|
Post by wad on Sept 21, 2010 4:43:32 GMT -8
Wow, they were really overcautious then. One wheel in one car out of many wheels and cars breaks down and they slow the entire line for a day. Interesting. And why not? Two weeks ago a natural gas pipeline exploded in San Bruno. First comes a disaster, then details trickle about how an unnoticed or deferred problem contributed to a catastrophe. With such a disaster fresh in people's minds, you bet agencies are being overcautious. All it takes is one wheel in one car, and there's a good possibility of defects throughout similar cars.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Sept 21, 2010 18:49:14 GMT -8
So John Walsh thinks only poor people take the subway, and the BRU thinks only rich people take the subway. If the two meet, will they mutually annihilate like matter and anti-matter? I imagine there'd be quite a lot of energy released in the process.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 21, 2010 21:25:49 GMT -8
I went to the Westside Extension meeting tonight. About half the people supported the subway, mostly with cogent arguments. The other half consisted of angry or irritable (crotchety) homeowners and kooks who didn't believe anything Metro had to say or couldn't understand why we are trying to turn L.A. into Manhattan. One woman made a claim that Wilshire Boulevard is a river: I'm not sure what she meant or how that was supposed to be relevant. Anyway, it is critical for everybody who wants this subway to happen to get your comments in. Tell them which alternative you like, tell them which options you prefer. Now's the time to do it. You can either submit comments in person at one of these meetings, or in email ( WestsideExtension@metro.net) or even snail-mail to Metro. Also, if you submit comments, a representative from Councilman Koretz' office has asked people to send him a copy as well ( Paul.Koretz@lacity.org). It seems he is a big supporter of the subway, and wants to gather the best pro-subway arguments together to put into his public comment submission.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Sept 21, 2010 22:44:18 GMT -8
Just so I can keep my thoughts straight/spur some discussion, here is what I will be putting in my comment:
- No Crenshaw Station - East Fairfax Station - East La Cienega Station - Constellation Century City Station - Westwood On-Street Station - VA South Station
All with the most direct (ie shortest and cheapest) routes in between. I will also be requesting consideration of making the terminus stop for Alt. 2 at Federal rather than at the VA, and advising that they consider Measure R projects like the 405 Line, and if possible, potential projects, like a northern extension of the Crenshaw Line. Anything I missed?
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Sept 22, 2010 5:29:50 GMT -8
I have heard more than once in these and other DEIR proceedings that support for one thing or the other is best received when augmented with some reasons why x or y is preferred. I plan to do just that with my comments.
I will also speak to preferred alignment... Such as the one going straight off Wilshire and directly to Constellation. It is faster than through the one that is longer and slower do to curves.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 22, 2010 6:41:07 GMT -8
tobias087, thats a good list, even longer than mine. My strategy was to type up my comments as a bulleted list of my preferences, with my reasons for each. This gave me a chance to prioritize my points. Then I printed it out and used it as my speaking notes. (You only get two minutes, and it goes fast when you have a lot of comments.). Then at the end of the meeting I just turned in my typed letter as my written comments.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 23, 2010 14:07:35 GMT -8
I'll write how important it is to extend the Purple Line to Santa Monica. Just because it's getting Expo does not mean it doesn't need the Purple.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 23, 2010 14:57:00 GMT -8
Just so I can keep my thoughts straight/spur some discussion, here is what I will be putting in my comment: - No Crenshaw Station - East Fairfax Station - East La Cienega Station - Constellation Century City Station - Westwood On-Street Station - VA South Station All with the most direct (ie shortest and cheapest) routes in between. I will also be requesting consideration of making the terminus stop for Alt. 2 at Federal rather than at the VA, and advising that they consider Measure R projects like the 405 Line, and if possible, potential projects, like a northern extension of the Crenshaw Line. Anything I missed? Curious as to why you support the La Cienega East location. Doesn't that preclude the Santa Monica line and Wilshire line from sharing the station? The west location would be possible to accommodate both lines if designed properly to do so from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 23, 2010 15:20:51 GMT -8
Curious as to why you support the La Cienega East location. Doesn't that preclude the Santa Monica line and Wilshire line from sharing the station? The west location would be possible to accommodate both lines if designed properly to do so from the beginning. I won't speak for tobias087, only for myself. I prefer the La Cienega east option because it would directly serve La Cienega Boulevard and the busy business district east of La Cienega. This includes Restaurant Row, the Beverly Center, the Saban Theater, and the museums near San Vicente. While the west option would allow a direct connection to the Pink Line, it misses the important intersection. I am very glad that Metro is thinking ahead this time and incorporating the junction for the future connection. But I don't think they should move the station west to that junction, to a less-useful location, just to accommodate a currently-hypothetical line. Anyway, the Pink Line will have stops on both La Cienega and Wilshire. So the only thing gained by moving the station west is saving a minute or two for transfers.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 23, 2010 18:00:02 GMT -8
One station, two platforms: Purple Line at La Cienega East, Pink Line at La Cienega West (or thereabouts). Underground connector passageway for people transferring from downtown to the Beverly Center.
