectivity-wise if Metro accepts the Spur or Hybrid option. This means they likely won’t have an issue providing the $1.1 billion in local funds they promised for the Hybrid option to the Spur option. Additionally, the Spur hits all the same destinations for a comparable price as the Hybrid option, so local groups invested in seeing the fruition of the Hybrid option should be supportive of this alternative as well. The Spur option must be built in tandem with the Crenshaw Corridor as Measure M funds are only allocated to the Crenshaw Northern Extension and, due to technicality, any other line would be considered out of scope for funding purposes. So in order for a spur to qualify for Measure M spending we have to construct and operate this as one project. This means we can operate the spur as a branch line of the Crenshaw Line, similar to how Metro was previously considering operating the Eastside Gold Line Extension. From a federal grant money standpoint, this project offers an insane amount of ridership potential and connects historically marginalized areas to high-resources zones. So if this project was billed as a unified project there doesn’t seem to be any potential issues with raising that money. Building for the Future Future Extensions To ensure the best system for all, the Metro rail system should operate as a grid with a line on major arterials every 3-6 miles apart east to west and north to south. From a planning perspective, the rule of thumb is that a grid pattern allows for the greatest number of people to take advantage of a service, as grids are the most efficient method of serving a large number of trips with entirely different origins and destinations. This is because a grid allows people needing to get directly from west to east or north to south an efficient journey, while also allowing for diagonal trips with only a single transfer. In general, diagonal lines are the enemy of any efficient rail structure as they can only efficiently serve trips that have both the origin and destination on the same line. This means that diagonal lines only serve a small group of riders with a specific journey, which is not ideal as rail should operate as a feeder for all different types of trips that may not exist exactly within the catchment area of that rail line. Taking this knowledge and looking at the options presented before us for the Crenshaw Northern Extension, both the Fairfax and Hybrid options clearly go against this rule of thumb due to their diagonal angle along San Vicente. This diagonal angle only directly serves people traveling from Crenshaw to WeHo, which we’ve established is not where the bulk of the Hybrid option’s ridership comes from. In order to build for the future, Metro should pursue the Spur option as it creates the perfect setup for future extensions to the north, east, and south, creating an effective grid system for decades to come. To the north, from the Hollywood Bowl station a new Cahuenga Pass connection can be made, connecting all the way to Burbank via Olive Avenue, eventually functioning as a replacement of the NoHo-Pasadena BRT along that segment. To the east, the spur itself can be extended from the La Brea/Santa Monica station all the way to Santa Monica/Vermont or beyond, potentially traveling to Dodgers Stadium or Glendale. To the south, the spur can be extended from its stub at Wilshire/La Cienega to Culver City along Venice, hopefully one day linking with the Sepulveda Line and Venice Beach. Although these are all far out of the realm of possibility for Metro at this current moment, there is no reason to doubt that all these important corridors will need greater service in the future. To have a world-class transit system, it would be irresponsible to not think of how our current network will need to expand in the coming decades. But all these connections are only realistically possible with the Spur option, as the other alternatives make all the extensions much more challenging to construct and operate. For the northern extension from the Hollywood Bowl station into the Valley, a Hybrid or Fairfax alignment would cause what should be a direct north/south journey to jog entirely to the west. This would force any Valley distance riders who want to travel south of the Purple Line to add a significant amount of time to their journey. But with the Spur, riders could choose to either directly travel north/south or transfer at Santa Monica/La Brea rather than being forced into a detour. For the eastern extension, the operation of a Hybrid or of Fairfax alignment would result in a strange situation where future trains may be forced to end at Santa Monica/La Brea rather than continue as a unified line all the way along Santa Monica. I say this as a Hybrid or Fairfax would still need a connection to the A (Red) Line in the north and the only way to operate this type of service pattern is with a truncated end for any other extension. This isn’t ideal as it doesn’t follow the grid system rule and creates unnecessary transfers for riders. With the Spur option, riders can easily transfer at the Santa Monica/La Brea station from the Santa Monica Line to the La Brea Line, connecting to the A (Red) Line. For the southern extension, a Hybrid or Fairfax alignment would mean any new line from the south would be forced to either truncate at or interline with the Crenshaw Line. This is because service would still be required on the San Vicente portion of the route, causing trains from a new line meeting with that segment to either join the line so they can continue north to West Hollywood, or end and force passengers to transfer onto the Crenshaw Line. Seeing that an extension down La Cienega is likely to be funded by a future ballot initiative as it’s a high-traveled corridor with a need for rapid transit options, forcing an inconvenient transfer station is an unnecessary detriment that can be alleviated by the Spur option. The Fairfax alignment is located in an awkward situation that is simultaneously too close and too far from what the two rider groups desire. It's too far east from the destinations near WeHo while also too far west to allow for the ideal rapid North/South corridor. But at the same time, if in the future a new line were to be constructed to directly serve either the destinations or distance route, Fairfax would be in the position of being too close to this new line. Since the new line would likely be located on either La Brea or La Cienega, Fairfax would be an inconvenient, yet somewhat duplicate, service. With Fairfax plus this hypothetical extension, the two lines would over-serving that corridor’s travel market, thereby making it a waste of resources. Also, its portion along Santa Monica would make any future subway line along the major corridor a pain to construct due to both the space and logistical complications of two railway ROWs sharing a single arterial street. Light-Rail Versus Heavy Rail The cost benefits of light rail compared to heavy rail comes from the fact it can both act as a surface train and an