|
Post by spokker on Oct 27, 2009 18:18:19 GMT -8
If Crenshaw had to go underground, wouldn't it be better to move it to under Vermont Ave.? That's one argument I've heard.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 28, 2009 7:02:13 GMT -8
the $300M is out of scale, however I wonder is this has more to do with the structural strength and engineering needed to carry the Live loads of a A380 or 747 needed to make an emergency landing off the South Runway and if it clears onto Aviation. That would be about the only reason for that cost and even that is like a good $100M off. But keep in mind boring a tube wouldn't be any cheaper because you've got to dig the portal to tie this piece to the elevated structure to tie into the Green Line and it's less than a mile which is not very productive for boring under an existing right-of-way. In response to metrocenter's question I believe I looked at the utilities a while back and there weren't any under that portion of the right-of-way. 1) The $325M is the cost solely for the below grade section - not the WYE. 2) The portals for the Eastside Extension cost $3M a piece. 3) My statement was that at $325M boring the tunnel is cheaper, especially since there's no station - and yes it is true. 4) I agree, given that it's a wide isolated right-of-way, unless there's something weird going on down there there's no need for a bored tunnel - trench or cut-and-cover is the way to go. Metro needs to explain their cost estimates on the LAX trench and a lot of other aspects of the project, and hopefully that's exactly what the Ridley-Thomas amendment will make them to do. I stand by my statement said previously that I don't understand how they can't get to Wilshire at $2.1B. And spokker, Vermont should needs a subway too and it's in the strategic portion of the LRTP. Perhaps in 5 years, when it's time for the next LRTP, if Metro doesn't screw things up too greatly we'll be far enough along to move it into the constrained plan. It astonishes me that the corridor has never actually had an environmental study conducted. Thanks Gohkan for reminding me why I stopped reading your Expo posts.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 28, 2009 15:08:46 GMT -8
Thanks Gohkan for reminding me why I stopped reading your Expo posts. Well, if Fix Expo changed their arrogant and irreconcilable tone and stopped acting as NIMBYs, I would be quite easier on them. But such opposition groups like Neighbors for Smart Rail, United Communities Associations, LLC, and the current board of LAUSD have been doing everything to prevent light-rail, and why shouldn't they be first properly handled and then ignored, as we need light-rail in this city, like in every big city? Los Angeles is a perfect city for light-rail, as the weather is good year around and historic light-rail rights-of-way already exist. Subways will be built in the city where they are required but promoting only a single mode of transportation (subway) while trying to prevent another mode of transportation (light-rail) makes no sense. Both modes are needed and are within the long-range transportation plan.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 28, 2009 17:46:58 GMT -8
The Crenshaw Line's budget needs to be sufficient to at least reach the Expo Line. But a conversation about comparable costs of features from other lines is meaningless unless adjusted for year of expenditure. The design-build contract amount for the Eastside Gold Line was $586.8M, signed in 2004. But the costs cited in the Crenshaw Draft EIS/EIR are in 2008 dollars. The adopted LRTP programs $1,715M for the Crenshaw Corridor in Year of Expenditure dollars, opening in 2018. That is $1,441 from Measure R plus $274M from other sources. Measure R specifies those amounts as $1,207M Measure R plus $263M local plus TBD state and federal in 2008 dollars. Showing the effect of timing, Expo Line Phase 1's final budget of $862M was adopted by the Metro board 11/27/07. But the current estimated budget for Phase 2 is $933M in 2008 dollars or $1,301M in Year of Expenditure dollars - even though it is a mile shorter (6.6 vs. 7.6 miles) and lacks Phase 1's underpass and freeway bridge.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 28, 2009 19:22:52 GMT -8
The adopted LRTP programs $1,715M for the Crenshaw Corridor in Year of Expenditure dollars, opening in 2018. That is $1,441 from Measure R plus $274M from other sources. The comparable Year of Expenditure cost estimates from the Crenshaw Draft EIS/EIR (Table 5.5) are: Base LRT case -- $1,525M Base LRT + options 1-4 -- $1,606M Base LRT + options 1-5 -- $1,788M Base LRT + all options 1-6 -- $2,065M Option 5 is a below-grade station at Vernon. Option 6 is below grade from 39th to Expo. There is no option for below grade from 60th to Vernon. It's probable that Mark Ridley-Thomas will get Metro board approval for LRT on Crenshaw including the first four options, with one or both of the final two options contingent on additional funding. But the difference between the $1,715M budget and $2,065M is a substantial $350M.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 30, 2009 18:48:09 GMT -8
And spokker, Vermont should needs a subway too and it's in the strategic portion of the LRTP. Perhaps in 5 years, when it's time for the next LRTP, if Metro doesn't screw things up too greatly we'll be far enough along to move it into the constrained plan. It astonishes me that the corridor has never actually had an environmental study conducted. Well, it would be a start if some leader from South LA actually really pushed this project instead of Crenshaw. However, because all the leaders from Burke, Parks, Ridley-Thomas, and Waters all derive their power from the more affluent Crenshaw area, there is no one to push for Vermont. I didn't hear Ridley-Thomas pushing through any MTA amendments for Vermont in the LRTP like he did for Crenshaw. It is a similar situation with the SGV, much of the working class lives along the Metrolink route and would greatly benefit from increased service along the Metrolink SB line. However, the leaders here are completely focused on the Foothill Gold Line and the more affluent communities they represent like Arcadia, Glendora, and Claremont. Of course in the end run, Southwest LA leaders will push for Crenshaw until they are blue in the face even though it doesn't compare to Vermont and SGV leaders will push for the Gold Line and completely ignore the working class Metrolink corridor, neither of which makes no sense to an outsider. Of course, when this is pointed out, both groups just say it is the evil Westside's fault why Vermont and Metrolink aren't happening now even though they are the ones representing the area are doing nothing. They know if they push hard on these beneficial projects it hurts their more marginal beloved projects, because it points out their shortcomings. It is a ruse of course, but it seems to work kinda of like how when North Korea's citizens were starving in large numbers the leadership stayed in power by just blaming the evil Americans by saying they wanted it that way and wanted to destroy North Korea (deflecting blame even when it seems inconceivable if you blame some entity perceived to powerful).
