|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 7, 2007 7:27:46 GMT -8
Lost in the May shuffle of Transit Racism proclaimed by the BRU this corridor is in the beginnings of preapring the EIR through a very transit dependant area of Los Angeles. I know the BRU would be the first ones in Rose/Pink colored shirts ready to ride this line. THE RUNDOWN: At the April Metro Board meeting, the board approved the go ahead to begin scoping, community outreach meetings and Preliminary engineering in preparing the Draft Environmenttal Impact Report for the Crenshaw Corrirdor. The Crenshaw Corridor project is defined as a route primarily along Crenshaw Blvd stretching from the current Metro Green Line to the future Expo Line if it is Light Rail or to Wilshire Blvd if it is Bus Rapid Transit. This project is currently on Metro's Long Range Transit plans and it is looking to be next in order of priority after the Expo Line. The contract for the community outreach was awarded to the LA based Lee Andrews Group Inc. and the Professional engineering and design services awarded to PB Americas (formerly known as Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas) Their contracts will begin at the beginning of July 2007 and go on for approximately 3 years. Though it is not stated in the MTA board document when these groups are to begin their formal presentation to the Crenshaw Community (it is of this professional opinion that they will start around November-December 2007 with the meetings with the community) Here's the link to the Metro board agenda: www.metro.net/board/Agendas/2007/04_april/20070419SupACom.pdf ========================================== Crenshaw Corridor is in Rose on this map in Honor of Councilmember Parks.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 7, 2007 7:50:17 GMT -8
I love the hollywood/crenshaw loop idea in your map. Seems smart - and therefore will never happen. I guess at some point people will ahve to vote to enhance Metros funding and someday it might be possible 2057?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 7, 2007 9:11:16 GMT -8
I love the hollywood/crenshaw loop idea in your map. Seems smart - and therefore will never happen. I guess at some point people will have to vote to enhance Metros funding and someday it might be possible 2057? Well it's not a loop north of Expo/Crenshaw but rather a possible choice of routes to extend this line northward to provide another North-South corridor to the system. It could go up La Brea or Fairfax with each corridor having it's drawbacks/benefits. The biggest one is that if built right it can keep the Wilshire subway in a straight line and not have to veer off that straight path for example a station at 3rd/Fairfax would be a major draw not only for the Grove/Farmer's Market but because of CBS Television City which tapes a lot of popular shows such as "The Price is Right" (This was one of the marketable factors into approving the Grove) as well as provide a good base of jobs that crew can use on a daily basis. Or La Brea Avenue which north of Wilshire becomes this pedestrian friendly little boulevard boutique street where you can find shops and stores, while having the mixed-use developments of Jobs/housing a short distance away providing a connection up to the Hollywood Red Line.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 8, 2007 5:04:58 GMT -8
The Crenshaw Corridor is the first big north-south rail project, one that I would ideally like to see extended to the Purple Line in the north to a shared service with the Green Line tracks that would be also ideally extended to the South Bay Galleria Mall.
With a Green Line extension to the airport, a new "Rose Line" from the Purple Line to the South Bay Galleria Mall would be an ideal new way to handle operations of two lines that shared tracks between Aviation/Imperial and Century/Aviation.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 10, 2007 19:42:52 GMT -8
What major destinations would be attainable via walking from the Crenshaw line?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 10, 2007 20:52:33 GMT -8
for all practical intents and purposes, the Crenshaw District is essentially the middle-class African American portion of Los Angeles. I don't believe it has ever actually been officially designated as such in the same way that Little Tokyo, Chinatown or Koreatown have been for their specific ethnicities, so the comparison is closer to East L.A. than to Little Saigon.
from a transit perspective, Crenshaw would be an excellent choice for a rail line, both for plugging this transit-dependant neighborhood into the greater Metro Rail system and for potentially providing a handy shortcut to LAX. it's not really so much a "major attraction line" as it is a nuts-and-bolts necessity for a growing rail web.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 10, 2007 21:46:20 GMT -8
Hyde and Leimert Park can definitely use a rail station. They are not close to any freeways and streets are congested with lots of potholes and no left turn lanes. Buses get bogged down in the traffic, leaving the neighborhood isolated from the rest of the city.
