You are on page 1of 7

!"#$%&'"((#%%))&"$&*+#,&%*+$-#%&".

&%/)&-"0%/&,"-&+$1),)-&$)#1/2"*/""3&'"0$'#,-4&
'#%#5)$-6&'+(7+#1$&%"&.#8&%/)&)87"&*+#,&,#$)&9&'*)$-/+:&-02:+;&'"+,#%#"$&
!
!"#$%!!
"#$%&'%(!)*+!),,-!.!/0*,!1!20*,!3&!
4#&&56789!:%;<8=!4#56>7<?!*@*A!B8#>C%(!B8!B578%!),A+!D#?!E6F%<%?+!4E!-,,,2!
!
AG H%<>#&%!1!I;&7%6!J##K&#6!L/0*,!1!/0*)!3&M!
!
)G N5'<7>!4#&&%68!O#(!;69!78%&!6#8!#6!8=%!;F%6K;!L/0**!1!/0PQ!3&M!
!
*G RS3#!D76%!L/0PQ!1!@0)Q!3&M!
;G N(%?%68;87#6!.!3<=>?@&1AAB=A@4&.>C&)CDA&*<>E&,>@?!L/0PQ!1!@0,,M!
'G E!D##C!;8!TUE!O(#&!8=%!V6?7K%!1!,?FG?H&/AEE>@F4&.AH=?H&(%+&*<>E&"D?H<GAH!
L@0,,!1!@0A,M!
>G W5%?87#6?!X!I7?>5??7#6!#6!8=%!RS3#!D76%!!L@0A,!.!@0)QM!
!
PG 4(%6?=;Y!D76%!L@0)Q!1!20AQ!3&M!
;G Z%$7%Y!#O!4(%6?=;Y!X!V6F<%Y##K!V??5%?!1!3<=>?@&1AAB=A@4&'I<>H&AJ&!A>@G&
'A==>GG??&A@&*<>E&%H<@F>G&'I<>H&L@0)Q!1!@0P,M!
'G Z%$7%Y!#O!H%?8>=%?8%(!4#&&56789!V??5%?!.!3?@@K&-LI@?>B?H4&7E<K<&B?E&
*?KM:?FGLI?FG?H&$?>NIOAHIAAB&'AP@L>E&L@0P,!1!@0Q,M!
>G R<%>8%K![OO7>7;<!B8;8%&%68?!L@0Q,!1!20,,M!
KG W5%?87#6?!X!I7?>5??7#6!#6!8=%!4(%6?=;Y!D76%!L20,,!1!20AQM!
!
QG U;C76F!E>87#60!N(%3;(76F!O#(!8=%!I%>G!A,!TUE!\#;(K!T%%876F!L20AQ!1!20*,!3&M!
;G U%;&?0!!
7G \5?%?]4;(3##<!4##(K76;87#6!.!^^^^^^^^^^^^!
77G N=#6%.';6C76F!1!_%??%!T;8=5?!
777G 4=5(>=![58(%;>=!1!Z%$G!D%%!H;<C%(!
7$G `<9%(!I7?8(7'587#6!.!^^^^^^^^^^^^!
$G I%>G!A,!E&';??;K#(?!.!^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!^^^^^^^^^^^!
&' ()*+,-./0)12)31-4552)*06-789-%53'-:-/;-7951-%53'-<=-
!
E!?3%>7;<!8=;6C?!8#!8=%!H%?8!EK;&?!"%7F='#(=##K!4#56>7<!O#(!3(#$7K76F!8=%!
(%O(%?=&%68?!O#(!8#67F=8a?!&%%876F+!;6K!4#&&56789!:%;<8=!4#56>7<?!O#(!&;C76F!8=%7(!
>#6O%(%6>%!(##&!;$;7<;'<%G!!
!!
(/;-4/;5->*?/-"/-7/6-
• 4#&&56789!F(#530!YYYG`7SRS3#G#(F!•!N=#6%]`;S0!L*)*M!@/A./P*Q!•!R&;7<0!
76O#bO7S%S3#G#(F!
• D76C!8#!4(%6?=;Y!D76%!<%88%(?!;6K!(%3#(8?0!
=8830]]YYYG?>(7'KG>#&]3%#3<%]K#>5&%68?]P*-2QA,]O#<K%(]A***PP!
• TUE]RS3#!?78%?0!YYYG&%8(#G6%8]>(%6?=;Y!;6K!YYYG'57<K%S3#G#(F
!"#$%&#'($!)!%)'*$
$
%&#'($!)!%)'*$ )!#+,$
!
"#$#!%&'()*!+',-./01&.1!
23&.04!5&30(46!71)!801)! ?&30(4J34HF&1#&.K!
54.9!:0;3-*<=>&?416!@(;!801)A! 1-H&(;;01).0H)J34HF&1#&.K!
B-/!C4.&134/19*6!D.;!801)A! L-/J34HF&1#&.K!
8&(!E(4F-6!G)>!801)! ;&(J34HF&1#&.K!
509-!$()&(&/0H>6!I)>!801)! M0M)>;01).0H)J34HF&1#&.K!
!
54*&.N1!$,,&0()--1!
$()&(0&!O0334.40K&146!"$!54*&.! ?4*&.J34H0)*#&.K!
P&1-!Q'0L4.6!%&'(H03?-?F-.! H&'(H03?-?F-.#>'0L4.J34H0)*#&.K!
:0)4!:&F0(1&(6!"$8R=!2-(#!54(4K-.! .0)4#.&F0(1&(J34H0)*#&.K!
:0H>4.;!E4)L6!S?.#!$11-?F3*?-?F-.! .91*3?4.J4&3#H&?!
!
:-K0&(43!+?433!%0)0-1!:-,.-1-()4)0/-1!
T4?!RN%&((&.6!+4()4!5&(0H4!%&'(H03A! ,4?#&H&((&.J1?K&/#(-)!
P&>(!S414(46!8'4.)-!54*&.! M414(4VJ4HH-11;'4.)-#H&?!
$.4!U4V4.04(6!23-(;43-!54*&.!W%>40.X! 4(4V4.04(JH0#K3-(;43-#H4#'1!
804(-!8'Y&016!"49-Z&&;!%&'(H03! ;;'F&01J349-Z&&;H0)*#&.K!
Y&4.;!+-H.-)4.*! F&4.;&MM0H-J?-).&#(-)!
!
A![!431&!&(!)>-!\],&!"0(-!$')>&.0)*!
!
)-.&$,+/)$0&/*"'10"+&/$#1"2&'+"3$%&#'($!)!%)'*$
$
),)0")($&44+0+#,$ )!#+,$
54.9!:0;3-*<=>&?416!@(;!801)! 1-H&(;;01).0H)J34HF&1#&.K!
B-/!C4.&134/19*6!D.;!801)!WO0H-!%>40.X! L-/J34HF&1#&.K!
%&'(H03!5-?F-.!Q-.F!^-11&(!W%>40.X! H&'(H03?-?F-.#Z-11&(J34H0)*#&.K!
%&'(H03!5-?F-.!P4(!T-..*!WT41)!%>40.X! H&'(H03?-?F-.#,-..*J34H0)*#&.K!
%&'(H03!5-?F-.!Y-.(4.;!T4.91! H&'(H03?-?F-.#,4.91J34H0)*#&.K!
%'3/-.!%0)*!54*&.!+H&))!54310(! 1H&))#?4310(JH'3/-.H0)*#&.K!
+4()4!5&(0H4!%&'(H03!5-?F-.!T4?!RN%&((&.! ,4?#&H&((&.J1?K&/#(-)!
DESCRIPTION OF CRENSHAW RAIL LINE ALIGNMENT & OPTIONS
As Currently Proposed by MTA (Nov. 23, 2009)

