|
|
Post by tobias087 on May 27, 2011 12:43:03 GMT -8
On a related note, does anybody have any updates on the undergrounding of Crenshaw at Exposition? Although the Park Mesa Heights grade-separation was considered unnecessary and expensive by most of the transit community, by contrast many people on this board consider grade-separation at Expo to be critical to future extensions northward. Has there been any news on that?
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 27, 2011 13:01:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 27, 2011 13:11:00 GMT -8
The tunnel north of King Blvd. (which includes the underground station at Expo) is one of three design options which the Metro Board decided to not incorporate into the baseline when approving the DEIR, but authorized for further study in the FEIR. (The other two design options are the trench under Centinela, and Leimert Park station.) The DEIR estimated the following costs for each of these options (in 2008 dollars): - Design Option 3 - trench/tunnel under Centinela: $13 million
- Design Option 5 - station at Crenshaw/Vernon: $155 million
- Design Option 6 - tunnel from Expo to King: $236 million
It will require board action to add any of these design options to the final alternative. This will not happen until after the FEIR has been reviewed by the public (scheduled for July of this year). Of course, Metro staff (led by Mr. Leahy) can strongly recommend inclusion of a design option if they believe it is technically required. Analysis like this carries some weight with the Board. Reading LAofAnaheim's link above, it seems like this is what is happening for the northern tunnel segment option. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 27, 2011 17:46:14 GMT -8
That tunnel leading up to Expo is *crucial*.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on May 28, 2011 2:53:29 GMT -8
What I've heard is that the line is underground from Crenshaw/Exposition to Crenshaw/39th. I really hope they bore a tunnel instead of cut and cover because that would entail disrupting Expo Line service past Crenshaw. Gosh I hate bus bridges, it's bad enough that they'll be bus bridging Little Tokyo Station while the Regional Connector is constructed.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 29, 2011 10:37:32 GMT -8
The tunnels for the Crenshaw Line are expected to be cut-and-cover tunnels. If the tunnel is extended up to Expo, it will stretch all the way from Expo to 48th Street (south of Leimert Park), and will be 1.6 miles in length.
One of the arguments FixExpo had made in favor of the Park Mesa tunnel extension was that it would make it more likely the whole tunnel under Crenshaw Blvd could be bored. I don't know why that would be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on May 29, 2011 11:08:00 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. With what money? DG is broke and this was a last ditch to raise his stature to get elected somewhere. It isn't working. Fortunately this style of rabble rousing, popular in the '90s, has fallen out. Overall it's too bad. DG could be really great. He's a good speaker and very motivated. If he could use his gifts in a positive way rather than constantly trying to fan the flames of racial division, he might actually get something done, people would like him and he'd feel better. Right now I can only imagine he's pretty bitter. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 29, 2011 18:29:25 GMT -8
One of the arguments FixExpo had made in favor of the Park Mesa tunnel extension was that it would make it more likely the whole tunnel under Crenshaw Blvd could be bored. I don't know why that would be true. Yeah... it's pretty clear that they wanted to kill this project. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 29, 2011 20:10:26 GMT -8
One of the arguments FixExpo had made in favor of the Park Mesa tunnel extension was that it would make it more likely the whole tunnel under Crenshaw Blvd could be bored. I don't know why that would be true. Yeah... it's pretty clear that they wanted to kill this project. Actually the tunnel itself could be bored in one straight shot, however there will still need to have cut-cover sections to drop the TBM in and dig it out and for stations. However the section south of 60th Street even if it were bored with a TBM will still need a key section done as cut and cover to connect a the bored tunnel with the portal that will come up to the surface. The core portion of the line through Leimert Park would still be done with a TBM as cut-cover would be too disruptive along this busy section. |
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 29, 2011 22:59:03 GMT -8
One of the arguments FixExpo had made in favor of the Park Mesa tunnel extension was that it would make it more likely the whole tunnel under Crenshaw Blvd could be bored. I don't know why that would be true. Yeah... it's pretty clear that they wanted to kill this project. Clear? On what exact evidence? Do you have some special knowlege about this? |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 30, 2011 2:56:46 GMT -8
Thank you metrocenter and Darrell for the meeting minutes. It's great to know that they've finally capped this already extravagant project.
It's great to know that the undergrounding of Park Mesa Heights will never happen. It was completely unneeded.
It looks like if a Leimert Park Station happens, it will be an economical at-grade-like station, perhaps similar to what I proposed.
