Unfortunately, the public in these meetings are UCLA students and senior citizen homeowners (a few of whom rudely interrupted the MTA presentation complaining that they might have their homes tunneled beneath). Office and UCLA workers who live somewhere else are not really represented at all.
When it comes to these debates over competing alignments in a neighborhood the question I often think of is, "Does the neighborhood decide what's best for the region or does the region decide what's best for the neighborhood?"
I think the Westwood station debate is one where the elderly and the students at that meeting should be overridden, as callous as that sounds. The station should be at Wilshire/Westwood.
At least with this station, I don't think there are strong feelings in the community on either location. I think it is really coming down to the MTA's preference to not have to deck Wilshire and have a little easier construction on the other site.
Be sure to put your comments on the MTA's website on your preference for the location. It is important that other users get their perspective on this, especially since it seems the MTA is leaning towards the location to which more passive users would not choose.
Re: Westside Extension Meetings « Reply #351 on Nov 9, 2009, 9:18pm »
It's very difficult to get a consensus on such a regional project. Pasadena residents aren't exactly going to head to West LA to hear about and comment on the subway extension. They are less likely to be aware of it in the news. Students, often activists by nature, and the elderly, who are rabble-rousers by nature, could skew the perception of public opinion on the matter.
Overall, I am almost glad the LA Times doesn't cover transportation if they are going to cover it this horribly.
The front picture showed the Wilshire/Western station and said it was a light rail station.
Con Howe says LA can't be building a subway for a 100 years like New York. Not sure why New York always has to come into the conversation when talking public transit. Other cities have public transit too. I think we are more like Boston, D.C. or San Francisco. Also, NY didn't build its system over 100 years (I know the LA Times was just quoting here). It was more like less than half that as they haven't built anything of significance since the end of WWII.
They didn't even mention one aspect that hurts the Pink Line is that it can't go past Hollywood/Highland to the Valley without transferring. Also, the Cedar's worker they cited would actually benefit hugely from a Wilshire extension as she just works 1/2 mile from a proposed station. If the Pink Line were built without a Wilshire Line I doubt she would save any much time (because of its circular route) over a built out Wilshire line but no Pink Line.
Also, I thought it was pretty funny how they say no one in LA will likely walk over 1/4 mile, but then they cite this middle class woman who walks twice that from a bus stop contradicting the whole thing (even though I do agree that we are going to have to improve our pedestrian links from our stations).
Finally, until MTA sets finishes connecting the Green Line to LAX, everyone is going to use that as an example of why LA public transit is so weak. We gotta get that done for our system first, but second so we don't keep having to hear about this...
Something that is often overlooked that isn't covered in these things, is if the Feds agree to fund half of the Purple Line to Westwood, thus meaning not all the $4.1B allocated to the Westside subway is used for the Westwood section, does this mean that it would go to the Pink Line or is there just a scramble across the county to try to get to use those funds?
Re: Westside Extension Meetings « Reply #353 on Nov 16, 2009, 1:49pm »
A couple questions that have nothing to do with each other:
1. Since the Wilshire extension would be built in phases, would they use the same TBM's for each phase? For example, assuming that the TBM's start at Wilshire/Western and proceed West, would they go past the phase 1 terminus at Fairfax and then be mothballed until they are started up to dig the next segment?
I think all these stories are working under the assumption that the current level of funding (including measure R) will not increase over the next 38 years. This seems silly to me. A friend of mine is a general contractor who works on home remodels and additions. He has a phrase he likes to quote: "Money solves all problems". Someone needs to point out, at least in response to some of these articles, that if we want to get these projects done sooner, that it is just a matter of finding/dedicating the money to make it happen. I would guess that what will happen is that once Expo phase 1 is done, and the ridership is good along with the Gold Line extension, that people will be receptive to an additional tax to speed up the remaining Measure R work. Especially once we get an idea of the Federal commitment, and assuming that there are no financial/construction debacles like the original Red Line had.
Something along the lines of: Ok, as it stands, here are the opening dates of the various lines planned. If we increase the county sales tax by X% for Y years, we can complete each of these this much sooner than the current plan. Maybe I'm being optimistic here, but until Measure R was passed you all would have said the same thing about it. Measure R is a good thing, and maybe we just need more of a good thing?