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 31, 2009 7:51:20 GMT -8
I love how people who don't know anything about South LA politics tell me how to deal with my politicos and what my politicos think.
The Crenshaw Line goes back to the 1960s and was resurrected in the aftermath of the Rodney King riots primarily as a project to connect Wilshire (or more accurately Midtown Crossing) to LAX. To save cost, and maintain it's political viability it was mostly conceived as elevated.
It's primary appeal to those outside district was connecting the rail system to LAX, I venture to say that's still the case. masonite, can you tell me how a Vermont line would provide service to LAX? To those inside the district the appeal is economic revitalization (the entire Crenshaw corridor from the I-10 freeway to the Harbor Subdivision is in CRA project area) and transit access.
After Zev's law, the project stayed on the drawing board despite lots of white politicians and mostly white transit advocates attempting to scrap it. Yvonne convinced the board that it could still serve a regional purpose even if it didn't get to Wilshire, by connecting Downtown LA to LAX. The assumption was that the line would operate as a spur of the Expo (someone forgot to do basic math and figure out there were capacity problems).
Elected officials have never NOT wanted a Vermont line (why don't you point me to where someone has made such a statement), but considering the first 5.5 miles of the line (Wilshire to Gage) would be the most expensive form of transportation (heavy rail subway under narrow streets), and still at that point it's 3.5 miles from a logical terminus (Vermont/I-105), coupled with the fact that most of the MTA board really doesn't give a damn about the black and brown people who actually use their system - it was a political non-starter.
Enter a effective black transit advocacy organization, and new leaders, and not so much any more.
Why South LA elected officials would need to choose one or the other is beyond me. I don't see Zev only pushing the Subway to the Sea. I see within his portfolio the Pink Line, Expo Phase 2 and SFV busways. Forgive me for breaking the rule that says black South LA leaders and activists only get to push one project at a time while the white West LA politicians get to push as many as they can draw on a map!
And no clear thinking person would suggest abandoning a perfectly good corridor with regional implications after dedicating so many resources to studying it, lining up development projects and marshaling resources around it, to start from scratch on Vermont, a corridor which is 2-5 miles away from Crenshaw, with an EIR that wouldn't be ready until 2012-2013, and then would have to compete with other subway projects in the county for federal funding.
That might be a clever way of taking Crenshaw's money, putting it towards other projects and making South LA wait another decade for any kind of rail that actually serves us, but we ain't fallin' for it.
Indeed in the entire context of this recently concocted competing corridor argument, the only one that has any legs is Expo Phase 2 vs. Subway-to-the-Sea. There is a very strong case that the line should never enter Santa Monica as the corridors are much closer than Crenshaw and Vermont ever are. Indeed unlike this Crenshaw vs. Vermont crap non-South LA, mostly white transit folk are pushing online, MTA staff is actually publicly stating how Expo Phase 2 is damaging the justification from the Subway extension past Barrington.
Why don't you go tell Zev and Pam O'Connor to dump the traffic causing Phase 2 project and put the 1.5-2B they'd have to spend on the project towards making Western to Century City the first phase of the Subway?
