|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 20, 2011 9:00:10 GMT -8
Given the locations of the faults (including one directly under the school), it seems there is really just one sensible thing for BHUSD to do: relocate the high school. It is clear from the study: the earthquake faults pose far more of a threat to the school than a static, reinforced subway tunnel does. Ironically, there was a lot of speculation about 15-20 years ago or so that they would relocate the high school in order to sell the land for possible high rise development (in essence an extension of Century City) and then use the enormous proceeds to build a high school somewhere else. However, not sure where that somewhere else was supposed to be, because there aren't many (any?) large empty tracks of land in Beverly Hills where this would be possible. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 20, 2011 9:42:13 GMT -8
Given the locations of the faults (including one directly under the school), it seems there is really just one sensible thing for BHUSD to do: relocate the high school. It is clear from the study: the earthquake faults pose far more of a threat to the school than a static, reinforced subway tunnel does. I wish there was dramatic sound effects to go with this post... |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 20, 2011 11:40:57 GMT -8
Not to be glib about the situation, but you would think that going forward the BHUSD will have a lot more to worry about than a subway tunnel 70 feet under their property. On th epositive side, if the school ends up having to be relocated, the students might just have a very short subway ride to school ;D A good analogy would be your rich neighbor sues you for building a fence that sits one inch over onto his property line. The matter goes to court, and a title search uncovers the fact that the neighbor really doesn't even own the property he is living on and has to move. A perfect example of the law of "unintended consequences"  RT |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 20, 2011 13:27:42 GMT -8
This is an expected and pleasing win against the Beverly Hills NIMBYs, but I won't say that NIMBYism in Beverly Hills have been defeated until I see that they build light-rail on Santa Monica Boulevard on the old Pacific Electric right-of-way one day in the future.
This was a nonissue from the start. Opposition against a deep-underground subway? Who are you kidding? I understand opposition against light-rail but this was a joke from the start. It just shows how ignorant these people are, living in their tiny shells, isolated from the civilization.
|
|
dane
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by dane on Oct 20, 2011 13:39:43 GMT -8
The funny thing about Ms. Korbatov's press release is that her precious "withheld" seismic data has been available from the USGS since about 2006 as a downloadable Google Earth overlay. Here's an example - the thin orange line running from the northwest to southeast is a representation of the West Beverly Hills Lineament:  |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 20, 2011 13:58:34 GMT -8
Just a reminder, there is a media battle going on out there: the Beverly NIMBillys are trying desperately to discredit the Metro report of scientific findings. If you have the time, please take some time to post your comments on any or all of the following news stories: |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 20, 2011 14:08:50 GMT -8
Oh well... I guess it's time i bring out my inner troll to squash these NIMBYs. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 21, 2011 7:59:02 GMT -8
Yesterday I joked about relocating the high school. Now we have this interesting bit of information, courtesy of the Beverly Hills Courier (a highly-slanted opinion piece, BTW): "However, in a stunning blow to [Beverly Hills Mayor] Brucker’s email “message” of last night, in which he promised to extract large sums from MTA to rebuild the high school, the MTA report concluded that the high school campus is so impaired by earthquake faults that the property should be deemed worthless. If the MTA tunnels under Beverly High, it would have to pay for the route based on the value of the land. With this finding, MTA would owe Beverly Hills Unified School District nearly nothing." |
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jan 3, 2012 1:30:00 GMT -8
Apparently, tunneling is not too daunting a task for the Brits, unlike tunneling under Beverly Hills or completing the Purple Line to the Bay, or boring a tunnel beneath the Sepulveda Pass. In two years, the UK is going to increase the rail capacity to London by 10% and bring an additional 1.5 million people to within 45 minutes of downtown.  The project is called "Crossrail" and for $23 billion, 10,000 workmen are creating 73 miles of underground rail that will descend up to 130 ft in only 2 years! They are using 8 TBMs, each 460 feet long and weighing over 1,100 tons and costing $15.5 million each. The TBMs will work 24 hrs a day and tunnel 328 feet a week. As the machine proceeds down a tunnel it "automatically" lines each tunnel wth concrete panels, each weighing about 4 tons, 8 required for the circumference. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16320945 |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jan 3, 2012 2:49:38 GMT -8
