|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 26, 2010 9:20:09 GMT -8
Thanks for the photos, masonite. I think several things will happen in the years to come: 1) There will be a growing surprise when this happens sooner and not later (perhaps it'll be no surprise, and we'll only see this Subway make it to Century City over the next 10 years and folks will ignore this issue for now) 2) There will be a VA freakout when all sorts of people want to access the VA to get to the subway 3) There will be a growing "OMG!" when people realize that this isn't going to Barrington or Bundy, and that those one or two stop shouldn't have to be shoved into a Santa Monica link that potentially isn't needed at all Ken, hopefully, you are right. However, I think the more people realize sooner the better. After all aren't people still in amazement they built the Green Line without connecting it to LAX, one of the busiest airports in the world, and here we are 15 years later and a connection is at best many years into the future? Similarly, I think people still think many of the Gold Line stations are not where they should be, but they still were built this way. Unfortunately, I think if the MTA is hell bent on building a station there, without public and political outcry at the very beginning, that is what will happen. One thing you really notice when you are in the VA is how inhospitable it is to the general public. Say you arrive at the VA station and want to go to Santa Monica Blvd. From Barrington or Federal this is an easy downhill walk a few blocks to the South. In the VA it is along a long circular drive that sends you far to the West and then back East, because there is no street grid in there. When I took these pictures, the VA gate at Ohio was closed to traffic and pedestrians so there was no way out at all even if you did that long walk. Now I would suppose there would be pressure on the VA to change that if a station was built there, but the VA is under no obligation to open those gates. After all, why would they want the general public roaming their grounds for access to a subway station. That is not their mission and just creates problems for them. This would be urban planning at its worst as forcing incompatible uses on a property. They would be making what is likely to be the only west of 405 subway station for a huge community and putting it in a place where the public isn't even welcome! This happens while some of the few areas in all of Southern California that have the density to support this type of rail go wanting. Because the stations intention is to serve Park-Ride trips and function as a major bus center outside of the Westwood station, because the Metro Planners have stated very clearly that the Westwood station will be one of the most heavily used stations in the system and if it is the terminus station as originally planned you'd have so many vehicles adding the congestion I think that is one of the issues that either Barrington or Bundy will have to overcome is having to have parking structures incompatible with it's own land-uses if it is a terminus station. So the VA site despite its in hospitable layout works as a park-ride lot just west of the 405 Freeway that also could double as a location for a 405 transit corridor when that is built, in case you can't tunnel through the UCLA campus or surrounding neighborhoods. Keep in mind, Sepulveda is about the same distance to the proposed Westwood station as it is to the VA. Also, by connecting this 405 line to Westwood this would allow two major positive outcomes to happen. One, would be you could then have a UCLA station directly on campus or right next to it. Currently, from the North side of campus it would be a very very long walk to the Westwood station and even from the South side of campus it is probably too long to attract a great deal of ridership. Actually you wouldn't because the corridor itself will be faster than the traffic congestion on the 405 because its a dedicated corridor and long stop spacing which would mean faster travel speeds even with the transfer to the Purple Line or a UCLA shuttle bus connection at the VA hospital site, UCLA commuter students will still save a lot of time. Transfer kill ridership if its a long process to make the transfer connection as the case between the Gold Line and the Red/Purple Lines at Union Station compared to 7th Street Metro Center or even the Imperial/Wilmington Station which is just a simple one level below the transfering line. I agree Westwood would be ideal, but there are constructability issues that need to be hammered out. In my view, the advocacy SHOULD be for pushing a 405 Corridor MIS. The Westwood/VA or Wilshire/Barrington or Wilshire/Bundy station locations are moot arguments 'because we're pointing our guns inward' (Ken, you know that line well. ;D) until we find out where in the world the 405 Corridor will meet with the Purple Line.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 26, 2010 9:46:27 GMT -8
So unfortunate the Metro planners are building for cars and not people.....
