|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 12, 2009 9:09:30 GMT -8
The Metro Board has selected light-rail as the preferred alternative for Crenshaw. The board resolution adopts the staff recommendations. This incorporates three design options into the LPA: Design Option 1: above-grade station at Century/Aviation. Design Option 2: above-grade separation across Manchester. Design Option 4: below-grade from 60th Street to Victoria Avenue. Metro staff will also conduct additional environmental review and engineering for the other three design options: Design Option 3: cut-and-cover on Centinela. Design Option 5: below-grade station at Leimert Park. Design Option 6: below-grade separation at Exposition/Crenshaw. The approved alternative also includes Ridley-Thomas' request for studying underground routing between 48th and 59th Streets, and Knabe's request to remove the El Segundo site from consideration for the maintenance facility. The project now moves into the FEIR stage. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Dec 12, 2009 23:27:59 GMT -8
Was there any issue about whether or not there should be a station at Vernon as well? Is that too close to 48th Street?
I would like to understand the issue here.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 16, 2009 10:47:46 GMT -8
Was there any issue about whether or not there should be a station at Vernon as well? Is that too close to 48th Street? I would like to understand the issue here. Design Option 5 would put a station at Vernon (Leimert Park). This will be studied further in the FEIR. The route as currently proposed includes below-grade rail from 39th Street (a long block north of King) down to 48th Street (two long blocks south of Vernon). I don't think there is any issue with putting a station at Vernon, other than the cost (since it will have to be underground). The proposed route also includes a section underground from 60th Street (south of Slauson) to Victoria (between Crenshaw and Florence). Ridley-Thomas would like to connect these two underground sections. This would require Slauson Station to be underground as well. This would be another expensive addition to the project. An underground station at Leimert (Vernon) is an easier sell than an underground station at Slauson. Leimert Park is a destination and a cultural center. Slauson/Crenshaw is not. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 16, 2009 11:50:59 GMT -8
Here is an outline of the entire route, including grade separations.
- Crenshaw / Exposition
at-grade (proposed underground, Design Option 6)
- Crenshaw / 39th Street
underground
- Crenshaw / Martin Luther King
underground
- Crenshaw / Vernon* (proposed)
underground
- Crenshaw / 48th Street
at-grade (proposed underground, Ridley-Thomas)
- Crenshaw / Slauson
at-grade (proposed underground, Ridley-Thomas)
- Crenshaw / 60th Street
underground
- Crenshaw / Victoria
at-grade
- Crenshaw / West
at-grade
- Florence / east of La Brea
aerial
- Florence / La Brea
aerial
- Florence / west of La Brea
at-grade
- Florence / east of 405
aerial
- Florence / west of La Cienega
at-grade
- Florence / north of Manchester
aerial
- Aviation / Manchester* (proposed)
aerial
- Aviation / south of Manchester
at-grade
- Aviation / north of Century
aerial
- Aviation / Century
aerial
- Aviation / south of Century
underground
- Aviation / north of Imperial
aerial
- Aviation / Imperial
So the combination of Design Option 6 and Ridley-Thomas request would result in a line that is completely below-grade along Crenshaw from Exposition to the Harbor Subdivision ROW. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 29, 2009 12:05:45 GMT -8
There seems to be more of a move to make the Park One lot the Metro interface with LAX on the part of LAWA.
Not sure what this would mean exactly, but I believe it involves bringing the Green Line to this location instead of building the people mover from Aviation. This would provide a better interface as you can walk to several of the terminals very easily from here and wouldn't require any transfer to a people mover at least for some of the airport (LAX is actually pretty small and I have walked here from other terminals as well as it is only about a 10 minute walk to anywhere in the airport, but outside of Terminal 1 or 2, most people will need to transfer to some sort of transport as not everyone enjoys a brisk walk as much as I do).
