|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Dec 11, 2007 16:40:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Dec 11, 2007 17:39:45 GMT -8
The Westside hasn't been given enough money? Hey, people have tried, so what do they have to complain about? If they want more money, then they have to quash the NIMBY's.
|
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Dec 11, 2007 20:09:29 GMT -8
The station would have had to be aerial eventually because there is no way Expo is crossing the Venice/Washington/Robertson intersection at grade. The station they were going to build for Culver City was supposed to just be an interim station until they built an aerial station with Phase 2 but since we got the Prop 1B (I think thats what it was) money they decided to build it now. In fact, this actually saves money since we wouldnt have to build an interim station that would just be torn down anyway, hence we are giving less money to the Westside than we would have
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 11, 2007 22:09:52 GMT -8
Antonio is absolutely right, and I have personally been very LOUD representing the West L.A. neighbors to advocate for this station as well. Both the Neighborhood Councils of Mar Vista and Del Rey voted unanimously in favor of including this station in Phase 1...and not the Wesley Street interim station.
|
|
|
|
Post by gibiscus on Dec 12, 2007 18:14:05 GMT -8
So is this station going to be north or south of Washington?
|
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Dec 12, 2007 20:05:16 GMT -8
It is west of Washington, which at this point is running diagonal to the typical north south axis, but since Washington is in general an east-west street it could be considered north of Washington. One end of the station opens up to Washington south of where it meets National while the other opens up to Venice where it meets Robertson
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Dec 12, 2007 20:30:44 GMT -8
It is west of Washington, which at this point is running diagonal to the typical north south axis, but since Washington is in general an east-west street it could be considered north of Washington. One end of the station opens up to Washington south of where it meets National while the other opens up to Venice where it meets Robertson So the west end of Expo Phase I will be directly across from the Del Taco on the acute corner of Venice/Robertson. I used to eat at that Del Taco a lot and never knew that a future passenger rail line will pass through. The elevated section should span all the way across Venice too, right? This would make it easy to access the 33/333 to Venice Beach. |
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Dec 12, 2007 21:04:24 GMT -8
I was also wondering this so I checked the Expo FEIR/FEIS and the tracks end right at the east edge of Venice. I assume that this is because the Phase II routing is not certain yet (though the success of the ROW looks likely) and the elevated would have to turn onto Venice. Since the MTA owns a fairly wide amount of ROW just east of Venice the station will go there where a sizable transit plaza would be located. It will have 7 bus bays I believe and also 100 daytime parking stalls with 400 or more located acrtoss Venice. So unfortunately one would not have the best access to Venice Beach since Venice Blvd. would need to be crossed with a crosswalk. However its important to note that since there are several major arterials in the area, hence the name Culver Junction (even though it was because of the PE, these arterials came to be because of the lines), the elevated station can't serve both sides of the major street like an elevated station should and normally would (see La Brea and La Cienaga). It is actually well placed between many important streets.
|
|
Adrian Auer-Hudson
Junior Member
Supporter of "Expo Light Rail - Enabler for the Digital Coast".
Posts: 65 
|
Post by Adrian Auer-Hudson on Dec 13, 2007 9:41:14 GMT -8
 Wonderful news! Sanity at last. Thank you to all those who lobbied for this. Adrian
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 13, 2007 22:49:05 GMT -8
Yes, great news.
But just one thing: is there funding for this? Not too long ago, the project was projected to have something like a 25% cost increase. If this is so, then is Phase I even going to make it to Culver Junction?
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 14, 2007 7:39:06 GMT -8
In short...sort of. The Metro Board is pushing for this to come from Prop. 1B funds, and although I'm not sure whether the additional $150 million to catch up with labor/materials inflation is also to come from Prop. 1B funds, it appears that the political will is there.
Expo has very high favoring from the California Transportation Commission, and now has overwhelming support from the Metro Board, so it appears that the political and financial maneuvering needed to get this money there when needed will make it a certainty that the Expo Line will open at Culver Junction in 2010.
There will be a few bumps in the road between here and then, but the overall necessary factor in the mix--political will--appears to be overwhelmingly present.
