|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 12, 2011 8:23:10 GMT -8
So Crenshaw is wide enough for the Endeavor to come to Exposition Park.....but they cannot have at-grade light rail? Go figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 12, 2011 8:26:04 GMT -8
So Crenshaw is wide enough for the Endeavor to come to Exposition Park.....but they cannot have at-grade light rail? Go figure. Maybe MRT should suggest that they dig a tunnel large enough to transport the space shuttle in, thereby killing two birds with one stone. Use the tunnel then for the Crenshaw Line. I mean, money is no problem right...  RT |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 12, 2011 13:30:47 GMT -8
well, the Times article does say that they are working out a route, not that they've settled on one.
I'm sure if Crenshaw turns out to be too much trouble, they can find another route.
however, this is a one-day, once-in-a-lifetime event, rather than the permanent addition that light rail will be. communities tend to put up with things like parades, Olympic torch relays and bicycle races for one day, especially for the sight of seeing a space shuttle orbiter on the street.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 28, 2011 10:28:55 GMT -8
Finally, a small bit of welcome progress on the rail line bogged down by the former Fix Expo, currently resurrected as Fix Crenshaw or something!
-------------------------
MTA Board of Directors
October 27, 2011
Motion for Westchester Light Rail Station
Supervisor Don Knabe
The Westchester community in the City of Los Angeles would benefit greatly from a rail transit station (at Manchester/Aviation) for the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project and last month, the Board heard from community leaders that a station is desired and needed. An at-grade station alternative near Hindry has been environmentally cleared and should be advanced in the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project's design and construction RFP, in a manner similar to but not competing with the Vernon (Leimert Park) Station, in order to not preclude a station in Westchester if that station can be designed and constructed within the project budget. It is appropriate at this time, to advance the concept of a Westchester Station by taking this important step toward making it a reality.
I, THEREFORE, MOVE that the MTA Board of Directors direct the CEO to:
1) Include the Westchester (Manchester/Aviation) Station
(at-grade near Hindry) as a bid option during the construction procurement, i.e. bidders will propose prices for the following additional Option (in addition to the three Options identified as 1A, 1B, and 1C that were adopted by the MTA Board for Item 1, May 26, 2011):
A. Baseline project plus Leimert Park/Vernon underground station and Westchester (Manchester/Aviation) Station (at-grade near Hindry)
2) Recommend for MTA Board approval a design/build contract for Options 2A, 2B that were adopted by the MTA Board for Item 1,
May 26, 2011, and include the following additional Option for consideration:
A. Option 1A (as described in this motion) if a responsible and responsive bid is received that is less than or equal to the adopted life of project budget.
3) Authorize a contract modification in the amount of $250,000 to complete the additional design and engineering work needed for the Project, to prepare the Westchester Station Option for the construction procurement, that is within the adopted life of project budget.
----------------------------------
While this station is not as optimal as a station centered at Manchester Avenue, it's definitely much much better than nothing!
It's really bizarre the way they tied this to the Vernon Station. It sounds like this won't happen unless the Vernon Station happens; yet, an at-grade Hindry Station is only less than 10% the cost of an underground Vernon Station. Also, I don't like the fact that, despite tying it to the Vernon Station, they tied it only as an at-grade station. So, this is not that encouraging but it's a small bit of welcome progress in a situation where this line has been bogged down and blackmailed by the Fix Crenshaw group and their political supporters. Hopefully one day common sense will be established around here.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 29, 2011 9:09:03 GMT -8
While this station is not as optimal as a station centered at Manchester Avenue, it's definitely much much better than nothing! It's really bizarre the way they tied this to the Vernon Station. It sounds like this won't happen unless the Vernon Station happens; yet, an at-grade Hindry Station is only less than 10% the cost of an underground Vernon Station. Also, I don't like the fact that, despite tying it to the Vernon Station, they tied it only as an at-grade station. So, this is not that encouraging but it's a small bit of welcome progress in a situation where this line has been bogged down and blackmailed by the Fix Crenshaw group and their political supporters. Hopefully one day common sense will be established around here. The key component in this is keeping costs under control more than likely scenario is that an at-grade station will occur in the Leimert Park area at 48th Street-where CRA has a streetscape plan in conjunction with this to connect the Leimert Park Village to the two area stations- and have the additional station in Westchester. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 29, 2011 14:54:46 GMT -8
While this station is not as optimal as a station centered at Manchester Avenue, it's definitely much much better than nothing! It's really bizarre the way they tied this to the Vernon Station. It sounds like this won't happen unless the Vernon Station happens; yet, an at-grade Hindry Station is only less than 10% the cost of an underground Vernon Station. Also, I don't like the fact that, despite tying it to the Vernon Station, they tied it only as an at-grade station. So, this is not that encouraging but it's a small bit of welcome progress in a situation where this line has been bogged down and blackmailed by the Fix Crenshaw group and their political supporters. Hopefully one day common sense will be established around here. The key component in this is keeping costs under control more than likely scenario is that an at-grade station will occur in the Leimert Park area at 48th Street-where CRA has a streetscape plan in conjunction with this to connect the Leimert Park Village to the two area stations- and have the additional station in Westchester. Have any studies been done or been planning to be done for an at-grade Leimert Park Station so far? Where would such a station be located? |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Mar 1, 2012 7:24:57 GMT -8
LAX Light Rail Opponents Sue Uncle Sam (link)
LOS ANGELES (CN) - South Los Angeles residents challenged the approval of a $1.75 billion light rail project toward LAX airport, insisting that at least part of the line should go underground.
