|
Post by John Ryan on Apr 25, 2011 16:41:03 GMT -8
The Transit Coalition's vision for the 9.5 mile stretch of I-405 Rail Corridor between UCLA and LAX ( maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=205603646852704430923.0004a1c49e57bf084c58b&ll=33.972905,-118.391247&spn=0.036586,0.084543&t=h&z=14) includes 8 stops at: - UCLA
- WESTWOOD / WILSHIRE (Purple Line Connection)
- Sepulveda / Santa Monica
- SEPULVEDA / PICO (Expo Line Connection)
- Sepulveda / Venice
- Sepulveda / Slauson
- Sepulveda / Manchester
- LAX / SEPULVEDA / CENTURY (LAX People Mover Connection)
Do you support this vision? Would you advocate for the removal or addition of any stations? How do you envision the placement of stops, including transfers, portals, parking, and potential for redevelopment?
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 25, 2011 17:00:47 GMT -8
How does the Sepulveda connect to the Crenshaw line?
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Apr 25, 2011 17:18:45 GMT -8
Corrected, thank you. The I-405 Rail Corridor Long Term Vision would have Crenshaw Line and Green Line Connections at Aviation / Century, which is outside the scope of this week's question.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 25, 2011 23:36:43 GMT -8
The Transit Coalition's vision for the 9.5 mile stretch of I-405 Rail Corridor between UCLA and LAX ( maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=205603646852704430923.0004a1c49e57bf084c58b&ll=33.972905,-118.391247&spn=0.036586,0.084543&t=h&z=14) includes 8 stops at: - UCLA
- WESTWOOD / WILSHIRE (Purple Line Connection)
- Sepulveda / Santa Monica
- SEPULVEDA / PICO (Expo Line Connection)
- Sepulveda / Venice
- Sepulveda / Slauson
- Sepulveda / Manchester
- LAX / SEPULVEDA / CENTURY (LAX People Mover Connection)
Do you support this vision? Would you advocate for the removal or addition of any stations? How do you envision the placement of stops, including transfers, portals, parking, and potential for redevelopment? This is just my personal opinion, but I'd like to see the line stay underground under Westwood Blvd all the way to Pico/Expo. Sepulveda in West LA is a pedestrian hell hole and it's likely to stay that way with the seemingly ever-widening 405. Westwood Blvd, on the other hand, is a vibrant commercial and residential corridor from Wilshire all the way to the Westside Pavilion. Plus the Big Blue Bus 8 and 12 serve this corridor and are some of the busiest bus lines in the system along Westwood Blvd, so the ridership is already in place. It's a more expensive option; let's call this my ideal scenario where we can find the extra millions. As for the number of stations, 8 seems about right, given its about 10 miles from UCLA to to LAX. Skipping Olympic works fine for me, because it's easily the weakest transit/commercial corridor compared to Wilshire, Santa Monica, and Pico. There's also not much between Pico and Venice along Sepulveda, other than mostly low slung residential, so no stop there seems to make sense.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 27, 2011 15:29:56 GMT -8
Sepulveda/Slauson is where Fox Hills Transit Center is located in case anyone is wondering...
You are missing one critical station site: Sepulveda/Center Dr (Howard Hughes Center)
I agree with Carter that Sepulveda is a pedestrian hell hole, but not just in West LA. The entire length all the way to Slauson is really not ideal for a rapid transit rail line.
I've laid out my arguments before in another thread so I won't repeated in its entirety again, but an alignment all the way down Sepulveda is not desirable. It's far away from jobs, likely transit destinations, and residential core of Westwood, West LA, Palms, and Westchester.
A Westwood Blvd-Overland alignment is superior in all aspects: proximity to major employment centers (Sony Studio, Culver West business district), likely transit destinations (Westside Pavilion, West LA College, Culver Center) pedestrian friendly zone (Westwood Blvd, parts of Overland), dense residential (Palms density is higher around Overland vs. Sepulveda). The Westwood Blvd-Overland alignment is also slightly shorter and probably faster than the Sepulveda alignment because it doesn't require a tight (slow!) right turn coming out of Westwood Village.