Re: Westside Extension Meetings « Reply #354 on Nov 16, 2009, 2:51pm »
Boy, masonite and rubbertoe, don't you guys bring up a lot of key points:
1) The L.A. Times' coverage of transit has plummeted in quality and accuracy since Steve Hymon left the Times--fortunately, the average commuter doesn't know much better
2) Much of the reason why the Green Line needs to get to LAX is to exorcise that political demon and move forward (and hence I'm such a big supporter of the Crenshaw Line, which fixes much of that bleeding sore of a problem)
3) I don't think we'll see property or county sales taxes go up any time soon, but the pressure will be on the feds and the state to do its fair share because it's now very safe politically to push for increased projects done faster (for example, Mayor Villaraigosa is likely to have few, if any, opponents to his plan to build the Wilshire Subway to the Westside in ten years)
A couple questions that have nothing to do with each other:
1. Since the Wilshire extension would be built in phases, would they use the same TBM's for each phase? For example, assuming that the TBM's start at Wilshire/Western and proceed West, would they go past the phase 1 terminus at Fairfax and then be mothballed until they are started up to dig the next segment?
I think all these stories are working under the assumption that the current level of funding (including measure R) will not increase over the next 38 years. This seems silly to me. A friend of mine is a general contractor who works on home remodels and additions. He has a phrase he likes to quote: "Money solves all problems". Someone needs to point out, at least in response to some of these articles, that if we want to get these projects done sooner, that it is just a matter of finding/dedicating the money to make it happen. I would guess that what will happen is that once Expo phase 1 is done, and the ridership is good along with the Gold Line extension, that people will be receptive to an additional tax to speed up the remaining Measure R work. Especially once we get an idea of the Federal commitment, and assuming that there are no financial/construction debacles like the original Red Line had.
Something along the lines of: Ok, as it stands, here are the opening dates of the various lines planned. If we increase the county sales tax by X% for Y years, we can complete each of these this much sooner than the current plan. Maybe I'm being optimistic here, but until Measure R was passed you all would have said the same thing about it. Measure R is a good thing, and maybe we just need more of a good thing?
RT
Like all rail projects, dreams don't become reality tomorrow. We're still in the decades old process of finishing up the subway on Wilshire Blvd. At what point does the intentions of a rail line becomes irrelevant because of change; like how the Green Line was originally suppose to serve the Cold War industries in El Segundo? Will the LA Westside still be the trip generator powerhouse when the Subway reaches there or will things get shifted around and new activity centers pops up elsewhere?
Re: Westside Extension Meetings « Reply #356 on Nov 18, 2009, 10:10am »
Tony, You raise a good point. Looking too far into the future is not an easy thing to do. I have commented previously that having a long range transportation plan looking 30 years ahead is all well and good, but only the first 5-10 years mean anything because they will redo the plan every 5 years anyway. Presumably that is when they would look at the kind of changes that you mention and then factor those in, along with any major increases/decreases in available funds like Measure R.
I could see a couple scenarios that could play out in this regard, meaning, what could substantially change the LA transit picture such that we might have to divert resources away from something like the Pink Line that is seen as 20 years down the road.
Scenario 1 would be rising energy prices. We saw oil hit $140 last year, and while you could argue that was a bubble like the home price bubble and the stock bubble, I don't think there is much doubt that oil prices are going to be going higher, especially when you look that far out. A book I'm currently reading is called "$20 per gallon gas", and it discusses things that will change as gas prices rise. Increased transit usage is a big part of what the author discusses. Under this scenario, I could easily see the areas around current transit stations becoming much more desirable places to live, especially if you don't have a car. He says that the distant suburbs would contract and the city will infill, and a large part of that will occur around existing transit. This is kind of like the "if you build it they will come", or more like "since it is built and running they will come".
The other thing that could happen as a result of that is that the system currently in place would get pretty strained. There would literally be too many people using it, and it might have to be expanded. The Blue Line is already carrying almost 80,000 riders per day. If this were to happen, then we might end up spending more money "updating" existing lines which would then detract from expanding the system. I haven't read through the LRTP in a while, but unless I'm mistaken there isn't much in there concerning the possibility that the existing system might need to be significantly upgraded. Three car trains at 5 minute headways I believe are the limits for the light rail lines. Of course, some form of automatic train control could conceivably reduce the headways during rush hour if need be.
