|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 1, 2010 9:18:18 GMT -8
Not to turn this in a people mover thread, but I would note the following:
1. In the above story, LAWA is looking to generate $700 million, a portion of which would be used for the people mover.
2. Several posts back, there was $1.45 million design contract awarded for the preliminary design of the Crenshaw line station at Aviation/Century. This station will presumably have a people mover station.
3. According to a story in the airports thread back in February 2010: "A second phase (of the TBT expansion) would see the construction of a soaring bridge over the new taxiways, to carry people-movers over to a proposed second concourse, on industrial land closer to the Pacific."
4. LAWA purchased the Park One facility: 07/28/09 -- Los Angeles World Airports today announced completion of the purchase of a 20-acre parcel just east of Terminal 1 at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) for $125 million. Airport officials plan to continue the existing lease of the property to a private operator who operates the property under the name Park One and to receive lease revenues.
I am assuming that #4 also has something to do with the people mover. Thats a large piece of land when you check it out from Google Maps. I am also assuming that the people mover would actually circulate to all the terminals, and not just end at the Park One location, with travelers then switching to yet another mode (i.e. the current NG busses).
It just seems funny that with two different organizations (MTA, LAWA) both dabbling in this, that there would be some sort of formal agreement on how to proceed forward? Maybe there is and I'm just not aware of it?
My first thought is that MTA would just basically be building the people mover station at Aviation/Century, and that LAWA would build the rest of the people mover. With the Park One lot being the main hub, where the vehicles would be stored until use.
Someone in another thread, maybe this one, commented on the lack of information concerning the people mover. Maybe when the $700 starts rolling in there will be more concrete plans developed.
The other interesting aspect of this is what the interests are of the two parties: MTA obviously wants a rail link into LAX, which a people mover with a station at Aviation/Century would then provide assuming the people mover actually circulates to all the terminals. LAWA would probably want to also tie in the remote parking lot(s), and I don't even know if the LAX rental car facilities are accessible from the central area, or whether they are remote also. If the PM runs along Century, it could also presumably hit a couple of the big hotels in that area too. The cost of doing that would be higher, but imagine the selling point of having your hotel a single short rail hop from LAX, not in traffic. I'll bet the hotels would kick in money to make the connection.
My other thought is that the PM would be over $700 million to do all of that.
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 1, 2010 9:50:24 GMT -8
I am also assuming that the people mover would actually circulate to all the terminals, and not just end at the Park One location, with travelers then switching to yet another mode (i.e. the current NG busses). Yes, the people mover plans has always included stops that would serve all terminals. It just seems funny that with two different organizations (MTA, LAWA) both dabbling in this, that there would be some sort of formal agreement on how to proceed forward? Maybe there is and I'm just not aware of it? There is very little public information on the web about the People Mover (that I can find anyway). But my understanding is that Metro accepted the Federal Grant money because (1) Metro will be working on that station along with LAWA, and more importantly (2) LAWA had not yet made sufficient progress in their plans to accept the grant. So it looks to me like LAWA is just behind schedule with their work. My first thought is that MTA would just basically be building the people mover station at Aviation/Century, and that LAWA would build the rest of the people mover. Yes, that is my understanding. Someone in another thread, maybe this one, commented on the lack of information concerning the people mover. Maybe when the $700 starts rolling in there will be more concrete plans developed. That was me, and I too am anxious to look at some real plans. The other interesting aspect of this is what the interests are of the two parties: MTA obviously wants a rail link into LAX, which a people mover with a station at Aviation/Century would then provide assuming the people mover actually circulates to all the terminals. LAWA would probably want to also tie in the remote parking lot(s), and I don't even know if the LAX rental car facilities are accessible from the central area, or whether they are remote also. If the PM runs along Century, it could also presumably hit a couple of the big hotels in that area too. The cost of doing that would be higher, but imagine the selling point of having your hotel a single short rail hop from LAX, not in traffic. I'll bet the hotels would kick in money to make the connection. LAWA's plans used to include a remote parking facility in Manchester Square. Also, the plans had the People Mover running along 96th Street (not Century Boulevard), in order to serve the proposed Consolidated Rent-A-Car (RAC) facility up there. I'm not sure if LAWA is still following these same plans: things have changed a lot since 2004. But anyway, I would think any major changes (regarding route and station locations) would require either major revisions to the LAX FEIR (already completed) or a brand new EIR. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 1, 2010 10:17:17 GMT -8
From January 2009, the Bradley West public scoping exhibits. Not much detail concerning the light rail alignment, but I believe the area with P1-P2-P3 and North Pier and South Pier is the site that the study will be producing the design for. Including the people mover, public parking, and the light rail station. I might have that wrong. www.ourlax.org/pdf/2_LAX%20Master%20Plan.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 1, 2010 10:30:27 GMT -8
OK well I stand corrected on two things:
#1, LAX's plans are not that old: the most recent FEIR was completed in late 2009.
