|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 22, 2010 8:06:02 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." The BBB14 could easily be rerouted so that it goes to Barrington from Wilshire instead of Montana. That should have been considered as part of a Barrington station. I am wondering though if a Bundy station wasn't moved to MOS-5 in part politically because if MOS-5 is seen as only benefiting Santa Monica, which would already have the Expo Line, it has a less likely chance of ever getting built.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 22, 2010 12:57:46 GMT -8
I will certainly hold my nose and support the VA station if it results in a technically "higher ridership" and therefore increases the chances of project funding.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 23, 2010 22:20:21 GMT -8
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? Ahhh, that's Wilshire/Federal not Wilshire/Barrington. BTW Line 720 doesn't stop at Wilshire/Federal. The Violet line, Line 4, will make a little difference as on the south end it would serve along Sawtelle and on the north-west run through Brentwood, though it is currently infrequent, the fact that this can now feed an anchor like the Metro Rail line would aid in the ridership, not by large leaps and bounds but its enough to help, similiar to what happend when the Metro Red Line reached North Hollywood, lines that ran infrequently had a stronger ridership anchor and it improved its ridership and eventually, in some cases its ridership frequency. However the last issue can't be assumed for the ridership modeling as it will invoke open-ended ridership numbers that can make the ridership predictions wildly unrealistic, in which the FTA will kick-back very quickly. Actually the argument you just used actually helps to strengthen the Westwood/VA site because that is the station that will kill the two birds with one stone. Serve the hospital patrons AND have those connecting bus lines work as feeders to the Purple Line station as they will now be of greater use to the Barrington patrons it would connect them to a much more reliable trip via the Purple Line. The ridership modeling when trying to obtain Federal funding must look at the existing bus ridership and those conditions and adjust the ridership to reflect that. These are the federal rules, not Metro. They can show possible cancellations of corridors that mimic the route in question (i.e. Metro Rapid 720) The key component is that this is the FEDERAL modeling requirement and not the agency's. There was a similiar case in Seattle for the University Extension before they receieved funding as the FTA made Seattle adjust their number to reflect this exact condition because their numbers where wildly optomistic. Now there are limitations to this kind of modeling as this Westwood/VA station is showing, however there one bright side is that this creates an equitable objective way to get applicants all across the country to meet the same threshold criterias. Its like Metro's grade separation policy for LRT. Though it may have some flaws to some, the criteria's biggest strength is that it objectively looks at the conditions and observes if that it can be done at-grade or will require mitigation or full grade separation based on the queing length of the vehicles. However there's one other component that I think is missing from this conversation as it relates to Wilshire/Barrington and something to seriously think about in all the conversation of Westwood/VA. If a station at Wilshire/Barrington were to be built, hypothetically,
* How would you think that would affect ridership at Wilshire/Bundy a short distance away? Would it enhance the ridership at this station or would it compete with it where we'd have two stations a short distance apart thinning ridership off of each other, thus reducing the FTA cost-effectiveness of the route?
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 24, 2010 6:12:39 GMT -8
Actually the argument you just used actually helps to strengthen the Westwood/VA site because that is the station that will kill the two birds with one stone. Serve the hospital patrons AND have those connecting bus lines work as feeders to the Purple Line station as they will now be of greater use to the Barrington patrons it would connect them to a much more reliable trip via the Purple Line. A station at Wilshire/Federal would be close enough to the hospital, and would also serve the area around Wilshire/Barrington. Wilshire/Federal to Wilshire/Bundy is 0.7 miles, a 12 minute walk. This is about the same as the distance from Metro Center station to Pico Station on the Blue Line, and farther than the distance from PCH to Anaheim station. On the Red Line, the downtown stations are about 0.5 miles apart, as are the three station in Koreatown / Wilshire Center. Looking at 10-minute walk times, there is only a small area of overlap between the Bundy station and a Barrington or Federal station. So, I would only expect Bundy to lose about 20% of ridership, compared to the situation with a VA station and Bundy station only.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 24, 2010 6:37:59 GMT -8
maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1429+E+Florida+St,+Long+Beach,+Los+Angeles,+California+90802&msa=0&msid=118421907942452958270.000489c7444af91198e43&ll=34.053015,-118.453989&spn=0.040107,0.077162&z=14 10 minute walks from the discussed station locations. I measured from Wilshire & Barry Ave as the mid-point of a subway station under Wilshire between Barrington and Federal. The station could have portals at both those streets (since the stations are almost 200 meters long, about 2 blocks), and an escalator uphill to the VA hospital. The VA would be about an 8 minute trip; about as far as the UCLA hospital from the Westwood station. Without a station near Barrington, that intersection and the surrounding homes and apartments would be a 10 to 15 minute walk from the nearest subway station. Almost the entire 10-minute walk area of a VA station would be on VA land, which generally can only be used for the direct benefit of Veterans. The VA has said it does not want parking for non-veterans, and will not want new homes or business built there. In comparsion, the area around Barrington is 2 to 4 storey apartment buildings, with businesses along Wilshire.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 24, 2010 16:56:40 GMT -8
Wilshire/Federal to Wilshire/Bundy is 0.7 miles, a 12 minute walk. This is about the same as the distance from Metro Center station to Pico Station on the Blue Line, and farther than the distance from PCH to Anaheim station. On the Red Line, the downtown stations are about 0.5 miles apart, as are the three station in Koreatown / Wilshire Center. Looking at 10-minute walk times, there is only a small area of overlap between the Bundy station and a Barrington or Federal station. So, I would only expect Bundy to lose about 20% of ridership, compared to the situation with a VA station and Bundy station only. What about the distance of the bus connections at Barrington? Comparing the core of the Financial/Business districts to these two is a bit of a stretch as Koreatown is one of the densest commercial and residental areas in Los Angeles. With the bus service there would be there to better feed the VA or Bundy stations.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 24, 2010 17:29:25 GMT -8
Wilshire/Federal to Wilshire/Bundy is 0.7 miles, a 12 minute walk. This is about the same as the distance from Metro Center station to Pico Station on the Blue Line, and farther than the distance from PCH to Anaheim station. On the Red Line, the downtown stations are about 0.5 miles apart, as are the three station in Koreatown / Wilshire Center. Looking at 10-minute walk times, there is only a small area of overlap between the Bundy station and a Barrington or Federal station. So, I would only expect Bundy to lose about 20% of ridership, compared to the situation with a VA station and Bundy station only. What about the distance of the bus connections at Barrington? Comparing the core of the Financial/Business districts to these two is a bit of a stretch as Koreatown is one of the densest commercial and residental areas in Los Angeles. With the bus service there would be there to better feed the VA or Bundy stations. Keep in mind with a Barrington station (especially if Barrington is the furthest station west), that the San Vicente BBB would easily be rerouted to Barrington (taking a right turn at San Vicente/Barrington) before proceeding east. Also, the BBB #14 that travels up Bundy from the future Expo station would surely be rerouted to east down Wilshire and then up Barrington (which even today would probably be a better route for it). Also, if the VA were really concerned about providing transit service to the hospital, they could run a shuttle that could bring them from the Barrington station to the hospital door, which the VA station won't do. For disabled vets, how do they expect them to get across the parking lot to the actual hospital from the VA station? Since pretty much all the VA's ridership comes from either the bus transfers or the hospital that pretty much covers all of the VA's station's ridership plus a huge new amount of riders going to the massive office towers, University HS, SM Blvd. and all of the apartment/condo dwellers near Barrington. I hear a lot about all the transit dependent riders at the VA and all the bus transfers there as well. If that is the case, how come Barrington almost always has more passengers on the 720 even now? I'm afraid this is part of the reason they wouldn't study ridership at Barrington. Once you factor in the fact that there won't be the easy access parking that many expect at the VA and all of the inevitable veteran protests for the general public intruding on sacred VA land, a lot more people will be wishing for a Barrington station. Overall, I just think this station location compared to Barrington is not well thought out and not very smart from an urban planning perspective. Do you build at a station with a bunch of dense development with more in the future to come or do you build in an area with virtually no development and almost no chance for future development as well?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 24, 2010 18:59:20 GMT -8
