Crenshaw Line Phase 2

[numble]

May 3, 2021 12:28:53 GMT -8 JerardWright said:

May 3, 2021 9:11:50 GMT -8 bzcat said:

Dan's objection is based on conjecture but I understand his point of view. WEHO has been fully invested in making the idea that Santa Monica Blvd is part of the N-S mid city corridor for so long they've fully bought into the hybrid concept. They deserve credit for getting Santa Monica Blvd included in the study area which is even why we are talking about the spur.

Because the spur is in the study area so:
(1) it's not out of scope
(2) is a spur not a seperate line so falls under the same funding as Crenshaw (just like the SGV eastside spur along the 60 freeway, which was later abandoned due to Caltrans objection)
(3) it wouldn't be at the back of the Measure M queue
(4) there is a reasonable chance that it will cost same or less as the hybrid option (especially if the spur only goes to La Cienega instead of Robertson)
(5) ridership is unknown but this is why we should include it in the EIR

However, I fully concede that by including the spur idea, it could potentially make hybrid seem less attractive and of course if spur makes sense, then so would La Brea on its own. And WEHO and its advocates are all on record opposing or not supportive of La Brea. In their risk calculation, a bird in the hand (hybrid) is better than two in the bush (La Brea + SMB spur).

The "spur" is under a separate option as the Hybrid. If there was funds to do both corridors (La Brea and Hybrid) in the Westside Subregion under Measure M then that wouldn't be the case. However there is another north-south corridor on another thread with conversations between a BYD alt vs Bechtel alt that will need the Westside subregion funding to complete its share of the project so this spur addition will mean you will delay completion of the Sepulveda Pass Corridor from Westside to LAX if this were to move forward.

I don't think these arguments about Measure M are really set in stone. If so, we wouldn't even be talking about this project, until 20 years later, the time when Measure M actually says this project should be started. Many of these "no funding in the Measure" arguments could have been used against projects in 2012 regarding Measure R funding, even though Measure M was passed 4 years later and eliminated many of those arguments.

Under Measure M, Crenshaw North is considered 2 projects anyway, and they put a footnote that says the 2 COGs differ on what "Crenshaw North" means:
$1.2 billion in Measure M funding for "Crenshaw North" in the Central City Subregion.
$560,000 in Measure M funding for "Crenshaw North" in the Westcide Cities Subregion.

*Council of Government descriptions vary for the "Crenshaw Northern Extension" project.

We already have precedent for splitting out funding to a different project:
The Gold Line Eastside extension Phase 1 funding was allocated to both GC and the SGV, but since the funds will go to a Gateway Cities alignment, SGV got a commitment of extra Measure R/M funds (essentially equal to what will be used to fund the Washington Blvd alignment that is allocated to SGV) to fund whatever new project they decide to build.

We have precedent for projects proceeding outside of Measure R/M plan:
South Bay Cities re-allocated highway money from Measure R, and now the 1.6 mile Inglewood Transit Connector will basically be a Metro project, as Inglewood and Metro signed a joint powers agreement to work together on financing, constructing and operating the line.

And Inglewood, the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority and SGV's upcoming transit study are evidence of local governments deciding on alignments and building whatever they want outside of what Metro studies.

[numble]

WHAM (West Hollywood Advocates for Metro Rail) comes out against the spur:
www.whamrail.com/

Why not build two lines?

You might hear the argument that West Hollywood or Santa Monica Blvd. should be a separate line or spur rather than part of Crenshaw North. While that might make sense in a perfect world with unlimited funding and political will for transit, that’s not realistic in the environment we live in. Measure M (the ½ cent sales tax funding our region’s transit expansion) has projects waiting in line for funding into the 2060’s and 2070’s and any attempt to add new projects in this area before then would be met with stiff opposition from the rest of the region which already eyes the various projects built and/or in development in the Westside and Central LA with suspicion. Even if it could be funded, a spur would be inefficient to operate and unlikely to be extended West due to seismic faults and a less enthusiastic jurisdiction in Beverly Hills. Add to that the fact that Crenshaw North itself was originally scheduled for 2047 and is only moving forward now because of efforts to find additional local funds led by the City of West Hollywood. WeHo is unlikely to contribute funds for the La Brea alignment because it would mean a single station on the edge of the City at considerable expense. Joint Development of Metro’s Division 7 site at San Vicente/Santa Monica could be another source of funds but it’s not likely to be in play if La Brea is selected.

The choice here isn’t between one line or two. It’s between a slightly longer and more expensive route that would hit all the major destinations in Mid City and WeHo that we could fund and build in our lifetime and the possibility of nothing until 2047 (or later) and maybe another line decades after that.

Let’s get it right the first time. Let’s pick the Hybrid. And let’s #FinishTheLine!

[JerardWright]

May 3, 2021 14:13:12 GMT -8 numble said:

May 3, 2021 12:28:53 GMT -8 JerardWright said:

The "spur" is under a separate option as the Hybrid. If there was funds to do both corridors (La Brea and Hybrid) in the Westside Subregion under Measure M then that wouldn't be the case. However there is another north-south corridor on another thread with conversations between a BYD alt vs Bechtel alt that will need the Westside subregion funding to complete its share of the project so this spur addition will mean you will delay completion of the Sepulveda Pass Corridor from Westside to LAX if this were to move forward.

I don't think these arguments about Measure M are really set in stone. If so, we wouldn't even be talking about this project, until 20 years later, the time when Measure M actually says this project should be started. Many of these "no funding in the Measure" arguments could have been used against projects in 2012 regarding Measure R funding, even though Measure M was passed 4 years later and eliminated many of those arguments.

Under Measure M, Crenshaw North is considered 2 projects anyway, and they put a footnote that says the 2 COGs differ on what "Crenshaw North" means:
$1.2 billion in Measure M funding for "Crenshaw North" in the Central City Subregion.
$560 million in Measure M funding for "Crenshaw North" in the Westside Cities Subregion.

*Council of Government descriptions vary for the "Crenshaw Northern Extension" project.

We already have precedent for splitting out funding to a different project:
The Gold Line Eastside extension Phase 1 funding was allocated to both GC and the SGV, but since the funds will go to a Gateway Cities alignment, SGV got a commitment of extra Measure R/M funds (essentially equal to what will be used to fund the Washington Blvd alignment that is allocated to SGV) to fund whatever new project they decide to build.

We have precedent for projects proceeding outside of Measure R/M plan:
South Bay Cities re-allocated highway money from Measure R, and now the 1.6 mile Inglewood Transit Connector will basically be a Metro project, as Inglewood and Metro signed a joint powers agreement to work together on financing, constructing and operating the line.

And Inglewood, the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority and SGV's upcoming transit study are evidence of local governments deciding on alignments and building whatever they want outside of what Metro studies.

That's inaccurate because the COG can't just move money as they fit unless a timeline date has been triggered or the EIR process eliminated an option for continuation.

• The example you site with Measure R with the Inglewood project, there is a clause in Measure R ordinance called the Decennial review which enables a COG to make a one time shift in Measure R funds from the highway pot to transit pot or vice-versa with the full approval of the COG once a decade and then ratified by the Metro Board. That trigger for South Bay - I had many conversations with the COG staff going back to 2017 as they read the Measure R ordinance like the Holy Bible and that staffer knew down to the day - was July 1, 2019; 10 years after the first Measure R funds rolled in.
• The Eastside Gold Line Phase 2 alignments under the Measure M ordinance was part of a grand compromise where BOTH alignments had funds incorporated into the Measure M ordinance to be built however they both couldn't be built at the same time as there's not enough money to finance due to cashflow. Once the Washington Blvd alignment was selected as the LPA, the SGVCOG now has the ability to shift those dollars wherever they see fit because the SR-60 could never be built per the EIR LPA. The same thing occurred for the SR-710 project once the highway alternatives for the project were deemed infeasible per the EIR they could shift the Measure R $$$.

Here's the core problem with your COG argument that is actually similar to the Eastside Gold Line Phase 2 as there are still other priorities within the Measure M ordinance within the subregion's pot that could get the funds for the COG that can take priority.

To build both lines cost more than the funds we have allocated under Measure M/Federal New Starts/West Hollywood EIFD. On top of which the spur will now require a split of funds rather than a pooling of resources which ultimately costs more to do.

Within the Westside COG because it has a smaller portion of Crenshaw North Extension funds, Do you really think they are going to get a subway down Santa Monica Blvd with the allocated resources they have and include West Hollywood's EIFD, while as a COG they could shift those $$$ to make up for the gaps for the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor? Basically West Hollywood would be left out in the cold with high support for both sales tax measures and getting ONLY one station at the edge of their city limits at La Brea/Santa Monica.

