|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 16, 2013 8:43:32 GMT -8
I'd support a UCLA stop too, but I think it's more likely that UCLA will build a streetcar.
The Wilshire/Westwood purple line station site is ideal for a dual level station because they'll be demolishing the parking lot and putting it underneath, so there's probably less street disruption if it's built more under the parking lot than under the street, they're even planning on building mixed use above the station once the box is complete, just like Wilshire/Vermont. I figure that the Phase 1 would share the costs of the Wilshire station box, with the Sepulveda line paying the difference in what the second line costs, still, that should be less than a typical station box installation.
Perhaps building Phase one could really generate rail demand. The Wilshire station box and the entire Phase 1(and probably Phase 2) line would probably be built and completed long before the Purple Line phase 3 reaches it. This is a good thing because it would generate huge demand from from the Valley. The Valley would want the Purple line to finish construction sooner. The Valley would probably get a lot more lobbying for non-measure R transit like a Ventura blvd line. The Valley would want the phase three of the line to hurry up and connect to the Aviation station at LAX.
Once you're through that choke point, and people have a viable alternative to driving, demand for expansion will increase.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 16, 2013 9:07:23 GMT -8
I'd support a UCLA stop too, but I think it's more likely that UCLA will build a streetcar. The Wilshire/Westwood purple line station site is ideal for a dual level station because they'll be demolishing the parking lot and putting it underneath, so there's probably less street disruption if it's built more under the parking lot than under the street, they're even planning on building mixed use above the station once the box is complete, just like Wilshire/Vermont. I figure that the Phase 1 would share the costs of the Wilshire station box, with the Sepulveda line paying the difference in what the second line costs, still, that should be less than a typical station box installation. Perhaps building Phase one could really generate rail demand. The Wilshire station box and the entire Phase 1(and probably Phase 2) line would probably be built and completed long before the Purple Line phase 3 reaches it. This is a good thing because it would generate huge demand from from the Valley. The Valley would want the Purple line to finish construction sooner. The Valley would probably get a lot more lobbying for non-measure R transit like a Ventura blvd line. The Valley would want the phase three of the line to hurry up and connect to the Aviation station at LAX. Once you're through that choke point, and people have a viable alternative to driving, demand for expansion will increase. Having this line go under UCLA without building a stop would be considered an even worse black eye on Metro than the Green Line missing LAX. It would be truly terrible planning. UCLA has a massive parking problem and many of its students and faculty already use carpooling and busing. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 16, 2013 10:34:13 GMT -8
with the station at the parking lot between Veteran and Westwood I figure there are two potential alignments for the Phase 1 tunnels
option one, no UCLA stop:
Under Veteran Ave to Veteran/Sunset, then tunnel towards the Ventura blvd stop, perhaps using the Canyon cut and cover suggested before in the thread
option two. UCLA stop.
Looking at Google maps, there are very few good places to build the station with an acceptable level of disruption and presumably with an underground alignment free of all the utilities, parking garages, basements etc.
So The obvious spot for minimum disruption is to place the station box underneath the Intermural Athletic Field on the North side of Campus. How to get there? If they tunnel deeply under Veteran they might be able to get deep enough by Strathmore to make a gradual turn to Strathmore, roughly follow Strathmore, tunnel under the tennis facility to the Intermural stop.
But this is a huge added complexity and may push the line out of it's budget.
***
Phase 3, obviously would not be a Measure R project.
That alignment is tricky, the tunnel would probably follow Veteran until Ohio and then veer East to make a stop at Westwood and Santa Monica Blvd.
Then the tunnel would probably need to veer to the West again to install a station box in between Pico and Expo at Sepulveda. We return to Sepulveda for a few reasons. One, politically Cheviot Hills would make it incredibly hard to install a Station Box on the South Side of Pico/Westwood to meet the expo line there, you'd be taking away single family homes to do it. Two, there's a good plot of land on the east side of sepulveda in between Pico and westwood for station box installation.
On the other hand, there's potential higher ridership if after tunneling under the 10 the line veers towards Overland. So the biggest problem is station box at Pico/Westwood and the NIMBYs.
the alignment would then follow Sepulveda to a stop at Venice (or follow Westwood then veer toward overland, with a station box underneath the parking lot at Venice/Overland/Washington, which would give access to Sony.
