http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crenshaw_corridor_jerjoz.jpg

LACMTA Crenshaw Corridor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LACMTA Crenshaw Corridor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search




Crenshaw Corridor and regional setting. dashed lines represent possible extensions or alignments

The Crenshaw Corridor project (also referred to as the Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor) is a mass-transit project currently being proposed by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority that will serve Crenshaw District, Leimert Park, South Los Angeles, Inglewood and LAX primarily along Crenshaw Boulevard, a main thoroughfare in South Los Angeles. The transit corridor will operate using Light Rail Transit. It will make connections with the Green Line, potential LAX people mover system, Expo Line and Purple Line. Construction of this line is expected to begin in 2012 and is expected to open in 2018.
Contents

  1 History
  2 Alignment
  3 Future Planning Considerations
  3.1 Northern Extension Crenshaw/Exposition to Purple Line
  3.2 Knockout panels at north and south ends of the optional Leimert Park tunnel.
  3.3 Prairie-Hawthorne route option at Southern end of corridor.
  4 References

1. History

The origin of the Crenshaw/Prairie Corridor stems from the results of the Los Angeles riots of 1992, where then California State Senator Diane Watson and County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke saw the need to serve their transit dependent constituents while stimulating needed positive economic growth in South Los Angeles. A Major Investment Study (MIS) was initiated in 1993-94 [1]. An architectural design and planning visioning was performed by the USC school of Architecture in 1996. A route refinement study followed in 1999-2000 to improve the shelf life of the Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor. With the alternatives narrowed down during the Route refinement study to create a new MIS in 2003. As of today's writing of this article this transit corridor is in the Alternative Analysis phase of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with the mode to be determined and will be the next funded project for Metro after Expo Line Phase II is completed.

Currently local community leaders, neighborhood councils, current L.A. County Supervisor Yvonne Burke and Congresswoman Diane Watson have expressed enthusiastic support for the LRT mode, Watson telling Metro in a letter dated November 5, 2007, Comment ID 116-125 in the cited link:[2]

Having advocated strenuously for a light rail ‘spur line’ to carry passengers from the Wilshire Corridor down the Crenshaw Corridor and, ultimately, to LAX for 25 years now, I am delighted to offer continued encouragement, advocacy and feedback for a Metro study (to)…avoid aggravating (the) Leimert Park traffic bottleneck, Coliseum to Vernon;…Wilshire/La Brea station connection to Westside Corridor line, avoiding hydrogen sulfide;…fully consider (the) below-grade option.

2. Alignment

This is the design as of this date taken from the results presented during the Alternative Analysis meetings described from South to North.

The transit corridor will either be designed in Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Light Rail Transit (LRT) mode. Either mode will begin from the existing Aviation Green Line and utilize the Harbor Subdivision Right-of-way until reaching Crenshaw Boulevard. There are design options along the right-of-way for LRT grade separations at the major crossings at; LAX (between 111th and 104th Streets to mitigate the South Runway avionics and at 104th Street to 98th Streets to mitigate heavy crossing traffic on Century Boulevard), the 405 Freeway (between Manchester and the on/off ramps), Downtown Inglewood (between west of La Brea Avenue and Centinela) and Crenshaw Boulevard to transition from the railroad right of way to Crenshaw Boulevard.

* Potential Station location(s) at: Century Blvd-LAX, Manchester-405 Freeway, La Brea-Downtown Inglewood, West Blvd or Prairie Avenue.


From Crenshaw/Right-of-way to Crenshaw/60th Street it was determined that there is a narrow street right-of-way. The BRT would operate under exclusive curb lane; the LRT would operate on a median running restricted to 35 mph. There is a LRT design option that could grade separate this section and tie into the proposed railroad grade separation.

* Potential Station location(s) at: None.

From Crenshaw/60th to Crenshaw/Vernon, Crenshaw Boulevard is a 150’ wide curb to curb landscaped parkway with plenty of right-of-way available to create the dedicated lane for BRT or LRT without disrupting the existing street landscaping along Crenshaw.

* Potential Station location(s) at: Crenshaw/Slauson.

From Crenshaw/Vernon to Crenshaw/39th Street has a narrow street right-of-way, carries heavy vehicular traffic, many vehicular turns and it is the heart of community with activity centers at the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza and Leimert Park Village. Both BRT and LRT designs would operate with no dedicated lane with traffic and instead operate in “mixed flow”. There is a LRT design option under study for the LRT that could allow the LRT to operate in a short tunnel with stations at either end of this short 0.8 mile Leimert Park tunnel.

* Potential Station location(s) at: Crenshaw/Vernon (For tunnel option only) and Crenshaw/Martin Luther King Blvd.

From Crenshaw/39th to Crenshaw/Expo Station, Crenshaw Boulevard returns as a wide landscaped parkway with dedicated lane. At this point the current LRT design will end here. LRT service could continue towards Downtown LA by sharing tracks with the Expo Line. However, there is a design and feasibility study underway to consider continuing the LRT north toward Wilshire to link with the future Purple Line extension. The BRT design would continue down Crenshaw Boulevard and will end at the current Wilshire/Western Purple Line terminal.

* Potential Station location(s) at: Crenshaw/Exposition.

From Crenshaw/Expo to Crenshaw/Venice, Crenshaw Boulevard’s narrower curb-to-curb width between 70 to 100 feet and high vehicular traffic means there’s no room to implement a dedicated bus lane in this stretch. The configuration here will be “mixed flow”. For the Northern LRT feasibility study, this entire section would require full grade separation because there’s no room to create a dedicated lane for at-grade running LRT.

* Potential Station location(s) at: Crenshaw/Adams or Crenshaw/Washington.

From Crenshaw/Venice to Wilshire/Western (BRT), Crenshaw Boulevard’s narrower curb-to-curb width between 70 to 100 feet and high vehicular traffic means there’s no room to implement a dedicated bus lane in this stretch. The configuration here will be “mixed flow”. For the Northern LRT feasibility study, they determined during the scoping phase to eliminate the LRT running underground at this section due to the poor ridership, poor regional connectivity and environmental impacts of hydrogen sulfide soil which is more toxic to tunnel through than Methane.

* Potential Station location(s) at: Crenshaw/Pico or Crenshaw/Olympic and Wilshire/Western.

3 Future Planning Considerations
3.1 Northern Extension Crenshaw/Exposition to Purple Line

During the Northern LRT feasibility study, Planners will determine whether or not it is feasible to extend the northern route of the Crenshaw Corridor to meet with the future Purple Line extension at Wilshire Boulevard in the Miracle Mile area.

From the Crenshaw/Exposition station the route will follow the current BRT alignment until Venice Blvd except will be fully grade separated due to limited street right of way for at-grade running.

At Venice/Crenshaw, the route would turn west on Venice Blvd to San Vicente. The route will turn diagonally north on San Vicente until reaching La Brea Avenue or Fairfax. This would stay on either street until Wilshire Blvd. Due to limited available right of way, this alignment will be fully grade separated. Major advantages the (La Brea or Fairfax)-San Vicente route option has compared to a direct Crenshaw route to at least Wilshire Boulevard are:

* 1) Greater residential and job density,
* 2) Supportive land-uses for a high capacity subway,
* 3) Stronger regional potential to link this corridor northward towards Hollywood in the future,
* 4) Strong community support in the Hancock Park area and
* 5) Fewer geotechnical soil impacts compared to the Hydrogen sulfide soil along Crenshaw Blvd north of Pico Boulevard.

* Potential Station location(s) at: Pico/San Vicente and Wilshire Blvd Purple Line connection.

3.2 Knockout panels at north and south ends of the optional Leimert Park tunnel.

Knockout panels are false walls that are used to temporarily cover openings inside tunnel walls for future considerations. Throughout the Red/Purple Line subway stations there are knockout panels connected to future station entrances that can be opened when demand and funding occurs.

For the Crenshaw Corridor LRT mode, due to limited transit funding there may be a need to defer the northern section between Expo and Wilshire to a future date when more money becomes available. But building a tunnel once to then have to come in at a future date build in an extension because increasing difficult due to the operations of the rail service, major disruption on the surface to the local businesses not just once for this building but to continue it again and will add time and more importantly expense to the Northern project potentially reducing its cost-effectiveness. One suggestion to remedy this potential headache is to build provisions for the Northern extension by; extending the tunnel past the Crenshaw/39th Street portal to at least Coliseum or Rodeo Road. At the future connection point at 39th Street the knockout panel will be used to cover that extended tunnel when the Northern route is extended to meet the Purple Line.[3]

This provision could also be looked at in the southern end when ridership and traffic considerations between Vernon (at the optional tunnel) and 60th Street increase and there will be desires to grade separate those crossings. This would improve the feasibility of this occurring and reduces operational impacts for the LRT when constructing it.

3.3 Prairie-Hawthorne route option at Southern end of corridor.

From the beginning Study phases a second southern route was considered from then Hawthorne Mall through to Hollywood Park racetrack and then The Forum primarily via Prairie Avenue and Hawthorne Blvd. During the February scoping update this route option was found not to be feasible due to limited right-of-way, high costs and reduced ridership compared to the existing Right of Way. Currently, the City of Inglewood and Metro are working out potential connections.

