|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 12, 2008 16:31:23 GMT -8
Please see this Metro presentation for the results of the alternatives-analysis study for the Crenshaw/Inglewood/LAX Line. Please e-mail your supporting comments to Metro. Public support is crucial for this and other rail projects to be funded and built. I fully support the proposed alignment. This line will be a very important addition to the Los Angeles light-rail system with a very large ridership, serving Inglewood, Westchester, Leimert/Baldwin Park, LAX, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, etc. Note that light-rail on Crenshaw Blvd and Harbor Subdivision right-of-way is chosen. The alignment will be between the Expo and Green lines, mostly at-grade, with a few aerial grade separations where necessary, except for a short trench segment adjacent to the LAX runways (to stay clear from the planes landing and taking off) and perhaps a half-mile-long USC-trench-like trench segment between King and Vernon. In addition to my support, I emphasized in my comments the importance of preserving the Harbor Subdivision right-of-way for a multimode use for light-rail, freight rail, commuter rail, and diesel multiple-unit vehicles. Finally, the LAX Station must be designed for a smooth and efficient interface with the future LAX monorail/people mover. The northern extension won't take place until the Purple Line is extended. At that time the line will likely be extended to the La Brea/Wilshire Purple Line station for a connection to Mid-Wilshire, Beverly Hills, Century City, and Westwood.
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Mar 12, 2008 17:14:28 GMT -8
As someone who now owns a home about a mile from the proposed Expo/Crenshaw connection, I'm thrilled about this. I'll be sending all the support I can for this.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 13, 2008 9:27:13 GMT -8
As someone who now owns a home about a mile from the proposed Expo/Crenshaw connection, I'm thrilled about this. I'll be sending all the support I can for this. Send the emails to: crenshaw@metro.net
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 30, 2009 6:04:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Mar 30, 2009 8:42:31 GMT -8
brt is still on the table?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 30, 2009 9:53:23 GMT -8
15,000 riders for a line that is nearly $2 billion to construct is a horrible embarrasment.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 30, 2009 12:04:01 GMT -8
I don't think that 15,000 is an accurate number at all! Furthermore, it's going to include the Green Line extension to LAX (or at least to Century/Aviation), and it's a first step to extending it to the future Purple Line.
Previous studies have shown roughly a 100,000 rider figure if we get this to the Wilshire corridor. In the big picture, this project is as vital as the Downtown Connector in establishing a true LRT network throughout L.A. County.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 30, 2009 12:57:28 GMT -8
I don't think that 15,000 is an accurate number at all! Furthermore, it's going to include the Green Line extension to LAX (or at least to Century/Aviation), and it's a first step to extending it to the future Purple Line. Previous studies have shown roughly a 100,000 rider figure if we get this to the Wilshire corridor. In the big picture, this project is as vital as the Downtown Connector in establishing a true LRT network throughout L.A. County. I know the ridership figures are often lowballed as they are for the Purple Line extension. However, I favor doing this project all at once (i.e. connecting to the Purple Line and a people mover at LAX). Completing the line before this happens makes it seem to me to believe the 15,000 figure. 100,000 riders seems way too much. I'm still trying to figure out the users of this line. It doesn't really connect any job centers and one can travel pretty quickly on this route up La Cienaga, which is like a freeway over Baldwin Hills so it is going to have trouble competing with auto drivers on time.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 30, 2009 13:05:18 GMT -8
The price tag ($1.5-1.8 billion) is fairly steep. I'm all for this project, but it could be a tough sell to the Feds.