It's time for MRT and Fix Expo to throw the towel as Neighbors for Smart Rail did.
|
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 30, 2011 4:44:37 GMT -8
Yeah... it's pretty clear that they wanted to kill this project. FixExpo doesn't want to kill transit projects. Goodmon is as obsessive as any other transit advocate and has mapped out his vision for the ultimate Los Angeles transit network. The problem is that he makes unreasonable demands that would drive up the cost of building out the Metro Rail system. He doesn't want to kill transit projects but if his ideas were mainstream we wouldn't have as much light rail. It simply isn't cost effective to exclusively tunnel under low to medium density neighborhoods. A trench here, a tunnel there, fine, as long as it's justified. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 30, 2011 9:40:35 GMT -8
As I've said before, I see nothing wrong with people asking for the best. Even in the case of the tunnel through Park Mesa Heights, which was unjustified by the conditions on the ground, it never hurts to try and get the project as you prefer it.
The issue I have is when people start making demands of such things, as if they are owed to them. When people start claiming their needs and wants are more important than everybody else's, that's when they get in trouble. Then it becomes us vs. them, and in this case, racial allegations begin to fly.
Metro is obligated to balance the wishes of the local community with it's core mission of providing transit service to the entire county. I think in this case, it did the right thing.
Keep in mind, this battle is not over. In about two months, Metro staff will release the Final EIR for this project, along with it's final budget numbers and final recommended alignment. This will include the maintenance yard, the tunnel (or not) north of King, possibly a station at Vernon, the LAX connection, and all of the other grade separations and stations which have gotten less publicity for the past couple of years. FixExpo will surely be there fighting again for extra tunnels. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 30, 2011 10:21:37 GMT -8
While I'm glad that Park Mesa will be kept at grade, but it's a real shame that we once again are building a line that just misses a key destination. I agree with MRT that a station at Leimert is potentially the most important station on the entire line.
But perhaps that's only as things are right now. One way to look at this is that the opening of the Expo/Crenshaw lines will allow for the creation of a new and much improved community centered around rail stations. Hopefully MRT will recognize this opportunity (I'm sure that he does) and will use his significant political skills towards making sure that the area is developed in the right way with mixed-use TOD projects that are rail and pedestrian friendly. As culturally significant as Crenshaw is, it's really a mess and this is a good opportunity to start over.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 30, 2011 12:08:48 GMT -8
While I'm glad that Park Mesa will be kept at grade, but it's a real shame that we once again are building a line that just misses a key destination. I agree with MRT that a station at Leimert is potentially the most important station on the entire line. Hopefully MRT will recognize this opportunity (I'm sure that he does) and will use his significant political skills towards making sure that the area is developed in the right way with mixed-use TOD projects that are rail and pedestrian friendly. As culturally significant as Crenshaw is, it's really a mess and this is a good opportunity to start over. I hope one of those political skills is to stop antagonizing other members of Metro Board in order to placate his local constituency yet he lose key points such as this one. Personally I think the issue of a Leimert Station is moot based on this condition, if they look at the project budget and design options that are currently on the table and make priorities: Leimert Park station @ $155M Expo/Crenshaw subway station @ $236M If Leimert Park station was such a high priority, why didn't he have a motion to adjust the LPA to reflect this while make a modification to downgrade the Expo/Crenshaw station for a future extension or state within that motion a letter of support from the Metro Board to pursue discussion with FAA to removing the tunnel component near the south runway of LAX. Now based on the current budget, MRT could have the Leimert Park station- without all of this political drama -and keep the Expo/Crenshaw station as an interim at-grade station and move the political energy to push for a northern extension which would then force that station below-grade. We know that this line will eventually be extended northward, the issue is when and how? By building consensus on this point rather than trying to antogonize and divide he'd have the political firepower needed to push the extension northward and recognize that this section is key for a north extension. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 30, 2011 21:11:38 GMT -8
Clear? On what exact evidence? Do you have some special knowlege about this? And why are you asking this? Seriously, doesn't it seem obvious to you? If they really wanted transit on Crenshaw Blvd as soon as possible, and as cost-effective as possible, they wouldn't make bigger demands like bored tunnels instead of sticking with cheaper methods. Keep in mind, this isn't Wilshire Blvd, where the incredibly high volume of traffic (and business) merits deep bore tunneling. I can understand however why another station at Leimert Station makes sense, and it opens the possibilities for TOD project. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 30, 2011 22:29:18 GMT -8
