|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Oct 15, 2012 12:17:36 GMT -8
I was in the area of Crenshaw/Exposition last Wednesday after 1am. Walked up from the theater at Crenshaw/MLK to the Expo Line to head home. There was some heavy construction working going on, involving a gigantic box being lowered into a several feet wide hole in the street. I know this is going to be the underground segment of the Crenshaw Line, but no ideas here on what was going on. For more than a week there have been grated holes in the street for utility relocations.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Oct 25, 2012 12:49:47 GMT -8
This is the first of a series of six short films created for the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor project. Each introduces viewers to community members and their mobility stories. Each anticipates the benefits of the future rail project to communities along the alignment.
The first in the series features two local elders, Hayward Gray and Lee Enge, who reminisce about the past glory of LA's Red Car system. Gray and Enge, who are both retired, also look forward to the return of rail to their community.
The film series was commissioned by Metro's Communications group and crafted by filmmaker Mobolaji Olambiwonnu of Dreamseeker Media.
|
|
|
Post by mbbernstein on Nov 29, 2012 19:00:16 GMT -8
Hey all - Just got approved to join and thought I'd weigh in with a link to a story in the NYT about the Crenshaw line that contains a number of Goodmon-esque misconceptions, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods. The comment section is even worse. This sort of misinformation needs to be countered and discredited so we can help build the transit network that LA deserves. www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/rail-plan-stirs-distrust-among-blacks-in-los-angeles.html
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Nov 29, 2012 21:23:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Dec 6, 2012 16:02:06 GMT -8
I skimmed through the comment section. It seems that most are concerned with being left out and don't care so much about whether or not the line is at-grade or below grade in a tunnel. It also seems that a station at Leimert Park, even if it's a quarter mile away from MLK Station, would be greatly appreciated and make the community feel relevant/included. They should get this station.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 15, 2013 17:29:10 GMT -8
The Crenshaw RFP's were supposed to be received in early Dec. It is kind of surprising we haven't heard if they include the underground Leimert Park Station. I know there is a community meeting on the 24th for this. My guess is that they will state what the bids came back for this. I really hope they include the Leimert Station or people in South LA are really going to be upset and cause a fuss.
Of course, the Crenshaw Subway Coalition/Damien Goodmon is going to be upset no matter what, because he wants a subway for the whole thing. Haven't heard much about his CEQA lawsuit, but if he is going to stop construction you would think we would hear soon. A contractor is probably going to be picked in the next few months and then design work can commence with major construction coming by the end of the year in an aggressive timeline. This thing probably won't open before 2019 in any scenario.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Mar 6, 2013 21:49:06 GMT -8
I think it's only fair that the community gets the leimert Park station. Station is spacing is no excuse as seen on the Expo and East LA Gold Line.
Every other community has their station. Chinatown, Little Tokyo, and Mariachi Plaza. Wilshire/Western to some extent. Heck Little Tokyo not only has a station, but is getting a brand new subway station that will have 2 regional LRT lines going through. The African American Community can barely get their own landmark station. The MLK/Crenshaw station probably isn't even going to be named after the community. I KNOW the Leimert Park station will get more use than Mariachi Plaza.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 7, 2013 9:24:59 GMT -8
Has there been any more news on this recently? When will they select a contractor for the overall construction?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 7, 2013 10:14:14 GMT -8
Has there been any more news on this recently? When will they select a contractor for the overall construction? They got the bids from the potential contractors in Dec. I believe. They are going through them for evaluation. I imagine pretty soon there will be a recommendation on a bid and a contractor. I believe at that time we'll find out whether the Leimert Park station will happen. On Leimert Park, I think there should be a station there and hopefully there will be. However, keep in mind each project has to keep in its budget. Crenshaw is at over $1.75B, and has had problems staying within that huge amount, because so much of it has been moved underground. The Regional Connector has to do without a 5th Street Station, which is probably more important than even a Leimert Park station. The Westside Subway has its odd terminus at the VA instead of the far more appropriate Barrington or Bundy. All of these projects have had to sacrifice to meet their budget constraints. So far Crenshaw has been the outlier and hasn't had to sacrifice anything. Hopefully it all works out and there is a station at Leimert Park.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 7, 2013 15:08:52 GMT -8
It's probably too late to mention this, but I'll do it anyways. You never know who could be reading this. Why don't they take the money allotted to MLK Station, build Leimert Park Station, then in the future when funds become available, add an in-fill MLK Station. I'm sure it sounds way easier said than done and I'm pretty sure MLK will ultimately be a better station. As I'm looking at the overhead google map, was Stocker St. ever considered? It's not really the happy medium, but it seems more central to everything.
