New 'Subway to the Sea' route?

Should the "Subway to the Sea" run through West Hollywood rather than the Miracle Mile and Hancock Park? The Times' Rong-Gong Lin examines the issue:

After trying for three decades to build a subway down Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles County transit officials are now considering a radically different route that would send the Westside rail line though Hollywood, West Hollywood and the Beverly Center area. The new proposed alignment for the "Subway to the Sea" would extend west from the Hollywood/Highland Red Line station, roughly following Santa Monica Boulevard through Beverly Hills, a route that backers say should dip south to connect with the Beverly Center mall and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. The new concept is still in its preliminary stages, and the Wilshire alignment remains on the table. But even though officials don't have funding for the $6-billion project, the new concept has sparked much debate because of how crucial many officials see the subway to easing the Westside's traffic woes. The new route would bypass the Miracle Mile and Hancock Park, where opposition remains strong to a subway from residents in the upscale residential district. At the same time, officials and residents in Hollywood and West Hollywood are rolling out the welcome mat, saying the younger, apartment-living residents in that area would be more likely to take the subway.

Comments

[k]

When driving in LA, it's all about knowing the best shortcuts! For the first time ever, super shortcuts previously used only by couriers and ambulance drivers are now available for all of us to use!

check out: www.mytrafficshortcuts.com

[James]

All this talk about subways, reducing the traffic its all just talk, in all the time i have been here not much has happen.
I just don't know what the hold up is I say just get started, help us get to where we need to go. but in the mean time an just going to do what i have been doing, and that is just do what i can on the internet, i do my banking at BofA .com, my shopping at ShopdaddyO.com my new at cbs.com, i just stay away from the roads as much as possble, keep me from getting a headache.

[Dan W.]

"How's abouts we borrow some of those extra wide Wilshire Beverly Hills/Miracle Mile sidewalks that nobody ever uses and add a bus only lane on each side? Add more buses when the demand rockets up and PESTO!, you've just saved Several BILLION DOLLARS for some real positive spending money. (silly stuff like schools and old people) . Congratulations.
If seeing environmentally friendly buses whiz by them on Wilshire doesn't motivate the BHes and WEHOes to 'get out of their dreams and get into the bus' then screw em. "

-----------

If you really want to save billions of dollars, ignore Dantzer and other BRU-sympthatizers with their ridiculous bus-only transit vision for Los Angeles. When bus only lanes fail, or are repealed due to resentment from small business owners and single-occupancy motorists with an inflated sense of entitlement (as the bus-only lanes that were on Wilshire in West. L.A. lasted only about 30 seconds), we will have to build the needed rail lines we need anyway, only it will cost so much more in raw dollars later, not to mention lost productivity in the meantime.

We do need a strong, and comprehensive bus system, just like every other major metropolis in the world -- but as a supplement to a strong and comprehensive rail system.

If it weren't for Waxman, Yaroslavsky and NIMBYs we might already have and be using the Purple Line and Expo Lines to the sea. They may have come around, but it is 20 years and so much more expensive. Following the BRU's insipid agenda will make it that much even worse when it fails.

Only adding additional buses, without expanding our rail system, will only add to existing congestion without maintaining Los Angeles' economic and environmental sustainability. And it won't work.

Furthermore, bus-only lanes will not be the only lanes buses are in, for express and rapid buses will need to weave in and out of the remaining "regular" lanes to pass local buses.

Fortunately, the BRU made itself irrelevant with its immoral cries of "transit racism" and anti-rail diatribes.

We need the Purple Line finished as the subway-to-the-sea on Wilshire with a spur into Century City as soon as possible. As for Santa Monica Blvd, the only real argument is whether it should be heavy or light rail, but rail it must be.

The core of the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment is between La Cienega and Fairfax in West Hollywood. From La Cienega, the "Pink Line" can go south to the Purple Line and Expo Lines and eventually the airport or southwest to Century City. From Fairfax, the the line can go northeast to the Hollywood/Highland station, potentially into the Valley, or go east on Santa Monica to Sunset Junction, then into downtown through Silverlake and Echo Park.

I agree that the Purple Line is the highest priority, but Santa Monica Blvd is almost as high and we need BOTH to create a network and a system.