...and we've got that money from Proposition 1B.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 14, 2007 20:30:51 GMT -8
I'd hate to use all the Prop 1B money for Expo, but at this point we need to get whatever we can done. Not sure if I'll ever see my favorite projects beyond Expo such as Purple Line expansion or the Downtown Connector come to fruition.
Interesting enough I saw that the Republican lawmakers out in the San Gabriel Valley put a clause in one of the transportation bills that says the feds will match 80% of the Gold Line extension to Montclair. Just think if that could have been done for more worthy projects like Expo, DTC, or the Subway to Sea. Those projects won't even get 50% federal funding and are much more worthy. Gotta love our federal government, but also wonder why our local Dems., who are now in power can't get something like this done?
|
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Dec 14, 2007 22:58:37 GMT -8
Yeah, I'd hate to exhaust all our Prop 1B money so quickly, and during a budget deficit... but our politicians have backed us into a corner. Wasteful spending ... for every one of those worthy transportation clauses ... some fool puts in a clause for a highway bridge to nowhere ... tax breaks for oil companies ... a solid gold statue of the pork barrel pig....
We need a super - audit on our local and federal government ... see why so much money does so little... contract to private firms with the lowest bid.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Dec 15, 2007 11:49:50 GMT -8
I think that the Downtown Connector and the GOld Line Foothill will be combined into one project, or at least I heard that somewhere. I think those two are next for funding.
e.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 15, 2007 11:51:43 GMT -8
^ Not the Crenshaw Corridor?
Isn't the list:
1 - Expo Phase II
2 - Crenshaw Corridor
3 - ??
4 - ??
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 15, 2007 12:01:05 GMT -8
I think that the Downtown Connector and the GOld Line Foothill will be combined into one project, or at least I heard that somewhere. I think those two are next for funding. e. I hadn't heard that, but that might work. It doesn't seem like the foothill extension was ever a priority for LACMTA. It's surprising to see it move ahead of Crenshaw, the purple line, and the green line extension based on the previous studies. Although maybe it's not so much that it's higher up the priority list as it is that it's farther along than the others. No need to derail it (pun intended) now. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 15, 2007 12:33:01 GMT -8
^ Not the Crenshaw Corridor? Isn't the list: 1 - Expo Phase II 2 - Crenshaw Corridor 3 - ?? 4 - ?? I think Expo Phase II is next, but I question Crenshaw Corridor being next. I am not sure how this jumped ahead so quickly of everything. When is the Long-Range Plan due out by the MTA? It was supposed to be summer, but I haven't seen it. There are a lot of problems with the Crenshaw Corridor, such as how will it connect to the Purple Line - if it needs to be underground that is a huge cost and why not extend the Purple Line to Fairfax rather than this. We need to finish our current lines (Green Line to the Airport, Purple Line to the Westside, and the DTC) before starting a new line with questionable ridership that will be difficult to build (same issues and community as Expo). I would actually support the Foothill extension if they got all that federal money (80%) and included DTC with it. The Subway to the Sea seems to have lost its momentum. What happened to the Mayor on this? I still think a study needs to be done to show how much oil, pollution, and greenhouse gases a Subway to the Sea would save. If we can afford to throw billions at inefficient corn ethanol, surely we can have projects like this as the economic benefit from reduced congestion would certainly be worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 16, 2007 18:02:26 GMT -8
^ Not the Crenshaw Corridor? Isn't the list: 1 - Expo Phase II 2 - Crenshaw Corridor 3 - ?? 4 - ?? I think Expo Phase II is next, but I question Crenshaw Corridor being next. I am not sure how this jumped ahead so quickly of everything. When is the Long-Range Plan due out by the MTA? It was supposed to be summer, but I haven't seen it. There are a lot of problems with the Crenshaw Corridor, such as how will it connect to the Purple Line - if it needs to be underground that is a huge cost and why not extend the Purple Line to Fairfax rather than this... Here's the simple answer, Green Line to LAX, Wilshire Subway and Downtown Connector aren't close to an EIR compared to Crenshaw Corridor which had a recent MIS in 2003 compared to the other corridors going through the MIS/DEIR process. In addition during the Prop A subway ban those corridors were out of the question in terms of funding for PLANNING and Building the corridors. |
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Dec 16, 2007 19:10:32 GMT -8
