|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 18, 2011 12:49:43 GMT -8
Metro staff is recommending that the so-called "Freight Track Alternative" be eliminated from consideration for the South Bay Extension to Torrance. At the January 2011 Metro Board meeting, the Board will consider the recommendation and possibly vote on it. I never followed up on this: the Metro Board did in fact vote to remove the "Freight Track Alternative" from consideration. The remaining alternatives are LRT, TSM and No Build. LRT could be built either to the South Bay Galleria (2 new stations) or to the proposed Torrance RTC (4 new stations). For the record, I support the shorter LRT extension to the South Bay Galleria. Until somebody lays out a more complete vision of how this extension is supposed to work, I cannot support spending money to take this line to the "Torrance RTC", which would be located, as someone here eloquently put it, in the "city's industrial crotch".
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 18, 2011 13:03:54 GMT -8
Agreed, metrocenter. Until Torrance gets its act together, we should only build the line to the Galleria. Though according to these NIMBYs, I don't think they even want it going there.
At this point, I would almost be happy if Metro chose 'no build' for this and the Eastside Extension Phase 2 and re-appropriated the funds to getting the Crenshaw Line to Wilshire.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 18, 2011 13:29:16 GMT -8
How far would those funds get towards Wilshire? Presumably there would be some tunneling, at least at the end. I can't imagine a line crossing Wilshire at grade or elevated. I think there would also have to be grade separation over or under the Expo line, which isn't cheap either.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 18, 2011 14:01:16 GMT -8
People in the South Bay remember what it used to be like when the freight trains ran more often. They really disrupted traffic, which has been getting worse over the last 15 years so there's bound to be some community opposition. But in this case it sounds like it's the people living next to the line complaining. We can't let the people that thought that they were getting a good deal by buying next to an active RR dictate policy for the entire region. That RR belongs to all of us and they don't get special consideration because they didn't foresee more trains coming.
OTOH they really do need to speak up now. The line will be built, but maybe they can get a better outcome than the people that live next to the blue line in LA and Compton. They really got screwed with the train horns.
Oh and to be clear it ends at only one refinery, ExxonMobil. And where it ends is on the other side from the ExxonMobil entrance which is on 190th. What it is close to is all of Torrance's government offices and at the Transit Center.
And I agree with metro's low projections for this line. If it were closer to the beach. Or also stopped at the Del Amo Fashion Center. Or went to Santa Monica instead of Crenshaw...lots of what-ifs, but my guess is that this will be our lowest ridership per mile line and maybe by a good distance.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 18, 2011 15:51:01 GMT -8
How far would those funds get towards Wilshire? Presumably there would be some tunneling, at least at the end. I can't imagine a line crossing Wilshire at grade or elevated. I think there would also have to be grade separation over or under the Expo line, which isn't cheap either. Measure R allocates $1.27 billion for the Eastside Extension of the Gold Line. It also provides $272 million for the South Bay extension. So all together, that’s a little over $1.5 billion. In a perfect world, I’d like to see the line make these stops: Crenshaw/Expo (underground, or at-grade, connecting to the Crenshaw Expo Line station) Crenshaw/Adams (underground) San Vicente/Venice (elevated) San Vicente/Fairfax/Olympic (elevated) San Vicente Wilshire (underground, connecting to the La Cienega Purple Line station) If built this way (especially at-grade at Expo, but it will probably have to go underground), $1.5 billion should just be enough (though some additional funding might be needed). Elevation at the Venice and Fairfax stations is possible due to the wideness of San Vicente Blvd. If need be, one of the stations could probably even be eliminated, further driving down the cost. I don’t mean to get too off-topic, but the point is this: which would L.A. as a whole benefit more from: the extension I just wrote about, or the planned South Bay and Eastside extensions? The whole point of Measure R is to improve transit across L.A. County as a whole, but there's no improvement if we’re building trains to nowhere. I’m not saying the South Bay should never have rail, but I think the present plan is not the way to go about it.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 18, 2011 15:51:49 GMT -8
