Los Angeles MTA [Archive] - Page 22

klamedia

October 24th, 2011, 05:28 PM

Obama Shows the Crenshaw Line Some Love, Speeds It Up

President Obama moved to shorten the permitting and environmental review process for 14 national infrastructure projects yesterday, including the planned Crenshaw Line light rail and three other California projects, reports the LA Times. The move will "shorten the approval time for this project by several months," according to a release from the Federal Transit Administration. The Crenshaw Line, which will run from the Expo Line at Exposition and Crenshaw to a station near LAX (and hopefully a People Mover to the terminals, as well as to some Green Line stops, and possibly, one day, extensions north to Wilshire and West Hollywood), just certified its final environmental impact report. LA County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas says in the Times that yesterday's news makes it more likely that an extra station can be built in the middle of Leimert Park Village--the idea is that moving the construction process along will save millions that can be used elsewhere. That may not be good enough for some community activists, who want the $1.75 billion project to include both a Leimert Park stop and undergrounding of the line in Park Mesa Heights.

The effort to underground the line is being headed up by transit gadfly Damien Goodmon and his group the Crenshaw Subway Coalition. Goodmon fought for the Expo Line to be undergrounded near Dorsey High School; eventually a compromise was reached in which a station was built at Farmdale Avenue, requiring trains to make full stops before crossing the street. Goodmon has said before that he plans to bring litigation if the Crenshaw Line is not put underground in Park Mesa Heights. However, a new California law shortens the amount of time that litigation can delay big projects like the Crenshaw Line.

Perhaps as a way to mollify community activists like Goodmon--and to get some local input--Metro has started a "Community Leadership Council" consisting of neighborhood organizations, business groups, schools, and churches. The groups share ideas/concerns on construction, economic development, and safety, The Source reports.

Early construction on the 8.5-mile long Crenshaw Line is supposed to start next year and wrap sometime between 2016 and 2018.

Kenni

October 25th, 2011, 06:32 AM

Awesome news!!

redspork02

November 4th, 2011, 06:01 AM

Subway Facts & History: Metro responds to errors in Beverly Hills Courier and allegations by Beverly Hills school district
Written by Steve Hymon in Projects on November 3, 2011

On Oct. 21 and 28, the Beverly Hills Courier published six news and analysis articles about the two reports Metro released last month on seismic and tunneling issues affecting the Westside Subway Extension project in the Beverly Hills, Century City and Westwood areas (Oct. 21 edition and Oct. 28 edition; both are pdf files and an email address is required to open).

The Courier articles included significant errors, misleading statements and omissions.

In addition, Beverly Hills Unified School District President Lisa Korbatov earlier this week posted online a letter to community members that contained incorrect information, as well as untruthful allegations about Metro.

In order to correct the record for residents and policymakers alike, here are responses from Metro about information in the reports:

COURIER: The Courier wrote that “The major fallacy of the Report is its conclusion that a subway station on Santa Monica Blvd would be “unsafe” but a station barely 150 feet away would be “safe.”

Metro’s response: The Constellation station site is more than 1,100 feet from the proposed Santa Monica Boulevard station. No evidence of fault rupture was found at or close to the Constellation site.

The purpose of the study was to locate areas of potential ground surface rupture and deformation, which is usually limited to the area immediately near active fault zones.

Earthquakes on the Santa Monica or Newport Inglewood fault zones could result in ground rupture — called “fault displacements” — at ground level or just below. Subway stations are two-story structures up to 1,000 feet in length and designing such a station to withstand ground ruptures without significant damage and loss of life is both impractical and without precedent.

The level of damage could require a complete rebuilding of the station and nearby tunnels — which could take several years. No subway stations in North America have been designed to tolerate active fault zones and their associated potential ground displacements.

This differs from ground shaking that occurs over a wide area during an earthquake. The subway stations and tunnels will be designed to withstand shaking, and there are special construction techniques available to reinforce the tunnels in the short distances where they must cross active fault zones.

COURIER: The Courier wrote that the new report may doom new construction along Santa Monica Boulevard and that the report calls into question any construction between Beverly Hills and the ocean, as well as high-rise development along Santa Monica Boulevard.

Metro’s response: The report provides technical data on the location and nature of the fault zones in the study area only and does not comment on the results of the findings – other than with respect to Metro’s subway project.

Based on the new information, the State of California will determine if the area qualifies as an Alquist-Priolo zone that would require local building departments to limit some types of development.

It is important to stress that both reports were prepared for purposes of planning the Westside Subway Extension and will be used in the preparation of the final environmental impact document for the project. All government agencies and private property owners can access and review the content with appropriate professional staff and/or consultants and decide if the information is needed for their own purposes.

Neither Metro or the Courier is in a position to advise other agencies or property owners on how to apply the information in these reports.

COURIER: The Courier wrote that Metro’s report “admits tunnel noise violates state levels” under Beverly Hills High School.

Metro’s response: There are no state regulations pertaining to noise and vibration from the subway. The agency used the applicable criteria from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to evaluate and predict noise and vibration levels from Metro trains operating under the school.

Based on ground testing, ground-borne vibration under classrooms is predicted to be 63 decibels — well under the FTA threshold of 75. Ground-borne noise under classrooms is predicted to be 33 decibels; the FTA threshold for schools is 40 decibels.

It is important to note that noise and vibration are measured independently and adding the decibels from noise and vibration together — as the Courier did — does not provide an accurate prediction of either noise or vibration.

California state standards do not include noise level limits for classrooms.

However, the 2009 Edition of the California Criteria for High Performance Schools Best Practice Manual has recommendations for maximum noise levels in classrooms from things such as heating and air conditioning systems and outside noise. The manual recommends that classrooms have no more than 45 decibels of noise from those sources and says a more ideal level is 35 decibels.

Again, the ground-borne noise from the Westside Subway is projected by Metro to be 33 decibels.

It’s also worth mentioning that Metro has not received any complaints to date about noise or vibration from trains using existing Red/Purple Line subway tunnels or the Gold Line tunnel under Boyle Heights.

SCHOOL DISTRICT: In her letter to the community, BHUSD President Lisa Korbatov wrote that Metro went to court to withhold information from the school district and that Metro “continues to withhold geotechnical data and test results that formed the basis of the Metro reports. This will force the Beverly Hills Unified School District to waste money and time replicating work already done by Metro.”

Metro’s response: In maintaining its commitment to full disclosure of final documents, Metro released the final reports to the public after the data had been fully analyzed, the reports edited and everything had been checked and reviewed by outside engineers and scientists. All raw data associated with the reports is available on-line to those who want to review it — and the school district has been informed of that.

Earlier this year, the school district had filed a petition in Los Angeles Superior Court in an attempt under the California Public Records Act to force Metro to release data collected for the seismic and tunneling reports before the reports were complete.

In September, a Superior Court judge ruled that Metro did not violate the California Public Records Act. The judge wrote: “A review of the verified Petition, however, fails to identify which items on Petitioner’s series of requests remain outstanding. Therefore, it is virtually impossible for Metro to counter the allegations. And, even worse, it makes it impossible for the Court to determine whether Petitioner’s claims of non-production are, in fact, correct.”

COURIER: The Courier said that Metro’s reports are tainted and that “no engineers reviewed or commented to the study.”

Metro’s response: In addition to Metro’s engineers and consulting engineers at Parsons Brinckerhoff and AMEC, a number of pre-eminent engineers were involved in preparation and/or review of the report’s findings. These engineers included Dr. Harvey Parker, Dr. Ed Cording, Dr. Paul Jennings, Dr. Tom O’Rourke and Dr. Geoff Martin. Biographies of these experts were posted on Metro’s web site on October 19th.

COURIER: The Courier wrote that Metro’s reports did not discuss the area along Santa Monica Boulevard between Century Park East and Avenue of the Stars.

Metro’s response: Two major fault systems, the Santa Monica Fault and the West Beverly Hills Lineament, converge in this geologically complex area. Fault rupture and deformation in this zone can’t be precluded. In addition, the area is not long enough to build a station.

COURIER: The Courier writes that a new fault could slice through the Constellation station.

Metro’s response: Metro has investigated active fault zones that are hundreds of feet wide and that have occurred over time scales of hundreds of thousands of years. No faulting was found to have occurred in the area where the Constellation station would be located.

Furthermore, experience has shown that new faults are not likely to suddenly appear away from existing fault zones. Thus, structures in earthquake country are designed to avoid areas where there have been past ruptures in active fault zones.

COURIER: The Courier wrote that the Metro seismic report “purports to locate a series of unmapped faults along the Santa Monica Fault and West Beverly Hills Lineament on the proposed subway route.”

Metro’s response: The fault zones located in Metro’s investigation were not previously unmapped and are not new. They have been shown for some time on California Geologic Survey maps but had not been investigated in this area.

However, the Metro studies used underground testing to identify new information about those fault zones in this area. Detailed information about earthquake fault zones is difficult to obtain since much of the evidence is underground. It’s even more difficult in an area that has been paved over and developed.

http://thesource.metro.net/2011/11/03/metro-responds-errors-beverly-hills-courier-allegations-from-beverly-hills-school-district/

ElOhEl

November 4th, 2011, 07:31 AM

Reckless journalism. :ohno:

Good to see the folks at Metro refuting these claims.

Kenni

November 4th, 2011, 11:45 PM

In español we call that "yellowish" journalism. ek!

redspork02

November 11th, 2011, 08:16 AM

BREAKING NEWS: CPUC Approves All Expo Phase II Crossings
by Damien Newton on November 10, 2011

Earlier today, the California Public Utilities Commission gave the green light to proceed with construction of Phase II of the Expo Line. CPUC was widely expected to delay their decision on whether or not the rail/road crossings for Phase II were safe enough and that they wouldn’t cause excess pollution by creating traffic delay. In a surprise move, CPUC unanimously approved the crossings after Commissioner Timothy Alan Simon removed a “hold” he had placed on the crossing vote.
Even though CPUC is supposed to look at projects on their merit and not consider politics, both opponents and supporters of the Expo Line were lobbying the Commissioners. The Transit Coalition published a draft letter urging Commissioners to ignore letters by opponents. At the same time, the Expo Construction Authority itself sponsored a letter writing campaign urging the commission to approve the crossings.

A coalition of community leaders calling themselves Neighbors for Smart Rail were urging the Commission to hold off on an approval vote until they’re appeal of the Expo Phase II environmental documents could be heard. Their lobbying effort fell short.

Commissioner Simon was one of the Commissioners who had supported forcing a newly designed rail crossing and rail station for Phase I of the Expo Line and explained his change of heart to CPUC staff. ”You forgot one thing. I was an assigned commissioner for Phase 1. I was a much younger man back then.” The Commission had twice delayed votes on Phase I of the Expo Line and when they did rule ordered an overhead pedestrian bridge for the Farmdale Crossing which later turned into the station built at the intersection of Exposition Boulevard and Farmdale Avenue.

