Last Chance to Comment on Crenshaw Line TODAY

The residents and business owners of Crenshaw want an underground train. Give the Crenshaw community the same consideration that has already been granted the mid-Wilshire and West Side communities. The Crenshaw community is a destination, not a place to plow through.

Please, spend just 3 minutes to send an email to diazroderick@metro.net
and/or crenshaw@fixexpo.org.

Comments

[Matt]

At this point, the option should be No-Build. The line does not have anywhere near the amount of funds they need to complete a line here, especially if there is going to be any underground portion. If the community wants an underground line, then Vermont needs to be where that line is not Crenshaw, which doesn't have near the ridership that Vermont does.

At least Vermont can be built in stages from Wilshire. Crenshaw is turning into a boondoggle and is best a feeder line relying on the Expo, Green and eventually the Purple lines for its ridership. Once the Green Line is extended to the airport, the Purple Line goes to at least Century City and Expo Phase II is done, then this line should be evaluated to proceed.

[Damien Goodmon]

Matt the argument that one corridor that is 2-5 miles away from the corridor in question deserves more priority for the reasons you stated had more legitimacy before you listed 3 westside projects you wanted to see completed before this one. You pulled your cape off with that one.

We can talk about what an ideal progression of transit construction projects would look like, and except for Wilshire to Westwood, the next 15 years all the cranes would be east of La Cienega.

Which brings me to a bigger point: both Crenshaw AND Vermont are needed, and unlike some projects which go through choice-rider territory, both travel through some of the most highly transit dependent areas in the region - you know the people who NEED transit to get to work every day, not just the folk who want to take a train ride to the Opera once a month. This is why Crenshaw has always been questioned among the majority of the mostly non-minority, non-South LA-living, choice riders, who dominate the transit advocacy discussion in this city.

[Matt]

The reason I mentioned the Green Line to LAX and Expo Phase II and Wilshire to Century City is not because they are Westside projects, but rather because Crenshaw will be realiant on those projects for much of its ridership as the Crenshaw Line itself does not serve any material job centers to speak of.

If there was an LAX people mover ready (which the Green Line extension should bring) for Crenshaw and a full Expo Line as well as a Purple Line that Crenshaw connected to that go could through the wall of traffic at La Cienaga then the Crenshaw Line would not have a pathetic 13k projected ridership that it does now. It would have a lot more and would actually be able to compete for federal funds much more easily. Right now it is hard to justify the line not being BRT based on the statistics, because BRT has more ridership for much less cost, because Crenshaw has no lines to connect to other than Expo going East based on what is currently under construction.

Sure Vermont and Crenshaw both should have rail, but lets be realistic and realize that one project is going to come way before the other. It should be Vermont, but the so called leaders in South (really Southwest in this case) LA have pushed for Crenshaw and haven't said hardly a word about Vermont.

[Spokker]

"you know the people who NEED transit to get to work every day, not just the folk who want to take a train ride to the Opera once a month."

Yeah, that Purple Line extension is going to be nothing but monocles and top hats.

[Damien Goodmon]

*******
The reason I mentioned the Green Line to LAX and Expo Phase II and Wilshire to Century City is not because they are Westside projects, but rather because Crenshaw will be realiant on those projects for much of its ridership as the Crenshaw Line itself does not serve any material job centers to speak of.
*******

Why not instead argue that those resources be taken from those projects and put towards extending the Crenshaw Line so that it can connect to more job and population centers?

Why not argue that the Expo Phase 2 money be put towards a Crenshaw spur line down La Brea/Hawthorne Blvd to Del Amo Mall to connect to more South Bay employment centers and the high population density that lines Hawthorne Blvd?

Why not argue that some of the Wilshire to Century City money go towards extending the Crenshaw Line north to Hollywood via a modified Pink Line that hits Midtown Crossing, Miracle Mile, The Grove/CBS Studios, Beverly Center, West Hollywood and the Sunset Strip?

That would take care of the problem would it not? And unlike the others, it would provide a rapid transit/regional rail alternative along a corridor that unlike the others has absolutely no highway option.

I think most recognize this Expo to Green Line portion is the first phase of a much larger project. Taking it in isolation to claim it's not worth the investment is like claiming the Subway to the Sea isn't worth it by evaluating it solely on the ridership generated by Phase 1 (Western to Fairfax).

By the way:

-The 13K does not include LAX passengers. Add those and the number goes up to 21K, which I still think is pretty low estimate.

-At 21K/1.7B vs. 45K/4.1B Crenshaw is a better deal per rider than Wilshire.

