Which route do you like?

Tell us which of these Subway to the Sea route makes the best sense? Strictly down Wilshire? A detour through West Hollywood? A UCLA connection? The Northern route through Hollywood? SHARE YOUR VIEW BELOW WITH THE BOTTLENECK BLOG! (MAP: MTA)

Comments

[JP]

I would like both, but if I had to choose one, I'd say the Santa Monica alignment because there is much higher density closer to the hill.

[Scott Mercer]

A detour up San Vicente to Cedars-Sinai and Beverly Hills could easily be done, but not as a subway! There's a perfectly good MEDIAN there going to waste that a light rail could travel along.

Hey wait a minute! That's what used to be there until 1955! A Pacific Electric red car line!

Yes, a few overpasses would be required, mainly at the Wilshire/San Vicente intersection, and the La Cienega/San Vicente intersection. But this would be much cheaper than a subway.

[tb]

First and foremost, ridership must be considered. The Wilshire alignment with an obviously needed Century City detour would have the greatest number of trip origins and trip conclusions along its path. I do think a second detour from Wilshire up San Vicente to the Cedars-Sinai/Beverly Center region should also considered due to the greater than 10k jobs in the immediate area and I believe relatively higher density of housing in the area. The line could be continued from there down Burton to downtown BH.

First and foremost the option that is most likely to be built must be chosen. The Wilshire route would likely have higher annual ridership and would be shorter (read: most likely cost less). Riders per dollar would be higher, therefore more likely qualify for funding. See recent Dulles rail debacle in Washington, DC. Also to consider is speed to downtown LA. Speed is a definite consideration when deciding to give up the car. These are the people we are targeting here. The busriders will be forced onto the line no matter where it goes by route discontinuations, reroutes, and cutbacks. The five minutes spent diverting along the Santa Monica blvd leg that might be so great for w/e's and Fri/Sat night may be the five minutes that keeps someone from using the Subway everyday.

[Kate]

"No subway until we stop the immigration that is overpopulating us. A subway would be like enabling an alcoholic."

My ancestors came here 400 years ago. Can I have a subway, or does that fall within your specious "immigration" argument?

[n in studio city]

HL - I supposed you are native american. if not your point is moot. stop your fear mongering and grow up!

[Dan W.]

"No subway until we stop the immigration that is overpopulating us. A subway would be like enabling an alcoholic."

--------------------

By the same logic, I suppose you oppose road building as well? I didn't think so.

Millions more people are predicted to move to Southern California over the next few decades, with or without immigration. Los Angeles is only going to become more vertical, more dense and more need of public transit.

The glory days of the "car culture" Los Angeles are behind us, with or without immigration.

[n in studio city]

lets just build them both - and fast!

[HL]

No subway until we stop the immigration that is overpopulating us. A subway would be like enabling an alcoholic.

[Dan W.]

We need BOTH a Wilshire alignment and a Santa Monica Blvd. alginment which come together in Century City and then go to Santa Monica via UCLA/Westwood.

Everyone should look at the MTA Presentation:

Of the proposed alignments, some are Wilshire only, some are Santa Monica only and several are "combined", meaning BOTH.

I am supporting Option 9, which includes both a Wilshire and Santa Monica Blvd. alignment, and am encouraging others to do so. (The MTA seems to realize that Wilshire is considered the higher priority).

I think a combined option is more salable than a one-line option. In Option 9, the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment has a direct link into the Valley. The LAist called this "NoHo to Century City in 14 minutes." I used to drive from North Hollywood to Century City every day and on a good day it took me 45 minutes and on an average day it took me an hour.

This Santa Monica Blvd. alignment has potential not just east/west, but north/south. It creates a viable alternative for people commuting to/from the Valley and Westside instead of snaking through the canyons or passes. The Valley residents would be supportive of a combined project because they see their own interest in it. I will be writing to Valley politicians asking them to support the combined proposal.

I realize this isn't a substitute for a Sepulveda Pass line, but some people will be travelling to/from the West Valley and some to/from the East Valley. "The Valley" is not a monolithic entitty to be served by one line.

I also like the "transit triangle" this would create. People would refer to living or working within the "triangle".

In any event, the combined proposal #9 is the best I see on offer, will serve the most people, and I think it is the most politically marketable too.

[Paul]

People should know that these alignments are for ALL types of transit that are being considered: Subway, HRT, LRT, Monorail and BRT. Some routes are not being considered for Subway, but are being considered for LRT and/or BRT, etc. For example, in the "January/February 2008 Presentation" on the Westside Transit Corridor Study page on MTA's website, the UCLA stations do not appear on either of the Santa Monica Subway or Whilshire Subway alignments.

Go to the MTA Website > Projects & Studies > Westside Extension Transit Corridor > January/February 2008 Presentation and view all of the alignments individually. It's a PDF so you'll need Acrobat Reader at least.

[Ian C]

Whichever route is taken to reach Century City and Westwood, from there I support a northerly Wilshire route over the Santa Monica Blvd route to reach the coast. I suspect it might not be beneficial to have the heavy rail line that close to the Exposition Line coming into Santa Monica along Olympic.

[Ellen]

I've taken both bus routes along Wilshire and Santa Monica Blvds. and they are both heavily traveled. I'm talking jammed packed buses with standing room only. I figure Wilshire Blvd. services the Wilshire Corridor/Mid-Wilshire business districts and Santa Monica Blvd. services Century City/Beverly Hills. To really alleviate congestion, I think that we need to build both routes. But if I had to pick one, I would first pick the route that was cheaper/easier to build. But, assuming that both routes are equally expensive, then I'd pick the Northern route because those areas seem to be more dense (at least to me).

[RakDaddy]

Could you please post a bigger graphic with more detail?

[Paul]

This map is so small and undetailed that no one can make a logical decision based on it. In Santa Monica, what street does the lower route stop on? If the MTA wants a decision, they should give us the tools to make one.

[Dan W.]

Just seeing this map makes me weep with joy.

We obviously need the Wilshire Blvd. alignment to Santa Monica with a spur into Century City as the top priority.

We also need a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment from Hollywood/Highland to Fairfax/Santa Monica then La Cienega/Santa Monica. The question then comes how to get to Century City. The line could continue down Santa Monica Blvd. It could also spur down to the Beverly Center and then back to Wilshire. Beverly Hills Transportation Committee seems to prefer Wilshire Blvd. stops and I think more people might be served by the line going to the Beverly Center then back to Wilshire.

We need these both -- Wilshire first, but BOTH. I am willing to pay any reasonable additional taxes and fees to build them. The quality of Los Angeles' economy and environment depends on building them.

[Teresa]

I think the subway, should definitey stop at UCLA, and the Grove, These are major local and tourist attractions, they are established institutions, that will not lose much steam in the coming years.

[Brett Snyder]

I'm a big fan of running it right down Wilshire. That way you reach the most people in terms of density, especially running down through Westwood. Part of the benefit here is that you can eliminate a ton of bus traffic from the route. If you don't run it all the way down Wilshire, the buses will still be there.