The Pink Line should not go to the Sunset Strip any further west than Fairfax, unfortunately. Sunset Blvd., while crowded like all Westside streets, doesn't even support an all-day express bus yet and it would be a waste of transit resources to choose an alignment on Sunset west of Fairfax, which would deprive the much more heavily traveled portions of this area on Santa Monica Blvd. of rail. (Besides, the City of West Hollywood wants any rail alignment on Santa Monica Blvd.) Maybe we can make some quaint "Angels Flight" type tourist transport advice to take club goers up to their nightclubs on Sunset Blvd.

The Santa Monica Blvd. alignment not only has east-west value, but north-south value, making it easier to go to/from the Westside to/from the Valley, which anyone who has snaked through the Sepulveda Pass or a Canyon road knows a public transit alternative is desperately needed.

We need both. First Purple Line to the sea, then the Santa Monica Blvd alignment with extensions.

And, we can all be glad the BRU has declined in relevance and influence.

People who want better bus service should continue lobby for it and our bus service needs to get better. However, it is not an either/or issue. Bring on the rail!

[Dan W.]

"How's abouts we borrow some of those extra wide Wilshire Beverly Hills/Miracle Mile sidewalks that nobody ever uses and add a bus only lane on each side? Add more buses when the demand rockets up and PESTO!, you've just saved Several BILLION DOLLARS for some real positive spending money. (silly stuff like schools and old people) . Congratulations.
If seeing environmentally friendly buses whiz by them on Wilshire doesn't motivate the BHes and WEHOes to 'get out of their dreams and get into the bus' then screw em. "

-----------

If you really want to save billions of dollars, ignore Dantzer and other BRU-sympthatizers with their ridiculous bus-only transit vision for Los Angeles. When bus only lanes fail, or are repealed due to resentment from small business owners and single-occupancy motorists with an inflated sense of entitlement (as the bus-only lanes that were on Wilshire in West. L.A. lasted only about 30 seconds), we will have to build the needed rail lines we need anyway, only it will cost so much more in raw dollars later, not to mention lost productivity in the meantime.

We do need a strong, and comprehensive bus system, just like every other major metropolis in the world -- but as a supplement to a strong and comprehensive rail system.

If it weren't for Waxman, Yaroslavsky and NIMBYs we might already have and be using the Purple Line and Expo Lines to the sea. They may have come around, but it is 20 years and so much more expensive. Following the BRU's insipid agenda will make it that much even worse when it fails.

Only adding additional buses, without expanding our rail system, will only add to existing congestion without maintaining Los Angeles' economic and environmental sustainability. And it won't work.

Furthermore, bus-only lanes will not be the only lanes buses are in, for express and rapid buses will need to weave in and out of the remaining "regular" lanes to pass local buses.

Fortunately, the BRU made itself irrelevant with its immoral cries of "transit racism" and anti-rail diatribes.

We need the Purple Line finished as the subway-to-the-sea on Wilshire with a spur into Century City as soon as possible. As for Santa Monica Blvd, the only real argument is whether it should be heavy or light rail, but rail it must be.

The core of the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment is between La Cienega and Fairfax in West Hollywood. From La Cienega, the "Pink Line" can go south to the Purple Line and Expo Lines and eventually the airport or southwest to Century City. From Fairfax, the the line can go northeast to the Hollywood/Highland station, potentially into the Valley, or go east on Santa Monica to Sunset Junction, then into downtown through Silverlake and Echo Park.

I agree that the Purple Line is the highest priority, but Santa Monica Blvd is almost as high and we need BOTH to create a network and a system.

The Pink Line should not go to the Sunset Strip any further west than Fairfax, unfortunately. Sunset Blvd., while crowded like all Westside streets, doesn't even support an all-day express bus yet and it would be a waste of transit resources to choose an alignment on Sunset west of Fairfax, which would deprive the much more heavily traveled portions of this area on Santa Monica Blvd. of rail. (Besides, the City of West Hollywood wants any rail alignment on Santa Monica Blvd.) Maybe we can make some quaint "Angels Flight" type tourist transport advice to take club goers up to their nightclubs on Sunset Blvd.

The Santa Monica Blvd. alignment not only has east-west value, but north-south value, making it easier to go to/from the Westside to/from the Valley, which anyone who has snaked through the Sepulveda Pass or a Canyon road knows a public transit alternative is desperately needed.

We need both. First Purple Line to the sea, then the Santa Monica Blvd alignment with extensions.

And, we can all be glad the BRU has declined in relevance and influence.

People who want better bus service should continue lobby for it and our bus service needs to get better. However, it is not an either/or issue. Bring on the rail!

