|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 17, 2010 11:36:36 GMT -8
Rerouting the Green Line North instead of South would allow for ANOTHER line to use the South Bay corridor like an extension of the 405 corridor, without disrupting frequency on Crenshaw corridor.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 17, 2010 12:19:27 GMT -8
Would that track extend from Century and Aviation all the way to Aviation/LAX? If so, that would be great news, since this stretch of track will be very busy with at least 2 lines operating on it once a Lincoln line and a Sepulveda line exist. (I like to call that section of track the "Westside Connector" to mirror the "Downtown Connector" ;D) YES! I'm going to starting using the term "Westside Connector". That middle track will be very important in the future when the Lincoln and 405 lines get to LAX.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 17, 2010 14:13:47 GMT -8
Adding an extra track along the ROW (between Century and Imperial) is no problem, but rebuilding the aerial station at Century would be a huge problem. So it's good they are designing the station with three tracks now.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 19, 2010 9:31:55 GMT -8
The meeting last night for Crenshaw was focused on planning the station area around Crenshaw/Expo, as opposed to the station itself.
Having said that, I was very interested in the design of the station. Staff were very careful not to say whether the station would be underground or at-grade: they said it depended on money and the Board decision (very true). However, the images showed that in either case, the station entance would be on the east side of Crenshaw only (south of Expo). IOW, there would be no station entrance on the west side of Crenshaw. Riders taking southbound buses or transferring to/from the eastbound Expo Line would have to cross Crenshaw Boulevard. The plans and images did show enhanced crosswalks crossing Crenshaw (parallel to the Expo tracks) to make the crossing easier for pedestrians and more visible to drivers.
I do feel strongly that the station should have some portal on the west of Crenshaw. It's a shame they didn't locate both of the Expo Line's platforms east of Crenshaw: it would have made transfers much simpler.
There was lots of discussion of zoning and landscaping. Lots of support for medium-density mixed use, with some concern for crime and property values. I was surprised to hear some people were pushing for office development near the station. Others said that this was a unique opportunity to create a park/square near the station entance, stretching from Exposition down to Rodeo, with density surrounding the park along Crenshaw.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Nov 19, 2010 20:31:16 GMT -8
Yes, it's fantastic, but still missing the 405 line, which is actually funded! The 405 corridor project has a very long way to go before it lands on a map like this, such as real funding and selection of a mode.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 21, 2010 17:17:44 GMT -8
Yes, it's fantastic, but still missing the 405 line, which is actually funded! The 405 corridor project has a very long way to go before it lands on a map like this, such as real funding and selection of a mode. Just to be clear: the only transit along the 405 route with funding is the project along the Sepulveda Pass. This project will extend from Westwood to Sherman Oaks only. And unless some version of 30/10 passes, this project will not see any Measure R money for twenty years.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Nov 21, 2010 20:47:17 GMT -8
The 405 corridor project has a very long way to go before it lands on a map like this, such as real funding and selection of a mode. Just to be clear: the only transit along the 405 route with funding is the project along the Sepulveda Pass. This project will extend from Westwood to Sherman Oaks only. And unless some version of 30/10 passes, this project will not see any Measure R money for twenty years. As far as I know, this project has no money at all, even right now. It needs 30/10 Initiative to get any where. And even then, there is no guarantee that there will be enuf funding.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 21, 2010 21:52:40 GMT -8
Just to be clear: the only transit along the 405 route with funding is the project along the Sepulveda Pass. This project will extend from Westwood to Sherman Oaks only. And unless some version of 30/10 passes, this project will not see any Measure R money for twenty years. As far as I know, this project has no money at all, even right now. It needs 30/10 Initiative to get any where. And even then, there is no guarantee that there will be enuf funding. Measure R includes funding for this project, up to $1 billion (see expenditure plan). But without 30/10 funding acceleration, the first funds would not be available until 2030, and the project would not be completed until 2039.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 25, 2011 8:48:42 GMT -8