If they could do a separate Santa Monica/La Cienega spur then they would do it. However that would jeopardize New Starts $$$ for either a La Brea or Santa Monica Blvd project because we could assume ridership numbers would drop because ridership with two distinct local corridors, they would have cannibalized regional ridership which FTA bean counters are looking for. I recall -correct me if I am wrong- when they first looked at this branch spur as part of the Purple Line as a Santa Monica Blvd segment close to a decade ago didn't Metro eliminate this due to the fact that it would not be cost-effective to achieve a larger 50% FTA New Starts grant?

Numble the argument you use here would be the same for the "Sepulveda Pass Corridor Phase 2" cited under the Measure M ordinance from the SFV to Westside where each subregion has a portion of funds but it can be viewed as two projects. The SFV can build the BYD Monorail to appease the Sherman Oaks constituents and the Westside can choose the Bechtel automated single bore tunnel. Problem solved!

[numble]

May 3, 2021 18:13:35 GMT -8 JerardWright said:

May 3, 2021 14:13:12 GMT -8 numble said:

I don't think these arguments about Measure M are really set in stone. If so, we wouldn't even be talking about this project, until 20 years later, the time when Measure M actually says this project should be started. Many of these "no funding in the Measure" arguments could have been used against projects in 2012 regarding Measure R funding, even though Measure M was passed 4 years later and eliminated many of those arguments.

Under Measure M, Crenshaw North is considered 2 projects anyway, and they put a footnote that says the 2 COGs differ on what "Crenshaw North" means:
$1.2 billion in Measure M funding for "Crenshaw North" in the Central City Subregion.
$560 million in Measure M funding for "Crenshaw North" in the Westside Cities Subregion.

*Council of Government descriptions vary for the "Crenshaw Northern Extension" project.

We already have precedent for splitting out funding to a different project:
The Gold Line Eastside extension Phase 1 funding was allocated to both GC and the SGV, but since the funds will go to a Gateway Cities alignment, SGV got a commitment of extra Measure R/M funds (essentially equal to what will be used to fund the Washington Blvd alignment that is allocated to SGV) to fund whatever new project they decide to build.

We have precedent for projects proceeding outside of Measure R/M plan:
South Bay Cities re-allocated highway money from Measure R, and now the 1.6 mile Inglewood Transit Connector will basically be a Metro project, as Inglewood and Metro signed a joint powers agreement to work together on financing, constructing and operating the line.

And Inglewood, the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority and SGV's upcoming transit study are evidence of local governments deciding on alignments and building whatever they want outside of what Metro studies.

That's inaccurate because the COG can't just move money as they fit unless a timeline date has been triggered or the EIR process eliminated an option for continuation.

• The example you site with Measure R with the Inglewood project, there is a clause in Measure R ordinance called the Decennial review which enables a COG to make a one time shift in Measure R funds from the highway pot to transit pot or vice-versa with the full approval of the COG once a decade and then ratified by the Metro Board. That trigger for South Bay - I had many conversations with the COG staff going back to 2017 as they read the Measure R ordinance like the Holy Bible and that staffer knew down to the day - was July 1, 2019; 10 years after the first Measure R funds rolled in.
• The Eastside Gold Line Phase 2 alignments under the Measure M ordinance was part of a grand compromise where BOTH alignments had funds incorporated into the Measure M ordinance to be built however they both couldn't be built at the same time as there's not enough money to finance due to cashflow. Once the Washington Blvd alignment was selected as the LPA, the SGVCOG now has the ability to shift those dollars wherever they see fit because the SR-60 could never be built per the EIR LPA. The same thing occurred for the SR-710 project once the highway alternatives for the project were deemed infeasible per the EIR they could shift the Measure R $$$.

Here's the core problem with your COG argument that is actually similar to the Eastside Gold Line Phase 2 as there are still other priorities within the Measure M ordinance within the subregion's pot that could get the funds for the COG that can take priority.

To build both lines cost more than the funds we have allocated under Measure M/Federal New Starts/West Hollywood EIFD.

Within the Westside COG because it has a smaller portion of Crenshaw North Extension funds, Do you really think they are going to get a subway down Santa Monica Blvd with the allocated resources they have and include the EIFD, while as a COG they could shift those $$$ to make up for the gaps for the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor? Basically West Hollywood would be left out in the cold with high support for both sales tax measures and getting ONLY one station at the edge of their city limits at La Brea/Santa Monica.

If they could do a separate Santa Monica/La Cienega spur then they would do it. However that would jeopardize New Starts $$$ for either a La Brea or Santa Monica Blvd project because we could assume ridership numbers would drop because ridership with two distinct local corridors, they would have cannibalized regional ridership which FTA bean counters are looking for. I recall -correct me if I am wrong- when they first looked at this branch spur as part of the Purple Line as a Santa Monica Blvd segment close to a decade ago didn't Metro eliminate this due to the fact that it would not be cost-effective to achieve a larger 50% FTA New Starts grant?

Numble the argument you use here would be the same for the "Sepulveda Pass Corridor Phase 2" cited under the Measure M ordinance from the SFV to Westside where each subregion has a portion of funds but it can be viewed as two projects. The SFV can build the BYD Monorail to appease the Sherman Oaks constituents and the Westside can choose the Bechtel automated single bore tunnel. Problem solved!

The South Bay shifted less than $200 million Measure R dollars to fund their new $1 billion+ line. That's less than the $560m allocated to the Westside for Crenshaw North. They plan to pay for the rest with things like an EIFD, sales tax, and the already awarded state grant. The Metro board also directed staff to pursue federal grants for the new Inglewood line. The approach isn't very dissimilar to what West Hollywood could do if they wanted to design their own line (if they wanted, and they don't want to do so). By the way, there is an existing Measure M project (Green Line to Torrance) with a funding gap and South Bay has not shifted funds to it, and they have taken actions to fund this new Inglewood line.

You aren't correct about the San Gabriel funding. The Measure M dollars allocated to the SGV but going to the Gold Line Eastside Extension will still be going to the Washington Blvd. alignment of the Gold Line. They are just going to shift the future "system connectivity" dollars to the San Gabriel Valley and find funding elsewhere for the SGV. Its clear in the board report, even though the funding in the Measure M ordinance is allocated to SGV, it will all go to fund the Gold Line that is not in the SGV:

metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4539340&GUID=B6044D05-C6B6-47F8-9EA2-9728A6B71B1F&Options=ID%7CText%7CAttachments%7COther%7C&FullText=1

Cycle 1 includes $1.086 billion of Measure M and $3 billion estimated project cost for one alignment with a 2029 groundbreaking date and an expected opening date from 2035-37
Cycle 2 includes $2.89 billion of Measure M and $3 billion estimated project cost with a 2053 groundbreaking date and an opening date from 2057-59

Look in the ordinance, and the Cycle 1 funding is $543 million to SGV and $543 million to Gateway Cities. Cycle 2 is allocated to "system connectivity".

The staff proposal, which was approved:

1. Retain all funding assigned to the cycle 1 project per the 2019 LRTP financial forecast;

2. Pursue an amendment to the Measure M ordinance that creates a new project or program (e.g., "San Gabriel Valley Eastside Transit Commitment") with $635.5 million of Measure M transit funding, exclude the funding for this new commitment from the Measure M inflation adjustments allowed by the ordinance, and reduce Measure M funding for the "Gold Line Eastside Ext. Second Alignment" by approximately $700 to $750 million (the precise amount to be determined at the time of the amendment);

The Westside COG can't control the funds that are raised from an EIFD in West Hollywood, and EIFD funds can't be shifted outside of where the EIFD is. These are property taxes in a designated region. The law will not allow incremental West Hollywood property taxes to fund the Sepulveda project.

In terms of the New Starts guidelines, it is unlikely that a spur would jeopardize the qualification. First off, the New Starts grant applications are per phased built (there were 3 awards for Purple Line, each phase evaluated separately). We already have the analysis for the La Brea option and it already should perform better than WSAB, which was recently analyzed as medium-high based on lower ridership (50,000-60,000 weekly ridership for WSAB versus 87,000 for La Brea) and $2-3 billion more than the estimated cost for fully underground La Brea alignment ($7 billion estimated cost for WSAB versus $4.3 billion for La Brea underground).

The 2010 analysis of the Pink Line New Starts was that it scored low in terms of cost-effectiveness. This was when cost-effectiveness was 20% of the score. They noted that the cost-effectiveness criteria was being changed and it scored higher in other New Starts criteria compared to other alternatives: media.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/Draft_EIS_EIR/Chapters%205%20thru%208/Chapter%207%20Comparative%20Benefits%20and%20Costs.pdf

Currently, cost-effectiveness is just 16.66% of the New Starts criteria. I would say if a line on one of the top bus corridors (Santa Monica) in America doesn't qualify for the New Starts criteria, there will be few New Starts projects in all of America going forward. A good comparison is the analysis for ESFV on Van Nuys, which as a bus corridor, I believe has about less than half the bus ridership of Santa Monica Blvd. Metro's fuller analysis of ESFV (they didn't just look at one New Starts factor) found that ESFV would get a medium rating. Metro's staff analysis also is conservative, because when they actually apply for grants, Metro does certain things outside of the criteria that the FTA allows for "extra credit" to bump up the actual New Starts rating that they use to evaluate the project.

