|
Getting There from Here: And How! |
|
|
Subways & Highways
Edited by Sara Epstein
The Subway to the Sea idea … or any other concepts for people-moving from Downtown to the Pacific … is still a long way from reality. But that doesn’t mean that proponents aren't hard at work imagineering on the subject.
The Daily News has reported that the Metro Transit folks have been busy weighing options. Here’s some of Sue Doyle’s report.
Metro started with 17 proposals in February and narrowed them to four after nearly 800 residents attended a series of community meetings to voice their preferences. A fifth option of building a busway is also on the table. After the next two weeks of meetings, Metro will further narrow plans for a Westside extension and should present its findings to its board by the fall.
The 12-14-mile line would link with existing transit routes to bring commuters underground from downtown to Santa Monica. For San Fernando Valley commuters, a trip from the existing North Hollywood subway station to Century City would take about 28 minutes.
One Advertisement proposal would put a subway almost entirely under Wilshire Boulevard from the Purple Line at Wilshire and Western Avenue to the Pacific Ocean.
It would swing around Century City, where thousands of daily passenger boardings could rival Union Station, said Jody Litvak, Metro’s regional community-relations manager.
Another plan also would pick up from the Purple Line and travel under Wilshire Boulevard. But then it would head north on Fairfax Avenue and west Beverly Drive to serve the Grove, Beverly Center and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. After leaving the hospital, it would return to Wilshire Boulevard, hit Century City and head to the coast.
Two more subway plans include variations of the Wilshire Boulevard routes but also would involve a second train coming from the Red Line at Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue and zipping below Santa Monica Boulevard to serve West Hollywood. The lines would converge on Wilshire Boulevard and head to the sea.
ON ANOTHER TRANSPORTATION FRONT: The 101/405 Connector Project, A letter from Homeowners of Encino President Gerald Silver explains the project, the options and his views on what will work best.
We have had an opportunity to review your handouts and Environmental Assessment (EA) regarding the 101/405 connector project. Caltrans proposes to replace the existing non-standard connector, from the southbound San Diego Freeway (Interstate-405) to the northbound Ventura Freeway (U.S. Highway-101), with an upgraded connector. The new 50 mph two-lane connector would replace the current 20 mph single-lane connector. This would be accomplished by constructing a new bridge structure crossing over the spillway of the Sepulveda Dam.
Currently, four alternatives remain under consideration, including the No-Build Alternative.
(edit)
Alternative 1: No Build
The no build alternative would provide no additional improvements to the I-405/101 connector, leaving the current accident situation. We oppose this option.
Of the remaining three options, each calls for the replacement of the existing 20 mph single-lane connector (from the southbound I-405 to the northbound U.S.-101), with a new 50 mph two-lane connector bridge that encroaches upon and spans over the spillway of the Sepulveda Dam. Each eliminates the existing erratic and conflicting traffic weaving patterns between the Burbank Boulevard on-ramp traffic seeking to access the southbound I-405 mainline, versus the traffic attempting to access the U.S.-101 connectors from the southbound I-405 mainline.
There are significant differences between the cost and impacts of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Homeowners of Encino favors the fourth alternative, Alternative C.
Alternative 2: (A) We oppose Alternative 2, because it would eliminate access to the 101 freeway from Burbank Blvd. While this alternative does not take any land in the Sepulveda Basin, it cuts off major access to Encino, greatly increasing street traffic. We understand the LA Dept. of Transportation also opposes this alternative for the same reason.
Alternative 3: (B) We oppose Alternative 3, because of its substantial increase in cost, and because it would require the reconstruction of the Burbank Blvd. bridge over the 405. Shutting down this arterial to re-construct the Burbank bridge would create a horrendous traffic night-mare during construction.
Alternative 4: (C) We support Alternative 4 (C) for several reasons. It would provide access from Burbank Blvd. to the 101 Freeway. It costs substantially less that Alternative 3, (B) and would only take a relatively small amount of land in the Sepulveda Basin. While we would normally oppose any land takes in the Basin, the significant improvements to traffic flow, reduced accidents and injuries, all weight in favor of Alternative 4. This is our preferred choice. _
CityWatch
Vol 6 Issue 40
Pub: May 16, 2008
|
