|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 17, 2009 14:46:23 GMT -8
MOS: metal - oxide - semiconductor OK, in this context it probably means minimum operating segment. So, is this going to be a Wilshire Line or a combined Wilshire/Santa Monica Blvd Line? I wasn't attending the meetings, so, sorry for my ignorance. I would much rather like to see a combined line to Westwood instead of a Wilshire-only line to all the way to Santa Monica, where there is already a line (Expo).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 17, 2009 15:18:59 GMT -8
^ I'd be glad to talk about *that* MOS, but we should probably take it to an electronics forum!
jejozwik, an MOS (minimum operating segment) project strategy takes the whole project (in this case, the Wilshire Subway Extension) and divides it into smaller segments, built and then opened in sequence. The existing Red/Purple Lines were built as Minimum Operating Segments.
Generally, a project might be built as a sequence of MOSs because (a) you can't raise the money for the whole project right away, or (b) you want to break up the political, environmental and regulatory process for the project into smaller, more manageable chunks.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 17, 2009 16:44:04 GMT -8
The Alternatives Analysis is 1-2 years away from completion, but it appears that there will be as rapid as possible a drive to push the Subway to just west of the 405 freeway (Bundy or Barrington).
It's yet to be determined, but if the Santa Monica Blvd. connector through West Hollywood and Beverly Hills is to be done then that would be the time that it will be built--the feedback to date has favored the combined analysis.
After that connector is completed, if there's still a demand/desire to continue the Subway to the beach, then that would be the last portion of the Subway.
In other words--and to summarize--things are leaning towards the combined Subway but with a Wilshire priority and perhaps without a complete push to the beach.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 17, 2009 16:55:26 GMT -8
....and you can open up one MOS while the others are still under construction getting partial benefit of the subway line.
On a different note, it Would be nice if the Purple Line curved south in Santa Monica and connected with Expo. They come so close yet so far.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 17, 2009 18:01:21 GMT -8
or phases to the rest of the world.
thanks for the explanation though!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 17, 2009 18:04:52 GMT -8
On a different note, it Would be nice if the Purple Line curved south in Santa Monica and connected with Expo. They come so close yet so far. The only reason Expo would terminate at 4th/Colorado is a future Green Line extension. Ironically the current configuration of the terminal station might prevent such an extension. But the only reason Expo is terminating at 4th/Colorado is lack of right-of-way on the city streets. Ideally the Expo Line would curve up toward Santa Monica Blvd and even San Vicente Blvd, not the other way around. This is the historical configuration, with the Expo Line curving down south toward Venice and Inglewood but also up north toward Santa Monica Blvd and eventually San Vicente Blvd.
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Apr 19, 2009 23:56:33 GMT -8
There really needed to be a map like this, to put all of Metro's (and Expo's) Westside projects together. So I combined the current Wilshire and Crenshaw maps, added missing station locations, and updated the Expo Line route. Here is a larger 1600-pixel-wide version. ^ Make Crenshaw and Pink the same line! No more disjoints!
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 20, 2009 4:47:04 GMT -8
I concur--that's why I'm glad that the Purple Line to the 405 freeway is aimed for completion PRIOR to the Pink Line (or whatever it'll be called). I recommended to Metro that the Crenshaw and Red/Purple Connector not be done in separate plans, because that Connector has both east-west and north-south components.
Similarly, the Harbor Subdivision and Crenshaw Projects should not be done in separate plans, and perhaps a preliminary focus of getting the Green Line to LAX (the southernmost component of the Crenshaw Project) should be pursued while all these other questions get hammered out.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 22, 2009 14:06:14 GMT -8
^ Make Crenshaw and Pink the same line! No more disjoints! The way that would be done is for the Crenshaw Line not to go up LaBrea to Wilshire, but to continue along San Vicente all the way up to Santa Monica Blvd. It would run sort of like the G-train in New York, its north/south swerving east/west in its journey.