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 26, 2010 9:48:18 GMT -8
Because the stations intention is to serve Park-Ride trips and function as a major bus center outside of the Westwood station, because the Metro Planners have stated very clearly that the Westwood station will be one of the most heavily used stations in the system and if it is the terminus station as originally planned you'd have so many vehicles adding the congestion I think that is one of the issues that either Barrington or Bundy will have to overcome is having to have parking structures incompatible with it's own land-uses if it is a terminus station. So the VA site despite its in hospitable layout works as a park-ride lot just west of the 405 Freeway that also could double as a location for a 405 transit corridor when that is built, in case you can't tunnel through the UCLA campus or surrounding neighborhoods. If the goal is to provide parking at this station, it is important to remember that the VA will not provide any land for parking as that is incompatible with its land deed. The MTA would have to try to build an underground structure. This is going to be very expensive and logistically difficult as the VA does not have a large area where you can easily dig out an underground garage right next to this station. In fact when I have questioned this station with MTA's project leaders, they have not mentioned parking as a reason for a VA station as they have been very non-commital on parking here for the above reasons. They simply state that there may be parking here in the future, but they'd strongly prefer people access this station by bus (not many people will be able to walk here due to its distance from anything of substance outside the hospital). Their main reason for this station is that it is a little cheaper to build in MOS 3 than a Barrington station. If that is the case, I would doubt you would see them go to the expense of trying to build an underground parking facility. Like I said before, if they really wanted parking, they would build a station between Barrington and Federal and pick up all the benefits of the destinations in this neighborhood, with a portal on the West side of Federal. This parcel just west of Federal on the South side of Wilshire is actually in private hands (it is about 10 acres in total) and in theory it could be purchased for a surface lot, which will be a lot easier to construct than some sort of underground facility. It would be expensive to buy that parcel however, because land is so expensive in this part of the city, but you are going to have that problem anywhere you try to provide parking. I have suggested that if they don't have the money to get this into MOS 3, which they may not even be able to build the VA Station in MOS 3, then they should place an extension to Barrington and possibly Bundy as well as a MOS 3A when the Funds become available. Putting a station where one doesn't belong because of the phasing just doesn't make sense. Can you imagine, 40 years from now when the entire Pink and Purple Lines are built out people are going to be asking why they put this station in the middle of the mostly empty VA. I'm not sure it is going to be very comforting to people to say when they built a middle phase that is all the money they had to get it there. That just seems like incredibly poor planning doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 26, 2010 11:01:53 GMT -8
If the goal is to provide parking at this station, it is important to remember that the VA will not provide any land for parking as that is incompatible with its land deed. The MTA would have to try to build an underground structure. This is going to be very expensive and logistically difficult as the VA does not have a large area where you can easily dig out an underground garage right next to this station. In fact when I have questioned this station with MTA's project leaders, they have not mentioned parking as a reason for a VA station as they have been very non-commital on parking here for the above reasons. They simply state that there may be parking here in the future, but they'd strongly prefer people access this station by bus (not many people will be able to walk here due to its distance from anything of substance outside the hospital). Their main reason for this station is that it is a little cheaper to build in MOS 3 than a Barrington station. If that is the case, I would doubt you would see them go to the expense of trying to build an underground parking facility. Maybe this question was asked differently, but the answer I recieved was due to the fact that they haven't finalized any agreements with VA-the owners of the property- such as exchange for building a parking structure that VA hospital could use as a shared use facility, little details like that. The key word in your whole paragraph is... in theory because that was something I thought of a while back when bringing this on the table. In theory this maybe possible but it doesn't negate the fact that an 405 Corridor MIS is still needed to fully determine this use because, with the 405 MIS, in theory we may not even need a park-ride on the Federal side because the VA site would work as the park-ride and use the remaining monies to place a station on Barrington. You missed everything I stated in the last post. If the said VA site works out as a transfer to the 405 Transit Corridor, then this "in the middle of the mostly empty VA" serves a purpose of a transfer facility that in theory could not have been built through UCLA or in the surrounding neighborhood around UCLA to connect at Westwood. Again we need to advocate for a 405 Corridor MIS because this would answer that key question. Also the other post of the large park-ride trips that they are expecting because of this line would make Wilshire to I-405 to the Westwood station very congested.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 26, 2010 13:41:32 GMT -8
Jared, I fully agree that the 405 Line needs a MIS right away. My point is, which I think you agree with, is that we shouldn't plan one line under a set of assumptions regarding a line that we don't know much of anything about.