[andert]

Apr 26, 2021 15:20:15 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

LOVE the video, you have serious skills with the animation, all Adobe?

submitted my comment as well. Let's go spur!

Forgot to reply to this. Thanks! Yeah it's all adobe. I build everything in photoshop and then animate in after effects. I should really do the maps fully vector in illustrator but i'm awful with illustrator, and never really needed to learn it for any of my actual job stuff. One of these days.

[JerardWright]

May 3, 2021 20:17:27 GMT -8 numble said:

The South Bay shifted less than $200 million Measure R dollars to fund their new $1 billion+ line. That's less than the $560m allocated to the Westside for Crenshaw North. They plan to pay for the rest with things like an EIFD, sales tax, and the already awarded state grant. The Metro board also directed staff to pursue federal grants for the new Inglewood line. The approach isn't very dissimilar to what West Hollywood could do if they wanted to design their own line (if they wanted, and they don't want to do so). By the way, there is an existing Measure M project (Green Line to Torrance) with a funding gap and South Bay has not shifted funds to it, and they have taken actions to fund this new Inglewood line.

The South Bay COG shifted Measure R money based on that Decennial rule under that ordinance, they moved highway dollars to transit for seed money for the Inglewood monorail. It was well planned and calculated. Without buy in and suggestions from the COG, the Metro Board doesn't decide a thing.

The Westside COG (which also includes Beverly Hills, LA, Santa Monica, Culver City) would have to decide where to put that $560M allocation. West Hollywood does not get a unilateral decision on that! Big big difference so again all the reasons why West Hollywood is feeling a little antsy about the La Brea + Spur idea.

You aren't correct about the San Gabriel funding. The Measure M dollars allocated to the SGV but going to the Gold Line Eastside Extension will still be going to the Washington Blvd. alignment of the Gold Line. They are just going to shift the future "system connectivity" dollars to the San Gabriel Valley and find funding elsewhere for the SGV. Its clear in the board report, even though the funding in the Measure M ordinance is allocated to SGV, it will all go to fund the Gold Line that is not in the SGV

metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4539340&GUID=B6044D05-C6B6-47F8-9EA2-9728A6B71B1F&Options=ID%7CText%7CAttachments%7COther%7C&FullText=1

Numble, What was the event that caused this shift to take place? The first paragraph of the board report you linked in your reply spells it out the in order to do that independent study because that SR-60 corridor could never get built due to the Superfund site and Caltrans ROW issues! So its what I wrote and responded with which is why what you are trying to accomplish is not the same thing.

Within the Measure M ordinance both alignments had money allocated in but spaced out in different decades. Because the SR-60 alignment could never get built and there's money still in play for the SGVCOG to replace that project with some sort of transit alternative so that it still follows what is required in the Measure M ordinance. In addition the Eastside Gold Line 2 now has more tunnels and grade separations as before which lead to this cost increase where they have to make another shift.

• "In February 2020 the Board approved the staff recommendations to withdraw the SR 60 and
  Combined Alternatives from the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project (Attachment B) and
  directed staff to prepare an independent feasibility study that evaluates options to serve the mobility
  needs of the San Gabriel Valley. The Board approved a Motion (Attachment A) directing staff to
  return in May 2020 with a plan for the feasibility study and the development of a high-quality transit
  service option in the San Gabriel Valley subregion including a Funding Plan that encompasses
  Measure R and Measure M funding. The Board identified $635.5 million of Measure R funding for
  improvements to be identified in the San Gabriel Valley transit feasibility study and to be consistent
  with the funding years in the Measure R Expenditure Plan."

The Westside COG can't control the funds that are raised from an EIFD in West Hollywood, and EIFD funds can't be shifted outside of where the EIFD is. These are property taxes in a designated region. The law will not allow incremental West Hollywood property taxes to fund the Sepulveda project.

I never said the COG controlled the EIFD. The $560M Measure M allocation is what I am referring to within the Westside COG's portion of the project. Which all goes back to the Westside COG to figure out if they want to pursue this spur or another pathway such as make up for the gaps to build for example the Bechtel alternative to Sepulveda Pass.

The Metro Board again can not make a unilateral move like this without buy-in from the COG, plain and simple. That's why I made the tongue-in-cheek remark at the end with the Sepulveda Corridor project with two pots of $$$ one in the SFV for a monorail and Westside deep bore tunnel.

That doesn't mean two separate projects it means that amount represents the share of the subregions overall funds that are going to that project.

This fundamental "bottoms-up" was central to getting Measure M passed and it has been fundamental in the moves that has been made over the last few years with keeping projects moving despite cost-overages in the estimations or when going out to bid. So far it has always been initiated by the COGs not the Board.

All the Board does is ratifies what the COG wants to do if the color of monies are kosher.

In terms of the New Starts guidelines, it is unlikely that a spur would jeopardize the qualification. First off, the New Starts grant applications are per phased built (there were 3 awards for Purple Line, each phase evaluated separately). We already have the analysis for the La Brea option and it already should perform better than WSAB, which was recently analyzed as medium-high based on lower ridership (50,000-60,000 weekly ridership for WSAB versus 87,000 for La Brea) and $2-3 billion more than the estimated cost for fully underground La Brea alignment ($7 billion estimated cost for WSAB versus $4.3 billion for La Brea underground).

Because once you do ridership modeling for BOTH alignments for a spur and La Brea corridor for the costs one will be sacrificed for the other in terms of FTA Cost-effectiveness and considering that Metro is going after Federal $$$ for this project, WSAB and Sepulveda Pass, now a fourth with this spur and possibly a 5th project if you include a Vermont Avenue corridor that is a lot for FTA/DC to swallow to give to the LA region for a while so Metro has to space this out carefully.

The 2010 analysis of the Pink Line New Starts was that it scored low in terms of cost-effectiveness. They noted that the cost-effectiveness criteria was being changed and they didn't consider other New Starts criteria: media.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/Draft_EIS_EIR/Chapters%205%20thru%208/Chapter%207%20Comparative%20Benefits%20and%20Costs.pdf

Currently, cost-effectiveness is just 16.66% of the New Starts criteria. I would say if a line on one of the top bus corridors (Santa Monica) in America doesn't qualify for the New Starts criteria, there will be few New Starts projects in all of America going forward. A good comparison is the analysis for ESFV on Van Nuys, which as a bus corridor, I believe has about less than half the bus ridership of Santa Monica Blvd. Metro's fuller analysis of ESFV (they didn't just look at one New Starts factor) found that ESFV would get a medium rating. Metro's staff analysis also is conservative, because when they actually apply for grants, Metro does certain things outside of the criteria that the FTA allows for "extra credit" to bump up the actual New Starts rating that they use to evaluate the project.

Metro's analysis is conservative because they are using FTA guidelines.

However I would caution on equating a small segment of the Santa Monica bus corridor compared to the entire alignment of Santa Monica Blvd as a justification for a spur line.

ESFV is predominately along Van Nuys Blvd which is a heavily transit dependent corridor, if Metro went for New Starts money it would score a Medium rating. Also this point just highlights that for what you are trying to accomplish you would need a larger and longer Santa Monica Blvd corridor to make it pan out, which goes right to the heart of why WeHo is concerned about this La Brea + Spur idea.

Plus given that ESFV with a Medium rating would qualify for a New Starts money but Metro is not applying for it. Why do think that is the case? Is it alturism? Or its the realization that they know and will want to bank on completing other projects with non-Federal $$$ to leverage as matches for larger ticket projects like Sepulveda Pass, West Santa Ana, Vermont, a single Crenshaw North alignment etc.

This is the core reason why the Regional Connector received such a large Federal New Starts match with very little local contribution. Metro leveraged the predominately locally funded Expo Line phases to Culver City & Santa Monica and Gold Line to Azusa/Citrus College as the local funded contributions to the project.

[numble]

May 3, 2021 23:56:44 GMT -8 JerardWright said:

May 3, 2021 20:17:27 GMT -8 numble said:

The South Bay shifted less than $200 million Measure R dollars to fund their new $1 billion+ line. That's less than the $560m allocated to the Westside for Crenshaw North. They plan to pay for the rest with things like an EIFD, sales tax, and the already awarded state grant. The Metro board also directed staff to pursue federal grants for the new Inglewood line. The approach isn't very dissimilar to what West Hollywood could do if they wanted to design their own line (if they wanted, and they don't want to do so). By the way, there is an existing Measure M project (Green Line to Torrance) with a funding gap and South Bay has not shifted funds to it, and they have taken actions to fund this new Inglewood line.