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Apr 22, 2009 16:35:08 GMT -8
^ Make Crenshaw and Pink the same line! No more disjoints! The way that would be done is for the Crenshaw Line not to go up LaBrea to Wilshire, but to continue along San Vicente all the way up to Santa Monica Blvd. Which would put it smack in the middle of Carthay Circle, wouldn't it? I could see it working MAYBE as far as Fairfax, but then you'd need to find another way around. Carthay Circle would be as welcoming as Hancock Park, so San Vicente is out. Fairfax is really too narrow to do anything with. A "Z" that took La Brea and turned onto 3rd would be good, because then you hit Television City, The Grove, Fairfax District, etc. But. . . I think the map above is about as much as we can ask for.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 9, 2009 11:39:41 GMT -8
But. . . I think the map above is about as much as we can ask for. I basically agree. There may eventually be a north/south project connecting the Valley to LAX via Sepulveda and/or Lincoln, and the Harbor Subdivision might be a LRT and HRT.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 9, 2009 11:54:39 GMT -8
Just a thought about the combined Pink/Purple line, if both got the go ahed, it would be one if the largest mass transit project ever made in US history. Recently, New Jersey got $3 billion for their $8.7 billion Hudson River tunnel. I think our needs in Los Angeles are at least as great as their needs - if not more: www.masstransitmag.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=3&id=8854
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 23, 2009 14:36:36 GMT -8
The following was hand-typed. Most of the info comes from the brochure available on the bus, since I could not find the information online.Westside Subway Extension Community UpdatesYou are invited to attend a community meeting on the Westside Subway Extension to provide an update on Metro's continued progress on this project. In April, Metro held six Public Scoping meetings to obtain community input to help shape the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (DEIS/R) process currently underway. Now, Metro will present a summary of what was heard during those scoping meetings, provide an update as we continue to refine the alternatives, and discuss the potential construction process. All meetings are 6-8 PM. (See this Google Map for details.) Tuesday, August 4, 2009 Wilshire United Methodist Church 4350 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles [Windsor Square] Wednesday, August 5, 2009 Plummer Park 7377 Santa Monica Blvd, West Hollywood Thursday, August 6, 2009 Santa Monica Public Library, Multi-Purpose Room 601 Santa Monica Blvd, Santa Monica Tuesday, August 11, 2009 Beverly Hills Public Library, Auditorium 444 N. Rexford Dr, Beverly Hills Wednesday, August 12, 2009 Westwood Presbyterian Church 10822 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles [Westwood]
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 23, 2009 15:20:15 GMT -8
The alignment options being considered include options for Century City and Westwood/UCLA. Here are my two cents.
Century City. The options are to locate the station on Santa Monica Blvd vs. on Constellation.
IMO, the station should be on Constellation, not Santa Monica Blvd. This is because (a) Constellation is more central to "Century City", and (b) the station will primarily serve Century City businesses and residents (as opposed to the country club along SM Blvd.).
Westwood/UCLA. The options are to locate the station on Wilshire vs. north of Wilshire (closer to UCLA).
This one is a little trickier. On the one hand, UCLA and the commercial district north of Wilshire represent a huge ridership. On the other hand, locating the station north of Wilshire would make it difficult to access from the south, and could lead to more traffic crossing Wilshire to access this station. Still, I have to say this station should be north of Wilshire, on Westwood at either Kinross or Weyburn.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 23, 2009 15:26:36 GMT -8
The alignment options being considered include options for Century City and Westwood/UCLA. Here are my two cents. Century City. The options are to locate the station on Santa Monica Blvd vs. on Constellation. IMO, the station should be on Constellation, not Santa Monica Blvd. This is because (a) Constellation is more central to "Century City", and (b) the station will primarily serve Century City businesses and residents (as opposed to the country club along SM Blvd.). I agree 100% I would lean towards to a Westwood station ON Wilshire. The biggest reasons are for; * Demonstrations at the Federal Building by Wilshire/Veteran, large number of subway riders, * 6 municipal bus lines from Westwood/Wilshire go to the UCLA campus combined to run at a short frequency and that students have a Bruin GoPass that makes the cost of this ride the same as a transfer. * Westwood Village area is currently thriving from the pedestrian activity of UCLA students going through the village to reach Wilshire Blvd buses and stopping in to grab a quick bite to eat or take a quick break before heading home. * The area south of Westwood/Wilshire could grow and become an extension of the existing Westwood Village with the station as the central focus and anchor to the area. So it makes sense to keep the alignment to as close to Wilshire as possible.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 23, 2009 16:03:05 GMT -8
I agree with the stop being on Wilshire, not UCLA. Wilshire is a large job and residential center, even for UCLA students. UCLA is not far to walk or take the shuttle.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 23, 2009 16:16:29 GMT -8
I agree with the stop being on Wilshire, not UCLA. Wilshire is a large job and residential center, even for UCLA students. UCLA is not far to walk or take the shuttle. Def. agree that Century City station should be on Constellation and not SM Blvd. On Westwood station, this one is tough. I think it should be at least very close to Wilshire at around Westwood. This is where we need to spend some extra money and have a nice multi-portal station so bus and shuttle transfers can be easily performed here as well. Pedestrian access is key. There is just too large a ridership at this station to not have a multi-portal station as over 20k riders are expected here. If both portals are on the North side of Wilshire, then we need to think about pedestrian access crossing Wilshire to the high rises on the South
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 23, 2009 16:56:48 GMT -8
I agree with the Constellation and the on-Wilshire ideas. The latter is much better for both bus and automobile and pedestrian access for all folks from all regions.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 24, 2009 8:42:52 GMT -8
I can definitely see both sides of the argument about the Westwood station. Wilshire would definitely better for handling transfers, esp. if there are portals on both sides (north and south) of Wilshire.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 24, 2009 15:17:02 GMT -8
Westwood Village is definitely a station that you would not want to mess up.
Put the station on Wilshire because of all of the possible transit connections, but make sure to have lots of portals, north and south of Wilshire and maybe even a portal that leads a block or so into the village itself.
