|
Post by fissure on Mar 23, 2013 22:17:39 GMT -8
Possible reconsideration of additional grade separations (maybe MLK station elevated as opposed to underground?) While this would be perfectly reasonable from an engineering perspective, the "us vs them" rhetoric that seems to get thrown around makes this a non-starter, even if it would allow the optional stations to be constructed. People in New York and Chicago can live with elevated lines down the middle of boulevards, why can't we? Modern concrete construction probably makes the trains substantially less noisy than the old steel viaducts.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Mar 23, 2013 23:01:59 GMT -8
Possible reconsideration of additional grade separations (maybe MLK station elevated as opposed to underground?) While this would be perfectly reasonable from an engineering perspective, the "us vs them" rhetoric that seems to get thrown around makes this a non-starter, even if it would allow the optional stations to be constructed. People in New York and Chicago can live with elevated lines down the middle of boulevards, why can't we? Modern concrete construction probably makes the trains substantially less noisy than the old steel viaducts. Because, nowadays elevated anything = lower property values.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Mar 24, 2013 6:35:02 GMT -8
I noticed that some who live outside of the area are highly critical of those who want a subway in their neighborhood/ perhaps if the agencies who propose such projects should give into the demands of the neighborhoods? Then we wouln't have so much litigations .
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Mar 24, 2013 6:55:29 GMT -8
Elevated vs. underground does make a differrence, but the difference depends on one's role at a point in time - neighbor vs. passenger. Berkeley paid to have BART underground while Albany to the north and Oakland to the south didn't. Both Oakland and Albany have to live with the constant noise of BART trains, Berkeley doesn't. But for the passenger the elevated sections are more pleasant- quieter and interesting exterior - than the subway sections. As a Berkeley resident I get a quieter neighborhood but a noisier ride. Folks in Albany get a noisier neighborhood but a quieter ride.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 25, 2013 9:20:25 GMT -8
I noticed that some who live outside of the area are highly critical of those who want a subway in their neighborhood/ perhaps if the agencies who propose such projects should give into the demands of the neighborhoods? Then we wouln't have so much litigations . There wouldn't be much litigation, but there wouldn't be much rail either. The extra costs would be paid by not building elsewhere, and lower utility spread across all of LA county means Measure R wouldn't have passed. Also, giving into demands doesn't necessarily make litigation go away, there's always something more to ask for.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Apr 3, 2013 15:45:20 GMT -8
I had an opportunity this past Saturday, 30 Mar 13, to go to the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw (BHC) Plaza. It was my first time and I loved it. The area is so vibrant! And then you head west on MLK Bl. and you hit the remnants of the Santa Barbara Plaza. It's supposed to be developed into a shopping center, according to the two year old story I had just read. Hopefully it's something like The Americana in Glendale along with a trolly that connects it to the BHC Plaza/Crenshaw Line.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 9, 2013 9:03:10 GMT -8
This weekend I rode a bicycle along Crenshaw Blvd from Olympic Blvd to Crenshaw Green Line Station. I noticed some pretty heavy utility work, lots of grates covering holes drilled in the street, and tracks being removed in the area of the Harbor Subdivision near Florence. Also, the old Rite Aid near Crenshaw/Rodeo is being torn down finally for this: www.ktgy.com/new-development/district-square/The Ralphs and Cameo Cleaners are up next
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 17, 2013 17:28:34 GMT -8
Remember the CPUC grade crossing saga for Expo Line phase 1 and phase 2? It's now begun for Crenshaw! Metro's Applications were filed 11/16/12 ( A1211018 for Inglewood), 1/23/13 ( A1301012 for Los Angeles), and 2/11/13 ( A1302025 for El Segundo and vicinity). A Protest (by guess who) was filed for the second on 3/14/13, and a Prehearing Conference is scheduled for 6/14/13.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 19, 2013 16:06:29 GMT -8
Remember? That was a nightmare. Do you believe in undead? People in South LA who will actually ride the Crenshaw Line are suffering from the delays and those NIMBYs in South LA who will never ride the line are having a great time terrorizing the project.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 20, 2013 16:03:47 GMT -8
