|
|
Post by masonite on May 19, 2010 15:09:34 GMT -8
They presented three options last night. Each of these has tradeoffs, including the cost, the travel time, and the number of residential easements that Metro would have to pay for (since property rights extend indefinitely beneath ones property). 1.) Named "Direct Connection", this is the shortest route. This route crosses Santa Monica at a sharp angle and heads up to Wilshire fairly quickly, before following Wilshire to Westwood Station. This is the easternmost route. - Estimated cost: $680-720 million.
- Estimated travel time: 2.0-2.5 minutes.
- Estimated depth: 65-120 feet.
- Estimated # residential easements required: 56-69.
2.) Named "Cross Country", this is the next longer route. This route crosses Santa Monica at a narrow angle and meets Wilshire farther west than Direct Connection, before following Wilshire to Westwood Station. This route is located in between the other two routes. - Estimated cost: $690-730 million.
- Estimated travel time: ~2.5 minutes.
- Estimated depth: 60-135 feet.
- Estimated # residential easements required: 75-110.
3.) Named "Westwood Loop", this is the longest route. This route heads down Santa Monica Boulevard to Westwood Boulevard, then heads north to Westwood Station. They would still require easements under houses, because this routing would need to swing to the east before getting to Westwood Station. - Estimated cost: $820-830 million.
- Estimated travel time: 4.5 minutes.
- Estimated depth: 58-104 feet.
- Estimated # residential easements required: 30-65.
At this meeting support was strong for the subway and for the shortest route. Residents of course are in favor of the shortest travel time on the subway. (I'm sure residents are also ok with this because they will be paid very well for those easements, in exchange for giving up their purely-theoretical right to mine for minerals 50+ feet below their homes). The only major concern expressed last night was for possible safety issues, but even those didn't seem too urgent. In fact, Metro made the case that the shortest route (Direct Connection) is probably easier to seismically engineer, since it crosses the Santa Monica Fault (underneath Santa Monica Blvd.) at a sharper angle. There was also some concern for traffic buildup at Westwood, due to people trying to get to the subway. Nice summary. Thanks. From this information, it seems like the Direct Connection is the most logical choice. I wonder when they will be making their recommendations on the alignment and Century City and Westwood station locations. The Century City station seems like a no brainer in that virtually everyone supports the Avenue of the Stars location over SM Blvd. For me, the Westwood station should be on Wilshire at Westwood, but the support for that location doesn't seem to be quite so universal. The construction certainly is going to be difficult to do at that location and that section of Wilshire is incredibly busy so I can appreciate them not wanting to do construction on Wilshire. I just think the other site is not very central so the farther east (and thus more central) the better at this key location. I'm glad both locations have portals on both sides of Wilshire as that is key on such a wide busy street. Making pedestrians cross Wilshire in masse would be a disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 19, 2010 22:46:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by soundguise on May 20, 2010 9:12:30 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 20, 2010 9:18:10 GMT -8
The Westside Subway team is being very thorough in their outreach and their studies. You've got to imagine there is some excitement and hope on this team that this project (to Westwood) will get approved and funded for completion within the decade.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 20, 2010 13:50:51 GMT -8
The pedestrian and bus connections for the on-street Wilshire Blvd station will be much better, with portals on 3 out of 4 corners of Wilshire/Westwood, including both of the bus stop locations for the 20 and 720. Also, having the station there will provide a better transfer location for a Sepulveda line which also serves UCLA with a central campus station and continues south down Westwood.
I'm glad that the Direct Connection between Century City and Westwood is getting support from locals. It will be faster, and cheaper to construct; what's not to like? I assume the construction cost includes money spent on buying easements and insurance against any subsidence during tunnel construction (which is unlikely with modern tunnels at any rate), so it's a win for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 20, 2010 14:43:34 GMT -8
I assume the construction cost includes money spent on buying easements and insurance against any subsidence during tunnel construction (which is unlikely with modern tunnels at any rate) A member of the public at that meeting asked whether or not the costs being quoted include the cost for easements. The Metro folks didn't really answer that question, I think they didn't know. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 29, 2010 17:32:20 GMT -8
Based on the latest community update meetings it looks like the draft EIR should be out in August. Also, it is my impression from the info on the meetings that the staff will recommend the following (of course this is all speculation so take with a grain of salt).