Apparently, tunneling is not too daunting a task for the Brits, unlike tunneling under Beverly Hills or completing the Purple Line to the Bay, or boring a tunnel beneath the Sepulveda Pass. In two years, the UK is going to increase the rail capacity to London by 10% and bring an additional 1.5 million people to within 45 minutes of downtown. The project is called "Crossrail" and for $23 billion, 10,000 workmen are creating 73 miles of underground rail that will descend up to 130 ft in only 2 years! They are using 8 TBMs, each 460 feet long and weighing over 1,100 tons and costing $15.5 million each. The TBMs will work 24 hrs a day and tunnel 328 feet a week. As the machine proceeds down a tunnel it "automatically" lines each tunnel wth concrete panels, each weighing about 4 tons, 8 required for the circumference. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16320945It's entirely possible to do a lot better if the political will is there. It's not like Los Angeles couldn't afford to do the same thing in principle. The economy of Los Angeles is much larger than that of London: 792 billion vs. 565 billion ( source) which mainly comes down to having more people. In fact, we spend a fortune on freeways. If we spent some reasonable fraction of that on transit, we would have a very impressive system indeed. If we were a little more intelligent about our transportation spending, we would also have more money for other investments in physical infrastructure, like sidewalks, parks, schools, libraries, etc. Of course, I don't know about the relative complications of building a new metro line in "London clay" vs. Los Angeles, but both are certainly complicated and expensive. Anyway, Crossrail promises to improve London transportation like a mini version of the Paris RER network. I think it's a great investment. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 16, 2012 14:00:10 GMT -8
it helps that the United Kingdom, like a lot of nations, has a higher gas tax/ "petrol duty" than we do, which contributes to a higher gas price.
This higher price makes driving much less advantageous over using transit. Of course, people still drive despite the higher cost, but at least the higher tax contributes a greater amount to transportation funding.
It's not quite as simple as "move funds from highways to rail," although that would also help.
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jan 16, 2012 16:07:32 GMT -8
it helps that the United Kingdom, like a lot of nations, has a higher gas tax/ "petrol duty" than we do, which contributes to a higher gas price. This higher price makes driving much less advantageous over using transit. Of course, people still drive despite the higher cost, but at least the higher tax contributes a greater amount to transportation funding. It's not quite as simple as "move funds from highways to rail," although that would also help. That's a good point. At the risk of getting too wonky on the point about taxes making driving less advantageous, I'll add this: The tax tends to discourage people from making driving trips that have low value to them or trips that could easily be replaced with some other mode (biking, walking, transit). So the tax isn't necessarily economically destructive; it just encourages people to conserve and not waste gas on trips that aren't very productive or are easily replaced. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jan 17, 2012 4:53:32 GMT -8
it helps that the United Kingdom, like a lot of nations, has a higher gas tax/ "petrol duty" than we do, which contributes to a higher gas price. This higher price makes driving much less advantageous over using transit. Of course, people still drive despite the higher cost, but at least the higher tax contributes a greater amount to transportation funding. It's not quite as simple as "move funds from highways to rail," although that would also help. That's a good point. At the risk of getting too wonky on the point about taxes making driving less advantageous, I'll add this: The tax tends to discourage people from making driving trips that have low value to them or trips that could easily be replaced with some other mode (biking, walking, transit). So the tax isn't necessarily economically destructive; it just encourages people to conserve and not waste gas on trips that aren't very productive or are easily replaced. Fair enough, but I'm pretty sure that if we had given more balanced funding to rail and roads we could have a pretty awesome metro system now, and that fewer freeways going out into the boonies would result in more dense development in the city core further reducing the cost per taxpayer both for the metro and roads. I think it could have been feasible even without increased taxes, though I fully support increasing the gas tax... by a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 13, 2012 11:25:42 GMT -8
Metro is now considering extending the initial segment to La Cienega. Under the original plan, the initial segment would have included only two stations (at La Brea and Fairfax). The proposed plan would build three stations in the initial segment, bringing the Purple Line subway as far west as the edge of Beverly Hills. The reason is simple. When an interim terminal station facility has to be constructed, the area around the interim station experiences more construction activity and greater impacts. Metro staff would like to avoid having these additional impacts at Fairfax/Wilshire, which is in the middle of a "gassy area" and which also has fossils. Moving the terminus to La Cienega would reduce the impacts at Fairfax. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 13, 2012 11:35:47 GMT -8
Also makes the first segment of the extension that much more useful. Although I'm sure that means opening date for the first segment will push back by about 2 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 13, 2012 12:26:49 GMT -8
Also makes the first segment of the extension that much more useful. Although I'm sure that means opening date for the first segment will push back by about 2 years. I don't know if I'd assume that at all. It is still a short segment, although any time you do anything longer there is more chance of an issue coming up. It shouldn't take much longer to run the TBM machine an extra .75 miles though. This seems like a no brainer. Back a few months ago, Metro announced they had received a TIFIA loan (in essence kind of a mini 30/10 loan) for the Westside subway, I had assumed they could move the first segment to La Cienega with that money, but this memo makes no mention of that money. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 13, 2012 12:32:42 GMT -8
Actually, this is VERY VERY good. Once its at the edge of Beverly Hills, the quiet majority of people who support the subway in Beverly Hills and would have no problem going under BHHS will start to drown out the BHHS administration and pandering of the Patch/John Mirisch. It's like the Pasadena/NIMBY situation, now that they see the benefits of the Gold Line, the naysayers are drowned out.