I hope this explains a little: AA = Alternatives Analysis EIR = Environmental Impact Report (state) EIS = Environmental Impact Statement (federal) The LRTP has been delayed for many reasons over the last 18 months. It may be back by Spring 2008. 2001 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Gold Line Eastside Extension (under construction) Expo Phase I (under construction) ( Overview) (with final construction bids coming in well above 2002 estimated costs, Build Expo went back to the Metro Board and asked for the inflated costs to be covered, plus funding to add the USC / Expo Park Station and improved interface with the Blue Line. Metro approved this funding in November 2007. To avoid building a temporary station at Venice / Robertson, a decision was made to get Prop. 1B funds to complete the line to Culver City in Phase I. This bond funding could be approved by Spring 2008). 1 - Expo Phase II (EIR/EIS & Preliminary Engineering) 2 - Crenshaw Corridor (undergoing AA & EIR/EIS) (Next project funded) Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority(needs to bring in 20% local match to get 80% Federal Funds; not a Metro project and can get Federal Funds; has local political support; ready to build when funding is in place; requires placement in the 2008 LRTP) 2008 Long Range Plan (Probable) 3 - Downtown Regional Connector (undergoing AA) (not funded) 4 - Westside Extension Transit Corridor (undergoing AA) (not funded, nor on the 2001 LRTP; has many steps to move ahead) 5 - Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 (undergoing AA) 6 - Canoga Transportation Corridor (undergoing EIR) Other projects exist such as the Green Line extension, but that depends upon the creation of the Green Line Construction Authority and funding of the Authority by Los Angeles World Airports. |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 16, 2007 19:54:23 GMT -8
This list is very comprehensive, although it didn't mention that much--maybe most--of the second phase of the Expo Line will be federally-funded as a match for the local/state contribution towards the first phase.
The Gold Line Construction Authority is somewhat of a competing Authority with Metro, although both sides have wisely chosen to move closer together to create a coalition that will get Expo, the DTC and the Foothill Gold Line built together.
Like it or not, the Westside Extension Transit Corridor (a.k.a., the Wilshire Subway) is way, way, way down the list behind all those other light rail lines we've just discussed...including a putative Crenshaw Corridor light rail line that could work very well with a Green Line/LAX extension.
Simply put, however, if we wrap all these light rail lines together, we could achieve combined support for all of them in the next five years if we promoted them all together. Once that's done, it would be clear sailing for a Wilshire project that would now be at the front of the list and which has never stopped being popular with most Angelenos.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Dec 16, 2007 20:13:06 GMT -8
The EIS is the federal requirement (NEPA) and the EIR is the California requirement (CEQA).
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 16, 2007 20:46:37 GMT -8
This list is very comprehensive, although it didn't mention that much--maybe most--of the second phase of the Expo Line will be federally-funded as a match for the local/state contribution towards the first phase. The Gold Line Construction Authority is somewhat of a competing Authority with Metro, although both sides have wisely chosen to move closer together to create a coalition that will get Expo, the DTC and the Foothill Gold Line built together. Like it or not, the Westside Extension Transit Corridor (a.k.a., the Wilshire Subway) is way, way, way down the list behind all those other light rail lines we've just discussed...including a putative Crenshaw Corridor light rail line that could work very well with a Green Line/LAX extension. Simply put, however, if we wrap all these light rail lines together, we could achieve combined support for all of them in the next five years if we promoted them all together. Once that's done, it would be clear sailing for a Wilshire project that would now be at the front of the list and which has never stopped being popular with most Angelenos. Thanks Bart and Ken for the summaries. Very informative. The LA Times certainly doesn't give this type of in between the lines info. Like I said before, it would certainly be nice if we could get any of other worthy (some would say more worthy) projects funded at the same rate as the Foothill extension from the Feds. I wonder how these Reps get this type of funding and would like to know if they could move to the Westside and represent us instead of Waxman who is concerned with other things. It still amazes me that we are going to be building two lines backwards ahead of the necessary ones before them that make them viable. It is like building a freeway system, but not building interchanges. For example, does the Crenshaw Line really make sense with no connection to the Purple Line or the Green Line? Same with Foothill in that the current Gold Line is suffering because of no DTC. We are doing it backwards and when the lines have little ridership, the whole system suffers and support for finishing the necessary connections dries up. Sorry I have seen this story before and just wonder if we will ever have a DTC, Airport Connection, or Subway to the Sea. If we did these projects first, the system would be that much more popular and support for the other lines would be very high. It is a big risk doing the other way regardless of what the politics are. The naysayers will say the system doesn't go key places like LAX, Century City and Westwood and doesn't connect well and will cite low ridership totals. How much did the whole system suffer because the Green Line wasn't connected to LAX originally? People will say these guys don't know what they are doing and why should we support public transit. New revenue sources will be impossible at that point. Just my two cents. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 16, 2007 20:58:36 GMT -8
One more question, which is probably unanswerable at this point, are we going to use all of our Prop 1B money on Expo and Crenshaw or will there be any available for the DTC?
