|
Post by masonite on Mar 3, 2010 18:43:48 GMT -8
Minimal compared to what? I think that a station here would compare favorably to any of the red line stations on Vermont. BluelineShawn, I'd have to disagree with this. LA City College is right next to one station on Vermont and that is a huge driver of ridership. Also, Children's Hospital, Hollywood Presbyterian and Kaiser Hospital are all within a block of the Sunset station not to mention Los Feliz Village a couple blocks up the street. The neighborhoods all around the three Vermont stations are reasonably dense apartment filled residential areas (maybe a little more dense than the area South of Wilshire for Crenshaw). These stations also flow better with the bus system. Beverly is the only subway stop on Beverly so it picks up bus traffic from both sides of Vermont. You can say the same for Santa Monica and Sunset. With Crenshaw there is no bus traffic from the North. In fact there is almost 0 ridership from North of this station as few people from the large spread out mansions here are going to ride. I only view the fact that the MTA owns the Crenshaw site as a small factor in its favor. Sure it will be a little easier to construct a station already owning the land, but I think the development potential of that parcel is limited. Also, the MTA could easily sell that parcel and raise money to go to other worthy projects. The reason why the Red Line time to N. Hollywood is fast is because the trains go 70 mph under the SM Mountains. This would pretty much be the only section where they could go that fast anywhere else in the system. With stations 1/2 mile apart you get no where near that speed at any point. Overall, the MTA has already admitted that this is the lowest projected ridership station of all 5 phases of the Westside Extension. This includes any stations in Santa Monica that some people feel would compete with Expo.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 3, 2010 20:30:41 GMT -8
I can agree that the station probably won't add two minutes to the trip. Anyway, that's not my biggest concern. I still don't think the station makes sense. Assuming 10k living within that square mile, I doubt the station would even get 2000 daily boardings. That's too low for a subway station, considering the cost. Metro is better off selling the land to pay for well-used stations.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 4, 2010 5:14:21 GMT -8
Before I lived in Koreatown, I used to live around the corner from Wilshire and Crenshaw, where a potential station would be sited. I am very familiar with the neighborhood, and last summer, I made a trip back to the old haunt to see whether it could sustain a station. I am for a site. Not because of my connection there, but because I took a closer look and researched whether the area could support a subway station. I have the Census data (from 2000, but the 2010 data will not dramatically upend these findings) of population density and other characteristics that would dictate a ridership profile. Read it at MetroRiderLA. There are photos of some of the offices and multiunit homes that have been built within the area. I even have the census maps centered around the station showing you by tract, down to the block, just how dense the neighborhoods are. The lowest density, the northwest where the estates are, is more than 4,000 persons/square mile. That is twice the average density of L.A. County as a whole. The highest density starts at 35,000 persons/square mile! The middle range for the station is 23,000 to 30,000 persons/square mile! Also, the station would serve zip codes that: - Exhibit transit usage better than the city of L.A. as a whole
- Exhibit pedestrian usage better than the city of L.A. as a whole
- Has a percentage of renter-occupied units (you know, density) that is a minimum of 75%
The neighborhood, even if left alone, is dense enough to support transit service and already exhibits high bus usage. The office space doesn't need to be developed; the subway will likely fix the chronically high vacancy rates that have been seen in this neighborhood. Basically, the Wilshire Center office corridor stretches all the way to Lucerne Boulevard. It doesn't immediately transition into Hancock Park west of Western Avenue. Development will help bring down the vacancy rates of these Wilshire buildings.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 4, 2010 8:25:16 GMT -8
The lowest density, the northwest where the estates are, is more than 4,000 persons/square mile. That is twice the average density of L.A. County as a whole. The highest density starts at 35,000 persons/square mile! The middle range for the station is 23,000 to 30,000 persons/square mile! Also, the station would serve zip codes that: - Exhibit transit usage better than the city of L.A. as a whole
- Exhibit pedestrian usage better than the city of L.A. as a whole
- Has a percentage of renter-occupied units (you know, density) that is a minimum of 75%
Not sure how county and city averages are relevant here. Sure it's more dense than Palos Verdes, Eagle Rock and Encino. Just being more dense than average doesn't justify building a subway station. Also, the office buildings west of St Andrews are low-rise. Even full they will have no more employees than a typical Irvine office complex. And many of those residents you cite as potential users of the station are just as close to Wilshire/Western, 1/2 mile away. Anyway, my bigger point is, the Wilshire Subway is a county-wide resource and the trunk line of the entire Metro Rail system. The cost of a subway station is enormous, so the bar has to be set higher. The subway has to get people to where they want to go. How does Crenshaw/Wilshire stack up? It has no shopping center, no college, no restaurants or theaters, no employment center, no points of interest or any other reason for someone to make it a destination. And as mentioned before, transfers make more sense at through streets, rather than dead ends. So why again should we build this station? To serve the apartments to the southwest of Wilshire/Crenshaw?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Mar 4, 2010 9:28:49 GMT -8
This is a tough call.