La Cienega is great!...Rodeo would be better!...and more to come after that!
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 13, 2012 14:05:20 GMT -8
And, if some idiot like 1990s Henry Waxman puts a halt to the subway, at least the subway will have reached Restaurant Row, with easy access to the Beverly Center and West Hollywood.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 13, 2012 16:20:16 GMT -8
I can't see any problems with going to LaCienega, especially if it means less construction at Fairfax.
I'm hoping less construction at Fairfax means less construction at LACMA, although I fully support the LACMA West station idea.
One way or another, there will be construction disruption there (as there has been construction there for the new buildings), but I would imagine LACMA art patrons would be happy to know there will be less construction than there would have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 14, 2012 0:17:06 GMT -8
And, if some idiot like 1990s Henry Waxman puts a halt to the subway, at least the subway will have reached Restaurant Row, with easy access to the Beverly Center and West Hollywood. Not to mention that we will have ALL the possible connection options for a northern Crenshaw Line extension (La Brea, Fairfax, and La Cienega via San Vicente). |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 14, 2012 6:08:06 GMT -8
Phillip isn't an all-San Vincente route also still on the table?
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 14, 2012 8:08:39 GMT -8
So the first constructed segment of the Westside Extension will now likely go all the way to La Cienega, one stop beyond Fairfax. Here is the possible Northern extension of the Crenshaw line:  I don't seem to recall whether they included in the additional cost of extending the Purple Line to La Cienega the cost associated with allowing for a Crenshaw/Purple station at either La Brea, Fairfax or La Cienega? Just checked the previous MTA document link and there is no mention of that. Just that they will report back to the board in March with a "full policy evaluation and recommendation". So, you would think that the final EIR would include which of the 3 new stations would be designed if not constructed to allow for the Crenshaw extension junction. Right? Anybody know what the plan is? I would think that they would either, at a minimum: 1) Identify a preferred route for the Crenshaw extension, and design the junction station to allow for an easy connection when the Crenshaw Line is extended, or 2) design all 3 Red Line stations so that any of them could be easily expanded in the future to allow for the junction. I guess the biggest question would be which would be above the other, assuming both are underground stations. If they did 2 above, then they would almost have to put the Crenshaw Line station under the Red Line station, since it would be too expensive to build 3 train boxes for a Crenshaw Line station above each of the 3 Purple Line stations. It also opens up the possibility of turning the Crenshaw Extension into a two phase project. The first phase would extend it North to link up with the Red Line at one of the 3 new stations. The second phase could then proceed the rest of the way to Hollywood/Highland. This obviously isn't in the Measure R plan, so phasing it would allow for lower up front costs. And getting the Red Line connection to the Crenshaw Line would be huge... RT |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 14, 2012 9:11:02 GMT -8
I don't seem to recall whether they included in the additional cost of extending the Purple Line to La Cienega the cost associated with allowing for a Crenshaw/Purple station at either La Brea, Fairfax or La Cienega? A transfer station is not in the budget or in the plans. The Crenshaw Extension has not gone through the environmental review process. The Metro board has not approved that project, or selected a preferred route for the extension. Why would Metro build a transfer station as part of the Purple Line project, before knowing which station will be used for Purple-Crenshaw transfers? Anybody know what the plan is? I would think that they would either, at a minimum: 1) Identify a preferred route for the Crenshaw extension, and design the junction station to allow for an easy connection when the Crenshaw Line is extended, or 2) design all 3 Red Line stations so that any of them could be easily expanded in the future to allow for the junction. Option 1 is not possible, because Metro and the Feds are not going to spend an extra hundred million dollars or so on a transfer station before the Crenshaw Extension project has been studied, approved and funded, and thus without having certainty about which station will be the transfer station. The best we can hope for is Option 2. All three Purple Line stations should be designed to not preclude a transfer station. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 14, 2012 11:03:05 GMT -8