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 16, 2007 22:44:40 GMT -8
Bart's list of the probable order looks great to me although I'd like to see a Vermont heavy rail subway and a green line extension make it on the list somewhere after the top 5. Oh, and some sort of use for the Harbor Subdivision really needs to be somewhere in the mix. It won't be the most heavily traveled, but given the existing infrastructure it could be one of the least inexpensive to build.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 17, 2007 11:31:12 GMT -8
For example, does the Crenshaw Line really make sense with no connection to the Purple Line or the Green Line? Same with Foothill in that the current Gold Line is suffering because of no DTC. We are doing it backwards and when the lines have little ridership, the whole system suffers and support for finishing the necessary connections dries up. As for the Crenshaw Corridor, that line would provide a connection to the Green Line and LAX. And with that line when it's extended north provides ajustifiable reason to extend the Purple Line to at least Wilshire/Fairfax if not further. The fact is we have enough of a system now to where these pieces aren't just pie in the sky ideas they're logical next steps for our transit system and how they're presented and how they relate to each other makes all the difference. In addition, the way the politics is set-up if another County ballot is proposed, we'll need the SG Valley area vote simply because they vote quite often and in larger numbers approx 15-25% of the vote will come down to that area as strange as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 17, 2007 12:40:48 GMT -8
Yeah, I'd hate to exhaust all our Prop 1B money so quickly, and during a budget deficit... but our politicians have backed us into a corner. Wasteful spending ... for every one of those worthy transportation clauses ... some fool puts in a clause for a highway bridge to nowhere ... tax breaks for oil companies ... a solid gold statue of the pork barrel pig.... We need a super - audit on our local and federal government ... see why so much money does so little... contract to private firms with the lowest bid. restore the gawddang car tax (vehicle license fee). I saw in both the L.A. Times and the SacBee that that alone would give us $6 billion. SIX! how many rail lines would that fund? |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 17, 2007 13:29:17 GMT -8
The big fight we'll have for the Crenshaw Line, which to my way of thinking really has a hard time competing for the "what's next after Expo" with the Downtown Connector, is for it to connect to the Green Line. The Crenshaw Line will at the least probably be from Expo to LAX (heck, it could be a Busway, but politically it's gearing up to be a LRT project), but the big question is:
Will "Expo to LAX" be from Expo to Century/Aviation, or Expo to Aviation/Imperial?
My preliminary discussions with Metro officials suggest that the $$$ isn't there to connect the Crenshaw Line northward to the Purple Line, but considering how there are so many legal and technocratic hurdles for the Purple Line I could imagine that a Crenshaw/Purple Line connection would be a problem solved when the entire routing for the Purple Line is determined.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 17, 2007 14:44:25 GMT -8
The big fight we'll have for the Crenshaw Line, which to my way of thinking really has a hard time competing for the "what's next after Expo" with the Downtown Connector, is for it to connect to the Green Line. The Crenshaw Line will at the least probably be from Expo to LAX (heck, it could be a Busway, but politically it's gearing up to be a LRT project), but the big question is:
Will "Expo to LAX" be from Expo to Century/Aviation, or Expo to Aviation/Imperial?
My preliminary discussions with Metro officials suggest that the $$$ isn't there to connect the Crenshaw Line northward to the Purple Line, but considering how there are so many legal and technocratic hurdles for the Purple Line I could imagine that a Crenshaw/Purple Line connection would be a problem solved when the entire routing for the Purple Line is determined.
|
|
Wonderful news! Sanity at last.
