|
Post by darrell on Apr 20, 2009 20:38:11 GMT -8
This is the time to suggest what those might be. Crenshaw as light rail is handicapped by not readily extending from Expo to Wilshire. What I actually wrote on 3/30 was: 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. That was a statement of observing reality from experience with competing with BRT on Expo, not personal preference. Measure R allocates $1.207 million to Crenshaw. This shortfall is a problem for Crenshaw if it cannot qualify for federal matching funding. There's a possibility that a better look at TOD facilitated by Crenshaw will improve its cost-effectiveness as light rail. I hope it does. Name-calling instead of factual discussion does not serve you.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 20, 2009 21:10:10 GMT -8
As far as some of the comments here I'd like to point out the following:
1. Crenshaw is said to have all the support from the politicians and community. However, this isn't completely true. Look at many of the scoping comments. Some people don't want a train on Crenshaw especially in an elevated structure, and I don't have to tell you that will be a fury over any street running non-grade separated portions. Only the naive would think this is going to be easy to get built. Many in the study couldn't understand why a denser street like Western wasn't on the table, because they didn't feel Crenshaw could support enough ridership.
2. We are not too far along in the planning to have to go with this. The Harbor Sub is under study as well. In fact just because the scoping meetings have started doesn't mean better alternatives can't be looked at. The only reason Crenshaw is so high on the list is because subways were not really eligible to be considered until Measure R. So now everyone assumes it just has to be Crenshaw even if it doesn't make the most sense anymore (so the study may say the project is more difficult and more expensive than expected and no matter we just have to build it). With that thinking we'll never have a Purple Line extension either.
3. Some have raised the social justice issue. I am advocating the possibility of a Vermont subway which would have desperately needed transit oriented development in a community that is poorer and more transit dependent than the Crenshaw community. Someone has to explain this one to me. Combine it with some sort of Harbor Sub ROW transit and we are talking a much more beneficial project to poor communities than the Crenshaw project.
4. Everyone knows this project is all but worthless unless connected to a working people mover at LAX and up to the Purple Line, which will require an approx. 3.5 mile tunnel. Does is make sense to build tunnels for light rail when we could build a 5 mile tunnel down Vermont for a subway extension that will surely have extensive ridership from the get-go even without a working Harbor Sub line (although that would certainly make it better). Remember Vermont is the second busiest bus route in LA County behind Wilshire, with nearby Western (a mile to the West) a close third. We all know bus ridership is indicative of future rail ridership, but somehow we avoid our most dense bus corridors.
5. Some are saying Crenshaw needs our support for federal money? If the numbers keep coming out as bad as they have been for Crenshaw there will be no federal support as it won't score high enough to compete with other projects across the country. I am not sure how a Vermont subway would score exactly, but I think we should ask the questions. If Crenshaw has to go with BRT, I think something else should be on the table for South LA.
6. Some may say that this will just steal a lot of passengers from the Blue Line. Since the Blue Line is not too far off from reaching capacity, I am not sure that is such a bad thing. By the time something like this could be built, who knows it could already be at capacity, and the Blue Line is pretty far to the East of Vermont.
Obviously, this line makes more sense if we can get our tunneling expenses more in the Madrid range than $500M per mile.
Some on this board wouldn't want to support this alternative, because to do so would be admitting that grade separation over street running LRT may be a better choice in this instance and lets face it, the majority of the discussion on this board lately has been the fight about Expo. However, some others are biased in that they live near the Crenshaw like Damien and don't want to come out for another project that is not in their community. I don't think we have any posters that live near Vermont in South or Southwest LA (I'll be the first to admit I am biased for the Wilshire subway as I live right by a potential station).
Anyway, just my two cents. Feel free to pick the above apart and I'm sure most everyone will. I just haven't heard many arguments yet that make me want to switch positions, but I am certainly open to it.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 21, 2009 4:51:57 GMT -8
Very well put, masonite! I'll go out on a limb and suggest that most folks on this discussion board do not want BRT, because the expense of BRT makes it little better than a Rapid Bus. Furthermore, the question of having to building SOMETHING on Crenshaw to please local residents must be addressed, to say nothing of why we're having BOTH a Crenshaw Corridor project and a Harbor Subdivision Project being studied separately.
Finally, I'll make this key point: until we have an Expo Line to the beach and a Wilshire Line to at least Crenshaw, we really don't know ANYTHING about ridership, for either this or any other line!!! Crenshaw is located in the middle of the map between the beach and Downtown, and some sort of north-south line is indicated for this corridor.
I remember that the Major Investment Study showed ridership of a BRT to Wilshire, and a LRT to Expo, as being somewhat comparable but anemic, but a LRT to Wilshire as explosive in ridership of up to 100,000/day. What if we back up the truck and consider the "thinking out of the box" of having either a LRT or HRT subway that is the north-south equivalent of the Wilshire Subway on Crenshaw to LAX?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 21, 2009 6:37:44 GMT -8
masonite, I won't be so "naive" (as you put it) to suggest Crenshaw has universal support in that community. You'd be hard pressed to find any community without some people opposed to a rail project in their backyard.
However, if somebody has some real evidence that support for Crenshaw is down in those communities, I'd love to hear it.
Crenshaw was defined as a candidate corridor for several reasons, some political, and some based on a real need and a desire by many people to have a rail link through that corridor. And, Crenshaw is funded in Measure R, which was approved by an overwhelming margin (almost 70%) of voters throughout the county.
