|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 25, 2009 8:54:16 GMT -8
I actually like that this line does not follow a freeway and therefore compete with a freeway (much as that is a big selling point of the Pink Line). However, given that, there is no reason to believe that this will have much effect on 405 traffic as this line is really too far east and does not provide any connection to the Valley. It just might make a small shift and that is dependent on the connections with Expo to Santa Monica and Purple Line to make some dents within the Westside. Getting more express bus service in the interim, to make use of the available HOV lanes on the 405 can begin an express bus network along that corridor stretching from the South Bay to the Valley with a central hub in Westwood/UCLA.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 25, 2009 12:42:05 GMT -8
I actually like that this line does not follow a freeway and therefore compete with a freeway (much as that is a big selling point of the Pink Line). However, given that, there is no reason to believe that this will have much effect on 405 traffic as this line is really too far east and does not provide any connection to the Valley. It just might make a small shift and that is dependent on the connections with Expo to Santa Monica and Purple Line to make some dents within the Westside. Getting more express bus service in the interim, to make use of the available HOV lanes on the 405 can begin an express bus network along that corridor stretching from the South Bay to the Valley with a central hub in Westwood/UCLA. Agreed. Of course express bus service along the 405 carpool lane would ideally work with a Purple Line extension to Westwood so people could then easily transfer to their destination (Century City, Beverly Hills, etc...). The express busses could stop in Westwood and then continue south to the nearest Expo station and that would be their only two stops so they then could back to their primary purpose of transporting people between the Valley and Westside and the South Bay and Westside.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 25, 2009 15:12:18 GMT -8
Masonite, the gold line is about half and half east/west and north/south. The extensions will tip the scale to much more east/west. I agree about the red line.
I guess 3 of our first 4 rail lines were predominantly north/south. East/west also does have the worst traffic overall so maybe that should have more lines, but it looks like we'll have a big hole in our map without Crenshaw or Vermont. The blue line is really all the way at one end of the LA area. Crenshaw would be much more centrally located.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 16, 2009 11:22:21 GMT -8
Dear Community Member:
Here’s a friendly reminder that our Crenshaw Transit Corridor Working Group meetings begin tonight - Monday, March 16 at 6:30 p.m. We have a second meeting on March 19. We hope you will attend and provide feedback. All are welcome.
Crenshaw Outreach TeamCrenshaw Transit Corridor Working Groups Reconvene on March 16 & 19All are welcome to participate in Working Groups for the Crenshaw Transit Corridor. Please attend and give the project team feedback on potential design options involving station locations and grade separations. The groups will meet as follows: Mid-Corridor Working GroupMonday, March 16, 2009 6:30-8:30pm Transfiguration Church 2515 W Martin Luther King Jr Bl Los Angeles, CA 90008 Served by Metro Lines 40, 42 and 42A South Corridor Working GroupThursday, March 19, 2009 6:30-8:30pm Rogers Park 400 W Beach Av Inglewood, CA 90302 Served by Metro Line 212 The Mid-Corridor Working Group meeting will focus on the area along Crenshaw Bl between Exposition Bl and Florence Av. The South Corridor Group meeting will focus on the area that includes Inglewood and LAX. Project MapWORKING GROUP AGENDA6:30 – 7:10 Open House with Staff and Presentation Boards 7:10 – 7:30 Project Presentation (PowerPoint) 7:30 – 8:30 Feedback Forum on Project Design Options and Evaluation Criteria Metro encourages young people to attend our Working Group meetings. Come and help plan a proposed transit project in your community. Refreshments will be served.For more information about this project, visit metro.net/Crenshaw or call 213.922.2736.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 16, 2009 15:22:45 GMT -8
Thanks for putting this post up as well, Gokhan. I don't really know if anything's changed much since the last round of scoping meetings. I have the hunch that the LAX/Green Line portion will be relatively fast-tracked, while the LAX/Expo and LAX/Purple Line portions will have to be put on hold for both engineering and financial purposes.
I intend to show up for the second, more LAX-focused meeting, but it's my hope that someone can update us on what goes on at tonight's meeting.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 17, 2009 4:38:52 GMT -8
Did anyone show up to the meeting last night?
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Jun 18, 2009 10:48:01 GMT -8
I'm embarrassed that I missed this until this morning - but has anyone see this update??
------------------------
This Wednesday, June 17th at 1 p.m. the Planning and Programming Committee of the Metro Board will receive and file a status report on the Crenshaw Transit Corridor. The report will update the Committee on the status of the Crenshaw Transit Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (DEIS/DEIR) and the two alternatives being considered in the environmental review – the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alternative and the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative.
The meeting is open to the public and will be held in the Metro Board Room located at One Gateway Plaza in Los Angeles , CA 90012 , starting at 1pm.
The agenda has been posted, and accompanying staff reports will be posted at metro.net/board/mtgsched.htm. More information about the Crenshaw Transit Corridor can be found at metro.net/crenshaw.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 18, 2009 15:17:00 GMT -8
I know that the LRTP decision has been postponed until July.
|
|
|
Post by warrenbowman on Aug 26, 2009 18:30:07 GMT -8
According to this there will be a public meeting about the Crenshaw Line on 8/27/09. anyone know where or when it is? Here!