Crenshaw station will probably not happen due to it reducing the cost effectiveness of the project. This seems to be the area where the team feels it can really get under the federal cost threshold.
Century City Station almost seems assured of going in at Constellation. Almost everyone realizes that it needs to be in the center of Century City to attract ridership at this key destination.
Westwood seems to be looking more like it will be Westwood. Again, the central location at this very key destination seems to be behind this.
The staff seems sure to recommend to proceed with Alt. #2, which includes the VA station given it performs better than Alt #1 in cost effectiveness. Again, I didn't get any more comfort with this station from the MTA. There will likely be no parking from what I can tell. Their ridership numbers continue to amaze me at this station as being far too high, especially when it is not a terminus station (i.e. when the full Subway to the Sea is in place).
The meeting in Westwood started to show some anger over the subway and the VA, although the veteran that spoke was even against tunneling through the area, which seemed non-sensical to me. Once more concrete plans for the station come into place, I suspect there will be more protest from Veteran groups, many of whom are livid at all the land being taken away from the VA for public use over the years.
Finally, the MTA says they could start construction in 18 months. That seems to me to be a little unrealistic. I'd probably say if construction started by the end of 2012 we'd consider ourselves lucky. Expo Phase II will barely be under construction too much before then if the lawsuit is dismissed.
|
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Jun 29, 2010 21:21:15 GMT -8
I spoke to Jodie Litvak before the Westwood meeting last night and it turns out the the deep bore tunnel is not something they are really considering. The team just put it "out there" because a presentation had been made to the MTA Board and they felt they had to acknowledge it.
|
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Jun 30, 2010 0:46:24 GMT -8
For those not at the Beverly Hills meeting earlier tonight, the turnout was large, and the crowd was overwhelmingly opposed to the Constellation station and the "Direct Connection" route, because it would go under homes. Most people just sounded concerned, but there were a few people who were quite angry, and one man who seemed bordering on accusing the Westside Subway people of corruption/incompetence. There was rousing applause at talk of suing the MTA.
In my opinion, while there were a fare share of NIMBY's, mostly what is needed is education and assurance. There was a (perhaps semi-legitimate) fear of settlement or sinkage of homes, and also some fear about noise/vibration, which as we know from the Red line, there will be none (although personally, since I live near an airport, I would encourage people to suck it up). On the other hand, there were also some people who referred to the idea of tunneling under residential property as "outrageous," and one woman who said, referring to the subway in general, "this is not Manhattan. This is Los Angeles; This is Beverly Hills: it just won't work."
|
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 30, 2010 6:12:36 GMT -8
Hmmm, it is hard to imagine tunneling under homes in Beverly Hills or Westwood; I can only imagine folks might set a new record in lawsuit ferocity!
Personally, I'd love to see a spur from Wilshire & Santa Monica thoruh Century City, across the Hillcrest Country Club--where nothing would be disturbed but golf balls, and back to Beverwil / Castle Hieghts and the Expo line, underground through Century City and the golf course, emerging overland to the south before it tunnels under the I-10. OK, pipe dream. But the tunneling challenges are gonna dwarf the Overland / Exposition at-grade challenge.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 30, 2010 6:58:36 GMT -8
"this is not Manhattan. This is Los Angeles; This is Beverly Hills: it just won't work." Except this has nothing to do with being Manhattan. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 30, 2010 8:35:18 GMT -8
this is not Manhattan. This is Los Angeles; This is Beverly Hills: it just won't work." I wish I could have been there to tell her to her face. It can work. It will work and was overwhelmingly approved by the voters. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jun 30, 2010 9:16:42 GMT -8
Hmmm, it is hard to imagine tunneling under homes in Beverly Hills or Westwood; I can only imagine folks might set a new record in lawsuit ferocity! Another speaker at the meeting exclaimed that Metro would have absolutely no luck attempting to tunnel underneath the homes of high-power lawyers of Beverly Hills and Westwood. The emotions were similar at the recent Beverly Hills alignment focus meeting, too. |
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Jun 30, 2010 9:35:22 GMT -8
Hmmm, it is hard to imagine tunneling under homes in Beverly Hills or Westwood; I can only imagine folks might set a new record in lawsuit ferocity! Another speaker at the meeting exclaimed that Metro would have absolutely no luck attempting to tunnel underneath the homes of high-power lawyers of Beverly Hills and Westwood. The emotions were similar at the recent Beverly Hills alignment focus meeting, too. Just speculating but I think the only people with any standing to sue would be those homeowners/businesses directly above the tunnels and Metro has to pay them for the easement anyway. Does anyone know if the easements can be taken by eminent domain? |
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 30, 2010 10:11:47 GMT -8
...So I'm imagining 2 homeowners in BH living side by side put their homes on the market, one with an easement in place and the train coursing beneath his house with some frequency, the other with no such encumbrence. It's hard to imagine that any payment for the easement would sufficiently compensate for loss of value, possible noise and vibration in the years ahead, and general fear of all of the above.