The problem is, rail transit is not a clear-cut black-and-white issue (and no racial overtones intended  ). There is a scale of rail transit advocacy, ranging from a) build it all underground or elevated, costs be damned, and if funds run out, stop or extort funding; all the way to z) build it all as street-level streetcar, speed, safety and neighborhood concerns be damned. Most of the rail transit fans I know seem to fall somewhere in the middle, and also on top of that, Los Angeles being the spread out place it is (yes it is!) most of us tend to be experts on the South Bay, or Pasadena or the Westside or Little Tokyo or East L.A. or whatever. Some of us may prefer an underground segment where others would say that at-grade is good enough. Fix Expo/ DG's position may be a bit on the extreme side, but that doesn't mean that they want to kill the project. One could make the reasonable argument that, given that the Crenshaw Line has potential end points of LAX and Wilshire (or even the South Bay), this line does need some underground segments for extra speed*; and the line will still have some underground segments, even without the Park La Mesa tunnel. [ * Note that this is not necessarily my position on the Crenshaw Line, but I would prefer to see a station at Lemiert Park. ] In short, we shouldn't jump to conclusions about people's intentions, even if we disagree with them. (Edit: Some rail transit fans HAVE tried to kill or at least delay projects if they think that the funding could be better spent elsewhere, but usually that is clearly spelled out. I haven't seen clear intent to kill here.) |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 30, 2011 23:45:44 GMT -8
Clear? On what exact evidence? Do you have some special knowlege about this? And why are you asking this? Seriously, doesn't it seem obvious to you? If they really wanted transit on Crenshaw Blvd as soon as possible, and as cost-effective as possible, they wouldn't make bigger demands like bored tunnels instead of sticking with cheaper methods. Keep in mind, this isn't Wilshire Blvd, where the incredibly high volume of traffic (and business) merits deep bore tunneling. I can understand however why another station at Leimert Station makes sense, and it opens the possibilities for TOD project. You are making an assumption jdr. As Damien Goodman once said, "if i didn't want the Expo Line, we would have called our group KillExpo, not FixExpo". So does that mean the Little Tokyo community wanted to kill the Downtown Connector when they asked Metro to go with a fully underground connector? |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 31, 2011 5:17:28 GMT -8
Admittedly, the "build it right or don't build it at all" kind of rhetoric we often hear from NIMBY groups suggests a willingness to kill the project if it doesn't exactly match their specs.
While I'm sure some people in FixExpo take that stance, I don't remember DG or FixExpo as a group ever saying they wanted to stop the project dead. Especially in regard to the Crenshaw project. And I'm leery of trying to guess people's motives without some good evidence. To me, it looks like these people just wanted as much of it grade separated as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 31, 2011 6:19:56 GMT -8
So does that mean the Little Tokyo community wanted to kill the Downtown Connector when they asked Metro to go with a fully underground connector? Not at all, but if the environment justified an above ground configuration, I would hope they would not have jumped up and down and complain endlessly. It just so happens that the regional connector is in downtown, which is a hell of a lot more dense, small and busy than wide Crenshaw. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 31, 2011 6:57:20 GMT -8
Not at all, but if the environment justified an above ground configuration, I would hope they would not have jumped up and down and complain endlessly. It just so happens that the regional connector is in downtown, which is a hell of a lot more dense, small and busy than wide Crenshaw. Who said Metro was initially going to not go underground in Little Tokyo? Out of the 4 alternatives remaining at one point it was at-grade on 2nd street, underground but above ground at Alameda, No-Build, or TSM. Metro leaned toward the underground option, which included above ground at Alameda. However, Little Tokyo said no to that (even thought it was underground at Little Tokyo). The train was not going to be at-grade, but they didn't want the visual blight to be above ground. So they fought to get a fully underground. It's somewhat the same issue on calling them NIMBY's or fighting for their interest. FixExpo fought for their interest as well, however, the width of Crenshaw is significantly wide enough that a train can be in the middle, unlike Little Tokyo. So, we cannot assume FixExpo wanted to kill Crenshaw...NEVER have they stated that position. They wanted a subway and didn't get it. It's done. Move forward (hopefully FixExpo does as well). |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 31, 2011 10:07:10 GMT -8
Admittedly, the "build it right or don't build it at all" kind of rhetoric we often hear from NIMBY groups suggests a willingness to kill the project if it doesn't exactly match their specs. While I'm sure some people in FixExpo take that stance, I don't remember DG or FixExpo as a group ever saying they wanted to stop the project dead. Especially in regard to the Crenshaw project. And I'm leery of trying to guess people's motives without some good evidence. To me, it looks like these people just wanted as much of it grade separated as possible. I think you are right. I don't think "build it right or don't build it at all" is a Fix Expo position. I have only seen and heard that mentioned in context with NFSR, which is an unvarnished NIMBY group. This is is why someone mentioned the "unholy alliance" between the 2 groups on the last page. NFSR completely co-opted Fix Expo at the end and really undermined any remaining credibility DG and Fix Expo had. |