Personally, I can't see why a proper Westwood station can't be planned that would be much bigger than a normal station with 3-4 portals that could accomodate both lines at this stage in the game. Putting a transfer station at the VA would be akin to the same logic as having the Blue Line go to Westlake instead of 7th Metro Center, because a lot of people board and alight at 7th Metro.
I still stand that any 405 area line that doesn't have a UCLA stop (or really two with one at the North side of the Village and one at the North side of campus) and go directly to Westwood won't be nearly as valued as one that does. Putting a line in this corridor that misses UCLA is just below the Green Line missing LAX in terms of missed opportunities and shortcomings of our transit system.
Without any engineering knowledge it isn't clear to me why putting a line to the West of the 405 is any easier than putting one east. You are still going to have to tunnel under homes and so forth. It is not like there is any right of way in any scenario.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 26, 2010 20:04:22 GMT -8
I agree with masonite 100% that having the 405 Line pass through Westwood/Wilshire, with a stop at UCLA would be ideal. It would provide much better transit service for UCLA, and better connectivity all around.
As Jerard suggested, there could be engineering challenges to making this happen. This is what a feasibility study would tell us:it would provide a cost/benefit analysis for such an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 27, 2010 6:55:08 GMT -8
If there are so many "if's" then it's clear we shouldn't aim to get this Subway to Wilshire/Westwood anytime soon--we should expedite it to Century City while we get our act together.
Yes, we need a 405 Line MIS to be figured out. Yes, the Wilshire/Westwood 405 link, with a UCLA link to the north, appears to be the obvious way to go.
What bothers me the most about the VA as the terminus for MOS-3 of the Subway: 1) Every time there is public or private development on the VA property, everyone has a fit..and frankly, they may have a point. Putting a public park/ride structure on the VA ignores the traffic that builds up on Wilshire to the west of the VA, and also ignores the underground infrastructure it takes to develop a terminus--get it to the VA, and it might never make it further west
2) We don't know whether this Subway need ever make it to the beach! If we're going to relegate a Bundy or Barrington link to a MOS-5 that may never occur, then we really screw over some of the traffic-lade neighborhoods in West L.A. that would benefit the most from this subway.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 26, 2010 20:45:14 GMT -8
www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bus-snob27-2010feb27,0,7122671.story Interesting article from the Times. I think it is important to attract discretionary riders to public transit in this city if we are to have a true system that we can be proud of. Also, we need to get rid of this mantra that taking public transit is somehow only for the lowest class of our society. Until that happens I won't feel good about public transit in this city. Overall, I think there is much more of a stigma to bus ridership than there is to trains. I think most people who have hangups about the bus don't have them about the train/Metrorail. This girl doesn't seem to be much of a snob to me despite her blog name. I wish more people would have her attitude. This city would be a lot better place to live. I only put this in this thread, because it shows how people will walk to a neighborhood station/stop like Barrington to go to their jobs in places points east. Not only does Barrington have more business and places where people work than the VA, it has actual residents who live in apartment neighborhoods that will go to work where the other Purple/Red Line stations are.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Feb 26, 2010 23:17:10 GMT -8
White girl rides the bus. Film at 11.
She's not a discretionary rider. She lost her job and her parents stopped paying for her car.
The bus became important when she started riding. The bus became civilized when she started riding. The bus could teach you things when she started riding.