What about the distance of the bus connections at Barrington? Comparing the core of the Financial/Business districts to these two is a bit of a stretch as Koreatown is one of the densest commercial and residental areas in Los Angeles. With the bus service there would be there to better feed the VA or Bundy stations. Keep in mind with a Barrington station (especially if Barrington is the furthest station west), that the San Vicente BBB would easily be rerouted to Barrington (taking a right turn at San Vicente/Barrington) before proceeding east. Also, the BBB #14 that travels up Bundy from the future Expo station would surely be rerouted to east down Wilshire and then up Barrington (which even today would probably be a better route for it). And in this dense area, where would you locate a bus terminal to interface with these connections? At VA there's an existing that has been used by Big Blue Bus just north of the proposed station location where buses can drop of passengers turn around and have the operators have their necessary breaktime. Wilshire/Barrington would require the land or sacrifice of the development in exchange of the transit connections if this is a terminal station. Wilshire/Barrington and Wilshire/Bundy are locations to have a station, but are these locations to faciliate the necessary bus transfers and bus layovers that will be required? I don't think that they will. This is a problem that Metro currently faces now at Wilshire/Western where they literally have to fight with the city of LA to have them spots on street to have a layover zone. In some cases, the buses have to travel an additional 0.5 mile to find a place to layover and park after making the connection. If they can do it for a Barrington Station logic would incur that it would be easier to have a VA only shuttle within their campus area, similiar to the UCLA campus shuttles. How many more passengers are we talking about here? Also this neglecting that fact that Westwood/VA would be a terminal station which would add the additional riders that currently serve this area. The 720 Wilshire/Barrington stop is well used one, and that will continue to be the case, would it be a great subway terminal station. I think it may be but it would take a lot more tinkering that frankly would jeopardize the land-uses of this area and our opportunities to get federal funding for this project because of the above rules with the FTA. Now, where would you place all the parking for a Barrington site if this area so dense? What about Wilshire/Bundy? The land-uses and the park-ride would be incompatable for a Wilshire/Barrington or Wilshire/Bundy terminal station. With Westwood/VA the incompatiblity will require a negociation. There lies the issue of the disagreement, from an urban development perspective I would agree with you however I'm going to take both perspectives of it, from a transit operations perspective the Westwood/VA location would facilitate more of the transit terminal uses at VA AND would enable more land for stronger development around the Wilshire/Bundy and Wilshire/Barrington stations sites because they are no longer going to be eating land to facilitate bus lay-overs, break room spaces, needed components that transit systems need to fucntion and have the bus-rail interface together nicely and swiftly at these two locations. Now, where would you place all these facilities for a Barrington site if this area so dense? What about Wilshire/Bundy? The land-uses and the park-ride would be incompatable for a Wilshire/Barrington or Wilshire/Bundy terminal station.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 24, 2010 19:57:23 GMT -8
Jerard,
You are overemphasising the bus terminal aspect of this station. There is no real bus terminal at the VA now. Some BBB busses may take breaks there now, which if the station was at Barrington they could still do. Barrington would just be a stop for them and then they continue on to the VA and take their breaks there if really needed. The BBB 14 would continue north just as it does today. Certainly no need to make a bus terminal here.
There certainly won't be a bus terminal at Century City or Fairfax when those stations are terminal stations, or Wilshire/Western now so why hold Barrington to a completely different standard? If anything Barrington is in much better situation because with the VA right next door they can still continue to use that as a break area (and service the VA as well).
Sure, it might be slightly more inconvenient for the VA to provide shuttle service to a Barrington station than if it was a VA station, but that is nothing compared to the inconvenience of all the people at Barrington who would have limited access to a VA station.
At least at Barrington, the busses can approach from different directions. At the VA they all be approaching from the West on Wilshire, which is a complete disaster on any weekday/night because it is the only street that goes through the VA property.
As far as parking at Barrington. Sure, there is no parking there. My point is that there really isn't any at the VA either, which seems to be the main reason people are supporting it (unless the MTA finds a bundle of money to build an underground garage).