Didn't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Oct 31, 2009 10:33:46 GMT -8
Maybe this will add some clarity: Population Density Employment Density source: latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/07/more-density-ma.html You can go directly to LA Times and click on the maps for larger images. If you'll notice both maps show low density along the Crenshaw Corridor. Personally I don't think the lack of employment or population are deal breakers. There are several good reasons to build this line including, it's central location, connectivity, it's a more direct route to LAX, and economic redevelopment opportunities. The population and job numbers do cause room to debate priority which is why we're having this discussion. In regards to Damian's racism assertions; racism is alive and well in Los Angeles but I really doubt that is what is going on here. The numbers just aren't right.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 31, 2009 11:56:29 GMT -8
If you'll notice both maps show low density along the Crenshaw Corridor. Not really. Here's the existing population density per the DEIR/S: You have for the most part medium density with several portions of high density. 22% growth is expected in the area by the forecast year (2030) and that doesn't include the plans that are in the pipeline to increase density in most of the medium density locations (some by too much, e.g., 1000 units are proposed in the Crenshaw Mall redevelopment plan). With District Square, Marlton Square and several vacant parcels of land along Crenshaw there are more opportunity sites (Crenshaw/Slauson) than any location in Los Angeles, and the street already has in place pedestrian oriented design treatments/districts and the bureaucratic vehicle to leverage the public investment with the private sector (redevelopment project areas and tax increment financing). In this respect, Crenshaw is unlike any other corridor under study by Metro. Not that I would expect anyone who doesn't live in the community to know these things. Agreed, especially when the major intent of the project is to produce more employment opportunities along the corridor, and as a product reduce regional trips. Of course we can debate. But it's like I said before, people love to bring up "priority" and creating these "new rules to Metro investment" when the result just happens to be delay of a decade (minimum) to bring projects to minority communities. The same people who make these arguments don't apply these standards to other projects. Again: why no talk of taking Phase 2 money and putting it towards Wilshire (a much stronger case than Crenshaw-Vermont) or making the Downtown Connector Expo Phase 2? Where's the talk of putting a Vermont extension in front of Westwood to Santa Monica and the Pink Line? Seems like South LA is supposed to operate under different rules than everywhere else, which reflects a more systemic and sociological/psychological problem that I have no problem pointing out, yet everyone else wants to sweep under the rug. Then again in general I'm largely criticized by some for refusing to shut up about the inconsistencies and duplicity that define transit advocacy and transportation planning in this region. But I digress... Alas, like I've said many times, if we really wanted to talk prioritization of projects, we'd be spending the next 20 years building rail in South LA, East LA, Central LA and the Gateway Cities. We'd only be considering one project (Subway to the Sea), maybe two (I-405 line) outside those areas. But that sure ain't what Measure R or the LRTP looks like though, is it? Metro has a long history of institutional discrimination. It would be foolhardy to think this project has remained free of it.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 31, 2009 12:23:32 GMT -8
While I don't think that any suggestions of racism have any shred of legitimacy on this Board or in any other public forum when it comes to these lines, I do think that Damien is absolutely correct when it comes to political will and the need to consolidate the design and funding, and implement consensus-laden projects.
It wouldn't be hard to put Phase 2 of Expo or Phase 2 of the Foothill Gold Line on hold while we did the Downtown Connector, and it wouldn't be hard to have any Eastside effort be put on hold while we did the Wilshire Subway or a Metrolink upgrade to serve the needs of transit riders.
As it stands, Expo (both phases) and Crenshaw have greater political will and consensus (despite focal hot spots with respect to traffic and grade separation), to say nothing of planning and discussions/debates, compared to the Wilshire and Vermont Subways.
As it stands, the short- and long-term projects must be separated for each region:
1) The SFV: Short-term--the Busway Network Long-term--the I-405 line
2) The Westside: Short-term--the Expo Line Long-term--the Wilshire Subway
3) The Eastside: Short-term--the Gold Line Extension either to Whittier or the I-605 Long-term--a Subway to serve regions not served by the Gold Line LRT
4) The Mid-City: Short-term--the Crenshaw Line, which has potential impacts to benefit the Westside and South Bay Long-term--the Vermont Subway, which probably should be included in some sort of Pink Line or similar effort
5) The South Bay: Short-term--Green Line extensions to the South Bay Galleria and to LAX Long-term--Metrolink and/or other usage of the Harbor Subdivision ROW
By the way, the Expo and Downtown Connector Lines, when built, will make the Harbor Transitway a heckuva good option for long-term commuters from the South Bay and Long Beach that might wish to have a quicker connection to Downtown than the Blue Line.
Also, the future CAHSR and Metrolink will probably get more spotlighting as it becomes a reality to be dealt with, not just science fiction.
So let's get past the charges of racism, and the pointy-headed number wars, please. I have no desire to knock off Crenshaw and focus on the Vermont Subway any more than I have a desire to knock off Expo and focus on the Wilshire Subway--and I do believe that such a comparison is as legit as any I can think of.
