|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 19, 2008 8:09:32 GMT -8
But don't be fanatical about it. The argument is straightforward. Some people think at-grade rail at Farmdale is appropriate. And some people don't. Some people like the idea of a transit tax, and some people don't. As long as we are talking about the issues, I think we're ok. In my view, what is "fanatical" is Damien's attempts to: 1) Impugn the motivations of people who disagree with him as arising out of ignorance, foolish fanaticism or racism. 2) Kill Expo and any other rail project in Los Angeles, including the transit sales tax, unless he gets his way on the Farmdale crossing. Put simply, "fanatical" is being so obsessed with a single issue - Farmdale crossing - that you feel it's appropriate to bring it up as an issue in the Purple Line forum.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 19, 2008 11:47:04 GMT -8
Damien comes on here posts logical arguments. about the sales tax. Its like a landlord asking renter to pay more rent a month and you'll just patch up the holes on the roof with tar because its still rain resistant completely ignoring that its still going to leak in the future. but you'll completely replace your other apartments roof because its in a nicer neighborhood that has more affluent renters who can afford the lawyers that will take you to court if you dont. And the insinuation is the tar apartment renters should just get over, and keep paying their rent with a smile, because their arses could be out on the street! Let's be clear - if the deadliest light rail line in the country were running through Hancock Park and Beverly Hills the damn train would have been shut down or grade separated years ago. You'd hear about every single accident, every fatality would be highlighted by the LA Times. We'd know the favorite color of every victim. The Pasadena Gold Line, which is much less disruptive than the Blue Line, but still disruptive has had 50-75 lawsuits from homeowners in South Pasadena regarding structural damage, noise pollution, etc. I don't know of one along the Blue Line, and if it were anything other than Watts, Willowbrook, South LA and Compton, MTA would be going bankrupt from the fraudulent environmental impact assessments. Sections where noise decible levels are 94 dbs where the EIR assumed 64. Really, I'm just trying to make sure the tar apartment renters have within their arsenal the same options. Because right now the playing field is not level. Metro knows it. The politicians knows it. And anyone who would dare suggest otherwise is, quite frankly, living with their heads in the sand. There have been many conversations with some - most prior to the issue being raised. Gohkan, who I've stopped reading, is a completely different person face-to-face than he is online. You never hear the venom at the public meetings or personal interactions. The rest I don't see. They're way too emotional about this issue. Again, like the guy at the Wilshire subway meeting who I interrupted for talking about me instead of the project or Metro. He ended his statement with "Just take the BRU and Cheviot Hills put them in a room and lock the door." I can't and don't have any intent of having conversations with people that wired. Yesterday, I had a 30 min convo with a guy last night who comes down on the other side of the Expo issue - no one raise their voice and we're looking forward to working together on future issues. But most importantly we didn't argue about the facts, we argued about what the facts meant, our relative impression of how important they were. The only time I had anyone in the transit community talk to me about running for office was when they were encouraging me to run for office while Get LA Moving was my focus. I said no then. Now it's implied every time this issue is mentioned in an attempt to dismiss the issue as a personal vendetta. Suddenly, a person when you agree with them is leading a cause they principally believe in, but when they're leading a cause that you don't agree with it they are only doing it because they're running for office or on an ego-trip. It is frankly comical. This is the email I sent to Zach in response to a post I could become a blogger-turned politician: I appreciate the compliment, but let me be Sherman-esque: If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve.
Among the many reasons I'd never run for office locally or even work for one of these agencies or politicians is that I think there's a major gap among the "transportation advocacy organizations" for no-holds-barred criticism of both processes and projects. Become part of the process and it becomes very difficult to criticize it or think independently.
MTA, LADOT, indeed the entire process of transportation engineering in this region is clearly flawed: mired with destructive politics over too much discretionary funding, but too little to pacify all of the board members/regions. And the majority of projects are woefully inadequate. The Bastille needs to be stormed.
My background in politics recognizes advocacy efforts that operate differently than those I've encountered. The ACLU, NRA and alike are advocacy groups with a clear purpose that for the most part do not allow their positions to be fettered by the political winds. They MAKE the winds. 8 years and look at how different the Democratic nominee's stance is on gun rights. From "the 2nd amendment recognizes well-regulated militias in 2000" to "I support the 2nd amendment" in 2008. That's monumental.
