LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Quixote]

With the San Vicente median being converted into a linear pocket park (from Pico to Fairfax), we might not see at-grade LRT at all along this historic ROW!


Source

[Illithid Dude]

I guess then we would have to get grade seperated rail. I always thought that San Vicente is a no-brainer concerning rail. It might even have the density to support HRT. I guess Metro thought not. Sometimes, I think I could run Metro ten times better then how they are doing it now. Oh, and what's everyones stance on the whole below-grade Crenshaw Line thing? I know I am in the minority, but I am for it.

[pesto]

While the San Vicente corridor east of Fairfax needs work, I can't believe the median park is a serious proposal. It's very narrow in most areas unless they are planning to close lanes on SV. There is also some serious up and down hill, so I'm not sure about the biking idea. All in all not a good way to spend money.

Remember that SV is residential in this area and very lightly travelled compared to the more commercial streets. The real jams are west of La Cienega. This is where serious money could be spent.

[JDRCRASH]

Great....

This reminds me of that median park plan for Vermont Blvd, south of Gage. Hopefully Metro will take notice of that as well as this, and get their behinds moving. I'm sure you can build Above-Grade rail structures first, and THEN build the park, no?

[JDRCRASH]

Maybe things aren't as politically toxic for transportation as I thought:

http://www.publicceo.com/index.php/local...orrows-from-las-transportation-playbook-

[202_Cyclist]

Keep MTA's Crenshaw/LAX project on track
Mark Ridley-Thomas' proposal for the Crenshaw/LAX transit corridor means well but is ill-conceived.

Los Angeles Times
4/28/2011

"Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas wants the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to upgrade the planned Crenshaw/LAX transit corridor in South Los Angeles, moving more of the light-rail line underground and adding a station closer to Leimert Park Village. It's hard to make the financial case for the extra tunneling, but it makes sense to put a station closer to the heart of Leimert Park.

The Crenshaw/LAX project would run southwest from the Expo Line at Crenshaw Boulevard, meeting the Green Line near Los Angeles International Airport. The current plan calls for just one segment along Crenshaw to be at street level: from 48th Street south to 59th Street. Ridley-Thomas and his allies argue that running trains down the middle of the street would pose a safety threat to area schools and would be an impediment to economic development along the route. They want to add an estimated $219 million to the project to put the entire route along Crenshaw underground.

The same arguments are raised wherever a light-rail line is planned, and they don't hold water. There are far less expensive ways to protect pedestrians, and the MTA's record shows that it knows how to operate light-rail lines near schools safely. And although the line could make it harder for cars and pedestrians to cross that part of Crenshaw, it will also make businesses there more accessible to transit users in the rest of Los Angeles, helping them attract significantly more customers..."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-crenshaw-20110428,0,6896311.story

[pesto]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Keep MTA's Crenshaw/LAX project on track
Mark Ridley-Thomas' proposal for the Crenshaw/LAX transit corridor means well but is ill-conceived.

Los Angeles Times
4/28/2011

"Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas wants the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to upgrade the planned Crenshaw/LAX transit corridor in South Los Angeles, moving more of the light-rail line underground and adding a station closer to Leimert Park Village. It's hard to make the financial case for the extra tunneling, but it makes sense to put a station closer to the heart of Leimert Park.

The Crenshaw/LAX project would run southwest from the Expo Line at Crenshaw Boulevard, meeting the Green Line near Los Angeles International Airport. The current plan calls for just one segment along Crenshaw to be at street level: from 48th Street south to 59th Street. Ridley-Thomas and his allies argue that running trains down the middle of the street would pose a safety threat to area schools and would be an impediment to economic development along the route. They want to add an estimated $219 million to the project to put the entire route along Crenshaw underground.