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 26, 2009 19:17:24 GMT -8
Great hearing from you again, Warren!!!
This whole thing is rather mysterious, isn't it! Personally, I don't LIKE mysterious because it usually means a few bad ideas are en route. Still, let's see what the heck goes down with this line. It has the potential to be huge.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Aug 27, 2009 5:48:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 27, 2009 15:00:38 GMT -8
I look forward to hearing more about this project, which I favor as a rail and might be as vital as the Blue Line is but as a north-south line to complement the east-west Expo Line.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 29, 2009 11:17:31 GMT -8
Did anybody find out what Supervisor Ridley-Thomas announced?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 29, 2009 13:33:42 GMT -8
Did anybody find out what Supervisor Ridley-Thomas announced? This is what came up on MRT's main webpage. It's focused on the public process for the upcoming decision of light rail vs. busway, and his preference for rail. Which I think matches everyone here. Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas Hosted a Media Briefing Aug. 27 to Provide an Update on the $1.7 Billion Crenshaw/South Bay Transit Corridor Project
The Supervisor, who was joined by Metropolitan Transportation Authority Chief Executive Officer Art Leahy, encouraged residents to make their voices heard before the MTA board votes in late October on whether to use special buses or light rail to carry passengers.
"I want to make it clear from the beginning what my preference is and what I'm advocating for - and that would be light-rail transit," Supervisor Ridley-Thomas told reporters.
The Supervisor called the project "long overdue." He touted the congestion relief, thousands of jobs and air quality improvements the massive project will provide.
Besides serving the Crenshaw district, the project will link the community with Los Angeles International Airport and the South Bay. For the first time, there will be a public transportation alternative on the West Side that will relieve traffic on the notoriously clogged 405 freeway.
The project, slated to begin construction in 2012, also will link to existing rail lines that serve Long Beach and Hollywood.
The MTA will hold a series of public hearings - dates to be determined - to gather input on whether the bus or rail option is preferred. The Supervisor said involving the community in the decision-making process will build a sense of trust and transparency.
"Outreach will be significant and sustained toward mobilization," he said.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 29, 2009 15:54:33 GMT -8
Thanks, Darrell. This project, despite all its naysayers, is the only north-south rail line that might be in the works, and it has the potential to be a truly great project that links the South Bay to the Westside to the Mid-City to the Wilshire/Hollywood region.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 9, 2009 12:14:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Sept 9, 2009 14:26:24 GMT -8
Good post! Thanks for sharing! Here's something from the report that seemed of particular interest (it looks like they will opt not to interline with Expo):
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 9, 2009 15:17:35 GMT -8
Unfortunately they can't interline - too many trains on one track both on Flower St (easy to fix with 0.6 mile cut-and-cover tunnel), but more so on the Expo portion between Washington/Flower and Crenshaw/Expo. It's something I've been saying since I first discovered this problem over 2 years ago. And I couldn't have been the only one to notice. Others just shut up about it while I was out there fighting for additional funding for grade separations on Expo Phase 1.
Alas, the effects are now seen: the difference between a Crenshaw Line that could interline with Expo and one that can't somewhere between 25-30K riders a day. Previous estimates had this line at ~40-45K a day. Now it's been cut in 1/3rd.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 9, 2009 15:34:33 GMT -8
Thanks for the link and the post, Damien! While I have mixed feelings about interlining with Expo, I'm hoping that the "straight shot" up north to the Wilshire Line (which really IS the goal of this thing, right?) will obviate the question of whether trains should branch off to go downtown.
Some of the grade separations are more attractive to me than others, but am I offbase to suggest that the grade separation package is in part a precursor to the fully-grade-separated second segment of the line to Wilshire?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 9, 2009 15:40:54 GMT -8
The reality is there should be two spurs one going downtown and one heading towards Hollywood/Highland.
There are a couple of good illustrations that show that the bulk of the traffic deriving from the Crenshaw-Green Line South Bay corridor is heading in those two directions.
In a region as dispersed as ours speed and interlining are pretty darn important. We love to learn the hard way though.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Sept 10, 2009 8:31:37 GMT -8
Oh well, hopefully there will at least be a track connection between Crenshaw and Expo, even if it isn't used in revenue service. I guess with that arrangement, Crenshaw line cars will be based at Hawthorne Yard & Shops (Division 22) along with the Green Line.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 10, 2009 9:00:36 GMT -8
My understanding (based on speaking to that team) is that the number of trains planned for going north makes the Expo linkup one that the Crenshaw team didn't wish to pursue.
I suspect that the ultimate goal is to bring this north to the Wilshire Corridor...period.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 10, 2009 12:37:33 GMT -8
How much would an Expo-Crenshaw connection cost? Not much, in the scheme of things, so they should just build it. Regardless of maximum throughput on these lines, Metro certainly should be including the connections in case the need arises in the future. Otherwise they have to build it later, and this comes with a whole new approval process.
