|
Post by rajacobs on Dec 25, 2010 11:36:52 GMT -8
There is an alternative to the fiasco this subway boring controversy has become. The whole problem is having so many people working in Century City and the studio and the area sandwiched between 2 country clubs and Cheviot Hills. I mean, there is no logical, open, accessible corridor in and out! The proposed solution of burrowing under multi-million dollar homes and potentially the BH High School undersatandably creates ire and objection. But there was / perhaps is an alternative. Perhaps everyone's forgotten about the old Beverwil corridor into Beverly Hills, theone that was probably supposed to be the extension to Beverly Bl. (which was re-routed). A Century City spur between the Expo Line and a Wilshire-only Purple LIne would solve the problem. The spur would only require burrowing under the 2 country clubs and under Berverwil, then Castle Heights, no homes or high schools! The spur would provide access to CC, not the Purple Line directly, and would probably become a route with one of the highest riderships. A link into Century city was needed long ago. A subway spur from the Venice-Robertson station, where there will be parking, to Constellation and Avenue of the Stars then onward to Wilshire would work miracles. I would imagine 2 stations in between Wilshire and Venice-Robertson: Pico and Constellation. Perhaps the extra $s CA is receiving from Ohio and Wisconsin could be used for a real solution to CC traffic jams. ...OK, a stocking-stuffer pipe dream I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 25, 2010 17:19:16 GMT -8
It's not too bad of an idea, adding a spur up to Century City. But it's not going to happen at this late stage in the game.
First of all, Metro has already decided the Crenshaw Line will not branch off the Expo Line due to the problem with headways on the downtown segment. Your proposal would have the same problem - too many trains sharing track in Downtown L.A..
Secondly, the Purple Line DEIR is completed and nobody wants to throw it out, just to relocate the BH-Westwood segment up to Wilshire. That line is going to Century City. The residents of Beverly Hills will not prevent Metro from choosing the most logical route.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Dec 25, 2010 18:25:37 GMT -8
...But it's not going to happen at this late stage in the game. Neither can I imagine serious consideration of a southern transit corridor for access to Century City ...at this time. Nonetheless, it boggles my mind to reflect on all the opposition to increased density and movement and to realize that very logical alternatives exist and were never considered. - Increasing the density in Century City at least twice when ingress and egress were already a problem.
- Putting "traffic-calming" devices in Cheviot Hills when increased transit was clearly required.
- Now, bringing East-West transit into Century City, but never considering North-South transit.
These are three glaring planning errors that affect not just the residents in and around CC, but anyone with need to travel there. Consequently, even if southern transit access to Century City is not in the current hand that's been dealt, consideration and planning for the future should begin now.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jan 5, 2011 13:30:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 5, 2011 14:33:13 GMT -8
The FTA has a very good website on the New Starts process. One document on the website describes Preliminary Engineering. The following excerpt talks specifically about PE as a step toward New Starts funding ( bold added by me): The quality and reliability of the project information generated during PE for New Starts projects is essential to FTA’s decision to fund a project, which typically occurs shortly after the completion of preliminary engineering and once a project is approved into final design. Hence, the objective of “New Starts PE,” as this enhanced definition of preliminary engineering is known, is to produce a solid project definition based on reliable estimates of costs, benefits, impacts, and risks. Ultimately, engineering and design should conclusively result in the development of a specific project with definitive scope elements, alignment, and design features such that the project cost and implementation schedule is known with enough certainty to: a) provide a reasonable assurance that the project will continue to meet the New Starts criteria through final design and construction; and b) the amount of New Starts funding to construct the project can be “locked in.” In fact, FTA policy is to place a cap on the New Starts funding amount which will be considered in any subsequent full funding grant agreement at the point of a project’s completion of PE and entry into final design.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 5, 2011 14:42:52 GMT -8
One passage from the Source article says that FTA does not agree with some of Metro's assumptions ( bold added by me): The results of the risk assessment show that FTA and Metro are in substantial agreement on estimating costs for guideway and track, stations, support facilities and other major technical elements of the projects. However, there are two areas that are more subjective where the two agencies differ.
