|
Post by matthewb on Sept 22, 2011 13:35:19 GMT -8
FixNeighborsforSmartCrenshaw = farts. Nice.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 22, 2011 14:01:57 GMT -8
I don't understand how an at-grade station with an at-grade crossing costs more than grade separation. The land is fairly cheap there and the needed acquisition is not that much. Perhaps, they are including the park-and-ride in the price tag?
It cost only $50 million to acquire the huge Verizon lot in Santa Monica for the Expo maintenance facility. And the Santa Monica industrial lands are one of the most expensive in LA County.
They really need to build a station in Westchester.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 22, 2011 14:13:17 GMT -8
I don't understand how an at-grade station with an at-grade crossing costs more than grade separation. The land is fairly cheap there and the needed acquisition is not that much. Perhaps, they are including the park-and-ride in the price tag? It cost only $50 million to acquire the huge Verizon lot in Santa Monica for the Expo maintenance facility. And the Santa Monica industrial lands are one of the most expensive in LA County. They really need to build a station in Westchester. The place where Metro is considering to build a station for Westchester is unwalkable, un-pedestrian friendly, etc.. It just appears unsustainable. There are far more valuable stations.....like the missing Leimart Park station, which is truly deserving. Don't know why you're hung up with Westchester, I think this was a worthless station location anyways. This area is transit dependent...but not in the location the Crenshaw Line was going to have an optional stop.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Sept 22, 2011 14:47:14 GMT -8
I don't understand how an at-grade station with an at-grade crossing costs more than grade separation. The land is fairly cheap there and the needed acquisition is not that much. Perhaps, they are including the park-and-ride in the price tag? It cost only $50 million to acquire the huge Verizon lot in Santa Monica for the Expo maintenance facility. And the Santa Monica industrial lands are one of the most expensive in LA County. They really need to build a station in Westchester. The place where Metro is considering to build a station for Westchester is unwalkable, un-pedestrian friendly, etc.. It just appears unsustainable. There are far more valuable stations.....like the missing Leimart Park station, which is truly deserving. Don't know why you're hung up with Westchester, I think this was a worthless station location anyways. This area is transit dependent...but not in the location the Crenshaw Line was going to have an optional stop. And I don't know why you're so hung up on ignoring Westchester, which has welcomed the line, including the maintenance yard, with open arms, unlike other parts of town. I knew the fix was in for the Manchester station from day one - you can tell from the neglect on the publicized maps and the reticence of the public officials each time the station disappeared only to be hand-drawn back in. Similar games occurred with Expo II. The location for the station is NOT that unfriendly; the area needs some serious lighting upgrades; a couple nightclubs need to go, and there needs to be some rezoning to allow [more] residential and artist-in-residence development nearer the station. But it is quite viable - Inglewood has been clearing out the debris in the area for the past decade, there are plenty of buildable parcels nearby. How else do you think Metro assembled a yard so easily? The east of Westchester, along with the Westside of Inglewood, continue to be neglected by all concerned. Bus service has been non-existent - the 115 returned only recently, and it is still a transit desert. You're condemning those residents to maintain the status quo ... walk or drive.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 22, 2011 14:53:43 GMT -8
I don't understand how an at-grade station with an at-grade crossing costs more than grade separation. The land is fairly cheap there and the needed acquisition is not that much. Perhaps, they are including the park-and-ride in the price tag? It cost only $50 million to acquire the huge Verizon lot in Santa Monica for the Expo maintenance facility. And the Santa Monica industrial lands are one of the most expensive in LA County. They really need to build a station in Westchester. The place where Metro is considering to build a station for Westchester is unwalkable, un-pedestrian friendly, etc.. It just appears unsustainable. There are far more valuable stations.....like the missing Leimart Park station, which is truly deserving. Don't know why you're hung up with Westchester, I think this was a worthless station location anyways. This area is transit dependent...but not in the location the Crenshaw Line was going to have an optional stop. That's simply your opinion only and your facts are also false. There are a lot of existing apartment buildings there within ten-minute walking distance east of Airport Blvd. I think this station is an important opportunity and, unlike Leimert Park Station, won't be expensive at all. It should be included at least as an option in the construction package and a bid should be obtained from the contractor. I support the Leimert Park Station as well but to call the Westchester Station worthless and the Leimert Park truly deserving is gross exaggeration at the least, as Leimert Park isn't densely residential and commercial and only half mile or less from the King Station. Both the Westchester and Leimert Park Station would need future transit-oriented development to fully benefit from them.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 22, 2011 16:09:00 GMT -8
