|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 27, 2011 20:34:31 GMT -8
I'll be there.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 28, 2011 12:41:47 GMT -8
If you could treat the Beverly Hills NIMBYs as you treated Fix Expo at the Vista Del Mar meeting in Cheviot hills, we have a chance. (That was one showdown by the way, which almost had the infuriated Fix Expo walking toward metrocenter taken by the sheriff deputies.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 28, 2011 12:46:55 GMT -8
If you could treat the Beverly Hills NIMBYs as you treated Fix Expo at the Vista Del Mar meeting in Cheviot hills, we have a chance. (That was one showdown by the way, which almost had the infuriated Fix Expo walking toward metrocenter taken by the sheriff deputies.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 28, 2011 13:01:58 GMT -8
If you could treat the Beverly Hills NIMBYs as you treated Fix Expo at the Vista Del Mar meeting in Cheviot hills, we have a chance. (That was one showdown by the way, which almost had the infuriated Fix Expo walking toward metrocenter taken by the sheriff deputies. So, unlike you did to Fix Expo, you are afraid of getting tough on the Beverly Hills NIMBYs?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 28, 2011 14:25:06 GMT -8
So, unlike you did to Fix Expo, you are afraid of getting tough on the Beverly Hills NIMBYs? You're trying to provoke me, but since it's Friday I'm going to let it slide LOL. I seriously doubt we'll have any violent Marxist-revolutionaries yelling at me in Beverly Hills, like at the Expo meeting. But anyway, it's just a public meeting, and I'm not afraid of anybody who has an opposing opinion. I'm going to assume that nobody will be physically attacking anybody. If the NIMBYs don't like what I have to say, they'll get their chance at the microphone.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 28, 2011 14:48:46 GMT -8
So, unlike you did to Fix Expo, you are afraid of getting tough on the Beverly Hills NIMBYs? You're trying to provoke me, but since it's Friday I'm going to let it slide LOL. I seriously doubt we'll have any violent Marxist-revolutionaries yelling at me in Beverly Hills, like at the Expo meeting. But anyway, it's just a public meeting, and I'm not afraid of anybody who has an opposing opinion. I'm going to assume that nobody will be physically attacking anybody. If the NIMBYs don't like what I have to say, they'll get their chance at the microphone. Sounds good. Well, whoever goes there, speak tough so that your points against the Beverly Hills NIMBYs are well taken.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 28, 2011 17:57:40 GMT -8
Well, whoever goes there, speak tough so that your points against the Beverly Hills NIMBYs are well taken. Here is the presentation. I didn't realize that the distance between Western and La Brea Stations was a full 2.00 miles. See, this is what happens when you aren't tough against the NIMBYs and the same thing might happen with the Constellation Station unless the supporters are tough.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 28, 2011 21:46:39 GMT -8
Well, whoever goes there, speak tough so that your points against the Beverly Hills NIMBYs are well taken. Here is the presentation. I didn't realize that the distance between Western and La Brea Stations was a full 2.00 miles. See, this is what happens when you aren't tough against the NIMBYs and the same thing might happen with the Constellation Station unless the supporters are tough. Even with a Crenshaw station, there was going to be 1.5 mile gap. Not to rehash old arguments, but I wasn't in favor of the Crenshaw station. It was pretty close to Western to begin with (half a mile). There are some apartments south of the proposed Crenshaw station, but it is single family low density to the north. Also, the area can't have increased density due to its historic status. With the cost of a subway, to really make it worthwhile, you really have to have time savings. Given that there are no street crossings, it should be able to fly through this zone at 70 mph, which will be one of the few areas where it will be able to do this. Not to mention a station is around $200M plus. Also, from Century City to Westwood is around 2 miles as well. No one seems to ever mention that.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 29, 2011 0:50:08 GMT -8
