Subway news reaction from readers

Lots of interesting reader comments on yesterday's news that Metro will pursue studies of two subway lines going west -- one under Wilshire and the other under Santa Monica and La Cienega, to meet with the Wilshire line. That's no guarantee either will get built, but it's certainly ambitious, if nothing else.

Now, let's look at some of the comments:

M notes that even with a new line, it would take as long to get from Northridge to UCLA as from Covina to UCLA -- even though Northridge is half as far away.

She has a good point. No matter how you cut it, the trip from Northridge to Westwood -- on the future subway or present bus system -- is likely to take two hours. Even if the La Cienega line gets built, it doesn't do much to help residents of the west San Fernando Valley because they've still got to get to North Hollywood to catch the train.

The proposal for a half-cent sales tax increase for Los Angeles County does include $1 billion for a vaguely defined transit line that would follow the 405 through the Sepulveda Pass. But it wouldn't be built until the 2030s, and at that point, I'm not sure that $1 billion is nearly enough for a subway, light rail line or whatever other type of transit is in there.

At that point, however, there should be carpool lanes on both the north- and southbound 405 and perhaps will be quick buses from the northern Valley.

Dave wrote the following:

"it's funny, but the delays in rail to the west side (oh, and to the airport, like most world-class cities) happened on the L.A. Times' watch - transit was always a dead-end beat at the Times, and resulted from a lack of any coherent SoCal political leadership (leaders are groups of people who come together to advocate for something and use persuasion and argument to drive needed change). We have what we deserve, gridlock and more gridlock. The Olympics will never come back to L.A. because the carbon foot-print of the airport alone, with no terminal access to rail, equals that of many small countries. Lots of luck!"

I think he has a point on both counts.

As for The Times, there has been turnover on the beat in the past five years due to a variety of circumstances. Generally speaking, I think it helps to stay on a beat for a while to get some institutional memory and learn the ropes, but I also think some turnover can bring a fresh perspective to readers. All that said, I tend to agree with Dave that diligent coverage of certain issues can be lost amid changing faces.

Turning to political leadership, I'm not sure that's a point that's arguable. Because traffic and urban planning are big, complicated problems, I think it has allowed a lot of politicians to not do much. At the same time, I think some blame has to go to residents who keep electing the same names to Congress, the Legislature and the City Council.

This is a pet peeve of mine. I know there's a lot of people who say it's hard to compete with big-name politicians with special-interest backing. But I think the low-cost Internet will eventually help good people get the message out and topple the entrenched interests. All it takes is a cheap video camera, a Web page, a basic understanding of Google and YouTube to get the word out. If you're creative, that shouldn't be too hard.

Westwood William wrote this:

"What is so AMAZING about the MTA map is that both the Wilshire subway and the Exposition light rail line both terminate in downtown Santa Monica. Wait a minute; that is TOO much. Exactly WHAT is so special about downtown Santa Monica?"

That's an excellent question. Santa Monica has under 100,000 residents, but has seen tremendous commercial growth in recent years that has added tens of thousands of jobs. As I wrote in an earlier post, however, the city has barely added any housing in that time, according to Census Bureau tallies.

The obvious result is that a lot of people who work in Santa Monica have to drive there. Santa Monica gets its share of the traffic impacts, but so do the surrounding cities of Los Angeles and Culver City and unincorporated Los Angeles County areas.

Ultimately, transit funding is often not tied to certain conditions, such as a city's willingness to do its fair share. In the case of Santa Monica, the question is whether its fair share is building more housing (assuming you believe that may help remedy its traffic woes; some, I'm sure, will argue that it would make matters worse) or kicking in dollars for being on the receiving end of two giant and costly mass transit projects.

-- Steve Hymon

Comments

[richard schumacher]

The Purple and Expo lines serve different purposes. Both are worthwhile. Serving the Valley is also necessary but a separate question. Eventually we are going to have to find the money for all of these and much more.

[Jeremy R]

Even with the 405 rapid transit project?! I don't believe this for one second. It would take them 45 minutes tops!

[David Raether]

One of the overlooked benefits of expanding the subway and light rail system in LA was touched on briefly in an earlier post that mentioned the Olympics.

The benefit is to tourism and the money that tourists would bring.

A comprehensive system that makes it easy to go from downtown to: Old Pasadena (Gold Line), Universal City Walk (Red Line), Beverly Hills (Purple Line someday), Century City (Purple Line someday), UCLA (Purple Line someday), Santa Monica and the beach (Purple Line someday and Expo Line someday), Claremont (Gold Line someday), Monterey Park and Whittier (Gold Line Eastside extension someday), and LAX would be a huge selling point for tourism.

This kind of system would be worth billions in tourism dollars over the years once it's in place.

