HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1861  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2012, 2:27 PM
LAsam's Avatar
LAsam LAsam is offline
You mean coitus?
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Playa del Rey, CA
Posts: 1,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by M II A II R II K View Post
How does it work out with traffic lights in between stations though..
On my way from Pico to La Cienega it took about 25 minutes and the lights appeared to be timed with the train. The train took 35 minutes on the way back from La Cienega to Pico and the lights seemed to stop the train more often. I got the impression though that they were still working the kinks out and I expect it to run smoothly in the long-term. I also believe phase two has more elevated portions which will help. Speaking of elevated portions, the view north when the train is elevated is fantastic. You can see all the way from Hollywood up through downtown.
__________________
The dude abides... - The Dude
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1862  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2012, 2:52 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Hazy
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,226
^ That was my impression too. Only complaints I have was having to wait about 10 minutes at the Expo/Blue Line split. I'm sure they'll find a way to have the Expo and Blue Lines flow seamlessly.

Oh and Metro needs new trains. Brand new Expo Line with 20 year old Blue Line cars. C'mon now.
__________________
Strobe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1863  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2012, 5:15 PM
all of the trash all of the trash is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Koreatown
Posts: 181
Metros running two blue line trains for every one expo line train at 7th/metro as per ridership demands. When the Santa Monica extension opens it should be 1 to 1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1864  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2012, 5:21 PM
all of the trash all of the trash is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Koreatown
Posts: 181
Are those futuristic union station renders supposed to announce metro's foray into real estate? If so, how pathetic

1) whats the point of having 2050 renderings? Who knows what our architectural tastes and demands will be by then? Why are we designing for 2050 now?

2) none of these renders have anything to do with the actual planning process. What the hell was the point of bringing internatioanlly renowned designers to design something that will never be built? Do we expect metro to acquire and develop all this land?

3). All These renderings are fugly. Only stupid people would be impressed by these phoned in designs which is what I'm think metro/architects involved were betting on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1865  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2012, 9:30 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
youre such a tool sometimes. why should Metro change course because of a few idiots in BH? doesnt make any sense. couldnt care less about local opinion? get the hell out of here with that bullshit
Blaming me for saying that this could be predicted and now its happening? Maybe blame Curbed for pointing it out as well. Hopefully someone at MTA gets their head on straight before they are opening their internal documents and analyses to a full review from a season legal, financial and fornesics team. It might turn out fine; but it MIGHT delay the project for years.

The goal is to finish the project underbudget, not to show that you can run over opposition. Arrogance is not one of the desirable traits of a civil servant.

If your contractor told you to shut-up and that he's going to fight the city every inch until they come around to his way, no matter how long it takes would you consider him a really skilled business person? Or would you replace him?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1866  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2012, 9:37 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by all of the trash View Post
Are those futuristic union station renders supposed to announce metro's foray into real estate? If so, how pathetic

1) whats the point of having 2050 renderings? Who knows what our architectural tastes and demands will be by then? Why are we designing for 2050 now?

2) none of these renders have anything to do with the actual planning process. What the hell was the point of bringing internatioanlly renowned designers to design something that will never be built? Do we expect metro to acquire and develop all this land?

3). All These renderings are fugly. Only stupid people would be impressed by these phoned in designs which is what I'm think metro/architects involved were betting on.
Agree that this was more a "fun" exercise than anything with substance or potential.

But more importantly, the problem of MTA getting into real estate is one that KC and others have had for some time and that other very large cities are experincing and are trying to keep under the radar. Not what MTA does and for sure not with taxpayer money.

Probably the real lesson here is to slash MTA's budget for anything that looks like subsidies, joint ventures, long-term commitments, etc. Let the developers take the risks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1867  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2012, 11:54 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Blaming me for saying that this could be predicted and now its happening? Maybe blame Curbed for pointing it out as well. Hopefully someone at MTA gets their head on straight before they are opening their internal documents and analyses to a full review from a season legal, financial and fornesics team. It might turn out fine; but it MIGHT delay the project for years.