The place where Metro is considering to build a station for Westchester is unwalkable, un-pedestrian friendly, etc.. It just appears unsustainable. There are far more valuable stations.....like the missing Leimart Park station, which is truly deserving. Don't know why you're hung up with Westchester, I think this was a worthless station location anyways. This area is transit dependent...but not in the location the Crenshaw Line was going to have an optional stop. That's simply your opinion only and your facts are also false. There are a lot of existing apartment buildings there within ten-minute walking distance east of Airport Blvd. I think this station is an important opportunity and, unlike Leimert Park Station, won't be expensive at all. It should be included at least as an option in the construction package and a bid should be obtained from the contractor. I support the Leimert Park Station as well but to call the Westchester Station worthless and the Leimert Park truly deserving is gross exaggeration at the least, as Leimert Park isn't densely residential and commercial and only half mile or less from the King Station. Both the Westchester and Leimert Park Station would need future transit-oriented development to fully benefit from them. Yes it's his opinion: nothing wrong with that. Metro staff provided a similar opinion/analysis in the FEIR. From page ES-40: Role of the Aviation / Manchester Station Located at the edge of the Westchester district rather than its center, the proposed Aviation / Manchester has one of the lower potentials for ridership growth among the stations along the proposed transit investment. The immediate area lacks a cohesion as it includes a mix of commercial and industrial uses at the border between the Cities of Los Angeles and Inglewood. Curves of the alignment and the potential for an elevated crossing make the location of this station at Manchester difficult.
Nonetheless, this location would be the most convenient location for residents of Westchester to access the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor. If there is a station at this location, its siting and configuration would need to balance competing modes of access, including pedestrian access from the residential neighborhood immediately to the north, transit access along Manchester and Florence, and automobile / park-and-ride access from arterials such as Manchester Avenue/Boulevard, Aviation Boulevard, and La Cienega Boulevard. Designs explored station configurations that straddled Manchester Avenue/Boulevard. Costs were developed for this design option. Also, it was determined that the aerial guideway could be re-configured in the future to accommodate a station, albeit at some expense. It was determined that ridership would not be high enough to justify a station at Aviation Boulevard and Manchester Boulevard, and that an aerial station on the Manchester overcrossing would be more likely to enhance connectivity with bus lines. Density near the Manchester station site is very low: fewer than 4,000 people within the square mile surrounding the station. It is primarily industrial, with most nearby residents living east of the 405. FEIR estimated cost for the two optional stations (Vernon and Manchester) are: - Manchester - $66,500,000
- Vernon - $106,306,000
Either of these stations could be built if the money is found for them.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 22, 2011 17:22:55 GMT -8
Density near the Manchester station site is very low: fewer than 4,000 people within the square mile surrounding the station. With the important but overlooked (as frequently with Metro studies) exception that, those 4,000 people all live in the apartment buildings in the southeast block of Aviation and Manchester within a ten-minute walking distance from the proposed Manchester Station.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 23, 2011 8:30:12 GMT -8
Westchester activist Denny Schneider posted the following on The Source: The Aviation/Manchester station became “optional” when the overall estimated costs kept increasing a few years ago and the repair facility at Hindry was rejected. Although “otional” it has not been a “favorite son” of MTA staff. Over the past few months their “increased review” raised their estimate by over twenty million which had already been increased by over twenty million from the initial estimates. I only found out at the last MTA Crenshaw/LAX Train Leadership Council that MTA staff had NO INTENT to include the station in the construction bids.
Only behind the curtin negotiations got a promise from Mark Ridley-Thomas that it would be included. I was shocked yesterday that the FEIS/FEIR was approved by consent when there were dozens of speakers waiting all day to air their concerns. The approval, as done, leaves the direction to include the only Westchester resident available station in a limbo with no specific instructions by MTA board.