The only downside is cost as it will probably need to be underground for much of this alignment. Whereas as a straight shot down Sepulveda can be surface or elevated for the most part.
# UCLA # WESTWOOD / WILSHIRE (Purple Line Connection) # Sepulveda Westwood / Santa Monica # SEPULVEDA WESTWOOD / PICO (Expo Line Connection) # Sepulveda Overland / Venice # Sepulveda / Slauson # Sepulveda / Center Dr[/b] # Sepulveda / Manchester # LAX / SEPULVEDA AVIATION / CENTURY (LAX People Mover Connection)
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Apr 27, 2011 16:00:38 GMT -8
Sepulveda/Slauson is where Fox Hills Transit Center is located in case anyone is wondering... You are missing one critical station site: Sepulveda/Center Dr (Howard Hughes Center)I agree with Carter that Sepulveda is a pedestrian hell hole, but not just in West LA. The entire length all the way to Slauson is really not ideal for a rapid transit rail line. I've laid out my arguments before in another thread so I won't repeated in its entirety again, but an alignment all the way down Sepulveda is not desirable. It's far away from jobs, likely transit destinations, and residential core of Westwood, West LA, Palms, and Westchester. A Westwood Blvd-Overland alignment is superior in all aspects: proximity to major employment centers (Sony Studio, Culver West business district), likely transit destinations (Westside Pavilion, West LA College, Culver Center) pedestrian friendly zone (Westwood Blvd, parts of Overland), dense residential (Palms density is higher around Overland vs. Sepulveda). The Westwood Blvd-Overland alignment is also slightly shorter and probably faster than the Sepulveda alignment because it doesn't require a tight (slow!) right turn coming out of Westwood Village. The only downside is cost as it will probably need to be underground for much of this alignment. Whereas as a straight shot down Sepulveda can be surface or elevated for the most part. # UCLA # WESTWOOD / WILSHIRE (Purple Line Connection) # Sepulveda Westwood / Santa Monica # SEPULVEDA WESTWOOD / PICO (Expo Line Connection) # Sepulveda Overland / Venice # Sepulveda / Slauson # Sepulveda / Center Dr[/b] # Sepulveda / Manchester # LAX / SEPULVEDA AVIATION / CENTURY (LAX People Mover Connection)[/quote] I agree with all this for the same reasons. It is closer to the population and work centers in Palms and Culver City. Yes, it would all have to be underground. A couple of points/ideas: The "Pico" station should be between Pico and Expo, probably closer to Expo for transfers, but with a north entrance that gets at least to Westside Pavillion Parking lot. There is a two mile gap between Venice and Slauson. There needs to be a Jefferson station in between to service West LA College and the dense condo developments at Overland/Jefferson. The train would probably turn at Jefferson to continue along Jefferson to Slauson (Fox Hills transit center).
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 27, 2011 19:48:48 GMT -8
# UCLA # WESTWOOD / WILSHIRE (Purple Line Connection) # Sepulveda Westwood / Santa Monica # SEPULVEDA WESTWOOD / PICO (Expo Line Connection) # Sepulveda Overland / Venice # Sepulveda / Slauson # Sepulveda / Center Dr[/b] # Sepulveda / Manchester # LAX / SEPULVEDA AVIATION / CENTURY (LAX People Mover Connection)[/quote] That's the ticket!
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 27, 2011 20:00:12 GMT -8
I have to admit, the Westwood/Overland alignment has actually been growing on me lately.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Apr 28, 2011 7:36:46 GMT -8
A couple of points/ideas: The "Pico" station should be between Pico and Expo, probably closer to Expo for transfers, but with a north entrance that gets at least to Westside Pavillion Parking lot. Would using far-side platforms work? Have the southbound platform at Pico and the northbound platform at Expo? # UCLA # WESTWOOD / WILSHIRE (Purple Line Connection) # Westwood / Santa Monica # WESTWOOD / PICO (Expo Line Connection) # Overland / Venice # Overland / Jefferson (West LA College) # Sepulveda / Slauson (Fox Hills) # Sepulveda / Center Dr (Howard Hughes Center) # Sepulveda / Manchester # LAX / AVIATION / CENTURY (LAX People Mover Connection) ^ I'm on board with this alignment also.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 28, 2011 9:40:54 GMT -8
I agree with all of the suggestions (Westwood, Overland, etc.), but wouldn't Sepulveda/Centinela make more sense than Sepulveda/Center Dr.?
