The Crenshaw Station Debate--Dispatches from the Subway Meeting (Source: Curbed LA)

Link: Curbed LA: The Crenshaw Station Debate--Dispatches from the Subway Meeting

The Crenshaw Station Debate--Dispatches from the Subway Meeting

Friday, March 19, 2010, by Neal Broverman

We're only about four months away from Metro releasing their draft environmental impact report for the Wilshire subway extension, which will outline the station locations they've picked for the route to Westwood. There won't be too many surprises as to where or what stops will be included (Westwood, Century City, Beverly Drive, La Cienega, Fairfax, and La Brea) other than the Crenshaw station. Metro still isn't certain if it will be included on the route, and at a community meeting Wednesday night at the Wilshire United Methodist Church, it was clear homeowners and transit riders have yet to reach a consensus as well.


Metro project manager David Mieger, and Jody Litvak, community relations for Metro, outlined the status of the extension, currently in the midst of their environmental impact report. Two more rounds of community meetings will happen before Metro releases their draft EIR around July/August. From there, the community can comment on it, and then it goes to the Metro board for certification, and then preliminary engineering can begin. Should everything go as planned, expect early construction to start in first quarter 2012 and an opening to Fairfax about six years after that (if the mayor's 30/10 plan comes to fruition, the subway to Westwood could open in that same time window).

So, the Crenshaw station. Metro believes this station, costing about $153 million, will have pretty low boarding numbers--about 4,200 in 25 years. If the line is built without it, the subway will only lose about 1,300 riders because people will just board at Western or La Brea. Crenshaw would be a 1/2 mile from Western; if it's not built there would be two miles between the Western and La Brea stops (there's typically one mile between Metro stops). Mieger pointed out that it would be next to impossible to install a Crenshaw station once the subway is already built out. As far as time-saving, not having Crenshaw would only shave about a minute from downtown to Westwood (25 min. compared to 26) and from Koreatown to Westwood (13 mins. compared to 12).

A meaty packet of papers from the Windsor Square Association was handed out to attendees. The packet used old memos from Metro to point out that when planning the subway 25 years ago, the transit agency thought Crenshaw was not necessary. The WSA included a letter stating they clearly do not want a Crenshaw stop.

Next up were planners from the city of LA, including senior planner Kevin Keller. With much urban planning-speak like "HPOZ" and "overlay," the planners basically pointed out that the area around the station, Hancock Park and Windsor Square, are currently zoned so that no development can really occur other than low-rise residential and office buildings. So, basically don't expect many mixed-use developments like on Vermont, Western, or Hollywood Blvd, or really much development at all, should Crenshaw get a station.

Commenters spoke next, mainly homeowners from the area and transit riders (though John Welborne, the president of Angels Flight Railway Foundaing, spoke and received a standing ovation for finally getting the funicular up and running). Some interesting comments:

Lawrence Smith, president of the Brookside Homeowners' Association: "This Crenshaw station is like a bad dream that keeps coming up. I think you should spend the money to extend the station further west. If you have money for a Crenshaw station, you have too much money."

Douglas Meyer, architect and Windsor Square resident: "LA is a linear city and Wilshire Blvd. is the spine. Why should there be a donut hole [in the system]?"

Park Mile resident Mary Pickhardt: "If the area is part of an HPOZ (historical preservation overlay zone), how could density increase? We need to bring the city together and we'll do this through transportation. We need this stop."

Windsor Square resident Karen Creeger: "[Not having a Crenshaw subway stop] would decrease home values in our neighborhood, as well as demand of our neighborhood from prospective home buyers. Many young families considering moving here consider whether it has proximity to a Metro stop."

Windsor Square resident David Miner: "I received this packet of archival material from the WSA, and I don't agree with this letter. I've never been polled on the matter. Anything that serves thousands of people conveniently without compromising our planning policy is a good plan."

Windsor Square resident Margaret Hersch: "Don't put a monstrosity like what they have on Hollywood Boulevard [meaning one of the Red Line stops]; I see trash [there] and hundreds of people."

Charles Dougherty, president of Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council: "We are 100% for pushing the subway west, but that it makes no sense to have a $200 million station on Crenshaw Boulevard... Also, the Crenshaw [light-rail] line will be pushed farther west [and won't connect with a Crenshaw stop on the Wilshire subway]."

Other concerns included the mayor's 30/10 plan, and that if it happens, one resident believes paying back interest on a Crenshaw stop will balloon its cost to over $200 million dollars. The few transit riders not living in the area were not that gung-ho for the stop either, will someone saying, "Nobody's destination is Crenshaw/Wilshire." Another resident was worried that the city would seek ways around the zoning rules to increase development. The race issue was only brought up once, with someone saying, "It would be racist to deny a Crenshaw station" because most people using that station will be predominately African-American.