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 31, 2011 10:29:17 GMT -8
Who said Metro was initially going to not go underground in Little Tokyo? No one did. It was a hypothetical. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 31, 2011 12:26:49 GMT -8
who said Metro was initially going to not go underground in Little Tokyo? IINM Metro did. Unless I'm not remembering correctly none of the options presented at the initial community scoping meetings had trains going underground through Little Tokyo. That was a prime example of the community being involved early in the process and Metro listening to their concerns. There's probably a thread on here somewhere where I commented that they would not listen to the community and I was proven wrong. I think that maybe what happened with Crenshaw was that everyone assumed that Leimert would have a station even though it was always listed as optional. IIRC some of the early Metro community presentations included a prominent rendering of what a station at Leimert might look like. I never went to any of the actual presentations (since I don't live there) and don't know how the options were presented but there could have been some confusion. IIRC the Crenshaw redevelopment presentation (non-Metro) also prominently featured a station at Leimert. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 31, 2011 13:05:04 GMT -8
I've been to at least one meeting in every set of community meetings for the Crenshaw Line. I never saw any renderings for a station at Leimert Park/Vernon.
By contrast, I have seen renderings of other design options, including the underground station at Expo/Crenshaw.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 31, 2011 18:10:17 GMT -8
This presentation prominently features a station at Leimert. I can imagine that people that were involved early and liked what they saw assumed that there would be a station there. The Locally Preferred Alternative also mentions Leimert prominently and although it says that it is an optional station it says that if not chosen, that consideration would be given to moving the MLK station further south. It mentions Leimert Park's significance and that the community favored a station there. So people were involved, just that Metro wrongly thought that other stations made more sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on May 31, 2011 18:51:23 GMT -8
This presentation prominently features a station at Leimert. I can imagine that people that were involved early and liked what they saw assumed that there would be a station there. The Locally Preferred Alternative also mentions Leimert prominently and although it says that it is an optional station it says that if not chosen, that consideration would be given to moving the MLK station further south. It mentions Leimert Park's significance and that the community favored a station there. So people were involved, just that Metro wrongly thought that other stations made more sense. Art Leahy retorted all of that in his letter to MRT. I think of it as Metro correctly thinking of ridership projections and existing transit services. EDIT: I'm saying this is quickly becoming a political station to make people feel better about the significance of Leimert Park Village. Add it at-grade or simply don't. The one of the biggest monthly activities at Crenshaw/Vernon might shock you when you find out. |
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 31, 2011 20:25:33 GMT -8
IINM Metro did. Unless I'm not remembering correctly none of the options presented at the initial community scoping meetings had trains going underground through Little Tokyo. Trains entered Little Tokyo underground and came up to the surface. It wasn't that terrible as long as we assume drivers know to stop at red lights. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 31, 2011 21:05:28 GMT -8
IINM Metro did. Unless I'm not remembering correctly none of the options presented at the initial community scoping meetings had trains going underground through Little Tokyo. Trains entered Little Tokyo underground and came up to the surface. It wasn't that terrible as long as we assume drivers know to stop at red lights. I'm thinking that was later and that the original scoping meetings didn't have the underground options. IIRC the trains were only underground on Flower and Bunker Hill and then were at grade either on any one of 2nd, 1st, or Temple. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 31, 2011 22:43:31 GMT -8
This presentation prominently features a station at Leimert. I can imagine that people that were involved early and liked what they saw assumed that there would be a station there. I stand corrected. Clearly the concept has been around for awhile, it just wasn't lobbied for with any intensity until now. If the idea of a station at Leimert Park was so critical and obvious to so many people (including Supervisor Ridley-Thomas), I would think they would have actively lobbied for the station before the DEIR came out, or when the DEIR public comment period was open. Instead of in 2011, after all of the other expensive (and arguably less important) design options have already been added, bloating the project beyond it's budget. |
|
). 