South Bay Green Line Extension - DEIR Process

[metrocenter]

So now that we're down to alternatives 1 and 3, I would definitely choose Alt 3. But, they should seriously consider a trench station under Hawthorne, between Redondo Beach Blvd and Artesia Blvd. For the transit connectivity!

[usmc1401]

Like the Idea of a trench station at Hawthorne and Artesia.

[Philip]

This project feels like it keeps getting watered down.

So we're looking at only two stations on this extension now? Just the Redondo and Torrance TCs?

Without a station at Manhattan Beach Blvd., Alt. 3 makes the most sense, but all those grade crossings...

[numble]

I struggle with how this 2-station, 4.5-5 mile line costs $900m to $1 billion but the 9.2 mile, 14 station East San Fernando Valley Line costs $1.3 billion, especially since the ESFV Line needs to build a new maintenance facility as part of its project while the Green Line extension will not need one.

[Philip]

I would imagine reducing the extension to two stations will significantly bring down the budget.

[culvercitylocke]

Aug 16, 2018 20:32:05 GMT -8 Philip said:

I would imagine reducing the extension to two stations will significantly bring down the budget.

Where’s the news this is only two stations?

[numble]

Aug 16, 2018 20:41:24 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

Aug 16, 2018 20:32:05 GMT -8 Philip said:

I would imagine reducing the extension to two stations will significantly bring down the budget.

Where’s the news this is only two stations?

The original alternatives had 3 stations, but in the draft Planning and Programming agenda, Metro staff recommended removing a station from each alternative:
media.metro.net/about_us/committees/images/agenda_bospacket_2018-0717.pdf

A RECEIVING AND FILING the Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternative Analysis (SAA) Report.

AUTHORIZING staff to initiate the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Project and carry forward the following two build alternatives (modified):
a. Alternative 1: Metro Right-of-way (ROW) and Overcrossing, without a station at Manhattan/Inglewood
b. Alternative 3: Hawthorne to 1 90th Street, without a station at Hawthorne/166th Street.

The original 4 alternatives with 3 stations each:
media.metro.net/projects_studies/southbay/images/project_briefing_presentation_2018-0111.pdf

[Philip]

It also seems they've abandoned the 190th/Hawthorne station, which seems rather foolish.

The South Bay might be getting fast transit to the Galleria, but not much else.

If they're going to cut stations, why not extend the line further to Carson St. in Old Torrance?
Or Western/Sepulveda?

[numble]

Aug 16, 2018 20:32:05 GMT -8 Philip said:

I would imagine reducing the extension to two stations will significantly bring down the budget.

Page 21 of this 2012 preliminary cost study (Page 21 of pdf! Page 13 in the document’s page numbers) for the Sepulveda Line has a good table showing how they calculate costs. An at-grade LRT station costs $5 million while an underground station costs $100 million, and a maintenance facility costs $100 million. Costs have risen since 2012, but the removal of at-grade stations shouldn’t reduce costs too much.

media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/final_compendium_report/6.0%20Preliminary%20Cost%20Report.pdf

[culvercitylocke]

Aug 17, 2018 4:55:58 GMT -8 numble said:

Aug 16, 2018 20:32:05 GMT -8 Philip said:

I would imagine reducing the extension to two stations will significantly bring down the budget.

Page 21 of this 2012 preliminary cost study (Page 21 of pdf! Page 13 in the document’s page numbers) for the Sepulveda Line has a good table showing how they calculate costs. An at-grade LRT station costs $5 million while an underground station costs $100 million, and a maintenance facility costs $100 million. Costs have risen since 2012, but the removal of at-grade stations shouldn’t reduce costs too much.

media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/final_compendium_report/6.0%20Preliminary%20Cost%20Report.pdf

Really only 100 million for below grade palaces?

The purple line palaces all cost at least 500M each, I’m amazed LRT palaces are five times cheaper

I honestly thought at grade LRT stations cost about 60M each and above grade LRT stations cost 150M each.

[culvercitylocke]

Ahh thanks.

Looks like alternative 1. Fastest for riders, most VMT reduced, sufficient funding in place

I imagine most of the costs and time frame to build a 9 km two station line is because like the newest gold line extension they have to spend a ton of money and time moving freight tracks. 😕

The ridership numbers for the eliminated station at Inglewood must have been fantastically dismal. And further increasing the speed of the line by eliminating a non performing station may have boosted ridership numbers at the other stations.