#2, the People Mover would not use only 96th Street: it would operate on a loop, using 96th Street and the south side of Century Boulevard as its east-west routes.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 1, 2010 10:52:59 GMT -8
From January 2009, the Bradley West public scoping exhibits. Not much detail concerning the light rail alignment, but I believe the area with P1-P2-P3 and North Pier and South Pier is the site that the study will be producing the design for. Including the people mover, public parking, and the light rail station. I might have that wrong. The Crenshaw Corridor station itself (at Aviation/Century) will be located on the northwest corner of Aviation/Century. Probably the other facilities (including the People Mover station) will be located on the northeast corner area ("Manchester Square"), with an elevated pedestrian path over Aviation connecting the two stations. This image makes me think that maybe LAWA wants to reconfigure the domestic terminals ("North Linear Concourse") before building the people mover. Otherwise, they would have to completely redo the people mover once the terminals move. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 1, 2010 13:46:17 GMT -8
The Crenshaw Corridor station itself (at Aviation/Century) will be located on the northwest corner of Aviation/Century. Probably the other facilities (including the People Mover station) will be located on the northeast corner area ("Manchester Square"), with an elevated pedestrian path over Aviation connecting the two stations. metrocenter/all, I just did a quick calculation using Google Maps, and I am assuming the locations for the South Pier and the North Pier people mover stations from the previously linked LAWA website. If the Century/Aviation station is on the West side of Aviation, then there is going to be one awfully long walk from the light rail stop to the people mover. From Aviation itself, I measured 1,500 feet to the South Pier, and 2,100 feet to the North Pier  And that is in a direct line. Wouldn't it be absurd to build it that way. You would almost need another people mover to get people from the light rail station to the LAX people mover  Especially since they will be carrying luggage on that 1/2 mile trek. Since apparently LAWA owns the entire "Manchester Square" area, wouldn't it make more sense to run the light rail right into the middle of the square, and then minimize the walking required to get from the stop to one of the people mover entrances? I sure hope this isn't one of those cases where the bean counters decide to save $50 million by not doing this, and then create another problem that we will have to live with and write about for the next 15 years... RT |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 1, 2010 14:00:55 GMT -8
That image wasn't a detailed project drawing, only a high-level plan. So I wouldn't take too much from that drawing. I know two things about that station. First, I know what the Crenshaw DEIR states. That DEIR has two options for the Century/Aviation -- one at-grade, and one elevated --and both of these options are northwest of Century/Aviation. Second, I know that the LAX plan used to call for a Ground Transportation Center (GTC), to be served by the People Mover, located northeast of Century/Aviation. (That is what is showing on that map.) I don't know if this second item is still the plan for the GTC, or how it will connect with the Crenshaw Line's Century/Aviation station. Edit: I do know one more thing. In 2006 Mayor Villaraigosa agreed to settle lawsuits from neighbors opposing the LAX plans. See here. One of the issues was the GTC at Manchester Square. In the settlement, LAX promised to revisit several issues, including the GTC. I don't know what the result of that process was. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 10, 2010 15:56:50 GMT -8
Crenshaw Study UpdateLast December, Supervisor Ridley-Thomas asked Metro staff to study a new design option to grade-separate the line between 48th and 59th Streets under Crenshaw Boulevard. This would create a continuous tunnel from either Coliseum or Exposition in the north all the way down to the Harbor Sub ROW in the south. Metro staff has concluded that there is no need to do this, and has recommended against it. They said that, with all other issues being pretty much equal with or without the grade-separation, the additional scope would cost money that the project doesn't have. They again cited the Metro Grade Crossing Policy as key to their decision. For the record, they studied the tunnel with a station at Slauson, as well as without. The tunnel alone would cost $167 million. The tunnel with the station would cost $219 million. The staff report (to be presented to the Board this month) is here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 10, 2010 16:23:14 GMT -8