Unless and appeals court overturns a previous ruling supporting the Expo Phase II rail environmental documents, there are no further obstacles preventing construction from beginning. Phase II of the Expo Line will connect to the soon-to-be-opened Phase I which runs from Downtown Los Angeles to Culver City. Phase II will complete the first rail line between Downtown Los Angeles and Downtown Santa Monica.

pesto

November 11th, 2011, 05:27 PM

Good news. I hope this can actually get built now. A rail network that allows easy access to Union Station and the westside will be the heart of SoCal's rail future.

saiholmes

November 12th, 2011, 03:33 AM

U-9jhf55Wuw

saiholmes

November 12th, 2011, 03:37 AM

U.S. Senate committee passes two-year transportation funding bill, including some of America Fast Forward
Written by Steve Hymon in Policy & Funding on November 9, 2011
Metro - Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority - The Source

Here’s the good word from Metro’s government relations staff:

Today, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, led by Chair, Senator Boxer, unanimously passed a two-year Transportation Reauthorization titled Moving Ahead for Progress (MAP-21). The bill radically alters federal funding for transportation throughout the United States. The bill’s summary, text and the archived webcast can be found here.

The bill will now head to the Senate Floor, if and when the Senate Finance Committee allocates the extra $12-$13 Billion that is needed to pay for the bill.

Metro has been working very closely with Senator Boxer, Chair of Senate EPW, and the general structure of the bill is favorable towards many of Metro’s programs and projects.Staff is currently reviewing the full 600 page bill to specifically identify the impacts to Metro.

The bill includes part of the America Fast Forward program created by L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and supported by Metro. Specifically, the bill would expand the TIFIA loan program to help local transportation agencies get federal loans or favorable financing to build projects.

It’s not the full America Fast Forward program, which has a bond component that along with TIFIA would allow for the acceleration of Measure R projects in L.A. County. But it’s something in a bill that doesn’t dramatically, as far as I can tell, expand transportation spending by the federal government.

Read More: http://thesource.metro.net/2011/11/09/senate-committee-passes-twoyear-transportation-funding-bill-including-some-of-america-fast-forward/

Mojeda101

November 12th, 2011, 09:52 AM

Does anyone have information on Pomona's expansion towards this?

slipperydog

November 12th, 2011, 05:50 PM

Good news. I hope this can actually get built now. A rail network that allows easy access to Union Station and the westside will be the heart of SoCal's rail future.

We will still be a third world transit system until we have direct (and speedy) express service to the airport.

redspork02

November 13th, 2011, 11:14 AM

Beverly Hills bids to halt subway tunnel at school

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD, Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) — It's as hard to travel under the ground in Southern California as it is on top of it.
Here in the city the car built, the latest attempt to bore a subway line beneath some of the most congested roads in America is recalling civic brawls of a generation ago, when fear over where tunnels could be constructed safely left the region with a subway system so stunted it gets as much ridicule as ridership.
This time, transit planners hoping to run a 9-mile subterranean line into the city's densely packed Westside have hit resistance within a cluster of stately, red-roofed buildings surrounded by manicured hedges and lush, rolling lawn — Beverly Hills High School. Tentative plans call for drilling a tunnel 70 feet beneath the campus, where Angelina Jolie and Nicholas Cage once roamed the hallways.
Local officials say ambitious plans for new classrooms and parking would be threatened, and they worry the French Normandy-style buildings could be damaged by construction or train vibration. They want the line to run on an alternate route a few blocks north, along busy Santa Monica Boulevard, though regional transit consultants say that would take the train into the path of unstable earthquake faults.
The consultants are confident tunneling would not endanger the 2,200-student school, but some envision the worst: a tunnel collapse directly below campus, with students inside the buildings.
"It's terrible, I dislike it intensely," Theresa Pinassi said with a grimace, as she waited outside the school for her 16-year-old grandson. "It would be dangerous to have it under the school — God forbid, if we had an earthquake."
It's all deja vu to Mark Fabiani, who served as deputy mayor and chief of staff to former Mayor Tom Bradley, who in his era envisioned a subway that would link downtown Los Angeles with the Pacific coast, a line befitting one of the world's great metropolitan areas.
It never happened.
A local congressman pushed through a tunneling ban in 1986 because of fears that construction could cause an explosion of naturally occurring methane gas, a move some viewed as a thinly disguised maneuver to safeguard tony Westside neighborhoods from outsiders. The city ended up with a subway that's invisible to many of its 4 million residents — it's about 20 miles overall in a city covering 468 square miles, petering out just west of downtown's skyscrapers.
To Fabiani, Bradley's dream would have helped avert Los Angeles' traffic nightmare.
"When you have no culture of mass transit in your area, it's harder to visualize what the benefits might be down the road," he said.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, chaired by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, isn't expected to endorse a route until early next year, and it's not clear how much of the $5.4 billion line will be built, or when. The most optimistic schedule calls for construction to begin next year, with trains rolling in 2022.
Local voters boosted sales taxes to bankroll transit projects, but money is scarce in gridlocked Washington. The ban on using federal funds for tunneling was lifted in 2007, but current plans stop well short of reaching the beaches in Santa Monica. Meanwhile, Beverly Hills has enlisted its own consultants for a fight that might end in the courtroom.
The transit agency long envisioned the line running along Santa Monica Boulevard through that area, but in 2010 it floated a plan that would move the route slightly south, under the school. The MTA's experts recently concluded the route under the school would be safer than along Santa Monica Boulevard, where faults could pose a threat.
But district officials suspect that developers with ties to City Hall are influencing the decision-making.
The disputed route would take the line under the school and to a station in the nearby Century City neighborhood that's virtually at the doorstep of a planned 37-story tower proposed by JMB Realty Corp., a major landlord that owns other buildings in the area. JMB executives have invested heavily in Villaraigosa's political ventures, government records show. One company affiliate gave a committee linked to the mayor $100,000 in 2006.
"We do believe politics has driven this alignment, not transit rules or standards," said Lisa Korbatov, who heads the local school board. She calls the MTA's data "very heavy in assumption."
A statement from Villaraigosa's office said only that he is confident in the MTA's experts and the conclusions of its technical studies. A local coalition supporting the route that would cut under the high school asserts the plan is safer, given the MTA's findings, and would place a station within easy walking distance for nearly 30,000 workers in Century City.
JMB senior vice president Patrick Meara disputed that there was any connection between donations to the mayor and decisions on the subway. When asked who drafted the route that would build a station near his company's properties, which would almost certainly boost their value, he said, "I honestly don't know."
Among students, there appears to be little anxiety about a train line that wouldn't begin moving people until years after they graduate.
Justin Blaylock, a 17-year-old senior, said he supports expanding public transit and would welcome the chance to avoid the city's dirty, crowded buses. "It makes me just want to walk," he said.
In a way, the MTA is trying to rebuild the past.
Los Angeles once boasted one of the finest public transit systems in the nation, the Pacific Electric Red Cars, which trundled along 1,000 miles of track that crisscrossed the region. The last one was gone by 1961, dismantled with no small push from auto and oil interests as the car culture took hold in Southern California.
Freeways replaced trolley tracks, and huffing buses took over for electric rail. In time, a booming population led to sclerotic traffic and the blankets of smog that came with it.
Today, rush hour knows few limits on heavily used stretches of freeway around downtown, in the San Fernando Valley and on the Westside. Nearly 6 million cars are registered in Los Angeles County, and one 10-mile stretch of Interstate 405 sees 500,000 vehicles on a typical day. An eight-lane ribbon of highway linking downtown and Hollywood — the infamous 101 — is often ranked among the most strangled roads in the U.S.
With a push from Villaraigosa, a transit boomlet is under way, including development of an above-ground light-rail line to Los Angeles International Airport. A light-rail line is pushing east from Pasadena, and another 6-mile spur running out of downtown opened in 2009.
But it's unlikely to do much to open a pathway for cars.
There are just too many vehicles attempting to navigate the city's sprawling geography — only a fraction of the region's jobs are located downtown, meaning drivers are crisscrossing the region in a tangled web of commuting patterns.
Even if the Westside subway extension is built, "the congestion is so terrible, it will just be sucked up," says Genevieve Giuliano, a University of Southern California professor who specializes in transportation policy. "Traffic might improve a little bit, not a lot."
A study by a team of experts conducted for MTA concluded that the Westside project "is not expected to pose new threats" to students, faculty or the community, but hasn't eased anxiety in Beverly Hills.
City and school officials don't object to transit development — just the route below the school. Beverly Hills Mayor Barry Brucker dismisses any suggestion that the city is protesting because it fears the subway would import crime from scruffier neighborhoods.
"Any association with, 'Don't come into our city,' may have been an issue for some people a decade or two ago, but it's never been a discussion" with the latest plan, Brucker says.
There's more at stake than easing traffic.
In a region with double-digit unemployment, business leaders see subways and light rail as the fast track to Los Angeles' future, and they predict that housing and other development will flourish around stations and lines.
"Local resistance has been a part of this project for a long time and actually killed it for a long time," says Gary Toebben, president of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.
"We believe we should put emotions aside," Toebben added. "We have a lot of people who think in their minds they would never ride a subway."
Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

pesto

November 13th, 2011, 05:57 PM

State of the Union

November 14th, 2011, 03:54 PM

Personally, I don't care between the routes. But notice now that by prolonging this process the MTA has given the opponents a chance to get an apparently neutral party to point out that the route that MTA is pushing will run the subway next to a big donor of Villaraigosa. Combine this with the MTA's refusal to release internal documents on the planning process, and even an amateur lawyer can build a case for further administrative or court review, a committee appointed to investigate influence peddling in the awarding of contracts, etc. I'm not saying this will happen, but MTA seems to be begging for it.

And check the maps; these stations are one city block apart.

One block is huge difference. It makes NO SENSE whatsoever to place a 500 million dollar station next to a f-cking golf course.

A vast majority of the riders will be in Century City, so why not place it in the middle? It is the CENTURY CITY station after all and notice they aren't calling it SANTA MONICA/AVENUE OF THE STARS station. Putting it on constellation also makes it more accessible to the folks in the development south of Olympic.

Go on Google Maps streetview and do a complete 360 of where the Santa Monica Station will be and the Constellation station and you will see how much a big of a difference that one block is.

pesto

November 14th, 2011, 05:50 PM

One block is huge difference. It makes NO SENSE whatsoever to place a 500 million dollar station next to a f-cking golf course.

A vast majority of the riders will be in Century City, so why not place it in the middle? It is the CENTURY CITY station after all and notice they aren't calling it SANTA MONICA/AVENUE OF THE STARS station. Putting it on constellation also makes it more accessible to the folks in the development south of Olympic.

Go on Google Maps streetview and do a complete 360 of where the Santa Monica Station will be and the Constellation station and you will see how much a big of a difference that one block is.

Having worked and shopped at CC for decades I hardly need to do that.

It's 1 block. Are you going crazy over the other stations that ALL have options 1 block apart? Does Gayley vs. Westwood get you excited? Did you demand that Metro Center be put on Fig instead of Flower? The east vs. the west option for stations all along Wilshire? I had a comment and belief on these but didn't really care.

And, if the SM Blvd. option is unacceptable, then why did MTA after full review include both options for comment by the public? This is just really poor handling.

But, again, let's hope nothing comes of it and we're able to get out somewhere in Westwood and the VA in a few years.

State of the Union

November 15th, 2011, 12:47 AM

Having worked and shopped at CC for decades I hardly need to do that.

It's 1 block. Are you going crazy over the other stations that ALL have options 1 block apart? Does Gayley vs. Westwood get you excited? Did you demand that Metro Center be put on Fig instead of Flower? The east vs. the west option for stations all along Wilshire? I had a comment and belief on these but didn't really care.

And, if the SM Blvd. option is unacceptable, then why did MTA after full review include both options for comment by the public? This is just really poor handling.

