LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[numble]

Originally Posted by NSMP

I think you've misread the politics of the footnote. That Metro study the Green Line to Long Beach was a request of Long Beach, which is a member of the Gateway Cities COG, not the South Bay Cities COG (funder of the present extension). That is why it's stipulated that the study will not be funded using capital dollars for the Green Line Extension. The South Bay has not shown an interest in extending the line further, as evidenced by them opting not to extend the project area any further than that laid out by Measure R.

Supposing the extension costs less than available funds, that money can be used to fund other projects within the subregion, but only once it is agreed upon by the board members that all costs related to the project have been finalized which could be when the line opens or several years afterward. At that point, even if it were sufficient money to get to the Blue Line, which as you noted, it won't be, that money could not be spent within the city of Long Beach.

Based on the 2009 estimates, the total Measure M money can get it to Normandie, which is within the South Bay COG. I think the mention of the extension to Long Beach and the potential of excess funds that may be used to get part of the way there puts the potential for the extension in better shape than otherwise.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Yeah i mean.. it's a close call. Wait for something better or hope you can get 2/3 approval? I ended up voting yes personally even though I was not happy about the project list.

Do you go around buying items in your personal life that will never satisfy your needs? Do you go around after buying a Timex watch hoping it would magically change into a Rolex watch?
Governments make compromises every day, on every referendum, on every law, on every budget, on every tax rate, and on every zoning change. It's a little late in the game to propose doing something else after the compromise has been set in stone when the referendum was written up and eventually approved by the electors. If you want more done, propose a new referendum.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by electricron

Do you go around buying items in your personal life that will never satisfy your needs? Do you go around after buying a Timex watch hoping it would magically change into a Rolex watch?
Governments make compromises every day, on every referendum, on every law, on every budget, on every tax rate, and on every zoning change. It's a little late in the game to propose doing something else after the compromise has been set in stone when the referendum was written up and eventually approved by the electors. If you want more done, propose a new referendum.

This is an interesting hard line to take, especially if you don't actually live in LA? Seems pretty low stakes for you. I was writing about Measure M during the planning process. Few others were. It is what it is.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by numble

Based on the 2009 estimates, the total Measure M money can get it to Normandie, which is within the South Bay COG. I think the mention of the extension to Long Beach and the potential of excess funds that may be used to get part of the way there puts the potential for the extension in better shape than otherwise.

Yeah it's possible. But it also didn't get built in 2009, it's going to get built in 2026. I'd like to see updated cost estimates.

[numble]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Yeah it's possible. But it also didn't get built in 2009, it's going to get built in 2026. I'd like to see updated cost estimates.

Measure R has an inflation adjustment component and Measure M allows inflation adjustments after 2026 (as long as less than 1/3 has been spent), so those funds seemingly would keep up with inflation.

It just feels like the funds can get farther than the 4.6 miles to Torrance, especially since it is on an existing ROW. The Gold Line Foothill Extension was 12 miles on $800 million. Expo Phase 1 was under $900 million for 9 miles.

[NSMP]

Dear god, please don't let them build it like Expo 1 lol

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by NSMP

It's kind of interesting to blame them for not seeing the future. Planning for the Crenshaw line predates the NFL coming back to town by over a decade. Anyway, a line on Hawthorne that interlined with the Crenshaw Line north to La Brea would do everything you're saying. There's no real merit to tunneling under ladera heights in order to skip Crenshaw. Way more expensive and no ridership potential.

Oh no one is blaming them for not seeing the future . the Crenshaw/La Brea corridor is already busy with or without the stadium being near by. Its been busy for a while now, people like me who used to live in the south bay would use it all the time to commute to bypass the 405 and 110, when both were busy, when trying to get in LA. My last statement was just one saying MEtro needs to act as soon as things come to their attention instead of waiting decades and giving us half baked transit lines, as soon as the Stadium was official, Metro should have quickly started finding funding to see how to service the surrounding area.

I think the real merit by staying along its route and not sharing with the Crenshaw line is

1. possible speed increase, cutting travel times in the tunnel when going through Ladera Heights while people chug along on the Crenshaw line stopping at every red light and traffic accident which are common on Crenshaw and Slauson and

2. The two lines would be servicing two different areas sine when going north/south, they are about a mile or 2 apart. It goes under ground at Slauson, pop back out around Coliseum st. where there is probably one of the densest apartment neighborhoods in the city with Bladwin Village on the right and what looks to be a housing project with " The Village Green" on the left.

OR it can remain underground, building a connection station under La Brea between Rodeo Rd and Exposition Blvd to link with the expo station.

The problem with metro is that they have Angelinos thinking that Transit lines shouldn't be tooo close together where as all the metros that people here are salivating over have totally separate lines servicing totally different populations just 3-5 blocks apart from each other, not 1-2 miles apart.

I'm not saying this line will be the most successful but I am saying it will be a great feeder line.... I mean. It would literally connect with the Purple, Expo, Crenshaw, Green and any future east/west lines.

[bzcat]

Those other cities with rail lines couple of blocks apart have the density to support that level of service.

Southbay doesn't have the density to support two rail lines 1 mile apart. We don't have unlimited funds to build white elephant transit lines so you have to make a choice about where to build it and what's best bang for the buck.

Metro studied rail on Hawthorne before and it didn't pencil out. They are studying it again (contrary to your assertion... it's even in the link to the story you are whinging about) to see if things have changed. Let's see what comes of it now that the study will incorporate the fact that there will be through service on Crenshaw Blvd to Mid City.

[NSMP]

^what bzcat said

[SoCalKid]

Did anyone go to the transit coalition Rick Meade event last night? Anything interesting come out?