Here's another story about the rumble in Lawndale. According to this article, many of those who showed up were from the Lawndale neighborhood bordered on the south and east by Inglewood and Manhattan Beach Blvds. This suggests to me that someone organized a door-to-door campaign to mobilize the neighborhood's residents. The tracks are on a raised right-of-way through much of the neighborhood. The people who would feel the impact most are those living at the dead-ends of the numbered streets east of the tracks. Most of those west of the tracks have a street (Condon Avenue) buffering them from the train.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 18, 2011 16:02:47 GMT -8
Metro needs to work at building this stuff where it makes sense, rather than trains to nowhere just to satisfy the entire county. I'm certainly no lawyer, and even though I have read the entire Measure R text some time ago, I don't remember what exactly it says about transferring money from one project to another. I do understand the intention of Measure R. The point was build transit projects throughout the county. But if the ridership for a project is ridiculously low, or the area's residents don't want it, then it doesn't make sense to spend the money on rail "just because". Of course, all of these projects can result in selection of "No Build" or "TSM". That's one way to "complete the project" without spending the money allocated for it.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 18, 2011 16:06:14 GMT -8
I think we’re on the same page, metrocenter. To be honest, I’d still like to see the Galleria extension happen someday, but not in the face of other areas that need the attention more.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 18, 2011 18:27:05 GMT -8
On the subject of other projects that need funds: We should not have let highways get so much funding, especially the 710 Freeway tunnel. For the record, I support the shorter LRT extension to the South Bay Galleria. Until somebody lays out a more complete vision of how this extension is supposed to work, I cannot support spending money to take this line to the "Torrance RTC", which would be located, as someone here eloquently put it, in the "city's industrial crotch". This is why I think the Long Beach/San Pedro alternatives should be done NOW instead of considering the Torrance terminus. I do understand the intention of Measure R. The point was build transit projects throughout the county. But if the ridership for a project is ridiculously low, or the area's residents don't want it, then it doesn't make sense to spend the money on rail "just because". Come on, let's not come up with excuses. We need to stand up to these idiots and show them why this project, in the long run, makes sense. 20 years from now, do you really think routes like this won't be worth having? Besides, this creates an opportunity for more TOD projects and further growth.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 18, 2011 19:30:29 GMT -8
I'll admit I do I have a vested interest in this project... Torrance is where I grew up, and I still consider the South Bay to be my neck of the woods. To quote the Gold Line web site "I will ride".
But we really can't let NIMBYs dictate the terms of our transit system.
We've seen enough of this from South Pasadena, the San Fernando Valley, Cheviot Hills, Farmdale, and even Century City/ Beverly Hills.
This may not have the highest ridership in Los Angeles, but I think it will get decent ridership, especially if it reaches Crenshaw in Torrance.
The South Bay is changing. I've seen the changes. And Lawndale NIMBYs are hardly representative of the area.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Apr 18, 2011 22:32:43 GMT -8
So I've been to nearly every meeting, Torrance and Redondo Beach have a decent mix of for and against. Lawndale has an overwhelming opposition -- they're not what I would call organized yet, but they are certainly becoming more vocal. Frankly, I want to see more people out there at the Lawndale meetings because we need you. I'll explain why in a second, but first I'll mention that the team has offered to take a tour to the Gold Line to show the residents what it's like so I'm hoping it'll help, many seemed to express interest in it. I also want to address the complaint the Metro staff aren't doing enough to allay peoples concerns. I'll admit the guy who's doing the talking isn't exactly the best speaker, but I also think he has to walk a fine line to be impartial. So here's why we in the South Bay do deserve a rail extension -- the pieces, they're coming together. Redondo Beach is building a new transit center, Torrance is too and guess what? The area around that transit center is ripe for redevelopement. Ball corporation who sits across from the lot where the transit center is being built is leaving and so another large plot of land will be available. We've seen rail revitalize neighborhoods and I think this is very possible in this section of town. But that's not the only thing that's going on, the most important piece of the puzzle of all is starting to take shape. Gardena and Torrance are beginning to restructure