Let me reiterate my astonishment. How could this LRT possibly cost up to $1.8 billion? This line is 8 miles long, right? So that's appx $225 million per mile? I know there are several grade separations involved, but still, for that money you might as well go with HRT subway.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 30, 2009 13:44:59 GMT -8
Of course, $$$ per mile is not the whole story. Expo Phase 2 almost as expensive ($200 million/mile). But in the case of Expo Phase 2, projected ridership is at least double that of the Crenshaw line.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 30, 2009 15:32:57 GMT -8
Expo Phase 2 almost as expensive ($200 million/mile). But in the case of Expo Phase 2, projected ridership is at least double that of the Crenshaw line. For Expo, per Tables 4 and 5 in the DEIR Executive Summary, option LRT 2 is budgeted at $932 million in 2008 dollars ( $141 million / mile, 6.6 miles) but $1,301 million in Year of Construction dollars. They're building in a lot of inflation, after being caught short in phase 1. Yes, that's quite a contrast of Expo phase 2 at 36,412 projected weekday boardings (2030) for $932 million with Crenshaw LRT's 12,800-15,600 weekday boardings for $1.5-1.8 billion. That's less than half the boardings for nearly twice the cost. Crenshaw as BRT to Wilshire-Western seems ever more likely.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 30, 2009 15:44:04 GMT -8
The price tag ($1.5-1.8 billion) is fairly steep. I'm all for this project, but it could be a tough sell to the Feds. Let me reiterate my astonishment. How could this LRT possibly cost up to $1.8 billion? This line is 8 miles long, right? So that's appx $225 million per mile? I know there are several grade separations involved, but still, for that money you might as well go with HRT subway. Well HRT subway is coming close to $500M/mile, in esclated $$$. Getting the line up to Wilshire will help the cost/mile/rider figure because Crenshaw is more of a feeder line to the other lines ( Wilshire, Expo, Green Line) with a core ridership base in the middle in Leimert Park and Hyde Park that will be dependent on those connections. I wonder if the ridership numbers include Expo Line to Culver City OR Santa Monica?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 30, 2009 15:58:30 GMT -8
You're both right that we're talking about future (escalated) dollars, not current dollars.
And just to be clear, I still think the project is worth it, for all sorts of other reasons (northward extension of Green Line, connection to LAX, cultural institutions, historically-disadvantaged residents, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 30, 2009 16:13:14 GMT -8
The price tag ($1.5-1.8 billion) is fairly steep. I'm all for this project, but it could be a tough sell to the Feds. Let me reiterate my astonishment. How could this LRT possibly cost up to $1.8 billion? This line is 8 miles long, right? So that's appx $225 million per mile? I know there are several grade separations involved, but still, for that money you might as well go with HRT subway. Well HRT subway is coming close to $500M/mile, in esclated $$$. Getting the line up to Wilshire will help the cost/mile/rider figure because Crenshaw is more of a feeder line to the other lines ( Wilshire, Expo, Green Line) with a core ridership base in the middle in Leimert Park and Hyde Park that will be dependent on those connections. I wonder if the ridership numbers include Expo Line to Culver City OR Santa Monica? These costs are really getting high. I remember when subway could be considered $250M - $300M a mile. We are almost there with light rail now and this was not that long ago. Really gets to the point that we need to move ahead with some Measure R projects while the economy is bad and the price of labor and materials are low. I'd really like to see Expo Phase II and Foothill Gold Line get going as soon as possible because of this. Also, people will start paying the tax on July 1 and wonder what it is going to. If we don't start construction soon on these projects, there will be a lot of anger. I shudder to think what inflation in 3-4 years will do to the Purple Line extension and DTC costs (lets hope we can start both of these critical projects in that time frame and not a whole lot longer).
