|
|
Post by masonite on May 8, 2008 9:45:58 GMT -8
I am leaning towards that as well. It would be nice to hit the Farmer's Market, but I don't think it is really worth the extra cost and delay to passengers going between Downtown and the Westside. The Third Street stations would generate more ridership at more hours. The extra cost comes in shooting the moon for the downtown-to-Westside set. In other words, why are we building a 21-hour subway for a 4-hour problem? Moreover, the delay is minuscule. We're talking less than 5 minutes here, and that's over a long distance. Remember, shopping centers and hospitals are job centers as well. They generate traffic from patrons and employees. They also generate a ton of ridership on Metro buses, so we know rail ridership is a sure thing. . Every minute longer a route takes, it can cost thousands in ridership (see Gold Line as an example) so 5 minutes is significant (the subway will have to take 90 degree turns at several points on this route so it may be a pretty significant delay vs. the straight on route). These 3rd street stations have to have significantly higher ridership to justify going there vs. staying on Wilshire. Also, this will cost more money and make the line longer so it really has to be justified and while some workers at the Beverly Center and Grove may use the subway, I have trouble believing many of these high end shoppers will lug bags of clothes on the subway. I just don't see it as the slam dunk case that everyone else seems to. Century City is different, because it is only a mild diversion and won't require the 90 degree turns that this one will (as it can follow SM Blvd.). Also, it is clear Century City would generate huge ridership gains vs. continuing down Wilshire in this area as there is little between Westwood Village and Beverly Hills. The two are not comparable as this diversion is somewhere in between the Century City one and the Expo - Sepulveda diversion. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 8, 2008 10:18:25 GMT -8
Every minute longer a route takes, it can cost thousands in ridership (see Gold Line as an example) so 5 minutes is significant (the subway will have to take 90 degree turns at several points on this route so it may be a pretty significant delay vs. the straight on route). That is a horrible example because the 5 minute delay in the Gold Line was going in a straight line and it was something that could have been avoided with better signaling. A 5 minute delay to the subway but it serves more riders is a valid tradeoff because you're taking a lot of passengers that wouldn't have reached their direct destination quicker on the subway rather than taking the subway and making a transfer to the bus that will be stuck in the same traffic and taking a long time to board nearly negating the time savings. Here's a question for some to ponder at this discussion board, if diverting the line off Wilshire is a bad thing, Why didn't the original Red Line from Hollywood just go straight down Sunset Blvd to serve Echo Park, Dodger Stadium, Chinatown and Olvera Street? Since that would save a lot of time for people between Hollywood in LA. Most of the current car drivers rarely lug bags of clothes to their car now except during Christmas season a lot of people go there because it is a highly active social space. What's also missing from this conversation about ridership is that next these shopping centers are other trip generators in CBS Television City and Cedars Sinai Medical Center and research facilities which would also be served by this diversion. If the new NBC studios is a good thing off of the Red Line at Universal City, why shouldn't CBS off of the Purple Line diversion be the same good thing? |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 8, 2008 10:54:53 GMT -8
I'm not saying there aren't trip generators along 3rd street like CBS and Cedars (there are at Wilshire and La Cienega as well in non descript office towers). I am just bringing up the cost benefit analysis. Also, one must think of how much transit oriented development can go around stations 10-20 years into the future and not just try to bring the line to what is there now (although what is there now should have some strong influence as well I agree)
Even though the Gold Line is slow because of signalization and not because of a winding route, my point remains that this line is slow and ridership is well below projections mainly due to this fact. Even though a few minutes here and a few minutes there doesn't seem like much, it does the reduce the effectiveness for quite a few people.