The alignment would then follow Sepulveda to a stop at the Fox Hills Mall (potential optional station at Sepulveda/Jefferson. Or it would follow overland to Jefferson then follow Jefferson to Sepulveda.
The alignment would veer away from Sepulveda after Sawtelle and roughly follow Hannum underneath the 90 freeway with the station box in the parking lot between hannum, the east side of the mall and fox hills drive. This alignment is better than Sepulveda because of the next stop.
The Howard Hughes Center will need a stop but it's tricky to get the there. The parking garages to the west of Center Drive are all deep, so it'd be tough to position a station box.
In all likelyhood you'd want to position the station box to the south west of the office building at 6060 Center drive, on the undeveloped plot in between Howard Hughes parkway and Center Drive or underneath the volleyball fields behind the Spectrum gym. I think the Volleyball fields would be harder to tunnel too because you'd be going right underneath some major buildings. On the otherhand, the alignment to the 6060 adjacent station would require tunneling under the cemetary on the east side of the 405, which may be a no go.
presuming a stop on the south side of Howard Hughes, the alignment continues roughly down Airport to La Tijera before then heading directly to meet up with the rail right of way at Manchester/Florence/Portal. with a stop here of course.
The last stop would be the shared stop with the Crenshaw and green lines at the Aviation people mover.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 16, 2013 10:48:23 GMT -8
Having this line go under UCLA without building a stop would be considered an even worse black eye on Metro than the Green Line missing LAX. It would be truly terrible planning. UCLA has a massive parking problem and many of its students and faculty already use carpooling and busing. Isn't busing and carpool a good thing, compared to having people ride on their single passenger cars? |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 16, 2013 10:52:42 GMT -8
We've discussed all these things before and they are all good ideas. The only thing that has changed since this thread was created is the public support and the political calculus for further 405 freeway expansion has been turned 180 degrees. Now politicians who wants to get elected on the West side and the Valley all voice support for some sort of rail project; and none supports any more 405 projects. The opposite was true in 2011.
The fact that Metro is now heavily criticized by all the stakeholders for holding separate Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass corridor studies shows you how far the goal posts have been moved in the favor of transit advocates. When we first raised concern that Metro was rigging the game by studying the two corridors separately, none of the elected officials engaged the issue, never mind the fact that they probably didn't even know anything about it. But this was a major topic of debate during the mayor election and I think there will eventually be political support to move up the construction of this rail line with non-Measure R funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 16, 2013 13:30:30 GMT -8
Another drawback to the Pico/Westwood alignment is that the parking garage underneath the Landmark theatre goes down five or six levels. It's immensely deep so the tunnels would have issue with this or be tunneling under the mall, because of the pedestrian overpass above Westwood blvd on the third floor of the mall I wouldn't be surprised if there are some really deep columns supporting the overpass, so I imagine the tunnels threading this needle would be quite difficult.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 16, 2013 14:07:02 GMT -8
Having this line go under UCLA without building a stop would be considered an even worse black eye on Metro than the Green Line missing LAX. It would be truly terrible planning. UCLA has a massive parking problem and many of its students and faculty already use carpooling and busing. Isn't busing and carpool a good thing, compared to having people ride on their single passenger cars? Yes, all I meant is that there is huge demand for public transit here. UCLA is a major trip generator and already is under pressure to reduce car trips and has systems in place to do so. A station at UCLA would get very high usage. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 19, 2013 13:38:16 GMT -8
Another drawback to the Pico/Westwood alignment is that the parking garage underneath the Landmark theatre goes down five or six levels. It's immensely deep so the tunnels would have issue with this or be tunneling under the mall, because of the pedestrian overpass above Westwood blvd on the third floor of the mall I wouldn't be surprised if there are some really deep columns supporting the overpass, so I imagine the tunnels threading this needle would be quite difficult. Train tunnels go under buildings all over the world, this is hardly a problem. And if this rail follows the Westwood alignment in West LA, then it will be directly under Westwood Blvd @ Pico so there is no need to even tunnel under the mall. The parking garage is on private land so it won't be in the way of the train. The real challenge is trying to go over the 10 freeway because it is in a trench relative to surface streets so train tunnel under I-10 is probably not an option. So there has to be some type of transition from underground on Westwood Blvd/National to an elevated crossing over I-10. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 19, 2013 13:45:47 GMT -8
And that elevated crossing really would have Cheviot Hills in a fit! the 10 freeway is a mile or less from Pico/Westwood and getting a bridge superstructure elevated and aligned across the freeway would be quite the feat. Especially since Westwood currently goes under the freeway, even though it's in a relative trench.
