cph
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by cph on May 29, 2007 20:11:00 GMT -8
I remember the early fights over this line all the way back to 1991-1993....I thought...why not a short subway serving Pico/Westwood? www.lerctr.org/~transit/westside
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 29, 2007 21:54:48 GMT -8
I remember the early fights over this line all the way back to 1991-1993....I thought...why not a short subway serving Pico/Westwood? www.lerctr.org/~transit/westsideNice idea, but I think the cost would be prohibitive. We'll barely have enough money to get Expo's second phase done as is and this could add another $500M - $1B (double the second phase). To me the controversy about the Expo ROW is way overdone. The complainers really have no real argument from what I have seen as to why there can't be light rail here. They may be very wealthy, but the EIR will prove there is no reason not to build it here. The Venice route actually presents more problems not to mention being more costly and much slower.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on May 29, 2007 22:38:06 GMT -8
The Cheviot NIMBYs opposed it because they swear they will never ride that train, or any mass transit... because they are too good for public transportation... no matter how bad the traffic gets.
This is typical of the self centered L.A. citizen making life miserable for the rest of us. It's the Me - cult fanaticism that drives the rich in this city.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jun 2, 2007 23:56:27 GMT -8
There are some people who "would rather die than take public transit to the hospital"--my ex-wife being a good example. She had no use for anyone who rode the bus (which was all we had in LA County while I lived with her) and had this "I will give up my car when they pry my cold, dead hands from the steering wheel" attitude. Fortunately, most people aren't that stubborn and are willing to try something different if it will make their lives easier.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 6, 2007 14:22:48 GMT -8
I wouldn't build that Pico Subway even though that is a nice idea, this can just as easily be done on the Existing ROW with an at grade elevated station on Westwood Blvd which would be a short 5 minute walk to the mall and theater which would be about the time going down underground to a subway platform would take.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 10, 2007 15:31:45 GMT -8
you know, it's ironic. it took me a moment for my mind to process precisely what was being proposed here, because I was assuming that this was some sort of detour around Cheviot Hills, which is how the whole Venice Boulevard diversion idea got started.
then I had to laugh when I realized what was going on here, because this would divert the rail line off the original Expo Line path and it still wouldn't give the NIMBYs what they wanted. it's the best of both worlds! ;D
seriously though, it's a nice plan and it probably would work and the photo looks cool, but as long as we have this incredible shrinking transit budget to work with, I'd have to agree with those who said no to this idea.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 11, 2007 7:26:40 GMT -8
Great minds think alike. I don't think anyone can deny a Pico/Westwood station would attract significantly more ridership than a station 0.3 miles south on the ROW, surrounded by single family homes.
Where that second station is though is tricky. Is it Sepulveda/Pico? Sawtelle/Pico? Pico/Exposition?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jun 12, 2007 11:11:18 GMT -8
I very much like this proposal however the chances are slim is would be realized. The nimby's get what they want. The detour is not as great as a Sepulveda/Venice detour. The stations are created in a busy commercial district. There are great connections to Century City and UCLA. Spanning Pico /405 is no longer an issue. If the funding where available this would be the route I would suggest. A great suggestion Charles!
|
|
gregd
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by gregd on Jan 29, 2009 0:32:14 GMT -8
I checked out the section through the residential areas between sepulveda all the way east to the cheviot hills. I cant see what the big deal is. Doesn't look like any of the homes are near the line. If anything it looks like the project will improve the area with the landscaping they design.
The owners may not ride but their kids will.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 30, 2009 9:33:39 GMT -8
I checked out the section through the residential areas between sepulveda all the way east to the cheviot hills. I cant see what the big deal is. Doesn't look like any of the homes are near the line. If anything it looks like the project will improve the area with the landscaping they design. The owners may not ride but their kids will. The main big deal is the money. The Venice/Sepulveda option is about $500 million more expensive in comparison with the right-of-way option. Other problems are visual effects with an elevated line (there are homes between I-10 and Exposition), although this could be livable, and two intersections where an elevated line wouldn't fit because of lack of space yet these interestion wouldn't tolerate an at-grade line: Venice/Girard and Sepulveda/Palms. But the main problem is the money. Given the smaller ridership and $500 million extra cost, this option will never happen.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jan 30, 2009 12:06:27 GMT -8
I agree with Greg, Cheviot hills has nothing to whine complain about, the train does not come that near to them - and it was there running before in the past. I don't get it.