All in all, I am not even saying I disagree with the diversion, I am just trying to point out that there needs to be a detailed analysis to see if there really is that much more ridership there, because there are both real costs in terms of money and increased travel times that this will result in. When it comes down to it, would this diversion be worth the cost of foregoing other lines like a Gold line extension or some other project, because even though we don't like to think like that tough choices will have to be made.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 8, 2008 10:55:56 GMT -8
Here's a question for some to ponder at this discussion board, if diverting the line off Wilshire is a bad thing, Why didn't the original Red Line from Hollywood just go straight down Sunset Blvd to serve Echo Park, Dodger Stadium, Chinatown and Olvera Street? Since that would save a lot of time for people between Hollywood in LA. I really don't think you can compare downtown and mid-Wilshire to The Grove. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 8, 2008 11:10:53 GMT -8
I really don't think you can compare downtown and mid-Wilshire to The Grove. I think I could. For only one reason, theres a lot more there than just the Grove/Beverly Center, just like there's alot more along Mid-Wilshire than a straight Hollywood to Downtown segment. Speed isn't the only piece that will justify a line, job density, residential density and activity centers are the pieces that will make it work. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 8, 2008 11:14:15 GMT -8
That's true, but if you're going to have a diversion that will take time off of the route, I think that it needs to be pretty significant. Century City is pretty significant, downtown and Wilshire are pretty significant. I'm just not sure that there's enough around that area (the La Cienega line would cover Beverly Center) to justify routing the subway off of Wilshire. I can see your point if there is no La Cienega line, but if you have both, I just don't see how it's necessary.
But really, this is all just speculation until we have real numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 8, 2008 11:27:03 GMT -8
A winding route isn't going to slow a rail line down, they can quickly and cheaply engineering subtle banks in the tracks to enable the trains to go through curves 5-10mph quicker. With these pieces adding up would shave 2-3 minutes off of the line without a grade separation.
You do make a good point by using the Gold Line as an example. But I see a different reason.
The hypothesis is that the poor ridership on the Gold Line is mostly due to the stop locations. Because with better stop locations, more transfer connections with the buses are possible and easier which would improve the ridership on the line.
The Regional Connector is the obvious lack of proper stop location but there's a whole thread on that one.
For example, there shouldn't have been an Allen Avenue Station, instead it should have been on Hill Ave, which is short walk to Pasadena City College and a bus connection to CalTech and Huntington Library and Gardens which would be a short distance away.
There should have included a station on Fair Oaks which would serve local commercial centers and major bus connections which would have improved ridership.
In Highland Park there should have been two stations one at it's current location the other at Ave 50/51 which would reduce the issues of the 20mph running along Marmion Way because the stations are closer by each other, instead that station was moved to Southwest Museum.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 8, 2008 11:36:53 GMT -8
That's true, but if you're going to have a diversion that will take time off of the route, I think that it needs to be pretty significant. I agree with that 100% Precisely but it doesn't hurt to ask and find out. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 8, 2008 11:55:13 GMT -8
No it doesn't, and I think that we all need to hold off on saying that one is definitely better than the other until we have some real numbers. Not that I think anyone was doing that, but it's not exactly unheard of.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 8, 2008 13:50:25 GMT -8
All good points, folks--and I think we all agree that we need those numbers, and let's pray that those numbers are accurate. That said, is predicting the future EVER accurate? Can we ever REALLY know? No, but we can try. At this immediate time, I still very much favor Alternative #16.
Perhaps another option to consider is a Wilshire subway that's a straight shot (and also cheaper and more quickly built), but with a branching line requiring departures from either the Red or Purple Lines to go to Beverly Hills and West Hollywood. We'd have 3 subways, including one that just goes back and forth between the Purple and Red Lines with fairly frequent service because of the quick/short course of the line, so that transferring would be convenient and easy. Perhaps, however, that's just a lame idea; again, I favor Alternative #16 as the most comprehensive option.
By the way, I think that the biggest problem with the Pasadena Gold Line with respect to ridership is its failure to truly access Downtown. Mark my words: in 2010 or so, when the first phase of the Expo Line opens, we'll see similar problems with ridership--which, like the Green Line, will still be pretty good but not what it should be because of the failure to properly connect with rider destinations.
However, when that Downtown Connector is finally created ($800 million seems to be a pretty reasonable pricetag), ridership will explode on every one of our rail lines, HRT and LRT alike, especially if the subway alternative is chosen.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 8, 2008 23:09:28 GMT -8
I attended the Westside Planning Meeting in Santa Monica this evening. I had never been able to attend a planning meeting of this sort before because of work committments, and feel the MTA handled quite well and staff were quite friendly and willing to answer questions and so forth.