The FTA believes the projects will take two years longer to complete than Metro’s schedule, and the FTA is estimating the annual growth of the local Consumer Price Index (CPI) at four percent while Metro has adopted a three percent rate based on low annual CPI increases in recent years and other economic forecasts for Los Angeles County. I guess we'll have to wait and see whether Metro adjusts its estimates, or whether the FTA decides that Metro is in fact correct with these assumptions. Also, it looks like Metro is still keeping hope alive for Measure R 30/10 to come through, based on their project timelines: Metro estimates that the subway extension to Westwood – through completion — will cost $5.34 billion if finished by 2022. It estimates the Regional Connector will cost $1.367 billion.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jan 5, 2011 14:47:36 GMT -8
Metro, I think you meant keeping hope alive for 10/30, not Measure R...
Sorry about the bad pasted link.
RT
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jan 5, 2011 14:59:10 GMT -8
Exciting news on the Subway and Connector! More info should be available when Boxer and Villaraigosa have a press conference in the next month or so.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 5, 2011 15:01:52 GMT -8
I think you meant keeping hope alive for 10/30, not Measure R... Yep, thanks. I fixed.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 10, 2011 10:57:52 GMT -8
Three FEIR planning meetings are scheduled for late January 2011. "Metro will provide members of the public with background on Project planning to date, detail what community members can expect during the Final EIS/EIR phase and provide an overview of the anticipated subway construction process." All three meetings will be identical, and all will be between 6 and 8 PM. Monday, January 24 LACMA West Terrace Room, 5th Floor 5905 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles (map).
Wednesday, January 26 Westwood United Methodist Church Fellowship Hall 3rd Floor, 10497 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles (map).
Monday, January 31 Roxbury Park Auditorium 471 S. Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills (map). Complete and latest info is available here.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 17, 2011 15:00:12 GMT -8
Citizens' Campaign to Fix the Purple Line gets rolling. Will BHUSD insist on a station at Beverly Hills High as the compromise?BHUSD Increases Efforts to Oppose Subway Route(Read the original article at the link above for accessing all the links)The school district votes to hire a law firm and will also likely retain a lobbyist as the MTA plans more forums on the Westside Subway Extension.The Beverly Hills Unified School District's effort to oppose a subway going under Beverly Hills High School is kicking into gear just as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority plans additional public forums on the topic. The MTA will hold three “community update” meetings this month, including one Jan. 31 at the Roxbury Park Community Center to discuss work on the final environmental impact report of two possible routes for the Westside Subway Extension. One route would entail tunneling under the high school and the Beverly Hills Unified School District office, while the one favored by the school district and city officials would go under Santa Monica Boulevard. BHUSD officials and many residents feel that the MTA has unofficially decided in favor of the route under the high school because of an alleged fault line under Santa Monica Boulevard. “The Beverly Hills board of education plans to continue to demonstrate that viable alternatives exist and hire our own experts to refute the false seismic claims being advanced by the MTA experts regarding tunneling under the original and locally preferred route, Santa Monica Boulevard,” board Vice President Brian Goldberg said last week in an e-mail to constituents. As part of these efforts, the BHUSD board voted 5-0 on Thursday to hire national law firm Alston + Bird to oppose any decision to tunnel under the high school. Alston + Bird specializes in environmental and land development law, as well as public policy issues, according to its website. The firm has nine offices, including locations in Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C. The board is also likely to hire a lobbying firm, President Lisa Korbatov told Patch in an e-mail. Under consideration is Englander Knabe & Allen, the same firm behind efforts to put Measure 2P—a two-hour free parking proposal—on the March ballot. Englander has offices in Los Angeles and also Sacramento, where BHUSD wants state officials to become involved. Meanwhile, the subway issue is becoming front and center in the upcoming City Council elections. All three candidates running for council seats oppose the proposal to tunnel under the high school. Two of the three—Dr. Julian A. Gold and Councilwoman Nancy Krasne—specifically mentioned the issue at their Jan. 9 campaign launches. Patch urges readers to attend one or more of the three upcoming MTA community update meetings. The first is Jan. 24 at LACMA West on the fifth floor, according to the MTA's website. The next meeting will be Jan. 26 on the third floor of Westwood United Methodist Church, 10497 Wilshire Blvd. The last one will be Jan. 31 at the Roxbury Community Center. The meetings begin at 6 p.m., with the public comment period from 7:15-8 p.m. Those planning to attend the Beverly Hills meeting are advised to get there early, as prior MTA meetings held at Roxbury were so crowded that an overflow room was needed.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 17, 2011 16:15:24 GMT -8
These people have such an inflated sense of self-importance. Along with deep pockets. I hope Metro is ready with its lawyers and lobbyists. My concern is the anti-subway lobbyist could impact federal funding for the project.