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 28, 2011 10:21:11 GMT -8
A couple of points/ideas: The "Pico" station should be between Pico and Expo, probably closer to Expo for transfers, but with a north entrance that gets at least to Westside Pavillion Parking lot. Would using far-side platforms work? Have the southbound platform at Pico and the northbound platform at Expo? Isn't the distance too far? It's 1470 ft from the Expo station to the Pico intersection and 1150 ft to the south side of the parking lot. A split station should be somewhere on the order of 500 ft give or take about a hundred. I don't really see it stretching that far.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 28, 2011 10:40:56 GMT -8
I agree with all of the suggestions (Westwood, Overland, etc.), but wouldn't Sepulveda/Centinela make more sense than Sepulveda/Center Dr.? No, Center Dr makes more sense. Sepulveda/Centinela is below the hill where Howard Hughes is located and the intersection is boxed by freeway overpass and a 4-way diagonal crossing. Probably the worst place you can put a train station. Center Dr is the main gateway to Howard Hughes Center and won't require the train passengers to walk up a steep hill.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 28, 2011 10:47:26 GMT -8
There is a two mile gap between Venice and Slauson. There needs to be a Jefferson station in between to service West LA College and the dense condo developments at Overland/Jefferson. The train would probably turn at Jefferson to continue along Jefferson to Slauson (Fox Hills transit center). I think this station will have the lowest ridership of any station proposed in West LA due to lack of major employment center, but still good ridership potential from dense residential and West LA College. We have far more inferior stations on the existing lines so as far as this being a fantasy discussion, I agree, there should be a station here for West LA College. But if cost become prohibitive, I think this will be the first station to be sacrificed.
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Apr 28, 2011 12:59:00 GMT -8
There is a two mile gap between Venice and Slauson. There needs to be a Jefferson station in between to service West LA College and the dense condo developments at Overland/Jefferson. The train would probably turn at Jefferson to continue along Jefferson to Slauson (Fox Hills transit center). I think this station will have the lowest ridership of any station proposed in West LA due to lack of major employment center, but still good ridership potential from dense residential and West LA College. We have far more inferior stations on the existing lines so as far as this being a fantasy discussion, I agree, there should be a station here for West LA College. But if cost become prohibitive, I think this will be the first station to be sacrificed. You are undoubtedly right. I am understandably biased since I work half a mile down Jefferson ! There is quite a lot of light industry and offices on the north side of Jefferson east of Overland (much is vacant now) as far as the new College St, including a big new building proposed beyond Leahy. This is potential TOD, I would imagine. By the way, are there any tunneling issues regarding crossing under Ballona Creek? Does the tunnel have to be deeper here? (I know this whole thing is a distant fantasy at this time.... I will have long retired before this is probably even studied....)
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 29, 2011 11:50:46 GMT -8
There should be a station at Jefferson. This a light rail system, not Metrolink, and 2 mile gaps are a bad idea, if there is anything in between. As long as the line is not a subway at Jefferson, the cost of an additional station is low.