The goal is to finish the project underbudget, not to show that you can run over opposition. Arrogance is not one of the desirable traits of a civil servant.

If your contractor told you to shut-up and that he's going to fight the city every inch until they come around to his way, no matter how long it takes would you consider him a really skilled business person? Or would you replace him?
not all routes are the same. the station at constellation will have 3000 more patrons a day. why change that because a couple hundred idiot racist nimbys in bev hills are opposed to a station for irrational reasons? the courts will shut down their lawsuit, just like they did the dumbasses from cheviot hills. you should be asking the opposite question. why are those politicians from beverly hills wasting millions of dollars of tax payer money that can help their students for a fight they cant win? they cant even decide why they dont want the subway under the school
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1868  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2012, 12:00 AM
mwadswor's Avatar
mwadswor mwadswor is offline
The Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Blaming me for saying that this could be predicted and now its happening? Maybe blame Curbed for pointing it out as well. Hopefully someone at MTA gets their head on straight before they are opening their internal documents and analyses to a full review from a season legal, financial and fornesics team. It might turn out fine; but it MIGHT delay the project for years.

The goal is to finish the project underbudget, not to show that you can run over opposition. Arrogance is not one of the desirable traits of a civil servant.

If your contractor told you to shut-up and that he's going to fight the city every inch until they come around to his way, no matter how long it takes would you consider him a really skilled business person? Or would you replace him?
Your comments assume that there was a reasonable way to avoid legal action. With a project of this size, especially going through the areas it's going through, lawsuits are inevitable. Better to get the project right than to run terrified with your tail between your legs every time someone brings a lawyer into the room.

Shockingly, not all lawsuits are rational, and there's no good reason to avoid the irrational lawsuits. There's nothing wrong with having to go to court once in a while to defend a good decision. There is something wrong with allowing your project to be paralyzed and/or jerked around by those who can afford lawyers because you are terrified of a little legal review.
__________________
Photothreads on Tempe Town Lake, Santa Fe and the Rail Runner, Baltimore, and the Phoenix Sky train.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1869  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2012, 4:37 AM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by all of the trash View Post
Are those futuristic union station renders supposed to announce metro's foray into real estate? If so, how pathetic

1) whats the point of having 2050 renderings? Who knows what our architectural tastes and demands will be by then? Why are we designing for 2050 now?

2) none of these renders have anything to do with the actual planning process. What the hell was the point of bringing internatioanlly renowned designers to design something that will never be built? Do we expect metro to acquire and develop all this land?

3). All These renderings are fugly. Only stupid people would be impressed by these phoned in designs which is what I'm think metro/architects involved were betting on.
1) General plans often have scopes of 30 to 40 years. Lets be clear that nowhere in this project does it say the buildings will only be built in 2050...they are saying this is what the area will look like in 2050...that does not preclude the construction of a fancy train station extension or high rise buildings as soon as 2015 or 2020!

2) These are not part of the actual planning process for a very good reason. There has been no public input! Planning without the public, while dreamlike for many planners, is poor planning ethically speaking. These boards ARE however being considered as part of the overall portfolio per each firm. The ideas they express are important for Metro to consider as they move forward selecting one firm. So they are not wasting their time when a multi-million contract is at stake.

3) That is a matter of opinion you are entitled too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1870  
Old Posted May 1, 2012, 4:58 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 34,094
Seems like it's off to a crappy start on the road in the first 10 minutes on this ride:


Video Link
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1871  
Old Posted May 1, 2012, 9:39 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
not all routes are the same. the station at constellation will have 3000 more patrons a day. why change that because a couple hundred idiot racist nimbys in bev hills are opposed to a station for irrational reasons? the courts will shut down their lawsuit, just like they did the dumbasses from cheviot hills. you should be asking the opposite question. why are those politicians from beverly hills wasting millions of dollars of tax payer money that can help their students for a fight they cant win? they cant even decide why they dont want the subway under the school
I agree that the BH people are not helpful, but that's off the point. MTA can't do anything about them, but CAN do something about getting the subway built.

