|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 2, 2011 15:08:34 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. There was one very early version of the Regional Connector which would have skirted Little Tokyo, would have been at-grade and would have put a station divided onto two streets, northbound and southbound like the Downtown Streetcar, near or adjacent Little Tokyo. Thank the FSM that idea was scrapped quickly. There undoubtedly were some Little Tokyo residents who wanted the project killed, just as there are undoubtedly some Crenshaw residents who don't want trains in their neighborhood. IMHO, the Little Tokyo process was very messy, but a wise man once said, that's democracy or words to that effect. Metro complicated matters by putting a fictional, nonexistant building in some illustrations (in addition to the Nikkei Center, which people were okay with), across the street from JANM. That was a very stupid move because I think people saw that as out of character for the neighborhood. By comparison, the Lemiert Park situation seems to be much less complicated. Build a station or don't. Underground or not. There will still be underground in the current plan. And Crenshaw, physically speaking, is not Little Tokyo. It is a different sort of neighborhood, a different situation (no wye), and it is an odd comparison. The situation seems very different to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jun 4, 2011 8:38:47 GMT -8
Ugh, where does this stuff come from? --- Between the Lines: MTA and The Mayor On The Leimert Park Stop VoteThis City’s Reluctance To Bet on 'Black' – Even When We Win, We Loseby Anthony Asadullah Samad*The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority did its usual “rope-a-dope” with the black community last week on the most important infrastructure investment of the next 100 years. Several things came into crystal clear reality; 1) some people don’t see our community as part of the future of this city. 2) those that we think are our friends or allies-are clearly not, 3) the political sophistication of our community continues to be significantly underestimated, and 4) if some had their way, our community would continue to be significantly undeveloped and underserved. (more...) |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 5, 2011 6:50:01 GMT -8
It's an opinion piece. Let him rant. Crenshaw is getting a fine rail line, with more than enough grade separation. Hopefully Metro staff and the community can work together to find the best solution to the station(s) in Leimert Park.
Mark Ridley-Thomas caused this turmoil himself by tying a reasonable request for the station to a completely unreasonable request for a tunnel through Park Mesa. He then dared the board to vote against it, all but saying that a vote against his ridiculous motion would be a vote against the black community. But in the end, his political position was too weak (having only lined up support from Molina and Antonovich), and the rest of the board called his bluff.
Just because you don't get everything you want and happen to be black, doesn't make everybody else racist.
I do find it interesting that the columnist specifically calls out Mel Wilson, a Villaraigosa appointee who voted against the motion, as a "Negro that lives in the valley". I guess if you don't fall into lockstep with the "community", be prepared for some name calling.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 7, 2011 8:44:24 GMT -8
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. I don't think this issue is completely dead. I agree that a lawsuit is frivolous, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. They could raise an environmental justice claim or find some other way to throw a wrench into it. It may not be Fix Expo, but could be some other group. Lets just say I am not fully convinced that the shovels will be moving on this line next year. la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/07/south-l-a-still-fuming-over-metro-leimert-parkcrenshaw-subway-vote/#more-63351 |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 7, 2011 14:56:08 GMT -8
If they kill Crenshaw, then it frees up more $$ for other projects. How about a Vermont line instead? It could also connect to the green line which will eventually go to LAX. The ridership would be huge compared to the Crenshaw line.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 7, 2011 16:25:35 GMT -8
Nothing will be killed. Antonio and others will not vote to kill the Crenshaw project. Only MRT would try to delay or do an honorary "abstain" vote, but the project is moving full speed ahead. It's a critical north-south line for the Westside.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 7, 2011 21:36:29 GMT -8
I agree. This project is too far along, and it WILL be built. There is NO way we're turning back now. MRT can throw all the inane tantrums he wants, but at the end of the day when it's all said and done, he's going to be a big fan of this rail line when it gets built... like everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 8, 2011 5:56:27 GMT -8
While I think Vermont is the better alternative, it is 10 years or more behind Crenshaw. The ridership numbers for Vermont, however, are so much greater than Crenshaw that I wish that this was the line being envisioned, debated, and planned now instead. But I don't want to wait 10 more years, so I support Crenshaw. Rail expansion moves at the rate of a glacier.  |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 8, 2011 12:08:26 GMT -8
I don't believe for a moment that the Crenshaw project will be killed, nor do I think it should.
