HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5621  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2021, 12:51 PM
saybanana saybanana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 197
The hybrid is the best option. I did prefer all the way up San Vicente but turn on Robertson. LA brea sucks. Worst idea ever. People who think its the best are insane in the membrane.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5622  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2021, 5:08 PM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
Metro is taking public comment on Crenshaw North extension before locking in the EIR study options. This is our last chance to get them to scrap the hybrid and add a more logical "spur" concept. There has been a lengthy discussion on Transit Coalition forum for the spur concept and the basic jest is that it just makes more sense (plus it preserves the option to extend it further east and west.

Here are the three EIR options Metro presented:


The "spur" concept basically follow La Brea for the main north-south direction (most logical, fastest, cheapest) and will incorporate the best part of the hybrid - the east-west portion on Santa Monica Blvd between La Brea and La Cienega.

Here is a video that has a good high level summary of the spur idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrFswVO4Ms
I did not make the video... I will let andert who made the video to comment further.


Here is a form letter to submit to Metro if you agree. Just copy and paste.


To: crenshawnorth@metro.net

Re: Comments for Crenshaw northern extension

After reviewing the three existing options, La Brea, Fairfax, and hybrid, I strongly urge Metro to add a fourth option: La Brea plus Santa Monica spur.

The hybrid option is fundamentally flawed because it mixed the east-west travel corridor on Santa Monica Blvd with the general north-south direction of the Crenshaw line. This will result in long travel time and will not best serve either the east-west nor the north-south travelers. In light of City of West Hollywood's strong commitment to the line, I believe it is in the best interest of all parties to acknowledge that hybrid option is a poor compromise to the forced marriage of two different travel corridors.

The La Brea plus Santa Monica spur concept acknowledges the reality that these are two separate travel corridors. Instead of continuing the flawed hybrid compromise, there should be a vision for what the rail network could look like in the future. A spur line on Santa Monica Blvd traveling from Hollywood /Highland to Santa Monica/Robertson will satisfy the City of West Hollywood's desire for Metro service within its borders. The spur can operate in conjunction with the La Brea train and not unnecessarily impact the service quality of the Crenshaw line via La Brea. There are further benefits to this concept as the line can be extended in the future south/west to purple line station at La Cienega or Century City; and east towards Downtown LA via Santa Monica blvd. And as proposed, the La Brea plus Santa Monica spur concept has roughly the same amount of track mileage as the hybrid option but offers significantly faster travel time between Hollywood/Highland and LAX and beyond.


Thanks for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Name
Thanks for taking the time to put this actionable step together for us with ease and clarity!!! I just sent it in. Who's next to send??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5623  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2021, 5:17 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,531
I mean obviously they're not going to consider another option just because someone from the public emailed about it. I think it'd be more productive to make a case for whichever of the proposed alignments you think is best, rather than suggesting a new alternative.

I vote for Fairfax, as it hits more destinations than La Brea, while not going too far out of the way to serve as a true North/South connector for the Red, Purple, and Expo lines. It also gives WeHo 2 stops, which I think is warranted. I guess I'd go with La Brea as my number 2 option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5624  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2021, 6:22 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 357
Yes, thank you bzcat for writing this up. I also sent it in with some modifications, primarily editing it to say either La Brea or Fairfax with a spur, rather than just La Brea.

I agree with edale that of the existing options, Fairfax is best. It's not much of a detour, but hits some big destinations. I think it also has a much better shot of getting West Hollywood to meaningfully pitch in, which is our best shot of getting this built within a decade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5625  
Old Posted May 1, 2021, 1:35 AM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,216
I was watching tee vee and it looks like the ARTIC center in Anaheim makes a star appearance in the new Expedia commercial.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5626  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 6:03 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
I mean obviously they're not going to consider another option just because someone from the public emailed about it. I think it'd be more productive to make a case for whichever of the proposed alignments you think is best, rather than suggesting a new alternative.

I vote for Fairfax, as it hits more destinations than La Brea, while not going too far out of the way to serve as a true North/South connector for the Red, Purple, and Expo lines. It also gives WeHo 2 stops, which I think is warranted. I guess I'd go with La Brea as my number 2 option.
The point of the comment is not to support any alignment... the EIR will take care of that. The comment period now is for what to include in the EIR.

Metro has added new alternatives to EIR in the Southbay extension after public comment. And let's not forget several changes including new station and crossing were added to Expo line EIR after initial alternatives study. So lots of prior precedents for Metro to incorporate public comment after the initial alternatives study.