As a side note (I really don't care about which station is chosen), those numbers just aren't credible. One block makes that much difference? When you are also moving closer to SM Blvd and the BH hotels and shopping? Even MTA has argued the opposite, previously saying that the locations were economically equivalent when they were accused of moving the stop to be closer to a building owned by a major political contributor (curbed had a discussion about a year ago).

Hopefully, the lawyers don't get access to MTA internal documents; there's always a smoking gun waiting to be found.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1872  
Old Posted May 1, 2012, 9:43 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwadswor View Post
Your comments assume that there was a reasonable way to avoid legal action. With a project of this size, especially going through the areas it's going through, lawsuits are inevitable. Better to get the project right than to run terrified with your tail between your legs every time someone brings a lawyer into the room.

Shockingly, not all lawsuits are rational, and there's no good reason to avoid the irrational lawsuits. There's nothing wrong with having to go to court once in a while to defend a good decision. There is something wrong with allowing your project to be paralyzed and/or jerked around by those who can afford lawyers because you are terrified of a little legal review.
100 percent wrong. You are talking like a bureaucrat who gets paid regardless of whether anything gets done. An attitude like that in business would be a monumental disservice to your employer. An attitude like that when you are spending other people's money is shameful and should be a cause for termination.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1873  
Old Posted May 1, 2012, 9:50 PM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 6,570
^ I'm not sure of your understanding of the area, but the walk along Avenue of the Stars between Constellation and Santa Monica Blvd is actually on a hill. A station at Santa Monica Blvd would be next to a golf course where development is never going to occur and single family homes a little further west. Basically it would just be a station on the edge of a business area. Meanwhile placing the station at Avenue of the Stars puts the station in the middle of the business area and also places it much more conveniently in walking distance to denser residential development to the south of Olympic Blvd. I would assume a station at Constellation would provide a better opportunity to pick up more choice riders from the condos/apartments to the south of Olympic Blvd than from the presumably higher income single family homes to the northwest of a Santa Monica Blvd station.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1874  
Old Posted May 1, 2012, 10:52 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGuy View Post
^ I'm not sure of your understanding of the area, but the walk along Avenue of the Stars between Constellation and Santa Monica Blvd is actually on a hill. A station at Santa Monica Blvd would be next to a golf course where development is never going to occur and single family homes a little further west. Basically it would just be a station on the edge of a business area. Meanwhile placing the station at Avenue of the Stars puts the station in the middle of the business area and also places it much more conveniently in walking distance to denser residential development to the south of Olympic Blvd. I would assume a station at Constellation would provide a better opportunity to pick up more choice riders from the condos/apartments to the south of Olympic Blvd than from the presumably higher income single family homes to the northwest of a Santa Monica Blvd station.
dont try to inject reason into this argument. pesto has made up his mind and hes sticking with it, even though everyone on earth will tell him he is wrong.

After all, this is the same guy that thinks metro should bow down to 100 irrational nimby racists in Beverly Hills because they made a stink. ya, that wont set a bad precedent for the future....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1875  
Old Posted May 2, 2012, 3:54 PM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 760
The issue if SM blvd v. Constellation is a moot point now. The issue is do we skip Century City all together due to hysteria in BH? The engineers, not just Metro's, but the BH hired firms of Shannon & Wilson, Exponent and Leighton, have agreed that putting a station under SM blvd is risky and should be avoided. SM blvd is out of the question unless additional tests want to be done for an elevated or at-grade station on SM blvd. Sobthis arguemebt of SM blvd v. Constellation is really over. BH will file a lawsuit and will go nowhere as Metro has science and BH has emotions. Read the reports and don't listen to CenturyCitySubway.org (a paid PR firm on behalf of BHHS).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1876  
Old Posted May 2, 2012, 6:49 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGuy View Post
^ I'm not sure of your understanding of the area, but the walk along Avenue of the Stars between Constellation and Santa Monica Blvd is actually on a hill. A station at Santa Monica Blvd would be next to a golf course where development is never going to occur and single family homes a little further west. Basically it would just be a station on the edge of a business area. Meanwhile placing the station at Avenue of the Stars puts the station in the middle of the business area and also places it much more conveniently in walking distance to denser residential development to the south of Olympic Blvd. I would assume a station at Constellation would provide a better opportunity to pick up more choice riders from the condos/apartments to the south of Olympic Blvd than from the presumably higher income single family homes to the northwest of a Santa Monica Blvd station.
First, I will agree that if there is a bona fide higher risk from earthquakes at one site, then you have to go with the other. But here we are just talking about ridership estimates and getting the project done.

