|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 29, 2011 16:02:05 GMT -8
Alright. So I moved the U-section north toward 46th Street: this allows more space for the crossing of 48th Street and the short transition into the U-section. Also, I put a slight angle on the bottom of the U-section. [/url][/quote] You still have to move the U section a little further east to keep all the existing lanes on Crenshaw. I don't think this new at-grade crossing created on Crenshaw would easily pass the existing (2003) Metro grade-crossing criteria for light-rail because of the traffic count on Crenshaw as well as the unusual geometry of the crossing. Again, I don't think we should create a new at-grade crossing for the sake of having a Vernon Station. It will also not be well-received by Mark Ridley-Thomas, who has been fighting against at-grade rail. Mild curves are much more manageable than complicated or busy at-grade crossings, especially considering that the train speed in this area will be slow because of the proximity to the station. The curve south of the station is also quite mild; so, there is really no real need to try to eliminate it by moving the U section to the east. The curve to the north of the station is a little sharper but it's also closer to the platform; so, the trains are even slower.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 29, 2011 23:13:30 GMT -8
Well Gokhan, I have to disagree that my grade crossing concept is as strange/awkward as you are making it seem. But in any case, I think the best design I've seen so far is the one appearing in the conceptual engineering documents. It locates the station just north of Vernon, along the west edge of Crenshaw. This leaves the entire stretch of Crenshaw between 48th Street and Vernon for the grade change. Yes, the station will cost $155 million: I don't think there's any getting around that. But I think it's worth it, given the community support for the station and the potential to bring people into this cultural center and business district.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 30, 2011 0:41:27 GMT -8
Well Gokhan, I have to disagree that my grade crossing concept is as strange/awkward as you are making it seem. But in any case, I think the best design I've seen so far is the one appearing in the conceptual engineering documents. It locates the station just north of Vernon, along the west edge of Crenshaw. This leaves the entire stretch of Crenshaw between 48th Street and Vernon for the grade change. Yes, the station will cost $155 million: I don't think there's any getting around that. But I think it's worth it, given the community support for the station and the potential to bring people into this cultural center and business district. The point is not that your grade crossing is awkward. The point is that you're creating a new grade crossing that currently doesn't exist in addition to the grade crossing at 48th St. Why would you create a new grade crossing at Crenshaw Blvd in addition to the one at 48th St? How would you think that you would have such a grade crossing approved by CPUC? How would you think that you would gather public support for a grade crossing across Crenshaw Boulevard? Most of all, what good does this new grade crossing do? It's absolutely unnecessary as far as adding the Vernon Station is concerned. The CPUC doesn't approve grade crossings unless there is a community need for them. In this case, there is none. In my second option, the curve south of the platform is very mild. There is no need to make it slightly milder by creating an additional grade crossing across the very busy Crenshaw Blvd, especially considering that the train will be traveling very slow here anyway because of the approach to the station. Regarding the fully underground option you just pointed out, the cost is almost $300 million I believe. Why spend $300 million while you can build virtually the same thing for $10 million? That was the whole point of me showing that this could be built without fully undergrounding the line as originally proposed in the conceptual drawings you linked. Even $155 million for just the station itself is quite astronomical. You don't need to build cost-prohibitive mezzanine-type subway stations as long as you have space to put trench stations (whether it's in a wide median like Expo Park/USC [my alternative 1, Crenshaw median] or in a vacant corner of a block like Memorial Park [my alternative 2, Vernon triangle]), especially for a light-rail line. Heavy-rail subways, as opposed to light-rail subways, are a different story, where you don't have space to do cut-and-cover and build trench stations and your only option is to build very expensive mezzanine-type stations. That's why heavy-rail subways are very cost-ineffective except where the ridership is very high (such as Wilshire Blvd).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 1, 2011 16:18:20 GMT -8