Roundup of Rail Developments in South LA

Article 1

Link: Streetsblog Los Angeles » Metro Moves Forward on Harbor Subdivision, Crenshaw Corridor, Hybrid Alternative for Route 2 Terminus and Gating for the Eastside Extension

Metro Moves Forward on Harbor Subdivision, Crenshaw Corridor, Hybrid Alternative for Route 2 Terminus and Gating for the Eastside Extension

by Damien Newton on December 10, 2009
Going north on Indiana on the way to First Street.

Earlier today the Metro Board of Directors unanimously approved the light rail alternative for the Crenshaw Corridor and agreed to study making the light rail run underground for a dozen blocks between 48th and 59th street over the plans of the Metro staff. According to a press release, "The light rail alternative will be 8.5 miles in length from the Metro Green Line Aviation Station to the Expo Line, now under construction, at Crenshaw and Exposition boulevards, with a travel time estimated at 20 minutes. There will be seven new stations plus an option for one more. The final Environment Impact Study/Environment Impact Report could be ready by the end of 2010, with the line scheduled to open in 2018."

The vote today followed a mobilization of the community activists for the light rail option, as opposed to the BRT option, since alternatives for the line were first being discussed. Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas has been actively pushing for the light rail option since his election last year and today's vote can only be construed as a victory for his efforts. However, just because the underground alignment is being studied doesn't mean that it will be in the final design, but it would head off another prolonged battle between Metro and the South L.A. Community over a light rail line.

The Crenshaw Corridor Light Rail line wasn't the only rail line to move forward. The Board also voted to move forward with an extension of Metro Green Line rail service to the proposed Torrance Regional Transit Center in the South Bay area of the region. The study of bringing transit to the twenty six mile freight rail corridor is in a much earlier phase than the Crenshaw Corridor. At this point there is no "opening" date for the project.

The Board also voted to move forward on quad gates for segments of the Gold Line Eastside Extension. After Metro staff and Board members swore up and down that the line was safe when it opened last month, a car was hit by a light rail car over Thanksgiving weekend and two girls walked into cars claiming they were confused by the crossing signals.

After listening to a parade of speakers berate the Board for pushing the Gold Line Eastside Extension's opening before all safety precautions could be taken, Mayor Villaraigosa chimed in wondering why a full Environmental Impact Review was necessary just to install barrier gates. It turns out the quad gates would cause several intersections to get a failing grade because of the traffic congestion that it would create.

However, Villaraigosa, Councilman Jose Huizar and Supervisor Gloria Molina devised a plan to work on a declaration of "no significant impact" for the gate installation that could take less time than an EIR. Just in case the environmental researchers reach the conclusion that there is a significant impact, Metro will be moving forward with an environmental review at the same time.

Noting that even a finding of "no significant impact" would still take a lot of time, Molina joked that they should just find a billionaire in the City of Industry to get the legislature to pass a law allowing Metro to do whatever they want. When Board Chair Ara Najarian asked her if she knew any, she joked that she heard the Mayor had some contacts.

Briefly, the Board also voted to approve the "hybrid" option for the Route 2 Terminus Project, support minority businesses in the Crenshaw Corridor and the Mayor's vision to move and empowered the staff to reach an agreement with Caltrans to widen the 405 through the Sepulveda Pass.

Article 2

Link: MTA approves South L.A.-South Bay light-rail line -- latimes.com

MTA approves South L.A.-South Bay light-rail line
Some officials and residents, worried that problems encountered by other lines could be repeated on the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project, want more of it built underground.
By Ari B. Bloomekatz

December 11, 2009
A new light-rail system through South Los Angeles and the South Bay was approved by transit officials Thursday, but some local politicians and residents worry that the rail line could pose similar problems that have hampered other projects.

The 8 1/2 -mile line is the biggest beneficiary to date of Measure R, the half-cent sales tax for transportation projects that L.A. County voters approved last year.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials said Measure R revenues would provide most of the estimated $1.7 billion needed for the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project, which would pay for a relatively bare-bones version of the line. But some residents and officials want more of the line underground, saying that it would reduce accidents, ease community concerns and speed up the line.

The MTA has grappled with this issue before.

The Gold Line Eastside extension was criticized by one of its biggest backers, Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, because it is mostly at street level, where, she says, it could pose a risk for drivers and pedestrians.

The Gold Line from downtown Los Angeles to Pasadena is also mostly above ground, and it has struggled to attract riders in part because the numerous at-grade crossings make it a relatively slow ride.

The Crenshaw line would provide commuter rail service to a part of the county that is now served exclusively by buses.

The line would run from Exposition Boulevard to Imperial Highway, following Crenshaw Boulevard and passing through Leimert Park and Southwest L.A. before veering southwest through Inglewood and south to Aviation Boulevard near Los Angeles International Airport.

Officials said they hope to break ground on the project in 2012 or 2013 and open the line in 2018. Some believe the line could be open as early as 2016.

"It's a huge victory for the Crenshaw community and the South Bay community," Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas said. "I expect it will have a highly positive impact on the quality of life in that corridor."

Still, Ridley-Thomas said, he is fighting to get more of the Crenshaw line built underground. He said the Expo Line, now being built between downtown and Culver City, is facing delays in part because of safety improvements required where the train will pass some schools.

"I do not want this to be haunted by the ghosts of the Expo Line," he said, adding that the MTA is going to study building an additional segment on Crenshaw Boulevard between 48th and 59th Streets underground.

Building underground is much more expensive than at street level, and officials said they don't know where the money for Ridley-Thomas' plans would come from.

The line's project manager, Roderick Diaz, said, "There is currently no budget to cover that" nor is there sufficient funding for some other "big ticket items" included in some of the possible designs.

Ridley-Thomas estimated that the project would need about $400 million in extra funds to build the line as he would like, and said he is going to Washington, D.C., in the near future to speak with members of Congress about other sources of funding.

Officials said the rail line would provide a critical north-south route for commuters between downtown L.A. and the Westside.

Right now, the only north-south rail line south of downtown is the Blue Line, which goes to Long Beach.

The Crenshaw line, planners say, also would make it possible to get to more places by rail, because the line would connect to the Expo Line (service to downtown and the Westside) and Green Line ( service from Norwalk to Redondo Beach).

Officials also hope that the line might take some motorists off the 405 and 110 freeways.

ari.bloomekatz@latimes.com

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

Article 3

Light Rail Chosen for Route Between Exposition Blvd. and LAX - LAist

Light Rail Chosen for Route Between Exposition Blvd. and LAX



The Metro Board of Directors today approved using light rail on the 8.5-mile Crenshaw route between LAX and Crenshaw and Exposition boulevards. Other options included doing nothing, beefing up current bus service in the area and developing a bus rapid transit system that would begin at Wilshire Boulevard.

The $1.3 billion project could be completed as early as 2018 with construction expected to begin in either 2012 or 2013. Its terminus at LAX will be the current Green Line Aviation station, meaning getting to the actual airport is still a shuttle bus away. The other terminus will be Crenshaw and Exposition, home to a future Expo Line station, which could be in operation by the end of 2010.

Next steps include studying an underground portion between 48th and 59th streets and finding a space for the rail maintenance yard.

By Zach Behrens in News on December 10, 2009 3:35 PM

Article 4

Let There Be Light Rail | NBC Los Angeles

Let There Be Light Rail
...and it was good.
Updated 6:27 PM PST, Thu, Dec 10, 2009



The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board of directors unanimously approved Thursday a $1.3 billion light rail transit project for the 8.5-mile corridor from Crenshaw to LAX.

"This is a long-awaited outcome," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, noting proposals for the transit corridor were first brought up 25 years ago.

"This project is long overdue and will provide congestion relief, improve air quality and serve as an economic catalyst," said Ridley-Thomas, who is also an MTA board member. "It helps bring a more rational and equitable transportation plan for the county of Los Angeles, and it means 7,800 new jobs."

The vote prompted cheers from hundreds of south Los Angeles residents who packed the Metro boardroom and two overflow rooms.

The light rail line would run through the cities of Los Angeles, Inglewood, Hawthorne, El Segundo and unincorporated areas of the county before ending at LAX.

At Ridley-Thomas' urging, the Metro board during a previous meeting moved up the timeline for the project, so that completion is expected between 2016 and 2018 -- instead of 2029.

Construction is to begin in 2012, pending results of the final environmental impact report due in late 2010.

This would be the first major transportation project to relieve congestion on the San Diego (405) and Harbor (110) freeways and other north-south arteries in western Los Angeles County.

It would also provide a major connection to LAX, connecting the Metro Green Line to the south with the proposed LAX Automated People Mover System and the Expo Line to the north.

The project would provide connection to the entire Metro Rail system and Metro's more than 2,000 peak-hour buses.

Funding will come from Measure R, the half-cent sales tax initiative approved by L.A. County voters last November to reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and spur economic development.

The Metro board agreed to examine the cost of building a one-mile segment of the light rail line underground on Crenshaw Boulevard between 48th and 59th streets.

Article 5

Metro to Study Extending Green Line as far as Torrance - LAist

Metro to Study Extending Green Line as far as Torrance



In addition to approving light rail for the Crenshaw corridor to LAX, the Metro Board today approved moving forward with another step for the Harbor Subdivsion right-of-way between LAX and Long Beach.

