|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 12, 2010 9:43:35 GMT -8
Since the LPA is most likely going to be Alternative 2 to the V.A. only, the next question for those who want it to go all the way to 4th Street in Santa Monica is how?
I am wondering if consolidating the 16th and 26th Street stations to one station at 20th Street would make the extension more cost-effective? 20th Street is a natural north-south street and circulating buses from there to destinations between 14th and 26th street destinations would be fairly easy?
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Oct 12, 2010 10:07:10 GMT -8
4th/Wilshire or will they have it connect to 4th/Colorado?
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 10:23:46 GMT -8
Whether the subway goes all the way "to the sea" (4th Street) or not (ends in West L.A.), it should definitely connect to the Expo Line.
If it goes to Downtown Santa Monica, it might be easier or cheaper to extend the Expo Line up to Wilshire Blvd, rather than extending the Purple Line down to Colorado.
Alternatively, someone suggested turning the Red Line south to a terminus at Bundy/Olympic, connecting with Expo's Bundy station.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 12, 2010 10:23:51 GMT -8
I think if we are getting rid of 26th st station, the terminus of Alt 2 should be at Barrington. That's the only way it could work. If the terminus is at VA Hospital, then an uptown Santa Monica station is probably required to generate enough ridership for the project to be cost-effective.
The line doesn't need to connect to 4th/Colorado... there would be no point. First, it is a very short walk if you want to change from Purple to Expo. Second, not many people will be making that transfer. Of course that will change if the Lincoln Blvd line becomes reality but that maybe 30 years from now...
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 12, 2010 15:06:47 GMT -8
I agree with bzcat; the green line would solve this problem of connecting Expo and Purple.
And besides, based on renderings of the TOD station at the terminus of Expo, it doesn't look like it's gonna happen anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Oct 12, 2010 15:36:39 GMT -8
The renderings of Expo at 4th & Colorado show the train turning south. I think it actually wouldn't be such a bad idea to have some kind of rail transit on Venice Blvd, in which case, it would make more sense for these destinations to connect. Currently, development in Santa Monica is blocked from extending further south by the 10 (it's ridiculous if you look at an aerial view of the city how there is basically dense development only on the north side of the freeway). There would be great benefits of a north-south line near the coast, which could be achieved by a streetcar running close to the beach, by a Lincoln light rail line, etc. This is a long way off, but any routing of the purple line in Santa Monica should take into account likely connections through Venice to some kind of hub with the Crenshaw and green lines around Century at LAX.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottmercer on Oct 28, 2010 15:08:51 GMT -8
You could just build a streetcar along Sawtelle Boulevard, connecting the Expo 405 station with the Purple Line at the VA Hospital, where it could go underground for a brief stretch to meet the subway station. Run the streetcar at similar headways to the Expo and Purple lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Oct 28, 2010 15:39:55 GMT -8
Scott, there's discussion of the "405 line" from the Valley having a stop at Wilshire/Westwood and Sepulveda/Expo, which would pretty much serve that function. This would lessen the need for the Purple and Expo lines to have a westside transfer station, but it still might be more convenient for some people than being forced to take the 405 line. In terms of local streetcar service, my preferences are for Westwood Blvd between UCLA and the Expo line, Venice Blvd from the Expo line Culver City stop to the beach, and some kind of coastal route serving Santa Monica, Venice, and potentially Marina Del Rey.
