|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 8, 2010 15:59:27 GMT -8
Correct James. Currently there is no funding in Measure R for an extension past the VA station.
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Oct 8, 2010 17:24:27 GMT -8
The more I think about it, if the end of the purple line HAS to be the VA station and not the more logical Federal or Barrington station, it makes more sense to go with the north option. There's a big gate (and a nice plaza) at the northeast corner of Wilshire/Federal that presumably could be opened up for a walk/bikeway connecting to the station from Federal (the area is marked "Westwood Park" on Google Maps). The south side does not have such a thing (I believe it's the Army reserve building?).
The northeast corner gate is locked right now for a reason, however: the VA's anti-public-access stance. Sincerely hope this is something that can be changed.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 10, 2010 16:39:22 GMT -8
But that's just it: The VA station doesn't have to be the end of the Purple Line.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 10, 2010 19:20:59 GMT -8
Even if 30/10 happens, and I hope it does, there will at the soonest be a VA station around 2021, 2022? Maybe by that time there will be funds or the will at least to extend the line further to Santa Monica and start the West Hollywood branch (whatever mode it turns out to be). The VA station still seems like it is in an odd location, unless Metro is really not planning to make it the final station at all.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 10, 2010 21:12:00 GMT -8
2021? Why? NIMBYs? Roll over them.
Actually 2019 is the projected completion date under 30/10.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 11, 2010 5:53:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 11, 2010 17:07:57 GMT -8
That must be updated information, because I read somewhere I while back that 2019 was the completion date.
Whatever, i'll take 2021 over 2036 ANY day.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Oct 12, 2010 6:42:01 GMT -8
Big news! Metro has finally posted its staff recommendations for approval as an LPA as part of the Westside Subway Extension DEIR/DEIS later this month. Summary of recommendations: - Approve Alternative #2- To Westwood/VA Hospital
- Crenshaw Station- Delete station
- Wilshire/Fairfax Station- East Station
- La Cienega Station and Connections- East Station, Delete West Hollywood Connection Structure
- Century City Station and Alignments- Continue to study both Santa Monica and Constellation station locations, continue to study Constellation North and Santa Monica Alignment Options between BH and CC, continue study on only the East Alignment option between CC and Westwood
- Westwood/UCLA Station- Continue to study both on-street and off-street alternatives
- Westwood/VA Hospital Station- Continue to study both VA Hospital North and VA Hospital South station options
Check out the full report here. Personally, I support most of these decisions, particularly choosing La Cienega East and eliminating the West Hollywood Connection Structure, but I am very disappointed by Metro's choice to retain Constellation North and not Constellation South.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 12, 2010 6:46:33 GMT -8
The station box would still be at Constellation/AOTS, right?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 6:59:54 GMT -8
Justin said both CC locations will be studied.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 7:05:29 GMT -8
I'm surprised they released this before the public comment period was over. I'm fine with everything except elimination of the West Hollywood connection structure. That closes the door on the West Hollywood branch. On eliminating the connection structure, the document says the following (top of page 5): This structure is not recommended for inclusion in the LPA. The cost of $135 million is not within the available funding reserved through the LRTP for the project. Additionally, the heavy rail option for the West Hollywood Line did not perform as well as anticipated when evaluated against FTA New Starts criteria in the DEIS/DEIR. As such, the high cost of the connection structure is not justified when there may be alternative, less costly, solutions to serve the route through West Hollywood. While the DEIS/DEIR identifies that the West Hollywood line has very high potential as a transit corridor, further study is needed to determine if a more cost-effective transit alternative such as light rail subway may provide a project that would be more competitive under federal funding criteria. If such an alternative were selected in the future, there would not be the need for a heavy rail connection structure.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Oct 12, 2010 8:57:25 GMT -8
No to Crenshaw? That kinda stinks but oh, well. it wouldn't be used much either and it saves them money.