The move puts a 4.6-mile portion of the transit corridor into an environmental impact report process, which means staff will study a variety of options such as light rail, bus rapid transit, beefing up current bus service in the area and doing nothing. Expect public meeting to be scheduled in 2010 for input on this.

Metro will be considering a couple different route options into Redondo Beach or Torrance where each city is building a transportation center.

One will be using the right-of-way from the LAX/Aviation Station. If chosen, you likely won't be seeing light rail, but rather different train technology that can use old freight train tracks with upgrades under federal guidelines. It would cost an estimated $428 million and see approximately 3,300 daily riders.

The other route option is to continue the Green Line from the Marine Station further into Redondo Beach or Torrance. It would cost an estimated $495 million and see approximately 5,800 daily riders.

Although the Metro-owned Harbor Subdivision right-of-way goes all the way to the Carson-Long Beach border via the Los Angeles community of Harbor Gateway, the current study will not include going beyond Torrance. "We're looking at phased implementation," explained Renee Berlin, an Executive Officer in Metro's planning department, over the phone. "Measure R only included funds for the South Bay Extension."

To continue the route further, Metro would need to secure other funding in addition to updating the recently approved 30-year long range plan, which doesn't include a phase two.

The board also renamed the project to the South Bay Green Line Extension from the Harbor Subdivision.

By Zach Behrens in News on December 10, 2009 5:15 PM

$1.7B light-rail line through South LA approved (Source: San Jose Mercury News)

Link: $1.7B light-rail line through South LA approved - San Jose Mercury News

$1.7B light-rail line through South LA approved
The Associated Press
Posted: 12/10/2009 04:18:15 PM PST
Updated: 12/10/2009 04:18:16 PM PST

LOS ANGELES—County transit officials have approved a new light-rail system through South Los Angeles and Inglewood that would stop about a mile short of the Los Angeles International Airport terminals.

The light-rail line approved Thursday would run from the Exposition Boulevard line, which is currently under construction, south on Crenshaw Boulevard, then west through Inglewood to Aviation and Century Boulevards.

The construction costs, about $1.7 billion, will be paid for by Measure R, the transportation sales tax approved by voters last year.

Those funds will only cover a mostly above ground line. Some residents say a below ground line would speed trains and reduce accidents.

Officials hope to break ground in 2012 or 2013 and complete construction by 2018.
Advertisement

Ridley-Thomas wants further study of proposed Crenshaw corridor (Source: 89.3 KPCC)

Ridley-Thomas wants further study of proposed Crenshaw corridor | 89.3 KPCC

Ridley-Thomas wants further study of proposed Crenshaw corridor

Dec. 8, 2009 | KPCC Wire Services
County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas today urged the MTA to build additional sections of the Crenshaw-LAX light rail track underground, citing a negative impact on schools and black-owned businesses.The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board is scheduled to vote Thursday on the $1.7 billion Crenshaw-LAX Transit Corridor study. Ridley-Thomas is an MTA board member as well as a county supervisor.

The one-mile section of the light rail line in question is a block away from Crenshaw High School and would run in front of View Park Prep School, according to community activist Damien Goodmon. He adds that 200 parking spaces serving black-owned businesses would need to be removed to accommodate the trains at street level.

MTA staff has recommended a light-rail train instead of a bus system and set out several parameters. The proposed 8.5-mile line would link the Expo Line at Crenshaw and Exposition boulevards to the Metro Green Line near Los Angeles International Airport.

Ridley-Thomas offered a motion in advance of the meeting asking the board to further study whether the portion of the rail system to be built on Crenshaw Boulevard between 48th and 59th streets should be constructed below ground.

The track north of 48th Street and south of 59th Street is already recommended to be built underground.

"If MTA can spend the money for 13 miles of subway for Wilshire, surely we can get just three miles of subway for Crenshaw,'' Goodmon said.

Once the MTA board approves an alternative, work will begin on a final environmental impact report for the project.

Expo and Crenshaw Lines: Under Whose Authority? (Source: CityWatch)

CityWatch - An insider look at City Hall - Expo and Crenshaw Lines: Under Whose Authority?

Expo and Crenshaw Lines: Under Whose Authority?
Moving LA
By Ken Alpern

It appears that there is a growing emphasis to construct transportation projects right the first time, so I am thrilled that the efforts of Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas to create a first-rate Crenshaw Light Rail Line are paying off.

The Metro Crenshaw Corridor Project, under the leadership of Roderick Diaz, Dave Monks and others, are recommending this transit line be a light rail and not a busway, and are still working out details that will (for a higher cost, of course) create a safer, quicker and more rider-friendly line that could revitalize the Crenshaw Corridor and Inglewood as major economic centers for decades to come. I have been a fan of this Crenshaw project for years, despite its opponents, and I look forward to the network it creates between the Green, Expo and Wilshire Lines once it becomes a reality.

Currently, it is planned to link only the Expo and Green Lines to each other and LAX via Century/Aviation, but the political support for ultimately linking it to the Wilshire Corridor (likely at Wilshire and La Brea, or thereabouts) is rising so fast that the appropriate map for this future key north-south line is as follows:
Active Image
The currently-planned northern terminus of Exposition/Crenshaw is undergoing increasing scrutiny (as it really should) for an underground alignment because north of Crenshaw the street becomes so narrow that any future light rail extension to Wilshire requires a subway.

In fact, the whole darn length of the line under Crenshaw from Exposition to the Harbor Subdivision Right of Way is on its way to being a subway, as both Supervisor Ridley-Thomas and Mid-City LA Councilmember Bernard Parks are pursuing the undergrounding of the line to minimize traffic concerns, increase speed and safety of the line and—most of all—ensure smooth operations and high ridership.

Furthermore, the portion of the line that goes through Westchester is likely to be grade-separated at Manchester, as it should, since Westchester residents have boldly pursued the light rail option but with an elevated station south of Manchester to avoid traffic problems and/or residential street closures.

I am not one of those wedded to at-grade (street-level) rail or grade-separated (elevated or subway) rail, and am neither wedded to the car-is-king philosophy nor the screw-the-car-commuters-because-they’re-sinners philosophy…and I suspect most taxpayers aren’t, either. Inappropriate spending is just that—inappropriate—but a betterment is also just that—a betterment!

To be fair, it remains to be determined whether the extra costs for the grade-separating betterments will be borne at the expense of other projects, but as our political paradigms change (in particular, from building infrastructure on the megacheap to doing things right the first time despite—within reason—the extra cost), it becomes necessary to compare the Expo and Crenshaw Corridor planning processes.

You see, both Ridley-Thomas and Parks, who are championing the subway portion of the Crenshaw Corridor Light Rail Line, are also on the Exposition Line Construction Authority Board, which is on its way to slamming through a purely at-grade line across some of the busiest streets in the Westside.

I refuse to oppose Ridley-Thomas’ and Parks’ desire to pursue the subway option at Crenshaw … but I do have to wonder about the can of worms being ripped open regarding the Expo Line.

Unlike the Crenshaw Corridor team, operating directly under the Metro Authority, and which is offering betterments to achieve more local support for that line, the Expo Line is being built under its own Authority that is operating under an entirely different paradigm.

Those working for the Expo Line Construction Authority, created by Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and others during a now-bygone era where transportation funding was always given short shrift and even shorter budgeting, are operating under much tighter fiscal constraints and receive much harsher evaluations from the political and media powers that be when things go over budget.

With the recently-opened Eastside Light Rail Line and the future Expo Line, the pressure to keep things at-grade (and cheaper!) was and is enormous, but with the Crenshaw Corridor the extra costs appear to be received by most parties as: “SO WHAT? AND? THE PROBLEM WITH A BETTER LINE FOR EXTRA MONEY IS WHAT?”

Similarly, the Hobson’s choice for the Expo Line crossing at megacongested Sepulveda Blvd., with either an at-grade crossing with local street widening for $13 million, or an elevated rail crossing for $28 million paid for by the local Casden Developer landowners but with a political go-ahead for a regionally-opposed 8-10 story project, might likely be received as:

“ARE YOU FREAKIN’ KIDDING ME? WHY CAN’T METRO PAY FOR THAT $15 MILLION BETTERMENT AT SEPULVEDA FOR A PROJECT THAT’LL BE AROUND FOR A HUNDRED YEARS?”

I again need to point out that the Expo Line Construction Authority, created by Supervisor Yaroslavsky during a pre-Measure R era, (and after the countywide anti-subway initiative Yaroslavsky sponsored passed overwhelmingly because of cost overruns during the 1980’s/90’s), is merely doing its job: build the Expo Line on time and for as low a cost as possible.

I suspect that Yaroslavsky will (wisely) oppose the extra frills of the Crenshaw Line while he’s fighting to get the Expo Line built without expensive frills, and that he will come into conflict with Ridley-Thomas who (also wisely) recognizes a worthy-but-more-expensive betterment when he sees one.

