|
|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 11, 2010 16:55:53 GMT -8
Thanks for the follow-up. Not sure when the Crenshaw line will be open for service (one would hope it's not in the "I should live so long" category for those of us who rode the Pacific Electric), but it will definitely fill a need. I've forgotten whose theory it was, but there's mathematical way of looking at transit systems that says the more connections you have, the more useful the system will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 11, 2010 17:23:43 GMT -8
Well I for one am absolutely in favor this route. Crenshaw Boulevard is an important boulevard to a lot of people. And the line will serve LAX and allow the Green Line to head north. The line will also take some pressure off the Blue Line as well, as it will give people from the South Bay and southwest L.A. an alternate to taking the Green/Blue lines.
I don't think the line needs the grade separation through Park Mesa. But I have read the DEIR and Metro staff has made a good case for the grade separation through Leimert Park.
As far as I know, we have no aerial sections of Metro Rail in the median of a boulevard. I don't have a problem with staff considering an aerial grade separation over Crenshaw/Expo, but it would be unprecedented in L.A.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 11, 2010 17:31:37 GMT -8
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. You could say that about a lot of corridors, such as the Gold Line Eastside Extension, the Gold Line Foothill Extension, and the Green Line to Norwalk. I would hope we're not going to start killing projects because we don't personally benefit from them. 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. As for Crenshaw looking at Westside Subway funds, I've never heard of that. |
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Sept 11, 2010 18:49:49 GMT -8
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. You could say that about a lot of corridors, such as the Gold Line Eastside Extension, the Gold Line Foothill Extension, and the Green Line to Norwalk. I would hope we're not going to start killing projects because we don't personally benefit from them. 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. As for Crenshaw looking at Westside Subway funds, I've never heard of that. Wilshire would be amazing, but it's not likely to be a reality for a while. All the same, if this route ends at the Expo, it's doing itself a great disservice. It's still a good idea, but every molecule of my being tells my that every stop NORTH of Expo that Metro pays for will be a better dollar-for-dollar spend than anything they've got planned outside of the Purple line. If they can get it up to the Pico/Rimpau transit center, then they would have connected to DASH, Big Blue Bus, a number of Metro Buses, not to mention the creeping redevelopment and increasing density of La Brea. It's fine to offer the Westside the Purple line, but if everyone has to go East-West, it's not really a help to anyone. Expo will be a great line, but between USC and Culver City, you'll really need to be south of the 10 (unless you're already a frequent bus rider). Pico Rimpau is at the center of a large amount of community redevelopment of Mid-City, and a station there would actually get people out of their cars. Expo and Crenshaw would benefit greatly for it. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 11, 2010 19:01:49 GMT -8
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. With the CPUC/Metro all learning some lessons from that charade, I think it would be very easy for the project team to work know what steps they don't do again to create another problem. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 11, 2010 20:23:25 GMT -8
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. You could say that about a lot of corridors, such as the Gold Line Eastside Extension, the Gold Line Foothill Extension, and the Green Line to Norwalk. I would hope we're not going to start killing projects because we don't personally benefit from them. 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. As for Crenshaw looking at Westside Subway funds, I've never heard of that. I started a post regarding all of the speculation and misinformation in his post, but got sidetracked and lost interest. I'll just say that there's lots of speculation and misinformation in his post. And whoever the "people" are that don't support the line because it's a feeder line, hopefully he corrects them when he hears their position. Crenshaw gets no love even from transit advocates. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 11, 2010 23:03:25 GMT -8