The South Bay COG shifted Measure R money based on that Decennial rule under that ordinance, they moved highway dollars to transit for seed money for the Inglewood monorail. It was well planned and calculated. Without buy in and suggestions from the COG, the Metro Board doesn't decide a thing.

The Westside COG (which also includes Beverly Hills, LA, Santa Monica, Culver City) would have to decide where to put that $560M allocation. West Hollywood does not get a unilateral decision on that! Big big difference so again all the reasons why West Hollywood is feeling a little antsy about the La Brea + Spur idea.

You aren't correct about the San Gabriel funding. The Measure M dollars allocated to the SGV but going to the Gold Line Eastside Extension will still be going to the Washington Blvd. alignment of the Gold Line. They are just going to shift the future "system connectivity" dollars to the San Gabriel Valley and find funding elsewhere for the SGV. Its clear in the board report, even though the funding in the Measure M ordinance is allocated to SGV, it will all go to fund the Gold Line that is not in the SGV

metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4539340&GUID=B6044D05-C6B6-47F8-9EA2-9728A6B71B1F&Options=ID%7CText%7CAttachments%7COther%7C&FullText=1

Numble, What was the event that caused this shift to take place? The first paragraph of the board report you linked in your reply spells it out the in order to do that independent study because that SR-60 corridor could never get built due to the Superfund site and Caltrans ROW issues! So its what I wrote and responded with which is why what you are trying to accomplish is not the same thing.

Within the Measure M ordinance both alignments had money allocated in but spaced out in different decades. Because the SR-60 alignment could never get built and there's money still in play for the SGVCOG to replace that project with some sort of transit alternative so that it still follows what is required in the Measure M ordinance. In addition the Eastside Gold Line 2 now has more tunnels and grade separations as before which lead to this cost increase where they have to make another shift.

• "In February 2020 the Board approved the staff recommendations to withdraw the SR 60 and
  Combined Alternatives from the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project (Attachment B) and
  directed staff to prepare an independent feasibility study that evaluates options to serve the mobility
  needs of the San Gabriel Valley. The Board approved a Motion (Attachment A) directing staff to
  return in May 2020 with a plan for the feasibility study and the development of a high-quality transit
  service option in the San Gabriel Valley subregion including a Funding Plan that encompasses
  Measure R and Measure M funding. The Board identified $635.5 million of Measure R funding for
  improvements to be identified in the San Gabriel Valley transit feasibility study and to be consistent
  with the funding years in the Measure R Expenditure Plan."

The Westside COG can't control the funds that are raised from an EIFD in West Hollywood, and EIFD funds can't be shifted outside of where the EIFD is. These are property taxes in a designated region. The law will not allow incremental West Hollywood property taxes to fund the Sepulveda project.

I never said the COG controlled the EIFD. The $560M Measure M allocation is what I am referring to within the Westside COG's portion of the project. Which all goes back to the Westside COG to figure out if they want to pursue this spur or another pathway such as make up for the gaps to build for example the Bechtel alternative to Sepulveda Pass.

The Metro Board again can not make a unilateral move like this without buy-in from the COG, plain and simple. That's why I made the tongue-in-cheek remark at the end with the Sepulveda Corridor project with two pots of $$$ one in the SFV for a monorail and Westside deep bore tunnel.

That doesn't mean two separate projects it means that amount represents the share of the subregions overall funds that are going to that project.

This fundamental "bottoms-up" was central to getting Measure M passed and it has been fundamental in the moves that has been made over the last few years with keeping projects moving despite cost-overages in the estimations or when going out to bid. So far it has always been initiated by the COGs not the Board.

All the Board does is ratifies what the COG wants to do if the color of monies are kosher.

In terms of the New Starts guidelines, it is unlikely that a spur would jeopardize the qualification. First off, the New Starts grant applications are per phased built (there were 3 awards for Purple Line, each phase evaluated separately). We already have the analysis for the La Brea option and it already should perform better than WSAB, which was recently analyzed as medium-high based on lower ridership (50,000-60,000 weekly ridership for WSAB versus 87,000 for La Brea) and $2-3 billion more than the estimated cost for fully underground La Brea alignment ($7 billion estimated cost for WSAB versus $4.3 billion for La Brea underground).

Because once you do ridership modeling for BOTH alignments for a spur and La Brea corridor for the costs one will be sacrificed for the other in terms of FTA Cost-effectiveness and considering that Metro is going after Federal $$$ for this project, WSAB and Sepulveda Pass, now a fourth with this spur and possibly a 5th project if you include a Vermont Avenue corridor that is a lot for FTA/DC to swallow to give to the LA region for a while so Metro has to space this out carefully.

The 2010 analysis of the Pink Line New Starts was that it scored low in terms of cost-effectiveness. They noted that the cost-effectiveness criteria was being changed and they didn't consider other New Starts criteria: media.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/Draft_EIS_EIR/Chapters%205%20thru%208/Chapter%207%20Comparative%20Benefits%20and%20Costs.pdf

Currently, cost-effectiveness is just 16.66% of the New Starts criteria. I would say if a line on one of the top bus corridors (Santa Monica) in America doesn't qualify for the New Starts criteria, there will be few New Starts projects in all of America going forward. A good comparison is the analysis for ESFV on Van Nuys, which as a bus corridor, I believe has about less than half the bus ridership of Santa Monica Blvd. Metro's fuller analysis of ESFV (they didn't just look at one New Starts factor) found that ESFV would get a medium rating. Metro's staff analysis also is conservative, because when they actually apply for grants, Metro does certain things outside of the criteria that the FTA allows for "extra credit" to bump up the actual New Starts rating that they use to evaluate the project.

Metro's analysis is conservative because they are using FTA guidelines.

However I would caution on equating a small segment of the Santa Monica bus corridor compared to the entire alignment of Santa Monica Blvd as a justification for a spur line.

ESFV is predominately along Van Nuys Blvd which is a heavily transit dependent corridor, if Metro went for New Starts money it would score a Medium rating. Also this point just highlights that for what you are trying to accomplish you would need a larger and longer Santa Monica Blvd corridor to make it pan out, which goes right to the heart of why WeHo is concerned about this La Brea + Spur idea.

Plus given that ESFV with a Medium rating would qualify for a New Starts money but Metro is not applying for it. Why do think that is the case? Is it alturism? Or its the realization that they know and will want to bank on completing other projects with non-Federal $$$ to leverage as matches for larger ticket projects like Sepulveda Pass, West Santa Ana, Vermont, a single Crenshaw North alignment etc.

All the things you are saying basically boil down to lack of political support, but it is dressed up in legal sounding arguments that don't actually hold weight. I can accept the argument that there is less political support, but I take issue with the quasi-legal arguments.

First off, the EIR did not say the SR-60 route was impossible. The largest reason was it ended up having no political support except for South El Monte, as Montebello (which had half the stops) decided to support the Washington Blvd. alignment. They could have accommodated Caltrans and already had a plan for the superfund site, but Metro staff made the call to drop it, which was easy to do if Montebello did not support it anyway.

As much as you say it is the COG that decides, there is nothing written under Measure R or Measure M that says the COGs decide. That is the collaborative approach under Phil Washington's tenure, and how they sell that Measure M was able to be passed, by getting COG concurrence, but that wasn't the style under Leahy/Snoble, and it isn't clear that it will always be the case going forward, especially as future revenue from congestion pricing, value capture and the like are not going to be equitably allocated to subregions the way Measure M allocates sales tax revenue. What is clear is that under both Measure R and M, it is the Metro board that decides with no requirement for COG input. There is nothing that says the COGs are given the right to decide how to re-allocate funds. The Measure R/M decennial re-allocation is approved by the Board and the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee, there is no requirement that it comes from the COG. If the Metro board votes to say that the locally preferred alternative for the Crenshaw Northern extension is two lines or a line plus a spur, that's all it takes to get the Measure M funding allocated to the LPA. I invite you to read the "bibles" that are the Measure R and Measure M ordinances.

The Measure M ordinance is clear that the Board can't take away the funding from the Crenshaw Northern extension project, unless the project is considered complete, so even then there is no legal possibility that the Crenshaw Northern extension funds will go to fund the Sepulveda project. There is no likely situation where there will be excess Measure M funds for the Crenshaw Northern extension, especially since the funding is only available starting in 2041, and the project is on the same magnitude of costs as the Sepulveda project.

