|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 23, 2010 15:04:37 GMT -8
Why is Metro studying the Green line extension separately from the Crenshaw line? I understand these are considered separate projects and have different funding (although both will receive Measure R money) but it seems counter intuitive to me that Metro will duplicate the efforts when in fact these 2 "lines" will most likely be operated as a single service. The separate studies will also assume ridership independent of the existence of the other project, which again seems rather bizarre. Wouldn't a combined study show lots more boarding which will increase the likelihood of Federal funding?  |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 23, 2010 17:25:33 GMT -8
well...... I don't know if this is the answer you're looking for, but historically speaking, the two rail lines haven't always been linked together as one project.
The Green Line extension to LAX has always been there, always seemingly at the tip of getting built, and it's been mostly coordination and cooperation with the airport (which has had its own plans in mind) which has kept it from getting built.
also, keep in mind that there have been several Green Line extension projects, which should be, but haven't been linked: getting the Green Line to LAX, getting the Green Line beyond LAX north towards Marina Del Rey or at least Westchester, getting the Green Line south to the South Bay.
the Crenshaw Line, on the other hand, has always been far less of a priority. it's been a political bargaining chip, a way to get Crenshaw's pols to support the Purple Line or the Gold Line or whatever else came first. until recently, we didn't even really know if it was going to be a BRT or light rail. now that the Aqua Line is becoming a reality, people have started pushing for the extension south on Crenshaw, and LAX just sort of blundered into the conversation as a way to a) avoid any potential NIMBYs in Hawthorne/ Inglewood by using an existing ROW b) giving the line a memorable destination
Measure R gave the Crenshaw Line a huge boost forward.
for political and bureaucratic funding reasons, the two projects came into existance separately, and continue to be considered separately.
on the plus side, if support for one project falls apart, the other one can keep going.
I do think the two projects will be tied together eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 23, 2010 18:17:49 GMT -8
now that the Aqua Line is becoming a reality, people have started pushing for the extension south on Crenshaw, and LAX just sort of blundered into the conversation as a way to a) avoid any potential NIMBYs in Hawthorne/ Inglewood by using an existing ROW b) giving the line a memorable destination Measure R gave the Crenshaw Line a huge boost forward. And the funny thing is, the Crenshaw Line is now way ahead of the "Green Line to LAX" in terms of the environmental process. (Crenshaw is wrapping up its FEIR, and the LAX line hasn't even started.) For the current status of all of Metro's projects, I recommend this table I created in wikipedia, which shows them in more-or-less decreasing order of completeness. (I even color-coded the status column, to emphasize the ordering.) |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 23, 2010 18:30:02 GMT -8
Keep in mind, the difference between "corridors" vs "lines" is about to become more important than it has in the past.
A "line" is and will continue to mean a service between two endpoints following a specific route.
A "corridor" is a set of tracks and stations built as a single project.
This list of Metro projects is really a list of corridors and corridor extensions, not lines. And some of these corridors will actually be shared by different lines. For instance, the Expo and Blue Lines will share the corridor along Flower north of Washington.
Why do I bring all this up, you ask? The track connecting the Green Line to Aviation/LAX will be built as part of the Crenshaw Corridor project. But does it matter which project this is built under? Not really, so long as the Green Line trains can use it. And if you look at Metro's Crenshaw Corridor DEIR, you will see that they are very much thinking about LAX service as they are designing the Crenshaw Corridor.
So think of it as a mini-LAX extension, if it makes you feel better.
And when the time comes to build the "LAX/Westchester extension", that project will be that much cheaper. Or, putting it another way, Metro will be able to extend the line even farther, because part of the corridor for the line will already exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 24, 2010 10:43:29 GMT -8
No, I'm not talking about Green line LAX extension.
My question is why would Green line South Bay extension and Crenshaw line be considered two different projects? I know they are technically two different corridor now but everyone knows that in all likelihood, Metro will be operating trains from Expo line to Torrence so why not look at the EIR together?
I'm assuming the South Bay extension boarding numbers will get a huge boost if the train continues to Mid City where one can transfer to Expo. And perhaps vice versa for Crenshaw.
My understanding is that Metro is not supposed to make assumptions about boarding for each EIR for rail lines that doesn't yet exist... so that means Crenshaw line EIR will not benefit from the additional boost it may get from South Bay; and South Bay EIR will similarly not able to make any assumptions about continuing service to Mid City.
|
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Sept 24, 2010 12:55:08 GMT -8
I believe they actually are allowed to and supposed to look at boardings for rail lines that don't exist yet, provided that they will definitely exist by the time of the projections. The South Bay project A. has not yet been decided on the mode and alignment, and B. will not be in operations before 2035 according to the LRTP, and so misses the projections date of 2030.
But either way, I'm not sure how much Crenshaw has to gain by including it in the study...
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 24, 2010 14:28:14 GMT -8
No, I'm not talking about Green line LAX extension. My question is why would Green line South Bay extension and Crenshaw line be considered two different projects? I know they are technically two different corridor now but everyone knows that in all likelihood, Metro will be operating trains from Expo line to Torrence so why not look at the EIR together? They are considered two different projects because they are two different projects. They will have separate budgets, separate contractors, separate schedules, etc. The EIR process is not about what lines to run on which tracks. The purpose of the environmental study is to identify impacts of constructing and utilizing a corridor. Once the corridors are built, Metro can run whatever lines they want over them, as long as there are junctions exist to connect them. EIRs are only supposed to consider boardings for lines that are likely to be running in 2020 or 2030 or whatever. Since Metro doesn't have a crystal ball, they just consider their currently-planned lines. Since there is no measurable political support right now for a line between Expo and LAX, it is not going to be counted. The LRTP and Measure R do include a 405 line between the Valley and Westside. But this does not include any extension down to LAX. |
|