I have long argued that the MTA needs to look at the whole system when designing these lines, rather than one line at a time. At the same time, I'm very concerned that at this point in time we will be at risk of losing political momentum and access to funding (Federal, sales taxes) if we stop everything to broaden the scope of the study.
Frankly, I'm concerned that Crenshaw is getting kicked to the curb by people who have little actual knowledge of the area and its needs. Somebody tell me I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 21, 2009 8:32:56 GMT -8
Filling in the blanks: * That had a DIRECT connection to the Subway at Pico/San Vicente. Making that 31,000 riders for all subway, roughly 27,500 for elevated and 23,800 for at-grade {numbers may be a bit off +/- 600 riders on the last two because I'm doing the figures from memory my studies are in storage}. The cost values (important when dealing with Feds for funding) for each one occured like so, the all-subway was more than twice the cost of the elevated. The all-subway was close to $2B in 1993 dollars for only 4 car HRT trains for only 4,000 more riders. * The Great Western Forum and Hollywood Park facilities were of greater importance then because the Lakers/Kings/Concerts took place there and it was directly from the Airport. Where does these events occur now? Staples Center. * The MIS in 2003 had the ridership of Crenshaw when including Expo to Santa Monica to be very cost effective because of the connection to Westside jobs, extending to Wilshire (with an included Wilshire extension)was a medium to medium low cost effectiveness but that is only including a Leimert Park tunnel with one station and no other major grade separations. Those connections and their destinations help Crenshaw, hence my previous thought of did they include Expo to Culver City OR Santa Monica in their numbers. Another thing this reveals as the pressing need to extend to scope of the study to include Mid-City and Wilshire to meet with the Purple Line AND get the Purple Line to Westwood. 27,200, but it has an available right-of-way in which to work with. Is there really a difference in moving large passengers between LRT and HRT when they are placed underground? Currently yes because LRT maximum length are 3 units, @ 270' in length and HRT runs 6 cars @ 450' in length. Maybe to really think outside the box to make the units of the LRT longer in these tunnels.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 21, 2009 9:59:34 GMT -8
masonite, I won't be so "naive" (as you put it) to suggest Crenshaw has universal support in that community. You'd be hard pressed to find any community without some people opposed to a rail project in their backyard. True, but when you have a line that does not have a right of way and requires aerial structures and street running portions you will have more opposition, especially in a community that is mobilized to fight after Expo. A subway along Vermont was not considered because of the historical ban against subways so it has a later start. Also, the Vermont community tends to be much poorer and much less politically powerful than Leimert Park/Crenshaw, which has always been a middle class area and for years has been quite politically powerful. I agree wholeheartedly with your first point. We are not stopping much here (it is only in a study and the study may conclude it will be a BRT). Also, there will be no federal funding for a project like Crenshaw that scores so low in cost-ridership. Not sure why everyone brings this up. Vermont could score well however, as well as have a more positive effect on its community as there is more opportunity for much needed TOD development that could bring jobs to an area that needs them as well as connect this part of the city directly to Hollywood, LA City College and the Valley. Vermont has more needs than Crenshaw and is just a few miles to the East so there is no conspiracy to take away from the community. Anyone can read the studies and see how bad the numbers are coming in for Crenshaw. You don't need to be an expert on the neighborhood to see that. Meanwhile the Vermont/Western corridor with its huge transit needs go unstudied, because they don't have the political power that their wealthier more connected neighbors in the Crenshaw area do. Doesn't quite seem right to me. I'd like to see a system that is the most beneficial and integrated to the entire region with the most specific community benefit and can actually get built with federal funds. To me it seems Vermont scores higher than Crenshaw almost all the way around.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 21, 2009 12:11:11 GMT -8
Crenshaw as light rail is handicapped by not readily extending from Expo to Wilshire. That's because the Wilshire subway currently does not exist, except for a short spur to Western. On a side note, there was a huge opposition to a Crenshaw LRT terminating at Wilshire/Western by the affluent Wilshire-area homeowners' associations. Let's not present the facts selectively as, for example, Fix Expo does, which is nothing but misleading and misrepresenting. According to the Measure R expenditure plan, there is $1207m from Measure R, $263m from other local funds, and $200m for the Green Line extension, adding up to $1.7b, which is the cost of Crenshaw LRT (including inflation through Item 18), and it doesn't specify any federal funds. No federal funds are needed for Crenshaw LRT according to the Measure R expenditure plan. Last but not least, a Crenshaw BRT makes no sense engineeringly because it will use the BNSF Harbor Subdivision right-of-way. Should we give up on Green Line LAX extension and build BRT from Union Station to LAX to Long Beach on the BNSF right-of-way? It's true that Fix Expo have never appreciated how Friends 4 Expo fought to have Expo built as LRT instead of BRT, and how grade-separation costs can tip a project from LRT to BRT. Indeed they would learn a good lesson if Crenshaw tipped to BRT. But I'm for better transit and not for teaching people lessons and pursuing animosities; so, let's minimize the costs of Crenshaw LRT and give the necessary support so that it gets built (as LRT) as it is needed. The ridership figures are also completely underestimated in my opinion, based mostly on existing bus figures. It looked really bad when those Wilshire-area homeowners' associations were terrified about the idea of an LRT line that would bring those South LA people to their doorstep at Wilshire/Crenshaw. I'm all for connecting the people and lines together myself, instead of segregating them. I know there a lot of people in all races who prefer to be segregated from any other race, whether it's Whites, Hispanics, or Blacks preferring their own community. But this usually leads to problems on a citywide and countywide scale.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 21, 2009 12:43:38 GMT -8
Last but not least, a Crenshaw BRT makes no sense because it will use the BNSF Harbor Subdivision right-of-way. Should we give up on Green Line LAX extension and build BRT from Union Station to LAX to Long Beach on the BNSF right-of-way? Well, to be fair, BRT would fit next to commuter rail tracks on the Harbor Sub exactly as well as LRT tracks would fit next to commuter rail tracks. That's not to say that BRT is a good idea, but as far as ROW constraints, there is no comparative disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 21, 2009 13:05:11 GMT -8
Well, to be fair, BRT would fit next to commuter rail tracks on the Harbor Sub exactly as well as LRT tracks would fit next to commuter rail tracks. That's not to say that BRT is a good idea, but as far as ROW constraints, there is no comparative disadvantage. LRT uses elevated sections supported on columns where the right-of-way is narrow, which is the case with the BNSF ROW in various locations. So, I'm skeptical that you can fit at-grade BRT that requires more than 25 ft next to a single track everywhere along the BNSF ROW. And if BRT won't be at-grade, there is no cost advantage to it.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 21, 2009 13:14:03 GMT -8
Regarding the Vermont Corridor, it should be LRT in my opinion, not HRT. The section between Exposition and Gage must be below-grade LRT. South of Gage Vermont is an old railroad right-of-way; so, you can fit LRT there at-grade or above grade.