|
|
gregd
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by gregd on Jan 30, 2009 14:54:21 GMT -8
I checked out the section through the residential areas between sepulveda all the way east to the cheviot hills. I cant see what the big deal is. Doesn't look like any of the homes are near the line. If anything it looks like the project will improve the area with the landscaping they design. The owners may not ride but their kids will. The main big deal is the money. The Venice/Sepulveda option is about $500 million more expensive in comparison with the right-of-way option. Other problems are visual effects with an elevated line (there are homes between I-10 and Exposition), although this could be livable, and two intersections where an elevated line wouldn't fit because of lack of space yet these interestion wouldn't tolerate an at-grade line: Venice/Girard and Sepulveda/Palms. But the main problem is the money. Given the smaller ridership and $500 million extra cost, this option will never happen. That's what I mean. They should simply use the ROW for now and add to later. It's a nice wide open clear shot. With proper landscaping it will look good. That said, I do think Santa Monica and Wilshire Blvds are critical areas that need to be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 30, 2009 15:44:14 GMT -8
That's what I mean. They should simply use the ROW for now and add to later. It's a nice wide open clear shot. With proper landscaping it will look good. That said, I do think Santa Monica and Wilshire Blvds are critical areas that need to be addressed. Ah, I misunderstood your question. The big deal with the Palms/Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park right-of-way alignment is: - It will bring "other" people to the neighborhood. Quoting the angry former Cheviot Hills Homeowners' Association president Benjamin Cate in a March 2007 interview at the Expo Phase 2 alternatives-study meeting at Vista Del Mar in Cheviot Hills: "Do you think the people who live in Cheviot Hills are going to take this bloody train? No, they are going to get in their cars. The people who are going to use this are the people who work in the hotels in Santa Monica, and they are going to come from the Hispanic areas nearer downtown. Now they take the bus." (See also the video of the interview.)
- It may bring development to the area and, as a result, might disturb the status quo and/or quietness and/or upscale feeling of the neighborhood.
- These people will oppose anything because "they can." In that sense they ironically share some common characteristics with the Damien Goodmon of South LA. It's being ironic because of the first item on the list.
The Purple/Red Line extension is certainly being planned as well, to be completed in phases over time, due to an estimated cost in the $10 billion range. See also this famous LA Times article on the Cheviot Hills issue.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 30, 2009 17:39:26 GMT -8
What are the ridership projections of the Venice/Sepulveda route vs. the ROW route--I read them before, and aren't they similar? Very similar?
The $$$ figure, however, is very different and favors the ROW, to my understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jan 30, 2009 19:04:02 GMT -8
""Do you think the people who live in Cheviot Hills are going to take this bloody train? No, they are going to get in their cars."
That certainly is not Metro's problem. It's THEIR problem. Tragic.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 1, 2009 5:22:37 GMT -8
Quoting the angry former Cheviot Hills Homeowners' Association president Benjamin Cate in a March 2007 interview at the Expo Phase 2 alternatives-study meeting at Vista Del Mar in Cheviot Hills: "Do you think the people who live in Cheviot Hills are going to take this bloody train? No, they are going to get in their cars. The people who are going to use this are the people who work in the hotels in Santa Monica, and they are going to come from the Hispanic areas nearer downtown. Now they take the bus." (See also the video of the interview.) As a consequence of this quote: 1. Race is fair play in this issue. 2. Since this was a past president of the HOA, you can infer that this viewpoint reflects at least a majority of homeowners in the neighborhood. 3. Since past transit initiatives have failed on account of like-minded homeowners fighting transit because of their perceived fear of swarthy multitudes, we owe it to Los Angeles and the cause of civil rights and economic well-being for transit riders to ensure this line stays on the right of way.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 1, 2009 8:55:25 GMT -8
2. Since this was a past president of the HOA, you can infer that this viewpoint reflects at least a majority of homeowners in the neighborhood. Members of Light Rail for Cheviot would disagree with this point, and argue that the Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association board represents only a vocal minority of Cheviot Hills residents who drown out others.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 2, 2009 4:40:32 GMT -8
I concur with Darrell--while "a lot" of folks might agree with that statement, to suggest that he represents the "majority" is too far a stretch.
What are the issues that WILL come up?
1) Potential overdevelopment--it's likely that the Pico/Sepulveda project will be scaled back, but the previous 10-story proposal that had precious little amenities for the Expo Line does make most neighbors concerned that neighborhood-altering megaprojects by politically-connected developers will transform the neighborhood into something that even pro-Expo neighbors vigorously oppose.
2) The LAPD is reducing its police presence in West L.A. to focus on other, more crime-plagued regions of the city at a time when home and car break-ins are going UP, and even a few violent crimes have occurred. If there are no assurances of security with the Expo Line having two stations in the area, then even pro-Expo neighbors will complain.
3) Even the LADOT hasn't weighed in publicly on the at-grade crossings at the mega-busy streets at Overland and Sepulveda and Westwood, and my understanding is that they, too, are troubled and want more information. I have heard more than a few Westside residents who want the ROW route express their favoring of elevated crossings at Sepulveda and Overland...and maybe throughout the entire ROW.
So, yes, Mr. Cate sounded like a horse's rear end with that stupid comment...but I'll warrant that a bunch of locals have let him know that his comment hurt the community and deflected from more legitimate issues that even pro-Expo Westsiders want addressed.
|
|
gregd
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by gregd on Feb 3, 2009 23:57:06 GMT -8
Where would the pico westwood station go. there is solid development on all 4 corners. I think the ROW just south is pretty close.
re pico sepulveda mixed use development... There are two sets of plans. One for the public to haggle and fight over, reduce modify etc. and the other true set of plans that is being financed as we speak. This developer gets what he wants and he has the some pretty strong allies in our local govt.