[numble]

Aug 17, 2018 11:00:13 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

Ahh thanks.

Looks like alternative 1. Fastest for riders, most VMT reduced, sufficient funding in place

I imagine most of the costs and time frame to build a 9 km two station line is because like the newest gold line extension they have to spend a ton of money and time moving freight tracks. 😕

The ridership numbers for the eliminated station at Inglewood must have been fantastically dismal. And further increasing the speed of the line by eliminating a non performing station may have boosted ridership numbers at the other stations.

I think you’re right. The diagrams all show “shifted” freight tracks whenever it’s on the ROW.

[numble]

The executive summary of the recently completed Supplemental Alternatives Analysis (completed June 29, 2018) has been posted to the Metro library website:
libraryarchives.metro.net/DB_Attachments/Attachment%20A_SAA%20Executive%20Summary.pdf

[numble]

Lawndale doesn’t like any of the options, they want a “true underground” option and may oppose the project:
easyreadernews.com/lawndale-urges-green-line-go-underground/

The LA Metro Green Line Light Rail Extension to Torrance is still in early stages, but the City of Lawndale is prepared to stand in the project’s path – unless the project goes underground, as once suggested by LA Mayor Eric Garcetti.

“Plain and simple, none of us support the options here,” Lawndale Councilman Daniel Reid said to Metro representatives during an Aug. 20 City Council meeting. “Underground it, run the busses around us, or go away.”

Metro representatives came to Lawndale that night to give the city and its residents an update on the project. Four pathway alternatives are currently on the table, starting from the Redondo Marine Green Line Station: One carries down Hawthorne Boulevard; two more extend down a railroad right of way; a fourth split the difference, going from Hawthorne to the ROW at Artesia Boulevard.

Only Alternative 2, a ROW option, calls for trenching the light rail under street crossings.

But Lawndale, which has long opposed the project, remains nonplussed and feels chafed by a promise to discuss true undergrounding by LA Mayor Eric Garcetti, then vice-chair of the Metro board of directors.

...

[bzcat]

Lol Lawndale, you don't have the deep pockets of Beverly Hills. And those clowns lost.

[bzzzt]

Almost sounds like he's asking for a station to be placed there, a la Farmdale.

[bzcat]

Lawndale wants no train. It is one of the city in Southbay region that has been against the extension since day 1.

They are using grade separation as a front for trying to scuttle the project.

[numble]

Another article about opposition in Lawndale. A Lawndale citizens group thinks repealing SB1 can stop the project:

easyreadernews.com/residents-fret-la-metro-green-line-extension/

“It’s scary to have some organization with that much power and no oversight,” Glen Brackenridge said of Metro. The Lawndale resident organized Right of Say, a resident organization opposed to building the Green Line along the ROW.

“I think we’ve seen too many examples where people are not using these transit lines, and it’s not as if businesses are building around them,” Brackenridge said.”To live in LA, to really experience LA, you pretty much need a car.”

Brackenridge is a native of New York, and believes that LA’s sprawled nature makes it “risky” to lay down rails, thanks to the “waxing and waning” of development trends.

“I think buses are ideal in terms of mass transit, because then you can alter to where industries are emerging … what if, for instance, Elon Musk buys a bit of land and puts in green tech, and starts hiring people? You won’t be able to pivot,” Brackenridge said. “But if you’re putting infrastructure into buses, you can be responsive as the city grows and changes.”

...

“We are principally opposed to the Green Line extension,” said Lawndale Mayor Robert Pullen-Miles. “From our standpoint, what’s the economic benefit of having the Green Line that only goes through the city? No commerce [will be] generated in Lawndale, and we’ll have all of the negative aspects connected to having a rail.”

...

“The city would lose 82 parking spaces, and we don’t have a lot of parking as it is. You take away those 82 spaces, and there goes the ability for a business to expand,” Pullen-Miles said.

...

That puts the importance of the SB 1 gas tax repeal measure, slated for the November 2018 ballot, in sharper relief.

Right of Say’s Glen Brackenridge has taken the tact that repealing SB 1 funding would halt the Green Line extension. That SB 1 funding may instead force Metro to choose Alternative 1 gives him pause.

“But I don’t necessarily trust that Metro will channel funds they have into Alternative 3 if they can still get Alternative 1 through,” Brackenridge said.