At-grade crossings at: 48th, 50th, 52nd


(by Crenshaw HS), 54th, 57th, Slauson
(next to View Park Prep) & 59th

At-grade crossings at: Victoria, Brynhurst,


West & Redondo (next to Centinela Park)

At-grade crossings at: At-grade crossing


Cedar, Oak & Hindry at: Arbor Vitae

= The “baseline project,” what MTA is committed to building as of today.

= Options currently under study by MTA, which they will add to the project or not.

At-grade = Crossings that would remain at-grade (street-level) even if MTA adopts all six options:
• On Crenshaw: 48th, 50th, 52nd, 54th, Slauson, 57th & 59th
• On the Harbor Subdivision (tracks into LAX): Victoria, Brynhurst, West, Redondo,
Cedar, Oak, Hindry & Arbor Vitae

NOTES: MTA staff is currently recommending integration of Options 1, 2 and 4 into the baseline
project, and continuing study and environmental clearance of Options 3, 5 and 6 for integration
into the project if funding becomes available.
CRENSHAW LINE ALIGNMENT CRENSHAW LINE DESIGN OPTIONS
October 19, 2009

Roderick Diaz
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Crenshaw-South Bay Transit Line Project Manager
One Gateway Plaza, M/S 99-22-3
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952
diazroderick@metro.net

Re: Crenshaw-South Bay Line Draft EIR/S

The West Adams Neighborhood Council (WANC) is a certified City of Los Angeles neighborhood
council representing over 20,000 stakeholders. After much community discussion, WANC unanimously
adopted the following position regarding the Crenshaw-South Bay Transit Line study.

The WANC requests that the entire Crenshaw Boulevard portion of the Crenshaw Light Rail Line be
placed underground with stations at Exposition Blvd, Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd, Vernon Ave, and
Slauson Ave.