I think north of Exposition, it's not critical to continue the line, as Expo already makes a fast connection to Downtown (8 min from Vermont to 7th/Metro). But if it is found desirable to do so (such as a fast connection to Koreatown), the below-grade LRT can be continued to Wilshire/Vermont.
LRT would be both much cheaper and offer better connectivity to Green and Harbor Subdvision Lines, as well as distant-future LRT lines in the south LA County, which is crisscrossed with abandoned and existing railroad rights-of-way.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 21, 2009 14:06:36 GMT -8
I think that is a brilliant idea, since a transfer would be needed - from HRT to LRT or vice versa. I wonder how much money it would actually save? If the cost savings are not that much, then it would be better as HRT.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 21, 2009 14:28:33 GMT -8
I think that is a brilliant idea, since a transfer would be needed - from HRT to LRT or vice versa. I wonder how much money it would actually save? If the cost savings are not that much, then it would be better as HRT. I don't know if the existing Wilshire/Vermont HRT junction/station allows an HRT Line to the south without a transfer. (Remember the situation with the Red/Pink Lines at Hollywood/Highland.) So, I'm not sure if HRT over LRT would save a transfer. I think the high ridership of the Red and Purple Lines is mostly due to the Downtown portion of the line. When the Downtown Connector is built, Expo/Blue Lines will probably surpass the combined ridership of Red and Purple Lines. So, was HRT ever needed? -- probably so given the density on Wilshire portion of the line but it was probably a mistake to build HRT in the Hollywood/Valley portion. Besides, if they had built LRT in the Hollywood/Valley portion, it would continue as the Orange Line LRT, not Orange Line BRT. For the Vermont corridor, yes, there are a lot of people, many without cars, who ride 204 and 754 but probably not as many to justify HRT, for which you expect ridership figures of more than 200,000 passengers a day. I don't think you would get that many people riding the Vermont subway south. We already have the Blue Line in a nearby corridor. So, yes, for me an LRT seems to be a better idea for the Vermont Corridor, but as erict said, the cost and ridership comparison must be seen.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Apr 21, 2009 15:02:38 GMT -8
My understanding of the situation is that a north-south line in that general area is badly needed, and that the selection of Crenshaw in particular was a pet project of a local politician. In my opinion, a line down Vermont would be preferable both from a ridership perspective and in terms of its connectivity to the rest of the network. Vermont itself has the second busiest bus corridor, and if you look within a mile east and west, there are also Western, Normandie, Figueroa, Broadway, and Main. At the north end, the Vermont Line would allow transfers westward toward Westwood, eastward to Downtown, and north to Hollywood and the Valley, the latter not really being an option with Crenshaw (at least not without much more expensive and extensive construction). The Vermont line might make sense as heavy rail, given that it ought to be possible, and might even be necessary, to grade separate it for all of its length. Heavy rail also goes somewhat faster than light rail, and has higher capacity per unit of train length, something very important for subways. In any case, there's no good way to build a track connection between the Hollywood subway and a Vermont line, so there will be a forced transfer at Wilshire/Vermont no matter what. Also, while sending the trains from Vermont or Crenshaw all onto Expo might seem like a good idea, keep in mind that between the Blue Line and Expo, the Flower St surface line will already be at capacity with a three-car train every 3 minutes. Also, LA is a city of many centers, and not everyone needs to go to Downtown.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 21, 2009 15:08:46 GMT -8
I don't know if the existing Wilshire/Vermont HRT junction/station allows an HRT Line to the south without a transfer. (Remember the situation with the Red/Pink Lines at Hollywood/Highland.) A transfer is needed unless we open up the street again to open up the connection to allow a straight running along Vermont, potentially relieving strains from Wilshire/Vermont to Union Station when the Wilshire subway is extended all the way to at least Westwood. So in concept we have two seperate lines of; Red Line from North Hollywood to Vermont Corridor Purple Line from Westwood to Union Station/EastsideA good study should investigate that option only for longer term capacity issues with the Purple Line.That is until the Purple Line goes to Beverly Hills, Century City and Westwood. I wouldn't call it a mistake per se, the Cauhenga Pass is a perfect candidate to build a heavier rail connection due to the fact there is only one way to get through the pass between the Valley and Central LA via Hollywood. However, I personally wish we didn't build it as a tunnel but elevated or in the median or along the side of the 101 Fwy. That could have allowed a stop at the Hollywood Bowl and serve more users and had more $$$ left to expand more of the network, but alas that was not the case. Possible, however if I had my way that segment in the Valley should have built as a turnkey project with a wide ROW like that with very little remaining industrial they could sold development rights along the ROW for 4-6 story development along most of the stations minus Sepulveda/405 area (heavier industry/toxic soil) and built as a LRT with a few grade separations then continue that line east to Burbank. However that Vermont Corridor would expand our network and provide a parallel line to the Blue Line to relieve the rush hour loads, but a study needs to be done. I would make it in concept like a 405 Line utilize the LRV's but run them in longer trains. Our LRV's acceleration rates are the same as Heavy Rail cars.