Crenshaw Study UpdateLast December, Supervisor Ridley-Thomas asked Metro staff to study a new design option to grade-separate the line between 48th and 59th Streets under Crenshaw Boulevard. This would create a continuous tunnel from either Coliseum or Exposition in the north all the way down to the Harbor Sub ROW in the south. Metro staff has concluded that there is no need to do this, and has recommended against it. They said that, with all other issues being pretty much equal with or without the grade-separation, the additional scope would cost money that the project doesn't have. They again cited the Metro Grade Crossing Policy as key to their decision. For the record, they studied the tunnel with a station at Slauson, as well as without. The tunnel alone would cost $167 million. The tunnel with the station would cost $219 million. The staff report (to be presented to the Board this month) is here. Cool! More than enough with the I won't accept a Chevrolet but only a Cadillac mentality! I guess Fix Expo will now be reincarnated with the name Fix Crenshaw and be a pain for that project. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 10, 2010 16:32:23 GMT -8
Crenshaw Study UpdateLast December, Supervisor Ridley-Thomas asked Metro staff to study a new design option to grade-separate the line between 48th and 59th Streets under Crenshaw Boulevard. This would create a continuous tunnel from either Coliseum or Exposition in the north all the way down to the Harbor Sub ROW in the south. Metro staff has concluded that there is no need to do this, and has recommended against it. They said that, with all other issues being pretty much equal with or without the grade-separation, the additional scope would cost money that the project doesn't have. They again cited the Metro Grade Crossing Policy as key to their decision. For the record, they studied the tunnel with a station at Slauson, as well as without. The tunnel alone would cost $167 million. The tunnel with the station would cost $219 million. The staff report (to be presented to the Board this month) is here. Cool! More than enough with the I won't accept a Chevrolet but only a Cadillac mentality! I guess now Fix Expo will change their name to Fix Crenshaw and be a pain for that project. As I suspected, Señor Ridley-Thomas could care less about Expo Line or Fix Expo, his goal has always been the grade separation of the Crenshaw line. Another reason politicians should not design rail lines. I would not underestimate this man, he is very motivated, smart and dangerous. His goal is to undermine and destroy the Metro Grade Crossing Policy (In my opinion that is)... |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 10, 2010 16:58:26 GMT -8
He has already messed up the project quite a bit with unnecessary underground sections. What Metro is trying to do right now is stop loss. They don't even have the money to build the LPA as it is, let alone the additional underground section MRT is trying to have added.
I also don't get it why they wouldn't have aerial sections instead of the underground sections. It's a very wide boulevard. Either an aerial section or a reduced underground section with at-grade Vernon crossing would allow a Vernon Station. But now it won't happen because of budget restrictions, thanks to MRT's generous amounts of subway sections.
The whole idea is to get the best for the buck, but again, some people won't accept a Chevrolet but only a Cadillac and they think the city has an unlimited amount of money. How childish.
|
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Sept 10, 2010 18:30:32 GMT -8
While this particular grade-separation is clearly unnecessary, it is IMO absolutely critical that the Crenshaw line be grade separated at the Expo/Crenshaw junction.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 10, 2010 20:30:44 GMT -8
From page 4: Recommendation
These findings do not change the LPA recommendation that the LRT alignment should be at-grade to conform to Board adopted policies and the environmental analysis completed for this segment.