But MRT and his followers need to keep the possibility in their heads, as they continue to "demand" for the frivolous and costly enhancement that is the Park Mesa tunnel.
As a reminder to all (including the Crenshaw community): the full name of this project is the "Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor". Not just the "Crenshaw project". Crenshaw Blvd only accounts for 3 miles of the 8.5-mile project. And the revenue line will actually stretch over 11 miles, from Exposition down to Redondo Beach. Tens of thousands of people along the line are expecting to benefit from this project, not just those near Crenshaw.
I say this to point out to put all the hoopla about tunnelling Park Mesa in perspective. The only benefit of a tunnel would be just to avoid at-grade crossings at two non-congested intersections (48th and Slauson). The proposed 20+ percent project cost increase is simply not worth this supposed benefit.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 8, 2011 13:39:56 GMT -8
If you believe in rail transit, now is NOT the time to kill Crenshaw, even if you think that there are better projects.
Any other projects (a Vermont line, for instance) would have to go through the exact same process that we've been going through with Crenshaw. You don't jog 13 miles of a marathon, decide you want to stop and ask if that 13 miles can be applied to another race elsewhere.
And I do support the Crenshaw/ LAX project. If you just look at Crenshaw, you're missing the fact that this will link LAX with Expo Rail and possibly, eventually with Wilshire. I'll even go so far as to say that the Crenshaw District deserves it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 10, 2011 9:11:04 GMT -8
And with luck, it might even go to West Hollywood and Hollywood via the north and Long Beach via the south
|
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 15, 2011 10:58:42 GMT -8
Interesting LA Times op ed column today by Tim Rutten about potential mayoral candidate Rick Caruso. In particular: ...
In a recent Town Hall address, he recalled that "more than a century ago, a wild-eyed dreamer by the name of 'Lucky' Baldwin came to Southern California to speculate in land. He bought some large parcels across the region, which he divided and sold off to people in the East." Men like Baldwin, Caruso went on to say, were "visionaries who saw here the opportunity to build something new."
...
Last week, Caruso spoke to a San Fernando Valley audience and repeated not only his familiar critiques — opposition to the subway, a desire to break up the Los Angeles Unified School District, a call to abolish the gross receipts tax — but also a sketch of the city's future as he envisions it. Speaking from "the developer's point of view on how to make Los Angeles more livable," he envisioned neighborhoods each organized around its own shopping center, all of which would be connected by an above-ground light-rail system.
Street-level transit by trolley — as in the Grove — is one of Caruso's keys to livability. "If you build an engaging, interesting transportation system in Los Angeles, at the street level, where people can get off and walk Ventura Boulevard, shop, get back on, go grab a bite, get back on, connect to their car and then get home, or vice versa, all of a sudden, you're serving that customer and you're serving those businesses to move the customer around and start spending dollars along boulevards," he said. "What are they going to do in a tube underground?"
... Are you listening, Mark Ridley-Thomas? |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 15, 2011 11:46:38 GMT -8
Interesting LA Times op ed column today by Tim Rutten about potential mayoral candidate Rick Caruso. In particular: ...
In a recent Town Hall address, he recalled that "more than a century ago, a wild-eyed dreamer by the name of 'Lucky' Baldwin came to Southern California to speculate in land. He bought some large parcels across the region, which he divided and sold off to people in the East." Men like Baldwin, Caruso went on to say, were "visionaries who saw here the opportunity to build something new."
...
Last week, Caruso spoke to a San Fernando Valley audience and repeated not only his familiar critiques — opposition to the subway, a desire to break up the Los Angeles Unified School District, a call to abolish the gross receipts tax — but also a sketch of the city's future as he envisions it. Speaking from "the developer's point of view on how to make Los Angeles more livable," he envisioned neighborhoods each organized around its own shopping center, all of which would be connected by an above-ground light-rail system.