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by caligrad

My last statement was just one saying MEtro needs to act as soon as things come to their attention instead of waiting decades and giving us half baked transit lines, as soon as the Stadium was official, Metro should have quickly started finding funding to see how to service the surrounding area.

Really? And which project would have to sacrificed financially to fill in that demand of a Stadium that didn't go through an EIR process?

I think the real merit by staying along its route and not sharing with the Crenshaw line is

1. possible speed increase, cutting travel times in the tunnel when going through Ladera Heights while people chug along on the Crenshaw line stopping at every red light and traffic accident which are common on Crenshaw and Slauson and

2. The two lines would be servicing two different areas sine when going north/south, they are about a mile or 2 apart. It goes under ground at Slauson, pop back out around Coliseum st. where there is probably one of the densest apartment neighborhoods in the city with Bladwin Village on the right and what looks to be a housing project with " The Village Green" on the left.

OR it can remain underground, building a connection station under La Brea between Rodeo Rd and Exposition Blvd to link with the expo station.

I'm not saying this line will be the most successful but I am saying it will be a great feeder line.... I mean. It would literally connect with the Purple, Expo, Crenshaw, Green and any future east/west lines.

We haven't gotten the main web/grid of core lines completed to get the Crenshaw corridor up to meet with the Purple and Red Lines to even think of additional lines a mile away from each other.

[JosephE]

bzcat et al: I'd like to point out that Praire/Hawthorne are closer to 2 miles away from the under-construction alignment to LAX and the current north-south line through El Segundo:



(Sorry, the measurement is in kilometers: 3.2 kilometers = 2 miles.)

If a branch went down Praire, switching over to Hawthorne at the 105, the respective stations at Century Blvd and El Segundo Blvd would be 2 miles (3.2 km) apart. The station pairs at Manchester Blvd and 105/Imperial Hwy would be slightly over 1.5 miles apart. Only south of Marine Ave in Lawndale would the alignments be 1 mile apart or less.

I think it would make sense to have include a branch along Praire to 105 and Hawthorne as far south as Lawndale in the next LRTP, for funding in the next ballot measure (in 8 years or so). 1.5 to 2 miles is a long way apart, and the population density within 1/2 mile of Hawthorne Blvd is the highest of any corridor in the South Bay.

Now, Hawthorne further south in Torrance doesn't have much population density at this time. If Torrance is willing to support higher density residential zoning, a second phase could eventual extend further south, perhaps in the 2040's. But the northern part of Praire/Hawtorne would have good ridership even now. I suspect it will attract more riders than the alignment along Aviation and through El Segundo, but I look forward to Metro studying it more competely.

[NSMP]

"Highest of any corridor in the South Bay" is not high enough to prioritize this corridor now or in the foreseeable future. A distance of 2 miles is not the issue so much as the lack of any compelling reason to build this particular route when there are so many stronger candidates.

[NSMP]

Special events venues do not make strong anchors for rail lines in general. Pico benefits from being across from the busiest stadium in the country, while also having a stable of office jobs nearby, and it still averages just 7,000 boardings per day. It's not enough to justify a rail spur of its own, and neither is Downtown Inglewood.

What could happen though is the city of Inglewood could extend a people mover to the stadium at their own expense, or as a P3 with the venue owners.

[NSMP]

Here's what Metro thinks. Interlining with the Crenshaw line to the NFL stadium would net a whopping 900 boardings per day.

https://imgur.com/gallery/JbQAp

[DJM19]

Looks like you could probably just get the stadium to pay for a shuttle service on event days, or make a bolstered publicly operated route.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Here's what Metro thinks. Interlining with the Crenshaw line to the NFL stadium would net a whopping 900 boardings per day.

https://imgur.com/gallery/JbQAp

can you repost the link, it doesn't seem to work

[NSMP]

Hopefully This'll work

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Special events venues do not make strong anchors for rail lines in general. Pico benefits from being across from the busiest stadium in the country, while also having a stable of office jobs nearby, and it still averages just 7,000 boardings per day. It's not enough to justify a rail spur of its own, and neither is Downtown Inglewood.

That pico station is in dire need of an upgrade. It may average 7000 boardings a day now but with Circa, Oceanwide, 1212 Flower and 1133 Hope opening in the coming years that stop is probably going to see a large influx of people. It really seems like Figueroa will become more of a destination when Oceanwide and Circa open. Will be interesting to see.

[JosephE]

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to build a one-station extension to serve an NFL station. I'm not surprise that it was only projected to get 900 riders a day.

Stations along Hawthorne would get higher ridership, since more people live within walking distance and the busier bus routes are on Hawthorne.

But I hope I'm not implying that I think the Hawthorne route should get service before any of the line planned for Measure M. While it would probably have higher ridership per mile than the Eastside Gold Line extensions or the second phase of the Santa Ana Branch (south of the Green Line), those projects have been promised to voters and should be delivered.

I'm thinking about a line on Hawthorne in the context of the new LRTP, due in 2019, and the next plan to expand the system. I expect Metro will go back to the voters in 2024 to request funding to complete the currently planned projects sooner, and will add another 10 or so projects: just like with Measure M.

The Hawthorne line through Inglewood and Hawthorne would certainly be one of the top dozen useful projects after Measure M. Here's what I would put on the project list for a 2024 ballot measure: a line on Sunset/Santa Monica, Purple Line extension to Santa Monica and East LA / Pico Rivera, Electrifying Metrolink to Burbank and OC, a Vermont Subway to South LA, Light Rail down 7th street in Long Beach to VA/CSULB and a couple other projects: Pico subway? BRT on Reseda? Converting Van Nuys and Orange Line to LRT if not already funded, depending on the politics and the size of the funding package.