I was just looking at the MTA documents, and it looks like that's pretty much the setup for one of the alternatives. (Alt. 4, I think)
See also: Akasaka-Mitsuke to Nagatacho (hopefully without the escalator).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 23, 2010 18:46:03 GMT -8
One station, two platforms: Purple Line at La Cienega East, Pink Line at La Cienega West (or thereabouts). There's another way to do two stations connected as one. Purple Line station at "La Cienega East". Pink Line station on La Cienega near the Stinking Rose (north of La Cienega East). Connected via pedestian tunnels. The Purple/Pink junction can remain at "La Cienega West".
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Sept 23, 2010 18:53:40 GMT -8
I quite agree with you, Metrocenter, but even furthermore, I do not think that the La Cienega/San Vicente routing should go to the heavy rail Pink Line, but to an northern extension of the Crenshaw line. That being the case, it makes extra no sense to have that station so far away from La Cienega.
Think of it as something like a calculated risk: Either station option with the HRT Pink line is not so bad, but the La Cienega west alternative with a LRT Pink line would be just aweful in terms of facilitating transfers, and would miss the attractions at La Cienega: that would be the worst possible option, so the eastern station is the clear choice.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 23, 2010 20:05:36 GMT -8
One station, two platforms: Purple Line at La Cienega East, Pink Line at La Cienega West (or thereabouts). There's another way to do two stations connected as one. Purple Line station at "La Cienega East". Pink Line station on La Cienega near the Stinking Rose (north of La Cienega East). Connected via pedestian tunnels. The Purple/Pink junction can remain at "La Cienega West". A pedestrian tunnel is exactly what I had in mind, I just wasn't sure about the exact location of the Pink Line station. I have no particular preferences, so I vote for Purple=LaCienega East, and Pink= LC North, regardless of Santa Monica vs. Crenshaw corridor. One station name for both. It's something L.A's never done, but there is certainly plenty of precedent.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 27, 2010 7:51:28 GMT -8
If you haven't yet made it to any of the Westside Subway public meetings, there are two final meetings this week. Detailed information is here. These are the last opportunities to add your voice to the public record about the Draft EIR alternatives before the Metro Board's October 28 meeting. At that meeting, the Board is expected to choose the preferred alternative and launch the Final EIR process. This week's meetings are: Monday, September 27Roxbury Park - Auditorium 471 S Roxbury Dr, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Wednesday, September 29, 2010Santa Monica Main Library 601 Santa Monica Bl, Santa Monica, CA 90401 If you can't make the meetings, you can always email Metro your comments. But be sure to get them in by October 18, which is the last day of the public comment period. If you say or write nothing else, please express support for the subway. This can be done in as little as one or two sentences. The political job of getting this subway built will be much easier if there is overwhelming public support for the subway.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 27, 2010 16:39:16 GMT -8
Regarding John Walsh: I first encountered him about ten or more years ago at meetings of what was then the LA to Pasadena Blue Line Construction Authority meetings. He was just as full of "nattering nabob of negativism" rants then as he is now. Last year at Metro Board meetings, one of his prime targets was Mayor Villaraigosa, his comments being the very essence of "ad hominem" argument.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 27, 2010 21:40:10 GMT -8
I went to the Beverly Hills meeting tonight...and man, was it vicious! 95% of the people there were all advocating for the Santa Monica ROW. They were even threatening the MTA that "you know, if you choose the South Constellation route, you'll be digging under lawyers, and this thing will be held up in litigation for years" (round of applause). People were trying to make clear though they aren't NIMBY's, they all support the subway project, however, it has to go under the "original" route, which, to them, is Santa Monica boulevard. There were even students brought in from Beverly Hills HS to give passionate notes that they don't want digging under thier shool. One person wanted the subway to go up Wilshire and come up above ground by the Beverly Hills Hilton and become a transit center (??). One person went up to the microphone and threw down the EIR calling it garbage. Another gentleman said, the MTA can do whatever they want, but we can use the power of political representatives in the White House (round of applause).
