|
Post by masonite on Mar 26, 2012 11:05:09 GMT -8
The fact that the Long Range Plan says Purple Line to Westwood instead of West Los Angeles was a major mistake. However, Metro didn't seem to think it was an issue during much of the planning process for the Westside Extension. At one point they were saying they were going to decide between a Barrington or Bundy end point. Then in the next round of meetings they said Bundy was too expensive and it was now between Barrington and the VA. They then chose the VA. Only then when the criticism came up on the VA station did we hear that it was not possible to go farther West than the VA due to the Long Range Plan. Maybe they suddenly realized that, but that seems strange.
The VA will never allow public access between Federal and the Station. This is the grounds of the VA Administrator's Estate.
Going west from Westwood, once you are past Gayley, you are pretty much past most of the congestion. Once you are past Sepulveda, it is 45 mph and no congestion (remember the subway can only go 25 mph here). The Westwood Village station is really on the West side of the Village so unless there is extreme congestion it will be faster to get off here rather than the VA with its walk and climb.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 26, 2012 11:09:57 GMT -8
The fact that the Long Range Plan says Purple Line to Westwood instead of West Los Angeles was a major mistake. However, Metro didn't seem to think it was an issue during much of the planning process for the Westside Extension. At one point they were saying they were going to decide between a Barrington or Bundy end point. Then in the next round of meetings they said Bundy was too expensive and it was now between Barrington and the VA. They then chose the VA. Only then when the criticism came up on the VA station did we hear that it was not possible to go farther West than the VA due to the Long Range Plan. Maybe they suddenly realized that, but that seems strange. The VA will never allow public access between Federal and the Station. This is the grounds of the VA Administrator's Estate. With that being said, how do you expect a portal to be located on that side of Wilshire/Federal? Also with the criticism, it was always understood it was not the LRTP language but Measure R funding language that will prevent this from going any further west. That is a big difference. The LRTP could have said Subway to West LA however it would still not reach it because of the funding source Measure R dictated funding to Westwood not West LA.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 26, 2012 11:15:46 GMT -8
The fact that the Long Range Plan says Purple Line to Westwood instead of West Los Angeles was a major mistake. However, Metro didn't seem to think it was an issue during much of the planning process for the Westside Extension. At one point they were saying they were going to decide between a Barrington or Bundy end point. Then in the next round of meetings they said Bundy was too expensive and it was now between Barrington and the VA. They then chose the VA. Only then when the criticism came up on the VA station did we hear that it was not possible to go farther West than the VA due to the Long Range Plan. Maybe they suddenly realized that, but that seems strange. The VA will never allow public access between Federal and the Station. This is the grounds of the VA Administrator's Estate. With that being said, how do you expect a portal to be located on that side of Wilshire/Federal? Also with the criticism, it was always understood it was not the LRTP language but Measure R funding language that will prevent this from going any further west. That is a big difference. The LRTP could have said Subway to West LA however it would still not reach it because of the funding source Measure R dictated funding to Westwood not West LA. Past the VA is the former Army Reserve parcel which is on the corner of Federal/Wilshire, which is owned by a private company. The VA Admin. estate is between the Army Reserve and the Station in a straight line. Wilshire curves way out here so it is quite a difference between walking on the sidewalk on Wilshire and a straight line. The point about 15 mph speeds into terminal stations further illustrates my point. It will be faster in almost all instances to get off in Westwood and continue further West by bus. That defeats the purpose of this station to a large degree. Looking at the plan here, it is for busses to drop off their passengers on Wilshire where there is no possibility of them turning around. Bonsall does back up and is overwhelmed in the afternoons on occasion, because locals know cutting through the VA is much faster than Wilshire. Putting a subway station with people trying to drop and kiss passengers will further overwhelm Bonsall, which is made for very low volume traffic. It can't handle large busses turning around or traveling along it without being rebuilt.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 26, 2012 11:27:14 GMT -8
Assuming congress passes 30/10 with the transportation bill this week, Metro will be committed to concurrent construction all 3 phases of the subway. Their plan calls for tunneling to begin at VA Hospital and going east towards Westwood Blvd and Century City for the western segment. This probably played a big part in choosing the location as there are very little staging area available. Metro is going to dig a big hole here so we might as well get a station out of it. If the subway tunnel is constructed sequentially (going from east to west), then the need for VA station diminishes significantly.
