Though now I'm really confused at why people are STILL hanging out by the bus stop, because now I'm for sure they aren't waiting for the bus...maybe its like the kids in Los Feliz hanging out in the parking lot of the supermaket by Coffee Bean, I never understood the point of that.

Browne

http://www.comptoncity.org/index.php/Front-Page-Newsflash/martin-luther-king-jr-transit-center-expansion.html

It is really a moot point however, because what is on the table is the current LRT which has some at-grade running sections or BRT. The BRT actually has higher ridership projections, because it connects to the Purple Line, which the LRT does not. As I stated before there are many questions on this light-rail line including can it even be constructed without inciting a lawsuit or community opposition. Its ridership is now projected at less than 15k.

Even if I am wrong and this line can be built for the $1.7B and we can secure enough Measure R funds for it and its ridership is way above its projections, it then has the potential to overwhelm the system, because Expo is a street-running line with limited capacity as Crenshaw would be, so I would still question this line being our main North-South line in this region. We need a line to connect to our high capacity subway system.

As far as me wanting to limit rail for South LA, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm advocating a different line (Vermont) to be built first, which would be grade separated, faster, with higher capacity, with more development opportunities, and better connected to the region as a whole (especially if it is brought down to the Green Line). I also think the Harbor Sub can be a successful line for both LA County and the South LA region and support the development of that line.

Overall, I'd love to have all 3 lines (like most who read this blog), but reality dictates that there are limited funds and some projects will be built before others. I said 10 years ago, the Purple Line should be pursued ahead of Expo. There weren't many people advocating this then and there aren't many with me now with Vermont, but I am not going to change my opinion. I think we are making a somewhat similar mistake with this as well, and I want to see the region develop a quality rail transit system as soon as possible that compares well to other great cities of the world.

I don't know. It just seems like you are pinning a lot of problems poor minorities face on rail lines, when it fact the problems are, as you said, much larger than that.

Problems are much larger than that.

Aren't those tracks obsolete because of the Alameda Trench?

Is that the rail line's fault or South LA's fault?

-------------

On that we both agree.

Both Crensaw and Vermont are worthy projects and I hope they will both eventually be constructed.

By the way the Green Line is the bouquet of flowers CalTrans sent to the memorial service that followed the death of that almost entirely minority community. Tens of thousands of homes and displaced citizens seems to be a high price to pay for a transit line.

As for the Blue Line it's gone without the addition of grade separations despite by nearly 3-fold being the deadliest light rail line in America?

And neither line has brought about the economic development promised by both...indeed the same can be said for I-10 freeway in South LA.

Let's make sure Metro gets the Crenshaw Line right. Their track record ain't so great.

----------------

Whoosh!

Wow, that's a real pretty straw dog you just set afire! Will there be fireworks too?

Who said South LA couldn't advocate for both of these worthy projects? Advocate away.

"South of the 10-Fwy" already has the Blue Line and the Green Line, will have the Crenshaw Line, the Harbor Transitway will run south of the 10.

Both the Crenshaw and Vermont projects are worthy. By all means advocate away.

Really?

So how was the Gold Line extension built, with tunneling completed just last year?

Let's plug in your figure of $500M/mile. At 1.8 miles of tunneling under Boyle Heights at $500M/mile the cost is 900 million. That's the entire project budget! How did they have anything left over for the other 4.2 miles, property acquisition, at-grade tracks or 101 freeway over-crossing.

So either it's not $500M/mile, indeed not even close to $500M/mile or tunneling costs is projected to increase by multiples over the next couple of years.

Is that your argument?

Of all transit advocates I'm not the one to assume ignorance regarding construction costs, because unlike most I actually look at the contracts. I could provide for this forum the actual costs for the underground segment of Expo and the actual tunneling costs for the Eastside line, but I'd rather make a larger point instead.

It's always tickled me how so many transit advocates base their opinions on things they just assume everyone else will believe to be true, and feel no need to provide any type of substantive basis. (Ironic how frequently the tactic rears its head regarding projects in South LA.) The larger point is folk need to stop predicating their opposition to increased investment in South LA on unfounded assumptions.

If you've got problems with the line debate them by providing substantive points and referencing facts. Otherwise, you have no credibility to be taken seriously.

But I don't want to end this on a negative tone. I'm really enthused by your support for the Vermont subway and take your suggestions to heart. I think we leaders in South LA should probably be advocating for both. Sort of like the Westside is advocating for three lines (Pink Line, Purple Line and Expo Line). Or is advocating for multiple rail projects not allowed south of the 10 freeway?

Perhaps when the people along the southern portion of the line find out that Crenshaw is getting a subway they will want one too claiming injustice. 6 miles of tunneling and you can get to $3B pretty quickly. Already you are looking at a $1.7B line with the ridership models coming in at just 15k for the line. BRT comes in at about a third the cost and a similar ridership.

I still don't understand why the South LA leaders who purport to represent the community won't consider the more worthy Vermont subway extension with its much higher built in ridership. It doesn't have the political power of the Crenshaw area, but if we going to go to the expense of building a grade separated line, why not build it right with a ton of capacity and connected to the rest of the system and where it can generate real ridership and have a much better chance of getting federal funding.

And that estimate is based off what, the eastside extension? grade separated portions of Expo Phase 1? or did you just pull that one out of thin air?

If you don't know any of these costs, what credibility do you have to make any assumptions on the cost of a Crenshaw project or any other. It's a simple point really, which I'm sure you understand. That is why you've avoided answering the question.

If you are going to tunnel on the Crenshaw Blvd. portion of the line, then it makes little sense to go down Crenshaw. If a tunneled route is needed then the subway should be extended down Vermont instead. Crenshaw can in no way compete with Vermont in terms of ridership and density and it would connect well with the rest of the system. A future extension could take this down the Vermont median above ground to the Green Line creating a truly connected Metro system with South Los Angeles at the forefront of this.

At least when comparing options the Harbor Sub and Vermont subway extension should be up there with Crenshaw to see what we should do first. The Crenshaw or bust mindset should end.

That will happen when the line is under construction or some other ambulance chasing grievience is mentioned.

A 8 mile light rail line will cost 3.4 billion? That's what $425 million a mile?

And that estimate is based off what, the eastside extension? grade separated portions of Expo Phase 1? or did you just pull that one out of thin air?

This is At-grade Advocacy 101: over-exaggerate the projected cost of grade separation early on, while underestimating the cost of at-grade.

The reality is, especially where rights-of-way exist (which is the case for most of the Crenshaw Line) grade separation typically increase cost by 25-35%.

Why is it that the only people in the region who think it's wise to spend a buck on something that is going to have a list of negative externalities rather than $1.30 on something that doesn't can be found in the world of mass transit? Just sayin...

Since it is a low efficiency line, it has little chance of getting federal funds. Does Measure R demand that you build half a line then since the state won't be able to pay anything as well? A lot of unanswered questions and big problems to overcome.