|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 16, 2010 10:49:20 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. The Pink line as we formerly knew it no longer exists because the subway alternative chosen was the one that goes directly to UCLA. Based on Metro's comments when they did that, they stated that the WeHo area deserved some additional study. Others here have posted potential alignments for extending the Crenshaw line North of the Expo terminus, then veering West and finally East, allowing a one seat ride from WeHo to LAX. Given all this, if the former Pink line gets turned into Crehshaw Phase 2, would it then make more sense to consider undergrounding portions of the currently planned Crenshaw Phase 1 line? I know we like to think ahead, so maybe this is a case where the current mostly at grade recommended Crenshaw line might run into capacity constraints should it be extended to WeHo without grade separation. Just asking, and I am totally unfamiliar with the area... RT |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 16, 2010 11:39:27 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! I hope this line succeeds. What I don't want is this project getting so expensive or so low in cost-effectiveness that it jeopardizes it's ability to get funding, or turns public opinion against rail in general. And second, I don't want the line to get exceptions to the grade-crossing policy just because community groups yell loudly. This sets up a very bad precedent that exposes every project in the future to NIMBY demands. Ridley-Thomas asked for grade separation through Park Mesa, that's his right. Staff studied it and is recommending no because it is not necessary. There are plenty of other Board members who will vote against it. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 16, 2010 12:24:02 GMT -8
Correct and I don't get the impression that MRT will try and kill the line if he doesn't get his way. That's not how he operates at all. He's a politician so if he doesn't get his way on this issue he will use that to try and leverage that loss to get something else. He's all about making deals and quid pro quo. Yes, he did kill the chances for football in LA by insisting on the Colosseum, but that was little different.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 16, 2010 13:18:32 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.It is important to remember that the $546M does not represent any new funds to the project, but at the same time the project still has its full Measure R allotment. All this does is speed up the building of the line a little bit, which may realize some cost savings. The tricky part is approving a LPA, but not knowing exactly how much it will really cost until the bids for work go out. However, the loan does let the project go out to bid soon so they can start work by late next year. Of course, the temptation may be to "spend" any savings on building underground here, which means there won't be any additional funds to have for future lines like possibly extending the line to the North. Also, any savings must be weighed against Measure R funds coming in lower than originally expected back in 2008. It will be interesting how this all plays out and I am not sure if anyone has a real feel for this. |
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 16, 2010 20:00:56 GMT -8
Info copied from another thread: -- If Villiagrosia's comments are accurate- that the loan award was not expected - that would indicate that Metro will be privy to funding with no interest (this needs confirmation), vs. issuing bonds that DO have interest rates. Where Metro comes ahead is the difference between the interest that would be paid, vs. none at all??? What is that worth? Well, I am not an expert in this field... and perhaps someone on here is, but my back-of-the-envelope estimates say we're looking at: $542m at 0.4% annually = $2.2m. Over 20 years = $43m $542m at 0.6% annually = $3.3m. Over 20 years = $65m Of course, I have no knowledge of the current financing plan for Crenshaw, or any other Measure R project. I also have no knowledge about the bond market and what Metro assumes in its long range plan. I did do a quick search and saw that LA County's credit rating slipped from AA- to something and something that seemed appropriate for the above estimates. articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/10/business/fi-county-debt10I would have origionally assumed higher interests rates, such as 2% to 4% $542m at 2% annually = $11m. Over 20 years = $227m $542m at 4% annually = $22m. Over 20 years = $434m |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 20, 2010 14:32:47 GMT -8
Measure R is projected not to generate the return expected. What? Where did you get that information? |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 20, 2010 14:47:57 GMT -8