their transit services after years of stagnation. In fact Gardena is having a public meeting this Wednesday, so you can't say no one is being proactive here. We deserve rail just as much as anyone else, and I'm disappointed in anyone who believes just because there's some people against it in Lawndale the thought of throwing in the towel has crossed your mind instead of being spurred on to come down and help level the playing field. Truth be told, the folks in Lawndale won't boo at you if you're respectful in what you say. Frankly it helps to talk about why you feel rail is important rather than to start name calling in all situations, but perhaps more so in this instance when the future of a region that has been stagnant for so long is looking for change. It's also important to remember, while the Crenshaw Line with this extension won't be perfect it will provide a decent alternative to the 405 for north/south travel. It surely won't take 2 hours to get from Torrance to Santa Monica with the Crenshaw Line + Expo Line, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Apr 19, 2011 0:43:10 GMT -8
Lawndale is a small city, but they seem to have this huge eyesore of a city marker off the I-405 at Inglewood Avenue just past the Redondo Beach Green Line station - that obnoxious LED billboard. Lawndale must be raking in the dough selling ad space on it.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 19, 2011 7:00:16 GMT -8
We deserve rail just as much as anyone else, and I'm disappointed in anyone who believes just because there's some people against it in Lawndale the thought of throwing in the towel has crossed your mind instead of being spurred on to come down and help level the playing field. It's also important to remember, while the Crenshaw Line with this extension won't be perfect it will provide a decent alternative to the 405 for north/south travel. It surely won't take 2 hours to get from Torrance to Santa Monica with the Crenshaw Line + Expo Line, that's for sure. But we really can't let NIMBYs dictate the terms of our transit system. I totally agree that NIMBYs shouldn't be allowed to shut down a project that has lots of support. The problem is, I haven't seen any evidence of "lots of support" for this project. It hasn't materialized at the meetings. Even the Friends of the Green Line, the only pro-Green Line group that I'm aware of, is asleep at the wheel. All I'm saying is, in this case there is a good amount of resistance on the one hand, and half-hearted support on the other. So who's going to show up at the meetings? It's going to mostly be opponents. I went to two meetings and I was not terribly impressed. If there's a case to be made for continuing this project past the South Bay Galleria, I haven't yet heard it. I know there are lots of residents deeper into the South Bay who would benefit from this line. So why end it at Crenshaw north of Torrance? What kind of "redevelopment" is going to happen at the Ball Corporation lot? Mixed-use TOD? Call me skeptical. I'm always wary of the "if we build it they will come" argument, especially when there are plenty of dense neighborhoods farther down the line. I'm a transit advocate, but that doesn't mean I'm going to support every proposed rail line that anybody thinks of. It has to make sense, in terms of ridership, cost and public benefit. If there are people in the South Bay who support this line, they need to start yelling, louder than the NIMBYs, and not simply wait for Metro and the Transit Coalition to push the project forward.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 19, 2011 8:46:56 GMT -8
I'm a transit advocate, but that doesn't mean I'm going to support every proposed rail line that anybody thinks of. It has to make sense, in terms of ridership, cost and public benefit. If there are people in the South Bay who support this line, they need to start yelling, louder than the NIMBYs, and not simply wait for Metro and the Transit Coalition to push the project forward. My sentiments exactly. This is why I think the Long Beach/San Pedro alternatives should be done NOW instead of considering the Torrance terminus. Great idea, but where's the money going to come from? Extending the line either to San Pedro or Long Beach will cost somewhere in the $ billions and there's no funding for any of it.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Apr 19, 2011 9:51:51 GMT -8
I really don't see how you can say there isn't support. Torrance and Redondo Beach are being proactive by building transit centers, Gardena and Torrance are restructuring bus service to be more frequent, have longer service spans, and connect with existing stations, and council members show up to the Green Line meetings to voice support. What more do you want? If you've been to the last two rounds of meetings the support on the Redondo Beach and Torrance side have been good.
Ball corporation will be winding down its operations by the end of the year, what will end up there right now is a question yet to be answered but there is potential.