The main benefit to a VA station is that it will be easy and pretty cheap to build, but from a planning perspective it is horrible.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 24, 2010 21:58:16 GMT -8
At least at Barrington, the busses can approach from different directions. At the VA they all be approaching from the West on Wilshire, which is a complete disaster on any weekday/night because it is the only street that goes through the VA property. Good point. As far as parking at Barrington. Sure, there is no parking there. My point is that there really isn't any at the VA either, which seems to be the main reason people are supporting it (unless the MTA finds a bundle of money to build an underground garage). Very good point. I prefer Barrington to the VA site because Wilshire/Barrington is surrounded by dense housing and commercial uses. Contrast with Wilshire/Bonsall (the proposed VA station location), which has almost nothing within walking distance. And Jerard, frankly I don't see the Wilshire/Bonsall site being any better than Wilshire/Barrington for a terminal station, given the limitations on the use of the land that the VA is likely to impose. If we know the VA will allow a major bus terminal and park-and-ride lot/structure, than that's one thing. But we don't. And given that this is the only reason to choose Bonsall instead of Barrington, I still have to vote for Barrington. If there are some concrete designs in place for a combined train/bus terminal with parking on the VA site, I would like to see them. If such plans exist, they would go a long way toward justifying use of the VA site.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Aug 12, 2010 10:54:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 12, 2010 13:16:00 GMT -8
The way they asked the poll, it is not suprising that many people are voting for some form of a VA station even though most admit they won't use it. However, pretty much all the comments are against and give convincing arguments. As someone pointed out they should structure the poll similarly to how it was done here on the Transit Coalition Board by giving a station location choice (i.e. Barrington or the VA).
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 22, 2012 16:26:07 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 It looks like #2 is starting to happen. The VA station is getting pummeled on The Source and the Westside Extension's Facebook page. People are finally realizing how unaccessible it is, especially if you aren't accessing by bus. The visual of the station has everyone riled up. thesource.metro.net/2012/03/22/renderings-of-proposed-westwoodva-station-for-westside-subway-extension/#commentsThis can't be a surprise. After all they shut out the public on this station completely and their station advisory meetings for this station only included the VA and none of the riding public.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 23, 2012 2:10:35 GMT -8
It looks like #2 is starting to happen. The VA station is getting pummeled on The Source and the Westside Extension's Facebook page. People are finally realizing how unaccessible it is, especially if you aren't accessing by bus. The visual of the station has everyone riled up. thesource.metro.net/2012/03/22/renderings-of-proposed-westwoodva-station-for-westside-subway-extension/#commentsThis can't be a surprise. After all they shut out the public on this station completely and their station advisory meetings for this station only included the VA and none of the riding public. Now that I see the render, I hate this station even more.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 23, 2012 7:43:20 GMT -8
They can't really be going through with this, can they?
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 23, 2012 8:14:00 GMT -8
OMG they couldn't have done any worse than this. The board has to correct this before they accept the FEIR as it currently is.
The terminus station on the Westside is completely jacked.
RT
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 23, 2012 8:25:52 GMT -8
They can't really be going through with this, can they? Train to nowhere. What a disaster.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 23, 2012 8:32:50 GMT -8
Maybe if Beverly Hills sues and they have to do a SEIR they could fix this somehow. I would vote for terminating the station at Westwood for now and using the saved money for something more useful, like the Gold Line to Claremont or the West Santa Ana branch line. Tunnel the Sepulveda pass line under the hills with a stop under UCLA and at the Purple line, and revisit extending the purple line when there's enough money to get to Barrington.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 23, 2012 8:40:27 GMT -8
Maybe if Beverly Hills sues and they have to do a SEIR they could fix this somehow. I would vote for terminating the station at Westwood for now and using the saved money for something more useful, like the Gold Line to Claremont or the West Santa Ana branch line. Tunnel the Sepulveda pass line under the hills with a stop under UCLA and at the Purple line, and revisit extending the purple line when there's enough money to get to Barrington. I agree. It is just not worth it to do something like this. Save the money until they can do it right and get to just East of Barrington. It is really a black eye on a great and very needed project.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 23, 2012 9:23:54 GMT -8
Steve Hymon felt the need to defend the project using the sympathetic "The best part about this station location is its proximity to the VA Hospital entrance. I think most of us would agree that our nation’s veterans deserve the best healthcare we can provide for them — and they also deserve first-class transit to help them reach medical facilities. The subway will accomplish that.............think there’s a pretty compelling case that can be made for building a station in front of the hospital. We take care of our own, it’s the right thing to do. Period".
This is not the right sympathetic way to build a large scale infrastructure project...