Westwood Village is one of those rare neighborhoods in Los Angeles that is remarkably pedestrian-friendly, so it should be a natural to have a subway station where you step out into that sort of atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jul 25, 2009 7:42:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 25, 2009 15:50:45 GMT -8
That definately seems like the most logical place for the station and portals (looks like 3 separate entrances if I am looking at it right). In the most recent Westside extension meetings, I argued to eliminate the Crenshaw station as it would have the lowest boardings and is very close to the Western station not to mention the community there is almost all totally opposed to development and a station there (this issue helped derail the subway here the first time back in the 80s). This would save money and I proposed using some of the savings to designing smart stations that use multi-portals where necessary. This station and Century City come to mind. Also, the MTA is deciding between Barrington and Bundy for the last station in Phase 3 (they are realizing it would be a mistake for Westwood to be a terminal station given its volume). This would be a good area for a multi-portal station (going East-West) to cut the distance down between Barrington and Bundy (Bundy is better for bus connections, but Barrington has a higher density around it).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 26, 2009 12:42:15 GMT -8
Station locations are very important but I think the more crucial questions are:
How is this line going to interface with the 405 (north - south) rail and the Expo Line?
How will the the Red Line extension from Highland Station and the split at this station and merge with the Purple Line be?
If these questions are not answered properly now, we will have a poorly designed system 40 years from now.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 26, 2009 22:08:04 GMT -8
Station locations are very important but I think the more crucial questions are: How is this line going to interface with the 405 (north - south) rail and the Expo Line? How will the the Red Line extension from Highland Station and the split at this station and merge with the Purple Line be? If these questions are not answered properly now, we will have a poorly designed system 40 years from now. Good questions. As far as Highland, I know it was not designed to be a transfer station so if this phase of the subway extension ever happens the station would likely have to be expanded and even then a train would not be able to run through to the Valley and continue on the Pink Line. In other words, the Pink Line will end at this station. As for the 405 line, I imagine they need to keep this in mind in designing the Westwood station as this would likely be the transfer station for the two. As far as Expo, the two lines will never meet, but the Crenshaw line could theoretically be expanded up to the Purple Line (although this is not funded by Measure R). I believe they are planning for at least the La Brea station (maybe Crenshaw if it gets approved) to be able to accomodate a future Crenshaw Line extension.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 27, 2009 6:29:56 GMT -8
As far as Expo, the two lines will never meet, but the Crenshaw line could theoretically be expanded up to the Purple Line (although this is not funded by Measure R). I believe they are planning for at least the La Brea station (maybe Crenshaw if it gets approved) to be able to accomodate a future Crenshaw Line extension. Actually, in addition to interfaces at the 7th/Metro and Union Station (post Downtown Connector), La Brea (post Crenshaw), Santa Monica (perhaps decades later with a Green line connector), there could also be an interface through the 405 line, possibly by a Sepulveda or Westwood light-rail or subway connector, which is what I was mainly referring to.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 27, 2009 7:44:46 GMT -8
Very good analyses, masonite and Gokhan. It's a shame that we don't have more $$$ to do all these connections at once, but clearly the Crenshaw and Downtown Connectors have the ability to tie east and west, north and south in some amazing ways.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 27, 2009 8:25:21 GMT -8
There are three "alignment options" still unresolved at this point in the EIR process. These options correspond to the "Century City", "Westwood/UCLA", and "West Hollywood" stations. ("West Hollywood" may or may not be built.)
These alignments and general station locations will be decided *very* soon. And the next round of public meetings begin next week. So I would not say this issue is any less crucial than the other issue of line transfers.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 28, 2009 10:36:19 GMT -8
There are three "alignment options" still unresolved at this point in the EIR process. These options correspond to the "Century City", "Westwood/UCLA", and "West Hollywood" stations. ("West Hollywood" may or may not be built.) These alignments and general station locations will be decided *very* soon. And the next round of public meetings begin next week. So I would not say this issue is any less crucial than the other issue of line transfers. How the Red, Purple, 405, Expo, Crenshaw, and Green lines are going to be tied up to each other and what route/station there is going to be are interrelated questions that cannot be separated from each other. I was just referring to the bigger picture rather than just the precise locations of the stations. Regarding the precise location of the stations, there is always going to be compromise, as you can't build stations every half mile. I think Expo Phase 2 stations came out OK at the end. But it's very important for public to provide input for station locations. I would never say that the station locations are not important, as they are very important.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 29, 2009 7:01:31 GMT -8
I'd like to see the inclusion of some sort of knockout panels to the east of Westwood that would allow a future stub to UCLA that could possibly be extended northward into the Valley.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 29, 2009 12:27:00 GMT -8
I'd like to see the inclusion of some sort of knockout panels to the east of Westwood that would allow a future stub to UCLA that could possibly be extended northward into the Valley. A great idea. I would hope that the MTA would have the insight to do this. There are many such knock-out panels on the Red and Purple lines (or at least I think that is true). There are also mysterious mezzanines to nowhere like at Hollywood/Highland. These are, I think, for future transfer points or exits.
|
|