[n in studio city]

jjj -

if you are not native american - how about we repatriate your a$$$ back to your forefather's country.

[jjj]

Almost all of calf's population growth over the past 10 years has come from immigrants and their children.Can this go on? Imagine the improvement if we repatriated illegal aliens instead of providing "sanctuary".

[Jennifer Reyes]

Monorail!

Monorail!

Monorail!

Jay, get your head out of your arse. The construction of a monorail system along a busy arterial street will not be very quick.And if you are going to build an elevated system might as well take the Red/Purple Line cars out of the ground and run them down the boulevard.

[Alvin]

I agree with the call to build both. Find the funding. Get it done. And in the meantime, make pico and olympic one way streets from the ocean to downtown. Not after 5 years of studying the idea, but NOW. ASAP. At least until the subway is built. If you must do an impact study, start with a 5pm drive from Santa Monica to downtown. Hit wilshire on monday, santa monica on tuesday, olypmic on wednesday, the 10 fwy on thursday and pico on friday - and the case will become crystal clear in less than a week.

[Transit Planner]

Why not build a streetcar on Santa Monica Blvd. and the subway down Wilshire (with a diversion to Century City) ? I picture something like the extremely popular F-Market streetcars in San Francisco, but we could use refurbished PCC "Red Cars." Streetcars would be much cheaper than a subway and would be a good fit for the West Hollywood area. It is very much like Upper Market in San Francisco.

[Dantzer]

Sure, build them both. Then we'll have 2 'sinkholes to the sea'.
The Expo pricetag just went up almost 25% and the construction just started. What could possibly go wrong with miles of tunneling in a seismically challenged cheese log?
Building just one route will cost at least twice the estimated SIX BILLION DOLLARS, and take at least a decade to finish. (Can you folks even think about what traffic will be like in 10+ years without hurling?- I can't)
How's abouts we borrow some of those extra wide Wilshire Beverly Hills/Miracle Mile sidewalks that nobody ever uses and add a bus only lane on each side?
Add more buses when the demand rockets up and PESTO!, you've just saved Several BILLION DOLLARS for some real positive spending money. (silly stuff like schools and old people) . Congratulations.
If seeing environmentally friendly buses whiz by them on Wilshire doesn't motivate the BHes and WEHOes
to 'get out of their dreams and get into the bus' then screw em. That's what they get for not allowing a grid-completing freeway to run through it in the first place.

[Cathy]

I think Hollywood is in a crisis situation now. In the last couple of weeks, We seem to have finally reached saturation on all roads. You should send an LA Times reporter to Fountain Ave. at 8 a.m. any regular weekday morning to see the gridlocked traffic that just doesn't move. I drive down to Fountain and wait 10 minutes before I can merge into the traffic. It is mostly estbound traffic in the morning and eastbound traffic at night.

I don't know how the traffic statistics are gathered, if side streets are measured, too, but EVERY side street is clogged. One morning, I expect everyone to simultaneously call into the office saying that they just can't get there.

It is not just Hollywood - in Beverly Hills, you need to look at Elevado, Carmelita, Lomitas, Lexington. Most of these streets have stop signs at almost every corner, and yet drivers are packing these streets. I'm surprised that BH residents aren't complaining or lobbying to make the streets private.

I am not afraid to walk the 3 miles to Wilshire, or the 2 miles to the Redline station. I take the same route the bus takes, and I usually get there before I ever see a bus.

Yes, we need both rail lines and we need them yesterday!

[jay handal]

Both routes make sense, but the subway is unaffordable and not possible. We should be looking at alternate tecnology like a monorail which costs 1/4 the price and can be prefabricated and built in less than 5 years. Based on current today costs, we could build both routes as a monorail, and have money left over for a north south route from the I-14 to the south bay. We need to deal with reality, which is something our elected officials are not doing. IF the Expo line is already 135 million over budget, just thik of the subway. It will be built, according to MWEtro, by 2030 and end at La Cienega. This is not what we need. So, when doing an FEIS, MEtro should seriously consider alternative transportation, and I do not mean a bus lane taking up valuable commuter lanes.

[Dan W.]

Those of us who fervently believe in the “Pink Line” do not see this as a distraction to the Purple Line, but as a vitally important project in itself. If the Pink Line is proposed as an LRT instead of subway, I don’t think that would be objected to by many who want a rail line of some sort built.