But, as the intersection of the Crenshaw Line will not be at Crenshaw/Wilshire, but instead at La Brea, Fairfax or even SanVicente/LaCienega.
And as the neighborhood is not willing to allow the type of development that would justify the cost of constructing a station here.
I would not build a Crenshaw/Wilshire station at this time, but instead construct the tracks deep enough that an infill station could be constructed later if the neighborhood decides differently and is willing to allow that type of development.
Wilshire/Western is close enough for the Rapid 710 transfers.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 4, 2010 11:34:35 GMT -8
As far as density, it is important to remember that about 1/3 of LA County is mountain wilderness which skews the numbers. Even the City of Los Angeles has a lot of mountain territory in its city limits.
With that said, I previously read Wad's analysis at Metrorider LA (wish we would see more posts there) and it is well laid out, but I still weigh in on the "no" side. There is a reason why the MTA models show this as the lowest ridership station
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 4, 2010 13:11:03 GMT -8
I concur with Dan and masonite--keep options open, but "no" at this time to save some $$$ for neighborhoods who truly want "in" for this line.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 4, 2010 15:10:22 GMT -8
As I mentioned earlier Metro already owns the land for the Crenshaw station and could lease to a developer to offset some of the $200 million station cost over the long haul. They could lease it to a developer, but I know full well a developer wouldn't get a decent ROI on it because of the local HPOZ in which that lot is bounded by would make it tough for any developer to build on that site. Because the scale and density needed for the development to pencil out would require a larger footprint or a lot more height, either condition not possible due to the HPOZ of the area.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 4, 2010 16:24:39 GMT -8
I guess I would be please with or without a station. My only hope is that the Purple line inches forward. A miracle wrapped within a miracle will make it happen someday. Every inch will be a battle (like the Expo line). On the other hand, if the community is so opposed to it, and it would be a poorly performing station at best, then why make it? I think the Crenshaw community is making a very big mistake.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 4, 2010 19:26:12 GMT -8
FWIW I'm opposed to a station at Wilshire/Highland too, for virtually the same reasons. It's nothing against the residents near Wilshire/Crenshaw.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 5, 2010 4:42:00 GMT -8
As far as density, it is important to remember that about 1/3 of LA County is mountain wilderness which skews the numbers. Even the City of Los Angeles has a lot of mountain territory in its city limits. What's germane is the density around the Wilshire/Crenshaw station. As the census maps in my post show, the area is deceptively dense. The HPOZ-protected northeast quadrant, which is everything north of Wilshire and west of Norton Avenue, tends to be on the low end. The higher densities are everywhere south of Wilshire, as well as the sliver between Wilton Place and Norton Avenue. (I used Wilton Place as a cutoff, as places east of it would fall into the Wilshire/Western station's orbit.) The other point I'd like to make: If you still think Crenshaw is bad, you might want to look at some of the other stations along the line. I did a report for every MOS on the Purple and Pink lines. A lot of them have the same or worse densities than the Wilshire/Crenshaw orbit. That's also why I added supplemental data (transit share, pedestrian share, etc.) to each station case. Past performance is a good indication of future results. A lot of the other stations don't have very high transit usage, pedestrian activity, poverty, or renter-occupied residences. Crenshaw does, and it has more in common with stations to its east than its west. Keep this in mind: The subway is a necessary project even if it cannot Manhattanize Wilshire Boulevard. Remember, most residents don't want a lot of transit-generated density or their neighborhoods transformed. The subway is about transportation, not a land speculation play. It will succeed because it will look like the ridership on Lines 4, 14, 16, 20, 28 and their respective limited/Rapid supplements.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 5, 2010 5:09:26 GMT -8