Nearly everybody was saying they were "backhanded" by the MTA with this "new option" of Constellation South. Basically, they all believed the MTA will do what they want to do and these residences will use the power of their local attorneys and politicians to stop this project if it doesn't go under Santa Monica boulevard.
Now, if the MTA does somehow choose the Santa Monica boulevard route....will that be "environmental racism"? Considering tunneling under homes, residences, and commercial properties have happened in Los Angeles, Westlake, Hollywood, Koreatown, etc... I would love to hear Goodman speak the reverse on this....hahaha
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 27, 2010 22:28:08 GMT -8
Man, I wish I could've been there tonight. These people are operating 98% on emotion, and an almost complete lack of logic and evidence.
The Lasky alignment (Constellation North alignment) only tunnels under four homes. That's right, only four. Hell, Metro could take those by eminent domain if they had to. And re: the high school, they're saying it's going to collapse. Maybe these people should go back to school and study their physics.
One thing about rich people, they sure are good at getting angry and getting organized.
As for me, I'm really getting fed up with these informationally-malnourished self-entitled balls of anger gumming up the process. They are asking to bypass Century City. That's absurd. Frankly, I'm starting to think it's to keep the good jobs for themselves. Or to put it another way, they're trying to keep everybody else out. I think there is an issue of equity here that has to be raised. It's not that outrageous, they tried every other excuse in the book last time around to stop the subway and keep "those people" out of their neighborhoods.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 28, 2010 6:05:59 GMT -8
Citizens United Against Metro At Roxbury Park Meeting in Beverly HillsThe City of Beverly Hills stood up to the MTA on Monday night, speaking on concerns and displeasure over proposed routes under residences and schools at the Westside Subway extension's fourth public hearing at Roxbury Park.
The proposed route through Beverly Hills calls for three alignment options, with the major local issue being which route will connect Beverly Hills and Century City. Public consensus for residents lies in the Santa Monica route, avoiding tunneling under schools. This alignment would go under three non-residential properties.
The two hour public forum was a full-house, with more than a dozen speakers hustling to finish statements, in the allotted two-minutes supplied.
Speakers included Vice Mayor Barry Brucker, Councilmembers John Mirisch and Nancy Krasne, Southwest Homeowners Association President Ken Goldman, Planning Commission Chair Lili Bosse, Virginia Maas and businessman Alan Kaye. All spoke in support of the Santa Monica route.
"Don't trade the safety of our City's high school, of our City's disaster center, of Good Shepherd school, and the thousands of students and teachers, as well as residential property owners...just to move the subway stations one block closer to their properties," Goldman said. "I would ask those here tonight, who are opposed to tunneling under the high school, or at Good Shepherd, or their homes, thinking Santa Monica is a perfectly acceptable alternative route, to please stand now."
Almost everyone in the room rose to their feet, sending a scatted collective laugh throughout the room.
Councilmember Krasne spoke in front of a large glossy Google map of the City, discussing the transportation safety, and tragic crashes like the 2008 Chatsworth crash that took the lives of 25 people after the conductor went through a red light, distracted while sending text messages.
"Putting this under the high school or putting this under Good Shepherd is unconscionable," Krasne said.