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Apr 21, 2009 15:16:55 GMT -8
For the Vermont corridor, yes, there are a lot of people, many without cars, who ride 204 and 754 but probably not as many to justify HRT, for which you expect ridership figures of more than 200,000 passengers a day. I don't think you would get that many people riding the Vermont subway south. We already have the Blue Line in a nearby corridor. With Logic Like that it could be argued the Subway to the Sea shouldn't built since the Expo line will travel in a similar area.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 21, 2009 16:02:12 GMT -8
For the Vermont corridor, yes, there are a lot of people, many without cars, who ride 204 and 754 but probably not as many to justify HRT, for which you expect ridership figures of more than 200,000 passengers a day. I don't think you would get that many people riding the Vermont subway south. We already have the Blue Line in a nearby corridor. With Logic Like that it could be argued the Subway to the Sea shouldn't built since the Expo line will travel in a similar area. My point was that two LRT lines in these adjacent corridors will be sufficient, rather than an HRT and an LRT line. I'm not saying at all that the Blue Line is sufficient by itself. For the Wilshire Line, HRT is better because it eliminates transfers and Wilshire corridor has a very high density.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Apr 21, 2009 16:14:57 GMT -8
I find this Vermont vs. Crenshaw discussion interesting, in large part because I don't see it occurring with respect to the Wilshire subway. $4 billion, $5 billion, $6 billion, $9 billion - not a problem on the westside right? It is needed. Oh, but in South LA... We can talk about two subways on the westside (one of which was concocted out of thin air), but the corridor with a bus line that has been the county's top or second most in ridership for over a decade is ignored? And the only way it is seen as feasible is if another worthy and necessary project in South L.A. is scrapped? Seriously people, just back up every now and think about the context of your comments. The fact that the second most used bus line in the county (and thereby one of the top bus lines in the nation) is not currently and has not in the past undergone an HRT EIR process, wasn't included in R, and hasn't ever been seriously discussed at Metro is a reflection of an institutional, societal and political problem. I'm not going to back off from calling it what it is: institutional discrimination. Well, the playing field has been shifted. We're not going to sit here and beg for scraps in South L.A. while the Westside-focused MTA board and staff focus all their attention and dollars north of the 10 freeway, in communities where they live, and where their developer friends have the most interest. Regarding the Crenshaw corridor characteristics: Leimert Park and View Park account for less than one mile of the corridor. The rest of it is still very transit dependent and struggling to enter the middle class. The larger point of course is that the line and the corridor as a whole is seen in a much broader and necessary economic context. That one mile is intended to one day be the economic center of the Crenshaw corridor and African-American business community. And I've been to many of the Crenshaw meetings. There is wide-spread support for a transit solution on Crenshaw, and we're not going to allow a discussion about design to prevent us from articulating the necessity of the project. Metro needs to find a way to fund it so it can be designed to the community standards, just the same as they continue to find ways of making Expo happen as the project leapfrogs from $950 million to $2.2-2.3 billion...and growing. Its far too convenient to talk about costs and financial limitations in the planning stage to lead to inferior products, and then ignore costs after the shovels are put in the ground. Either there's a cap/limitation/cost-effectiveness argument or there is not. More often than not however, primarily at-grade LRT cost numbers are put forth to intentionally show smaller budgets - budgets that reflect insufficiently mitigated lines to mask the comparatively little difference been eventual grade separated and at-grade cost. (Just look at Phase 2 and the limited concern for real estate cost (on the Colorado portion) and additional grade separation costs.) As I've said many times with Expo, at a $505 million project, from a solely capital cost perspective, a comparatively $1.1-1.4 billion grade separated line seems unreasonable. But now with Expo Phase 1 approaching $900 million, folk look like idiots not pursuing the grade separated option.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Apr 21, 2009 16:53:31 GMT -8
With Logic Like that it could be argued the Subway to the Sea shouldn't built since the Expo line will travel in a similar area. It gets me how some fail to recognize their hypocrisy, and can't just honestly admit how their individual perspective is altered based on where these lines are built and whom they are to serve. People who say both Expo and Wilshire are needed, but in the next breadth claim Vermont isn't needed because of Blue, or Crenshaw isn't needed because of Vermont are the most egregious. I'd much rather people just come out and say, as someone did in a message board a while back in response to the discrepancy between Culver City and South LA on Expo Phase 1, "But Culver City is a major place where people want to go." (Paraphrase) Of course all three corridors (Blue, Vermont and Crenshaw) need rail service, just like Expo and Wilshire both need rail service. And unlike Expo, Vermont and Crenshaw have EXISTING transit ridership and travel through corridors filled with the most likely of "choice riders" to grow the system. Unlike Expo/Wilshire, a choice rider isn't someone leaving a BMW or Prius at home, they're the person leaving the hoopdie that just barely runs at home because they now have a way to get to work that is much faster and more reliable than the bus. Also, unlike more than half of Expo Phase 2, Vermont, Crenshaw and the Blue are completely separate corridors 2.5 to 5 miles separated from each other.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 21, 2009 17:35:41 GMT -8