You could say that about a lot of corridors, such as the Gold Line Eastside Extension, the Gold Line Foothill Extension, and the Green Line to Norwalk. I would hope we're not going to start killing projects because we don't personally benefit from them. As for Crenshaw looking at Westside Subway funds, I've never heard of that. I started a post regarding all of the speculation and misinformation in his post, but got sidetracked and lost interest. I'll just say that there's lots of speculation and misinformation in his post. And whoever the "people" are that don't support the line because it's a feeder line, hopefully he corrects them when he hears their position. Crenshaw gets no love even from transit advocates. Yes, my post was speculation as are many of the posts here as we are talking about future lines and potential plans and so forth. I am anticipating the next battles for funding. As everyone correctly states, the Crenshaw Line really has to go north to Wilshire to really be an effective line (we can argue how great a line it will be just to Expo, but I think almost everyone agrees it will be much more effective going to Wilshire). The big question is how will this possibly be built with no funding and the chances of additional local taxes coming in for the next 30 years as quite remote (with three separate 1/2 cent sales taxes a fourth seems quite unlikely, but then one could say that before Measure R, I suppose)? I have pointed out that Measure R allocates $4.1B for the Westside Subway, but per the DEIR they are expecting to use only $2.7B to get to Westwood with the rest of the money coming from New Starts. What happens to that $1.4B is unclear at least to me. Does it necessarily have to be used for the Pink Line or the final stretch to the Sea from Westwood or does it somehow become up for grabs for either the Foothill Gold Line Extension 2B from Azuza to Claremont (that authority has an expected completion date for this already within a decade, but no funding whatsoever) or Crenshaw to Wilshire or some other project? Is it naive to think that there won't be the argument used that Santa Monica doesn't need two rail lines, and if tunneling is good enough for the wealthy Westside then it should be for the area north of Crenshaw too? It may be that Measure R puts an ironclad lockbox around that money and there is no way it can go to any other area of the county or any other project, but I am not sure that is the case. Some of these questions may not be answered for a few years as this plays out. Currently, Crenshaw already has a funding problem just to get to Expo. It is probably just a question of how big of funding problem it will be at this point. When I state that Crenshaw is a feeder line that does not have a constituency outside of the people that live along the line, I mean that unlike Expo it does not have a strong business community and related TODs reliant on it, the line doesn't run through multiple LA County Supervisor districts or as many other different political districts like Expo, and won't have as many commuters from other parts of the County reliant on it like Expo. This means when politicians like MRT argue for tunneling a lot of the line and this increases the cost of the line beyond what its funding is and this jeopardizes the completion of the line, not as many people care. I'm sorry it is just a fact that this line doesn't generate as much interest or discussion as Expo, the Purple Line or the Downtown Connector (not saying that should affect whether a line is built or not). Do we know what Zev's position is on the tunneling here? No, because it only runs in MRT's district. This wouldn't be the case with Expo. Fix Expo and MRT are in a tough position, because if they advocate too aggressively for tunneling on the line, they could jeopardize the build out of the entire line. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 12, 2010 9:40:28 GMT -8
Good points. And for the record, I have no problem with speculation on these forums, just so long as it's presented as speculation and not as fact.
It almost seems as if the whole line (from Wilshire to the Green Line) needs to be reconsidered in terms of priorities, ridership and a finite budget.
What are the priority segments on this line? I would argue, Leimert Park to Expo is pretty important. It would serve Leimert Park (cultural center), Baldwin Hills mall, and the Expo Line. The southern half of that needs to be in a tunnel, but I'm not sure about the part north of Coliseum.
I also think a junction with Expo is very important because it would allow LRVs to connect to the rest of the light-rail system.
Next I would decide which is the higher priority: the route north of Expo (to Wilshire), or the route south of Leimert. I would argue the northern segment has a higher priority because it is very dense with high existing ridership. It would cost more because of the tunneling, but you've got to reserve rail for where there is ridership. The southern segment is too suburban to compete with that.
All of this argues for a light-rail line between Wilshire and Leimert Park, mostly in a tunnel, with an at-grade segment at Exposition to allow a junction there. South of Leimert Park, do BRT. That segment could be converted to rail in Phase 2. This BRT would run to Century/Aviation, which will be the new LAX transit hub.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 12, 2010 14:11:00 GMT -8
I think that Crenshaw is very important for the future of LA County(LAX, green line North, South, etc.) I just don't think it should drain all of Measure R's funding with unnecessary underground sections.