Street-level transit by trolley — as in the Grove — is one of Caruso's keys to livability. "If you build an engaging, interesting transportation system in Los Angeles, at the street level, where people can get off and walk Ventura Boulevard, shop, get back on, go grab a bite, get back on, connect to their car and then get home, or vice versa, all of a sudden, you're serving that customer and you're serving those businesses to move the customer around and start spending dollars along boulevards," he said. "What are they going to do in a tube underground?"
... Are you listening, Mark Ridley-Thomas? Sorry, but Caruso's anti-subway stance will NOT get my vote. There are corridors that deserve a subway, and Caruso is clearly against the Westside Purple Line extension. Today, we are mere inches with an approval of the FEIR to get construction started in a year or two. Yet, imagine if Caruso was elected mayor in 2013....there's a possiblity he may leverage, as Mayor, to get the Metro board to cancel the project and use funds only for light rail (a far out thought). This man is no friend of transportation and I consider him scarier than Mark Ridley-Thomas. Caruso is a man who is a true potential threat to the Purple Line extension, whereas you haven't heard this criticism from the other candidates like Gruel or Parry. Caruso should be feared and not adored...especially as transit advocates. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 15, 2011 14:35:32 GMT -8
yes, Caruso definitely wouldn't be getting my vote (assuming that I was a resident of the City of Los Angeles).
Caruso's view is WAY too narrow. Yes, local streetcar lines would be a good idea, but he misses the bigger picture of subways as a serious mass transit option.
Essentially, he's talking about dozens of The Grove or dozens of downtown streetcars. There's nothing wrong with dozens of streetcars, but there are areas of Los Angeles which are much too dense for streetcars or even light rail to work.
Subways can be walkable. What's been missing from the Los Angeles transit picture has been the underground or below street-level retail, the subway station retail, the subway entrance to the major department store.
Note that in Caruso's vision, people use the streetcar to get around a neighborhood... and then get into their car and go home. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, but it would be far better to have the option of taking the Red Line or even the Blue Line home.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 15, 2011 18:25:08 GMT -8
Extend the Grove streetcar to the Beverly Center, Mr. Caruso.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Jun 16, 2011 7:28:31 GMT -8
And with luck, it might even go to West Hollywood and Hollywood via the north and Long Beach via the south So when it's time to give the Crenshaw LRT a color - I guess it could potentially be the Pink Line. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 16, 2011 8:52:25 GMT -8
And with luck, it might even go to West Hollywood and Hollywood via the north and Long Beach via the south So when it's time to give the Crenshaw LRT a color - I guess it could potentially be the Pink Line. I believe that Metro is already ahead of us on this and have tentatively referred to the Crenshaw/LAX line as the "Rose Line". I suspect that part of the decision to move the LaCienega Purple Line stop to the east of La Cienega is to make for an easier transfer to the Rose Line at San Vicente and Wilshire. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 16, 2011 9:08:29 GMT -8
So when it's time to give the Crenshaw LRT a color - I guess it could potentially be the Pink Line. I believe that Metro is already ahead of us on this and have tentatively referred to the Crenshaw/LAX line as the "Rose Line". I suspect that part of the decision to move the LaCienega Purple Line stop to the east of La Cienega is to make for an easier transfer to the Rose Line at San Vicente and Wilshire. I really hope this is true. Metro needs to be planning something (knockout portals or whatever) for Crenshaw's future extension up this way. |
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Jun 16, 2011 11:23:39 GMT -8
I believe that Metro is already ahead of us on this and have tentatively referred to the Crenshaw/LAX line as the "Rose Line". I suspect that part of the decision to move the LaCienega Purple Line stop to the east of La Cienega is to make for an easier transfer to the Rose Line at San Vicente and Wilshire. I really hope this is true. Metro needs to be planning something (knockout portals or whatever) for Crenshaw's future extension up this way. A Wilshire/La Cienega/San Vicente rail transit hub sounds really promising too. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 16, 2011 15:26:43 GMT -8
I actually might be the source of the "Rose Line" for the Crenshaw Corridor.