I just hope that Yaroslavsky, who once was a City Councilmember of the West L.A. region through which the Expo Line will run, and who steadfastly prevented the Expo Line from being built through that region for decades, didn’t create the Expo Line Authority with an engineering and legal staff to line things up, build up the political and legal crescendo to create an unstoppable momentum, and…
KABOOM! An at-grade Expo Line is slammed through West L.A., with car traffic, decreased Expo Line ridership, and/or planning challenges that will plague the region for decades.

I want to go on record as not blaming the Authority staff (again, they’re just doing their jobs), but instead blaming the City of L.A. for not planning for the Expo Line and offering the Authority guidance in its planning.

I also remind City Councilmembers Rosendahl and Koretz, who are for some inexplicable reason are not going to be on the Expo Line Construction Authority Board any time soon, that they are the ones that local residents will look to for leadership and guidance and that they do chair the L.A. City Transportation Committee.

I know that the two Westside City Councilmembers are likely annoyed at being off the Expo Line Authority Board, but the “blame it on Zev” paradigm will have a limited half-life as the Expo Line Westside Phase EIR becomes finalized.

We need first-rate leadership to create a first-rate Expo Line. Whether its Westsiders or Mid-City residents, the taxpaying commuters who voted in Measure R deserve no less.

(Ken Alpern is a Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) and is both co-chair of the MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee and past co-chair of the MVCC Planning Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and also chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at Alpern@MarVista.org.This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)

Light Rail Proposed for Crenshaw Corridor (Source: www.lawattstimes.com)

Link: Light Rail Proposed for Crenshaw Corridor

Light Rail Proposed for Crenshaw Corridor
November 12, 2009

By CHICO C. NORWOOD

STAFF WRITER

Metropolitan Transportation Authority staff members have proposed a light-rail line over a busway for the Crenshaw/LAX Corridor, partly due to an effort to help relieve transportation woes in Los Angeles.

During a telephone conference, Metro officials unveiled the recommendation for the proposed $1.7 billion, 8 1/2-mile rail project that would extend from Exposition Boulevard to the Green Line on Imperial Highway.

“The subject of a Crenshaw transit corridor has been discussed in transit circles for decades and has received a lot of attention,” said Dan Rosenfeld, senior deputy for Economic Development, Sustainability and Mobility for Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas.

Rosenfeld said the rail line is being recommended over a previously considered bus line because rail offers the greatest benefit to travel time along the corridor, improves opportunities for economic development, and enables Los Angeles to “catch up with other cities around the country in providing commuter rail service to the airport.”

The proposed line would begin at Exposition and Crenshaw boulevards, going south along Crenshaw Boulevard through the area known as the Harbor Subdivision located near Florence Avenue, said Metro Project Manager Roderick Diaz. The line would then go southwest, running parallel to Florence Avenue, through the city of Inglewood. It would continue south to Aviation Boulevard and connect with the Green Line at Imperial Highway and Aviation.

“From a transportation perspective, this is the first north-south rail project in the Metro system and will begin to bring congestion relief and air quality relief and mobility options to people on the west side of the county, relieving the 405 freeway and other notoriously congested streets,” Rosenfeld said. “It’s a great step forward.”

He said that the hope is to eventually extend the line south to the cities of Torrance, Carson and perhaps Long Beach and San Pedro.

It is projected that the line will have a ridership of 15,000 to 21,000 daily. The project is also expected to generate about 7,600 jobs during construction.

According to Rosenfeld, 400 to 500 letters have been received from the community in support of the project. Among the supporters is the Los Angeles Urban League.

“We certainly support the light-rail option just with regards to economic development and in terms of speed of transit. We do consider it a victory,” said Trevor Ware, senior vice president and chief operating officer of the Urban League. “We are strongly in support of the below-grade options that have been spelled out.”

The project calls for below-grade separations, including one that would be north of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard — at 39th Street and Crenshaw Boulevard — and another one at Crenshaw and 48th Street, south of Vernon Avenue.

Stations along the route would include one at Exposition and Crenshaw and others at Crenshaw and Martin Luther King Jr. boulevards; Crenshaw and Slauson Avenue; Century Boulevard and Aviation; and more.

There are also unresolved alignments that are being proposed, including a grade separation at Exposition and Crenshaw and a potential station at Vernon Avenue and Crenshaw, Diaz said.

Manuel Criollo, an organizer for the Bus Riders Union, said trains are often another scheme for gentrification and said funds should be used to improve the overall transportation system as opposed to one corridor.

“It’s a complicated issue. We’re opposed … based on the real necessity of those who depend on the (public transportation) system,” he said. “The county is so large, job access to different areas is so wide, that if you’re going to invest … a billion dollars on one corridor rather than investing in countywide systems like a bus system that can give you accessibility, then we think it can only recreate what we have right now, which is a lack of access to different parts of the county.”

The proposal will go to Metro’s Planning and Programming Committee on Nov. 18 and to the Metro board on Dec. 10.

If approved, the environmental impact report and final impact statement should be completed by mid-2010, and groundbreaking and construction could begin in 2012, Rosenfeld said.

Construction should take about six years, and the line could open in 2016, he said.

MTA backs light rail for Crenshaw corridor (Source: LA Times)

MTA backs light rail for Crenshaw corridor -- latimes.com

MTA backs light rail for Crenshaw corridor
Proposed line would run from Exposition Boulevard to near LAX. Rail would be offer a faster, cleaner alternative to buses, supporters say.

By Ari B. Bloomekatz

November 11, 2009

South Los Angeles has won a significant victory as transportation officials recommended this week that a proposed transit corridor along Crenshaw Boulevard be a light-rail line rather than a less expensive dedicated busway.

The recommendation, made by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority staff, gives a boost to the estimated $1.7-billion project, which would run from the Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw area to just outside Los Angeles International Airport.

Officials want to build the project with revenues from Measure R, the transportation sales tax that L.A. County voters approved last year.

Supporters of the Crenshaw line argue that it would provide a mass transit system to southwest Los Angeles, Inglewood and surrounding communities that are traditionally underserved by the county's rail network.

"Look at the transportation options that we have now," said Trevor Ware, chief operating officer of the Los Angeles Urban League. "We have buses on Crenshaw and we see other neighborhoods that are developing other types of transportation options. To have a decision made that we will have light rail -- that's so much faster and will have so much more of an economic impact -- we need that too."

The proposed line would run about 8 1/2 miles down Crenshaw Boulevard, starting at Exposition Boulevard, past Leimert Park, shopping centers, through Inglewood and south to a stop near the airport and a connection with the Green Line.

About 2 1/2 miles of the project is proposed as a subway, including the section that would run underneath Leimert Park, said MTA project manager Roderick Diaz.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas called the recommendation a "big victory" and has said he wants to find hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funding so that more segments, if not all, of the project can be built as a subway.

The line will "improve air quality and serve as an economic catalyst," Ridley-Thomas said in a news release. "This will also provide an efficient, clean mode of transportation that will connect to Los Angeles International Airport."

Crenshaw line supporters say that the project can be built using revenue strictly from Measure R. Other more expensive rail projects being proposed in Los Angeles would also require federal money, such as the Westside subway, which has a price tag of about $5 billion.

At least one community advocate, Damien Goodmon, said officials need to focus on potential safety problems on sections of the line that would run near areas with children.

"The section on Crenshaw Boulevard between 48th and 60th Street will be a rallying point for our community. The section, which abuts View Park Prep School and is just a block away from Crenshaw High School is currently only being studied as street-level with no option for underground. We disagree with this recommendation by staff," said Goodmon, who is part of the South Los Angeles Neighborhood Council's Joint Committee on Rail Transit.

Roundup of articles on the Regional Connector

Link: Curbed LA: Regional Connector: Know All the Possible Downtown Stops

          Roundup of articles on the Regional Connector
          Article 1
          Regional Connector: Know All the Possible Downtown Stops

Monday, November 9, 2009, by Neal Broverman
See link for all photos.
Over the weekend, Metro held the second of four community meetings on the Regional Connector, which would connect the 7th/Metro stop with the new Gold Line stop in Little Tokyo via light rail. Like the Westside subway, which is following a similar timetable, the Connector is in the midst of its environmental review and hopes to open around 2018/19. If it is indeed built, Metro is looking at two options for the connectors: either underground or partly above-ground.

Several new stations would be built for the Regional Connector project depending on which alternative is ultimately selected. For its at-grade emphasis alternative, Metro has identified station locations in the Financial District, Bunker Hill, and the City Hall/Civic Center area. Metro’s underground emphasis alternative also would stop in the Financial District and Bunker Hill areas, and then continue underground. Planners are studying two possible station options on 2nd Street before the line would travel to Little Tokyo.

Specifically, these stops are being considered:

Subway alternative: Stops at 5th & Flower, 2nd & Hope, and Broadway & 2nd or Los Angeles & 2nd

Light-rail option: Stops planned for 5th & Flower, 2nd & Hope, and Main & 1st or 1st & Los Angeles.

The meeting, held at the Wurlitzer Building at 818 S. Broadway this past Saturday morning, went pretty smoothly, with staff explaining that the connector will shorten rides and save commuters—who are now forced to transfer at 7th and Metro or Union Station—about 20 minutes of time. Project manager Dolores Roybal-Saltarelli explained that both those stations are already swamped with commuters during rush-hour, and that the county expects millions more residents in the coming years (and more public transit users, considering new lines are opening every two to four years).