Actually, I would consider an additional station at Culver, if the area can be up-zoned, but it isn't as essential as Jefferson, which will serve the fairly dense "community" at Playa Vista, as well as West LA college
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 29, 2011 12:58:14 GMT -8
There should be a station at Jefferson. This a light rail system, not Metrolink, and 2 mile gaps are a bad idea, if there is anything in between. As long as the line is not a subway at Jefferson, the cost of an additional station is low. Actually, I would consider an additional station at Culver, if the area can be up-zoned, but it isn't as essential as Jefferson, which will serve the fairly dense "community" at Playa Vista, as well as West LA college I would not support the building of a station just for the sake of building a station. It has to be strategically placed and make sense. This is not uncommon.... Purple Line will miss Crenshaw/Wilshire Green Line has a 2 -3 mile gap between Lakewood and Long Beach boulevard Red Line has 2 mile gap for Hollywood/Highland and Universal City
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 29, 2011 21:45:43 GMT -8
This is not uncommon.... Purple Line will miss Crenshaw/Wilshire Green Line has a 2 -3 mile gap between Lakewood and Long Beach boulevard Red Line has 2 mile gap for Hollywood/Highland and Universal City The red line is in a deep tunnel under the hills, which is one of the exceptions. Jefferson/Sepulveda is level ground, and will probably be at grade or elevated. We have debated the utility of a Crenshaw station on Wilshire. But that is also a tunnel and is at a T intersection and only 1/2 mile from a better transfer point The Green Line Definitely needs a station at Atlantic (it has a Rapid bus route, for crying out loud) and at Garfield or Paramount; this gap is one of the big problems withe the green line. I support greatly expanding express bus service and bringing a modernized Metrolink ( with stations 2 to 5 miles apart) to the westside and south bay and Long Beach, but light rail with accessible stations every 1 mile is more important.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 30, 2011 15:46:21 GMT -8
Hm. Jefferson and Sepulveda. I think it's a pretty straightforward case of figuring out the projected ridership and seeing how it compares to other proposed stations. You can always build an infill station after the fact if the community demands it, and especially if they want to pony up some money to pay for it, via a property tax assessment or something of the sort.
If TC is advocating for light rail with a deep bore tunnel under the Sepulveda Pass, you're going to have to pick up cost savings where you can; $100 million for a station is big chunk.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on May 23, 2011 9:28:17 GMT -8
Quick question (to resurrect a somewhat dead thread): where on the campus do you place the UCLA station?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 23, 2011 14:35:39 GMT -8
I would prefer 2 UCLA stations
1. North-campus station, near Veteran and Sunset, which will also serve the residential neighborhood.
2. South campus station, near Akerman, which will also serve the village.
But that's wishful thinking. I think the Akerman location make the most sense. It is close to campus center, Pauley Pavillion, UCLA Medical Center, Ash Tennis Stadium etc. and will allow UCLA to re-construct the bus terminal to allow more Big Blue Bus to serve the terminal.
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 23, 2011 15:12:09 GMT -8
I would prefer 2 UCLA stations 1. North-campus station, near Veteran and Sunset, which will also serve the residential neighborhood. 2. South campus station, near Akerman, which will also serve the village. But that's wishful thinking. I think the Akerman location make the most sense. It is close to campus center, Pauley Pavillion, UCLA Medical Center, Ash Tennis Stadium etc. and will allow UCLA to re-construct the bus terminal to allow more Big Blue Bus to serve the terminal. Yeah, Ackerman terminal is where all the buses go anyways and it's close to all the destinations you've mentioned. A station at Veteran would be great, but I think it's unlikely in the near term. It would be, however, a great candidate for an infill station some time down the road. But for the amount of money it would cost, better to wait until the Bel Air home owners are clamoring for it and start talking about a local property tax assessment
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 23, 2011 15:25:38 GMT -8
Lol... local property tax assessment zone for Bel Air station. I think I will roll over in my grave when that happens
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 23, 2011 19:15:12 GMT -8
Ackerman loop makes the most sense, as others have said, because of it's central location, as well as it's Metro and BBB connections.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on May 24, 2011 10:16:42 GMT -8
Just a quick comment here, since I don't know the campus very well (and as a Trojan, I'd actually prefer that UCLA get 0 stations ) but I'd just point out that bringing the station to where the buses currently terminate is a little silly. The whole point of buses is that you can reroute them, so, where they terminate now is potentially quite meaningless. Put the station where it will do best for walkability, livability, and ridership of the rail line, then route the buses to wherever that is. That being said, if the best place is Ackerman loop, then let's do that.