Also, I don't know where this leaves the Crenshaw Line. I don't believe it would come into this location and may instead still go to Aviation, which would not have an LAX connection.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 29, 2009 14:13:23 GMT -8
When you say Park One, I'm not entirely sure which Park One you are referring to. If it is this Park One: Park One,
6351 West Century Boulevard, that would be awesome. Almost too awesome to be true, actually. In the past, we had heard how LAWA wouldn't allow a train to get to close to its airplanes or its terminals, for fear of damaging equipment or some other nonsense. But, considering that this location is west of PCH, this is about as close as you can get without actually getting inside the terminals. I never really had a problem with the peoplemover idea. Done right, you could have people transferring from the international terminal to the other airline terminals, or using it to get to the LAX Hilton or Sheraton as well as for transferring to the Green Line. And even with the Park One location, a peoplemover within the loop would be a good idea. A ten minute walk (optimistically 10, realistically longer than that) would definitely not be very fun for anyone with luggage above the size of a backpack, or anyone over a certain age and especially in the horrid air at LAX, as LAX is not really designed for pedestrians in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 29, 2009 15:33:51 GMT -8
When you say Park One, I'm not entirely sure which Park One you are referring to. If it is this Park One: Park One,
6351 West Century Boulevard, that would be awesome. Almost too awesome to be true, actually. In the past, we had heard how LAWA wouldn't allow a train to get to close to its airplanes or its terminals, for fear of damaging equipment or some other nonsense. But, considering that this location is west of PCH, this is about as close as you can get without actually getting inside the terminals. I never really had a problem with the peoplemover idea. Done right, you could have people transferring from the international terminal to the other airline terminals, or using it to get to the LAX Hilton or Sheraton as well as for transferring to the Green Line. And even with the Park One location, a peoplemover within the loop would be a good idea. A ten minute walk (optimistically 10, realistically longer than that) would definitely not be very fun for anyone with luggage above the size of a backpack, or anyone over a certain age and especially in the horrid air at LAX, as LAX is not really designed for pedestrians in the first place. That is the site. I agree you still need some sort of circulator inside the airport with this location, except for Terminal 1, which is right there. I was just pointing out that you can actually walk to many of the terminals somewhat easily if need be or if someone was so inclined. LAWA bought this site a few months back and there is speculation that it could be used for transit. Take a look at this article although it only really discusses it in passing in the last paragraph. www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_14066384The problem with it, is you could probably only have either the Green Line or Crenshaw Line serve it, not both, and even then this would require a change in scope for those projects. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Dec 29, 2009 17:22:13 GMT -8
Having ridden all three Air Tran people mover lines for JFK and the Air Train for Newark Airport, I just don't believe the expense of getting the Green or Crenshaw Line into the airport itself is worth it.
A people mover can make sharper turns and would enable people to travel terminal to terminal to a transit center and even parking lots as well.
I just don't agree that riding a people mover between the Green/Crenshaw lines and the terminals is somehow onerous.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 30, 2009 0:23:44 GMT -8
Separating regional from airport-bound commuters, and separating commuters going by LAX from those going to LAX, has profound safety/security benefits as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 22, 2010 8:49:57 GMT -8
There are meetings today (22 June) and next Wednesday (30 June) to discuss streetscape design. For more information, see the Crenshaw project website, on the "Upcoming Meetings" tab. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 11, 2010 9:20:19 GMT -8
I am cross-posting this advertisement for Friday's rally on several threads: RALLY FOR 30/10
Los Angeles City Hall
Friday August 13 at noon"Join us on August 13th as we rally to tell the federal government to support LA County's 30/10 Plan with New Start Grants, low-interest federal loans and interest rate subsidies. This will enable LA Metro to build the 12 Measure R public transit projects in 10 years rather than 30! Invite everyone you know!" See the Facebook page for more information. |
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Aug 25, 2010 16:02:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 26, 2010 6:48:30 GMT -8
Sounds like an interesting story. Unfortunately, "the source" has been down since last night. I will guess that this federal grant relates to connecting the LAX People Mover into Century/Aviation station, which will then allow transfers to/from the Crenshaw Line and the Green Line. The Crenshaw Line will be the next Metro project to be built (after Expo 1 and 2, and Gold Line Foothill), and it looks like the pieces of the puzzle are coming together nicely. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 26, 2010 6:57:57 GMT -8
BTW, I made this image for use in wikipedia. It shows how the Green Line and Crenshaw Lines will interact near LAX, once the Crenshaw Corridor is completed. (Source: DEIR).  |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 26, 2010 7:43:46 GMT -8
This article describes the new grant. Proposed South Bay transit center near LAX gets $1.45M grantNick Green, Staff Writer
Daily Breeze, 8/25/2010A proposed South Bay transit center near Los Angeles International Airport has received a $1.45 million federal grant, officials said Wednesday. The money, which requires a 20 percent local match, will be used in the second phase of a three-phase project to design the station at Aviation and Century boulevards, said Roderick Diaz, the project manager with the county's Metropolitan Transit Authority. That phase, which moves the project from the conceptual stage it's now in to a preliminary engineering phase, will begin this fall and last about a year. The total cost to design what's called an Intermodal Transit Center is $11 million, Diaz said. The transit center will be the connecting hub for two light rail lines - the Green Line and the Crenshaw/LAX Line - buses and a "people mover" to take people into the airport. Construction on the $1.7 billion transit center (  ) is tentatively scheduled to occur between 2012 and 2018, Diaz said. "This grant certainly helps us meet those targets," he said. The U.S. Department of Transportation grant was announced by Rep. Jane Harman, D-El Segundo. "The grant is great news for the South Bay, which is finally on its way to being connected by rail to LAX," she said. - Nick GreenNote: Mr. Green's statement about the "$1.7 billion transit center" has to be incorrect: the entire people mover is supposed to cost in the neighborhood of $100 million.
