The point of Crenshaw isn't necessarily to give full coverage along the street. Crenshaw is a rather sleepy street north of the 10 freeway to its end at Wilshire. There are apartments along Crenshaw, and bus ridership is decent, but not necessarily at a level that would warrant rail.

A Crenshaw subway, though, might not win on the cost/productivity metric, but it could pencil out by its network effect (every addition to an existing network helps the overall grid) and by allowing for a more reliable branch through a grade-separated system.

That is exactly what I'm saying in a transit network we have many various ways to provide the service coverage needed to make it a success. If Crenshaw can't run on Expo just extend the service to Wilshire/Miracle Mile and Mid City areas with no rail service.

With Crenshaw there's an opportunity to continue it northward and provide TWO opportunities to connect to the Westside and Downtown LA.

Me, I still would like to see efforts and resources moved from Crenshaw to explore an extension of the subway along Vermont. The high concept: A Crenshaw branch makes the most people happy.

The arguments:
1. If Crenshaw must be a branch, it might as well be a "closed" system -- like the subway. Every branch of a trunk makes the overall network unreliable. An at-grade Crenshaw from Expo would wreak havoc with both the Crenshaw and Expo branches.
2. A grade-separated Crenshaw line might just buy Damien G.'s silence. :>
3. A Crenshaw line would mean the subway would have four branches: Red to North Hollywood, Purple along Wilshire, [Pantone process color here] along Crenshaw ... and Pink along Santa Monica. :>
4. If we can complete Expo, we could forget about extending the subway beyond Westwood (for the time being), and for the cost of going from Westwood to Santa Monica, we could reallocate the money to build some Pink Line tunnel through West Hollywood. It's about 4-5 miles from Westwood to the sea ... and it's about 4-5 miles to connect Hollywood/Highland to Wilshire through West Hollywood. The proposed Pink Line would carry more riders per mile than the subway to the sea.

(1) to build it in a way that it splits off from Expo to enable a one-seat ride from LAX to downtown, which I think would tremendously benefit the whole region, not only the Crenshaw corridor locally.

(2) to build it so a transfer is required at Expo, but that enables it to extend north to Wilshire or perhaps even farther.

Granted, both are unlikely to be built at once. Is it possible to construct either option 1 or 2 so that the not chosen option may be added in the distant future when funding is available.

Also consider express trains from Long Beach to Pasadena. Pasadena to Long Beach.

If I live near Slauson station and I'm going to school at Pasadena City College and there's a one-seat express ride to Allen station, I'm covered.

Skipping all those stops in the middle of no where like Lincoln Heights and Southwest Museum might save some time.

The time savings would be significant for those riding end-to-end, or at least anyone getting on along the street portions of Long Beach.

Let's say the express train would make all Long Beach and L.A. street stops, and only Willow, Rosa Parks and Washington on the right of way. Under this arrangement, an end-to-end rider might get a 12-15 minute savings on a ride -- because the train skips more stops. A rider boarding at Rosa Parks, at the halfway point of the Blue Line, would get about a 6-8 minute savings.

This could be one express train scenario. The other one might be to simply "split" the line in two, where the "express" would only be about 8 minutes faster by making all stops between Long Beach and Rosa Parks, and bypassing all stops until Washington. The "local" would run between 7MC and Rosa Parks.

The Blue Line needs grade-separation expedited. It has outgrown itself twice now, crossing both the 50,000 and 75,000 boarding thresholds. The Blue Line also has the ridership levels and patterns to support using the two other tracks on the right of way for an express service.

The priorities for grade-separation would be the right of way between Washington and Willow Stations, then the Los Angeles street running between 7MC and Washington Stations.

The Long Beach street running, though, would be a lower priority. While the Blue Line carries about 80,000 now, Long Beach only accounts for a fraction of it. The street running is not near the >50,000 threshold for heavy rail. I am mindful, though, of the exposure to accidents there and that there are four or five schools (!) along the Long Beach part of the route -- though as far as I know, no student has ever been struck by a train.

Changing funding formulas aren't done for free, you know.
----------------

While the kind of reform in funding proposals that would lead to real changes on the street wouldn't be cheap, we don't have to match the highway lobby's funding to be able to bring about this sort of change. Political pressure, with the proper numbers of people and aimed at the write pressure point at the right time can accomplish what right now would appear a miracle.

I'm not convinced that Expo needs to be wholly grade separated west of Crenshaw.

But Fix Expo might generate more support for grade separation if they advocated it as a way of facilitating a one-seat ride between airport/downtown. That is also probably a way to move the Crenshaw Line back up in priority -- call it the Crenshaw/LAX line.

That's simply wrong. The capacity does not exist on Flower St to add any more trains. Again, it's going to be difficult enough to operate 40-48 trains per hour with Expo and Blue. And the demand for service west of Sepulveda doesn't allow any trains to be taken off of the Santa Monica route.

For Crenshaw, the lack of interlining isn't a problem.