No, the bus is an important component of the transportation network with or without her. Sit down and shut up. Regular bus riders don't want to hear lessons from her.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 26, 2010 23:50:13 GMT -8
White girl rides the bus. Film at 11. She's not a discretionary rider. She lost her job and her parents stopped paying for her car. The bus became important when she started riding. The bus became civilized when she started riding. The bus could teach you things when she started riding. No, the bus is an important component of the transportation network with or without her. Sit down and shut up. Regular bus riders don't want to hear lessons from her. I don't think the article was aimed at regular bus riders but instead at the vast majority of the population who never get on a bus. She is still somewhat discretionary. She could get a klunker like most people in this situation would.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 27, 2010 14:06:43 GMT -8
"Discretionary" rider and "white" rider are fairly interchangeable for many. It's just assumed that most white riders are making a choice and most minority riders are riding out of necessity.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Feb 27, 2010 15:20:49 GMT -8
What I find funny is that the whole stereotype is based on false premises. There are plenty of poor whites who have no business buying a car.
Let's talk about the pressures of taking the bus, fine. They're real. But let's talk about the pressures of debt. What is that $20,000 automobile debt like, hanging over your head? That's in addition to the stress of driving.
But they buy that car because society expects them to. They are acting out part of the white script when deviating from that script (like, gasp, using public transportation), would probably, on the whole, be a better use of their limited resources.
|
|
|
Post by warrenbowman on Mar 1, 2010 6:24:20 GMT -8
Yes, Spokker, and if any of them read that article, they might get the idea that maybe they have a viable alternative. Is that so bad?
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Mar 1, 2010 21:25:49 GMT -8
Yes, Spokker, and if any of them read that article, they might get the idea that maybe they have a viable alternative. Is that so bad? No, but I found the article to be condescending. She says that she used to buy into the stereotype that people only ride the bus when they have no money, but that's precisely why she started riding the bus. She got fired. It's not the feel good story of the year, it's the same old crap, only we are supposed to buy into the fact that the stereotype doesn't apply to her because she's from Brentwood. Screw that. She's poor white trash just like the rest of us. She rides the bus and writes a blog for the attention. Let's see her commute on the bus (THE HORRID 720 WHICH COMES BY EVERY TWO SECONDS) as another nameless face in the crowd.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 8, 2010 11:34:24 GMT -8
Transitfan,
Welcome to the discussion. I am moving to this thread.
You stated "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?"
I happened to be thinking about this last week. The Westwood station will likely be at Veteran and will have a portal on both sides of Wilshire. The VA Station will be just 1/2 mile to the West and only have a portal on one side of Wilshire (likely to be the South Side).
Depending on how the busses are set up it may be faster to just continue on bus from the Westwood station and ignore any VA Station, especially going West. This is because you won't have to cross Wilshire and there are just two traffic lights between the two stations (Veteran and Sepulveda). Since the stations are so close and the MTA seems to have trains go very slow into a terminal station anyway, I bet it would be faster doing this at least in this one direction.
As I said before, the whole rationale of the station being West of the 405 and giving relief to people trying to access the system from West of the freeway is way overhyped because it is largely the VA itself that creates the traffic problem, not the freeway so much, because all East-West streets deadend into the VA in this area with the exception of Wilshire, which is overburdened as a result.