Rail isn't just about density, it's about connectivity -- building a solid bus network to feed a rail network is just as important as density, maybe even more so because you can't always achieve high density near rail but it's easy to develop a strong bus network to bring in people from areas that don't have it. Also, the power of park & ride lots shouldn't be underestimated either.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 19, 2011 11:23:40 GMT -8
I really don't see how you can say there isn't support. Torrance and Redondo Beach are being proactive by building transit centers, Gardena and Torrance are restructuring bus service to be more frequent, have longer service spans, and connect with existing stations, and council members show up to the Green Line meetings to voice support. What more do you want? If you've been to the last two rounds of meetings the support on the Redondo Beach and Torrance side have been good. Ball corporation will be winding down its operations by the end of the year, what will end up there right now is a question yet to be answered but there is potential. Rail isn't just about density, it's about connectivity -- building a solid bus network to feed a rail network is just as important as density, maybe even more so because you can't always achieve high density near rail but it's easy to develop a strong bus network to bring in people from areas that don't have it. Also, the power of park & ride lots shouldn't be underestimated either. I agree with you on the issue of connectivity, ieko. But the fact is this extension has problems, the biggest right now being the presently non-existent terminus. The "promise" of development is just that - a promise. We were all under the impression that the Green Line would serve the Cold War industries in the South Bay early on and we all know how that turned out. What if the economy goes totally south and developers cannot afford to build anything near the future station in Torrance? What then? Think about it from a planning perspective: Would it make any sense to build the Expo Line if it could only be funded to Jefferson/La Cienega? Or Expo/La Brea? It would quickly be labeled a train to nowhere and dismissed by the general public at large, despite what destinations it hits along the way. And at least in that case, the Expo Line still goes downtown and has destinations; the Green Line still goes almost nowhere and has few, if any. Ask yourself, is it really worth it? Spending hundreds of millions of dollars, on a plan to extend a line that almost goes nowhere further, to another area that is essentially nowhere? Where's the logic here? If the line could somehow be funded to get to San Pedro, Long Beach, or hell, even the Del Amo Fashion Center, then it would be different.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 19, 2011 14:46:47 GMT -8
Population of Torrance: 149,000 Population of Burbank: 103,000 Philip, you have a weird definition of nowhere. Obviously, this is going to be a suburban rail line. Frankly, I don't have a problem with that. A good rail system should have both destination stations and "departure" stations. That is, places where people go to work such as Century City or downtown, and stations which serve residential neighborhoods. The San Fernando Valley, for example. The "other end" of the Green Line in Norwalk is another. Also, huge sections of the South Bay are that way, although Torrance prides itself on having a mixture (it's on the city seal) Even if the first segment of this new rail line only gets as far as the Galleria, that's already a fairly decent place for bus connections, besides being a mall on a major commercial street (actually at the intersection of three — Hawthorne, Redondo Beach and Artesia, although I admit the Green Line will only directly touch Artesia) If it reaches Crenshaw, then Torrance will have its transit center up and running by then. The Crenshaw location will be perfect for a park-and-ride stop, and I agree with Ieko that the potential for development there is HUGE. If it were up to me, I would extend the rail line south to Old Torrance, or even beyond that to San Pedro or Long Beach. But finding the funds for that is an obstacle, and the line gets narrower east of Crenshaw. I have always supported the idea of a regional system. The South Bay has paid its fair share of taxes to build the Red Line, Green Line, Blue Line, Gold Line. I figured that the whole point of a Transit COALITION was to bring together all of the communities of Southern California together to fight for the Measure Rs and the 30/10 initiatives and all of the other propositions which wouldn't have passed if transit fans from Torrance, Burbank, the Westside, Long Beach etc. etc. hadn't banded together.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Apr 19, 2011 14:59:48 GMT -8