|
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 29, 2010 8:53:05 GMT -8
I am wondering if consolidating the 16th and 26th Street stations to one station at 20th Street would make the extension more cost-effective? 20th Street is a natural north-south street and circulating buses from there to destinations between 14th and 26th street destinations would be fairly easy? The recently-adopted Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element ("LUCE") specifies two of five "Activity Centers" in the city clustered around Wilshire / 14th and Wilshire / Centinela (click on section 2.5 on the Draft LUCE). The introduction states: The activity center overlay areas provide a strategic opportunity for property owners and/or the City to engage in true Placemaking at appropriate locations along the City’s boulevards. The activity center overlays foster dynamic spaces by enabling the creation of mixed-use development at transportation crossroads on parcels of sufficient size to support creative design, and to provide active and passive open space, affordable and market-rate housing, and shared parking facilities. The shared parking facilities service the new uses and provide parking for adjacent neighborhoods that lack sufficient parking. The activity centers provide focal points for community services and improved vitality at strategic places within the City. Centinela is a few blocks from a potential Bundy station. The 14th location is primarily a redevelopment of the existing 2/3-block Vons site. But there should be a subway station close by! Current Rapid 720 stops are at 26th (added after the line was started), 14th, and 4th. |
|
|
|
Post by davebowman on Oct 29, 2010 14:07:56 GMT -8
I live a block from Wilshire/26th street, so I'm prejudiced, but a Wilshire/16th street stop would be ideal for people going to Santa Monica-UCLA Orthopedic Hosptal, which is a very dense cluster, and I think the other Santa Monica stops should be spaced accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 29, 2010 15:09:20 GMT -8
I live a block from Wilshire/26th street, so I'm prejudiced, but a Wilshire/16th street stop would be ideal for people going to Santa Monica-UCLA Orthopedic Hosptal, which is a very dense cluster, and I think the other Santa Monica stops should be spaced accordingly. On the idea of whether eliminating a station in this section might help the cost-effectiveness, it does appear per the ridership stats that the 16th street station has pretty poor ridership. In fact, in the Alt. #3 ridership stats, it was the poorest performing station even worse than Crenshaw and La Brea. It might make sense to eliminate this station for cost savings. BBB would do a good job serving the stations from many points in SM. For me, the 16th Street and 26th Street stations are a little too close in an area in SM that really isn't super dense. It might be a necessary deletion to improve the viability of this portion of the line. On another note, I'd like someone at the MTA to explain how in Alt. #3 "the Full Subway to the Sea", how an area like 16th Street with a major hospital that also is surrounded by other uses including office and housing has barely more than half the ridership of the VA station that only has a similar hospital and virtually no other uses within a half mile. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 12, 2013 16:48:40 GMT -8
Was this extension part of Measure J or is this going to be abandoned now that the Expo Line is going to be finished many decades before this?
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Aug 12, 2013 23:25:12 GMT -8
Measure J didn't specify any projects beyond the ones scheduled for Measure R (though presumably any money left over would go to the next LRTP projects); it was purely to allow much higher levels of borrowing to get things built sooner. As long as LA is building new transit lines, extending the Purple Line all the way to the Promenade will be one of the planned projects, so this will never be really dropped, but it's probably behind other post-Measure R projects like Crenshaw phase 2 and a Downtown to East Hollywood via Sunset line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 9, 2013 8:58:46 GMT -8
I'm a little late to the conversation here, but I don't think any of the proposed Santa Monica stops should be eliminated.
Each stop serves a specific area of Santa Monica: Downtown (4th), Midtown (14th or 16th), and Uptown (26th). All three are already about 15-20 minutes walking distance from each either (and that's if you're a fast walker). Further distance could up that amount of time to half an hour or more. For transit users, this probably isn't a big deal, but for people who don't typically use transit (and will likely not board a bus to go between stations), I can see it being frustrating.
Consolidating two stops into one might save some money, but I really think Santa Monica is one area where we shouldn't skip out on potential stops. It may not have the density of Hollywood or Koreatown (or maybe it does?), but the west side will be a hit in terms of ridership and will only be helped by serving each area of Santa Monica properly.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 9, 2013 9:56:52 GMT -8
The true uptown stop (26th st) is not necessary if there is a stop in Centinela in LA. You are talking about only 3 or 4 blocks. But it's either or... we won't get both.
Because of the stop at VA Hospital (instead of Barrington), the spacing of the next two stations are kind of distorted.
Ideally, it would have been like this: Westwood (Westwood Blvd), Brentwood (Barrington), Uptown Santa Monica (around 26th), Midtown Santa Monica (around 16th), Downtown Santa Monica (4th)
But due to the extra stop at VA at the expense of Barrington, the next stop is likely between Bundy and Centinela.
This is probably the most likely outcome: Westwood, VA Hospital, Centinela, Midtown Santa Monica (between 16th and 20th), Downtown Santa Monica.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 9, 2013 12:01:39 GMT -8
Why Centinela over Bundy? Wouldn't Bundy make more sense for easier bus connections between Purple and Expo?