I concur with Dan and masonite--keep options open, but "no" at this time to save some $$$ for neighborhoods who truly want "in" for this line. Ken, Dan and masonite, this is exactly what we need to avoid. My preference is a resounding yes, obviously, but should Wilshire/Crenshaw be a no, it must be a no now and forever. If we don't build a Crenshaw station now, Crenshaw should never get a station. Ken, in these situations, I have coined a verb: L.A. up. We are going to L.A. up the Wilshire/Crenshaw station. By L.A.-ing up, we won't make the wrong choice; we'll make the choice wrong. Either way, we are going to be wrong. The problem with this position is that it argues that we should build it and not build it at the same time. It's a mutually exclusive decision process. Building a Crenshaw line as part of MOS-1 is less wrong than not building it and teasing the neighborhood with the chance of a future station. Why? Because the subway project gains more riders with a Crenshaw station in place (network effects) than it would make up by offering a time savings of one minute and/or an MOS that could be built for less cost. Also, consider the "no" scenario. If it costs too much now ($250 million), it will cost much more to add it in later. A cut-in subway station box will be far more complex -- therefore more expensive -- once the subway is operational. The costs of a cut-in station will escalate faster than the network effect of the added station in the future. We could save $250 million now and pay $350 million or even more later. Then we'd be paying that higher amount for the ridership we could have had for the lower cost given the opportunity. We see this dilemma playing out with the Pink Line. The only way a subway will be built to West Hollywood is along the Wilshire segment. Metro said there is no potential for the more logical route extension from Hollywood/Highland station via Vermont Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard. That's just to knock through a tunnel and add a switch! Metro won't do that because it would require shutting down the tracks through the Cahuenga Pass for long periods of time. If we can't even get a track switch, a cut-in station on a busy subway segment is beyond human capability.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 5, 2010 5:12:35 GMT -8
FWIW I'm opposed to a station at Wilshire/Highland too, for virtually the same reasons. That's not even an option. So there's no point into opposing something that will not exist in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 5, 2010 9:12:04 GMT -8
Last night I took the 720 bus on the way home, and got off at Crenshaw. I hung around for nearly an hour, between 5:30 and 6:30 pm. I witnessed large groups of people getting on and off the buses at Crenshaw/Wilshire. The people getting off the Wilshire buses walked over to wait for a Crenshaw bus. And the people getting off the Crenshaw buses walked over to wait for a Wilshire bus. I didn't see one person using these buses that got off and went into the neighborhood. In other words, from what I witnessed, the corner was 100% transfer point. If the Wilshire/Crenshaw bus station were not built, I imagine these riders would simply stay on the bus for one more stop, and transfer at Wilshire/Western. Also, I witnessed no more than 20 pedestrians west of Wilton, total, during my almost entire hour there. My preference is a resounding yes, obviously, but should Wilshire/Crenshaw be a no, it must be a no now and forever. If we don't build a Crenshaw station now, Crenshaw should never get a station. I agree in the sense that if a station is not built now, it is highly unlikely to think it will be built later, and so we shouldn't pretend that it will. FWIW I'm opposed to a station at Wilshire/Highland too, for virtually the same reasons. That's not even an option. So there's no point into opposing something that will not exist in the first place. I bring it up because it is a similar intersection in many ways to Wilshire/Crenshaw. And yes, it is not even an option. So why is Wilshire/Crenshaw?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 5, 2010 10:10:48 GMT -8
As far as density, it is important to remember that about 1/3 of LA County is mountain wilderness which skews the numbers. Even the City of Los Angeles has a lot of mountain territory in its city limits. What's germane is the density around the Wilshire/Crenshaw station. As the census maps in my post show, the area is deceptively dense. The HPOZ-protected northeast quadrant, which is everything north of Wilshire and west of Norton Avenue, tends to be on the low end. The higher densities are everywhere south of Wilshire, as well as the sliver between Wilton Place and Norton Avenue. (I used Wilton Place as a cutoff, as places east of it would fall into the Wilshire/Western station's orbit.) The other point I'd like to make: If you still think Crenshaw is bad, you might want to look at some of the other stations along the line. I did a report for every MOS on the Purple and Pink lines. A lot of them have the same or worse densities than the Wilshire/Crenshaw orbit. That's also why I added supplemental data (transit share, pedestrian share, etc.) to each station case. Past performance is a good indication of future results. A lot of the other stations don't have very high transit usage, pedestrian activity, poverty, or renter-occupied residences. Crenshaw does, and it has more in common with stations to its east than its west. Keep this in mind: The subway is a necessary project even if it cannot Manhattanize Wilshire Boulevard. Remember, most residents don't want a lot of transit-generated density or their neighborhoods transformed. The subway is about transportation, not a land speculation play. It will succeed because it will look like the ridership on Lines 4, 14, 16, 