I really don't see how you can say there isn't support. Torrance and Redondo Beach are being proactive by building transit centers, Gardena and Torrance are restructuring bus service to be more frequent, have longer service spans, and connect with existing stations, and council members show up to the Green Line meetings to voice support. What more do you want? If you've been to the last two rounds of meetings the support on the Redondo Beach and Torrance side have been good. Ball corporation will be winding down its operations by the end of the year, what will end up there right now is a question yet to be answered but there is potential. Rail isn't just about density, it's about connectivity -- building a solid bus network to feed a rail network is just as important as density, maybe even more so because you can't always achieve high density near rail but it's easy to develop a strong bus network to bring in people from areas that don't have it. Also, the power of park & ride lots shouldn't be underestimated either. I agree with you on the issue of connectivity, ieko. But the fact is this extension has problems, the biggest right now being the presently non-existent terminus. The "promise" of development is just that - a promise. We were all under the impression that the Green Line would serve the Cold War industries in the South Bay early on and we all know how that turned out. What if the economy goes totally south and developers cannot afford to build anything near the future station in Torrance? What then? Think about it from a planning perspective: Would it make any sense to build the Expo Line if it could only be funded to Jefferson/La Cienega? Or Expo/La Brea? It would quickly be labeled a train to nowhere and dismissed by the general public at large, despite what destinations it hits along the way. And at least in that case, the Expo Line still goes downtown and has destinations; the Green Line still goes almost nowhere and has few, if any. Ask yourself, is it really worth it? Spending hundreds of millions of dollars, on a plan to extend a line that almost goes nowhere further, to another area that is essentially nowhere? Where's the logic here? If the line could somehow be funded to get to San Pedro, Long Beach, or hell, even the Del Amo Fashion Center, then it would be different. The terminus is well underway in planning, there are preliminary engineering documents and Torrance already owns the land. Even if the economy did go south, Torrance is a desirable place to develop. This is Los Angeles, not Reno. You still have houses here that are pretty modest priced at $1 million. I really don't understand your argument here, you need to go through Torrance to end up in Long Beach. This is just a small piece of a larger picture, you can't have a rail network without building pieces of the network over decades -- that's just how funding works, you can't get around that. This is the best location you're going to get and it may look like nothing now but it has a lot of potential, on the western side of the tracks there are a lot of commercial businesses in addition to a massive indoor soccer facility. To the southeast there is a lot of residential and one of the most important parks in the South Bay. I mean if anything I'd love the terminus for the short term to be Wilson Park next to the miniature train set they got going there. Del Amo Mall is out of the cards, the owners aren't interested and the expense of deviating off the right of way isn't justifiable in terms of the eventual end-to-end travel time or cost.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 19, 2011 15:12:06 GMT -8
I wouldn't call Torrance "nowhere". They could have taken this line an extra 1/2 mile down Sartori Avenue, along the existing trackway, right into Old Torrance. That would've been something.
Instead, they decided to put the terminal station at the edge of an industrial district, pretty close to "nowhere".
It's a mile away to the Civic Center at Torrance/Madrona, 3/4 mile away (by streets) to the old business district. Are people going to walk a mile to these destinations? Probably not. Is the city going to redevelop all the intervening land to a massive new transit-oriented downtown, connecting to Civic Center or Old Torrance? Probably not.
More likely this is going to be strictly a transfer station with a huge parking structure.
Now we can argue about the potential for development over the next several decades, or for the need for park-and-ride stations. But you've got to admit, ending a line next to a refinery is not exactly going to inspire people to rally behind this line.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 19, 2011 15:25:15 GMT -8
The terminus is well underway in planning, there are preliminary engineering documents and Torrance already owns the land. The terminus is not well underway in planning, and preliminary engineering has not yet begun. This project is only in the DEIR phase, PE will not begin until/unless the DEIR is completed and the project is approved for FEIR/PE work by the Metro Board. The Metro Board could, at this stage, shorten the line or lengthen it, add/remove stations, or add other design options. This would likely happen if Metro staff recommended such a change, based on public input.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Apr 19, 2011 16:06:10 GMT -8
The terminus (transit center) is because this project is separate from the extension. There won't be any parking structures, that's too costly. but there is a lot of room and there are is hope that they can bring some retail. The idea is actually to redevelop the area so that it's more transit friendly.