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 23, 2012 17:42:43 GMT -8
Steve Hymon felt the need to defend the project using the sympathetic "The best part about this station location is its proximity to the VA Hospital entrance. I think most of us would agree that our nation’s veterans deserve the best healthcare we can provide for them — and they also deserve first-class transit to help them reach medical facilities. The subway will accomplish that.............think there’s a pretty compelling case that can be made for building a station in front of the hospital. We take care of our own, it’s the right thing to do. Period". This is not the right sympathetic way to build a large scale infrastructure project... Agreed. Especially considering that Metro only offers a bus every 40-60 minutes to the VA Hospital in Long Beach.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 23, 2012 18:29:09 GMT -8
I suppose one way to look at it is, getting the train to the VA Hospital puts the subway on the west side of the 405, and therefore symbolically placed to continue west to Santa Monica. That's just one idea.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 23, 2012 20:36:48 GMT -8
I suppose one way to look at it is, getting the train to the VA Hospital puts the subway on the west side of the 405, and therefore symbolically placed to continue west to Santa Monica. That's just one idea. As someone who lives west of the 405, I am not sure the VA Station is better for us than no station at all. I think it would be better for the community if it didn't get farther than Westwood. With Westwood overwhelmed there would be strong support then for extending west to Barrington or Bundy. No station is better than wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and having a dysfunctional station. It hurts the project overall. This station is going to be the laughing stock of the public transport world. For someone like me going to points further west, it is going to be better to use the Westwood station rather than the VA. At Westwood, I can come right out of the station and get my bus right there. It is then through just two lights on Wilshire and about a half mile to the VA. In contrast if I go to the VA station, the train will creep along at 25 mph at top speed from Westwood because of the strange design of the tracks between these two stations. Plus these two stations are on top of each other (1/2 mile at most) so it won't be much faster than a bus here. Then I have to come out of the station and take a path to Bonsall. At Bonsall, I have to then go through a narrow tunnel with car traffic. After the tunnel, I have to walk up stairs or a ramp to get to Wilshire (on the West side), which is up on a bridge here. It will be faster to use Westwood, which defeats the purpose of the VA station. The only thing that can save this at least in part is if there is somehow an entrance with the tail tracks at Federal. I'd say that is a deep longshot at best.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 24, 2012 2:22:26 GMT -8
Furthermore, I still have a strong suspicion that one of the reasons they want to put a station there is so they can have a 405 BRT line on the cheap with this being the transfer point. Given that I and many other people on the board feel very strongly that the better solution is to tunnel a light rail line under the hills and under the UCLA campus with a stop at UCLA and Wilshire/Westwood, this station would make that a lot less likely. We don't need to repeat the underperforming silver line on the westside.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 24, 2012 2:29:45 GMT -8
I suppose one way to look at it is, getting the train to the VA Hospital puts the subway on the west side of the 405, and therefore symbolically placed to continue west to Santa Monica. That's just one idea. We don't need to spend hundreds of millions on symbolism with a station that will be severely underperforming and will constrain the effectiveness of a line going further west. It will be at least a decade, and likely substantially more, until this station would be built. In the meantime, we'll have many years of an increasingly coherent transportation network in LA. The will to extend the line will likely increase, and I expect a measure R^2 or some other funding source is a good possibility. We don't need the signature line of the network to be stuck with this albatross, which is really a waste of funds. Spending money wisely is the best way to get the line all the way to Santa Monica.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Mar 24, 2012 13:48:58 GMT -8
It would appear that once again, Metro has learned nothing from the Orange Line, the Silver Line, the Gold LIne Eastside Extension, or the lessons pending for Expo II, Regional Connector and Crenshaw.
We've asked the voters to chip in, and they agreed anew, having fortunately forgotten Hollywood Boulevard. But if you survey the average non-transit-rider, they were sold on a "Subway to the Sea", not Fairfax, UCLA, or the VA.
When the money runs out long before Westwood, and another ballot measure is put up asking for more, what can we expect when the public discovers the plan calls for bus-like speed and stops way short of the original promise?