Even if that weren't true, putting a station just a couple hundred feet from the freeway would only give a couple hundred feet of relief. When traffic easily backs up for a mile or more, a couple hundred feet isn't much of a benefit, especially if you are going to try to throw even more busses (and cars if they can figure out to do any parking) into the mix accessing this area making the backup even worse.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 8, 2010 12:37:51 GMT -8
I happened to be thinking about this last week. The Westwood station will likely be at Veteran I sure hope not. I'd much rather the station be at Westwood Blvd. Then it would be close to Westwood Village, centrally located among the high-rises, and well-positioned for connections to Westwood Blvd. buses. The rest of your analysis, I totally agree with. The VA area, in the context of the 405, Wilshire and Sepulveda, is a total traffic clusterf--- and pedestrian nightmare. There is no reason to attract more people to that location if they don't already need to be there. In short, it is no place for a subway station.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 8, 2010 13:46:47 GMT -8
I happened to be thinking about this last week. The Westwood station will likely be at Veteran I sure hope not. I'd much rather the station be at Westwood Blvd. Then it would be close to Westwood Village, centrally located among the high-rises, and well-positioned for connections to Westwood Blvd. buses. The rest of your analysis, I totally agree with. The VA area, in the context of the 405, Wilshire and Sepulveda, is a total traffic clusterf--- and pedestrian nightmare. There is no reason to attract more people to that location if they don't already need to be there. In short, it is no place for a subway station. For the record, I agree as well that the station should be the Westwood Blvd. location and thus in the middle of the village as much as possible and not up against LA National Cemetary. However, the MTA has pretty much stated that it prefers the UCLA lot, which is across from Veteran. They feel the construction is a lot easier here and they won't have to tie up Wilshire while building it. However, no selection has been made on this yet. During the station meetings, I only had a chance to go over to the Westwood group at the end and an MTA staffer told me the community there was pretty much split 50/50% for the location choices with maybe the UCLA lot having a slight lead, which surprised me. However, these meetings tend to attract a lot of senior citizens, and Westwood especially did because they are going to be tunneling underneath some residential areas between Century City and here so I suspect some of these people liked the UCLA Lot because it won't cause as many delays on Wilshire during construction. One thing to note is that many of the office workers who would use the line but live in another part of the city basically have no representation at these type of meetings.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 9, 2010 5:13:08 GMT -8
For the record, I agree as well that the station should be the Westwood Blvd. location and thus in the middle of the village as much as possible and not up against LA National Cemetary. However, the MTA has pretty much stated that it prefers the UCLA lot, which is across from Veteran. They feel the construction is a lot easier here and they won't have to tie up Wilshire while building it. The lot may be more forward-thinking than just easier construction. Depending on which lot it is, a central bus transfer center can be built on the lot, and possibly parking above it if need be. Westwood is going to be a busy station, but UCLA students especially are going to need the campus buses to take them the last mile. It would be nice to stage these along with the Metro, Santa Monica and Culver City locals, as well as the LADOT, Santa Clarita and AVTA express buses. The VA might also want to bring in shuttle buses so veterans going for care don't have to deal with getting off at that freeway part of Wilshire.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 9, 2010 7:02:31 GMT -8
I personally think that the VA might be a perfectly fine location for a station provided that it's not the terminus that attracts the majority of those willing to link to the subway from the Westside. I also think that waiting until the West Hollywood segment is completed before moving the subway west of the VA (when it might only need to go as far west as Bundy) is a darn problematic situation.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 9, 2010 9:24:48 GMT -8
The lot may be more forward-thinking than just easier construction. Depending on which lot it is, a central bus transfer center can be built on the lot, and possibly parking above it if need be. Westwood is going to be a busy station, but UCLA students especially are going to need the campus buses to take them the last mile. It would be nice to stage these along with the Metro, Santa Monica and Culver City locals, as well as the LADOT, Santa Clarita and AVTA express buses. The VA might also want to bring in shuttle buses so veterans going for care don't have to deal with getting off at that freeway part of Wilshire. I couldn't disagree more. A bus staging area, IMO, is a very poor use of this land. Never mind future development...Westwood is already very densely developed and congested. It seems to me, you want buses passing through central Westwood, stopping only for transfers and drop offs, but not terminating there.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 9, 2010 10:53:44 GMT -8
