|
Post by bzcat on Sept 30, 2010 13:21:31 GMT -8
I gave my 2 minutes in favor of Alt 5 and Constellation. The BRU nonsenses was kind of pathetic. Almost all the people who spoke in favor of subway were also frequent bus riders.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 30, 2010 14:04:52 GMT -8
Cross-posted in: Expo Phase 1, Expo Phase 2, Foothill Gold, Regional Connector, Purple Line/Westside SubwayKey transit project meetings in October
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Oct 1, 2010 8:53:16 GMT -8
To me, the proposed VA station is very poor planning. What concerns me most is the general lack of accessibility to the station (either of the options). The VA is closed in by fences that make it very difficult to get within the VA grounds from Wilshire/Barrington office tower area (or anywhere else for that matter). The only way to get to the station from the west is to walk along a very pedestrian unfriendly stretch of Wilshire and drop down at the Wilshire overpass there. Also, the station will lack visibility. I'm surprised more people haven't had a problem with tihs.
Perhaps worst of all is that Metro knows this and doesn't care. From the DEIR's "Land Use and Development Opportuniteis Report" (3 of 5):
"Use of this station would be primarily limited to people accessing VA facilities, since most of the surrounding land uses are greater than 1/2-mile from the station portal."
There is also no mention in the DEIR (that I was able to find) of ways to make the station more accessible to non-VA'ers (gate at Wilshire/Federal, better pedestrian pathways, park-and-ride lot or structure, etc.).
I've submitted my comment to Metro but it would be terrible if the subway were planned this way, especially considering that this may be the end of the line for a long, long time!
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 1, 2010 9:34:20 GMT -8
By adding a station west of the 405, Metro has said it hopes to remove the need for people to cross to the east of the 405 to get to the subway. At the same time, Metro is not planning to include any parking at the VA station (or at any of the stations, for that matter).
Supposedly the station will be be designed for bus connections and "kiss-and-ride" drop offs. I'm sure they would include a bike/pedestrian path to Wilshire/Federal, as well. However, Metro has not discussed in any detail where these connections would happen. My guess is that Metro and the VA are discussing options to see what is possible. The DEIR will have more details about how the VA station will be laid out and how Metro intends to provide access to it.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 1, 2010 13:09:00 GMT -8
Here is the DEIR presentation for the Westside Subway. More information: Thanks to over 500 of you who joined us at the recently completed public hearings for the Metro Westside Subway Extension Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR). We greatly appreciate all your interest in the subway. Metro has now posted the presentation on-line which you may view here. In addition, you may take a look at the webcasts of the hearing held at LACMA on September 20, and the hearing held in Beverly Hills on September 27 here. The public comment period on the Draft EIS/EIR concludes on October 18. You may submit your comments by: > Email to: westsideextension@metro.net> US Mail to: David Mieger, Project Manager, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA, 90012 > Visiting our website metro.net/westside and clicking on "contact us" We cannot include Facebook comments as a part of the record during this period. Again, public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR will be accepted through October 18, 2010. Metro will respond to all comments received during the Final EIS/EIR phase of the project. The Metro Board of Directors is scheduled to consider the Draft EIS/EIR at their regularly scheduled meeting on October 28, 2010. We will provide you with more information about that meeting as soon as it is available. For more information about the Metro Westside Subway Extension, go to www.metro.net/westsideFind us on Facebook: Facebook.com/WestsideSubwayExtension Follow us on Twitter: Twitter.com/WestsideSubway
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 1, 2010 13:48:38 GMT -8
Stuckintraffic, well said. I think they have done pretty good planning overall on the Purple Line, but for the life of me, I just don't see the rationale for building this station. I live west of the 405 and even though I think a station is sorely needed west of Westwood, I wrote a comment for Alternative #1 to avoid putting a station here. It just doesn't make sense.
It is going to be like building a station on a giant private plot of land that is closed to the public. Yes, one can access the station by bus, but that is about the only way unless you happen to work at the VA Hospital. From an urban planning perspective, it makes no sense. Also, the VA connections to Wilshire can't handle much more traffic. If you throw a bunch of busses on there it will affect an already overwhelmed Wilshire in that area. Their ridership numbers are grossly overstated for this station as well.