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 24, 2012 19:20:11 GMT -8
When the money runs out long before Westwood, and another ballot measure is put up asking for more, what can we expect when the public discovers the plan calls for bus-like speed and stops way short of the original promise? What do you mean by bus like speeds? I see no evidence of slow speeds. I'm not happy with the station but I am moving on and accepting it as an imperfect compromise. The rest of the line is fantastic. Really, I just want to get past Fairfax. Everything else is a bonus.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 25, 2012 11:55:59 GMT -8
It would appear that once again, Metro has learned nothing from the Orange Line, the Silver Line, the Gold LIne Eastside Extension, or the lessons pending for Expo II, Regional Connector and Crenshaw. We've asked the voters to chip in, and they agreed anew, having fortunately forgotten Hollywood Boulevard. But if you survey the average non-transit-rider, they were sold on a "Subway to the Sea", not Fairfax, UCLA, or the VA. When the money runs out long before Westwood, and another ballot measure is put up asking for more, what can we expect when the public discovers the plan calls for bus-like speed and stops way short of the original promise? Hmmmm....in 2008, it was specifically told to voters they are getting a "Westside subway extension", not a "subway to the sea". That was cure babe initially used by Antonio when he needed public support to overturn the subway ban and newspapers (esp. the LA Weekly who use claims rather than facts). So if people paid attention, they know the subway was only going to Westside with Measure R. Would you rather have a subway to Westwood or no subway at all west of Western? Plus, when Expo, Crenshaw, subway and Footjill completed, voters will see more transit than ever before and will easily renew a Messure R +.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 25, 2012 14:48:57 GMT -8
Hmmmm....in 2008, it was specifically told to voters they are getting a "Westside subway extension", not a "subway to the sea". That was cure babe initially used by Antonio when he needed public support to overturn the subway ban and newspapers (esp. the LA Weekly who use claims rather than facts). So if people paid attention, they know the subway was only going to Westside with Measure R. Would you rather have a subway to Westwood or no subway at all west of Western? Plus, when Expo, Crenshaw, subway and Footjill completed, voters will see more transit than ever before and will easily renew a Messure R +. You're arguing semantics. Whether it officially appeared in the text of Measure R or not, "Subway to the Sea" has become part of the Los Angeles transit lexicon. I can't say for certain how heavily people bought into "Subway to the Sea" or how much people examined the ballot measure, but if the purpose of the phrase was to generate attention and excitement with an easy-to-understand buzzword, then I'd say it was successful. To be frank, I like the idea of "Subway to the Sea". And yes, I think the public has turned the corner on rail transit to the point where they will likely support a Measure R+. But I fully expect "Subway to the Sea" to return to whatever campaign is put forth for Measure R+ (which, if you're going to talk semantics, can't actually be used as a ballot measure name).
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 26, 2012 9:51:35 GMT -8
When the money runs out long before Westwood, and another ballot measure is put up asking for more, what can we expect when the public discovers the plan calls for bus-like speed and stops way short of the original promise? What do you mean by bus like speeds? I see no evidence of slow speeds. I'm not happy with the station but I am moving on and accepting it as an imperfect compromise. The rest of the line is fantastic. Really, I just want to get past Fairfax. Everything else is a bonus. Exactly, unless we change Measure R language to make it "Western Subway Extension to Westwood Barrington/Brentwood" and we all remember how much more effort and work that will entail for this one change. In addition with the inclusion of the Wilshire Bus Only Lanes to Centinela and an additional improvement via a letter writing campaign (wink, wink) to the VA and Metro Board to enable stronger pedestrian friendly access to this station through the VA campus from Wilshire/Federal and Wilshire/Bonsall intersection(s) will improve the situation at this station and be a rather inexpensive improvement that will enhance the connection to this station. To suggest that they should end the line at Westwood/Wilshire means giving up the very Federal Grant funding needed to pay for the project, as this station was one of the main tipping points that helped achieve the cost-effectiveness threshold. For someone like me going to points further west, it is going to be better to use the Westwood station rather than the VA. At Westwood, I can come right out of the station and get my bus right there. It is then through just two lights on Wilshire and about a half mile to the VA. Through a lot of congestion from all those car trips getting on and off the 405. Its a terminal station for crying out loud. You know how fast trains come in and out of the other terminals in the metro system? Less than 15 mph. This is moot. Bonsall doesn't have that much car traffic. If Wilshire buses in you're neck of the woods were to terminate here, the path changes to be more useful. Its like saying you'd get off at Wilshire/Normandie instead of Wilshire/Western to make your transfer connection from subway to bus. Or a bike/pedestrian path from Wilshire/Federal to the Bonsall location which would serve the same purpose and be more cost-effective.
|
|