I'm not all that pleased with the location of the station but I'm with Jerard on this... it's a compromise that we'll have to live with and accept. Federal funding depends on the ridership projection of the line extending west of 405. If we cancel this station, it will jeopardize the entire project.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 26, 2012 11:32:19 GMT -8
Bonsall will most likely be re-build anyway as part of Wilshire BRT project (and don't discount the possibility that Wilshire will be reconfigured here as part of that project as well). I understand people's objection about the location but I think worrying about the specific station access or Bonsall traffic volume is a bit premature.
Under 30/10 timeline and the Wilshire BRT timeline, I think there is a high likelihood that we may end up building this subway station and the BRT station at the same time. We can make the connection better.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 26, 2012 11:37:40 GMT -8
With that being said, how do you expect a portal to be located on that side of Wilshire/Federal? Also with the criticism, it was always understood it was not the LRTP language but Measure R funding language that will prevent this from going any further west. That is a big difference. The LRTP could have said Subway to West LA however it would still not reach it because of the funding source Measure R dictated funding to Westwood not West LA. Past the VA is the former Army Reserve parcel which is on the corner of Federal/Wilshire, which is owned by a private company. The VA Admin. estate is between the Army Reserve and the Station in a straight line. Wilshire curves way out here so it is quite a difference between walking on the sidewalk on Wilshire and a straight line. The point about 15 mph speeds into terminal stations further illustrates my point. It will be faster in almost all instances to get off in Westwood and continue further West by bus. That defeats the purpose of this station to a large degree. Not really because the congestion from Westwood to the 405 is immense so a ridership savings will be achieved, your post says it will be 25mph which is considerably faster than most of our terminal switches and I highlight that point with the distance between Normandie and Western to further make my point same distance in comparison and how transit patrons transfer from bus to rail in either case connecting from the intersection and making a walk between the bus stop to the station portal. That plan is in conjunction with the Wilshire Bus Only lanes if trips are going to run through. Somehow Big Blue Bus does that most of the time for shortline trips on Line 2. Bonsall will most likely be re-build anyway as part of Wilshire BRT project (and don't discount the possibility that Wilshire will be reconfigured here as part of that project as well). I understand people's objection about the location but I think worrying about the specific station access or Bonsall traffic volume is a bit premature. Under 30/10 timeline and the Wilshire BRT timeline, I think there is a high likelihood that we may end up building this subway station and the BRT station at the same time. We can make the connection better. Well there is a reason to bring up connectivity and access, hence why I brought up the pedestrian connectivity component with either this or through the campus because the concern is that connection.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 26, 2012 11:52:08 GMT -8
Assuming congress passes 30/10 with the transportation bill this week, Metro will be committed to concurrent construction all 3 phases of the subway. Their plan calls for tunneling to begin at VA Hospital and going east towards Westwood Blvd and Century City for the western segment. This probably played a big part in choosing the location as there are very little staging area available. Metro is going to dig a big hole here so we might as well get a station out of it. If the subway tunnel is constructed sequentially (going from east to west), then the need for VA station diminishes significantly. I'm not all that pleased with the location of the station but I'm with Jerard on this... it's a compromise that we'll have to live with and accept. Federal funding depends on the ridership projection of the line extending west of 405. If we cancel this station, it will jeopardize the entire project. They plan on doing all the tunneling going from West to East, like you pointed out. So yes, the VA property provides ample room. The TBM would then come out at Century City, which is where a different TBM gets loaded into the