I agree with Masonite. Gokhan, the NIMBYs didn't really "win" on Crenshaw. It was a 50/50 supported station, even at best. Heck, even the Crenshaw Line knew the better alternatives of serving the Crenshaw corridor north of Expo Line was Western or La Brea....not Crenshaw itself! So I wouldn't put the Constellation issue in the same breath with Crenshaw. Constellation has near unanimous support with Metro and Los Angeles. It's just Beverly Hills that is causing the raucus. I wouldn't support Crenshaw, but I would strongly support Constellation.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 29, 2011 8:46:06 GMT -8
Nah. The Nimby's won at Crenshaw. Their arguments were even repeated here. See masonites post re "historic" status for the neighborhood.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 29, 2011 10:46:43 GMT -8
Nah. The Nimby's won at Crenshaw. Their arguments were even repeated here. See masonites post re "historic" status for the neighborhood. So even if some of us transit advocates were against a Crenshaw station (AND Metro chose to use Western or La Brea for a northern extension of the future Crenshaw Line)...we're NIMBY's as well? The one thing I do hate is the use of that term thrown around to everybody who opposes anything transit, in good or bad form. Yes, there are people who have a hidden agenda behind hating something. But some of us have rational arguments to say that something shouldn't be built. But your NIMBY termed shouldn't be used just because we don't agree.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 29, 2011 11:40:30 GMT -8
Surely some of the opponents were NIMBYs (selfish people from the neighborhood who just didn't want a train station there). But others of us opposed the station for reasons related to building an effective transit system. Among these: (1) it would have low ridership, (2) there are few destinations nearby, (3) transfers make more sense on a through street rather than at a dead-end, and (4) it's not worth the cost, in terms of money and overall speed.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 29, 2011 12:25:47 GMT -8
Shawn didn't call any poster here a NIMBY. He was referring to the HOAs near Wilshire and Crenshaw.
I was at the early meetings and yes, those people were fierce NIMBYs and they would fight the station relentlessly.
We also agree that the support for this station was perhaps around 50/50 and even some transit advocates didn't support it. But, at the end, the HOA NIMBY opposition played an important role, and there is certainly an analogy with the current situation for the Constellation Station.
And make no mistakes; the Beverly Hills NIMBYs are extremely tough and these people are infamously known to born to sue anything that moves and they have plenty of money and resources to do so. I live near that part of the town and I know so.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 29, 2011 14:48:17 GMT -8
Well said Metrocenter.
Also, Gokhan I agree with what you said as well. There certainly was NIMBY resistance to that station no doubt, but a lot transit oriented people didn't like the station much for other reasons. Yes, it is odd being on the side of NIMBY's on this particular station (albeit for different reasons), but I am not going to change my mind just because of this.
Constellation is a completely different situation. There are few (if any) real transit and system oriented reasons why the station should be on SM Blvd. The Beverly Hills residents are completely irrational on this (even more than Cheviot Hills on Expo, which I didn't think was possible). This won't effect them in the least. One BH School Board member says this will be a terrorist target for the school because they have a lot of jewish students and a terrorist could detonate a bomb on a speeding train beneath the school (apparently she said this with a straight face). Nevermind, that they want to build a parking garage directly under the school that someone could park a SUV packed full of explosives and blow the school to smithereens. That doesn't seem to concern them in the least.