The comment above about fences blocking access is very true. A lot of them say no trespassing - keep out - government property. For instance between the office towers on Wilshire to the West and the proposed station is the VA's private estate for the VA administrator. It is blocked off with no access. Then next to that is the Army Reserve parcel which is fenced off as well. Very few people will walk on that narrow sidewalk on a winding stretch of Wilshire. It feels more like walking on a freeway shoulder than a city street.
Also, if you want to go to Santa Monica Blvd. you have to walk on a circular road around the hospital that takes twice as long as a direct route would and then you come to a gate on Ohio Blvd., which the VA often keeps locked shut, so you may be out of luck unless the VA is compelled to keep this open.
Overall, you would think the MTA would have a better plan for this, but I have never gotten anything out of them and there is little in the DEIR. When I've asked them about putting a station here vs. Federal or Barrington regardless of which phase and funding available, they have stated that the VA has been eager to have the station and there may have been some people opposed to a Federal or Barrington station because there is already a lot of development in that area. It seems like they are always uncomfortable talking about this issue in comparison to others, but maybe that is because I am not buying this argument. The DEIR simply states that the VA was chosen because it represents a better terminal station than Barrington would have.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 1, 2010 14:16:20 GMT -8
When I've asked them about putting a station here vs. Federal or Barrington regardless of which phase and funding available, they have stated that the VA has been eager to have the station and there may have been some people opposed to a Federal or Barrington station because there is already a lot of development in that area. Metro is correct that the Brentwood area northeast of Wilshire/Federal is full of anti-development NIMBYs who are afraid of the subway and big buildings. As for why they are not going farther west, Metro is constrained from going farther west with Measure R funds, because Measure R explicitly states it pays for a subway only as far as Westwood, and the farthest Metro is willing to include in "Westwood" is the VA property. It is going to be like building a station on a giant private plot of land that is closed to the public. Yes, one can access the station by bus, but that is about the only way unless you happen to work at the VA Hospital. From an urban planning perspective, it makes no sense. Also, the VA connections to Wilshire can't handle much more traffic. If you throw a bunch of busses on there it will affect an already overwhelmed Wilshire in that area. Their ridership numbers are grossly overstated for this station as well. Believe me, I have plenty of reservations about this station as well, and I also question the extremely high ridership estimates. But I also think you shouldn't assume that the fences and paths and street entrances that currently exist are going to stay that way. We don't know what the VA has said to Metro staff. For all I know, the VA is ready to consent to all kinds of concessions, in order to get the station on its land. If anything, I fault Metro big time for not providing greater transparency into their assumptions. They are clearly pushing for the VA station for some reason, and personally I'd like to know why.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 1, 2010 14:40:14 GMT -8
When I've asked them about putting a station here vs. Federal or Barrington regardless of which phase and funding available, they have stated that the VA has been eager to have the station and there may have been some people opposed to a Federal or Barrington station because there is already a lot of development in that area. Metro is correct that the Brentwood area northeast of Wilshire/Federal is full of anti-development NIMBYs who are afraid of the subway and big buildings. As for why they are not going farther west, Metro is constrained from going farther west with Measure R funds, because Measure R explicitly states it pays for a subway only as far as Westwood, and the farthest Metro is willing to include in "Westwood" is the VA property. It is going to be like building a station on a giant private plot of land that is closed to the public. Yes, one can access the station by bus, but that is about the only way unless you happen to work at the VA Hospital. From an urban planning perspective, it makes no sense. Also, the VA connections to Wilshire can't handle much more traffic. If you throw a bunch of busses on there it will affect an already overwhelmed Wilshire in that area. Their ridership numbers are grossly overstated for this station as well. Believe me, I have plenty of reservations about this station as well, and I also question the extremely high ridership estimates. But I also think you shouldn't assume that the fences and paths and street entrances that currently exist are going to stay that way. We don't know what the VA has said to Metro staff. For all I know, the VA is ready to consent to all kinds of concessions, in order to get the station on its land. If anything, I fault Metro big time for not providing greater transparency into their assumptions. They are clearly pushing