I prefer a spur through Century City and Hillcrest Country Club to the Expo Line!
|
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Jun 30, 2010 11:14:05 GMT -8
...So I'm imagining 2 homeowners in BH living side by side put their homes on the market, one with an easement in place and the train coursing beneath his house with some frequency, the other with no such encumbrence. It's hard to imagine that any payment for the easement would sufficiently compensate for loss of value, possible noise and vibration in the years ahead, and general fear of all of the above. What loss of value? Most likely, a few days after trains start running, everyone will pretty much forget the tunnels are there. You can't even feel vibrations above ground near the stations, where the tunnels are shallowest and there's open air to propagate sound waves. |
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 30, 2010 12:20:52 GMT -8
...At time of resale, it will be feared that a tunnel underneath a house will "resurface." ...Doesn't affect me; I'm nowhere nearby. I hope appropriate info. can be gathered for homeowners to properly evaluate.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 30, 2010 12:42:42 GMT -8
...At time of resale, it will be feared that a tunnel underneath a house will "resurface." ...Doesn't affect me; I'm nowhere nearby. I hope appropriate info. can be gathered for homeowners to properly evaluate. That is silly. The only real risk is when they are boring the tunnel and even then with these new high tech boring machines that stabilize the soil as they bore the risk is very minimal of ever feeling anything. Once the trains are running, there is virtually no risk of feeling any type of vibration. The trains can't vibrate the tunnels themselves much less the entire ground 70 feet above. The one thing about the subway now is that there is strong support almost all the way around. Even nearby homeowner groups such as Cheviot Hills are very much in favor of the Purple Line. Unless there is real organized neighborhood opposition, I think most of the public will dismiss these people as old wealthy unrational folks with too much time on their hands and complaining over nothing. After all this has already been done in Hollywood and East LA. Why should these neighborhoods be so much more special? |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 30, 2010 14:23:10 GMT -8
I really am getting sick and tired of this.
Seriously, the MTA and the City of Los Angeles needs to start taking a rough, hard-line stance to these wealthy NIMBYs and strongly respond to their threats and accusations. Maybe in some situations, counter-lawsuits can be made, that way we can finally get some badly needed revenue to the city. THEY'RE the ones who are greedy and corrupt because THEY'RE among the minority that don't want this rail line built and are fighting it by high-powered lawyers. And if they really are so sensative to the "dangers", they need to do research on the latest technology in TBM's to prove themselves wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 30, 2010 18:58:52 GMT -8
I'm sure a lot of people have seen this poll on the Source thesource.metro.net/2010/07/30/were-still-looking-for-votes-in-poll-on-westwooducla-subway-station-location/I know these polls are completely unscientific and shouldn't be relied upon. However, it looks like the majority favor putting towards the center of Westwood at Wilshire and Westwood. There is a sizable contingent showing a preference for a station near UCLA which is all but impossible for the Purple Line. I continue to believe a stop right next to or actually on the UCLA campus from the so called Sepulveda Pass or 405 line is the way to go to achieve this important link as well as gain a lot of support for this line. I continue to favor a fully bored line from the Orange Line to the Purple Line with hopefully continuing on to Expo. A line that goes from the Orange Line with a stop at Ventura Blvd. and then one on the UCLA campus would be very fast and would attract very high ridership. There is nothing worthy of a stop between Ventura and UCLA (sorry but the Getty can barely support a bus stop and certainly not a rail stop), and with only two underground stations needing to be built, this wouldn't likely be as expensive as people think. It would be more than $1B currently allocated to it by Measure R, but I'm sure once this is studied, this will be worthy of New Starts funding. Even with that, I'd suppose it would be only enough to get it to the Purple Line at Westwood. It seems the MTA seems to be favoring something in the middle of the 405 or an above ground rail line somewhere. Not sure either of those will be much cheaper, although they would be slower. It seems like they could build these underground stations to accomodate something longer than a 3 car train. This will be an exciting Alernative Analysis when it finally takes place, although I have a feeling I am going to be disappointed when it does. |
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Jul 30, 2010 23:28:57 GMT -8
On the issue of the station location, my understanding is that the Wilshire/Westwood location is preferable from an engineering standpoint to build a transfer station for the Sepulveda Pass line.