Measure R is projected not to generate the return expected. What? Where did you get that information? Look at what's happening to LA's budget today...the state's budget, the federal government budget... Whatever money we anticipated in 2008 is not going to be the same we actually receive just purely due to economic reasons. That's a fact. Every city, county, state, and government is not making the same tax money as it did in '08. When politicans keep referring to Measure R bringing in $40 billion over 30 years, that's using 2008 dollars. As you can tell, our economy has gone to the s***ter in '09 and so far in '10. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 20, 2010 15:08:07 GMT -8
Whatever money we anticipated in 2008 is not going to be the same we actually receive just purely due to economic reasons. That's a fact. Of course sales tax revenue will be below expectations for these two years and maybe even the next two. But it's a big leap to conclude that Measure R funds will run short over the long run. We can't predict a 30 year run except by averages. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 20, 2010 17:50:12 GMT -8
What? Where did you get that information? Look at what's happening to LA's budget today...the state's budget, the federal government budget... Whatever money we anticipated in 2008 is not going to be the same we actually receive just purely due to economic reasons. That's a fact. Every city, county, state, and government is not making the same tax money as it did in '08. When politicans keep referring to Measure R bringing in $40 billion over 30 years, that's using 2008 dollars. As you can tell, our economy has gone to the s***ter in '09 and so far in '10. Nope. I already asked the same thing a month or two ago and Jerard mentioned that Measure R was actually estimated low because the downturn had already started. I looked it up on the metro website and at the time despite sales tax being way down, Measure R money was still ahead of the predicted. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 21, 2010 10:53:31 GMT -8
Mark Ridley-Thomas is proposing changes to the Metro Grade Crossing Policy. The existing policy is here. Ridley-Thomas' proposal is here. The proposal seeks to allow consideration of concerns beyond just traffic/safety issues (including community concerns and economic development issues). (Crossposted on the Expo forum.) |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 21, 2010 11:59:08 GMT -8
Mark Ridley-Thomas basically wants to modify the Metro grade-crossing policy so that all opposition demands could be incorporated into new light-rail lines: www.metro.net/board/Items/2010/10_October/20101020P&PItem9.pdfWe know what this would result in: the opposition accepting nothing but underground and possibly every politician asking for underground lines in his/her district. This new policy has no intention but killing light-rail in Los Angeles in favor of heavy rail. If this goes through, none of the Measure R light-rail projects could be built. We also know that the opposition use the underground card to kill rail transit in their neighborhood. Also, the opposition are against new development and the new policy wants to bring more development into the equation, which contradicts both the demands of the opposition and the support for light-rail. I hope this anti-light-rail policy will be dead on arrival. It's contradictory in many ways and it disguises itself as promoting community input, safety, and economic development, whereas in reality it's coming from the same opposition base to light-rail. It even contradicts itself by failing to realize that the light-rail opposition also oppose new development. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 21, 2010 12:32:25 GMT -8
Ridley-Thomas' proposal is here. Does anybody know whether this made it out of committee and will be up for a vote at the Board meeting next Thursday? (I was not present at the P&P Committee meeting.) |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 29, 2010 15:04:20 GMT -8
Metro is currently in the holding a series of six station-area meetings for the Crenshaw Line. The meetings are: Thursday, October 28, 2010, 6pm - 8pm
Topic: Florence/West station
Inglewood City Hall – Community Room, First Floor
One W Manchester Blvd, Inglewood (map)
Served by Metro Lines 40, 115, 740, 111, 711 & 212.
Thursday, November 4, 2010, 6pm - 8pm
Topic: Crenshaw/MLK station and optional Crenshaw/Vernon station
LADWP Crenshaw Customer Service Center – Auditorium
4030 Crenshaw Blvd, Los Angeles (map)
Served by Metro Lines 40, 105, 210, 305, 710 & 740.
Saturday, November 6, 2010, 10am – noon
Topic: Florence/La Brea station
Faithful Central Church – The Living Room
400 W Florence Avenue, Inglewood (map)
Served by Metro Lines 40, 111, 115, 212 & 740.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010, 6pm - 8pm
Topic: Crenshaw/Slauson station and Park Mesa Heights alignment
Crenshaw High School – Library
5010 11th Avenue, Los Angeles (map)
Served by Metro Lines 40 & 210.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010, 6pm - 8pm
Topic: Optional Aviation/Manchester station and Aviation/Century station
Westchester Senior Center
8740 Lincoln Blvd, Los Angeles (map)
Served by Metro Line 115.