20, 28 and their respective limited/Rapid supplements. First of all, I agree very much with you that if the station is not built now you have to assume it will never get built. Any other assertion is misleading. You've made a good case for why some people living south of Wilshire will use this station no doubt. However, there is a reason why this station has the lowest projected ridership of all the Purple and Pink Line stations. While other areas may not be much more dense from a residential standpoint than this one you are understating the importance of office, retail and other uses. For example, Westwood and Century City probably have very low profiles from a residential standpoint, but they are destinations for legions of office workers. Also, they have much larger retail components as well, which makes their ridership numbers soar. I imagine the Federal Building in Westwood would generate about as much ridership as all the Crenshaw area low density office buildings, because the Federal Building has so many public use visitors and is a large high rise. Crenshaw has some low slung office buildings with ample free parking. They have a couple of churches and an elementary school and that is about it as you pointed out. An elementary school is not much of a ridership generator, especially compared with a high school (you don't see many 7 year-olds taking the subway to school). Other stations are in the middle of key bus routes (like La Brea for instance). Since Crenshaw dead-ends, any busses from Crenshaw can easily go to Western. Also, at Crenshaw you only get buses from one direction versus La Brea lets say where you get bus travel from both the North and South. Actually, this area is one of my favorite parts of the city as I love the architecture and the feel. I just think it is a little short of meeting the station requirement and repeats the Normandie mistake. Finally, I can't see why this area is getting so much attention from the MTA when they dropped Barrington without any public input given that Barrington has much higher residential density, a large public high school, and a much higher office density. If people think there should be a station at Crenshaw then surely they think there should be one at Barrington, but for some odd reason there doesn't seem to be much fuss about this.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 5, 2010 15:50:03 GMT -8
Finally, I can't see why this area is getting so much attention from the MTA when they dropped Barrington without any public input given that Barrington has much higher residential density, a large public high school, and a much higher office density. If people think there should be a station at Crenshaw then surely they think there should be one at Barrington, but for some odd reason there doesn't seem to be much fuss about this. I wouldn't agree that it's a fuss, but in my opinion it's because Metro actually wants there to be a station at Crenshaw. I think that's at least a small part of the reason why they don't have a current plan to extend the Crenshaw line to the Purple line. While such an extension is completely obvious they know that such a plan would hurt the chance of getting a station at Crenshaw. Obviously that's not the main reason that there's not such a plan in place.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 5, 2010 16:01:31 GMT -8
Last night I took the 720 bus on the way home, and got off at Crenshaw. I hung around for nearly an hour, between 5:30 and 6:30 pm. I witnessed large groups of people getting on and off the buses at Crenshaw/Wilshire. The people getting off the Wilshire buses walked over to wait for a Crenshaw bus. And the people getting off the Crenshaw buses walked over to wait for a Wilshire bus. I didn't see one person using these buses that got off and went into the neighborhood. In other words, from what I witnessed, the corner was 100% transfer point. Woah! Thanks for that on the scene report! I would say that most everyone that you saw get on a local bus down Crenshaw would use the Crenshaw station and would most likely fit the definition living in the neighborhood surrounding the potential station. And what you observed is true of most LA train stations. Most people take a bus to continue their trip. The fact that you probably saw several hundred people in an hour should at least let you know that your estimate of 2,000 people per day using the station was way low. Why would they stay on the bus if their stop was at Crenshaw? Do you mean stay on the train and transfer to a bus since there wouldn't be a station at Crenshaw? You might be right about that, but I'm sure that they'd rather have a stop where they need to transfer.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 5, 2010 17:44:31 GMT -8
I have to say, it's been great having a lively discussion without getting personal. Obviously, some of us disagree about the value of a station at this location. It's certainly not a cut-and-dried issue: we're all looking at the same facts, but for whatever reason we wind up drawing different conclusions. That's fine by me. When it comes down to it, we'll all have our chance to state our cases, and then we can see where the chips fall.