Rails can fly by if they put in some grade crossings.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Jun 11, 2007 20:06:30 GMT -8
Could building the line north of the 10 as cut and cover be feasible? I don't have much experience with that area of the city, but I've never heard of it being a heavily trafficked route like Western or La Brea.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 12, 2007 5:40:30 GMT -8
Here's an interesting thought...the Crenshaw line, should it be a LRT, will be the first major north-south rail line since the Blue Line. Phase One should be from the Expo Line to LAX.
The Green Line should be extended to LAX, and the Wilshire Purple Line Subway should be extended to Fairfax . Phase Two of the Crenshaw Line could then be extended from the Wilshire Purple Line Subway in the north to the South Bay Galleria (thereby changing the Green Line from LAX to the South Bay from an east-west rail route to a Crenshaw north-south rail route) in the south.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 13, 2007 14:36:10 GMT -8
it's certainly a fascinating idea, and in its fullest extent, it would connect the South Bay, LAX and the Fairfax area, three fairly important parts of L.A (along with the Crenshaw District, in and of itself a worthy choice). sounds good to me!
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 13, 2007 17:50:18 GMT -8
Would it act as surface rail for the entire route? I would hope that it has extensive underground sections, but who knows. As long as it's not BRT . . .
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 14, 2007 8:13:33 GMT -8
well, one thing I know for certain is that the southern half, from the airport to the Galleria mall would have to be elevated, because the Green Line is elevated. and near the airport might need to be in a trench or something because of "radio interference" but the north half would almost certainly have to be underground, maybe cut-and-cover because it would be cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 14, 2007 21:14:17 GMT -8
My understanding is that it would be elevated, partially or in entirety, from the Expo Line down Crenshaw Blvd to the Harbor Subdivision ROW...and frankly, it might even be grade-separated along that ROW as well in certain key locations.
|
|
jomiy
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by jomiy on Jun 26, 2007 21:49:37 GMT -8
Very interesting. Given the negative news regarding the Green Line LAX extension in the MTA LRTP, where does the Metro Board realistically envision this line terminating? They see this line terminating at LAX, yet won't extend an existing elevated LRT line an additional 2 miles?
Does anyone know of links to the Corridor MIS? I can't find it in search engines and would like to read up on it.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 28, 2007 0:03:24 GMT -8
Very interesting. Given the negative news regarding the Green Line LAX extension in the MTA LRTP, where does the Metro Board realistically envision this line terminating? They see this line terminating at LAX, yet won't extend an existing elevated LRT line an additional 2 miles? Does anyone know of links to the Corridor MIS? I can't find it in search engines and would like to read up on it. If it would go to LAX, it would probably turn at Hyde Park and pass through Inglewood. It would run like today's 40/740/940.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 28, 2007 4:34:26 GMT -8
Metro planning staff continues to explore all possibilities of both expanding the Green Line to LAX, and having the Crenshaw Line proceed to LAX and its adjacent regions.
Although the Green Line Construction Authority proposal got held up in the Assembly this year after flying through committee votes, it will be revisited next year and does not preclude Metro's efforts to find a way to create a seamless and networked rail system that maximizes the potential of the current/future Green Line and the future Crenshaw Line.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Oct 4, 2007 8:25:16 GMT -8
www.metro.net/crenshawThe path seems pretty obvious to me: go down Crenshaw and then build on the Harbor Subdivision. It would be great if this project was built along with the LAX People Mover. According to this plan, the Crenshaw Line would really be an extension of the Green Line. My only problem is with what the train does at street lights. Will it get priority or will it have to stop?
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Oct 4, 2007 12:58:54 GMT -8
Subway or LRT? It can either be part of the Red Line infrastructure or the Green Line.
I have no doubt that this line would have to include some underground sections. Even if it's LRT, I could picture a part in the northern section where the line goes underground and has a Metro Center-like transfer with the Purple Line.
I would recommend Metro Olive Line (dark green color).
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Oct 4, 2007 16:34:52 GMT -8
As much as I'd love it to be a subway, I don't think that the MTA will even research it. I think we're just going to have to support a light rail option and get as much grade separation as fiscally possible.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Oct 4, 2007 19:11:11 GMT -8
Note that BRT is also an option there and for the Westside study, so it's possible we can get screwed with another Orange Line with no good alternative for people to leave their luxury cars or SUV.