Although the forum gave residents the chance to speak their minds and direct questions to Metro and the larger community, Metro workers were barred from answering direct questions, eliminating the possibility of dialogue between the groups.
Metro's Community Relations Manager Jody Litvak worked to please the crowd, facing heckling from members of the audience eager to chastise Metro's inconsistent record.
Some complained that Litvak seemed to not be paying attention to the proceedings, as she called the same names to speak, several times. On more than one occasion, when Litvak attempted to silence speakers who had exceeded their time, members of the crowd waiting to speak forfeited their time, allowing residents to continue to speak.
The draft EIR/EIS report analyzed five potential track alignments, as well as the evaluation of a no-build alternative and an increased bus service option known. Metro estimates the cost of the Measure R funded project between $4 and $9 billion, with a proposed completion time totaling more than 10 years.
After tomorrow's public hearing, Metro staff will make a recommendation for the Locally Preferred Alternative to the Metro Board, the governing body that will make the ultimate decision.
Some speakers allege alternative alignments are being orchestrated by Century City developers in lieu of proposed multi-billion dollar skyscrapers only a few blocks from the Constellation alignment.
Instead of moving the project, some residents suggested above-ground trains, and trams, similar to those at airports like LAX.
A final hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 29, at the Santa Monica Library in Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 28, 2010 11:56:32 GMT -8
Like I said at Streetsblog, it's a shame that these people are acting like such NIMBYs, because none of that nonsense is the real issue here.
The question is, where should the station go? Constellation or Santa Monica Boulevard? Which would provide more traffic, be more useful to more people?
I haven't really spoken up on this issue because I don't have the "personal connection" to the area like I do with Little Tokyo, Torrance or San Pedro.
But heck, I have been known to visit Century City from time to time, and I have to admit I have my doubts about the Constellation station location as well. Especially as I recently read how Westfield wants to work with Metro if the station ends up on Santa Monica. I'm curious to know what that would entail. Redesigning the mall to be more transit-friendly? An underground link from the station to Westfield?
Yes, the NIMBYs are being idiots, but let's not get distracted. Does Constellation make more sense than Santa Monica?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 28, 2010 12:21:44 GMT -8
I agree with you James that the one and only question to ask is where best to put the station. That is how Metro has been proceeding. And once they came up with their two options, they looked for the feasible routes to that station. Metro came up with two alignments to connect to Constellation, in addition to the one alignment along SaMo Blvd to that station.
For me, there is no question: Constellation is much better a much better location than Santa Monica Blvd. North of SaMo Blvd is a golf course, and so the station would only serve locations to its south. Constellation, on the other hand, is in the middle of Century City. It is geographically closer to more towers, the hotel and them mall. This means more riders. Metro's boarding estimates bear this out.
Some of the BH residents have tried to say that Metro is just caving to business interests by putting it on Constellation. I'd say they are putting it in the center of the business district, which will help workers get to work and visitors to get to their destinations. Some would say working with Westfield proves the relationship with business is "too cozy". I would say, this is exactly the type of public-private partnership that a project of this magnitude should have.
I believe this particular opposition is really about Beverly Hills residents wanting to slow down development in Century City (which is in Los Angeles City). It's not at all about the tunnel, that argument is completely groundless.
|
|
|
Post by azndevil97 on Sept 28, 2010 12:53:17 GMT -8
I too am in agreement. I work in one of the twin towers on Century Park East, and the Constellation station would definitely be the center of the area. I think the walk between Constellation/Ave of the Stars and SAMO/Ave of the Stars is but a few minutes, so I don't think it's that big of a deal. However, for the general population of LA who aren't used to walking, it might be a stumbling block for them to walk that extra few minutes, especially if your office is located on Pico. I think it's for the "greater good" to place it in on Constellation. I agree with you James that the one and only question to ask is where best to put the station. That is how Metro has been proceeding. And once they came up with their two options, they looked for the feasible routes to that station. Metro came up with two alignments to connect to Constellation, in addition to the one alignment along SaMo Blvd to that station. For me, there is no question: Constellation is much better a much better location than Santa Monica Blvd. North of SaMo Blvd is a golf course, and so the station would only serve locations to its south. Constellation, on the other hand, is in the middle of Century City. It is geographically closer to more towers, the hotel and them mall. This means more riders. Metro's boarding estimates bear this out. Some of the BH residents have tried to say that Metro is just caving to business interests by putting it on Constellation. I'd say they are putting it in the center of the business district, which will help workers get to work and visitors to get to their destinations. Some would say working with Westfield proves the relationship with business is "too cozy". I would say, this is exactly the type of public-private partnership that a project of this magnitude should have. I believe this particular opposition is really about Beverly Hills residents wanting to slow down development in Century City (which is in Los Angeles City). It's not at all about the tunnel, that argument is completely groundless.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Sept 28, 2010 13:28:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 28, 2010 14:31:21 GMT -8
Dude, I don't know about you guys, but I really feel like going down to these community meetings and lecture these morons.