In case you missed it (I did at first), Metro has released it's "SDEIS/RDEIR" (supplemental to the DEIS/DEIR) relating specifically to the potential sites for the maintenance facilities. The document is located here. The 45-day comment period begins today (25 February) and ends 11 April. I haven't seen any notice to the general public of this comment period. A notice of this kind is required by law. The two public meetings are both scheduled in the evening, 6-8 PM: Flight Path Learning Center Tuesday, March 1 6661 West Imperial Highway, Los Angeles
Open House/Public Hearing Thursday, March 31 Inglewood City Hall – Community Room A, First Floor, Inglewood
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 25, 2011 8:54:37 GMT -8
The new SDEIR includes more detailed environmental analysis of four maintenance sites. The purpose is to provide additional information to the Metro Board about the most viable locations. After the public comment period is over, the Metro Board will select one of the sites. The sites are: - Site #14 – Arbor Vitae/Bellanca Alternative. This 17.6-acre site is located in the City of Los Angeles. This industrial use site is bounded by Arbor Vitae Street to the north, Neutrogena Corporation to the west, and Bellanca Avenue to the east.
- Site #15 – Manchester/Aviation Alternative. This 20.5-acre site is located in the City of Inglewood. This industrial use site is bounded by Aviation Boulevard to the east, Portal Avenue to the west, Arbor Vitae Street to the south, and LA Car Guy to the north.
- Site #17 – Marine/Redondo Beach Alternative. This 14.2-acre site is located in the City of Redondo Beach. This industrial use site is bounded by Redondo Beach Avenue to the west, the Harbor Subdivision to the east, and is adjacent to additional industrial warehouses to the north and south.
- Division 22 Northern Expansion Alternative. This 3.5-acre site is located in the City of Hawthorne. This industrial use site is bounded by the existing Division 22 Green Line Maintenance Facility to the south, the Harbor Subdivision to the east and north, and is adjacent to a professional office building to the west.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 25, 2011 10:38:06 GMT -8
I think sites 14 and 17 make the most sense. - Site 14: good - industrial area near Site 15, but far enough away from the new station/TOD area.
- Site 15: bad - adjacent to the new station, will interfere with TOD.
- Site 17: good - in the middle of large industrial area (no NIMBYs), near station with little development potential.
- Div. 2: bad - too small (3.5 acres).
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Feb 25, 2011 17:35:32 GMT -8
This is really interesting. I forgot that a maintenance site was apart of the project. Off the top my head, I would think that the site that offered the most room for vehicles would be the best.
I would also give consideration toward the one that could be enlarged with the least pain.
There are other projects in the pipeline that will need vehicles and a place to park at night. The Green Line Extension to Torrance is one. How about the Lincoln Line too? Or, as others are suggesting, the Sepulveda connection?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 25, 2011 22:00:34 GMT -8
If we built at Marine/ Redondo Beach, would it be big enough for both Crenshaw/ LAX and the Torrance extension of the Green Line?
Seems odd that there's already a yard so near that station, but I suppose that one can't be expanded.
Arbor Vitae would be a good location, too. Close to the airport, so there's not going to be much in the way of NIMBY resistance. Looking at Google maps, there appears to be a Dollar rental car yard there now. Would they lose the yard?
Of course, they might have to move anyways if a rental car consolidation facility is built.... but Dollar might not want to give it up just quite yet... /speculative mode
(Oh, the irony of property going straight from car rentals to rail transit...)
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 11, 2011 0:07:36 GMT -8
Just as a reminder: Metro is planning to complete the Crenshaw project's FEIR this spring. So keep your eyes open for that. Certification of the FEIR is scheduled for this summer. The project's timeline was accelerated last fall when it was awarded a federal loan of $546 million. This loan will allow construction to begin late this year (rather than 2012), with revenue service in 2016 (rather than 2018).
