LAist: Wilshire Subway Watch: Wilshire or WeHo? Vote on our new LAist Poll!

guest

Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:04:16 -0800

"No use for the purple line on the weekends? We inner city folks would love to go to the beach without using a car! Most of the Eastside/East LA kids I know never go to the beach 'cause it takes like 2 and half hours on the bus." That's exactly why the purple is never ever going to get built...until they gentrify the inner city and start calling it Metropolitan. As soon as the move all of the wrong colored people from the inner city to Lancaster and San Bernardino, the Purple line will be built. Jane

guest

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 06:43:16 -0800

"At first I was of the side that said "zig zag", but the destinations in WeHo are not necessarily permanent, the Purple Line will be. Let the destinations grow from the transit, as Bert said." That is such a BS argument because if that is the case then the office buildings in some parts of Wilshire aren't permanent either! And if you're spending $5 Billion dollars to create "future" destinations rather than highlight the ones we do have near the route and densify THOSE (Ain't that Smarter growth) then we would really have a usable transit system that will people will use most of the time and that will get people to clamor for more of it! This suggestion of "Oh the people can transfer onto shuttles or other buses due north" is silly since the North-South crossing traffic on Wilshire is worse than Wilshire itself making those destinations right near Wilshire downright unattractive to transit because of this distance/transfer/trip time factor thus reducing the benefits this subway would have.

guest

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:39:35 -0800

It would be awesome if, at some point, there was a subway through West Hollywood. But for now, speaking as someone who's had to drive east through West LA at 5 pm, where it's desperately needed is along Wilshire. Trying for a spur route would just ensure each project would be built much more slowly, while diverting the route would not only be more expensive but also make the trip more time-consuming - exactly the problem the subway is trying to solve. There should be one kink in the route - it would be silly for the subway not to go through Century City - but from Western to Santa Monica Blvd., and from Westwood Blvd. to the sea, should be along Wilshire. And as for BH - what's the problem if most of the pedestrian traffic is along the streets coming off of Wilshire, rather than Wilshire itself? As long as the stops are at the most popular streets, then of course people will use the subway.

guest

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:40:02 -0800

You could make the same argument about any number of neighborhoods. For the subway to really be appealing to the people who aren't already dependent on transit it needs to get from downtown to Santa Monica along the most direct route possible while still hitting major employment centers. Because of the density of offices along Wilshire (and in Century City on Santa Monica Blvd), and the residential density within a few miles of either side of the proposed line, that route makes the most sense. I agree that over time development will occur around the stops anyway. Neighborhoods not directly on the Purple Line route could easily be served by short-distance buses w/ frequent service, like Dash, that would go to the nearest stations. Right now just getting the Wilshire line funded and built will be a challenge enough. Let's not get ahead of ourselves and talk about spurs or other expensive diversions.

guest

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:56:40 -0800

I live close to the Western/Wilshire Redline stop. I've dreamed of the subway going all the way down to Santa Monica via Wilshire. But I've always envisioned other lines, too. One going down Santa Monica Blvd and meeting up with Sunset and going to Union Station and on to East Los Angles, but I'll probably never live long enough to see any of it happen. Los Angeles and its environs wll never be on par with cities like New York, Paris, London or other cities with great subway systems, unless we get our act together and build a great subway system that BEST SERVES the people of greater Los Angeles and not let politics get in the way.

guest

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:43:45 -0800

and follow Sunset to UCLA.

guest

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:32:19 -0800

Why not have a spur of the Red Line past Hollywood? That would make more sense.

guest

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:13:41 -0800

I made a Google Map of my own conceptual Metro line (the Traffic Dodger Blue Line) that would serve WeHo and other high density neighborhoods. Check it out: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=118224662423249406389.00000111e4aa171462a8e&ll=34.020597,-118.398058&spn=0.791062,1.2854&z=10&om=1

Matthew Walsh

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:04:37 -0800

regarding the beach, the Santa Monica Big Blue Bus 10 picks you up in downtown, then hops on the ten and drops you off in santa monica right by the beach, usually in 20-30 minutes with no stops between downtown and santa monica. a million times better than the 720.. but it stops coming back eastward pretty early.

guest

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:54:41 -0800

No use for the purple line on the weekends? We inner city folks would love to go to the beach without using a car! Most of the Eastside/East LA kids I know never go to the beach 'cause it takes like 2 and half hours on the bus.

fredcamino

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:46:17 -0800

I've changed my mind a bit on this because of something Bert Green said in the comments of the MetroRider post: "Right now, downtown and Hollywood are densifying at an amazing rate. I don’t believe that would have happened had the Red, Gold and Blue Lines not been built. It is probably a matter of time before growth in employment follow, as a result of the demand generated by a transit-friendly environment." At first I was of the side that said "zig zag", but the destinations in WeHo are not necessarily permanent, the Purple Line will be. Let the destinations grow from the transit, as Bert said.