What I really AM glad, however, is that Ridley-Thomas and Yaroslavsky and Antonovich have taken charge of their regions in a way I've not seen with Molina...which is why I'm so forgiving to the former trio and unforgiving to the latter.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 31, 2009 13:03:02 GMT -8
So let's get past the charges of racism, and the pointy-headed number wars, please. I have no desire to knock off Crenshaw and focus on the Vermont Subway any more than I have a desire to knock off Expo and focus on the Wilshire Subway--and I do believe that such a comparison is as legit as any I can think of. Definitely, especially considering that L.A.'s first light rail line (Blue) serves a corridor that is 92% minority (2000 U.S. Census tracts within 2 miles); the second's (Green) is 87%; the third (Pasadena Gold) is 76%; the fourth (Eastside Gold) is 96%; and the fifth (Expo) is 75%. The Red Line subway and Crenshaw line are of course both heavily minority too, but I didn't develop those numbers when I did the others in the 1990s (and updated them from the 2000 Census). It's also rather pointless to argue that it should be Vermont vs. Crenshaw, etc. The rail plan for the next few decades was codified in Measure R (whch was based on Metro board members' existing priority projects) and reinforced by the adoption of the LRTP. The LRTP was a carefully balanced compromise between different powerful geographic factions, and once set has very little likelihood of being changed.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 2, 2009 22:47:37 GMT -8
I love how people who don't know anything about South LA politics tell me how to deal with my politicos and what my politicos think. The Crenshaw Line goes back to the 1960s and was resurrected in the aftermath of the Rodney King riots primarily as a project to connect Wilshire (or more accurately Midtown Crossing) to LAX. To save cost, and maintain it's political viability it was mostly conceived as elevated. It's primary appeal to those outside district was connecting the rail system to LAX, I venture to say that's still the case. masonite, can you tell me how a Vermont line would provide service to LAX? To those inside the district the appeal is economic revitalization (the entire Crenshaw corridor from the I-10 freeway to the Harbor Subdivision is in CRA project area) and transit access. After Zev's law, the project stayed on the drawing board despite lots of white politicians and mostly white transit advocates attempting to scrap it. Yvonne convinced the board that it could still serve a regional purpose even if it didn't get to Wilshire, by connecting Downtown LA to LAX. The assumption was that the line would operate as a spur of the Expo (someone forgot to do basic math and figure out there were capacity problems). Elected officials have never NOT wanted a Vermont line (why don't you point me to where someone has made such a statement), but considering the first 5.5 miles of the line (Wilshire to Gage) would be the most expensive form of transportation (heavy rail subway under narrow streets), and still at that point it's 3.5 miles from a logical terminus (Vermont/I-105), coupled with the fact that most of the MTA board really doesn't give a damn about the black and brown people who actually use their system - it was a political non-starter. Enter a effective black transit advocacy organization, and new leaders, and not so much any more. Why South LA elected officials would need to choose one or the other is beyond me. I don't see Zev only pushing the Subway to the Sea. I see within his portfolio the Pink Line, Expo Phase 2 and SFV busways. Forgive me for breaking the rule that says black South LA leaders and activists only get to push one project at a time while the white West LA politicians get to push as many as they can draw on a map! And no clear thinking person would suggest abandoning a perfectly good corridor with regional implications after dedicating so many resources to studying it, lining up development projects and marshaling resources around it, to start from scratch on Vermont, a corridor which is 2-5 miles away from Crenshaw, with an EIR that wouldn't be ready until 2012-2013, and then would have to compete with other subway projects in the county for federal funding. That might be a clever way of taking Crenshaw's money, putting it towards other projects and making South LA wait another decade for any kind of rail that actually serves us, but we ain't fallin' for it. Indeed in the entire context of this recently concocted competing corridor argument, the only one that has any legs is Expo Phase 2 vs. Subway-to-the-Sea. There is a very strong case that the line should never enter Santa Monica as the corridors are much closer than Crenshaw and Vermont ever are. Indeed unlike this Crenshaw vs. Vermont crap non-South LA, mostly white transit folk are pushing online, MTA staff is actually publicly stating how Expo Phase 2 is damaging the justification from the Subway extension past Barrington. Why don't you go tell Zev and Pam O'Connor to dump the traffic causing Phase 2 project and put the 1.5-2B they'd have to spend on the project towards making Western to Century City the first phase of the Subway? Didn't think so. I never heard these politicians speak out against Vermont, but I haven't heard them speak much in favor of it either. If they had, maybe it wouldn't have disappeared from earlier transit maps like the 1991 shown here a few days ago and there would be an EIR on it by this time. It seems these local politicians have helped limit the discussions to just one corridor - Crenshaw (even though you try to somehow blame me for this). I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they just went with Crenshaw in the wake of all the subway bashing in the late 90's and didn't want Vermont to complicate that effort, which I don't agree with. Not sure I understand the logic that someone outside a district can't comment on a project or a politician in a different district. We all live in the same county and many of us work and travel in different areas. I certainly notice you feel free to comment on projects and politicians outside your district as is your right. Nevertheless, many of the written comments for the Crenshaw scoping meetings thought Western and Vermont were better, needier transit corridors (based on metrics like density and bus ridership they have valid points). Crenshaw may have redevelopment opportunities, but Vermont certainly would as well. It would be tough to explain to these people that even their corridor has more population density and immediate ridership prospects that we are building Crenshaw first because there are redevelopment opportunities there. I'll let you explain that one as they bring up this "Crenshaw