The same arguments are raised wherever a light-rail line is planned, and they don't hold water. There are far less expensive ways to protect pedestrians, and the MTA's record shows that it knows how to operate light-rail lines near schools safely. And although the line could make it harder for cars and pedestrians to cross that part of Crenshaw, it will also make businesses there more accessible to transit users in the rest of Los Angeles, helping them attract significantly more customers..."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-crenshaw-20110428,0,6896311.story

I take this as further verification that the Crenshaw Line is useless and pure politics. Both sides agree that it is bad as planned and propose solutions that make no sense.

Ridley-Thomas: locals quite correctly complain about increased traffic and the eyesore of overhead wires and worse traffic on a moderate sized street where traffic moves easily even at rush hours. But putting it underground is very expensive.

The Times misses the point: when someone points out that there are safety, business, traffic and pedestrian concerns, they are saying they just don't want it in their neighborhood. In other words, bus transit is more than adequate in the area. And the assertion that the train will bring more shoppers to the area strains credibilty, given the light traffic and excellent bus service along the same line.

[LAofAnaheim]

How is people advocating for undergrounding the Crenshaw Line any different than when Little Tokyo was threatening to stop the Connector project if it run at-grade or was an overpass at Alameda (it had to be underground only via the Little Tokyo people). Metro succumbed and now we'll get a more superior underground connector, though we lost 5th street station in the end.

I don't think they want to kill the Crenshaw project. Everybody wants this project, as Goodman and others noted, this will be the Westside's north-south rail line line. Metro, 2 years ago, decided to go with rail on the Corridor even though BRT was rated favorable and would connect with the Purple Line at Wilshire/Western. Due to the significant ridership potential once Crenshaw LRT connects to the Purple Line, West Hollywood (this is the new substitute for the Pink Line) and Hollywood, this rail line will rival and/or exceed the Blue Line.

[202_Cyclist]

Little Tokyo is right downtown while the Crenshaw line goes through suburban/lower density communities. I'm a huge supporter of transit but tunneling is extraordinarily expensive and unless there is very dense development planned around the stations, in many situations an above-ground route makes sense. There was a similar debate here in the DC area a few years ago with the Dulles metro extension. Many people, myself included wanted the Silver line tracks to go underground through Tysons Corner but it would have added hundreds of millions-- perhaps billions-- to the project's cost. A tunnel is even less justified in a low-density area without plans for major development.

[LAofAnaheim]

I agree with you 202 Cyclist...........I'm just saying nowhere did the Crenshaw residents say "we don't want this train". Damien Goodman said it best when he said "If I didn't want the Expo Line, I would have called by group KillExpo, not FixExpo". He wanted both lines, but in underground situations. Anybody against Metro's plans is automatically labeled as being against the project. Maybe they want to better the project for themselves?

I have no problem with this line being at-grade, it doesn't deserve to be below-grade here as long as signal priority or signal synchronization is here (a la Blue Line with Washington Boulevard, where it just cruises; or Mariom Way on the Gold Line). But we do need a Leimart Park station......include that in the FEIR!

[Quixote]

Fresh new set of 182 Expo Line photos for your viewing pleasure!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54551549@N02/sets/72157626594999780/

[Illithid Dude]

I hope they grade-separate the Crenshaw Line. Eventually, it will be one of the most ridden lines, going from West Hollywood to LAX. Even though right now it will have low ridership, Metro should realize that eventually it won't. Build for the future, not for today, and don't make the same mistakes that the Blue Line did and the Expo Line is doing. Isn't the whole point of a mistake to learn from it? It's time for Metro to learn.

[Quixote]

JDRCRASH: I was expressing joy, not lament, at the thought of the San Vicente median being converted into a linear pocket park and therefore not being able to accommodate at-grade rail. Our city is starving for any additional park space it can get. Additionally, as pesto mentioned, there is some hilly terrain. At-grade or even elevated rail may not be practical. But I'm no engineer.


Pesto: Very true about the narrow width of the median. The picture I posted is representative of maybe one-third of the median. The street layout west of Hauser is very much like Crenshaw -- six lanes in each direction, three of them "local". I certainly hope it will be reconfigured.