Another idea: maybe if they razed the old Santa Barbara Plaza and replaced it with an outlet mall like the Citadel, a merry-go-round, a trolly (like the one that goes in circles at the Americana) that connects the Santa Barbara Outlets to the Crenshaw Plaza, everyone's attention would refocus on the need and importance of a MLK Station versus the impracticality of a Leimert Park Station.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 13, 2013 11:39:03 GMT -8
According to expolinefan, all four initial bids were rejected because they were too high. Not good at all with the contractors starting to see LACMTA as a gold mine given the amount of Measure R projects!
These are the bidders:
• Crenshaw Transit Partners (Fluor, Balfour Beatty, S.A. Healy) • Kiewit Skanska Traylor JV • Walsh Shea Corridors Constructors • URS Dragados Flatiron
Note that Flatiron (as well as Fluor) is the Expo Phase 1 contractor and Skanska is the Expo Phase 2 contractor. Balfour Beatty is the Expo Phase 1.5 (east of Washington/National to west of Venice) contractor.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 13, 2013 12:32:48 GMT -8
After how poorly and slowly the construction of Expo Phase 1 went, I cannot see Metro even considering Flatiron or Fluor.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 13, 2013 14:39:03 GMT -8
According to expolinefan, all four initial bids were rejected because they were too high. Not good at all with the contractors starting to see LACMTA as a gold mine given the amount of Measure R projects! These are the bidders: • Crenshaw Transit Partners (Fluor, Balfour Beatty, S.A. Healy) • Kiewit Skanska Traylor JV • Walsh Shea Corridors Constructors • URS Dragados Flatiron Note that Flatiron (as well as Fluor) is the Expo Phase 1 contractor and Skanska is the Expo Phase 2 contractor. Balfour Beatty is the Expo Phase 1.5 (east of Washington/National to west of Venice) contractor. Good info., but yikes that is terrible. That would likely mean no Leimert Park Station, and most likely a major delay in construction. Also, it is only going to get more expensive so this does not bode well for the Regional Connector, Westside Subway or any project. This certainly would explain why there has been no news on how the bids came in and whether there would be a Leimert Park Station though.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 13, 2013 15:15:48 GMT -8
This project got in way over its head from:
1) All the additional grade separations. 2) Low projected ridership ($1.3-1.7 billion for only 13,000-16,000 riders?) 3) Lack of destinations along the line (sure, Leimert Park is neat, but it’s far from a serious area bursting with people wanting to visit. Meanwhile, there’s still no final say on what’s happening with LAX).
And people are *still* clamoring for more grade separations and stations.
Metro should have seen this coming.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 13, 2013 15:24:39 GMT -8
Furthermore, this is the problem when politics gets involved with building public projects. Crenshaw doesn't have the density for a line like this yet.
What would have made more sense, was for Metro to start the line at Hollywood/Highland and build downward (with perhaps the first phase ending in WeHo). South L.A. might be up in arms about such a decision, but they already have two rapid rail lines. West Hollywood has none and Hollywood has had the Red Line for far less time than South L.A. has had the Blue and Green Lines.
True, a Hollywood-WeHo line wouldn't connect to another rail line for a while, but at least it would run where people want to go (and probably, though I can't prove it, be better at getting people out of their cars. $1.3-1.7 billion would at least get us from Hollywood/Highland to Santa Monica/La Cienega).