Funding
The 2009 adopted Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) reserved $1.715 billion for the Crenshaw/LAX Corridor. The Board adopted LPA has an estimated cost of $1.59 billion (escalated dollars). There are three design options that are being further evaluated in the Final Environmental lmpact Statement / Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIS/EIR) and Advanced Conceptual Engineering (ACE) to determine whether they need to be constructed and to refine designs and cost estimates. These options are a Centinela Grade Separation, a Crenshaw/Vernon Station, and an Exposition/Crenshaw Grade Separation. If any of these options need to be constructed, cost savings will need to be identified to fund them within the project budget. Because the PMHGS is not required, it would be an enhancement to the project. In the past, these types of improvements have typicallY been funded from sources outside the project budget. To be clear, the LPA includes a subway through Leimert Park. This grade-separation is pretty much a done deal, unless the Metro Board decides to go back and reverse its previous decision to include it. And as far as I'm concerned a subway tunnel here makes sense. Crenshaw is very narrow through there and very congested. The LPA also includes the following additional three items (at a total additional cost of $56 million): - Aerial grade-separation at Aviation/Century
- Aerial grade-separation at Aviation/Manchester
- Replacing the aerial grade-separation at the transition from Crenshaw Blvd. to the Harbor Sub ROW with a cut-and-cover tunnel.
The following three design options are still on the table: - Cut-and-cover grade separation at Centinela ($13 million)
- New station at Leimert Park ($155 million)
- Extend tunnel north from Coliseum to Exposition, including Crenshaw/Expo station ($236 million).
If any of these are selected, they will need money. And these item have a higher priority than this Park Mesa grade separation, which provides no benefit. Here is an image of the approved LPA, along with the design options still being considered. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 10, 2010 21:56:33 GMT -8
Thanks, Joel, very nice summary.
This project is not only already over-budget but its costs are grossly underestimated. I think the below-ground sections will cost much more than expected. I don't understand why they aren't going aerial in the median of the wide Crenshaw Boulevard. Below-ground makes no sense.
I think the funding and construction of this project will be a nightmare with all these below-ground sections. It's unbelieveable how much Fix Expo and the guy it campaigned for and got elected -- Mark Ridley-Thomas -- have made so much damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 10, 2010 23:12:16 GMT -8
Just remember that this is the same Mark Ridley-Thomas that was adamant about the Expo Line tunnel under Exposition Park--I think it's just his personal philosophy, similar to that which Yvonne Braithewaite Burke had in that a few folks just really, really believe in trenches and tunnels.
I think it should be reminded again and again and again as a talking point that the extra money for an unneeded tunnel takes away from the truly-needed grade separation at Expo/Crenshaw and (as with Leimert Park) the truly-needed tunnel from the Expo to the Wilshire Corridor.
Such a talking point emphasizes that we're not rigid about tunnels, one way or another, as those with "tunnel vision" are. We DON'T want unneeded tunnels so that we CAN build them where we are needed and get a longer Crenshaw Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 10, 2010 23:12:17 GMT -8
Crenshaw isn't exactly narrow in Leimert park; it is 7 lanes wide, like many arterial streets in Los Angeles. Certainly, taking away 3 lanes would reduce capacity for cars, but it could be done.
It's a shame that Vernon might not get a station. It's a busy cross-town bus route, though I suppose the buses continue north-west to MLK / Crenshaw, and beyond to Expo / La Cienega
I also don't understand the station placing near Manchester/Aviation. The map seems to show a station a couple blocks north-east of that intersection. Shouldn't the station be at Manchester, to facilitate transfers? The area north-east is only industrial now. Crossing Manchester at-grade, instead of with an aerial, would make for a better station.
And the trench section along LAX is ridiculous. The current freight railway is at grade and was there long before the Airport existed! Why is the FAA demanding this ridiculous, unnecessary expense? Catenary poles and wires only add a few extra feet compared to the height of the current freight trains.