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 24, 2011 12:45:32 GMT -8
Just a quick comment here, since I don't know the campus very well (and as a Trojan, I'd actually prefer that UCLA get 0 stations ) but I'd just point out that bringing the station to where the buses currently terminate is a little silly. The whole point of buses is that you can reroute them, so, where they terminate now is potentially quite meaningless. Put the station where it will do best for walkability, livability, and ridership of the rail line, then route the buses to wherever that is. That being said, if the best place is Ackerman loop, then let's do that. That's a good point and I think to some extent we were taking for granted that people knew what Ackerman loop looks like. Not only is it where the buses go, but it's the southern gateway to the campus and has existing transit infrastructure - shelters, beches, info - that a subway stop could benefit from/enhance. It's not just a non-discript street corner.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 24, 2011 13:20:43 GMT -8
Ackerman terminal is actually situated at where you want a transit center to be... walking distance to major destinations: campus center, Pauley, Tennis stadium, UCLA Medical Center, Village.
The issue with bus terminal at Ackerman is this: BBB actually prefers the Hilgard terminal because it is bigger and has room for layover. However, the NIMBYs to the east of the campus has been very upset about BBB using Hilgard and wants UCLA to move them to Ackerman. The problem at Ackerman terminal is that it is too small, lacks dedicated bays for each bus line (it gets crowded if all the BBB and Metro bus terminates there), and has very little room for bus layover.
If there is going to be subway station construction there, it presents a golden opportunity to re-design the bus terminal and make it better multi-modal transit center (subway, bus, bike, pedestrian access, taxi rank).
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 24, 2011 20:06:25 GMT -8
Ackerman terminal is actually situated at where you want a transit center to be... walking distance to major destinations: campus center, Pauley, Tennis stadium, UCLA Medical Center, Village. The issue with bus terminal at Ackerman is this: BBB actually prefers the Hilgard terminal because it is bigger and has room for layover. However, the NIMBYs to the east of the campus has been very upset about BBB using Hilgard and wants UCLA to move them to Ackerman. The problem at Ackerman terminal is that it is too small, lacks dedicated bays for each bus line (it gets crowded if all the BBB and Metro bus terminates there), and has very little room for bus layover. If there is going to be subway station construction there, it presents a golden opportunity to re-design the bus terminal and make it better multi-modal transit center (subway, bus, bike, pedestrian access, taxi rank). Great points. I'd also add that the Hilgard terminal is useful for students, because it takes you the last mile up the hill to the area with a greater concentration of academic buildings.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 2, 2011 9:15:54 GMT -8
Sepulveda/Slauson is where Fox Hills Transit Center is located in case anyone is wondering... You are missing one critical station site: Sepulveda/Center Dr (Howard Hughes Center)I agree with Carter that Sepulveda is a pedestrian hell hole, but not just in West LA. The entire length all the way to Slauson is really not ideal for a rapid transit rail line. I've laid out my arguments before in another thread so I won't repeated in its entirety again, but an alignment all the way down Sepulveda is not desirable. It's far away from jobs, likely transit destinations, and residential core of Westwood, West LA, Palms, and Westchester. A Westwood Blvd-Overland alignment is superior in all aspects: proximity to major employment centers (Sony Studio, Culver West business district), likely transit destinations (Westside Pavilion, West LA College, Culver Center) pedestrian friendly zone (Westwood Blvd, parts of Overland), dense residential (Palms density is higher around Overland vs. Sepulveda). The Westwood Blvd-Overland alignment is also slightly shorter and probably faster than the Sepulveda alignment because it doesn't require a tight (slow!) right turn coming out of Westwood Village. The only downside is cost as it will probably need to be underground for much of this alignment. Whereas as a straight shot down Sepulveda can be surface or elevated for the most part. # UCLA # WESTWOOD / WILSHIRE (Purple Line Connection) # Sepulveda Westwood / Santa Monica # SEPULVEDA WESTWOOD / PICO (Expo Line Connection) # Sepulveda Overland / Venice # Sepulveda / Slauson # Sepulveda / Center Dr[/b] # Sepulveda / Manchester # LAX / SEPULVEDA AVIATION / CENTURY (LAX People Mover Connection)[/quote] The biggest issue I have with the Westwood/Overland alignment is that serving this section would all but undercut Expo ridership as it mirrors this very area you're serving from Pico to Venice Blvd, so it may appear better from a ridership perspective if this was a stand alone line WITHOUT Expo, however the connection with Expo at Sepulveda would serve the very areas this expensive subway would duplicate. South of Venice Blvd, Overland is not better by any means in terms of ridership generation even though its a more walkable street. Serving West LA College though noble, is the same reason why this line shouldn't serve Getty Center, its in an isolated suburban style campus with little interaction with its surroundings. Though Sepulveda is a pedestrian hell-hole for most of it's stretch, its perfect for the type of higher speed long distance between stops that will be needed to offset ridership and costs for stations.