For the record, I still support the Crenshaw Line, but the above might have been the better option to pursue in the short-term.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Mar 13, 2013 20:24:48 GMT -8
Furthermore, this is the problem when politics gets involved with building public projects. Crenshaw doesn't have the density for a line like this yet. What would have made more sense, was for Metro to start the line at Hollywood/Highland and build downward (with perhaps the first phase ending in WeHo). South L.A. might be up in arms about such a decision, but they already have two rapid rail lines. West Hollywood has none and Hollywood has had the Red Line for far less time than South L.A. has had the Blue and Green Lines. True, a Hollywood-WeHo line wouldn't connect to another rail line for a while, but at least it would run where people want to go (and probably, though I can't prove it, be better at getting people out of their cars. $1.3-1.7 billion would at least get us from Hollywood/Highland to Santa Monica/La Cienega). For the record, I still support the Crenshaw Line, but the above might have been the better option to pursue in the short-term. Agreed, moves like this only make rail look bad. "See, we spent 2 Billion dollars on a rail project that moves less than 20,000 people. We should make a West Hollywood Line be BRT." Of course, all this purely politics. Interestingly, the places that need rail the most try the least to get it. I would much rather see other more important lines get built than the Foothill extension to Azusa, but they get rail because they WANT and do what it takes to make it HAPPEN. The problem is that you end up with more Pasadena Gold Lines that make rail look ineffective, and you end up with more Orange Lines in the worst possible places to put BRT. Thankfully, the Red Line was planned correctly in that it's high ridership has justified it's cost. I notice many BRT proponents and Rail obstructionist seem to always ignore the Red and Blue Lines and focus the Gold and Orange Lines.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 13, 2013 22:54:20 GMT -8
According to expolinefan, all four initial bids were rejected because they were too high. My understanding is that contractor teams were asked to submit best and final offers which is a little different than "rejecting" the initial bids. I recall something similar happening during Expo Phase 2 bidding. I think that there was always a plan to ask for a BAFO, but that doesn't mean that the initial bids weren't also too high. I have no idea about that.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 13, 2013 23:01:01 GMT -8
Furthermore, this is the problem when politics gets involved with building public projects. Crenshaw doesn't have the density for a line like this yet. What would have made more sense, was for Metro to start the line at Hollywood/Highland and build downward (with perhaps the first phase ending in WeHo). South L.A. might be up in arms about such a decision, but they already have two rapid rail lines. West Hollywood has none and Hollywood has had the Red Line for far less time than South L.A. has had the Blue and Green Lines. True, a Hollywood-WeHo line wouldn't connect to another rail line for a while, but at least it would run where people want to go (and probably, though I can't prove it, be better at getting people out of their cars. $1.3-1.7 billion would at least get us from Hollywood/Highland to Santa Monica/La Cienega). For the record, I still support the Crenshaw Line, but the above might have been the better option to pursue in the short-term. Debating which places might be more deserving of rail than Crenshaw is so far beyond moot that I'm not sure what is to be gained by even having the discussion. I do agree that getting rail to West Hollywood should be a priority based on their support among other things.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 13, 2013 23:09:14 GMT -8
This project got in way over its head from: 2) Low projected ridership ($1.3-1.7 billion for only 13,000-16,000 riders?) I think that the ridership projections were designed to satisfy federal requirements for funding which are geared towards generating new riders. In a nutshell I think that Crenshaw will have many more riders than projected because the parallel bus routes already have more riders than that. My estimate is that Crenshaw will have the third highest ridership per mile behind Expo and the blue line. If it were extended to the purple line and even beyond that, I think that Crenshaw would pass the blue line in ridership per mile and trail only Expo.
|
|
|
Post by mbbernstein on Mar 14, 2013 8:38:40 GMT -8
I think that the ridership projections were designed to satisfy federal requirements for funding which are geared towards generating new riders. In a nutshell I think that Crenshaw will have many more riders than projected because the parallel bus routes already have more riders than that. My estimate is that Crenshaw will have the third highest ridership per mile behind Expo and the blue line. If it were extended to the purple line and even beyond that, I think that Crenshaw would pass the blue line in ridership per mile and trail only Expo. 100% agree. The metro rail system is just now getting to the point where we can observe network effects impacting ridership. Look at the ridership increase on the Blue line since Expo opened as a case in point. With the Crenshaw line connecting the increasingly popular Expo line (which should be running at well over 50K/day by that point) with the Green line, I have no doubt that ridership will blow away Metro's projections in fairly short order - not unlike Expo phase 1. Think of all the people on the West Side who will now be able to take transit to jobs in El Sugundo or the South Bay, and vice-versa, so as to avoid the cluster that is the 405 during rush hour. Heck - if people are taking Red line>Expo from the Valley to get to jobs in Culver City, then connections via Crenshaw line would be a no brainer until such time as the JEM/405 line is constructed in the 24th century.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 14, 2013 10:34:26 GMT -8
Don't get me wrong; I think Crenshaw will be a boon to the system and yes, I agree the ridership projections are low by design.