|
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Sept 12, 2010 20:07:34 GMT -8
I think that Crenshaw is very important for the future of LA County(LAX, green line North, South, etc.) I just don't think it should drain all of Measure R's funding with unnecessary underground sections. Indeed, it is only a matter of time and a bit of money, but before long the Crenshaw line will be extended both north and south - quite possibly to Hollywood in lu of the Westside pink line and had been discussed here already. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 12, 2010 21:00:58 GMT -8
Indeed, it is only a matter of time and a bit of money, but before long the Crenshaw line will be extended both north and south - quite possibly to Hollywood in lu of the Westside pink line and had been discussed here already. Well, as it rumored to be named the "Rose Line", if it gets extended up San Vicente (where there was rail originally) to Santa Monica Blvd. (where there was rail originally), then it would still be a pink line, just a different variation. |
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Sept 12, 2010 22:09:32 GMT -8
Well, as it rumored to be named the "Rose Line", if it gets extended up San Vicente (where there was rail originally) to Santa Monica Blvd. (where there was rail originally), then it would still be a pink line, just a different variation. Actually I think it's on Metro's planning docs as the "Fuschia" line. I used to download the maps the MTA posted and play around with them in Adobe which would open hidden layers. |
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Sept 13, 2010 5:24:42 GMT -8
Whether it is/was the pink, fucsha, rose or whatever, it doesn't really matter. One, those were designations in the past. Two, they go away b/c the Westside project drops the option. And three, if the alignment became a true project, it would likely be discussed as a Crenshaw or 'Hollywood' extension.
Although, I still prefer an alignment up La Brea or Fairfax and an alignment up La Cienega to Santa Monica to Hollywood/Highland via a completely different line, such as one from Venice.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 13, 2010 10:22:17 GMT -8
^ Venice Blvd should have it's own line from Venice to Downtown, particularly if a second Regional Connector is built along Alameda (which would allow the Blue Line to bypass South Park and Financial district, thus letting the first Regional Connector handle another connection).
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 13, 2010 18:15:47 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. How did you hear this? It is on the agenda on the website, for the Planning Committee meeting Wednesday. I don't see anything about it having been withdrawn. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 15, 2010 14:01:22 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. How did you hear this? It is on the agenda on the website, for the Planning Committee meeting Wednesday. I don't see anything about it having been withdrawn. Answering my own question: the item was withdrawn from the Measure R Committee agenda, but it still appears on the Planning & Programming Committee agenda. The P&P meeting was today, I wonder what they decided, if anything. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 6, 2010 12:43:47 GMT -8
Yes folks, it's time for more meetings. Also, the South Bay Green Line Extension meetings are also this month. The following is from Metro's Crenshaw Corridor page. Station Area Planning Workshops/Project Update Meetings
The Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Team welcomes your participation at the Station Area Planning Workshops/Project Update Meetings. Over the past few months, we have held several Station Area Planning Workshops. During the next series of community workshops, we will provide a project update, discuss input received from past workshops, and present new information on station alternatives, station area planning, streetscape, and landscape design concepts. We will also provide an update on the maintenance facility site evaluation.
Thursday, October 28, 2010 – Florence/West Station
6pm - 8pm
Inglewood City Hall – Community Room, First Floor
One W Manchester Bl, Inglewood, CA 90301
Served by Metro Lines 40, 115, 740, 111, 711 & 212.
Thursday, November 4, 2010 – Crenshaw/MLK Station and Crenshaw/Vernon Station (optional)
6pm - 8pm
LADWP Crenshaw Customer Service Center – Auditorium
4030 Crenshaw Bl, Los Angeles, CA 90008
Served by Metro Lines 40, 105, 210, 305, 710 & 740.
Saturday, November 6, 2010 - Florence/La Brea Station
10am – noon
Faithful Central Church – The Living Room
400 W Florence Av, Inglewood CA 90301
Served by Metro Lines 40, 111, 115, 212 & 740.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 – Crenshaw/Slauson Station and Park Mesa Heights Alignment
6pm - 8pm
Crenshaw High School – Library
5010 11th Av, Los Angeles, CA 90043
Served by Metro Lines 40 & 210.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010 – Aviation/Manchester Station (optional) and Aviation/Century Station
6pm - 8pm
Westchester Senior Center
8740 Lincoln Bl, Los Angeles, CA 90045
Served by Metro Line 115.
Thursday, November 18, 2010 – Crenshaw/Exposition Station
6pm - 8pm
West Angeles Church – The Crystal Room
3045 Crenshaw Bl, Los Angeles, CA 90016
Served by Metro Lines 38, 210, 305 & 710.
All are welcome to attend, and you are encouraged to share this invitation with fellow community members, neighbors, and any others.
We look forward to your participation in the planning process.