There was concern that the line would stop at Bundy and not continue to Santa Monica. Only one negative comment against the subway. The stations in Santa Monica had quite low ridership projections except for the Downtown 4th Street Station. There was some thought that the Farmer's Market Beverly Center diversion would cost money that would cut out Santa Monica out of the plan.
There were also quite a few comments in favor of just the Alt. #1 route down Wilshire with Century City included as this was the cheapest alternative and also had the highest cost/benefit score, which is crucial for federal funding.
Also, the study had findings that the Beverly stations had quite high ridership, but the La Cienega station also had high ridership. The overall ridership figures seemed a bit low to me in that the Wilshire extension seemed to have about 100,000 additional riders. I believe it will be higher for a variety of reasons including higher gasoline prices and faster commute times than driving.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 9, 2008 5:22:14 GMT -8
I also attended the meeting last night, and was probably one of the very few who in public comments favored Alternative #16. That so many in Santa Monica prefer Alternative #1 shouldn't be too much of a shocker: they're far away from Downtown and want the quickest, most direct route to go long distances. I imagine that those who attended the meetings before (closer to the Grove and the Beverly Center), as well as those who will attend the West Hollywood meeting, are more likely to take a shine to Alternative #16.
I suspect my comments weren't taken too well by most in the crowd (and I attended this meeting only because I couldn't attend the others, so it wasn't ideal), since I pretty much said that the light rail projects aren't going to go away and enjoy more political support and a higher ranking than the Wilshire subway.
I recommended that the concept of fairness be put on a shelf and that we focus on the fact that the first segment on Alternative #16 lies entirely within the City of L.A. up to the Beverly Center. I recommended that the City of L.A. find a way to pay for this initial segment, and really put it to the Grove/Farmer's Market merchants and private developers to pay for the local match for this segment in order to get this started sooner and not later while the county is tied up with Expo, Crenshaw, Green Line/LAX, Downtown Connector and even Gold Line to Azusa.
If the private sector (and the cities of Beverly Hills and West Hollywood) doesn't pony up the "jack" to help pay for this diversion, I imagine that we should have no choice but to make it a straight shot west on Wilshire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 9, 2008 8:27:03 GMT -8
I certainly can't speak for WeHo, but I think it's logical to assume that WeHo is more likely to pony up the dough for the Santa Monica Blvd/La Cienega alignment than the portion of the Wilshire line than the dips into the Grove and Beverly Center, neither of which is in their city limit. After getting WeHo's hopes up for a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment, I wouldn't expect them to contribute large sums of money for the Grove/Beverly spur if one of the Wilshire only alignments is chosen.
Beverly Hills also probably feels Wilshire only is sufficient for their purposes as the Grove and Beverly Center aren't in their city limit either.
I recommended Alternative #16 too as that would offer what everyone has seeking in this project.
Obviously at each of these forums, the people attending are going to recommend the options that most directly benefit themselves personally.
Santa Monica obviously prefers the straight shot down Wilshire and West Hollywood is obviously going to prefer Alternative #11 or #16.
I'm sure the LRTP meetings all had comments with parochial biases as well and I'm sure the MTA expects that.
I'll be at the West Hollywood forum even though I live in Santa Monica because I couldn't make it last night.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 9, 2008 9:17:20 GMT -8
You are absolutely correct in that each region will want what is best for them. The Santa Monica/La Cienega is just fine for WeHo and BevHills, but someone does need to tap the Grove and the Farmer's Market and ask them if they want to suffer the fate of Universal City and be bypassed...or do they want to come up the bread NOW to become and remain a central commercial destination for the Westside?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 9, 2008 9:43:43 GMT -8
All true. The funny thing is that the reason that Universal City stop is at the bottom of the hill is that the automobile-driving owners of Universal City just didn't believe that people would take transit to their location. They are kicking themselves now for that shortsightedness.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 9, 2008 12:06:17 GMT -8
...as well Universal City SHOULD be kicking themselves. All the more reason that our Mayor should really let them know that Alternative #11 will be chosen if the Grove and the Farmer's Market bunch don't do the right thing.