It is 84-pages long and offers an exhaustive explanation of where we are on this project as far as funding and design considerations of each station. Some beautiful renderings of existing subway stations are also provided (notably of 7th St./Metro Center and Wilshire/Vermont, which despite an exhaustive search, I had not been able to find sketches of before now).
Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 144 Location: Princeton, NJ
Re: Westside Extension Meetings « Reply #359 on Nov 19, 2009, 4:07am »
Thanks for the link Justin, I'd been waiting to see these slides. I would have been at the first meeting regarding the MOS-1 stations but alas I am here in Jersey. For the most part Metro staff has narrowed down the various alternatives to those that are best for the ridership of the line and optimize pedestrian integration and proper portal placement, however after looking at these sites I still have a few major concerns. The foremost one is WTF???? is Metro thinking with that VA station. I understand they want to put a station at the VA, but they need to put it within close walking distance to (if not right at) Federal or even Barrington (those were both options for a VA station last go around). The ridership from the office towers and dense residential areas between Bundy and Federal warrant a station there in absence of a sure-fire MOS-4 to Santa Monica and that ridership outweighs whatever 500 car lot Metro wants to put at the VA stop. This is not some suburban outpost of the system it's one the most residentially dense sections of the Westside. Because the Bundy station is part of MOS-4, there NEEDS to be a station at Federal if the Purple line is to end there for lack of funding.
The second major concern, albeit of less important since the Pink Line is unfunded and there is plenty of time to revise the plans is the so called Santa Monica/San Vicente station. The location is smack in the middle of La Cienega and San Vicente. While I understand that Metro needs to make the tracks curve there to reach San Vicente, there is no reason the station still can't be at La Cienega. The pedestrian and bus connections are paltry at this middling location. Because of the angle of SM Blvd. at that point, it makes for a longer walk to get up to the Sunset Strip. Remember, that walk is uphill so the walk time is longer than the same distance otherwise. No need to make that harder. Also you lose the one mile station spacing making it harder on the dense section of WeHo between La Cienega and Fairfax, exacerbated by the fact that the Fairfax box is east of Fairfax.
The third point regards the La Cienega station, which I'm conflicted about I really like option A because it is a better walk for the workers on Wilshire near San Vicente while still accomodating the dense City of LA tract that juts into the BH boundaries. On the other hand, Option C would be convenient for them while allowing transfers, though harder for the stretch of Wilshire between Fairfax and La Cienega if only they would open a portal at the south side of the street near the other end of the station box. Which brings me to a general point about portals. In general, the portals Metro is thinking about all make sense, but it was scary to see that Wilshire/Westwod was the only slide that said "multiple portals ready on opening day". I would hope many of the other stations have multiple portals, esp. at Century City (duh, build all four at Constellation), 4th Street (if it ever gets there), Beverly/Rodeo area, Wilshire/ La Brea, and or Wilshire/Fairfax (depending on which one gets the transfer to Crenshaw which was noticably unaccounted for in the rendering possibilites)
Edit: Now that I think about it, the absence of planning for a future Crenshaw transfer in the La Brea and Fairfax schematics actually is the most alarming thing in this report. MOS-1 comes first so these stations need to be built with a transfer in mind since we don't get to do it over again. Why would you tear up a street twice when you could just design a mezzanine that will accomodate a future N-S platform.
Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 144 Location: Princeton, NJ
Re: Westside Extension Meetings « Reply #360 on Nov 19, 2009, 4:26am »
Also, in regards to the stations with options: Wilshire should be at Wilshire/Westwood even though it will be more disruptive. It's the most crucial station on the entire line. I think i read recently that Westwood's office towers alone have as many workers as downtown Salt Lake City. Century City should be at Constellation. No brainer here, with the central location and ability for four portals and possible future development after staging on that vacant NE corner lot, I'm surprised Metro hasn't already eliminated the SM Blvd. option. La Cienega is still tricky but I'm going to go with option A. It is easiest on bus transfers and pedestrian connections to the far west Miracle Mile area (which I must point out is not actually the Miracle Mile proper, that is between La Brea and Fairfax, despite the signage at Wilshire and San Vicente)
Re: Westside Extension Meetings « Reply #361 on Nov 19, 2009, 10:00am »
Three points:
1) Great to hear from you, Antonio! Hope things are good for out in "Joisey" 2) I hope you're able to e-mail or otherwise write Metro with your concerns 3) I totally, totally, totally agree with you that the MOS-1 should NOT be built unless we know how it'll intersect with the Crenshaw and Pink Lines
Also, in regards to the stations with options: Wilshire should be at Wilshire/Westwood even though it will be more disruptive. It's the most crucial station on the entire line. I think i read recently that Westwood's office towers alone have as many workers as downtown Salt Lake City. Century City should be at Constellation. No brainer here, with the central location and ability for four portals and possible future development after staging on that vacant NE corner lot, I'm surprised Metro hasn't already eliminated the SM Blvd. option. La Cienega is still tricky but I'm going to go with option A. It is easiest on bus transfers and pedestrian connections to the far west Miracle Mile area (which I must point out is not actually the Miracle Mile proper, that is between La Brea and Fairfax, despite the signage at Wilshire and San Vicente)
Antonio, I agree with your thoughts wholeheartedly. The Century City has to be on Constellation in the middle of Century City.
It looks like Metro is value engineering these stations and trying to go with as few portals as possible which is disappointing. They are not necessarily going with the best locations either if it will help them have a little easier construction.
As far as Westwood, I certainly favor Wilshire/Westwood as others do here. I did err in that I didn't previously realize that the UCLA parking lot location would have a portal on the South Side of Wilshire, which is important. Even so, the heart of this district is at Westwood. The UCLA Parking Lot location is too far west. Does LA National Cemetary need a station right next to it when so many people live and work to the East? More people work in Westwood than in all of Downtown San Diego (this according to the MTA itself) and we are going to put a station right next to a cemetary instead of closer to the middle of that district? Given this, it appears that Metro is going with the UCLA Lot location because they won't have to deck Wilshire and it will be a little easier to stage.
The VA station over Barrington/Federal is an absolutely horrible decision and hopefully can be reversed. Your "WTF" sentiments are mine and others exactly. I'll post a lot more on this when I get a chance.
I encourage you and others on this board to give comments to Metro " Go to www.metro.net/westside and click on “Contact Us”" before it is too late to change some of these things.
Re: Westside Extension Meetings « Reply #363 on Nov 19, 2009, 6:02pm »
Yeah, don't understand the rationale behind ending it in the VA -- a few blocks away from a high-density area. I emailed comments to Metro suggesting either putting Barrington/Wilshire back in MOS-3 or finding a way to make the VA station connect to Federal.
I got to thinking... they probably want the VA station by the massive VA parking lots for park-and-ride purposes -- 405 drivers wishing to go east. So if they can't do both a Barrington and a VA station that would explain why they wouldn't want to put it among the highrises.
That got me thinking... why not just do a double end station (forget their terminology for this, but people can enter from both ends) instead of just one. Put one entrance in the parking lot for park and riders and create a connection to Wilshire/Federal. If you look at streetview of the corner on Google maps, you can see that corner is just dying for something on the east side (especially southeast).
Threw these together quickly last night... what do you guys think of the idea the VA station. Does it have merit?
P.S. also can't figure out how to get images actually in the post...
Yeah, don't understand the rationale behind ending it in the VA -- a few blocks away from a high-density area. I emailed comments to Metro suggesting either putting Barrington/Wilshire back in MOS-3 or finding a way to make the VA station connect to Federal.
I got to thinking... they probably want the VA station by the massive VA parking lots for park-and-ride purposes -- 405 drivers wishing to go east. So if they can't do both a Barrington and a VA station that would explain why they wouldn't want to put it among the highrises.
That got me thinking... why not just do a double end station (forget their terminology for this, but people can enter from both ends) instead of just one. Put one entrance in the parking lot for park and riders and create a connection to Wilshire/Federal. If you look at streetview of the corner on Google maps, you can see that corner is just dying for something on the east side (especially southeast).
Threw these together quickly last night... what do you guys think of the idea the VA station. Does it have merit?
This area is near where I work and I was at the station location community meeting for the Westside Extension, where you can learn quite a bit by talking to different people. I think people are starting to wake up to the fact that a station at the VA doesn't make sense over the dense district around Federal or Barrington which has 8-9 highrises and University High School along with thousands of residents on side streets in large apartment buildings as well as a connection to Santa Monica Blvd., which is two blocks away.