Also, once the Orange to Purple segment is built, I'm in favor of routing along Westwood blvd. to reach the Expo/Westwood station.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 31, 2010 10:57:01 GMT -8
A transfer station at Westwood/Expo? There goes the neighborhood!!! LOL
I think the Sepulveda Pass line should terminate/junction with Expo at Sepulveda/Expo. I also think it should have a stop at UCLA and connect to the Purple Line at Wilshire/Westwood. Not sure if all that is possible, but I do think Westwood/Expo would be a terrible place for a transfer station.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jul 31, 2010 13:25:08 GMT -8
Why would Westwood/Expo be a terrible transfer station? It will be busy at first mainly because of connections to bus lines which serve Westwood Village and UCLA. What is the big difference if those bus connections are replaced by rail connections?
Sepulveda / Expo would also be a good transfer point and that routing may be easier to build, but I don't see a big difference for the neighborhoods or riders with either connection.
Also, I don't agree with terminating the line at Expo; many people will want to continue further south, and if we can get the money to build a rail line, it will be better to have it go all the way to a major anchor (Like LAX or a South Bay transit center), rather than having an extra tranfer to buses for everyone going south of Santa Monica or Culver city.
Since the Green Line tracks will be extended to Torrance, it makes sense to continue the 405/Sepulveda tracks to hook up with the Crenshaw line north of LAX, and route trains thru. Otherwise, someone coming from the Valley might have a trip consisting of:
#1 bus to Sepulveda line
#2 train to Expo / Sepulveda
#3 Bus to LAX
#4 Train to South Bay
#5 Bus to destination
With tracks all the way to LAX, you could eliminate 2 of those transfers, likely saving 10 to 20 minutes per trip, even if #3 is an express bus.
This is why Metro needs to do a big planning session for the whole future transit system. With professionals working on it 40 hours a week, and full access to Metro's ridership data, they could model how all the buses and trains will interact. Planning one rail line or one BRT route at a time is wasteful and leads to short-sighted decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jul 31, 2010 15:54:30 GMT -8
The Sepulveda Pass line seems like a logical next step after the Wilshire Subway gets to Westwood. In my proposal years ago on the old boards, the line would go from Ventura/Van Nuys straight to a new UCLA station and then Wilshire/Westwood. This minimal line could be extended north to the Orange Line and Van Nuys Metrolink station, and south to Santa Monica Blvd and Expo, with the potential to extend it further north into the Valley and further south to LAX as needed. But that's still way out in the future, and we really need to get the Purple Line extension first. It'll be interesting to see how transit and traffic in Westwood and Santa Monica adapts to this major addition to the rail network.
|
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jul 31, 2010 17:33:30 GMT -8
The volume of Sepulveda Pass traffic strongly suggests that a tunneled rail link to the Valley with no stops between UCLA and the Orange/Purple line would have high ridership. Heck there's no way to get to the Valley from the Westside other than the 406 or winding roadways like Beverly Glen. An alternative, even at $1B+ would demonstrate significant value in a short time.
|
|