Thursday, November 18, 2010, 6pm - 8pm
Topic: Crenshaw/Exposition station
West Angeles Church – The Crystal Room
3045 Crenshaw Blvd, Los Angeles (map)
Served by Metro Lines 38, 210, 305 & 710. Full info is here. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 10, 2010 9:19:00 GMT -8
There are only two "station area meetings" left. They are scheduled for next week. These two meetings should be very interesting for transit advocates. The first meeting (next Tuesday) will discuss the stations near LAX. The other meeting (next Thursday) will discuss the connection to the Expo Line. Tuesday, November 16, 2010, 6pm - 8pm
Topic: Optional Aviation/Manchester station and Aviation/Century station
Westchester Senior Center
8740 Lincoln Blvd, Los Angeles (map)
Served by Metro Line 115.
Thursday, November 18, 2010, 6pm - 8pm
Topic: Crenshaw/Exposition station
West Angeles Church – The Crystal Room
3045 Crenshaw Blvd, Los Angeles (map)
Served by Metro Lines 38, 210, 305 & 710. Full info is here. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 10, 2010 17:09:52 GMT -8
There will at least be one beautiful at-grade station for the Crenshaw Line -- the Slauson Station. I heard that Fix Expo was at the meeting and is now trying to get the last mile of the Crenshaw Line buried below ground. Here is the very nice PowerPoint presentation on the Crenshaw Line and Slauson Station from yesterday's meeting. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 11, 2010 8:49:31 GMT -8
Slauson station is in the "educational zone", surrounded by schools. (Won't somebody think of the children???) Thankfully, the at-grade line will be surrounded by several lanes of speeding automobiles. That'll keep the kids safe! LOL
I don't personally care for the canopy design. But then again, if that's what the community wants, I guess it's fine.
Slauson will not be a subway station (as MRT had wanted). So maybe the canopy is their attempt to bring the tunnel outdoors.
|
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Nov 11, 2010 10:01:21 GMT -8
I always thought the station canopy at the Little Tokyo station on the Gold Line eastside extension was really cool. It looks massive, substantial and reminds me of sails.
If the Regional Connector is going to affect that station, like I think it will, I hope that the canopy structure can be relocated elsewhere. It could be to any other station on the Gold Line, but it might look nice for the Crenshaw Line.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Nov 11, 2010 10:13:46 GMT -8
Slauson station is in the "educational zone", surrounded by schools. (Won't somebody think of the children???) Thankfully, the at-grade line will be surrounded by several lanes of speeding automobiles. That'll keep the kids safe! LOL I don't personally care for the canopy design. But then again, if that's what the community wants, I guess it's fine. Slauson will not be a subway station (as MRT had wanted). So maybe the canopy is their attempt to bring the tunnel outdoors. This is somewhat off-topic - but would having at grade stations like this work on Van Nuys Blvd. whenever Metro gets around to doing the Valley/405 Line? |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 11, 2010 11:27:28 GMT -8
This is somewhat off-topic - but would having at grade stations like this work on Van Nuys Blvd. whenever Metro gets around to doing the Valley/405 Line? Metro is by law prohibited to construct any surface rail in the Valley so no... there won't be any at grade stations on Van Nuys Blvd. This is also why we are most likely going to end up with enhanced bus service instead of rail on the 405 corridor. |
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Nov 11, 2010 12:07:01 GMT -8
This is somewhat off-topic - but would having at grade stations like this work on Van Nuys Blvd. whenever Metro gets around to doing the Valley/405 Line? Metro is by law prohibited to construct any surface rail in the Valley so no... there won't be any at grade stations on Van Nuys Blvd. This is also why we are most likely going to end up with enhanced bus service instead of rail on the 405 corridor. I may be misreading this, but it seems that surface rail is not prohibited in the entire valley, but only on the Orange Line corridor, or thereabouts: 130265. In 1990, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission adopted an approved San Fernando Valley rail rapid transit route and plan as described in the Findings and Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission on February 28, 1990, as an extension of metro rail or advanced technology transit, other than light rail, that is a deep bore subway through residential areas, unless modified through a subsequent state or federal environmental review process. Therefore, the following apply within the right-of-way of the Burbank Branch line of the Southern Pacific Railroad: (a) In the area between the western curb of Hazeltine Avenue and a line parallel to and 50 feet west of the western edge of the Hollywood freeway, there may not be constructed any exclusive public mass transit rail guideway, rail rapid transit or light rail system, or other track, other than as a subway system that is covered and below grade. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 11, 2010 13:17:41 GMT -8
andop2 is right. Light rail is prohibited in the Orange Line ROW.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 11, 2010 13:39:38 GMT -8
For those hoping to see the Crenshaw Corridor extended north to Hollywood/Highland, Metro has now prepared a staff report and presentation regarding how it might begin to study such a project. Spiffy graphic included:  I especially like how they frame a Crenshaw Corridor extension to Hollywood in the context of the regional system, much like I had been pushing for. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 11, 2010 13:48:03 GMT -8
Thank you Justin for that map. It's beautiful.  |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 11, 2010 14:18:36 GMT -8
Yes, it's fantastic, but still missing the 405 line, which is actually funded!