Did I mention that the MTA staff has projections that a Manchester/Aviation station would have high ridership increases when the South Bay connection is done but that this was never told to MTA Board when they were briefed?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 23, 2011 8:44:14 GMT -8
Only behind the curtin negotiations got a promise from Mark Ridley-Thomas that it would be included. That's exactly what I thought. They tied the Westchester Station to the Leimert Park Station and, by artificially jacking up the Westchester Station's price tag, they are using it as a consolation sacrifice for Mark Ridley-Thomas so that they don't have to build a rather expensive underground Leimert Park Station. That's also exactly what I thought would happen -- the Metro EIRs nowadays are getting routinely rubber-stamped by no input whatsoever from general public but only the strong opposition, city councils, and county supervisors.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 23, 2011 8:47:45 GMT -8
I will agree that the way this project got approved seems a bit weird. Looks like it was pushed through in a way that would avoid any controversy being stirred up by the public. Mr. Ridley-Thomas seems to have rolled over, which is also strange. And, several details (like the exact status of the optional stations) were never really made clear by the Metro Board or staff.
This gives off the scent of corrupt coalition politics. The gameplan in this scenario would be to do a change-up later on, where all of a sudden the two stations are re-added to the project separate from the base budget, turning the project into a $2 billion affair. The extra $200 million magically appears from the Federal government. Everybody wins: labor, contractors, local politicians.
Let me be clear: I do fully support the project as it is. But in the last 15 years, I've seen several Metro projects move through the certification process, so I know how it usually works. And this just doesn't seem normal.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 23, 2011 9:56:40 GMT -8
There are two things you don't want to watch being made -- legislation and sausage.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 23, 2011 10:15:10 GMT -8
But does FixCrenshaw CrenshawSubwayCoalition have a chance? They don't have the financial means like NSFR. Metro has already studied all the litigation impacts as required by CEQA for Mesa Heights; even did additional studies just for them last year and reported the infeasibilty of a subway section there.
This will be a wasted lawsuit. Unlike Farmdale for Goodman where he was able to make a validate case on pedestrian counts during school times at Dorsey/Farmdale....that doesn't happen on the streets between 48th through 60th. The amount of people crossing the tracks is nowhere near Farmdale before/after school, which he was able to prove.
I see there being no reason for Metro to worry about this lawsuit. We all agree on there being a Leimart Park station, but we'll find out more once the bids come out. As for Weschester, we each have our opinion on that. The FEIR noted it had the lowest boardings for any station, so I would probably concede to traffic studies rather than people commenting on message boards. The traffic engineers and scienctists have spent years studying on a practice, whereas others cannot defend the need of a station in a court of law.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 23, 2011 10:43:30 GMT -8
I guess Westchester station reminds me of the Hancock Park/Crenshaw station on the Purple line. You can make an argument for including it based on potential but Metro's analysis doesn't support the ridership under existing land use/zoning. And yet, even with the low level ridership estimate, the stations would have better numbers than some existing suburban stations on our rail system.
It's a tough nut to crack...
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 24, 2011 14:15:56 GMT -8
Streetsblog yesterday posted a link to the Crenshaw Subway Coalition's attorney Raymond W. Johnson's August 3, 2011 comment letter to Metro on the EIR. My reply there: Speaking of "unsupported conclusions" in Raymond W. Johnson's letter, I see:
* "The passage of frequent trains will prevent pedestrian movement from one side of Crenshaw Boulevard to the other" -- huh??
* "will become a barren set of railroad tracks that will cause visual blight" -- Apparently he never looked at Expo from USC to Gramercy.
* "At grade intersections have resulted in unacceptable levels of fatalities in train/vehicle accidents." -- That would be ZERO on the Gold Line in 8 years of operation.
* "Would this at grade section down the center of Downtown Crenshaw be constructed down the center of Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills?" -- It sure is in Santa Monica.
But I suppose Mr. Johnson hasn't experienced much light rail as Consulting City Planner in Lenexa, Kansas.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 25, 2011 9:40:40 GMT -8
Also, these arguments were made by NFSR in their trial and failed.
No judge will accept the claim that light-rail is evil and should never be built, as there is light-rail in every major city in all kinds of settings.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 27, 2011 17:27:46 GMT -8
I've been on an e-mail list for the advocates for the Westchester Station. You can't believe how many strong supporters are there for this station, all very influential professionals, and are willing to put hard work for it. There are probably at least as many supporters for this station as for the Leimert Park Station, if not more.