What I don't think some "transit advocates" understand, is that instead of spinning transportation projects that under-perform or are underfunded, and in the process pitting communities vs. transit in attempts to demonize individuals/communities and people, there is [the potential to build a] strong majority in the room: general consensus. And without general consensus taking this particular hill is very very difficult.
Is it easy? Absolutely not. Is it quick? Of course not. I of all people know it; Fix Expo is a 12-14 hr a day 7 day a week commitment. But it must be done. When implementing 100 year projects, acceptable and now is always worse than good but delayed.
Too many transportation policies, indeed too many of our "transportation projects" have nothing to do with addressing our traffic crisis. And while there's been much discussion about funding equity among the MTA board members, for a variety of reasons, there is a serious classism and socio-economic issue that is a horrible externality of this flawed process. That's never going to be a comfortable discussion for some for a lot of reasons that social psychologists have spent plenty of time studying. But it is a necessity. That said, I completely understand those that have been in this fight a lot longer than me coming to the conclusions they have. And I recognize not each of them has the luxury or commitment to stop their life to lead such a challenging effort.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 19, 2008 12:05:08 GMT -8
there is no excuse to try to kill the sales tax initiative. there is no way i can support that move Completely understandable and a respectable position. I'm of the personal belief that there are many problems with the measure and that a better proposal can and will be developed in short time. Is it 1 year, 2 years or 5 years, who knows? When talking about 100 year transportation projects I'm personally willing to wait, and so will the voters. There are plenty of people who voted for the tunneling ban in '98 who will be voting for the sales tax in '08. That said, the sales tax measure opposition is the Fix Expo position, which I'm required to and proudly will represent. We did everything we were supposed to, in attempts to support it. We requested Prop 1B money for grade separation only to get not one red cent. And then to we requested that just 1% of the $30-40 billion dollar measure to go for grade separation on Phase 1. ( A THING TO MAKE YOU GO HMMM: How many times did people on this board who were in the Move LA meetings advocate for more money for Expo Phase 1 grade separations? If not - why not, is the question?) Indeed how much money is in the $40 billion dollar measure for safety modifications to the Blue Line or Gold Line? Expecting anyone to support a sales tax measure that they believe will maim/injure/kill their fellow residents, is destructive to their community, will not be appropriately executed by the agency, and does little to relieve congestion is to expect these people to all succumb to the battered person syndrome. I don't ascribe to this "MTA's way or the highway." Where they are right I will support. Where they are wrong I will oppose. Where they are screwing communities, needlessly maiming/injuring/killing people or being dishonest I will expose. Bring Fix Expo something it could support - either what we desire or a respectable compromise and we'll proudly campaign for it. "Give us a reason to support this measure" I believe was the Board statement. And again, it's on each of the petitions: Therefore, we TAXPAYERS and CONCERNED CITIZENS call upon the Federal Transit Administration, California Public Utilities Commission, MTA Board Members, the Expo Line Construction Authority and elected representatives to begin building the Expo Line UNDERGROUND through South LA as far as the existing $862 million budget will allow, while simultaneously working together to bring more investment through annual government budgets & new resources like Prop 1B and Prop 1C to complete phase 1 to Culver City.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 19, 2008 13:30:15 GMT -8
So anyway, back to the topic of this forum, "Westside Extension Meetings".
The MTA staff has eliminated those alternatives that included a jog to 3rd/Beverly. Also, it looks like, in the Purple+Pink alternative, the junction near Wilshire/La Cienega will not allow westbound trains to turn northward.
