Readers React: A ‘Y’ intersection shouldn’t disrupt the Green Line service South Bay residents rely on
To the editor: The article on the service challenges posed by the rail intersection between Metro’s current Green Line and the future Crenshaw Line omitted the fact that the agency’s Operations, Safety and Customer Experience Committee had already recommended Option C-3 — which would maintain Green Line service from South Bay cities to the Blue Line and the Silver Line — for opening day service.
After several months of public meetings and deliberations, Metro staff is raising a “new” issue by questioning whether the electric power system for the trains is adequate to run three-car trains on either the Crenshaw Line or Green Line with six-minute headways during peak hours.
We believe Metro should document if initial ridership on the Crenshaw Line and Green Line can be accommodated with two-car trains at least until the LAX connector opens in 2023.
None of the staff’s “new” concerns warrants a change in the Metro committee’s recommendation to implement Option C-3 on the Crenshaw’s Line’s opening day and review after a year of operation.
Steve Lantz, Torrance, and Karen Heit, Los Angeles
Lantz is transportation director at the South Bay Cities Council of Governments. Heit is a transportation analyst for the Gateway Cities Council of Governments.
To the editor: When the Green Line was originally planned, it was intended to go to LAX, but the Federal Aviation Administration presented the dubious claim that the overhead electrical wiring would interfere with nearby aircraft.
So, the Green Line turned south instead of north, but a stub “Y” connector was built in El Segundo in the hope that someday the extension to LAX could be built. Now that someday has come, and we have a new dubious claim from officials in the South Bay who think a transfer will dissuade people from making the trip.
There is a parallel to this already in existence. At the Wilshire/Vermont subway station, passengers traveling from Hollywood to Koreatown transfer at “Y”-type rail intersection. That transfer has existed for 20 years, and it doesn’t seem to be preventing very much ridership.
As someone who was here for the original discussions and knows the pros and cons, I believe Metro should proceed with the plan to operate the Crenshaw and Green lines as originally proposed. Once in operation, Metro can make changes as the ridership warrants.
Kymberleigh Richards, Van Nuys
The writer is a former member of Metro’s San Fernando Valley Governance Council.
To the editor: We in the South Bay have been looking forward to the opening of the Crenshaw Line to reduce traffic congestion. Silly us.
Under the Metro staff’s “favored option,” our existing 20-mile light-rail line from Redondo Beach will be cut to little more than a stub.
Want to go to downtown Los Angeles or USC? That’ll take not one, but two transfers. During non-peak service, expect travel times to increase by more than 40 minutes.
It’s equally bleak for Gateway Cities commuters who work in high-tech centers like El Segundo. Rather than the existing one-seat service, Metro might have them go north to Century Boulevard, transfer and then make their way south to El Segundo.
Transit should be about making connections, not breaking them.
Bob Wolfe, Hermosa Beach
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.