New Starts doesn't consider unbuilt sections or spurs, it considers what is in front of the FTA at the time of the grant. Each Purple Line phase did not consider that there will be a future phase. When Purple Line Section 1 and Regional Connector were awarded New Starts grants in 2014, they did not consider the Measure M projects that would extend those projects (Purple Line Section 3 or the future Gold extensions). The Metro analysis of New Starts qualification uses FTA criteria but does not include the "extra credit" bumps that they utilize in the final grants. The FTA gives extra credit if you are requesting less than 50% match, and Metro's strategy is to always qualify for this "extra credit":

If the summary local financial commitment rating is rated at least Medium and the CIG share is less than 50 percent of the project’s capital cost (i.e., the project sponsor is providing significant overmatch), then the summary local financial commitment rating will be raised one level.

www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FAST_Updated_Interim_Policy_Guidance_June%20_2016.pdf

They are applying for a grant for ESFV under the FTA's Expedited Project Delivery program, which is already giving BART $1.7 billion. They're probably pursuing this other program because it is supposed to be faster to award and there is a lower gap. They also found Green Line to Torrance to score medium. There is nothing that indicates you need a long Santa Monica line to make a New Starts grant pan out--the most recent New Starts projects that Metro got grants for are: Purple Section 3 (2.5 miles), Purple Section 2 (2.5 miles), and Regional Connector (1.9 miles). Again, the Pink Line already showed that this corridor scored high under most New Starts criteria.

In the past, there has been some leeway in being able to use prior spending to act as the local match for federal grants, but that isn't how it works these days--now they only count spending after a project has entered into the New Starts process. If you have followed some of the discussion regarding WSAB, Metro staff has said they want to do a lot of "early works" activities such as utility relocation and freight relocation, and they encountered issues with this with the FTA, because that spending might not count towards the local match for a New Starts grant if it is done too early before the project has gone through the New Starts process. The same issue occurred with the delay in the grant for Purple Line Section 3--Metro needed to ask the FTA if it was okay to incur costs before the grant was awarded: boardarchives.metro.net/BoardBox/2018/180920_LONP_Update.pdf

They will also be pursuing federal funds for the new Inglewood line because the directors voted to ask staff to do so.

[JerardWright]

May 4, 2021 2:30:08 GMT -8 numble said:

In the past, there has been some leeway in being able to use prior spending to act as the local match for federal grants, but that isn't how it works these days--now they only count spending after a project has entered into the New Starts process. If you have followed some of the discussion regarding WSAB, Metro staff has said they want to do a lot of "early works" activities such as utility relocation and freight relocation, and they encountered issues with this with the FTA, because that spending might not count towards the local match for a New Starts grant if it is done too early before the project has gone through the New Starts process. The same issue occurred with the delay in the grant for Purple Line Section 3--Metro needed to ask the FTA if it was okay to incur costs before the grant was awarded: boardarchives.metro.net/BoardBox/2018/180920_LONP_Update.pdf

They will also be pursuing federal funds for the new Inglewood line because the directors voted to ask staff to do so.

I have followed that discussion and many other discussions on the other big ticket Metro projects that are looking for FTA New Starts, which is why I am cautioning a lot of your arguments, though a lot of new pots of money are available they still count for and against going after the larger Full Funding Grant Agreements which a whole slew of our projects need.

Which is alot of why my "quasi sounding legal arguments aren't passing your logic test" but the political reality is in order to make the move you are claiming you can do with La Brea + Spur. You still need the support of West Hollywood leaders, the Westside COG support and at least 7 votes on the Metro Board, if you want it to stick you need at least 9 Metro Board of Directors to make up a 2/3rds vote.

Do you have any of that?

Oh you don't, then political will from the public to include this idea for further conversations will not matter if the key leaders in West Hollywood who are part of that Westside COG and have spearheaded advancing this study conversation don't see this strategy working for them nor are convinced that the financing moves you are laying out will pass the smell test.

[numble]

May 4, 2021 16:35:57 GMT -8 JerardWright said:

May 4, 2021 2:30:08 GMT -8 numble said:

In the past, there has been some leeway in being able to use prior spending to act as the local match for federal grants, but that isn't how it works these days--now they only count spending after a project has entered into the New Starts process. If you have followed some of the discussion regarding WSAB, Metro staff has said they want to do a lot of "early works" activities such as utility relocation and freight relocation, and they encountered issues with this with the FTA, because that spending might not count towards the local match for a New Starts grant if it is done too early before the project has gone through the New Starts process. The same issue occurred with the delay in the grant for Purple Line Section 3--Metro needed to ask the FTA if it was okay to incur costs before the grant was awarded: boardarchives.metro.net/BoardBox/2018/180920_LONP_Update.pdf

They will also be pursuing federal funds for the new Inglewood line because the directors voted to ask staff to do so.

I have followed that discussion and many other discussions on the other big ticket Metro projects that are looking for FTA New Starts, which is why I am cautioning a lot of your arguments, though a lot of new pots of money are available they still count for and against going after the larger Full Funding Grant Agreements which a whole slew of our projects need.

Which is alot of why my "quasi sounding legal arguments aren't passing your logic test" but the political reality is in order to make the move you are claiming you can do with La Brea + Spur. You still need the support of West Hollywood leaders, the Westside COG support and at least 7 votes on the Metro Board, if you want it to stick you need at least 9 Metro Board of Directors to make up a 2/3rds vote.

Do you have any of that?

Oh you don't, then political will from the public to include this idea for further conversations will not matter if the key leaders in West Hollywood who are part of that Westside COG and have spearheaded advancing this study conversation don't see this strategy working for them nor are convinced that the financing moves you are laying out will pass the smell test.

I've said before if the argument is just lack of political support, I can accept that argument.

Most of my "arguments" that you are "cautioning" are just my counterarguments and explanation against misleading claims you've raised, which you always then boil back down to political support, which I haven't objected to.

The whole point of what transit advocates are doing is to try to raise community and political support for their ideas on top of the support that exists from transit professionals. But they won't even try if they believe people that try to shut down their efforts with bogus arguments about how the "rules" make their idea legally impossible.

[JerardWright]

May 4, 2021 20:32:44 GMT -8 numble said:

May 4, 2021 16:35:57 GMT -8 JerardWright said:

I have followed that discussion and many other discussions on the other big ticket Metro projects that are looking for FTA New Starts, which is why I am cautioning a lot of your arguments, though a lot of new pots of money are available they still count for and against going after the larger Full Funding Grant Agreements which a whole slew of our projects need.

Which is alot of why my "quasi sounding legal arguments aren't passing your logic test" but the political reality is in order to make the move you are claiming you can do with La Brea + Spur. You still need the support of West Hollywood leaders, the Westside COG support and at least 7 votes on the Metro Board, if you want it to stick you need at least 9 Metro Board of Directors to make up a 2/3rds vote.

Do you have any of that?

Oh you don't, then political will from the public to include this idea for further conversations will not matter if the key leaders in West Hollywood who are part of that Westside COG and have spearheaded advancing this study conversation don't see this strategy working for them nor are convinced that the financing moves you are laying out will pass the smell test.

I've said before if the argument is just lack of political support, I can accept that argument.

Most of my "arguments" that you are "cautioning" are just my counterarguments and explanation against misleading claims you've raised, which you always then boil back down to political support, which I haven't objected to.

The whole point of what transit advocates are doing is to try to raise community and political support for their ideas on top of the support that exists from transit professionals. But they won't even try if they believe people that try to shut down their efforts with bogus arguments about how the "rules" make their idea legally impossible.

This is political but it is also financial, this is also logical.

How are you raising this awareness to the very groups using that citations that you mentioned that you need support from -that you are ignorantly claiming you don't need- to move it through first to the West Hollywood City Council, then the Westside Cities COG and ultimately the Metro Board?

Do you have a petition of West Hollywood residents through a website? Do you have a coalition of local businesses in West Hollywood who support this La Brea + Spur? This is the political dance that will show that this idea could be placed in consideration for future study while backing it up with a real financial game plan especially if your main hypothesis of this is based on one of the misleading and false assumption that each COG has a separate Measure M pot for a project and it can do with it whatever it wants with it as a separate project at anytime without the "legal rules" of an Environmental Document that spells out what the community and local leaders want to do and how to refine the project or the ordinance and administrative rules (which embeds strong communication with the COGs) that govern how to spend the money or support from the governing Metro Board that ratifies the recommendations for the projects.

Personally I would have taken a different approach to solve the issues stated in the Scoping/AA portion within the EIR and end the long walk to transfer this line to the Purple Line at Wilshire/La Cienega which eliminated the La Cienega alternatives in the first place. Had the La Cienega alternative continue south of Wilshire then turn under La Cienega Park continue tunneling under Olympic to San Vicente and continue the line this way. There at least that Wilshire/La Cienega connection is saved, thus the spur idea has more legs because it stays within the confines of the existing extension corridor with some future visioning room to look at extending it south down La Cienega towards Venice Blvd and points west down Venice Blvd that so many on here considered and start building momentum at this as a new future corridor that will need to be considered in a future LRTP.