Any thoughts about these decisions?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 19, 2008 14:43:02 GMT -8
Does Farmdale have grade separated options at the time of Prop 1B passing? I don't believe it did. Nor did the '94 EIR show Farmdale as being grade separated despite the options on the busier cross streets. 1% of $30B is $300 Million for one grade crossing (Farmdale) that can be achieved by using the funds that would have been wasted on a temporary station in Culver City. Also it will be more than 1% to redesign and make changes in the crossings that haven't been approved in the EIR, because it would have required a supplemental EIR which prolongs this activity and delays the construction and contractors love stoppage fees or adjustments to the contracts. I know contractors and developers could make a further financial killing by uprooting and severely re-zoning the residents around the Expo ROW with 8 to 12 story buildings to pay for this trench/tunnel. Have those communities got their HPOZ's done yet? So what would have happended if they made a funding promise for this and then the CPUC approved the original at-grade design? So anyway, back to the topic of this forum, "Westside Extension Meetings". The MTA staff has eliminated those alternatives that included a jog to 3rd/Beverly. Also, it looks like, in the Purple+Pink alternative, the junction near Wilshire/La Cienega will not allow westbound trains to turn northward. Any thoughts about these decisions? That one I thought was very odd. However the fact that Beverly Center/Cedars Sinai Medical Center still has a stop is a good sign that there's some fine tuning still to be made. However, it does leave run to further modify the alignment away from Wilshire/La Cienega to Beverly Center/Cedars once construction is going. Right now it looks like through Beverly Hills they are following Beverly Hills' study but once they find a way to get the Purple Line in that FTA Cost-effectiveness criteria they'll be some adjustments to it. My personal hypothesis is what would get to that magical $23.99 and lower are; * A single Purple Line to Westwood, "Subway to the Sea is dead" * 6 stations from Wilshire/Western at; La Brea, Fairfax, Cedars/Beverly, Beverly Hills, Century City and Westwood(On Wilshire between Veteran and Gayley). * Provisions built around the Beverly/Cedars station for Santa Monica Blvd corridor.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 19, 2008 15:14:47 GMT -8
My personal hypothesis is what would get to that magical $23.99 and lower are; * A single Purple Line to Westwood, "Subway to the Sea is dead" * 6 stations from Wilshire/Western at; La Brea, Fairfax, Cedars/Beverly, Beverly Hills, Century City and Westwood(On Wilshire between Veteran and Gayley). * Provisions built around the Beverly/Cedars station for Santa Monica Blvd corridor. I like it! Kind of a simplified version of what I was experimenting with last fall, and similar to the January/February Alternative 14, but omitting 3rd & Fairfax and everything west of Westwood. Would it diagonal from Wilshire up to Cedars via San Vicente, then back to Wilshire as in Alt. 14? Beverly Hills wanted a station close to Wilshire & La Cienega, but the adjacent stations on Wilshire should still provide reasonable bus transfers to Wilshire stops.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 19, 2008 16:14:07 GMT -8
Would it diagonal from Wilshire up to Cedars via San Vicente, then back to Wilshire as in Alt. 14? Beverly Hills wanted a station close to Wilshire & La Cienega, but the adjacent stations on Wilshire should still provide reasonable bus transfers to Wilshire stops. Personally that is how I would build it. And it can help us because Downtown Beverly Hills streets are at a 45 degree diagonal to Wilshire so it is possible, with the right technology. Also right now I have a hard time seeing where they'll build this station at Wilshire/La Cienega and what kind of density they can achieve on those small constrained lots. Maybe they could figure out some parking reductions in that area. I don't know. Interestingly enough that was my original single line design in the letter. and I made the same suggestions to eliminate 3rd/Fairfax. To connect all the high boarding locations together and run them through quickly. When I saw Alt 14 & 16 from the May analysis, my planning instincts knew that they were going to eliminate it because those two 90 turns were going to be too tight and they added a Wilshire/Robertson station which was a low performer on Beverly Hills list.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 19, 2008 16:42:27 GMT -8
there is no excuse to try to kill the sales tax initiative. there is no way i can support that move Completely understandable and a respectable position. I'm of the personal belief that there are many problems with the measure and that a better proposal can and will be developed in short time. Is it 1 year, 2 years or 5 years, who knows? When talking about 100 year transportation projects I'm personally willing to wait, and so will the voters. There are plenty of people who voted for the tunneling ban in '98 who will be voting for the sales tax in '08. That said, the sales tax measure opposition is the Fix Expo position, which I'm required to and proudly will represent. We did everything we were supposed to, in attempts to support it. Damien, you still think that you will live for 1,000 years. We will all get old pretty soon and I don't want you to be swearing at Friends 4 Expo in your death bed. Please... I thought you ran Fix Expo. What happened? Is Mark Jolles or Clint Simmons in charge now?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 19, 2008 21:40:46 GMT -8
Gokhan, What are you trying to say? I don't get it?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 20, 2008 2:22:11 GMT -8
Jerard, you missed the key point I was trying to make between the jokes.