The point is not that your grade crossing is awkward. The point is that you're creating a new grade crossing that currently doesn't exist in addition to the grade crossing at 48th St. Why would you create a new grade crossing at Crenshaw Blvd in addition to the one at 48th St? How would you think that you would have such a grade crossing approved by CPUC? How would you think that you would gather public support for a grade crossing across Crenshaw Boulevard? Most of all, what good does this new grade crossing do? It's absolutely unnecessary as far as adding the Vernon Station is concerned. The CPUC doesn't approve grade crossings unless there is a community need for them. In this case, there is none. In my second option, the curve south of the platform is very mild. There is no need to make it slightly milder by creating an additional grade crossing across the very busy Crenshaw Blvd, especially considering that the train will be traveling very slow here anyway because of the approach to the station. Regarding the fully underground option you just pointed out, the cost is almost $300 million I believe. Why spend $300 million while you can build virtually the same thing for $10 million? That was the whole point of me showing that this could be built without fully undergrounding the line as originally proposed in the conceptual drawings you linked. Even $155 million for just the station itself is quite astronomical. You don't need to build cost-prohibitive mezzanine-type subway stations as long as you have space to put trench stations (whether it's in a wide median like Expo Park/USC [my alternative 1, Crenshaw median] or in a vacant corner of a block like Memorial Park [my alternative 2, Vernon triangle]), especially for a light-rail line. Heavy-rail subways, as opposed to light-rail subways, are a different story, where you don't have space to do cut-and-cover and build trench stations and your only option is to build very expensive mezzanine-type stations. That's why heavy-rail subways are very cost-ineffective except where the ridership is very high (such as Wilshire Blvd). I think you misunderstood my proposal. It's true that heading north, the tracks cross to the right side, to Leimert Blvd. But it does so at the intersection of Crenshaw/48th, which is fully signal protected. This may not even require closing off the Crenshaw/Leimert Y-intersection, given the width of Leimert Blvd. I offered my proposal primarily to avoid putting the "u-section" in the median of Crenshaw Blvd. There is tons of space surrounding Leimert Park, when you consider Leimert Blvd. and the triangle south of Vernon. There is no need for the cramped geometries you proposed. A shallow trench structure works just as well in my routing as it does in yours. The estimates I referred to are from Metro documents. The DEIR Executive Summary describes LRT Design Option 5, which would add the (underground) station at Vernon. This would be a cut-and-cover station, fairly standard for Metro. The study estimates an incremental cost for the station at $155,197,000 (page ES-72). I do think this is high, but what do I know: I'm a software engineer, not a civil engineer. Separately, the Park Mesa Heights Grade-Separation Analysis studied a tunnel from 48th Street south. The study estimates a cost of $219 million. What $300 million "fully-underground option" are you referring to? If you know of something please cite it. BTW the DEIR does propose the idea moving the MLK station south, to more centrally serve the Leimert Park neighborhood. King and Vernon are only 1/2 mile apart, after all.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 1, 2011 18:48:52 GMT -8
I think you misunderstood my proposal. It's true that heading north, the tracks cross to the right side, to Leimert Blvd. But it does so at the intersection of Crenshaw/48th, which is fully signal protected. This may not even require closing off the Crenshaw/Leimert Y-intersection, given the width of Leimert Blvd. I offered my proposal primarily to avoid putting the "u-section" in the median of Crenshaw Blvd. There is tons of space surrounding Leimert Park, when you consider Leimert Blvd. and the triangle south of Vernon. There is no need for the cramped geometries you proposed. A shallow trench structure works just as well in my routing as it does in yours. Actually the track geometry in your proposal is much more cramped. One's first instinct when he/she looks into the map is to move immediately onto the Leimert Boulevard of course, as you did, but you can't do this without creating a new crossing. You're a mathematician; so, you know topology. Before, you only had the 48th St crossing the tracks, which is a minor street; now, you have both 48th St and Crenshaw simultaneouesly, the latter of which is a major crossing. Even if you could cramp the double crossing into the intersection, which you are proposing, it would still slow down the train to about 10 MPH because it would be a very sharp curve. Even if it was a signal-controlled intersection, it would require simultaneous reds on 48th and Crenshaw, which would cause additional delays to the traffic and the trains. Moreover, you would still need a new approval from CPUC. My proposal on the other hand was based on slightly modifying the plans by Metro, using the same U section proposed, instead of moving it and creating a new crossing as you proposed. Unlike your proposal, the curve is very mild and doesn't require slowing to 10 MPH, and there is no Crenshaw crossing, meaning there is no train or traffic delay and no new CPUC approvals. $155 million is too high for this station and it could easily be built around $10 - $30 million through one of the alternatives I proposed, without creating significant impacts.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 10, 2011 8:14:28 GMT -8