But, again, let's hope nothing comes of it and we're able to get out somewhere in Westwood and the VA in a few years.

First, I'm not addressing the handling of the project. I'm addressing the fact that you think the placement of the station(if SM Blvd was still possible) doesn't matter. I'm not going crazy, the simple fact is you do not understand station planning whatsoever(The fact that you don't care indicates you don't give a shit either), so when people that do understand station planning get serious about the placement of a station, you call them crazy.

Yes it's 1 block. Will it kill us to walk an extra block? No. But, if the option is there to put the station closer to where people need to go, 1 block or not, then it makes no sense to settle for the lesser convenient option.

slipperydog

November 15th, 2011, 03:50 AM

Speaking of lousy locations, anyone seen the Culver City one? It's next to a Del Taco and industrial buildings. And a sketchy walk to get to downtown.

State of the Union

November 15th, 2011, 05:15 AM

Speaking of lousy locations, anyone seen the Culver City one? It's next to a Del Taco and industrial buildings. And a sketchy walk to get to downtown.

Well, it's built on an existing ROW. This is just the cost of running an at grade line on an existing ROW. Regardless, it will still be a regional transfer point and station. Also, they are planning allot of new development next to the station:
http://transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=expoline&action=display&thread=953&page=3
(Post # 65-66)
The best way to connect the station to downtown is for Culver City to offer a shuttle service or build a streetcar down Venice Bl.

pesto

November 15th, 2011, 08:17 PM

First, I'm not addressing the handling of the project. I'm addressing the fact that you think the placement of the station(if SM Blvd was still possible) doesn't matter. I'm not going crazy, the simple fact is you do not understand station planning whatsoever(The fact that you don't care indicates you don't give a shit either), so when people that do understand station planning get serious about the placement of a station, you call them crazy.

Yes it's 1 block. Will it kill us to walk an extra block? No. But, if the option is there to put the station closer to where people need to go, 1 block or not, then it makes no sense to settle for the lesser convenient option.

I can't agree. Look for example at Curbed today, where MTA makes the argument that all buildings in Century City will benefit from either location since "the station locations under consideration are within walking distance of one another." Constellation helps by 1 block the buildings to the south and hurts by 1 block the buildings along SM Blvd. and the planned shopping, residential and hotel complex at the Beverly Hilton (and those connecting from the Wilshire or SM Blvd. buses). But even MTA admits this is irrelevant.

btw, if I were MTA management, I would never have let that comment go public, if they are really serious about litigating the location of the station.

State of the Union

November 16th, 2011, 01:22 AM

I wrote a post but I decided to let us agree to disagree.

CCs77

November 24th, 2011, 06:33 PM

Some rides in the yet to be open Expo-Line

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BA4kZXPuaCM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aQQPmqCpFqA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RJHUyshCfRM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Kenni

November 26th, 2011, 05:06 AM

Awesome! I forgot, when is the inauguration?

klamedia

November 28th, 2011, 10:43 AM

Well, it's built on an existing ROW. This is just the cost of running an at grade line on an existing ROW. Regardless, it will still be a regional transfer point and station. Also, they are planning allot of new development next to the station:
http://transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=expoline&action=display&thread=953&page=3
(Post # 65-66)
The best way to connect the station to downtown is for Culver City to offer a shuttle service or build a streetcar down Venice Bl.

Shuttles and a streetcar aren't necessary. Let the LRT be the incentive for downtown CC to build out to the line and ultimately it won't seem so far.

pesto

November 28th, 2011, 07:53 PM

Shuttles and a streetcar aren't necessary. Let the LRT be the incentive for downtown CC to build out to the line and ultimately it won't seem so far.

Agree with this. It's only a couple of blocks with little of value between, say, Trader Joe's or Native Foods and the station. Bus service is adequate on Venice, Robertson, etc.

But it would be good to get some development and light around there. It is a bit isolated late at night and well-lit open areas would help.

saiholmes

January 1st, 2012, 04:12 PM

Final environmental document for Crenshaw/LAX Line approved by FTA
Metro - Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority - The Source
Posted Dec 30, 2011 by Steve Hymon in Projects

Good news for Metro on the final business day of 2011: The Federal Transit Administration has approved the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report for the Crenshaw/LAX Line, the light rail project that will run between the Green Line and the Exposition Line.

The approval allows Metro to go forward with any necessary property acquisitions, utility relocation and the purchase of any rail cars needed for the project. It also makes Metro eligible for any federal funding requested for the project. (The bulk of the project will be funded by the Measure R sales tax increase approved by L.A. County voters in 2008).

Read More: http://thesource.metro.net/2011/12/30/final-environmental-document-for-crenshawlax-line-approved-by-fta/

klamedia

January 3rd, 2012, 01:23 PM

This feels like the MTA's stealth train. Eventhough there has been controversy surrounding the train as in the Leimert Park station etc. it seems to be moving right along receiving Obama money and getting crucial nods to be able to move forward. This line has the potential to be a workhorse train when it eventually runs from Hollywood to LAX connecting with possibly 3 other lines on its route. Crenshaw already a wide and grand boulevard could see the most transformational impact of any of our existing LRT routes. I envision handsome mixed use developments lining the blvd with rows and rows of mature trees and the Pink Line running down the center. Could be awesome.

pesto

January 4th, 2012, 05:47 PM

The Crenshaw bus handles this very nicely at zero additional cost. This is simply NOT a major thoroughfare. Not busy even at rush hour.

A non-stop bus from Hollywood to LAX may be needed (presumably on La Brea) if development continues in Hollywood and along La Brea; but not a pokey ride with about 20 stops.

klamedia

January 4th, 2012, 07:15 PM

Can't see the forest for the trees.

pesto

January 5th, 2012, 05:28 PM

Oh, Klam, you and I both know this was a present to local politicos and nobody really believes this is worth building. Same as Foothill. The only good news is that Crenshaw is so lightly travelled that it won't mess up anything.

klamedia

January 5th, 2012, 06:44 PM

pesto

January 5th, 2012, 07:11 PM

It's not a present when voters in the Crenshaw district voted to pass Measure R and would like to see the effects of such support kind of like the rest of the county. It's not a present when Crenshaw LRT has been discussed for the last 20 years during the Burke days before Measure R as a north/south connection between Hollywood and South LA/LAX. If Crenshaw was envisioned as not connecting to LAX nor Expo nor Purple nor Hollywood then I'd see your point. But this line has the ability to become a very necessary piece in complimenting our growing regional rail network.

Drive along Crenshaw. Empty most of the time; moving freely at rush hours. No density; no high-rise; no demand; no growth. The buses move easily. Seriously, it's deserted compared to Vermont, Normandie, Western, etc.

If you want to connect Hollywood to LAX, then use an express bus along La Brea, over Baldwin Hills. MUCH faster and more convenient than a LRT with 20 stops that won't be fully connected for 20 years.

Connecting Expo to Purple and Hollywood is a completely different project. That part is fine, although I would go heavy rail.

klamedia

January 5th, 2012, 07:31 PM

That argument can be made. OTH the potential for growth along the boulevard is enormous. The other streets that I would include an alignment over Crenshaw would be Vermont and Western. But I think we've been over all of this before or you should know by this point why Crenshaw has been selected over the others. Run at-grade easily. At-grade costs less initially than tunneling underneath those other streets. The very fact that the blvd is underutilized attracts the MTA so that the agency can make land use decisions that will benefit the line. Metro makes lots of $$ from its joint-development partnerships that steer land use.

The political will in the area is off the charts. Not only do you have street activists like Damien "nuke" Goodman but you also have MRT on a county and legislative level. The squeaky wheels are the one that will get infrastructure projects during this era of rail building, thought you'd like that.
Or we can just go with a more Robert Moses top-down approach and make the decisions solely in the MTA headquarters as to what area gets lines according to our data.

It seems that you are vacillating between trying to demonize the MTA as a top-down agency and at the same time stating that the people in the area are receiving this "gift" because of their constant agitation. I'm not sure which side you're on anymore.

Do you want the MTA to be a true top-down agency that builds lines up and down Vermont and Western where there exists very little political will in comparison to Crenshaw? Or would you like the agency to listen to the areas that are saying that they will enhance their urban form, change land use, allow denser projects to compliment the line as the small cities in the SGV have gone out of their way in doing to bring their land use into some sort of congruency with a major transportation alignment? Sorry, but I won't allow you to play both sides of the fence.

dachacon

January 12th, 2012, 10:03 AM

Expo Line could be ready for rail passengers in early April

Metro officials Monday said they have entered the final phase of testing along the first segment of the Expo Line, a signal that the train could open to the public by early April.

The final testing phase, called pre-revenue service, generally takes about three months and simulates actual service but without passengers.

It includes training some 100 operators and supervisors along the full segment from the 7th Street/Metro Center stop downtown to the La Cienega/Jefferson stop 7.9 miles away at the eastern edge of Culver City.

Officials have not yet set an opening date and said the final testing phase could run shorter or longer.

Technical problems previously held up the testing, specifically at the junction where the Expo Line shares tracks with the Blue Line. The issue was that signals from the track were not reaching rail operators along that part of the line.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/expo-line-possibly-ready-in-april.html

pesto

January 13th, 2012, 06:57 PM

eltodesukane

January 20th, 2012, 07:10 PM

Why are the Expo Line station shelters so unsheltered? They are useless as a shelter. Just go wait there on a cold rainy day.

klamedia

January 22nd, 2012, 06:00 PM

We can always hope for fund cut-off, but it looks like a done deal at this time.

My recollection was that the locals were opposed at the MTA Crenshaw meetings, preferring upgraded bus, which would disrupt traffic less. As I recall Ridley-Thomas was advised to "stand near the door" if he was going to push tearing up Crenshaw for years. But he and the unions pushed through the more expensive plan and then added even more cost for mitigation by putting it underground. Not what I would call "bottoms-up".

I actually attended those initial meetings and yes early on the community was stupidly championing a bus. But as your own account of events show, MRT was always for rail and he along with community activists got the public on the side of rail as well. You actually proved my point. The public was EDUCATED as to what would be best for their community. After the education period they began advocating. This was truly a grassroots education campaign that I thought would be something that you caffeine-free tea types would extol!
You can't play both sides of the fence.

pesto

January 23rd, 2012, 06:18 PM

I actually attended those initial meetings and yes early on the community was stupidly championing a bus. But as your own account of events show, MRT was always for rail and he along with community activists got the public on the side of rail as well. You actually proved my point. The public was EDUCATED as to what would be best for their community. After the education period they began advocating. This was truly a grassroots education campaign that I thought would be something that you caffeine-free tea types would extol!
You can't play both sides of the fence.

Educated, overriden, ignored, stifled. What's in a word?

klamedia

January 24th, 2012, 02:22 AM

pesto

January 24th, 2012, 05:46 PM

Far from overriden if you'd had any knowledge of and if you had been to any of the MTA meetings downtown with buses of Crenshaw area residents loading into the hall to fight for LRT. They had been EDUCATED about the advantages of rail over a glorified bus line and they responded. Unless you've let your whacky take hold of you and think that these people were perhaps shot up with dopamine by MRT and DNG and bussed like zombies to MTA headquarters. This IS what grassroots looks like. This IS what an elected official is supposed to do. EDUCATE and ENLIGHTEN the constituency and prevent them from fighting against their better interest.