If we were betting bloggers, we'd have to say Metro will skip a Crenshaw staton. The ridership isn't quite there, the density can't be changed, it's cheaper to build the line without it, and you have wealthy homeowners adamantly against the stop.

No Consensus on Possible Subway Stop at Wilshire & Crenshaw (Source: LAist)

No Consensus on Possible Subway Stop at Wilshire & Crenshaw - LAist

No Consensus on Possible Subway Stop at Wilshire & Crenshaw

Curbed LA attended Wednesday night's scoping meeting about adding an additional stop to plans for the Westside Subway Extension. Public comments ranged the gamut, from it's absolutely needed to hell no. Curbed's conclusion seems right on: "If we were betting bloggers, we'd have to say Metro will skip a Crenshaw staton. The ridership isn't quite there, the density can't be changed, it's cheaper to build the line without it, and you have wealthy homeowners adamantly against the stop."

By Zach Behrens in News on March 19, 2010 5:05 PM

A Busway for Van Nuys Blvd. and More Rail Service in the Valley? (Source: LAist)

Link: A Busway for Van Nuys Blvd. and More Rail Service in the Valley? - LAist

A Busway for Van Nuys Blvd. and More Rail Service in the Valley?


An example of a median busway in Taipei, Taiwen | Image via LADOT

A study of north-south corridors in the San Fernando Valley concludes that the city of Los Angeles and Metro should further consider a median busway along five miles of Van Nuys Boulevard and developing more rail service, including linking the North Hollywood Red Line station with the Sylmar Metrolink Station in the Northeast Valley.

The recommendations come out of a study seeking solutions to improve north-south transit corridors in the Valley along the Reseda, Sepulveda, Van Nuys and Lankershim/San Fernando arteries--all connect to the Orange Line--in three phases. Phase 1 includes signal re-timing, lane restriping and bus stop relocations as well as the already-in-servce 902 line. Phase II entails capital improvements like roadway widening and transit enhancements at bus stops. Phase III would be long-term improvements such as constructing a five-mile median busway between Burbank Boulevard and Plummer Street and extending the Metro Red Line from its current terminus in the NoHo Arts District to Sylmar.

"According to 2008 Metro data, Van Nuys Boulevard is one of the top ten transit corridors in the County, with average daily bus boardings of 31,800," notes the report. "Sepulveda Boulevard has 11,400 daily boardings, followed by Lankershim Boulevard with 1.0,700 daily boardings and Reseda Boulevard with 9,800 daily boardings."

Although a median along Van Nuys Boulevard would increase speed by 15%, city transportation planners are concerned with how it would affect other modes of transportation. Their research "indicates that full-time exclusive median bus lanes create policy trade-offs due to narrow roadway widths in most of the corridor segments where bus lanes are most needed to improve bus speeds." However, the "busway could include underground grade separations at major cross streets to avoid significant traffic impacts, It could also include a tunnel segment of approximately 1-mile under the Van Nuys Civic Center between the Metro Orange Line and Vanowen Street."

As for rail service, LADOT notes that the northeast valley is home to a large transit dependent population but no mass transit rail service is in the area. Commuter rail can be found at the Sylmar Metrolink Station, which may be designated as a High Speed Rail station, but other than buses, nothing connects riders to other parts of the city. Staff say a rail solution should be studied, including the possibility of light rail.

Funding for the project would come from various sources, including Measure R. The corridors are part of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's 30/10 plan. A north-south extension of the Orange Line is already underway along Canoga Avenue in the West Valley and is expected to open in 2012.

The study will be discussed at next week's City Council Transportation committee meeting. The full report can be found here.
user-pic
By Zach Behrens in News on March 19, 2010 10:25 AM

High-speed rail plan rides high over Fresno (Source: fresnobee.com)

Link: Rail plan rides high over Fresno - Local - fresnobee.com

High-speed rail plan rides high over Fresno
High-speed route may alter city landscape.
Posted at 11:45 PM on Sunday, Mar. 21, 2010
By Russell Clemings / The Fresno Bee


A decade from now, one of Fresno's loftier views might be from the platform of its high-speed train station.

With plans taking shape for the California high-speed rail system's route, it is becoming clear that Fresno's landscape could be in for a Jetsons-style makeover.

It starts with the system's planned downtown station: An estimated 130 feet wide and more than a quarter-mile long, three blocks between Merced and Tulare streets near the Union Pacific tracks.

Like the rest of the high-speed line downtown, it would be elevated 60 feet from ground level to the tracks.