If it was light rail, it may run on Crenshaw like the Blue Line does on Washigton, street running in the middle median. That type of light rail is slower than a dedicated ROW like the Green Line or the Blue Line between Washington and Willow station. Since there seems to be no alternative to the 405 yet, I'd suggest the Crenshaw corridor line go farther north to Hollywood/Highland and connect to the Purple, Expo, and Green Lines so that Valleyites can skip on the 405 and go through Hollywood in the time being.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 5, 2007 7:02:14 GMT -8
Boy, are you guys touching on some key items here! It'll please you to know that Metro, LAWA and the LADOT are all working together with the FAA to make this Green Line/LAX extension happen...especially in light of the Crenshaw project. Tony you are absolutely correct in establishing the Green Line/LAX extension as an extension of the Crenshaw Line.
Bart Reed, Jerard Wright, Damien Goodmon and myself have been very, very heavily involved with this idea and there's been an amazing amount of synergy and cooperation on this issue despite the questions of funding the Green Line extension now, but we've been referring to this Crenshaw Line as "the Rose Line" in favor of a certain Councilmember attracted to that name, and there's been multiple speculative maps that have it going as far north as the Purple Line.
Politically, and technically, we're leaning towards LRT. I envision elevated LRT south of the Expo Line, but subway north of the Expo Line...and where it would connect with the Purple Line is anything but established (especially since it might NOT go to Wilshire and Western). A few of us, especially myself, want the Crenshaw Line to include that segment of the Green Line that goes to Redondo Beach west of Aviation/Imperial, and then to extend it to the South Bay Galleria.
"X" marks the spot: Imagine a Green Line that goes to Parking Lot C (and then maybe to the north in the years to come), and a Crenshaw/"Rose" Line that replaces the Green Line to Redondo Beach and ends up in the Galleria (perhaps further south in the years to come). This would create a gigantic "X" near LAX. Add Metrolink trains on the Harbor Subdivision ROW and you've got some serious network creation going on north and south of LAX.
Since the Purple Line won't go west any time soon, I envision a two-phase Crenshaw project: the first would be between Expo/Crenshaw and Century/Aviation (and perhaps coordinate with a Green Line/LAX extension to directly link to Green Line trains), and then a second phase that links with the future Purple Line Subway...and perhaps a southern Galleria Mall extension above ground to boot (heck, we can dream, can't we?).
Another possibility is a Crenshaw Line that goes to the Expo Line above ground, then tunnels to Wilshire Blvd. in one fell swoop and provides a target for the future Purple Line to reach...but the question of Crenshaw, La Brea or somewhere else for the Crenshaw Line to connect on Wilshire must then be addressed and it would get complicated.
Either way, the time to plan for the Crenshaw Line, the big north-south LRT line to succeed the east-west LRT line that is the Expo Line, is NOW!!!
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Oct 5, 2007 13:27:36 GMT -8
Here's my concept...if it's gonna interface with the Purple Line, then it doesn't matter where the transfer would be since the stations at that subway segment would all open at once. Making a transfer point at La Brea, rather than termnating at Western or the end of Crenshaw opens it up to a possible extension to Hollywood, Fairfax District or even West Hollywood. METRO PEACH LINESome highlights: - Wilshire/La Brea station either surface or underground interchange a la 7th St/Metro Center. - Vineyard/Midtown Crossing station would interface with existing bus terminal, also next to planned retail development (which would be completed by the time this line breaks ground) - Tracks would reclaim their space along Venice under West Street Bridge like in the PE days. - Shopping center at Venice/Crenshaw replaced with mixed-use TOD, alignment to cut through the development. - MLK and Leimert Park stations would be the highlight stations of the line - Alignment would join Harbor Subdivision. If possible, alignment made into 4-tracks with Metrolink Airport Express (Union Station - LAX) running down the middle or Metro Air Line (Union Station - LAX) sharing trackage the rest of the way. I didn't take a future South Bay extension into consideration due to the way the track interchange at Aviation was designed; any trains coming in from the northern spur would have to join the Norwalk-bound tracks due to the location of the switch.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 7, 2007 17:23:15 GMT -8