Wow, that would be cool, bringing truck loads of zombies to MTA meetings! Would they be trying to eat each other?

btw, I assume you mean the audience are zombies, not the management and staff?

pesto

January 24th, 2012, 06:00 PM

Far from overriden if you'd had any knowledge of and if you had been to any of the MTA meetings downtown with buses of Crenshaw area residents loading into the hall to fight for LRT. They had been EDUCATED about the advantages of rail over a glorified bus line and they responded. Unless you've let your whacky take hold of you and think that these people were perhaps shot up with dopamine by MRT and DNG and bussed like zombies to MTA headquarters. This IS what grassroots looks like. This IS what an elected official is supposed to do. EDUCATE and ENLIGHTEN the constituency and prevent them from fighting against their better interest.

More seriously, this is geniuinely scary. It's pretty much straight totalitarian doctrine: the elites know what's right for you and you don't, so you must submit or get re-educated. Sounds like John Dewey praising the wonderful steps that Lenin was taking in re-educating the Russians to understand the "scientific" truth of history and society, and which advocated for the US. Even he repudiated it by 1940 after about 6M murders. Examples from the right are plentiful as well.

klamedia

January 24th, 2012, 06:59 PM

Silliness.

tanzirian

January 26th, 2012, 10:56 PM

Why someone speaking in support of something is considered tantamount to communism is baffling to me. Why being "educated" or "enlightened" about a topic is bad thing, is similarly strange. So, it's better not to have a discussion about projects affecting the community, and to make decisions without listening to other people? This will protect us from the red devil?

milquetoast

January 27th, 2012, 05:29 AM

Soylent Green is PEOPLE!

DaveLA_CA

January 28th, 2012, 08:55 PM

Why are the Expo Line station shelters so unsheltered? They are useless as a shelter. Just go wait there on a cold rainy day.

Because like most outdoor shelters in L.A. they are designed mostly to shade from the sun, not protect against inclement weather like wind off the lake or heavy snow.

CCs77

January 30th, 2012, 01:52 PM

Expo Line pre-revenue service to begin Monday

At today’s Metro Board meeting, agency CEO Art Leahy announced that pre-revenue testing for the Expo Line will begin this coming Monday.

The testing is intended to simulate actual service with trains running on a regular schedule, but with no customers on board. Trains will be operating between the Expo Line terminus at 7th/Metro Center and the La Cienega/Jefferson station while work continues on the final station in Culver City.

http://thesource.metro.net/2012/01/26/expo-line-pre-revenue-service-to-begin-monday/

redspork02

February 1st, 2012, 04:39 AM

Streetsblog Los Angeles

Monday, January 30, 2012
The Mayor’s Office, Measure R and Multiple “Plan B’s”
by Damien Newton

When the Mayor and his staff in city hall say that nothing is off the table when it comes to accelerating project development and construction for the transit projects funded by the Measure R sales tax, they aren’t just talking. While the Mayor promised that there was a “Plan B” if his efforts to change federal law to favor communities that tax themselves to build transit don’t go anywhere in D.C.

Now, on the eve of announcement of a new federal transportation bill from leadership in the House of Representatives, the Mayor’s office is pursuing three different options to leverage the expected $40 billion in sales tax revenue over the 30 years between 2009 and 2039. Besides the pursuit of federal dollars, there is also the possibility of asking L.A. County voters to tax themselves again and working with equity firms in China to finance the projects.

Last week, Streetsblog talked to Deputy Mayor for Transportation Borja Leon about the different options being pursued and where the city is in the process.

Plan A: America Fast Forward Née 30/10

“Plan A” is still the 30/10 or America Fast Forward plan to change federal law to reward communities that choose to tax themsleves to expand transit. If enacted, the Mayor’s proposal would create interest free loan programs that would allow projects to get started earlier and would re-prioritize federal grant programs. When Republican leadership in the House of Representatives and Democratic leadership in the Senate announced proposals last year, both included major increases in the TIFIA loan program which is a major provision of America Fast Forward.

The Mayor’s Office appears confident that this increase will remain. ”We have been working with the Federal Government and have a great partnership,” explains Leon. ”A lot of things have been moving in the last week with America Fast Forward.”

We should find out if the confidence, and Mayor’s lobbying efforts, have paid off this week.

When considering the prospects for Measure R+, it's important to remember the role that highway expansion planed in selling the "transit tax" in 2008.

Plan B: Measure R+

Earlier this month Assemblyman Mike Feuer, a close ally of the Mayor when it comes to transportation expansion in Los Angeles, announced new legislation that would allow L.A. County voters to vote on extending the Measure R transit tax, creating opportunities to speed up the construction time of projects through bonding and perhaps add to or improve existing projects. Supporters of transit expansion have dubbed the proposal “Measure R+.” But it could also be dubbed, “Plan B.”

Getting “Measure R+” from legislative proposal to passage by L.A. County voters is a tall bill. First, AB 1446 must be approved by a pair of committees in the State Assembly before moving to final passage on the Assembly floor. Then the process has to repeat itself in the Senate.

On this front, Leon is confident that Feuer can shepherd the bill through the process. “Assemblymember Feuer has been a great partner; he helped the Mayor with Measure R at the State Legislature. If its the Extension or anything else to accelerate Measure R, the Mayor will fight hard to get it done,” Leon says.

From there, passage of a sales tax still has a long road to go. The bill has to be signed into law by the Governor, the same Governor that hopes to have a statewide tax to balance the state budget on the ballot. Some tax experts believe that the more tax initiatives on the ballot, the less the chance that they will pass. It’s also possible that funding for High Speed Rail could be on the ballot. Will Jerry Brown want to risk one his statewide projects to allow a local sales tax proposal? With this governor, it’s hard to predict.

Even if the Governor signs the bill into law, then the Metro Board of Directors and L.A. County Board of Supervisors has to act to put a measure on the fall ballot. Even then, it would take a two-thirds vote of L.A. County voters to pass the measure.

The stars were in alignment to pass Measure R in 2008. Are they similarly aligned in 2012?

Plan C: Financial Support from Chinese Investors

Many were surprised when L.A. Times transportation writer Ari Bloomekatz reported that Mayor Villaraigosa was talking to Chinese investors about financing a front-load of Measure R transit projects a mere ten days ago. Leon writes that negotiations began in the fall of last year and are ongoing, but are still in the early phases.

“In Ocotober 2011, the MTA was approached by several parties concerning unsolicited offers of low-interest financing. Soon after, the CEO released a memo to the Board explaining the interest from Sovereign Wealth Funds. If there are parties that offer financing terms that are below current U.S. market rates, we should be willing to explore them. If the Chinese and/or any Sovereign Wealth Fund is willing to provide such terms we shouldn’t automatically discount it,” he explains.

There are several barriers to bringing this proposal to reality as well. Working with investors in a foreign country is never easy, even if the investors have experience working in other countries. Even if the county, Metro and the investors are all in agreement, there’s always the chance that such a deal could become politically problematic.

The other question is whether there will be other “add-ons” to a proposal with the Chinese that could make the loan less valuable than one from a more local equity firm. Will L.A. have to buy passenger cars or other technologies from Chinese manufacturers? Will L.A. County actually get a better deal by getting a higher interest loan from an American firm that has less strings attached? All those details remain to be worked out.

Going Forward

Denny Zane, the executive director of Move L.A., the organization most known for pushing the original Measure R believes there is merit in all three proposals, but sees “Measure R+” as the key to getting the eight transit projects that aren’t under construction, under construction.

“If you have to borrow to accelerate 12 transit projects, and gain the jobs, the economic development and environmental benefits soon, the real issue is your borrowing costs,” Zane writes.
“We should be willing to borrow from the federal government, from private entities like pension funds, or from the Chinese government – whoever gives us the most favorable terms. But we need to put ourselves in the best position to negotiate favorable terms; that is why I think the extension of Measure R proposal is a very smart idea.”
As the clock is ticking on Villaraigosa’s term, which ends in June of next year, there’s clearly a lot of work to do to see the Mayor’s transit vision become reality in a near-term timeline. And as if these three ideas weren’t enough to pursue, Leon hints that there could be another surprise proposal come our way.

“We’re always looking for our next Plan B,” the Deputy Mayor concludes.

http://la.streetsblog.org/2012/01/30/the-mayors-office-and-plan-b/

klamedia

February 1st, 2012, 05:42 PM

Well it's the Repubs who are blocking the additional funding always citing the private industry angle. So they should endorse LA's attempt at having Chinese firms to build our transit projects for us. "red" please provide a link to your articles.

pesto

February 1st, 2012, 07:38 PM

30/10 is the way to go since it connects funding to an expressed interest in the local populace to tax themselves. We all support LA's Purple Line, but every group in the country has a wish-list and the big cities and states with political acumen will siphon off the bulk of the funds for local "high priority" projects.

Chinese funding: working out the details? There isn't even a picture yet. This is closer to a rumor than a plan.

klamedia

February 1st, 2012, 09:09 PM

The Purple Line is the most pressing transit project in the nation hands down. It would most likely be first in line for new funding from Congress.

pesto

February 2nd, 2012, 07:47 PM

The Purple Line is the most pressing transit project in the nation hands down. It would most likely be first in line for new funding from Congress.

Certainly my view as well.

milquetoast

February 7th, 2012, 09:33 AM

METRO RED LINE CANOPIES . Addition of prototypical entrance canopies to 14 gateway and local subway stations throughout downtown Los Angeles. The designs for the canopies feature elliptical laminated panelized glass roofs with a steel ring beam and steel structure providing weather protection, lighting, new iconic identity element, and information systems. . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/9d5fa450b67761d39948d051c9293c1d.jpg . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/behancenet.jpg . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/12ef7f617373df7e1aa3681f93520282.jpg . BEHANCE.NET

soup or man

March 9th, 2012, 11:44 PM

http://thesource.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/L.A.-October-26-NORMAL-Background-1.jpg
http://thesource.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Side-View.jpg
http://thesource.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/FullInteriorView.jpg
http://thesource.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/InteriorDoorArea.jpg

http://thesource.metro.net/2012/03/08/metro-staff-recommends-contract-for-purchase-of-new-light-rail-cars/?utm_source=rss

redspork02

March 18th, 2012, 02:01 AM

ABC7 Eyewitness News ‏ @abc7 Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
#BREAKINGNEWS: 6 people have been injured in a collision involving a car and an Expo Line test train downtown

dachacon

March 18th, 2012, 01:11 PM

Well that didn't take long not even open and already people are crashing into it

slipperydog

March 20th, 2012, 03:06 AM

Final EIR is out with station locations for Century City, Westwood, and VA

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/03/final_plans_for_wilshire_subway_tunneling_under_bev_hills_high_westwoodwilshire_station.php

http://thesource.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Travel-Times.jpg

Kenni

March 24th, 2012, 07:59 AM

Expo Line's opening day finally set
Phase one of Los Angeles' much-delayed and ever-costlier first line into the Westside in 50 years is set to open April 28. Most of it, anyway.

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2012-03/69004685.jpg

FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-expo-ride-20120324,0,3990651.story

PotatoGuy

March 27th, 2012, 01:21 AM

Ahhhh!! This is amazing news! Los Angeles is slowly building up its public transport, it makes so happy :)

redspork02

March 30th, 2012, 06:02 AM

L.A.’s Westside Subway is Practically Ready for Construction, But Its Completion Could be 25 Years Off
March 25th, 2012 | 74 Comments

» The Wilshire Corridor metro extension’s final environmental impact statement is released.