Roybal-Saltarelli was cool-headed when she was asked why the connector couldn't open more quickly. She said the schedule they have now is considered ambitious by most engineers and transit planners. "It's completely feasible that construction could begin in mid-2013," she said.

Most attendees were excited about the line. "It will reduce a lot of the congestion at 7th and Metro," said Gregory Sandoval of Glendale, who rides transit into the city for work. He said the Red and Blue Line platforms were already ridiculously busy. "Just wait until the Expo Line opens [in 2011]," he added.

The one dissenter was John Smythe, who lives Downtown. "I'm for leaving whatever is there," he said. "If you need to transfer, just go to Union Station." He said the money for the connector should be used for other priorities, like new lines.

Little Tokyo residents have been skittish about construction disruption, as well as stop placement, but Ann Kerman, who handles communications for the connector, said she was prepared to assuage fears in Downtown of disruption during the construction phase and density changes to Little Tokyo. "This project will do more to maintain the cultural integrity [of the neighborhood] than diminish it," Kerman said.

Kerman added that the Nikkei Project mixed-use development—near where the connector would link with the Gold Line—is moving forward too, and is in the midst of environmental studies. The Senor Fish restaurant catty-corner to the Gold Line stop will eventually have to be closed for the connector, but there are early discussions of putting another mixed-use development at that corner of 1st and Alameda (development plans like this may be part of the reason Little Tokyo residents are anxious).

Link:Streetsblog Los Angeles » Community Meetings for Regional Connector

Community Meetings for Regional Connector
Article 2
by Damien Newton on October 29, 2009

When
November 5, 2009 6:30 pm November 7, 2009 12:00 pm November 10, 2009 10:00 am November 12, 2009 2:00 pm 6:30 pm

Metro to Hold Community Meetings for Regional Connector Project Nov. 5-12

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) will be conducting five community meetings to update the public on the Regional Connector project the week of November 5 through 12.

Members of the community are encouraged to attend one of the following meetings, all of which are available by public transit:

* Thursday, November 5, 2009, 6:30-8 p.m., Lake Avenue Church, 393 N Lake Avenue, Pasadena
* Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 12-1:30 p.m., Los Angeles Central Library, Board Room, 630 W 5th St., Los Angeles
* Saturday, November 7, 2009, 10 a.m.-12 p.m., Wurlitzer Building, 818 S Broadway, Los Angeles
* Thursday, November 12, 2009. Two meetings: 2-3:30 p.m. and 6:30-8 p.m., Japanese American National Museum, 369 E 1st St, Los Angeles

The project, currently in its Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/R), proposes building a transit line that would link the soon-to-open Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension in the vicinity of the Little Tokyo/Arts District Station and the 7th Street/Metro Center Station, terminus for the Metro Blue Line and future Expo Line. Once completed, transit riders would enjoy increased transit connections throughought the entire system. The Draft EIS/R includes the review of the possible effects of the project and alternatives on the project study area.

The content presented at these meetings will be identical, so those attending a session should seek a time and location most convenient for them.

In March and April 2009, Metro held four Scoping Meetings to obtain public input as part of the DEIS/R. Based on public feedback provided during the scoping process and more detailed technical study, Metro would now like to share some of the results of its ongoing analysis.

Last month the MTA Board voted to pursue long-term funding agreements through the U.S. Department of Transportation to build the Regional Connector project. The MTA Board is expected to make a decision on a preferred alignment late next year.
For additional information or questions, please visit the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Study website at metro.net/regionalconnector or contact the project information line at 213.922.7277.

Link: MTA report calls for light rail, not rapid bus line, on Crenshaw corridor | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

MTA report calls for light rail, not rapid bus line, on Crenshaw corridor
November 10, 2009 | 7:56 am
Article 3
A proposed transit line that will run through South Los Angeles should be light rail, not a rapid bus line, according to a report released by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

South L.A. officials and community groups cheered the recommendation from Metro staff and said the project estimated to cost at least $1.7 billion will provide unprecedented transit opportunities for residents who so far have been under-served by the county's rail network.

"We do consider it a victory," said Trevor Ware, chief operating officer of the Los Angeles Urban League.

"Look at the transportation options that we have now. We have buses on Crenshaw and we see other neighborhoods that are developing other types of transportation options," Ware added.

"To have a decision made that we will have light rail - that's so much faster and will have so much more of an economic impact - we need that too," he said.

The proposed line would run about 8.5 miles from the intersection of Exposition and Crenshaw boulevards, down Crenshaw, southwest through Inglewood and south to a stop near the airport and a connection with the Green Line.

About 2.5 miles of the project is proposed as a subway, including a section that would run underneath Leimert Park, said Metro's project manager Roderick Diaz.

The recommendation from Metro staff must still be approved by the planning and programming committee and then by Metro's board of directors.

Dan Rosenfeld, a senior deputy for L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, said the project could create some 7,800 jobs and that groundbreaking could begin as early as 2012 if funding can be secured.

-- Ari B. Bloomekatz

Streetsblog Los Angeles » Mixed Reviews on Crenshaw Corridor LRT Plan from Community Leaders

Mixed Reviews on Crenshaw Corridor LRT Plan from Community Leaders
Article 4
by Damien Newton on November 10, 2009
Community turnout was strong at public meetings on what to do for the Crenshaw Corridor.

In what can only be considered a win for County Supervisor and Metro Board Member Mark Ridley-Thomas the Metro staff is now recommending that light rail, not Bus Rapid Transit, be brought to the Crenshaw Corridor. Ridley-Thomas has been active behind the scenes and in front of the microphone pushing for adequate funding for light rail for his district.

However, just because a politician supports an idea doesn't mean it necessarily has the support of the communities he represents. For example, remember the vitriolic exchanges between Damien Goodmon and City Councilman, and former Ridley-Thomas opponent, Bernard Parks. So will Crenshaw run into similar opposition as Phase I of Expo? It depends who you ask. While some activists are thrilled to be getting light rail instead of "more buses," others question the proposed alignment.

At the Times' LA_Now blog, the Los Angeles Urban League gives the project a thumbs up:

"We do consider it a victory," said Trevor Ware, chief operating officer of the Los Angeles Urban League.

"Look at the transportation options that we have now. We have buses on Crenshaw and we see other neighborhoods that are developing other types of transportation options," Ware added.

"To have a decision made that we will have light rail - that's so much faster and will have so much more of an economic impact - we need that too," he said.

This morning, I exchanged emails with Goodmon, who seemed supportive of the numerous below-grade crossings and stations for the project but also vowed to push on for further below-grade construction:

We applaud the inclusion of options into the Base LRT design, specifically the below grade Hyde Park portion, and the continued study of the remaining options. Our current focus is on getting the EIR to study the remaining portion between 48th and 60th that is not currently being studied for below grade, so as to avoid future delay from a supplemental environmental process.

For a list of all the grade crossings, visit the agenda for next week's Planning Committee meeting and head to page 5.

Goodmon also noted that there are other areas that might concern the community. Namely that the staff's recommended contractor is not from South L.A., undercutting Ridley-Thomas' boast of 8,700 new jobs and that any at-grade alignment is against the stated position of the City of Los Angeles and the Crenshaw Corridor Specific Plan. The resolution was sponsored by local City Councilmembers Parks and Wesson. A full copy of Goodmon's statement is available after the jump.

STATEMENT ON THE MTA STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CRENSHAW LINE MODE AND CONTRACT

On behalf of the Citizens' Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line, and
South Los Angeles Neighborhood Council's Joint Committee on Rail Transit
Delivered by Damien Goodmon

We agree with MTA staff's recommendation of light rail over bus rapid transit, the inclusion of the below grade (underground) sections along some parts of Crenshaw, and the recommendation to continue study of underground options and stations elsewhere along the route.

However, the portion on Crenshaw Blvd between 48th and 60th St, in Park Mesa Heights, will be a rallying point for our community. Staff is recommending the section, which abuts View Park Prep School and is just a block away from Crenshaw High School only be studied as street-level with no option for underground. We disagree, and want to avoid the problems articulated by Supervisor Gloria Molina regarding Eastside Extension safety issues, and the tragic record of MTA's Blue Line, America's deadliest light rail line.

Staff's recommendation for street level crossings in the Park Mesa Heights community will increase safety hazards to school aged children and the public at large, result in the removal of hundreds of parking spaces important to the area's commerce, the removal tall median trees that are crucial to Crenshaw Blvd's scenic highway status, increase congestion at heavily traveled cross streets, such as of Slauson and 54th, slow down the overall speed of the line, and impair an otherwise good economic development opportunities. From traffic, parking, safety, economic development and procedural standpoints, it is a mistake. As requested by the community, the neighborhood councils and the Los Angeles City Council, an underground option from 48th to 60th Street must be included among the other options under study, so when funding becomes available it can seamlessly integrated into the Crenshaw Line project without delay. MTA should avoid the mistakes of Expo while building Crenshaw.

Additionally, we disagree with staff's recommendation for the design and preliminary engineering contract. It appears Metro staff wants the board to throw aside a perfectly capable and eminently qualified team that included businesses owned by people who live in the Crenshaw Corridor, in favor a team led out of Orange County. The largest public works project in the history of South L.A. should not be designed from Orange County.