BluelineShawn, the historic overlay zone that the Crenshaw station is in, is certainly real. Density cannot be increased here. That is a fact that factored into the MTA's decision. Yes, the NIMBY's may have used that in their arguments, but in this case it is a valid argument. Overall, the station would have hurt the cost effectiveness of the project and ridership was hardly nicked when the station came out.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 29, 2011 15:15:42 GMT -8
One BH School Board member says this will be a terrorist target for the school because they have a lot of jewish students and a terrorist could detonate a bomb on a speeding train beneath the school (apparently she said this with a straight face). This is a ridiculous argument made by a very irrational person. For the sake of the argument, how would a bomb exploding in a reinforced-concrete tunnel 50 ft below the school would do any immediate damage to the school or its occupants? This is not to mention that an entire train full of passengers would have been wasted only to induce a mild scare at the school. These people indeed have a very elevated opinion of their self-importance.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jan 29, 2011 19:17:50 GMT -8
One BH School Board member says this will be a terrorist target for the school because they have a lot of jewish students and a terrorist could detonate a bomb on a speeding train beneath the school (apparently she said this with a straight face). This is a ridiculous argument made by a very irrational person. For the sake of the argument, how would a bomb exploding in a reinforced-concrete tunnel 50 ft below the school would do any immediate damage to the school or its occupants? This is not to mention that an entire train full of passengers would have been wasted only to induce a mild scare at the school. These people indeed have a very elevated opinion of their self-importance. I don't think we should worry about trains, particularly underground, being used for a terrorist attack; apparently those NIMBYs forgot one component used in the Oklahoma City bombing that can get anyplace there is a street - a rental truck.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 14, 2011 12:10:54 GMT -8
Metro is initiating station area meetings for the Westside Extension next week. Curiously, the VA Station is somehow not included on this slate of meetings. Because this station is not at any type of intersection and the VA is mostly walled off from Wilshire, it seems that this station should gain the most from this type of meeting as far as access, orientation, and so forth. I wonder what is going on here.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 14, 2011 13:09:24 GMT -8
Metro is initiating station area meetings for the Westside Extension next week. Curiously, the VA Station is somehow not included on this slate of meetings. Because this station is not at any type of intersection and the VA is mostly walled off from Wilshire, it seems that this station should gain the most from this type of meeting as far as access, orientation, and so forth. I wonder what is going on here. The VA Station is still optional, is it not? Metro's staffers definitely want to add this station, but I thought it had not been 100% decided (along with the final locations of the Westwood and Century City stations). But yeah, it's strange to skip the public meetings on this station. They might find that locals actually want it farther west, near the homes and offices in Brentwood, as most of us think on this board.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 14, 2011 13:20:07 GMT -8
Metro is initiating station area meetings for the Westside Extension next week. Curiously, the VA Station is somehow not included on this slate of meetings. Because this station is not at any type of intersection and the VA is mostly walled off from Wilshire, it seems that this station should gain the most from this type of meeting as far as access, orientation, and so forth. I wonder what is going on here. The VA Station is still optional, is it not? Metro's staffers definitely want to add this station, but I thought it had not been 100% decided (along with the final locations of the Westwood and Century City stations). But yeah, it's strange to skip the public meetings on this station. They might find that locals actually want it farther west, near the homes and offices in Brentwood, as most of us think on this board. The Board approved the extension all the way to the VA. They could have approved it just to Westwood. They haven't decided whether the station will be on the North or South side of Wilshire. This station continues to perplex.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Feb 14, 2011 13:46:58 GMT -8
The VA Station is still optional, is it not? Metro's staffers definitely want to add this station, but I thought it had not been 100% decided (along with the final locations of the Westwood and Century City stations). But yeah, it's strange to skip the public meetings on this station. They might find that locals actually want it farther west, near the homes and offices in Brentwood, as most of us think on this board. The Board approved the extension all the way to the VA. They could have approved it just to Westwood. They haven't decided whether the station will be on the North or South side of Wilshire. This station continues to perplex. I agree. Westwood would've been a much better and much more usable interim terminal. If they really wanted this first phase to go past the 405, why not have it go to Bundy instead of the pedestrian-unfriendly VA campus?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Feb 14, 2011 15:23:33 GMT -8
There is at least one very good reason to get it to at least to Bundy sooner rather than later.
The bottleneck of buses and cars getting to the V.A. terminus station coupled with the traffic still getting to 405 will make this a congestion nightmare to get through -- especially since the bus-only lanes are likely to not go west of La Cienega.