|
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Aug 26, 2010 11:20:36 GMT -8
Looking ahead to when construction on the Crenshaw line actually begins, what are the odds that some sort of phased opening could be effected? If it was determined that extending the Green line to Aviation/Century would be a significant improvement for airport passengers, then could this stretch be built first and opened, ahead of the rest of the Crenshaw corridor?
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 26, 2010 12:37:30 GMT -8
^^ I haven't heard any talk of a phased opening. We'll learn a lot more about the plans for the Crenshaw Corridor in the next several months, as the FEIR gets completed.
At any rate, the only way this segment could significantly help passengers get to LAX would be if the APM (automated people mover) were also ready to go. Something tells me the Crenshaw project will be completed long before the APM is ready.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 27, 2010 20:12:31 GMT -8
How much demand is there really for service from Hollywood to Long Beach? why not follow Damien Goodmon's plan and have it end at the Del Amo Center.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 27, 2010 20:38:06 GMT -8
How much demand is there really for service from Hollywood to Long Beach? why not follow Damien Goodmon's plan and have it end at the Del Amo Center. You can get from Hollywood to Long Beach now, using the Red and Blue Lines. Right now, Metro is only studying extending the Green Line corridor down to Torrance, near the intersection of Crenshaw/Torrance. This route would be served by both the Green Line and the Crenshaw Line.  The study concluded that ridership would be pretty low past Torrance. (For that matter, the study estimated only 5,800 riders for the recommended segment.) The Del Amo Fashion Center opposed extending the line down to them. NIMBY mall, I guess. There is more information on the South Bay extension here. |
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Aug 27, 2010 20:50:41 GMT -8
Right now, Metro is only studying extending the Green Line corridor down to Torrance, near the intersection of Crenshaw/Torrance. This route would be served by both the Green Line and the Crenshaw Line. Although, presumably after the Green line was extended to LAX and further North to meet the Expo line somewhere, then to meet the 405 line and the Purple line, the South Bay segment would only be served by the Crenshaw line. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 27, 2010 23:12:13 GMT -8
Right now, Metro is only studying extending the Green Line corridor down to Torrance, near the intersection of Crenshaw/Torrance. This route would be served by both the Green Line and the Crenshaw Line. Although, presumably after the Green line was extended to LAX and further North to meet the Expo line somewhere, then to meet the 405 line and the Purple line, the South Bay segment would only be served by the Crenshaw line. Could be. But the current plan is to have both lines use this route. |
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Aug 28, 2010 12:17:25 GMT -8
Right now, Metro is only studying extending the Green Line corridor down to Torrance, near the intersection of Crenshaw/Torrance. This route would be served by both the Green Line and the Crenshaw Line. Although, presumably after the Green line was extended to LAX and further North to meet the Expo line somewhere, then to meet the 405 line and the Purple line, the South Bay segment would only be served by the Crenshaw line. Could be. But the current plan is to have both lines use this route. That appears so. It also appears that the Green Line will possibly have two branches - one to LAX station at Aviation & Centrury and another to Torrance. Something like that would be new for Metro, though, the Red & Purple lines do that now. I wonder if this is in the cards for the Green Line here whereas a added line color used to distinguish between the destinations on the western end of the Green line? |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 28, 2010 20:19:45 GMT -8
The Del Amo Fashion Center opposed extending the line down to them. NIMBY mall, I guess. That won't last. Once they see the South Bay Galleria getting transit, they'll want in, too. Besides, I think as our transit network expands and projects like the Harbor Subdivsion corridor get built, the Crenshaw Corridor should break off it's route to LAX and continue south on Hawthorne, Crenshaw, or perhaps even Prairie. Although, presumably after the Green line was extended to LAX and further North to meet the Expo line somewhere, then to meet the 405 line and the Purple line, the South Bay segment would only be served by the Crenshaw line. As suggested before, the Green Line and 405 Line should be separate corridors. You could simply extend the Green past LAX via Lincoln to Santa Monica, while the 405 Corridor could connect to the Crenshaw and Harbor Sub. lines as they pass under the freeway. That appears so. It also appears that the Green Line will possibly have two branches - one to LAX station at Aviation & Centrury and another to Torrance. I don't think the Green Line needs to continue to Torrance (and eventually Long Beach). Instead let it go to LAX, and someday Santa Monica. The 405 Corridor can meanwhile be extended south to connect with the Harbor Sub., which would also create our first half-loop rail line. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Aug 28, 2010 21:54:59 GMT -8