I also think that waiting until the West Hollywood segment is completed before moving the subway west of the VA (when it might only need to go as far west as Bundy) is a darn problematic situation. I agree and this is why I encourage people to advocate for MOS #3A that takes the line to Barrington or Bundy. MOS #3 can end in Westwood and they won't have to scrimp on funding proper station locations in places like Westwood and Century City.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 9, 2010 11:08:11 GMT -8
For the record, I agree as well that the station should be the Westwood Blvd. location and thus in the middle of the village as much as possible and not up against LA National Cemetary. However, the MTA has pretty much stated that it prefers the UCLA lot, which is across from Veteran. They feel the construction is a lot easier here and they won't have to tie up Wilshire while building it. The lot may be more forward-thinking than just easier construction. Depending on which lot it is, a central bus transfer center can be built on the lot, and possibly parking above it if need be. Westwood is going to be a busy station, but UCLA students especially are going to need the campus buses to take them the last mile. It would be nice to stage these along with the Metro, Santa Monica and Culver City locals, as well as the LADOT, Santa Clarita and AVTA express buses. The VA might also want to bring in shuttle buses so veterans going for care don't have to deal with getting off at that freeway part of Wilshire. Keep in mind, the VA can only allow the MTA to build a station and at best some bus transfer zone. They won't allow surface parking. The land is specifically deeded for veterans use only and the VA can justify letting some land go to the station and busses under the assumption that it will benefit veterans through increased access. Veterans are very zealous about protecting VA Land and even this may become controversial. If you ever go past the NE corner of Wilshire/Federal you'll see a Veterans Park that is fenced off, largely because veterans are upset that the public will have access to this park and you'll often see veteran protesters out here. If the VA has to shuttle passengers from their own station then virtually no one would walk from this station. That is the definition of a poor station location. If the VA were to go to this expense then they should just shuttle from the Westwood station.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 10, 2010 4:55:34 GMT -8
I couldn't disagree more. A bus staging area, IMO, is a very poor use of this land. Never mind future development...Westwood is already very densely developed and congested. It seems to me, you want buses passing through central Westwood, stopping only for transfers and drop offs, but not terminating there. If you're not familiar with how buses run in the UCLA/Westwood area, they go via Westwood, to Le Conte, to Hilgard, then swing a U-turn to a small off-street island near Strathmore that's called the UCLA transit center. All the local buses do this, except Culver City, which serves the Ackerman Student Union. For a station as busy as Westwood, you need to cluster the buses as close to the subway station as possible. UCLA has its own shuttle bus service that could do the bulk of work around campus. This would allow the local transit lines to be shortened, thereby saving money, as well as provide connections along Westwood Boulevard, Sepulveda Boulevard, not to mention Brentwood as well. For a terminal station, Westwood needs its subway portal and bus services in a single space. Terminal stations need a strong multimodal anchor. It would be like saying First Street in Long Beach is a terrible place to stage buses just because two Blue Line stations are there. Keep in mind, the VA can only allow the MTA to build a station and at best some bus transfer zone. They won't allow surface parking. For clarification, I was talking about the Westwood station proper, the one that would be built on a UCLA parking lot. I don't think there ought to be a dedicated VA station, because the hospital grounds are anti-pedestrian plantations. They need to be served by shuttle bus to get to the medical facilities. Think about the disabled veterans going to get medical care. They must exit and board a bus on a shoulder of Wilshire that's built like a highway, and there's no clear path to the medical facility entrances. This pedestrian hostility is also evident at the San Fernando Valley and Long Beach facilities. It's typical for VA. What I suggest is that the VA run its shuttle buses to what I've proposed for the Westwood subway station and run nonstop between there and the medical facilities, providing portal-to-door transportation. It is farther away from the grounds, but its a safer means of getting to the facilities.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 11, 2010 18:33:00 GMT -8