for the VA station for some reason, and personally I'd like to know why. There are NIMBy's in Brentwood, but the high-rises are already there or are already zoned there and the neighborhood is dense already. A subway station isn't going to change that. Also, people in Brentwood are mostly concerned with overdevelopment and the horrible traffic in the area. I have seen little evidence that they oppose the subway and haven't really seen any at any of the meetings. After all Wilshire/Bundy is on the edge of Brentwood and will likely spur more development than Barrington, because there isn't as much near Bundy right now, yet I didn't hear much animosity if any towards the Bundy station. I don't see the VA letting people walk across the "front lawn" of their administrator, but I see your point in that the VA could agree to some opening up of their property, but also remember that the VA has to listen to vets who don't want the public on VA land at all and already are upset that the VA has leased some of their land in the past. I personally think the proposed station and proper access to it and the use of land towards vets are just too different to be reconciled properly and have seen nothing to dissuade me so far. While I agree that Measure R does not allow the project to go West of Westwood initially, I think this was a mistake. Also, we shouldn't put a station where one shouldn't be just because of phasing. I have lost a little faith in the process after this. On the ridership numbers, even after the subway is built to Santa Monica and the VA is not a terminal station, the MTA is showing ridership numbers at the VA almost comparable to Century City (just 450 less). That is completely insane...
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 1, 2010 15:36:46 GMT -8
^^ Agreed. Metro's project development process is far from neutral and far from transparent. Of course this is not a problem until you disagree with Metro. Like in this case. I too would like to know specifically how Metro plans to get that many riders to and from that station.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 2, 2010 8:17:48 GMT -8
I have lost a little faith in the process after this. On the ridership numbers, even after the subway is built to Santa Monica and the VA is not a terminal station, the MTA is showing ridership numbers at the VA almost comparable to Century City (just 450 less). That is completely insane... No it's not, its a terminal station for buses even after the line is extended to Santa Monica, what other station west of VA will serve this purpose? And the VA Campus is a job center, that is not going to change that. Here's a little bit of info on ridership for transit lines as an example along the Blue Line, one of the busier stations after 7th Street, Imperial, Compton, Florence and Willow is...(drum roll please) Del Amo. Why? Because it does a great job in serving as a large park-ride and interface for buses that Artesia is too confusing and a back-up for Willow Park-Ride that when its full after a 7am and it has prime access to the two major freeways the 405 and 710. On the VA site, there's the 405. If Westwood/UCLA were the terminal station, this stop would be overloaded from day one. Shift it west to Barrington or Bundy the transit operation aspects of bus layovers and parking or the increased land-use activity would be compromised by the set-up of this terminal station. For Century City, yes it is a major activity center but where is the bulk of the traffic to Century City is coming from? The 405 Freeway. So ridership will not be as robust without a '405 Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor' that will be used to feed into the Purple Line. Once this corridor becomes more defined you'll see ridership projections at Century City increase significantly to where theres a considerable gap between the ridership between Century City and VA station. Remember this is just one line projected on its own with any other Measure R project unless it has been completed or built.
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Oct 2, 2010 9:58:54 GMT -8
Has anyone seen anything in the DEIR about planned pedestrian accessibility improvements to the VA and the proposed VA subway station? I've been going through it but frankly haven't had the time to read all bajillion pages line by line.
At what stage in the process does this come in? Is this even required to be in the DEIR?
At the very least, there need to be guarantees for open gates and prominent signage at Wilshire/Federal, as well as a pedestrian walk/bike path and acknowledgment that the gates will remain open during subway operating hours. The VA has a notorious reputation for being anti-public access. IIRC, there has been a proposed plan for opening up a public park on the grounds in the past and the VA has killed that. Also, they close that gate on Ohio at random times. Many times I've driven up Sawtelle there (it's a great Northbound shortcut to UCLA) only to find the gate randomly shut at inexplicable times. We can't have the VA creating random lockouts of access to the subway...
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 2, 2010 10:15:41 GMT -8
Of course there will be pedestrian and bike access. No subway station in L.A. is gated. What are they going to do, hold everybody on the train when they arrive at that stop? It wouldn't be much of a station if that were the case.