As for the local candidates being anti-subway, it really is a non-issue, since all three candidates have the same position.
I will definitely attend one of these meetings. I urge anybody who supports the Constellation station to attend as well.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 17, 2011 16:50:22 GMT -8
These people have such an inflated sense of self-importance. That's because that's how they are raised when they are children and it carries into adulthood. From what hear Beverly Hills High School is only a name nowadays and is poor in educational aspects.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 17, 2011 22:38:05 GMT -8
Citizens' Campaign to Fix the Purple Line gets rolling. Will BHUSD insist on a station at Beverly Hills High as the compromise?BHUSD Increases Efforts to Oppose Subway RouteBHUSD officials and many residents feel that the MTA has unofficially decided in favor of the route under the high school because of an alleged fault line under Santa Monica Boulevard. “The Beverly Hills board of education plans to continue to demonstrate that viable alternatives exist and hire our own experts to refute the false seismic claims being advanced by the MTA experts regarding tunneling under the original and locally preferred route, Santa Monica Boulevard,” board Vice President Brian Goldberg said last week in an e-mail to constituents. As part of these efforts, the BHUSD board voted 5-0 on Thursday to hire national law firm Alston + Bird to oppose any decision to tunnel under the high school. Alston + Bird specializes in environmental and land development law, as well as public policy issues, according to its website. The firm has nine offices, including locations in Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C. So, the lawyers can prove that the MTA is lying to the public that a seismic faults lies on Santa Monica boulevard? Really? Really? I would love to hear how this plays out in court!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 17, 2011 23:20:08 GMT -8
Actually the fault line is a bogus argument. There are numerous fault lines crisscrossing the Los Angeles basin and, whichever alignment is chosen, the line will have to go over several of them. You can see them at NavigateLA: navigatela.lacity.org/I also don't like such doctored arguments of why the line should not be built along a certain corridor. It makes it difficult to build lines in the future along these corridors. They should simply use the honest argument that the ridership will be much better and cost will be lower, which will not only result in a better line and cost savings but increase the chances of federal funding: this is a 100-year, very, very expensive project and it should be done right and there is simply no other way; so, the subway station needs to be put where it needs to be put, not blocks away from the activity center.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jan 18, 2011 12:33:28 GMT -8
Actually, Gokhan, it's definitely a legitimate argument. The issue is not that the route will cross that fault line, that is inevitable. The real issue is that Santa Monica Blvd. follows the fault line exactly so the alignment that stops at Santa Monica/Ave. of the Stars would be completely destroyed in the event of a major earthquake along that fault and a whole section of the alignment would be inoperable for years. If a major earthquake occurred somewhere else where the subway crosses a fault line the worst case scenario would just sever the tunnel at that point.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 18, 2011 13:45:04 GMT -8
From the DEIR, Chapter 4, page 4-161: Because surface faulting is generally confined to a narrow zone 10s to several hundred feet wide, avoidance can be a practical means of avoiding surface fault rupture hazards for facilities such as stations. However, for linear facilities such as the tunnels, avoidance may not be possible. Where possible, design would allow for the tunnels to cross the faults as perpendicular to the fault line as possible to limit the area of potential damage. Depending on the predicted fault off set and area over which the movement is distributed, some distortion can be accommodated by the structure. The document goes on to say that earthquake damage could be mitigated to some extent in either case, using techniques such as building the tunnels extra wide or with more flexible material. But clearly mitigation is a lot more difficult when you are putting the tunnel directly parallel to the fault line itself, as opposed to perpendicular to it. This is one of Metro's arguments for the Constellation option, and I think it's legitimate. However, to me the most important argument is simply that it is in a more central location, making it more useful to the public.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 18, 2011 14:18:55 GMT -8
The fault along Santa Monica is on the north side of the street and lies a few hundred feet away from the street. California code requires the structures to be offset at least 50 ft. I think the main concern would be the station. It probably would still be within the code with some margin (about 100 - 300 ft from the fault), but it's still very close.