Seriously, i've had it.....and anyone who has as well can prove it by going to these meetings and display your knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 28, 2010 15:19:21 GMT -8
I'm going to the Santa Monica meeting tomorrow...
I think Metrocenter hit it on the nail... the opposition are being drummed up by those that are against development in Century City. The BH homeowners group has no say over Century City and they have been agitating for a while now over the various developments on the drawing board. The subway issue gives them an opening.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 29, 2010 8:57:54 GMT -8
Finally some fact-based journalism. Full story here. Meeting to Address Subway Extension Proposal From The Lookout September 29, 2010
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) will host a meeting on Wednesday regarding the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the proposed Westside Subway Extension.
The Metro Purple Line subway currently extends from Downtown Los Angeles to the Wilshire/Western stop in the Mid-Wilshire district. There are five options proposed for extending the line, including two that would stretch it into Santa Monica. However, full funding is not currently available for either Santa Monica option.
The extension project could begin as early as 2012 and is targeted to be completed in 2035. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has proposed and the Metro Board has endorsed a plan called the 30/10 Initiative that would accelerate this and 11 other local public transportation projects to complete them within 10 years. Federal government support, including funding, would be needed to accomplish this.
The project’s DEIR was released earlier this month. It can be accessed here: www.metro.net/projects/westside/draft-eis-eir-sept-2010/. Public comments must be submitted to Metro by Oct. 18. Meeting is tonight at Santa Monica Library.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 29, 2010 11:14:49 GMT -8
I'm going to the meeting tonight as well. Hope to see you guys there!
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 29, 2010 17:00:39 GMT -8
Here at the final Westside Subway meeting, the crowd seems pretty small so far compared to what I was expecting. Maybe the crowd will grow as the evening wears on. There are around six yellow-shirted BRU hanging out in the courtyard. More to come.
Update: there are now around 15 BRU here. They want to advocate for TSM. When one of them asked the others what TSM meant, nobody could answer. LOL
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Sept 29, 2010 17:20:57 GMT -8
Shame there's no webcast for this one. I watched the one from last week. One thing caught my attention and that was the one person who mentioned something about the Crenshaw stop being needed and the folks who would utilize it the most were underrepresented at that meeting. That, along with the ranting anti-subway older gentleman and the tall over-excited kid with the pamphlet that was stumbling on his words basically going "Rah Rah Metro".
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 29, 2010 18:57:52 GMT -8
So the meeting is over. About 80-100 people attended, with 21 choosing to speak. Of the speakers, 13 favored a subway (generally asking for as much as possible). Five BRU opposed the subway, and one other speaker asked for an elevated line. Two others spoke about other issues (e.g., bike access) but did not discuss a preferred alternative.
As for the Century City station, nobody supported the Santa Monica Blvd location, and nine (including myself) stated their preference for the Constellation location. Several other details and issues were discussed, as well.
Overall, a polite and pretty quiet meeting. No major drama to report.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 29, 2010 21:12:50 GMT -8
Remember to submit written comments by email to WestsideExtension@metro.net
Please let them know you support the subway, and support the Constellation station for Century City, the direct route from Century City to Westwood, and a final station in West LA (at Barrington) rather than the VA hospital. Well, that last point is my opinion.
|
|