A couple of facts: 1) Hydrogen sulfide (which is far more difficult to mitigate than methane gas and dinosaur bones) in the area north of Venice on Crenshaw make the western San Vicente diversion a necessity! The Transit Coalition should adopt the diversion as its preferred alignment. 2) Elevated is not an option on Crenshaw because: a) it is a scenic highway b) any extension north of Exposition would require subterranean construction and lead to a discrepancy in design between north of Expo and south of Expo (north of Expo street is not wide enough for elevated). I strongly recommend against that. The legislative objective right now should be to get the City Council to extend the scope of the EIR north of Wilshire to Hollywood Blvd so the full potential of this line can be realized and explained in this EIR, and so the line can become an honest competitor for outside funding. And I completely agree with Ken that tying the project with Green line extension increases the political support and competitiveness of both projects. With LAWA coughing up $300 mil and Metro dedicating $500M thats plenty for a fed and state match of collectively at least $300-700M to build both lines or get started on a very long phase 1. My personal goal, and I'll say the Get LA Moving goal with the EIR is to ensure that Metro thoroughly studies cost efficient below grade options, including a trench/cut-and-cover combination or single bored twin-track tunnel both with open-cut stations (similar to Memorial Park). My guess, is that single-bored shallow tunneling with open cut stations is only a small percentage more than at-grade operation with below grade separations at the many streets and locations necessary. From a master plan concept, I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to have this type of combination: 1) Green line extension to Aviation/Century, where it connects with a fully funded people mover, as part of the LAX master plan 2) Crenshaw Line: south from Wilshire/La Brea to San Vicente, east to Crenshaw, south to Harbor Sub, then: a) West to Ave of Champions, south to Century, west to Hawthorne, and south down Hawthorne to the South Bay -OR- b) West to Market, continuing south which turns into La Brea and into Hawthorne to the South Bay I believe there is more to be gained, in the form of regional connectivity and ridership by continuing the line south, instead of directly down the ROW to LAX. However, I'm caught on whether the Ave of Champions-Hawthorne alignment or the Market-Hawthorne alignment is better. Here's a map of the area in question: Market, has an existing and forever attempting to recover Downtown Inglewood, but there's the development potential at the Forum and Hollywood Park. I do think the Harbor Sub line (I favor LRT) could serve Downtown Inglewood with a station at Florence/La Brea, and believe the redevelopment potential at the Forum and Hollywood Park probably make it model better, so I lean towards the Ave of Champions-Hawthorne alignment, but I'm still on the fence. Regardless, a true north-south alignment would aid redevelopment activities in a manner that would put the make Pasadena Gold Line development to shame, so I think the potential political buy-in is huge. The alignment also provides service to the dense areas that line Hawthorne Blvd. Notice the north-south sliver of dark red that runs parallel to the 405 near the airport. That's Hawthorne Blvd: Stations on Phase 1/MOS-1 of the Crenshaw Line with the Ave of Champions alignment would be: -La Brea-Wilshire (Miracle Mile), built in anticipation of a Purple line extension -San Vicente-Pico (Midtown) - major redevelopment occurring -Venice-Crenshaw OR Washington-Crenshaw (just one, might even be able to live without this station) -Adams-Crenshaw (West Adams) -Expo-Crenshaw (Jefferson Park) -MLK-Crenshaw ( OR if bored tunnel: Marlton-MLK to aid redevelopment at Marlton Square and bring the station closer to an area with a very high percentage of transit dependent population of Baldwin Village) -Vernon-Crenshaw (Leimert Park) -Slauson-Crenshaw -ROW-Crenshaw (Hyde Park) -Florence-Prairie (Centinela Park) -Manchester-Prairie (The Forum) - redevelopment -Century-Prairie (Hollywood Park) -Century-Hawthorne -Hawthorne-I-105 (Lennox) Green line would be: -Century-Aviation, where it would connect to a people mover as part of the LAWA LAX upgrade. UPDATE: Just noticed that with all the parks on the line we could call this the "Parks" LRT. ;D OVER MY DEAD FRICKING BODY.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 7, 2007 17:43:18 GMT -8