To RSVP or for more information, please contact Kinya Claiborne at 310.333.1846 or RSVP@mckissackmw.com. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 11, 2010 9:23:21 GMT -8
BTW, following the October/November station meetings (see previous post), Metro staff will be completing the FEIR. Next steps include: - complete FEIR study and documentation
- send FEIR to FTA for review and approval
- make FEIR available to public for review and comment
- Metro board approve the FEIR and decide on remaining design options.
All of this is scheduled to happen this fall/winter (with public comment beginning in December). There are four remaining design options which must be resolved: Expo/Crenshaw grade separation (north of 39th Street to Expo, including Expo station) cost: $236 million pro: connection to future underground extension to north, better station location, avoids crossings at Coliseum and Rodeo. con: high cost. Leimert Park station (underground) cost: $155 million pro: key community focal point and destination. con: high cost. Park Mesa Heights grade separation (48th to 60th Street) cost: $219 million pro: continuous subway under Crenshaw, avoids crossing Slauson. con: high cost plus not necessary (wide boulevard). Centinela grade separation (just north of Florence) cost: $13 million pro: relatively low cost, frequent grade crossings. con: maybe not necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 11, 2010 19:45:44 GMT -8
BTW, following the October/November station meetings (see previous post), Metro staff will be completing the FEIR. Next steps include: - complete FEIR study and documentation
- send FEIR to FTA for review and approval
- make FEIR available to public for review and comment
- Metro board approve the FEIR and decide on remaining design options.
All of this is scheduled to happen this fall/winter (with public comment beginning in December). There are four remaining design options which must be resolved: Expo/Crenshaw grade separation (north of 39th Street to Expo, including Expo station) cost: $236 million pro: connection to future underground extension to north, better station location, avoids crossings at Coliseum and Rodeo. con: high cost. Leimert Park station (underground) cost: $155 million pro: key community focal point and destination. con: high cost. Park Mesa Heights grade separation (48th to 60th Street) cost: $219 million pro: continuous subway under Crenshaw, avoids crossing Slauson. con: high cost plus not necessary (wide boulevard). Centinela grade separation (just north of Florence) cost: $13 million pro: relatively low cost, frequent grade crossings. con: maybe not necessary. These would be my suggestions for the above: Expo/Crenshaw grade separation: Build it elevated rather than underground for $25 million rather than $236 million (as mentioned early in the thread by Gokhan). The only issue I see here is that the line would have to go underground anyway once it's extended north towards Wilshire. Leimert Park station: I want it built, but it's simply too expensive. The funding would have to be siphoned from another Measure R project (if that's even possible), especially since the feds would not likely help. Park Mesa Heights grade separation: Not necessary. Centinela grade separation: Also not necessary, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be built if there is funding is available. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 11, 2010 20:13:44 GMT -8
I am absolutely opposed to the Park Mesa grade separation. (For that matter, I'm also opposed to the grade separation south of that, between 60th and the ROW, but unfortunately that has already been incorporated into the base alternative.)
I am for a station at Leimert/Vernon. IMO it is the central destination on the line.
The segment from 39th to Exposition is tough. I don't have a problem with it being aerial, but that option is not currently on the table because it was never put forth by the board as something to study. The choices are at-grade and underground. Given these choices, I have to go with underground because of the future connections to the north.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 15, 2010 14:13:51 GMT -8
Feds to Loan Metro More than a Half Billion for Crenshaw/LAX Corridor Projectlaist.com/2010/10/15/3010.phpPublic transportation in Los Angeles today received a boost with the news of a large loan from the federal government. Metro will receive more than a half billion in loaned funds for it's nine-mile Crenshaw/LAX light rail line, which will take riders between the Green Line at LAX and the Expo Line, which is currently under construction. "Today is a very good day," said Senator Barbara Boxer, who made the announcement this afternoon. $546 million dollars from the federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program will be handed over to Metro, which hopes to break ground on the project in the spring. The $1.4 billion project was originally slated to be built in the 2020s, but the funding means the line could be operational by 2016. The project is one of twelve in the 30/10 plan, which envisions accelerating the construction and completion of 12 transit lines into 10 years instead of 30 years. Funds are guaranteed through Measure R, the 2008 voter approved half-cent sales tax increase that will be used to pay back the federal government. "This is our first confidence building measure to make 30/10 a reality," said Boxer. "What we want to do is take this as a template and a model." "Jobs, transportation and infrastructure is an area where we [Democrats and Republicans] can find common ground and address the need for job creation and infrastructure investment by leveraging what cities and counties are willing to do by putting up their own money," said L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who lauded Boxer and her staff for championing 30/10. He said the unexpected money frees up Measure R funds for other projects. [ Added: The project received a $1.45 million grant from the federal government in August for the design of an intermodal transit center at Aviation/Century near LAX. "The Aviation/Century station will be a big one on the Crenshaw/LAX Line. Located at the northeast corner of LAX, the station will be serving both trains on the Crenshaw/LAX Line and also some trains coming up from the Green Line, not to mention the many bus lines serving the area," explained Metro's in-house blog The Source. "LAX officials have also said they plan to build a people mover to connect the airport terminal area to the train station, although those plans are far from finalized."] An official announcement with more details, such as terms of the loan, will be made next Wednesday at a press conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 15, 2010 14:29:01 GMT -8
Woo-hoo! Guess I should eat my words about the feds not helping with the project.