vs. Vermont crap" as you call it. Vermont would be more expensive than building Crenshaw to Wilshire by some (as to how much is all speculation as we don't even know how much Crenshaw will cost and Vermont has not been studied), but it does have a nice wide right of way in the last 2-3 miles or so to the Green Line which could even be aerial similar to BART in the East Bay. Both Vermont and the Green Line would be very high capacity and very fast compared to a partial street running rail line (if Expo and Crenshaw are successful there will be capacity constraints in the future and they will both be much slower than these two lines). A Vermont connection to the Green Line (assuming a proper connection to LAX) would cause Green Line ridership to soar and especially benefit areas like Watts and all along the Green Line corridor allowing for a higher ridership system overall, but especially in South LA. Your proposal to send Expo Phase II money to build Crenshaw farther north has me scratching my head some, because it makes little sense for South LA residents. South LA leaders initially pushed for Expo, because they knew it was a critical link for their residents to get to heavy employment areas to both the West and in Downtown. This is played out in the high projected ridership numbers for Expo as most of the users will be those going west to work. I know as I have many friends and co-workers who live in South LA who are anxiously awaiting for a faster more convenient way west that require both Phase I and Phase II of Expo together (for me it is not even 10% as important as it is for them). Basically, you'd be selling out those people who live along the Expo corridor in South LA for those along the Crenshaw corridor and you'd get a lot less in mileage as tunneling would cost a lot more. I doubt any serious South LA leader who really serves the region instead of a narrow group/neighborhood would advocate the same thing. Darrell is right. The issue has essentially been decided and Vermont had been pushed aside too far in the past. Just don't complain to me when Crenshaw is well behind schedule as it can't find funding for its ever increasing budget and is still a relatively slow street running line for stretches when it is actually up and running. No one has come close to actually convincing me why Vermont should never been seriously studied and weighed against our current options to see how we should proceed.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 3, 2009 10:45:24 GMT -8
Seems like South LA is supposed to operate under different rules than everywhere else, which reflects a more systemic and sociological/psychological problem that I have no problem pointing out, yet everyone else wants to sweep under the rug. Who got most of the early rail transit? The Blue Line? The Green Line?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 3, 2009 13:57:22 GMT -8
Nevertheless, many of the written comments for the Crenshaw scoping meetings thought Western and Vermont were better, needier transit corridors (based on metrics like density and bus ridership they have valid points). Actually, being that I attended the meetings and know many of the people who wrote the response, like many light rail meetings where Metro proposes 225-tons barreling down the middle of the street, their basis was not that Crenshaw was less worthy, but rather that they wanted someone else to endure the adverse impacts of street-running rail. It's called the "Put this crap over there instead" response. If you haven't heard it before you haven't been to enough light rail meetings. Actually they are not equal in this respect. Crenshaw has substantially more land available to develop, and publicly owned properties and parcels, in addition to greater dedicated planning and agency resources. Additionally, Vermont doesn't widen and present any large scale development opportunities until south of Gage a full 5.5 miles of subway south of Wilshire. North of Gage, Vermont is pretty well built out. You're scratching your head because it's spinning like a top to deny the inconsistencies in your argument. My point is very simple: your argument can be applied to other areas and other projects (and it is MORE applicable to some other projects and areas), but you've selected to chose projects in South LA. You only want to apply it to South LA, Crenshaw and Vermont, where the result is lessened transit investment for a traditionally underrepresented community, despite the presence of high transit ridership and dependency EVERYWHERE. Let me make the crux of your argument real simple so you can in no way claim to fail to understand the analogy. You ready? Okay here goes. This is you: There are two projects (X and Y) in a region. Y should be built while X is put on hold.You have chosen for the region to be South Los Angeles, X to be Crenshaw and Y to be Vermont. (Vermont should be built while Crenshaw is put on hold). Now this is me: you could have just as easily applied that to another region (West LA) and said another project (Wilshire subway to the sea) should be built while a separate ready to go project (Expo Phase 2) is put on hold. (Heck you could even expand beyond that and apply it to any project within LA County.) In fact, you only want to consider it in South LA, despite the fact that there are better examples (i.e. Metro's stated concern that Expo Phase 2 jeopardizes a Wilshire subway extension into Santa Monica). You pretend like this is a simple road you're claiming we should walk down, and it appears simple to you solely because you're talking about two projects in one underrepresented region. But in actuality it's so not. It's only simple for you or anyone else, when you limit it to South LA. More on that below... You make a powerful case for Vermont, by the way it's 5.5 miles heavy rail (600 foot station boxes under narrow streets) subway with 3.5 miles possible elevated. I and others freely admit a Vermont extension would add more riders to the system outside of Wilshire to Century City. So again: why have you decided that it is the Crenshaw project (a corridor 2-5 miles west of Vermont) that should be sacrificed? Why aren't you requesting every major capital investment project by Metro be delayed until those two projects (Wilshire to Century City and Vermont to Green Line) are built? Your argument is X project will generate more ridership than Y project, thus X project must be canceled/delayed. You have chosen to make Y = Vermont and X = Crenshaw. Why can't X be something else: -Expo Phase 2 -Wilshire Subway from Century City to Santa Monica -Downtown Connector -Pink Line -Foothill Extension -San Fernando Valley busways -Green Line to LAX and South Bay -Eastside Extension Phase 2 -I-405 Corridor Line Why of that long list of expensive projects are you