Also you're mistaken, this is not the same right of way that goes to Downtown Torrance. Going there would be a rather difficult task actually.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 19, 2011 16:44:29 GMT -8
Population of Torrance: 149,000 Population of Burbank: 103,000 Philip, you have a weird definition of nowhere. I didn't mean to imply Torrance was nowhere; rather, I was referring to the location of the proposed "transit center." Even if the first segment of this new rail line only gets as far as the Galleria, that's already a fairly decent place for bus connections, besides being a mall on a major commercial street (actually at the intersection of three — Hawthorne, Redondo Beach and Artesia, although I admit the Green Line will only directly touch Artesia). Agreed. I'm still in favor of the Galleria extension. I still wouldn't prioritize it above other areas, but that's not my call. And yes, the South Bay is paying for the other rail lines, so it is only fair that they are rewarded with an extension of their own. If it reaches Crenshaw, then Torrance will have its transit center up and running by then. The Crenshaw location will be perfect for a park-and-ride stop, and I agree with Ieko that the potential for development there is HUGE. You're absolutely right, but remember that this is going to be the terminus for the line, potentially for years. I'd feel much more comfortable knowing that the line will end at what is already a real destination rather than some industrial area that might be a destination years down the line. It's weak planning. If the line had a real terminus just a bit farther (Del Amo Mall, Old Torrence, San Pedro, etc.) I would have no problem with the station location. As it is, we run the risk of ending up with what we have now: a Green Line that ends with no real destination. I have always supported the idea of a regional system. The South Bay has paid its fair share of taxes to build the Red Line, Green Line, Blue Line, Gold Line. I figured that the whole point of a Transit COALITION was to bring together all of the communities of Southern California together to fight for the Measure Rs and the 30/10 initiatives and all of the other propositions which wouldn't have passed if transit fans from Torrance, Burbank, the Westside, Long Beach etc. etc. hadn't banded together. So have I, which is why I still support the idea of the line getting to at least the Galleria. But I cannot support the line going further based on what I have seen and read so far. Trust me, I want rail everywhere in Los Angeles and one day, I think it will be that way again. But in the reality of limited funding and ballooning budgets, we need to examine the benefits that go with the costs of building these lines. I really don't understand your argument here, you need to go through Torrance to end up in Long Beach. This is just a small piece of a larger picture, you can't have a rail network without building pieces of the network over decades -- that's just how funding works, you can't get around that. This is the best location you're going to get and it may look like nothing now but it has a lot of potential, on the western side of the tracks there are a lot of commercial businesses in addition to a massive indoor soccer facility. To the southeast there is a lot of residential and one of the most important parks in the South Bay. I mean if anything I'd love the terminus for the short term to be Wilson Park next to the miniature train set they got going there. Del Amo Mall is out of the cards, the owners aren't interested and the expense of deviating off the right of way isn't justifiable in terms of the eventual end-to-end travel time or cost. I know you need to go through Torrance to get to Long Beach; but how does that help Long Beach commuters if the Long Beach extension may not be built for decades? I think a Green Line extension from the South Bay to Long Beach would be fantastic. I agree that this is only part of a larger picture, but even the early phases of the Red and Blue lines (which were also built over a number of years) each opened within a few years (or shorter) of each other. In this case, we have no idea when or if another extension is even possible. This isn't the Expo Line; if this extension of the Green Line was being planned as a Phase 1 project to Torrance along with a funded, already studied Phase 2 to Long Beach, then I would have no issue at all with what they are doing. Instead, they're building this first extension only with the *hope* of development and no way of going farther. It's admirable, but not practical. I don't mean to sound so pessimistic; I'm optimistic that these extensions will happen someday. In the meantime, we also have to look at these projects for what they are, not what we want them to be or hope them to be.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 19, 2011 17:13:42 GMT -8
The funny thing is, I don't know who you would prioritize above the South Bay at this polnt.
Downtown will get the regional connector. If we were honest, we would call it downtown connector, but I understand the logic of wanting to show that this will link together many areas.
The San Fernando Valley had its chance; they took a swing and whiffed. They got the Orange Line, and the Orange Line will be extended in the near future. They also have the Red Line to North Hollywood.