www.lasentinel.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11144: Mayor Villraigosa Committed to Funding for Leimert Park Station-Stop Published on Friday, 17 May 2013 17:05 Written by KENNETH MILLER Assistant Managing Editor Recently during a televised interview, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa made public for the first time his firm commitment to secure funding for Crenshaw-LAX light rail Leimert Park Village Station Stop. On May 14 the Sentinel obtained an exclusive statement from Mayor Villraigosa that reaffirmed his commitment. "I am strongly committed to a station at Leimert Park, and my office has worked closely with the City Council to identify $40 million to contribute towards the building of that station. I look forward to working in partnership with the MTA Board of Directors to make the Leimert Park station a reality." A much anticipated vote on whether to build a train station that would stop in Leimert Park Village as part of the $1.7 billion Crenshaw-LAX light rail project is scheduled before the Metro board at a soon to be determined date, but now Mayor Villaraigosa and Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas, a long time advocate of the station, have joined forces on the issue providing a unified front that can only result in a bright future for Leimert Park and the Crenshaw line. “I have always been committed making sure that Leimert Park had a station and stop, but now I am proud to admit publicly and remove all doubt about my goals all along,” said Villaraigosa. The Mayor’s public comments came on of heels of years of doubt and prodding from local, state and federal officials who fought to secure a Leimert Park Station. The Leimert Park Station will be an economic boon for businesses in Baldwin Hills, Baldwin Vista, View Park and other African American communities. The region consists of 11,782 residents and 79.6 percent of them are Black, making the region the heart and soul of African American culture and caretaker of its heritage. Privately, Villaraigosa has been steadfastly committed to the project but as the final days of his two-term tenure melts away, he felt it was necessary to inform the public and quiet his critics on the subject. Two years ago, despite overwhelming support for a station from a broad coalition of business owners, neighborhood groups, the church community and residents, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board voted to build one only if it could fit within the existing $1.7 billion-budget allocated for the project, leaving the station’s future in question. The bids for the Crenshaw-to-LAX line are in and have been reviewed and the Metro staff has already made a recommendation to the MTA board on which bid to accept – a non-binding, but early “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” for the station. The recommendation, which will be carefully watched by residents, transportation advocates and elected officials throughout the county, will precede a vote by the full Metro board May 23. Any decision not to include a station in Leimert Park will be widely criticized by many, including every elected official representing the Crenshaw community – City Council members and members of the state legislature and of the U.S. Congress – who all joined in an unprecedented show of unity to call for the stop in Leimert Park Village. It will also deeply disappoint hundreds of residents who packed the Metro Board hearing room calling for a stop in what is the heart of the African-American community and increasingly, an important residential and business center for Latinos. Pre-construction work began last year for the Crenshaw Line light rail that will connect the Green Line to the Expo Line in 2018 (and maybe LAX at some point). However, without a stop in historic Leimert Park, it may be a project not worth having, but the mayor whom Blacks elected to city hall twice has made it a final priority.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 20, 2013 17:34:21 GMT -8
As long as they can find a way to fund it properly without stealing money from other projects, more power to them.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 20, 2013 20:49:34 GMT -8
As long as they can find a way to fund it properly without stealing money from other projects, more power to them. Well, they are going to take money that could have gone to fixing our terrible streets. Crenshaw is really getting special treatment. There is word the City will contribute the $15M for the Hindry Station in Westchester too. Too bad, the 5th Street Station didn't get the same preferences. Even so, you know the Crenshaw Subway Coalition will be spouting their racially tinged hate towards Villaraigosa and just about everyone else in the city when they don't get the Park Mesa section in a subway.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 23, 2013 9:35:01 GMT -8
Fix Expo's take on Crenshaw politics:Speaking of Crenshaw Line, Garcetti Loses Black Vote in a WhopperBy Damien Goodmon @ 8:00 AM May 22, 2013 [Editor’s Note: Mr. Goodmon is Executive Director of the Crenshaw Subway Coalition.]Despite winning the mayor’s race last night by a comfortable margin, Eric Garcetti lost the black vote 71 percent to 29 percent with Crenshaw Line decisions affecting the black community coming up in the first days of his administration. Mr. GoodmonUnofficial results of the exit poll conducted by Loyola Marymount University’s Thomas and Dorothy Leavey Center for the Study of Los Angeles show that Mayor-elect Eric Garcetti won or tied every political constituency group, except African-Americans. Black voters selected Controller Wendy Greuel over Mr. Garcetti by a large margin, more than 7 voters in 10. With the Crenshaw light rail line contract award and Leimert Park Village station decision scheduled for June 27, four days before Mr. Garcetti takes office, and closing briefs in the Crenshaw Subway Coalition’s