Hill? That may be a hill in Ohio, but not in LA. I would call it flat, but I suppose some rise could be discerned with the right tools.

Residential south of Olympic is not dense and is a non-factor. The station location makes zero difference on weekends since the stations are equally convenient for people going shopping; it is 1 block additional for the highrises south of Constellation. On the other side, you are one block closer to the shopping and hotels along Little SM (Peninsula, Beverly Hilton, and others proposed). Plus, you are on SM, which means more convenient to the SM buses, which are the only connection to north BH, WeHo, Hollywood, etc.

And, again, about a year ago MTA was accused of moving the station to make it closer to a building owned by a major contributor to the mayor and other local politicians. It promptely issued a statement indicating there was no economic difference to landholders between the two sites. Care to reconcile this with the huge ridership differences?

Remember that this is going to be by far the most heavily used transit in LA. The CC station location is really quite trivial as compared to the benefits of having it completed from downtown to the sea. Do you risk years of litigation over this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1877  
Old Posted May 2, 2012, 7:36 PM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
First, I will agree that if there is a bona fide higher risk from earthquakes at one site, then you have to go with the other. But here we are just talking about ridership estimates and getting the project done.

Hill? That may be a hill in Ohio, but not in LA. I would call it flat, but I suppose some rise could be discerned with the right tools.

Residential south of Olympic is not dense and is a non-factor. The station location makes zero difference on weekends since the stations are equally convenient for people going shopping; it is 1 block additional for the highrises south of Constellation. On the other side, you are one block closer to the shopping and hotels along Little SM (Peninsula, Beverly Hilton, and others proposed). Plus, you are on SM, which means more convenient to the SM buses, which are the only connection to north BH, WeHo, Hollywood, etc.

And, again, about a year ago MTA was accused of moving the station to make it closer to a building owned by a major contributor to the mayor and other local politicians. It promptely issued a statement indicating there was no economic difference to landholders between the two sites. Care to reconcile this with the huge ridership differences?

Remember that this is going to be by far the most heavily used transit in LA. The CC station location is really quite trivial as compared to the benefits of having it completed from downtown to the sea. Do you risk years of litigation over this?
Pesto, you seem to be misguided by CenturyCitySubway.org (a paid PR firm on behalf of BHUSD). First of all, Metro NEVER committed to Santa Monica boulevard as a station. There was an Alternatives Analysis started in 2007 and the initial alignment looked at SM boulevard but left the option for Constellation. If you attended the Metro meetings and listened to advocates, PEOPLE (not business owners, as CenturyCitySubway.org mentions) WE wanted Constellation because it truly is the "center of the center" of Century City. Why would you want a station on the edge of Century City? Stand at both corners, where are the people walking?

So, when Beverly Hills say Metro "bamboozled" them into Constellation, that's utterly false. Constellation was looked at even 50 years ago, but the EIR docs were not completed until after Measure R.

This whole misconception that Metro is caving to "property owners at Constellation" is a far fetched lie by BH. If you ever worked in Century City, Constellation is "duh", that's where a station needs to be.

Also, again, the issue of SM blvd v. Constellation is now a moot point. All studies (Metro and BH) have noted that its safer to build a station at Constellation and not recommended for under SM blvd. Only options (from BH perspective) is an at-grade or elevated station at Century Park East and SM blvd or bypass Century City. Imagine if Metro bypasses Century City....who gets blamed? Metro or Beverly Hills 50 years into the future?