Elson, We agree on the Venice-San Vicente diversion. Thing about the Venice-Crenshaw station is that it is nowhere near close to good for development. Parcels are too small and surrounded by historically protected structures. The point of the station would be to put it closer to the high density communities east of Crenshaw on/off of Pico. Same deal with a Washington-Crenshaw station, where the development potential and focus really is east of Crenshaw, not so much at the intersection, where the parcels are too small for much high density development. Either way the Washington and Venice are really close to one another, so if one is selected, it should be just one. And to truly avoid the hydrogen sulfide my guess is its better to go with Washington-Crenshaw and bore directly from there to Pico-San Vicente. Development is more focus on Washington as well. There could be a lot of highlights to this line, we just need to get the electeds to realize it. Marlton Square redevelopment Leimert Park Village The gobs of land around Slauson-Crenshaw The redevelopment potential at Hollywood Park and the Forum or chance to revitalize Downtown Inglewood. And of course there's the entire Midtown Redevelopment. Just look at the CRA project area map and overview of the area: And then of course there's the possibility to really transform Hawthorne Blvd in the South Bay to a nice Champs-Elysees type boulevard, lined with mixed-use properties to compliment an already high transit dependent population and dense residential area in the form of apts. It comes with the added benefit of being the center of commerce for small towns like Lawndale (easier to direct street-improvement funds and focus). I continue to say, outside of Wilshire, it's Crenshaw and Vermont that have the potential to really bring about the type of development and ridership that justify the large transportation infrastructure investment of rail - grade separated rail at that.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 7, 2007 19:43:18 GMT -8
I think I need a good map, Damien, but I'd like to see how the Crenshaw and Green Lines would directly connect with each other, which is how I envision the Crenshaw Line as occurring. I understand that other areas of the South Bay and South L.A. and Inglewood would welcome future inclusions of this Crenshaw Line into their neighborhoods because of the high transit usage, but...
Isn't this ultimately a connection between the Expo Line (and maybe the Wilshire Subway) and LAX? Certainly, a Green and Crenshaw line meeting together at Century/Aviation, together with a People Mover, would allow these two lines to virtually be one line.
...and wouldn't an extension of the Green Line in the South Bay to the Galleria, and/or efforts to include Hawthorne or some parallel loop be best done as its own project in the future.
Remember: the other political powers that be won't want too much feature creep because they'll want the Downtown Connector and Wilshire Subways, and a Crenshaw Line with all the bells and whistles (as comprehensive and desirable as it might therefore be) would be perceived as an obstacle to those other projects.
Hence, I again suggest an Expo to LAX, combined with a Green to LAX, effort to meet at Century/Aviation as a sort of "Crenshaw Phase One". Beyond that, since this would be tied in with a future, as-of-yet-unplanned Wilshire Subway extension, we might need another few years and another $1 billion to do all the other things you describe.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 8, 2007 1:15:10 GMT -8
The alignment I suggest is based on as much political consensus-building as funding competitiveness based on the new New Starts criteria. The reality is $500M doesn't get us squat, and that's all we have at this stage. We need at least twice that to build a halfway decent line. The additional funding can be found by designing and modeling the line in a way it is most competitive for federal funding, and in this respect the deadzone between Florence-La Brea and LAX (on the ROW) is far inferior to the Ave of Stars-Century-Hawthorne or Market-La Brea-Hawthorne alignment. Ave of Stars-Century-Hawthorne: ROW: What I'm suggesting is to, like the Expo EIR push for an alternative that allows both the Green line extension to Century-Aviation and Crenshaw line to be constructed simultaneously as a part of the Crenshaw-Prairie EIR. The extension north of Expo, comes at the cost of just two or three additional stations (Pico/San Vicente; Washington or Venice; Adams), and reduced costs to the Wilshire subway extension (Wilshire/La Brea): If you want to be really cheap it could come at the cost of just one station: Pico/San Vicente and at a reduced cost to the Wilshire extension (Wilshire/La Brea). So the bored tunnel alignment would look like this (click on the link to see how this fits into systemwide planning): Doing the mathThe entire alignment from Wilshire/La Brea to I-105/Hawthorne is 10.1 to 10.6 miles (depending on whether the tunnel is bored under homes or stays under streets) for between 9 to 14 stations: 1) Wilshire/La Brea* 2) Pico/San Vicente* 3) Washington/Crenshaw or Venice/Crenshaw 4) Adams/Crenshaw 5) Expo/Crenshaw* 6) MLK/Crenshaw or Marlton/MLK* 7) Vernon/Crenshaw* 8) Slauson/Crenshaw* 9) ROW/Crenshaw 10) Florence-Prairie 11) Manchester-Prairie 12) Century-Prairie 13) Century-Hawthorne 14) Hawthorne-I-105* (* = mandatory; #9 through 13 could be placed anywhere on the alignment and reduce to a total of two or three well-placed stations) Breakdown of cost: 100M (bored tunnel start-up cost) 505M (tunneling cost at 50 mil per mile for 10.1 miles) 420M (station cost at 12 stations at 35 mil a piece) 205M (20% inflation) ______ 1230M Go for 35% fed match and we're about $300M short to which we look towards Prop 1B, 1C, CRA, and local to make up the difference. Or look at trench or shallow-cut-and-cover in some portions, where it MAY be cheaper. But again, if the project is modeled correctly we can create a truly world-class line. And the Crenshaw Corridor, has both the potential and the need.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 8, 2007 5:25:42 GMT -8