The point is not that your grade crossing is awkward. The point is that you're creating a new grade crossing that currently doesn't exist in addition to the grade crossing at 48th St. Why would you create a new grade crossing at Crenshaw Blvd in addition to the one at 48th St? How would you think that you would have such a grade crossing approved by CPUC? One's first instinct when he/she looks into the map is to move immediately onto the Leimert Boulevard of course, as you did, but you can't do this without creating a new crossing. You're a mathematician; so, you know topology. Before, you only had the 48th St crossing the tracks, which is a minor street; now, you have both 48th St and Crenshaw simultaneouesly, the latter of which is a major crossing. It seems the CPUC isn't quite so concerned about a so-called "double crossing" as you are: the Expo Line will include one at Colorado/17th Street in Santa Monica: The problem is easily solved by an all-red phase in the traffic signal cycle. Again, the purpose of doing this at Crenshaw/48th is to avoid putting the inclined "U-section" in the middle of Crenshaw Boulevard:
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 10, 2011 8:49:02 GMT -8
It seems the CPUC isn't quite so concerned about a so-called "double crossing" as you are: the Expo Line will include one at Colorado/17th Street in Santa Monica: Joel, what you are missing is that the Expo alignment starts curving toward Colorado Ave median at 19th St -- two blocks east of 17th St. In your drawing the transition is almost instantaneous. Trains cannot make sharp curves, especially at high speeds. What you are also missing is that Crenshaw Blvd, unlike Colorado Ave, has very busy traffic and an all-red signal would have significant impact on the traffic and/or the light-rail delay. -- a moot point, given that this is what is already proposed by Metro.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 10, 2011 8:56:52 GMT -8
My point is: you claimed the CPUC would never approve a "double crossing", and I have shown that Expo believes it would. These two crossings are topologically equivalent. The trains would not be crossing the Crenshaw/48th Street intersection at "high speed". I will definitely concede, however, that the all-red phase would impact traffic at the intersection. This is a trade-off of not removing lanes from Crenshaw north of 48th Street, as you would do. -- a moot point, given that this is what is already proposed by Metro. Then why did you bother posting your initial drawings, which are not what Metro has proposed? Wasn't this the point of this discussion: to think of better solutions than what Metro had?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 10, 2011 9:03:17 GMT -8
Then why did you bother posting your initial drawings, which are not what Metro has proposed? Wasn't this the point of this discussion: to think of better solutions than what Metro had? The entire reason I came up with my conceptual drawing was to show that you can include a Vernon Station within the at-grade alternative Metro proposed.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 24, 2011 14:00:52 GMT -8
As a reminder, Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas has drafted a motion to require Metro to include enhancements to the Crenshaw Corridor project, including a new station at Leimert Park and a tunnel through Park Mesa Heights. This motion will be considered (again) at the Metro Board meeting this Thursday. It is agenda item #1. Metro has published some correspondence between Mr. Ridley-Thomas and Metro CEO Art Leahy, about the proposed enhancements to the Crenshaw Corridor project. This document includes a letter from Ridley-Thomas to Leahy, explaining and advocating for the station at Leimert Park and the Park Mesa Heights tunnel. It also includes Mr. Leahy's reply, in which Leahy refutes most of RT's arguments. Both letters are well-written and provide lots of good explanations of each position. This document was originally posted in Metro's The Source yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on May 26, 2011 7:23:03 GMT -8
I'm betting they approve the new station, but ax the underground segment. The editorial in todays paper by RT (the other RT) really seemed to focus on the new station, with only about one paragraph discussing the underground segment. Maybe that will be the compromise.
I'm not familiar with the area, so whether or not it needs a "boost" from a station would have to be addressed by others. The fact that an area can indeed be rejuvenated by having a station is beyond doubt, and RT gives a couple examples. If the idea is that adding the Leimert Park station is a now or never kind of thing, maybe doing it now makes sense. Is it justified solely from a ridership perspective today, maybe not. If the kind of redevelopment that happens at other stations takes place, then the ridership could certainly follow.
