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

[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.