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 11, 2011 11:29:15 GMT -8
Regarding the irony of property going from car-rental yard to light rail yard: The San Diego light rail complex southeast of downtown includes a building that was once an auto-parts warehouse.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Mar 11, 2011 15:09:22 GMT -8
Just as a reminder: Metro is planning to complete the Crenshaw project's FEIR this spring. So keep your eyes open for that. Certification of the FEIR is scheduled for this summer. The project's timeline was accelerated last fall when it was awarded a federal loan of $546 million. This loan will allow construction to begin late this year (rather than 2012), with revenue service in 2016 (rather than 2018). Great news. Updated Wikipedia's Metro Rail article to reflect that.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 29, 2011 6:44:32 GMT -8
Quick update on the Crenshaw Corridor Project. The FEIR was supposed to be done by now (Metro had said January), but now staff is expecting to be done with it in June. This is a long one: the DEIR was certified in December 2009, 15 months ago. In the meantime, the public comment period is still open for the Supplemental DEIR related to the location of the maintenance facility. Send your comments in to diazroderick@metro.net by April 11. Or, attend the meeting at Inglewood City Hall this Thursday.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 29, 2011 10:43:41 GMT -8
What caused the delay?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 29, 2011 14:29:00 GMT -8
^ No idea. The person I spoke to said only it wouldn't be ready until June. Based on the five-month delay, I'd guess construction won't begin until middle of 2012. If it doesn't get bogged down in either politics or funding issues.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 13, 2011 9:25:24 GMT -8
The SDEIR public comment period is now closed, and Metro Staff is recommending adoption of Site 14 (Arbor Vitae/Bellanca) as the future location of the Crenshaw Corridor maintenance facility. The facility will be located just north of the future Century/Aviation station. It will span 17.6 acres, and cost ~$280 million to develop, with the cost to be shared among the three projects which will use it (Crenshaw Corridor, South Bay Extension and LAX Extension). The site had no public objections and all impacts can be mitigated. A full description of the site can be found here. The recommendation will go to the Planning and Programming Committee on Wednesday April 20, and to the Measure R Project Delivery Committee on Thursday April 21. It will then move forward to the full Metro Board on Thursday April 28. The document also discusses the timeline for the project FEIR. Preliminary Engineering for the Crenshaw Corridor began in January. Staff is working toward public circulation of the FEIR in May, with Metro Board approval of the FEIR targeted for July.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 13, 2011 9:53:31 GMT -8
There is one more item, this one in the Measure R Committee. Mark Ridley-Thomas is once again trying to grade separate the Crenshaw Corridor through Park Mesa Heights (between 48th and 59th Streets). Staff already studied this and recommended against it. In the same motion, Ridley-Thomas is asking for a station at Vernon/Crenshaw (Leimert Park). I fully support the Vernon/Crenshaw station. I do not, however, support a subway through low-density Park Mesa Heights. And I definitely do not support delaying the project with a new SEIR, which would be required for this change. Nor do I support (as RT suggests) swiping funds from the Green Line Extension to LAX project to build this expensive and unnecessary tunnel extension. The motion will be considered by the Measure R Project Delivery Committee on April 21 ( agenda), and then possibly by the full Metro Board on April 28.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 14, 2011 5:51:28 GMT -8
I hope the board ignores this MRT proposal. Although I am hardly ever opposed to grade separating a rail line, taking funding from the Expo line is not justified for 7000 new boardings.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 14, 2011 7:28:59 GMT -8
I hope the board ignores this MRT proposal. Although I am hardly ever opposed to grade separating a rail line, taking funding from the Expo line is not justified for 7000 new boardings. To be clear to everybody, 7,000 is the increase in boardings of the entire line over the No Build alternative, in 2035. If the Park Mesa Heights segment were put underground, it would only increase ridership by 700 per day. (Table 4-4, page 44, Park Mesa Heights report). At a cost of $219 million.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 14, 2011 8:12:50 GMT -8