Staff is recommending the Hatch Mott McDonnell's team, over the PB Americas team, which included among others Terry Hayes of Terry Hayes Associates and Roland Wiley of RAW International. These local African-American business leaders have done all the preliminary work to date for this project going back to the early '90s, have deep roots in the Crenshaw area, have volunteered their expertise on numerous community projects, and most importantly have a strong understanding of the pulse of the Crenshaw community, because they live here.

I don't yet know why the PB Americas team was not selected, but the MTA board should overrule the staff recommendation to ensure that the promises made by elected officials to generate more jobs and a leadership role for the community are kept.

We will be working in the coming weeks to persuade the MTA Board to address these issues promptly so our region and the Crenshaw corridor communities can receive what is necessary and what we are due: a fast, safe and reliable alternative to the traffic that is clogging our streets and polluting our air.

Our View: Metro should heed advice (Source: SGVTribune.com)

Our View: Metro should heed advice - SGVTribune.com

Our View: Metro should heed advice

Posted: 10/21/2009 05:37:03 PM PDT

IT'S not often that Southern California's congressional delegation comes together on an issue in a truly bipartisan way.

But
a letter sent Tuesday (see Guest View) to the Metro board urging that
the Gold Line Foothill Extension and two other projects be added to its
long-range transportation plan was signed by everyone from Republican
Reps. David Dreier and Gary Miller to Democratic Reps. Grace Napolitano
and Maxine Waters.

Fourteen Congress members in all signed the
letter, led by Dreier, Napolitano, Adam Schiff (who authored
legislation when serving in Sacramento that created the existing Gold
Line)and Judy Chu.

When this many Congress members speak - from
Jerry Lewis and Mary Bono Mack on the right in the Inland Empire to
Diane Watson and Jane Harman on the left and in Los Angeles - it would
behoove Metro, also known as the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, to listen.

The members asked the Metro
board to put the Foothill Extension, the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Phase II (through South El Monte and Whittier) and the Crenshaw/South
Bay Transit Corridor to LAX on its New Starts funding priority list
when the board meets today in L.A.

The L.A.-centric Metro board,
led by L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, has favored the Westside
subway-to-the-sea project over the two Gold Line extensions.

"In order to maximize federal funding we strongly urge you to broaden the County's federal strategy,"

BREAKING:
Mom Loses 52 lbs With 1 Rule!I Cut Down 52 lbs of Stomach Fat In A
Month By Obeying This 1 Old Rule See the results... Los Angeles-Mom
Lost 47lbs With 1 Rule!I Cut Down 47 lbs of Stomach Fat In A Month By
Obeying This 1 Old Rule Get details...
Quantcast
the Congress
members wrote. They pointed out that the subway and another heavy-rail
project favored by Metro were unlikely to gain funding from the federal
New Starts process in as little as three years, which would be possible
for the shovel-ready Gold Line light-rail projects.

"If the
board does not include these projects, we leave hundreds of millions of
federal dollars on the table that will be directed elsewhere in the
country," said Schiff, adding that Metro cannot afford to miss the
chance to bring dollars and jobs to the region.

Dreier
emphasized the broad, bipartisan group of Congress members wanting to
prioritize the entire region's needs and to "help secure the federal
resources needed to create jobs and invest in an infrastructure that
works for all Southern Californians."

Of particular interest to
San Gabriel Valley as well as Inland Empire residents, the letter
stated in part: "The Gold Line Foothill Extension project, Azusa to
Montclair, is developed enough to be ready for Federal New Starts funds
in the years before the Westside Subway Extension and the Regional
Connector Transit Corridor."

The letter ends by emphasizing the
imperative to have a strategy that brings as much federal funding as
possible to complement the $30 billion in Measure R sales taxes that
Metro will spend over the next 30 years.

"We would like to work
together as a team as we pursue New Starts funding for Southern
California's priorities on the federal level," ends the letter, also
signed by Reps. Joe Baca, Ken Calvert, Lucille Roybal-Allard and Linda
Sanchez.

That's a heck of an offer of assistance from some very
powerful people who seldom agree on anything. If the Metro board
members turn it down, they're nuts.

Features of MTA’s proposed Crenshaw Transit Corridor attract Westchester residents’ attention (Source: Westchester)

Link: The Argonaut: Westchester

Features of MTA’s proposed Crenshaw Transit Corridor attract Westchester residents’ attention

BY GARY WALKER

The extension of the Metro Green Line and the Mid-Cities Exposition Line have been the central focus of light rail advocates and legislators on the Westside regarding mass transportation.

But another line that could eventually intersect with both lines has begun to recently garner attention, especially among Westchester residents.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is proposing to construct the Crenshaw Transit Corridor, which could connect with both the Expo and Green lines in a north-south configuration. A possible light rail line would extend west to Sepulveda and La Tijera boulevards in Westchester and eventually connect with the Green Line station at Aviation Boulevard.

Among MTA members, an ongoing discussion that centers on whether the transit corridor should feature a light rail line or a rapid bus line will figure prominently in how Westchester is impacted.

The Neighborhood Council of Westchester-Playa discussed the proposed rail line at its October meeting, and some of its members say that they only recently learned of the transit authority’s plans for a proposed rail line that could impact roads and businesses in east Westchester.

“We found out about it at our August neighborhood council meeting,” said Denny Schneider, a member of the Neighborhood Council of Westchester-Playa. “Metro held four meetings before we found out about how this would impact our community.”

Roderick Diaz, the project manager for the Crenshaw Corridor, said that his agency has been very diligent in informing the public about its plans for the transportation corridor.

“I don’t think that (Westchester residents) were notified any later than our other constituents,” Diaz told The Argonaut. “We have had a very open process from the beginning.”

He conceded that certain neighborhood groups may not have received word of the agency’s meetings as soon as they would have liked, but Diaz and other Metro representatives have since had four meetings in or near Westchester, including one on October 6th with the Westchester Neighbors Association.

Resident Harry Rose attended the meeting, and said he thought that Metro’s presentation was straightforward.

“I think that MTA really wants to work with the community to have a light rail system on the Westside,” Rose, an association member, said.

Some of the options that Schneider and other homeowners near Osage Avenue disagree with are proposals to close Hindry and Florence avenues for a possible maintenance yard or a station, a proposed drop-off station at Hindry and at-grade or ground level crossings.

Schneider says that a number of longtime community businesses would also be uprooted if the station were built at Florence, including the Westchester Playhouse, where the popular theater group, the Kentwood Players, perform.

“That is a major issue for us,” said Schneider.

Diaz confirmed that some of the buildings could be relocated if the Metro board chose to go with a light rail option.

“If the light rail alternative is chosen, there are some businesses in the light industrial area that may need to be relocated,” the project manager acknowledged.

Rose said that he and other residents believe that if the playhouse is relocated, Metro should do everything it can to accommodate the theater group.

“I think that MTA should really look at putting the Kentwood Players somewhere that is close and in a good location where they can still perform,” he said.

Diaz noted that there are two proposed locations for a maintenance facility — in neighboring El Segundo or in Westchester, south of 83rd Street, north of Florence and east of Osage.

The proposed alignment of the light rail is a point of contention for Westchester residents, Schneider said.

“I support the rail line, as does the (neighborhood council),” the council member stated. “It’s not a question of trying to stop MTA from doing something; we just want a solution that doesn’t destroy a community to make it convenient for mass transportation.”

Schneider said he likes the idea of having a light rail that would go all the way to the other parts of the city, including the South Bay.

Diaz mentioned several times during the interview that nothing had been decided in terms of possible light rail alignments, the location of the maintenance yard or whether the mode of transportation will be a rapid bus or light rail line.

“The Metro board of directors has not made any final decisions yet,” Diaz stressed. “We will likely need to do some more concerted planning within the next few months related to where the stations are and what facilities will be included with them. We will also very likely have to do some community engagement as well.”

Rose said that he prefers a light rail train to a bus.

“The light rail line would be better to help residents on the Westside connect quickly with others parts of the city,” he noted.

The Metro Board of Directors will meet in December to discuss the Crenshaw Transit Corridor, and Diaz said at that time the board will likely vote on whether to implement a rapid bus line or the light rail line.

Schneider says that City Councilman Bill Rosendahl’s office is aware of the residents’ worries regarding Metro’s proposals and has pledged to represent their best interests before the Metro board.

“Councilman Rosendahl has come forward again to protect our community,” he said.

The comment period for the Crenshaw Transit Corridor ends Monday, October 26th.

VIDEO: Sup. Ridley-Thomas Addresses The Crenshaw South Bay Transit Corridor Public Hearing (Source: http://ridley-thomas.lacounty.gov/blog/?p=1438)

Link: VIDEO: Sup. Ridley-Thomas Addresses The Crenshaw South Bay Transit Corridor Public Hearing « Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas

VIDEO: Sup. Ridley-Thomas Addresses The Crenshaw South Bay Transit Corridor Public Hearing

At yesterday’s final public hearing on the Crenshaw/South Bay Transit Corridor, Supervisor Ridley-Thomas made the case for Light Rail Transit (LRT) and urged the community to make their voices heard by attending the Metro Board of Directors meeting on December 10th:

“I want to say this, all of us are prepared to be reasonable. But don’t start skimping and saying what can’t happen when it comes to the rail that goes through the communities in which we live. We have enough of that and if it is good enough for other communities to have light rail as an alternative, well, it’s good enough for it to be in the Crenshaw/South Bay Corridor.