[JHBW__]

Los Angeles NIMBYs are really just too damn much. Communities having a hand in their own development is valid, but here we have an example of a group- nay, a single dude, this Breckenridge- using the channels of community input to advance a purely *ideological* agenda; how privileged do you have to be? He just doesn't think Los Angeles should have rail rapid transit, regardless of material realities. He's a shrewd abuser of a system of community democracy that's vital to provide a check on government power, and public time and money are the casualties.

[metrocenter]

Sept 13, 2018 8:46:49 GMT -8 numble said:

“We are principally opposed to the Green Line extension,” said Lawndale Mayor Robert Pullen-Miles. “From our standpoint, what’s the economic benefit of having the Green Line that only goes through the city? No commerce [will be] generated in Lawndale, and we’ll have all of the negative aspects connected to having a rail.”

In fairness, he's right. Without a stop in Lawndale, that city has no incentive to welcome the extension.

Unfortunately, Lawndale's section of Hawthorne Blvd does not have the density to warrant a stop. But without a stop, there is no direct benefit to Lawndale.

Metro needs to consider a stop at the triangle, under/over Hawthorne Blvd between Redondo Beach and Artesia Blvds. This station would touch all three cities (Lawndale, Redondo Beach and Torrance), and would benefit all three major boulevards. It would give all three cities a reason to support the project.

I think Metro staff should run the numbers on this idea, and communicate the price tag to the public.

[bzcat]

I hate these tiny dog poop municipalities in LA County so much.

[usmc1401]

My brother and I attended the Green line extension meeting at the old Aviation high Auditorium. Yes a station at the intersections of Artesia BL, Hawthorne BL and Redondo Beach BL was discussed. Also using parking under the Edison power lines ROW was also mentioned. But who knows if Metro will listen. Option three was the most popular.

[numble]

Sept 13, 2018 11:31:03 GMT -8 metrocenter said:

Sept 13, 2018 8:46:49 GMT -8 numble said:

“We are principally opposed to the Green Line extension,” said Lawndale Mayor Robert Pullen-Miles. “From our standpoint, what’s the economic benefit of having the Green Line that only goes through the city? No commerce [will be] generated in Lawndale, and we’ll have all of the negative aspects connected to having a rail.”

In fairness, he's right. Without a stop in Lawndale, that city has no incentive to welcome the extension.

Unfortunately, Lawndale's section of Hawthorne Blvd does not have the density to warrant a stop. But without a stop, there is no direct benefit to Lawndale.

Metro needs to consider a stop at the triangle, under/over Hawthorne Blvd between Redondo Beach and Artesia Blvds. This station would touch all three cities (Lawndale, Redondo Beach and Torrance), and would benefit all three major boulevards. It would give all three cities a reason to support the project.

I think Metro staff should run the numbers on this idea, and communicate the price tag to the public.

The very rough estimate of a grade separation at the triangle is that it would push the price tag up to $1.22 billion (page 26 of the Alternatives Analysis, libraryarchives.metro.net/DB_Attachments/Attachment%20A_SAA%20Executive%20Summary.pdf).

I think they may be able to raise enough funds for the highest cost option:
Measure R: $272 million (media.metro.net/measure_R/documents/expenditure_plan.pdf)
Measure M: $619 million (theplan.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/measurem_ordinance_16-01.pdf)
TIRCP: $231.3 million (libraryarchives.metro.net/DB_Attachments/2018-0292_Attachment_A_SRFF_FY19-28.pdf, page 24)
2018 LPP: $19.745 million (www.catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/lpp/formulaic/docs/062718_LPP_Amended_Formulaic_Program.pdf)
2019 LPP: $19.745 million (www.catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/lpp/formulaic/docs/091018_LPP_Formula_App_Receipt_Log.pdf)
Local Contribution from Cities: $37.2 million (libraryarchives.metro.net/DB_Attachments/2018-0292_Attachment_A_SRFF_FY19-28.pdf, page 21)

That adds up to $1.199 billion, they can cover the small difference in a variety of ways, such as another LPP grant, or eliminating a station (as it seems they will be recommending). However, TIRCP and LPP funds are funded by SB1, so if SB1 is repealed, the expensive option may be less likely.

[numble]

Virtual scoping meetings are going on: www.metro.net/projects/green-line-extension/

At the first meeting, most speakers supported the Hawthorne alignment. A Lawndale station may be back on the table if the Hawthorne alignment is used.

[usmc1401]

At the end of May 2024 the MTA staff made the pick. The old Santa Fe ROW was selected. Most people still would like the route down the middle of Hawthorne Blvd. It could still change because of better projected ridership.