Beyond that is a really tricky bit, do you continue on the Westwood/National Place S curve alignment to join up with overland? From an elevated crossing?
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Aug 22, 2013 22:55:00 GMT -8
The real challenge is trying to go over the 10 freeway because it is in a trench relative to surface streets so train tunnel under I-10 is probably not an option. So there has to be some type of transition from underground on Westwood Blvd/National to an elevated crossing over I-10. Huh? The 10 crosses over Westwood; it only dives down once it's east of there. If you stay underground and emerge after crossing at Westwood you're fine. The hill on Overland between National and Rose is pretty steep, possibly past the allowed 6% grade. I've been thinking it might make sense to come out of the tunnel on the south side of it and transition to at-grade or maybe elevated there. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 23, 2013 15:03:48 GMT -8
The 10 crosses over westwood, but crosses under Overland, it's a wacky area of infrastructure.
Overland is probably wide enough to sustain a median light rail line South of Rose. But I wonder that the traffic impact on such a heavily traveled artery would preclude grade (from Culver Blvd north to the 10 is the majority of the traffic, north of the 10, Overland has much, much lighter traffic, eventually narrowing to two lanes).
You'd probably also want a stop at Overland/Palms, and another at Washington/Overland (Venice and Washington are about two-three hundred feet apart here). Venice would necessitate a grade separated crossing, Washington and Culver Blvd probably can make do with grade crossings. Expect a fight, though, because even if traffic is significantly lighter on Washington and Culver vs Venice, all the area will perceive the traffic to be equally heavy, and they'll lobby for and demand grade separated crossings for Washington and Culver.
You could continue South at grade all the way to Overland/Jefferson (possible station?) then turn to take Jefferson West all the way to the station at the Jefferson/Sepulveda/Sawtelle/Hannum intersection before going below grade roughly following Hannum for a stop at the southernmost parking lot of fox hills mall (which is also the closest to the very large office parks just east of fox hills on Slauson).
The complicated series of Intersections of Slauson/Sepulveda/Jefferson would make for a very tricky alignment if you were at grade in the area traffic impacts would be nightmarish, not to mention all the 405 and 90 access ramps in the area.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 23, 2013 15:57:01 GMT -8
Would Sony lobby for below-grade as it passes them due to the old 'noise argument'? Although light rail really isn't that loud, especially alongside traffic.
Also, although it's an extreme long-shot and would almost certainly require a public-private partnership (hell, that could be said for the line no matter what, really), is heavy-rail still being studied as an alternative? I forget, but I thought they agreed to keep it in contention.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 23, 2013 17:06:19 GMT -8
film related buildings rarely open windows, in my experience, so I doubt they would even notice the noise. It's sort of a hermetically sealed world, a studio.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 23, 2013 17:23:11 GMT -8
Yeah, I wasn't sure how much exterior stuff was shot on their lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 23, 2013 19:11:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 23, 2013 19:34:36 GMT -8
The big problem for this I see is where will the tunnels emerge. I could lawsuits on both the valley side and the Westside. Also, I don't see where they would put a maintenance facility. Big questions, but hopefully there are solutions as this would be a great project. There will be pushback to allowing any more cars from the Valley to the Westside as the surface streets, especially around the 405 are much more congested than even the freeway. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 23, 2013 20:12:03 GMT -8
So we fund Metro's competition by giving car commuters even more road space? Isn't this beyond ridiculous of having potentially a freeway with 16 lanes between the Valley and the Westside? Seriously, what's the point of taking Metro when you have a 16 car lane highway? |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 23, 2013 22:09:44 GMT -8
So we fund Metro's competition by giving car commuters even more road space? Isn't this beyond ridiculous of having potentially a freeway with 16 lanes between the Valley and the Westside? Seriously, what's the point of taking Metro when you have a 16 car lane highway? That toll is going to be steep. I'd guess $15 at rush hour. Unfortunately, it is the only way. $1B won't go very far at all for a rail tunnel. |
|
|
|
Post by Ad on Aug 23, 2013 22:58:20 GMT -8
On the slim chance the tunnel gets built in 8 years, it will either go to Century City or it won't be rail. How will the ~100k train riders complete the last mile without the Purple connection in Brentwood; Expo is the only way.