RT
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 26, 2011 9:13:08 GMT -8
Listening to the public comments right now (213-922-6045). It sounds like the community has come out in droves, to push for this motion.
Wow, how about some hyperbole? The woman right now is saying that Leimert Park is an international attraction, a global center, the center of Los Angeles, and "out Champs-Elysees".
I am well aware of the cultural significance of Leimert Park. But some of the comments today are so over the top, someone unfamiliar with the area might not realize that Leimert Park and Park Mesa Heights are basically low-density neighborhoods of single-family houses, with a very broad boulevard that has plenty of space for at-grade rail.
MRT was clever to put the two issues (Leimert Park station and Park Mesa Heights tunnel) into one motion, since the first of these is very popular. We'll see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 26, 2011 9:24:39 GMT -8
The man speaking now says at-grade rail will result in deaths, and therefore is pre-meditated murder. And when that happens, there will be revenge and retaliation and those responsible will be hunted.
I am not exaggerating this man's words. I hope they got this man's true name and address.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 26, 2011 9:32:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 26, 2011 10:08:30 GMT -8
Fasana has put forth a motion to bifurcate the motion into two: Leimert Park station and Park Mesa Heights. It will be considered momentarily.
Zev argued against the motion. Molina angrily lashed out at Zev as inconsistent, and is characterizing this motion as asking for a study (which is incorrect). MRT of course is for the motion (duh). Like Molina, he believes the staff report was fundamentally biased.
EDIT: Mel Wilson is speaking, and appears to against the motion. This may indicate where the board's vote is heading.
EDIT: Richard Katz is also against the measure. This is not going to pass in its current form.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 26, 2011 10:46:58 GMT -8
Zev Yaroslavsky emphasized how he opposed undergrounding Expo phase 2 to keep within its budget, but now another project is asking for special treatment. Mel Wilson is focusing in great detail on the impacts of where the money would be taken from. Yes, that suggests the Mayor's people will oppose. Richard Katz is on now - "I'm probably the only board member who attended Audubon Jr. High." "The raid on the money" relating to Metrolink safety. "In the Valley ... the place over the hill ... we have BRT ... we'd love to have a 'substandard' LRT line." Moving 24,000 people a day on BRT (much more than Eastside or Crenshaw). "We don't have enough [$] anywhere in L.A. County." "I have been stunned by inability ... to look beyond their own areas." Both favor a station at Leimert Park without taking money from other projects. Najerian: "What we have here is a dangerous step toward parochialism." "... risk breaking the bond of consensus." Except could offer "... the tens of billions of dollars that would be wasted on a 710 tunnel." Re talk about voter support for Measure R in the Crenshaw area, how about West Hollywood that are getting nothing from the Wilshire subway extension? But could be served by extension of Crenshaw? Vote first on undergrounding Park Mesa Heights, then on Leimert Park station. Undergrounding vote: Failed. Katz substitute motion on Leimert Park station: 1. Include Leimert Park Vernon station as a bid option (baseline; unfinished box; finished station) 2. Design-build contract ... if less Leimert Park station can be included for less than the adopted $1.7B budget 3. If cannot be built be built for less than $1.7B, initiate SEIS for an at-grade 48th Street station ... seek other non-New Starts funding. MRT: does not interpret amendment as "friendly". Proceed with include Leimert Park station in baseline project ... bidders include prices for options. According to Streetsblog Twitter, voting for undergrounding were only Ridley-Thomas, Molina, and Antonovich. Will table 30 minutes or so for MRT to discuss motion.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 26, 2011 11:15:54 GMT -8
Villaraigosa is against.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 26, 2011 11:20:01 GMT -8
Motion to bifurcate passed. Park Mesa tunnel was defeated. Now another motion is being proposed. This would allow the Leimert Park only if the entire can be completed by the currently budgeted $1.715 billion in YOE dollars.
|
|
|
Post by erict on May 26, 2011 11:38:35 GMT -8
Good lord vote already, just kidding. I am for the station if it can be paid for, but I am against being strong armed by MRT for an unnecessary grade separation in an already expensive (but important) rail line.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 26, 2011 12:21:35 GMT -8
The Board will vote on Katz' amended/substitute motion in today's meeting, once it has been drafted and board members have had a chance to read it. In the meantime, the Board has moved on to other issues.