Of the nation’s public transportation improvement projects, Los Angeles’ Westside Subway is one of the most important: It would offer an alternative option for tens of thousands of daily riders and speed travel times by up to 50% compared to existing transit trips. It would serve one of the nation’s densest and most jobs-rich urban corridors and in doing so take a major step forward towards making L.A. a place where getting around without a car is comfortable.

L.A. County’s transit provider, Metro, released the final environmental impact statement for the 8.9-mile Westside Subway project last week, providing the most up-to-date details on a multi-billion-dollar scheme that is expected to enter the construction phase next year. The project received a positive review by the Federal Transit Administration in the Obama Administration’s FY 2013 budget, and it is likely to receive a full-funding grant agreement from Washington later this year. Local revenue sources generated by taxes authorized over the years by voters will cover the majority of the project’s cost.

But questions about the project’s completion timeline remain unanswered: Will L.A. have to rely on conventional sources of financing, or be able to take advantage of federally-backed loans to speed construction?

In addition, the project’s specific plans for station construction suggest that there are opportunities to improve station layout and do more to develop land around certain stops.

(I) The Project’s Significance

Many of the rail expansion projects being built in the United States today serve corridors with rather limited existing bus service — there are few people who currently take the bus from downtown Washington to Tyson’s Corner or Dulles Airport, for instance, but a huge Metro extension is currently being built to connect the three, fundamentally to build a new market of transit riders.

L.A.’s westside, on the other hand, already has a very large base of transit users, and most of them are concentrated on the Wilshire Boulevard Corridor, which runs from downtown, through Beverly Hills, the Century City business district, and UCLA, before reaching Santa Monica. The three intermediary areas together contain about 150,000 jobs, about as many as downtown L.A. — and most of them are concentrated within a quarter mile of the street. The city’s famed congestion, especially severe in this area, has attracted people to transit: The local and express bus routes along the line — the 20 and 720 — carry about 60,000 daily riders.

It is no surprise, then, that the corridor has been a focus of L.A. transit investment proposals for decades. The Purple Line subway, which currently terminates at the Wilshire and Western station, was supposed to extend much further into the city when it was first designed, but the threat of gas explosions, a lack of adequate funding, and significant political opposition delayed that action. Yet the election of Antonio Villaraigosa to the mayoralty of L.A. City in 2005 altered the situation entirely, as he ran on a platform that explicitly endorsed the project’s completion and he later campaigned for a sales tax increase to pay for the project — 2008′s Measure R — passed by a large majority of voters. An alignment with seven new stations was selected by Metro in Fall 2010 after three years of studies, though final decisions on station locations were not announced until this week.

Estimates released by the agency point to the degree to which the subway will improve the performance of the transit system, whose service to the westside is currently plagued by traffic-induced delays. Trips from downtown’s Pershing Square to UCLA will decline from 55 to 25 minutes. Riders travelling from South L.A. will save 23 minutes on their journeys; those from east L.A. and Pasadena will save 29 minutes (see above image). These travel time savings are enormous — more than almost any other transit project in the country — and will attract a projected 49,300 daily riders to the line.

Though the subway’s completion will likely not reduce congestion on the highways (because automobile capacity, it seems, never ceases to be consumed), those who need to travel within the corridor will get a new, much faster travel option that is in many cases faster than that which is offered by private automobile, a remarkable achievement in the realm of public transit.

(II) Questions of Time

Because all of L.A. County’s voters approved the Measure R sales tax increase, it would have been unreasonable to focus all revenues in one corridor (and indeed, one suspects that such a plan would not have been approved). Thus the Westside Subway shares the stage with a blizzard of other transit projects being funded over the next twenty years, including the Regional Connector, Crenshaw Corridor, Exposition Line, Gold Line Extensions, South Bay Green Line Extension, and Orange Line Extensions, among others. The large quantity of funds being consumed to build these lines mean that under conventional financing techniques, the Westside Subway will not be completed to its proposed terminus at the V.A. Medical Center until 2036. Only the first phase — a 3.9-mile link to the intersection of Wilshire and La Cienega — would be done by 2020.

For Mayor Villaraigosa and much of the L.A. community, this timeline is unacceptable: To have to wait almost twenty-five years to see a long-planned project completed is scary. Yet the Westside Subway’s $4.4 billion cost (in 2011 terms) is too large for the county to raise money for in a short time period.

Thus L.A. proposed its 30/10 initiative — later renamed America Fast Forward — to use federal loan guarantees to reduce the cost of borrowing and essentially use tax revenues expected to be raised in the future to pay for projects today. This proposal, concretized in the expansion of TIFIA proposed by the U.S. Senate in its transportation reauthorization bill earlier this month, would make it possible for L.A. to build its full subway line by 2022, fourteen years ahead of schedule. Advancing the project’s completion would reduce year-of-expenditure costs for the project from $6.29 billion in the 2036 completion date scheme to $5.66 billion in the sped-up scheme. And it would do it without increasing the level of federal grant commitments to the project, just by reducing borrowing costs for the local agency. Because future residents of L.A. will benefit from transit expansion now, it does not seem unreasonable to use future revenues to pay for the project.

Yet there remains a possibility that the U.S. House, controlled by a GOP delegation that has opposed practically all legislation that Democrats have proposed, will decide not to pass the Senate’s bill and therefore prevent the expansion of the TIFIA program. This would put the timely completion of the Westside Subway in serious doubt.

(III) Station Location

Whatever the Westside Subway’s overall merits in terms of travel time improvements, there remain significant questions about how exactly the line will be constructed. After all, a well-designed transit project is not only one that moves people quickly from station to station but also one that cultivates dense, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.

Though for the most part the project’s construction has been welcomed by affected neighborhoods, the Century City station — about halfway down the line — has undergone significant opposition because of the proposed alignment. Metro supports the construction of a stop under Constellation Avenue, in the heart of the Century City business district, compared to an alternative under Santa Monica Boulevard, about two blocks north. This is the reasonable choice as the latter alignment runs through an earthquake-prone zone, faces a golf course, has half as many jobs within a quarter mile (10,000 versus 20,000), and would see a third fewer daily boardings according to current estimates (5,500 versus 8,600). Though some locals have complained that the Constellation routing would run under Beverly Hills High School and therefore put students in danger, those concerns are hyperbolic considering precedent in other cities and the obvious advantages of that alignment.

Although most of the stations on the proposed line will have entrances at street intersections in relatively dense, urban areas,* the stop at the end of the line, at Westwood/V.A. Hospital, is an exception. The station exit as proposed would deposit people onto a series of winding paths just adjacent to a parking lot and a section of Wilshire Boulevard that is effectively an expressway (at the intersection with Bonsall), about 1,200 feet away from the entrance to the V.A. Medical Center (see above image). The situation is made worse by the parkland just adjacent to the stop and the impassable barrier of I-405 northeast of the stop. This is a pedestrian-hostile environment that will offer a disincentive to taking the train.

As Metro’s Steve Hymon notes, the V.A. Hospital stop will play an important role in serving the region’s veterans, but terminating the line there misses tens of thousands more people living further southwest along Wilshire in dense neighborhoods. They, too, should be provided improved transit service, but they will have to wait until 2036 or later to see another subway extension because of budget limitations. Many of them will likely want to drive to the station in order to take the subway because of the significant time savings offered, but Metro proposes no park-and-ride facilities there. Though bus connections will be important, the agency is effectively losing out on potential passengers by not providing for that need.

It would make sense for Metro to consider working with the V.A. Hospital to develop the parking lot directly abutting the stop into a high-density residential or office use, considering the significant demand likely to be spurred on by the completion of the subway.

* With stations spaced at about one station per mile, the argument could be made that these neighborhoods are not being served well enough, especially the community situated between the proposed UCLA and Century City stations, which would be about two miles apart.

See the project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement, Final Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary and Accelerated Financial Plan.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/03/25/l-a-s-westside-subway-is-practically-ready-for-construction-but-its-completion-could-be-25-years-off/

Kenni

April 1st, 2012, 12:44 AM

25?!!! Milque will be dead by then, that's unacceptable!!

kubabh

April 1st, 2012, 01:05 AM

well its good to see that los angeles is starting investing money in public transport.few years ago i was trying to get from north hollywood to zuma with public transport and it takes me like 6h :)

CITYofDREAMS

April 1st, 2012, 08:20 AM

That MTA map is starting to look really good.

Manila_Artista87

April 2nd, 2012, 10:35 AM

So no longer the subway to the sea it seems. Pretty useless just stopping it right at the hospital and not continuing on obtaining more patronage along the way...

dachacon

April 2nd, 2012, 11:02 AM

^^
Useless?? I think not my friend. The area the line will service is the densest area of LA, so once you leave the hospital area density drops considerably. Ridership will not increase much until you reach the ocean.

klamedia

April 3rd, 2012, 06:35 PM

well its good to see that los angeles is starting investing money in public transport.few years ago i was trying to get from north hollywood to zuma with public transport and it takes me like 6h :)

40 miles through mountainous and low dense areas and you expect public transit to get you there under 6 hours? Just buy a car. :ohno:

Marco Polo

April 4th, 2012, 09:37 AM

It would be great if that line gets extended.

I have just moved to Santa Monica and to go Downtown take 720 all the way or change at Western to the Purple Line. the bus gets VERY BUSY at most times. Would be so much better for everyone if the line got extended. Even if it is only to Westwood initially.

pesto

April 10th, 2012, 11:46 PM

No doubt that extending to SM is the best thing but it's still something to get to the 405.

pesto

April 11th, 2012, 08:37 PM

Looks like a little progress in getting MetroLink Sylmar linked to Westwood and LAX. Making the very reasonable assumption that HSR is not coming through the Valley to LAX, then a dedicated express bus lane on the 405 is about as good as can be hoped for.

pesto

April 24th, 2012, 11:35 PM

croyboy

April 25th, 2012, 12:25 AM

^^ i think it will. lots of people in culver city work in dt and sm.. at peak rush hour, any rail makes sense from anywhere to anywhere. plus it would be nice to not have to pay for parking downtown or the beach especially when you're in it for the recreation or are seeing family.

klamedia

April 25th, 2012, 06:51 PM

And when the DC opens it will give direct access for those in East LA to the job rich and bevy of entertainment/recreation options that the Westside provides.

dachacon

April 26th, 2012, 10:50 AM

The new tables say that Expo will take under half an hour from Culver City to 7th St. (when CC actually opens). Not bad. I would think this is a clear winner as far as time and cost of commuting. Not sure if the ride from Santa Monica will make as much sense.

I guess it will be a bit longer when Farmdale opens.

My guess it the times will go down, Remember when the Goldline to Pasadena Opened? the original timetables showed it would take 35 minutes and after a few years of operations and operators familiarizing with the line the total time has been brought down to 25-30 minutes. While 5 minutes is not anything to cheer about it is a small improvement.

I expect the same thing to happen here, take 30 minutes to get to Culver City, the first few months, then i expect the time to drop to 20-25 minutes, and just under 50 minutes for the entire line to Santa Monica.

Time will tell.

slipperydog

April 27th, 2012, 04:17 AM

Regional Connector given green light, to break ground in 2013

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/04/downtowns_regional_connector_line_greenlit_with_little_drama.php

EIR for Phase 1 of Purple Line extension approved

http://thesource.metro.net/2012/04/26/metro-board-approves-final-environmental-study-for-westside-subway-extension/#more-40712

pesto

April 27th, 2012, 07:59 PM

My guess it the times will go down, Remember when the Goldline to Pasadena Opened? the original timetables showed it would take 35 minutes and after a few years of operations and operators familiarizing with the line the total time has been brought down to 25-30 minutes. While 5 minutes is not anything to cheer about it is a small improvement.