Likewise, there will also be bus access at the station. Otherwise, it would kind of go against Metro's claim that the VA station will be the connection point for Westside buses.
Now there's a difference between access and convenient access, design and good design. Input from the public will be key to getting a station that is as useful as possible.
The DEIR is just about (1) identifying general classes of impacts, and (2) identifying the general alignment of the project. They haven't begun the real "design" of any of these stations, beyond the most simple high-level concepts (location, general entrance placement, etc.) They will get to it in the FEIR, which is the next step. And there will be lots of time for public input, comments and questions which will guide how every station is designed.
BTW Metro has all but admitted they didn't adequately plan for bikes when they built the Red Line, and that every Purple Line station will now be designed with bike facilities from the very start. But I wouldn't take their word for it. Bring it up frequently at the FEIR meetings, and give concrete suggestions and proposals.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 2, 2010 17:34:22 GMT -8
well, of course it is possible to have locking gates at a subway station. and it's not as bad as it sounds. it just hasn't happened yet on the Los Angeles subway, which I suppose means it will be a big shock and a surprise when it does happen.
basically, take a station such as Mitsukoshimae. the name basically means the equivalent of "next door to Macy's Department store" and that is the major purpose of the station. [ of course, it also means that whole shopping district near the historic, original Mitsukoshi has been given the address of "Mitsukoshimae" ]
the subway station has a prominent, easily accessible basement-level department store entrance. of course, the entrance is only open during regular department store hours. after hours, when the trains are still running but the department store ladies have gone off to karaoke, they lock the gate. anyone still getting off at Mitsukoshimae has to use one of the many other exits which lead to a public sidewalk or some other late night location (and some underground malls stay "open" even after the ramen shops close just for this reason).
as long as there is a public access entrance still open, nobody should have anything to worry about.
if they ever get the fabled third exit at Universal City, that would likely be a locked-gate exit, if it leads directly to private property. there's no reason why the Purple Line couldn't have locked gates at Century City or the VA or anywhere else, as long as the MTA still provided reasonable public access.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 2, 2010 20:58:07 GMT -8
I have lost a little faith in the process after this. On the ridership numbers, even after the subway is built to Santa Monica and the VA is not a terminal station, the MTA is showing ridership numbers at the VA almost comparable to Century City (just 450 less). That is completely insane... No it's not, its a terminal station for buses even after the line is extended to Santa Monica, what other station west of VA will serve this purpose? And the VA Campus is a job center, that is not going to change that. Here's a little bit of info on ridership for transit lines as an example along the Blue Line, one of the busier stations after 7th Street, Imperial, Compton, Florence and Willow is...(drum roll please) Del Amo. Why? Because it does a great job in serving as a large park-ride and interface for buses that Artesia is too confusing and a back-up for Willow Park-Ride that when its full after a 7am and it has prime access to the two major freeways the 405 and 710. On the VA site, there's the 405. If Westwood/UCLA were the terminal station, this stop would be overloaded from day one. Shift it west to Barrington or Bundy the transit operation aspects of bus layovers and parking or the increased land-use activity would be compromised by the set-up of this terminal station. For Century City, yes it is a major activity center but where is the bulk of the traffic to Century City is coming from? The 405 Freeway. So ridership will not be as robust without a '405 Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor' that will be used to feed into the Purple Line. Once this corridor becomes more defined you'll see ridership projections at Century City increase significantly to where theres a considerable gap between the ridership between Century City and VA station. Remember this is just one line projected on its own with any other Measure R project unless it has been completed or built. Only SM BBB #3 and #4 run through the VA without coming from points farther West on Wilshire. Even with a subway station at Barrington or Federal, there is no reason why the busses can't continue to use the VA as a rest stop or layover area. Also, Wilshire/Western is a terminal station now and has the two busiest bus lines in the city and seems to survive with no layover area right there. The modeling may pick up these two lines, which I see go by on San Vicente and Montana near my work every so often (not very full) and it may also be extrapolating the transit dependent population that goes to the VA. In a real life scenario though, many of these riders would likely take a line like BBB 14 down Bundy to pick up the subway rather than trek all through Brentwood. Also, going forward there may be more pressure for bus lines like BBB to run north-south lines to bring people to and from subway stations directly. I realize you can't model for that in the ridership, but that is the reality. Overall, Century City has the same amount of office space as the downtown of a medium sized city, not to mention a popular shopping center as well as some residences and a few hotels to boot. The VA has a few sparsely used buildings spread over a very wide area and one 6-7 story hospital (albeit with a fairly big footprint). Yes, some people work at the VA, but Century City has more workers by multiples of double digits. Just look at a street view of Google of the two areas if you don't believe me If the VA was such a huge bastion of ridership wouldn't more people use VA bus stop now, especially with such a transit dependent population that uses the hospital? Anyway, it is an impossible point to prove until they build the entire Subway to the Sea so I suppose I can't bet anyone until then ;D