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 2, 2011 11:42:22 GMT -8
I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that this will undercut Expo ridership. Any Expo-405 line transfer will take place just the same whether it is at Sepulveda or Westwood. How would moving transfer station east by 0.5 mile affect ridership to the extend you envision? Please elaborate. Oh I totally disagree. Sony Studios and West Culver Business District are both potentially major ridership generators south of Venice Blvd. Certainly more so than Sepulveda between Venice and Fox Hills Mall... which is devoid of anything of interest aside from a Pacos Tacos West LA college is definitely an optional station on the Overland alignment. I'm not particularly wedded to that station. I have already laid out the arguments on speed... the Westwood-Overland alignment is more straight and slightly shorter and will likely offer faster travel time. The Sepulveda alignment requires an awkward 2x 90 degree turns out of Westwood Village to Sepulveda, which means the trains will have to slow down to a crawl. Westwood-Overland alignment does not have any 90 degree turns and is a straight shot to LAX with a few gentle curves. And if you eliminate the West LA college station, both alignment have the same number of stations: UCLA Wilshire/Purple line Santa Monica Expo line (neither alignment will have station on Pico if transfer to Expo line is priority) Venice Blvd Jefferson/Fox Hills Mall Howard Hughes Center Manchester LAX/Crenshaw line The only downside of the Westwood/Overland alignment is costs... it will be all underground which will cost a pretty penny. The up sides are: - higher ridership (no doubt about it) - faster speed (most likely) - more pedestrian friendly environment (by a country mile) Google Map of both alignment for click-thru fun: maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200920330746408617074.0004a98b4d45434e69cd5&msa=0&ll=34.00742,-118.415108&spn=0.188122,0.363579
|
|
|
Post by carter on Aug 2, 2011 17:22:48 GMT -8
I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that this will undercut Expo ridership. Any Expo-405 line transfer will take place just the same whether it is at Sepulveda or Westwood. How would moving transfer station east by 0.5 mile affect ridership to the extend you envision? Please elaborate. Oh I totally disagree. Sony Studios and West Culver Business District are both potentially major ridership generators south of Venice Blvd. Certainly more so than Sepulveda between Venice and Fox Hills Mall... which is devoid of anything of interest aside from a Pacos Tacos West LA college is definitely an optional station on the Overland alignment. I'm not particularly wedded to that station. I have already laid out the arguments on speed... the Westwood-Overland alignment is more straight and slightly shorter and will likely offer faster travel time. The Sepulveda alignment requires an awkward 2x 90 degree turns out of Westwood Village to Sepulveda, which means the trains will have to slow down to a crawl. Westwood-Overland alignment does not have any 90 degree turns and is a straight shot to LAX with a few gentle curves. And if you eliminate the West LA college station, both alignment have the same number of stations: UCLA Wilshire/Purple line Santa Monica Expo line (neither alignment will have station on Pico if transfer to Expo line is priority) Venice Blvd Jefferson/Fox Hills Mall Howard Hughes Center Manchester LAX/Crenshaw line Google Map of both alignment for click-thru fun: maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200920330746408617074.0004a98b4d45434e69cd5&msa=0&ll=34.00742,-118.415108&spn=0.188122,0.363579 I've gotta say, I'm with bzcat all the way on this issue. Couple points I want to clarify: 1) If you run the Valley-LAX line under Westwood, at the Expo transfer station, you could probably have a northern entrance to the platform about halfway up Westwood toward Pico, which would facilitate connections to destinations and buses along Pico. Pico to Expo is about 1500 feet and a station box is about 750, right? 2) The other reason you don't serve the Getty Center with a stop is because -- if you're doing a deep bore tunnel -- a straight line from Van Nuys/Ventura to UCLA takes you about a full mile east of the Getty Center. It would require a major, expensive detour to serve it.
|
|