According to Damien's time frame, it would take hundreds of years to build public transit. But in reality the time is probably our most critical resource. If we keep delaying and delaying building our infrastructure, we will more than fall behind the times. Wasting time is almost as bad as wasting money. We need to keep up with the course of the evolution.
What I meant by my 1,000 years comment on him was that he seems completely oblivious of the concept of the time but, of course, unless he is using the commonly practiced "prevent by delay" tactic, which I sincerely hope is not the case with him, even though it's the case with many of his associates.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Sept 20, 2008 4:27:16 GMT -8
If the deadliest light rail line in the country were running through Hancock Park and Beverly Hills the damn train would have been shut down or grade separated years ago. Those communities have the safest form of train in L.A. -- none at all. Does it have to come to this?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Sept 20, 2008 6:40:44 GMT -8
According to Damien's time frame, it would take hundreds of years to build public transit. But in reality the time is probably our most critical resource. If we keep delaying and delaying building our infrastructure, we will more than fall behind the times. Wasting time is almost as bad as wasting money. We need to keep up with the course of the evolution. i think this is the first time i can actually say i 100% agree with you
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 20, 2008 11:45:58 GMT -8
According to Damien's time frame, it would take hundreds of years to build public transit. But in reality the time is probably our most critical resource. If we keep delaying and delaying building our infrastructure, we will more than fall behind the times. Wasting time is almost as bad as wasting money. We need to keep up with the course of the evolution. i think this is the first time i can actually say i 100% agree with you I could not agree more. Los Angeles is a history of public transit initiatives that fell by the wayside over the years waiting for a better initiative a few years later. Just think if we had actually started building our system in the 60's like BART. It would have been cheaper for starters and the city could have grown up around rail instead of the haphazard approach we ended up with that resulted in the horrible traffic we live with today. Basically, we are paying for these delays of 30-40 years ago now. Even with Measure R, I will be an old man when most of the real improvements are up and running. I was just a high school teenager when the Blue Line opened. Time flies by and just waiting for something years down the line isn't good enough. I too think Measure R has some flaws and I would have drafted something different, but that doesn't mean I am not an enthusiastic supporter of it. After all, I have always been a big supporter of these current and under construction rail lines even though none of them came close to the South Bay city I grew up in or my current clogged Westside neighborhood. That is why I take strong exception with a BRU or Damien strategy, who only think of their project and will do anything to promote themselves over the benefit of the region. They actually have worthy causes, but then take a scorched earth strategy that hurts the cause of public transit. Yes, they are both loud at meetings, but I have come to believe they are more for promoting themselves than helping the average public transit rider in the region, which is very sad when these organizations (BRU and GLAM) supposedly represent the greater good of public transit.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Sept 20, 2008 12:40:38 GMT -8
The same idea applies to computer upgrades. People wait and wait for the next big technology, when what they need is right in front of their noses. At some point you gotta buy a computer, and at some point you gotta decide on a rail line.
Of course, with computers the technology keeps getting better while getting cheaper. With transit projects, the longer you wait the more it ends up costing.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 20, 2008 13:51:29 GMT -8
As I see it, Prop. R only guarantees the general funding will be there. Once it's there, we can definitely change the projects' priorities. For example, if we decide to throw an extra $100 million to Metrolink safety/operations upgrades and slow down other priorities, we have that option.