-BRT alternative goes to Wilshire, is predicated on several operational assumptions that are not yet provided (LADOT approval), whereas the LRT only goes to Expo and would be incompatible for future expansion of the corridor and shared Harbor Subdivision

[Matt]

We are talking in circles here Damien.
****
Why not instead argue that those resources be taken from those projects and put towards extending the Crenshaw Line so that it can connect to more job and population centers?
****

Yes, I agree that Crenshaw needs to go to Wilshire, which is one problem I have with the current proposal. However, if you don't extend the Purple Line west to meet it at a shared station, what good does that do?

I mentioned that we should get going on the Green Line connection to LAX so LAX will get their People Mover going, which would make this more of a viable line. You tried to slam me for favoring this as a Westside project, although this would be a huge boon for the thousands of airport workers who live along the Green Line corridor in South LA/Inglewood/Hawthorne, but I don't have to tell you that as a South LA expert. Then you include the numbers for Crenshaw as if the People Mover was under construction. This is like arguing with a split personality or should I say lets just agree to agree?

The numbers you have for the subway extension to Westwood are way off by the way. It is 49k boardings plus another 27k additional system boardings for a total of 76k. If your numbers were right, then the Purple Line would not be able to compete for New Starts Funding, but we know that isn't the case. Also, you are citing a $1.7B cost for Crenshaw. Mark Ridley-Thomas is stating it will need at least $2.1B to include some more grade separation. You want more grade separation, which will send the cost even higher.

If you think that Crenshaw is ready to go, what option in the DEIR are you supporting then? It seems as if you aren't quite satisfied with the current proposal either.

[browne]

These are my facts. I look at transit more from a social ecology perspective than a straight up this formula will get this many riders. Humans are not equations, though sometimes we have to work the math, but Matt and Goodmon have done plenty of that, so I'm not reinventing the wheel.

Plenty of people take the bus along Crenshaw Blvd. When I take the bus along Crenshaw more often than not it is standing room only. To me when I go on a line more than three times and I'm standing all three times then I say that line has good ridership from my on the bus perspective. More people would take the bus along Crenshaw if the bus would show up. The bus in that section of town is VERY bad at staying on schedule. That would be an ideal place to take the bus if the bus ran on a regular basis, but it doesn't and I don't know why. There are three lines that stop on that streets so I should never be waiting more than 30 minutes and I have. I have had to take my bike down there so I don't end up killing someone. And while I will ride my bike in my neighborhood I have to be pretty annoyed to take my bike from Lincoln Heights to Leimert Park which I have because I don't feel like waiting on that bus and standing on it when it finally shows up.

"Why not argue that some of the Wilshire to Century City money go towards extending the Crenshaw Line north to Hollywood via a modified Pink Line that hits Midtown Crossing, Miracle Mile, The Grove/CBS Studios, Beverly Center, West Hollywood and the Sunset Strip?" Goodmon.

I like this idea ALOT!!!

I like the idea of the Crenshaw subway because I feel that it will give a neighborhood that is already a great neighborhood more options. We are now moving away from the car, but in communities of color the options of being carfree are not there. The busses run shitty, there isn't any rail (except for the Blue Line which is a very unpleasat experience,) there are no bike lanes, the streets in some neighborhoods aren't as safe as they could be. How can we push the message of sustainablity if only people who live in Santa Monica and Silver Lake and speak English are allowed to hear the message and more importantly get the options.

We keep saying we want to expand transit to middle class riders, well the Crenshaw area has plenty of potential middle class riders. If this rail was built properly it would be the only neighborhood of color that got a boost without the "lets tear it all down and move 'better' people in" thing. And the people in the Crenshaw area could be the ambassadors of alternative transit to less economically advantaged sections of South LA.

That section of town (Leimert Park, Baldwin Hills etc) has a very clear idea what it wants to be and for it to be left out of the rail planning would change the dynamics of LA in a bad way. All of these projects that are being created are for people in Pasadena and the Westside there seems to be no rail projects for people who live in the South or the East. The rail isn't being built for African-Americans or Latinos, sure we're taking it, but there is no consideration in how it's built for our neighborhoods. It's all very logical in regards to saving money and time until you hit a neighborhood that has a higher population (south pasadena, Expo by USC) of white people with money and then it becomes about the people and that's fine, but that should be the case in regards to all the neighborhoods.

The Crenshaw community in itself is a destination. The communities in the South and East sections of LA seem to be just places for METRO to plow through and I find that a problem.

Why it is so hard for people to understand that the communities of color want something nice in the places that we view as destinations? Lots of people in the Crenshaw district shop there, eat there, and socialize there. Lots of people in South LA view the Crenshaw District as a destination. The Baldwin Hills Mall, Magic Johnson Movie theatre, the Debbie Allen Dance Academy, Kenneth Hahn Park, Village Green the many beauty salons, the huge churches, the cultural centers...its all there in that area.