ground. I think a better solution would be to have the TBM digging the Century City to VA segment just be loaded at Century City and head West. Skip the VA station site all together and keep going and have the terminus station at Barrington/Wilshire. There is no need to even pull it out of the ground, just leave it buried/mothballed should the subway ever continue West. Saves the trouble of pulling it out. I see that it is about 2,400 more feet to Wilshire/Barrington than the currently planned terminus. Either way, you have to leave 450 feet of tail track beyond the station. So, if the TBM is 1,000 feet long, you would then need to drive it an additional 3,400 feet beyond where it will now stop, and then you don't have to dismantle it. Whats the cost of going another 3,400 feet, and the savings from not having to excavate a site to bring the TBM's up? Also, you get the added distance between the last 2 stations, speeding up the trip. RT
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 26, 2012 12:45:30 GMT -8
Assuming congress passes 30/10 with the transportation bill this week, Metro will be committed to concurrent construction all 3 phases of the subway. Their plan calls for tunneling to begin at VA Hospital and going east towards Westwood Blvd and Century City for the western segment. This probably played a big part in choosing the location as there are very little staging area available. Metro is going to dig a big hole here so we might as well get a station out of it. If the subway tunnel is constructed sequentially (going from east to west), then the need for VA station diminishes significantly. I'm not all that pleased with the location of the station but I'm with Jerard on this... it's a compromise that we'll have to live with and accept. Federal funding depends on the ridership projection of the line extending west of 405. If we cancel this station, it will jeopardize the entire project. They plan on doing all the tunneling going from West to East, like you pointed out. So yes, the VA property provides ample room. The TBM would then come out at Century City, which is where a different TBM gets loaded into the ground. I think a better solution would be to have the TBM digging the Century City to VA segment just be loaded at Century City and head West. Skip the VA station site all together and keep going and have the terminus station at Barrington/Wilshire. There is no need to even pull it out of the ground, just leave it buried/mothballed should the subway ever continue West. Saves the trouble of pulling it out. I see that it is about 2,400 more feet to Wilshire/Barrington than the currently planned terminus. Either way, you have to leave 450 feet of tail track beyond the station. So, if the TBM is 1,000 feet long, you would then need to drive it an additional 3,400 feet beyond where it will now stop, and then you don't have to dismantle it. Whats the cost of going another 3,400 feet, and the savings from not having to excavate a site to bring the TBM's up? Also, you get the added distance between the last 2 stations, speeding up the trip. RT With what monies will you use to fund this extra 3400 feet or almost 3/4 of a mile? Besides this extra speed and trip time is minimal because you'd still have to switch the trains on the track to enter the station let alone the cost of new construction in a more congested site.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 26, 2012 13:39:43 GMT -8
Jerard, I don't know what the $ would be for the pretty significant changes. Some changes add to the cost (3,400) feet of tunneling (2 months, 2 TBM's), some same money (no TBM dismantling/extraction for 2 TBM's), and some save money should the line ever be extended further (2 mothballed TBM's ready to start going further West). The last item is hard to quantify, but would clearly save money assuming that the TBM's could be reused.
I guess my main thrust is something like this: We are spending $5.6 Billion to extend the subway West. The currently identified Terminus station may not be the ideal end point, especially if we have to live with it for many years, and even more so if we go further West. If spending say $300 million more gets you to a better terminus (Barrington), then it's worth a look to try and locate $300 million.
Measure R has I believe $750 million set aside for the 710 gap closure. I think it is going to be a very cold day in hell before that money gets spent digging a traffic tunnel below South Pasadena. So, the $750 will likely end up having to be reprogrammed to something else. Not sure how that works with the Measure R funds. Anybody know?