I'd rather see a lawsuit. Beverly Hills has 1) no merit b/c subway tunnels are under exisiting schools 2) all studies indicate Constellation is safer than SM blvd and 3) BH would try to change a precedent that could devastate BART, NYMTA, CTA, MBTA, etc.. any transit agency in North America. Lawsuit will be over in 3 years anyways (full lower court, appelate, and state supreme court). We won't even have the funds to build to Century City until 2020 anyways. BH will have to repay Metro for legal costs anyways; just like NSFR has now been ordered to by the lower courts and appelate court.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1878  
Old Posted May 2, 2012, 8:27 PM
mwadswor's Avatar
mwadswor mwadswor is offline
The Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim View Post
I'd rather see a lawsuit. Beverly Hills has 1) no merit b/c subway tunnels are under exisiting schools 2) all studies indicate Constellation is safer than SM blvd and 3) BH would try to change a precedent that could devastate BART, NYMTA, CTA, MBTA, etc.. any transit agency in North America. Lawsuit will be over in 3 years anyways (full lower court, appelate, and state supreme court). We won't even have the funds to build to Century City until 2020 anyways. BH will have to repay Metro for legal costs anyways; just like NSFR has now been ordered to by the lower courts and appelate court.
Most importantly, the courts don't have the power to order Metro to build anything. The court's only power in this case would be to find that the EIR was incomplete and order that the EIR be reopened and completed properly (assuming the court finds that it was done improperly the first time). That's not going to happen.

BH doesn't get a second bite at the apple. They don't get to try and convince a court that the Constellation station is in the wrong place, that tunneling under the school is unsafe, or where they think the station should be built and how. Where to build a station is a purely executive function. If they can prove every one of their claims in court about how unsafe the subway is, they still don't win their suit unless they can also prove that Metro is unaware of those claims and has not thoroughly studied them. Their only chance is to convince a court that the EIR needs to be reopened, and then to convince Metro (not the court) that the station should be moved.

Given the extreme length of time and rigor with which this has been studied, I just don't see that happening. The most they can hope for is a delay. With a project of this size, it's better to build it right even if it takes a bit longer, than to waste money building something that we're going to regret. Better to take a bit longer getting the right line built for the needs of the 99% than to cave to the vocal 1% just because they can find a lawyer (assuming they've actually found one and aren't just blowing hot air).
__________________
Photothreads on Tempe Town Lake, Santa Fe and the Rail Runner, Baltimore, and the Phoenix Sky train.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1879  
Old Posted May 2, 2012, 9:02 PM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwadswor View Post
Given the extreme length of time and rigor with which this has been studied, I just don't see that happening. The most they can hope for is a delay. With a project of this size, it's better to build it right even if it takes a bit longer, than to waste money building something that we're going to regret. Better to take a bit longer getting the right line built for the needs of the 99% than to cave to the vocal 1% just because they can find a lawyer (assuming they've actually found one and aren't just blowing hot air).
Exactly! Construction will not even begin on the La Cienega - Century City segment until at least 2016 at the earliest (assuming Measure R+ is extended this November indefinitely). As Zev said, let's just get straight to the courtroom and get this over with. Beverly Hills has no case.

And caving to SM boulevard (which, again, technically is impossible) or bypassing Century City would be the biggest mistake in the world. To let a small hysteria of people dominate a public works decision that the MAJORITY of Angelenos want. I hate it when CenturyCitySubway.org (a paid PR firm on behalf of BHHS) says "oh Metro is doing Constellation for developers"....that is utterly false! The reasonable and sane people want Constellation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1880  
Old Posted May 2, 2012, 10:26 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,247
In DC, our subways go immediately adjacent or under schools, hospitals, universities, museums, and some of the region's most expensive neighborhoods and yet life not only manages to go on, but our region is thriving. At best, the reason for opposing the subway under Beverly Hills high school is NIMBYism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:58 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.