lawsuit against MTA due his second day in office, July 2, one of the new mayor’s first big decisions directly affects the group his campaign had the most trouble earning support – the black community. The Crenshaw Subway Coalition has led the advocacy efforts for a Leimert Park Village station and an 11-block Crenshaw Boulevard tunnel on the Crenshaw-LAX light rail line. In May 2011, in an amazing show of unity, all local black elected officials joined with more than 600 black community leaders to support a motion to fund a Leimert Park Village station and 11-block tunnel on Crenshaw Boulevard on the rail project. They were palpably infuriated when Mayor Villaraigosa, who, because of his office, controls 4 of the 13 seats on the MTA board, used his 4 votes to kill the motion. The motion lost by exactly 4 votes. It is a decision that forever tarnished Mr. Villaraigosa’s legacy in the black community. Mr. Garcetti needs to say, ‘My 4 votes are for funding the 11-block tunnel and station’ so that the Villaraigosa Plan does not become the Garcetti Plan. It is far less bold and expensive than many of the other items on his transportation agenda, such as building the I-405 rail tunnel 15 years sooner than projected or another $90 billion-plus transportation ballot measure. For the past 8 months, questions about the 11-block tunnel were asked of candidates in nearly every mayoral debate in South L.A. The group privately met with both mayoral finalists. Last week, the Crenshaw Subway Coalition issued a scorecard that rated Mr. Garcetti and Wendy Greuel on the station and tunnel. Both received an “A-” on the Leimert Park station. Since the MTA is scheduled to decide the fate of the station at their June 27 Board meeting, before the next mayor takes office, the Coalition suggested the candidates’ positions on the tunnel were more reflective of their willingness to put their political capital on the line for the Crenshaw community. On that front Mr. Garcetti only received a “C,” for making written commitments not as strong his verbal statements. Mr. Garcetti pledged to add a South L.A. representative and transit rider to the MTA Board as his appointees, and that is good,” said Goodmon. But if he continues the Villaraigosa street-level plan – which would destroy L.A.’s last black business corridor – even strong appointments will be quickly forgotten.” The current MTA/Villaraigosa street-level plan would remove 308 parking spaces, turn Crenshaw Boulevard into a four- or five-year year construction zone, chop down all the mature median trees, erect prison-like fences along the corridor, close several streets and left turns, and impose a severe safety hazard with 225-ton trains operating at 35 mph down the boulevard right in front of community schools. The Coalition asserts that the street-level plan would irreparably harm this surviving business corridor, jeopardize community economic revitalization plans that are decades in the making and imperil the lives of schoolchildren. This morning, the black community is wondering: Will Eric Garcetti live up to his campaign promises of change? Or will it be more of the same that we received from Mayor Villaraigosa? His early decisions on the Crenshaw Line will help answer those questions. Mr. Goodmon may be contacted at dg@crenshawsubway.org or www.crenshawsubway.org
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on May 23, 2013 11:40:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on May 23, 2013 12:44:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 23, 2013 13:03:18 GMT -8
From Bart Reed (with slight edits):
The Metro Board today revised the 2013 - 2014 budget to include the city funding and to adjust the budget to include both the Hindry and Leimert stations. The underground segment was not funded. This issue can now be considered resolved. I am happy to report the matter closed. Congratulations. I spoke to the BRU and the BRU supports the Leimert Park station.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on May 23, 2013 13:17:16 GMT -8
From Bart Reed (with slight edits):The Metro Board today revised the 2013 - 2014 budget to include the city funding and to adjust the budget to include both the Hindry and Leimert stations. The underground segment was not funded. This issue can now be considered resolved. I am happy to report the matter closed. Congratulations. I spoke to the BRU and the BRU supports the Leimert Park station. Great news...does this mean we never have to hear from Damien Goodman again?? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 23, 2013 13:43:15 GMT -8
From Bart Reed (with slight edits):The Metro Board today revised the 2013 - 2014 budget to include the city funding and to adjust the budget to include both the Hindry and Leimert stations. The underground segment was not funded. This issue can now be considered resolved. I am happy to report the matter closed. Congratulations. I spoke to the BRU and the BRU supports the Leimert Park station. Great news...does this mean we never have to hear from Damien Goodman again?? ;D Unfortunately, I forsee a few projects that may draw his ire if not built "right": The Santa Ana Branch Line Harbor Subdivision/LAX Express Line (between Downtown & Union) Crenshaw Phase 2 Basically any line that will travel through South Los Angeles (with the exception of the future Vermont Corridor subway, which will almost certainly be fully grade-separated).