Since they've apparently nixed the West Hollywood Branch, I guess that means that this is going to ultimately wind up being the northern section of the Crenshaw line?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 12, 2010 9:00:13 GMT -8
Big news! Metro has finally posted its staff recommendations for approval as an LPA as part of the Westside Subway Extension DEIR/DEIS later this month. Summary of recommendations: - Approve Alternative #2- To Westwood/VA Hospital
- Crenshaw Station- Delete station
- Wilshire/Fairfax Station- East Station
- La Cienega Station and Connections- East Station, Delete West Hollywood Connection Structure
- Century City Station and Alignments- Continue to study both Santa Monica and Constellation station location, continue to study Constellation North and Santa Monica Alignment Options between BH and CC, continue study on only the East Alignment option between CC and Westwood
- Westwood/UCLA Station- Continue to study both on-street and off-street alternatives
- Westwood/VA Hospital Station- Continue to study both VA Hospital North and VA Hospital South station options
Check out the full report here. Personally, I support most of these decisions, particularly choosing La Cienega East and eliminating the West Hollywood Connection Structure, but I am very disappointed by Metro's choice to retain Constellation North and not Constellation South. I agree with most of these decisions as well. A lot of these decisions really go to the path of least resistance though. They seemed to go with whatever is easier to construct and will cause the least community resistance regardless of the long term impact of the station location, which is good in some sense, but troubling overall. It looks like the Pink Line is on life support at best. It performed really poorly in the ridership analysis (although I am not one that always trusts these figures as gospel). It looks like if this area is ever to get rail, it may have to wait for the Crenshaw Line to be built and then extended to Wilshire and then possibly extended to Hollywood. That will likely be a long long wait. I wish they would give up the Lot 36 option at UCLA. They even state in here that they really want to go with that option, but some development on Lindbrook has made this more difficult and potentially more expensive. If that wasn't the case it looks like they would pick that option. The VA station continues to perplex. It wasn't a surprise that the staff recommended Alt. 2. What was surprising was that they are still considering both the VA hospital site (south of Wilshire) and the Wadsworth theater parking lot site (north of Wilshire) as well. The north site is $96M more (because it takes the route out of the way to the north) and is farther from the hospital, which I thought was the whole reason they are building this station. The recommendation states they are having problems with the VA, who is concerned about this area being too congested. I must say I have concerns about the current access to and from the VA here, because it is not designed for busses to be going into the VA and back out on Wilshire as the ramp coming out of the VA puts you almost directly onto the 405 on-ramp. There is little room for busses to manuever here. The 720 and 20 currently just stop on a cutout of Wilshire and don't go into the VA. However, this access in and out of the actual VA will be a problem if the station is north of Wilshire or south. I imagine the VA doesn't want to give up any land in the south location, because that is where most of their hospital parking is. It seems ridiculous that the MTA would spend another $96M to place the station up here. This station does provide slightly better access to the dense city environment to the West, especially if the VA grants access through its now closed gate at San Vicente/Wilshire. However, why not build a straight line and use the $96M to build the station a little farther West at Federal where it should be to begin with? It seems as if the MTA is really letting the VA drive this process way too much. I am going to reiterate my comments to drop the VA station from consideration and go with Option #1 for now. When the time comes, they can then replan the station location in a proper lcoation for proceeding farther West.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 12, 2010 9:45:37 GMT -8
No to Crenshaw? That kinda stinks but oh, well. it wouldn't be used much either and it saves them money. Since they've apparently nixed the West Hollywood Branch, I guess that means that this is going to ultimately wind up being the northern section of the Crenshaw line? I certainly hope so. "The Pink Line" would become the northern extension of the "Rose Line".
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 12, 2010 10:43:48 GMT -8
I wouldn't be difficult to re-route the buses to the subway station at VA Hospital (either north or south location)... we just need to re-configure the Wilshire overpass that currently splits the VA in 2. Remember, there is a separate Wilshire bus lane project going on at the same time... we can easily add bus only ramps at this location for not much money.