underground metro, allowing for cheap segments to be built at-grade where land is available while also not precluding underground areas. This saves costs as a whole. However, when comparing the price of light rail to heavy rail in a pure underground setting, the difference is negligible. Underground, the only difference in price between the two modes is the result of a slightly smaller station box, rolling stock, and TBM size. But considering that the real capital cost comes from having to utilize these aspects in the first place, all those aspects just being slightly smaller does not result in significant savings. Therefore, if chosen, when it comes time to build the spur I implore Metro to build it to HRT standards, but in its original state, before extensions are constructed, operate it as a light rail line. In its full buildout from Culver City to the Red Line along La Cienega and Santa Monica, the Spur will function as an entirely underground line, since there is little opportunity or space to let it run at street level. So seeing that this line will have huge ridership potential as it passes by many key regional destinations and dense neighborhoods along Santa Monica, in addition to any at-grade option being unattainable, it makes perfect sense for this line to operate as HRT in the long run. So, wanting to make sure this line is future-proofed for the next few decades, we should build it to HRT standards in order to make sure no costly retrofits are required when ridership inevitably outpaces light rail’s capacity. The reason I state that it should originally operate as a light-rail rather than heavy rail is because if it were to operate as heavy-rail that would require the construction of an entirely new Maintenance-Storage Facility (MSF) within the Spur line’s project area. Just looking at the scope of where the original spur would operate between Hollywood/Highland and Wilshire/La Cienega, it's clear the amount of land required for such a facility does not exist. Therefore, operating as light rail would allow the Spur to use the Crenshaw Line’s MSF by LAX for the time being. Eventually, when the line is extended to Culver City, Metro can use the LADWP Receiving Station D at Venice and Fairfax as a MSF for HRT trains, placing all the power utilities on the site raised above the facility. At this point Metro will be able to phase out the temporary LRT facilities and shift the line to full HRT. How to Temporarily Retrofit HRT Tunnels to Facilitate LRT Metro should be able to build the electrical facilities required up to HRT standards and use temporary resistors to tune down electricity to LRT levels. Additionally, overhead catenaries can be placed in the tunnels to allow for LRT use, contingent on the fact they will be removed when it comes time to phase in full HRT transit. The most challenging aspect will be to accommodate the different widths of light rail and heavy rail rolling stock. Metro will be required to build the widths of the tunnels to HRT standards and place the tracks accordingly, additionally leaving space for the retrofitting of a third rail when it comes time to convert the spur. However at stations where trains need to be close to the permanent platforms, due the different widths of light rail and heavy rail rolling stock, temporary layover tracks pictured below can be used to facilitate light rail. Screenshot of Google Streetview from the Petaluma Downtown Station in Petaluma, California Additional Thoughts First, there is an argument to be made that missing out on the Grove in the Spur alignment would be a missed opportunity and a huge inconvenience to any riders trying to reach this extremely popular destination. However, it isn’t wise to have every other rider experience a large deviation and inconvenience just so one destination can be served directly by the train. The role of rail should not be to hit every destination, but instead offer rapid transit over long distances so the greatest number of people can use the line for various trips that may not directly lie in the line’s path. It's then the job of buses to take people from the trunk rail lines to the destinations in-between lines. It's the same way our street network works; you go from residential streets (walking), then to bigger arterial streets (buses), and on to freeways (trains) to get to your destinations. When traveling to destinations by car, it's almost never entirely by freeway, but instead a mix of street types. But the freeway is necessary to allow you to travel long distances quickly along a major corridor, the same way a rail line should function. So pairing the train line, which operates as a freeway transporting the greatest number of people efficiently over long distances, with the huge bus frequency improvements under NextGen, reaching the Grove from the La Brea alignment via bus will not require a long waiting period, which makes the time increases of not having the Grove directly served by rail negligible. Second, to avoid the same challenges associated with the proposed A (Red) Line extension down Vermont, which will require Metro to spend billions of dollars and close the line for up to two years to build a new junction station allowing trains to run North/South along Vermont, rather than North to East towards Downtown, an innovative technique should be used for the Santa Monica/La Brea junction box. To facilitate and allow for easy construction when it comes time for the eastern extension of the Santa Monica Branch of the Crenshaw Line, the junction box should be built in a staggered method as is pictured below. Junction box at Santa Monica and La Brea. Contrasting it with the Red Line issues, which come from it being necessary to close the track while a new tunnel is created under the Wilshire/Vermont station, this junction design would allow for construction to occur next to the existing track, allowing for Metro to simultaneously build and operate the line. By having the tracks shift to the north before the actual interchange, it leaves space for the construction of a downward track slope into a new transfer station. Additionally, it allows for a triangle intersection existing entirely under city-owned ROW, reducing the property impact costs associated with building the junction box. Eventually, when the eastern extension is completed the northern section will have no further use and be decommissioned, however its use up until that point will be well worth its cost. Conclusion We have the potential to create a Metro system that can last well into the 21st Century, and as we tackle issues like climate change its important we future-proof our transit systems. This Spur alignment will set Metro up for continuing decades of important transit expansion projects, helping reduce auto-dependence and creating a better city for all Angelenos. At the very least, all the potential that resides within a Spur option deserves further study. So I urge Metro to please include a Spur option in the Final EIS/EIR.
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-