Regarding the Vermont Corridor, it should be LRT in my opinion, not HRT. The section between Exposition and Gage must be below-grade LRT. South of Gage Vermont is an old railroad right-of-way; so, you can fit LRT there at-grade or above grade. I think north of Exposition, it's not critical to continue the line, as Expo already makes a fast connection to Downtown (8 min from Vermont to 7th/Metro). But if it is found desirable to do so (such as a fast connection to Koreatown), the below-grade LRT can be continued to Wilshire/Vermont. LRT would be both much cheaper and offer better connectivity to Green and Harbor Subdvision Lines, as well as distant-future LRT lines in the south LA County, which is crisscrossed with abandoned and existing railroad rights-of-way. Vermont HRT makes sense as a continuation of the current Red Line. We would then have two separate lines the Purple from Downtown LA to the Westside and the Red from the Valley to Harbor Sub Row at Vermont. Since there would be no branches, these lines could operate at very short headways like 2-3 minutes if necessary. I agree this really only makes sense if there is no transfer necessary at Wilshire/Vermont. Since this is not like the Highland station in that this is already a multi-modal station I would think (but I do not know for sure since I am not an engineer) that a tunnel could be connected from the South to the current platform from where the trains coming from and going to the north. There would have to be some sort of curve in this tunnel since at the station the trains are oriented east-west. For Crenshaw they could do a BRT just on the boulevard from Wilshire to the Harbor Sub and then Harbor Sub could be LRT or an EMU train from LAX to DTLA. From south of Gage to the Green Line on Vermont, eventually the HRT could be expanded and brought up on an aerial structure on that ROW if that made more sense. It doesn't make sense to me to be LRT just because there is a ROW there, plus then it won't connect well with the rest of the system. Finally, I strongly disagree that there is no connection necessary between Wilshire and Expo along Vermont. That is precisely the area that needs connecting so people from the South can go to Hollywood and the Valley and the Westside without having to go on Expo downtown and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 21, 2009 17:41:31 GMT -8
It's so funny that all this bickering and fight is over nothing but a "poor man's transit system." Check out the original HRT plans in 1925:(Click here or on the image to enlarge it.) The red lines represent the planned HRT lines and the solid brown lines existing LRT (Pacific Electric Railway) and dashed brown lines existing streetcar (Los Angeles Railway) lines. Note that both the Crenshaw-coridor line and 110-corridor line were envisioned at that time. The 110-corridor line would run in the vicinity of Figureoa (not Vermont) and then transition to Normandie near Gardena. The Crenshaw-corridor line would run along King and Leimert to Crenshaw and along Crenshaw to ATSF ROW (BNSF ROW now) but would leave the ATSF/BNSF ROW at Hawthorne Blvd to follow Hawthorne Blvd all the way, crossing the looping ATSF/BNSF ROW again and heading to Redondo Beach, literally to the beach (not like the Green Line, which ends far away from the beach). Also note the numbers next to the lines, which represent the number of tracks. 3-track and 4-track are common configurations, not the whimpy 2-track lines of the Red Line or the planned Downtown Connector.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 22, 2009 0:28:53 GMT -8
I think the high ridership of the Red and Purple Lines is mostly due to the Downtown portion of the line. When the Downtown Connector is built, Expo/Blue Lines will probably surpass the combined ridership of Red and Purple Lines. So, was HRT ever needed? -- probably so given the density on Wilshire portion of the line but it was probably a mistake to build HRT in the Hollywood/Valley portion. Besides, if they had built LRT in the Hollywood/Valley portion, it would continue as the Orange Line LRT, not Orange Line BRT. I think the Orange Line became BRT in large part due to the Robbins bill baring above ground rail in the North Hollywood area and the Yaroslavsky bill banning subway. BRT was the only thing left. I also seem to remember something about the Feds pushing the BRT concept through financial incentives as a low cost alternative to LRT. Without the Robbins Bill I suspect surface or trench HRT may have been an option or nothing at all would have happened. More importantly I don't think LRT could have been a viable mode option because there isn't an available ROW through Hollywood/Thai Town/ Vermont capable of supporting LRT. The streets are simply too narrow or congested. Lastly, without a North Hollywood leg the Red Line would have remained a subway to nowhere which planner were desperately trying to avoid. If you recall before the methane exclusion ban the original alignment took the subway up Fairfax to the Valley barring this the next highest density corridor along Vermont was chosen. The subway "needed" to go somewhere. All and all Vermont turned out to be a pretty good choice perhaps better then Fairfax because of LACC, population density and percentage of population dependent upon public transportation.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 22, 2009 4:53:49 GMT -8
My understanding is that if it weren't for the Robbins Bill, the Orange Line would have been a LRT...and perhaps we will see such an endeavour being done, once the SFV starts getting intolerant of the rest of the county getting more attractive options like LRT, Metrolink, DMU and HRT.