The Pink Line has even been mentioned as a possible northern branch of the Crenshaw Line as an LRT, going up San Vicente to Santa Monica and then cutting over to Hollywood/Highland, in addition to the idea of a Hollywood/Highland to Century City extension. I like the idea of it going from H/H to LaBrea/Santa Monica then to LaCienega/SantaMonica to the LaBrea stop of the Expo Line as a vital north/south link.

While I agree with everyone who believes the Purple Line is the first priorty, that doesn’t meant that Pink Line supporters are throwing a wrench into the works or getting in the way or cluttering the issue.

According to Jody Litvak of the MTA in a City Beat interviewre, It came as a surprise to the MTA and probably to others who just assumed Wilshire would be the only option on offer how much support there is for some sort of Santa Monica Blvd. project, whatever modality that turns out to be.

It makes sense and is quite frankly their duty as trusted servants and guardians of their city that the civic leaders in West Hollywood would work to try and ensure their city wasn’t left out of the rail system altogether as may have seemed likely if they hand’t lobbied to get the MTA’s attention. They at least have the MTA’s attention that there is need and popular support for something whereas if they haven't lobbied they may have been left with nothing. Look how long it took for the popular Rapid 704 to go into service.
I would expect the City of WeHo and other Pink Line supporters to keep lobbying for it enthusiastically, as they should. However, I wouldn’t fear it. After 20 years of waiting, I cannot conceive the MTA will not go for the Wilshire alignment first.

If the Pink Line is proposed as an LRT going to Century City, I wonder if the MTA has the right to kick off those parking structures on their former track land in Beverly Hills. Beverly Hills doesn’t seem to want a Santa Monica Blvd. stop at this time. If some Pink Line modality is built, it seems those who lobbied for a Beverly Connection / Cedar Sinai stop will be in luck and those who have their hearts set on taking rail to the Grove may not be, but who knows at this point.

BOTH of these alignments need to be built and should be in the MTA's Long Range Transportation Plan. Everyone has expected a Wilshire alignment. The fact that support for a "Pink Line" has arisen is the process at work. There is nothing to fear here for those, like myself, who believe completing the Purple Line to the sea through Century City is the top transit priority. I’m a believer in a rising tide lifting all boats. The more interest there is in mass transit anywhere in So. Cal. helps the cause of mass transit everywhere in So. Cal.

One more thing. There is a big difference between Pink Line supporters and the Cheviot Hills NIMBY trying to get the Expo line detoured to Venice-Sepulveda.

The support for the Pink Line is genuine and comes from the people who live and work and play in those communities and genuinely want it. It is not being proposed as an alternate roots by the Hancock Park old guard trying to stop the Purple Line.

I have yet to hear anyone who supports the Pink Line to say it should be built INSTEAD of the Purple Line. The fact that any part of So. Cal. enthusiastically wants mass transit and will lobby for it is something for all transit advocates to celebrate, IMO.

As a side note, Beverly Hills has a preference for the Wilshire alignment, so it’s politically easier at this point to go forward with that.

As much as I would love to ram a Crenshaw Blvd. stop down the throats of people in Hancock Park who have been fighting a subway for years, perhaps the MTA should put off committing to building a Crenshaw stop just to get the line built and through. But that’s for another thread.

[David T]

Why not do both if we can find the money and commitment? Just the idea excites me!

[matt]

How about both routes? They are both equally as important.

[matt]

How about both routes? They are both equally as important.

[John Thompsen]

NO! NO! NO! Good grief, what are these guys on the MTA smoking, anyway? The subway must run down Wilshire Blvd - that is LAs main boulevard.

[greg]

Have a bake sale, and make it a hybrid - heading out of Hollywood/Highland to La Cienega, then due south to meet up with the original route. But please, please - whiile you're down there - put in an extra tunnel for some rush hour express trains!

[Sanchez]

I think that both routs should be built. First the Wilshire one and then the West Hollywood one. Red line would stay the same for now. Purple line will go to Santa Monica via Wilshire. Another line would be created that would go from North Hollywood to Santa Monica via the other proposed rout (West Hollywood).

[Ray]

I can't believe I'm the first person to post a response to this? Where are all the rail boosters? Glad somebody is still dreaming creatively at the MTA.

Before we accept the facts presented by Rong-Gong Lin... Does the subway still harbor strong opposition in Hancock Park and the Miracle Mile? Really? What recent poll/sudy suggests that is the case? Pardon my skepticism. Hasn't the world changed a great deal since the tunnel boring machines last fell silent?