Another glaring example of an obvious but missing connection is at Rosa Parks Station, between the Green and Blue Lines. We could have a one-seat trip to the airport, if the connector were there.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 10, 2009 14:04:49 GMT -8
If you read the Crenshaw Draft EIS/EIR, the LRT base case calls for at-grade tracks on Crenshaw to curve onto the Expo line, the Expo station there to be rebuilt as a center platform station east of Crenshaw, and a crossover and tail track to be added east of the station to turn Crenshaw trains.
However, one stated option is for a below-ground Crenshaw station at Expo, with short extension north, that would be compatible with future extension north to Wilshire - or as I've been suggesting - to Hollywood and Highland.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 10, 2009 16:03:30 GMT -8
There are six design options in the DEIR:
* Option 1: build Century station at Century, rather than at 96th Street. Cost: $11 million. * Option 2: cross Manchester above-grade, rather than at-grade. Cost: $16 million. * Option 3: cross Centinela below-grade, rather than at-grade. Cost: $13 million. * Option 4: transition from Crenshaw to Harbor Sub below-grade, rather than above-grade. Cost: $29 million. * Option 5: build additional below-grade station at Crenshaw/Vernon (Leimert Park). Cost: $155 million. * Option 6: build additional below-grade station near Crenshaw/Rodeo. Cost: $236 million.
Total cost for all six is nearly $500 million. Inclusion of all six design options would raise the total cost from $1.3 billion to nearly $1.8 billion. That makes for some tough choices.
Options 1-4 total less than $69 million. Options 5 and 6 are by far the costliest, because they add new below-grade stations.
The first five all make sense to me. Totaling $224 million, they would provide better station locations as well as grade separation. I'm less convinced that Option 6 (adding a station near Rodeo) is worth the cost.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 16, 2009 8:54:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 16, 2009 10:48:48 GMT -8
It will be interesting to see this project get approved. I think this project will be a terrific asset to the region and the Crenshaw corridor, but the cost per rider is very high.
Two options jump out: LRT+TSM (TSM above Expo to Wilshire), and BRT. In 2030, the LRT+TSM option is projected to have 17,000 riders, and the BRT option is projected to have almost that ridership.
I think these projections are too low. I'd like to read a bit more about the methodology of how they came up with these numbers. It's clear to me that these projections will bolster the argument for BRT (which is considerably cheaper), and it will be an interesting political fight to get this built as LRT.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 16, 2009 12:44:51 GMT -8
It will be interesting to see this project get approved. I think this project will be a terrific asset to the region and the Crenshaw corridor, but the cost per rider is very high. Two options jump out: LRT+TSM (TSM above Expo to Wilshire), and BRT. In 2030, the LRT+TSM option is projected to have 17,000 riders, and the BRT option is projected to have almost that ridership. I think these projections are too low. I'd like to read a bit more about the methodology of how they came up with these numbers. It's clear to me that these projections will bolster the argument for BRT (which is considerably cheaper), and it will be an interesting political fight to get this built as LRT. I think its fair to say that the study docs generally have low ridership. However, they are using a model which is approved by the FTA in receiving New Starts funding. I think instead of 13k, you could argue that the light rail line would get 20k riders. However, some people are acting as if this line will get 40-50k in ridership right off the bat, for no other reason than because it is a north-south line. Unless there are huge numbers of people along this line that work at LAX, I just don't see any real reason for large numbers of people to use this line. There certainly isn't all that much density along the route. There are no real job centers other than LAX, parking is easy as Crenshaw is heavily suburban with a wide street and plenty of parking especially in areas like Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza. Also, this line is no way an alternative to the 405 as it doesn't serve that corridor at all (Crenshaw is closer to the 110 than the 405 at Expo). If the Gold Line which serves Downtown LA where parking is very expensive (even for employees) and has a huge job base not to mention cultural activities, transit connections including Metrolink and so forth as well as Pasadena which everyone in the SGV says is a huge destination, can only serve 20k riders, why do we think this line will have such a big ridership? Anyone have a rational answer as I've never heard one before???
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 16, 2009 13:57:58 GMT -8
this is just a gut feeling, but it seems like to me that the Crenshaw Line is one of those rail lines where ridership is highly dependant on where you put the end points.
so, a rail line from LAX to Crenshaw is not going to be very successful. but, use the Green Line tracks to get you to Redondo Beach — either the existing Marine station or the much-desired South Bay Galleria terminal — and you have a much better rail line. or, a rail line from the South Bay to Wilshire. or transfer to the Expo line for connections to downtown and the USC area.
or from downtown to LAX: would it be faster or slower than the Blue Line to Green Line transfer?
I don't know if Crenshaw deserves the elevated spot that it has been given in the political process, but any North-South line in the Westside/South Bay region has to be examined from the point of view of a Regional Connector of sorts.
what are the real, true end points?
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 16, 2009 15:27:41 GMT -8
This whole discussion is rather academic to me, being a resident of the San Gabriel Valley, but I am curious about developments in other areas. One term has me puzzled: What is TSM? It brings up another question: Which acronyms and abbreviations obvious to anybody likely to read this board (I first rode "LRT" 28 years ago in San Diego) and which ones are too arcane to be used without some explanation?
|
|