Crenshaw/LAX Line Operations Plan Being Debated, Will Affect Green Line

Metro staff recommend Alternative 1 - the new Crenshaw/LAX line and the eastern portion of the Green Line be operated together as a single line. Diagram via Metro staff presentation
Metro staff recommend Alternative 1 - the new Crenshaw/LAX line and the eastern portion of the Green Line be operated together as a single line. Diagram via Metro staff presentation

The Crenshaw/LAX light rail line is nearing completion and is expected to open in late 2019. At yesterday’s Metro board System Safety, Security and Operations Committee, there was some debate over how Crenshaw rail will interact with current Green Line operations.

Map of Metro Crenshaw/LAX light rail line. Image via Metro fact sheet
Map of Metro Crenshaw/LAX light rail line. Image via Metro fact sheet

The under-construction Crenshaw Line will extend south from the Expo Line along Crenshaw Boulevard. It will continue southwest through Inglewood. From there it will connect with LAX via a people mover (called┬áLandside Access Modernization Program – LAMP) at the future 96th Street Station. That airport station and people mover are also under construction, but will not fully open until 2023 – a few years after the Crenshaw Line.

airport_Overview1
Metro’s planned Crenshaw Line 96th Street station connection with LAX people-mover. Rendering via Metro

The southernmost end of the Crenshaw Line is at the Green Line, immediately west of the Green Line Aviation Station.

That Crenshaw/Green junction, a T-intersection (though close-up it is more of a Y-intersection or wye), presents new possibilities for Metro rail operations.

At yesterday’s meeting, Metro staff presented their plans for how the Crenshaw/LAX and Green Lines will operate. Staff are recommending Alternative 1 (see top diagram), which would combine new 8.5-mile Crenshaw Line operations with the Green Line east of LAX to form a ~24-mile L-shaped line running from Expo/Crenshaw to Norwalk. Under Alternative 1, the remaining ~3-mile western portion of the Green Line would run just from LAX to Redondo Beach. (Metro has funded plans to extend this part of the Green Line farther south to Torrance, so that ~3-mile line will become an ~8-mile line in about a decade.)

Under Alternative 1, South Bay riders would take the train to LAX, then transfer there to go east toward Norwalk or north toward Expo.

Metro staff’s Alternative 2 would combine Crenshaw with the southwest end of the Green Line. This would mean a north-south line ~11 miles from Expo/Crenshaw to Redondo Beach (extending to ~16 miles when the Torrance extension is built) and an east-west Green Line ~17 miles from LAX to Norwalk.

Mostly to focus LAX access via the future 96th Street Station, neither of Metro’s two alternatives would keep the current one-seat ride from Norwalk to Redondo Beach. Riding the Green Line between Redondo Beach and Norwalk would require a transfer at LAX.

Under both alternatives, at rush hour, trains on both lines would run at six-minute headways, so transferring at LAX would be a roughly three-minute wait.

CrenshawGreenoperationsboardings
Boardings for Green Line and projections for Crenshaw/LAX Line, Image from Metro staff presentation

Metro staff justify their Alternative 1 recommendation on the grounds of connectivity to LAX, consistent headways, minimizing transfers, maximizing ridership, and operational constraints at the wye-junction. From the staff report, Alternative 1 is expected to serve “significant transfer activity currently occurring between the Green Line and major north-south bus corridors, such as Vermont Avenue … [anticipating that] many customers will migrate to the Crenshaw/LAX Line.” Metro staff emphasized that operating the combined Expo-Norwalk Crenshaw-Green would make sense operationally, serving “matching capacity needs” on these two legs that are both higher ridership than the Redondo Beach leg.

Staff made the case that operating all three combinations (Redondo-Expo, Norwalk-Expo, and Norwalk-Redondo) through the wye is possible, though it would result in worse headways, hence overall longer trip times. Staff also also stated that Crenshaw/LAX Line infrastructure is constrained to a minimum five-minute headway, which would appear to rule out Crenshaw operating as a frequent-service trunk (similar to shared Blue/Expo tracks downtown today) that would feed both ends of the Green Line.

Staff did acknowledge that operations may change as travel patterns change, especially with future extensions: Green Line south and the Crenshaw Line north.

At yesterday’s meeting, the committee heard two public comments from South Bay representatives opposed to Alternative 1 due to less “one-seat service” for riders from their area.