FYI, curbed.la has picked up my "leak" of the La Cienega memo (LOL) for this article about the Westside Subway Extension. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 14, 2012 11:34:32 GMT -8
Phillip isn't an all-San Vincente route also still on the table? Yes, but the all-San Vicente route would still connect at Wilshire/La Cienega, since 1) it's the closest station and 2) there's no San Vicente stop on the Purple line extension. My apologies if that was not clear. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 14, 2012 12:33:00 GMT -8
Phillip isn't an all-San Vincente route also still on the table? Yes, but the all-San Vicente route would still connect at Wilshire/La Cienega, since 1) it's the closest station and 2) there's no San Vicente stop on the Purple line extension. My apologies if that was not clear. Oh, okay I get it. Thanx for clarifying. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Feb 14, 2012 15:38:22 GMT -8
Since they will be staging at La Cienega, won't they need to use extra land to get the TBM (and dirt) in and out, like they they used land on La Brea (now apartments) for the Red Line Hollywood?
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 14, 2012 16:10:49 GMT -8
I'm all for planning ahead, but I have to say that designing all three extension station for the possibility of a north-south rail line transfer does seem a bit wasteful. Subway stations do get expanded and remodeled whether that was in the original plan or not.
The most I would do is make sure that the LaCienega station is more of a LaCienega/ San Vicente station, as a Wilshire/ San Vicente exit makes sense with or without the Crenshaw Line extension.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 14, 2012 17:04:19 GMT -8
I'm all for planning ahead, but I have to say that designing all three extension station for the possibility of a north-south rail line transfer does seem a bit wasteful. Subway stations do get expanded and remodeled whether that was in the original plan or not. James, What I had in mind was kind of like the following, and I don't know what the additional cost would be for this, someone more construction knowledgeable would have to chime in... If Crenshaw is extended North, it will connect with one of the 3 Purple Line stations likely to be built in the first phase of the Purple Line expansion West. Since we don't yet know which of those 3 stations the Crenshaw Line might end up intersecting with, you would alter the Purple Stations design to allow for the intersection. To keep this as inexpensive as possible, the Purple Line stations should not be built any deeper than needed, as originally designed. Since the Crenshaw extension will eventually (likely) be going further North than Wilshire, it will most likely have to go under the new Purple Line station. If it were to end there, you could just T it to the Purple Line station, but if it will go further North, you need to go under it. Having said all that, you could design the bottom of the Purple Line station so that the Crenshaw station could go directly under it (think 7th/ Metro Blue/Red). A less expensive alternative would be to have the Crenshaw station not "directly" under the Purple station, but sort of like a T, with the Crenshaw station crossing under the Purple station just beyond either end of the station. Then you only need to make sure that about 60' of track just outside the station would have support under it to allow a station to be built underneath it. In that case the Purple transfer to the Crenshaw would require people walking to one end of the platform, then going down an escalator or elevator. I haven't been to 7th/Metro in quite a while. But if I recall correctly, the Blue Line station is directly above the Red Line station, with the two station boxes basically forming a +. I could be wrong about that though. Hopefully we will find out more when the report comes out in March. RT |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 14, 2012 17:31:33 GMT -8
You can have the Purple line station between San Vicente and La Cienega (which I believe is the preferred design) and the Crenshaw line station at San Vicente, south of Wilshire. All you need is a connected walkway to link the stations. They don't need to be stacked on top of each other. The Crenshaw line San Vicente station could be above ground for that matter as it is definitely wide enough to support surface alignment here.
|
|