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Mar 30, 2009 17:14:38 GMT -8
Well HRT subway is coming close to $500M/mile, in esclated $$$. Getting the line up to Wilshire will help the cost/mile/rider figure because Crenshaw is more of a feeder line to the other lines ( Wilshire, Expo, Green Line) with a core ridership base in the middle in Leimert Park and Hyde Park that will be dependent on those connections. I wonder if the ridership numbers include Expo Line to Culver City OR Santa Monica? These costs are really getting high. I remember when subway could be considered $250M - $300M a mile. We are almost there with light rail now and this was not that long ago. Really gets to the point that we need to move ahead with some Measure R projects while the economy is bad and the price of labor and materials are low. I'd really like to see Expo Phase II and Foothill Gold Line get going as soon as possible because of this. Also, people will start paying the tax on July 1 and wonder what it is going to. If we don't start construction soon on these projects, there will be a lot of anger. I shudder to think what inflation in 3-4 years will do to the Purple Line extension and DTC costs (lets hope we can start both of these critical projects in that time frame and not a whole lot longer). You are going to have to look at this like your parents giving you an allowance. Yep, $40 billion over 30 years. The first project to start construction is the Orange Line from Canoga Park to Chatsworth. The Expo Line Phase 2 will have construction contracts awarded in 2010 and construction should start in 2012. You can front load the projects by buying bonds and getting 50% of the value over time or you can pay as you go. But people do understand that you don't build Billions of projects in just a year or two. The proposed Long Range Plan clearly ties project funding with project delivery. Having expectations in excess of reality or cash flow is not prudent business.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 16, 2009 17:10:58 GMT -8
There really needed to be a map like this, to put all of Metro's (and Expo's) Westside projects together. So I combined the current Wilshire and Crenshaw maps, added missing station locations, and updated the Expo Line route. Here is a larger 1600-pixel-wide version.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 17, 2009 10:28:36 GMT -8
There really needed to be a map like this, to put all of Metro's (and Expo's) Westside projects together. So I combined the current Wilshire and Crenshaw maps, added missing station locations, and updated the Expo Line route. Here is a larger 1600-pixel-wide version. Thanks. When I look at this I wonder if as a substitute for Crenshaw was a subway extension down Vermont to the Harbor Sub and then bringing up above ground on the Harbor Sub Row to LAX ever really considered? It would be more expensive, but ultimately a better more integrated solution than the current Crenshaw Line proposal. You would have a direct (although a bit winding to the East) from the Valley and Hollywood to LAX.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 17, 2009 11:14:16 GMT -8
I think that there are long range plans for a Vermont subway extension, except that it would only go to the Green line station and then stop and will cost bundles. This is for the very very distant future.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 17, 2009 11:32:43 GMT -8
I think that there are long range plans for a Vermont subway extension, except that it would only go to the Green line station and then stop and will cost bundles. This is for the very very distant future. Yes, I am aware of that. However, I was talking about scrapping Crenshaw in lieu of a Vermont subway and then down Harbor Row to LAX. When you look at the map, it is probably less than double the tunneling that will need to be done to connect Crenshaw to the Purple Line. The main difference is it provides a much better connection to Hollywood and the Valley with potentially no transfers vs. the 2 transfers that will be needed once Crenshaw is completed to the Purple Line. Also, I think it will have much higher ridership since Vermont is a key corridor with higher current bus ridership. Just a thought and it is out of the box a bit and probably too late to push, but that is my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 17, 2009 11:42:26 GMT -8
Very interesting, masonite. I've learned second-hand (Darrell, you wanna weigh in?) that the Crenshaw Corridor proposal might be rethought because ridership might not justify the expense of all the elevation and tunnelling that's needed.
Maybe a shift from the Crenshaw LRT to a Vermont Subway to the Green Line would be a better fit...either that or cease the discussion of extending the Crenshaw LRT to the Purple Line and have it end at the Expo Line...
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 17, 2009 13:21:59 GMT -8
Come on, Guys, if you build HRT on the Harbor Subdivision in Inglewood, then you have to build HRT on the Harbor Subdivision throughout. Harbor Subdivision is intended as LRT, not HRT. You also mess up the LAX extension and Green Line connectors if you build HRT on the Harbor Subdivision.
Vermont subway is a separate project and it's far down on the list. Sure, it would be great to have a subway on Vermont but we first need to get it to Century City and Westwood. Also, don't forget that a Vermont subway would cost several times more than the Crenshaw Line just to get to USC, which is not a big priority given that the Expo Line will take people to USC from the Metro Center in about five minutes when it opens next summer.
Sure, there are a lot of transit-dependent people in the Vermont corridor but there are also in the Crenshaw corridor.
Let's get these LRT networks extended before the administration changes again (eight years from now). Hell no to BRT! It's a waste of right-of-way.
I don't understand the attitude among some of us in opposing some projects in favor of others. Perhaps it has to do with personal animosities, such as between Friends 4 Expo and Fix Expo -- like you gave us hell in building light-rail to the Westwide and now we will give you hell in building light-rail to South LA. It also looks bad as if we are advocating to avoid a connection between the Westside and South LA. We are not politicians and let's support everything they offer rather than trying to get into a political game as them!