Alternative #14 and #16 exists entirely within the City of Los Angeles, and if our Mayor wants this to be built regardless of all the other major projects in the hopper for Metro, he should push for a first segment to La Cienega that exists entirely within the City of L.A.
Same with the Green Line to LAX--our Mayor and the City Council can work with the private sector and the federal government to create a simplified approach (maybe with a Construction Authority, maybe with something else) that gets these projects moving fast and without the usual hassles of county/Metro bureaucracy.
As horrible as traffic is, with the right private support (i.e., the private sector pays for the underground stations and adjacent amenities) I could easily see a City tax passing to get this subway expedited via Alternatives #14/16 to La Cienega.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 9, 2008 14:50:57 GMT -8
I also attended the meeting last night, and was probably one of the very few who in public comments favored Alternative #16. That so many in Santa Monica prefer Alternative #1 shouldn't be too much of a shocker: they're far away from Downtown and want the quickest, most direct route to go long distances. I imagine that those who attended the meetings before (closer to the Grove and the Beverly Center), as well as those who will attend the West Hollywood meeting, are more likely to take a shine to Alternative #16. I suspect my comments weren't taken too well by most in the crowd (and I attended this meeting only because I couldn't attend the others, so it wasn't ideal), since I pretty much said that the light rail projects aren't going to go away and enjoy more political support and a higher ranking than the Wilshire subway. I recommended that the concept of fairness be put on a shelf and that we focus on the fact that the first segment on Alternative #16 lies entirely within the City of L.A. up to the Beverly Center. I recommended that the City of L.A. find a way to pay for this initial segment, and really put it to the Grove/Farmer's Market merchants and private developers to pay for the local match for this segment in order to get this started sooner and not later while the county is tied up with Expo, Crenshaw, Green Line/LAX, Downtown Connector and even Gold Line to Azusa. If the private sector (and the cities of Beverly Hills and West Hollywood) doesn't pony up the "jack" to help pay for this diversion, I imagine that we should have no choice but to make it a straight shot west on Wilshire. Unfortunately, the City of LA is in no way in any position to fund this line. They are having to raise fees and taxes just to provide the basic services. Pretty much any city in CA is going to be in the same boat (they have little to no discretionary funds and the scope of this dwarfs anything they may have by a factor of at least a hundred). Getting the developers to pay for the subway is also a non-starter. The entire Grove probably cost less than $200M to develop. Just paying for the Grove station and 1/2 mile diversion up Fairfax would cost more than that entire amount. Also, I disagree that politically this doesn't have the support of the other TIER I Light rail projects in the County. That was the case 5 years ago, but Villaraigosa changed the dynamic on this. He and his appointees on the Board are very much in favor of this as are other LA Council members and all the Cities from Santa Monica to BH to WeHo. Zev and Waxman have changed their tunes dramatically. The Bus Riders Union is not nearly as much of a force and the climate in Washington has changed as well and will change more in 08. Light rail is starting to show some big problems in the County from the contention over at grade trains, the lack of a DTC, the limited capacity and slow speeds in some cases. Except for the DTC, the purple line extension shows a higher cost benefit than any other proposal and this will make a difference when competing for federal funds. The benefits of heavy rail are starting to come to light and the word "subway" is no longer a dirty word in LA. |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 9, 2008 16:44:31 GMT -8
I agree overall, masonite, but I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say.
Like it or not the subway will be BEHIND the Expo, Crenshaw, DTC and maybe even the Foothill Gold Line/Azusa extension (I consider the Green/LAX extension to be part of the Crenshaw Line). How many years will it therefore take to get to the subway, which WILL have to built in segments.
Yes, the subway is very much in favor right now, but a smart and tough Mayor (if that's how he chooses to be) will fight for funding in two forms:
1) Sales/gas taxes that push the light rail projects forward and clears them out of the way
2) A City tax that gets that first segment to La Cienega able to be built NOW, while we're getting federal and state and local funding for the other projects; if the City tax is pursued with private partnership, the Mayor gets the credit for starting this process moving and has complete control over how it gets built--screw the rest of the County!