The Westside will be getting Expo Rail and the Purple Line extension. I would call the Crenshaw Line a Westside project.
The San Gabriel Valley will be getting its Gold Line extension. The Eastside and South Los Angeles have their light rail lines.
The South Bay Green Line has an existing ROW, which is always cheaper and easier than trying to build new ROWs on Hawthorne or Crenshaw. it's not perfect, but it represents a reasonable route through the middle of Torrance. This has been the standard procedure used for the Blue Line, the Gold Line to Pasadena and the Expo Line.
I really wish somebody would kill the "Train To Nowhere" chestnut. Even with its horrible LAX connection, the Green Line gets 40,000 daily.
Scoff if you want at the Torrance terminal, but you're looking at this from the perspective of somebody going into Torrance, not somebody living in the South Bay trying to get to downtown or LAX. Park-and-ride and bus transfers will be a huge part of the Torrance extension's ridership. There will be new development at the terminal as well.
My schedule hasn't allowed me to attend meetings, but I've sent in plenty of comments.
To all Transit Coalition members: you are free to either support this project, or oppose it, but I've never attempted to sabotage anybody else's efforts.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 19, 2011 18:23:28 GMT -8
You make a good point, James. It would appear that once the Measure R projects are done, all of L.A. County will have some type of rapid transit. Sure, there might still be holes (Green Line to Norwalk Metrolink, Crenshaw to Wilshire, etc.), but the system will still finally begin to feel like a mass transit system.
We'll have to agree to disagree about Torrance; I genuinely want them to develop it and I wish them the best of luck if the funding comes through and the extension gets built there, but I'm still not holding my breath for a miracle.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 19, 2011 18:45:38 GMT -8
Make no mistake, when the time comes for the Green Line to be extended to Metrolink or for the Crenshaw Line to be extended to Wilshire, I will support those efforts.
Right now, the more immediate concern is the Green Line to LAX, the Crenshaw Line to LAX, and those efforts should really include the Green Line to the South Bay. I'll agree to disagree on whether "South Bay" means the Galleria or Torrance.
I can easily picture Torrance's Crenshaw transit center becoming something of a de facto remote airport lot, with Palos Verdes, Torrance, Redondo Beach and even San Pedro residents taking the train from there to LAX.
EDIT: Even if Torrance charged for long-term parking, it would be a good deal for South Bay residents who aren't exactly on the FlyAway bus schedule.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 19, 2011 19:13:44 GMT -8
Great idea, but where's the money going to come from? Extending the line either to San Pedro or Long Beach will cost somewhere in the $ billions and there's no funding for any of it. I know, which is why such an extension is currently in Metro's 2030 Long range transportation plan, and not Measure R. If the line could somehow be funded to get to San Pedro, Long Beach, or hell, even the Del Amo Fashion Center, then it would be different. That's what i'm saying. The Torrance terminus option should've been taken out, and instead replaced with Long Beach/San Pedro alternatives. Torrance would work better if it wasn't the terminus.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 20, 2011 7:42:35 GMT -8
Also you're mistaken, this is not the same right of way that goes to Downtown Torrance. Going there would be a rather difficult task actually. Yes, it's a different ROW, I didn't say it was the same one. There is old track along Sartori serving businesses to the north. And clearly this track used to connect to the Harbor Sub at Crenshaw/Dominguez, via Dominguez Street. So a connection to Downtown is definitely possible, if the City of Torrance wanted it that way. I doubt construction would be problematic (there's plenty of space), but I will admit it might be too expensive to acquire that ROW.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 20, 2011 8:59:27 GMT -8
To all Transit Coalition members: you are free to either support this project, or oppose it, but I've never attempted to sabotage anybody else's efforts. To recap my position: - I love the South Bay, particularly Torrance. Between the Japanese restaurants and the mall, the city has a lot going for it.
- Yes, the South Bay needs rail transit, and the region needs better access to the South Bay.
- I have no idea how much support there is in the South Bay for a rail line. It could be low or high, I haven't seen any polls.
