Metro announces subway meetings

UPDATED: 11:35 a.m.

Metro today announced dates for meetings in September to deliver the results of its "alternatives analysis" on building more mass transit on the Westside. To put it another way, the agency is likely to tell the public two things: it wants to extend the subway west and which route it wants to use.

The study is required to show that there's need for more mass transit. In the spring, the agency announced that based on public meetings, a subway extension was by far the most popular idea with residents, although Metro staff also left the possibility of a Westside busway on the table.

Of course, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. An effort to place a half-penny sales tax increase proposal on the Nov. 4 ballot is well underway and the tax spending plan includes $4 billion for a subway extension. That, proponents say, may be enough seed money to get the subway-to-the-sea as far as Westwood.

Hmmmmm.

After all the legislative maneuvering on behalf of the sales tax, does anyone out there seriously believe that Metro staff is going to say 'hey, let's build a busway?' I don't. Besides, bus lanes for the city of L.A. portion of Wilshire Boulevard are in the works and the earlier studies showed that a subway would carry a lot more people.

The far more intriguing question is route for the subway.

Metro had narrowed the list to several possibilities. Go to Metro's website and click on the May presentation to see what's under consideration. One candidate (shown above) is to actually have two westside extensions -- a line extending west from Hollywood and another going down Wilshire Boulevard.

The two lines would meet in Beverly Hills and make it far easier for passengers boarding in the San Fernando Valley to reach the Westside (and vice versa) by avoiding having to go to downtown Los Angeles first.

But that's also a very pricey option.

The other significant aspect of the study is that it allows the Metro Board to go ahead with the necessary environmental studies for a subway extension. That will require votes and money from the Board and could happen before the end of the year. Of course, if the sales tax doesn't make it to the ballot or doesn't pass muster with voters, there would be no money for a subway extension -- at least for the time being.

The press release with meeting dates and times is after the jump. I may update later if I can pry any details out of Metro staff. Also, the Westside Extension study has a Facebook page -- do a search for Metro Westside Extension and it will pop up. The study has 841 friends as of this morning.

UPDATE: I just got off the phone with Jody Litvak, the spokesperson for the Metro Westside Extension study. In summary, and despite a mighty effort, I couldn't get her to tell me anything as official Metro spokesman Dave Sotero monitored our conversation.

"I can't," Litvak said. "We have to do all of our internal briefings."

Luckily, I'm optimist. A lot of people will attend those briefings and I'm quite hopeful one of them will want to leak what they hear to me. My email is below or you can reach me at 213-237-5000, The Times' main number. Non-scientific studies -- which all might be a figment of my imagination -- have shown that leaking news is a sure path to immortality!

--Steve Hymon

METRO TO HOLD FIVE COMMUNITY UPDATE MEETINGS IN SEPTEMBER ON METRO WESTSIDE EXTENSION TRANSIT CORRIDOR STUDY

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) will be conducting a new round of community update meetings in September on the agency’s Westside Extension Transit Corridor Study. 
Metro will provide an update to the public on its alternatives analysis to date for the possible extension of the subway to the Westside, including draft staff recommendations.  Meetings will be held throughout the study area at the following locations:

City of Santa Monica
Wednesday, September 3, 6 – 8 p.m.
Santa Monica Public Library, Auditorium, 1st Floor
601 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica

Served by Metro Lines 4, 20, 33, 333, 720 and Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10. Validated vehicle and bike parking is available.     City of West Hollywood
Thursday, September 4, 6 – 8pm
Plummer Park
7377 Santa Monica Boulevard, West Hollywood

Served by Metro Line 4. Free vehicle and bike parking is available at the location.

City of Beverly Hills
Saturday, September 6, 2 – 4 p.m.
Beverly Hills Public Library – Auditorium, 2nd Floor
444 N Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills

Served by Metro Lines 4, 14, 16, 704. Free 2-hour parking available in the adjacent structure.    Wilshire/Fairfax area
Monday, September 8, 6 – 8 p.m.
Los Angeles County Museum of Art West - Terrace Room, 5th Floor
5905 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles

Served by Metro lines 20, 720, 920, 217, 780. Validated vehicle parking is available in the Museum’s 6th Street underground garage. Enter from 6th and Ogden

Westwood area
Wednesday, September 10, 6 – 8 p.m.
Westwood Presbyterian Church
10822 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles

Served by Metro Lines 20, 720, 920. Free parking available at the location.