only proposing one - the one in South LA - Crenshaw - be halted and not the rest? You'd have more credibility if you were making that argument, but you're not. Incidentally, despite your attempts to misconstrue what I've been saying I'm not debating which project should wait behind the other, rather I'm forcefully saying we should have and need both, and canceling one to wait a decade to build the other one, so 15-20 years from now we only have one to show for, instead of two, is nonsensical. Below you claim to insinuate that you know what a real South LA regional leader would want. Explain how letting a project with dedicated funding and a completed EIR collect dust (simultaneously delaying/canceling several private projects and private-public projects reliant on the Crenshaw Line) to build nothing in South LA for the next decade is serving the region? Boy do you not know the history. A more accurate summary is that they succumbed to Westside political desires and signed off on something they initially opposed. But I digress. Again, lets apply your argument: X project is needed to connect Y citizens to heavy employment centers. You have chosen to make X = Expo and Y = South LA, however given that the Wilshire corridor serves more job centers than the Expo corridor, wouldn't the objective of improved access to job centers be BETTER fulfilled by extending Crenshaw to Wilshire and Hollywood? Furthermore, given that Crenshaw will stimulate the creation of job centers in South LA (unlike Expo), how is that not better than making people schlep to the other areas for quality employment? Yet you have no problem selling-out all South LA residents by making them wait a decade for either project? Again, tell us why building the Crenshaw now and preparing the Vermont subway extension project is worst than building nothing now and having just one line to show for instead of two in 15-20 years? Just as a point of information, why would anyone care to complain to you? And if your issue is street-running why not propose grade separation to speed up the line? Well first, my point has never been to convince you, but rather expose the inaccuracies, duplicity, weaknesses in your argument, the subjective nature of your request for sacrifice and actual impact of what your proposing. Second, please define what the "current options" are, and provide start of construction and opening dates for both Crenshaw and Vermont under this alternative current option that only you know about.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 3, 2009 14:01:13 GMT -8
Who got most of the early rail transit? The Blue Line? The Green Line? Dan: There are certain statements that people make that really just expose folk as being totally out to lunch/oblivious to the issue at hand. That is one of them. And you're not the first I've seen make it. I'm going to give you some time to reflect on that and do a little research, before I expand any further.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 3, 2009 15:50:14 GMT -8
The most important property of a rail system is its ability to move transit riders, from where they are, to where they want to go.
Damien's supermap of fantasy lines criss-crossing the L.A. basin is a nice ideal. Too bad it is never going to happen in the real world of limited resources.
Our rail system is evolving as a hub-spoke system. The HRT subway (Red and Purple Lines) provides access to the dense concentration of destinations at the core of our metropolis. The light rail lines (Blue, Green, Gold, Expo), on the other hand, are the feeders, bringing people from their outer neighborhoods into the system.
For me, the Wilshire subway is a high priority, not because it will serve wealthy white Westsiders, but because it will take me (and any other rail user) to LACMA, the Grove, a job in Century City or Melrose, etc. In other words, it will multiply the effect of the system.
Why on earth would we build a subway down Vermont Avenue before building a subway out Wilshire? A Vermont subway will serve people along Vermont Avenue, whereas a Wilshire subway will serve everybody.
Most people seem to understand this, without further explanation, and without any hint of malice or irony. The only people who have difficulty with this is are people who are blind to simple reality.
In the real world, we have to prioritize. Call it conspiracy, institutionalized discrimination, or conflict of values. Whatever. South-Central has the Blue Line. Southwest will have the Crenshaw Line and the Expo Line. Westside will get the Expo Line (if the NIMBYs don't block it up). Eastside gets Gold, as does NorthEast. Central gets the Purple and Red Lines. Valley gets the Orange Line. Sounds pretty fair and equitable to me.
The system is growing. Not perfectly, but pretty well. For instance, SouthEast still has nothing. There are political reasons for this, most notably the focus of SouthEast politicians on freeway development over rail development.
The discussion of Vermont vs. Crenshaw is an academic one. Nobody is trying to limit the number of lines going to South L.A. Again, this is about priorities. No region is getting any monopoly on anything. The Westside has nothing so far, so it's pretty silly to say they are getting preferential treatment.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Nov 3, 2009 16:50:00 GMT -8
I agree with sir Metrocenter that Wilshire is a priority before any Vermont subway, plus a half dozen other projects. The Vermont corridor is, however, one of the most heavily traveled corridors in Los Angeles and deserves serious consideration in the future. In my opinion it should be expanded both North and South (or is that East and West?) connecting the Green line to Glendale. Total fantasy? Probably
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 3, 2009 21:15:09 GMT -8
A long time ago (well, 1-2 years ago) I mentioned on this Board that I just didn't hear discussions of a Vermont Subway other than here, on this Board. Similarly, a few years ago the idea of a Lincoln Blvd. rail line, the "real" and "original" Silver Line and Eastside subways didn't get brought up other than here.
The way things work for being built is--in this order: Consensus, Planning/Study, then Design/Construction/Funding.
Crenshaw is in the second part of that process, while Vermont is relatively new to the first part of that process. They're not mutually exclusive, and I wish the Mid-City and the neighboring regions well in creating both.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 4, 2009 15:03:16 GMT -8
If congestion were the only criterion, Metro would be building rail lines along not just Vermont Ave, but also Lincoln Blvd, Florence Avenue, and a bunch of other corridors in L.A. Fortunately, congestion is not the only criterion for rail projects.