See, I do a lot of editing on wikipedia (not lately though). When I created the pages for the Crenshaw Line, I needed a color for it to show up on the graphics. The color "rose" came from Bernard Parks, who had suggested that color rose for the Expo Line. Since the color had been proposed and not used, and since Mr. Parks represents the Crenshaw District, I figured it made as much sense as any other color for the Crenshaw Line.
So far as I know, Metro has no color planned for this line. If anybody has source at Metro for the "Rose Line", it would be great to hear about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 16, 2011 17:54:45 GMT -8
I like the Rose Line idea. Crenshaw Line is misleading since the light rail line will head for LAX and Crenshaw does not reach LAX. Only part of the line will be on Crenshaw (although admittedly, a lot of the political will and initial justification for the line has come from the Crenshaw District).
And if Parks suggested Rose, then there is precedent of sorts.
Rose Line from LAX to Wilshire. Or even South Bay to Wilshire. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 16, 2011 20:57:43 GMT -8
I believe that Metro is already ahead of us on this and have tentatively referred to the Crenshaw/LAX line as the "Rose Line". I suspect that part of the decision to move the LaCienega Purple Line stop to the east of La Cienega is to make for an easier transfer to the Rose Line at San Vicente and Wilshire. Wait, so this name is actually being considered by Metro, and not simply someone's fantasy? |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jun 17, 2011 0:10:37 GMT -8
I believe that Metro is already ahead of us on this and have tentatively referred to the Crenshaw/LAX line as the "Rose Line". I suspect that part of the decision to move the LaCienega Purple Line stop to the east of La Cienega is to make for an easier transfer to the Rose Line at San Vicente and Wilshire. Wait, so this name is actually being considered by Metro, and not simply someone's fantasy? Supposedly Bernard Parks' though I haven't verified |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 17, 2011 5:50:35 GMT -8
I like pink line better than rose. Really this could be considered part of the green line, maybe. I am most interested in the future northern expansion possibilties of this line.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Jun 17, 2011 6:29:54 GMT -8
I like the Rose Line idea. Crenshaw Line is misleading since the light rail line will head for LAX and Crenshaw does not reach LAX. Only part of the line will be on Crenshaw (although admittedly, a lot of the political will and initial justification for the line has come from the Crenshaw District). And if Parks suggested Rose, then there is precedent of sorts. Rose Line from LAX to Wilshire. Or even South Bay to Wilshire. ;D South Bay to Hollywood.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 17, 2011 8:38:23 GMT -8
Personally, I wish we'd drop the crayola color scheme and use letters and numbers like the rest of the civilized world. Even the proper names in London would be superior.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 17, 2011 10:00:13 GMT -8
Personally, I wish we'd drop the crayola color scheme and use letters and numbers like the rest of the civilized world. Even the proper names in London would be superior. Gosh, every few months we get into this same arguement. I have no care if we continue using colors or change to names/letters. But to add a couple of comments London - what the heck is a Jubilee, Northern, District Line? What do they mean? It's just random names that "no other civilized" city uses. At least in other cities they name lines after colors, letters and/or district names. Jubilee, Northern, District, etc... truly make no sense and is a more confusing scheme than anything else. "use letters and numbers like the rest of the civilized world" - would you consider Chicago, Boston, San Diego uncivilized? They use colors, like Los Angeles, and I think they're pretty modern cities. Basic takeaway from my point - the color scheme is NOT a problem. There are more pressing issues like NSFR, Monrovia maintenance yard, MRT, etc.. than our colors. Personally, saying you live "on the Red Line" sounds pretty freakin' cool. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 17, 2011 14:14:44 GMT -8
Precisely. Lettered and numbered lines work in NYC not only because they have over a dozen subways lines, but also because several of those lines funnel into different trunks. Not the case in L.A. and most metro systems in the world, actually.