I fear Metro will put busses in the tunnel and then try to convince the north half of the city that a bus is a train... again. The answer will come when the ESFVTC report gets released. That is, after all, 1/2 of the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor project.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 24, 2013 15:27:58 GMT -8
The TBM would probably be the one that started drilling this week in Seattle.
Good to know about the faults.
I wonder how closely this would follow the 405 routes.
I'm very curious how they route traffic into and out of the tunnel. I presume they want to hit the north 405 and the 101, and want both directions of all four to feed the tunnel.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Aug 24, 2013 15:39:55 GMT -8
I could be wrong, but I don't think buses will cut it for the Valley ever again. I hope they've (the Valley folk) learned their lesson with that Orange line travesty. At least it works, but still... should have been rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 24, 2013 17:03:00 GMT -8
I'm very curious how they route traffic into and out of the tunnel. I presume they want to hit the north 405 and the 101, and want both directions of all four to feed the tunnel. This document from December includes a concept of how this would happen near the bottom: media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/01_20121213rbmitem21.pdfEssentially, according to this, on the north end you have egress from the tunnel onto the 405N and 101W, and ingress from the 405S and 101E. On the south end there's direct ingress and egress onto the 405 itself in the median a little north of Olympic, with direct access ramps at LaGrange. But this looks like just a demonstration to show some possibilities and highlight some challenges. Interesting read, though. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 25, 2013 10:44:35 GMT -8
I have a feeling if they try to do any more construction on that portion of the 405, the politicians promoting it will swiftly be out of a job. That section of the 405 has been under continual construction for 13-15 years or something (with the carpool lane they did before the current carpool lane and rebuilding the transition from the 405 N to the 101 E). I just can't imagine the public accepting any additional construction on that particular freeway, it's too much of a nightmare, nobody even remembers a time when it wasn't under construction so we don't even know if the freeway is congested ABSENT construction.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 26, 2013 12:33:01 GMT -8
culvercitylocke: Actually, Metro seems to be pursuing the option to build the station AT Wilshire/Westwood. That's what I got from the Final EIR: media.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/Westside_factsheet_conclusion_environmental.pdfA station should be built at Ackerman Loop. It's a centralized location, and is a HUGE bus stop in the area. Expecting to build a station box in this part of Los Angeles "free of all the utilities" seems a little unreasonable, don't you think? I mean, if the Regional Connector can navigate through the Financial District, surely routing the subway through here shouldn't have too much complexity. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 26, 2013 15:51:14 GMT -8
It's looking more and more like this project is gonna be combined with the ESFVTC project. Metro MUST make it rail, not another freakin' half-a**, annoying bus. They cannot afford to screw this up. On the slim chance the tunnel gets built in 8 years, it will either go to Century City or it won't be rail. How will the ~100k train riders complete the last mile without the Purple connection in Brentwood; Expo is the only way. Doubt it. It makes MUCH more sense for the rail portion of the tunnel to go from Van Nuys Blvd to Westwood Blvd, and have a station right under UCLA. This way you can extend it further south down Westwood and Sepulveda to LAX. According to one Curbed commenter, the projected opening date for the tunnel is roughly the same as the ESFVTC project. Hmmm... |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 27, 2013 11:19:42 GMT -8
culvercitylocke: Actually, Metro seems to be pursuing the option to build the station AT Wilshire/Westwood. That's what I got from the Final EIR: media.