The Crenshaw Subway Coalition sued the Federal Transit Administration in Federal Court, seeking to stop the project on environmental grounds.
The "Crenshaw-LAX" project is an 8.5-mile light rail line which will link the Metro Green Line and Expo Line. It is under construction at Crenshaw and Exposition Boulevards.
The metro project came in for criticism after it became public knowledge that the line will stop 1 mile short of LAX.
The LA Weekly in January called the metro line a "monument to stupidity," and said that Los Angeles officials were "creating a potentially hobbling obstacle for the airport."
City leaders floated the idea of a tram or rail extension to bridge the remaining mile to LAX terminals, NBC News reported last year.
The coalition began its legal fight in November 2011, in Superior Court. But as a federal agency, the FTA exercised its right to remove the case to Federal Court.
The coalition claims that a subway would abate the environmental impact of street-level construction.
The complaint states: "The FTA's decision approving the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the regulations and guidelines implementing NEPA because, for instance, the environmental impact statement did not fully and adequately consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed project to include a below-grade (i.e., below ground) alignment along Crenshaw Boulevard between Exposition Boulevard and the Harbor Subdivision, particularly between 48th Street and 59th Street. The consideration of such an alternative is critically important to the citizens of the Crenshaw Boulevard community - a community who is actively engaged in productive efforts to improve and revitalize the Crenshaw Boulevard business district. The project threatens these planning efforts, including creating conflicts with plans adopted in furtherance of the community's revitalization goals. In addition, the project results in significant public safety and environmental impacts which have not been adequately examined." (Parentheses in complaint.)
The coalition seeks declaratory judgment for violations of the NEPA and an injunction revoking approval and funding for the project.
It is represented by Raymond Johnson, with Johnson & Sedlack, of Temecula.
Neither the coalition nor the FTA responded to emailed requests sent after business hours Wednesday.
LAX Light Rail Opponents Sue Uncle Sam (link)
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 1, 2012 9:09:59 GMT -8
Much is clarified by looking at the "About Us" section on the "newspaper's" webpage: "Courthouse News Service is a nationwide news service for lawyers and the news media." It seems pretty clear that they take boilerplate provided by the litigating attorneys and claim authorship over the resulting article, giving the attorneys a "news article" to quote whenever convenient. From their webpage "Courthouse News? core news publications are its new litigation reports. These reports are emailed to subscribers daily and contain coverage of all significant new civil complaints filed in a particular jurisdiction." If it was just reporting on the filing, they wouldn't take some quote from LA Weekly about the project not reaching LAX (technically another project, according to the law). That means they're cutting and pasting from what the lawyers give them. Furthermore, they quote in the article "Neither the coalition nor the FTA responded to emailed requests sent after business hours Wednesday" while the article was published Thursday morning. Wow, they didn't respond in the middle of the night. I guess the FTA is a big nasty government organization with something to hide! |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 1, 2012 13:58:39 GMT -8
The metro project came in for criticism after it became public knowledge that the line will stop 1 mile short of LAX. The LA Weekly in January called the metro line a "monument to stupidity," and said that Los Angeles officials were "creating a potentially hobbling obstacle for the airport." City leaders floated the idea of a tram or rail extension to bridge the remaining mile to LAX terminals, NBC News reported last year. This article manages to get it completely wrong, on the reason for the "LAX gap" and the history of it. Also, that issue has nothing to do with the lawsuit. A subway (demanded by the FixCrenshaw people) would not remedy the LAX issue, so why is LAX even mentioned here? Moreover, when did the LA Weekly become a source for citations? It's a local tabloid! I do find it interesting that the FTA had the case moved to Federal court. We'll see what happens. |
|