The VA has one hospital and almost nothing else. It is so close to the proposed Westwood station at Veteran that these stations would be closer to each other than any other two stations on the entire extension, yet there is literally nothing in between these two stations except for a cemetary, a freeway and a parking lot.
Ironically, the VA land is deeded to the United States for sole use for veterans, which means they cannot allocate parking to the general public. People think the VA makes sense because they think it will have plenty of parking for people who live points west. However, because of the VA land restrictions, the only way parking can be built here for the subway is through an underground structure, although Metro has no idea where they could do this or how they would fund it or how big it could be. Since underground parking would be extremely expensive even if it could be built and any lot would be relatively small given the demand, it appears the MTA is not exactly committing to building any parking here. David Mieger, of the MTA said ideally people should access the station by bus or other means (bicycle or walking presumably).
The main reasons why this station is in MOS 3 is because Westwood is expected to be such a busy station that it would be at risk at being overcapacity if it were a terminal station and the extreme gridlock from the 405 freeway building West would not allow people to access the station. Note, it is not uncommon for it to take 25-30 minutes to travel a mile heading east between Barrington and Westwood. However, by building the station at the VA, which is almost right up against the 405, they have not addressed the latter issue.
We had talked previously on this board about an ideal location being a station box between Federal and Barrington with a portal on the Army Reserve Property at the SE corner of Wilshire and Federal as well as one at Barrington as well as was suggested again the quote above. This way, the VA Hospital would be served almost as well as if the station were on Wilshire in front of the Hospital, because of the way Wilshire sharply curves in this area. Also, this is a 10 acre property that could actually have surface parking.
This land is controversial, because the Army sold its interest to a developer a few years ago as it is insufficient for the Army's needs now. The VA had previously given it to the Army back in the 40's. The VA now wants the land back (although the courts have ruled against them) and the developer wanted to change the zoning on the property to develop it. Right now it is zoned institutional so only a museum or school or something like that go there and the community won't allow a change. Yet another wrinkle is that this is kind of a no-man's land in that the City of Los Angeles annexed this area long after the VA was in existence so the VA including this parcel is not part of the City. The developer has told the MTA they can build a portal on this property (and most likely do some staging here as well), as it will probably help their land value by quite a bit. Ideally, the MTA would pruchase this land and develop a surface lot, but the parcel is worth approx. $100M, although building an underground lot at the VA is going to cost a lot as well and probably get close to that amount if they are going to build a decent size lot.
Basically, the MTA's position is that the VA is working with them and they can build a station cheaply here. They don't want to deal with the controversy of the Army Reserve parcel. However, this doesn't seem right for the community as we should be building subways where people actually live and work and go to school shouldn't we. If we are going to the expense of building a subway it seems like we should spend a few extra dollars to build it where people can most easily use it not an empty area that can never be developed.
Sorry for the long post, but I had a lot of info on this as I was struck by how the MTA could suggest putting the station here instead of Barrington or Federal. It seems so completely wrong. If you agree, please let the MTA know.
Re: Westside Extension Meetings « Reply #367 on Nov 20, 2009, 8:31pm »
Honestly the fact that VA parking isn't allowed to be allocated to non-veterans (the general public using the subway) has me questioning why they would put this station in the VA lot at all. The presentation slides released by Metro touted this station as a site for park-and-ride. If the lots can't be used by non-vets, it's not a park and ride. It's a highly unaccessible station.
Thoughts:
I don't see why Metro would shy away from the developer of the SE corner (Army Reserve) parcel if he has said they can build a portal there. There's no indication of a Federal/Wilshire portal in the presentation slides (perhaps this is a more recent development). It could be a station built awaiting subsequent development.
But what subsequent development? Has to be a museum or school... so the developer sounds like he's in a bind -- he can't really actually develop the land. Why not do a land swap with the developer, get Broad to build his new museum on the SE corner, put a portal in the museum, and put some parking around it?
And on another note: How about working something out with the VA that granted use of the parking lots provided vets get free subway access? Not sure on how set in stone those VA land use rules are... probably underestimating the government bureaucracy on this one...