That appears so. It also appears that the Green Line will possibly have two branches - one to LAX station at Aviation & Centrury and another to Torrance. I don't think the Green Line needs to continue to Torrance (and eventually Long Beach). Instead let it go to LAX, and someday Santa Monica. The 405 Corridor can meanwhile be extended south to connect with the Harbor Sub., which would also create our first half-loop rail line. ;D Well, I just might agree. In fact, how much service is really needed between Aviation & Imperial and Torrance? I suspect there might be more desire among users along the Green line to travel north to LAX and beyond, such as to Santa Monica if the Lincoln line were to happen. As for I-405 corridor, I don't quite see that yet. A north-south line on the west side will do well wherever it is located, but I feel something to Santa Monica would be the best option. If something hit the Sepulveda corridor, Westwood, and then over/through the 405-pass, I am sure that would do okay too. Either way, I'd be curious if any ridership studies have been issued. |
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Aug 29, 2010 11:45:22 GMT -8
I think one important factor will be whether the subway to the sea gets built. If it does, then if there's a choice between Sepulveda/Westwood and Lincoln, a study will probably be needed to get a better answer. But if there's no subway to the sea, then a Sepulveda route would connect to the Purple line, while the Lincoln route would not.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 29, 2010 17:49:20 GMT -8
I think one important factor will be whether the subway to the sea gets built. If it does, then if there's a choice between Sepulveda/Westwood and Lincoln, a study will probably be needed to get a better answer. But if there's no subway to the sea, then a Sepulveda route would connect to the Purple line, while the Lincoln route would not. I'm not one of those that believes that because Santa Monica is already getting the Expo, it doesn't need the Purple Line. The reality is that that city is complete gridlock throughout much of the day, and it's one of the densest areas in the county. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 29, 2010 20:46:56 GMT -8
I'm not one of those that believes that because Santa Monica is already getting the Expo, it doesn't need the Purple Line. The reality is that that city is complete gridlock throughout much of the day, and it's one of the densest areas in the county. I agree with jdrcrasher.....the Purple Line serves an entirely different segment than the Expo Line. The Expo Line is not a direct service for people living/working in Westwood, Century City, Santa Monica, mid-Wilshire, Museum Row, Koreatown, etc.. The Purple Line has to go all the way to Santa Monica! |
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Aug 29, 2010 22:48:27 GMT -8
I certainly agree with both of you about the Purple Line, but what it comes down to is this:
We shouldn't be choosing between a Sepulveda and a Lincoln route, we should have both. If anything, we should only have to choose which one we build first. And when it comes time to build one of those, if we have not yet built the subway to the sea, then the Sepulveda route will be much more useful, right off the bat.
If there is already a subway to the sea, then we will probably have to rely on some sort of ridership study to figure out which will be better, as I'm sure they'll both be good lines, but without a subway to the sea, there's a clear better choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 30, 2010 19:09:47 GMT -8
I think I understand what you're saying, tobias.
However, keep in mind that the 405 Corridor would need to be extended to LAX if it is built first.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 1, 2010 6:34:58 GMT -8
Speaking of the people mover, there was news on that buried in the LA Times today. End of an article on California bills adopted by the legislature. I believe the Guv has until the end of September to sign the bill or it won't pass: In one of the few measures lawmakers agreed on this year that would raise revenues, travelers who rent cars could face higher fees at California airports. Los Angeles International Airport officials pushed the measure, which would change the current $10 fixed fee to an adjustable fee that could go as high as $30, to help finance a new $700-million car rental terminal and a people mover. Sen. Jenny Oropeza (D- Long Beach) wrote SB 1192, which would also apply the new fee structure to other airports around the state. www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-legis-bell-20100901,0,3180270,full.story |
|
) is tentatively scheduled to occur between 2012 and 2018, Diaz said.