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 2, 2010 22:35:46 GMT -8
The following is from the presentation from the "Station Area Meetings" in October/November 2009, page 57. Westwood/VA Hospital Station: 2 Options
- Both station boxes located west of I-405, offstreet
- South of Wilshire, under VA Hospital parking area
- North of Wilshire, under area from Wadsworth Theatre across Bonsall
- Construction staging off-street on VA property
- At-grade entrance plaza, potentially no mezzanine
- Potential end station
- Double platform may allow for shorter end station
- Longer station box may be still be needed
- Parking:
- Replacement of existing spaces displaced by station
- Evaluating possibility of dedicated spaces for the subway – location to be determined
- Potential bus interface at station
For the south option, the station would be located at the southwest edge (the Bonsall Avenue edge) of the existing parking lot. This is nearly half a mile from the corner of Wilshire/Federal, walking along the edge of Wilshire Blvd. There does exist road access to Bonsall Avenue from Wilshire Blvd in either direction. But it's not clear how actual bus connections would work in practice. Would they leave Wilshire and drive down to the station, or would they just drop passengers off on Wilshire, and let people walk? I will agree with stuckintraffic and others: it is very difficult to see how this station would be easy to access by anyone except VA Hospital visitors.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 3, 2010 16:57:33 GMT -8
I just want to add that eventhough we are finding negativity in the papers and the public in some areas with the Metro projects; namely the Westside extension around Beverly Hills and the Exposition Line in Cheviot Hills..........wait until the projects open. Which, they will. And, then there will be a 180 like what happened to the people in NOBLAG in the San Gabriel Valley. Imagine, when those homeowners have their kids, neices, nephews, grandchildren, etc.... all take trains to the beach to Santa Monica, games to Staples Center, cultural events at Westwood. Then, those kids are going to have the frank conversations with them about why their parents/grandparents did not support the Purple Line or Expo Line and even tried to sue them. Wait until that happens, then you'll hear a big mute silence about the "effects of trains" in the Westside. No longer will it be transit advocate v. NIMBY....it'll be NIMBY v. their kid, grandchildren, nieces, nephews. Hahahahahhahahahahhaha
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 4, 2010 10:12:32 GMT -8
The City of Beverly Hills is drafting a letter to Metro, containing its positions on the subway as it affects that city. It's actually pretty good reading, if a bit redundant. The city's positions are on page 6. Note the first item in the list is " The City Strongly Supports The Westside Subway Extension". It was good to see this reaffirmed here. The following item specifically relates to Century City: Santa Monica Blvd Track Alignment to Century City. The City’s adoption of the Mass Transit Committee recommendations includes a preference for the Santa Monica Boulevard alignment. Staff proposes that the letter strongly support the Santa Monica Boulevard alignment and oppose the Constellation South alignment. Staff recommends that the letter indicate that further studies should be conducted for a Constellation North alignment, in the event that the Metro Board chooses to analyze two options as part of the FEIS/FEIR. So it looks like the Beverly Hills position is to rank the alignments as follows: #1 - Santa Monica option #2 - Constellation North option #3 - Constellation South option. As of now, it seems that Beverly Hills is open to the Constellation North route as the compromise. We may see Metro eliminating Constellation South in its recommendation this month. Then in the FEIR study, Metro staff can continue study on the other two options, including comparison of ridership, cost, transit connections, negative impacts, etc. I'm confident that in the end, Metro will find the Constellation location makes the most sense. The interesting thing is how much noise Beverly Hills residents have made about relatively few easements, compared to the relative lack of opposition from the hundreds of residents in Westwood who would be affected as well. But at least it sounds like the city is being somewhat reasonable and measured in its response, at least for now.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Oct 4, 2010 13:08:00 GMT -8
If I understand correctly, Constellation North goes under fewer private properties but has higher construction costs because the tunnel will need to be longer, and will have additional maintenance costs because the turns will be tighter. I don't remember if it significantly affects the time required to travel between stations (I'm guessing maybe a minute). While I would prefer either of the Constellation options, my ranking of the three options would be exactly the opposite of Beverly Hills. We need to keep construction and maintenance costs down, and value the cumulative time that would be lost by a slightly longer alignment.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 4, 2010 13:24:37 GMT -8
matthewb, I hadn't heard that the Constellation North option would cost more, but you could be right. Although, since it would require fewer easements, I would think it would cost less.