The fault also goes along Wilshire in Santa Monica for a short section and the tunnel would go along the fault there if they extended the line to the sea.
There is a fault on Heath Avenue as well, going only 20 ft in front of the main building of Beverly High. With the Constellation option, the tunnel would have to cross this fault line.
See NavigateLA for the exact locations of the fault lines.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 24, 2011 15:54:16 GMT -8
Just a reminder that Metro is holding two meetings this week (and one more next week) related to the Westside Subway Extension. First meeting is tonight. Three FEIR planning meetings are scheduled for late January 2011. "Metro will provide members of the public with background on Project planning to date, detail what community members can expect during the Final EIS/EIR phase and provide an overview of the anticipated subway construction process." All three meetings will be identical, and all will be between 6 and 8 PM. Monday, January 24 LACMA West Terrace Room, 5th Floor 5905 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles (map).
Wednesday, January 26 Westwood United Methodist Church Fellowship Hall 3rd Floor, 10497 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles (map).
Monday, January 31 Roxbury Park Auditorium 471 S. Roxbury Drive, Beverly Hills (map). Complete and latest info is available here.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 25, 2011 9:13:25 GMT -8
Metro's westside subway twitter account provided a lot of good details during last night's meeting. If you're not following them, I would suggest you do. Here's the link: twitter.com/WestsideSubway
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 25, 2011 17:42:00 GMT -8
Yes, a good update from the presentation materials www.facebook.com/WestsideSubwayExtensionIf anyone attends any of these meetings please share any details. One item I am questioning is the Westwood station. It appears that they have settled on the Westwood/Wilshire location (my preference), but are only planning two portals instead of 3. It appears they may be eliminating the one on the South side of Wilshire (not clear from the presentation). I hope that is not the case. Hopefully, private businesses will step up and help provide more portals as the project goes on. I'd love to see 2 or 3 portals at many of these stations. Fairfax comes to mind as a potential location for a directly into LACMA portal as well as one on the West and/or South side of the street. Actually having additional portals represents a traffic issue as having many pedestrians crossing Wilshire and other major cross streets will increase signal waits and traffic flow.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 25, 2011 18:10:31 GMT -8
I'm sure LACMA will be willing to fund a portal privately. Ditto Century City, where Westfield and Plaza hotel have both been on the record saying they will connect to the station at Constellation. Those are not ones I would worry about.