Prop. R should pass with the understanding that the debate will NOT end!
|
|
|
Post by wad on Sept 21, 2008 4:45:13 GMT -8
As I see it, Prop. R only guarantees the general funding will be there. Once it's there, we can definitely change the projects' priorities. For example, if we decide to throw an extra $100 million to Metrolink safety/operations upgrades and slow down other priorities, we have that option. This is a big concern for me. I think the fix is in to defund the subway extension, under the guise of Antonovich and co. wanting "their fair share." I can live with knowing that the area where I live (Westside/Central sector) will receive less in money than it will contribute, but the subway extension is what we do need. We already have incredibly frequent bus service, we have the highest ridership transit services and the highest job density. Yet certain politicians have a subway envy and think it's a target because it isn't in their district, it's fair game. In effect, Metro would be punishing Westside/Central riders for using transit.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 21, 2008 6:59:40 GMT -8
Here's the relevant ordinance language from the Metro Board report (PDF): d. Funds in the Transit Capital Subfund shall be allocated to Capital Projects identified in Attachment A as "Transit Projects." [page 13 of PDF]
1. For those Capital Projects identified in Attachment A as ''Transit Projects" and identified as "Escalated $," Metro shall expend no less than the amount of Net Revenues identified in Attachment A as "New Sales Tax - Total" for each Capital Project so identified.
Attachment A [page 25 of PDF]
Westside Subway Extension - to be opened in segments Cost Estimate -- $ 4,200 f Minimum -- $ 900 Additional -- $ 3,174 Total -- $ 4,074 Also see my comments Metro's sales tax would fund... and Sales tax comments.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 5, 2008 15:05:29 GMT -8
Per Attachment A of the ordinance, the first funds would become available in FY 2010. These first funds would be available for the following rail projects:
1-A: Expo Light Rail - Extension to Santa Monica 1-B: Crenshaw Transit Corridor - Project Acceleration 1-F: Gold Line Light Rail - Foothill Extension 1-H: Green Line Light Rail - Extension to LAX 1-O: Eastside Light Rail - Access Improvements
I don't believe there will be any funding from this measure for the subway extension until 2013. Anyway, that's how I read it.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 5, 2008 22:28:26 GMT -8
No Downtown Connector ?? Poor Downtown ... I thought it was one of those essentials. A Connector.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 5, 2008 22:53:50 GMT -8
Downtown Connector funds become available around 2014-2016 with projected completion around 2023-2025. I hope we can do something to speed that up a bit, like use part of the $950M from Prop 1A for regional rail improvements.
It will be interesting to see which is built first: HSR to SF or the Downtown Connector. The race is on!
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 5, 2008 23:10:22 GMT -8
I think Downtown Connector is just that .... A Connector. While we expand Expo, Goldline, Eastside ... and whatever else .... Who's thinking about Connecting them together
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 5, 2008 23:12:01 GMT -8
Let's not forget that Measure R is only the local funds. Then, there are the state transportation bonds that passed a few years ago. On top of that, there is federal funding.
The Downtown Connector was supposed to be the mother of all cost-effective projects and, hence, entirely funded by federal money. Although, the current figures are not pointing out to such cost effectiveness. But I would say that we could see the Downtown Connector getting built about the same time as the first tier of the projects, through federal funding. I would bet 2015 - 2018. So, not more than ten years from now.
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Nov 5, 2008 23:42:26 GMT -8
Does anyone have a guess as to how long the construction of the connector would be? I'd have to imagine that if a plan was in place by 2010, it could easily be finished by the time the Expo extension opens.
Also. . . considering the Federal Government about to take office, lets just say I am hopeful of more Fed money coming this way.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 6, 2008 5:56:22 GMT -8
I concur with Whitman, Gokhan, Justin and AdamV--this Connector is vital, and I've promoted it as much as anyone.
If anyone thought that Proposition R was the end of the fight, let me disabuse you of that right away. I think it's safe to say that the state is out of commission for the time being, but it's OK to suggest that it'll be back on its feet within 5 years so that it should still be pushed for some local funds--if not for the Connector then for some other projects it's already committed to.
The big fight is for the next TEA-21 reauthorization, which this next Congress is almost assuredly will include money for both the Downtown Connector and Expo Phase 2. It is my contention that the Downtown Connector should get almost 100% federal funding, as well as supplemental federal funds to expand the Expo and Foothill Gold Lines.