If we could save a few hundred million, perhaps the line could be extended to Wilshire and connect to the subway at La Brea or Fairfax. Otherwise, many transit riders will continue taking the bus (or be required to transfer) to get to Wilshire Center, Century City or Westwood, where the jobs are. The transfer to Expo, for a quick ride downtown or to Santa Monica, will be popular, which certainly necessitates grade separation at that intersection, if only for the volume of pedestrians crossing to the split platforms. That grade separation is the only one that is absolutely essential to the smooth and safe functioning of the transit system and benefit of transit riders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 10, 2010 23:23:32 GMT -8
I think it should be reminded again and again and again as a talking point that the extra money for an unneeded tunnel takes away from the truly-needed grade separation at Expo/Crenshaw And why not build that truly needed grade separation in the form a simple LRT bridge and an aerial station over the Expo Line for only $25 million instead of a $236-million tunnel? It's nothing but the nasty politics of "I won't accept a Chevy but only a fully loaded Cadillac." It's sad that the reality can be so much distorted -- very sad. |
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Sept 10, 2010 23:41:49 GMT -8
And why not build that truly needed grade separation in the form a simple LRT bridge and an aerial station over the Expo Line for only $25 million instead of a $236-million tunnel? You know, I had that exact same thought earlier today. Did Metro consider that? |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 10, 2010 23:57:22 GMT -8
Just remember that this is the same Mark Ridley-Thomas that was adamant about the Expo Line tunnel under Exposition Park--I think it's just his personal philosophy I think the personal philosophy of MRT is not a tunnel fetish but "You rub my back and I will rub yours." Remember that he is a USC alumnus and it doesn't surprise me a bit that he had a consensus with President Sample et al. regarding a tunnel by USC. It's the same thing now with MRT & Fix Expo and NFSR -- you campaigned for me and voted for me and it's now my turn to do you guys a favor. It's also apparent that MRT is currently working with Fix Expo on Expo issues -- Expo Inspector General: hold Expo accountable -- being the latest thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 11, 2010 0:09:18 GMT -8
And why not build that truly needed grade separation in the form a simple LRT bridge and an aerial station over the Expo Line for only $25 million instead of a $236-million tunnel? You know, I had that exact same thought earlier today. Did Metro consider that? I'm not a Crenshaw Line expert and I haven't followed the history and behind the scenes of it that well like I did for the Expo Line. But I know that there were a lot politics and pressure by Fix Expo initially and MRT also put a lot of pressure, saying that aerial structures will have visual impacts, blah, blah, and therefore should be avoided because of community concerns. There is a big and popular church at Crenshaw and Exposition but an aerial structure would still fit and look fine there. It's amazing how politicians can influence a project. If it was left to the staff members, they would never build these meaningless below-ground sections at extra cost (instead of the originally planned aerial sections). Things were thrown under the rug early on because of the pressure by Fix Expo and MRT. You can't trust the integrity of a project when the politicans put too much weight on it, as it happened with the Crenshaw Line. Leave it to the staff -- leave it to the professionals that is. |
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 11, 2010 6:50:49 GMT -8
And why not build that truly needed grade separation in the form a simple LRT bridge and an aerial station over the Expo Line for only $25 million instead of a $236-million tunnel? The only reason for grade separation of the Crenshaw line at Expo is to provide for future extension north along Crenshaw. It's generally accepted that Crenshaw north of Expo is too narrow for at-grade, and therefore that extension would be in subway at least up to Mid-City, where the median of San Vicente Blvd. could allow median tracks north as it did for the Pacific Electric. |
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Sept 11, 2010 7:27:47 GMT -8
That is a pretty good reason by itself, but, an additional benefit is having a station immediately underneath the Expo Station and allow direct access to those platforms and reduce distance for transfers. This would be safer than an at-grade station positioned someplace to the south and in the middle of Crenshaw.
|
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Sept 11, 2010 8:00:10 GMT -8
^^^^^ Catchinup on the posts on the previous page V V V V
It is all about about money. And it all began at the beginning.
If, if at the very beginning for planning for these new projects and putting an estimated cost for each, that the politicians didn't argue for THEIR projects, this region wouldn't have been forced to squeeze blood from a turnip.
Although nice, maybe we did not need a Foothill Extension OR what-not and that those funds could have been used as a contingency for project design for the others.
By the way, is there a line item in Measure R / LRTP for contingencies?