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/Westside_factsheet_conclusion_environmental.pdfA station should be built at Ackerman Loop. It's a centralized location, and is a HUGE bus stop in the area. Expecting to build a station box in this part of Los Angeles "free of all the utilities" seems a little unreasonable, don't you think? I mean, if the Regional Connector can navigate through the Financial District, surely routing the subway through here shouldn't have too much complexity. I avoided the Ackerman Loop for several reasons: 1. Station installation and tunnelling will probably be MUCH more expensive for that location and past that location, I was trying to spread a measly billion for a two station line/tunnel of Phase 1 from Westwood&Veteran/Wilshire to VanNuys/Ventura or Sepulveda/Ventura. I suppose spending 400 million on a station at Ackerman Loop and another 100 billion doing the tunnels under those parts of UCLA is a better use of money because it facilitates more bus transfers (not to mention the years of delays NIMBYs and lawsuits would cause if using the Ackerman alignment). :rolleyes: 2. Station installation would be several years of incredible disruption right in the center of campus that means the Ackerman Loop would be extremely opposed by UCLA administrators. Why go for one of the most politically difficult locations? 3. The Ackerman Loop is near a lot of old/historic buildings and NIMBYs may use preservationist brouhaha to successfully oppose the project. 4. The Ackerman Loop would probably increase bus congestion on the surface streets leading to the loop, which would show up in a traffic study and be used by NIMBYs to oppose the project. |
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Aug 27, 2013 23:23:28 GMT -8
I avoided the Ackerman Loop for several reasons: 1. Station installation and tunnelling will probably be MUCH more expensive for that location and past that location, I was trying to spread a measly billion for a two station line/tunnel of Phase 1 from Westwood&Veteran/Wilshire to VanNuys/Ventura or Sepulveda/Ventura. I suppose spending 400 million on a station at Ackerman Loop and another 100 billion doing the tunnels under those parts of UCLA is a better use of money because it facilitates more bus transfers (not to mention the years of delays NIMBYs and lawsuits would cause if using the Ackerman alignment). :rolleyes: 2. Station installation would be several years of incredible disruption right in the center of campus that means the Ackerman Loop would be extremely opposed by UCLA administrators. Why go for one of the most politically difficult locations? 3. The Ackerman Loop is near a lot of old/historic buildings and NIMBYs may use preservationist brouhaha to successfully oppose the project. 4. The Ackerman Loop would probably increase bus congestion on the surface streets leading to the loop, which would show up in a traffic study and be used by NIMBYs to oppose the project. If we let logic like this dominate, we should just scrap all the useful lines that are being planned and put all the Measure R money into extending the Gold Line to Indio. A 2-station MOS isn't possible, since there's no place for a maintenance facility (they're definitely not going to build it underground!). Even if the PPP doesn't go through, Prop A/C and Federal money would have to be used to get a more reasonable one, like Orange<->Expo. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 28, 2013 12:27:25 GMT -8
I think my idea was a two phase plan, with phase 1 being the 2-3 stop line (possibly a stop at the orange line so an orange to red line, but that skips a lot of significant stops you'd want to include) and phase 2 being the van nuys corridor. the idea being build the phases nearly simultaneously. the tunneling will take longer anyway and the station probably can't open until the red line reaches there anyway and phase two presumes to open first or simultaneously with phase 1. You call it phase one for various funding reasons discussed earlier in the thread and to fit within the 900 million allocated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr M on Aug 28, 2013 14:44:14 GMT -8
FYI the Ackerman turnaround is currently blocked off for the construction of a hotel/conference center and the new engineering building. Buses are being rerouted, and folks are miffed by the inconvenience but there is no huge public outcry. If the potential Ackerman station is somehow integrated with the conference center I could see UCLA admins working with, not against, metro.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 4, 2013 14:21:26 GMT -8
A 2-station MOS isn't possible, since there's no place for a maintenance facility (they're definitely not going to build it underground!). Even if the PPP doesn't go through, Prop A/C and Federal money would have to be used to get a more reasonable one, like Orange<->Expo. The maintenance facility could be staged in the Orange Line parking lot at Sepulveda station so a 3 station MOS is probably feasible. The train will have to travel from Sepulveda station to Ventura Blvd (where the freeway/rail tunnel will presumably start) either at surface or a cut and cover tunnel. You would have 3 stations to start: Sepulveda/Orange Line, UCLA/Akerman, Wilshire/Purple. Later on, you can add a Ventura Blvd station and extend it to Santa Monica Blvd and Pico/Expo; and if the ESFV project is rail, you can link it up with that project. I did a concept on this tunnel before Metro came out with its plans: goo.gl/maps/G8KF7 |
|