My hope is that we can see roughly $1 billion for what I've termed the Ocean To The Eastern Regions Line, or OTTER Line, paid by the federal government. This OTTER Line is comprised of the Expo, Foothill Gold, and linking Downtown Connector Lines. Treating this like a singular entity probably makes it easier for the Southern California congressional delegation to work like the team it ought to in getting more federal funds.
Other federally funded projects from Washington should include the Green Line/LAX link, the Alameda Corridor, Metrolink safety and operational improvements and the first leg of the Wilshire Subway, to say nothing of a slew of highway projects to benefit the more suburban regions of the county.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 6, 2008 16:04:00 GMT -8
The reason for the Medium projected effectiveness is because they are NOT including the extensions of Expo between Culver City and Santa Monica and the Foothill Gold Line to Azusa. If Metro could include the ridership of Phase 2 of Expo it will probably reduce the cost of new riders by $3-4 which would place the Regional Connector at the very high rating in the cost-effective scale. The reason they can't assume it for Federal funds is because it's not under construction or has been built.
How Metro could do that is by having all local funding pay for Expo/Foothill Gold Line and have ready for bids for full construction in a year this will enable Metro to revise the cost-effectiveness projections. So even at $18 for this project is good considering the Wilshire Corridor is cuyrrently projected to be between $24-30 on that scale.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 10, 2008 11:49:42 GMT -8
From the Times-LA Now Blog Subway could take another step forward in January5:48 AM, December 10, 2008 -Steve Hymon The long-sought subway extension on the Westside could clear a big hurdle next month when local transit officials may vote on moving forward with environmental studies of the project, according to Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials. The agency has spent the past year studying whether a subway is needed and what route it could take. The so-called "alternatives analysis" is almost complete and will almost certainly be submitted to the MTA board for consideration in January, said Jody Litvak, a spokesperson for the Westside effort. The findings of the study have been public for months: the subway is needed and it should follow a route mostly down Wilshire Boulevard before swinging south to Century City and then back north to Westwood. The MTA also said that if possible, a second four-mile line should be built between Hollywood and eastern Beverly Hills. (See map above). Litvak said Tuesday that the study will also recommend that the board go ahead and launch the environmental studies that will probably require three years to complete. The MTA is also looking at consultants it could hire to do the environmental reports, an expense likely to run into the millions of dollars, Litvak said. Until recently, asking the board to go ahead with the studies might have been a sketchy request, as the subway had no funding source. But things have changed. Voters last month approved Measure R, a half-cent sales tax increase to pay for more transportation projects in Los Angeles County. The most expensive Measure R project is the subway, which is slated to receive $4.1 billion of the tax hike. So when would ground break on the subway? "If everything goes smoothly and we get the approvals and the federal funding comes through, we’ve got about three years until the shovels are in the ground," Litvak said. The subway isn't scheduled to start receiving money from Measure R until 2013 at the earliest, although the MTA board could change that. The studies, if begun, will also start answering some of the more specific questions hovering over the project: the exact alignment, location of stations and depth of the rail line. In the meantime, it appears that subway supporters and foes can ink their calendars for a big vote after the New Year.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Dec 10, 2008 17:09:36 GMT -8
In regards to the Century City/Westwood portion, there seems to be a lot of possible alignments there. Is that because of bedrock, subsurface water or other geologic feature?
Also, I wonder why no station in the Barrington/Federal/VA Hospital vicinity? I've walked around that area. It is very dense and Parking is a huge problem.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Dec 10, 2008 17:15:00 GMT -8
In regards to the Century City/Westwood portion, there seems to be a lot of possible alignments there. Is that because of bedrock, subsurface water or other geologic feature? from the looks of the map i would say its dependent on what and where the stations are placed
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Dec 10, 2008 17:26:18 GMT -8
Please take another look at the map. You will see that some of these alignments have little to do with station placement. For obvious reasons the straightest alignment would typically have the least cost and fastest travel times.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Dec 10, 2008 17:46:19 GMT -8
exactly, take another look
situation 1 wilshire beverly station to century city north in order to get to westwood south the line must run west until westwood to then turn north, meaning that to then proceed west it has to make a big arch. reflected in map
situation 2 whilsire beverly station to century city south ... i dont feel like getting into the rest of it but its all trajectories. someone will stop by at some point and enplane it better
|
|