Oh yeah that reminds me...CLICK HERE

This is not to stop ideas from occurring, The whole part of this back and forth is to fine tune an idea and sharpen some flaws in the arguments to improve upon it.

There were many a time during the discussion boards where this forum was the very sounding board to bounce ideas off of, improve them, refine them and present them to the elected leaders. In fact it was when that Purple Line spur through West Hollywood was eliminated in 2009-2010 that Transit Coalition along with Sierra Club, I believe Darrell Clarke's posts are still here that communicated with key Congressional leaders (Congresswoman Diane Watson) and County leaders (Supervisor MRT and Zev) to start visioning how would you repurpose that HRT segment into the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line that we are talking about today.

[bzcat]

Let's turn the heat down a bit here... People have ideas and strong opinions but this is why the message board exists - to discuss them.

And I think we all acknowledge the hard work that people have done and WEHO interests in particular have invested many years of ground work to get the old subway spur repurposed as Crenshaw Northern extension. But we can also acknowledge that the result - the hybrid alignment is a compromise. Whether you believe this compromise is "good enough" is opinion - which will be validated one way or another through the EIR process.

I have no opinion on the political feasibility of the spur per se. I think if the spur was included in the EIR and it performed the best, there will be political support for it.

What I'm afraid of is that EIR will show hybrid not performing as well as WEHO backers think it will. And if hybrid gets tossed, the entire Crenshaw Northern alliance falls apart. I think WEHO is too fixated on their preferred hybrid alignment and they have discounted the possibility that their alignment may not end up being the locally preferred alignment. What is the plan B if La Brea came out strongest in the DEIR? Wouldn't WEHO wish they had the spur as the backup option going into FEIR?

[andert]

Definitely, the purpose of adding the spur to the EIR is for it to be *studied*, to give us the data we need to intelligently discuss it and build coalitions around it. Hell, even an extension north to wilshire/vermont was originally studied, which was NEVER going to happen. Any alternative that has a chance of being the best-performing should at least be given the time of day in the study, that's simply responsible due diligence, and we should accept nothing less from the government that we fund. People should not be trying to torpedo responsible fact-finding.

[bzcat]

Maybe we are thinking about this in the wrong way...

What if the spur is forked going north instead of going south?

Instead of a short line from Hollywood/Highland to La Cienega via SMB, the alignment is actually:

1. South Bay to Hollywood/Highland (Hollywood Bowl?)
2. Norwalk to Santa Monica/La Cienega

If built like that, it would be a true spur and no one can say that it is a "new line". Also forked going north may work even better on Fairfax which is more acceptable for WEHO than La Brea.

However, WEHO to DTLA via B (Red) line will need an extra transfer at La Brea (or Fairfax) but we can still preserve the junction for the SMB segment going further east eventually. This also solves the imbalance of stage length in service operation but it will come at the expense of frequency on each of the two northern spurs which may actually be the sections that generates the most ridership on the entire Crenshaw line. So it has both pros and cons.

[numble]

May 6, 2021 16:24:04 GMT -8 JerardWright said:

May 4, 2021 20:32:44 GMT -8 numble said:

I've said before if the argument is just lack of political support, I can accept that argument.

Most of my "arguments" that you are "cautioning" are just my counterarguments and explanation against misleading claims you've raised, which you always then boil back down to political support, which I haven't objected to.

The whole point of what transit advocates are doing is to try to raise community and political support for their ideas on top of the support that exists from transit professionals. But they won't even try if they believe people that try to shut down their efforts with bogus arguments about how the "rules" make their idea legally impossible.

This is political but it is also financial, this is also logical.

How are you raising this awareness to the very groups using that citations that you mentioned that you need support from -that you are ignorantly claiming you don't need- to move it through first to the West Hollywood City Council, then the Westside Cities COG and ultimately the Metro Board?

Do you have a petition of West Hollywood residents through a website, Do you have a coalition of local businesses in West Hollywood who support this La Brea + Spur? This is the political dance that will show that this idea could be placed in consideration for future study while backing it up with a real financial game plan especially if your main hypothesis of this is based on one of the misleading assumption that each COG has a separate Measure M pot for a project and it can do with it whatever it wants with it as a separate project at anytime without the "rules" of an Environmental Document that spells out what the community and local leaders want to do and how to refine the project or the ordinance and administrative rules (which embeds strong communication with the COGs) that govern how to spend the money or support from the governing Metro Board that ratifies the recommendations for the projects.

Personally I would have taken a different approach to solve the issues stated in the Scoping/AA portion within the EIR and end the long walk to transfer this line to the Purple Line at Wilshire/La Cienega which eliminated the La Cienega alternatives in the first place. Had the La Cienega alternative continue south of Wilshire then turn under La Cienega Park continue tunneling under Olympic to San Vicente and continue the line this way. There at least that Wilshire/La Cienega connection is saved, thus the spur idea has more legs because it stays within the confines of the existing extension corridor with some future visioning room to look at extending it south down La Cienega towards Venice Blvd and points west down Venice Blvd that so many on here considered and start building momentum at this as a new future corridor that will need to be considered in a future LRTP.

Oh yeah that reminds me...CLICK HERE

This is not to stop ideas from occurring, The whole part of this back and forth is to fine tune an idea and sharpen some flaws in the arguments to improve upon it. There were many a time during the old discussion boards where this forum was the very sounding board to bounce ideas off of, improve them, refine them and present them to the elected leaders. In fact it was when that Purple Line spur through West Hollywood was eliminated in 2009-2010 that Transit Coalition along with Sierra Club, I believe Darrell Clarke's posts are still here that communicated with key Congressional leaders (Congresswoman Diane Watson) and County leaders (Supervisor MRT and Zev) to start visioning how would you repurpose that HRT segment into the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line that we are talking about today.

I am not disputing the need for political support, this is maybe my third post saying so.

The reason I engaged with you in the first place was because you made other claims that were not based on political support, such as a claim that Westside COG would want to take the Crenshaw North Measure M funds (which aren't available until the 2040s) to fund the Sepulveda corridor gap, something that the Measure M ordinance doesn't allow unless the Crenshaw North is considered finished. Yes, some of those claims also had undertones of arguments about political support, such as me explaining it isn't required for the Metro board to only do what COGs say (even though it is the most politically expedient) which may have created confusion for what you thought I was saying.

The people are just asking for this to be studied in the Crenshaw North EIR. The Hybrid route is a hybrid of the old San Vicente option and the Fairfax option, and this spur idea is just a different hybrid route combining part of the La Brea alternative with Northern parts of the Fairfax/Hybrid alternatives. The Alternatives Analysis for "Crenshaw North" included an analysis of a East/West subway on Olympic Blvd., the Purple Line EIRs studied spurs, the WSAB EIR started out studying a line that only connected to Union Station, and Metro added additional alternatives to 7th/Metro and Pershing Square (and also an alternative that included extending the Red/Purple Lines to the Arts District) based on public comments during the EIR scoping period CLICK HERE, so there shouldn't be an legal prohibitions to potentially adding this to the EIR.

[fissure]

May 7, 2021 7:34:32 GMT -8 bzcat said:

Maybe we are thinking about this in the wrong way...

What if the spur is forked going north instead of going south?

Instead of a short line from Hollywood/Highland to La Cienega via SMB, the alignment is actually:

1. South Bay to Hollywood/Highland (Hollywood Bowl?)
2. Norwalk to Santa Monica/La Cienega

If built like that, it would be a true spur and no one can say that it is a "new line". Also forked going north may work even better on Fairfax which is more acceptable for WEHO than La Brea.

However, WEHO to DTLA via B (Red) line will need an extra transfer at La Brea (or Fairfax) but we can still preserve the junction for the SMB segment going further east eventually. This also solves the imbalance of stage length in service operation but it will come at the expense of frequency on each of the two northern spurs which may actually be the sections that generates the most ridership on the entire Crenshaw line. So it has both pros and cons.

I am very much in favor of building the spur from the south, though I'm not sure I've ever written it out anywhere. In any sane city, you could build above ground on San Vicente at least until Burton splits off, and that would make it much cheaper than coming from the north.

That said, I don't think the at-grade crossings between LAX and Leimert Park can handle that level of traffic, so you'd have to either run it as a shuttle to Rimpau or short-turn trains at Leimert Park (La Brea makes more sense for the through traffic, IMHO).

If you have this spur, it fits in very well with the next east-west lines you'd want to build: Santa Monica and Venice, with San Vicente trains continuing east on both to make a loop towards downtown. Both boulevards are very wide west of the intersection point, which means they may be able to be built more cheaply and therefore will be more cost-effective as a branch of a subway line. My head-crayon has it forming a Yamanote-style loop through downtown, but continuing east as separate lines would be reasonable too.