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 9, 2013 15:33:01 GMT -8
Why Centinela over Bundy? Wouldn't Bundy make more sense for easier bus connections between Purple and Expo? I think the assumption is that Bundy is too close to the VA stop. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 9, 2013 16:54:40 GMT -8
Why Centinela over Bundy? Wouldn't Bundy make more sense for easier bus connections between Purple and Expo? I think the assumption is that Bundy is too close to the VA stop. The distance between Bundy and Bonsall is 1 mile, which is shorter than the distances between each of the three Santa Monica stops I mentioned above (they average 0.7-0.8 miles apart). Bundy is still a fine candidate for a stop as far as I'm concerned. The fact that Bonsall is farther from Bundy than Barrington (which is where people were hoping the stop was going to be anyway), is all the more reason why Bundy should stay in the running for a station. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 9, 2013 19:34:26 GMT -8
I think the assumption is that Bundy is too close to the VA stop. The distance between Bundy and Bonsall is 1 mile, which is shorter than the distances between each of the three Santa Monica stops I mentioned above (they average 0.7-0.8 miles apart). Bundy is still a fine candidate for a stop as far as I'm concerned. The fact that Bonsall is farther from Bundy than Barrington (which is where people were hoping the stop was going to be anyway), is all the more reason why Bundy should stay in the running for a station. I'd agree with that. Bundy is the major north south street in this region and has pretty good density. Barrington would have been better, but Bundy is close to Expo here. I don't think we'll ever get the purple line past Bundy though. When Denny Zane was talking about a new Measure R, he mentioned that they could probably just have support to get it to Bundy. It would be nice to finish it to the sea, but not sure that trumps going to Burbank Airport for the red line or for Crenshaw to go to Wilshire. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 10, 2013 9:59:53 GMT -8
I thought we were talking about a need for station for Uptown Santa Monica? Centinela is basically the border between LA and Santa Monica so it is positioned right for nominal pedestrian distances from an area roughly between Barrington and 26th.
A station just to the west of Centinela with a portal towards Bundy will still allow good bus connection to/from Bundy and still within decent walking distance from the Uptown section of Santa Monica.
If you disregard the need for Uptown Santa Monica altogether, then I agree Bundy is better. But you won't be able to justify another station at 26th.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 11, 2013 8:38:33 GMT -8
I thought we were talking about a need for station for Uptown Santa Monica? Centinela is basically the border between LA and Santa Monica so it is positioned right for nominal pedestrian distances from an area roughly between Barrington and 26th. A station just to the west of Centinela with a portal towards Bundy will still allow good bus connection to/from Bundy and still within decent walking distance from the Uptown section of Santa Monica. If you disregard the need for Uptown Santa Monica altogether, then I agree Bundy is better. But you won't be able to justify another station at 26th. I see what you mean, but I still look at the distance betweeen stations and say otherwise. Each station (Bonsall, Bundy, 26th, 14th/16th, and 4th) is roughly 0.7-0.8 miles apart from each other. If we had gotten Barrington instead of Bonsall, it would also be that exact length from Bundy (there is close to a full mile between Bonsall and Bundy, the longest gap between these stations). Cutting any one of those stations will mean a 1.5 mile or more gap between two stations in the city of Santa Monica. Almost as big as the gap will be between Wilshire/Western and Wilshire/La Brea. One counter to this is, "Well, if Wilshire/Crenshaw didn't survive, how are any of these stations not going to get cut?" However, Wilshire/Crenshaw had a lot working against it - the residents didn't want it, it had low projected ridership, and it has close proximity to Wilshire/Western (0.6 miles). Both Bundy and 26th will be helpful for connections between the Purple and Expo lines. I think it would be really unfortunate to lose either of them. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 11, 2013 10:02:22 GMT -8
The distances between station is not that important. It's a consideration but ultimately, it is ridership that matters. Having two stations at Bundy and 26th st won't necessarily increase ridership all that much but it will for sure run up the costs.