I'm afraid I must disagree with you on this one, Damien, and raise the point that you may end up standing alone on this one if I've heard correctly from electeds and Metro planners. The money being thrown at the extension of the Green Line to/through the airport implies/facilitates a connection of several rail lines at Century/Aviation:
1) Green Line 2) Crenshaw Line 3) People Mover 4) Harbor Subdivision ROW (Metrolink and/or DMU)
That means an ability of the Green and Crenshaw Lines to potentially directly connect and be an extension of the other, and if the Green Line goes to Lot C, as is being explored, there could theoretically even be service that goes from Lot C to the Expo Line and Downtown. I cannot see LAWA, Metro and the feds authorizing your plan of two LRT lines that don't even connect to each other, because of operational consideration.
Do I think that Hawthorne needs a LRT line? Certainly! I envision something a bit different, however, and one which might require more planning and its own EIR, although I'd like it included in this MIS:
1) An Expo to Century/Aviation via the Harbor Subdivision ROW 2) Utilizing the same ROW to get to Aviation/Imperial that the Green Line extension will use on its way to Century/Aviation and Parking Lot C (Lincoln/Sepulveda) 3) Switching the Green Line South Bay Segment to this Crenshaw Line, and directing Green Line trains to Parking Lot C 4) Extending the South Bay line along the Harbor Subdivision ROW to the Galleria Mall, which is the bus/transit center of the South Bay, and adjacent to Hawthorne Blvd. 5) Looping this line back up north via Hawthorne and/or La Brea and/or Prairie back to Inglewood and create another transit hub at Inglewood, which that city (from my previous dealings) would probably appreciate
As for the regions north of Expo, the idealist in me would LOVE to have it help pull the Wilshire Subway west, but things become very, very thorny politically because of NIMBYism, cost, the need to have subterranean extensions, etc., and so the pragmatist in me will fight for an extension north of the Expo Line this time around...but will NOT be surprised if that remains on hold until the Wilshire Blvd. subway is planned and funded to move west.
I do think the county is poised to proceed with LRT lines, but still question whether we're politically ready to do more subways (with the exception of the Downtown Connector).
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 8, 2007 10:02:54 GMT -8
Actually, to no surprise I disagree. Several points:
1) At the end of the day it's not about who is standing alone, though in that respect, we shall see (and isn't that the purpose of scoping and the alternatives analysis??), but rather, what qualifies for fed funding. As I politely said to a city council transportation deputy, I start deferring to the MTA planners, as opposed to the FTA, the day Metro begins controlling modeling and New Starts rankings, or at least puts up respectable applications. Until then I go straight to the horses mouth and I suggest all transit advocates do their duty and study up on the new New Starts criteria. I presented the Get LA Moving Plan to the SCAG planners a couple of weeks ago. One of the questions was, why despite a (conservatively speaking 33%) reduction in tunneling cost why Metro wasn't more heavily considering single-bored twin-track tunneling. It was the only question I couldn't answer.
2) Building the portion of the line north of Expo has the added benefit of increasing projected ridership for a Purple line extension phase 1 (to La Cienega) at reduced cost - Wilshire/La Brea station would already be built.
3) I'm not so sure why the breakdown in the tunneling mental barrier with respect to the Wilshire Corridor and East LA, would not be shared in South LA, Inglewood and the South Bay. Regardless, I suggest either tunneling, or a trench/cut-and-cover combo, and again its primarily because grade separation will be required in the majority of the line north of the Harbor Sub ROW if only from a simple feasibility standpoint, and elevated is not an option.
Additionally, with at-grade LRT projected to cost Metro in upwards of $140M a mile (Metro's Expo Phase 2 estimated cost: $985M for 7 miles), they'll be plenty interested to explore cost efficient alternatives.