I expect the same thing to happen here, take 30 minutes to get to Culver City, the first few months, then i expect the time to drop to 20-25 minutes, and just under 50 minutes for the entire line to Santa Monica.

Time will tell.

That would be good news. Five minutes is significant difference multiplied twice a day for 200 days.

croyboy: what I meant was that DT to SM might not make sense since it will push an hour. CC to either DT or SM seems to make sense. And for sure, almost any transit makes sense at rush hour.

ryebreadraz

April 27th, 2012, 09:56 PM

slipperydog

April 27th, 2012, 11:45 PM

CCs77

April 28th, 2012, 07:44 PM

Here's the thing that gets me about the Regional Connector. If I'm on the Expo Line and am trying to get to Pasadena or anything like that, I need to transfer twice, getting on the Regional Connector, then the Gold Line. At this point I don't think there's a better option because we're not getting every line to Union Station so they can all transfer there, but I think having to transfer three times is going to deter people.

If you are on the Expo Line and are trying to get to Pasadena, you only have to transfer once, preferably at 7th/Metro Center. This is because the Regional Connector is not a separate line, it's simply part of the Expo, Blue, and Gold Lines.

But the Blue, Yellow and Expo lines will no longer exist as such once the Regional Connector enters service, since the lines will be reconfigured.
The Expo line will merge with the section of Yellow line going to East Los Angeles, while the Blue line will merge with the sectión of the Yellow line that will go to Azusa by then. So the three lines will become two long lines, that will share the Regional Connector.

P.S. Congratulations for the opening of the Expo Line, Finally!

LosAngelesSportsFan

April 28th, 2012, 08:19 PM

If you are on the Expo Line and are trying to get to Pasadena, you only have to transfer once, preferably at 7th/Metro Center. This is because the Regional Connector is not a separate line, it's simply part of the Expo, Blue, and Gold Lines.

actually, i think the point of the connector is that you will not have to transfer. they will have lines going form pasadena to santa monica and lines going from east la to long beach.

im not 100% on this but i thought this is how it was going to work

soup or man

April 28th, 2012, 09:11 PM

^ Almost got it. :)

http://laist.com/attachments/la_zach/regional_connector_concept.jpg

slipperydog

April 28th, 2012, 10:57 PM

actually, i think the point of the connector is that you will not have to transfer. they will have lines going form pasadena to santa monica and lines going from east la to long beach.

im not 100% on this but i thought this is how it was going to work

Azusa to Long Beach. East LA to Santa Monica. One transfer from SM to Pasadena.

ryebreadraz

April 28th, 2012, 11:41 PM

Okay, I get it now. Now I can't wait for it to be done. I'm already done driving to Laker games and once the RC is done I won't be driving to Dodger games either. Love it.

soup or man

April 29th, 2012, 06:52 AM

So I rode the Expo Line today. The split with the Blue Line is problematic. We had to wait about 10 minutes. But other than that, it's fast, goes to a lot of places, and it's already a hit.

slipperydog

April 29th, 2012, 08:09 AM

So I rode the Expo Line today. The split with the Blue Line is problematic. We had to wait about 10 minutes. But other than that, it's fast, goes to a lot of places, and it's already a hit.

Hmmmm...we only had to wait a couple minutes. Suppose it just depends.

saybanana

April 29th, 2012, 10:43 AM

The Expo train went through both ways without any wait at the interchange when I took it. Only snag was that there was a possible breakdown somewhere between on the line going towards DTLA. Five westbound trains went through the on the opposite direction while I was waiting at USC for my train to come. The train is really slow from DTLA to Vermont (much much slower than going through Highland Park on the Gold Line), but really fast from Vermont to La Cienega. Great views from the aerial stations.

soup or man

April 29th, 2012, 05:29 PM

Hmmmm...we only had to wait a couple minutes. Suppose it just depends.

I rode the Expo Line around 3 in the afternoon so I'm guessing I got caught in rush hour. Even on a Saturday. :P

Nonetheless, the Expo Line is already a hit. I'm going to guess that downtown, USC and Culver City are going to be the ones that greatly benefit from the Expo Line in terms of development. I got off at the Expo Park/USC Station and walked in the Rose Garden. I have never been there and it's really pretty. It was packed with people playing on the grass, eating, reading, chilling out. It was interesting to see everyone commenting on how this will help them get around. It's going to take a lot of cars off the road that's for sure.

State of the Union

April 29th, 2012, 07:48 PM

Signal preemption will kill every issue this line has. It's really that simple.

Elsongs

April 30th, 2012, 08:40 PM

Azusa to Long Beach. East LA to Santa Monica. One transfer from SM to Pasadena.

A friend of mine who works for Metro Rail Operations tells me there's the possibility of special rush-hour direct service between Santa Monica and Azusa when the Regional Connector is done.

Elsongs

April 30th, 2012, 08:57 PM

The Expo Line opening on Saturday was a great day. I got off at the Expo Park/USC station after boarding at 7/MC. It was special for me since I have been waiting 20 years to ride a train to USC!

I was the first person to write about an Exposition line in the USC campus newspaper 20 years ago:

http://elsongeles.elsongs.com/?p=1303

pesto

April 30th, 2012, 10:33 PM

dachacon

May 1st, 2012, 09:34 AM

With the Opening of the Expo line Phase I, and Phase II for both the Expo Line and Goldline's under construction, I was looking at the Metro Long Range Plan

http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/images/final-2009-LRTP.pdf

With 2 projects down(soon to be 3 the Orange line) and 3 under Construction and another 2 starting Construction next year, I say its time to start updating the long term plan. If you look at page 31 Figure O, there is a unfunded project list, including the Vermont Subway, and the Yellow Line from Downtown to Glendale.
If Measure R, is permanently renewed, then these projects can finally be taken off the drawing board and on a serious timetable. :banana:

klamedia

May 1st, 2012, 06:14 PM

pesto

May 1st, 2012, 10:55 PM

I agree. If the idea is to lure people who have options on how to get somewhere, this is not good. Delays on transit are psychologically deadly.

Elsongs

May 2nd, 2012, 06:35 AM

Rode Expo Monday morning. The stretch between 7th and its ROW is unfortunately problematic. Psychologically it feels long and to see cars with one person turning in front of this billion $$ investment is shameful. If Metro really wants to capture "discretionary" riders this needs to be fixed. Repeat: This problem needs to be fixed. This is a deal breaker.

FWIW, they are running 3-car trains on this line, so the passengers are spread out among these cars. The Blue Line ran with 2-car trains until around 2001 or so.

Besides, give it some time, the kinks WILL be worked out. They were able to shave 5 or 6 minutes from the Union Station-Pasadena Gold Line since it first opened in 2003.

milquetoast

May 2nd, 2012, 01:30 PM

LACKLUSTER EXPO LINE REFLECTS METRO'S WEAK GRASP OF DESIGN FROM DATED, AND ALMOST USELESS CANOPIES TO THE JARRING STRETCH OF BRICK NEAR USC, THE EXPO LINE IS AN ARCHITECTURAL MIX OF GOALS THAT NEVER FULLY MESHES INTO ONE UNIFYING CONCEPT http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture52201241524AM.jpg This is getting to be a pattern. Every time a major rail line opens in Los Angeles, my reaction tends to unfold in two distinct parts: excitement tempered pretty quickly by a sense of disappointment, of opportunities missed.

The $930-million Expo Line is the latest example.

The excitement flows from the way new transit lines are remaking — genuinely, thoroughly remaking — the civic, cultural and architectural map of Los Angeles. Running south and then bending west from downtown, skirting the campuses of L.A. Trade Tech and USC before reaching the corner of Jefferson and La Cienega boulevards, the Expo Line's first phase, with its eight stops, has brought the city's light-rail network to the doorstep of the dense Westside.

When two more stations open over the summer, the line will cover a total of 8.6 miles. It will add Culver City, incubator in recent years of art galleries and ambitious restaurants, to a light-rail and subway system that already ranges north to the San Fernando Valley, south to Long Beach and east to Sierra Madre. A final phase will extend the Expo Line west to Santa Monica by 2015 or early 2016, delivering riders within a few blocks of the beach.

The architecture of the new stations, unfortunately, is not just weak but somehow aggressively banal.

If that strikes you as a contradiction in terms, you're right. The stations seemingly want to disappear into the cityscape and at the same time assert a Big Metaphorical Idea about what public transit means for Los Angeles. And in trying to do both, of course, they do neither.

Designed primarily by Roland Genick, chief architect for rail and transit systems at Parsons, the huge Pasadena-based construction conglomerate, the new stations are topped by undulating light-blue canopies of perforated metal panels that are not only dated — bringing a public-art project from the early 1990s to mind — but provide almost no shade or rain protection. Or solar power, for that matter, though from certain angles the stations look a bit like they're covered with photovoltaic panels.

The canopies are meant to suggest a woven pattern, symbolic of the way new Metro routes, and the Expo Line in particular, are knitting parts of the city together. (Their design is a modified version of an idea first developed by L.A. artist Cliff Garten in 2004.) Gruen Associates and Miyamoto International also contributed to station design, along with Jorge J. Pardo, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's director of creative services.

In concept, the weaving idea is perfectly inoffensive. In execution, it has grown into a sort of ornamental kudzu. It overwhelms the rest of the station architecture, which is generally understated, even minimalist, and the impressive landscape design (also, according to Genick, handled by Parsons) that helps connect the line to the surrounding city.

In fact, with the exception of the stretch where the line runs near USC — and more on that later — the Expo Line almost melts into the neighborhoods it cuts through, maintaining a low-slung profile. Three stations near the western end of the line's first phase are elevated, but the others, at street level, are split in half as they straddle major intersections. It's as if each stop is two miniature stations.

That modest scale is a concession to the density of many neighborhoods the new line runs through. But it's also an effective design gesture, a reminder that many of the most impressive stations in the Metro rail network — think of the Mission stop on the Gold Line — are also the simplest.

The crux of the problem is that Metro never managed to clarify its architectural goals for the Expo Line. A sleek, restrained design strategy, focusing on details and stressing above all a seamless transition from station to neighborhood, might have worked here. So might a more ambitious, design-first kind of architecture.

To be fair, the new stations represent a modest improvement over those on the 2009 Gold Line extension. They're appreciably better than the underground stations on the Red Line, which started service in 1993. Metro has finally abandoned the idea that every rail station ought to be uniquely designed to reflect the demographics of the immediate neighborhood. That approach, employed on the Gold and Red lines, was a misstep architecturally and a disaster in terms of maintenance, since each station has to be cleaned differently, its materials aging and breaking down at a different pace.

But saying that the new stations aren't quite as bad as the older ones isn't saying much at all. When it comes to architecture, Metro has set a very low bar.

As I wrote last week about its new master-planning effort for the area around Union Station, Metro seems to be facing an internal divide about how enthusiastically it wants to pursue strong architecture. Its decision to present so-called Vision Boards showing Union Station as it might exist in 2050 was a way, essentially, to postpone that argument, to exile adventurous architecture to a far-off, futuristic world.