I definitely heard the Santa Monica Blvd. option is the least expensive. Only problem is, it leaves subway riders along the edge of a highway.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 5, 2010 14:43:13 GMT -8
The DEIR doesn't mention construction costs or maintenance issue between the 3 alignment options (see page 2-47). If anything, the cost of Santa Monica station will be higher due to mitigation required to address the earthquake fault line. The Constellation North alignment will pass under 4 private homes but involves a sharp turn from Wilshire on to Larsky Dr. The Constellation South alighment will pass under 23 private homes but has a very smooth transition from Wilshire to Constellation. The cost of construction is likely to be the same... the length of the tunnel are about identical. The only difference here is the right of way compensation is obviously going to be higher for 23 homes vs. 4 homes. The real difference comes in operational speed... one presumes that in order to make an almost 90 degree turn from Wilshire to Larsky, the train has to slow down. All things being equal (meaning NIMBY or NUMBY are irrelevant... or if we are in China...), Constellation South is probably the best choice. But since we are not in China, we have to deal with political reality. Constellation North is really the best compromise. Fewer homes affected (even though it is a red herring anyway) but trains will be slowed down to pass the sharp turn. www.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/Draft_EIS_EIR/Chapter%202/Chapter%202%20Project%20Description%20-%20Part%203.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Oct 5, 2010 19:04:29 GMT -8
The cost of construction is likely to be the same... the length of the tunnel are about identical. The only difference here is the right of way compensation is obviously going to be higher for 23 homes vs. 4 homes. The real difference comes in operational speed... one presumes that in order to make an almost 90 degree turn from Wilshire to Larsky, the train has to slow down. The preliminary engineering plans include these speed-limiting curves between Wilshire/Rodeo and a Century City station: 1) Santa Monica Alignment:-One 40 MPH curve (a 42 degree turn, ~325 ft long) 2) Constellation South Alignment:-One 40 MPH curve (a 50 degree turn, ~555 ft long) 3) Constellation North Alignment (Lasky):-One 35 MPH curve (a 90 degree turn, ~1123 ft long) -One 35 MPH curve (a 50 degree turn, ~586 ft long) Of course, curve speed and curve length aren't the only factors governing the speed on the track segment. The location of the curves is also very important. The best place to put curves is immediately adjacent to stations, where train speed is already limited by acceleration/deceleration to serve the station. Unfortunately, all three of these alternatives feature one or two slow curves halfway between stations...
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 5, 2010 21:15:47 GMT -8
The cost of construction is likely to be the same... the length of the tunnel are about identical. The only difference here is the right of way compensation is obviously going to be higher for 23 homes vs. 4 homes. The real difference comes in operational speed... one presumes that in order to make an almost 90 degree turn from Wilshire to Larsky, the train has to slow down. The preliminary engineering plans include these speed-limiting curves between Wilshire/Rodeo and a Century City station: 1) Santa Monica Alignment:-One 40 MPH curve (a 42 degree turn, ~325 ft long) 2) Constellation South Alignment:-One 40 MPH curve (a 50 degree turn, ~555 ft long) 3) Constellation North Alignment (Lasky):-One 35 MPH curve (a 90 degree turn, ~1123 ft long) -One 35 MPH curve (a 50 degree turn, ~586 ft long) Of course, curve speed and curve length aren't the only factors governing the speed on the track segment. The location of the curves is also very important. The best place to put curves is immediately adjacent to stations, where train speed is already limited by acceleration/deceleration to serve the station. Unfortunately, all three of these alternatives feature one or two slow curves halfway between stations... Great comment! I will amend my letter. Basically, these alignments are not equal. The Constellation North one looks longer and would be a lot slower. Toonerville Trolley!