County Supervisor and Metro boardmember Mark Ridley-Thomas, who represents South Los Angeles and who has long championed the Crenshaw/LAX line, supported the staff recommendation as “hook[ing] this up in a way that is satisfactory to the broadest number of stakeholders possible.” His position may be at odds with County Supervisor Janice Hahn, who represents the South Bay. Hahn was not present at the committee meeting, but committee chair John Fasana stated that Hahn had requested that the item be discussed at next week’s full board meeting.

At the Metro operations committee, the item was agendized to be received and filed, with no decision. Fasana disagreed with staff’s assertion that this was a more-or-less just a technical operations decision, but that the board should explicitly understand and decide these operations plans.

From a high-level system viewpoint (and given existing constraints), the Metro staff recommendation – Alternative 1 – makes sense for now. What Alternative 1 does not provide is simple one-seat rides for a relatively small population of South Bay riders taking Metro past LAX.

Tune in to the full board meeting next Thursday June 28 for further discussion and, hopefully, resolution of Crenshaw Line operating plans.

  • Joe Linton

    Something that’s kinda fun to think about (that I ended up leaving out of the article) is: how should the color/name/signage work?? Should these all be Green Line? Should there be three colors, say green (LAX-Norwalk), pink (Expo-LAX), and chartreuse (LAX-Redondo)? Or should the Expo-Norwalk be Green and just the South Bay Line re-colored?

  • They need to create all three possible routes and give them letters/colors. There will be times of the day, due to pull-ins and -pull-outs, that trains will have to operate also from Exposition/Crenshaw to Redondo. This is due to where the Car Barns (“Divisions”) are located and what staff is operating where.

    This is really being micro-managed by the board members and the staff on the ground at scheduling and operations need to be left in charge.

  • Joe Linton

    hmmm… sounds confusing. My guess is that Metro will label those trains “out of service” (though it would be nicer if they didn’t)

  • preventspam

    If they’re doing Alternative 1, then it should be the latter, it’s the simplest.

    Only reason not to do the latter is a new orientation in the deep future, with the Redondo Beach line extended further south and/or Crenshaw going north — if you create one big N/S line, then call that the Crenshaw Line and make LAX to Norwalk Green.

    But by that point maybe we’d be on letters. The C Line could go from Torrance, past LAX, through Crenshaw, up to Hollywood/Highland. And the G line from LAX to Norwalk.

  • cygp2p

    There is a new maintenance and storage facility along the Crenshaw line, so those trains wont necessarily have to go all the way to Redondo.

    The issue with not running all three lines is headways (projected ridership on the Crenshaw line isn’t any where close to needing 3min headways until its extended to the Purple line), and activity at the wye. Running all three would mean a whole lot of trains through that junction.

    You could theoretically halve the headways on some of the lighter used lines, but at that point, it would be faster to just have people transfer at Century. Hence this service pattern is born.

  • cygp2p

    With the plan to move to letters once the Regional Connector is opened anyway, I guess its more of a stop-gap name plan until 2021.

    The original Metro proposal was that the Redondo service would become the D line (with green colors), Crenshaw would become the K line (with brown), and the Norwalk to LAX portion would become the L line (with pink)… that was before these updated service patterns though.

    https://i.imgur.com/Oxge3pX.png

  • Headways will be long enough that the junction can handle things for now. Create the three lines as shown in the map you posted, let scheduling and operations decide what does what and when.

  • com63

    They should just pick one and make a commitment to study ridership and reevaluate later. No reason they can’t change things around after a few years if ridership dictates a different system.

  • jcovarru

    On the map you posted, K is lavender (not brown). FYI.

  • cygp2p

    Good catch! Been so used to seeing Crenshaw in brown in all of the planning and construction docs. You are right, it is a lavender-y grey-ish on that draft proposal..

  • auto13142828

    Staff who are recommending Alternative 1 obviously are not the ones who for many years have been riding the Green Line to the Silver or Blue Line to go downtown. Forcing loyal riders to go towards LAX and make another transfer is an asinine idea.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Metro Round-Up: LAX, Open Streets, New Reps on Technical Committee

|
At yesterday’s Metro Board Meeting, directors approved a handful of initiatives that have great implications for the future livability of the Los Angeles Region. Here is the re-cap: Technical Committee Adds Pedestrian and Bike Representatives The Metro Board approved adding two new active transportation representatives to the agency’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). In addition to […]