I like the map, The alternate route depicted has a lot of merit thru West Hollywood and to Century City. What will be interesting to see is how these extensions develop. Why not build both?

[so]

This map is genius. Lots of young people, great shopping areas, and entertainment venues exist near the proposed new leg of the route. This subway should already be built!!

[manuel]

How about building both options. Both are greatly needed.

[manuel]

How about building both options. Both are greatly needed.

[Cathy]

PLEASE extend the subway in Hollywood! The article stated that there is more bus ridership on Wilshire, but maybe that is because there are more Rapid buses and it is farther away from the Red Line, at least at the west end. Going east down Santa Monica blvd. is not a good option, and the phantom #2 bus on Sunset is spotted about as often as UFO's.

Hollywood has more traffic than Hancock park. Let them sit in their fancy cars in gridlock and put the subway where it will definitely be appreciated!

[RB]

BUILD THEM BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[brilliantmistake]

I live in the miracle mile area, and I would love for the rail line down wilshire to be completed. I take the bus everyday down wilshire, and there is a deperate need for either a rail line or a dedicated bus lane.

[Kymberleigh Richards]

Reading the full article, I agree with Genevieve Giuliano's view that the subway needs to go on the alignment with the highest potential ridership, and that, by every measure, is Wilshire.

There is also a point that needs to be made about the logistics of a proposed Santa Monica Blvd. alignment, and that is that Hollywood/Highland Station was not designed for a branch route, as was Wilshire/Vermont Station. That means that this route would be separated from the Red Line (meaning a transfer to/from it) with its own platform and no through trips ... unless anyone thinks it would be a good idea to shut down that part of the subway for a year or more to reengineer it. (No, I didn't think any of you would.)

That said, I do believe that this will be a viable alignment for a future expansion of Metro Rail, and I believe that Century City Station should be designed to accommodate a future branch route when that time comes.

[Shaun]

I think the new alignment proposal is great and would serve an area of high density residential and commercial developments. Even better would be to build both extensions and have the city even more connected, attracting even more riders. If LA is ever going to have a good rail system it needs to have easy connections and transfers and cover most major corridors or activity centers of the city. So please build both like it is displayed in the picture.

And as far as the typical NIMBY's against them, well screw them. They have been holding this city back and ruining EVERYONE'S quality of life for long enough. So tired of all the delays and extra costs b/c of selfish NIMBY's.

[mike d.]

if we really want to get commuters out of their cars then it needs to have the shortest transit time possible. by having to go up vermont to hollywood and then back down it will add a lot of distance to the trip from downtown to santa monica, and every increase in transit time will likely reduce ridership. it just makes sense to build the wilshire section first, and then the santa monica blvd section later if funding is available. it just doesn't seem like there is as much employment density along santa monica blvd as along wilshire from k-town thru beverly hills.

[Chris]

Routing via Santa Monica will have significantly fewer passengers and cost significantly more. What has
more activity - Santa Monica and La Brea or Wilshire and LaBrea? Wilshire. Same for Fairfax. Not to mention the fact that the many people passing through the area don't want to go north to go east. In addition, how is the subway going to serve the West Hollywood bar area when it stops at midnight? People in West Hollywood need to learn to take a bus for 10 minutes to the subway at Wilshire.

This alignment won't be chosen because the higher cost and lower ridership doesn't come out well in the cost equation.

[Chris]

Routing via Santa Monica will have significantly fewer passengers and cost significantly more. What has
more activity - Santa Monica and La Brea or Wilshire and LaBrea? Wilshire. Same for Fairfax. Not to mention the fact that the many people passing through the area don't want to go north to go east. In addition, how is the subway going to serve the West Hollywood bar area when it stops at midnight? People in West Hollywood need to learn to take a bus for 10 minutes to the subway at Wilshire.

This alignment won't be chosen because the higher cost and lower ridership doesn't come out well in the cost equation.

[Alek]

I think BOTH routes should be built simultaneously
(along Santa Monica blvd. AND along Wilshire blvd.).
And - both routes should extend all the way to Santa Monica (without cutting short in mid-city).
If Beijing is able to build 6 lines (!) simultaneously,
there's no reason why Los Angeles can't!
LA has been in desperate need for a good subway system.

[David Raether]

Why don't we build both of these routes?

[Dan W.]

Jody Litvak, of the MTA, stated in a City Beat interview that they received more people commenting support for a westward extension form Hollywood/Highland than they expected.