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 5, 2010 22:44:07 GMT -8
In case it's not clear, the lengths cited in Justin's post are the lengths of the curves only, not the length of the segment. The Constellation North option is not five times as long as the Santa Monica Blvd option.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 6, 2010 5:41:20 GMT -8
In case it's not clear, the lengths cited in Justin's post are the lengths of the curves only, not the length of the segment. The Constellation North option is not five times as long as the Santa Monica Blvd option. Yes, I saw that. It is obvious with the maps that were provided. The Santa Monica and Constellation South alignments are the same. And essentially the shortest. Constellation North has more curves, they are slower,m and the tunnel appears longer. Kinda silly option if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 6, 2010 10:29:41 GMT -8
In case it's not clear, the lengths cited in Justin's post are the lengths of the curves only, not the length of the segment. The Constellation North option is not five times as long as the Santa Monica Blvd option. Yes, I saw that. It is obvious with the maps that were provided. The Santa Monica and Constellation South alignments are the same. And essentially the shortest. Constellation North has more curves, they are slower,m and the tunnel appears longer. Kinda silly option if you ask me. Which is why I said without NUMBY interference, Constellation South is best choice. But in the end, Constellation North is a good compromise because it only affects 4 private homes.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Oct 6, 2010 11:43:50 GMT -8
If the NIMBY's are willing to accept Constellation North as a compromise, then I think for us (and of course Metro) is, should we be compromising with NIMBY's?
At least for at-grade rail, there are noticeable impacts. We may claim, and I certainly do, that nearby homeowners should just deal with them, but there are undeniably impacts, and sometimes people have to sacrifice comfort for the common good. (I live near an airport, with planes going overhead once every 2 hours at least, if not much more than that, yet I don't petition the city to ban planes.)
But for below-grade rail, there simply aren't impacts. Not only do all the predictions say that, but our experience with the current subway does too, and the NIMBY's seem to refuse to listen to reason. I haven't heard one person at any meeting say "I visited the Red Line, stood on top of the tunnels, and I felt vibration and heard noise." All people say is "Even though you say there won't be noise and vibration, there will be noise and vibration." This is NIMBYism distilled to its very core.
I realize that this compromise will work for both parties, and would greatly expedite the fight that the other side seems willing to pursue. And, fighting this would probably be bad for Metro's reputation. I'm sure the media would paint this as "not listening to the community" and "won't give in to compromise." But the fact of the matter is, Metro should be fighting for the best system possible for the area, and we have logic on our side. It's hard to imagine that Metro would lose in a fair court.
Should we be giving in to NIMBY demands? I feel as though it sets a bad precedent. Realistically, we'll probably have to deal with a fair amount of NIMBY as 30/10 projects start to be planned. Metro needs to evaluate what its general strategy for evaluating and dealing with the concerns of NIMBY's.
(Just FTR, I'm not saying we should ignore community concerns and just build, build, build. But maybe fighting baseless accusations and attacks has merit)
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 6, 2010 21:42:46 GMT -8
All that matters to me is getting to the heart of Century City, which is AOTS & Constellation.