Metro has completed three rounds of community meetings — in October 2007, January/February 2008 and May 2008. Based on the analysis and public input received at these meetings, Metro has identified the alternatives to be recommended for further study through an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement.
These new round of meetings will present to the public the refined set of alternatives that will be recommended for further study and a schedule for future steps.
Content presented at these meetings will be identical, so members of the public can attend at the time and location most convenient for them.
In the fall, Metro will present the Alternatives Analysis Report and its recommendations to its board of directors, which may then authorize a full environmental review.
For additional information or questions, please visit the Westside Extension Transit Corridor Study web site at metro.net/westside or contact the project information line at 213.922.6934.

map: Metro

Comments

[Dana Gabbard]

Johnny, nice number crunching. But an extra two billion is just too heavy a burden in the current political atmosphere. And, sorry, Spokker but to get "just" alternative #1 will be a huge challenge. Take solice that by building this line we guarantee all the other spurs etc. will eventually happen. But first we need to get the Purple Line along Wilshire father westward.

[Spokker]

"2 and a half billion dollars is too much for that small amount of added ridership."

But would it be worth it over the life of the subway? It may cost a lot now, but how happy will the next generation be when that subway is generating 15% extra ridership every day for the next 100 years and possibly beyond?

I don't know the answer. Just asking.

[johnny]

Dana, I looked at the metro statistics and they list ridership, cost, and cost-benefit for 3 subway alignments: "Wilshire subway", "Santa Monica Subway", and "Combined Subway". What alternative does "Combined Subway" represent? It could be either Alt. 16 or Alt. 11 with or without a station at Santa Monica/San Vicente. For all I know, it could include a Pink line alignment that follows Santa Monica from La Brea all the way to Wilshire. However, I found it interesting that even after higher costs and "minimal" ridership increases, the "Combined Subway" was only sightly worse off from a cost-benefit standpoint, at $37 per hour vs. $32 for a Wilshire-only alternative.

I did a bit of number-crunching and came up with mileages and numbers of stations for each subway alternative under consideration, including all optional stations and counting Hollywood/Highland as an extra station for all Pink Line alternatives:

ALTERNATIVE 1
Mileage: 12.16
Stations: 12

ALTERNATIVE 11 - without SM/SV station
Mileage: 16.77
Stations: 18

ALTERNATIVE 11 - with SM/SV station
Mileage: 17.09
Stations: 19

ALTERNATIVE 14
Mileage: 13.84
Stations: 14

ALTERNATIVE 16
Mileage: 17.70
Stations: 18

Using the $5.5 billion figure given for a Wilshire-only alignment, I calculated that Alignment 1 is projected at $452 million per mile. Using that figure, the 16.77 mile Alternative 11 (without SM/SV station) would cost about $7.58 billion while the 17.7 mile Alternative 16 would cost $8.00 billion, leading me to conclude that the "Combined Subway" was probably Alternative 16, or at least a similar alternative. Perhaps Alternative 11 would make more sense from a cost-benefit standpoint?

[Dana Gabbard]

Dan W., minimal is exactly the right word to use.

The Metro May presentation shows the Wilshire alignment producing an estimated 71,000 boardings vs. 82,000 for the combined subway. But while Wilshire costs $5.5 billion the combined is estimated at $8 billion--an almost 50% increase in cost for only 15% additional ridership. I'd say 15% is minimal when the cost factor is taken into account. 2 and a half billion dollars is too much for that small amount of added ridership. The combined just doesn't pencil out. Especially for a project in the hunt for federal funding.

http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/2008_0505_presentation.pdf

[Dan W.]