Again, that’s simply wrong. And I challenge you to find any model run by Metro or anyone else to date that supports your suggestion that the lack of interlining on Crenshaw “isn’t a problem.”

(even though it has more to do with the lack of capacity at 7th Street Metro Center and the REGIONAL CONNECTOR would make this a whole lot easier by through running of trains and extra tail tracks to terminate trains)

Both are problems.

Anyone who argues that 40-48 at-grade crossings per hour during peak hour in the middle of a metropolitan city like Los Angeles isn't problematic needs to learn how a traffic synchronization plan operates. They need to understand how such signals have to be altered so trains aren't stuck there for literally 2 minutes waiting for it's turn in the cycle. And that's just talking about the street-running sections. The sections with crossing gates...geez don't get me started.

A greater priority should be to provide more amenties and information at those transfers, having signage or display boards showing when the next bus/trains arrive and or Improve the operation of the service by adding more service, create timed transfer connections at major centers.

So not only do you propose building a line that is substantially slower than is necessary to yield substantial mode shifts, you want to add transfers that can be avoided? You've lost the choice riders, now your going after the existing transit users.

Every transportation modeling principle consistently shows how transfers lead to a reduction in ridership for a variety of reasons. To assume that all the studies and experts are wrong, and signage is adequate compensation, despite having nothing of comparable status to support that conclusion. Well...I just have no words for it.

And it’s as though you’ve made your argument in a vacuum, with previously unfounded suppositions are used as the basis for new unfounded suppositions. For example, you say, "add more service" like that's an option, when in reality there is no capacity for more service.

These steps would create positive momentum that can further expand more transit options to get more people out of their cars.

The surest way to stifle at-grade rail expansion is by going into communities that are experiencing the impact of it and proposing more of it. It might be good for public relations, but every motorist waiting at a crossing, every family hit by train, every commuter delayed because of an accident, every homeowner negatively impacted – eventually it all adds up. All one has to do is read about old PE/Yellow Car articles in the Herald Examiner and LA Times. The benefit of lost memories won’t exist much longer.

There's a solution, the money that wasn't spent grade separating that stretch of Expo can be directed northward for Crenshaw as a tunnel

You know, there are a thousand and one ways to find ways of doing both (extending Crenshaw to Wilshire and building Expo grade separated), but to see them requires doing something a lot of advocates (not just you Jerard) aren't capable of doing: assuming what MTA tells you about agency limitations is B.S. I'm talking about financial limitations, planning limitations, political limitations, etc.

And here again you have an example of making an argument in a vacuum. You talk about MTA's financial limitations, while completely neglecting the increased long-term maintenance cost that comes with the at-grade rail lines, and the relationship that has to competing for state and federal funding for other projects. (Overall financial strength is a major factor in qualifying for federal funding).

Let me be frank: in no other possible industry on this planet could any analysis keep their job by recommending NOT spending 40% more on capital cost, when the benefit is a substantial reduction in the life cycle cost of a 100 year product. The life cycle cost is the true cost of these systems. There are the operational cost, which is lowered with increased ridership, lowered/eliminated traffic impact, eliminated accidents, increased development potential, reduced maintenance cost, etc. etc. etc. And yet so many are so comfortable making these recommendations when it comes to public transit. I don’t get it.

Arguments like those are what make public transit such an easy target for the truly anti-transit. Me, I'm in the camp that would rather argue for the $2.6-2.8 billion rail line that can conceivably serve 125K riders per day and has the capacity to credibly serve even more, than the $2 billion rail line that yields 60-75K riders per day and comes with a host of operational limitation and all of the other negative externalities.

This can be done for the same dollars and serve a greater coverage area that improves mobility options for lots of people and adds more destinations to the network because we are serving more destinations.

I’ve said this before to every person at LADOT and I’ve yet to have anyone disagree, would you?: Building the Expo completely grade separated from Downtown LA to Crenshaw would do more to alleviate traffic and "improve mobility" than building it as we are to Culver City.

Just because money is being spent laying tracks DOES NOT MEAN mobility is being improved. And sure you’re adding "options" by adding dots to a map. But what option is a system that takes substantially longer to use than comparable alternatives? It's not. People need to stop pretending like it is, stop demonizing those who see that the Emperor has no clothes and drive instead, and start advocating for real transportation solutions.

Such solutions aren't predicated on light rail PR strategy and weak arguments about "choice." They involve comparative trip times.

The more I read what Damien Goodman has to say the more I am convinced that our current plans are not adequate for the region's growing needs. I don't agree with him that Expo is unsafe, but I would agree that all these crappy light rail lines are hardly getting the job done now, and won't get the job done in the future.

Under the Fix Expo umbrella are transportation commissioners and rail lovers along with those who are generally anti-rail. We don't stand together because we agree on everything. We stand together because we recognize that the solutions to almost all of our concerns are the same.

That's called coalition building. It's only possible because we can disagree without being disagreeable and we have respect for one another. Those things allow us to identify shared principles.