Area stakeholders are particularly concerned about the safety of children, elderly, the disabled and
motorists along the corridor. South L.A. is already home to America's deadliest light rail line, MTA's
Blue Line, which has taken 95 lives and maimed and injured thousands more in over 842 reported
accidents to date. Stakeholder’s lives should not be placed in jeopardy by 225-ton trains traveling at
high speeds down Crenshaw Blvd. The only way the safety issue can be adequately mitigated is by
placing the rail line underground on Crenshaw Blvd.

The noise, vibration, and traffic impacts of at-grade crossings are also of profound concern. To add 24
Crenshaw Line crossings per hour during rush hour to the 24 proposed Expo Line crossings at the
problematic Exposition/Crenshaw crossing will lead to a train crossing every 75 seconds and total
gridlock for the area.

As the center of Los Angeles' African-American community, Crenshaw Blvd is currently home to many
public events and street festivals that would not be possible with an at-grade line.

Furthermore, proposing at-grade crossings in South L.A. on the Crenshaw Line when the rail is
proposed to be 100% underground when it is extended north of the I-10 freeway would be yet another
case of environmental injustice perpetrated by the MTA and the region's transportation agencies.
Jefferson Park deserves the same treatment as Hancock Park. West Adams deserves the same treatment
as the communities on Wilshire.

We look forward to continuing to participate in this important process.

Sincerely,

Hattie Babb
President
Statement on Metropolitan Transit Authority’s Staff Recommendations for Crenshaw Corridor
November 19, 2009
BY DAMIEN GOODMON

Editor’s note: The statement below is on behalf of the Citizens’ Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line and the South Los Angeles
Neighborhood Council’s Joint Committee on Rail Transit. It was released in light of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority staff’s
recommendation to have a light-rail line instead of a busway for the Crenshaw Corridor. The proposal calls for the $1.7 billion, 8
1/2-mile rail to start at Exposition and Crenshaw boulevards and eventually end at to the Green Line on Imperial Highway.

We agree with MTA staff’s recommendation of light rail over bus rapid transit, the inclusion of the below-grade (underground)
sections along some parts of Crenshaw Boulevard, and the recommendation to continue study of underground options and stations
elsewhere along the route.

However, the portion on Crenshaw between 48th and 60th streets, in Park Mesa Heights, will be a rallying point for our community.
Staff is recommending the section, which abuts View Park Prep School and is about a block away from Crenshaw High School, only
be studied as street-level with no option for underground. We disagree, and want to avoid the problems articulated by L.A. County
Supervisor Gloria Molina regarding the Gold Line’s Eastside Extension safety issues.

Staff’s recommendation for street-level crossings in the Park Mesa Heights community will increase safety hazards to school-aged
children and the public at large; result in the removal of hundreds of parking spaces important to the area’s commerce; require
chopping down tall median trees that are crucial to Crenshaw Boulevard’s scenic highway status; increase congestion at heavily
traveled cross streets, such as Slauson Avenue and 54th Street; slow down the overall traveling speed of the line; and impair otherwise
good economic development opportunities.

From traffic, parking, safety, economic development and procedural standpoints, it is a mistake.

As requested by the community, the neighborhood councils and L.A. City Council, an underground option from 48th to 60th Street
must be included among the other options under study, so when funding becomes available the option can be seamlessly integrated
into the Crenshaw Line project without delay. MTA should avoid the mistakes of the Expo Rail while building on Crenshaw.

Additionally, we disagree with staff’s recommendation for the design and preliminary engineering contract. It appears Metro staff
wants the board to throw aside a perfectly capable and eminently qualified team that included businesses owned by people who live in
the Crenshaw Corridor, in favor a team led out of Orange County.

The largest public works project in the history of South L.A. should not be designed from Orange County.

Staff is recommending the Hatch Mott McDonnell’s team over the PB Americas team, which included, among others, Terry Hayes of
Terry Hayes Associates, and Roland Wiley of RAW International. These local African American business leaders have done all of the
preliminary work to date for this project going back to the early 1990s, have deep roots in the Crenshaw area, have volunteered their
expertise on numerous community projects, and most importantly, have a strong understanding of the pulse of the Crenshaw
community, because they live here.

I don’t yet know why the PB Americas team was not selected, but the MTA board should overrule the staff recommendation, to ensure
that the promises made by elected officials to generate more jobs and a leadership role for members of the community are promises
kept.

We will be working in the coming weeks to persuade the MTA Board to address these issues promptly so our region and the
Crenshaw corridor communities can receive what is necessary and what we are due: a fast, safe and reliable alternative to the traffic
that is clogging our streets and polluting our air.

Damien Goodmon can be reached at dg@fixexpo.org.