Addressing another post, I agree with Damien that both Crenshaw and Vermont and the Harbor Subdivision and the Blue Line are all needed, just as both the Wilshire and Expo Lines are needed. Unfortunately, the focus is to bring everyone Downtown so that the east-west lines get a lot of love but the north-south lines get little love.
With respect to Crenshaw specifically, I think that it's appalling that there's a lack of planning to couple this line with projects that would spruce up the area economically as well as ensure a lot of ridership. Furthermore, the projected ridership (as Darrell maintains) is ridiculously low. Lastly, to repeat my statements in an earlier post, it's ridiculous that the Harbor Subdivision ROW project is considered separate from the Crenshaw Corridor Project when in fact they should be combined...along with a combination of the Green Line to LAX Parking Lot C/LAX People Mover Projects, which would further link the region together.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Apr 22, 2009 13:28:01 GMT -8
The fact of the matter is that we can't possibly build everything at once, and have to set priorities as to what's most important to build first, which is really what the Crenshaw vs. Vermont vs. anything else debate should be about. An existing high bus ridership is a good heuristic for planning new rail lines. Not only does it indicate a high level of transit demand and a strong ridership base, it also just plain makes sense from an operations point of view: deploy high capacity transit where it can provide the biggest savings. For example, a line to Wilshire/Westwood would allow the MTA to replace some 40 buses with 8 trains and move significantly more people while doing it. By that criterion, Wilshire should be the first line built, and Vermont should be built before Crenshaw, while the latter is way ahead of, say, Foothill Phase 2. Unfortunately these aren't quite the criteria used. The political realities of MTA and county politics dictate that new lines be spread about geographically, and FTA policies give preference to attracting new riders over providing more effective service for existing ones. Unfortunately, the poor and minority populations who tend to use transit heavily also tend to be concentrated in certain areas of the county, so the policies do result in an outcome that can be said to be racist, and that needs to be addressed. But the problem is at the level of the FTA and county politics, and once that's solved, I think the Vermont line will emerge as a strong candidate for rail, with the Crenshaw line somewhere behind it, but ahead of various other proposals in the further reaches of the county.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 22, 2009 13:28:02 GMT -8
I agree with Damien that both Crenshaw and Vermont warrant discussion. This isn't either/or.
Having said that, Crenshaw is in the process of been studied for the second time now, and should proceed through the EIR process. The MTA needs to review its ridership statistics. It also needs to consider the line's utility not just as a ridership source, but as a key link in the system. Crenshaw needs rail, the Southwest needs rail, LAX needs a rail connection.
None of this precludes the MTA from beginning of studies for Vermont and/or Harbor Sub. If they can roll it all up into one mega-project, that's fine too. (Although I don't remember anybody pushing to roll Expo and the Wilshire Subway together for consideration.)
Just so long as this isn't going to delay by many years much-needed improvements to transit in Southwest L.A.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 22, 2009 15:34:18 GMT -8
The fact of the matter is that we can't possibly build everything at once, and have to set priorities as to what's most important to build first, which is really what the Crenshaw vs. Vermont vs. anything else debate should be about. An existing high bus ridership is a good heuristic for planning new rail lines. Not only does it indicate a high level of transit demand and a strong ridership base, it also just plain makes sense from an operations point of view: deploy high capacity transit where it can provide the biggest savings. For example, a line to Wilshire/Westwood would allow the MTA to replace some 40 buses with 8 trains and move significantly more people while doing it. By that criterion, Wilshire should be the first line built, and Vermont should be built before Crenshaw, while the latter is way ahead of, say, Foothill Phase 2. Unfortunately these aren't quite the criteria used. The political realities of MTA and county politics dictate that new lines be spread about geographically, and FTA policies give preference to attracting new riders over providing more effective service for existing ones. Unfortunately, the poor and minority populations who tend to use transit heavily also tend to be concentrated in certain areas of the county, so the policies do result in an outcome that can be said to be racist, and that needs to be addressed. But the problem is at the level of the FTA and county politics, and once that's solved, I think the Vermont line will emerge as a strong candidate for rail, with the Crenshaw line somewhere behind it, but ahead of various other proposals in the further reaches of the county. Great summary as you sum up my thoughts as well. I'm sure everyone on this board would agree we'd all love to have grade separated rail on Crenshaw, Harbor Sub, and Vermont. However, we all know not all 3 of those will happen in the next 30 years. One probably will and hopefully two, but without a miracle not all 3, especially when other parts of the County like the much larger and more populous Valley have just a tiny bit of one rail line and nothing else really in the works and Measure R only covers Crenshaw and then only in a non-grade separated manner which the community is ready to rise up against. My point is that Vermont as a first line to the Harbor Sub row from Wilshire would be a better project than Crenshaw for a variety of reasons. It is a shame it hasn't been on the table and pushed by South LA leaders like Crenshaw has. It has a much higher chance of getting federal funds and I really question those who say they support all these lines and we shouldn't have to choose between them, but then don't consider the cost-effectiveness of what they chose so we can get federal funds and actually build a comprehensive system that we can all be proud of. Vermont is a better short-term (has immediate high ridership and a better tie-in with the rest of the Metro system), medium-term (has a chance to have much larger TODs than other alternatives and provide positive development for a poor community), and long-term project (allows MetroRail to grow by using high capacity HRT through an extended Red Line instead of straining LRT, which could be at full capacity in 10-20 years on the Blue/Expo lines) and should be done first. People have made a lot of arguments on here and it has sparked a lot of impassioned debate, but no one has even come close to providing a real argument as to why Crenshaw should be done before Vermont. Saying a group of politicians have pushed to study it first isn't a real reason in my book.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Apr 23, 2009 0:58:19 GMT -8