[numble]

At the 3:50 mark of this video, there is a long presentation and discussion of the Crenshaw Northern Extension project to one of Metro's advisory subcommittees. I haven't watched the whole thing, but it might give some insight on current thinking. I saw a section where they explained that the San Vicente at-grade option was not very popular at the scoping meetings, for instance.

playback.lifesize.com/#/publicvideo/c43971b2-9fc7-4715-8562-7fc486629bc8?vcpubtoken=5074df9c-7b7a-4755-bdaf-2df53d7d589e

[bzcat]

The general sense of the video that I get is that Metro likes Fairfax but WEHO wants hybrid. No stakeholders in the study area really want La Brea. The implication is riders from outside the study area (i.e. commuters) will like La Brea but no one is going to speak for them so f' them...

Also seems like Hollywood Bowl station is a done deal due to ability to stage construction away from Hollywood/Highland.

One encouraging aspect, Metro is thinking the transfer to Purple line station at Fairfax will be high volume - comparable to 7th St Metrocenter. They are already looking at transfer quality which they never considered for Crenshaw phase 1 that resulted in the ridiculous Expo to Crenshaw out of station transfer.

[Dan Wentzel]

May 21, 2021 17:57:38 GMT -8 bzcat said:

The general sense of the video that I get is that Metro likes Fairfax but WEHO wants hybrid. No stakeholders in the study area really want La Brea. The implication is riders from outside the study area (i.e. commuters) will like La Brea but no one is going to speak for them so f' them...

Also seems like Hollywood Bowl station is a done deal due to ability to stage construction away from Hollywood/Highland.

One encouraging aspect, Metro is thinking the transfer to Purple line station at Fairfax will be high volume - comparable to 7th St Metrocenter. They are already looking at transfer quality which they never considered for Crenshaw phase 1 that resulted in the ridiculous Expo to Crenshaw out of station transfer.

The La Brea alignment is only three minutes faster than Fairfax alignment and misses all of the major destination points in this area. ALL OF THEM. With only a three-minute time difference for the Fairfax alignment and only an eight-minute difference for the Hybrid, I don't even see La Brea as the "speed" option, but as merely a "bypass" option instead. I see no valid argument for building a Metrorail stop serving two gas stations and a car rental at Beverly & La Brea instead of a popular one at The Grove / Farmer's Market / Television City. And, good luck getting past Hancock Park NIMBYs any major upzoning of La Brea if that is what some people are thinking as justification for bypassing all of the other ridership destinations in the area.

This K-Line extension is not merely a "bypass" line for people traveling through the area between Hollywood and LAX. This line also needs to serve the people traveling to/from/within Mid-City West, Beverly Grove, West Hollywood, and it needs to serve at least some of the major destinations in the area, particularly as that is what Metro advertised in its scoping meetings as the purpose of this extension.

The problem with this whole concept of a "spur" line is that it is way too easy for anyone to see how it would never actually get built, leaving the area with just a "bypass" line on La Brea, which was the least popular option from the community meetings by far. Does anyone really think that Metro and the rest of the county are going to fund TWO subways in this area north of the D-Line?

Of course, the City of West Hollywood and Mid-City West are going to advocate for the maximal service Hybrid line.

Spur proponents would have more luck by advocating a "Fairfax plus spur" option. At least some of the big destinations would be served by a main north-south line on Fairfax, and the City of West Hollywood would get at least get one rail stop within its borders.

[bluelineshawn]

Aug 13, 2021 12:17:48 GMT -8 Dan Wentzel said:

May 21, 2021 17:57:38 GMT -8 bzcat said:

The general sense of the video that I get is that Metro likes Fairfax but WEHO wants hybrid. No stakeholders in the study area really want La Brea. The implication is riders from outside the study area (i.e. commuters) will like La Brea but no one is going to speak for them so f' them...

Also seems like Hollywood Bowl station is a done deal due to ability to stage construction away from Hollywood/Highland.

One encouraging aspect, Metro is thinking the transfer to Purple line station at Fairfax will be high volume - comparable to 7th St Metrocenter. They are already looking at transfer quality which they never considered for Crenshaw phase 1 that resulted in the ridiculous Expo to Crenshaw out of station transfer.

The La Brea alignment is only three minutes faster than Fairfax alignment and misses all of the major destination points in this area. ALL OF THEM. With only a three-minute time difference for the Fairfax alignment and only an eight-minute difference for the Hybrid, I don't even see La Brea as the "speed" option, but as merely a "bypass" option instead. I see no valid argument for building a Metrorail stop serving two gas stations and a car rental at Beverly & La Brea instead of a popular one at The Grove / Farmer's Market / Television City. And, good luck getting past Hancock Park NIMBYs any major upzoning of La Brea if that is what some people are thinking as justification for bypassing all of the other ridership destinations in the area.

This K-Line extension is not merely a "bypass" line for people traveling through the area between Hollywood and LAX. This line also needs to serve the people traveling to/from/within Mid-City West, Beverly Grove, West Hollywood, and it needs to serve at least some of the major destinations in the area, particularly as that is what Metro advertised in its scoping meetings as the purpose of this extension.

The problem with this whole concept of a "spur" line is that it is way too easy for anyone to see how it would never actually get built, leaving the area with just a "bypass" line on La Brea, which was the least popular option from the community meetings by far. Does anyone really think that Metro and the rest of the county are going to fund TWO subways in this area north of the D-Line?

Of course, the City of West Hollywood and Mid-City West are going to advocate for the maximal service Hybrid line.

Spur proponents would have more luck by advocating a "Fairfax plus spur" option. At least some of the big destinations would be served by a main north-south line on Fairfax, and the City of West Hollywood would get at least get one rail stop within its borders.

Not directed at you in particular, but I find much of rail advocacy - even at the most informed levels such as yourself - to be focused on the past, the present, and the immediate future. There is no doubt that La Brea would change radically in just a few years if it had a rail line. It's already changing, but that would accelerate astronomically if rail were to come. And it has the opportunity to have rail-focused destinations rather than the auto-oriented destinations on Fairfax. Not that La Brea is my preference, but I do wish that people would look at what's happening along expo and realize that's what's going to happen everywhere with rail. Everywhere west of the 110 at least.

La Brea has as much or more potential as anywhere being proposed. Rail lines should be built to serve the future at least as much as the present.

[fissure]

May 21, 2021 17:57:38 GMT -8 bzcat said:

Also seems like Hollywood Bowl station is a done deal due to ability to stage construction away from Hollywood/Highland.

I hope this is actually true and not just hype. I didn't expect it to pencil out.

Adding another park & ride for people travelling over the hill means Valley politicians have a reason to support it. Maybe we can develop the Universal City lots without too much "noooo they're stealing my parking", and fix the awkward 1950s geometry of the Highland offramp from 101 South (have it branch off closer to the intersection and touch down as a left merge where the bus parking currently is).

[culvercitylocke]

No matter how good Fairfax is (3% more riders a day, iirc?) it just isn't worth the expected cost of 1 billion to 1.5 billion to build a Wilshire Fairfax subway station beneath the purple line Wilshire/Fairfax station at an intersection with terrible geometry, inadequete street widths, a historic landmark shack, a skyscraper and two museum stakeholders at the corners. And when you combine that with the extremely contentious geology of the area as well as the oil extraction history and problems that added 1 year delay and a hundred million in overages to the purple line (tunneling in this area was extremely slow and difficult and the crescent heights oil well mitigations were massive and seemingly endless, in addition to the more well publicized anomalies at la cienega)

Not to mention 1 to 1.5 billion in expected costs for the Crenshaw north station at fairfax would be for a two or three-car consist light rail station whose train frequency is constrained by the grade crossings of the crenshaw phase 1 portion. So even more of a waste to spend that amount of money for low capacity frequency constrained light rail, you could build the entire ESFV for the cost of what that one station will cost.

[Dan Wentzel]

Aug 13, 2021 15:57:53 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

Aug 13, 2021 12:17:48 GMT -8 Dan Wentzel said:

The La Brea alignment is only three minutes faster than Fairfax alignment and misses all of the major destination points in this area. ALL OF THEM. With only a three-minute time difference for the Fairfax alignment and only an eight-minute difference for the Hybrid, I don't even see La Brea as the "speed" option, but as merely a "bypass" option instead. I see no valid argument for building a Metrorail stop serving two gas stations and a car rental at Beverly & La Brea instead of a popular one at The Grove / Farmer's Market / Television City. And, good luck getting past Hancock Park NIMBYs any major upzoning of La Brea if that is what some people are thinking as justification for bypassing all of the other ridership destinations in the area.