"I have great respect for David Meiger, but while he speaks of the Hollywood to Beverly Hills route as being feasible the additional ridership it produces is quite minimal compared to the enormous additional cost (hundreds of millions)."

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

You can keep using the word "minimal" if you want, but it is an inaccurate one.

David Mieger - “What was surprising to us is that adding Santa Monica Boulevard to the Wilshire route, in compliment to one another, it works [from a feasibility, cost and RIDERSHIP perspective].”

[Dana Gabbard]

"At the very least, they should recommend a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment as a separate project" Sorry but that isn't going to happen. During the last round of corridor meetings it was made crystal clear Wilshire was the key--the lines that serve the edge of West Hollywood, Cedars, Beverly Center, etc. had value only in tandem with a Wilshire line. And actually Santa Monica Blvd. between Hollywood and Beverly Hills did very poorly as to ridership.

I have great respect for David Meiger, but while he speaks of the Hollywood to Beverly Hills route as being feasible the additional ridership it produces is quite minimal compared to the enormous additional cost (hundreds of millions).

It will be quite a battle as it is to wrest federal New Starts money from all the other parts of the country advocating their own pricey big ticket rail extensions. Picking alternative #1 means we have chosen the strongest project for cost/benefit. Given how the FTA operates, it is almost inevitable.

[johnny]

I agree with Dan that the spur in Alt. 11 would hardly add "minimal" ridership, the route is solid from the standpoint of both population and employment density as seen on the recently published density maps. Yes it would be expensive, but it would be much more effective than a Wilshire-only alternative, and delaying its construction would only make it that much more expensive to build later. At the very least, build the Wilshire-only alternative in such a way that the Pink line can more easily be added later.

I'm not as big a fan of the Fairfax/Grove diversion for the Purple line. IMO, subways are better suited for workers/commuters, and the grove stop would be more for tourists. How about a streetcar that goes from Fairfax/Wilshire to Fairfax/3rd and then west to (hopefully) the Pink line station at La Cienega?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/08/metro-makes-cas.html

[SouthBayLakersFan]

I like alt. 16 which is almost the same as alt. 11 but incl. a stop near the Grove/CBS Studios. Yeah, it will be costly but it will cost even more later on and the two alignments I feel in the long run is the way to go.

My feeling 15 years ago was the MTA should have built a DTConnector or something similar to SF Muni/BART in the downtown with the two rail lines stacked on top of the other. But, a DTC was costly and they needed to get rail lines up and running. Now, we got the backbone but we need it to spread out to the Westside!!

[Dan W.]

"Zig zagging or building an extra side line adds a lot to the cost for minimal extra ridership."

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

I wouldn't use the word "minimal" at all. I will simply quote David Meiger, Project Manager:

“What was surprising to us is that adding Santa Monica Boulevard to the Wilshire route, in compliment to one another, it works [from a feasibility, cost and ridership perspective].”

I hope they pick 11. Perhaps they will pick #1 as Dana says. That would be unfortunate, IMO. Getting people's hopes up and then disappointing them is not a way of winning 2/3 support for the sales tax.

If Metro doesn't pick a alternative with both Wilshire AND Santa Monica Blvds., I wouldn't want to be the one facilitating the presentation in West Hollywood. At the very least, they should recommend a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment as a separate project. But, I'll keep my fingers crossed for #11.

[marcotico]

Dana, You may be right, but I seem to remember from the last round of open houses that adding the Santa Monica portion did add significantly to the overall ridership (network effect).

[Dana Gabbard]

I know this will cause nashing of teeth by fans of the concept of a Pink Line, alternative #11, etc. but Metro staff inevitably will recommend alternative #1--down Wilshire w/a diversion to serve Century City. Zig zagging or building an extra side line adds a lot to the cost for minimal extra ridership. Federal funding is based on cost effectiveness and I predict the locally preferred alternative is #1. Someday the mid-city branch will be built, but not as part of this process. Sorry.

[Spokker]

Seconding alternative #11. Straight shot down Wilshire, please. The segment through West Hollywood is the icing on the cake.

[Dan W.]

Alternative #11 is the way to go. Make it so!