I'm more concerned that Beverly Hill will obstruct property owners at La Cienega and Rodeo that may want to open up their basements to connect with the stations. For example, the owner of the office building where Flynn Publishing may want to have a portal. And some of the hotels on Wilshire or Beverly near Rodeo may want one too. I can see Beverly Hills coming down hard on any property owners that want to cooperate with Metro as pay back for the inevitable selection of the Constellation route.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 25, 2011 18:13:39 GMT -8
Also, the last page of presentation says there will be "Station Area Advisory Groups" setup to discuss station design. How do we get on these groups? We like to discuss these things on the message board but here is a real live opportunity for us to provide input in an official capacity. I have much more confidence in member of this forum to provide input on station design than say NUMBYs in Beverly Hills. We need pack these study groups with transit advocates not NIMBYs.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 25, 2011 18:48:46 GMT -8
I'm more concerned that Beverly Hill will obstruct property owners at La Cienega and Rodeo that may want to open up their basements to connect with the stations. For example, the owner of the office building where Flynn Publishing may want to have a portal. And some of the hotels on Wilshire or Beverly near Rodeo may want one too. I can see Beverly Hills coming down hard on any property owners that want to cooperate with Metro as pay back for the inevitable selection of the Constellation route. I would love to witness some Beverly Hills in-fighting!!!!! I think one portal entrances at La Cienega and Rodeo are sufficient. Only places truly deserving of multiple portals (in my opinion) are Fairfax, Century City, Westwood, and VA (to get a portal closest to Federal as legally possible) La Brea, La Cienega, and Rodeo will function fine with single entrances.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 25, 2011 21:01:00 GMT -8
I think one portal entrances at La Cienega and Rodeo are sufficient. Only places truly deserving of multiple portals (in my opinion) are Fairfax, Century City, Westwood, and VA (to get a portal closest to Federal as legally possible) La Brea, La Cienega, and Rodeo will function fine with single entrances. I agree that Rodeo only needs one entrance, on the north side of the street. However, La Cienega needs two -- one on either side of La Cienega -- simply because that street is so wide and hard to cross.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 25, 2011 22:20:54 GMT -8
I agree that Rodeo only needs one entrance, on the north side of the street. However, La Cienega needs two -- one on either side of La Cienega -- simply because that street is so wide and hard to cross. I've crossed that street many times as I had a client located at Wilshire/La Cienega (across from the Coffee Bean). It ain't no bigger than other standard LA streets (3 lanes each direction + a left turn lane). It's the same width as the Vermont corridor with the Red Line. Now, you talk about Wilshire / San Vicente or Olympic/Figueroa...those are mega-crosswalks!!!
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 26, 2011 14:16:40 GMT -8
If anyone attends any of these meetings please share any details. One item I am questioning is the Westwood station. It appears that they have settled on the Westwood/Wilshire location (my preference), but are only planning two portals instead of 3. It appears they may be eliminating the one on the South side of Wilshire (not clear from the presentation). I hope that is not the case. Hopefully, private businesses will step up and help provide more portals as the project goes on. I'd love to see 2 or 3 portals at many of these stations. Fairfax comes to mind as a potential location for a directly into LACMA portal as well as one on the West and/or South side of the street. The following is for anyone who hasn't yet seen the presentation. On page 16 of the presentation, Metro says it is planning to fund/build one entrance portal per station, except for Westwood/UCLA, which would get two portals. However, Metro would "provide opportunities for additional portals provided by private sector".
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 26, 2011 16:14:19 GMT -8
If anyone attends any of these meetings please share any details. One item I am questioning is the Westwood station. It appears that they have settled on the Westwood/Wilshire location (my preference), but are only planning two portals instead of 3. It appears they may be eliminating the one on the South side of Wilshire (not clear from the presentation). I hope that is not the case. Hopefully, private businesses will step up and help provide more portals as the project goes on. I'd love to see 2 or 3 portals at many of these stations. Fairfax comes to mind as a potential location for a directly into LACMA portal as well as one on the West and/or South side of the street. The following is for anyone who hasn't yet seen the presentation. On page 16 of the presentation, Metro says it is planning to fund/build one entrance portal per station, except for Westwood/UCLA, which would get two portals. However, Metro would "provide opportunities for additional portals provided by private sector". so it's just a funding issue? "we can't afford to build more than one portal" because I do think more portals are going to be wanted. however, as we've seen with Universal Studios and more recently with the Regional Connector, we've seen how corporations and businesses which may have the money to buy a portal (c'mon Universal, just greenlight one less crappy sequel. we won't mind...) may be reluctant to put up the funds themselves to actually do it. they may have a million excuses ("I pay my taxes, it's not my job"), so how do we give them the incentive to pay for a portal?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 27, 2011 17:14:32 GMT -8
So, who is (are) going to the Roxbury meeting to stand up to the Beverly Hills NIMBYs?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 27, 2011 17:21:48 GMT -8
So, who is (are) going to the Roxbury meeting to stand up to the Beverly Hills NIMBYs? I went last time and it was intimidating as heck. I've never seen such ignorance anywhere. I felt really bad for Metro. There was no real intelligence to their arguements just code words. If a lot of people here choose to go, I'd be down to help stand up for Metro!
|
|