By the time the first segment to La Cienega is built, perhaps/hopefully the other projects will be so far forward in their funding that the second segment to Century City (or even Westwood) can top the list of projects for Metro to fund.
Having the City come up with innovative ways to have its citizens and the private sector pay for the Purple Line to La Cienega and the LAX/Green Line extension allows more local control and the ability to get things done fast and efficiently.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 10, 2008 17:48:49 GMT -8
I agree overall, masonite, but I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say. Like it or not the subway will be BEHIND the Expo, Crenshaw, DTC and maybe even the Foothill Gold Line/Azusa extension (I consider the Green/LAX extension to be part of the Crenshaw Line). How many years will it therefore take to get to the subway, which WILL have to built in segments. Yes, the subway is very much in favor right now, but a smart and tough Mayor (if that's how he chooses to be) will fight for funding in two forms: 1) Sales/gas taxes that push the light rail projects forward and clears them out of the way 2) A City tax that gets that first segment to La Cienega able to be built NOW, while we're getting federal and state and local funding for the other projects; if the City tax is pursued with private partnership, the Mayor gets the credit for starting this process moving and has complete control over how it gets built--screw the rest of the County! By the time the first segment to La Cienega is built, perhaps/hopefully the other projects will be so far forward in their funding that the second segment to Century City (or even Westwood) can top the list of projects for Metro to fund. Having the City come up with innovative ways to have its citizens and the private sector pay for the Purple Line to La Cienega and the LAX/Green Line extension allows more local control and the ability to get things done fast and efficiently. Good points, but w/o going on about this, I would say why should a LA City taxpayer like myself have to pay for the Purple Line extension and also pay for things like a Gold Line extension through our county taxes but no one else has to pay for the Purple Line extension. Westside residents have paid a large part of the rail system in the County including Metrolink, but have yet to see any benefits. Now you suggest that when it comes to their turn to become part of the system, they just pay for it themselves, while they continue to fund the rest of the county system. How unfair is that?? It is an absolute non-starter. You say that the DTC, Crenshaw and Gold Line extensions must come before any Purple Line extension regardless if they are less worthy projects (and they are except for the DTC at least from a ridership-cost point of view). However, those projects are all unfunded as well. Even though they may be farther along in their analysis work, there is no reason why the Board must approve construction work on those projects before the Purple Line. It may be decided that the Purple Line has a much greater chance of a federal match and it leapfrogs the others or that the Purple Line is just a better use of funds (I know this is not the way it has been done in the past, but maybe the politicians will actually approve and prioritize a project based on its actual merits). As for the Crenshaw Line using a one seat ride along Expo, I think the chances of that are remote. It would create problems for the Expo Line by doubling headway time on parts of the line. I read somewhere with the DTC, the plan was to just connect the Expo and Eastside Gold Lines to make one line together along with making the Blue and Pasadena Gold Line just one merged line. For ease of use of the system this is the best approach. Like I have said before, it sounds great having a one seat ride along one line through another line, but the consequences of this are often more harmful than any benefits. The Crenshaw Line should be able to stand on its own without negatively impacting Expo line riders. This is especially true if the Expo Line has greater ridership than the Crenshaw Line... Why cannibalize one line for another. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 10, 2008 18:37:03 GMT -8
Several people have said that Crenshaw continuing on the Expo line would add too many TPH. I don't see this as being the case. Dependent upon the anticipated riding patterns the Crenshaw one seat ride could be accomplished without adding any trains to Expo. I mentioned this on the other thread, but:
Assume that Crenshaw operates at 7.5 minute headways.
Half the trains from the airport would head downtown and the other half would head to Santa Monica.
Expo would operate at five minute headways.
1 out of 3 trains from downtown would head to LAX and the same ratio for the trains from Santa Monica.
That would be 8 TPH on Crenshaw with all 8 trains coming from Expo either from Santa Monica or from downtown.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 11, 2008 6:07:30 GMT -8
Why have the Crenshaw Line go to LAX if it isn't going to be one seat from Downtown?