People have made a lot of arguments on here and it has sparked a lot of impassioned debate, but no one has even come close to providing a real argument as to why Crenshaw should be done before Vermont. Again, just step back and consider the discrepancy. Simply, where did this project priority justification criteria come from, and why is it rearing it's head in the context of a rail project that primarily serves South LA? I see no one suggesting Expo Phase 2 take a back seat to Wilshire, DTC or the Vermont extension, which I think most will agree are ridership-wise a higher priority than Expo Phase 2. (And don't even get me started on the Foothill extension. ) In fact, now with Measure R, one could strongly argue that EVERYTHING should wait until we build those three subway projects including a Sepulveda pass connection to Wilshire. Where's the group supporting that? In fact, does not Friends 4 Expo have a history of suggesting the Expo should not wait until the Wilshire subway?If someone wants create an alternative process where we prioritize projects based on ridership, I say godspeed. I suspect that soon into your work, you will recognize that a good HALF or majority of the projects that belong in the top-tier will serve areas and corridors that are traditionally politically underrepresented, and that the MTA board and staff have little interest in devoting a great majority of their focus and resources to primarily serving such areas. Like I've said many times, if Metro were a for-profit business: 1) They would be completely focused on keeping their existing customers happy by improving their service. 2) They would have an expansion plan focused primarily on converting drivers not in BMW/Prius communities, but rather in communities filled with people who can least afford their cars, i.e. Jefferson Park not Park La Brea; East Hollywood not West Hollywood; South Gate not the South Bay; Hawthorne not Duarte. The reason why that is not the case is the same reason why we don't prioritize projects based on any kind of criteria. I'm not saying it makes sense, in fact, I agree it does not make sense. I'm just saying I'm not going to (and I find it all too convenient for others to) demand a change in the process when the consequence is cutting a project that just so happens to serve an area MTA staff, MTA board and the "rail transit advocates community" (which is primarily made up of folk who not from South LA or East LA) have traditionally focused the least. That said, ultimately Crenshaw has a specific funding priority enshrined by the voter approved Measure R, and it would be terribly difficult politically and legally to overturn it. Thus, this debate about whether Crenshaw or Vermont should go first is pretty much academic. Furthermore, as Prop 1B and Measure R proved, there will eventually come a day when a bucket load of money from the feds or other sources will come down the pike for transit projects. I'd rather prepare for that day, and advocate for that day, than be unprepared for it by devoting limited planning resources to only studying insufficient and ineffective projects. Thus: -Integrating Harbor Sub with Crenshaw is good and will very likely happen. -A systemwide/countywide rail expansion program EIR is needed. -EIRs for projects in the urban core of the system should consider all design options, including the cheap minimum grade separation options and total grade separation. Furthermore, in a multitude of ways, planning in such a manner drastically increases the prospects of getting sufficient buy-in from the Southern California delegation of the legislature and Congress to bring home the bacon. When Get LA Moving was created we spent so much time talking about how fiscal, political and planning strategy relate, yet some continue to profess that it is just a pretty map. Then again, many are now falsely claiming that it was advocacy for street-level rail, so I'm surprised the real work and basis of the plan has been forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 23, 2009 6:12:39 GMT -8
On this issue, I TOTALLY agree with Damien. Sometimes the "lowest hanging fruit" must be grabbed first, knowing that the juiciest and best fruit might be ideal but yet entirely out of immediate reach.
Expo has lower projected ridership than the Wilshire Subway, but it will entirely go first before the Subway moves an inch west than its current terminus, or the DTC starts to break ground. Similarly, Crenshaw must go first before we see a Vermont Subway.
I strongly believe that "the perfect is the enemy of the good", and I've gone on record as saying that for pure ridership and operations alone, the DTC should in theory proceed before Phase 2 of Expo. That won't happen for both legal and political reasons, although I will fight for the DTC before any Wilshire Subway proceeds, and I still want the Harbor Transitway to be incorporated and promoted as a San Pedro linkage to the Expo Line and the greater mass transit system.
I will also be grateful that the Santa Monica Blvd. connector between the Red and Purple Lines is put on hold until after the Wilshire Subway reaches the 405 freeway, and that this connector not be done without taking the Crenshaw Corridor into consideration.
The fact remains that, after years of transit advocacy, there is NO organized effort to pursue a Sepulveda Blvd./405 Corridor rail line. No MIS, no Alternatives Analysis, and no EIR in the works.
So if the $$$ for the final leg of the Wilshire Subway to the beach, and the $$$ devoted to the 405/Sepulveda Rail Line is diverted in the future to, say, ensure that the Cities of L.A., Beverly Hills and West Hollywood create a LRT subway to connect the Crenshaw Line from the Expo Line to Hollywood and Highland, and establish a LRT or HRT that will be a north-south conduit carrying over 100,000 riders a day and that reaches the Grove and other key destinations, then I'd be for that.