"It's an aircraft carrier, hovering over your town," Sandy Stadtfeld, a consultant to the California High Speed Rail Authority, told a recent meeting of the rail committee of the Council of Fresno County Governments.

Rail plan rides high over Fresno

Sixty feet. That's almost twice the elevation of the Highway 180 overpass on H Street. It's only about 13 feet lower than the roof of Chukchansi Park and it could exceed even that if a structure is erected over the track beds.

Something that size would forever alter the city's low-rise skyline. But so far the station and the rest of the local high-speed rail plan are getting little attention.

"This has been very under-the-radar in terms of constituent topics," City Council Member Andreas Borgeas said.

Even the station's immediate neighbors in Chinatown are scarcely aware of the plans.

"No one's ever talked to us about it," said Kathy Omachi, a board member of Chinatown Revitalization Inc.

Some of that may be because uncertainty still clouds the high-speed rail project. Less than one-third of the money for the first phase has been secured.

And the exact route and other details depend on decisions yet to be made by the authority and its funding partner, the Federal Railroad Administration. Depending on how much land it needs, the authority could condemn homes and businesses to build the route, though none of those choices has been clearly spelled out.

But on its Web site and at recent open houses in Fresno, the authority has begun to disclose some details of its plans.

Among issues raised as a result are noise from the 220-mph trains and whether a slice of Roeding Park should be sacrificed to make room for the high-speed tracks.

And then there is that 60-foot trestle.

It wouldn't be limited to downtown. Plans call for it to begin rising from ground level at Malaga Avenue, where the high-speed line would lie just west of the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe tracks.

By the time it reached Central Avenue, the trackbed would be perched atop a row of pillars spaced about 120 feet apart.

Following the Union Pacific tracks north from Calwa, it would remain at 60 feet at least until Ashlan Avenue and possibly beyond, depending on which of two alternatives is chosen for the route in northwest Fresno.

An elevated structure has advantages. It costs about twice as much as a ground-level route but allows local streets to remain open. And it's about half the cost of putting the line in a below-ground trench. But it is certainly big.

"It's going to be an enormous structure," said Tom Lang, whose proposed Aquarius Aquarium would lie just west of the likely route at its San Joaquin River crossing.

Teams of consultants are currently reviewing alternatives for the system's route from Merced to Bakersfield.

Their work is driven by a 2012 deadline to begin spending $2.25 billion in federal stimulus funds. The San Joaquin Valley segments are among those eligible to use the stimulus money.

By 2020, the high-speed system is supposed to link San Francisco and Anaheim with 220-mph trains. Other destinations -- north to Sacramento and south to Riverside and San Diego -- would be added in later phases.

The estimated cost for the first phase is $42.6 billion, including $9 billion from a bond issue approved by California voters in November 2008. The authority is confident that it will get the remainder from other federal sources, local governments and private investors such as pension funds.

Fresno city officials say they are closely monitoring the plans, even as they relish the economic development potential of sub-two-hour travel times to downtown San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Noise is one major concern. At top speed, a non-stop train at ground level is likely to produce a 98-decibel roar for a few seconds.

That sound level is not exactly ear-splitting. It's roughly equal to a freight train's horn, maybe a little less.

Nevertheless, city development director John Dugan said the 60-foot trestle may have to be topped by 20-foot walls to reduce noise to 65 decibels or less, about as loud as a vacuum cleaner or dishwasher.

How would that look -- a 20-foot ribbon running 60 feet overhead?

"If it's designed correctly it could be very graceful," Dugan said. "But certainly that's an issue -- just a big structure in the sky where you don't expect to see something."

There may be alternatives to 20-foot sound walls, such as soundproofing for nearby buildings, but the walls remain under consideration, said Carrie Bowen, the authority's Central Valley regional director.

Also under study is whether the high-speed tracks and Fresno station should be east of the Union Pacific tracks, next to downtown, or west of them in Chinatown.

The city would prefer the former, but that would require the high-speed system to cross the railroad twice. A station on the west side is "not as direct but it would still work," Dugan said.

At Roeding Park, system planners face a similar choice: Run the high-speed tracks east of the railroad and take out a lot of houses, or run them on the west and take out part of the park. One option being considered is to reduce the width of Golden State Boulevard to minimize the park impact, Dugan said.

North of Ashlan Avenue, planners are trying to decide whether to wedge the high-speed system between the railroad and Highway 99, which would require them to nudge the freeway slightly west. The other alternative is a new route west of the freeway between roughly McKinley and Shaw avenues.

The studies now under way are expected to result in environmental reports that will be reviewed by the authority's board and released for public comment, probably some time this fall, Bowen said.

The reporter can be reached at rclemings@fresnobee.com or (559) 441-6371.