I really, really, really hope there won't be a forced transfer where Crenshaw and Expo meet.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 11, 2008 8:06:15 GMT -8
Why have the Crenshaw Line go to LAX if it isn't going to be one seat from Downtown? I really, really, really hope there won't be a forced transfer where Crenshaw and Expo meet. Even under my scenario half of the people heading to LAX would have to transfer. I'm picturing LAX trains from downtown every 15 minutes even at rush hour. At rush Expo might be 12 TPH. Crenshaw might be 8 TPH. The blue line 12 TPH. If they all run as separate lines from downtown I don't see how we get 32 TPH down Flower. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 13, 2008 17:05:07 GMT -8
Why have the Crenshaw Line go to LAX if it isn't going to be one seat from Downtown? I really, really, really hope there won't be a forced transfer where Crenshaw and Expo meet. This may be a question as to why to have the line at all or at least why it is at the top of the funding list. If it is so reliant on another line for its ridership and benefit it brings up this interesting question |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 13, 2008 18:34:56 GMT -8
Why have the Crenshaw Line go to LAX if it isn't going to be one seat from Downtown? I really, really, really hope there won't be a forced transfer where Crenshaw and Expo meet. This may be a question as to why to have the line at all or at least why it is at the top of the funding list. If it is so reliant on another line for its ridership and benefit it brings up this interesting question Actually in the studies the Crenshaw Corridor does well on its own merit as a LRT, the connection with Expo and POTENTIALLY using Expo to reach downtown is an added benefit. When the line is extended to Wilshire not only would there be two Downtown Connections (Purple and Expo), but one that will serve Mid-City and the Westside in one swoop. |
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 14, 2008 2:40:27 GMT -8
Actually in the studies the Crenshaw Corridor does well on its own merit as a LRT, the connection with Expo and POTENTIALLY using Expo to reach downtown is an added benefit. Well, it does slightly mimic Line 40/740, so the ridership patterns would be similar. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 20, 2008 8:04:54 GMT -8
If the Pink Line routing from SMB down La Cienga extends south from the Purple Line down to Venice, it then has an interesting choice, sort of an upside down Y, in how it gets to Expo.
Would it be best to go to
(1) Southeast to Expo/LaCienega, then east on Expo, then South on Crenshaw all the way to LAX; or
(2) Southwest to Venice/National, then west on Expo, or perhaps even southwest on Venice to a Sepulveda Line (to LAX), or perhaps even to Venice beach.
Both are possible I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 20, 2008 8:10:56 GMT -8
Well, considering that the Crenshaw Line is likely to be LRT, and the Santa Monica Blvd. Subway is likely to be HRT, I doubt it would be the former, but maybe we'll see a day when we'll see a Subway from the Wilshire Corridor to LAX via the 405/Sepulveda Corridor.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 20, 2008 10:26:55 GMT -8
Well, considering that the Crenshaw Line is likely to be LRT, and the Santa Monica Blvd. Subway is likely to be HRT, I doubt it would be the former, but maybe we'll see a day when we'll see a Subway from the Wilshire Corridor to LAX via the 405/Sepulveda Corridor. Well if the LRT is in a tunnel and we run a longer LRV train inside that tunnel from 3 cars to 4 or 5 cars, we would be matching Heavy Rail capacity all while using existing LRV rolling stock. If the Crenshaw Corridor and "Santa Monica Blvd" corridor were to join together in an alignment that compliments both existing Red and future Purple Lines (let's say instead of up La Brea or La Cienega it splits the difference and run up Fairfax) then we would acheive a stronger regional transit goal while improving the capacity on the Purple Line extension infrastructure instead of straining it because it is already limited by the pairing of lines from Union Station to Wilshire/Vermont and further spliting the routes mid stream would limit maximum capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 3, 2008 8:02:09 GMT -8
Woo hoo! Santa Monica Blvd. moves forward (along with Wilshire Blvd.) in the Westside Transit Corridor Extension Project.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 23, 2009 20:34:07 GMT -8
Another step forward as the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment goes into EIR/EIS.
Of course, it won't be built until after Wilshire, so I may not ride it until 2050, but hey, it's worth living to be 84 for.
|
|