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Apr 17, 2009 13:46:22 GMT -8
I personally feel that with both the Crenshaw Line and Harbor Subdivision we'll be able to fill a massive North/South gap for those who travel along the 405. I also believe the Harbor Subdivision will essentially be our first loop line (yeah, I know it's only half a loop, but good enough for now).
I really feel these two lines are going to be long distance trip lines where people will be going nearly the entire length and even transfering.
I know I'll be going from Harbor Subdivision to Crenshaw to Expo a lot.. and I'd like to see some sort of one seat ride from Long Beach/San Pedro to Santa Monica with those three lines.
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Apr 17, 2009 19:35:13 GMT -8
People say the Crenshaw line wont get a lot of ridership but its short to a degree isn't it? once it extends to the Purple Line(and maybe someday the Red Line Hollywood/Highland station), couldn't we get like seriously high ridership?
As for a Vermont line: why end at the Green Line? Like Damien Goodmon's plan shows, couldn't an extension(not exactly subway the entire route) go to The Home Depot Center, South Bay Galleria, Cal State Dominguez Hills, Harbor College, and San Pedro. wouldn't that warrant an extension?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 18, 2009 6:13:23 GMT -8
The problem is that, as of now, either a Crenshaw BRT to Wilshire, or a Crenshaw LRT to Expo, would have ridership only slightly higher than a Rapid Bus throughout. What might happen--and I believe Mr. Goodmon brought this up in one way, shape or form--is that the Harbor Subdivision ROW might be taken off the table altogether as part of the Crenshaw Corridor Project.
The switch from a Crenshaw Corridor focus to a more comprehensive plan might include:
1) Green Line to LAX--either LAX Parking Lot C or just to Century/Aviation, but to be redirected through along Century eastbound to roughly Crenshaw, then move north to redirect the line through Inglewood as part of a comprehensive development plan for that region. It would move north to the Expo Line, and presumably attract more riders than a utilization of the Harbor Subdivision ROW to Crenshaw Blvd. Any underground routing would be for LRT, not HRT, unless...well, see below.
2) Harbor Subdivision to Downtown as its own line, either DMU or LRT or Metrolink or a bit of all of that, but that would be a separate line than the Crenshaw Corridor.
3) Vermont Subway from the Red Line to the Green Line, farther to the east and having no direct link from the Red Line to LAX
4) It's important to note that neither the Crenshaw Corridor nor the Eastside Extension have any real powerful current pedestrian destinations other than at their ends, and that neither can have really truthful suggested ridership until we know what the first phases of the Expo and Eastside LRT lines do to those regions. Nobody knows, and there's no comprehensive construction/development plan for a future Crenshaw or Eastside Corridor.
5) One nice thing about putting the Red Line/Purple Line connector along Santa Monica Blvd. on hold until after the Wilshire Subway reaches the 405 freeway is that such a connector has both north-south and east-west components to it--and, as I mentioned to the Westside Project leaders last Thursday, it should therefore NOT be built unless we have a resolution as to how the Crenshaw Corridor Project will play into the Purple/Red Line projects?