This meeting is extremely long (4.5 hours so far) and, IMO, very boring. I can't listen to this for too much longer.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 26, 2011 12:53:07 GMT -8
well, it sounds like things are moving in the right direction. MRT's plans have been foiled, but it sounds like the board might go for a Lemiert Park station, which in my mind was always the important bit.
one would hope that MRT would recognize that half a loaf is better than a Park Mesa subway. ;D
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 26, 2011 13:09:48 GMT -8
We have returned.
And again, not for the first time today, Mark Ridley-Thomas is confused about what people have agreed on. He doesn't seem to understand how meetings work.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 26, 2011 13:34:53 GMT -8
EDIT. There are now two motions to include Leimert Park: a Katz substitute motion and an MRT substitute motion. The major difference is MRT puts the station into the baseline, as opposed to making it dependent on the project being under budget.
Katz motion has been amended, moved and seconded. In the face of MRT's confusion, Villaraigosa offered a verbal slapdown to MRT, basically saying he is getting all he's going to get. Pam O'Connor also reminded MRT that no backroom deals were made.
EDIT: The Katz motion has passed. MRT decided to drop his substitute motion.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 26, 2011 13:37:57 GMT -8
FINAL RESULTS. The Park Mesa Heights tunnel will not be built, and Leimert Park station will be built *if* the project can be completed within budget.
The Park Mesa tunnel is the latest in a string of defeats for FixExpo. (Leimert Park station has had enough support for some time, and was never really in much danger of being dropped.)
I would recommend FixExpo's next cause should be something non-controversial, like voting on the cuteness of bunny rabbits. At least that way they might get a success under their belt.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 26, 2011 13:46:37 GMT -8
Breaking New: Unprecedented result - most sensible outcome emerged from a Metro Board Meeting! MRT should really hitch his transit wagon to someone else and tell DG to pound sand. It doesn't help MRT to look like a buffoon every time transit issue comes up.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on May 26, 2011 14:25:55 GMT -8
Where will DG rabble-rouse now, the South Bay? Is it too much to hope we have heard the last of him?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 26, 2011 14:54:28 GMT -8
Where will DG rabble-rouse now, the South Bay? Is it too much to hope we have heard the last of him? I wouldn't be surprised if Fix Expo sues now. Of course, that would possibly delay construction and increase costs, which makes the Leimert station less likely, which is why I really liked today's motions. Hopefully, Leimert will be built as I think this would be a useful station, but construction costs are really going to have to come down for this to be a reality, because they are already over budget. I really think Antonovich is a rat. I've heard this guy lambast subway construction in the City of LA for the last 25 years and then he votes for this, where it is not necessary at all!!! Obviously, it was a backroom deal with MRT as if I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine. Does he not have any principles whatsoever?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 26, 2011 15:05:28 GMT -8
Where will DG rabble-rouse now, the South Bay? Is it too much to hope we have heard the last of him? DG has boxed himself too far into a racial corner to make much headway in the South Bay. The demographics work against him. Who's going to listen to his race-baiting, Frank Scotto, Mike Gin, Ted Lieu, Don Knabe or Dan Walker?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 26, 2011 15:15:28 GMT -8
I wouldn't be surprised if Fix Expo sues now. I'd like to see them/him try. NIMBYs have sued Metro in the past, usually on the basis of flawed environmental studies. But for the most part, they've been unsuccessful. Today's decision was made by elected legislators in good faith. There is not even remotely a basis for a lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on May 26, 2011 15:46:09 GMT -8
Where will DG rabble-rouse now, the South Bay? Is it too much to hope we have heard the last of him? DG has boxed himself too far into a racial corner to make much headway in the South Bay. The demographics work against him. Who's going to listen to his race-baiting, Frank Scotto, Mike Gin, Ted Lieu, Don Knabe or Dan Walker? I am not disagreeing with your belief that he won't get any traction in the South Bay, but DG's race-baiting was no impediment to an unholy alliance with NFSR in Cheviot Hills.
|
|