The fact remains that the Harbor Subdivision folks ARE working with the Crenshaw Corridor folks, and that "the bigger picture" is being explored while the politically and legally and technically engineered quickest projects are moving forward NOW.
On a final note, I've stated in the past that I just don't hear much about a Vermont Subway except on this Board. Well, the same thing could be said about the DTC and the Crenshaw Corridor and the Harbor Subdivision ROW. Folks, I know it might sound arrogant to say this, but WE did the initial work of putting this vetted and debated projects into the Alternatives Analysis and EIR phases.
I look forward to seeing South L.A. and other interested regions start thinking about how to have Vermont follow Crenshaw just as we're seeing Wilshire follow Expo, and/or injecting the Crenshaw Corridor effort into getting it not just to the Wilshire Line but to the Red Line.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 23, 2009 7:01:29 GMT -8
The vermont subway - which could be light rail or subway - is totally significant. Vermont at the 101 is the most congested intersection in LA county, and the population density is huge n the area. I am thinking (as another suggested) that light rail underground for a portion that could then link directly into the green line without transfer would be best. But I guess it all depends upon the ridership. Either way, (light rail or heavy) one or two transfers will have to be made from the Red to the Vermont to the Green line. One transfer would be better than two.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 23, 2009 8:35:34 GMT -8
Repeated because it bears repeating (with emphasis added by me): That said, ultimately Crenshaw has a specific funding priority enshrined by the voter approved Measure R, and it would be terribly difficult politically and legally to overturn it. Thus, this debate about whether Crenshaw or Vermont should go first is pretty much academic. Furthermore, as Prop 1B and Measure R proved, there will eventually come a day when a bucket load of money from the feds or other sources will come down the pike for transit projects. I'd rather prepare for that day, and advocate for that day, than be unprepared for it by devoting limited planning resources to only studying insufficient and ineffective projects. Thus: -Integrating Harbor Sub with Crenshaw is good and will very likely happen. -A systemwide/countywide rail expansion program EIR is needed. -EIRs for projects in the urban core of the system should consider all design options, including the cheap minimum grade separation options and total grade separation. The Vermont Corridor has lots going for it. Let's look into it. But let's not take away from Crenshaw in the process. Crenshaw will serve residents, stimulate commerce, provide local jobs and provide a new LAX station. (Maybe if it makes everybody feel better about it, let's call it the "Crenshaw/LAX Line". Or "Linea de Crenshaw y LAX".) Anyway, the Crenshaw Corridor is now mandated by law. The funding to get it built will very soon be available. Let's start looking at Harbor Sub and Vermont, but not at the expense of Crenshaw.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 23, 2009 13:37:51 GMT -8
I simply looked at the map of the entire system and knowing Vermont/Western is a dense high ridership corridor made the personal judgement that Vermont is far superior way to go and should be placed ahead of Crenshaw in priority, especially when considering the Crenshaw Line - up to Wilshire. This is from an overall cost/ridership and system continuity point of view. Again it is just my point of view so there is no need to be defensive.
Actually, I wouldn't be opposed to this at all even though I live near a Phase II Expo station and will very much enjoy riding it once it is complete. I have always felt a Wilshire extension was superior to Expo, but ironically it was many of the South LA politicians (Kevin Murray comes to mind) along with Zev who pushed for this at the expense of Wilshire saying that subways were too expensive and we already had a rail right of way that could be developed so much cheaper.
The DTC and Vermont have not enjoyed the same political push that Expo, Crenshaw and Foothill have and that is not right in my book, but as long as the public doesn't push them in that direction that is what we are stuck with.
Vermont hasn't been a priority of South LA politicians either, while local political support is where momentum for rail usually gets going the most. Maybe they are so caught up in Crenshaw they don't want to urge for study on a superior corridor - I don't know, but if they would talk it up some, this project would be farther along.
In all fairness, most of the rail system does serve lower income communities over high income ones currently. Except for South Gate, the examples you give above all have rail (or will by next year) vs. the richer community examples that do not have rail. BTW, as you may know Hawthorne is a South Bay city and both have the Green Line. Also, my proposal would simply put a poorer community's project (Vermont) over a wealthier one (Crenshaw) for the immediate future.
Also, labeling communities is somewhat dangerous. According to some popular thought, everyone in South LA is poor and everyone in West LA is wealthy when many along the Expo and proposed Wilshire lines live in 60's era apartments that are hardly weathly, while some right along the Crenshaw corridor live in single family residences with a nice car in the garage. Why would Wilshire be the #1 bus line if everyone has a Beamer?
Many have commented on the Purple Line extension including those who live outside of its corridor and I welcome that. Just because a project is in a different part of the city such as South LA or the San Gabriel Valley doesn't mean I won't scrutinize it or look for a better method or route and others should be encouraged to do the same.
You are largely right and I agree it is mostly academic. However, I could see Measure R funds being used for the Harbor Sub line up to Vermont and then BRT for Crenshaw to Wilshire if the South LA politicians could then promote and come up with a way to get some seed money for Vermont, which could then get federal funds to complete. All I agree is very much a longshot, but I still think worth discussing, because it has been ignored so far.
I hope you are largely right.
|
|