|
|
|
Post by saltire08 on Oct 6, 2010 23:59:58 GMT -8
If the NIMBY's are willing to accept Constellation North as a compromise, then I think for us (and of course Metro) is, should we be compromising with NIMBY's? At least for at-grade rail, there are noticeable impacts. We may claim, and I certainly do, that nearby homeowners should just deal with them, but there are undeniably impacts, and sometimes people have to sacrifice comfort for the common good. (I live near an airport, with planes going overhead once every 2 hours at least, if not much more than that, yet I don't petition the city to ban planes.) But for below-grade rail, there simply aren't impacts. Not only do all the predictions say that, but our experience with the current subway does too, and the NIMBY's seem to refuse to listen to reason. I haven't heard one person at any meeting say "I visited the Red Line, stood on top of the tunnels, and I felt vibration and heard noise." All people say is "Even though you say there won't be noise and vibration, there will be noise and vibration." This is NIMBYism distilled to its very core. I realize that this compromise will work for both parties, and would greatly expedite the fight that the other side seems willing to pursue. And, fighting this would probably be bad for Metro's reputation. I'm sure the media would paint this as "not listening to the community" and "won't give in to compromise." But the fact of the matter is, Metro should be fighting for the best system possible for the area, and we have logic on our side. It's hard to imagine that Metro would lose in a fair court. Should we be giving in to NIMBY demands? I feel as though it sets a bad precedent. Realistically, we'll probably have to deal with a fair amount of NIMBY as 30/10 projects start to be planned. Metro needs to evaluate what its general strategy for evaluating and dealing with the concerns of NIMBY's. (Just FTR, I'm not saying we should ignore community concerns and just build, build, build. But maybe fighting baseless accusations and attacks has merit) Good points. I've been trying to learn about California's Eminent Domain law, but it's like 100 pages when I copied and pasted it into Word. Can anyone shine a light on how rail eminent domain cases work? Or why do NIMBYs win some and rail lines the other? As for the VA station, I've never been to the VA so I don't know the layout. ;D However, a station like that can work. the DC Metro has a Pentagon stop located outside of the Pentagon (obviously) but pretty close to the entrance. When you come up out of the station, it dumps you into an outdoor bus terminal which has buses to a bunch of locations outside of the Pentagon grounds. Grant it, we're talking about a VA facility and one of the most projected buildings in the world so the two are a bit different. As for stops inside stores/complexes...I take you to DC Metro again. ;D Pentagon City (or Crystal City, can't remember which) drops you out right into the mall. Very, very convenient, especially when you don't have a car and can hop on the Metro from college (GW) and go to the mall and back fairly easily. Also on that line, ;D , I believe the Arlington Cemetery stop is gated. Meaning, I believe the station only opens out into the cemetery during normal hours...not sure though.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 7, 2010 5:17:43 GMT -8
I've been trying to learn about California's Eminent Domain law, but it's like 100 pages when I copied and pasted it into Word. Can anyone shine a light on how rail eminent domain cases work? Or why do NIMBYs win some and rail lines the other? My limited legal understanding is that Metro has the right to take land (w. compensation, of course) that it needs for transit projects, provided a full environmental study has been completed and impacts/mitigations have been studied. I also understand that Metro's power of eminent domain supercedes the power of a city to stop it. However, that power would not apply in the case of the VA (a Federal entity): use of VA land would have to be negotiated between the two parties. the DC Metro has a Pentagon stop located outside of the Pentagon (obviously) but pretty close to the entrance. When you come up out of the station, it dumps you into an outdoor bus terminal which has buses to a bunch of locations outside of the Pentagon grounds. Currently buses stop on the little access roads alongside Wilshire Blvd. As of now, where they are discussing placing the station south of Wilshire, people transferring from westbound buses would have to walk through the Bonsall Avenue tunnel under Wilshire to get to the station. (Visitors to the VA already have to do this, but with the subway the tunnel could get very crowded.) There are a couple of ways around this. One solution is to reroute all buses into the station area, as they do at the Pentagon. This could add a few minutes to each bus. The other solution is to put a subway entrance to the north of Wilshire. This seems like the easiest solution.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 8, 2010 15:37:33 GMT -8
According to Wikipedia, Pentagon City has subway exits both directly into the shopping mall (via a pedestrian tunnel) and outside the shopping mall. Very handy indeed! Something that Los Angeles could use.... If I'm not mistaken, the VA station is going to be a temporary terminal station (termporary until they decide to head west into Santa Monica or north into the Valley), so it might be advisable to have a somewhat larger station. Entrances at both sides of Wilshire, widen the Bonsall tunnel perhaps. Also, rework the buses somehow to make for easier transfers, and of course if one of the exits has a gate make sure that there's an open exit outside of VA land
|
|