In any case, I won't be heartbroken either way. Whether or not a specific station is built does not take away from the overriding concern: we need this subway to be built, ASAP.
(BTW, my little field trip yesterday doubled my evening commute time, from 1:25 to 2:45, not including the hour of observing the intersection. With a subway, my evening commute would only be 1:05.)
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 5, 2010 23:15:50 GMT -8
For comparison, the distance from the Purple Line's Century City station to Westwood station is about 1.5 miles (Santa Monica Blvd. & Avenue of the Stars to Wilshire & Westwood). There's no intermediate station, despite the high-rise residential along Wilshire.
Flower & 7th to Wilshire & Alvarado is 1.1 miles. On the subject of adding a Crenshaw station later, remember that there was talk of adding a future station west of the Harbor Freeway by the hospital?
I'd estimate the time difference of a Crenshaw station at one minute.
I asked Jody Litvak about Barrington vs. the Veterans Administration. The Purple Line Segment 3 is defined in the LRTP as ending in "Westwood"; the best they could do was the V.A. site to at least get west of the 405.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 6, 2010 8:40:57 GMT -8
I agree with Metrocenter in that it is good to have a healthy discussion like this with people making great points on both sides. Also, I agree that this will be a great project either way and even though I fall on the "no" side on this station, there are certainly some benefits to having one here. I do think station placement is an often horribly understudied issue, and I think the MTA is at least trying to put a lot of thought into this one.
One benefit to Crenshaw is that we are endanger of building too many Purple Line stations especially on the Western portion of the line, where few people can walk to the station from their residence as many of the stations are destinations only such as Century City, Westwood, the VA and also Beverly and La Cienega as well. We have the opposite problem on many of our lines with too few work destinations and almost exclusively residential and small retail uses surrounding stations.
I realize that these stations are destinations and will attract workers and such and these are strong locations and definately should be on the line. However, the line will not really reach full utilization unless you have a good mix where people can walk to a station and go to their work destination like Century City. Of course, based on my rantings, I'd obviously change the VA station to Barrington and this would solve this at one station.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 6, 2010 9:00:52 GMT -8
I asked Jody Litvak about Barrington vs. the Veterans Administration. The Purple Line Segment 3 is defined in the LRTP as ending in "Westwood"; the best they could do was the V.A. site to at least get west of the 405. I suspected that was part of the reason, but calling the VA in Westwood is incorrect. I have lived in West LA for about 15 years and I have never heard anyone or seen any type of map describe any area west of the 405, including this one, as Westwood until the MTA did here. Of course, the VA isn't really anywhere. It isn't even technically part of the City of LA so I suppose they can call what they want without offending too many people. This hardly seems like a real issue to choose this routing. I wonder how hard it would be to change the LRTP to say West Los Angeles instead of Westwood which would give some flexibility to choose the terminus location? This should have been done originally. I do find it odd that the MTA keeps changing their reasoning on this station. Jody had not used that one on me before. I know they are starting to get this question more and more. The MTA is going to have fun explaining this to the public just like the Green Line to LAX fiasco. I mean we are going to put a station in what is essentially a federal government owned nature reserve because of a bureaucratic issue like this? This is a $4B-$5B investment that will be here for hundreds of years, so just going with the path of least resistance seems a tad irresponsible.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 6, 2010 10:30:21 GMT -8
I don't like the idea of a station at the VA. In my opinion, that station will serve no one. It will be difficult to access, by car and by foot. Even worse, a station there might replace a future station at Barrington, which would actually serve a high-density neighborhood.
The only reason to plan a VA station is if Metro has settled on that station as the transfer station for the future 405 Line. (And in my opinion, Wilshire/Westwood would make a far better transfer station, so that the 405 Line could make it up to UCLA.)