RT
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Mar 26, 2012 14:01:31 GMT -8
It is unlikely that separate stations would be built at both Barrington and Bundy, and if we are going to to lobby for several hundred million dollars, it would be better leave this station as it is and work for extending the western terminal to Bundy.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 26, 2012 14:12:21 GMT -8
The interim western terminus (someday it will be extended into Santa Monica) should be a station between Federal and Barrington. Thereafter, with Measure R++, we can get a future extension to Wilshire/Bundy, Wilshire/26th, Wilshire/18th, etc....
|
|
|
Post by WhiteCity on Mar 26, 2012 14:23:51 GMT -8
Jerard, I don't know what the $ would be for the pretty significant changes. Some changes add to the cost (3,400) feet of tunneling (2 months, 2 TBM's), some same money (no TBM dismantling/extraction for 2 TBM's), and some save money should the line ever be extended further (2 mothballed TBM's ready to start going further West). The last item is hard to quantify, but would clearly save money assuming that the TBM's could be reused. I guess my main thrust is something like this: We are spending $5.6 Billion to extend the subway West. The currently identified Terminus station may not be the ideal end point, especially if we have to live with it for many years, and even more so if we go further West. If spending say $300 million more gets you to a better terminus (Barrington), then it's worth a look to try and locate $300 million. Measure R has I believe $750 million set aside for the 710 gap closure. I think it is going to be a very cold day in hell before that money gets spent digging a traffic tunnel below South Pasadena. So, the $750 will likely end up having to be reprogrammed to something else. Not sure how that works with the Measure R funds. Anybody know? RT Ask Ridley-Thomas about his experience with a similar idea. It's considered anathema to take Measure R funds dedicated to one project and use them for another. Regarding cost vs savings for this terminus change, you'd also have to consider the cost of producing a new FEIR. Bottom line though, there's no political will right now to revisit the VA station, even though you make some good points.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 26, 2012 17:21:21 GMT -8
All of you calling for changes to the terminus and construction method... keep this in mind: we don't really have the time!
With 30/10, Metro's plan is to start digging ALL the station boxes in 2013. If you extend the subway to Barrington, or even change the direction of tunneling, you'll have to start over on the EIR on environmental impact, traffic mitigation during construction, ridership estimate, etc. It will take another 2 years and we'll loose all the Federal funding that Obama Administration has set aside in the 2013 budget, and the Senate transportation bill that makes 30/10 possible will be a waste. We will have to start from scratch with another round of congressional wheel greasing for the next transportation bill, which could be in 2015, or 2020... who knows... whenever. IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The best possible outcome for us is to realize the VA station is going to happen, and start talking about what we can change (especially with Wilshire BRT project still in DEIR stage) to make it more accessible. Meanwhile, we should continue to lobby for more Federal money and Measure R2 so we can extend the subway to Bundy.
It sucks that Metro basically caved to the VA and did the EIR on this final station without much public input. We can't change that. Now that EIR is final, any substantive change to it is going to delay this project not just by month, but by years or decades! We have a very small window of opportunity to get the Federal funds AND the 30/10 loans. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 26, 2012 17:23:32 GMT -8
On the comparison of the VA and Westwood to Western and Normandie on the current Purple Line, yes, they are a similar distance (about a half mile). Ironically, back in the 90's when I would take the 320 to the then Red Line it used to end at Western, but for a period it continued on and I got sick of crossing Wilshire coming from the West, so I would try to use the Normandie station as I wouldn't have to cross Wilshire and it was quite slow between Normandie and Western on the train. It would have been faster except that the bus did not stop in front of the station and you had to wait to cross Irolo or Normandie (I forget which) so it defeated the purpose.
Little different situation here. Having to go down a path and then under a rather narrow tunnel with car traffic and then up stairs or a ramp is a whole different ballgame. I'm relatively young and in good shape, but I'd much rather just hop out of a station onto a bus than go through that charade. Most people are quite lazy and won't want to do that exercise.
Past Westwood Blvd. going west the congestion is mostly just cars trying to get on the 405 ramps. For through traffic going to the center lanes at this point, you can zip past all that (before the 405 construction which has taken away a lane).