I also wonder if consolidating the 14th and 26th street stations to one 20th Street station, which makes sense as a crosstown bus route connector would have made this segment more cost-effective all the way to Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 15, 2011 5:26:54 GMT -8
I also wonder if consolidating the 14th and 26th street stations to one 20th Street station, which makes sense as a crosstown bus route connector would have made this segment more cost-effective all the way to Santa Monica. I'm with you on that. Also, I'd build the tunnels between Wilshire and Santa Monica, only two blocks apart, and have a portal at both streets.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 15, 2011 18:10:39 GMT -8
There is at least one very good reason to get it to at least to Bundy sooner rather than later. The bottleneck of buses and cars getting to the V.A. terminus station coupled with the traffic still getting to 405 will make this a congestion nightmare to get through -- especially since the bus-only lanes are likely to not go west of La Cienega. I also wonder if consolidating the 14th and 26th street stations to one 20th Street station, which makes sense as a crosstown bus route connector would have made this segment more cost-effective all the way to Santa Monica. You are certainly right. With this debate about the busway on Wilshire in Brentwood, it is important to remember the real bottleneck is from 3 lanes of San Vicente Blvd. dumping onto Wilshire. This combined with the current 3 lanes of Wilshire going this direction creates a 6 lane stream of cars going into 3 with no other real alternative (due to the VA). With the busway, another lane would be constructed in this area so it would be 6 lanes going into 4, which certainly won't cure the traffic problem, but it would be a lot better than today. The 3rd lane on Wilshire between San Vicente/Federal and Centinela is not all that important and of course west of Centinela it is just 2 lanes in each direction. Even with the busway, there would be more capacity for autos, because the buses won't be in their two lanes like they are in Santa Monica (West of Centinela). Of course, putting the subway station in this traffic zone illustrates the poor decision behind this selection. If they somehow could get portals to San Vicente/Federal, at least people could approach the station from various directions instead of all on Wilshire where the street is trying to serve 6 lanes of traffic with just 3 or 4 of capacity. The busway will be critical here.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 17, 2011 7:16:22 GMT -8
... consolidat[e] the 14th and 26th street stations to one 20th Street station I'm with you on that. Also, I'd build the tunnels between Wilshire and Santa Monica, only two blocks apart, and have a portal at both streets. Okay, I just figured out what you mean, Wad. You're suggesting that the trains run under Arizona Ave in Santa Monica (the street between Wilshire and Santa Monica), with portals at both Wilshire and Santa Monica at each station. Building a pedestrian walk-way and two portals at each station might be expensive; Wilshire to Santa Monica is about 1/4 mile. But you could really save costs if building it under Arizona Avenue allows the use of cut-and-cover construction. Vancouver managed to get a good deal on its newest subway by using that old-fashioned, disruptive technique. I don't think Santa Monica would like it, even if the construction was only on the side street, but it might reduce costs enough to fund two portals at each station. It would be interesting to see how much the ridership improved, balancing the 2 minutes of walking from Wilshire Blvd, versus the much closer distance to Santa Monica Blvd. Hey, doesn't Metro have a billion saved up for the 710 extension "even bigger dig" boondoggle? Couldn't we re-direct that to get the Purple Line to Santa Monica in our lifetimes?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 17, 2011 7:22:51 GMT -8
I'm with you on that. Also, I'd build the tunnels between Wilshire and Santa Monica, only two blocks apart, and have a portal at both streets. Okay, I just figured out what you mean, Wad. You're suggesting that the trains run under Arizona Ave in Santa Monica (the street between Wilshire and Santa Monica), with portals at both Wilshire and Santa Monica at each station. Building a pedestrian walk-way and two portals at each station might be expensive; Wilshire to Santa Monica is about 1/4 mile. But you could really save costs if building it under Arizona Avenue allows the use of cut-and-cover construction. Vancouver managed to get a good deal on its newest subway by using that old-fashioned, disruptive technique. I don't think Santa Monica would like it, even if the construction was only on the side street, but it might reduce costs enough to fund two portals at each station. It would be interesting to see how much the ridership improved, balancing the 2 minutes of walking from Wilshire Blvd, versus the much closer distance to Santa Monica Blvd. Hey, doesn't Metro have a billion saved up for the 710 extension "even bigger dig" boondoggle? Couldn't we re-direct that to get the Purple Line to Santa Monica in our lifetimes? You think all those homeowners on Arizona avenue are going to be a cool with that long of a tunnel on a residential street? Arizona is not a commercial street..it's full of low-mid density small-duplex housing. By the way, as someone who works in Santa Monica, I think consolidating to 20th street is a mistake. 