But we have strayed way off the topic of Wilshire/Crenshaw.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 6, 2010 17:27:14 GMT -8
I suspected that was part of the reason, but calling the VA in Westwood is incorrect. I have lived in West LA for about 15 years and I have never heard anyone or seen any type of map describe any area west of the 405, including this one, as Westwood until the MTA did here. Of course, the VA isn't really anywhere. It isn't even technically part of the City of LA so I suppose they can call what they want without offending too many people. This hardly seems like a real issue to choose this routing. I wonder how hard it would be to change the LRTP to say West Los Angeles instead of Westwood which would give some flexibility to choose the terminus location? I believe that much of this is based upon Measure R funding parameters,which to that effect what is in Measure R effects Metro's LRTP. Which then in that effects changes the language that was used in the voter approved ballot measure for Measure R. If I recall it illustrated funding in that Voter measure to be "Western subway extension to Westwood". I wonder how Measure R is tied to State Assembly legislature that crafted the Measure R language and how these two pieces essentially have to mirror each other. I also wonder how much of the changes can be done through a simple stroke of a pen, compared to the even greater bureaucratic nonsense that making this change will incour due to a provision that Assemblymember Jenny Oropeza made light of in the midnight hours of this piece of legislation now ballot funding measure are now inseperately tied together. Barrington aint Westwood. Veterans Hospital to that effect is not any better in Westwood then that it is a lot closer to the Westwood area without being too suspicious semantically to the above given that it is not incorporated into any location and that there is a recognition from the latest meetings that the Wilshire/Westwood would be heavily utilized from day one and that will effect access for patrons coming west of the 405 to use this station.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 6, 2010 23:56:10 GMT -8
I suspected that was part of the reason, but calling the VA in Westwood is incorrect. I have lived in West LA for about 15 years and I have never heard anyone or seen any type of map describe any area west of the 405, including this one, as Westwood until the MTA did here. Of course, the VA isn't really anywhere. It isn't even technically part of the City of LA so I suppose they can call what they want without offending too many people. This hardly seems like a real issue to choose this routing. I wonder how hard it would be to change the LRTP to say West Los Angeles instead of Westwood which would give some flexibility to choose the terminus location? I believe that much of this is based upon Measure R funding parameters,which to that effect what is in Measure R effects Metro's LRTP. Which then in that effects changes the language that was used in the voter approved ballot measure for Measure R. If I recall it illustrated funding in that Voter measure to be "Western subway extension to Westwood". I wonder how Measure R is tied to State Assembly legislature that crafted the Measure R language and how these two pieces essentially have to mirror each other. I also wonder how much of the changes can be done through a simple stroke of a pen, compared to the even greater bureaucratic nonsense that making this change will incour due to a provision that Assemblymember Jenny Oropeza made light of in the midnight hours of this piece of legislation now ballot funding measure are now inseperately tied together. Barrington aint Westwood. Veterans Hospital to that effect is not any better in Westwood then that it is a lot closer to the Westwood area without being too suspicious semantically to the above given that it is not incorporated into any location and that there is a recognition from the latest meetings that the Wilshire/Westwood would be heavily utilized from day one and that will effect access for patrons coming west of the 405 to use this station. You may be correct. However, my follow up question to the MTA would be if we knew that the LRTP and Measure R could only allow the Purple Line to go to Westwood, why did the MTA not too long ago present MOS #3 ending at either Bundy or Barrington. A few months later it was then switched to either Barrington or the VA. Just in the last round of public meetings was MOS #3 presented as having its terminus at ending at the VA. The MTA had been studying ending MOS #3 at locations to the West of the VA for months. David Mieger, the Subway Project Leader for the MTA, said at one meeting they were really interested in soliciting the public input as to whether the MOS #3 terminus should be Bundy or Barrington. Obviously, things have changed in their thinking, but I have a hard time believing they all overlooked the fact that this wasn't ever possible given limitations of Measure R and the LRTP. If they did, they wasted time studying the issue for quite some time and a lot of people really dropped the ball. As a another alternative, I have previously told the MTA that if financial constraints prevent MOS #3 going farther than the VA or Westwood, then MOS #3 should not be built any farther west than Westwood. Instead they should propose an alternative 3A that gets the next station to Barrington. The Pink Line would then follow as MOS 4 and then the last segment to the Sea would be MOS 5, which would likely never be built. This beats the MTA thinking of putting a station where one does not belong. In Expo terms it would be similar to putting a station at say 10th Street in Santa Monica instead of downtown at 4th saying we just couldn't get it there right now, but that is pretty much downtown so instead of us waiting a year or two to get the funding to get it all the way downtown, it is close enough and we're good here. I doubt that would fly over too well in SM, but since this is in the vastness of the City of LA, it just may. My apologies, in that I just realized I am posting on Wilshire/Crenshaw. I'll move to another thread if I have anything else.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Mar 7, 2010 15:26:17 GMT -8
First post... and I do not have any pearls of wisdom to offer. But, I observed the Metro web page for the project and note that they say the Purple Line to VA hospital is within the LRTP and is Measure R funded.