4) The Green Line South Bay extension ranks near the bottom of Metro's rankings, in large part because there is nothing to serve south of Imperial/Aviation. And why loop back up north instead of just continuing south from Downtown Inglewood, saving gobs of time and showing an actual travel time decrease on the corridor? There's nothing on the ROW between Downtown Inglewood and the South Bay Galleria, except a connection to the people mover at Century-Aviation. (Either way a transfer is forced to the people mover. If the people mover is the Green Line extension or the Harbor Sub line then the choice is even more obvious for the Prairie-Hawthorne route.) It's night and day between destination, residential density, and thereby projected ridership comparing a Prairie-Hawthorne route to the ROW route. And again, the question is, which one models better - which one will make the project competitive for outside funding. Understand those dead zones would actually harm the ranking of the Crenshaw LRT project, and even with the ROW to South Bay Galleria route there is actually very little travel time benefit of Green Line extension into the South Bay. Rapid bus from Florence/La Brea to South Bay Galleria is about 25 mins. LRT is about 20.
The point is to study the Green Line extension, through the Crenshaw-Prairie EIR so it passes environmental clearance. The current EIR is expired by several years. And why couldn't the two lines connect with an - albeit not cheap - wye at Hawthorne/I-105.
Um, that is this EIR! It's two of the four primary alternative options. Take a look at the notice of intent:
Wilshire/Crenshaw/La Brea/Hawthorne: This alignment alternative would extend south along Crenshaw Boulevard from Wilshire Blvd to the Harbor Subdivision railroad right-of-way in Inglewood. From the right-of-way, the alignment would travel south along La Brea Avenue to Hawthorne Blvd
Exposition/Crenshaw/Prairie/Hawthorne: This alignment alternative would extend south from the Exposition LRT Line (under construction) along Crenshaw Blvd to the Harbor Subdivision railroad right-of-way. From the right-of-way, the alignment would turn south along Prairie Avenue, turn west to connect to the Existing Metro Green Line Hawthorne Station along the I-105 freeway, and continue south along Hawthorne Blvd
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Oct 8, 2007 10:42:19 GMT -8
Considering the rising travel demand at LAX, and the tight wallets of our current funding system... would it be feasible to build some Orange-line style busways for the Harbor Subdivision and Crenshaw Corridor ??
I know it's no substitute for rail transit. But if funding is cut again, it may be better to have busways built now instead of waiting another 20-30 years. On a dedicated ROW articulated buses can serve LAX and Inglewood with decent efficiency.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 8, 2007 13:21:40 GMT -8
I still maintain that utility relocation--one of the hugest problems about setting up a LRT or even a BRT--on a major thoroughfare will limit our ability to just draw lines on a map and proceed. ROW's are therefore so much cheaper and are the path of least resistance. If the cost of a Hawthorne- or Crenshaw-located line, as much as I favor one or the other, zooms upward (let's not forget operational costs!), the FTA and political powers that oversee it in Washington, they will suffer.
As to the relative dearth of passenger destinations, I'd say that LAX and South Bay Galleria Mall are passenger destinations that are HUGE. A Crenshaw Line that merges with the Green Line at Century/Aviation is the closest thing we've got to a Downtown-to-LAX line that we'll see for some time.
Whether any of us want or like it or not, do not be surprised if feature creep and the desire for other projects like the Downtown Connector and the Wilshire Subway (which is as of now undetermined in its mode and routing, thereby making some nervous about any Crenshaw Corridor Line going to anywhere west of its current western terminus) make this done on the down and dirty:
A LRT between the Expo/Crenshaw station down Crenshaw Blvd. and the Harbor Subdivision ROW to Century/Aviation (and with a Green Line extension) to Aviation/Imperial and the entire Green Line.
As with everyone on this board, I could be wrong, but I've heard a convergence of both politicians and Metro staff favor the ROW route in a huge way, with the previously-held Hawthorne and/or Crenshaw routings falling into the minority opinion. If political opinion can be reshifted, then so be it, but I think the divergence of ideas about Hawthorne, Crenshaw and the South Bay Galleria Mall, as well as the extension north of the Expo Line, may force the South Bay and Wilshire Corridor links to be part of a "Crenshaw Phase 2".
Hope I'm wrong.
|
|