The ONLY reason to switch over to letters and numbers would be if, let's say, the Regional Connector not only provided Long Beach-Pasadena and Santa Monica-East L.A. service, but all kinds of transit between the four (i.e. Santa Monica-Long Beach, Pasadena-East L.A., Long Beach-East L.A., etc. etc.). This however, would be impossible without 1) Metro purchasing additional cars, and 2) building 4-8 tracked stations for the Regional Connector stops to prevent overcrowding.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 17, 2011 15:39:35 GMT -8
I do believe the Crenshaw line was originally the "Brown" line on some of Metro's map. Someone obviously made sure those maps are no longer in public circulation...
Starting with Expo, I hope Metro will just name the service rather than by color. Although there is absolutely no problem using the pink (or rose) color on the map. The initial alignment is likely from Expo line to Redondo Beach (current Green line terminus) with LAX roughly halfway in between. "Crenshaw-LAX line" is descriptive name for this service: runs on Crenshaw Blvd for a long stretch, and LAX is going to be the most important stop. So I hope that will be the official name.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 23, 2011 14:53:26 GMT -8
Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas Calls for Safety, Economic Protections for the Crenshaw/LAX Light Rail Corridor Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas introduced a Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board motion Thursday calling for Metro to create a fund for business losses caused by construction of the Crenshaw/LAX light rail line, and for the agency to devise plans for safety, local worker hiring and streetscape improvements along the route. “The Crenshaw/LAX line project is moving fast ahead. As it is being built we must also make sure the community doesn’t pay too high a price for its long-overdue rail service,” Ridley-Thomas said. “The rail line is meant to cut traffic and improve safety, so I want Metro to come up with solid plans to make sure that happens. The line should also be built with workers from the community, and businesses disrupted by the construction need to be compensated,” he said. Ridley-Thomas’ motion to create a “Community Benefits Package,” introduced at Thursday’s board meeting, will be placed on the agenda of the board’s August 4th meeting. The motion calls for Metro’s Chief Executive Officer to devise plans for: Safety along the street-level segment of the line on Crenshaw Boulevard between 48th Street and 59th Street. Traffic mitigation on the same segment to reduce congestion from the current “F” rating to at least a “C” grade. A Local Worker Hiring Program to assure at least 30% of workers are from the local area and 10% are disadvantaged workers, as well as a program to grant 30% of contracting to small business enterprises. A business mitigation fund to assist local businesses impacted by the construction. A sidewalk, streetscape and local business improvement plan on Crenshaw Boulevard from Vernon Avenue to Stocker Street to enhance the corridor connecting Leimert Park to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Transit Station. In May, the Metro board rejected a Ridley-Thomas proposal to put the rail line underground in the Park Mesa Heights community, between 48th Street and 59th Street along Crenshaw Boulevard. The board also voted then to approve a Leimert Park Village station, but did not authorize money to pay for the addition, leaving its future in question. Ridley-Thomas said he is working to ensure the Leimert Park Village station gets built. Meanwhile, his motion seeks to maximize the benefits of the rail project to the community. “As we continue to press for a rail station in Leimert Park Village, the cultural center of African American Los Angeles, we must also make sure construction of the project promotes the economic growth that is the foundation of that rich cultural life,” Ridley-Thomas said. “When the Leimert Park Village station is built, it must be surrounded by a thriving community of small businesses and safe and secure communities. With proper planning, Metro can ensure the Crenshaw/LAX light rail project is a win-win for all,” he said. Ridley-Thomas noted the Crenshaw/LAX rail project is now on track for completion in 2016. The project had earlier been designated as a bus-way with a 2029 completion date. The 8.5 mile line will run from Exposition Boulevard and Crenshaw Boulevard to Los Angeles International Airport. thesource.metro.net/2011/06/23/ridley-thomas-introduces-new-crenshawlax-line-motion-on-construction-impacts/ |
|