Also, not asking anyone to support inclusion of spur if you think Fairfax alone is the best option... if you like Fairfax, by all means submit a comment in favor of including it in EIR.

Last edited by bzcat; May 3, 2021 at 6:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5627  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 7:33 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
The point of the comment is not to support any alignment... the EIR will take care of that. The comment period now is for what to include in the EIR.

Metro has added new alternatives to EIR in the Southbay extension after public comment. And let's not forget several changes including new station and crossing were added to Expo line EIR after initial alternatives study. So lots of prior precedents for Metro to incorporate public comment after the initial alternatives study.

Also, not asking anyone to support inclusion of spur if you think Fairfax alone is the best option... if you like Fairfax, by all means submit a comment in favor of including it in EIR.
While I think Fairfax is the best standalone option, the spur would be a huge positive. It'd set the stage for a new line running through the heart of West Hollywood to East Hollywood, then potentially down La Cienega to Culver City where it could turn west down to Venice. A Venice->Culver City->West Hollywood->East Hollywood line would hit some of the densest, most walkable, and most visited areas of the whole city and I'm sure would be truly transformational. It'd also have transfers to the Expo Line, the Purple Line, the Crenshaw Line, and the Red Line in various parts of the city, which would be huge for building out the transit grid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5628  
Old Posted May 6, 2021, 9:45 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
The point of the comment is not to support any alignment... the EIR will take care of that. The comment period now is for what to include in the EIR.

Metro has added new alternatives to EIR in the Southbay extension after public comment. And let's not forget several changes including new station and crossing were added to Expo line EIR after initial alternatives study. So lots of prior precedents for Metro to incorporate public comment after the initial alternatives study.

Also, not asking anyone to support inclusion of spur if you think Fairfax alone is the best option... if you like Fairfax, by all means submit a comment in favor of including it in EIR.
Appreciate the response, and sorry for my curt post. The spur option makes a ton of sense, but it seems like a separate project than the Crenshaw northern extension, no? I'd love to see a line from Echo Park to Beverly Hills roughly following Santa Monica from Los Feliz on west.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5629  
Old Posted May 7, 2021, 5:25 AM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
Appreciate the response, and sorry for my curt post. The spur option makes a ton of sense, but it seems like a separate project than the Crenshaw northern extension, no? I'd love to see a line from Echo Park to Beverly Hills roughly following Santa Monica from Los Feliz on west.
There is some differing opinions on whether spur constitute a separate project when it comes to funding, but Santa Monica Blvd between Robertson and Highland is in the defined Crenshaw Northern study area so there is no problem with including it in the EIR.

In fact, the entire length of the spur (from Hollywood/Highland to Santa Monica/La Cienega) as proposed by me and several others is duplicated in the hybrid alignment that Metro intends to evaluate in the Crenshaw Northern EIR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5630  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 3:48 AM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,635
At this point in the game. I honestly truly believe that somebody needs to be talking about my Santa Monica/Sunset to union station idea. Just saying. Hits a lot of targets, plenty of density and businesses that will benefit. There doesn't need to be a stop in Beverly Hills since they seem to lose their SH** with the mention of public transit in their city. Have it go all the way to Santa Monica but since we all know its going to be LRT anyway, have it link up with the expo line near 17th and Colorado. Seems the most rationale spot to do it.

I'm just a bit nervous that we aren't hearing anything solid out of metro in regards to transit. Once the purple line is done....Then what? once the Crenshaw line is done....Then what ???? seems like they are literally only focused on extensions that add 1-3 stations on each line rather than all new lines in general. Sooo much of the city is still out of reach of rail service.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5631  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 1:51 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by caligrad View Post
i'm just a bit nervous that we aren't hearing anything solid out of metro in regards to transit. Once the purple line is done....then what? Once the crenshaw line is done....then what ???? Seems like they are literally only focused on extensions that add 1-3 stations on each line rather than all new lines in general. Sooo much of the city is still out of reach of rail service.
ding ding ding
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5632  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 5:51 PM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by caligrad View Post
At this point in the game. I honestly truly believe that somebody needs to be talking about my Santa Monica/Sunset to union station idea. Just saying. Hits a lot of targets, plenty of density and businesses that will benefit. There doesn't need to be a stop in Beverly Hills since they seem to lose their SH** with the mention of public transit in their city. Have it go all the way to Santa Monica but since we all know its going to be LRT anyway, have it link up with the expo line near 17th and Colorado. Seems the most rationale spot to do it.