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 23, 2013 15:00:03 GMT -8
Great news...does this mean we never have to hear from Damien Goodman again?? ;D Unfortunately, I forsee a few projects that may draw his ire if not built "right": The Santa Ana Branch Line Harbor Subdivision/LAX Express Line (between Downtown & Union) Crenshaw Phase 2 Basically any line that will travel through South Los Angeles (with the exception of the future Vermont Corridor subway, which will almost certainly be fully grade-separated). Damien is NOT finished. He and some of his hard liners still want to have the Park Mesa section underground. As Damien would say: "it ain't over, 'till it's under." Now, the bigger issue is Mark Ridley-Thomas. He does understand that there isn't money for the Park Mesa subway. There need be proper mitigation for the Park Mesa section if it is on the surface or underground. That has to be done correctly. From The Source: One issue remains unresolved. The Crenshaw Subway Coalition has called for undergrounding the line between 48th and 59th streets, an 11-block section where the train will run at street level through Park Mesa Heights. Putting the line in a tunnel there would cost more $200 million and the Metro Board has thus far not committed to change the project to that extent.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 23, 2013 15:21:41 GMT -8
They should fence that at-grade section, with crossing gates installed at the at-grade crossings, and let the train run 55 MPH with full signal preemption. No sound walls are needed as it's in the middle of a busy boulevard.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jun 8, 2013 8:38:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 8, 2013 16:06:06 GMT -8
And the lawsuits have already started...aka business as usual in SoCal.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 12, 2013 21:11:15 GMT -8
There seems to be some backlash against taking the funds from other projects for Crenshaw at least on the LA City Council. Crenshaw with its latest increase in budget and if you include the Park Mesa subway portion is going to be a $2.3B project (although Park Mesa seems like a long shot at best here). That is basically the same amount as all of Expo, yet we are getting far less than half the ridership on Crenshaw for virtually the same money (there would be some time value of money aspect here so I know it is not 1 to 1 exactly), but even so it shows how much this project is getting for marginal benefit (despite the constant garbage put out there that it is being shortchanged).
The funny thing is that Goodmon says one of the contractors offered to build the Leimert station and the Park Mesa subway portion and the rest of the project in the original budget. That is very far from what seems to be happening. I mean we are talking about a half a billion dollar difference here. I'll believe Goodmon when I see some evidence of his assertion. Doesn't make much sense that Metro would take a bid over $500M more. Maybe more light will be shed on this before the Metro Board vote.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 14, 2013 22:03:44 GMT -8
... Goodmon says one of the contractors offered to build the Leimert station and the Park Mesa subway portion and the rest of the project in the original budget. That is very far from what seems to be happening. I mean we are talking about a half a billion dollar difference here. I'll believe Goodmon when I see some evidence of his assertion. The Source reports that Walsh/Shea was the low bidder, so either Goodmon is wrong or Metro is lying: "Walsh/Shea was one of four firms to submit proposals for the contract. The Metro staff evaluation gave Walsh/Shea the highest technical score; Walsh/Shea also had the lowest bid in terms of cost." thesource.metro.net/2013/06/07/metro-staff-make-contract-recommendation-for-firm-to-build-crenshawlax-line-light-rail-project/
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 15, 2013 0:31:16 GMT -8
It's ridiculous that there is so much fuss about an only one-mile-long segment of at-grade rail through the median of a 180-ft-wide street.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 15, 2013 6:04:29 GMT -8
Yes, it is absurd that there is so much fuss over this tiny Park Mesa section, and politicizing it just makes it worse.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 28, 2013 15:32:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Jun 30, 2013 12:06:40 GMT -8
Talked to a friend yesterday about the Green Line and it not going into LAX. His reply was that his uncle worked for LA dept of airports and said the dept of airports was the reason why the Green line never made it to LAX. The reason money lot C makes so much money for the airport they thought that they would loose the cash cow. Did a search and never saw this posted.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 1, 2013 9:04:36 GMT -8
Talked to a friend yesterday about the Green Line and it not going into LAX. His reply was that his uncle worked for LA dept of airports and said the dept of airports was the reason why the Green line never made it to LAX. The reason money lot C makes so much money for the airport they thought that they would loose the cash cow. Did a search and never saw this posted. There really isn't one overriding reason and there are a bunch of theories, but ultimately the main one is money. The FTA was being difficult about allowing the Green Line near the airport. There was word that the taxicab industry lobbied against it. In the end, Metro didn't have funding to get it there, just like they didn't have funding to connect the Blue Line through Downtown LA, build the subway into East LA and Mid-City. Could they have made it much more of a priority and ultimately get funding, probably yes, but then you are up against other areas of the County who demand their rail lines so it isn't easy. Of course, the idea that connecting the Green Line to LAX would reduce the demand for Lot C parking to such a significant degree that it would damage LAX finances is asanine. At best, the Green Line would only carry a fraction of potential LAX users.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jul 9, 2013 12:10:20 GMT -8
|
|