Santa Monica isn't exactly Midtown Manhattan. I just don't see how we can justify more than 3 stations between 4th st and VA hospital. I would very much to have all these stations but I think a station at Centinela will serve Uptown Santa Monica and Brentwood just fine. And if eliminating that 26th st station means the project is more cost effective from passenger/mile perspective and thus qualifies for Federal funding (talking about way down the road of course) then I'm fine with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 11, 2013 10:44:05 GMT -8
The distances between station is not that important. It's a consideration but ultimately, it is ridership that matters. Having two stations at Bundy and 26th st won't necessarily increase ridership all that much but it will for sure run up the costs. Santa Monica isn't exactly Midtown Manhattan. I just don't see how we can justify more than 3 stations between 4th st and VA hospital. I would very much to have all these stations but I think a station at Centinela will serve Uptown Santa Monica and Brentwood just fine. And if eliminating that 26th st station means the project is more cost effective from passenger/mile perspective and thus qualifies for Federal funding (talking about way down the road of course) then I'm fine with it. I think both probably should have a station, although like I said before, it probably won't be in my lifetime before this gets past Bundy. Bundy should definately have a station. That is quite a dense neighborhood with high rises, University High School and apartment blocks. Barrington would have been better, but that ship sailed. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 11, 2013 11:35:39 GMT -8
I think both probably should have a station, although like I said before, it probably won't be in my lifetime before this gets past Bundy. Bundy should definately have a station. That is quite a dense neighborhood with high rises, University High School and apartment blocks. Barrington would have been better, but that ship sailed. Nobody ever thought the subway would be extended west of Western in their lifetime...and look at what's happening. It's all about electing the right officials and being in the right political environment. Things can always change, if we vote the right people in. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 2, 2017 16:38:09 GMT -8
UrbanizeLA (a great website!) takes up the case for extending Purple line to the sea again. urbanize.la/post/does-la-need-santa-monica-purple-line-extensionKey points if you can't be bother to read the whole thing: 1. Funding gap turns out to be much smaller than anticipated back when Metro decided to abandon the segment 2. Expo line will be beyond capacity between Sepulveda and Downtown SM once the Sepulveda Pass rail line opens 3. Ridership of the segment may have been under estimated because it didn't fully consider bus replacement and induced ridership on Santa Monica blvd (Downtown SM to Century City, and Downtown SM to Westwood) - i.e. the modeling may have been too Wilshire blvd centric. 4. EIR is done! All we need to do is ask for money. |
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Feb 2, 2017 21:08:23 GMT -8
Wilshire is only a half mile away from the Expo line .... my preference would be to spend the money on a Venice Blvd line. Head north at La Cienega towards Beverly Center and the Sunset Strip. Could be a good return on investment if Metro can set up a P3 for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Feb 2, 2017 21:10:01 GMT -8
What would be really cool is if the subway station in SM had an exit at PCH level (at the base of the cliff).
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 2, 2017 21:55:39 GMT -8
Wilshire is only a half mile away from the Expo line .... my preference would be to spend the money on a Venice Blvd line. Head north at La Cienega towards Beverly Center and the Sunset Strip. Could be a good return on investment if Metro can set up a P3 for it. Wilshire is only a half mile from Expo in Downtown SM. It is over a mile away at Bundy |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Mar 7, 2017 15:56:08 GMT -8
  Why is Santa Monica too good for an elevated subway alignment to the beach again? This affluent beach town of 92,000 has flat population growth rate, population density is under 11,000/sq mile, the lowest in the Wilshire corridor after Beverly Hills, and is affectively stymied from increasing housing stock or density by its older, conservative citizens. Also, Wilshire Blvd in the City of Santa Monica is lined by low density, single purpose, low rise commercial buildings—who's worried about privacy or NIMBYs? I know New York City analogs get thrown around a lot, and yes, Santa Monica is definitely not it, Brooklyn with it's healthy density of over 35,000/sq mile has an elevated D/F train on its dozen mile approach to Coney Island/Stillwell. As a local comparison, West Hollywood makes a better case for underground considering the city's grade changes (if there were to be a station(s) on the Sunset Strip), sports a higher density at more than 18,000/ sq mile, the city has no current Metro Rail service and would affectively expand the network in a new direction, etc. So again, why is Santa Monica so special to differ on rational costs that a subway extension is to be underground or nothing at all? I believe evidence shows Metro should present Santa Monica with an elevated alignment to 3rd Street on the cheap, or they get nothing else.  |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 7, 2017 16:14:44 GMT -8
Because elevated heavy rail has a history associated with it in this country and as a result it will attract 10000 times the opposition a subway would.
Traditionally white engineers and white planners put elevated heavy rail in black communities because the communities aren't worth the same money spent on white communities according to the white leadership. Therefore, white communities don't expect to see infrastructure associated with non white communities in their community. Additionally, black communities expect and demand equal treatment now, which is why Crenshaw got the grade separations the white engineers and planners didn't want to build for black communities.
Elevated heavy rail will always be seen as a sign that your community is second class citizen and proof that your community is fundamentally unequal compared to communities where more money is spent.
These racial politics are the fundamental reason why elevated heavy rail will never be built in Los Angeles.
Santa Monica isn't just residential it's an employment center and international tourist destination.
When the sepulveda line opens expo won't have the capacity to handle the transfer loads, so we will need a subway extension or dedicated bus bridge to handle the influx
|
|