26th street is a convenient station for the Water Garden and Y! Center (only walking 2 - 3 blocks south of Wilshire). 20th is not convenient; I think you are next to a hospital as your major generator there. But 20th would lose out on the west LA residents wanting access to 2 large employment centers in SaMo. Not everybody in West LA can easily hop on the Expo Line for Y! Center and Water Garden...providing a convenient access via the Purple Line would be very good as well.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 17, 2011 8:28:14 GMT -8
While I do think Santa Monica deserves both the Expo Line and Purple Line, I think the latter should be built under Wilshire, and not under Arizona, mainly for the reason LAofAnaheim stated.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Feb 17, 2011 10:18:17 GMT -8
By the way, as someone who works in Santa Monica, I think consolidating to 20th street is a mistake. 26th street is a convenient station for the Water Garden and Y! Center (only walking 2 - 3 blocks south of Wilshire). 20th is not convenient; I think you are next to a hospital as your major generator there. But 20th would lose out on the west LA residents wanting access to 2 large employment centers in SaMo. Not everybody in West LA can easily hop on the Expo Line for Y! Center and Water Garden...providing a convenient access via the Purple Line would be very good as well. Well, two stations may be better. But this should be studied. If it is a choice of having one station at 20th Street and getting to build the Purple Line extension all the way to 4th Street and not having an extension at all with two low performing stations planned at 16th & 26th, perhaps Santa Monica might want to at least discuss this issue.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 17, 2011 10:58:29 GMT -8
Well, two stations may be better. But this should be studied. If it is a choice of having one station at 20th Street and getting to build the Purple Line extension all the way to 4th Street and not having an extension at all with two low performing stations planned at 16th & 26th, perhaps Santa Monica might want to at least discuss this issue. How can you assume that 16th and 26th will be low performing stations? There are no studies yet on 16th, 20th and 26th. We are giving up on convenience just for the fear that we cannot get to 4th street? It will go to 4th street, but let's not give in to irrationallity (i.e. Beverly Hills and now our "new" 3rd stop location in Century City with Santa Monica and Century Park East). Compromise is not always the best...and look at what's happening to the Purple Line.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 17, 2011 11:51:57 GMT -8
I tend to support the idea of 16th/26th st station as well from being familiar with the general area. I think there will be enough ridership to justify 3 stations in Santa Monica (Downtown - Midtown - Uptown!).
But I'm also a realist... If we gave up on 5th Street in Downtown LA, it's kind of hard to stick to my guns on 26th in Santa Monica... Maybe we can get Yahoo! and MTV to pay for the Uptown station (I wish!).
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 17, 2011 12:06:58 GMT -8
I tend to support the idea of 16th/26th st station as well from being familiar with the general area. I think there will be enough ridership to justify 3 stations in Santa Monica (Downtown - Midtown - Uptown!). But I'm also a realist... If we gave up on 5th Street in Downtown LA, it's kind of hard to stick to my guns on 26th in Santa Monica... Maybe we can get Yahoo! and MTV to pay for the Uptown station (I wish!). Are we still failing to realize the mega-potential of 7th street/Metro Center? Open up two portals on 6th street (I heard the knockout panels are there) and the problem is solved for the lost 5th street station. Also, there will be a station at Bunker Hill, so I don't know why we keep crying over spilt milk. 7th street will be your new major centrally located station in LA. 16th and 26th is a distance of 1 - 1.5 miles. Both stations are justified like La Brea and Normandie on the Purple Line.
|
|