Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote
That's based on Metro's study, and as bzcat said, it wouldn't be out of character for them to fix the numbers. The Centinela alignment has one more station, one of which directly serves the office complexes in Playa Vista, and the travel time isn't that much longer than Sepulveda. HRT3 has one more station than HRT1 and a longer travel time, yet it also is projected to yield higher ridership.
|
The issue here is neither corridors have gone thru an EIR. Just the preliminary study and that study has some flaws which has been pointed out already. The cost advantage is based on eliminating one station and the ridership modeling seems to counter conventional wisdom about locating a rail line next to a freeway. What happens to the cost and ridership if we eliminated the Culver station on the Centinela alignment and assumes full built out of Playa Vista Google campus?
The three options were:
Sepulveda/Expo, Sepulveda/Venice, Culver City Transit Center/Westfield Fox Hill, Sepulveda/Manchester, 96th Street/LAX
Centinela/Expo, Centinela/Venice,
Centinela/Culver, Playa Vista (Centinela/Jefferson), Sepulveda/Manchester, 96th Street/LAX
Westwood/Expo, Sony Studio (Overland/Venice),
Overland/Jefferson, Culver City Transit Center/Westfield Fox Hill, Sepulveda/Manchester, 96th Street/LAX
Just look at it... did someone add an unnecessary/under performing station to Centinela and Overland alignment on purpose? You tell me...
I also don't believe the politics will allow the line to be elevated anywhere in West LA so any argument that Sepulveda has an advantage because it preserves that option is a weak argument in my opinion.
I just want both Centinela and Sepulveda corridors to LAX to remain on the table for EIR.