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 26, 2012 17:25:36 GMT -8
All of you calling for changes to the terminus and construction method... keep this in mind: we don't really have the time! With 30/10, Metro's plan is to start digging ALL the station boxes in 2013. If you extend the subway to Barrington, or even change the direction of tunneling, you'll have to start over on the EIR on environmental impact, traffic mitigation during construction, ridership estimate, etc. We'll loose all the Federal funding that Obama Administration has set aside in the 2013 budget, and the Senate transportation bill that makes 30/10 possible will be a waste. We will have to start from scratch. IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The best possible outcome for us is to realize the VA station is going to happen, and start talking about what we can change (especially with Wilshire BRT project still in DEIR stage) to make it more accessible. Meanwhile, we should continue to lobby for more Federal money and Measure R2 so we can extend the subway to Bundy. I agree. It is a lost cause mostly. Some touches to make it more accessible is about the best one can hope for. Tying in to where the actual ridership is at Wilshire/Federal is a longshot at best.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 26, 2012 17:35:16 GMT -8
Bart's weekly e-mail suggests moving the station box to the West side of Bonsall, which would allow for a station entrance on Federal.
RT
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 26, 2012 17:36:45 GMT -8
That's a more reasonable suggestion and the type of discussion we should focus on...
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 26, 2012 18:37:05 GMT -8
That's a more reasonable suggestion and the type of discussion we should focus on... I agree. I think the suggestions are a good compromise. I will still go to my grave complaining there shouldn't be a station here or at Farmdale however.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 26, 2012 19:08:25 GMT -8
Jerard, I don't know what the $ would be for the pretty significant changes. Some changes add to the cost (3,400) feet of tunneling (2 months, 2 TBM's), some same money (no TBM dismantling/extraction for 2 TBM's), and some save money should the line ever be extended further (2 mothballed TBM's ready to start going further West). The last item is hard to quantify, but would clearly save money assuming that the TBM's could be reused. Thats assuming you're extending it further right away. You have to assume that you're lifting the the TBM out of the ground or inserting it into the ground here at Barrington or Bundy and which sites are big enough to do that kind of construction? There not too many parcels large enough to do this. So this is an much greater cost than you're thinking on top of additional tunneling of almost 3/4 of a mile. This still costs if the assumption is $500M/mile close to a minimum $375M for this one piece, with no new funding source identified yet. Well that 710 gap won't go there, It will have to be within the sub-region of programming, that is one of the finer points of the sub-region equity component of Measure R to keep all the parties happy. In addition since this is a highway project it would have to start with a list of highway projects and then work its way down before transit could be considered for it. If the monies are to go for the Highway project, the sub-region in question has to give the Metro the ok to make that change first before it is even presented to the Metro Board for consideration.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 26, 2012 19:12:22 GMT -8
On the comparison of the VA and Westwood to Western and Normandie on the current Purple Line, yes, they are a similar distance (about a half mile). Ironically, back in the 90's when I would take the 320 to the then Red Line it used to end at Western, but for a period it continued on and I got sick of crossing Wilshire coming from the West, so I would try to use the Normandie station as I wouldn't have to cross Wilshire and it was quite slow between Normandie and Western on the train. It would have been faster except that the bus did not stop in front of the station and you had to wait to cross Irolo or Normandie (I forget which) so it defeated the purpose. Little different situation here. Having to go down a path and then under a rather narrow tunnel with car traffic and then up stairs or a ramp is a whole different ballgame. I'm relatively young and in good shape, but I'd much rather just hop out of a station onto a bus than go through that charade. Most people are quite lazy and won't want to do that exercise. Past Westwood Blvd. going west the congestion is mostly just cars trying to get on the 405 ramps. For through traffic going to the center lanes at this point, you can zip past all that (before the 405 construction which has taken away a lane). Not really because the proposed station box for Westwood/VA is closer to the surface compared to either Wilshire/Normandie or Wilshire/Western. The key asks are a repositioning of the station box and improved pedestrian connection from Wilshire Blvd.
|
|