Unfortunately, unless things with the contractors pick up, the project is going to have to make some major compromises if it has any hope of being built. Some of those will likely be:
No Leimert Park station. No Manchester or Hindry station. No grade separation in Park Mesa Heights. Possible reconsideration of additional grade separations (maybe MLK station elevated as opposed to underground?)
The first three we were probably all expecting anyway. Meanwhile, taking at least some of the line above ground would signifcantly lower the budget, but require additional studying and anger the residents.
Without some additional form of funding, the project is destined to lose a lot of potential.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 14, 2013 12:24:47 GMT -8
The problem with this line is that I don't think there's an appreciable way to build it in phases or MOS's. If it starts at the Expo Line and runs south, do you end it at 48th St. and call it MOS 1 with MOS 2 being 48th St. to Florence, MOS 3 Florence to LAX, etc.? I'll be waiting with bated breath to see how this pans out.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 20, 2013 19:05:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 20, 2013 19:31:57 GMT -8
I saw that although that has been the feeling for a while. They also added market conditions may risk construction budget on all the projects, which gives more credibility to the argument that the Crenshaw budget is understated compared to actual costs coming in since that is the only one out to bid. Not good at all, and the entire Measure R construction program could be at risk. What happens if Crenshaw comes in at $2B even without Leimert? It will start a war. Crenshaw backers will go after the Purple Line funds no doubt with the mantra that the evil Westside should not get an expensive subway, while poor minority Southwest LA does not have enough money for even a light rail line.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 21, 2013 10:44:24 GMT -8
I don’t think it’s quite that bleak. The delay into 2019 is annoying, but was inevitable due to all the added grade separations and other delays (side note: I do find some of Metro’s dates on that sheet questionable. No Expo II or Gold Line Foothill until November 2016? Sounds like they’re playing it really safe, considering both should be ready to go by the end of 2015).
Only one thing is going to save this project now, and that’s an additional source of funding - some small tax, or private investor or something. Because without Metro moving some serious cash around, none of the optional additions to this line (Leimert, Manchester) have a shot at getting built.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 21, 2013 12:09:51 GMT -8
I think far more depressing in that presentation are things like the airport connector scheduled for 2028.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 21, 2013 12:11:57 GMT -8
I don’t think it’s quite that bleak. The delay into 2019 is annoying, but was inevitable due to all the added grade separations and other delays (side note: I do find some of Metro’s dates on that sheet questionable. No Expo II or Gold Line Foothill until November 2016? Sounds like they’re playing it really safe, considering both should be ready to go by the end of 2015). Only one thing is going to save this project now, and that’s an additional source of funding - some small tax, or private investor or something. Because without Metro moving some serious cash around, none of the optional additions to this line (Leimert, Manchester) have a shot at getting built. Hopefully, I am wrong and who knows exactly what is happening on Crenshaw. If true, people will quickly lose confidence that Metro knows how to budget these lines. A future Measure J will be difficult at best to achieve. All signs point to Metro's estimates being understated. What gets cut then when there isn't enough money to go around? It is going to get ugly very quickly.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 21, 2013 21:53:05 GMT -8
I gotta ask: is the community so dead-set on getting all the grade separations and optional stations that they're willing to continue waiting until the project can be built with them, even if it means they might lose the entire project altogether?
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Mar 22, 2013 5:59:51 GMT -8
I gotta ask: is the community so dead-set on getting all the grade separations and optional stations that they're willing to continue waiting until the project can be built with them, even if it means they might lose the entire project altogether? Good question. While I definitely think MLK/Crenshaw should be grae separated due to nature of that Intersection, I would much rather have a Leimert Park station than a subway all the way down Crenshaw, especially considering how wide Crenshaw is anyway..
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 22, 2013 11:23:09 GMT -8
There are intersections that, without a doubt, must be grade separated. The other such instance would be 67th St./Crenshaw Bl. where the future line diverts onto the Harbor Sub Division. I just hope Metro doesn't make things worse by eliminating options without first getting the community's input.
|
|