It's sad to see this station being in the danger of falling into drain holes -- all thanks to dirty politics: a politician is asking for an expensive subway and an expensive subway station for South LA; so, let's have a station sacrificed elsewhere as consolation to him, also by artificially jacking up its cost.
Fix Expo and their supporting politician have done a lot of damage to the public transportation in Los Angeles.
What I don't get is that these rail lines will be ridden by everyone and from one place to another throughout the region. What is the point of not seeing them as a betterment but seeing them as a nuisance that should only be put underground? For me this is nothing but not-in-my-backyard opposition, with no consideration of the betterments of these projects to the general public but seeing them only as a nuisance to the neighborhood. Unfortunately, some of the politicians are also for this not-in-my-backyard opposition.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 27, 2011 18:22:20 GMT -8
I've been on an e-mail list for the advocates for the Westchester Station. You can't believe how many strong supporters are there for this station, all very influential professionals, and are willing to put hard work for it. There are probably at least as many supporters for this station as for the Leimert Park Station, if not more. It's sad to see this station being in the danger of falling into drain holes -- all thanks to dirty politics: a politician is asking for an expensive subway and an expensive subway station for South LA; so, let's have a station sacrificed elsewhere as consolation to him, also by artificially jacking up its cost. Fix Expo and their supporting politician have done a lot of damage to the public transportation in Los Angeles. What I don't get is that these rail lines will be ridden by everyone and from one place to another throughout the region. What is the point of not seeing them as a betterment but seeing them as a nuisance that should only be put underground? For me this is nothing but not-in-my-backyard opposition, with no consideration of the betterments of these projects to the general public but seeing them only as a nuisance to the neighborhood. Unfortunately, some of the politicians are also for this not-in-my-backyard opposition. As metrocenter explained before, the ridership projections for Westchester was very low compared to the other stations. If you are on an e-mail list of supporters, of course they will be loud and vocal. You'll find the same if there was one for Wilshire/Crenshaw (Purple Line), NSFR, etc... They're favorites of the station; it makes sense. If we don't trust the work done on the EIR, then who do we trust? I would think the EIR is the most objective document that would support / not-support a station. This is done by traffic engineers, they have the best knowledge. There will always be people passionate and using emotions to move forward (like we saw with Wilshire/Crenshaw), but in the end, I barely heard the loud public support for Westchester compared to Leimart Park. There were plenty of articles of support for Leimart Park; and as somebody who doesn't frequent South LA much, Leimart Park, to me, is known as THE cultural black hub of Los Angeles. Yes, it's unfortunate the decision of a station is either/or Westchester or Leimart Park station; but it's a project that has to work under constraints. Some people lose and some people win. I wouldn't call people NIMBY's because nobody said "we don't want this project"....people wanted it underground, a Leimart Park station, fit within the budget, etc... In the end, Metro had to optionalize the least producing ridership station. It's a business decision. We cannot let emotions run over everything.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 27, 2011 20:09:26 GMT -8
To me, this problem only further emphasizes the fact that Measure R either: A)should have been larger, or B)should have directed more money to transit.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 28, 2011 9:29:20 GMT -8
Cannot the line be built so that a Westchester and Leimart Park station can be added as an infill station later?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 28, 2011 11:17:02 GMT -8
Westchester Metro Station Taken Away From Under Neighborhood's NoseBy Ryan Deto Mon., Sep. 26 2011 at 6:17 PM LA Weekly TransportationFuture "Crenshaw Corridor" with Westchester stop still included.Westchester wants to know what happened to its Metro station. The proposed stop at Manchester Avenue and Aviation Boulevard on the Crenshaw/LAX line (which is marketed to take riders to the airport, even though the closest stop will be a mile walk from the terminals), is not included in Metropolitan Transit Authorities', aka Metro, plans. Westchester Neighborhood Coucil board member Denny Scheider says "the station was promised initially." Scheider adds that things changed when ... ... the Westchester station was downgraded to optional, which he was OK with because he was confident he could make it happen. Then, at the latest train council meeting, Schneider found out that Metro was not even going to consider a station in Westchester. When Schneider asked Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa at a September 12 town hall meeting why the station was not going to be constructed, the mayor told him there were too many "financial constraints." The environmental impact review (EIR) for the area raised the estimated cost of the project from $40 million to $82. "The station is down 6-0 in the ninth inning," says Schneider. Schneider, who sits on multiple boards concerning transit and airport issues, believes the "faulty" EIR overestimated the costs because there are too many unspecific proposals on the report, including multiple locations