The MTA is obligated to at least consider it.

At first the MTA ignored West Hollywood and the City of West Hollywood had to ask for a special forum to make sure they weren’t left out.

It is understandable to believe the people at the MTA (as well as much of L.A.) had already made up their minds unofficially for a Wilshire alignment to the sea. Remember, they’ve had 20 years to think about this.

This article shows that there is popular support for a subway in Hollywood/West Hollywood without the old guard residential opposition. If the MTA is even considering a second alignment seriously, it is because the grass roots is demanding it.

What I saw and read about at the recent MTA Westside transit forums were people arguing for a second line in addition to the Purple Line extension. For some people, that meant Santa Monica Blvd from La Brea to Century City. For others, that meant something north/south from Hollywood/Highland, zig zagging, possibly connected with the Crenshaw project.

I didn’t hear anyone arguing for the “Pink” Line INSTEAD of the “Purple” Line to the sea, or even before it.

The LA Times reporting hasn’t been really stellar on these matters. In an earlier article about the Wilshire alignment, it didn’t even mention the possibility of spurring into Century City.

What I think is happening is a realization that a Purple Line extension by itself isn’t enough and that many people want a “Pink” or second alignment proposed at the same time as part of the same corridor study.

However, this discussion isn’t just about getting to/from downtown to/from the Westside.

The San Fernando Valley has a huge stake in this discussion. The gentleman from the MTA who did the visual presentation at the Santa Monica MTA forum mentioned that the Santa Monica Blvd. corridor has regional implications. It would allow for a direct ride to/from the San Fernando Valley to/from the Westside, which anyone who’s snaked through a canyon to work or ridden the Sepulveda Pass knows is needed as much as the current Red Line which allows commuters to go southeast from the Valley to/from downtown.

I think the L.A. Times reporter, who probably drove to work in a single-occupancy vehicle, is just having a brain awakening to the possibility of additional needs for westside rail for the first time. L.A.’s establishment is playing catch up.

I don’t think anyone expects the MTA to commit to building the "Pink" line first. However, if they built both lines at the same time, that would be a dream come true for me. I'd even be happy if the MTA said the Purple Line extension comes first but puts both the Purple and "Pink" Lines in their Long Range Transportation Plan.

I’m glad Jody Litvak also mentioned she heard support for a Sepulveda/405 Line from LAX to the Valley.

A different alternative could involve Santa Monica Blvd as a northerly extension of the Crenshaw LRT project after heading north head north on Farfax/LaCienega/SanVicente.

But, whatever. I’m just glad the LA Times didn’t run over to Eric Mann and the BRU to ask what they thought and how improved bus service would lead to a socialist bus-only transit riding utopia.

Whatever happens with the Santa Monica Blvd. corridor or the "Pink Line", I'm glad the MTA has seen and heard and acknowledged that there is need and popular support for mass transit north of Wilshire Blvd. too.

[Matthew]

It's obvious that we need both, and it's foolish that our political system makes us choose one over the other as though our city doesn't deserve any better. I would still choose the Wilshire extension over the Santa Monica one, as there are far more people who travel along the Wilshire Corridor to and fro. Yes, there are many younger users to the north, though until the Metro adopts a higher frequency of trains and late-night hours to correspond to bar closing times, there's less hope of roping in more users with that route. Besides, the two sole stations on the Purple Line are always jilted for the Red Line's schedule, simply because it hits more stations (and yet the Koreatown stops are closer to downtown). An extension along the Purple Line would give a little more validity to the line, not to mention hit a larger number of residences and offices.

[n in studio city]

why even debate which one...build them both!

[Tom A.]

Obviously, if the NIMBYs in Miracle Mile and Hancock Park don't want it running through their 'hood but the people Hollywood and West Hollywood want it under their's, than that's where it should be built.
Logically speaking, it would make more sense to build the Wilshire route as it's shorter, more direct and wouldn't need a new junction being built in Hollywood, but there's nothing glaringly WRONG with the Hollywood route.
And if finances and other circumstances allow for it down the road, the Wilshire route can be built later. That way, everyone (aside from the dinosaurs of the BRU) would be happy.

[Anthony Fernandez]

Ron Lin is spreading LIES! Everyone wants and knows that the Wilshire is line is needed now and has been needed. It has more benefit and has more support than the Santa Monica Line. I'd like both, but let's build Wilshire both.