Compare that with how things are dealt with on the other side. Just look at how opponents to at-grade rail are demonized and you will see why the type of coalition I've described just isn’t possible. And it's sad. Because as I recognized a long time ago, to get the type of revenue we really need to build a first class transit system quickly, we're going to have to build broad and diverse coalitions.

Then again, we can always use falsely implied timelines for subways and highway expansion as our bait. ;-)

I'd like to see the blue, green, and gold lines turned into heavy rail and be entirely grade separated (green line would be easy :) ). All new projects should be heavy rail subway (not necessarily underground) and services like EAST LA-NORTH HOLLYWOOD trains should be offered instead of these lame colored lines.

1) Eventually we'll have to convert the Blue Line and the portions of the Expo that Fix Expo won't be successful in grade separating. It will be much more expensive than it would have been to build it grade separated initially. It will be embarrassing. All will universally proclaim that the people who put it in at-grade initially were idiots.

2) I think we should move toward one vehicle/type of vehicle, as opposed to having both heavy rail vehicles and light rail vehicles. LRVs have greater flexibility, so if wider vehicles can be manufactured, some of the same light rail infrastructure can be preserved, at least in the near-term (specifically the Green Line).

Also, no more freeway median stations. No human being should ever be asked to wait for a train on a freeway median station ever again.

It's actually possible to make the median stations tolerable with insulated platforms (platform doors and what not). But there are other problems with freeway median stations - horrible for redevelopment and don't belong in urban centers (think: the discussion regarding an I-405 line). They're best suited for heavy rail/commuter lines in suburban environments where delivering public transit is a difficult endeavor.

Yet Los Angeles can't do it. Why is that? Who is taking all the money that should otherwise be used for mass transit?

Eventually the money will flow. And the route to that day is much easier when advocating for solutions that address all problems instead of going to war with communities. Nonetheless, when that day comes, LA will unfortunately we're still going to be screwed. Because it is a thousand times easier and cheaper to expand a grade separated system than it is to retrofit an at-grade system.

Yet Los Angeles can't do it. Why is that? Who is taking all the money that should otherwise be used for mass transit? Why are we dealing with slow ass at-grade light rail? We're freakin' Los Angeles! Let jerkoff Portland have the freakin' light rail.

It doesn't matter what L.A. does, it will be wrong.

We could grade-separate all of our rail lines. We'll just go broke doing it. Then we'll learn from our mistakes and build lower-cost light rail lines and busways that are inadequate for our levels of ridership.

We could go with the do nothing option, but remember, we're L.A. and will therefore L.A. it up. We'll just have a larger volume of stupid people now being entrusted to convey themselves with large, fast-moving machinery.

If you need money for this incredible endeavor, ask the AIG or auto executives to borrow some of that "stimulus" money. I guarantee my idea would be far more stimulating.

How about this: Let's not.

Let me just say this: We'll learn macroeconomic theory the hard way in about a year or two. That sound you hear is Mugabe laughing at us.

A study would need to start right now to make that possible.

However that option could still happen regardless if Expo isn't fully grade separated since it is at the farther end of the line, thus trunk service wouldn't be an issue, because a wye at Expo/405 would enable the following services;

* Santa Monica-Downtown
* Westwood-Downtown
AND
* Westwood-Santa Monica.

For Crenshaw, the lack of interlining isn't a problem (even though it has more to do with the lack of capacity at 7th Street Metro Center and the REGIONAL CONNECTOR would make this a whole lot easier by through running of trains and extra tail tracks to terminate trains). There's a solution, the money that wasn't spent grade separating that stretch of Expo can be directed northward for Crenshaw as a tunnel, serving a whole new area, with plenty of activity and density in;
West Adams,
Mid-City(@ Pico/San Vicente) and
Mid Wilshire/Miracle Mile (@ Wilshire/La Brea).

This can be done for the same dollars and serve a greater coverage area that improves mobility options for lots of people and adds more destinations to the network because we are serving more destinations.

"I think one of the priorities should be to reduce as many transfers as possible for the most amount of people."

A greater priority should be to provide more amenties and information at those transfers, having signage or display boards showing when the next bus/trains arrive and or Improve the operation of the service by adding more service, create timed transfer connections at major centers. These steps would create positive momentum that can further expand more transit options to get more people out of their cars.

If you need money for this incredible endeavor, ask the AIG or auto executives to borrow some of that "stimulus" money. I guarantee my idea would be far more stimulating.

And while you're at it, invest in nuclear power and legalize marijuana.

Transfers are the death knell of any commute. Waiting 10-20 minutes for your next train/bus is NOT productive. I think one of the priorities should be to reduce as many transfers as possible for the most amount of people.

This is applicable ... for buses. (Watch for some of the ideas I have for bus connections to the Eastside Gold Line. Expo will come shortly after.)

For trains, you need a self-contained system like BART. At this point, do you want to spend resources to eliminate transfers on existing lines and have integrated equipment -- essentially doing everything over -- or do you want to expand service to more areas?