for the station. "Not having a station along this area is a mistake," he says. "It makes logical sense." Without a station at Manchester and Aviation, a 2.5 mile gap will run between the airport stop and the Florence and La Brea station. The average gap between stations on this line is one mile. Local support is there; the Metro neighborhood meeting in Westchester had the largest turn out the board had ever seen, according to Schneider. But loud, vocal support has been lacking. "In terms of who is screaming," says Schneider, "this station is the weakest link." The other up-in-the-air station receiving earsplitting support is the Leimert Park station. L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas wrote an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times begging the Metro not to skip over the south L.A. neighborhood. Here is an excerpt: "It is inconceivable to many of us who live, work and worship in South Los Angeles that the Crenshaw/LAX line would bypass the heart of the community by not having a station in [Leimert Park]. Rail stops have been shown to reinvigorate the neighborhoods in which they are placed." Westchester has received no support from Ridley-Thomas, other than giving a Schneider a verbal agreement that the his station will be open for bidding. Schneider believes there is little chance for a large enough bid will be offered. CIty Councilmember Bill Rosendahl pleaded with the Metro board on September 22 to give the westside community a station, but it might be too little, too late. Schneider is still holding on to the thread of hope that the station will receive a bid. To continue the baseball analogies, he is the one die-hard fan, who is planted in his seat with a rally-cap on his head, while everyone else is heading for the parking lot, telling each other "it's over."
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 28, 2011 17:23:56 GMT -8
There is an Aviation station planned with a connection to LAX that the LA Weekly fails to even mention, or cleverly makes it seem like the LAX station is being removed when it is not.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 28, 2011 19:09:34 GMT -8
There is an Aviation station planned with a connection to LAX that the LA Weekly fails to even mention, or cleverly makes it seem like the LAX station is being removed when it is not. Agreed. Sorry Gokhan, but LA Weekly is by far the worst transit resource in Los Angeles. Even BikeLA has written off even mentioning their articles on Twitter. There's a very large anti-transit and anti-bike sentiment at the LA Weekly. From urbanists, bicyclists and mass transit enthusiasts in LA, LA Weekly is horrible. They continue to state the westside subway extension costs $9.1 billion (failing to mention we have $4.1 billion in Measure R) [http://www.laweekly.com/2010-09-23/news/9-billion-subway-to-sea-rip-off/] They ignore the facts that Metro won a court case against BHUSD in turning over incomplete EIR documents [http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/09/westside_subway_earthquake_data_mta_metro_beverly_hills.php] They have a slant significant basis to the BHUSD petition over Santa Monica boulevard and not Constellation and not responding to claims over the fault line concerns that Metro has highlighted [http://www.laweekly.com/2011-07-14/news/beverly-hills-versus-the-westside-subway/] This obvious misrepresentation of the LA Bike law [http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/09/bicycle_harassment_angeles.php] I'm not going to deny that other newspapers write slant subjects on our Metro rail transit, but at the same time, there would be other writers who would point out the common sense / rationale view. However, the LA Weekly is full of misinformed and unintelligent writers. Every article they print gets the rail enthusiasts, Metro fans, bike riders just furious. Ever since they moved to Sepulveda, their writing has become anti-LA. You think the LA Daily News is bad, the LA Weekly is worse. So, I don't use the LA Weekly as a credible source of information because they constantly attack the Mayor of Los Angeles, the Westside Subway planning, are on the side of the BHUSD and fail to do any adequate research. They are the Tea Party magnets of Los Angeles (just get everybody upset and angry.......grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr)!
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 28, 2011 19:58:59 GMT -8
Cannot the line be built so that a Westchester and Leimart Park station can be added as an infill station later? I don't see why not.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 28, 2011 20:03:37 GMT -8
There is an Aviation station planned with a connection to LAX that the LA Weekly fails to even mention, or cleverly makes it seem like the LAX station is being removed when it is not. Agreed. erict and LAofAnaheim, Read it carefully: "The proposed stop at Manchester Avenue and Aviation Boulevard on the Crenshaw/LAX line (which is marketed to take riders to the airport, even though the closest stop will be a mile walk from the terminals), is not included in Metropolitan Transit Authorities', aka Metro, plans."This sentence does not make either false claim you alleged [(1) the Westchester Station is the LAX stop, (2) the only LAX stop is being removed]. In fact, it's 100% factual. It's also grammatically and punctuationwise correct. You simply misread it.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 11, 2011 8:19:01 GMT -8
The Obama announcement on Crenshaw is good news. I'd hate to see this wait the usual time especially since the feds aren't really putting much of anything into this line. Metro claims this line can start construction in 2012 per their last presentation, but I have also seen 2013. Hopefully, this moves it to 2012.