This K-Line extension is not merely a "bypass" line for people traveling through the area between Hollywood and LAX. This line also needs to serve the people traveling to/from/within Mid-City West, Beverly Grove, West Hollywood, and it needs to serve at least some of the major destinations in the area, particularly as that is what Metro advertised in its scoping meetings as the purpose of this extension.

The problem with this whole concept of a "spur" line is that it is way too easy for anyone to see how it would never actually get built, leaving the area with just a "bypass" line on La Brea, which was the least popular option from the community meetings by far. Does anyone really think that Metro and the rest of the county are going to fund TWO subways in this area north of the D-Line?

Of course, the City of West Hollywood and Mid-City West are going to advocate for the maximal service Hybrid line.

Spur proponents would have more luck by advocating a "Fairfax plus spur" option. At least some of the big destinations would be served by a main north-south line on Fairfax, and the City of West Hollywood would get at least get one rail stop within its borders.

Not directed at you in particular, but I find much of rail advocacy - even at the most informed levels such as yourself - to be focused on the past, the present, and the immediate future. There is no doubt that La Brea would change radically in just a few years if it had a rail line. It's already changing, but that would accelerate astronomically if rail were to come. And it has the opportunity to have rail-focused destinations rather than the auto-oriented destinations on Fairfax. Not that La Brea is my preference, but I do wish that people would look at what's happening along expo and realize that's what's going to happen everywhere with rail. Everywhere west of the 110 at least.

La Brea has as much or more potential as anywhere being proposed. Rail lines should be built to serve the future at least as much as the present.

And there is no evidence or reason to believe that La Brea will ever be upzoned for that "potential". Good luck to anyone trying to get a mega project past Hancock Park that is comparable with The Grove / Television City or Beverly Center / Cedar Sinai at Beverly & La Brea.

[Dan Wentzel]

Aug 17, 2021 9:22:33 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

No matter how good Fairfax is (3% more riders a day, iirc?) it just isn't worth the expected cost of 1 billion to 1.5 billion to build a Wilshire Fairfax subway station beneath the purple line Wilshire/Fairfax station at an intersection with terrible geometry, inadequete street widths, a historic landmark shack, a skyscraper and two museum stakeholders at the corners. And when you combine that with the extremely contentious geology of the area as well as the oil extraction history and problems that added 1 year delay and a hundred million in overages to the purple line (tunneling in this area was extremely slow and difficult and the crescent heights oil well mitigations were massive and seemingly endless, in addition to the more well publicized anomalies at la cienega)

Not to mention 1 to 1.5 billion in expected costs for the Crenshaw north station at fairfax would be for a two or three-car consist light rail station whose train frequency is constrained by the grade crossings of the crenshaw phase 1 portion. So even more of a waste to spend that amount of money for low capacity frequency constrained light rail, you could build the entire ESFV for the cost of what that one station will cost.

Metro seems pretty excited about the potential of that transfer station at Fairfax & Wilshire.

Imagine telling stakeholders in the area. "Sorry, we are bypassing all the destinations you want us to go to because of 'geometry'." Putting the K-Line on La Brea is like running the A-Line on Alameda, which would be great geometry that unfortunately bypasses the core of downtown.

[culvercitylocke]

yes, but other than 7th/metro, has metro ever designed a successful transfer station? this would probably be as bad as most of the transfers proposed on WSAB.

And of course metro is enthusiastic, a transfer station at Wilshire Fairfax will cost as much to construct as an entire LRT line will cost, from the white collar jobs security perspective and also from the perspective of added potential opportunities to the corrupt ladder to the contractors there's a TON of potential benefit to purposely creating a 1-1.5 billion dollar boondoggle station at Wilshire Fairfax instead of putting their ridership first with a La Brea routing.

[Dan Wentzel]

Aug 24, 2021 14:30:34 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

putting their ridership first with a La Brea routing.

That is an opinion that a La Brea alignment would be "putting their ridership first." Based on feedback to Metro, the potential ridership does not agree with that opinion.

There is one more point here about this study area.

Both La Brea and La Cienega are listed as future BRT corridors. My prediction is that Metro will end up splitting the difference between those who want speed on La Brea and access on the Hybrid and go with Fairfax as the political compromise that everyone can live with even if they are not thrilled, and have a project on all three corridors.



I also think the original Red Line planning haunts this upcoming decision. Fairfax was the original plan for the Red Line alignment and this project gives them a second bite of that apple.

[fissure]

Fairfax is narrow for an LA arterial except the part in WeHo (which is very wide: 115 feet between property lines to La Brea's ~100), so it has little potential as a BRT corridor. I do think putting a station on Sunset instead of trying to fit a station into the curve at Fairfax/Santa Monica is the right call.

They might have to tear up part of the historic CBS parking lot to build the station at Beverly. The horror.

[bzcat]

Sept 11, 2021 16:20:56 GMT -8 Dan Wentzel said:

Aug 24, 2021 14:30:34 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

putting their ridership first with a La Brea routing.

That is an opinion that a La Brea alignment would be "putting their ridership first." Based on feedback to Metro, the potential ridership does not agree with that opinion.

There is one more point here about this study area.

Both La Brea and La Cienega are listed as future BRT corridors. My prediction is that Metro will end up splitting the difference between those who want speed on La Brea and access on the Hybrid and go with Fairfax as the political compromise that everyone can live with even if they are not thrilled, and have a project on all three corridors.


I also think the original Red Line planning haunts this upcoming decision. Fairfax was the original plan for the Red Line alignment and this project gives them a second bite of that apple.

I predicted that Fairfax compromise years ago in this thread. It's a compromise I can live with.

[Dan Wentzel]

The City of West Hollywood has released its station proposals for the northern extension of the K.

Website is here: metro.weho.org/





There are pages for Beverly & Cedar Sinai and Santa Monica & San Vicente as well.

[expo]

I got an email from Metro on the results of the scoping comments. It doesn't sound especially likely that they'll add the spur to the EIR, but fingers crossed.

"Below is a summary of verbal and written comments yielding a total of 217 comments resulting from three virtual scoping meetings.


Date
Oral
Written
Total

Public Scoping Meeting #1
April 29
24
16
40

Public Scoping Meeting #2
May 6
45
62
107

Public Scoping Meeting #3
May 8
33
37
70


Total
102
115
217


423 comments were also gathered via email and the hotline during the scoping period, which spanned the following categories:
Support for the Fairfax/San Vicente (Hybrid) alignment – 201
Opposition to the Fairfax/San Vicente (Hybrid) alignment – 3
Support for the Fairfax alignment – 11
Support for the Fairfax or Fairfax/San Vicente (Hybrid) alignment – 5
Support for the La Brea alignment – 29
Alternative suggestions which did not fall under any of the previous alignments – 88
La Brea alignment with a Santa Monica spur – 18

General themes of comments included:
Project Acceleration – Many members of the public want the project to be built sooner than the Measure M date. They feel that this project is long overdue, and Metro should do everything possible to expedite the process.
Environment – Most people think this project will benefit the environment. Very few felt that it would impact the environment negatively.
Traffic Impacts – Some people think construction will cause a lot of traffic considering the number of years it will take to complete. Few think the train itself will cause traffic. Most think the project will alleviate current traffic problems once it’s built.
Grade Separations – People want the project to be built underground, especially if the alignment chosen ends up being the Fairfax/San Vicente (Hybrid) option. Reasons mentioned were lack of consideration of area residents, the idea of an above-ground alignment destroying the community greenspace in the median, and devaluation of property.
Cost/Funding - Many highlighted the importance of benefit-to-cost ratio and how that needs to be factored into the decision-making process. Several comments mentioned being opposed to the Fairfax/San Vicente (Hybrid) alignment because of higher costs. People also made it known that the project would require additional funding beyond funding identified in Measure M.
Travel Time – Most people who supported the La Brea alignment noted that it would allow for faster, more efficient travel between the Metro E (Expo) Line and the Metro B (Red) Line at Hollywood/Highland. Some people said the Fairfax/San Vicente (Hybrid) alignment was long and some might choose other modes of travel.
Access to Jobs - People addressed the importance of job accessibility, noting the higher number of jobs served by the longer alignments including the Fairfax/San Vicente (Hybrid) alignment. Some would like to see an increase in job opportunities upon completion of the project.

Metro continues to refine the alternatives based on the input heard during scoping, as well as additional technical analysis. The project team is now working on the conceptual design drawings for the station locations and entrances. We look forward to hosting public workshops in 2022 to share information and gather more input on the project."

[numble]

May 2022 update on Crenshaw Northern extension. The community actually was able to get Metro to study the "La Brea + Santa Monica spur" concept. Metro however concluded that there were too many issues and does not recommend proceeding with further study of it in the EIR. They also concluded to remove the aerial/at-grade San Vicente segment from further study and remove the La Cienega/Santa Monica station from further study.

Link to tweet.