6) On a final note, dare we consider (if Crenshaw/Aviation is to be the Union Station West that connects all these lines) a Crenshaw/Aviation HRT that is a full subway that goes somehow from the Red to the Purple Lines, down Crenshaw to Century, turning west to stop at Crenshaw/Aviation? With a Harbor Subdivision line as its own separate entity?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 19, 2009 22:35:32 GMT -8
Come on, Guys, if you build HRT on the Harbor Subdivision in Inglewood, then you have to build HRT on the Harbor Subdivision throughout. Harbor Subdivision is intended as LRT, not HRT. You also mess up the LAX extension and Green Line connectors if you build HRT on the Harbor Subdivision. Vermont subway is a separate project and it's far down on the list. Sure, it would be great to have a subway on Vermont but we first need to get it to Century City and Westwood. Also, don't forget that a Vermont subway would cost several times more than the Crenshaw Line just to get to USC, which is not a big priority given that the Expo Line will take people to USC from the Metro Center in about five minutes when it opens next summer. Sure, there are a lot of transit-dependent people in the Vermont corridor but there are also in the Crenshaw corridor. Let's get these LRT networks extended before the administration changes again (eight years from now). Hell no to BRT! It's a waste of right-of-way. I don't understand the attitude among some of us in opposing some projects in favor of others. Perhaps it has to do with personal animosities, such as between Friends 4 Expo and Fix Expo -- like you gave us hell in building light-rail to the Westwide and now we will give you hell in building light-rail to South LA. It also looks bad as if we are advocating to avoid a connection between the Westside and South LA. We are not politicians and let's support everything they offer rather than trying to get into a political game as them! I just want to make sure we are building the best system possible and throwing out a few ideas. We don't make policy on this board as it is a forum for sharing ideas and that is what I am doing. At one point in the Mid-90's we were about to build a subway down Wilton Place and Pico instead of Wilshire. That didn't make much sense to me and either does this line when compared to some other possibilities. Eventually we got it right on the subway, but only the MTA's fiscal crisis made this so. From some of the potential numbers being thrown out on Crenshaw like 15k riders for a line that may cost close to $2B, it is almost assured of not getting any federal funding. This Crenshaw line doesn't make much sense to me in that it doesn't serve any real job or major population centers. It isn't an alternative to the 405 as many people suggest as it is well too far to the East to serve that purpose and can never connect to the Sepulveda pass corridor that is funded through Measure R. Eventually, I suppose the line could be connected to the Purple Line, but even then it is an awkward connection for anything to the North such as Hollywood or the Valley. Personally, I think a combo Vermont subway (to the Harbor Sub line at least for a Phase 1) and a full Harbor Subdivision light rail or Metrolink line might be the better way to go. With HSR now a real possibility the Harbor Sub makes more sense than before. I am not an expert on the Vermont corridor transit needs, but know that it is the most dense corridor in that area of South Los Angeles. I think we could have some real TODs in South LA that won't be available with the current Blue Line or the Crenshaw Line, which would be very exciting and important for that part of the city. Like I said I am just throwing it out there for discussion, and many people may throw out this idea as a poor one, but I also feel it just might make more sense to quite a few people (I'd like to get Damien's thoughts too since he seems to have such strong feelings for this part of town if he still can talk about something besides Expo). Crenshaw is certainly not too far along to where it can't be rethought.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 19, 2009 23:17:43 GMT -8
I *do* favor a comprehensive reimagining of all the possibilities and permutations of lines coming through South L.A., including Crenshaw, Vermont and Harbor Sub. I'm always in favor of unfettered discussion.
However, my conclusion is that Crenshaw in its current form is a critical piece of infrastructure, for several reasons.
* It serves several cultural/economic centers (Leimert Park, Baldwin Hills Mall, DT Inglewood) important to the South L.A. community. * It connects the Green Line and Expo to LAX. * It provides a much-needed north-south route in the Southwest. * It creates a loop in the Metro system, providing redundancy of route choices. * It has funding from voter-approved Measure R sales tax revenues.
I have a fear, based on history, of saying "back to the drawing board" at this stage, that the Southwest will get "pushed to the back of the bus" in Metro's priority list.
Measure R (passed by the voters) has Crenshaw ranked as a high priority, with $1.2 billion provided by those sales tax revenues. Some people would be very angry if Crenshaw were to get circumvented.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Apr 20, 2009 10:04:49 GMT -8
Crenshaw's ridership numbers are lower than the could be for two reasons: the project is too short, and there's a lack of connectivity off of Expo to connect the line with downtown. Both problems are of Metro's making and reflective of the manner in which piecemeal planning at Metro is costing us resources and riders.
That said, there are several ways of building the project, where it first will generate higher ridership, and improve the system connectivity. There are also several ways of reducing the overall cost of extending the project north, which will double or triple the ridership itself.
There's little support for the project among the mostly non-South LA focused MTA and their cheerleaders. And unlike Expo, where more or less they have to get where they really want (Downtown and the Westside) by going through South LA, Crenshaw is a project entirely focused in black underrepresented communities currently. So comments and strategy that are even more dismissive than those regarding Expo in South LA are being revealed. Witness the recent concoction coming out of Metro and westside politicians that they can build the Green Line extension to the airport and call it the first leg of Crenshaw LRT. Also, witness Clarke claiming the line should be BRT (he got that from Zev).
