Who gets the (subway) money?

Lookout columnist Frank Gruber has a sobering reminder for all those west of downtown L.A. cheering for the Wilshire subway: L.A. County's a big place -- and others might have better ideas for the money:

Unfortunately, notwithstanding that L.A. Metro would include in the measure projects, including road projects, designed to appeal to voters throughout the county, a stumbling block could be the project that would do the most good for us on the Westside -- the $7 billion extension of the Wilshire Boulevard subway. Wilshire may be the best corridor in the country for routing a subway, but a member of the Metro board from Duarte told the conference that his constituents might balk if they thought subway might soak up all the money. And according to a report on the conference in the L.A. Times, a spokesman for County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who represents the northern part of the county, said that the supervisor would probably oppose a transportation tax for the same reason. To be honest, I understand the impulse. I have no interest in paying good money to widen the Pearblossom Highway, or whatever road projects they may want up in Santa Clarita.

Comments

[Scott Mercer]

The Gold Line extension will cost MUCH LESS than the STTS. The STTS will cost SO much that federal funds in huge amounts MUST be acquired to even have a chance of funding it.

I say, call upon the municipalities that the Gold Line extension will service to pay a more substantial chunk of the cost. I'm talking about 50 or 60 million dollars per city. I know they have already spent a few million on related TOD projects, but that's really just pocket change. I'm talking about a serious investment to get their towns linked up to the countywide Metrorail NETWORK.

You get that much out of the cities, you're covering almost 50% of the total cost. That would raise the liklehood that Uncle Sam and the MTA will cough up the rest. The cities can sell some municipal bonds if they like, it is a major capital investment which will benefit the community for hundreds of years.

Azusa, Glendora, Arcadia, LaVerne, Irwindale, San Dimas, I'm looking at you!

[John M.]

For the past year or so, in fact since the completion of the Gold Line, I've been listening to and participating in discussions on how to improve the rail transit system in Los Angeles. There are so many good ideas, and a lot of good people are stumping for reasonable and inexpensive fixes which would make our rail grid a whole lot better. As of January 2008, however, all of those good ideas seem to come down to two: extend the Gold Line or build the "Subway to the Sea".

East Side politicos and Mayor V. are in favor of the Gold Line extension to Ontario airport because it's politically expedient, and, taken on its own,is not a bad idea. Westsiders favor the STTS because communities west of Hollywood and Beverly Hills are stuck in interminable gridlock. They deserve to use the Santa Monica Freeway again and experience the relief of surface congestion caused in part by buses in reserved lanes.

When weighing the two possibilities, I see the Gold Line traveling through cities which, while densely populated, have nowhere near the number of people in such close quarters as Santa Monica, Culver City, Venice, and Westwood. The STTS, on the other hand, traverses zip code or census tract-defined districts with just as many people packed sardine-like as any big city in North America.

It doesn't seem as if we're being presented with more than two options in this situation, even though we might need much more than we're being offered. It's black or white, one or the other. As an East Side (Pasadena) resident, I choose the STTS for MTA's next capital project..

The Gold Line extension to Ontario, while a fine idea, should be considered in the same category as the Green Line to LAX and downtown Norwalk Metrolink, the light rail "Downtown Connector", the Expo Line Phase II extension, and a possible second Gold Line extension due east toward Montebello and Whittier.

So on to the sea by subway. I'm proud to sign my name to this blog contribution.

John Marquette
Pasadena, California

[Paul]

Why not install electronic tolling along the freeways that run parallel to the subway route, then charge an amount that would cover maintenance of the freeway plus what's needed to build the subway line. You could even go as far as putting tolls on the major avenues. That way, the people who need the subway the most would be the ones paying a significant chunk to get it built.

[kylej]

so many people commute to the west side, it's stupid not to invest in this. It will affect traffic in all directions for the positive. Encourage tourism, the benefits to the city are endless.

[Dan W.]

The problem with L.A. county is that too many people think parochially.

A few holdover NIMBYs in Hancock Park and Windsor Square shouldn't be allowed to thwart the Purple Line expansion because they suffer from the delusion that a subway stop at Crenshaw and Wislhire will mean hordes of "those people" who they otherwise think wouldn't come to their neighborhood will be invading if the subway goes through.

On the other end of the spectrum, the Purple Line won't just benefit those travelling to/from Downtown and the Westside. It will also benefit residents in Supervisor Antonovich's district who will be able to travel by Metrolink to Union Station and then hop on the Purple Line to points west in Mid-Wilshire and Century City or even Santa Monica. The Purple Line will be transformative to regional transportation and the way Southern Californian's think about it.

However, I understand that politics is about deal making, and obviously politicians are going to bargain for what they can get for their districts as well. If expanding the Gold Line to Montclair is what it will take to buy off San Gabriel Valley politicians, then so be it.

A subway to the sea will be expensive, but it is the most necessary public transportation project that needs to be done. It will also have benefits to the entire region as it helps keep Southern California economically and environmentally sustainable.

The cost of NOT building the Purple Line to the sea is much greater in the long -term than the cost of building it today. When it is eventually built in the future, it will cost even more.

Let's get the Purple Line to the sea done and let's ram it down the throats of the few remaining NIMBYs if we have to for the good of the whole region.

[AJ]

Tell these myopic assholes to shut up. WE NEED PROJECTS IN EVERY PART OF THE CITY. Without the Wilshire corridor established, there won't even be enough incentive to use the metro. The Wilshire line will provide access to tons of destinations whereas the Duarte line would only be a commuter train. How selfish are they?

[Chris Bucka]

For the greater good, people. Less traffic congestion is a good thing for everybody! I'd use Pearblossom on my way to Vegas if it were improved, so go ahead and fund that! But a Wilshire subway would do things for the economy that we can only begin to understand. Tourism money, increased efficiency, a decrease in demand on oil (thank God!) which reduces gas prices, people! Though there's a cost up front, everyone is going to benefit from its implementation.

[RB]

Yes, the Wilshire subway would soak up a lot of money, but if we don't start somewhere, with something, then we run the risk of not doing anything, all the while traffic gets worse everywhere and no one benefits. Santa Clarita may not have a need for a subway today, but if the westsiders continue moving north to escape the gridlock, then Santa Clarita in 20 years will be singing a different tune.

[Richard Roehm]

Santa Ana On A Roll

If you have 8.5 minutes to spare.

Enjoy the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9Eszy0yFhg