[JEC]

For the 405 idea, they can do like some of the train lines in Chicago do at certain points and ride in the middle of the highway. Of course, this would mean giving up a couple of car lanes.

[Aaron]

They are probably just playing a numbers game. If they pick 2 lines, they can probably get one to go through, right? Rather than picking one line and then disappointing everyone when it doesn't work out.

Lets rail LA.

[Tommy]

@gerald

The Expo Line will get to the sea first; if all goes according to plan, it could reach Santa Monica sometime in the 2010s.

In the sales tax plan, The Purple Line actually only has enough funding to get it to Westwood, and that won't happen until the 2030s. Taking it to the ocean could potentially take another 20 years after that.

[Dana Gabbard]

Ouch. I meant 14 years of activism (even if at times it ahs felt like 214 years).

[Ed Greenberg]

Actually, Northridge (Reseda/Nordhoff) to UCLA (Leconte/Gayley) can be done in 1:20.

Ride Metro Local Line 166 (SUN VALLEY) heading east
From: NORDHOFF/RESEDA(SE corner) Lv: 07:00AM
To: NORDHOFF ST/BALBOA BLVD(SE corner) Ar: 07:05AM
Pay $1.25 + $0.30 for Transfer., Monthly Pass: $62.00, (EZ Pass accepted)
Ride Commuter Express 573 ( CENTURY CITY - PICO RIMPAU) heading south
From: BALBOA BLVD/NORDHOFF ST(SW corner) Lv: 07:15AM
To: LE CONTE AVE/GAYLEY AVE(SE corner) Ar: 08:17AM
Use Transfer or Media + $0.85, Monthly Pass: $56.00, (EZ Pass accepted)

This is why east-west improvements don't affect SFV commuters.

[John von Kerczek]

A 405 line obviously appeals to commuters stuck on that freeway. However, our long-term transit strategy should not be used to recreate today’s commutes but rather shape the commutes of tomorrow. It was the car and the freeway that enabled people to live in the western San Fernando Valley and commute to the Westside despite the locational and geographic disadvantages of such a commute. We are now at a crossroads. We could plan, fund, and construct a Valley to Basin line to further enable and perpetuate this kind of commute. Or we can develop transit and expand housing options in tandem to bring commuters closer to their jobs. The resources that would have gone into the 405 line could be better used expanding intra-Valley transit centralized around Burbank/North Hollywood/Van uys/Warner Center corridor. The commuting advantage western San Fernando Valley residents lose by not having the 405 line will be more than made up by the greater accessibility they will gain to job and commercial centers in the San Fernando Valley.

[Dana Gabbard]

.In re the 405 corridor, we already have two express buses serving westside destinations from the San Fernando valley - LADOT's Commuter Express routes 573 and 574 [http://www.ladottransit.com/]. Having some sort of rapid transit in that corridor is an idea that goes back to the Prop A map in 1980 and even before [http://transit-insider.org/master.html?http://transit-insider.org/redline/lactc.htm] and as recent as Richard Riordan's second mayoral inaugural speech . And I think the problem has always been there isn't a right of way or median that is overly suitable for anything, which makes the cost quite painful however much people may moan "do something about the 405".

As someone who actually has tried to educate the revolving door of reporters on this beat (at the Times and elsewhere), yes it is a problem. People who cover such things as sports, business and science usually have grounding in the subject. The bar is set a lot lower in the new media when it comes to covering transportation. Don Phillips is about the only person who has been on the transportation beat for years and knows it cold, in my opinion. He used to be with the Washington Post and last I heard was at the International Herald Tribune along with being a columnist for Trains Magazine.

BTW, I think Steve has been doing a good job the past year or so getting up to speed and has done remarkable work in reviving this blog. But of course it is partly because the times are a changing--transportation isn't the backwater of politics and policy that I found 214 years ago when I first became involved in transit activism.

Especially in an era of term limits it is hard to marshal support among politicos for projects that may take a long time to be done. One the up side, transportation produces ribbon cuttings more readily than a lot of government activities and that is partly why earmarks have proliferated in the past dozen years. And that is why I think John McCain's crusade against them is a lost cause

[gerald]

If the subway is going to get built and go to Santa Monica, then there is no point for the Expo Line to run parallel and very close to it. Better for the line to continue on Venice Blvd, turn north on Sepulveda and just keep heading north, meeting the subway at Wilshire and Sepulveda, continuing north on the Sepulveda pass (making use of the proposed $1 billion), and bisecting the valley down the middle, north south. If you are going to the airport from the valley, you would then take the Expo-Sepulvda line to Crenshaw, transfer to the Crenshaw line to the airport. Right now you have to go orange to red to blue to green to bus.