I'm just a bit nervous that we aren't hearing anything solid out of metro in regards to transit. Once the purple line is done....Then what? once the Crenshaw line is done....Then what ???? seems like they are literally only focused on extensions that add 1-3 stations on each line rather than all new lines in general. Sooo much of the city is still out of reach of rail service.
Scroll below of a repost a fellow forum member posted about these opportunities back in March.

Draw out the maps and submit it to the Westside Cities COG and City of LA for a Santa Monica-East Sunset Blvd Corridor submit it to the COG ASAP! Considering all the work being thought about with the Spur within the Crenshaw Northern Extension. Personally I am submitting a strategy for a Flower Street Subway to bury the Blue and Expo Lines underground from LA Live/Staples Center to USC and then utilize the Expo East ROW or run elevated next to the 10 Freeway to connect the Blue Line and replace the Washington Blvd street running section.

Besides after Purple Line to Westwood/VA there are plenty of projects that Metro will be working on in the Measure M funding pipeline including;
  • West Santa Ana Corridor to Downtown LA
  • Sepulveda Pass from SFV, Westwood and LAX
  • Foothill Gold Line to Claremont
  • Eastside Gold Line to Whittier
  • Green Line to Torrance
  • Union Station Run-Through tracks
  • Rail conversion of the Orange Line
  • Vermont Corridor Red Line
  • Burbank Airport Red Line extension
  • Green Line to Norwalk Metrolink
  • Extending the West Santa Ana Corridor to Glendale/Burbank

There's still plenty of projects to work on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
Here's everyone's chance to submit their ideas for capital projects--Metro is developing a list of strategic capital projects that are currently unfunded.

https://twitter.com/numble/status/13...049240577?s=20





__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5633  
Old Posted May 11, 2021, 1:55 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,216
Metro Approves $900 Million for Airport Connector Station

By Howard Fine
Monday, May 10, 2021
Los Angeles Business Journal


"A direct rail connection to LAX has moved one step closer to reality, and Sylmar-based construction contractor Tutor Perini Corp. appears poised to deliver it.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board on April 22 approved a budget of $898.6 million for the Airport Metro Connector project..."

https://labusinessjournal.com/news/2...ort-connector/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5634  
Old Posted May 12, 2021, 6:11 AM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 373
$900 million for a train station that is not even underground? I think we've hit a new high (or rather low) for Metro's contract bidding process. Not sure what land they needed to acquire... the station is being constructed basically on the edge of the Crenshaw line train yard.

The entire Expo line phase 1 with several elevated stations, a trench, and 8.5 miles of track only cost $980 million 15 years ago. There is inflation and then there is Metro's hyperinflation...

Here is link to Expo line's budget breakdown https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/...20553200d543ea
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5635  
Old Posted May 12, 2021, 6:17 AM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 373
Nick Andert has made another video. This time breaking down the difference between the Bechtel and BYD proposal for the Sepulveda Pass train. It's a long video but worth it... Very detailed analysis and everyone who has a passing interest in LA transit or urban planning should watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJdbCgVkH3w
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5636  
Old Posted May 12, 2021, 4:26 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
$900 million for a train station that is not even underground? I think we've hit a new high (or rather low) for Metro's contract bidding process. Not sure what land they needed to acquire... the station is being constructed basically on the edge of the Crenshaw line train yard.

The entire Expo line phase 1 with several elevated stations, a trench, and 8.5 miles of track only cost $980 million 15 years ago. There is inflation and then there is Metro's hyperinflation...

Here is link to Expo line's budget breakdown https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/...20553200d543ea
Construction cost inflation in general has been absolutely insane in the last 15 years. This seems like it outpaces even regular construction cost inflation though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5637  
Old Posted May 14, 2021, 7:57 PM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 201
Governor Gavin Newsom released his May budget revision proposal, discussing his proposal on how to spend the huge $76 billion California surplus (which includes money from the Biden stimulus).

He proposes the following additional funding:

• Los Angeles Olympics—$1 billion General Fund to deliver critical projects in time for the 2028 Olympic Games.

• Priority Transit and Rail Projects—$1 billion General Fund for transit and rail projects statewide that improve rail and transit connectivity between state and regional/local services.

• Active Transportation—$500 million General Fund to advance projects that increase the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users, advance efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals, enhance public health, and benefit many types of users, especially in disadvantaged communities.

• High Priority Grade Separations and Grade Crossing Improvements—$500 million General Fund to support critical safety improvements throughout the state.