To me the Red Line should have went up Sunset and to me that's what Crenshaw is to South LA, it's Sunset Blvd, yeah you could build up Vermont, but then you would have the Red Line in its current configuration. Imagine how many young people we would have taking the train now had the Red Line gone up Sunset? To me you build things on of course facts of right now, but also on what can happen in the future. I think the potential for a wider variety of riders (which is badly needed if we want to get people out of their cars) is there with a Crenshaw line.

This is about getting people to work, but its also about changing people's mindset on how to live. To get people out of their cars is going to take more than just looking at some numbers and slapping up some tracks where the equation tells you they should go. I took the Red Line initially because it was fun. Had it not been fun intially for me as a person who got their first car at 16 I would have never ever tried the bus.

Browne

[Damien Goodmon]

Matt -

The point I was making with the comparisons is that all of these lines are dependent on one another, and that given enough resources each of them can see an increase in ridership.

And no I'm not satisfied with the current Crenshaw Line proposal. My views are well known. Here are the Save Leimert comments, which I played an instrumental role in crafting: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21666416/Save-Leimert-Crenshaw-Line-Comments

Unlike most transit advocates I'm rarely ever satisfied with what Metro initially proposes. Metro has P.R. people to tell the public how great they are. My role is to make them push the envelope, and back my arguments with stats, data and identification of resources, so that the end product is better than was initially proposed (which incidentally in South LA is typically always less than what is feasible or politically possible.) I applaud Metro when they do something right (for example their consideration of the options and the Leimert Park Village concept), but I take them to task when they do something wrong (fail to consider interlining on the Harbor Subdivision or the long term economic and safety impacts of street-running on Crenshaw.)

Why would any person, any taxpayer, do any differently? They work for me and you just the same don'tchaknow?

[Damien Goodmon]

And Browne -

You hit on a bigger point. The real problem many of the (mostly white, mostly male, none from South LA) people doing the talking on these transit boards have with Crenshaw is that they just don't see anything about the line that THEY like or destinations THEY would want to go to.

If they were worried about connectivity, they'd be demanding more resources to get the line to Wilshire - not saying it should be scrapped.

No you see it's all about their outing to the Santa Monica beach, hitting up Edison for Happy Hour, or going to Old Town Pasadena or Silver Lake. Crenshaw and Downtown Inglewood ain't their spot. I've seen it displayed on Expo. When challenged on why Culver City received grade separations but not Crenshaw or Western, someone actually had the balls to say, "Of course they should receive more investment. People actually want to go there." And no one challenged his statement.

Yea, not one of these Crenshaw-critics uttered a word about a Vermont Ave subway extension until it came time to put shovels in the ground on 'Shaw. Check their "top projects for MTA," and despite Vermont having the second highest bus ridership of any line in the entire system, it's never made their list. Now they're all of a sudden concerned about those poor black and brown people on the 754/204, who deserve so much better if only the black political leadership would give them the time of day and stop wasting their time on the Crenshaw.

It B.S., especially, when in the past I made the case for Vermont subway and many of them responded "let them eat cake," i.e. they can take the Harbor Transitway.

[Matt]

Browne,

Good post. I would still say everything you stated could be applied to Vermont as well, except it is not as middle class.

Damien,

I really have no personal interest in Vermont vs. Crenshaw. If anything Vermont is farther from me. I just view it as a more ideal transit corridor. I've always felt that way, but I only have been paying more attention to transit over the last year or so as someone who hasn't had to work as much overtime over the last year.

What really got my attention was reading the Crenshaw scoping comments and how many people stated they wished Metro was building on Vermont or Western instead. I just happen to think this makes a lot of sense from a system and urban planning point of view.

[Damien Goodmon]

*****
What really got my attention was reading the Crenshaw scoping comments and how many people stated they wished Metro was building on Vermont or Western instead.
*****

And as occurs with every at-grade light rail project that Metro proposes, they were saying that not because they thought one corridor was superior, but rather because they didn't want 225-ton trains barreling down the middle of Crenshaw Blvd. I know - I was there at the meetings.

And yes, Vermont is an attractive corridor, but so too is Crenshaw.

Vermont could probably add the second most riders to the system behind only the subway extension to Century City.

Are you calling on Metro to halt all capital projects (Crenshaw, Wilshire from Century City to Santa Monica, Expo Phase 2, Foothill extension, Downtown Connector, Green Line to airport, San Fernando Valley transit ways) until these two corridors are built, or just Crenshaw? Again, I get back to your selective punishment - you're ONLY critical and requesting delay of Crenshaw. Just because one corridor is justified doesn't mean that another 2-5 miles away is not.

Furthermore, given that a Hollywood-to-South Bay Crenshaw Line will have a monopoly on travel along the corridor, who is to say that if $6B were spent on that project instead of the Subway-to-the-Sea it wouldn't generate similar ridership as Wilshire (to say nothing of more economic development)?