|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 11, 2010 13:53:33 GMT -8
Metro has scheduled a public meeting about the station (next Thursday, November 18). And in the spring of next year, Metro is planning to release the FEIR. This means that very soon, Metro staff will need to do a final evaluation of the options and select which configuration to recommend for this station. Several issues are involved, including engineering issues, cost, safety, visual impact, operational efficiency, and public input. Also, Crenshaw Phase 2, north of Exposition, must be considered. As of now, Metro is only considering two configurations: an at-grade station (per the LPA) and an underground station (Design Option 6). The underground station would actually involve extending the tunnel north from around Coliseum to the underground station. This option would cost $236 million more than the at-grade option. The aerial station might be the best alternative, but it is not currently being considered as an option by Metro. More details of the options can be found here. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 11, 2010 14:46:04 GMT -8
I favor the underground station, if the money can be raised for it. Presumably there would be a station entrance on either side of Crenshaw Blvd.
The alternative would be a temporary terminal station east of Crenshaw, with awkward connections to the Expo Line. (Note, transfer to the eastbound Expo platform would require crossing Crenshaw.
The big question is the money. $236 million is a lot of money.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 11, 2010 17:04:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 11, 2010 17:30:10 GMT -8
I hope they select the below grade option. Expo/Crenshaw needs to be underground for better connection/integration with the Expo Line and based on the density / land space north of Exposition. Outside of the San Vicente corridor north of Exposition, I don't see space available for at-grade rail. Above grade rail has already been eliminated based on the preliminary analysis posted at the Source earlier.
|
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Nov 11, 2010 19:27:51 GMT -8
There is only one option, below grade so that a connection to the north is possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 12, 2010 8:43:54 GMT -8
Hmm...I thought this would be more controversial than this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 12, 2010 10:19:01 GMT -8
Almost. That report is quickly being superceded. The clear choice is a below grade station so the line can continue north towards Wilshire via San Vicente with a transfer station to the La Cienega Purple Line station and then via West Hollywood to Hollywood/Highland.   |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 12, 2010 10:59:54 GMT -8
^ Wow, this northern extension could become a real YIMBY battle. When I look at the map, I see two equally valid routes, La Brea and San Vicente. The La Brea route is appealing because of its direct route: it has speed and cost on its side. The San Vicente route is appealing because of the increased coverage and destinations.
Anyway, no votes for aerial or at-grade at Crenshaw/Exposition?
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 12, 2010 11:14:32 GMT -8
Even though La Brea is a direct route to Hollywood/Highland it has no real key destinations outside of Pink's and the Santa Monica gateway. Fairfax or La Cienega should be both superior routes with major destinations (Fairfax - LACMA, The Grove, Farmers Market, CBS Studios, Melrose, WeHo...La Cienega - Beverly Center, Ceders Sinai, and a much better served West Hollywood).
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 12, 2010 11:36:52 GMT -8
It's not really a YIMBY battle for there are no real organized groups near the LaBrea corridor arguing for it to be built there, just a few transit advocates who want the quickest ride from Hollywood to LAX, even if it means missing major ridership destinations, negating that tourists may want to go to those other destinations too and not just Hollywood/Highland.
The ridership possibilities in San Vicente/LaCienega or even Fairfax will swamp in public comments those few people who will be advocating for a LaBrea alignment. (LaBrea doesn't even have the ridership for a rapid bus on it.)
Of course, as we've seen "cost" matters. But is it really THAT lest costly to go up LaBrea and would tourists really not ride the line because it takes five minutes longer to go to West Hollywood via San Vicente? I think tourists (as if that should be our first concern anyway) will be happy to have any route.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 12, 2010 11:55:53 GMT -8
It's not really a YIMBY battle for there are no real organized groups near the LaBrea corridor arguing for it to be built there, just a few transit advocates who want the quickest ride from Hollywood to LAX, even if it means missing major ridership destinations, negating that tourists may want to go to those other destinations too and not just Hollywood/Highland. The ridership possibilities in San Vicente/LaCienega or even Fairfax will swamp in public comments those few people who will be advocating for a LaBrea alignment. (LaBrea doesn't even have the ridership for a rapid bus on it.) Of course, as we've seen "cost" matters. But is it really THAT lest costly to go up LaBrea and would tourists really not ride the line because it takes five minutes longer to go to West Hollywood via San Vicente? I think tourists (as if that should be our first concern anyway) will be happy to have any route. Rail should not be built for tourists. It's built for the benefit of the citizens. However, those destinations off La Cienega and Fairfax are not just beneficial for tourists, but locals as well. More locals frequent the Grove, CBS Studios, Melrose shopping district, Cedars Sinai, and West Hollywood. It's just that Los Angeles itself is one large tourist destination for the world and they just happen to be the same places we like to frequent. I can't name any reason, outside of Pinks and the West Hollywood Target/Best Buy do I care about La Brea as a local resident. But I would be much happier with La Cienega or Fairfax for the significantly higher destinations available. Let's not cheapen a line that has significant potential. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 12, 2010 12:00:21 GMT -8
Rail should not be built for tourists. It's built for the benefit of the citizens. However, those destinations off La Cienega and Fairfax are not just beneficial for tourists, but locals as well. More locals frequent the Grove, CBS Studios, Melrose shopping district, Cedars Sinai, and West Hollywood. It's just that Los Angeles itself is one large tourist destination for the world and they just happen to be the same places we like to frequent. I can't name any reason, outside of Pinks and the West Hollywood Target/Best Buy do I care about La Brea as a local resident. But I would be much happier with La Cienega or Fairfax for the significantly higher destinations available. Let's not cheapen a line that has significant potential. I agree with all of this. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 12, 2010 13:22:20 GMT -8
|
|