I can only smile at both the statements. Neither of the ideas will fly, and I expect the Westsiders who have yet to truly be engaged in a political battle with South LA will be quite surprised should they attempt them.
Nonetheless, a political strategy is evolving to build Crenshaw and build it right, and given the vindictive and deceptive nature of many here, who again have very little concern for South LA, I'm not really inclined to discuss it publicly.
Oh and interesting fact: the ridership numbers projected over 15 years ago for a grade separated Crenshaw line were more than double those assumed today.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 20, 2009 11:32:20 GMT -8
^^ I live on the Westside; yet, I strongly support the Crenshaw LRT.
One thing that is being misrepresented is the actual cost of the project. The "Crenshaw" part of the project between Expo and BNSF rights-of-way on Crenshaw Blvd is only 3.2-mile-long. The rest is 5.1-mile-long and part of LAX extension and BNSF "large LRT loop" from Union Station to LAX to Long Beach. So, the cost of the project is actually only $500 million, not $1.5 billion, the remaining $1 billion of the cost is part of LAX and BNSF projects.
Regarding the ridership let's not forget that Expo Phase 1 ridership was also estimated around 20,000, perhaps even less than Crenshaw, but it got built. We know that the ridership estimates are not only significantly underestimated but also ridership increases greatly when the network is extended, such as when Expo is extended to Santa Monica, Downtown Connector is built, etc.
I think building a 3.2-mile-long LRT on Crenshaw would be a good investment for the Black community and is very important in building toward a comprehensive LRT network, in this case a connector between Expo and Green Lines.
I'm very glad, Damien, that you are involved in advocating this. I agree with you that there are a lot of dirty politics, some resulting from animosities, and advocacy is needed for this project. I noticed that you said something like you chose not to discuss your strategy. I just hope that it's not another "nuclear bomb" strategy. You need constructive strategies and such nuclear-bomb strategies do more harm than help.
Let's just make sure that some politicians on the Metro board have not pulled the plug on Crenshaw already and asked that the study is biased to recommend no build! After all what gets built is ultimately determined by the politics, not the study.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 20, 2009 12:22:41 GMT -8
Again, I'm all for us discussing the other alternatives (Vermont HRT, Harbor Sub Line) on these forums. But IMO, at this moment in time, the political will, momentum, and process favors the Crenshaw Corridor.
Vermont and Harbor Sub were never discussed as alternatives during the current pre-EIR process, because they are outside the scope of the study (they exceed the corridor's boundaries).
Now is the time to lobby for Federal funds, to ensure the line is safe and secure, with grade separations where needed. Now is the time to refute abnormally low ridership estimates, to rally political allies, and to make the argument that the line will help address issues of social injustice. In short, now is the time for the people to demand a rail line they can live with.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 20, 2009 16:37:59 GMT -8
I entirely agree that this Crenshaw Corridor project, as with other projects, can't be done piecemeal and be done cost-effectively. The only reason I recommend getting the Green Line to LAX as the first approach is to get that dreadful LAWA/Metro/FAA dogfight out of the picture...but if such a minimal extension prevents the rest of the line from being created then I would have it put on hold.
Frankly, with the airlines on their financial backs I suppose that an airport link should be kept on hold until the economy rebounds a bit (which I predict it will in 1-2 years).
Still, the big questions of how the Crenshaw Line should effectively go through Inglewood while the Harbor Subdivision ROW questions remains unresolved makes me conclude that we should NOT build a Crenshaw Corridor line in a vacuum, away from the Harbor Subdivision, because the two of these projects are intertwined.
A comprehensive Crenshaw Corridor Project is something I favor, just as I favor a West Hollywood and Beverly Hills connector for the Red and Purple Lines. Still, if we don't have a lot of key questions answered yet, then I'd say we back up the truck a bit, figure out where we want planning and development to occur in conjunction with (and to help pay for) these projects, and focus on other priorities with fewer questions and greater urgency.
Cases in point: the Downtown Light Rail Connector and the first MOS of the Wilshire Corridor have few really big questions at all to answer, so they should go first while we figure out how to proceed with the Crenshaw and the rest of the subway system.
|
|