And that’s what we have to argue for. We have to argue for that by being present in substantial numbers. How many of you have been down to the MTA for any public meetings? Well, let me just say this, it would be my view that if all of us were there to the extent that the escalators were jammed, it would not hurt my feelings.”

Public hearing on MTA’s Crenshaw Transit Corridor set for Tuesday, Oct. 6th (Source: Westchester)

Link: The Argonaut: Westchester

Public hearing on MTA’s Crenshaw Transit Corridor set for Tuesday, Oct. 6th

The Westchester Neighbors Association will host a public hearing on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Crenshaw Transit Corridor Study at 7 p.m. Tuesday, October 6th at La Tijera United Methodist Church, 7400 Osage Ave., Westchester.

The proposed transit line starts at the Metro station at Imperial Highway and Aviation Boulevard and continues to Crenshaw Boulevard. The overall goal of the proposed project is to improve mobility in the corridor by connecting with existing lines such as the Metro Green Line or approved lines such as the Exposition Light Rail, currently under construction, according to Metro.

The October 6th meeting will focus on issues concerning the Westchester community.

The 45-day environmental impact report (EIR) comment period began September 1st.

Information, www.metro.net/crenshaw/.

MTA seeking public input on Crenshaw transit plan (Source: Daily Breeze)

Link: MTA seeking public input on Crenshaw transit plan - The Daily Breeze

MTA seeking public input on Crenshaw transit plan
By Andrea Woodhouse Staff Writer
Posted: 09/28/2009 07:29:09 PM PDT

The Metropolitan Transportation Agency this week will begin soliciting public comment on an ambitious north-south public transit project that will affect several South Bay communities.

In a series of four hearings beginning Wednesday, Metro will present options for the Crenshaw Transit Corridor Project, designed to ease freeway congestion and improve accessibility to Los Angeles International Airport through either a bus or light rail line.

"The intent is to improve accessibility to the areas along the line, to connect to the South Bay, relieve congestion and provide transit alternatives," said Roderick Diaz, a project manager.

The project area includes Hawthorne, El Segundo, Inglewood, Los Angeles and some portions of unincorporated Los Angeles County - essentially a 33-square-mile area bounded roughly by El Segundo, Wilshire, Sepulveda and La Tijera boulevards, and Arlington Avenue.

Here is the schedule of the hearings:

From 6 to 8 p.m. Wednesday at the Wilshire Methodist Church Hall of Fellowship, 4350 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles.

From 6 to 8 p.m. Thursday at the West Angeles Church's Crystal Room, 3045 Crenshaw Blvd., Los Angeles.

From 10 a.m. to noon Saturday at Inglewood High School's cafeteria, 231 S. Grevillea Ave.

From 6 to 8 p.m. Oct. 6 at Transfiguration Church Hall, 2515 W. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Los Angeles.

Diaz said public comment gathered at these hearings will factor into the Metro board's final vote at the end of the year on which of two project options to implement:

A bus line option would span 12 miles with eight stations, providing travel times of about 30 minutes from the Metro Green Line to the Expo Line, or about 40 minutes from the Green line to Wilshire Boulevard/Western Avenue. The project's cost is estimated at about $600 million in current dollars, with the expectation that 3,500 jobs would be created during its construction phase.

A light rail proposal would span more than eight miles with at least seven stations, and an estimated travel time of 20 minutes from the Metro Green Line to the Expo Line. The base cost is estimated at $1.3 billion, with various design options ranging in cost from $11 million to $255 million. The project is estimated to generate about 7,800 jobs.

Funded by Measure R, a half-cent sales tax increase approved by voters in November to fund transportation projects, the Crenshaw Corridor project is designed to provide relief to the San Diego (405) and Harbor (110) freeways.

It would also improve access to Los Angeles International Airport by connecting the Metro Green Line to the south and the Expo Line to the north. A bus line would also connect to the Wilshire Corridor.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas has supported the light rail option, which he believed was more environmentally friendly and efficient.

"For years, these communities have historically been underserved by transit investments, and the project will not only improve local mobility but also will generate jobs directly and indirectly for the entire region," he said in a statement.

Diaz estimated that the final design and construction process would begin in 2011 and last up to six years, with the system operational by 2018.

andrea.woodhouse@dailybreeze.com

Crenshaw Transit Corridor (Source: Metro.net)

Link: Link: Crenshaw Transit Corridor Study - Crenshaw Transit Corridor DEIS/DEIR

Crenshaw Transit Corridor
Open Houses/Public Hearings

Make your voices heard and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (DEIS/DEIR)



Shape the future of transit in the Crenshaw Corridor. An environmental document that explores transit improvements including Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) is now available for your review and input. (This document is formally known as a Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Report or DEIS/DEIR.)

Learn more about the project and share your comments with us at one of the following Open House / Public Hearings:

Wednesday, September 30, 2009
6-8 pm
Wilshire United Methodist Church
4350 Wilshire Bl
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Metro lines 20, 720, 210, 710

Thursday, October 1, 2009
6-8 pm
West Angeles Church – Crystal Room
3045 Crenshaw Bl
Los Angeles, CA 90016
Metro lines 38, 210, 710

Saturday, October 3, 2009
10 am – noon
Inglewood High School – Cafeteria
231 S. Grevillea Av
Inglewood, CA 90301
Metro lines 40, 111, 115, 212, 740

Tuesday, October 6, 2009
6 - 8 pm
Transfiguration Church Hall
2515 W. Martin Luther King Jr Bl,
Los Angeles, CA 90008
Metro lines 40, 42



Public Comment Forum
You may submit your comments verbally (2 minutes per speaker) or in writing

The deadline for comments on the DEIS/DEIR is Monday, October 26, 2009, 5PM. Comments can be made at the public hearings or submitted to: Roderick Diaz, Project Manager, Metro, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-3, Los Angeles CA 90012 or diazroderick@metro.net.

For more information, please explore more of the project website at www.metro.net/crenshaw or call the Project Hotline at 213.922.2736.

Cost Concerns Could Shorten L.A.’s Crenshaw Corridor… Or Turn Planners to Rapid Buses (Source: The Transport Politic)

Link: The Transport Politic » Cost Concerns Could Shorten L.A.’s Crenshaw Corridor… Or Turn Planners to Rapid Buses

Cost Concerns Could Shorten L.A.’s Crenshaw Corridor… Or Turn Planners to Rapid Buses

September 16, 2009

Proposed Crenshaw Corridor Light Rail Alignment Map»
DEIS reports that making it as far north as Wilshire Boulevard would be too expensive for light rail.

Los Angeles has released its Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) for the Crenshaw/Prairie rapid transit corridor in preparation for Metro’s selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) later this year, with completion aimed for 2018. The DEIS demonstrates the dramatic cost benefits of choosing bus rapid transit, rather than light rail, because of lower construction costs and higher projected ridership. Yet those conclusions are based on a misleading difference between the two mode choices — the former would extend to Wilshire Boulevard, while the latter would stop at Exposition, three miles south — a consequence of the limited funds available for transit expansion.

A line running north-south roughly along Crenshaw Boulevard has been studied for years, as it would form a second north-south backbone for the Los Angeles transit system. The passage of Measure R in November 2008 put the project on the front burner, and the selection of a transportation mode for the travel corridor will allow Metro to enter engineering and soon after apply for federal New Starts funding.

The two projects advanced to the DEIS stage and to be considered by Metro when it selects the LPA are an 8.5-mile light rail line extending from the Green Line Aviation Station to the future Expo Line Crenshaw stop, and a bus rapid transit corridor following the same route but continuing further north to Wilshire Boulevard, where it would run east for several blocks to the existing terminus of the Purple Line at Wilshire and Western. Unlike the bus option, the light rail line would act as an extension of the Green Line, allowing commuters to travel without a transfer from as far south as Redondo Beach; it would also allow some Green Line trains to extend north one station to a new LAX Airport stop that would be connected to a people mover linked to terminals.

Considering only the segment shared between the Expo and Green Lines, the light rail option would attract 18% more riders than the bus; it would also be about 25% faster. But Metro can’t afford to extend light rail north of Exposition, because it only has budgeted about $1.5 billion in tax revenue for the project, and the three mile extension to Wilshire, which must be entirely tunneled because of the limited space available on roadways, would add one billion dollars to the cost. On the other hand, the rapid bus line, primarily using reserved lanes, would cost only $550 million to connect Wilshire with the Green Line — and the full corridor would attract some 17,000 daily riders compared to only 13,000 on the shortened light rail line. That’s because Wilshire is the economic hub of the city; it’s hard to imagine justifying a new north-south line that doesn’t come into contact with it.

The high cost of the light rail project can be summarized by this vertical profile of the proposed line — huge sections of the route would have to be placed underground or elevated above the street, and that costs a bundle of bucks.