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 16, 2010 14:26:45 GMT -8
Reminder: two important public meetings are this week -- today and Thursday. These are critical transfer stations. I will definitely be at the Crenshaw/Expo meeting on Thursday. There are only two "station area meetings" left. They are scheduled for next week. These two meetings should be very interesting for transit advocates. The first meeting (next Tuesday) will discuss the stations near LAX. The other meeting (next Thursday) will discuss the connection to the Expo Line. Tuesday, November 16, 2010, 6pm - 8pm
Topic: Optional Aviation/Manchester station and Aviation/Century station
Westchester Senior Center
8740 Lincoln Blvd, Los Angeles (map)
Served by Metro Line 115.
Thursday, November 18, 2010, 6pm - 8pm
Topic: Crenshaw/Exposition station
West Angeles Church – The Crystal Room
3045 Crenshaw Blvd, Los Angeles (map)
Served by Metro Lines 38, 210, 305 & 710. Full info is here. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 16, 2010 23:17:54 GMT -8
Well I went to tonight's meeting, which was focused on the Century and Manchester stations. The (proposed) Manchester station would be a "gateway arch" located directly over Manchester. It would serve the residents of eastern Westchester, and its design would extend to the surrounding streets (with pavers, trees, etc.).
The Century station would be on the northwest corner of Aviation/Century. It would be designed to integrate with the airport theme already present on Century Blvd. Not a whole lot was said about the people mover connection, other than the LRT station would be designed to accommodate it.
One thing was surprised me: the Century/Aviation station will probably have three tracks and two platforms. I spoke to the architect, who explained the middle track would be for the Green Line (which would terminate at that station). This would allow for smoother turnbacks and staging (idling Green Line train wouldn't interrupt Crenshaw trains) as well as easy transfers in both directions.
|
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Nov 17, 2010 0:20:17 GMT -8
Would that track extend from Century and Aviation all the way to Aviation/LAX? If so, that would be great news, since this stretch of track will be very busy with at least 2 lines operating on it once a Lincoln line and a Sepulveda line exist. (I like to call that section of track the "Westside Connector" to mirror the "Downtown Connector" ;D)
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 17, 2010 7:47:34 GMT -8
Would that track extend from Century and Aviation all the way to Aviation/LAX? If so, that would be great news, since this stretch of track will be very busy with at least 2 lines operating on it once a Lincoln line and a Sepulveda line exist. (I like to call that section of track the "Westside Connector" to mirror the "Downtown Connector" ;D) The design shown yesterday did not extend down to Imperial. It connected to the mainline track directly north and south of the station. The center track is just for turning around Green Line trains. Of course that will change when the Green Line extended north, I imagine the center track would become the Green Line northbound track, and the west track would be the shared southbound track for both the Crenshaw and Green Lines. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 17, 2010 11:19:26 GMT -8
I see little reason for the Green Line to continue using the South Bay corridor once the Crenshaw and Subdivision (later obviously) lines are built.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 17, 2010 11:24:12 GMT -8
I see little reason for the Green Line to continue using the South Bay corridor once the Crenshaw and Subdivision (later obviously) lines are built. I take it you haven't ridden the Green Line during the morning/evening commutes to see people park their cars in Norwalk/Lakewood and take the Green Line to the office buildings in El Segundo. |
|