With Crenshaw, I think you're missing the point. The true value of Crenshaw lies in its potential to be the principal north/south transit corridor in the Metro Rail system. Crenshaw is the precursor to the Green Line LAX extension (which itself is the precursor to the extension up Lincoln), the extension to the South Bay, and the eventual replacement of the Pink Line. Think bigger.

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

How is people advocating for undergrounding the Crenshaw Line any different than when Little Tokyo was threatening to stop the Connector project if it run at-grade or was an overpass at Alameda (it had to be underground only via the Little Tokyo people). Metro succumbed and now we'll get a more superior underground connector, though we lost 5th street station in the end.

The key point in your comment is that something had to give in order to make the Little Tokyo arrangement happen from the Nikkei Center development fizzling out to the 5th/Flower station being the sacrificial lamb to keep the project within budget and gain more federal funding.

Here the Crenshaw Corridor no one wants to budge or compromise on that component and because of that there's an unfortunate and needless impasse thats going to take place. Because if you get into the development component that starts another fight within that same community of the scale and density of the developments that the County Supervisor is flaking out on and not tackling head on within his own constituents.

[WillPostPix]

Originally Posted by Wright Concept

The key point in your comment is that something had to give in order to make the Little Tokyo arrangement happen from the Nikkei Center development fizzling out to the 5th/Flower station being the sacrificial lamb to keep the project within budget and gain more federal funding.

Here the Crenshaw Corridor no one wants to budge or compromise on that component and because of that there's an unfortunate and needless impasse thats going to take place. Because if you get into the development component that starts another fight within that same community of the scale and density of the developments that the County Supervisor is flaking out on and not tackling head on within his own constituents.

yeah I think all the nitpicking has been slowing things down honestly. getting phased construction actually at a high-speed rate is probably more about this than budget itself. granted I'm from way out in Inland Empire and issues like that were why we had the most indirect bus transit ever.

[JDRCRASH]

^ Out of curiousity, but how far are you from a Metrolink station?

[WillPostPix]

Nowhere near, that was past-tense. I'm from Inland but live upstate NY now in Lake Paradox. More my memory of how flawed the system was then and how that might relate to it being flawed now.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

How is people advocating for undergrounding the Crenshaw Line any different than when Little Tokyo was threatening to stop the Connector project if it run at-grade or was an overpass at Alameda (it had to be underground only via the Little Tokyo people). Metro succumbed and now we'll get a more superior underground connector, though we lost 5th street station in the end.

I don't think they want to kill the Crenshaw project. Everybody wants this project, as Goodman and others noted, this will be the Westside's north-south rail line line. Metro, 2 years ago, decided to go with rail on the Corridor even though BRT was rated favorable and would connect with the Purple Line at Wilshire/Western. Due to the significant ridership potential once Crenshaw LRT connects to the Purple Line, West Hollywood (this is the new substitute for the Pink Line) and Hollywood, this rail line will rival and/or exceed the Blue Line.

The difference is that Little Tokyo is in the middle of medium and high-rises in a downtown area with new construction and heavy traffic. It creates an important connection. It belongs there and it belongs undeground.

The Crenshaw route from the LAX area to Wilshire has 2 buildings over 2 stories in those 7 miles. At rush hour traffic moves easily in each direction. No new building is going on. It does not connect anything in particular.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by pesto

The difference is that Little Tokyo is in the middle of medium and high-rises in a downtown area with new construction and heavy traffic. It creates an important connection. It belongs there and it belongs undeground.

The Crenshaw route from the LAX area to Wilshire has 2 buildings over 2 stories in those 7 miles. At rush hour traffic moves easily in each direction. No new building is going on. It does not connect anything in particular.

Three letters: L-A-X

[pesto]

WSL: three letters and 2 words: L-A-X, general vicinity. But we don't really want to discuss this again, do we?