I have no problem with a Vermont Subway, BTW. I just happen to think that elsewhere in the region, there are other, higher priorities.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 10, 2009 9:10:17 GMT -8
Posted by Steve Hymon: Metro staff says Crenshaw Line should be light railMetro staff have selected a preferred alternative for the future Crenshaw Boulevard transit project: a light rail line that begins at the Expo Line, goes south along Crenshaw and then follows an existing rail right-of-way through Inglewood to connect with the Green Line near LAX. A map of the alignment is in this recent report–click to page five. The preferred alternative goes before the Metro Board of Director’s planning committee on Nov. 18. There’s more on the exact alignment on the committee’s agenda, as well as details of potential grade separations for the rail line. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas issued a press release today praising the selection. The line runs through his district and Ridley-Thomas — also a member of the Metro Board of Directors — has been vocal that he wanted a light rail line as a better alternative to sitting in traffic and as a job generator. The agency initially considered a wide variety of routes for a train line or busway as part of the project. Recently, as part of the draft environmental study of the project, the list of options had been narrowed considerably, although public support seemed to also favor a light-rail line. Under the agency’s long-range plan, the Crenshaw line is due to open by 2018. Its cost is estimated at more than $1.7 billion. -- Steve Hymon
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 10, 2009 13:22:27 GMT -8
Here is the text of items 9B and 9C, from the Planning Committee's agenda: 9. CONSIDER B. adopting the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative as follows: * From a northern terminal at the Exposition/Crenshaw station (reconstructed at-grade), the alignment follows Crenshaw Boulevard south to the Harbor Subdivision to a connection at the Metro Green Line Aviation/LAX station. * Stations are to be included at: > Exposition/Crenshaw > Crenshaw/Martin Luther King Jr. > Crenshaw/Slauson > Florence/West > Florence/La Brea > Aviation/Manchester (optional) > Aviation/Century (aerial) * Grade separations are to be located: > Between 39th Street and 48th Street (below-grade) > Between 60th Street and Victoria Avenue (below-grade) (Design Option 4, due to visual impacts) > Across La Brea Avenue (aerial) > Across La Cienega Boulevard (aerial) > Across Manchester Avenue (aerial) (Design Option 2, due to traffic impacts) > Across Century Boulevard (aerial) (Design Option 1, to allow connection to LAX) > Adjacent to LAX south runways (below-grade trench) * A maintenance facility is to be included at a site to be determined. A site in the City of El Segundo located between two railroad tracks northeast of the intersection at Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard is recommended to be further analyzed. During the next phase of environmental review, MTA may have identify additional alternate sites for analysis. * Authorizing the preparation of the Final EIS/EIR, continued environmental review and additional advanced conceptual engineering for the LPA and the following additional design options: > Centinela grade separation (cut-and-cover) (Design Option 3) > Additional Crenshaw/Vernon station (below grade) (Design Option 5) > Exposition/Crenshaw station (below grade) (Design Option 6) > Alternate maintenance facility sites, as necessary. Additional design and cost estimation as well as input from relevant regulartory agencies (e.g., California Public Utilities Commission) is required in order to determine if the remaining design options should be included in the definition of the project to address potential environmental impacts and physical constraints. This next phase of work will include value engineering and analysis of interim operable segments as necesssary.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 10, 2009 17:47:16 GMT -8
Only surprise is that they're still considering the Manchester station optional. Staff report appears to indicate a willingness to have the Manchester station be elevated.
Now the work begins.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 10, 2009 18:44:47 GMT -8
LRT is great news. The Manchester Station needs to be on Manchester. I think the curve there is very gentle. The study is great. But what is missing is how this line will connect to other lines in the future. They are suggesting eliminating the Expo Line connection by putting the Crenshaw Line below the Expo Line. Is this a good thing? Where will this line ultimately connect on the north side? Wilshire/La Brea? Hollywood/Highland? San Vicente/Santa Monica? These are the things that need to be planned right now. Otherwise, we will have a line that goes from somewhere (LAX) to nowhere (Walmart at King/Crenshaw, the big church at Crenshaw/Exposition, etc.), as typical with most Metro Rail lines. It will be a half- ed line unless it eventually connects properly to some other line at both ends, not just at the south, only one half of it that is.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 10, 2009 19:39:19 GMT -8
They are suggesting eliminating the Expo Line connection by putting the Crenshaw Line below the Expo Line. Is this a good thing? Where will this line ultimately connect on the north side? Wilshire/La Brea? Hollywood/Highland? San Vicente/Santa Monica? Unless I am missing something Gokhan..isn't the line suppose to be the Westside's north-south connector as a substitute for the 405? Isn't there still a broken line between Expo Line and Wilshire Purple Line to indicate a future expansion to the Purple Line? I don't think the purpose of the line is to take a one-shot ride from 7th street to Aviation Center without a transfer. The eventual goal (sounds like from the scoping meetings) is to possibly go even further north than Wilshire and possibly Hollywood/Highland? If so, going below Expo Line at Crenshaw station is a good thing as a connector (i.e. think of Rosa Parks station, with a trench).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 10, 2009 19:52:03 GMT -8