I support the expo and other light rail lines for the simple reason that is will increase the quality of life an eventually pave the way to a city wide grid. Not for the development potential and density loopholes created along the rail lines.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 4, 2009 6:08:12 GMT -8
...and there you have it, gregd! Most people I've spoken to in the Expo adjacent neighborhoods feel like you do: light rail yes, overdevelopment and sleazy loopholes no.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Feb 10, 2009 13:06:35 GMT -8
Greg D ask: "Where would the pico westwood station go. there is solid development on all 4 corners"
I imagine a good spot for the the portal may be on the South west corner just on the other side of the Westside Pavillion in their current parking lot. There are also a few other parcels not immediately on the corner that would make fine locations for aportal. Additionally, one could redevelop one or more parcels on the north side of the street and integrate the portal into the ground floor of an appropriate sized development.
Ken: One person's "overdevelopment" is another person's energy efficient use of space and resources. In my humble opinion it's all about density where density is appropriate. Density is not necessarily a bad thing, contrarily it can be a very good thing. It is the lack of density and zoning laws that prohibit any other kind of use other then residential block after block that forces us to get in our cars and >drive< to our daily activities. This leads to the traffic, pollution and sprawl problems we have today.
Residential above commercial linked by good public transportation is a model that has worked for hundreds of years in many European cities and one that is well suited for our modern urban metropolis. It is it the antithesis of suburban sprawl.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 10, 2009 17:37:56 GMT -8
Saunders, the density you describe is a very good thing. Unfortunately, when the Casden project, a 10-story tall skyscraper is what was proposed to be thrown adjacent to a 2-3 story R3 and single family home region, it raises the specter of what sort of SCALE we're talking about.
Everyone in the Westside appreciates appropriate densification, but in our fair city of Los Angeles, the ability of developers to contain themselves and create a project that won't destroy and change a neighborhood for the worse appears to be absent.
I look forward to a LOT of mixed use and densifying TOD along the Expo Line corridor, but even pro-Expo supporters who've been at this for years are aghast at some of the ideas that have come out of developers' plans. There is not enough SmartGrowth, there is not enough real TOD, and there is not enough moderation into what a neighborhood can accommodate.
It's this problem which hurts the credibility of those who promote mass transit and urban planning--when they get stabbed in the back by developers and enabling politicians who come up with ideas that NO ONE ever wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Feb 11, 2009 11:37:12 GMT -8
I wasn't familiar with the Casden project until you mentioned it here, Ken. I looked it up and found a story on curbed: la.curbed.com/archives/2008/12/casdens_pico_plaza_jumps_on_expo_line_bandwagon.phpIt reminds me a bit of the Marina Towers in Marina Del Rey but with mixed use and transit thrown in. I think this project has some very redeeming qualities but your right it is a little on the large side. It it located in a commercial district, on blighted industrial property, adjacent to two freeways and serviced by the Expo. Those aspects are great and make the lot prime for redevelopment. Shave off two to four stories, constribute to expo and it could be a great project. What do you think would be an appropriate sized project for this area? Would you allow them extra footage if they paid to have expo go under Overland, Sepulveda, Pico, or construct north bound 405 olympic offramp or some other significant mitigation? What might that mitigation be and how much would you allot them?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Feb 11, 2009 11:40:57 GMT -8
P.S. How about a little open space/green space, bike facilities as part of the mitigation? Maybe let them have the height but cut off the end of one of those towers and build a small park.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 11, 2009 16:19:54 GMT -8
I led the fight for my neighborhood council to push for a project with lower height, more restaurants and TOD, more green space and more parking facilities...and definitely more pedestrian and bicycle amenities.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Feb 13, 2009 9:10:45 GMT -8
I led the fight for my neighborhood council to push for a project with lower height, more restaurants and TOD, more green space and more parking facilities...and definitely more pedestrian and bicycle amenities. Ken, I'm curious what you think an acceptable height would be for this location? What do you think of the mid-rise towers along Wilshire Blvd (Mid Wilshire, Westwood, Brentwood) that are also adjacent to lower density residential?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 13, 2009 15:25:26 GMT -8
I think that the Wilshire Blvd. Corridor is a very different corridor than the Westside neighborhoods that the Expo Line is going through, so anything over 4 stories starts to make me queasy. Maaaaaybe if this were 5-6 stories (60 ft.) I could tolerate it, but one new project like this is going to completely transform the area. I'm pretty sure that if you asked F4ET and local planning folks for their input, they'd want:
1) More parking (and less at Expo/Westwood) 2) Restaurants and offices and TOD 3) Affordable housing...but not a "project" like this was slated to be 4) Park/green/bicycle space 5) Something without a huge Target neon sign 6) Something that had more realistic car access, rather than something that wasn't going to destroy traffic even worse at Pico and Sepulveda (I've heard it suggested that the reason the Olympic/Pico plan was rammed through so quickly was to allow projects like this to be built) 7) Something that would be safer for a child to grow up in (would you want to perpetually breathe in the air next to a freeway?)
Even those who have fought for the Expo Line were surprised when they saw these blueprints.
|
|