If the VA has to shuttle passengers from their own station then virtually no one would walk from this station. That is the definition of a poor station location. If the VA were to go to this expense then they should just shuttle from the Westwood station. Thats possible too, however considering the current extreme congestion around the 405 at Wilshire, this is a consideration that will need to be addressed for this stub subway terminal at Westwood as of now you have more buses and auto access coming from the West to the Westwood station having to encounter using this already busy station and encountering it on extremely congested corridor. However, as I spoke to Jody briefly after my Governance Council meeting and that there will be further discussion on this by the Metro Planners and there will be an update regarding this with a more detained analysis of the hows and whys for this location at Westwood and Westwood/VA. So STAY TUNED.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 18, 2010 7:35:12 GMT -8
I learned two interesting pieces of info today about the VA land at Westwood. First, according to a short elevator conversation I had with administrators at the Long Beach VA, the Veterans Affairs system is "not allowed" to charge patients and visitors for parking. (I had overheard them complaining about the problems with limited parking here, which are partly due to CSULB students using the free, unmonitored lots, and suggested a parking fee and enforcement). Second, in researching this (I don't know if free parking at the VA is federal law or just internal VA policy), I found this article: articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/18/local/me-13659/3It discusses a parking lot next to some shops in Brentwood, on VA land, which is rented to the shops. An adjacent parcel of VA land is rented for athletic fields for a school. So clearly the VA has the ability to rent its land to Metro for parking, a station, or whatever, if they choose. I still think there should be a station at Barrington and Federal, rather than directly at the VA hospital. But if the VA is willing to rent land to Metro for TOD, it might work to have the station closer to the VA. I'm not sure that building parking there would work; unless the VA charges for its own parking, commuters would try to park at the free VA lots. That would be a mess. I wonder if I can get a Republican congressman to protest the VA's waste of taxpayer dollars thru subsidized parking, and get the policy changed. It really is silly to waste all that valueable West LA and Long Beach land as surface lots. Most of the cars parked are staff and visitors, not veterans.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 18, 2010 8:14:01 GMT -8
If there is no Barrington stop, then I wish Metro had put Bundy back in MOS-3, but then I also which i had been able to keep from going bald longer too.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 18, 2010 9:00:25 GMT -8
Unless the VA has changed its position, they are not planning on allowing any parking to Metro unless Metro builds it underground. The lot around the hospital is nearly full right now with VA patients and staff so there isn't a lot of room right there unless you are talking about other parts of the VA, which there would be a huge fight if they gave up land to lease for parking.
The parking they do lease near Brentwood Village is very controversial among Veterans even though it is quite far from the main campus of the VA. Veterans are pretty adamant that all VA land be used for veterans. Hence the controversy and protesters over the Veteran's park at Wilshire/San Vicente that would be open to general members of the public as well.
Believe me, this station and its related land impacts will eventually be quite controversial as well. What always gets me is on the 720 there are sometimes 10-12 passengers that get on and off at Barrington, but usually never more than 1 or 2 at the VA, yet the MTA is showing the VA station as having over 8,000 passengers. It just doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Jun 18, 2010 12:04:28 GMT -8
Unless the VA has changed its position, they are not planning on allowing any parking to Metro unless Metro builds it underground. The lot around the hospital is nearly full right now with VA patients and staff so there isn't a lot of room right there unless you are talking about other parts of the VA, which there would be a huge fight if they gave up land to lease for parking. The parking they do lease near Brentwood Village is very controversial among Veterans even though it is quite far from the main campus of the VA. Veterans are pretty adamant that all VA land be used for veterans. Hence the controversy and protesters over the Veteran's park at Wilshire/San Vicente that would be open to general members of the public as well. Believe me, this station and its related land impacts will eventually be quite controversial as well. What always gets me is on the 720 there are sometimes 10-12 passengers that get on and off at Barrington, but usually never more than 1 or 2 at the VA, yet the MTA is showing the VA station as having over 8,000 passengers. It just doesn't make sense to me. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to believe Metro decides what it is going to do and massages the numbers to justify its decisions. I've occasionally seen 10 or so people boarding or exiting at the VA during rush hour (and there is usually at least one vet in a wheelchair at any time of day) but nothing compared to the numbers at Barrington (some workers but mostly students from University High School). I'd be very surprised if Metro were allowed to build parking on the VA property (any other kind of TOD is out of the question), although I think the Army Recruiting Center at Federal is not part of the VA property. And eastbound traffic on Wilshire is already backed up to Bundy during the evening rush hour - bringing additional commuters into the area would overwhelm the surrounding street grid.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 21, 2010 13:09:10 GMT -8
Unless the VA has changed its position, they are not planning on allowing any parking to Metro unless Metro builds it underground. The lot around the hospital is nearly full right now with VA patients and staff so there isn't a lot of room right there unless you are talking about other parts of the VA, which there would be a huge fight if they gave up land to lease for parking. The parking they do lease near Brentwood Village is very controversial among Veterans even though it is quite far from the main campus of the VA. Veterans are pretty adamant that all VA land be used for veterans. Hence the controversy and protesters over the Veteran's park at Wilshire/San Vicente that would be open to general members of the public as well. Believe me, this station and its related land impacts will eventually be quite controversial as well. What always gets me is on the 720 there are sometimes 10-12 passengers that get on and off at Barrington, but usually never more than 1 or 2 at the VA, yet the MTA is showing the VA station as having over 8,000 passengers. It just doesn't make sense to me. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to believe Metro decides what it is going to do and massages the numbers to justify its decisions. I've occasionally seen 10 or so people boarding or exiting at the VA during rush hour (and there is usually at least one vet in a wheelchair at any time of day) but nothing compared to the numbers at Barrington (some workers but mostly students from University High School). I'd be very surprised if Metro were allowed to build parking on the VA property (any other kind of TOD is out of the question), although I think the Army Recruiting Center at Federal is not part of the VA property. And eastbound traffic on Wilshire is already backed up to Bundy during the evening rush hour - bringing additional commuters into the area would overwhelm the surrounding street grid. Here's another factor to the modelling, existing Bus transfers and connections. Notice Big Blue Bus Lines 3 and 4 going into the heart of Brentwood and being fed to a VA Hospital Station. Also notice Line 2 that runs along Wilshire Blvd. Now what's missing from the graphic is Metro Rapid Line 720. Think of Line 720 service as the route this corridor will mimic which there's a good probability it will replace it. So if this line goes to Westwood/VA chances are that riders that will want to continue to Santa Monica (approx 3K a day on the current 720 bus) will shift by riding from their local stop and then transfering to the Subway which adds to that ridership. Similiar to what went on after the North Hollywood extension opened 10 years ago. When doing modeling, no new bus realignments can be assumed to feed into or away from a station unless it already exists or the corridor in question will replace it. This is a factor that is hurting a Barrington station but is helping Westwood/VA on top of the other things related to Measure R language, funding, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 21, 2010 20:29:54 GMT -8
JerardWright wrote "When doing modeling, no new bus realignments can be assumed to feed into or away from a station unless it already exists or the corridor in question will replace it. This is a factor that is hurting a Barrington station but is helping Westwood/VA on top of the other things related to Measure R language, funding, etc."
I don't understand. Federal/Wilshire has 3 out of the 4 buses that stop at the VA (720, 2 and 3), missing only the violet line on the map, which I believe is a rather infrequent bus route. Would that really make a difference?
Perhaps the problem is with Metro's model. If Metro is basing the model on current bus ridership, the VA will look like a great trip generator. The VA currently has heavy bus ridership, because of limited parking (as you mentioned), many low-income workers (cleaning staff, cooks, assistants), and many disabled patients who need the bus for mobility. Meanwhile, the offices and homes around Wilshire & Barrington do not have these limitations, and probably have poor transit ridership currently. But a subway would attract a larger portion of the population at both sites, which benefits Barrington more, especially considering the potential for futher development, which is limited at the VA site.
A good ridership model could include all these details, but I don't know if that's what Metro is doing.
|
|