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 11, 2010 9:51:05 GMT -8
Just remember that this is the same Mark Ridley-Thomas that was adamant about the Expo Line tunnel under Exposition Park--I think it's just his personal philosophy I think the personal philosophy of MRT is not a tunnel fetish but "You rub my back and I will rub yours." Remember that he is a USC alumnus and it doesn't surprise me a bit that he had a consensus with President Sample et al. regarding a tunnel by USC. It's the same thing now with MRT & Fix Expo and NFSR -- you campaigned for me and voted for me and it's now my turn to do you guys a favor. It's also apparent that MRT is currently working with Fix Expo on Expo issues -- Expo Inspector General: hold Expo accountable -- being the latest thing. The big problem for MRT and Fix Expo on Crenshaw is that their changes are becoming so expensive that they are endangering the entire project. Measure R only gives so much to Crenshaw, which is already quite a bit. They have to walk a fine line or Crenshaw will be delayed for years. It is already just a feeder line so people outside the immediate Crenshaw area really don't care much about it as it will only largely serve the people along the line. To connect to Wilshire is probably another $1B or maybe more. There are no funds for this, but I can see the above groups trying to get the Westside Extension Measure R funds for this. Remember Measure R allocates $4.1B to the subway, but currently only $2.7B will be used to Westwood if the project gets New Starts. Crenshaw really isn't a viable line without it getting to Wilshire, so there will be quite a fight for these funds. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 11, 2010 10:16:27 GMT -8
The staff report (to be presented to the Board this month) is here. It won't be presented this month as it was withdrawn. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 11, 2010 13:30:31 GMT -8
Not being very familiar with this area, I'd like to get some input from readers who are. Please identify attractions (cultural, historical, entertainment-oriented) that might draw visitors from other parts of the county.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 11, 2010 14:45:46 GMT -8
Not being very familiar with this area, I'd like to get some input from readers who are. Please identify attractions (cultural, historical, entertainment-oriented) that might draw visitors from other parts of the county. On the south end, you have LAX and the adjacent office and industrial jobs. Inglewood also has some jobs and shopping in its center, a mile south of the line, and Hollywood park is also a mile south on Praire. Leimert Park has some dense residential areas and local retail. The Crenshaw line will also connect with the existing Green Line thru El Segundo, which still has industrial and aerospace jobs, though less than in the past, and will eventually reach the South Bay mall and Torrance town center, though that is really a different project. But I think most riders would end up transferring to Expo to get to Downtown LA, USC, Culver City or Santa Monica So yeah, if you know someone who lives or works in this area you might use the line, and if you are near the Expo or Green line you could use it to get to LAX. But it isn't high on the list of destinations or employment centers. Most of the residential area is 10 to 20k per square mile, which is enough for light rail or BRT, if it connects to important destinations. That's why extending this line to Wilshire Blvd (or better yet Hollywood Blvd) will be necessary to get any reasonable amount of ridership, and why the cost-effectiveness is so low. I hate to bring this up, but his is the real reason that Crenshaw is getting Rapid Transit, rather than South Vermont or South Broadway (both of which would be better north-south routes, due to a potential direct connection to Downtown, and high current bus ridership), or Whittier or Venice or Pico: www.aztlan.net/maps/2000.jpg (Crenshaw is in the middle of the majority Black area north of Inglewood; Vermont and Broadway and the Blue Line are in majority Latino areas) Politically, the community along Crenshaw was feeling shortchanged by Metro's expansion plans, until this line was added to Measure R and advanced in the long range plans. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 11, 2010 14:54:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 11, 2010 15:57:57 GMT -8
I think we will see that trend continue with the 2010 census results, and even more of the South LA community will be Latino-majority
I agree, but I think that trend slowed down over the last few years and maybe even reversed in many areas. I think that the peak was probably mid-decade and that over the last two years the total number of Hispanics in South LA has decreased and the number of blacks has increased.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 11, 2010 16:11:42 GMT -8
Not being very familiar with this area, I'd like to get some input from readers who are. Please identify attractions (cultural, historical, entertainment-oriented) that might draw visitors from other parts of the county. jeisenbe pretty much answered you and I'd just say that the route does travel through the cultural center of black LA, especially around Leimert Park where there are semi-frequent activities and events along with clubs, restaurants, art, etc. I hate to bring this up, but his is the real reason that Crenshaw is getting Rapid Transit... True, but from what I understand every ethnic neighborhood needs their own identity and transit or it wouldn't be fair. |
|
And that is in a direct line.
Especially since they will be carrying luggage on that 1/2 mile trek. Since apparently LAWA owns the entire "Manchester Square" area, wouldn't it make more sense to run the light rail right into the middle of the square, and then minimize the walking required to get from the stop to one of the people mover entrances?