Of course, Goodmon could delay this whole thing. Not sure what he is really going to accomplish here. Even if he wins his suit, all that does is delay construction and possibly even kill the project. It is not like hundreds of millions of dollars are suddenly going to be available for Crenshaw if the judge throws out the EIR. I'd recommend killing the project if that takes place. I certainly would not advocate for this project taking funds from other projects as MRT attempted to do earlier.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 11, 2011 10:20:47 GMT -8
One more story from the LA Times on the same topic. Here's an excerpt: The Crenshaw Line, an 8.5-mile light rail that will run from the Expo Line at Exposition Boulevard to the Green Line near Los Angeles International Airport, will now receive extra help from the Federal Transit Administration “to shorten the approval time for this project by several months,” according to the release.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 11, 2011 17:39:24 GMT -8
erict and LAofAnaheim, Read it carefully: "The proposed stop at Manchester Avenue and Aviation Boulevard on the Crenshaw/LAX line (which is marketed to take riders to the airport, even though the closest stop will be a mile walk from the terminals), is not included in Metropolitan Transit Authorities', aka Metro, plans."This sentence does not make either false claim you alleged [(1) the Westchester Station is the LAX stop, (2) the only LAX stop is being removed]. In fact, it's 100% factual. It's also grammatically and punctuationwise correct. You simply misread it. I disagree and see the quote as totally misleading the reader into thinking that the Westchester/Aviation station, which is being removed, is the station that takes would take you to the Airport(which it isn't. It does not actually say that when you follow the twisted logic structure, but it annoys me.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 11, 2011 17:52:45 GMT -8
erict and LAofAnaheim, Read it carefully: "The proposed stop at Manchester Avenue and Aviation Boulevard on the Crenshaw/LAX line (which is marketed to take riders to the airport, even though the closest stop will be a mile walk from the terminals), is not included in Metropolitan Transit Authorities', aka Metro, plans."This sentence does not make either false claim you alleged [(1) the Westchester Station is the LAX stop, (2) the only LAX stop is being removed]. In fact, it's 100% factual. It's also grammatically and punctuationwise correct. You simply misread it. I disagree and see the quote as totally misleading the reader into thinking that the Westchester/Aviation station, which is being removed, is the station that takes would take you to the Airport(which it isn't. It does not actually say that when you follow the twisted logic structure, but it annoys me. erict - The whole biking community has disavowed the LA Weekly. I suggest transit advocates do the same. They use propagnda without reporting the facts. If you read their whole Metro/Subway v. Beverly Hills story you see they totally left out true facts about earthquake fault and LA homeowners supporting Constellation. They took the side of the BH School principal without giving equal time to Metro to refute their statements. The LA Weekly is a mistrust of resource and I would never use any of their articles to support a statement. If you follow @bikinginla (on Twitter) you'll see the lies they've been called out on.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 12, 2011 6:54:46 GMT -8
Looks like some of the trees along Crenshaw Bl. will be coming down earlier than planned. When they relocate the space shuttle to SoCal in 2012 it will be moving up Crenshaw to get to the science museum. This will entail much temporary relocation of power lines and trees, etc... www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-endeavour-20111012,0,6130388.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Oct 12, 2011 7:04:18 GMT -8
Looks like some of the trees along Crenshaw Bl. will be coming down earlier than planned. When they relocate the space shuttle to SoCal in 2012 it will be moving up Crenshaw to get to the science museum. This will entail much temporary relocation of power lines and trees, etc... www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-endeavour-20111012,0,6130388.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29 Aww man, "latter part of 2012"? I was hoping I'd get to see it when I come out to L. A. next April for the Motor Bus Society thingie Guess I'll have to settle for a ride on the Expo Line ;D
|
|