I also don't get why people are so hang up on Lot 36 vs. under Wilshire. The Lot 36 location is not even a full block north of Wilshire so I think it makes no difference vs. right under Wilshire. We can still have direct entrance/exits on Wilshire if that is what people really want. The key for me is ease of construction and disruption to road surface. The station box has to be a cut-and-cover excavation so if we go with Wilshire Blvd, it will significantly impact traffic in the Westwood area (which is bad for generating goodwill and PR for the project). Lot 36 will be a lot easier to deal with and you can quarantine the traffic impact within the Village. Wilshire Blvd will not be severely impacted during station construction.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 10:49:33 GMT -8
I see the recommended alternative as focused on cutting costs and eliminating resistance to the project. The resulting line is going to be fairly straight and very fast. I for one am ok with that. The VA station still seems half-baked. I mean that in the sense of not being fully conceived. There is a germ of a concept of "bringing the subway west of the 405", but I just don't see how it will work in a practical sense. I am very curious to know what the VA has been saying to Metro about all this. Certainly there is plenty of land to design a first-rate bus-rail transfer facility, but so far I've seen no evidence that the VA is willing to part with the land that would be needed for this. If everything were on the table, I would reroute Wilshire Boulevard between Federal and the 405, splitting the opposing directions and putting the station in the middle. Westbound lanes would go north of the station, with eastbound lanes to the south. The station in the middle would be served directly by bus lanes providing direct connections between Wilshire and the station.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 12, 2010 12:55:29 GMT -8
No to Crenshaw? That kinda stinks but oh, well. it wouldn't be used much either and it saves them money. Since they've apparently nixed the West Hollywood Branch, I guess that means that this is going to ultimately wind up being the northern section of the Crenshaw line? I was not for the Crenshaw station, but I feel for the people who were, especially if they are told there is not enough money for that station at $153M and not enough density at Crenshaw if they then decide to spend another $92M so they can relocate the already isolated VA station in an area even more remote within the VA to accomodate the VA administration. On the Westwood station, it is correct that Wilshire/Westwood is not that much farther East of Lot 36. I just think Westwood is a key location and locating in a central hub is very important regardless of construction impacts for a couple of years. If pedestrians are having to cross streets and intersections from the Lot 36 area to central points in Westwood that almost all to the East of there, it doesn't do much for traffic and these effects will be permanent. At least both stations have a portal on the South Side of Wilshire. If they didn't that would be a disaster waiting to happen. According to the MTA, they don't see any performance or cost differences between the North and South Constellation alignments. Are they understating this?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 13:11:58 GMT -8
Here is the map showing the recommended alignment, along with the Expo and Red Lines (click to enlarge): This map includes the following assumptions: - VA station south option
- UCLA station Wilshire/Westwood option
- Century City station Constellation option
- Constellation North alignment option.
Notice that everything east of Beverly Hills station is now settled. All of the remaining question marks are west of Beverly Hills.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 14:03:48 GMT -8
The following is one idea for some crosstown lines.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Oct 12, 2010 14:56:27 GMT -8
How much travel time does the Constellation North alignment add in comparison to Constellation South?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 12, 2010 16:00:33 GMT -8
The following is one idea for some crosstown lines. I think a station @ Santa Monica/Westwood is probably a good idea for your proposed 405 line (green line on your map) - e.g. the line should go down on Westwood Blvd and then meet up with your Stan Monica line. Another potential improvement... extend the Santa Monica line east to Silverlake and Los Feliz. Otherwise, this is probably the best we can hope for in the next 20 years
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Oct 12, 2010 16:26:21 GMT -8
If the Santa Monica line were to be extended to Silverlake and Los Feliz, it would also make sense to have that continue to Glendale and Burbank. The line could go along Santa Monica and cut to Hyperion/Glendale/Brand/Glenoaks to Downtown Burbank where it could connect to the Metrolink station via Olive or Magnolia. In theory, a future extension, could go along Chandler and connect to or replace the Orange line.
I think the proposed map has too much redundancy along Santa Monica in Beverly Hills. It would be a hell of a lot of money for tunneling that wouldn't serve new destinations. It's probably more realistic to go along San Vicente by the Beverly Center (a la Pink Line) and terminate at the Purple line at La Cienega and Wilshire.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 17:11:48 GMT -8
A couple more thoughts on the VA site. According to the DEIR, the area west of Bonsall Avenue (below Wilshire) is Army Reserve property. And of course east of Bonsall is VA property. I wonder if there is extra significance to this Army Reserve land that I'm not aware of. It looks to me like a lot of open fields and trees, but not much else. There seem to be some very old buildings on that land, but I don't know what they are. It seems to me that this Army Reserve property (as well as the bizarre curve that Wilshire takes to go around that property) is the key to this whole mess. If either Wilshire could be straightened out, or the station could be located a few hundred feet west of the current location, we could have a decently useful station.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 12, 2010 17:45:02 GMT -8
A couple more thoughts on the VA site. According to the DEIR, the area west of Bonsall Avenue (below Wilshire) is Army Reserve property. And of course east of Bonsall is VA property. I wonder if there is extra significance to this Army Reserve land that I'm not aware of. It looks to me like a lot of open fields and trees, but not much else. There seem to be some very old buildings on that land, but I don't know what they are. It seems to me that this Army Reserve property (as well as the bizarre curve that Wilshire takes to go around that property) is the key to this whole mess. If either Wilshire could be straightened out, or the station could be located a few hundred feet west of the current location, we could have a decently useful station. I wrote about the Army Reserve site in detail in some previous posts under the VA station (sorry I am too lazy to look back for the link). In short, the Army doesn't want the parcel and exchanged it to a private developer who is very interested in having a subway entrance. However, the VA and the community are very opposed to having this parcel developed and the VA questions that the parcel is really the army's to begin with. Basically, a big mess. The MTA has tried to steer clear of this area stating that there is community opposition to this site for a station. BTW, the Army Reserve parcel is far to the West of Bonsall. West of Bonsall is VA land - first the parking lot for the VA and then the sealed off Veteran's Administrator's estate. If you drive on Wilshire you can see the fence line between the VA Admin's estate and the Army Reserve parcel, which is the border between the two. I still can't believe they would spend another $92M to go with the VA North site, even though I actually think it represents a little better link to the community to the west if they open up the disputed "park" to the West. At least that could be a pleasant walk and/or bike path for a few people. I don't see hardly anyone walking on the VA stretch of Wilshire. No one does now as it is quite unpleasant. As far as anyone biking on that stretch of Wilshire - that is out of the question as there is no shoulder and cars going 45-50 mph when not stuck in traffic. Only way would be to ride on the narrow sidewalk, which is possible since there are no pedestrians.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 12, 2010 18:28:22 GMT -8
Just for fun and entertainment...