- If there is support for the project, then that support needs to turn out at the meetings (and write letters) to counter the NIMBYs.
- Considering the hundreds of thousands of people living in the South Bay, the projected ridership just over 5,000 seems extremely low. Either the projection is way off, or the residents are extremely attached to their cars.
- For me personally, I don't think the project was well thought out. And I'd rather it get built right, rather than rushing through a bad design.
- To be clear, I don't intend to 'sabotage' anyone's efforts on this project. I'm just giving my opinions.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 26, 2011 7:26:37 GMT -8
Just for reference, here is a map showing the old PE routes serving Old Torrance: The Torrance Line tracks carried both passenger and freight traffic. On this map, the proposed site of the terminus and transit center is off to the left, among the refineries, served by the separate Harbor Subdivision.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 6, 2011 11:33:51 GMT -8
From the Daily Breeze yesterday:
Torrance wins $18.1M grant to build new transit center
The city of Torrance was awarded $18.1 million in grant funding Thursday to build a new transit center on Crenshaw Boulevard, Mayor Frank Scotto said.
A subcommittee of the Metropolitan Transit Authority approved the allocation to finance what will be dubbed the Torrance Transit Park and Ride Regional Terminal, Scotto said.
The city had previously received a grant of $2.5 million a little over two years ago to subsidize the park-and-ride lot and bus and light rail hub.
City officials say the terminal will be built on part of a 15-acre former industrial site between Del Amo Boulevard and Maricopa Street.
The city purchased the site in 2009, four years after the former transit center at Del Amo Fashion Center shut down when a new parking structure was built where it sat.
"We can't believe it, we're pretty excited," Scotto said. "We're hoping the construction will be completed by July 2014."
The funding all but guarantees the Green Line extension will eventually make its way to Torrance, providing local residents with improved access to Los Angeles International Airport and downtown Los Angeles.
MTA is currently conducting an environmental analysis and public hearings on the extension.
"This will make it easier for them to facilitate the decision to bring the Green Line to Torrance because all the infrastructure will be there for them; it's a matter of coming down the rail line further." Emphasizing that the decision is not up to the city of Torrance, Scotto said, "We believe that at some point they will do it."
The Green Line extension to Torrance is currently unfunded. Still, it appears that light rail will extend to Torrance decades earlier than initially planned.
The recession has ramped up transit projects far quicker than initially envisioned as government officials have sought to jump-start the economy with public works projects.
"We will still be lobbying for the Green Line to have funding sooner rather than later," said Assistant City Manager Mary Giordano, part of the team that put the grant proposal together. "As far as the Green Line terminus being in Torrance, I think Metro is on board with that."
Metro officials did not immediately return a call Thursday afternoon seeking comment.
The larger grant is from Measure R, the half-cent sales tax increase county voters approved in 2008 that is dedicated to transportation projects.
About $906 million is earmarked for projects in the South Bay and will be disbursed over 30 years in five-year increments.
The smaller grant came from Proposition 1B, which was approved by voters in 2006.
The city also has $400,000 set aside for the project.
Building the transit center, which will include 250 parking spaces and an alternative fuel refueling center, would cost an estimated $13.5 million.
Architectural design and site preparation would cost about another $3 million.
The remainder of the grant funding will go toward paying off the purchase of the one-third of the site that will be used for the transit center.
The city plans to sell off the remaining 10 acres although restrictions on the use of the formerly contaminated manufacturing site mean it cannot accommodate housing. The tract was cleaned up before the city purchased it.
But on Thursday city officials were basking in the coup of securing funding for a major transportation project that will benefit the entire South Bay.
Officials estimate ridership as high as 3.8 million to 4 million annually, which is 13,700 to 14,000 boardings per day.
In addition to Torrance Transit, other bus services - including Beach Cities Transit, Gardena Transit and Municipal Area Express - are expected to use the terminal.
"We're going to offer a service to the public that's sorely needed in the South Bay, offering a transit park and ride," Scotto said. "It will definitely make riding a bus in Torrance more pleasurable than it is today."
|
|