Thanks to the Measure R tax hike, however, Metro stands to be the most important patron of public architecture and urban design in Southern California for the next 10 or even 20 years. That's why the middling design of the stations is more than a minor issue: because Metro has become and will continue to be a major force in shaping the public identity of 21st century Los Angeles.

As it plans future stations, Metro should begin pairing transit specialists like Parsons with architects who can bring a new level of sophistication to the task. That would be a first step in banishing for good the idea that impressive station architecture is a luxury that Metro — and by extension L.A. — can't afford. If Metro had used a single highly ambitious design template for the Red and Gold lines, after all, it would have saved money and improved the level of architecture.

The bigger obstacles, frankly, seem to be bureaucracy and control. Metro makes it tough for smaller firms to get a crack at its contracts, and worries not so much that talented architects are expensive, though that is an issue, but that they will prove insufficiently pliable or willing to compromise their designs.

Speaking of which, it's time for Metro to show some backbone of its own when it comes to urban design. For nearly all its length, the Expo Line — thanks again to the 2004 Garten plan — is conceived as a "transit parkway." Thickly planted but drought-tolerant landscaping provides the ground cover. Flowering vines grow up and over restrained green fencing. A bike lane runs parallel to the tracks along much of the line.

The idea has its roots in concepts laid out in "Parks, Playgrounds and Beaches for the Los Angeles Region," a 1930 plan by the landscape firms Olmsted Bros. and Harland Bartholomew that was famously never executed.

But USC officials, Genick told me, pushed Metro to change the design along the edge of campus. In those sections the drought-tolerant plants are replaced by stretches of lawn, the fencing is black and more prominent and is accompanied by long stretches of red brick.

The brick is largely an attempt to satisfy USC's interest in having the new line, as it runs near the campus, match the architecture of the university. But the change undermines the coherence and design personality of the line as a whole, exchanging the subtleties of the parkway design for something a lot more lumbering and conspicuous. And it comes at a point in the line that is otherwise one of the most thrilling, with its close-up views of Exposition Park and the Natural History Museum's newly expanded garden.

When you consider the light-blue canopies and the brick as elements of a common design strategy, or at least of a single bureaucratic personality, a dispiriting portrait of Metro emerges.

It shows a transit agency still very much adrift when it comes to architecture and design — both in terms of the stations it commissions and the concessions it's willing to make. christopher.hawthorne@latimes.com

CHRISTOPHER HAWTHORNE, ARCHITECTURE CRITICLOS ANGELES TIMES

pesto

May 2nd, 2012, 08:02 PM

Hawthorne is pretty much dead on target. These are pretty much the same station design criticisms I had so I won't repeat them. The real problem here is that MTA is just incompetent to the task. Architecturally, design-wise, hiring of contractors, handling PR, relations to communities, etc. They don't even blink at failing to open on time; that's expected. The basic blocking and tackling seems to be well beyond them.

I do disagree with the criticisms of the Red Line; the stations may require more maintenance but so does St. Peter's and the Chrysler Building. Money well spent.

LosAngelesSportsFan

May 2nd, 2012, 08:56 PM

pesto

May 2nd, 2012, 11:28 PM

The good news is that the design and look are very much secondary (at least for me). If the Expo runs on time I can forgive a lot. Hopefully the kinks will be worked out by the time I ride it.

croyboy

May 3rd, 2012, 06:13 AM

rode it this past weekend and i just hate that it stops at stations or intersections for minutes at a time.. it took us 26 minutes to reach jefferson/la cienega from 7th/metro center, but it took nearly an hour to get back downtown. waited at 2 intersections for the entire length of the red lights and waited at 2 stations for nearly 10 minutes each. they need to trench the line or give it full right-of-way.. no reason 500+ riders need to wait for 50 drivers

milquetoast

May 3rd, 2012, 08:16 AM

I do disagree with the criticisms of the Red Line; the stations may require more maintenance but so does St. Peter's and the Chrysler Building. Money well spent.

I concureth.
That's the only problem I had when reading that article.
The rest I don't know about, but those stations seem to
me to be a subject of pride. Each one different.
And rightfully so.

milquetoast

May 3rd, 2012, 08:18 AM

waited at 2 intersections for the entire length of the red lights ...

That's what I don't like about "at grade".

klamedia

May 3rd, 2012, 06:47 PM

FWIW, they are running 3-car trains on this line, so the passengers are spread out among these cars. The Blue Line ran with 2-car trains until around 2001 or so.

Besides, give it some time, the kinks WILL be worked out. They were able to shave 5 or 6 minutes from the Union Station-Pasadena Gold Line since it first opened in 2003.

I think we're nearing the potential tipping point in LA with the robust growth of Downtown and the revitalization of inner core neighborhoods like Koreatown, Silver Lake and East Hollywood where residents may forego the auto because of the transit rich nature of the area.

With more bikes on the road taking advantage of streets that have lanes and even those that do not e.g. Fountain more and more people will forego the auto in my assumption, for short trips. Right in the Sunset Junction area of Silver Lake a Yummy grocery is opening with no addt'l parking, a small footprint store that encourages walking and their now famous delivery service to local dwellers. It is imperative that the MTA provides transit service that we've spent billions on that is a TRUE upgrade from what we've had in the past, in its entirety.

We can't have a train where the first 2 miles are slow and the last 6 miles are fast. That = the train is slow. I'd rather suspend all build out projects and spend the money on upgrading the weak points in the system that hurt the system overall like this portion of Expo and problematic areas on the Blue Line.

Perhaps when the Blue Line was the first LRT in the county these slow sections could be forgiven. Even by the time the Gold Line came on board we may have begrudgingly tolerated the slowed portion at Marmion Way a) it is very short b) the line overall is pretty much grade separated or on its exclusive ROW therefore unhindered. But after 22 years of operating and building trains the MTA should know better not to run a train at grade without definite signal preemption. Getting the public excited about Expo and then dashing that excitement with stop lights and allowing cars with single passengers turn left before the train proceeds will assure that we will be stuck with a very expensive yet neutered system. This is unacceptable!

pesto

May 3rd, 2012, 07:44 PM

I think we're nearing the potential tipping point in LA with the robust growth of Downtown and the revitalization of inner core neighborhoods like Koreatown, Silver Lake and East Hollywood where residents may forego the auto because of the transit rich nature of the area.

With more bikes on the road taking advantage of streets that have lanes and even those that do not e.g. Fountain more and more people will forego the auto in my assumption, for short trips. Right in the Sunset Junction area of Silver Lake a Yummy grocery is opening with no addt'l parking, a small footprint store that encourages walking and their now famous delivery service to local dwellers. It is imperative that the MTA provides transit service that we've spent billions on that is a TRUE upgrade from what we've had in the past, in its entirety.

We can't have a train where the first 2 miles are slow and the last 6 miles are fast. That = the train is slow. I'd rather suspend all build out projects and spend the money on upgrading the weak points in the system that hurt the system overall like this portion of Expo and problematic areas on the Blue Line.

Perhaps when the Blue Line was the first LRT in the county these slow sections could be forgiven. Even by the time the Gold Line came on board we may have begrudgingly tolerated the slowed portion at Marmion Way a) it is very short b) the line overall is pretty much grade separated or on its exclusive ROW therefore unhindered. But after 22 years of operating and building trains the MTA should know better not to run a train at grade without definite signal preemption. Getting the public excited about Expo and then dashing that excitement with stop lights and allowing cars with single passengers turn left before the train proceeds will assure that we will be stuck with a very expensive yet neutered system. This is unacceptable!

I completely agree with the attitude and with most of the details.

Although I prefer faster, I can forgive Expo for being slow; it's in an area that is either high density or has high potential for it. I never expected many people to use the full length, because that really is slow.

But there is no excuse for the money wasted on Foothill and Crenshaw, which will be forever slow and never dense. They will act as a huge weapon for those opposing more transit. I only hope that the Purple is far enough along so that it isn't killed by those projects.

klamedia

May 4th, 2012, 05:29 PM

Foothill has the political will behind it and it never will be pointed to as a failure because its backers (politicians and residents alike) have fought for that train. Many of those Foothill cities are planning dense developments around the coming line and I believe a few of those local jurisdictions have even gone so far as to alter their General Plan along the line.

That said, Crenshaw (depending the end result) could be pointed to as a boondoggle. At this point since it has already reached into the billions we should just go ahead and grade separate all the sections that the neighborhood is asking. I can only hope that because of the success of the Red Line subway that the general consensus will be "we need to grade separate our lines" not " we need to stop building lines altogether".

I believe that of now since we do have a working rail transit system the average person will be able to point to the successes in the line and differentiate that from the failures. Also with the new populations coming into Downtown LA and inner core areas the consensus most likely will not be to 'stop all rail building'. I mean, AEG is basing its EIR on the availability of transit so we've definitely turned a corner.

The street running is problematic and obvious because of the amount of discretionary riders who take or are open to taking the train. Also because of Downtown's suburban parking minimums and oversupply of parking the train is put at a disadvantage to the car. Until we begin to rid ourselves of required parking minimums and we have a train(s) that is perceived as slow, public mass transit will lose.

To highlight how much of a problem this REALLY is, here is Expo Auth. head Thorpe explaining to County Sup Zev about why the trains are slow on the street?

http://physics.usc.edu/Undergraduate/temporary/Expo_board_meeting_2012_05_03.mp3

saiholmes

May 6th, 2012, 04:03 PM

http://laist.com/attachments/la_zach/expo-line-delayed.jpg

New line, new choices
First-day riders envision using Expo rail for various purposes
April 29, 2012|Ari Bloomekatz
Los Angeles Times

For some, the opening of the Expo light rail line means an easier commute to work or school. For others, it's a chance to ride mass transit to Staples Center or to visit the museums in Exposition Park.

But for Ayanna White, a 31-year-old mother of four, including 3-year-old twin boys, the new rail line could give her something precious -- an extra hour of sleep each morning.

Read More: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/29/local/la-me-0429-expo-line-20120429

Wright Concept

May 9th, 2012, 08:09 PM

i haven't been on the expo line yet, but from a distance, i have to agree as well.

I also had the same reservations regarding his red line criticism. Most of them are fantastic

Hawthorne for my tastes isn't a good architecture critic because he never conveys in his writing that he's actually inside or on the surface of the structures he's commenting on. Sort of like an armchair quarterback. Also in this piece he's talking out of both sides of his mouth because if Expo Line had the Gold Line canopies he'd critique that they're just faceless and have no connection with the neighborhood fabric.

The good news is that the design and look are very much secondary (at least for me). If the Expo runs on time I can forgive a lot. Hopefully the kinks will be worked out by the time I ride it.

As for Expo Line there are still a few spots such as the Adams and 28th Street signals, however to not have to fight driving this stretch day in and day out makes it worth it and if this 2 mile section has stops about every 1/2 mile speed will take a back seat anyways. Reliability is more important then trip speed when it comes most transit trips.

... At this point since it has already reached into the billions we should just go ahead and grade separate all the sections that the neighborhood is asking. I can only hope that because of the success of the Red Line subway that the general consensus will be "we need to grade separate our lines" not " we need to stop building lines altogether".

Or the consensus should be that "We need to build more transit lines"

State of the Union

May 11th, 2012, 06:31 AM

Kenni

May 13th, 2012, 03:15 AM

Elsongs

May 13th, 2012, 12:33 PM

I think we're nearing the potential tipping point in LA with the robust growth of Downtown and the revitalization of inner core neighborhoods like Koreatown, Silver Lake and East Hollywood where residents may forego the auto because of the transit rich nature of the area.