Honestly the fact that VA parking isn't allowed to be allocated to non-veterans (the general public using the subway) has me questioning why they would put this station in the VA lot at all. The presentation slides released by Metro touted this station as a site for park-and-ride. If the lots can't be used by non-vets, it's not a park and ride. It's a highly unaccessible station.
Thoughts:
I don't see why Metro would shy away from the developer of the SE corner (Army Reserve) parcel if he has said they can build a portal there. There's no indication of a Federal/Wilshire portal in the presentation slides (perhaps this is a more recent development). It could be a station built awaiting subsequent development.
But what subsequent development? Has to be a museum or school... so the developer sounds like he's in a bind -- he can't really actually develop the land. Why not do a land swap with the developer, get Broad to build his new museum on the SE corner, put a portal in the museum, and put some parking around it?
And on another note: How about working something out with the VA that granted use of the parking lots provided vets get free subway access? Not sure on how set in stone those VA land use rules are... probably underestimating the government bureaucracy on this one...
I agree that the use of the VA station without a huge parking facility is questionable at best. The land use provisions from the Jones family that deeded the VA to the United States provides that it must be used to serve the Veterans. Providing parking for a subway station for the general public does not meet that guideline. Providing for a subway station that veterans can access probably does.
I also agree that Eli Broad's 3rd undisclosed site for his museum may be this parcel as it has a unique Wilshire Blvd. site that is freeway accesible as well as future transit accessible. Also, it would have plenty of land to properly develop and have a backdrop of the green space of the VA's residential area behind it creating a unique development opportunity and giving the museum its own unique space.
Honestly the fact that VA parking isn't allowed to be allocated to non-veterans (the general public using the subway) has me questioning why they would put this station in the VA lot at all. The presentation slides released by Metro touted this station as a site for park-and-ride. If the lots can't be used by non-vets, it's not a park and ride. It's a highly unaccessible station.
Thoughts:
I don't see why Metro would shy away from the developer of the SE corner (Army Reserve) parcel if he has said they can build a portal there. There's no indication of a Federal/Wilshire portal in the presentation slides (perhaps this is a more recent development). It could be a station built awaiting subsequent development.
But what subsequent development? Has to be a museum or school... so the developer sounds like he's in a bind -- he can't really actually develop the land. Why not do a land swap with the developer, get Broad to build his new museum on the SE corner, put a portal in the museum, and put some parking around it?
And on another note: How about working something out with the VA that granted use of the parking lots provided vets get free subway access? Not sure on how set in stone those VA land use rules are... probably underestimating the government bureaucracy on this one...
Federal was previously considered by the MTA. Under the reasons why it was eliminated it just said "sensitive property". In asking the MTA about this, they said there was community opposition, but it seemed more like some sort of political opposition since I know the local pols, Zev and Waxman want the property to go back to the VA even if they seem powerless to make this happen. I agree it doesn't quite add up. The MTA didn't seem to get involved and just is trying to go with the path of least resistance although the resistance seems to not really be there. The community just doesn't want 400 condos there. I don't think there would be much opposition to a subway station with parking and maybe a Broad Museum.
The VA cannot give away its land for any material non-veteran uses if it does not directly benefit the vets. Basically, they can allocate land for a subway station which will benefit veterans through increased access to the VA, but they cannot let non-vets use any significant parking. The VA has made clear there cannot be any surface parking for the subway station and will use its local federal police to vigorously enforce this.
Also, this is a highly sensitive issue, since many vets and vet groups have been upset in the past for allowing some things that are not directly related to vets. For example, LA National Cemetary is full and vets are upset they cannot be buried in LA. There has been talk of expanding the cemetary since the VA has land. If they were to somehow allow for a giant parking lot for the community instead of this, you would have all sorts of upset vets and rightly so.
Since station placement is so important for these projects with the Gold Line often an example where poor placement has really hurt the line, we should have a poll on where this station should be (VA, Barrington, or Federal) similar to what we have done on other similar issues like the Crenshaw option. Sorry, I don't know how to put this up there myself.
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Calendar]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif)
![[Login]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
![[locked poll]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/poll_icon_closed.gif){kind=icon}
Poll
![]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/poll_right.gif)
(5 votes, 20%)
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://www.thetransitcoalition.us/nationaltc/Pics/KennethAlpern.gif)