I hope the board ignores this MRT proposal. Although I am hardly ever opposed to grade separating a rail line, taking funding from the Expo line is not justified for 7000 new boardings. Who said funding from the Expo Line? MRT was talking about the LAX connection and South Bay extension.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Apr 14, 2011 8:51:05 GMT -8
I hope the board ignores this MRT proposal. Although I am hardly ever opposed to grade separating a rail line, taking funding from the Expo line is not justified for 7000 new boardings. Who said funding from the Expo Line? MRT was talking about the LAX connection and South Bay extension. www.metro.net/board/Items/2011/04_April/20110420MRPDItem3.pdfOn page 2 of the motion, it says to take funds from the expo measure R funds, green line to lax, the arbor vitae interchange, and surplus property sales.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 14, 2011 9:08:49 GMT -8
The exact text is (with my bolding): 2. Consider potential funding sources including, but not limited to, Expo Measure R funds for the "substitute project", Measure R Green Line to LAX funds, Arbor Vitae interchange project funds and surplus property sales along the alignment. What are the "Expo Measure R funds for the substitute project"? And what "surplus property" does Metro currently own "along the alignment", that it can sell to raise money? The motion is not at all clear about this. The motion also claims: A Metro study (Park Mesa Heights Grade Separation Analysis, June 2010) concluded that a below grade alignment would:
1) Improve travel time for all passengers to LAX airport; 2) Increase ridership on the line by 700 passengers per day, a 4% increase; 3) Reduce potential safety concerns at schools and other sensitive uses; 4) Minimize disruption to local businesses; and 5) Prevent gridlock on surface streets. These claims range from exaggerations to lies. For instance, #5, the study found that there would be no negative impact on traffic from running light rail at-grade. For #1, travel time improvement is only 1.1 minutes. For #4, the change in disruption to local businesses is largely a wash. Honestly, this motion looks like it was written by an eighth-grader with a "C-" average.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 14, 2011 11:31:10 GMT -8
It looks to me like MRT wants to take Expo and other funding, if he is allowed to, for this particular project. Exactly how much funding it does not say. I am guessing a lot of $$.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 14, 2011 12:37:15 GMT -8
I knew it would be only a matter of time before the Crenshaw project (aka MRT) would try to steal money from other Measure R projects for their bloated budget and unnecessary subway tunneling. This can't be allowed to happen.
Can you imagine the outrage if Expo or the Purple Line tried to commandeer funds from Crenshaw to complete a little extra tunneling. There would be front page charges of racism. People like Damien Goodmon would be all over it. However, when Crenshaw tries to do this, they not only don't have a problem with it, they are leading the charge. Complete double standard.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 14, 2011 12:55:58 GMT -8
In the next day or two, I will be sending emails to all of the Metro Board members, explaining to them why money should not be used for this wasteful and unnecessary grade separation, and asking them to reject this ridiculous motion.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 20, 2011 10:23:48 GMT -8
I'm posting this, in case anybody else feels like sending emails to the Metro Board. Contact emails for the Metro Board members are not always easy to find. I found ten of them, but could not find three. Here are the ten I found: - Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, markridley-thomas@bos.lacounty.gov
- Supervisor Gloria Molina, molina@lacbos.org
- Supervisor Michael Antonovich, fifthdistrict@lacbos.org
- Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, zev@bos.lacounty.gov
- Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor@lacity.org
- City Council Member Diane DuBois, kheit@gatewaycog.org
- City Council Member Pam O'Connor, Pam.Oconnor@smgov.net
- City Council Member Ara Najarian, anajarian@ci.glendale.ca.us
- City Council Member José Huizar, councilmember.huizar@lacity.org
- City Council Member John Fasana, fasanaj@accessduarte.com
And here are the three I could not find. - Supervisor Don Knabe
- Mr. Mel Wilson
- Mr. Richard Katz
|
|