With more bikes on the road taking advantage of streets that have lanes and even those that do not e.g. Fountain more and more people will forego the auto in my assumption, for short trips. Right in the Sunset Junction area of Silver Lake a Yummy grocery is opening with no addt'l parking, a small footprint store that encourages walking and their now famous delivery service to local dwellers. It is imperative that the MTA provides transit service that we've spent billions on that is a TRUE upgrade from what we've had in the past, in its entirety.

We can't have a train where the first 2 miles are slow and the last 6 miles are fast. That = the train is slow. I'd rather suspend all build out projects and spend the money on upgrading the weak points in the system that hurt the system overall like this portion of Expo and problematic areas on the Blue Line.

Perhaps when the Blue Line was the first LRT in the county these slow sections could be forgiven. Even by the time the Gold Line came on board we may have begrudgingly tolerated the slowed portion at Marmion Way a) it is very short b) the line overall is pretty much grade separated or on its exclusive ROW therefore unhindered. But after 22 years of operating and building trains the MTA should know better not to run a train at grade without definite signal preemption. Getting the public excited about Expo and then dashing that excitement with stop lights and allowing cars with single passengers turn left before the train proceeds will assure that we will be stuck with a very expensive yet neutered system. This is unacceptable!

I don't think you read a word of what I said. I don't know how long you've been here but I've ridden the Metro Rail since July 14, 1990. I actually have historical perspective of the system that you don't seem to have. I know things get tweaked and streamlined eventually. Part of the Expo Line's problem is that it's the first time an LRT line has had to have a split track routing. Until now each LRT line pretty much ran on its own, back and forth. Now Blue/Expo creates a new operational paradigm for Metro. The kinks are still apparent right now as delays in the line are almost always attributed to the signaling/switching configuration.

The speed of the line will no doubt be remedied when Phase 2 opens. As the line stands right now, trains have to dwell at La Cienega for a long time, and are gradually going to deadhead to Culver City as part of the testing program. By the time it opens to Santa Monica, it would have to run like clockwork.

Again, the Blue and Gold Lines used to be much slower when they first opened. You might not be aware of that. The same will happen to the Expo Line.

Elsongs

May 13th, 2012, 12:41 PM

Maybe I just don't have the eye for architecture, but I've never had an issue with any of LA's Metro Rail Stations.

I don't know how this Hawthorne guy can argue against stations like Hollywood/Vine or Mariachi Plaza. I think the Expo Designs are original and look great, certainly better than other plain looking LRT/HRT systems I've seen around the country.

Seattle's Central Light Rail stations are pretty plain looking.

Also, arguing maintainence costs of these stations when LA Metro is one of few largest agencies that still have a balance budget, yet still having the lowest fares in the country, is moot. More than I can say for NYC's MTA or Boston's MBTA, which are flat broke.

I don't seem to have a problem with the design of the Expo Line stations. I actually think they look better than the original Pasadena Gold Line stations.

I do see where the problem originates and it is this: There is no consistent design for Metro's light rail stations. A lot of it had to do with when the lines were planned. The Blue and Green lines were planned in the 1980s, with an '80s eye of what future aesthetics would look like.

Same with the Gold Line, designed in the 1990s, but opened in the 2000s. The Expo Line was originally envisioned as a branch of the Blue Line, then was shelved, then brought back as a full project from DTLA to Santa Monica. At that point, it was already the 21st century, and a new aesthetic eye dictates design.

Same goes for the new Red Line subway station canopies, designed to protect the escalators from the elements. The canopy designs are unabashedly modern, but they would have to go over station entrances that were designed in the 1980s.

It's obviously too late to go back and change things, but cities like Washington DC have a standard design for both their above-ground and underground stations. Although all of that is more feasible when most of the system was built/designed in the same era.

klamedia

May 13th, 2012, 07:28 PM

I don't think you read a word of what I said. I don't know how long you've been here but I've ridden the Metro Rail since July 14, 1990. I actually have historical perspective of the system that you don't seem to have. I know things get tweaked and streamlined eventually. Part of the Expo Line's problem is that it's the first time an LRT line has had to have a split track routing. Until now each LRT line pretty much ran on its own, back and forth. Now Blue/Expo creates a new operational paradigm for Metro. The kinks are still apparent right now as delays in the line are almost always attributed to the signaling/switching configuration.

The speed of the line will no doubt be remedied when Phase 2 opens. As the line stands right now, trains have to dwell at La Cienega for a long time, and are gradually going to deadhead to Culver City as part of the testing program. By the time it opens to Santa Monica, it would have to run like clockwork.

Again, the Blue and Gold Lines used to be much slower when they first opened. You might not be aware of that. The same will happen to the Expo Line.
Aside from your dramatic response and dating yourself back to a time when most of Los Angeles was still equestrian, I am aware that the Gold Line has sped up over the years. I can only hope that this will be the case with Expo, sooner rather than later.

Elsongs

May 18th, 2012, 11:01 AM

Each Metro Rail (and Metro Liner) station has a 12' high illuminated wayfinding pylon that bears the Metro logo, a wedge design that bears the color of the transit line and the station name on it.

However, for multi-line stations, such as 7th Street/Metro Center, Union Station, etc. there are no such pylons that reflect that, mainly because of the colored wedge. Drives me nuts!

I've wondered about this, so I made up a "fan-fiction" concept pylon design: The colored wedge would be neutral black, and it would have illuminated colored circles bearing the lines that station serves. Furthermore, the vertical arrangement of the circles reflects their position in the station -- i.e. the Green Line is located above the Blue Line at the Willowbrook (Imperial/Wilmington/Rosa Parks) station.

Here's a mock-up for 7th Street Metro Center (the setting doesn't match its actual location, I'm aware of that, I just used an existing picture of the Expo Park/USC Expo Line station as a model).

You think Metro should do something like this? Lemme know what you think.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/elsongs/transit/Metro_Pylon_Concept_7MC.jpg

LosAngelesSportsFan

May 18th, 2012, 07:11 PM

Agreed. That looks great. the 7th street metro doesnt have any signs at its Hope street entrance and could use a pylon on Fig as well.

slipperydog

May 19th, 2012, 08:58 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/elsongs/transit/Metro_Pylon_Concept_7MC.jpg

This is the way it's done in NYC and it's very intuitive.

klamedia

May 19th, 2012, 07:46 PM

Just remove the grass around the base and I'll be ok with it.

dachacon

May 20th, 2012, 03:26 AM

Agreed. That looks great. the 7th street metro doesnt have any signs at its Hope street entrance and could use a pylon on Fig as well.

Pylon would require valuable sidewalk space. so just putting a circle with the corresponding colors on the sides of the building entrances works.

Elsongs

May 20th, 2012, 01:05 PM

Pylon would require valuable sidewalk space. so just putting a circle with the corresponding colors on the sides of the building entrances works.

There used to be one at Fig & 7th, and also at Hope & 7th...you can still see the foundation. But they were mysteriously removed.

LosAngelesSportsFan

May 21st, 2012, 04:09 AM

Pylon would require valuable sidewalk space. so just putting a circle with the corresponding colors on the sides of the building entrances works.

True, a Blade sign would be much better, but the point is that we need something there

112597Jorge

May 23rd, 2012, 01:29 AM

First Plans Revealed For Rail From Union Station to Santa Ana (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/first_plans_revealed_for_rail_from_union_station_to_santa_ana.php)

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/4fbbf68485216d4b6f084dc1/1.jpg (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/first_plans_revealed_for_rail_from_union_station_to_santa_ana.php#4fbbf5a185216d4e59084b84)

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/4fbbf68885216d4b6f084dd1/Exec%20Summary%20PEROW_Online%20Use-80.jpg (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/first_plans_revealed_for_rail_from_union_station_to_santa_ana.php#4fbbf5a885216d4e59084baa)
http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/4fbbf68b85216d4b6f084ddb/Exec%20Summary%20PEROW_Online%20Use-81.jpg (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/first_plans_revealed_for_rail_from_union_station_to_santa_ana.php#4fbbf5a685216d4e59084ba2)
http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/4fbbf68e85216d4b6f084de5/Exec%20Summary%20PEROW_Online%20Use-82.jpg (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/first_plans_revealed_for_rail_from_union_station_to_santa_ana.php#4fbbf5a585216d4e59084b9a)
http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/4fbbf69185216d4b6f084def/Exec%20Summary%20PEROW_Online%20Use-83.jpg (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/first_plans_revealed_for_rail_from_union_station_to_santa_ana.php#4fbbf5a385216d4e59084b92)
http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/4fbbf69485216d4b6f084df9/Exec%20Summary%20PEROW_Online%20Use-47.jpg (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/first_plans_revealed_for_rail_from_union_station_to_santa_ana.php#4fbbf59f85216d4e59084b76)
http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/4fbbf69685216d4b6f084e03/Exec%20Summary%20PEROW_Online%20Use-51.jpg (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/first_plans_revealed_for_rail_from_union_station_to_santa_ana.php#4fbbf5a085216d4e59084b7d)
http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/4fbbf69885216d4b6f084e0d/Exec%20Summary%20PEROW_Online%20Use-59.jpg (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/first_plans_revealed_for_rail_from_union_station_to_santa_ana.php#4fbbf5a285216d4e59084b8b)
http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/4fbbf69b85216d4b6f084e17/Exec%20Summary%20PEROW_Online%20Use-85.jpg (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/first_plans_revealed_for_rail_from_union_station_to_santa_ana.php#4fbbf5aa85216d4e59084bb9)
http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/4fbbf69e85216d4b6f084e21/Exec%20Summary%20PEROW_Online%20Use-86.jpg (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/first_plans_revealed_for_rail_from_union_station_to_santa_ana.php#4fbbf5a985216d4e59084bb2)
10 images
(http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/first_plans_revealed_for_rail_from_union_station_to_santa_ana.php#4fbbf5a185216d4e59084b84)

<NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT>Did you know there is a plan to develop the West Santa Ana Branch of the old Pacific Electric corridor into a public transit line with a projected ridership of 80,000 passengers a day? The Downey Beat reports (http://downeybeat.com/2012/05/plans-for-potential-7-billion-train-through-downey-finally-unveiled/) that a planning effort, led by the Southern California Association of Governments, has produced an Initial Executive Summary for a Alternatives Analysis Report (http://www.pacificelectriccorridor.com/documents/aa_report/Exec%20Summary%20PEROW_Online%20Use.pdf) (pdf) for the long-stewing plans (they've been floating around since 2002). The Executive Summary lays out a pretty large variety of options--everything from a no-build alternative to streetcars, light rail, and Maglev train (sorry, no gondolas). The report also analyzes differences in cost and ridership among several alternative routes along what is currently called the Orange Line (yes, that name is already taken (http://la.curbed.com/tags/orange-line))--the most robust possibilities for the line would extend along the Pacific Electric right of way (PEROW) between Union Station and Santa Ana. The Executive Summary makes a case that the PEROW has the elements necessary for a rail line: the projected ridership of the line exceeds the capacity for a Bus Rapid Transit System by two or two and a half times, with the light rail alternative achieving the highest ridership. The projected ridership of the light rail line would be more than 80,000--that's more than the 64,000 daily riders expected to use the Expo Line when it reaches Santa Monica.

la.curbed.com