I wish the money wasn't going towards unnecessary grade separations, but regardless, this is fantastic news!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 15, 2010 14:43:36 GMT -8
Woo-hoo! Guess I should eat my words about the feds not helping with the project. You don't have to because this is not a federal grant -- only a federal loan. It will be a different game with the Downtown Connector and Westside Subway. They need to get the federal grants first before they can apply for additional loans. The Crenshaw Line cannot qualify for federal funding because of the poor ridership estimates and all the grade separations making the project very expensive. More explanation is at the 30/10 thread here. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 15, 2010 14:54:22 GMT -8
This is just great news.  |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 15, 2010 15:43:45 GMT -8
Big thumbs up, great way to start the weekend!  |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 15, 2010 16:28:44 GMT -8
So this is the first fruit of 30/10 plan?
Great news indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 15, 2010 19:33:44 GMT -8
My only fear is Ridley Thomas being a pain in the a**. He emphasizes that the train will be underground and it has to be underground to protect the neighborhoods, businesses, churches, and schools. Read it here: ridley-thomas.lacounty.gov/PDFs/Misc/USDOTfunds.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 16, 2010 8:59:38 GMT -8
MRT will try his hardest to make the line underground. That is his goal in trying to change the Expo line as well, I'm not opposed to it but it is unaffordable. Anyway, he can try all he wants, I don't see it working out for him much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 16, 2010 9:41:57 GMT -8
My only fear is Ridley Thomas being a pain in the a**. He emphasizes that the train will be underground and it has to be underground to protect the neighborhoods, businesses, churches, and schools. Read it here: ridley-thomas.lacounty.gov/PDFs/Misc/USDOTfunds.pdfThe condition of the federal government is pretty grim right now, the budget deficit in unprecedented levels since World War II, caused by recent Bush and Obama stimulus packages:  Of course, the state and local governments are in equally bad condition and Measure R is projected not to generate the return expected. Therefore, Mark-Ridley Thomas needs to realize that money is scarce and doesn't grow on trees. By asking for a gold-clad project in his neighborhood for a line with low ridership, he is jeopardizing all the rail projects in LA county, including this pet Crenshaw Subway project of his. This is not any different than what Fix Expo did, except the Crenshaw Line is expected to have much less ridership than the Expo Line; therefore, there is even less justification for a subway. PS: As far as the numbers are concerned, $546 million is less than half the $1.207 billion Measure R funds allocated to this project. With the recent addition of the subway sections, even more funds are needed. Yet, Mark-Ridley Thomas is asking for a full subway, which would require even more funds on top of that. His demands are entirely unrealistic. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 16, 2010 9:57:50 GMT -8
The estimated ridership for this line just goes to show how unreliable the models can be. The bus lines on this corridor are very busy and I fully expect that it will outperform every existing LA light rail line in ridership per mile aside from the under construction Expo line and the blue line from LA to Rosa Parks.
As far as Mark Ridley-Thomas looking for additional funds for a line in his district, well that's what he's supposed to do. Can't see why people are looking forward to him failing. If he can find the money that would be great!
|
|