• High-Speed Rail—$4.2 billion Proposition 1A to complete high-speed rail construction in the Central Valley, advance work to launch service between Merced and Bakersfield, advance planning and project design for the entire project, and leverage potential federal funds.

• State Highway Rehabilitation and Local Roads and Bridges—$2 billion ($1.1 billion special funds through 2028, and $968 million federal funds) to support the advancement of priority State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects, Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) projects, and local road and bridge investments.

• Zero-Emission Rail and Transit Equipment Purchases and Infrastructure—$407 million ($100 million General Fund, $280 million Public Transportation Account, and $27 million federal funds) to demonstrate and purchase or lease state-of-the-art, clean bus and rail equipment and infrastructure that eliminate fossil fuel emissions and increase intercity rail and intercity bus frequencies.

• Zero-Emission Buses and Trucks—$1.4 billion ($1.3 billion General Fund, $87 million Air Pollution Control Fund) to demonstrate and purchase or lease green buses and trucks. These funds are budgeted outside of the transportation budget and are included and described in the Climate Resilience Chapter.

The May Revision is here: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5638  
Old Posted May 14, 2021, 10:16 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
Governor Gavin Newsom released his May budget revision proposal, discussing his proposal on how to spend the huge $76 billion California surplus (which includes money from the Biden stimulus).

He proposes the following additional funding:

• Los Angeles Olympics—$1 billion General Fund to deliver critical projects in time for the 2028 Olympic Games.

• Priority Transit and Rail Projects—$1 billion General Fund for transit and rail projects statewide that improve rail and transit connectivity between state and regional/local services.

• Active Transportation—$500 million General Fund to advance projects that increase the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users, advance efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals, enhance public health, and benefit many types of users, especially in disadvantaged communities.

• High Priority Grade Separations and Grade Crossing Improvements—$500 million General Fund to support critical safety improvements throughout the state.

• High-Speed Rail—$4.2 billion Proposition 1A to complete high-speed rail construction in the Central Valley, advance work to launch service between Merced and Bakersfield, advance planning and project design for the entire project, and leverage potential federal funds.

• State Highway Rehabilitation and Local Roads and Bridges—$2 billion ($1.1 billion special funds through 2028, and $968 million federal funds) to support the advancement of priority State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects, Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) projects, and local road and bridge investments.

• Zero-Emission Rail and Transit Equipment Purchases and Infrastructure—$407 million ($100 million General Fund, $280 million Public Transportation Account, and $27 million federal funds) to demonstrate and purchase or lease state-of-the-art, clean bus and rail equipment and infrastructure that eliminate fossil fuel emissions and increase intercity rail and intercity bus frequencies.

• Zero-Emission Buses and Trucks—$1.4 billion ($1.3 billion General Fund, $87 million Air Pollution Control Fund) to demonstrate and purchase or lease green buses and trucks. These funds are budgeted outside of the transportation budget and are included and described in the Climate Resilience Chapter.

The May Revision is here: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf
That's good news! I'd most like to see the LA-specific $1 billion go towards fixing the flower Expo/Blue line junction. That's probably enough money to get the project off the ground. It's also well suited for the intended use, as that stretch will be a complete mess during the olympics if they don't fix the junction/at grade crossings.

I'm guessing the highway funding is largely due to formulas and federal stipulations rather than Newsom intentionally directing extra funding there?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5639  
Old Posted May 14, 2021, 10:21 PM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalKid View Post
That's good news! I'd most like to see the LA-specific $1 billion go towards fixing the flower Expo/Blue line junction. That's probably enough money to get the project off the ground. It's also well suited for the intended use, as that stretch will be a complete mess during the olympics if they don't fix the junction/at grade crossings.

I'm guessing the highway funding is largely due to formulas and federal stipulations rather than Newsom intentionally directing extra funding there?
I do generally think that anything that says "General Fund" is from the general budget surplus and is that the legislature can pick and choose what is funded, and anything else is funding that is already restricted by formulas or legal requirements. So yeah, if part of the surplus came from higher-than-expected gas/diesel taxes, much of it is required to go to road funding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5640  
Old Posted May 15, 2021, 12:56 AM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,501
Hopefully we don't end up with the 1 Billion "olympic" dollars going to the Inglewood train, but I fear a significant amount will.

Also, I think its kind slimy that this budget proposal doesn't seem to given HSR and new money, just proposes spending the rest of the bond dollars, money HSR already had allocated. Perhaps some grade separation dollars will go toward HSR projects. But it would have been nice to see 4 billion *new* dollars to HSR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:57 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.