Crenshaw Corridor Vertical Profile

Metro estimates that the light rail option would garner a “lower than medium” federal cost-effectiveness rating, because, to be blunt, it’s too expensive for a line serving neighborhoods that aren’t that dense. Can Los Angeles afford to build this project without a contribution from Washington? Should it build a project relying fully on local funds?

Ironically, a full-corridor light rail line, running up La Brea from Exposition and reaching Wilshire Boulevard, would attract far more riders and receive a medium-high federal cost-benefit rating, making it a strong competitor for national funds. The corridor’s importance would expand exponentially when the Purple Line is extended down Wilshire, as planned. Yet Los Angeles does not have the resources, at least in the medium-term, to make the longer light rail line a reality. The DEIS suggests that Metro should make preparations for an eventual completion of the line — but that will be in decades.

If the goal of the project is to improve the mobility of people living in southwest Los Angeles and Inglewood, the light rail line as proposed would do little to decrease transit times to downtown, since the Green and Blue lines already provide that service. Meanwhile, the Expo Line connection doesn’t provide access to the heart of the west side, which explains low ridership estimates — only an extension up to Wilshire would ramp up performance.

We’ll take it as a given that Los Angeles does not have the money to do a full light rail build-out along Crenshaw. As a result, it seems clear that a bus rapid transit line running along the whole corridor would provide the maximum number of benefits over the short and medium term, and that Metro has little choice to select that option. On the other hand, as ridership grows, a BRT project would have significant problems coping with additional capacity, as experienced by the Orange Line in San Fernando Valley. The bus would also lack interoperability with the Expo and Green Lines, one of the primary advantages of picking light rail, since it would allow through-running onto existing routes. Does it make since to build a bus line, only to have to replace it with a rail corridor in 20 years? I’m not sure.

One option that does not seem to have been fully considered is starting at Wilshire and then building as far south as possible within the financial constraints, which might mean to the Harbor Subdivision railroad; a future connection to the Green Line would be planned. This poses some serious equity questions, since it would further reward the wealthy west side and delay improvements for poorer Inglewood; this probably makes this option politically infeasible. On the other hand, it would likely attract more riders and reinforce the city’s center, which, amorphous as it is, runs roughly west from downtown and deserves to have concentrated transit service.

Images above: Proposed Crenshaw Corridor LRT, from Metro

Billion dollar Crenshaw transit corridor underway (Source: Our Weekly)

Our Weekly - L.A.'s Premier Community Newspaper

Billion dollar Crenshaw transit corridor underway

OW photo by Shirley Hawkins
By Shirley Hawkins | OW Staff Writer | 03.SEP.09

$1.7 billion project will bring jobs,
revitalization

County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas hosted a media luncheon Thursday, Aug. 27 to provide an update on the $1.7 billion Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) Crenshaw Transit Corridor project.
The goal of the project is to improve public transit service and mobility in the Crenshaw corridor between Wilshire and El Segundo Boulevards by connecting with existing lines such as the Metro Green Line or the Exposition Light Rail Transit, which is currently under construction.
MTA officials hope that the project, funded mostly by last year’s Measure R, will relieve traffic congestion. The MTA will hold public hearings in late September and early October before voting on one of several options that have been proposed.
The supervisor was joined by Dan Rosenfeld, his senior deputy for economic development, sustainability and mobility; Roderick Diaz, project manager for the MTA; and MTA Chief Executive Officer Art Leahy, who all participated in outlining the massive public works project.
One of the options under consideration proposes implementing a Bus Rapid Transit line along Crenshaw which will feature special traffic lanes for the buses. The other proposal is a Light Rail Transit line along the street that would be powered by overhead electrical lines but potentially travel underground. The desire is for both options to link the Crenshaw corridor to the South Bay and to Los Angeles International Airport.
The MTA board is currently debating which option to chose, and whichever one is selected, is expected to be completed in 2018.
Ridley-Thomas stated he has two target objectives: “Quality is one and economic development is the second.”
Stops in South Los Angeles will include stations at Exposition and Crenshaw Boulevards as well as in the communities of Leimert Park and Inglewood. “The extension to LAX at Aviation and Century Boulevards will also be a major hub,” said Ridley-Thomas.
Ridley-Thomas added that the project will undergo an environmental review processes in early September.
“I want to make clear what I’m advocating for, and that is light rail transit,” said Ridley-Thomas. “I think it’s better for a lot of reasons. This alternative will provide relief on the 405 and other north/south routes as well as the western part of the city of Los Angeles. Congestive relief is the key factor in our rationale. It will provide efficiency and clean transportation to improve air quality.”
Rosenfeld, the supervisor’s senior deputy said that whichever option is selected will help economically revitalize the South Los Angeles community. “(The) Bus Rapid Transit project will generate about 3,500 jobs and 2,000 of those will be in construction. The Light Rail project (could create) 7,800 jobs. It becomes immediately clear why long term economic development will play a big part in this project.”
Rosenfeld added that the city of Los Angeles will create workforce training to make sure that high-quality jobs are developed along the corridor.

Crenshaw Line's Battle Plans Presented for Measure R Fun

The Bus Bench: Crenshaw Line's Battle Plans Presented for Measure R Fund

Crenshaw Line's Battle Plans Presented for Measure R Fund

Crenshaw Transit Corridor_study_map The battle is underway for the Measure R funds that are coveted in these times of California state financial failure. Metro CEO Art Leahy and Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas presented an update of the $1.7 billion MTA Crenshaw Transit Corridor Study on Thursday, August 27. The public will be invited to comment on the project in late September and early October, and the Metro Board will hold a vote on October 22 to decide which of two options Metro will choose—providing there is an option to be chosen.

The two primary transit options presented for the Crenshaw transit path. One would be the Light Rail Transit, or LRT; the other would be the Bus Rapid Transit option. Both present opportunities as well as challenges. Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, whose Second District neighborhoods would benefit greatly from having the Crenshaw Transit Corridor Project, made clear his endorsement for the LRT option.

The LRT option would have a light rail train running from the Green Line to the Expo Line. The travel time between the two LRT terminals would be 20 minutes. The transitway would assume a number of different forms as it pass along, under and over other thoroughfares, with the anticipation of eventually extending it to Wilshire Blvd. The estimated capital cost would be $1.3-1.8 billion.

The BRT option would be considerably more complicated, with some exclusive lanes as it traveled a greater distance (Metro Green Line's Aviation Station to Wilshire/Western, where the Purple Line currently extends to its western terminus). The time for the segment between the Green and Expo Lines would be at least 28-30 minutes; higher motor traffic would extend travel time. The travel time for the segment between the Expo and Purple Lines would be approximately 40 minutes. The estimated capital cost would be $500-600 million.

Many factors have been studied regarding the two options: ridership, base project cost, travel time, construction jobs, economic development and future motor vehicle traffic congestion. The historically under-served area would, according to Ridley-Thomas, benefit in construction jobs as well as in future commerce and housing. Were the BRT alternative chosen, an estimated 3500 construction jobs would be created; the LRT alternative would bring an estimated 7800 jobs to the area. Commerce would be positively affected once the the transitway was completed, and housing would possibly benefit in higher values owing to the desirability to be near a popular transit option. The 405, which has for many years been recognized as being the largest parking lot in the world, might have some relief. Best of all, the LRT would prompt a serious look at getting the Green Line connected to LAX—an oversight of enormous proportions that has been a debacle for well over a decade.

However, the figures and facts may hold little influence in the race to secure a project that will bring billions to those communities chose to have Metro projects fulfilled. Although the Eastside Extension of the Gold Line is projected to be running before the end of 2009, there is a study to examine extending it to South El Monte or Whittier. The Orange Line is being extended north four miles to Chatsworth Metrolink Station and the Purple Line is being studied to examine extending it to the west side of L.A. In downtown there is a study to investigate the possibility of a regional connector between the Gold and Blue Lines. The Expo Line, while still controversial owing to the neighborhoods through which the at-grade and underground portions are being built, is slated to open in mid-2010. For nearly all these projects and studies, Measure R is the only significant source of funding owing to the severe state and federal budget cuts and constraints made of late. Public transit is not the only aspect of Los Angeles transit seeking funding; there are many agencies involved in road repair and more that seek the same funds.

The larger capital cost of the LRT should not be the primary factor in considering the option. There will be twice as many more construction jobs as the BRT as well as a transit option that will reduce congestion, bring revenue to an area that is shovel-ready to be further developed and help increase real estate in a time of a national fiscal crisis that no one can portend will soon be resolved. Time is also a cost to be considered; the LRT option will save a great amount of time for commuters over the bus"way" option of the BRT. Fewer motor vehicles will cut pollution in an area long over-wrought with vast industry, which will in turn find benefits in lower health care costs and greater job production.

With a few large transit projects nearing completion and several studies underway for future projects, there is only so much funding to be spread round. While certain areas have had chances in the past to have a light rail line, only to scotch them for reasons that are now deemed ridiculous, other areas have never had a chance and have managed to do relatively well. Perhaps it should be the communities that are desiring a first chance, communities that have long wished to be a part of greater Los Angeles, communities that have brought themselves up by their boot-straps, be granted the chance that other communities were offered but refused.

-BusTard