They are suggesting eliminating the Expo Line connection by putting the Crenshaw Line below the Expo Line. Is this a good thing? Where will this line ultimately connect on the north side? Wilshire/La Brea? Hollywood/Highland? San Vicente/Santa Monica? Unless I am missing something Gokhan..isn't the line suppose to be the Westside's north-south connector as a substitute for the 405? Isn't there still a broken line between Expo Line and Wilshire Purple Line to indicate a future expansion to the Purple Line? I don't think the purpose of the line is to take a one-shot ride from 7th street to Aviation Center without a transfer. The eventual goal (sounds like from the scoping meetings) is to possibly go even further north than Wilshire and possibly Hollywood/Highland? If so, going below Expo Line at Crenshaw station is a good thing as a connector (i.e. think of Rosa Parks station, with a trench). I'm only asking questions, not giving answers. How the line crosses Exposition will affect how the line is routed further north in the future. As for being a 405 substitute, this line will not be the only north - south line. There is a 405 rail line in the Measure R plans. This line will be more a central west line than a fully west line. That's another reason why it's important to study its route further north, as there are many options for the route (San Vicente, La Brea, etc.) and, in fact, they are not in the 405 corridor. Then, of course, there will be the Vermont Line further east at one point in the future. And we will have the Harbor Subdivision even before that -- lots of lines, east - west, north - south, and diagonal in the future indeed.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 10, 2009 23:07:18 GMT -8
I admit to also being surprised that the Manchester station was labelled as optional, but considering that there's still public opinion to be culled, perhaps that's not yet to be labelled as final. Still, considering that the Manchester station received a favorable response at the Westchester NC, I'm imagining that the only question surrounding the Manchester station is where around or adjacent to Manchester the station will be.
Overall, however, I'm very excited about this project as it currently is being described.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 11, 2009 7:06:31 GMT -8
Based on the meeting reports, apparently the concern at Westchester-Playa Vista NC, regarding Manchester station was the location and parking lot.
I agree it should be elevated.
Also agree there is a profound need to discuss integration on this line, including but not limited to: -Non-revenue connector with Expo -Harbor Subdivision interlining COUNT THE BLOODLY TRAINS that would share the portion, and it's clear that the GRADE SEPARATION OPTIONS MUST BE EXTENDED/CONNECTED -Wilshire line connectivity (La Brea or Fairfax) -Pink line connectivity (possibly build the tunnels to serve both heavy rail and light rail vehicles?)
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 12, 2009 7:37:56 GMT -8
Although I entirely agree with you that the long-term focus on the Harbor Subdivision and Wilshire line and Pink Line connectivites are great plans for us to confront, the problem is that they're still just plans.
I'm sure you won't agree with this, Damien (I know I don't, but there's a lot of laws that I don't like...but it's still the law), but I believe there's no legal justification for purchasing land for projects that haven't been approved. Remember--it's public money.
I've asked before for a purchase of adjacent land to the ROW for both Harbor Subdivision and Crenshaw LRT trains to be shared and/or triple-tracked, but informed of that legal conundrum. It's probably the same sort of problem that we're facing with an Eastside Gold Line that wasn't built with the DTC in mind.
Of course, unlike the DTC, we KNOW that the Harbor Subdivision is out there, and it's my belief that the Crenshaw LRT will both fix the expensive Green Line/LAX connection and pave the way for the Harbor Subdivision project--making it a sort of Downtown Connector in that it has the focus of multiple lines, not just its own lines.
Hence the grade-separation and widened ROW purchases around LAX to Crenshaw and through the City of Inglewood WILL be well-received by the tax-paying public, but TTC absolutely MUST let the powers that be and the general public understand that the expense is for a bigger picture, not just pork-barrelling public funds unnecessarily.
The law's the law, but betterment and long-term planning will, I believe, be accepted and embraced by the politicians and the taxpayers (look at Ridley-Thomas' LRTP compromise, and look at the ongoing support for Prop. R).
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 5, 2009 10:05:22 GMT -8
From Thursday's board agenda.
Item 9.1 - MARK-RIDLEY THOMAS MOTION THAT:
1. The scope of preliminary engineering and environmental review be expanded to consider the cost, constructability, safety, environmental and economic development benefits associated with linking proposed underground segments of the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor with a below grade connection between 48th and 59th Streets on Crenshaw Boulevard; and
2. Metro staff be instructed to develop alternatives, recommendations and a funding strategy for this segment of the connector.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 5, 2009 11:27:17 GMT -8
Has he resolved the corruption allegations against him?
This latest subway segment is certainly one thing that won't happen even if it gets into the EIR for both political and economical reasons. Why not use the vast right-of-way in that segment for surface LRT?
And this project is so overbudget that it may be decades before it gets built, with the federal government not giving any money because of its low cost-effectiveness. I think there will have to be an at-grade rail - rail crossing at Exposition because of lack of funds as well. I don't see how this project will get built otherwise.
|
|