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 19:07:04 GMT -8
I wrote about the Army Reserve site in detail in some previous posts under the VA station (sorry I am too lazy to look back for the link). In short, the Army doesn't want the parcel and exchanged it to a private developer who is very interested in having a subway entrance. However, the VA and the community are very opposed to having this parcel developed and the VA questions that the parcel is really the army's to begin with. Basically, a big mess. The MTA has tried to steer clear of this area stating that there is community opposition to this site for a station. I knew that Brentwood residents had a huge fight to stop the development at Federal/Wilshire. Damn NIMBYs. BTW, the Army Reserve parcel is far to the West of Bonsall. West of Bonsall is VA land - first the parking lot for the VA and then the sealed off Veteran's Administrator's estate. If you drive on Wilshire you can see the fence line between the VA Admin's estate and the Army Reserve parcel, which is the border between the two. Ah, the Veterans Administrator's estate. Well that is important.
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Oct 12, 2010 21:34:50 GMT -8
Just for fun and entertainment... I was doodling something very similar this afternoon. Leaves the door open for a connection to the old plan for a Silver Line (which as I recall terminated at Vermont/Santa Monica) and an extension of the Crenshaw Line beyond Hollywood/Highland to Ventura Blvd? the Barham Pass or new Universal City development to Burbank? (Not that I expect anything beyond what is laid out in the 30/10 plan to be accomplished in my lifetime.) Side Note: I vaguely recall that at one point the Vermont/Santa Monica station was originally designed with a provision for another connection of some sort which was eliminated for costs reasons - any old-timers with a similar recollection? Second Side Note: After three years, I've been promoted to a "Junior Member". Yippee!
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Oct 12, 2010 21:38:41 GMT -8
I wrote about the Army Reserve site in detail in some previous posts under the VA station (sorry I am too lazy to look back for the link). In short, the Army doesn't want the parcel and exchanged it to a private developer who is very interested in having a subway entrance. However, the VA and the community are very opposed to having this parcel developed and the VA questions that the parcel is really the army's to begin with. Basically, a big mess. The MTA has tried to steer clear of this area stating that there is community opposition to this site for a station. I knew that Brentwood residents had a huge fight to stop the development at Federal/Wilshire. Damn NIMBYs. BTW, the Army Reserve parcel is far to the West of Bonsall. West of Bonsall is VA land - first the parking lot for the VA and then the sealed off Veteran's Administrator's estate. If you drive on Wilshire you can see the fence line between the VA Admin's estate and the Army Reserve parcel, which is the border between the two. Ah, the Veterans Administrator's estate. Well that is important. This particular VA property has some interesting history behind it: www.veteransparkconservancy.org/
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 21:52:00 GMT -8
Well given the level of dedication by veterans to conserve this land (which BTW I can't begrudge at all), I'm completely perplexed how the VA station will be at all usable or accessible to the general public. It seems to me this is a private station for visitors to the VA Hospital grounds.
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Oct 13, 2010 0:39:43 GMT -8
Masonite - I agree with pretty much everything you've written regarding the VA site. North would be slightly more accessible for the public due to the so-called park on the north of Wilshire. But the entire VA thing perplexes me (if they open that gate, that is)...
Take a look at this proposed arrangement for the south VA station in Chapter 2 of the project description (around page 56, I think).
What's with the random ventilation shaft way to the west on the army reserve parcel? There's not one included on the VA north plan. And it's waaaaaay far from the station. Haven't been able to find any ventilation shafts next to any other stations in the DEIR... If they're having so many issues with the army reserve land, what's with the decision to put a relatively large ventilation shaft there?
|
|