Now, at some point there is a threshold in continuing the line... every foot cost more money. Perhaps VA is at that threshold.... any further and there is not enough funding, or, is not arguably within Westwood. I don't know.
There is also something to say for having a station west of the 405. The terminal station will attract buses, right. It stands to reason that having buses from Santa Monica area end west of the 405 is much better than on the east side of 405, right?
Either way, I also see on the Metro web page that a Locally Preferred Alternative will be adopted by the Board in the Fall. They'll have the final call on that decision, will they not?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 7, 2010 19:19:46 GMT -8
I think that most of us, and especially the public in general, has the same sentiments toward the Wilshire subway that many felt towards Expo ten years ago--something to the tune of "riiiiiiiiiight..."
When it gets to La Cienega or Century City, people will up and take notice, but most really haven't focused it on it reeeeeeeeeeeeeally getting anywhere near the 405. Kind of like putting a man on the moon.
In my own opinion, since I do NOT believe the future Sepulveda line will go west of the 405 (nor should it, since it'll go to Westwood and UCLA), this need not go ANYWHERE west of Westwood until we figure out how it'll proceed west of the 405.
Methinks that the VA is a myopic, poorly-thought-out terminus that will create a firestorm in years to come.
Just get it to Westwood...and I think that an abbreviated Phase 3A, as masonite suggested, is entirely in order.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 7, 2010 22:40:51 GMT -8
I think that most of us, and especially the public in general, has the same sentiments toward the Wilshire subway that many felt towards Expo ten years ago--something to the tune of "riiiiiiiiiight..." When it gets to La Cienega or Century City, people will up and take notice, but most really haven't focused it on it reeeeeeeeeeeeeally getting anywhere near the 405. Kind of like putting a man on the moon. In my own opinion, since I do NOT believe the future Sepulveda line will go west of the 405 (nor should it, since it'll go to Westwood and UCLA), this need not go ANYWHERE west of Westwood until we figure out how it'll proceed west of the 405. Methinks that the VA is a myopic, poorly-thought-out terminus that will create a firestorm in years to come. Just get it to Westwood...and I think that an abbreviated Phase 3A, as masonite suggested, is entirely in order. My sentiments exactly. As I said before, if a station at the VA is what they're planning, I'd rather they just skip it and stop the extension at Westwood.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 8, 2010 5:10:28 GMT -8
For comparison, the distance from the Purple Line's Century City station to Westwood station is about 1.5 miles (Santa Monica Blvd. & Avenue of the Stars to Wilshire & Westwood). There's no intermediate station, despite the high-rise residential along Wilshire. I think I did a post on MetroRiderLA where I tried to clock a one-way Purple Line trip from Union Station to Santa Monica, estimating based on current speeds between stations and adding time for things like curves. I'd guessed that a trip would likely take 40 minutes, or a 5-minute window of 38 minutes to 42 minutes. One of the "slowest" stretches would be between Westwood and Beverly Hills. Century City to Westwood might take 4 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 8, 2010 9:04:54 GMT -8
One of the "slowest" stretches would be between Westwood and Beverly Hills. Century City to Westwood might take 4 minutes. Wow, Century City to Westwood in 4 minutes! That's awesome! Right now you can only do that via helicopter. Anyway, I think Darrell's point was that the Westwood-Century City segment is also long, and is actually more dense than the Hancock Park segment, yet it has no intermediate station.
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Mar 8, 2010 14:05:27 GMT -8
I asked Jody Litvak about Barrington vs. the Veterans Administration. The Purple Line Segment 3 is defined in the LRTP as ending in "Westwood"; the best they could do was the V.A. site to at least get west of the 405.
^^^ That's the dumbest reason I have ever heard for putting it in the VA -- a technicality? ? Come on, people. We can do better than that.
|
|